United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-81-085
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street NE October 1981
Agency Atlanta, Ga. 30365
4>EPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Farmland Industries Inc.
Phosphate Mine
Hardee County, Florida
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/
REGION IV
349 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O3CS
October 15, 1981
REF: 4SA-EIS
TO: ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND
CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Farmland
Industries, Inc. Phosphate Mine is enclosed for your review.
This document has been prepared pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public Law
91-190) and applicable EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 6.9. The
Final EIS may be reviewed at the following locations:
Lakeland Public Library, Lakeland, Florida
Bartow Public Library, Bartow, Florida
Ausley Memorial Library, Wauchula, Florida
DeSoto County Public Library, Arcadia, Florida
Selby Public Library, Sarasota, Florida
Manatee County Library System, Bradenton, Florida
Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library,
Tampa, Florida
EPA has not reprinted in the Final EIS the material contained
in the Draft EIS, which was made available to the public in May
1981. Both documents should be retained for a complete
evaluation of the project.
Comments on the Final EIS may be submitted in writing to:
Ms. A. Jean Tolraan, EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
The comment period will end November 23, 1981.
Sincerely yours.
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator
Enclosure: FEIS
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
to
Farmland Industries, Incorporated
Phosphate Mine
Hardee County, Florida
prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia 30365
cooperating agency:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Farmland Industries, Inc. has proposed an open pit phosphate
mine and beneficiation plant on a 7810-acre site in west
central Hardee County, Florida. Mining and processing will
involve 5280 acres, all of which will be reclaimed, and will
produce 2 million tons of phosphate rock per year for 20
years. The EIS examines alternatives, impacts and mitigative
measures related to air, geology, radiation, groundwater,
surface water, ecology and other natural and cultural systems.
Comments will be received through November 23, 1981.
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
A. Jean Tolman, EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881-7458
approved by:
Charles R. Jeter Date
Regional Administrator
-------
Summary Sheet
for
Environmental Impact Statement
Farmland Industries, Inc.
Phosphate Mine
( ) Draft
(X) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1. Type of Action! Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action:
Farmland Industries, Inc. (Farmland) is proposing to construct and
operate a phosphate mine and beneficiation plant in Hardee County,
Florida (Figure 1). The EPA Region IV Administrator has declared the
proposed facilities to be a new source as defined in Section 306 of the
Federal Clean Water Act.
In compliance with its responsibility under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, EPA Region IV has determined that the
issuance of a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to Farmland for planned discharges from the proposed
mining and beneficiation facility would constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
-1-
-------
!
-
;
PROPERTY
SOTO
FIGURE 1. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. SITE LOCATION MAP.
SOURCE: FARMLAND INDUSTRIES. INC., HARDEE COUNTY MASTER PLAN, JUNE 1979
0 10 20
SCALE IN MILES
-------
Therefore this Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in
accordance with the requirements of NEPA and EPA regulations at 40 CFR
Part 6.
Farmland's proposed mine operation is planned to produce 2 million
tons per year of wet phosphoric rock over the 20-year life of the mine.
Approximately 4951 acres of the 7800-acre site would be mined, with an
additional 329 to be occupied by other facilities such as the bene-
ficiation plant (Figure 2). During the life of the mine, all of the
rock mined from the tract would be shipped to existing fertilizer plants
for conversion to finished fertilizer, with approximately 50 percent of
the tonnage going to Farmland's existing phosphate fertilizer manufac-
turing facility at Green Bay, Florida. Farmland currently and histor-
ically has bought the phosphate rock processed at their Green Bay plant
from other producers. Farmland states that the proposed mine is needed
to stabilize their phosphate rock supply.
The initial phase of the proposed activity would be land clearing
and open burning in advance of the mine. The cleared acreage in front
of the mining operation would be about 20 acres. The mining operation
would employ a single large dragline supplemented, beginning in year 10,
by a second, smaller dragline. The mined matrix would be slurried and
transported via pipeline to the beneficiation plant for washing to
separate pebble product, clay, and fines, and for flotation to recover
additional product. The wet rock would be stored temporarily at the
plant. Farmland plans to construct an 8000-foot long railroad spur,
linking the plant with the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, and rail ship
the wet rock product to receiving phosphate fertilizer plants.
The proposed waste sand and clay disposal plan would employ the
sand-clay mix technique. Limited conventional disposal would be re-
quired to store these wastes until the sand-clay mix procedure becomes
operational and to periodically store waste generated in excess of the
sand-clay mix requirements and capabilities. Conventional Settling Area
I (495 acres) would be constructed on unmined land and utilized during
-3-
-------
FIGURE 2. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. DRAGLINE MINING
SEQUENCE FOR 20-YEAR MINING PLAN.
_._._ PROPERTY IOUNDARY
CyE-2 OUT 'ARCEL (NOT FARMLAND PROPERTY)
BSZH UNMINEAM.E AREA - ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY
II"' j UNMINEAILE AREA - MINE PLANNING
IT YEAR MINED - DRAGLINE I
:«;• YEAR MINED - DRAGLINE 1
SOURCE: FARMLAND INDUSTRIES. INC., HARDEE COUNTY MASTER PLAN, JUNE 1979
-4-
-------
the first 5 years of mining, after which time the stored clays would be
removed (and used for sand-clay mix) and the ground beneath would be
mined. Settling Area II (583 acres) would be used as early as year 2 of
operation and remain active for the life of the mine. Sand-clay mixing
could begin in the fourth year of mine operation and continue for the
mine life, ultimately creating 3915 acres of sand-clay mix areas, or 79
percent of the total mined area.
The proposed mining operation would require water for matrix
transport and processing equivalent to a flow rate of 50,000 gpm (72
mgd). The proposed water management plan incorporates extensive re-
cycling of process water to minimize water consumption. The mine water
recirculation system, the clay settling areas, active sand-clay mix
areas, and return water ditches would act as a water clarification
system, returning decanted water to the clear water pond for reuse at
the mine and beneficiation plant. Recycle water would be reused many
times before being lost to the waste or phosphate products as entrained
water. Actual freshwater use would be about 8.83 mgd, most (6.02 mgd)
of which is required for the amine flotation section of the benefici-
ation plant. The additional amount would be required for make-up to
replace water losses within the recirculating system.
The proposed reclamation plan is based on the use of a waste sand-
i
clay mix material as backfill over most of the mined area (3915 of the
5169 acres mined). The proposed plan is designed to return the site to
a land form and use compatible with the surrounding area, which is
primarily agricultural. The reclaimed site (Figure 3) would consist
primarily of improved pasture, restored marshes, lakes, and areas
(totalling 2530 acres) to be preserved by Farmland (e.g., Oak Creek
Islands). Following reclamation, the acreage of forested uplands,
freshwater marsh, improved pasture, and lakes would increase, while the
acreages of freshwater swamp, pine flatwoods-palmetto range, and citrus
would decrease.
-5-
-------
FIGURE 3. POST RECLAMATION LAND USE ON THE
FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. MINE SITE.
FRESHWATER SWAMP
FRESHWATER MARSH
PINE FLATWOODS/PALMETTO RANGE
UPLAND FOREST
IMPROVED PASTURE
CITRUS
m OTHER AGRICULTURE
E5~=g REFORESTATION WITH MIXTURE
OF PINES AND HARDWOODS
Mi LAKE AREAS
0 2,000 4,000
Z3
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC.. HARDEE COUNTY MASTER PLAN, JUNE 1979
-6-
-------
3. Alternatives Considered:
Farmland has developed an integrated plan for the mining and
processing of phosphate rock at their Hardee County mine. This plan is
comprised of a number of individual components linked so as to provide a
total project capable of meeting Farmland's goals. The identifiable
components included in the Farmland project are as follows:
• Mining
• Matrix Transport
• Matrix Processing
• Waste Sand and Clay Disposal
• Process Water Source
• Water Management Plan
• Reclamation
The Draft EIS identified and evaluated various methods (i.e.,
alternatives) available to satisfy the objectives of each of these
components. These are summarized below, and each alternative, including
"no action", is briefly described in the succeeding paragraphs:
Component
Mining
Matrix Transport
Matrix Processing
Waste Sand and
Clay Disposal
Objective
Remove overburden and
deliver matrix to a
transport system.
Transport matrix from the
mine to the beneficiation
plant.
Process the matrix to
separate the phosphate
rock product from the
waste sand and clay.
Dispose of the waste sand
and clay generated by
matrix processing.
Alternatives Considered
Dragline Mining*, Dredge
Mining, and Bucketwheel
Mining.
Slurry Matrix Transport*,
Conveyor Transport, and
Truck Transport.
Conventional Matrix Pro-
cessing* and Dry Matrix
Processing.
Sand-Clay Mixing* and
Conventional Sand and
Clay Disposal.
*Farmland's proposed action.
—7—
-------
Component
Process Water
Sources
Water Management
Reclamation
Objective
Provide a continuous
source of freshwater
(about 8.83 mgd) for use
in matrix processing and
as make-up for losses to
the recirculating system.
Provide a means to reduce
the amount of water in
the recirculating system.
Return the mined site to
useful productivity.
Alternatives Considered
Groundwater Withdrawal*
and Surface Water
Impoundment.
Discharge to Surface
Waters* and Use of
Connector Wells.
Farmland's Reclamation
Plan, Conventional Recla-
mation, and Natural Mine
Cut Reclamation.
Mining
Mining of the Farmland deposit would require the removal of about
40 feat (total) of overburden and phosphate matrix at a rate of about
250 acres per year, eventually resulting in the mining of 4951 acres of
the 7810-acre site over a planned 20-year mine life. Over this period
39 million short tons of phosphate rock and 174 million tons of over-
burden would be handled. The alternative mining methods evaluated which
are capable of handling this quantity of material were dragline mining,
dredge mining, and bucketwheel mining.
Dragline Mining. Farmland proposes to use a single large (45-cu yd)
dragline to move overburden and mine matrix during the first 9 years of
operation. In year 10 a second smaller (20-cu yd) dragline would be
added to supplement the larger unit. Other than the fact that Farmland
proposes to initially mine with only a single large dragline (rather
than two smaller units), the proposed mining method is as conventionally
practiced in the Florida phosphate industry.
Dredge Mining. The three most common dredge types are the bucket line,
cutter head, and bucketwheel. Each is basically a large, barge-mounted
machine consisting of a continuous digging apparatus mounted on a long
boom extending below the water surface. The bucket line's chain-carried
*Farmland's proposed action.
—8—
-------
buckets continuously transfer material up to the barge, while the other
two units pump material from beneath the water to the surface via a
suction pipe.
Bucketwheel Mining. Bucketwheel excavators are large continuous mining
machines which excavate material with a series of buckets mounted on the
periphery of a rotating wheel and deposit it onto a conveyor belt
system. Overburden would be conveyed for disposal in previously mined
areas, while matrix would be sent to the beneficiation plant.
Matr ix Transport
Farmland's operating requirements call for the delivery of about
1500 short tons of phosphate matrix per hour to the beneficiation plant.
The alternative delivery methods evaluated in the DEIS were slurry
matrix transport, conveyor matrix transport, and truck matrix transport.
Slurry Matrix Transport. Slurry matrix transport is used at most
existing Florida phosphate mines. Matrix would be placed into a slurry
pit and mixed with recycled water (17,720 gpm) from high pressure
nozzles, breaking down the clay and sand matrix into a 26 percent solids
slurry which would then be transported via pipeline to the beneficiation
plant by a series of large pumps operating at about 19,400 gpm.
Conveyor Matrix Transport. Conveyor matrix transport would require that
matrix be placed onto a belt conveyor at the mine for transport to the
beneficiation plant. In order to minimize the number of transfer points
and still maintain mobility of the conveyor sections, such a conveyor
belt system would most likely include belt sections of up to 2000 feet
in length.
