United State ; Region 4 EPA 904/9-78-026C
Environmen ,:i Protection o45 Courtland Stteet. NE November 1978
Agency Atlanta GA 30308
&EPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Central Florida
Phosphate Industry
Volume III
Responses to
Comments on DEIS
-------
904/9-78-026(c)
FINAL AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
VOLUME III
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308
APPROVED:
NOVEMBER. 1978
:GIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DATE
-------
FINAL AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
VOLUME III
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DEIS
-------
VOLUME III
Contents
Section 1, Transcript of Public Hearings 1-1
Section 2, Responses to Public Hearing Comments 2-1
Section 3, Written Comments 3-1
Section 4, Responses to Written Comments 4-1
-------
SECTION 1
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
-------
SECTION 1
CONTENTS
Page
Transcript of Bradenton Public Hearing
May 22, 1978, 7:00 p.m. 1-1
Transcript of Bartoy Public Hearing
May 24, 1978, 7:00 p.m. 1-111
Transcript of Punta Gorda Public Hearing
May 25, 1978, 7;30 pm 1-195
-------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
A Public Hearing:
DRAFT AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
March 1978
Time:
Date:
Location:
7:00 p.m.
May 22, 1978
Bradenton, Florida
-oOo-
BAY PARK REPORTING COMPANY
COURT REPORTING
11 I-'OURTH STREET NORTH
ST. l>l'TriRSBIJR(i, FLORIDA 31701
(811) Ml-8388
-------
APPEARANCES:
THE CHAIRMAN:
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
THE PANEL:
PAUL TRAINA
Director of the Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
DRU MARVIN COLLINS
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
BILL STOWASSER
Bureau of Mines
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C.
BILL PHILLIPS
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
'.M
-------
1 SPEAKER
2 Ernie Estevez 35
3 Fred Duisberg 42
4 Gloria Rains 45
5 Jeff Lincer 60
6 Jonathan Miller 72
7 Ann McCrainie 78
8 Mary Greer 82
9 Archie Carr 83
10 David Rosen 91
Homer Greer 93
12 Jean Russell 101
13 Catherine Fernald 102
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/-
-------
2 (Whereupon, at 7:10 p.m. the
3 hearing was called to order)
MR. TRAINA: The hearing is open.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Paul
Traina, and I am Director of the Enforcement Division of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, in Atlanta,
8 Georgia.
9 The Regional Administrator of Region IV, Mr. John White
10 has designated me to conduct this hearing tonight.
11 I'd like to introduce the panel members who are with me
12 this evening. On my immediate left is Dr. Marvin Collins.
13 Dr. Collins is representing Mr. Jay Landers, Secretary of the
14 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
is On my immediate right is Mr. Bill Stowasser. Mr.
16 Stowasser is with the Bureau of Mines. He's representing the
i/ Department of Interior in Washington.
is On my extreme left is Mr. Bill Phillips, who's with the
19 office of counsel, with EPA in Atlanta.
20 And next to him is Mr. John Hagan, who is Director of
21 our Environmental Impact Statement unit in our office of EPA
22 in Atlanta.
23 Tonight's hearing is concerned with a two-year study on
24 environmental, social and economic effects of continued ex-
25 pansion of the central Florida phosphate industry.
-------
i The purpose of the study is to comply with the National
2 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
3 Issuance of national pollutant discharge elimination
4 system permits for new sources of phosphate mining and chem-
5 ical processing operations constitute a federal action., which
6 signficantly affects the human environment.
7 As such, the NEiPA requirements require development of ajn
a Environmental Impact Statement prior to issuance of the NPDES
9 permits.
10 It was determined early in 1976 that the number of new
it phosphate operations, which would request NPDES permits, woul|3
12 make individual site-specific Environmental Impact Statements
,3 ineffective in determining areawide and cumulative effects
14 of these operations.
15 Each individual study would determine effects of that
16 particular operation, and areawide or cumulative effects mighj:
]7 easily have been neglected.
18 For this reason, all new source permits were held in
]9 abeyance while the areawide Environmental Impact Statement
20 was developed.
2, A draft of this statement has been prepared, and notice
22 of its availability was published in the Federal Register,
23 Volume 43, dated April 21, 1978.
24 This hearing is for the purpose of receiving comments
25 from the public on this draft Environmental Impact Statement.
/-.r
-------
All substantive comments on this draft EIS will be
2 considered by EPA and summarized and addressed in the final
3 Environmental Impact Statement.
This is your meeting tonight; we're here to hear your
comments, and we can assure you those comments will be con-
sidered and addressed in the final EIS.
As stated on the agenda, we will start with a brief
presentation by EPA, primarily the contractor for the study,
Texas Instruments. They will summarize the major conclusions
10 of the draft EIS and how the conclusions were developed.
n At that point then, we will turn the meeting over to
you for any comments you care to make on the EIS.
Before we get into the statement, or the summary of the
statement by the contractor and my own people,, is there any-
one representing any of the officials, elected officials,
)6 at the local level, Congressional level? We'd like you to
17 stand and be recognized
]Q (No response)
19 Okay. At this point I'd like to introduce to you, I
think a person who most of you know, Mr. Gene McNeill with
EPA in Atlanta, who is the Project Officer.
Gene?
22
MR, MC NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Traina.
23
Just a couple more introductions. I saw a couple of
our Advisory Committee members here, who have served on our
25
-------
i Advisory Committee throughout this study. I think I saw
2 Bucky McQueen; he's the representative from Charlotte County
3 Yeah, there's Bucky. And Homer Hooks, the industry's rep-
4 resentative. I saw him here somewhere. There he is.
5 Were there any more of the Advisory Committee members
6 here? I didn't get a chance to quite look through all the
7 registration cards to check it out.
8 (No response)
9 Other members of the Advisory Committee from, well,
10 from this area anyway, we had a Commissioner, John Saba,
n from Sarasota County who served on the committee, is serving
12 on the committee, I should say; Glen Schaefer from DeSoto
)3 County. Some of these others will probably come to some of
14 the other meetings. And Gordon Bartle from Manatee County.
We're going to, in our presentation tonight, we're goin
to be extremely brief. There's no way, as those of you who
are familiar with this study, -that we could go into much
detail, the findings and conclusions of this study tonight,
and still allow time for presentations from you.
As Mr. Traina said, the primary purpose of the main pur
pose of this hearing, is to give you, the citizens, a chance
to comment, both comment on the study, offer suggestions, or
say what you think about it, both here orally, and, of course
as we stated, the record will be open to receive written
comments through June 23rd.
25
-------
19
21
With that, I think for right now I'll Introduce Larry
2 Bowles, who was the Project Manager for our prime contractor,
3 Texas Instruments, Incorporated, and he'sll make a brief
presentation on the findings of the study, aftd then, after
5 he finishes that, I'll summarize the proposed action, which
6 is what we've been calling the selected scenario of the
7 study.
8 Larry?
9 MR, BOWLES: Could we have the slide projector
10 on, please?
n My name is Larry Bowles, I'm with Texas Instruments,
12 Incorporated. I'd like to introduce Dr. Audrey James, one of
13 my colleagues, the ecologist on the staff.
14 And with her is Dr. Arnold Stalder, and there were a
15 total of about a dozen of us who worked on the program who
were considered the basic staff. At the peak of the program,
there were about twenty-two of us with some consultants,,
I've decided that the beat approach for this presenta-
18
tion tonight would be, first of all, brief. I want to make
the statement that this (indicating) is my pointer^ in case
you think it might be something else, and just cover with you
some of the ground rules of the study.
As Gene pointed out, it would be very difficult in a
presentation, at least in a brief presentation, to cover all
24
the major findings; and then present to you some of the
25
-------
, philosophy of the study, and then turn it back over to Gene
2 and Mr. Traina for reception of comments.
3 First of all, reminding most of you, it was a seven-
county study area, which involve^ the counties between
5 Sarasota and Tampa, along the coast, and then a tier of
6 four counties along the interior.
What we have* outlined here is the study area and what
is considered the Bone Valley formation.
This gray area is the majority of .minpd areas or active
mines, and the crosshatching areas are mines that have been
applied for, at least through the DRI process.
Topographic relief shows you that here in PoLk County,
you're on what's called the Polk County uplands and the mines
extending down along the ridge and the new mines along the
14
DeSoto plain and the ridge lying right in this area.
It also includes, the study area included the harbors
16
of Charlotte and Tampa Bay.
17
Pardon the busy slide here, but I did want to cover
18
some of the major ground rules under which we conducted the
19
study for the Environmental Protection Agency.
20
First of all, to rely as much as possible on existing
data.
22
We received help from many agencies, federal, state,
23
regional planning councils and local agencies.
24
EPA furnished a considerable amount of data, especially
-------
, with respect to radiation.
2 USGS allowed us to use their recently-developed model
3 of the Floridan Aquifer and also furnished us with data to
4 model the ground water of the area,
5 The Fish and Wildlife Service contracted to do their
6 own inventory and distribution data of the fish and wildlife
7 in the area.
0 The Bureau of Mines furnished a considerable amount of
O
9 information, and we used the human population projections
10 based on University of Florida estimates.
There was a steering committee representing the federal
agencies and the Florida DER, as well as an advisory committe^
representing SWFMD and representatives of the seven counties,
the environmentalists and the phosphate industry.
We performed an assessment of the environmental effects
of five alternative scenarios proposed by the steering com-
16
mittee in the plan of study, with the major interest being
towards the decision indicators described by the steering
committee, with priority direction from them, as we developed
the information, and, of course, the funding limitations
being a constraint.,
21
Then we assisted the Environmental Protection Agency
in preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and
fc O
we will be assisting them in responding to the comments re-
24
ceived at the hearings and also in the mail.
10
1-10
-------
i TI has supplemented their staff, because,of the very
2 complex issues and the short time frame in which we had to
3 pull the information together for the EPA, with people that
had been involved in the issues for some time, representing
5 the local Florida scene.
6 Mr. James Nicholas of Florida Atlantic University
7 assisted Louise Young and Carl Hice of our staff in socio-
8 economics. Dr. Paul Urone and one of his colleagues assisted
9 Arnold Stalder in air quality.
10 Dr. Eric Rifkin assisted Audrey and Mike McDaniel in
n ecology and served in an advisory capacity on general effects
12 Mr. Peter Schroeder of Geraghty and Miller assisted
13 with hydrogeology with Bill Underwood and Bill Lancaster of
our staff.
1 4
And Mr. Sam Lockwood of Tomasino and Associates assiste
me and other members of the staff in describing the scenarios
16 '
in more operational terms, as well as the surface water.
We did forecast the resources and the environmental
18
demands as we could best project them through the year 2000.
The baseline data and regulations were primarily as they
existed on 1 August 1976. You have to set a time frame in
21
which you're operating on any planning study, such as this,
so our time frame was 1 August '76 to the year 2000.
We prepared preliminary findings in the form of working
papers.. Which were distributed fairly widely, and we received
11
-------
i many comments on those, which assisted in the development of
2 the information to make sure it was valid and adequate.
3 The integrating theme that we used was that of per*
4 forming environmental land use planning, and some of you may
5 have been in attendance at a seminar that EPA and TI sponsored
6 on that that helped bring out many of the issues that were
7 very important in helping resolve some of the information
8 together.
9 We did have to make some adjustments to the data base
10 as it existed on 1 August '76. One was that existing future
land projections, land use projections, had to be set for the
12 year 2000.
13 In looking at future land use projections that existed
on existing maps, we found that there was s,pme naivete in
15 development of a data base for the use of the land by the
16 phosphate industry, and with the assistance of the individual
17 phosphate companies in response to a land use questionnaire,
18 we developed a more refined approach to their future land
19 plans.
And we did base our regulations for permitting in wet-
2] lands and waters of the EIS based on full implementation of
22 the Corps of Engineers regulations, even though they didn't
become fully implemented until 1 September '77.
And again, for planning purposes, so we'd have a base-
line to work with, those companies that were not permitted
U
-------
1 to operate, or the facilities that were not permitted to
2 operate, by August 1 '76, we, for our purposes, considered
3 them new sources.
4 We focused on two times; first of all, the year 200Q,
5 which we thought was the most reasonable forward projection
* we could make. The other one was the impacts associated with
7 the year 1985, because of this peaking in production.
8 And pulling together the cast of characters, as would
9 be the operation of the phosphate industry under the alterna-
te tive scenarios, we first of all developed a list of those
n activities that were permitted as of 1 August '76, those
12 who had, in some way, mostly through the DRI process, had
13 acknowledged that they wanted to permit additional mining
u facilities, and then from the land use questionnaire, we
15 made an additional list, one of which we put under the
16 scenario describing permitting existing and new sources,
17 Let me footnote here that from the information we
is developed, the new sources or the new operations would be
w all mining operations.
20 There was one for some time period, there was one
21 company that was planning on a chemical plant, but they changed
22 their plans during the conduct of the study, so actually
23 we're talking about mines, so this third list of mines here
24 is what we call in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
25 the industry view, just to give a sort of pointed perspective
13
-------
, if the industry was to carry out their plans as revealed
2 by the land use questionnaires.
3 I want to acknowledge the help we got from several
i
4 agencies and individuals, and this is just a sampling of
5 them.
6 We obtained information, air quality information,
7 through the use of one of our consultaata. from JOER..
8 This is more information here on vegetative fluoride,
9 which was a very important part of the study.
10 We obtained some information with the assistance of
n the various phosphate industries.
12 USGS, as I pointed out, did help us in developing a
)3 very good picture,,.,as it existed in the data, of the ground
14 water, Floridan Aquifer.
15 Of course, chemical characteristics of the seven-
16 county study area were important, and we were assisted by
17 the Corps of Engineers and their reports on that.
18 We did focus on Tampa Bay, as I mentioned, and we
)9 were assisted by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
Also the Central Florida Regional Planning Council
21 assisted us out of Bartow, and again, we looked at Charlotte
22 County, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
assisted us there.
This long list is a list of phosphate effluence,
24
phosphate industry effluence, besides describing, the existing
14
1-14-
-------
i environment, as most people would define it. The phosphate
2 industry has already operated In the area, so obviously they1;
3 part of the existing environment, ;and we needed tb£s informa-
4 tion to describe that part of the environment, and-we were
5 assisted by the Department of Environmental Regulation.
6 All the staff members of Texas Instruments conducted
7 a field reconnaissance photo and' visual observations and some
8 sampling to assure that we were acquainted with the area, and
9 we took several hundred pictures, and this is just a small
10 sampling of some of the scenes we did see.
n Here, an aerial/reconnaissance; this is an active strip
12 mine. In the background you see a hardwood forest.
,3 Of course, some of the other scenes we saw included a
u beneficiation plant, where the rock is pre-proces*fed, and
15 much of it is then made into chemical fertilizers dn pjLaats
in the seven-county study area.
This is a mined pit that was abandoned, as best we can
tell twenty-five to thirty years ago, and left pretty well
without man's intervention, and this is what resulted under
natural system dynamics.
Here's a slime pond. You can see the water fowl in the
area. Again, not a considerable amount of man intervention;
there's some natural restoration here.
23
This Tenoroc wildlife refuge is a cooperative effort
24
between the phosphate company and the Florida Audubon Society
25 J
15
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
?2
2C
24
and this particular slime pit has undergone some natural
de-watering and re-vegetation, so this is part of your
landscaping in the seven-county study area.
Additionally, an additional reclamation practice is to
fill and level the land to plant grass, and this particular
area, very near Bartow, is used as a recreation park.
By far, the majority in percentage of the land re-
claimed by the phosphate industry is used for grazing.
Some of the scenes where there has not been direct
involvement of the phosphate industry include,.this sand pine
scrub, a hammock, and of course the wildlife associated with
these, range land. Here's a type of wetland, wet prairie,
and another type of wetland.
Agriculture is another major industry in the seven-
county area, especially in the area bKe'phosphate industry
is proposing to mine.
Besides cattle grazing, the course includes truck crops
as a major agricultural industry in the seven-county study
area, as well as citrus crops.
Of course, we have your rivers. This is the Peace
River, which is used for commerce, recreation —
And, of course, the bay* I believe this is confluent
with the Alafia into Tampa Bay, and you are familiar with,
of course, the resort communities, which represent another
16
major land use of the study area.
-------
, There have been approximately 1,700 pages of reports
2 published, part as working papers and the Draft Environmenta'.
3 Impact Statement, and we'd like to think us, along with EPA,,
4 strive for excellence.
5 We don't claim to be perfect, and as hard as we did
6 work, we did discover that there was one table that probably
7 would have clarified some of the text material in the Draft
8 Environmental Impact Statement.
9 I'll show this for just about thirty seconds here,
)0 and this will be included in the final Environmental Impact
n Statement, as well as the other comments Deceived.
12 And that's all I have, Gene.
Thank you.
u MR. MCNEILL: As Mr. Traina will point out in
a few minutes, when we get to the part about your comments,
I D
we'll ask you to come up and use this podium.
16
Just a couple of comments before I get into the preposejd
action.
18
I mentioned an advisory committee a few minutes ago,
and the advisory committee was made up of representatives
20
from each county in the study area,and a representative from
the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and we asked
22
the Florida Phosphate Council to select a representative to
represent industry, and we asked the Florida Audubon Society
24
for a representative to represent the Florida environmentalist
25
17
-------
groups, and Charles Lee was their representative,
2 We also had a steering, inter-agency steering committee
3 which I did not mention, and this initially was to fee made
up of the federal agencies, which are involved in regulating,
permitting, or at least in affecting the Florida phosphate
industry, and of course these agencies would be several in-
7 terior agencies: the US Army Cdrps of Engineers, because
8 they're involved in the 404 permitting, or, permitting dredge
and fill operations affecting the waters of the US and wet-
10 lands, and of course EPA and CEQ also were involved.
11 At the first steering committee meeting, w.e decided we
12 should also ask the State of Florida, since the advisory
13 committee was set up with primarily local agencies and,
14 representatives.
We decided to ask the State of Florida for a rep-
16 resentative on the steering committee, and we wrote the
17 governor, and the governor designated Jay Landers as the
18 steering committee representative.
19 And then, just a couple more introductions. I see Bud
20 Randall is here; he's the Manatee County Pollution Control
21 Director. I know I saw him earlier. Bud?
And Jeff Lincer from Sarasota County; he's the acting
23 director of Sarasota County's Pollution Control, and one guy
24 that helped us so much I've got to introduce him, Bill Wilson
25 with USGS out of the Tampa sub-district office. Don't hide,
18
-------
i Bill, I saw you earlier. He's here.
2 Is there anyone here from the three regional planning
3 councils that Larry mentioned?
4 I'm sorry; I can't see for the light in my glasses.
5 Would you holler out your name?
6 MR, OCKUNZZI: Bill Ocltunzzi with 'thfe Tampa 'Bay
7 Regional Planning Council.
8 MR. MCNEILL: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Coun-
9 cil. Some of the regional planning councils are conducting
10 their hearings on their 208 plans now, last week, this week,
n and next week. I'm sure they're involved in that.
12 But those three agencies, as Larry said, provided a
13 lot of information and input into this study.
u Okay. With that, I'll go into,: real-brief. JLy, I'll go
15 through what we call now the proposed action and briefly
16 explain it.
17 We put copies of the EIS out on the table. I hope
18 anyone who has not received a copy through tfae mail was able
,9 to pick one up, and those who have one or have a copy here,
20 if you'll just open it to page 1.70 to the front, or middle,
2, of the text part of it.
22 These four pages, 1.70 -- three pages -- 1.70, 1.71 and
_. 1.72 do outline the proposed action.
£. J
24 I'll quickly explain what we mean by that. Many of you
25 have been involved throughout this process and are familiar
19
-------
1 with how we went about selecting this proposed action, but
2 for those of you who aren't, I'll briefly explain it.
3 Our original plan of study included six scenarios.
4 We call it scenarios because we were talking about an area-
s wide study and not an individual plant-complex, so we were
6 talking about scenarios of development of the industry, and
7 these range from full development or permitting all new
8 sources who made application under existing regulations,
9 local, county, regional, state and federal regulations.
10 That was, you might say, the full action scenario.
n It ranged from that, as required by the National Environments
12 Policy Act, which is the legal basis of development of the
13 Environmental Impact Statement.
14 We are required to have a no-action alternative, in
15 this case the no-action scenario, and that one was no further
16 issuance of any new source NPDES or water discharge permits.
17 As we mentioned in some of the public meetings we had,
is throughout the study, we really didn't expect any o&e of the
19 six scenarios to be selected, but we said probably it would
20 be a combination, and it is a combination.
21 The proposed action constitutes a combination of what
22 we feel is the best of each of the scenarios that were in the
23 original plan of study.
24 Now, the basis of this selection, what we were calling
25 the selected scenario and are now calling the proposed action
1
20
-------
i| in the ElS, this is based on all the information that was
2 developed during the study, which, as each task, each major
3 task in the plan of study, as each of those tasks were
4 completed, we made available what we call working papers, wha
5 you might say reports on the information developed in each
6 individual task as it was completed, so of course that was
7 the information we developed.
e But what, in some cases, was even more valuable were
9 the comments we received on the working papers. That's an
10 easy way to find out whether you're doing it right or wrong,
n is to, as you do your work, make it available to the public
12 and to the industry and environmentalists and let them look
13 at it, and they'll let you know.
14 People will let you know if you're off track, and they'll
,5 point out what your errors are, and this has been a valuable
16 process in the study, making these working papers available
,7 and receiving comments.
)8 Now, we have not yet been able to, as we received
,9 comments on the working papers, to revise and re-issue each
20 working paper. We were using the comments, and they were
2, used in the, as I said earlier, in selection of the scenario.
22 But right now, once we got this draft EIS together,
we were able to get around to using these comments and what
we're doing right now is we are re-writing, with the con-
tractor assisting, we're re-writing, revising, the working
21
-------
i papers, and they will be re-issued.
2 Like we said in the public 'notice, it would be re-issuejd
3 about the time as the final EIS. We think now it'll be re-
4 issued prior to issuance of the final EIS, and these will
5 reflect, as I said, all the comments we got.
6 Okay. Based on all that information that was developed
7 plus, as most of you are aware, several advisory committee
8 meetings, several public meetings and several steering com-
9 mittee meetings, we were able to come up with a combined
10 scenario, which was the selected scenario, which is the
n proposed action and is outlined on pages 1.70 through 1.72.
12 So now, I111 quickly go through this and turn it back
)3 over to Mr. Traina so we can get to the important part of
14 this meeting.
15 First of all, and again, this is the scenario for
16 development of any new source mining and benef iciation opera-
)7 tions or new source chemical plants, as defined by EPA under
18 the NPDES permit system.
)9 First of all, .the requirements for mining and beneficia
20 tion operations. One was to eliminate the rock drying proces
21 at the benef iciation plant and transport wet rock to the
?2 chemical plants.
23 In the interest of time, I won't go into any detail as
24 to what the benefits of each of these individual requirements
are, but I111 just briefly go over the requirements.
25
22
-------
, I think some of these are obvious, such as that one;
2 eliminating the drying process would eliminate existing, or,
3 would eliminate air emissions of particulate or dust, which
4 would result from a new phosphate rock dryer.
5 Of course, in this case, we do, as you see just under
6 that, we have a possible exception. It's been pointed out
7 to us, the original selected scenario stated that period,
g but it's been pointed out to us that when rock $8 shipped
9 on the world market to Europe, Canada and Japan, that it may
not be feasible to ship the wet rock.
It may be more costly from an energy standpoint to
ship additional, say, 6 to 15 percent moisture, which is
in the wet rock, than what energy would be saved from not
1 \3
drying it in Florida.
14
So we will allow, on the site-specific studies —•- I
should mention right now, since I haven't yet, any new source
mine or chemical plant will still have to do a fite-specific
EIS.
18
This areawide EIS will be the basis of the site-specifi
19 r
studies. This will provide the areawide and cumulative
20
effects, but any new source will have to do a site-specific
EIS.
22
So in this case, if this exception were to be applied
i
in a specific case, the site-specific EIS would have to
examine, first of all, if it would be more costly, from the
-23
-------
, energy standpoint, to ship the wet rock than to dry it in
2 Florida.
3 And then, second, since part of the basis for concluding
4 eliminating the drying process is the effects, the effects
5 of the air emissions of the dust, plus the emissions of radic
6 nuclides, then we would ask a close examination of the effects
7 of such a drying operation, if it met the other condition of
8 the exception. In both particulate emissions': and radiation,
9 control would have to be assured prior to issuance of the
]0 permit.
n Okay. I went into more detail on that one than I
intended to. I won't go into that much detail on the others.
The next one is to meet the --- In the case of the
I 0
water discharges from the mining operations., the State of
Florida's effluent limitation is more stringent thanEPA's.
We're saying meet the State of Florida's effluent limitation
on the mining operations.
We find that that does adequately protect receiving
water.
19
The next one is eliminate conventional above-ground
20
slime disposal areas. I think the slime disposal problem
is certainly one of the major problems in the mining and
22
beneficiation operations.
The next one is We really are sort of repeating,
since we're saying our basis is, first of all, meeting existing
24
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
21
22
requirements, but we're repeating here in the scenario meet
Southwest Florida Water Management District consumptive use
permit requirements.
And closely following that, we say provide storage that
allows recirculation of water recovered from slimes.
What it amounts to, under existing Southwest Florida
Water Management District requirements, the industry, the
mining and processing has about reached its limit on the
amount of water that can be feasibly recirculated.
As they go to this technology that allows elimination
of the slime ponds, it releases water that is right now in
the conventional operations tied up in the slime settling
process and does allow for greater recirculation.
But we're saying that in the site-specific study to
show that you will provide for adequate storage of that water
released from the slime, so it would be otherwise tied up in
slime fchan a conventional slime :sefctli,ng,operation to increase
the potential recirculation, actual and potential recirculation
of water.
of water from the Floridan Aquifer.
This next one is something we were asked to look at,
23 with some of the comments we received, several of the comment
was to look at the use of connector wells, more of a concern
of adverse effects, I think; plus a concern should it be
25
-------
continued as a water conservation measure, and we're listing
2 this in the proposed action.
3 We're saying continue to use connector wells but only
with very careful, I should say, continued very careful
monitoring by the industry, local government and the state
and the Water Management District, careful monitoring pri-
marily to assure that water quality, -which -7- I don't .know
8 how many of you are familiar with connector wells.
9 They drain water from the shallow water tables
directly into the Floridan Aquifer, and generally the water
quality in the shallow water table is sufficient to allow
direct discharge into the Floridan Aquifer,- but it does
take careful monitoring to assure the quality continuously
meets drinking water standards, as one example, so it can
be discharged directly into the Aquifer.
So what this one, use connector wells, is saying is
continue to do that but with careful monitoring.
The next one, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs is
18
continuing to work on guidelines, which we really expected
to have been published by now, and these guidelines are
regarding radiation levels allowable on reclaimed land, both
for existing structures on reclaimed land and guidelines for
allowable levels on undeveloped reclaimed land.
23
I talked with the Office of Radiation Programs just
24
last week, and they're assuring us now that these two sets
25 26
-------
of guidelines will be out in June and July, and these will
2 be in final form. They have been out in draft form. I'm
3 sorry; they won't be in final form, but they will be pub-
4 lished in the Federal Register .as proposed guidelines.
5 The draft copies were distributed several months ago.
MR. TRAINA: I might say, Mr. McNeill, it's
refreshing to have EPA criticize EPA in a report. I think
it's about time we did something like that —
MR. MCNEILL: Well, I think the only —
10 MR. TRAINA: -- admonishing EPA to come out
n with some radiation guidelines.
12 MR. MCNEILL: The only thing, as Larry pointed
)3 out, and as we said several times through the study, one
)4 thing we've really found is that we're not perfect. That's
one thing we've proven, I think. We already knew it.
Okay. The next one, meet county --- Again, we're
repeating what had been one of the bases, is meet existing
requirements, but we're saying again meet county and state
reclamation requirements, and we're saying and further, in-
clude in the DRI and, if a site-specific EIS is developed,
which it will be for any new sources.
21
An inventory of types of wildlife habitat in the area
to be mined and in the area immediately surrounding it, and
we're saying here, and this is just going a little further
than is currently done in DRl's and will be dor$g in site-
27
-------
! specific EIS's anyway, we're saying just in the mining
2 reclamation plan, take into account the existing wildlife
3 habitat in the immediate area and surrounding area, and
4 come up, as part of the mining and reclamation plan, a
5 plan to adequately protect the wildlife resources along
6 with other resources in the area.
7 And then, the next one is protect or restore wetlands
8 under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, Section
9 404(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
10 And within that one, we have categorized wetlands,
n and we're saying that these will be further defined in the
site-specific studies, but I won't repeat what we have
written here. You can see what it is.
I *j
But what we're saying is Category 1 wetlands are the
ones that are so important they must be protected, and must
be protected to the extent that they shouldn't be mined.
We're saying even a temporary loss of these^ wetlands,
even if they could be restored over a twenty-year period,
1 8
say, the temporary loss is too important to these wetland
systems to allow them to be destroyed, even if the destructicjn
is temporary.
Category 2 wetlands are those which are less important
than Category 1 and could be restored to perform useful
-------
i in the individual site-specific studies, and then again,
2 Category 2 might be an isolated pocket-type wetland, which
3 the site -specific study would determine la not important to
4 perform wetlands functions, either on a -- certainly not on
5 a regional basis, but even on a local basis, and would
6 therefore not have to be protected or restored.
7 Okay. That's briefly the scenario for further de-
g velopment of the mining industry*
9 For our chemical processing, as Larry stated, under
)0 our proposed action, by canvassing industry, and Bureau of
n Mines and others, we understand that there aren't any
12 proposed new source chemical plants and, of course, we have
13 no way of knowing. A new company may come in tomorrow and
14 plan to construct a new chemical plant, but everything we
15 hear from the industry and the Bureau of Mines tells us that
the chemical processing capacity from now until the central
I O
17 Florida area is mined out — - The chemical processing
capacity is already here; no new chemical plants are needed.
1 8
But we did examine the effects of existing chemical
plants and included in the proposed action any requirements
that would have to be met if a new chemical plant were
22 proposed.
This first one is, again, sort of repetitive, because
23
24 we're saying — We have already said that we would meet any
25 existing requirements, but we're saying that, as far as air
29
-------
pollution, air quality, to meet the existing new source
performance standards or meet the new source performance
standards; and also? on the water part of It, we're also
saying meet the design surge capacity In the recirculated
water system that are Included In the EPA standards of
performance for new sources for water
The next one is not an existing requirement. We're
saying that because of the potential of any of these new
source chemical plants .contaminating .ground water.and the
Floridan Aquifer from the highly-contaminated water in the
gyp ponds or the recirculated contaminated water systems,
because of that potential, we would say to line these gyp
ponds with an impervious material, unless, in the site
specific study it could be or can be demonstrated that lining
is not necessary to protect the ground water and the Floridan
Aquifer water from chemical and radiological contamination.
The next one goes further than existing EPA requirements
We're saying recirculate contaminated and non-"contaminated
18
19
water, or in the EPA effluent guidelines definition, this
would be recirculate the non-processed water, as well as the
20
processed water, using the same design surge capacity, which
21
means to design for a twenty-five year rainfall event for
22
both processed and non-processed waters,
23
The next one is not an existing requirement. 11 is
24
being done in a couple of instances in existing industries
25
30
-------
provide for recovery of fluorine compounds from phosphoric-
2 acid evaporators.
3 The reasoning behind this is with any polluting material
that is recovered and used as a product is a material that
5 definitely will not be discharged to either the atmosphere or
6 the receiving waters or ground water. It's no longer a
7 potential pollution problem if it's made into a product and
8 marketed.
9 That is the rationale behind that, and it is
10 Technology is available to recover fluorine. However, as
n we were going through, receiving comments on the recommended
12 scenario, the earlier selected scenario, industry pointed out
to us that right now the market is saturated with the few
u chemical plants that are recovering fluorine. There is no
is further market for recovered fluorine products.
16 So we did change that wording from absolutely recoverin
17 fluorine to determine if, as I said, if a new source chemical
is plant makes application for a permit, we would have to
determine at that time if there is a market for fluorine.
20 We would ask the company and the consultant on the site-
21 specific study to make that determination, and if there is
?2 not If it can be shown at that time that there is not a
2 market, we would ask that the fluorine levels in the con-
2 taminated water system pond be controlled by some Other means
2 such as one possibility would be recovering the fluorine as
31
-------
2
2
an insoluble material and stockpiling it, but some method of
2 removing the fluorine compounds, from the contaminated water
3 system so that the.emissions from the entire plant complex,
including fluorine emissions to the air from gyp ponds,
would not exceed existing emission limitations for the entir^
plant complex.
O
7 And this next one I think is going to be easy. It
g seems that industry is going more and more — - I think
9 virtually all of the existing chemical plants right now are
either in the planning, design or construction stages for
recovering uranium from phosphoric acid, but again, you
can't project, you know, since the next new chemical plant,
if there is one, may be twenty years from now, we can't
absolutely project that there will be a market for uranium
then, so we are .leaving it so that the recovery of uranium
would be encouraged through the site-specific EIS.
I say that's a real quick, brief rundown of the proposed
action or what we've been calling the selected scenario, but
18
as we also said earlier, the primary, absolutely the main
purpose of this meeting here tonight is to obtain your
comments, so since I don't know if Mr. Traina announced it
or not, we have to be out of here at 11:00, so I'll turn it
back over to Mr. Traina.
2
MR. TRAINA: Thank you,
MR. MCNEILL: Thank you.
32
-------
MR0 TRAINA: As you can see, Gene is very
involved in this study, and he's been involved with it for
a couple of years, and he really has this thing down to
great detail, but he's available, obviously, during, after
and has been before and will continue to be for any specific
questions„
Before getting into your comments, a few notes -- a
few comments, rather.
O
First, I have a list of cards here of people who have
indicated they wanted to speak. If you do want to speak,
we'd appreciate your filling one out and so indicating on
one of these yellow cards.that are available at the registra-
12 '
tion desk in the back.
13
Also, if you don't want to speak but if you would like
1 4
to receive a copy of the final impact statement when it is
is
published, you'll have to fill out one of these cards so you
16
can get on our mailing list.
There's also another place on the card if you'd like to
18
just get on the general EPA mailing list of other activities,
19
that go on in EPA, Region IV. You can just so indicate on
20
one of these cards. If you haven't already done so, please
21
fill out a card.
?2
We're conducting this public hearing pursuant to some
23
federal regulations that require this, and I think I should
24
add here that the requirement is based on law, the Federal
25
33
-------
i Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and obvious Ij
2 the National Environmental Policy Act, all require the
3 agency, EPA in this case, to involve the public, to have
4 public hearings like this; not that we wouldn't probably
5 do it, but I just wanted to let you know that this is a
6 requirement of law, and certainly you should take advantage
7 of that requirement, and we're here to listen to what your
8 comments are tonight.
9 Again, just for the record, the notice of this public
10 hearing was published in the Sarasota Her a Id-Tribune on
n May 8th, 20th and 21st, and the Tampa Tribune and Lakeland
12 Ledger on May 7th and the 21st, and then we did mail copies
)3 of the public notice to individuals and organizations on
14 the EPA mailing list, as well as to all the appropriate
15 local, state and federal agencies.
We're going to conduct the rest of this,as we have
earlier -- informally. We don't have any rules of evidence
)8 or anything like that.
Feel free to come up, say what you want to say. We
ask that if you have a prepared statement, if you'll provide
it to me, and then I'll turn it over to the court recorder.
We are recording this; we have a court recorder right
/2
here, again for the recordf so that we will be able to
respond to these comments that you have in the final EIS.
As I call the name, I would like to ask the individual
25 34
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to come up, identify themselves, and make their statement.
As Gene indicated, we got a notice when we walked in
here that we're to leave by 11:00. Either that, or spend
the night here, because they lock the doors at 11:00.
I have fifteen people here who'd like to make state-
ments. I've made a quick calculation; that's approximately
ten minutes per. We've got about three hours. We'd like
to hear all you have to say, but try to keep it within the
ten minutes.
Certainly we will receive written comments. The
record will be open for several weeks after this, and I111
get into that in a minute.
Okay. Without further ado, let me call on Mr. E.D.
Estevez, Director of the New College Environmental Studies.
MR. ESTEVEZ :
Gentlemen, my name is Ernie Estevez. I live
at 409 Pine on Anna Maria; I am from New College. I hope
nothing I say will be held^against them.
I have two comments. One is a substantial
contribution, I hope, or at least it's a reflection of what
I think is an important contribution being made by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, having to do with wildlife management.
Some themes that have emerged from their large
study, which I certainly hope will receive a great deal of
attention as this draft is improved, is that there is a need
35
-------
i beyond generic habitat protection. That is, it's one thing
2 to say that wetlands need protection, and perhaps wetlands
3 can be classified into sub-groups and management policies
4 developed for each of these sub-groups. It's another thing
5 to say that pine flatwoods are a habitat type which can or
6 cannot be disturbed.
7 But it's another thing to take a wildlife
8 approach and a species approach and an ecological approach
9 that would recommend, as US Fish and Wildlife has, that the
)0 concept of refugia and corridors for the movements and the
n dispersal of organisms be the operational procedure by
]2 which land use management is effected.
)3 That is, in the draft that I have studied,
14 there are ho operational procedures for wildlife and habitat
)5 management, only policies.
)6 Perhaps that's appropriate for the goals of
the draft EIS, but I would suggest and call to your attention
that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has contained in its
18
reports the themes of refugia and corridors, which can serve
either at local, regional or state levels of resource man-
'20
2) agement as effective means of insuring that habitats and
the species of importance therein are not ,made to -- are not
too discretely divided.
23 J
My second comment, after having reflected on
24
the diversity of subjects contained in the EIS, has to do
25 36
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with more of an editorial comment.
It seems like after several readings of this
thing, most of the important issues fall by the way, and
one's mind is preoccupied by less important things.
But to get it off my chest, and it won't form
a part of my written comments, but it is a view that I
would like to state, is the apparent reliance of the draft
EIS on the conduct of monitoring.
Monitoring, then, is really the central point
of my comment tonight.
Of the fourteen proposed actions, which are
drawn from a mixture of three different scenarios, over half
demand close agency supervision and monitoring.
These are: one, that the industry meet all
of Florida's effluent standards.
Two, that consumptive use permits, issued by
the Southwest Florida Water Supply District, be met.
Three, that forthcoming EPA radiation standards
be addressed and adhered to.
Four, that local, and state reclamation schedules
be recognized and followed.
Five, that some level of wetlands protection
be effected.
Six, that new source performance standards are
followed.
1-37
T-3
37
-------
And suggested by the EIS is seven, that tighter
2 water standards be imposed to protect Tampa Bay and Charlotte
3 Harbor.
Eight, that existing sources be retrofitted
5 for 1983 compliance with new source performance standards.
, And nine, that fluorides be monitored.
7 Now, the dependence of this draft on existing
i
8 state agencies and local agencies and their current functions!,
j
to me parallels in many ways the dependence of the Coastal
Zone Management Plan on that same concept, and I think, as
with the Coastal Zone plan, it's fair to ask what success,
if any, we've achieved in a decade of environmental sensi-
tivity or action, a decade or an era which is, really, comingj
i *.* •
to an end or at least a temporary pause in the State of
1 4
Florida.
15
i
And the examples that I would suggest be examined
16 |
to determine whether or not in the State of Florida at the
17
present time we can expect effective application of state
1 8
regulatory agencies, as they are structured and function,
19
to the issues of phosphate mining, include the monitoring of
20
the industry itself, and ancillary projects, such as the
21
deepening of Tampa harbor, the production of electricity,
22
which supports the phosphate industry, and the issuance of
23
water use permits.
24
Now, I've followed each of these cases and been i
25 • 38
1-38
-------
i involved with some in some detail, and from a privileged
2 perspective, having been privileged to participate, or at
3 least contribute to these efforts, I can say that neither
4 the harbor-deepening project nor the protection of local
s environments around power plants that support the phosphate
6 industry or the philosophies engendered by the Southwest
7 Florida Water Management District have so far been models
e of resource management, despite a plethora of rules and
9 agencies, many of which are involved, are seated here right
10 now.
n There has been no effective management or
12 monitoring of harbor deepening in the Tampa Bay estuary.
13 We have state agencies that have only recently become aware
14 that the project is going on. We have others who have
)5 actively ignored it.
16 With regards to power production, I would
17 simply say that most of the power generated by Tampa Electric
18 Company goes to feed the phosphate industry and that much
]9 has been made of the fact that power provided that industry
is interruptable on a public demand.
21 But I point out that, whereas the power may be
22 interruptable, the pollution produced by the plants are not.
23 No matter who uses it, the public or private industry, it is
24 still the public living in the coastal areas around Tampa Bay
25 far removed from the sites of the principal users of the
39
-------
] power, who suffer the health decrements and general decrease
2 in the quality of life, attending the power plants of that
3 company.
4 It is in my opinion that as of this date,
5 there are no effective environmental protective measures
6 being implemented at the newest and largest plants of Tampa
7 Electric Company.
g With respect to the Water Management District,
9 I feel that the phosphate industry Is responsive and re-
,0 sponsible with respect to water management and has evolved
n so over the last several years, and that they would follow
,2 consumptive use guidelines issued by the district.
]3 The district, on the other hand, has apparently
14 chosen to adopt the philosophy that water will never be a
15 limiting factor in all of southwest Florida, and that,
)6 irrespective of all other considerations, water will be
supplied for best, for reasonable and beneficial uses,
however defined.
I 8
Now, I'm generally a strong supporter of
environmental protection and regulatory agencies. In the
last ten years, much of the effort and the accomplishments
of these agencies has been directly due to public support.
Unfortunately, in the last ten years the public
f. -j
has enjoyed, perhaps, a greater than due measure of influence
24
in the direction of environmental regulation agencies.
25
40
-------
Accordingly, sometimes these agencies may have
been misguided in their efforts, but with respect to the
practical goals and policies, which are stated ii* the draft
EIS, all which are commendable and very effective if executed
we must not duplicate the mistakes made with the Coastal Zone
Management Program, which were, to restate them: reliance
7 on existing structures, institutions and operations without
8 the support and without the funding required to see that
9 they do their job«
10 And my last comment would be that it might be
n better that many of these recommendations be left up to
I2 industry, instead of assuming that government will pursue
them.
14 The reason for this is that if industry accepts
1S these requirements as part of their permits and then do not
16 follow up, there is recourse of the public through the courts
It is part of their permit requirements, and if they do not
follow those standards, they are liable to legal action;
)9 whereas, if state regulatory agencies do not follow through
with the monitoring and with the close management and
supervision, which is required for this proposed action to
work, federal agencies will not withhold money, and the publii
has no recourse.
2 o
I thintc I'll close with those comments.
MR. TRAINA: Those are very interesting points,
25 41
-------
Mr. Estevez.
(Applause)
I just want to comment; there is such a thing as mal-
feasance that all those governmental people have to face,
5 Charles Covest? I'm sorry; I can't get your name ---
6 MR. COVEST: Charles Covest, but I'm going to
pass and take advantage of your offer that we may make a
formal written comment to you in the future.
MR. TRAINA: Fine, sir.
10 MR. COVEST: However, for Save Our Bays, Mr.
11 Fred Duisberg has a specific comment that I know he would
12 like to make, if he can do that in my place.
13 MR. TRAINA: Certainly, sir.
14 Mr. Duisberg?
MR. DUISBERG: But I will have a card here, so
'6 I might just as well wait.
MRe TRAINA: Well, you're next, so why don't
IB you just come on up, sir? I think you planned that.
'9 (Laughter)
20 MR. DUISBERG: That wasn't rigged. It just
21 ha ppened tha t way.
22 MR. DUISBERG:
23 As a matter of fact, my comment is very brief
24 and was to be a short note to go to John Hagan, as specified
25 in the letter that we received.
42
-------
19
22
23
However, I felt that, well, I'd rather go through
2 this meeting and then perhaps enlarge on our comments.--
3 MR. TRAINA:
Certainly.
MR0 DUISBERG:
— which we will do, but I will, in any case,
read this very brief note that we had prepared
8 It states: "in consideration of the summary
9 of major environmental impact as stated in the draft Areawide
10 Environmental Impact Statement, Central Florida Phosphate
n Industry, March 1978, by your agency — " and this is addressed
)2 to EPA, or, to John Hagan -- "Save Our Bays Association,
13 Sarasota, Florida, wishes to be recorded as requesting United
14 States EPA that no further permits be granted for the mining
15 and processing of phosphate in the area covered by this
16 study, except for fully-established as essential -•* for those
17 fully-established as essential for use in this nation only
18 "it is our sincere belief that the extension
of phosphate mining and processing can only be detrimental
to the best interests of the people of this area and to all
of our nation.
"In the words of the Florida Phosphate Council,
phosphate feeds you," and this (indicating) is their brochure.
"if we accept this as the truth, we must also
accept our obligation to protect this invaluable resource and
43
-------
i our responsibility to future generations."
2 Now, that's sort of end of speech, but I would
3 point out that the phosphate industry and the Phosphate Counc
4 points out the importance of phosphate.
5 In their brochure, they state, and this is
6 definitely a mis statement —- Well, they state that we
7 can1t —
e I'll quote just a few lines: "The phosphate
9 industry is as vital as the food we eat because, quite simply
10 without phosphate, we wouldn't eat."
n Now, this is probably ttue as far as modern
12 agriculture is concerned. There's no doubt in anyone's mind
13 of the value of phosphate in our agricultural processes.
14 It does state, though, that -'By a quirk of
,5 nature, Florida, land of sunshine, golden beachef, crystal
)6 lakes and springs --" and I don't know; you probably saw
,7 some of the pictures that were shown on the slide here of
,3 the crystal lakes and the springs, and so forth, in the
,9 phosphate-mined areas, and I happen to have been a resident
20 in Polk County back in 1929, in the earlier days. I've also
21 gone through the phosphate-mined areas, and to me they're
22 nothing but dangerous deserts.
23 So, anyway, to go on, it says " •- Is also one
?4 of the world's largest phosphate reserves."
2S Well, now this is certainly entirely untrue.
44
-------
I believe that we have, in the study area, possibly 4 percent
2 of the world's reserves, and yet we make the statement, or
3 the Phosphate Council makes the statement tiiAt this is one
4 of the world's largest.
5 As a plain matter of fact, it's one of the
6 smallest, and it's one that is essential to the future of
7 the United States and the future of Florida, certainly,
a Florida agriculture.
9 We1 re going to be in a much worse bind when
10 we have to buy back phosphate from foreign sources than we
n are in the present bind when we're being squeezed by the
12 OPEC nations.
n Certainly, phosphate, if it feeds us and which
,4 it most certainly does, is one of our most essential re-
,5 sources. It behooves everybody to absolutely protect it,
16 and I would urge that EPA make this their first point of
17 consideration.
18 And I guess that'll do it for now.
,9 Thank you.
20 (Applause)
21 MR. TRAINA: Gloria Rains? It's always a
22 pleasure to have Ms. Rains. I've known her for several years
23 and I'm glad she's with us again.
24 MS. RAINS:
25 I'm Gloria Rains of 5314 Bay State Road,
45
-------
i Palmetto, Chairman of Manasota-88.
2 Manasota-88 is a bi-county organization
3 dedicated to the preservation of environmental health.
4 Our members request the following changes
5 and/or additions be added to the final phosphate EIS state-
6 ment.
7 (1) On page 2.3, the statement says there is
8 no proof to date any activity of the phosphate industry
9 causes a radiation impact on the general populace. Your
10 radiation summary says radiation effects would be manifest
n in cancer statistics, especially lung cancer. No mention
12 is made of readily available statistics regarding cancer
,3 on p. 1.52 and 1.53.
)4 We suggest you include the information that
15 Florida has the highest rate of lung cancer in the United
16 States, the statistics weighted so incidences are not
17 attributable to age.
)8 It does not seem unreasonable to assume,
19 based on studies by Goffman and others, that these lung
20 cancers are related to the high levels of radioactivity in
2] our region. Additionally, statistics readily available from
22 the Department of HRS for last year show that Florida led
23 the nation in deaths from cancer.
24 (2) We suggest the assumption, based on ad-
mitted monitoring and other informational deficiencies, that 46
-------
radium content in the water of the seven-county area is not
2 due to contamination of ground water by the phosphate indus-
3 try be deleted because it is unsubstantiated by credible
evidence.
(3) The statement should recommend both
6 public exposure standards and environmental contamination
7 standards for the phosphate fertilizer industry and associa-
8 ted uranium recovery operations.
9 Airborne aerosols enriched in uranium and
10 polonium-210 as well as radium-226 in surface waters and
11 both radium-222 and polonium-210 concentrations in biologi-
12 cal systems should be given particular attention and stan-
13 dards developed.
(4) The statement should recommend that a
15 determination should be made of the correlation, if any,
16 between high ambient radiation and fluoride levels in areas
17 of high incidence of cancer.
18 (5) The statement on p. 1.48 that all radia-
]9 tion exposure is considered harmful, with adverse effects
20 assumed to be proportional to dose and that long-term
2) effects of low radiation doses are not fully known, conflicts
22 with the statement on p. 2.86 that background radiation level
23 may increase slightly in the immediate vicinity of the
24 uranium-recovery modules but their increase will be insig-
25
nificant. We suggest the latter be deleted.
l-4-t
47
-------
i (6) We think it should be noted that existing
2 phosphoric acid plants are capable of producing up to
3, 4,570,000 pounds or almost 20 percent of the 1975 United
4 States uranium production and that this operation combined
5 with mining, other processing and redistribution of by-
6 products of phosphate ore creates concentrations and redis-
7 tribution of radioactive subsfcanpes'and release of radio-
8 active gases and particulates in close proximity to popula-
9 tions and in concentrations considered hazardous.
10 (7) The statement implicates radon gas and
11 its daughters as the prime radioactive hazard associated
12 with mining and processing. There is no mention of radio-
is active particulate alpha activity, proven in recent Studies
u when found in the lungs to give rise to cancer. Ambient air
is samplings of gross alpha concentrations of wet phosphoric
16 acid plants showed concentrations 15 times background values.
17 Inhalation exposure to high levels of radon
18 and its daughters were singularly ineffective in promoting
19 lung tumors but did give rise to life shortening and other
20 effects.
2] This readily available information should be
?2 included in the statement along with the recommendation that
23 more attention needs to be given to the role radioactive
24 particulates, as a by-product of phosphate mining and pro-
25 cessing, play in the development of cancer,
1-48
48
-------
i (8) The statement should also note that, as
2 found in EPA volume LV-781', stack sampling of phosphoric
3 acid plants show appreciable concentrations of the naturally
4 occuring radionuc-lides are being discharged into the environ-
s ment and that elevated airborne radioactivity concentrations,
6 with polonium-210 and radium-226, were found in several ad-
7 jacent plant work areas. Concentrations of polonium-210
8 during ambient air samplings were approximately 100 times
9 background values. Thorium concentrations at 3.25.
10 (9) Additionally, the statement should
n strongly recommend studies be done regarding the effects
12 of radioactive particulates and other radionuclides when
,3 Combined with our almost nightly air-inversions.
14 The very significant area of inversions and
is their effect on area pollutant levels seems to have been
,6 completely omitted from the statement.
)7 (10) The statement does not adequately ad-
)8 dress gypsum stacks and ponds.
19 Samplings of seepage from inactive gypsum
20 piles show that they yield and continue to yield significant
21 quantities of radium to surface streams and ground water
22 for years after the pile is abandoned. Because of the
23 solubility of the gypsum, this problem is analogous to,
24 but more critical than the problem of stabilization of
25
uranium mine tailings.
49
-------
i Quantities of radioactivity entering the en-
2 vironment through gypsum waste contain approximately 80 per-
3 cent of the product radium-222 that will enter the environ-
4 ment as a potential polluter.
5 As an example, a relative amount _of gypsum
6 contains 460 curies of radium compared to 77 for normal
7 super-phosphate fertilizer.
8 No other industry in this country is permitted
9 to pile mountains of waste hazardous to human health on
10 the landscape and walk off and leave it to society to control
11 The statement should certainly recommend that
12 the industry be required to stabilize gypsum stacks to pre-
;i3 vent further leaching and erosion and to provide other ^such
14 maintenance encompassing all necessary pollution control
15 measures for the life of the gypsum stacks.
i6 (11) The statement suggests impervious lin-
17 ings for gypsum ponds but also suggests clay, although not
,8 impervious, be substituted. Clay is not adequate as is
19 documented in Dr. Sam Upchurch's Study,
20 The surface and possible subsurface seepage
21 that would result from the use of clay will not likely, as
22 suggested, be solved by ditching, pumping, etcetera.
23 We ask the statement recommend only a com-
24 pletely impervious material be permitted.
25
(12) The statement does not adequately address
50
-------
the effects of wet process phosphoric acid plants, located
2 on areas that are underlain by limestone. Acidic gypsum
3 water can react with limestone resulting in the development
and enlargement of cracks, etcetera, permitting the move-
5 ment of contaminated water into the ground water. Many
6 plants which report a negative water balance on the contam-
7 inated water-system are actually discharging radioactive
8 waters to aquifers.
9 We think the final statement should recommend
10 radiochemical contaminant monitoring of adjacent aquifers
n and shallow ground water quality.
12 (13) With these facts regarding the damaging
13 effects of phosphoric acid plants, we request the final
14 statement recommend a moratorium on the expansion of present
or creation of new phosphoric acid plants until such time
)6 as methods and standards exist to control the further dis-
17 tribution of radioactive materials into the environment.
,8 (14) The subject of control of fluoride erais-
sions and recovery and its economic implications have not
20 been adequately addressed. However, it is acknowledged
21 that through lax regulations and inspection, fluoride levels
?2 have been permitted to increase.
23 While most of us are familiar with the U.S.
24 Department of Agriculture's studies showing fluorides have
25 caused more world-wide damage to domestic animals than any 51
l-rt
-------
i other air pollutant, that fluorides have affected both
2 phosphate workers and nursery operations, new evidence from
3 a study by Dr. Bertram W. Carnow and Dr. Shirley A. Gonibear
4 shows the extensive damage caused by exposure to fluorides
5 and strongly indicates fluorosis must be redefined.
6 The results of this study, conducted at union
7 request, show that a highly significant relationship was
a found between increasing levels of fluorides and other pul-
9 monary irritants and obstructive pulmonary change.
)0 The measure of fluoride exposure was displayed
n in a history of muscular-skeletal symptoms.
,2 The striking correlation of muscular-skeletal
13 symptoms, bone surgery and bony abnormalities and a high
M bone risk index suggests that the disease fluorosis is more
15 than dense bone. It is a clinical and pathological entity
16 in which the bone density changes are only one component.
17 The study suggested the disease be called muscular-skeletal
)8 fluorosis.
19 The study also found a high incidence of
2Q deaths from lung cancer, leukemia and lymptoma and recom-
21 mended an immediate program to sharply reduce emissions.
22 No tests were done of people living in the
23 general area of the plant.
24 We suggest the damage identified as being
caused by fluoride emissions points up the need for the 52
-------
immediate development of standards to reduce the levels of
irritant gases and particulates in phosphate plants and
3 surrounding areas. The cost of the latter is insignificant
4 compared to the damage presently being done to the human
s populace.
6 (15) We recommend the deletion from the draft
7 the statement that increasing numbers of phosphate pits
8 have recreational potential if properly reclaimed. It is
9 questionable until definitive tests regarding the uptake of
10 radioactive materials by fish and other marine life are
n accomplished that these areas can be safely used for fish
12 management or recreational areas.
13 Additionally, because of partially completed
u studies it is very doubtful that reclaimed mine lands can
15 be safely used for agriculture or pasture. We refer to
16 the uptake of radioactive contaminants by the livestock
17 and crops. Hence, if new mining is permitted now, we will
is experience a substantial decrease in agricultural lands and
,9 pastures. It is doubtful for the same reason that it is
20 advisable to permit even single-family dwellings to be
21 developed on reclaimed lands.
22 While the draft mentions this problem, we
23 think the final statement should emphasize that as more
24 tests results are coming in, it may very well be that
25 phosphate mining precludes further use of the land for any 53
/-r*
-------
purpose, that phosphate mining constitutes a permanent use
2 of the land.
3 (16) Phosphate processing plants are forecast
to annually consume 94,490,000 gallons of water per day.
Mining less. In your study assessing the effects of this
operation on the Florida Aquifer, you admit that the study
assumed that water pumpage by municipalities and agricul-
ture will be at the same level in 1985 and year 2000 as it
was in 1975, in spite of almost geometrically increasing
10 population forecast for this area.
Even under this optimum circumstance, Manatee
12 County faces a drawdown of 10 feet with increased danger of
)3 salt-water intrusion.
14 You further admit that the study results
15 would be considerably different if your projections for
)6 municipal use are incorrect.
]7 We suggest this section indicating no severe
)8 impact on water quantity be thrown out of the study.
19 (17) We request the same treatment for the
20 statement on p. 2.67 that secondary effects on water quality
2) were taken to be potential effects for which there is in-
22 sufficient evidence for concern.
(18) The study speaks of wastewater discharges
^O
to be allowed from existing facilities and new facilities
under certain rainfall or equivalent conditions as having to 54
-------
1 meet best practical technology standards.
2 What the study fails to mention is that pres-
3 ent BACT effluent limitations for the phosphate industry
4 are identical to the best practical technology standards
5 mentioned. We suggest the final statement make this clear.
6 (19) The final statement needs to more ade-
7 quately address the increased potential for slime pond
8 breaks threatening the water quality of Class I waters and
9 what this would mean to our area if we lose our reservoir.
10 It should also be noted in the same section
11 that elimination of slime ponds is not technically achievable
12 until after year 2000.
13 (20) Wetland restoration has not been demon-
,4 strated and seems highly unlikely on a large scale. There-
15 fore, the preservation of wetlands comprising 12.34 percent
16 of the land cover in the study area should be ensured. Wet-
)7 lands we recommend be defined as including areas in which
18 the water table is at near or above the land surface for a
19 significant part of most years and shallow submerged lands
20 and to be expanded to include the definition and identifica-
21 tion of wetlands that are developed as a result of studies
22 by the U.S. Interior Department..
23 Preservation is based on ensuring the source
24, and quality of water necessary to keep these wetlands in a
25 biologically healthy state. 55
-------
1 Under present modes of mining operation, this
2 is impossible because of changes in adjacent land terrain,
3 alteration of the local hydrologic regime and changes In
4 the particular constituents of the water.
5 Therefore, we ask you recommend the no-action
6 alternative of this statement because without this recommen-
7 dation, it seems highly unlikely that any wetlands will
e survive in the phosphate mining area with all this portends
9 for the future of our area.
10 (21) The statement does not address the re-
n duced water recharge areas which will result as a loss of
12 these wetlands and what effect this will have on our aquifers
13 (22) The draft needs to be corrected to re-
14 fleet the following:
15 The impacts of supporting activities, such as
)6 electricity generation and transportation, will permit fur-
17 ther deterioration of our air quality, will increase thermal
,8 pollution, water quality degradation, etcetera.
19 The statement on p. 2.67 dealing with power
20 plant impact should be changed from minor impact to accurate-
21 ly reflect the above.
22 We find the statement that industry discharge
23 of high concentrations of inorganic nutrients are beneficial
24 and are responsible for the unusually high productivity of
both Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor an inaccurate statement. 56
25
l-s-C.
-------
i It should be corrected to indicate Charlotte
2 Harbor is showing signs of deteriorating water quality as
3 has Tampa Bay for some time.
4 (23) To suggest phosphate mining is needed
5 to support the continued development of Tampa Harbor because
6 it's needed for area industries is a distortion of fact.
7 The ability of private capital to support ports in the state
8 of Florida unfortunately does not seem to be relevant to
9 their existence.
10 This is obviously a blatant special interest
n statement and should be changed to reflect the fact that a
12 recent nationwide poll distributed by the Florida Department
13 of Commerce shows business executives revealed access to
,4 water transportation ranked last in a list of forty-nine
,5 determinants for industrial location and operation.
,6 (24) We request your statement recommend the
17 development of a non-renewable resource policy for the min-
)8 ing of phosphate. As stated on p. 1.2, the demand by the
19 United States will exceed the domestic supply before 2010.
20 It would seem both logical and imperative to
2, have some control over the sequence of raining and the amounts
22 of phosphate permitted for overseas shipment.
23 The long-term effect of this action on our
24 economy would seem to be slight. As stated in the draft,
25 mining does not appear to have played a significant role in 57
Ar?
-------
i the growth of the region since 1960. The tax revenues real-
2 ized are small when compared to the costs of the damage the
3 industry creates.
4 The average real earnings of $7,914 per miner
5 is a relatively low wage and can probably be easily equaled
6 as these workers are readily absorbed by the much healthier
7 to worker environment, the service industries. The latter
8 cited as likely in the draft p. 2.60.
9 (25) Suggested as an adequate safeguard in
10 the draft, to depend upon tests to maintain good environ-
11 mental quality is unrealistic. We have an inadequate num-
12 ber of regulatory personnel right now. That water and air
13 will be tested regularly, connector wells checked before
14 abandonment, etcetera, is not likely.
15 To depend on adequate self-regulation is not
16 realistic either. We refer, as one example, to the Brewster
17 mines, supposingly exercising the latest state of environ-
18 mental control and when finally checked, it violated one
]9 regulation after another.
20 (26) Though we understand the constraints
2] of time and money, lack of adequate data in some areas,
22 etcetera, we find that readily available, most important
23 information was ignored and the draft is very poorly organ-
0. ized.
24
To help offset this, we suggest the final 58
-------
i statement incorporate information furnished at these and
2 other public hearings and that the final statement include
3 a section created by combining all the information on each
4 subject in the draft, permitting each subject to be treated
5 separately.
6 This is what we have done in our draft review
7 and is the only way deficiencies, discrepancies and, most
8 important, the full impact of the industry can be realized.
9 This form will enable the reader to fully
10 realize the projected destruction of all our wetlands in
n the mining areas, our forests, our agricultural lands, that
12 the carrying capacity of our area will be further stressed,
,3 our water quality and quantity further threatened, our air
14 quality further deteriorated, our fossil fuel position
15 worsened, our lives threatened and shortened by increases
)6 in radioactive levels, threatened and endangered species
]7 further stressed -- all to permit the rapid depletion by
,8 mining of a non-renewable resource.
19 Based on the latter, we request you recommend
20 in the final statement that the no-action scenario be adopted
21 until the serious environmental problems cited are solved
and until a non-renewable resource policy is developed.
Thank you very much.
i O
(Applause)
24
25
MR. TRAINA: As always Ms, Rains, it's a
59
-------
i very thorough and detailed statement. We appreciate
2 your bringing all those items to our attention.
3 John Rains?
4 MR. RAINS: I waived mine for Ms. Rains.
5 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Rains.
6 Anwar Wessa?
7 MR. WESSA: I pass.
8 MR. TRAINA: Jeff Lincer?
9 MR. LINCER:
10 How do you follow an act like that? That's
11 all right, Gloria, but I'll be careful of my sequencing
12 next time.
13 I am Jeff Lincer of 4718 Dunn Drive, Sarasota.
14 I'm an Environmental Specialist for Sarasota County. I'm
15 appearing this evening at the request of Sarasota County
16 to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement as
]7 it relates to the phosphate industry in the seven-county
18 study area.
,9 We can certainly appreciate the amount of
20 work and the energies that went into the preparation of
21 this draft EIS, and compliment EPA's staff and their
22 consultants for bringing it to its present stage.
23 There are, however, some serious concerns
24 that Sarasota County has with respect to the draft EIS,
25 and these are as follows:
60
-------
i With respect to air and water pollution,
2 on page 1,9 the statement's made that "The industry's
3 air and water emissions are controlled by collection devices
4 or other treatment to meet state and federal effluent
5 standards."
6 This may very well be the way the system
7 is supposed to work. However, I think the question which
a should be raised is whether or not the system and the
9 equipment is operating as envisioned to insure en v iron-
10 mental quality.
n With respect to the natural environment
12 and climatic conditions, the statement is made on page 1.10
13 that "Because of the area's, flat terrain and steady
14 winds, incidents of extreme air pollution in west central
15 Florida are not common and occur primarily only in
16 heavily populated or industrialized areas, such as Tampa."
17 This may very well be generally true for
18 west central Florida, but it's our understanding that
19 Sarasota was to be included in this seven-county study
20 area'
Discussions with meteorologists at the
22 National Weather Service station in Ruskin Indicate that
23 inversions occur in this area almost on a nightly basis.
24 In this light, and given the average age of
25 our retirement community, we feel that additional
61
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
investigation ought to be made of what might be a unique
climatological situation in this area.
Data do exist in the files of the National
Weather Service in Ruskin, which deals with parameters,
such as wind speed and direction, height of mixing layer,,
etcetera, these things that relate to inversions.
We would strongly request that these and
other pertinent data ba reviewed to determine the im-
portance of air inversions in and to the county of
Sarasota.
We can take little comfort in some of the
twenty-four hour SC>2 data, as reported on page 1,11, and
this was pointed out, Although these remain below
critical levels, analytical problems uncovered by EPA
indicate that actual levels may have been two to three
times higher than those reported.
The 1976 fluoride emissions by the phosphate
industry were reported at 315 metric or 346 short tons;
fluoride levels in vegetation, according to the draft EIS,
are dependent upon rainfall frequency, thereby explaining
the high, that is 60 part per million, levels in 1974.
We feel that this would be acceptable to
explain the 1974 high fluoride levels, but the data
presented in figure 1.3 indicate a trend of increasing
fluoride levels starting in 1972, with ever increasing
T-T
62
-------
i levels of fluoride.
2 We would like to be sure that these data
3 are subjected to rigorous statistical examination to
4 insure that the conclusions are justified.
5 With respect to fluoride and uranium, T- 6
6 recovery of these two compounds, based solely on
7 economic consideration, as implied on page 1.72, is
a totally unacceptable in view of the documented damage
9 caused by these compounds.
10 They should be removed from the waste
11 water as a simple matter of health protection. If a
12 profit results, so much the better for the industry.
I '
)3 But placing such an emphasis on profit is neither
14 justifiable nor desirable from the public or environmental
15 health standpoint.
16 As a matter of precedent, an historic
17 achievement of this action, USS Agri-Chemical and W.R.
]8 Grace are recovering fluoride from phosphoric acid, arid
19 the Uranium Recovery Corporation, Gardinier, a subsidiary
20 of Westinghouse, Agrico Chemical, and Freeport Minerals
21 are all performing a similar recovery for uranium.
22 With respect to uranium, a savings in terms
23 of oil, energy equivalents, and therefore foreign
dependence, would be considerable and is estimated to
25 be between 97 and 129 million barrels by the draft EIS
63
>-& J
-------
i itself.
2 With respect to water use and with respect „. -
3 to the recommended connector wells, as suggested on page
4 1.72, the utmost caution is encouraged such that existing
5 aquifer water is not degraded.
6 If the use of floating dredges, for instance,
which would not necessitate de-watering of a mining site,
8 can be shown to result in less overall environmental
9 impact, then this approach,, it should be encouraged.
10 Water quality: A misconception that has
n been perpetuated by the draft EIS, as it stands now,
12 is that EPA, and I quote "has no direct legal authority
13 to change requirements for existing sources."
This is stated on page 1*74 and is virtually
is hogwash. One has but to turn to Section 102 of Pub-lie
16 Law 92.500 and find the following diametrically opposed
17 statement, which relates to specific point sources, and
is I quote:
19 "Whenever, in the judgment of the Administrator
20 this is the EPA Administrator, "discharges of pollutants
21 from a point source or a group of point sources, with the
22 application of effluent limitations required under Section
23 301.d(2) of this Act, would interfere with the attainment
24 or maintenance of that water quality in a specific portion
2s of the navigable waters, and Industrial uses and the
T-IO
II
64
-------
, protection of public waters under cultural and industrial
2 uses, and the protection and propagation of a balanced
3 population of shell fish, fish and wildlife, and allow
4 recreational activities in and on the water, effluent
5 limitations, including alternative effluent control
6 strategies for such point source or sources shall be
7 established, which can reasonably be expected to
8 contribute to the attainment or maintenance of such
9 water quality."
)0 Not only does EPA have the authority,
they have the legal responsibility to improve existing
12 effluent guidelines, when studies like this support
said corrections.
I -j
u Along these lines, Sarasota and the State
of Florida are already on record as saying that the
application of best practical technology would result
in substantially more stringent effluent limitations.
With respect to habitat lost and in particular
1 8
with respect to the wetlands, we are encouraged to see
reference made on page 1.21 to the Florida Department of
Natural Resources classification of mixed forest communi-
21
ties, hammocks, and dry prairies as highly endangered,
and emphasis being placed on their importance to
wildlife.
24
Without a doubt, the area's wetlands -- that is
65
-------
the bay heads, the hardwood swamps, cypress swamps,
2 mangroves, wet prairies, wet water marshes and salt
3 water marshes, are the area's most'important ecosystems
in terms of life support or productivity„
Hardwood swamps and cypress are, we concur,
6 number one and number two, respectively, in importance.
7 As pointed out in the EIS, Darnell's '76
8 study indicated that the loss of wetland habitat is the
9 most important impact of construction, activity,, This is
10 on page 3.3.
n We also concur that and emphasize that these
Florida wetlands are of national significance, because
they, with some of the similar habitat in southeast
14 Louisiana, are the remaining wetlands of significant
15 extent and value in the United States.
16 In speaking of expanses of natural
vegetation in "larger parks," mention is made of the
18 Hillsborough River State Park, on page 1.20, but no
19 mention is made of the Myakka River State Park, which
20 is right on one of those rivers likely to be the most
21 impacted by plant phosphate mining activities.
22 I think the Myakka is the largest in the
State of Florida.
With respect to projecting the changes in
land use, which will occur in the future, table 1.31 on
66
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
page 1.63 is misleading. It indicates that wetlands,
which represent 178,268 hectars -- think metric --as of
1975 will diminish very slightly, and in fact decrease
only 1.1 percent over the period 1975 to the year 2000.
In view of the interrelatedness of
phosphate deposits in wetlands, it would seem unwise
to project such a minimal change unless strong regulations
are enacted and enforced.to protect these critical areas.
If this projected-decrease' is based in
any way upon the assumption that a significant amount
of the wetlands can be returned to their original
structure and function, then serious thought ought to
be given to the embryonic state of the art of reclamation.
That is, to our knowledge, no one has yet
to demonstrate through reclamation of a hardwood awamp, ,
a cypress head, or any other category of wetland which
takes tens, if not hundreds, of years to reach their
ultimate degree of complexity and function, dependent
upon as yet poorly understood and interrelated parameters •
things such as drainage, organic matter, temperature,
etcetera.
With respect to any DRI or site-specific
EIS, not only should a thorough inventory be made of the
types of habitat, but a scientifically credible assessment
of the interrelationships between those habitats and the
T-/3
T-
67
-------
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed development should be clearly stated, considering
the species a special concern.
With respect to inventorying wildlife, and
it is too easy to simply include a list of species thought
to be there, special care should be taken to list rare
and endangered species and species of special concern
recognized by both the Federal Office of Endangered
Species and FCREPA which, as many of you know, is the
Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and
Animals.
As a final note concerning reclamation
of these habitats -- that is, their habitats,,-- it
should be done in such a logical sequencing pattern
that both plants and animals are provided adequate
refugia for the life of the project.
This is something Ernie Estevez pointed
to very nicely, I thought.
With regard to sampling, as indicated on
pages 4.4 and 4,5, the water monitoring program and dam
inspection — that's dam inspection — program suggested
are the bare minimum which the public should expect to
maintain the quality of their environment and their
hea1th.
With respect to the dams, I'm not sure I
understand why there's any needs for any dams if we're
T-/5-
68
-------
i not going to have above ground storage. I'm not sure
2 that there's even a need for initial above ground
3 storage.
4 If, in fact, inspection, sampling and
5 monitoring are to reflect a normal situation, these
6 events should be unannounced.
7 The resulting data would not only give
8 the Agency that much more confidence, but assuming
9 that the results are positive, it would give the
10 industry a welcomed opportunity to show off the results
n of its efforts to maintain a high quality environment.
12 With respect to sampling frequency, that
13 is for source sampling and ambient water monitoring,
u the sampling program should not be locked into a
15 quarterly basis, and provisions should be made for more
)6 frequent monitoring should the situation justify it.
17 This same comment would hold, then, for
]g the sampling of receiving waters at optional locations
]9 downstream from the discharges.
20 If the objective of the annual composite
21 sampling of all discharges is to develop a picture of
22 the additive effects, the frequency of once a year
„_ would not be acceptable, since far too much damage
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that monitoring program.
Any composite sampling, obviously, from a
variety of discharges should take into consideration
analysis which would be proportional to both flow and
time of operation.
With respect to radiation, after Gloria
covered it I'm not going to go into any great length,
but with respect to radiation, the potential for human
health hazard is great.
Because much of the data is still being
developed, with this EIS in mind, we'll reserve comment
on the subject until concrete figures on exposure^ chronic
effects, etcetera, over time, are available.
Where the research has been done, human
hazard has been indicated.
We will make additional comments on the
subject when additional data are available and are
analyzed.
With respect to economics, we would like
to point out that inadequate consideration has been given
to the economic burdens which phosphate mining operations
place on the community services and the intra-structure
and, as we heard before, things such as a substantial
monitoring cost.
On the national scale, as you've heard before,
T-/6
70
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it seems utterly foolish to encourage exportation of
any finite and strategic resource, such as oil or phosphate,
and by doing so, we place ourselves in such a precarious
position with respect to the dependence on other countries.
In view of the history on oil, we would
strongly recommend that no more phosphate be exported
until a sound national policy on this can be established.
We will save additional comments on this
and radiation and inversion and a number of things for
our written comments, which will be submitted shortly.
In closing, and with reference to the
basis of the scenario, the State of Florida has already
taken steps to provide more stringent protection against
the adverse effects of phosphate mining, which go bey,ond
federal requirements.
We encourage you to strengthen the scenario
in the indicated areas so that EPA and other federal
agencies will be able to meet their responsibility in
re-enforcing the environmental protection efforts of the
state and local government.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
MR. TRAINA: I might just say, Mr. Lincer,
that you more than adequately followed Ms. Rains, and I
thank you very much.
T-/7
71
-------
Jonathon Miller?
2 MR. MILLER:
3 My name is Jonathon Miller. I live at 1333
Third Street in Sarasota. I'm the Chairman of the Manatee-
Sarasota Committee of the Sierra Club, and I hope we'll
get around to forwarding you a written statement. I don't
think we could add too much to Gloria Rains' presentation
on behalf of Manasota-88.
Manasota-88 encompas'ses approximately the
10 same region of interest, that is Manatee and Sarasota
11 County, that our group does, so I just wanted to .re-
12 emphasize some of Gloria's points.
13 And I'd like to ask you how to best proceed.
14 I have a number of questions, and I'm wondering if it's
is appropriate to ask questions and get answers at this
point or whether I should ask them rhetorically, and you
17 can deal with them —
ia MR. TRAINA: If you would, maybe ask them
19 rhetorically.
20 MR. MILLER: Okay.
21 MRv TRAINA: Again, the reason --- We'd like
22 to hear the comments. If those obviously are in the form
23 of questions7 get them in the record, and as indicated
24 earlier, they will be addressed in the final statement.
25 Certainly afterwards, if you'd like to address
72
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments to the panel here or someone else, but any
questions or comments that are made will be addressed
in the final EIS, if you make them.
MR. MILLER: Okay. That sounds good. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER:
I'd like to start on page 1.72 on the
categories of wetlands.
You suggest here that the categories will
be defined for regulation. Now, I don't know exactly
by what method they would be defined, whether this would
be just a strict definitional determination or whether
there would be some mapping involved.
If you do go to a mapping, I assume it
would have to be areawide rather than a site by site
basis. This would seem to be the best way to proceed,
and I hope that you'll choose an appropriate scale.
I've noticed lately that the LUDA material
for land uses covered, in terms of wetlands, is just not
sufficient for this area.
I recently was working on a piece of
property about 50 square miles. The wetlands were quite
fuzzily delineated by LUDA, and we went out in the field
and found there were more than 900 small wet season ponds
on this tract of land.
T-/8
73
-------
Now, these small ponds just don't show up
with your units of mapping that LUDA has, and yet I do
believe that they do have a significant function and role
in both the hydrologic system and also habitat, which
leads me to the Category 3 wetlands, which are described
as isolated and normally intermittent in nature and have
insignificant hydrological functions and minimal life
support value.
I have a little trouble with this. It's
10 hard for me to understand how you could prove an area,
n a wetland, has an insignificant hydrological function.
12 And I hope you can get in touch with the,
13 I guess it's the US Weather Service in.Miami. They've done
]4 some work along these lines, and apparently are
15 There's a possibility, and I don't think
)6 it's been documented to anyone's satisfaction at this
17 point, but the formation of thunderstorms in the summer
I8 in this area is, of course, dependent on the water, the
19 surface water conditions that prevail on the surface of.
20 the land. And changes in the configuration of the surface
2) water bodies, I believe, can have an effect on the
22 conditions that lead to the development of thunderheads.
23 So even though you may have the same area
24 of wetlands, you may take an area that was a number, let's
say, 1,000 small wet prairies or isolated ponds, and you
-------
i may take their total surface area and convert them
2 into one large acreage, and they may not have the, same
3 world in a meteorological sense, and so to say that the
4 small, isolated intermittent ponds have an insignificant
5 hydrological function, I think that's a possibility, but
6 I haven't seen anything that could establish tiiat to my
7 satisfaction.
8 Going back to the previous page, page 1.71,
9 one of your -points in the proposed action is to provide
10 storage that allows recirculation of the water recovered
n from slimes, ,and the surge capacity is to be determined
12 during the other site-specific EIS.
13 And that takes us to I'd like to speak
14 a little to that point. I'd like to refer to page 2.27,
,5 Section 4. It's titled "Require Reduced Water Usages."
., It's not obvious to me that this is reduced
I O
)7 water use. It appears more as though this is a concept
18 of reducing the water sheds in the area, and something
19 that is not entirely clear to me from the statement that
20 I think needs to be perhaps stated clearly is exactly
2) how much of the site would be available for holding
22 this rainfall.
Would it be the entire site that could be
used for collection of this water or some subset of the
24
25
properties?
75
-------
What I'm concerned about here is the
creation of internal drainages, where all the water
falling on an operation may be contained in that area.
It may be recirculated and used by the phosphate industry,
but it may never get to the estuaries.
And I think this is a pretty major problem,
and you appear to deal with it or attempt to deal with
it on page 3.4, but that's a little coafiusing to me also.
This is the section on quantity of water,
10 and the last sentence says, "As new mines come into
n operation, the amount of surface water existing in the
12 study area due to slime ponds and slime-pond runoff
13 impoundments will tend to decrease, resulting in less
M evaporative water loss in the areas affected, which will
15 tend to increase rainfall runoff and surface-water recharge."
16 Well, I think in view of the proposal
17 to changp the slime operation, that makes sense. In other
]g words, I agree with you that the area's surface water
19 existing in slime ponds and slime-pond runoff impoundments
20 may decrease, but I think the real question here is will
21 the total surface, total area of the surface water on the
22 phosphate sites increase or decrease.
23 And the previous sectipn, 2.27, deals with
collection of the ten-year, twenty-four-hour storm, and the
25 twenty -five -year, twenty-four-hour storm, which suggests to
76
-------
i me that perhaps the amount of surface water on the site
2 will be increased rather than decreased and, of course,
3 this is going to represent a loss to the water shed and
4 eventually to the estuaries.
5 The only other point I'd like to bring up
6 is, from the slides that were shown earlier, I got
7 the impression that you relied to a fair extent on the
^ fish and wildlife study that was done of the seven-county
9 phosphate mining area.
10 And yet in your literature cited, you make
n no reference to this study which, I believe, was something
12 in excess of 1,400 pages and dealt specifically with the
13 phosphate mining and wildlife in the seven-county area.
14 It's true that your EIS does reflect and
IS is based to some extent on this information. I hope, then,
]6 it would be possible to cite it in the new literature.
17 And if that is not the case, then I'm
]8 going to have to get in touch with some Fish and Wildlife
,9 people and ask them why that 1,400-page document didn't
20 have a larger role to play in the development of the EIS.
Thank you very much.
22 MR. TRAINS: Thank you.
23 (Applause)
24 MR, MCNEILL: Mr. Traina, could I make a
25 quick comment?
77
A77
-------
MR. TRAINA: It seems you've struck a
responsive chord here.by our project leader.
MR. MCNEILL: That very last statement he
made, that was an oversight. That Archibald report from
5 the Fish and Wildlife Service, contract report, it was
6 definitely utilized, and it was an oversight that it
7 did not get referenced in the -- that it was not cited
in the references, but we thank you for pointing it out.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
]0 MR. TRAINA: I'll say generally that it's
n very unusual for one bureacracy not to get credits in
12 another bureaucracy's report, so it must have been an
13 oversight.
14 Jane Rose?
15 (No response)
16 Ann McCrainie?
17 MS. MCCRAINIE:
18 I'm with the Citizens Against River Pollution,
and I'm going to be very brief. Our specifics will be in
a written statement.
I want to speak specifically in regard to
22 the wetlands. You acknowledge that the wetlands are the
most important ecosystem in terms of life support and
productivity and that the Florida Department of Natural
Resources has also indicated that wetlands probably are
78
I--? 8
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the most valuable natural system from the standpoint
of benefit to society.
So we therefore refer to your statement
on page 1.22 that wetlands are expected to decline.
It is our understanding that the current
study being done by the US Department of Interior, the
Fish and Wildlife Service in St. Petersburg, are to be
considered in this draft, and that's been answered for
me. Thank you.
And we would also now request specific
recommendations be solicited from the federal wetlands
study, probably or possibly permitting in regard t'o
mining the wetlands.
And noting that the study adopted the
Corps of Engineering (sic) criteria, which is the 5
cubic feet per second flow; we have one question in
regard to this recommendation.
As the tributaries are destroyed, will
the Corps criteria not obviously decline, therefore
diminishing the areas of permitting and monitoring, and
what provisions are being made?
Is there any inventory that you have
presently available as to the flow of 5 cubic feet per
second and in what areas of the seven-county area is this
being done?
T-22.
79
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
MR. TRAINA: Are you talking about streams
less than 5 cubic feet per second —
MS. MCCRAINIE: Yes. What I'm saying Is
that, if you have adopted that criteria and then as the
wetlands diminish, as they are mined, then obviously
that is going to decrease the flow, so the jurisdiction
is also going to decrease.
MR. TRAINA: Okay. I understand your point.
Thank you.
MS. MCCRAINIE: And we would like for that
to be clarified in some way, at what point.
The point has been made, we want to reiterate,
that since successful reclamation of wetlands has not been
achieved over a period of time, we request that stronger,
statements be incorporated for the preservation of wetlands.
Now, as far as the map in the land use
portion, in comparison to the projected mining areas,
specifically for Hillsborough County, there's tremendous
contrast, as far as the land use area, and the projected
mine use areas.
Can we assume that this is a commitment on
the part of the industry that these areas will not be
mined until after the year 2000?
I would also like to point out that you
stated you would support the county and state laws, and in
T-Z3
80
-------
i the Hillsborough County Conservation element adapted in
2 the horizon 2000 land use plan, we state that is minimize
3 the adverse impacts of mining by prohibiting mining in
4 rivers, streams and alluvial wetlands, except in extreme
5 cases of overriding public interest, and I would like
6 to leave this conservation element for your files.
7 And I would also like to mention, in the
8 water section, just for the record, that the Alafia
9 River proper is greatly influenced by Lithia Springs and
10 Buck Horn Springs, and I would also like for EPA to note
n that those two springs are owned and being pumped severely
12 by the phosphate industry.
13 Thank you.
M MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much.
15 Gordon Palm?
16 MR. PALM: I pass.
17 MR. TRAINA: Excuse me?
18 MR. PALM: I'll pass.
]9 MR. TRAINA: That's very unusual, Mr. Palm.
20 I always expect you to say something, at this point
21 especially.
22 You're sure now?
23 MR. PALM: Yes, sir.
24 MR. TRAINA: I just can't imagine the industry
25 not having something, after listening to all this, but
81
/-si
-------
so be it. Does that presume that the document is
satisfactory or is the council —
(Laughter)
MR. PALM: No, sir.
MR« TRAINA: -- is the council supposed to
said us some written comments?
(Laughter)
MR. TRAINA: Well then, I guess I'll presume
the document is satisfactory.
,0 (Laughter)
n MR. TRAINA: Mary Greer?
12 MS. GREER: The points have been covered, but
I would like very much to read a statement by Manasota-88
I o
14 and the gentleman from Anna Maria
(Whereupon, a discussion was
had off the record between Ms. Greer and Mr. Traina)
]7 MR. TRAINA: Please do come up.
MS0 GREER:
I O
Mary Greer, citizen of Manatee County, a
former health education director.
I'd like to call your attention to the
cause for my concern. Most of our population in Manatee
County came here to preserve their most valuable commodity --
£. J
hea1th.
24
We are anxious that this study and the EPA
82
-------
i protect this healthful environment for those who have
2 invested their all in this area.
3 Such an excellent job has been done by
4 several people here, by most all. They have
5 most of the points that I have carefully thought
6 However, it seemed to me that the start o€
7 dealings that would protect the air and the water
s degradation from exposure is a point that we would like
9 very much to have accented.
10 Also, a limit placed on the amount of
n phosphate mining in particular areas.
12 These are the only two points that I had
13 considered. They were so perfectly covered I certainly
14 enjoyed both of them, all of them.
15 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Ms. Greer,
)6 for coming up.
17 (Applause)
,8 MR. TRAINA: Archie Carr?
19 MR. CARR:
20 Mr. Traina, gentlemen, good to see you again,
21 Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Archie Carr. I'm Special
22 Assistant to the President for Science of the Florida
23 Audubon Society.
24 I have reviewed the draft areawide impact
25 statement and submitted a letter of response to Mr. White
83
-------
! the Regional Administrator of Region IV of EPA, and I
2 think, as a matter of convenience, the best thing for me
3 to do would be to read the letter into the record here.
4 I thank you for the opportunity to comment
5 on behalf of the Florida Audubon Society on the Draft
6 Areawide Environmental Impact Statement.
7 First, I find the areawide approach that
8 EPA has taken with the EIS process in central Florida to be
9 an interesting one and one I think will efficiently lead
10 to equitable environmental protection. I hope history
n will bear out my optimism.
12 I would also like to compliment you and
]3 your staff for the admirable job of condensing the volumes
)4 of information developed by Texas Instruments and subsequent
15 proceedings into a very readable volume.
16 I have several comments regarding the content
]7 of the EIS that are presented in no particular hierarchy of
)8 importance.
19 The first of these is not listed here and
2Q concerns endangered, species. I get a sinking feeling by
21 reading the document, in consideration of this area.
22 In the body of the text, Section 1, there is
reference to endangered species with a general remark that
24 things will not fare well for that whole category of plants
25 and animals.
'84
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The concept, the group of animals, the
point is not raised again until we get to Section 6,
"irretrievable Commitments."
In that section, it speaks to habitats.
Now, in other areas of concern, for example air and water
quality, there is greater elaboration of what EPA feels
it will do to achieve protection, concessions that will
be made, and so on.
I do not feel that the impact statement
adequately expresses how endangered species will be
protected, as I believe they should be under existing
law, irrespective of events that are going on in Washington
at this moment.
But I think that the final draft would be
greatly improved by more detail of exactly what we can
anticipate to be the impact on endangered species or how
those impacts will be avoided as a result of EPA's action.
Now, to go on here, the first item is
fluorides. It is stated under Environmental Impact of
Proposed Action, Section 3, page 3.1, that "no new
chemical plants are projected under the proposed action,
and consequently fluorine emissions will not increase."
This, I understand, is possible largely
because existing processing plants will continue to be
used for the rendering of phosphate rock from new sources.
T-1S-
85
-------
i It has become abundantly clear to us that
2 old plants retrofitted with fluoride pollution control
3 equipment are far less efficient at controlling fluoride
4 emissions than new plants in which pollution control
5 equipment is designed into the plant from the beginning.
6 The EIS would be improved by inclusion of
7 the fluoride pollution control capabilities of the plants
8 which are intended to process phosphate from new mines.
9 (b) I appreciate that EPA is recommending
10 biological monitoring of fluorides, Section 4, page 4.1,
n ambient vegetative-fluoride sampling program.
12 I believe it should be expanded, and I
13 submit for your consideration a research plan, enclosed,
u authorized by EPA to monitor fluorides potentially
is emitted by the Occidental Chemical Company operation in
i6 the vicinity of the Suwannee River, north Florida.
17 The results of the north Florida research
18 and the techniques developed there might be very useful
19 to a more complete monitoring iprogicam in central Florida.
20 I hope you don't feel I'm setting you up,
21 Mr. Traina.
22 MR. TRAINA: No. As a matter of fact, as
23 I recall the hearing we had up there, you suggested we
24 use the one down here, and I think that's fair. That's
25 very fine, s ir .
t-8C>
86
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Laughter)
MR. CARR:
I will not attempt to outine a specific
monitoring program for central Florida, but I do ask
that you study the North Florida Research Plan with an
eye for its relevance to the central Florida area.
Ms. Rains raised several points with
respect to public health. I have not addressed them,
and I think that --- Well, I would be frightened to
find out all there is to know about fluoride pollution
in terms of public health.
I believe that I would like to underscore
her remarks in that area. If animals that I sampled
had fluoride contamination, I'm even more worried about
people.
Under wetlands, I approve heartily of the
intent and justification to protect wetlands expressed
in the EIS.
I notice that many, 36 or 39 archaeological
sites, are located within them, adding to the basic
ecological and hydrological good sense of protecting them.
I don't elaborate on this more, by the way,
because I have elaborated with Gene McNeill and EPA at
great length over this subject, and our positions are
very well stated, I believe.
t-87
T-2L7
87
-------
i However, I am very disturbed by the
2 concept of cutting the hydrological throats of the
3 wetlands expressed under "Effects of Controlling Activities
4 in Waters of the US and Wetlands," page 2.90.
s And perhaps I should explain this point.
6 The idea that's developed in the EIS is that wa will vow
7 to save the wetlands, so we'll mine around it, and it .leaves
e the wetland isolated, the principle that the EIS stated.
9 If leaving wetlands on d«eiic«ting, padeetAls
10 spells their doom, then a void ding them to begin with becomes
n nonsensical. The environmental objective is lost, and;the
12 sacrifice by the phosphate industry is wasted.
13 I agree with the conclusion that "mining
14 effects on remaining or undisturbed wetlands should be
15 addressed in greater detail," page 2.91.
16 I recommend that the principle of the
17 pedestal concept receive thorough attention in the final
is EIS, and that it be stressed that the danger of wetland
19 garroting should be carefully addressed in site-specific
20 EIS proceedings, which will follow the areawide, assuming
21 there is a go alternative.
22 Finally, energy and phosphate conservation:
23 It is apparent that the huge energy requirements for
24 phosphate mining and processing, described on page 2.7,
25 is met only because the industry receives a subsidy in
88
-------
i the form of lower rates from TECO and Florida Power,
2 Just as it Is said that fche industry competes
3 with the public for aquifer water, so it can be argued the
4 industry competes with the public for energy.
5 From data presented on phosphate supplies
6 and demand, on page 2.8 to 2.11, it is apparent that
7 more energy will be required to extract a given onit
e of rock in the very near future.
9 Jhibr economic resources are expected to
10 become economically recoverable wheiiathe market value
11 of phosphate increases.
12 The fallacy and danger of this argument
13 is that not only more money but more energy will be
u required to produce what are currently sub-econoaic
is resources. Energy, unlike the market, will not inflate.
i6 It will only deplete. Thus there will be two inter*
17 dependent and non-renewable resources following extension *
18 curves, and the cost of phosphate, energy and food will
19 be presumably logrithmically increasing.
20 I cannot help but envision a crisis emerging
21 from these divergent curves. I believe the history of
?2 fossil fuels is a sufficient model to lead to this con-
23 elusion, but I have every confidence that a complete
24 evaluation of current phosphate resource management
25 practices, combined with agricultural study, would prove
189
-------
the point.
2 In view of the above, I,look with great
3 concern on the industry's enthusiastic search for new
and larger phosphate markets abroad. It is argued that
the national balance of trade is served by phosphate export.
What fossil import is required to subsidize that export?
I would be more content if in the final EIS the US Depart-
ment of Energy commented on this ppint and on the compliance
of phosphate mining expansion with national energy policies.
I'm inclined to believe that American
agriculture and the American consumer are being set up
for a food-cost crunch in the near future, perhaps before
2000. This crunch could be at least postponed by
I O
domestic resource conservation commensurate with incentives
14
to Morocco to bring her massive resources on line rapidly.
In summary, I believe EPA wrill succeed in
16
providing for a clean industry in west central Florida if
the areawide EIS is adhered to.
18
But I am worried that EPA is becoming
19
innocently involved in gross resource mismanagement. If
I am correct, then the cleanliness will be a trivial
21 '
accomplishment.
Sincerely, Archie Carr.
* \5
24 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Carr.
25 (Applause)
90
/- 90
-------
i MR. TRAINA: David Rosen?
2 DR. ROSEN:
3 My name is David Rosen, M.D. I've been
4 living in Sarasota, the SarasotarBradenton area, for the
5 past year. My address is 508 Bay View Drive, Longboat
6 Key.
7 However, I've been coming to this area now
e on vacation, I would say for the past twenty-five years.
9 I have practiced medicine in New York City,
10 and I would just like to acquaint you with something that,
,, as a physician, we knew for a long time.
12 We know that the area of northern New Jersey
13 has been an area of very high cancer incidence. Lately,
]4 it has appeared in the papers throughout the nation, but
)5 as physicians we knew that about ten to fifteen years ago.
]6 The incidence of malignancy in northern
,7 New Jersey is about ten times as great as that in other
18 areas in the United States.
19 We also have an area in New York State where
20 the incidence of malignancy is very high, and that's in
2, the area around Ossining, New York.
22 The incidence of malignancy around the
23 Ossining area is about ten times as high as most areas
24 in the United States, and it compares to that of northern
25 New Jersey.
91
-------
Northern New Jersey is a very highly
2 industrialized area. We have emissions from cracking
3 plants, refineries, electric- plants, and various
industrial complexes.
We have always thought that this would
be a favorable area for the development of malignancy,
and time has proven it has.
However, lately we have had several cases
of leukemia in a very small district, and the health
10 authorities haven't been able to put their finger on i t.
We're very suspicious^ but we cannot exactly prove it.
12 Now, in the area around Ossining, the
,3 factors are entirely different. The area around Ossining
14 in Westchester County is not industrialized, but the soil
around there is highly radioactive, and it has been like
16 that for centuries.
17 At first the public in the Ossining area
18 tried to blame a lot of this high incidence of malignancy
19 on Con-Edison's nuclear power plant, but that has been
20 entirely disproved
21 The point I wish to make is that with
22 this phosphate mining and the radioactive contamination,
23 not only of the drinking water, but of the air, you may
24 reach a stage where it would be impossible for most of
2 the people to live here or want to live here.
92
-------
i Now, we had an example of this about eight
2 or ten years ago when it was discovered fchat the
3 inhalation of asbestos fibers would produce lung
4 malignancies and malignancies of the abdomen, anywhere
s from five to thirty years after these fibers were inhaled.
6 We know from our experiences with radioactive
7 substances that the time between the exposure to radiation
8 and the development of malignancies can be anywhere from
9 one month to twenty or thirty years.
10 As a matter of fact, the incidence of
n malignancies among X-ray men is ten times as high among
12 just ordinary physicians not involved with a great deal
13 of X-ray work.
)4 And that is what I want to emphasize. You're
]5 actually playing with fire. You're developing a high
16 incidence of radiation, both in the water that you drink
17 and in the air that you inhale.
18 That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
19 (Applauds).
20 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Dr. Rosen,
2) for taking the time. I think those comments are very,
22 very significant.
23 Homer Greer?
24 MR. GREER:
25 I'm Homer Greer. I live at 350 Northshore
93
-------
Road, Longboat Key. My first year in Manatee County was
2 in 1920 when no one, even the farmers, or anyone in the
3 community visualized anything pertaining to phosphate or
4 phosphate mining.
5 I want to give each one of you men a
6 preparation we prepared for one of our local papers
7 consisting of twenty pages pertaining to phosphate mining.
e I don't think you had an opportunity to
9 see it. Therefore, I'd like for you to read it when you
10 have time.
11 MR. TRAINAj I did have ar opportunity, and
12 I'll tell you, it beats the heck out of government pub-
13 lications, and it's very well written.
,4 MR. GREER: Thank you kindly; I appreciate it.
,5 I didn't write it.
16 MR. TRAINA: Whoever did should be complimented
17 MR. GREER:
]8 I'm particularly concerned about Manatee
19 County, because this is where I live, and this is the
20 which I intend to live for the next twenty years. I'm only
21 seventy-seven, so I see some of you fellows may be gone
22 before I am.
23 But as a matter of fact, I wanted to show
24 you the area pertaining to the phosphate mining in Manatee
25 County^. I wanted to show you the area the various phosphate
94
-------
i mining companies own in Manatee County.
2 In the county itself, we have approximately
3 500,000 acres of land, and the phosphate companies in
4 their entirety own 103,000 acres.
5 As you can see, this particular area here
6 is 43,000 acres owned by W.R. Grace. They also own
7 another 11,000 acres up at the Northern edge of the
8 county bordering on Hillsborough County.
9 Then the other companies here are Swift,
10 Continental Oil, US, the Becker Phosphate Company, the
n First National Bank.
,2 Down in the corner is the IMC company and
,3 the Phillips Company, and then here is our Lake Manatee
14 with the tributaries coming throughout this area.
15 Here is the Gardinier plant.
16 This is the Florida Power and Light plant.
17 This is the Borden plant, which is existing
18 at the present time.
19 This is Port Manatee.
20 This is a new area that will be occupied
2, by the A His company and the Simons company vhen they
22 get it in operation.
23 This is the Manatee County Utility Company,
24 Clear down in the lower part of the county
25 here is Myakka State Park.
95
/-
-------
1 The major important factor, as I see it,
2 pertaining to phosphate mining is the fact that if all
3 these companies start mining at one particular time or
4 near one particular time, as Ms. Rains told you, they
5 would use approximately 94 million gallons of fresh water
6 daily.
7 And when you think of this use of fresh
8 water compared to the fact that our new planning depart-
9 ment operating in Manatee County say that in the next
10 twenty to twenty-five years, we will have a total of
n 200,000 people living in Manatee County —
12 At present there are around 65,000 people
living here, so as these companies begin to mine, if
I 3
the slime should get away from them, either through
heavy rainfall or through the loss or the break of one
of the dams, our tributaries to the Manatee County River,
16
where we get all our drinking water, would be so polluted
that it would be impossible for us to have drinking water.
1 O
In addition to that, if in the lower part
of the state, you should have a slime spill, then the
Myakka River would completely destroy Myakka State Park
and all of the vegetation and the life in the river, as
22 '
well as the life around the river.
23
Now, in the pictures that we saw a while
ago that were shown by the EPA organization, it showed
25 96
-------
i that there was trees and vegetation growing along land
2 which presumably had been worked over or reclaimed by
3 the phosphate company, but they didn't tell you that
4 only a, short length of time back, the Peace River was
5 completely devastated by slime phosphate, and the animal
6 life or the fishing life in the river was completely
7 destroyed.
8 I have flown over Hillsborough County,
9 a great deal of Polk County, and as you saw the pictures
10 that were represented or shown here earlier in the program,
n they showed big trees, pine trees, growing along, and
12 they intimated, at least, that these were growing over
13 reclaimed land.
14 Well, those pine trees must have been at
15 least fifty to seventy-five years old, and in my flying
16 over Hillsborough County and Polk County, I saw no
]7 vegetation or any trees of this type.
18 Now, it may be that these trees grew fifty
)9 or sixty years ago or even longer in some of the reclaimed
land. That I cannot disprove.
But in asking and checking with the Corps
22 of Engineers and the mining Interests, mining department
23 for the State of Florida, about a year ago, they told me
that they had no realization or no idea of how many acres
25 of land had been mined in the State of Florida, how much
97
/-T7
-------
i was being mined in the State of Florida, and no idea
2 of how much land had been reclaimed.
3 Therefore, I'm very skeptical about the
4 pictures that were shown showing these very, very large
5 trees.
6 In the past I've seen pictures showing
7 fattened cattle walking around on land that had been
e reclaimed, and recently I had one of the people living
9 right out here in the edge of Hi11sborough County where
10 the cattle begin to go down physically.
11 They had vets come in and check their
12 cattle and, because of the pollution of the grass, the
13 cattle had lost all of their teeth, and they had to dis-
14 pose of their entire herd before they died.
15 These are actual facts and not hearsay.
16 I'm also very much concerned about what
17 will happen to we people here in the county, as time goes
18 on, if all of these people or all of these phosphate
19 companies are allowed to mine.
20 The money that they use or make from the
21 mining process is not retained in Manatee County. Almost
22 In its entirety it's taken out of the county and out of
23 the state.
24 So we, as individuals,,within the county, have
25 no benefit, with the exception of a small group of people.
98
I-IB
-------
i It's an established fact that one mining
2 operation actually hired twelve men in a twenty-four-hour
3 period, twelve men; the salary of twelve men is com-
4 paratively small.
5 All of the rest of the operation of these
6 companies, as they would operate, is a mechanical operation,
7 and I don't like to have companies of any kind or people
e of any kind, including the EPA, insinuate that we are
9 going to have a mess of capital brought into our county
,0 or our community and it will remain here or stay here
,, because, as a matter of fact, that is not true, and I
12 wish to thank you very, very kindly for your interest
13 and your allowing me to speak.
14 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Greer.
15 (Applause)
16 MR. TRAINA: Mr. Greer, there's just one
17 comment. As I understand the report, I presume all these
18 areas are potential areas; they're not existing areas.
19 As I understand the report, it would not
20 call for slime ponds.
2) MR. GREER: Well, at the present time ---
22 MR. TRAINA: As I understand the report,
23 there would be no slime ponds associated with this new
24 activity.
25 MR. GREER: Well, I can't say that there will
99
/-ff
-------
i be no slime ponds. I know at the present time there are
2 large slime ponds.
3 Take the Borden plant, for example. They
4 had purchased They have a large slime pond, and it's
5 now at the present time about 40 feet The size of the
6 bank is about 40 feet high, and they can go up to a
7 70-foot height in building up this bank.
8 I can't tell you exactly which one of the
9 two companies, but one of the companies, they purchased
10 all of the air rights in the surrounding community so
n nobody can bring suit against them.
12 In flying over the area, as I did, the
13 citrus fruit was destroyed, either dying, or had been
14 destroyed for miles back away from the present slime ponds.
)5 There were no trees any place in existence,
16 and I took this flight just a little over a year ago.
,7 MR. TRAINA: I know they exist now, but the
)8 report deals with new sources and recommends that there
I
19 be no slime ponds.
20 MR. GREER: Well, I'm very encouraged to
2) have that kind of a recommendation, but I take facts as
22 they exist today, not hopefully as they will exist twenty
23 years from now.
24 MR. TRAINA: I understand, sir. Thank you
very much, Mr. Greer.
100
I- 100
-------
i (Applause)
2 Jean Russell?
3 MS. .RUSSELL:
4 Greetings. I'm Jean Russell, Longboat
5 Key, and I want to ask a question for one of the gals
6 sitting there.
7 What is a new source?
8 MR. TRAINA: Okay. Let roe describe it
9 as unlegally as I can. Under the Federal Water Pollution
10 Control Act, there are different requirements for existing
n sources and new sources, and if the source is determined
12 to be new under those requirements, then the recommendations
13 contained in this report would apply to that source, and
14 all the things with regard to elimination of slime ponds,
15 and all the other items that Mr. McNeill talked about,
)6 would apply to any permit issued to that facility, because
]7 it is a new source.
18 MS. RUSSELL: Okay. I wanted to ask you,
19 who provided the pictures of all the great things the
phosphate company has done, like the clean Peace River,
21 and reclamation and the cattle grazing?
22 MR. TRAINA: Well, Ms. Russell, I don't know
23 who provided those, but you have comments to make on them?
24 MS. RUSSELL: I don't. Honestly, we are so
25 terribly worried here, and I know your requirements; as
101
l-toi
-------
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. White told me, you can just go by the requirements
that the law states, but you do,not have to put on those
pictures for the rest of us who are so terribly, terribly
concerned.
I do think it's biased, don't you, a little
bit?
(Applause)
You don't see a picture of that Peace River
where the effects of that went for a hundred miles, and
the things all the others have touched on, and I'm not
going to keep these darling people here by yakking, but
I don't think you're being very fair to us.
Please don't do it again.
(Applause)
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
Catherine Fernald?
MS. FERNALD:
I'm Catherine Fernald. My husband and I
have lived on Longboat Key and owned property since 1965.
We've been interested in this area for a long time.
As a taxpayer in Manatee County, I have a
question for the EPA. Does EPA expect to address itself
to the hidden cost of phosphate mining, the health, covered
by lots of people, the water, the draw-downs, the salt
25 water intrusion, the loss of potable water?
102
-------
i What will be the cost to transport water
2 from the Suwannee River?
3 Air: The medical expense will be borne
4 by the public when there's air pollution.
s The subsidization by taxpayers of the State
6 by the reduction of severance costs for phosphate shipping?
7 In regard to the slime pond, if Becker
8 Phosphate is declared an existing source, then we are
9 stuck with slime ponds in Manatee County, so this is
10 another question.
11 MR. TRAINA: You're right.
12 MS. FERNALD:
13 As the !environmental chairman for the
14 Longboat Key Garden Club, I was part of the adjudicatory
15 hearing before Judge Yost, and I felt very strongly that
16 the judgment handed down by Mr. White of the EPA in Atlanta
17 is completely unfair, and I'd certainly like to have a re-
18 hearing on the whole thing.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
21 (Applause)
22 MR* TRAINA: I just might comment on that
23 list of items, Ms. Fernald, that there is provisions — I'll
24 be more happy to talk to you — on how a decision of the
25 Regional Administrator can be further reviewed by the
103
-------
i Administrator. Those administrative procedures do —
2 MS. FERNALD: The big problem, sir, is that
3 we are single citizens in this county, and the expenses of
4 hiring attorneys and doing that is almost astronomical.
5 Large phosphate companies multiply and multiply
6 the hearings and the hearings and the hearings and draw us
7 down to no money, and somewhere in the government we ougitt
8 to have someone who la ombudsman for us to take our side
9 of the question, and we think you should be the ones to
10 do that.
n (Applause)
)2 MR. TRAINA: Our eminent! counsel .would like.
)3 to make a comment.
14 Mr. Phillips?
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Ms. Fernald, we appreciate
16 the comment, and would mention that Sarasota County has
17 appealed the regional decision to take orders, and they're
1g now considering whether to grant that appeal.
19 MS. FERNALD: If you would, because it cost
20 $800 already, if you can provide us with a little help of
21 a lawyer, we'll be glad to do it as well.
22 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
23 That concludes the list of the people that indicated
on the cards that they would like to make a statement.
24 J
At this time I would ask if anybody else who has not
104
-------
, made one would like to come forward and make a statement..
2 (No response)
3 Is there anyone who has made a statement who'd like
4 to amplify or further comment?
5 MS. RAINS: We'd just like to thank you a 11
6 for coming down.
7 MR. TRAINA: Mr.' Carr?
e MR. CARR: Just a question, Mr. Traina.
9 We're working with the areawide impact statement
10 here tonight, and it will be followed by site-specific
n impact statements later. I'm not 100 percent sure how
12 the areawide impact statement will relate to site-specific
13 impact statements in terms of, say, permits and that
,4 kind of thing.
,5 MR. TRAINA: Okay. Let me ask Mr. Hagan to
16 comment on that. I think it's an appropriate comment. If
17 I don't care for his comment, I might add tome more to it.
,8 (Laughter)
19 MR. HAGAN: Feel free. The areawide impact
20 statement was designed to cover just that, the areawide
21 impacts.
22 Were are trying here, through this process, to set
23 forth policy guidance, which we can then apply to Individual
24 site-specific mines or chemical processing plants .
25 It is our intention to use this areawide impact
105
1-10
-------
i statement as a policy direction for EPA. Hopefully, it
2 will also be used as a policy direction by other federal
3 agencies in guiding their actions, so that we can have
a consistent federal, state, local approach to the
5 regulatory processes that govern the phosphate industry.
6 Beyond the policy-setting activity, it will provide
7 some administrative forum for satisfying the National
8 Environmental Policy Act with respect to the individual
9 impact statement.
10 However, the individuals, I think, will be much
n more specific in terms of impact on wildlife, impact on
12 wetlands, and the particular pollution control requirements
)3 for each individual plant or mine as they're developed.
14 Do you want to add something?
,5 MR. TRAINA: The only thing I'd like to add
]6 is the job that I have, as Director of Enforcement, I am
17 responsible for issuing the permits, not only to the
18 phosphate industry, but to any other industry, or any other
,9 point source, for that matter.
20 It certainly is my intent to follow very closely
2, the guidance, if you will, that's in this document, and
22 certainly to follow the individual EIS's with regard to
23 specific recommendations as it relates to things like
gyp ponds and slime ponds and meeting various federal,
state and local emission limits, be they air or water.
106
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15 here.
I'm very much aware, as I think everyone here,
including the industry, of the past, and I think this
document — I would like to think that this document
represents at least a major turn in the way the federal
EPA has been able to, or not able to, as the case may
be, regulate this industry, and I don't need to comment
in any great detail about the problems that the federal
EPA has had in the past,
And we hope that with this document and the public
reaction to it, and I do appreciate very much the public
reaction tonight.
I look forward to getting it on Wednesday and Thursday
night -- we are having two other meetings — along with
the written comments that come in to, maybe, turn a corner
We have had many opportunities that haven't been as,
optimal as this one is with regard to putting sojne direc-
tion, more direction, into controlling and regulating
this industry.
As they say, as far as the NPDES permits and the
other air — as well as the other environmental areas that
EPA gets involved in, the 404, although we do get involved
in the review with the Corps of Engineers on that one,
it's my intent to implement, not only the tone, but the
25 actual recommendations of this document.
107
/-/o?
-------
Are there any other comments?
2 Yes, sir?
3 MR. GREEK: I just wanted to make one more
statement, and that's to the fact the dear phosphate
companies operating, or intending to operate in this
community, have hired some very, very attractive little
7 girls to go around through Manatee County and Sarasota
8 County asking the public to sign statements they think
9 phosphate mining in this community would be a very, very
fine thing, and I wanted you to know that.
MR. TRAINA: Are there any members of the
panel who'd like to make a comment?
(No response)
I O
]4 MR. TRAINA: Okay. I'd like to thank, on
behalf of all of us here, EPA and the others who are
)6 involved with this study, thank you all for coming.
Let me just make a few closing things here.
The comment period, the written comment period, will
I 8
be open until June 23rd, 1978. Anyone who would like to
make some written comments or amplify what you've said
20 J J
tonight, please address those comments to John Hagan,
Chief, EIS Branch, EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, 30308.
23 '
As we indicated
24
MR. HAGAN: I have cards; if anyone would like
25
t-tos
108
-------
a card to get the address correct, I have it.
2 MR. TRAINA: We will take the comments made
3 tonight and any comments --- 'They will be addressed in
the final EIS, which is scheduled for publication by
July 31.
6 Again, thank you for coming, and the hearing is
7 adjourned
e (Whereupon, the hearing was
9 adjpurned at 9:55 p.m.)
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 -000-
24
109
/-/Of
-------
CERTI.F][C_ATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV
in the Matter of:
s Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public
Hearing
6
Manatee Junior College
Bradenton, Florida
a 7:00 p.m.
9 May 22, 1978
10 were held as herein appears and that this is the
H original transcript for the file of the Agency.
12
13
Official IIRe/porter
14
15
16
17
18
-oOo-
19
20
21
?2
23
24
25
-------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
A Public Hearing:
DRAFT AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
March 1978
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Date: May 24, 1978
Location: Bartow, Florida
-oOo-
BAY PARK REPORTING COMPANY
COURT REPORTING
33 FOURTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETRRSBURG. FLORIDA 33701
(813) 823-8388
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
16
19
20
21
?2
23
24
25
APPEARANCES:
THE CHAIRMAN:
THE PANEL:
PAUL TRAINA
Director of Che Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
DR. MARVIN COLLINS
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
BILL STOWASSER
Bureau of Mines
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C.
BILL PHILLIPS
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
1 SPEAKER PAGE
2 Linda Campbell 27
3 Homer Hooks 29
4 George Cornwell 41
5 E, Edwacd Holloway 62
6 B. J, Register 64
7 W. M. Leaders 69
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t't/3
-------
PROCEEDINGS.
2 (Whereupon, at 7:12 p.m. the
3 hearing was called to order)
MR. TRAINA: The hearing is open.
Good^evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Paul
Traina, and I am Director of the Enforcement Division of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia.
The Regional Administrator, Mr. John C. White, has
10 designated me to run this hearing tonight.
n I would like to introduce the other panel members
12 with me.
13 On my far left is Dr. Marvin Collins. Dr. Collins is
representing Mr. Jay Landers, who's the Secretary of the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
)6 On my immediate left is Mr. John Hagan. Mr. Hagan
is Director of the Environmental Impact Statement section of
EPA in Atlanta.
o
On my far right is Mr. Bill Stowftsser. Mr. Stowasser
is with the Bureau of Mines. He's representing the Interior
Department from Washington
On my immediate right is Mr. Bill Phillips. Mr.
is with our office of Regional Counsel with EPA in Atlanta.
/ ij
Tonight's hearing is concerned with a two-year study
24
on environmental, social and economic effects of continued
25
-------
expansion of the central Florida phosphate industry
2 The purpose of the study is to comply with the National
3 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
4 Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
5 System permits for new sources of phosphate mining and
6 chemical processing operations constitute a federal action
7 which significantly affects the human environment.
e As sue);, the National Environmental Policy Act requires
9 development of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to an
)0 issuance of these NPDES permits .
n It was determined in early 1976 the number of new
12 phosphate operations which would request permit applications
13 would make individual site-specific Environmental Impact
14 Statements ineffective in determining areawide and cumulative
)5 effects.
16 Each individual study would determine effects of that
]7 particular operation, and areawide and cumulative effects
18 might easily have been neglected.
19 For this reason, all new source permits were held in
abeyance while the areawide EIS was developed.
A draft of the statement has been prepared, and notice
of its availability was published in the Federal Register,
Volume 43, dated April 21st, 1978.
The hearing tonight is for the purpose of receiving
comments from the public on this draft Environmental Impact
5
/-t/sr
-------
i Statement.
2 All substantive comments on this draft EIS will be
3 considered by EPA and summarized and addressed in the final
4 Environmental Impact Statement.
5 As stated on the agenda, we will begin with a brief
6 presentation by EPA and the contractor of the study, Texas
7 Instruments, to summarize the major conclusions of the draft
8 EIS and how those conclusions were developed.
9 Those of you who have indicated on the registration
10 card that you wish to make oral statements will be given an
n opportunity to do so.
,2 At this point I'd like to call for Mr. Gene McNeill,
13 who's the Project Manager of this study for EPA.
Mr. McNeill?
I 4
15 MR. MCNEILL: Thank you, Mr. Traina.
)6 What we'll do next is just very briefly go through some
of the highlights of the findings.
As Mr. Traina said, the main purpose of the hearing
1 8
here tonight is to hear you, to give you the opportunity to
make comments, make statements, regarding this draft EIS.
With that, I think I'll introduce the contractor,
21
Texas Instruments, who was the prime contractor on this
22 '
study, and they will briefly go through the findings in the
draft EIS, and then I will summarize the proposed action.
?4
Larry Bowles is Project Manager of Texas Instruments,
-------
' the prime contractor on the study.
2 Larry?
3 MR. BCWLES: Thank you, Gene.
4 I'd like to introduce Audrey James, a member of our
5 staff on the program, and Dr. Arnold Stalder, and Arnold
6 will give the presentation this evening, so I'll turn the
7 microphone over to him.
