United States
      Environmental Protection
      Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
EPA 906/09-91-002
September 1991
     ENVIRONMENTAL
     IMPACT STATEMENT
            FINAL
     MONTTCELLO B-2 AREA
     SURFACE LIGNITE MINE
     TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS
20th ANNIVERSARY - 1970 to 1990

-------
     -
     4?
UNITED  STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                       REGION 6

                  1445 ROSS AVENUE SUITE 1200

                   DALLAS TEXAS 75202-2733
AUG 1 9 1931
TO INTERESTED AGENCIES, OFFICIALS,  PUBLIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:

Enclosed  is a copy  of the  Final  Environmental Impact  Statement
(EIS) on the proposed Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine Expansion
in Titus County,  Texas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposed action is  the issuance of a new source  National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the Texas
Utilities Mining Company.   This EIS is distributed  in  compliance
with  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act and  implementing
regulations.

The Final EIS incorporates the Draft EIS by reference and includes:
1) a revised and updated Summary;  2) revisions to the  Draft EIS;
3) EPA's responses  to comments on the Draft  EIS;  and  4)  EPA's
preferred alternative.

A limited number of EIS copies are available upon request from EPA.
Requests for and/or  comments on the Final EIS should be submitted
to Mr.  Norm Thomas, Chief  Federal Activities Branch, U.S.  EPA
Region  6(E-F),  1445 Ross Avenue,  Dallas,  Texas  75202-2733,  or
telephone  214-655-2260 or FTS 255-2260.   All comments  received
during  the  30-day review period will  be considered by EPA.   The
final NPDES permit decision  will be presented  in EPA's Record of
Decision documenting the completion of the EIS process.
Robert E. Layton Jr.,  P.E.
Regional Administrator

Enclosure

-------
                           COVER SHEET
               FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
               MONTICELLO B-2 SURFACE LIGNITE MINE
                       TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

COOPERATING AGENCIES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                      U.S. Soil Conservation Service
                      U.S. Department of Housing and
                        Urban Development
                      Texas Historical Commission
                      Texas Department of Health

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: Issuance of a new source National Pollutant
Discharge  Elimination System  (NPDES)  permit to  Texas Utilities
Mining Company for the proposed Monticello B-2 surface lignite mine
expansion.

EIS CONTACT: Mr. Norm Thomas, Chief Federal Activities Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (6E-F), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

ABSTRACT:  The proposed expansion consists of a 6,174  acre surface
lignite  mine with  associated  haul roads,  surface  water control
structures   and  overburden  stockpiles.     The   total  acreage
potentially affected over the 35-year operation at the B-2 site is
an estimated 6,420 acres.  The cumulative effects of TUMCO's mining
operations  (existing and  proposed)  directly impact approximately
30,000 surface acres in Camp,  Hopkins and Titus Counties.  Notable
effects include: changes in topography;  degradation to surface and
ground  water quality; alterations  in surface water regimes and
ground  water  infiltration;  increased   noise levels;  increased
erosion  and  soil   loss;  loss of  cultural  resources; increased
personal  incomes;   increased employment  opportunities; aesthetic
degradation; loss of fish and wildlife resources and  habitats; and
socioeconomic changes in local communities.  Many of  these direct
and indirect effects constitute minor or major, long-term or short-
term, and/or unavoidable adverse impacts.   Some effects constitute
irretrieveable  commitments  of natural  resources.    Mitigation
measures  have  been developed  and/or are  proposed  for certain
adverse impacts.

COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS ARE DUE:

      SIBLrf OFFICIAL:
           AW
Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E.
Regional Administrator

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
                                                  Page
PREFACE
PART I.   SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS
         TABLE 1-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences
                                                     11
                                                    1-1
                                                    1-5
PART II.  CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
         A.   PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
         B.   SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
             TO MAJOR ISSUES
         C.   SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE
         D.   SECTION 404 COMPLIANCE
                                                   II-l
                                                   II-l
                                                   n-i

                                                   II-4
                                                   II-5
PART III.  MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS         III-l
         A.   ERRATA                                           III-l
         B.   CROSS REFERENCE OF PAGE REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS     III-2
             MADE TO DRAFT EIS
PART IV.  EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
                                                   IV-1
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.

APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
APPENDIX E.
APPENDIX F.
DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
AND EPA RESPONSES
DRAFT EIS COMMENT LETTERS AND EPA RESPONSES
PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 106 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
LIST OF DESIGNATED AIR QUALITY REFERENCE
AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
APPENDIX G.  AGENCY COORDINATION
A-l
B-l

C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l

G-l
                                 in

-------
                                        PREFACE

            This is one of two EPA EISs on TUMCO's proposed lignite mine expansions in east
Texas (i.e., the Monticello-Leesburg and Monticello B-2 areas). The Leesburg project EIS has been
terminated.  The  following map shows the  location of both of these proposed expansions in
relationship to TUMCO's existing mine activities.
                                                         Winfteld H-Arm Mine
                                                         Winfleld B-l Extension
                                                         Wlnfleld B-2 Aral Mine
                                                         Lctfburg Mine Arm (terminated)
            The Draft EIS assessed adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed activities as
significant, major, minor, long-term, short-term, irretrievable, and/or unavoidable.  The degree of
impact is a subjective judgement made by EPA based on past experience with similar EIS projects
and the technical advise and assistance provided by Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., the third party
contractor.  The assessment  of effects was  reconsidered, as necessary, based on the comments
received during the agency and public review period.  This Final EIS presents the revisions or
additions to the impact analyses to be used in conjunction with the Draft EIS.

            The concept of duration, long-term versus short-term, may vary among discipline.
However, for the purpose of impact assessment, short-term is defined as a period of 6 to 8 years
following initial clearing operations. Within this time frame, the vegetation is removed, overburden
is  removed, the lignite is recovered, overburden is replaced,  approximate  original  contour is
achieved, vegetation is established and reclamation success is demonstrated by the end of a five-year
extended responsibility period. At the end of the extended responsibility period, the reclaimed land

-------
can be released from bond following demonstration by TUMCO that the appropriate performance
standards have been achieved.

           It  is important to remember that  mining operations will  involve the incremental
disturbance of an average  of approximately 268 ac per year.  Therefore, during the life of the
project, some areas will be reclaimed and released from bond as new areas are being cleared of
vegetation in preparation of mining operations. The total area to be directly affected by operation
activities is approximately 6,174 ac.

Scope of EIS Review

           Comments have been raised regarding the relationship between EPA and Texas Utilities
Mining Company (TUMCO). These comments appear to reflect understandable confusion over the
scope of the EIS. There is a complex relationship between the EIS process and the decisions which
EPA will make with respect to TUMCO's NPDES permit.  The following are some of the major
points which bear on that relationship.

           1.    As discussed on page 2-20 of the DEIS, the only EPA action subject to the
                 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the decision regarding the NPDES
                 permit which has been applied for by TUMCO.

           2.    NEPA  and the Council on Environmental  Quality  (CEQ)  implementing
                 regulations require EPA to explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives,
                 including those not within its jurisdiction.

           3.    Pursuant to guidance from the CEQ, the EIS should be focused on major issues
                 of direct relevance to the decision-making process.

           4.    The two alternatives available to EPA are to issue the NPDES permit with limits
                 or conditions; or to deny the permit.

           5.    EPA has no authority,  nor any  indirect legislative mandate or policy, to make
                 decisions which go beyond these two alternatives.

           6.     EPA has no authority or policy which would allow it to interfere with the internal
                 planning and  decision-making of the bodies it regulates,  except through the
                 mechanism of issuing or denying NPDES permits.

           7.     Although EPA's authority with  respect to the TUMCO project is limited, the
                 agency has  determined that its permit  decision is  a major  federal action
                 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

           8.     EPA prepared the Draft and Final EISs in order to identify the environmental
                effects of the  expansion proposed by TUMCO including actions not related
                directly to permit issues.

-------
           9.    The purpose of the EIS is to provide information needed for EPA to decide if
                 it should deny the NPDES permit for the reason that the effects of the proposed
                 action will produce unacceptable impacts.

           10.   The EIS also provides information needed for EPA to identify prospective permit
                 limits or conditions  which would reduce potentially significant impacts  to
                 acceptable levels.

           Based on the above statements, the EIS has a scope which is potentially very wide.  In
practice, this  scope must be narrowed somewhat in order that the EIS can be a meaningful guide
to decision-making.  Based on experience with respect to the NPDES program, EPA believes that
it is possible and practical to design and operate projects such as surface lignite mines in ways which
result in acceptable, albeit significant adverse environmental impacts.  The focus of the decision-
making process and the EIS, therefore, is on determining if it is appropriate to issue a permit and,
if so, on defining  appropriate conditions to include in such a permit.

           With  respect to all issues, including major alternatives as well as design details, EPA
places the burden of providing basic information and analyses upon the applicant.  Restrictions in
the federal budget as well as consideration of equity require that those who may  benefit from a
project  pay the major costs of assuring environmental compliance.

           EPA  utilizes its professional expertise, and the expertise of its consultants, to perform
an independent review  of all documents provided by the applicant. Such reviews normally involve
consideration of data obtained from many sources, including other federal agencies, state agencies,
local governments, academic institutions, citizen groups, and individual members of the public (see
Appendix C of this Final EIS).

           To the extent that EPA determines that any information provided by the applicant is
accurate and sufficient, it will rely upon that information in preparing the EIS. In many cases, this
means quoting the  submitted information verbatim.  The presentation of information  from  an
applicant's document in  the DEIS (or this Final EIS)  indicates that EPA has performed  an
independent review of  the data provided.

-------
        Parti

Summary of Draft
EIS and Final EIS

-------
 PART I.   SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS

 Background.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all Federal
 agencies prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) on major Federal actions significantly
 affecting the quality of the human environment. Furthermore, Section 511(c)(l) of the Federal
 Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, or P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977
 (CWA, or P.L. 95-217) mandates that the requirements of NEPA apply to the issuance of a permit,
 under Section 402 of FWPCA, for discharging any pollutant by a "New Source" as defined in Section
 306 of FWPCA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the Monticello B-2
 Surface Lignite Mine proposed by Texas Utilities Mining Company (TUMCO) is a "New Source"
 and, the issuance of a New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)
 permit is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
 Therefore, the Draft EIS and Final EIS have been prepared to assess the potential environmental
 consequences of EPA's New Source NPDES permit action.

 Alternatives.  Taking no action was evaluated, as were numerous alternative means to provide fuel
 for the existing Monticello Steam Electric Station (MOSES). MOSES consists of two 575-megawatt
 (Mw) and one 750-Mw generating units.  The units are designed to use lignite, a soft brown coal,
 as a fuel.  Since this is an existing plant, alternative energy sources such as geothermal, solar,
 nuclear,  hydroelectric and wind were eliminated from consideration.  The possibility of plant
 modifications led to  the evaluation of  alternative fuels such  as western coal and natural gas.
 Alternative lignite reserves were also considered. Municipal waste was not considered as a viable
 alternative fuel for  MOSES.  The combination of proximity to  the power plant, existing facilities
 available for fuel transportation, and the relatively low production costs make the Monticello B-2
 lignite the most economical and desirable alternative evaluated by the applicant.

 Mining methods evaluated were underground mining and surface mining. Underground  mining of
 the Monticello B-2 deposit was judged undesirable due to numerous and significant safety hazards,
 low recovery rates,  high potential for subsidence, and high production costs.

 Alternative overburden removal methods evaluated by the applicant were  draglines, buckerwheel
 excavators, and truck/shovel systems. Draglines were selected as the method of overburden removal
 for the Monticello  B-2 deposit based on the nature of  anticipated  mining conditions and  the
 flexibility offered by a dragline system.

 Alternative lignite-loading equipment evaluated by the applicant included shovels, front-end loaders,
 backhoes, and continuous surface miners.  All are currently used  in varying applications at  the
 existing Monticello mine. Based upon anticipated mining conditions and production requirements
 for the Monticello B-2 mine, shovels have been selected as the primary lignite- loading equipment.
 Other loading equipment will be utilized in various lignite-loading applications if required by mining
conditions.

Lignite transportation alternatives considered by the applicant were overland conveyors, haulage
trucks, and a railroad. A combination of truck haulage and railroad as a lignite-delivery system was
selected  as  the  most  dependable and  economical method  of lignite  transportation  from  the
Monticello B-2 deposit.
                                            1-1

-------
 Reclamation  alternatives were  evaluated by the applicant with  regard  to  State  and Federal
 regulations.  However, county-wide trends have been considered when developing post-mine land
 use plans. Post-mining land use alternatives include pastureland, commercial forest,  undeveloped
 (land that is allowed to return naturally to an undeveloped state or is allowed to return to forest
 through natural succession), and developed water resources.

 A determination of the extent of jurisdictional waters and wetlands has been made using procedures
 prescribed in "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands." A total of
 804.6 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands were delineated. Mine planning has resulted in the
 avoidance of 410 acres of these jurisdictional areas. TUMCO's proposed reclamation  plan calls for
 replacement of affected waters and wetlands on an acre-for-acre basis, except for forested wetlands,
 that TUMCO proposes to replace 3.0 acres  for each acre disturbed (see Appendix D).

 Alternatives currently being evaluated by EPA in regard to NPDES, CWA 402 are:  (1) issue the
 NPDES permit with limits or conditions to address any potential adverse impacts on water quality,
 wetlands and/or cultural resources; or (2) deny the NPDES permit.

 Proposed Project.  The proposed Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine Project would be a 6,420-acre
 surface lignite mine and associated haul roads, railroad spur, surface water control structures, shop
 facilities, lignite-loading station, and office areas.

 The proposed Monticello B-2 mine is located near Mount Pleasant, in Titus County, Texas.  A
 "study area" encompassing approximately 13,650 acres was defined by TUMCO for the purpose of
 collecting baseline environmental data.  The study area is shown in Figure 1-1.

 The lignite reserves in this area are estimated at about 80 million tons. The mining will be a surface
 operation utilizing draglines as the primary  overburden-removal equipment.  The lignite will be
 hauled by truck from the immediate mining area to a train loading station, and from that point
 carried by train to the Monticello power station utilizing the existing T.U. Electric railroad system.
 The project will require the construction of certain site facilities such as the  haul roads, surface
 water  control structures, etc., in support  of the mining operation.  T.U. Electric  operates  the
 Monticello Steam Electric Station in Titus County, near the town of Mount Pleasant.   The
 generating station is a mine-mouth operation  consisting of three lignite-fired generating units.  Total
 station generating capability is 1900 Mw. The three units were individually brought into commercial
 operation during the period from 1974 to  1978.

 The Monticello B-2 mining project will supplement lignite production from existing mining areas,
 currently supplying MOSES. Total mining operations at Monticello in Camp County, Winfield sites
 in Titus County and the Thermo site in Hopkins County directly affect approximately 30,000 acres.

The quantity of reserves available from these existing mining areas is inadequate to fuel the MOSES
for the full extent of a 35-year design life.  In addition,  the remaining reserves lie beneath
progressively deeper overburden which will significantly impact the mining operation and result in
the lignite production level dropping below the annual plant requirement by 1992.
                                            1-2

-------
OKLAHOMA
                                         ARKANSAS
                   MT. PLEASANT
                                                20
                                                V_X
                                              SHREVEPORT
                                             LOUISIANA
          *1STUDY
            AREA
                               ESPEY.  HUS10N f, ASSOCIAIFS. INC
                                                 .tl ( oiiMilt.ini'.
                                     FIGURE I- I
                                   LOCATION MAP OF
                                   MONTICELLO B-2
                                     STUDY AREA
15    SO    49    60

-------
The Monticello B-2 mine is required to be in production by the 1992 time frame.  The B-2 lignite
will supplement the production from the existing mining areas  to maintain the required annual
production level. The addition of the Monticello B-2 reserves will contribute to the total fuel
requirement and allow production to be balanced between mining areas to ensure a dependable and
consistent fuel delivery.

Conventional land-clearing techniques will be used to remove vegetation in advance of mining.
Following land clearing, overburden will be removed to expose the lignite.  A dragline will primarily
be used to remove  the overburden down to the lignite.  Overburden will typically be placed in
previously mined pits and then leveled to approximate the pre-mining slopes.

Following overburden removal, lignite will be loaded into haul trucks through the use of electrically
powered shovels, hydraulic backhoes or front-end loaders.  Lignite will then be hauled out of the
pits on ramps which connect to private haul roads leading to the existing primary crusher, located
in the Winfield North area. Once the lignite is crushed, it is loaded onto T.U. Electric railcars for
delivery to the power plant.

Rough backfilling and grading will be completed within 180 days following lignite removal, unless
a variance from the Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) is  obtained.  The RCT may grant
additional time for rough backfilling and grading if TUMCO can demonstrate that additional time
is necessary.

Reclamation and revegetation activities will be performed in  accordance with the Soil and Water
Conservation Plan (Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1985). The Soil and Water Conservation Plan
addresses erosion control, soil reconstruction, grading and shaping, seedbed preparation, fertilization
and mulching practices and procedures. The Plan includes management techniques for grazingland,
hayland, established tree and shrub areas, and enhancement for wildlife habitat.

Post-mine land use is proposed to be 100% pastureland, with habitat features including forested and
non-forested wetlands.

Environmental Consequences. The major environmental consequences of the proposed project, if
implemented, are summarized in Table 1-1. (Note: Table 1-1 is  by design only  a summary of the
potential effects/impacts and the reviewer or reader should rely on the Draft and  Final EISs in total
for the complete impact analysis.)
                                            1-4

-------
                                                                TABLE H

                                          SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
                                               MONTICELLO B-2 LIGNITE MINE PROJECT
               Environmental Category
                               Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed
                                    Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine
 Topography
 Geology
 Soils
Groundwaler
 Construction of mine-related facilities, including haul roads, sedimentation ponds and overland
 diversions prior to the initiation of mining activities will impact approximately 246 acres of the local
 topography.  After completion of all mining in the area, transportation and other facilities that are
 associated with the  mining and reclamation operation will be removed and the affected area
 reclaimed unless a land use change is approved by the Railroad Commission of Texas.

 Mining operations will alter the topography of approximately 6,174 acres within the study area
 during the  life of the project   Overburden  material will be removed to expose the  lignite.
 Overburden will be placed in adjacent mined areas creating a spoil ridge that protrudes above the
 pre-mining land surface.  One to four such ridges will be present at each mining area. As the mine
 advances, the  overburden is  regraded to create a  smooth land  surface  similar to  pre-mine
 topography.  Spoil from the first mine cut will be placed on unmined land and  graded to create a
 low elongated hill that blends  into surrounding terrain. The final cuts will be  reclaimed to form
 ponds or drainageways.

 The described effects to topography,  though adverse, are short-term in duration and will be
 mitigated by contemporaneous reclamation. No irretrievable commitment or long-term cumulative
 impacts on topography are anticipated.

 Disturbance of surficial geologic material during construction is a neutral impact to geology of the
 area.  No geologic hazards are expected to be created. Within the areas to be mined, overburden
 removal will permanently alter the stratigraphic relationships and physical characteristics of
 individual strata above the lignite.  This mixing, totaling approximately 30,000 acres cumulatively,
 constitutes an unavoidable, long-term adverse impact  and  irretrievable commitment of resources.

 The occurrence of mineral  resources (oil  and/or gas) beneath the depth of mining will not be
 directly affected by mining.  Localized access to such resources will be restricted at different times
 during the mining operation.  However, no permanent loss of mineral resources or loss of access
 will occur.

 Construction impacts include increased erosion potential,  disruption of the physical properties of
 the soils and conversion to industrial use. Erosion impacts will be short-term and manageable.

 Soil structure will be altered, bulk densities increased, permeabilities reduced and textures altered
 by grading. This results in short-term and/or long-term adverse impacts to soil resources. Similarly,
 conversion of these  soils to industrial use for the  life  of the project represents a long-term
 commitment of soil resources to non-agricultural uses.

 Comparing the parameters of predicted mine soils to the same parameters measured in native soils
 suggests that some changes in physical and chemical properties may be beneficial.  Mine soils are
 predicted to have improved moisture-holding and nutrient-holding capacity relative to some native
 soils present in the mine area.  Replacing the heavy day subsoils common to other soils in the mine
 area with more moderately textured post-mine soils may increase permeability, internal drainage and
 aeration.  Replacement of highly weathered, acid native soil materials with relatively unweathered
 overburden materials may lead to increased soil pH throughout the rooting zone of post-mine soils.

 As with most mine soils, organic matter will be low, particularly during initial stages of reclamation.
.This short-term adverse impact can be offset by practices that incorporate organic matter, such as
 densely rooted crops and addition of crop residues.   Increasing soil organic  matter also  acts to
 overcome surface crusting, weakly defined structural characteristics,  low moisture penetration, low
 microbial population, and seedling mortality common to most mine soils.

 Cumulative impacts include replacing approximately 30,000 acres of native soils with reconstructed
 soils following mining.

 Existing groundwater flow and  use patterns will be altered  during mining as a result of flow  toward
 the mined areas and dewatering by wells. Overburden potentiometric levels in and adjacent to the
 mine will be lowered. Drawdowns greater than 5 feet should be restricted to within 6,500 feet of
                                                                    1-5

-------
                                                          TABLE 1-1 (Cont'd)
              Environmental Category
                              Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed
                                   Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine
 Surface Water
Jurisdictional CWA. 404 Waters
of ibe United States Including Wetlands
the mine.  The rate at which the reclaimed overburden resaturates will vary dependent on the
amount of sand, tilt and day at a  given location, reclamation methods and recharge capacity.
Resaturation times are estimated to range from 12 to 48 yean. Upon maturation, the groundwater
flow regime in the overburden should be similar to pre-mine conditions.

Post-mining groundwater in the reclaimed overburden may be higher in sulfate and total dissolved
solids. Once the overburden is exposed to further oxidation, iron and manganese concentrations
in the groundwater are eipected to increase.  Groundwater flow boundary conditions, dispersion
and dilution should limit any major impact to sands outside the permit boundary. However, sands
immediately adjacent to the mine areas may eiperience degradation in groundwater quality due to
flow from the reclaimed overburden.  The plume of degraded groundwater should attain a steady-
state condition. The concentration of degraded groundwater will decrease with distance from the
mine and is estimated to be limited  to within 2,000 feet of the mine.

Any person who conducts surface mining activities is required to replace the water supply of an
owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water for domestic,
agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source, where the
water supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximatery resulting
from the surface mining activities.

Groundwater flow conditions and the localized  area projected to experience water-level declines
from  dewatering and/or depressurization activities should preclude any cumulative interaction
between Monticello B-2 and other TUMCO mining projects.

Construction  activities will increase local peak runoff rates and volumes, and  increase sediment
production and transport on a short-term basis. Increased flow rates and increased turbidity would
be offset by the retention of surface runoff in sedimentation ponds.  These ponds are designed to
provide the required theoretical detention time for the water inflow or runoff entering the pond
from a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event

Most of the streams in the study area would be temporarily affected by flow diversions prior to and
during mining of adjacent areas. A reduction of groundwater levels during mining will reduce the
amount of springflow and  seeps in the project  area.  Baseflows of area streams, which are
groundwater dependent, would be reduced.   When overburden is resaturated after reclamation,
baseflow to area streams should be similar to pre-mining volumes.

Surface water leaving  the site will be required to meet TWC and EPA effluent regulations.
Increased IDS levels of surface water leaving the site are eipected during and after mining and
reclamation  operations.   The oxidation and  weathering of overburden materials will result in
leaching of  soluble salts.  Water removed from mine pits and groundwater discharges from
reclaimed areas will be primary sources of water containing increased levels of TDS. Attenuation
of TDS concentrations will occur downstream of the discharge points.

Due to the small incremental impacts on water quality and quantity resulting from the individual
mining projects and the geographic separation between the projects, no adverse cumulative impacts
are anticipated.

The total acreage in the study area determined to be under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act,
Section 404, in accordance with the new Federal manual for delineating wetlands, is 804.6 acres.
Through detailed mine planning efforts, TUMCO has reduced the Jurisdictional areas to be directly
impacted by mining operations to 394.6 acres.

TUMCO has committed to mitigate the impact to Jurisdictional wetlands (see  Appendix D)
TUMCO has agreed to replace wetlands on a one for one basis except for forested wetlands which
will be replaced  at a ratio of 3 acres for each acre of forested wetland impacted.

Impacts to downstream waters and wetlands may occur, including siltation or filling in of areas.
                                                                  1-6

-------
                                                             TABLE M (Conl'd)
               Environmental Category
                               Effect/Impact Assessment of Propoied
                                    MonticeUo B-2 Lignite Mine
 Vegetation
 Terrestrial Wildlife
Aquatic Ecology
Climatology and Air Quality
Approximately 246 acres, including 184 acres of grasslands, 28 acres of bottomland forest, 7 acres
of pine forest, 1  acre of aquatic habitat, 18 acres of upland forest, 3 acres of cropland and 5 acres
of disturbed area, will be cleared and leveled prior to construction of mine related facilities.  This
will result in a  long-term advene impact to the vegetation.   However, following mining and
reclamation activities at the site, facilities will be removed and the affected area will be reclaimed.

During the life of the mine, mining operations will result in direct, advene, short-term and/or long-
term impacts to a total of approximately 6,174 acres.  Vegetation categories affected  include:
grassland, 4,181 acres; upland  forest, 910 acres; bottomland forest, 345 acres;  disturbed areas,
261 acres; pine forest, 249 acres; cropland, 133 acres; and aquatic habitat, 95 acres.

Short-term indirect effects to vegetation from dust accumulation are also anticipated.

Neither construction nor operation is expected to have an impact on any endangered or threatened
plant species.

Vegetation will be re-established as pan of the proposed reclamation plan. Post-mining land use
will be 100% pastureland (83% of the mined acreage will be reclaimed to a pastureland forage
cover type, 13%  to a tree and shrub cover type and 4% to ponds necessary.for livestock and wildlife
management).   Reestablished  monoculture  pastureland with  minimal  wildlife habitat values
constitutes a major, long-term, adverse impact Grassland communities will become re-established
in a relatively short time frame (2-5 yean).  Much longer periods will be required to achieve mature
forest communities due to the slow growth rate of many mast-producing species (35 years or longer).

The primary cumulative adverse  impact on vegetation resources  resulting  from the mining of
approximately 30,000 acres is the loss of habitat This loss of habitat constitutes major short-term
and long-term impacts on  vegetation resources.  Significant vegetation resource losses expected to
occur are primarily in the forested habitats (e.g., bottomland/riparian, wetland, and upland forests)
and naturally occurring drainage features, which require extended periods  to  fully re-establish
following reclamation.

Construction activities, e.g. haul roads, sedimentation ponds, etc., will result in long-term impacts
to approximately 246 acres of  terrestrial habitat  Habitat losses will be ameliorated following
reclamation of the disturbed areas.

Removal of approximately 6,174 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitats, and the  loss or displacement
of wildlife communities, followed by the slow re-establishment of habitats and communities after
reclamation, are minor short-term and major long-term adverse impacts. Approximately 345 acres
of the area to be affected consists of bottomland/riparian forest Cumulative loss of approximately
30,000 acres of associated  wildlife habitat constitutes a long-term major adverse impact Increased
noise and human disturbance comprise minor advene impacts. Neither construction nor operation
activities are  expected to adversely impact any endangered or threatened wildlife species.

Increased turbidity and sedimentation are short-term  adverse impacts to aquatic  communities
expected to result from construction of the mine support facilities. Sedimentation may temporarily
decrease aquatic plant and animal populations,  increase  nutrient levels,  and reduce primary
productivity.   However, because  local aquatic communities  have vertebrate  and invertebrate
populations which are moderately tolerant of turbid  environments,  and since erosion control
measures will be implemented to minimize potential erosion, long-term impacts should be negligible.

Streams will be adversely impacted within areas to be mined. Long-term adverse impacts to aquatic
communities  are expected to result from habitat losses as streams  are diverted  and riparian
vegetation is removed.

Restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels to their approximate longitudinal profile
and cross-section, and establishment of  riparian vegetation  will contribute  to long-term  re-
establishment of the biota and habitat disrupted by mine operations.

Increased fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions during construction and operation of the mine,
and support facilities are projected to be below the applicable air quality standards. Operation of
the lignite mine and train-loading facilities will  cause paniculate matter to be emitted to the
                                                                     1-7

-------
                                                          TABLE M (Cont'd)
             Environmental Category
                               Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed
                                   Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine
Sound Quality
Cultural and Historic Resources
Land Use/Productivity
atmosphere. Attempts will be made to reduce dust generated by haul-road traffic through limits on
vehicle speeds and the application of water sprays, as necessary. EPA reviewed a significant amount
of paniculate monitoring data collected by the Texas Air Control Board and by TUMCO in and
near the existing Monticello Mine.  Based on the results of these data, including wind directions,
there is likely some influence on TSP concentrations from mining; however, the concentrations do
not indicate adverse health effects. (See Part 1IIB of this Final EIS). Since current regulations are
designed to maintain the existing  air quality of the region, there are no anticipated adverse
cumulative impacts.

Construction and operation of the  proposed mine will cause increased  noise levels, resulting in
periodic, short-term and long-term adverse impacts to existing ambient sound levels.  The greatest
effects will occur when mining operations are very near the mine boundary.  Based on a worst-case
scenario, with mining operations occurring near the permit boundary, day-night sound levels will
exceed 65 dBA up to 2,000 feet from the center of the mining activity. Day-night noise levels are
expected to range from 57 to 59 dBA at the four baseline noise receptors located beyond the study
area boundary.  These levels represent an increase in the ambient sound level of less than 5 dBA.
The greatest noise impact associated with mining  operations will occur at the three receptor sites
(4,5 and 6) located within the project boundaries.  The anticipated Ldn of 70 dBA at receptor site 4
(Green Hill Church), reflects an increase of 7 dBA over the baseline ambient sound level.  Receptor
sites 5  (Ripley Church)  and  6 (Damascus Church) would experience  an increase of 16 dBA,
resulting in a L.  of 78 dBA for receptor site 5 and a L.  of 81 dBA for receptor site 6, due to
their proximity loVming cell boundaries (400 and 300 ft, respectively). The sound level increases
represent periodic minor or major adverse noise impacts at these receptors depending on the timing
and activities occurring.

Due to the attenuation of sound levels with distance, no adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated
resulting from noise associated with other TUMCO mining projects.

Identified cultural resources in the project area range from the Paleo-Indian  (Late Pleistocene)
through Historic periods. To date, cultural resource surveys and investigations have identified a
total of 125 cultural resource sites which will  be directly affected  by the undertaking.   A
Programmatic Agreement providing compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act has
been executed between by EPA, the Texas  State  Historic Preservation Officer and  the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (see Appendix E).

Based on survey results completed to date, construction and operation of the ongoing and proposed
mining activities at the TUMCO mining operations in the area, e.g., Mon ticello-Thermo, Monticello-
Leesburg and Monticello Winfield, including B-2, a total of 354 recorded cultural resources sites
will be affected. Over the life of these projects, sites will be impacted and/or destroyed, and this
represents an irreversible commitment of a non-renewable resource. Through survey, testing and/or
mitigation of significant sites, recovery  of significant cultural resources data will lessen the adverse
impacts. These data gathering activities have the potential to expand our knowledge of the history
and prehistory  of the project area.

Construction activities associated with the proposed  facilities  will affect a  total  of 246 acres,
representing a long-term adverse impact on related land uses.  Mining  operations will adversely
impact an  average of 268 acres annually over the 23-year project life, for a total of 6,174 acres.
Reclamation will occur  contemporaneously with mining operations.   Post-mining land use is
proposed to be 100%  pastureland, with  habitat features including forested and non-forested
wetlands. Reclamation of pastureland  with the non-native coastal bermudagrass generally requires
high levels of management to maintain. Native species adapted to the study area can establish and
persist with very low management levels.

Temporary adverse impacts on land use/productivity will occur until reclamation takes place. Land
productivity should be  returned to a condition  equal to or better than pre-mining conditions,
constituting potential short-term beneficial impacts. Once reclamation performance standards have
been demonstrated, reclaimed land will be released from bond  and will  revert to the legal owner
The productivity of the land following release  from bond will be dependent on the use and
management of the land by the landowner. Cumulative long-term impacts are potentially beneficial
However, since continued productivity (equal to or better) is ultimately the  result of individual
landowner success,  some  long-term adverse impacts are possible.
                                                                   1-8

-------
                                                          TABLE 1-1 (Concluded)
              Environmental Category
                               Effect/Impact Assessment of Proposed
                                   Monticcllo B-2 Lignite Mine
Socioeconomics

         Local Employment Effects
         Population
         Community Facilities
         and Services
         Local Government Finances
         Transportation
         Land Values
Public Health
Direct employment opportunities from construction activities (projected peak of approximately
60 workers in late 1996) constitute major short-term beneficial impacts.  Long-term beneficial
impacts will consist of approximately 307 permanent  operations jobs by the year 1993.  These
307 permanent operations jobs are not new additions. They represent transfers from T.U. Electric's
existing Winfield North C-area and Winfield South F2-area mining operations. Indirect employment
opportunities in local towns and communities from expanding business sectors constitute additional
beneficial long-term impacts.  Cumulative effects are not expected to greatly exceed existing
employment and earning levels.

Population effects are anticipated to be minimal due to the transfer of existing employees and high
unemployment rates of qualified workers within commuting distance of the proposed project

Due to the minimal inmigration  of construction  and operational personnel projected, increased
demand for community facilities and services as a result of the project are anticipated to be minimal,
including cumulative effects.

The proposed mine is located in the Mount Pleasant and Harts Bluff ISDs. Increased property tax
revenues associated with the proposed mine would allow for capital improvements and the purchase
of educational supplies and equipment, enhancing local educational opportunities.

Titus County, the Northeast Texas Community College and the Titus County Hospital will also
receive positive benefits from the proposed facility in the form of increased tax revenues.  Those
revenues will provide needed services to the residents of Titus County.

During peak construction, traffic volumes will not exceed capacity  on any  project area roadway.
During peak construction, the 60 workers would generate about 180 additional trips along roads in
the project vicinity. Segments of several roads will be relocated during construction. During mining
operations, project-related traffic increases are projected to be approximately 1,100 trips per day.
This is anticipated to result in occasional periodic adverse impacts  to existing traffic.

Potential short-term adverse impact on adjacent or nearby properties land  value may result from
mining operations.  However, after reclamation is complete, this impact is considered potentially
reversible and affected land values can increase again.

Air emissions caused by construction  of mine facilities would consist primarily of fugitive dust; no
advene public health impacts are expected.  Relocation of overburden material due to reclamation
of mined areas will change the ground-level emanation rate of radon.  Depending on the initial
profiles  of  radon concentrations  in the  overburden, emanation rates will  be less  than the
predisturbed rate in some locations, while in others it will be greater.  Weighted-average values of
uranium  in the overburden is 2.6 ppb based on the analysis of 3 cores from the existing Winfield
Mine.  This is much lower than the average concentration reported for soils by Lowder et al. (1964)
of 1.8 ppm (1,800 ppb). Based on current Federal and State regulations designed to protect public
health, there are no anticipated adverse cumulative impacts.
                                                                    1-9

-------
         Part II
Consultation and
Coordination

-------
PART II.   CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A.          PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS

The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS appeared in the Federal Register dated May 8, 1990.
The Notice announced a 45-day public review period ending June 25, 1990.  At the request of
interested agencies, organizations and individuals, the comment period was extended until July 25,
1990.  The public review period was scheduled to provide concerned  agencies and the public an
opportunity to review the Draft EIS and to offer comments on its adequacy. Approximately 200
copies of the Draft EIS were distributed to reviewing agencies and to interested members of the
public.

The Public Hearing to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIS was held at 7:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, June 12,1990, at the Civic Center on U.S. Highway 271 in Mount Pleasant, Texas. In
addition to the announcement of the meeting in the above-referenced Federal Register, the public
was  notified by advertisements in a local newspaper in general circulation in the area (Mount
Pleasant Daily Tribune) and by use of EPA's EIS mailing list. Twenty-eight people spoke at the
Public Hearing.  A summary of the oral  comments  and EPA's responses are presented in
Appendix B.

During the public  review period  on the Draft EIS, written  comments  were received from
15 individuals and organizations.  Nine reviewing agencies also submitted written comments. Each
of these letters was reviewed  to identify comments which  required a  response in the Final EIS.
Comments which presented new data, questioned facts and/or analyses, or commented on issues
bearing directly on the Draft EIS, have been evaluated.  These written comments  and  EPA's
responses are presented in Appendix C.  As appropriate, changes or additions to the text of the
Draft EIS have been incorporated into this Final EIS (see Part III).

B.          SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO MAJOR ISSUES

            Table II-l (page II-6) summarizes comments received by EPA on the Draft EIS. The
table is comprised of two parts.  Part I is a summary of comments received at the Public Hearing.
(A  Responsiveness Summary to Public  Hearing Comments on the  Draft EIS is  presented in
Appendix B to this FEIS).  Part 2 is a summary of comments received by EPA in the form of letters
(comment letters and EPA responses are presented in Appendix C to this FEIS).

            Issues raised during the agency and public review process are discussed below.

1.          Public Health Assessment

            In evaluating the potential public health impacts, EPA relied upon data collected and
reports prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, The  University of Texas School of Public  Health
and Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., and the Texas Department of Health.  This information was
supplemented by general literature dealing with naturally occurring radionuclides in the environment
and consideration of existing State and Federal laws and regulations aimed at protection of public
health and welfare, and the environment.
                                          II-l

-------
            Additional discussions of the existing regulations dealing with  fugitive dust and  a
 comprehensive assessment of existing air quality in the vicinity of the existing Monticello mining
 areas is presented in the Summary, III.B. and Appendix B of FEIS. A brief summary is presented
 in Part II.B.2 below.

            Part II.B.3 addresses the occurrence of radionuclides in the lignite and overburden
 materials and the anticipated impact to public health as a result of mining activities at the proposed
 B-2 surface lignite mine.

 2.          Fugitive Dust

            Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) emissions from mining operations will occur as a
 result of earth-moving activities, transportation of the lignite, movement of men and equipment over
 mine roads and wind erosion of spoil piles and other unvegetated areas. Section 3.4.1.2 of this FEIS
 presents  a detailed  discussion of: (1) existing air quality regulations  and their relationship to
 preventing adverse health effects; and (2) existing air quality in the vicinity of the proposed mine
 based upon the results of TACB and TUMCO monitoring data.

            Ambient air monitoring data collected by the TACB in the cities of Winfield and Mount
 Pleasant show no exceedances of primary or secondary NAAQS for TSP.  While the TACB  has
 recognized some increase in ambient TSP concentrations due to the  existing Monticello lignite
 mines, it was not found at levels which would result in adverse health effects.

            The TSP monitors operated by TUMCO on properties surrounding the Monticello
 mines  show a  very high  incidence of compliance  of NAAQS standards.   A few  24-hour
 concentrations of TSP were measured within the permit boundary which were in excess of NAAQS
 TSP levels but there was  no indication that  areas outside the permit areas were exposed to TSP
 levels exceeding "either primary or secondary NAAQS  except during days of natural dust storms.

 3.          Radionuclides

            Naturally occurring radionuclides in the earth represent a significant component of the
 background radiation exposure to man (NCRP, 1975). Many technological activities redistribute
 natural radioactive materials in ways that affect human radiation exposure.  For example, the use
 of phosphate fertilizers adds considerably to the amount of uranium in the topsoil of agricultural
 land, while gypsum wall board made from phosphate by-products introduces radium and radon  into
 homes, schools and offices (UTSPH and EH&A, 1983b). Lignite mining activities also have the
 potential  to redistribute radioactive materials, due to the natural variability  of the uranium  and
 thorium series radionuclides in the environment.

           The radon emanation rate from the surface at some locations in the reclaimed mine
 area will be less  than the  predisturbed emanation rate, while at other locations in the reclaimed
 mine area, it will be greater. These changes in radon emanation rate will be  caused by variations
in soil porosity, soil density, and emanation power (the fraction emanated to the pore spaces) in the
reclaimed area.
                                           II-2

-------
            Data from three overburden cores take by TUMCO from Titus County, southwest of
the proposed B-2 mine show uranium concentrations in various stratigraphic units ranging from
0.001 ppm to 0.006 ppm. The weighted average for all cores was 0.003 ppm, approximately 0.2%
of the average concentration of uranium in soils reported by Lowder et al. (1964).

            Data collected from five lignite samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (1979)
in Titus County show uranium concentrations in the lignite  to range from  1.9 to 3.7 ppm,
approximately 1 to 2 times the average concentration in soils reported by Lowder et al. (1964).

            The Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) requires collection and submittal of physical
and chemical data on overburden material in mine permit applications.  For years, determination
of uranium content in overburden materials for all proposed mines was required.  After review of
the vast data base accumulated by permit applicants, the RCT deleted the requirement  for
determination of uranium content in lignite mines  in the Wilcox Group in east Texas (e.g.
MonticelIo-B2) due to the very low concentrations of uranium found in overburden materials. Coal
and lignite mines in other parts of the state are still  required to determine uranium content in
overburden materials.

            Based on available data, no adverse health effects due to release of radionuclides from
mining operations at the proposed B-2 mine are anticipated.

4.          Noise

            The  impact assessment  of noise presented  in the  DEIS  was based on  computer
modeling which predicted the project-induced noise levels at various locations in and around  the
proposed permit area. These projected noise levels were compared  to existing sound levels
measured in the field by EPA's consultant, EH&A. The anticipated L^ of 70 dBA at receptor site
4 (Green Hill Church), reflects an increase of 7 dBA over the baseline ambient sound  level.
Receptor sites 5  (Ripley Church) and 6  (Damascus Church) would  experience an increase of 16
dBA, resulting in a L^ of 78 dBA for receptor site 5 and a L^ of 81 dBA for receptor site 6, due
to their  proximity to mining cell  boundaries (400 and 300 ft, respectively).   The sound level
increases represent periodic minor or major adverse noise impacts at these receptors depending on
the timing and activities occurring.

           To verify the results of the model projections, EH&A collected sound measurements
at two of TUMCO's active mining areas  near Mount Pleasant, Texas. Measurements were made
at 10 separate locations, during the day and at night. These locations were at various distances from
active mining operations ranging from 360 to 9,200 feet from the operating draglines.  With the
exception of the three monitoring locations within 600 feet of the draglines, measured sound levels
at all  monitoring locations were below the HUD-acceptable outdoor L^ level of 65 dBA for all
residences and within EPA's guidelines for a short-term goal L^ of 65 dBA.

5.          Water Quality

           As required by the Railroad Commission of Texas regulations, TUMCO has prepared
a mining and reclamation plan that contains a detailed description of measures to be taken during
and after proposed mining activities to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within the
                                           II-3

-------
 permit area and adjacent areas; to prevent material damage outside the permit area; to meet
 applicable Federal and State water quality laws and regulations; and to protect the rights of present
 water users.

            Surface water monitoring programs required by EPA and surface water and groundwater
 monitoring programs required by the Railroad Commission of Texas will be used to judge the
 adequacy of TUMCO's  plan in minimizing impacts to water quality.

            Recent NPDES monitoring results at the existing mining areas indicated an  excellent
 compliance rating with EPA-established discharge limits.

 6.         Property Values

            Mining and reclamation activities are expected to result in increased levels of noise, dust
 and traffic in the immediate vicinity of the active pit, and along haul roads.  Active mining will be
 transitory. However, when mining activities occur near the permit boundary, short-term negative
 impacts to adjacent landowners are anticipated. In addition to previously listed impacts,  aesthetic
 impacts are likely unless the mining activities are screened by wooded buffer areas.

            During periods of active mining in proximity to adjacent properties outside the permit
 area, a negative impact on value of the adjacent property may occur. This adverse economic impact
 should be mitigated, however, by contemporaneous reclamation and revegetation of the mined area.

 7.         Project-Induced Impacts to Existing Traffic Patterns

            Section 3.8.2.5 of the DEIS (pp. 3-143 through 3-145) discusses the anticipated impacts
 to the existing transportation patterns and the closing and/or relocation of existing roads related to
 the proposed mining activities. These activities will result in occasional short-term or long-term
 adverse impacts on the local transportation network.

 8.         Use of Native Grasses vs. Coastal  Bermudagrass in  Reclamation

            Section 3.3.1.2 of the DEIS (pp. 3-71 through 3-76) discusses the advantages of using
 an assemblage of adapted native species in reclamation.

            Reclamation of pastureland with the non-native coastal bermudagrass generally requires
 high levels of management to maintain. Native species adapted to the study area can establish and
 persist with very low management levels.  Once reclamation performance standards have been
 demonstrated, reclaimed land will be released from bond and will revert to the legal owner.  The
 productivity of the land following release from bond will be depend on the use and management of
 the land by the  landowner.

 C.        SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE

           Part of EPA's NEPA review has included an assessment of potential impacts on cultural
resources in order  to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.  As a
result, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been developed by EPA in consultation with  the Texas
                                            H-4

-------
Historical Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (see Appendix E).  This
PA provides a procedural framework under which cultural properties eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be identified and protected prior to their disturbance or
destruction in the course of mining operations. Through its concurrence in the PA, TUMCO has
committed  to fully cooperate with EPA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the
Texas Historical Commission in this effort.

D.         SECTION 404 COMPLIANCE

           A permit is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act  from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) to place dredged or fill material (e.g. mine overburden) within waters
of the United States, including most wetlands. EPA reviews Section 404 permit applications for
compliance with the 404 (b)(l) Guidelines and makes its recommendations to the COE.

           As a part of its 404 review on this proposed project, EPA is coordinating the EIS with
the Fort Worth District COE as it relates to the assessment of, and mitigation for, potential adverse
impacts on jurisdictional wetlands. Appendix D of this Final EIS includes TUMCO's proposed
wetland mitigation plan.  Comments received on this plan will be considered by EPA in its final
permit decision.

           With the inclusion of the proposed wetland mitigation plan (Appendix D), this project
appears to comply with the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. If accepted by EPA, this mitigation plan
should be made effective  as a supplement to and a part of the NPDES permit application.
                                           II-5

-------
                                TABLE II-l SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
     PART 1. QRAI rpMMRNTS - PUBLIC HEARING
 1-    Mr. David Logan, citizen

      Expressed concerns regarding noise and  dust  from the
      proposed mine area,  and airborne releases of fertilizer
      from existing TU nursery near his home.

 2.    Mr. Arneil McBeth, citizen

      Expressed concern that he was  not  notified  of the
      availability of the draft EIS.

 3.    Ms. Marion  Bell McCoy, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding dust from the proposed B-2
      mine area and the impact on adjacent landowners.

 4.    Mr. Hayward Rigano,  citizen

      Expressed concern over fugitive dust emissions and noise
      from the  proposed  B-2 mine.   Expressed  additional
      concerns regarding impacts  to groundwater from  mining
      and air quality impacts from  burning of lignite  at the
      power plant.

      Expressed concern regarding impacts  to public  health
      resulting from mining and reclamation activities.

5.    Mr. Walker Ivey, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding surface water runoff from the
      proposed B-2 mine area, dust, noise and impacts to topsoil
      resulting from proposed mining and reclamation activities.
6.   Mr. Rick Heitzman, citizen

     Requested information on TUMCO's proposed discharge.
     Expressed concern regarding noise,  dust,  and impacts to
     surface water and groundwater resulting from mining and
     reclamation activities.

7.   Mr. Bill Luck, citizen

     Expressed concerns  regarding project-induced  impacts
     related to air quality, water quality, noise  and traffic.

8.   Mr. Doug Mercier, citizen

     Expressed concern regarding impacts to groundwater, air
     quality and resulting health  effects.

9.   Mr. K.F.  Jones, citizen

     Expressed concern regarding impacts to surface water and
     groundwater resources.

10.   Ms. Mary F. Stubbs, citizen

     Expressed concern  over project-related  impacts  to air
     quality, groundwater and property values.

11.   Ms. Verna Wilson, citizen

     Expressed concern regarding health effects associated with
     fugitive   dust  resulting  from  proposed  mining  and
     reclamation activities.

-------
Part 1 (Continued)
12.   Mr. Thomas Stark, citizen

      Questioned the adequacy of the 300 ft "buffer" between a
      residence and an active mining area, established  by
      Congress.

13.   Mr. John M. Ellis, M.D., citizen

      Expressed  concern  regarding  surface  water  impacts
      downstream of the proposed B-2 mining area.

14.   Ms. Joan Roberts, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding health and safety of residents
      adjacent to the proposed B-2 mine area.

15.   Mr. James W. Shanahan, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding noise, dust, impacts to public
      health and impacts to wildlife.

16.   Ms. Marvin Robertson, citizen

      Expressed concerns regarding project related impacts to
      transportation, sound quality, public  health and property
      values.

17.   Mr. Albert King, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding  impacts to property values,
      adequacy of air  quality  impacts assessment, impact of
      project-induced  fugitive dust,  noise  and vibration.  He
      questioned  the adequacy  of the 300 ft buffer between
      residences and active mining areas established by Congress.

18.   Mr. Marcus E. Stroman, citizen
     Expressed  concerns  regarding  dust,  noise,  impacts to
     hydrologic  resources, impacts  to property  values  and
     impacts to transportation system.

19.  Mr. Norman R. Mason,  citizen

     Expressed   concern  regarding  the  impact   to   Lake
     Tankersley, and the proposed road closings in the area.

20.  Ms. Patricia Pittman, citizen

     Expressed  concern regarding  impacts  to groundwater
     resources resulting from mining activities.

21.  Mr. Billy Porter, citizen

     Expressed  concern regarding dust, surface water runoff,
     vibrations  and health effects resulting from  mining and
     reclamation operations.

22.  Ms. Weldon Campbell, citizen

     Expressed  concern regarding  health effects  associated with
     proposed mining and reclamation operations.

23.  Mr. Bill Hassell, citizen

     Expressed  concern over  impacts to property values.

-------
00
Part 1 (Concluded)

24.   Ms. Autumn Clark, citizen

      Expressed concern about dust and associated public health
      effects.

25.   Mr. Jimmy Clark, citizen

      Expressed concern on  impacts to existing  transportation
      and  property values, and health effects associated  with
      fugitive dust from mining and reclamation operations.

26.   Ms. Regina Modrall, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding fugitive dust, noise, vibration
      and public health effects of mining.

27.   Ms. Susy Wynn,  citizen

      Expressed concern regarding health effects, property values
      and impact  on water resources.

28.   Mr. Marvin Basinger, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding project-related noise impacts.

-------
            PART 2.  WRITTEN COMMENTS

I.    U.S. Department  of Health  and Human Services, Public
     Health   Service,   Kenneth   W.   Holt,    M.S.E.H.,
     Environmental Health Scientist, Center for Environmental
     Health and Injury Control

     Potential impacts  of concern, including ground water and
     surface water contamination, noise and air  emissions have
     been addressed. Follow-up of monitoring for Rn-222 may
     be prudent to verify expected levels during and following
     mining operations.

2.    United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
     and Atmosphereic  Administration,  David  Cottingham,
     Director Ecology  and  Environmental Conservation Office

     Indicates that both horizontal and vertical geodetic control
     survey monuments may be located in the proposed project
     area.  Stated that the Office of Charting and Geodetic
     Services requires a minimum of 90 days notice prior to any
     planned activities  that will disturb or destroy these survey
     monuments in order to plan for their relocation.

3.   Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Claudia Nissley,
     Director, Western Office

     Provided specific  comments  on the draft Programmatic
     Agreement  developed  for  the  protection of cultural
      resources potentially impacted by the proposed project.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Worth District Corps
of Engineers, L.M. Hawkins, Jr., Chief, Office Operations
Branch

Expressed concern that the draft EIS did not adequately
address   impacts   to   wetlands,  including  appropriate
mitigation  measures.     Expressed   belief  that  the
Programmatic Agreement offers sufficient compliance with
Section  106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental
Affairs,  Raymond  P.   Churan,  Regional Environmental
Officer

Expressed  concern that draft  EIS  fails  to adequately
address  the individual  and cumulative impacts of mine
operations  on  wetlands.   Indicated  that  not  enough
emphasis was placed on avoidance of wetlands. Expressed
concern the TUMCO's proposed reclamation plan does not
emphasize  reclamation  of  important  wildlife  habitat.
Concerned  about  the  failure of the  EIS  to adequately
assess project related impacts to fish and wildlife  habitat
resultant from the  loss of wetlands.

Texas Department of  Health,  Radiation Control, Mary
Thorpe   Parker,  Ph.D., Chief Ecological  .Evaluations
Program, Environmental Assessments Branch

Requested copies of documents referenced in the draft EIS
and asked to be placed on EPA's mailing list to receive
copies of EPA EISs on lignite projects in Texas.

-------
Pan 2 (Continued)
7.
8.
10.
Texas  Department  of  Health,  L.D.  Thurman,  P.E.,
Associate Commissioner for Environmental and Consumer
Health Protection.

Encouraged close evaluation of surface water and ground
water monitoring programs.  Expressed concern regarding
lack of site specific data on radionuclide concentrations in
the lignite.  Opined  that  the Public Health section (3.9)
of the draft EIS was  not well prepared and is inadequate
for determination of the potential for significant impact
upon public  health of the mining operation.

Texas Historical  Commission, James  E. Bruseth, Ph.D.,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Requested additional  information from EPA related to the
Programmatic Agreement.   Offered a  number of specific
comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Larry D. McKinney,
Ph.D., Director, Resource Protection Division

Made reference to comments submitted on preliminary
draft  EIS (see 10 below).  Noted deletion of material in
the draft EIS that was included in preliminary draft EIS.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,  Charles D. Travis,
Executive Director

Recommended use  of  native species  for  permanent
reclamation.  Recommended establishment of diversity and
interspersion  of  plants.   Recommended  avoidance  of
monocultures.
     Recommended protection and/or restoration of important
     wildlife habitat and natural communities.  Recommended
     plants to  be included  and  others  to be excluded from
     reclamation  plans.

11.   Titus County Citizens An  Endangered  Species,  Inc.
     Hayward Rigano, President

     Expressed concerns regarding impacts to  public  health,
     resulting from noise, dust, radon emissions due to mining
     and reclamation  operations.  Questioned the adequacy of
     TUMCO's  proposed  reclamation  operations,  and  the
     impacts  to soils.

12.   Jerry and Mary Glower, citizens

     Expressed concern regarding impact  to property values
     resulting from noise, dust and vibration due to proposed
     mining operations.

13.   John M. Ellis, M.D., citizen

     Expressed concern regarding impacts to surface water and
     groundwater resources.

14.   Rayford W.  Jones, Jr.,  citizen

     Expressed concern regarding impacts to water resources,
     sound quality and requested  EPA to deny issuance of the
     permit.

-------
Part 2 (Concluded)

15.   Morris and Florene Deaton, citizens

      Expressed concern regarding noise, increased  traffic and
      dust from proposed  mining operations and the resultant
      impact to human health and property values.

16.   Doug Mercier, citizen

      Expressed opposition to permit issuance, citing concerns
     •of impacts to public  health, impacts to water resources,
      particulate matter, acid rain, impacts to wildlife  habitat,
      and the impact to property values.

17.   Jimmy Clark,  citizen

      Expressed opposition to issuance of the permit. Expressed
      concerns  regarding impacts to air  quality and property
      values.   Requested information regarding legal rights of
      affected landowners.

18.   Nita H. Cassata,  citizen

      Suggested  that  EPA  enlighten  the  public  regarding
      acceptable pollution levels.  Recommended establishment
      of  a buffer  area greater  than 300 ft  between  mining
      activities and occupied  dwellings.

19.   Marion Duncan McCoy, citizen

      Expressed concern regarding dust, noise and vibration, and
      impacts to vegetation and wildlife.
20.   Mary Ellen Carey, citizen

     Expressed  opposition  to  permit  issuance.   Expressed
     concern regarding health effects impacts, noise and impacts
     to  property  values  resulting  from  proposed  mining
     activities.

21.   James W. Shanahan,  citizen

     Expressed  opposition  to  permit  issuance.   Expressed
     concern regarding fugitive dust and its impact on human
     health,  impacts to wildlife, and impacts to property values.

22.   Gary Goynes, citizen

     Expressed  concern regarding public health impacts.  He
     opined  that mining should not take place within 3 miles of
     an occupied dwelling.  Expressed opposition to mining of
     the B-2 area.

23.   Barron Hardison, citizen

     Expressed concern over public health impacts, impacts to
     property values and impacts to wildlife.

24.   Legett Garrett, TUMCO

     Provided  additional  information  and  clarification on
     TUMCO's  reclamation  plans  and  mitigation strategies
     aimed  at  reducing  impacts  to soils,  wetlands,  water
     resources and fish and wildlife habitat.

-------
         Part III
Modifications and
Corrections to the
Draft EIS

-------
PART IH.  MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS

This part of the Final EIS contains revisions made to the Draft EIS based on errors and omissions
identified through the public review process, or resulting from internal review by EPA and the EIS
consultant.  Minor changes are incorporated into a list of Errata, Section A; major changes are in
Section B (changes indicated by a vertical line in the margin').

A.          ERRATA

The changes to the Draft EIS listed below are of an editorial nature.  Consequently, the affected
pages have not been reprinted in full.  In each case, the table identifies the page, paragraph and
sentence which has been revised.  Revisions are indicated in the "Change" column.  New or
modified material is underlined.
Page No.
S-6
Section or Paragraph
    Groundwater
Line No.
S-6
     Vegetation
   10
           Change
...Significant   draw-
downs should...to ...Sig-
nificant drawdowns, i.e.
greater than five feet.
should..

...  indirect affects are
also   anticipated...to
..indirect   effects  to
vegetation  are  also
anticipated...
S-7
S-7
   Sound Quality
   Sound Quality
2-11
       2.7.2
                 ... near
       jhe perimeter
         mine  boun-
                 dary.^...   near  the
                 mine boundary

                 ... four baseline noise
                 located... to four base-
                 line  noise  receptors
                 located...

                 Scrapers  to  auxiliary
                 equipment such as end
                 dumps, backhoes. etc.
3-48
    Table 3.2-11
                  Ellis-Kellev Lake Club
                  to Ellis-Kellev Lake
                                           III-l

-------
Page No.             Section or Paragraph        Line No.                   Change
3-81                        33.1.4                 12            ...  direct adverse.and
                                                                long-term impacts... to
                                                                direct.  adverse.short-
                                                                term  and  long-term
                                                                impacts..
B.         CROSS REFERENCE OF PAGE REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS TO DRAFT EIS

DEIS Page No.                        FEIS Page No.                      Change
2-22                                      III-3                   Revisions

3-76                                      III-4                   Delete last paragraph

3-83                                      III-5                   Revision   to   Para-
                                                                 graphs 3 and 5.

                                          III-6                   Addition

                                          III-7                   Addition

3-102 thru 3-104                            III-8                   Addition to discussion
                                        thru IIM7                of Air Quality

7-9                                       ffl-18                   Addition of reference
                                                                 to Bibliography

1-1                                        111-19                   Add Fugitive Dust to
                                                                 Index
                                        III-2

-------
2.11.1       Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit

            A determination of areas subject to jurisdiction by the USCE under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act was made pursuant to requirements of the SPGP SWF-85-Texas-SPGP-l
issued and administered by the Fort Worth District USCE. Areas subject to jurisdiction within
the Monticello B-2 Study Area consist predominantly of defined surface drainages, man-made on-
channel ponds, and areas of contiguous or isolated wetlands. The major surface drainage features
in the study area include Tankersley Creek, Piney Creek, East Piney Creek, and Hart Creek.
Jurisdictional wetlands constitute 558 acres.  Total jurisdictional area for on-channel ponds is
175 acres and jurisdictional area for all surface streams within the project area is 71 acres.  The
total area of 404 jurisdiction is approximately 805 acres.