Truck Matrix Transport. A dragline would load the trucks, which would
then transport the matrix via haul roads to the beneficiation plant. At
the plant matrix would be dumped and/or washed out of the trucks.
-9-
-------
Matrix Processing
Matrix from the Farmland site contains waste sand and clay as well
as phosphate rock. The waste sand and clay must be separated from the
product phosphate rock before it can be shipped to the chemical plants
for further processing. For each ton of product, 1.08 tons (dry) of
clay and 2.82 tons (dry) of sand would be produced. The alternative
processing methods evaluated in the DEIS were conventional matrix
processing and dry matrix processing.
Conventional Matrix Processing. Conventional matrix processing involves
the separation of phosphate rock from waste sand and clay using a series
of wet-process operations. These consist of washing, feed preparation,
and flotation. This is the only method of matrix processing in oper-
ation in the Florida phosphate industry today.
Dry Matrix Processing. The general concept of dry processing involves
the production of usable phosphate product from matrix—directly fol-
lowing its excavation and drying. The method utilized would probably
involve both air separation and electrostatic separation.
Waste Sand and Clay Disposal
As indicated above, 2.82 tons (dry) of waste sand and 2.08 tons
(dry) of waste clay would be generated for each ton of phosphate rock
product produced. With some 40 million tons of product to be produced
over the 20-year life of the mine, 156 million tons of waste sand and
clay would be generated (112.8 million tons of sand and 43.2 million
tons of clay). Alternative methods of waste sand and clay disposal
evaluated in the DEIS were sand-clay mixing and conventional sand and
clay disposal.
Sand-Clay Mixing. Sand-clay mixing involves the recombining of the
waste sand and clay removed from the phosphate matrix in areas sur-
rounded by dikes 17-20 feet high. Although Farmland proposes to use the
dredge-mix method for creating such a mixture, the technique for applying
this method at the Farmland site has not yet been proposed by Farmland.
-10-
-------
The supply of sand and clay in the matrix should be sufficient to allow
development of such a technique. Farmland has committed to do this once
operation begins.
Conventional Sand and Clay Disposal. Conventional methods for disposing
of the waste sand and clay removed from the phosphate matrix during
processing involve their impoundment in separate areas surrounded by
dikes as high as 41 feet above-grade. More than half of the area to be
mined would be covered with waste clays impounded to a height of 35 feet
above-grade and surrounded by such dikes.
Process Water Sources
Process water requirements for the proposed mining and benefi-
ciation of phosphate (using slurry matrix transport and conventional
matrix processing) amount to a flow rate of about 50,000 gpm (72 mgd).
Much (88 percent) of this would be recycled water. Actual freshwater
requirements will be about 8.83 mgd with most (6.02 mgd) required for
use in the amine flotation section of the beneficiation plant. The
alternative freshwater sources to meet this requirement which were
evaluated in the DEIS were groundwater withdrawal and surface water
impoundment.
Groundwater Withdrawal. The major source of freshwater used at the mine
would be from onsite deep (1400-foot) wells. The mine field would
likely consist of a primary production well, standby production well,
and a potable water well. The production well would have a capacity of
6200 gpm, with the average daily pumping rate being about 6l33 gpm.
Surface Water Impoundment. The most readily available freshwater source
which could be utilized by Farmland would be surface water from nearby
creeks and rivers. Since the creeks on the site typically exhibit low
flows, or even intermittent flows, the quantity available for use as
process water could be best provided by impoundment within a reservoir
system constructed on the site.
-11-
-------
Water Management Plan
During normal operations, water losses through entrainment, seepage,
evaporation, and wet rock shipment would equal the freshwater input to
the recirculating water system and a discharge would not be required.
During periods of heavy rainfall the recirculating system might become
overloaded, however, and a means of reducing the water volume would thus
be required. The alternative methods for removing water from the
recirculating system which were evaluated in the DEIS were a discharge
to surface waters and use of connector wells.
Discharge to Surface Waters. Seasonal changes in rainfall and evap-
oration rates will affect the active water volume of the recirculating
water system. When heavy rainfall occurs, the system may become over-
loaded, forcing a discharge to an existing natural drainage (either
Hickory Creek or Oak Creek) through a control structure.
Use of Connector Wells. Connector wells would serve to reduce the
amount of water in the recirculating system by dewatering the Surficial
Aquifer (a source of water inflow to the system) in the vicinity of the
active mine pit. This water would be pumped downward through wells into
a deeper aquifer and serve as a source of recharge to that aquifer.
Reclamation Plan
The mining of phosphate and disposal of wastes generated during
beneficiation would greatly alter the land surface of most of the Farm-
land site. Future use of the site would be largely dependent upon the
manner in which the mined land surface is reformed (i.e., reclaimed).
The alternative methods of reclaiming the mined site which were eval-
uated in the DEIS were Farmland's proposed reclamation plan, conven-
tional reclamation and natural mine cut reclamation.
-12-
-------
Farmland's Proposed Reclamation Plan. Farmland's proposed reclamation
plan consists of five general types of restoration. These are generally
described as follows:
Sand-Clay Mix Landfills - 3915 acres
Crust Development on Clay Settling Areas - 583 acres
Sand Tailings Landfills - 104 acres
Land and Lakes Areas - 567 acres
Disturbed Natural Ground - 111 acres
Reclamation would proceed over the life of the mine, with the final
areas mined being reclaimed in the 24th year after operation begins.
Conventional Reclamation. Conventional reclamation is reclamation
associated with the separate disposal of sand and clay waste (i.e.,
conventional sand and clay waste disposal). Reclamation would consist
of allowing a crust to form over the more than 2500 acres of impounded
clays and seeding these areas with forage species, and creating ex-
tensive land and lakes areas in those areas of the site not covered with
impounded clays. The revegetation of these areas would likely consist
of forage species plantings on most land areas, with forest tree plant-
ings along the edges of the lakes.
Natural Mine Cut Reclamation. Natural mine cut reclamation would amount
to leaving mined-out areas in windrows, with sand-clay mix deposited
between windrows. Mined areas would be allowed to revegetate naturally,
as has been the case in many of the older central Florida mines. The
resultant use of the mined-out land would be largely for fish and
wildlife habitat, with some pastureland.
The No Action Alternative
The no action alternative by EPA would be the denial of an NPDES
permit for the proposed project. The effect of permit denial would be
to precipitate one of three possible reactions on the part of Farmland:
(1) termination of their proposed project; (2) indefinite postponement
-13-
-------
of the proposed project; or (3) restructuring of the project to achieve
zero discharge, for which no NPDES permit would be required.
Termination of the planned project would allow the existing en-
vironment to remain undisturbed and the gradual socioeconomic and
environmental trends would continue as at present.
If EPA were to deny Farmland's NPDES permit application, the
project might be postponed for an indefinite period of time and then
successfully pursued by either Farmland or another mining company. This
might be expected to occur when high grade phosphate reserves are
depleted and the resource retained on the Farmland site becomes ex-
tremely valuable strategically as well as economically.
If EPA denies the NPDES permit, Farmland could still execute a
mining project provided the project could be performed with zero dis-
charge to surface waters. Under zero discharge conditions, neither an
NPDES permit nor an Environmental Impact Statement would be required.
4. Mitigation Measures;
Farmland's proposed action includes a number of measures to reduce
the potential for adverse impacts on the environment. These are des-
cribed below by the components with which they are most closely associated:
Mining
• The existing vegetative cover would be maintained on all land for
which mining or support activities are not imminent.
• The vegetative cover on about one-third of the mine site would be
preserved—including the most important wetland acreages.
• Dragline crossings of stream channels would be selected to disturb
the least total area, particularly the least wetland area; and
crossings of Oak Creek and Hickory Creek would be timed to coincide
with the dry, no-flow periods.
• The Oak Creek crossings through the preserved portion of Oak Creek
Islands would be made along a single corridor.
-14-
-------
• Vegetation would be established on the approaches to creek crossings
and these would be maintained until the final crossing is made.
• Fill introduced into creek channels during dragline crossings would
be removed after the crossings and the banks immediately stabilized
with vegetation.
• Mine cuts adjacent to property boundaries would be promptly back-
filled, and rim ditches would be used, where necessary, to maintain
Surficial Aquifer levels at adjacent property boundaries and in
preserved areas.
Matrix Transport
• Double-walled pipe and catchment basins would be used at matrix
pipeline stream crossings to contain matrix slurry in the event of
a leak at that point.
• Pressure sensitive devices would be installed in matrix pipelines
to alert mine personnel to a significant leak in the system.
• Cut-off valves would be installed at both sides of pipeline stream
crossings to assist in controlling a pipeline leak at these points.
Matrix Processing
• During plant construction, water sprays would be applied to unpaved
areas and roads to reduce particulate emissions.
• During plant construction and operation, perimeter ditches would be
installed to collect runoff from the plant site area.
• Storage facilities for reagents, fuel, lubricants, etc. would be
above ground within a walled or diked tank farm.
• Petroleum storage tanks would be built to standards and designed to
prevent accidental spillage. Storage areas would be designed to
route spillage and/or accumulated rainfall to the mine water
recirculating system or to a tank within the area.
Waste Sand and Clay Disposal
• The design and construction of dams required for the impoundment of
clay and sand-clay wastes would comply with all provisions of
Chapter 17-9 of the Florida Administrative Code.
• Dam faces would be planted in grasses to inhibit wind and water
erosion, and would be mowed as necessary for visual inspection.
• All dams would be inspected daily by a trained Farmland employee,
and annually by a design engineer.
-15-
-------
Process Water Source
• Pumping may be reduced in dry periods in order to comply with
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regulations.
Water Management Plan
• Water would be recycled to the maximum extent possible (approxi-
mately 90 percent).
• Discharges should occur only during periods of heavy, rainfall.
Reclamation
• All dikes and ditches would be graded to acceptable slopes and
revegetated.
• All disturbed land would be revegetated. An experimental revege-
tation program would be conducted on the first sand-clay mix land-
fill that becomes available to determine the agricultural and
wetland restoration potential of such areas.
Additional mitigation measures which would serve to reduce the
impacts which the project will have on the surrounding environment were
developed from inputs received from the preparers of the various sec-
tions of the Environmental Impact Statement. These are described below:
• Pile overburden such that the volume available for below ground
waste disposal is maximized.
• Use "toe spoiling" to reduce the radioactivity of reclaimed surface
soils.
• Cover reclaimed sand-clay mix disposal areas with about 6 inches of
low activity soil to reduce gamma radiation levels.
• Cover reclaimed clay disposal areas with 10-15 ft of overburden to
reduce gamma radiation levels.
• Use treated mine water, rather than Surficial Aquifer water, for
pump seal lubrication.
• Divert Hickory Creek around the mining area to its preserved lower
portion, rather than to Troublesome Creek.
• Restrict mining along the preserved lower portion of Hickory Creek
to only one side of the stream channel at a given time.
• Monitor the Surficial Aquifer in the vicinity of sand-clay mix
disposal areas.
-16-
-------
• Increase the acreage to be reclaimed as forest habitat and provide
corridors for wildlife movement between reclaimed and preserved
areas by planting additional areas with trees.
• Establish a 7- to 10-acre littoral zone at the downstream end of
the lake system proposed for reclamation of the Hickory Creek
channel.
• Increase the acreage to be reclaimed as marsh by 116 acres.
t Implement a program to reduce impacts on the indigo snake, a
threatened species which occurs on the site.