8 MR. STALDER: This evening, rather than
9 summarize the results that are compounded and condensed in
10 the draft EI8, which were founded on some 1,500 pages of docu-
11 mentation that preceded the draft EIS, I'm going to go
12 through just briefly what it was we did when we prepared
13 documentation to support the EPA in preparation of the EIS.
,4 We were studying a seven-county area in central Florida
)5 and you can see, outlined in there, the area that is mainly
16 concerned with phosphate formations.
17 The larger circle includes the entire Bone Valley
18 formation; the smaller loop to the north, which includes the
19 gray shaded areas, which depict currently the mine or past
20 mine phosphate industry activities, is the atoea^of^the hlghes :
21 grade ore.
22 The larger area, which includes the gray hatched regionn
„, to the south, is the area of lesser grade ore, which the
e. J
?4 phosphate industry is now proposed to move into.
25 Those areas, which are gray hatched, are those which
-------
had permit applications submitted to the Florida DER.
2 If you look at it in a topographic relief, you can
3 find that the study area includes the Polk uplands, and you'l
find that there's a ridge in the south edge of this, and
this area is the area where the primary activity of the
phosphate industry has been in the past year.
If you drop on down to the area in DeSoto and Hard^e
8 County, you'll find another slight drop in the topographical
9 relief, as this area seems to afford the next best chance to
10 | move phosphate from the ground from these deposits.
11 The study area also included the Charlotte Harbor area
12 and the Tampa Bay area.
)3 Ground rules for Texas Instruments are summarized in
14 the next three slides.
,5 We were to use existing data; that is, data that had
,6 been prepared by the phosphate companies for DRI's, data
17 that had been documented and published in one form or another
19 on the study area for various and sundry reasons.
19 We were to receive help from EPA, Bureau of Mines,
20 USGS, and various and sundry federal agencies, the Florida
21 DER, SWFMD, and regional planning councils to provide data
22 to support the documentation on this EIS.
23 EPA was specifically furnished material on laws and
24 regulations, industry descriptions, water quality and air
25 quality.
/-tie
-------
EPA was also to assist and perform studies and reports
2 on radiation as it pertains to the phosphate industry
3 activities in central Florida.
USGS was to provide their Floridan Aquifer model to
protect the impacts from the phosphate industry on the
Floridan Aquifer.
The Fish and Wildlife Service was to furnish a wild-
life inventory and distribution data, which in fact they
did by performing an independent study, which was then sup-
10 plied to Texas Instruments and incorporated into the docu-
n mentation which we supplied EPA.
)2 Bureau of Mines furnished reserves, demands, produc-
13 tion data cm the phosphate industry, and population projec-
tions were based on University of Florida estimates.
There were two committees involved in this project:
the steering committee that was formed of federal agencies,
Bureau of Mines, EPA, Council on Environmental Quality, and
several others, Corps of Engineers, and the Florida DER --
1 8
not a federal agency -- provided the primary direction for
this study, and there was an advisory committee that consiste<
20
of representatives of the counties, Florida DER, and en-
vironmental groups in the Florida area, who are quite speci-
fically affected by phosphate industry activity, by their
Z J
influence throughout the course of this study.
The object of this was to review five alternatives
-------
that were depicted by the steering committee and review the
2 relative effects of the alternatives.
3 The effects assessments methodology was to address a
series of decision indicators. Decision indicators, in this
5 case, were possible effects on air quality, ground water
6 quality, water supply, and so forth,
7 They were outlined by the steering committee, and the
priorities with which these were to be considered were set
up by the steering committee,and were somewhat limited in
10 certain cases by money limitations,
11 There were quite a few questions raised that couldn't
12 be answered completely based on existing data. In that
13 case, priorities were set by the steering committee, which
will be addressed specifically.
is We were to assist EPA in the preparation of the draft
16 EIS and help to address comments on this draft EIS in
preparation for the final Environmental Impact Statement.
is To perform this service, we consulted with several
19 people, who are quite familiar with specifics in the Florida
20 area;
21 Dr. James Nicholas.on socioeconomics; Dr. Paul Urone,
22 University of Florida, an air quality chemist; Dr. Eric
23 Rifkin, on ecology and general effects; and Geraghty and
24 Miller, Peter Schroeder with Geraghty and Miller for hydro-
25 geology, primarily ground water quantity; and Tomasino and
10
'- /
-------
, Associates, Sam LocKwood with that organization, to help
2 us flesh out the scenario description and discuss surface
3 wa ter .
4 We were to forecast resources and demands in the area
5 to the year 2000. This involved the phosphate industry
and other demands on water supplies, land use, and so forth.
Baseline data and regulations, for the most part, were
8 those that existed on 1 August '76, the starting point for
this contract.
We were to prepare preliminary findings in the form
of working papers, which would be distributed and disseminate^
such that both the advisory committee, the steering committee
and the general population of the area could see them and
comment upon them and get their inputs in before the En-
14
vironmental Impact Statement was prepared.
And the integrating theme for the whole project was,
16
in effect, environmental land use planning, and there were
some adjustments made to the data, and the land use data
1 8
had not been projected out to the year 2000, and extrapo-
lations from the distant data were made.
20
Data of the respective land use activities of the
21
phosphate were acquired through a land use questionnaire,
22
which was submitted to the individual phosphate companies,
who then responded, and this information was incorporated
into the EIS.
9S I
11
-------
The Corps of Engineers regulations concerning wetlands,j
which were finalized 1 September '77, which is an exception
to the 1 August '76 rule with regard to regulations, were
considered in the preparation of this document.
And all phosphate operations that had not been permitted
6 prior to 1 August '76 were, for purposes of this documentatioi,
7 considered new sources.
8 We looked at two points in time: the year 2000 and
9 then, based on phosphate production in the country and in
10 the Florida area, there's a peak around 1985; we looked at
n the short term, 1985, and then again at the year 2000 in re-
12 viewing effects.
What we have here is a list of the operators in the
14 area. Above the first break are those existing mining
15 operations in the central Florida area.
16 The next small bunch are, with the exception of USS
)7 Agri-Chem, those which have submitted DRl's by 1 August '76.
lg USS Agri-Chem was added to this section, because their
19 obligation appeared to be imminent.
20 The list on the bottom, and if you kind of slide up
21 the scale and look with regard to the top, production is
22 estimated to stay at nearly a constant level. Most of the
23 activity at the top dies out by the year 1985, and you'll
find that between the new batch and those at the bottom, it
would tend to continue production at nearly a constant rate,
12
-------
moving the mining activity from the Polk County area south
2 then, as the reserve depleted in the northern area.
3 The information that we got, the data that we got,
came from a bunch of sources, and we'll go over examples
5 of some.
6 Air quality data we got through Dr. Paul Urone and
Chadbourne, one of his colleagues. This data was basically
data supplied by the Florida DER.
There's some more air quality data, in this case, con-
10 cerned with fluorides, fluoride emissions. Data on fluoride
n was supplied by the Florida DER, the Winter Haven lab.
12 We also have some air quality data from the phosphate
13 industry. We got data from the USGS, in this case potentio-
14 metric surface maps, in addition to the aquifer model.
is We got data from the Army Corps of Engineers in
16 regard to chemical types of water.
17 We got data from the planning councils, Tampa Bay,
is and Central Florida Planning Council, Southwest Florida
19 Regional Planning Council, and this is another long list
20 of water quality data pertaining to industry discharges, and
21 this was obtained from the Florida DER.
22 During the course of our operations, we got quite a
23 bit of data, literature-type data, We also went out and did
24 some field surveys, primarily our biologists and socio
25 economists, and we took pictures of various aspects of
13
-------
i industry activity and general activity in the central Florida
? area.
3 This, for those of you who haven't been around, is
4 obviously a drag line strip mining phosphate.
5 This is a beneficiation plant, and this is a chemical
6 processing plant to make chemical fertilizers out of phos-
7 phate rock.
8 This is a very old mined-out area that's been abandoned
9 left alone, and re-vegetated naturally -
10 This is a slime pond that is part of the dewatered
11 area. On the right is where it dried out. To the left there
12 is still water; it hasn't evaporated.
13 Part of some of the area that has been mined and/or
14 used for slime disposal areas, been turned into a sanctuary,
15 the Tenoroc Wildlife Sanctuary.
i6 This is inside the sanctuary. This is a slime pond
17 that has naturally de-watered and re-vegetated.
,8 This has been reclaimed and turned into a recreation
19 park. There's a ball park in the background, and an area
20 that has been r^-grassed in the foreground.
21 This is the primary use of reclaimed land, today, any-
22 how. A great quantity of it has been turned into approved
23 pasture land.
24 This is some of the natural environment. This is a
25 scrub pine bush0
14
-------
i That's a hammock.
2 This is a pasture land.
3 This is a sometimes wetland in the rainy season.
* A forest area —
s This is a natural pasture land that's been approved
6 as being farm land or vegetative.
7 This is a crop land area, truck farm-type crops, and
8 this one is most obvious in the Florida area, citrus groves.
9 This is the Peace River, I believe and this is the
10 Tampa Bay area with our Gardinier plant in the background and
11 a park in the foreground.
12 This is another form of the environment in the area,
13 which is a developed coastline area.
u During the process of developing documentation, which
15 is also about 1,700 pages, between the working papers and
16 the draft EIS, we attempted to have things that were distri-
17 buted to the public to be as plain as possible.
IB We didn't always make it completely. There have been
19 comments, and there have been corrections, and we do have
20 a table on the next slide which will be added to the final
21 EIS and will clear up some questions that might arise in
?2 this ecological section.
23 MR. TRAINA: Well, Mr. Bowles let me just
24 comment; today I took a helicopter ride over this area,
25 Polk County, and I would have to agree with the wotn^n the
15
-------
i other night at the other hearing, that you might have gotten
2 some more representative pictures of the area.
3 It wasn't till I saw today that I realized the full
4 impact, at least in Polk County, of some of these activities.
5 Mr. McNeill?
6 MR. MCNEILL: Before I get into the proposed
7 action, I'd like to make a few introductions.
8 I already mentioned we had an advisory committee which
9 consisted of representatives from each county in the study
10 area, a representative from the Southwest Water Management
n District, an industry representative, and a represenative
12 of the Florida environmentalist groups.
13 I think, just thumbing through the cards, I might
14 have missed somebody, but I'm sure three of them are here
15 tonight, members of our advisory committee.
)6 Mr. Homer Hooks, woujxl you stand* for a second?
]7 He represented the industry as the President of the
18 Florida Phosphate Council.
]9 Barbara Boatwright?
Oh, there she is. She was advisory committee rep-
21 resentative for the Southwest Florida Water Management
22 District.
23 And Archie Carr is here.
He was here. There he is outside. He and Charles Lee
took turns representing the Florida Audubon -- representing
16
-------
i the Florida environmentalist groups on the advisory committee
2 There are a few others here who have been a tremendous
3 help, and, I/'m not sure, after some of the conro«nts we may
4 get tonight, they may not want to admit having helped, but
5 I want to thank them anyway.
6 One, I see Bill Wilson from the USGS from Tampa is here
7 That office was a tremendous help in supplying information
8 regarding the effect on the changing potentiometric surface
9 of the Floridan Aquifer.
10 Dan Williams from DER: Dan was in the Winter Haven
11 office, one of the slides that were mentioned. We got quite
12 a bit of data from the Winter Haven office. He's now in
13 the Tampa DER office.
u Otis Smith. Otis also was in the Winter Haven office
15 of DER, and is now in Tampa.
16 And I see Bud Hendry, the state geologist, is here.
17 Bud? He's also supplied us quite a bit of useful informa-
is tion.
19 Okay. What I'll do is very briefly — and I mean it
20 this time -- tonight go through what the proposed action is.
21 A few of you were over in Bradenton the other night, and I
22 got up and said I was going to briefly summarize the proposed
23 action, and then I commenced to elaborate on quite a bit of
24 detail.
25 Thumbing through the cards here, I think most of you
17
-------
, if not all of you here tonight, have been on our mailing list
2 and received the working papers and our newsletter we put
3 out all along, so I don't see any real need here tonight to
4 go into much detail, so instead of that, I'll save moat of
5 Che time for presentations from you.
6 I'm just going to hit the high spots of the proposed
7 action and what we, up until the draft EIS, are ".calling the
8 selected scenario.
9 First, for mining operations, any new source mining
10 and beneficiation operations -- and when I say new source,
n I mean based on issuance of EPA NPDES discharge permits.
12 First, we say that, under this proposed action, any,
,3 new source mine and benef iciation plants will eliminate
14 rock-drying for rock to be processed into phosphoric acid
15 in central Florida.
,6 All of these that I'm reading off, there will be
]7 provisions for some exceptions, which would result during
18 the site-specific environmental impact study.
19 I should mention here that any new source mine or new
20 source chemical plant will have to do a site-specific EIS.
21 This areawide draft has addressed areawide and cumulative
22 effects of the entire industry, as it is projected, under
this proposed action.
* O
24 The second one, and again, I'm still talking just to
mine and benef iciation operations, is to meet Florida's
25 18
-------
, effluent limitations, which are more stringent than EPA's
2 effluent limitations, but during the study, we found that
3 meeting the Florida effluent limitations for mining opera-
4 tions would meet zsceivlng water quality standards.
5 Third, eliminate conventional above-ground slime
6 disposal areas.
7 Four, this one really is sort of a repeat, because we
g started out with meeting all existing local, county,
9 regional and state requirements; the fourth one is to meet
10 the Southwest Florida Water Management District requirements
n for the consumptive use permit.
,2 We go, what may be a little beyond that, when we say, i|n
)3 the next one, to provide storage capacity for water recovered
)4 from slimes for re-use, which may, in some cases, result
15 in a reduced pumping rate from the Floridan Aquifer, even
16 moreso than meeting existing Southwest Florida Water Man-
17 agement District requirements.
ID Six really states to allow continued use of connector
I O
wells for de-watering the shallow ground water table prior
to mining, but with precautions and adequate monitoring
as provided by the industry and the state to protect ground
water quality, to assure that the quality of the water
drained from the shallow water table is adequate to be
23
discharged directly into the Floridan Aquifer.
And seven, unfortunately EPA guidelines on radiation,
19
-------
on reclaimed land, has still not been completed. They were
put out in draft form, but it will be published in the
Federal Register in June, in two sets, part in June and
part in July of this year. They'll be published in proposed
and final form, so we'll be leaving the SETS when these
guidelines are finalized and adopted, and they will be met
by the new source mining operations. And in all probability,
8 they'll apply also to additional mines.
9 MR. TRAINA: Mr. McNeill, could you just, at
10 this point, clarify what part of that particular recotn-
n mendation — Talk about the second part of that DRI for
12 site-specific EIS. You also developed a recommendation plan
which considers radiation of spoil material.
I \j
What did you have in mind, what did this report have
in mind with regard to that recommendation?
16 MR. MCNEILL: Okay. We're saying that in the
site-specific study, and it would have to be determined on
a site-specific basis, based on core sampling of the soil
18
and the material of the ozorten and the matrix.
19
The determination needs to be made on methods of
20
reclamation to minimize radiological material remaining near
the surface.
22
As I say, it would have to be done in the site-specific
£ J
study --
24 J
MR. TRAINA: This plan ---
20
-------
i MR. MCNEILL: --to have mining and reclamatioi
2 methods which would allow the overburden to be placed back
3 in such a manner that the top three or four feet of the
4 soil or material would not contain the radionuclide material
s there in the strata.
6 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
7 MR. MCNEILL: We have been asked Some
8 comments have been made that we need more detail, and just
9 how we would go about doing that.
10 It would have to be done on a site-specific study at
n a given site, mining site, based on core tests and analysis
12 of radionuclides in the samples prior to establishment of
13 mining and reclamation plans.
)4 Okay. The next one is to meet existing county and
)5 state requirements. Again, that's repetitive; that was
16 given on reclamation.
17 Plus, we're asking, in the site-specific study, that
)g a determination is made on existing wildlife habitat on the
mine site and in surrounding areas in .the site-specific
20 study and the mining and reclamation plan have provisions
2) for protecting wildlife habitat, existing wildlife and
22 wildlife habitat.
And the next one is to provide for protection and/or
24 restoration of wetlands, which falls under Section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and also for water
21
-------
from mining and beneficiation operations.
2 Under our projected scenario, we're stating, where :we
3 project effects, we're stating that there will be no new
source chemical plants in the study area.
This is based on information we've gotten from the
industry, plus other information which indicates the
chemical processing capacity that is needed, as long as
8 mining will occur in this area, that the' chemical processing
9 capacity is already here; no new capacity is projected to
10 be needed.
n However, you know, there's no way to assure that
12 someone won't tomorrow request a permit for constructing
13 a new chemical plant, so we,.as I say, under the scenario,
14 we're not projecting any new chemical plant, but we do
in the proposed action list requirements for any new
16 chemical plant operation, which would require a new source
NPDES permit.
)8 The first one, which I don't have exactly in the order
that they are in the EIS I'm going to clarify a couple
20 of points a little bit.
2 The first one I have listed here is to meet existing
?2 standards of performance for new sources for air emissions.
But in addition to that, either recover fluorides or provide
for control of fluoride levels in gyp ponds to assure that
fluoride emissions from the entire plant complex don't exceec
22
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
allowable fluoride emissions from the plant complex.
And this would include gyp pond emissions. This,
of course, would have to be determined- in a site-specific
study, as to what levels of fluorides would be allowed from
gyp ponds.
The second one is, also on water, we say to meet
existing standards of performance for new sources, and in
addition to that, we say provide for recirculation of
non-processed, as well as processed water, and to provide
the same surge capacity for non-processed water that is
required for processed water for new sources.
And we're further stating that, during times, during
rainfall events when that surge capacity is exceeding and
treated discharge is required, that, in all probability,
more stringent or more concentrations of the pollutants
will be necessary to protect receiving waters into Tampa
Bay and the Peace basins than are listed in the current
EPA effluent guidelines for new sources.
The third one is to provide for lining the gyp ponds
with an impervious substance, unless it can be demonstrated
71 j 1..'--. the site-specific study that lining is not needed to
p:r "f.ect: ground water quality.
>nd then the last one, we're saying encourage recovery
M j| "i .noivi an wider current marketing conditions. This
o,;l x.iiL •> '.. '-1 be done, even if most, if not all of the
23
-------
i existing chemical plants in central Florida right now are
2 either in the planning, design, construction or operation
3 stages of uranium recovery processes from the phosphoric
4 acid.
5 MR. TRAINA: Excuse me. Let me ask you one
6 another question. With regard to the items on fluoride and
7 uranium recovery, is it the intent here of the document to
g have the source address those two items in the site-specific
9 EIS's?
,0 MR. MCNEILL: Yes.
n MR. TRAINA: From an economic standpoint, they
]2 would have to address both fluoride and uranium?
]3 MR. MCNEILL: Uranium recovery, right.
14 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
15 MR. MCNEILL: Okay. With that, as I say, just
)6 a brief summary of the proposed action, I'll turn it back
)7 over to Mr. Traina.
18 As far as what we're saying, it is indeed the most
19 important part of the hearing tonight, to hear comments
2Q from you.
21 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. McNeill.
Before we get on to the next part of the program, and
the most important part, I would like to make a few comments
23
with regard to public participation.
24
Not only is it the agency policy to involve the public,
25 24
-------
i frankly, it's a legislative requirement; it's in the law,
2 Both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean
3 Air Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act,
4 have provisions in there that there will be public par-
5 ticipation in a host of activities that the agency under-
6 takes, not the least of which is this activity tonight
7 involving development of impact statements, so if you
8 want to look at it You have an obligation under the
9 law, if you will, to come forward tonight and express
10 yourself publicly.
n We would like to say that the hearing is being
,? conducted pursuant to regulations that EPA's put out,
I3 and those regulations call for other things, that notice
14 of the hearing be put in the local press, and we had
15 notice of this public hearing published in the Sarasota
16 Hera Id-Tribune on May 8th, 20th and 21st; and the Tampa
17 Tribune and Lakeland Ledger on May 7th and 21st, 1978.
18 In addition to those notices, copies of the public
19 notice were mailed to each of the individuals or organi-
zations on our EPA mailing list, as well as to all the
local, state and federal agencies involved.
I would ask at this point that those of you that
72
haven't yet done so, fill out a registration card, especially
if you want to speak tonight. There's a place on that card
25 to indicate that you'd like to be a speaker.
-------
i Also on the card is indicated if you'd like to be
2 on the EPA mailing list to receive, not only the final
3 results of these proceedings, but any other activities
4 that EPA is conducting in this area. There's a place
5 to put yourself on our mailing list, and we would ask
6 that all of you fill out a card so that we'll know who
7 was here tonight and also who we would notify with regard
8 to the final EIS on the subject.
9 The hearing will be from here on, as it has been,
10 conducted informally. There are no rules of evidence.
n We ask that as you come up to identify yourself and the
)2 organization, if any, that you represent.
]3 If you have written statements, I'd appreciate re-
)4 ceiving a copy so we can give it to our court recorder.
15 This meeting is being recorded tonight. The transcript
16 of it will be available in our offices in Atlanta, and
|7 I believe at the office in Tallahassee, but certainly in
Atlanta, and you can make your arrangements with the court
recorder if you'd like to get a more immediate copy.
Okay. I would like to now call on Linda Campbell.
2) MS. CAMPBELL:
I'm here to present a statement relative to
the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement on behalf
24 of the Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a group
-------
i We have always been interested in wild land
2 areas and we are particularly concerned about landscape
:) alterations and reclamation associated ---
A (Whereupon, the proceedings were
5 interrupted for an acoustical
6 adjustment)
7 MR. TRAINA: I'm sorry to disturb you. Could
e you start again, please?
9 MS. CAMPBELL:
10 I'm here to present a statement relative to
11 the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement on behalf
12 of the Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a group of
13 professional wildlife biologists in this state.
u We have always been interested in wild land
is areas and we are particularly concerned about landscape
i6 alterations and reclamation associated with phosphate
17 mining in Florida.
18 We will submit a written statement for your
,9 consideration prior to the June 23rd, 1978, deadline,
20 but we would also like to take this opportunity to publicly
21 comment on this report.
22 Basically, we are concerned about the lack
23 of a thorough discussion of the impacts of phosphate
24 mining on fish and wildlife habitats. Throughout the
25 report there are references to the relative value of
27
-------
various habitat types without reference to the source of
2 | this information or value judgment.
3 I With the exception of a statement like
"high habitat diversity supports a diversity of wildlife,"
it is very misleading and inappropriate to indicate that
a particular habitat type has high or low value as wildlife
habitat.
Another related point is that above ground
slime ponds do have value as wildlife habitats and add to
10 landscape diversity, but discussion of these benefits are
n minimal in the report.
12 As professional wildlife biologists, we
]3 support the concept that above ground slime ponds are
beneficial to wildlife, particularly wetland species,
]5 and we discourage the total elimination of these areas.
)6 We would also like to see changes in the
]7 current state regulations, which would allow shallower
slopes along edges resulting in wider littoral zones.
I 8
Finally, we would like to see more con-
sideration given to fish and wildlife in your criteria for
wetlands restoration.
As stated on page 2.34 of the report, good
wetlands restoration has yet to be demonstrated and we
L-
-------
i research into restoration of fish and wildlife habitats
2 on phosphate mined lands.
3 In summary, we are disappointed in the report
4 as it fails to provide a comprehensive, objective, full
5 disclosure assessment of the impact of phosphate industry
6 activities on fish and wildlife habitats.
7 Thank you for your attention.
8 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
9 Homer Hooks ?
,o MR. HOOKS:
11 Thank you, Mr. Traina.
,2 My name is Homer Hooks. I'm President of
13 the Florida Phosphate Council. I appear here tonight on
14 behalf of the following companies:
15 Agrico Chemical Company j Borden, Incorporated;
16 Brewster Phosphates; Conserv; Electro-Phos Corporation;
17 Farmland Industries; Freeport Phosphate Mining Company;
,e Gardinier; W.R. Grace and Company; International Minerals
]9 and Chemical Corporation; Mississippi Chemical Corporation;
20 Mobil Chemical Company; Occidental Chemical Company;
21 Royster Company; Stauffer Chemical Company; Swift
?2 Agricultural Chemicals Corporation; T/A Minerals Corporation;
23 and USS Agri-Chemicals.
24 Before proceeding in my comments, Mr. Traina,
25 and gentlemen, I have some good news for all the people of
29
-------
Polk County and, indeed, central Florida.
2 I was advised late this afternoon that the
3 State Senate today passed by a vote of 35 to 0 the land
4 reclamation act, bill, which was before them and which
5 is the product of the Land Reclamation Study Commission
i
6 1 appointed by the Governor.
7 Mr. Bud Hendry, who was here, was Chairman.
I think we all be gratified at this overwhelming passage
O
of this legislation which, incidentally, was jointly
10 supported by the Audubon Society, the Florida Phosphate
Council, many others, the Governor, because I think it
once and for all assures the ultimate and expeditious
reclamation of the old lands about which we've had so
I J
much problems through the years.
Further, it sets up an institute of phosphate
research for the first time in the history of this state,
which will permit long range, basic, and applied research
to be conducted on a very sound and scientific basis.for
18 f J
this industry, and I think we're all pleased about the
passage of this legislation, which now goes to the Governor
for his signature.
I'll be very brief in these comments. It
2?
will be followed b" submission of a more detailed written
23
statement for inclusion in your record.
24
Perhaps a brief bit of history to get us to
'30
-------
1
get us to where we are: On March 4, 1976, you will recall
2 that President Ford instructed the Council on Economic
3 Quality to conduct this survey, this study.
4 At that time, the Florida Phosphate Council
5 strenuously opposed the expenditure of public funds for
6 this study on three grounds:
7 First, we contended that there was sufficient
g information and data available through the DRI process and
9 otherwise which, upon collation, would provide the in-
1Q formation needed for this kind of interdisciplinary
n analysis of the impact of the phosphate industry in
central Florida in the seven-county area.
Secondly, we argued that there was already
sufficient enforcement and permitting authority at
14
all levels of government, federal down to municipal, to
sufficiently protect and safeguard the interest of the
16
public and the environmental impacts of phosphate mining.
Third, we argued that this would, in effect,
1 8
impose a de facto moratorium on the beginning of new
phosphate mining, which was badly needed.
We were overruled. The order was given to
21
proceed with the study. We cooperated in good faith with
it.
23
Two years and 1 million dollars later, we
24 '
now have the, draft Environmental Impact Statement before us.
31
-------
We have participated actively, as I
indicated, on the advisory committee. I personally
have attended every meeting of that committee, and I
think only Bucky down in Punta Gorda has been to all
of them as well.
We've reviewed thirteen working papers
and five scenarios and given very close attention at
all steps of the process.
What is the draft EIS we now have? We've
10 been told repeatedly by EPA that it is essentially a
n guide, a report on the anticipated impacts of mining
12 for use by EPA and other permitting authorities; in
)3 effect, an effort to balance the effects, primarily
environmental, but taking into account, as well, socio-
economic, balancing the effects of these influences of
16 phosphate mining on the area, not to be considered a
fixed and rigid regulatory document.
The proposed action section, which appears
on 1.70 to 1.72 in the draft, is a synthesis or an
evaluation of what kinds of steps appear desirable to
achieve this balance of effects.
And we feel very strongly that through all
this, we must keep in mind that the bottom line is the
site-specific EIS. This is where the final judgment must
be made on. the application of a particular mining site, on
25 32
I-14*-
-------
the particular environment of that area.
2 So we approach an analysis of this
3 document on two, levels; first, the draft EIS itself;
secondly, the proposed action.
5 Now, we've done this, I think, in a very
6 | systematic and careful way. We submitted these documents
to a panel of consultants, one of whom will speak to you
8 tonight, Dr. Lester G. Bromwell, whose major projects
9 have included earth dams, hydraulic fills, dredge
|0 material, excavation, cofferdams, strip mining, mining
n waste disposal, has headed up the industry's solid waste
clays disposal project;
13 Dr. George W. Cornwell, head of Eco Impact,
Gainesville, an acknowledged international authority in
aquatic ecosystems, ornithology and wildlife management;
much of his experience involves assessing environmental
impacts and regional resource planning;
Also Dr. Henry Fishkind, Assistant Professor
18
of the Department of Economics, at the University of
Florida, who has investigated the socioeconomic aspect
of the EIS. He's done consulting work for the Florida
2)
Defenders of the Environment, .Environmental Science and
22
Engineering, Florida Sugar Cane League, and the State of
4 J
Florida;
24
33
Benjamin W. Breed love, presently a consultant
1-142
-------
! with Breed love and Associates in Gainesville, specializing
2 in aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, water quality
3 analysis, ecosystem energy modeling;
4 And Gordon F. Palm of Lakeland, who is
5 a specialist in plant design, start of construction,
6 expansion, modernization, control of air and stream,
7 pollution control, and solid waste disposal.
8 Now, I cite these gentlemen simply to
9 indicate the credibility and the kind of people who have
10 reviewed these documents, and they've done it thoroughly.
n In addition to them, we've submitted the
12 documents to our own overview committee, Mr. C.A. Campbell
]3 of International Minerals and Chemical; Mr. Jene Terry of
14 W.R. Grace; Mr. Richard Murphy of Farmland; Mr. Bruce
Galloway of Borden; Mr. Spencer Roberts of Mississippi
)6 Chemical; and Mr. Dick Timber lake of Brewster Phosphates.
So that very careful review had a very
high level of expertise.
Now, as to the draft EIS, we find some very
19 ' J
favorable comments in it, and I want to be sure that I
single them out lest anyone allege that we're only here
to attack the product, because we're not.
Additionally, increasing numbers of phosphate
pits have recreational potential if properly reclaimed, and
many have been transformed into private and/or public
25 34
-------
\ fish management areas and parks.
2 Going further in the draft EIS, a significant
3 beneficial effect on fresh water sport and commercial
4 fisheries will be the increased acreages of surface water
5 resulting from reclamation of mining pitsc
6 This additional surface water represents
7 significant potential for establishing good commercial
8 and recreational fisheries.
9 Local alterations of the flow regimes of
10 three major rivers, the Peace, Alafia, and Little Manatee,
n will be minor and obscure to normal flow variations.
12 Minimal impact has been assigned to slime
)3 placement, since the ponds temporarily support a variety
of wildlife and since terrestrial habitat eventually will
14 '
develop or be reclaimed in the slime areas.
Several abandoned slime areas are now used
16
17 as wildlife sanctuaries.
Also not necessarily advantageous is the
18
elimination of the relief of slime pond embankments.
Actually, vegetational zonation associated with these
slopes is more desirable for a terrestrial bayou.
22 Finally, land use plans must reflect needs
projected beyond reclamation and incorporate fish and
wildlife values by leaving some pits for reclamation by
24 J
35
natural processes and by insuring a. mixture of surface
-------
water and storage, meandering streams, vegetative flood
2 plains and forested uplands.
3 However, beyond these citations, we find
several errors of fact and conclusion in the draft EIS,
5 which will be addressed specifically in the written
6 comment which will follow.
The important thing is, in par judgment,
that if this draft EIS is to be used, as it has been
described to us,it will be used, as a guide to be in-
)0 terpreted by other enforcing agencies, it must be an
,, accurate and scientifically defensible document, because
]2 these agencies who will be using this as a guide have
13 not been privy to the evolution of the scenario or
14 examination of the working papers.
15 Therefore, it's very important in our
16 judgment that the draft EIS, and certainly the final
)7 EIS, be scientifically accurate and defensible.
And it's our purpose, in the submission of
19 our comments, to make it so.
Now, as to the proposed action, let me say
21 at the outset that we're gratified that EPA's conclusion
22 is that phosphate mining ought to be allowed to continue
and expand to meet US and world demand for fertilizer and
food.
I must say at this point that EPA's conclusion
25 36
-------
i is not popular with many people, as we heard in Bradenton
2 Monday night, but it should at long last put to rest the
3 fears raised at the inception of this study and repeated
4 again and again as to, for instance, the quantity of
5 water, which EPA finds to be adequate with no new restraints
6 necessary. Radiation is well within tolerances.
7 Reserves appear to be adequate; hence,
e permission to go forward with expanded mining. Air and
9 water pollutants are manageable and under control.
10 Temporary disturbance of land which, inc-
11 cidentally, is projected to be 2.8 percent of the total
12 land area in the seven-county study area, is just that --
13 temporary, and that reclamation requirements are adequate
14 at all levels of government to restore the land, although
15 the draft, 1 must say, in some cases implies destruction
16 of the land.
,7 And finally, the economic vitality of this
,8 industry is recognized in the proposed action, the 61>QOO
19 employees, the $2 million annually put into the state's
20 economy.
21 We recently conducted a survey of the thirteen
22 proposed mine sites. We find that these are not net
23 figures for the whole industry, but they're real numbers
24 of what these proposed mines mean economically to the state
25 and the nation.
37
-------
They will provide 3,000 new construction
jobs, a financial payroll of $8 million. They will pro-
vide 3,200 permanent operating jobs with an annual payroll
of $64 million.
And taken altogether, they will put $545
6 million annually in the state's economy for goods and
7 services, so this is what we're talking about, really, in
8 terms of expansion of the industry economically,
9 The application of the guidelines in the
10 proposed action should be flexible enough to take into
n account the special considerations of the specific site,
12 Now, that's pointed up in two specific
13 areas of the proposed action that I want to describe very
14 briefly, that give us great concern.
)5 And here again, we underscore the common
)6 sense need for local site judgment. First, the elimination
17 of conventional above ground slime disposal areas; and
)8 secondly, the wetlandr provisions .
]9 With respect to minimizing the need for
20 slime ponds, the industry and the US Bureau of Mines have
2] been involved together in a project to accomplish this
22 since 1972 at a cost of $1,650,000 to the industry and
$385,000 to the federal government
It is sure to be addressed by the new phosphate
25 research institute, which passed the legislature today. We
38
-------
i are firmly committed to solving this problem, but the
2 vast differences between soil types of the percentage
3 of clays in the matrix from one mine to the other, making
4 uniform technology impossible, or at least unknown as of
5 today .
6 Moreover, the industry's bureau of research
7 has pointed us toward many new options for dealing with
a waste clays. These would allow a range of reclamation
9 alternatives to optimize a good program for a single mine
10 or for a larger area.
11 We would lose these options if we are
12 forced, as the proposed action might prescribe, if in-
13 terpreted that way, to place all clays below ground.
u As a matter of fact, these clay ponds offer
is a potential for high-quality wetland sites, so this
i6 particular element of the proposed action will certainly
17 require a specific evaluation of the local soil conditions
18 at each site and flexibility to implement the best
19 reclamation plan.
20 With respect to wetlands, I fear we are
21 in danger of becoming emersed in emotional reactions
22 before we have separately addressed the known scientific
23 facts .
24 Similarly, the impact of mining on the
25 habitat is fast getting bogged down in emotional overtones
39
-------
We fully share concern for protecting wetlands. Further,
2 we are interested in how the valuable phosphate can be
3 extracted from many wetland areas, and after mining,
these wetlands can be restored.
5 As a matter of fact, phosphate mining
6 offers the single greatest potential for significantly
increasing the wetland acreage in the seven-county area.
8 We dispute the contrary implications that
9 run through the draft EIS and the proposed action.
Dr. George Cornwell, with your permission,
Mr. Traina, will follow me and elaborate particularly on
the subject of the wetlands and on the habitat.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
Can I just ask you You addressed two items that
the council of the companies you represented objected to.
Does that assume that the other part of the scenario that
Mr. McNeill reviewed is not objectionable to the industry?
MR. HOOKS: We will have more detail, comment,
in our written statement. These, I would say, highlight
those matters that we wanted to call your particular
attention to tonight.
?2 MR. TRAINA: Fiwr instaocey the eliaiLnaeion of
rock drying, is that —
MR. HOOKS: We have no comment on that at this
time.
25
40
-------
i MR. TRAINA: I see. Okay, thank you, Mr.
2 Hooks.
3 Dr. Cornwell?
4 DR. CORNWELL:
5 Mr. Traina, gentlemen, I'm George Cornwell,
6 I'm a wildlife biologist and president of Eco Impact, Incr,
7 an ecological consulting firm in Gainesville, Florida.
8 I've been retained by the Florida Phosphate
9 Council to review the draft impact statement, and in some
10 fifty-five-page detail, comments on that document will be
n forthcoming to EPA shortly.
12 Just as background, I'd like to state I have
13 worked in and with wetlands, from Alaska to Argentina,
14 over the past twenty-five years.
15 I feel that wetlands and waterfall biology
16 are my formal specialty. I've been much taken and at one
17 time I held very firmly to the myth that phosphate mined
18 lands are and by necessity had to be wastelands.
)9 I was well conditioned to that belief, but
20 I found over the years that nature very often provides
2) ecological experiments for us to interpret and use, and
22 it's definitely done that in Polk County.
23 The impressive, biological virtues of the
24 naturally-restored mined lands in Polk County cannot be too
25
41
often extolled, and I think it's unfortunate that the
l-tn
-------
i draft impact statement does not draw more heavily on
2 that information base.
3 I note that Appendix C of the Archibald
4 Biological Station study on this subject offered by John
5 Edscorn is omitted entirely to this copy.
6 My own experience over the past several
7 years has been to look quite closely at the Christinie site
8 near Lakeland. In that site, there's a mesic hammock of
9 very high diversity, about fifty years old, and I seriously
10 doubt that most experienced Florida biologists in that
n community would recognize if they were standing on the
12 banks of a slime pond.
13 It's most impressive of what nature can
14 achieve when left to her own devices. I think most every-
15 body in this area are familiar with Saddle Creek Park
)6 which again, although heavily used for recreation is sub-
17 stantially the way the mining left it.
)8 Probably the least known site that could be
]9 looked at to reinforce this is the Tilghman mine southwest
20 of Fort Meade. This was mined around 1910, 1920, and it
2) has to me absolutely incredible diameters in the slash pine,
22 oak trees, on that site.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's record
specimens in the State of Florida therein, so as an applied
ecologist, I ask myself why are these spectacular results.
J-/JTI
-------
i occurring on mining lands, and I think a clue occurs in
2 the impact statement, on page 1.16, which I'd like to
3 read "Most soils of the study area are young and under-
4 developed, nearly level or gently sloping, acidic, very
5 sandy with high permeability, and generally low in clay,
6 organic matter, and plant nutrients."
7 I think that's an accurate, precise state-
8 ment of the unmined environment of much of the county.:
9 Now, in the mine lands, those that have not
10 been reclaimed into man-dominated systems, those that have
n been allowed to revert to nature, it seems to me several
12 things happen.
13 First of all, you have the increased clays
14 in the upper soil horizons, and these reduce permeability
15 and make the soil conditions moister, which favor forest
i6 species, like those that came in on the slime pond at the
i; Christ in ie site.
is They also favor such wetlands as fresh water
,9 marshes, as our University of Florida wildlife graduate
20 told you at the start of this hearing.
21 The second thing that happens is that a
22 certain amount of phosphate matrix is left in the upper
23 horizons within the root zone of the vegetation that comes
24 in after mining.
25 It's been well established that most Florida
-------
forest communities are limited or,'Starved for phosphate,
2 and the application of rock phosphate to pine flatwoods
3 is standard forest management procedure, so the mining
accomplishes this.
A third thing that I think is very important
to wildlife is that we have an increased variability in
the topography and slope.
This provides both potential for more niches
for a greater variety of species, and very importantly,
better sanctuaries.
From human disturbances, probably the most
lacking components of wildlife habitats in Florida is
a place where they escape man.
And the mining land in Polk County is one
of the few places where they can still do that, if they've
not been reclaimed by man and not being used.
I'm sure there are other reasons. One that
seems fairly evident, when you dig around in these sites,
is that there's a surprising amount of humus accumulating
in the eight varieties of soil; even ten years after
abandonment and the soil is taken out, there's a very high
percentage of humic material, and this is an index to
biological productivity and speeds, the values that we're
talking about here,,
I think that, really, none of this kind of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
-------
i analysis of material is in the draft statement, and I
2 think the statement would be more useful, in terms of
3 assessing restoration, if some< analysis of this type
4 was included.
5 I also think the lakes that occurred
6 by accident, as abandoned mining pits, are badly mis-
7 understood. Most of them have an excellent support
8 fishery. The fishery biologists in this region often
9 select them as their prime site for bass fishing.
10 Contrary to much opinion, many of them
n have good sHnorelines. They don't have as extensive a
12 littoral zone as you would plan if you were going to
13 re-dig them, but they do have very healthy and very pro-
14 ductive shorelines, by and large, again a function of time
,5 since they were mined, and,these shallow beaches of the
16 shoreline become wetland systems associated with the
17 aquatic systems and are highly productive.
i8 Also I'm concerned about their depth being
19 attacked. The life of Florida lakes and wetlands is often
20 very short because they are so shallow, and they serve
21 as nutrient traps, and the depth of the mining pits is a
?2 real asset in terms of both longevity of the lakes and in
23 terms of ecological health.
24 And finally, before leaving lakes, I'd like to
25 point out that the idea of restoring the pre^mining contour 45
-------
, and filling the mine pits with clay and- .waste materials
2 to grade level would eliminate a potential lake and
wetland habitat area, and I think this is a serious loss
4 in restoration potential and is, more or less, just a hang-
11
12
over of closed, strip mining thinking, where there's
something hallowed about getting back to the pre -mining
contour, which isn't always the case, and this points to
why there has to be a site-spec ifLc restoration program.
8
My overall impression of natural-restored
lands is one of increased diversity over most of the
ratural systems in the mining area and increased bio-
logical diversity over all the man-dominated systems.
Now, I think we should not lose sight of
I o
possibly 80 percent of the area consists of man-dominated
systems.
The naturally-restored lands are extra-
]7 ordinarily high in the wildlife value, and particularly --
]fl perhaps not of great importance to the biologists — but
particularly of the animal life that people value as part
of their esthetic background.
20
2| I'm thinking of the harriers, the hawks and
owls and eagles, or the wading birds, that have been the
only predators, and incidentally the biggest rattlesnake
that I ever walked within 6 inches of.
24
To my best knowledge, there is no spoken or
25 46
-------
! written report of a decline of a plant or animal species
2 in Polk County that a biologist has attributed to be the
3 direct result of phosphate mining in the last eight years.
4 Certainly none is offered in the draft
5 statement.
6 We have in Polk County a real, again, an
7 experiment that's been going on a long time, and I think
8 that if there are species that can be documented to have
9 declined as a result of phosphate mining, the draft impact
10 statement should point this out.
n Now, I would like to turn to the central
)2 point of all this, which is the wetlands, and I must
)3 address in some depth the statement that occurs on page
M 2.34 of the draft impact statement.
15 It's a brief paragraph which I'll read so
16 my comments can best be understood: "No feasible means -- "
17 this is from the impact statement -- "No feasible means of
18 restoring wetlands has been demonstrated, although
)9 reclamation can result in wet lands."
Now, here you see there's some real distinction
21 between wetlands and wet lands, but that distinction has
22 never been clarified biologically as to what the report
23 has in mind as being different, one from the other.
24 "To restore wetland habitat in order to
25 protect and propagate all the fish, shellfish and wildlife
47
-------
just listed --" and most of this page is a list of
2 species, many of them species of marine animals and
3 out in the open areas -- "To .restore wetland habitat
4 in order to protect and propagate all the fish, shellfish,
and wildlife just listed would require management of
variables needed for the creation of wetlands, which
some believe occur only naturally over a period of approx-
imately 4,000 years of natural processes.11
And then a citation occurs which I'll refer
10 to in a moraai t.
n "Only nature can create a wetland," and
the citation occurs again.
)3 This paragraph, more than any other in the
draft statement, brings into question the resource man-
agement aspect of the document, in my opinion.
It has been the human experience that if
man, lake or landslide or whatever causes land to be wet
long enough to sustain hydrophytic vegetation, which is
a jargon term for aquatic plants, a weapon results.
The Department of Agriculture and Department
of Interior had been urging and funding the construction
of man-made wetlands for over fifty years.
22
The beaver is the only mammal in North
23
America to make more wetland acres than man.
24
With built-in water management controls,
25 48
-------
i man-made wetlands can exceed natural wetlands In pro-
2 ductivity.
3 One USDA administrator estimated that
4 3.3 million of our ponds will have been constructed in
5 the US by 1980, averaging about 1 acre each.
6 The total acreage of man-made reservoirs,
7 impoundments and marshes far exceed that of farmed ponds.
8 While natural wetlands often are superior
9 to man-made wetlands in their overall quality, the
)0 difference is usually attributable to construction, man-
n agement, design and use.
)2 Man can and has constructed large acres of
13 wetlands with superior natural system value. The potential
14 for doing so as part of the strip mining process is
15 enormous.
)6 The draft impact statement seriously errs
17 in suggesting otherwise.
)8 Unfortunately, most of the 3,567,723 acres
w in the study area is poor wildlife habitat because man
20 has put so much of the area into alternative land uses
2) to provide higher yield cash crops.
22 Now, the logic of habitat is so simple.
23 Without, it, management of the wildlife resources is fruitless
24 because life is divided.
25 Conversely, wildlife can stand an incredible
49
-------
array of attacks if its habitat remains intact.
2 Ironically and quite by accident, much
3 of the best remaining wildlife habitat in the. mined
areas is also man-made in the form of unclaimed land.
s Equally ironically to me, public interest
6 groups most concerned with wildlife habitats preservation
7 fail to recognize this and were instrumental in passing
e the 1975 reclamation act, which goes about reclaiming
9 this excellent wildlife habitat and converting it to
10 more man-dominated and intensively-used, agriculture,
commercial, industrial and residential land.
12 Well-intentioned conservationists, en-
vironmentalists, government leaders, even professional
ecologists and resource managers are in practice missing
,5 the habitat message.
16 It can be abundantly read from the previously-
]7 managed landscape in Folk County.
Modern man is a super destroyer of wildlife
habitat, but he can be just as efficient in restoring habita
20 We seldom have a chance because restoring habitat is so
2, much more expensive than destroying.
22 This is why strip mining can be such a
23 powerful source of habitat restoration, since restoration
24 costs can be built into the pricing of the phosphate matrix
2 and restoration of natural systems can be part of the
50
-------
i mining process itself.
2 The intention of those wanting to maximize
3 natural habitat should be directed toward restoring more
4 and better acreage behind the mining, rather than preser-
5 vation from mining of often severely-impacted habitats.
6 The best can-do examples of massive wetland
7 habitat restoration can be credited to Ducks Unlimited.
8 I'm hammering into this because so many times in the
9 statement we're told that man can't create wetlands,
10 man can't restore wetlands.
n In forty years, Ducks Unlimited has
12 spent over $40 million to build 1,347 wetland habitat
)3 projects in Canada resulting in 2.5 million wetland acres
14 with 10,000 miles of wetland uplands added.
15 The 1977 program alone spent $10 million
)6 for 118 new habitats, adding 60,000 acres. In many
drought years, a preponderance of water fowl production
occurs in the man-made marshes that hold water, no
structural control, when the natural wetlands have gone
20 ^ °
21 Our US water fowl program is $100 million
annual budget, a good part of which goes to creating
wetlands and maintaining them.
L. *J
24 Some fifteen states now sell the state duck
stamps to raise revenues to do the same thing. The literatur
51
-------
is full of case histories that establish that man can
2 and has built high-*quality wetlands.
3 Finally, I would quote the excerpt from
"The Fisheries." This is taken from an opinion editorial
and is in no way representative of a scientific paper.
"God or nature does: cBedCe. the wetland t
but man clearly can and often does saturate the land with
8 water, which immediately starts the creative process," and
9 it's terribly misleading and damaging to leave you folks
10 with the idea that that can't be done.
MR. TRAINA: I must say something. I'm glad
12 "The Fisheries" recognizes that God still has the ability
13 to create wetlands. For a minute there, I thought just
14 the phosphate industry was.
15 (Laughter)
16 DR. CORNWELL: I don't think the phosphate
)7 industry has been directed or guided in the direction of
creating wetlands, and I think that's one of the functions
19 that this impact statement will do in future reclamation.
In terms of restoration, I would reiterate
21 the statement that the greatest potential for significantly
22 increasing the areawide inventory in the seven counties
is through phosphate mining activity.
24 None of the other major land uses are going
to have the potential built into them to create any
52
-------
i significant acreage of wetlands, and furthermore, I
2 believe it's much easier to restore wetlands than
3 virtually any of the other natural systems that are
4 present on the land to be mined.
5 Now, in the proposed action section dealing
6 with wetlands, I have a very great concern; that is that
7 it's going to be extremely difficult to protect wetlands
8 and mine around them, and even if you should have a
9 nourishment project to keep them alive during the mining
10 process, there's a very real probability for many of
n them that I've seen in areas to be mined of their being
12 purged and surrounded by any kind of compatible type of
)3 land.
)4 So in the proposed action, I think that
]5 we need a quality basis for distinguishing between Category
16 1 and 2 wetlands; in other words, this needs to be very
17 carefully developed.
)8 And then secondly, the potential for each
)9 Category 1 wetland to survive mining must be determined.
20 It would be pretty heartbreaking to wind up with wetlands
21 that were preserved and then went dry.
22 I think both of these considerations are
23 best relegated to site-specific DRI or EIS process.
24 However, an areawide guideline for assessing
25 these individual wetland characteristics should be put
53
-------
i together by the concerned parties.
2 MR. TRAINA: Are you saying, Br. Cornwell,
3 that you do recognize that wetlands should be identified
4 and protected in this area that you would relegate
5 consideration
6 DR. CORNWELL: Very definitely. I would put
7 the riverine systems ahead of that category, and I'm sure
8 there are others that would definitely fall into a high
9 enough quality to weigh the preservation question and then --
10 MR. TRAINA: You recognize that some wetlands
n should be preserved?
12 DR. CORNWELL: Oh, I'm all for preserving
,3 every high productive, high quality wetland system we can.
14 I'm also very much for increasing the inventory
)5 of those type systems.
16 MR. TRAINA: Let me ask you a more or less
17 technical question. I'm not a biologist, so please excuse
]8 me if I don't get the right words.
)9 On the question of diversity, as I understand it,
that is one of the essential elements, looking at the
2] productivity of the value of any area, the wetland included.
22 Are you saying that biological diversity has been
23 increased because of phosphate mining into these areas?
24 DR. CORNWELL: I'm saying that's very
25 definitely the case for many of the lands that have been —
54
-------
i I'm saying I feel that's very definitely the case for
2 many of the lands that reverted naturally to, and had
3 time for diversity to develop.
4 MR. TRAINA: In other words, the wetland
5 that before was less diverse than the wetland that was
6 subject to mining, is that what you're saying?
7 DR. CORNWELL: I'm saying that a fresh water
s marsh system can come in following a mining operation given
9 adequate time because the diversity develops over time
10 than that wetland, for the reasons I started out with, the
n why aspects. It can have a higher diversity because it
,2 has a. higher productivity, and it has more niches, than
13 a natural system fresh water marsh prior to mining.
14 MR. TRAINA: Is there data that confirms
15 this or just something that you —
,6 DR. CORNWELL: No, sir, I don't believe there -
,7 Unfortunately, these types of things have not been studied.
18 There is some limited data on the lake edges that the Game
,9 and Fresh Water Commission has.
20 Their studies show them to be very healthy.
2, MR. TRAINA: From the beginning of the mining
22 process to the point where you say that you have restored
23 wetlands, what period of time are we talking about?
24 DR. CORNWELL: It would depend on — For
25 wetlands, it would depend on the wetland. The fresh water
55
-------
marsh could come in very quickly, within two to three
2 years, particularly if the^siteis shaped, to have
3 a fresh water marsh come in.
On forested wetlands, for species like cypress
trees and gum trees going toward the swamp forest-type
community, that would depend on your propagation unit
and how much energy you put into planting, but in
8 Louisiana and Mississippi, where the Forest Service has
9 researched these species, you can get 15-inch DBH of
10 diameter from cypress ten years after they're planted.
n MR. TRAINA: Ten years pfter, in this case,
12 the pond would be abandoned or not used any .langey,
in that
DR. CORNWELL: Right.
15 MR. TRAINA: Now, how long does the pond
16 usually work?
DR. CORNWELL: Well, I think we have the
18 option in restoration to structure areas being restored in
19 , terms of topography and water supply to fit the system
20 we want to come in.
Now, in the past that hasn't been so. The natural
succession has come in, and on the Tenoroc site, for
example, you can see the ponds moving out, closing in, and
the shrubbery coming out, but they haven't gone yet to the
tree stage system.
56
-------
MR. TRAINA: When was that site first developed
or used ---
DR. CORNWELL: These ponds that I'm thinking of
on the Tenoroc site are probably twenty years old that are
now having tree species moving out onto the land.
6 MR. TRAINA: So in that case, it was a twenty-ye,
lapse --
DR. CORNWELL: Yes.
8
MR. TRAINA: -- before it was just beginning to
10
DR. CORNWELL: But again, this is because there
was no management, except abandonment. There was no design
of the abandoned base .
I J
MR. TRAINA: But if you did design these as you
had suggested, how long a time do you think it would take to
15
develop this area that again is more diverse or as diverse as
it once was?
17
DR. CORNWELL: I think that for most of the
aquatic and wetland types, twenty years would be --- You'd
have them well on the way to where you want them to be.
For the fresh water marsh types, five years, and it'd
be well mature .
22
The mesic hammocks, like at the Christ inie site, it may
take longer, not to establish them, but they just take longer
24
to develop, whether they're planted by man or naturally.
57
-------
MR. TRAINA: What happens to the water in land
that is supported by the wetlands area in that twenty-year
period?
DR. CORNWELL: Well, that would depend on the
water crop approach and, you know, all the aquatic factors
6 and the shaping of the water sheds that feed into systems you
7 design, and I think in a restoration plan you can plug all
that in. You shape and configure the land, the upland portion
of the sites, to support your wetland components, and you use
10 things like sand tailing to go for the dry site communities.
n MR. TRAINA: Can this be done on existing areas?
,2 DR. CORNWELL: Yes, sir.
]3 MR. TRAINA: Has it been done, to your knowledge
M DR. CORNWELL: No. There's been, for example,
15 there's been very little experimentation with the sand tailing-
type habitats, and the pine that's been planted on them have
done fairly well.
They haven't really done much with the right kind of
vegetation, in terms of re-vegetation. I think that ought to
come with experimentation.
We have It's not widely recognized, but we have
hundreds of experience^ in what could be called the art of
managing land, drawing heavily on European experience.
L J
And we have had historic background, both to the
capability of doing this, and the fact that it hasn't been
58
-------
, funded and done experimentally in Polk County or in the
2 seven-county area is not in any way saying it can't be done,
3 and there isn't anything mystical or magical about it.
4 MR. TRAINA: As an ecologist, would you
5 suggest that you work on the existing areas and see whether
6 you can restore those, hold off on new areas, to see whether
7 a program like this could work in Polk County?
8 DR. CORNWELL: Well, I think that there shoulc
9 be some experimentation, and some experimentation's under-
,0 way right now, but I feel that for much of it, particularly
n in the wetland types, that for 20 or 30 percent of them,
12 the best thing you can do is just to allow them to revert
13 without doing much of anything, because you would have
)4 that rough terrain sanctuary that's proven to be so
15 important.
)6 The areas that you designate for marsh, much of it
,7 being slime pond management areas, that would come out
18 very quickly, and that could be done right away.
19 When you start talking about reforesting, to go to
20 a forest, wetland situation, because that's going to be
2) costly and labor-intensive, you know, so I think you should
22 experiment with it some locally.
23 But I think if you do it and design it right and do
24 it intensively enough, in two or three years, you'll know
25 where you're going and you're ready to put it out in large
59
-------
use.
2 MR. TRAINA: Thank you,
3 DR. CORNWELL: Your questions have taken me
further along in what I had to say, and I'll just close
now.
A couple of thoughts on the wildlife impact aspects.
It's difficult for me to envision any possible long term
8 adverse effect areawide on any particular wildlife species
9 or on man and wildlife interface, in terms of game animals
10 and pest animals, and this sort of thing.
Now, unfortunately that's probably one of the
12 greatest weaknesses of this impact statement, as has
13 already been pointed out to you, and that is the discussion
and the rationale
I mean, it's one thing to say there ate twelve species
or whatever that are endangered, threatened to be adversely
)7 impacted, whatever the number.
But you can't find anywhere in the discussion of
I O
how or what or what's their rationale for that, but again
I'm looking at the experience we had in Polk County, and
I'm trying to see what species of this county have been
adversely impacted county-wide that can be attributable to
mining.
And I have a lot of trouble pinning down one species.
I think that it's clear to man, looking at the naturally -
25 60
'_ f7O
-------
scored land from a wildlife standpoint, the net overall
effect is just going to be a big plus to wildlife; whether
it's just left to revert naturally, it would be a big
plus, or we're going to man-dominated systems.
And just remember what the mining's taking out is
principally man-dominated systems, and the report breaks
down; and you have an awful difficult time pinpointing
what specific natural systems are going to fall into the
8
mining areas .
But if we take this jump that I'm talking about in
restoration, really go after restoring natural habitats,
plus providing wildlife sanctuary for man and domesticated
predators, this seven-county area could be the African
I O
belt of Florida.
14
Thank you.
15
MR. TRAINA : Thank you, Dr. Cornwell.
16 J
I'd just like to make just one comment before we
17 J
get to the next speaker, and that is it would seem to me
18
that the industry might want to look at the existing areas
in terms of some of the suggestions you had and see what
20
they can do with existing areas.
I understand your comment is with regard to the
22
recommendation that on new areas, if the Indus try-could
23
demonstrate on existing areas these lands could be restored,
24 *
certainly I think it gives us the best data base.
25
61
-------
Thank you very much, sir.
2 DR. CORNWELL: Yes, sir.
3 MR. TRAINA: Pete Edward Holloway.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
My name is Edward Holloway. I'm here as
an interested citizen. I'm not here because I'm an
expert witness or I'm being paid.
I have owned some mined land for about
twelve years. I'm a developer. I own some citrus,
10 some cattle land, involved in some agriculture.
n I've had some practical experience in
12 working with these phosphate lands, or the equivalent.
13 I've farmed it. I've planted grass. I raised cows, and
M I take issue with lots of the things that I find here in
15 your impact statement.
16 On page 2 Well, first, let rue say that
7 I agree just about 100 percent with our last speaker,
]8 George Cornwell, and it's been my practical experience
]9 in working with these lands that he is —• My experience
tells me, bears out just what he has been telling you.
«
21 My working these lands tells me the wildlife
habitat and populations are improved, and I can look at
some of these flatwood lands down in Sarasota County and
south of here, and in my opinion, mining perhaps would
improve these lands.
62
1-172.
-------
i And ray experience tells me that the digging
2 and mining of these lands, bringing these clays to the
3 surface, where they hold moisture, these lands become
4 very, very productive, and my recommendation here to this
5 review committee, I think the mines have missed an op-
6 portunity to be creative with their mining, and they've
7 truly missed an opportunity to take advantage of what
8 they could do with respect to making more lakes and making
9 more wildlife areas.
10 And it would be my opinion that even these
n unmined areas where wildlife is very plentiful, that
12 perhaps the tops of the docks could be leveled and a way
13 made for people to get into these areas to actually see
14 what is there.
15 And I do think that we're on the right
16 track here, and Dr. Cornwell certainly brought this out
)7 very,vividly.
18 Paragraph 3(b) on that page 2 says pro-
)9 ductivity of the mined area will be reduced even after
20 reclamation. I do disagree with that. I think I can
2) substantiate my statement.
22 I agree that the recreational resources
23 will be reduced, and that esthetic aspects will change,
24 and my experience has been with respect to the wetlands.
25 I don't think it will take as long as Dr. Cornwell said
63
/-/7J
-------
! for the wetlands to actually come back. These lands
2 are very fertile by reason of the clays, and they hold
3 the moisture, and you start off with a heavy vegetation,
4 willows, and it surprises you when you.Beally get into
5 it and study it.
6 I came down here because I read last night
7 about the wetlands, about the companies not being able
8 to mine the wetlands, and that concerned me greatly as
9 a land owner, and I can see where a farmer or a rancher's
10 individual rights are being threatened, where he perhaps
n owns some low lying areas. Perhaps these areas have
12 valuable phosphate deposits worth several thousand dollars
)3 an acre.
M Next door there's an owner with high lands
]5 with the same type of deposits. One is permitted to be
16 mined; one is not permitted to be mined. This concerns
]7 me greatly as an owner.
18 Should this take place and land be con-
trolled, in my opinion, the owner of those low lying lands
should become saved in some way, and I think the restriction
of that wetland area by land use control, compensation,
certainly in my mind would be unconstitutional, I would
23 hope.
And that gives me concern. The other cause
of concern that scares me, when I read, even look at this,
64
-------
i as a buyer of phosphate fertilizer, and knowing what's
2 happening in the prices of food and farm products, it
3 scares me as to what could happen, by reading of the
4 action, you know, of so much regulatory measures.
s Thank you.
6 MR. TRAINS: Thank you very much, sir.
7 B.J. Register?
8 MR. REGISTER:
9 My name is B.J. Register. I live at
10 Bartow. This (indicating jar) is a specimen of water
n that I got this afternoon.
12 I would like Mr. Hooks to come up and give
13 me an estimate on what he would think if finding that
14 wa ter.
15 MR. TRAINA: I couldn't get Mr. Hooks to do
,6 that, but would you describe where you got the water, or
17 whatever it is?
)8 MR. REGISTER: From 1952, about 1952, until
19 they mined out across 555, for the most we had perfectly
20 good water.
21 I complained to IMC. He said the trouble
22 was in the pump.
23 MR0 TRAINA: Is that water from your pump?
24 MR. REGISTER: This is water from my pump
25 that I got this afternoon.
65
/-/7.S-
-------
i MR. TRAINA: Did you have anybody look at
2 that water?
3 MR. REGISTER: Beg your pardon?
4 MR. TRAINA: Have you ever had anybody look.
5 at what was in that water? It doesn't look too good from
6 here.
7 MR. REGISTER: Let me just pass it down
8 here. Look down in the bottom of it.
9 MR. TRAINA: This is water from your well
10 that's on your land?
n MR. REGISTER: It's from my well, right out
12 of my spigot this afternoon.
,3 MR. TRAINA: Oh, from your spigot that's in
]4 your house?
,5 MR. REGISTER: Right.
,6 MR. TRAINA: How long has it been this way?
)7 MR. REGISTER: It's that way or worse all
]g the time.
,9 MR. TRAINA: All the time?
20 MR. REGISTER: All the time it's ---
21 MR. TRAINA: I hope you don't drink this
22 water.
23 (Laughter)
24 MR. REGISTER: No, no.
25 MR. TRAINA: Are you close to one of these
66
-------
i mining or chemical plant areas?
2 MR. REGISTER: Beg your pardon?
3 MR. TRAINA: Are you close to one of these
4 mining or chemical plant areas? Why do you think the
5 water looks this way?
6 MR. REGISTER: I think it's caused from
7 mining across 555 from where I live.
8 MR. TRAINA: How deep is you* well?
9 MR. REGISTER: I don't know. I didn't measurt
10 ifc'
n MR. TRAINA: I'm afraid to even open this to
12 smell it.
13 (Laughter).
M MR. REGISTER: Go ahead and open it.
15 MR. TRAINA: Am I going to taste it?
,6 (Laughter)
,7 MR. REGISTER: They sent somebody out and
18 said that our pump was giving us some trouble.
]9 MR. TRAINA: Your pump was giving you trouble?
2Q How long have you had this water that looks like this?
21 MR. REGISTER: Since ttoey mined over across
22 the road.
23 MR. TRAINA: How long ago was that, sir?
24 MR, REGISTER: About three or four years.
25 MR. TRAINA: Three or four years ago you
67
- Ill
-------
had water like this?
2 MR. REGISTER: Yes, sir.
3 MR. TRAINA: Did anybody look at the well?
MR. REGISTER: Yes, sir. They sent someone
5 out, and they said that the trouble was in the pump.
6 MR. TRAINA: Did you have your county health
people or somebody come look at your well?
MR. REGISTER: No.
o
9 MR. TRAINA: Well, I don't know what the
reason is, but since water like this shouldn't be in a
10
11
18
19
house, you ought to get
MR. REGISTER: I don't, either.
13 MR. TRAINA: Is there anything else, Mr.
14 Register, you'd like to tell us?
15 MR. REGISTER: No, sir. Until that mine
across 555 there, we never had a bit of trouble with the
water.
MR. TRAINA: Is there a pond or something
close by, a big pond?
2Q MR. REGISTER: No, sir. There's a standard
2) pond.
22
MR. TRAINA: That's used by the mining area?
23 MR. REGISTER: Yes. We're just across the
road from where they did mine.
MR. TRAINA: Are they still mining there?
68
-------
, MR. REGISTER: No, sir, not in that particula
2 area; on the other side.
3 MR. TRAINA: But your water still looks this
4 way, water still looks like that?
5 Well, I appreciate your bringing it to us.
6 Again, I can only suggest to you that certainly don't
7 drink it under any circumstances, and maybe you should
8 get your health department to come out and check it and
9 maybe they can make some studies as to why it is the way
10 it: is-
n (Discussion off the record)
12 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much for coming,
|3 sir. Appreciate it; thank you very much*.
.
14 That concludes the speakers that we had cards for.
15 At this time, I would like to ask, anyone else who hasn't
made a statement or anyone who
I'm sorry; excuse me, sir. You did hand me a card.
18 W.M. Leaders?
I'm W.M. Leaders, Technical Assistant to the
President of the Uranium Recovery Corporation, somehow
referred to several times in this report.
I'm disturbed by the lack of economic
evaluation and the impact of the regulation and of the
24 fertilizer industry of the United States of America,
particularly how it might affect our international balance
69
-------
i of payments, especially since this report indicates that
2 the foreign reserves are some ten times what they are
3 in the United States, most of them in Moslem countries.
4 And most, I'm disturbed by the lack of
s economic evaluation of the proposed requirements for
6 lining ponds with impervious membranes.
7 This has been going on in the water supply
8 industry in the United States for many years. Its
9 economic evaluation fe obviously known to the United States
10 of America.
n And I'm also concerned with the lack of
12 economic evaluation of a requirement for uranium recovery.
13 People who evaluated our industry, we are the only
u operating people taken for granted that we're making a
is tremendous profit.
16 I'm also very concerned with the lafek of
17 economic impact on human life in this area, if the
is industry were shut down.
19 Specifically, I would like to take exception
20 to paragraph (sic) 1.50. This is concerning low level
21 radiation, long term effects in the second paragraph on
22 this page at the top.
23 Low level effects, long term effects of
24 low radium levels, doses, are not fully known. I want to
25 call to the attention of the EPA that the human body
70
I- /BO
-------
, contains and has contained for many centuries .35 percent
2 of potassium.
3 Many of you who have been reading about
4 these crash diets may have heard about the potassium sodium
5 that causes death in people.
6 The human body has .35 percent of potassium
7 in the system, primarily in blood deposits and the nerve
8 tissues.
9 What most people don't know, including
10 your doctors, is that all potassium in nature is radio-
n active.
12 This was used very recently to date the
,3 moon rock. I published a paper in the American Chemical
M Society Journal in 1941, "The Use of Potassium to Date
15 Meteorites."
)6 This content of potassium in the human body
17 contributes 1,335 disintegrations per minute per pound of
18 body weight to date. In 150-pound human being, this is
19 200,000 disintegrations per minute in your blood stream
20 and at your nerve endings.
21 Your greatest exposure to extra radiation,
?2 ladies and gentlemen, is when you are very, very close to
another human being. Now, I'd like Mr. Nader to outlaw
that action.
24
(Laughter and applause)
71
- te
-------
i As a comparison, the gamma ray from the
2 radium-226, which is highly publicized in this report,
3 is .19 MEB or 190,000 electron volts. The gamma ray
4 from K-40, the isotope in your body and my body, has
s energy, 1.5 million electron volts, roughly twice the
6 energy of radium-226.
7 I don't want to get near these people.
8 The gamma ray energy, sometimes reported in the old
9 industry as being phosphoric acid and reported as radium-
10 226, is not true.
11 The gamma ray energy in the phosphoric
12 acid, which we treat as a by-product of the phosphate
13 industry, is the gamma energy of the natural isotope
14 of uranium U235, which has energy equivalent of 187
15 thousand electron volts or just 3,000 electron volts
,6 different than radium-226.
,7 And until the discovery of the radium
i8 lithium centimeter, it could not be distinguished from
19 radium-226, so the old literature is in error.
20 I am also quite disturbed that this report
2, does not include radiation surveys on unmined land in
22 Polk County, Lake County, Orange County, and other
23 counties along the shoreline of the geological formation
24 that runs from Orlando, Okeechobee north, through Georgia .
25 This is known to the radiological department
72
- (8
-------
i of HRS in the State of Florida. My children went to
2 school in Lakeland on unmined land, which has just as
3 high a background as the so-called reclaimed land in
4 Florida.
5 That's all, gentlemen.
6 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, sir.
/ I think that concludes the cards I have of people
8 who indicated they wanted to make statements.
9 Is there anyone else who would like now to come
10 forward?
n Yes, sir?
12 MR. CARR: Mr. Traina, I made a presentation
13 in Bradenton. I am Archie Carr with the Florida Audubon
)4 Society, Lakeland, Florida.
)5 I do not wish to take the time of another long
)6 treatise. I would like to perhaps, if it's permissible,
17 to ask Dr. Cornwell a couple of questions that will
18 perhaps expand on the testimony that we had here.
)9 MR. TRAINA: Certainly it's all right with
20 me, but I'll have to defer to Dr. Cornwell. I found his
21 statement rather intriguing. I don't want to get into a
22 discussion here.
23 MR. CARR: I can assure you that I'm not
24 going to be antagonistic to my former professor at the
25 University of Florida.
73
-------
i MR. TRAINA: I think you've gotten his
2 attention now.
3 (Laughter)
4 MR. TRAINA: If others can bear it,
5 certainly I can. I think I might learn something; I
6 was rather fascinated by what he had to say.
7 For the record, they just shook hands.
8 MR. CARR: I'd like to say that one of our
9 principal advisors on the question of restoration, Dr.
]0 Jim Lane of the Archibald station, has generally ad-
n vocated to us that a no-reclamation or minimal-reclamation
12 procedure is certainly the most favorable one, for the
]3 reasons that Dr. Cornwell has espoused, that if habitat
u is created, then wildlife would be enhanced.
15 There are a couple of items I'd like Dr. Cornwell
16 to try to expand on.
]7 First is a philosophical one, that we in the
)8 Audubon Society are, of course, concerned with ---- :We
19 are environmentalists; we view native Florida habitats
20 as important, per se.
2, I accept that a great deal of the terrain that will
22 be mined is modified countryside, farms and so on, but a
certain amount of it will be somewhat native habitat.
24
You seem to be suggesting that if we exchange that
for very modified habitat, which indeed may be richer, but
74
-------
i a very different habitat --- Now, if we adopt that as a
2 philosophy, then modification in the State of Florida
3 becomes permissible.
4 We end up with a cultivated ecosystem from one end
s of the state to the other.
6 How do we resolve that problem philosophically?
7 Should we permit any type of modification of the en-
8 vironment, even if the consequence of that modification
9 is a richer and Improved habitat, no longer a native
10 Florida habitat?
n So there's a philosophical question that I'd
12 Perhaps you'd like to comment on that.
13 The other is quite brief.
14 DR. CORNWELL: Yeah, I think they ought
,5 to be one at a time.
16 Philosophically, I've been committed in my lifetime
17 to causes of the Sierra Club and Wildnerness Society,
)8 Natural Parks Association. I've been a naturalist for
)9 the National Park Service and a biologist for the Fish
20 and Wildlife Service in Alaska, and certainly natural
2) systems are closer to my heart than man-disturbed or man-
22 dominated systems.
23 But you cannot study the history of man's occupancy
24 of land without recognizing that one of the hallmarks of
our species is changing our environment, and indeed
75
I- 18
-------
that is a trait common to virtually all born into
2 animal life.
3 I think that we have a capacity that we rarely
use, Co intelligently evaluate the ways in which we
modify our environment, and this discourse tonight is
a painful exercise in our trying to improve on the way
we've done it in the past.
I feel there's a great deal of room for improvement.
Now, there are few portions, even in Florida, that,
10 in terms of human impact I would feel the seven
n counties are among the most impacted by man of any
)2 block of seven counties in Florida.
13 The gold coast counties have larger acreages of
14 natural systems.
15 The consequence of this, when we look at the 20 per-
]6 cent more or less, is. that a lot of it is disjunct; it's
]7 isolated parcels, and its productivity falls way off.
I think that it's also clear, from the land analysis
in the impact statement, that we're talking about 3 to 4
, percent maximum of any natural habitat in the area that
is going to be impacted or eliminated on the short term
by mining.
I believe that — Well, one of the habitats that
we're most concerned about is the sand pine scrub, which
has been used for, you know, for a great variety of
76
-------
, human indulgences, and the forestry. You know, they use
2 this to the extent that they're in real trouble, but most
3 of the sand pine scrub in the seven-county area — and
4 it'll be just a few hundred acres -- is not on lands
5 to be mined.
6 The only parcel I know of, after looking at all
7 the DRl's they have done, is a ssiall 4 or 5-acre piece
8 in ^natee County among the closed mine sites.
9 Now, I think that's a clear cut example of where
10 the site-specific impact statement would recommend non
n mining of that; whereas, the focus of this impact
12 statement as discussed has been wetland, wetland,
13 wetland.
14 I would say that rambling beech and sand pine
15 scrub there is more Important ecologically than the
16 wetland acreage on the site .
)7 But for the great bulk of the land to be mined,
)8 or virtually all of it, I think the natural systems
19 they go under are the trade-off for the potential that
20 you have to create acreages, net acreages, that function
21 In terms of biota, do everything that you want that eco-
22 type to do.
And I think if you're looking for straight pre-
24 servation use, you need to go to the public ownership
parcels and —
77
-------
i And, you know, when I was a member of the Sierra
2 Club twenty-five years ago, they used to say, "How much
3 wilderness should there be?"
4 And the Sierra Club would say, well, we would like
5 half of 1 percent committed to that type of use, and now
6 it's 10 percent to preservation use so, you know, these
7 things change, but we are dealing basically with private
g lands with a very important resource underlying them,
9 and there has to be some combination of the preservation
10 philosophy and the trade-off you can get for mining land.
n MR. TRAINA: Do you want to continue
12 DR. CORNWELL: If the next question is
)3 simpler, my answer would be
14 MR. TRAINA: Well, a philosophical question
)5 certainly deserves a philosophical answer.
16 (Laughter)
)7 MR. CARR: Endangered species and habitats;
many endangered species are endangered because they have
a very unique habitat that is satisfactory for their
natural history.
2) Should we You're not suggesting that we
22 eliminate endangered species habitat and restore -- allow
some sort of natural restoration to occur?
e. \5
The point is it's very likely that you will not
25 restore anything useful for, say, one of these unique
78
l-iee
-------
] little plants that are involved.
2 Could you clarify your call for natural
3 restoration versus endangered species habitat pro-
4 tection?
5 DR. CORNWELL: All right. Again, well,
6 I'll point out that one of tthe great gaps in the draft
7 impact statement is identification of these species
8 beyond an enormously-long table. Chat's headed "important
9 Species," and to you and I, every species is of equal
,0 importance in the chain of life, so that's a nisnomer
n unto itself, so I don't know at this point what species
12 the biologists in this report are really saying will
13 be adversely impacted by mining.
14 And I don't know what their rationale is. I'm
15 saying that standing here right now, I could not name
16 one that I know as a fact would be endangered further
17 by the proposed action.
)8 MR. CARR: I'd, ask for further elaboration
19 on endangered species, next to myself, as a matter of fact.
20 With respect to wetlands, is there a difference
21 between restoring wetlands and creating a new one?
22 We can look at some of the slime ponds, as you've
23 said, and indeed they have water fowl and fish value,
24 wildlife value.
25 Isn't there a hydrological and ecological difference
79
-------
! in procedure where one creates a new wetland and one
2 restores a cypress swamp or river basin that exists
3 there now, with the EIS argument that one cannot
4 create the organic basis, the drainage system, and
5 ecological organic systems that evolve on top of that
6 and therefore the strong precautionary language in
7 the EIS?
8 DR. CORNWELL: Well, again, I would
9 believe that you and I and whoever went to school in
10 wildlife management, at some point in their background
n would feel confident in taking almost any piece of
12 real estate, and, if they can make the soil haavy
)3 enough to hold water and could share a water supply,
14 they would feel confident in the ability to create a
]5 wetland, the sophistication of which would only depend
16 on how much money they spent, starting from scratch,
starting with never a wetland at that site.
And of course, there are all kinds of wetlands,
twenty-some different kinds, and this general in-
terpretation has to be modified when you address each
21 wetland type.
There certainly is a difference between restoring
and creating, but much of the so-called restored wetland
was indeed destroyed as a wetland, the Horicin Marsh
25 in Wisconsin being a good example.
80
-------
i I mean, it was drained, and it was farmed; the
2 hydric soils were burned away, blown away, and gotten
3 down to a bare scene, but through water control and
4 through management, a marsh was again put there, and
s you might call that restoration, but really you're
6 starting from scratch with just a former wetland site
7 that no longer had wetland characteristics till you
8 went in there and put in structures for water and
9 managed it.
10 And I think that's really a fine point and not
,1 particularly relevant to the data base.
12 MR. CARR: Well, again, it's relevant if
]3 you're a purist ecologist. We might have a new species
14 evolve, a slime pond darter, for example.
is (Laughter)
,6 MR. CARR: And that, then, would be
,7 creation, but again, to fall back on the philosophical
18 argument
19 MR. TRAINA: Mr. Carr, could I ask you just
20 to conclude this subject? I don't want to get into this
2, in any great detail.
22 MR. CARR: Okay. Thank you very much.
23 MR. TRAINA: Would you summarize, if you
24 want to summarize, if you like?
25 MR. CARR: I might make this point on
81
I- IK
-------
i development, that we are indeed interested in pro-
2 tecting what we conceive of as native Florida habitat,
3 and we, for example, our organization, has advocated
the environmentally-endangered land bill protecting --
5 sought to obtain a native injunction to the Florida
6 landscape, and we see a qualitative difference between
7 highly-modified lands, all be it productive lands; it's
e good for the general wild lands of various species of
9 wildlife, but there's a qualitative difference between
10 that and the native habitat, even if it is a pine flat-
n wood or a scrub versus a very rich hammock.
12 And I think that society needs to consider those
13 things when we consider the alternatives, the options,
14 that we are presented with in the course of a major
15 mining event such as this.
16 Thank you very much.
17 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Carr.
IB Does anyone else care to make a comment at this
19 time?
20 (No response)
21 MR. TRAINA: I'd just like to say -- I say
22 this a bit of tongue and cheek -- that I always learn
23 something in these public hearings.
24 Tonight I learned that the phosphate industry rather
25 than God created wetlands and that man is more radioactive
82
-------
than uranium is .
2 (Laughter)
3 MR. TRAINA: Be that as it may, we're
going to keep the comment period open until June 23rd
5 so those of you who would like to send us written
,6 comments, please do so, and those should be addressed
7 to Mr. John Hagan, Chief of the EIS Branch, EPA,
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street N.W., Atlanta, Georgia.
As I said, we'll take into consideration all the
10 comments and statements that were made and will be made
and we will address those comments in the publication
12 of the final EIS, which is scheduled for July 31st.
13 Again, all persons on (he mailing list would
,4 receive a copy of those findings.
1S I want to thank you all again for coming.
,6 The meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon, the hearing was
)8 adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)
19
20
21
72
?3
-oOo-
83
-------
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C_ERT;iFI_CATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV
in the Matter of:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public
Hearing
City of Bartow Recreation Department
Bartow, Florida
7:00 p.m.
May 24, 1978
were held as herein appears and that this is the
original transcript for the file of the Agency.
JAP'
Official
-oOo-
/- /f 4-
-------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
A Public Hearing:
DRAFT AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
March 1978
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Date: May 25, 1978
Location: Punta Gorda, Florida
-oOo-
BAY PARK REPORTING COMPANY
COURI RhPORTING
1.) FOURTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETERSBURG. FLORIDA 33701
(813) 823-8388
-------
APPEARANCES:
THE CHAIRMAN:
PAUL TRAINA
Director of the Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
THE PANEL:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. MARVIN COLLINS
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
BILL STOWASSER
Bureau of Mines
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C.
BILL PHILLIPS
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
SPEAKERS PAGE
2 Robert Shedd 27
3 C. R. Johnson 30
Joseph R. Roach 31
5 Dr. M. H. Bigelow 39
6 S. R. Stedman 43
7 Samuel Wapner 45
8 M. W. Chesson 51
9 Jim Kelly 58
10 David Wilson 63
11 Robert McQueen 65
12 Jonathan Miller 77
13 Vasco Peeples 86
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?2
23
24
25
-------
2 (Whereupon, a,t 7:35 p.m. the
3 hearing was called to order)
MR, TRAIM: The hearing is open.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Paul
Traina, and I am Director of the Enforcement Division of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta,
8 Georgia.
9 The Regional Administrator of Region IV, Mr. John White,
10 has designated me to conduct this hearing tonight.
I would like to introduce the panel members. On my
12 far right is Mr. Bill Stowasser; Mr. Stowasser is with the
13 Bureau of Mines in Washington and is representing the Depart-
]4 ment of Interior.
|5 On my far left is Dr. Marvin Collins. Dr. Collins is
16 representing Jay Landers, the Secretary of the Florida
17 Department of Environmental Regulation.
18 On my immediate right is Mr. Bill Phillips, who is with
19 the Regional Counsel'r office of EPA in Atlanta.
2Q And on my immediate letL is Mr. John Hagan. Mr. Hagan
21 is Director oi the EIS Branch in Atlanta, Georgia, with EPA.
22 I also,,at thia time, would like to have the I
understand there's a number of county commissioners and
£. J
24 perhaps city officials here.
I believe the chairman of the county commissioners is
-------
here. Would you please get up, sir, and identify yourself?
2 MR..SCHADE: Schade.
3 MR. TRAINA: Yes, sir, Mr. Schade. Thank you
sir, and we sure appreciate the room tonight; it's very
nice, and we appreciate it.
6 MR, SCHADE: Happy to have you here.
7 MR. TRAINA: Are any of your other county
8 commissioners up here who'd like to be recognized?
9 MR. SCHADE: I have Commissioner Bob Shedd
,0 right here. I think he's coming.
n MR. TRAINA: I understand there's some busines
12 here in the courthouse, so you've been going back and forth.
)3 Are there any city officials here?
14 A VOICE: Mr. Johnson, ,City Councilman.
)5 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir, for coming.
16 Any other elected officials here with us tonight? •
)7 (No response)
18 MR. TRAINA: Tonight's hearing is concerned
19 with a two-year study on environmental, social and economic
20 effects of continued expansion of the central Florida
21 phosphate industry.
22 The purpose of the study is to comply with the Nationa]
23 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
24 Issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination
25 System permits for new sources of phosphate mining and
-------
i chemical processing operations constitute a federal action
2 which significantly affects the human environment,
3 However, as such, the National Environmental Policy
4 Act requires development of an Environmental Impact State-
5 ment prior to the issuance of these NPDES permits.
6 It was determined in early 1976 that the number of
7 new phosphate operations, which would request permit
a applications, would make Individual site-specific en v iron-
9 mental impact statements ineffective in determining area-
10 wide and cumulative effects.
11 Each individual study would determine effects of that
12 particular operation, and areawide or cumulative effects
13 might easily have been neglected.
u For this reason, all new sources were held in
is abeyance. All new source permits were held in abeyance
16 while the areawide EIS was developed.
17 A draft of this statement has been prepared, and
is notice of its availability was published in the Federal
19 legister, Volume 43, dated April 21st, 1978.
20 The hearing this evening is for the purpose of
21 receiving comments from the public on this draft Environ-
22 mental Impact Statement.
23 All substantive comments on this draft statement will
24 be considered by EPA and summarized and addressed in the
25 final Environmental Impact Statement.
6
-------
i I might just say at this point that the comments
2 we received so far -- this is the third meeting we've
3 had -- have been rather substantive, and we are going to
4 be considering those in some detail.
s As stated on the agenda, there will be a brief
6 presentation by EPA and the contractor of the study, Texas
7 Instruments, to summarize the major conclusions of the
8 draft EIS and how those conclusions were developed.
9 Those of you who've indicated on the registration
10 card that you wish to make a statement, you will be given
n that opportunity.
12 At this point I would like to introduce Mr. Gene
13 McNeill. Mr. McNeill is the Project Manager for the
14 phosphate study and will give us a little sunmary of the
is study and then introduce our contractor.
16 Mr. McNeill?
17 MR. MCNEILL: Thank you, Mr. Traina.
is First, before I get started, I'd like to make a
19 couple of introductions.
20 During this study we have had an inter-agency
21 steering committee consisting of the federal agencies who
22 are involved in any sort of regulation or permitting of
23 the phosphate industry.
24 And on that we had representatives from the US Army
25 Corps of Engineers, several of the interior agencies, CEQ,
/•Jo/
-------
i and Department of Agriculture and, of course, EPA, and also
2 the State of Florida was represented on the steering com-
3 mittee. The State of Florida representative was J^y Landers,
4 who also happens to be the Secretary of the Florida Depart-
s merit of Environmental Regulation.
6 In addition to the steering committee, we had an
7 advisory committee, which consisted of representatives from
8 each county.
I
9 We asked each of the county commissions, wi^intfehe
10 study area, to designate a representative for the advfypry
n committee.
12 Also on the advisory committee we had a representative
13 from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and a
u representative from industry and a representative from the
is Florida environmentalist groups.
16 Of those committee members here tonight, I've seen *<•«
17 I know Bucky McQueen is here; I'd like to introduce Bucky.
is Most of you, I'm sure, already know him.
19 The industry representative is Homer Hooks. I saw Htimer
20 here. Yeah, Homer Hooks, who is also president of the
21 Florida Phosphate Council.
22 And I would like to mention at this point, it just
23 happens that these two that are here tonight had perfect
24 attendance; Bucky and Homer were the only two that attended
25 every advisory committee meeting we had, and since most of
8
-------
i you are from this area, live in this area, I'd like to
2 mention, at this point, special thanks to Bucky for the
3 assistance he's given us throughout the study. He's been
4 pretty pointed in some of his comments. I couldn't say
5 he's been totally nice. (Laughjzer) He tells us what he
6 thinks of us, but he's also been extremely helpful.
7 I'd Also like to thank him, at this time, for helping
8 arrange this auditorium for the meeting.
9 Okay. At this point I'm going to turn it over to
10 the prime contractor on the study, Texas Instruments, to
11 make a real brief presentation pn how the information in
12 the study was developed.
13 With that, I'll introduce the Project Manager of
u Texas Instruments, who was our prime contractor, Larry
is Bowles.
16 MR. BOWLES: I have two of my colleagues
17 with me I'd like to introduce, Dr. Arnold Stalder and
is Dr. Audrey James.
19 All total, during the peak staffing there were about
20 twenty of us involved in the program, twenty Tl-ers, and then
21 there were nine of us that constituted the core that are
22 still working different phases of the program.
23 I'd like to very briefly make a presentation on sane
24 of the ground rules that we operated under in the study
25 and our approach to developing the information that
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eventually became the draft Environmental Impact Statement,
and then show you a few of the slides of pictures that we've
taken in the seven-county study area, showing the various
land uses that we had to deal with, and then I111 turn it
back over to Mr. Traina.
First of all, as you all know, it was designated a
seven-county study area, including a tier of four counties,
Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, and, of course, Charlotte County,
Sarasota, Manatee and Hillsborough County.
You see here this area designating the higher grade,
generally higher grade of bone phosphate of lime, where the
majority of mining has occurred at this point.
And then this area here is designating a little grade,
and you can see this cross-hatched area, which probably
appears gray to you, represents mines that are represented
by OKI's.
In topographic relief, this reveals a little more
information, what we're dealing with, in the Polk Uplands.
Primarily, the mining has occurred here.
There's some new mines being proposed along this
ridge here and then again along a ridge here on the DeSoto
plains, where the grade seems to be a little better.
We also included, of course, Charlotte Harbor and
Tampa Bay in our study.
The major emphasis was to use to the maximum extent
/-104-
10
-------
i possible existing data. We received help from various
2 tiers of governmental agencies, including EPA, Buare*u<.'6f
3 Mines, USGS, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service,
4 the Florida DER, SWFMD, regional planning councils and, in
5 many cases, county planners.
6 EPA furnished us a considerable amount of material,
7 laws, regulations, industry description, water quality and
a air quality.
9 The majority of the studies related to radiation
10 were done by the Environmental Protection Agency.
11 USGS assisted us in developing information about
12 the Floridan Aquifer and the ground water, as well as
13 making available to us a recently-developed model of the
u Floridan Aquifer, which we were allowed to use to predict
is impacts.
16 The Fish and Wildlife Service with the contractor
17 conducted an extensive survey of the wildlife in the area
is which we used.
19 The Bureau of Mines furnished information about the
20 industry projections about future demands and future
21 production, and our human population projections were based
22 on the University of Florida estimates.
23 Gene mentioned to you the function of the steering
24 committee and the advisory committee. This program started
25 i out being, in a very real sense,, a grand experiment in the
11
-------
, public participation and the use of the Environmental
2 Impact Statement process as a public planning tool. I
3 think it's been a fairly effective experiment, and we were
4 to perform, not only an assessment of just one alternative,
5 but there were a total of five alternatives that we had
6 , to assess the environmental impacts of.
7 The methodology that we used had to address a set
8 of decision indicators, which were listed in our statement
9 df work, which resulted primarily from the steering com-
)0 mittee with advice from the advisory committee, and then,
n where priorities were required, we did have a series of
12 meetings.
]3 Then that direction was given by the steering
)4 committee again with advice from the advisory committee,
15 and,,of course, funding limitations are always present.
)6 Then we assisted the EPA with the preparation of
17 the draft Environmental Impact Statement. We also will
18 be assisting them with addressing the comments that have
)9 been received and will be received on the draft.
20 And there were a set of working papers, a total of
21 about 1,700 pages of documentation resulting from our work,
22 and we are now preparing those, incorporating comments
23 received on them, in the fina^, form, and they will be
24 entered into the National Technical Information Service
25 system so that they will be available to the public.
12
/-
-------
i In conducting this study, the history of the
2 phosphate industry and the issues associated with it are
3 very complex and go back quite some time, and we felt it
4 was advantageous to EPA and ourselves to have some con-
5 sultants familiar with the Florida scene.
6 Dr. James Nicholas assisted Dr. Louise Young and
7 Carl Hice of II1s staff in socioeconomics.
s Dr. Paul Urone and his colleagues assisted Dr.
9 Arnold Stalder on air quality.
10 Dr. Eric Rifkin assisted Audrey and Dr. Michael
n McDaniel in ecology and general effects.
12 Geraghty and Miller assisted with hydrogeology with
13 Bill Lancaster and Bill Underwood of our staff.
i/t And Tomasino and Associates assisted myself and
is other staff members in the description of the scenarios
16 in a more operational form, as well as water, surface
17 water resources.
is Now, the next set of ground rules are very important
19 to understand when you evaluate the draft Environmental
20 Impact Statement, because they set the time frame in which
21 we had to estimate what; the environment would be like in
22 the future.
23 First of all, we projected resources and demands in
24 the environmental setting as would exist under the different
25 alternatives to the year 2000, and the base line of the
13
-------
, data was as it existed on 1 August '76, including the
2 regulations as they existed.
3 Now, there are some exceptions to that.
4 We published the preliminary findings in the form
5 of widely-distributed working papers, and the purpose of
6 that was to stimulate comment, as well as comment from
7 the steering and advisory committee members such that we
8 could assure an adequate and valid information base on
9 which to develop information to the decision makers.
10 And the major integrating theme that we used was
n that of environmental land use planning, because we were
12 dealing with, actually, a very major land use planner in
]3 the area.
14 We did have to make some adjustments, refinements
15 in the data base. One was that future land use gawp*.?did*
16 have to be developed to represent the year 2000.
)7 With the assistance of individual phoaphate companies
)8 in response to a letter that TI sent them, we refined the
19 information about their specific land use plans, and the
20 Corps of Engineers' regulations regarding administration
2) of Section 404 permitting, which has to do with dredge and
22 fill, we took one exception of the 1 August '76 date in
23 that they were fully implemented 1 September '77, so we
24 used those regulations.
25 -For the purposes of the study, we had to assume that
14
-------
1 all operations, phosphate operations that were not
2 permitted as of 1 August '76 would be classified as new
3 sources.
4 We focused on two time intervals. One was between
5 the present and 1985, because of this peaking in production,
6 and the other one, of course, was 2000, Which was the end
7 of the time frame which we were forecasting •
8 The cast of characters under those that were existing
9 operators is this set of mines. A footnote here, that
10 based upon the information we developed, there are no
n presently-announced plans for development of chemical
12 processing plants. Of course, that could change in the
future, so we're primarily dealing with plans for mining.
I o
The next set has to do with permitting new mines.
)5 There were a set of applications at the state level, the
DRI process. In addition to that, from the land use
questionnaire we sent to the individual phosphate companies,
we discerned that the next one, besides represented by the
I 8
DRI, would probably be USS Agri-Chemical in their plant
near Fort Meade.
2) And then there are a set of others, and we call this
22 the industry view; in other words, perhaps taking exception
to the Bureau of Mines forecast.
24 If all these were permitted, you can see some of these
would play out in the future, and some would continue
/-l 09
-------
production. Then there would have to be new mines to come
2 into play.
3 I mentioned that we did use existing data. We
received assistance ftfom several Agencies, individuals,
5 and so on.
6 I just want to give you a sampling of those to give
7 them credit. We were assisted by DER, who provided in-
formation through our consultant.
Again, DER, on vegetative fluoride data. We received
10 information from the phosphate industry as well.
n USGS, as I mentioned, in this case, with potentio-
12 metric surface maps showing changes occurring over this
13 time interval, and they also let us use their We
14 submitted data to them; they used their model for pre-
15 dieting impacts.
16 The US Army Corps of Engineers assisted us in
17 developing general information about the water quality
and quantity in the area.
19 We did focus on Tampa Bay, as I mentioned, and
20 received assistance from Tampa Bay Regional Planning
21 Council.
22 We also were assisted by the Central Florida Regional
23 Planning Council and the Southwest Florida Regional
24 Planning Council here with nitrogen and phosphorous data,
25 and besides developing information about the environment,
/- HO
16
-------
i the phosphate industry is part of that environment, because
2 they're presently operating, so we, of course, needed
3 information on just some of their emissions and effluents.
4 During the course of the study, our staff was in the
5 area quite a bit of the time. We did conduct aerial and
6 ground photo reconnaissance and took some samples and
7 made several observations.
8 And I just want to show you a sampling of some of
9 the pictures we took that represent some of the major
10 land uses in the seven-county study area.
n First of all, you recognize this strip mine; there's
12 a forest in the background.
13 This is a beneficiation plant,
14 A chemical plant
15 This is an abandoned strip mine that was mined
i6 approximately twenty-five years ago, and without much
17 intervention from man has been reclaimed by nature, you
IB might say.
19 This is a slime pond --a similar circumstance --
20 a little water. Some de-watering has occurred. You can
21 see the wildlife in the area.
22 This is an old slime pond that's being used by the
23 Florida Audubon Society.
24 This is the interiors; some natural de-watering has
25 occurred and vegetation.
/-*//
17
-------
This is pa,:t of the scene around your country.
Here we have a reclaimed mine that's being used as
a recreational park.
The majority, the greatest percentage of subsequent
use of phosphate mined land is cattle grazing.
Some of the natural scenes where mining hap not
intervened includes this sand pine scrub.
A hammock
Range land —
10 Here's a wetland.
n And another type of wetland
12 There are several types in the seven-county study
,3 area.
M Agriculture is a major land use. Of course, that
15 Includes cattle grazing, truck crops., citrus crops.
i6 You, of course, have rivers, this being the Peace
,7 River.
18 The bay, and you can see the use of industrial,
19 technical generation.
20 And of course, the resort community development.
21 These are just a sampling of some of the major land
22 uses in the area.
23 We, at TI and EPA, strive hard to make sure that
24 reports are all very informative and without error. We
25 try to excel, but we don't claim to be perfect. We have
18
-------
i made some errors.
2 And this next slide will be incorporated in the
3 final Environmental Impact Statement and will clarify
4 some of the textual material regarding the impact on
5 terrestrial wetlands threatening endangered species.
6 I would like to comment that it's been professionally
7 and personally enjoyable to work with EPA on this program,
8 es pec ia lly Gene McNeil! and \ A
-------
which is the basis of the environmental effects which are
described in this draft Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement, and as such they will become the basis for any
new source mines or new source chemical plants, as well
as the basis for the site-specific EIS's, which will be
required for new sources.
Okay. First of all, I'll go through the proposed
action for new source mine and beneficiation plants.
The first one is we're saying that the cora/entional
10 rock drying process will be eliminated for all rock which
n will be processed into phosphoric acid in Florida,
12 The second one is to meet the State of Florida's
13 effluent limitation which, in the case of mining and
14 beneficiation, are more stringent than EPA's, but one of
is the ground rules of this study is, we stated that all
16 local, state and federal regulations, which existed at
17 the time of the study, would be met. That was one of the
ia ground rules of the study, and we found that Florida's
effluent limitations for mining and beneficiation are
20 adequate to protect receding water.
21 The third one is to eliminate the conventional
22 above-ground slime disposal areas. Now, this one does
23 have an allowance for temporary storage of slimes, when
24 the companies, the mines, get into situations where the
25 percentages of slime are so high that one of the methods
20
- L/4-
-------
for using the slime for reclamation, instead of conventional
2 slime ponds, cannot be used for that incremental difference
3 in slimes.
So we're only allowing temporary storage of
For the most part, we're saying eliminate conventional
6 slime-settling ponds. I
7 The next one is to meet the existing Southwest
R Florida Water Management District requirements. That's
9 being sort of repetitive, because I said one of the ground
10 rules was to meet existing requirements.
11 But we're saying, in addition to that, which in many
12 cases we feel will further increase water recirculation,
13 recirculation of the water at the mines, which will in
turn reduce the pumpage of water, in some cases, further
,5 than would be required by SWFMD. We're saying to provide
16 storage for water recovered from the slimes by utilizing
,7 one of the methods of eliminating the slime pond.
18 So this will allow further water recirculation and
19 decrease water consumption.
20 The next one is sort of We're saying to allow
2) continued use of connector wells, but we do qualify this
22 and say with careful monitoring during operation of these
23 wells and careful monitoring to determine that once they're
24 closed down, they're adequately sealed off
?5 Continued allowance of the connector wells; it helps
21
-------
the companies in that it's a good way to de-water the
area to be mined; plus it is a water conservation measure.
Instead of pumping the water out to surface streams for
de-watering, the water is drained into the Floridan Aquifer,
so we say to continue to allow that careful monitoring.
6 The next one, unfortunately, as Larry mentioned, the
7 EPA Office of Radiation Programs provided the information
a on any of the radiological aspects of the study, but
9 unfortunately the part on the guidelines on land recla-
10 mation are not yet complete.
11 They have been put out in draft form, but they have
12 not yet been published as proposed guidelines in the
13 Federal Register, so we're leaving that.
When these guidelines are finalized, they will be
15 incorporated into the final EIS
16 The next one is, in addition to meeting existing
17 county ,and state reclamation requirements, we're stating
18 that during the site-specific studies, DRI and site-specific
,9 EIS's, to inventory existing wildlife habitat and wildlife
20 populations and to take these into account in the mining
21 and reclamation plan for any new source mine and assure
22 that, during the mining process, this wildlife habitat and
23 wildlife populations are protected
24 And the next one, and final one.,we have on new source
25 mine and beneficiation plants is to protect or restore
22
- It
-------
wetlands which fall under Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
Okay. As I say, that was very briefly, but that
was the requirements we have listed for the mining
operations.
6 For any new source chemical plants, I should mention
7 here that the proposed action, while we list requirements
n for new source chemical plants, we do not have any new
9 source chemical plants projected.
10 All the information we were able to get from the
n industry and from the Bureau of Mines indicates that
12 there currently is adequate chemical processing capacity
13 in central Florida, which would last until the deposits
14 in central Florida are mined out*
15 But in the study we did feel a need to list
,6 requirements in case some company sometime in the future
does make application for a chemical plant.
18 The requirements for the chemical plant: First of
19 all, in addition to meeting existing standards for
20 performance for new sources on air, we're saying, since
2, there are fluorine emissions from the gyp ponds, or the
22 recirculated contaminated water systems, we're saying
23 that the new source chemical plants will either provide
24 for recovery of fluoride, which would be narketed as a
25 product, or in cases in the future, if there is no market
23
-------
for this fluoride, at least for reducing fluorine con-
centrations in the gyp ponds, so that the fluorine
emissions from the entire plant complex, including the
gyp pond, don't exceed the standards of performance for
5 new sources.
6 The way the standards of performance are currently
7 written, they only include emissions from the stacks at
the plant and not from the gyp pond.
We're saying to include the gyp pond emissions in
10 the maximum allowable quantity.
11 The next one for chemical plants is to, in addition
to meeting standards of peformance for new sources for
13 water discharges, we're saying in addition to this to
14 recirculate the non-processed water as well as processed
15 water and to provide the same amount of surge capacity
i6 which is adequate for the twenty-five year rainfiall event,
)7 to provide this same amount of surge capacity for non-
ie processed as is currently required for processed water.
19 One further thing in addition to requiring re-
20 circulation of non-processed water, we're saying during
21 these rainfall events, twenty-five-year-.rainfall events,
22 or equivalent rainfall events which would require treatment
23 and discharge, that more stringent requirements be set
24 on the allowable concentrations for the pollutants in
25 these discharges, based on protecting water quality in
24
-------
the Tampa Bay and Peace basins, which are the two basin*
where any of the industry in central Florida would dis-
charge .
The next requirement for chemical plants, we're
saying the gyp ponds for any new source chemical plants,
the gyp ponds would need to be lined with an impervious
material unless, in the site-specific study, it can be
demonstrated that lining is not needed to protect ground
water quality.
10 And then the final one would be, in the site-specific
n studies, to encourage recovery of uranium from the phosphoric
12 acid in any new source chemical plants.
Okay. As I said, that is very briefly hitting thfe
14 high spots of the conclusions of the study or the proposed
is action for which this draft EIS lists environmental
16 effects.
17 I'll turn it back over to Mr. Traina.
)8 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. McNeill.
19 Before I call for comments, I'd like to just make
20 some of my own comments with regard to public participation.
21 Not only is it the policy of EPA, its own rules and
22 regulations, but public participation is called for in
23 various federal acts that EPA operates under.
24 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean
25 Air Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act,
25
-------
1 all have provisions instruction EPA to involve the public
2 in its decision making, and this is the reaflpo we're here
3 tonight, and we've had public hearings on this subject
4 in other areas this past week, so that I could say in a
5 way that the public is almost obligated by law to come
6 forward and make some statements to us tonight.
7 We certainly waat to hear from you.
8 With regard to tfur own rules and regulations, far the
9 record,, notice of this public hearing was published in the
10 Sarasota Hergld-Tribune on May 8th, 20th and 21st, and in th
n Tampa Tribune and I^keland Lgd^r on May 7tb and the 21st.
12 In addition, copies of the public not&ce w*r« mailed
13 to each of those individuals and organizations on the EJP&
14 mailing list, as wall as to all the appropriate local,,
15 state and federal agencies.
16 1 would ask that those of you who would like to natce
17 a statement, if you haven*t already done so> plaaae fill
18 out a registration card. From these cards I will ea^l on
19 in asking people to come forward.
20 We're not under any formal rules of evidence here.
21 We want you to come forward; if you would, stafce your
22 name,, if you're affiliated with an organization, who that
23 organization is*
24 I would also ask, too, that for those of you, even If
25 you're not making a statement, fill out the
26
-------
i card.
2 This will give us a list of individuals that we
3 will mail our final determination on with regard to the
4 study.
5 There's also a place on this card if you want to get
6 on the EPA mailing list to receive information regarding
7 other activities EPA has in this area.
8 With that, I might also comment, too, that we'fce
9 having this hearing recorded tonight. There is a court
10 recorder here.
n Copies of the transcript will be available in our
12 offices in Atlanta. Any of those who'd like to make some
13 special arrangements with the court recorder to get your
u own transcript, of course you're welcome to do so.
15 At this point I'd like to call on Commissioner
16 Robert Shedd, Charlotte County.
17 MR. SHEDD:
is Mr. Chairman and members of the Hearing
19 Commission, I would like to read a statement that was
20 developed by Bucky McQueen, who you were already intro-
21 duced to, by Mr. Mike Best, who is the Senior Planner
22 with the Charlotte County, Punta Gorda Planning Council,
23 by Mr. Rick Cantrell, who is with the Florid« Department
24 of Environmental Regulation,-and myself.
25 The statement was developed at the direction of the
27
u I*.
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners.
The Charlotte County Board of County Commis-
sioners, at the regular weekly meeting of May 23rd, 1978,
requested that a statement for public record be made at
the Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing.
Several of the following concerns were
expressed at this meeting.
(1) Without adequate, proper and timely
monitoring by the federal and state environmental agencies,
all proposed actions and existing rules, regulations and
requirements are worthless and ineffective.
Therefore, we request that adequate surve.illanc
programs be instigated with an appropriate ftmding level in
order to accomplish those goals which should be of the high-
est priority.
(2) We endorse the recommendation that
process modification and control of equipment for existing
operations to meet all water discharge requirements by 1983
be implemented. Only a small percentage of the total
mining area and impact operations will be new sources.
(3) Encourage and assist in the compilation
of more specific and useful information on the quantity and
usability of the marine biological information for the Peace
River, Myakka River and Charlotte Harbor.
In summary, since discharges that occur on the
7I.TO
28
-------
i headwaters of the Peace River may have an adverse impact
2 on our community, we are extremely concerned with the
3 contamination of our surface and ground water.
4 The highest priority should be placed on an
5 expanded monitoring program in order to prevent potential
6 devastating slime spills.
7 Of equal concern is the monit^ing of critical
B synergistic mineral and nutrient combinations which can
9 lead to massive algae bloom.
10 Sincerely yours, Robert Shedd, representing
n the Board of County Commissioners.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Conraissioaer.
u May I ask, Commissioner, is your comment with regard
is to the existing source -- that the recommendations of thia
16 report be applied to existing sources? Is thdt ---
17 MR. SHEDD: By 1983.
is MR. TRAINA: By 1983.
19 MR. SHEDD: Yes, sir.
20 MR. TRAINA: Do you have a copy of your
21 statement so I can give it to the court recorder?
22 MR. SHEDD: Yes, sir. We 'have an ordinal,
23 which I'll give to you.
24 MR. TRAINA: All right. Pine, sir. Thank you
25 very much.
29
-------
i Councilman C.R. Johnson, City of Funta Gorda,
2 MR. JOHNSON:
3 Chairman and members of the Hearing Commission,
4 the City of Funta Gorda sanitary plant, built during the
5 period 197 1-1 73, was at that time held out by EPA as a
6 major advance in waste water treatment.
7 It is now operating under a consent agreement
B because of its inability to consistently meet the effluent
9 nitrogen limits Imposed by the 1971 Wilson-Grizzel Act.
10 Although break point chlorination would meet
11 the letter of the law, we find little enthusiasm for this
12 because of, first, its cost and, second, its adverse effects
13 of the by-products on the marine environment*
u As an alternative, the City is developing an
is effluent land spreading program. Even with federal par-
16 ticipation, this multi-million dollar program represents a
17 very significant financial burden for this community.
is This would be commendable if such action
19 resulted in a real and substantial improvement in the
20 environment of Charlotte Harbor.
21 However, we are advised by recent 208 studies
22 that 85 percent of the pollutants entering Charlotte Harbor
23 are by way of the rivers, and from a technical point of view
24 the contribution of our sanitary plant is insignificant.
25 Thus, our efforts will be wasted unless a
/-
30
-------
i major effort is made to reduce the pollution of our rivers.
2 In closing, I wish to emphasize that these
3 studies, reports, guidelines and recommendations are of no
4 avail unless a properly-funded and staffed monitoring
5 program is placed into effect to enforce the laws relating
6 to discharges into our rivers and harbors.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Mr. Council-
I
9 man. Again, do you have a copy of your statement?
10 I just might comment to you that as the Enforcement:
11 Director, I certainly — I do know the value of monitoring
12 and surveillance. Without it, you don't have an en£or
-------
The most significant matter affecting the
2 statement is the fact that the ink was hardly dry on the
3 scenario when actions by the EPA Administrator and the
phosphate industry virtually assured that the operating
restrictions of the scenario cannot be attained by the
administrative procedures contemplated.
Firstly, as to phosphate chemical plants, the
scenario contemplates much more protective effluent limit-
9 ations than are contained in either the federal or state
10 rules.
n However, it is conceded that these can only
12 be legally applied to new plants and, since the study finds
13 that there will probably never be any new plants in the
14 area, they may never be applied.
is What we are left with, then, are the existing
16 plants subject only to the EPA 1926 final rules, which hive
17 been adopted by reference by the State of Florida, and that
is contain only some very liberal effluent concentration 11-
19 mitations, identifiable for both BPT, existing source, and
20 BAT, new source, and which are not within a country mile
21 of the protective limitations proposed by the scenario and
22 used in the projections.
23 This fact will take on even greater sig-
24 nificance when we get into some possible inaccuracies in
25 the working papers.
32
-------
As to the mine effluent limitations, repeat
mine, the scenario and all the impacts developed rely On
the more restrictive effluent limitations adopted by the
State of Florida in 1977.
However, these rules are being aggressively
litigated by the industry, at both the state and federal
level.
On January 16th, 1978, the EPA and DER issued
jointly NPDES permits to five existing phosphate mines,
which incorporated, for the first time, the more protective
BPT effluent limitations of the State of Florida.
I am advised that the mines involved have
requested adjudication, thus staying enforcement of these
effluent limitations.
On February 16th, 1978, EPA, Region IV,
issued a notice that certain of these effluent iJumitatiojijs
were to be made binding on those mines even during a ten-
year storm, which could contradict both Florida and federal
guidelines and assure that the mining companies' plea for
adjudication will be successful.
If this were not enough, on Maych 6th, 1978,
the EPA Administrator signed the final rule for phosphate
mining BAT which sets BAT, new source, effluent limitations
for Total Suspended Silence at 30 milligrams per liter, 30-
day average, which is identical to the BPT, and twice as
T-s-4-
33
-------
, permissive as the Florida rule and totally silent on any
2 other pollutants except pH.
3 In his findings, the Administrator, in effect,
4 denied the request for more protective Florida effluent
5 limitations, which were requested by certain Florida
6 regulatory officials, during the comment period for the
7 proposed rule; thus, practically assuring the success of
8 the phosphate mine adjudication proceedings.
9 Further, by promulgating a BAT rule with
10 identical effluent limitation concentrations of the BPT
n rule, the Admistrator is saying that the industry is
12 already operating under BAT conditions, no further im-
)3 provements are economically achievable, which happens to
H be in conflict with the information in the impact statement,
15 in my view, and therefore no improvement may be expected
)6 in 1983.
17 It is my view that the scenario on which the
,8 whole impact Uraftwoent was developed is now Inoperable, the
19 impact statement as presently drafted is incorrect and, as
20 a matter of fact, seriously understates the environmental
2, impact on surface waters which will prevail in the real,..
22 world of environmental regulation if this draft statement
23 is adopted.
24 As to possible inaccuracies in the working
25 papers underlying the statement, I am referring primarily
34
-------
, to Water, Volume V, Water Quantity and Quality, Section 1,
2 draft January 1978.
3 On page 1.140 the effluent limitations used in
4 the projections are set out which, in my previously «xplftirin
-------
i going to be permitted to discharge in the next several
2 years and ignore the potential pf'»probable discharges,
3 which will be permitted new mines coming into the
4 On page 1.144 using highly inferential
5 assumptions, the working paper estimates the phosphorous
6 loading into the Peace River by the industry,
7 The industry total of some 4,055 pounds per
8 day does have a remarkable correlation to the EPA, February
9 1977 study.
10 However, little solace can be found here
11 since the working paper attributes nearly 70 percent $f
12 the phosphorous to mines, while the empirical EPA data
13 seem to indicate that nearly 90 percent of the total
14 phosphorous loading can be attributed to chemical plants.
is With this anomaly unresolved, the whole
16 projection needs review since the questions of wherfk t&tg
17 pollutants are originating can make a profound difference
is in the quantification projections.
19 On page 1.148 we find the consultant;*8
20 conclusion that the "high nutrient concentrations are
21 indicative of runoff from the large amount of agriculture
22 in the study area."
23 This statement is in serious 'conflict with
24 the conclusions of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
25 Council, 208, Charlotte Harbor Water Quality Study and
/- 2*0
36
-------
recommendations which indicate that "total phosphorous
2 loads from the phosphate industry are presently about
3 52 percent phosphorous loads from the Peace River and
about 45 percent of the phosphorous loads from all
5 sources to the uppermost part of Charlotte Harbor."
6 The 208 consultants fuxther recommend a
7 reduction of phosphorous loadings from all sources of
8 83 percent.
9 A local independent laboratory, using
,0 different data and comparing water quality in presently
n undisturbed streams draining phosphate rich land in this
12 area, suggest a reduction of phosphorous concentrations
13 in the Peace River of 69 percent.
14 This is a rather fsmarkable correlation of
15 results in view of the fact that entirely different water
16 samples and methodologies were employed-«
17 In conclusion, it is my view that the'.impact
)8 statement has been fatally flawed as a result of the
)9 basic scenario having subsequently been rendered in-
20 operable and also the possibility of error in the impact
2) projections in one or more of the working papers.
22 It is my considered opinion that the need
23 for a new scenario has been dictated by subsequent events
24 and that the statement needs substantial revision in order
25 to accurately reflect the real world environmental impacts
37
-------
i that are going to occur.
2 By a correct reassessment of the phosphate
3 industry impact on the w*fcer quality of the Peace Rivet
4 under the current status of regulatory capabilities, the
s integrity of the original EIS scenario for m0re protective
6 effluent limitations can be restored and the necessary
7 controls on existing,, as well as new,, sources established
e as provided under Sections 208, 302 and 303 of the Federal
9 Water Pollution Control Act,
10 Now, gentlemen, £ have almost all the docu-
11 mentation underlying this presentation here tonight, and
12 I'm available for questions.
13 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
14 I'd like to ask you one, Mr. Roach, or, make a
15 comment. I think the report does recognise the fact that
16 EPA'a effluent guidelines are less stringent than the state's
17 effluent guidelines, and therefore, the report does recomfiend
is for new sources, the state limits apply*
19 We do recognize the difference In Ctee two. The report
20 is recommending that the state's limits apply.
21 MR, ROACH: Yes. That's for new sources,
22 MR. TRAINA: Yes, sir.
23 MR. ROACH: But we still have the old
24 MR* TRAINA: We understand. The report is
25 only addressing itself to new sources, and for those new
38
-------
1 sources, the more stringent standards would apply.
2 MR, ROACH: Thank you.
3 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir.
4 Any questions?
5 (No response)
6 Thank you very much, Mr. Roach.
7 Dr. M.H. Bigelow?
8 DR. BIGELOW:
9 Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, most
10 of those people don't know me, and that's the hot seat; I
11 used to sit there for four years,
12 This is going to be a little history, because
13 I think I'm the grandfather of this outfit with respect to
14 the Charlotte Harbor.
15 First of all, my Ph.D. is in science, and I'm
'6 a retiree of the fifth largest chemical company. We won't
17 name names.
18 I'm also secretary and a member of the board
19 of directors of the South Central Florida Health Systems
20 Agency, which covers the ten counties, of which a couple
21 are involved tonight, but I'm not speaking on their behalf,
22 because they have committees involved.