            TUMCO's mine plan calls for the avoidance of 410 acres of jurisdictional waters and
wetlands. Therefore, 394.6 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands will be directly affected
by project activities.  This acreage is comprised of

                Forest wetlands                            150.9 acres
                Non-forested wetlands                       79.8 acres
                On-channel ponds                          124.4 acres
                Streams                                    39.5 acres

          TUMCO's proposed plan (see Appendix D) is to replace impacted wetland areas on
an acre-for-acre basis except for forested wetlands which will be replaced at a ratio of 3 acres for
each acre impacted. This proposed mitigation ratio is consistent with EPA's policy to pursue the
goal of no net loss of the nation's wetlands. If accepted by EPA, this mitigation plan should be
made effective as a supplement to and a part of the NPDES permit application.
                                          III-3

-------
            The reclaimed surface will be contoured to promote the creation of wetlands where
 appropriate.  Wetlands may be located in the floodplain adjacent to stream channels, bordering
 ponds or impoundments, associated with springs or seeps, or in low spots or depressions in the
 natural topography. This will create a diverse wetland habitat ranging from emergent vegetation
 in areas  that are  continually  inundated to  shrub and forested wetlands in areas periodically
 submerged by fluctuating water levels. Conceptual plans of wetland reconstruction are presented
 in Figure 33-4 (TUMCO, 1989a).

            Trees and shrubs to be used in the establishment of forested wetland areas will enhance
 the value of reclaimed  wildlife habitat  by providing food, cover and nesting areas, as well as
 increasing plant species diversity. Generally, tree and shrub plantings will be in oblong, irregularly
 shaped areas, along selected waterflow areas and other patterns designed to provide travel lanes for
 wildlife species  (SCS, 1985).

            A variety of hardwood,  softwood, shrub and herbaceous species common to lowland
 areas within the region will be selected for planting in the mitigation areas.  Appendix O of this
 FEIS presents  species  which  have shown adaptability  in  regeneration on  post-mined and
 reconstructed soil (EH&A, 1990).   At present,  TUMCO receives seedling stock from three
 nurseries, with seed sources derived principally from east  Texas (Stroud, 1991). The planting of
 mast-producing species in reclaimed bottomlands is a preferred means of creating wildlife habitat.
 TUMCO strives to revegetate with 70 to 80% oak species in lowland areas, yet this percentage is
 dependent upon plant material availability from nursery sources. Information provided to TUMCO
 suggests that trees should be planted in lowland  areas (e.g., forested wetlands) at a  density of
 approximately 200 trees per acre  (a spacing  of approximately 15 ft by 15 ft).   This spacing
 accommodates the wider growth habits of oaks and other hardwood species as compared to the
 closer spacing associated with upland species such as pine.

            Reclamation success will be evaluated based upon regulation guidelines and utilizing
 such parameters  as  percent ground  cover, comparison to  undisturbed  reference  areas, and
 productivity standards (TUMCO, 1989a).

 3.3.1.3      Construction Impacts

            The areal extent of vegetation types to be removed as a result of construction activities
 is presented in  Table 33-2. The primary construction impacts will result from development of
 features which will service the initial mine block including retention  ponds (25 acres), haul roads
 (90 acres), and surface  water diversions  (131 acres). This construction will affect approximately
 184 acres of grassland, 18 acres of upland forest, 7 acres of pine forest, and 28 acres of bottomland
 hardwood forest, as well as 1 acre of aquatic habitat, 3 acres of cropland, and 5 acres of disturbed
 areas.  Mining is  considered the overriding impact and,  in areas where these above-described
 facilities overlap with mine blocks, the affected area is discussed in Section 3.3.1.4 as an effect of
 mining and presented in tables 3.3-3 and 33-4.   Therefore, the acreages presented in Table 33-2
 represent only areas of effect outside of the mine blocks. Due to the centralized location of these
 facilities, they are likely to continue  to service other mine blocks throughout the life of the mine.
The associated impacts are, therefore, considered long-term adverse impacts to vegetation.  During
the operational phase of the mine, additional haul roads, surface water diversions and retention
                                           III-4

-------
ponds will be constructed, and these areas are included in discussions related to mine operation
impacts (Section 3.3.1.4).

            The most important commercial species planted for pastureland and hay in the study
area are common and coastal bermudagrasses along with ryegrass and clovers.  To a lesser extent,
dallisgrass and bahiagrass are also planted.  Approximately 4,181 acres of grassland will be impacted
by mining activities (the majority of which is presently improved pasture).  The reclamation plan
proposes to reclaim 100% of the total area impacted by mining in pastureland use; 83% of this will
actually be replanted for pasture forage production. Annual species of wheat and oats will initially
be planted as temporary vegetative cover. Eventually, coastal bermudagrass, common bermudagrass,
crimson clover, arrowleaf clover, and vetch will be established as permanent pasture (TUMCO,
1989a). Consequently, adverse impacts to the most commercially important forage species in the
study area will persist only until reclamation is complete, at which time these species will have been
replaced in greater proportions than they presently exist, reflecting the general land use trends of
the region (TUMCO, 1989a).

            Other Important  Species.  Other important plant species are those which  provide
valuable forage and habitat  to wildlife.  Adverse impacts will result from the removal of mature,
mast-producing species in the area such as post oak, southern  red  oak, water oak, mockernut
hickory, and black hickory. These impacts are long-term in nature because of the slow growth rate
of these species.  Other species in the study area which have excellent forage and habitat value
include flowering dogwood, eastern  redcedar, deciduous holly, yaupon, sumacs, and southern
dewberry.  Adverse impacts to these latter species are attenuated somewhat because they can be
successfully re-established in a relatively short time period, especially if they are included among the
species to be planted for wildlife habitat and livestock cover as discussed in Section 3.3.1.2.

            Ecologically Sensitive Areas. Portions of the bottomland hardwood forest and aquatic
communities described in Section 3.3.1.1 have been designated as jurisdictional waters or wetlands.
These jurisdictional  areas have been categorized as on-channel ponds, streams, and variously
vegetated wetlands and represent the vast majority of ecologically sensitive habitat within the study
area.  The areal extent of impacts to these areas due to mining  operations is presented in
Table 33-4A and Table 33-4B. Of the 6,174 acres of total direct impact due to mining operations,
approximately 394.6 acres are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or wetlands.

            Any fill  placed  in jurisdictional  areas requires the authorization of the USCE in
accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  All jurisdictional areas
directly removed by mining activities will be restored and enhanced where practicable. Wetlands
along drainageways, stream channels, and ponds will be re-established and restored with appropriate
plant species  (TUMCO, 1989a).  TUMCO's proposed wetland mitigation  plan is included as
Appendix D to this FEIS.
                                           III-5

-------
                       TABLE 3.3-4A
AREAL EXTENT (ACRES) OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS
      DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY PROPOSED MINING OPERATIONS
                  DURING FIRST FIVE YEARS
                  MONTICELLO B-2 PROJECT
Type of
Activity
Mine Blocks
Haul Roads
Impoundments
Diversions
Pipeline Relocations
Transmission Lines
Spoil Areas
TOTALS
Forested
Wetlands
5.7
0.0
8.0
0.1
0.2
1.4
	 QA
15.8
Non-forested
Wetlands
7.3
0.0
6.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
_^3
18.1
On-channel
Ponds
21.9
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.9
	 OJ)
23.4
Streams
1.7
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.1
	 O2
2.9
Subtotals
36.6
0.1
14.7
2.2
0.8
2.9
__2£
60.2

-------
                                            TABLE 3.3-4B
                  AREAL EXTENT (ACRES) OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS
                        DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY PROPOSED MINING OPERATIONS
                                       DURING LIFE OF MINE1
                                      MONTICELLO B-2 PROJECT
Type of
Activity
Mine Blocks
Haul Roads
Impoundments
Diversions
Pipeline Relocations
Transmission Lines
Auxiliary Area
TOTALS
Forested
Wetlands
121.4
5.1
2.4
1.7
0.0
1.5
3.0
135.1
Non-forested
Wetlands
42.3
0.0
5.2
1.6
0.2
3.6
8.8
61.7
On-channel
Ponds
94.2
0.0
4.2
0.0
. 0.0
2.6
0.0
101.0
Streams
27.7
0.1
5.7
0.5
*
1.7
0.9
36.6
Subtotals
285.6
5.2
17.5
3.8
0.2
9.4
12.7
334.4
1   Excluding acreage affected during first five years, which is presented in Table 3.3-4A.
*   <0.1

-------
 3.4.1.2     Air Quality

            Air Quality Regulations and Their Relationship to Preventing Adverse Health Effects

            National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

            The United States Congress has established the framework for air qualify regulations
 through passage of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the Adminstrator of EPA to
 establish national ambient air quality standards for air contaminants for which  emissions, in the
 judgement of the EPA, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
 to endanger public health or welfare. The presence of emissions in the ambient air results from
 numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources. National primary ambient air quality standards
 define levels of air quality which the EPA judges are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety,
 to protect the public health.  National secondary ambient air quality standards define levels of air
 quality which  the  EPA judges necessary  to  protect the public welfare from any  known or
 anticipated  adverse effects  of a pollutant   Thus far,  the EPA has  established  primary and
 secondary ambient  air quality standards for six pollutants: PM10 (paniculate matter with an
 aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (a micrometer is one-millionth of a
 meter)),  sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and lead. The standards are
 expressed as an ambient  air concentration for various averaging periods.  The current national
 ambient air quality standards are contained in Table 3.4-1.

            Of the current  national ambient air quality standards, only PM/0 is expected to be
 emitted from  the  proposed Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine.   The  PM!0  primary and
 secondary standards were established on July 1, 1987.  Prior to that time,  primary and secondary
 national ambient air quality standards existed for total suspended particulate (TSP).  The TSP
 primary National Ambient  Air Quality Standard was set at 260 micrograms  per cubic meter
 Gig/nr*,  24-hour average  not to be  exceeded more than  once per year  and 75 US/TO*,  annual
 geometric mean.  The TSP secondary National Ambient  Air  Quality Standard was  150  ng/m3,
 24-hour period not  to be exceeded more than once per year and a 60 /jg/nr* annual  geometric
 mean.

            Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Ambient Air Quality (PSD)

            For areas which have attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Clean
 Air Act provides for a new  source review program to ensure that no significant deterioration of
 the existing air quality will  result from the construction of new emission sources and from  the
 modification of existing  emission  sources.   Pursuant  to the  Clean  Air Act, the  EPA  has
 promulgated prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air quality (PSD)  regulations which
 provides for a preconstruction review by the state air quality agency of "major" emission sources
 of air pollutants which are regulated under the Clean Air Act.  For 28 designated sources of air
 contaminants,  a "major" stationary source is defined as a stationary source which has the potential
 to emit 100 tons per year or more of any of the pollutants regulated under the Clean Air  Act
including  any fugitive emissions (non-stationary source).  Other stationary sources of pollutants
are defined as "major" if the proposed emissions of any pollutant regulated by the Clean Air  Act
                                           III-8

-------
                                          TABLE 3.4-1

                       NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
          National Standards
            Primary1
          Secondary2
 Paniculate  Matter (Particles
 with an aerodynamic diameter
 less than or equal to a nominal
 10 micrometers, PM,0)3
 Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ
 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO;)
 Ozone (O3)
Lead (Pb)
150/jg/m3  24-hour  average,
not to be exceeded more than
an average of one day per year
over  a   three-calendar-year
period.

50 jig/m3  annual  arithmetic
mean.

365 ng/m*  (0.14 ppm)  maxi-
mum 24-hour concentration,
not to be exceeded more than
once a year.
             o
80 /jg/m3 (0.03 ppm)  annual
arithmetic mean.

40,000 /jg/m3 (35 ppm) hourly
average, not  to be  exceeded
more than once a year.
10,000 fig/m3  (9 ppm) eight-
hour  average,  not to be ex-
ceeded more than once a year.

100 Atg/m3 (0.053 ppm) annual
arithmetic mean.

235 /jg/m3  (0.12 ppm)  daily
maximum hourly average, not
to be exceeded more than an
average  of  one day per  year
over  a   three-calendar-year
period.

1.5 /jg/m3 maximum arithmetic
mean averaged over a calendar
quarter.
Same as primary.
1^00 fig/m3  (0.5 ppm)  maxi-
mum three-hour concentra-
tion, not to be exceeded more
than once a year.
Same as primary.
Same as primary.


Same as primary.
Same as primary.
1   Primary standards define levels of air quality which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
    Administrator judges necessary to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety.

2   Secondary standards define levels of air quality which the EPA Administrator judges necessary to protect
    the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant

3   The PM10 standards were promulgated effective 7/31/87. Prior to that time, the indicator for paniculate
    matter was total suspended paniculate matter (TSP). The most restrictive TSP standards were 150 /ig/m3,
    24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once a year, and 60 pg/m3, annual geometric mean.

Source: 40CFR50.
                                              III-9

-------
 are 250 tons per year or more excluding any fugitive emissions.  Lignite mining operations are
 not one of the 28 designated sources which are considered "major" at 100 tons per year.

            The only air pollutant regulated  by the Clean Air Act which will be emitted by the
 proposed lignite mining operation is particulate matter.  The only emission sources associated with
 the proposed mining operation will be fugitive dust emissions.  Since the lignite mining operation
 is  not one of the 28 specified "major" sources,  there are no stationary sources  associated with
 the operation, and the mine and power plant are separate sources for PSD purposes, the PSD
 regulations do not  apply to  the operation (see TACB letters dated November 12, 1990  and
 August 1, 1991 in Appendix G).

            New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

            The  Clean Air Act requires the EPA to  publish a list of categories of stationary
 sources which in its judgement causes  or contributes significantly to air  pollution  which may
 reasonably be anticipated to endanger health or welfare. The EPA is then required to establish
 standards  of performance for new sources within each category  which reflects  the degree of
 emission limitation and  the  percentage reduction achievable  through application of the best
 technological system of continuous emission reduction which the EPA  determines has been
 adequately demonstrated, taking into consideration the costs of achieving the emission reductions,
 any non-air quality health and environmental impact, and energy requirements. Thus far, the EPA
 has promulgated performance standards for 60 sources of air pollutants but there  is no New
 Source Performance Standard for mining operations.

            National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

            The  Clean Air Act requires the EPA to publish a list of hazardous air pollutants
 which are defined as those pollutants to which no ambient air quality standard is applicable and
 which in the judgement of the EPA causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably
 be anticipated to result in an increase in  mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
 incapacitating reversible illness.   The EPA is  then required  to establish standards for those
 hazardous air pollutants which in its judgement provides an ample margin of safety to protect the
 public health.  Thus far, NESHAPs have been promulgated for Radon-222, beryllium, mercury,
 vinyl chloride, radionuclides, benzene, asbestos, and inorganic arsenic emissions. Of these, only
 radionuclides, Radon-222, beryllium and mercury are ordinarily found in the overburden associated
 with the lignite  mining, but only in trace  amounts.   None of the  NESHAPs standards are
 applicable to lignite mining operations.

            State Implementation  Plan for Particulate  Matter

            Within  nine months after  the  promulgation of  a national primary  or secondary
ambient air quality standard for a pollutant,  the Clean Air Act requires each state to submit a
plan  which provides for  implementation, maintenance,  and  enforcement of the  primary or
secondary standard in each air quality control region within the state.  Development of the state
implementation plan (SIP) consists of a lengthy rulemaking process,  including public notice, in
which the state adopts regulations intended to meet minimally acceptable Federal criteria in the
manner most consistent with the State's air quality goals.  Once an SIP is approved by the EPA,
                                           111-10

-------
the primary authority for enforcement of the SIP is delegated to the state.  If a state fails to
submit an adequate SIP, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to prepare and promulgate an
implementation plan setting forth any necessary regulations.

           The PM10 SIP  for  Texas  consists  of the  state regulations contained in  TACB
Regulation I, Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and Paniculate Matter, 31 Texas
Administrative Code Chapter 111.  The primary Regulation I rule which would apply to the
proposed lignite surface mine is  Rule 111.155 which establishes net ground level concentration
limits for paniculate matter of 200 /ig/nr*  averaged over any three consecutive hours  and
400 fig/m3 averaged  over  any one-hour period.  This rule applies to concentrations of  total
suspended paniculate (TSP) and not just to
           Texas Air Control Board Regulation VIII, Control of Air Pollution Episodes

           TACB Regulation VIII provides for control of air pollution episodes.  It defines a
level-one air pollution episode for paniculate matter as 24-hour average concentrations equal to
or greater than 750 pg/m*.  A level-two air pollution episode for paniculate matter is defined as
24-hour  average concentrations equal to or greater than  1,000 /ig/m5.  The requirements of
Regulation VIII do not apply to episodes caused by naturally occurring dust storms.

           Existing Air Quality

           Texas Air Control Board Monitoring Data

           From 1980 to 1982, a TSP monitor was operated by the TACB in Mount Pleasant,
approximately 7 .5 miles east of the present Monticello  Lignite Mine. From 1980 to 1984, TSP
monitors were operated in  Longview and Texarkana by the TACB.  From 1980 to 1987, a TSP
monitor was operated by the TACB in Tyler. A summary of the monitoring data from these four
sites is contained in Table 3.4-2.

           The Mount Pleasant and Longview sites are rural sites. The Texarkana and Tyler
sites were located within the city and tended to measure areas with urban characteristics.  This
is proven out by the higher TSP values measured at these two locations compared to the monitors
near Mount  Pleasant  and Longview.   The TSP measured at the site nearest the existing
Monticello mine tended to be slightly higher than the TSP values  measured in  Longview but
lower than the TSP values measured in Texarkana and Tyler.  None of the monitors showed any
exceedances of the primary NAAQS for TSP.  The highest 2nd-high 24-hour sample among the
four monitors was  136 ng/m3, measured in Tyler,  as  compared  to the primary NAAQS of
260 ng/m3 and the secondary NAAQS of 150 ng/m3. The highest annual geometric mean among
the four monitors was 62 ng/m3, measured at Tyler in 1984,' as compared to the primary NAAQS
annual standard of 75 pg/m3 and the secondary NAAQS annual standard of 60 pg/mj. The highest
2nd-high  24-hour sample  measured at Mount Pleasant was 93 jig/m3 and the highest geometric
mean measured at Mount Pleasant was 51 ng/m3.  These monitors also showed no exceedances
of the air pollution episode thresholds contained in TACB Regulation VIII.

           All of these data from the four TSP monitors have been examined by the TACB and
the effects of natural  dust storms have  been removed.   Natural dust storms  can affect the
                                         III-ll

-------
        TABLE 3.4-2




TACB TSP MONITORING DATA
TACB Monitor
Site Location
Winfield

Monticeilo

Mount Pleasant


Longview




Texarkana




Tyler







Year
1988
(2 months)
1984
(2 months)
1980
1981
1982
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
#of
Samples
30

52

55
53
49
56
55
55
55
54
55
52
47
53
46
52
55
36
51
57
54
57
13
24-hr
High
89

99

103
94
99
76
71
108
77
67
112
100
100
83
80
108
97
93
143
181



24-hr
2nd-High
(pg/m3)
88

83

90
93
81
64
68
82
73
64
108
92
96
81
78
105
87
84
90
136
128
92
61
Geometric
Mean
(pg/m3)
57

43

42
51
50
33
39
42
36
29
53
53
55
45
42
52
55
52
49
62
51
38
33
           IIM2

-------
monitored concentrations over a wide area of the state of Texas.  The TACB Meteorologist
examines hourly meteorological data from across the state to determine the days when dust storms
have occurred.  The following is  a  list of dust storm days identified by the TACB as having
affected TACB Region 8 (including Dallas, Tarrant County) and  TACB Region 12 (including
Titus County):
           January 19, 23, 24
           February 10,  11, 14, 15
           March 2, 3, 7, 8,  11, 12, 17, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
           April 1, 2, 5, 6
           May 20
           November 4, 15,  16, 26
           December 19, 27

           1989
           January 5, 6
           February 1
           March 14, 15, 16
           June 4, 7
           August 1
           November 15
           December 15

           From July 27 through September 30, 1984, the TACB operated six TSP monitors
surrounding the site of the Texas Utilities Generating Company Monticello Steam Electric Station
located approximately 6  miles to the southeast of the Monticello  Lignite Mines.  Fifty-four
samples were collected using hi-volume air filters which ran for periods of 24 hours, and analyzed
for TSP and 32 metals to assess the toxicity of the TSP. The TSP 24-hour average concentrations
ranged from a low of 18  ftg/m3 on September 30, 1984, to a high of 99 pg/mj on September 7,
1984.  The highest 24-hour average TSP  concentration was well below both the primary (260
Mg/m3) and secondary (150 ng/m3) NAAQS for TSP.  The geometric mean for  the two-month
period was 43 pg/m3 which was below both the primary  (75 pg/m3) and secondary (60 /jg/nr*)
NAAQS annual geometric mean.

           Trace amounts of 32 metals were identified and quantified in the TSP samples taken
around the power plant and the data was reviewed by the TACB Effects Evaluation Section. The
Effects Evaluation Section concluded that the maximum measured ambient concentrations of the
metals would not cause short-term adverse health effects  or long-term adverse health effects.

           At the request of the City of  Winfield, the TACB operated a TSP monitor located
on the roof of the old post office building near the center of the most populated area of Winfield
during the summer of 1988.  A 24-hour sample was collected every other day beginning May 1,
1988, and continued for two  months.  The city had  expressed concern that particulate matter
levels may be excessive due to the proximity of the city to the Monticello Lignite Mines and the
lignite-fueled  power plant.  The TSP 24-hour average concentrations ranged from a low of 29
                                         111-13

-------
 pg/m3 on June 25, 1988, to a high of 89 pg/m3 on June 13, 1988.  The highest 24-hour average
 TSP concentration was well below both the primary (260 /jg/mj) and secondary (ISO /ig/mj)
 NAAQS for TSP. The geometric mean for the two-month period was 57 ng/m3 which was below
 both the primary (75 pgfm?) and secondary (60 pgfm3) NAAQS annual geometric mean. The
 TACB noted that an annual geometric mean at Winfieid would be somewhat lower than 57 ng/m3
 since the two months sampled were during a relatively hot and dry  period of the year and would
 tend to produce higher results.  The TACB also noted that in general, when the wind was from
 the southeast (from the direction of the lignite mines and the lignite-fueled power plant) during
 the days the samples were collected, higher TSP concentrations were measured.  The TACB
 (1988c) concluded that the TSP measured in Winfield was likely influenced from mining but did
 not indicate that any adverse health or welfare effects were likely.

           TUMCO TSP Monitoring Data

           TUMCO operates a series of TSP monitors on its property around the Monticello
 Winfield North and South mines. During 1988, TUMCO reported that the TSP monitors around
 the Winfield North Mine measured 24-hour average TSP concentrations ranging  from a low of
 7 pg/ns3 to a high of 266.7 pg/ia? on March 1, 1988.  The second-highest concentration was
 reported to be 213-5 pg/m3 on February 24,  1988.  Of 526 samples taken around the Winfield
 North Mine, two exceeded the secondary (150 pg/tn?) NAAQS for  TSP for a 99.6% compliance
 demonstration and one sample exceeded the primary (260 pg/m3) NAAQS for TSP.  The March
 1 sample may have been affected by natural background levels since TACB records show natural
 dust storms in the area on March 2 and 3, 1988.

            During 1988, TUMCO reported  that the TSP  monitors around the Winfield South
 Mine measured 24-hour average TSP concentrations ranging from  a low of 3.5 pg/m3 to a high
 of 581.7 pg/m3  on March 7,  1988.  The second-highest concentration was reported  to  be
 209.6 pg/m3 on January  13, 1988.  Of 336  samples taken around the Winfield South Mine, five
 exceeded the secondary (150 pg/m3) NAAQS for TSP for a 98.5% compliance demonstration and
 one sample exceeded the primary (260 pg/m3) NAAQS for TSP. The company reported that the
 high concentration measured on March 7 was due to coastal sprigging activities.  TACB records
 also show that a natural dust storm occurred in the area on that date.

           During 1989, TUMCO reported  that the TSP  monitors around the Winfield North
 Mine measured a high 24-hour average TSP concentration of 1,032 pg/m3 on August 11, 1989,
 and a second-highest concentration of 165.6 on March 14, 1989. Of 391 samples taken around
 the Winfield North Mine, six exceeded the secondary (150 pg/m3) NAAQS for TSP  for a  98.5%
 compliance demonstration and one sample exceeded the primary (260 pg/m3) NAAQS for TSP.
 The company reported that the high value on August 11,1989, was  due to heavy truck traffic and
 that the second-highest value on March 14 was due to an extensive dust storm.  TACB records
 verify a natural dust storm occurred on March 14,  1989.  The high value on August  11, 1989
 exceeded the Level 1 air pollution episode level specified  in TACB  Regulation VIII, but* there
 was no indication that the general public was exposed to that concentration of TSP and there was
 no determination by the TACB that a Level 1 air pollution episode existed.  TUMCO reported
annual geometric mean concentrations for the monitors around the  Winfield North Mine ranging
                                        111-14

-------
from a low of 29.7 pg/mj to a high of 51.5  /ig/m*.  These  concentrations were below  the
secondary (60 ftg/m3) and primary (75 /*g/m3) annual NAAQS TSP standards.

           During 1989, TUMCO reported that the TSP monitors around the Winfield South
Mine measured a high 24-hour average TSP concentration of 724.4 /ig/m5 on March 14, 1989 and
a second-highest concentration of 143.1 pg/nr* on the same date.  Of 382 samples taken around
the Winfield South Mine, one exceeded the secondary (150 /*g/mj) NAAQS for TSP for a 99.7%
compliance demonstration and one sample exceeded the primary (260 Mg/™3) NAAQS for TSP.
The company reported that the high values on March 14, 1989, were due to an extensive dust
storm.   TACB records  verify a natural dust storm occurred on March 14,  1989.  If  the
concentrations measured during the dust storm are discounted, the highest concentration measured
was 67.7 fjtg/ta3 which is well below both the secondary and  primary 24-hour TSP  NAAQS.
TUMCO reported annual geometric mean concentrations  for the monitors around the Winfield
South Mine ranging from a low of 22.5 /ig/nr* to a high of 46.4 /xg/nr*. These concentrations were
below the secondary (60 ng/m3) and  primary (75 ftg/m3) annual NAAQS TSP standards.

           During 1990, TUMCO has begun  operating PM;(? monitors in addition  to the TSP
monitors.   From  53  samples  taken  at co-located  PM10 and TSP monitors from a period of
March 6  to April  30, 1990, the company has reported a geometric mean TSP concentration of
28.7 ng/m3 and a geometric mean PM/0 concentration of 15.5 ng/m3. This indicates a PM70/TSP
ratio of approximately 0.54.  Using this ratio, the TSP concentrations measured by the company
in 1989 can be converted to PM;o equivalents resulting in a maximum annual geometric mean
PM,0 equivalent of 28 fjtg/ta3  for monitors around the Winfield  North  Mine and a maximum
annual geometric  mean  PM70 equivalent concentration of 25  ng/m3 for monitors  around  the
Winfield  South Mine.  These  concentrations are well below the primary and secondary annual
PM;0 NAAQS of  50
           Analyses of Dust Samples in the Winfield Area

           In response to complaints from Winfield residents about dust from the Monticello
mines, the TACB regional office in Tyler has taken several samples  (tape lift) of dust  from
residences and commercial establishments near the mines.  Of 20 tape samples of dust taken near
the lignite  mines and  analyzed by the TACB laboratory, seven samples were shown to  have
significant concentrations of lignite  (ranging 35 to 85%).   A notice of violation of TACB
Rule 101.4, Nuisance, was sent to TUMCO by the TACB Regional Office in Tyler on March 16,
1988.   TACB  Rule 101.4 prohibits the emission of air contaminants in concentrations which are
or may tend  to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare,  animal life,
vegetation,  or property,  or  interferes with the normal  use and enjoyment of animal life,
vegetation,  or  property.  In response to the  Notice of Violation, TUMCO sent a letter to the
TACB on March 23, 1988, committing to operational measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions
in order to achieve and maintain compliance with  Rule  101.4. Specific operational measures
implemented by TUMCO to comply with  TACB Rule 101.4 include:

           1.    Curtailing operations in areas near sensitive receptors as necessary.
           2.    Applying emulsified asphalt to service roads as needed.
                                        111-15

-------
            3.    Continued watering of haulroads and service roads with concentrated efforts in
                 critical areas.
            4.    Closing roads which are not in use.
            5.    Ensuring that draglines  dump  low in spoil piles.
            6.    Plating over sandy materials on dragline walkways.
            7.    Watering in the pit as necessary.
            8.    Load haulers in a manner that will prevent spillage of lignite onto haulroads.
            9.    Ensure that hauler door mechanisms  are in proper working order so the doors
                 close tightly.
            10.  Monitoring wind speed and direction while equipment is working in reclamation
                 and in dry conditions.  Relocation of equipment or curtailment of operations
                 will be made if necessary.

            The TACB Regional Director  of the Tyler office has,  in  a recent  conversation
 (August 17, 1990), stated that he considers the mining operation  to now be in compliance with
 TACB rules.

            Summary of Existing Air Quality

            The site of the proposed lignite mine is located in EPA Air Quality Control Region
 (AQCR) 22.  According to the most recent (July  1, 1988)  update of  40  CFR 81, the EPA has
 designated  all  areas  in AQCR 22 as  either  "attainment"  or "unclassified" for all six criteria
 pollutants.  All of the ambient air monitoring data collected by the TACB in the cities of Winfield
 and Mount Pleasant show no exceedances of primary or secondary NAAQS for TSP. As shown
 on  Table  3.4-2, the  TSP concentrations  at  those  sites were generally lower  than TSP
 concentrations at Texarkana and Tyler.  A review of the data, including wind directions, indicates
 there is likely some influence on TSP concentrations from  mining, however, the concentrations
 do not indicate any adverse health or welfare effects.  The  TSP monitors operated by TUMCO
 on the property surrounding  the lignite  mines show  a  very  high incidence of compliance  of
 NAAQS  standards on the  company's property.   A few 24-hour concentrations of TSP were
 measured at the mine sites which were  in excess of NAAQS TSP levels but localized high
 concentrations of TSP are to be expected at mine sites due to truck traffic and sprigging activities.
 There was  no  indication that  areas outside the  permit areas were exposed to levels exceeding
 either primary or secondary NAAQS for  TSP  except during days  of natural dust storms.

            State Permitting Requirements

            The Texas Clean Air Act requires that  persons who construct new facilities or modify
 existing facilities which may emit air contaminants to obtain a  construction permit or satisfy  the
 conditions for a standard exemption prior to the start of construction. Mines are not classified
 as facilities  under the Texas Clean Air Act and no air pollution construction permit is therefore
 required for the proposed lignite mine.  Facility is defined in the Texas Clean Air Act as follows:
 "Facility means  a discrete or  identifiable  structure, device, item,  equipment, or enclosure that
constitutes or contains a stationary source, including appurtenances other than emission control
equipment.   A  mine, quarry, or road  in not considered to  be  a facility."  Even though  the
proposed  mine is not required to obtain a TACB construction permit, it still has to be operated
in accordance with  the rules and regulations of  the TACB.
                                          111-16

-------
In addition to TACB Regulation I for participate matter control which was previously discussed,
the proposed lignite mine will be required to comply with General Rule 101.4, Nuisance; General
Rule 101.5, Traffic Hazard; and Regulation VIII, Control of Air Pollution Episodes. TACB Rule
100.5 prohibits emissions of air contaminants which cause a traffic hazard or an interference with
normal road use.

           The Railroad Commission of Texas requires submittal of a plan for fugitive dust
control practices, as required in  Section 816.379 of the Coal Mining Regulations.  Section .379
requires each person who conducts surface mining activities to plan and employ fugitive dust
control measures as an integral part of site preparation, coal mining, and reclamation operation.
Fugitive dust control measures to be used are specifically listed in Section .379.
                                           111-17

-------
 Soil Conservation Service and Sulphur-Cypress Soil and Water Conservation District. 1987. Soil
      and Water Conservation Plan: Monticello-Leesburg Permit Area. Mt. Pleasant, Texas.

 Soil Conservation  Service.  1989.  Letter from Norman P. Bade, Conservation Agronomist to
      Robert Gentry (TUMCO). July 5,1989.

 Sorola, S.H. 1988. Evaluation of annual fur harvest. Performance Report, Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-
      117-R-5, Job No. 2.  Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Austin, Texas. 9 pp.

 Spencer, Artemesia Lucille Brison. 1974. The Camp County Story, Branch-Smith Publishers, Fort
      Worth.

 	.  1981.  The Camp County Story, Part II. Branch-Smith Publishers, Fort Worth.

 Story, Dee Ann.   1972.  A Preliminary Report of the 1968, 1969 and 1970 Excavations at the
      George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Typescript report submitted to the National
      Science Foundation (GS-2573,3200) by the University of Texas at Austin, The Texas Building
      Commission, and the Texas Historical Survey Committee. Austin.

 Swanton, T.R.  1942. Source  Material on the History and  Ethnology of the Caddo  Indians.
      Smithsonian Institute Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin  132.

 Texas Air Control Board, 1983.  "1982 Summary of Total Suspended Paniculate Data."

 	.  1984.  "1983 Summary of Total Suspended Paniculate Data."

 	.  1985.  "1984 Paniculate  Data: Air Quality Report."

 	.  1986.  "1985 Particulate  Data: Air Quality Report."

 	.  1987.  "1986 Paniculate  Data: Air Quality Report."

 	.  1988a.  "1987  Particulate Data:  Air Quality Report."

 	.  1988b.  Personal communication. Austin, Texas.

 	.  1988c.  "Winfield TSP Sampling Project, May-June 1988."

 Texas Department of  Water Resources. 1983.  Texas Input-Output Model.

 Texas Education  Agency.    1988.   Public Information Section, Austin,  Texas.   Personal
      communication.

 Texas Employment Commission (TEC). 1989a. Personal  Communication to K. Cathey, EH&A.
      John Kruse, Economic Research and Analysis Department.  September 28, 1989.  Austin.

	. 1989b.  Covered Employment and Wages, second quarter. Austin.
                                         111-18

-------
                                          INDEX
Advisory Council on Historic                                  S-7, 3-123, 4-1, 6-1, B-l to B-10
  Preservation (ACHP)
Aesthetic Values                                                                     3-129
Air Quality,                                                          S-7, 3-102 to 3-106, 5-1
Alternatives,                                                            S-l, S-2, 2-1 to 2-22
Alternatives Preferred                                                  2-1, 2-12 to  2-20, 3-1
Aquatic Ecology,                                                       S-7, 3-92 to  3-99, 5-1
Archaeological and Historic Resources (see Cultural Resources)
Clean Water Act (CWA)                                    S-l, S-2, S-6, 1-2, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23
Climatology                                                               S-7, 3-99 to 3-102  .
Commercially-Important Species                            3-70, 3-82, 3-87 to 3-88, 3-91, 3-95
Community Facilities and Services                                             3-139 to 3-146
Conveyor                                                                              2-9
Coordination                                                                           4-1
Cultural Resources                                           S-7, 3-114 to 3-123, Appendix B
Demographic Profile                                                         3-130 to 3-133
Dewatering                                                                 3-25, 3-26, 3-98
Dissolved Oxygen                                                    3-49 to 3-51, 3-93, 3-94
Diversions                                       3-1, 3-28, 3-55, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-76 to 3-84
Ecologically-Sensitive Areas                                                  3-70, 3-83, 3-88
Effluent                                                              8^6, 3-53 to 3-55, 3-98
Emanation Rates                                                                 S-8, 3-148
Employment                                                             S-8, 3-131 to 3-139
Endangered and Threatened Species                                 S-7, 2-23, 3-69, 3-70, 3-82
                                                                            3-86, 3-91, 3-94
Environmental Consequences                                                            3-1
Existing Environment                      3-2, 3-3, 3-7 to 3-13, 3-24, 3-28 to 3-54, 3-64 to 3-70
                                         3-84 to 3-88, 3-92 to 3-94, 3-99, 3-107, 3-114 to 3-121
                                                         3-124 to 3-125, 3-130 to 3-134, 3-146
Floodplains                                                          3-44 to 3-45, 3-68, 3-89
Flow Duration                                                                   3-34, 3-37
Fugitive Dust                                                    S-7, S-8, 3-105, 3-106, 3-148
Geology                                                                  S-5, 3-3 to 3-6, 5-1
Government Finances                                                      S-8, 3-145, 3-146
Groundwater                                                      S-6,  3-24 to 3-27, 3-60, 5-1
Heavy Metals                                                                    3-53, 3-147
Historic Resources                                                           3-117 to 3-121
                                           111-19

-------
          Part IV

EPA's Preferred
Alternative

-------
PARTIV.  EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

EPA's preferred alternative is to issue the NPDES permit (see Appendix A) to Texas Utilities
Mining Company for discharge of wastewater from the Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Mine.
The impacts associated with this Federal action are presented in this Final EIS in combination with
the Draft EIS. EPA will reconsider its preferred alternative in light of comments received on the
Draft and Final EISs and the draft NPDES permit.  EPA's final decision on this permit action will
be provided in a Record of Decision, documenting the completion of the EIS process.
                                          IV-1

-------
       Appendix A
Draft NPDES Permit

-------
APPENDIX A. DRAFT NPDES PERMIT

           There will be a separate EPA public notice announcing the 30-day review and
comment period on the following draft NPDES permit. Any comments on this draft NPDES
permit should be addressed to Ms. Ellen Caldwell, EPA Region 6 (W-P), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas  75202-2733.
                                        A-l

-------
 Permit No.  TX0068357
             AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
       NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act,  as amended,  (33
 U.S.C... 1251 et.  seq; the "Act"),

                   Texas Utilities Mining Company
                   Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine
                   Skyway Tower,  400 North Olive Street
                   Lock Box 85
                   Dallas, Texas  75201


 is authorized 'to discharge from  the Monticello B-2  Lignite Mine located in
 Titus County north and wast of Mount Pleasant,  Texas.

 to tributaries of the Cypress Creek Basin (Segment  No.  0404) and tributaries
 of the Sulfur River Basin (Segment No.  0303)

 in accordance with effluent limitations , monitoring requirements and other
 conditions set forth in Parts I  (5 pages),  II (5 pages),  and III (6 pages)
 hereof.

 This permit shall  become effective on

 This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,


 Signed and issued  this       day of
Myron 0. Knijdson,  P.E.
Director
Water Management Division (6W)
                                      A-2

-------
Permit No. TX0068357
                   Page 2 of PART I
                               OUTFALLS  001-021
During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through the
expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfalls 001-
021-active sediment ponds.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow  (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Iron
Manganese
Effluent Characteristic
Flow  (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Iron
Manganese
Discharge Limitations
Mas s ( Ibs/day ) mg/1
Dailv Avg Dailv Max Dailv Avg Dailv Max
N/A N/A Report Report
N/A N/A 35 70
N/A N/A 3.0 6.0
N/A N/A 1.0 2.0
Monitoring Reauirements
Measurement
Frequency
I/Week*
I/Week*
I/Week*
I/Week*
Sample
Type
Estimate
Grab
Grab
Grab
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard
units and shall be monitored once per week when discharging by a grab sample.

There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than
trace amounts.

Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following locations: At outfalls 001-021, which are the
flow measuring devices, prior to discharge.

*   When discharge occurs.
                                     A-3

-------
 Permit No. TX0068357
                                  Page 3 of PART I
                               OUTFALLS 101-121

 During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through the
 expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfalls 101-
 121,  the post mining area retention ponds.


 Such  discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
 below:
 Effluent  Characteristic
               Discharge Limitations
    Mass(lbs/day)                    mg/1
Daily Ave    Daily Max      Daily Avg    Daily Max
 Flow (MGD)
 Settleable  Solids
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
N/A
Report
   N/A
Report
     0.5
 Effluent  Characteristic
 Flow  (MGD)
 Settleable Solids
                Monitoring Requirements
             Measurement           Sample
              Frequency             Type
              I/Week*
              I/Week*
                   Estimate
                     Grab
The pH shall not be less than  6.0 standard units nor greater than  9.0
standard units and shall be monitored once per week when discharging by a grab
sample.

There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than
trace amounts.

Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following locations: At outfalls 101-121, where
discharge occurs from the post mining areas.
  *  When discharge occurs.
                                    A-4

-------
Permit No. TX0103527
                                Page  4  of  PART Z
                                  OUTFftLL 01S
During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through the
expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 01S-
sanitary sewage.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow  (MOD)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
              Discharge Limitations
      Hass(lbs/day)                mg/1
Daily AVQ    Daily Max    Daily Avo    Daily Max
   N/A
   N/A
   N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
 30
 30
Report
  45
  45
Effluent Characteristic
               Monitoring Requirements
            Measurement            Sample
             Frequency              Type
Flow  (M6D)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
               Weekly*
               Weekly*
               Weekly*
                    Estimate
                     Grab
                     Grab
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard
units and shall be monitored weekly* by a grab sample.

There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than
trace amounts.

Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the following location: Outfall OlS-at the outlet from the
treatment system.

All domestic sewage shall be given complete treatment and chlorinated
sufficiently to maintain a 1.0 mg/1 chlorine residual after at least 20
minutes contact time based on peak flow, prior to discharge or mixing with any
other waste stream.
* When discharging.
                                   A-5

-------
Permit No. TX0068357                                          Page 5 of PART I


SECTION B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified
for discharges in accordance with the following schedule:

Not applicable
Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on,
interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of this
permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date.
Any reports of noncompliance shall include the cause of noncompliance, any
remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement.


SECTION C. REPORTING OF MONITORING RESULTS

Monitoring results shall be reported in accordance with the provisions of Part
III.D.4 of the permit. Monitoring results obtained during the previous three
(3) months shall be summarized and reported on the Discharge Report Monitoring
forms postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the
completed reporting period.

The first report is due on
                                    A-6

-------
Permit No. TX0068357                                         Page 1 of PART II

                                    PART II
                               OTHER CONDITIONS


A.  The term "active mining area" is defined as the areas, on or beneath land,
used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction, removal or recovery
of coal from its natural deposits. This term excludes coal preparation plants,
coal preparation plant associated areas and post-mining areas.

B.   The term "reclamation area" is defined as the area of a coal or lignite
mine which has been returned to the required contour and on which revegetation
( satisfactory seeding and planting) work has commenced.

C.   The term "bond release" is defined as the time which the appropriate
regulatory authority returns a reclamation or performance bond based upon its
determination that reclamation work has been satisfactorily completed.

D.   The term "controlled surface mine drainage" means any surface mine
drainage that is pumped or siphoned from the active mining area.

E.   The following procedure shall be used to determine settleable solids:

Fill an Imhoff cone to the one-liter mark with a thoroughly mixed sample.
Allow to settle undisturbed for 45 minutes.  Gently stir along the inside
surface of the cone with a stirring rod.  Allow to settle undisturbed for 15
minutes longer.  Record the volume of settled material in the cones as
milliliters per liter.  Where a separation of settleable and floating
materials occurs, do not include the floating material in the reading.

The method detection limit for measuring settleable solids shall be 0.4 ml/1.

F.   The term "10-year, 24-hour precipitation event" means the maximum 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once in ten years
as defined by the National Weather Service and Technical Paper No. 40,
"Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U.S.," May 1961, or equivalent regional or
rainfall probability information developed therefrom.

     The term "2-year, 24-hour precipitation event" means the maximum 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once in two years
as defined by the National Weather Service and Technical Paper No. 40,
"Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U.S.," May 1961, or equivalent regional or
rainfall probability information developed therefrom.

G.   Methods of flow estimating shall be by the "California Pipe Method" as
described in Section 7.4.2.2. of the Handbook for Monitoring Industrial
Wastewater. August 1973, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology
Transfer.
                                    A-7

-------
Permit No. TX0068357                                         Page 2 of PART II

H.   The  following standards apply to discharges from reclamation areas until
SMCRA bond release:

                             Effluent Limitations

                                                      Average of daily
            Pollutant or            Maximum for       values for thirty
            Pollutant Property	anv one dav	consecutive davs

            Settleable Solids       0.5 ml/1                 N/A

            EH	Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times	


I.     EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR PRECIPITATION EVENTS

  1.  The  following alternate limitations apply with respect to mine drainage,
except for controlled surface mine discharges as addressed in subsection 2:

a.   Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by
precipitation within any 24 hour period less than or equal to the 2-year, 24-
hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with
the  following limitations instead of the otherwise applicable limitations:

                   Effluent Limitations  During  Precipitation

                                                     Average of daily
            Pollutant or          Maximum for        values for thirty
            Pollutant Property    any one dav	consecutive davs

            Iron, Total           7.0 mg/1                  N/A
            Settleable Solids     0.5 mg/1                  N/A
            pH	Within the ranee of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
b.  Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by
precipitation within any 24 hour period greater than the 2-year, 24-hour
precipitation event, but less than or equal to the 10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with the
following limitations instead of the otherwise applicable limitations:

                   Effluent Limitations  During Precipitation •
                                                     Average of daily
            Pollutant or          Maximum for        values for thirty
            Pollutant Property    anv one dav	consecutive davs

            Settleable Solids     0.5 ml/1                  N/A
            EH	Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
                                    A-8

-------
Permit No. 1X0068357                                         Page 3 of PART II

2.  The following alternate limitations apply with respect to mine drainage,
including controlled surface mine discharges:

Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by precipitation
within any 24-hour period greater than the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation
event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply the following limitations
instead of the otherwise applicable limitations:

                   Effluent Limitations During Precipitation
                                                     Average of daily
            Pollutant or          Maximum for        values for thirty
            Pollutant Property    any one day	consecutive days

            pH	  Within the ranee of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times	
3.  The operator shall have the burden of proof that the discharge or increase
in discharge was caused by the applicable precipitation event described in
subsections 1 and 2.
                                    A-9

-------
Permit No. TX0068357
                                      Page 4 of PART II
J.   All discharges shall comply with the limitations for hazardous metals as
regulated under Texas Water Commission Rule No.  319.21-319.29.

K.   Locations may be revised by the permittee if it becomes necessary to
eliminate or establish new holding ponds.  For any revision, the permittee
shall submit appropriate notice to the EPA, TWC Austin and TWC district
offices redesignating the holding pond locations. The permittee shall also
maintain a map at the mine site which shows the location of all ponds. This
map shall be available to the EPA and TWC inspectors.

Any revised pond or outfall location should be consistent with and fall within
the mining area boundary as defined in the Finding of No Significant Impact.
Any revised pond or outfall location shall be limited to discharging to the
same receiving body of water.
The initial outfalls are listed in the following table:
         OUTFALL

         001
         002
         003
         004
         005
         006
         007
         008
         009
         010
         Oil
         012
         013
         014
         015
         016
         017
         018
         019
         020
         021
LATITUDE
33*14'50
33'14'SO
  '12'50
  '14
  '15
  '15
  '13
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
      45"
      20"
      20"
      40"
      20"
      10"
      40"
      40"
      20"
      30"
      20"
   11'25"
   12'05"
   12'10"
  •13'
  '12'
   •14
   •12
33*14
33*12
33*12
33
33
33
33
33
33*11'35"
33*10'40"
33*11'00"
33*10'50"
LONGITUDE

94*58'40"
94*58'20"
94*57'40"
94*58'00"
94"57'40"
94*57'00"
95°00'50"
95*00'30"
94*59'25"
95°00'00"
94*58'30"
95*00'30"
95"01'10"
95*01'45"
95*01'35"
95*01'45"
95*00'30"
95°00'40"
95*00'20"
95*00'40"
95*01"00"
DISCHARGING TO

East Piney Creek
East Piney Creek
Hart Creek
East Piney Creek
East Piney Creek
Stinking Creek
Piney Creek
Piney Creek
Hayes Creek
Piney Creek
Hart Creek
Hayes Creek
Piney Creek
Tankersley Creek
Tankersley Creek
Tankersley Creek
Hayes Creek
Tankersley Creek
Tankersley Creek
Tankersley Creek
Tankersley Creek
                                    A-10

-------
Permit No. TX0068357                                         Page 5 of PART II

L.   Unless otherwise specified in this permit, monitoring shall be conducted
according to analytical, apparatus and materials, sample collection,
preservation, handling, etc., procedures listed at 40 CFR Part 136 in effect
on the effective date of this permit.  Appendices A, B, and C to 40 CFR Part
136 are specifically referenced as part of this requirement. Amendments to 40
CFR Part 136 promulgated after the effective date of this permit shall
supersede these requirements as applicable.

H.   For the proper identification of parameters being regulated in this
permit, the following table lists the corresponding EPA Storet Number and the
Chemical Abstract Service  (CAS) Registry Number where applicable. In the case
of most chemical and physical parameters, the classification numbers can be
used to identify the appropriate analytical, apparatus and materials, sample
collection, preservation, handling, etc., procedures listed at 40 CFR Part 136
and at "Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA 600/4-79/020,
1979 (revised March 1983).  The EPA Storet number is additionally used to
identify parameters on the Discharge Monitoring Report described at Part
III.D.4.

         Parameter                     Storet          CAS

         Flow                          50050
         pH                            00400
         Total .Suspended Solids        00530
         Iron                          01045           7439-89-6
         Settleable Solids             00545
         Manganese                     01055           7439-96-5
         Biochemical Oxygen Demand     00310           	
         Fecal Coliforms               74055
                                       A-ll

-------
                                                                                                            Page 1 of Part  III
                           PART III
            STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS

  SECTION A.   GENERAL  CONDITIONS

  1.   Introduction
      In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.41,
      et. seq.,  this  permit  incorporates  by  reference  ALL
      conditions and requirements applicable to NPDES Permits
      set forth  in the Clean Water Act, as amended, (herein-
      after known as  the "Act") as  well as  ALL  applicable
      regulations.

  2.   Duty to Comply
      The permittee must comply with  all conditions of this
      permit.   Any permit noncompliance constitutes a viola-
      tion of  the Act  and is grounds for enforcement action;
      for permit termination, revocation and reissuance,  or
      modification;  or for denial  of a permit renewal appli-
      cation.

  3.   Toxic Pollutants
      a.  Notwithstanding Part III.A.5,  if any toxic effluent
          standard or  prohibition (including any schedule of
          compliance specified in such effluent standard or
          prohibition) is promulgated  under  Section 307(a) of
          the  Act for a  toxic pollutant  which is  present in
          the  discharge and  that standard  or prohibition is
          more stringent  than any limitation on the pollutant
          in this permit,  this permit shall  be modified or
          revoked and reissued to   conform  to  the  toxic
          effluent standard or prohibition.
      b.  The  permittee shall comply with effluent standards
          or prohibitions established  under  Section 307(a) of
          the  Act for  toxic pollutants   within  the  time
          provided in the regulations that established those
          standards  or prohibitions,  even  if  the  permit  has
          not    yet   been   modified   to   incorporate   the
          requirement.

 4.   Duty to  Reapply
      If  the  permittee   wishes  to  continue  an  activity
      regulated  by this permit after  the expiration date of
      this permit, the permittee must  apply for and obtain a
      new permit.  The application shall be submitted at least
      180 days before the expiration date of  this permit.  The
     Director may grant  permission to submit an application
      less than  180 days in  advance  but no  later  than  the
     permit  expiration  date.    Continuation  of  expiring
     permits shall be governed by regulations promulgated at
     40 CFR Part  122.6 and any subsequent amendments.

 5.  Permit Flexibility
     This permit  may  be  modified, revoked  and reissued, or
     terminated for cause  in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62-
     64. The filing of a request  for  a permit modification,
     revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notifi-
     cation of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance,
     does not  stay any permit condition.

6.   Property  Rights
     This permit does not convey any  property rights of  any
     sort, or  any exclusive privilege.

7.  Duty to Provide Information
    The  permittee shall  furnish  to the Director,  within a
    reasonable  time, any information  which  the Director may
      request   to  determine  whether   cause  exists  for
      modifying,  revoking and reissuing, or terminating this
      permit,  or  to determine compliance with this permit.
      The permittee shall also furnish to the Director, upon
      request, copies of records required to be kept by this
      permit.

8.    Criminal and Civil  Liability
      Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing"
      and "Upsets", nothing in this permit shall be construed
      to relieve  the  permittee  from  civil or criminal
      penalties for noncompliance. Any false or  materially
      misleading representation or concealment of information
      required to  be  reported  by the provisions  of the
      permit,  the  Act,  or  applicable  regulations,  which
      avoids or  effectively defeats the regulatory purpose
      of the  Permit may  subject  the  Permittee to criminal
      enforcement  pursuant to 18  U.S.C.  Section 1001.
                                       i
9.    Oil and  Hazardous Substance Liability
      Nothing  in this permit  shall be construed to preclude
      the  institution  of  any legal action or relieve the
      permittee  from any  responsibilities,  liabilities,  or
      penalties to which  the  permittee  is or may  be subject
      under Section 311 of the Act.

10.   State Law
      Nothing  in this permit  shall be construed to preclude
      the  institution  of  any legal action or relieve the
      permittee  from any  responsibilities,  liabilities,  or
      penalties established pursuant to any applicable State
      law or regulation under authority preserved by Section
      510 of the Act.

11.   Severability
      The  provisions of  this permit  are severable, and if
      any provision of  this permit or the application of any
      provision of this permit to any  circumstance  is held
      invalid,  the application of such provision to  other
      circumstances, and  the  remainder of this permit,  shall
      not be affected thereby.
SECTION I.    PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

1.    Need to Halt or Reduce not • Defense
      It  shall  not  be  a  defense for  a permittee in an
      enforcement action that  it  would  have been necessary
      to  halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
      maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
      The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate
      safeguards to  prevent  the discharge  of  untreated or
      inadequately treated  wastes during electrical  power
      failure either  by means of alternate power sources,
     • standby generators or retention of  inadequately treated
      effluent.

2.    Duty to Mitigate
      The permittee  shall  take  all reasonable  steps  to
      minimize or prevent  any discharge  in violation of this
      permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
      affecting  human health or the environment.
                                               rev. 10/1/89
                                                          A-12

-------
                                                                                                           Page 2 of Part U!
3.  Proper Operation and Maintenance
    a.  The permittee  shall at all  tines  properly operate
        and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment
        and control  (and related  appurtenances)  which  are
        installed  or  used  by  permittee as efficiently as
        possible and in a manner which will minimize upsets
        and  discharges of  excessive pollutants  and  will
        achieve  compliance  with  the conditions of  this
        permit.    Proper operation and  maintenance  also
        includes    adequate   laboratory   controls   and
        appropriate  quality  assurance procedures.    This
        provision  requires the   operation  of  backup  or
        auxiliary  facilities or similar systems  which  are
        installed  by a permittee only when the operation is
        necessary  to achieve compliance with the conditions
        of this permit.
    b.  The  permittee shall provide an adequate operating
        staff   which   is  duly  qualified  to  carry  out
        operation,  maintenance   and  testing   functions
        required  to insure compliance with  the conditions
        of this permit.

 4.  Bypass of  Treatment Facilities
    a.  Bypass not exceeding  limitations.   The permittee
        may allow  any bypass to occur which does not cause
        effluent  limitations to be exceeded, but  only if it
        also   is   for  essential   maintenance  to  assure
        efficient  operation.  These bypasses are not subject
        to the provisions of Parts III.B.4.b.  and 4.c.
    b.  Notice
        (1)  Anticipated bypass.   If the permittee knows in
             advance  of the  need  for  a  bypass,  it shall
             submit prior notice,  if possible at  least ten
             days  before the date  of the bypass.
        (2)  Unanticipated  bypass.   The  permittee shall,
             within  24  hours,    submit   notice   of   an
             unanticipated   bypass  as   required  in  Part
             III.D.7.
    c.  Prohibition of  bypass
        (1)  Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take
             enforcement  action  against   a  permittee  for
             bypass, unless:
             (a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of
                  life,  personal  injury, or severe property
                 carnage;
             (b) There were no feasible alternatives to the
                 bypass,  such  as  the  use  of  auxiliary
                 treatment    facilities,    retention    of
                 untreated  wastes,  or  maintenance  during
                 normal periods of equipment downtime.  This
                 condition  is  not  satisfied if adequate
                 back-up    equipment  should   have   been
                 installed  in the exercise of  reasonable
                 engineering  judgment to prevent a bypass
                 which  occurred during normal periods of
                 equipment    downtime     or     preventive
                 maintenance; and,
             (c) The permittee submitted notices as required
                 by Part Hl.B.t.b.
        (2)  The Director may allow an anticipated bypass
             after considering its adverse effects,  if  the
             Director   determines that it  will  meet  the
             three conditions listed at Part  IIi.B.4.c(1).

 5.  Upset Conditions
    a.  Effect  of  an upset.    An upset  constitutes  an
        affirmative defense to an action brought for noncom-
        pliance with such technology-based permit effluent
        limitations if the requirements of Part HI.B.S.b.
        are met.  No determination made during administra-
        tive review of claims that noncorapliance was caused
        by upset, and before an action for noncomplianee, is
        final administrative  action  subject  to  judicial
        review.
    b.  Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.
        A permittee who wishes  to establish the affirmative
        defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly
        signed,  contemporaneous operating logs, or other
        relevant evidence that:
        (1) An upset  occurred  and that the  permittee  can
            Identify the cause(s)  of the upset;
        (2) The permitted  facility  was at the time being
            properly operated;
        (3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as
            required by Part III.D.7; and,
        (4) The  permittee  complied  with   any  remedial
            measures required by Part I1I.B.2.
    c.  Burden of proof.  In any enforcement proceeding, the
        permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an
        upset has the burden of proof.

6.  Removed Substances
    Solids,  sewage  sludges,   filter  backwash,  or  other
    pollutants  removed  in  the course of   treatment  or
    wastewater control shall be disposed of in a manner such
    as  to prevent  any pollutant from such  materials from
    entering navigable waters.
7*  Percent Removal
    For publicly owned treatment works, the 30-day average
    percent removal for Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total
    Suspended  Solids  shall not be  less  than  85  percent
    unless otherwise authorized by the permitting authority
    in accordance with 40 CFR  133.103.

SECTION C.  MONITORING AND RECORDS

1.  Inspection and Entry
    The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized
    representative, upon the presentation of credentials and
    other dociments as may be required by the law to:
    a.  Enter  upon  the   permittee's   premises  where  a
        regulated  facility  or  activity   is   located  or
        conducted, or where records must be kept under the
        conditions of this permit;
    b.  Have access to and copy,  at reasonable times, any
        records that must  be  kept under the conditions of
        this permit;
    c.  Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equip-
        ment (including monitoring and control  equipment),
        practices or operations regulated or required under
        this permit; and
    d.  Sample  or monitor  at  reasonable  times,  for the
        purpose  of  assuring   permit   compliance  or  as
        otherwise authorized by the Act, any  substances or
        parameters at any location.

2.  Representative Sampling
    Samples  and  measurements   taken  for  the  purpose of
    monitoring  shall  be  representative  of the monitored
    activity.

3.  Retention of Records
    The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring

                                               rev.  10/1/89
                                                         A-13

-------
                                                                                                           Page 3 of Part 111
     Information,  including  all  calibration and maintenance
     records  and  all  original  strip  chart recordings  for
     continuous  monitoring  instrumentation,  copies of  all
     reports required by this permit, and records of all data
     used to complete the application for this permit,  for a
     period of at  least 3 years  from the date of the sample,
     measurement,  report, or application. This period may be
     extended by request  of  the  Director at any time.

 4.  Record Contents
     Records of  monitoring information shall include:
     a.   The  date,  exact  place, and   time of  sampling  or
         measurements;
     b.   The  individual(s)  who   performed  the  sampling  or
         measurements;
     c.   The date(s) and time(s) analyses were  performed;
     d.   The  individual^) who performed the analyses;
     e.   The analytical  techniques or  methods used;  and
     f.   The results of  such analyses.

 So  Monitoring Procedures
     a.   Monitoring must  be  conducted according  to  test
         procedures approved under 40  CFR  Part 136,  unless
         other  test  procedures have been specified in this
         permit  or approved by the Regional Administrator.
     b.   The   permittee   shall  calibrate  and   perform
         maintenance  procedures  on   all   monitoring  and
         analytical instruments  at intervals frequent enough
         to insure accuracy of measurements and shall  main-
         tain appropriate records of such activities.
     c.   An adequate   analytical quality  control  program,
         including  the  analyses  of  sufficient  standards,
         spikes, and duplicate samples to insure the accuracy
         of  all   required   analytical  results   shall  be
         maintained by the permittee or designated commercial
         laboratory.

 6.  Flow Measurements
     Appropriate  flow  measurement   devices   and  methods
     consistent  with accepted scientific practices shall  be
     selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability
     of measurements of  the volume of  monitored discharges.
   ,  The   devices  shall  be   installed,   calibrated,   and
     maintained   to  insure  that   the  accuracy   of   the
     measurements  is consistent  with the accepted capability
     of  that  type of device.    Devices selected shall  be
     capable of  measuring flows  with a maximum deviation of
     less  than   10X from true discharge rates throughout the
     range of expected discharge volumes.