5. EPA's Preferred Alternatives and Recommended Mitigating Measures;
The alternatives evaluation for the Farmland project is presented
in detail in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIS. Based on analyses described
in that section, the DEIS identified EPA's preferred alternative for
each of the project components as follows:
Project Component EPA Preferred Alternative
Mining Dragline Mining
Matrix Transport Slurry Matrix Transport
Matrix Processing Conventional Matrix Processing
Waste Sand and Clay Disposal Sand-Clay Mixing
Process Water Source Groundwater Withdrawal
Water Management Plan Discharge to Surface Waters
Reclamation Farmland's Proposed Reclamation Plan
While EPA's preferred alternatives for the various project compo-
nents are in agreement with Farmland's proposed action, implementation
of most of the mitigation measures described in the previous section was
also recommended in the DEIS. The measures not recommended were the
capping of waste disposal areas with low activity overburden and the use
of treated mine water to meet pump seal requirements. All other miti-
gation measures listed in Section 4 were proposed as conditions of the
Draft NPDES permit for the Farmland project.
-17-
-------
6. Summary of the Environmental Effects of the Alternatives:
After identifying the environmentally preferable alternatives for
the various project components, the DEIS developed a comparison between
(1) Farmland's Proposed Action; (2) EPA's preferred alternatives and
mitigating measures; and (3) the No Action alternative of permit denial
by EPA, which could lead to termination of the project, postponement of
the project or restructuring of the project to achieve zero discharge.
A summary of the impacts of each of these three alternatives is pre-
sented in a comparative format in Table 1.
7. Identified Issues and Concerns!
The DEIS was made available to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and the public in May of 1981. A joint public hearing to receive
comments on the DEIS and the Draft NPDES permit and state certification
was held in Wauchula, Florida on July 14, 1981. The comment period on
the DEIS remained open through July 28, 1981, and wirtten comments on
the DEIS were received from the following:
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Environmental Division
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Regional Civil Engineer
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Commerce
State Agencies
Florida Department of Transportation
Interested Groups or Individuals
Farmland Industries, Incorporated
-18-
-------
Table 1. COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES.
Discipline Farmland's Proposed Action
tit Quality, Minor increases in fugitive
Meteorology, dust emissions and emissions
and Noise from internal combustion
engines; minor emissions
of volatile reagents; In-
creased noise levels In
the vicinity of operating
equipment.
Geology and Disruptions of the surface
Soils soils and overburden strata
over the mine site; deple-
tion of 40 million tons of
phosphate rock resources;
creation of a reclaimed
soil material which should
be superior to existing
soils.
Radiation Disruption of the natural
distribution of radioactive
material within the over-
burden and phosphate matrix;
increased radiation levels
from reclaimed surfaces.
EPA'S Preferred Alternatives
and Mitigating Measures
Same as Farmland'a proposed
action.
The Ho Action Alternative
Same as Farmland's proposed
action, except that the
height of the remaining
waste clay Impoundment could
be reduced by about 4 feet
by piling overburden to
greater heights.
Same as Farmland's proposed
action, except that reclaimed
surface soils would contain
less radioactive material
because of toe spoiling.
Termination
No change in
meteorology &
noise levels
present; possi-
ble air quality
changes from
other sources.
No change in
geology; no
change in site
soils (I.e.,
increased pro-
ductivity) ;
preservation of
40 million tons
of phosphate
rock reserves.
No change in
radiation
characteristics
of the site.
Postponement
Same as Farm-
land's proposed
action.
Possible in-
creased phos-
phate recovery
and more effec-
tive sand-clay
mix disposal,
reclamation,
and wetlands
restoration.
Sane as Farm-
land's proposed
action.
Achieve Zero Discharge
Same as Farmland's
proposed sction.
Increased dike heights,
and water storage capa-
city; probable Infringe-
ment on preserved areas;
less desirable recla-
mation plan.
Probable increase in
area covered with waste
clays—the reclaimed
material having the
highest radioactivity
levels.
Groundwater
Surface Water
Aquatic
Ecology
Terrestrial
Ecology
Socioeconomics
Withdrawal of groundwater
from the Floridan Aquifer at
an average rate of 8.83 mgd;
lowering of Surflclal Aquifer
in the vicinity of active
mine pits; possible local
contamination of Surflclal
Aquifer adjacent to sand-
clay mix disposal areas.
Disruption of surface water
flows from the mine aite;
minor reduction in flows
following reclamation;
degradation of water
quality due to discharges
from the mine water system.
Destruction of aquatic habi-
tats on the mine site;
aquatic habitat modifica-
tions due to reduced sur-
face water flows and
addition of contaminants
to creeks flowing from
the site.
Destruction of terrestrial
habitats and loss of indi-
viduals of some species on
the mine site; creation of
modified habitats following
reclamation.
Generation of Jobs with com-
paratively high Incomes; ad
valorem and sales tax revenue
for Hardee County; aeverenee
tax revenue for the state,
Land Reclamation Trust Fund,
and Florida Institute of
Phosphate Research; some
population Influx to Hardee
County; Increased demands
for housing, transportation,
fire protection, police,
and medical services.
Same as Farmland's proposed
action.
No change in Possible reduc- Same as Farmland's pro-
existing ground- tion in ground- posed action.
water quantity water withdrawals
and quality. because of more
effective de-
watering of waste
materials.
Same as Farmland's proposed
action, except that flow would
be maintained in lower Hickory
Creek, Instead of Increasing
flow in Troublesome Creek;
and there would be reduced
loss of baaeflow to Hickory
Creek in years 12-13.
Same as Farmland's proposed
action, except that the Impacts
on aquatic biota in Hickory
Creek will be lessened by the
continuation of flow through
Ita preserved lower portion.
Same as Farmland's proposed
action, except that the wild-
life habitat on the reclaimed
mine site will be more exten-
sive (both marsh and forest).
Same as Farmland's proposed
action.
No change in
surface water
quantity; sur-
face water
quality would
be dependent
upon future land
uaes In the site
area.
No change in
existing
aquatic
ecology.
No change in
existing
terrestrial
ecology.
Loss of jobs
which would be
generated by
the project;
loss of tax
revenue for
Hardee County
and the State;
less demand for
transportation,
housing, fire
protection,
police and medi-
cal services;
continuation of
phosphate rock
market uncer-
tainties for
Farmland and a
loss of their
Investment.
Same as Farm-
land's proposed
sction.
Same as Farm-
land's proposed
action.
Possibly more
effective
reclamation
and wetlands
restoration.
Continuation of
phosphate rock
market uncer-
tainties for
Farmland and
potential in-
creased project
costs; possible
Improvement in
supply/demand
for housing In
Hardee County.
Elimination of surface
water quality Impacts
resulting from discharge
from mine water system;
Increased probability of
dike failure Imparts.
Elimination of habitat
modification resulting
from discharge from mine
water system; Increased
probability of dike
failure Impacts.
Probable creation of In-
creased reclaimed land
areas (waste clays) of
limited use (e.g.,
pasture).
Same as Farmland's pro-
posed action.
-19-
-------
All questions and comments on the DEIS, written and verbal, are
individually addressed in Section 3, Public Participation, of the Final
EIS. Comments that resulted in changes to EPA's recommendations are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service comments on the DEIS resulted in the
expansion of NEPA requirement No. 8 of the Draft NPDES permit by the
additional requirement that Farmland coordinate with the District State
Forester regarding the forestry aspects of the reclamation plan.
Careful consideration of Farmland's comments on the technical
feasibility of certain of EPA's recommended mitigating measures brought
about minor changes in those recommendations. Since the spoiling of the
leach zone, required by EPA, precludes maximum theoretical high profile
stacking of overburden, NEPA requirement No. 2 of the Draft NPDES permit
has been revised to require high profile stacking in Settling Area II to
the maximum extent compatible with toe spoiling, with any gain in waste
storage volume to be reflected in a lower reclamation profile.
Secondly, because the EPA-recommended change in the proposed
temporary division of Hickory Creek (NEPA requirement No. 12) would have
required a major change in the recommended mining and reclamation plan,
this proposed NPDES permit condition has been revised to provide for
water quality monitoring in both Hickory Creek and Troublesome Creek.
Similarly, the recommendation (NEPA requirement No. 13) to avoid active
mining on both sides of lower Hickory Creek at the same time (a situ-
ation which would occur only for a few months during mine year 12) would
also require a major change in the mining and reclamation plan recom-
mended by EPA. Therefore, this draft permit condition has been revised
to require (1) monitoring of the Surficial Aquifer level within the
preserved area, and (2) a maximum allowable limit of 3 feet that the
Surficial Aquifer within the preserved area may be lowered due to the
mining activities. Where necessary to prevent exceeding the 3-foot
limit, Farmland must employ rim-ditching, rapid refilling of mine pits,
or other appropriate measures.
-20-
-------
Lastly, at Farmland's request, EPA has revised NEPA requirement No.
14 to allow that the Surficial Aqufier be monitored for the life of the
mine or until such time that EPA and Farmland agree that the compiled
date indicate no adverse effect on the Surficial Aquifer.
U.S. Department of the Interior comments on the DEIS included a
discussion of the uncertainties of wetlands reclamation and the need for
contingency plans should the proposed wetland reclamation fail. Al-
though Farmland is committed, by both state and Federal requirements, to
successful restoration of the given acreages of wetlands, EPA recognizes
the need for a mechanism to monitor the results of the restoration
effort. This would identify areas where changes or improvements in the
restoration program are required, as well as provide valuable infor-
mation on wetlands restoration in general. Therefore, EPA has developed
a wetlands restoration monitoring program, given as NEPA requirement No.
15 of the Draft NPDES permit (previous No. 15 is now No. 17).
The Department of the Interior also pointed out the need to address
paleontological resources on the site and impacts on those resources.
Since there is great potential that fossil remains will be discovered
during the mining of the Farmland site, EPA proposes the addition of
NEPA requirement No. 16 to the Draft NPDES permit, requiring that
Farmland provide to bonafide researchers and professionals for salvage
of specimens and information.
8. Agency Decision;
The Final Areawide Environmental Impact Statement for the Central
Florida Phosphate Industry (AEIS) published by EPA in November 1978
established a set of recommendations for future phosphate industry
operations in Florida which was determined to be as compatible as
practicable with other desired and intended land uses. Section 6 of the
Farmland DEIS provided a detailed comparison between Farmland's proposed
project and the AEIS recommendations. The Farmland proposal conforms to
all recommendations except in one area, i.e., the AEIS-recommended use
-21-
-------
of connector wells to recharge the Surficial Aquifer. However, the AEIS
also noted that the drained water should be monitored to assure that it
meets recommended drinking water criteria. In the case of Farmland,
high gross alpha radiation levels, exceeding drinking water standards,
were found in the Surficial Aquifer water at the Farmland site. There-
fore, Farmland does not propose to use connector wells to recharge the
Floridan Aquifer, and the use of such wells is neither required by
Farmland's SWFWMD Consumptive Use Permit nor recommended by EPA in this
site-specific EIS.
Therefore, pursuant to provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
EPA proposes to issue an NPDES permit to Farmland for their proposed
Hardee County, Florida phosphate mine. The proposed permit will impose
as conditions the performance of all mitigating measures identified in
Farmlands proposed action as well as those additional mitigating mea-
sures recommended by EPA, including the revisions and additions re-
sulting from comments on the DEIS.
-22-
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -1-
1.0 PREFACE 1-1
2.0 ERRATA 2-1
3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3-1
3.1 WRITTEN COMMENTS 3-1
3.2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 3-27
3.3 HEARING TRANSCRIPT 3-46
3.4 RESPONSES TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS 3-91
4.0 COORDINATION 4-1
4.1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION LIST 4-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
6.0 APPENDIX 6-1
6.1 DRAFT NPDES PERMIT FOR THE FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
MINE PROJECT, HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-1
-------
1.0
PREFACE
In May of 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency published and
distributed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the pro-
posed Farmland Industries, Inc. Phosphate Mine. The DEIS was written
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. While
the DEIS was a complete document, much of the detailed technical infor-
mation and supporting data were presented in a two-volume Supplemental
Information Document. The DEIS was distributed to the appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies and to interested individuals. The
Supplemental Information Document was available for review at a number
of locations and was distributed on a limited basis.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared
to conform with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
(40 CFR Part 6) for implementing NEPA. The essence of the NEPA decision
process is contained in the Summary Sheet for the FEIS; it describes the
existing problem requiring a decision, summarizes alternatives—including
mitigative measures—and their associated impacts, identifies major
concerns and issues, and presents EPA's conclusions and decision.