23 In 1943 when I was in the Army, I was given
24 a B-25 and some men and a bunch of DDT that we had stolen
25 from the Germans and asked to use this area as a study for
39
-------
the efficiency of DDT to take care of mosquitos and other
2 insects.
3 And we were based at Bushnell. We used to
fly over this harbor at 175 feet almost daily. You could
s look down, and all you could see was beautiful, clear
6 water -- no slime, lots of fish, and based on that I moved
7 to Charlotte County fifteen years ago,
8 I'm practically a Charlotte Countian, not by
9 birth, and I decided this is going to be a wonderful place
10 to fish, a wonderful place to live, and then I discovered
that we no longer had clear water. It was brown, but it
12 was brown originally from the tannic acid, and the fish
13 were rather scarce, and I thought it'd be a good idea to
14 try to get our harbor back up to where it was, as a fishing
is area.
16 And in 1970 I established what is known as the
17 Charlotte Biochem Research Laboratory, Incorporated, on
is which board I have some very prominent engineers, Che residen
19 engineer that put a rotunda on this map, with the idea of
20 using this harbor to set up new fishing, a new fishing
21 empire, if you want to call it, bringing in new types of
fish, not just sticking with mullet, and what have you. I
23 wanted to get rid of the pink shrimp and get down to the
24 Japanese prawn, which don't have to go through five cycles,
25 don't have to have the black mangrove enzyme for the eggs
40
-------
to continue with their growth.
So I set up, before doing anything of the
nature of bringing in any exotic fish, test stations
throughout the harbor, because I realized what we needed
to know was the background of this body of water, changes
6 in pH, changes in solidity, changes in tepidity, changes
7 in microorganisms, changes in the amount of slime that
8 was built up, and what have you.
9 Because without knowing that, to try to
10 bring fish here would be trying to do something stupid
n I won't give you the problems involved in
12 trying just to maintain a dozen stations for testing.
13 The state wasn't very cooperative. The
local people liked to steal my markers, because I'd have
,5 a special kind with sea lamps on, but the thing that
16 bothered me more than anything else was the changing
17 characteristics of this body of water.
is And we are at a point right now, with our
Charlotte Harbor, that reminds me of the situation that
20 it must have been like when this world started creating
21 life --a large body of protein soup ija which nothing was
22 living, but something came along -- maybe the clouds
23 separated and a light ray came through -- and catalyzed
24 activity.
25 And right now, as far as I'm concerned,
141
-------
this Charlotte Harbor here — what is it, 163 square miles
of water? -- it's just that; it's a protein soup, and I
am worried to death that something is going to come along
and almost overnight catalyze the activity of this harbor
into the growth of materials that we do not want.
6 Now, it doesn't take very much. Now, in toy
7 studies — of course, I ran studies on trace elements, and
what have you -- it doesn't take very much to do this.
9 For example, in the dental profession right
'0 now they have a mixture of uranium methacrylate, a solution,
which they can put in your tooth for a filling, and it
12 only takes one wave length, 474 nanometers, to catalyze
13 that into a high solid. Nothing, either side, will change
it.
And one little thing --- I'm not going to
16 point the finger at the phosphate people or the people
17 whose septic tanks run into our harbor out here or the
18 people that come into our place and put chemicals in
19 all of our canals to get rid of phyceae.
20 Somebody one of these days is going to put
21 that catalyst in, and it's going to make the red tide that
22 we see out in the Gulf, which is due to iron, it's going
23 to make that look silly compared to what is going to
24 happen in this harbor.
25 I don't want to be an alarmist, but I — I
42
-------
i have stopped. I'll work out there*
2 After December 1971 when I couldn't find
3 my samples anymore because they were all sludged in under
phosphate spills ---
s But I just would like to have the people
6 that are. engaged in all this mining up here, all these
7 chemicals, and the people that come around here and treat
our roofs with chemicals, knowing it's going to run off
9 in the water, to keep in mind somebody one of these
10 days is going to put the catalyst in that water.
Thank you.
12 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, sir.
13 (Applause)
MR. TRAINA: S.R, Stedrattn?
15 MR. STEDMAN:
16 I'm the president of the Venice Area Audubon
i? Society, and I've got a few things here that strike me as
is a little bit peculiar.
19 You have several alternatives considered,
20 When you have an alternative, you use one or the other,
21 but now it seems to me B and C are to be combined, instead
22 of ---
23 In other words, if you use B, then you can't
24 use C. If you use C, you can't use B.
25 It seems to me that ought to be one alternative
43
-------
instead of two.
2 MR. TRAINA: Can you reference that, sir?
3 I don't know exactly what area you're talking about. Maybe
Mr. McNeill can clarify that.
MR. MCNEILL: I think I can clarify your
comment for Mr. Traina anyway here.
Mr. Traina, what he's saying is, under the alterna-
e tives considered, we have listed the scenarios that were
9 looked at throughout the study, and we had six scenarios.
10 Let's see, are you talking about this?
11 MR. STEDMAN: No, I'm talking about B and C.
12 I don't see why they should be two different ones.
13 MR. MCNEILL: Okay. Let me go ahead and
14 finish what I was saying.
15 We did not select one of those six scenarios to
16 become the basis of the impact statement.
17 What was finally selected was a combination
IB MR. TRAINA: That's what I thought it was.
19 MR. MCNEILL: -- of, realty, the four middle
20 scenarios, and I think
21 Does this help some?
22 MR. STEDMAN: All right, yeah.
23 MR. MCNEILL: You're right; your comment was
24 right. We didn't select one alternative. We selected a
25 combination of alternatives based on what were the best
44
-------
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
?2
?3
24
25
aspects of each of the scenarios.
MR. STEDMAN: All right.
MR. TRAINA: So they were combined, sir.
MR. MCNEILL: They were combined, right.
MR. STEDMAN: Well then, you know, Ifm
looking at this chart you have here showing the phosphate
production, and you have said an awful lot about the
economics of it, and of course economics are very important
to this region.
But we have our curve going up and then down again.
Why couldn't it have been a straight line curve or
a straight horizontal line?
My idea is when one phosphate mine is used up, open
up another one instead of piling them all on.
Now, at the end of all this phosphate mining you're
going to have an awful drop in the economy. At least this
way, if you had straight production, you would extend the
production over a longer period.
Now, there's' a statement in here also about it's
uneconomical to extract fluorides. I think that's entirely
beside the point.
It's uneconomical to extract fly ash in a coal burner
from a stack that burns coal, but it has to be done. I
think fluorides have to be done, whether it's economical
or not.
V*" 7
45
-------
, And there are a couple of places in there where you
2 mention the information isn't sufficient to make a con-
3 elusion. Then you make a conclusion, but it's always in
4 favor of the phosphate people.
5 That's all I have to say. Thank you,
6 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Mr. Stedman.
7 (Applause)
8 MR. TBAINA: Samuel Wapner?
9 MR. WAPNER:
10 Members of the board, my name is Samuel
11 Wapner, and I speak as a citizen and resident newly
12 arrived, who came into Florida about the middle of November
13 of '77.
14 I feel rather humble in following Dr. Bigelow,
15 because I know something about his background, and also I
,6 must say I don't know whether my voice is carrying or QO*: --•
,7 MR. TRAINA: Yes, it is.
18 MR, WAPNER:
,9 I have not attended previous meetings; there-
20 fore I'm not in a position to comment on your impact
21 statement, which is very comprehensive and would require
22 quite a bit of study and reading and review by me before
23 I could properly make the sort of statement that I'd like
24 to make.
25 In lieu of that, would I be permitted to make
46
/- \4o
-------
i some general observations?
2 MR. TRAINA: Certainly, sir. That's the
3 reason for the meeting tonight. I might also add if you'd
4 like to take some time later, we will be receiving written
s comments after this meeting.
6 I'll tell you later, I'll tell everyone later where
7 to address those written comments, but certainly we would
8 like to hear general observations,
9 MR. WAPNER; The first question I'd like to
10 ask, since all of my information is based on what I've read
11 in the newspaper, is it a fact that Florida has resources
12 of phosphate calculated on a world basis of somewhere
'3 between 2 and 4 percent? And yet our industry is producing
14 approximately one-third of the world's output of phosphate.
is is this a fact?
16 MR. TRAINA: I don't know whether we're in
17 a position to comment or answer your question, sir.
is MR. WAPNER: Am I In the ball park? Is this
i? more or less generally so?
20 MR. TRAINA: I think Mr. Stowasser will have
21 to comment on that. Mr. Stowasser has some information on
22 that.
23 MR. STOWASSER: Mr. Wapner, we estimate that
24 We have in the United States perhaps 3 and a half to 4 billio^i
25 tons of phosphate reserves at today's cost and selling prices
47
-------
I don't have a crystal ball clear enough to tell
2 you what the cost and prices will be in the future.
3 However, I would expect that these reserves,
economic reserves, will increase in the future.
MR. WAPNER: Well, unfortunately, you've
not answered my question pointedly. What I'm trying to
arrive at is what reserve do we have here in Florida
compared to the world reserve?
9 Now, I know that economics are a very important
10 part, and I'll come to that in just a moment.
n MR. STOWASSER: To be more specific,
12 economic reserves today are estimated somewhere 1.5 and
13 1.7 billion tons in Florida.
MR. WAPNER: Well, this still doesn't give
is me the picture, so I'll have to make an assumption, rightly
16 or wrongly.
17 MR. STOWASSER: Mr. Wapner, we may have
anywhere from 20 to 30, that broad a range, of economically
19 attractive phosphate reserves in the world.
20 There's no one who knows the answer to that question.
21 We'd like to know the answer as well.
22 There's a great deal of material, and it probably
23 will be developed as time goes on.
24 MR. WAPNER: Well, what I'm trying to say
25 is that with a limited amount of phosphate reserves, we
148
-------
i are producing, in my opinion, too much, and we are
2 following the route of the petroleum industry, which,
3 in my opinion -- remember I'm expressing an opinion -- I
4 think we are following the route of the petroleum
5 industry which, with the encouragement of the automobile
6 industry, produced in great abundance.
7 We had cheap petroleum products. We use them, not
e only for automobiles, but also in the chemical industry,
9 and now we find ourselves more or less at the mercy of
10 certain foreign nations who raise prices in not the
n customary business-like fashion, but at one point I
12 think they jumped prices approximately 400 percent.
13 Now, if our reserves in Florida dwindle so low
14 that Morocco or some other country can act in a fashion
15 similar to OPEC, I think we are defeating our own pur-
16 pose, but we'll come to that a bit later if we're talking
17 about money.
is Before I came to Florida, I was a resident of New
19 Jersey, which is unfavorably referred to as the cancer
20 state, and perhaps some of you folks have read about the
21 recent incident at Rutherford, where they're finding aa
22 high incidence of cancer in young children, a most dread -
23 ful situation.
24 In the neighboring state of New York, there is a
25 county — its name escapes me at the moment since New York
49
-------
State is a rather large state -- but in this particular
2 county, they have a large deposit of radioactive rock,
3 and unfortunately in that particular county there's a
very high incidence of, shall we say, defective children.
5 I speak on behalf of no organization, but for
6 myself. tto.f6rtunately, I am the father of a retarded
7 daughter, so this rather hits home, when for one reason
or another a so-called defective child is born, which
is both a burden to the family in many ways and also
,0 to the community.
n Now, when we come down to the question of economics,
12 I have seen formulas that state one has to offset
13 tourism and agriculture versus the income which comes
14 from the phosphate industry
15 Now, please understand my position. I'm for free
16 enterprise. I worked in industry for many years, and I
17 approve of our current manner of doing things in general,
18 but it seems to me that this particular formula is lacking
one very important element. Tourism plus agriculture is
20 not the total side of one formula in the equation.
21 To that one must add new residents. Now, who will
22 these new residents be? By and large, retirees, many of
23 whom are rather vulnerable to cancer, and I speak whereof
24 I know.
25 In addition, we have young couples who are just
50
-------
i beginning to raise a family. A pregnant woman, again, is
2 very vulnerable In that either she or her offspring might
3 produce an undesirable characteristic.
4 Therefore, I say to you, as a new resident, In
s weighing the advantages of the phosphate industry, and I
6 don't waut to belittle their contribution in the past,
7 and I don't want to eliminate them, either — I say to
a you let us take a balanced view in promulgating new
9 regulations in enforcing these „
10 As our commissioner said, without enforcement,
n you're absolutely nowhere. You can have the best laws
12 on the books, but unless you have properly trained
13 personnel who will enforce these statutes, you are
u nowhere at all.
is So J, close by saying I'd like to have this particular
16 group, in reviewing the whole question, take a rather
,7 balanced point of view of this most serious question.
18 Thank you. I have no prepared statement. This was
19 spontaneous.
20 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Mr. Wapner.
21 We appreciate your coming forward.
?2 (Applause)
23 MR. TRAINA: M.W. Chesson?
24 MR. CHESSON:
25 Mr. Tralna, members of the panel, my name is
51
-------
Maywood W. Chesson, Jr. I was recently employed by
Mississippi Chemical Corporation as Manager of Phosphate
Project Development, and am in the process of changing my
residence from Lake City, Florida, to Wauchula, Florida,
in Hardee County.
Mississippi Chemical Corporation is a
farmer-owned cooperative based in Yazoo City, Mississippi.
Our principal business is manufacturing and distributing
fertilizers to approximately 250,000 farm operators
10 located largely in the southeastern states.
11 Mississippi Chemical Corporation's major
12 production facilities include nitrogen plants in Yazoo
13 City, Mississippi, and Donaldsonville, Louisiana, potash
14 mines and beneficiation plants in New Mexico, and in
15 Pascagoula, Mississippi, a large phosphate rock processing
16 plant with associated granular fertilizer facilities to
17 prepare the final products containing NPK-nitrogen,
phosphorus, potash, as required by our farmer-owners.
,9 A few years ago, Mississippi Chemical became
20 gravely concerned about a secure long term supply of
21 phosphate rock,,
22 In 1975 MCC arranged to acquire a large
23 phosphate deposit on some. 14,800 acres, just west of
24 Wauchula in Hardee County«
25 Since that time, we have been involved in
52
-------
appraising the deposit, evaluating various mining and
2 beneficiation processes, assessing environmental
3 matters, pursuing permits, and worrying about economics.
A We find many alternatives with some
fascinating features, but when the bottom line reads
higher cost, without compensating benefits in the pro-
duction of food and fiber, we must restrain ourselves.
a Unless something of real value is obtained
9 when we expend labor, resources, dollars, we contribute
10 to inflation which many authorities consider to be our
11 gravest threat today.
12 MCC's phosphate development is a new source.
13 Consequently, the areawide EIS has been viewed with much
14 concern.
is We recognize the objective is to determine
16 and appraise the effects of the phosphate industry's
17 southward movement on a seven -county area and on a
cumulative basis.
19 We appreciate the importance of the study,
20 but have been very apprehensive about the findings because
21 of the great complexities of the study.
22 Mississippi Chemical Corporation is a
23 member of the Florida Phosphate Council and supports the
24 council's observations and comments, which you heard last
25 night, and which will be supplemented later in the written
53
-------
i record,
2 Nevertheless, there are several points which
3 warrant specific comment as they particularly concern MCC:
4 First, an areawide study covering some 3.5
s billion acres in a period of time greater than a hundred
6 years causes one to lose perspective for a specific
7 15,000-acre site and what to do now.
8 We urge that no action be taken as a result
of the areawide EIS that will prohibit proper action on
10 a specific site at a specific time following a thorough
u study of the then available and discernible alternatives.
12 One thing we can place great confidence on
13 is man's ability to develop new and better ways to
14 accommodate his changing desires.
is Until the specific site effects are
16 . determined and evaluated, none of the alternatives should
17 be obviated or restricted.
is Areawide EIS findings and recommendations
19 should be set forth as guide posts fior future site
20 selections, not prohibitions or prerequisites.
21 Second, elimination of dryers may be a
22 meritorious objective under some circumstances, but it
23 could be unwise to limit the determination on only the
24 energy of transporting water in wet rock versus energy
25 for drying.
54
-------
i There are many other very important
2 considerations that also concern energy. For example,
3 introduction of additional water in chemical plants with
4 wet rock where climatic and process conditions require
5 it to be chemically treated and discharged can cause
6 very serious effects and consume a lot of energy.
7 Also, adverse effects on chemical processes
8 can result in higher raw material losses, which consume
9 a lot of energy.
10 Again, specific cases should be determined
n on factors relating to that specific case, using the
12 areawide findings as guide posts.
13 Third, elimination of above grade clays
u storage. A great amount of knowledge has been developed
is in this subject during the past few years, but often,
16 as our base of knowledge broadens, our rate of learning
17 is increased.
is Future decisions and actions should be
19 based on an evaluation of all known alternatives in the
20 light of knowledge existing at that time.
21 Certainly, no one wants to create earthen
22 dams simply to store semi-fluid clays at super elevations,
23 It has been done only because it was the
24 best available alternative at that time.
2s We are learning to reduce the hazards of
55
-------
doing that, and we are learning also how to evaluate the
overall effects of disposing the clays in that manner.
Some of these effects may be very valuable
when we learn how to quantify them.
I'm not defending and trying to say that
storage of clays above grade is the only way. I just say
that is an alternative.
Also, we have other alternative disposal
methods that are being developed that are, as yet, largely
,o untried but appear very promising.
,, I urge you not to close out any alternative.
Elimination of above grade clays storage is highly de-
13 sirable, but simply may not be the best alternative for
14 some site not yet defined.
Fourth, wetlands . A phosphate rock miner
u, prefers to mine high, dry, sandy ridges. The wetlands
are much more trouble, causing the cost of removing
18 phosphate lying thereunder to be greater .
19 But phosphate can be recovered only from
20 where it is. To leave it may cause an irreversible and
21 irretrievable loss of a valuable resource.
22 The magnitude of this loss must be weighed
23 against the value of the wetlands to be disrupted. Each
24 specific site must be studied thoroughly, and all the
25 pertinent facts considered, including the phosphate values,
56
-------
the wetlands values, the restoration alternatives, and
then determine the proper course of action.
I think in that matter we agree, and on
that I really close, with the caveat that, while these
remarks reflect some of our immediate concerns, MCC must
reserve the right to comment upon any aspect of the
7 areawide EIS during site-specific EIS reviews.
B I thank you for considering our points of
9 view.
10 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Chesson,, Let
ii me just comment, because this bothered me last night.
I think Mr. Hooks raised it; I think it was raised
13 the first night, while certainly this is an areawide
14 document addressing general issuance, it's the intent
is of EPA to use this in a very specific manner when it
16 begins to issue permits.
And I think to say otherwise would be misleading
is the industry and misleading everyone else here. We
19 understand thatywhen we look at a specific project, we're
20 going to have to make some choices here, but things like
21 elimination of rock drying and elimination of slime ponds
22 is something that the Agency's going to implement through
23 all the processes, enforcement and regulatory processes
24 it has «
This is just not a report that's going to
57
-------
look nice some place. This is a report that is intended
to be implemented by the Agency.
I just wanted to make that comment, so that you
all understand that while we look at these things on a
case-by-case basis, certainly the recommendations on
this document are going to be implemented within the
regulatory structure of EPA.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chesson.
9 MR. TRAINA: Jim Kelly?
10 MR. KELLY:
11 Mr. Chairman, Jim Kelly representing the
i? Charlotte County Conservation Council.
13 First I'd like to say that we are very
u proud of trying to maintain high environmental quality
15 in Charlotte County.
16 The Charlotte County Conservation Council,
vi with the aid of our Charlotte County Commission and our
IH City County, our City-County Planning Council, our local
19 legialative delegation,and working with the Department of
20 Natural Resources, for some five years,, we've recently
21 completed state acquisition of approximately 20,000 acres
22 of marshlands in Charlotte Harbor. Basically, we're
23 talking about the beautiful, undisturbed shoreline from,
24 more or. less, Highway 41 bridge on west and south to the
county line.
58
-------
So we do feel that we do have something
2 to be proud of, and we are concerned about the harbor.
3 We feel it is probably the finest eatuarine system left
In Florida :i.n productivity and absence of damage.
You just don't get that many miles of
natural shoreline In many places anymore. We're talking
about close to 30 miles of natural mangrove shoreline.
On the other hand, as Dr. Bigelow pointed
out tonight, he said he's lived here for fifteen years.
10 Well, I've lived here forty-four years, and I can see
n the water quality degrading in the harbor in spite of
12 the protection of the natural shoreline.
n When I was a little younger than I am
M now, we had a pier in the harbor in the Peace River,
is and I can remember in the spring of the year walking
16 out on that pier and the water quality was so good in
17 the spring, before the rainy season started, it was so
IB clear, you could see the stripe on a snook's side in
19 five feet of water, and now you. can't even see the
20 snook. In fact, now you can't even see the bottom.
21 So water quality —
22 MR. TRAINA: You're still catching snook?
23 MR. KELLY: Well, yeah, we catch some, yeah.
24 We give it the old college try there.
25 But water quality has — We are concerned
59
-------
about it. We are naturally concerned about what
happens in the upper Peace River and possibly what will
happen in the future in the Myakka River when new plants
or activities could develop, because, of course, what
happens up there goes into Charlotte Harbor and affects
us.
And as Tiny Johnson with our City Council
brought out tonight already, according to the 208 study,
why, about 85 percent of the major pollutants in. Charlotte
]0 Harbor right now are coming from up river.
So we are concerned. Our primary concern
)2 in Charlotte County, as far as the phosphate industry
is concerned, is water quality.
]4 Of course, the things that Mr. McNeill
15 brought out tonight in the proposed actions, we would
16 certainly endorse these recommendations.
17 We're certainly for anything that would
)8 eliminate or drastically reduce the possibility of
)9 degrading the environment through phosphate spills or
20 phosphate accidents or any other kind of activity.
2) So we are certainly in favor of these
recommendations that Mr. McNeill pointed out tonight.
It only makes -- and this is something
24 that's been brought out earlier, but I think it's note-
25 worthy, bringing it up again -- it only makes common sense
A i s-4
60
-------
i to have existing operations meet all air emission and
? water discharge requirements listed for new sources
3 by 1983 as is recommended on page 1,74, paragraph 2.a.
4 in your draft.
s And of course, you've said tonight that
6 in some cases maybe the state requirements are already
7 more stringent. Well, in that case, naturally, the
8 more stringent regulation should apply.
9 But we are in favor of incorporating
10 these requirements by 1983 as your draft recommends.
n Furthermore, it makes no sense to have
12 rules and regulations if they aren't carried out. We
13 would highly recommend that a very active monitoring
14 program be initiated in all streams involved with
is phosphate industry discharges, as well as bays and other
16 bodies of waters that these streams might flow into.
i; We would like to have an active monitoring
IB program in the harbor itself, as well as Peace River and
19 Myakka River.
20 °n page 4.5 it states "Make unannounced
21 inspections of company dams and company maintenance and
22 inspection program to see that they comply with DER
23 Chapter 17-9 requirements."
24 There again, this is just good common sense.
„ May I put it on a personal basis for a few minutes.
61
t-l S-JT
-------
We own a hotel, and we have a dining room
and a kitchen, and we don't object to the hotel inspector,
restaurant inspector, health inspector, coming out and
making an unannounced inspection of our dining room or
kitchen.
We feel that's in the best interests and the
psychology of it That is really the only way to get
the proper results. We never have had a health inspector
phone me the day before and say, "Hey, Jim, we're going
10 to have an inspection tomorrow. You better get the open
metal cans out of your refrigerator and put them in some
other container, non-metallic container, or ypu better
13 make sure you've got thermometers in all your refrigerators
14 and the thermostats read 140, or you better make sure
is there's no dirt in your meat slicer."
i6 We never have had them do that to us, and
17 we don't feel that we're being harassed, so we
,8 MR. TRAINA: Mr. Kelly, that certainly is
,9 an enlightened attitude on that* I really appreciate
20 hearing that as an enforcement official.
21 MR, KELLY: So we don't feel that the
22 phosphate industry would be being harassed if unannounced
23 inspections took place. In fact, that is the only way
24 to have the psychological impact there so everybody's on
25 the ball all the time, so we would highly recommend that.
' 62
/- zrc.
-------
This is in the best interests of public health and
environmental quality.
In closing, we'd like to say that we
certainly, and I don't mean to imply that we are
5 picking on the phosphate industry, per se; we all
6 realize we need phosphate for food production, and so
7 forth.
However, as I brought out, we highly
endorse and are in favor of any recommendations pre-
10 sented in this draft that would eliminate or cut down
n the possibility of environmental pollution, whether it
12 be phosphate spills, slime spills, or pipes breaking
13 or whatever, because, as much of us in the seven-county
14 area know, we have had quite a history of these mishaps.
15 In fact, we've got quite a little information on it.
16 So in closing, we'd like to say that
maintaining a good environmental quality is good business
IB for all Florida. We should all be interested in it.
19 Thank you,,
20 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly.
(Applause)
?2 MR. TRAINA: David Wilson?
23 MR. WILSON:
24 I'm David Wilson. I'm president of the
25 Peace River Audubon Society, which is located right in
63
-------
Punta Gorda. It has members from Charlotte and DeSoto
2 County.
3 The most recent phosphate mine that I can
see is Mobil Oil Company digging right up to the road
three blocks from the southern residential section of
Fort Meade in southern Polk County.
This area used to be a lovely oak hammock
with trees, some fifty to seventy-five years old. I think
it's one of the last in this area on Highway 17.
10 Homer, this is very bad PR. I'm talking to
Homer Hooks.
12 I kind of feel like the lorisch in Dr.
Seuss. Our proposal is for another means of reclamation
14 of mined land, other than pasture land.
15 Before the mine is mined, I believe that
16 the top soil should be stripped off and set aside, and
after the mining, the land should be filled in and then
is the set-aside top soil should be put back.
19 And guess what I'm going to propose gets
20 back on it? Then, instead of grass, plant native trees
21 and shrubs. Pine would be a good start, and phase in
the laurel and live oak, and let Mother Nature do the
rest.
I mentioned this to you before, now, Homer,
25 and you're going to hear it again.
t-is-8
64
-------
i Thank you very much.
2 MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
MR. TRAINA: Robert M. McQueen?
MR. MCQUEEN:
Homer does know that at the end of the
Peace River, there is salt water, Homer. It's not all
fresh.
Listen, I would just like to briefly say
10 that it has definitely been an educational experience
working on this study, and I am very pleased at the
12 professional capabilities and credentials of all the
13 people we've had to work with from TI, all the way to
14 the Agency.
is A couple of comments, just kind of in
16 summary, is we are concerned about the water quality
17 down here; not only is the Peace River a regional
is drinking supply but a supply for DeSoto, Charlotte,
19 Sarasota, Boca Grande area, which is our prime concern.
20 We feel that the water quality issue
21 primarily should be addressed in our 208 plans, which
22 are contracted from EPA to our regional planning council.
23 The Central Florida Regional Planning
24 Council did not address the Peace River in their 208 plan.
25 We feel that it should be done.
65
-------
On the other one, on you, Marvin, I
2 personally feel that DER has not done their job on
3 revision of 17-3. It's been going on for years and
years and years, and it looks like it will be going
on for years and years and years, on the reclassification
standards, on the new standards of classification of
not only the harbor, Class 2, Class 3 waters, but the
Class 1 waters for a potable supply.
So you can pass that on to your boss that
10 we have been pushing it down here. I know that there is
11 a hold-up; it's a very controversial issue, but we feel
i? still that somebody's going to have to make a decision
13 sometime, and we would like to urge that DER press for
this decision by the commissioners„
15 On the water quality aspect, the runoff
16 from the streams is also a management responsibility of
17 the water management districts.
is We've been pointed out here that SWFMD
19 and the water management districts were supposed to have
20 been on this advisory board, an<3 I would like to make the
21 comment that, of all the meetings that I have been to --
22 now, if I'm wrong, someone correct me — I have not seen
23 the first representative from a water management district.
24 They not only are involved in the consumptive
25 water use permits, but by the ruling of the Attorney General
66
/- 2 C, O
-------
i of Florida, they are also to be involved in water quality.
2 The district permits on consumptive water
3 use permits must take into consideration water quality.
4 Mining in the wetlands, the definition of
5 the three categories of wetlands. There's one little
6 statement in there on Category 3 wetlands, which states --
7 I'm sure it's just an oversight or something -- Category 3
8 wetlands have insignificant hydrological functions.
9 There may be a degree of significance, but
10 I don't think the statement "insignificant" to me —
}} This is improper and incorrect.
12 The existing sources of mines have a greater
,3 total effect on the Peace River Basin than all of the
14 new sources that have been proposed, so we're concerned
15 here that It's not what's coming on the linej we
i6 feel that that will be regulated, but it's what's already
17 there that's going to continue to affect us down here, not
IB only in water quantity and quality, which are prime
19 considerations down here.
20 The running-stream communities we are very
21 much interested in. Page 2.56 states " — the running-
22 water communities, streams and rivers, will experience the
23 greatest effects from phosphate mining activities ."
24 By the year 2000, 76,600 acres will be mined
25 in the Peace River Basin alone. "This magnitude of activity
67
/-*«/
-------
will measurably affect runoff patterns and flow
regimes of headwater streams within the Peace River."
Now, this was quoted out of your study.
And we have some questions that we'd like to throw back
to Gene.
Are these decreased runoff figures stated
based on annual flow, peak flow, or at low flow periods?
And we think it should be clarified, because if they are
at low flow periods, then it could reduce the flow in
]0 some streams and creeks by as much as 30 percent.
n So if you would just
1? MR. TRAINA : Gene, do you know the answer
13 to that? Do you want to comment on that?
MR. MCNEILL: I'm sorry, I don't right now,
,5 but we will
16 MR. MCQUEEN: Gene, what has come up is
17 some of the information, like you pointed out the other
)8 night, that it ended up in the draft EIS and was not in
)9 the working papers.
20 And when we go back to try to find the
2i information in the working papers -- like you said the
other night, it has been revised and you're going to
revise your working papers --
24 MR. MCNEILL: Right
25 MR. MCQUEEN: -- and it was not clearly stated
68
-------
i in this document.
2 MR. TRAINA: I think it'll be addressed
3 in the final document. !
4 MR. MCQUEEN: Yes, sir. So we just would
5 like for you to clarify that fact. j
i
i
6 Also, on these same lines, we feel this
7 document, or I personally feel this document is not
8 adequately addressing the impact on the retaining water
9 requirements for the ten and twenty-five-year rainfall
10 requirements on the amount of water to be withheld.
11 We feel that it should also address the
12 total number of acreage that you're going to impound
13 here, you know. This sounds good on the surface, im-
14 pound and retain this much water, but I'm not sure
is that we aren't doing more harm than good by retaining
16 thousands of acres of water that should go into a runoff.
17 So let's look at the amount of water,
is how much cubic -- or flow or surface acres, or however
19 you want to measure it, that we're talking about, because
20 it is a significant area, and this not only pertains to
21 new sources, new sources you're going to a twenty-four-hour
?2 rainfall in a twenty-five-year period; on existing you've
23 proposed it on a ten-year period.
24 So it's not only going to have an effect
25 on the new ones but also the existing ones and, you know,
69
A
-------
if it rains in Polk County, we'd like to have some of
2 the water eventually end up down here, and it could have
3 some adverse effect on our flow pattern.
We also wish to emphasize on site-specific
EIS's that these questions be addressed in more detail,
and also, another thing is all of this stuff is worthless
if it's not adequately and properly monitored.
8 Our other prime consideration is the effect
9 of mining on the Peace and the Myakka River basins, which
10 we have now on the Myakka -- the effects on the Charlotte
n Harbor estuarine system, which has previously been dis-
12 cussed here tonight.
13 So with all of these, our whole philosophy,
I think, here in Charlotte County, and you know, we aren't
asking you not to do something that's unreasonable.
16 I'm in the ranching business, and no one
more than myself knows that we need phosphate. I bought
ift a lot today; Homer didn't send it down to me for nothing,
19 so I know that we do need it.
20 So I think, to kind of summarize our philosophy)
21 down here is we have a dependency on the fresh water, on
22 the harbor estuarine system, and the people from Polk County
23 and Hardee County, from DeSoto County, love to come down
here and get the oysters. They love to come down here and
25 fish, and they love to do all these other things, and we're
70
-------
all basically in the same system.
2 I think if we just kind of look at it from
3 the Golden Rule, you know, do,unto others as you would
like to have them do unto you, don't do anything upstream
that you wouldn't want us doing down here.
So in light of that, I think we just kind of
take that approach. I think the report is very good. It
s has some very good ideas in it, true. You can pick any-
9 thing apart. If you get a document and you give/.lp,000
10 people a chance, everybody can pick one sentence they
n don't like.
I think basically it is a good document,
13 and hopefully something we can live with. It does, as
14 I've seen in the last three hearings, there are things
is pointed out, I think, that a little clarification is
16 needed to be made on the document, but basically I think
17 it is a very good document.
is And that's all I have to comment on that.
19 Mr. Stowasser, one other comment, that I would
20 like to comment on, the gentleman had a while ago. He
21 asked you a question on the Florida reserves in comparison to
22 the world reserves, production, and also what percentage
23 of reserves we have.
24 On page 1.23, the statement is made in there
?s that we are producing 80 percent of the US production and
71
-------
33 percent of the world production in 1976, and I have
been made to believe, through this two-year course of study,
that Florida does only have between 2 and 4 percent of
the total known phosphate reserves in thewrld.
MR, STOWASSER: Well, all I can do is
give you the latest information that we have.
MR. MCQUEEN: Yes. Well then, this document
should be corrected and updated if your figures are not
true.
10 MR. STOWASSER: This changes every six
11 months as more information is acquired. We can update
12 the document.
,3 MR. MCQUEEN: All right, sir.
,4 MR. STOWASSER: Yes.
,5 MR. MCQUEEN: All right, sir. I think you
16 should, because it was pointed in there, it was documented,
17 and it was dated, and that was my belief also on these
is figures, so you know, I realize that as new technology
19 comes on and new reserves are discovered, etcetera, so ---
20 That's really all the comments I have to
21 make, and we really enjoyed having y'all come to Punta
22 Gorda. I know you couldn't even spell it before you came
23 down here.
24 MRU TRAINA: John Hagan was sure that I could
25 spell it and pronounce it.
72
-------
MR. MCQUEEN: John taught you how. So listen,
2 I've enjoyed working with the advisory committee and with
3 EPA, TI, Larry and his people, and if you have any ques-
tions or if there's any way we can assist you, I think
you pretty well know what our concerns are down here,
6 being that we are at the end of the two basins, and we
7 do have concerns over the water, primarily, the water
quality and quantity.
Thank you.
10 MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
11 (Applause)
12 MR. TRAINA: I think Mr. Hagan ---
13 MR. HAGAN: I'd like to pursue one point.--
MR. MCQUEEN: Yes, sir.
is MR. HAGAN: -- that you mentioned there.
16 You mentioned that D and R, or, DER, I guess, has not
17 aggressively pursued the reclassification of water.
is MR. MCQUEEN: I did not specifically say the
19 reclassification request. I said the re-writing of 17-3,
20 because they aren't going to do anything on any reclass -
21 ification until after they have re-done 17-3, and this has
22 been going on .It'll be three years in August this has
23 been
24 MR. HAGAN: What is the objective here in
25 doing the revisions of the standards and then doing the
73
-------
reclassification. I mean, what is the county's objective
in aiming for-a revision?
MR. MCQUEEN: Okay. We have never made a
request for any revision to 17-3. This came, evidently,
from the commissioners, or the man out in the hall will
have to answer that question for you.
Our request down here was, number one,
8 water classifications are based on usage. This is the
9 only body of water now, I think -- Marvin, correct me
10 if I'm wrong -- in the State of Florida that has been
n permitted to be used for a potable water supply that is
1? not Class 1 waters.
There were a couple of others; the DER
came in
15 MR. HAGAN: You're talking about the Peace
16 River potable water?
17 MR. MCQUEEN: Peace River, right. For a
18 regional water supply, they have received permits from
,9 the Department of Health, from DER, from the Corps of
20 Engineers, from all permitting agencies, for a regional
21 water supply on the Peace River, and our concern here
22 is water quality on the Peace River.
23 The water in DeSoto County do meet the
24 criteria for Class 1 waters, and therefore we felt that
because it was being used for Class 1 waters, that the
74
-------
i waters there should be rec lass if led according to their
2 use.
3 MR. HAGAN: Why was the Peace River
4 specifically chosen as the ffigional water supply source?
5 MR. MCQUEEN: It's the only supply of
6 potable water that we have.
7 Now, if the industry supply in DeSoto
8 County, all the area north —
9 Well, to answer your question, we have found
)0 out that we cannot depend on a well system nor our canal
n system when the surface water breaks for a potable water
12 supply based on our demand.
)3 Plus, also we have some problems in our
14 well system with salt water intrusion, and the next, the
,5 most logical place to go for them up there was the Peace
16 River.
,7 The recommendations now from the consultant
18 that comes to the city — I think the City can probably
19 answer this better than I can -- is to first go to Shell
20 Creek, and eventually we are recommended south of the river
21 to go to the Peace River or the Telegraph Cypress.
?2 So we're going to have, to look sometime in
23 the future, also at Peace River. Some stations upstream^
24 as water was drawn out of the Peace River, and because of
25 various events, phosphate spills, etcetera, they could not
75
-------
depend upon the surface water for a dependable water
supply .
Then they had to go to a well, such as
Arcadia, etcetera
MR. HAGAN: When you speak of a regional
supply ~-
MR. MCQUEEN: I mean multi-county area.
B MR. HAGAN: -- on this, you're talking about
9 a multi-county area for DeSoto County ---
10 MR. MCQUEEN: DeSoto, Sarasota, Charlotte,
n and eventually going back into the Boca Grande system,
12 which they're all on well fields. They're all on well
13 fields in this part of the county --•-
MR. HAGAN: Do you have a rough estimate
15 of how many people would be served eventually by such a
16 regional water supply?
,7 MR. MCQUEEN: I can give it to you in
IB capacity. Their initial permit from SWFMD is for 6 million
19 gallons, and the plant is being built for a capacity of
20 30 million gallons, and as plants come on the line in
21 increments and stages up to a capacity of 30 million
?2 ga lions .
23 MR. HAGAN: Up to 30 million gallons a day?
MRo MCQUEEN: Yes.
25 MR. HAGAN: Out of the Peace River?
76
/-
-------
MR. MCQUEEN: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you.
MR. MCQUEEN: Now, that's just for this
one utility company, only for the utility companies north
of the river.
6 MR. HAGAN: Thank you.
/ MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
8 (Applause)
9 MR. TRAINA: Thomas W. Letson?
10 (Pause)
11 MR. TRAINA: Mr. Letson?
12 (No response)
13 MR. TRAINA: That concludes the cards of
14 individuals who indicated by card they'd like to make
15 a statement.
16 I'd like to ask at this time if there's anyone
17 else who'd like to come forward and comment on what
they've heard tonight or anything else relating to the
19 study, anyone else who made a statement.
20 Yes, sir?
21 MR. MILLER:
22 My name is Jonathon Miller. I handed in a
23 card; I guess it got lost in the shuffle, and you have my
24 address because I spoke
25 MR, TRAINA: I'm sorry; it's right here.
11
-------
MR. MILLER: You may have some other cards
from some other people that'd like to speak.
MR. MILLER:
What I'd like to speak about this evening
5 is the wetlands. Apparently, from listening to the other
6 two hearings, the question of restoration of wetlands
7 seems to be a sort of crucial point in this whole DEIS,
a and I think it's pretty easy to see why.
9 If, on the one hand, it is possible to
10 restore wetlands, and the results are as good or better
n than the original wetland, then there's really not a lot
12 of limits on where you should be mining.
13 In other words, if the phosphate industry
14 can create a good wetland, then they can go into some
is of these wet areas and get the phosphate that's in there.
16 I know they said that they prefer to mine
17 on the drier side, but the whole beginning of the industry
was the history of them floating around outside the Peace
19 River eating away at the plants and tearing up the stream
20 bed, and that sort of thing.
21 So there has been a lot of phosphate connected
22 with wetlands.
23 If, on the other hand, it's impossible, im-
24 probable or infeasible to restore wetlands, or if it turns
?5 out that they're inferior to natural wetiands, then it
78
-------
i would seem that there would have to be some major limits
2 to mining.
3 And I'm not solely here to speculate
4 tonight on the feasibility of restoring or replacing
5 wetlands. I am, I guess, naturally skeptical at some
6 of the comments that were made yesterday regarding the
7 state of the art in creating wetlands.
8 But what I really came here tonight to
9 do is to talk to you or introduce the thought that
10 natural wetlands They serve as indicators of the
n health of ecosystems in general.
12 And I suspect that when I talk about
13 indicators of health, that may ring some bells. It's
u similar-type language that's used sometimes in regard to
15 endangered species.
16 In other words, sometimes people talk
17 about endangered species, and so these species can be
IB used as indicators of the health of ecosystems.
19 In effect, there seems to be two basic
20 different types of arguments that are used, and the
21 arguments to preserve endangered species —
22 One of these arguments is centered on the
23 concept that the species itself is important. It's either
24 important to the ecosystem, or it's important because we
25 may get new medicine from it, it's important because we
79
/• 18*
-------
like it estheticaily, but the organism itself is important.
But the other argument that you hear used
is that the. organism is important as an indicator. It
may have importance unto itself, but it's important as
an indicator,
6 So if we find that we have a viable
7 population of wood storks in south Florida, then we can
8 say that the hydro periods and the functioning of some
9 of the wetlands down there are still somewhat viable,
10 that basically the system's still working because the
n wood storks can still feed, so you use the wood stork
12 as an indicator of the health of the ecosystem.
,3 Now, both of these types of arguments are
14 valid, and I'm sure you have lots of information that
is show the wetlands, in and of themselves, are important;
16 in. other words, they're important as a habitat, clean
17 water, and all the different functions that -we're all
is aware of as the importance of wetlands.
19 But what I'm asking that you think about
20 tonight is what ,,thdi health of the-.natural wetlands suggests
21 about the ecosystem in general; in other words, what .their
?2 function is as indicators, and I personally believe that
23 we can infer five things, at a minimum, about naturally
24 occurring, healthy wetlands, in this portion of Florida.
80
25
-------
, In the first place, existence of an
2 established vetland community implies there's been some
3 continuity; in other words, for as loag as that wetland
4 system's been there, there's been some continuity of
5 conditions. I think that's important.
6 Another thing that I believe we can infer
7 is that there's some hydrologic integrity of the
8 surface water system and frequently ground water system.
9 In other words, there has to be -- I guess;
10 this is related to this concept of continuity — but the
n water shed has to be working, water has to be flowing,
12 surface water has to
-------
i really reducing the probability of having healthy,
2 fresh water systems or healthy esuarine systems. You
3 can see this in the Kissimmee River.
And I would alao maintain that a healthy
existing wetland says something about meteorological
health. In other words, what I'm talking about is the
7 weather patterns.
8 If the wetlands existed for a very long
period of time, it says something about the rainfall
10 conditions that have made that possible.
And as I tried to say in Bradenton -- I
12 don't think I did the best job -- I'm not really
13 satisfied with the half page that you devoted to
]4 climate in the EIS, and I'd like to suggest that you
15 contact the Meteorological Environmental Research Lab-
)6 oratory in Coral Gables and talk to them to see what i£.
is they might have about the possible effects of
is phosphate mining on the weather.
]9 I'd also Just like to mention in passing
20 that in your reduced water use scenario, you're using
21 rainfall data from the period of 1931 to 1960, and it was
22 after that time -- or since that time, I should say — that
23 we have had lower than normal rainfall, and the question
24 is whether this lower than normal rainfall is going to be
2 the base line for the future, but I really don't think we
82
-------
should avoid looking at the 1960 or 1978 rainfall
2 patterns and, you know, ascertaining what the surface
3 water systems are going to be working on.
At any rate, what I'm getting at is
5 I think that healthy, natural wetland systems tell
6 us something, and I am opposed to their removal, even
7 if they may be replaced .
8 Now, we have a court case, a suit, where
9 a man is injured, and later he gets money back, and
10 that's supposed to be some sort of compensation.
I don't personally believe that replacing
12 a swamp forest with a forest of seedling cypress or other
13 trees is a Just compensation.
Now, the meeting last night in Bar tow,
15 the industry spokesman said they don't want to end up
16 seeing isolated wetlands that are surrounded -- they're
17 up on pedestals -- surrounded by dried out areas. These
is wetlands are going to decline. They didn't get to use the
19 phosphate in the wetlands themselves, so are really of no
20 use to anyone.
21 I don't think anyone does want to see this
22 happen, so there's going to have to be some sort of
23 insurances to, not only leave these swamp forests, but
24 also insure that they're going to get some water, and I
25 guess at the Bradenton meeting a woman broughtaup the point
83
-------
, that we're going to be using this 5 cubic feet per second
2 flow as some sort of determination of what's flowing
3 water, etcetera, etcetera.
4 If you chop off all the upper portions of
5 the water shed, you can reduce the flow sufficiently so
6 that a stream that will fall below 5 cubic feet per
7 second -- then that would be available for mining.
8 So what I'd like to ask you is that you
9 think about requiring some sort of flow standards for
I
10 mining. In other words, that during the mining process
n and afterwards, there would have to be a certain flow.
12 Now, it could be expressed on an average
13 basis, a minimum — I don't know how you do it. I don't
)4 know whether you want to base it on 1930 to I960 or on
15 more recent information, but I really think: it's important
16 that we do have some of these assurances that the surface
,7 water will continue to get into the streams and into the
18 estuaries.
19 And I think we had, a few other people
20 tonight talking about this.
21 I hope you'll pursue this idea, some sort
22 of guarantee or assurances that the flow rates will be
23 maintained through the mining process and afterwards.
?4 Now, the only other thing I'd like to talk
about tonight is the concept of people who would like to
5
84
-------
i stop using ground water resources and perhaps use more
2 surface water; in other words, collecting rainfall, storing
3 it and using that for a water supply.
What I'd like to suggest is that, rather
than having people store this water as it falls and then
when the rainfall exceeds this certain amount, avoiding
that or getting rid of that to the streams, that you
let the water that falls flow into the creeks and streams
and rivers and estuaries, but when rainfall exceeds a
10 certain amount, then a flood gate or a dam or a wheel,
11 or whatever structure can be closed at some point, and
12 people would be allowed to retain that excess water.
13 In other words, it may be possible to prove
14 that water, fresh water, in excess of a certain amount
is does significantly stress an ecosystem. There may be some
16 flood stage that can be proven to be An ecosystem
17 can't really, it can adjust to it, but it can't adapt to
is it. It's too sporadic.
19 And so, if the water that people need, or
20 they would like to start using more fresh water as opposed
21 to ground water I hope you'll consider this concept of
22 letting the normal rain patterns reach the wetlands and
23 estuaries, and the greater than normal events, the out of
24 the ordinary ten-year storm and twenty-five year storm, that
25 those waters, once they exceed an average, that those can
85
-------
be retained.
I'd just like you to consider that. I'd
like to thank you very much for listening to me twice.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much, Mr. Miller,
for coming twice. Thank you very much, sir.
6 Is there anyone else here that I haven't
7 called —•
Yes, sir? Would you please come up and
identify yourself?
10 MR. PEEPLES:
n My name is Vasco Pe.eples. I live In Punta
12 Goirda. I've lived here since 1933, before most of you
13 came around.
14 I don't like phosphate spills. I don't
15 like the things we've had to h^jspen to us. I certainly
16 believe in conservation, and I spend a good many foours
17 a year studying our water problems.
18 Now, I'm not as highly educated in a
19 technical sense as a lot of these people who spoke here
20 tonight, so I can only make, a practical comment.
21 We need the conservation. We need our
22 protection, but we don't need stagnation.
And another thing, from a practical stand-
£. -J
point, I buy food, I have children that buy food, I have
grandchildren that buy food, and if restrictions are ever
25 86
-------
made so strong that we couldn't get phosphate for
2 fertilizer, you'd cut about 30 percent of the world's
3 food supply off, and where in the heck would we be?
Where would the people living on a pension
5 be if your food prices double? Talk about inflation,
6 if we can't produce the food as much as we're doing
7 now, we would have more inflation. Then we'd have a
e chaotic condition.
9 I want our waterways protected, but I
10 don't want to see restrictions so restrictive until
11 phosphate would not be available in quantities needed
12 to fertilize our soils to produce food.
13 Thank you very much, sir.
14 MR. TRAINA: Is there anyone else who
is cares to make a comment at this time?
16 (No response)
17 MR. TRAINA: As I said at the outset, this
is is the third and final of the public hearings that we've
19 had on this issue.
20 I must say, and I expected this having been
21 to this area before, the depth of the comments have been
22 such that I certainly learned a lot, and I do believe
23 that the people that prepared this report have learned a
24 lot, and while EPA was scheduled to put out this final
25 report by July 31st, it's my view that we're going to have
87
/-
-------
to go back and do quite a bit of further review of
the various things in this report to address the comments,
as they should be addressed, that were made during these
last three days8
So I don't know whether or not, frankly,
this report will be finalized by July 31st. We'll
certainly shoot for it, but the main objective from here
on in is to get back -with our staff, our contractor,
and to address the very significant comments that were
10 made on these past three days, and I think that we have
11 some way to go before we put a final report out in this
12 area.
13 We are going to keep the record open till
14 June 23rd to allow any of you here, who either have or
15 have not made a comment, to write comments to us. Those
16 comments should be sent to Mr. John Hagan, and John is
17 the Chief of our EIS Branch, EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland
is Street, Atlanta, 30308.
Mr, Hagan has a card that he'll give you
20 if you want thac later.
21 As I said, EPA takes these hearings seriously,
22 takes your comments seriously. We will address the comments
that have been made tonight and the otter two nights.
24 Those comments and our response to those
25 comments will be included in the final EIS, and when we
88
-------
i make that determination and put out that final EIS, we
2 will be sending that to all of you that have registered
3 tonight, so again I would urge that if you want to get
4 a copy of that document to please indicate on the card
5 or something.
6 As I said earlier, it's EPA's intention
7 that this document not be one that'll sit in the library
e somewhere; that, in fact, it will be used in the various
9 regulatory actions and permitting processes in water and
10 air and the other activities that EPA conducts in radiation
11 and other activities involving the environment.
i? And we intend to use this document to
13 base those regulatory decisions on.
u And again, I'll stress to you all that this
is is a document that we are not taking lightly, and we
16 have a number of comments, and the quality of those comments
17 we're sure not taking them lightly, either.
is Again, I want to thank the people here in
19 Punta Gorda for inviting us. It's been a very useful
20 period for us. We've learned a lot, and we hope that you
21 have learned some, too.
22 This hearing is now adjourned.
23 (Whereupon, the hearing was
24 adjourned at 9:40 p.m.)
25 -oOo-
89
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV
in the Matter of:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public
Hearing
Commission Meeting Room, Courthouse
Punta Gorda, Florida
7:30 p.m.
May 25, 1978
were held as herein appears and that this is the
original transcript for the file of the Agency.
-oOo-
-------
SECTION 2
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
(Note: Responses are numbered T-l through T-67. Numbers
are assigned to substantive comments in the margin
of the Hearing Transcripts in Section 1)
-------
T-l and T-2 - Mr. Ernie Estevez' comments regarding need for generic
habitat protection.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) report referenced is
titled Fish and Wildlife Inventory of the Seven-County Region. It was com-
piled by the Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida for the FWS.
The report, as indicated in working papers Volume XI, Section 2, (Volume VII-
NTIS), was intended as an up-to-date inventory of the 7-county region included
in the Central Florida phosphate industry areawide impact study. It contains
detailed accounts of important vertebrate species including potential effects
of mining on them, as well as general recommendations for further wildlife
surveys and mitigative mining methods. The report has not been published by
the FWS and has had limited distribution. It was completed in September 1977
and made accessible only in time for a review prior to issuance of this EIS.
The EIS and the FWS report are quite similar in assessment of the effects of
phosphate mining on important wildlife species and habitats.
The proposed action herein calls for site-specific inventories of
Wildlife habitat to be mined or disturbed and mining and reclamation plans
that take into account the protection and restoration of habitat so that
important species of wildlife will be adequately protected during mining and
reclamation. Thus, resource management, including wildlife and habitat
management, will be addressed for each new source mining area and should
include the preservation and restoration of movement and dispersal areas.
T-3, PP. 37-39, Bradenton Transcript - Mr. Ernie Estevez' comments on
monitoring.
Monitoring by local and state agencies will certainly be necessary
to assure compliance with the Proposed Action, as stated. The reliance of
this EIS on monitoring does not necessarily mean that existing monitoring
programs are adequate. As Mr. Traina stated at the hearing, citizen input is
also needed to assure regulatory agencies at all levels respond adequately to
statutory duties.
2-1
-------
T-4, pp. 43-44, Mr. Fred Duisberg - (Request that permits only be granted
for phosphate to be used in this nation only)
The Interagency Steering Committee determined at its first meeting
that the consideration of limiting international trade of phosphate products
was beyond the scope of the Areawide EIS.
T-5, Ms. Glorida Rains' comments, involving 26 points.
Point #1: No comment.
Point it2 takes exception with the EIS statement (based on the
ORP-LVF report on radium in ground water) that radium in the ground water of
the seven county area is not due to contamination from the phosphate industry.
The available data base does not, in fact, substantiate widespread adverse
impacts on the principal potable aquifers as a result of the industry, but
the data base is very limited and the foregoing conclusion must be regarded
as a preliminary, conditional finding. We would suggest that we all re-read
paragraph three of the preface to that report (EPA/520-6-77-010). Additional
studies are recommended, a point which many reviewers of the EIS also endorsed.
The naturally high radium levels in Sarasota and Manatee Counties necessitate
very stringent monitoring, coupled with action programs to eliminate or reduce
water quality problems if they develop.
Points #3 through #8: See text of Volumes I and II, FEIS.
Point #9: Primary phosphate industry pollutants (particulates, SCv,
and fluorides) were considered with respect to State and Federal source emission
standards and State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Emission reports
indicate that all sources are In compliance with source standards, or on an
approved plan to attain this status. Air quality data available for this
study were for the most part 24-hour samples which preclude isolation of any
effect due to diurnal inversions. Data from continuous monitors in Hardee county
show little correlation between the'highest readings and diurnal inversions. A
more detailed modeling study of any specific area to isolate the short-term
2-2
-------
effects of diurnal inversions on local sources and the dispersion of their
pollutants was beyond the scope of this areawide study. Such modeling should
be part of any new source applications, and should involve adequate detail
to address both long term (24 hour annual ave.) and short term 8hr, 3hr, Ihr)
pollutant levels that would be associated with the source.
Point #10: To our knowledge, there has been no study to substantiate
that "Samplings of seepage from inactive gypsum piles show that they yield...
significant quantities of radium to surface streams and ground water for years
after the pile is abandoned." Such a study should be done and efforts are
underway involving EPA, the State of Florida, and selected gypsum ponds which
will be studied intensively to determine whether ground water is affected and
to what degree. Gypsum pond seepage to ground water has reportedly occurred
in north Florida and North Carolina, but we have not seen the study results.
The Final EIS requires stabilization of gyp ponds upon abandonment
P. 2.5, Vol. I).
Point #11: We agree with the statements made. The emphasis of
gypsum tailings pile management should be on reduction or elimination of
infiltrating surface water which, in turn, causes leachate production and need
for interception and other control measures. Measures that result in dry
tailings or at least greatly reduced water content will worsen radon exhalation.
Management should strive for maintenance of optimum moisture content, i.e.,
wet enough to reduce radon diffusion and not so wet as to allow for gravity
drainage or recharge' through the pile.
The type of pond lining required will be determined in the specific
studies.
Point #12: We agree with the recommendation for monitoring of
ground water beneath gypsum ponds in limestone terrains. Ground-water sampling
from wells located and designed for shallow ground-water monitoring has been
a missing element at most, if not all, chemical processing plants. Proof that
gypsum piles do or do not contribute to ground-water contamination has not been
developed despite the long-term, widespread nature of the industry. This is
unfortunate.
2-3
-------
Point #13: As stated in the DEIS, no new phosphoric acid plants
are projected. If one were proposed, the Final Areawide EIS, along with a
site specific study and EIS would be required to assure adequate protection
of air, surface water, and ground-water from radioactive or other harmful
materials.
Point #14: Both in-plant and external air emissions of fluorides
from the Florida Phosphate Industry decreased drastically between 1965 and
1972. Vegetative fluoride results indicate an increase of fluoride from
1973-1976, possibly due to lax maintenance of control equipment. Indications
are that maintenance of control equipment improved significantly beginning
in the fall of 1977. In any event, there have been no documented human health
effects due to fluoride to either workers or residents. There have also been
no documented reports of fluorosis in cattle since 1964, although there were
some unsubstantiated reports in 1976 and 1977. There is indeed a need for
further research on effects of fluoride on human health, livestock, vegetation,
and wildlife.
Point #15: Proposed radiation protection recommendations are
forthcoming. The recommendations are intended to provide health protection
for persons exposed to radiation from phosphate-related land in Florida. They
will provide guidance to Federal, State and local agencies and the public
regarding unacceptable levels of radiation exposure in existing and new
structures constructed on these land types. They should aid these groups in
determining whether action is warranted to reduce levels. Guidance will be
proposed at a later time to aid in radiological evaluation of undeveloped
phosphate-related land. Such guidance would be directed to methods for
estimating post-construction levels in structures to be built on these lands.
In developing the present recommendations only exposure due to
radiation in sturctures was considered, since at present this appears to be
the primary public health hazard. Potential crop uptake, soil runoff, and
other pathways may be addressed at some future time if evaluations show these
pathways to be important also. The limited available data do not show these
other pathways to be a significant problem at this time.
2-4
-------
Point #16: Limitations of the ground-water model are delineated
in the EIS. We feel it is better to include results along with limitations
than to ignore the results.
Point #17: Text revised. See Volume II of FEIS.
Point #18: See text of Volume I and II, FEIS
Point #19: See text of Volume I and II, FEIS
Point #20: In consideration of the fact that wetlands restoration
has not been demonstrated and does not seem imminent, the proposed action
calls for protection of wetlands included in Category I (those within and
contiguous to rivers and streams having an annual flow exceeding 5 cubic
feet per second and those determined to serve essential environmental
functions). As pointed out in working paper Volume XI, Section 2 (Volume
VII-NTIS) available maps of the study area do not adequately depict wetlands.
It is anticipated that the as yet incomplete FWS (DOI) wetlands inventory
will more clearly define wetlands habitats and their extent. Site-specific
wildlife habitat inventories should also include characterization of wetlands
on new source mining areas.
A reference to the possible effects of mining on adjacent lands is
in working paper Volume XI, Section 2 (Volume VII-NTIS). As indicated in
that volume (section 3) and in this EIS, Florida Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) regulations do not mandate addressing the effects of mining on
adjacent wetlands as similar effects (e.g., amount of drawdown, significance
of flow regime alternation) on nearby water-bodies must be addressed.
Point #21: There is no data to support the thesis that wetland
areas to be affected by proposed mining plans are critical recharge areas
for the Floridan aquifer. Recharge is primarily a direct function of the
soil leakance value and the difference between the head of the surface
water table and the potentiometric surface of the underlying aquifer. The
presence of surface water does not in itself imply that extensive recharge
will occur in that area. (Volume V, Section I/Volume V-NTIS)
2-5
-------
Point #22: The current level of phosphate industry activity uses
approximately 15% of the electricity generated in the Tampa area. Projections
for future phosphate industry activity show an increase until 1985, followed
by a general decline. This increase is not expected in itself to require any
increases in generating capacity in the Tampa area, because of the constant
level rather than peaking requirements of the phosphate industry. Hence, the
future development is not expected to increase power requirements. Similarly
for the case of transportation facilities, the level of phosphate industry
activity will not change sufficiently to cause significant deterioration of
the existing environment due to its activities. (Volume VIII, Sections 4 and
5/Volume I-NTIS)
The statement indicating that nutrient discharges are beneficial has
been revised. In the case of estuaries ultimately receiving phosphate industry
discharges, any additional plant nutrient material is indeed detrimental.
Point #23: The development of Tampa Harbor is clearly for the
primary purpose of handling greater amounts of bulk cargo. Phosphate is the
only significant bulk product under consideration for export from Tampa
Harbor. It is unlikely the harbor would be developed to such an extent for
general cargo only.
Point #24: See response to T-4
Point #25: See response to T-3
Point #26: The organization of the FEIS is responsive to this comment
since the impacts of the proposed action are described in Volume I and the
alternatives effects assessment is described separately in Volume II.
T-6 - Dr. Jeff Lincer's comment regarding inversions
The existence of diurnal inversions in Sarasota is not uncommon,
as is the case throughout the 7-county study area. Since the purpose of
this study was to characterize the future impact of the phospate industry on
the area relative to the existing environment, the existence of pollution
trapping inversions would have been of concern if large quantities of new
2-6
-------
phosphate industry air emissions were likely to be trapped in Sarasota.
Existing air quality data indicate that this has not been the case in the
past, due to the distance between major industry sources and Sarasota.
The expansion of mining southward from Polk county will have the effect
of adding a small amount of particulate matter to the atmospheric dust
load, but this is generally a local effect and not apt to affect Sarasota.
It is quite likely that the mining activity in the southern counties will
only replace the dust currently generated by agricultural activity on the
same land in some areas, and be less than agricultural emissions in other
areas. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the proposed action will
contribute measurably to an increased pollutant load in Sarasota, much less
contribute to "episodes" due to trapping by the regular diurnal inversions.
T-7 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding SCL and fluoride data
Any errors due to sampling methodology in the Sarasota S0_ data
would still place the ambient levels below 10 micrograms per cubic meter,
which is well below the federal and state air quality standards. These
standards were designed to protect the health and welfare of the population,
3
and levels as low as 10 ugm/m should be no problem when the state standard
3 3
is 60 ugm/m and the federal standard is 80 ugm/m (annual average).
The fluroide data presented in Figure 1.3 was prepared by the DER.
There appears to be no direct correlation between Industry emissions and the
reported vegetative levels. The sampling methodology and subsequent analysis
used to generate the data shown in Figure 1.3 allow a considerable margin of
error to exist within the reported numbers. A more extensive and better con-
trolled method and sampling program for vegetative fluorides would be more
meaningful than a "rigorous statistical examination" of the data presented in
Figure 1.3, which was already examined statistically by the DER. (Volume VII,
Section 2/Volume III-NTIS)
T-8 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding recovering of uranium and fluoride
The site specific EIS's, to meet conditions of the Areawide, will
establish the need to recover both uranium and fluoride. In the case of
2-7
-------
fluoride, it may need to be stockpiled if there is no market, but recovery
will be necessary to adequately lower pond water concentrations.
T-9 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding water use
Agency agrees with comment.
T-10 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding EPA authority to change requirements
for existing sources
The quote was taken out of context. EPA has no authority to change
legal requirements for existing sources through the EIS. NEPA only allows
development of EIS's for New Sources. Dr. Lincer is correct in that there
are indeed provisions in the Clean Water Act for revising effluent guidelines.
The requirement for new as well as existing sources to meet water quality
standards, which may result in more stringent requirements than effluent
limitations, has existed since initial adoption of water quality standards
in 1969. This means that water quality standards already are a requirement
for existing sources.
T-ll - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding habitat loss
Additional information on the Florida Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) classification of endangered lands as well as other factors
considered in evaluating the importance of wildlife habitat types is found in
working paper Volume XI, Section 2 (Volume VII-NTIS).
T-12 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding Myakka River State Park
Myakka River State Park has been added as an example of a larger
park. Additional information on the park is in working paper Volume XI,
Section 2 (Volume VII-NTIS). The Florida Division of Recreation and Parks
cites it as one of Florida's largest state parks; it is by far the largest
state park in the 7-county study area.
2-6
-------
T-13 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding area of wetlands affected
Future land use projections for the study area were based on the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Four River Basin Study (1976). Both the
extent of wetlands and water projected for the year 2000 are considered
unrealistic based on land proposed to be mined and the state of the art of
reclamation (working paper Volume XI, Section 2 [Volume VII-NTIS]). In this
EIS, it is documented that an estimated 10,850 hectares, or 6 percent, of
the area's wetlands would be lost from mining; however, unrealistic pro-
jections of future areawide wetlands extent precluded an estimate of the
areawide change attributable to mining. If conditions of the proposed action
are implemented, the estimated loss of wetlands will be mitigated.
T-14 - Dr. Lincer's comment regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat inventories
In this EIS, special status categories of fish and wildlife species
in the study area are cited, including designations of the Florida Committee
on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). Since these species are
included among the area's important species, the proposed action stipulates
•that their management on mining areas be addressed in site-specific EIS's.
Refer to responses T-l and T-2.
T-15 - Dr. Lincer's comments regarding monitoring and dam inspection
See response to comment T-3. The agency agrees with this comment.
T-16 - Dr. Lincer's comment on economic burden on community services
There is no evidence of "economic burdens which phosphate mining
places on community services and infra-structure." Quite the contrary,
evidence shows clear economic value and support of the infra-structure.
T-17 - Dr. Lincer's comment on limitation on exports.
A National policy restricting export of phosphate would have to be
implemented before such restrictions could be imposed. (See response to
Comment T-4).
2-9
-------
T-18 - Mr. Miller's comment on defining categories of wetlands
The three categories of wetlands will be mapped for each new
source mine, since categories will be determined on a site-specific basis.
The scale will be larger than LUDA maps.
T-19 - Mr. Miller's comment on importance of wetlands, or surface water, on
climate.
If there is an effect on climate, it would be roughly proportional
to surface area. If anything, area of surface water is greater after mining
than before.
T-2Q - Mr. Miller's comments on water conservation
To answer the questions raised, the Proposed action will result
in less total area within dikes (water storage plus slime ponds), a reduced
surface water discharge beyond normal surface runoff quantities, and a
reduced pumping rate from the Floridan Aquifer, compared to operations at
existing mines. The statements regarding retention of 10-year and 20-year
storm events apply to chemical plants, and not mines.
T-21 - Mr. Miller's comments regarding citation of the Fish & Wildlife Study
Failure to cite the Fish and Wildlife STudy in the DEIS was an
oversight. It is cited in the FEIS.
T-22 - Ms. Ann McCrainie's comments regarding destruction of tributaries,
which reduces flow below 5 cfs
Mining and reclamation plans will be accomplished in site-specific
studies for new sources prior to mining, and will establish and map areas for
which Section 404 jurisdiction exists. This will not allow destruction of
tributaries prior to determination of jurisdiction, as has happened on some
existing source mines.
2-10
-------
T-23 - Ms. McCrainie's comment on land use map showing areas to be mined
This was the most complete information we were able to obtain on
industry's plans, holdings, leases, and options. If anyone has additional
information, we would appreciate receiving this. These maps do not prohibit
industry from future mining outside the areas shown.
T-24 - Ms. McCrainie's comment regarding Hillsborough County's requirements
The Clean Water Act does not allow EPA to be less stringent than
local or state requirements.
T-25 - Mr. Archie Carr Ill's comment on need for more detail on how impact on
endangered species will be avoided
Additional detail on prevention of impact on endangered species will
be developed in site-specific EIS's.
T-26 - Mr. Carr's comment on need for fluoride study
The agency agrees that additional study is needed on effects of
fluoride on vegetation, wildlife, and human health. As long as control
equipment is continually maintained, and emission limitations are met, the ambient
and vegetative fluoride levels will be much lower than pre-1965 levels, and
will not cause adverse effects on vegetation, cattle, or human health. Effect
of air emissions on wildlife are admittedly unknown; however, since no adverse
effects have been documented in the past, it is anticipated that effects with
reduced emissions are minimal if they exist. A sampling program sponsored
either by industry or regulatory agencies which would lead to a determination
regarding effects on vegetation and wildlife would certainly be worthwhile, and
is recommended in Volume I.
T-27 - Mr. Carr's comment on leaving wetlands as pedestals
As mentioned previously (response T-5, point #20), mining effects
on off-site adjacent wetlands, and, in the case of the proposed action, on
2-11
-------
on-site preserved wetlands, are largely unknown since previous permitting
processes have not required such an assessment. The potential effects of
current mining and reclamation procedures are presented in this EIS.
Modifications of current procedures will be necessary in order to comply
with the proposed action. Site-specific studies will be required to consider
protection of wetlands from mining in adjacent areas.
T-28 - Mr. Carr's comment on limiting marketing abroad because of energy
conservation considerations
See response to comment T-4.
T-29 - Dr. David Rosen's comments regarding health effects of radiation
See text of Vol. I and II, and response to Comment W-301.
T-30 - Mr. Homer Greer's comment regarding effect of slime pond dam breaks
The Proposed Action, which provides for elimination of slime ponds
at new source mines, will substantially reduce the potential for slime pond
dam breaks. Increased regulation and State inspections since 1971 at
existing mines has also obviously reduced the potential for dam breaks at
existing mines.
T-31 - Mr. Homer Greer's comment regarding recent fluorosis in a cattle herd
in Hillsborough County
This incident was apparently not reported to Hillsborough County or
to the Florida DER.
T-32 - Mr. Homer Greer's comment regarding economic effects
Primary and secondary economic effects due to employment are
delineated in the FEIS, Volumes I and II.
T-33 - Ms. Catherine Fernald's question regarding EPA addressing the hidden
cost of phosphate mining, the health, the water, the drawdowns, the salt-water
intrusion, the loss of potable water.
2-12
-------
We believe these questions have been addressed in the Areawide
EIS, and will be answered more specifically in each site-specific EIS.
T-34 - Ms. Catherine Fernald's comment regarding Becker being declared an
existing source.
As an existing source, Becker does not have to comply with the
Areawide EIS, nor develop a site-specific EIS.
1-35 - Ms. Linda Campbell's comment regarding a concern about the lack of a
thorough discussion of the impacts of phosphate mining on fish and wildlife
habitats.
Additional information on the effects of mining on fish and wildlife
habitats is in working paper Volume XI (Volume VII-NTIS). Rationale for
importance ranking the terrestrial/wetlands habitat types is included (Volume XI,
Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS).
T-36 - Ms. Campbell's comment about slime ponds providing wildlife habitat and
adding to landscape diversity
The decision that conventional aboveground slime-disposal areas
should be eliminated was based on the judgement that potential and actual
adverse effects on water quality and land occupancy outweighed their value as
wildlife habitat. Several references to habitat value of slime ponds as well
as naturally dewatered slime pond areas are included in working paper Volume XI
(Volume VII-NTIS). A summary of these views is found in this EIS. Added to
these views is the suggestion that properly managed slime ponds are probably
the most feasible replacement for Category 2 wetlands. Unless, an abandoned
slime pond is intensively managed, however, it will not continue to provide
these benefits. The trend is to dewater abandoned slime ponds, and develop
agricultural areas.
T-37 - Mr. Homer Hooks' comment about losing options if the Proposed Action
prescribes placing clay below ground.
The wording of the Proposed Action does not preclude any options
for alternatives to conventional above ground slime settling ponds.
2-13
-------
T-38 - Mr. Hooks' comment regarding clay ponds offering high quality wetlands
sites.
See response to comment T-36.
T-39 - Dr. Cornwell's comment about Appendix C of the Archbold Study
As mentioned in Response T-l and T-2, the FWS report generated by
the Archbold Biological Station and this EIS contain similar assessments on
the effects of phosphate mining on important wildlife species and habitats,
including the view that natural revegetation is preferable to reclamation as
currently practiced (working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS).
The theme of the Edscorn paper appendixed to the FWS report - wildlife values
may be negated by reclamation - is expressed several times throughout the
effects assessment (working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS) and
summarized in this EIS. As indicated in the FWS report, following the
call-out of the Edscorn paper (p. 1276), a detailed inventory of these lands
and surveys of their wildlife populations are needed to evaluate their overall
significance as fish and wildlife habitats. Regardless, unless modified,
current mining methods and reclamation practices will not produce habitats
like those on long-abandoned mined land. Also, it is expected the naturally
restored habitats will not support a diversity of wildlife resources equivalent
to forested wetlands.
T-40 - Dr. Cornwell's comment regarding lack of documented adverse impact on
wildlife
The Archbold Biological Station concludes in the FWS report (P. 1273)
that the overall effect of mining the majority of mineable lands now owned
by phosphate companies will be a serious reduction in both diversity and
abundance of the wildlife resources of the 7-county area - notwithstanding
modification of current reclamation practices and priorities. In a letter to
the EPA (referenced in working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS),
the FWS stated: 1) the Archbold study indicated that wildlife species
diversity appears to be significantly less in the areas of past and current
2-14
-------
phosphate mining than in new areas that are expected to be mined, and
2) much of this greater diversity may be attributable to the existence of
natural wetlands floodplains and aquifer recharge areas, not mine pit
lakes and slime ponds.
In a letter to Archbold Biological Station (appendixed in the FWS
report), the Bureau of Environmental Protection of the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission indicated that mining or disturbance to sensitive
wetland areas results in permanent habitat losses and drastic population
reductions for many wildlife species of the area.
These observations were made in the context of the present environment
of the study area, which includes Polk County and long-abandoned mining area.
T-41 - Dr, Cornwell's comment on lack of documented wildlife impact in Polk
County
Most species current declines in the study area, as well as in Florida
and elsewhere, are attributed to habitat loss, which, in certain parts of the
study area, is a result of past mining. Indications are that most land use
changes in the immediate future in the inland study area will result from
mining. To the extent possible, estimated changes attributable to mining are
clearly presented in the EIS, and in no case is 100% change attributed to
mining. Nevertheless, phosphate mining has been an important contributor to
terrestrial habitat loss in the past, especially in Polk County, and will be
the major contributor, except along the coast of the 7-county area, in the
immediate future. A point of prime consideration, besides upland reclamation
possibilities and practices, is the fact that approximately 30% of mined land
unavoidably becomes closed waterbodies - not wetlands or uplands.
As pointed out in the effects assessment (working paper Volume XI,
Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS), mining is expected to contribute to the decline
of several species other than threatened and endangered ones; the species are
indicated therein.
2-15
-------
1-42 - Dr. Cornwall's comments on wetlands restoration
The conclusion of the DEIS that true wetlands restoration on mined
land is not feasible within a reasonable length of time stands. Both the
biological and hydrological distinctions between Florida wetlands and wet
lands are given in this EIS (p. 1.21, 3.4). Additional characteristics of
the study area's wetlands, including terrestrial vertebrate associations and
important plants, are found in Section 5 of working paper Volume VI (Volume
VI-NTIS).
The species listed as potentially affected by mining or development
of facilities in U.S. waters or wetlands meet the importance criteria set
forth in the guidelines under which the areawide impact assessment was
conducted. They are listed as water inhabitants or wetlands inhabitants, but
incorrectly were lumped as wetlands inhabitants in the sentence quoted. This
has been corrected and "shellfish" removed since the lists obviously include
none. However, the implication that marine animals and those out in the
"open areas" could not be affected by mining inland waters or wetlands is
misleading although potential impact is minimal. Several references to dis-
ruption of flow regime, increased sedimentation, and turbidity among other
disturbances from mining, are found in working paper Volume V, Section 2
(Aquatic Biota) (Volume V-NTIS) and working paper Volume XI (Volume Vii-NTIS).
T-43 - Dr. Cornwell's call for areawide guidance on assessing wetland
characteristics
It is agreed that areawide guidelines for determining wetlands
classification should be compiled. Riverine wetlands, as mentioned in the
proposed action, are included in Category I. The preservation of highly
productive, high quality wetland systems is presently the only assured method
of maintaining their inventory. Increasing their inventory within the fore-
seeable future is unlikely; estimates of 5 to 20 years for development to
equivalent conditions are unrealistic.
2-16
-------
T-44 - Dr. Cornwall's comment regarding diversity of mined areas
In the letter referred to in Response T-39, the Bureau of Environ-
mental Protection of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission indicated
that the loss of regional wetlands is not compensated by the creation of
extensive lake systems. At a public meeting held in St. Petersburg, Florida
during this EIS study for discussion of wetlands, the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, Lakeland, Florida, indicated that mining pit lakes are
indeed unhealthy and their estimated term as a viable life-support system is
a mere five years. The Commission further indicated that Polk County needs
no more aquatic habitat of the kind produced by mining, partly, because the
lake edges are not acceptable life-support habitats.
T-45 - Dr. Cornwell's comments regarding restoring wetlands
Designing a functional drainage pattern for wetlands systems seems
to be problematic, but as pointed out in working paper Volume XI (Volume VII-NTIS) ,
physically unsuitable substrate apparently poses the most difficult of several
problems in establishing particular wetlands vegetation. These problems
were identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is experimenting
with wetlands restoration all over the county. Other problems in restoration
are found in the above citation.
T-46 - Dr. Cornwell's comment on uplands restoration
It is agreed that little experimentation on restoration of native
upland communities has occurred. However, similar restoration problems exist,
especially substrate structure (working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume
VII-NTIS). Although we hesitate to agree with a Phosphate Council spokesman
that "it's much easier to restore wetlands than virtually any of the other
natural systems that are present on the land to be mined" (Dr. Cornwell's
statement at Bartow, Florida Public Hearing - p. 53), we do agree with the
implication that native upland communities cannot be readily restored on mined
land. Additional information on uplands habitats and mining is contained in
the above cited working paper.
2-17
-------
T-47 - Dr. Cornwall's comment on experimentation on wetlands restoration
Although which 20 or 30 percent of habitat types to allow natural
reversion of is not made clear, we repeat that reversion to any natural
system now present on land to be mined is precluded by irreversible alterations
in topography and soil structure during mining. Communities that will develop
naturally on the mined land will be conversions rather than reversions. In
relation to wetland types, natural conversion of mined land to wetlands has
not been been documented. Naturally developing slime pond areas are "marshy"
but not wetlands and, unless artificially maintained, will in 20 to 30 years,
as demonstrated at Teneroc Wildlife Sanctuary, convert to dry sites.
We agree that further research in restoration of suitable habitat
is needed and local testing necessary. As stated in this EIS (p. 1.27):
although diversity will decline primarily because hardwood swamps and mixed
forests (sandhills, sand pine scrub habitats) can neither be reclaimed nor
naturally restored on mined land, establishment of similar habitat is possible
and necessary to maintain much of the area's important biota.
T-48 - Dr. Cornwell's comment on impact on endangered species
Refer to Response T-41. A list of threatened and endangered species
likely to be affected by mining is included in this EIS.
Additional information on these species, including their reported
presence on proposed mining areas, is in working paper Volume XI (Volume VII-NTIS)
The reference to naturally-scored land is unclear. Our evaluation of
certain existing habitat types in the mining areas as modified but still
productive and essential for many wildlife species, including threatened and
endangered ones, is supported by the Bureau of Environmental Protection of the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in the letter appendixed to the
FWS report (see Response to Comment 40). Our overall assessment of impact to
wildlife, along with that of the FGFWFC, is based on current mining methods and
2-18
-------
reclamation practices not those of the past. Additionally, we considered the
projected areawide extent of habitat decline attributable to current and
proposed mining. We disagree that the managed systems occupying currently
reclaimed land will support wildlife diversity even nearly equivalent to that
existing, and, as pointed out previously (Response to Comment 40), naturally
restored lands of the past are not currently supporting equivalent diversity
nor are they expected to in the foreseeable future.
T-49 - Mr. W. M. Leaders' comments on radiation
In response to Mr. Leaders' only substantive comment concerning the
absence of radiation survey data for unmined phosphate land in the Central
Florida counties, refer to response W-301.
With regard to his other comments, two are patently incorrect and/or
misleading. For example, while Mr. Leaders' statements concerning potassium-40
are at face value correct, his manner of presentation was misleading. Potassium
is radioactive by virtue of its constituent isotope, potassium-40, which makes
up 0.01% of its natural elemental occurrence. This element, in natural homeo-
stasis within the body, has a total activity of about 0.1 Ci. His contention
that an individual's greatest exposure to "extra" radiation is due to proximity
with other individuals is, of course, ludicrous. Exposure from potassium-40 is
part of our natural background exposure, with almost all of the dose received
internally, the exposed organ being primarily muscle (not the circulatory system).
His statement to the effect that unmined phosphate-related land may
have as high a background as reclaimed land is misleading. The exposure related
to reclaimed land is not "natural" background radiation exposure by definition,
as is the background associated with nonmined land. The efforts of man have
modified the environment with the effect of increasing terrestrial radiation
levels.
T-50 - Charlotte County Commissioner Robert Shedd's comments regarding monitoring
See response to Comment T-3.
2-19
-------
T-51 - Councilman C. R. Johnson, City of Punta Gorda, comments regarding City's
efforts, and need for monitoring program
The City of Punta Gorda is certainly to be commended for its program
to remove the treated discharge from the Peace River and go to landspreading.
If all sources in the Peach Basin were to take a similar attitude and approach,
the Peach River and Charlotte Harbor would undoubtedly again become pristine
waterways and outstanding fisheries. (See response T-3 for response to comments
regarding need for monitoring.)
T-52 - Mr. Joseph R. Roach's comment that proposed action is only applicable to
new plants, and that the study states there will not be any new plants.
This statement is true for chemical plants only. New mines and
beneficiation plants are projected. The 1976 rules mentioned are for mining
discharges.
T-53 - Mr. Roach's comment regarding State effluent limitations on mining being
aggressively litigated.
This is true, but as of the date of this writing, the Florida effluent
limitations are still applicable.
T-54 - Mr. Roach's comment regarding EPA final rule for effluent limitations for
mining.
The statement is correct. However, the EPA standards are National
Standards, and had to consider conditions at phosphate mining operations both
inside and outside the State of Florida. As is allowed by Section 511 of the
Clean Water Act, the State of Florida can adopt more stringent limitations.
In the case of phosphate mining, Florida has exercised this option. Section
301(b)(l)(C) requires EPA to include the more stringent State limitations as
enforceable NPDES Permit conditions. Since the EPA effluent limitations have
a national basis, and are not necessarily protective of watersheds as sensitive
as the Tampa Bay and Peace Basins, the State is encouraged in its endeavors to
adopt more stringent limitations for phosphate mining and chemical processing
operations.
2-20
-------
T-55 - Mr. Roach's statement that no improvements may be made because BAT
limitations are no more stringent than BPT
As stated in an earlier response and in the FEIS, protection of
water quality in the Peace and Tampa Bay Basins requires more stringent
effluent limitations than the BPT and BAT standards. Existing mines and
chemical plants in the Tampa Bay and Peace Basins have consistently dis-
charged much lower concentrations than allowed by EPA's BPT and BAT. Existing
Source NPDES Permits need to be revised to reflect quality of existing
discharges and the need for water quality protection in the Peace and Tampa
Bay Basins. While the FEIS has no legal implications on existing sources,
it is hereby recommended that EPA, Region IV, take appropriate action toward
revising and reissuing permits to the existing chemical plants based on water
quality protection of the receiving waters. This course of action will
necessitate an intensive water sampling survey during the wet months of 1979
by EPA and/or DER. The survey, along with data from routine sampling by
DER and USGS, will document pollutant loadings from all existing sources, and
effects on water quality in the two basins. Results can be used for revision
of all existing permits.
T-56 - Mr. Roach's statement regarding conflict between the Southwest Florida
208 and statements in the Draft EIS regarding sources of nutrient concentra-
tions in the Peace River.
Text has been revised (p. 1.2B of Volume II, FEIS). Mr. Roach is
correct in asserting that phosphate chemical plants are the leading source of
plant nutrient materials in the two basins. However, there are only two
chemical plants in the Peace Basin, where there are twelve mines. In the
Tampa Bay Basin, there are twelve chemical plants and seven mines.
T-57 - Mr. S. R. Stedman's comment regarding economics of extracting fluoride
The requirement to lower concentration of fluoride in gyp ponds
will result in the need to extract fluoride, whether or not it is marketed.
2-21
-------
T-58 - Mr. Samuel Wapner's comments on phosphate reserves
Latest Bureau of Mines Projections received by EPA as of
September, 1978, are utilized in the FEIS.
T-59 - Mr. Maywood Chesson's comments regarding flexibilit> of EIS
We believe that wording in the FEIS is sufficiently flexible to
allow for changing technology.
T-60 - Mr. Jim Kelley's comments regarding monitoring
See response to comment T-3 . We certainly agree that unannounced
inspections are needed.
T-61 - Mr. David Wilson's comments regarding reclamation
See text of Volume 1 for reclamation requirements.
T-62 - Mr. Robert M. McQueen's comment regarding "insignificant" hydrologia
functions of Category 3 wetlands.
Text has been revised. See page 2.3 of Volume I.
T-63 - Mr. McQueen's comment about existing source mines.
See response to comment T-55.
T-64 - Mr. McQueen's question as to basis of reduced runoff
Reduced runoff is based on low flow periods. Peak flows will also
reduce somewhat, but annual flow remain approximately the same.
T-65 - Mr. McQueen's comments about revision of working papers.
The working papers have been revised and reissued.
2-22
-------
T-66 - Mr. McQueen's comments about retention of runoff in Polk County
While retention will decrease low flows, it will not have a
significant effect on annual average flows. Precise predictions of effects
on flows will only be possible after site-specific studies are completed.
T-67 - Mr. Jonathon Miller's comments regarding wetlands, maintenance of
minimum flow, and storage
Text of FEIS and Working Papers have been revised to respond to
these comments. The FEIS does not require maintenance of a minimum flow
from mining operations, but this could well become part of the SWFWMD Permit
provisions, as established through individual DRI's and site-specific EIS's.
Storage to be provided to meet water re-use requirements will have to be
determined in site-specific studies.
2-23
-------
SECTION 3
WRITTEN COMMENTS
-------
SECTION 3
CONTENTS
Letter Page
Florida Phosphate Council 3-1
CF Industries, Inc. 3-95
Beker Phosphates Corp. 3-98
Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society 3-105
The Izaak Walton League 3-107
Citizens Against River Pollution 3-111
Florida Audubon Society 3-113
State of Florida, Dept. of Administration 3-118
State of Florida, Dept of Environmental Regulation 3-159
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 3-198
County of Sarasota 3-202
Mary L. Jelks, M.D. 3-218
General Development Utilities, Inc. 3-219
Mrs. Martha Kjeer 3-225
U.S. Dept. of the Interior 3-227
Mrs. E. K. Ervin 3-252
James R. E. Smith 3-257
Manatee County Planning & Development Dept. 3-258
Manatee County Health Department 3-260
C. F. Industries 3-264
Gardinier, Inc. 3-271
Swift Agricultural Chemicals 3-273
Save Our Bays Association, Inc. 3-276
The Fertilizer Institute 3-278
Mississippi Chemical Corp. 3-281
-------
Letter Page
Mrs. Jean M. Flavin 3-288
Carl T. Zimmerman 3-289
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, CDC 3-290
U.S. Dept. of the Air Force 3-291
David 0. Munson 3-292
C. F. Industries 3-296
Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 3-298
Hillsborough Co. Planning Commission 3-300
Robert N. McQueen 3-307
AMAX Chemical Corp. 3-315
EPA, Air Strategy Development Section 3-319
U.S. Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region IV 3-320
U.S. Dept. of the Army, Jacksonville District,
Corps of Engineers 3-321
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, SCS 3-323
EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division 3-324
-------
•"' » 1
pKosprvate
feec
syou
Hor«r -looks
Suite 24, Executive Plaza
4406 5. Rondo flvenue • PO. Box 5530
lakeland, Florida 33803
Telephone 813/646-8583
June 20, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Subject: Comments on the Draft Area-wide
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Central Florida Phosphate Industry,
March 1978
We submit as Attachment A herewith the comments of
the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc., on the above document.
The comments are intended to provide you with information
generated by individuals directly familiar with the seven-
county area and the phosphate industry.
The submission is a page-by-page commentary ex-
tending over a broad range of topics, identifying sections
in which errors of fact occur and pointing to shortcomings
in the treatment of ecological considerations, such as the
failure of the Draft EIS to communicate the extent to which
the study area is presently man-dominated and failure to
recognize that phosphate mining represents the single
greatest opportunity for increasing the inventory of wildland
communities, either wetland or upland, within the study
area.
The conclusion of the Draft EIS that phosphate
mining should continue and expand in the study area is
appropriate. Maintaining environmental awareness on the
part of the industry will prevent potential adverse impacts.
The Proposed Action of the Draft EIS includes many useful
concepts that the Florida phosphate industry is already
implementing.
Several statements concerning the Proposed Action
should be reiterated. Mining should not be precluded on any
categorical basis, for example, as in "Category One" wetlands,
Although the Area-wide EIS may discuss policies or general
findings, restrictions on site-specific activities should
Choirmon of the Boord' fl. G. Gorcra, flgrico Chemicol Co.
r-McGea) • Conserv. Deportment of Philipp
"iomponv • Gordinier, Inc • LU R
I Chemicol Compony • Occidental
rpoiotion • USS flgn-Chemicols
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III -2- June 20, 1978
not be proposed until EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and other agencies have been consulted
regarding detailed plans for development and restoration
submitted by the applicant. Similarly, site-specific factors
are of overriding concern in the matter of waste clay disposal.
Decisions regarding implementation of alternative methods
must be based on such considerations as quantity and types
of clay in the ore body, value of a balanced reclamation
plan, and utilization of clay disposal areas as managed
wildlife habitat.
Related discussion regarding implementation of the
EIS is enclosed as Attachment B. This attachment includes a
letter dated April 18, 1978 from Alan W. Eckert, Acting
Associate General Counsel, Water Quality Division EPA, and a
copy of the response of the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc.,
to this letter dated June 19, 1978.
For your records, we have included as Attachment C
copies of previous submittals by the Florida Phosphate
Council, Inc., during the development of the EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these
comments and hope they will be helpful to you in developing
the Final EIS. We will be glad to discuss any of our comments
in more detail with you if you desire.
Sincerely yours,
Homer Hooks
HH: jb
Enclosures
cc: Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Comments of the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc.
Contents:
Comments labelled pages 1 through 47
-------
ii "Land surface will be altered by surface mining and recla-
mation; soils and vegetation removed from the mining and
associated areas; wildlife habitat and populations reduced."
As in all other cases where surface mining and reclamation
effects are discussed, the time frame considered for comparison
with the premining conditions is the immediate, postraining time faj I
frame. No consideration is given to the type system that will
appear on mined and reclaimed areas many years after mining.
ii "Livestock forage will be reduced during mining operations,
and productivity of the mining area will be reduced even
after reclamation."
No data were presented to indicate that productivity of
the mining area would be reduced after reclamation. Field
observation shows that productivity is increased with or without ii__
reclamation,'probably due to the soil disturbance with provision
of additional nutrients and resources to the newly created
surface soils.
ii "Recreational resources will be reduced, archeological
values may be destroyed, and aesthetic aspects will change."
Mined and reclaimed areas should be as suitable for small
game based recreation as the premining condition. The created
land and lakes habitat is productive for waterfowl and as a
pond or small lake fishery. These uses represent an addition /i _ •?
to the recreational resources of the area. The archeological
values should not be destroyed because each site specific
DRI/EIS requires an archeological survey. Significant sites
require excavation prior to mining.
-1-
3-4-
-------
1.1 "Polk County is the site of most of the current
phosphate industry activity, but several chemical
plants and one mine are in operation in
Hillsborough and Manatee counties."
Several chemical plants and two mines are in
operation in Hillsborough County, and one chemical plant
is in operation in Manatee County.
1.2 "The chemical plants are expected to remain in
their current locations."
>^ The statement is unclear as written, but suggests
\ that no new chemical plant construction will be undertaken W
' which is an unwarranted conclusion.
"Figure 1.1: Phosphate Rock Supply-Demand
Projections."
A linear upward sloping demand curve for phosphate
is unrealistic. It ignores the influence of price on
demand and no explanation as to why phosphate demand
will rise unabated in the future is provided. At some point
decreasing returns set in with ever increasing applications /_ <"
of phosphate based fertilizers. '*'
The forecasted levels of Florida phosphate output may
not decline after 1985, as the industry applies improved
recovery techniques. Additionally, the author's assumption
of reduced Florida phosphate production is contradicted on
pages 1.1-1.2 of the draft.
1.3 "The phosphate industry currently owns either the
land or mineral rights on enough phosphate deposits
to continue the present rate of production beyond the
year 2000."
There are several phosphate rock supply-demand
projections available that indicate larger resources than
the DEIS. Mr. J. L. Weaver, a recognized authority on A/— (f
phosphate geology and mining, stated in a paper to the
American Chemical Society on April 6, 1976:
"The three mining areas of the Southeastern
United States: Central Florida - North and
South; North Florida; and North Carolina;
all have adequate reserves to support expanded
production for more than 50 years."
-2-
-------
1.3 "Table 1.1: Estimated Phosphate Rock Reserves
and Resources in 7 - County Study Area."
The estimate of phosphate rock reserves in the
7 - county study area is low. The calculation of
"Subeconomic resources" is technological and price
determined. With no analysis of future phosphate prices,
little credence can be given to these calculations.
Regional and world reserves of minerals are not . _
static and accuracy demands frequent updating, Worldwide *v — f
known reserves of phosphate increased 45-fold in the
twenty year period preceding 1970 (Council on International
Economic Policy, 1974) as the demand for chemical
fertilizers increased and incentive was lent to exploration.
The expense of prospecting and land acquisition will generally
not be borne until justified by market conditions. The
status of known reserves is intimately linked to that fact.
1.4 "Mining has not appeared to have played a
significant role in the growth of the region
since 1960."
This conclusion is not supported by the facts.
Phosphate mining continues to be a propulsive force in Polk
County. Since 1960, its payrolls and expenditures have
increased rapidly. The industry is capital intensive and
the direct employment effects have been modest. However,
the industry is a vital component of the area's export base.
Secondary effects from the industry are substantial. As
mining activities move south into Hardee and DeSoto,
economic growth in these counties will be stimulated.
Employment, income, population growth, and tax revenues
will all increase.
1.5 "Table 1.3: Phosphate Industry Ad Valorem Taxes
Paid, 1972-76."
Ad valorem tax adjustment on mineral value currently
being promoted in Hardee and Hillsborough counties would
have a significant effect on the figures shown.
1.8 "The tailings or waste from this fraction is used
in dam construction or land reclamation. The fine
fraction is processed through a flotation section to
recover a fine concentrate. The waste, a clay, slime,
is impounded in areas that have been mined."
Fine phosphatic clays are separated from the combined
feeds before the sizing and flotation process. The sand
tailings from both coarse and fine flotation are used in
dam construction or land reclamation.
-3-
-------
1.8 "Even then, the uses to which the land may be put are
restricted to light-load applications such as pasture
or other agricultural activities."
The land use limitations are established only by economics.
Construction on such land can be accomplished using techniques
commonly applied for other cases in which high clay soils
present difficult foundation conditions.
1.9 "Wastewater is treated initially with lime to raise the pH
and is subsequently treated as necessary to meet effluent
standards. "
Only contaminated water from chemical processing plants *^ ,
that is discharged to surface waters must be treated with lime
prior to discharge.
1.12 "Figure .1.3: Vegetative and Ambient Fluorides in Polk County."
The figure fails to show ambient fluoride levels or data on /*/— / 2.
emission or vegetative fluoride more recent than 1974. The average
data for vegetative fluoride are: 1975, 47 ppm; 1976, 48 ppm;
1977, 52 ppm.
1.16 "Most soils of the study area are young and underdeveloped,
nearly level or gently sloping, acidic, very sandy with
high permeability, and generally low in clay, organic
matter, and plant nutrients."
This factual statement underscores some of the most fundamental,
long-term edaphic changes associated with mining which results in
increased biological productivity and regional species diversity.
These are:
• increased clays in the "A" and "B" horizons, reducing permeability
with a net gain for forest species adapted to more mesic conditions.
• increased phosphate concentrations in the root zone of the
invading plant life, providing for greater fertility and increased
productivity.
• increased variability on topography and slope, providing the
potential for more niches and better sanctuary from human disturbance.
• increased aquatic habitat niches and increased wetland inventory
resulting from lake edges and slime ponds.
• rapid accumulation of humus in the "A" soil horizon because of
the increased biological productivity.
• deposition of sand tailings provide a potential for establishing
scrub, sandhill, and xeric hammock communities.
1.20 "The distinctive Florida environment - sandy soils, low
relief and elevation, poor drainage, and a mild climate
with relatively even temperatures, frequent lightning and
rainfall characterized by great seasonal differences - is
-4-
J-7
-------
a major influence in shaping a spectrum of terrestrial
biota that is unique within the United States."
The above statement relates to peninsular Florida and is not
specific to the areawide study unit. All biological assemblages
are shaped by their environment and also help shape their
environment. The statement is true of all regional ecosystems ^/
and provides the basic rationale for man's management of his
environment.
1.20 "Among the particular biota of central Florida are many
temperate-zone species at their southern limits, some hardy
tropical species at their northern limits, and numerous
species that are endemic to the state."
The only vertebrate species endemic to the study area are:
sand skink, short-tailed snake, and Florida mouse. These hardly
qualify as "numerous." Nowhere are the endemic biota specifically
identified, a major oversight in a DEIS of this scope. The three
endemic species are listed in the working paper concerning land
(TI 1977 e), Section 5 (p. 5.95, par. 1), as well as the three
subspecies (p. 5.95, par. 2), but this important information has
not been transferred to the DEIS. l*J
This endemic species point is made several times throughout,
but is not well explained or documented. Certainly, this would
apply more to floral and invertebrate species than to vertebrate
fauna. Florida does have several additional endemic subspecies
vertebrates. The Section 5 working paper (on p. 5.95) notes
that, "the Florida mouse is ... the only mammal species restricted
to Florida." The weighted use of endemics in the text is
disproportionate and misleading.
The DEIS rightly emphasizes the importance of flagging endemic
species so they can benefit properly from appropriate management.
Unfortunately, the endemic vertebrate species are not so
identifiable in Table 1.11.
1.20 "The 7-County study area is predominantly agricultural land
and rangeland (more than 450,000 hectares, or 1,000,000 acres
of each); wetlands comprise approximately 178,000 hectares
(440,000 acres), and forests comprise about 70,000 hectares
(175,000 acres)."
This brief breakdown in land use, at the outset of the DEIS,
fails to communicate the extent to which the 7 counties are now
man-dominated. Most of the remaining natural systems, regardless
of quality, occur in the 779,000 acres (22% of total region) of l*
forests, wetlands and water areas. Of course, this intensive human
use of land makes the remaining extent of natural systems all the
more important. Reversion to nature and restoration of natural
habitat from mined lands appears to be the only economically
viable method for increasing the quantity and quality of wildland
habitats in the study area.
-5-
3-6
-------
Because so much emphasis is given in this section and others
to the generalized, descriptive aspects of the natural ecosystems
within the study area, the reviewer has considerable difficulty
in grasping their actual extent or location relative to past,
present, and proposed mining. Likewise, a useful quantitative
and qualitative assessment of the described natural habitats is
generally lacking.
1.20 "Approximately 75 percent of the study area's agricultural
land is cropland and improved pasture;"
In effect, this paragraph tells us that the 1,128,563 acres
(31.5% of the study area) of agricultural land are "intensely
managed," have "comparatively few plant species," and "have less W— \
wildlife value." A major part of the lands proposed for mining
will be in this cover type. Knowledge of the extent is vital for
assessing impact, since the postmining condition is certain to
increase natural system values over the present man-dominated
agricultural'system.
1.20 "Most of the rangeland of the study area comprises modified
pine flatwoods."
The 1,116,238 acres (31.3%) of "modified pine flatwoods"
rangeland, as intensively managed in the study area, typically
are low in natural system plant and wildlife values. If a pre- I*/~~ 18
ponderance of the lands to be mined are of this type, then the
net effect of mining will be an increase in natural system diversity
and productivity over the existing land use. Knowledge of the
extent of the present and proposed mining in this land type is
crucial to an accurate projection of mining impact.
1.20 "Of somewhat greater wildlife value and of considerable
biogeographical significance is the comparatively small
amount of rangeland that is natural dry prairie, or palmetto
prairie;"
The "natural dry prairie" or "palmetto prairie" presentation
as a unique habitat type is ecologically debatable, as is its
being an endemic Florida habitat. This concept is apparently
derived from Kuchler's (1964) map, which is a macroscopic mapping uj
of the "major potential natural vegetation types of the coter-
minous United States." Kuchler's map shows this "palmetto prairie"
type occurring in the southern portion of the region as a large
block in Charlotte and DeSoto counties and two smaller areas in
Sarasota and Manatee counties, virtually none of which is scheduled
for mining. Much of this vegetation type may actually be typical
cut-over pine flatwoods. If this cover type is endemic, unique
and so ecologically important, it ought to be quantified and
mapped.
-6-
-------
1.21 "By far the greatest amount of remaining forest in the study
area is typical pine flatwoods."
Knowledge of the extent of the 172,101 acres of forest that
is typical pine flatwoods is a significant factor in the impact
analysis. Similarly, the "small amount of deciduous forest" is
not quantified. Throughout the DEIS, the consistent assessment of
a net loss in diversity is based heavily on an unsubstantiated
mining impact on the deciduous forests, sandhills, sand pine scrub,
and dry prairies. The concern centers on over-all areawide
biological diversity. However, the failure of the DEIS to
address the matter through standard resource inventory and cover W"
mapping techniques is a major shortcoming.
Postmining restoration potentially can reestablish all
the forested communities destroyed through mining and so influence
succession, species distribution, and niche formation in order
that the mined-communities diversity will approximate that of an
equivalent natural community within about 50 years.
1.21 "The study area's wetlands include bayheads (dominated by
broad-leaved evergreen species), hardwood swamps (dominated
by broad-leaved, deciduous species), cypress swamps, mangroves,
wet prairies (emergent herbaceous species), freshwater marshes
(emergent and floating herbaceous species), and saltwater
marshes."
One must know at the outset the relative acreages of wetlands
of each type. A certain portion is within present and projected
mining areas. Some portion is the result of mining. A percentage
is saltwater marsh that is subject to only a remotely possible
impact from mining many miles inland. Part of the wetland acreage
is degraded. A portion is ephemeral, as the wet prairies which .
often lack dominance by hydrophytic flora. The generalized W"
valuation and the importance of many true wetlands is justifiable.
However, many ephemerally wet areas lack the hydric soils or
hydrophytic vegetation normally used to classify an area as
wetland. Phosphate mining and restoration has a great potential
for increasing the inventory of viable wetland habitats over
the premining condition.
1.22 "These wetland types - hardwood swamps, wet prairies, and
freshwater marshes - are classified as highly endangered
lands in Florida."
The value of an "endangered" label is weakened if the /4/~
resource is not, indeed, endangered. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service inventoried Florida's wetlands in 1954 and arrived at a
total wetland acreage of 17.778,100. A new inventory is currently
underway. If Florida has lost one-half of its wetlands since
1954, the total would still be about nine million acres. This
would not seem to warrent a "highly endangered" designation.
-7-
-------
1.22 "On a broader scope, all of central and south Florida's
wetlands are important since they comprise, along with those
of southeastern Louisiana, the remaining wetlands of signifi-
cant extent and value in the United States."
This statement is not true. The 1956 USDI inventory of fc/-^ 5
"Wetlands of the U.S.," Circular 39, identified 74,439,300 wetland
acres in the U.S., of which 17,185,300 were in Florida and
9,647,300 in Louisiana, or about 1/3 (one-third) of the U.S. total.
The relative abundance of Florida wetlands, incidentally, points
to the erroneous impression communicated by a "highly endangered"
categorization.
1.22 "Wetlands extent is expected to decline in the seven counties,
as is the extent of all terrestrial habitat types."
This projection depends heavily on the percentage of the
areas's wetlands in the lands to be mined, the rehabilitation
methodology, and the success of wetland protection throughout the
study area. Phosphate mining offers the single greatest potential
for significantly increasing the wetland acreage. Slime ponds
offer a dramatic potential for an extensive acreage of managed
freshwater marshes in which water level's can be manipulated to
maximize fish and wildlife values. Hundreds of millions of
dollars have been spent by the U.S., Canada, and private organi-
zations such as Ducks Unlimited to create and manage waterfowl
production wetlands not unlike the potential marsh management
units that could be established in reclaimed slime ponds.
1.22 "Habitat types of greatest decline will be those of greatest
importance to wildlife."
This prediction is obscure, if not simply unfounded, since
the habitat types of greatest decline are not identified. However,
the prediction does seem to relate to the projected areawide
land use with continued increase of man-dominated acres. Land-
use regulation will help check that trend. Phosphate mining and
reclamation offers the best hope for locally maintaining and
increasing the habitat types of greatest importance to wildlife.
1.22 "More than 500 species and subspecies of vertebrates
(excluding fishes) are represented or have been represented
in the recent past in the 7-county area; they include some
28 amphibians, 68 reptiles, 384 birds, and 55 mammals."
This general statement lacks a realistic perspective of
expected occurrence and, therefore, potential mining impact.
Of the 384 birds, for example, 59 are "accidentals" (vagrants)
that are unlikely to be affected at all by mining. A dozen of
these accidentals are listed among the important birds of the
study area (Table 1.11). An additional 59 birds are migratory,
so that about one-third of the birds listed for the study area
are exposed to the region only briefly or rarely.
— 8 —
-------
1.22 "Nearly half of the species are of special interest or
concern..."
If almost 50 percent of the vertebrate species found in the . ._
seven-county area are of special interest or concern, it would W~ *- '
appear that the criteria for including species of special interest
or concern in the list are unrealistically broad. The fact that a
relatively small percentage of the listed species are actually of
significant interest in conducting mine planning is not emphasized.
1.26 "Further development of the Florida phosphate industry will
significantly affect the seven counties' existing uplands
and wetlands biota, including many important floral and
faunal species."
While the "significant affect" of mining is indisputable,
the net ecological impact can be far more positive than visualized
by the authors, dependent entirely on the reclamation, restoration,
and reversion of mined land. The art of natural resource manage-
ment is sophisticated and predicated on several centuries of
experience. This is particularly true in terms of the management
of renewable biological resources. Foresters, fish and wildlife
biologists, and others consistently have been more limited by
economics than knowledge.
The implication that some species are "more important" than
others clashes with such basic ecological principles as food
chains, webs of life, community structure, dependence, and so on.
The endangered species concept is predicated on the importance
and interdependence of all species. Human priorities for the
management of biological resources may be determined by abundance,
scarcity, economic use, pest status, and other such interfaces
with man, none of which relate to the relative ecological impor-
tance of a species functioning within its niche. The suggestion
that some species are more important than others occurs frequently
in the DEIS.
1.26 "Beyond the effects of devegetation or disturbance, as much
as 30 percent of the terrestrial habitat in mined areas
becomes aquatic habitat (lakes and ponds), permanently dis-
placing the associated flora and fauna."
The percentage change in cover of a particular premining
habitat depends entirely on the postmining restoration program.
Wetland inventories can be increased following mining, as can
sandhill or scrub habitats. The preponderance of existing ter-
restrial habitat in the area has been so severely and adversely
impacted by man, that an effective and extensive natural system
restoration program will increase significantly the extent,
diversity, and standing crop of native flora and fauna. //t/~" 2L ^f
Even with no improvement by the industry in the planned
restoration of natural ecosystems over that which occurred for-
tuitously in the past via abandonment, the mix of aquatic and
terrestrial communities results in species diversity, biological
productivity, and natural system values far exceeding those
-9-
J-/2-
-------
associated with timber, food, and fiber production, the now
prevailing land-use. To most of Florida's ecologists and natura-
lists, the aquatic and wetland habitats created by mining,
especially following few years of maturing and revegetating of
the watershed, would be considered a net gain over improved
pasture, citrus, or a pine plantation.
Flora and fauna are rarely "permanently displaced", other
than through evolution and extinction. The fossils of tropical
species have been found in the Arctic, while North Temperate
fossils are common in Florida. During an Ice Age, temperate-
requiring species retreat from the growing glaciers, while arctic
species advance and invade with the glacier. Classical ecolo-
gical literature is replete with successional case histories, old
fields in the midwest being one of the best known. Similar to a
natural geomorphic process, strip-mining returns land to a bare
surface. Nature abhors bare surfaces and revegetates them as
quickly and efficiently as possible, beginning the successional
process yet again. With man's growing resource management knowl-
edge and the practical economics associated with mining phosphates,
the rate of natural revegetation and succession can be advanced
substantially. Often, the basic edaphic changes brought on by
mining can result in a more "complex," or "diverse" mature,
postraining community. For example, a premining cut-over flatwoods
(partially identified by the DEIS as "palmetto prairies") is
destroyed by mining. The soil hardpan is gone, clays and avail-
able phosphates increase in the new soil, and with planned restora-
tion, a mesic hammock can replace improved pasture or native
range within 50 years. The Christina site near Lakeland is an
excellent example.
"Permanent displacement" is an obvious concern held by the
authors and most environmentalists. Few biological species
display locational continuity through geologic time. Vegetation
and animals, through successive generations of individuals, are
surprisingly mobile. Landforms change in time, meteorological
conditions change, pathways and habitats expand and contract,
genetic material undergoes change, all these factors pointing to
the great resilience of most plants and animals in response to
change. Alterations brought about by strip mining are within the
tolerance range of most of the regional biota, as well-documented
by the biotic communities now occupying the older, previously-
mined areas. The DEIS cannot identify either a species or
assemblage of species "permanently displaced" by Florida phosphate
mining in this century. Conversely, aquatic biota in the mining
area have been significantly enriched as a direct result of
mining, and many species of terrestrial wildlife have benefited
from the sanctuary provided by mined lands reverting to nature
without reclamation. Indeed, strip-mined lands under ecologically
sound management have enormous potential for producing lakes,
wetlands, forests, and their associated wildlife populations.
1.26 "Irreversible alterations in local topography and soil
structure of remaining land preclude the reestablishment of
certain existing plant communities, including associations
within typical pine flatwoods, dry prairies, hammocks, sand-
hills, sand pine scrub, and forested and nonforested wetlands.'
-10-
2-13
-------
There is no technical reason, when given overburden, clay
and clean sand as raw materials, why satisfactory soil structure
for most existing plant communities could not be formed. There
is evidence to indicate that the role of soil development in
primary succession has been exaggerated, in any case (Drury and
Nisbet, 1973), and the data of Olson (1958) suggest that the
availability of water and nutrients may be more important limiting
factors in the establishment of vegetation than soil structure.
The authors erroneously feel that the "irreversible altera-
tions" in geomorphology and soils will "preclude the reestablishment,"
in effect, of most of the former existing natural plant communities.
Logically, this can only be true when the alterations cause changes
beyond the tolerance of the biota. The degree of irreversibility
can be adjusted via land shaping and variations in the sand-clay
soil composition. Future restoration technology can provide the
topographic and soil conditions required for each of the plant
communities identified in the DEIS sentence. Most ecologists
would prefer increasing the freshwater marsh and aquatic system
inventory rather than committing reclamation resources to re-
establishment of pine flatwoods and palmetto rangeland which
are so regionally abundant.
1.27 "Although diversity declines primarily because hardwood
swamps and mixed forest can be neither reclaimed nor
naturally restored on mined land, establishment of habitat
similar to existing types is possible and necessary if much
of the area's important biota is to be maintained."
On any given proposed site in the area, 50 years after mining,
the postmining diversity conceivably could be significantly higher
than before mining. "Diversity" is a much misused and misunderstood
measure of environmental quality, as expressed, for example, by
Hurlbert (1971) . Species diversity is an evolutionary product
of such variables as time, environmental stability, environmental
suitability, community structure, niche formation, dominance,
competition, succession, displacement, replacement, and other
factors.
Mature "climax" communities may have a lower diversity than
one of the serai stages enroute (Whittaker, 1953). Stability
is not necessarily linked to diversity, and various perturbations
can increase diversity. In terms of a large area (i.e. + 20,000
acres), a mosaic of different plant communities, each in various
successional stages, with contiguity between younger and older
elements will result in a near maximum diversity. These conditions
can be incorporated readily in a site-specific restoration plan,
including a component that is not directly disturbed by mining.
The idea that on an area-wide basis, biological diversity is
assuredly reduced by mining is unlikely. Long experience with
the older mined lands suggests just the opposite (Edscorn, 1977).
Several examples of natural succession of mined lands into
mixed forest can be seen on older mined lands, such as at the
Christina site and the Tilghman Mine southwest of Fort Meade.
The mesic hammock now occupying the Christina slime pond would not
-11-
-------
be vegetationally distinguished by most experienced naturalists
as other than a natural hammock. The hardwood swamp "forested
wetland" type could occur on small acreages of previously mined
lands, but it has not been observed with certainty. A small
cypress head community that appears to be post-mining occurs
within the dike of a Teneroc Mine area now undergoing reclamation.
Successional species found on slime areas mined in the 1950 "s
indicate that hardwood swamp communities can be restored by pro-
viding the necessary annual hydroperiod on heavy soils and stocking
with cypress, gum, bays, and similar species. Foresters in
Florida and the South have demonstrated the suitability of using
nursery trees for reforesting favorable wetland sites.
1.29 "Contaminating the water table aquifer locally are nutrients ^j ^
from fertilized agricultural land, sewer leakages, and
seepage from industrial lagoons, septic systems, and landfills."
Data are not presented in support of the statement.
1.32 "Hydrogeologic conditions favor entrance of contaminants to
at least the water table and upper Floridan Aquifers.
However, contamination is generally poorly documented due at
least in part to monitoring deficiencies."
Evidence is not presented to support the statement that
hydrogeologic conditions favor entrance of contaminants to the Lj
aquifers. Radiological data show the quality of water in the
water-table aquifer to be within EPA drinking water limits and no
significant differences exist between mined and unmined areas.
1.42 "These lakes generally have steeply graded sides and narrow
littoral zones of comparatively -low diversity."
There is no data presented that shows a lower species diversity
for the mining lakes as contrasted to nearby natural lakes. It
appears that a comparison is being made between -a relatively
young aquatic system and a premining community which may have had
a relatively unlimited period of time in which to achieve its
degree of diversity. The deeper water bodies have the ability to
maintain water throughout the year as well as during periods of
significant drought. The ecological life of the mining pits is JJ-
much longer than that of shallow, natural lakes because of the
depth available for detritus and nutrient sink storage. The lake
systems occupying reclaimed areas, as well as those of unreclaimed
areas, are probably of greater utility to man for recreational
and sport purposes than were the extremely shallow, periodically
dry systems which they replaced. The ability of the mined areas
to support a wider range of recreational and sports species, the
ability of mined areas/reclaimed areas to maintain higher popu-
lations of recreational species after mining and during droughts
than in the premined or natural condition will probably be greater.
-12-
J-/.T
-------
Further, maintaining portions of the mined areas in an unreclaimed
and therefore, relatively inaccessible state, should preclude
disturbances by man in the future and allow a refuge area for
certain species.
1.44 "Phosphate mining within the study area might potentially
affect only three of the 13 threatened and endangered
species."
This comment is much more in perspective than the listing of
approximately 50 percent of the vertebrate species of the area
which gives the superficial appearance of a high degree of concern
for most of the vertebrate species in the area. That mining might
potentially affect only three protected aquatic species is signifi-
cant when considering a region of such extensive aquatic habitat.
Even more important, and not adequately addressed, is the extent
and nature of potential impacts.
Although the narrative does recognize that the alligator "is
not seriously threatened in Florida," it does not quote from the /.•/._ 3 <""
terrestrial biota working paper (TI, 1977e, p. 5.55) that it is
"abundant in optimum habitat within the study area" which includes
much of the mining-created aquatic habitat. An impact assessment
later in the DEIS (p. 2.53). states that "Land preparation and
mining...will cause some loss of habitat and displace the American
alligator, but likely will have no adverse impact on the area's
alligator population." It does not mention, however, that this
species' population probably will expand as a result of a net
increase in aquatic habitat due to mining. Further, much of the
mining-created wetlands can have a higher sanctuary value than the
generally more accessible natural system wetlands. Hunting was
the major factor in the alligator's decline.
Mining activity is not likely to directly disturb any of the
recognized manatee habitat within the study area, which includes
portions of the downstream reaches of the Myakka, Little Manatee
and Peace Rivers, as well as coastal areas. Some 500 of these
animals have been estimated to occur along Florida's Gulf Coast.