SECTION D.  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1.  Planned Changes
    a.  Industrial  Permits
        The permittee shall give notice to the Director as
        soon as  possible of  any  planned physical alterations
        or additions to the permitted facility.   Notice is
        required only when:
        (1) The  alteration  or addition   to  a  permitted
            facility may  meet one  of the criteria  for
            determining whether a facility is a new source
            in  40 CFR Part 122.29(b);  or,
       (2)  The alteration or addition could significantly
            change the nature  or increase the quantity of
            pollutants   discharged.    This   notification
            applies to pollutants which are subject neither
            to  effluent  limitations  in the permit, nor  to
             notification  requirements   listed   at Part
             lILD.IO.a.
    b.  Municipal Permits
        Any change in the facility discharge (including the
        introduction of  any  new  source  or  significant
        discharge or significant changes  in the quantity or
        quality of existing discharges of pollutants) must
        be reported to the permitting authority.   In no case
        are  any  new  connections,  increased  flows,  or
        significant changes in  influent  quality permitted
        that   will   cause  violation   of   the  effluent
        limitations specified herein.

2.  Anticipated NoncoBpliance
    The permittee shall give advance  notice to the Director
    of any planned changes in  the  permitted  facility  or
    activity which may result in noncompliance with permit
    requirements

3.  Transfers
    This permit  is  not  transferable to  any  person except
    after notice to the Director.   The Director may require
    modification or revocation and  reissuance of the permit
    to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such
    other requirements  as may be necessary under the Act.

4.  Discharge Monitoring Reports and Other Reports
    Monitoring  results  must  be  reported  on  Discharge
    Monitoring  Report   (DMR)  Form   EPA  No.   3320-1  in
    accordance with the "General Instructions" provided on
    the form.  The permittee shall submit the original DMR
    signed and certified as required by Part III.D.11 and
    all other reports required by Part  III.D. to the EPA at
    the address below.   Duplicate  copies of  DMR's and all
    other  reports  shall  be submitted to  the  appropriate
    State agency(ies)  at  the following address(es):

    EPA:
    Water Management Division
    Enforcement Branch (6U-E)
    U.S. Environmental  Protection
        Agency, Region 6
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas. TX 75202-2733

    New Mexico:
    Program Manager
    Surface Water Section
    Surface Water Quality Bureau
    Environmental Improvement Division
    New Mexico Health and
      Environment Department
    1190 Saint Francis Drive
    Santa Fe, NM 87503

    Oklahoma (Industrial  Permits):
    Director
    Oklahoma Water Resources Board
    P.O. Box 53585
    Oklahoma City, OK  73152-3585

    Louisiana:
    Assistant Secretary for Water
    Water Pollution Control Division
    Louisiana Department of
        Environmental Quality
    P.O. Box 44091
    Baton Rouge, LA  70804-4091                rev. 10/1/89
                                                         A-14

-------
                                                                                                           Page 4 of Part 111
5.  Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
    If the permittee Monitors any pollutant more frequently
    than  required by  this permit,  using test  procedures
    approved under 40 CFR Part  136 or as  specified in this
    permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included
    in the calculation  and  reporting of the data submitted
    in  the  Discharge  Monitoring  Report   (DMR).    Such
    increased monitoring frequency shall  also be indicated
    on the DMR.

6.  Averaging of Measurements
    Calculations for all limitations uhich require averaging
    of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless
    otherwise specified by  the Director in  the permit.

7.  Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
    a.  The permittee  shall report any noneompliance which
        may  endanger   health  or  the  environment.    Any
        information shall be provided orally within 24 hours
        from  the time  the  permittee becomes  aware  of  the
        circumstances.    A written submission  shall  be
        provided  within 5  days  of the time the permittee
        becomes  aware  of   the  circumstances.    The  report
        shall contain  the  following information:
        (1)  A  description of  the  noncompllance and  its
             cause;
        (2)  The  period of noneompliance  including exact
             dates and times,  and if the  noneompliance has
             not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
             expected  to continue; and,
        (3)  Steps  being taken  to  reduce,  eliminate,  and
             prevent    recurrence    of   the   noncomplying
             discharge.
    b.  The following shall be included as information which
        must be reported within 24 hours:
        (1)  Any  unanticipated  bypass which  exceeds  any
             effluent  limitation in the permit;
        (2)  Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation
             in the permit; and,
        (3)  Violation  of  a   max i nun  daily  discharge
             limitation for any of the pollutants  listed by
             the  Director  in  Part  II (industrial permits
             only) of  the permit  to be reported within 24
             hours.
    c.  The Director may waive the written report on a case-
        by-case basis  if  the oral  report  has been received
        within 24 hours.

8.  Other Noneompliance
    The   permittee   shall   report   all   instances   of
    noneompliance not  reported  under Parts  III.D.4 and D.7
    and Part I.B (for  industrial permits  only) at the time
    monitoring  reports are submitted. The reports  shall
    contain the information listed at  Part  HI.D.7.

9.  Other Information
    Where the  permittee becomes aware that it  failed to
    submit any relevant facts in a  permit  application, or
    submitted incorrect information  in a permit application
    or  in any report  to the Director,  it  shall  promptly
    submit such facts or information.

10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
    All existing  manufacturing,  commercial,  mining,  and
    silvacultural permittees shall notify the Director as
    soon as it knows or has reason to believe:
    a.  That any activity has occurred or will occur which
        would result  in  the discharge,  on  a routine  or
        frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant listed at 40
        CFR  Part  122.  Appendix  D,  Tables  I!  and  III
        (excluding Total  Phenols) which is  not  limited in
        the  permit,  if  that discharge will  exceed  the
        highest of the  following "notification  levels":
        (1)  One hundred micrograms per  liter (100 »g/l);
        (2)  Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 pg/l) for
             acrolein and aery lonitr lie;  five hundred micro-
             grams per  liter (500 M9/O  for 2,4 -dinitro-
             phenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and
             one milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
        (3)  Five (5) times the maxiaun concentration value
             reported  for  that  pollutant   in  the  permit
             application; or
        (4)  The level  established by  the Director.
    b.   That any activity has occurred or will  occur which
        would result  in any discharge, on a non-routine or
        infrequent basis, of  a toxic pollutant which is not
        limited in the permit, if that  discharge will exceed
        the highest of  the following "notification levels":
        (1)  Five hundred micrograms per liter  (500  ttg/l);
        (2)  One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
        (3)  Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value
             reported  for  that  pollutant   in  the  permit
             application; or
        (4)  The level  established by  the Director.

11. Signatory Requirements
    All applications, reports,  or information submitted to
    the Director shall  be signed and certified.
    a.   All permit applications  shall  be signed as follows:
        (1)  For a corporation - by a  responsible corporate
             officer.  For  the purpose of this  section, a
             responsible  corporate officer  means:
             (a)  A president,  secretary,  treasurer, or
                  vice-president  of   the  corporation  in
                  charge  of a principal  business function,
                  or any other person who performs similar
                  policy  or  decision  making functions for
                  the corporation; or,
             (b)  The manager of one or more manufacturing,
                  production,   or  operating   facilities
                  employing more than  250 persons  or having
                  gross  annual   sales   or  expenditures
                  exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter
                  1980   dollars),  if  authority  to   sign
                  documents has been  assigned or delegated
                  to   the  manager   in   accordance   with
                  corporate procedures.
        (2)  For a partnership or sole proprietorship  - by
             a   general    partner  or   the   proprietor,
             respectively.
        (3)  For a municipality.  State,  Federal,  or  other
             public agency -  by either a  principal  executive
             officer or  ranking  elected  official.    For
             purposes of this section, a principal  executive
             officer of a Federal agency includes:
             (a)  The chief executive  officer of the agency,
                  or
             (b)  A senior  executive officer having respon-
                  sibility for the overall  operations of  a
                  principal geographic unit of the agency.
    b.   All  reports  required  by the   permit and  other
        information  requested  by the  Director  shall  be
        signed  by a  person  described above or  by a  duly
        authorized representative of  that person.   A person
        is a duly authorized representative only  if:
                                               rev.  10/1/89
                                                         A-15

-------
                                                                                                           Page 5 of Part 11!
        (1)  The  authorization   ia  Mde in  writing by a
             person described above;
        (2)  The   authorization   specifies   cither   an
             individual or a position having responsibility
             for  the overall  operation of  the  regulated
             facility or activity, such as  the position of
             plant manager,  operator of a  well  or a Hell
             field,   superintendent,   or    position   of
             equivalent responsibility, or an individual or
             position  having  overall  responsibility for
             environmental matters for the company.  A duly
             authorized  representative may thus be  either
             a named individual or an individual  occupying
             a named position; and,
        (3)  The  written authorization is submitted  to the
             Director.
    c.  Certification.  Any person signing a document under
        this section shall make the following certification:

        "I certify under penalty  of  law that  this document
        and all attachments were prepared under my direction
        or supervision in accordance with a system designed
        to assure that qualified  personnel  properly  gather
        and evaluate the information submitted.  Based on my
        inquiry  of  the  person or persons  who manage the
        system, or  those persons directly, responsible for
        gathering the information, the informal ion submitted
        is, to  the  best  of my knowledge and  belief,  true,
        accurate, and complete.   I am aware that  there are
        significant   penalties   for   submitting   false
        information, including the possibility of fine and
        imprisonment for knowing  violations."

12. Availability  of Reports
    Except for  applications,  effluent data,  permits, and
    other data  specified in 40 CFR  122.7,  any  information
    submitted pursuant  to  this  permit may be claimed as
    confidential  by the submitter.   If no claim  is made at
    the  time  of  submission,  information  may   be made
    available to  the public without  further notice.

SECTION E.   PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS

1.  Criminal
    a.  Negligent Violations
        The Act provides that any  person who negligently
        violates permit conditions implementing Section301,
        302,  306, 307,  308,  318,  or 405  of the Act is
        subject  to a fine of not  less  than  $2,500 nor more
        than  S25,000   per  day   of   violation,   or  by
        imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
    b.  Knowing  Violations
        The Act  provides  that any  person who  knowingly
        violates  permit  conditions  implementing  Sections
        301, 302,  306,  307, 308, 318, or 405  of the  Act is
        subject  to a fine of not  less  than $5,000 nor more
        than   $50,000  per  day   of  violation,   or  by
        imprisonment  for  not more than 3 years, or both.
   c.  Knowing Endangerment
       The  Act provides  that any  person who  knowingly
       violates  permit  conditions  implementing  Sections
       301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308. 318, or 405  of the Act
       and  who knows  at  that time  that  he  is placing
       another  person  in  imminent  danger  of  death  or
       serious bodily  injury is  subject to a fine of not
       more than $250,000, or by  imprisonment for not more
       than 15 years, or both.
    d.  False Statements
        The Act provides that any person who knowingly makes
        any false  material statement,  representation,  or
        certification in any  application, record, report,
        plan,   or  other document  filed or  required  to be
        maintained under the Act or who knowingly falsifies,
        tampers with, or renders inaccurate, any monitoring
        device or method required to be maintained under the
        Act, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of
        not more than $10,000,  or by imprisonment for not
        more than 2 years, or by both.  If a conviction of
        a person is for a violation comnitted after a first
        conviction  of such person under  this paragraph,
        punishment  shall  be  by a fine of not  more  than
        $20,000 per day of  violation,  or by imprisonment of
        not more  than 4 years,  or by  both.  (See Section
        309.C.4 of the Clean Water Act)

2.  Civil Penalties
    The Act provides  that any person who violates  a permit
    condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,  307, 308,
    318, or 405 of  the Act  is subject to a civil  penalty not
    to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation.

3.  Administrative Penalties
    The Act provides  that any person who violates  a permit
    condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,  307. 308,
    318, or 405 of the Act is subject to  an administrative
    penalty, as follows:
    a.  Class  I Penalty
        Not to exceed $10,000 per violation nor shall the
        maximum amount exceed $25,000.
    b.  Class  II Penalty
        Not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during
        which  the violation continues nor shall  the maxim*)
        amount exceed $125,000.

SECTION F.   DEFINITIONS

All definitions contained  in  Section 502 of the Act shall
apply  to  this  permit and  are  incorporated herein  by
reference.   Unless  otherwise  specified  in  this permit,
additional  definitions  of words  or phrases used in this
permit are as  follows:

1.  "Act" means  the  Clean Water Act  (33 U.S.C.   1251 et.
    seq.), as  amended.
2.  "Administrator"  means the  Administrator  of  the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
3.  "Applicable effluent  standards and  limitations" means
    all state and Federal effluent standards and limitations
    to  which  a  discharge   is  subject   under  the  Act,
    including, but not limited to,  effluent  limitations,
    standards  or performance,  toxic effluent standards and
    prohibitions, and pretreatment standards.
4.  "Applicable  water quality  standards" means all  water
    quality standards to which a discharge is  subject  under
    the Act.
5.  "Bypass"  means  the  intentional  diversion  of   waste
    streams from any  portion  of a  treatment facility.
6.  "Daily  Discharge" means  the  discharge of  a  pollutant
    measured during a  calendar  day  or any 24-hour period
    that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes
    of sampling.  For pollutants with limitations expressed
    in terms of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as
    the  total  mass  of  the pollutant discharged  over  the
    sampling day.  For pollutants with  limitations expressed
                                               rev. 10/1/89
                                                        A-16

-------
                                                  Page 6 of  Part  111
    in other units of measurement,  the "daily discharge"  is
    calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant
    over the sampling day.  "Daily discharge" determination
    of concentration made using a composite sample shall  be
    the concentration of  the composite sample.  When grab
    samples are used, the "daily discharge" determination  of
    concentration shall be arithmetic  average  (weighted  by
    flow  value)  of  all   samples  collected  during that
    sampling day.
7.  "Daily   Average"  (also   known  as  monthly  average)
    discharge   limitations  means   the  highest  allowable
    average  of  "daily discharge(s)" over a calendar  month,
    calculated  as  the SUM  of  all  "daily discharge(s)"
    measured during  a calendar month divided by the  number
    of  "daily  discharge(s)"  measured during  that  month.
    When the permit establishes daily average concentration
    effluent limitations  or  conditions,  the daily average
    concentration means the arithmetic average (weighted  by
    flow)  of  all "daily discharge(s)"  of concentration
    determined  during the calendar month  where C * daily
    concentration, F •  daily flow and n *  number  of daily
    samples; daily average discharge *

                  C1F1 * C2F2 *  •••  * CnFn
                    FJ + F2» ... * Fn.

8.  "Daily Maximum" discharge  limitation means  the highest
    allowable "daily discharge" during the calendar month.
9.  "Director"  means  the  U.S.  Environmental   Protection
    Agency   Regional   Administrator  or   an   authorized
    representative.
10. "Environmental  Protection  Agency"  means  the   U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
11. "Grab sample" means an individual sample collected  in
    less than 15 minutes.
12. "Industrial  user"  means a  nondomestic discharger,  as
    identified  in 40 CFR 403,  introducing pollutants  to a
    publicly owned treatment works.
13. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" means
    the national program for issuing, modifying,  revoking
    and  reissuing,  terminating,  monitoring  and enforcing
   • permits,  and.   imposing  and  enforcing  pretreatment
    requirements, under Sections 307, 318, 402,  and 405  of
    the Act.
14. "Severe  property  damage"  means  substantial  physical
    damage to property, damage to the treatment  facilities
    which causes them  to become  inoperable, or substantial
    and  permanent   loss of natural  resources  which  can
    reasonably  be  expected to  occur in the  absence  of  a
    bypass.  Severe property damage does not mean  economic
    loss caused by delays in production.
15. "Sewage  sludge"   means the  solids,   residues,  and
    precipitates separated from or created  in sewage by the
    unit processes  of  a  publicly owned  treatment works.
    Sewage as  used in this definition means  any  wastes,
    including wastes  from  humans,  households,   commercial
    establishments,  industries, and storm water runoff,  that
    are discharged to  or otherwise enter a publicly owned
    treatment works.
16. "Treatment works" means any devices and systems used  in
    the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation  of
    municipal  sewage  and  industrial wastes  of a liquid
    nature to implement Section 201 of the Act, or necessary
    to recycle or reuse water  at the most  economical  cost
    over the  estimated  life  of  the  works,  including
    intercepting sewers, sewage collect ion systems,  pumping,
    power  and  other equipment,  and  their appurtenances,
             extension,  improvement,   remodeling,   additions,   and
             alterations thereof.
          17. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is
             unintentional   and    temporary   noncompliance    with
             technology-based permit effluent limitations because of
             factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee.
             An  upset  does  not include noncompliance to  the  extent
             caused  by  operational  error,   improperly  designed
             treatment  facilities,  inadequate  treatment  facilities,
             lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper
             operation.
          18. For fecal  coliform bacteria, a sample  consists  of  one
             effluent grab portion collected during a 24-hour  period
             at  peak loads.
          19. The term "MGD" shall mean million gallons per day.
          20. The term "mg/l" shall mean milligrams per liter or parts
             per million (ppm).
          21. The term "«j/l" shall mean micrograms per liter or parts
             per billion (ppb).
          22. Municipal  Terms:
             a.  "7-day average",  other  than for  fecal  coliform
                 bacteria, is the arithmetic mean  of  the daily values
                 for all effluent samples collected during a calendar
                 week,  calculated as the sum of all daily discharges
                 measured  during a calendar  week  divided by  the
                 number of daily discharges  measured  during  that
                 week.  The 7-day average for fecal coliform bacteria
                 is the geometric mean of the values  for all effluent
                 samples collected  during a calendar week.
             b.  "30-day  average",   other  than for fecal  coliform
                 bacteria, is the arithmetic mean  of  the daily values
                 for all effluent samples collected during a calendar
                 month, calculated as the sun of all daily discharges
                 measured  during a calendar  month  divided by  the
                 number of daily discharges  measured  during  that
                 month.    The  30-day  average for  fecal  coliform
                 bacteria is the geometric mean of the values for all
                 effluent samples collected during a calendar month.
             c.  "24-hour composite sample" consists of a minimum of
                 12  effluent   portions  collected  at   equal  time
                 intervals  over  the 24-hour   period  and  combined
                 proportional  to  flow  or  a   sample  collected  at
                 frequent intervals proportional  to flow over the
                 24-hour period.
             d.  "12-hour composite sample" consists of 12 effluent
                 portions collected no closer  together than one hour
                 and  composited  according to  flow.    The  daily
                 sampling  intervals shall  include  the  highest flow
                 periods.
             e.  "6-hour composite  sample" consists of  six effluent
                 portions collected no closer  together than one hour
                 (with  the  first portion  collected  no  earlier than
                 10:00  a.m.) and  composited according to flow.
             f.  "3-hour composite sample" consists of three effluent
                 portions collected no closer  together than one hour
                 (with  the  first portion  collected no  earlier than
                 10:00 a.m.) and  composited according to .flow.
                                                         rev. 10/1/89
A-17

-------
      Appendix B

Summary of Public
Hearing Comments
and Responses

-------
APPENDIX B.  RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ON
            THE DRAFT E1S CJUNE 12. 1990. MOUNT PLEASANT. TEXAS')
           The  Public  Hearing for the Monticello B-2  Area Surface Lignite  Mine  Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was held on Tuesday, June 12, 1990.  The hearing officer was
Mr. James Turner, Attorney with the Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty-eight persons
spoke at the Public Hearing.  A summary of all key concerns by individual was presented in
Table II-l.   This appendix  summarizes the issues  that were raised at the Public Hearing and
provides EPA's response. Since written comments require more detailed responses, responses to
issues which were raised both at the Public Hearing and in letter form generally are responded to
in Appendix C.

Issue 1. General concern of public health was an issue with the majority of commentors, and in
particular that National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) may not be adequate.

           Response to Issue 1. During the past decade, there has evolved a complex but effective
           array of regulations to protect public  health.  The primary National Ambient  Air
           Quality Standards (NAAQSs) are established by the EPA through a lengthy review
           process in which the latest scientific evidence is compiled and reviewed by the agency,
           by an  independent panel of scientists, and  by  the general public.   Critical to  the
           establishment of a primary NAAQS is the philosophy that all  persons should  be
           protected with an "adequate margin of safety" which takes into account both the health
           of especially sensitive individuals (e.g., the young, the aged, and the infirm) and possible
           inadequacies in the scientific evidence concerning  the health-related effects of the
           regulated pollutant. Cost, technical feasibility of control, or any factor other than public
           health  cannot be considered in setting a primary NAAQS.

           In addition to the primary NAAQSs, there are  several other air quality regulations
           which,  in one way or another, do not allow the ambient air quality to deteriorate to a
           point where NAAQS standards are threatened.  These other regulations provide an
           additional margin of safety in protecting public health. These include the  secondary
           NAAQS, the Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration (PSD) regulations, and
           emission requirements, such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs), National
           Emission Regulations for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and Best Available
           Control Technology (BACT) rules.

           Any array of regulations can only be  as effective as the regulatory system which
           implements it. Within Texas, there are two governmental agencies primarily responsible
           for the development and  enforcement of air quality regulations: (1) the U.S.
           Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and (2) the Texas Air Control Board (TACB).
           These  agencies work in  tandem to  regulate air quality.  There are two different
           mechanisms which the  agencies use  to implement air quality regulations:  (1)  pre-
           construction permitting and (2) operational compliance. The permitting mechanisms
           require all new major sources of air  pollutants to be evaluated and approved by the
           TACB  and the EPA before construction begins. Once construction permits are issued,
           the second regulatory mechanism, operational compliance, is activated.  If the TACB
                                          B-l

-------
           or EPA finds that the facility is not in compliance with its permit conditions or any
           applicable air quality rule, these agencies can impose a variety of legal sanctions and
           penalties  to force the operator to bring the facility into compliance or discontinue
           operation. These agencies also have the authority to require changes in operation or
           design in  cases where ambient standards are being exceeded even though all sources
           are technically in compliance.

           For additional information see Part II.B.1, "Public Health Assessment".

Issue 2.  General concern about dust emissions from the mining and reclamation operations was
expressed by 17 commentors, referring to statistical incidences in Titus County and individual/family
cases with local physicians.

           Response to Issue 2. Researching statistical data and/or obtaining information from
           local doctors (assuming they would release confidential records) and pharmacists, would
           do little to answer the question as to whether emissions were causing a health problem.
           Establishing  causal  relationships  is  a  difficult scientific  endeavor  utilizing  strict
           epidemiological and laboratory  techniques.   It would be extremely difficult,  if not
           impossible, to take unverified medical data and correlate them with fugitive emissions,
           much less individual exposure concentrations.  Section 3.4.1.2 of the DEIS (pp. 3-102
           through 3-106) presents a description of existing air quality in the area and describes
           the anticipated impacts of construction and operational activities on air quality.

           Section 3.4.1.2 of this FEIS has been expanded to provide additional information and
           clarification on air  quality issues.  Fugitive dust from the proposed  mine activities
           should not violate air quality standards or adversely impact public health. Nuisance or
           problem dust situations resulting from the mine should be reported to EPA or the
           TACB (see response no. 1, above).

Issue 3. A concern was expressed by 10 persons at the hearing about noise from mining operations.

           Response to  Issue 3.  On May 7, 8 and 9,  1990, EH&A conducted sound monitoring
           at two  of TUMCO's mining  areas near Mount Pleasant,  Texas.   Sound  level
           measurements were made at 10 separate locations, during the day and at night. These
           locations were at various distances from active mining operations, ranging from 360 to
           9,200 ft from the operating draglines. Monitored L   sound levels ranged from a high
           of 72.2 dBA at 360 ft from the dragline to a low of%.7 at 6,100 ft from the dragline.
           Maximum noise levels (L    ) were also recorded for each monitoring location during
           the  day and  at night.  Approximately half of these maximum noise  levels  were
           associated with mine-related  activities; the others were associated with bird activity,
           traffic on public roads and airplanes flying nearby.

           A comparison of sound levels  at selected locations with and  without mine-related
           sounds showed a difference of 31.6 dBA at  600 ft,  10.7 dBA  at 800 ft, 4.9 dBA at
           1,200 ft, and about 2.0 dBA at 2,850 ft.
                                           B-2

-------
With the exception of the three monitoring locations established within 600 ft of the
draglines, sound  levels at all monitoring locations were below the HUD-acceptable
outdoor L,  level of 65 dBA for residences and within EPA's guidelines for a short-
term goal L,  of 65 dBA.
           dn

Section 3.5 of the DEIS (pp. 3-107 through 3-113) describes the results of baseline
sound characterization studies and the anticipated impacts of mining activities on
ambient levels based upon modeling studies.

Seven receptor locations were selected for the baseline noise study. All the locations
selected are located in the study area or within 1-1/2 mile of the study area boundaries.
Baseline receptor location descriptions and sound level data collected during the field
survey are presented in DEIS Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2, respectively. The locations of the
baseline receptors are presented in DEIS Figure 3.5-1.

As indicated in DEIS Table 3.5-2, the Ldns at the receptor locations range from 58 dBA
to 66 dBA.  The main noise sources influencing the monitoring included vehicular
traffic, airplanes and birds.  Nighttime monitoring was strongly influenced by insect and
frog activity.

The anticipated sound levels at each of these locations during operation were projected
using a computer program and sound levels generated by the types of equipment to be
used during  mining.  Based on a "worst-case" scenario with all mine  operations
occurring simultaneously and within proximity to each other, day-night sound levels are
anticipated to be within the EPA short-term goal of 65 dBA and the long-term goal of
55 dBA  beyond 2,000 ft and 6,400 ft, respectively, from the center  of mining activity.
Day-night noise levels associated with mining operations are expected to range from
57 to 59 dBA at  the four baseline noise receptor locations located beyond the study
boundary.  These levels represent an increase in the ambient sound level of less than
5 dBA.

The mine's operational noise levels will be below the baseline noise  levels  beyond
approximately 3,600 ft from the  center of mining activities. Thus, receptor sites 1, 2,
3, and 7 should experience no major adverse impact due to mining operations.

The greatest noise impact  associated with mining  operations will occur at the three
receptor sites (4,  5 and 6) located within the project boundaries.  The anticipated Ldn
of 70 dBA at receptor site 4 (Green Hill Church) and 6  (Damascus Church) would
experience an increase of 16 dBA, resulting in a Ldn of 78 dBA for receptor site 5 and
a Ldn if 81 dBA for receptor site 6, due to their proximity to mining cell boundaries
(400 and 300 ft, respectively).  These sound level increases represent periodic minor
or major adverse noise impacts  at these receptors. It should be noted that  for this
assessment, increased noise levels are considered adverse because of possible conflicts
with and/or disruptions of nearby routine or planned activities, not potential public
health impacts. Also, see Table 1-1 (p. 1-7) for a summary discussion of noise impacts.
                                B-3

-------
 Issue 4.  Several commentors expressed concern over impacts to water quality.

            Response to Issue 4.  As required by the Coal Mining Regulations promulgated and
            enforced by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the Railroad Commission
            of Texas, TUMCO  has prepared  a  reclamation  plan which  contains  a detailed
            description of the measures to be taken during and after the proposed surface mining
            activities to minimize disturbances to  the hydrologic balance within the permit and
            adjacent areas; to prevent material damage outside the permit area; to meet applicable
            Federal and State water quality laws  and regulations;  and to protect the rights of
            present water users.

            Section 816.352 of these regulations specifically states:

                  Any person who conducts surface mining activities shall replace the water
                  supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of
                  his or her  supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other
                  legitimate  use from an underground or surface source, where the water
                  supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption
                  proximately resulting from the surface mining activities.

            Proposed  discharges  from the  mine include  controlled surface  mine drainage  from
            active sedimentation ponds, water discharged from post-mining area retention ponds,
            and sanitary discharges from the Loading Station 1 sewage treatment plant to an
            unnamed tributary of Ripley Creek and from the Loading Station 2 sewage treatment
            plant to Blundell Creek.

            EPA will set discharge limits on these discharges and establish monitoring and reporting
            requirements to ensure that the effluent limits are met.

            Therefore, compliance with these permit limits will result in the  release of water that
            will have an acceptable adverse  impact on water quality downstream of the discharge
            points.

            A detailed discussion of water  resources  is presented in DEIS Section 3.2 (pp. 3-24
            through 3-64).

            See Table 1-1 (p. 1-6) for a summary discussion of water quality  impacts.


Issue 5. Seven commentors expressed concern regarding impacts to groundwater.

            Response to Issue 5. Existing groundwater flow and use patterns will be altered during
            mining as a result of flow toward the mined areas and dewatering by wells.  This will
            result in lowering of overburden potentiometric levels in and adjacent  to the  mine.
            Significant drawdowns, i.e. greater than 5 feet, should be restricted to within 6,500 ft
            of the mine.   Following mining and  reclamation   the overburden will resaturate.
            Resaturation times are estimated to range from 12 to 48 years. Upon resaturation, the
                                           B-4

-------
            groundwater flow regime in the overburden is expected to be similar to pre-mine
            conditions.

            Post-mining groundwater in the reclaimed overburden may be higher in sulfate and
            total dissolved solids due to increased oxidation of the overburden.  Groundwater flow
            boundary conditions, dispersion and dilution should limit the impact to groundwater
            quality outside the permit boundary.  Impacts to groundwater quality are estimated to
            be limited to within 2,000 ft of the mine.

            Section 3.2 of the DEIS (pp. 3-24 through 3-28) presents a discussion of the existing
            groundwater environment and the anticipated impacts of construction and operation.

            Section 816.352 of the Coal Mining Regulations requires that,

                       "Any person who conducts surface mining  activities shall
                       replace  the water supply of an owner  of interest in real
                       property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water
                       for domestic, agricultural, industrial or other legitimate use
                       from an underground or surface source, where the water
                       supply has been affected by contamination,  diminution, or
                       interruption proximately resulting from  the surface mining
                       activities."

            See also the response to Issue 4 and  Summary Table 1-1 on pg. 1-5.

Issue 6.  Six persons at the hearing expressed concern regarding the potential impact to property
values as a result of nearby mining.

            Response to  Issue  6. Potential  short-term  adverse impact on adjacent or nearby
            properties land value may result from mining operations. However, after reclamation
            is complete, this impact is considered potentially reversible and affected land values can
            increase again.

Issue 7.  Four commentors expressed concern about the impact to existing traffic patterns resulting
from increased traffic related to the proposed mining activities, and the closing and/or relocation
of existing roadways.

            Response to Issue 7. Section 3.8.2.5 of the DEIS (pp. 3-143 through 3-145) discusses
            the impacts of increased traffic levels, and road closures and relocations. The proposed
            project will result in occasional, short-term, adverse impacts to existing traffic patterns.
            Also, see Table 1-1.

Issue 8.  Three persons at the hearing questioned the adequacy of the 300-foot  buffer between
mining activities and an occupied dwelling.

            Response to Issue 8. The area within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling was designated
            by the U.S. Congress as an area where mining is prohibited or limited, in the Surface
                                            B-5

-------
           Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87). EPA's assessments
           of project effects on nearby residences (e.g. dust, noise, aesthetics, land values, etc.) are
           based on this 300 ft limit.

           Section 761.071 of the Coal Mining Regulations, published by the Surface Mining and
           Reclamation Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas, states:

                 Subject to valid existing rights, no surface coal mining operations shall be
                 conducted after August 3,1977, unless those operations existed on the date
                 of enactment:...

                 (e)    Within 300 ft, measured horizontally, of any  occupied dwelling,
                 except when

                       (1)   The owner thereof has provided a written waiver consenting
                 to surface coal mining operations closer than 300 ft; or

                       (2)   The part of the mining operation which is within 300  ft of the
                 dwelling is a haul road  or access road which connects with an existing
                 public road on the side of the public road opposite the dwelling.

           Part 764 of the Coal Mining  Regulations details the process for designating areas
           unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Issue 9. Two persons questioned use of fertilizers to maintain productivity on reclaimed lands and
opined this maintenance requirement would have an impact on future landowners.

           Response to Issue 9.  In consultation with the Soil Conservation  Service and the
           Sulphur-Cypress Soil and Water  Conservation District, TUMCO has developed a
           conservation plan.  This conservation  plan calls for  the use of fertilizers  for the
           establishment and maintenance of reclamation species.  The plan calls for the use of
           soil tests, experienced field results and minimum nutrient requirements of the plants,
           as basis for determining the  amount of  fertilizer  to be used.   Once reclamation
           performance standards have been demonstrated, reclaimed land will be released from
           bond and will revert to the legal owner.  The productivity of the land following release
           from bond will be dependent on the use and management of the land by the landowner,
           which could be adversely impacted by high-level maintenance requirements of non-
           native species.
                                           B-6

-------
        Appendix C

Draft EIS Comment
Letters and EPA
Responses

-------
             APPENDIX C.  COMMENT LETTERS AND EPA RESPONSES
           The following pages include copies of the comment letters received by EPA during the
comment period along with  EPA's responses.  The numbered comments within each letter
correspond to the numbered responses.
                          INDEX TO COMMENT LETTERS

Federal                                                                         Page

1.   Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of,
           Public Health Service                                                   C-3

2.   Commerce, U.S. Department of,                                               C-4

3.   Advisory Council on Historic Preservation                                       C-6

4.   Army, U.S. Department of,
           Corps of Engineers                                                     C-8

5.   Interior,  U.S. Department of,
           Office of Environmental Affairs                                          C-10


Slate of Texas

6.   Health, Department of
           Ecological Evaluations Program
           Environmental Assessments Branch                                      C-15

7.   Health, Department of
           Environmental and Consumer Health Protection                           C-17

8.   Historical Commission                                                       C-20

9.   Parks and Wildlife Department                                                C-22

10.   Parks and Wildlife Department                                                C-25


Local

11.   Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.                              C-49
                                         C-l

-------
12.   Jerry and Mary Glower                                                       C-73




13.   John M. Ellis, M.D.                                                          C-75




14.   Rayford W. Jones, Jr., et al.                                                   C-77




15.   Morris and Florene Deaton                                                   C-80




16.   Doug Mercier                                                                C-82




17.   Jimmy Clark                                                                 C-86




18.   Nita H. Cassata                                                              C-88




19.   Marion McCoy                                                               C-90




20.   Mary Ellen and John D. Carey                                                C-92




21.   James W. Shanahan                                                          C-96




22.   Gary Goynes                                                                 C-98




23.   Barren Hardison                                                              C-99




24.   Texas  Utilities Mining Company                                              C-100
                                         C-2

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH * HUMAN SERVICES
                                                               Public Health Service
                                                               Centeis »of O'
-------
                                         UNITED »TATCB DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                         National Oaaanle and Atmoapharlo Admlnlatratlon
                                         Offlo. of tna Chlaf Bolantlat
                                         Waulwigtox. OC S033O
                                                                r
                                               June  5,  1990
                                                                JUN111990

                                                                   6E-F
           Mr. Norn  Thomas
           Chief Federal Activities Branch
           U.S. EPA  (6E-F)
           1445 Ross Avenue
           Dallas, Texas  75202-2733

           Dear Mr.  Thomas:
O
.p.  ,     |~ Enclosed  are comments to the Draft  Environmental Impact Statement               2~l      Comment noted.
     o_i I  'or Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite  Mine,  Titus County,
           Texas.  We hope our comments will assist you.   Thank you for
         |_ giving us an opportunity to review  the document.

                                                Sincerely,
                                               David  Cottingham
                                               Director
                                               Ecology  and Environmental
                                                 Conservation Office

            Enclosure

-------
                                            UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                            Nitloncl Oceanic *n4 Atmotph«rlc Administration
                                            NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
                                            OPricC OF CHARTING AND GEODETIC SERVICES
                                            ROCKVILLC. MARYLAND 208S2
         MEMORANDUM FOR:
         FROM:
         SUBJECT:
                        David Cottingham
                        Ecology and Environmental Conservation O
                        Office of  the Chief Scl
                                                                       ice-
                           Rear Admiral Wesley V. Hull, NO,
                           Director, Charting and Geodetic Services
                     (J DEIS 9005.06 - Monticello B-2  Area Surface
                        Lignite Mine,  Titus County, Texas
?
      The subject statement has  been reviewed within  the areas of
      Charting  and Geodetic Services'  (CSGS) responsibility and
      expertise and in terms of  the impact of the proposed actions on
      CSGS activities and projects.

     ' A preliminary review of CSGS records has indicated the presence
      of both horizontal (H) and vertical (V) geodetic control survey
      monuments in the proposed  project area.  Attached are the
      published geodetic control data for quadrangle  330952 (H) and
      Texas  State Level Line 200 (V).

      This information should be reviewed for identifying the location
      and designation of any geodetic control monuments that may be
2-2   affected  by the proposed project.  If there are any planned
      activities which will disturb or destroy these  monuments, CSGS
      requires  not less than 90  days'  notification  in advance of such
      activities in order to plan for their relocation.  CSGS
      recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any
      relocation required for CSGS monuments.  For  further information
      about  these monuments, please contact the National Geodetic
      Information Branch, N/CG17,  Rockwall Bldg., room 20, National
      Geodetic  Survey, NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 208S2, telephone
     .301-443-8631.

      Attachments

      cc:
      N/CG1x32  - Cohen
      N/CG17 -  Spencer
                                                                                               2-2      Prior lc> disturbance of horhtinlul or vertical geodetic control survey monuments by
                                                                                                       TUMCO in the proposed project area, TUMCO has agreed to provide not less than
                                                                                                       90 days" notification in advance of such activities to the National Geodetic Information
                                                                                                       Branch, N/CG17. Rockwall  Bldg., Room 20, National Geodetic Survey, NOAA.
                                                                                                       RockJille, Maryland 20SS2.

-------
            Advisory
            Council On
            Historic
            Preservation
            The Old Post office Building
            1100 Pennsylvania Avenur. NW. «8O9
            Washington. DC 20004   •
                                         Reply lo
                                                730 Simms Street. »40I
                                                Golden. Colorado 80401
o
     3-1
                                                     12 1990
 June 6,  1990

 Mr. Nona Thomas                           '       DC.T
 Chief, Federal Activities Branch  (6E-F)
 Environmental Protection Agency
 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
 Dallas,  TX  75202-2733

 KEF: Monticello B-2 Area Surface  Lignite Mine,  Titus County, TX

 Dear Mr.  Thomas:

' On Hay 14,  1990,  we received the  draft BIS and  draft Programmatic
 Agreement for  the referenced  project.    we  have  reviewed these
 documents and are pleased with  the quality of this initial effort.
 The following are our comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement.

   1.   He  recommend  that  the EPA coordinate  its  Section  106
 compliance efforts with  the Ft.  Worth  District  of the  Corps of
 Engineers and invite  them to concur with the PA pursuant to 36 CFR
 5800.14.   with that,  we recommend an  additional  clause  in  the
 Preamble between the  third and fourth  paragraphs  which states:

 "WHEREAS,  the EPA has consulted  with  the Texas  Utilities Mining
 Company  and  the Corps of Engineers  and has invited them to concur
 in this  Agreement; and".

   2.   Under  Stipulation  5, we recommend  that  the last  sentence
 read: "If adverse effects will occur,  EPA shall,  in  consultation
 with the SHPO and ACHP, seek ways  to avoid or reduce the effects."

   3.  Under Stipulation 8, second  paragraph, we  recommend that the
 last sentence be  omitted.   If the  resolution of eligibility  was
 conducted appropriately, additional  testing should not be necessary
 by the time  a treatment plan is to  be  developed.

   4.    Under  Stipulation  11,  we   recommend  that  consultation
 procedures in the event of a discovery include  notifying the ACHP
 and  providing  us with  a  report  of  the  discovery  situation.
 Consultation should be conducted in  accordance with 36 CFR 1800.11.
                                                                                            3-1       In consideration of comments 1-5, the Programmatic Agreement (PA) was revised and
                                                                                                    re-submitted lo the Council for signature. Final ratification of this PA documents
                                                                                                    Section 106 compliance for this undertaking (see Appendix E of ihis FEIS).

-------
  3-1
(confd)
o
^1
        5.   We recommend that an  additional  stipulation  be added under
      ADMINISTRATIVE which directs the EPA to  submit  an  annual summary
      report of the activities carried out under the terms of the PA to
      the SHPO and ACHP.  This report should be designed  to provide the
      basis  for  an  annual   review  by  the  signatories  of  the  FAs
      effectiveness and to determine whether any changes in its terms are
      necessary.

      Again, we appreciate the thoroughness and  quality of the draft PA,
      and we believe that your desire to have an executed PA by October
      1990  is  realistic.   If you have  any questions regarding these
      matters, please contact Alan Stanfill at  (303) 236-2682 or FTS
     . 776-2682.
        Claudia Hissley
        Director, Western office
          of Project Review

-------
                             DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                        FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                     f. O BOX I73OO
                              FORT WORTH. TEXAS 761CU COOO
                                     June 22, 1990
          Operations Division
          Office  Operations Branch
                                                             JUNE 7 1990

                                                                6E-F
          SUBJECT:  Draft  EIS Review,  Monticello  B-2 and Honticello
          Leesburg
?
00
   4-1
    4-2
  Hr. Norn Thomas
  Chief,  Federal Activities Branch
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Region  VI
  1445 Ross Avenue
  Dallas,  Texas 75202*2733

  Dear Mr.  Thomas:

      This letter  is  to provide comments  on the draft
  Environmental lapact Statements (ElS's)  for the Monticello B-2
  and Leesburg lignite mine expansions  in  Titus and Camp
  counties, Texas.   The expansions are  proposed by the  Texas
  Utilities Mining  Company (TUMCO).

      Our primary concern with  the draft  EIS's is the manner in
  which  impacts to  wetlands are addressed.   In the Summary
  Sections of both  EIS's, a statement is  included which refers to
  the Corps' responsibilities under Section 404 of the  Clean
  Water Act, and defers the assessment  of  effects on wetlands to
  the Section 404 review.  He believe that NEPA requires  that you
  address all of the  impacts associated with the proposed
  projects in the EIS's.  Therefore, the  assessment of  the
  effects on wetlands, including any mitigation plans,  must be
  included in the ETS's.  It is inappropriate for EPA to  defer
  the assessment of project impacts on  wetlands to another
_ agency's permitting authority.

      In  paragraph  2.11.1.1 of  both EIS's,  you state the  EPA
  policy  to pursue  the goal for no net  loss of the Nation's
  wetlands.  However, these portions of the EIS's address
  "Alternatives Available To Other Agencies," and it appears that
  EPA intends to rely on the Section 404  program to enforce the
  no net  loss policy.  All of EPA's concerns should be  resolved
  and EPA policies  should be applied during your review of the
  projects under your agency's  permitting  authority, not  deferred
  to another agency.
                                                                                                4-1
                                                                                                        EPA agrees and did not intend the NEPA assessment of wetland impacts should be the
                                                                                                        responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. Moreover. EPA has evaluated the potential
                                                                                                        impacts on wetland resources, including a wetlands mitigation plan (Appendix D of this
                                                                                                        Final EIS) and a revised wetlands analysis in Part III B, entitled 'Ecologically Sensitive
                                                                                                        Areas*.
                                                                                                4-2
EPA does not consider il a contradiction to include its "no net loss of the Nations
Wetlands* in a discussion of the Section 404 program. In addition, it is consistent with
Section 404 review procedures (i.e.. the State Program General Permit for surface coal
mine projects) for EPA and other designated agencies to recommend special conditions
to minimize or reduce certain adverse impacts. Therefore, to suggest eliminating the
404 permitting process as a possible mechanism for wetlands protection is. in EPA's
opinion, improper.
                                      4Q
                                           \\

-------
                                             -2-
       4-3
       4-4
?
.V£>
       4-5
      As  you  are aware, our  Permits Section is working  with
  TUMCO and Mr.  Bill Kirchner  of  your office to delineate the
  wetlands on the Monticello B-2  tract.  This in the  first step
  in quantifying the project effects on wetland habitats.  Once
  identified, inpacts to  important wetland resources  can be
  avoided, minimized, or  mitigated as appropriate, and  an
_ assessment  of  the impacts  included in the ElS's.

      We  reviewed the EIS's  for cultural resources compliance,
  and believe the Programmatic Agreements offer sufficient
  compliance  with Section 106  of  the National Historic
  Preservation Act.  Cultural  resources work performed  at the
  mines to date  has provided the  necessary background to proceed
  with the agreement document.

      The Corps  of Engineers recommends that the final
  determination  of the issuance of the Monticello Leesburg and
  B-2 NPDES permits be delayed until a full assessment  of the
  project inpacts on wetlands  is  included in the EIS's.   If this
  assessment  is  not accomplished  during the EIS process, and
  appropriate mitigation  measures are not required, we  recommend'
  denial  of the  NPDES permits.  If you have any questions
  concerning  this matter,  please  contact Mr. Steve Swihart at the
[_ address above  or telephone (817)33-1-4623.
                                                                                              4-3
EPA concurs. The latest information on jurisdiclional delineation is included in Part
III B and Appendix D of this Final EIS.
                                                                                              4-4
                                                                                              4-5
                                                                                                      Comment noted.
EPA's final decision on the NPDES permit will take into consideration the potential
impacts on wetlands as presented in the Draft and Final EISs, as well as the Corps
recommendation that the permit be dented if "appropriate" mitigation measures arc
not required.
             Copies Furnished:
                                          L.  M. Hawkins, Jr.      /'  '
                                          Chief, Office Operatior/s Branch
             Mr.  Rollin MacRae, Texas  Parks and Wildlife Department
             4200 Smith School Road, Austin,  Texas 78444

             Mr.  Robert M. Short, U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service
             Ecological Services, Stadium Centre Building,
             711  Stadium Drive, East,  Suite 252
             Arlington, Texas 76011

             Mr.  Jerry Saunders, U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
             Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202

-------
                      United  States Department of the Interior


                                  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                                 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
                                      POST OFFICE BOX M?
                                  ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO 8710]
                                      June  26,  1990
           ER 90/467
                                                      JUN291990
n
  Mr. Norm Thomas, Chief
  Federal  Activities Branch  (6E-F)
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  1445  Ross Avenue
  Dallas,  Texas  75202-2733

  Dear  Mr.  Thomas:

  The Department  of the Interior  has  reviewed the Draft
  Environmental  Impact Statement  (DEIS)  for the Monti cello B-2 Area
  Surface  Lignite Mine in Titus County,  Texas.   The following
  comments  atv  provided fot youi  use  and consideration in preparing
  the final  document.
    6-1
    6-2
  GENERAL COMMENTS

  The Department  is  concerned that  this  environmental document
  lacks essential  information with  respect  to the impact of the
  mining operation on wetland habitats and  does not identify
  acceptable mitigation alternatives  for the impacts to wetland
  resources.  Although the need for a reevaluation of the extent of
  jurisdictional  wetlands within the project area is discussed in
  the DEIS, the individual and cumulative impacts of the mine
  operation on wetlands need to be more  thoroughly addressed, and
_ acceptable mitigation features identified.

  The U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service provided comments to your
  agency during the  DEIS scoping process.   These comments indicated
  strong concern  about the potential impact of this surface mining
  project on wetland resources.  This concern was also expressed to
  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 15,  1990, during
  preliminary review of the mining company's application for
  Section 404 authorization under the State Program General Permit
  for surface coal mining activities in  wetlands.   In those
  comments, it was requested that the company avoid impacts to
  wetlands wherever  feasible in accordance  with existing Federal
  laws, regulations,  and policies concerning wetlands protection.
  Where avoidance  is not possible or practical, full restoration of
  the impacted wetlands on at least an acre-for-acre basis was
  recommended.
                                                                                             5-1
                                                                                                     ThU FEIS conliliu additional Information on the impact to wellandf and identifies
                                                                                                     TUMCO'i proposed mitigation plans in greater detail (see Part III B and Appendix D).
                                                                                             5-2
                                                                                                    TUMCO's mine plan calls for the total avoidance of 410 acres of jurisdklional waters
                                                                                                    and wetlands within the permit area. TUMCO's reclamation plan calls for restoration
                                                                                                    of the impacted wetlands on an acre-tbr-acre basis for non-forested wetlands and 3 to
                                                                                                    1 for forested wetlands.

-------
           SPECIFIC COMMENTS
     5-3
o
 I
     5-4
  Section 3.9.7 (Reclamation Alternatives  Proposed bv TUMCOl.

  Although  this section indicates that TUMCO will place emphasis
  upon the  restoration and  promotion of wildlife resources  in
  important  habitats such streams, impoundments, and wetlands,  not
  enough emphasis is given  to the avoidance of these important
  areas to  begin with.  The Department's review of past reclamation
  actions by mining operators in the area,  including the  applicant,
  indicates  that their reclamation practices are inadequate to
  mitigate  adverse impacts  to high quality habitats, especially
  bottomland hardwoods and  wetlands.


 'Section 2.11.1 (Clean Hater Act Section  404 Permit - Alternatives
  Available  to other Agencies).

  The Department appreciates EPA's concern with the extent  of
  jurisdictional wetlands which have been  delineated within the
  project area that is discussed in this section.  He also  agree
  that the  project must be  carefully evaluated with respect to
  compliance with the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines due to its
  potential  individual and  cumulative impacts.  Any unavoidable
  wetland impacts should be fully mitigated through the replacement
  of wetland acreage and functional values.
                                                                                               S-3
                                                                                               5-4
TUMCO's mine plan calls for the avoidance of approximately 50% of the jurisdictional
waters and wetlands within the permit area. TUMCO's present reclamation practices
include the creation of wetland areas. These newly created wetlands have been
established for relatively short periods of lime and cannot be realistically compared to
mature bottomland hardwood forests. The successful restoration  of bottomland
hardwood forests Is a technically achievable goal that is presently being pursued by
TUMCO. Nevertheless, habitats such as mature upland forests and bottomland forests
will require several decades to attain their pre-mine condition. Thus, the overall value
of mined areas to wildlife will be greatly reduced during mining and early reclamation
periods, constituting a major, long-term adverse impact.

Comment noted.
                                                                                               5-5
(Please go to p. C-12).
     5-5
  Section  3.3.1.1 (Existing  Environment  -  Vegetation).

  The Department believes  that the amount  of wetland acreage within
  the project area is much greater than  the 227 acres of
  jurisdictional wetlands  delineated by  the project consultants.
  He concur  with EPA that  a  redetermination of the extent  of
  jurisdictional wetlands  on the project site is in order.   Please
  pay particular attention to the amount of hydric soils (1,449
  acres) and wetland indicator vegetation  that are present within
_ the area.
     5-6
~ Section  3.3.1.2 (Reclamation Plan - Vegetation).

  He believe that this reclamation plan gives insufficient
  consideration to the avoidance and/or reclamation of high  quality
  fish and wildlife habitat  and resources within the mine project
  area.  The majority of  the vegetation cover-types present  in the
  pre-mining environment  (e.g., bottomland  hardwood forest,
  herbaceous and forested wetlands, upland  pine and hardwood
  forest,  and native grasslands) are being  ignored in TUMCO's
  proposal  to reclaim 83  percent of the pioject area as

-------
5-5        The wetlands delineation has been redetermined based on techniques described in the
           Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, adopted by the
           Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
           Army, and the Soil Conservation Service, and dated January 10, 1989.

           A total of 804.6 acres of Jurisdictional waters and wetlands were delineated in the
           Monticello B-2 Study Area.

           Jurisdiclional Category                                                   Acreage

           Forested wetlands                                                         254.3
           Non-forested wetlands                                                     303.9
           On-channel ponds                                                         175.2
           Streams                                                                    71.2

           Of this area, TUMCO'i mine  plan calls  for 394.6 acres  to be directly affected by
           proposed mining activities during the life of the mine.

           Jurisdiclional Category                                                   Acreage

           Forested wetlands                                                         150.9
           Non-forested wetlands                                                      79.8
           On-channel ponds                                                         124.4
           Streams                                                                    39.5

           Comparison of the areas to be directly affected by mining activities with the total
           acreage of Jurisdictional waters and wetlands  occurring within the  sludy area
           demonstrates thai TUMCO'i mine planning activities have resulted in the avoidance
           of 410 acres of Jurisdiclional waters and wetlands.

           Jurisdictional Category                                                  Acreage

           Forested wetlands                                                         103.4
           Non-forested wetlands                                                     224.1
           On-channel ponds                                                         50.8
           Streams                                                                   31.7

-------
   5-e
(cont'dJ
    5-r
 o
   5-8
   5-9
pastureland.   Unless  high quality wildlife habitats ate  avoided
and/or reclaimed to a similar  cover-type,  long-term adverse
impacts to wildlife resources  within  the project  area will  occur.
 Also, there  is a need to reduce the  use of non-native or  invader
vegetation species during reclamation due to their competition
with  more desirable native plants.  Table 3.3-1  lists several
species, such as cottonwood, ash, sweetgum, Russian olive,  etc.,
which should  not be considered in the reclamation plan due to
their competitive advantage over more desirable  species.


Section 3.3.1.4 (Operation Impacts -  Vegetation).

The Department, as previously  stated,  believes that the  amount of
jurisdictional wetlands identified by the applicant is
inordinately  low, and concurs  in the  need to reevaluate  the
extent of wetland impacts associated  with this project,  using the
new Federal method for delineating wetlands.


Section 3.7.3.1 (Impacts to Oil  and Gas  Wells -  Land Use).

Although this section identifies five dry and abandoned  oil and
gas wells in  the study area, it  is unclear whether oil and gas is
a potential mineial resource in  the area and what impact the
proposed mining activities would have on future  recovery of that
resource.  Also, according to  Pennwell's 1982 map of natural gas
pipelines of  the U.S. and Canada, a natural gas  pipeline crosses
the project area.  Plans for relocating  or protecting the
pipeline should be included in subsequent versions of this
document, and the situation with regard  to the oil and gas
potential of  the aiea should be  clarified.


Section 3.7.4 (Post-minino Land  Uses).

Although pastureland  constitutes 51.7 percent of  the existing
land  uses within the  project area, it is the other agricultural
uses  (e.g., grazingland, undeveloped  land, forestry) that  account
for the majority of the wildlife habitat within  the area.
Undeveloped and forest lands contain  the majority of the high-
quality bottomland hardwoods,  forested and herbaceous wetlands,
and streams.   The Department is  concerned that the current
proposal to only commit token  acreage to the reclamation of
forested and  wetland  areas while converting the  majority of these
wildlife habitats to  a monoculture pastureland with minimal
wildlife habitat values, will  have a  long-term,  adverse  impact on
wildlife resources.
5-6       While TUMCO'f reclamation plan calls for the rcestablishment of wetlands, it is
         recognized that populatioiu of many species of wildlife dependent on woodlands,
         particularly bottomland hardwoods, will decline due to habitat loss and that EPA
         considers this to be a major, long-term, adverse impact.

         EPA discusses, in DEIS Section 3.3.1.2, the virtues of using native species adapted to
         long-term climatic extremes. However, EPA cannot dictate the species to be used in
         the reclamation process.  The Coal Mining Regulations, Section 816390 through
         816.396, discuss revegelation standards.  Section 816.391 empowers the Railroad
         Commission to approve the substitution of introduced species for native species under
         specific conditions. Where introduced species are approved for substitution of native
         species, the net loss of native species is a long-term negative impact.

5-7       See response 5-5 above.


5-8       EPA refers the commentor to DEIS Section 3.1.2.3, which slates "The occurrence of
         minerals resources beneath the depth of mining will not be directly affected by mining.
         However, it b likely that localized access to such resources will be restricted at different
         limes during the mining operation. No permanent loss of resource or loss of access will
        . occur." The mineral resources referred to in this section include potential oil and gas
         deposits.

         The  details of pipeline protection and/or relocation will be worked out between
         TUMCO and the owner of the natural gas pipeline.
                                                                                                    5-9      Comment noted. EPA considers the cumulative adverse impacts on 30,000 acres of
                                                                                                             associated wildlife habitat a long-term, major, adverse impact.  Abo, TUMCO's
                                                                                                             proposed  3:1  mitigation  of  forested  wetlands should  reestablish,  overtime,
                                                                                                             approximately 1,100 acres of wildlife habitat-(see Appendix D).

-------
                SUMMARY
 I
<->
.p-
       The  Department  of the  Interior is concerned about the  failure o
       the  DEIS to  adequately assess fish and  wildlife habitat  impacts
       resultant from  the loss  of  wetlands and to develop acceptable
       mitigation measures.  He believe the DEIS should address in
       greater detail:  1) the "irreversible and irretrievable
       commitments" of  high quality fish and wildlife habitats  (e.g.,
5-1O  wetlands) which would  be impacted by the applicant's selected
       plan of development, and 2) the mitigation alternatives  to the
       selected plan for protection of these important resources.  The
       document should  also emphasize that the Federal government will
       exercise its authority to protect and/or mitigate the  loss of
       these valuable  habitats  through existing laws, regulations, and
       policies concerning their conservation.

       He appreciate the opportunity to review this draft BIS and trua
8-11  that these comments will  be of use during development  of the
       final document.

                                        Sincerely,
                                                                                                 5-10
The effects of proposed mining and reclamation constitute a major, long-term, adverse
impact on wetlands and high quality fish and wildlife habitats. However, these impacts
are not considered 'irreversible and irretrievable' commitments of these important
resource*. It b EPA's policy to pursue the goal for no net loss of the nation's wetlands.
See Part III B and Appendix D of this Final EIS for details on the proposed wetlands
mitigation plan.
                                                                                                 5-11
                                                                                                         Comment noted.
                                                Raymond P. Churan
                                                Regional Environmental  Officer

-------
                           Texas Department of Health
                                                                              Rt

                                                                              JUN 2'6 1991.
    Robert Bernstein, M.O., F.A.C.P.
    Commissioner
                              1100 West 49th Street
                             Austin, Texas 78756-3189
                                 (512)458-7111

                                Radiation Control
                                 (512)835-7000
.  .
•pbert A. MicLein, M.O.
 ufrlJiny Commissioner
 Profession*! Services
 Hermis L Miller
 Deputy Commissioner
 Management and Adminiltr
            June  21,  1990
O
     6-1
Mr. Norm Thomas, Chief
Federal Activities Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  6E-F
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas  75202-2733

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Ve have recently reviewed a copy of the document entitled  "Draft
Environmental Impact Statements  Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Nine,
Titus County, Texas," which vas issued by  the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 906/04-90-003, April 1990).

We believe that several of the references  cited In the Monticello document
would be quite helpful to us in our work on reclamation of Texas uranium
sites.  Today I spoke by telephone with Mr. Joe Swlck of your office, end he
suggested that I write you, stating what documents we need.

If possible, we would like to-obtain  one copy each of the  following
publications, all of vhich are cited  In the referenced draft EIS:

Skousen, J.G. and C.A. Call.  1985.   "Sod-seeding Low Maintenance Plant
Species in Coastal Bermudagrass on Lignite Overburden In Texas."  In
Proceedings of 2nd Annual Meeting of  American Society for  Surface Mining and
Reclamation. Denver. Colorado.
                                                                  *
Texas Utilities Mining Company.  1988a.  "Reclamation Plan, Montlcello-
Leesburg Lignite Mine."  Falrfield, Texas.

Texas Utilities Mining Company.  19B8b.  "Fish and Wildlife Plan,
Honticello-Leesburg Lignite Mine."  Falrfield, Texas.

Texas Utilities Mining Company.  I989a.  "Reclamation Plan,  Monticello B-2
Lignite Mine."  Falrfield, Texas.

Texas Utilities Mining Company.  1989b.  "Fish and Wildlife Plan, Monticello
B-2 Lignite Mine."  Falrfield, Texas.
                                                                                                                    Copies of ihe Italcd publications have been provided as requested.

-------
    6-1 ,
 (cont'td
     6-2
o
   Mr.  Norm Thomas
   June 21, 1990
   Page 2

   U.S. Soil Conservation Service.  1985.  "Soil and Vater Conservation  Plan:
   Montlcello  B-2  Lignite Mine."  Prepared with the assistance of  the Sulphur-
   Cypress and Hopkins-Rains Soil and Vater Conservation District.   Ht.
   Pleasant and Sulphur Springs, Texas.

   Ve vould appreciate whatever help you can give us In obtaining copies of
|_ these documents.

   Since we anticipate that from time to time we may want to request other
   publications associated with EPA review of lignite projects, we  are
   interested in knowing what Is the best way to achieve this objective.  Any
   advice you can give us regarding procedures will be welcome.

   Ve would like to  be placed on your nailing list to receive a final copy  of
_ EPA EIS's on Texas  lignite projects.

   Thank you for your  attention.