In an effort to avoid excessive paperwork and costly reproduction,
the DEIS text has not been reprinted in the FEIS. The supporting
information furnished in the DEIS and its Supplemental Information
Documents should be reviewed and are incorporated herein by reference.
1-1
-------
Chapter 2, Errata, is comprised of the corrections to substantive
errors and omissions in the DEIS and resource documents as well as all
recognized typographical and minor errors.
Chapter 3 contains a description of the public participation
program conducted for the EIS. Included in this chapter are copies of
written communications submitted to EPA in response to the DEIS, fol-
lowed by EPA's responses to each individual comment. These are followed
by a transcript of the public hearing on the DEIS and a point by point
response to the hearing comments.
Chapter 4 of the FEIS lists the agencies and groups to whom the
FEIS will be sent for review and comment and Chapter 5 identifies the
individuals involved in its preparation. An appendix to the FEIS
contains the Draft NPDES permit.
In accordance with CEQ regulations, there will be a 30-day review
and comment period following publication of this FEIS and its filing
with the CEQ.
1-2
-------
2.0
ERRATA
Page
Paragraph
Line
Correction
2-25
3-139
1
1
3-140 1
3-145 4
2 Omit "nearly" and "(98 percent)".
7 Following "...seven county region..."
insert "(Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee,
Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and
Sarasota Counties)".
1 Omit ..."of"... and replace with
"less than".
3 Continue paragraph with "...screened
from view. As mining progresses and
reclamation lags behind, impacts
would become cumulative and would be
noticeable to some degree from any of
the bordering roadways. However, the
human perception information in
Section 3.8.1 indicates that on a
regional basis few people would see
the mining development. Locally, the
mining development would totally
change the existing rural character.
Reclamation and revegetation would
eventually restore most of the rural
visual quality, but total restoration
would take 24 years to complete.
Total revegetation to similar exis-
ting conditions would take longer.
The visual impacts to the rural
quality of this stie would be re-
peated with additional mining pro-
posals nearby creating areawide
cumulative impact."
2-1
-------
3.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in
May 1981 and made available to the Council on Environmental Quality and
the public. A public notice appeared in the local newspapers. The
Federal Register (Volume 46, No. 108) dated June 5, 1981, announced the
availability of the DEIS and the proposed issuance of an NPDES permit.
The DEIS was provided to numerous Federal, State, and local agencies as
well as concerned individuals, interest groups, and public officials.
A notice of the public hearing was published on May 29, 1981. The
public hearing was held in Wauchula, Florida, July 14, 1981 and was
attended by 47 participants. The comment period on the DEIS remained
open through July 28, 1981. In addition to the public input afforded by
the hearing (transcript provided herein), a number of letters were
received during the comment period and are included in this Final EIS.
The designations in the margins of the letters (W-l thru W-38)
identify those specific comments for which responses have been devel-
oped. These responses follow the letters. In a similar manner, the
designations in the margins of the hearing transcript (T-l thru T-5)
identify those comments which have been responded to in the pages
immediately following the transcript.
3.1 WRITTEN COMMENTS
3-1
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Date
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP 6/5/81
TO: (Nam*, office symbol, room number,
toufld/ng, Agency/Post)
2. Jean Tolman
2.
3.
4.
&
Initials
Date
Action File Note and Return
Approval For Clearance Per Conversation
As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply
Circulate For Your Information See Me
Comment Investigate Signature
Coordination Justify
REMARKS
Thank You for the opportunity to review this EIS,
however, we have a "no comment" response therefore
we are sending you back the documents.
DO NOT use this form as e RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org. symbol. Agency/Post)
Jill Sperling, NEPA Affairs Division
Room No.—Bldg.
40064 - Ftsl.
Phone No.
252-6374
5041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
PrMeribrt by Q8A
• U S GOVCBNMtNT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 — 3B1.|«4'I r"PMR (41 CFR) 101-11.204
3-2
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
1720 Peachtree Road, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
1950
June 5, 1981
Ms. A. Jean Tolman, EIS Project Officer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
u
Dear Ms. Tolman:
We have reviewed the Draft EIS for the Farmland Industries
Phosphate Mine and Beneficiation Plant, Hardee County, Florida,
and have the following comments.
1. Overall, the draft EIS was well written with a good
reclamation plan for the disturbed phosphate mining areas.
However, there will be a 30 percent loss (790 acres) of pine
flatwoods, (583 acres) and wetland communities (207 acres) in the
post reclamation land use. This loss of natural vegetation will
have a large impact on the terrestrial ecology and wildlife
habitat than will the loss of agriculturally managed lands. It
would seem that high yielding well-managed pine plantations on the
pine flatwood and some pasture sites would produce at least 150
board feet per acre per year through a rotation. Some thought
should be given to establishing slash pine plantations on good
forest sites in the area.
It is suggested that Farmland contact the District Forester
or the State Forester, Florida Forest Service to request
assistance on the forestry aspects of the reclamation plan and its
implementation. The State Forester's address is Mr. John Bethea,
Director, Division of Forestry, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Collins Bldg., Tallahassee, FL 32301.
2. Some mention should be made of plans to salvage
commercial timber and pulpwood in areas that will be clearcut
prior to mining operations.
3. The draft statement notes that the construction and
operation of the facility will remove a small percentage of the
total amount of the affected vegetative communities found in
Hardee County. The loss of 5,280 acres of the various ecotypes,
i.e. pine flatwoods, upland forests, swamps, wetlands, lakes,
citrus groves, and pastures, may be insignificant when compared to
Hardee County and Florida as a whole. However, with the thousands
of acres of Florida citrus groves, pastures, forest lands,
wetlands, swamps, lakes, etc., being lost annually to urban
development and sprawl, industrialization and road construction;
3-3
CM
I
-------
•Ms. A. Jean Tolman
it is only a matter of time until many of these vegetative
communities will be gone and the problem does become significant.
It is extremely important that the mitigative measures indicated
in the reclamation plan be carried out to the extent they have
been written.
4. Another important concern which we have is the effect of
the use of large quantities of ground and surface water for the
mining and beneficiation process. The presented data shows there
will be little affect on water levels and water supplies necessary
for the mining process as well as the irrigation systems and wells
already in operation. However, if more mining operations were
started and more wells for irrigation drilled in Hardee and
surrounding counties, there no doubt would be an adverse effect on
the water tables, levels, and aquifers especially in times of low
rainfall and drought. Water levels and water quantities and
qualities should be constantly monitored to make certain that
aquifers are being recharged and not being destroyed when actual
mining operations are being conducted.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft EIS and look
forward to receiving a copy of the final when it is published.
3-4
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20330
0 JUAl J98J
Ms. A. Jean Tolman, EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Farmland Industries, Inc. Phosphate Mine in Hardee County, Florida
and have no objection.
Sincerely
vo
'ROBERT L. KLINGENSMITH, COL, USAF
Chief, Environmental Division
Directorate of Engineering & Services
3-5
-------
Florida /Eadm Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Telephone (904) 488-8541
BOB GRAHAM >g^y>r V^H JACOB D. VARN
GOVERNOR ^^V SECRETARY
June 11, 1981
Ms. A. Jean Tolman
EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
Subject: Draft EIS - 4SA
Farmland Industries, Inc.
Phosphate Mine
Hardee County, Florida
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer
the following observations.
1. The Department of Transportation prefers the Slurry Matrix Transport
alternative. If Matrix Slurry is transported via pipeline to the bene-
ficiation plant from the phosphate mine, and then by rail to the phosphate
fertilizer plants, we foresee no involvement from a highway standpoint.
However, if the proposed 8,000 foot long railroad spur crosses any state
highways, we anticipate normal safety precautions be included in the design
of the at-grade rail crossings.
2. No problems are expected due to the addition of 70 rail car trips per
day on the existing Seaborad Coastline Railroad track in terms of time
delay at crossings.
3. The Department endorses the use of carpooling for commuters to reduce
such negative effects as increased fuel consumption, noise and reduced
air quality.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
CLI:Imd
L. IrwlA, Administrator
Environmental Impact Review
3-6
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
**UIIIILJ!II*1 ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE
RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING
75 SPRING STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
IN REPLY REFER TO:
June 19, 1981 ^
Ms. A. Jean To!man
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Region IV Regional Office wishes to
offer the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
Farmland Industries, Inc., Phospate Mine, Hardee County, Florida.
1. At this time the proposal does not appear to have a potential for impacting
existing or ongoing HUD projects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed o
mining area. However, according to unofficial reports from local agencies 7
in jurisdictions adjacent to Hardee County, there is concern over the potential 3
transmission of increased radiation levels in the subsurface strata of water
tables, particularly at those levels where wells are used to provide irrigation
for lawns and gardens in housing developments.
2. Mining, as noted in Section 2.9.1 (pg. 2-26), will elevate gamma radiation r-
levels and increased exposure to Rn 222. If EPA's consideration of radon 7
exposure as representing a linear, non-threshold effect is true then public s
health risks will be increased.
3. We concur in EPA's preferred alternative and the mitigating measures as pro-
posed if the reclaimed areas are used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
However, since it is probable that residential structures will be constructed £'
on reclaimed land, the EIS should indicate how the different soil radium 7
levels will affect interior spaces, the probability of health risk and 3
preventative measures that should be taken to reduce the potential for unsafe
concentrations of radon daughters in the homes.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this DEIS.
Sincerely,
ional Administrator
ATLANTA. GEORGIA. BIRMINGHAM. ALABAMA-COLUMBIA EENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 'JACKSON. MISSISSIPPI
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA' KNO J~7 .OUISVILLE. KENTUCKY
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER, EASTERN REGION (HO APE8C)
»• TITLE BUILDING. 30 PMYOR STREET, ».W.
ATLANTA, OKOMOIA 10303
FLY TO
TN or,
ROV2 7 July 1981
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Farmland Industries,
Incorporated Phosphate Mine, Hardee County, Florida
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
ATTN: Ms. A. Jean Tolman
EIS Project Officer
3^5 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
We have reviewed the subject DEIS and find it will have no adverse impact
on Air Force operations in Florida. Thank you for the opportunity to
review this DEIS. Our point of contact is Mr. Winfred G. Dodson,
telephone number 221-6821/6776.
DMAS D. SIMS Cy to: 56 CSG/DEEV
Lef
nvironmental Planning Division
3-8
-------
[COOP]
,
poet office box 73O5/kar\8os city, missouri 64116
REPLY TOt
f. O. Bex 441
Mulberry, Florida 33840
PheiM: §13-425-4981
14th July, 1981
Jean Tolman
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
RE: Farmland Industries, Inc.
Hickory Creek Mine (Hardee County, Florida)
Dear Jean:
Farmland Industries, Inc. respectfully submits the attached
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Its Hickory
Creek Mine. We think the EIS is well prepared and we appreciate
the efforts by EPA to conduct a thorough and accurate review. We
do wish to point out that the NPDES permit (Appendix A of the
EIS), state certification under Section 401 of the Clean Mater Act
and NEPA procedures are highly Interrelated matters. Thus, v
our comments pertain to the EIS, the NPDES permit, and the state
certification process. Those comments relating to the NPDES permit
are submitted in compliance with both EIS procedures and Section
124.13 of the consolidated permit regulations [45 Fed. Reg. 33490,
May 19, 1980 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. S 124.13TT~
We appreciate your cooperation and hope.you will contact us 1f _
we can be of further assistance.