The impact assessment (DEIS p. 2.53) states that mining alterations
are expected to have "only very minor effects on the...manatee
through a potentially altered distribution of food plants" (via
possible slime spills, not mining per se ) .
The narrative indicates that "the Suwannee cooter...is
apparently limited to the Alafia River and particularly in the
Lithia Springs area." The DEIS provides no specific study area
figure with a composite of the natural system habitat features
and the proposed mining areas. Therefore, it is difficult or
impossible to correlate species-specific habitat ranges with pro-
posed mining activity. This type of graphic is normally considered
to be required and essential base-line information in a document
of this type. The appropriate working paper (TI, 1977e, p. 5.56)
does note that this species "apparently is quite rare in the study
area" and the impact section of the DEIS (p. 2.53) indicates the
same "very minor effects'1 from mining as it does for the manatee.
When assessing the available information given for threatened
and endangered aquatic species in the study area, the evidence
-13-
-------
indicates that mining activity will have a negligible impact on
the continued population viability of the three aquatic species
of immediate concern. The alligator population will, in fact, be
positively affected by the proposed action over the long-term.
The overwhelming threat to the continued survival of all three
species is detrimental human activity involving guns and boats,
both intentional and unintentional. Nowhere in the text can one
find such bottom-line conclusions derived from the given information.
1.46 "Perhaps the most severe nuisance of the fresh waters is the
prolific growth of exotic hydrophytes including..."
The excessive growth of nuisance species also occurs in frj- J S
unmined waters and should not be considered a problem peculiar
to, or more difficult to control in, waters created as a result
of mining.
1.48 "...the phosphate industry currently mines slightly more
total uranium than does the uranium industry-"
The phosphate industry handles large tonnages of clay annually,
compared to the clay mineral industry, but this in no way suggests
that the phosphate industry is engaged in clay mining. The word
"mines" in reference to uranium should not be confused with L^
"processing" or "chemical refinement" of the element. Use of the
term represents a misleading statement concerning ease of recovery
and level of industry activity.
1.49 "Figure 1.15: Average Uranium Concentrations as U3O8 in
Typical Central Florida Phosphate District Profile."
The U308 equivalents are given for "high BPL" and "low BPL" t*J ~ 3 B
without definition of the ranges of BPL involved. Uranium con-
centrations in phosphate rock vary as a function of the BPL content,
the higher the BPL the higher the uranium, but the relationship
may vary according to the phosphate rock size fraction.
1.52 "...the average annual dose equivalent in excess of the average
natural background for persons living on reclaimed land within
the study area is calculated to be 540 millirems per year
to the whole lung, 36 millirems per year to the bone marrow,
and 22.5 millirems per year to the gonads. The average LJ
gamma exposure on reclaimed land is 88 millirems per year."
The bone marrow dose in excess of background is 4 millirems
per year and average gamma exposure is 70 millirems per year. The
reference for the gonad dose is not indicated in the text.
1.58 "...especially in Hardee and Polk Counties..."
-14-
-------
Change Hardee to Hillsborough.
1.59 "Mining does not appear to have played a significant role in
the growth of the region since 1960."
See comments concerning page 1.4.
1.61 "Table 1.30: Generalized Land Use, 7-County Study Area,
1975."
Percentages shown are for study area, not county. [*J ~- 4
1.62 "Under the Level-I category 'Barren Land,1 the Level-II
category 'Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits' comprises
only 3.12 percent of the entire study. Polk County has a
noticeable concentration, however; 12.5 percent of the
county is in this land-use category."
This categorization does not allow notice to be taken of the
age of the mined areas nor the value of the system reestablished 1
on the older mined areas.
1.65 "Water, which includes all surface water, will increase over
the 7 county study area between 1975 and 2000 by only 0.9
percent. "
The 0.9 percent translates to 1,550 acres, presumably lakes
created by phosphate mining. It would be surprising if a great
deal more lake acreage did not result from projected mining based l
on past experience in Polk County. Tables 2.5 (p. 2.13) and 2.7
(p. 2.14) show much larger increases in water areas for all
scenarios than the above projection.
1.65 "Wetlands"
The projected decline in wetlands of -1.1 percent should be
presented here and discussed. This projection is most likely to
be erroneous assuming (1) state and federal protection of existing
wetlands, and (2) the creation of new wetlands via phosphate
mining. The "Barren Land" discussion reflects projected increases
in area mined; therefore, this should be reflected in aquatic and
wetland increases.
1.65 "Archeological, Historical, and Recreational Resources."
Most of the 791 known sites would not be of sufficient
importance to cause a professional archeologist to recommend that
they be protected from mining. Very few are within the area pro-
jected for mining. These might have to be "worked" for structure
-15-
-------
and collection of artifacts prior to mining. A few might require
preservation. These are decisions provided for in the site -
specific DRI and EIS process. Mining, itself, often yields
important data and finds otherwise buried from discovery, a posi-
tive impact not identified in the DEIS.
1.66 "Table 1.32: Extent of Recreational Areas in the Seven Counties
of Study."
Nearly one-half of the recreational acres in the study area
occur in Polk County as at Saddle Creek Park, largely as a result
of reclamation and the creation of aquatic systems which form the
primary natural attraction for outdoor recreation. While this «.•
acreage can be expected to increase dramatically as a result of **/
future mining, no such positive impact is identified here.
1.67 "It was .concluded that the most useful and manageable way
to analyze the impacts of present and proposed phosphate
development is through reliance on existing information and
studies."
Since little significant information has been accumulated
on mined areas, the lack of consideration of existing literature
for other systems which indicate their rate of recovery from
disturbance would indicate that the conclusion to rely primarily
upon existing information was much too narrowly applied. Reasoned
extrapolation of available literature on comparable problems was
not applied. Further, the utilization of existing literature is ,\^
heavily biased toward an extensive examination of the premining »J~
condition with relatively little attention on the possibilities
and potential for utilization of the postmining systems.
-16-
-------
2.3 "... the effects were added algebraically under each
environmental element."
The methodology involves, predominantly, subjective
assignment of values to impacts within each scenario.
These ordinal rankings are then summed algebraically.
The result is a quantity that has no objective meaning and
that is not subject to replication.
2.4 "Dry conveyor for matrix from mine to beneficiation."
There is no possibility of producing dry matrix at the
mine face.
2.5 "Any disturbed wetlands are to be restored to provide
at least an equivalent habitat for any species on the
Important Species List for which habitat existed prior
to mining. Restoration is to be accomplished so that
no more than ten percent of such habitat is destroyed
at any one time."
It is doubted that the "Important Species List" is
ecologically viable. In terms of community structure and
ecosystem dynamics, all species should be considered equally
important. Importance is not to be confused with dominance
or frequency, and is usually applied in terms of relationship .
to man rather than ecosystem function. Maintaining natural U)5 /
system values in the area will involve the variety of habitat
types, not just wetlands.
The 10% figure is arbitrary. Keying mining rate to
the rate at which wetlands can be restored is an impractical
approach.
2.11 "Table 2.1: Assessment of World Phosphate Reserves and
Resources."
The following table entries seem to be in error:
Africa - Total Resources - Metric Tons
World - Other Resources - Metric and Short Tons
-17-
3- 2.0
-------
18 "...and the land cannot be used for industrial or
commercial development involving structures larger
than most single-family dwellings."
See comments concerning p. 1.8.
18 "Elimination of Slime Ponds."
Because of the unique potential of phosphate mining to
create aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems economically as part
of the expense of mining and because these mining operations
take place in counties already so heavily impacted by man that
the natural habitats are seriously diminished in quantity
and quality, it is believed that the interests of society,
the industry, and Nature would be best served by maximizing
the creation of natural systems in the postmining environment.
The DEIS often appears to favor reclamation for agricultural,
industrial, commercial, and residential uses. This diverts the
large cost of reclamation to subsidize man-intensive land
uses already abundant throughout the study area, whereas the
regional ecosystem would be most benefited by the creation of
natural systems to provide the support and services
necessitated by the present preponderance of man-dominated
uses.
Both slime ponds and sand tailings serve as the soil
building blocks for forested and marsh wetlands on the
clays, and scrub, sandhill, and xeric hammock habitats on
the sands. Abandonment of the use of slime ponds entirely
would represent a serious loss of potential wetlands. Filling
the mine pits with clay and sand precludes their possible
use as lakes.
20 "Subsequent subsidence could occur, limiting subsequent
land uses to those in which overburden pressures are .
no greater than those resulting from agricultural I*'
production."
There is no indication that subsequent land uses on
sand-clay reclaimed areas will be so limited.
21 "The term 'dry conveyor' is a misnomer."
The term has no current meaning in the industry. I*/—" S> 5
-18-
-2 I
-------
2.27 "Because of the lack of data on the extent, if
any, of surface and subsurface seepage and the
feasibility and adequacy of impervious linings to
control this potential source of pollution, effects
assessment did not include an objective and
quantitative evaluation of this process modification."
It must be assumed, therefore, that any recommendations
relative to gypsum pond linings are subjective and unsub->
stantiated. Extensive study in the area is being conducted
jointly by the Industry and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation. Recommendations should not be bJ'
made prior to analysis of data generated by this study.
2.27 "For transporting the ore from pit to wash plant,
a conveyor belt system is being tried at one
location as an alternative to the conventional
matrix slurry pipeline, resulting in a decrease in
(water use) and electric power consumption (Hoppe 1976)."
The specific disclaimer by Mr. Timberlake, manager
of the o'nly company which uses a matrix conveyor, indicates
that decreased water use does not result from use of the t+J-JS?'?
matrix conveyor.
2.28 "To determine the net result of rainfall
containment..."
The analysis is oversimplified to the extent that a
generalized conclusion cannot be drawn from the calculation.
2.33 "One recent applicant was given boundaries in
Hookers Prairie that encompass approximately 50
percent more area than indicated on the USGS map."
The Hookers Prairie area has been significantly
modified by adjacent phosphate mining operations without
similar modifications being made on available maps. Further,
the Corps of Engineers' determination was based on a recent
observation of suitably vegetated areas. The discrepency /jJ
between the observed wetted area and available maps is no
doubt an extreme case, but serves to point out the necessity
for site-specific work to determine the vegetative structure
of an area. It is even more important to determine the
functions served by an area and make certain that they are
sufficiently valuable to justify not mining an area.
-19-
-------
2.33 "Those in wetlands potentially affected by
phosphate industry activities are as follows:"
Many of the listed species listed as wetland range
over a variety of terrestrial and aquatic communities, W~<*
such as particular snakes, hawks, woodpeckers and mammals.
Also, the diamondback terrapin is a creature of mangroves and
brackish water, and should not be listed among the upland
wetland species. Whether the eastern indigo snake, southern
hognose snake, hairy woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk,
American woodcock, pileated woodpecker, and bobcat should be
listed among animals endemic to wetlands is highly question-
able, as well. Given sufficient time, unreclaimed mining
lands have demonstrated capability to produce habitat
suitable for most, if not all, of the listed species. With
modern knowledge about site preparation and habitat manage-
ment, equivalent habitat establishment for these and other
species should be readily achievable over time.
2.34 "No feasible means of restoring wetlands has been
demonstrated, although reclamation can result in
wet lands."
It has been the human experience that if man, glacier,
landslide, or whatever causes land to be wet long enough
to sustain hydrophytic vegetation, a wetland results. The
USDA and USDI have been promoting and funding the construction
of man-made wetlands for nearly fifty years. With built-in
water management controls, man-made wetlands can exceed
"natural wetlands" in productivity. One USDA administrator
estimated that 3.3 million farm ponds will have been
constructed in the U. S. by 1980, averaging about one acre
each. The total acreage of man-made reservoirs, impound-
ments, and marshes undoubtedly exceeds that of farm ponds.
While natural wetlands often will be superior to man-made
wetlands in their over-all quality, the differences are
usually attributable to construction, management, or the
designed use.
Man can and has constructed large acreages of wetlands
with superior natural system values. The potential for
doing so as part of the strip-mining process is enormous.
The DEIS seriously errs in suggesting otherwise. The
bottom-line concern stated in the DEIS, and held by con-
servationists, regulatory agency staffs, and many others
is that of holding the line on the loss of wetland habitat,
and secondarily that of scrub, sandhill, and hammock
communities. The logic of habitat is so simple: without
it management of the wildlife resource is fruitless
because life is denied. Conversely, wildlife can with-
stand an incredible array of attacks if its habitat remains
intact.
-20-
-------
Unfortunately, most of the 3,567,723 acres in the
study area is poor wildlife habitat because man has put
so much of the area into alternative land uses that provide
a higher immediate cash crop. Ironically, and quite by
accident, much of the best remaining wildlife habitat in
the minded areas is also man-made in the form of unreclaimed
land. Well-intentioned conservationists, environmentalists,
government leaders, even professional ecologists and
resource managers may be missing the habitat message that
can be abundantly read on the previously-mined landscape of
Polk County (for example, Edscorn, 1977). While the Edscorn
paper was available to the authors and to the Archbold
study team, it had little or no apparent impact in shaping
the opinions and conclusions in either report.
Modern-man is an effective destroyer of wildlife
habitat, but he can be just as efficient at restoring
habitat. He seldom has the chance because restoring habitat
is far' more expensive that destroying it. This is why strip-
mining can be such a powerful force for habitat restoration,
since restoration costs can be built into the pricing of
the phosphate matrix, and into the mining process itself.
The attention of those wanting to maximize natural habitat
should be directed toward restoring more and better acreage
behind the mining, rather than preservation from mining of
often severely impacted habitats.
The best example of massive wetland habitat restoration
can be credited to Ducks Unlimited. In 40 years, Ducks
Unlimited has spent over $40 million to built 1,347 wetland
habitat projects in Canada, resulting in 2.5 million wetland
acres with 10,000 miles of wetland-upland edge. Their 1977
program spent $10 million on 118 new wetland habitats, adding
60,000 acres. In many drought years, a preponderance of
waterfowl production occurs on the man-made marshes that
hold water due to structures when the natural wetlands are dry.
The U. S. waterfowl program has a $100 million annual
budget, part of which goes into establishing new, man-made
wetlands. Some 15 states now sell state duck stamps to raise
revenues to create and restore wetlands. These and many
other case histories establish that man can build high
quality wetlands. He certainly can do so as part of the
phosphate mining process.
The quoted excerpt from Fisheries, Volume 2 (4):7
(DEIS p.2.35) is taken from an"opinion" editorial and not a
scientific paper. Perhaps Nature does create the wetland,
but man can and does saturate the land with water, which
immediately starts the creative process. Wetland succession
through maturity and senescence can be very rapid or very slow,
depending on the specific wetland.
-21-
-------
2.35 "Only nature can create a wetland."
I'f it is true that only nature can create a wetland,
then it seems to be obvious to natural resource managers
in the state that nature cannot maintain a wetland. The
St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge, Paine 's Prairie
Loxahatchee and virtually any other federally or state i*J— 6> "^_
owned wildlife management area, particularly those with
wooded areas, are under a management program of one sort
or another to modify and/or maintain a certain composition
of vegetation and associated organisms
2.37 "Table 2.8: Environmental Impact Summary."
The economic "score" for each of the scenarios
is equal, a glaring indication of the failure to seriously U/~ £ £
consider economic effects of the different scenarios.
2.38 "If decision weighting factors for social and economic
environmental elements had been as high as many of
the weights for natural environmental elements, U/
summary results probably would have shown net positive
impacts. "
This bias in favor of environmental elements prevents
analysis in a manner that would permit a balancing against
socioeconomic benefits.
2.40 "Large clay-slime storage impoundments and stacking
waste gypsum load the surface, causing the primary
effect. No data exist, however, to support quantification
of the potential for collapse of a slime impoundment
of gypsum stack."
No data exists to support the potential for collapse
since a cause-effect relationship is unlikely. In fact,
loading due to slime placement in a mined-out settling area
ordinarily involves stresses less than those associated
with the original matrix.
2.40 "...new soils will develop that may be better suited."
The "new" soils with increased clays enhance restoration
of forested and marsh wetlands and mesic hammocks. Sand
tailings enhance the potential for restoring scrub and
sandhill communities. Evidence of dramatic improvement in
growth of pines relative to growth on nearby undisturbed
land is presented by Devall (1950) .
-22-
3-
-------
2.40 "Topographical effects will be caused primarily by
excavations to remove phosphate ore ... however,
reclamation will restore these lands to nearly their
original contours."
Optimum natural system habitat restoration should
not return lands to "nearly their original contours".
This is one of the clear dichotomies between reclaiming for
intensive human use or restoring for wildlife habitat with (jj
dense cover and sanctuary. The irregular slopes of un-
reclaimed land that limit access are an important factor in
setting wildlife value.
2.42 "Certain existing plant communities are permanently
displaced."
No. plant community need be displaced on the long-
term if restoring that plant community is a fully-funded
objective of the site-specific restoration plant.
"Permanently" is a human concept as applied here. Given
adequate time and no restoration, weathering, erosion, and
vegetative succession, virtually every plant community uj
present on a site prior to mining is likely to return
eventually after mining. The extent and locations of the
communities will change as a result, but permanent extirpation
of a community type over a large area is extremely remote.
2.42 "As much as 30 percent of the mined uplands/wetlands
habitat becomes aquatic habitat."
The percent of wetlands depends heavily on the site-
specific restoration plan and easily can be greater in £»/- (&
acreage than the aquatic habitat. The created aquatic
habitats are high in natural system values in their own right.
They are also of great value and utility to man, especially
in the counties with a very small lake inventory.
2.42 "Habitat quality of unmined as well as mined
land is degraded."
Realistically, the preponderance of land projected for
mining in this area has been severely degraded already as (^)"
wildlife habitat, an observation made in the DEIS. Manage-
ment methods exist to offset many mining impacts on adjacent
unmined habitats if they are needed. The fact remains that
among the very best natural habitats existing in the area,
especially from a fish and wildlife perspective, is the
unreclaimed lands mined before 1950.
-23-
-------
2.42 "Diversity is diminished."
While obviously true of lands recently mined, there
are no quantified data comparing diversity values for mined
vs. unmined mesic hammock (as at the Christima site) or
a mined, forested wetland (scrub stage) with an unmined one
or, even a mined reclaimed pasture to an unmined one. These
are the types of studies that would be required for an
accurate evaluation of impacts. ,
Unreclaimed lands mined between 1900-1920 that have (J " f /
had 50 or more years to mature appear at least to have
equal species diversity when compared to unmined habitats
in the area. This opinion is based on naturalistic expertise
and 30 years of field ecology, both of which are inferior to
data. However, the alleged reduction in biological diversity
is central to the validity of the impact assessment conclusions
and until quantified studies are available, the question
cannot.be reconciled.
Biological productivity can be of equal or greater
importance than diversity, yet this is never mentioned. Net
productivity appears to increase after mining, probably
because of soil and water changes, increased fertility,
increased edge between habitats and increased miles of
aquatic shorelines. Restoration is limited only by technology
and funding. As both increase, if emphasis is given to
natural system restoration, diversity will increase rapidly
as more niches are created and filled.
2.42 "Local populations of many important species are
reduced."
All species are important. Most lands to be mined
are understocked, poor habitat. Mining at any one time k/— 7 c^
takes only a small portion of a particular species
habitat within either the mine site or region. Reasonable
rates of postmining restoration should provide increased
acreages and productivity of critical natural habitats.
Wildlife are resilient and will withstand a local
perturbation if there are adequate habitat inventories
ahead of, adjacent to, or behind the mining.
2.42 "Estimates of evergreen forests are considered
reliable, but it is impossible to estimate present
or future areawide extents of either mixed or
deciduous forests because of the paucity of data
of appropriate detail."
-24-
-------
It is a significant shortcoming of the document that it
does not contain an accurate vegetative cover map' and a
corresponding table of acreage and percent cover by plant (A/""73
association. The information can be compiled from aerial
photography, ground^truthing site surveys, available literary
references and existing DRI's. Such information is
essential for assessment of the scope and scale of potential
impacts. The land area figures used in the DEIS are based
on land use categories and total ecosystem extent rather
than a more interpretively useful breakdown by individual
plant communities.
2.42 "None of the forest types can be restored to their
native condition on mined lands."
This statement is refuted by several thousand acres .»_ -7 ^_
of native forests growing on previously mined land..
2.42 "The deep sand soils necessary for mixed forests
are irreversibly altered."
Most of the true sandhill and scrub forests in the area
seem to be outside of the lands projected for mining. At
most, a couple of hundred acres may be at issue. These soils
are, by nature, relatively sterile and lacking in a complex soil
horizon profile and, therefore, are among the easiest of the
specific plant community soil types to restructure after
mining. Sand tailings should make excellent sites for xeric
hammocks and mixed forests. Tailings usually have gone to
dry pasture. However, there are several examples of high
survival, good vigor, and growth of slash pine plantations
on tailings. Restoration of sand tailings to create xeric
hammocks and mixed forests could greatly increase the overall
inventory of these habitats in the area.
Mixed forest species are relatively shallowly rooted
and more dependent upon moisture conditions than on the
presence of deep sand soils. The pine flatwoods is the most
common forest type in Florida. Its failure to become
identically reestablished on the reclaimed soils is neither
particularly significant nor should it be taken as an
indication that a functionally similar or improved system
would not result.
-25-
-------
2.42 "... the loss of underlying organic hardpan precludes
the re-establishment of typical pine flatwoods."
It is difficult to conceive why any land manager would
recommend restoration funds be committed to creating pine
flatwoods, with hardpan, when the regional inventory already
is so high. The DEIS states, "By far the greatest amount of
remaining forest in the study area is typical pine flatwoods"
(p.1.21).
2.42 "... and the configuration as well as the species
composition of hammocks is destroyed."
This is not a true statement, as evidenced by mesic
hammocks on mined lands, such as that at the Christina site.
No effort, thus far, has been made to deliberately restore __ -
mesic hammock. All those reoccurring can be attributable **' "~
to a naturally favorable site environment. If appropriate
species are selected for planting and if soil and topographic
factors are accomodated in the site-specific restoration
plan, then establishment of a mesic hammock would be expected.
2.42 "Less important but still unreclaimable in its native
condition is mined rangeland."
"Rangeland" throughout the area largely is a disclimax
created by man and does not have a "native condition."
Pine flatwoods are the "native condition" which has been
converted into range by cutting, frequent burning, disking,
use of herbicides, and often eventually moving into an Lj—~?&
"improved pasture" use. The low value as natural habitat
of the 2+ million acres of range and agricultural lands
which will dominate every projected mining site provides a
compromise that may lead sensible environmentalists to
support mining if the restoration emphasis is placed on
creating natural habitats. On the other hand, as part of
site-specific restoration plans, rangeland can be and has
been reestablished.
2.43 "This is a small (3 percent) but important portion
of areawide wetlands extent."
Three percent of the area inventory is indeed small . _ Q
and should be easily doubled or even tripled through **/~ • "
restoration. It is difficult, in any case, to evaluate the
importance of this 3% without some qualitative review of the
actual habitats.
-26-
-------
2.43 "There is no indication that wetlands of any kind can
be restored on mined land. Not only are the low-
relief topography and attendant drainage patterns of
wetlands difficult to restore, but the deep, water-
logged soils of many wetlands can be neither
restructured nor feasibility conserved."
This conclusion is totally erroneous. Numerous
wetland habitats occur on currently and previously mined
lands. Existing postmining wetlands vary greatly in
quality. They exist by accident rather than design and UJ —
intent. Deliberate, planned restoration could produce
nonforested wetlands of greater productivity and diversity
than most of those occurring naturally prior to mining.
Backfilling during the reclamation process provides control
over ultimate topography. Establishment of moisture and
drainage conditions through soil selection and final
contouring provides the starting point for wetland formation.
Hydric soils develop rapidly in productive wetlands with
an adequate hydroperiod.
2.43 "That the quality of terrestrial habitat generally
reclaimed in mined areas is inferior is readily apparent
when comparing wildlife usage of managed systems with
that of essentially natural systems."
The poor natural system values of recently reclaimed
mined land reflect the intent to reclaim to a man-dominated
end product. Even for purposeful restoration toward a
natural system, it is unrealistic to compare an early
succession post-reclamation system to a long established
natural community.
2.43 "They can be maintained at no cost to man. To
maintain agricultural habitat types as such, it is
necessary to use external controls..."
It should be obvious that the early post-reclamation
ecosystems which received a cost or energy subsidy from
man is due in part to present reclamation requirements.
Early reestablishment of some vegetation type which will / i_
-------
2.43 "Habitat fragmentation will have lasting effects,
likely reducing the carrying capacity of the remaining
habitat for wide-ranging herbivores (e.g., deer) and
carnivores (e.g., bobcat)."
The present fragmented system of either premining
pasture/range conditions or the postmining reclaimed and
unreclaimed areas have relatively high bobcat populations.
The mixture of brushy, early succession areas, which occur
either in postmining areas or in range habitat and adjacent
forested floodplain or other wetland areas, offers a
relatively good to ideal habitat for bobcat. In addition,
deer are also recognized as being species preferring Q "%
relatively open young successional stages and are not tv-o <3
found in mature deeply wooded areas at near the same
population levels. Therefore, this statement concerning
bobcat and deer is incorrect.
2.44 "Mining is likely to affect 12 threatened and
endangered vertebrates and may affect six others
(see Table 1.15) although their presence in the
mining areas is doubtful."
Language suggesting that mining is "likely" to affect
animals whose presence is "doubtful" is unnecessarily
vague and ambiguous. Further, the endangered species
impact assessment for terrestrial and wetland animals
consists of one paragraph of discussion sandwiched between
the treatment of erosion and commercial and recreational
animals, without even a topic heading. If the reviewer IA/
refers, as directed to Table 1.15 (p.1.44) for a listing
of the 18 "land and wetlands" protected species, he
encounteres a list of 13 "Aquatic Species Designated
Endangered, Threatened, Rare or Special Concern" virtually
all of which are marine species. In fact, a table listing
the 18 threatened and endangered terrestrial vertebrates
does not exist. Beyond this, the referenced 18 vertebrates
are not even identified!
Apart from all the technical reporting problems, the only
factual statement'of note is mention of the inconsequential
impacts on the Osprey and Caracara. It is evident from
observation of mined lands that the Osprey is attracted to
mined lands' water bodies. It is also quite likely that the
Least Tern, Peregrine Falcon and Wood Stork will be attracted
to the water bodies and uplands of reclaimed lands.
-28-
-------
2.44 "The recreational potential of hunting quail and
squirrel ... will be reduced. Deer and wild hog
habitat will be reduced."
This is not expected to occur to any significant degree
due to proposed mining and, in fact, quail and dove should (^—6
be benefited by mining. Most game species are not creatures
of the deep woods, but are adapted to and managed for on
relatively young succession lands.
2.45 "... but continued habitat loss eventually will
eliminate certain species from the game list and
degrade the quality of hunting."
No evidence is available to support the conclusion i.J—$((>
that certain species will be eliminated from the area.
2.45 "Mining will adversely affect more than one-half
of approximately 75 ecologically significant species
in the 7 - county region."
The trend throughout the DEIS is to make incredibly
generalized assessments of mining's impact on the regional
biota, without reference to magnitude, duration, specific
species or restoration. The vast majority of the
"ecologically significant species" will experience only
short-term perturbation, and many will incur negligible {^J ~ & "7
impacts on local populations. None of these species are
either threatened or endangered. The long-term degree of
assessment attempts to lump 30 to 40 vertebrates into an
adversely affected category without any identification or
quantification, rendering a meaningful critique of this
opinion impossible.
The value of a species list for protection, conservation
or consideration of species from impacts decreases as the
number of species placed on the list increases. When
approximately half the species occurring in an area appear
on one list or another, almost any action affecting the
environment will affect some of the listed species. Therefore,
the value of such lists as guides for planning activities
having an environmental effect is vastly decreased.
2.45 "Mining activities will increase the potential of
several species to reach population levels of nuisance
or pest proportions. Mammal pests will proliferate
around work areas and expanded urban areas. Bird
pests will become more abundant in similar areas as
well as on reclaimed pastures and croplands. Insect
pests will proliferate around cattle, in areas devoted
to monoculture, and in the nutrient-rich reclaimed lakes."
-29-
-------
A listing of the several species potentially reaching
pest proportions would be helpful in assessing the validity
of this general statement. There is no documentation in
the text of a proliferation of nuisance animals on lands
that have been mined during the past 70-80 years, and,
therefore, no reason to believe this situation will occur
in the future. The fact that some mammal pests occur
around work areas and urban areas is not unique to mining,
and would occur no matter what the nature of cultural \jJ~oiJ
alteration. There is absolutely no evidence for the
statement that bird pests will become abundant on reclaimed
pastures and cropland. Again, a listing of these theoretical
species would be necessary to further evaluate this opinion.
Florida has many hundreds of thousands of acres occupied by
cattle, crops and nutrient-rich lakes without any unusual
proliferation of insect pests. There is no apparent basis
for applying this statement to mined lands. There is
considerable existing evidence to the contrary.
The previously mined areas appear remarkably free of
these projected effects. Most of the identified potential
pest problems are associated with intensive human use or
occupation of reclaimed land.
2.50 "... and for the lower Floridan, 196 picocuries
per liter." ^_
The correct value is 1.96.
2.50 "However, ground water has been and probably will
continue to be locally contaminated. Specific areas
of concern include the large slime impoundments, the
waste-gupsum stacks, and the large process-water cooling
ponds."
Evidence of radiochemical contamination of groundwater Lj
due to phosphate industry activities does not exist.
2.52 "Combined loadings of chemical pollutional parameters
(especially phosphates, fluorides, and total suspended
solids) from discharges of nonprocess and process
wastewaters to various stream segments."
U/ -
Such loadings are governed by EPA effluent discharge
standards.
2.52 "The creation of many water impoundments that will
tend to deteriorate water quality by permitting
over-enrichment."
Impoundments will be created. However, water quality Lj^
degradation may not be assumed.
-30-
3-33
-------
2.52 "Local surface-water deterioration from clearing,
burning, construction, reclamation, slime spills,
and seepage from contaminated ponds. Local water-
table quality deterioration because of draining
and dewatering, overburden, product storage, seepage
from contaminated ponds, and reclamation of mining
pits,"
Surface water quality is protected by discharge
standards. Groundwater contamination due to phosphate i>J—^ "
industry activity is not documented.
2.52 "Local Floridan aquifer water quality deterioration
from wastewater injection."
Wastewater injection has not been practiced within the
phosphate industry and implementation of the practice is ^-
not contemplated.
2.53 "Of the 13 aquatic species endangered, threatened,
rare or of special concern, only the American
alligator, Suwannee cooter and manatee might
potentially be affected by phosphate industry
activities.
Of these three species only the American alligator
is likely to be affected. However, given the alligator's
recent and continuing population expansion in Florida, any
concern in the mining area is unwarranted. The creation
of aquatic habitat will probably result in an increased
areawide alligator population. It is interesting to note t*J
that one begins with a species list including approximately
half the vertebrates occurring in the study area, reduces
that to 13 aquatic species, and then finds that only one of
those could be expected to be significantly affected by
mining. This rather dramatically highlights the problem
of a too-inclusive species list. Note that with regard to
all species, no case of extirpation nor serious population
decline is projected.
2.53 "Slime placement poses a potential for the most
significant adverse impact on rare and endangered
aquatic species of the study area."
A direct connection between slime placement and the ujf- 3 (?
safety of rare and endangered species is tenuous at best.
-31-
-------
2.54 "... stream ecosystems generally recover in
2 to 5 years."
This should be compared with the approximately 4000
years stated as being required for recovery of a wetland
(p.2.35). The comparison points to the fact that the
wetland projection is seriously in error. Every severe £*/-? r
flood has similar effects and the stream habitats are
adapted to benefit from them.
2.54 "... present reclamation must be altered to
include lakes and ponds with wide littoral zones
and other areas (e.g., 'marshy1 islands) ..."
This paragraph is of special interest because a
change in reclamation technology is recommended. Almost
all the impacts discussed thus far would differ with
changes in restoration technology, but this is one of
the first times the authors identify or recommend a change.
2.54 "The steep-sided, relatively deep lakes now
predominating are of little long term value; they
quickly become degraded and/or eutrophic."
Most of the mined lakes with high phosphates are
remarkably slow to degrade or eutrophy when compared to most
Central Florida lakes. This is precisely because of the
deep open water and relatively narrow littoral zone. While
the lakes can be improved in design, they should continue to
be deep with an increased but still small ratio of shallows
to open water.
2.55 "Draining and dewatering low, wet areas, thus
eliminating breeding areas for midges and mosquitos,
will have a positive effect but will be more than
offset by the industry's creation of additional
surface water."
A quantitative projection of acreage to be drained
in the 7 - county area compared to new water area created
by mining activity is necessary to evaluate this impact. M/~r
The pest species are areawide problems independent of
mining. When mining increases aquatic and wetland systems, it
increases habitat for many of the pest species. However, their
"pest" status usually relates to an interface with man, which
is reduced in wildland settings. Midges and mosquitos are
part of the food chain for many species. Far more ecological
damage has been done under the umbrella of mosquito control
than by the mosquito or deliberate construction of wetlands
with mosquito niches.
-32-
-------
This discussion of aquatic nuisance and pest species
seems to advocate the draining of generally viable and
productive mining-created wetland, which runs counter to
the desire for wetland replacement on mined lands. Studies
of mining's long-existing, surface-water impoundments
indicate no unusual proliferation of nuisance biota, even
after 50 or more years. This adverse potential is equally
as great in naturally occurring wetlands.
2.55 "The amount of standing water communities expected
to directly be affected ... is relatively small and
involves no major lakes, ponds, or impoundments ...
Perhaps the most important consideration will be the
creation of new standing-water habitat. (28,400
acres by year 2000)"
While these statements support mining, the use of
"standing water habitat" is interesting. We suspect it
refers to the idea that a lake is made by Nature, while
man makes "standing-water habitat".
2.56 "... utilization of this potential fishery is
expected to be relatively light since an outstanding
marine fishery is also readily available to anglers."
The notion that high quality freshwater sport fishing
is deposed by an outstanding nearby marine fishery has
very little merit. Each type of fishing has its own Uj-f®
devotees and a substantial number do both. All Florida
fishing licenses sold in the area are for freshwater fishing
since no license is needed in saltwater. As at Saddle Creek
Park, phosphate lakes often are heavily fished and with
excellent yields. The present interpretation is erroneous
and misleading.
This assessment represents an obvious positive benefit
from the mining process. The expectation that these
newly-created lakes will experience light sport and commercial
fishing utilization due to the available marine fishery is
contrary to reality. Freshwater and marine angling represent
entirely different experiences in terms of location, economics
and fishing preference. Available mining lakes have been
heavily utilized for recreation and fishing by the regional
populace. According to the study area's FGFWFC Fisheries
Biologist, phosphate lakes provide the "best bass fishing
anywhere, and the fishing quality doesn't taper off over time,
as a lot of people believe". Commercial rearing of catfish
and other aquatic food resource species is also a reality.
-33-
-------
2.56 "... the effects of the relatively small changes
of freshwater discharge patterns are expected to be
minor and obscured in normal discharge variations."
This has been repeatedly stated and has a quantitative
base. Yet, juxtaposed are such statements as: "community-
structure alterations accompanying local habitat degradation
by siltation and turbidity will be manifested as reduced
algal abundance, replacement of more desirable benthic \jj
forms with forms more tolerant of silty substrate, poorer
condition of local fish populations because of food chain
disruption and impairment of feeding activities, and reduced
fish egg and larva survival" , presented with no quantitative
basis.
2.57 "... this will represent an adverse effect, since
flowing-water communities are of greater resource
value to the study area."
No basis for this contention has been presented and tiJ
the statement may contradict others made concerning the
value associated with lentic communities.
2.60 "Phosphate industry's ownership of land has probably
been the major cause of the current crescent— shaped
population distribution."
This conclusion is not corroborated by any factual
data. Indeed, factual historical data contradicts this
hypothesis. Demographic data show that population growth i J
has been a function of net migration. A high proportion
of this migration is retirees who create the economic base
for the service and trade oriented economies which
characterize Charlotte, Sarasota, and Manatee counties.
Mining has certainly not precluded this.
Retirees and population growth in Florida is oriented
around the sea shore. Internal development is generally
sparse and occurs at special areas, i.e., Orlando, or at
transport nodes.
2.60 "Since the service businesses catering to the needs
of the retirement and tourist sectors are in direct
conflict with the phosphate industry, however, there
is good reason to believe that they could absorb surplus
workers from the phosphate industry."
-34-
-------
That growth of the phosphate industry has precluded
growth of a tourist/retirement economy in Polk, Hardee,
and DeSoto is unsupported. A more reasonable and
economically justifiable argument is that the inland
counties possess few of the amenities that migrants to
Florida desire.
Even if expanded tourism filled the void left by a
contracting phosphate industry, phosphate industry workers
may not possess the skills needed for a service economy,
and such workers may not be willing to accept the generally
lower wages paid by service industries.
2.64 "Among possible secondary effects not implied in
the discussion of primary effects are certain
changes occurring in coastal areas as a result of
mining."
This is reaching out for completeness in identifying
impacts, and the closing phrase, "the expected changes ...
will have little effect," neutralizes the impact. State
and federal jurisdictions are responsible for permitting i/J^fO
harbor development to safeguard the marine environment.
Such port expansions are independent from the increase in
in shipping, if any.
This vague discussion should be materially expanded,
or deleted. It is difficult to envision potential impacts
on the study area's terrestrial biota as a result of a possible
future increase in harbor area.
2.67 "Development of Tampa Harbor and development of the
phosphate industry are synergistic:"
Clearly they are related. That the relation is fa/~( &
synergistic is somewhat remote.
2.69 "The primary effects on these features are
expected to be collapse or high-volume drainage caused
by excessive surface loading and increased hydrologic
head created by abovegrade storage of clay slimes and
waste gypsum."
Evidence of sinkhole collapse due to waste loading is
lacking. Loading due to placement of waste clay in a mined
area will be less than that associated with the original
matrix.
-35-
J-Jfi
-------
2.72 "The loss of only several hundred acres of mixed
and deciduous forest types (sandhills, sand pine
scrub, and hammocks) will severely deplete the
unknown but undoubted limited extent of these
important habitats."
It is necessary to emphasize that the extent of habitat
types within the study area should not simply be dismissed
as "unknown" in a document of this importance. Complete
aerial photography of the study area is available from
several sources, as well as several general vegetative cover
maps and many site-specific environmental studies done with
the region.
A supplementary report utilized in large measure to
prepare the biological sections of the DEIS is entitled
"Fish .and Wildlife Inventory of the Seven-County Region" /./_//
(Layne, et al., 1977) . The authors chose to excerpt the *^
appropriate regional area of Davis' "General Vegetation
Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida" (Davis, 1967) for the
purpose of identifying and delineating the vegetation of
the study area (p.50). Although this cover map is
macroscopic in scale, it provides a reasonably accurate
portrayal of the original location and extent of the nine
vegetation types identified within the seven-county region.
The authors of this critique generated a vegetative
impact composite graphic using Figure III H.I (General
vegetation map of the seven-county area) and Figure III 1.2
(Location of holdings of phosphate companies of the seven-
county area) from the above-mentioned wildlife supplement
in order to determine the generalized extent of mining's
total potential alteration of original natural vegetation
types for this century- Neither the DEIS nor the supplemental
working papers offer a figure suitable for this type of
impact interpretation.
Throughout the text, the greatest concern for continued
habitat viability, other than generic "wetlands," is given
to the sandhill, xeric hammock and sand pine scrub vegetation
types due to their relative abundance of rare and endemic
flora and fauna. Based upon an interpretation of our natural
vegetation/mining lands composite graphic for the study area,
only about 20 percent of the total sandhill and xeric hammock
habitat, and less than 10 percent of the sand pine scrub
association will be altered by mining by the year 2000.
These figures include the habitat altered prior to 1975.
Since the majority of these forest types in Florida exist
outside of the study area, and the percentage lost or
temporarly displaced within the region is so small, the area-
wide and statewide potential loss is relatively small (Davis,
1967; Laessle, 1958 and 1967). In addition, future reclamation
efforts will seek to restore these habitat types through
site-specific land preparation and plant species selection.
-36-
J-J?
-------
2.72 "... 62 percent of the projected 4 percent areawide
loss of rangeland ..."
The stated 4% does not correspond to the 7% loss
indicated in Table 1.31 (page 1.63), so actual mined acreage
cannot be determined. In order for a reviewer to readily
grasp the projected impact of mining versus other land-uses
in the various habitat and land use categories, a proper ^/.
figure,should be generated listing the proportional areas
and percentages. Further, impacts on natural systems should
be segregated by vegetation types, which would require an
areawide comprehensive vegetation cover map as a prerequisite.
2.72 "As wildlife habitat, waterbodies created during
reclamation are, like terrestrial habitat, generally
inferior to those that could develop naturally were
the mining areas merely abandoned."
It is not necessarily true that created water bodies
are inferior. However, this is one of the few statements
reflecting author awareness that high quality natural ^ -/ (
habitats have resulted from reversion of mined lands.
Given careful attention to design, construction and
management, man-made aquatic systems can exceed natural
ones in diversity and productivity-
2.73 "Since phosphate mining will account for most of the
expected areawide change in land use by the year
2000, it will account also for most of the change
in community structure."
The projections of Table 1.31 (p.1.63) show an {*/~' ' ~
increase in urban area of 146 thousand acres. This is by far
the major change in land use through the year 2000.
2.73 "Particularly will the modified habitat types
replacing forests and wetlands support a smaller
variety of biota and be considerably less productive
in terms of life support."
It is almost inconveivable that earlier statments
concerning the anticipated improvement in soil conditions
and associated soil characteristics would result in conclusions
about a lowered potential quality of the system reestablished
on mined areas. The DEIS continues to make the comparison
between a natural system which is of a relatively mature age
and a post mining ecosystem of a relatively young age. No
reasoned comparison can be made from such dissimilar bases.
-37-
3-40
-------
2.73 "The greatest impact on threatened and endangered
species that likely will be affected by mining will
come primarily from loss of uplands forested habitat.
The DEIS generally lacks even a terse discussion of
habitat, range, and relative abundance considerations for
the species of concern in the various threatened and
endangered species sections found throughout. The reviewer
has very little information, in terms of percent of specific
habitat alteration or individual species ecology and
abundance, that can be used to weight and evaluate the ^—/
assessments of potential impact. More of the quantitative
could be included, possibly with range maps for threatened
and endangered species, including those for the relevant
flora. Also, the species range maps in Section 5 (TI 1977e)
are often somewhat at variance with those in the Fish and
Wildlife Inventory volumes, from which they were probably
extrapolated. The non-overlapping ranges in Section 5 for
the Florida gopher frog (p.5.54) and Florida mouse (p.5.92)
when compared with the Florida gopher tortoise (p.5.57)
is a good example. Many others seem inconsistently mapped
and probably should be revised accordingly.
2.73 "There will be an increase in the proportion of
managed systems that require expenditures of
energy to natural systems that do not. The regional
carrying capacity, which is the ability of the
regional environment to sustain particular levels of
activity, may be stressed."
Immediately following reclamation and in order to
stabilize soils and provide for reestablishment of a natural
succession, a managed system will usually be required. It
can be anticipated that these systems will revert to low LJ~
maintenance or self-maintaining natural systems, except
where economics dictate otherwise. Carrying capacity cannot
be stressed, it can merely be increased or decreased. It
also has nothing to do with activity, but rather with the
mass of organisms occupying an area. Consideration is also
normally given to the average well-being of the organisms'
mass occupying an area.
2.74 "Loss of forests (and in this case, particularly wetlands)
will have the greatest impact on ecologically significant
species."
ij-
This "loss of forests" statement differs substantially
from that on page 2.45 which addresses natural ponds and
lakes and wetlands.
-38-
-------
2.74 "The impact on the hunting and trapping potential
of commercial and recreational species is
considered minimal, as is the impact of increased
abundances of nuisance and pest species."
These minimal impact assessments on hunting, trapping,
recreational, nuisance and pest species are substantially . . ig
different from the assessments on pages 2.44 and 2.45. \S/~~
2.76 "Additional concern for the water quality of the
Floridan aquifer is warranted because of the
projected increased amount of injection of waste-
waters as mines attempt to meet the New Source
Performance Standards."
No injection of wastewater is occurring nor is any ijj—I ( 9
proposed.
2.76 "Forests, agriculture, and open space will be areally
displaced, resulting in negative impacts."
This interpretation is inconsistent with the low
wildlife habitat values previously assigned to the agricultural
range, and most of the forest lands. Suddenly they have a
wildlife value as great as the crops they yield!
The intensive, man-dominated aspect of most of the
land to be mined does not seem to be remembered or incorporated
in this land use section.
2.77 "The impact would be catastrophic, since irreplaceable
historical resources would be lost."
The provisions of the DRI and EIS structure require
that an archeological assessment of known and potential
archeological and historical sites be identified and "worked"
prior to site disruption. The intent is that irreplaceable (J-
historical resources will not be catastrophically lost. The
text language paints an unnecessarily grave picture of
mining's impact on these resources.
2.77 "The conditions of this scenario would impact the
area's economics and the demographic and cultural
elements, as described for Scenario 2.15."
It is simply not reasonable to assume that the economic
impacts are qualitatively and quantitatively identical for
all scenarios. , .> v
bJ-lD-
-39-
3-4*-
-------
2.78 "Timber"
Minute examination of this section is essential for the
reader to be persuaded that the jumbled structure does in
fact contain consistent numbers. However, actual "timber"
area has never been sorted from the total forest acreage, tj - ( i
so the evaluation is not terribly meaningful . . . notwith-
standing the assessment of negligible impact.
2.83 "Continued holdings of large tracts of land by the
phosphate industry on the north-south axis from
Lakeland to Port Charlotte will continue to increase
population density in the development crescent from
Lakeland to Tampa and along the coast."
The driving force for coastal development is certainly not
the ph9sphate industry. This activity will continue whether
the phosphate industry holds large tracts or releases large .
tracts.
2.83 "Accelerated phosphate mining under Scenario 2.11 could
increase already inflated land values, deplete non-
renewable resources, and further reduce the amount of
land in agricultural production."
This curious paragraph is a lumping of all the
potential ills that easily come to mind, gratuitously provided,
the author unfettered by the burden of substantiation. "There
is every reason to believe ..." is a troublesome opening.
If but one reason were committed to paper, the task of the
reviewer would be ever so much simpler.
If planned restoration creates the mix of natural fj - ^
-------
2-86 "Eliminating slime ponds through the sand/slime
mix technique will result in a topographic surface
approximating the original surface over one-half of
the mine area;"
Restoration of the original topographic surface may
not be an overriding consideration. In any case, the /./_/
feasibility of returning to original grade depends upon v*'~*
site-specific considerations.
2-86 "Eliminating dryers and dry grinders through the
implementation of this process modification is
expected to reduce airborne radionuclide concentrations
in the immediate vicinity of the replaced process
equipment. The impact of such a change on exposure
to phosphate workers and the general population is
expected to be insignificant inasmuch as current £*/— /T.8
processes are also insignificant (unmeasurable);
i.e., dose projections for phosphate workers have
been shown to be small and well within guidelines."
The first and second sentences in this paragraph
are inconsistent. Elimination of dryers cannot be
expected to measurably decrease exposure.
2.88 "Concern regarding contamination of the water-table
aquifer by directly exposing the water table to the
slime material."
The water table aquifer is presently exposed to i/J- /Z
-------
The south prong of the Alafia River has a considerably
elevated conductivity, nutrient content and sulfate burden
in comparison to other brown water streams in the state
or drainages from typical perched wetland areas. There /./
does not appear to be any appreciable difference in (A/
vegetation composition along this waterway or others with
a lower content of dissolved solids. It would seem that
if an effect were going to occur, it would have by now and
it would be apparent in vegetation changes.
2.91 "... it is assumed that lost production will be
made up through changes in mining plans
. , "
For a limited period of time, that alternative is
available. In the long term, of course, the resource is
lost. It should be evident that mining can take place
only where the resource exists,
2.91 "Although part of the void will be filled by an
expanded volume of clay slimes, a net void is still
expected. "
The area and volume utilized for mining waste
disposal depend upon the nature of the ore body, selected
dam heights, distribution of tailings to backfill and
dam construction, consolidation behavior of waste clays,
the shape and size of the tract and numerous dynamic t/J ~ 1 3 3
characteristics of the mining operation. The overly
simplified statement reflects little understanding with
regard to the mass and volume balance for materials involved
in a Florida phosphate mine.
-42-
-------
3.1 "Reducing slime-pond extent will have a positive effect on
the area's unique physical features because ,'of the signifi-"
cantly reduced potential for collapse of ka'rst features..."
If slime ponds are economically sound',; ecologically .beneficial/
and important to restoration of natural habitats, their elimina-
tion could have'a negative impact' greater than the positive . •
effect described. ' fc/-
.3.2 "Lining waste-gypsum stacks and cooling-water ponds at new
chemical processing plants would reduce seepage into the
underlying strata that has been suspected 6f enlarging lines
of parting. However, data are not sufficient to quantify
effectively the potential impacts due to seepage and/or
collapse." s
Even if the data are insufficient, it would assist the fcA-
reviewer if ,the study suggesting a certain potential for collapse
were referenced. Similarly, if the data alluded, 'to are non-existent,
it would be helpful if this item were labelled as wholly
unsubstantiated speculation.
3.2 "Since the effects of emissions (including"those from rock-
drying and chemical manufacturing) are largely unknown (or
if known, are unmeasured), minimal impact had been assigned
in this area."
The basic limitations of ambient air levels'of suspended iA
particulates are well defined by the EPA in both Standards for *^
Protection of Human Health and Protection of Human .Welfare. .The
impact of fluoride emissions is also well known, well documented
and several years of data exists on ambient air levels.
3.3 "In view of the fact that freshwater wetlands restoration
has not been demonstrated and seems infeasible on a large
scale within a reasonable time, the only practical approach
to analyzing impacts of this part of the proposed action is
to assume prohibition of minor development of facilities
in waters of the U.S. and wetlands as shown in the LUDA maps."
The notion that freshwater wetlands restoration has not been
demonstrated is completely erroneous. Wildlife biologists involved
with waterfowl management recognize that high quality wetlands
can be made by man over large acreages and short times. They are __
among the easiest natural habitats for man to establish through fc/- / 3 r
construction and management.
Thus the approach taken to analyze impacts of this part of
the Proposed Action is incorrect.
-43-
3-41
-------
3.5 , "No projections are made on water quality effects for New
Source Chemical Plants, because none are expected in the
proposed action. However, in the event development does
not follow projections, and application <•is made for a •- *
New Source^Chemical Plant, the proposed action requires
more stringent limitations than EPA New,Source Performance
Standards to protect water quality in the affected basins."
Data do not exist to support the contention that more
stringent water ,quality limitations are necessary. Similarly, .
with regard to groundwater, data- do not support the proposed \/J
need for gypsum pond liners.
3.6 "Changes in background radiation levels could occur also
in association with replacing dry-rock grinding with
wet-rock grinding and eliminating dryers;"
If changes occur, they will be too insignificant to measure
(see pages 2.86, 2.87).
3.7 "Hbwever, since mining activities are expected to merely
shift to lands not classified as U.S. waters or wetlands
and.since sufficient reserves exist within the study area
to accommodate the required shift in mining operations
between now and the year 2000, such exclusions will not
materially affect production tonnages previously estimated
for the two.time periods under Scenario 2.11."
This is a totally inadequate evaluation of the impact of \jJ
prohibiting mining.
-44-
2-47
-------
4.3 "Return land to approximate original contour ..., etc."
The administrative requirement to mention the Federal
Surface Mining control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is recognized.
However, the inclusion of specific provisions seems to be
a tacit expression of applicability. The listed recommendations
cannot be assumed to be useful in the present situation, nor
even pertinent, and they should therefore be deleted from/^^i^./
the text.
4.3 "System monitoring should be complemented with once-
per-shift manual sampling to ensure that the
automated equipment is efficiently operating."
Presently required monitoring and optional (but
generally utilized) alarm systems are sufficient to properly
protect the environment from spills. / — / 4. 7
-45-
-------
6.1 "Land-use changes caused by mining will narrow future
land-use options, especially in reclaimed slime pond areas.
Slime pond soils represent a new soil type for the area.
Agricultural production of one sort or another will continue to
be a major and important use in the area. All pre-mining soil £
types will continue to exist in the area. Therefore, it would
appear that future land use options are not appreciably narrowed
6.1 "Time beyond the year 2000 would be needed to reestablish
the natural system of most of the habitat types."
Reestablishment of the natural system is recognized as a b/
realistic outcome within a reasonable period of time following
mining.
-46-
3-4?
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Council on International Economic Policy, Executive Office
of the President. 1974 Spe.ctat Re.poit, C/uttcat Imposed
Davis, J. H. 1967. General map of natural vegetation in
Florida. Agr. Exp. Sta., Inst. Agr . Sci., University
of Florida.
DeVall, W. B. and C. L. DeVane. 1950. "A Field Survey of
Florida's Pebble Phosphate Striplands." JouAnat o&
FtotLida Academy o^ Scte.nceA 12(1) : 21-34.
Drury, W. H. and I.C.T. Nisbet. 1973. "Succession." JouAnat
ofi the Arnold AfiboAetum 54 (3) : 331-368.
Edscorn, J. B. 1977. "Wildlife Values may be Negated by
Phosphate Mine 'Reclamation'." rn Layne, J. N. , &t at. 1977.
FxCifi and Wtldttfie. Inventory o^ the. Se.ve.n- County Reg-con Included Ln
the. Ce.ntsiat Ytofuda Phosphate. InduAtny Atieautijde. Env4A.onme.ntat Impact
Study.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. "The Non-concept of Species Diversity:
A Critique and Alternative Parameters." Ec.ot.ogy 52: 577-586
Kuchler, S. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map "Potential
Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States."
AmeA. Ge.ogA. Soc. Spec. Pub. No. 36
Laessle, A. M. 1958. "The Origin and Successional Relationship
of Sandhill Vegetation and Sand-pine Scrub." Ec.otogtc.ai
MonogAaphA 28(4): 361-387.
Layne, J. N., &t at. 1977. P-L&h and ^itdtl^e. lnve.ntoiy o& the.
Szve.n-County Re.gton Included -in the. Ce.nttLat Ttontda Phosphate. InduAtny
EnviAome.ntat Impact Study.
Olson, J. S. 1958. "Rates of Succession and Soil Changes on
Southern Lake Michigan Dunes." Rot. Gaz. 119: 125-170.
Texas Instruments Incorporated. 1977e. "Water." Ce.n&iat Ftolida
Phosphate. InduA&iy Aieaw.de. Impact A-64e6-6men£ P/iog^am, Votume. I/.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 1956. "Wetlands of the
United States." USDI Circular 39.
Whittaker, R. H. 1953. "A Consideration of Climax Theory:
The Climax as a Population and Pattern." Ecotogtcat
Monogtiapht> 23(1): 41-78.
J-sro
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Contents:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency letter dated
April 18, 1978 to Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight letter dated June 19, 1978 to
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ ,0<^ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
'ft fc
APR 1 8 1978
OFFICE 9F
GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Roger Sims
Holland & Knight
P.O. Drawer B.W.
92 Lake Wire Dr.
Lakeland, Florida 33802
Dear Mr. Sims:
This is in response to your letter of March.23,
1978, to Mr. Jeffrey Gaba, requesting that the Office
of General Counsel clarify EPA policy on implementation
of the Florida Phosphate Area-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement (Area-wide EIS). Although the Agency has not
in the past prepared such a broad-based impact statement
for new source development, the Area-wide EIS is viewed
as an important adjunct to the site specific impact state-
ments (site specific EIS), prepared pursuant to §102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C)
and §511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1371(c)(l),
for new sources having significant environmental impacts.
Through these site specific EISs, EPA is able to identify
and minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated
with the issuance of new source permits, and it is the
Agency's policy that EIS recommendations be implemented
whenever posslble-either by their inclusion as conditions
in permits themselves or by separate agreement.
The Area-wide EIS prepared for the Florida Phosphate
Industry serves the same basic function as the site
specific EIS; it identifies environmental consequences
and allows the Agency an opportunity to minimize their
effects. However, the Area-wide EIS offers a range of
-------
means for achieving this goal. As the Council on Environ-
mental Quality noted:
[T]he program statement has a number of
advantages. It provides an occasion
for a more exhaustive consideration
of effects and alternatives than
would individual action. It ensures
consideration of cumulative impacts
that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis. And it avoids dup-
licative reconsideration of basic
policy questions.
CEQJMemorandum to Federal Agencies on Procedures for
Improving Environmental Impact Statements, 3 Env. Rep. 82,
87 (May~16, 1972). See_also 40 C.F.R. §1500.6(a) and
(d); Scientists' Institute for Public Information v.
AJ3C, 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir . 1973); Mi_nnesot_aJPIRG v-
Butz, 358 F.Supp. 584 (D. Minn. 1973)7
Since the Area-wide EIS deals with a variety of com-
plex problems, both cumulative and site specific, no one
scheme for the implementation of its recommendations may
be appropriate. Consequently, the Agency plans to implement
those recommendations based upon the nature of the pro-
blems identified. Although any new source must meet all
applicable existing legal requirements identified in the
Area-wide EIS, additional recommendations will be implemented
in the following manner.
Sjjie Specif ic Impacts; Certain of the recommendations
In the Area-wide EIS deal with problems which have only
local, site specific effects but which occur at most sites
subject to phosphate development. Analysis of these
local problems in an Area-wide statement allows for
thorough consideration while avoiding duplicative review
of similar problems in a series of site specific EISs.
Where the Area-wide EIS has reviewed a local problem its
recommendations will be presumptively applicable at a
new source.
However, since these recommendations deal with site
specific problems they are necessarily subject to analysis-
and possible revision by a site specific statement. First,
specific plans are -needed to implement general recom-
mendations, and thus, the site specific EIS will tailor
any recommendation to meet the localized Condition of a
particular area. Second, the recommendations themselves
may be modified where the site specific EIS identifies
alternatives as effective as those proposed in the Area-wide
EIS, indicates that they are unnecessary due to unique
-------
-3-
local factors, or otherwise indicates site specific factors
making modifications appropriate.
These site specific recommendations include:
Mining-
1. Elimination of conventional above ground slime
disposal areas.
2. Provision of storage that allows recirculation.
of water recovered from slimes.
3. Use of "connector wells" for mine dewatering.
Chemical Processing-
1. Lining of gyp ponds.
2. Recirculation of contaminated and non-contaminated
water.
3. Recovery of fluorine where economically pos-
sible.
4. Recovery of uranium where economically pos-
sible.
Cumul£tj._ve_Imjaacts: Analysis of cumulative effects is
uniquely an aspect of an Area-wide statement, and such
analysis can not be effectively replaced by site specific
studies. Recommendations to minimize these cumulative
impacts associated with development of the phosphate industry
will'be implemented where possible, and, with only limited
exceptions, such recommendations may not be modified on
the basis of a site specific EIS.
1. Elimination of rock drying.
The Area-wide EIS has identified cumulative particulate,
radiation and energy problems associated with the drying
of mined phosphate rock, and the EIS has concluded that
elimination of rock dryers at new plants is an effective
and economically reasonable method of deal ing with these
problems. However, the Aroa-wi.de KIS indicates that there
may be case-by-case modification of this recommendation
where rocks are to be shipped outside of Florida for chemical
processing. If the energy for transporting the moisture •
is greater than the energy saved by elimination of drying,
consideration may be given in a site specific EIS to dry-ing
at a benefication plant if air quality, including radiation,
can be adequately protected.
-------
-4-
2. Limitation of Wetlands Development.
The piecemeal destruction of environmentally sign-
ificant wetland areas is one of the more significant
impacts identified by the Area-wide EIS. To avoid such
destruction the EIS has concluded that regulation of wet-
lands development is necessary, and it contains recom-
mendations that development be precluded in the most
sensitive wetlands (Category 1), be subject to strict
reclamation restrictions in less sensitive areas (Category
2), and be unregulated with respect to reclamation in
certain isolated and intermittent wetlands (Category 3).
It was impossible in the Area-wide EIS to identify the
classification of all areas covered by the EIS, and only
a general description of the categories was.provided.
It will be necessary to precisely classify proposed
development sites on a case-by-case basis, and the site
specific EIS is one method by which such localized
analysis.may be performed.
Although site specific analysis is an essential part
of implementation of this proposal, the basic recommenda-
tions of the Area-wide EIS may not be modified. Thus,
while the site specific EIS may determine the category
of wetlands into which an area belongs, the consequences
of that classification is determined on the basis of the
Area-wide EIS.
Recomme ndations for futuie government action; Certain
recommendations contained In "the Ar"ea-wTde~EIS may not
be directly implemented, and in such cases, the analysis
of the problem and proposed solution may form the basis
for future government action. These recommendations
include:
1. Modification of process controls and monitoring require-
ments for existing sources.
2. More stringent effluent limitations in new source
chemical plants.
Although the Area-wide EIS concluded that chemical
processing facilities are capable of achieving effluent
limitations far lower than those contained In existing
new source standards of performance and that such lower
limits are necessary to preserve water quality, existing
law precludes directly implementing lower effluent limitations
based on recommendations contained in the EIS. These recom-
mendations can, however, form the basis of future government
regulation's, and they may be implemented by modification
of current new source standards of performance or state
water quality standards, or by establishing stricter
-------
-5-
water quality based effluent limitations under §302 of
the Clean Water Act. This conclusion does not, of course,
mean that new facilities will not be required to satisfy
existing Florida water quality standards, and such standards
will be implemented on a permit-by-permit basis.
I trust that this letter has clarified EPA's position
on implementation of the Area-wide EIS, but if there is
any further information that I can supply please feel
free to contact me or Mr. Gaba.
Yours truly.
Alan W. Eckert
Acting Associate General Counsel
Water Quality Division (A-131)
-------
MAPY I *ria(.rGATE
MARINA W FlARNETT
VfRNA'TjA BARTON. JR
HO'iAfi R BAYLESS
CHARLES (I. BFNTLEY
WILLIAM r BEVIS
JULIAN CLARKSON
HUME F COLEMAN
MICH*' L B.COLGAN
F.ALAN CIJMMINGS
GREGORY R DEAL
ROY E DEAN
CHAHLCS w DODSON
flRlAN C F.LUS
rvonem R FEAOIN. Ill
DENNIS » FrnrausoN
JOHN W, FROST, n
JOHN GERMANY
ROBERT B GLCMM JR.
WARREN M GOODRICH
RICHARD A HAMPTON
PAUL D HARDY
WILLIAM O.E.HENRY
MAI.KA ISAAK
MICHAEL L.JAMICGON
JOHN ARTHUR JONES
.[}. BURKE KlBLER,Ul
HENRY M. KJTTLESON
P O. KNIGHT. JR.
EDWARD F. KOREN
D.BRIAN KUEHNER
JAMES V. LAU
JOHN R.LAwbON.Jo
PAUL E.LOGAN
WILLIAM H.McBRiDE. JR.
ANTHONY J. McNiCHOLAS.UJ
C PARKHILL MAYS. JR.
STEVEN D.MERRYOAY
RULON D.MUNNS
ROBERT P. MURRAY
JACK S.NEWSO'ME
JOHN R.PURCELL
JOHN RADCY
ROBERT C RASMUSSEN
JAMC3 M. Rr.ED
Roi3C«T L. RHODES, Jr».
BRUCC H.RoriERSOM
RONALD J.Russo
GERALD V. SARBO
HARRY M. SAWYER, JR.
ROGER W.SIMS
RICHARD B.SrEPHENS, JR.
W.DANIEL STEPHENS
WorrORD H.STIDHAM
BRUCE STONT
MARK K.STRALEY
HARF?Y O.THOMAS
HENRY TOLANO
EDWARD w. VOGEL.TJI
CHARLES C.WHITAKEH.TJ
TEOD N.WILLIAMS
CSTEVEN YERRID
LAW OFFICES
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
P. O. Box IO68
24S SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE
BARTOW, FLORIDA 33020
TELEPHONE (813) 533 MSI
P. O. DRAWER B W
92 LANE WIRE DRIVE
LAKELAND. FLORIDA 33002
TELEPHONE (OI3) 6O2-H6I
P. O. Box 1268
EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK BLDG.
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33501
TELEPHONE (813) 223-1621
P 0 Box 1669
4O6 THIRTEENTH STREET WEST
PRAOENTON. FLORIDA 335O6
TELEPHONF (ni3) ?ir. 710?
P. O Box 3O76
MOO TAMIAMI TRAIL
P O Box 2441
2O75 WEST FIRST STREET
FT. Mvrns, FLORIDA 33»oz
TrLCPtipNr (nij) .n."1 ^it\-"
P. O. DRAWER eio
SARNCTF BANK BLDG.
TELEPHONE fain) 365-3321 TCLCPHONC (90-1) ??i 7OOO
CABLE ADDRESS
HNO KNIGHT
TELEX s-seao
I.SE REPLY TO Lakeland
June 19, 1978
Alan W. Eckert
Acting Associate General Counsel
Water Quality Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Florida Phosphate Area-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement
("Area-Wide EIS")
Dear Mr. Eckert:
Thank you for your letter dated April 18, 1978, in
which you explained EPA's current posture on implementation
of the Area-Wide EIS. We agree with your conclusion that
existing law precludes implementation of lower effluent
limitations for chemical plants based on recommendations
contained in the study (page 4) and further wish to acknowledge
EPA's consistent position that it has "no direct legal
authority to change requirements for existing sources" on
the basis of the Area-Wide EIS (page 1.74 of the draft EIS).
The Florida Phosphate Council and its member
companies, however, wish to raise a few basic areas of
concern in response to your letter. In the first place, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), which
provides the authority for preparation of environmental
impact statements,•does not authorize promulgation of rcyulatory
provisions. An EIS is a report, to be used by decision-
makers in reaching particular conclusions. It also provides
a record of decision making for the benefit of the public.
We find no authority for the proposition that bindinn restric-
tions or conditions on development may be developed throuqh
the EIS process, however. Although such conditions could
-------
Alan W. Eckert
June 19, 1978
Page Two
perhaps be developed through rule making proceedings authorized
by other statutes, NEPA is primarily a "full disclosure law"
and imposes a requirement that agencies make decisions with
an environmental conscience.
Moreover, the basic unit of EIS analysis is the
site-specific impact statement. Planning Level and Program
Impact Statements under the National Environmental Policy Act:
A Definitional Approach, 23 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 124, 147 (1975).
No area-wide or program EIS should interfere with the full
consideration of alternatives available to a site-specific
proposal, since the consideration of such alternatives must
be accomplished "to the fullest extent possible". NEPA, §
102.
I. PRESUMPTIVE APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING "LOCAL PROBLEMS"
We understand that the Area-Wide EIS will not be
the only review of phosphate industry "new sources" pursuant
to NEPA. Presumably, all new sources that meet the threshold
test of "major federal action" and "significant environmental
effect" will be subject to additional site-specific NEPA
review before issuance of necessary federal permits.
On page 2 of your April 18, 1978 letter, you note
that certain Area-Wide EIS recommendations dealing with
"local problems" will be subject to analysis and possible
revision during site-specific studies. This concept is
consistent with NEPA, in'that it provides for tailoring of
area-wide recommendations and site-specific recommendations
to the particular facts and detailed proposals regarding
each project, allowing full consideration o.f alternatives.
The formulation of restrictions on an area-wide
basis, however, without consideration of site-specific
factors and development plans, is not consistent with the
intent or goals of NEPA. The Area-Wide EIS should be used
in the overall evaluation process directed toward approving,
approving with conditions, or denying a particular permit or
other major federal action. In the landmark Calvert Cliffs'
decision, the court noted that
NEPA mandates a case-by-case balancing
judgment . . . particular economical
and technical benefits of planned action
must be assessed and then weighed against
-------
Alan W. Eckert
June 19, 1978
Page Three
the environmental costs; alternatives
must be considered which would affect
the balance of values; . . . the point of
the individualized balancing analysis is to
ensure that the optimally beneficial
action is'finally taken. Calvert Cliffs'
Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United
Atomic Energy Commission,449 F.2d 1109,
1123 (D.C. Cir., 1971) .
We submit that site-specific review may appropriately.
incorporate data and consider recommendations from the Area-
Wide EIS, weigh them against site-specific economic and
technical factors and site-specific impact analysis, and
reach a conclusion which may support specific action regarding
the proposed development. Such site-specific considerations
would also apply to the other category of recommendations
listed in your letter (cumulative impacts).
However, it is our view that the recommendations
in the Area-Wide EIS cannot and must not assume the status
of inflexible regulatory requirements.
II. FINALITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
CUMULATIVE (AREA-WIDE) IMPACTS
The "cumulative impacts" category addresses the
elimination of rock drying (with certain very limited excep-
tions) and limitations on wetlands development (preclusion
of mining in certain wetland areas). EPA takes the position
that these Area-Wide EIS recommendations are conclusive, and
argues that no site-specific factors may justify modification
or revision thereof. We submit that this is inappropriate
and that site-specific flexibility must be maintained so as
not to preempt the fulfillment of NEPA during site-specific
reviews.
A. Rock Drying
The recommendation of Lhu Area-Wide KIS rocjiirdlncj
elimination of rock drying does allow some flexibility on a
"case-by-case basis" where rock would be shipped outside of
Florida for chemical processing, and also recognizes that
rock to be utilized in triple superphosphate, elemental
phosphorus, defluorinated rock feed, or other fertilizer
-------
Alan W. Eckert
June 19, 1978
Page Four
processes requiring dry rock would be dried at chemical
processing complexes or dryers permitted by the state prior
to publication of the draft Area-Wide EIS ("DEIS").
As existing facilities are closed down and new
facilities are phased in, however, restrictions on construc-
tion of new rock dryers would logically result in a diminishing
supply of dry rock. A dozen phosphoric acid chemical plant
complexes in Florida currently require dry rock, and conversion
to wet rock (in order to accommodate the wet rock supply
coming from the new mines) would cost over 10 million dollars
per facility.
Furthermore, the DEIS suggests that restrictions
on rock drying may not be necessary:
. . . eliminating dryers and dry grinders
[and the resulting change in exposure to radio-
nuclides] ... is expected to be insignificant
inasmuch as current processes are also insigni-
ficant (unmeasurable); i.e., dose projections for
phosphate workers have been shown to be small and
well within guidelines. [DEIS, P. 2.87].
Finally, the DEIS makes no reference to existing
regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration
of air quality ("PSD") administered by EPA (40 C.F.R. §
52.21) and by the state of Florida '[Rule 17-2.04, Fla.
Admin. Code]. Under these PSD rul.es, new rock dryers cannot
be permitted unless the projected impact is within acceptable,
specifically described increments. We submit that PSD is by
definition a program for controlling cumulative, area-wide
impacts and that any attempt to preempt these regulations
and eliminate rock drying through an Area-Wide EIS is arbitrary,
capricious and beyond delegated legislative authority.
B. Wetlands
The DEIS poses certain restrictions that might
preclude phosphate mining in various wetlands or waters
under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 404, Federal Clean Water Act. Again, no consideration
-------
Alan W. Eckert
June 19, 1978
Page Five
would be allowed for site-specific economic or technical
factors, or for developments in wetlands restoration techniques,
The DEIS, on page 2.91, notes that where the Area-Wide EIS
would preclude mining in wetlands, "potentially lost tonage
will be made up through changes in mining plans . . .".
This does not recognize that phosphate rock must be mined
where it is found. Thus, rock located in areas designated
for restriction by the EIS would be lost.
Furthermore, existing regulations fully provide
for wetlands.review, including cumulative impacts. For
example, the Corps of Engineers has promulgated guidelines
at 33 C.F.R. Parts 320-329, 42 Fed. Reg. 37121 (July 19,
1977), which include a "public interest review" [33 C.F.R. §
320.4 (a), 42 Fed. Reg. 37136 (July 19, 1977)] and a "wetlands
review" [33 C.F.R. § 320.4 (b), 42 Fed. Reg. 37136 (July 19,
1977)]. These reviews would take into account cumulative or
area-wide impacts [(See § 320.4 (a) (2) (iv) and § 320.4(b) (3),
both found at 42 Fed. .Reg. 37136 (July 19, 1977).]
EPA has also promulgated detailed, comprehensive
guidelines for evaluating impacts from proposed actions
under Section 404, Federal Clean Water Act, found at 40
C.F.R. Part 230. These guidelines should be implemented in
coordination with the Corps of Engineers review under 33
C.F.R. Parts 320-329 at the time a specific proposal is
made. Thus, although Area-Wide EIS recommendations may be
considered by reviewing agencies under these existing wetlands
regulations, the Area-Wide EIS should not preempt such
regulations or restrict the exploration of alternatives at
the site-specific level.
As indicated in technical comments submitted by
the Florida Phosphate Council to the record of the DEIS
hearings, there are many factors to consider in evaluating
proposed activities in wetland areas. Such evaluation must
be conducted prior to the formulation of specific policies.
Current Corps of .Engineers and EPA regulations should be
applied in developing any specific controls on phosphate
mining or construction activities in wetlands. The Area---
Wide EIS may serve a valuable,.but not controlling function
in this process.
3-
-------
Alan W. Eckert
June 19, 1978
Page Six
* * * *
In conclusion, we reiterate our intention to raise
only a few basic concerns herein regarding proposed imple-
mentation of the Florida phosphate Area-Wide EIS. We urge
that EPA affirm the need for maximum flexibility at the site-
specific EIS stage, where all relevant factors may be balanced
during consideration of practical, specific alternatives. This
is not only consistent with applicable laws, but is in the
best interest of all parties.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RWS:pm
cc: Mr. Homer Hooks
Roger
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Contents:
Florida Phosphate Council letters dated November 15, 1977,
January 12, 1978, and February 9, 1978 to U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency
-------
phospkate
feeds you
Homer Hooks
President
Suite 24. executive Plo^o
4406 S. Florida ftvenue • PO Sox 5530
Lotelond, Ftorido 33803
Telephone 813/646-8583
November 15, 1977
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Project Officer
EPA Region IV
EIS Branch, Phosphate Study Unit
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 20208
Dear Gene:
Subject: Comments on "Draft Summary Outline
Probably Scenario to be Recommended By
EPA Phosphate Unit"
As you requested, we submit herewith our comments on
the above document and urge that you and other members of the
Steering Committee consider these recommendations most carefully
in formulating the draft scenario:
"Page 1, I. New Sources — A. Mining and Beneficiat'ion -- 1. Air Quality"
Comment:
The elimination of rock drying at beneficiation plants would
effectively restrict export of phosphate rock from new mines.
Also, no provision is made for the rock used by electric furnaces
or defluorinated rock or triple superphosphate plants which must
have dry rock as feed.
"Bases: -
Comment: Citing drying process emissions of approximately 10,000 tons of
participates annually by the year 2000 is an error in calculation.
For a large phosphate dryer of about 400 tons an hour, the particu-
late allowance in the State of Florida is 44 lbs./hr., which equates
to about 55 tons/yr. for a million tons per year drying operation.
Using EPA's value of 10,000 tons per year of particulate would
result in the drying of 182 million tons of rock per year. If 20
million tons a year of rock were dried in future mines, the value
would be about 1100 tons per year of particulate emission. Thus,
EPA is high by a factor of about 10 on this basis.
The statement that "A significant quantity of radionuclides would
also be emitted in these areas if the drying process were used" is
misleading and taken out of context from the EPA report, "Population
Radiation Dose Estimates From Phosphate Industry Air Particulate
Emissions." On page 12 of the Draft Report of May 1977, the state-
ment is made, "The results of this study show small, but measurable,
increases in tests for radioactivity surrounding the phosphate
industry operations." It further states, "Dose projections provided
in Tables 15 and 16 also show the small magnitude of airborne
Cnoirman of theBoord UJm. H. f jn\ Gordimer. Inc
Flgnco Chemical Company » Borden, Inc. — Chemical Divi5'on/Srmrh-Dougloss • Oreajster Phosphates (flmencan Cy-namid/Kerr-McGee) • Consssrv. Department c-' Pnil'pp
firotne/s Division of €nglehcrd funerals 6 Chemicals Corp • Clectro-Phas Corporation • Farmland Industries. Inc • Frceport Chemical Company • Gardinie/ K: » UJ. R.
Grace & Company, flgnculcurul Cbo.imcals • International Minerals & Chemical Corpororon • Mississippi Chemical Corporo^,on • Mobit Cncmicol Company • O;c.dental
Chemical Company • Rou>ter Company • S'oufrer CherP'ia! Company » Siuift Rsyicultu'O' Chemicals Corporation • T/H Minerals Corporation • Ur»5 rXyi-Cne.-mcals
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeil1 -2- November 15, 1977
particulate radioactivity released from the phosphate industry
operation. It appears that drying operations are the most
significant source of airborne radioactive particles. " The import
of this statement is that the magnitude is small, and that the
dryers contribute most of it. It is misleading to say that the
dryers emit significant quantities of radionuclides.
"Bases -- i i"
Comment: Net energy savings cited as one barrel of oil per ton of rock
dried is in error. This would require 42 gallons of oil to dry
a ton of rock; whereas a good industry value is 2.5 to 3.0 gallons/
ton. A 20% moisture value is used, which is high., since phosphate
rock generally averages about 12% moisture.
"Possible Exception on Case by Case Basis:"
Comment: The cost of drying a ton of rock using the current price of $12.00
per barrel of oil, is 71.3$ to 85.5$ per ton. For 12% moisture
rock, wet rock shipments would contain 0.136 tons water/ton dry
rock. Thus, if the freight cost is over $6.29/ton, it would be
more than the cost of drying, using current oil prices.
Air quality protection using two-stage scrubbing or bag filtration
equipment is cited. Two-stage scrubbing is not required to meet
the Florida process weight table. All the operations in Florida
that have wet scrubbers use one stage of scrubbing. Bag filtration
equipment is not used, since it is an impractical application for
drying phosphate rock, due to severe equipment operating problems.
PROPOSAL — We propose that the industry be permitted to
develop the most economical methods of processing
with adequate environmental controls. Particulates
and any associated radiation are controllable with
present technology.
"Page 2, 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: All operations will have to meet EPA effluent limitations and
Florida water quality and EPA water quality standards, whatever
they may be.
"3. Eliminate above natural ground slimes disposal areas, by a method such as
pre-thickening of slimes, combining with tailings, and utilizing combined
material for filling mined-out cuts."
Comment: The requirement to eliminate above-ground waste clay disposal areas
cannot be met for the following reasons:
1. Proven technology does not exist.
2. In order to achieve final grade at original ground level,
the clay or sand-clay mixture will have to be stacked
above ground to allow for consolidation and dewatering.
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -3- November 15, 1977
3. Variations in ground contours will necessitate retaining
dikes in some areas.
4. An initial above-ground clay disposal area must be constructed
prior to the start of mining. Only after some time period has
elapsed will sufficient mined-out area be available to begin
waste disposal operations below ground.
PROPOSAL — Utilize developing technology to minimize above-
ground slimes disposal areas, recognizing the need
for an initial slimes storage facility, and the
desirability of a timely and balanced land reclama-
tion program.
"Bases"
Comment: 1. The 1972 State of Florida dam regulations have been effective
in eliminating dam breaks.
2. A requirement that all waste clays be placed below ground will,
in fact, eliminate several options for land reclamation: lakes
and rolling topography, for example. Better land for both
Mtildlife habitat and for economic development may be achieved
by a balanced reclamation plan that will involve some above-
ground disposal in order to avoid placing waste materials
over the entire mined area.
3. After self-weight consolidation, slimes typically retain 75
to 80 percent water, not 92 to 96 percent, as stated.
Approximately 1000 gallons of water per ton of rock is tied
up, not 200 gallons, as stated.
4. We have seen no data on plant-scale operations to show that
new disposal methods will cost the same as conventional
impoundment.
"Disadvantages"
Comment: This lang-^age indicates that if a process is developed to allow
economical chemical processing of slimes, new source mines should
adopt such a. process immediately. This implies that mines should
then enter into the chemical plant business. We do not believe
that this is the intent. The decision on whether or not to enter
into the chemical plant business should be a company decision
because of the large magnitude of capital investment and market
considerations involved, and should not be a requirement for a
permit.
"Page 3, k. Groundwater Quantity -- b."
Comment: The draft states, "Basically, 100% of process water should be
recirculated on an annual basis." This cannot be done, since
process water is not a separate circuit and mixes with the
water going to the slimes pond, which retains a significant
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill
-4-
November 15, 1977
portion of the water. In addition, some well water is required
in one stage of the flotation process. This requirement is
impossible to meet. Current recirculation rates in the industry
are about 85% to 90%. If reoiraulation is required in the scenario*
it should be defined in detail.
The draft states, "Maximum pumping from wells should approximate
the losses to evaporation during periods when evaporation exceeds
rainfall over a SO day period." It is impossible to determine
accurately evaporation and rainfall values over an entire mining
property. This was explored in great depth with EPA on the
effluent guidelines for phosphate fertilizer plants, and EPA
eventually eliminated this requirement in the regulations. It
is impossible to determine accurately the areas of evaporation
plus transpiration that occur, and it is equally impossible to
obtain accurate rainfall values, since scattered rainfall occurs
in this area. Within a 15 mile range in this area, it has been
found that annual rainfall may vary by 10 inches.
"Page k, 6. Radiation"
Comment: In our opinion, air emissions from rock dryers are not a radiation
problem.
"Page k, 7. Reclamation"
Comment: The concept of maintaining constant acreage of wildlife habitat
needs to be explained in more detail. If the goal is to maintain
wildlife populations, constant acreage is not the only way, and
probably not the best way, to achieve- it. The statement that
area to be mined is a large percentage of wildlife habitat
currently available is not supported by DRI's already prepared
nor by the working papers.
TI's working paper, "Future Land Use", p. 2.S, projects a decrease
in existing wetlands of 1,1% between 1975 and 2000. Furthermore,
it may be desirable to alter existing wildlife populations in some
areas for specific management purposes, e.g., fisheries, waterfowl,
etc.
Conflicting Federal, State and local requirements make this most
difficult if not actually unworkable. Different agencies cannot
seem to agree on the best reclamation practices and objectives.
PROPOSAL — Mining and reclamation plans will be designed to
maintain a wildlife population. Proposed alterations
in wildlife habitat must demonstrate specific desirable
management goals.
"Page *t, ?• c."
PROPOSAL — Wetlands which are under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers Section 404, Federal Water
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -5- November 15, 1977
Pollution Control Act, will be protected or restored.
Those wetlands for which permits are issued to mine
will be restored to provide a physical basis for
reestablishment of natural functions.
"Page 5, B. Chemical Processing -- 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: The values given for the "old" EPA Standards of Performance For
New Sources are -incorrect, -in that TSS criteria do not apply if
the process wastewater (pond water) is treated before discharge.
These TSS values should be removed.
The "new (area-wide EIS)" requirements for SO day average are
less than one-third for phosphorus., and only 40% for fluoride.
They should not have any TSS requirements. Laboratory work done
by EPA itself3 in EPA's own laboratories, on a number of gypsum
pond water samples from this area and other areas of the country,
were used to establish the so-called "old (current)" EPA Standards
of Performance For New Sources. Technology does not exist to
meet the "new (area-wide EIS)" proposed requirements, as shown
by EPA 's own laboratory work for gypsum pond water.
In evaluating current effluent quality as reported to EPA on a
quarterly basis, it is most likely that the data represent non-
process water discharges., since process wastewater (pond water)
is only discharged a few weeks per year (after liming and settling),
or for some plants, not at all. However, when water is discharged,
EPA requires analyses on effluent leaving the treatment system
before any dilution.
The draft recommends that the non-process water system be designed
for complete recirculation with the same design surge capacity
as a contaminated process water system, and the same standards
for discharge are applicable. The same standards (process waste-
water) for discharge now apply to non-process water. This
proposal is not technically feasible, since a substantial amount
of the non-process wastewater source is from boiler blowdown to
eliminate dissolved solids and from cooling towers to eliminate
dissolved solids. It is not possible to recirculate this water
back to the boilers or cooling towers without treatment. Such
treatment would then again provide regenerated waste streams
which cor.not be put back either. The best way to use this water
is to dispose of it in a mining operation, if the company has
its own phosphate mine nearby, since it would be suitable for
this use in the mine circulation system.
DER mining effluent guidelines effective October 1, 1977,
regulate phosphorus in mining effluent. Adding non-process
water to the mining circuit may increase phosphorus levels above
allowable values.
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill
-6-
November 15, 1977
"Page 6 - Basis"
Comment: It is stated that several chemical complexes have converted to
complete recirculation of both systems; that is, including non-
process water. We do not know of any chemical plant that has a
closed circulation system for non-process water. The one plant
referred to that does not have an NPDES permit does not recircu-
late non-process water, but puts it into their mine water circuit,
which is the best place for it. The statement citing recirculation
systems for non-process water should be removed.
"Page 7, 3. Ground Water Quality"
Comment: It may be that, at a specific site, it could be demonstrated that
a lining is not necessary to protect groundwater from chemical
and radiological contamination, if groundwater is defined in
detail. It certainly seems to be no problem with deep aquifer
water, although there may be some problems in some local areas
around the ponds in the upper surficial sand layers — which
could probably be corrected.
"Page 7, 5- By-product Recovery -- a."
Comment: It is recommended to recover fluosilicic acid from phosphoric
acid evaporators. The market is limited for this material, and
if too much is recovered, it cannot be sold and will be dumped
into the pond. This should be a matter of economic evaluation
for the company involved. Plants recovering fluosilicic acid
do not have noticeably lower fluoride concentrations in their
gypsum pond water than plants that do not recover the material.
"Page 7. 5- " b."
Comment:
This again should be a matter of economics for the individual
company. Recovery of uranium from the phosphoric acid will have
little or no effect on the uranium in any of the waters or solid
waste disposal areas of the industry, since the phosphoric acid
containing uranium is either shipped from the area or used to
produce solid fertilizers, which contain all of the uranium
present in the acid.
"Basis:"
Comment: The basis that it is economical depends on the situation involved
and should not be presented as a fact.
"II. Existing Sources -- A. Modifications, page 8, first paragraph"
Comment: Since the areawide EIS can have no direct legal impact on existing
sources, these recommendations should be excluded. Federal guide-
lines promulgated in November 1976 already require existing sources
to comply with new source standards and only a compliance schedule
is left to be worked out with the State DER.
.7-67
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -7- November 15, 1977
It is mentioned that a study to be completed in the next two
years will determine the need or lack of need for lining existing
gypsum ponds. How existing gypsum ponds could be lined is unknown
and there would not appear to be any practical way that this could
be done. This statement implies that EPA plans to conduct such
a study.
"Page 8, B. Operation and Maintenance"
Comment: We support this recommendation for in-plant inspections* source
sampling, and ambient monitoring. We oppose any proposal that
the industry pay for this surveillance. The costs should be
borne by the DER and EPA.
In summary, we feel that the elimination of the rock
drying process at beneficiation plants is not based on techni-
cally accurate data, either as to particulate emissions or net
energy savings. The latter may actually have a converse/effect,
with concurrent serious impacts on exports.
We feel that the proposed elimination of above ground
slimes disposal areas is an impossible requirement, and we have
a specific language proposal on this subject.
The reclamation requirements in the draft scenario may
well be counter-productive, and we have draft language proposed.
The proposed new surface water discharge requirements
are unattainable, and no evidence cited justifies these values.
We feel that the production of fluosilicic acid and/or
uranium are management determinations, based upon economics.
Finally, it is our firm contention that the accumulated
evidence produced in the Texas Instruments working papers
demonstrates that phosphate mining should be allowed to expand
to meet the growing world demand for fertilizer and food, that
it would be against the best interests of all the people to deny
access to the known Florida deposits, and the Texas Instruments
papers further document that this mining can be accomplished
within reasonable environmental restrictions which are already
in force by various levels of jurisdiction.
HHrjb Homer Hooks
cc: Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
-------
Suite 24. Crecu'ive Plozo
4406 5. Florida flvenue • P.O. Box 5530
lokelond. Florido 33803
Telephone 813/646-8583
Homer Hooks
President
January 12, 1978
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Project Officer
EPA Region IV
EIS Branch, Phosphate Study Unit
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 20208
Dear Gene:
Subject: Comments on "Draft Summary Outline
Scenario to be Recommended by EPA
Phosphate Unit"
I
We submit herewith our comments on the above document
mailed by you on December 30, 1977, and received by us on
January 4, 1978.
We are struck by the absence of any comment in the
draft scenario on the documented and demonstrated social and
economic benefits of continued and expanded phosphate mining
in Florida. Any options by decision-makers as to expansion
or limitation of phosphate mining in Florida must obviously
take into account the enormous economic benefits of this
industry to Florida, the nation, and the world, and most
certainly must recognize the unique impact of this industry
in providing fertilizer and food production in the United
States and the world. We see no inclusion of this basic con-
sideration in the draft scenario, and we strongly urge that
deserved recognition be given to these fundamental factors in
the draft environmental impact statement.
Also, we question the legality of prescribing, in
the draft scenario and presumably in the EIS, what are, in
effect, new surface water quality standards for chemical
plants without having gone through the established and
required procedures for rule-making and promulgation of
standards.
Further, it is our firm contention that the accumu-
lated evidence produced in the Texas Instruments working papers
demonstrates that phosphate mining should be allowed to expand
in Florida to meet the growing world demand for fertilizer and
food, that it would be against the best interests of all the
people to deny access to the known Florida deposits, and the
Texas Instruments papers further document that this mining can
be accomplished within reasonable environmental restrictions
which are already in force by various levels of jurisdiction.
Chairman of theBcxyd: UJm. H FunK Gordmier, Inc.
flgrico Chemkol Compony * Sorden. Inc. — Chemical Division/Smith-Douglass • Brewster Phosphates (flmerican Cyonamid/Kerr-McGee) • Consent Department of Philipp
Brothers Division of €ngl«hord Minerals & Chemicals Corp. • €lectro-Phos Corporation • Farmland Industries. Inc. • Preeporc Chemical Company • Gordmier. Int. • UJ. ft
Grace & Company, ncjricultural Chemicals • International Minerals & Chemical Corporation • Mississippi Chsmical Corporation • Mobil Chemical Company • Occidental
Chemical Company • Royster Company • Stouffer Chemical Company • Suiift Rgrlculturol Chemicals Corporation • T/fl Minerals Corporation • USS Hgri-Chamicals
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeil1
-2-
January 12, 1978
Following are specific comments on sections of the
draft scenario:
"Page 1, I. New Sources — A. Mining and Beneficial:ion — Air Quality"
Comment: Eliminate first sentence and substitute therefor: "Reduce use
of the rock drying process whenever technically possible or
technically practical." The uses for dry rock specified are
too limited. Vie suggest the following language be added:
"or other fertilizer processes requiring dry phosphate rock."
For instance, singlesuperphosphate, still a large tonnage product,
is omitted.
The requirement that rock is to be dried at the chemical
processing complex, or at existing dryers in Polk County, is
unfair to future miners and chemical plant operators and to
Polk County, and should be eliminated. The present Clean Air
Act requirements and Florida 17-2 rules are very strict and
are designed to protect the public and the environment. 'Any
new installation will have to meet these criteria.
"Page 1, Bases: — i"
Comment: The 2, 000 tons of particulate annually, from dryer stacks, would
be about 1,100 tons a year, provided that as much as 20 million
tons a year of rock were dried by future mines. Later in the
paragraph, 2,000 tons is used as a dryer estimate, which is in
error, because this 2,000 tons includes transfer and trans-
portation estimates, and we do not know the basis for this
number.
It is general practice when discussing radioactivity on an
annual basis, to present this in terms of curies, which would
be 0.042 curies per year for 1,100 tons per year particulate
out of stacks. To put this in perspective, this is equivalent
to 0.042 grams/yr. of radium-226, a very small quantity.
"Page 2, 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: All operations will have to meet EPA effluent limitations and
Florida water quality and EPA water quality standards, whatever
they may be.
"Page 2, 3. Slimes Ponds"
Comment: Complete elimination of conventional above-ground slimes disposal
areas cannot be accomplished with current, proven technology.
We propose the following wording: Minimize above-ground slimes
disposal by utilizing new technology for slimes dewatering. The
mining and reclamation plan for New Source Mines should establish
a method whereby the slimes (or slimes-tailings mixture) is used
for reclamation or some other purpose. The need for an initial
above-ground storage area is recognized, as is the need for
temporary retaining dikes around disposal areas prior to reclama-
tion.
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill
-3-
January 12, 1978
Also, paragraph (Hi) is not clear. Suggest following wording:
"Should allow a higher degree of water recirculation than the
85-90% now achievable by releasing additional water normally
retained in the slimes." Slimes in conventional settling areas
can retain up to 1,000 gallons of water per ton of rock pro-
duced. With regard to paragraph (iv), costs of alternative
methods of slime disposal can not be forecast with certainty
at this time.
"Page *t, 5- Ground Water Quality (i)"
Comment: This paragraph should be changed to read "The mining plan
should allow for maximum utilization of water obtained from
dewatering." Incorporating requirements for use of this water
in transportation and beneficiation processes in a discussion
of connector wells is out of place, since the tao are not
necessarily related.
"Page A, 6. Radiation -- Paragraph 2:"
Comment: Requires that recommendations published by EPA on March 1 and
June 1, 1978, be included in the final EIS. It is our under-
standing that these will be proposed regulations. A period of
time will be allowed for comment, and the final regulations may
indeed be different. Other research, data to become available
may further modify proposed regulations.
"Page 4, 6. Radiation — Paragraph 3:"
Comment: Change to read "Mining and reclamation plans for New Source
Mines shall meet future State of Florida and EPA requirements
with regard to radiation levels of future reclaimed land. "
It is premature to specify how this will be accomplished until
the final reports of studies now being done are completed and
final regulations are promulgated.
"Page 5> 7. Reclamation (c.)"
Comment: In this latest draft, your tentative classification of wetlands
into four categories has been reduced to three categories.
Our main objection to this section is that it appears to limit
the range of options for wetlands mining and reclamation to a
simple set of conditions. The enclosed memo by Mr. Tom Oxford,
of Bromwell Engineering, Lakeland, Florida, expounds on this
point in some detail.
We are willing to accept the proposed categories as a broad
statement of policy. Some wetlands are so valuable that they
should not be disturbed; others have such little value that
neither preservation nor restoration is required. Between
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -4- January 12, 1978
these two end cases, a variety of situations exist that must be
considered on an individual, site-specific basis.
It should also be recognized that natural reclamation, in some
cases assisted by man 's efforts, can restore wetland functions
and result in high quality habitat for wildlife. Provision for
this should be made in any effort to establish criteria for
restoring wetlands.
Further study is needed to establish both the value of existing
wetlands and the value of various possible types of wetlands
reclamation. Ongoing studies, including work for the Florida
Phosphate Land Reclamation Study Commission, U, S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and various EIS's for new mining operations
will help to provide the needed data.
Until such studies are made, we oppose any effort to establish
inflexible criteria for wetlands preservation or reclamation.
"Page 5, B. Chemical Processing -- 1. Air Quality"
Comment: The first sentence should be changed to read "Hew source
performance standards are adeqv&te to protect air quality."
Inclusion of the language "if emission limitations are con-
tinuously met" is an unwarranted implication of non-compliance
in the phosphate industry and has no place in the scenario.
"Page 6, B. Chemical. Processing -- 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: We reject the concept that the EIS can by-pass the normal rule-
making procedures of EPA by proposing to implement the proposed
"New (areawide EIS)" effluent limitations. These proposed "New
(areawide EIS)" effluent limitations should be removed from
the scenario.
There is no scientific basis for the values proposed under the
"New (areawide EIS)" values, and this appears to be an attempt
at rule-making by fiat. Since existing chemical plants only
neutralize and discharge process wastewater a few weeks a year
at the most, the improvement in the environment in reducing
these values from the current performance standards to the new
proposed standards would be negligible. In our opinion,
technology does not exist to meet the "New (areawide EIS)"
proposed guidelines.
The "New (areawide EIS)" requirements for 30 day averages are
less than one-third for phosphorus, and only 40% for fluorides,
of existing EPA new source performance standards. Laboratory
work done by EPA, in EPA's laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, on
a number of gypsum pond water samples from this area and other
areas of the country, were used to establish the "current
(EPA standards of performance for new sources)." Three tables
-------
Mr.. R. E. McNeUl -5- January 12, 1978
of laboratory data obtained by EPA in these tests are enclosed.
These tables do not show EPA fs name, and to the best of our
knowledge a formal report was never issued. However, EPA can
check with Mr. Elwood Martin of the EPA Guidelines Division
in Washington, D. C., to verify that these are, indeed, EPA
data. In reviewing the averages of the EPA data, there is
a wide variability among the different pond waters, not only
w-lbh respect to initial analysis, but with respect to final
fluoride, phosphorus, and total suspended solids obtained by
double liming treatment. None of the averages met the proposed
"New (areawide EIS)" requirements for fluoride, phosphorus, or
TSS, except for one sample which met it on phosphorus but which
is a high chloride sample and not typical of inland chemical
plants.
The draft recommends that "the non-process water system is to
be designed for re-circulation with the same design surge
capacity as the contaminated process water system," and the
same standards for discharge are applicable. The same standards
(process wastewater) for discharge now apply to non-process
water. This proposal may allow possible discharge of cooling
tower and boiler blowdown in cases where this water cannot be
discharged to a mining circuit. This requirement may "be too
restrictive. There are other water sources which need to be
discharged that cannot be circulated, such as regeneration
streams from water softeners. Data and experience are not
available to know whether or not some of this non-process
water can be recirculated and re-used without excessive scaling
of equipment.
As pointed out before, the State of Florida DER mining effluent
guidelines effective October 1, 1977, regulate phosphorus in
mining effluent. Adding non-process water to the mining cir-
cuit may increase phosphorus levels above the allowable value,
in which case this cannot be done.
"Page 7. Basis"
Comment: It is stated that several chemical complexes converted to
complete recirculation of both systems, and that the one new
chemical complex constructed since that time does not even
have an NPDES permit, because it is designed for complete
recirculation of process and non-process water, with a portion
of the non-process water blended with the mining circuit.
This statement is not correct. The plant that does not have
an NPDES permit discharges their non-process water to the
mine circuit. A few other plants in the area which were
believed by EPA to have complete circulation of non-process
water, have in fact continuous discharges of non-process
water. Therefore, there are no chemical complexes in Florida
that have complete recirculation of non-process water. This
will involve a new technology, and experience is not available
at this time to determine how it will work. We do not know
-------
R. E, McNeill
-6-
January 12, 1978
of any information that shows that these proposed recirculation
systems would result in a net reduction of costs, because of
savings of product and the reduced need for pumping water from
the aquifer. Product savings would not result and the cost of
the extra equipment and power required for pumping to recir-
culate this water would increase costs.
The last paragraph at the bottom of page 7 relating to the EPA
Development Document in July 1971, is out of date and was
superseded by the attached laboratory tests conducted by EPA.
Page 3, 3. Ground Water Quality"
Comment: This entire section should be removed from the scenario.
Existing data do not support the necessity to line gypsum ponds
with an impervious material. Additional studies are being made
in cooperation with the Florida DER and, until these are completed,
there is no basis for this requirement.
It may be, at a specific site, that it could be demonstrated that
a lining is necessary to protect groundwater; however, this is
not the case at the present time.
"Page 8. 5. By-Product Recovery— a."
Comment: This entire section requiring fluosilicic acid recovery should be
removed from the scenario. It is unrealistic to require a company
to increase its operating costs to recover a product for which
there is a limited market. If this material cannot be sold, it
will be dumped into the gypsum pond, thereby wasting valuable
economic resources — capital and operating costs.
"Page 8, 5- By-Product Recovery — b"
Comment: This entire section requiring uranium recovery from phosphoric
acid should be removed from the scenario. It is unrealistic to
require a company to invest substantial capital and incur
increased operating costs unless it is assured of a reasonable
return on investment. This should be a management decision and
has no place in the scenario.
"Page 8, 5. By-Product Recovery — Basis"
Comment: Plants recovering fluosilicic acid do not have noticeably lower
fluoride concentrations in their gypsum pond water than plants
that do not recover the material. Phosphoric acid containing
uranium is either shipped from the area or used to produce fer-
tilizers, which contain all th& uranium present in the acid.
"Page 8, II. Existing Sources, A. Modification"
Comment: Since the area-wide EIS can have no direct legal impact on
existing sources, these recommendations should be excluded.
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -7- January 12, 1978
The Federal Guidelines promulgated in November 1976, already
require existing sources to comply with new source standards,
and only a compliance schedule is left to be worked out with
the State DER.
It is mentioned that a study to be completed within the next
two years will determine the need or lack of need for lining
existing gypsum ponds. How existing gypsum ponds could be
lined is unknown and there would not appear to be any practical
way that this could be done. This statement implies that EPA
plans to conduct such a study.
"Page 9> B. Operation & Maintenance"
Comment: We support this recommendation for in-plant inspections, source
sampling, and ambient monitoring. We oppose any proposal that
industry pay for this surveillance. The cost should be borne
by the Florida DER and EPA.
We would like to point out that chemical plants have been
performing maintenance on scrubbing equipment since they have
been installed, and that this did not start just because of
inspections by the 'DER in October-November 1977. This language
should'-'be re-written since it is very misleading.
Homer Hooks
HH: jb
Enclosures
cc: Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
3- 77
-------
^MEMORANDUM
TO: EPA/EIS File
PREPARED BY: T. P. Oxford
REVISED: L. G. Bromwell
SUBJECT: Proposed Categories for Wetlands Classification
The four wetland categories proposed by the EPA are
inadequate to describe the situations encountered in phosphate
mining and land reclamation. The four categories are a subset
of a more comprehensive set of circumstances, as described in
some detail below.
Note that each of the EPA's categories, with a. certain degree
of imprecision, follows a particular format; viz., present land
use, future land use. The present use of lands in categories
1 and 2 is to "serve important functions", tacitly assumed to be
those functions that are commonly ascribed to wetlands. The future
use in category 1 is precisely the same as the present use since
lands in this category are not permitted to change. The future
use in category 2 is "similar" to the present use and disruption
is permitted.
An example of circumstances that would distinguish between
categories 1 and 2 would be, on the one hand, the very specific
case of a wetland parcel performing the particular identifiable
function of purification of agricultural runoff water in which
case removal of the vegetation would cause immediate and relatively
long-term detrimental effects on downstream waters; on the other
hand, a like area of similar size and quality might be so located
as to possess importance only as a member of the regional pool of
wetland acreage. This suggests that location, at least insofar
as it relates to function, is deserving of consideration.
Categories 3 and 4 have similar present uses, namely, "less
important". The matter of "importance" is at once crucial and
nebulous. In this instance it is not clear whether lands in these
categories are less important because they perform important
functions less well (than category 1 and 2 lands) or because they
perform only less important functions, or perhaps a narrower range
of functions. The distinction may bear significance. A clue is
provided (unconsciously it seems) in the comparative wording of
the category 2 and 3 descriptions. The less important wetlands of
-------
Memorandum EPA/EIS File
January 5, 1978
Page 2
category 3 may be replaced with land of completely different
wetland type, suggesting a link between importance and type and
implying that no such approach is valid for category 2 lands.
Thus, where a particular important function is served, restoration
of similar function requires restoration of similar type. Possibly
this notion is only inadvertantly expressed. It is, in any case,
a debatable idea.
Finally, the category 4 wetlands are less important to the
extent that they may presumably have zero value...unless, of
course, some non-zero worth is assigned to all wetlands by definition.
This category is but one of the many that appear in figure 1.
The figure illustrates the most reasonable pairings of present
uses and future actions as well as indicating some pairings that are
only marginally likely. Present uses in terms of wetland function
are graded as (A) important, but with value deriving largely from
location, (B) important, in the sense of being vigorous and
contributory, but not necessarily irreplaceable, and (C,D,E) less
important or unimportant. Action options include (1) no disruption;
(2,3), restoration of site to same or alternative type wetland;
(4,5) site restoration not considered and equivalent acreage
elsewhere may or may not be considered.
In figure 1, blank squares are those that are not logically
consistent or, even if so, must be excluded as a practical matter.
Pairs indicated by "X" are those that are possible, but not
highly likely circumstances. Pairs indicated by "*" are the
categories that it is entirely reasonable to expect. Numbered
entries refer to the corresponding EPA categories.
EPA,category 1 seems to correspond to case Al. Cases Bl
and Cl are less likely to occur, but the situation can be imagined
in which very localized function, even if small ("less important",
case Cl), dictates that consideration be given to preservation.
The unlikely case Bl might occur where the extent of land involved
was so great that temporary disturbance would disrupt even the
general contributory function.
Case B2 may be that which EPA had in mind for category 2.
Here the suggestion that important function can be restored only
by like-type wetland is implicit. If that is so, then the indicated
case B3 is unlikely, if not impossible. However, if function is
not site-specific, then case B4 in which equivalent wetland acreage
is created elsewhere is, in fact, a circumstance that is very
reasonable.
The supposed connection between function and wetland type
pervades cases A2, B2, C2, and D2 making them very likely, while
making cases A3, B3, and C3 less so. Case C4, however, appears
-------
WETLAND FUNCTION PERFORMED IS
ACTION TAKEN IS
(1) Disruption represents
unacceptable adverse impact
NO COMPROMISE
(2) Restoration of like-
type W/L at site
(3) Restoration of alternative
type W/L at site
(4) Restoration to other land-
use but with equivalent W/L
acreage created elsewhere
(5) Restoration to other
land-use
0)
-p
-H
in
•o
c
a
4J
G
(0
^|
a-3
H -H
0
0)
--. a
A «
*!
X
•d
§
4J
C
m
-P
L
E ^
M M
0)
C
^. Q)
W U>
X
X
*
•.
4J
s
^
o
04 0
e -M
•H
W O
CO CU
0) O4
h3 M
+J
O 43
X
X
4J
S
M
O
04
E r-t
•H nJ
^1
0} (U
CO C
a) cu
^) C71
•O
-> d
S
-------
Memorandum EPA/EIS File
January 5, 1978
Page 3
to be identical to EPA category 3. Thus where function is less
important and not specific to the site, an alternative wetland
type would be acceptable. Similarly, though not recognized in
the EPA proposal, an alternative site would be acceptable, the
situation represented by case D4. Further, depending upon degree
of importance, a non-wetland land use might be contemplated as in
case D5.
Case D5 or E5 is EPA category 4 in which wetland value is
insufficient to warrant restoration as wetland. However, even
when no present wetland function exists, there may be a need to
create wetlands at a particular site of disturbance. A common
example would be an area that previously was marshland and was
drained long before mining for agricultural use. Such a situation
would be included in case E3.
The position frequently taken by environmentalists is that if
an area is declared a wetland, it then must perform certain vital
functions, and in consequence it must not be disturbed. The only
rational counter-proposal is to require that wetland areas be
evaluated on an individual basis. The EPA proposal, modified to
be suitably comprehensive, provides the grounds for site-specific
evaluation. By comparison, any approach using acreages and water
flow criteria appears to be inflexible and therefore counter-
productive.
se
-8 I
-------
TA'DU: i
IIESULTS 07 TllHATADILm JAR TESTS
PHOSPHATE FEKTILISin LYDUSTOY V/ASTC'.i'ATEn SAMPLES
'.oapany i pH
Jane raw
Farmland 2.3
•2.4
•2.4
•2.4
2.3
2.3
«'2;3'
"2.3
•*2.3
.V.U.3
"M.ff
Harden 2.3
•1.7
/ *1.7
V '1.7
2.3
2.3
••2.2
"2.2
"2.2
.Mil. 8
•••2.0 '
Gardinicr 2.1
•1.6
•l.G
•1.6
2.1
••2.0
••2.0
"2,0
«ii.'i'S
•••1.9
pi! 1st
i •
stasc
start end
1
3.3
3.6
3.G
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.5
5.2
7.1
3.8
3.6
3.G
. . 3.6
. 3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3.
3.3
5.1
7.2
3.3
3.5.
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.8
7.0
3.2
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.2
3.2
3.0
3,0
3.0
5.1 •
G.O
3,4.
3.5
3.5
S.C
3.4
' 3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3''
5.1
7.0
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.1
. 3.1
4.0
?;? '
'pi! 2nd Et.M»o ml/1 10$ line
slurrv Settling timo - hrs Fluoride
start end 1st stago .'2nd stage 1st "etajjo.
(mix timo - min)
6.7
8.5
.0,8
8.G
8.6
ais
8.3
.
*
,t
6.0
8.1
a. s
• 8.5
8.5
8.3
8.6
' ,
• 6.2
8i3
8.5
1 8.5
8.5
• Br9
6,7
8,5
8.2
8,2'
8,3 ...
•
7.3 •':
0,2
8.0 "
8.9
0.2
-
.
.
i • '
1
1
6.3 '
0.4 ' •
0.5
0,4
60 (6)
' 60 (6)
60 (0) ..
23 (1)'
23 (1)
23 (1)
• 60 (6)
..." 00 (7).
133 (7)
133 (7)
.133 (7)
90 (10)
.. ' 00 (10)'
00 (10)
. 120 (8) •
170 .(9) '.'
75 (5)'
75 (5)
75 (5) •
' 40 (2)
40 (2)
40 (2)'
loo (a)
150 (4)
•
60 (0)
GO (9)
•GO (9)
20 (<1)
2 (<1).
,
•110 (11)
110 (11) ;
110 (U)
30' (3) '.
4 (6)
00 (6) ..
00 (6)
90 (6)
35 (3).
•0,5(*
39 '
50
50
DO'
50
so r
rQ.5 50 "
GJ«Q'5 50 ^V
'0 WT
C-Cy '
50 /)V
50'
1 of 3
6/27/75
o;/l Sulfa'to-mii/l
final raw /inul
•12
300
GO
\ 00
80
30
20
£3
.2,7UO
'1,020
330
.
GO
35
• .20
ajjjr'u
CO'
1,710 ''
•a Qf-
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
'3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
0,400
G.'IOO
G,400
• 0,100
0,400
• 0,400
G.400
(
0,400
0,400
G,400
3,'IOO
3, IOO
3,400
3, 400
3,100
") 3,400
/ 3,400
3 ,400
3,400
3,400
KOTEi Circled nunbors donota concentrations oqual to or loss, than limits promulgated 4/8/74.
-------
TA;>L:: i (cont.)
HESULTS OF THEATADILITY ^AH TESTS
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTOY WASTE!* ATT.R SAOTLKS '
ipany pll
ic raw
v fy«, 2.4
/w i "**7
O*N »1.7
•1.7
2.4
2.4
••2.2 .
•'2.2
"2.2
iili.B
•••2.0 _
gonserv 2.2
•1.5
•1.3
• *1.5
( 2.2
* «z!o
K/ ••2!o
4A*1.7
till. 9 '
/4rrieo 2.0
-1.4
•1.4
•1.4
2.0
•2.0
•2.0
•2.0
"•"•"1.7 "
ill 1st Ktil.TQ.
start end
3.4 3.4 •
3.5 3.4
• 3.5 3.5
3.5 3.5.
3.4 3.4
3.4 ' 3.4
3.5 3,4
3.5 3.4
3.5 3,4
4.8 4.7
7.1 6.3 •
3.2 . 3.3
3.5 3.4.'
3.G 3.5
*3.6 3.G
3.2 3.3
: 3.2 3.3
3.5 -3.3
3.5 3,5
4.8 4.7
7.2 ' 6.5-
3.3 • 3.2 .
3.5 3.4
3.5 3.5
3.5 3.6- '
3.3 3.2
3.5 3.2
3.5 3.2
3.5 3.2
4.9 4.6 '
7.6 6.9 •
Jill 2nd staso
start end
•
8.4 7.1
7,3 9.1
8.6 8.2
8.6 8.2
8,6 8.4
8.3 .
. 8i6 "'. r-
. •
'•
.
,
:' 6.7 6.7
;- 8,4 8.3
8.5 8.2
'. B'.S 8.6'
8.5 •
' 8.5. ;..
T ' "'
;
.1
5.1 6.7
8.5 8.7
8.5 • 8.9
8.5 9,2
8.4
'8.6 '
2 of 3
0/27/75
ml/1 103 line slurry Settlin-r tiiao - hrs Fluoride - meA Phosphorus '- mr/l S. Solids - up/1 Sulfato-n-/l
.1st stage 2nd. stajre 1st stajo 2nd stage raw
(mix tine - min) • ' •
. • •
' 05 (4)
• ' ' 95 (4)
• 05 (4)
CO (8).
60 (8)
CO (8).
•• 100 (15)
'• 160 (6)
115 (4),
. 113 (4)
113 (4) .
. t
•' 90 (8)
, . 90 (0)
' . 110 (9)
• ' 1C5 (4)
230 (0)
• 230 (6)
• 230 (C)
•
150 (10)
150 (10)
-: 150 (10)
; 200 (13)
2GO (11)
'
: ' .
• 100 (8)
• .-'lOO-(B)-'
. ' 100 (8)
..35 (8)
i '.'• 3 (5).-
i ' •
.
.
:' ' 60 (6)
60. (6)
' 34 (5) '
3 (4) .
V ' -
'. • •
•
120 (?)•
.120 (7)
• 120 (7) •
• 41 (a)
3 (4) '
1 •
6
12 . .
24
1
1
24
24 •'•
24
24 ' •
24 .
1
6 ••
. 12
24
1
!• ' "
24 •
24 .
24
24 . '
1 .
6
12 '
24
1 .
24 " •
24 -
24 . ' '•
24
24
.
• 2
- 2
. 12
24
• 48
. , 96
72
-. 2
2
12
24
96
72
•
2
12
24
48 .
06
72
' 4J700
4,700
4.700
4J700
4,700
4,700
4,700
4,700
final raw .
400
76
: 76
70
26
-/so:
\40
. 4,700£'.^3J5
' 4,700 /
. 4,700
7J400
7,400
7,400
7, -100
' 7.400
. • 7J400
• •7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
. 10,200 '
10,200
10,200'
10,200
10,200
10,200
10, 200 -j
ioIbooA
10,200
Ov/("g
• Lsa
100
40
36
37
JQ
8 0?
•4O
29 ?
ho
55
50
'• 53
©
•
6,000
6,900 .
0,000
. 6,000
'.0,000
. • 0,000
. 6,900 3
6,900
0,900.
6,900-
6,000
0,700
5,700
5,700
5,700
, . 5,700
i 5,700
.,;•/ 5,700
//It's, 700
^5,700
5,700
lojooq
10,000
10,000
10,000
' 10,000
10,000
10,000 tqc
10,000 'i.1
lolooo "v
10,000
final
•
.4J650
5,025
5,100
37B
C^
^ _1 2U5~1
. 189 {
120?
126'
. ^jM
3i300
4,400
3,000
2,700
2JO-
'Off©
30 ©i
-------
TAUUi 1 (cunt.)
HESULTS 01' T'rtEATADILJTY
PHOSPHATE FEHTIU'iSR INDUSTRY WA
jwyany nit nil 1st stniro . pll 2ml
lino row
/HHed 1.9
•1.8
•1.8
•1.8
l.D
•*1.7
"1.7
"1.7
JLlil. 2
•••1,3
JP£eC£OTt ' '2.3
•2.3
Ui >'2'3
7 "2.5
OR "2'5
06 "2.3.
"^ *"2.3
•"2.2
Olln -2.2
•2.2
•2.2
"2.3
"2.3
"2.3
.1142.1.
•"2.1
start end
3.3
3,5
3.5
•3,5
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.9
. 7.3
3.S
3.3
3,0
3,5
.3.5
3.5
5.2
7.1'
3.5
3,3
3.5
3.5
3,5.
3.5
5.0
7.1
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
3,2
4,7
7.1
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2'
3.2
5.3'
7.5
'3.2
3.4
3.4
3.5
3,5
3.5
4.7
7,8
start
0.2
8.G
8.S
8,6
8.4
. 0.7 •.
8.5
,8.3
8.5
8.4
a.9
. ..