   Sincerely,
                                                                                                                     EPA has placed you on the mailing list lo receive copies of (his and future EISs on
                                                                                                                     Texas lignile projects.  Information regarding EPA's review of lignite projects may be
                                                                                                                     requested from Norm Thomas, Chief, Federal  Activities Branch, at  the Dallas
                                                                                                                     Region 6 Office.
            Mary Thorpe  Parker,  Ph.D., Chief
            Ecological Evaluations Program
            Environmental Assessments Branch
            Division of  Licensing, Registration
              and Standards
            bcc:  Board/MTP

-------
                                                                         RE..
                        Texas  Department of Health
  Robert Bemileln. MO, f.A.Cf.                HOC We»t 49lh Street               Robert A. MacLean. MO
  CommiiKOner                          ~  Auttm, Texa. rerse               Deputy Commiiiloner
                                        
-------
             Mr. Norm Thomas
             Page Two
             Hay 23, 1990
00
                7-2
  mine.  There are no public water supply  wells  in  this area.  Most
  homes  are  served by the Trl Water Supply Corporation and the City
  of Mt. Pleasant which use surface water as their source.  There
  will also be a greater potential for downward flow of degraded
  water  (high  sulfate,  total dissolved solids, iron and manganese)
  into the Vilcox formation.

  The   surface  mining  operation will  also temporarily affect
  surface  waters around  the mine with  higher than normal
  concentrations  of  dissolved and suspended  solids.  After
  reclamation and revegetation,  this  is expected to decrease.

  Due  to these impacts, the TDH encourages close evaluation of
  their monitoring program.

"  The  following  few  paragraphs  are addressed primarily  to Section
  3.9,  pages 3-145 through 3-148,  the Public  Health statement.  In
  general,  this  section  has not  been  well-prepared and Is
  inadequate for determination of the potential for significant
  impact upon public health of  the mining  operation.

  Specifically, the statements made in this section are without
 documentation.  Perusal  of  the reference section suggests  that
 very few of the statements  contained within  the body of the
 document have  been  verified  through  a  review  of the literature.
 Certainly,  those assertions regarding the impact  on public  health
 are not convincing.

 To Illustrate!   the authors of the DEIS  state  that  relocation of
 various  layers of  overburden  material  containing  different
 amounts of the radlonuclldes uranium  and thorium will occur.  The
 Impact of  such an operation on  the ambient radiation burden of
 the area Is not addressed. Additionally,  the  authors state  that
 the expected "release  of Rn-222  by  exposed  lignite during mining
 operations* should  be similar to that of "existing undisturbed
 conditions."  Again,  no documentation is offered  and no plans for
 environmental monitoring could be Identified in  the extant
 document.

 The DEIS  falls to  provide a definitive  statement as to the
 radlonuclldes  present  and  their  concentrations.   The conclusions
 of the  DEIS are based  on  assumptions that  conditions within the
 proposed  mine area do  not  deviate  from  the averages reported by
 the National Council of Radiation Protection and  Measurements in
                                                                                                          7-1       Primary responsibility Tor evaluation of monitoring programs associated with the
                                                                                                                   mine has been delegated to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the
                                                                                                                   Railroad Commission of Texas by the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface
                                                                                                                   Mining.

                                                                                                          7-2       Acknowledged. The FEIS contains additional discussion on the impact to public
                                                                                                                   health resulting from proposed mining and reclamation operations at the B-2 mine.
                                                                                                                   See Part II B.

-------
             Mr. Norm Thomas
             Page Three
             May 23, 1990
n
t—•
vo
                7-2
             (cont'd.)
       7-3
          their  Report No. 45.  Specific data  on  radionuclldes,  especially
          radium, would  be more  useful for the  lignite in the proposed
          areas, since studies by our  Department have shown  that Texas
          lignite varies considerably  in radiological content.

          In  addition, the statements and conclusions pertaining to radon-
          222 emanation and anticipated Impact  cannot be made until  the
          radlum-226 concentration and radon flux from the soil In  the
          undisturbed and disturbed states are known.

          The potential for release of radionuclldes by groundwater  and
          surface water and any resulting impacts are not discussed in  the
       L.DEIS.

Ve appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement  -- Honticello B-2 Surface  Lignite
Mine.
              L./D. Thurman, P.E.
              Associate Commissioner for Environmental
               and Consumer Health Protection
7-3
         Comment noted.
              HUB:re

              ccs: Bureau of Radiation Control, TDK
                  Bureau of Disease Control and Epidemiology, TDK
                  Bureau of Environmental Health, TDK
                  Public Health Region 7, TDH

-------
                                         a-,/  \  ;
                                         ^i«.      'i
                                              mi IHMH fo«
TEXAS
r.o. BOX HIT*
                      HISTORICAL
                                         At'STIN. TEXAS 7ITII
                                            June 3. 1990
                                                        COMMISSION
                                                                                  ISIIMtMIM
 8-1
8-2
  Norm Thomas
  Chief, Federal Activities Branch (6E-F)
  Environmental Protection Agency
  Reg) on 6
  1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
  Dallas. Texas 75202-2733

  Rer Draft Programmatic Agreement
      Moniicello B-2 Mine
      (OSM/RRC, A2, A4, A5. El)

  Dear Mr. Thomas:

  We have completed our review of the referenced Programmatic Agreement (PA), and have
  enclosed our comments on the document for your consideration in finalizing it in the near future.
  Our comments on the Moniicello B-2 Mine PA are the same as those we provided lo EPA on the
  Monticello-Leesburg PA with the exception of those relating to Attachment t, since il was not
  included in Appendix B of the EIS or your letter. Please forward a copy of Attachment I for our
  review.

  Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Moniicello B-2 PA, and we
  look forward lo its execution,  if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or
_ Timothy K. Perttula of my stiff at (512) 463-6096.

  Sincerely,         ,,
                     h. Ph.D.
    /"Deputy Slate Historic Preservation Officer

 ,     TKP/JEB/Slon

      /Enclosure

       ec: Mr. Legett Garrelt, Texas Utilities Mining Company
          Mr. Melvln Hodgkiss, Railroad Commission of Texas
          Mr. Foster Kirby, OSM, Denver
          Ms. Claudia Nissley, ACHP, Denver
          Mr. T.C. Adams, Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
                                                                                                               8-1        A copy of AlUchmenl l MB lubmilted under Kparale cover far your review.
                                                                                                               8-2        Cbmmenl noted.

-------
            Comments on Draft PA
O
ro
    0-3
1. We recommend that the Corps of Engineers (COE) participate in the consultation process for the
development of the PA since they will need lo issue a Section 404 permit for the undertaking to
proceed, and they will have Joint administrative responsibilities with EPA. Texas Utilities Mining
Company should be invited to be a consulting party to the agreement In accordance with 36 CFR
800.l3(b).  Signature lines should be added for these parties, along with a separate WHEREAS
clause in the Preamble: "WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Fort Worth District and
Texas Utilities Mining Company participated in the consultation and have been invited lo concur in
this PA."

2. Stipulation 2a and 2b: To be more consistent with 36 CFR Pan ROD, we suggest deleting "will
be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the undertaking" and replacing the phrase with "are
within the undertaking's area of potential effect"

3. Stipulation 6: Please make reference to Attachment 1. pan Cl.

4. Stipulation 8, 2nd paragraph:  Add "data recovery" lo the second sentence, before "plans for
controlled grading."

5. Stipulation 9: Add "and liking into account the comments of the SHPO, the ACHP, and the
concerned public" after "Following its consultation." We also recommend adding an additional
sentence to the stipulation which stales: "Objections to the 'Plan for the Treatment of Historic
Properties'  will be resolved by EPA through consultation with the objecting party in accordance
with Stipulation 14 of this Agreement."

6. Stipulation 10: Following the guidelines In Preparing Agreement Document} (ACHP, 1919),
we recommend adding an additional sentence that specifies what the monitoring will entail:  "At a
ininimum,  such monitoring will include recording and reporting of major features or artifact
concentrations uncovered, and recovery/curation of a sample of the remains uncovered where
practicable."

7.   Stipulation 11:  If mitigation measures are deemed  necessary  by EPA,  they should be
Implemented in accordance with Stipulation 8 of this PA, and stipulation 11 should state this.

8.  The  PA should contain a stipulation on  the preparation and dissemination of all final
archeological reports resulting from actions pursuant to this Agreement, and provision for the
preparation of an annual or biennial report to all consulting parties in die implementation of the PA.
This will serve lo keep all consulting panics informed of the progress of the work through the 35
years of mining at Monticello B-2. A stipulation that specifies an expiration date for the Agreement
would be a useful addition, as would a stipulation on the treatment of any human remains that
might be encountered on the mine as a result of implementing the PA.  The laner stipulation
appears to be especially appropriate because of the likelihood of encountering human burials and
grave goods on the Late Prehistoric Caddoan sites within the project area. Suggested language for
this stipulation Is as follows:

   "If human remains and associated grave goods are encountered during any actions
   associated with die implementation of this agreement. Including data recovery, monitoring,
   or discovery situations, EPA will consult with die SHPO, the ACHP, and any concerned
   panics,  on the treatment and disposition of these remains. Proposed treatment measures
   will be developed by EPA and the applicant In accordance with applicable Federal and Slate
   laws, regulations, and guidelines concerning human remains and associated grave goods.
   If the SHPO, ACHP, and concerned panics do not object to the measures proposed within
   30 days of dieir receipt, EPA will ensure that they are implemented.
                                                                                                                      8-3        In consideration of comments 1 -8, the Programmatic Agreement (PA) wts revised and
                                                                                                                                 ratibmilled lo the SHPO'i Office for ilgnalure. Final nliflc*lion of Ihb PA will
                                                                                                                                 document Section 106 compliance for Ihb undertaking (tee Appendix E of Ihb FEIS).

-------
                                                             RECEIVED
    conmstttM
    CHUCK WSH
     Ch»tm*n SanUwtM
                     TEXAS
      PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTME
      4100 Inllk tetrad *o«4 • Austin, TliM mu
                                                               *f ctudts
                                                                           o nwvij
     IKMI1SS
     niiv»

     Httwrc itCK.ni
     OHM

     OO.OH CKHOtt
                 July  5,  199O
Hi. Pamela  X.  Mintz, chief
federal Asiistanc* Section (6E-rr>
U.S. Envlrormental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Rose Avenue,  Suite 1200
Dallas, Texae   75202
     JOHN WISOM «eisiv
                 Re i
o

K>
K>
                         Draft Environmental Inpact Statenent,
                         Proposed Hontlcello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine
                         Project, Tltua County, Texas
im*>         Dear Ms. Mintsi

           ' On March 14, 1990 our  agency  submitted a  letter  (copy
            attached) providing Information concerning the preliminary
            draft  of   the   above  referenced  environmental  Impact
            statement.  Comment*  addressed  Section   3.)  (Biological
            Resources).  Changes,  addition,  and  recommendations were
            provided In Attachments  I-III.

            Although time constraints on the compilation of the  draft
            EIS may have precluded Inclusion of our comments, they are
            still appropriate to  our  assessment of recommendations
            pertinent to revegetatlon of the mine.

            Also, we noted  that two  Important sentences on page 3-73
            of the preliminary draft were omitted In the draft EIS (see
          _ attached copies).

            Sincerely,
           0-1
           9-2
           9-3
                                                                                            9-1      See response lo individual commenu contained in your March 14.1990 Idler.
                                                                                            9-2      Your assistance b appreciated by EPA.
                                                                           9-3      The leniences you reference were intentionally deleted by EPA alter review of the
                                                                                   preliminary draft.
                 _arry D. McKlAney, Ph.D.
                 Director,  Resource Protection Division

                 LDHcKiRCTlwja

                 Attachments

-------
                        "AttacWnent. to TPUDrletter idatju! July 5,  1990"
                         V/uXjLfcwi/i i-'-ii  U-'/if. It"  t- L  5
          "Attchment to TPUD  letter  dated  July  5, 1990"
NJ
           A pre-mlnlng Inventory of plants will be used as a guide In the selection of species
to be established In reclaimed areas, giving priority to plants which provide wildlife forage and
habitat.  A Ibl of species recommended as  generally adapted to native toils in the region and
having potential as reclamation plants b presented In Table 3 J-l.  This table was derived  from
Information presented In the Fish and Wildlife Plan (TUMCO, 1989b) and In the Soil and Water
Conservation Plan which has been developed In cooperation with the  SCS  and the Sulphur-
Cypress/Hopkins-Rilns Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SCS, 1985).  More Information on
revegelation species and their enhancement  rating for wildlife forage ind habitat b  available In
these plans.  Actual species used will vary with the approved post-mining land use, exbllng loll
conditions, and species, availability.

           In  particular, the TPWD recommends that the habitat that  b  reclaimed should
contain an assemblage of native species which Includes grasses, forbs and woody plants.  Specific
plantings of  woody  species  In particular patterns would maximize wildlife  use of the  area.
Plantings of trees and shrubs In rows or molts should be placed lo blend In with lands adjacent
lo the project lo encourage wildlife use (TPWD, 1989).

           Re-establishment of vegetation b dependent upon selection of plant species which
are  adapted  lo the Itudy area.  Plants  native to the area are adapted lo long-term climatic
extremes.  Therefore, they have belter chances for long-term survival than do non-native  plant
species and are more likely to contribute to a mature and liable vegetation community. | In order
lo accomplish the objectives of the reclamation plan, these native species  and others should be
emphasized in all planting scenarios, with particular emphasis placed on those species that are
considered valuable to wildlife and those species that are not widely dispersed  naturally  (e.g.,
oaks).  Exotic species, species of low wildlife value, and  species that are rapidly dispersed  by
natural means should be used sparingly In the revegetalion of mined areas (Yantis. 1986)71

           Adapted vegetation also has the advantage of requiring less maintenance than non-
adaptive  plants.   For  example,  reclamation  of paslureland with the non-native  coastal
bermudagrass fCvnodon daetvlon) results In a situation which requires high levels of management
to maintain.  Native ipedet, however, such as hidiangrass and switchgrass fPanlcunj rlraatum) are
adapted lo the study area. They can establish and persist with very low management  levels.  One
Itudy (Skousen and Call, 1985) near Fairfield, Texas, experimented with mlerseedlng of  these
low-maintenance native grasses lo Improve forage quantity and quality without  Increasing cultural
Inputs. They concluded that  aod-seeding these species Into coastal bermudagrass shows promise
for enhancing diversity and Increasing productivity on surface-mined areas In  Texas.

           The entire area impacled by mining within the Monticello B-2 study area b proposed
lo be reclaimed as paslureland, reflecting the general land us* trends of the region.  This will be
accomplished by reclaiming approximately 83% of the  mined acreage to a paslnreland forage
cover type, 13% lo a tree and shrub cover  type for wildlife habitat  enhancement and livestock
cover, and 4% lo ponds necessary for livestock and wildlife management.  Those areas Intended
for use as paslnreland forage (83%) will be predominantly planted  with coastal bermudagrass,
common bermudagrass, crimson clover, aitowleaf clover, vetch, wheat, and oats. Annual species
will be utilized as •  temporary vegetative cover when  Immediate establishment of permanent
vegetation b Impractical.  Selection and establishment  of temporary cover will be  coordinated
                                                                           VEGETATION

            A pre-miniag Inventory of plants will be used as a guide in the selection of species
 lo be established in reclaimed areas, giving priority lo plants which provide wildlife forage and
 habitat.  A list of species recommended as generally adapted lo native toib in the region and
 having potential as reclamation plants b presented In Table 3-3-1.  This table was derived from
 Information presented la the Fish and Wildlife Plan (TUMOO, 1989b) and in the Soil and Water
 Conservation Plaa  which has been developed in cooperation with the SCS and the Sulphur-
 Cvpress/Hopkins-Rains Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SCS. 1985). More information on
 revegetatioo species and their enhancement rating for wildlife forage and habitat b available in
 these plans.  Actual species used will vary with the approved post-mining land use, existing soil
 conditions, and species availability.

            In particular, the TPWD  recommends that the habitat thai b reclaimed should
 contain an assemblage of native species which includes grasses, forbs and woody plants. Specific
 plantings of woody species  In particular patterns would maximize wildlife use of the  area.
 Plantings of trees and shrubs in rows or molls should be placed to  blend in with  lands adjacent
 lo the project to encourage wildlife use (TPWD,  1989).   Re-eJIablishmenI of vegetation  b
 dependent upon selection of plant species which are adapted to the study area.  Plants native lo
 the area  are adapted to  long-term climatic extremes.  Therefore, they have belter chances for
 long-term survival than do non-native plant species and are more likely lo contribute lo a mature
 and stable vegetation community (Yantis, 1986).  O^IUJl  /u,jta»ct— >L«n
                                              eU«i( .                  1
           Adapted vegetation also has the advantage of requiring less maintenance than non-
 adaptive  plants.   For  example, reclamation of  paslureland  with  the  non-native  coastal
 bermudagrass (Omodon  dsctvlon) generally requires high levels of management lo  maimain.
 Native species, however, such as  Indiangrass and switchgrass (Fanicum viraatuml are adapted to
 the study area.  They can establish and persist with very low management levels. One study
 (Skousen and Call, 1985) near Fairfield, Texas, experimented with inlerseeding  of these low-
 maintenance  native grasses lo Improve forage quantity and quality without increasing cultural
 Inputs. They concluded thai tod-seeding these species into coastal bermudagrass shows promise
 for enhancing diversity and Increasing productivity on surface-mined areas  in Texas.

           The entire area impacted by mining within the Monlkello B-2 study area b proposed / .y.
 to be reclaimed as pasturetand, reflecting the general land use trends of the region.  This will be
 accomplished by reclaiming approximately  83% of the mined acreage to a  pastureland forage
 cover type, 13% to  * tree and shrub cover  type for wildlife habitat  enhancement  and  livestock
 cover, and 4% to ponds necessary for livestock and wildlife management. Those areas intended
 for use as pastureland forage (83%) wfll be predominantly planted  with coastal bermudagrass.
 common bermudagrass, crimson clover, arrowleaf clover, vetch, wheat, and oats. Annual species
 will  be utilized as a temporary vegetative cover when immediate establishment of permanent
 vegetation b Impractical.  Selection and establishment of temporary cover will be coordinated
with the planned establishment of permanent cover lo ensure compatibility.  Annual species will
be removed as necessary by chemical or physical  means lo eliminate competition during the
establishment of perennial vegetation.  Details regarding merhodok>0 for planting and managing
paslureland aa well as standards for determining pastureland production and reclamation success
are available In the reclamation plan (TUMCO, 1989a).
             t*MM
                                                       3-13
                                                                                                                                                                     3-73

-------
                                         TEXAS
                           PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
       CWCKMSH
        O-4'mv..Sm

       Gto»GtC nuTMin*
        HtMrrciECX.il
         MM

        W.OH CWWT
        jowwisoiiiaasrr
         HouIWi
o
ro
it ftomttHKMtt*
 ma
              10-1
             10-2
                                                M rim • |l|.SK-4tW
 March  14,  1990

 Ms. Pamela K.  Minti,  chief
 Federal Assistance Section (tt-tT)
 O.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Region 6
 1445 Rose Avenue,  Suite 1200
 Dallas, Texas   75202

 Ret    Preliminary Draft environmental Impact Statement,
        Proposed Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine
        Project, Titus County,  Texas

 Dear Ms. Hintti

 This  letter provldee  information  concerning the  above
 referenced environmental Impact statement. Comments addrees
 Section 3.3 (Biological Resources).  Changes, additions, snd
 recommendation* are proposed in Attachment X.

' While revegetetlen of non-native herbaceous plant speeiee
 can be important  as  temporary  cover to prevent erosion
 (e.g., millets, small  grains, and sorghum), the  use of
 native  species Is preferred  for   permanent  reclamation.
 Also, nativs species  that provide high-quality rated food
 and cover for wildlife  are particularly  important,  for
 these reasons,  several species should be omitted from the
 reclamation plan (Table 3.9-1)1 see  Attachment II. Rational
 for selection of plant species for  reclamation is found in
 Attachment III.

 Planting  densities  (stocking  ratio*}  used  will  vary
 according  to  soil and  climatic conditions  and whether
 seedlings or saplings  are used. Many  reclamation plans,
 provide a minimum stocking ratio of 400-700 stems per acre
 (350-726 for this reclamation plan)  of trees and ahrubs.
 The ratio  is  unsuitable as wildlife habitat and causes
 severe competition and stunting among the plants.

 If saplings  are used  instead of ssedllngs,  this stocking
 rats can be lowered  conaidarably   (e.g., 40-70  stems per
 acre). Therefore, plant survival and rapid growth would be
 enhanced end the results would be much more conslstsnt with
 wildlife habitat requirements  (e.g.,  10 established trees
 per acre or 5 establlshsd trees and 15 eatabllshed shrubs
 per acre). The primary goal Is survival  of enough plants
 to serve as an adequate  seed source and ample habitat for
 wildlife in the future.
                                                                                             10-1
                                                                                                    Comment Kkncwledfed. EPA dimmed (he •dvmUfet at ahi( native ipecks for
                                                                                                    permanent reclnrnilon In DEIS Section 33.13 end (he Sommny Tible M.
                                                                                            10-2
                                                                                                    EPA eoncura.  Proper phnihi| denilfel (Hocking ratio*) ind use of nplinp can
                                                                                                    enhance rechnulion results ind wildlife hibilati.

-------
                          MB.  Panda x. Mints
                          Pag* 2
o
 I
10-3   diversity and int*r*p*ralon of plant* .  Monoculture* ehould
     |_b* avoided.

       Revegetatlon »ay alio require control of th* local  deer
       population to  prevent br owe Ing daaage. Teapormry fencing
       1* on* aean* to prevent daaago to young voody plant* and
10-4   th* poate and vlrea provide perchee  for **ed-eating bird*
       vhoee   dropping*  accelerate  revegetation.  Additional
       reconaandation* can be provided by Texae Park* and Wildlife
     _ district wildlife biologl*t*  upon regueet.

       I *ppr*clat* th* opportunity to provide eovaent* on  thl*
       permit application.

       Sincerely,
                                                                                           10"J
                                                                                                   EPA "**""• Sn p>rt " B >nd API*"** D. Section 32 at Oat Final FEB.
                                                                                                        ...
                                                                                           1(M     AttoK»W|ed.
                                                                                                   Mniegiet to protect joung woodjr pUnu.
                              <-l A' >f"-*t
                          •Charge* 0. Travi*
                          Executive Director

                          CDTIRCTIWJS
                                 Thonai J. Cloud, Jr., U.S. Fleh and Wildlife Service
                                      Fort Worth, Texa*

-------
                                      ATTACHMENT X
10-S
10-6
tO-7
10-8
10-9
                                        Commits

              Reclamation  should  stress  reeetabllshnent of diverse native
              forest/gfassland community type*  (Post Oak  Savannah)  rather
              than  conversion to  Intensively-managed pasturalandsi
       Vegetation Type


       Graeeland
       Upland Foreet

       Bottomland Hardwood
         Forest
       Pine  Forest
       Disturbed Land
       Cropland
       Aquatic Habltate
                                          Current (%)
                                             M
                                             14. •
                                              3.9
                                              3.2
                                              2.4
                                              1.2
                                            100.0
Proposed
Reestabllshmant (4)

      •3
      13  (all forest
          types)
                                                                 « (stock ponds)
                                                               100.0
       This  proposed reestabllshaent is  an increase  of IS  percent
       non-native grassland for production of hay and/or livestock*
       a loss of  12.2 percent  of forest-land  (no proposal  for the
       percentage of different forest types  to be reestablished is
       provided); and an  Increase of  2.* percent aquatic habitats
       (all stock ponds.)

 2.    Native grassland  community  typss should  be  reestablished
       rather than  be converted to  intensively-managed non-native
       pasturelands.

 3.    Bottenland/rlparian/hydrie areas should be protected or fully
       restored   during   reclamation.   These   areas   are  becoming
       increasingly  scarce  and  vulnerable.   They  are  especially
       Important as wildlife habitat.

'4.    Other  Important areas for wildlife are dralnagevays,  fence
       rows,  roadsides, and notts. Vegetation In  these areas should
       be reestablished.

 S.    Impoundments   and   associated  wetlands  provide  excellent
      wildlife  habitat for both  permanent and migratory species.
      Aquatic  and  riparian vegetation  should  be reestablished in
      these areas and  be  protected from cattle.
                                                                                       10-S
                                                                                              104
                                                                                              10-7
                                            Comment noted. Restablished monoculture pailureland with minimi] wildlife nines
                                            constitute* a major, long-term, advene impact.
                                                                                              10-9
                                            Native grassland communllle* In the itudjr area edit primarily as improved pasture.
                                            which due to the lack of maintenance, have been recoloniied by native species. Native
                                            grasslands are not proposed In the reclamation plan and EPA considers llm lots an
                                            adverse impact.

                                            TUMCO'i mine plan calls for the avoidance of 410 acre* of Jurbdiclronil waters and
                                            wetlands. Further, TUMCOs reclamation plan calk for the restoration of bottomland
                                            hardwood areas and the creation and maintenance of wetland areas. However, EPA
                                            considers the overall value of mined areas to wildlife lo be (ready reduced. Even with
                                            proper reclamation, habitats inch a> mature forests will require several decades to
                                            attain their pre-mine condition.

                                            The soil and water conservation plan developed for die project calb for establishment
                                            of tree and shrub plantings along selected waterDow areas and in pattern designed lo
                                            provide travel lanes for wildlife (see DEIS Section 3J.U).

                                            Impoundments and associated wetlands will be  reestablished to benefit livestock
                                            production and wildlife habitat (tee DEIS Section 3 J.U and FEIS Appeadhi D).

-------
                                      ATTACHMENT II
     10-10
O

fo
                     Specie* Which ehould be emitted from Table 3.3-1

            Deciduoue Zxttl                   Cra**e*
            Apricot
            A*h
            Cottonvood
            Black Locuet
            Sycanor*
            Ev«rar««n
            Chinei* Arborvita*
            Ptn«
             IftJJL
             RUBS Ian Ollva
             Pfitr«r Juniper
             Pyracanths
             Vonechran Juniper
                                           1010
                                                   Comment noted.
BahlagraiB, paniacola
BerBUd*9r*in eoaaon or HK-37,
     Coastal, Sel.  3, Tlfton 44
BlueateMi-  Caucasian,  plain*,
     T-S87, Old World
XlelngraiB, Sel«ctlon-7S
Loveara**, weeping
Dalliegraae

Legume*

Clover*!  arrovleaf,  crlaion,
     •ubterranean, white
Leipedexa, eerlcla
Vetch
Mlnterpea, Austrian

-------
                                       ATTACHKEHT  III
     10-11
n

KJ
00
Selection of preferred species is baaed on the  following criteria:

I.   Reclanation  should emphasize native  plant apecies that occur
     locally, i.e.. In tha area to be revegetated. Mast producer*,
     •apaclally a diversity of oak*, walnut, hickories, persianon,
     and  pluas ar« examples.  They arc iaportant  food  and cover
     planta.

2.   Heady,  Invadar  natlva  apeclea  should  be omitted  from tha
     reclamation  plan («.g., aah, cottonvood, plna, sycamore.) In
     general,  auch apeclea hava great capacity for dteperaal and
     ara  adapted  to disturbed  toll  Bites.

3.   Oaks,  walnuts, and hickories  should be planted as sapllnga
     because they have Halted capacity for dispersal.  In contrast,
     trees,  shrubs, and voody vines with winged or fleshy fruits
     are  dispersed by wind or anlaals. Thus, these plants can be
     provided Bore sparingly in the raclaaatlen plan.

4.   Native plants are adapted to the local environment and will
     persist through  periods of envlronaental  etress. Most exotic
     plants cannot similarly  persist and are  also overrated as
     wildlife  food and cover.  However, a few exotic specie* can
     establish themselves by out-competing native plants.  They then
     become serious persistent pests, difficult if  not impossible
     to control or  eradicate. Exotic species should, therefore, be
     omitted fron permanent  revegetatlon  plans.
                                                                                            10-11
                                                                                                   Comment noted.

-------
    10-12
o
Attached are  five enclosures  that provide  useful intonation on
reclaiming land for wildlife.
1.   A diagram of • representative example of * wetland enhancement
     feature for surface  retention ponds.
3.   Construction plans for Hood Duck/Black-bellled Whistling Duck
     nsst box.
3.   A brochure -- Cooperative Project for Production of Wood Ducks
     and Black-bellied Whistling Ducks.
4.   A  list of  deeirable  characteristics  of natlvs plants  for
     •rosion control  and  wildlife uss.
S.   A list of native plants recommended for possible reclanation
     •nd  mitigation  value   in  Texas.   Species  selected  for
     reclanation should  occur locally in the nine area.
                                                                                               IO-12    EPA «ppiecutc> receiving the entloiura related to reclaiming land for wildlife. EPA
                                                                                                       has forwarded copies lo TUMCO for Iheir use in enhancing reclanulkm effort! for
                                                                                                       wildlife.

-------
                                             WETtAND ENHANCEMENT rOR
                                          SURFACE MINING RETENTION PONDS
U)
O



                 MOOD DUCK VOX ON ISlANDt
                 *«o i on iM
                 MOUNDS WitH SMftUVS
                                                     C«HLfHINTNttS
                                                    WlOl*'! OIVIflON
                                                    Oft R*YC TttfJUR If


                                            If KAS •>*««* AND WUOttf I OH»**tMf Kit
 Making your own

     nesting boxes

       Dux Dimensions
 Inilde  • 10' > 10 x 11- en from
     Me. «nd 14- on back Ude.
 Hale • J- « <" elliptic* opening: 4"
     from trm.
 Boilom. Si* drawing*
 Side Dow •A" wide; 6" Itom bottom

        Construction
 I. Mike boiti out  of rough-cut
   cedv, cynrctt or pine.
 I. Tick three-inch f (rip of
   hardware  cloth (mettl
   fcreen) cm Inilde front
   wtll  from bottom of box 10 hole
   entrance to b«by duettfngs cm
   climb out the entrance bole:
 )  Cut three to four Incbel ef wood
   Ih3v(n£< In bonfofntitjng material

 4.  The neM bo.tei In Win A and Flan
   n are the f snie ilie, but thow two
   diOerem meihodlofitticMngbox
   to the anchor posti lite drawing
   also  ihoiva ihe  placement of the
   predator |u ird on both pluu.
 »  The tide door aldi In Krvlcln| the
   neit »itU In observing netting
   fuceeis
 6.  Uie l<| icrewf or bridge iplkef to
   math hoy 10 the wooden poll In
   Plan  A UK a tt Inch pipe Rlrtge to
   attach hex to the girnnlied pipe
   In Plan 0

 7  It ti Imperative that predator-proof '
   ihleldi be phceil on ill anchor
   pent.
 I  Several umll hotel ihould be
   drilled in the boitom of each box
   to provide ilralnage.

         Placement

 I.  Bom ihould be erected cloae to
  wood duck neitlng hibllil.
I. Incite hoxea In or nekrwtter, but
  keep predator guardi it leut three
  feet ib»ve high water level.

 i  Piace bnxel at lean five  to Hx feet
 •  above ground or water level:-1- • • •

OlCtuim iii4
                                                                                                                                                                                                               UICH
                                                                                                                                                  4. SpiceboxtiabouitOtolOO
                                                                                                                                                    vards ipin or approxlmateh/
                                                                                                                                                    two to four bo«l per icte.

                                                                                                                                                  J  Place boxei out in the open mil
                                                                                                                                                    not In denie bruth  nor under
                                                                                                                                                    imall, low-branching frees.

                                                                                                                                                  6.' Be lute overhanging Umbi do mil
                                                                                                                                                    provide tvemiet lor entrance from
                                                                                                                                                    •bove by predator).

                                                                                                                                                  7. Face the entrance hole towirtl
                                                                                                                                                    open water or i large openingtn
                                                                                                                                                    allow the hen in easy flight ap-
                                                                                                                                                    proach when returning to the nesi.
                                                                                                                                                        Predator Guardi

                                                                                                                                                  nVr B • bvni/or nninf Urn fn&Ur fM>*/r«m • rtn» •> n/»'/ty itorr tf If-
                                                                                                                                                  trnti phi-ilii'1 -H" Mm tniWH*! iln foot, mrty «r n-( t
-------
O

OJ
                                 CAULK THIS StAM TO «tAl
                                 THt tO» FROH tIAKAOC
       CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR
       WOOD DUCK NBBT BOX
          Utt 1" • 10" OR «" I IS"
          VNTRtATtO SOPTWOOD LUMttR
WRAP WIRC AROUND NAIL!
TO StCUfll DOOR
IN CLOSIO POSITION




1
1
•1
1
1
1
•1
1
I







	 10" 	 »
.-!==»


1
I
I
•
PI
ft
I 1 I
i i
r
1 1


• •

PILOT HOLM POR
MA II • TA ATTACH
PVJULB TV Himvn
TO POST
f'

|M

f
3-1/4" « 4" OPtNINO
. 4" « 1»"
1/4" HARDWARt CLOTH
(ATTACHED INSIDtt





- • - 19 DRAIN NOLCS
DRILL! D IN aOTTOM
                                                                 SI'
                                                       STANDARD  WOOD  DUCK
                                                       NESTING  BOX
                                                                                 This nesting box Is cheap to build, easy to maintain and.
                                                                               property safe-guarded. Inaccessible to such nest predators as
                                                                               raccoons, snakes, and squirrels.
                                                                                    >—IAQ BOIT
                                                                                    SAWDUST
                                                                                   TOC-NAIIED SPIKE

                                                                                     SIDE*!
            FRONT VIBW
                                               SIDE VIEW
                                                                               WATER
                                                                                                                 UPPER SIDE
                                                                                                       4-
                                                                                                      I-X12"
                                                                                                      ROUGH
                                                                                                      LUMBER
                                                                             FRONT
                                                                                                                 IOWER SIDE itt
                                                                                                                              WATER

-------
  The box should be constructed of unplaned cedar, cypress, or
other weather-resistant lumber. It should NOT be painted, stained,
or creosoted. As the diagram Indicates, the entrance should be
oval-shaped with the broadest distance horizontal. On the inside
front of the box. beneath the hole, a strlpof screen or hardware
cloth should be tacked to provide the ducklings a means of
•scaping the box.
•
-| 	 12"
SIDE
fa
#1
                           ROOF
                                                   BACK
                            DRAIN
                            HOLES
                            flOOR
                                                                                            PREDATOR  GUARD
  Cone-shaped, sheet-metal guard for protecting nest structures
from predators. At right Is layout for cutting 3 predator guards from
8 3' x 8' sheet of 26 gauge galvanized metal. When installing the
guard, overlap the cut edge to the dotted line. To facilitate cutting
(on solid lines only) follow the sequence of numbers. Make circular
cuts In counterclockwise direction. To make initial cut on line A-B.
make a slot at A with a cold chisel. Use tinsnips and wear leather
gloves.
                                                                                                                 USE 3 WOODEN
                                                                                                                 MOUNTING
                                                                                                                 BLOCKS
                     DRILL PILOT
                     HOLE TOR
                     NAILING BLOCK
                     TO POST

                     SIDE
                     VIEW
                     CUT AWAY
                     TO SHOW
                     MOUNTING
                     BLOCK
                                                                                                                                               " ROUND
                                                                                                                                              HEAD STOVE
                                                                                                                                              BOLTS OR
                                                                                                                                              METAL SCREWS

-------
u>
                   POST

                   «" POST,
                                    **«» POINTED
                                     "«.us or^EN
                                   HOME MADE COMPASS
                                   FOR SCRIBINO METAL
    THE COOPERATIVE
    NEST BOX PROJECT
IS A MUTUAL UNDERTAKING*
       ' OF THE

   TEXAS PARKS AND
WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
        AND THE

 WATERFOWL HABITAT
  ALLIANCE OF TEXAS
      (WHAT DUCKS)

        TO ASSIST
  TEXAS LANDOWNERS IN
REARING WOOD DUCKS AND
      BLACK-BELLIED
    WHISTLING DUCKS

*Nesl boxes and other material! do-
 naled by the Waterfowl Habitat Affi-
 ance of Texas (WHAT Ducks), P.O.
 Box 3OZ38. Hou.lon. Texa* 77240.
                                                   A conl nbulton of Texas Federal Aid Project
                                                   W-I06H, Texas Waterfowl Program—A
                                                   Spoilsmen Funded Project.
I      each month Ihrou^i M*' •:;
        ful'Coloc paflei

   TEXAS PARKS ft)
                                                       Justcalll«»792-H12M|ihc«
                                                       your order tora KibfcrtpKon.
                                                                     COOPERATIVE
                                                                        PROJECTj
                                                                            for
                                                                     PRODUCTION

                                                                     WOODDUCKS
                                                                            and
                                                                     BLACK-BELLIED
                                                                   WHISTLING DUCKS

-------
U)
-p-
   The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
 is cooperating with the Waterfowl Habitat Affi
 ance of Texas (WHAT Ducks) and with land
 owners in an endeavor to increase production
 of wood ducks and Mack heflwd whistling
 ducks in Texas. Landowners with suitable
 habitat lor rearing broods of these ducks, and
 with a sincere interest in increasing the fecal
 production of wood ducks and black bellied
 whistling ducks are urged to complete this
 application and return II to the Department.

   Suitable breeding habitat consists of
 •hallow wetlands such as marshes, (wamps.
 oxbows, troughs, beaver ponds, meandering
 streams, and the vegetated margins of man-
 made lakes and ponds. Large, open bodies
 of water with clean shorelines are not
 preferred. Wood ducks breed primarily In
 Central and East Texas. Black-bellied
 whistling ducks breed in South Texas, along
 the Texas Coast, and hi southern portions
 of Central Texas.

  A local breeding population Is necessary
 to ulilite a nest box program. Sightings of
 wood ducks or black-bellied whistling ducks
 hi your area during spring or summer
 indicate that installation of nest boxes might
 attract breeding ducks. Winter sightings of
wood ducks or Mack bellied whistling ducks
do not necessarily mean these ducks would
like lo nest on your properly. Boxes placed
 In areas without local breeding populations
have small chances of being used by these
ducks.

  Nest boxes may be Installed al the rale of
one box per two acres of habitat. This Is a
general rule thai  may vary according lo the
amount of time landowner* have lo devote
lo the nrojei-
  If you /eef you hove suifab/e habifaf and
heal breeding popular ions o/ducks, you may
request the Deportment to distribute to you
nest boxes, support poles, and predator
guards tree o/ churge under the cooperative
terms o/iigreemenl.

     TERMS OF AGREEMENT
  Under this cooperative agreement, the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will:
1) Distribute nest boxes, support poles, and
  predator guards,
2) Provide technical advice, and.
3) Supply Instructions and record forms lo the
  landowner lor annual maintenance of the
  nest boxes and collection of nesting In-
  formal km.

  In return, the landowner will agree lo:
I) Receive, individually number, and properly
  Install the nest boxes in habitat suitable for
  production of wood ducks or Mack belKed
  whistling ducks,
2) Conduct  annual box checks fur main-
  tenance and repair during December or
  January,
3) Receive, complete, and return the forms
  supplied for the purpose of evaluating the
  program, and
4) Make reasonable efforts to maintain the
  quantity and quality of habitat required for
  the production of wood ducks and Mack-
  bellied whistling ducks.

  You will be notified by mail concerning the
delivery of your nest boxes, support poles,
and predator guards. You may be requested
lo travel to a city or town near your residence
lo pkk up these ma*   Is.
                                                                                                                                                                     APPLICATION
                                                                                                                                                           Dale:.
                                                                                                                                                          Address:
                                                                                                                                                          CHy:.

                                                                                                                                                          State:
                                                                                                                                                                                     Zip:.
                                                                                                                                                          Telephone Numiier(s|:

                                                                                                                                                          Work: 	
                                                                                                                                                          Number of nest boxes requested:
                                                                                                                                                          Remarks:
                                                                                                                                                          Signature:.

-------
                                for  Erosion Control  and Wildlife Use
Ul
 Native plant* considered for erosion control  and wllditfe use should possess
 •> many of the following chincterlstlcs as possible.


  1. Thrive under specific climatic and soli conditions.

  Z. Compete with other plant species.

  3. Cover  as  much  area  at  possible.     Desirable  characteristics  Include
     spreading by stolons,  suckers,  or  rMzomesi forming  thickets,  mats, or
     coppices! rooting from decumbent or declining branches, or forming suckers
     or root shoots.

  4. Produce litter that  tl water-holding and  soil-enriching.

  5. Protect  soli from  wind and  rain.   Desirable  characteristics  are bushy
     form, dense foliage, and evergreen leaves.

  6. Easy to propagate and maintain.

  7. Readily available from  local  sites or  nurseries.

  8. Inexpensive.

  9. Rapid-growing and long-lived.

 JO. Furnish food and cover  for many  species of wildlife.

  II. Possess  hardy  characteristics  such   as  resistance  or  adaptability  to
     grazing or browsing, drought, fire,  shade Insect damage,  and diseases; and
     grow rapidly on and tolerate many kinds  of  soli especially those  that are
     alkaline, acidic, saline,  or  sterile.

• 12. Produce dense foliage,  stems, or thorns, preferably close to the ground.

  13. Produce abundant  shoots, leaves, buds, and fruits that have high nutritive
     value  for wildlife.

  14. Produce  annual,  persistent fruits that have high seed germination ratios.

  IS. for  tall-growing plants,  they should not produce  Inhibitors that prevent
     other  plant  species from growing beneath them.

  16. Non-poisonous to man and livestock (preferable, but not necessary).
References!

Leopold,  A.   1933.   Game  management.    Charles Scrlbner's  Sons.  Hew  York.
    481 pp.

                     1938.
                     and
                                                                                                                        Native Plants  Recommended for Possible Reclamation
                                                                                                                                  and Mitigation Value  In Texas
                                                                                                                                (Erosion Control and Wildlife Use)
                                                                                                          Trees
                                                                                                AeirJ* t»rn**l»nt
                                                                                                Ke*r otfunto
                                                                                                A. rufcru»
                                                                                                tttvls alfr*
                                                                                                •umlJ* Icnufjnoit
                                                                                                CfTflmn ctrollnitnt
                                                                                                C«rv« («u*tJe«
                                                                                                C. cottttormt*
                                                                                                C. llllnotnlit
                                                                                                C. ev«t*
                                                                                                C. tfxcni
                                                                                                C. toventota
                                                                                                C»»ttntt pumlli

                                                                                                Ctltlt iff.
                                                                                                Canttll* ftoofttrJ
                                                                                                Cornuf tfruwonifJi
                                                                                                C. tlor Urn
                                                                                                Diolptrot t*xtnt
                                                                                                D. vlrflMiu
                                                                                                thntl*  nlgrt
                                                                                                          tunifttiu tthtl
                                                                                                          }. (illeleoli
                                                                                                          J. ritflnlfn*
                                                                                                          ItinUmmtit *tyr*elflu*
                                                                                                          MeJur* fomtttrt
                                                                                                          Htfnollt yitntttlotf
                                                                                                          Koru( rubrf
                                                                                                          ft. tylntlc*
                                                                                                          Oftrv* rlrylnltnl
                                                                                                          Fertet torbonl*
                                                                                                          Unui tctitnttt
                                                                                                          f. ftluitrl*
                                                                                                          Unui ttet*
                                                                                                          fltaett i«uicJc<
                                                                                                          friami veirjeii)*
                                                                                                          r. itrotln*
                                                                                                          Duereut *>t>*
                                                                                                          Q. ttlettt
                                                                                                          g. Incut*
                                                                                                          Outrcu* Itutlfoltt
                                                                                                           0-H4-OI/IO/W)
Hulsache
Boxelder
Maple, red
Birch, river
Bumelta, gtm (Chlttamwood)
Hornbeam, American
Hickory, water
	, bUternut
Pecan
Hickory, shagbark
	, black
       . mocker-nut
Chinkapin, Allegheny
 (Chinquapin, Allegheny)
Hackberrles
Brasll (Bluewood)
Dogwood, roughleaf
         flowering
Persimmon, Texas
Anacua
Beech, American
Locust, water
      . honey
Holly, American
Walnut, black
Juniper, Ashe
Red Cedar, southern
           eastern
Sweetgum
Bols d'arc
Magnolia, southern
Mulberry, red
Tupelo, water
Blackgum
Hornbeam, eastern hop
Bay, red
Pine, shortleaf
                                                                                                                                          , long leaf
                                                                                                                                         e, loblolly
                                                                                                                                       _
                                                                                                                                       Pine,
                                                                                                                                       Water-elm (Planer Tree)
                                                                                                                                       Plum,  Mexican
                                                                                                                                       Cherry,  black
                                                                                                                                       Oak, white
                                                                                                                                          , southern red
                                                                                                                                       _ . bluejack (sandjack)
                                                                                                                                          , laurel
              D.C.   36? pp.

-------
o
P. lyrata
0. ftacroearpa
   •arfarctta
   iiarllantfica
   •IcftavxJl
   moehltttbergtl
   alii*
   phcllo*
   •nuaarrflj
   alnuata
   •teliltt
   t***nm
   vtlutlnm
0. trlralnlana
Sassafras (IbltfttB
Tllla carollnJana
r. tlorltin*
Toxodlu* illtlchum
trims alaea
IT. aarricana
0. crass/folia
V. ruera
                Shrubs

                Hoc It btrltntlezl
                X. grtgglt
                A. rlflfhila
                Minus serrulata
                Aloysl* gnitlitle*
                Anorplta caneseens
                *. frulticosa
                Aralla splnoaa
                Aitmlf ttllobt
                Aseyrua tifftrleatt**
                ». »t»nf
                ftrbfill trltoltoittt
                CtlUmitt eonteit*
                Cflllctrf* *metle*n*
                Ctittl* ttttnt
                Cttnottnil litrbmcet
                Ctltl* ffllU*
                Cephfltntha* occlttnttllt
                CfreUlvm textnum
                C. m»cram
                CercJt euMienstf
                Chlontnthui vliglnicas
                Clethr* tint tot la
                Colubrlnl ttfenfll
                Conttll» obovita
                C. obtuflfolt* l-tltpho* ebtuiltollfl
                Cornuj r«ceooi« 1C. foemln*)
                C. •triet* {C. lotmlnt)
Oak  overcup
     bur
     sand post
     blackjack
     Swamp chestnut
     chinkapin
     water
     willow
     Shumard red
     Shin
     post
     Texas red
     black
     live
Sassafras
Basswood, Carolina (linden)
 	, Florida
Cypress, bald
Elm, winged
'_	, American
	. cedar
	, slippery
                                        Gusjlllo
                                        Catclaw
                                        Blackbrush
                                        Alder,  hazel  (smooth)
                                        Whttebrush
                                        lead plant
                                        Indlao, false
                                        Devil's walking  stick
                                        Pawpaw
                                        St.  Andrew's  cross
                                        St.  Peterswort,  Atlantic
                                        Agarttl
                                        False-mesqulte
                                        Beautyberry,  American
                                        Goatbush
                                        Redroot
                                        Granjeno
                                        Buttonbush. common
                                        Paloverde, Texas
                                                 . border
                                        Redbud, eastern
                                        fringe  tree
                                        Pepperbush, sweet
                                        Colubrlna, Texas
                                        Bluewood
                                        lotebush
                                        Dogwood, gray
                                        	_, swamp
          spp.
D*It* lormoft
Dtltt ttuteteen*
tuonyfvi ••«ricanuv
rorvsterla acu*inaca
r. anauXJfelia
r.
ffaj«*la
ll*x eerJaeaa
I. «*el«u<
I. vexitorla
It** vJrflnJe*
Kotbtrllnlt aplneta
tarrca dlvarlcat*
Linden btnioln
Nyrica earifara
•rosopjt fjanduleta
PrunuJ cnauitlfolia
P. earellnlana

P. umbtlliti
Mawiu* carol In! ana
KAadorf«ntfren  *pp.
Mu> (pp.
Sfmbucut eintttnill
Sentetftrlt eunel/oll*
5apAora afflnla
5tyra* aiaerleana
5y»phorlearpB* eralcvlatui
Scypleeuf tlneterl*
Vteelnlnm app.
r. arftorctim
Viburnum icirI folium
r. tmtftum
r. nuium
r. fiunlfollum
r. rufltfuluD
tinehoiylui elavi'Aareullf
Vines

A>pelop*la corrfata
A. arftoraa
•ereneDia leamten*
§lononia eaprcolata
Cfmpft* ratfleana
Cclaitrei *eana>n*
Coeeulus earellnus
Celstflum ttaptrritenl
bonlcera ttmfftrttfnt
Partk*necl*au* (uln«u*rolla
•Itet «pp.
Jtufeu* app.
Hawthorns
feather plume
Oalea, black
Strawberrybush
Privet, swamp
Olive, desert
Clbowbush
Sllverbell. two-wing
Gallberry. large (Holly, baygall)
Possunhaw (Holly, deciduous)
Taupon
Sweetsplre, Virginia
Allthom
Creosotebush
Splcebush
Myrtle, southern wax
Hesqulte, honey
Plum, chtckasaw
laurelcherry, Carolina
 (Cherry-laurel, Carolina)
Plum, flatwoods
Buckthorn, Carolina
Azaleas
Sumacs
Elderberry, common
Yaupon, desert
Sophora, Texas (Eve's Necklace)
Snowbell. American
Coralberry
Sweetleaf, common
Huckleberries, blueberries
Huckleberry, tree (Farkleberry)
Viburnum, Mapleleaf
Arrowwood, southern
Viburnum, possumhaw
          blackhaw
Blackhaw, rusty
Prickly-ash, Hercules-club
Ampelopsts, heart-leaf
Peppervlne
Supplejack, Alabama (rattan vine)
Crossvlne
Trumpetcreeper, common
Bittersweet, American
Snallseed, Carolina
Jassamlne, yellow
Honeysuckle, trumpet
Creeper, Virginia
Gooseberries, Currants
Blackberries, Dewberries
                                                                                                                  O-IM-OISIO/W

-------
o
 I
                   £•11ax spp.
                   mis spp.
Forbs

kernel* aneustlsslM
Achlllea mlllttollum
Aster erlcoldea
Baptlsla australls
Cassia fasciculate
Coanellne spp.
Coreopsis spp.
Croton spp.
Besaantnas Jlllnoensls
                 «
Oesnodlu* sesslljfollun
olodla terea
ccnlnacea anvustlfolla
gnyelnnnla plnnatlflda
*ry»ffjua> spp.
erloeron spp.
ealllartfle spp.
ffellanthu* spp.
Indleofere Blnlata
Ltiftttt* cap/tata

L. rlrelnlea
llatrls spp.
tuplnuf spp.
Hltchtll* repen*
Nonarda spp.
Oenothera serrulate
Pensteaon eotaea
Petalostevon purpureus fOalea p./
PsoraJee tenuifjora
Ratlfelita eolunnarJs f*. eolumnlfera;
Rudbeekla spp.
Kuellia hiuJJl*
Stlvl* acurea
Schr«n*J« oncfnata fS. nuttliJJi/
SilpAlua JlacinlatUM
51«sla ealva
5trophostyies spp.
rephrosia rirginiana
                   Grasses
                   Aeropyron
                   /birfropoeoii eerardJl
                   4. virclnleus
                   ArunifJn
-------
                  ftuppl* mritlM
                  Styttttti* iff.
                  Scltfut  teutat
                  3.  «»»rie«nu» IS.  oJneyij
                  3.  mtrltlmu* (ftlutomt)
                  3.  robuitu*
                  S.  vtlHaf
                  SesuvJu* portuJ
LO
CD
                   0-2M-O1/IO/90

-------
LO
VO
Selected References:'

Coastal  Zone Resources Division.   1978.   Handbook for  terrestrial  wlldllfi
     habitat development on dredged material.  Tech. Rpt. 0-78-37.  Ocean Dati
     Systems, Inc., Wilmington, H.C.  369 pp.

Otckson, K.  1.  and  0. Vance.   1981.   Revegetatlng surface mined  lands  foi
     wildlife In  Texas and Oklahoma.   Super.  Doc.,  U.S.  Govern.  Print.  Off.
     Wash. O.C. FUS/OBS/81/25.  121 pp.

Ellas, T.  S.   1980.   The complete trees  of North America:  field  guide  am
     natural history.   Outdoor life/Nature Books:   Van  Nostrand  Relnhotd  Co
     948 pp.

Fowells.  H.  A.   1965.    Sllvtcs of  forest trees  of  the  United  States
     Agriculture  Handbook  Ho. 271.   Forest Service. U.S. Oept.  Agrle.  Wash
     D.C.  726 pp.

Gould. F.  W.  1978.   Common  Texas grasses:   an Illustrated  guide.   Texas  AM
     Univ. Press. College Station. TX.  267 pp.

Grelen,  H.  E.  and R.  H. Hughes.   1984.   Common herbaceous plants of souther
     forest  range.   Res.  Pap.  50-210 New Orleans,  LA:   U.S.  Dept.  Agrle.
     Forest  Serv.. South. Forest Exp. Sta.  147 pp.

Halls, I.  K.  1977.   Southern  fruit-producing woody plants  used  by wildlife
     Southern Forest  Exper.  Sta.. U.S. Oept.  Agrle..  Forest Serv. Gen.  Tech
     Rpt.  50-16.  235  pp.

Haynes,  R. J..  J. A.  Allen,  and  E.  C. Pendleton.   1988.   Reestabllshment o
     bottomland   hardwood  forests   on  disturbed   sites:     an   annotate
     bibliography.  U.S. Fish Hlldl. Serv. Blol. Rep. 88(42).  104 pp.

Kadlec.  J.  A. and W.  A. Went*.  1974.  State-of-the-art survey and evaluatlo
     of  marsh plant establishment techniques:  Induced  and  natural.   Vol. I
     Report  of  research.  Contract Rept.  0-74-9.   Dredged  Material  Researc
     Program.   Oept.  Army Waterways  Exp.  Sta.  Corps of Engln.,  Vlcksburg
     Hiss.   231 pp.

lelthead.  H. I..  1. I. Yarlett,  and  T.  H.  Shlflet.   1971.  100 native forag
     grasses In 11  southern  states.   Soil  Conserv.  Serv.  Agrle.  Handbook  No
     389,  U.S. Oept. Agrle.   216 pp.

Hartln,  A.  C.. H.  S.  Zlm,  and A. L. Nelson.   1951.  American  wildlife  an
     plants: a guide  to wildlife food habits.  Dover Publ., Inc.   500 pp.

HcHahan, C. A., R. G.  Frye,  and  K. I. Brown.   1984.  The vegetation types o
     Texas,  Including cropland.  Texas Parks  and Wildlife Dept., Austin,  PW
     Bull.  7000-120.  11 +  40  pp. nap.

Miller,  H. A.   1978.   How  to  know the  trees.   3rd ed.  The Pictured Key Natur
     Series: Wffl. C. Brown Co.  263 pp.
Nokes, J.  1986.  How to grow native plants of Texas  and the  southwest.   Texas
     Monthly Press.  404 pp.

Pellett, F. C.  1978.  American honey plants, together with those which  are of
     Special value to the beekeeper as sources of pollen.   5th  ed.   Dadant  and
     Sons.  Hamilton. Illinois.

Phillips  Petroleum Company.   1955.   Pasture  and range plants.   Sects. 1-6.
     Phillips Petrol. Co.. Bartlesvllle. Okla.  176 pp.

Reed.  P.  B..  Jr.    1988.    National  list  of  plant  species  that  occur  In
     wetlands:  South Plains (Region 6).  U.S. Fish Hlldl.  Serv. Blol. Rep.  88
     (26.6).  94pp.

SCSA.   1982.   Sources of native seeds and plants.  Soil Conserv. Soc.  Amer.,
     Ankeny, Iowa.  32 pp.

Simpson, B.  J.   1988.   A field guide  to Texas trees.   Texas Monthly  Press,
     Austin.  372 pp.

TDA.   1986.  Texas native  tree and plant directory 1988.   Marketing Division.
     Tex. Dept. Agrle.  Austin, TX.  162 pp.

Turner,  B.  I.   1959.   The legumes of  Texas.   Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.
     284 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources  Management Manual.   1986 • et
     leq. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,  Vlcksburg, Miss.

Van  Oersal.  H.  R.   1938.   Native woody  plants  of the United States:   their
     erosion-control  and  wildlife values.   USDA Misc. Publ.  No.  303.  U.S.
     Govt. Printing Office. Washington.  D.C.  362 pp.

Vines, R.  A.   1960.  Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the  Southwest.   Univ.
     Texas Press.  1104 pp.
                 O-JM-OI/IO/90
                                                                                                               0-JM-OI/IO/SO

-------
             Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.
                                    Ml. PMtMrt. Tt«M 7MS5
                                                          June 19, 1990
O
^
O
        11-1
        11-2
       11-3
 Mr.  Norm Thomas,  Chief
 Federal  Activities Branch (6E-F)
 U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 1645 Ross Avenue
 Dallas,  Texas   75202-2733

 Dear Mr.  Thomas:
      Me  at Titus  County Citizens An Endangered Species,  Inc.
 are disturbed by  the request of Texas Utilities Mining
 Company  to mine the Montlcello B-2 area.   We believe it  will
 become a  further  hazard to our health.                    •
      Before a permit to mine Is given, we wish the enclosed
 questions and requested studies regarding the public health
.and our  environment be fully answered and completed.
      We  feel that the Public Health section of the Environ-
 ment Impact Statement Draft  pertaining to Montlcello B-2
 area falls far short of addressing effects to our  health and
 environment.
      The  questionnaires attached are only a sample of the
 Titus  County residences.   We Intend to furnish you with
 thousands  of questionnaires  to help the EPA realize that  we
 fear our  environment with respect to Its  diminished quality
 of air, water and sound or noise.
      It Is not  the  Intention of Titus County Citizens An
 Endangered Species,  Inc.  to  Impede  progress In our area.
 Kor do we  wish  to delay any  endeavor; but  we do feel  that the
 Issue of  public health MUST  BE CONSIDERED FIRST.
      Any dispute  resulting from inconclusive reports  or  sta-
 tistics must  be resolved  before additional  hazards  to our
 environment  are permitted.
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                ihaywarB Aftgano, President
                                                •Va^je-rM w. i xf-^
                        Titus County Citizens An Endangered  Species,  Inc.
                                                                                         11-1     Comment noted.
                                                                                         11 -2     The dbcwsion of public health bsuet has been nipplemented in the FEIS. Please refer
                                                                                                 to (he Summary. PirU II B. and III B, and Appendix B of this FEIS.
                                                                                         11-3     Comment noted.

-------
              C.C.     Railroad Commission of Texts
                       Division of Surface Mining A Reclamation
                       2202 Old Henderson Hwy.
                       Tyler, Texas 75702-6457

              C.C.     Texas Air Control Board
                       6390 Hwy. 290 E.
                       Austin, Texas.

              C.C.     Texas Department of Health
                       1100 W. 69th. Street
                       Austin, Texas 76756

 I             C.C.     Texas Public Utilities Commission
£                     7800 Shoal Creek Blvd. - Suite 400 N.
                       Austin, Texas 78757

              C.C.     Texas Utilities Mining Co.
                       Hwy. 127
                       Monticello, Texas

              C.C.     Texas Water Commission
                       P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
                       Austin, Texas 7B711

              C.C.     Espey Huston ft Associates, Inc.
                       P. 0. Box 519
                       Austin, Texas 78767

              C.C.     Mine Safety Health Administration
                       P. 0. Box 25367
                       Denver, Co. 80225

-------
       11-4
o
-F-
K>
       11-5
               1)   Will the EPA please post at the tltus  County. Courthouse,
                    •II results of  testing  done In the last  6 years  on air
                    pollution, water pollution and noise pollution.
               2)   Will the  EPA please send the  results of  all testing done
                    In the  last ft  years on  air pollution, water pollution,
                    and noise pollution In  Titus  County, Texas to Tltus County
                    Citizens  An Endangered  Species,  Inc.
3)   Will the EPA kindly  Inform Tltus County Citizens An
     Endangered Species,  Inc. of the frequency of such
     proposed testing In  the future  that will help  to safe-
     guard our health and environment.
                                                                                       11-4
                                                                                                      11-5
                                                                                               Relevant dan reviewed bj EPA and used lo prepare (he DEIS and FEIS for the
                                                                                               Monlicello B 2 Area Lignite Mine are available for review al EPA's Regional Office,
                                                                                               in Dallas. The Regional Office b located al 1445 Ron Avenue. Other information
                                                                                               not presented in or utilized by EPA hi the preparation of the DEIS and FEIS must
                                                                                               be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
If in NPDES permit is issued to TUMCO for the discharge of treated wislewaler,
EPA will require TUMCO lo monitor the  permitted discharges, when discharge
occurs.  Reporting requirements will be established. TUMCO will be required to
submit the results of monitoring efforts lo EPA.
       ii-e
ft)   Does the  EPA agree that  the surface mining in Tituc County
     Texas has a negative effect on  our total  environment.
                                                                                                      114
CPA'f assessment of the advene anil beneficial effects of the proposed project is
provided In Section 3.0 of the DEIS and tummarized In Table II of this Final EIS.
5)   The words;  "perimeter of  the mine", Is discussed  on page  S-7.
     Please  identify  what is ment by  this term in feet,  yards  or
     miles from the mining property.
               6)  Would the  KFK please research any health problems occurring
                   in  the citizens of  Tltus County over the last  6 years that
                   are found  to be above the  national  average.  Would  copies
                   of  such research be furnished to Tltus County  Citizens An
                   Endangered Species, Inc.
                                                                                                      11-7      The phrase 'perimeter of the mine" was used lo identity the permit area boundary.
                                                                                                              This perimeter was used in the worst-case scenario for mining operations resulting
                                                                                                              in L^, lewis exceeding 65 dBA up to 2.000 ft away.
                                                                                                      II H      The requested research is mil within the scope of this EIS.