Yours trul
C, Richard
Executives-director
PhosplKfte Manufacturing
CRM/jm
3-9
-------
COMMENTS TO EPA'S RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
INCLUDED IN DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
I. Effluent Limitations
The Draft NPDES permit establishes the following effluent
limitations.
1. Total Suspended Solids: 30 mg/1 Daily Average
60 mg/1 Daily Maximum
2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand: 2 mg/1 Daily Average
(BOD5) (5-Day) 3 mg/1 Daily Maximum
3. Specific Conductance: 550 Daily Average
(mhos/cm @ 25° C) 1100 Daily Average
4. Radium: 5pci/l
10pci/l
5. Flow: 2.51 m3/Day (MGD)
6. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater
than 8.5 standard units.
7. The flow at Hickory Creek must be at least 1.8 times the
discharge flow to the Creek.
8. The flow in Oak Creek must be at least 1.6 times the discharge
flow to the Creek.
Response
Farmland has no objection to the effluent limitations that
incorporate the published EPA guidelines for pH and TSS. We under-
stand the other discharge limitations contained in the Draft NPDES
Permit are based on EPA's expectation of the limits to be required
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). The
State, however, has indicated that routine requirements may not be
adequate for the Hickory Creek mine, and may apply special condi-
tions. These conditions are being discussed with DER at the cur-
rent time. Accordingly, Farmland requests that the Draft NPDES
Permit be revised to incorporate the published EPA guidelines and
simply state that any conditions imposed by DER will be incorpo-
rated by reference in the federal permit. Farmland agrees to
comply with the published EPA limitations and any state conditions
imposed following discussions and other proceedings with DER.
3-10
-------
II. MITIGATING MEASURES
These comments are directed to the indicated mitigating measure and
all related information in the Environmental Impact Statement and
supporting documents.
EPA Recommendation 2
Farmland shall perform the dragline mining operation in a
fashion that increases the casting distance of the overburden,
causing the overburden to be piled higher and thereby increasing by
approximately 10 percent the below ground volume available for
waste disposal and lowering the above ground profile of Settling
Area II by approximately four feet.
Response
Farmland agrees to utilize high profile stacking of overburden
in the mining areas covered by Settling Area II. However, Farmland
does not believe that it is appropriate to lower the dam height of
Settling Area II from 35 to 31 feet for the following reasons:
* Additional volume within a settling area can only be
created by stacking overburden above the maximum waste
disposal level. Since much of the overburden material in
the upper portion of the spoil piles will be borrowed to
construct the retaining dam, it is likely that very
little overburden material will remain above the waste
disposal level in Settling Area II, even if high profile
stacking is used.
* The toe spoiling requirement (EPA Recommendation 5)
requires that the leach zone strata be spoiled at the
bottom of the mine pit which may preclude maximum theo-
retical high profile stacking of overburden.
* One of the primary reasons for keeping Settling Area II
active throughout the life of the mine is to retain the
area as an alternate waste disposal area. During mining
operations, localized concentrations of high clay ore may
be encountered. Settling Area II will provide an outlet
for clay periodically generated in excess of the sand-
clay nixing capability of the mine. Lowering the dam
height by four feet does not, in Farmland's opinion,
justify the loss in alternative waste disposal volume
that would result.
3-11
-------
As shown by the proposed use of the sand-clay mix technique
(with dam heights from 11 to 20 feet), Farmland is committed to
minimizing overall dam heights by maximizing below grade storage of
wastes. However, because of the above considerations, Farmland
believes that the dam height for Settling Area II should remain 35
feet as originally proposed. High profile overburden stacking will
be used in the mining of the area covered by the settling area to
the maximum extent compatible with the toe spoiling requirement.
Any increased waste storage volume achieved by this technique will
be realized in a lower reclaimed elevation for the area even if the
originally proposed dam height of 35 feet is retained. At the same
time, the alternative waste disposal storage volume will be re-
tained for use if needed.
EPA Recommendation 5
During the dragline mining activity, Farmland shall employ the
technique of leach zone management by toe spoiling, i.e., over-
burden from near the interface with the matrix (the leach zone,
where radioactivity in the overburden is concentrated) shall be
placed at the toe of the spoil pile and covered with overburden
from upper strata.
Response
Farmland agrees to utilize the recently introduced technique
of toe spoiling in mining areas where prospecting has identified
the presence of a leach zone layer overlying the matrix interface.
EPA Recommendation 8
Farmland shall increase the acreage reclaimed as forest hab-
itat and provide corridors for wildlife movement between reclaimed
and preserved areas by planting additional areas as depicted in
Figure 2, attached.
Response
Farmland agrees to expand its upland reforestation plantings
as depicted in Figure 2, Appendix A of the Draft NPDES Permit for
the Farmland Industries, Inc. Mine Project, Hardee County, Florida.
EPA Recommendation 9
Farmland shall incorporate into its reclamation plan a lit-
toral zone at the downstream extent of the proposed reclaimed open
lake in the Hickory Creek channel. This littoral zone shall be at
least 500 feet wide and at a depth suitable for emergent vegeta-
tion, providing for the establishment of 710 acres of marsh
community.
3-12
-------
Response
Farmland will establish a littoral zone at the downstream
extent of the reclaimed lake proposed for the reclamation of
Hickory Creek. The original reclamation plans for the lower por-
tion of this lake system provided for an open lake approximately
600 feet wide and 3000 feet long created by double spoiling the
mine cuts in this area. The original plans also provided for a
100-foot wide littoral zone approximately 1-3 feet deep along the
eastern margin of the lake and for filling the remainder of the
lake as necessary with sand tailings to establish a maximum water
depth of 15 feet.
In order to create the desired littoral zone at the downstream
extent of the reclaimed lake, sand tailings fill will be placed in
the mine cut to within 3 to 5 feet of the planned water elevation.
An overburden cap of 1 to 2 feet will then be established over the
tailings fill to provide a final water depth of 1 to 3 feet and a
suitable substrate for emergent vegetation. The lower 900 feet of
the open lake will be reclaimed in this manner to create an addi-
tional 10 acres of freshwater marsh.
The reclaimed lake will continue to intercept the undisturbed
lower portion of Hickory Creek at an elevation of 65 feet MSL.
This elevation will serve as the outfall elevation into the natural
stream channel and establish the water level in the entire lake
system. The reclaimed marsh will therefore serve as a wetland
filter for flow exiting the lake system into the undisturbed por-
tion of Hickory Creek.
EPA Recommendation 10
Before beginning any land-disturbing activities, Farmland
shall develop a program wherey indigo snakes encountered in the
work area are captured for relocation to other areas of suitable
habitat in the site region. This program shall include informing
Farmland workers of the importance of the indigo snake, familiar-
izing them with its appearance and instructing them as to its
preservation. In addition, the gopher tortoise population shall be
protected to the extent possible in the site area. Farmland shall
coordinate its recovery and relocation efforts with the Florida
Endangered Species Coordinator, and shall maintain a record of the
program to be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Response
Farmland will institute the recommended program for reduc-
ing impacts on the indigo snake and the gopher tortoise. Prior to
3-13
-------
beginning operations, Farmland will work with the Florida Endang- g
ered Species Coordinator to develop a program that is acceptable to £.
both parties. w
EPA Recommendation 11 a
Farmland shall comply with the categorization of wetlands
present on the mine property as set forth in the EIS and illus-
trated in Figure 3, attached. In summary, within Category 1 wet-
lands, Farmland shall not mine, shall limit activities to those
essential to and unavoidable for the mining opeation, and shall
otherwise take all reasonable measures to preserve all Category 1
wetlands. Additionally, Farmland shall restore the total acreage
of Category 2 wetlands disturbed by mining. Specifically, the
acreage to be restored as freshwater marsh or swampt according to
Farmland's proposed action in the EIS shall be increased by at
least 116 acres (from 398 acres to a minimum of 514 acres). This
shall be done my differential grading and settling of sand-clay mix
areas in addition to that already proposed by Farmland in the EIS.
Response
Farmland will comply with the categorization of wetlands
presented in the EIS, protect all Category 1 wetlands from mining
or related disturbance, and reclaim all other wetlands from dis-
turbed by mining. According to the plans presented in the EIS, no
Category 1 wetlands are to be mined or otherwise disturbed by the
proposed operation. However, 514 acres of Category 2 and 91 acres
of Category 3 wetlands are included in the mine and waste dis-
posal plans. The reclamation plan proposed in the EIS provides for
the reclamation of 398 acres of wetlands.
Since the EIS reclamation plans were submitted, mandatory
State reclamation requirements for wetlands (Chapter 16C-16, FAC)
have been revised. Farmland has therefore revised its reclamation
plan to reclaim 207 additional wetland acres. The primary increase
in reclaimed wetland acreage will be provided by expanding the
shallow depressions proposed around the outlet end of sand-clay mix
reclamation areas. The depressions will be expanded to cover °
approximately ten percent rather than five percent of each sand- ^
clay reclamation area. The expansion will be achieved by con-
trolled grading of overburden spoil and by raising the elevation of
the overflow drainage swales. For the 3,628 acres of sand-clay mix
reclamation areas (excluding the two special mix areas specifically
scheduled for wetland reclamation), this expansion will result in
182 additional reclaimed wetland acres.
A further change in mandatory State reclamation standards
requires that at least 25 percent of the high water surface of
reclaimed lakes consist of an annual zone of water fluctuation to
3-14
-------
serve as the wetland component of the lakes. The large reclaimed
lake in Sections 34 and 35, T345, R24E and the reclaimed lake
system created for the reclamation of Hickory Creek both have
sufficient littoral zone to meet this requirement. However, the 59
acre lake which serves as the clear water pond during the life of
the mine has no planned wetland component. Provision for the
required 25 percent wetland zone in this reclaimed lake will pro-
vide the necessary 15 additional wetland acres. The following
table summarizes Farmland's expanded wetland reclamation plans:
Expanded Wetland Area Additional Wetland Acreage
Expansion of Depressions in Sand-Clay 182 acres
Mix Areas (from 5 percent to 10
percent of reclamation area) —
-p
Littoral Zone at Downstream Extent of 10 acres o
Hickory Creek Reclamation Area •¥*
o
Zone of Fluctuation in Reclaimed 15 acres ^
Clear Water Pond -31
TOTAL 207 acres
The revised wetland reclamation plans will therefore meet mandatory
State requirements and exceed Category 2 wetland reclamation re-
quirements of the Draft NFDES permit.
EPA Recommendation 12
During the mining of the unpreserved portion of Hickory Creek,
the flow from this area shall be diverted around the active mine
area into the lower preserved section of Hickory Creek (rather than
to Troublesome Creek).
Response
Farmland believes that the temporary diversion of Hickory
Creek to Troublesome Creek as originally proposed is the preferred
alternative from the standpoint of water quality protection and the
sand-clay mix reclamation program. Farmland also believes that
this diversion can be accomplished without permanent adverse im-
pacts on the downstream vegetation. r-
The flow in Hickory Creek is intermittent and periods of no ^
flow are common in the dry season. The vegetation in the undis-
turbed lower portion of Hickory Creek is therefore adapted to
short-term no flow periods. The mining and reclamation of the area
3-15
-------
has been scheduled to be carried out as rapidly as possible. Min-
ing of the area is planned to take place over a period of slightly
over two years, beginning in year 12 and ending early in year 14.
Physical reclamation and revegetation of the area will require a
period of slightly over two years, beginning in year 12 and ending
early in year 14. Physical reclamation and revegetation of the
area will require a period of two years before the creek is re-
routed through the system. Therefore, although the upstream flow
will be cut off for slightly over four years, runoff from mining
blocks 12 and 13 wil continue to enter the existing channel until
the areas are mined. Moreover, the undisturbed lower portion of
the creek lies in a deeply incised area and will continue to re-
ceive direct rainfall inputs as well as runoff from offsite areas
to the south even after mining of the upstream portion is complete.