/•
8.5
8.5
8.5
0.5
8.6
stnso' rtl/1 10'' lime slurry Settling time -
end
'6.8
9,1
: 3.5'
9,3
.
8.9
0.0
;.0,4
8.3
8.5-
8.4
'
JAN TESTS
STE'.i'ATKn SAMPLES
hrs Fluoride - mp/1 Phosphorus - m
'1st .stage . 2nd ctarc 1st staco 2nd stajjo rai/
(mix time » mini
-.- 200 (5)
200 (3)
200, (5)
: -100 (8)
•• 190 (8)
100 (8)
/' 270 (11)
300 (3)
•' 40* (5)
40 (3)
40 (5)
• 30 (7)
30 (7)
: . .30 (7)
•'•' 40 (5) '
'. 110 (0)'
•'" 30 (5)
,. • 30 (5)'
30 (5)-
23 (3) '
25 (3)
23- (3)
GO (4)
| 120 (7)
•
140 (12)
140 (12)
140 (12)
37 (G)
' 1 (2)
(
30 (4)
30 (4)
30 (4)-.
12 (3)
2 (4) .
" 00 (7)
00 (7)
. 00 (7)
41 (0)
3 (3)
1
'. 0
12
24 ,
1
24
24
24
24
24
G .
12
24
24
24
24
24*
, 24
.5 '
12
. 24
24
24
24
24
24
: 2
12
24
48
00
72
.
12
21
48
06
.72
12
24
48
OG
72
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
". 3,100
lj?00
1,700 .
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
final raw
110
100
:100
102
•10
58"
401
31 (
6©1
aa-
100.
177
102
105 N
105 (
105
. 18
54J
234
'103
210
30
'33'
30.)
C ("G)
61
8,400
B,400
8,400
8,400
0,400
!B,400
;0 0,400
->u 8,400]
AV- 0,400'
8,400'
1,3UO
1,300
1,300
I 1,330
-.yl.SGO
' /'/ 1,330
/V- 1,380
1,300
ejono
•"* 0,000"
G,000
0,000
33 0,000
' 3-f 0 , ooo
'ff' 0,000
• 6,000
3 of 3
0/27/73
7/1 S, Solids - ms/1 ' Sulfatc-n^/1
final raw
3,600
4,200
4,350
C,000
000
r 155
<--} '1'1'1
l^ejm
/v-/.\ 0
^ 3L!4
1J200
1,000
1,200
100
nil 1S4
A-/ 103
v| 09
, w \JJ
_ 5,400.
5,100
4,050
(300
•»•?/ ;313
J-Vy < 200
"^ /3SO
4
4
4
.4 •
4
4
4
4 > -,
30 4 °/
..4 *
< i
< i
< i
1 IU
<'l ^
} <'l .
121..
121-
121
121
121
121 " ./
121 "'' i
• 121 :'
final
137
43
4,150
("1.020
,1,540
•i 5EO
.?! no
/l''- 40
36 '
,--100
r 110
;)' '132
(_'l20
_. 72.. — •
12
JLT@
.^i/m)
l/i©
/.frCD
' \ i32
'L @
ra\' ' i inii
10,785
131735
15,735
15,785
15,78.0
15,7G5
12,785
15,735
15,765
2,400
2,450
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,100
2,450
2,450.
"3,340
3,540
3,5-10
3,340
3,040
3,010
3,540
' 3,540
KOTEi Circled numbers denote concentrations equal to .or lose than, limits promulgated 4/8/74.
• 1st etajo analyses on top 33 era in 2000 ml graduata.
*• lat ttago lining of 2000 el raw viatcwatcr; 2nd stage liming of top 33 cm of 1st staeo; 2jid stago ^ql'ysea on top 0 cm of nlxturo.
" lut ttoga liming of 2000 al rnv wastotfatar; 2nd atago liming of top 1000 ml of 1st ctaco; 2nd ttagQ qjialysoa on top half of mixture.
-------
Suite 24. Cxcr,;:. rf, Pi'.vo
4406 S Florida Rvgnuo • ?.O :;rL551
Lokelond. Florida 35BOS
Telephone 81S/C45-853:
February 9, 1978
Homer Hooks
President
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Project Officer
EPA, Region IV
EIS Branch, Phosphate Study Unit
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 20208
Dear Gene:
Subject: Central Florida Phosphate EIS - Your
Memorandum of February 2, 1978 and
Attached Recommended Scenario
On Tuesday, January 31, 1978, the Florida Phosphate
Council, Inc., participated in a meeting held by EPA in Tampa
for purposes of discussing the Recommended Scenario with the
Advisory and Steering Committees. In addition to the dis-
cussion during the meeting, we submitted written comments
for the record. A copy of these comments is attached hereto
as Exhibit A for your convenience.
The Recommended Scenario attached to your February 2,
1978 memorandum reflects some modifications, but does not
recognize the basic objections submitted by the Florida Phosphate
Council, Inc. on January 31, 1978. Thus, we hereby reaffirm
the comments contained in Exhibit A and resubmit them for your
consideration. In addition, we have the following comments
on the areas modified after the Advisory/Steering Committee
meeting (as outlined in your February 2, 1978 memorandum):
1. Wetlands Description
As noted on January 31, we object to the preclusion of
mining on any categorical basis (i.e., in "category one" wet-
lands) . Although the areawide EIS may discuss policies or
general findings, restrictions on site-specific activities
should not be proposed until EPA, the Corps, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and other agencies have been consulted
regarding detailed plans for development and restoration sub-
mitted by the applicant. Until such information is available,
the review contemplated by applicable Corps of Engineers
regulations (33 CFR §302.4) and EPA regulations (40 CFR part
230) cannot be properly completed.
Chairman o'thsBoo/d UJn H Fu^k Gordmier. Inc.
flgrico Chemical Company • Garden. !nc — Chemical Division/5mith-Douglar.s * 6reujsf.sr Pnosphotes (firrsncan Cyano * Con^en/. Depcr''Te.-..- c-s PR ;'^p
Brothers Division of €ng!ehord M'nerols & Chem«cots Corp. • Gleccro-Pnos Corporaf-on • For.^'Dnd Indjstncji. Inc • rrzcport Chus.-n.coi Con-.pony • Gcrc'--''"e.' l*-c • ll' ~R
Grace fj Compony. RynculLural Chemicals • International Minerals & Chr.micol Corporct-on * .V.-5Sissippi Cr.ern'cal Curpo'j^.on • W.ob.l Ch^micct Cofma-C'*• 6cc'-7-vo:
Chcmica' Company • flov'-Ur Corrpo-ny • S:ouffef Chemicof Company • Sm.fc flgric-jlwol Chc.Tiicols Corporation • T/fl Minerals Corporation • USS rt".-Cie.-".:;o!s
^-S'i"
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -2- February 9, 1978
2. Surface Water Quality
A second area discussed on January 31 and summarized
in your February 2, 1978 memorandum is the proposed set of
effluent limitations for new source chemical plants. These
concentrations do not reflect technology available in 1978,
and there is no scientific basis given for the specific values
proposed or for the necessity of more stringent limitations
in the Tampa Bay and Peace River Basins. Furthermore, as
discussed on January 31, we consider the proposal of more
stringent effluent limitations in the scenario to be in conflict
with Section 511 (c) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
3. Above Ground Slimes Disposal Areas
We suggest the following wording on page 3 of 'the
scenario under Bases, iv): Current research, and one full
scale operation, indicate that two of the new technology
methods may result in costs approximately the same as conven-
tional slimes disposal. However, there is no firm evidence
or data from full-scale plant operations that would confirm
any reduction in costs to be anticipated by the use of new
technology.
4. Ground Water Quality
The third area discussed on January 31 is the lining
of gyp ponds. Your memorandum indicates that no changes in
the scenario will be made, however. Thus, we have no further
comment at this time, but reconfirm the objections stated in
Exhibit A hereto.
5. By Product Recovery
This area was discussed in detail on January 31 and
new scenario wording is proposed in your memorandum. This
entire section should be eliminated, however. By-product
recovery requires substantial investment of capital, and
whether recovery is economically viable or not, such a decision
should be left to the Industry, and not be made by EPA.
The alternate requirement that "estimated fluorine
emissions from new source gyp ponds should not exceed the
total allowable point source fluorine emissions within the
plant complex if a permit is to be issued" is arbitrary and
capricious. No scientific basis is given for this fluoride
emission requirement, which is a welfare pollutant and not a
primary health pollutant. Further, there is no known scienti-
fically correct method available for predicting fluoride
emissions from gyp ponds. This alternative should be removed
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -3- February 9, 1978
from the scenario because it makes recovery of fluoride compounds
from phosphoric acid evaporators mandatory.
The other areas mentioned in your memorandum of
February 2, 1978 should be viewed in light of the objections
and comments submitted by the Florida Phosphate Council on
January 31, 1978 (Exhibit A hereto). The comments outlined
above are supplemental to comments previously submitted by
the Council and we strongly encourage EPA to make appropriate
revisions in the scenario before the draft EIS is prepared.
Homer Hooks
HHrjb
Enclosure
cc: Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
2-87
-------
pHospKc&z
feeds you
EXHIBIT A
Suite 24. Executive Plozo
4406 S Flondo Rvenue • P.O. Box 5550
lokelond. f lorido 33803
Telephone 813/646-8583
Homer Hooks
President
January 30, 1978
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Project Officer
EPA Region IV
EIS Branch, Phosphate Study Unit
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 20208
Dear Gene:
Subject: Comments on "Draft Summary Outline
Scenario, dated January 24, 1978,
to be Recommended by EPA Phosphate
Unit:
We submit herewith our comments on the above document,
received by us on January 26, 1978.
We reiterate the comments made on the first page of our
letter of January 12, 1978, dealing with (1) absence of any comment
on the social and economic benefits of continued and expanded
phosphate mining in Florida, (2) the question of whether the EIS
can legally promulgate standards in the absence of prescribed rule
making procedure, and (3) our firm contention that accumulated
evidence of all work done by the contractor, Texas Instruments,
demonstrates that phosphate mining should be allowing to expand
in Florida in order to meet growing U. S. and world demand for
agriculture products produced by phosphate fertilizer.
"Page 1, 1. New Sources —A. Mining and Beneficiation -- 1. Air
Quality
Comment: Eliminate first sentence and substitute therefor: "Reduce
use of the rock drying process whenever technically
possible or technically practical."
The requirement that rock "is to be dried at the chemical
processing complex, or at dryers permitted by DER priot
to publication of the Draft EIS" is unfair to future
miners and chemical plant operators and to Polk County,
since that is where all the present dryers are located.
This requirement should be removed from the scenario.
The present Clean Air Act requirements and Florida 17-2
rules are very strict and are designed to protect the
Choirmon of the Boord: UJm. H. Funk Gordinier. Inc
figfico Chemicol Compony • Borden. Inc — Chemicol Division/Smlth-Dougloss • Breujster Phosphates (flmericon Cyanamid/Kerr-McGee) • Conserv. Deportment of Philipp
Brothers Division of C-nglehord Minerals G Chemicals Corp. • eiectro-Phos Corporation • Formlond Industries. Inc • Freeport Chemicol Company • Gordinier. Inc. • U). R.
Grace & Comoony Rgnculturol Chemicals • International Minerals Si Chemicol Corporation • Mississippi Chemicol Corporation • Mobil Chemical Componv • Occidental
Chemicol Company • Royster Compony • Stouffer Chemical Compony • Sujift agricultural Chemicals Corporation • T/fl Minerals Corporation • USS flgn-Chemicats
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill
-2-
January 30, 1978
the public and the environment. Any new installation
will have to meet these criteria. This statement
should be included in the scenario to correctly inform
the public.
"Page 1, Bases: — 1"
Comment: Since you have brought up the radioactivity of power
plants which emit krypton-85 and iodine-131, why have you
neglected to inform the public about the radium-226 and
radium-228 emitted from the stacks of coal burning power
plants, especially since these are in the Central Florida
area? It has been estimated that a 1,000 Mw(E) coal
burning power plant will discharge into the atmosphere
between 28 millicuries and one (1) curie per year of
radium-226 and radium-228. This is 2.8 x lO1^ to
1 x 10 picocuries, or more than the phosphate rock
dryers cited. (Ref.: Guimond, R. J., "The Radiological
Implications of Increased Coal Utilization")
It is general practice when discussing radioactivity on
an annual basis, to present this in terms of curies, which
would be 0.042 curies per year for 1,100 tons per year
particulate out of stacks. To put this in perspective,
this is equivalent to 0.042 grams/yr. of radium-226, a
very small quantity and is probably less than a 1,000 Mw(E).
power plant burning coal.
The statement "Additional particulate, with a proportionate
quantity of radionuclide emissions, would also be prevented
due to transfer and transportation of wet unground rock
instead of dry rock" is a non-quantitative statement and
presumably refers to fugitive dust which would mostly fall
in the plant area." Unless this can be quantified and put
into proper perspective, this statement should be removed
from the scenario.
2, 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: This statement should be added in order to inform the
general public: "All operations will have to meet EPA
effluent limitations and Florida water quality and EPA
water quality standards, whatever they may be."
"Page 3, 3.
Eliminate conventional above ground slimes —
Bases: (IV) " ~~~
The costs for alternative methods of slimes disposal are
not known at the present, and will not be known until
further full-scale testing is conducted. The available
cost data are insufficient to conclude that the alternative
methods will be lower or even approximately the same as
conventional slimes disposal.
-------
Mr. R. E.
"Page 4,
McNeill
-3-
January 30, 1978
6. Radiation —Paragraph 2"
Comment: The statement "Proposed regulations regarding radiation
levels in structures " is incorrect. EPA intends to
offer proposed recommendations which have no legal
authority and cannot be enforced by EPA. These must be
adopted by state, county, or other regulatory authorities
before they become regulations and legally binding. This
was told to representatives of the Florida Phosphate
Council by Dr. William Mills of the Office of Radiation
Guidelines in a Washington, D. C. meeting on January 24,
1978.
The language should be changed to eliminate the word
regulations and substitute the word recommendations.
"Page 5. 6. Radiation — Paragraph 3"
Comment: Change to read "Mining and reclamation plans for New
Source Mines shall meet future State of Florida and/or
local regulatory body requirements with regard to radiation
levels of future reclaimed land." It is premature to
specify how this will be accomplished until the final
reports of studies now being done are completed and final
regulations are promulgated.
"Page 5. 7(c) Reclamation — Wetlands"
Comment: The program EIS should serve as a statement of policy and
priorities for various types of wetland protection. The
balancing of costs and benefits should be conducted during
the site specific EIS so that a program most beneficial
to the overall public interest may be developed.
"Page 6. B. Chemical Processing — 1. Air Quality"
Comment: The first sentence should be changed to read "New source
performance standards are adequate to protect air quality."
Inclusion of the language "if emission limitations are
continuously met" is an unwarranted implication of non-
compliance by the phosphate industry, reflects on the
credibility of the scenario, and has no place in the
scenario.
"Page 6. B. Chemical Processing — 2. Surface Water Quality"
Comment: We reject the concept that the EIS can by-pass the normal
rulemaking procedures of EPA by proposing to implement the
proposed "Areawide EIS" effluent limitations. These
proposed "Areawide EIS" effluent limitations should be
removed from the scenario.
There is no scientific basis for the values proposed under
the "Areawide EIS" values, and this is an attempt at
3-
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -4- January 30, 1978
rule-making by fiat.
Since existing chemical plants only neutralize and
discharge process wastewater a few weeks a year at the
most, the improvement in the environment in reducing
these values from the current performance standards to
the new proposed standards would be negligible. In our
opinion, technology does not exist to meet the "Areawide
EIS" proposed guidelines.
The "Areawide EIS" requirements for 30 day averages are
less than one-third for phosphorus, and only 40% for
fluorides, of existing EPA new source performance
standards. Laboratory work done by EPA, in EPA's labora-
tory in Cincinnati, Ohio, on a number of gypsum pond water
samples from this area and other areas of the country,
were used to establish the current "EPA Standards of
Performance for New Sources."
Three tables of laboratory data obtained by EPA in these
tests were sent to you previously. These tables do not
show EPA's name, and to the best of our knowledge a formal
report was never issued. However,- EPA can check with
Mr. Elwood Martin of the EPA Guidelines Division in
Washington, D. C., to verify that these are, indeed, EPA
data. In reviewing the averages of the EPA data, there is
a wide variability among the different pond waters, not
only with respect to initial analysis, but with respect to
final fluoride, phosphorus, and total suspended solids
obtained by double liming treatment. None of the averages
met the proposed "Areawide EIS" requirements for fluoride,
phosphorus, or TSS, except for one sample which met it on
phosphorus but which is a high chloride sample and not
typical of inland chemical plants.
The draft recommends that "the non-process water system is
to be designed for recirculation with the same design surge
capacity as the contaminated process water system," and the
same standards for discharge are applicable. The same
standards (process wastewater) for discharge now apply to
non-process water. This proposal may allow possible
discharge of cooling tower and boiler blowdown in cases
where this water cannot be discharged to a mining circuit.
This requirement may be too restrictive. There are other
water sources which need to be discharged that cannot be
circulated, such as regeneration streams from water
softeners. Data and experience are not available to know
whether or not some of this non-process water can be
recirculated and re-used without excessive scaling of
equipment.
As pointed out before, the State of Florida DER mining
effluent guidelines effective October 1, 1977, regulate
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill
— 5—
January 30, 1978
phosphorus in mining effluent. Adding non-process water
to the mining circuit may increase phosphorus levels above
the allowable value, in which case this cannot be done.
The statement "The above limitations do not preempt EPA
National Effluent Guidelines, but are based on protection
of water quality in the Tampa Bay and Peace Basins" is
erroneous since the limitations do pre-empt EPA National
Effluent Guidelines. No facts are given for the basis
and it is purely an unsubstantiated opinion. This sentence
(in quotes above) should be removed from the scenario since
it is not credible.
"Page 7, 8 Basis"
Comment: It is stated that several chemical complexes converted to
complete recirculation of both systems, and that the one
new chemical complex constructed since that time does not
even have an NPDES permit, because it is designed for
complete recirculation of process and non-process water,
with a portion of the non-process water blended with the
mining circuit. This statement is not true.
The plant that does not have an NPDES permit discharges
their non-process water to the mine circuit. A few other
plants in the area which were believed by EPA to have
complete circulation of non-process water, have in fact
continuous discharges of non-process water. Therefore,
there are no chemical complexes in Florida that have
complete recirculation of non-process water. This will
involve a new technology, and experience is not available
at this time to determine how it will work. We do not
know of any information that shows that these proposed
recirculation systems would result in a net reduction of
costs, because of savings of product and the reduced need
for pumping water from the aquifer. Product savings would
not result and the cost of the extra equipment and power
required for pumping to recirculate this water would
increase costs.
The last paragraph at the bottom of page 8 relating to the
EPA Development Document of July 1971, is out of date and
was superseded by the laboratory tests conducted by EPA.
We do not know of any system designed in the last 10 years
that would meet the proposed "Areawide EIS" values.
"Page 8, 3. Ground Water Quality"
Comment: This entire .section should be removed from the scenario.
Existing data do not support the necessity to line gypsum
ponds with an impervious material. This requirement
assumes that this is the only solution to any potential
problems. Additional studies are being made in cooperation
-------
Mr, R. E. McNeill
-6-
January 30, 1978
with the Florida DER and, until these are completed,
there is no basis for this requirement.
It may be, at a specific site, that it could be demon-
strated that a lining is necessary to protect groundx^ater;
however, this is not the case at the present time.
"Page 9, 5. By-Product Recovery —- a."
Comment; This entire section requiring fluorine compounds recovery
Should be removed from the scenario. It is unrealistic to
require a company to increase its operating costs to
recover a product for which there is a limited market. If
this material cannot be sold, it will be dumped into the
gypsum pond, thereby wasting valuable economic resources
— capital and operating costs. This should be a manage-
ment decision and has no place in the scenario.
"Page 9. 5. By-Product Recovery •— b."
Comment: This entire section requiring uranium recovery from
phosphoric acid should be removed from the scenario. It
is unrealistic to require a company to invest substantial
capital and incur increased operating costs unless it is
assured of a reasonable return on investment. This should
be a management decision and has no place in the scenario.
"Page 9, 5. By-Product Recovery — Basis"
Comment: There is no evidence that recovery of fluorine compounds
would reduce emissions, and this statement should be
removed from the scenario. It is arbitrary and non-
factual.
"Page 9, II. Existing Sources, A. Modification"
Comment: Since the areawide EIS can have no direct legal impact on
existing sources, these recommendations should be excluded.
The Federal Guidelines promulgated in November 1976,
already require existing sources to comply with new source
standards, and only a compliance schedule is left to be
worked out with the State DER.
It is mentioned that a study to be completed within the
next two years will determine the need or lack of need for
lining existing gypsum ponds. How existing gypsum ponds
could be lined is unknown and there would not appear to
be any practical way that this could be done. This state-
ment implies that EPA plans to conduct such a study.
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -7-
"Page 9, B. Operation S Maintenance"
January 30, 1978
Comment; We support this recommendation for in-plant inspections,
source sampling, and ambient monitoring. We oppose any
proposal that industry pay for this surveillance. The
cost should be borne by the Florida DER and EPA.
HH/lh
cc: Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
-------
Post Office Box 1480
Bartow, Florida 33830
Telephone: 813/533-3181
June 7, 1978
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
EIS Branch
.Phosphate Study Unit
3U5 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
SUBJECT: Draft Areawide
Environmental Impact
Statement - Central
Florida Phosphate
Industry
Dear Mr. McNeill:
As a supplement to my May 16, 1978, letter on the captioned subject,
there is another area in the DEIS that requires some correction.
This area is the correct identification of -CF Industries and its
Florida facilities in the DEIS.
Throughout the DEIS, CF Industries' three manufacturing locations—
CF Chemicals, Central Phosphates, and CF Mining—are confused. The
narrative in the first paragraph defines the activity at each loca-
tion. Phosphate fertilizers are produced by both CF Chemicals and Lj
Central Phosphates. Phosphate rock mining is contemplated to com- t*/
mence November 1978 by CF Mining. The DEIS applies incorrect titles
to CF Industries' operations on Plate 1 and Pages 1.9, 2.8, and
2.35.
The DEIS does not recognize CF Mining as an existing source whose
immediate activities include construction of a phosphate mining
facility in Hardee County (Page 2.39). Figure 2.2 (Page 2.8) pro-
jects an incorrect production startup date and rate for CF Mining.
Present projections are for 1.0-1.5 million tons/year starting in
November 1978, with a possible increase to 4.0 million tons/year
in Fiscal 1985.
CF Industries' plans for a fertilizer complex in Hardee County are
undetermined at this time. The DEIS' statement on Page 2.35 that
the plans are cancelled is inaccurate. A more accurate statement \t
would be that no engineering of that phase is 'currently being done,
and that specific plans will be made only as a function of member
requirements.
Continued . . .
3-
-------
Mr. R. E. McNeill -2- June 7, 1978
Under separate cover, CF Industries will present a more formal
comment on the content and issues of the DEIS.
Sincerely,
William A. ScAamming
Director, Environmental Affairs
WASrslh
-------
PLEASE R£?LY TO: Senator Richard (Dick; Stone
Suite 200B-2639 North Monroe
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
June 13, 1978
Respectfully referred to:
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by
Richard (Dick) Stone
United States Senator
TLH-7
3-97
-------
Un ell
A acker Induces Corp. Subsid,ary <:».„.„, t
Suite 51 Sector Stone MRSfdi-jj ;hi.-
920 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida 33505 „.m3tt9r; Pj«S8 wfer to
Telephone: 813/74V-1727 "9 if -
June 6, 1978
Senator Richard Stone
1327 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, B.C. 20510
Dear Senator Stone:
The attached letter to Mr. John. E. Hagan, III, Chief of EIS Branch,
EPA, outlines some of the particular points that need clarification
in the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement for the Central'
Florida Phosphate Industry.
The study was initiated by the President's Council on Environmental
..Quality following a request by President Ford to look into the matter.
President Ford's request was in turn primarily prompted, during the
last presidential election campaign, by a request from the publisher
of the Sarasota areas only major newspapers, which shortly thereafter
endorsed President Ford for reelection.
It has frequently-been stated that the study was prompted by the major
interest exhibited by the people of the region. The attendance at the
workshops and at the recent public hearings belies that statement.
The hearing at Manatee Junior College was primarily attended by in-
dustry representatives, the media, students or staff of Manatee Junior
College and possibly a dozen Sarasota County or beach residents (over
35 miles from the nearest proposed phosphate activity) mo3t of whom
are retired and-are veteran meeting attendees. Professional represent-
ation was also provided by the Audubon Society. It was noteworthy
that both Sarasota County and City political body members and rep-
resentatives, except for the county environmental control director,
were absent including their delegate to the advisory committee for
this EIS. In fact, only one of the advisory committee members (other
than the phosphate representative) was identified as present.
I believe that the message is clear. The study was prompted by the
desire of a few, for whatever motives that they might have. The result
has the potential for ladening an already over-regulated industry
with more rules, higher costs, lost reserves and its inevitable ef-
fect on our inflation prone economy.
I do not feel that as a result of this study that any new action is
adviseable or needed, but recognizing the inevitability of some form
of final statement I have included alternative wording that should
be substituted for the EPA's in the final statement. My suggestions
are in the letter to Mr. Hagan. I urge you to help by (in the words
of.The.Polk County Democrat) "— not demanding the impossible from this
essential industry" and conveying that thought to CEQ and EPA.
"LGB/mg
-------
A Boker Industries Corp Subsidiary
Suite 51
920 Manatee Avenue West. Bradenton. Florida 33505
Telephone: 813/748-1727
June 6, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, Chief EIS Branch'
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Z have reviewed the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
for the Central Florida Phosphate Industry dated 3/14/78 and offer
the comments contained on the following pages for your review and
inclusion in the final statement.
We appreciate this opportunity to make our views heard and sincerely
trust that due consideration will be given these comments in the
ultimate utilization of the Impact Statement.
Very truly yours,
Lewis G. Bartow
President
LGB/mg
/••;
-------
- 2 -
On page 1.20 reference is made to the natural dry prairie or palmetto
prairie. No differentiation is made between secondary, palmetto prairie
development and natural development. It should be noted that many areas
that are identified as natural prairie are in truth palmetto growth U~
established on previously cleared forested lands. In many areas, pasture
lands that are not maintained will almost certainly revert to palmetto
scrub.
On page 1.27 the reclamation regulations for mining are reflected upon.
The statement is made that-the.regulations produce a landscape of managed
systems, primarily improved pasture. Acknowledgement is not given to the
areas developmental progress, other than with respect to phosphate
mining activities. Improved pasture lands are developed because a need w
exists. The same applies to farmland. Either this acreage (the reclaimed
area) or some as yet undisturbed acreage will be converted by the agric-
ultural community, if the need exists. Not reclaiming for agriculture
does not preclude the addition of acreage for that purpose (with no
clearing permit required by the farmer).
On page 1.28 surface water quality characteristics are shown. Levels of-
phosphate and fluoride in the study area streams are attributed to
phosphate mining and processing. Beker has monitored the Manatee and
Myakka Rivers for quality (without-mining or processing activity) and
finds the following, indicating the natural presence of these items:
Beker
EIS Manatee Myakka
Tot. dissolved solids 61-409 mg/1 61-354 78-302
Hardness 34-264 "
Sulfate 6-198 " 2.8-42 .6- 64
Chloride 3-23 " 14-23 15-25
pH 5-8 6.2-7.3 6.0- 7.35
Color 0-280 Pt-Co 50-300 35-350
Phosphate .4-3.9 mg/1 .81-2.5 .06-1.9
Turbidity 0-350 J.T.D.'s 2.8-27 NTU'S 1.1-16NTU'S
On page 1.28 it is stated that in the 1960's discharges of P & N degraded
water quality in the Peace and Tampa Bay Basins. It should also be noted
that other studies have shown that additions of P from stream flow dis-
charges have had no additional effect on Tampa Bay due to natural ex- l*J~
cesses that are already present.
On page 1.41 the projected water demand in Manatee County and/or its
major implied cause is incorrectly.stated. Only two mines could possibly
contribute to the suggested 53 million gallon change during the 1976-1985
period and their total demand is 21 million gallons per day (Swift - 13
mm, Beker - 8mm). Other mines will have their wells in Hillsborough or
DeSoto Counties. It should also be noted that the 21 million gallons re-
ferred to above is not all increased demand since over 9 million gallons
S'/oo
-------
- 3 -
of agricultural water use will be discontinued when Beker initiates
mine water useage.
On page 2.16 it is stated that the estimated water demand per ton of
phosphate rock produced is 1,500 gallons. Similarly, Table 2.3 on page
2.12 indicates water requirements of up to 310.84 m.g.d. for mining/
beneficiation. Data obtained from SWFWMD and others shows that the I I — I £" I
overall phosphate industry water use in 1969 was 351 m.g.d., 1970 -
271 m.g.d., 1971 - 250 m.g.d., 1973 - 167 m.g.d., and 1974 - 244 m.g.d.
These numbers include other than mining water use as well as for mining.
Utilizing the same data sources, mining operations themselves are
estimated to require approximately 215 m.g.d. in 1977- It is projected
that phosphate mine water useage will peak around 1983 - 1984 at about
245 M.G.D. Thereafter, water withdrawals will fall to about 220 m.g.d.
In 1985 and 155 m.g.d. in 1990. The recently published Four Rivers
Basin Study offers confirmation with it's industrial water demands by
counties for 1975 showing Polk with 264, Hillsborough - 15, Hardee - 1,
DeSoto - .3, and Manatee - 3.1. Folk's use declines 60 m.g.d. by 1985
and 233 m.g.d. by the year 2035. Manatee's use increases to 32 m.g.d.
in 1985 and then declines to 6.3 in 2035. Hillsborough, Hardee and
DeSoto Counties show similar changes.
SWFWMD records for recent permit actions indicate a decrease in the
phosphate mining industries water withdrawal demands. Beker's use is
equal to 973 gallons per ton -of phosphate rock produced. This compares
with an average of 2400 gallons per ton for mines permitted prior to
1975 and 1390 gallons per ton since 1975. Each operation must be assessed
separately (as is now the case) to determine water needs, but a downward
trend seems apparent.
On page 2.18 there ensues a discussion relative to the elimination of
slime ponds. There is no question that this is the direction and the
result that the industry would like to achieve, but as yet there is k/~/5 2.
no evidence that this is achieveable at all mine sites. The result is
in part dependent on the nature of the partic • Lar deposit and the
minerology of-that site as well as on improving technology and achievement.
Again, it would appear that a case by case consideration, must'be..given
rather than a blanket dictum that slime ponds must be eliminated. It
should also be noted that while the report takes note of Mr. Timber lake's
remark, that "The lands reclaimed have potentially higher resale value
." It should also be noted that the cost per acre for reclamation
of this type could range from $7,000 to §10,000 an acre while the value
of agricultural acreage is less than $800 per acre.
On page 2.21 a dry conveyor at an existing mine for the transport of
matrix from mine to beneficiation plant is discussed and in other parts
of the report is recommended for inclusion at other mines. The inform- • i <--7
ation presented on page 2.23, representing the initial cost and the "^
operational cost, was based on projections and not on lengthy operational
experience, and as such is inconclusive. It is premature for EPA or
others to positively recommend to industry a new technology that has
not been sufficiently tested or time proven. The mining company that
placed the conveyor in service should be commended for its efforts to
improve upon existing practice, but until operational experience has
3-101
-------
proven the practicality of the theory, there is no reason for others to
duplicate the system. The EPA by seizing upon the still unproven efforts
of some, as best available technology, at best, will discourage others
from trying new techniques for fear that their efforts will be mis-
interpreted and adopted by the agency as proven technology.
It will be necessary to develop specifics with the company that is dev-
eloping the use of the conveyor, but it is thought that phosphate rock
recovery losses have been encountered as well as operational difficulties
on the belt and with the total system 'design concept. This does not say
that the problems won't be worked out, but it does call for confirmation
of the result before making a blanket recommendation.
The comment on page 2.27 that says that the conveyor belt will result in
a decrease in water use is inaccurate and does not apply, based on in-
formation available at this time.
On page 2.27 reference is made to containment of 10 year and 25 year 24
hour storms. It is not clear if this "containment" envisions, above ground
storage, which in other parts of the report would be considered dis- ,
advantageous, or below ground storage, which in areas of sandy soils lv
and high water tables is impractical. Again, it would appear that a case
by case review must be undertaken in place of implementing broad rules-
or regulations that will require exceptions in many instances.
On page 2.31 a discussion on mining in wetlands begins. The statement
is made that the first part of the scenario would prohibit_ mining or dev-
elopment- --- -—wetlands as defined by the regulations-— - by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers of Section 404 ----- . The regulations do not prohibit,
but do require permitting prior to preceding. Permit applications can
either be approved or denied, but there is no automatic prohibition, as
it is a case by case decision, following the proper procedures for both
satisfying environmental concerns and protecting' the property owners
rights . v£
On page 2.33 the restoration on previously mined wet lands of an equiv-
alent habitat for certain species should relate to the presence, .number
and the value of those species versus mans alternative use of the land
for other purposes. Similarly, it would seem to serve no purpose to re-
claim a flat pond and then see it or an adjacent pond drained for the
needed agricultural activity. Again, the philosophy that all wetlands
are important or conversely none are important must be replaced with
a closer look rather than with a blanket policy such as has been advanced.
On pages 4.2 and 4.3 a statement is made that specifications required by
PL 95-87 .(Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act of 1977) should be
adopted as measures to apply to phosphate mining in west central Florida. /J. ?
-------
- 5 -
1. Returning the land to the approximate original ccfntour is the age old
and often disproven adage that what was here first was best. Reshaping
the land can be useful and beneficial. Annual review of reclamation plans
by State and County officials, as presently called for by law, will pro-
vide ample control over this reclamation activity.
2. Returning the land to its prior use is meaningless unless that prior
use was the highest and best use of that land. This is the true meaning
of conservation.
3. Stockpiling topsoil in west central Florida is, in many areas, tant-
amount to stockpiling sand for replacement on top of more sand. It is
evident that "reconstructed soil" can often be preferable and more valuable
than the so called topsoil.
4. Commencing reclamation within one year of initial disturbance is
applicable to coal, but not to phosphate rock since the disturbed areas
often become water holding ponds or part of the water recirculation system.
5. The same comments given in response to 1. & 2. above apply relative
to replanting vegetation that existed prior to mining.
6. Reestablishment of surface and groundwater hydrology systems that ex-
isted prior.to mining ignores the beneficial enhancement of aquifer recharge
that can occur with mining. It also ignores the continued use of recharge
wells after .mining as well as the addition of lakes on the land surface.
7. Designating areas as critical wildlife habitat and prohibiting mining
in those areas is again equivalent to condemnation of the land with a dis-
regard for the property owner's rights. Presently, none of the lands in •
the study area carry the label, of critical wildlife habitat and so to
wait to apply such a label, at the time when a proposed raining venture is
being reviewed is ill-conceived.
The foregoing has touched upon some of the points that were considered in
the preparation of the following comments relative to recommended changes
to the Proposed Action, Section 1. E.
The elimination of rock drying at beneficiation plants assumes that the
rock production at the new mine is solely for captive use, since the miner,
can not dictate to the ultimate user the plant modification that is needed
when using undried phosphate rock. In short, it places the new miner at a
competitive disadvantage for if he is to compete with dry rock he must *J- "384-
first go to one of his competitors for that service, a distinctly inequ-
itable situation. Further, a restriction of this type in effect says that
we should continue with and encourage the use of the older drying plants
while foregoing the technological developments that make newer plants more
efficient and cleaner. It appears to be self-defeating in purpose. Alternate
wording is suggested-as follows:
Rock drying at beneficiation plants must employ emission control devices
capable of complying with the prevalent regulations that are designed
to protect air quality. The elimination of drying is encouraged and
should be pursued whenever practical.
Florida's effluent limitations for discharges have not as yet stood the test
of practical compliance. Beker has previously submitted to Florida DER and
-------
- 6 -
also to EPA statistical findings that show that the new regulations
were based on an improper analysis of the permormance of existing mines.
Alternate wording would be:
Florida effluent limitations for discharges vs. actual discharges
from existing operations will be monitored and the limitations will
be established for all mew sources, providing the data demonstrates i^_ 28(o
that the limits can be met using the best available technology.
Eliminating conventional above ground slime-disposal areas is dependent
upon the nature of the deposit and .the amount and types of clays in
the matrix. Suggested wording would be:
Reduce the area and number of above ground- slime-disposal areas to
the Tn-in-tmiim that is compatible with the nature of the deposit.
The recovery.of water from the clay slimes has always been an objective
of the phosphate mining industry. However, a limit for effective reuse te
can be reached. Under those circumstances some recovered water must 4*/~-So
be released. An example, the proposed Beker mine, will employ well water
only for the flotation section requirement where it is necessary. A
portion of the recovered water must then be discharged or used in ir-
rigation or land disposal. Suggested alternative wording is:
Water recovered from slimes shall be stored and reused to the max-
imum extent possible.
Use connector wells should be modified to read:
Use connector wells where feasible and with the approval of the ii_ 288
water management district and the DER.
The protection and restoration of habitat for important species of
vildlife is too broad a requirement in that important species lacks
definition and accordingly could be conceived by anti-mining factions .1 _ •? g
-------
IIORIDA ClIAITI-K
oi;
TIIH WIUUIFIi SOCII'TY
June 20, 1978
.John E. Hagan, III
fhlof, HS Branch
f rwlrnnmental Protection Agency
'V'j(on IV
W Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Dr. Hagan:
The Florida Chapter of The Wildlife Society Is a group of professional
wildlife biologists concerned about the welfare of fish and wildlife and
their habitats 1n Florida. .We have always been interested in wild!and
areas and we are particularly concerned about landscape alterations and
reclamation associated with phosphate mining in this state. ' We have
reviewed the report entitled "Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement:
Central Florida Phosphate Industry" and hereby submit our comments.
Our major criticism of the report is that 1t lacks a thorough discussion
of the Impacts of phosphate mining on fish and wildlife habitats. Through-
out the report, there are references to the relative value of various
habitat types without substantial reference to the source of the evaluation
or methods used in determining the relative values reported. With the
exception of the criteria that high habitat diversity supports a diversity
of wildlife, It is very misleading and inappropriate to indicate that a faj
particular habitat type has high or low wildlife habitat value. Habitat
Is desirable or undesirable solely from a standpoint of the ecosystem's
ability to satisfy life requirements of particular species. For example,
a wetland which supports an abundance of waterfowl, shore and wading birds,
frogs, snakes and a highly productive fish population, would likely provide
very poor habitat conditions for scrub jays and red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Assignment of relative values for wildlife habitats must, therefore, be
more specific in the species or groups of species for which comparisons
are being made.
Another related point is that above ground slime ponds do have value
as wildlife habitats and they add to landscape diversity, but discussion •j
of these benefits are minimal in the draft EIS. As professional wildlife ^
biologists,we support the concept that above ground slime ponds are
-------
John C. Hagan, III
Juno 20, 1978
Pago 2
beneficial to wildlife (particularly wetland species) and we discourage
the total_ elimination of these areas. In addition, we would like to see
changeTTn the current state regulations (we have expressed this in
writing to the Department of Natural Resources) which allow shallower
slopes along pond or lake edges resulting in wider littoral zones. Our
qroup has offered (with no success) our assistance to the D.N.R. in
development of standards for the reclamation of wildlife habitat values
on mined lands .
Reference is made to your species "lists" throughout the report,
.iml although we recognize the importance of identifying a number of those
-.pnHrs to be affected, we feel that your selection criteria for "special-
LonLorn" and "species of ecological importance" are too arbitrary. For
example, on page 2.34 a list of species which would potentially be affected
by phosphate mining in wetland areas is presented. Although we can only
speculate on the criteria for including many of the species listed, it lrJ~IS~c(
Is difficult to determine why species such as the Florida duck, wood'
stork, white ibis, roseate spoonbill, osprey, bald eagle, and all common
migratory waterfowl are excluded from the list, while the wood duck,
black-crowned night heron, Virginia rail, sharp-shinned hawk, and the
wild (feral) hog are included.
We believe that the report fails to provide a comprehensive, objective,
full disclosure assessment of the impact of phosphate industry activities
on fish and wildlife habitats. Also, we would like to see more consider-
ation given to fish and wildlife in your criteria for wetlands restoration.
We agree with your statement (pages 2.34 and 3.3 of the report) that good
wetlands restoration has yet to be determined, but knowing this, we then U~l(e>O
find it difficult to understand statements about irreversible habitat
alteration (pg. 1.26), regulation of restoration (pg. 1 .72) , wetlands
restoration (pg. 2.5, 2.43) and required wetlands restoration (pg. 2.31).
We strongly support the need for further research into restoration of
fish and wildlife habitats on phosphate mined lands.
If we may be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Holler, President
Florida Chapter of The Wildlife Society
NH/sls
-------
THE /ZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
INCORPORATED
DEFENDERS OF SOIL, WOODS, WATER, AIR AND WILDLIFE
MANATEE CHAPTER
1619 Palraa Sola Boulevard
Bradenton, Florida 33505
June 21, 1978
Mr* John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
3^5 Courtland St., N. E.
Atlanta, QA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We wish to make the following comments on the Draft Areawide Environ-
mental Impact Statement, Central Florida Phosphate Industry, and request
that they be made a part of the May 22 hearing record:
1. 'We commend the federal government, in particular the EPA, for under-
taking this study, since site-specific mining EISs can not deal with
cumulative, over-all impacts. .We observe with regret, however, that (jJ-
the manner in which the report is organized makes it rather difficult
to understand. Inclusion of a summary with material organized by subject
would be helpful.
2. We concur with many of the criticisms and comments made at the hearing
in Bradenton, in particular the following:
Kt
a* Mr. Ernie Estevez on inadequacy of regulatory agency monitoring and
control;
b. Mrs. Gloria Rains on radiation hazards, wetlands protection, pollution
of air and water, and water resource depletion;
c. Mr* Archie Carr on phosphate industry use of energy and depletion of
a national resource;
o* Dr. Jeffrey Lincer on air inversions in the Tampa Bay area.
3» We regret that the study did not reflect original research and that
where data were inadequate, an element was frequently excluded from con-
sideration. Examples are:
a. Page 1.32 - "Hydrogeologio conditions favor entrance of contaminants
to at least the water-table and upper Floridan aquifers. However, con-
tamination is generally poorly documented due at least in part to
monitoring deficiencies.
. . •
— » w 5
b. Page 1.50 - "Long-term effects of low radiation doses are not fully
known."
3-10 7
-------
Page 2 -
c. Page 2.2? - "Because of the lack of data on the extent, if any, of
surface and subsurface seepage and the feasibility and adequacy of imper-
vious linings to control this potential source of pollution, effects
assessment did not include an objective and quantitative evaluation of
this process modification."
d. Page 2.40 - "No data exist, however, to support quantification of the
potential for collapse of a slime impoundment or gypsum stack."
e. Page 2.63 - "no secondary impacts could be determined. . .because of
the lack of any quantitative model with which to assess the effects of
leeching."
f. Page 2.6*f - "Quantifying impacts on the general population by exposure
associated with the pathways just listed was considered beyond the scope
of this program."
kt The Draft EIS presents ample evidence of overwhelming, widespread and
serious adverse impacts of phosphate mining and processing, of which some
are: alteration of land surface; removal of soils and vegetation; reduction
of wildlife habitat and populations; potential effects on air and water
quality; reduction of livestock forage during raining; reduced productivity
of mined area even after reclamation; reduced recreational resources;
potential destruction of archeologic values; redistribution of radionuclids
resulting in an increase in human -exposure (page 1.50 states "Long-term
effects of low radiation exposure is considered harmful, with adverse effects
to be proportional to dose." In other words, there is no known "safe" thresh
old of radiation exposure for humans); reduction in quantity of available
ground water; irrevocable commitment of resources including phosphorus and
fossil fuel.
We call attention to major adverse effects which are given little importance
in the conclusions of the report:
U/
a. Page 5.2, first paragraph, reads ". . . continued extraction of phosphate
from westcentral Florida will shorten the time when future resources will
need to come from other locations in Florida, the U. S., or the world. . ."
On page 1.2, we read ". .Central Florida . .accounted for approximately 80
per cent of U. S. production and 33 percent of world production in 1976. . .
the U. S. could be a net exporter of phosphate rock through the year 2000,
but that the demand would likely exceed the domestic supply before the year
2010, requiring that phosphate rock be imported to satisfy all requirements."
This is probably the most important observation in the report, yet it appears
to have been given exactly zero weight in the proposed action. Pursuing a
policy which risks placing our nation in the position of hostage to foreign
countries for needed fertilizer within the next few decades is sheer folly.
U/-/63"
b. Page 6.1, second paragraph cites as an irretrievable resource the fossil
fuel necessary to generate electricity needs of the industry. Does this
include fossil fuel necessary to transport phosphate? If not, we request an
estimate of the cost in fossil fuel to ship Florida phosphate to foreign
destinations from now to 2000, and the cost thereafter of shipping foreign
phosphate to the U. S. for processing (and further shipment abroad?) Is
this ecenario in the national interest?
3-toe
-------
Page 3 -
5. We find that some aspects presented as "advantages" require further
analysis. Illustrations are cited:
a. Page 5.1, paragraph one states that undesirable impacts will be "offset
in the long term as public knowledge of phosphate operations and regulatory
agency activities increases (sic) and broadens (sic) and as the requirements
of the proposed action are matched by the performance of the phosphate
industry." Is there evidence to substantiate this rather sweeping statement?
We find it wholly unacceptable to "trade" , for example, potential damage
to the health of people in Manatee County or other areas for presumed benefits
to the Port of Tampa with spin-off benefits to Disney World.
A/-/67
b. Page 5.1, first paragraph, states "The tradeoffs are low-priced fertilizer
for enhanced agricultural production. . ." In fact, phosphate frequently
feeds the v/rong people. A recent U. N. Food and Agricultural Organization
report indicates that the "rich are getting fatter and the poor hungrier."
In the 32 poorest countries, calorie consumption is on the decline, with the
percentage of malnourished on the rise in the developing countries of Africa
and Asia. Furthermore, phosphate frequently feeds us the wrong foods. In
rich industrialized nations, excessive food intake or improper diets contribute
to steadily rising prevalence of such diseases as obesity and artery failure,
according to medical authorities.
It appears, also, that there is a law of diminishing returns operating with
regard to world grain production and fertilizer use. In 19^9-52, each million
tons of fertilizer resulted in about 15 million tons of additional grain
supplies. In the past few years, the ratio has dropped to less than six to
one ("The Global Economic Prospect: New Sources of Economic Stress", Lester
Brown).
If low-priced fertilizer is to be considered in the balance as an advantage
for the phosphate industry, more serious research is needed, with facts more
objectively examined.
V-
c. Page 5.1, first paragraph cites "reduction in U. S. trade deficits" as
an advantage. The unfavorable U. S. trade balance is due entirely to our
extravagant use of imported oil. "Trading" the health of Florida residents
for wasteful use of energy is wholly unacceptable.
d. While employment appears to be rated an "advantage" of the industry, UJ~
we find the following on page 2.60: "Since the service businesses catering
to the needs of the retirement and tourist sectors are in direct conflict
with the phosphate industry, however, there is good reason to believe that
they could absorb surplus workers from the phosphate industry." Thus, there
is no need to tolerate the disadvantages in exchange for "jobs".
6. In view of the above comments, we believe there is ample justification
for requesting the following actions: vJ"
a. No authorization of new mines until major problems such as radiation in
reclaimed areas are better understood, leading to their resolution.
- /of
-------
Page k -
b. Use of all available governmental authority to phase out export of
U. S. phosphate within a reasonable period of time, for example, five to
ten years.
c. Application to existing sources of the improved techniques proposed
for new sources, on a reasonable phase-in schedule. For example, companies
which might conduct scavenger operations to recover high-grade phosphate
rock from old tailings (page 2.7) would be expected to operate without
creating slime ponds. We acknowledge the limitations cited on page 1.7^
but call attention to the fact that administrative and legislative remedies
are available when needed for public health and safety.
d. Since companies do not plan to open new processing plants, suggestions
of new processes such as lining of gypsum ponds are largely academic unless
applied to existing sources. Existing plants should therefore be required
to line areas to be used for gypsum waste stacks, while awaiting phase-out
and while developing means of disposing of those stacks and ponds already
accumulated.
Continued processing in the U. S. of imported phosphate after U. S. supplies
run out imposes a wholly unacceptable health risk to people in the vicinity
of processing plants. Disposal of processing plant waste is recognized as
one of the most difficult problems. facing the industry (page 5.1). Perhaps
a ceiling could be set on the percentage of Florida surface which may be
covered with gypsum stacks and ponds.
Sincerely,
Hilda Quy, Vice President
Manatee Chapter, I\
-------
CITIZENS
P.O.BOX 1574
RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33569
June 19, 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Court land St.. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Re: Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Dear Mr. White, Draft EIS
Our previous public statement was incomplete, having just received
the working papers on the Monday mrrriing of the EPA Bradenton hearing. We
ask that you consider the following in the final EIS.
It is not, in our opinion, reasonable to assume that the flood plain
areas and wetlands will be mined in the future. Wetlands reclamation .
technology is not adequately developed on signif icant^'to pr-eceed with l\f —' I I I
this assumption. We request requirements for reclamation be included
with specific amounts of acreage to be determined successful by 2PA standards.
The term "acceptable recla.nation" or "successful" reclamation needs to be
clearly defined. The following example will demonstrate the need for this
requirement: On January 3, 1976, U.R. Grace requested a variance from the
Hillsborough County Mining Ordinance to mine the wetlands and headwaters of
the Little Manatee River. This variance is contingent on the successful
reclamation of two acres of wetland to be destroyed (not mined) and restored.
W.R. Grace is proceeding with submitted plans to the Hillsborough County
Engineering Department and hopes to prove'successful1 reclamation in the near
future. There is no agency or party designated to determine the success of
this project - to what degree or what time frame is not discussed. This
request is in direct violation of EPC rules and regulations and also the
Conservation Element of Horizon 2000, Hillsborough County Land Use Plan. The
need for Federal guidelines should be evident.
We do not agree that restricting mining of the wetlands forces more
extensive upland mining. Rather, we feel maximum restrictions should be
required for the protection of the fish and wildlife and the preservation of
a resource necessary for life itself - water. The adverse effects on the
quality of this vital resource are well documented in regard to mining.
We request specific on-going mechanisms to provide immediate action
when adverse impacts of mining have been demonstrated. For example: a. Decline
in the Floridian awuafier of three or more feet will prompt a moratorium .
in the area until sufficient recovery has been substantiated, b. Similiar fa/~ I • *i
-------
CITIZENS AGAS;\!ST RIVER PQLLUTEQFJ
P.O. BOX 1574
RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33569
Page 2
measures indicated by a significant decrease in cfs flow based on data
recorded prior to mining in adjacent areas.
We request that the Dept. of Interior, National Wetlands Inventory
Office in St. Petersburg be consulted regarding the destruction of the . . _ . —. -?
three wetlands categories and the effect that action will have on the
surrounding areas plus the effect on the quality of water and increased
possibilities of .flooding in downstream areas.
We are also sending under separate cover the Hillsborough County well
field map which clearly shows the extent of land affected by wetlands mining
and tributaries on the Alafia and Little Manatee rivers. To assume that these
two rivers will not be severely affected is not a feasible assumption.
It was noted at the Bradenton hearing that the Archibald Research Station
studies listed numerous endangered species in the study area and that this
document will be included in the final EIS. It has banobserved by a Fish and
Wildlife officer and is in the process of verification by U.S. Fish and U/~l~74
Wildlife that a Florida panther exists in the Keysville area and uses these
wetlands as travel roads. Two nesting bald eagles and a rookery of Sand
Hill Cranes are also being verified.
Comments regarding Uranium Recovery and radiation are being sent from
the Hillsborough County Environmental Coalition. We urge more specific
and thorough recommendations in the final regarding this process. The
statement that there is not sufficient data regarding gypsum pond damage
is questionable. Please refer to the recent study by USF geologist, Dr.
Upchurch regarding Gardinier. We would also request a specific time table
for radiation monitoring of the Floridian aquafier.
We request consideration be given to the systematic study of the phosphate
resources by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, L.A. Mehrhoff. It is of ^
grave concern to members of our organization that such a valuable program l*s — ( ' J
has in no way been incorporated in the Draft EIS.
In conclusion, we support the recommendations of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council that the Bone Valley area be designated as an "Area of
Critical State Concern". We intend to kpursue this recommendation through
all levels of government. It is our opinion that existing laws lack strong
guidelines and adequate enforcement. We are also of the opinion that the
new source guidelines should be applied to existing mines. IMC has stated
in their annual report to the Hillsborough County Commissioners that they
intend to mine an additional 918\purchased recently without filing a DRI
to cover this area. Thank you for consideration of these comments in the
final EIS.
^incerely, sj\ . i .
AL^^L-h-h.^'
Robert Cribbs, President
J-//2
-------
SINCE NINETEEN HUNDRED f ,, A 3 "THE VOICE OF CONSERVATION"
May 19, 1978
John C. White
K'~rional Administrator, Region IV
Lnvironmental Protection Agency i ) j
3'*b Courtland Street, NE \jj ~" '
Atlanta, GA 30308 ^
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf of the Florida Audubon
Society on the Draft Area Wide Environmental Impact Statement, Central
Florida Phosphate .Industry.
First, I find the Area-wide approach that EPA has taken with the EIS process
in Central Florida to be an interesting one and one I think will efficiently
lead to equitable environmental protection. I hope history will bear out my
optimism.
I .v-ould also like to compliment you and your staff for the admirable job of
condensing the volumes of information developed by Texas Instruments and
subsequent proceedings into a very readable volume.
I have several comments regarding the content of the EIS that are presented
in no particular hierarchy of importance:
1) Fluorides: a) It is stated under Environmental Impact of Proposed Action
(Section 3, p.3.1) that "no new chemical plants are projected under the pro-
posed action, and consequently, fluorine emissions will not increase."
itus^I understand is possible largely because existing processing plants will
continue to be used for the rendering of phosphate rock from new sources.
It hju^become abundantly clear to us that old plants retrofitted with fluoride
pollution control equipment are far less efficient at controlling fluoride
e."i;->ions than new plants in which pollution control equipment is designed
into the plant from the beginning.
ll'1' ,: ;s.w°uld be improved by inclusion of the fluoride pollution control
^.i; ,'.,•: 11 ties of the plants which are intended to process phosphate from new
FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY
921 Lake Sybelia Drive • P. 0. Drawer 7 • Maitland, Florida 32751
(305) 547-2615
-------
John C. White
May 19, 1978
Pace 2
b) I appreciate that EPA is recommending biological monitoring of fluorides
(Section 4, p.4.1 - Ambient vegetative-fluoride sampling program).
I believe it should be expanded, and I submit for your consideration a
research plan (enclosed) authorized by EPA to monitor fluorides potentially
emitted by the Occidental Chemical Company operation in the vicinity of the
Suwannee River, north Florida.
The results of the north Florida research and the techniques developed there
might be very useful to a more complete monitoring program in central Florida.
I will not attempt to outline a specific monitoring program for central
Florida, but I do ask that you study the north Florida research plan with an
eye for its relevance to the central Florida area.
2) Wetlands: I approve heartily of the intent and justification to protect
wetlands expressed in the EIS. I notice that many (36 of 39) archeological
sites are located within them, adding to the basic ecological and hydrological
good sense of protecting them.
However, I am very disturbed by the concept of cutting the hydrologic throats
of the wetlands expressed under "Effects of Controlling Activities in Waters
of U.S. and Wetlands," (p.2.90).
If leaving wetlands on desiccating "pedestals"spells their doom, then avoid-
ing them to begin with becomes nonsensical: The Environmental objective is
lost and the sacrifice by the phosphate industry is wasted.
I agree with the conclusion that "mining effects on remaining or 'undisturbed'
wetlands should be addressed in greater detail..." p.2.91).
I recommend that the principle receive thorough attention in the final EIS
and that it be stressed that the danger of wetland garroting should be care-
fully addressed in site specific EIS proceedings.
3) Energy and Phosphate Conservation: It is apparent that the huge energy
requirement for phosphate mining and processing (p.2.7.) is met only because
the industry receives a subsidy (lower rates) from TECO and Florida Power.
Just as it is said that the industry competes with the public for aquifer
water, so it can be argued that the industry competes with the public for
energy.
From data presented on phosphate supplies and demands (p.2.8-2.11) it is
apparent that more energy will be required to extract a given unit of rock in
the very near future. Sub-economic resources are expected to become economically
recoverable when the market value of phosphate increases.
-------
John C. White
May 19, 1978
Page 3
The fallacy and danger of this argument is that not only more money but more
energy will be required to produce what are currently sub-economic resources.
Energy, unlike the market, will not inflate. It will only deplete. Thus
there will be two interdependent and non-renewable resources following
extinction curves, and the cost of phosphate, energy and food will be log-
rithmically increasing.
I cannot help but envision a crisis emerging from these divergent curves.
I believe the history of fossil fuels is. a sufficient model to lead to this
conclusion, but I have every confidence that a complete evaluation of current
phosphate resource management practices would prove the point.
In view of the above, I look with great concern on the industry's enthusiastic
search for new and larger phosphate markets abroad. It is argued that the
national balance of trade is served by phosphate export. What fossil import
is required to subsidize that export? I would be more content if in the
final EIS the U. S. Department of Energy commented on this point and on the
cbmpliance of phosphate mining expansion with national energy policies.
I am inclined to believe that American agriculture and the American consumer
are being "set up" for a food-cost crunch in the near future, perhaps before
2000. This crunch'could be at least postponed by domestic resource conserva-
tion commensurate with incentives to Morocco to bring her massive resources
on line rapidly.
In summary, I believe EPA will succeed in providing for a clean industry in
west central Florida if the Area-Wide EIS is adhered to. But I am worried
that EPA is becoming innocently involved in gross resource mismanagement. If
I am correct, then the cleanliness will be a trivial accomplishment.
Archie Carr, III
Special Assistant to the
President for Science
sh
enclosures
-------
SINCE NINETEEN-HUNDKED .'' V'THE VOICE OF CONSERVATION"
May 24, 1978
\/J- l"7"7
John C. White
Regional Administrator, Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency
3^5 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. White:
Please consider this an addendum to my May 19, 1978 critique of the Draft
Area Wide Environmental Impact Statement, Central Florida Phosphate Industry.
A close scrutiny of the EIS's treatment of endangered species, finds it to be
frighteningly casual and superficial. 'There is a blase mood surrounding
the fate of these organisms in the statement. On pages 1.22 - 1.27, threatened
and endangered plants and animals in the seven-county area are identified,
and the general conclusion is drawn that phosphate mining will heavily impact
upon them. Later in the document under Section 6, Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources, it is stated that 45,000 acres of endangered species
habitat will be lost.
That is the sum total of the discussion. From the standpoint of biological
management and probably from the standpoint of law, it is an inadequate
discussion.
EPA has the responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act and
possibly under the Endangered Species Act to seek to protect endangered species
and their critical habitats. In the Draft Area Wide Impact Statement, there
is no mention of how EPA intends to achieve this protection.
Measures to provide for both mining and endangered species protection have
been presented during the past year by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These
include phased mining schemes whereby habitat from one mine is restored prior
to opening of the next mine in a sequence; establishment of refugia and
corridors to preserve pathways for gamete exchange and other behavioral needs.
Neither of these ideas nor any other mitigating procedure is advanced in the
Draft EIS.
il\o Sybolin Drive • P 0. Di.rArr 7 • M;iill.md, Florida 3f751'
(SOW 6'1/-:T.L5
-------
John C. White
May 24, 1978
Page 2
The omission is intolerable to the Florida Audubon Society.
I have a specific concern for the proposed mining impacts on the Florida
Panther. Members of the Florida Panther Recovery Team and the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission are of the opinion that the Myakka
State Park is an important habitat for the panther, possibly second in
importance only to the Fakahatchee Strand in the Everglades. I note that
mining is proposed within the Myakka River drainage basin and in very close
proximity to the Park. The obvious question arises: will the mining damage
the recovery potential for the Florida Panther?
No answer is given in the Draft EIS.
In summary, the Final Impact Statement must address the management of endan-
gered species in the seven-county area far more thoroughly if it is to do
justice to law and common sense.
Sincerely,
Archie Carr, III
Special Assistant to the President for Science
dp
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
Department of ^ministration
Division of State Planning *«ubln °'D A8kew
f GOVERNOR
Room 530 Carlton Building
R, G. Whittle, Jr.
STATE PUNNING DIRECTOR 32304 """"' " W""""™T"'H
TALLAHASSEE Wallace W. Henderson
32304
(904)488-1115
June 22, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch ••••••
U. S. Environmental Protection , ,, R
Agency, Region IV J"N - °
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Functioning as the state planning and development clearinghouse
contemplated in the U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95,
we have reviewed the following Draft Areawide Environmental Impact State-
ment: Central Florida Phosphate Industry, SAI 78-1763E.
During our review we referred the environmental impact statement to
the following agencies, which we identified as interested: Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Community Affairs, Depart-
ment of Commerce, Department of Legal Affairs, Department of Environmental
Regulation, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Department of Administration's Bureau of
Land and Water Management, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,
Southwest Florida Water Management District, and South Florida Water Manage-
ment District. Agencies were requested to review the statement and comment
on possible effects that actions contemplated could have on matters of their
concern. Letters of comment on the statement are enclosed from: Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Commerce, Department of
Community Affairs, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Depart-
ment of Legal Affairs, Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Administration's Bureau of Land and Water Management, South Florida Water
Management District, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and
Sarasota County.
Our review of the agency comments finds that the Environmental Protection
Agency must be commended for its efforts in addressing the complex issues
surrounding phosphate mining in central Florida. However, we must also note
that many of the agency reviews have cited deficiencies in this draft impact
statement.
-------
Letter to John E. Hagan, III
Page 2
June 22, 1978
Generally, Environmental Impact Statements address site specific
issues. This draft document is unlike the typical statement as it addresses
concerns of a broad regional nature. The final statement on this program
will be used as a basic source document for future detailed site or project
impact statements. Therefore, this document is of major importance to us
and will assume greater importance in the future. As this statement will
achieve major significance and as we have found deficiencies in this draft
document, we suggest that it be revised to reflect our concerns. We further
suggest that the revised statement propose a mechanism which would establish
a continuous updating process in order to provide a current basis for the
site specific impact statements that will follow.
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines
concerning statement on proposed federal actions affecting the environment,
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and U. S.
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, this letter, with attachments,
should be appended to the final environmental impact statement on this
project. Comments regarding this statement and project contained herein
or attached hereto should be addressed in the statement.
We rsquest that you forward us copies of the final environmental
Impact statement prepared on this project.
RGWjr:Kb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Bethea
Mr. Charles Blair
Mr. Martin Freidman
Mr. Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Mr. W. N. Lofroos
Mr. Loring Lovell
Mr. William Partington
Mr. William J. Page, Jr.
Mr. William Ravenell
. G. Whittle, Jr.
Director
Mr. Harmon Shields
Mr, Phil Ashler
Mr. H. E. Wallace
Mr. L. Ross Morrell
Mr. Helge Swanson
Mr. Walter 0. Kolb
Mr. John Maloy
Mr. Donald Feaster
Mr. Roland Eastwood
-------
STATE or FLORIDA
,
-------
May 9, 1978
State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources
'Comments on
SAI: 78 - 1763
Staff concludes that this statement is a very well written document. Adequate
alternatives to the proposed action were sufficient for summary type evaluation.
A subject not adequately discussed in. the draft was the present extent and
quality of restoration/reclaimation projects. If mining is indeed, to con- kJ~~' '&
tinue in west-central Florida, restoration/reclaimation should be continuing
at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of mining.
The subsequent-use of the—land-after__it has been restored/reclaimed is of
great interest to the Division of Recreation and Parks. Another subject
which was discussed sufficiently in the draft statement was the level of
radionuclides and floro-compoundj which may be assimilated by plants and (»/—/'
-animals .as part of the restoration project. The aesthetic quality and types
of uses .in which the reclaimed land might be involved are not quite clear.
Some ..discussion was g'iven to human, agricultural, and wildlife uses of these
lands, but a thorough evaluation was not included.
Mining as described in 'the "Primary Effects of 'Permit Existing and New
Sources' Alternative" section depletes the extent of Florida's sandhill,
sandpine scrub, and haiomock:habitats.--'Each of these habitat associations W-I&
are.considered by "the Department of Natural Resources to be highly endangered.
The Department advises against destroying or altering these associations
whenever possible.
As understood bv the Division of Recreation and Parks, site specific envir-
onmental assessments or" impact statements for each new source will be dis- VJ~\B\
tributed for review.
Staff appreciate the opportunity to.review this fine draft statement. In
closing, the Division of Recreation and Parks strongly supports the follow-
ing quotation from page 2.83 of the draft statement:
"There is every.reason to believe that increased mining activity
could impact unfavorably on the multimillion dollar tourist/
recreation industry by reducing or altering the scenic attraction
of the area."
-------
j;»" - -T>i,
X. V'l t'l, '^
/.->-- r-X-A
AV^V 'V-A
-.•••: U'ro ;
STATIC orm J'J,OKIIIA
ut nf Afcmhusi'raitJDin
Division of State Planning
• 660 Apolachec Parkway • IBM Building
TALLAHASSEE
32304
(904) 488-2371
//'.-•'!/N> Rcubln O'D. Aokow
COVdNOI
**•*! ''—'•• ' 'ft\.
•:. '' '.'l >>
,. Gov.'j. K.^JIm" Wllllnmt
«.«™.«,
,:. ,'M
TO: __Mr. Phyl Ashler
of Comm
Building
;, Florida 32304
FROM: Bureau of Intergovernmental
SUBJECT: SAI: ^7^/7^ 3
;:tp _a pp.1 y Joj^jfedetpa.1
^^.sjt.ance.JS_belnglrefe.r.r.ed_t.o_yoyr_age.Dcy, for"reyiew'and comments. Your
.reviev/and comments should a.dd_reis_themselyes tp_j;he_extenJ;._tpj:/h_i_ch_'Uie_
Br_QJect_ij_cpn.sistent with or contributes to the fuTfillnienf o^yo'ur agency's
plans or the-achievement of your projects, programs, and objective's.
If further information is required,- you are urged to telephone the
contact person named on the notification form. If a conference seems necessary,
or if you wish to review the entire application, contact this office by tele-
phone as soon'as possible. If you have no adverse comments, you may wish to
report such by telephone. Please check the appropriate box, attach any comments
on your agency's stationery, and return to BIGR cr telephone by the above due
date. If we do not receive a response by the due date, we will assume your
agency has no adverse comments. In both telephone coversation and written
correspondence, please refer to the SAI.
Sincerely***' ^
Lorfng Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Enclosure
**-***********************************************^
TO: Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
FROM: Department of Conferee
SUBJECT: Project..Review and Comments, SAI: 78-1763
LJi'Io Comments
UZ1 Comments-Attached
Reviewing Agenc^:,^
Data May 15, 1978
Titled Chipf, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
'~~T *-*
-------
Division of State Planning1 RECEIVED
_ ' i
CCO Apteclce Parkway • IBM Building '•
TALXAIIASSKE
DEPT OF CW<''^C<^'"^'^^"'1" wm
DIV. OF TECHNICAt'X&Witfr1''"'!4*1
Heubln O"i~>., AtJtpv-'
1Q7R. co»u-.«J
13I°
4BG-2371
•lc. v;ill\a.7i 15. RaveRsl3, Secretary
of Cc—.-.unity Affairs
ee, Florida 32501
Bureau of Intergovernmental Ralatioiis
SU3JECT: SM; /fif 7k
tf.
BUS
" '6
The attached "Ailva.icc 'lotificetion" of intent to c?ply for federal
nssi.Ptance is being referred to your egency for review .an;! cc"i'.erits. Your
review and co.T.T.ents sho-jlc!! address themselves to the- ext.ent to v}uch plhe
project is consistent, with or contributes to the fulfiJh.isr.t of your ayency's
jOnns or-the r.chicvc.-crit of your projects, .programs, ani'Objectives.
If further information is required, you are urcjccJ to tcOcphonc the
contact person named on the notification forir.'. If a cor./!crc.T.cc .€;ee:i'.r; necessary
or.if you \:it.}\ to revicv; UIG entire application, contact tliis office by telepho
AS soon i\s i^oosiblc. If you have no adverse cG'.vr.onts, you r.ay wisli to report
r.uch by telephone. Plcacc check Lhe appropriate ksy., sittnch ar.y co:r.:.'.cr.t^ on
your agency1 o stationery, ar.d return to this office or telephone: by the above
due date. If \;o do not receive a response by the due elate., v:c will acuunc
your agency Iins no adverse co-tncnts. In both telephone conversation and
vrittcn correspondence, please refer to the S/M niraber.
Sincerely
wing Level 1, Chief
Bureau of intergovernmental Delations
1-nclosure
ttt*ttttlttttt*t «.-«.«;
<;<.<. t/Ttittiiit
';o:i:
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Departrvsnt of Con-.-aunity Affairs
fs Project Review ar.d Corr.v.onts, SM:
-------
DEPARTMENT OE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
REUBIN OU ASKEW. GOVERNOR
WILLIAM H. RAVENELL, SECRETARY
DIVISION OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 31, 1978
TO : Loring Lovell, Division of State Planning
FROM:
John Sidor, Jr
t.
SUBJ: Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
Central Florida Phosphate Industry (SAI #78-1763)
This Environmental Impact Statement is. very well written
and covers.some key points.
However, from the angle of local government we would like to
have more information on the -impact the future mining and
population growth will have on the provision of services
such as water, sewer, schools and recreation facilities. I/
The phosphate industry has been helpful in other-areas in
providing certain facilities, sometimes open to the public,
sometimes for employees and families only. Some indication
of future plans would be helpful in evaluating the proposal.
JS/mu
Diioctor.,. Local Government... Housing Assistance ... Planning & Research ... Community Development
•U'G-^G " 488-7??$ 480-1536 488-235G 488-1536
C571 Evecutivo Center Circle, East, Tallahassee,
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
^DEPARTMkNT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
PR\LOR NO •»>"""•••• ^ AND REVIEW SYSTEM
Date: l/77?
MEMORANDUM
REF. NO: DHRS SPDC (SAI) 78-1763E
TITLE Central Florida Phosphate Industry ;
APPLICANT U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
TO: Lt. Governor J. H. Williams
Attn: Loring Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
FROM: William J. Page, Jr.
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
BY: Office of Pu^iam Planning and Development
SUBJ: NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
J _lx- The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of
1 >i the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Favorable action is recommended.
n Substantive comments have been received and are summarized
*in the attached.
Conference with applicant is requested.
The project is not consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Approval is not recommended for reasons described in the
attached.
D
Attachment (s)
3 - f 2
-------
STATE or FI,OHIJ>A
of Aftmhuisiratiott
ro-1'" ^Division of State Planning
660 Apalachco Parkway • IBM Building
TO:
TALLAHASSEE
32304
(904) 488-2371
c
Roubln O'D. Askew
tOYU-Ol
M. Gov. J. H.-Jim' WillUmi
ItCUtUT Or MWINIITIMIM
R E C
DATE
. 5- /-
^^^^ / D . • MAY 2 1978
FROM: Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
SUBJECT: SAI: /O / / V 5 AHQRNEY GENERAL'S
CEEIQE
The attached notification of intent to apply for federal assistance is
being referred to your agency for review and comments. Your review and comments
should address themselves to the extent to which the project is consistent with
or contributes to the fulfillment of your agency's plans or the achievement of
yytf projects, programs and objectives.
If further information is required, you are urged to telephone the contact
person named on the notification.form. If a conference seems necessary, or if
you wish to review the entire application, contact this office by telephone as
noon as possible. If you have no adverse comments, you may wish to report such
by telephone. Please check the appropriate box, attach any comments on your
agency's stationery, and return to 13IGR or telephone by the above date. If we'
do not receive a response by the due date, we will assume your agency has no
adverse comments. In both telephone conversation and written correspondence,
please refer to the SAI number.
Sincerely,
Loring Love11, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Enclosure
701 Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
»'ROM:
SUDOECT: Project Review and Comments, SAI:
[yj No Comments
Signature:
"• i i fji* i i.i /L*\ t i f i si sft.' ft vi i. \.f\_ i .
uV wJl- 1 ^t
{~"'~j Comments Attached
-------
STATE Of FLOHIDA
Srparlmrnr uf £tutr
TUG CAPITOL
TALUHASSEt 32304
May 16, 1978
' L. ROSS MORRELL, ACTING DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ARCHIVES, HISTORY. AND
• RECORDS MANAGEMENT
(904) 488-1480
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Louis D. Tesar
Historic Sites Specialist
(904) 487-2333
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental
Relations
Division of State Planning
Room 530, Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Re: Clearing House Meeting
SAI 78-1763
Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough',
Manatee, Polk and Sarasota Counties, Florida
Dear Mr. Lovell:
On May 11, 1978, this agency's representative, 'Mr. Louis
Tesar, attended a Clearinghouse Meeting to review the Draft
Environment Impact Statement on the Central Florida Phosphate
Industry. At that meeting Mr. Tesar once again stated this
agency's concern that archaeological and historical site
remains, as non-renewable resources, be directly addressed
in any goals and requirements recommended by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency in the forthcoming
final EIS of the Central Florida Phosphate Industry. To this
end, as requested at that meeting, we have prepared this
written response.
We recognize, as was repeatedly stated by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's representative, Mr. James MacNeill,
that this document is being offered only as a working paper
with suggested guidelines, and is not considered as a final
-183
-------
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
May 16, 1978
Page Two
procedural document. However, as was stressed by several
other state agencies, it is our concern that this document,
promulgated under the auspices of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, will take on the aura of an official govern-
ment report and repeatedly be returned to us as a base docu-
ment in the preparation of the by-project environmental impact
statements which it presumably is not intended to supercede.
We recognize and concur with the statement on page 2.59
of the draft under review:
"Most Archeological sites are considered by archeolo-
gists as fragile and, as such, wou*ld be permanently altered
or destroyed if minded. Florida's Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management (1976) has expressed con-
cern that valuable sites within the study area may be lost
or may suffer irreversible damage; this agency maintains
that the effects will occur on a regional level and may
result in the permanent loss of a sizable portion of Florida's
archeological record. Unless measures to collect and pre-
serve the artifacts are taken before mining, the state
office's concerns will be valid."
However, we believe that these concerns should also be
explicity presented in the "Goals and Requirements" section
of the final draft of this EIS.
As currently presented (see page 3.6 of Draft EIS),
it is assumed tha.t most archaeological and historical sites
would be protected through the indirect method of protecting
water quality by recommending against the use of Category I
waters. While it is true that most of the presently known
archaeological and historical sites occur within Category I
areas, it is stressed that they are by no means restricted
to su.ch areas. For instance, on page 2.3 the W. R. Grace
tract is used as an example. We might point out that of
the five sites located in that tract the two considered
significant and recommended for preservation or mitigation
through archaeological salvage excavation are both located
outside of Category I wetlands. One was located overlooking
the head of a small seepspring, while the other was located
on the edge of an upland ridge surrounding the lower prairie
wetlands.
-------
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
May 16, 1978
page Three
It is for this reason we would suggest that, on page
1.72, following the discussion on the three categories of
wetlands, a direct commitment for the need to conduct arch-
aeological and historical site assessment surveys, as well
as to avoid or mitigate significant site remains identified
as a result of such surveys should be presented. The suggested
wording for this commitment might include the concepts embodied
in the following:
It is recommended that the impact to archaeological
and historical site resources be addressed in the
project review procedure. Early in the planning
stage the Florida Division of Archives, History
and Records Management should be contacted to
determine whether or not proj'ect activities might
impact any known or presently unknown archaeo-
logical or historical site remains. If necessary
an archaeological or historical site assessment.
survey should be conducted of the project area Ut ~ /84-
to locate and identify significant site remains.
The resulting report should be submitted to the
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records
Management for review. Efforts should be made
to preserve through avoidance or mitigate through
archaeological salvage excavation by a professionally
competent agency any sites deemed significant. If
mitigation is chosen, the resulting report should
be submitted to the Florida Division of Archives,
Hisotry and Records Management for review and com-
ment. In this manner our nation will be assured
that its culturally valuable archaeological and
historical resources are being properly managed
and the information recorded for future generations.
The opportunity to comment is appreciated. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Your interest and cooperation in protecting Florida's
irreplaceable historic resources are appreciated.
Sincerely,
_ _
L. Ross"v7lbrrell
Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer
LRMrTjw
cc: Walt Kolb
-------
of
Whlllla.Jf.
PIAKNIHO DIRECTOR
Division of State Planning
Room 530 Carlton Building
TALLAHASSEE
32304
(904)488-4925
May 22, 1978
Reubln O'D. Aik*w
GOVERNOR
Wallace W. Horxl*r«on
SECRETARY Of ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Walt
THROUGH: James Ma-y^
FROM Jim McNeal
SUBJECT: SAI &78-1698E, Draft Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement, Central Florida Phosphate .Industry
The Bureau of Land and Water Management has reviewed the
Draft Areawide EIS and submits the following observations.
The mining of phosphate rock in central Florida is a very
energy intensive activity.. Even so, this document does not incor- (/J
porate energy consumption into the evaluation of the various de-
velopment scenarios.
Elimination of the rock drying process would reduce the demand
for electricity by the industry. This reduction should be con- .
trasted to the increased, energy use to transport the wet rock to \/J~lo(*r
chemical plants. Mining operations which ship rock outside Florida
for chemical processing may be excused from this requirement but
will be 'afforded an energy evaluation.
Since this process modification is the only proposal which will
affect air quality, exceptions should be limited to environmental Lj-/8~7
or climatic factors; not to include whether a plant is capable of
receiving wet rock.
Recovery of fluoride from recirculated process water should be
encouraged by recognizing fluoride as a pollutant and not singularly
by the economics of the process. Reported costs of fluoride re-
covery operations exceed prices by 25 to 36 percent but fluoride
emissions remain an important air pollutant. Fluoride escapes from
9VP ponds and should be included in calculating fluoride emissions
from the complex. Such emissions are reduced by the recovery of
fluoride from recirculated process water, including scrubber water.
-------
Kolb
flay 22, 1973
page 2
Thus, such recovery could be viewed to accomplish some functions of
a pollution control device.
At the time of this draft, the groundwater model could only
project water level effects to the Floridan Aquifer from the phos-
phate industry. Presently the model can incorporate the effects
from other industrial, agricultural and municipal uses. Incor- ^J
porating these demands in concsrt with those of the phosphate in-
dustry would present a more realistic evaluation of the cumulative
stresses on the groundwater aquifer, which does not discriminate
water pumpage by use. The final EIS should utilize this advance-
ment of the model in evaluating the proposed action. We would also
like to know if EPA intends to develop guidelines for water with-
drawals for phosphate mines in central Florida.
From discussion in the report, placing top soil dressing over
mined areas appears to be a significant act of reclamation relative
to achieving low final background radiation levels. However, in \^
discussion this idea was not considered significantly effective.
Does the lead agency consider this action worthwhile to pursue in
reclamation efforts?
A major conclusion in the report that technology does not pro-
vide for restoring freshwater wetlands or forest types'to their native
condition on mined land neads to be more specifically addressed. A-
greed the deep sand soils necessary for mixed forests, and the hy- Id-
drology and drainage patterns in wetlands are difficult to re-create.
Howevor, restoration of these lands to support similar communities and
perform the essential functions of these environments is possible,
and certainly should be encouraged.
The steep-sided, relatively deep lakes now predominating in re-
claimed land were stated to be of little long-term value. This Bureau
would like to be appraised of any recommended alternative designs and
limiting, depths to consider, in view of the climate in west-central iJ-1
Florida, to promote improved water quality.
Industry sponsored' research at test sites has developed some im-
proved methods for' slime disposal and subsequent reclamation of these
areas. While we have seen few determined field efforts toward the.
near future elimination of slime ponds, we fully support efforts to
modify the conventional slime disposal method and maintain above-
ground storage to an absolute minimum. These efforts will become f^J~ I
more important in daily operations as the richer deposits in Polk
County are depleted and the industry extends into Hardee, DeSoto,
and Manatee Counties. Here, the matrix is a much lower grade and
when mined will send a higher percentage of the matrix to flotation
nulls and generate increased amounts of slime waste.
-------
MKMO-Walt Kolb
May 22, 1978
Page 3
Our final comment is that a display projecting anticipated
events, maybe in 5 year increments, would assist visualizing the
cumulative impact to the region; i.e., Floridan Aquifer potentio-
metric surface maps, wetlands coverage, etc. We could then follow
the progressive changes by comparing such maps from the past to the
present. Perhaps we could also recognize-undesirable events progress-
ing into the future as well and establish limits for the alteration
of present conditions.
We recognize the monumental and complex issues inherent to the
Central Florida Phosphate District and congratulate the EPA on this
effort in defining the environmental issues.
JM/lw
-------
South Florida
JOHN R, MALOY, Cxocutivo Director
Water Mancasment District
JKEPLYREFER TO: 9-109-A
POST OFFICE BOX V, WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA, 33402
TELEPHONE 305-686-8800
3A
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Division of State Planning
Department of Administration
660 Apalachee Parkway-IBM Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
DIVISION OF'STATE PANNING.
Bureau Of
il Relations
MAY 23 1878
RECEIVED
SW NO.
Rt: SAI: 78-1763
Dear Loring:
Draft Areawide Environmental. Impact Statement
Central Florida Phosphate Industry
We have completed our review of the above referenced draft and offer the
following comments,
- Planned v/ater conservation practices as described in the document, which
essentially consist of recirculation and reuse of water, will very substan-
tially reduce the demands for v/ater as compared to existing and especially
as compared to past practices. Thus, impact on potentiometric heads in
the Floridan aquifer is'expected to be reduced.
- Potentiometric heads referred to above will be the only impact that may
affect the SFWMD. Pumpage from the Floridan aquifer for use in phosphate
mining and benefaction may create declines in potentiometric heads extend-
ing into the SFWMD. These impacts are in addition to head declines
occasioned by citrus industries' use. It is suggested that because these
declines are anticipated to be minimal, no substantive changes are
anticipated.
- In overall content, the EIS was put together very well, detailed and
rather thoroughly documented.
M f «t liudeidftl*.
J n Si«,,tl
U H.ll,
Dr. John M. DoGrove
Vic* Chairman • Boca Raton
R. Hardy Mathoton
Miami
C. A. Thomaj
Lake Harbor
Robert W. Padrick
Fort Piorce
Ben Shopard Stanley Holo
Hinloali ?-/_?_? Naplot
Fornuvly Central ;mcl Southern FlotUl.i riooc! Control Distrirt
W. J. Scaiborough
Lake Placid
Maurice L. Plummer
r-t.Myorj
-------
9-109-A
Mr. Loring Lovell
May 18, 1978
Page -2-
We appreciate this opportunity to review the draft and do hereby request
that v/e be sent a copy of the final EIS.
Sincerely,
< ft.ft/fatstjflj,
SUSAN M. McCORMICK, Director ^
Land Resources Division
Resource Planning Department
SMMsbhm
-------
i Southwest Florida Regional Pi'ffvuunf* .Council
2121 West First Street, Fort Myers, Florid\3GJ01 of\ >•
\~ (813) 334-7332
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Division of State Planning
Department of Administration
530 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
RE: OMB A-95 Clearinghouse Review of the "Draft EIS for Central Florida.
Phosphate Industry," SAI 78-1698E (RFC #78-143).
Dear Mr. Lovell:
June 16, 1978
At the June 15, 1978, meeting of the SWFRPC, the Council officially
endorsed the enclosed staff review and recommendations on the above-
referenced draft EIS. In addition to this enclosure, please find the
official comments of Sarasota County; a local government impacted by
the Central Florida Phosphate Industry. The receipt of any additional
comments from other affected local governments or interested parties
will be forwarded immediately. If you have any questions concerning
the attached material, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST FLORID? REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Plan
E. Daltry
ng Director
WED/RSC/naf
cc: V7alter Kolb, Comprehensive Planning
Mr. James Duane, Executive Director, Central Florida RPC
Mr. Scott Wilson, Executive Director, Tampa Bay RPC
Enclosures
-------
Southv/cr.t Florida Region A I Planning Council
*.. ^^^^^^r^^r—-7--,--r-,-^ *^/^T?^^'"'%^7rcwi^j^yr»v'»'nr*^^rr'^'**-
'-> _ I <\Y 2121 Wnst First Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (813)3^1-7382
XA
Mr. Loring Lovell, Chief
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Division of State Planning
Department of Administration
.530 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
RE: OMB A-95 Clearinghouse Review of the "Draft EIS for Central Florida
Phosphate Industry," SAI 78-1698E (RFC #78-143).
Dear Mr. Lovell:
June 16, 1978
At the June 15, 1978, meeting of the SWFRPC, the Council officially
endorsed the enclosed staff review and recommendations on the above-
referenced draft EIS. In addition to this enclosure, please find the
official comments of Sarasota County; a local government impacted by
the Central Florida Phosphate Industry. The receipt of any additional
comments from other affected local governments or interested parties
will be forwarded immediately. If you have any questions concerning
the attached material, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
*ayne/E. Daltry
Planning Director
WED/RSC/naf
cc: v^VJalter Kolb, Comprehensive Planning
Mr. James Duane, Executive Director, Central Florida RPC
Mr. Scott Wilson, Executive Director, Tampa Bay RPC
Enclosures
-------
COUNTY OF SARASOTA
F I O R I 0 A
BOAR n OF COMMISSIONERS
BEVERLY CLAV • Of.miCT ?
JAME5 f> HfViLLF ' DISTRICT 3
LAMRY RHODES ' 111 STRICT 5
p o. BOX n
SXWA&OTA. fLA 3357H
PHONE 013/3-55 IOOO
June 14, 1978
Mr. Roland H. Eastwood
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Dear Mr. Eastwood:
This letter is being submitted in response to your May 16, 1978,
request for comments in accordance with OMB Circular A-95. Our anal-
ysis of the above cited environmental impact statement and, in par-
ticular, its Proposed Action component, has occurred primarily within
the context of existing and evolving plans, programs, policies and
objectives of Sarasota County.
The comments which follow have not been confined, however, to simply
the direct impacts that the Central Florida phosphate industry has
solely on Sarasota County- A number of broader based comments are
included within our analysis due to two highly interrelated factors.
First, the magnitude of the geographic, environmental, economic,
political and social impacts of the Central Florida phosphate industry
or any industry which mines non-renewable natural resources (e.g. oil,
Ras, coal, bauxite, phosphate and iron) cannot be confined to the
locality within which the physical mining actually occurs. Second,
Sarasota County is affected by the policies and actions embraced by
those outside of its area of legislative authority. West Central
Florida watersheds and airsheds, for example, recognize only air-
pressure and land gradients rather than county line markers when trans-
porting the acids, flourides, and radioactive contaminants produced
by the Central Florida phosphate industry.
1. SINCE THE EXIST ING ECONOMIC FIBl-R _ 0 F_ SA RASOTj\_ COUNTY IS BAS ED
PRIMARILY UPON! MAINTAIN' 1 N'GjnjH ENV'lROXMliNTAT. QUALITY j3F_THlT
AREA, Till- LliC: n^.XjJVT^lTfAllJillSirn' 01-' j(Aj(ASOT7v__c:.0_U_NT\'_iIAS BH_i:"N
TOTALLY COMMI'TTIil.) TO I'lTl: "rRHSLRVATlON AN'h CONSF.RVAT ION 01-' THAT
liiN!VJROi\'Ml!\T. This-commitment is documented, in part, by the
-------
June 14, iy/8
following ordinances, resolutions, and research which have been or
uill soon he enacted by the Board of County Commissioners:
Ord intincc No. 72- 3_7_ addresses the control and regulation of
air and water po.lJut.ion throughout Sarasota County providing
for stricter, more extensive, and more stringent regulation
of pollution than provided Tor by the State of l-'lorida.
(Adopted 9/L9/72).
Ordinance No. 72-83 determines that the unregulated mining
of phosphate and other similar and related minerals has a
detrimental effect on the health, welfare and property
rights of the citizen of Sarasota County, and providing
for regulation of phosphate and similar mining processes
and the reclamation of lands used in mining. (Adopted 10/17/72).
Ordinance No. 75-18 relates to the conservation of water during
emergency drought conditions and authorizes the Board of County
Commissioners to limit water use in case of emergency.
(Adopted 6/26/73) .
Ordinance No. 75-38 establishes zoning regulations for unincor-
porated Sarasota County replacing earlier zoning regulations
and provides for open use conservation districts and marine
park districts. (Adopted 10/7/75).
Ordinance No. 75-47 authorizes the expenditure of public funds
Tor the protection of the natural resources and scenic beauty
of Sarasota County and for the abatement of air and water pollution
which may result from existing, pending and proposed phosphate
mining projects. (Adopted 1/6/76).
Ordinance No. 76-40 amends Ordinance No. 74-33 and provides
subdivision regulations for unincorporated Sarasota County.
(Adopted 6/22/76).
Ordinance No. 78-13 determines the environmental importance
of trees and prohibits the removal of protected trees without
a permit. (Adopted 5/23/7S).
Ordinance No. 78-18 expresses doubt as to adequacies of available
water supplies to support existing and proposed growth in the
Sarasota County area and the surrounding region, provides for a
six-month deferral of all rezoning applications which would
increase water supply demands, and authorizes an intensive study
of water supplies. (Adopted 3/7/78).
Ordinance No. 7S_-_5_3 regulates borrow pits and other excavations
"fn~ unincorporated Sarasota County. (Adopted 6/6/78).
Ordinance No. 78-55 relates to endangered lands, provides for
tTTc c!Tt~riTiTs"hiiicnt of an Hndangcred Lands Advisory Hoard to make
recommendations to the Hoard of County Commissioners concerning
the identification, protection, preservation, enhancement a.nd
management of_endangered lands. (Adopted 6/13/78).
-------
Ho land II. llastwood
.him: .14, li)78
I'ii'.c 3 -
3959j-^.t !-°I? 72-I-P. <
-------
Roland II. lias Lwood
June 14, 1978
I1 a go 3
Rc.s_oljJ_t_ip_n_ 7_2_-_9 authorizes the Sarasota County Attorney to take
a]l necessary action to participate, join, or intervene in the
State of Florida's iyation against Cities Service Company in
reference to phosphate pollution of the Peace River. (Adopted
1/18/72).
Resolution No. 75-58 pledges support to the Red Flag Charrctte's
Plan to identify, inventory, and evaluate the existing natural
and human, resources of Sarasota County. (Adopted 2/15/73).
Resolution 75-171 determines the importance of the Gulf of
Mexico to marine life, tourism, and conservation and requests
the U. S. Department of the Interior not to grant leases for
offshore oil drilling. (Adopted 10/14/73).
Resolution 75-255 endorses the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council's Water-Qr.r."!:ty Management Plan. (Adopted 11/8/73).
Resolution 74-67 adopts amendments to the Sarasota County Compre-
hensive Plan including Environmental Limitations I. (Adopted
4/2/74).
Resolution 74-.S5 prohibits the use.of water for out-of-door
residential use during emergency drought conditions.
(Adopted 5/2/74).
Resolution 74-84 requests the cooperation of the municipalities
within Sarasota County as well as surrounding counties in in-
stituting water conservation measures. (Adopted 5/2/74).
•Resolution 74-86 determines that an emergency drought condition
exists,declares Sarasota County an emergency drought area,
and restricts the use of water. (Adopted 5/7/74).
Resolution 74-255 indicates intent to join with other units
o~f government in Southwest Florida to develop a "208" plan
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of
1972. (Adopted 12/10/74).
Resolution 75-44 adopts the Sarasota County Land Use Plan as
an amendment to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan including
the following policies:
Policy 10 - Full consideration should he given environ-
mental factors within Sarasota County as they pertain
to land use.
C. Land and waters determined by the Environ-
mental F.lement to be of general environ-
mental value should be conserved, while
those lands and waters determined to be
specific critical value should be preserved.
-------
June 14, 1978
Page 4
Policy 11. Recognizing Agriculture as an important and
necessary activity within Florida and Sarasota County,
adequate and appropriate land should be reserved for its
continuance. (Adopted 3/13/75).
Resolution 75-2.11 endorses the Charlotte Harbor Ecosystem Complex
"alT an Area of~ Critical State Concern under Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes. (Adopted 10/14/75).
Resolution 75-223 requests all federal, state, and local agencies
and departments to adopt a moratorium on all actions which would
facilitate the initiation of new phosphate projects until a study
of the environmental,economic, and public health hazards can be
completed and analyzed. (Adopted 10/14/75).
Resolution 75-274 recommends that Congressman L. A. "Skip" Bafalis
introduce legislation in the United States Congress to designate
the Myakka Riveras aV.'ild and Scenic River. (Adopted 12/16/75).
Resolution 77-51 accepts the concepts and recommendations contained
in a 201 Facilities Plan prepared for Sarasota County. (Adopted
2/8/77).
Resolution 77-155 requests the Region IV, EPA Administrator to
3e'terininc that the Bcker Phosphate mining project in Manatee
County be processed as a new pollution source requiring an EIS.
(Adopted 8/9/77).
Resolution 77-165 urges the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
to adopt new source standards as applicable to phosphate rock
mining in accordance with Section 306(b) of the Federal Water
•Pollution Control Act. (Adopted 9/16/77).
Resolution 77-198 urges the Manatee County Commission not to
approve the IV. R. Grace "Four Corners" phosphate mining project,
and to approve no more phosphate mining projects until completion
of:
1) The United States Enviornmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and the adoption of
any regulations called for in the EIS;
2) All EIS's required under the National Environmental
Policy Act for approved phosphate mining projects in
Manatee County; and
3) All approved permitting of at least, one approved
phosphate mine in Manatee County together with a com-
plete assessment of the mining experience of such
a project. (Adopted 10/4/77).
-------
Koiaiui II. lia stwotnl
June 14, 1978
Pa (jo 5 -
Resolut i on _7^7_-_2n_S_ establishes a joint citizens linergy Advisory
Hoard to" do "torn i nc the implementation of the National Energy
Conservation Program and State Energy Laws. (Adopted 10/11/77).
Resolution 77-JAG' Determines tlic need for protection against
significant degradation of air quality and urges the Florida
Environmental. Regulation Commission to adopt the proposed
revisions of the Significant Deterioration Rule, Section 17-2.02
and 17-2.05(1)), Florida Administrative Code with certain modifi-
cation including:
1)
2)
Class I designation be applied to the
State of Florida; or
entire
As a minimum Class.I designation be applied
to Sarasota County.
(Adopted 11/29/77).
Resolution 78-10 requests the Southwest Florida Water Managc-
mcnt District to complete a study identifying dependable long-
term sources of water for public, agricultural, and industrial
use. (Adopted 1/24/78).
Resolution 78-59 establishes an energy policy for Sarasota
County. (Aclopted 3/21/78).
Resolution 78-73 adopts the Overall Economic Development
Program for Sarasota County including the following objective:
Objective 1 - Ensure the conservation of those
natural resources which are non-renewable and
which represent the foundation of the County's
retirement and recreation oriented economy.
(Adopted 4/11/78).
Resolution 78-100 authorizes a cost/benefit analysis be per-
formed by the University of Florida as recommended by the
Department of Planning's report, The Growth Management Con-
cept and a Description of Specif icTTccimiques. (Aclopted 5/23/78) .
December 9, 1975, Sarasota County Department of Planning authorized
to draft an ordinance relating to stream protection and related
regulations with regard to the water quality of the Myakka River.
October 25, 1977, Sarasota County Department of Planning authorized
to draft a flood plain protection ordinance.
January 17, 1978, Funding authorized for joint University of
Florida - Sarasota County Special 'Issues Project to study energy
flow and growth management.
-------
UoJand II. Hastwood
June 14, 1978
Page 6 -
I^MnSTni.'NTni;i) iY Till- P.TR ART! .NOT AOiiQUATl'LY
_
-"- "'' ^-TTo.\'' Ai\ I) ACCORD I NCT.Y c:T).\'l:'L L'CT
A. Land surface will be altered by surface mining and reclama-
tion; soils and vegetation removed from the mining and ^/~
associated areas; wildlife habitat and populations reduced;
and there \vi\\- ,u?. notential adverse impacts on air and water
quality. * " '
B. Recreational resources will be reduced, archeologic values
may be destroyed and esthetic aspects will change.
w
C. Redistribution of radionuclides , which result in an increase
of human exposure, will occur.
D. The quant it"' •*;-,•' > •".• •• nble groundwatcr will be reduced.
"*'•' 1*/
The primary shortcoming of the environmental modifications proposed
by the HIS is their limited application to only new source phosphate
operations.
Alterations cause ' / : ..mining, .to the land surface are not mitigated
in any manner by the Proposed Action because it assumes the con-
tinued permitting of all new mines as proposed by the industry's
Scenario (2. 11'). The modifications proposed to mitigate the
environmental 'impact,, of, slime ponds may have some effect on the
reduction of reclctwaVl'6n time, however, it is only applied to k
new sources, thus allowing existing operations to persist in
the use of above surface slime ponds.. Allowing 'the creation''
of new slime ponds increases the potential threat to surface water
systems.
Specific reference is made to mitigating effects of phosphate
operations on wetlands (Scenario 2.14). However, even if mining i's
prohibited in wetlands because of their identified value as .,
wildlife habits as well as their general aesthetic and ecological **/~
importance to the region, increased mining permitted in the vicinity
of protected wetlands is bound to have a negative impact upon their'
existence.
An important limitation relating to the mitigating effects of
the Proposed Action^as related to air and water quality and the ij
increase of human^' V"-.
-------
i'olnncl II. I'.astKood
June 14, 1978
I\MJC 7 -
Proposed Action on future grouiuluatcr supplies in the region
Therefore, t!>e failure of the proposed action to adequately
mitigate these adverse environmental impacts conflicts with
many of the previously cited goals, nolicjcs, plans and
programs of Sarasota County included in the ColJowing:
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
72-37
72-83
75-18
75-47
•78-13
78-18
78-55
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
72
74
74
74
75
75
75
77
77
77
77
78
-9
-83
-84
-86
-44
-233
-274
-155
-165
-198
-236
-10
Resolution No. 78-73
3. THE IMPACT OF PHOSPHATE MINING ON Till- MYAKKA RIVI-n IS NOT
Al)'DRl-SSlil) BY Till' DRAFT KIS: INDHED, IT IS HARDLY M1-NTION1-D.
The failure of the Draft F,IS to address the potential impact of
phosphate mining upon the Myakka River and its flood plain is of
special concern. Roth the adopted Sarasota County Land Use Plan
and Environmental Limitation I have~~idcnti f ied~Thc Myakka River
System as a conservation and preservation area. Numerous reports
have indicated that the Myakka River System serves as a habitat
for endangered species and is a potential source of potable water,
The national, as veil as regional, significance of the Myakka
has been recognized by United States House of Representatives,
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs which is considering
• including the river for study as a potential part of the Federal
Wild and Scenic River Program.
Since several of the phosphate mines included in Scenario 2.11
and the Proposed Action of the Draft HIS plan to mine within
the Myakka's watershed, the failure of the Draft HIS to address
the impact of mining upon the Myakka River is a severe oversight.
-------
.June 14, 1978
S
T|iiMMAFT_r-is SHOULD Aj)mu;_ss Tin- i.ow; ;niRMJlc_oNOM[(: ''-'"ACT oi:
:|'iiRll"l):''r|"i ^''^ "
TjTf "recent history should not bo ignored. The petroleum crises
of 1974 and the continuing OI'I-C man i [>ulat ions on tlic price of
oil imported h>" the United States should alert us to the danger
of becoming dependent, upon a foreign cartel for as vital a resource
as phosphate. In 1976, the activities of the Central Florida
phosphate area accounted for thirty- three percent of v.orld
production. However, current Florida phosphate reserves arc less
than six percent of the measured economically recoverable world
reserves and the estimated sub -economic phosphate resources in
Florida arc only two percent of the world total. .
The implications of the above statistics are ominous. As stated
in the Draft CIS, the United States demand for phosphate "would
likely exceed domestic supply before the year 2010. 1" The rapid
depletion of the Central Florida phosphate supplies resulting
in dependence upon foreign supplies of phosphate to sustain
agricultural production could have profound, adverse economic and
environmental impacts upon not only this region, but the entire
nation. The failure of the Draft EIS to address these long-term
impacts of expanded mining activity is in conflict with the devel
opmcnt policy of Sarasota County (Policy 11 of the Land Use Plan)
and should be addressed as a major national policy question,
as well . Proper attention to the economic impact of the rapid
depletion of domestic phosphate supplies might well support a
limitation on the expansion of mining activity and the development
of a national policy regulating the export of this strategically
valuable and finite -natural resource.
T I IE DRAFT i:IS Q ITS PROPOSED ACTION 0? IIT PROPOSED MINING
ACT I V I T 1 1 j S W M ICH WIU/XD QJl'MJ^ .^J'MM '-' L AT I V 13 IMPACT OF THE INDUS-
T_KY. The Proposed Action assesses the ctr.'ects of only those phosphate
mining and processing activities permitted prior to August 1, 1976
(Scenario 2.19) and those mines for which DRI applications had
been made prior to August 1, 1976 (Scenario 2.11). There arc at
least thirteen additional mine proposals identified by the phosphate
industry's view (2.11') but these mines are not incorporated into
Scenario 2.11, except, apparently, only to assess the effects
that future mining will have on water quantity. The impact, of
such expected expansion by the phosphate industry (i.e., "the (sJ~2-0
industry's view", 2.11') is not fully assessed. Although- the
Proposed Action suggests a.number of process modifications for
new sources, the mitigating effects of such measures cannot be
adequately assessed unless all potentially new sources arc included.
The findings of the HIS arc incomplete regarding the long term
effect of phosphate activities on the region.
I
U.S. 1-nvi ronmcntnl Protection Agency, D r a f t A r en j^'uk: F. n v_i_r_o \\rno jitjU,
Jjn p a c t: jS t a t e HUM i t_ - C c_nj_r_a 1_ n_q r i da PJ 10 .^ nji a t" e__ _Tnj3u_s t/r_y" (1\ t L a "n't "a , (la. :
H.sT'linvir'onmcMUa'l'T'rotec't Ion Agency, Region IV, 1978) p.ii.
-------
kolaiul II. Ha^twood
Juno 1-1, L97S
I'a/'.e <>
Tiin(:ii;!Min,ATTvr._T_MP,\CT_p!- m-GRADA/noN or WATI;ROUAUTY
'
Tin: ni;.\7: i'_T; Cs jU'D_ niT_ £fn;i rsiTn u i'\j'N_jj'Y''~A>: y " s'mi's noli HN;r"s~i TH
Sl'lfC [1:J_CT H_I_S. The effects of the phospha to "i ud~ulftry on water
quality is almost ignored in the KIS as dra(. ted. Suggested
improvements arc limited to a modification of slime disposal
procedures and recommended reductions in effluent concentrations
for new source chemical plants. It is the contention of the
authors of the Draft HIS that EPA "has no direct legal authority
to change requirements for existing sources". Even if it were
•assumed that this statement were correct, the Draft EIS should
address the communitative impact of the industry on radiation
exposure and water quality in order to enable the appropriate
federal, state and local governmental authorities to determine
whether additional legal authority should be granted over
existing sources.
The HIS lists four potential pathways for secondary impacts
of radiation exposures:
Air contamination by radionuclides associated with
dust created when dry phosphate rock and phosphate
products are transferred.
Possible contamination of ground waters by seepage
of process waters at the chemical plants and slime-
pond waters in the mine areas
Radon- 222 daughter-product contamination of air in
structures built on land previously mined by the
industry
Consumption of foods (crop foods or beef) produced
on reclaimed
However, on page 2.64 of the Draft 1ZIS, it is stated that
Quantifying impacts on the general population by \AJ.~ *
exposure associated with the pathways just listed
was considered beyond the scope of this program.
In light of the failure of the Draft HIS to quantify the impacts
of increased radiation exposure, the Draft I/. IS. should clearly
stress the need to quantify radiation impacts in any subsequent
si te- spec i fie HIS.
21 Mil. , p.2.(«.v.
-------
Koland II. Hastwood
June I'!, 15)78
I'IIP.C- Id-
Ill siiPiiiia i1)',, accclcrntcd phosph.'ito mining under the Proposed Action
will Increase already inflated land values, deplete non-renewable
resources, and further reduce the amount of land in agricultural
production. Adverse environmental damage including despoiled
landscape; or incompatible land usage would unfavorably impact
our mill timillion dollar tourist/recreation industry. It is obvious
that such impacts whicl'. are not adequately mitigated by the Draft
1:1 S Proposed Action are not in compliance with even the broadest
goals, objectives, programs and plans, of our community.
Sincerely,
Douglas/James r Director
Sarasota County Department of Planning
20S6 Main Street
Sarasota, Florida 33577
l)J:DW:RD/ms
-------
c\ A/
OVV
IT p D p' e pen r i A
V i I \i Vv o \.n i ;.,-!)• i.
% AGENDA ITEM 6 •;'
'\Jiivli'viiLl» Mi_/ri i iwi
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE EIS
(Staff Review)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)' has prepared and submitted a
Draft Areav.'ide Environmental Impact Statement on the Central Flordia Phosphate
Industry (EIS) for state and areawide OMB A-95 Clearinghouse review. The Draft
EIS analyzed the impacts associated with the Central Florida Phosphate industry
under several different Scenarios or alternatives. These alternatives included
the permitting of existing mining activities only (Scenario 2.15) , the permitting
of existing as well as New Sources_(Scenario 2.11), process modifications
(Scenario 2.12), required Reduced Water Usage (Scenario 2.13), and controlling
activities in U.S. waters and wetlands (Scenario 2.14). The final Proposed
Action alternative identified in the EIS results from the combination of Scenarios
2.11, 2.12, 2.13, and"2.14. The Proposed Action will only affect New Source
operations, while allowing existing mine activities to continue in their present
manner. The Council staff's review of the draft EIS Action leads to the con-
clusion that the selected Proposed Action will do little towards minimizing the
many negative impacts associated with the phosphate industry in Central
Florida. Further, the staff review finds that the proposed action does not
encourage the wisa management of phosphate reserves and resources of the State
of Florida.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) The selected Proposed Action, if adopted, should be made applicable to
existing, as well as any proposed New Source, mining operations. I/J ~
In order to finalize the draft EIS and prior to adoption of any particular Proposed
Action, the EPA should develop a new scenario based on recognition of the following
criteria:
(A) The phosphate resources should be analyzed as a finite resource of national
importance. As such, a new alternative should be developed on the premise
that this resource should be wisely managed to insure the longest term
benefit that can be provided in the following four categories:
LJ-2
1) Stabilizing fertilizer prices; *~^
2) Ensuring stable employment and constant levels of tax revenues;
3) Stabilizing local and regional economic activity;
4) Preventing the need to import phosphate in order to protect the
nation's balance of payments.
(b) The EIS should also address the short- and long-term environmental impacts
associated with this scenario. .
k/
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Endorse staff review; recommend and authorize Executive
Director to forward these recommendations to the appropriate
agencies.
-------
Introduction
On March 17, 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) submitted a Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the Central Florida Phosphate Industry to State and areawide OMB
A-95 Clearinghouse review. The purpose of the Areawide EIS is to
assess the areawide and cumulative effects of the phosphate industry
and to provide the basis for developing site specific EIS's for
"New Source" NPDES* mining activities (those not permitted to date) .
According to the draft EIS,,there are currently seventeen potential
New Source mines in Polk, Hillsborough, Manatee, Hardee and Desoto
Counties. The study area identified in the EIS includes those
counties indicated above, as well as Sarasota and Charlotte Counties.
Although no mining activities are identified or proposed in Sarasota
and Charlotte Counties, these counties were modeled because phosphate
recovery practices will have an impact on their water quantity and
quality.
According to the EIS, there are approximately 2500 million metric
(short) tons of economically recoverable phosphate ore in the U.S.
or approximately 14% of the world reserve supply- In the Central
Florida Phosphate District, economically recoverable reserves are
estimated at 1,037-million metric (short) tons or approximately 41%
of the U.S. supply and 6% of the world supply. The document also
notes that in 1976, U.S. phosphate production accounted for 41%
of the world's production. The Central Florida district by itself.
produced 80% of the United State's production and 33% of the world
production. The EIS indicates that National levels of production
are expected to increase with the Central Florida Phosphate District
represented as a major contributor to this production.
The major impacts resulting from existing and continued phosphate
mining in Central Florida are:
(a) Land surface will be altered by surface mining and
reclamation; soils and vegetation will be removed
from the mining and associated areas; wildlife habitat
and populations will be reduced; and there will be
potential adverse impacts on air and water quality.
(b) Livestock forage will be reduced during mining operations,
and productivity of the mining area will be reduced
even after reclamation.
(c) Population and employment in the Region will increase,
but the socioeconomic infrastructure will receive
stress.
(d) Recreational resources will be reduced, archeologic
sites may be destroyed, and esthetic aspects will change.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
-------
(e) Redistribution of radionuclides, which result in an
increase of human exposure, will occur.
(f) The quantity of available groundwater will be reduced.
(g) There will be an irrevocable commitement of resources,
including phosphorus and fossil fuel.*
Given the potential for 17 New Source mines and the observed effect
of existing mining activities, the draft EIS considered the impact of
the phosphate mining industry under various scenarios. These included:
limiting mining to those operations currently permitted (Scenario
2.15), continuing the operation of existing mines as well as future
"New Source" operations (Scenario 2.11), requiring process modifica-
tion for "New Sources" (Scenario 2.12), requiring reduced water
usage (Scenario 2.13), and controlling activities in the waters of
the U.S. and in the wetlands of Central Florida (Scenario 2.14).
In the following portions of this review, two different scenarios
are discussed. These are the "no growth" scenario based on no new
permits, and the "recommended" scenario, which is a combination of
several alternatives.
Scenario ,2.15 (Existing Source Permits Only) Alternative
In the draft Areawide EIS, impacts of the Central Florida Phosphate
industry under Scenario 2.15 (continued operations of mines permitted
as of August 1, 1976) was discussed first. In this scenario, 18
mines and 15 processing plants would continue to operate, mining
approximately 80.6 thousand acres between 1977 and 2000.** During
this period, approximately 593 million metric (short) tons of
phosphate ore would be mined, which is approximately 57% of the. esti-
mated economically recoverable reserves of the district.*** This
mining activity also represents the consumption of 34% of the area's
known phosphate ore resources.
Water demands upon the Floridan Aquifer generated by the industry
under Scenario 2.15 are estimated to total 355.2 mgd in 1985 and
195.77 mgd in the year 2000.**** Based on the assumptions that
the phosphate industry's water demands would rise and fall during
the 1977-2000 production period and that municipal and agricultural
demands would remain at 1975 levels, the EIS indicated that the
aquifer's pressure gradients will increase in a south and Southwest-
erly direction. As a result of this increase, the freshwater head
near the coastal sections would also increase, thereby reducing
"Draft Areawide EIA, p.ii.
**Ibid., p. 2.40
***Ibid., Table 2.15, p. 2.79
****Ibid., Table 2.3, p. 2.12
-------
the potential for saltwater intrusion and restoring coastal well
capacities.* These conclusions contained on pages 2.65 and 2.66
of the EIS should bo considered somewhat misleading, primarily
due to the assumption of the municipal and agricultural v.'ater
demands~"will remain equivalent to the 1975 demands. The EIS
recognizes this fact, as noted on page 2.46, but continues to
describe the positive and negative impacts on the Aquifer in its
analysis of Scenario 2.11 (the continued operation of existing
mines and the permitting of New Source mines).
Scenario 2.15 also indicates that 13,700 acres of wetlands will be
destroyed between the years 1977 and 2000 and the overall disturbance
of approximately 80,600 acres will impact surface and sub-terranium
flows to the river basins in the district area. For example, the
EIS indicates,that between the .years 1977 to 2000, approximately
48,300 acres, 3,500 acres, and 24,800 acres will be altered in
the Upper Peace River, Little Manatee and Alfia River Basins,
respectively-** The document notes that the impact will be of
sufficient magnitude to cause notable community shift for organisms
preferring flowing water to those preferring standing water. This
represents a significant negative impact since flowing-water communi-
ties ' are of greater resource value to the study area.*** Additionally,
the altered flow regimes resulting from mining and reduced surface
runoff will cause changes in freshwater discharges to principally
the Peace and Alfia Rivers. Reduced freshwater discharges to these
rivers and their receiving coastal estuaries, will alter salinity
regimes, causing modifications to the estuarine organism distribution,
food cycles, etc.
Finally, under Scenario 2.15, the EIS notes that both surface and
groundwater quality will be negatively impacted. Although radio-
activity concentrations are not expected to increase significantly,
the following effects are expected:
(a) There will be combined loadings of chemical pollutional
parameters (especially phosphates, flourides, and total
suspended solids) from discharges of nonprocessed and
processed wastewaters to various stream segments,
(b) The creation of many water impoundments that will tend
to deteriorate water quality by permitting over enrich-
ment,
(c) Local surface-water deterioration from clearing, burning,
construction, reclamation, slime spills, and seepage
from contaminated ponds will occur,
(d) There will be local water-table quality deterioration
because of draining and dewatering, overburden,
product storage, seepage from contaminated ponds, and
reclamation of mining pits, and
* Ibid., p. 2.56
** Ibid., p. 2.56
** Ibid.
-------
(e) There will be local Floridan Aquifer water-quality
deterioration from wastewater injection.*
Since Scenario 2.15 involves only the continued operation of those
mining activities which are currently permitted, it was not adopted
as the proposed course of action. There has been considerable
demand by phosphate interests for additional mines for future
activities. Consequently, the draft EIS seeks to find a compromise
between the industry demands (known as Scenario 2.11) and environ-
mental impacts through process modifications (Scenario 2.12), reducing
water usage (Scenario 2.13) and controlling activities in U.S. waters
and wetlands (Scenario 2.14). So in essence, the proposed action
identified in the EIS involves the continued operations of existing
phosphate operations and the permitting of New Sources as modified
by Scenarios 2.12, 2.13, and 2,14.
The Proposed Action (Scenario 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14)
Scenario 2.11 (Permit Existing and New Sources)
Scenario 2.11 is based on the operation of existing and the per-
mitting of New Sources. Under this alternative, not only will 18
mines and 15 processing plants continue to operate but 7 additional
mines are anticipated to commence operation within the time frame
examined in the EIS. However, most of the impacts addressed in
this scenario are analyzed from an additional Scenario 2.11* stand-
point (the industry view) which requests that 12 new mines would
be permitted.
According to Scenario 2.11, an additional 58,500 acres of land would
be disturbed between 1977,and 2000. This represents a 72.6% increase
over land disturbance created by mining operations currently author-
ized under Scenario 2.15. (This differs from the industry's Scenario
2.11 which would result in an additional 103,700 acres mined or a
129% increase over Scenario 2.15 conditions.)** An additional 29,300
acres would be committed for slime ponds under Scenario 2.11 (as
compared to 51,600 acres for Scenario 2. II1), Over 26,800 acres of
wetlands would be altered under Scenario 2.11***, while the loss
of forest (timber) resources would amount to an additional 18,300
acres by the year 2000, representing an increase over Scenario 2.15
losses by 53%.**** (Scenario 2. II1 would result in a 67% increase
in forest acreage disturbance.)
Phosphate consumption would increase by 72% over Scenario 2.15
levels, totalling approximately 1,020 million metric (short) tons
by the year 2000.***** This volume of production represents 98%
of the economical recoverable reserves and 59.2% of the known
areawide resources. (In comparison, Scenario 2.11 would result in
phosphate production of 1,350 million metric (short) tons by
2000 or a 126% increase over anticipated existing permitted mine
production. In relation to area reserves and resources, scenario
- Ibid., p. 2.70
** Ibid., p. 2.69
*** Ibid., p. 2/72
**** Ibid., p. 2.78
***** Ibid., p. 2.79 _ ^
-------
2.111 will utilize over 130% of the district's economically recoverable
reserves and 78.5% of the known resources.) The production discussed
under Scenario 2.11 will result in the mining of 40.8% of the U.S.
reserves and 14.5% of the countries estimated resources.