-------
                                                                                2.
   11-9
I
         7)   Would the  EPA please  Identify the following abbreviations
              used  on page 3-10? for which there It no meaning In the
              abbreviation Index page L-l  or L-2.  As • result of this
              omission we are  unable to understand the sound quality
              section and we will need to  have  a full understanding of
              this  section before we can comment to the EPA about sound
              quality and Its  relation to  ourselves and our environment.
              Abbreviations:  dba,  db, Umax on  page  3-110.
              We  urgently request an answer to  the above question and
              request another  EPA hearing  to follow so that Titus County
              Citizens An Endangered Species Inc. can have  a chance to
              comment to the EPA on this Important matter.   Without a
              complete understanding of your report we cannot know If
              we  have been fully protected or not.
            8)   Since  statistics on the effects of air quality on  Public
                 Health In Titus County, Texas  are not  available  from the
                 Texas  Air Control  Board,  when  will the EPA  Initiate test-
                 Ing on the air quality In Titus County, Texas.
            9)  There are thousands  of Titus County,  Texas  residents
                who feel  that  the  air and  noise  pollution since the In-
                trusion of the Texas Utilities operations In Titus  County
                has affected  their health  and wellbelng.  Why then  In the
                Environmental  Impact Statement are there only 290 words
                on page 3-146  In reference to our health and wellbelng and
                over 10,000 words  are used to address the health and well-
                being of  the bald  eagle.
            10) On page  3-166  1C Is  mentioned that possible  Inadequacies
                In the scientific evidence  on health  related effects are
  11-12        alBO considered.  Please elaborate and define:
                       a.  Inadequacies
                       b.  scientific  evidence and what  exactly Is deficient
11-10
11-11
                                                                                                       119
                                                                                                      11-10
                                                                                                    11-11
                                                                                                    11-12
The abbreviations are defined below:

     dB • abbreviation for decibel

The decibel b the unit of itnind pressure. The decibel wale b * logarithmic sale, used
because the range of sound intensities is so pal thil it is convenient to compress the
sate to encompass til the sounds thai need to be measured. The human ear has an
extremely wide ranee of response lo  sound amplitude.  Sharply painful sound is
10 million limes greater In sound pressure lhan the least audible sound.  In decibels.
Ihb 10 million to I ratio is simplified logarithmically lo 140 dB.

People hear sounds most  readily when the predominant sound energy occurs  at
frequencies between 1,000 and 6,000 cycle* per second (Hertz). To measure sound on
a scale thai approximates the way II Is heaid by people, inuic weight ~musl be given lo
the frequencies dial people hear more easily.
                                                                                                               A-weighlfng was recommended by EPA to describe envi
                                                                                                               convenient to use, accurate for most purposes, and is used extensively throughout the
                                              nlal noise because, ft is
                                                                                                                    dB{A)
                                                                                                                               •burevivtion for A*weijfiled sound level in decibels.
         •bbrevutfon for the insodmuni found lev*! obtained for each measurement
         period or event.

Request for another EPA hearing b noted; however, another EIS public hearing is not
planned.

EPA financed a study by the TACB lo determine impacts of TUMCO's operation on
air quality near WinfieM. Texas. Thb 1968 iiudy concluded thai mining operations had
negligible impacts upon the air quality and the level of paniculate mailer was well
below the health standard established by EPA.  This study can be obtained at the
TACB regional office in Tyler, Texas. Please refer to the expanded air quality section
of the FEIS (Section 3.4.1.2).  Further testing by EPA b not planned.

Public health was not recognized as a major public concern In EPA's scoping process.
However, additional public health Information and analysb are presented in the
Summary, Parts II B. and III.B.. and Appendix B of Ihfa FEIS.

The referenced statement was lo explain that scientific data are often inconclusive when
researchers attempt lo find the lower level of an environmental pollutant that produces
an adverse effect. Because of Ihb, EPA added a contingency factor or a 'margin of
safety" when defining the NAAOS for regulated air pollutants.

Also see Response lo Public Health Issue In Appendix B of the FEIS.

-------
                                                                 Page 3.
                       what health related effect*  are you referring to
         11) On  page 3-146 the  phrase, "never expected  to approach
             threatening levels",  Is used.  Could  you please explain
 11-13       why no mention of  the thousands of health  related com-
             plaints from the Titus County citizens,  who feel their
             health has been and  Is being threatened  by the Intrusion
             of  Texas Utility operations has not been addressed.
                                                                                 11-13    Health related complaints are not mentioned because the subject of the referenced
                                                                                        sentence a pollutants. However, EPA "a aware of nuisance complaints which have
                                                                                        been filed by • imall number of citizens with the TACB. These complaints have been
                                                                                        investigated by TACB. A nolke of violation of TACB Rule 101.4. Nuisance, was senl
                                                                                        to TUMCO by TACB Regional Office in Tyler on March 16, 1988.
                                                                                         11-14     EPA was unable to locale the referenced quote on page 3-146 of the DEIS.
11-14
         12) On page  3-146, "the  reason for NOT addressing the Issue
             of public health Is  because certain statistics are not
             available from the Texas  Air Control Board."   Are you
             saying the the Texas Air  Control Board Is and has been
             negligent in furnishing you this information?
11-16
         13) If the Texas Air Control  Board is not negligent,  then
             who should furnish you  this  Information and why don't
             you have  It.  Is this not  the EPA's function.
161 Please DO NOT issue  any permits for mining in the B-2
    area  of Titus County until this vital  information per-
    taining to the public health of Titus  County  has been
    assimilated by the EPA and the Texas Air  Control Board
    and the Titus County residents   have had  a chance to
    Inspect this information and voice their  opinion on this
    most  Important issue at a public hearing.
                                                                                         11-15
                                                                                         11-16
                                                                                        Comment noted.
                                                                                        Comment noted.
11-16
15) Titus  County Citizens  An Endangered Species,  Inc.formally
    requests  a denial of permit  to mine B-2 Titus County,  until
    all  Information pertaining to the health and  environment
    of all Titus County residences has been assimilated by the
    EPA  from  TW, MSHA, NWS,  RTL, TACB, TDH, TPUC, TWC,  USDA

-------
                                                                            Page. 4.
      11-16
     (cont'd)
       11-17
     •nd any  othertnecessary  to compile •  full and  complete
     •newer to questions regarding  our health and vellbeing.
16) We further request the  EPA examine records In other
    areas of  the USA that have lignite mining operations to
    compile all published Information regarding public health
    and make  this  Information available to  us at Titus County
    Citizens  An Endangered  Species,  Inc.immediately  upon Its
    completion.
                                                                                                    11-17    Thb request a beyond Ihe scope of the EIS.
                                                                                                    11-18
These question ire not specific to the proposed project and »re outside Ihe scope of
the EIS.
O
*>
Ui
       11-18
                17) Is  the EPA  aware  of any litigation involving the public
                    health and  lignite mining  in the  United States. '
18)  Is the EPA aware of any  litigation involving the  public
     health and flyash dust in the United States.
                19) Is  the EPA  aware of any litigation  Involving the public
                    health and  S02 emmislons In the United States.
                                                                                    11-19     EPA his not performed an independent imlysii. However, based on Ihe review of
                                                                                             Information supplied bjr TUMCO. fertilization rates are consistent with applicable
                                                                                             USDA Son Conservation Service (SCS) standards for yield of coastal bermudagrass
                                                                                             under pasture management levels recommended by SCS. Assessing potential profits
                                                                                             on Individual (nets of land is beyond Ihe scope of Ihe EIS.
      11-19
                20)
                    Has the EPA done  a  cost analysis  on hay production on
                    reclaimed  mine land In Titus County as to the cost per
                    acre of hay adding  the cost  of fertilizer to that hay.
                21) Does the  EPA know  wheather  or not  hay can be  produced
                    profitably  on reclaimed mine land.
       11-20


       11-21
22)  Does the  EPA know wheather or not  hay can  be produced
     at all without  fertilizer  on reclaimed mine land.
23)  Has the  EPA set  a test plot aside  to check  the results
     of reclaimed mine land left in Its natural  state and  how
                                                                                    11-20     Forage (hay) production should occur on unfertilized soils, whether native soils or
                                                                                             reclaimed mined land), given adequate moisture, ample sunlight, proper temperatures
                                                                                             and adequate levels of soil nutrients. Hay production kveb can be increased
                                                                                             significantly on most soils with proper ferliliation and Ihe use of soil amendments such
                                                                                             as lime as required by soil tests.

                                                                                    11-21     No. The Railroad Commission of Tens may require lhal results of field-site trials or
                                                                                             greenhouse tests be used to demonstrate Ihe feasibility of using overburden materials
                                                                                             u • substitute for or • supplement to topsoil.

-------
                                                                     r«ge 3.
 11-81
(cont'd)
               much fugitive dust  would  result from  such • tut  plot.
          2«)  If the  above has  been done,  will the  EPA please  fur tilth
               Tltu« County Cltlzcna An  Endangered Speclea, Inc.  with
               the results of  auch testing.
  11-22
  11-23
25) Will the EPA please  furnish Titus County Cltlren* An
    Endangered  Species,  Inc. with a  list of all  Interested
    parties who filled out  cards at  the Titus County Civic
    Center on June 12, 1990.
26) Will the EPA please  furnish Titus  County Citizens An
    Endangered  Species,  INc.  more time to respond  to the
    Environmental Impact  Statement  than the S minutes alloted
    on June 12,  1990 at  the Titus County Civic Center.  The
    Issues cannot even be  outlined  In  that time  frame.  The
    Meeting participants have a right  to outline a response
    don't they?
                                                                                           11-22
                                                                                           11-23
                                                                                           11-24
The people who spoke il the public hearing ire identified in Table 11-1 at this FEIS.
The mimes of ill those who registered it the public hearing can be requested under the
Freedom of Information Act.
                                                                                                   As indicated in Part II.A. of tnb EIS, (he 45-day comment period was scheduled to
                                                                                                   close on June 25.1990 (13 calendar days following the Public Hearing held on Jane 12,
                                                                                                   1990).  In addition, EPA extended the close of the comment period to July 25.1990 in
                                                                                                   response to requests for additional lime.
                                                                                                   See the revised section (3.4.1.2) on Ah- Quality in Part III B of this FEIS for a
                                                                                                   discussion of applicable air quality requirements.
  11-24
27) The EPA says  the Texas  Railroad Commission and  the
    Texas Air Control Board la responsible for dust and
    noise pollution.  The Texas Railroad Commission aays
    the EPA Is responsible.   Couldyou  please give us a
    clearer understanding of this Issue.  Does anyone know
    who la responsible for  fugitive dust from lignite mining
    and reclaimed mined land?
                                                                                           11-25     See Appendii F to this FEIS.
                                                                                           II M     Neither sassafras (Satsa/hu tOnium) nor pecan (paiya ffinoenxft) is feted
                                                                                                   endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                                                                                   The requested sampling program is beyond the scope of the EIS.
  11-25
28) Hill the EPA help Titus  County Cltltens An Endangered
    Species, INc.  find the proper monitors to sample  air,
    dust and chemicals In the air since  the EPA says  It Is
    not funded to  do such tests themselves.
  11-261   2"  Wil1 the  EPA Plea8e  "tart •  program to sample sassafras
       •       pecan and other endangered plant species In  Titus Countv

-------
                                                                         Page 6.
    11-26J
  (corrt'd)
     • o v* cm ascertain what  future  effect*  we can  expect  a*
     •  reault  of the  fugitive  duct  pollution  we are  experiencing.
    11-27
30) Will the  EFA please respond to  a request as to how much
    damage  to (assafrass and  pecan  and other endangered plant
    apecles In Titus  County we will experience as  a result  of
    increased surface mining  In Titus County B-2 nine and  Its
    resulting fugitive dlst.
11-27     Ai indicated in DEIS Section 3.3.1.1. none of the pltnt species bled by FWS as
         endangered or threatened in Ton are known to occur in the vicinity of the study area.

         Impacb to vegetation are assessed to DEIS sections 3-3.1 J and 93.1.4.

         SeeP.rtlofOlfaFin.IEIS.
O
    11-28
    11-29
31)  Has the  EFA done  a study  on grasses replanted  on reclaimed
     mine land In Titus County as to what effect drought condi-
     tions would effect ground cover and resulting  fugitive
     dust If  heavy applications of  fertilizer and irrigation
     are not  present.
32)  Page S-8  (Land Use) says  Land productivity should be re-
     turned to a condition equal or  better than premlnlng con-
     ditions.
          Please define, equal.
          Please define, better.
     Does this mean the same subsurface water  retenslon, Increased
     productive capacity, Increased  or equal net return per acre
     measured  in dollars, increased  wildlife habitat  per square
     mile, the same or  better  soil retenslon qualities that were
     found in  preminlng times?
                                                                                                   11-28
                                                                                                   11-29
                                                                                                   11-30

                                                                                                   11-31
         No, EPA has not done a study on grasses replanted on rectairoed land. Sec EPA
         response 11-21 for additional information.
                                                                                                            Performance il.nd.rdf for poll-mining bnd me are provided in Section 816399 of the
                                                                                                            Coal Mining Regulations published bjr the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
                                                                                                            of the Railroad Commission of Texas. The requirement is to return all affected areas
                                                                                                            to conditions that are capable of supporting the uses which the* were capable of
                                                                                                            supporting before any mining or to higher or belter uses achievable under criteria and
                                                                                                            procedures of Section 816.399. Alternative land uses may be approved by the Railroad
                                                                                                            Oomminlon of Texas after consultation with the landowner or land management agency
                                                                                                            having Jurisdiction over the land. If specific criteria are met. Those criteria haled to
                                                                                                            Section 81CJ99 deal with the compatibility and feasibility of the post-mining land me.
        Thb request is beyond (he scope of the EIS. See response no. 11-4.
        Please refer to the Part II B of this FE1S which presents additional
        potential public heallh effects.
                                                                                                                                                              assessment of
     11-30
33)  Would  the EPA please furnish Titus County  Citizens An
     Endangered Species, Inc.  with a  complete  list of  chemicals
     emmltted  from coal burning at the Montlcello Steam Generating
     Plant  In  Titus County, Texas over the last 10 years.
    11-311
             34)  The B-2  area is  a,  "New  Source",  of lignite.   The  issuance

-------
                                                                         Fage 7.
       11-31
      (coot'dj
o
4>
CO
       11-32
    of  • , "New  Source National  Pollutant  Discharge Clinlniton
    System", permit  (NFDES)  It • MAJOR  Federal action  signifi-
    cantly effecting the quality of the human environment.  We
    at  Titus County  Citizens An  Endangered Species, Inc.  agree
    with this statement on Page  S-l.  However, since only 290
    words covering the public health In Titus County were In
    this same text,  on Page  3-166, we make demand on the  EPA
    to  do • complete study on the public health In Titus  County
    at  least as  comprehensive as the study that was done  for
    the bald eagle.   Don't the citizens of Titus County deserve
    that much?                                                                 11.32
35) In  reference  to the (NPDES)  permit, please withhold  any
    further Federal action until ALL factors effecting the
    quality of the  human environment have  been Identified and
    the relation  to human health have been Identified and un-
    derstood by all concerned,  Including Titus County Citizens
    An  Endangered Species, Inc.
       11-33
                                                                                                        Comment noted.
                                                                                               11-33
       tl-34
36) Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. would
    like  to be Informed on a continuing basis about the  forth-
    coming study effecting the quality of  the human environment
    In  Titus County.   We are an  Interested party. A VERY  INTERESTED        1134
    PARTY.
37) Will  the EPA please consider  a  recommendation to TU to  swlth           11.35
    to  natural gas  ,  at least until all the  health Issues have
    been  resolved.   This does lie within your  responsibility  does
    It  not?
       11-35
38) The  most detrimental element  In Titus County In relation  to
    the  lignite mining Is fugitive  dust.  It  Is  difficult to
    study In your  Impact statement  because It Is not Identified
                                                                                                        EPA b mcfew on the meaning of the referenced 'forthcoming study.* If ihb refen to
                                                                                                        die EIS, Ihb Final EIS b being dbtribute.) for • 30-dajr review and comment period.
                                                                                                        The Tina County Citizen! An Endangered Specfei. Inc. b Included on EPA'l mailing
                                                                                                        Ifal to receive • copy of the FEIS.
                                                                                                        Natural gas w» considered *t in allenutive fuel (see DEIS Section 2.2). For the
                                                                                                        rcttons titled, Hjnitc ft ot it iftc proposod D-2 ATM tut IMC liffiitc mine WB$ selected by
                                                                                                        the ippllant a the preferred alternative. If the proposed mine b deemed to hive
                                                                                                        Impacts within acceptable limits, EPA would hire no minority or policy mandate '°
                                                                                                        force TUMCO to acted I different fuel source (lee Preface. Scope of EIS Review).
                                                                                                        The DEIS hide* hu been corrected to include fugitive dust (see p. 111-18 of FEIS).
                                                                                                        Abo. please refer to the revised air quality section (3.4.1.2) of Ihb FEIS.

-------
                                                                     Page 8.
11-35
;confd)|_
              in the  index.   Please do  to for us.
 11-36
 I
**>  11-37
 11-38
             39) It  is difficult for us at Titus County  Citizens  An
                 Endangered  Species, Inc. to understand  why on  Page 3-102
                 monitoring  stations set up to  monitor air for  the general
                 public in Titus County are in  Tyler, Texas 65  miles away
                 from us and in Dallas, Texas 105 miles  away from us.  We
                 need monitoring within 5 miles of the lignite  mining on
                 the side of the mines  opposite the prevailing  winds.  Hill
                 vou So this?
         60)  The monitoring  station  in Dallas,  Texas to  the west  of Ht.
              Pleasant, is  in the opposite direction to the prevailing
              winds  in this area, according to  the National Weather
              Service.
                 The monitoring station In Tyler,  Texas,  to the  south-east  of
                 Ht. Pleasant, Is also not In  the  prevailing wind  pattern  for
                 Titus County except  for a very  few days  per year.
 11-391   62) Why  can't we have a monitoring station closer?


 11-401   63> Will  these monitoring stations measure fugitive dust?


 11-411   66) What  meathod of  measuring  fugitive  dust should be used?
                                                                                                 11-36
                                                                                                 11-37
11-38




11-39


11-40



11-41

11-42
 11-42
             65) Will the  EPA please define for  Titus County Citizens An
                 Endangered  Species the levels of  air quality necessary to
                 protect the public health.   (Primary Standards).
        Please refer lo revised Section 3.4.1.2 of Ihb FEIS for additional infomulion on this
        subject.
                                                                                                         Please refer lo Ihe revised Section 3.4.1.2 in this FEIS.
                                                                                                         Please refer lo the revised Section 3.4.1.2 in Ihis FEIS.
                                                                                                         Please refer lo Ihe revised Section 3.4.1.2 in Ihb FEIS.
                                                                                                            Please refer lo Ihe revised Section 3.4.1.2 in Ihb FEIS.
Please refer lo Ihe revised Section 3.4.1.2 in Ihb FEIS.

Table 3.4-1 of Ihe Drnfl EIS (p. 3-103) has been reproduced as part of Ihe revised
Section 3.4.1.2 In Ihit FEIS.  ITiis table presents the primary National Amhicnl Air
Quality Standards which, as Indicated in Ihe footnote I, ire defined levels of air
quality which Ihe EPA Administrator judges necessary lo protect Ihe public health
with an adequate martin of safely. Also, see Response lo Issue 1, Public Health, on
Page B I of FEIS.

-------
                                                                              Page 9.
     11-43
     Will  the  EPA please  define for  Titus  County Citizens An
     Endangered Species,  Inc.  the levels of air  quality In  the
     lignite mining  area  of Titus County In order to  protect
     the  public from known or  anticipated  adverse effects of
     fugitive  dust.
                                                                                                         IMS
                                                                                                                 See response 11-42.
O
in
O
               67)  On page S-6, the phrase, "short term Indirect effects are
                    also  anticipated, resulting  from  dirt accumulation".   Does
      11-44        this  phrase refer to  the short-tern Indirect  effects  In
                    our lungs  and sinuses?  Please define short-term as  It
                    relates to time, hours, diys, veeks, months,  years.
               68)  On page S-6, the  words,  "short distance  from  the point of
                    origin", are used.  He  at Titus County Citizens An
                    Endangered  Species, Inc., feel this is vague  and ambiguous.
      11-45        Please define the following  for our better understanding:
                           a. short distance, In  feet please
                           b. point of origin
                           c. origin
                           d. short distance  from,  In feet please
                                                                                          11-44     The referenced quotation *ppears  lo be,  "Short-terra indirect effect! ire ibo
                                                                                                   anticipated, resulting from dial accumulation.* Thb assessment deals with impacts lo
                                                                                                   vegetation. Short-term b defined in the DEIS as a period of 6 to 8 yean following
                                                                                                   initial clearing operation. Please refer lo DEIS Section 3 J.I for a complete discussion
                                                                                                   of Impacts of the project on vegetation.
                                                                                          11-45     Thb phrase was not found on page S-6. However, on page S-7. the following sentence
                                                                                                   was located, The vast majority of those emissions will he fugitive in nature and will he
                                                                                                   composed primarily of large particles whkh settle out of the atmosphere within a short
                                                                                                   distance from the point of origin.*

                                                                                                   •Origin* b defined as the point at which something begins.  In Ihb context it means the
                                                                                                   point at which a fugitive emission becomes airborne. The enact distance a particle of
                                                                                                   dust will travel before It returns lo earth would be dependent on a number of variables.
                                                                                                   Larger particles fall first in short distances and smaller particles will travel farther, with
                                                                                                   some falling outside of Ihe mine boundary.
               49) On page S-7,  dust  generated  by haul  road  traffic will  be
                   controlled  by the  application of water sprays.
                           a. please  send Titus County Citizens An  Endangered
                              Species,  Inc.  the EPA'a requirements  for water
      11-48                  spraying.
                           b. Please  send the EPA's requirements for when water
                              spraying  is required.
                           c. Please  let us  know  who polices this important
                              function.
     11-47J
50)  On page 3-82, the use  of water sprayers  as needed will
     facilitate dust  suppression.
                                                                                          11 -46     Section 814 J79 of Ihe Coal Mining Regulations published by the Surface Mining and
                                                                                                  Reclamation Division of the Railroad Commission of Tens defines performance
                                                                                                  standards for Air Resources Protection. The Railroad Commission of Texas approves
                                                                                                  control measures according lo applicable Federal and Stale air quality standards,
                                                                                                  climate, existing air quality in Ihe area aflected by mining, and Ihe available control
                                                                                                  technology.

                                                                                                  TACB Rule 101.4 prohibits Ihe emission of air contaminants in concentrations whkh
                                                                                                  are or may lend to be injurious lo or lo adversely affect human health or welfare.
                                                                                                  animal life, vegetation, or properly, or interferes with Ihe normal use and enjoyment
                                                                                                  of animal life, vegetation or property.


                                                                                          11-47     The Railroad Commission of Texas approves control plans. TUMCO'S mine manager
                                                                                                  fa responsible for mine-related dust suppression. Operations personnel make ensile

-------
                                                                     Page 10.
     11-47
   (cont'dj
     11-48
o
     11-49
           a. who decide* when  thl» It necessary?
           b. whit method* of moisture ne**ureraent are  u*ed
              In making thti dec1lion to spray?
           c. Are record* kept  In moisture measurement?
           d. Are records kept  In amount* of  water sprayed?
51) On page 2-1, project related disturbance*  would not
    occur.  He at Titus County  Citizens An  Endangered  Species
    Inc., feel we are being disturbed and our  environment,
    (by your admission) Is being disturbed.  Why Is such re-
    ferral made? It  Is not consistent  with  the rest of the
    Impact statement.  He feel  thlt contradiction should be
    removed from this Impact statement and  ask that It be so
    removed.

    Not mining Kontlcello  B-2  reserves would  result In  un-
    desirable economic Impacts  to Texas Utilities Company.
    Please Include that the mining will also have undesirable
    economic Impacts to Titus County Citizen*  An Endangered
    Species, Inc., If It Is mined.  He feel that the mining
    will have an undesirable health Impact'on  the residents
    of Titus County  and In our  opinion this far out weighs
    the economic benefits Texas Utilities might enjoy.
decision for the frequency of watering operations.  There *re no i
requirement! for the imounl of mler (prayed.
ord-keepini
                                                                                                11-48     This discussion describes the Impart* associated with the no-iclion ilfernalive. A*
                                                                                                         defined, the no-Klfon alternative ii Ihe future condition of the *re» wilhoul Ike project.
                                                                                                11-49     The Draft E1S assesses the economic impact of Ihe proposed mine project on the
                                                                                                         eititenry of Titus County in Section 3.8.2.
                                                                                                         Please refer to Ihe P»rl II B of this FEIS for • discussion of anticipated publk health
                                                                                                         Impacts, resulting from Ihe proposed project.

-------
                                                                P«8« 11.
O
             The questions asked are numbered.  We request that your
        answers also be by these numbers.  This will help all of us
        in future correspondence.
             The questionnaire results are tabulated in two categories.
        Catagory #1 is within 2 miles of an existing mining area and
        category #2 is outside of the surface mining area,more than 2 mile
             We at Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.,
        have had less than one week to print these questionnaires and
        have them distributed and tabulated. The results clearly show
        health and environmental problems within the two mile perimeter.
             Our next questionnaire will include results from an area
        more than 25 miles from Mt. Pleasant, Texas that is not being
        surfaced mined and does not have a lignite power plant within
        fifty miles of the residences.
             These studies must be completed before more Industrial
        pollution is permitted in Titus County.  The citizens of Titus
        County have a right to a clean environment.  Further pollution
t1~50   of our environment will only be damageing to our public health.
        Please do not be a party to increased pollution in Titus County.
             The problems are many and complex, but if we all work to-
        gether solutions can be found to these problems.  Titus County
        Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. is a party within the
        environmental compounds of Titus County and we will actively
        participate in cleaning up OUR environment and keeping It clean.
             We do not want the permit Issued for the Montlcello B-2
        surface mining because it will not help to clean up the existing
        environmental problems.  This permit will only Increase the
        pollution of Titus County.
             The Environmental Protection Agency was commissioned by
        the  Congress of the United  States to protect our environment.
        We as  citizens expect  just  that.   Issuing this  permit  would be
        contrary to that  commission.
             Please Join  with  us  at  once  in this most  Important  study
        to determine how  to safeguard our Environment.
                                                                                          11-50    Comment! and ivrvejr results ate noted.

-------
                                                         Page  12.
           Many more questionnaire results will "be forthcoming.
      There Is a small  army of Titus County citizens concerned
      with these Issues.
           All questionnaires are available from Titus  County
      Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. for the EPA  to  In-
      spect as a noed arises.  Copies of our first tabulations
      are attached.
                                   Thank You,
                                   .Hayward, RMano,  President
o

Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species,  Inc.
                P. O. Box 1711
          Mt.  Pleasant, Texas   75455
      C.C.  as requested to:
      Richard C.  White
      Director of Environmental Services
      Texas Utility  Company
      2001  Bryan  Tower
      Dallas, Texas   75201
                                                                                       Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.
                                                                                                               ^^—* gvr..-/-j
                                                                                                             Ml. Pttaum, Tanas 7S4S5
Has your quality of .life been
effected by the TU Intrusion .„,
Into Titus County? -^
Have you suffered from Increased
sinus problems In the last 4
years?
Have you suffered from Increased
eye, nose, or throat problems In
the last 4 years?
Are you aware of Dr. Sara Stroms
research on Cancer In Titus Co.?
The results show Titus Co. to be
well above the National average
for certain types of Cancer.
Do you have any fears of re-
siding In Titus Co.'s polluted
environment?
Should, "Titus County Citizens
An Endangered Species, Inc." have
legal rights to monitor air,
water & noise pollution originat-
ing on TU property that effects
our environment?
Do you rely on well water for
your personal needs?
If yes above, has water quality
changed In the last 4 years?
Yes
Til
Yes
1i tt
Yes
Jt
Tct
Yes
Yes
%t.l
Yes
*
Yes
Yes
II
Ml
No
K

No
it
No
qZ,
No
,&.
No
•rt.
No
4
A
No
£c
No
Ct
C.-7S.
Has your health been Impaired by
Increased dust pollution In Titus
Co. In the last 4 years?
Has your health been Impaired by
Increased noise pollution In
Titus Co. In the last 4 years?
Have you or your family suffered
from Increased respiratory
problems In the last 6 years?
Have you or your family suffered
from any Increase In health
problems In the last 4 years you
feel are a result of the demlnl-
shed quality of our environment?
Have you had any structural
damage to your home In the last
4 years?
Do you live within 1 mile of an
existing mining operation?
Do you live within 1 miles of an
existing mining operation?
Do you live within 5 miles of an
existing mining operation?
Would you like to become a member
of Titus County Citizens An
Endangered Species, Inc. ?
Yes
27
Yes
7il
Yes
\&
Yes:
i
i
..
rzZ
Yes
19
<»\!
Yes
Yesj
Yes*
i
1
V
Yesi :
I
                                                                            1,
_,  request membership In
                                                                                        Titus  County Citizens An Endangered  Species, Inc.
                                                                                        Address:	     Phone no.:.
                                                                                                                                   Date:  (21*

-------
Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.
                     Ml. Pttltinl. Ttxn 75455
*«-^m <£ Si~-ty ™< -vw^ e
Has your quality of life been
effected by the TU Intrusion"*
Into Titus County? ^-.
Have you suffered from Increased
sinus problems In the last 4
years?
Have you suffered from Increased
eye, nose, or throat problems In
the last 4 years?
Are you aware of Dr. Sara Stroms
research on Cancer In Titus Co.?
The results show Titus Co. to be
well above the National average
for certain types of Cancer.
Do you have any fears of re-
siding In Titus Co.'s polluted
environment?
Should, "Titus County Citizens
An Endangered Species, Inc." have
legal rights to monitor air,
water & noise pollution originat-
ing on TU property that effects
our environment?
Do you rely on well water for
your personal needs?

If yes above, has water quality
changed In the last 4 years?
~1,
Yes
Yes
11
Til
Yes
z_7_
Yes
38
A
Yes
_9±-
Yes
*•&
Yes
*ft»
Yes
O
0
s *
No
n
No
tsl
No
Wl
No
A
No
.<*_
No
O
0
No
Ttt*
No
J . C • -^ * f
Has your health been Impaired by
Increased dust pollution In Titus
Co. In the last 4 years?
Has your health been Impaired by
Increased noise pollution In
Titus Co. In the last 4 years?
Have you or your family suffered
from increased respiratory
problems In the last 4 years?
Have you or your family suffered
from any Increase In health
problems In the last 4 years you
feel are • result of the demlnl-
shed quality of our environment?
Have you had any structural
damage to your home In the last
4 years?
Do you live within 1 mile of an
existing mining operation?
Do you live within 2 miles of an
existing mining operation?
Do you live within 5 miles of an
existing mining operation?

Would you like to become a member
of Titus County Citizens An
Endangered Species, Inc. ?
«/»\T*j
Yes
t7
111
Yes
L
id.
Yes
20
til
Yes
Csl
Yes
•*l
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
f
No
No
vl
No
1 i.
9£u
No
1,2
No
No
No
No

No
                                       , request membership In
 I,           ..	—
 Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.
 Address:	—	     Phone no.:
                                          Date:__?!l!

-------
      11-51



      11-52^
52) Could you please Inform us of the dust  suppression
    plan that Texas  Utilities must  adhear'to In Titus
    County  surface mining areas.


S3) What Is the frequency required  on monitoring dust at
    the Titus County surface mining area.
               54) Who  does this monitoring.


            •|  55) Where can Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc.
      11-541      Inspect the records of the  fugitive dust  monitoring.
o
Ol
      11-55
                   We  request  an Inspection  of these  records,  please.
56)  Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species,  Inc.
     requests a report on the chemical analysis of  this
     monitored dust.
      11-58
57)  Has Radon 222 been detected in  any of  the fugitive
     dust samples over the  last 5 years In  Titus County.


58)  Has Radon daughter been detected in any of the  fugitive
     dust samples over the  last 5 years In  Titus County.


59)  Have any homes  been checked within 2 miles of the nine-
     ing operations  in Titus County  for Radon count.
11-51     In order lo suppress dust generation, water trucks win be used lo wet down roadj ind
         traveled surfaces throughout the mine file. Other methods for suppressing fugitive dust
         Include the application of asphalt emulsion and temporarily doting of stretches of road
         when not in use. Motorgraders will be used lo periodically grade ind ihipe the road
         surface. Suffice wiler diversion and spoil from sediment ponds wfll be mulched ind
         revegetited is they ire constructed. Clearing and grubbing will be maintained one lo
         two pits ahead of the active pit to minimize disturbed areas. Reclaimed land will be
         revegetited If necessary with temporary cover until permanent cover can be established.

11-52     Unless  required by the Railroad Commission of Tens, an air quality monitoring
         program is not required for the B-2 Area lignite mine. If • monitoring program b
         required by the Commission, the Commission wfll dictate monitoring requirements.

11-53     The mine operator, in this case. TUMCO.

11-54     EPA suggests Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species. Inc. contact the TACB
         regional office In Tyler or the Stale office in Austin.

11-55     The TACB Regional Office in Tyler has collected several samples (tape lift) of dust
         from residences and commercial establishments near the mine, and die samples were
         analyzed by the TACB laboratory. Data results should be available for review at the
         regional office In Tyler and the Slate office In Austin.

11-56     These question are not specific lo the proposed project and are outside the scope of
         Ihb EIS.
      11-57
60)  The EPA has the right  to inspect fugitive dust  and the
     chemical contents of that dust  under  842.13 Right of
     Entry.   Has the EPA Inspected  fugitive dust in  the 12
     year  period land has been mined In Titus County.


61)  Titus County  Citizens  An Endangered Species,  Inc., requests
     permission to view all records  of the EPA inspections
     of the Texas  Utility Company surface  mines in Titus
     County.  Please Indicate by return mall the time and place
     where these records can be seen and copied.   Would the
     freedom of information act permit us  to see and copy
     these records.


62)  Referring to  30 CFR, Ch. VII. - 842.16, will  the EPA
     please make available  to us all records, reports, inspec-
     tion  material or other information obtained for the last
     5 years regarding fugitive dust, Radon gas, noise and
     land  reclamation In Titus County.  Please inform us where
     and when these records may be viewed.
                                                                                                    11-57     EPA files, Including Inspection andfor enforcement actions, are available to public
                                                                                                             review subject lo the Freedom of Information Art. If interested, please contact the
                                                                                                             Freedom of Information Officer at the Region 6 office In Dallas, Tens.

-------
                                                                      Page 2.
     11-68
        63) In  the Federal Mine Safety and  Health Act of  1977,  Public
            law H 91-173, Title 111, Sec. 201  (a), Dust Standards are
            addressed through section 206 pertaining only to  miners.
            This section should apply to all people living on the pe-
            rimeters of surface mines.  The mining companies  can mine
            to  within 300 feet of a residence.   The miners are  furnished
            respiratory equipment, but the  perimeter resident*  are not
            furnished any protection.  Why?

            Urgent; please answer fully and completely.   It is  the
            EPA's Job to protect.  We want  the  protection, now.
11 -58    Applicable Stale «id Federal refutation dealing with lolal suspended parliculale (TCP)
        are discussed In revised Section 3.4.1.2 of this FEIS. The primary National Ambient
        Air Quality Standard for partkulales b set to protect public health.
              64)  Sec. 203  (a)  Chest roentgenograms are given  to miners on
                  a routine  basis.  Again,  there are no provisions for the
     11-69       public living In the mine perimeters.  We at Titus County
                  Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. demand  the same pro-
                  tection from our government,  now.
                                                                                         11-59
                                                                                                 Comment noted. See response 11-58.
O
        65)  Sec. 302 («)(!!)  What has the EPA done about potentially
             hazardous effects to perimeter  residents around the  Titus
J1-«n       County surface mincing operations.  What potentially tonic
             effects have been discovered, studied or identified  to
             date.  We request you make all  documents available to us.
             Urgent.
1140     The DEIS and FEIS discus* the anticipated Impacts retailing from the proposed 8-2
        lignite mine. Background data/reports used In preparation of the EIS are available for
        review In the Region 6 Office In Dallas. Texas.
              66)  Sec. 302  (d)   Please furnish  Titus County Citizens An
                  Endangered  Species, Inc. with all studies and  research
                  into matters  involving the protection of life  and pre-
                  vention of  diseases in connection with persons in the
                  perimeter of  surface mines.   Under what conditions did
                  this study  or studies show people in Titus County may
                  be adversely  affected in their health and well-being.
                  Please make all documents available to us at once.  You
                  do have these studies don't you?  We feel this is a most
                  urgent matter.
                                                                                              1141
                                                                                                      See response 11-4.
     ii-ez
    11-63
        67) Sec.  503 (a)  The  Secretary of Health,  Education and
            Welfare and The  Secretary of the  Interior is authorized
            to  make grants to  assist States in  improving the health
            and safety condition in the mines and the people in the
            perimeter areas  of mines.  Haa the  EPA,  TACB, TEXAS RAIL-
            ROAD COMMISSION, or  any other agency  or  persons applied
            for such a grant In  order to study  the effects on our
            health from fugitive dust, radon 222  or  noise pollution.
            We  ask that the  appropriate request be made at once.
            Titua County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. would
            appreciate being advised of such a grant and the studies
            which would be forth coming as a result  of this grant.


        68) Sec.  106  Any person adversly affected.   We at Titua
            County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. know that
            some  of us have been adversly affected.   What proof
            does  the EPA or other regulalng bodies need
                                                                                                      EPA suggests either VS. Deft, of Health and Human Services (HHS). US Dept. of
                                                                                                      Interior (DOI), or the Slate of TOM may more appropriately respond to this request.
                                                                                                      However, EPA ha* no Undies planned.
                                                                                                      Proof for air pollution Involves violations of the National Ambient Air Quality
                                                                                                      Standards for partkulales. and under the dean Air Act. proof of Imminent and
                                                                                                      subslanlUI endangermenl to the health of persons (see CAA. Section 303).

-------
                                                               Page 3.
          68. cent.
              In order to (top the adverse effect* on our health and
              well-being. If we know the exact Information necessary
              we feel we can furnish you or the United States Court
  11-03       of Appeals the proper information.  At the present time
 feont'dJ      Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species, Inc. is
 \curnoji      accumulating data and testimony with regard to the hazards
              to ourselves and our well-being in the mining perimeters.
              However,.we need to know precisely what the EPA needs from
              us in order to help us stop the undesireable effects to
              our environment that have taken place in Titus County since
              the start of surface mining here over 10 years ago.
   11-84
       69) We are asking the EPA to please accept our request for
           relief from the fugitive dust, radon 222  (If any) and
           noise pollution originating  from the surface mining
           in Titus County.  In no way  do we feel that expanded
           mining in Titus County should be allowed until all the
           negative effects to our health and well being have been
           identified and eliminated.
O

In
-4
       70) Sec. 108  (a)(2)  He hope the EPA agrees that this sec-
           tion should  apply to perimeter residents of all surface
           vines as  well as to the miners themselves.  We are
           aware that the miners are  furnished with protective
           apparatus to safeguard their safety and health.  We cer-
           tainly agree they should.  We however, want the mining
11-85      company to furnish us with the same protection afforded
           the miners.  We feel we live in a continuous hazardous
           environment.  We therefore request relief, not addition-
           al mining activity to further effect our health.  Until
           ALL the problems addressed have been satisfactorily
           resolved  we  feel no further mining activities should be
           undertaken in our area.
                                                                                         11-64
                                                                                                 Comment noted.
   11-88
       71)  In a keynote speech by the Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II.
            Chairman, Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources,
            Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States
            House of Representatives, Mr. Rahall quoted a speech by
            Dr. Lorln Kerr at the 1968 United Mine Workers Association
            convention.  We feel the same way.  We intend to circulate
            copies of these words and survey for agreement or disagree-
            ment with Its contents. " At work you are covered with
            dust.  It's in your hair; your clothes and your skin.  The
            rims of your eyes are coated with it.  It gets between
            your teeth and you swallow it.  You suck so much of it In
            your lungs that until you die you never stop spitting up
            dust. Some of you cough so hard you wonder if you have a
            lung left.  Slowly you notice you are getting short of
            breath when walking up a hill.  On the job, you stop more
            often to catch your breath.  Finally, Just walking across
            the room at home Is an effort because It makes you short
            of breath."

            Some of us in Titus County relate exactly to this speech.
            We do not feel we should nave to. How many people do you
                                                                                                Comment noted. See response ll-O.

-------
                                                                         Page  4.
       11-66
     (cont'tO
       ii-e7
o
Ul
00
       11-68
       11-88
      11-70
      11-71
 71.  cont.
      need to show cause by survey,  letter,  deposition or
      other means declaring Injury tc their  health before
      you stop giving  permits to  mine In Titus County.

      He request your  answer Immediately.
«•*

 721  Federal regulations clearly state, "equal  or better",
      when referring to reclaimed surface mined  land.
      Please  send us the federal  specifications  on how to
      reclaim land that has been  surface mined.


 73)  There Is land In Titus County  that has been mined and
      1» now  used for  hay and cattle production.   This re-
      claimed land must be artificially maintained In order
      to produce hay and graze cattle.   Is this  proceedure
      not in  conflict  with the 1977  Surface Mine  Reclamation
      Act which clearly states that  reclaimed  land should NOT
      be artificially  maintained  but should be brought back
      to, "equal or better", status without artificial maln-
      talnence?  Please see to It  that  this practice Is at once
      corrected.  He at Titus County Citizens An  Endangered
      Species,  Inc. will appreciate  your action.   The mining
      company should comply with  the law.   Clearly,  no addition-
      al permits should be granted until proceedures on re-
      claimed land are  followed correctly and all  mined lands
      In Titus  County  comply with Federal  regulations.


 7ft)  Ha at Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species,  Inc.
      have been informed by a former employee of Texas Utilities
      Mining  Company that  the company has  received an exemption
      from the  1977 Surface Mining Act  specifications pertaining
      to reclaimed land.
           (a)  Do you know who Issued such an exemption?
           (b)  Does this  person reside  in  Titus County?
           (c)  Does the  EPA have the authority to  reverse
                this exemption and enforce  the 1977 Surface
                Mining Act regulations at TUMCO operations?
           (d)  If the EPA  does not have  the authority to
                reverse  this  exemption, who has?
           (e)  Why was this  exemption ever issued?
                                                   *
•
 75)  Hhen the  higher than average amounts of fertilizer  that
      are applied to produce  crops on reclaimed land  stop and
      this reclaimed land  Is  used for farming or ranching again,
      can the citizens of  Titus  County be  assured  by  the  EPA
      that a  dust bowl will not  have  been  created here.


 76)  Can the EPA assure Titus County Citizens  An  Endangered
      Species,  Inc.  that the  land that is  reclaimed after the
     mining in  Titus County will  not contain any harmful  ele-
     ments to us.  If harmful  elements should exist and ground
                                                                                                  II-C8
                                                                                                  11-69
                                                                                                 11-70
Surface mining tnd reclamation operations fn the Stale of Tent are regulated under
Ihe Coal Mining Regulations written by and enforced by Ihe Surface Mining and
Reclamation Division of Ihe Railroad Commission of Teas.

Performance standards for surface mining activities are included in Part 816 of Ihe Goal
Mining Regulations.

See response IM.

Reclaimed land at Ihe Monlicello Mine in Titus County uses management practices
which are consistent with the soil and water conservation plan developed bjr the SCS
and Ihe Sulphur-Cypress Soil and Water Conservation District. Management practices
Included In the plan are consistent with normal agronomic practices implemented in Ihe
local area.

EPA  b not responsible for compliance with Ihe Surface Mining  Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977. See Preface on Scope of EIS Review.

The Railroad Commission (RCT) routinely inspects TUMCO'j ongoing mining and
reclamation operations lo ensure that they comply with Brisling RCT permit conditions.

Any exemptions that may have been granted would have been granted by the Railroad
Commiulon of Tens, the regulatory body which regulates surface mining and
reclamation operallont In the Slaw of Teou. This program Is delegated lo Ihe
Railroad Commission of Texas by the OITIce or Surface Mining in Ihe U.S. Department
of Ihe Interior.
See Response to Issue on Coastal bermuda vs native grasses reclamation in Part II.B.
and also Append!* B or FEIS.

-------
                                                                          Page S.
     11-71
    (cort'd)
         76. cont.
             cover Is not  or cannot be sustained  profitably,  vhat
             can we expect when  fugitive dust from these areas be-
             come airborne?
     11-72
    11-73
o

Ul
VO
         77) Does the EPA know  the chemical analysis In the  top soil
             of  reclaimed land  In Titus County?


         78) We  assume  the EPA  does analyze the  top soil and thus
             knows the  analysis In Question 77.  Thus we request a
             copy of this documentation.


         79) If  for some  reason the EPA does not  know the  chemical
             analysts or  Is unable to Identify the exact location
             of  such samples, we request  that such samples be taken
             on  each acre of reclaimed land and  that the EPA have
             these samples analyzed.  Me  would request that  a repre-
             sentative  from our organization be  present at the time
             these samples are  obtained.   We feel this a most urgent
             request.


         80) The specifications for backfill are clearly defined In
             the 1977 Surface Mining Reclamation Act.  Such  specifi-
             cations state that the top 2 feet of top soil be stored
             in  long term storage piles.   Ue at  Titus County Citizens
             An  Endangered Species, Inc.  have Interviewed  workers
             from the surface mining crews and they Inform us this Is
             not done.  Does the EPA't Inspections reveal  whether this
             Is  being done or not?  If It Is being done please state
             where we can view  Inspection records from the last S
             years covering this process.


         81) Top soil Is  defined in the 1977 Reclamation Act as
             surface material containing  root medium.  Has the EPA
             done core  sampling in Titus  County  In the top 2 feet
11-76       of  reclaimed land.  He believe this reclaiming  has not
             and Is not being done according to  the 1977 Reclamation
             Act specifications.


         [821 If  core sampling has not been done,  as noted  In Question
             #81, we request permission to accompany the EPA In the
             field during the accumulation of such core samples.
      11-74
11-71







11-72


11-73
                                                                                                    11-74


                                                                                                    11-75
The Coal Mining Regulations require the identification of any lone or acid-forming
materials in Ihe overburden maleriab.  Section 816.386 discusses treatment of acid-
fbrming. tone-forming tnd combustible maleriab exposed, used or produced during
mining.  Section 816.375 defines standards for disposal of noncoal wanes.  An
assessment of alteration of physical and chemical properties of soib is presented in
DEIS Section 3.13.3.

No; however, select physical and chemical properties of native soils of Ihe B-2 mine are
presented In Section 3.1 J J of Ihe DEIS.

EPA does not analyze Ihe lop soil on reclaimed land. Chemical and physical analysis
of Ihe first four feel of reclaimed land is reported  to Ihe Railroad Commission of
Tem, In accordance with an approved soil monitoring plan. These data are available
for inspection at the Austin office of Ihe Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of
Ihe Railroad Commission of Tens.
        EPA does not perform inspections on reclaimed land.
        TUMCO's mine permit allows for lopsoit subslilutkm using selected overburden
        maleriab which meet  or exceed Ihe chemical and physical qualities  of native
        overburden. See the discussion presented In DEIS Section 3.1 J. Enforcement of Ihe
        Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is Ihe responsibility of Ihe
        Railroad Commission of Tens.
                                                                                                   11-76
                                                                                                            Comment noted.  See response 11-73.

-------
         [-„.
    11-77
                                                                     Page 6.
             Does the  EPA have a  test plot In Tltu§ County In  order
             to acquire knowledge about what will happen to the  re-
             claimed land if it is not artificially maintained?
            84) The  1977 Reclamation Act states that artificial maintenance
                of reclaimed  land is not acceptable.  The  reclaimed land  is
                being artificially maintained in Titus County.   Will the  EFA
    11-76      please see to it that this  practice is stopped  immediately.
                The  EPA does  interpret the  terminology of  the 1977 Reclama-
                tion Act the  same as we do  at Titus County Citizens An
                Endangered Species, Inc.?
                                                                                            11-77     No. EPA does not have • lest plot. The Railroad Commission of Teen nujr require
                                                                                                     thai raulu of field-site lri«b or greenhouse (ol be used lo demonstrate the feasibility
                                                                                                     of using overburden materials as a substitute for or a supplement lo topjoiL

                                                                                            11 -78     EPA has no legislative or regulatory authority regarding compliance with Ihe Surface
                                                                                                     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. See response 11-68 and Preface on
                                                                                                     Scope of EIS Review.
O
        85)  Fugitive  dust from reclaimed landposes the greatest  po-
             tential health hazard  to Titus County residents over the
             long term.   The 1977 Reclamation Act  was passed by the
11-79       United States Congress for the protection of the people
             in the perimeter of surface mines.  The EPA has a mandate
             from Congress to see to it that this  Act be followed. True
             or False?
                                                                                                11 -79     The mandate Horn Congress lo enforce Ihe Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
                                                                                                        Act of 1977 was given lo Ihe Office of Surface Mining, VS. Department of Interior.
                                                                                                        Abo, see Preface. Scope of EIS Review, and responses 11-68 and 11-78.
    11-80
    11-81
        86)  Surface water runoff,as  a  result of  the elimination of
          •  artificially maintained  practices on reclaimed land, may
             cause contamination of our lakes, streams and possibly
             of our underground water sources. Therefore, next to the
             fugitive dust, we feel reclamation must be carried out
             according  to the 1977 Reclamation Act.   Do you at the EPA
             agree?
       i

        87)  If a hazardous substance Is identified  in core sampling
             of top soil  in reclaimed land, we would request the EPA
             to contact the International Agency  for Research on Cancer.
             He would ask that they research the  problem and report to
             the EPA and  Titus County Citizens An Endangered Species,Inc.
             on the gravity of the reclamation shortcomings in Titus
             County.
                                                                                                11-80     Impacts lo surface water are assessed In detail in DEIS Section 3-2. This assessment
                                                                                                        b based on Ihe premise that reclamation must be carried out hi accordance with
                                                                                                        applicable Federal and Slate laws and regulations.
                                                                                                11-81     The requested research b beyond Ihe scope of Ihe EIS. See response 11-73.
   11-82
        88) The National Toxicology Program lists hazardous substan-
            ces that can be  and are contained in fugitive dust.  Has
            the EFA's surface samples detected any chemicals or ele-
            ments from Titus County reclaimed surface mining lands
            that are on this list?  Please make available to us all
            documentation of samples done  to date and what hazardous
            substances, If any, have been  found.  This  is a most urgent
            request.
                                                                                                11-82
                                                                                                    See responses IM and 11-55.

-------
                                                                         RECEIVED

                                                                          JUN 191930
                                                             Jim* U,  1990
O
         12-1
         12-2
         12-3
  Mr. Nora Thoaaa
  Chief Federal Activities Branch (6 g-F)
  U. S.  EPA
  1445 Itoaa Avenue
  Dalle*, Texas 75202-2733

  Deer Nr. Thoaae:

  Attached la a copy of  the  Proposed Hontleallo B-2 Area to be aln*d by
  Texaa Utilities  Mining Coapany.   We are  located et  the  highlighted
 ' area  in a  aaall aubdlvielon  of  houeee.    Our concern  ie that  our
  property value  will  be ruined  and Bake It Impossible for ua  to  aell
  our hoao and relocate to avoid the alnlng going on in our area. The
~ noise free) the  dragline  one alle froa ua  la alreedy  heerd at  our
  house.   We can  also hear  the  backup alaraa  on the  equlpaent being
  ueed  In that  area.   We realize,  therefore,  that whan the pit Just a
  few  hundred yards froa  our how  ie alned,  we will  receive a  auch
  greater  aanunt  of nolee and duet at that  tlae.   The vibration  froa
  the dragline will alao be  a factor to  consider and  could possibly be
  daaaglng to the foundetlon and walla of our how.

  We were attracted to  our  neighborhood beeauaa of the quiet  country
  ataoephere  only three  allee froa town.    We  would appreciate  your
  consideration on the  lapect the  nolae,  duet and  vibration of  the
  alnlng  operation would have on our neighborhood.   We do  not  went to
  atand in the  way of progreca  and the alnlng of coal to  produce  the
  auch  needed electricity  for our nation,  but we would like  to either
  have our hoae purchaaed by the  Texea  Utilities Mining Coapany or  have
  thea  not Bine  ao eloae  to our  how and  degrede  the  value of  our
  property and cauae ua the dteturbance that would be preaent.

  Thank you in advance for considering our requeet.

                                              Sincerely,
12-1


12-2
See Appendix B, Response to h»ue 6.


Comment acknowledged.
                                                                                                           12-3
         Comment noted. However, private nullen between Individual tandownen and the
         peimil applicant (e.g. land tales or teases) are not within the scope of the EIS. Abo.
         •ee Preface. Scope of EIS Review.
                                                                                        t_^'
                 Attachment

-------
              r
o

ON
NJ

-------
                                 Jokn  M.  Ellit,  M.D.
                         lOtw.aowanifZT
o
          13-1
                                    MT. 1CAMHT. TOMa TS499


                                    June 14, 1990
                                                          RL
Mr. Norm Thmoas
Federal Activities Branch 6E-F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
1445 Boss Avenue
Dallas, Texas  75202-2733


Dear Mr. Thomasi

     Thank you for your interest in the TUMCO mining
plans in Titus County,  Texas.  Inclosed is a photograph
on the front page  of the Ht.  Pleasant Dally Tribune
in which my wife and I  are seated in attendance jsee
arrows), of a public meeting of U.S. EPA in Mt. Pleasant.

     My concern as a physician relates to effluent and
overflow of waters coming down the Plney Creek resulting
from mining operations.  Chemical wastes and changes in
acidity of the water may be Important in reference to
human and animal life.   My personal interest is effect
on local springs and Plney Creek during time of drought.
My wife and I  have a portion of a cattle ranch north
of the proposed TUMCO mining area where in summer
Piney Creek becomes completely dry.  Our 45 head of
cattle depend  on water  from a natural spring located
about 30 yards west of  the Piney Creek stream.  Our
concern is this spring  of water that never goes dry
and efforts by TUMCO in preserving water supply in
Piney Creek for our cattle and wildlife Including
deer on this ranch.

     Again, thank  you for your interest in environmental
protection in  Titus County.
                                                                                            I3-I      Comments noted.  Anticipated impacts to surface ind froundwaler are assessed in
                                                                                                    DEIS Section 3.2. Also, see Part II.B, Appendh B. and the Summary of Ihis FEIS on
                                                                                                    these resource areas.
                                            Sincerely yours,
                                            John M. Ellis, M.D.
                                            Director of Clinical  Research
                                            Titus County Hospital District

-------
:.OiOO-,O O  O (
          "
            o< -o
         4 •
              •-*

-------
                                              Jan» IS.  MO
RFC.

 .JUN2019.J

    6E-H
O
Ui
      14-1
      14-2
     14-3
Mr. Ron Thoaaa
Chlaf radaral Activity
t-m-r WTA
1445 Koae Avamia
Dallaa, Taxaa 1S202

Daar Mr. ThoMeat

     In ragard to tha propoaad Mining Hontleallo B-2 location R. R.  12 batwaan
Highway 271 Bualnaaa and Highway  271 By-paaa naar Mt. Plaaaant, Tttua County,
Taxaa wa would Ilka for you to eonaldar tha following cuauantai

     Our fatally fan of approximately C4.26 aeraa of land  llaa In thla araa.
Wa h«T* a craak running through thla property, two  |2| atock pond a,  two  |2|
daap walla, and thrae (3)  aha How wall* earring our hOM*e.

     w* will looaa all itmrnct mm DMIRMB and our ant Ira shallow watar
ayetm.  Wa know of othare who hare loat thalr daap wall ayatana tram BOKfftCS
MINIM OPimTIORI.

     All an»lronreantal problana will ba »eh a»ra aarara,  baeaua* Mining will
ba In oparatlon en th* waat, north and aaat aldaa of aald  property  (Baa  Map
•ncloaad).

     Th* operation will be all night and all day and tha notaa froa Machinery
and trucka will ba Intolerable, and which *v*r direction th* wind May blow th*
duat and'grlai can not >laa ua.

     w* alncaraly believe  thla propoaal to be unfair, unraaaonable  and ahonld
                  Wa,  th* undaralgnad urga you to PUMI not tepoa* thla  hardahlp upon ua
             and to dany thla propoaal In Ita praaant fona for Mining oparatlona In th*
             Hontlcallo B-2 Arm.
                                                       truly.
                                  14-1       Cbmnwnu noted. Anticipated Impact! In wiler resources resulting from the propoied
                                            mining operations ire assessed in DEIS Section 3.2; Pirt H.B.: Appendh B; and the
                                            Summary of llm FEIS.
                                                                                                             14-2      Cbmmenli noted. Noise Impacts are discussed In DEIS Section 3.S. Air Quality
                                                                                                                      impacts are assessed In FEIS Section 3.4.1.2 and Summary.
                                                                                                             14-3      Comment noted.

-------
V
                                                                              rs
                                                                            By*.,

-------
15-1
16-2
                                                                                                            15-1       Comment noted.  However, private matlen between individual bndownen and the
                                                                                                                      permit applicant (e.|. eompentation) are not within the tcope of the EIS.  Abo. «ee
                                                                                                                      Preface, Scope of EIS Review; and Appendix B. Rapome to tone C. of FEIS.
                                                                                                            1S-2       Comment noted.

-------
00
                                        f
                                                                                                                                                153       Comment noted  See Appendii B. Response lo Issue I of FEIS.