Farmland therefore believes that, although the area may be subject
to stress, there will be no permanent damage to the overstory
vegetation.
In developing the proposed diversion plans, Farmland gave
careful consideration to protection of water quality. Both the
diversion channel to Troublesome Creek and the reclaimed channel of
Hickory Creek are to be stabilized and the banks revegetated prior
to allowing flow to enter the channels. A period of two years has
been allowed to reclaim, stabilize, and revegetate the channel for
Hickory Creek while flow is diverted to Troublesome Creek. The
alternative of creating a diversion channel through a recently
mined area might pose water quality problems downstream.
The mining block scheduled for year 13, which includes the
lower portion of Hickory Creek, covers the entire area from Oak
Creek Islands east to S.R. 661 (Figure 2-2, Draft EIS). With the
present mine plan, it is not possible to divert Hickory Creek
around the active mine area to intersect the undisturbed downstream
segment. Such a diversion would require a major change in the mine
plan. Since sand-clay waste disposal follows so closely behind
mining, a change in the mine plan would also necessitate a major
change in the reclamation plan.
In summary, Farmland anticipates some stress but no permanent
damage to the downstream overstory vegetation because of the pro-
posed temporary diversion of Hickory Creek to Troublesome Creek.
The alternatives of diverting the flow around the active mining
area to intersect the undisturbed portion of the creek would re-
quire major changes in the mining and reclamation plans and might
pose a threat to downstream water quality. Therefore, Farmland
believes that the temporary diversion to Troublesome Creek is the
preferred alternative.
3-16
-------
EPA Recommendation 13
Mining in the vicinity of lower Hickory Creek shall be sched-
uled such that open mine pits exist adjacent to only one side of
the preserved portion of the creek at a given time.
Response
Mining is scheduled along both the north and south sides of
the preserved portion of Hckory Creek in the second half of year 12
(mining blocks 12C and 12D, Figure 2-2 of the Draft EIS). The
mining blocks are scheduled for immediate conversion to sand-clay
mix reclamation areas (S/C 11 and S/C 12, Figure 2-6, Draft EIS).
The waste disposal areas are to begin receiving sand and clay
wastes in year 13. Open mine pits will therefore occur on both
sides of the preserved area for a period of only a few months.
Within a year after mining, the water table will have been re-
established on both sides of the area by the deposition of the sand
and clay wastes in aqueous suspension. The period of moisture
stress due to pit dewatering will therefore be very short-term.
A change in the mine plan to avoid the short-term condition of
open mine pits on both sides of the preserved area would also
require a change in the sand-clay mix reclamation plan. The accom-
modation of the sand and clay wastes within the low level dams
proposed in the EIS requires that waste disposal follow almost
immediately after mining. As with the case of the temporary diver-
sion of Hickory Creek to Troublesome Creek, Farmland expects no
permanent damage to the vegetation in the preserved area and does
not believe that the short-term stress is sufficient to justify a
change in the mine and reclamation plans.
EPA Recommendation 14
Farmland shall monitor the water quality of the Surficial
Aquifier at the location identified on the attached map, Figure 3.
The following parameters shall be monitored on a quarterly basis
for the life of the mine: ph, specific conductance, sulfates,
fluoride, and ammonia. A written report summarizing the data shall
be submitted once a year to EPA.
Response
Farmland will establish a Surficial Aquifer monitoring station
at the location identified on Figure 3, Appendix A, Draft NPDES
Permit for the Farmland Industries, Inc. Mine Project, Hardee
County, Florida. Monitoring for the indicated parameters will
continue for the life of the mine or until such time that the EPA
and Farmland agree that the compiled data indicates no adverse
impact on the Surficial Aquifer.
TC1C 3_17
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 497O
JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32232
SAJPD-ES 17 July 1981
Ms. A. Jean To!man
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Court!and Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
Reference is made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
Farmland Industries, Inc. Phosphate Mine in Hardee County, Florida,
furnished this office on 29 May 1981. The Corps of Engineers is a
cooperating agency for this EIS.
Review of the DEIS reveals that sufficient factual information is presented
to identify areas of importance comprising those wetlands subject to
Department of the Army regulatory authority. The alternatives to such work
as presented in the draft, however, are related to an artificial categoriza-
tion of such wetlands as Class I (preserve), Class II (mine and restore) and
Class III (mine with no restoration).
These categories remain inconsistent with this office's disposition to con-
sider the overall impacts of such work as it relates to regulated fill work
and with the requirements of our regulations to assess the important func-
tions (or lack thereof) of all wetland subject to Corps authority. In
addition, we must determine whether the proposed work is primarily dependent
upon location in (or in close proximity to) the aquatic environment and
whether feasible alternative sites are available and practicable.
These analyses have been reinforced by EPA regulations as well, whereas the
artificial categorization of such wetlands is sanctioned neither by Federal
law nor by published regulations. Therefore, this is to advise your office
and the applicant that the Corps will conduct its public interest review of
the environmental impacts as required by regulation based upon both infor-
mation obtained from the EIS as well as from the additional sources of input
received in response to public notice and hearings as required in processing
the completed permit application for all project work.
In this regard, this office will explore all feasible and practical alter-
natives identified in the permit public interest review process as well as
those which become apparent from our review. On the basis of this
3-18
-------
SAJPD-ES 17 July 1981
Ms. Jean Tolman
information, the EIS information and requisites of our current regulations,
decisions on all related applications by Farmland Industries, Inc. will be
made.
The Jacksonville District remains prepared to consider all concerns and to
review all proposals and alternatives in this regard. Please contact Mr.
Victor Anderson, Permits Section project manager, or Dr. Gerald Atmar,
Chief, Environmental Studies Section, concerning 404 and EIS concerns
respectively.
Sincerely,
o
o
LLOYD H. SAUNDERS, Ph.D.
Acting Chief
Planning Division
3-19
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta. Georgia 30333
(404) 262-6649
July 22, 1981
Ms. A. Jean Tolman
EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit to Farmland Industries, Incorporated, Phosphate Mine, Hardee
County, Florida. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health
Service and are offering the following comments for your consideration in
preparing the Final EIS.
In general, we have no major objections to the proposed action, and we believe
that long-term effects can be successfully minimized provided the mitigation
measures outlined in the EIS are imposed upon the applicant.
We have some concern about the potential for radiation exposure of future
populations living or working on this land. According to the EIS, the
reclaimed farmland site ". . .will slightly exceed the recommended limit
of .009 WL for slab-on-grade homes." Without special land use controls and to
local regulations, the applicant could affect the safe and healthful use of ^
the disturbed lands in the future. Certain commitments by the applicant •*
should be made to assure the safe use of any reclamation lands by future
populations when such lands are sold. For example, consideration might be
given to recording special deed restrictions so that all purchasers would be
fully aware of the uses that could be made of the property.
While connector wells will not be used to recharge the Floridan Aquifer with
groundwater from the Surf icial Aquifer because of the high gross alpha radia-
tion levels found in the Surficial Aquifer, several references are made in ,«o
the EIS on pages 3-64 and 3-88 about discharging uncontaminated water from ™
the recirculating water system to deep aquifers. The EIS should clarify *
whether any well injection via connector wells will be performed by the
applicant.
According to the EIS, a housing demand for 330 to 580 housing units will be
required for direct and indirect employment. The adequacy of local zoning, is.
building, and sanitary codes to prevent poor construction and incompatible *^
development should be discussed. SB
3-20
-------
Page 2 - Ms. A. Jean Toloan
The EIS should also discuss the impact of the proposal upon vector populations
and whether any vector-borne disease patterns in the area would be affected.
Will control measures be necessary? The vector management plan to be employed
by the applicant should be described relative to the requirements of the
local public health agency.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us one
copy of the Final EIS when it becomes available.
Sincerely yours,
Lisella, Ph.D.
lief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
3-21
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER 81/11" WL 2 3 1981
A. Jean Tolman, EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for
the Farmland Industries, Inc., Phosphate Mine, Hardee County,
Florida, sent to us May 29, 1981. The document, in general,
adequately discusses the probable impacts of the proposed mining
operation on the various resources of concern to this Department.
The following specific comments are provided for your consideration
in preparing the final EIS.
Water Resources
The statement should discuss plans for monitoring the surficlal o>
aquifer in the vicinity of disposal areas for the sand and clay ^
mixture. a
It is stated that at the site boundaries the drawdown of the
potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer must be kept within
a 5-foot limit, according to regulations of the Southwest Florida
Water Management District unless a variance is obtained (p. 3-58).
The Trescott model predicts a maximum steady-state drawndown of
31 feet (p. 3-58). The applicant plans to evaluate the effects 0
of pumping the Floridan aquifer in detail with the Southwest Florida °°
Water Management District (p. 3-58). If a variance is expected, i
the statement should evaluate more adequately the impacts of the
project's ground-water withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer. If
a staggered pumping schedule is planned, effects on the potentio-
metric surface should be evaluated.
It is indicated in Sec. 2.5.1.2 that groundwater pumping would
lower the potentiometric surface of the Florida Aquifer. Con- •—
sideration should be given to the long term impact of groundwater °?
withdrawal on the entire region under drought conditions. 3
3-22
-------
A. Jean Tolman 2
Wildlife Resources
There should be more discussion of the forested wetlands that
are to be lost by this mining activity. Forested wetlands are
extremely valuable fish and wildlife resource areas and they are
being altered and/or destroyed much faster than they are being
created. The creation of these areas requires many years and the
techniques are not such that restoration is guaranteed. The net
loss of 261 acres of forested wetlands should be addressed to a
greater extent in the impacts sections of the statement.
The proposed preservation of 2,530 acres is significant. However
the rationale for establishing the preservation area boundaries is
not clear. There appear to be blocks of wetlands adjacent to but
outside the preserved areas that are proposed for mining. Conversely,
there are several upland areas in the preservation area which appear
to be minable. Selection of the areas to be mined should be
explained more fully.
Figure 3-12 includes "Category 2 Wetlands Disturbed" which is not
discussed in the body of the report. The statement should include
a discussion of the disturbed wetlands of this category and the
tables on pages 3-114 and 6-8 should include acreages involved.
Reclamation
Successful reclamation of wetlands subsequent to phosphate mining
has not been demonstrated. To address this problem the Bureau of
Mines' Tuscaloosa Research Center will begin a reclamation demon-
stration project on wetlands in Florida in FY 82.
The technical report (volume 1, page 2-35 Waste Sand and Clay
Disposal Plan) states that "...the majority of the sand and clay
wastes will be disposed through the sand-clay mix technique." It
is not clear as to what Farmland Industries really proposes.
Brewster Phosphates, Incorporated, has developed a sand-clay mix
technique that in a small-scale test was successful; however,
during large-scale operation serious problems were encountered and
the company requested the State to approve a return to "state-of-
the-art" clay storage techniques. An alternate sand-clay mix
technique, "dredge-mix," has proven successful in the experimental
stage, but more testing is needed.
Several other techniques to dewater waste clays are presently being
evaluated. Bureau of Mines rotary trommel-PEO and Enviro-Clear
techniques each use a flocculant to achieve rapid dewatering. We
believe that these techniques hold more promise in eliminating
waste clay storage areas than the proposed sand-clay method. The
preferred methods should eliminate above-ground clay storage areas.
3-23
-------
A. Jean Tolman 3
In view of these uncertainties, we believe the reclamation of
the mined wetlands needs more explicit discussion. Details
should include species to be planted, planting methods, community-
type proposed, surface contours and elevations to be created,
and the method used to recontour the site. Discussion (page 3-126)
implies that wetland reclamation on 181 acres is going to occur
naturally, and there will be no specific effort to contour and «>
recreate these wetlands. We believe that the chance of attaining *?
the goal of 181 acres of wetlands under these conditions is not •*
very high. Specific reclamation techniques for this acreage
should be addressed. The statement should include a discussion of
contingency plans if wetland reclamation as proposed fails.