In assessing the water demands of the phosphate industry on the
Floridan Aquifer, the EIS assumed worst case conditions, that of
the industry view (Scenario 2. II1). Based on the results of the model
which assumed municipal and agricultural demands would maintain 1975
demand levels, the phosphate industry will impact the potentiometric
levels in the Floridan Aquifer, particularly the coastal areas of
Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. However, by the year 2000,
the EIS notes that "no adverse effects except the small increase
in pumping costs and the increased potential for saltwater incroach-
ment are expected from future pumping of the Floridan Aquifer by
the phosphate industry."* This statement demonstrates a rather
narrow scope of impact evaluation; particularly since the Municipal/
agricultural demands were held constant and that the increased
potential for saltwater intrusion could be expected to represent
a major negative impact on populations residing in coastal areas.
Water quality implications are significant. According to the
EIS, under the conditions of Scenario 2.11, the potential for
pollution loads from failures of slime-pond dikes will increase
and would threaten Class I waters. It should also be restated
that phosphate operations under Scenario 2.11 (and 2. II1) would
increase slime pond acreage 72.6% and 129% over currently permitted
conditions. This projected expansion of slime pond areas will
significantly increase the likelihood of slime pond dike failure.
Within the context of Scenario 2.11, Scenario 2.12 (Require
Process Modifications for New Sources), 2.13 (Required Reduced
Water Usage), and Scenario 2.14 (Control Activities in Waters of
U.S. and Wetlands) were considered and constitute those remaining
elements comprising the Proposed Action.
Scenario 2.12 (Require Process Modification for New Sources)
There are six major modifications discussed for the permitting
of New Sources
(A) Elimination of Slime Ponds
Under this consideration, elimination of slime ponds was
analyzed from two major approaches. The first approach
discussed involved the changing of the mining process from
a wet to dry procedure. The discussion contained in the
draft EIS concluded that technical problems would make a
dry mining process infeasible within the 1977-2000 study
period.** The second approach towards eliminating slime
~*ibid., p. 2.83
**lbid., p. 2.80
-------
ponds dealt mainly with procedures to speed up the dewatering
and settling process in these slime pits. Flocculation of
the slime areas and/or combining sand tailings and slimes to
fill" mine cuts were the basic procedures addressed.* This
could reduce reclamation time for such pits. This modification
is the recommended use, which would allow pond usage to con-
tinue along with the potential for disasterous spills.
Flocculation is only proposed for New Sources', enabling
existing sources to continue current methods of operation.
(B) Chemical Processing of Wet Rock (Eliminating drying process)
Under this consideration, the dry-rock processing method
would be eliminated, thereby reducing released dust and
air pollution.** Wet rock'grinding during beneficiation arid
chemical processing is already in use at several plants.
Furthermore, this process modification only applies to
New Source activities. Consequently, existing dry rock
processing will be permitted to continue, thereby sustaining
current dust and air pollution.
(C) Dry Conveyor for Matrix from Mine to Benefication Plant
The process described in the EIS entails the use of a mined
rock transportation system comprised of an overland conveyor
belt.*** According to this document, the system utilizes
less water and energy to take the mined ore to -beneficiation
sites. Most existing operations utilized slurry pipes to
transport the ore and will be permitted to continue this
procedure. Consequently, energy and water demands would
appear to remain constant within the foreseeable future.
(D) Recovery of Fluoride from Recirculated Process Water, Including
Scrubber Water
The EIS describes a Fluoride recovery system utilized by
USS Agri-Chemical and W.R. Grace phosphate companies. Numerous
problems were sited in the description and report costs of
Fluoride recovery operations exceed prices by 25 to 36
percent.**** In addition, this requirement would only be
applied to New Sources and only if market conditions offset
the .cost of recovery. Meanwhile, existing source fluoride
emissions will continue.
(E) Uranium Recovery from All Phosphoric Acid
This consideration basically involves the process of extracting
Uranium (U308) during initial digesting of phosphate rock,
using sulfuric acid at chemical processing plants. The
digesting process creates phosphoric acid and gypsum, the
gypsum being a radioactive waste product separated during the
process.
"Ibid., 2.19
**Ibid.f 2.11
***Ibid., 2.11 - 2.13
****Ibid., 2.23 - 2.25
-------
Currently, uranium extraction from phosphoric acid is
being conducted by several Central Florida Chemical processing
plants (W. R. Grace, Bartow complex, Uranium Recovery Corpora-
tion, and IMC's complex at Mulberry, Florida). According
to the EIS, if .,*.' "'" . ^traction was conducted at 90 to
95% efficiency f ., ...phosphoric acid chemical treatment
plants in Central "Florida, approximately 4,570,000 pounds
of uranium could be produced a year.* However, this process
modification would only be encouraged for New Source activities.
(F) Impervious Lining for Recirculated Process-Water Ponds at
Chemical Plants , .
— — - ' - ,V. •'. .''I'
This consideration involves the lining of gyp-ponds at chemical
processing plants with an impervious material in order to
reduce ground water quality degradation. According to the
EIS, operational and cost data are not available for this
consideration, since it has never been tried. Furthermore,
little data was available to determine the impacts of seepage
from these gyp-£.. >•/"!•- • ,• ,-d therefore, the net benefit from
installing impei-^.i-..-. - •„' ,-nings was not ascertained.** This
process modification lb only directed to New .Source activities
and since no new chemical processing plants were considered
in the EIS, this modification is of little use.
Scenario 2.13 (Requirt ••". 'uced Water Usage)
This scenario basically describes the reduction of water usage
through the requirement that stormwater drainage systems accommodate
a 25 year-24 hour rain fp.^.l, storm event. This requirement would
only be imposed on New "Sour ce activities.*** Existing mining
operations will be permitted to maintain their 10-year storm event
drainage systems. The water volumes contained in the enlarged
drainage system (storage ponds) could be utilized in the mining and
processing of the phosphate ore, resulting in reduced groundwater
withdrawals. However, it must be noted that the scenario would
further reduce surface water flows towards wetlands, streams, and
river basins, ultimately reducing river flows. This process
modification would appear to magnify one of the major negative
impacts associated with the phosphate industry.
Scenario 2.14 (Control Activities in Waters of U.S. and Wetlands)
Under this scenario, prohibition of mining in U.S. waters and wetlands
was considered. Also considered was authorizing mining activities '.
in wetland areas, but o^ly if restoration was a requirement after
mining.
Some major points were established in this scenario. First, the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental
, p. 2.25 - 2.26
**Ibid., p. 2.27
***lbid.
-------
Regulation (D.E.R.) were recognized as having purview in permitting
powers over U.S. waters and wetlands. Secondly, the EIS notes
that even if mining in U.S. waters and wetlands were prohibited,
industry actions either adjacent to or up stream of these sensitive
systems would cause negative impacts by reducing surface/groundwater
flows. In addition, assuming that the wetland was left undisturbed,
reclamation of surrounding mined areas usually results in the
lowering of original land surfaces. Consequently, the wetland
becomes higher in elevation resulting in its eventual draining
and destruction. The third point established was that no feasible
means for restoration of a mined wetland has been demonstrated.
Ever if the wetland could be restored, there appears little
doubt that its original characteristics, productivity and habitat
features could ever be duplicated.
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analyses of the Proposed Action comprised of
Scenario 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14, it is apparent that the phosphate
industry will be required to do little toward minimizing impacts
associated with existing operations or New Source activities. This fact
is emphasized since the draft EIS is based upon issuing all requested
permits with only a few modifications in technology or site design":
Elimination of above ground slime-ponds is considered in the report to
be technologically infeasible within the study period 1977-2000.
Although requiring New Sources to speed up the slime-pond reclamation
through flocculation and/or combining tailings with slimes would prove
useful, the reclaimed lands would still be relegated to limited
agricultural uses. Further, the threat of slime-pond dike failure will
increase in proportion to the new ponds created; thereby magnifying
potential disasters to natural water bodies and river basins.
Elimination of dry rock processing methods at beneficiation sites and
chemical processing plants is a modification only applicable to New
Source activities. While this modification should serve to improve
air quality around New Sources, areas adjacent to existing activities
will continue to be impacted.
The dry conveyor transporting of phosphate ore from mines and beneficiati
plants would only be required for New Sources. As a result, the water
and energy demands for permitted activities using slurry pipe transpor-
tation will remain constant, within the foreseeable future.
Recovery of fluorides from recirculated process water, including scrubber
water, has been identified as very costly. Additionally, according to
the EIS, enforcement of this process modification for New Sources could
be v/aived if market conditions do not support the cost. It seems likely
the New Source applicants could demonstrate excessive costs for many
years to come resulting in no enforcement of the modification. Further-
more, fluorine and fluoride emissions will continue from existing
sources. Together, these two factors would seem to negate the piausa-
bility of improving environmental conditions under this modification.
-------
,,r,.r.imn n.rovr.ry from all pho.sphor J c acid is a desirable activity.
AHhouqh so,,,,. conu>,mic>s aro currently undertaking this activity, the
-,c-l oil applicability of the modification is directed towards New
Sources; and only to the extent of encouragement.
The lining of gyp-ponds with impervious materials appears to be a desirable
m-orc'durc for reducing ground and surface water contamination._ However,
tho'lilS 'notes the operational and cost data is not available since it
ha- not been tried. In addition, since it has not been tried, no net
benefit data is available. Furthermore, this process modification is _
only applicable to New Source chemical plants, none of which are envisioned
in the draft EIS.
Reduced water usage through expanding drainage capacities for a 25-year-
24-hour storm event and utilizing the 'contained water for ore processing
would appear reasonable. However, l.his modification would only apply
to New Sources. Furthermore, through increased detention times and
capacities, surface water flows to streams and river basins will be
reduced. Consequently, the modification would serve to compound the
flow regime impacts already associated with the phosphate industry.
Proposals identified in the draft EIS to control activities in U.S.
waters, and wetlands appear to lead to one central conclusion; phosphate
industry activities will create significant negative impacts on these
aquatic environments. Even if mining in U.S. waters and/or wetlands
is prohibited, mining operations within the vicinity of these environ-
ments will reduce surface water flows and deplete groundwater systems,
thus changing, if not destroying, the waters and wetlands. If mining
was authorized in wetlands on the basis of requiring Restoration, a pilot
project in restoration would be necessary in order to adequately assess
its feasibility since it has never before been undertaken.
Finally, it is important to discuss that the justifications of the
Proposed Action are the positive benefits as identified in Section 5
of the draft Areawide EIS. According to the EIS, the positive
benefits of the Proposed Action include:
(1) low priced, fertilizer
(2) employment and tax revenues
(3) local and regional economic activity
(4) reduction in U.S. trade deficits U) ~~ "2-&8
However, none of the scenarios were designed around these benefits,
but these benefits are used to justify the Proposed Action alternative.
It is recommended that an additional alternative should be developed
that would be based on maximizing these benefits from a long-term view-
point . Environmental Impacts associated with this new alternative should
then be discussed" and explored"! It should be emphaiszed that the Proposed
Action alternative indicated in the EIS is totally deficient in identi-
tying the long-term economic benefits by the parameters above. This
fact is demonstrated in the following discussion.
(1) Low priced fertilizer: It may be assumed that fertilizer
produced in this part of Florida is competitive with the cost of
developing phosphate resources elsewhere. The selected Proposed
Action would result in increased production and, thereby, more
rapidly decrease reserves. This would, perhaps, increase the
-------
amount, of ,iv,ii ! able low-priced fertilizer Cor a short period of
time;. However, a.-; local reserves are exhausted, higher, priced
reserves cilije.whure will need to be developed. Consequently, rapid
exhaustion of 1.oc«il reserves will only lead to increased fertilizer
prices. An additional alternative maintining current level of
production should be . '.""ined for its ability to keep local low
priced fertilizers o , j market for a longer period of time.
(2) Employment and Tax Revenues: The selected Proposed Action encourages
increased employment for a short period of time, to be followed
by an increasing number of layoffs in'the labor force. .This cannot
be considered a long-term economic benefit. An additional alter-
native should be developed that examines (as in the case of ferti-
lizer) the feasibility of maintaining current levels of employment
for a longer period. Similarly, tax revenues, under the EIS
selected alternative, can be expected to initially increase (which
is necessary for the additional governmental facilities needed
by the phosphate industry), and thereafter decline as workers are
laid off. This' decline in revenues will occur during the period
when governmental social service expenditures will need to increase
in order to accommoda '•;.;;.the newly-unemployed phosphate workers.
The new alternative suggested as a result of this review should
examine a level of phosphate production that would maintain current
tax revenues as long as possible.
(3) Local and Regional Economic Activity: As discussed above, other
business and governmental operations, (ij.e., Port of Tampa) will
need to gear up for increased phosphate industry operations; and,
therefore, can be expected to decline as the industry declines.
This cannot be considered a long-term benefit. A suggested
alternative would be to examine the feasibility of maintaining "
phosphate operation levels within the current framework of business
in order to postpone and/or reduce future adverse impacts as
industry shuts down.
(4) Reduction in U.S. Trade Deficits: This is a very temporary benefit
that will be followed by an increase in deficits as the nation's
reserves are used up. The EIS indicates that U.S. demand will
exceed Florida's production about 1990 and will exceed U.S.
production about the year 2008. After this point, more expensive
foreign resources will be needed to meet U.S. demand. The suggested
alternative would be to examine the benefits of long-term
self-sufficiency in phosphates. This is particularly important
since the nation is an exporter of agricultural goods. It should
be noted that the EIS does not provide fiscal data on the sale of
phosphate as an element of our trade balance.
10
J-/S-8
-------
REUBIN O'D. ASKEW
GOVERNOR
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
SOUTH FLORIDA DISTRICT
BRANCH OFFICE AND LABORATORY
3201 GOLF COURSE BOULEVARD
PUNTA GORDA, FLORIDA 33950
June 21, 1978
JOSEPH W. LANDERS, JR.
SECRETARY
PHILIP R. EDWARDS
DISTRICT MANAGER
Mr. R. E. McNeill
U.S.E.P.A., Region VI
345 Courtland St., N.E,
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Mr McNeill:
Re: Draft Areawide EIS Central
Florida Phosphate Industry
After reviewing the draft E.I.S., the technical working paper on
aquatic biota (Vol V, Section 2) , and attending the public hearing,
I am disappointed as to the lack of biological data which were (/J-
presented for the. fresh water aquatic systems of the study area. In
an attempt to improve both the quality and quanity of data available,
I am submitting species lists of - the macroinvertebrate fauna from
the P.N.S. samples of (1) the Peace River at Arcadia, Desoto County
(25.02.0004), (2) Horse Creek at S. R. 72, Desoto County (25.02.0111)
and (3) the Myakka River at Border Drive, Sarasota County (25.03.0403).
These lists have been edited to reflect most recent taxonomy and to
exclude erroneous identifications (primarily from the older data).
All species listed were actually collected at the station location. tv~
Extensive museum specimens, water quality data and habitat preferences
are maintained and recorded for the majority of species. Quantitative
data (d Shannon-Weaver) from benthic grabs and artificial substrates
(Hester-Dendy, E.P.A. modification) are also available. Collections
other than quantitative, stress those forms which are dependent upon
dissolved oxygen; thus most adult COLEOPTERA (excluding ELMIDAE) and
the HEMIPTERA are not represented except from quantitative collections;
in this one aspect the submitted lists are limited.
The Peace River at Arcadia is represented by 135 Taxa, dominated by
aquatic insects and is based upon 85 samples (56 benthic grabs, 22
artificial substrates, 7 intersive qualitative samples). Of the fcj -
aquatic insects which Lanquist (1953) recorded from the Peace River
at Arcadia, four (4) ODONATA and two (2) TRICHOPTERA have not occurred
in the P.N.S. sampling.
I
continued
-------
page 2
Draft Areawide EIS Central
Florida Phosphate Industry
June 21, 1978
ODONATA
ANISOPTERA
GOMPHIDAE
DROMOGOMPHUS Spinosus
PROGOMPHUS alachuensis
CORDULIIDAE
TETRAGONEURA sp.
ZYGOPTERA
COENAGRIONIDAE
CALOPTERYX (Agrion) maculata
The two GOMPHIDAE & TETRAGONEURA sp. are regularly collected from
Horse Creek, a large tributary to the west, unaffected by historic
slime spills. CALOPTERYX (Agrion) maculata is a common inhabitant of
a small unnamed swamp stream tributary to the Peace River south of
Arcadia. The GOMPHIDAE HAGENIUS brevistylus and the AESCHINIDAE
BOYERIA vinosa while not collected by Lanquist at Arcadia are reported
by him from upstream. HAGENIUS brevistylus is a rare member of the
community at Horse Creek and BOYERIA vinosa is common in the same
stream frequented by CALOPTERYX mentioned above.
TRICHOPTERA
PHILOPOTAMIDAE
CHIMARRA sp.
POLYCENTROPIDIDAE
PSYCHOMYIID GENUS A (=NYCTIOPHYLAX sp)
CHIMARRA is a occasional member of the community at Horse Creek and
is also represented by a single specimen from the Myakka River but
has not been recovered from the Arcadia Peace River Station to date.
Lanquist does not discuss the habitat from which CHIMARRA was taken;
however, collections of this organism at other south Florida sites
(DER monitoring data) indicate a distinct preference for substantial
velocity and a hard substrate (rocks or logs). Large populations of
CHIMARRA exist to the south of the study area in the upper reaches of
the Orange River, Lee County, Florida and Alligator Creek, Charlotte
County Florida. Probability for collection of CHIMARRA would likely
increase upstream in the Peace River.
-------
page 3
PYSCOMYIID GENUS A (Ross) has been placed in the genus NYCTIOPHYLAX
(Flint 1964). I have never seen this organism from the lower Peace
River Basin. The nearest population which I have collected is from
a small rapid stream in Highlands County.
Horse Creek is one of the largest tributaries of the Peace River
drainage. Arising as the accumulation of drainage from sloughs and
flatwood ponds in northeastern Manatee and northwestern Hardee Counties,
the stream flows in a well defined course the entire length of western
Hardee County and the majority of DeSoto County discharging to the . -5
Peace River in the vicinity of Fort Ogden. Typical of southwest W ~ £-
Florida streams, flow is influenced by the highly seasonal rainfall.
Inundation of the hardwood flood plain normally occurs at least once
during the summer. Base flows occur during the spring drought months
when the stream is totally dependent upon groundwater seepage. In
severe droughts, segments of the stream bed dry for a short period.
This condition is more pronounced closer to the streams headwaters.
At this point I must caution that while there are times of no flow
(spring droughts), Horse Creek cannot by anyone's imagination be called
an intermittent stream and use the correct definition of the term.
Even during the transient no flow period, pools along the stream bed
retain water.
The enclosed fauna listed for Horse Creek (S.R. 72)(152 Taxa) is based
upon 157 samples (101 artificial substrates, 47 benthic grabs and 9
intensive qualitative samples). The richness of the Horse Creek
fauna is an excellent documentation of the historic water quality,
aquatic resources, and natural habitat diversity once common to the
entire Peace River Basin. This stream represents the last large
drainage of the Bone Valley formation spared the "progress" of modern
phosphate mining. Serious consideration needs to be given to the
establishment of a State or Federal "endangered lands" designation
for a corridor encompassing the creek, contiguous wetlands, hardwood
flood plains and a small amount of uplands to preserve this state and
national heritage.
The Myakka River is a totally different environment from the Peace •> i
River or Horse Creek. Defined as a truly zero flow river during w~*~i
portions of the seasonal cycle. The Myakka River at the PNS site has
a strong tidal component during the winter and spring. While the
125 Taxa approaches the number for the Peace River, Arcadia Station,
21 of these represent estuarine or brackish water forms not collected
at the Peace River Station. The channel profile is similar to a box
cut canal, with a steep rapid slope and very little shallows along the
edge. The predominant substrate is bare limestone; sand is present
only along the edges. The faunal list was developed from 83 samples
(57 benthic grabs, 21 artificial sub'strates and 5 intensive qualitative
samplings).
Several inaccurate identifications and typographic errors are contained
in Tables 2.11 and 2.5 of the Aquatic Biota working paper (Vol. V
Section 2) . U-
-------
page 4
TABLE 2.11
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
CREPIDULA - This is a Marine and Estuarine organism. No member of
this genus belongs to the lotic freshwater community.
Several of the other typical gastropoda genera are most
likely also misidentifications.
EPHEMEROPTERA
NEOCLOEON (Traver) - Edmunds, Jensen and Berner (1976) relegated
NEOCLOEON to a synonym of CLOEON (Leach). If this genus
occures in the Little Manatee River or Alafia River, it
represents a significant extension beyond the previously
observed range. BERNER (1977) reports CLOEON in Florida
only from the Tallahassee Area westward through the
panhandle (BERNER, 1950, PETERS & JONES 1973, SCHNEIDER
1967.) Until confirmed I would assume that 'the record
is-a misidentification of CENTROPTILUM and delete it
from the table.
CHOROTERPES (EATON) - This Leptophlebiidae genus is represented in
south Florida by a single species C. hubbelli (BERNER).
Lanquist (1953) reports C_._ hubbelll~from Charlie Creek
in Hardee County but not from the Peace River. I
have specimens from tributaries of the Peace River
(Horse Creek,DeSoto County and Shell Creek, Charlotte
County) and other small to moderate streams as far
south as Lee County but again not the Peace River proper.
I have no reason to assume exclusion of C. hubbelli
from the Peace but neither have I seen specimens or solid
published data to substantiate its occurrence. C_._
hubbelli in my opinion probably does occupy some
segments of the Peace River. COROTERPES as listed in
table 2.11 is a misspelling. (BERNER 1977, BERNER 1958,
PETERS & JONES 1973, SCHNEIDER 1967.)
EPHEMERELLA (WALSH) - Undoubtably this record represents E_._ trilineata
(BERNER). Lanquist (1953) records this species from
a small tributary north of Bartow, Polk County. I have
been informed that this stream (Bear Branch) has, since
Lanquist's collection, been highly altered such that
it is presently little more than a drainage canal.
E. trilineata in all likelyhood does not presently
occupy this waterbody. BERNER (1977) gives a Manatee
County record but not a specific location; most likely
the upper Little Manatee or Manatee River Systems.
The closest existing population which I have sampled is
a small rapid stream in Highlands County. EPHEMERELLA
could conceivably occur in some segment of the Peace
River or a tributary, however, its existence needs to
be confirmed. Inclusion in table 2.11 until confirma-
tion should carry a disclaimer. ^ , .
3 - ' v> <-
-------
page 5
HABROPHLEBIA (EATON) - Like CLOEON occurrence of this genus out-
side the panhandle would be a most exciting find.
However, I am inclined to be skeptical of this record
until verified. The only Leptophelebiidae known to
occur in the Peace Basin or South Florida is the
previously discussed CHOROTERPES hubbelli. Occurrence
of this organism is highly doubtful and it should be
excluded from table 2.11. HABROPHEBIA as listed in
table 2.11 is a misspelling.
ODONATA
ZYGOPTERA
LESTES sp. While this genus is a common inhabitant of pools and
wet weather ponds I have never observed it in a
truely lotic habitat in South Florida.
TRICHOPTERA
LEPTOCELLA Flint (1974) transferred all N.A. species of LEPTOCELLA
-to the genus NECTOPSYCHE
ATHRIPSODES MORSE (1975) removed all N.A. species of ATHRIPSODES
to the genus CERACLEA.
TABLE 2.5
The following represent questionable records predominantly from
temporary pools and ponds.
EPHEMEROPTERA
BAETIS
BRACHYCERCUS
TRICORYTHODES
These three mayfly genera are common inhabitants of the streams in the
study area; however, I know of no literature which documents their
occurrence in temporary waterbodies other than some seasonal streams.
ODONATA
ANISOPTERA
MICRATHYRIA
To my knowledge this genus does not occur in Florida.
ZYGOPTERA
ARGIA
-------
page 6
This genus is a common STREAM FORM represented in the study area by
three species A. f umipennis , A_. moesta, A. sedula none of which have
been documented from temporary pools. The genus LESTES is a common
inhabitant of these seasonal ponds and should be added to the list.
MEGALOPTERA - NEUROPTERA is outdated
CORYDALUS
Again, a form requiring flowing water and high D.O. concentration.
DIPTERA
TIPULIDAE
CHAOBORUS
CHAOBORUS is not a member of the family TIPULIDAE
CHIRONOMIDAE
TELMATOSCOPUS
TELMATOSCOPUS is not a chironomid
CHIRONOMIDAE
MICROCRICOTOPUS
This genus while reported by COWELL, DYE, & ADAM in their Lake
Thonotosassa study was found only at station 10 located in Flint Creek,
a lotic habitat.
ODONATA
ANISOPTERA
GOMPHUS
MACROMIA
EPICORDULIA
None of these common genera are documented from ponds or pools by
PAULSON (1966) in his extensive work on South Florida ODONATA.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Cantrell
Biologist
RWC/ck
cc: Philip R. Edwards
Louis M. Fendt
Marvin Collins ^ _ * r d
Landon Ross -*
-------
REFERENCES;
Applied Biology 1977 Monitoring of Periphyton, Benthic and Chemical
Parameters at the Manatee Plant, August 1975 -
May, 1977 - P.P. & L.
Berner, L. 1950 The Mayflies of Florida - U. Fla. Press
Berner, L. 1958 A list of Mayflies from the Lower Apalachicola River
Drainage. Quart. Jour. Florida Acad. Sci. 21(1):25-31
Berner, L. 1975 The Mayfly Family Leptophlebiidae in the S. E. United
States. Fla. Entomol. 58(3):137-156
Berner, L. 1977 Distributional Patterns of Southeastern Mayflies.
Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences
22(1):l-55
Conservation Consultant 1976 Studies on the Ecology of the Little
Manatee River. - F.P. & L.
Cowell, B., Dye, C. & Adam, R. 1975 A Synoptic Study of the Limnology
of Lake Thonotosassa, Florida.
Part I effects of Primary Treated
Sewage and Citrus Wastes
Hydrobiologia. Vol. 46, 2-3
Edmunds, G. , Jensen, S. & Berner, L. 1976 The Mayflies of North and
Central America. U. Minnesota
Flint, 0. S. 1964 Notes on Some Nearctic Psychomyiidae with Special
reference to their larvae. Pro. U.S. Nat. Mos. 115
(3491):467-81
Flint, 0. S. 1974 The Trichoptera of Surinam; Studies of Neotropical
Caddisflies XV Stud. Fauna. Surinam , 55
Lanquist, E. (1953) A biological survey of the Peace River. Peace &
Alafia Rivers Stream Sanitation Studies 1950-1953
Supplement to Vol. II. F.S.B.H.
Morse, J. C. 1975 A Phylogeny and revision of the Caddisfly genus
Ceraclea Contr. Am. Ent. Inst. 11(22)
Needham, J. & Westfall, M. 1955 Dragonflies of North America.
U. California
Paulson, D. 1966 The Dragonflies of Southern Florida, phd Dissertation
U. Miami
Peters, W. L. & Jones, J. 1973 Historicl and Biological Aspects of the
Blackwater River in N. W. Florida.
Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. on Ephemeroptera.
E. J. Brill, Leiden pp241-253
-------
Schneider, R. F. 1967 Mayfly Nymphs from Northwestern Florida.
Quant. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci. 29(3):202-206
Wiggins, F. 1977 Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera
(Trichoptera)., U. Toronto
Westfall, M. Personal communications Odonata Taxonomy
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST LEGEND
M - Marine species
* - Abundant species
Alphabetical species (Sp.(A) ect.) designate identifications used at
this laboratory to separate obviously different species of
the same genus. These do not represent published identifi-
cations unless designated by name following the species.
3- !(*"?
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST
PEACE RIVER (DESOTO CO.)
INSECTA
MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus*
TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.*
Hydropsyche sp. (A)*
Hydropti1idae
Mayatrichia ayama
Orthotrichia sp.
Oxyethlra sp.*
Leptoceridae
Nectopsyche sp. (A)*
Nectopsyche pavida
Oecetls sp. (A)*
Oecetls sp. (D)*
Polycent ropodIdae
Cyrnel lus fraternus*
NeureclIpsls sp.
Polycentropus clnerus*
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
Baetls Intercalaris*
Baetls spiethi
Baetis "splnosus"
Call ibaetls floridanus'1'
CentroptIlum hobbs!
J-/G6
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE TWO
Centroptilum vi ridocularis-
Pseudocleon alachua*
Caenidae
Brachycercus maculatus*
Caen is diminuta*
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia munda elegans
Heptageni idae
Stenacron interpunctatum*
Stenonema exiguum*
Tricorythidae
Tricorythodes albi1ineatus*
ODONATA
Anisoptera
Aeschnidae
Naslaeschna p'entacantha
CordulIidae
Epicordulla regina*
Neurocordulia alabamensis
Gomphidae
Gomphus di iatatus
Gomphus minutus*
Gomphus piagiatus-''
Libeliulidae
Perithemis tenera seminole
Macromi idae
Macromia taeniolata*
ZYGOPTERA
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE THREE
Calopterygidae
Hetaerina titia*
Coenagrionidae
Argia moesta
Argia sedula*
Enallagma cardenium*
Enallagma pol1utum*
Ischnura sp.
COLEOPTERA
Dryopidae
(Pelonomus obscurus)* see notes on Horse Creek list
Elmidae
Dubi raphia (quadrinotata)*
Microcylloepus pusi1lus
Stenelmis sp. * possibly several species
Gyrlnidae
Dineutus sp.*
Gyrinus sp.
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp.
Hydrophi1idae
Berosus sp.
LEPIDOPTERA
Pyralidae
HEMIPTERA
Belostromidae
Nepidae
Ranatra sp.*
Naucoridae
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE FOUR
Pelocorls sp.
DIPTERA
Chlronomidae
Tanypodlnae
Ablabesmyia
Ablabesmyla ma 11och1
Ablabesmyla ornata
Ablabesmyla parajanta*
Ablabesmyla tarella*
C11 notanypus sp.
Coelotanypus conclnnus
Coelptanypus scapularls
Coelotanypus tricolor
Labrundinla floridana
Lars la lurIda
Pentaneura Inculta*
Procladlus sp.*
Ch!ronomlnae
Chlronomin1 sp. (A) (Beck)
Chironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp. (B)
Cryptochi ronomus blarina
Cryptochi ronomus fulvus
Cryptotendlpes sp.
Dlcrotendlpes modesj:us*
Dlcrotendipes neomodestus*
Glyptotendlpes sp. (c)
Goeldtchi ronomus holoprasinus
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE FIVE
Harnischia sp.
Mlcrotendipes sp. (A)
Microtendipes sp. (B)
Paracladopelma sp.
Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralis
Ped ionomus beckae
Polypedi lum convictum*
Polypedi lum hal terale*
Polypedilum !11inoense
Pseudochi ronomus sp.<:
Rheotanytarsus exiguus*
Stenochi ronomus h i 1 a r i s
Tanytarsus sp. (A)*
Tanytarsus sp. (C)*
Tribelos fuscicorn i s
Unidentified near Omisus sp. (Beck)
Orthocladi inae
Corynoneura sp.*
Cricotopus bicinctus*
Psectroclad i us sp.
Rheocricotopus robaki
Thienemanniel 1 a sp. (A)--
Thienemanniella sp. (B)*
Simul!idae
Simul ium sp.*
Ceratopogonidae
(Palpomyia sp. A)*
(Palpomyia sp. B)*
(Palpomyia sp. C)*
Forcipomyia sp.
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE SIX
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Tipula sp.
Culicidae
Anopheles sp.
CRUSTACEA
AMPHIPODA
Hyallela azteca*
DECOPODA
Palaemonetes paludosus*
Procambarus (alien!)*
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
Ancyl!dae
Helisoma sp. (A)*
Helisoma (gyrauius) sp. (b)*
Hyalopyrgus aequicostatus
Hydrobi idae
Physa sp.*
Pseudosuccinea sp.
BIVALVIA
Corbicula man!lens is*
Eupera cubensi s
Sphaeri idae*
Unionidae
ANNELIDA
OLIGOCHAETA
Aulodrilus piquet!
Dero sp.
Llmnodrilus sp.* 3~ I "73
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - PEACE RIVER - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE SEVEN
Lumbriculidae
Monophlephorus lacteus
Nals varlabills*
Pristlna b!longata
Prlstlna osbornl
Slavlna appendiculata
Stylarla fossularia
HIRUDINEA
Helobdella elongata
Moorcobdella mlcrostoma
PLATYHELMINTHES
PlanarlIdae
NEMATOMORPHA
Gordi idae
CNIDARIA
HYDROZOA
Hydra
RHYNCHOCOELA
Prostoma rub rum*
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST
HORSE CREEK (DESOTO CO.)
INSECTA
MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus*
TRICHOPTERA
Hydrosychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.*
Hydropsyche sp. (A)*
Hydrotilidae
Neotrichia sp.
Orthotrlchia sp.
Oxyethi ra sp.*
Leptoceridae
Nectopsyche sp. (A)*
Nectopsyche pavida
Oecetis sp. (A)*
Oecetis sp. (B)
Oecet i s sp. (C)
Oecetis sp. (D)*
Triaenodes sp.
Polycentropididae
Cyrnellus fraternus*
Polycentropus cinereus*
Philopotamidae
Chimarra sp.
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE TWO
Baetis intercalaris*
Baetis spiethi
Baetis "spinosus"-- possibly a complex of species very difficult to
separate as nymphs
Cal1ibaetis floridanus*
Centropt?lum vi ridocularis
Pseudocloeon alachua*
Caenidae
Brachycercus maculatus*
Caen is diminuta*
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia munda elegans
Heptageni idae
Stenacron Interpunctatum*
Stenonema exiguum*
Leptophlebiidae
Choroterpes hubbel1i
Trlcorythidae
Trlcorythodes alb!1Ineatus*
ODONATA
Anisoptera
Aeschnidae
Nasiaesdma pentacantha
Corduli idae
Epicordulla regina*
Tetragoneuria sp.
Gomphidae
Dromogomphus spinosus
Gomphus di latatus*
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE THREE
Gomphus minutus*
Gomphus plagiatus"
Hagenius brevistylus
Progomphus alachuensis
Libellulidae
Erythemis simplicicol1is*
Orthemts ferrug!nea
Pachydiplax longipennis
Macromi idae
Macromia taeniolata*
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Hetaerlna titia*
Coenagrionidae
Aral a moesta
Argla sedula*
Enallagma cardenium*
Enal lagma pol lutum*
Ischnura sp.
COLEOPTERA
Dryopldae
(Pelonomus obscurus) although not normally considered aquatic
several specimens of larvae apparently of
this species have been collected live from
Horse Creek and the Peace River.
Elmidae
Dub!raphia (quadrinotata)*
Mlcrocylloepus pus ill us ssp.
Stenelmls sp.* possibly several species
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE FOUR
Gyrinidae
Dineutus sp.*
Haliplidae
Pel todytes sp.*
Hydrophi1idae
Berosus sp.
LEPIDOPTERA
Pyralidae
HEMIPTERA
Ranatra sp.*
DIPTERA
Chi ronomidae
Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia mal lochi*.
Ablabesmyia parajanta*
Ablabesmyia peleensis
Ablabesmyia philosphagnos
Ablabesmyia (ramphe)
Ablabesmyia tarella*
Clinotanypus sp.
Labrundinia floridana*
Labrundinia johansenni*
Labrundinia neopllosella
Labrundinia vi rescens
Lars la lurida
Monopelopia boliekae
Pentaneura inculta*
Procladlus sp.
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE FIVE
OrthocladiIdae
"Cordites" sp. (Beck)
Corynoneura sp.''<
Crlcotopus blclnctus*
Crlcotopus sp. I (Beck)
Psectrocladius sp.*
Smittla sp.
Thlenemannlella sp. (A)*
Thlenemannlella sp. (B)A
Ch!ronominae
Chironomlnl sp. A (Beck)
Chi re-nonius sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp. (B)
Cryptochlronomus fulvus
Cryptotendlpes sp.
Dlcrotendlpes modestus*
Dlcrotendlpes neomodestus*
Einfeldla natch Itochea
Glyptotendipes sp.
Goeldlchlronomus holoprasInus
Klefferlus dux
Lauterborniella sp.
Mlcropsectra sp. (B)*
Mlcrotendlpes sp. (A)
Nilothauma bicorn is
Pagestiella sp.
Parachi ronomus sp.
Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralIs
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE SIX
Polypedilum convictum*
Polyped!lum fa 1 lax
Polypedilum halterale*
Polypedilum i11inoense
Polypedi1 urn sp.
Pseudochi ronomus sp.*
Rheotanytarsus exiguus*
Stenochi ronomus hilaris
Tanytarsus sp. (A)*
Tanytarsus sp. (C)*
Tribelos fuscicorni s
Simuli idae
Simuli urn s p.*
Ceratopogonidae
(Palpomyia sp. A)*
(Palpomyia sp. B)*
(Palpomyia sp. C)*
Atrichopogon sp.
Forcipomyia sp.
Tlpulidae
Tipula sp.
Culicidae
Anopheles sp.
Culex sp.
Stratiomyidae
Unidenti fled
(DolIchopodidae)
Unidentified
3-180
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOTO COUNTY - PAGE SEVEN
CRUSTACEA
AMPHIPODA
Hyallela azteca*
DECAPODA
Palaemonetes paludosus*
Procambarus (alleni)
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
Amnicola dul1i Johnsoni*
Ancylidae
Helisoma sp. (A)*
Helisoma (Gyraulus) sp. B*
Hydrobi idae
Physa sp.*
Pseudosuccinea sp.
BIVALVIA
Corbicula man!lens is*
Eupera cubensis
Sphaeriidae*
Unionidae*
ANNELIDA
OLIGOCHAETA
Allonais sp.
Dero digitata
Limnodrilus*
Lumbriculidae
Nais sp.*
Pristina bilongata
Pristina lonqareata 1eidy i
J>-f8 I
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - HORSE CREEK - DESOT COUNTY - PAGE EIGHT
PrlstIna osbornl
Slaulna append Iculata
Stylarla foscular Is
HIRUDINEA
Helobdella triserlalls
Mooreobdella mlcrostoma
Placobdella mult 11Ineata
Placobdella papllllfera
PLATYHELMINTHES
PlanarlIdee
NEMATOMORPHA
Gordlldae
CNIDARIA
Hydrozoa.
Hydra
RHYNCHOCOELA
Prostoma rubrum*
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST
MYAKKA RIVER (SARASOTA CO.)
INSECTA
TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychldae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptl1ia sp.
Neotrichla sp.
Orthotrlchia sp.
OxyethIra sp.
Leptocertdae
Nectopsyche pavida
Oecet1s sp. (B)
Oecetls sp. (C)
Oecet1s sp. (D)
Polyceotropldidae
Cyrnellus fraternus*
Polycentropus clnereus
Ph!lopotamidae
Chlmarra sp,
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetldae
BaetIs "splnosus"
CallIbaetls florldanus
CaenIdae
Caenls diminuta
Brachycercus maculatus
HeptagenlIdae
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE TWO
Stenacron interpunctatum
Stenonema exiguum
Leptophlebi idae
Choroterpes hubbel1i
ODONATA
Anisoptera
Libellulidae
Miathyria marcel la
Macromi idae
Macromia taeniolata*
Zygoptera
Coenagrionidae
Argia sedula
Enallagma cardenium*
Enallagma pollutum
Ischnura sp.
COLEOPTERA
Dryopidae
(Pelonomus obscurus)
Elmidae
Dublraphia (quadrinotata)*
Stenelmis sp.*
Gyrinidae
Dlneutus sp.
HEMIPTERA
Pelocorls sp.
Ranatra sp.
DIPTERA
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE THREE
Chi ronomidae
Tanypodlnae
Ablabesmyia ma 11ochi
Ablabesmyia parajanta*
Ablabesmyia (peleenis)
Ablabesmyia tarella*
Coelotanypus concjnnus
Coelotanypus scapularis*
Coelotanypus tricolor
Labrundinia floridana
Pentaneura inculta
Procladius sp.
Orthocladiinae
Corynoneura sp.
Cricotopus bicinctus
Crlcptopus sp. I (Beck)
Psectrocladius sp.
Thienemanniella sp. (A)
Thienemanniella sp. (B)
Chlronominae
Chi ronomus carus
Chlronomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp. (B)
Cryptoch1ronomus blarina
Cryptochi ronomus f u 1vus
Cryptotendipes
Dlcrotendipes modestus*
Dicrotendipes neomodestus*
Elnfeldia sp.
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE FOUR
Endochi ronomus nigricans
Glyptotendipes sp.
Goeldlchi ronomus holoprasinus
Harnlschla sp.
Micropsectra sp. (A)*
Micropsectra sp. (B)
Nilothauma blcornis
Parachlronomus sp.
Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralis
Paratanytarsus sp.
Pedionomus beckae
Phaeoopsectra flavlpes
Polypedllum convlctum*
.Polypedilum halterale*
Polypedllum 111Inoense
Pseudochlronomus sp.
Rheotanytarsus exiguus
Stenochlronomus hilarls
Tanytarsus sp. (A)
Tanytarsus sp. (C)
Trlbelos fusclcornls
XenochIronomus xenolabls
SlmulIIdae
SImu11 urn sp.
Ceratopogonldae
(Palpomyia sp. A)
(Palpomyla sp. B)
Cultcldae
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE FIVE
Anopheles sp.
Tlpulldae
Meglstocera longlpennls
CRUSTACEA
AMPHIPODA
Corophlum sp. M
Gammarus sp.* M
Grandldlerella bonnerl
Hyallei a azteca
ISOPODA
Cassldlnldea lunlfrons M
Cyathura polIta M
Exosphaeroma sp. M
Munna sp. M
Sphaeroma terebrans M
TANA I DACEA
(TanaIs sp.) M
MYSI DACEA
Hysldopsls bahla M
Mysls sp. M
Taphromysis louIslanae
DECAPODA
Cal1Inectes sapidus M
Palaemonetes paludosus*
Rhlthropanopeus harris!i M
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
Amnicola dal1i Johnson!
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE SIX
Ancylidae*
Helisoma sp. A*
Helisoma (Gyraulus) sp. B
Hydrobi idae
(Littoridinops monroensis)
Physa sp.
BIVALVIA
Corbicula man!lens is*
Eupera cubensis
Mytilops is leucophaeata M
Neritina reelivata M
RangJa cuneata M
Sphaeridae
ANNELIDA
OLIGOCHAETA
Aulodrilus piquet!
Dero sp.
Limnodrilus*
Pristina leidyi
Pristina osborni
Slavina appendiculata
Stylaria fossularis
POLYCHAETA
Boccardia sp. M
Laeonereis culverl M
Nereis sp. M
HIRUDINEA
Helobdella sp.
J-/8B
-------
MACRO INVERTEBRATE LIST - MYAKKA RIVER - SARASOTA COUNTY - PAGE SEVEN
PLATYHELMINTHES
Planar!idae
RHYNCAOCOELA
Prostoma rubrum
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
REUBIN O'D. ASKEW JOSEPH W. LANDERS, JR.
GOVERNOR . SECRETARY
June 19, 1978
Mr. Gene McNeill
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Gene:
We have completed our review of the Draft Areawide Environ-
mental Impact Statement on the Central Florida Phosphate
Industry. Our comments are as follows:
1. The impact of future activities of the phosphate in-
dustry on the availability of high quality groundwater
remains largely unknown. Groundwater modeling utilized .
in the study is preliminary and incorporates assump- (*/-
tions regarding aquifer characteristics and future non-
industrial water use that are likely to be incorrect.
The interrelationship between ground and surface waters
needs further investigation.
2. The projected expansion of the industry is believed to
be understated. A long-term impact analysis should be I^J^^I
made based on the mining of known resources or reserves.
3. The economic and social impacts of resource depletion
are not addressed. This is a major concern to the
state and should be a major concern to national security.
The issue has been avoided both in the study and in LJ-1-I&
response to questions during public hearings.
4. While data on industry discharge to surface waters and
surface water quality are presented in the working
papers, an assessment should be made of the quantita- k/-
tive impact of such discharge on water quality. This
might be done using a modeling approach.
-------
Mr. Gene McNeill
Page Two
June 19, 1978
5. Non-point source discharge due to industry operations
needs to be addressed. If all non-point source dis- j^/—i
charge has been converted to point source, this should
be described in detail.
6. Atmospheric conditions, such as temperature inversions,
have a strong impact on air quality in the study area. lJ-
This subject deserves further treatment.
7. Quantitative estimates should be made of sinkhole
occurrence in the study area. This should be related
to geological conditions, surficial dewatering, and k/-
piezometric differentials, such that projections can be
made for future industry operations.
8. The subject of airborne fluorides needs to be studied
in greater depth. The statement on page 1.12 that
vegetative fluoride levels are inversely dependent on k/-2.^5
rainfall does not appear to be supported by the data
given. Low fluoride levels are noted in 1972 although
rainfall was also low in that year.
9. A discussion of the methods for implementing the pro- -^
visions of the proposed action should be included in U^ -*.*•'
the final Environmental Impact Statement.
Our comments on the working paper, "Presentation of Effects
Assessment and Impact Analysis Results" (Volume XI), as
expressed in my letter of January 24, 1978 to Mr. John
White, are largely applicable to the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. A copy of this letter is attached and
should be included in the final Environmental Impact State-
ment along with the present letter.
While we basically agree that the "proposed action" will be
beneficial relative to current activities, it should be
stressed that requirements of the proposed action must
remain flexible to incorporate improved technologies for ^/-
mining and processing. It should also be clearly stated in
the final Environmental Impact Statement that the proposed
action in no way precludes the modification of these require-
ments by local, state or federal government should such be
indicated in the future.
-------
Mr. Gene McNeill
Page Three
June 19, 1978
Finally, the above comments are not intended to minimize the
excellent job that EPA and Texas Instruments, Inc. have done
in assimilating and interpreting a vast amount of important
data. We also recognize that many of our comments pertain
to areas beyond the scope of the present study or that would
require new data beyond the resources of the study. We
believe, however, that it is of primary importance at this
stage of the project to recognize those areas needing addi-
tional study.
Sincerely,
Jcusephl'W. Landers, Jr,
Secretary
JWL/bs
Attachment
cc: Loring Lovell
- / f
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
2562 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST . - "' '5\
MONTGOMERY BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301 ,,-•'•'
HEUBiNOD ASKEW Januarv 24 lB7Q<
-------
Mr. John White
January 24, 1978
Page Two
3. The study appears to conclude that consumptive
groundwatcr use by the industry will not lead to
significant water shortage or water quality de- tv" *• *•
gradation. We feel that this conclusion is not
justified due to:
a. the preliminary nature of the model analysis;
b. questionable assumptions used in the prelim-
inary modeling (e.g., no increase in water
use by agriculture and municipalities); and
c. a general lack of knowledge of the hydraulic
characteristics of the aquifer.
4. Economic considerations have not been fully evalu-
ated. No significant changes in economic impact k/
are indicated for the various scenarios (aside
from No. 2.15). This is unlikely.
5. Environmental effects are averaged over the entire
study area. This often results in a conclusion of
low impact when severe local impacts may result, ij _ •} -*Q
Also, cumulative effects are not adequately
addressed.
6. The study does not present a true picture of the
long term impact of the industry. Scenario 2.11
greatly underestimates the projected impact by
considering only those additional activities for i
which permits have been applied or which are in
the process of DRI preparation or review. Scenario
2.11 presents a more realistic picture but is
considered in much less detail. No analysis is
given of potential activities based on phosphate
deposits and/or company land holdings. No impacts
are projected beyond the year 2000.
7. The study does not adequately address nonpoint
source impacts and their control. .Area 208 plan-
ning agencies were advised that no significant
technical studies of phosphate-related topics bJ-
would be authorized as they would be covered in
the EPA study. This had not been done, thereby
leaving a large gap in the 208 planning process.
- if 4-
-------
Mr. John White
January 24, 197U
Page Three
8. fluorides are probably one of the major threats to
air quality. This problem is not addressed in any
detail. A recent EPA sponsored study of fluoride
emissions from chemical process ponds (TRC Report) . ~ i
should be included in the final EIS. The current W -«-•*/
sampling and analysis techniques for ambient air
fluorides need to be reevaluated.
9. The report states that release of nutrients to
estuaries will be beneficial. This has not beenj^"^? <~
demonstrated and the converse would be expected
as :
a. Florida estuaries are not phosphorous limited;
and •> 7 ?
b. the estuaries are over-nutrified at this l^~ *-•*•*
time.
10. The impact of flotation and coagulation reagents
has not been addressed. These reagents are ulti-
mately released to 'the environment. Their effect
is unknown and should be investigated.
11. The possible control of the rate of resource
depletion has not been addressed. This is an
important area for consideration.
B. The following additional comments are addressed toward
EPA staff draft scenario:
While none of the scenarios considered present a true
areawide planning approach, which we feel to be essential,
the EPA recommended scenario appears to be the most
feasible and beneficial of the group. Further comments
are:
1. The information given does not demonstrate that
the process modifications recommended will be
feasible under all circumstances. While process
changes such as wet rock processing, the elimination
of slime ponds, and the recovery to fluosilicic
acid and uranium should be implemented, sufficient
flexibility must be maintained to account fox-
varying conditions and improved technology. All
such processes must be compatible with energy
considerations and must consider possible negative
side effects such as changes in in-plant water
management and possible toxic environmental effects.
-------
Mr. John White
January 24, 1978
Page four
2. Elimination of above ground slime ponds may not
completely eliminate the potential for surface and
groundwater contamination.
3. The requirement for complete mining and reclamation
plans prior to the initiation of mining has been
dropped from the section on reclamation in the
December 20, 1977 draft. This requirement should
be reinstated. Plans should include all damming,
diking, stream rerouting, etc. Plans for revegeta-
tion should be included in restoration plans. A
mechanism is needed to ensure the enforceability
of such plans.
4. The section dealing with the reclamation of wetlands
is ambiguous. We feel that any attempt to categorize
wetlands in terms of greater or lesser importances
is, at this time, largely arbitrary. In general,
wetlands should be preserved. Any further destruction
or modification of those wetlands under federal or
state regulatory jurisdiction should be done only
under conditions-of extreme necessity for the
public interest as determined on a specific case
basis.
5. Effluent limitations should extend to nonpoint as
well as point sources.
6. Water introduced into the Florida Aquifer via
connector wells should conform to state drinking
water or groundwater standards.
7- Monthly air pollution control inspections would be
costly. Semi-annual inspection, stack testing,
and witnessing of the stack testing performed by
the industry should be implemented. Additional
sampling personnel will be required. What is
needed is a cost effectiveness analysis of various
monitoring alternatives.
8. The intensive operations and maintenance program
existing prior to 1972 was initiated specifically
to monitor the industry during a period of enforce-
ment action. Although a program of this scope is
not required at this time, the present monitoring
and field surveillance of the industry should be
expanded to verify continued compliance.
-------
Mr. John White
Januaey 24, 1978
Page Five
9. A more extensive program is needed for the monitor-
ing of earthen dams used for the impoundment of
liquid wastes from mining and processing operations,
Also needed in all the scenarios is sound analysis of exist-
ing legal authority to regulate the phosphate industry and
recommendations for additional authority where there is a
need.
An important factor in the final scenario for the draft EIS
should be flexibility. The EFA Environmental Impact Study
has attempted to provide an overview of the current knowledge
of the environmental impact of the phosphate industry.
There remain, however, vast areas of unknown impact. These
should be identified to the extent practical. The study and
final scenarios should serve as a basis for future studies
and a foundation for future planning for the development of
the industry.
My staff has been keeping in close contact with Mr. McNeill
of your staff, and will continue to do so. We will be glad
to meet and discuss any of these items. Also, I will be
glad to discuss this matter personally with you if you wish.
Josrfpfi W\J Landers, Jr,
Secretary
JWL/ns
cc: James Brindell
John Bottcher
-------
3151 third cue. north /ulte 54O • /t. peter/burg, flo. 33713 • (813) 893-2635 tempo (813) 224-938O
June 13, 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
345 Courtland Street Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Attention: Mr. Gene McNeil
Subject: TBRPC Clearinghouse Review No. 101-78; Draft Areawide EIS
Central Florida Phosphate Industry, Tampa Bay Region
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that on June 12, 1978 the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council officially adopted the attached report on the above referenced
draft Environmental Impact Statement.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-95 (revised) this brings to a close
the regional clearinghouse review (#101-78) of the draft EIS. If you
have any questions regarding this procedure, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
tfilliam A. Ockun?
Director of Pis
WAO/amr
cc: Manatee County Planning
Hillsborough County Planning Commission
Chairman Ron Norman
Mayor, City of Sarasota
Biailonton C
Vlco-Chairmnn Jan Plall
Councilwoman, Clly ol Tampa
Socratary/Troasurot Michael Lodbelter
Commissioner, Pasco County
Scott D. Wilson
Executive Diroctor
Dunodin Gullport Largo
HiiKlioroiHili
Oklsmar PalmiMto Rinollns Park
Wiilw P.isoo Pinollas Cotintios
St, Petersburg Sarasota Tampa
-------
Agenda Item #11B
6/12/78
TBRPC CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW #101-78
DRAFT AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY
PREPARED BY THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MARCH, 1978
The following presents the comments and recommendations of the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council in accordance with OMB Circular A-95 (revised).
This raport is based upon information obtained during the review of six
phosphite related Developments of Regional Impact conducted by the Coun-
cil, the Council's comprehensive planning programs and Water Quality
Management Program and the Central Florida Phosphate Industry EIS.
The Council supports the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency
in the preparation of the (draft) Areawide EIS on the Central Florida
Phosphate Industry and finds that it is consistent v/ith the intent of
the Council ' s growth policy as expressed in Future of the Region adopted
in April, 1975, and amended in February, 1977.
The (draft) Areawide EIS on The Central Florida Phor.phate Industry is
extremely valuable in that it represents the first time that all data
sources regarding the industry have been collected, organized and ana-
lyzed in a single work effort. The EIS furnishes an important source of
data to supplement the Florida DRI -process and provides further justi-
fication for the designation of Bone Valley as an Area of Critical Con-
cern as provided for in Chapter 380.05 Florida Statutes and suggested by
the Council in its adopted Regional Comprehensive Plan Guide and the
Rural Development Study, 1974.
In accordance with the requirements and purpose of the federal EIS sys-
tem, the recommendations in the Draft EIS are confined to those controls
that can be implemented through the federal permit system (NPDES, air
quality and dredge and fill) . The study has analyzed the impacts upon
the industry and the social, physical and biological environment that
could result from permitting new mines and from various modifications or
requirements in these permits.
GENERAL COMMENTS
It has remained a' concern of the Council that the ongoing phosphate
study was based solely on existing data. Unfortunately, the (draft) EIS
shows no evidence that additional new data has yet been generated by
this areawide study of the phosphate industry. As it is too late to
expect the study effort to initiate a new data collection effort, it is
recommended that the final EIS include specific recommendations identi-
fying needed new data collection efforts and identify how these efforts
should be conducted nnd by whom.
-------
The study represents the first effort to analyze water withdrawals of
the industry as a whole and will provide a valuable data base for future
water resource analyses and monitoring efforts. Most importantly, the
study results support the Council's previously stated concerns over the
cumulative effect of phosphate drawdowns on the Floridan Aquifer. While
it is recognized, that EPA has no statutory authority to directly control
water withdrawals, it is recommended that the final EIS include recom-
mendations concerning the aggregate drawdown of water withdrawals.
The study supports the Council's conclusions that the major negative
environmental impact of phosphate mining stems from the disturbance or
destruction of essential natural systems and environmental sources. The
study also supports the Council's concerns over the severe long-term
negative environmental impacts associated with traditional land recla- __
mation as identified by the Council through its DRI review process early ** " *. 3 J
in 1976. However, the study fails to acknowledge, recognize or utilize
the significant advancements that this Council, local governments of the
region, and several of the proposed new mines within the region have made
over the last two years in providing for the substantial mitigation of
these environmental impacts through natural systems reclamation. It is
recommended that the results of these work efforts be incorporated into
the final EIS.
The study is limited in that it only deals with a 20-year planning hori-
zon; and it only assesses the impacts of existing and proposed mining
activities. No study or analysis was conducted with respect to the ._ - _ *
impacts of long-term mining of the extensive deposits of phosphate rock **
not currently controlled by the mining industry. As phosphate reserves
are estimated to last for 50 years, it is recommended that this issue be
addressed.
The comments on radiation lack the specificity necessary to guide local
governments in developing reasonable regulations to protect the public
welfare, especially in regard to reclaimed lands in residential or agri-
cultural use, and the quality of the water entering the deep aquifer (J- \. 5 f
through connector wells. It is recommended that the final EIS address
the problems of radiation and that a surveillance monitoring program of
radiation levels be considered.
Section 4 of the (draft) EIS describes measures to mitigate unavoidable
adverse impacts resulting from the permitting of new mines, but does not
include cost estimates of expanded state air and water monitoring pro-
grams and/or land reclamation planning. It is recommended that the final _ Q
EIS include cost estimates of the suggested monitoring programs and W- i. J 0
incorporate recognition of the existing responsibilities and efforts of
local governments in the review, permitting and monitoring of mining
activities.
There is little reference to the DRI process throughout the Draft EIS.
It appears that the study effort has failed to recognize the DRI process
as an effective tool for management and control of the industry; as well • • 7_ 3 9
as the role that the regional planning councils and the Division of
State Planning can play in assessing and controlling areawide impacts
~1 00
-------
from the industry. Rather, the Draft EIS recommends site-specific
environmental impact statementstof each new mine. This would appear not
only to completely bypass the DRI process, but will result in increased
costs to the developer through duplicating efforts, and increased costs
to the public for the development of the site-specific EIS. It is rec-
ommended that the DRI process be recognized as a viable investigative
process and that the State of Florida and the EPA incorporate into the
DRI application appropriate concerns, not currently addressed in the DRI
process. This would eliminate the need for a separate EIS on each new
mine, would result in simultaneous review by EPA and the regional plan-
ning councils and would substantially reduce expenses to the developer
and to the public.
While the EIS study effort represents an invaluable first-step in the
examination and assessment of areawide impacts resulting from phosphate
mining, the study has failed to provide guidance and recommendations for (
mechanisms to mitigate the aggregate impacts resulting from expanded
phosphate mining activities within the Tampa Bay Region beyond that
which can be implemented through the federal permit system.
•It is recommended that the phosphate mining areas of Central Florida be
designated by the State as an "Area of Critical State Concern" in accor-
dance with the provision of Chapter 380.05 Florida Statutes. The
resulting impacts such as, water consumption, radiation and land recla-
mation are of such magnitude that comprehensive, integrated and uniform
management throughout the phosphate mining area is necessary. The "Area
of Critical State Concern" designation would provide the vehicle whereby
the state, local governments, EPA a'nd the industry together can develop
the necessary mechanisms and controls to mitigate the aggregate impacts
of mining.
QfrvW^ 'W WMto*£*~.
Chairman
ATTEST; / liC/Ml* x|LAfl/At)rU
Secretary/Treasurer
These Comments and Recommendations
were approved by a majority vote of
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council this j 3-tP-day of ^Tl^f_- , 1978.
-------
C O U N T Y OF S A n A S O T A
riOt I !• /.
Jt O A U
OK CO M M 1 S S 1 O N E R S
• -t v. • »iiri ti m • r'M«iiit I
, ; ; > It HI • I1-f Tl ICf ;
..,-.. > ••.', r JT • L « I -in 3
,, . ! II. ^ ."I • I :•,.•(•! J
-.-IT i '-err i • r- ? • •• ci :»
.-. -Ml • 1C. Mir T"IS'»"- .'T.-K
t " lc« r
! ..I •! f *«. I . • .-. • "I.
I I'T^.. M. '.'tl : ••!
?4. 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III, Chief
l . I.S. branch. Region IV
U.S. Invironmental Protection Agency
i-:(j Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(var John:
It was a pleasure-meeting and talking with you briefly at the
recent Phosphate Draft E.I.S. Workshop at Manatee Junior College
in Dradcnton on May 22, 1978. As per my promise, please find
enclosed a transcript of my presentation.
t know you will seriously consider the points brought up and the
recommendations which are made in the presentation. There are
\evrral areas of concern ,to Sarasota County, such as the impact
of radiation, economics and air inversions (see attached Sarasota
,'ournal article) which we are currently investigating. You can
fM'ect a detailed analysis of those parameters and others in the
near future.
1 think EPA can be proud of the job which Gene and his staff have
done to date on this very complex and environmentally important
Issue. We very much look forward to seeing your response to our
cormcnts and to seeing the Environmental Impact Study in its final
form.
Jeffrey r. Uncer, Ph.D.
Invironmental Specialist and
Acting Director, Pollution Control Division
Jtlrrkt
fnc:
*c: E. E. Maroney w/enc.
Cugene McNeill w/enc.
Florida E.I.S. Phosphate
Advisory Committee w/enc.
-------
PRESENTATION-TO U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGr.flCY
ON THE DRAFT AREA-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY, DATED MARCH, 1978
PUBLIC HEARING, MANATEE JUNIOR COLLEGE, DRADENTON, FLORIDA
MAY 22, 1978
7:00 P.M.
I am Jeffrey L. Lincer, Ph.D., of 4718 Dunn Drive, Sarasota.
I am an Environmental Specialist for Sarasota County and am
appearing this evening at the request of Sarasota County to
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as it
relates to the phosphate industry in the seven county study
area.
We can appreciate the amount of work and energies that went
into the preparation of this draft E.I.S., and compliment
EPA's staff and their consultants for bringing it to its
present stage. There are, however, some serious concerns
that Sarasota County has with respect to the draft E.I.S.
and these are as follows:
1) AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
On page 1.9, a statement is made that, "the industry's air
and water emissions are controlled by collection devices or
other treatment to meet State and Federal effluent standards."
This may very well be the way the system is supposed to work, .
however, I think the question which should be raised is U/"
whether or not the system and equipment is operating as en-
visioned to ensure environmental quality.
With respect to the natural environment and climatic conditions,
the statement is made on Page 1.10 that "because of the area's
flat terrain and steady winds, instances of extreme air pollution
in West Central Florida are not common and occur primarily only
in heavily populated or industrialized areas, sucn as Tampa."
This may very well be generally true for West Central Florida, ij-
but it is our understanding that Sarasota was to be included
in this seven county study area. Discussions with Meterologists
at the National Weather Service Station in Ruskin indicate that
inversions occur in this area on a nightly basis. In this light,
and given the average age of our retirement community, we feel
that additional investigation ought to be made of what may be
unique climatalogical situations in this area.
Data do exist in the files of the National Weather Service in
Ruskin which deals with parameters, such as wind speed and
direction, height of mixing layer, etc., that relate to inversions
We would strongly request that these and other pertinent data be
reviewed to determine the importance of air inversions in and to
the County of Sarasota.
-------
-2-
We can take little comfort in some of the twenty-four hour
SOo data as reported on Page 1.11. Although these remain
beiow critical- levels, analytical problems uncovered by (J-
EPA indicate that actual levels could have been two or
three times higher than those reported.
The 1976 fluoride emissions by the phosphate industry were
reported at 315 metric (346 short) tons. Fluoride levels
in vegetation according to the draft E.I.S. are dependent
upon rainfall frequency, thereby explaining the high (60 ppm)
levels in 1974. That would be acceptable to explain the 1974 (
high fluoride levels, but the data presented in Figure 1.3
indicate a trend of increasing fluoride levels starting in
1972 with ever-increasing levels of fluoride. We would like
to be sure that these data are subjected to rigorous, statis-
tical examination to insure that the conclusions are justified.
2) FLUORIDE AND URANIUM
Recovery of these two compounds based solely on economic
consideration, as implied on Page 1.72, is totally unacceptable
in view of documented damage caused by these compounds. They
should be removed from the waste water as a simple matter of
health protection. If a profit results, so much the better for
the industry, but placing such an emphasis on profit is neither
justifiable nor desirable from the public or environmental health
standpoint. As a matter of precedent and historical achievement
of this action, U.S.S. Agri -Chemi cal and W. R. Grace are recov-
ering fluoride from phosphoric acid and the Uranium Recovery u/-
Corporation, Gardinier, ? subsidiary of Westinghouse, Agrico-
Chemical and Freeport Minerals are all performing a similar re-
covery for uranium. With respect to uranium, the savings in
terms of oil energy equivalence (and, therefore foreign depen-
dence) would be considerable and 1s estimated to be between 97
129 million barrels by the draft E.I.S., itself.
3) WATER USE
With respect to the recommended connector wells as suggested on
Page 1.71, the utmost caution 1s encouraged such that existing u-
aquifer water 1s not degraded. If the use of floating dredges, **/~"
which would not necessitate de-watering of the mining site, can
be shown to result 1n less environmental impact than this approach,
1t should be encouraged.
4) WATER QUALITY
A misconception that has been perpetuated by the draft E.I.S.,
as it stands now, 1s that EPA "has no direct legal authority to
change requirements for existing sources". This is stated on u
Page 1.74 and 1s virtually hogwash. One has but to turn to *
Section 302 1n Public Law 92-500 to find the following diametri-
cally-opposed statement which relates to specific point sources,
"whenever, 1n the judgment of the Administrator, discharges of
pollutants from a point source or group of point sources, with
the application of effluent limitations required under Section
-------
1 i
-3-
. ) of this Act, would J^ntcrfere with the attainment or.
,. of iti.it w,U(;r_jijJali_ty_ in a specific portion of the
;,• h.itrrs and j_n_d u_s_trjjji Tu s c s , and the protection of
*.itiT ;.uppl ies, agricultural and industrial uses, and £*/
tntion and propagation of a balanced population of
•h, fish and wildlife, and allow recreational activities
on (he w.Uer, effluent limitations (including alternative
i ((,ntrol strategies) for such point source or sources
, r-.t.ihl ished. which can reasonably be expected to contri-
thr attainment or maintenance of such water quality."
t only (foes EPA have the authority, they have the legal.
, ... ••.ihility to improve existing effluent guidelines when
!,.!ir% I ike tjrjj. support said corrections.
lii.i) these lines, Sarasota and the State of Florida are
!y on record as saying that the application of BPT would
t in substantially more stringent effluent limitations.
',) HAIUTAT LOSS AND UETLANDS
'M' are encouraged to see reference made (Page 1.21) to the
I loMdj Department of Natural Resource's classification of
nixrd forest communities, hammocks and dry prairies as highly ^/.
i •r.r_ed_ and "emphasis being placed on their importance to
wildlife.
Without a doubt, the area's wetlands (i.e. bayheads, hardwood
iwanps, cypress swamps, mangroves, wet prairies, fresh water
narshcs and salt water marshes) are the area's most important
ecosystems in terms of life support or productivity. Hardwood
wanps and cypress heads are, we concur, No. 1 and No. 2, re-
•.prctively, in importance. As pointed out in the E.I.S.,
Darnell's 1976 study indicated that the loss of wetland habitat
is the most Important Impact of construction activity (Page 3.3).
We also concur that, and emphasize that, these Florida wetlands
.ire of national significance because they, with some of the
sinilarliabi tat 1n Southeast Louisiana, are the remaining wetlands
of significant extent and value 1n the United States.
In speaking of expanses of natural vegetation in "larger parks",
rention was made of the Hlllsborough River State Park on Page
1.20, but no mention 1s made of the Myakka River State Park,
which is right on one of the rivers likely to be the most Impacted
by planned phosphate mining activities.
With respect to projecting the changes 1n land use which will
occur in the future, Table 1.31 on Page 1.63 1s misleading. It
indicates that the wetlands which represent 178,268 hectares as
of 1975, will diminish very slightly and, in fact, decrease only
i.IS over the period 1975 to the year 2000. In view of the
Inter-relatedness of phosphate deposits and wetlands, 1t would
seem unwise to project such a minimal change unless strong
-------
-4-
!,•!•.MI .in- enacted and enforced to protect these critical
jf this projected decrease 1s based, 1n any way, upon
,., '•'., [.lion that a significant amount of the wetlands can
., Minified to their original structure and function, then,
, thought ought to be given to the embryonic state of the
M-clamination. That 1s, to our .knowledge, no one has yet
< <•.<• on'.irato true reclammatlon of a 'hardwood swamp, a cypress
>
-------
i
-5-
,. , of .in .innu.ll composite sampling of all dischargers
.-'vrhip .1 picture of the additive effects, the frequ.ency
r',1 year would not be acceptable since far too much
(iuj|ot«nti.il for human health hazard is great. Because much
,r ;r.- d.ita is still being developed, with this E.I.S. in mind,
K- *i)l reserve comment on this subject until concrete figures ...
r.jiiMirr, chronic effects over time, etc. are available.
v no llie research has been done, human hazard has been indicated.
.r will m.ikc additional comments on this subject when additional
•!.ii,i ore available, and analyzed.
'*) I CCNOMICS.
Wr would like to point out that inadequate consideration has
fnti yivon to th-e economic burdens which phosphate mining opera-
tions places on community services and infra-structure (substantial
runiiorjng costs were covered by other speakers).
On the National scale, it seems utterly foolish to encourage
importation of any finite and strategic resource, e.g. oil or ,.
1'iosphate, when, by doing so, we place ourselves in such a pre-
i.irlous position with respect to dependence upon other countries.
In view of the history on oil, we would strongly recommend that
»o rorc phosphate be exported until a sound National Policy on this
(.in be established.
Wr will save any additional comments on this, radiation, Inver-
sions, etc., for our written comments, which will be submitted
shortly.
'0) DASIS OF THE SCENARIO
The State of Florida has already taken steps to provide more
stringent protection against the adverse effects of phosphate
Mnlng, which go beyond Federal requirements.
*•'«• encourage you to strengthen the scenario 1n the indicated .1.
jrcas so that the EPA and other Federal agencies will be able
to nect their responsibility in reinforcing the environmental
protection efforts of State and Local Governments.
JU:rkt
-------
fUtdmg covin tht 24 hour porlod ending at 8 «.m. today
LATEST PSI: 87
Pollutant: Ozone
Health Implications:
Moderate danger to
public health indicated
in today's index.
PSI readings above 300 are hazardous to public health.
The PSI (Pollutant Standards Index) count is taken by the Sarasota
Environmental Control Department at four different points around the county,
measuring the ozone, particulates. sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
carbon monoxide. The daily PSI coqnt is derived by taking the highest of
the four pollutant readings. A reading to 50 would be well within the
"acceptable" range of modern living.
Data courtesy of The Ssresota County Environmental Control
^•v •• • ^^^ w «•«•••» ™ -^^^
The graph describes a broad picture of the PSI count In recent years.
Lines compare highest monthly readings for respective years. Graph curves
do not reflect daily readings.
1976********************************
1S77
1978
300
200
25
0
•
•
!
1
I
oJ
-4—
-
> i
— 1-
1
1
1
1
!
i i
"
^1
:i
,;•
•
1
1
LI;
•
z
->
cc
CL
>
Ul
z-
D
01
V)
O
O
O
11 A.M..READINGS
Temperature g£ ',
*' . ,*
Dew Point fijj. .
Bflrometor
(inches) 30.06.
Vicilitlitw A mi1o«
X'v:
Over Area jf^
Air'
By PETE JJOBIiNS
Journal Staff \\rlicr
Caution — breathing may
be h.v.arilous to your health.
If you found breathing
tough this morning, you can
expect the same trouble
Wednesday as moderate to
unhealthy levels of ozone air
pollution have descended, over
the local -rea.
Trapped by an Inversion at
6,000 to 7,000 feet, the air
pollution is being held in
place by light and variable
winds.
Joe Plantc, mctcrolo|:M at
the U.S. Weather Service in
Ruskin, said this morning th.n
the inversion should break h>
midday and allow for fomo
mixing of the atmospheir
But, a second inversion .it
14,000 feet will keep the .ur
within that two-mile plus atr.i
Citing a weather lui'.lc: •••
from the National We.i!i^i
Sen-ice office in WaOur-,-;.-
Plante said parts of !'!.•:..la
are covered by stapn.nt .iir
With winds this nii'in n,: at
five miles an hour JI.MI Vt*
cast .ind a seal'ioi'.'i' t!,.s
afternoon, the |v:;i;!: . IN .'-X
swirling around the •"'•i .i"J
not moving out.
Normally, with l;nr:Mon<,
winds push the rv'.V.;!!-Ti cut
of the area. Hut, r;..",i- <.,:J
the light winds »h;.-h wi'.l ho
shifting will not n\'\c thc
air mass.
With only a Mii.ill rJMn,t>
I of MinwiM'x li>i i>. v> j!N-r
I OffK'l.llS .Til' In't I'»JH . !] .,; ||.,.
-------
COUNTY OF SARASOTA
FLORIDA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ANDREW SANDECREN • DISTRICT 1 P.O. BOX 8
BEVERLY CLAY • DISTRICT 2 8ARASOTA. FLA. 3357B
JAMES D. NEVILLE • DISTRICT 3 PHONE: BI3/363-IOOO
JOHN M. SABA, JR. • DISTRICT A
LARRY RHODES • DISTRICT 5
ED MARONEY • COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
22 June 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, Chief
E. I.S. Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Cortland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
RE: Comments on Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
on the Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Please find enclosed additional detailed comments by Sarasota
County on the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement on
the Central Florida Phosphate Industry. The comments are in-
tended to strengthen the Final Areawide EIS and ensure adequate
guidance for subsequent site-specific environmental impact
statements for particular phosphate mining projects.
Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed comments,
please do not hesitate to call Dr. Jeffrey L. Lincer, Environ-
mental Specialist for Sarasota County, telephone number 813-
371-3104.
Your consideration of Sarasota County's comments is appreciated.
/ery tnuly youi
RLS:AS:
-------
COMMENTS ON DRAFT AREAWIDE PHOSPHATE EIS
BY
SARASOTA COUNTY
JUNE 21, 1978
3-2/0
-------
WETLANDS
On page 1.72, an Inference is made that category 1 wetlands
(which generally Includes cypress swamps, swamp forests, wet
prairies and certain freshwater marshes) should not be altered.
However, no specific statement to that effect is provided.
It Is our recommendation that such a statement be provided in
order that no misinterpretation of these guidelines is made.
There 1s also a real need to clarify the difference between (/^— 2. 5TS"
categories 2 and 3 on page 1.72, if they exist. For Instance,
reference 1s made to "certain isolated non-category wetlands"
1n category 2, which provides some ambiguity. Under category
3, the statement ts made that "these ^wetlands] are Isolated
and normally intermittent in nature and have insignificant
hydrological functions and minimal life support value". There
1s considerable value placed on these wetland depressions,
which by themselves may be singularly minor in their Hfe
support value, but in total may be the major climatological
factor modifying Central Florida's weather. In addition, the
total edge area or ecotone provided by literally tens of thou-
sands of these small intermittent ponds contributes greatly to
the Hfe support system of the biological community.
Accordingly, the Draft EIS should be modified to specify that
the cumulative value of these intermittent shallow depressions
be determined in site-specific efforts prior to automatically
classifying them in category 3.
A strong statement should also be made relative to the mining
of lands juxtaposed to these wetlands. That is, we cannot
afford ambiguous wording that would allow us to cut the "hydro-
logical throats" of these wetlands by mining all around them,
thereby leaving a pedestal community, which ultimately dries
up because of the neighboring drainage patterns.
It is Important, therefore, that the Areawide EIS call for an
analysis of the relationship between juxtaposed hydrologic
systems 1n any site-specific EIS. This comment should be added
to paragraph 4 on page 2.91 or paragraph 3 on page 3.4.
WATER QUALITY
There 1s a temptation to assume that the water quality problem
1s not really a regional one but a local one. The Final EIS
should recognize that even a localized impact of lowered water frj
quality on a recreation-based economy could be devastating.
Recreational activities, such as fishing, swimming, boating
and other water-oriented activities, depend very greatly on the
maintenance of high quality water. One has but to recall the
devastating effects of slime spills on the Peace River to realize
the potential impact of poor water quality on a recreational-
based economy.
-1-
-------
A specific example of the value of a recreational resource,
dependent on water quality and quantity, is that of the Myakka
River State Park. Sarasota County has calculated that nearly
a quarter of a million people visit this park per year and
they contribute conservatively one-half million dollars to the
local economy. As another example of the impact of, in part,
lowered water quality on the recreational economy, the Mote
Marine Laboratory completed an economic analysis of the impact
of the 1971 red tide outbreak on s^ven coastal counties, in-
cluding Sarasota.' It was estimated that the impact of that
red tide outbreak on the tourist-oriented community was in
excess of twenty million dollars. This estimate, like the one
for Myakka State Park, was based on economic data from the
early 1970's. Impacts, based on more recent figures, would
undoubtedly be greater.
RECLAMATION
As pointed out in the Draft EIS (page 4.2), "mining disturbs
existing land cover, changes land use and redistributes soil
and radioactivity." The subsequent statements made on pages
4.2 and 4.3, relative to reclamation, are significant steps
in the right direction; however, they seem almost editorial
in nature rather than establishing firm requirements for site-
specific EIS's. The Final EIS should be modified to specifi-
cally recommend that the provisions of the Federal' Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 be adopted by
Federal, State and Local agencies to regulate the reclamation
of phosphate strip mining. This should be incorporated into
the last paragraph on page 4.2.
Although recognition is given to the fact that endangered
species will likely experience great losses (1.26), inadequate
attention is given to possible mitigating efforts (Section 4).
A significant omission, in the form of the U.S. Fish and Wild- ...
life Service's report on wildlife (prepared by the Archbold l-J*"«-* o
Biological Station), is glaringly obvious. Recommendations
contained therein should be incorporated, especially with re-
spect to available reclamation and wildlife management tech-
niques.
In the above report, reference should be made to: Section VII,
which deals with existing fish and wildlife management programs
(pages 160-166); Section IX, which deals with the potential
impacts (both direct and indirect) of mining on fish and wild-
life (pages 1267-1274), and; Section XC, which specifically
addresses reclamation recommendations (pages 1277-1279).
1
Habas,
of the
future
E. J. and C.
1971 Florida
occurrences.
K. Gilbert, 1974. The economic effects
Red Tide and the damage it presages for
Envir. Letters 6(2) = 139-147 .
-2-
-------
CLIMATOLOGY
Night-time inversions and region-wide high pressure zones,
which have similar effects, are common occurrences in this
area. In addition, summer cyclonic weather patterns occur
regularly during the day. The generalized concept of
meteorology presented in the Draft EIS does not agree with
the existing local air modeling and observations on clima- U/
tology. Sea breezes, in fact, are very complex in their
meteorological characteristics and they do not always cleanse
themselves rapidly of pollutants as one might expect. Factors
which operate contrary to this intuitive reason are: 1) the
back and forth movement of the winds which make the air sub-
ject to pollution emissions more than once; 2) the very fre-
quent inversions associated with coastlines; and, 3) a
multitude of other micro-meteorological conditions found
along this coastline.
The micro-meteorological conditions along the coastline are
indeed complicated and should be of primary concern when doing
a site-specific EIS or DRI. We encourage you to make a strong
statement in the Final EIS (for instance on page 3.1) indicating
that these kinds- of atmospheric conditions should be attended to
in detail in the site-specific' EIS ' s . Please note that valuable
atmospheric data are currently available at both the Ruskin
Weather Station and at Sarasota County's Pollution Control Divi-
sion.
AIR MONITORING
With reference to figure 1.3 on page 1.12, staff research
since Dr. Lincer's presentation of May 22, 1978, indicates that
the basis for relating vegetative fluoride primarily to rain- /,j-2.6/
fall frequency is probably questionable. Although there is
an inverse relationship between rainfall and vegetative fluoride
for the years 1970 through 1974, the correlative relationship
between those parameters for the years 1964 through 1970 is
more of a direct (or positive) relationship. Vegetative fluoride
levels may be very good indicators of fluoride emission and it
would be a mistake to minimize their value with this Draft EIS
such that less emphasis was placed on continuing vegetative
fluoride monitoring. If a better monitoring program can be
demonstrated, then that should, of course, be used. However,
we suggest that EPA not discourage the monitoring of this
poisonous substance by suggesting that vegetational monitoring
is undesirable unless an adequate justification can be made for
such a move and a better monitoring mechanism can be recommended.
-3-
-------
RADIATION EXPOSURE
The lack of existing data on radiation exposure connected
with phosphate mining is reflected in the Draft EIS, which
was essentially limited to compiling existing information.
The Final EIS should clearly acknowledge this limitation
and call for the: 1) development of radiation exposure data
in subsequent site-specific impact statements, as well as,
2) enactment of adequate Federal and State monitoring require-
ments.
As 1t now stands, the Draft EIS presents the meager existing
data in a manner which improperly suggests that the lack of
Information reduces the probability of radiation exposure
risks resulting from phosphate mining. A glaring example of
this approach is provided in the Section of the Draft EIS I
assessing the radiation environment (pages 1.48-1.54) as part
of the background and description of the proposed action.
The Draft EIS acknowledges that all radiation exposure is
considered harmful and the long term effects of low radiation
doses are not fully known (page 1.50). Nevertheless, the
summary of this Section (page 1.52) is entirely devoted to
statistics which are presented in the summary for the first
time to indicate that Polk County has a lower lung cancer
mortality rate than other areas of the State. This is a
correlative relationship and should not be presented as cause
and effect.
This arrangement of information is particularly inappropriate
because the body of the report states that radioactive concen-
trations have been shown to be higher in homes and other
structures built on reclaimed land than in structures located
on land outside the mineralized phosphate area (pages 1.51-
1.52). No mention is made of the estimated increased risks
of lung cancer from living in such homes although such esti-
mates have been calculated.
Although it is recognized that vegetables grown in the Bone
Valley region have higher radiation concentrations (page 1.52),
there is no mention anywhere in the Draft EIS of any need for
information on radiation concentrations in citrus or cattle
raised on reclaimed land or the risks which such products b
impose on humans. This is particularly disturbing since agri-
culture is one of the major reclamation alternatives for mined
.land. The Draft EIS states, "there has been no proof to date
that any activity of the industry causes a radiation impact on
the general population" (page 2.63). Then, after identifying
pathways for radiation impact by the industry, the Draft EIS
merely observes (page 2.64):
"Quantifying impacts on the general
population by exposure associated
with the pathways just listed was
considered beyond the scope of this
program."
-4- -> * . sf
-------
In assessing the impact of radiation exposure resulting from
new mining, the Draft EIS asserts, "the impact on the general
population and on phosphate workers . . . resulting from the
forecasted increase in mining activity . . . would be insigni-
ficant compared with that under Scenario 2.15" (the Without
Action Alternative). This seems reassuring, but it is diff1 - . % / ^
cult to understand how the impact of new mining could be ** *lp*r
compared to the impact of the Without Action Alternative when
there has been no quantification of the radiation exposure
impacts associated with reclaimed land associated with either
Scenario (cf. pages 2.63-2.64).
Unlike the approach taken to the impacts of mining upon water
quantity (page 2.74), the Draft EIS did not attempt to con-
sider a "worst-case" approach to radiation on water quality
or land reclamation due to the lack of date (pages 2.63-2.75).
It is perhaps natural to de-emphasize invisible, emotion-arous-
ing dangers which are difficult and expensive to quantify. 5.67
Nevertheless, the Final EIS should present, in a more forth- l*/"
right manner, the limited amount of disturbing information
which is currently available and clearly call for the develop-
ment of quantified radiation exposure data in subsequent site-
specific impact statements as well as a program of long-term
monitoring.
SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Section 5 of the Draft EIS should provide a well-ordered
analysis that relates the short-term effects of new phosphate jj. 2.C»6
mining in the study area to the long-term impacts that can be
expected from such mining.
The study area is the major domestic supplier of phosphate, a
non-renewable resource of strategic importance to the security
and economy of the entire nation. Accordingly, this Section
of the Draft EIS should attempt to clearly define the policy ti-i,fc?
choices which must be considered by Federal, State and Local
government officials and the public in determining what con-
trols should be placed upon phosphate mining in Florida.
The current disjointed juxtaposition of positive and adverse
impacts should be replaced with a sequential analysis of the . _
short-term and long-term impacts of new mining in the study ** "
area with respect to the following:
A. Regional Environment
1. Soils
2. Water resources
3. Air resources
4. Vegetation
5. Wildlife and fisheries
6. Land use
7. Recreation resources
8. Aesthetic values
-------
B. Regional Employment, Economic Activity
and Tax Revenues
C. Domestic Fertilizer Supplies and Prices
D. Importation of Phosphate and the National
Balance of Payments
All of the above factors are currently addressed by Section 5
of the Draft EIS in less than two double-spaced pages by
employing vague generalities and unstated assumptions.* k/-
The Council on Environmental Quality has recently called for
greater emphasis on analysis in the EIS process. The need for
expanded, more vigorous analysis in this portion of the Draft
EIS is both obvious and imperative.
* As an example, Section 5 begins by asserting that there is a
"tradeoff" between adverse environmental impacts versus "low-
priced fertilizer for enhanced agricultural production" as well
as "reduction in U.S. trade deficits." In the context of
analyzing the short-term and long-term impacts of new mining, rj
this approach amounts to comparing environmental "apples" with
economic "oranges." There appears to be no basis in the Draft
EIS for the assumption that new mining will result in "low-
priced fertilizer" for either domestic or foreign agricultural
production, nor is there any serious attempt to address short-
term versus long-term effects of more rapid depletion of domestic
phosphate supplies upon the nation's trade deficit.
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the recommendations of the Final EIS is
of paramount concern. Accordingly, the EPA should clearly
identify: 1) the specific agencies which will be responsible (^-
for implementing actions, and; 2} the specific actions called
for by the Final EIS.
A particularly critical facet of the area-wide study was the
impacts predicted by the chosen scenario. The predicted impact
on water quality assumes that the industry will have to meet
Florida effluent guidelines. Since the Draft EIS recognizes
the necessity of applying Florida guidelines, which are more U/~
stringent than the Federal effluent guidelines, and in order
that future impacts not exceed predicted impacts on water quality,
the Final EIS should recommend that the Federal government adopt
Florida standards.
Because of limitations in funding, scope of study and/or lack
of data, many areas of concern have been left up to the site- i_"7iT
specific EIS's. It is, therefore, recommended that a separate I*'"*'
Section be devoted to specifying critical matters which must be
addressed in the site-specific efforts.
-6-
-------
It would not be the intent of this Section to cast in concrete
the scope nor the technical approach to all site-specific EIS's,
for each one will have to address some problems unique to that
site, but merely to make sure that important parameters, which
are identified in the Area-wide EIS, are not overlooked. These
considerations are currently scattered throughout the Draft EIS
text in a manner which is helpful to neither the industry nor
the regulating agencies.
The implementation of reclamation is of particular importance.
The Final EIS should identify means for preserving the benefits
of reclamation, once reclamation has been achieved. It would
be disappointing for instance if, after large sums of money had
been expended by the industry and by the regulatory and advisory
agencies to restore particularly valuable habitat, reclaimed
land were to be sold for some land-use which would, once again,
result in habitat devastation. Therefore, the Final EIS should
recommend mechanisms, such as the use of restrictive covenants,
to insure the maintenance and protection of ecologically signi-
ficant habitats, including wetlands.
-7-
-------
(DIPIOMATE OF AMERICAN BOARD OF ALLERGV AND IMMUNOLOGY)
MARY L. IELKS, M.D.
PEDIATRICS
1700 SOUTH OSPREY
SARASOTA, FLORIDA 3JS79
TELEPHONE {(13) 366-2002
June 20, 1978
(OIPLOMATE OF AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS)
Mr. John Hagan
U. S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St
Atlanta, Oa. 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Re: Phosphate EIS
1* The health effects of radiation from the phosphate mining have not /-/-7"77
b een adequately investigated. For instance, no castigation of the **^
recent omission of reaulremanttfdEralkaiinizatlon of washings which would
decrease radiation hazards. 'Immediate economies' seems to dominate the
policy of your present administration without regard of healtji effects or
eventual costs.
2. The impact of air pollution of power development for the activity of
mining has not been addressed. The sulfur oxides which when exposed to U/
the high ozone will givd serious health hazards of sulfates to populations
who will not benefit from the rewards of the profits of the activity.
Power sources have additional hazards since energy problems have shifted, to
oho fuels with higher sulfur contents. Florida is a delicate environment
whore, heat, humidity and sunlight will increase the reactivity of this
combination of air pollutants to be more hazardous.
3* The monitoring of florides has been inadequate and there is little k'~ * ' '
control of its emtsstonnfrom the gypsum ponds.
4, The emotional appeal of fertilizer to feed the hungry world is full k) -
of fallacies. The state of Florida has a very small percent of the available
phosphate of the world. Phosphate fertilizer is not the only means of
increasing productivity of soill There is poor distribution of the already
over productive materials with waste i n our fertilized farmlands. The
uncontrolled mining activity taking place today, resulting in vast wasteland
areas, with removal of most of our resources of phosphates to a depleted
state, with simultaneous health hazards, water depletion and destruction
of a naturally beautiful land, to gain a few-short lived economic deals,
will reveal the lack of .concern we have for our cottntryJs futoUBte.
Please consider these omissions and recommend further appraisal of
the phosphate mining activity with some federal scrutiny of this industry
which has powerful lobbyists to tend to blind adequate state monitoring.
(In all fairness, only the federal level can access radiation problems,
since the state is lacking personnel in this field.).
Sincerely,
M. L. Jelks, M.D.
-------
General Development Utilities. Inc.
n
V. i
June 22, 1978
Mr. John Hagen III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagen:
General Development Utilities, Inc. has under construction
a regional water treatment plant on the Peace River in DeSoto
County, Florida. The plant-will be placed in operation in
early 1979.
A review of the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact State-
ment on the Central Florida Phosphate Industry causes us
great concern. Some of these concerns were independently
addressed by other speakers at the three public hearings.
Comments follow on two areas of vital interest to the
Utility, water quality and quantity in the Peace River.
Section 3 of the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact State-
ment refers to parts of other scenarios that modify Sce-
nario 2.11 (Permit Existing and New Sources) as well as
other mitigative measures. Supplements of impacts are
provided in Section 3 for impacts described in Section 2.D.
As a downstream user of Myakkahatchee Creek (Big Slough)
and a future user (early 1979) of the Peace River, General
Development Utilities, Inc. is concerned about water
quantity and quality. The impacts described in the draft
about quantity are not considered to be adequately or
clearly represented. Since quantity and quality may be
related, a similar concern exists for quality.
On page 3.4, 3a briefly discusses quantity by informing
the reader that decreased surface flow is expected, followed
by an increase. No time periods are mentioned. No quanti-
ties are estimated. The reader must then refer to Sec-
tion 2.D to glean more information.
J-2S?
1111 Soulli Biivshoti'Oiiw. MI.IIIII. FkMii1,i :i:ii:il, ti'li'tilumi' LWS XiO U
-------
Mr. John Hagen III
Page 2
June 22, 1978
On page 2.56, a statement was made concerning the net loss
of surface runoff due to evaporation in containments or
impoundments. These losses were estimated to be 15 cubic
feet per second (c.f.s.) by 1985 and 21 c.f.s. by 2000 in
the Peace River. Some questions arise from these estimates.
1. Are the estimates annual numbers?
2. Do these estimates vary seasonally? How much?
3. What are the estimates for direct loss due to ^J — i. (J /
containment or impoundment?
4. How will reclaimation affect the quantity and
quality of runoff? How much more or less?
Similar questions exist for the required reduced water usage
scenario, particularly with regard to the impact on down- ^ ^ > g
stream users about quantity that is retained and must be **^
addressed in much more detail to assess impacts on downstream
users.
On pg.257 EPA suggests that the alteration of stream flow
through 1985 is minor, but by 2000 noticable. The draft
also states that changes in freshwater discharge to estuaries
are relatively minor and obscured by variation in normal . 5 * ?
discharge. This statement of virtually no impact to the ^/ "
estuary is puzzling. Many agencies, state and federal, are
concerned with the impact of water loss to estuaries and some
have required extensive studies for losses of freshwater.
EPA should consider again their position about impact to
Charlotte Harbor and whether the topic deserves study as
part of the generic impact of the phosphate industry.
One secondary effect of the southward expansion of the phos-
phate industry is increased use of electricity. The proposed
Florida Power and Light power plant in DeSoto County near
the Peace River would supply some of the new electrical demand.
At the same time, large amounts of water would be diverted
from the Peace River to a man-made lake for cooling purposes.
This impact on water quantity in the Peace River caused by ii-
power needs of the phosphate industry is not adequately
assessed either for downstream use or environmental changes
that may occur in Charlotte Harbor.
-------
Mr. John Hagen III
Page 3
June 22, 1978
General Development Utilities, Inc. has a potential service
area that would require it to serve approximately 300,000
persons from its Peace River Water Plant. The interests
of these utility customers in obtaining a sufficient quantity
of safe potable water is directly tied to activities affect-
ing the Peace River and we request that the Draft Areawide
Environmental Impact Statement on the Central Florida Phos-
phate Industry adequately address protection of these interests,
Sincerely yours,
Harold E. Schmidt
President
HES:1mb
-------
-a/
-- - ' • s> -7.—
L^^.<....—-4st^
P *>(«&<. UZit'*-.
^'-csf s^-t. _
' "W;
-------
-X
7%
XX7 / V- -^
^«^^L-S2L^tlW—. * W^-<~
&T-i'L
•-- s
L-t-
't-K*£^-^k-A
/ ^ >-T /» • ^-4-v "?/ /v / /^ y *
j!f&4.£''L~£-ct<^ _j.i.iJT2 LslL*^ -/A A£^L^
-------
/ / }
^-J. a/ /£
__-< r/_.,._/y-__
-------
^
-------
ill rliUi./s ,-t \.:li
'K'"~ a !''•" -I,'"1..'. ^ *":.-" .'j / "/.*,/••".-: sfi v ^ f) ',* V ,. , UAVI iMu ii«o*i'C-t\ir'G cowMNf
•i ', '.' [i I ' i ,• . ,. ' !. " oiNin.uiuf«M».wivr
H •.. U.
) '.--. -^ H -.. U. < :4.j;-:^''..i U ••.•.:
I n'' ti ( r i p i 11 r' n ^ r t1 r i n '! n r P. n ri I n *' M v T i i i i;; • i -i r o i n' ir i- m r MT •" ' * °"ltCU)ft (lf ^HO(;|IAWS
.',i dlflLIAL tAi ntisMuii y| UHili'J:; iii lulVl.iluii y'1''1' '•'•IT - -
iuii;pa (813) 2/G-I313, Piiicllas 4Cl-l3i;i. I'clk 323 !3i3, iiifisolii i4/-lil3
MAV HA'JI CIM
oi«fciOB Of r«
NtW&ANO PUeUlAfFAIM
H.T.'U SMITH
l Q SMITH
OaiAl KttlMt'.H
VOLUME XZl> NUMBER 39 FEBRUARY 21, 1978
BREKSTER PHOSPHATE KEEPING PROMISES?
You would have thought that after the big spill which muddied the
Alafia River last August, the Brewster phosphate company would have
leaned over backward to prove that it was a freakish, one-tine ac-
cident, not an indication of the company's true attitude toward the
environment and other people's rights. But now comes a report frort
the Hillsborough County planning staff which claims that, to quote
directly,
"The most recent instances of non-compliance, rather than
being isolated violations, are part of a pattern which
spans two years."
Among the recent instances referred to are the building of an 800-
foot dam, the destruction of 50 acres of trees, and the excavation
of a creekbed. The planning staff report claina the Brewster firm
violated both the county mining ordinance and the commitments it
mads to get a state permit as a "Development of Regional Impact."
It also seens to violate promises
ART CARD made to the public in this booklet
published at the time, which re-
OF BOOKLET peatedly states that flood plains
will not bs altered or affected.
We understand that in any project of this mngz'.ituda. . .mining 50-mi.llion
tons of ore from almost Cen-r.housand acres of land... there are bound
to be occasional problems, even with the best of intent. But these
incidents seem to °o beyond that. We wore willing to give Brewster
the benefit of the doubt after last sunnier's spill. Now we suggest
it's time that this company and all ot'rnrs mining the land in this area,
be put on notice tbat making promises is not enough. They must also
live up to them.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
ER-78/339
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Court land Street
.Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. White:
We have reviewed the draft statement for the Central Florida
Phosphate Industry sent to us April 7, 1978. We have exten-
sive and serious concerns as to the adequacy of the document
from both our jurisdictional responsibilities and our several
areas of expertise. Interior reviewers were unanimous in
their criticism that the organization and analysis in the
statement were highly confusing.
The statement should indicate that review and approval of
any New Source NPDES or Section 401 permits require consulta-
tion with our Fish and Wildlife Service. The statement
should also reflect recognition of EPA's responsibilities,
and indicate how they will be discharged, under the following
laws or Executive Orders:
Endangered Species Act of 1973
E.G. 11593g "Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment"
E.O. 1190, "Protection of Wetlands"
.The statement does not present a clear, coherent identifica-
tion and analysis of impacts that may be reasonably expected
to occur on resources of the area. This is particularly lJ
true in regard to archeological and historic values; recrea-
tion values, including a possible scenic river, and projects
established with the aid of Land and Water Conservation Funds;
water resources, including both groundwater and surface water;
-------
and wildlife. Discussion of the hazards and possible impacts
from radioactivity are especially confused and ambiguous.
The statement (pp. 1-70, U-3) that the Department of the
Interior intends to apply regulations under the Surface Min-
ing Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to any surface mining
involving federally controlled lands is in error. Section
709(a) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (30 USC 1201) directs the Chairman of CEQ to contract j^-if
with the National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of
Engineering or other Government agencies or private groups
"for an in-depth study of current and developing technology
for surface and open pit mining and reclamation for minerals
other than coal designed to assist in the establishment of
effective and reasonable regulation of surface and open pit
mining and reclamation for minerals other than coal." The
Department of the Interior is awaiting the results of this
study.
Finally, the presentation of the proposed action, on pages
1.70-1.72, is highly misleading. The reader is led to
believe that rock-drying processing at beneficiation plants
and conventional aboveground slime-disposal areas will be
eliminated and that fluorine compounds and uranium oxide (J - I 1 f
will be recovered. However, in some cases, it may not be
possible for present purchasers of phosphate rock to use the
wet material. Elimination of the aboveground slime-disposal
areas is dependent on the sand-spray dewatering system devel-
oped by Brewster Phosphate Company. This method is dependent
on the sand/clay makeup of the matrix and cannot be
universally applied. The impact analysis (pp. 3.8 and 3.9)
indicates that some of the uranium may be recovered, but no
recovery of the fluorine is expected. Recovery of these is
entirely dependent on economics.
We are providing extensive comments and suggestions for your
consideration and use in preparing the final statement. In
this regard, we strongly urge that EPA reconsider the decision,
as expressed in the transmittal letter of April 7, 1978, to
not reprint material contained in the draft statement.
Because of the ambiguities, disconnected analysis, and exten-
sive errors in the draft, it is doubtful that NEPA require-
ments can be satisfied in this case by limited revisions and
8
-------
responses... We will be glad to assist as necessary in the
areas where we have expressed concerns.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
SECRETARY
Enclosures
-------
Review and Comments on DBS for
Central Florida Phosphate Industry
The following comments elaborate on and provide specific
details as to the concerns identified in our letter. The
order of discussion generally follows that in the letter-
Archeological and Historical Sites
The statement acknowledges some 701 known archeological and
historical sites in the survey area. At a minimum, four
could be permanently altered or destroyed if mined. However,
we find no mention of "systematic survey" which could sub-
stantially increase the number of archeological and histor-^»v,1 X.
leal sites impacted by the proposed action. Consequently,
the concerns of the Florida Division of Archives, History and
Records Management appear valid in that discussion of mitiga-
tive measures to protect Florida's archeological and histor-
ical resources is almost non-existent and grossly insufficient.
We, therefore, recommend that the final environmental impact
statement contain in-depth discussion of alternatives to
include the avoidance of any impact on Florida's archeological
resources. We suggest that the Environmental Protection
Agency consult with the State Historical Preservation Officer,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation to determine regulations
and guidelines for the protection of cultural resources.
In conclusion, the 7-county area described in this report is
sensitive as far as paleontological resources are concerned.
The final ES should have some reference to the presence of
these resources as well as suggested mitigating measures to
protect them. Dr. Webb (Florida State Museum in Gainesville)
should be able to provide information on this subject.
Recreational Resources
With regard to impact on recreational opportunities, the exact
locations of the slime ponds are not identified. However,
discussion in the statement indicates that slime placement
poses a potential for adverse impact on the water quality and
thereby the recreational potential of Peace River and Lake fcX-
Myakka. Please note that Peace River meets all requirements
for scenic river classification. Further, Lake Myakka is con-
sidered to be of major recreational significance and is now
the site of recreational projects established with help of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Consequently,,the pro-
posal's actual impact on recreation opportunities cannot be
determined without specific information; e.g. , maps depicting
recreational opportunities in relation to slime pond placement.
-------
jgater Resources
The changes in potentiometric head likely to result^from
various alternative scenarios are discussed in detail, but
potential impacts of these changes should be given more con-
sideration. These are saltwater encroachment, upconing of ^j
mineralized water, changes in lake levels in the Ridge area,
and reduction in available freshwater supply in coastal areas
through interception of ground-water flow before it reaches
these areas. These are the real concerns in the area; the
lowered heads are of concern principally because they may
lead to one or more of those impacts.
Reference is made in several places to increasing the potential
for saltwater encroachment, and to "theoretical" saltwater
encroachment (e.g., p. 64 through 2.67, 2.74, 2.75), but no
assessment is given as to the likely reality, magnitude, or
seriousness of this phenomenon. Quite likely, data are not
available to assess quantitatively the times, distances, and
locations of possible encroachment, but we believe the
investigators have the responsibility of making some judgments
and of putting this possibility in perspective. If no judg-
ment can be made, because of lack of data or understanding of
the system, this, too, should be stated, indicating that salt-
water encroachment remains a possibility that needs further
evaluation.
The analysis of effects on the ground-water resources of
Manatee and Sarasota Counties appears to be restricted to an
assessment of changes in the potentiometric surfaces of the
artesian or confined aquifers. We suggest that it should
also include an evaluation of the possibility for interception
or "short circuiting" of unconfined ground-water flow toward
Manatee and Sarasota Counties as a result of pumping for
phosphate mines.
Another problem related to groundwater is contamination of
the aquifer. This may result in two ways. First, mineraliza-
tion of groundwater is a definite possibility. This can occur
through depletion of the aquifer, as was alluded to above, or
by seepage from slime ponds and cooling-water ponds. Secondly,
radiation contamination of the groundwater is a legitimate con-
cern. The DES states that the efficiency of an "impervious
membrane lining" to be used in ponds cannot be projected, tJ
because insufficient data exists. Since this could have very
significant effects on the aquifer and the areas dependent on
its supply and purity (e.g., springs originating in the
aquifer discharge into the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers
which, in turn, serve as supplies for the local population),
- 2 -
-------
the potential for radiation contamination should be examined
in much greater detail. This is obviously not the sort of
problem one would want to deal with after the fact; conse-
quently, mineralization .and radiation impacts on groundwater
should be fully evaluated in upcoming environmental statements.
Surface water is also not dealt with as completely as it
might have been. The natural waters of westcentral Florida
are already above "recommended" levels for phosphorous ..
(p. 1.28), so additions from the new mines would speed the &/-
eutrophication process. Moreover, because several cities and
counties rely on surface flows for water supplies, their main-
tenance is critically important. The DES indicates that
pollution control equipment will be employed to prevent dam-
age to surface flows, but there is no elaboration concerning
the exact nature of this equipment. What it is, availability,
how it works, and how successful has it been in the past are
the type of questions that would provide the supporting
information necessary to fully evaluate this impact.
The DES also points out the potential for extremely damaging
pollution loading to surface water through failure of a slime-
pond dike (p. 183). Since this might impact on Class I LJ-
waters, preventing such an occurrence is vitally important.
The statement details the methods that will be used to control
this situation (p. 4.4), but more information about the actual
systems would be useful to assess their capabilities and to
suggest alternatives.
Wildlife Resources
Some of the habitat types (particularly those crucial to wild-
life and endangered species) should be mapped. Much attention
is given to wetlands in the DES, but little definition is
given to important terrestrial habitat areas that may need 1.1-
protection.
We feel that Section 3 in the statement is most deficient in
the summarizing the impacts on fauna and flora outside of
wetlands and the man-made environment. Plate 1 shows that only
a small percentage of the area is wetlands. While it is true
that phosphate mining will have its greatest impacts on wet-
lands, the impacts on other communities need to be more
thoroughly addressed in the statement.
An extensive study for the FWS by the Archbold Biological
Station of Lake Placid, Florida, drew a number of important tj *. \O O
conclusions regarding the continuation of phosphate mining
into new portions of the study area and current reclamation
- 3 -
-------
practice on these mined lands. The following is a summary
by the FWS of these conclusions:
1. Most phosphate mining activities are adverse to wild-
life.
2. Present reclamation techniques favor a reduction of
species diversity and establishment of a less valuable
assemblage of generalized species.
3. Mining effects on wildlife include some impacts far
removed from the actual mining site.
4. Those species having a restricted habitat (ecologically
sensitive) are affected the most.
5. Continued mining development, combined with other
habitat losses, would result in a serious reduction in
diversity and abundance of wildlife in the study area.
6. Although recent reclamation proposals provide methods
for greater variety of habitat, these remain largely
unimplemented.
7. Reclamation directed toward establishment of few adapt-
able species would do little to minimize mining impacts
in the area.
8. Unless proper land use controls are implemented to pre-
vent degradation of habitat after reclamation, any
improved reclamation efforts would be useless.
Special actions on the local, county, regional, and State
level will be required in addition to any EPA regulatory
conditions imposed on new sources. Changes in reclamation
practice are needed on currently disturbed mined lands
before additional habitat losses occur in new mining areas.
An extensive proposal by the FWS described in a recent paper
entitled, "Recommendations on Central Florida Phosphate," is
being circulated in the study area. A cooperative develop-
ment and demonstration program on reclaiming phosphate mined
lands to wetlands and forest habitats is now underway in the
study area. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
is the lead agency on this program. Partial funding and
participation is also being provided by the FWS, the Florida
Phosphate Council, and some phosphate companies. Other groups,
agencies, and phosphate companies may also join the effort
soon.
-------
Radioactivity Hazards ij — £ O \
The treatment of radiation effects of the industry is confus-
ing. This may be due to. the scattering of radiation data
throughout the statement and the peculiar use of the term,
"background radiation," as including the effects of the
industry. There is no single section where all radiation
effects of the industry are evaluated together and where
they are compared to a background radiation not affected by
the industry. Some quantitative data on radiation exposure
is presented here and there, but it is also stated that
quantifying population exposures "was considered beyond the
scope of this program" (p. 2.64, par. 1). The reason why a
comprehensive quantitative analysis was not considered neces-
sary is not given. Presumably the radiation effects of the
industry do not significantly raise population exposures and
presumably this can be adequately demonstrated by the avail-
able data. However, this is not made explicit in the report.
Thus, discussion of exposure via the airpathway in Section 1
provides some quantitative data from two separate sources
but provides no measure by which these effects can be added,
nor does it assess their significance (p. 1.51, par. 1). It
is also not clear whether the data in Table 1.18 (p. 1.51)
refers to total emissions from a typical plant or from the
whole industry. In Section 3, radium-226 emissions from a
single dryer are given (p. 3.6, par. 1) that are more than
10 times greater than the total shown in Table 1.18 as
"associated with chemical processing."
The radiation effects at processing plants are not adequately
discussed. Gyp-stacks or gyp-ponds at plants are variously
mentioned but their long-term effects are nowhere discussed.
Gypsum is indicated to contain elevated concentration of
radium-226 and the long-term management or reclamation of the
gyp-stacks and gyp-ponds therefore represents an effect in the
area that will persist long after the processing plants have
ceased operation. Jurisdiction over the disposal of these
wastes should also be discussed.
Housing built on reclaimed minelands is indicated to potenti-
ally expose inhabitants to elevated levels of radon-222 and
its daughter products (p. 1.51). Techniques to mitigate
this problem are mentioned (p. 2.86, par- 3) but the juris-
diction or regulatory authority to assure mitigation is not
discussed.
-------
Phosphate Data and Technology
The Bureau of Mines has recently updated phosphate reserve
and resource data. Some of the tables shown in the study
should be replaced with updated tables currently available.
Several places such as Table 2.1, page 2.11, use 1975 data'
and pages 1.3 and 2.10 use 1977 data. The attached Table 2,
dated May 1978, shows an increase in United States reserves
of about 1 billion metric tons compared with Table 2.1. *».. 5 Q
Also attached are reserve data for Central Florida. The
increase of more than 400 million metric tons should be
reflected in Table 1.1, page 1.3, and Figure 2.3, page 2.9,
of the study.
It is proposed on page 1.70 that new sources eliminate the
rock drying processing at benefication plants and transport
wet (6 to 20 percent moisture) rock to chemical plants. This
could curtail our phosphate exports and have an adverse
impact on our balance of payments.
In 1977 the ,U.S. exported 13.2 million metric tons of phos- bJ-i
phate rock. All of this exported rock was dried except for
68,000 metric tons exported for use in electric furnaces in
Canada. Ordinarily, overseas consumers do not have facilities
to wet grind or dry imported wet phosphate rock. These con-
sumers would be faced with alternatives to construct terminals
for handling wet rock and drying facilities or turning to
other sources for dry rock. Our export markets may then be
forced to choose between building facilities to handle and
dry the wet rock and buying from another source.
The statement on page 1.51, "Additional exposure is possible
due to dust generated by the drying of phosphate rock and by
chemical processing" is not supported by available data. tJ-J
Emissions of particulate matter and any associated detectable
radiation are controlled with wet scrubbers. The proposal to
eliminate drying plants at all new mines in Florida assumes
that systems exist to ship wet rock to export markets.
Although the benefits of wet rock grinding are clear if the
phosphoric acid plant is designed to digest wet rock, it is
also clear that restricting drying of phosphate rock may
exclude foreign markets for new mines in Florida and decrease
the competitive position of exporters of rock from Florida.
Also, it is not clear how wet ground rock can be shipped to
port, how it can be loaded on a vessel, and how, after the
vessel leaves Florida's temperate climate, frozen ground wet
rock can be unloaded and stored in subfreezing climates
either in the Orient or Western Europe. It should be noted
that wet scrubbers or bag houses are available to control
emissions from rock grinding and drying plants.
- 6 -
-------
The proposal to use a "dry conveyor" for deslimed matrix from
mine to beneficiation plant cannot be supported by the recent
history of this conveyor at the Fort Lonesome mine. The phos-
phate industry has stored waste clay slimes behind dams in
mined-out pits because it has been the most economical pro-
cedure to follow. When, on occasion in the past, a dam failed
because of incorrect construction or .inadequate maintenance,
the impact was serious on surrounding waters. With proper
construction techniques and adequate maintenance programs no if
significant dam failure has occurred in recent years. The
technology to rapidly dewater the colloidal clays has been
elusive to both government and industry investigators. Some
success has been achieved by Brewster's sand-spray system and
the Bureau of Mines' efforts to classify the slimes further
and recover a concentrate from the coarse fraction by flota-
tion. Alternative systems to return waste clays to mined-
out areas will be developed, particularly if the economics
become more attractive.
The Bureau of Mines has concern for the lost P^S values ^n
the waste clays. Depending on the dewatering system used,
these values could be lost forever. At its Tuscaloosa
Metallurgy Research Center, the Bureau of Mines has current
research underway toward recovering Po^5 values from the
slimes. State Legislation (H.B. 1370; also addresses this /^/-
important point "to establish methods for better and more
efficient phosphate recovery mining and processing in this
State as it may determine most beneficial to the economy,
environment, and way of life of the citizen of the State."
The categorical elimination of above ground slimes disposal
areas may not be in the best interest of the United States
until exhaustive research is conducted to determine if these
phosphate values can be recovered.
In 1978, the Governor of Florida created the "Phosphate
Land Reclamation Study Commission" to report March 1, 1978,
to the Governor and the Florida Legislature and to make
recommendations toward solving some of the environmental l*J
problems associated with phosphate mining. These recommenda-
tions were included in a revision (H.B. 1370) of the Florida
statutes,"The Severance Tax Act," signed into law on June 1,
1978. This set up the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research
funded by a portion of the severance tax "to conduct or cause
to be conducted thorough and comprehensive study of phosphatic
clay disposal and utilization as a part of phosphate mining,
together with all environmental or land use related thereto."
We suggest that the final environmental impact statement
recommendation for this element correspond with subject legis-
lation.
- 7 -
-------
A USGS studyi/ concludes that phosphate mines in Central (J-%00
Florida have not had an adverse effect on the supply of
water from the Floridan aquifer available to Sarasota County.
Finally, the expansion of the industry in Manatee, Hardee,
and DeSoto Counties that was opposed by Sarasota County, has
not occurred because of cost increases and a decline in fJ-
prices in both domestic and international markets. There ^
is no question about the fact that there is an oversupply of
phosphate rocks in the world and it is a factor in restrict-
ing expansion in most producing countries.
General
We believe it would be most helpful to provide a brief back-
ground and status of reclamation practices and a discussion
of the county and State regulatory authorities and require- jj_
ments affecting phosphate mining. More than 80 percent of
the mined or minable areas in Florida are on private lands.
The State of Florida has, until recently, played only a
limited role in developing regulations and stipulating mining
and reclamation standards. The first State mandatory reclama-
tion requirements came as recently as 1975 and even with these
requirements the surface owner plays a very central role in
post mining land use choices. Since most of the private lands
are owned by mining companies many critical reclamation deci-
sions are made by the mining companies. However, both county
and State governments are becoming increasingly involved in
establishing regulations. A review of this would be most
helpful for it may be desirable to interface some Federal
authorities with those of the State and counties.
While the measures taken to involve the public were docu-
mented, there was little discussion of the feedback that was
gathered. The tabular scores of the steering and advisory t^
committees in Table 2.8 do not, by themselves, do justice to
the views of the public. We would like to see more narrative
discussion of the attitudes and expectations of the local
people in relation to phosphate mining.
The scope and purpose of the statement are given very briefly
only in the summary (p. i, last par.) and are not mentioned
in the body of the statement. A full discussion at the begin-
ning of Section 1 of the scope of the statement and its
relation to the proposed action and to actions to be covered ^
by site-specific environmental statements would greatly help
to clarify what follows.
17Simulated Changes in Ground-water Levels Resulting
from Proposed Phosphate Mining, West Central Florida.
Open file report 77-882
- 8 -
-------
The proposed Federal action which generated the need for this
statement is not well defined. Specific pending permits
should be identified and such permits that may be anticipated
by EPA in the future should also be discussed. The action is
given as a number of elements, described only in summarized ..
format at the end of Section 1 (p. 1.70-1.74). The descrip-^
tion of the effects due to these elements is then scattered in
Section 2 under different scenarios that presumably are alter-
natives to the proposed action. When impacts for the proposed
action are summarized in the very abbreviated Section 3, it
is no longer clear whether all elements mentioned in Chapter 1
are still part of the proposed action. A better description
of the proposed action, distinguishing aspects covered by
this programmatic statement from those to be dealt with in
site-specific statements, would clarify this matter.
The impacts of the proposed action are equally difficult to
follow. Despite its heading, Section 3 only supplements t
"the impacts described in Section 2D" (p. 3.1, par. 1). Sec-
tion 2D, however, only gives the "primary effects" of the
without-action scenario; the term "effect" was specifically
defined to distinguish it from "impact" (p. 2.35, last par.).
Apparently, this distinction was not carried out in the text.
On the other hand, the distinction between "primary" and
"secondary" effects is not clearly defined. Thus, there is
no clear picture in the statement itself of what the signifi-
cant impacts of the proposed action are considered to be.
