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
------- |