It is mentioned (p. 3-134) that a partial mammoth skeleton was
removed from Hickory Creek in 1965 but no paleontological remains
were found by Milanich and Willis. In view of the known occurrence, m
there should be some discussion as to the potential for further ^
fossil finds in the area and possible impacts to these resources.
Portions of the proposed work will require permits from the Corps
of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will review project
plans and offer specific recommendations with regard to mitigation
and restoration of wetlands during consideration of the permit
application by the Corps of Engineers, in accordance with provisions oo
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. These comments do not **>
preclude separate evaluation and comment by the FWS when reviewing ac
the permit application. The FWS would be pleased to coordinate
with you or the permit applicants to preclude delay and to insure
that any recommended permit stipulations or conditions are under-
stood and included in the final statement. Please consult with the
Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 2676, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
iruce Blanchard, Director
Environmental Project Review
3-24
-------
GENERAL COUNSEL OP THE
UNITED STATES ftEPAIITMENT OF COMMERCE
Washington. D.C. 20230
JUL 2 4 1981
Ms. A. Jean Tolman
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
This is in reference to the draft environmental impact
statement entitled, "Farmland Industries Phosphate Mine
and Beneficiation Plant, Hardee County, Florida." The
enclosed comment from the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA) is forwarded for your
consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide this
comment, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We
would appreciate receiving four copies of the final
statement.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Miki
Director of Regulatory Policy
Enclosure Memo From: Robert B. Rollins
National Ocean Survey
NOAA
3-25
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY
Rockville, Md. 20852
JUL 13 1981 OA/C52x6:JVZ
TO: PP/EC - Joyce M. Wood
FROM: OA/C5 - Robert B. Rolll
SUBJECT: DEIS #8106.05 - Farmland' Industries, Inc., Phosphate Mine,
Hardee County, Florida
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the National
Ocean Survey's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and In terms of the Impact
of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
Geodetic control survey monuments may be located 1n the proposed project
area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these
monuments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such
activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding <*
for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS monu- i
ments. For further information about these monuments, please contact Mr. John 3
Spencer, Director, National Geodetic Information Center (OA/C18) or Mr. Charles
Novak, Chief, Network Maintenance Branch (OA/C172), at 6001 Executive Boulevard,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
, I 10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970.1980
3-26 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• . - „ «jncy with a historic
I tradition of service to the Nation
-------
3.2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Response W-l
No Response Required.
Response W-2
The loss of natural vegetation which results from clearing and
mining the Farmland site will have a more significant impact on the
terrestrial ecology of the site than will the loss of agriculturally
managed lands. Replacement of some of the wildlife values (as well as
timber resource) provided by the natural communities could be obtained
through the establishment of slash pine plantations on reclaimed land.
Farmland plans to utilize the first sand-clay landfill that becomes
available during reclamation as an experimental revegetation area. This
236-acre area will be used to evaluate the growth of forage crops, truck
crops, citrus, as well as commercial forest species on sand-clay mix
"soils". Farmland has indicated that slash pine will be among the
commercial forest species evaluated. In addition, EPA is proposing to
expand NEPA condition No. 8 to the Draft NPDES permit to require that
Farmland contact the District or State Forester (Florida Forest Service)
for assistance in the forestry aspects of the reclamation plan.
Response W-3
Farmland has indicated that their plans for the clearing of areas
to be mined include the salvage of commercial timber and pulpwood where
sufficient quantities are present.
Response W-4
EPA notes the validity of the concern for cumulative effects of the
loss of vegetative communities and recognizes the importance that the
mitigation measures of the reclamation plan be fully implemented. To
that end, the mitigation measures are included as conditions to the
NPDES permit. Should these measures not be implemented, the permittee
(Farmland) would become subject to any of the enforcement actions avail-
able to the EPA Administrator under Section 309 of the Federal Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1319).
3-27
-------
Response W-5
Farmland plans to monitor the levels and quality of the various
aquifers present at the site. The Floridan and Secondary Artesian
Aquifers will be monitored continuously at the site, while Surficial
Aquifer levels will be monitored at five (5) locations monthly. Data
collected will be reported on a quarterly basis. Additional continuous
monitoring data will be obtained from two Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) wells near the site. SWFWMD exercises
regulatory jurisdiction related to consumptive use of water over sub-
stantially all of the Florida phosphate mining and chemical industry
(both existing and proposed), including all of Hillsborough, Manatee,
Sarasota, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties, substantially all of Polk County.
and a large portion of Charlotte County. In order for more wells to be
drilled in Hardee and surrounding counties, applications for Consumptive
Use Permits (issued by SWFWMD) would have to be filed (as Farmland did).
The applicant for a SWFWMD Consumptive Use Permit carries the
burden of demonstrating that the intended use will be reasonable and
beneficial, consistent with the public interest and not interfere with
any legal use of water existing at the time of application. Issuance of
the permit will be denied if the intended withdrawal would cause any of
the following results:
• Violation of minimum regulatory levels established for the flow of
a stream or other watercourse, for the potentiometric surface or
for surface water;
• Saltwater encroachment; or
• Lowering of the water table so that the lake stages or vegetation
will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than
those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
The Consumptive Use Permit will also be denied if the amount of
water consumptively used will exceed the "water crop" on lands owned,
leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. According to a
statement of policy recently adopted by the Board of Governors of
SWFWMD, the assumed size of the water crop throughout the District is
3-28
-------
1000 gallons per acre per day. The actual water crop for a specific
area may be significantly larger or smaller than this amount. The
actual amount of the water crop for a particular area depends upon
rainfall and evapotranspiration rates, which vary from area to area
within the district.
The proposed withdrawal of water must not reduce the rate of flow
of a stream or other water course by more than 5 percent at the time and
point of withdrawal. It must not cause the level of the potentiometric
surface under lands not owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the
applicant to be lowered by more than 5 feet, nor cause the level of the
water table of such lands to be lowered by more than 3 feet, nor cause
the level of the surface of water in any lake or other impoundment to be
lowered by more than 1-foot unless the lake or impoundment is wholly
owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. Finally, the
withdrawal must not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below
sea level.
For good cause shown, SWFWMD may grant exceptions to criteria
listed above, when after consideration of all data presented, including
economic information, it finds that an exception is consistent with the
public interest.
In addition to permitting withdrawals of water, SWFWMD may also
approve "recharge wells" which drain water from upper strata (i.e.,
water table or overburden) to lower formations. Recharge wells, as a
water management tool, may be required as a condition of consumptive use
permits. They are not, however, a requirement of Farmland's SWFWMD
permit.
3-29
-------
Water from Farmland's production wells (Floridan Aquifer) will be
collected monthly and analyzed for the following parameters:
pH Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfates Total Alkalinity
Chloride Carbonate Alkalinity
Specific Conductance Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Total Hardness (as CaCO ) Fluoride
Farmland has also agreed to monitor the Surficial Aquifer quarterly
at a location specified by EPA for the life of the mine or until such
time that EPA and Farmland agree that the compiled data indicate no
adverse impact on the Surficial Aquifer. Samples obtained from the
Surficial Aquifer will be analyzed for the following parameters:
PH
Specific Conductance
Sulfates
Fluoride
Ammonia
Response W-6
No response required.
Response W-7
The railroad spur from the existing Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
track to the proposed Farmland beneficiation plant will cross S.R. 663.
Farmland has confirmed that normal safety precautions (i.e., blinking
signal lights) are to be included in the design of this at-grade rail
crossing.
Response W-8
No response required.
3-30
-------
Response W-9
No response required.
Response W-10
Naturally occurring radiation levels (gross alpha) in the Surficial
Aquifer on the Farmland site are high relative to the Floridan and
Secondary Artesian Aquifers. The proposed mining operations are not
expected to significantly alter the radiation levels in subsurface
strata of the site, nor to increase the transmission of the naturally
occurring radionuclides to subsurface strata in adjacent areas.
Response W-ll
Increased health risks would be limited to those associated with
construction of residential structures on reclaimed land (see Response
W-12).
Response W-12
Farmland proposes that the reclaimed mine site be used exclusively
for agricultural/wildlife habitat purposes. Therefore, the health risks
A .
associated with the construction of residential structures on the
reclaimed site should not occur. If such structures were constructed on
reclaimed land, the health risk would be best described in terms of
Working Level (WL) measurements. This issue was addressed in Section
3.3.2.2.4 of the DEIS and discussed in detail in Section 5.2.4 of the
Supplemental Information Document. The following information is taken
from the Supplemental Information Document. Indoor radon and radon
progeny concentrations as measured by WL have been related to increased
risk of lung cancer. Since indoor WL measurements are not possible
before construction, considerable research effort has gone into pre-
construction predictor measurements and the associated correlations.
3-31
-------
Three parameters have been considered for prediction of indoor WL:
external gamma exposure rate, soil radium, and surface radon flux. The
prediction equations are as follows:
WL = 0.0022 (G-3.6)1'01
WL = 0.0065 (CD )°'563
K3.
WL = 0.0087 (J)0'461
where
G = external gamma exposure, yR/hr
C = soil radium-226, pCi/g
and
2
J = surface radon flux, pCi/m s.
The predicted indoor WL by land type on the Farmland site after recla-
mation are as follows:
Estimated WL
Gamma, uR/hr ]
Land Type
Overburden
Sand-Clay Mix
Waste Sand
Waste Clay
Should buildings (such as residences) be located on the reclaimed
Farmland site, indoor radon and radon progeny concentrations would be
higher in these structures than outdoors. For any homes that were
constructed, the predicted indoor radon progeny (WL) could range from a
3-32
Gamma, yR/hr
vs. WL
0.014
0.019
0.013
0.029
Ra-226, pCi/g
vs. WL
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.018
Radon^222 Flux
pCi/m s vs. WL
0.0083
0.0098
0.0083
0.013
-------
low of 0.Oil over reclaimed sand and overburden tailings to a high of
0.018 WL over reclaimed clay settling areas. The value for homes over
sand-clay mix areas would be 0.013 WL. In comparison, slab-on-grade
structures in Polk County over undisturbed lands have WLs ranging from
0.001 to 0.010, with a geometric mean of 0.003. While areas of separately
stored waste clay would represent the highest potential hazard, this
material is one of the least attractive land types for home building
because of foundation design problems. Furthermore, reclaimed clay
areas only represent some 12 percent of the site. It should be noted
that the WLs for the Farmland site discussed above were calculated
without consideration of the addition of low activity topsoil to a
potential development site or the imposition of some restrictions in the
type of housing construction. Such measures should serve to mitigate
the WL hazard satisfactorily.
In 1979, EPA provided the following specific guidance regarding the
siting of new homes on any reclaimed, debris, and unmined lands which
contain phosphate resources:
"IV. Development sites for new residences should be selected
and prepared, and the residences so designed and sited, that the
annual average indoor ...." Working Levels "...do not exceed ....
background levels...."
Following this guidance, the upper limit of predicted WLs in slab-
on-grade homes is approximately 0.009 WL (normal background of 0.004 WL
plus the uncertainty of 0.005 WL). Overall, the reclaimed Farmland site
will slightly exceed this upper range. Therefore, if residences were
planned they would have to be designed so as to prohibit the accumu-
lation of radon progeny to levels above the .009 WL limit. (See also
Response W-25.)
Response W-13
No response required.
3-33
-------
Response W-14
The Florida DER limits referred to are the water quality standards
contained in Chapter 17-3 of the Florida Administrative Code. These
water quality standards were established in accordance with Section 303
of the Clean Water Act. Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.62[d][1])
require that the NPDES permit include conditions meeting any require-
ments in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limita-
tions guidelines necessary to achieve water quality standards established
under Section 303. Therefore, EPA is unable to grant Farmland's request.