The paragraphs (p. 1.69-1.70) relating to responsibilities
and authorities of the Department of the Interior with respect
to leasing and mining of federally-owned phosphate need
elaboration. As written, the public may reasonably conclude
that present mining operations in central Florida involve tJ
Federal minerals, and that the Geological Survey exercises
some degree of regulatory authority in the area. These pass-
ages should reflect that no Federal leases exist in the study
area and thus neither the BLM or the Geological Survey has
present regulatory authority over mining and reclamation in
the area. The EPA should also consult with BLM on the matter
of pending Federal lease applications in the study area, if
any, and include that information in the final statement.
Further, and in the same vein, this section of the statement
should fully identify the major State and local governmental .
regulatory authorities and responsibilities which do govern
present mining operations in the area, including the process-
ing plants and all related environmental monitoring and
surveillance.
- 9 -
78
-------
The five alternative scenarios and their impacts are des-
cribed in a confusing manner, neither consistently pre- __
sented nor identified throughout the report. The impact \jJ- J ' /
of the various scenarios on the man-made environment, and
specifically on the local phosphate industry, is only
examined in some detail for two scenarios (Table 2.1H on
p. 2.61). The section on the environmental impacts of the
proposed action (p. 3.1) is actually a supplement to impacts
described for the primary scenarios in the previous chapter,
rather than a comprehensive statement of impacts of the pro-
posed action. The true choices and their impacts are not
clear-
- 10 -
-------
Table 2.—Identified world phosphate resources
(Million metric tons)
Reserves I/
Identified
subeconomic
resources
Total
identified
resources
North America:
United States—
3,530
Total 3,530
South America • 450
Europe:
U.S.S.R. 1,400
Other 15
Total 1,415
Africa: ~~
Algeria • 50
Egypt 100
Morocco —— — 10,000
Senegal 130
South Africa 100
Tunisia • •— 300
Western Sahara 400
Other 200
Total 11,280
Asia:
China, People's Republic of 100
Israel 60
Jordan 100
Syria 200
Vietnam 100
Other 100
Total 660
Oceania:
Australia 100
Pacific Islands 100
Total 200
World total 2/ — 18,000
3,550
100
3.650
500
2,000
30
2,030
500
900
30,000
70
4,000
400
1,300
200
37,370
100
40
200
200
50
100
690
1,900
30
1,930
46,000
7,080
100
7,180
950
3,400
45
3,445
550
1,000
40.000
200
4,100
700
1,600
400
48,550
200
100
300
400
150
200
1,350
2,000
130
2,130
» ,000
I/ Estimated reserves at 1977 costs and prices.
2/ Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
Bureau of Mines
May 1978
-------
Identified
fiubeconomic
County Reserves resources
De Soto 103 92
Hardee 426 433
Hillsborough 76 20
Manatee 263 217
Polk 602 138
Total • 1,470 900
Bureau of Mines
May 1978
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1.11: The S02 data is left in a cloud of confusion by the
allusion to sampling problems. The sampling methodology ^* 3 I 7
and problems uncovered should be briefly described.
Page 1.31, fig. 1.10: The reference should be to Shampine 1965.\J- 3tQ
Page 1.34, 1.35: Data from gaging stations should be credited
to the U.S. Geological Survey. i^-J/T
Page 1.36, sec. d: The discussion of ground-water resources
should include hydrogeologic parameters of the aquifer
confining bed: transmissivity, storage, leakance coefficient,
and thickness. The lower confining bed of the Floridan
aquifer should be mentioned. The reference to Wilson
1975 should be 1977a.
Page 1.37, fig. 1.12: The Lake City Limestone is generally
considered to be part of the lower confining bed, not t»^- Ja./
part of the Floridan aquifer, in the study area, The
scale at the right of the section is wrong.
Page 1.38, last par-: It should be explained why the phenomena tj- 3 1 "i.
mentioned here are "important."
Page 1.39: Declines of the potentiometric surface between
September 1919 and September 1975 are not shown and thus
the "center" is not documented. No evidence is given to
support the claim that these declines are largely attributed *
to the phosphate industry- The roles of drought and fc/-i«*
pumpages for irrigation, public supplies, and other industry
should be discussed. In the third line from the end of
the second paragraph, "principally" should be substituted
for "only." The model shows, for example, that the effects
of phosphate pumping in Polk County extend beyond the
county boundaries.
Page 1.40: The potential for upconing of saltwater in inland areas
due to lowering of potentiometric head should be discussed.
No documentation is provided to establish that contamination
from wells is a "much greater threat" (par. 2, line 1). (J-3l4-
While the initial paragraph on "water demand" identifies the
many water users and Table 1.14 identifies on a county by
county basis current and projected water consumption, this
information would be much more valuable for developing a
phosphate policy if it were broke out so that we would know
how much is being used by the phosphate industry and how
their projected activities might impact the fresh water
supply. We understand that as much water is used for
-------
2.
agricultural irrigation as for mining in this seven county
study area. What part of the increased water usage will
result from increased levels of irrigation? Also, is
there a sensitivity scale that will help us understand at
what point in the decline of the potentiometric surface
of the aquifer will the "increased potential for salt
water encoachment" (page 282) or upconing become a problem?
Page 1.41: Water demands, as used in table 1.11, should be defined.
It would be useful in this table to give annual totals and 4^-j
corresponding net changes.
Page l."+8, par. 1: It is stated that "the phosphate industry
currently mines slightly more total uranium than does the (J-
uranium industry," but it is not clear whether this applies
to United States or worldwide production. It is stated later
that "At a full-capacity operation of 4,570,000 ton per
year . . . the 12 phosphoric acid plants in operation in
the 7-county study area would pass 4,570,000 pounds of
U308 per year (approximately 19.U percent of 1975 U.S.
uranium production" (p. 2.25-2.26). Elsewhere it was
stated that the Central Florida Phosphate District accounted
for approximately 80 percent of U.S. production and 33
percent of world production in 1976 (p. 1.2, par. 2).
While the foregoing statements regarding uranium are not
necessarily contradictory, they appear to be, and they
should be clarified.
The section on radiation environment is written in such a
way that the reader would assume that if U308 were extracted
from the phosphate ore, radiation problems would be reduced.
This conclusion is reinforced in the discussion of uranium
extraction on page 2.25. The report is correct that iJ-
uranium exists in Florida phosphate deposits. It is also
correct that uranium is separated from waste products after
the "initial digestion of phosphate rock by sulfuric acid."
It is further correct that extraction will reduce the
"radioactive materials in phosphate products," principally
farm fertilizers. But, it is misleading and incorrect
to suggest that the extraction of uranium will reduce the
level of uranium (radio active materials) in gypsum piles,
slime ponds or reclaimed areas. Uranium is lost just as
phosphate materials are left behind in waste fractions.
Uranium associated with any waste fraction will remain
even if U30a is commercially extracted in the manufacturing
of phosphoric acid.
-------
3.
Page 1.51: The abnormally high radium - 226 level in waters
underlying Sarasota County are referred to here and f/J - i 5. Q
elsewhere in the report. It should be made clear that
this is unrelated to the phosphate occurence and the mining
activities. As the statement now stands, reference to this
concentration is confusing.
Page 1.52, 1.53« The age-adjusted mortality comparisons are not ~ a
clear; 37.98 for white males (nationally) and 44.93 for U - * * »
Florida (does this include non-whites?)
Page 1.54, table 1.24: More recent employment and income informa-
tion is available in such publications as "County Business
Patterns" and the multipliers that were used to cite the U/-*3<
effects on employment, income and output (page 1.5) have
been revised by the Regional Economic Analysis Division of
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Page 1.65: Any sites eligible or nominated for listing on the .j _ 3 7 /
National Register?
Page 1.71 and 2.76: The continued use of connector wells included
in the proposed action should be more adequately discussed
and evaluated, preferably with reference to successful
experience. The scope and impacts of the wastewater \^f-23<—
injections to which reference is made on page 2.76 should
be more fully explained. If connector wells are included
here, it should be so stated. The possibility of increased
sinkhole or limestone-solutioning activity as a result
of declining water levels in areas now having a high water
table should be evaluated. Increased exposure of walls
of solution openings or rock joints to infiltrating water
charged with carbon dioxide from soil and atmosphere will
promote solutioning. The greatest number of solution
openings being formed should be near the water table.
Thus, lowering the water table should make solutioning
more effective at somewhat greater depths. The statement
should include the map of the potentiometric surface for
1975, to which frequent reference is made, since all the
simulated potentiometric surface maps intended to show
effects are based upon the 1975 data plot.
Page 1.72: In addition to providing definitions for "3 categories"
of wetlands we believe it would be most helpful to identify
those areas whithin each category as soon as possible.
We would assume mining would be restricted in those areas ^.33 7
which "serve essential environmental functions" and all
would be better served identifying those "critical areas"
before mining plans are submitted in areas which will be
classified as unsuitable for mining.
.?- 2.44-
-------
In sub (b) a recommendation is made to line "gyp ponds"
with an imperious material unless it can be demonstrated tjj
in the site-specific EIS that such lining is not needed. "*
On page 2.87 the report states that the impact of such
action can not be assessed because "insufficient data
exists to quantify seepage from these already in existence."
From our reading, that is the only statement in this report
that even suggests that there is any seepage problem.
Rather than imposing a requirement where neither the benefits
nor costs (page 2.26) are known,it would seem more
appropriate to recommend further study to better identify
the problem. If one exists, it would be of a generic
nature and requirements on existing as well as new sources
should be established on that basis.
Page 1.74: It should be noted that the slight increase in total ^
fluoride emissions over the past several years parallels U/-31S
the increase in phosphate production and processing in the
area.
Page 2.4: The use of dry conveying of matrix has not been proven
as a satisfactory alternative to pumping slurries. The tJ-JSC
matrix is deslimed before conveying.
Page 2.5: Under 2.14 A, wetlands have^been defined in E.G.
11990. This definition should be "used for consistency, tj-* 3 7
rather than EPA redefining the term.
Page 2.8: The units used for production rates should be given. >•*£
The symbols in parentheses should be explained. U/-*-**'
Page 2.12, fig. 2.3: The USGS pumpage total for phosphate
chemical plants in the modeled area is 128 mgd for 1975 ti-iJ?
(revised from 13.5 mgd in Wilson's report) compared to "*^~ '
93.04 mgd for 1976 reported by EPA. The 1976 mines pumpage
(259.29 mgd) is higher than the USGS value used in the
model (174 mgd).
Page 2.19: The Bureau of Mines does not consider the flocculation^ \Ao
method operational yet. 4
Page 2.40: The reader would readily conclude from reviewing this
discussion on physical environment that mining severely
damages the soils and destroys much of its usefulness. To t
state that mining "destroys soil in terms of its original
identification characteristics" is accurate but not neces-
sarily useful. We believe that an assessment of this soils
change would be a most appropriate and useful tool for
better understanding and solving of mining and reclamation
problems.
- i 4S-
-------
"soil characteristics-" Then, an assessment of the impact
of this change should be made. Furthermore, while it is
useful to note that "high potential agricultural lands"
will be disrupted, that statement is not sufficient in'
itself. We should also know how long it might be disrupted
and if it can be returned to its previous productive
capabilities. We should also determine if all "high
potential" lands are intensively managed. These factors
must all be considered in any loss assessment.
Page 2.42-2.43: In the discussion of the impacts of mining on
the biological environment there is simply a listing of
all possible negative factors. These conclusions are not .
consistent with the March 1978 Fish and Wildlife Service CJ-J4 i.
report on Osceola which stated clearly that there could
be many beneficial effects from mining and reclamation.
Page 2.45, Sec. 3a: The reference to Wilson should be changed A .
from 1977 to 1977b. fc/-J-*/
Page 2.46, par. 1: It is not clear how the "inability to com- .
pare effects is a distinct disadvantage." «J-2 44-
Page 2.46, par. 2: The reference to Wilson should be changed
from 1977 to 1977b. u/
Page 2.46, par. 3: The range of "8x2 miles and 6x6 miles"
should be changed to "7.5x2 miles and 5x5 miles." It uf-
should be stated that a no-flow boundary is a special case
of the constant-flow boundary.
-------
Page 2.46, last par. and page 2.47, first par.: This paragraph
is confusing and should be revised. It seems unnecessary *v
to introduce the terms "time-dependent" and "time-independent,"
"input and output parameters," and letter symbols which are
not used again. If sources and discharges of water are to be
discussed, upward leakage should be included as a discharge.
In the last sentence, "amount" should be changed to "rate,"
and "coefficient" should be inserted after "leakance."
Also, pumpage and recharge are both cited as inputs; this
cannot be correct.
Page 2.47, last par.: Although in calibration the intent is fo/-j48
to match the simulated heads with the observed heads, too
much emphasis is often placed on the exactness—or inexactness—
of the match; a note should be added that generally the difference
between simulated and observed heads can be accounted for
by a reasonable range in error in one or more of the input
parameters. In line 5, it is not clear why or how the
simulated heads are "significantly" lower. The last sentence
beginning on page 2.47 is not necessarily true; a highly
unreliable parameter might also be very insensitive and thus
have little bearing on the accuracy of the results.
Page 2.48, par.3: It is not clear why the distribution of
transmissivity was of "major concern." After trying various
other transmissivity values for the southwestern part of the
area, 80,000 ft2/d was retained as the best for calibration«j_i4.^
purposes. Possible errors in transmissivity in that area
may be more related to errors in the observed potentiometric
surface. We know of no evidence to indicate that transmis-
sivity increases from north to south and from east to west.
The reference (Wilson, 1977) should be changed to (Wilson, 1977b).
Page 2.49, par. 1: The first sentence is misleading. The pumpages
by agriculture and municipalities were held constant to assess
the effects of the phosphate industry alone:. It was not Q
assumed that they actually would remain constant. Similar *»/-•»*
procedures are also being followed to assess the effects of
agriculture and of municipalities alone.
Page 2.49, par. 2: The decline predicted for an area near
Ft. Lonesome was more than 2 feet. To make it easier to
follow descriptions and present a ready visual expression *^
of declines and rises it would be helpful to include the
potentiometric change maps from Wilson's (1977b) report.
-------
7.
Page 2.19, par. 2: The categorical statement that pumping will
decrease streamflow, etc., is not substantiated. The
possible declines of lake levels as a result of mining .
activities is a subject of current concern in the Ridge b/~3
area; thus, additional declines in the potentiometric
surface could aggravate the situation. An assessment
should be made of the magnitude and importance of effects
on these lakes and on the population of the Ridge area.
It has been found that many of the lakes recharge the
Floridan aquifer, particularly when surrounding ground-water
levels are declining. I/ Thus, a "worst-case" analysis can
logically be based on fluctation of lake levels paralleling
computed changes in the potentiometric surface.
I/ a. Kohout , F. A., and Meyer, F.W. 1959, Hydrologic features-
of the Lake Istokpoga and Lake Placid areas , Highlands
County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of
Investigations no. 19, p. 65.
b. Stewart, H. G., Jr., 1966, Ground-water resources of
Polk County Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report
of Investigations no. 44, p. 1.
c. Stewart, J. W. , 1968, Hydrologic effects of pumping
from the Floridan aquifer in northwest Hillsborough,
northeast Pineallas and southwest Pasco Counties,
Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report,
p. 118.
Upconing of poor-quality water from the lower part of
Floridan aquifer through abandoned wells that have not been
properly plugged is discussed here and on page 2.81. The
statement should include some assessment of the severity of
this impact and, if possible, offer some suggestions as
to mitigation. The impact analysis should also include
at least a brief evaluation of the potential for impacts on
the human environment from leakage of mineralized water
because of the regional character of effects of the proposed
phosphate industry activities.
In the second sentence of this paragraph, delete . i » ~-4
"Unfortunately." **
Page 2.50: The value given for lower Floridan, 196 picocuries
per liter does not jibe with values on Table 2.10. (j. j «r«T
Page 2.61: Impact analysis should include the costs of
dislocation of the labor force and the social costs .• _
involved in unemployment.
J>- 248
-------
8.
Page 2.61, table 2.14: Since the losses in induced payroll were
based on 1967 dollars, the total effect was underestimated .
by at least 50 percent. Based on actual wage rates this «*/-
could amount to as much as $100 million in underestimatipn.
Page 2.65, fig. 2,10: The boundary shown is that of the EPA
study area, not that of the modeled area. A scale should M
be added.
Page 2.65, last par.: Other changes are that more water will be
discharged by upward leakage, and in Polk County less water**'"
will be recharged by downward leakage.
Page 2.66, fig. 2.11: See comments for figure 2.10 (p. 2.65). uf
Page 2.69: Sub (b) on soils should be revised in a manner
consistent with the recommendations made for page 2.40. fc/-
Page 2.72: One can not be certain from reviewing the last
paragraph if these statistics are based on previous Florida
reclamation standards or on the best available techniques *
for reclaiming mined land.
If the losses identified in the last paragraph of page 2.72
result from the lakes or other wetlands that would be created,
then it would be appropriate to discuss the benefit of these
new areas, if there are benefits. If these losses are
based on existing reclamation requirements or current reclama-
tion trends, then it should be noted that with appropriate
regulations the local or State governments could prevent many
of those losses if they deemed it appropriate.
Page 2.74, par. 3: Another change is decreasing upward leakage
in coastal areas. Also, upconing, as predicted on page «J
2.64 (par. 3), is not mentioned here.
Page 2.74, par. 4: It would be helpful to include the potentiometric
change map from Wilson's report. In the first line, "1-foot"
should be changed to "2-foot". U-**4-
Page 2.75, par. 1, last line: Change "1974" to "1975." t^-J^f
Page 2.75, par. 2: In describing the 1-foot decline, it should
be noted that simulation of heads is less acurate near fc/-
boundary nodes than elsewhere in the modeled area (Wilson,
1977, p. 25). Thus, comparison of the position of the 1-foot
contour line in 1985 and 2000 is meaningless, and the last
sentence should be deleted.
Page 2.75, par. 4: The word "western" should be changed to "eastern."
-------
Page 2.78: While mining necessitates the total clearing of an
area and the cutting of all timber, losses should be «J
measured in terms of reduced annual harvests. Is timber
commercially harvested in these seven counties? If so, a
table on existing and projected harvests would be helpful.
It should also contain estimates of how this would be
effected by mining and reclamation decisions. While it is
accurate to state that mining involves the "destruction of
a resource", it is also appropriate to review efforts that
have been made to reforested and revegetated mined land
areas. The principal reasons why more areas have not been
reforested is that (1) reforestation is a long-term land
use choice, (2) these counties are not a major timber pro-
ducing area, and (3) most reclamation decisions are made
by the surface owners.
No mention is made of uranium loss or recovery here, yet i
earlier (p. 2.62), it was indicated to be of more signifi-
cance than timber.
Page 2.80 and 2.82, figs. 2.12 and 2.13: The two figures are ^
reversed. Also, on both figures the boundary shown is w
that of the EPA study area, and not that of the modeled area;
"Scale 1,500,000" is incorrect.
Page 2.80, last par.: The question whether "a decrease in ground- .
water flow toward the Gulf of Mexico" will affect freshwater "-J n
resources in Manatee and Sarasota Counties should be addressed.
Page 2.81, par. 2 and 3: The increase for potential upconing 7-7 *
through wells and theorectical landward movement of the *»/-*'
freshwater/saltwater interface are mentioned. The likelihood,
magnitude, and seriousness of these problems should be
evaluated. Also, upconing by upward leakage in inland areas
should be discussed.
Page 2.81, last par.: It is not clear whether the changes given
for September 2000 are being compared to the September 1985
or September 1975 maps. The description of the 30-foot
contour line does not correspond to that shown on the map
in Wilson's report. It would be helpful to include the
change map for 1975 to 2000 from that report.
Page 2.82: The significance of small decline relative to the
thickness of the freshwater zone should be explained. In the
western part of the study area the freshwater zone is not . \-f4~
1,500 feet thick. As above, the "increased potential for K'""i
saltwater encroachment" should be evaluated.
-------
10,
Page 2.83, par. 2: The effects on water quality in the Floridan
aquifer are not mentioned under secondary effects for
Scenario 2.15 (p. 2.67, par. 1) and should also be covered
here for Scenario 2.11.
Page 2.84, table 2.16: Wage losses were based on 1975 wages
adjusted for 1967 purchasing power. To show the inaccurate
picture that is represented by this method, the average tj-
per annum wage per worker was quoted as $7,742; while v
according to the Lakeland-Winter Haven Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA) report of employment, submitted
to the U.S. Department of Labor, the annualM-ricoine for
phosphate industry workers was over $11,000 per annum in
1975. It is expected that current earnings are again
substantially above 1975. Wage loss was underestimated by
at least 50 percent. This type of analysis gives a completely
inaccurate picture of the alternative scenarios.
Page 2.91: The phosphate (and uranium) resources preserved by
restricting mining activities from water of the U.S. and jj-j"
wetlands will be of value only if in units of size and
character that may eventually be mined.
Page 3.U and 3.5, Water Quantity and Quality: Impacts on quantity
and quality of water in -Floridan aquifer should be mentioned. .
Page 6.1: The mineral commitment should compare resource mined
with the total resource. Recovery of the balance should (j- J "7
be addressed.
Page 7.5: Delete reference "Wilson, W. E., 1975." Change , , e»/•
reference from "Wilson, W. R., 1977" to "Wilson, W. E.,l*'~
-------
RECEIVED
EPA/REGION IV
NAY 31 IIK'H'IB
ENFORCEMENT
5850 Gulf of Mexico Dr. DIVISION
Longboat Key, Florida 33548
May 24, 1978
Mr. Paul Tralna
Director Enforcement Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree St. N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Dear Mr. Tralna,
For personal reasons I was unable to attend the hearing held at Manatee
Junior College on Monday of this week, which hearing regarded the future
development of phosphate mining and industry. I have followed much about
phosphate and am particular^ Interested in the future regarding how Its
development is done or maybe is not done due to the fact that I was born
and reared in Polk County, Florida, where the scars of phosphate mining are
really making many problems for now and years to come. These problems are
regarding radiation, water draw-down and resulting sinkholes and disappearing
artesian springs (where I used to swim), air pollution and water pollution.
I am enclosing a letter that I wrote to Mr. Richard J. Gulmond of the EPA
in Washington and would call your attention to pages 15 through 22 In his
paper of the study entitled THE RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF FERTILIZER UTILIS
2AIION , As you surely must agree the questions this study raises certainly
should be answered before much is done in new permits for mining and using .
phosphate. I will also enclose a copy of his reply to me. It seems to me l*J ~~
that controlled studies In fast growing lab animals eating controlled diets
of food raised both with and without phosphate fertilizers could be per-
formed and the answers found within a reasonable amount of time* Also, I
have read of at least two companies now either actively extracting uranium
from the phosphate or planning to do this. They are making money on It of
course. The end fertilizer should be safer for food growing, would It not?
Why not look Into this part of the study more thoroughly and make further
requirements.
In Manatee County, where I now live, we are faced with the spectre of Beker « _ •>
-------
3850 Gulf of Mexico Dr.
Longboat Key, Florida 335A8
August 10, 1977
Mr* Richard J. Gulnond
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
Dear Mr* Gu intend,
I have read your paper, "The Radiological Aspects of Fertilizer Utili-
sation", and vhereaa moat of it is over my head, the reason I looked it
up in the first place was my own curiosity regarding the absorption of
radioactivity by foods we eat*. I have asked physlolsta, physicians and
elected officials if anybody knew what the public nay be taking In through
foods fertilized with phosphates and nobody could give me an answer,
I recalled reading in the newspaper about certain grapefouit produced in
Polk County, Florida, that contained radiation. It was not explained whether
the radiation was due to fertilizers or perhaps that the roots had reached
down to natural radiation In either the soil or water.
I have wondered whether the higher Incidents of cancer has followed the
use-:of commercial fertiliser that got its large start in the 1840ls and
then with the superphosphates later on giving such possibilities a larger
boost.
Is there a society in this world that has not used commercial fertilisers
and from which studies regarding percentage of cancer development could
be compared? Perhaps we should not even be using phosphate fertilisers
unless the radiation can be removed before it is made into fertilizer.
Maybe ray thoughts are way off base but I just thought I would send thea
to you in case they are valid.
Sincerely,
Marty Ervln (Mrs, E.K. Ervln)
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 1 8 1977
Mrs. E. K. Ervin
5850 Gulf of Mexico Drive
Longboat Key, Florida 335H8
Dear Mrs. Ervin:
I am writing in response to your letter of August 10, 1977, dis-
cussing radioactivity in foods that we eat. Studies by the Environmental
Protection Agency and other investigators have shown that phosphate
based fertilizers contain concentrations of radioactive materials
which are higher than normally found in soil. Our studies show that
different types of fertilizers contain varying concentrations of
these radioactive materials and, therefore, would be expected to have
differing potential for enhancing the radioactivity in the soil.
As you may know, radioactivity is ubiquitous throughout the world.
As a consequence, there are background levels to which we
exposed that cannot be reasonably avoided. However, we believe
that it is prudent to minimize human exposure to radiation as much
as possible. As a consequence, we try to provide technical -controls
to undiscriminate release of radioactivity to the environment to the
extent practicable. At present we do not know if the radioactivity
present in the fertilizers is having any significant impact on the
uptake of radioactivity in foods. In general, the uptake in most
cases is probably small, but we are attempting to learn more about
the situation and will be publishing the findings as our work progresses.
Florida is unique in that 80% of phosphate mining in the United
States originates in Florida. Consequently, there is, a considerable
amount of radioactive material naturally present in the subsoil
throughout central and northern Florida. Prior to mining, this
generally does not interact with the biosphere; however, redistri-
bution of this radioactive material in mine products and wastes
can cause increased interaction with the biosphere and man.
You referred in your letter to reading a newspaper account which
noted that certain citrus produced in Polk County contained radiation.
This citrus was grown on.reclaimed land or land containing considerable
phosphorous material. Because of the radioactivity associated with
the phosphate material in the ground we have been observing some
radioactivity uptake in certain crops. This is probably more signif-
-------
leant for crops grown on lands which contain considerable concentrations
of the phosphate ore or related materials, than for land where
fertilizers have been added, because the phosphate land would contain
higher total concentrations and quantities of radionuclides than you
would normally find once a fertilizer was distributed throughout the
plowed layer of farm land.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to estimate whether increased
fertilizer use since the mid-1800 's has had any impact on national
cancer rates . I believe that in determining whether we should or
should not use phosphate fertilizers we have to look at the benefits
obtained by the utilization of the fertilizers. Clearly, these
fertilizers substantially increase crop yields and thus enable a
considerable amount of food to be grown on the land. In times of
food scarcity, the fertilizers are quite beneficial in feeding the
world's population. However, if it is possible to practically remove
radioactive materials from fertilizers , we must certainly evaluate
the reduction in health risk that could accompany the removal.
Where removal is determined to be practical it should be strongly
considered.
Thank you for your interest in the protection of public health
from radioactive materials, and particularly with respect to the work
being done by the Environmental Protection Agency. For your infor-
mation, I am enclosing several publications we have recently prepared
regarding the phosphate industry and 'its potential impact on public
health. If you have any questions regarding these publications, please
do not hesitate to write me.
/Sincerely ,ypurs
"Richard Jt Guiroond
Federal Guidance Branch
Criteria £ Standards Division (AW-460)
cc: Dick Payne, Region IV
Ray Clark
Charles Porter, EERF
-------
USEPA, Region IV 21 June 1978
Phosphate Unit
3i|5 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Gentlemen:
A close study of the pertinent working papers prepared for the
Central Florida Phosphate Industry Areawide Impact Assessment
Program leaves me with the conviction that a serious omission
exists concerning phosphate industry induced radiation impacts
on the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor.
The only report of the concentration of radioactive materials
in the surface waters of the Peace and Myakka Rivers and their
tributaries or of Charlotte Harbor appears on page l\..2l\. of
Section Ij., Volume VT and is for a point well up the Peace at M
Saddle Creek. It is of course well known that both the Peace
River and Charlotte Harbor are "high phosphate waters" due not
only to mining activities, but also to the natural pick-up due
to the normal erosive forces as the river makes its way through
phosphate rich soils. It is also well known that radioactive
materials are common companions of the phosphate. The question
in the minds of many has been whether the river and harbor had
levels of materials which could be considered to be potentially
harmful. These papers do not address that question even though
many of us had thought that that was part of the plan. The
question is particularly pertinent in light of the fact that
steps are underway to utilize the waters of the Peace as a
source for Port Charlotte. There must be figures available
somewhere to support the continuing planning for such use. An
evaluation of the surface waters from the public safety point
of viewe certainly seems warranted.
Of particular significance is the fact that roughly half of
the population of Charlotte County are over 60 years of age.
Such a group of people lived through the period when the med-
ical profession and industry didn't recognize the potential
future effects of exposures to X-rays and other forms of rad-
iation. Many individuals may have a heavy burden from the
past and thus form a group which should not be exposed to
even rather low levels of radiation.
The preceding paragraphs are limited to possible hazards during
what might be called normal weather periods when the bottom
sediments of the river and harbor remain relatively undisturbed.
The massive slime spill of 1971 significantly altered the bottom
of the Peace and portions of the bottom of Charlotte Harbor.
Your papers report that "The flow of the river was increased by
a factor of 6, with a phosphorus concentration of more than
7,000 milligrams per liter.", and "Sediments were deposited more
than 6 feet deep in parts of the river channel, and a 3-inch
layer was left in Charlotte Harbor 70 miles downstream." I
found no mention of measurements or estimates of the radiation
-------
USEPA, Region IV 2. 21 June 1978
levels which certainly must have been increased above any "normal"
level. If there are no measurements, then I believe that a cal-
culation should be made using the same rationale as that in the
hypothetical case of a spill of approximately one-tenth the size.
(See page I(..30 of Section if, Vol. VI) I reco.-nize that the re-
sults of such a calculation could have strong emotional and pol-
itical impact, but I believe that it would be less than honest to
fail to do so.
The slime deposits on the river and harbor bottoms have been
subjected to actions of the river and harbor water for 6^- years
so it can be presumed that changes have occurred. No data are
given concerning those deposits so one must proceed by using
assumptions. I believe that it would be reasonable to assume
that a significant percent of those deposits remain and that jj- J
little of the radioactivity has been lost thru solution but
remains in the particulate form. If that be true, the river
and harbor now represent a reservoir for an unknown but measure-
able amount of radioactivity in fine particle form which can
become suspended along with the other bottom silts whenever
vigorous currents occur. Once in suspension, these particles
are subject to the concentrating effects of surface tension and
bubble formation- due to wave action, much like the industrial
ore beneficiation process using froth flotation. Once in the
bubble film, the fine particles can become airborne and produce
aerosols of particles in sizes which can penetrate to the alveoli
of the human lung and be retained there. A recent paper (E. R.
Baylor, ejb al. , Science, 198, f??5, 1977) and referenced papers
describe a somewhat similar process with viruses and surf action.
The studies of the quality of the surface waters of the South-
west area of Florida conducted under the 208 Water Quality Man-
agement Program have been completed and did not include meas-
urements of radioactivity because of the assumption that data
would become available from your program. The absence of data
thus leaves a potentially important gap in that program.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Program will remain in-
complete and unsatisfactory until the actual past impacts and
the potential future impacts of the radioactive materials
loosed by .the activities of the mining industry into the Peace
River and Charlotte Harbor are evaluated in a thorough and
impartial manner.
Yours very truly,
,?*—* ~-=;—
James R. E. Smith
101 Danforth Drive
Charlotte Harbor, PL 339!?0
cc: 208 Project Director, Ft. Myers, PL
-------
'RenionaJ. ttdminLttAOLtoA. U. S. ffA Region 3V
ffiCpwtfJLand Street N. 6
Atlanta, $0. 30308
Subject: D/ia^t Aneaiuid.e faiviMonmentaJ. impact. Statement
FJiofiida. Phosphate Ondmstnij. dated /'/o/z.c/1
ean. /'k. WkLte:
Bela/ie commerutLna on. £'ie Au.bJLe.c£ Dna.ljt /\9S, 0 /inieM. you
JLett&i dated /%' 1d, 1 /')*• Qerie. filcfteJuLi, vie ^ub^ncJ^ o£. w'nJich Jus
Jjte (jzn&iaJL FLo/dida. Pkodpruiie. fyivLnormcniaJ. impact Siudy* Vou
wLLL no£e £jw£ peci£Lc, £35 dh.)ul.d deve-top
a n.ecJLamation, ptan tnat cvn^iden^ /ladicution oi. ApoiL mate/iiaL and.
reduced 04 muck 04 poAAibLe tlie amount oi siadio nucMide- beaming,
mai.eAiaJ. J.ept witltin tJie 3 ~ ^ indie* oj. tlie />iLn.jja.ce. What
wLLL be u^ed to evaluate juch data when *4ubmit£ed? \*J~ ^ '
ALiOf ude of. connecio/L weLLt is> mentioned
-------
fa. %kn r. OhJULe ,. x ,
Keq&rwJL MnLuJ&iatoA. U.S. (PA Region 3V AptuJL JO,
n.e£e/ience io [pun. memo dated ApnJLi 7t 1^7^ whJLch. ac.comparu.ea.
ike. C>Aa.pt £35, 3 noted y.owi diaiemeni io ike. etf.eci thai JJie.
wonJvLnq, papeAA cuie cJunjienLbt. b&ina sievLaed. ana. n.ew/iLtLen. fikiu. 3 /;..?»«?
tit*/'' e i I " . I " I • I yj " K/ J » *»
OAR iriax. co^e-d of xJie^e. /levied. wo/ih.4jng, pa.pe;i4 be. tenx. x.o
fll/i. Qiat,i&4 (juuujipton, DLne.cxDfi. VJiannJUw. and. De.ve2opmenz. l.)e.txuix.~
men*, (l^anax.e.e (ouiutyj 212 SJutih Avenue. QxAi, B/iadanx-orit FJLau 335^'
3 aJiio noietL £fae. ^iax.emenx. £o £h.e. e.££e.c£ zhax. .
nai siepwduce. mcute^iaJ. contained. Ln. ike. D/ia.f£ and ikai decLjL
oon.ce/uujw. neai Bounce. NW£S p&nmLLi uiLLL be Jie.fJLe.cz.ed Jui ike tj - J
jLinaJ. fflS. 3i wouiii be ve/iy. keJipfiud. ai ike (ouniy. J.eve£ JijL ih.e
Aoie of. ike {.edenai gove/unmeni in. coniwLLing. pkojpkaie. moving,
in FJLonJLcLa. couLd. be 'jpecLjLicaLLy. ApeHed oui by. Jj^iLng, p
and, ike f.edeAaJL /le^Laiiorui undex. wkLcli ikey. one
eny.
(jondon,
Advido/,
lnanai.ee (j)uniy.
encLi.
-------
\\
Ar^T^ DEPARTMENT OF Reubin O'O Askew. Governor
f' -1 £ "1
:"; \\ Health & Rehabilitative Services
H
( h DISTRICT SIX MANATEE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
i-J .'j-, N^X
2"2 SIXTH AVENUE. EAST BRADENTON. FEOKIUA 33505
May 18, 1976
Mr. Gene HcNcill
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Subject: Draft Plan of Study - Areawide Phosphate EIS
Dear Gene:
This letter is primarily intended to convey our thoughts engendered by our
perusal of the Subject Draft Plan of Study.
However, we feel that the validity of our consents is predicated on a clear
understanding on our part of the material presented in the subject draft and
preamble thereto and concurrence on your part that our understanding is correct.
Therefore, to this end we present the following synopsis:
PREAMBLE
1. The IKS.E.P.A. will prepare an EIS specifically on the current and projected
development of the phosphate industry in Central Florida.
2. An 18 month study to be conducted by the EPA's Atlanta Regional office will
provide the data necessary for the preparation of said EIS and will also provide
an economic and social analysis of the impact of the industry on the region>
i.e. Central Florida.
3. The EIS will be in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Nation-
al Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and will.
also analyze environmental impacts resulting from all proposed Federal Permits
or actions of all phosphate mining or processing activities in the Region.
4. The study will, be guided by a Steering Corrjnittee consisting of:
(a) ACEQ Chairman.
(b) Appropriate Department of Interior Representatives.
(c) Appropriate Department of Agriculture Representatives.
(d) EPA Representatives.
(e) Corps of Engineers Representatives.
Advisors to the steering committee will be appointed by:
-------
fir. Cone McNeill ^^ 2 May IB, 1976
A. (Continued)
(a) The State.
(b) Local and County governments, especially Mann tea County.
(c) Appropriate environmental groups or organizations.
(d) The phosphate industry.
5. Preparation of the EIS will be administered by the EPA Regional Director.
DRAFT PLAN OF STUDY - ARE/WIDE PHOSPHATE EIS
1. Prepare a base line EIS. The material contained therein' will be derived
nainly from available data in various fields relevant to the mining and pro-
cessing of phosphate e.g. hydrology, biology, geology including 'soil types and
characteristics, socio-economy and topography. This base line EIS will be used
by the EPA in the preparation of ElS's applicable to specific cases involving
the issuance of Federal permits.
2. The subject Plan of Study will be used to solicit bids from qualified price
contractors possessing the capability of conducting end managing the entire
study. Contractors that have been employed by the phosphate industry or
suppliers of the industry shall not be retained.
3. The EPA will assign a full-time project officer with a professional and
clerical staff under his direction to assist the Contractor and review the
results of the contractor's work..
4. Duration of the Contract will not exceed 12 months within which time interval
a final report in the format outlined in Federal Register Title. 40 - Protection.
of Environment - Chapter 1-EPA Part 6 Preparation of Environmental Impact State-
ments will be prepared (parenthetically it is our understanding that the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination Systein (>;PDES) will have a bearing on the EI.S
content) . Supplementing this report will be bound sansnaries of each scenario
encompassed in the final report.
5. Elements #1 through and including ;'-:8 of the subject "Draft Plan of Study"
are outlines of the contents of the final report to be prepared by the prirce
contractor.
Assuming that the above synopsis indicates an accurate understanding on our
part of that which is presented in the subject "Draft Plan of Study" we now,
offer our comments which we hope will clearly express our beliefs regarding
that which our constituents will require if they are to accept the activities
of the phosphate industry in our County with a reasonable degree of equanimity.
As you may know we presently have as part of our Zoning Ordinance a section
covering phosphate mining which is considered to be one of the best in the
State. Land reclamation, protection of the natural ecosys'ten, protection against
reduction of the quantity and quality of surface water sources and protection
of the rater table aquifer are all covered by procedural requirements. There-
fore, the information to ba contained in Elements #1 through #8 will he of
-------
Mr. Gene McKcill Page 3 Hay 18, 1976
significant value to us even though in one very important area, i.e. the
hvclrological characteristics of the: Florida aquifer in thfij.r quantitative
aspects arc more directly related to SV.'FWMD r>im:o it controls the consumptive
use of v;ater drawn therefrom.
However, several questions have been raised; some at the 5 day public hearing
on the Phillips Petroleum proposal to nine phosphate in our County and some by
news releases eminating from the EPA and the SUat:e Department of Health. These
questions have created public concern regarding the possible degradation effects
of phosphate mining and we believe strongly that they must be addressed by the
Steering Committee and the prime contractor. We pose the questions; in an order
reflecting the degree of public concern and on each question offer our comments,
Question #1 - Will radioactive radiation and radon presence on reclaimed land
increase to a level above the existing natural background radiation and emission
levels to a. point where it constitutes a health hazard find will sliir,e ponds
created during the operations be a source of dangerous radiation and emissions?
As you may have noted our Boning Ordinance as it pertains to phosphate mining
is predominantly land use oriented and ve deem it essential first1, to determine
if a radiation hazard could be created and if so to obtain from a qualified
source a methodology to prevent it.
Question #2 - Will consumptive use of water by the phosphate industry particu-
larly from the Floridan aquifer reach such proportions that it would (a) restrict
farra land irrigation and beef cattle and dairy operations (b) adversely affect
the public drinking water supply as to the quantity and quality (c) contribute
to possible salt water intrusion or upwelling. We recognize, of. course, that.
v?ater use and quality is a matter of concern to the appropriate state regulatory
agencies but it is also the concern of our County.
Question#3 - Is it practicable to use surface water in the beneficiation pro-
cess employed to recover phosphate fines? UTe have been told that the use of
surface water in this process involves problems in obtaining water of a suitable
chemical composition but limiting parameters have not: been identified. We
believe, however, that in every proposed operation surface water use should be
thoroughly investigated.
Question #4 - In the interest of saving water is it possible and practicable
to use dry beneficiation methods in recovering phosphate ore of the type found
in.Central Florida, i.e. in the Bone Valley formations?
Question #5 - Is it possible to improve the reclamation process delineated in
our current Zoning Ordinance? A copy of the section pertaining to phosphate
mining is attached for your perusal. We recognize the possibility that a nath-
oclolegy for preventing radiation and 'radon emission hazards will have to be
included. However, there are other areas of concern such as the preservation
of wetlands which contribute to the maintenance of the natural ecosystem and to
the maintenance of stream flow and lake levels which should be exar.inecl. Con-
cerning the tern "Wetlanda" it is essential, we believe, that it be concisely
defined.
.?- It
-------
Mr. Gene McKeJll Page 4 May 18, 1976
Qua st ion J!6 - Should the number of simultaneous mining operations in a region
be restricted by area topography and hydro-geological characteristics? This
question has been raised in our County by the expressed desire of a number of
our citizens to the effect that if phosphate mining is permitted it should pro-
ceed on a "one-firra-at-a-time basis". Thus reducing the strain on our water
supply and minimizing the disruption of the land area while the mining operation
is proceeding,
Credit for the foregoing should be given to Mr. Gordon Bartle, a member of
the Manatee County Planning Commission.
Very trul3r_y_o.urs, *
0, E. Ran de, Jr
Pollution Control Director
OERjrrdk
Attachments :
Zoning Ordinance
Inventory of U.K. Grace material
Inventory of Phillips Petroleum material
Inventory of Beker Industries material
Manatee County Pollution Control material
-------
CF
SALEM LAKE DRIVE
.InC. LONG GROVE, ILLINOIS 60047
312/438-9500
June 21, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
SUBJECT: Draft Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement - Central Florida Phosphate
Industry
Dear Mr. Hagan:
CF Industries (~CF) appreciates this opportunity to provide
comment on the Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) on the central Florida phosphate industry. CF Industries
is an inter-regional cooperative, consisting of nineteen
(19) farmer owned regional farm supply cooperatives in the
United States and Canada. CF Industries' Florida operations
are composed of four separate facilities: two phosphate
fertilizer manufacturing complexes -- CF Chemicals, Inc.,
(Bartow) and Central Phosphate, Inc. (Plant City); a phosphate
mining complex -- CF Mining Corporation (Hardee County), and
a distribution facility -- Tampa Phosphate Terminal. Although
CF Industries is not a member of the Florida Phosphate
Council, CF is a major manufacturer of phosphate fertilizers.
Since CF does have a substantial investment in the central
Florida phosphate region, we also have a profound interest
in the DEIS. One of our fundamental concerns is how the . A
recommendations of the final EIS (FEIS) may be used by \tJ—*r
regulatory agencies in the future. It is our opinion that
many recommendations which are made on an industry-wide
basis in the DEIS would best be addressed in a site-specific
examination of particular regulatory problems. The final
EIS should give recognition to this fact.
Additionally, there are six major areas about which CF would
like to comment. They are as follows:
JUN 2 3
1C73
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 2
Chemical Processing of Dry Rock
The DEIS proposes (Page 1.70) that rock-drying
processing be eliminated at new source mines.
Certain exceptions are noted for existing, DER-
permitted dryers. However, there is good reason
to expand the list of exceptions to include a (^-
dryer at CF Mining's Hardee mine site. Should
other producers decline to supply dry rock to the
Bartow Complex at a competitive price, CF Mining
would be required to provide it. There should be
no prohibition in the FEIS which will prevent CF
Mining from having a dryer at its Hardee site
because such a prohibition would needlessly restrict
competition.
In addition to the required uses for dry rock as
delineated on Page 1.70, certain fertilizer plants
-- among them, CF's Bartow Complex -- consume only
dry rock. To change to wet rock would be an
extremely difficult engineering assignment.
Whereas the advantages of wet rock grinding are
prominently mentioned on Page 2.21, we recommend
that the disadvantages be as prominently discussed
in that same section. They are as follows:
a. For a chemical plant converting from dry rock
to wet rock, there will be a substantial
capital expense in the range of $10 million.
b. The switch from dry rock to wet rock would
have substantial negative environmental, as
well as economic impacts on the management of
pond waters. For a chemical plant using pond
water for dilution of sulfuric acid in the
phosphoric acid manufacturing process, a
detrimental pond (process) water balance
would result. The change could easily turn a
pond water complete recirculation situation
(on a yearly basis) into one requiring treatment
and discharge of treated process waters.
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 3
c. At an existing location, there may not be
space available for the required wet rock
storage. It is estimated that changing from
dry rock to wet rock would increase land
requirements from 0.4 acres to 7.7 acres, or
more than 19 times the dry rock land requirements.
Elimination of Slime Ponds
Throughtout the DEIS, the phrase "elimination of
slime ponds" is repeatedly used (see pages 1.70,
2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 3.2, 3.6, and 3.8). CF
requests that at a minimum the use of this phrase
be changed to make clear that the recommendation
proposes to substitute below grade storage of
slimes for "aboveground slime -- disposal areas",
not the total "elimination of slime ponds." Even
the new technologies that offer some promise still
require slime disposal areas, although it is
possible that the bulk of the disposal could be
below natural grade. It is important to understand
that requiring below ground level slime disposal
will increase the total acreage of land that has
limited use for other than light agriculture.
Water usage is primarily a function of the final
per cent solids of the disposed clay fraction, and
it will always be a desirable goal to seek methods
that accelerate the release of water from this
clay.
Effluent Limitation - Phosphate Mining Subcategory
As a part of the proposed action, new source
phosphate mining (Page 1.70) -- the DEIS recommends
that new sources "Meet Florida's effluent limitations
for any discharges." CF Industries has no data to
indicate the achievability or non-achievability of
the state's limitations. CF did follow DER's yj - 4"°3
rule-making effort in the fall of 1976, during
which time the state adopted the phosphate mining
effluent limitations. Throughout this DER rule-
making process, both the data base used and the
interpretation of that data for the development of
the regulations were suspect and inadequate.
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 4
A more prudent recommendation of the DEIS would be
to review EPA's phosphate mining subcategory
effluent limitations through the traditional
development document process to determine if the
present limitations are technically sound or if
technological advances allow a more stringent
effluent limitation. At this time, both rules are
based on identical technology, the settling pond,
nevertheless they impose different effluent limita-
tions. This technological anomaly should be
resolved by the FEIS or by appropriate rule-making
proceedings.
Wetlands
The DEIS discusses protection and restoration of
wetlands at several points through the document.
CF Industries recognizes that there are environ-
mental concerns relating to wetlands. However, we
are equally concerned that any blanket prohibition
of phosphate mining in wetlands would constitute
arbitrary and capricious regulation. In CF •*
Industries' case, a resource was purchased with
the right to mine phosphate rock. Prohibition of
that action deprives our farmer-owners of utilizing
that resource, and unless justified by a detailed
site- specific study, could constitute a taking of
private property requiring compensation under
recently enacted Florida law. See Chapter 78-85 -
Laws of Florida.
Wetlands considerations should be on a case-by-
case basis just as other environmentally related
considerations; e.g., ambient air, water quality,
etc., are made. Where restoration plans are ffJ
proposed that satisfy realistic environmental
concerns, mining should not be prohibited but
should be allowed with adequate conditions.
The discussion on Page 3.7 is not germane to the
overall wetlands considerations. To imply that
"prohibiting development in wetlands" will "not
materially affect production tonnages" conceals
the fact that wetlands phosphate reserves that are
3-167
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 5
left unmined are no longer economically recoverable.
The net result is a shorter lifetime of the deposit
in question.
Finally, the third paragraph on Page 5.1 of the
DEIS is unclear. This paragraph discusses "Holding
wetlands from industrial development by the phosphate
industry . . . ." The wording in that discussion
is confusing and incomplete. It can be construed fa)
to imply that wetlands whose development was
restricted during phosphate mining may be developed
at a later date for other purposes such as agriculture.
The sentence does not explain why development of
wetlands for agricultural or other uses is to be
preferred over development of that same wetlands
by the phosphate industry.
5. Lining of Gypsum Ponds
As CF Industries understands this recommendation
concerning gypsum pond lining (Page 1.72 of the
DEIS) impervious lining would not be required if
on a site specific basis it can be demonstrated
that such lining would be unnecessary. Such a
demonstration can be made by developing a correla-
tion between the geology of an existing site and
the geology of a new site.
The DEIS acknowledges that "insufficient data
exist to quantify seepage" from existing gypsum
ponds (Page 2.87). Therefore, before concluding
that an impervious liner is mandatory, existing
ponds should be studied to determine the extent,
if any, of the seepage. Therefore, any claims
that seepage has contaminated any aquifer system
is purely speculative and does not belong in a
technical, scientific document such as the FEIS.
6. Recirculate Noncontaminated Water
One proposed action called for by the DEIS is the
"recirculation of noncontaminated water." Most
chemical plants presently recirculate these waters
to the greatest extent feasible. However, it
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 6
appears that the DEIS is proposing something more
than the present practice.
The DEIS is proposing that waters presently dis-
charged under EPA's classification of "contaminated
non-process wastewaters" (as distinguished from
process wastewaters) be contained as are the
process (pond) waters. It must be pointed out
that even the newest phosphate fertilizer plant in
central Florida only accomplishes that by virtue
of disposing of its wastewaters to a mining operation,
While this might be a design consideration for a
new chemical plant, the extension of this requirement
to existing chemical plants (Page 1.74, 2.a) has
not been demonstrated to be practical from a
cost/benefit determination and indeed CF submits
that the cost would make such a requirement for
existing chemical plants uneconomical.
Another concern is whether the term "contaminated
non-process wastewater" (a particular EPA classifi-
cation) is correctly understood as used in the
DEIS. "Contaiminated non-process wastewaters"
include the following waste streams: cooling
tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, regeneration
waters, and waters contaminated by spills and
leaks. It can be readily seen that these waters
are not entirely capable of being recirculated and
reused. Therefore, to imply as the DEIS does,
that "noncontaminated water be recirculated" does
not address the entire issue of reuse of contaminated
non-process waters.
It should be kept in mind that before contaminated
non-process wastewaters can be reused within a
plant a consumptive use must be found that is
suitable for this quality water. Since each
stream has unique characteristics (impurities), a
detailed study must be undertaken to determine
their reuse potential. Until such time, the
contaminated non-process wastewaters must be
discharged as permitted by present EPA regulations.
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 1978
Page 7
SUMMARY
The DEIS process has attempted to thoroughly
examine the central Florida phosphate industry.
While CF Industries does not concur with all of
the recommendations, we share EPA's concern that
more information is needed to properly assess the
present condition of the area's environment, the
relationship of that environment to the phosphate
industry, and the need for further regulations in (
selected areas. When the final EIS is prepared we
are very apprenhensive that the recommendations
contained therein may be misconstrued by regulatory
agencies as a mandate from EPA to adopt rules and
regulations implementing these recommendations.
For this reason we hope that the final EIS will
specifically state that its contents include some
recommendations that do not represent proven
technology, and therefore should not be slavishly
followed by rule-making bodies as they are applied,
particularly to existing facilities.
Sincerely,
T
T. H. Traylor
Vice President - Operations
THT/wpc:df
cc: Malcolm S. Scott
-------
GARDINIER
INC.
U.S. Phosphoric Products
Post Oflicc Bo< 3269 • r.iniid. Flnmld 33001 • li!lc|ili(inc: 813 - 677 9111 • 1WX 810-B/fi DM'I
June 21, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Gardinier, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to present its comments on
"Proposed Action" of the "Draft Areawide E.I.S. Central Florida Phosphate
Industry":
a. Mining and Beneficiation Requirements
Eliminate Rock Drying (Page 1.70):
While we agree that any mine which supplies rock to a new phos-
phoric acid plant should not dry that portion of its production unless the fa) - 4f-/ /
energy required for the transportation of the moisture exceeds that utilized
in drying, we strongly disagree with the balance of this proposed action. Need
will continue to exist to supply existing phosphoric acid plants with rock. The
feasibility of converting existing phosphoric acid plants to wet rock feed would
have to be considered on a plant-to-plant basis.
Drying of that portion of the mined rock which requires drying,
should not necessarily be conducted at the point of consumption. This clearly
increases energy consumption in transporting the moisture. Additionally,
depending on the location of the mine and the location of the point of consumption,
the least environmental impact could occur if drying were conducted at the mine.
Effluent Limitations (Page 1.70);
If the statement is to be taken at its face value, that Florida id ~~ 4 '
Law shall apply, there are, of course, no objections. If, however, it indicates,
as it would appear from the working papers, that the limitations present in Rule
17-3.04(2)(a)2a and 17-3.04(2)(a)2a(XXV) apply, there is strong objection. These
rules are currently under litigation. These values were submitted to the Guide-
lines Division of EPA when the mining effluent guidelines were under review and
were rejected as unsupported. The existing EPA Standards of Performance are
sufficient to protect the environment.
-------
Eliminate Above-Ground Slime Disposal Areas (Page 1.70);
Under specific conditions of matrix composition, mixing of sand
tailings with phosphatic clays appears to be feasible, however, it is far from
a fully developed technology. Another consideration which has been totally t/v/-
overlooked is that slime ponds represent a potentially valuable national re-
source. While at this time, no technology exists to recover the phosphate values
they contain, the possibilities are very high that such technology will develop
in the forseeable future. Mining wastes of previous decades are now being re-
processed for recovery of their phosphate values. The present method of disposal
permits ready recovery when new technology develops.
Wetlands (Page 1.71):
Unlike other activities of man which can disturb wetlands, mining
is unable to select alternate sites. Minerals must be recovered where they exist.
To mine around an area is a waste of natural resources. Category I Wetlands LJ-
should be strictly limited to truly outstanding wetlands such as the Everglades.
b. Chemical Processing Requirements
Provide for Recovery of Fluorine:
It has not been demonstrated that recovery of fluorine lowers the
equilibrium fluorine concentration in recycled gypsum pond water. As it has n°tk/_
been demonstrated that this action has an environmental effect, it should not be
required.
r.. Additional Considerations (Page 1.73):
The Guidelines Division of EPA conducted extensive testing in
arriving at the concentrations achieveable thru B.A.T. No new technology has
been developed since that time, hence, there can be no justification for lower iJ-
limits.
There is no justification for surge capacity in non-process water.
Such a requirement would have an adverse environmental effect by creating
unnecessary surge ponds.
Very truly yours,
GEW:rew
-2-
-------
June 14, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III A , -7
Chief, EIS Branch \jJ~ *t ' /
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Swift Agricultural Chemicals Corporation desires to
submit its comments to the draft area-wide Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) on the central Florida phosphate
industry. We request that our comments be incorporated
into the hearing record.- Swift Agricultural Chemicals
Corporation has been in the phosphate rock mining business
for many years. Approximately 10 years ago we acquired
property in Manatee County for the purpose of recovering
the phosphate rock therefrom. We own approximately 10,000
acres in this county. We propose to mine this property
in 1982. We presently have a mine located in Polk County,
Florida, at Silver City. This mine will cease operations
in approximately 1982. Your agency has determined that our
proposed Manatee mine is a new source and therfore an
impact statement must be filed.
In the DEIS, under the heading "Proposed Action," for new
sources (Section 1.70), one of the items of proposed action
is to "eliminate the rock drying processing at beneficiation
plants and transport wet (6-2070 moisture) rock to chemical
plants." Exceptions to this requirement are made for fer-
tilizer processes requiring dry rock, and also for shipments
where the energy for transporting the moisture are greater
than the energy saved by eliminating drying at the beneficia-
tion plant. We feel that this item of proposed action is
objectionable on several grounds, including:
1. The proposal mixes up energy considerations with environ-
mental considerations. The exceptions bear this out. We
do not feel such considerations should control environ-
mental impact statements.
-------
Page 2.
2. In the summary sheet, the major environmental impacts are
listed. Requiring new phosphate mines to transport wet
rock does not alleviate any of the listed major environ-
mental impacts.
3. We feel that if there is concern about air quality in the
central Florida phosphate area, standards should be promul-
gated to protect the air quality. If a new phosphate mine
can comply with these standards and still dry their rock,
they should be permitted to do so. The federal and state
environmental laws are intended to protect the environment
and not control the way products are produced and marketed
if this can be done in compliance with the environmental
requirements.
4. New mines, of course, will be competing with old mines.
To require new mines to transport wet rock at an increased
cost in freight will place them at a competitive disad-
vantage to old mines. Many customers purchase small quanti-
ties of phosphate rock, and therefore cannot economically
justify the installation of a dryer. Such competitive
disadvantage should "be required only when environmental
necessities require the same. Requiring greater costs on
new sources of pollution can only be justified where the
new source will increase the pollutant load to an undesir-
able or unhealthful level. In Section 3.1 of the DEIS it
is stated that the "proposed action will have little impact
on the air quality in the study area." On page 2.68 of the
report it is stated: "Air emissions created by sources
other than the phosphate industry will dominate the inven-
tory in Hillsborough, Manatee and DeSoto Counties, so that
any change in air quality will be difficult to associate
with the phosphate industry...Sarasota and Charlotte Counties
should not be materially affected by air emissions from the
phosphate industry." On this same page it is stated: "Adding
new mines to replace existing capacity will tend to keep constant
the phosphate industry's area-wide pollutant load in the
atmosphere after 1977." As indicated by these quoted state-
ments from the DEIS, this action is not necessary with regard
to air quality. All three of the Swift mines will not be
operating simultaneously for any great length of time. It
is very possible that Swift will decide to move its dryer from
the Silver City mine to the Manatee mine. Thereby no increase
in the pollutant load by Swift would be experienced. In fact,
dispersion of the phosphate mines from Polk County into an
additional three counties should decrease the load.
5. A standard which allows rock drying if it does not result in
greater energy cost for transportation of moisture than energy
-------
Pag
saved by eliminating drying is impossible to police. As indicated
above, we feel there are sufficient regulations to protect air
quality. Additional regulations only fuel inflation by increasing
the cost of doing business.
Very truly yours,
SWIFT AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION
By.
. . President
nt
o,
J-27S"
-------
June 111, 1978
PRESIDENT
Charles R. Covert
VICE PRESIDENT
T. MabryCarltonJr.
SECRETARY
Dante Veuoli
TREASURER
John L Engels
ASSOCIATION,INC. /RO.BOX 1333/SARASOTA,FLORIDA 33578
John "J. Has an 111
Chief, SIS Branch
Environmental Protection Ag ency
Region 17
314.5 Gourtland St., K.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30308
DIRECTORS
Harry C Adley
'George R.Anner
Samuel B. Applebaum
Elmer G.Berkel
•Capt. Wm. B. Bernard
George A. Bishopric, MD
Ms. Tesse Brumgardt
•T. MabryCarlton.Jr.
Jerome Chambers
•Charles R. Cover!
M's. Agnes Cottap
George Davis
Joseph F. Defiinno
'Fred C. Duisberg
•John L Engels
Stevun Floe.fie
Dr. Larry S. Freeberg
Gen. Arnold Funk
HomerGreer
Ansel E. Gridley
J Randall Grobe
James A. Haley
Robert Hattersly
Clinton Johnson
Robert M.Johnson
Ms. MaryKumpe
•Mrs. Wilfred A. Le Page
•Mrs. Jeanne McElmurray
•Robert Maas
•John Malpeui
'Lori Lee Mows
Frank Oehlschlaegef
•Christy Payne, Jr.
William E. Pensyl
Edward Petrick
Jonathan Pugh
Joseph Roach
John W Robinson
Ms. Donald (Rita) Roehr
Tony Saprito
Thomas Savage
Larry SpaIdmg
Ted Sperling
Ms. Anita Stuart
•Col Dante Veizoli
Dear Sir:
Based on the adverse environmental impacts as
summarized on page Mi of the Draft Areawide Environmental
Impact Statement Central Florida Phosphate Industry.
March 1978 by your agency, Save Our Bays Association Inc.
wishes to be recorded as requesting of U.S.3.P.A, that no
further permits be granted for the mining and processing
of phosphate in the area covered by this study until such
time as this study is completed and regulations based on
its findings are imposed.
It is our sincere belief that the extension of
phosphate mining and processing can only be detrimental
to the best interests of the people of this area and all
of our nation.
In the \>iords of the Florida Phosphate Council
" Phosphate Feeds You". If we accept this as a truth we
must also accept our obligation to protect this invaluable
resource and our responsibility to j?uijure generations.
\"Je commend the U.S.E.P.A. for the work they have
done on this study. We believe that more information is
required before final conclusions can be reached.
Especially in the areas of water quality and quantity,
the effects of res ultant radiation and air quality
deg radation on the human population. Existing sources
must be defined as only those companies physically
engaged in a mining or processing operation at this time.
For proper protection of "Wetlands" a geographic
deliniation as they presently exist is required.
•Indicates Executhr* Committee
1 9
- 27
-------
ASSOCIATION, INC. / RO. BOX 1333/SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33578
Page 2
PRESIDENT
Charles R. Covert
VICE PRESIDENT
T. MabryCarltonJr.
SECRETARY
Dante Veuoli
TREASURER
John L. Engels
DIRECTORS
Harry C.Adley
"George R.Anner
Samuel B. Applebaum
Elmer G.Berkel
•Capt. Wm. B. Bernard
George A. Bishopric, MD
Ms. Tesse Brumgardt
•T. MabryCarltonJr.
Jerome Chambers
•Charles R. Covert
Mrs. Agnes Cowap
George Davis
Joseph f. DeNinno
•Fred C. Duisberj
•John L. Engels
Stevei Fleet1*
Dr. Larry S.Freeberg
Gen. Arnold Funk
Homer Greer
Ansel E. Grldley
J. Randall Grobe
James A. Haley
Robert Hattersly
Clinton Johnson
Robert M. Johnson
Ms. Mary Kumpe
•Mrs. Wilfred A. Le Page
•Mrs. Jeanne McElmurray
•Robert Maas
•John Malpeai
•Lori lee Mowe
Frank Oehlschlaejef
'Christy Payne, Jr.
William E. Pensyl
Edward Petrick
Jonathan Pugh
Joseph Roach
John W. Robinson
Ms. Donald (Rita) Roehr
Tony Sapnto
Thomas Savage
Larry SpaIdmg
Ted Sperling
Ms. Anita Stuart
'Col. Dante Vezzoli
•Indicates Executive Committee
In addition the consequence, economically and
environmentally of a rapid uncontrolled exhaustion
of a finite resource vital to the needs of our nation
must be eonsidered. No phosphate should be exported
after the expiration of any existing contracts.
Processing of phosphate ore must be strictly
regulated by the U.S.S.P.A. to protect the health and
welfare of the people of the U.S.A.
With thanks for your full consideration of our
comments.
Sincerely,
Cove'rt
President, Savo Our Bays Assoc. Inc.
Pred. C. Duisberg
Natural Resource Chairman
Save Our Bays Assec. Inc.
-------
^ The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th Street, N.W.
I | Washington, D.C, 20036
V. .....
(202) 466-2700 • Telex 89-2699
EDWIN M. WHEELER
President
June 21, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The Fertilizer Institute appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the draft Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement, Central Florida Phosphate Industry, published
in March, 1978, by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV.
The Fertilizer Institute is an association for the
U.S. fertilizer industry • representing over 90 percent of the
domestic capacity of plant nutrients used in fertilizers.
With phosphates representing over one-fourth of the nutrients
in fertilizer it is obvious that an adequate supply on a
continuing basis is a major concern to not only Institute
members, but the total agriculture community as well.
Without this vital element made available at reasonable
prices, efficient production of food and fiber by the
American farmer will no longer be possible.
Two major points of overriding importance form the
basis for our comments on the draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) .
First, we would stress the critical importance of
providing a maximum degree of flexibility for industry tJ-4-
operations in the final EIS. The EPA has stated in the
public hearings that one areawide impact assessment will not
adequately cover the individual situations, i.e., individual
EIS will be required for each new mining operation. Likewise,
it follows that each mining site presents unique operational
problems requiring unique solutions. Denying opportunity
for individual solutions by establishing a single rigid
approach will not provide for the most efficient recovery of
this essential element. One such example is the proposal
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
June 21, 1978
Page 2
that no new rock dryers be permitted. Whereas processing of
wet rock is an emerging technology lending itself to certain
of the phosphate chemicals, it is not universally applicable
for all products needed to efficiently and economically
serve the agricultural community.
The detailed study performed to gain background for this
EIS has made clear the advances in knowledge and technology
to address and minimize the impact on the environment caused
by mining and processing of phosphates. We can expect this
advancement to continue, as it must. But, as it does we
cannot entirely rule out today's technology for use in cases
where the latest developments do not help. To do so not
only would serve to diminish utilization of our reserves,
but additionally would penalize the nation's food output.
Secondly, in selecting requirements based on technology
we urge the EPA to use as _their major determinant the
testimony of the mining engineers, process engineers and
other specialists most qualified to cite the facts. Without
a sound basis, the final recommendations in the EIS will
lead to faulty judgments by those who must rely on it in
making future decisions.
An example of our concern is the implication received W
from reading the summary statement and the captions through-
out the draft document that "elimination of slime ponds" is
now possible. There is nothing in the record to support
this far-reaching conclusion. Granted, considerable progress
has been made toward reduction in the size of slime ponds or
the length of time to accomplish final reclamation, but
elimination is nowhere on the horizon. It is grossly mis-
leading to suggest "elimination" as a viable possibility.
Another example concerns lining of gypsum .ponds. In
the absence of information to demonstrate the need for such
a general requirement it is proposed by EPA that gypsum
ponds be lined with an impervious material. To require such
a lining, based only on speculative premise, would subject
the operator to great expense with little assurance of
success and without justification of the need.
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
June 21, 1978
Page 3
In closing, it is urged that the agency give U/- 4 1. I
serious consideration to the testimony of the scientists
and specialists most qualified to offer alternatives for
phosphate ore processing in the light of individual mine
operations and protection of the environment. Only with the
recognition of the need for alternatives in the limitations
imposed, will the EIS represent an accurate assessment of
the continued use of one of Florida's precious resources so
essential to the future supply of phosphate.
Edwin M. Wheeler
EMV7/pck
- 180
-------
Mississippi
Post Off ice BOX 388 • Yazoo city, Mississippi 39194-Area Code (601) 746- 4131 -Telex 58-5449
June 21, 1978
Mr. Gene McNeill
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. McNeill:
Re: Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
Mississippi Chemical Corporation respectfully submits the
attached comments on the referenced document.
If you have any questions or require any additional infor-
mation, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Carey Stark K*
Process Study Engineer Uu '" p~ ,
'rM.LtilOH IV
E I S BRA,\Xi)
CS/fp *'w'™> «.
Enclosure
ii 111
23
-------
Mississippi Chemical Corporation
Yazoo City, Mississippi
Comments On
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
Central Florida Phosphate Industry
June 21, 1978
Bartow, Florida
-------
Mississippi Chemical Corporation welcomes the opportunity to pre-
sent comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Central Florida Phophsate Mining District. We recognize that the
Environmental Protection Agency has been faced with a significant
task in preparing the draft Environmental Impact Statement for
such a broad area. We generally commend the agency for its ef-
forts on this Environmental Impact Statement and support the goal
of protecting the environment in the Central Florida area. We
would call your attention, however, to those sections of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement which, in our view, should be re-
vised or clarified; namely the parts of the Proposed Action
dealing with Rock Drying, Wetlands and Clay Disposal.
I. Rock Drying
The proposed action contains the recommendation that the
rock drying process be eliminated at beneficiation plants.
This action requires the use of wet rock in downstream *
processing facilities. The only proposed exemption to W ~ *
this recommendation is based on a trade-off between fuel
requirements for drying versus incremental fuel require-
ments for transporting the rock to a processing site re-
mote from the study area.
The following factors were apparently not considered and/
or were given insufficient weight in developing that re-
commendation :
A. Wet rock grinding requires the input of fresh, uncon-
taminated.water for the sole purpose of operating the
grinding mill. The impact of this water input on the
overall plant water balance must be considered on a
site specific basis. In certain facilities and at cer-
tain locations, this action will require the release of
quantities of water in direct proportion to that used
for wet grinding. This requirement causes an adverse
impact on water resources, will impact NPDES permit
requirements for chemical processing facilities and
jeopardizes the goal of total water recirculation in
chemical processing facilities.
B. The trade-off on transportation to remote sites in-
volves more factors than fuel consumption. The im-
pact on'total transportation cost should be considered.
The proposed action will reduce by approximately 10%
the effective use of vital transportation facilities,
thereby increasing costs to the American consumer.
Greater capital investment in transportation facilities
will be required, impacting economic resources.
C. For those chemical processing plants located at a re-
mote site and having specific requirements for dry
rock, whether based on process technology or water
balance considerations, rock drying facilities must
be installed at the point of use. This action would
-------
have accomplished only the transfer of an atmospheric
emissions source from the study area to a remote site,
and at the expense of a net increase in overall fuel
consumption.
II. Wetlands
On pages 1.71 and 1.72, the Proposed Action states that i J- 4- 1
wetland can be classified and that some wetlands must not
be altered, some must be restored and some have so little
value that restoration is not necessary. We believe that
some very important factors were not considered in this
determination or were not given sufficient weight.
A. Protection and preservation of wetlands overlying phos-
phate deposits causes an irreversible and irretrievable
loss of valuable phosphate resources. This loss has a
long term social and economic impact. This impact on
the local economy, our country's agriculture or our
balance of trade deficit has not been considered any-
where in the draft EIS. This impact must be considered
and weighed against the value of the wetlands that may
be temporarily disrupted.
B. The prohibition of mining in certain types of wetlands
is based on the supposition, stated in the third para-
graph page 3.3, that adequate restoration techniques
will not be developed. The mining of any area which
can be restored should be left open as an alternative
for future decision-making as suitable restoration
techniques are developed and proven.
C. The classification of wetlands by their associated
water course needs to include additional considera-
tions. The jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers
over wetlands is based on average annual water flow in
the associated water course. This does not consider
that some intermittent water courses may meet the
Corps' flow requirements on an average annual basis,
but due to the intermittent nature of the flow, the
associated wetland would have much less value to the
environment. These and other considerations should be
included in the classification system for wetlands,
allowing mining to go forward in these areas having
less value.
Ill, Clay Disposal
On page 1.70, the Proposed Action indicates that sand/clay 4. JL
mixing techniques will be required in order to meet the U~
goals of no above ground clay storage areas, land use for
structures, and reclamation of water from clays. This spe-
cification of one method of sand and clay disposal is un-
necessarily restrictive and ignores many significant fac-
tors. The most suitable technique for clay disposal de-
-------
pends on many factors such as mine pit geometry, clay
content of the matrix, sand/clay ratio, physical pro-
perties of the clay, etc. These are site-specific fac-
tors that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
At present, there are at least seven different methods
under study or in use. The selection of the most
suitable method must be made on the basis of site-specific
considerations.
There is one field application of sand/clay mixing in
existence today as cited on page 2.20. First, it is too
early to judge the ultimate success of that application,
though the initial results may be encouraging. Secondly,
such preliminary results should not become the basis of a
requirement for sand/clay disposal at all sites and under
all circumstances. Successful operation with this one
particular ore body does not necessarily show that it
would be technically and economically acceptable for
other ore bodies. Reason dictates that a degree of flexi-
bility be retained in this area of rapidly developing tech-
nology.
One must also recognize the problem of sand/clay disposal
as one of volume. For any given ore body and selected dis-
posal method", the volume of sand/clay material is fixed. .
The final volume of material is ultimately determined by fr^~ **
the settling and consolidation of the waste materials.
Given these basic facts, two considerations must be recog-
nized. Any restriction on the height of the disposal area
requires an expansion of the area involved in order to
accommodate the volume of material. Thus, more land area is
dedicated to clay disposal when all below grade disposal
is required.
Secondly, the depth of the clay or sand/clay system is a
major determinant of ultimate consolidation density. By
restricting the height of the disposal area to natural
grade, a severe limitation is placed on the consolidation
process which occurs after the clays are in place. We
find no indication that these factors were considered in
the development of the proposed action.
Thirdly, the prohibition of above ground storage areas
other than the initial area will render some phosphate
reserves unminable. Certain reserves will have such
high percentages -of clay in their matrices that insuffi-
cient mining pit volume will be generated to contain the
waste material. Thus implementation of the proposed ac-
tion will result in the irreprievable loss of valuable
phosphate resources.
Mississippi Chemical Corporation adopts by reference the
comments of the Florida Phosphate Council on the Areawide
Environmental Impact Statement.
-------
While the preceding remarks reflect some of our immediate
concerns, MCC reserves the right to comment on any other
aspects of the Areawide EIS during site specific EIS
review.
-------
• 3 3 Jf
- 4
//
dt
y
- //
uJi' >
/
-------
.
/s
0 /
<— i '
s^c^
/
,/
^ . / . . —V-
't&, <&i
,fa
/A
JUH 5
-------
Curl T.
Z IIV1IV! E R fS/l/\N N • . \Hliimiilinii t'tiiisnllmil
3312 Village Green Drive
Sarasota, Florida 33579
Tel. 921-4946 June 1, 1978
Mr. Eugene McNeill, Project Manager
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. McNeill:
Unfortunately, I was absent from Sarasota at the
time a public meeting was held at the Manatee Junior College,
concerned with discussions of the Federal Environmental Impact
Study of phosphate mining in Central Florida.
There still appears to be some confusion as to the seriousness of
phosphate mining on the Floridian environment, and a lack of under-
standing of the problems by the people in this area. However, I am
inclined to believe that your final analysis may provide specific
recommendations to be implemented by either Federal, State or Local
legislature to exercise some type of enforceable control over the
problems.lt will also be important that the people be informad about
proposed corrective measures - in a language that can be understood
by the people and assure their active support.
'""' ? r,,.
Prior to* retirement in Sarasota, I was active in U.S.A. and some
European Countries as an Automation Consultant, primarily concerned
with the "Total Systems Engineering Analysis" of processing operat-
ions - and application of proven technological developments for
higher productive efficieny and economical justification. I am now
making a study of phosphate mining in Florida and its serious impact
on the environment. Special emphasis is on water consumption, water
re-cycling, radiation sources and their control, air and water pollut-
ionproblems, settling ponds, re-damation activities, recovery of
radium from the overburden and phosphate rock, and latest develop-
ments concerned with de-watering of clay wastes to eliminate the
need for settling ponds.
It may take another 2 weeks before I can list specific recommendat-
ions for improvements, which I should like to submit to you. There is
indication that my recommendations will be in line with your own,
and I am looking forward to EPA's proposals for corrective measures
which can be agreed upon by legislature to assure prompt and strict
enforcement.
Ve^y truly yours,
)
kil lit i+ /U«.«.u
I)
\k
'
CTZ:ngs. Carl T. ' ' Zimmermann
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
TELEPHONE: (404)633-3311
June 8, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the draft areawide environmental impact statement for
the Central Florida Phosphate Industry. We are responding on behalf of
the Public Health Service.
One area of concern relative to the EIS centers around problems involving
fluoride effluents in the environment. It is stated that fluorides will
be discharged into both the atmospheric and surface waters. A great deal
of precaution should be taken to avoid excessive exposure of workmen and
residents in the area to high fluoride concentrations.
Previous studies by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health indicated that very low background radiation was generated by the
phosphate operations in Florida. In view of NIOSH's study, it does not
appear that radiation exposure from this industry would present a human
health problem.
While there are a number of pollution oriented problems with this opera-
tion as proposed, they do not appear to present an imminent human health
hazard.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this document. We would
appreciate receiving two copies of the final statement when it is issued.
Sincerely yours,
William H. Foege, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Director
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
USAF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LABORATORY (AFSC)
BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78235
L U78
*TTN OF: EC
SUBJECT: Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Central
Florida Phosphate Industry (Your Ltr, 7 Apr 78)
TO. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta GA 30308
Subject document has been reviewed by staff members of this organization,
No major environmental impacts upon Air Force installations or operations
were identified.
JCtiN/P. MEADE, Colonel, USAF, BSC
"lief, Consultant Services Division
/-.' ;'• , •• •
^ic"
r,'??'1"" •>'
1ST3
-------
1504 Shelley Place
Lakeland, Florida 33803
May 8, 1978
Honorable Lawton Chiles
United States Senate
Federal Building
Lakeland, Florida 33802
Dear Senator Chiles:
After a thorough review of the Draft Areawide Environmental
Impact (DEIS) dated March 1978, I felt it necessary to en-
lighten you on several aspects of the document which, in my
opinion, have been erroneously reported. I have been
employed by the phosphate industry for eight years as a
mechanical engineer and I feel that I am qualified to provide
an accurate rebuttal to the DEIS. I, too, enjoy living in the
Central Florida area and I am not interested in being a part
of environmental pollution. However, there is a way for
industry and the environment to coexist for the betterment of
all people concerned.
With regard to the summary of major environmental impacts,
it would be incorrect to assume that recreational resources U~4
will be reduced with phosphate mining. The property now owned
by phosphate companies generally contains no recreational
areas. One of the major benefits of a phosphate reclamation
program is to install lakes and parks as a part of the overall
plan. Most any fisherman in the study area will tell you that
the best fishing can be found in reclaimed phosphate pits
which are usually stocked by the phosphate companies. One
company intends to construct a reservoir as a part of their
program. Other than the obvious municipal benefit, the lake
will provide outstanding recreational facilities for boating
and fishing in an area that is currently void of this resource.
One of the proposed actions for new source mines is to eliminate
conventional above-ground slime (clay) - disposal areas. If
this action is implemented as an industry-wide practice, the U~
effects upon phosphate mining could be disastrous. There is a
wide range of percent clays contained in ore bodies when comparing
one mine to another. Due to the amount of water tied up in
various types of clays, one mine may rsquire considerably more
-------
Honorable Lawton Chiles
May 8, 1978
Page Two
volume than another. If this volume is to be contained
below ground, the plan area would far exceed mined out areas
thereby rendering the mining operation uneconomical. Even
with sand-clay mixing of waste material, it would not be at
all feasible to totally eliminate above ground storage. Also,
with regard to the containment structures, there are many
references to the potential threat of a dike failure in the
DEIS. Several years ago I would have agreed that there was
always some threat, however, since the dike failure in 1971,
technology, construction methods and inspection programs have
all but eliminated this danger. In addition to the improved
design and construction of dams, all mines now have various
means of positive protection such as continuous monitoring of
ground water and daily inspection.
Section 2 contains an item under process modifications for . A
new sources which deals with conveying matrix from the mine I*/~ ~
to the beneficiation plant. A reprint of a letter from Brewster
Phosphates to the EPA describes the relative success of the
conveyor at their Lonesome Mine. Unfortunately, there are
many factors to consider when determining the economical
feasibility of a matrix conveying system. Items such as land
contour, mining plan, property layout, reclamation plan and
obstacles such as roads and creeks must be carefully studied
as they ultimately affect capital and operating costs. The
system at Brewster Phosphates can be considered to be in a
development stage as they are still experiencing costly problems
such as spillage, lost feed when cycloning onto the conveyor
and belt slippage. There is a definite energy savings in con-
veying matrix vs. pumping, however, the savings need to be weighed
against the higher capital cost and maintenance of a conveyor
system. Due to the variables affecting the economics of a
conveyor, it is possible for one operator to realize a savings
with a belt, whereas it would be a losing proposition for another
mine.
References are made in Section "G" of the Alternative Assessment
of Secondary Effects of "Permit Existing and New Sources" to the
reduction of the scenic attraction of the area and the danger
to the tourist industry. I am sure that everyone agrees that
mining activities are located in the more desolate areas of the
state and many miles from the multimillion dollar tourist
attractions. Furthermore, regulations now require immediate
reclamation of mined out land adjacent to highways. Also,
processing plants and settling areas requiring dikes are now set
well off roadways so as to minimize any scenic alterations. A
prime example of this would be Agrico's Ft. Green Mine off State
Road 37-
-------
Honorable Lawton Chiles
May 8, 1978
Page Three
I felt it was important to call your attention to my eval-
uation of the DEIS and I hope you will consider my comments
when drafting legislation on EPA rulings.
Very truly yours,
David 0. Munson
DOM/jIc
-------
LAWTON CHILES
FLORIDA
COMMITTEES:
APPROPRIATIONS
BUDGET
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
DEMOCRATIC STEERING COMMITTEE
420
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
May 30, 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator, Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency
14201 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. White:
I have recently received the enclosed correspondence
regarding a matter involving your agency, and because
of my desire to be responsive to all inquiries, I
would appreciate having your comments and views.
Your early consideration of this matter will be appre-
ciated, and if convenient, I would like to have your
reply in duplicate. In your communication, please
return the enclosure and make reference to this
letter as indicated below.
Since
ILES
LC/rob
Enclosure
RE: In reply, please refer to 17/David O. Munson
REPLY TO: FEDERAL BUILDING, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33601
-------
CF CHEMICALS, INC., Subsidiary of
Post Office Box 1480
Bartow, Florida 33830
Telephone: 813/533-3181
TM wa • na isa «•
-------
Mr. R.E. McNeil 1
May 16, 1978
Page Two
5. Page 2.50
The top line indicates radioactivity in the lower Floridan of "196 ^_ 4
picocuries per liter". This statement is in error.
6. Page 4.3
Requiring "once-per-shift manual sampling to ensure that automated
equipment is efficiently operating" is unnecessary. Presently required
monitoring and optional (but generally utilized) alarm systems are all tJ
that is necessary to properly protect the environment from spills.
Under separate cover, CF Industries will present a more formal comment on the
content and issues of the draft EIS.
Sincerely,
WAS/ 1m
A. Schir
Chief Environmental Engineer
-------
INCORPORATED
INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS:
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06904, U. S. A
CABLE: DORROLIVER STAMFORD
May 17, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III . A_ "? ~~J
Chief, EIS Branch \/J ~~ ^ '
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., N. E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30308
Re: DEIS, Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Dated - March 1978
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We are suppliers of equipment and engineering to the phosphate industry.
Fluidized bed drying of phosphate rock has constituted an iirportant part of
our work with that industry; but (1) we span the industry with equipment
for many processing methods, and (2) we do not oppose carefully considered
and operable regulations to ensure that our drying systems and other
systems are clean.
As we read it, the subject DEIS would practically legislate out of existence
one of the two principal flowsheets available for beneficiating phosphate rock,
namely, the "dry" route. The other route is referred to as "wet". We urge
you to avoid such a blanket prohibition.
Some areas in sane phosphate rock processing plants using the "dry" system
are unquestionably too dusty. Standards should be established to hold dust
levels down to acceptable amounts.
As far as rock dryers are concerned, we can demonstrate at existing large
installations that our fluidized-bed dryer with reasonable maintenance is
clean by the strictest standards in such industries today. If the cost of
meeting acceptable standards in areas like rock grinding, product storage
and bagging should make capital and operating costs too high (not likely),
then, of course, producers would use other flowsheets. They would have been
given a choice.
Similarly an economic balance will determine whether the energy spent in drying
rock at the mine justifies the extra expense of dust control equipment less
savings in freight.
Regarding radiation we do not see evidence that levels are above acceptable
figures now, even in plants where dusty conditions exist. When dust levels
are lowered, the radiation reported in Section (2), last sentence, top of
page 2.87, in the DEIS as being insignificant should be even less. We have
requested that Reference USEPA 1977 be sent to us when ready for distribution
to the public, but we do not expect any change in this belief after receiving
our copy.
J- 1 98
-------
3DOH.R.-OLIVER i
Mr. John E. Hagan III ^V ^ 1978
Atlanta, Ga. 30308 Pa9e
To be as specific as possible, we draw your attention to the following sections
of the DEIS and make brief comments:
Page 1.70, Section E, (1) (a), first requirement:
Establish clean air standards for all areas with particular
care for areas that are now found to be dusty.
Page 2.86, (2), last paragraph:
The first and second sentences in this paragraph are inconsistent.
Regarding the first sentence, establish clean air standards.
Regarding radiation, cleaner air will mean even safer levels than
those existing at present.
Page 3.1, (1):
Again, establish clean air standards for all areas. We have not
received the'evidence behind the figures quoted here. The fact
that dust can be collected and S02, absorbed, appears to have been
overlooked.
Page 3.6, (4):
Again, clean air standards for all areas would get at the crux of
what problems there are,
We will arrange for one of our specialists in phosphate rock processing to
meet with you and/or make some plant visits with you if greater understanding
on both sides would result. Please advise.
Very truly yours,
DORR-OLIVER INCORPORATED
Thermal Processing Division
Telephone: 203-348-5871 X774
LVL/vjl
cc: Mr. R. L. Klaer, Dorr-Oliver-Atlanta
f
-------
7OO TWIGGS STREET
SUITE BOO
TAMPA. FLORIDA 336O2
TELEPHONE 1813) 272.9940
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOHN A CRISLIP
,„,.„„«, «....!.».
( M i.uWK'N IIIIUNHILD
t,, -HI I N I Oil MAN
1.1 -iiiv r. imnwN
| Ml MY M CAHtlR
u» I M K.HNANDEZ
*»•""*" JOHNSON June 22, 1978
i ,r; IIAWI S JR
n ill Ml THOMAS
Vi. John C. White
];.'iionnl Administrator
linvironmcntal Protection Agency
K.iMion VI
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Attn: Mr. Gene McNeil
EIS Branch
•Re: Draft Areawide Environmental
Impact Statement, Central
Florida Phosphate Industry
Gentlemen:
The following presents the initial comments and recommendations
of the Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff on the above-
referenced EIS.
We concur with the general thrust of the proposed action and com-
mend EPA for its comprehensive treatment of this subject. We
especially appreciate EPA's understanding of the extremely long
time periods which are required in the reestablishment of mature
forested wetlands.
Our major concern at this time is that the EIS might inadvertently
weaken the implementation of adopted comprehensive plans at the l
State and local levels. In particular, the protection of wetlands
may suffer unless the EIS is modified to include more explicit
support for locally adopted comprehensive plans which protect
wetlands which are under local jurisdiction but which may or may
not be under direct federal jurisdiction.
In order to illustrate the types of pertinent policies which may
be found in local comprehensive plans, we have attached excerpts
from the Conservation Element of the Hillsborough County Horizon
2000 Plan — all of which is incorporated by reference into Hills-
borough County Ordinance No. 77-26. Pursuant to the requirements
AN Al I IKMATIVI. At T1ON-KQHAI. OPPORTUNITY KMPI.OVKR
-------
••, . John C. White
V.i I" 2
•-.:>.- 22, 1978
,»! chapter 75-390 Laws of Florida, the Horizon 2000 Plan was adopted
. tho Planning Commission on August 1, 1977, and adopted by the
if'-.inl of County Commissioners on November 30, 1977.
it is recommended that the following modifications be made to the
t.;:; in order to alleviate our major concern:
1. On page 1.70 change item E.I.a (2) to read:
"Meet the effluent limitations of the State of
Florida and of local environmental protection
commissions for all discharges, including but
not limited to dredge and fill activities in
the waters of the counties."
2. On page 1.70 add a new item between items E.I.a. (2)
and E.I.a.(3) to read:
"Comply with all goals, policies, and guidelines
of locally adopted comprehensive plans, to the u/~ ^
extent that they are not in direct conflict with
the State Comprehensive Plan."
3. On page 1.72 add a third paragraph to item E.I.a. (9)
which would read:
"Local environmental laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations which are stricter or more extensive
than federal wetland standards shall prevail."
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further
Assistance.
Sincerely,
Gary S. Ellis, Chief
Environmental Section
GSE:kvh
Attachments
-------
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
of
HORIZON 2000 PLAN
GOAL
Conserve natural and environmental•resources for present and future
generations.
POLICIES
1. Hillsborough County hereby recognizes that the air and water
including, but not limited to, lakes, rivers, bays, streams,
fresh and salt water marshes, aquatic vegeLation and animals,
and natural shorelines are necessary for the maintenance of a
high quality environment. The enactment and continued enforce-
ment of land development regulations which avoid the destruc-
tion or alteration of such ecosystems are necessary for the
protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.
Hillsborough County hereby recognizes that the other environ-
mental features native to the County as described in the Con-
servation Element perform a valuable function in providing the
public with livable surroundings; and, thus, these features
are in need of adequate protection if such advantages are to
be maintained for future generations.
3. Hillsborough County hereby recognizes that the full and proper
utilization of all governmental powers is necessary and desir-
able to help achieve the above Goal.
GUIDELINES
Air Resources
1. Discourage the location of new point sources of air pollution
which would adversely impact existing areas of heavy pollution
concentration.
2. Minimize total air pollution emissions from point sources to
the extent practicable, in keeping with both socio-economic
and environmental considerations, by encouraging the best
available air pollution control technology and by encouraging
the recruitment of clean industry.
3. Minimize total air pollution emissions from nonpoint sources
by appropriately guiding land development and by improving the
flow of traffic.
3-30
-------
maintaining the naturally free-flowing character of
navigable rivers and streams, and
preventing shoreline erosion, preferably by means of
vegetation and the utilization of other shoreline
stabilizing techniques that blend in with the natur-
al environment.
19. Safeguard the scenic portions of the visual corridor of the
proposed Interstate 75 extension in a timely and exemplary
fashion:
20. Maintain and enhance the quality of the nighttime environment,
by eliminating those outdoor lighting devices which do not
efficiently perform a necessary function and by controlling
air pollution.
21. Ensure the optimum management of native shade trees.
22. Minimize serious noise and odor pollution by separating in-
compatible land uses.
23. Maximize the percent of open space in each new development.
Earth Resources
24. - Minimize the waste of earth resources by:
discouraging the permanent development of lands
underlain by valuable and potentially valuable
mineral deposits (see Glossary) prior to the mining
thereof, and
encouraging resource recovery by promoting source
reduction and recycling of solid waste, and
encouraging the constructive disassembly of build-
ings so that the building materials can be reused.
25. Identify, evaluate, and mitigate possible hazards associated
with reclaimed lands, unreclaimed mined lands, and unrained
mineral lands.
26. Minimize the adverse impacts of mining by:
prohibiting mining in rivers, streams, and alluvial
wetlands, except in extreme cases of overriding
public interest, and
requiring timely reclamation—using best available
*»*-*••«-»•••-~~"~ &j »• v *.%_h_>^i_i*v.j..j.u«.** v*. v^(jv-«^i^j.juh>4i. Qn optxrnum
mix of land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation
associations.
3-303
-------
GLOSSARY*
A. Alluvial wetlands - This natural vegetation association is found on
frequently-flooded areas which consist of sediments of mixed origin
that have been deposited near streams and which are mapped as Ac
and PC soils by the Soil Conservation Service. The dense hammock
vegetation includes, gumr maple, live oak, water oak, ironwood,
hickory, cypress, cabbage palmetto, vines, shrubs, and a few gras-
ses and pines.
B. Aquatic preserves - These are publicly-owned submerged lands which
are covered by salt or brackish water and which are recognized by
law or regulation as having exceptionally high biological, aesthe-
tic, educational and/or scientific value.
C. Cases of Extreme Overriding Public Interest mean cases in which:
1. The proposed action is found to have primary and direct bene-
fit to the public of the County; and
2. All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
presented to and fully considered by the governing body; and
3. All alternatives are found to be publicly unacceptable or are
found to entail substantially greater cost to the public or
both; and
4. All environmental impacts of the proposed action have been
presented to and fully considered by the governing body; and
5. All potentially adverse environmental impacts have been mini-
mized to the greatest extent feasible; and
6. The proposed action complies with all applicable federal,
State, and local environmental control laws.
D. Cases of Overriding Public Interest mean cases in which:
1. The proposed action is found to have substantial benefit to
the public of the County; and
2. All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
presented to and fully considered by the governing body; and
3. All alternatives are found to be publicly unacceptable or are
found to entail substantially greater cost to the public or
both; and
4. All environmental impacts of the proposed action have been
presented to and fully considered by the governing body; and
5. All potentially adverse environmental impacts have been mini-
mized to the greatest extent feasible; and
6. The proposed action complies with all applicable federal,
State, and local environmental control laws.
E. Class I Waters - These are surface waters that are used as a pot-
able source of public water supplies or withdrawn for treatment as
such.
F. Class II Waters - These are coastal waters in areas which either
actually or potentially have the capability of supporting recrea-
tional or commercial shellfish propagation and harvesting.
12 3
-------
providing norunonetary compensation where possible by
means of administrative and regulatory procedures—
even though not required by law to provide any
compensation,
giving equal attention to acts of government that
result in "windfall" benefits to property owners as
well as those acts which may result in "wipeout"
losses,
ensuring that "windfall" benefits which accrue to
individual property owners as a result of govern-
mental action are identified and that adequate means
are established whereby the public may be compen-
sated for such unearned gains,
encouraging programs designed to increase the amount
of accurate biophysical information available to all
buyers and sellers in the marketplace for land, and
encouraging appropriate reforms of the tax system.
38. Encourage both private and public sectors to make a concerted
effort to bring existing laws, regulations, governmental prac-
tices, and private actions into alignment with the letter and
the spirit of this Plan. However, existing environmental laws
and regulations which are stricter or more extensive than this
Plan shall continue to be enforced; and such laws and regu-
lations shall be the minimum standards; and nothing in this
Plan shall be construed to state or imply a goal, policy, or
direction which is inconsistent with such stricter or more
extensive laws or regulations.
39. Favor preventive management so'^ty t§ Jiiijimize the need for
corrective action.
40. Favor modified compact growth and appropriate types of cluster
development over urban sprawl.
41. Give timely and favorable attention to the following actions
in addition to all other specific action policies in this
Plan:
ensure that all lands and waters in this juris-
diction are zoned and/or rezoned in a timely fashion
in order to appropriately implement this element of
the Horizon 2000 Plan.
disapprove all rezoning applications within conserva-
tion areas unless the application is for a planned
development which requires detailed site plan review
following specific guidelines and criteria,
eliminate from the capital improvements budget and
program all projects which cannot be modified so as
to conform to this Plan, and
promote maximum feasible participation of citizens
in the decision-making process.
10 7-705"
-------
P. 0. Box 1305
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950
June 13, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III, Chief
EIS Branch, Region IV i ___ A tf.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency \/J *
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear John:
I wish to reemphasize some of the concerns I expressed at
the public hearing regarding the impact of the phosphate
industry on our area and its residents.
The Peace River already is a regional potable water supply
for residents in DeSoto, Sarasota, and Charlotte Counties and
possibly on down to Boca Grande in Lee County. Nowhere in
the Draft EIS did I see where it pointed out the present and
future potential use of the Peace River as a potable water
source. Attached is a letter on the use of the Peace River
by General Development Utilities, about which I had questioned
Mr. Harold E. Schmidt. I wish for this letter to be included
as part of the record on the Draft EIS.
Many other municipalities along the Peace River may one day
have to make withdrawals from the river for their drinking
water. Attached is a copy of a report by Tri-County Engineering,
Inc. for the City of Punta Gorda on future source of water for
the city.
The reason the City of Arcadia had to stop using the river for
drinking water was because of the quality due to phosphate
spills. If the inland well fields go bad, then the only other
source will be surface water from the Peace River Basin.
We have attempted to upgrade and reclassify the Peace River
in DeSoto County to Class I Water (Potable) in an effort to
better protect it.
The 208 plans should also address water quality in the Peace
River Basin and not only all new, but also existing sources
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan III
June 13, 1978
Page Two
of pollution be required to conform to the 208 plans.
Not only is water quality important, but also quantity.
We need runoff, which, in turn, makes flow. Adequate
flow in the Peace River is essential to maintain the ecologi-
cal balance in the Charlotte Harbor Estuarine complex. There-
fore, total water retention by the industry would be very
harmful.
Again, I wish to reiterate the need for timely and adequate
monitoring on all aspects of phosphate mining from EPA,
DER, DNR, water management districts to the local county
level. All of the rules, regulations, policies, are worth-
less, unless they are beneficial, followed and enforced.
We in Charlotte County are vitally interested in the Peace
River and Charlotte Harbor because, this without question,
it is the greatest natural resource we have in our area.
Thanks again for all the listening you have done and I hope
the final EIS will be a very good one.
Sincerely,
Robert N."McQueen
Advisory Committee Member
Charlotte County, Florida
RNMcQ:dd
-------
General Development Utilities. Inc.
June 5, 1978
Mr. Bucky McQueen
Phosphate Industry
E.I.S. Advisory Committee Member
P. 0. Box 1305
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950
Dear Bucky:
I have been requested to update the information you may have available
on the General Development Utilities Water Plant now being constructed
on the Peace River.
This Water Plant is being constructed to provide the potable water
needs of the Port Charlotte area and its surrounding environs. The
Plant, as presently constructed, will have an initial capability of
six to seven million gallons per day. However, present structural
components of the Plant have been designed for 30 million gallons per
day. There is sufficient land being maintained to expand the Plant
and transmission main well beyond its present design.
The Peace River was chosen .because it offered an adequate supply of
high quality surface water easily treatable by conventional water
treatment methods. The energy needed to treat this type of water is
lower than that necessary to treat water by the reverse osmosis pro-
cess. The amount of chemicals required to treat this water as com-
pared to existing ground water in the areas is also less. We have,
therefore, the best of all situations on adequate quantity of fresh
water easily treatable by conventional low energy treatment systems.
This fresh water source, we believe, is being put to its best bene-
ficial use by providing a high quality potable water supply to the
citizens of Florida at the most economical price possible.
We have been approached in the last year by other associations request-
ing water from the Peace River Plant. These include Rotunda, Gasparilla
Island, Englewood and Sarasota County. You see, therefore, that the
Plant could indeed serve as a regional water source for this whole area
of Florida.
We are studying ways of moving water from our waterway systems of Port
Charlotte and Sarasota County to our reservoir system in DeSoto County -
This will help supplement the water supply from the Peace River and
help us keep the reservoir to a reasonable size. The Peace River, how-
ever, is intended to be the main source of water and to be the prime
source of water to meet this area's needs.
3- jo 8
Illl Soutii(!3vsp;>'i!l)iiV«i Mianv. li.«i(1.i33U1. Irt'phoni-' ;>0'> JliO i:>3l AGunetjl DI*
-------
Mr. Bucky McQueen -2- June 5, 1978
When the existing facility is constructed to its present planned
capacity, our investment will exceed 30 million dollars. Our commit-
ment to the Peace River as our source of potable water, as you can
see, is substantial. Anything to degrade the quality of the water
as it now exists will certainly have an impact on the citizens on
this coast of Florida.
The Plant is scheduled to be completed by March of 1979. Should you
or your Committee care to go through the facility, we would be pleased
to show it to you. Most structural work is completed, and we are in
the process of installing the mechanical and electrical equipment.
If you need additional information on our Peace River Plant, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Harold E. Schmidt
President
HES:mgf
cc: Wayne Allen
C. C. Crump
Dan Dennison
-------
Tui-COUNTY KNGINKKRING. INC.
SECTION V - PEACE RIVER POTENTIAL
The Peace River would provide a water supply
of more than adequate quantity for many years to
come. The average discharge at Arcadia is 1,250
cfs and at Punta Gorda is estimated at over 2,000
cfs, and during peak flows has reached over 30,000
cfs. Water quality is such that normal treatment
will adequately provide potable water (see follow-
ing tabulations).
The'salinity line .above which a potable water
supply source should be located, lies near Fort
Ogden. A raw water transmission line of some 12
miles in length would be required to convey the
water to the Shell Creek Plant. Accompanying this,
a diversion structure must be placed in the Peace
Riv.er in such a way as to preclude inasmuch as pos-
sible the intake of phosphate slimes in the event
of a spi11.
As a potential source, the Peace River quali-
fies in all categories except one. That category
is economics and even though feasible, the cost to
the community would be greater than other sources.
-------
Form 9-240-7 SW Annul No. 7
U. S. IWMOIKHI Ot TIIZ IlneMOR - CEOMJBICAl SURVEY
1)68
Florida
104
10D PEACE RIVER MSIN
2-2967.) Peace River >C Arcadia, PU.
UcJtlon.--l.Jt 27M3'19", long 8l'52'34", In SEV, »ec.26, T.37 S., R.24 £., on left bunk 500 ft upstream from bridge on State Highway
70, 1.0 Dllc west of post office In Arcadia, DC Soto County, 6.1 miles upstream from Joshua Creek, and 36 mile* upstream froa
DOuth.
Drainage urea.—1,367 aq ml.
Records available
--April 1931 to September 1968. Prior to October 1950, published as Peace Creek at Arcadia.
Cage. --Digital water-stage recorder. Datura of gage Is 6.00 ft above mean sea level, datum of 1929; Mar. 20, 1964 to July 11, 1967,
staff gaie at mean sea level. Prior to July 19, 1931, staff gage, and July 19, 1931 to May 16, 1963, graphic water-stage recorder,
and May 16, to Sept. 30, 1963, digital water-stage recorder at saae cite at datum 2.25 ft higher. All gage helghta are at gage
datum.
Average discharge. --37 years. 1.252 cfa.
Extremes. --Maximum discharge dprlng year, 7,030 cfa July 13 (gage height, '12.66 ft); minimum, 60 cfa May 6 (gage height, 1.20 ft).
1931-68: Maximum discharge, 36,200 cfa Sept. 9, 1933 (gage height, 19,92 ft, preaent datum); minimum, 37 cfa Hay 28, 1949;
Blnlmua gage height, that of May 6, 1963.
Kaxlnm atage known, 20.6 ft (preaent datum) in 1912, froa Information by county engineer (dUcharge, 43,000 cfa, froa rating
Remarks. --Records good. Records of chenlcal analyses and water temperatures for the water year 1968 are
report. See page 103 for toble of gage height.
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
CAT
OCT
I 4,0*0
2
\
*
»
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
U
|9
20
21
22
21
?4
25
26
}t
I'
JC
,740
,080
,450
,C1C
,T40
,7)0
,7CO
, 4*0
,79C
,440
.421
,190
, 100
877
7H
681
616
560
5ff
449
41)
4K
3'2
>*;
362
350
)18
))8
% \ tv
* j »
tlTsl 37,402
"US
M.\X
111.
C'SM
It.
t2r T
k ,flhO
J35
• Pft
1.02
C«l »R U67 1
«IR Y« !>(.« I
NOV
303
326
323
30*
317
323
303
268
244'
2)5
221
225
244'
266
286
2,,
2)6
208
2)3
214
214
231
2)6
246
268
265
244
216
210
> > i
e 1 1
7,611
25*
ii>
2))
.19
.21
"Til 276,111
Hal 4(9,10;
OEC
207
200
212
22)
22)
210
208
204
205
207
246
348
553
561
482
401
33)
312
302
290
287
276
254
241
245
235
238
;o)
29)
5*7
* 7 '
e.aoi 7
2*4
561
200
.21
.24
KF«N
Kf AN
JAN
261
256
268
237
212
197
204
224
235
242
24*
225
225
235
254
268
239
224
222
21S
209
2)2
258
254
249
2?2
206
213
234
J 1 ft
* 3 *
J laV'
*. "*•
i 2 ^0
2J4
268
197
.17
.20
756
I .257
FEB
232
242
225
211
245
247
248
247
224
187
195
202
197
208
200
• 191
179
162
209
245
284
257
236
249-
318
311
29P
2*1
267
6,7119
234
318
'62
.17
.16
*A( 4,
"A* 7,
published In Part 2 of this
, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 1968
HAK
243
21$
206
220
239
220
223
225
234
234
224
233
235
242
277
263
256
248
258
245
240
203
186
17)
15«
155
16)
167
172
1 ft, ft
it D n
1 SI
I •» J
6,67«
215
277
153
.16
.18
990 SIN
con NIK
APR
156
13T
124
165
159
143
112
124
145
141
144
138
150
1)6
133
128
135
143
127
99
37
S7
93
82
75
78
100
100
86
* JV »
1 *J 3
3,630
12*
' 6S
75
• C9
.10
• 4
»2
HAY
114
114
102
74
68
62
•8
111
in
97
92
•3
149
lei
1C8
212
196
17?
141
127
138
138
11)
115
137
2°1
407
3C6
)?2
» 5 *
if 6
170
4^7
*2
.12
.14
t"« .
CF\» .
JUN
256
215
21°
977
2,370
3,180
3,610
3 , 9?0
4,120
4,950
5,580
5,750
5.410
4,700
4,210
4,930
4,190
4,26"
4,)40
4,?00
4,110
4,1)0
4, '00
4,090
3.6)0
3,0?0
2.700
3,5)0
),»,40
3,
107, »?7
1, *i°P
^, 7SO
>l 5
?. 61
?.C4
« IM
V Ul
JUL
3,880
4.2BO
5,030
5.300
5,540
5,520
5,450
5,800
6,180
6,450
6,780
6,910
7,000
6,9)0
6,700
6,180
5,510
5,860
6,200
6,030
5,890
5,500
6,1)3
5,610
5,470
4,830
-,730
2,640
1,970
1 , 690
1 , 560
16), 150
5,26)
7,093
1,560
3.65
4.44
7.51
12.52
AUG
1,460
1,499
1,760
1,910
2,143
2,290
2,223
,930
,660
,440
,270
,173
,190
,063
856
712
64?
669
704
803
947
650
663
5o7
606
682
B2T
932
1 l!83
1 ,390
1, 490
37,5)7
1,211
2.2VO
»o7
1*02
SEP
1,470
1,360
1,140
947
828
832
1,290
1,860
2,240
2,490
3,130
3,740
4,240
4,540
•.,730
4,730
4,670
4,380
3,750
2,950
2,230
1,750
1,470
1,260
1,130
1,030
98T
968
989
911
68,069
2,269
4,730
828
1.66
1.63
-------
100 PEACE Wf« 1ASIN
02296750 PUCE R1VCI AT AJCAMA, HJ.
*)
LOCATION. --tat 27M3'19", long 8l*52'34". DeSoto County, at l^glp* acatjon. on left banV 100 fe.t upelrean fro* brl'lgft on Seal* Blgh-
vay 70, 1.0 mile vctc of poet office in Arc0Jla, 6.1 nilfti upatreea frwa Joihuft Creek, end 36 oillea upltrejut tun inouth.,
DUISAOE A»EA.— 1,367 aquare ollea.
IECOPI1S AVAILABLE.— Chentcal en»lyaee: October 1961 to September 1969.
Water le-nperalurea: February 1962 to S.ptenber 1969.
*£S, 1946-69. — Fluoride: Hjalmun dolly, 1.9 ng/1 on aeveral days during fay and June; nlntrauta dally. 0.5 ng/1 Sept. J and 4.
PhoapMte: M«ltnui dally, 11 mg/1 Dec. 19 and April 20; ntn!.-u = dally. 1.6 ng/1 March 18.
Specific Conductance: KajiliTjw dally, 450 otc ronhos May 14, 16; Dlnl.nu-o dally, 80 rolcroahoa Sept, 4.
pH: Cj>.l-.g» dally. 7.7 Oct. 6; n]nl=ui dally. 6.4 March 16, Aug. 19. Sept. 3, 4.
Turbidity: rUtlima daily, 350 ng/1 »s Silica Jan. 1; mlnl=uo dally, 3 JTU on July 2!.
Water teaperaturea: Kaxlaura, 34'C on Aug. 1; mlnlmis. 3*C Dec. 16.
S. 1961-69. --01a»olveJ oollda (1961-67): Kaxlcnjo, 335 r^/1 May 11-20, 1967; otntoun, 50 cj/1 Aug. 21-25, 196J.
Kardncaa (1961-67): Ka>LLua, 2!4 ng/1 May 11-20, 27, 1967; nl^lr.un, 21 og/1 Sept. 20-28, 1962.
Fluoride (1963-69): Ha« Irun dally. 3.9 ng/1 Feb. 13 and Apr. h, 1966; nlnlnja dally, 0.4 cg/1 Au|. 9, 10, 1966 ami June 11. 1969.
Phoaphate (19M-69): Ka«lnii» dally, 29 rg/1 Hjy 27, 1967; nlnlnur, dally, l.< rg/I M«r. 14, 1967.
Specific conductance: KJ»ln>.n dally, 1,750 ntcrOTho) Feb. 3, 1963; olnlcruu dally, 45 nlcromhoa Sapt. 23, 1962.
^H: y^xliij;a dally, 8.3 units Mar. 31. 1968; nlnlr.un dally, 5.1 unite Mar. 1, 1961.
TurbldUy (1962-69): Maxlc.ua dally, 2CO rg/1 aa Silica July 16. 1962; rlnlcun dally, 0 114/1 aa Silica oo lavaral day* la Octobtr
1965, Auguit 1966, oany d«va during November, December 19ft7 and September 1963.
Water te^peraturea: rUxlrcurc, 35'C on aeveral day* during July and August; nlnlmim, 3eC Dec. 16( 1969.
K£MAJIX.S. — Turbidity values through May 1969 were reported aa nllligra*a per liter of Slllc*. valuea for Juna through Septenber 1969
verc reported aa Jackcoo Turbidity t'nlta.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES, WATER TEAR OCT09E* 1969 IO SECIEMBEd 1969
DATE
OC(.
01...
IS...
30...
MOV.
01...
29...
30...
OcC.
90,..
91...
JAN.
OS...
IS...
21...
21...
31...
FEB.
02...
16...
a..:
2S...
Milt.
01...
12...
15...
51...
Oil..
15...
14...
27...
30...
JUNE
30..
DIS-
CHARGE
ICf SI
_
—
—
--
--
__
--
„_
__
._
465
--
—
-•
..
—
4340
_-
"
„_
__
_•
...
--
FEMP-
ERAIURE
1040 Cl
29
27
20
25
2,
16
19
26
57
17
IS
12
19
19
20
IT
11
14
U
IT
IS
|$
22
19
20
24
24
22
SILICA
ISIU2)
IMO/L)
9.0
1.0
9.2
—
10
5.
9.
7.
9.
S.
7.7
6.7
7.7
7.9
—
6.9
T.I
6.9
— •
9.4
4.S
4.4
•5.4
5.3
9.9
--
2.2
— -
DIS-
SOLVED
IROM
(FEI
(UC/LI
60
70
90
--
60
90
50
60
JO
30
50
SO
40
40
—
60
60
40
—
30
70
90
90
SO
100
—
SO
—
C«L-
C1UM
1CAI
IMC/LI
29
32
24-
—
29
IS
33
35
43
-~
35
29
12
34
—
IT
33
35
—
39
13
14
22
22
41
21
41
—
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
IHOI
(MO/LI
9.7
10
7.5
—
9.1
S.S
11
11
14
14
11
9.6
U
12
—
|,
12
12
--
12
4.9
S.3
T.S
7.7
1 A
T.S
14
—
SODIUM
1NAI
(MGVll
12
13
12
—
IS
10
14
IS
16
IT
IS
IS
IS
16
—
IT
IT
19
—
12
9.0
9.7
II
14
17
—
16
—
PO-
TAS-
SIUM
Ul
CMC/LI
1.4
I.S
2.0
—
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
2.1
3.2
2.6
2.4
2.3
—
2.0
2.4
2.1
—
2.0
2.4
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.3
~—
1.0
—
BICAK-
BONA1E
IHC03)
IMC/LI
57
59
37
—
49
27
$9
56
94
94
0
64
67
74
—
92
IS
T6
—
91
22
29
47
SO
74
__
91
—
26
-in A-
-------
IOD ruci IIVM uitu
02294730 rzici IIVM AT AXTADU, riA.
CHEMICAL ANALVSEJ. VAIJR >EAR OCT03ER l«»» TO SEPTEHBER 1969
OAlf
JULY
01
10
II
I*
19
10
II
*uc
02
II
21.
31.
16PI
01.
IS
10
DIS-
CHARGE
ICF5I
491
TEHP- SILICA
CRAIURE (SICUI
IOEC C) IMG/LI
26
10
30
It
21
26
29
01J-
stxveo
IJION
IFEI
IUG/LI
25JO
29
21
2*
29
2*
2»
5.1
5.4
II
i.S
T.2
7.7
9.6
6.1
CAL-
CLJH
ICAI
IMG/LI
29
31
>9
16
21
22
13
1*
21
11
HAG-
Ht-
SlUH
(HO
(MO/LI
10
9.7
12
6.1
7.)
• .I
7.7
4.7
9.3
7.9
4.5
SODIUM
iriAi
IMG/LI
14
14
15
(.4
10
12
II
7.0
(.1
II
7.2
IAS- BICAR-
SIUM noNAre
IKI IHC01I
ING/LI INC/LI
I.
I.
I.
2.
1.
1.4
1.4
l.S
1.6
1.5
1.5
63
97
69
J6
44
5*
2*
31
49
24
DATE
OCT.
01...
15...
30...
31...
NOV.
01...
15...
29...
30...
DEC.
15...
30...
31...
JAN.
05...
15...
2J...
29...
31...
fit.
02...
16...
27...
29...
MAR.
01...
12...
15...
31...
APR.
01...
15...
15...
29...
30...
MAT
31...
JUNE
30...
JUt FAT 6
IS04I
IMG/LI
CMIO-
Rioe
ICLI
IMG/LI
FlUO-
RIOE
(Fl
IMG/LI
NITRITE
(N02I
IMC/LI
NITRATE
1.10)1
IMG/l)
CRT HO
PHOS-
PHATE
IPCKJ
(HO/LI
PHOS-
PHATE
IP34)
IMG/LI
OIS-
soivfo
SOI. I OS
(SUM OF
CONSTI-
TUENTS)
IMG/l'l
57
6J
50
60
32
74
•6
98
93
II
55
67
74
13
73
72
70
26
32
41
46
92
31
95
(.0
14
14
14
16
14
3.0
16
16
II
19
19
14
13
14
13
It
14
10
17
17
16
14
17
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
.«
1.0
I.I
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.2
.5
.7
1.0
.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
t.9
l.S
.02
.01
.03
.16
.3
7.7
.3
1.0
.3
.2
.3
.a
2.0
.1
.2
.0
.5
1.4
4.0
.1
2.7
.4
.4
2.0
1.5
2.4
.0
1.3
.1
1.7
7.3
5.5
5.1
6.2
6.4
3.0
e.i
(.0
7.7
9.5
7.3
4.2
5.3
5.9
6.2
6.1
5.3
4.6
4.6
5.0
3.7
2.2
3.6
4.5
9.1
4.0
4.1
*.5
4.1
6.2
5.2
4.2
4.6
9.3
9.0
4.5
161
III
144
169
103
195
247
241
209
175
192
203
220
204
207
209
19
93
137
146
299
234
-10B-
-------
109 ruce MVM
Uf.t MV(.» AT AXCADIA, PA.
CHCHICM. ANALJiES, MAIEK ȣȥ ClCIUdt* 1469 TO SE'TEH9E*
iOLfAlf
IS04I
CHWll
CHLO-
RIDE
ICll
1 MI/LI
FLUO-
RIDE
If I
I AC/11
NIIRITS
INOil
(HO/LI
HITDATE
matt
ING/L)
ORIHO
PMOS-
PMAIE
1 P0*l
ING/LI
M3S-
PHATE
IP3M
1 Hi/11
DIS-
SOLVED
SOLIDS
I SUH Of
CONSri-
lUEHtSI
IMG/LI
01.
10.
It.
It.
24.
10.
II.
•UG.
01.
It.
II.
11.
SEPT
01.
l».
10.
60
kT
«2
2*
41
41
4»
22
24
It
20
It
12
21
12
II
14
II
II
10
II
10
.01
.01
.01,
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.01
2.1
.0
2.0
2.1
.0
.T
'1.0
:.;
i.r
».«
4.*
4.2
2.1
2.4
>.4
4.)
2.»
J.J
2.T
It*
i;o
22T
fl
125
Ilk
(1
•t
I2T
74
am
OCT.
Olr..
it...
10...
Jl...
KJV,
01...
It...
24...
10...
Oil.
It...
10...
>l...
JAN.
II..
MS.
02..
Ik..
2T..
211..
*•».
01..
12..
l>..
11..
«PK.
01..
It..
It..
2t..
10..
H»r
Jl..
JUNE
10..