-------
Doug Herder
Ft 7 Box  178
Ht Pleasant Texas  75455
June 15,1990
Envlromental  Protection Agency.  United States Government
Branch 6-E F
1445 Rose Avenue
Dallas Texas   75202-2733
Attn: Norm Thomas
Dear Mr.  Thomas:
                                                                                      6E-I-
16-1
16-2
16-3
      I  am writing you to express my unqualified opposition  to the Issuance of a
permit  for the mining of area  in Titus Count* referred to as  proposed .Montlcello
B-2 Hlne.
      As a resident of an adjacent area, my home is located  directly south of the
proposed mine area, and is adjacent to an area to the west, which has been Im-
pacted  by the mining over the  past several years.  I am opposed  to  the Issuance
of the  proposed permit and any mining because of a number of  factors, not the least
of which is my concern for my  family's health, as well as my  own.
      I  have lived on the northeast shore of Tankeraly Lake. Mount Pleasant's re-
serve water storage facility,  for the past 17 years.
      During the period of years in which I have lived in this same area, my
primary residence has been served, both for drinking purposes, as well as for
utility purposes, by deep well, approximately 300 feet in depth.
      Over the past several years, as the area to the  west  of me has been Im-
pacted  by strip mining, I have noticed a definite change in the  quality of the
water.   I have had plumbers  come and have been told that lignite has entered my
water stream,  and is causing  problems In my water system.  This has only been the
case for the past several years since the strip mining has  been  Impactln the area
directly to the west of my property.
      My family's health has  also been impacted by the change  in  our water.  I
and  several members of my family have experienced gastrointestinal' problems.  In
checking with a specialist in  this area, I was told to have the  water tested.  The
report  which was returned to me, by a qualified testing facility, Indicated that
the  water supply was contaminated and that it should not be used as a potable
                                                                                                              161
                                                                                                              162
                                                                                                                       Comment noted.
                                                                                                                       Comment noted.
                                                                                                              163
EPA suggest! contacting the Railroad Commission of Texas on this subject.  As slated
in the DEIS. TUMCO is aware of its responsibility to provide alternate sources of
water lo users with wells that have been clearly impacted by mining. Section 816.352
of the Coal Mining Regulations enforced by the Railroad  Commission of Texas.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, addresses the performance standards
dealing with water rights and replacement of water supplies where that water supply
has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximalely resulting
from surface mining acliviiic-v

-------
  ie-3
(cont'd.
n
   16-4
   18-6
 water  supply.   This same water supply had been used by us for rears,  as well
 as the property owners prior to our purchase,  tlie change in the water purity
 happened subsequent to the beginning  of the strip Mining operation to the west
 of us.  Since that tine,  we have been forced to endure the added expense and
 inconvenience of purchasing and drinking bottled water.
|      A second cause of concern to me la In regards to my personal health and
 the  health of my family, over the amount of partlculate natter in the air at
 the  present time, as well as a great concern over the Increased amount of dust
 which  would certainly accompany the approval and beginnings of strip mining in
 the  proposed area.  Uhile the mining has been going on in the area directly to the
 west of ny residence, some l.S miles away at its nearest point to us, I and my
 family have eiperienced continuing, chronic respiratory problems.
      My daughter,,who has suffered from asthma,  has been the most Impacted by the
 dust pollution from the on going mining.  She is an eicellent atudent, but due
 to the Increased frequency  of respiratory problems and asthmatic attacks, no
 doubt  attributable to the Mining going on in  the adjacent area, missed so
 •any days from school, ahe had  to have special dispensation for the missed days.
 This has only been this serious a factor In our health since the mining has
 been going, on adjacent to us.
      However,  in the proposed permit, at some point in time in the future, strip
 mining will be impacting By home in an area which is less than one-half, perhaps
 as little as one-eighth mile from ny residence.  What will be the Impact on my
 family's health when the mining operation gets to within that close a distance?

      I chose to live on Lake Tankersly because of the beauty of this area, my
 love for water and the potential for water sports.  However, I was appalled and
 deeply disturbed 'to see a newcast from Channel 7, Tyler, indicating that the
 area around Mount Pleasant was already among the areas most impacted by acid rain
 in the United  States.   Students in classes In Mount Pleasant High School were
 shown  monitoring rainfall, and my eye caught a poster In the room, "Bass Cannot
 Live in Acid Rain."  While I am certain that Teias Utilities maintains their own
 monitoring facilities,  I have not had access to their data.  This news cast was
 seen by thousands of East Texas residents.   This acid rain condition was more
 than likely severely impacted by the pollutants put into the air by Texas Utilities
 at their generating plant.
      Certainly,  I love  where I live, but if the lake water becomes so impacted by
 acid rain  as to  kill the fish,  whst type of water sports will be available?
                                                                                                          1M      See Appendix B. Response lo Issue 1. ind Section 3.4.13. of this FEIS.
                                                                                                          I«-S      Comment noted. The proposed mining and reclamation operations will not contribute
                                                                                                                   to the add nin problem.

-------
        16-e
o
        18-7
        16-S
       16-9
     If the acid  r*ln BO Impacts the fish In the lake, what  is  Ita  effect  on the
other parts of  the  man-made envlroment?  And what la Its effect on  the  lungs
of ae and my  family and the other people in the area?

     I an an  airplane pilot.  I fly over this area both for  pleasure as well aa a
necessary part  of my business.  The convenience of flying affords opportunities
In business which I night nlss otherwise.  However,  the cost of maintenance of a
plane, or In  «y case several planes. Is a heat? one.  O'er the  past several  months,
I have been especially aware of » (rowing problem with corrosion of my  aircraft.
     Corrosion  can  mean the loss of an otherwise useful asset.   One of  my  planea
was purchased in  as area near Gary. Indiana, which Is known  as  an area  of  pollution,
at least In the past. When I puchase my Glasair, It was checked over In minute
detail for any  eilstlng problems or potential problems.  There  were none.  Recently,
I saw this same plane  being impacted by corrosion.  The Mount  Pleasant airport
where the planes are hangered, lies directly to the east of  the Texas Utllies
generating plant.  I have no doubt that the corrosion problem is being   caused
by the proximity to the plant and the sulfurlc acids being given off, mixing
with the moisture in the air,  and  causing the corrosion to my planes. This is
rapidly becoming •  problem of great concern to me, both from a  personal as well as
a financial atandpolnt.
     As I aald  at the recent E.P.A. hearing in Mount Pleasant,  "If  you  can see the
air, you know it's  dirty."  Flying Into the Mount Pleasant area, especially from
the  west, you  can  see  a dome of dirt and/or  pollutants  In  and around  Mount
Pleasant.  As a resident of the area,  this potential health hazard,evidenced by
being able  to see the air,  causes me great trepidation.
     Aa the area to the west has been mined,  I have noticed as Increase In  the
amount of wildlife moving into our populated, residential area. As their  habitat
is mined,   the  wild life population will necessarily be Impacted.   Smaller areas of
habitat will  mean Increased populations. Impacting the human residents  of  the area.
Snakes, rodents, other vermin, as well  as raccoons, skunks  and other wild animals
which carry  rabies will be coming into our residential area. This  Is already causing
a problem and I expect even further and more disastrous Impact  on our area if the
permit  Is approved for the  proposed new mining area.
       16-10
                      I shall not even comment on the possibility for devaluation  to  properties in the
                area.   We live In an area of good homes and higher end properties.   However,   the
                                                                                                              S-7
                                                                                                                      See response 16-5.
See response 16-5.
                                                                                                              6-8
                                                                                                              6-9
Comment noted. Please refer to revised Section 3.4.1.2 of this FEIS for an expanded
discussion of air quality impacts. See Appendix B. Response lo Issue 1. of FEIS.
                                              Because of reductions in
                                            movement of small animals.
Impacts lo wildlife are discussed In DEIS Section 3.3.2.
available natural habitats, the potential exists for some n
including rodents  and snakes, from the previously undisturbed areas into nearby
developed areas constituting potential advene Impacts.

-------
     18-10
      (con
      t'dj
     16-11
proximity of the proposed permit area would no doubt Impact our property values
In a negative manner.
     As you can aee, I have a number of concerns and more questions regarding the
situation.  I have not received the answers that 1 would like,  regarding these
concerns about the health of my family.  Therefore, I make a formal request that
you deny the proposed permit  requested by Teias Utilities Mining Company for the
area directly north of Mount  Pleasant and ny  residence, said permit atyled
Hontlcello B-2 mine,  approximately 8980 acres to be Impacted.  I shall expect to
hear from you  requardlng this matter and hereby formally request to be informed
regarding any further hearings, request for hearings, Impact studies which nay be
presented, and would request  a personal response regarding the above mentioned Items.
K>
              Thank you  for  your  time an consideration  In these and all upcoming
                                                                                 natters.
                                                                                                                   16-10     See Appendix B. Response lo Issue 6. ot FEIS.
                                                                                                                    16-11     Ointment noted.
              Sincerely,
              Doug Herder
              cc:Flle

-------
-4
                                           Rout*  2.  Box  176
                                           Mt. Pleasant,  Texas 7S4SS
                                           214/572-7922
            June 19, 1990
['
!

L
     17-2
     17-3
     17-4
Mr. Norm Thomas
Chief  Federal Activities Branch
(CE-F) OSBPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas,  Texas 75202-2733

Dear Mr. Thomas:

     I am a resident in a bordering area northeast of the proposed
Monticello B-2 mining area.  The purpose of my letter Is to protest
the approval of the Texas  Utility Mining permit.

     My  family chose to reside In this location approximately tour.
years  ago.   The reasons  we chose  this  area was  because  of  easy
access to and from our jobs, quiet and peaceful  living, clean air,
and a  safe place for our children to play and grow  up.

     The mining area  borders approximately four-tentha  of  a  mile
from my  property along with nearly 75 other homes.   If  approved,
all of the  above will  be greatly  affected along  with substantial
property loss.

     My  objections are not of the mining of the  lignite but to ask
for a  reasonable buffer  tone so that residents such as myself are
not  subject  to live  in conditions  that  will  e«i«t,.   I  am  very
concerned about mining emissions due  to the fact this area already
•has one  of the highest  ratios of cancer in Texas.

      It  appears  that most  of the public  bordering  this proposed
area has not been well  Informed.  It seems a company of  this  site
would  offer  more public  hearings.   In  closing,  I  would  like to
request  Information regarding legal rights and action of property
owners that will be so  affected.
                                                                                            17-1
                                                                                                    Com men t noted.
                                                                                            17-2
                                                                                            17-3
                                                                                            17-4
                                        See Appendix B. Response lo Issue 6. of FEIS.
                                        The anticipated impact of the proposed mining «nd reclamation on lit quality md
                                        rehted health elTecU b discussed In Section 3.4.1.2 of this FEIS.

                                        Abo, ice Appendix B. Response lo Issue I, of FEIS.
                                        The requested Information b not within the scope of the EIS.

-------
             Mr.  Horn Thomas
             June 19. 1990
             Page 2
                  With all respect. please reply.

                                           Sineer
                                                 CUrk
             JC/tk

             ee:  Titus County Judge HI ford Flanagan
                  0.8. Senator Lloyd Bentson
                  State Representative Bsm Russell
                  State Senator Bill Rltlltf
                  U.S. Congressman Jim Chapman
o                0.9. Senator Phil Oramm
 I                 Texas Utility Mining Company
~-J                Mr. John King. Bearings Eiamlner

-------
                                                              REC;
                                                               JUN2r,i95

                                                                  6E4
                                                                         June 2O,  199O
        Mr. Norm Thomas
        Chief
        Federal Activities Branch
        6 E-F
        United States Environmental Protection Agency
        1445 Ross Avenue
        Dallas, Texas  75202-2733
        Dear Mr. Thomas:
                              Re:  TUHCO-Hontlcello -  EIS - B2 Area Permit
         lea<
      P  com

18-1    and
      L  per|
On June 12, 1990  there was a meeting at  the Mt. Pleasant Civic Center
concerning a request by TUMCO  to receive a permit to mine  the Monticello -
82 Area.  Over two hundred citizens attended  the session with some 29 people
speaking of their concerns and numerous  others sharing those same concerns
about  the pollution of dust, noise, water run off, loss of primary water
.tables, vibration from machinery,  discharge or waste materials in Lake
Tankersley, the lack of an adequate buffer lone, health problems, lack of
wild life protection, closing  of roads and the decrease In value of affected
proper* 1 es.

TUMCO  has an obligation to those affected by  U>« Monticello -  62 Mining  area
and this should start with TU?4CO being up front and above reproach In all the
areas  of pollution concerns as well as the land purchases.  Questions should
be answered rather than the remarks of "we are not prepared to answer that"
or "we have no information to  release on that matter".   Naturally people are
frightened  when  a big company makes a move of this magnitude and they are
even more frightened when  they feel the  big company Is not sharing all the
information available.  Why can't  TUMCO  rectify some of the ill will already
caused and contact each community  affected and encourage them to eatablish a
leader in their community  to communicate to TUMCO some of  the problems and
concerns created  by the proposed mining. The EPA could use some of their
resources to enlighten the public  about  what  Is acceptable pollution levels
    since the citizens would feel  like they were a part of the solution
   haps there would be less division between  them and TUMCO.
         Yes  th»re is  pollution In the Ml.  Pleasant  area  ami yes  there are health
         matters  which should concern us all.   If TUMCO Is  the  "Good Neighbor" they
18-2    profess  to be then what is wrong wl Ih TUMCO trying lo  find the answer to the
         excessive cancer rate in Titus County.  What  Is  wrong  with a larger than 300'
         buffer zone.   TUMCO Is a good company that  has a wonderful safety record In
         the  mining Industry, which was achieved by  them  using  their employee talents
         and  resources.   What would be wrong  with them using those employee talents
         and  resources to create an environment In the lignite  mining areas of East
         Texas  that would make TUMCO a great environmental  company.
                                                                                                       18-1
                                                                                                                Comment, noied. «|CMe refer lo Appendix B. Response, lo Issues; and Ihe Preface.
                                                                                                                Scope of EIS Review.
                                                                                                      18-2
                                                                                                               Comments noted.

-------
          Page 2
 18-2
Icont'd)
  18-3
We all remeirber the mistakes, and yes there were many mistakes, at the nuclear
power plant built by TUMCO's parent company TU Electric.  Do we need an
organization such as CASE In the lignite mining Industry - what a waste of
time, money and energy that would be; however, when a company Tails to show
proper responsibility then is Is important for the citizens to demand that
responsibility.  TUMCO should remember that no problem Is ever solved by
denying that the problem exists.

This  is a challenge to TUMCO, the EPA and the citizens of Mt. Pleasant.
TUMCO be a leader in the environmental integrity of Titus County and in your
responsibilities to its citizens.  To the EPA - use every available avenue to
ensure a future dedicated to the highest quality of life In Titus County.   To
those citizens in the Mt. Pleasant area - use all your resources toward
helping TUMCO find solutions to those problems that affect us all by challeng-
ing the buffer zone, requesting that more trees be planted In the reclaimed
areas and demanding more respect for lakes In the affected area.  Also the
citizens of Mt. Pleasant area should work with the EPA to achieve a desired
result in lowering the dirt, noise and waste water pollution.   Demand
responsibility by TUMCO.  TUMCO now is the time to open those doors of
communiration and to drive down FM 1734 from Wtnfleld to Mt. Pleasant to
understand why the Mt. Pleasant people are unhappy.

Working  together we can have a better environmental community.
                                                                                                           IS J
                                                                                                                    Comment nolcd.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                       Nlta H. Cassata
                                                       TU Electric Employee (Retired)

                                                       Route 7, Box 177 W 1
                                                       Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75155

-------
                                           ******
19-1
                                                                                                19-1      Commenl noted.
                                                                                                19-2     Comment noted.
                                                                                                19-3     Commenl noted.
                                                                                                 19.4      Comment noted.

-------
o
-J
00

-------
o



VO
                                                                                                                                              20-1       Oimmenl noted.
                                                                                                                                              20-2       Comment noted.

-------
oo
o
                                                                                                                                                      20-3       Comment mitctl.
                                                                                                                                                      20-4       See Appendix D, Response to Issue 6. of FEIS.

-------
?
00
                                                                                                                                             20-5       Commcnl noted.
                                                                                                                                             20-6       Oimmcnl ncilcJ.
                                                                                                                                             20-7       Commcnl noted.

-------
n
oo

-------
                                                                              RECEIVED
                                                                                 6E-F
                      June 22. 1990
CD
'"[
              21—2
              21-3
Mr. Norm Thomas, Chief
Federal Activities  Branch  <«E-I>
0. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENCT
1*45 Ross Ave.
Dallae, Texaa  75202-2733

Dear Mr. Thomast

I am oppoaed at thla  time  to  the  laauance  of a permit  for the
mining of Hontleello  1-2 Area by  Texaa Otllltlea  Mining Co.

Hy requeat  for Information Includes,  but not limited to, the following!

      1.  He are asked  to  breath  a  volume  of air  that  la filled
          with fugatlve duat  without  knowledge of the  chemical
          •ake-up or  coneentratlona and where they will fall.

          The permit  ahould Include the requlrementa as for  any
          ether bualneaa that emits Into the atmosphere - which la
          computer  modela  shoving longitude, latitude, mean  aea
          level elevations, locations of aehoola  and parka and
          recreation  areas, etc.  Also, a  chemical analyala  of  all
          air borne eomponenta, singularly and collectively, and
          where they  will  fall and  In what eoncentratlona within
          a 3 mile  radlua  of  the  mining operatlona. Thla would
          have to be  accomplished from teata around the complete
          perimeter of  propoaed permit on  approximately 1/4  mile
          Increments.  When all reaulta are tabulated, they
          ahould be placed In a report In  layman's language
          ahowlng actual veraua allowable  (for quality health)
          and be made available to  the people by  notification In
          local newspaper  Public  Notice Section for required
          two-week  period.

          If these  emissions  ahould prove  hazardous to public health,
          then the  permit  ahould  be denied or aa  an alternate,
          relocate  all  humans who fall within the contaminated  area.

       2.  Other concerna are  that there haa been  no provlalon for
          wildlife  In the  area which  Include, by  my own knowledge,
          fox, deer,  quail and the  northern turkey (placed by Texaa
          Parka & Vlldllfe) 9 approximately $1,500. per bird.
          Incidently, It la a $2,000. fine plus the $1,500.  If  you
          kill one  of theae birds?
                                                                                                            21-1      Comment noted.
                                                                                                            21-2      See FEIS Section J.4.1.2 for an expanded dbcus»k>n of air quality. The EPA permit
                                                                                                                     action » a mstewaler discharge permit. Abo. tee Preface, Scope of EIS Review.
                                                                                                            21-3      Section 3.3.2 discusses the impact to wildlife that b anticipated from project-related
                                                                                                                     activities.

-------
                  June 11,
                                                                             Page  *
?
       ai-e
       21-6
       81-7
                    3.
         When in acre  of new lake I* formed. It It required to
         act iiid«  tvo (f) acree of land to coapeneat* wildlife.
         What data  T««aa Utliltlea Mining propoaet

         Property »«lu*a for thoac around the periawter of the
         • Inlng are* vtll drop ilgnifleantl)t which la unjuat for
         thoae not  able to fight for their rlghti.
     «.  Since  thl*  perailt haa been applied for In 1*90, It ehould
         not be allowed AHY "grandfatherlng" but be under current
         lava and  reeCrletlone.

I reapeetfully  requeet  that my eoncerna be xtade a part of the perailt
requtreaenta.   Aa  you know, the laaued penelt will eliminate any
munition that the public may receive for health or life-threatening
problene that ejay  arlae In the future.
                                                                                                             21-4      TUMCO'i proposed neclamaiion plan b dbctnsed In DEIS KXIiom 3 J.I 2 and 33.22.
                                                                                                                      Ate ice FEIS page III-3 and Appeoda D toi TUMCO'i propoMd mitigation lor
                                                                                                                      wetland, area* to be Impacted during mining.

                                                                                                             21-5      See Appendix B. Retpome to brae «, of FEIS.
                                                                                                             21-*      Comment noted.
                                                                                                             21-7      Oommenl noted.
               Very truly  youra,
                     W.  Shanahan
               Rt. « - Box  303*
               Mt. rieaaant. Texaa  7S«$S
               JWSilb
               cei  Texaa Parka & Wildlife
                    The Railroad  Coanlaalon

-------
                        June  25. 1990
CO
                 22-1
                 22-2
                 22-3
                                               JUN26199P
Mr. Norm  Thomas, Chief
Federal Activities Branch  (6E-F)                 fiF-F
U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency    |  •     vl~
1445 Ross  Avenue                         »..
Dallas, TX   75202-2733

Dear Mr.  Thomas:

     I reside at Route 7,  Box  55, Ht. Pleasant,  Texas
and am opposed to the request  of  Texas Utilities Mining
Company to  mine the Monticello B-2 area.

     I live at the Southeast corner of N.W.  12 and  busi-
ness 271  North.

     It is  not my Intent to  impede progress  In our  area
but 1 do  feel that the public's health should be a  defi-
nite consideration before  mining  takes place.

     In my  opinion, no mining  should take place  within
3 miles of  any occupied dwelling.

     If the proposed mining of the Hontlcello B-2 area
takes place the actual digging could be within approxi-
mately ISO  yards of my home and for this reason, I  am
opposed to  mining of this  area.

                                 Sincerely,
22-1     EPA agrees.  See additional information on Public Health impact! provided in
        Appendix B. Response lo Issue 1. of FEIS.
22-2     Comment noted.

        Par) 764 ft the dial Mining Regulations includes the process for designating areas
        unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.


22-3     Comment noted.
                                                          6ary-4oynes
                                                          Route  7,  Box  55
                                                          Ht. Pleasant, TX
                                                     75455

-------
           Mr.  Norm Thomas,  Chief
           Federal Activities  Branch (6E-F>
           U.S. Environmentat'Protection Aaencv
           1««3 Ro»« Avenue
           Dallas, TX 73808-8733
RB-

 .JUN271990
    23-1
    23-2
O

00
Ox
    23-3
    23-4
  Dear Mr.  Thomas I

  I wish  to express my concerns about the request of Texas Utilities Mining
  Company  to mine the Monticello B-8 area.  I live about  1/8 mile from the
  proposed  site and believe  that this action will cause a health  hatard to
[_ my  family and myself.

  I have reviewed the Public  Health section of the Environment  Impact
  Statement Draft pertaining  to the Monticello B-8 area and find  it
  inadequate in addressing the  effects on the health of the eititens
  surrounding the B-8 area and  on the concerns of those eititens.

  Mining areas are known to have higher instances of Lung Cancer, Leukemia,
  Asthma, Respiratoy Diseases,  Eye l> Throat  Irritation, Emphysema, and
  other diseases and complications.  In my family we already have higher
  Cancer risk and Eye t Throat  Irritation.  Prevailing winds in the  area
  will blow from the Monticello B-8 area into our neighborhood.  As  a
  homeowner, concerns also include damage to propery and decreasing
  property  values.

  Texas has spent many decades  and much money building up the deer
  population in the Monticello  B-8 area.   Concerns for  the deer and  all
  other wildlife must be addressed before permits can be awarded for mining.

 'Effects to those  eititens surrounding  the  Monticello  B-8 area must be
  determined before awarding any permits  to  TUHCO to mine this area.
  Vour investigation into this matter would  be greatly  appreciated.
                                                                                            231
                                                                                            23-2
                                                                                                    Comment noted.
                            Regarding public health issues, ice Preface, Scope of EIS Review, and Appendix B.
                            Response to Issue 1, of FEIS. Regarding bnd values, fee Response to Issue i of
                            Appendh B of FEIS.
                                                                                            23-3
                                                                                            23-4
                            Impacts to wildlife are a-nosed in DEIS Section 332 and the Summary of this FEIS
                            under thb resource category.
                            Comment noted.  Both the DEIS and FEIS mess the Impact to the human
                            environment anticipated from TUMCO'l proposed mining and reclamation operations
                            at the B-2 Mine.
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 Barren HaFdlson
                                                 3014 Masters Drive
                                                 Mt. Pleasant, TX 73133

-------
                          TEXAS UTILITIES MINING COMPANY
                                r. o. BOB fM • r Aimtto.»«*§ nMt

                                   July 13, 1990
00
          LEOETT 0«IWETT
Mr. Joe Swlck
Environmental  Protection Agency
Allied Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas  75202

Dear Mr. Swlck:                    „

Enclosed  are Texas Utilities Mining Company's  (TUMCO)
comments on the Hontlcello 8-2 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement  (EIS), TUMCO  respectfully request that theae
comments be  Incorporated Into the Final EIS.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.

                               Veey truly yours.
              ew

              Enclosure


               bxc:  Ken Price
                    Del HcCabe
                    John Oenman
                    Abo Schwarzer
                    Steve Collins
                    Dick White
                   Charles Jasper, EHSA
                                            Legett  Garrett
                                            J VnUTICS COMHH Y

-------
                                          TUHCO Comments on Draft
                                       Environmental Impact Statement
                                             for Honticello B-Z
00
oo
          24-1
           24-2
Page 5-2. 2nd Paragraph

   EPA Statement

       At the present  time, alternatives...

   TUHCO Response

       Espey  Huston * Associates,  under the direction  of  Hr.  Bill
       Ktrchner,  Is  In   the  process  of writing  a  document  which
       will  comply  with  the  Section  404(b)(l)  guidelines.   The
       results  of  this   document  should be  Incorporated  Into  the
       EIS upon completion.

       The  creation  of  wetlands   prior to  any  loss  of  wetlands
       due to  mining activities would  be difficult and Impractical
       to accomplish.  Nothing would be gained by creating wetlands
       prior  to  mining  activities  because of  time  required  to
       establish  functional   value.    Suitable  land  may  not  be
       available to  the  company In order to restore wetlands during
       the  Initial   stages  of  mining.   After  mined  land  has  been
       leveled  and   the  appropriate hydrologlcal  regimes have  been
       restored,  the  creation of  wetlands  could  be accomplished
       without difficulty.

Page 5-5, Soils, 2nd Paragraph

   EPA Statement

       losses include "hydrfc" soils of the area which are necessary
       as a constituent of wetlands occurring on site.

   TUHCO Response

       Some hydrfc  soils  In  the  study  area will  be  Impacted  by
       mining.    Efforts   by  TUHCO  to  restore   wetlands that  have
       been disturbed  by mining  have  been successful.  The  soils
       upon  which  wetland  vegetation  has  been  established   are
       functioning  as  wetland soils.   Platinum  soil probes  have
       been  established  In  one  wetland  to determine  the  redox
       potential  of  these   newly  created  soils.    The   redox
       potentials of mined  soils   fall  within  the  redox  range  of
       native wetland soils.
                                                                                                          24-1
                                                                                                                   OoniRKitf noted.
                                                                                                           M-2
                                                                                                                    Comment noted.

-------
        24-3
o

CD
VO
        24-4
Page S-5, Soils, 3rd Paragraph

   EPA Statement                      •

       Designated  "hydrlc"  soils  and  soils  that  exhibit  hydrlc
       characteristics  are  yet  to be  fully addressed In  the  CWA,
       404 determinations.

   TUHCO Response

       A  baseline  soil  survey of  the  8-2 study  are*  was  given
       to  the EPA  for  evaluation.   This  soil survey was used  to
       describe  hydrlc  soils  In the study area and  Mas  ultimately
       presented  In  the  8-2 wetland  determination.   TUHCO  feels
       that   hydrlc  soils   have  been  fully   evaluated.    In  light
       of  the  fact  that the  new  Unified Methodology of wetland
       delineation   went   into  effect    after   the   8-2   wetland
       delineation  was complete, TUHCO is  again delineating wetland
       using the  Unified  Method.    During the  delineation,  these
       hydrlc soils will  again  be evaluated  and  discussed  In  the
       final wetland determination  report.

 Page  5-5,  Soils.  4th Paragraph

    EPA Statement

       Soil   structure  will   be  altered,  bulk densities  Increased,
       permeabilities   reduced   and  textures  altered  by  grading.
       This  results In  short-term and/or  long-term adverse Impacts
        to  soil  resources.

    TUHCO Response

       These alterations can also  be beneficial,  such as,  a better
        textured  soil    being  created  which   is more  conducive  to
       plant growth.    Permeabilities  may be reduced but not  to
       a  point  where  it would be  limiting  to  plant growth  and
       vigor.  These  slight decreases 1n  permeability would result
        In  more  rainfall  runoff  being  discharged  into   receiving
        streams   which  would  increase  flow   in  streams   that  are
        normally  intermittent   in   nature.  This   would   create  a
        nydrologlc  regime   which   would   be  conducive  to  wetland
        restoration  or  natural  expansion  of wetlands  downstream
        of  the study area.
                                                                                                               24.J
                                                                                                                         Thii FEIS includes ndJilional information on the redctcrminalion of juriidiclmnil
                                                                                                                         walcn and wclhunh.   This  redderminalion  included  consitlcralion of hydra
                                                                                                                         characteristics.
                                                                                                               244
                                                                                                                        Comment noted.

-------
0

vD
to
          Page 5-5. Sells, last Paragraph.  List Sentence

             EPA Statement

                 Increasing soil organic natter...mlnesolls.

 24-5       TUHCO Response

                 The  statement  concerning  high  seedling  mortality  cotmon
                 to  most  mine soils  should  be deleted.   TUHCO'»  reclaimed
                 land  has  high  survival  rates  of  seedlings  during  years
                 with normal  periods  of  rainfall.   Survival rates  have been
                 90S during those years.

          Page S-6. Paragraph  1. Sentence 3

             EPA Statement

                 Significant drawdowns should be...mine.

             TUHCO Response

                 This sentence points out  that significant drawdowns  would
                 be  restricted within 6SOO feet of the nine.  Further review
                 of  the draft report  showed  that  the  drawdown within  this
                 6500 feet range  would  be  S  feet.    This  was  pointed  out
                 on  page  3-26.   It  appears   that  the  tern  'significant*  In
                 this paragraph  Is  misleading  and  should  be  deleted  from
                 the sentence.

          Page S-6. Jurisdictions! CHA. 404 Haters.  First Paragraph

             EPA Statement

                 The total acreage which will  ultimately...

24-7        TUHCO Response

                 TUHCO  Is  currently  having  a  wetland  delineation  conducted
                 using  the new Unified  Methodology.   When  the  results  from
                 this delineation  Is  available  It  should  be  Inserted  In
                 place of this paragraph.
           24-e
                                                                                                             24-5
                                                                                                                      This sentence has been revised.
                                                                                                                       The lenience In the summ.r, has been revised lo read VDrr»dowr« rule, .turn
                                                                                                                       § feel, should be reslficled lo within 6,500 ft of Ihe mine.
                                                                                                              24-7
Thh discussion h«s been revised based upon Ihe redelerminalten of Ihe jurisdktional
mien and wetlands.

-------
o

vO
         Page  S-6 (Continued). Third Paragraph

            EPA Statement

               Impacts to downstream waters and wetlands  may  occur...

            TUHCO Response

               Espey Huston  ft Associates  Is currently  drafting a  document.
24-8          under  the direction of  Mr.  Bill  Klrchner,   to  comply  with
               the Section 404(b)(1)  guidelines.  The results  should  replace
               the current language In this paragraph.

               Also,  TUHCO  Is  required  to  construct sediment  ponds  which
               will  treat surface water  runoff  from mining  areas.   These
               sediment  ponds  will  prevent slltatlon   and  sedimentation.
               In  addition,  a  State  Program   General   Permit   application
               has   been  submitted   to   the  Corps   of  Engineers.    This
               application  gives  specific measures  to  mitigate the  losses
               of  wetlands  In  the B-Z Area.  TUHCO requests  that  reference
               to   slltatlon,  sedimentation  and  destruction  of  wetlands
               without adequate mitigation be deleted  from this paragraph.

         Paae 3-7, Sound Quality.  8th Paragraph

            EPA Statement

                Construction  and operation...

            TUHCO  Response

                A  noise survey  was  recently  performed  in  the  H-area  at
24-9           Wlnfleld South  and C-area  at  Htnfleld  North.   Results  of
                 this survey  are  available,  and  It  appear* that  some  of
                 the anticipated noise  levels  In the EIS could be  slightly
                 higher   than  those  reported 1n  the  survey.  For  Instance.
                 sentence 8 on page S-7 points  out that  noise  levels  ranging
                 from 78  to 81 d8A  could be anticipated In those areas  located
                 between  300  and  400 feet of the mining operation.   In the
                 recent   survey,  noise  levels  400  feet or  less  from  the
                 dragline ranged   from  60  to  75 dBA.    Please  Include  the
                 results  of  this survey In this  section.
                                                                                                            24-8
This discussion dealing wilh the project-reined impacts lo welbnds hit been reviled
based upon ihe redeierminalion of jurfedfclkmil w»ien and wllands.
                                                                                                            24-9
The findings of the noise survey performed M TUMCO* oiling mine in Tilus Coonly
•re Incorporated Into Ihis FEIS. (See response lo Issue 3 in Appendix B).

-------
         24-10
Page 2-11. Section 2.1.2,  2nd Sentence

   EPA Statement

       It  requires  in  Initial  Identification and  removal of  the
       topsoll  by  scrapers  before   removing  the  overburden  with
       a dragline.

   TUHCO Response

       Reference   to  scrapers  should  be  replaced  with  auxiliary
       equipment  such as end dumps, backhoes, etc.

Pages 2-11 and  2-12
                                                                                                             24-10     Tins change b noled In Part IIIA. of Ihb FEIS.
O

vO
ro
   EPA Statement

       TUHCO's   response  deals  with   the  general  Inflection
       narrative concerning Alternative Overburden Handling.

   TUHCO  Response
of
          24-11
        24-12
       This   section  points   out  that  two   overburden  handling
       techniques  were  studied for  possible use  In the  B-2 area.
       These   techniques were  nixed  spoil  and  topsoll  placement
       over   nixed  spoil.    The  report   also  points   out  that
       alternative  number  one was  preferred,  but It  posed  the
       greatest  potential for  adverse Impacts  to  soil pH. formation
       of  acid  runoff,  and   contamination  of  surface  water  and
       ground  water systems.  A different point of view Is Indicated
       further  Into  the  draft   (particularly  pages  3-19.  3-22,
       3-24,  and  3-149).  It  appears  that the  responses made  In
       Section 2-7  concerning  TUHCO's  choice  for mixed  overburden
       creates a  more  negative  picture  of this  alternative  than
       stated  In  the  main  body  of  the  report.    The  mixed  spoil
       description  In  section 2-7 needs  to  Include  more of  the
       positive  aspects of  this handling  technique,  which  are
       Included  In the main body of the  report.

Page 2-11. Section 2.7.3

   EPA Statement

       Alternative  number one has  the greatest  potential for adverse
       Impacts   to   soil  pH,  formation   of  acid  runoff   and
       contamination of  surface water and ground water systems...
24-11     EPA1* assessment of ihe noieniinl for adverse impacts lo soib In DEIS Section 2.7 b
         considered reasonable.

         DEIS sections 3.1 J.2 and 3.1 JJ discuss measures lo be Implemented by TUMCO lo
         reduce Ihe potential for these Impacts lo occur.
                                                                                                             24-12      See response 25-11.

-------
      24-12
      (cont'd)
o
\o
      24-13
       24-14
      24-16
   TUHCO Response

       Alternative  number  one  Mill  not  result  In  these  adverse
       Impacts  because  Add Forming  Material  and  Toxic  Forming
       Materials  are  placed below  V  of  the surface  material.
       Strati  containing   these   materials   are  Identified  prior
       to mining  so that dragline operators will  ensure that these
       strata are placed at the bottom of spoil piles.

       Alternative  number  two  has  no greater  potential for  more
       rapid  establishment  of  vegetation  than alternative  number
       one.   When  adequate  rainfall  occurs,  TUHCO  usually  has
       vegetation establishment during the first growing season.

Page 2-ZO. Section Z.9.7. last Sentence

   EPA Statement

       Irrigation may  be necessary In any areas to be reconstructed
       for wetlands.

   TUHCO Response

       There  will  be  no  more  need  for  Irrigation   for  wetland
       establishment  than  for  the  establishment of  other  types
       of  vegetation.    Growth  rates of  most  wetland  tree  species
       occur  at  a faster rate where  there  Is  a more mesle moisture
       regime.  TUHCO request that this statement be deleted.

Page 3-1,  5th Paragraph

   EPA Comment

       The concept  of  duration,...

   TUHCO Response

       This  paragraph states the criteria by  which  EPA determines
        If  an  Impact Is  short  or  long term.    TUHCO  requests  that
        this  paragraph also  be  Included In a more conspicuous place
       prior to  the summary of  consequences.

 Page  3-19. Section  3.1.3.3.  6th Paragraph, last  Sentence

    EPA Comment                                                •

        Increasing soil organic  matter...soils.
                                                                                                           24-13
                                                                                                                    Comment noted.
                                                                                                           24-14     This subject fa discussed in the Preface of the FEIS, prior to the Summary.

-------
        24-15
       (cont'd)
       24-16
r»
vo
       24-17
       24-18
   TUHCO Response

       High   seedling   mortality   should  be   omitted  from   this
       statement.  TVHCO's  reclaimed  land has  high survival  rates
       Of  seedlings  during years  with normal  periods of  rainfall.
       Survival  rates have been 90S during these years.

Page 3-47. 1st Paragraph. 3rd Sentence

   EPA Comnent

       The Ellis Kelley Lake Club...Creek.

   TUHCO Response

       Club   should  be  omitted.    The  Ellis  Kelley  lake   Is   a
       residential area and not a club.  This should also be changed
       In Table  3.2-11.

Pane 3-73. Section 3.3.1.2. Paragraph t and 3

   EP* Comment

       In particular, the TPWO recommends...

   TUHCO Response

       These   paragraphs    should    be   omitted.     These    are
       recomnendatlons and  not an evaluation  of Impacts of TUHCO's
       reclamation plan.   TUHCO  follows  these  suggestions by  the
       TPHO  but  the  Inclusion of the  paragraph  leads  the  reader
       to  believe that these guidelines  are  not  followed.   In
       addition,  paragraph  3 Is  an opinion of the  writer and  not
       an  evaluation  of TUHCO's  reclamation program.   In  addition
       to  bermudagrass,  TUHCO   does  Include  species  of  native
       vegetation In Its'  reclamation program,  especially  In  areas
       that  are  established for wildlife habitat.

Page 3-76, 2nd Paragraph

   EPA Statement

       Table  3.3-1  list only  a   limited   number of  wetland   plant
       species.   Consideration should be given to...
                                                                                                              24-JS     Comment noted. However. EPA considers the problem* associated wilh high seedling
                                                                                                                       mortality In mine toils to be reasonable.
                                                                                                              24-16     Thb change has been made.
                                                                                                              W-17     Comment noted. However, lhe*e paragraph! help presenl Infomurtra that assbls the
                                                                                                                       reader In belter undemanding the opportunities available daring reclamation to
                                                                                                                       increase diversity and productivity and majdmtte wildlife use of surface-mined lands In
                                                                                                                       Tens.
                                                                                                              24-18      Comment noted.  Attachment I (Tables A-l thru A-4) is included in Ihb FEIS.

-------
        24-18
       (cont'd)
VD
         24-19
   TUHCO Response

       This  paragraph  should be  omitted.   Table 3.3-1  Is  a  table
       that   Is  Included   in  TUHCO's   reclamation  plan  for  areas
       other  than  wetland  areas.   The  State Program General Permit
       application  for  the B-Z area  contains  a  more comprehensive
       list  of  wetland vegetation which will  be used to  reclaim
       wetlands.   These  are  enclosed  as (Attachment   1)  for your
       convenience.

Page 3-81, Section  3.3.1.4, 2nd Paragraph

   EPA Statement

       During the  life of  the mine...

   TUHCO Response

       EPA  defined  short   term  as a period  of 6-8  years after  the
       Initial  clearing.    TUHCO  feels  that  since  grassland  can
       be  established before  the  6  year  period that this  would
       constitute   a  short  term  Impact  and  should  be reflected
       as  such  In  this  paragraph.    It  should  also  be discussed
       that   these  short   term  Impacts  will  occur   to  4,181  acres
       or   68S  of  the   total   amount  of  vegetation   which  will
       ultimately  be disturbed.
                                                                                                                   24-19     This sentence Is revised in (his FEIS lo read. "During the life of Ihe mine, mining
                                                                                                                             operation* will result in direct, adverse, short-term and long-term impacts to i total
                                                                                                                             of approximately 6.174 ac (43% of the study area).

-------
                                                                     (attachment 1)
                                                                                                                                                               (Attachment 1 Continued)
VO
                                            TABLE A-1


                                REYEGtTATlOH SPECIES FOR WILDLIFE  HABITAT
                                            GRASSES AMD FORBS
wheatgrass
tldeoats grama
crounveteh
beggarweed
buckwheat
sunflower
Slngletary peavine
common lespedeza
iweet clover


grain sorghun*
sorghun-sudangrass hybrid*


sand dropseed
clover*
wheat*
hairy vetch
till fescue*
Agrepyron »pp.
Bouttloua eurtipmdula
Corenilta varla
Dftmodium purpwvtM
Fayapynm »rp.
Htlianthuf tpp.
Cath/na Mrtutut
tf*p»d**a ttrlata
Mtlilotu* iff.
Steal* tpp.
Sorghum bieoter aatneh
Sorghum bieeler metneh i
Sorghum tudantit itaof
Sprobolut eyrptandrui
trlfellun tpp.
 Trtttewi atftiuun
 Vlaia villota
Ftttuea arundianet
                      * Typei  of grasses and forbs to be planted .In forested wetland
                        and riparian areas.
                                                                       TABLE A-2
                                                                              i SJECIES
                                                                              ;o rows
                                                                          ot flanttr.t
                                                                                                        coonan b«nuda|flit
                                                                                                        Alicia b«md«|ru>
                                                                                                        NK-37 t«r
                                                                                                         MJU fiteu
                                                                                                                        (rit*
        clover
          elavvr
             elo»«r
•v««t elav«r •
                                                                                                         vhuic
                                                                                                         nr«
                                                                                                         act*
                                                                                                         iarghua-«und«ni rift hybrid!
                                                                                                         hilry v«teli
                                                                                                         tuaflawcr
                                                                                                         Slntlturr' p««rln«
                                                                         Ibi/mc

                                                                            Z
 z
 Z
zo
IS
 s
IS
 5
  3
 10
 ZO
                                    zo
                                    10
                                                                                     bu/ie
                                                                                                                                                        ZO
                                                                                                                                                        ZO
                                                                                                tuh«r«/«c    tooct/»e
                                                 1
                                                 1
                                                 Z
                                    ZO

                                     AQOATIC3
                                                                                                          chufa
                                                                             10
                                                                             10
                                                                                                          turtiracd
                                                                                                          etcctll
                                                                                                                                                                                roen/,g
                                                                                                                   HO
                                                                                                                   230
                                                 121-022
                                                                                                                                           121-C-23

-------
                                                                                                                                                      (Attachment 1 Continued)
                                                              (Attachment  t Continued)
                                            TABLE A-2
                                              (CONT.)
                                           lbi/«e       hu/ie.
           v«t«rllly
           purl
           iuek potato
           vlli rte«
           SitbinU
           tulrasli
                                  10
                                               1/2
                                                                        IJO
O
Sur r««4
loai-luf pondv««*
Elodu
plclunlvnd
(•!••
150

ISO
230

 JO
250
250
                                                                                                                                      TABLE A-3
                                                                                                             REVEGETATIOH SPECttS FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT
                                                                                                                           AQUATICS
                           ehuft*
                           Japintst mil) at
                           smrtMttd*
                           eitUll*
Mttrllly
pttrl millet*
duck potato
wild rlet
Itltunli
bulrvth
ttqo pondw«ed
bur reed
lonq-Uif pond
elodet
plcktrvlweed
 ftltt bUtirs«t«t
Cyp«ru*
Cehinoehloa cr-j*gnllt
          iff.
      tff.
fetomoftton »pp,
iry*pha*a tpp. and Cottalia
 Ptmitftu* ylttumm
 Sofittoria latifoUe
 Ittorria ttxana
                                                                                                                                                          Soitfum *pp.
                                                                                                                                                          Petan>f*tm fietirtotui
                                                                                                                                                          Sforgtetiu* •uryearpu*
                                                                                                                                                          Potanoqitm rteiotu*
                                                                                                                                                          CloJ*a
                                                                                                                                                          Solanun
                                                                                                                •  Type* of iquttlcf to bi planted  In forested wetlind and
                                                                                                                   rlparl
                                                                                                         Iptrlan area*.
                                                 UI-C-2&
                                                                                                                                           121-C-25

-------
                                                                 (Attachment 1  Continued)

                                              TABLE A-«
                               THEE AM> SHRCB SPECIES FOl FORESTED
             U»t A:
                 A BiniauB of SOX of the trees and shrubs planted within the wetland
             situation area shall be obtained froa the following mpeeiee:
                          Burr oak                QtMreui
                          OMnrtark ok          Qu«reu» ftULota var.
                          Shu»rd oak             Ouarcua
                          SauUwrn r*d oak        Quareua
                          SM*V chMtnut o«k      Qucreua
                          W»t«r e*k               4u«reiai nifrm
V                        Willow o*k              Quveus phallM
vo                        "hit* o^c               QUMTU» alb*
oo                        Ovncup oak             Quvoai IrrmtA
                                 ptnuBan        Olnprra virftnUnk
                                                           dUttchui
                                 hawthorn
                          fr»ann buttonto<«h       Ca^halanthua oceldantalla
                                                         cvifOT*
             Llat •:                                          •

                 A maxlnui of 20* of the trwa and thrub» planted within th« wetland
             mitigation ana ahall b» obtained frm the following
                          Eastern cottonvood       Populus deltoldee
                          Alver blrd«              Betula nl«rm
                          Oreen ash                FwuiinuB pemsylvsnlea
                          Sweetra                 UfUtdMbar stmelflua
                                                   Celtic Isevifata
                                                   Plstanus oecldentalls
                                                   I21-C-26

-------
     Appendix D

Proposed
Wetland Mitigation
Plan

-------
PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
         PROPOSED MONTICELLO B-2
           SURFACE LIGNITE MINE
                 March 1991
                  D-l

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section
         List of Figures                                              D-3
         List of Tables                                              D-3
1.0       INTRODUCTION                                           D-5
2.0       RECLAMATION OF SOILS. TOPOGRAPHY. AND                  D-6
         HYDROLOGIC REGIME
2.1       SOILS                                                   D-6
2.2       TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGIC REGIME                    D-9
3.0       REVEGETATION                                          D-14
3.1       PREPARATION FOR PLANTING PERMANENT                  D-14
         VEGETATION COVER
3.2       SPECIES SELECTION FOR REVEGETATION                    D-16
4.0       CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR WETLAND CREATION               D-25
4.1       5-YEAR PLAN                                            D-25
4.2       LIFE OF MINE PLAN                                      D-25
5.0       MAINTENANCE AND REPORTING                           D-28
5.1       MAINTENANCE                                          D-28
5.2       REPORTING                                             D-29
6.0       REFERENCES                                            D-30
                                 D-2

-------
                                  LIST OF FIGURES
2-1        Conceptual Plans for Wetland Reclamation                               D-ll
2-2        Typical Cross-sections Reclaimed Stream Channel                         D-12
           With and Without Wetland Areas
2-3        Typical Longitudinal Profile for Stream With                             D-13
           and Without Wetland Areas
4-1        Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine Conceptual                          D-26
           Post-mine Habitat Features Map
                                   LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                            Page

3-1         Revegetation Species for Wildlife Habitat                                D-17
3-2         Reforestation Species                                                  D-18
3-3         Revegetation Species Rate of Planting                                   D-19
3-4         Tree and Shrub Species for Forested Wetlands                            D-20
3-5         General Reclamation Timetable                                         D-22
                                         t>-3

-------
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
             D-4

-------
                PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
              PROPOSED MONTICELLO B-2 SURFACE LIGNITE MINE
1.0        INTRODUCTION

           This wetland mitigation plan presents Texas Utilities Mining Company's (TUMCO's)
proposed approach to mitigating for wetland losses at the Monticello B-2 surface lignite mine.
Topics addressed include reclamation of soils, topography and hydrologic regime, revegetation,
conceptual plans for wetland creation, and maintenance and monitoring. This plan, in conjunction
with the 1990 jurisdictional determination conducted in  accordance with the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, responds to the concerns regarding wetlands
addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Monticello B-2 surface
lignite mine.

           The information presented in this plan is derived from several documents prepared
for the Monticello B-2 surface mine permit application submitted to the Railroad Commission of
Texas (RCT).  These documents include the operation plan, the reclamation plan, the fish and
wildlife plan, and the soil and water conservation plan, all prepared by TUMCO except the latter,
which was prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Sulphur-Cypress and Hopkins-
Rains Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Two additional documents used in the preparation
of this plan were the DEIS for the Monticello B-2 surface lignite mine and the State Program
General Permit (SPGP) application for Monticello B-2 prepared for TUMCO by Espey, Huston
& Associates, Inc.  (EH&A). Information concerning soils and geology was derived from several
reports by DeMent & Associates, Inc., Hall  Southwest Water  Consultants, Inc.  (HSW), and
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. (M-K).
                                         D-5

-------
 2.0         RECLAMATION OF SOILS. TOPOGRAPHY. AND HYDROLOGIC REGIME

            As stated in Section 3,3.1.2 of the DEIS, the proposed Monticello B-2 reclamation
 plan is designed to ensure successful re-establishment of permanent vegetation.  The reclamation
 sequence provides for progressive backfilling of overburden material, regrading to approximate the
 general nature of pre-mine topography with all slopes no steeper than 25%,  redistribution of
 topsoil substitute, soil preparation (including addition of soil nutrients and amendments), prompt
 soil stabilization by application of mulch and/or establishment of temporary vegetative cover, and
 successful establishment of permanent vegetation, with proper management and maintenance so
 as to meet the approved land use goals or regulatory requirements (SCS, 1985).

            The goals of the reclamation plan further include:  (1) control of soil erosion (with
 structural measures  if needed to complement vegetative  establishment); (2) restoration and
 enhancement of stream channels and wetland areas; (3) re-establishment of a vigorous, diverse,
 and adapted vegetative cover; (4) enhancement of wildlife habitat; (5) re-establishment of land use
 capabilities equal to or better than pre-mining capabilities; and (6) development  of pastureland as
 the exclusive post-mining land use.

            The  following sections  describe  the  procedures  proposed  by  TUMCO  for
 accomplishing successful reclamation of the Monticello B-2 area, with  particular emphasis  on
 reclamation of soils, topography, and hydrology necessary to establish wetlands, ponds and streams.

 2.1         SOILS

           As discussed in  Section 3.1.3.3  of the DEIS, soil reconstruction procedures are
imprecise, and no mining practice can be implemented that will exactly duplicate the pre-mine soil.
Moreover, regardless of what procedure is used to reclaim soils, long-term  impacts occur insofar
as morphology and composition of native soils is concerned. Whether these impacts are adverse
or beneficial depends upon  the  nature  of  the native soil versus that of the postmine soil
(Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990).
                                          D-6

-------
            As  stated  in  the RCT Surface Mining Regulations, Section 816.335, selected
overburden materials may be substituted for or used as a supplement to topsoil, dependent on
RCT approval that the resulting soil medium is equal to or more suitable for sustaining vegetation
than is the available topsoil. TUMCO proposes to use selected overburden materials as a topsoil
substitute at the Monticello B-2 Mine. The selection of this soil replacement scheme is based on
comprehensive field and laboratory studies of shallow geologic sediments relative to the physical
and chemical  properties of native soils (HSW, 1989;  M-K, 1989a, 1989b). An alternative soil
replacement scheme considered by TUMCO was topsoil replacement over mixed spoil. In addition
to the economic factors discussed  in Section 2.7.3  of the DEIS, a number of physical  factors
described below resulted in the rejection of this alternative and use of the selected overburden
materials alternative for soil replacement in wetland reclamation at the Monticello B-2 mine.

            In advance of mining, conventional land-clearing  techniques will be used to remove
vegetation.  After trees are leveled in forested areas, a root plow is used to slice through brush and
tree roots below the ground surface. Thus, the soil layers  are disturbed and intermixed, and any
desirable topsoil may be mixed with an undesirable material  below.  Forested wetlands on the
Monticello B-2 mine site are primarily located on Nahatche loam-silty clay loam, frequently flooded
soils which are formed in alluvial sediment of local streams  (SCS, 1990).  These soils are classified
as entisols, which are recently formed soils with little or no natural horizon development.  The
texture of the surface layer can be quite variable, with combinations of silt, sand, loam and clay.
Hooding during wet periods would severely limit access to Nahatche soils, making them unsuitable
for use in reclamation (DeMent, 1989).  As described in the following paragraphs, approximately
71% of the native topsoil in the Monticello B-2 area would have limited desirability for use as
postmine topsoil. Due to excessively sandy or clayey textures and/or wet conditions, these soils are
not desirable for use within the top 4 feet (ft) of postmine soils.

            Comprehensive field and laboratory studies of the soils of the Monticello B-2 Mine
were conducted in order to characterize and evaluate overburden strata for use as a topsoil
substitute and for use within the top 4 ft of reclamation areas. A study of native soil resources and
a statistically derived soils baseline study of the same area was also conducted to determine the
desirability and feasibility of using native soils for the same purposes.  The following information
is derived from a DeMent & Associates, Inc. 1989 report entitled "An Evaluation of Overburden
                                           D-7

-------
 Suitability as a Topsoil Substitute and the Identification of Acid-Forming and Toxic-Forming
 Materials within the Monticello B-2 Study Area".  This report is also presented as Appendix 145-A
 in the mine permit application submitted to the  RCT.

            The studies of the native soils within the Monticello B-2 Mine revealed that certain
 soils within the area possess physical and chemical features which limit their desirability for use
 as postmine topsoil, or for use within the upper 4-ft strata of reclamation areas.  The primary
 inhibiting features of these soils include excessively sandy textures, excessively clayey textures, and
 the presence of carbonaceous materials.   Upland soils which dominate the area are highly
 weathered and exhibit many pH values lower than 5.0 and, in places, negative acid-base accounting
 values (DeMent & Associates, Inc., 1989).  Approximately 24% of upland soils are severely limited
 due to their deep, sandy topsoil horizons which exhibit a low available water capacity, low cation
 exchange capacity, and low inherent fertility.  Approximately 37% of the soils have thin sandy
 layers overlying clay subsoils.  In many instances, the surface  layer of these soils have been
 subjected to excessive erosion, and the stripping of topsoil would require removal of at least part
 of the clay subsoil.  The salvage of clay subsoil in  this group of soils would provide a postmine soil
 undesirable for agricultural use.  Approximately 10% of the soils on the Monticello B-2 Mine
 consist of bottomland soils and are generally suitable for postmine use. However, due to frequent
 flooding of bottomland soils, access would be limited during wet periods.  The remaining 29% of
 the soils on the mine have few limitations, and are desirable for use within the top 4 ft of postmine
 soils (DeMent & Associates, Inc., 1989).

            Nine overburden stratigraphic units  were identified within the Monticello B-2 study
 area and are described by HSW in the report entitled "Geologic Description Monticello B-2 Area
 Titus County, Texas" (Appendix  127-D in the mine permit application).  Following laboratory
 analysis, these stratigraphic units were placed into three groups: Group I includes units dominated
 by a sand content greater than 80%;  Group II includes units dominated by a clay content greater
 than 40%; and Group III includes units dominated by intermediate textures which means the units
 have a weighted average sand content of 80% or less and a clay content of 40% or less. Groups I
 and II were deemed undesirable for postmine topsoil use based on the excessive sand content of
 Group I and  the excessive clay content of Group II.  These two groups accounted for 6 of the 9
overburden stratigraphic units.  The three units placed in Group III are considered desirable both
                                           D-8

-------
for a postmine topsoil substitute (0- to 12-inch depth), and for a postmine subsoil (12- to 48-inch
depth). The three stratigraphic units comprising Group HI include unit OBU which consists of
interbedded sand, silt and clay in the overburden; unit PT which is a grayish, often carbonaceous,
parting layer within lignite seams; and SD2 which is a sand layer in overburden containing 50-80%
sand. Group III components meet RCT requirements for topsoil substitution and are superior to
the very sandy surfaces of native soils such as Briley, Duffern, Pickton, Tenaha, and Wolfpen soil
within the study area (DeMent & Associates, Inc., 1989).

            The use of units OBU and PT in postmine soils would form soils comparable to the
postmine Grayrock series at the  Monticello Mine, and the use of Unit SD2 would form  soils
similar to the Marklake series at Beckville Mine. Both soils have shown to be highly successful
in postmine reclamation (DeMent & Associates,  Inc., 1989).

            The addition of various types of organic matter will be necessary since postmine soils
will initially be low in organic matter.  The addition of crop residues or the planting of densely
rooted crops will help increase soil organic matter which in turn will improve soil structure, water-
holding capacity, and soil microbial populations (DeMent & Associates, Inc., 1989).

            Chemical and physical analyses of overburden and topsoil composite soil samples, will
include determinations of pH, net acidity or alkalinity, phosphorus, potassium, texture class, and
cation exchange capacity within composite samples of 1-ft layer intervals  down to 4 ft. The results
of these analyses will be reported to RCT.  The soil amendments necessary for maintaining the
health and vigor of the revegetated area will then be applied  based on periodic soil analyses.
Additional  discussion of soil amendments is presented in  the revegetation section of this  plan
(Section 3.0).

2.2         TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGIC REGIME

            As described in the Monticello B-2 SPGP application (EH&A,  1990), waterways,
drainage  and wetland  contours,  and flow pathways  will be established  in reclaimed areas.
Permanent stream channel diversions will be established for intermittent and perennial drainages.
In Section 3.2.2.3 of the DEIS, it is stated that diversions of overland runoff and streamflow  away
                                          D-9

-------
 from and around  the mining areas or through local  sedimentation ponds would last for the
 duration of active mining in the affected area. Some areas could have permanent changes in the
 natural drainage patterns due to regrading  of reclaimed areas.  The combinations of stream
 channel, bank and floodplain will be adequate to safely pass the 100-year, 24-hour precipitation
 event.  The diversions  will be terraced where appropriate  to  create broader floodplains for
 development of streamside vegetation.  The size and configuration of the stream channel will be
 a function of the type of habitat to be restored (EH&A, 1990).

            Wetland and aquatic habitats will be re-established in areas of similar hydrology and
 topography to those of pre-mine conditions. In the event that wetland and aquatic habitats cannot
 be reestablished to pre-mine conditions, mitigation areas will be established that exceed or are
 equal to the pre-mine wetland and aquatic habitats that were lost or damaged (EH&A, 1990).

            Wetland areas will be created around the perimeter of impoundments, along the banks
 of reclaimed streams and permanent stream channel diversions, and in small depressional areas.
 Shallow areas will be established along the margins of impoundments to create a diverse wetland
 habitat ranging from emergent vegetation  in areas that are continually inundated to shrub and
 forested wetlands in areas periodically submerged by fluctuating water levels (EH&A, 1990).

            The creation of wetlands along reclaimed streams and permanent stream channel
 diversions will be accomplished by constructing wide, flat floodplains and by varying the stream
 gradient to create reaches having low gradients. Stream channel designs will promote periodic or
 sustained inundation of adjacent bottomland areas (TUMCO, 1989b).  Constrictions  may also be
 placed in the stream channel in conjunction with a low  berm across the floodplain. During high-
 flow conditions, water would inundate the floodplain upstream of the constriction and be contained
 by the low berm (EH&A, 1990). Small areas of internal drainage (depressions) will also be created
where surface runoff will collect. These areas may also enhance recharge of near-surface aquifers
(EH&A, 1990).

            Conceptual methods of wetland reconstruction are shown on figures 2-1 through 2-3.
                                          D-10

-------
                                     SERIES OF BERMS
                                    (Longitudinal Profile)
              Areas Flooded During High Flow Periods
Protected Berm
                                CHANNEL CONSTRICTION
                                       (Plan View)
                                    WIDE FLOODPLAIN
                                  (Cross-sectional View)
                                   DEPRESSION AREAS
                                  (Cross-sectional View)
                                 SHALLOW POND MARGINS
                                   (Cross-sectional View)
Source:  TUMCO
                                                      ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
                                                          Engineering & Environmental Consultants
                                                               •••••^•••••••^mMOT

                                                               Rgure 2-1

                                                          CONCEPTUAL PLANS
                                                      FOR WETLAND  RECLAMATION
                                      D-H

-------
                                                                             PROJECT NO.
                                                     Reclaimed Stream Channel
                                                        Without Wetland Area
                                                      Reclaimed Stream Channel
                                                          With Wetland Area
                   Q100 - Typical water elevation during 100-year flood.

                      Q2 - Typical water elevation during 2-year flood.
Source:  TUMCO
         Drawings Not to Scale

    ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
       Engineering & Environmental Consultants
            •••MVI^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H

            Figure 2-2

     TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
   RECLAIMED STREAM CHANNEL
WITH AND WITHOUT WETLAND AREA

-------
        40 r
        30
        20
        10
                                                           	With Wetlands



                                                           	  Without Wetlands



                                                                         Potential Wetland Area
                                                        Typical Overall Slope - 30-40 ft/mi.
          0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
                                                                                               ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.

                                                                                                   Engineering & Environmental Consultants
                                                                                              •••••^•••••^^•^•^••••••••••••••••••••••^••••(•^^


                                                                                                        Figure 2-3




                                                                                              TYPICAL LONGITUDINAL PROFILE


                                                                                                  FOR STREAM WITH AND


                                                                                                WITHOUT WETLAND AREAS
Source:  TUMCO

-------
 3.0         REVEGETATION

            As described in the previous section, reclaimed streams and permanent stream channel
 diversions will be terraced, where appropriate, to create broader floodplains for development of
 streamside vegetation. For establishment of wetland habitats, the stream channel will be designed
 to promote flooding of adjacent bottomland areas.   Re-established  stream channels will be
 vegetated with a variety of species proven to have wildlife habitat value and tolerance of wetland
 conditions.