BIS-
SOLVED
SOLIDS
IHESI-
OUI 41
110 Cl
IHG/ll
tea
ie«
Ik4
lit
it
224
2kk
2tt
22k
l«>
212
2)2
231
21«
221
211
Ilk
I2t
Ikk
Ik2
24f
•*
241
HMD-
NESS
ICt.HGI
(MS/LI
10k
'121
«l
110
kO
121
Ikt
Ikt
111
112
I2>
lit
14k
111
III
1*5
S2
IT
Ik
IT
Itk
(4
IkO
NON-
CAB-
9UNATE
HARD-
NESS
IMG/LI
54
Tl
S4
™
TO
19
10
--
IT
4k
—
It
kO
Tl
T4
—
14
Tl
It
—
T4
14
14
4k
4k
4t
>~
44
—
—
_
SPECI-
fie
COND-
UCTANCE
IN1CRO-
HHOSI
2TO
240
210
2kO
271
IkO
240
240
110
170
110
lot
2ki
124
100
12f
IkO
114
140
140
140
170
114
220
2)0
Ikt
140
110
JtO
41D
250
PH
1 UNITS)
T.2
T.4
T.2
T.2
7.1
T.i
T.k
T.k
T.t
T.4
T.I
T.2
T.I
T.4
T.2
T.I
T.2
T.I
T.I
k.4
k.t
k.4
T.I
T.t
T.5
•—
T.I
.T.I
T.k
T.I'
COIOI
(PLtri-
INUH-
coatir
UNITS)
100
10
120
—
100
120
10
to
40
40
™
kO
10
50
50
10
to
50
"
40
100
110
too
kO
21
•-
2!
-•
—
_
CM
-10C-
-------
Chemical Corporation
A SUBSIDIARY OF AMAX INC.
402 SOUTH KENTUCKY AVENUE • SUITE 600 • LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801 • IB13) 687-2561
JAMES L. COX
VICE PRESIDENT
June 23, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, Environmental Impact Statement Branch <•», * A
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency **' -,^
Region IV * „ ^
345 Courtland Street ,, C
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
During the past several months, AMAX's Florida staff and related personnel
have analyzed the Central Florida Phosphate Industry Draft Areawide
Environmental Impact Statement to understand the technical bases uoon which
EPA has recommended new regulatory restrictions, assess the potential en-
vironmental benefits attributable to these recommendations, and evaluate
the technical and economic feasibility'of implementation. The following
comments represent AMAX's views with respect to the policies EPA will be
proposing in the final areawide EIS. Because of the detailed point-by-
point technical comments delivered by others at the three public hearings,
our comments address the recommended policies contained in the draft EIS.
I. Protection of Wetlands
The concept of preserving and restoring wetlands to increase the
diversity of reclaimed areas, maintain surface water quality, and
provide suitable wildlife habitat should enhance the quality of life in
the study area in future years. Discussions with EPA staff, testimony at
the public hearings, and papers presented at technical seminars confirm
that the public holds widely divergent opinions regarding the goals to be
attained through wetland restoration efforts; the techniques for creating
self-sustaining wetlands following mining; the amounts of land which should
be devoted to this use; and the time required to achieve successful
restoration. By requiring preservation of the most critical wetland areas,
we assume that EPA will not require restoration efforts to create wetlands
equalling the preserved Class I wetlands. To do so would result in wetlands
homogeneity countercurrent to the basic intent of creating diverse wetlands
through restoration.
Early attempts to restore wetland acreages are likely to be less successful
than planned because of man's inability to simulate nature, the traditional
learning curve, and because EPA's recommendations may not be accepted
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan,- III -2- uune to, .1.3/0
universally by the governmental units which have jurisdiction over new
source mining projects in Florida. These and other related factors dictate
the need for EPA to implement reasonable requirements reflecting man's
technical and economic capabilities to restore wetlands, the need to balance
sometimes conflicting regional and local public interests, and the concepts
of diversified multiple land uses. As with other ecological issues, the
creation of productive wetland systems requires deliberate and careful
attention and may require years to achieve.
The Agency must also carefully assess in the site-specific EIS the detrimental
impacts of restricting access to recoverable tonnages of phosphates deposited
below wetland preservation areas. A prudent site-specific policy should
encourage exploration of these areas to insure that the integrity of NEPA is
maintained by including the lost phosphate resources as a consideration in
wetlands preservation determinations.
I I . Process Water Recirculation
lJ-
The recovery and re-use of process water liberated by utilizing one of the
emerging waste-clay settling technologies will help conserve the water
resources of the region, Site-specific application of these technological
advances is an objective to which AMAX is devoting diligent studies and
research.
The ability to recover significant quantities of water from clays with
varying mineralogical characteristics requires proving an advanced settling
technology on a site-specific basis, Further, the use of recirculated
process water recovered from rapidly settled clays in new source mines
containing less salable pebble product and higher percentages of concen-
trate product will require improvements in water treatment procedures and/
or amtne flotation technology. Studies have shown that the use of re-
circulated water for the amine flotation medium reduces metallurgical
recovery and increases reagent consumption resulting in lost phosphate ;
resources. A site-specific environmental analysis may indicate this trade-
off to be an irretrievable commitment of resources unworthy of implementation.
EPA's January 31, 1978 recommended scenario acknowledged the limits of
flotation technology. We believe the final draft should recognize them as
well.
III. Eliminate Rock Drying
,
The recommendation to eliminate rock drying at new source beneficiation (^
plants differs from the other recommended process modifications because of
the potential impacts this requirement will have upon new mines to compete
in an international market trading an intermediate product commodity. We
note that EPA has recognized that this recommendation- has been drafted only
considering the seven county study area because of the statement on page
2.21 which reads: "For purposes of effects assessment, this process is
applicable to that portion of the mined and beneficiated rock to be
chemically processed in the seven county study area." Therefore, we assume
that EPA has not considered the economic effects of eliminating rock
dryers upon the industry beyond the seven county area.
- 31
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III -3- June 23, 1978
A review of the market structure of phosphate fertilizer intermediate
products confirms that dried phosphate rock is traded internationally.
AMAX's market research efforts do not reveal an immediate trend toward
international trading of wet phosphate rock. Thus, a requirement that
new source mines without captive markets for phosphate rock intermediate
products must market wet rock is an illustrative example of an apparently
simple environmental regulation which fails to consider all of the direct
and induced impacts upon the health of the industry being regulated. We
note no comments reviewing the economic impacts induced by this regulation
other than energy considerations. The intent of NEPA will not be fulfilled
by limiting the effects assessment to the seven county region.
When drafting this requirement, we do not believe that EPA has given due
consideration to the fact that eliminating dryers will effectively restrain
new source mines from the international dry rock commodity markets. Limit-
ing an industry's markets will eventually limit that industry's ability to
compete domestically as well. Potentially limiting (of) new source mines'
output to domestic sales only because of the inability to produce dried
rock creates a pricing disequilibrium in domestic phosphate rock markets
during the short run which will limit the ability to attract the necessary
investment capital to assure a domestic source of supply in the long run.
Secondly, elimination of rock dryers at the new source mines of companies
not currently producing phosphate in Florida restrains access to markets,
which in turn allows existing producers to gain market shares artificially
at the expense of free competition. This restraint of trade does not
appear to have been considered by the Agency when drafting this recommenda-
tion. We believe that the Agency would not have recommended eliminating
rock drying at new source mines had these considerations been included in
your analysis.
The justification for elimination of rock drying presented in the draft
EIS is logical for integrated producers (.i.e., those who produce phosphoric
acid as well as rock) in Florida. We believe that companies which produce
only phosphate rock can build dryers at new source mines which do not
endanger public health or significantly degrade air quality by using
currently available emission control equipment. The technology of wet
scrubbers and wet electrostatic precipitators is well proven. Florida DER
air pollution emission limitations and EPA's PSD review requirements have
been drafted to protect the quality of ambient air. We believe that these
requirements are sufficiently stringent to safeguard air quality and that
new source dryers which can meet these requirements should be approved by
the Agency.
In closing, we believe that the Agency's study of the environmental impacts of
Florida phosphate industry has been worthwhile and beneficial. You should be
commended for your efforts to complete the difficult directive assigned you in
1976. As our above comments have indicated, we believe that the health of the
phosphate industry can be impaired not only directly but also indirectly by the
economic impacts of regulations intended to enhance environmental quality.
Both environmental quality and economic vitality are important to Florida and the
United States. Thus, direct and indirect environmental and economic impacts of
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
-4-
June 23, 1978
your proposed regulations must be carefully assessed in the final EIS.
Sincerely,
OLC:nf
James L. cox
//Vice President
-------
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIKONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUN ? 2 197"
SUBJECT: Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement on the Central Florida
Phosphate Indus try. v'oji'me YU_
FROM: Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Strategy Development Section
TO: Frank Redmond
EIS Branch
VolumeVHI, Section I - Atmosphere: This document provides, in part,
the historical information to describe typical weather patterns existing
in the seven county study area. Topics covered include fog, humidity,
temperatures, precipitation, and prevailing winds. It is assumed the
data presented is accurate.
VolumeVlI, Section II - Air Quality: This document contains the
procedure used to collect and evaluate data, site locations and
bias, and emission inventory and sources of pollution in the seven
county area-wide study area. There are only two counties, Hillsborough
and Polk, where data is given which indicates violation cf SO- and TSP
NAAQS for the years 1972 mid-1976, (see pages 2.8 and 2.13)
The phosphate industry is identified as contributing 70% of S02 emissions'
in Polk County and 10% in Hillsborough County. 20% of particulates in
Hillsborough and 807, in Polk County is caused by the phosphate industry.
(see page 2.73)
The treatment and evaluation of the air quality data appears to be
adequate and to satisfy its reporting requirements of NEPA. (Disclosure)
le project stu9v area co\ers an\area designated by EPA
for^SOo and TSP (Sarasdta, DeSota, and Charlotte)\nd Cla-ss I
S0 and T§P in Hilr^borough,xplk, Manatee andlia^rdee Counties!
Action
No additional comments at this time.
Background
Draft EIS attached.
Attachment #195-78
JUN ? 2 1978
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
3-211
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGION IV
101 MARIETTA TOWER, SUITE 1403
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
June 9, 1978 OFFICE OF THE
Principal Regional Official
Re: HEW-858-4-78
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Subject: Central Florida Phosphate Industry
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Based upon the data contained in the draft, it is our opinion that
the proposed action will have only a minor impact upon the human
environment within the scope of this Department's review. The
impact statement has been adequately addressed for our comments.
Sincerely yours,
Philip P. Sayre
Regional Environmental Officer
Region IV,DHEW
cc: Ms. A. McGee
Mr. Raymond Goldberg
JUN 1 4 1973
O
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 497O
JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 322O1
"AJEN-EE 14 June 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement, Central Florida
Phosphate Industry has been reviewed by elements of the U. S. Army
Engineer District, Jacksonville, in accordance with provisions of
Section 102 of Public Law 91-190. Our comments follow:
a. On page T.2, paragraph 2, the Bureau of Mines' conclusion is
that the U. S. could be a net exporter of phosphate rock through the
year 2000, but that the demand would likely exceed the domestic supply
before year 2010. Later in the paragraph is the conclusion that lower
grade rock in Manatee and Hardee Counties would become the source for
future mining operations. Table 1.1, page 1.3, shows that the total
recoverable phosphate rock totals 1,722 million short tons. In our
preparation of studies on Tampa Harbor, we obtained data from a local
expert consultant to the phosphate industry. The data from that source
support an estimate of 2,800-3,000 million short tons of phosphate re-
serves and resources in the area.
b. The proposed action includes several factors helpful to manage-
ment of the quantity and quality of water resources. These are:
(1) Meet Florida's effluent limitations for any discharges.
(2) Eliminate conventional above-ground slime-disposal areas.
(3) Meet Southwest Florida Water Management District consumptive-use
requirements.
3-21 I
-------
SAJEN-EE
Mr. Hagan
14 June 1978
(4) Provide storage capacity for reel reulation of water.
(5) Use connector wells to exploit the water-table aquifer and to
replenish part of the water pumped from the Floridan Aquifer.
(6) Protect or restore wetlands under the Corps of Engineers Section
404 jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS.
Sincerely yours,
IS L. GARLAND
Chief, EngineeringTJTvision
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE . „
State Office, P. 0. Box 1208, Gainesville, FL 32602
May 15, 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. White:
RE: Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Statement on the Central Florida
Phosphate Industry
Our major concern within the subject study area would be the land use
changes affecting agriculture and soil resources.
The last paragraph on page 2.69. alludes to some change but only to truck
crops and citrus acreage. We assume the 100,000 acres of rangelando
would be lost or converted to improved pasture and would have an impact
on the cattle industry in the area. A percentage of the truck crop land,
such as organic soils, may be considered "unique" farmlands.
We feel that methods to lessen impacts of mining such as wetland restor-
ation technology and management practices are particularly important.
These concerns should be addressed in the site-specific environment
assessment and/or impact statement.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
William E. Austin
State Conservationist
cc: R. M. Davis
MAY 1 8 1978
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 25 1978
SUBJECT: DEIS, the Central Florida Phosphate Industry
FROM: Walter J. Hunt, Chief, ICB/EGD tll\\\.^T* *° ["* "
^-^ '
TOr John C. White, Administrator-Region IV
Attn: John E. Hagan, Chief, EIS Branch
THRU:/./Robert B. Schaffer, Director^V^-
'l TffTiic-nt- n,i-M
-------
Comments: Draft of Areawide Environmental Impact Statement
Central Florida Phosphate Industry, EPA 904/9-78-006,
March, 1978
Hi. c. l)a) Ponds will "flush out" perodically unless complete site
rainfall runoff management is established. At most sites,^runoff
must by-pass ponds in excessively rainy periods. The initial
run-off sweeps up most site pollution. The subsequent runoff,
in heavy rainfall, is normal uncontaminated runoff, and must be
by-passed to prevent pond flush out.
1ii. c. 2)a) Same comment as preceding comment. The reported volumes
of 10 year 1 day rainfall values differ little from 25 year 1 day
values. Present regulations prevent flush out only when rainfall
in one day is 1/2 of the maximum 10 year lor 25 year) value.
Present regulations will not prevent flush out by long rainy
periods, i.e. periods over 1/2 day in duration. Excessive rainfall
over several weeks is common.
iii. c. 2)b) Same as for C. 2)a) - Note: Severe flush out incidents
are highly undesirable. Surface waters may receive massive dis-
charges of SS, fluoride, acidic and radioactive pollutants.
Page 2.5 2.13 - Required reduced water usages - - -? Site drainage
management is the key to reducing or eliminating process waste-
water discharges at manufacturing plants. Much evaporation occurs
from manufacturing plant processes. Most water in use in phos-
phate manufacturing is recycle water and reduction of "recycle"
does not reduce the potential hazard of discharge in periods
of excessive rainfall.
Page 4.4 2 - Dam Ereaks - Inadequate attention is given to the topic
of pond retaining structures. Many breaks have occurred in the
past, particularly at mining sites. Massive contamination of
surface waters has occurred from these dike breaks. These breaks
have had disastrous effects because of discharge of fluorides,
radioactive pollutants, acidic water and huge volumes of slime.
The major factors in control of dam breaks is sound design and
reliable construction practices. These factors are covered in
EPA-440/l-75/043-a, Group I, Phase II, Development Pocument for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Mew Source Performance
Standards for the Other Non-Fertilizer Phosphate Chemicals Segment
of the Phosphate Manufacturing Point Source Category, June 1976.
-------
-2-
Some attention should be directed to "Stabilizing" thfi gypsum piles
at wet phosphoric add plants. These piles yield highly addle
leachate from rainfall percolation. This addle leachate may
continue to contaminate both surface and ground water for many
years. The long-term hazard of radio active wastes and fluoride
1n this leachate should be thoroughly studied.
It may be necessary to develop a liming program for these piles,
and to cap with clay, or other Impervious material to stop ground
water contamination from running long Into the future.
Attention should be directed to future problems that may arise from
abandonment of elemental phosphorus manufacturing areas. Thousands
of tons of elemental phosphorus may be accumulated 1n recycle pond
bottoms. This will remain 1n the elemental form for extremely long
periods (probably for centuries) where the site remains wet. This
may be a harmless deposit 1n 'a sealed pond not subject to leaching
or digging. However, any future development or construction opera-
tion that disturbs this site may encounter this hazardous deposit.
If these deposits are disturbed and made subject to leaching, the
leachate-will be phossy water.
It 1s advisable to drain and aerate these areas,, or otherwise
arrange for the destruction of elemental phosphorus before the
areas are abandoned for phosphate manufacturing.
7-)
/rf
,
f >
Jo*
-------
SECTION 4
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
(Note: Responses are numbered W-l through W-455. Numbers
are assigned to substantive comments in the margin
of the reproduced written submittals in Section 3.)
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS
W-l
The time frame for effects of mining and reclamation is both
immediate and long term, as spelled out in the text of the FEIS and Working
Papers.
W-2
The Fish and Wildlife Service contract study by Archbold Biological
Station provides documentation on reduced productivity.
W-3
We agree that there is a potential for equalling or exceeding
pre-mining recreational resources, but not archeological values or aesthetic
aspects.
W-4
As of the date of publication of the DEIS, no new source chemical
plants were projected to be located in the study area. We understand that
Farmland now proposes a new chemical plant in Hardee Co.
W-5
See text.
W-6
See text.
W-7
See text.
W-8
The statement "mining has not appeared to have played a significant
role in the growth of the region since 1960" is believed to be a true one. The
statement is not meant to detract from the very large economic role phosphate
mining plays in the region. However, as can be seen by examination of Table 1.27,
mining has been a somewhat steady economic force while increasing demands for
4-1
-------
goods and services for the tourist, retirement and recreation purposes seems
to have been the stimulus for increased economic growth in the study area.
W-9
Table 1.3 shows Ad Valorem Taxes that have been paid by the
phosphate industry. New tax adjustments in Hardee and Hillsborough counties
would increase revenues substantially, but until passed into law would only
be conjecture.
W-10
Correction made in text.
W-ll
Correction made in text.
W-12
Figure has been revised.
W-13
The effects of mining activity on soils are discussed in more
detail in the working papers (Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS).
W-14
The study area is part of peninsular Florida. We agree that
biological assemblages are shaped by their environment, including members of
the assemblage. The environment of peninsular Florida, including the extent
of recoverable phosphate reserves, is unique within the United States.
The term 'regional ecosystem' is unclear. We agree that man needs
to manage his environment wisely. It seems, however, as indicated most
recently by the virtually futile attempts to effect voluntary conservation of
energy, that he will not do so unless constrained by laws, regulations, and
economics.
W-15
The quoted lines are from the description of the present environment
in the EIS, yet the subsequent comment references a discussion of threatened
and endangered species (working paper Volume VI, Section 5, p. 5.95). When
considered in the proper context, emphasis on the three vertebrates named and
4-2
-------
the three vertebrate subspecies clearly stems first from their threatened or
endangered states as designated by the FGFWFC or the Department of Interior.
Secondarily, their endemic status, in conjunction with their range and other
factors, was considered in assessing impact relative to other threatened and
endangered species. As demonstrated by the recent Supreme Court decision on
the snail darter, geographically restricted threatened and endangered species
are more likely to be fully protected than those with wider ranges. Thus,
the weighting factors used apparently are not unrealistic. Obviously, the
endemic biota in the quote from the introduction to the terrestrial biota of
the study area includes species other than vertebrates. It is not within the
scope of the EIS to name them, nor, undoubtedly, are all of them known. The
point to be considered is that peninsular Florida has a high percentage of
endemic biota compared with other geographic areas.
W-16
Restoration of natural habitat is not certain, nor even probable
under current laws and regulations and reclamation practices, as stated
throughout this EIS.
Regarding quantification of natural habitats, several tables are
provided in Volume XI (Volume VII-NTIS) listing acres by habitat type.
W-17
On-site visits to reclaimed areas indicate the post-mining conditions
of pasture and cropland are as intensively managed as pre-mining conditions.
Most land to be mined is not in pasture and cropland, as this commen-
tary states. In Volume XI of the working papers (Volume VII-NTIS) data
indicates that only 32 percent of the land to be mined by the year 2000 will
be cropland and pasture.
W-18
The exact amount of pine flatwoods in the entire study area is not
available. A detailed vegetation cover map was beyond the scope of this
project. The extent of pine flatwoods in pending permit was presented in
Volume XI, Section 2 (Volume VII-NTIS). This table does not specify, however,
the degree of modification, or intensity of management of the pine flatwoods.
4-3
-------
As mentioned in the response to Comment W-17, on-site visits to
reclaimed areas indicate the post-mining landscape to be intensively managed.
A greater habitat diversity is not the end result of mining.
W-19
We agree that dry, or palmetto, prairies as well as other cover
types should be identified and mapped as indicated by a comprehensive statement
in working paper Volume XI (Volume VII-NTIS). We regret that such an extensive
undertaking was not within the scope of this program. The general distribution
of palmetto prairie, as portrayed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources
(1975) and adapted from Davis (1967), does include an area in Manatee County
that may comprise part of a proposed mining area. Davis (1967), whom you quote
later, considers the type endemic to Florida. Again, however, as in the case
of endemic species, the initial emphasis on the type stems from its highly
endangered status as designated by the Florida DNR.
W-20
Producing a detailed vegetation cover map was beyond the scope of the
requirements of this EIS. As mentioned in Volume XI, Section 2 of the working
papers (Volume VII-NTIS), a detailed vegetation map was a recognized data gap
for impact assessment. Available maps were deficient in characterizing cover
types. The DRl's were consulted regarding forest displacement.
The decline in diversity mentioned in this comment was attributed in
this EIS primarily to the loss of wetlands, with some decline attributed to loss
of deciduous forests, sandhills, sand pine scrub, and dry prairies.
W-21
The value and indeed necessity of a vegetation cover type may of
appropriate scale to accurately assess conditions in the study area has been
interated several times.
The potential for mining to increase wetlands extent currently is
not a possibility-
4-4
-------
W-22
Like its phosphate resource, Florida's wetlands resource has nation-
wide value based on remaining significant extent. The status of wetlands
reserve, then, also can he considered a national concern. Unlike the phosphate,
however, when the national wetlands resource is used, importation is. not a
viable mechanism for supplying the resource. The Florida DNR's endangered land
designations are responses to the Land Conservation Act of 1972 (Chapter 259,
Florida Statutes), which calls for the protection of environmentally unique and
irreplaceable lands.
W-23
Assuming the 1956 inventory of wetlands still valid as far as
relative extent is concerned, then land areas (Florida and Louisiana) comprising
less than 4 percent of the contiguous states contain 30 percent of the wetlands
resource. Such concentrations of resources are significant (see above comment).
W-24
The statement stands. Refer to reasons pointed out in Responses to
comments T-41, T-42, T-44, T-46, and T-47.
W-25
This quote, which follows the above quote in the text, is part of the
description of the study area's present environment and is a lead-in to what
may be expected in the impact section. Elaborations supporting the statement
are found in the impact section as well as in the effects assessment volume
(working paper Volume Xl/Volume VII-NT1S).
W-26
This statement also is part of the description of the present
environment. It is tantamount to giving acreage of the study area, human
population, etc. It is not intended to imply, nor does it, that each species
will be impacted - just as each acre or person will not be impacted.
W-27
In compiling the list of special status species, we have expressed the
combined views of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Department
of the Interior, the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals,
and the Archbold Biological Station report to the FWS.
4-5
-------
W-28
The net ecological impact of mining can be mltigated, as we have
stated several times by modifying current practices and researching recla-
mation procedures other than those of greatest economic benefit.
Just as you suggest, the use of "important" when referring to
certain species is a reflection of abundance, scarcity, economic significance,
recreational significance, and medical significance. All suggestions of
importance, the criteria determining important species, and subsequent
allusions to their management comprise these very elements. We thought it
unnecessary to point out that labeling certain species Important does not imply
all other species are dispensable,
W-29
We disagree, for reasons abundantly stated, that wetlands and mixed
forest habitats will or can be increased following mining. The value to
wildlife of existing habitat, although modified and predominantly agricultural,
compared with lake systems, improved pastures, and land awaiting reclamation Is
addressed in Responses to Comments T-39, T-40, T-44, and T-47. The impact to
terrestrial biota was not assessed on the basis of "enormous potential" that
is uncertain, heretofore unmentioned, and still unpromised. Neither current
projections, reclamation technology nor economics indicate such ecologically
sound systems. The projected reclamation, as noted in the existing phosphate
DRI's, is primarily improved pasture and lakes (land and lakes); small extents
of parkland, plantations, and croplands are projected, and one mine proposes to
attempt a small acreage of marsh (working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VH-NTIS).
Before addressing the remainder of your comment, we would like first
to point out that mining Ij3 evolution, as is glaciation. Secondly, an obvious
omission to your comments on glaciation is the importance of Florida as a
refugium during recent glaciations and the resultant presence of many relicit
populations - several of which occupy sandhills and sand pine scrub habitat.
As for displacement, water Is displaced, landuse is displaced, capital
investment is displaced, and populations are displaced. The reference obviously
means removed from a particular location (or denied) by the mining process and
4-6
-------
so removed (or denied) for a time span that is meaningful to the judgment of
impact. All resources considered in the impact analysis - social, economic,
mineral, biological, etc. - will change in the context of geologic time to
an extent that cannot be described or even imagined. Geologic time simply
is not an appropriate frame of reference for assessing impact here and now
and in the foreseeable future. Plants and animals occupying land area that
through mining becomes a lake will be permanently displaced from that location.
W-30
Mining alterations to topography and soils dp cause changes beyond
the tolerance limits of certain biota; these species will not be among those
occupying mined land.
Regarding reversibility, we would like to point out that a
Phosphate Council spokesman said at the Bartow Public Hearing on this EIS that
wetlands would be easier to restore than virtually any of the other natural
systems that are present oh land to be mined (see Response to Comment T-46).
This, coupled with a phosphate company request (Araax 1978) to consider man's
technical and economic ability to restore wetlands before implementing
requirements, does not lend credence to claims of restoration of such a
spectrum of habitat types. It should be noted that this quote, the above two,
and the next quote are from the same paragraph in the text. Two sentences
between this quote and the next, however, are omitted. To avoid the inferences
possibly fostered by your selection of certain sentences, we would like to
insert for the benefit of-ihe reader the missing sentences , (DEIS, p. 1.26, 1.27),
...nonforested wetlands. Rather than promote some degree of
development of natural habitat as has occurred in long-abandoned mining areas,
current reclamation regulations and practices produce a landscape of managed
systems - primarily improved pasture.. As the landscape diversity in the area
declines, so does the faunal and floral diversity. Although diversity
declines....
W-31
Several of these comments are extraneous to both this quote and its
context. We have not correlated habitat quality or community stability wifeh
4-7
-------
versity nor have we indicated that forested wetlands, sandhills, etc. are
climax communities. We have already discussed what is happening in the way
of reclamation and what could happen as well as the apparent decline in
diversity in the mining area (we did not use "areawide" as did the commentor,
although it is not without possibility).
We regret that we are not familiar with what could be sandhills or
sand pine scrub habitat on the mined lands you cite and would be interested
in documentation of their presence as well as the fact that the particular
location was mined. We feel that the cypress stand at the Teneroc site is
occupying unmined land that was disturbed by mining activities.
Further comment on the state of the art of reclamation as well as
its priorities is unnecessary.
W-32
Data to support this statement are available in the Tampa District
Office, Florida DER files.
W-33
The statement extracted from p. 1.32 of the DEIS was part of a more
extensive summary of conditions in one of the working papers, which explains
why conditions favor the entrance of contaminants into the water table and
Upper Floridan aquifers. (Volume V, Section I/Volume V-NTIS).
W-34
Data on waterbodies of the study area are found in working paper
Volume V, Section 2/Volume V-NTIS. The views of the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission on the poor life-support value of the mine pit lakes have
already been stated (see Response to Comment T-44). Wildlife usage of these
lakes is discussed in working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS. As
indicated in working paper Volume V, Section 2/Volume V-NTIS, Lakes Parker,
Banana, Hancock and others in the mining area of Polk County have become
degraded and/or eutrophic considerably faster than lakes in the southeastern
part of the county. These mining area lakes have little to no sport fishery
and contain dense shad and tilapia populations, while Lakes Walk-in-the-Water
and Reedy in southeastern Polk County have a viable sport fishery.
4-8
-------
The "extremely shallow, periodically dry systems" replaced by mine
pit lakes sound more like an incomplete description of a wetland than a
natural lake. At any rate, no natural lakes are projected to be replaced,
only wetlands and upland habitats.
W-35
These five paragraphs neither add to nor change the impact assess-
ment on the manatee, American alligator, or Suwannee cooter. We must,
however, disagree with your prediction of increased alligator populations
over the long-term from mining. The mine pit lakes and reclaimed slime ponds
of the long-term will not support alligator population's equivalent to those
of swamps and marshes now occupying the land to be mined.
The comment on important species iterated in the first paragraph
has been addressed (see responses to Comments T-l, T-2, T-42, W-27, and W-28).
We do not understand the relationship among the list, aquatic species, and
effects of mining you are describing. The list referred to comprises all
vertebrates except fish, a category generally recognized as wildlife. It
includes aquatic as well as terrestrial species. The number of aquatic and
water-oriented species on the list is equal to the number of terrestrial
species. Mining poses potential or actual adverse effects on 3 of 13 threatened
and endangered species treated in the aquatic biota section and at least 12 of
32 threatened and endangered species treated in the terrestrial biota section.
A source of confusion in addressing impact on biota in this and other cases is
the requirement of most report formats to treat terrestrial and aquatic biota
separately, when indeed numerous species cannot be categorized ecologically as
one or the other.
W-36
This sentence is part of the description of the natural environment
of the study area - not the mining area. It does not imply, nor does its
context imply, that the problem is greater in the mining area.
W-37
Text modified.
4-9
-------
W-38
Details supporting Figure 1.15 are given in a working paper Volume VI,
Section 4/Volume VI-NTIS.
COMMENTS
FLORIDA PHOSPHATE COUNCIL (Homer Hooks' letter of June 20, 1978)
p. 1.49, Figure 1.15
The ranges are defined as shown. However, the reference to "high" and "low"
BPL should be reversed to correspond with correct U30g equivalents. Low BPL in
this case corresponds to 100 ppm or 0.01% l^Og, and high BPL corresponds to
200 ppm or 0.02% U308-
W-39
The reference provided in the text for the dose rates cited is the
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (1977). This report,
apparently a draft, has been superceded by a 1978 publication of the same title,
whose values correspond to those cited by Mr. Hooks. The dose rate values will
be changed to reflect the 1978 report (which does not include a gonad dose value).
W-40
Text modified.
W-41
Refer to response to comment number W-8.
W-42
Text modified.
W-43
Text modified.
W-44
Text modified.
W-45
Refer to responses to comments T-5 and T-13.
4-10
-------
W-46
The referenced statement is correct, i.e. most archeological sites
are extremely fragile and would be permanently altered or destroyed if mined.
Most of the comments in the Phosphate Council's letter are adequately
covered (working papers, Volume Xl/Volume VII-NTIS).
W-47
The referenced table was not intended to indicate whether or not the
recreational area was a product of reclamation by the phosphate industry.
Also, the section cited was not the proper place to indicate a positive
impact. The positive impact due to reclamation by the phosphate industry is
mentioned in this EIS.
W-48
Guidelines established by the Steering and Advisory Committees in effect
directed assessment efforts toward existing information with the goal that
issues deserving continued investigation and applied research would result. Use
of lands subsequent to mining, definitions of options available, and an assessment
of the mitigatory value of those options deserve attention, and are presently
being investigated by Federal, State and local agencies as well as by environ-
mental groups and the phosphate industry.
W-49
The methodology used to summarize effects is indeed subjective, but
not arbitrary. The values assigned to impacts have context within the groundrules
of the assessment program and the rationale supporting each value as documented
in Volume XI (Volume VII of the NTIS papers) of the working papers which deals
with impact assessment of the alternatives.
W-50
Text modified.
W-51
All aspects of the important species list have been covered in prior
comments except perhaps one: if the important species are maintained, obviously
other species will also be.
4-11
-------
W-52
World Phosphate Reserves table has been corrected.
W-53
It is true that some abandoned slime ponds have provided wetlands
type habitat. However, this is temporary in nature, unless the abandoned
pond is continuously managed to maintain the wetlands vegetation. Filling
mined pits with clay and tailings does not preclude possible creation of
lakes and/or wetlands type habitat. Phosphate ore removed still leaves a
net void in material, precluding return to original contour throughout the
mining area.
W-54
The potential for sustaining overburden pressures resulting from the
full range of practical uses for reclaimed slime ponds needs to be investigated
as an integral part of the on-going reclamation research. The cautious concern
expressed in the EIS sustains.
W-55
Text modified.
W-56
Because of continued concern regarding potential groundwater contami-
nation by the highly contaminated gyp ponds, the site-specific studies for new
sources must of necessity initiate with the assumption that pond lining is needed
to protect groundwater quality. This is no different from existing requirements
for other industries which employ ponds containing chemically or radiologically
contaminated water. Even if the industry study on these ponds were to show lack
of groundwater contamination at the three sites tested, the need would still
exist for a basic assumption that pond lining is needed for new sources until
hydrogeologic testing proves otherwise.
W-57
The disclaimer is already noted in the text.
W-58
The intention of the calculation was to estimate the magnitude of the
storage requirements required by the proposed action, not to design a containment
4-12
-------
system for a specific site. A more sophisticated computation will be necessary
to design each specific system.
W-59
We agree with comment.
W-60
The alternative action in the context from which this quote was taken
would have required replacement of wetlands habitat equivalent to that which
now supports certain important species. These species are not (nor claimed)
restricted to wetlands habitat necessarily but, according to reported occurrences,
are most abundant or most frequently present in wetlands.
Further response to the remainder of this comment is unnecessary.
W-61
Farm ponds, reservoirs, other man-made impoundments, ponds, most lakes,
and borrow pits are not wetlands by most definitions nor those of this report,
most literature cited, and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. See
response to Comment T-42 for references to wetlands definitions and descriptions.
The most recent research on wetlands restoration is summarized and
documented in working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS. The conclusions
of this EIS were based on the state of the art of wetlands restoration and field
observations.
Our consistent references to the value of unreclaimed mined habitat
and the efficacy of allowing more to develop show little difference in your
message and ours. It should be remembered, however, that impact was based on the
environment as perceived up to the end of 1977 (including proposed mining and
reclamation plans) and not elucidations prompted by the conclusions of this EIS.
Man-made marshy areas likely are more productive for many waterfowl
than wetlands, as are mining pits and as would be managed slime ponds if realized.
In working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS, a prediction is documented
that little impact from mining to those species considered 'important' to Ducks
Unlimited is expected. As indicated in the list of species expected to be
affected by wetlands loss in this EIS, bitterns, rails, and herons generally are
4-13
-------
more dependent on wetlands than ducks. None of the ducks of the mining area
is a species of special concern as designated by the Florida Committee on Rare
and Endangered Plants and Animals, although the referenced wading and shore
birds are. The alternate wet/"dry" regime of wetlands is a basic characteristic.
The editorial in Fisheries references a court decision that was based
on expert testimony and data presentation. Apparently evidence of man's inability
to duplicate existing wetlands conditions outweighed that of opposing views.
W-62
These activities on the part of state and federal agencies are mani-
festations of your previously expressed (Response to Comment W-14) need for man
to manage his environment. Whether all aspects of the management are in the best
interest of natural succession is a point to be debated among the parties involved
and not within the scope of this EIS. Whatever the end product of the management
may be, however, the initial impetus was conservation of a valuable resource, as
are most results.
W-63
The economic elements were carefully considered by two professional
economists experienced in environmental analysis. Both economists agree that
there would be some difference in impact for the various scenarios. However,
within the framework of existing economic information, there was no way to quantify
these differences within the guidelines for this study. Overall, the economists
believe the differences would not be of large significance.
W-64
The bias toward environmental elements is the result of the intent of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the expressed concerns of the
members of the Steering and Advisory Committees. Whether environmental impacts
are balanced by socioeconomic benefits is a subjective and potentially arbitrary
judgement. Such judgement is- the responsibility of the decision maker and
justifies an explanation of rationale in the manner advocated by recently issued
regulation of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing procedural
provisions of the NEPA.
4-14
-------
W-65
Text modified.
W-66
Text remains the same. Comment indicates the "may" should be changed
to "will," but we have not found sufficient evidence, including the Devall
paper, to indicate the soils are generally better than or even equal to those
existing prior to mining. There are certainly instances whereby poor soil is
improved for some uses, but there are also certainly instances whereby soil is
degraded with respect to certain uses.
W-67
How closely reclamation will return each mined area to its original
contours will depend on the site-specific mining and reclamation plan which will
be required for the site-specific EIS and the Florida State DRI. The choice
between natural habitat systems and human use will have to be considered when
developing the reclamation plans.
W-68 through W-74
All of these comments are iterations of previous ones and have been
addressed. The only different aspect is the reference to biological productivity
versus diversity. Although not in this EIS, part of the rationale for the
conclusions stated herein (working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS) is
that: "Were the mined land allowed to naturally revegetate, there might
eventually be greater productivity in terms of life support." This was specifi-
cally in reference to sandhills and sand pine scrub versus the deciduous forest
that possibly could develop on mined land. The statement is not so readily
applicable to hammocks or wetlands. The remainder of the thought (same page) is
important also: "The argument, however, obscures the uniqueness of the
vegetation and associated fauna and the fact that the sclerophyllous plants
characterizing this native type (i.e., mixed forest) support a greater variety
of wildlife than either natural nonforested habitats or the various agricultural
habitats of reclaimed area."
W-75
If native habitat could establish on mined land, there would be no
impact associated with its loss. The types of communities that will establish on
4-15
-------
mined land, as described in the EIS, the Edscorn paper, and your comments, are
not those existing. The success of pine plantation (slash pine only - not the
premining naturally dominant longleaf pine) is debatable (see working paper
Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS). Importantly, pine plantation does not
approach the biological productivity of pine flatwoods. The dependence of mixed
forest on moisture conditions is not unlike that of any other forest type.
Moisture conditions, of course, are partly determined by the soil type.
W-76
This EIS does state that pine flatwoods comprises the greatest amount
of remaining forests - and the important word in the sentence is "remaining":
170,000 out of nearly 3 million acres is not much. Secondly, its status as the
predominant forest in Florida also is important since the forest that possibly
will replace it and other native forests on mined land is most similar to the
more expansive eastern deciduous forest. The paucity of remaining extent of
both the pine forests and deciduous forests in eastern United States is of
concern of course, but the desirability of deciduous forests replacing native
Florida forests is debatable. This point is expressed in our effects assessment
and was brought up by a Florida Audubon Society spokesman at the Bartow Public
Hearing (Transcript, p. 74-75).
The "mesic hammock" at the Christina site apparently is different from
the native hammock since you earlier state (see response to Comment W-31) that it
would not be vegetationally distinguished by most experienced naturalists as other
than a natural hammock and Edscorn calls it a hammock situation. A description
of native hammocks is given in working paper Volume VI, Section 5/Volume VI-NTIS.
W-77 through W-81
These comments have been addressed previously. As additional support
for our conclusions, we would like once again to point out the statement made by
a Phosphate Council spokesman at the Bartow Public Hearing for this EIS that
indicates the difficulty in establishing any native habitat on mined land. This
statement directly contradicts claims of presence of true hammocks and other
native habitat on mined land as well as the imminency of their presence via
man-directed activities.
4-16
-------
W-82
We regret that apparently the commentor misunderstood the context of this
quote. As we stated in the same paragraph, "mining and subsequent reclamation
are producing a uniform habitat." Comparisons were then made between the
primarily agricultural habitats of reclamation and those of natural systems. As
of the date of this EIS, there is no evidence of the desire or intent of any
significant amount of natural system development on mined lands (see response to
Comment W-29).
W-83
The present fragmented system, as indicated by the quote and its context,
contains optimal habitat for these species; it is limited and further fragmentation
will indeed reduce carrying capacity for both species. We have already stated that
wildlife carrying capacity generally is enhanced by the juxtaposition of habitat
types. Further comment on the fact that reclamation is producing a uniform habitat
is unnecessary.
W-84
The likelihood of the threatened and endangered species being affected
by mining is more likely than restoration of native habitat being effected and
other "enormous potential" being realized. Technology and economics do not
indicate the latter will occur.
Omission of the table has been addressed and it has been inserted.
Reference also has been made to additional comments on threatened and endangered
species: working paper Volume XI: pp. 2.41 - 2.47. See response to Comment W-35
on aquatic threatened and endangered species and the context in which all
threatened and endangered species are treated.
There is another point of agreement besides that of impact to the
Osprey and Caracara, To quote from the same paragraph: "...the Least Tern and
Peregrine Falcon, both primarily coastal species, may be attracted to the mining
areas." As indicated, this is considered an outside possibility for the rare
fa.lcon. We have no evidence that would indicate a change in the evaluation of
impact to the threatened and endangered species.
4-17
-------
W-85
It is doubtful tha,t improved pasture is similar to the relatively
young successional habitat of study area game management lands such as the
C. W. Webb and Avon Park Wildlife Areas. Apparently the only impact assessment
you really disagree with concerns the Bobwhite. This species is most success-
fully managed in field-forest edge, which is more scarce on reclaimed lands than on
existing ones.
W-86
This quote does not say that certain species will be eliminated from
the area. Please see working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS for a
more complete discussion of the effects of mining on recreational and commercial
species, including the opinion of certain Florida game management authorities that
landuse changes generally determine what species comprise the game list and that
Florida's game list has dwindled because of habitat loss and may continue to do so.
W-87
As indicated previously (see Responses to comments T-l and T-2), our
assessment of impact to these species in general is supported by the findings of
the Archbold Station and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Department. We
regret that your review of this statement apparently did not include the effects
assessment (working paper Volume Xl/Volume VII-NTIS), but we invite your attention
to Section 2 of that document.
The Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals has
reviewed the status of most vertebrate species in Florida and is continuing review
of plants and invertebrates. The result is an extensive list and treatment of
species other than those recognized as threatened and endangered by either the
FGFWFC or DOI. The significance of these species as assessed by FCREPA, as well
as the FWS through the Archbold Biological Station Report, indicates that con-
sideration of the species should be a part of future development activities in
Florida.
W-88
Information on nuisance and pest species of the study area is in working
paper Volume VI, Section 5/Volume VI-NTIS and working paper Volume XI, Section 2/
4-18
-------
Volume VII-NTIS. Our assessment of mining and reclamation increasing the
potential of several species to reach pest proportions remains as does the
prediction that the populations will be controlled as "successfully" as ever
(working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS). Control methods
generally impact other biota. We repeat, as before, that some of the impacts
of mining are no different from those of other development. We repeat also
that mining is projected to cause most of the cultural alteration in the inland
study area between now and 2000.
W-89
Text modified.
W-90
This is in reference to the EPA report on radium-226 in ground water
(EPA/520-6-77-010). There have been field observations (by the State of Florida
and SWFWMD) of slime and gyp ponds failure by sinkhole collapse. Water budget
studies show there is known seepage or loss of water from slime ponds (Zellars
and Williams, Inc., 1977). Although the evidence may not be complete, indications
of contamination do exist and, therefore, need to be addressed. To our knowledge,
definitive studies in support of a contention of no ground water contamination due
to phosphate industry activities do not exist.
W-91
As stated in response to Comment , EPA effluent discharge standards
are not sufficient to protect water quality in the Tampa Bay and Peace Basins.
W-92
Surface water in West Central Florida tends to exceed recommended
concentrations of plant nutrient material to prevent overenrichment whenever the
water is impounded, whether or not the water has been affected by phosphate
operations.
W-93
See response to Comment W-56.
W-94
Text Modified
4-19
-------
W-95
See response to Comment W-35.
W-96
The conclusion of the paragraph containing the quote is: Although the
immediate effects of (a slime) spill are severe, the impact is reversible because
stream ecosystems generally recover in 2 to 5 years (based on the spill's
magnitude). The implication that we assigned a significant magnitude of impact
to aquatic threatened and endangered species is not founded.
W-97
Recovery of a disturbed wetland is not in question; restoration of
wetland destroyed by mining is.
W-98 and W-99
The proposed action recommends several alterations to current mining
and reclamation policies. The mine pit lake systems, including their value as
habitat, their unavoidable existence, and their expected viability are addressed
above Csee responses to Comments T-40, T-41, T-44, T-46, and T-47).
W-100
The truth of the first paragraph in this comment appears to have no
relevance to our impact discussion. Concerning the next paragraph, we regret any
inferences that wet areas are wetlands; we consider the statements relative to
impact on nuisance and pest species as not at all contrary to those pertaining to
the importance and value of wetlands.
W-101
Standing water as defined in the paragraph above the one comprising this
quote includes lakes.
W-102
Economic data on commercial fishing as well as observations of the
FGFWC support this prediction (see Volume V, Section 2/Volume V-NTIS).
W-103
Magnitude of community alteration will be a function of extent and kind
of nearby watershed disruption. Without a knowledge of details of a proposed
4-20
-------
action in a given area as well as some good baseline and applicable historical
data, it would be a rather meaningless exercise to apply quantitative predictions.
The qualitative description of potential effects provided in the text is adequate
for impact assessment purposes.
W-104
This statement is somewhat misleading in that it was not intended to
contrast resource value of standing versus flowing water communities within the
study area, but rather, to indicate that reduction of flow in stream habitats
results in undesirable community changes and concomitant reduction in resource
value. (It should be pointed out, however, that when contrasting resource value
of standing versus flowing water communities within the study area, all evidence
indicates a greater resource value for flowing water communities; the values of
each are discussed in the Aquatic Biota working paper (Volume V, Section 2/Volume
V-NTIS). The statement will be clarified by the following rewording: This will
represent an adverse effect, since shifts to lentic community characteristics in
a stream habitat are undesirable and result in loss of resource value.
W-105 and W-106
The document does not state, or imply, that the phosphate industry has
precluded growth of a tourist/retirement economy in Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto.
Quite the contrary, the tourist/retirement industry has been growing in Polk
County especially, and as pointed out, "service businesses catering to the needs
of the retirement and tourist sectors are in direct conflict with the phosphate
industry" (for workers, goods and services). In other words, both compete for
goods, services and workers to satisfy their needs.
W-107
Text modified.
W-108
Trade in phosphates is quite sensitive to transport costs. Consequently,
firms are able to export significantly if they are favorably situated with respect
to low cost water transportation routes. This requirement is met by phosphate
production regions in Florida. Clearly, Tampa Harbor is being developed as a
deep draft, bulk-cargo port. The only significant bulk cargoes are petroleum
and phosphate. Of the two, according to Corps of Engineer statistics, phosphate
4-21
-------
export predominates (.i.e. shipment of phosphate rock and development of Tampa
Harbor [for bulk cargo] are synergistic or mutually cooperative.)
W-109
The collapse of Karst structures was discussed as a potential impact
only because gypsum stacks and some waste clay storage will be above grade, thus
increasing the load on below-grade structures and presenting the possibility of
collapse.
W-110
Available aerial photography of the study area as well as generalized
vegetation cover maps are either of inappropriate scale or accuracy for use in
showing such fragmented habitats as sandhills and sand pine scrub and naturally
isolated hammocks. This was pointed out earlier (see response to Comment W-17
and working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS). The alteration by
mining of any extent of these endangered habitats is of significance. That 30%
of the study area's mixed forest habitat (sandhills and sand pine scrub) will be
altered by mining is most significant; no other habitat type will be altered to
that extent. These observations portend a greater perturbation on these habitats
than indicated in this EIS.
W-lll
Text modified.
W-112
Further comment on the value of mine pit lakes is unnecessary.
That you recognize this as "one of the few" references to the value of
abandonment versus reclamation is contradictory to numerous previous comments in
which complete unawareness is implied or stated. Much of the redundancy in your
total statement could have been avoided by regarding the impact to terrestrial
biota in its proper context rather than pulling out certain sentences. Reasons
for the choice of improved pasture and similar habitat on reclaimed land, stated
often in working paper Volume XI, although not denied in your statement, are
ignored. Especially noticeable is the fact that its projections as a land use are
not questioned.
4-22
-------
W-113
The word "inland" was omitted from the sentence. The sentence has
been corrected to read "...change in inland land use...." Mining is not
expected to change significantly Coastal Lowlands biota.
W-114
None of the statements in this EIS on improved soil conditions pertain
to terrestrial/wetlands biota. The statements refer, and possibly correctly, to
the improved soil condition for crop and pasture production. Habitats of the
foreseeable future, either reclaimed or natural, on mined land are not expected
to exhibit either life-support value of existing wetlands or diversity comparable
to that of the present mix. As stated, diversity is expected to decline
primarily from loss of swamp hardwoods and mixed forest - neither of which is
expected to develop on mined land. This is a comparison of expected versus
existing habitat types. The foreseeable future encompasses maturation time.
Regardless, a comparison between existing systems and the systems expected from
reclamation, which is the context of this particular quote, is certainly valid in
assessing impact of mining activities.
W-115
This comment merely points out inadequacies in the data base, which
have already been acknowledged. In all probability, and appropriately, data on
threatened and endangered species distribution will come from site-specific EIS's.
As stated in working paper Volume VI, Section 5, the data included in
the description of the study area's threatened and endangered species was derived
mostly from FCREPA's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. The FWS
report was issued much later than was Volume VI, Section 5/Volume VI-NTIS.
Importantly, the FWS report was available prior to evaluating impact on the species.
We see little need to revise the general range maps since the species likely to
be affected have been identified and their distributions in specific locales can
be ascertained and mapped during site-specific studies.
W-116
Regional carrying capacity, as defined in the sentence, pertains not
only to biologic carrying capacity but also economic, social, hydrologic, etc.
4-23
-------
In this extension of the concept, activities may indeed be limited by the
factors determining the carrying capacity. One of the factors that may be used
to determine regional (or other unit) carrying capacity is the proportion of
intensely managed biologic systems to essentially natural or moderately modified
systems. Since the concept cannot be applied areawide to all resources, the
reference has been deleted. The sentence pertaining to the increase in managed
versus natural systems stands.
W-117
The statement on p. 2.45 (DEIS) is: most of the affected ecologically
significant species "...are closely ass-j_iated with various little-modified
habitats, including wetlands and natural ponds and lakes that have gently sloped
sides...." Besides the fact that wetlands include forests, which in this case
are most important, upland forests also are among the "various little-modified
habitats." Loss of forests identifies the greatest impact; this does not imply
that loss of other habitat does not have impact.
W-118
The context of the referred material (from page 2.44 and 2.45 of the
DEIS) is the 1985 and 2000 environment of the study area with presently
permitted mining only. It is a statement of the effects of mining, including
proliferation of pests, etc. Impact is judged on alternatives to this "no
action" state. The context of p. 2.74 (of the DEIS) is existing mining plus all
pending permit mining. Although the effects described in this EIS, and more
fully in working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS, are expected to be
enlarged by additional mining, impact was judged to be minimal because both
categories of species are intensely managed, i.e., essentially controlled.
Similar management is not true of biota in general nor of threatened and
endangered species and ecologically significant species in general.
The context of the paragraph on p. 2.74 of the DEIS is important as
well. Reference is made to the fact that land use change expected from mining
will contribute to the increased costs of future management of these species;
further, it is implied that could the increased costs attributable to mining
be discerned, and were they substantial, then impact would be greater than minimal.
The costs are not all monetary; they include, for example, the impact of
increased pesticide usage.
4-24
-------
W-119
Text modified.
W-120
Text modified.
W-121
The word, "catastrophic," was chosen to indicate a "worst-case"
situation, i.e., a -10 impact. The loss of archeologic sites unquestionably
represents a worst case situation for that site. Even though the artifacts
may be recovered, as was mentioned in mitigation, the site itself is lost.
W-122
Refer to response to comment W-63
W-123
Text modified.
W-124
Text modified.
W-125
Text modified.
W-126
The dam height associated with the proposed process modification was
obtained from a description of the sand-clay waste disposal method by Timberlake
(Volume XI, Section 4/Volume VII-NTIS). The risk of collapse will always exist
unless it can be guaranteed that no slime storage will take place over carst
structures, even though history has shown the risk to be slight.
W-127
Restoration to original topographic surface was not stated to be an
overriding consideration. If it were, there would be a reduction, if not
elimination, of phosphate strip mining.
W-128
Text modified. EPA sampling has shown significant exposure levels as
far as 400 meters from a controlled dryer stack.
4-25
-------
W-129
Text modified.
W-130
Text modified.
W-131
There have indeed been vegetation changes in the South Prong of the
Alafia River (Burgess, 1966, State Board of Health, Rapo-t on Biological,
Physical, and Chemical Conditions of the V.afia River). There have probably
been no further adverse changes since 1966, because water quality in the
South Prong has improved since that time.
W-132
Reserves under Category I wetlands should be considered resources as
long as mining is precluded. If in the future, due to changing technology in
wetlands restoration, and/or dire national need, mining is allowed in Category I
wetlands, the resource may again become reserves. In any event, preclusion of
mining does not destroy the resource. It may, however, cause mining to be more
costly at any given time in the future.
Determination of reserves lost to wetlands preservation will have to be
made in site-specific studies.
W-133
Even with all the variables mentioned in this comment, a net void is
still to be expected.
W-134
After weighing all positive and negative effects of slime ponds, including
potentially catastrophic negative effects, elimination still has a greater positive
than negative impact.
W-135
Collapse of underlying strata occurred at the CF Industries, Inc.,
Mulberry, Florida, gyp pond in April, 1975. An estimated 90,000 cubic yards of
gypsum and 4.5 million gallons of contaminated pond water entered the aquifer.
W-136
Text modified.
-------
W-137
Several responses on the apparent differences in our concepts of wetlands
appear above; the value of wetlands to waterfowl is discussed in Response to
Comment W-61; and the state of the art of reclamation is discussed in several
above responses.
W-138
Refer to responses to Comments T-55 and W-56.
W-139
Changes are not too insignificant to measure, and text has been modified
to reflect this. See EPA report entitled "Population Radiation Dose Estimates
from Phosphate Industry Air Particulate Emissions," Partridge, et al.
W-140
See response to comment W-132.
W-141
We can see no reason to exclude listing Federal requirements for strip
mining of coal, which is similar in many respects to strip mining of phosphate.
W-142
This comment does not explain why spills, which enter and harm receiving
water quality, occur quite frequently. (Tampa DER files)
W-143
We agree with the comment, though extraneous to the topic of soil types.
Also, agricultural activities are limited to the extent that the land is too
unstable to support heavy agricultural emplements.
W-144
This statement does indeed imply other than the intended message that
current mining and reclamation practices are producing managed systems. It has
been deleted.
W-145
Text modified.
W-146
The wording in the EIS has been changed to be consistent with this comment.
4-27
-------
W-147
Reference to the difficulty in discerning true palmetto prairie from
palmetto growth (both lumped as rangeland) using existing vegetation maps is in
working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VTI-NTIS. From known distribution of
the type, we have indicated that it may exist on land proposed to be mined in
the southernmost portion of Manatee County. We agree that only field analysis
or perhaps small scale photography will identify the type.
W-148
The area's development progress, other than with respect to phosphate
mining activities (Volumes V and VIT-NTIS, respectively) is acknowledged in
Volume IV (Current Land Use), and Volume XI.
The need for additional improved pasture is questionable, at best.
Arguments against additional improved pasture are presented in Volume XI, p.3.47.
It must be kept in mind that reclamation will result in a net loss of land.
W-149
We are unaware of studies showing additions of phosphorus from stream
discharges to have no additional effect on Tampa Bay. To the contrary, phosphorus
and other plant nutrient materials introduced into Tampa Bay by various activities
of man have been shown to be quite harmful to water quality in the bay system.
EPA will not adhere to a policy which would allow additions of a harmful material
because the body of water has already been degraded below the point where
additional materials can do no further harm. Instead, we strive to remove the
harmful materials being introduced while at the same time preventing new discharges
of the material. This is why the City of Punta Gorda is planning to land spread
treated sewage, and the City of Tampa is spending $90 million on advanced waste
treatment, which will remove nitrogen and phosphorus from its discharges. It is
also the reason chemical phosphate plants in the Tampa Bay Basin reduced daily
discharges of phosphorus from 80,000 pounds per day in 1969 to less than 5,000
pounds per day in 1972, at a considerable cost. Let us not reverse these advances
made in the past few years with a philosophy based on allowing further degradation
simply because a body of water is already degraded.
4-28
-------
W-150
If the change is 53 mgd and 21 mgd is associated with phosphate industry
usage, the phosphate industry is a major factor in the projected change, accounting
for about 40 per cent of it.
W-151
The 1500 gallon per ton figure was based on a survey of phosphate industry
users carried out by the EPA for this study, and was an average of the usage rates
reported. Details of the water demands in the study area are shown in a working
paper (Volume V, Section 2/Volume V-NTIS).
W-152
We believe this estimate of cost per acre for reclamation with the
"Brewster" (or a similar) method is quite high. Also, this estimate of the value
of agricultural land in Central Florida is certainly low. One must also consider
the cost of constructing, operating, and reclaiming slime ponds if conventional
slime settling ponds were utilized. This cost approaches the cost of alternative
methods of slimes utilization. With pre—thickening as necessary, one of the
alternative uses is feasible at all Central Florida mines.
W-153
The dry conveyor is not part of the recommended scenario nor proposed
action.
W-154
The Proposed Action will require above ground water storage, though not
containment of 10-year nor 25-year storms at mines. This amount of storage was
deemed infeasible. Instead, the Proposed Action requires storage to allow capture
and reuse of water otherwise tied up in slime ponds; and a re-use factor
approaching 100 percent on an annual average basis. Amount of storage is to be
determined in site-specific studies. The advantage of water conservation
resulting from above ground storage outweighs disadvantages mentioned in the
EIS and in this comment. The writer may have confused disadvantages spelled out
for above ground slime disposal with above ground fresh water reservoirs.
4-29
-------
W-155
This is a correct statement. However, this. EIS concludes that
Category I Wetlands are to be mapped in site-specific studies, and protected.
Section 404 Permits are to be issued for Category II Wetlands, but after plans
are developed for restoration.
W-156
Refer to numerous responses above for wetlands definitions and other
information on wetlands, as well as reference to the need for further development
of criteria for judging their relative value.
W-157
Refer to working paper Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS for
information on criteria used in judging wildlife habitat types. Working paper
Volume VI, Section 5/Volume VI-NTIS contains reported vertebrate (except fish)/
habitat type presence and abundance.
We agree that all things being equal, there is no need to rank habitat.
All things were not equal in this impact analysis, however, since, among other
factors, all habitat cannot be restored on mined land. Similar loss of habitat
occurs with other development. The ranking of habitat to achieve recognition,
if not conservation, of productive or diverse or endangered habitat is not
unrealistic and rarely controversial except as to the order of rank.
W-158
The combination of slime ponds, improved pastures, and mine pit lakes
of most reclaimed mined land does not approach the previous landscape diversity.
The value of slime ponds in this context, however, is recognized and was
discussed more fully in working paper Volume Xl/Volume VII-NTIS (Refer to response
to Comment T-36). The statement in the EIS that neither fairly immediate use of
abandoned slime ponds for improved pasture (flocculation method of restoration)
nor the more immediate availability (within 2 years with sand tailings method)
for similar purposes is preferable from the standpoint of wildlife production is
a strong endorsement for slime ponds. The decision to eliminate them was made
despite their temporary wildlife value.
4-30
-------
W-159
Refer to responses to Comments T-14, T-42, W-28, and W-61.
W-160
The conditions of the proposed action indicate that the effects
assessment made decision makers aware of the potential impact to the area s
biota. Elaborations will be made on these impacts along with appropriate
mitigation in the site-specific EIS's.
W-161
Volume I of Final EIS should satisfy this comment.
W-162
Refer to responses to these referenced comments.
W-163
Additional original data is always desirable in any study of this
nature. However, we believe data is sufficient to support basic conclusions of
the study. Additional data will be necessary for each site-specific EIS.
Responses are made elsewhere to each of the examples (3a through 3f).
W-164
The production figures and projections of phosphate rock demands versus
domestic supplies are estimates made by the Bureau of Mines and are updated
annually. The latest projections are available from them. They show that there
is time to formulate a policy on exporting phosphate rock. That type of policy
is not within the charter of the EPA to recommend, however, the EIS is the
medium by which EPA is communicating the resource projection "information to
Federal, State and local agencies as well as to the public."
W-165
The EIS does not determine quantity of fossil fuel utilized for
shipping phosphate rock. See response to Comment T-4.
W-166
The statement refers to relieving public anxieties about the adverse
effects of phosphate mining. The author of this comment lifted out of context
this important "charge" to industry, government and to the general public to be
informed and pursue with diligence the resolution of all issues involved (research,
drafting of regulations, monitoring, planning and operation).
4-31
-------
W-167
Refer to response to Comment T-4.
W-168
Refer to response to Comment T-4.
W-169
Refer to response W-63.
W-170
Conclusions of the Final EIS are as stated in Volume I. Rationale
is given in these responses, in Volumes I and II, and in the revised Working
Papers.
W-171
Category I Wetlands, for which mining is precluded, is adequately
defined on an areawide basis. These areas will be mapped in the site-specific
studies.
W-172
Refer to responses agreeing with need for an increased monitoring and
enforcement program.
W-173
The National Wetlands Inventory Office has been consulted, and has
assisted. Current mapping by this office will assist greatly in determination
of Category I, II, and III Wetlands in site-specific studies.
W-174
Available reports and observations of threatened and endangered species
on or using land to be mined should be addressed in site-specific EIS's. Known
occurrence as of the end of 1977 was reported in working paper Volume XI, Section 2/
Volume VII-NTIS.
W-175
The FWS Report generated by Archbold Biological Station was discussed in
Comments T-l and T-2. As indicated, its conclusions were reviewed prior to
publication of this EIS in draft form and many, though not all, corroborate the
conclusions of this EIS. The report, though an aid to the EPA's Central Florida
Phosphate Industry Areawide Effects Assessemnt, is not included as a distinct document.
4-32
-------
W-176
Responses to the Florida Audubon Society letter are provided in
responses to oral comments T-25 through T-28.
W-177
Because these are 'important' species for which suitable habitat must
be considered as part of mining and reclamation plans (via the proposed action),
the site-specific ElS's will provide information on their occurrence as well as
measures to mitigate impact to them. None of the mining area has been designated
by the DOI 'critical habitat' of a threatened or endangered species and thus is
not legally protected for their use.
W-178
Current State requirements should assure that reclamation is equal to
or greater than the rate of mining.
W-179
See responses to Comments W-265 and T-26.
W-180
This comment is addressed in text of Volumes I and II, FEIS, and in
responses to other comments.
W-181
This is a correct understanding. Site-Specific EIS's will be
distributed for review.
W-182
Much of this information will be provided in site-specific studies.
See Working Paper Volume III/NTIS Volume III for area wide effects.
W-183
Text of Volumes I and II modified, based on these comments regarding
effects and -mitigation of effects on archaeological and historic sites.
W-184
This paragraph will be included in requirements for site-specific EIS's.
Consultants will be advised to contact the Florida Division of Archives, History
and Records Management during the Plan of Study state of each site-specific EIS.
4-33
-------
W-185
Energy is considered, but we agree that this was not an overriding
consideration in evaluation of scenarios. We believe increased emphasis on
energy utilization would have led to the same conclusions.
W-186
A comparison is not needed for rock processed in Central Florida.
Drying obviously requires more energy than transporting approximately eight
percent excess moisture. Proposed Action does require energy comparison on
rock shipped outside the State.
W-187
Agree.
W-188
Agree - see response to Comment T~8.
W-189
The USGS is not willing to publish the model results which includes
other municipal and industrial uses as of publication of the FEIS. EPA does not
intend to develop guidelines for water withdrawals for phosphate mines in Central
Florida. This is a State responsibility.
W-190
This method has been shown to be ineffective in instances where top
soil consists of highly porous soil such as exists in many areas in Central
Florida. Radon gas emanation is not impeded sufficiently to allow decay.
However, site-specific studies will determine if this method is applicable in
any given area.
W-191
See responses to comments T-5 (Point #20) and T-42.
W-192
It was within the purpose of this EIS to point out the perceived
deficiencies in the lake systems created by mining but not within the scope to
investigate and formulate alternative designs. Among the comments received in
response to the DEIS was one from the Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society
indicating that offers to assist the Florida Department of Natural Resources in
4-34
-------
formulating restoration designs have met with ng success. Contact with
Nicholas Holler, President, Florida Chapter of; the Wildlife Society may be
beneficial. (We do not have an address or telephone number.) Additionally,
the Lakeland Office of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission may
have suggestions. Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society may also
be of assistance.
W-193
We agree with this comment, and believe the Proposed Action to be in
accordance with it.
W-194
It is believed that the proposed action does mitigate the impacts
listed, in the context of the following definition of mitigation from the proposed
regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the NEPA (FR, 43:112 -
Friday, June 9, 1978 - Part II):
'"mitigation* includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether
by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the life
of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments."
W-195
The NEPA is not applicable to Existing Source NPDES Permits.
W-196
See response to Comment W-144.
W-197
Little is documented about the effects of nearby or/adjacent mining
on preserved wetlands. It is anticipated via the proposed action that future
4-35
-------
formulating restoration designs have met with no success. Contact with
Nicholas Holler, President, Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society may be
beneficial,, (We do not have an address or telephone number.) Additionally,
the Lakeland Office of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission may
have suggestions. Mr. Charles Lee of che Florida Audubon Society may also
be of assistance.
W-193
We agree with this comment, and believe the Proposed Action to be in
accordance with it.
W-194
It is believed that the proposed action does mitigate the impacts
listed, in the context of the following definition of mitigation from the proposed
regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the NEPA (FR, 43:112 -
Friday, June 9, 1978 - Part II):
"'mitigation1 includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether
by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the life
of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments."
W-19.5
The NEPA is not applicable to Existing Source NPDES Permits.
W-196
See response to Comment W-144.
W-197
Little is documented about the effects of nearby or/adjacent mining
on preserved wetlands. It is anticipated via the proposed action that future
4-36
-------
descriptions of mining effects on the wa.ter table will include effects on
preserved wetlands. Site-specific studies will determine the need to protect
preserved wetlands from operations on adjacent areas. See response to
Comment T-27-
W-198
Refer to response to Comment W-195.
W-199
The Proposed Action minimizes consumptive use of water by the industry.
Projected Phosphate Industry use continues to decline through the year 2000.
W-200
Specific effects on the Myakka River System will be addressed in site-
specific EIS's. We have indicated potential effects from alteration of flow
regime, increased pressure from wildlife displaced from mining areas, etc., and
anticipate that the magnitude of these effects will be addressed in the context
of each mining site.
W-201
See response to Comment T-4.
W-202
Under the guidelines set by the Steering and Advisory Committees it
was decided that future mining projections would be on the basis of consistency
with production projections made by the Bureau of Mines. If the reader adds
the cumulative production of all mines presently in operations, those in permit
processing and those projected by individual phosphate companies, you will
determine that figure is far in excess of the Bureau of Mines projections. The
key to resolving "whose view is correct" is the analysis of the relationship of
the site-specific State and Federally required environmental planning studies
to this areawide impact statement and how that information is used in decision
making.
W-203
Text modified.
4-37
-------
W-204
Text modified.
W-205
See response to Comment W-195.
W-206
See response to Comment T-4.
W-207
Text modified.
W-208
The author of this comment is correct in stating that the four listed
issues were not focal points in the design of the alternative scenario investi-
gated. However, those issues were not justifications for the proposed action.
Indeed, as the commentor points out, they represent short-term uses of man's
physical environment which must be (and were) considered versus long-term pro-
ductivity of the physical environment by the decision makers. The concerns
expressed by the commentator are valid ones, but deal more with the socioeconomic
systems than the physical environment - the latter being the focus for this
section of the EIS.
W-209
We share your disappointment as to the lack of biological data which
were presented for the fresh water aquatic systems of the study area. We did,
however, include all readily available data and made an effort to obtain certain
unpublished data. During the preparation of the working paper on aquatic biology,
for instance, we solicited the Florida DER data on Horse Creek, the Myakka River,
and a station on Peace River, but received no response after two requests.
Although these data would have been helpful in providing a more thorough coverage,
they do not substantially alter the basic characterizations presented in the text.
The data submitted are included in the FEIS.
W-210
We have reviewed the Florida DER Peace River periphyton and benthos data.
We feel the data hardly qualify as extensive, although perhaps adequate for state
water quality monitoring purposes. As stated above, we did attempt to obtain other
pertinent data from the DER.
4-38
-------
The message of the last sentence In your comment is unclear; however:
all benthic forms are dependent upon dissolved oxygen, and those dependent upon
high concentrations can be collected in the same manner as those requiring less;
adult aquatic beetles and bugs use oxygen from air obtained at the water's surface,
and most are surface dwellers or free swimmers rather than bottom or near bottom
dwellers as are benthic forms.
W-211
Again, this information would have been helpful during preparation of
the working paper describing the aquatic systems of the study area. The record of
psychomyiid Genus A (== Nyctibphylax) from the Lower Peace River Basin, as cited in
the aquatic biota, working paper, is believed valid; it is based on a collection
of larvae and pupae from the Peace River in the vicinity of the DeSoto-Hardee
county line during March, 1976.
W-212
This information on Horse Creek should be of value in the preparation of
site-specific EIS's. We did not, however, discuss the creek in the aquatic biota
working paper and made no reference to its flow regime. That the richness of
Horse Creek fauna (as opposed, for instance, to that of the Peace River) reflects
the more natural or pristine conditions of an undisturbed stream may be so;
however, the taxa list for Horse Creek is based upon nearly twice the number of
samples as that for the Peace River, and most likely, a similar effort in the
Peace River could easily accrue at least the 17 additional taxa needed to make the
Peace River list equivalent. Although there have been some catastrophic pollution
events in the Peace River (some of which have resulted in the permanent loss of
certain taxa), significant recovery seems to occur within several years, and,
based upon historical descriptions of the river, there is no evidence of permanent
loss of natural habitat diversity.
W-213
See responses to comments W-209 and W-211.
W-214
Taxa lists were developed from existing data in available literature.
A certain degree of misidentification is inherent in most studies similar to those
cited. Classifications, of course, differ and are subject to continuous
4-39
-------
interpretation. It was not within the scope of this study to organize the
taxa into any particular classification, and mostly those names reported in
the literature were us«d. Reference to the literature generally will reveal
the classification used in a particular study. We regret typographical errors,
but find both typos and misspellings essentially unavoidable (e.g., 'occures',
'lieklyhood* and 'undoubtably' in your comments).
Crepidula was listed, along with other gastropods and macroinver-
tebrates, as occurring within a major river basin of the study area. Thus, the
Peace River basin list consists of taxa from the Peace River main stem and
streams and tributaries within the basin. It is not uncommon to collect marine
or estuarine organisms in the freshwater portions of rivers immediately upstream
of the fresh/saltwater interface. Blue crabs have been found as far upstream as
Gardner, and barnacle larvae are common in zooplankton samples taken near
Hwy. 761 bridge and Shell Point. Crepi'diila has been collected in both August and
October in the vicinity of Shell Point in the Lower Peach River.
As- indicated above, the comment on Neocloeon is more of academic interest
than pertinent to biotic characterization since nomenclatural changes occur almost
daily. The organization of taxa into a particular classification would have been
a herculean task of only minute relevance to the real purpose of this study. We
regret incorrect records, misidentifications, etc. but, again, we feel the
incidence of such errors is low and not sufficient to affect the characterization
presented.
W-215
These comments elicit responses similar to those above. We would,
however, like to emphasize the essentially subjective nature of higher taxonomic
categories by pointing out the use of Neuroptera to include the Megaloptera
in several sources, including the widely used Introduction to the Study of Insects
by Borror, DeLong, and Triplehorn (1976). The use of Megaloptera to separate
alderflies, fishflies, and dobsonflies from similar species at the ordinal level
is a matter of interpretation and the term 'outdated1 is not applicable. As far
as nomenclature at the ordinal level is concerned, some would take issue with your
use of Hemiptera ins-tead of Heteroptera.
4-40
-------
W-216
Refer to response to Comment 194.
The modeling was deliberately designed to isolate the changes due
to the phosphate industry. Further reductions in the groundwater head will
result from increased water pumpage by other users. As these data are
developed, they will be included in the simulation and analyses of the Floridan
aquifer by use of the USGS digital model.
W-217
We believe projections were made as far into the future as possible
to maintain the level of precision needed to support the types of conclusions
necessary in an areawide or generic study. The Areawide EIS should be updated
periodically to reflect changing estimates of reserves and resources, as well as
changing technology.
W-218
The economic impacts of resource depletion have been addressed. See
FEI.S, Volume I, and Working Papers Volume III/NTIS Volume III.
W-219
Modeling approaches are applicable to organic pollutants, but not to
inorganic pollutants encountered with the phosphate industry. An assessment and
description of effects of these inorganic materials is made in this EIS.
Conclusions regarding need for reduced discharges of plant nutrient materials
(Volume X), are based on this assessment.
W-22Q
Non^point discharges not related to phosphate operations are addressed
in the three Section 208 Water Quality Management Plans in the Study Area. For
both mining and chemical processing operations, runoff from areas affected or
disturbed are routed through settling areas and thence to permitted point source
discharge locations.
W-221
The further treatment of air quality data in the study area to determine
the relationship between phosphate industry air pollutants and atmospheric
4-41
-------
temperature inversions would require data from continuous rather than 24-hr.
monitors in the effected areas, and/or detailed computer modeling. Continuous
monitoring data were only available to a limited extent at the time data was
collected for this study, and not in the area most affected by phosphate
industry emissions. The modeling that was reviewed for this study was
concerned with annual average values of pollutant concentrations, and not
directly related to the effect of diurnal inversions. Detailed short-term
modeling of the existing and proposed emission sources was beyond the scope of
this study. Any new air emission sources will be required to look in detail
at the effect of such inversions on the air quality in the area around them as
part of new source permitting requirements, and the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977.
W-222
The data reviewed in preparing this EIS did not provide enough
information to identify all of the existing sinkholes in the area, much less
identify specific locations at which sinkholes could be expected to develop.
The identification of existing karst structures that have not yet developed into
sinkholes would be very difficult to do even with an extensive seismic survey,
due to the high surface water table which tends to flood voids in subterranean
structures and thus reducing the contrast necessary to identify changes in sub-
terranean structures from seismic data. Also refer to Volume VI (Volume VI-NTIS)
of the working papers.
W-223
The study of airborne fluorides will require more and better ambient
concentration data to warrant a more extensive analysis (working paper Volume VII,
Section 2/Volume III-NTIS).
Vegetative fluorides appear to be inversely related to rainfall
frequency, as stated in a working paper (Volume VII, Section 2/Volume III-NTIS),
not on the total rainfall during the year.
W-224
Implementation of the Proposed Action at the Federal level will be
through site-specific Environmental Impact Statements, New Source NPDES Permitting,
and Section 404 Permitting. A discussion of the relationship between the Areawide
4-42
-------
and site-specific studies is provided in Vqlume I, Section 2A, FEI.S.
W-225
This is an appropriate comment. We hope the Final EIS language
provides sufficient flexibility to allow for changing technologies as well as
development of new information. This is certainly a reason for requiring site-
specific EIS's, using the Areawide EIS as a baseline. Departures from the
baseline can be made whenever departures are justified based on technology,
new information, or improved environmental, economic, or social effects.
W-226
Refer to response to Comment Number 216.
W-227
Refer to response to Comment number W-63.
W-228
Local and cumulative impacts are also considered. Working Papers,
Volume I/NTIS Volume I.
W-229
See response to Comment W-224.
W-230
See response to Comment W-220.
W-231
Pond emissions were discussed in a working paper (Volume VII, Section
2/Volume III-NTIS). The TRC report, by no means in itself a definitive study of
pond emissions, only tended to support the emission estimates shown in the
working paper.
See Section in Volume I on Research Needs.
W-232
The EIS does not state that "release of nutrients will be beneficial;"
it states simply that the outstanding productivity of Tampa Bay and Charlotte
Harbor can be attributed largely to significant contributions of inorganic
nutrients by the major contributing streams. It is true that estuaries of the
study are apparently not phosphorus limited at this time because of high phosphorus
4-43
-------
concentrations, but to apply this, statement to all Florida estuaries would be
tenuous. From a biological standpoint, the statement that all estuaries of
the study area are overnutrified at this time is incorrect. Except for areas
of low circulation and nitrogen enrichment (as in Hillsborough Bay), detrimental
influences of nutrient enrichment on these estuarine ecosystems is minimal at
this time. The stimulation of productivity resulting from present levels of
inorganic nutrient loading helps support some of the most productive estuarine
fish and shellfish communities along the southeastern U.S. coastline. It should
be pointed out, however, that potential for over-nutrification in the study area
estuaries is high. The best available evidence suggests that since Charlotte
Harbor and Tampa Bay have abundant supplies of phosphorus, combined nitrogen is
a significant limiting factor to further productivity. The addition of
substantial quantities of combined nitrogen (as in sewage effluent) could easily
result in over-enrichment and undesirable biological alterations as has been
experienced in the Hillsborough Bay area. Additionally, a reduction in water
circulation and mixing in these estuaries might also be manifest in areas of
over-enrichment, even at present nutrient loading levels. A conclusion of the
EIS (Volume I, Proposed Action), is that reduction of artificially induced plant
nutrient material is needed to protect water quality.
W-233
We are unaware of any adverse effects of reagents utilized in the
beneficiation process. Concentrations of any of these reagents in discharges
would be extremely low. No adverse effect on biota in settling areas nor in
receiving streams containing 100 percent settling pond discharge have been noted.
One possible exception is the use of ammonium hydroxide in lieu of sodium hydroxide
in the beneficiation process. This has in some instances resulted in over-
enrichment of settling ponds, resulting in increased mosquito production (personal
communication with Mr. Frank Wilson, Polk County Environmental Control Dept.).
W-234
The concern for new data is one shared by the EPA, but perhaps a
clarification of what is meant by new data is in order. Data and information
pertinent to assessing the environmental impact of the central Florida phosphate
4-44
-------
industry is. contained in numerous bas.ic and applied research reports, journal
articles, trade publications, monitoring reports, data bases, exhibits for
State and Federal permits, government agency reports and public media reports.
The EPA performed a field survey, and with the contractor and other agencies
developed data and information useful in analysis of the state of present and
projected future environmental systems., The commentor will find these data
and information in the working papers (revised and available through the NTIS).
There are several issues requiring continued investigation and analysis to
resolve and many of them have been identified in the working papers and the EIS.
W-235
The Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Application for Development
Approval (ADA) was described in the working papers (Volumes II and III of the
NTIS papers). Specific mention of the DRI/ADA process and the opportunities for
environmental management presented by it are now included in the EIS (Section 4.3).
W-236
Limitations of the study are acknowledged.
W-237
The section on radiation was prepared with the intention of providing a
full perspective of the radiological impact associated with the phosphate industry.
Recognizing that specific recommendations to the State of Florida concerning
indoor radiation exposure due to radium-226 associated with phosphate-related land
are currently under development by the EPA (to be tentatively proposed in the
Federal Register in October 1978), specific statements in this EIS on this subject
would be premature. With regard to radiation exposure via the ingestion pathway,
a report has been drafted by EPA's Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility entitled
"Doses Due to Consumption of Food Associated with Reclaimed Land and Phosphate Ore.
By-product Usage." This draft report is undergoing final review prior to publication.
Upon release for publication, the data provided in this report will be incorporated,
time permitting, in the EIS. In any case, this report and the information in question
will be available by Fall 1978.
The quality of water entering the deep aquifer through connector wells
is actively monitored. Regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management
4-45
-------
District OSWFWMD) concerning monitoring can effectively be applied depending
on the effectiveness of implementation and the full cooperation of Indus-try.
A surveillance monitoring program of radiation levels is probably a good
suggestion, particularly in areas of Sarasota and Manatee Counties where
radium-226 in ground water is already rather elevated relative to other areas
of Florida and relative to acceptable drinking water quality. The problem will
be to bound the goal of monitoring to some manageable level in terms of
involved agencies, costs, etc. It will also be necessary to focus the effort
to the most serious matters and for sufficient duration and intensity to produce
at least a statistically valid data base.
W-238
Recognition of local, State, and Federal governments in the review,
permitting, and monitoring of mining activities is provided in Working Papers,
Volume II (NTIS, Vol. II).
W-239
See response to Comment W-235. The applicants with which EPA has dealt
to date have for the most part completed the DRI process. For those that have
not, there would be every reason to proceed simultaneously, utilizing the same
original data for the DRI and EIS. EPA has pursued the possibility of combining
the two processes, and encountered certain problems. For example, the third
party EIS process requires the consultant to be selected and paid by the
applicant, but approved by and directly responsible to EPA. Industry has not
been amenable to paying a consultant to develop a DRI, while the consultant is
directly responsible to a government agency. In any event, EPA is certainly willing
to do its share toward minimizing duplication of effort, by combining as much
original data gathering as possible, and assuring that this is done during
development of the Plans of Study.
W-240
This is precisely true. The legal basis provided by NEPA to develop
this EIS is indeed the federal permit system. The NEW Source NPDES Permit
constitutes the Federal Action which is subject to NEPA, Therefore, mitigation
of impacts must be implemented through the federal permit system.
4-46
-------
W-241
Text modified.
W-242 through W-254
These comments, which are also part of the Bradenton Public Hearing
record, have been answered previously (_T~6 through T-17).
W-255
Text modified.
W-256
See response to Comments T-12 and T-54. The water quality impact is
certainly both local and regional.
W-257
The applicable requirements of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act and regulations should certainly be considered in the site-
specific EIS's, but we cannot legally require adoption of the coal mining
requirements through the EIS process. The State of Florida has reclamation
requirements and an EIS must first evaluate effects of a mining plan meeting
existing requirements. If mitigating measures are in order, Surface Mining Act
requirements which go beyond State requirements should then be considered.
W-258
Refer to responses to Comments W-175 and W-177.
W-259
These sections of the FWS report should indeed be a source of infor-
mation for persons preparing site-specific mining and reclamation plans that are
taylored to fit the proposed action.
W-260
Refer to response to Comment number T-6.
Detailed analysis of the pollution potential of any major new air
pollution source proposed by the phosphate industry (the projections in the EIS
includes none) will be required by the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
(Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 118 - Monday, June 19, 1978).
4-47
-------
W-261
Data used by the DER indicate that the inverse relationship seems to
extend as far back as 1967 (Volume VII, Section 2/Volume III-NTIS)., No attempt
was made in the DEIS or the working papers to downplay the importance of a
continuing monitoring program for vegetative fluoride levels. To the contrary,
a vegetative fluoride monitoring program is recommended.
W-262
Concur.
W-263
Text modified.
W-264
While this information is still not in the FEIS, it will be included
in the Proposed Radiation Protection Recommendations to be published in the
Federal Register this month.
W-265
Existing data on radionuclide concentrations in food associated with
reclaimed land will be provided in an upcoming EPA report. (See response to
Comment W-237) Any specific impacts due the proximity of food crops or cattle
on phosphate-related land would be evaluated in the site-specific EIS. Because
sufficient radiological pathway data is lacking, it is not possible to deal with
the associated population impact in a quantitative manner.
W-266
Text modified.
W-267
Concur. Text modified.
W-268 through W-272
The commentor is correct in discerning that section 5 of the DEIS is
composed of generalizations. The purpose was to remind the reader, in a
succinct manner, how the short-term use of our physical environment (which must
necessarily include economic '"oranges'") compares to the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity of our physical environment (environmental
'"apples'"). This generalized approach is consistent with the recently proposed
regulations by the Council on Environmental Quality, which it is assumed the
commentator referred to. Those regulations state that the Council does not
intend that material such as contained in Section 5, be a duplication of
4-48
-------
material contained in other sections such as presented in sections 3 and 4 of
Volume I and Section 2 of Volume II of this FEIS. Also, please refer to the
response to Comment number W-208.
W-273
Text modified to be specific as possible while maintaining flexibility
for future changes.
W-274
The Federal Government does in effect adopt Florida Standards, and
include Florida Standards in NPDES Permit Conditions, in accordance with
Section 301(b)(l)(c) fo the Clean Water Act.
W-275
Text modified.
W-276
The commentor properly points out a limitation on mitigation of
disturbance of land by reclamation and preservation. The action by the Federal
Government under evaluation by the EPA for this EIS is realted to issuance (or
non-issuance) of air and/or water permits not whether to restrict (or not
restrict) land uses subsequent to mining. Restrictive covenants administered by
State or Federal authority are one alternative for preserving the benefits of
preservation or reclamation of lands. This issue is more properly addressed by
State, regional and local land planning authorities as it involves physical and
socioeconomic impacts beyond the phosphate industry. It justified an impact
assessment as an integral part of a comprehensive environmental land use
planning program encompassing several alternative land uses.
W-277
A standard practice used by EPA in regulatory development to achieve a
balance between the health effects controllable by a standard or guidance, and
the cost associated with achieving this control is termed a cost-benefit analysis.
Such an analysis is normally calculated over the projected term of the exposure
with consideration for "immediate economics" limited to those instances where the
4-49
-------
soils and increase the rate of runoff. La,kes. would act as impoundments and
tend to .reduce runoff.
W-282
The reduced water usage scenario was not chosen because of its effect
on runoff in the study area. It was treated in more detail in a working paper
(Volume XI, Section 5/Volume VII-NTISl.
W-283
Referring to the response to W-281, the flow changes due to the proposed
action are associated with rainfall events- which relate to high flow periods in
the Peace River. The amount of the change will be slight relative to the river
flow at these times, and hence have little effect on the estuarine system. The
changes which were projected to be noticeable by the year 2000 are not expected to
occur in the Peace River itself or its larger tributaries, but in the small
tributaries that might be quite seriously affected by local mining activity.
W-284
The change in electrical demand attributable to the expansion of
phosphate mining to the south while closing mines in the northern part of the
study area is insignificant, representing a very small change in the power generated
in the Tampa area. That change in demand does not in itself provide justification
for the FP&L De Soto plant or any other expansion of generating facilities in the
area. The construction of a cooling lake to be filled from the Peace River will
require a detailed analysis to determine its effect on the river-harbor system,
but is not within the scope of this study which is concerned with effects resulting
from phosphate industry activities. (Also note W-278, T-5)
W-285
The commentors concern for (waters of the U.S. and Wetlands) is shared
by the Federal government and thus the proposed action contains provisions for
protecting those resources (see Section 2 of this FEIS).
W-286
These species are included among the important ones whose destiny brought
about the considerations of equivalent wildlife habitat and wetlands in the
proposed action.
4-50
-------
W-287
The commentors concern for (waters of the U.S. and wetlands) is shared
by the Federal government and thus the proposed action contains provisions for
protecting those resources (see Section 2 of this FEIS).
W-288
(Letter from Mr. Allen Jaeggi to Senator Chiles)
Copy of response is reproduced below:
June 5,
Honorable Laxton Chiles
Uaited States Senate
Federal Building
Lakeland, Florida 33301
Dear Senator Chiles:
T^27.x you for your letter of May 17, 1973, transaitting the
co&aeots of Mr. Alien Jaeggi on the Draft Areawide Environ-
Eeatal lapact Stateaent, Central Florida Phosphate Industry.
Mr. Jaeggi1s letter and responses to it will be included in
tie Final EIS which is projected to be coapleted by July 31,
but ve will coaaent on his letter at this tiae so you may
reply-
The Areawide EIS offers a scenario of developaent of the
phosphate industry which we feel stakes the industry as com-
patible as practicable with other desired and intended land
uses in Central Florida. It is an areawide, ieneric EIS,
and, as such, provides a base line for required Environaental
lapact Stateaents and Development of Regional lapact State-
Beats for new source Bines and chemical processing operations.
These site specific studies would have been required with or
without th<* Areawide EIS. It provides areawide and cuaulative
effects of the entire Central Florida Industry which would not
have been adequately covered in individual site specific studies
Mr. Jaeggi's comnents ia paragraphs two through seven refer to
the sunaary sheet in the Preface of the Draft EIS. He is
correct in stating in paragraph two that other land uses also
alter the surface, and that soae of these aar have a more
drastic effect on such things as wildlife habitat. However,
all or these other uses combined do not approach the surface
area altered per year by phosphate raining in the seven county
study arsa. .is is not to say that adverse effects of any
of these uses should not be rainiaized. The areawide cI3 takes
a-Jvinta^e of available technology, most of which was developed
by the industry, to ainiaize adverse effects of the phosphate
4-51
-------
industry while allowing continued industrial development.
Paragraphs three through seven of his letter refer to 3.B.
through 3.J. of the Suamary Sheet. These effects indeed
occur, and t.ie extent to which they occur are detailed in
the EIS and the Working Papers.
Mr. Jaeggi's comments on the Proposed Action in the remainder
of the letter indicate that he believes decisions regarding
elimination of rock drying, eliaination of conventional above
ground slime ponds, protection of wildlife habitat, and
protection of wetlands should be left to the industry and
not to "^overnraental agencies regulating where they shouldn't.'
As stated, the Areawide EIS utilizes available technology to
minimize effects of an industry which raost Central Floridians
will tell you has not always been compatible with other land
uses. Jeveral proposed new source mines with which we are
currently dealing have already agreed to iapleaent all of the
requirements in the Proposed Action. There is one proposed
new source mine which wishes to dry rock for export, out
intends to meet all of the other requirements. If this dryer
is allowed, the site specific study will doterraine methods
to minisize its effects. We believe that these examples
demonstrate the industry's general willingness to aake itself
more compatible with other land uses in Central Florida.
'ir. Jaeggi's coanents, and others we are receiving on the
Draft EIS, are welcome. ^e believe that revisions to be
incorporated into the Final EIS as a result of these comments
will make it a nuch more valuable document, not only to EPA,
but to other agencies, citizens of Central Florida, and to the
industry.
Sincerely yours,
-,' - -r_a j, vvhica
John C. ',;hite
Regional Administrator
REMcNeill:ai:6/S/73
4-52
-------
W-289
The FEIS format has been revised, and it is hoped the commentor finds
a clear and coherent identification and analysis of impacts.
W-290
Statements on pp. 1.70 and 4.3 of DEIS have been revised, based on
comment from Secretary of Interior.
W-291
This paragraph indicates a gross misinterpretation of the conclusions
of the DEIS. Hopefully, Volume I and the responses in Volume III of the FEIS
will clarify the conclusions. Responses to individual comments on each of the
issues mentioned in this paragraph follow.
W-292
This comment has been addressed by revising the subject statement.
W-293
Text modified.
W-294
Mapping precise locations of slime ponds in the study area was beyond
the scope of this project. Locating slime ponds is not a prerequisite to
stating a relationship between slime pond spills and negative effects on water-
based recreation.
Slime pond placement in relation to watersheds in the study area was
carefully considered when stating a potential negative relationship with regard
to wastewater spills nad water-based recreation.
W-295
Saltwater encroachment near the coast is a potential if one or a
combination of the following should occur: 1) if the potentiometric surface
near the coast were decreased toward sea level; 2) if the potentiometric
gradient near the coast were decreased causing a decrease in fresh water outflow
to the sea; or 3) if pumping of the groundwater supply near the coast became
extensive. The third item would have the effect of generating a local depression
in the potentiometric surface. The analyses performed in preparation of this
4-53
-------
EIS indicates that present and projected phosphate industry water usage will not
in itself seriously affect the potentiometric surface or gradient near the coast.
In summary, the projected action seems to provide little impetus for the salt-
water encroachment that is feared by coastal water users. Existing data do not
demonstrate encroachment of the salt front (other than locally due to excessive
pumping) due to recent changes in the potentiometric surface mapped by USGS;
changes which are a result of all aquifer users, not just the phosphate industry.
A study designed to characterize the location and movements of the salt-fresh
water interface would be desirable for th-se planning municipal water supplies
near the coast, but was beyond the scope of this areawide impact study.
One other factor regarding the water usage projected for the phosphate
industry in response to the proposed action is that many areas proposed to be
mined are currently under irrigation for agricultural purposes. In these areas
the use of the water would change, but the quantity used could increase, decrease,
or remain unchanged depending on the extent of existing agricultural pumpage.
This factor was not precisely simulated in the modeling analyses done by USGS for
this study, due to a lack of detailed data on agricultural water usage.
The aquifer is recharged to various degrees in many portions of the
study area by surface recharge. Water is also transported laterally from the
higher areas inland toward the coast, but slowly. The pumping by the phosphate
industry in response to the proposed action is not expected to further deteriorate
the water supply problem due to intercepting and cutting off the freshwater flow
from inland areas toward the coast. The Floridan aquifer has historically been
of poor quality near the coast, and should not be materially affected by the
proposed and projected industry pumping (working papers Volume V, Section I/
Volume V-NTIS).
Available data indicate upconing of mineralized water from underlying
areas of the aquifer will not be a problem in areas to be mined under the
proposed action. This has been a problem in some areas due to abandoned or
improperly constructed wells.
4-54
-------
Most of the lakes in the Ridge area communicate with the surface water
table, and their level will fluctuate with the surface water table. Those that
are fed by connections with the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes or springs
will be affected by changes in the potentiometric surface. However, the changes
are generally reversable, and as the mining activity moves south, the
potentiometric surface should recover in the Polk County Ridge area.
W-296
Concur with this statement.
W-297
The revised text, and responses to Comments T-54 and T-55, address this
comment. "Water pollution control equipment" for phosphate mines consists of
earthen settling areas; and for chemical plants consists of chemical (lime)
feeders and earthen settling areas.
W-298
The potential for extremely damaging pollution loading through failure
of a slime pond dike was certainly a major factor leading to the conclusions
reached in this EIS. The Proposed Action will minimize this potential.
W-299
Mapping of the study area was outside the possibilities of this effects
assessment. Additional information on upland and wetlands habitats and their
significance is in working paper Volume XI. In an effort to maintain an EIS of
reasonable length, effects and impacts were summarized - perhaps to the exclusion
of important points. Selection of what to cover was difficult, and since the
wetlands situation apparently is of greatest import to Florida and is the
greatest extent of endangered lands to be mined, it is emphasized. Equal "worst
case" impact was given to mining sandhills, sand pine scrub, and natural hammocks.
Definition of specific wildlife impacts was precluded by the inability to perform
field work.
W-300
Similar conclusions were stated in this EIS. A review of our effects
assessment (working paper Volume Xl/Volume VII-NTIS) will reveal several
references to the FWS report.
4-55
-------
W-301
We believe the wording of the FEIS is clear in its discussion of the
radiation hazards to human health. Indoor radiation levels observed in
structures built on phosphate-related land indicate that external gamma
radiation and radon decay product levels are frequently higher than normal
background. In considering health risk estimates, the relative health risk
associated with exposure to short-lived radon decay products is usually much
greater than the accompanying exposure to direct gamma radiation. Although it
is desirable to minimize exposure to both components, the reduction of exposure
to radon decay products is of principal interest.
With respect to radon release from gypsum piles and slime disposal
areas, some very good points are raised. Such point sources are analogous to
uranium tailings piles, but there are sharp differences in radium (radon parent)
and moisture contents which in turn affect the radon release per unit time. NRC
is advocating soil cover and other stabilization techniques to reduce the radon
release from uranium tailings piles to no more than twice background. Site-
specific studies must first determine the release rates from phosphate piles,
compare these to background, and then develop stabilization requirements.
The State of Florida is licensing uranium recovery facilities (they
are not classified as mills) under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. At
present, there is one operating, licensed facility, with two licensed, but not
operating. Pursuant to the license issued, specific requirements include a
preoperational radiological survey, with an annual resurvey, continuous stack
monitoring, and individual occupational monitoring. Further details are available
from Mr. Ben Warren (Licensing and Legislation Division, Radiological Health,
DHRS) 904-487-2437.
As noted in the DEIS (pp. 1.50 - 1.52), radon-222 and its decay products
are major sources of exposure to occupants of structures located on phosphate-
related landi. For individuals exposed occupatlonally in the phosphate industry,
radon-222 and its decay products are of less significance due to various factors
including ventilation and term of exposure, whereas, direct exposure and radium
ingestion become relatively more important. Radon exhalation from phosphate
4-56
-------
waste sites (gypsum piles, slime ponds, etc.) may be significant as a source
term, although the actual increased exposure due to elevated radon concen-
trations would likely be small in most cases for off-site residential occupants.
However, due to the possibility of exposure from these so-called "point
sources," the EPA is currently evaluating the need for regulatory action under
the authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
W-302
The revision to reserve and resource data is appreciated. The reader
must appreciate, though, that when projections as complexly interrelated as are
those made to make assessment of impacts of the alternatives herein considered,
groundrules must be set so as to be able to describe projected conditions. If
the data submitted by the commentor were to replace the data used, it would
imply that data was part of the groundrules and then a basis for projections.
However, to make that implication true, a reanalysis and new projections are
required. In summary, as any of the data bases are updated or refined, a
reexamination of the efficacy of the findings and decisions documented in this
EIS is in order. Such activities are the heart of the planning and implementation
process to which this EIS is to be a tool. The tables offered by the commentor
are reproduced herein for the readers examination.
W-303
See response to Comment W-384.
W-304
Data supporting the quoted statement are provided. The EPA report
"Population Radiation Dose Estimates from Phosphate Industry Air Particulate
Emissions" provides the data, which are utilized in the EIS and in response to
Comment 384. As for problems encountered in transporting undried rock, these
problems have been overcome. The Proposed Action allows an exception to be
made in cases where rock is shipped outside the State of Florida. In such
cases, the site-specific EIS will determine control measures to resuce radio-
nuclide emissions to acceptable levels. This will require more efficient
controls than those needed to meet existing requirements for particulate
emissions.
4-57
-------
W-305
The "dry conveyor" is not part of the Proposed Action. Methods of
dewatering colloidal clays have been proven at several mines other than Brewster.
W-306
Wording of the Proposed Action allows recovery of phosphate from slimes.
It does not categorically require combining slimes and tailings.
W-307
Conclusions of the FEIS are totally compatible with subject legislation.
Goals are apparently quite similar.
W-308
A preliminary version of that USGS report which was used to support this
DEIS presented information that led to the conclusion. The open-file report cited
does not contain any specific conclusions with regard to the Sarasota ground water
supply.
W-309
To the best of our knowledge, this statement is incorrect. The new
source mines in Manatee, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties have proceeded on or ahead
of schedule toward permit application and environmental studies. EPA has not
been informed of any cancellation or delays of plans for new mines in these areas
because of market conditions.
W-310
Along with the commentor's brief overview, the reader is encouraged to
read working papers Volumes I and II (the NTIS version), and "Environmental Land
Use Planning," proceedings of a seminar in Bartow, Florida, July 27-28, 1977,
published jointly by EPA and Texas Instruments Incorporated.
W-311
The transcript of hearings, and reproduced written comments provided
in this volume should satisfy this concern.
W-312
Text modified.
4-58
-------
W-313
Text modified.
W-314
Text modified.
W-315
Text modified.
W-316
See NTIS Volume II, for a description of State and local regulatory
authorities and responsibilities.
W-317
The sampling problems were related primarily to the thermal degradation
of the sample collecting solution both during the actual sampling period, and
after sampling but prior to sample collection and processing. The problems are
discussed in more detail in the working papers (Volume VII, Section 2/Volume III-
NTIS).
W-318
Text modified.
W-319
Text modified.
W-320
Text modified.
W-321
Text modified.
W-322
Text modified.
W-323
Text modified.
4-59
-------
W-324
The contamination from abandoned or uncased wells is a more apparent
potential impact to water quality than upconing due to inland pumping because
the former has been documented to occur. The details of projected water demands
are shown in a working paper (Volume V, Section I/Volume V-NTIS).
W-325
The use of average daily rates in terms of mgd allows the use of more
conveniently sized and recognizable numbers in tables.
W-326
Text revised.
W-327
Recovery of any material, radioactive or not, for a useful purpose is
certainly the most effective method of pollution control
W-328
It cannot be stated that these concentrations are unrelated to phosphate
occurence. It can be stated with a high degree of certainty, however, that they
are unrelated to phosphate mining and processing activities. The text has been
revised.
W-329
Text modified.
The intended purpose of the table was to allow the reader to examine the
sources of income within the study area. The information used was from the
University of Florida and considered more appropriate for the purpose than infor-
mation from U. S. Department of Commerce "County Business Patterns."
W-330
Multipliers used were those estimated by the U. S. Bureau of Mines.
These were examined and tested by the Study Team economists and considered valid
for impact analysis. BEA multipliers are more macro in nature.
W-331
Text modified.
4-60
-------
W-332
The details of the use of connector wells on water quality are
discussed in Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS. The potentiometric surface
map referred to is found in Volume V, Section I/Volume V-NTIS.
W-333
Mapping of areas within the three categories of wetlands will be
possible when the Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory completes
wetlands mapping for the seven county study area. Meanwhile, mapping will have
to be accomplished on a site-specific basis for each New Source EIS.
W-334
See response to Comment W-56.
W-335
Our data does not agree with the statement.
W-336
See response to Comment W-305
W-337
EPA has not redefined wetlands. The categories are in order of
importance and need for protection.
W-338
Text modified.
W-339
The values discussed are based on an industry survey of water usage,
carried out by EPA in 1977 (Volume V, Section I/Volume V-NTIS).
W-340
Slimes have certainly proved amenable to flocculation.
W-341
This topic is discussed in more detail in working papers Volume XI,
Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS.
4-61
-------
W-342
This comment is quite inconsistent with Comments 1 through 8 on
page 4 of the first attachment to the Dept. of Interior comments. As for the
March, 1978 Fish and Wildlife Service report on the Osceola National Forest,
we find much of the Summary and Conclusions to be in total disagreement with
the text. It was not used for reference in this EIS.
W-343
Text modified.
W-344
It would be desirable to project the changes in the aquifer system
as a result of all water demands as well as being able to isolate the phosphate
industry contributions.
W-345
Text modified.
W-346
Text modified.
W-347
Text modified.
W-348
Text modified.
W-349
Text modified.
W-350
Text modified.
W-351
Since the model runs available prior to the preparation of the impact
statement were considered preliminary, it was felt that displaying such change
maps would create the false impression of a very accurate prediciton, as opposed
to the first approximation that they indeed represent. Also refer to response to
Comment 348 from DOI.
4-62
-------
W-352
No comment on the first part of this comment.
A study of the lake levels in the Ridge area that fluctuate with the
potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer was not done as part of
preparing this EIS. In general, the movement of mining activity to the south
is expected to result in a decrease in the withdrawal rate in the Ridge area.
W-353
Mitigative measures have been discussed in this EIS.
Documentation of upconing due to pumping in inland regions of the study
area was not obtained in the existing data.
W-354
"Unfortunately" seems appropriate.
W-355
Text modified.
W-356
Quantification of dislocation of the labor force and social costs of
unemployment was not considered feasible due to insufficient data on monetary
factors.
W-357
Use of constant dollars over time is an accepted economic analysis
methodology. Use of constant dollars allows for a more perceptive view of effects
without the distrotion or uncertainties of inflation being introduced.
W-358
Text modified.
W-359
Transfer of water to or from the surface water table would effect
changes in the potentiometric surface, but the extent of the changes is not
sufficiently documented to be quantified.
4-63
-------
W-360
Text modified.
W-361
Refer to Volume XI, Section 2/Volume VII-NTIS.
W-362
The statistics cited are based on the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Four
River Basins Study. The validity of these data are discussed in Volume XI,
Section 2 and 3/Volume VII-NTIS.
Discussion of benefits of the lakes is not appropriate to this section.
The value of lakes is discussed elsewhere in this EIS.
It is appropriate to mention here what might occur given different
regulations regarding reclamation. The potential for prevention of loss of
wetlands is discussed in the "potential mitigation" measures section of this EIS.
W-363
Refer to response to response to Comments 353, 324.
W-364
Refer to response to Comment number 351.
W-365
Text modified.
W-366
Mention of problems near boundary nodes was made in the DEIS.
W-367
Text modified.
W-368
Because of the small amount of timber involved, its loss, as a mineral
resource, due to mining was considered to be of negligible impact.
W-369
The commentor is referred to Section 6, Volume I of this FEIS.
4-64
-------
W-370
Text modified.
W-371 and W-372
Refer to response to Comments 295 and 308.
W-373
The changes referred to are comparing the simulated 1985 and 2000
potentiometric surface to 1975. See response to Comment 351 for reference
to the change map.
W-374
The 10-foot decline predicted by the model does occur in a "thick"
area of the Floridan aquifer. Also refer to response to Comment 295.
W-375
The water quality in the Floridan aquifer is discussed under "primary
effects."
W-376
Refer to response to comment number 357.
W-377
The commentor is correct in pointing out the, what we assume to be,
economic considerations of scale and costs of extraction.
W-378
Previous discussions have indicated that there would be little impact
on the quality or quantity of water in the Floridan aquifer due to the proposed
action.
W-379
The commentor, and reader, are referred to figure 2.3, Section 2,
Volume II of this EIS, which shows that 98 percent of the estimated reserves
would be mined under the proposed action by the year 2000. Even a more liberal
estimate using the cumulative sum from mining operators projections (based on
land use data) and the 1978 revised reserve estimate (see response to Comment 302)
4-65
-------
shows the depletion of reserves at 92 percent in the five county area reported
by the year 2000.
W-380
Text modified.
W-381
Text modified.
W-382
Refer to numerous responses above for wetlands definitions and other
information on wetlands, as well as reference to the need for further development
of criteria for judging their relative value.
W-383
The purpose of this EIS is not to defend the Surface Mining Control &
Reclamation Act of 1977- We reiterate that while the Act and regulations published
to date apply primarily to coal mining, there are some provisions which should be
considered to be applicable to phosphate mining.
W-384
The rationale for eliminating the drying process in the Proposed Action
(selected scenario) are as follows:
1. Technology has been developed within the last few years whereby wet rock
can be acidulated with undiluted commercial grade sulfuric acid. This process
has proven to be economical, efficient, and results in a significant decrease in
atmospheric emissions of particulates and radionuclides. A typical rock dryer
meeting EPA and State air emission standards emits 60,000 kg (66 tons) of
Q
particulate annually, which includes 27 x 10 pCi (picocuries) of radium 226,
8 8
27 x 10 pCi of thorium 230, and 50 x 10 pCi of uranium. Emissions of radio-
nuclides exceed those allowed by NRC for a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant by
greater than ten-fold. In addition to stack emissions from the dryer, emissions
from transfer and transportation of the dryed rock from the dryer to the chemical
plant are equal to or greater than those from the dryer stack.
4-66
-------
2. Three chemical plants in Central Florida have converted to wet rock
acidulation on a full scale basis. Two others are in planning or design stages
of conversion. The trend indicates that all chemical plants in Central Florida
will convert to wet rock processing within the next few years.
3. We agree that environmental regulatory agencies cannot and should not
dictate production processes. However, in establishing emission limitations,
EPA is required to take into consideration technology and costs of control
equipment. Emission limitations are always based on available equipment which
is economically achievable, while at the same time considering environmental
effects. After emission limitations for phosphate rock dryers were established,
technology developed which allows elimination of the drying process for rock
chemically processed in Central Florida. The Areawide EIS of necessity con-
sidered this new technology, and since the trend was toward wet rock processing,
the selected scenario of phosphate development which became the basis of the
Proposed Action and delineated effects, included this new technology. The
Areawide EIS is not regulatory, but instead is the basis for initiating site-
specific EIS's. However, any new source mines which deviate from conditions in
the Proposed Action will need to make a case for the deviation, and establish
areawide as well as site-specific effects.
4. The argument that the Areawide EIS should not have mixed energy con-
siderations with environmental considerations is unfounded. The National
Environmental Policy Act specifically requires that consideration be given to
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. The site-specific EIS's
will also be required to consider commitment of resources, including energy
resources. For this reason, when exceptions are made to the proposed action,
effects on resource depletion will have to be determined as well as environmental
effects.
5. Wording of the Proposed Action allows exceptions to the dryer elimination
condition. The EPA Office of Radiation Programs has agreed to provide guidance on
allowable radionuclide emissions and exposure levels to be considered in site-specific
studies where the exception applies. Effects on ambient particualte and fluoride
levels can be determined with modeling after applying the PSD requirements.
4-67
-------
W-385
The Florida Effluent Limitations are existing requirements. See
response to Comments T-53 and T-54.
W-386 through W-390
Changes have been made in wording of the Proposed Action. Each of
these comments have been addressed in other responses. Suggested wording
provided in these comments would not result in meaningful bases for site-specific
studies.
W-391
See response to Comment W-237.
W-392
Beker Phosphate Co. has been determined to be an "Existing Source,"
and thus is not a part of the Proposed Action. However, since this company has
not initiated mining and beneficiation operation, new technology such as
elimination of conventional above-ground slime settling areas would certainly
be feasible,
W-393
Agree.
W-394
Additional radiological samples have been taken in the Peace River
over the past year by the EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory in
Montgomery. As in previous sampling, the Peace River and other surface waters
in Central Florida have remained well below drinking water criteria for
radium 226 and other radionuclides.
W-395
Slimes do contain a significant quantity of radionuclides
(45 picoCuries/gram on a dry weight basis). During a slime loss or slime pond dam
break incidents, the river certainly exceeds drinking water criteria several fold
if samples are not filtered. These radionuclides and other contaminents associated
with slimes are in insoluble form, however, and thus do not offer a significant
4-68
-------
public health hazard. If and when such water is used for potable supply, it
is undoubtedly subject to filtration, and suspended solids are removed. This
is not to say the concern expressed by Mr. Smith is not valid. The industry
and regulatory agencies must continue to strive to prevent any future dam breaks
or slime spills to the river.
W-396
Sampling of sediments in the lower stretches of the Peace River for
radiological analyses is needed. It is probable that the slimes deposited in
the river and harbor in the past are not a problem because of subsequent
sedimentation and burial. Because of this, and reasons listed in the previous
response, such sampling has not received a high priority.
W-397
A report entitled "Florida Phosphate Land Evaluation Criteria," by
EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory, is in draft form and will be
made available to Manatee County. This report should answer Mr. Bartle's
questions and concern.
W-398
Revised Working Papers will be sent as required.
W-399
See revised Working Papers Volume II.
W-400
See section in Volume I, FEIS, on relationship between site-specific
and the areawide EIS.
W-401
See response to Comment W-384.
W-402
Wording has been revised in Volume I, FEIS.
W-403
See response to Comment T-54.
4-69
-------
W-404
There is sufficient precedent to assure wetlands contiguous to waters
of the U. S. and the State of Florida can be protected.
W-405
Determination of categories 1, 2, and 3 wetlands will be made on a
site-specific basis.
W-406
This will certainly have to be considered in site-specific determinations.
W-407
The wording in the DEIS was not intended to imply that wetlands
protected from phosphate development would not need to be protected from any
other type'pf development. The need for protection or for restoration as a
wetland applies to any type of development.
W-408
See response to Comment W-56.
W-4Q9
The wording in Volume I, FEIS, is intended to result in recirculation
of non-process water to the maximum extent practicable for new sources. The
recommendation for existing source chemical plants to also strive for maximum
recirculation of non-process water still stands.
W-410
The FEIS contains sufficient caveat. In a study of this type, data
are seldom sufficient for proof of conclusions beyond any doubt.
W-411
See response to Comment W-384.
W-412
See response to Comments T-53 and T-54. The State effluent limitations
take precedence in any case where State limitations are more stringent than those
of EPA.
4-70
-------
W-413
See response to Comment W-306.
W-414
See response to Comments W-404 through W-407.
W-415
Where fluoride recovery exists, the pond water fluoride concentration
is lower, and emissions of fluorine to the atmosphere are thus lower.
W-416
See response to Comment T-55.
W-417
See response to Comment W-384.
W-418
We believe the conclusions reached in the study are sufficient to
support the Proposed Action. Site-specific studies will be required to develop
further information needed prior to issuance of each new source permit. See
response to Comments T-4 and T-5.
W-419
We believe the FEIS is sufficiently flexible, and does require
individual site-specific EIS's for new source operations.
W-420
The Proposed Action recognizes the need for an initial slimes holding
area, and holding capacity for excess clays.
W-421
Such testimony was given both at the Public Hearings and in written
comments, and have been seriously considered. The DEIS and Proposed Action have
been revised as a result of the testimony.
W-422
See response to Comment W-384,
4-71
-------
W-423
See responses to Comments W-29, W-30, W-61 and W-97. Wording of the
Proposed Action allows flexibility in interpreting categories of wetlands. For
example, if it is later shown that wetlands can be restored to perform pre-mining
functions, then those that are now Category I would become Category II.
W-424
The Proposed Action purposely does not specify a method of sand/clay
mixing techniques, nor even what alternative use is to be made of the clays. The
reason for not specifying a method is to encourage development of technology for
alternative uses of slimes.
W-425
The alternative use of clay, such as sand/clay disposal, will certainly
have to be determined on a site-specific basis.
W-426
The concerns in this letter have been addressed in the FEIS, and in
responses to other comments in this Volume.
W-427
Text modified.
W-428
See response to Comment W-430.
W-429
The dry conveyor is not part of the proposed action.
W-430
Response to Mr. Kelahan's letter to Senator Chiles is reproduced as
shown:
4-72
-------
June 6, 1978
Hon. Lawton Chiles
Federal £iii!4ic£
Lakeland, Florida 55801
Dear Senator Chiles:
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 197S, transmitting the
consents of Wr. Kichael E. Eelahan on the Draft Areawide
Environeenta.1 Impact Statement, Central Florida Phosphate
industry. ir. Kelahan's letter and responses to it will be
included in the Final EIS which is projected to b« cocpleted
by July 51, but we will consent on his letter at this tisse
so you say reply.
The Areawide EIS offers a scenario of development of the
phosphate industry which we feel Bakes the industry as coc-
^atible as practicable with other desired and intended land
uses in Central Florida. It is an areawide, generic EIS,
and, £s suca, provides a base line for required Environments!
lapact State&ents and Development of Regional Impact State-
ments for new source Bines and che&ical processing operations.
Vhese site specific studies would have been required with or
without the Areawide EIS. It provides areawide -and cumulative
effects of the e&tire Central Florida Industry vhich would net
have been adequately covered iu individual site specific studies.
Of the four comments made in Mr. kelahan's letter, only the
one regarding elimination of slice ponds applies to the selected
scenario, his other comments are on portions of scenarios
which are not included as part of the Proposed Action.
-------
Temporary sliiaes settling and storage is allowed in cases
where the percentage of clays versus tailings is too high
for utilizing proven raethods of slimes-tailings reclamation.
Please refer to page 1.70 of the enclosed Draft EIS for the
Proposed Action, which constitutes the selected scenario.
The paragraph at the bottoa of page 1.70 and top of page 1.71
should relieve Mr. Kelahan's concern.
Mr. Kelahan's coaments, and others we are receiving on the
Draft EIS, are welcome. .;'e believe that revisions to be
incorporated into the Final EIS as a result of these comments
will Bake it a much wore valuable document, not only to EPA,
but to other agencies, citizens of Central Florida, and to the
industry.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John C. Whiter
John C. White
Regional Administrator
REMcNeill:rl:6/6/78
4-74
-------
W-431
Text modified.
W-432
Text modified.
W-433
Text modified.
W-434
See response to Comment W-409
W-435
Text modified.
W-436
Once per shift sampling is necessary to assure monitoring systems
remain calibrated, and are operating properly. There have been several
incidents where acid spills occurred during periods when pH monitoring equip-
ment was not operating.
W-437
See response to Comment W-384.
W-438
Explicit support of local regulations and requirements are not
\
necessary in this EIS. One of the ground rules of the Plan of Study was that
all existing local, regional, State and Federal requirements would be part of
each scenario examined. In most situations, local approval has been obtained
prior to the time initial application is made to EPA.
W-439
Text modified.
W-440
Text modified.
4-75
-------
W-441
Text modified.
W-442
Totally agree with these comments.
W-443
Concur.
W-444
Concur
W-445
See response to Comment W-384.
4-76
rtU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-61+1- 82ff 6271REGIONNO 4
------- |