            To accomplish the goals of the reclamation plan, plant species will be selected for
 revegetation with particular consideration of the following factors: adaptability to post-mining soils,
 ecological compatibility, wildlife habitat and forage value, conformity with approved post-mining
 land uses,  management  requirements,  materials  availability, and  regulatory  requirements.
 Evaluation of these factors  will rely heavily on information provided in the Soil and  Water
 Conservation Plan (SCS, 1985) and the Monticello B-2 Fish and Wildlife Plan (TUMCO, 1989a).

 3.1         PREPARATION FOR PLANTING PERMANENT VEGETATIVE  COVER

            When establishing vegetation, implementation of the following measures will ensure
 the maximum effectiveness for erosion control on reclaimed land by providing the best conditions
 for plant germination, emergence, development and stand survival necessary for the needed
 protective cover (SCS, 1985).

            The Soil and Water Conservation Plan suggests seedbeds should be prepared well in
 advance of planting to permit adequate settling to a firm condition free of air pockets, to permit
 weathering to break down clods, and to permit moisture accumulation before planting.  Tillage will
 be performed with disks, harrows, sweeps or similar equipment.  The soil should be thoroughly
 plowed  to a depth of 6 to 8 inches.  The final seedbed should be weed  free, well pulverized, and
 free of  clods, sticks, or  roots which would create air pockets or interfere with  good seed/soil
contact, and firm but not compacted (SCS, 1985).
                                         D-14

-------
            To provide nutrient requirements for the plants to grow, applications of fertilizers may
be necessary. Fertilizing will be based upon soil tests, forage production goals, experienced field
results, and minimum nutrient requirements of the plants (SCS, 1985). The SCS suggests that
fertilization of temporary cover should be adequate to establish desired soil protection, yet minimal
to avoid excess growth of temporary vegetation that would interfere with establishing permanent
vegetation.  Fertilization not applied prior to or at planting will be applied as a top dressing after
vegetation  has developed a sufficient root system for rapid growth. Typically, fertilizers high in
nitrogen are used, but other needed plant nutrients may be applied as needed (SCS, 1985).

            The Soil and Water Conservation Plan suggests a temporary vegetative cover or mulch
may be needed if significant erosion is likely to occur during the interval between final grading and
shaping and the time to plant permanent vegetation.  Also, temporary cover or mulches may be
used to prevent crusting or similar problems that retard seedling emergence, or to keep seed in
place during the emergence stage (SCS, 1985).

            Various materials used as mulches may be spread on the soil surface as necessary to
reduce erosion, reduce crusting, conserve moisture, control weeds, improve soil conditions, and
help establish plant cover.  Mulches  may be used on any site, but are more commonly used  on
areas of steep slopes, problem soils, or areas with similar special needs (SCS, 1985). The mulching
techniques utilized will vary dependent upon the season, gradient, soil moisture conditions, and
planned permanent vegetation.

            Cool season annuals or perennials, or small grain crops are often utilized by TUMCO
as temporary ground cover when final regrading is  completed prior to the first normal period
practicable for establishment (TUMCO,  1989b).  Before planting permanent vegetation, these
temporary plants may be killed or allowed to mature, either followed by mechanical incorporation
of the plant residue into the surface 6 to 8  inches of the soil, or  by allowing the vegetation to
remain standing as sun and/or wind protection for woody seedlings.  The presence of this material
provides soil stabilization and moisture conservation. Warm-season annuals or perennials including
legumes and native grasses may be used in a similar manner as mulch when necessary (TUMCO,
1989b).
                                          D-15

-------
 3.2         SPECIES SELECTION FOR REVEGETATION

            TUMCO proposes to control the species composition of reclaimed areas by seeding
 herbaceous species and planting woody seedlings as opposed to allowing an area to be populated
 by invasive species and any natural seedbank that may be present in the reclaimed soil.  The
 immediate need for a cover crop for erosion control, and the desirability of establishing a variety
 of woody species lend to this decision. Viability of desirable seeds within the overburden may not
 be sufficient to vegetate the area  with desirable mast-producing species.

            Trees  and shrubs to be used in the establishment  of forested wetland areas  will
 enhance the value of reclaimed wildlife habitat by providing food, cover and nesting areas, as well
 as increasing  plant species diversity.  Generally, tree and shrub plantings will be in oblong,
 irregularly shaped areas, along selected waterflow areas and other patterns designed to provide
 travel lanes for wildlife species (SCS, 1985).

            A variety of hardwood, softwood, shrub and herbaceous species common to lowland
 areas within the region will be selected for planting in the mitigation areas. Tables 3-1 through
 3-4 present species which have shown adaptability in regeneration on post-mined and reconstructed
 soil (EH&A, 1990). At present, TUMCO receives seedling stock from three nurseries, with seed
 sources derived principally from east Texas (Stroud, 1991).  The planting of mast-producing species
 in reclaimed bottomlands is a preferred means  of creating wildlife habitat. TUMCO strives to
 revegetate with 70  to 80% oak species in lowland areas, yet this percentage is dependent upon
 plant material availability from nursery sources.  Information provided to TUMCO suggests that
 trees should be planted in lowland areas (e.g., forested wetlands) at a density of approximately
 200 trees per acre (a spacing of approximately  15 ft by 15 ft).  This spacing accommodates the
 wider growth  habits of oaks and other  hardwood species as  compared  to the closer spacing
 associated with upland species such as pine.

            Bare-rooted trees  and  shrub species typically are mechanically planted into a
temporary cover crop of small grain and later overseeded with legumes (Stroud, 1991).  Weather
conditions may require planting by hand in low, wet areas. Seedling size specifications required
                                          D-16

-------
                            TABLE 3-1
      REVEGETATION SPECIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

                      GRASSES AND FORRS
wheatgrass
sideoats grama
crownvetch
beggarweed
buckwheat
sunflower
Singletary peavine
common lespedeza
sweet clover
switchgrass*
rye
grain sorghum*
sorghum-sudangrass hybrid*

sand dropseed
clover*
wheat*
hairy vetch                                     View, villosa
tall fescue*                                     Festuca arundinacea
*   Types of grasses and forbs to be planted in forested wetland and riparian areas.
                          Agropyron spp.
                          Bouteloua curtipendula
                          Coronilla varia
                          Desmodium purpureum
                          Fagopyrum spp.
                          Helianthus spp.
                          Lathyrus hirsutus
                          Lespedeza striata
                          Melilotus spp.
                          Panicum virgatum
                          Secale spp.
                          Sorghum bicolor moench
                          Sorghum bicolor moench x
                          Sorghum Sudanese stapf
                          Sporobohts cryptandrus
                          Trifolium spp.
                          Tridcum aestivum
chufa*
Japanese millet
smartweed*
cattail*
pondweed
waterlily
pearl millet*
duck potato
sesbania
bulrush
sago pondweed
bur reed
long-leaf pondweed
elodea
pickerelweed
false bittersweet
   Types of aquatics
        AQUATICS

                           Cyperus esculentus
                           Echinochloa crusgalli
                           Potygonum spp.
                           Typha spp.
                           Potamogeton spp.
                           Nymphaea spp. and Castalia
                           Penrdsetum glaucum
                           Sagittaria latifolia
                           Sesbania. spp.
                           Scirpus spp.
                           Potamogeton pectinatus
                           Sparganium eurycarpum
                           Potamogeton nodosus
                           Elodea densa
                           Pontederia cordata
                           Solanum dulcamara
to be planted in forested wetland and riparian areas.
                              D-17

-------
                          TABLE 3-2
                  REFORESTATION SPECIES

                     TREES AND SHRUBS
ash*
birch*
baldcypress
bittersweet, American
catalpa, southern
cottonwood, eastern*
elm*
hackberry*
hawthorn
hickory
honeysuckle
lespedeza, shrub
maple*
mulberry, red*
oak*
persimmon
pine
plum, wild
redbud, eastern*
redcedar, eastern
sumac*
sweetgum*
sycamore*
walnut, black
* Types of trees or shrubs
                        Fraxinus spp.
                        Betula spp.
                        Taxodium distichum
                        Celastrus scandens
                        Catalpa bignonioides
                        Populus deltoides
                        Ubnus spp.
                        Celtis spp.
                        Crataegus spp.
                        Carya spp.
                        Lonicera spp.
                        Lespedeza bicolor
                        Acer spp.
                        Morus rubra
                        Quercus spp.
                        Diospyros spp.
                        Pinusspp.
                        Prunus reverchenni
                        Cercis canadensis
                        Juniperus virginiana
                        Rhus spp.
                        Liquidambar styradflua
                        Platanus occidentals
                        Juglans nigra
to be planted in forested wetland and riparian areas.
                             D-18

-------
      TABLE 3-3
REVEOETATION SPECIES
  RATE OF PLANTING
Name
GRASSES AND FORBS
common bermudagrass
coastal bermudagrass
Alicia bermudagrass
NK-37 bermudagrass
Kleingrass
Pensacola bahia grass
tall fescue
sideoate grama
crimson clover
arrowleaf clover
subterranean clover
sweet clover
swilchgrass
ryegrass
wheat
rye
oats
sorghum-sudangrass hybrids
hairy vetch
sunflower
Singietary peavine
AQUATICS
chub
Japanese millet
smartweed
cattail
waterlity
pearl millet
duck potato
wild rice
Sesbania
bulrush
sago pondweed
bur reed
long-leaf pondweed
Elodea
pickeretweed
false bitterweed
pondweed
Ibs/ac

2


2
2
20
15
5
IS
5
3
10
4
20



20
10
6
20

10
10



10


3








bu/ac tuben/ac roou/ac


20
20











2
2
2







250
250
250

250
1/2

250
250
250
250
5
50
250
250
      D-19

-------
                                      TABLE 3-4

              TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES FOR FORESTED WETLANDS
 LIST A:

    A minimum of 75% of the trees and shrubs planted within the wetland mitigation area shall be
 obtained from the following species:

                Common Name                        Genus/Species

                Burr oak                             Quercus macrocarpa
                Cherrybark oak                        Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia
                Shumard oak                          Quercus shumardii
                Nuttall oak                           Quercus nuttattii
                Sawtooth oak                          Quercus acutissima
                Southern red oak                      Quercus falcata
                Swamp chestnut oak                    Quercus michauxii
                Water oak                            Quercus nigra
                Willow oak                           Quercus pheUos
                White oak                            Quercus alba
                Overcup oak                          Quercus fyrata
                Pecan                                Carya illinoinensis
                Common persimmon                   Diospyros virginiana
                Baldcypress                           Taxodium distichum
                Blackgum                             Nyssa sylvadca
                Common hawthorn                     Crataegus spp.
                Common buttonbush                   Cephalanthus occidentatis
                Waxmyrtle                            Myrica cerifera
 LIST B:

    A maximum of 25% of the trees and shrubs planted within the wetland mitigation areas shall
 be obtained from the following species:

               Common Name                        Genus/Species

               Eastern cottonwood                    Populus dehoides
               River birch                            Betula nigra
               Green ash                             Fraxinus pensylvanica
               Sweetgum                             Liquidambar styradflua
               Sugarberry                            Celtis laevigata
               Sycamore                              Platanus occidentatis

Note:    Approximately 200 trees per acre (15 ft x 15 ft spacing) will be planted in the wetland
         mitigation areas.
                                         D-20

-------
by TUMCO include bare-rooted specimens of 18 to 24 inches in height with a healthy, compact
root system (Stroud, 1991).

            A general reclamation timetable is presented in Table 3-5 (TUMCO, 1989b).
                                          D-21

-------
                                 TABLE 3-5

                    GENERAL RECLAMATION TIMETABLE
(Schedule may vary dependent upon factors such as equipment availability, weather conditions, land
use or other circumstances.)
          SPOIL PLACEMENT:  January

          LEVELED:           July (6 mos.)

          REVEGETATED:     September (8 mos.)
                              - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                              March (14 mos.)
                              * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


          SPOIL PLACEMENT:  February

          LEVELED:           August (6 mos.)

          REVEGETATED:     September (7 mos.)
                              - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                              March (13 mos.)
                              * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


          SPOIL PLACEMENT:  March

          LEVELED:           September (6 mos.)

          REVEGETATED:     September (6 mos.)
                              - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                              March (12 mos.)
                              * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


          SPOIL PLACEMENT:  April

          LEVELED:           October (6 mos.)

          REVEGETATED:     October (6 mos.)
                              - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                              * - Annual Legume (permanent vegetation)
                              March (11 mos.)
                              * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)
                                    "D-22

-------
SPOIL PLACEMENT: May

LEVELED:          November (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     November (6 mos.)
                   - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                   April (11 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


SPOIL PLACEMENT: June

LEVELED:          December (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     March (9 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


SPOIL PLACEMENT: July

LEVELED:          January (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     March (8 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


SPOIL PLACEMENT: August

LEVELED:          February (6  mos.)

REVEGETATED:     March (7 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


SPOIL PLACEMENT: September

LEVELED:          March (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     March (6 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)



SPOIL PLACEMENT: October

LEVELED:          April (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     April (6 mos.)
                   * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)
                          D-23

-------
SPOIL PLACEMENT:  November

LEVELED:           May (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     May (6 mos.)
                     * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)


SPOIL PLACEMENT:  December

LEVELED:           June (6 mos.)

REVEGETATED:     June (6 mos.)
                     - Summer Annual (temporary vegetation)
                     September (9 mos.)
                     - Winter Annual (temporary vegetation)
                     March (15 mos.)
                     * - Perennial Grass (permanent vegetation)
* In areas that are to be reforested, establishment of perennial grasses may be
  inappropriate. Plant residual from cool season vegetation will be allowed to remain
  for soil stability until the establishment of permanent vegetation at the appropriate
  season to minimize impact on tree and shrub survival.
     WILDLIFE HABITAT/REFORESTATION TIMETABLE

September through December:

     Cool season annuals (primarily small grains) and/or perennials are planted for
     ground cover prior to establishment of trees or warm season perennial grasses.


January through April:

     Reforestation species planted in existing cool season annual or perennial
     ground cover.


October:

     Legumes and/or other perennial  cool  season grasses  overseeded as  a
     companion plant for seedlings.
                            D-24

-------
4.0         CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR WETLAND CREATION

4.1         5-YEAR PLAN

            TUMCO proposes to create three acres of forested wetland for every acre of forested
wetland disturbed by mining activities (i.e., a 3:1 replacement ratio).  Non-forested wetlands and
jurisdictional waters (i.e., streams and on-channel ponds) will be replaced at a rate of 1:1. The
higher ratio of replacement for the forested wetland areas reflects the time factor necessary for
bottomland areas to be re-established.

            Figure 4-1 presents a conceptual habitat features map which has been approved by
the RCT.  Habitat  features located within the 5-year area will be restored as a combination of
wetland areas and  upland habitat.   Included within the 5-year area are aquatic communities
associated with the habitat features.  Manipulation of the water levels in the ponds will aid in
periodic  inundation of the adjoining wetland areas, whether forested or non-forested.  The
locations of the habitat features  are conceptual and are intended to portray corridors between
existing habitat and created habitat.  Such corridors will increase the use of reclaimed areas by
wildlife species and provide an avenue  for dispersal of native vegetation species into reclaimed
areas.

4.2         LIFE OF MINE PLAN
                                                                                        ir
            The approach for the life of mine conceptual mitigation design is similar to the 5-yea
conceptual plan.  Mitigation areas would be designed along reconstructed stream channels, low
depressional areas, and pond margins, linking reclaimed areas with undisturbed habitat outside of
the mine site.  In the Monticello B-2 study area, approximately 805 acres of waters or wetlands of
the U.S. have been delineated, with  254 acres classified as forested wetlands.  Of this area
TUMCO's mine plan calls for 395 acres to be directly affected by proposed mining activities during
the life of the mine, with 151 acres classified as forested wetlands. The life of mine concept for
wetland creation would entail establishing approximately 453 acres of forested wetlands using the
3:1 ratio. Mitigation for the remaining 244 acres would involve re-establishment of approximately
124 acres of on-channel ponds, 40 acres of stream channels and 80 acres of non-forested wetlands.
                                           D-25

-------
              SOURCE: TUMCO. 1990
ESPEY,  HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
   Engineering & Environmental Consultants
            Proposed Habitat Feature
            Native Vegetation
            Proposed Stock Pond Associated
            With Habitat Features
            Mining Limit
            Creek
            Proposed Permit Boundary
aunnnua)   Existing Permit Boundary - Permit No. 5
         Figure 4-1
      MONTICELLO B-2
   SURFACE LIGNITE MINE
  CONCEPTUAL POSTMINE
  HABITAT FEATURES MAP
                                       D-26

-------
These acreages will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio.  TUMCO's mine planning activities have resulted
in the avoidance of 410 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
                                             D-27

-------
 5.0         MAINTENANCE AND REPORTING

 5.1         MAINTENANCE

            Once the mitigation areas are established they must be protected from grazing or
 disturbance by pests.  Herbivores often inflict heavy damage to young seedlings, with the most
 damage  derived  by rodents.  Weed  control, primarily  by  mowing, around young trees can
 discourage browsing by rodents which are reluctant to venture beyond cover.  This method of
 rodent control by mowing may also aid in post-planting weed control. Other pests often associated
 with wetland areas, including beaver and nutria, may be physically removed if they destroy young
 seedlings. Woody plantings may need to be fenced for establishment or management purposes to
 withstand detrimental grazing and/or wildlife influences (TUMCO, 1989a).

            Mechanical weed control could increase the rate of growth of seedlings during the first
 few years and perhaps slightly increase the survival rate, but the benefits would seldom justify the
 costs (Allen and Kennedy, 1989).  Weed control may be the most critical where a heavy cover of
 tall grasses (e.g., Johnsongrass) or woody vines are encroaching (Allen and Kennedy, 1989).

            Chemical or mechanical suppression or killing of pests for the purpose of reducing
 competition in the establishment, re-establishment or maintenance of a ground cover will be
 accomplished in compliance with the Texas Pesticide  Control Law and regulations and Texas
 Herbicide Regulations. Standard practices and specifications established in the conservation plans
 will be adhered to (TUMCO, 1989b).  The soil amendments necessary for maintaining the health
 and vigor of the tree stand will be applied based on periodic soil analysis. To prevent soil erosion,
 a ground cover of legumes  and/or perennial grasses will be maintained until the tree canopy
 provides adequate protection (TUMCO, 1989b).

            The  need for  irrigation of the revegetated area is not anticipated  beyond that
necessary to extend the season for initial seed or sprig establishment in unusually dry years. Any
irrigation will be accomplished in accordance with local practices and the conservation  plans.
Irrigation or flooding may be necessary in the areas to be reconstructed as wetlands (TUMCO,
1989b).
                                          D-28

-------
            To the extent possible,  range and forest fires will be prevented, controlled, and
suppressed unless use of controlled prescribed burning is necessary as a part of a management plan
for removal of litter buildup which could cause uncontrolled fire or for release of suppressed
desirable species (TUMCO, 1989a).

            Erosion in the form of rills, gullies, overfalls, etc., is likely to occur as a result of dry
or wet weather conditions, despite implementation of erosion control measures. Some erosion can
be anticipated if unfavorable weather conditions occur during periods of seed germination, plant
emergence and stand establishment. The SCS suggests that after adverse weather conditions each
site should be evaluated for possible erosion damage. If erosion has occurred, a plan should be
developed for the repair  of the areas damaged (SCS, 1985).

5.2         REPORTING

            As a condition of the SPGP, a reporting program to the COE Permits Section requires
written (compliance update) reports at least every six months (January  and July). These reports
outline compliance with the permit conditions, describe all permit-related activities that occurred
during the reporting period, and provide written notification of completion of all authorized work.
The reporting program shall normally be concluded three years after completion of all authorized
work.  Site inspections by COE personnel may take place during establishment and completion of
the wetland mitigation areas, as well as at any other time  deemed necessary by the COE.

            TUMCO is committed to the success of the re-established wetland areas. Presently,
research is being  conducted by a biologist (McKnight from Texas A&M University) on wetland
reclamation. In addition,  work is underway on TUMCO reclaimed mine sites to develop improved
methods for re-establishment of forested  and non-forested wetlands.
                                          D-29

-------
 6.0         REFERENCES
 Allen, J.A. and H.E. Kennedy,  Jr.  1989.   Bottomland hardwood reforestation in  the lower
      Mississippi valley.  Published by the U.S. Department  of the  Interior and the U.S.
      Department of Agriculture.  29 pp.

 Clewell, A.F. and R. Lea. 1990.  Creation and restoration of forested wetland vegetation in the
      southeastern United States.  J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and
      restoration, the status of the science.  Island Press:  195-231.

 DeMent & Associates, Inc. 1989. An Evaluation of Overburden Suitability as a Topsoil Substitute
      and the Identification of Acid-Forming and Toxic-Forming Materials within Monticello B-2
      Study Area.  Haughton, Louisiana.

 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A).  1990.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers state program
      general permit application for Monticello B-2 five-year permit area.  Prepared for Texas
      Utilities Mining Company.

 Hall Southwest Water Consultants, Inc. (HSW). 1989. Geology description, Monticello B-2 study
      area, Titus County, Texas (submitted  to the Railroad Commission of Texas as part of the
      surface mining permit application for the Monticello B-2 mine area).

 Morrison-Knudsen  Company,  Inc.  (M-K).   1989a. Soil  resources survey of the Monticello B-2
      study area. San Antonio, Texas.

 	.  1989b. Statistical soil baseline of the Monticello B-2 study area. San Antonio, Texas.

 Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT).  1989. Coal Mining Regulations. Austin.

 Soil Conservation Service (SCS).  1985. Soil  and Water Conservation Plan; Monticello B-2 Lignite
      Mine.  With the Sulphur-Cypress and Hopkins-Rains Soil and Water Conservation District.
      Mt.  Pleasant  and Sulphur Springs, Texas.

 	.  1990.  Soil Survey of Camp, Franklin, Morris and Titus Counties, Texas. In cooperation
      with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
      Board.

 Stroud, S.  1991. Texas Utilities Mining Company. Personal communication to P. Turner, EH&A.
      Austin.  February 21.

 Texas Utilities Mining Company (TUMCO).  1989a.  Fish and Wildlife Plan; Monticello B-2
      Lignite Mine. Fairfield, Texas.

	. 1989b.  Reclamation Plan; Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine. Fairfield, Texas.
                                          D-30

-------
  Appendix E

Programmatic
Agreement

-------
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, *809
Washington, DC 20004
Reply to:  730 Simms Street, *401
       Golden, Colorado 80401
June 12, 1991

Mr. Norm Thomas
Chief, Federal  Activities Branch  (6E-F)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,  Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas   75202-2733
en  —

m
 «   12
                                                                  o
                                                                  S
                            o
                           07
                           O
REF: Programmatic Agreement  regarding the Monticello B-2 Lignite
     Mine  Project

Dear Mr. Thomas:

The enclosed Programmatic  Agreement regarding the Monticello  B-2
Lignite Mine Project has been accepted by the Council.  This  action
constitutes  the comments of the Council required by Section  106 of
the  National  Historic   Preservation  Act  and  the   Council's
regulations.  Please send copies of the signed Agreement to Texas
State Historic Preservation  Officer and your "Federal Preservation
Officer.

The Council  appreciates your  cooperation in reaching a satisfactory
resolution of this matter.
Sincerely,
Claudia Nissley
Director, Western Office
  of Project Review

Enclosure
                                E-l

-------
          UNITED STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                                      REGION 6

                                1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200

                                 DALLAS. TEXAS 75202-2733
                       PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT  AMONG  THE
           UNITED  STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY,  REGION 6
              THE  ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,  AND
                  THE  HISTORIC  PRESERVATION  OFFICER  OF TEXAS


 WHEREAS,  Texas  Utilities Mining Company,  (hereinafter referred  to as  the
 Applicant),  has applied  to the United  States  Environmental Protection
 Agency,  Region  6  (hereinafter  referred to as  EPA) for a New  Source National
 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (hereinafter referred to  as
 the NPDES permit)  for the proposed project  known  as Monticello  B-2 Surface
 Lignite  Mine (hereinafter referred to  as  the  Project), and

 WHEREAS,  this Programmatic Agreement (hereinafter referred to as  the  PA) is
 applicable to the  Project as described in the "Draft Environmental  Impact
 Statements for  the Monticello  B-2 Surface Lignite Mine in Titus County,
 Texas",  prepared  by EPA  and dated April,  1990, and

 WHEREAS,  EPA has determined that the Project  may  have an  effect upon  pro-
 perties  included  in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register  of
 Historic  Places and has consulted with the  Advisory Council  on  Historic
 Preservation (hereinafter referred to  as  the  ACHP)  and the Texas  State
 Historic  Preservation  Officer  (hereinafter  referred to as the SHPO) pursuant
 to  Section 800.13  of  the regulations (36  CFR  Part 800) implementing Sections
 106  of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f), and

 WHEREAS.,  the effects  of EPA's  proposed issuance of  this NPDES permit  on
 properties included in or eligible for inclusion  in the National  Register
 cannot be  fully determined prior to the final  decision to issue the permit.

 NOW, THEREFORE, EPA, the ACHP, and the SHPO agree that the Project shall
be implemented in accordance with the  following Stipulations to satisfy
EPA's Section 106 responsibilities.
                                      E-2

-------
                                   P. 2


                                STIPULATIONS

EPA will ensure that the following measures are carried out.

SITE LOCATION

1.  Survey Plan.  The Applicant shall submit to EPA for approval, in con-
sul tatTonwrtnthe SHPO, a  "Survey Plan for Unsurveyed Areas".  The Survey
Plan may include a phased approach for the identification of historic
properties (included in or  eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places) in unsurveyed oT undersurveyed areas.  The Survey Plan
shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Identification (48FR 44720-23) and taking into
account the National Park Service publication: The Archeological Survey:
Methods and Uses  (1978:  6PO stock 1024-016-00091).  The Survey Plan shall
be developed in consultation with the SHPO.

2.  Surveying and Evaluation Reports.  The Applicant shall submit report(s)
of surveying accomplished under the Survey Plan for Unsurveyed Areas to all
signatories of the PA.  EPA shall request the SHPO's comments in writing.
All survey reports should be prepared consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's "Guidelines for  Archeological Documentation" (48 FR 44734-37).
These "Surveying and Eligibility Reports" shall provide sufficient
documentation for EPA to:

     a.  identify all properties listed in the National Register that
     will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the undertaking;
     and

     b.  determine the eligibility, for listing in the National Register,
     of all properties that will be affected, either directly or indirectly,
     by the undertaking.

EVALUATION

3.  Determination of Eligible Sites.  EPA will determine, in consultation
with the SHPO, whether properties that may be affected by the proposed
undertaking are eligible for listing in accordance with the National Register
Criteria listed in 36 CFR Part 60.

4.  Disputed Sites.  If a consensus cannot be reached on National Register-
eligibility, or if the ACHP so request, EPA will request a determination
from the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places.  Eligibility
of disputed sites will be assumed until a formal determination is received
and the opinion of the Keeper of the National Register shall be final.
                                      E-3

-------
                                   p. 3

 5-  Assessing Effects.   EPA shall, in consultation with the SHPO, apply the
 criteria of effect and  adverse  effect listed in 36 CFR 800.9 to historic
 properties that nay be  affected, giving consideration to the views, if any,
 of interested persons.   If  adverse effects will occur. EPA shall, in consul-
 tation with the SHPO and ACHP,  seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects.

 TREATMENT OR MITIGATION

 6.  Design Avoidance.  Wherever feasible, the Applicant shall avoid, by
 project design, historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in
 the National Register.

 7.  Construction Avoidance.  The Applicant shall not approve or conduct any
 construction or activity for this undertaking that will affect an historic
 or archeological property or a  potential historic or archeological property
 until  the significance  of the property and the effects of the undertaking
 on the property have been determined by EPA. and any treatment, as deemed
 necessary by EPA, is complete.

 8.  Plan for the Treatment  of Historic Properties.  The Applicant shall
 submit to EPA for approval, a "Plan for the Treatment of Historic Properties"
 (see attached guidance)  that may be affected by the proposed undertaking
 and may not feasibly be avoided.  The "Overview of research to date" outlined
 in the attached guidance (see Part II B) should be sufficient to aid in evalu-
 ating the National Register-eligibility of individual sJtes.

 The "Plan for the Treatment of  Historic Properties" shall  include a research
 design and proposed measures that could be used to mitigate adverse impacts
 on historic properties  (see attached guidance, part II C).  Proposed measures
 shall  include, as appropriate,  data recovery (including -Jiuman remains and
 associated grave goods), plans  for controlled grading, landscaping, monitor-
 ing, moving, preservation,  reburial, recordation, rehabilitation, salvage,
 and any other appropriate mitigation measures.

 9.  Plan Approval.  In  considering the "Plan for the Treatment of Historic
 Properties", EPA will submit the Plan to the SHPO and the ACHP for a 30-
 day review and comment  period.  To the extent feasible, EPA will elicit the
 views  of the concerned  public with regard to the undertaking and its effects
 on historic properties.   Following its consultation and taking into account
 the comments of the SHPO, the ACHP and the interested public, EPA will
 approve or disapprove the Plan.

 10.  Monitoring.   In  areas  where EPA has determined (e.g., from background
 research,  survey,  and/or testing) a high potential for additional National
 Register-eligible  sites,  the Applicant shall provide an archeologist meeting
 the Secretary  of the  Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards  (48
 FR 44738-9)  who will monitor the earth disturbing activities for evidence
of cultural  resources based  on  guidance from EPA, in consultation with the
ACHP and the SHPO.
                                      E-4

-------
                                   P. 4

11.  Discovery During Construction.  The Applicant shall cease activities
that would adversely atfect any property discovered until EPA or SHPO has
been given an opportunity to inspect the resource and make a decision
regarding possible survey or testing necessary to determine National Register
eligibility.  Two working days shall be allowed, from notice by the applicant
to EPA, to complete this inspection.  Any consultation by EPA with the ACHP
and SHPO, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11, will require additional time.

ADMINISTRATIVE

12.  Access.  The Applicant shall provide access, whenever possible, to the
known archeological and historical sites for EPA, ACHP and/or the SHPO to
monitor data recovery or preservation activities deemed necessary by EPA.

13.  Peer Review.  The ACHP and the SHPO may monitor activities carried
out pursuant to this PA, and the ACHP will  review such activities if so
requested.  EPA will cooperate with the ACHP and SHPO in this monitoring
and review, including providing periodic summary reports of activities
carried out under this PA.

14.  Dispute Resolution.  Should the signatories object within 30 days to
any plans or specifications pursuant to this agreement, EPA shall consult
with the objecting party to resolve the objection.  If EPA determines that
the objection cannot be resolved, EPA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the ACHP.  Within 30 days after receipt of
all pertinent documentation, the ACHP will  either:

     i.  provide the EPA with recommendations, which EPA will take
     into account in reaching a final  decision regarding the dispute; or

     ii.  notify EPA that it will comment pursuant to 36"CFR 800.6(b),
     and proceed to comment.  Any ACHP comment provided in response
     to such a request will  be taken into account by EPA in accordance
     with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2).

Any recommendation or comment provided by the ACHP will be understood to
pertain only to the subject  of the dispute; EPA's responsibility to carry
out all actions under this agreement that are not the subjects of the
dispute will  remain unchanged.

15.  Review of Public Objections.  At  any time during implementation of the
measures stipulated in this  agreement, should an objection to any such
measure be raised by a member of the .public, EPA shall take the objection
into account  and consult as  needed with the objecting party, the SHPO,
or the ACHP.

16.  Amendments.  If a Signatory or Concuring Party to this PA determines
that the term(s) of the PA cannot be met or that a change is warranted, that
Signatory or  Concuring Party shall immediately request that the other Signa-
tories or Concuring Party consider preparing an Amendment or Addendum to
this PA.  Such an Amendment  or Addendum shall be executed in the same


                                      E-5

-------
                                  p. 5

manner as this original  PA.  While executing an Amendment or Addendum,
the Signatories or Concuring Party shall not take or sanction any action
or make any  irreversible commitment which would adversely affect National
Register or  eligible properties or which would preclude consideration by
the ACHP of  alternatives to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects.

17." Report  Dissemination.  EPA will provide copies of all final archeolog-
ical reports to the ACHP, SHPO and other parties (e.g. University libraries,
the National Park Service, the National Technical Information Service) as
deemed appropriate by EPA, in consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP.

18.  Termination.  Any consulting party to this PA may terminate it by
providing thirty (30) days notice to the other parties, provided that the
parties will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agree-
ment on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination.  In the
event of termination, EPA will comply with 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 with
regard to individual undertakings covered by this PA.

19.  Non-compliance by Applicant.  Non-compliance with the terms of this
PA may subject the Applicant to enforcement action, as determined by
the Regional Administrator in excercising his enforcement discretion.

Nothing herein shall be deemed to confer upon the EPA Regional  Administrator
enforcement authority beyond that which the Regional Administrator may have
at law nor be deemed to be a waiver by the Applicant of any right it may
have to challenge any enforcement action which may be taken.

20.  Appeal.  Nothing herein shall  preclude the Applicant from excercising
any rights it may have to seek appropriate review of any findings,
determination or ruling which may be made by any regulatory authority under
this PA.

21.  Default Compliance by EPA.   In the event EPA does not carry out the
terms  of this PA, EPA will  comply with 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 with
regard  to individual  undertakings covered by this PA.
                                    E-6

-------
                                      p.  6
                                  SIGNATURES
Execution and implementation  of  this  PA  evidences that EPA has satisfied
its Section 106 responsibilities for  all  individual undertakings of the
program.
SIGNATORIES:
1.  ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
    BY:
           (name and title of signer)
Date:
         '    '
2.  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 6
    BY:
               le and ti lex£f sigrver)
Date:
3.  STATE OF TEXAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
    BY:   //?///?,
                 and tj-tle of signer)
Date:
CONCURING PARTY:
4.  TEXAS UTILITIES MINING COMPANY
    BY:
           (name-and ;t4tie
Date:
                                      E-7

-------
                                  ATTACHMENT

                PLAN FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

The Plan for the Treatment of Historic Properties should address the project
area that 1s the subject of the Programmatic Agreement (e.g.,  the area
affected by a 30-40 year life lignite mine and power plant project).  The Plan
should reflect the following guidelines and Include the following contents.

 I.  Guidelines

     A.   The American Indian Religious Freedom Act,  PL 95-341,  August 11,
          1978.

     B.   NPS Procedures for ApprovedvState and Local  Government Historic
          Preservation Programs.  Section 36 CFR  Part 61  and Its appendices,
          Department of the Interior, July 1,  1987.

     C.   The standards of the Society of Professional  Archaeologists.
          Fifteen edition, 1985.

     D.   Archaeology and Historic Preservation;  Secretary of  the Interior's
          Standards and Guidelines.   Reprinted from FR 48:190  (September 29,
          1983), pp. 44716-44742.

     E.   Traditional Cultural Properties,  Guidelines  for Evaluation,  by
          Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F.  King.   National  Register Bulletin
          38, 1989.

     F.   Preservation Planning in Context.   Advisory  Council  on Historic
          Preservation, draft, 1983.

     G.   Treatment of Archeological  Properties.   A Handbook.  Advisory
          Council  on Historic Preservation,  1980.

     H.   Standards and guidelines of the Texas SHPO or other  such historic
          preservation professional organizations,  Including

               . Resource Protection  Planning Process  for Texas, by Brown
               et.al.   Texas Historical  Commission,  1982.
                                                              .v
               . Northeast Texas Regional  Plan, Texas  Historical Commission,
               draft,  1990.
     I.    National  Register of Historic Places; and,  Protection  of Historic
          Properties.   Section 36  CFR 60 (NPS)  and 36  CFR 800  (ACHP),  respec-
          tively, Section 106 Implementing regulations.

                                      1
                                     E-8

-------
II.  Content

     A.   Goals

          1-   Purpose and scope.  A discussion of the copy and purpose of the
               Plan.

          2.   Phasing.  A discussion of the means of dividing the project
               area Into increments for the purpose of treating historic
               properties 1n a phased manner and how the Programmatic Agree-
               ment will be Implemented for each project Increment.

          3.   Public Interests.  A discussion of public Interests and
               concerns about the historic preservation aspects of the
               project, Including professional and avocational groups and
               Individuals with particular interests and concerns in historic
               preservation.

     B.   Overview of research to date

          1.   Past efforts.  A discussion of past efforts to Identify,
               evaluate, and treat historic properties in the project area and
               an assessment of the adequacy of such efforts

          2.   Types and numbers of properties.  A discussion of the types and
               relative numbers of historic properties within the project area
               that may be affected by the proposed undertaking.

          3.   Biases and emphases.  A discussion of any biases or phases of
               past research efforts.

          4.   Themes.  A discussion of prehistoric and historical themes,
               historic contexts and research topics, and questions relevant
               to the project area and an assessment of the adequacy of past
               Investigations of these values, topics, and questions.

          5.   Restored properties.  A discussion of past efforts 1n or near
               the project area to interpret for the public and preserve
               historic properties, including an explanation of the types of
               historic properties and themes, values, or questions repre-
               sented by such efforts.

     C.   Treatment and/or Mitigation Measures

          1.   Temporary protection.   A discussion of actions proposed to
               maintain the integrity of historic properties within the
                                    E-9

-------
     project area from vandalism and deterioration until the
     completion of all actions required under the Programmatic
     Agreement.

2.   Research design.  A research design for historical and prehis-
     toric properties that addresses:

     a.   Research goals, Including research topics or questions
          posed.  .

     b.   Data needs, Including a justification of the types and
          quantities of Information sought on the basis of research
          questions to be addressed and a justification of decisions
          to disregard the data 1n a historic property or groups of
          historic properties.

     c.   Study methods, Including field and analytical procedures
          for accomplishing the research goals.

     d.   Means for updating the research design and accommodating
          newly acquired data from within or near the project area.

     e.   Provisions for the curation of artifacts,  specimens,
          research records, etc., 1n a facility that meets Federal
          standards.

     f.   Provisions for the distribution of the results of the
          research to the general public and to historic preserva-
          tion professionals.

3.   Treatmentof historic properties of architectural or artistic
     value.   Means of treating historic properties that are sig-
     nificant for reasons other than the prehistorical or historic
     data that they contain (see criterion "c",  36 CFR 60.4),
     Including, but not limited to, the avoidance of effects by
     project redesign,  providing for the Interpretation of the
     prehistoric and historical significance of the area for the
     public, and adaptlvely reusing architectural and other his-
     toric properties.   This discussion shall positively consider
     the recommended principles, standards,  and guidelines contained
     1n The Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilita-
     tion and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings", the
     National Park Service's "Historic Preservation Briefs" and the
     Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for
     Archeology and Historic Preservation."
                          E-10

-------
4.   Recordatlon.  A proposal for  recording historic properties that
     may be relocated, damaged, altered,  demolished, or destroyed
     by the proposed undertaking to the standards of the Historic
     American Buildings Survey  (HABS) or the historic American
     Engineering Records  (HAER) 1n fulfillment of Section 110(b) of
     the National Historic Preservation Act.

5.   Implementation.  A discussion of means of Implementing the
     tasks discussed in this Plan, Including the personnel, to carry
     out tasks and a schedule for  the completion of such tasks.

6.   Coordination.  A discussion of documents or decisions requiring
     the subsequent review of the  Texas SHPO and the ACHP, and
     coordination with the SHPO in Implementing this Plan and the
     Programmatic Agreemen^.

7.   Public participation.  A discussion of means of involving the
     public 1n the historic preservation tasks Implementing the Plan
     and the  Programmatic Agreement.
                          E-.ll

-------
         Appendix F

List of Designated
Reference and
Equivalent Methods

-------
                     U.  S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEHCY
                     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND OEVELOWENT
                     ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND EXPOSURE
                       ASSESSMENT LABORATORY
                     QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION  (MD-77)
                     RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711
                     919 541-2R22 or 919 541-4599
                     (FTS 629-262? or 629-4599)
  ISSUE DATE:   FEBRUARY M. 1990
                                                                    Previous Revision:  DECEMBER 12. 1999

                                                                    New Designations: MONITOR LSWHOBEl^SSSOS SO;
                                                                                             \           ;*»
                                                                                                             a..
                               LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
       These methods for measuring ambient concentrations of specified  air pollutants have been"aWttjahtferras "reference
  methods" or  equivalent methods" In accordance with Title 40, Part 53 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
  53).  Subject  to  any limitations  (e.g.,  operating  range)  specified In  the  applicable designation,  each  method  Is
  acceptable for  use In state  or local  air  quality  surveillance systems  under 40  CFR Part 58 unless  the applicable
  designation 1s subsequently cancelled.

       Prospective users of the  methods listed  should  note (1) that  each  method must be-used In strict  accordance with
  the operation  or  instruction manual  and with applicable quality assurance procedures, and (2) that modification of a
  method by  Its  vendor or user nay  cause the pertinent designation to be inapplicable to the method as modified.  (See
  Section 2,8 of Appendix C, 40 CFR  Part  58 for approval of modifications  to any of these methods by users.)

       Further Information  concerning particular designations may be found in the Federal Register notice cited for each
  method or by writing to the Atmospheric Research t Exposure Assessment Laboratory,  Quality  Assurance Division (HD-77),
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park,  North  Carolina  27711.   Technical information concerning
  the methods  should be obtained by writing to the  "source" listed for each method.   New  analyzers or  PHm samplers
  sold as reference  or equivalent methods must  carry  a label  or sticker identifying  them as designated methods.  For
  analyzers or PH|o  samplers sold prior to the designation,  the model  number does  not  necessarily  identify an analyzer
  or sampler as  a designated method.  Consult the manufacturer  or seller to determine  if a previously sold analyzer or
  sampler can be considered a designated method,  or if it  can be'upgraded to designation status.   Analyzer users who
  experience operational  or other difficulties  with a  designated  analyzer or  sampler  and  are unable to  resolve the
  problem directly  with the instrument  manufacturer may contact EPA  (preferably in writing)  at the above address for
  assistance.

       This list  will  be  revised as necessary  to reflect  any new designations or any  cancellation of a designation
  currently In  effect.  The most current  revision of the  list  will be  available  for Inspection at  FPA's Regional
  Offices, and  copies  may  be  obtained by writing  to  the Atmospheric  Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory at the
  address specified  above.
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
                                    LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
               IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

PARTICULATE HATTER - T5P
                                                                               MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                               AUTO       EQUIV.._
                                                                 Page 1


                                                   FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                   VOL. PAGE     DATE
                Reference Method for the
                Determination of Suspended
                Partlculate Hatter in the
                Atmosphere (High-Volume Method)
                Reference Method for the
                Determination of Partlculate
                Matter as PMjo in the Atmosphere
                                                  40 CFR Part 50,
                                                  Appendix B
                                                   PART1CULATE HATTER - PHlO
                                                                                Manual
                                         Reference   47    54912
                                                    48    17355
12/06/82
 4/22/83
                                                  40 CFR Part 50,
                                                  Appendix J
                                                                                 Manual
                                         Reference  52   24664     7/01/87
                                                    52   29467     8/07/87
                                                   Wedding  & Associates,
                                                   P.O. Box 1756
                                                   Fort Collins,  CO 80522
RFPS-1087-062  "Wedding & Associates'
               PM10 critical  Flow High-Volume
               Sampler," consisting  of  the
               following components:
                Wedding PMin  Inlet
                Wedding * Associates'  Critical  Flo- Device
                Wedding S Associates'  Anodized  Aluminum Shelter
                 115,  220  or 240 VAC Motor Blower Assembly
                Mechanical  Timer Or Optional Digital Timer
                Elapsed Time Indicator
                Filter Cartridge/Cassette
                                                                          Inc.    Manual     Reference  52   37366    10/06/87
                                                F-l

-------
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
               IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL OR
AUTO
                                                                                          REF. OR
                                                                                          CQUiV.
                                                   PARTICIPATE  HATTER  -  PMm  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     Page 2
                                                    FED.  REGISTER  NOTICE
                                                    VOL.  PAGE
                                                   Andersen Samplers,  Inc.
                                                   4801  Fulton Industrial Blvd.
                                                   Atlanta, GA 30336
                                                   or
                                                   General  Metal  Works.  Inc.
                                                   145 South Miami
                                                   Cleves.  OH 45002
RFPS-1287-063  "Sierra-Andersen or                Andersen Samplers,  Inc.       Manual      Reference  52   45684    12/01/87
               General Netal  Works Model  1200      4801  Fulton Industrial Blvd.                         S3    1062     1/15/88
               PMjg High-Volume Air Sampler
               System,* consisting of a Sierra-
               Andersen or General Netal  Works
               Model 1200 PHio Size-Selective
               Inlet and any  of the high-volume
               air samplers Identified as
               SAUV-10H. SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
               GMW-IP-10-70.  GMW-IP-10-801,  or  GMW-IP-10-8000, which  Include the  following components:
                Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonltrlle butadlne styrene plastic filter holder and
                motor/blower  housing or stainless steel filter holder and  phenolic  plastic motor/blower housing; 0.6 hp
                motor/blower; pressure transducer flow  recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a volumetric
                flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer,  seven-day mechanical  timer, six-day timer/programmer,
                or solid-state timer/programmer;  elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
                                                   Andersen Samplers,  Inc.
                                                   4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
                                                   Atlanta. GA 30336
                                                   or
                                                   General Metal  Works, Inc.
                                                   145 South Miami
                                                   Cleves, OH 45002
RFPS-1287-064  "Sierra-Andersen or                Andersen Samplers,  Inc.        Manual      Reference  52   45684    12/01/87
               General Metal Works Model  321-B    4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.                         S3    1062     1/15/88
               PM10 High-Volume Air Sampler
               System," consisting of a Sierra-
               Andersen or General Metal  Works
               Mode! 321-B PHin Size-Selective
               Inlet and any of the high-volume
               air samplers Identified as
               SAUV-10H. SAUV-11H, 6MW-IP-10,
               GMW-IP-10-70. GMH-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which  Include the following components:
                Anodlred aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonUrlle butadlne styrene plastic filter holder and
                motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and  phenolic plastic motor/blower housing; 0.6 hp
                motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a volumetric
                flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day timer/programmer,
                or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                 SOURCE
                              MANUAL OR
                              AUTO
           REF. OR
           EQU1V.
                                                                                                                     Page 3
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                  PART1CULATE HATTER - PMio (Continued)
 RFPS-1287-065
RFPS-0389-071
RFPS-0789-073
                                                  Andersen Samplers, Inc.
                                                  4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
                                                  Atlanta, GA 30336
                                                  or
                                                  General Metal Works, Inc.
                                                  145 South Miami
                                                  Cleves. OH 45002
               "Sierra-Andersen or                Andersen Samplers, Inc.       Manual     Reference   52    45684     12/01/87
               General Metal Works Model 321-C    4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.                         53     1062      1/15/88
               PT110 High-Volume A1r Sampler
               System," consisting of a Sierra-
               Andersen or General Metal Works
               Model 321-C PMiQ Size-Selective
               Inlet and any of the high-volume
               air samplers Identified as
               SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
               GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000. which Include the following components:
               Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonltrlle butadlne styrene  plastic  filter holder and
               motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;  0.6 hp
               motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a volumetric
               flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day timer/programmer,
               or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
               "Oregon DEQ Medium Volume
               PMjo Sampler"

               NOTE: This method Is not now
                    commercially available.
                                                  State of Oregon               Manual
                                                  Department of Environmental Quality
                                                  A1r Quality Division
                                                  811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
                                                  Portland, OR 97204
                                         Reference  54   12273
                                      3/24/89
                                                                                            Reference  54   31247
              "Sierra-Andersen Models SA241 and  Andersen Samplers, Inc.       Manual
              SA241M or General Metal Works
              Models G241 and G241M PMio
              Dlchotomous Samplers", consisting
              of the following components:
              Sampling Module with SA246b or
               G246b 10 urn Inlet, 2.5 »<*
               virtual Impactor assembly, 37 mm
               coarse and fine partlculate filter holders, and tripod mount;
              Control Hodule with diaphragm vacuum pump, pneumatic constant flow  controller, total and coarse  flow
               rotameters and vacuum gauges, pressure switch  (optional),  24-hour  flow/event recorder, digital
               timer/programmer or 7-day skip timer, and elapsed  time Indicator.
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
                                      7/27/89
                                              F-2

-------
                                                                                                                      Paqe 4
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                 IDENTIFICATION
                                                    SOURCE

                                                    SULFUR DIOXIDE
                                                                  MANUAL OR  REF. OR    FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                                  AUTO       EOUIV.     VOL. PAGE     DATE
                 Reference Method for the
                 Determination of Sulfur
                 Dioxide In the Atmosphere
                 (Pararosanillne Method)
                                     40 CFR Part 50,
                                     Appendix A
 Manual     Reference   47    54899     12/06/8?
                        48    17355      4/22/81
  EOS-0775-001   "PararosanlHne Method for the
                 Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
                 1n the Atmosphere-Technlcon I
                 Automated Analysis System*
                                     Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                       Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                     Department E (MD-77)
                                     U.S. Environmental Protection
                                       Agency
                                     Research Triangle Park. NC
                                       27711
             Equlv.
            40   34024
                                      8/13/75
  EOS-0775-002   "Pararosanillne Method for the
                 Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
                 In the Atmopshere-Technicon II
                 Automated Analysis System'
                                     Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                       Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                     Department E  (HD-77)
                                     U.S.  Environmental Protection
                                       Agency
                                     Research Triangle Park, NC
                                       27711
             Equlv.
            40   34024
                8/13/75
  EOSA-1275-005  'Lear Slegler Model SM1000 SO;
                 Ambient Monitor,* operated on the
                 0-0.5 ppm range, at a wavelength
                 of 299.5 nm, with the "slow"
                 (300 second) response time, with
                 or without any of the following
                 options:
                  SH-1 Internal Zero/Span
                  SM-2 Span Timer Card
                                     Lear  Slegler Measurement
                                       Controls Corporation
                                     74 Inverness Drive East
                                     Englewood, CO 80112
                                     SM-3 0-0.1  Volt Output
                                     SM-4 0-5 Volt Output
  Auto
             Equlv.
            41    3893
            41   32946
            42   13044
            45    1147
                1/27/76
                8/06/76
                3/08/77
                1/04/80
      SM-5 Alternate  Sample  Pump
      SH-6 Outdoor Enclosure
                                                                                                                    Page 5
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   SULFUR DIOXIDE  (Continued)
MANUAL OR
AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
EI1SA-1275-006   "Heloy Model  SA185-2A Sulfur
                Dioxide Analyzer,"  operated on
                the 0-0.5  ppm range,  with or
                without any  of the  following
                options:
                S-l   Linearized Output
                S-2   Modified Recorder Output
                S-5   Teflon-Coated  Block
                S-6A  Relgnlte Timer Circuit
                S-7   Press  To Read
                S-11A Manual  Zero  And Span
                S-11B Automatic Zero And Span
                S-13  Status Lights
                S-14  Output Booster Amplifier
                S-14B Line  Transmitter Board

                or operated  on the  0-1.0 ppm range
                the other  options.
                                   Columbia Scientific           Auto
                                     Industries
                                   11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                   Austin, TX 78759
           Equiv.
                                   S-18  Rack Mount Conversion       S-24
                                   S-18A Rack Mount Conversion       S-33
                                   5-21  Front Panel Digital Volt
                                         Meter                       S-34
                                   S-22  Remote Zero/Span Control    S-35
                                         And Status (Timer)
                                   S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control    S-36
                                   S-23  Automatic Zero Adjust       S-38
                                   S-23A Automatic/Manual Zero
                                         Adjust
                                   with either option S-36 or options S-l
           41    3893
           43   38088
               1/27/76
               8/25/78
          Dual Range Linearized Output
          Remote Range Control And Status
          (Signals)
          Remote Control
          Front Panel Digital Meter With
          BCD Output
          Dual Range Log-Linear Output
          Sampling Mode  Status
          and S-24,  with  or without  any of
EOSA-0276-009  "Thermo Electron Model  43 Pulsed
               Fluorescent  SO? Analyzer,*
               equipped with  an aromatic hydro-
               carbon cutter  and  operated on a
               range of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0
               ppm, with or without  any of the
               following options:
                001 Rack Mounting For Standard
                    19 Inch Relay Rack
                                   Thermo Environmental          Auto
                                      Instruments, Inc.
                                   8  West Forge Parkway
                                   Franklin, NA 02038
                                                                                            Equiv.
                       41
                       41
                       42
                       44
                       45
                       45
                  8531
                 15363
                 20490
                 21861
                  2700
                 32419
                2/27/76
                4/12/76
                4/20/77
                4/12/79
                1/14/80
                5/16/80
                                    002 Automatic Actuation Of Zero
                                       And  Span Solenoid Valves
     003 Type S Flash Lamp Power Supply
     004 Low Flow
                                               F-3

-------
                                                                                                                     Page 6
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER	
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                  SOURCE

                                                  SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
MANUAL OR
AUTO
                                                                                           REF. OR
                                                                                           EOUIV.
FED. REfilSTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                   Philips Electronic
                                                     Instruments, Inc.
                                                   85 McKee Drive
                                                   Hannah, NJ 07430
                                                                                                      41
                                                                                                      41
                                                                                                      42
                           26252
                           46019
                           28571
               6/25/76
               10/19/76
               6/03/77
EO.SA-0676-010  "Philips PH9755 SO? Analyzer,"     Philips Electronic            Auto       Equlv.
               consisting of the following
               components:
               PW9755/02 S02 Monitor with:
                PW9741/00 SO? Source
                PW9721/00 Filter Set SO?
                PW9711/00 Electrolyte S02
               PU9750/00 Supply Cabinet
               PW9750/10 Supply Un1t/Coulometr1e
               Either PW9731/00 Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter (or vendor-approved alternate partlculate filter);
               operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage setting of 760 millivolts; with or without any
               of the following options:
                PW9750/30 Frame For MTT           PH9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold    PM9753/00 Mounting Rack For Accessories
                PH9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz     PW9754/00 A1r Distributor
                                                   Philips Electronic
                                                     Instruments, Inc.
                                                   85 McKee Drive
                                                   Hahwah, NJ 07430
 EOSA-0876-011  "Philips PM9700 S02 Analyzer,"      Philips Electronic             Auto       Equlv.
                consisting of the following
                components:
                PU9710/00 Chemical Unit with
                 PH9711/00 Electrolyte S02
                 W9721/00 Filter Set SO?
                 PU9740/00 SO? Source
                PH9720/00 Electrical Unit
                PH9730/00 Sampler Unit (or vendor-approved alternate partlculate filter);
                operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with  a reference voltage of 760 millivolts.
                                                                                                       41   34105
                                     8/12/76
  EOSA-0876-013  "Monitor Labs Model  8450 Sulfur    Monitor Labs
                 Monitor," operated on a range  of   Division of Lear Slegler
                 either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm,  a 5      Measurement Controls Corp.
                 second time constant, a model      74 Inverness Drive East
                 8740 hydrogen sulflde scrubber    Englewood, CO 80112
                 1n the sample Hne,  with or
                 without any of the following options:
                  BP Bipolar Signal Processor       IZS Internal Zero/Span Module
                  V  Zero/Span Valves              CLO Current Loop Output
                  VT Zero/Span Valves And Timer    DO  Status Remote Interface
                                                                                 Auto
                                                                                            Equlv.
                       41
                       44
      36245
      33476
                                                                                                                     8/27/76
                                                                                                                     6/11/79
                                                                                     TF TFE Sample Partlculate Filter
                                                                                                                     Page 7
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   SULFUR DIOXIDE  (Continued)
                                                                                MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                                AUTO       EQU1V.
                      FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                      VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                   ASARCO  Incorporated
                                                   3422 South  700 West
                                                   Salt Lake City, UT 84119
EOSA-0877-024  "ASARCO Model 500 Sulfur Dioxide
               Monitor," operated on a 0-0,5 ppm
               range; or
               •ASARCO Model 600 Sulfur Dioxide
               Monitor," operated on a 0-1.0 ppm
               range.  (Both models are Identical  except the range.)

               NOTE: This method 1s not now commercially available.
Auto
           Equlv.
42   44264     9/02/77
44   67522    11/26/79
EOSA-0678-029  'Beckman Model  953 Fluorescent
                Ambient  SOj Analyzer," operated
                on  a  range of either 0-0.5 or
                0-1.0 ppm, with a  time constant
                setting  of 2, 2.5, or 3 minutes,
                a 5 to 10 micron membrane filter
                element  Installed  In the rear-panel
                filter assembly, with or without  any
                of  the following options:
                                                  Beckman Instruments, Inc.
                                                  Process Instruments Division
                                                  2500 Harbor Boulevard
                                                  Fulleiton,  CA 92634
Auto
           Equlv.
43   35995
                                                                                                                     8/14/78
                a. Remote  Operation  Kit,
                   Catalog No.  641984
                                                  b.  Digital  Panel  Meter,
                                                     Catalog  No.  641710
    c. Rack Mount Kit. Catalog No. 641709
    d. Panel Mount Kit, Catalog  No.  641708
EQSA-1078-030   *Bend1x Model  8303  Sulfur
               Analyzer,"  operated on  a  range
               of either 0-0.5  or  0-1.0  ppm,
               with a Teflon  filter Installed
               on the sample  Inlet of  the H2S
               scrubber assembly.
                                                  Combustion Engineering, Inc.
                                                  Process Analytics
                                                  P.O.  Box 831
                                                  Lewlsburg, HV 24901
Auto
           Equlv.
43    50733     10/31/78
                                              F-4

-------
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
                                                                                                     "aqe 8


                                                                 MANUAL OR  REF.  OR     FED.  REGISTER  NOTICE
                                                                 AUTO       EHU1V.      VOL.  PAGE      DATE
EQSA-1078-032   "Meloy Model  SA285E  Sulfur
                Dioxide Analyzer," operated
                on the following ranges  and
                time  constant switch positions:

                Range, ppb  Time Constant Setting
                 0-50*
                 0-100*
                 0-500
                 0-1000
                  1  or  10
                  1  or  10
              off, 1 or 10
              off. 1 or 10
                                                   Columbia Scientific
                                                     Industries
                                                   11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                                   Austin, TX 78759
                                                                 Auto
                                                                            Equlv.
                                                    43   50733
                                                                                                     10/31/7R
              should be aware  that designation of ranges less than 0.5 ppn
        ) are based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications
         for the 0-0.5 pom (500  ppb) range.  Thus, designation of these
lower ranges does not guarantee  comnensurably better performance than that
obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm (500 ppb) range.
                The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between 10° and 40'C and  at  line voltages between 105 and 130
                volts, with or without any of the following options:
                 5-5   Teflon Coated Block
                 S-14B Line Transmitter Board
                 S-18  Rack Mount Conversion
                 S-18A Rack Mount Conversion
                 5-21  Front Panel Digital Meter
                 S-22  Remote Zero/Span Control
                       And Status (Timer)
                 S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control
                                    S-22B  Remote Zero/Span Control    S-30
                                          And  Status  (Pulse)          S-32
                                    S-23  Auto Zero Adjust            S-35
                                    S-23A  Auto/Manual  Zero Adjust
                                    S-25  Press To Read               S-37
                                    S-26  Manual Zero And Span        S-38
                                    5-37  Auto Manual  Zero/Span
                                    S-28  Auto Range  And Status
                                        Auto Relgnlte
                                        Remote Range Control And Status
                                        Front Panel Digital Meter with BCD
                                        Output
                                        Temperature Status Lights
                                        Sample Mode Status
 EQSA-0779-039  "Monitor Labs Model 8850           Monitor  Labs                  Auto
                Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"         Division of Lear Slegler
                operated on < range of either        Measurement Controls Corp.
                0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with  an        74  Inverness Drive East
                Internal time constant setting     Englewood, CO 80112
                of 55 seconds, a  TFE  sample filter
                Installed on the  sample inlet line,
                with or without any of the following options:
                 03A Rack                          06B.C.D  NBS Traceable Permeation
                 03B Slides                                 Tubes
                 05A Valves Zero/Span             08A Pump
                 06A IZS  Internal  Zero/Span        09A Rack Mount  For Option 08A
                     Source                        010 Status Output U/Connector
                                                                            Equlv.
                                                    44   44616
                                                                   7/30/79
                                                                      013 Recorder Output Options
                                                                      014 DAS Output Options
                                                                      017 Low Flow Option
                                                                      018 Kicker
                                                                                                                    Page  9
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
 SOURCE

 SULFUR  DIOXIDE  (Continued)
                                                                                MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                                AUTO       EQUIV.
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
EQSA-0580-046  "Meloy Model  SA  700 Fluorescence   Columbia Scientific           Auto       Equiv.     45   31488     5/13/80
               Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer,"  opera-     Industries
               ted on the  0-250 ppb?  the  0-500    11950 Jollyville Road
               ppb, or the 0-1000 ppb range with  Austin, TX 78759
               a time constant  switch position
               of either 2 or 3.   The analyzer may
               be operated at temperatures  between
               20° and 30°C and at line voltages
               between 105 and  130 volts, with or
               without any of the following options:
                FS-1  Current Output               FS-3 Front Panel Mounted Digital
                FS-2  Rack Mount  Conversion            Meter
                FS-2A Rack Mount  Conversion       FS-5 Auto/Manual Zero/Span With
                FS-2B Rack Mount  Conversion            Status

               *NOTE-  Users should be aware that designation of ranges less than 0.5 ppm  (500 ppb) are based on meeting the
               same absolute performance  specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm (500 ppb)  range.  Thus, designation of
               this lower  range does  not  guarantee commensurably better performance than that obtained on the o-o.s ppra
               (500 ppb) range.
                                                                     FS-6 Remote/Manual  Zero/Span With Status
                                                                     FS-7 Auto Zero Adjust
EQSA-1280-049  "Lear Slegler Model  AM2020
               Ambient SO?  Monitor,"  operated
               on a range of either 0-0.5 or
               0-1.0 ppm, at a wavelength of
               299.5 nm, with a  5 minute
               Integration  period,  over any 10'C
               temperature  range between 20° and
               45*C, with or without  the automatic
               zero and span correction feature.
                                   Lear  Slegler Measurement
                                     Controls  Corporation
                                   74  Inverness Drive East
                                   Englewood,  CO  80112
                                                                                 Auto
                                                                            Equlv.
                                                    45   79574    12/01/80
                                                    46    9997     1/30/81
                                             F-5

-------
  DESIGNATION
    NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
 MANUAL OR
 AUTO
REF. OR
EOUIV.
              Page  10


FED. REGISTER NOTICF.
VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                    SULFUR DIOXIDE  (Continued!
  EOSA-0486-060  "Thermo Electron  Instruments,
                 Inc.  Model  43A Pulsed  Fluorescent
                 Ambient SO? Analyzer," operated^
                 A_L «,U. ft ft  1  — — »  *!.*.
                                   Thermo Environmental
                                     Instruments,  Inc.
                                   8 West Forge Parkway
                                   Franklin,  MA 02038
  Auto
Equlv.
                        51   12390
                          4/10/86
                 on the 0-0.1  ppm,  the  0-0.2  ppmt
                 the 0-0.5 ppm,  or  the  0-1.0  ppm
                 range with either  a  high  or  a  low
                 time constant setting  and with or
                 without any of  the following options:
                  001 Teflon Paniculate Filter Kit
                  002 Rack Mount
                  003 Internal Zero/Span Valves With  Remote Activation
                  004 High Sample Flow  Rate Option

                 *NOTE:   Users should be aware  that designation  of  ranges  less  than  0.5  pom (500 ppb) are based on meeting the
                 same absolute performance specifications  required  for  the 0-0.5  ppm (500 ppb) range.  Thus, designation of
                 these lower ranges does not  guarantee  commensurably  better performance  than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm
                 (500 ppb) range.
  EQSA-1086-061   "Daslbl  Model  4108  U.V. Fluores-    Daslbl  Environmental  Corp.     Auto       Equlv.     51   32244     9/10/86
                 cence SO? Analyzer," operated       515 West Colorado Street
                 with a range  of  0-100  ppbt          Glendale, CA  91204
                 0-200 ppbt 0-500 ppb,  or  0-1000 ppb,
                 with a Teflon-coated paniculate  filter
                 and a continuous hydrocarbon  removal
                 system,  with  or  without any of the
                 following options:
                  a. Rack Mounting Brackets And Slides
                  b. RS-232-C  Interface
                  c. Temperature  Correction

                 *NOTE:  Users  should be aware that designation of  ranges less  than  0.5 ppm (500 ppb) are based on meeting the
                 same absolute  performance specifications  required  for the 0-0.5 ppm (500 ppb) range.  Thus, designation of
                 these lower ranges  does not guarantee  commensurably  better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm
                 (500 ppb) range.
                                                                                                                     Page 11
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
               IDENTIFICATION
                                                  SOURCE

                                                  SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
                                                               MANUAL OR  REF.  OR     FED.  REGISTER NOTICE
                                                               AUTO       EOUIV.      VOL.  PAGE     DATE
EOSA-0390-075  "Monitor Labs Model 8850S SOj
               Analyzer," operated on a range
               of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm.
                                 Monitor Labs
                                 Division of Lear Slegler
                                   Measurements Controls Corp.
                                 74 Inverness Drive East
                                 Englewood, CO 80112
Auto
           Equlv.
          55   5264
                         2/14/90
                                              F-6

-------
                                                                                                                    Page 1?
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                                 MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                 AUTO       EOU1V.
                                                   FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                   VOL. PAGE     DATE
RFOA-1075-003  "Heloy Model OA32S-2R Ozone
                Analyzer," operated with a scale
                range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
                without any of the following
                options:
                 0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
                                    Columbia Scientific
                                      Industries
                                    11950  Jollyvllle Road
                                    Austin. TX  78759

                                    0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
                              Auto       Reference   40    54856     11/36/75
                                                                                     0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
 RFOA-1075-004  "Meloy Model OA350-2R Ozone
                Analyzer," operated with a scale
                range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
                without any of the following
                options:
                 0-2 Automatic Zero And Span
                 0-3 Remote Control Zero And Span
                                    Columbia  Scientific
                                      Industries
                                    11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                    Austin, TX 78759

                                    0-4  Output Booster Amplifier
                                    0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
                              Auto       Reference  40    54856    11/26/75
                                  0-18A Rack  Mount Conversion
 RFOA-0176-007  Bendlx or Combustion  Engineering
                Model 8002 Ozone Analyzer, oper-
                ated on the  0-0.5  ppm range,  with
                a 40 second  time constant, with
                or without any of  the following
                options:
                 A Rack Mounting With Chassis
                   SI 1des
                                    Combustion Engineering,  Inc.
                                    Process Analytics
                                    P.O. Box 831
                                    Lewlsburg. WV 24901
                              Auto
                                         Reference
                                    B Rack Mounting Without Chassis
                                      Slides
                                                    41
                                                    45
                            5145
                           18474
2/04/76
3/21/80
                                  C Zero And Span Timer
                                  0 Ethylene/CO; Blend Reactant  Gas
 RFOA-1076-014   "MEC Model  1100-1 Ozone Meter.*
 RFOA-1076-015   "MEC Model  1100-2 Ozone Meter,"
 RFOA-1076-016   "MEC Model  1100-3 Ozone Meter,"
                 operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range.
                 with or without any of the
                 following options:
                  0011  Rack Mounting Ears
                  0012  Instrument Ball
                                    Columbia Scientific
                                      Industries
                                    11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                    Austin, TX 78759
                                    0016 Chassis Slide Kit
                                    0026 Alarm Set Feature
                              Auto       Reference  41   46647     10/22/76
                                                    42   30235      6/13/77
                                   0033 Local-Remote Sample, Zero,  Span Kit
                                   0040 Ethylene/COz Blend Feature
                                                                                                                    Page  13
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

OZONE (Continued)
MANUAL OR  REF. OR     FED. REGISTER NOTICE
AUTO       EQU1V.      VOL. P_A6E     DATE
RFOA-1176-017  "Monitor Labs  Model  8410E Ozone
               Analyzer," operated  on a range
               of 0-0.5 ppm and  a time constant
               setting of 5 seconds,  with or
               without any of the following
               options:
                DO Status Outputs
                ER Ethylene Regulator Assembly
                                                                            Reference  41   53684    12/08/76
Monitor Labs                  Auto
Division of Lear Slegler
  Measurement Controls Corp.
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112

V  TFE Zero/Span Valves           TF TFE Sample  Paniculate Filter
n TFE Zero/Span Valves And Timer
EQOA-0577-019  "Daslbl Model  1003-AH,  1003-PC,
               or 1003-RS Ozone  Analyzers,"   '
               operated on a  range of  either
               0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
               without any of the following
               options:
                a Adjustable  Alarm
                b Rack Mounting  Ears And Slides
                                    Daslbl Environmental Corp.
                                    515 west Colorado Street
                                    Glendale, CA 91204
                                    c  BCD  Digital  Output
                                    d  Integrated Output
                                                                                 Auto
                                         Equlv.
                                                                                                      42   28571
                                                                                                     6/03/77
                                  e 0-10 mV, 0-100 mV,  0-1 V,
                                    Or 0-10 V Analog Output
RFOA-0577-020  "Beckman Model  950A Ozone
               Analyzer," operated on a range
               of 0-0.5 ppm  and  with the "SLOW*
               (60 second) response time, with
               or without any  of the following
               options:
                Internal Ozone Generator
                                    Beckman  Instruments,  Inc.      Auto
                                    Process  Instruments Division
                                    2500 Harbor Boulevard
                                    Fuller-ton,  CA  92634
                                                                                            Reference  42   28571
                                                                                                      6/03/77
                                    Computer Adaptor  Kit
                                                                      Pure Ethylene Accessory
                                              F-7

-------
                                                                                                                     Page 14
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

OZONE (Continued)
MANUAL OR  REF. OR
AUTO       EQU1V.
                                                                                       FED.  REGISTER NOTICE
                                                                                       VOL.  PARE     DATE
 EQOA-0777-023  "Philips PH9771 03 Analyzer,"      Philips Electronic
                consisting of the following          Instruments, Inc.
                components:                        85 McKee Drive
                PU9771/00 03 Monitor with:         Hannah, NJ 07430
                 PW9724/00 Disc.-Set
                PW9750/00 Supply Cabinet
                PW9750/20 Supply Unit;
                operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm,
                with or without any of the following accessories:
                 PW9732/00 Sampler Line Heater     PW9750/30 Frame For HTT
                 PW9733/00 Sampler                 PH9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz
                                                                Auto
                                         Equlv.
                      42
                      42
38931
57156
 8/01/77
11/01/77
                                                                     PH9752/00 A1r Sampler Manifold
 RFOA-0279-036   "Columbia Scientific Industries
                 Model 2000 Ozone Meter," when
                 operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range
                 with either AC or battery power:
                 The 8CA 952 battery charger/AC
                 adapter M952-0002 (115V) or H952-0003
                 (230V) 1s required for AC operation;
                 an Internal battery M952-0006 or 12 volt
                 external battery Is required for portable
                 non-AC powered operation.
                                   Columbia  Scientific
                                     Industries
                                   11950 Jollyville Rd.
                                   Austin. TX 78759
                                                                                 Auto
                                                                                            Reference  44   10429
                                                                                                                      2/20/79
 EQOA-0880-047   "Thermo Electron Model 49 U.V.
                 Photometric Ambient 03 Analyzer,"
                 operated on a range of either
                 0-0.5  or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
                 without any of the following
                 options:
                  49-001 Teflon Partlculate Filter
                  49-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable
                        Configuration
                  49-100 Internal Ozone Generator
                        For Zero, Precision, And
                        Level 1 Span Checks
                                   Thermo Environmental           Auto
                                     Instruments,  Inc.
                                   8 West Forge Parkway
                                   Franklin,  HA 02038
                                         Equlv.
                                                                                                       45   57168
                                                                                                                      8/27/80
                                   49-103 Internal  Ozone Generator
                                          For Zero, Precision, And
                                          Level  1  Span Checks U1th
                                          Remote Activation
                                   49-488 GPIB  (General  Purpose Interface
                                                Bus)  IEEE-48B
                                                                                                                     Page 15
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                  SOURCE

                                                  OZONE (Continued)
                                                                MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                AUTO       EQU1V.
                                                    FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                    VOL. PA6E     DATE
EOOA-0881-053  "Monitor  Labs  Model  8810 Photo-
                metric  Ozone Analyzer," operated
                on  a  range  of  either 0-0.5 or
                0-1.0 ppm,  with  selectable
                electronic  time  constant settings
                from  20 through  150  seconds, with
                or  without  any of the following
                options:
                05 Pressure Compensation
                06 Averaging  Option
                07 Zero/Span  Valves
                                  Monitor Labs
                                  Division of Lear Siegler
                                    Measurement Controls Corp.
                                  74 Inverness Drive East
                                  Englewood. CO 80112
                                  08 Internal Zero/Span (Valve
                                     And Ozone Source)
                                  09 Status
                              Auto
                                         Equlv.
                      46   52224
                                    10/26/81
                                  10 Partleulate Filter
                                  15 Through 20 DAS/REC Output
EQOA-0382-055   "PCI  Ozone Corporation Hodel
                LC-12 Ozone Analyzer," operated
                on a  range of  0-0.5ppm.
                                  PCI Ozone Corporation
                                  One Falrfleld Crescent
                                  West Caldwell, NJ 07006
                              Auto       Equlv.     47   13572      3/31/82
EQOA-0383-056   "Daslbl Hodel  1008-AH, 1008-PC,
                or 1008-RS Ozone Analyzers,"
                operated on a  ranqe of either
                0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
                without any of the following
                options:
                Ozone Generator
                BCD Digital Output
                                  Daslbl Environmental Corp.
                                  515 West Colorado St.
                                  Glendale. CA 91204
                                  RS-232-C Digital Output
                                  Error Code
                              Auto       Equiv.     48    10126      3/10/83
                                  IEEE-488 General Purpose  Interface Bus
                                               F-8

-------
  DESIGNATION
    NUMBER
                 IDENTIFICATION
                                                    SOURCE

                                                    OZONE (Continued)
                                                                                 MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                                 AUTO       EOUIV.
                                     Page  16


                       FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                       VOL. PAGE     OATE
                 TMs page Intentionally left blank.
                                                                                                                    Page  1?
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   CARBON  MONOXIDE
                                                                                MANUAL OR   REF.  OR
                                                                                AUTO       EQUIV.
                      FED.  REGISTER NOTICE
                      VOL.  PAGE     DATE
RFCA-0276-008  Bendlx or Combustion Engineering
                Model  8501-5CA Infrared  CO
                Analyzer, operated on the 0-50
                ppro range and with a time con-
                stant  setting between 5  and  16
                seconds,  with' or without any of
                the following options:
                 A  Rack Mounting With Chassis
                   Slides
                                                  Combustion Engineering, Inc.
                                                  Process Analytics
                                                  P.O. Box 831
                                                  Lewlsburg, UV 24901
Auto
           Reference  41     7450
                                    2/18/76
                                                  B Rack Mounting Without Chassis
                                                    Slides
    C External Sample Pump
                                                   Beckman Instruments.  Inc.
                                                   Process Instruments Division
                                                   2500 Harbor Boulevard
                                                   Fuller-ton,  CA 92634
RFCA-0876-012  "Beckman Model S66 Ambient CO
               Monitoring System,* consisting
               of the following components:
                Pump/Sample-Handling Module.
                Gas Control Panel. Model 86S-17
                Analyzer Unit, Automatic Zero/Span
                Standardize!-;
               operated with a 0-50 ppm range, a  13
               second electronic response time, with
               or without any of the following options:
                Current Output Feature            Bench Mounting Kit
Auto
           Reference  41   36245
8/27/76
                                                                                    Llnearlzer Circuit
RFCA-0177-018  "LIRA Model 20ZS Air  Quality        Mine Safety Appliances Co.
               Carbon Monoxide Analyzer            600 Penn Center Boulevard
               System," consisting of  a  LIRA       Pittsburgh, PA 15208
               Model 202S optical bench
               (P/N 459839). a regenerative
               dryer (P/N 464084), and rack-mounted
               sampling system; operated on a  0-50 ppm
               range, with the slow  response amplifier,
               with or without any of  the  following options:
                Remote Meter                       0-10 Or 100 mV Output
                Remote Zero And Span Controls      0-1, 5, Or  10 Volt  Output
                                                                                Auto
                                                                                           Reference  42    5748
                                                                                                                     1/31/77
                                                                                    0-1, 5, 20, Or 50 mA Output
                                                                                    1-5, 4-20, Or 10-50 mA Output
                                               F-9

-------
                                                                                                                     Page 18
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                   SOURCE

                                   CARBON MONOXIDE  (Continued)
                                                                                           REF. OR
                                                                                           EQU1V.
                                                                                      FED.  REGISTER  NOTICE
                                                                                      VOL.  PAGE      PATE
 RFCA-1278-033  "Horlba Models AQM-10, AOM-11.     Horlba Instruments.  Inc.
                and AQM-12 Ambient CO Monitoring   1021 Duryea Avenue
                Systems," operated on the 0-50     Irvine Industrial  Complex
                ppm range, with a response time    Irvine, CA 92714
                setting of 15.5 seconds, with or
                without any of the following options:
                 a A1C-101 Automatic Indication    b VIT-3 Non-Isolated Current
                   Corrector                         Output
                                                                 Auto       Reference   43   58429    12/14/78
                                                                     c ISO-2 And DCS-3 isolated Current
                                                                       Output
 RFCA-0979-041  "Monitor Labs Model 8310 CO
                Analyzer," operated on the
                0-50 ppm range, with a sample
                Inlet filter, with or without
                any of the following options:
                 02A Zero/Span Valves
                 03A Floor Stand
                 04A Pump  (60 Hz)
                 04B Pump  (SO Hz)
                                   Monitor Labs                  Auto
                                   Division of Lear Slegler
                                     Measurement Controls Corp.
                                   74 Inverness Drive East
                                   Englewood. CO 80112
                                                                                           Reference  44   54545     9/20/79
                                                                                                      45    2700     1/14/80
                                   05A CO Regulator
                                   06A CO Cylinder
                                   07A Zero/Span Valve Power Supply
                                                                                    08A Calibration Valves
                                                                                    99A,B,C,D Input Power Transformer
 RFCA-1180-048   "Horlba Model APMA-300E Ambient    Horlba Instruments. Inc.      Auto       Reference  45   7Z774    11/03/80
                 Carbon Monoxide Monitoring         1021 Duryea Avenue
                 System."  operated on the 0-20 ppm; Irvine Industrial Complex
                 ppmt the  0-50 ppm,  or the 0-100    Irvine, CA 92714
                 ppm range with a time constant
                 switch setting of No. 5.  The
                 monitoring system may be operated
                 at  temperatures between 10* and 40"C.

                 *NOTE:  Users should be aware that designation of ranges less than SO ppm are based on meeting the same
                 absolute  performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm range.  Thus, designation of this lower range
                 does not  guarantee  commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-50 ppm range.

                 (Tills method was originally designated as "Horlba Model APMA 300E/300SE Ambient Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
                 System".)
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER	
IDENTIFICATION
                                   SOURCE

                                   CARBON MONOXIDE  (Continued)
                                                                                HAtlUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                                AUTO       EQUIV.
              Page 19


FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                   Commonwealth of Massachusetts  Auto
                                                   Department of Environmental
                                                    Quality Engineering
                                                   Tewksberry, MA 01876
                                                                            Reference  45   81650    12/11/80
RFCA-1280-050  "MASS-CO, Model 1 Carbon Mon-
               oxide Analyzer," operated on a
               range of 0-50 ppm, with automatic
               zero and span adjustments at time
               Intervals not to exceed 4 hours,
               with or without the 100 millivolt
               and 5 volt output options.  The
               method consists of the following components:
                (1) Infra-2 (Urss 2) Infrared Analyzer Model  5611-200-35. (2) Automatic Calibrator Model 5869-111,
                (3) Electric Gas Cooler Model 7865-222 or equivalent with prehum1d1f1er, (4) Diaphragm Pump Model 5861-214
                or equivalent, (5) Membrane Filter Model  5862-111 or equivalent, (6) Flow Meter Model SK 1171-U or
                equivalent, (7) Recorder Model M1n1 Comp  ON  1/192 or equivalent

               NOTE: This method Is not now commercially  available.
RFCA-0381-051   "Daslbl  Model  3003 Gas Filter
                Correlation CO Analyzer,"  oper-
                ated  on  the 0-50 ppm range,  with
                a  sample partlculate filter  In-
                stalled  on the sample Inlet  line,
                with  or  without *ny of the following
                options:
                                  Das1b1 Environmental Corp.
                                  515 West Colorado Street
                                  Glendale. CA 91204
                 3-001  Rack  Mount
                 3-002  Remote Zero And  Span
                                   3-003 BCD Digital  Output
                                   3-004 4-20 Mill lamp  Output
                                                                                Auto       Reference  46   20773
                                                                                    3-007 Zero/Span Module  Panel
               4/07/81
RFCA-0981-054   "Thermo  Electron Model  48 Gas
                Filter Correlation Ambient CO
                Analyzer,"  operated on  the 0-50
                ppm range,  with  a time  constant
                setting  of  30  seconds,  with or
                without  any of the following
                options:
                48-001  Partlculate Filter
                48-002  19  Inch  Rack Mountable
                        Configuration
                                   Thermo Environmental
                                     Instruments,  Inc.
                                   8  Mest Forge  Parkway
                                   Franklin, MA  02038
                                                                                Auto
                                                                                           Reference   46    47002
                9/23/81
                                   48-003 Remote  Activation Of
                                         Zero  And  Span
                                   48-010 Internal  Zero Air Package
                                                                                    48-488 GPIB  (General  Purpose Interface
                                                                                                  Bus)  IEEE-48S
                                             F-10

-------
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
RFCA-0388-066   "Monitor Labs Model 8830 CO
                Analyzer," operated on the 0-50
                ppm  range, with a five micron
                Teflon filter element Installed
                In the rear-panel filter
                assembly, with or without any
                of the following options:
                2 Zero/Span Valve Assembly
                3 Rack Assembly
                                                  SOURCE

                                                  CARBOH MONOXIDE (Continued)
                                  Monitor Labs
                                  Division of Lear Slegler
                                    Measurement Controls Corp.
                                  74 Inverness Drive East
                                  Englewood, CO 80112
                                  4 Slide Assembly
                                  7 230 VAC, 50/60 Hz
                                                                MANUAL OR
                                                                AUfO
                                                                Auto
                                                                           REP. OR
                                                                           EQU1V.
                                    Page 20


                     FED. REGISTER  NOTICE
                     VOL. PAGE      DATE
                                                                           Reference  53    7233
                                                                                                     3/07/88
RFCA-0488-067   "Daslbl Model  3008 Gas Filter
                Correlation CO Analyzer,"
                operated on the 0-50 ppm range,
                with a time constant setting of
                60  seconds, a  participate filter
                Installed  1n the  analyzer sample
                Inlet Hne, with  or without use
                of  the auto zero  or auto zero/span
                feature, and with or without any
                of  the following  options:
                Z-0176-S  Rack Mounting Brackets
                                  Daslbl Environmental Corp.
                                  515 West Colorado Street
                                  Glendale, CA 91204
                                                                Auto
                                                                           Reference   53    12073     4/12/88
                                  S-0132-A Rack Mounting Slides     N-0056-A RS-232-C Interface
                                                                                                                   Page 21
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                   SOURCE

                                   NITROGEN DIOXIDE
MANUAL OR   REF. OR
AUTO       EQUIV.
FED. REGISTER  NOTICE
VOL. PARE     DATE
RFNA-0677-021   "Monitor  Labs  Model  8440E
                Nitrogen  Oxides  Analyzer,"
                operated  on  a  0-0.5  ppm range
                (position 2  of range switch)
                with  a  time  constant setting of
                20  seconds,  with or  without any
                of  the  following options:
                 TF Sample Partlculate Filter
                   «1th  TFE Filter  Element
                 V  Zero/Span  Valves
                                   Monitor Labs
                                   Division of Lear Slegler
                                     Measurement  Controls Corp.
                                   74 Inverness Drive  East
                                   Englewood,  CO  80112
                                   DO Status Outputs
                                   R  Rack Mount
                                   FM Flowmeters
                                                                                Auto
                                                                                           Reference
                                                                                      42
                                                                                      42
                                                                                      46
                           37434
                           46575
                           29986
               7/21/77
               9/16/77
               6/04/81
                                                                     018A Ozone Dry Air
                                                                     018B Ozone Dry A1r - No OrleHte
RFNA-0777-022   Bendlx  or Combustion Engineering
                Model 8101-C Oxides of Nitrogen
                Analyzer, operated on a 0-0.5 ppm
                range with a Teflon sample filter
                (Bendlx P/N 007163} Installed on
                the  sample Inlet  line.
                                   Combustion Engineering,  Inc.
                                   Process Analytics
                                   P.O. Box 831
                                   Lewlsburg, HV 24901
                                                                                 Auto
                                                                                           Reference  42   37435
                                                                                                     7/21/77
RFNA-0977-025
                                   Columbia Scientific
                                     Industries
                                   11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                   Austin. TX 78759
"CSI Model 1600 Oxides of          Columbia Scientific           Auto       Reference   42   46574     9/16/77
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated
on a 0-0.5 ppm range with a
Teflon sample filter (CSI
P/N M951-8023) Installed on
the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following options:                fnlWBrtpr Assemblv
                                   951-0112 Remote Zero/Span Sample  951-8074 Copper Converter Assembly
                                            Control
                                   951-0114 Recorder Output, 5 V
                                   951-0115 External Pump
                                            (115 V, 60 Hz)
                 951-0103 Rack  Ears
                 951-0104 Rack  Mounting Kit
                          (Ears S  Slides)
                 951-0106 Current  Output,  4-20
                          mA (Non-Insulated)
                 951-0108  Diagnostic Output Option 951-8072 Molybdenum Converter
                 951-0111  Recorder Output,  10 V             Assembly (Horizontal)

                NOTE:  The  vertical molybdenum converter assembly H standard "/
                of  any of  the other converter assemblies 1s optional.  Also, the above
                                                                              (Horizontal)
                                                                     951-8079 Copper Converter Assembly
                                                                              (Vertical)
                                                                     951-8085 Molybdenum Converter Assembly
                                                                              (Vertical)
                                               F-ll

-------
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                                                MANUAL OR
                                                                AUTO
                                        REF. OR
                                        EQU1V.
              Page 22


FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PASE     DATE
                                                  NITROGEN DIOXIDE  (Continued)
EO.N-1277-026   'Sodium ArsenUe Method for
               the Determination of Nitrogen
               Dioxide 1n the Atmosphere'
                                   Atmospheric Research  and      Manual
                                     Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                   Department E (MD-77)
                                   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                     Agency
                                   Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
                                                                                            Equlv.
                                                                                                      42   62971
                                                                                                     12/14/77
EQN-1277-027    "Sodium Arsenlte Method for
                the Determination of Nitrogen
                Dioxide 1n the Atmosphere—
                Technlcon II Automated
                Analysis System"
                                   Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                     Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                   Department E (HD-77)
                                   U.S. Environmental  Protection
                                     Agency
                                   Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                                           Equlv.
                                                                                                      42   62971
                                                                                                     12/14/77
 EQN-1277-028
 •TGS-ANSA Method for the
 Determination of Nitrogen
 Dioxide In the Atmosphere"
Atmospheric Research and      Manual
  Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                                           Equlv.
                                                                                       42   62971    12/14/77
                                                                                                                    Page 23
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
 IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
                                                                 MANUAL OR
                                                                 AUTO
                                         REF. OR
                                         EQUIV.
 FED. REGISTER NOTICE
 VOL. PAGE     DATE
 RFNA-1078-031   "Meloy Model NA530R Nitrogen
                Oxides Analyzer," operated on
                the  following  ranges and time
                constant  switch positions:
                                   Columbia Scientific
                                     Industries
                                   11950 Jollyvllle Road
                                   Austin, TX 78759
                              Auto       Reference  43    50733     10/31/78
                                                    44     8327      2/09/79
                 Range,  pom  ' Time Constant Setting
                 0-0.1*
                 0-0.25*
                 0-0.5
                 0-1.0
                   4
                   3 or 4
                   2, 3, or 4
                   2. 3, or 4
                Operation  of the  analyzer  requires an external  vacuum pump,  either Neloy  Option N-10 or an equivalent pump
                capable  of maintaining a vacuum of 200  torr (22 Inches  mercury  vacuum)  or better at the pump connection at
                the  specified  sample  and ozone-air flowrates of 1200 and  200 cm3/min,  respectively.  The analyzer may be
                operated at temperatures between  10* and  40°C and  at line voltages between 105 and 130 volts, with or
                without  any of the  following  options:
                 N-1A Automatic  Zero  And  Span
                 N-2   Vacuum Gauge
                 N-4   Digital  Panel Meter
                 N-6   Remote Control  For  Zero
                      And Span
                 N-6B Remote Zero/Span  Control
                      And Status (Pulse)
                                   N-6C  Remote  Zero/Span Control
                                         And  Status  (Timer)
                                   N-9   Manual  Zero/Span
                                   N-10  Vacuum  Pump Assembly  (See
                                         Alternate Requirement  Above)
                                   N-ll  Auto Ranging
                                   N-14B Line Transmitter
                                   N-18  Rack Mount Conversion
                                   N-18A Rack Mount Conversion
                *NOTE:   Users  should  be  aware that  designation of ranges less than 0.5 pptn (500 ppb) are based  on  meeting the
                same absolute  performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm (500 ppb) range.   Thus,  designation of
                these lower ranges  does  not guarantee commensurably better performance than that obtained  on the 0-0.5 ppm
                (500 ppb)  range.
                                              F-12

-------
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   NITROGEN DIOXIDE fCont1nued)
                             MANUAL OR
                             AUTO
                                                                                           REF.  OR
                                                                                           EQUIV.
              Page 24


FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
RFNA-0179-034   "Beckman  Model  952-A
                HO/N02/NOX Analyzer,"  operated
                on  the 0-0.5 ppm range with  the
                5-m1cron  Teflon sample filter
                (Beckman  P/N 861072 supplied with
                the analyzer) Installed on the  sample
                Inlet Hne, with or without  the Remote
                Operation Option (Reckman Cat.  No. 635539).
                                   Beckman Instruments,  Inc.
                                   Process Instruments Division
                                   2500 Harbor Boulevard
                                   Fullerton, CA 92634
                              Auto
                                        Reference  44    7806    2/07/79
 RFNA-0179-035  'Thermo Electron Model 14 B/E
                Chemlluminescent NO/NOj/NO,,
                Analyzer," operated on the
                0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
                any of the following options:
                 14-001 Teflon Partlculate Filter
                 14-002 Voltage Divider Card
                 14-003 Long-T1me Signal
                        Integrator
                                   Thermo Environmental           Auto
                                      Instruments. Inc.
                                   8 West Forge Parkway
                                   Franklin. MA 02038

                                   14-004 Indicating Temperature
                                          Controller
                                   14-005 Sample Flowmeter
                                        Reference
                                                                                                      44
                                                                                                      44
                                                         7805
                                                        54545
              2/07/79
              9/20/79
                                  14-006 A1r Filter
 RFNA-0279-037  "Thermo Electron Model 14 D/E
                Chemlluminescent NO/NO?/NOX
                Analyzer," operated on the
                0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
                any of the following options:
                 14-001 Teflon Partlculate Filter
                                    Thermo Environmental
                                      Instruments. Inc.
                                    8 West Forge Parkway
                                    Franklin, HA 02038

                                    14-002 Voltage Divider Card
                                                                 Auto
                                         Reference  44   10429    2/20/79
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

NITROGEN DIOXIDE  (Continued)
                                                                                                                   "age 25


                                                                                                     FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                                                                     VOL. PAGE     DATE
                                                   Combustion Engineering, Inc.
                                                   Process Analytics
                                                   P.O.  Box 831
                                                   Lewlsburg, UV 24901
                                                                            Reference  44   26792
                                                                  5/07/79
RFNA-0479-038   "Bendlx Model  8101-B Oxides  of      Combustion Engineering, Inc.  Auto
               Nitrogen Analyzer," operated on
               a 0-0.5 ppm  range with a Teflon
               sample filter  Installed on the
               sample Inlet line and with the
               following post-manufacture modifications:
                1. Ozone generator and reaction chamber Input-output tubing modification per Bendlx Service Bulletin 8101B-2;
                2. The approved converter material;  3.  The revised and EPA-approved operation and service manual.
                These Items are mandatory and must be obtained  from Combustion Engineering, Inc.
               The analyzer may be operated with or  without any of the following optional modifications:
                a. Perma Pure dryer/ambient air modification;
                b. Valve cycle time modification;
                c. Zero potentiometer centering modification
                   per Bendlx Service Bulletin  8101B-1;
                d. Reaction chamber vacuum  gauge modification.
RFNA-0879-040   "Philips Model  PM9762/02           Philips Electronic
                NO/N02/NOX  Analyzer,"  consisting     Instruments,  Inc.
                of the  following components:        85 McKee Drive
                PW9762/02   Basic Analyzer         Mahwah, NJ 07430
                PH9729/00   Converter  Cartridge
                PH9731/00   Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter;
                operated on a  range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
                without any of the following accessories:
                PU9752/00  A1r Sampler Manifold    PM9732/00 Sample Line Heater
                                                                                 Auto
                                                                                            Reference  44   51683     9/04/79
                                                                     PW9011/00 Remote Control  Set
                                              F-13

-------
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued!
MANUAL OR
AUTO	
                                                                                            REF. OR
                                                                                            EQU1V.
                                                                                                     Page  26


                                                                                      FED. REGISTER  NOTICE
                                                                                      VOL. PAGE	
 RFNA-0280-042  'Monitor Labs Model 8840
                Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,*
                operated on a range of either
                0-0.5 or 0-1.0 pom, with an
                Internal time constant setting
                of 60 seconds, a TFE sample filter
                Installed on the sample Inlet line
                 02  Flowmeter
                 03A Rack Ears
                 03B Slides
                 OSA Zero/Span Valves
                 05B Valve/Relay
                 06  Status
                 07A Input Power Transformer
                     100 VAC. $0/60 Hz
                 078 Input Power Transformer
                     220/240 VAC, 50 Hz
                                  Monitor Labs
                                  Division of Lear Slegler
                                    Measurement Controls Corp.
                                  74  Inverness Drive East
                                  Englewood, CO 80112
Auto
                                                                                            Reference  45    9100
                                                                                                       46   29986
2/11/80
6/04/81
                                  , with  or without  any of the  following options:
                                   OSA  Pump  Pac Assembly With  09A
                                       (115  VAC)
                                   088  Pump  Pac Assembly With  098
                                       (100  VAC)
                                   08C  Pump  Pac Assembly With  09C
                                       (220/240 VAC)
                                   08D  Rack  Mount  Panel Assembly
                                   09A  Pump  115 VAC 50/60  Hz
                                   098  Pump  100 VAC 50/60  Hz
                                   09C  Pump  220/240 VAC 50 Hz
    011A Recorder Output 1 Volt
    0118 Recorder Output 100 mV
    011C Recorder Output 10 mV
    012A DAS Output 1 Volt
    0128 DAS Output 100 mV
    012C DAS Output 10 mV
    013A Ozone Dry Air
    013B Ozone Dry Air - No Drlerite
 RFNA-1289-074   'Thermo Environmental Instruments  Thermo Environmental          Auto       Reference  54   .50820    12/11/89
                 Inc. Model 42 NO/NOj/NO, Analyzer,'  Instruments, Inc.
                 operated on the 0-0.05 ppm? the    8 West Forge Parkway
                 0-0.1 ppmt the 0-0.2 ppm; the      Franklin, MA 02038
                 0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm range,
                 with any time average setting from 10 to 300 seconds.  The analyzer My be operated at temperatures between
                 15' and 35eC and at line voltages between 105 and 125 volts, with or without any of the following options:
                 42-002 Rack Mounts                42-004 Sample/Ozone Flowmeters    42-007 Ozone Partlculate Filter
                 42-003 Internal Zero/Span and     42-005 4-20 raA Current Output     42-008 RS-232 Interface
                        Sample Valves With Remote  42-006 Pressure Transducer        42-009 Permeation Dryer
                        Activation
                                                                                                                     Page 27
 DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
                IDENTIFICATION
                                                  SOURCE

                                                  LEAD
                                                                MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                                                                AUTO       EQUIV.
                      FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                      VOL. PASE     DATE
               Reference Method for the Deter-
               mination of Lead In Suspended
               Partlculate Matter Collected
               from Ambient Air
                                                  40 CFR  Part  50.
                                                  Appendix  G
                                                                Manual
                                                                           Reference  43   46258
                                    10/05/78
EQL-0380-043    "Determination of Lead Concen-
                tration In Ambient Partlculate
                Natter by Flame Atomic Absorpt-
                ion Spectrometry Following
                Ultrasonic Extraction with Heated
                HN03-HC1"
                                  Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                    Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                    Agency
                                  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
           Equiv.
                                                                                                       45   14648
3/06/80
EOL-0380-044   "Determination of Lead Concen-
               tration In Ambient Partlculate
               Matter by Flameless Atomic
               Absorption Spectrometry (EPA/
               RTP.N.C.)"
                                  Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                    Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                    Agency
                                  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
           Equiv.
                                                                                                       45   14648
3/06/80
EOL-0380-045   "Determination of Lead Concen-
               tration in Ambient Partlculate
               Matter by Inductively Coupled
               Argon Plasma Optical Emission
               Spectrometry (EPA/RTP.N.C.)"
                                  Atmospheric Research and      Manual
                                    Exposure Assessment Laboratory
                                  U.S.  Environmental Protection
                                    Agency
                                  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
           Equiv.
                                                                                                       45   14648
3/06/80
F.QL-0581-052   "Determination of Lead Concen-
               tration in Ambient Particulate
               Matter by Wavelength Dispersive
               X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry"
                                                  California Department  of
                                                    Health Services
                                                  A1r &  Industrial Hygiene
                                                    Laboratory
                                                  2151 Berkeley Way
                                                  Berkeley, CA 94704
                                                                                 Manual
                                                                           Equiv.
                      46   29986
                                                                                                      6/04/81
                                              F-14

-------
DESIGNATION
  NUMBER
MNT1F1CAT10N
                                                   SOURCE

                                                   LEAD  (Continued 1
                             MANUAL OR  REF. OR
                             AUTO	  EOUIV.
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE     DATE
EQL-0483-057    "Determination of Lead Concen-
                tration In Ambient Partlculate
                Matter by Inductively Coupled
                Argon Plasma Optical  Emission
                Spectrometry (State of Montana)"
                                   State of Montana
                                   Department of Health and
                                     Environmental Sciences
                                   Cogswell Building
                                   Helena, MT 59620
                             Manual     Equlv.     48   14748     4/05/83
EOL-0783-058   "Determination of Lead Concen-
                tration In Ambient Participate
                Matter by Energy-Dispersive
                X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
                (Texas Air Control Board)"
                                    Texas A1r Control Board
                                    6330 Highway 290 East
                                    Austin, TX  78723
                             Manual     Equlv.     48   29742     6/28/83
 EQL-0785-059   "Determination of Lead Concen-     Omaha-Douglas County
                tratlon 1n Ambient Participate       Health Department
                Matter by Flame!ess Atomic         1819 Farnam Street
                Absorption Spectrometry (Omaha-    Omaha, NE 68183
                Douglas County Health Department)"
                                                                 Manual     Equlv.     50   37909     9/18/85
 EQL-0888-068    "Determination of Lead Concen-
                 tration 1n Ambient Paniculate
                 Matter by Inductively Coupled
                 Argon Plasma Optical Emission
                 Spectrometry (State of Rhode
                 Island)"
                                    State of Rhode  Island
                                    Department of Health
                                    Air Pollution Laboratory
                                    50 Orms Street
                                    Providence, RI  02904
                              Manual     Equlv.     53   30866     8/16/88
 EQL-1188-069    "Determination  of  Lead  Concen-
                 tration  1n  Ambient Paniculate
                 Matter by Inductively Coupled
                 Argon  Plasma Optical  Emission
                 Spectrometry (Northern  Engineer-
                 Ing and  Testing,  Inc.)*
                                    Northern Engineering
                                      and Testing, Inc.
                                    P.O. Box 30615
                                    Billings, MT 59107
                              Manual      Equlv.     S3   44947    11/07/88
                                                                                                                    Page 29
DESIGNATION
   NUMBER
 IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE

LEAD (Continued)
                                                                            REF. OR
                                                                            EQU1V.
                                                   FED. REGISTER NOTICE
                                                   VOL. PAGE     DATE
 EOL-1288-070   "Determination of Lead Concen-
                tration In Ambient Partlculate
                Matter by Inductively Coupled
                Argon Plasma Optical Emission
                Spectrometry (Silver Valley
                Laboratories)"
                                    Silver Valley Laboratories,
                                      Inc.
                                    P.O. Box 929
                                    Kellogg, ID 83837
                                                                                 Manual
                                                                            Equlv.
                                                                                                       53    48974    12/05/88
 EQL-0589-072   "Determination of Lead Concen-
                tration 1n Ambient Partlculate
                Matter by Energy Dispersive
                X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
                (NEA, Inc.)"
                                    Nuclear Environmental         Manual
                                      Analysis, Inc.
                                    10950 SM 5th Street, Suite 260
                                    Beaverton, OR 97005
                                                                                            Equlv.
                                                                                                       54   20193     5/10/89
                                                F-15

-------
                                                 PARS  METHOD  CODES
  KCTHOO
                                 MIICMTIMI   Mil. KftHOO
                                   turn*       ID    cone
   i Mnutl  Milled.
 •f.  citkad (portroimfllM)        ••         (2    (01
T.chnlcen  I (p«r.ro..nllln.)   101-0775-001    (2    001
iKknlun  II (MrirotinltlM)  EOB-0775-002    (2    002
lurce 500
BtckMit 953
l.ndli (101
D..IOI 4108
U«r sl.il.r M2020
IMP tl.ll.r M1000
tutor 1*1(5-24
••toy tA205E
Ml or (4700
•anlior Itta 0450
•emitor ltd. (050
•onltor l«M 88501
Philip. HF9700
Philip. PW9755
Ikvrvo Et»ctr*n 43
              I 436.
  Ondtn 0002
  01  2000
  e.ilbi ioo>-M,-rc,-lt
  Outbl 100>-tl
  •cNlllin  1100-1
  •CHI 1 1 vi  1100-2
  (emiUn  1100-3
  Mloy  M325-n
  H.lOT  0*310-21
  konltor l«u 0410E
  konltor l«bi U10
  PCI Dim C.rp. lc-12
  Hll I Ip. PW9771
  >l»r» llxtrm 4V

CO «n.lv7»n
-12
  •mdli 0501-IU
  D.ilbl J003
  O.ilbl >OM
  lorlb. tOn-10. -11,
  •orlb. 300E/300SE
  MIS - CO  1 IHnuckiiMttl)
  Honttcr Kb. (310
  MnKar l«M 0010
  •14 202<
  nwno Ettciroi 48
                                IOH-OB77
                                tOU-0670'
                                U««-I07«
                                EOIA-10M
                                10»»-IJBO
                                18M-IZ75
                                IOIA-1Z75
                                te«-107«
                                IOSA-05BO
                                [OSA-OB76
                                IOJA-0779-
                                I01A-0390.
                                fOtA-0876-
                                I8JA-0676.
                                KIA-0276
                                EOIA-04U-
                    •024   12
                    •02*   12
                    030   12
                    061   12
                    04»   12
                    •005   12
                    •006   (2
                    032   02
                    046   12
                    Oil   12
                    039   12
                    075   12
                    Oil   12
                    010   02
                    009   (2
                    060   >2
           IFOA-0577-020
           •FOA-0176-007
           *FOA-027*-036
           EOM-0577-01*
           EOM-0301-056
           lfOA-1076-016
           MM-1076-015
           IFM-1076-016
           (FM-1075-001
           IFM-1075-004
           ifOA-1176-017
           EOdA-OMI-053
           tOO*-OK2-055
           IOOA-0777-023
           tMA-OaW-047
»fC»'
IFU-
«rcA-
IFCA-
IFCA-
IFCA-
IFU-
IFCJI-
IfCA-
IFU-
IFCA-
                                   0076-012
                                   0276-000
                                   0111-031
                                   0400-067
                                   1270-011
                                   1100-040
                                   1200-050
                                   0979-0*1
                                   0100-066
                                   0177-010
                                   0*01-054
               01
               01
               01
               01
               01
               0!
               03
               OS
               03
               03
               03
               03
               03
               03
               03
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
                     024
                     02*
                     030
                     061
                     04*
                     005
                     006
                     012
                     046
                     013
                     03*
                     075
                     Oil
                     010
                                                   020
                                                   007
                                                   036
                                                   01*
                                                   056
                                                   014
                                                   015
                                                   016
                                                   003
                                                   004
                                                   017
                                                   053
                                                   055
                                                   023
                                                   047
012
000
051
067
013
048
050
041
066
010
054
                                                                                   DESICWTIOI   HH.I.
                                                                                      pmiMi  -  -IB-  J2Ef_

                         todlui •ranlt«/T*ckntcon II
                         1U-MU
                                                                                                       Eon-1277-026
                                                                                                       ion-1277-027
                                                                                                       ton-1277-02*
                                                                      •%s
   tun 9524
OMidli 0101-0
l.ndli 8101-C
Ctl 1600
•.lor M530t
•ami tor lib. 0440E
•onlt.r l.b. 0(40
Philip, MIV762/02
Ih.rK Eloctron 140/E
TH.ruo ElMtron 140/E
fktrw fmlrwMMtlt IMI. 42
                                                                                                     MIU-MTV-Ott
                                                                                                     «F«»-OTT7-022
                                                                                                     »M-M77-«2S
                                                                                                     tr«A-ior»-oJi
                                                                                                     IHA-0477-021
                                                                                                     •MU-0210-042
                                                                                                     tfM-oary-MO
                                                                                                     im»-01T»-OJ5
                                                                                                     IFU-0279-037
                                                                                                     •fM-1289-07*
                                                                    Pb mmul  li.thod.
                                                                      •«(.  Bitkad  (hi-»(/«* >p*ct.>
                                                                      • l-¥Ol/AA lp*ct.  (alt. utr.)   EOI-03M-043
                                                                      ll-wl/Emrtr-dUp IIF (»  €«L-0783-05«
                                                                      •1-yol/in.rir-dl.p IIF CttA)    COl-0509-072
                                                                                 rl.»  U  (EFIti/EPA)  (01-0300-044
                                                                                           («IU/tra>
                         ll-vel/ICA» «p«ct.
                         Dl-val/IC/lr ipKt. (Ihodi U.)
                                       el. ct.v. l«tx)
                                        «lf -4nd«r>«to
                                                   15-«lcr*n
                                                   ••f*rmc* wtkod Iklfh-voliat)
                                                                                                 •2
                                                                                                 •2
                                                                                                 12
                                                                       •2
                                                                       12
                                                                       12
                                                                       •2
                                                                       •2
                                                                       •2
                                                                       112
                                                                       •2
                                                                       •2
                                                                       •2
                                                                       •2
                                                                                                     If M-12(7-061
                                                                                                     •FP«-12B7-064
                                                                                                     IFPI-1287-065
                                                                                                     IFM-0719-On
                                                                                                     IFrt-1007-062
                                                                                             026
                                                                                             027
                                                                                             021
                                                                       on
                                                                       0}>
                                                                       022
                                                                       025
                                                                       031
                                                                       021
                                                                       M2
                                                                       MO
                                                                       03S
                                                                       037
                                                                       074
                                                                             Ml
                                                                             043
                                                                             Hit
                                                                             072
                                                                             Ott
                                                                             OS*
                                                                             045
                                                                             057
                                                                                                                           070
                                                                                                                           OS2
                                                                       071
                                                                       OU
                                                                       OM
                                                                       0*5
                                                                       on
                                                                       062
                                                                       702
                                                                                                                           771
                                                                                                                           772
                                                                                                                           77J
                                                                                                                           774
                                                                                                       002
                                                                                                                  pxruod* 102/90)
                                                                 n
                                                                 M
                                                                 n
                                             F-16

-------
                           DEPT E  HD-77
                                  UNITED STATES
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          IISUICH TIUMIE NUM. NOITN CMOUM17711
                                  OFFICIAL BUSINESS
                               PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE WOO
 I
1—•
-~l

-------
       Appendix G
Agency Coordination

-------


                                                                      1990
DICK WHnTINGTON, P.E.
CHAIRMAN

BOB G. BAILEY
VICE CHAIRMAN

STEVEN N. SPA W.P.E.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
                  JOHN L. BLAIR
             MARCUS M. KEY, M.D.
     CALVIN B. PARNELL, JR, PhD., P£.
            WILLIAM H. QUORTRUP
                   CH. RIVERS
             WARREN H. ROBERTS
              MARY ANNE WYATT
DEC 0 71990
    November  12,  1990
    Mr. T. C. Adams
    State Single  Point of Contact
    Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
    P.O. Box 12428
    Austin, Texas 78711

    Subject:  Texas  Utilities Mining Company,  Monticello B-2
              Mine,  Application for Surface Mining Permit,
              Titus  County Docket No.  SM90-0034-LMPA-JK
              SAI/EIS#:  TX-R-90-05-14-0004-50-00

    Dear Mr. Adams:

    We have reviewed the above cited document.  It is the
    policy of the Texas  Air Control Board not  to require per-
    mits for surface mining and land reclamation activities.
    However, associated  stationary sources of  air contaminant
    emissions such as crushers,  classifiers, material handling
    facilities, and  power plants do require permits.   Informa-
    tion concerning  permit requirements can be obtained by
    contacting Mr. Lawrence E.  Pewitt,  P.E., Director of our
    Permits Program.   You may reach him at (512)  451-5711,
    extension 203.

    Additionally, short-term construction related impacts on
    air quality can  be minimized by employing  good housekeeping
    practices to provide effective control of  pollution produc-
    ing activities.   Timely applications of water sprays or
    water sprays with additives should be used within the
    project site to  minimize potential fugitive dust  emissions.
                                G-l

-------
Mr. T. C. Adams            -2-         November 12, 1990
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review this
document.  If further assistance is desired, please contact
us.

Sincerely,
Cy/ril/Durrenberger, P. E.
Director
Control Strategy Division

cc:  Mr. Richard Leard, Regional Director, Tyler
                            G-2

-------
/ ** \
\SSI   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
     C
                                      .ME 1200
                             D-MI ••• i: 
-------
of the lignite which  is mined  from  the  TUMCO mine is provided as
fuel to the MSEGP, then the mine  would  be a support facility for
the MSEGP, and the mine should be grouped  with  and assigned the
same Standard Industrial  Classification  (SIC) code  as  the MSEGP
(i.e. 4911).   If the mine's primary activity is to support the
MSEGP, and if  both the mine and  the MSEGP are  on  contiguous or
adjacent properties and are under the control of the same person
(or persons  under common control),  then  the mine  and  the MSEGP
comprise a single stationary source whose primary  activity, for the
purposes of  PSD, is that of  a fossil-fuel  fired steam electric
plant.  Also  see  the discussion in the Federal Register. Volume 45,
page  52695  (45  FR 52695) (August  7,  1980) and 54 FR 48881-48882
(November 28, 1989).

Conversely, if the public record  demonstrates (1) that less than
50 percent of the mined lignite is provided as fuel to the MSEGP,
(2) that the mine and the MSEGP are not on contiguous or adjacent
properties or  (3)  that  the  mine and the  MSEGP are  not under the
control of the same person (or  persons under common control), then
the mine and  the  MSEGP would be separate  stationary sources for the
purposes of PSD.

Consistent with  the above discussion,  we request  that  the TACB
reconsider its October 23, 1990, determination, and ensure that its
determination is based upon adequate consideration of information
in the public record which addresses  the above mentioned concerns.

This  concludes  our evaluation of the  proposed project.   If our
concerns are adequately  addressed  in the public record, we will not
object to TACB's  determination of applicability or nonapplicability
of PSD to this project.   If you have  any questions, please call me
or Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell of my staff at (214) 655-2181.
Sincerely
Merrit H. Nicewander
Chief
New Source Review Section (6T-AN)

Enclosure

cc:  Mr Legett Garrett        w/ Enclosure
     Environmental Services Manager
     Texas Utilities Mining Company
                                G-4

-------
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
              FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                          P. O. BOX 17300
                   FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76102-03OO
     REPLY TO
     ATTENTION OF:
                           January  28,  1991

Operations Division
Office Operations Branch                          I    P
                                                  ^     I .


SUBJECT: Monticello  B-2                              JAN 2 9 1991


Mr. Norm Thomas                                    •       v -'-"""
Chief Federal Activities  Branch
U.S. EPA Region  VI
1445 Ross  Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Mr. Thomas:

    We have recently received a request  from  Texas  Utilities
Mining Company  (TUMCO)  to perform  work in the Monticello  B-2 area
under Nationwide Permit 26.  A copy of  their  request  is  enclosed.

    Our preliminary  review indicates that authorization  pursuant
to Section 404  of the Clean Water  Act under  the Nationwide  permit
may be appropriate.   However,  we are concerned that our  action
may be in  conflict with your ongoing NEPA review  of the
Monticello B-2  project.  The limitation  of other  Federal  Agency
authorisations  during the NEPA process are addressed  in  40  CFR
1506.1 of  the NEPA Regulations.

    Please furnish your agency views of  authorizing the  work,
as proposed by  TUMCO,  under a Nationwide permit.  If you  have
any questions concerning  this matter,  please  contact
Mr. Steve  Swihart at the  address above or telephone.
(817) 334-4623.

                               Sincerely,
                               Wayne K.  Lea
                               Chief, Permits Section
Enclosure
                               G-5

-------
        UNITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                    REGION 6
                              1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200
                               DALLAS. TEXAS 75202-2733
                               FEB 1 4 t99f'

 Mr.  Wayne  A.  Lea
 Chief,  Permits Section
 Fort Worth District
 U.S.  Army  Corps of Engineers
 P.O.  Box 17300
 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

 Dear Mr. Lea:

 The  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, has reviewed the proposal,
 dated January 28, 1991, to authorize early work by Texas Utilities Mining Company
 (TUMCO) in the Monticello B-2  area under Nationwide Permit 26.

 We have no objection to this  proposal, provided that  all impacts are  fully
 compensated for as part of the  first five-year mining sequence.  We  understand
 that the applicant has agreed to this.  In general,  we believe that authorizing
 part of a  larger project with a nationwide permit would be segmentation, a prac-
 tice that  we  discourage.  However, in  this  case,  because of the  agreement to
 compensate for the impacts and  because the work is part of the project considered
 in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project, we believe that this
 action  does not constitute segmentation.

 However, we continue to believe that the project as a whole should be processed
 as an individual Section 404  permit.   Since the State Program General  Permit
 (SWF-TEXAS-SPGP-1) expired  in  December,   1990,  we  consider   it  invalid.
 Furthermore, we would oppose reissuing of this general permit because we believe
 that the mining operations are usually  of such scale that an individual  permit
 is more  appropriate.  Furthermore, we  do not believe that the number of proposed
 mines is so great that they cannot be handled by the individual  permit process.

 Thank you  for the  opportunity  to comment on this  proposal.   If you  have any
 questions  regarding these comments, please  contact  Norm Sears of my  staff at
 (FTS) 255-2263 or (214)  655-2263.

 Sincerely  yours,
Norm Thomas
Chief
Federal Activities Branch  (6E-F)

cc:  Larry McKinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife  Dept.,  Austin,  Tx.
     Robert Short, U.S. Fish & Wildlife  Service,  Arlington, Tx.
                                          G-6

-------
      RECEIVED     TEXAS UTILITIES MINING COMPANY
FEDERAL ACTIVITK^BWRjreif E» • «°° NORTH OLIVE STREET, !..». S3 . DALI.AB, TEXAS 75201
  9 1 HAY 13 PK3-.52
                            May 7,  1991
       6  E-F
Mr. Norm Thomas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region  6
1445 Ross  Avenue,  Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas  75202

     Re:   Texas Utilities Mining Company - Monticello B-2  Surface
           Lignite  Mine  (Permit  No.  34):  Application for NPDES
           Permit No. TX0068357 (Application)

Dear Mr. Thomas:

     With  reference  to  the  above-noted  Application  by Texas
Utilities  Mining  Company,  enclosed  please  find  a  Programmatic
Agreement  Among The  United States Environmental Protection  Agency.
Region  6.  The Advisory  Council on Historic Preservation,  and The
Historic Preservation Officer of Texas ("Programmatic Agreement")
that  I  have  signed  for and on  behalf of  Texas Utilities Mining
Company.   By executing the enclosed Programmatic Agreement, Texas
Utilities  Mining Company acknowledges the responsibilities of the
U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  under  Section  106  of the
National Historic  Preservation Act with respect to the above-noted
Application  and, further, represents  its  commitment  to  cooperate
fully  in  implementation of the  Programmatic Agreement with the
principal  parties.

     Please   accept   the  enclosed  Programmatic  Agreement  as   a
supplement to and  a part  of the  Application.   We  look forward  to
publication  of notice of the final Environmental Impact statement
in the  Federal Register within the next couple of  weeks.

     Thank you for your assistance with this  matter.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    TEXAS UTILITIES MINING  COMPANY
                                    By:
                                         A.G. Schwarzer
                                    Its: Vice President
AGS/kp
Enclosure
                    A SUBSIDIARY OF TEXAS VTllITIXS COMPAJWT

                              G-7

-------
«>

         UNITED  STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY

                                 REGION 6

                           1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200

                            DALLAS. TEXAS 75202-2733
MAY i 5 1991
  Ms. Claudia Nissley, Director
  Western Office of Project Review
  Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
  730 Simms Street, #401
  Golden, Colorado  80401

  Subject:  Programmatic Agreement
            Monticello B-2 Lignite Mine Project
            Titus County, Texas
                                                  ,  V

  Dear Ms. Nissley:

  Enclosed is the subject Agreement which has been signed by the U.S.
  Environmental Protection  Agency, the Texas, Historical Commission
  and concurred on by Texas Utilities Mining Company.  This Agreement
  is provided to the Council  for signature and ratification.

  Your assistance  in this consultation process  is  appreciated.  If
  there  are  any questions,  please contact me or Joe  Swick at 214-
  655-2260 or FTS 255-2260.

  Sincerely yours,
  Norm Thomas
  Chief
  Federal Activities Branch  (6E-F)

  Enclosure
                                  G-8

-------
                     i r I .  1 •
                     1 fcp" ^~    — ~~ •  _" . . r.  .   ~       ' ' *••• '-I 'v i i _> j_  i i_,i • ii ^ J'ii
                                                        1 I m JUS ft IUU.'« '|
      TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOAR"n
       X  '-'-•* P*R* M CIRCLK. Al'STIN. TEXAS 7X75V 513/WjUnm  j ^/
nit .kttiurrisi.iov PK
\»OOM/K\»IV
                                                        v M K

                                                   v\AKKt\M.i
-------
                                              nu.1-
Mr. Merrit H. Kicewander      -2-
or more contiguous or adjacent properties....*  The word "adja-
cent" is not defined in the regulations, but interpretive state-
ments made by the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) in the
preamble to the 1980 PSD regulations provide some guidance.  EPA
said the proximity question would be decided on a case-by-case
basis, and that it was not intended that "source" encompass
activities that would be many miles apart along a long line
operation.  45 FR 52695 (August 7, 1980).  EPA specifically
addressed the question of a surface coal mine and an electrical
generator separated by 20 miles and linked by a railroad; it
concluded that the mine and the generator were not the same
11 source."  The recent discussion of this issue by EPA at 54 FR
48881-48882 (November 28, 1989) does not alter this guidance.
EPA said a surface coal vine (SCM) and an adjacent mine-mouth,
power plant would be considered a single source.  EPA left
standing the result with a 20 mile distance between SCM and power
plant, and did not say what the result would be with distances
less than 20 miles between the SCM and the power plant.

Applying that guidance to the facts of this situation, the TACB
concludes the SCM and the MSEGP are not "contiguous or adjacent14
by virtue of the 7 to 12 mile distance between the power plant
and the mining activity.  If you have further questions about
this, please call me*

Sincerely,
         E. Pewitt, P.E., Director
         ivision
                                 G-10

-------