Response W-15
EPA recognizes the validity of the issues raised by Farmland
regarding high profile stacking. Therefore, the mitigation measure and
corresponding proposed permit condition (NEPA Requirement No. 2) are
revised to read as follows:
Farmland shall employ high profile overburden stacking in the
mining of the area covered by Settling Area II to the maximum extent
compatible with the spoiling of the leach zone. Any increase in below
ground waste storage realized by the use of this technique shall be
reflected in a lower reclaimed elevation for Settling Area II.
Response W—16
No response required.
Response W-17
No response required.
Response W-18
No response required.
Response W-19
No response required.
3-34
-------
Response W-20
No response required.
Response W-21
EPA recognizes the validity of the points raised by Farmland
regarding the diversion of Hickory Creek under the current mine plan,
and agrees that the impacts resulting from the short-term loss of flow
to the downstream preserved portion of Hickory Creek do not warrant
revision of the mining and reclamation plan for this purpose alone.
While such an alteration could alleviate the short-term impacts of
diverting water from Hickory Creek, it could at the same time result in
the loss of certain desirable aspects of the reclamation plan. However,
recognizing the concern for the maintenance of water quality in the
preserved portion of Hickory Creek and in Troublesome Creek during the
period of the Hickory Creek diversion, EPA is proposing to revise NEPA
condition No. 12 of the Draft NPDES permit. The revised condition will
require monitoring of both Hickory Creek and Troublesome Creek.
Response W-22
Farmland's comment that open mine pits will occur on both sides of
the preserved area of Hickory Creek for a period of only a few months is
accurate. This short-term loss of base flow to lower Hickory Creek does
not warrant revision of the mining and reclamation plan since such an
alteration could result in the loss of certain desirable aspects of the
reclamation plan. However, recognizing the importance of maintaining
the integrity of the preserved area of Hickory Creek, EPA is proposing
to revise NEPA condition No. 13 of the Draft NPDES permit. The revised
condition will require the monitoring of Surficial Aquifer levels within
the preserved portion of Hickory Creek, impose a maximum 3-foot limit on
the lowering of the Surficial Aquifer levels within the preserved area,
and require mitigative measures such as rim ditching adjacent to the
preserved area to prevent exceeding this limit.
3-35
-------
Response W-23
EPA has no objection to revising NEPA condition No. 14 to indicate
that the required monitoring will continue for the life of the mine or
until such time that EPA and Farmland agree that the compiled date
indicate no adverse effect on the Surficial Aquifer.
Response W-24
Categorization of wetlands is done in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Central Florida Phosphate Industry Areawide EIS.
EPA's use of wetlands categorization has been the subject of previous
discussions between the Corps of Engineers and EPA, and there continues
to be a difference of opinion between our two agencies regarding its
appropriateness and utility. EPA remains of the opinion that catego-
rizing wetlands as Category 1 (preserve), Category 2 (mine and restore)
or Category 3 (mine and no restoration) is of value in developing and
evaluating alternative mining/reclamation plans, and EPA intends to
continue application of the principle.
Response W-25
In the spring of 1980, the State of Florida established a phosphate-
related Task Force to identify problems resulting from construction of
homes on phosphate mined and reclaimed lands and to recommend appro-
priate solutions. One of the problems identified was the potential for
high levels of radon and radon progeny accumulating in such homes. As a
result of its investigations, which are still underway, the Task Force
is expected to produce recommended State of Florida guidelines for radon
exposure levels in homes built on reclaimed lands.
Meanwhile, in December of 1980, EPA initiated a study entitled,
"Program for Control of Indoor Radon Levels - Common Building Practices
and Soil Gas Entry Routes in Central Florida". This study, which is
scheduled to take place over a 12- to 15-month period, is aimed at
determining appropriate remedial measures for homes already constructed
on reclaimed lands. The study will also address recommended building
practices for the construction of new homes on reclaimed lands.
3-36
-------
The results of EPA's study will be made available to the State of
Florida, and it is expected that the Task Force will use the information
in its development of state building codes for construction of homes on
reclaimed lands. It is also fully anticipated that Florida's guidelines
for radon exposure levels and building codes will be completed and
adopted well in advance of the time that the Farmland site would be
considered for residential development. In light of these facts, EPA
does not consider it necessary or appropriate to condition the Farmland
Draft NPDES permit to require the recording of deed restrictions for the
mine property.
Response^ W-26
Well injection via connector wells would not be performed by
Farmland nor is it recommended by EPA in this instance because of the
potential for groundwater quality degradation.
Response W-27
Discussions with Hardee County officials indicate that local
zoning, building, and sanitary codes should prevent poor construction
and incompatable development from occurring. Codes which new construc-
tion would be subject to include the Southern Building Code, Southern
Plumbing Code, Southern Mechanical Code, National Electric Code, and
Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code. Development within the county is
also being guided by the 1980 Hardee County Comprehensive Plan which
includes both a Housing Element and a Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Potable Water, and Drainage Element.
Response W-28
Discussions with Hardee County Health Department officials indicate
that there are no known vector-borne disease patterns in the area and no
vector management plans required for a project such as the proposed
Farmland mine.
Discussions with Polk County officials regarding the impact of past
mining activities on vector populations (specifically, mosquitos)
3-37
-------
indicate that the creation of wetland areas during reclamation of rained
areas has increased mosquito populations in some localities to levels
associated with salt marsh areas (bite counts of 200/rainute). A vector-
borne disease, St. Louis Encephalitides, also recurs at about a 2-year
cycle in Polk County. However, occurrence of this disease does not
appear to be centered around phosphate operations. The county maintains
flocks of chickens which are tested periodically for the presence of
this mosquito-borne virus.
Response W-29
One of the "NEPA Requirements" of the proposed NPDES permit for the
project identified in the DEIS was that Farmland monitor the water
quality of the Surficial Aquifer at a location identified by EPA (see
NEPA Requirement No. 14). This location was selected because of its
proximity to a sand-clay mix landfill. Farmland has agreed to monitor
the Surficial Aquifer for the parameters requested by EPA for the life
of the mine or until such time that the EPA and Farmland agree that the
compiled data indicate no adverse impact on the Surficial Aquifer (see
Farmland's written comment W-23).
As a result of comments received on the DEIS, the Surficial Aquifer
monitoring requirements are now proposed to include both water quality
and water level data acquisition. The water level station location
requested by EPA is in the preserved portion of Hickory Creek adjacent
to an area which is to be mined and reclaimed with sand-clay mix
material in year 13 of operation.
Response W-30
The maximum steady-state drawdown of 31 feet predicted by the
Trescott model would occur at the proposed well head which would be well
within the limits of the Farmland site. The reference to the potential
for violation of Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
regulations relates to the lowering of the potentiometrie surface at the
well head below sea level. The elevation of the Farmland site in the
vicinity of the proposed well field is about 75 feet above MSL. Water
3-38
-------
levels in the Floridan Aquifer were measured in 1977-78 and found to
vary between 53 and 28 feet above MSL. If the maximum steady-state
drawdown (31 feet) occurred during the period when the Floridan was at
its lowest level (28 feet above MSL), the Floridan Aquifer's poten-
tiometric surface could fall below sea level. The drawdown would occur
directly in the pumped well with the core of influence rising above MSL
at a horizontal distance of about 4 feet from the center of the well.
In this event, in order to meet SWFWMD permit requirements pumping would
have to be reduced for a period of time to allow the potentiometric
surface to rise to sea level.
A separate requirement of the SWFWMD permit is that drawdown of the
potentiometric surface not exceed a 5-foot limit at the site boundaries.
Modelling of the projected drawdown indicates that the drawdown on
adjacent properties will be less than 4 feet (Figure 3-8 of the DEIS).
Response W-31
See Response W-5.
Response W-32
The forested wetlands on the Farmland mine site are comprised
primarily of mixed hardwood swamps/floodplain areas and bayheads
(including ponds and sloughs). Mixed hardwood swamps and floodplain
forests comprise the majority (66 percent or 800 acres) of the forested
wetlands on the mine site. In these areas, cabbage palm, diamondleaf
oak, and sweet gum dominate an essentially floodplain forest. Mixed
hardwood swamps generally differ from the mesic hardwood forest in the
decreased occurrence of live oak and the increased occurrence of wetland
species such as water hickory, water locust, bald cypress, and American
elm. In general, the dominant species are those with tolerance to a
wide range of moisture conditions. Within the Oak Creek Islands area,
hardwood swamp vegetation consists primarily of two variants. Along a
portion of the Oak Creek channel, cabbage palm forms almost a pure
stand. Throughout the northern portion of this area, in the vicinity of
3-39
-------
the poorly defined drainage pathways, sprouted or coppaced Carolina ash
trees form dense stands in the depressions.
Bayheads (hydric hammocks), which range from 1 to 45 acres in size
on the mine site, are dominated by either a swamp bay/sweet gum asso-
ciation or a sweet bay/red maple association. Bayheads account for 34
percent (405 acres) of the freshwater type on the mine site. Although
these areas generally have a low species diversity, the higher quality
stands contain many uncommon groundcover and epiphytic species, partic-
ularly ferns. The better stands have high timber biomass and relatively
old trees.
Mining will result in the loss of 7 percent (62 acres) of the mixed
hardwood swamps/floodplain areas and 64 percent (258 acres) of the
bayheads on the site. The extent of each type remaining at significant
milestones, expressed as acres and percentage of original acreage, will
be as follows:
Time
Present
Pre-mining
Mining (1-4 yr)
Mining (5-8 yr)
Mining (9-12 yr)
Mining (13-16 yr)
Mining (17-20 yr)
Post-Mining
Mixed Hardwood Swamps/
Floodplain Forests Bayheads
(acres) (acres)
800 (100%) 405 (100%)
800 (100%) 386 (95%)
795 (99%) 348 (86%)
783 (98%) 250 (62%)
771 (96%) 219 (54%)
745 (93%) 177 (46%)
738 (93%) 147 (36%)
738 (93%) 147 (36%)
Overall, mining will result in a 26 percent reduction in the extent of
the existing forested wetland acreage on the site. Farmland's recla-
mation plan calls for the planting of 59 acres of the reclaimed mine
site (primarily along reclaimed lake margins) with hydric species.
However, restoration of forested wetlands such as those which will be
lost will require many years.
3-40
-------
Response W-33
The 2530 acres to be preserved by Farmland are comprised of several
cover types, the most extensive being freshwater swamp (i.e., forested
wetlands). The acreage of each type to be preserved by Farmland will be
as follows:
Freshwater Swamp - 885 acres
Improved Pasture - 456 acres
Pine Flatwoods/Paltnetto Range - 354 acres
Mixed Upland Forest - 276 acres
Hardwood Upland Forest - 187 acres
Citrus - 160 acres
Freshwater Marsh - 107 acres
Other Agricultural - 58 acres
Coniferous Upland Forest - 47 acres
Combined into natural and agricultural types, these account for
1856 and 674 acres, respectively. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 in the DEIS show
the location of unmineable areas on the Farmland site and the existing
land use within preserved areas. As indicated in Figure 2-2, unmineable
areas include areas considered environmentally sensitive as well as
areas considered unmineable because of mine planning constraints (e.g.,
low quality matrix areas). A comparison of Figures 2-2 and 2-3 shows
that about half of the unmineable mine planning areas are to be pre-
served. These areas contain most (about 65 percent) of the preserved
agricultural acreage and a smaller amount (13 percent) of the preserved
natural cover type acreage.
The selection of areas to be mined (as well as the mine schedule)
involved a detailed analysis of the distribution and quality of the
matrix over the site as well as environmental sensitivities. Although
environmentally sensitive areas preserved contained some phosphate ore,
it was found that the deposits were not so extensive as to mandate
3-41
-------
recovery. By sacrificing some adjacent or interspersed deposits, the
following environmentally valuable areas were excluded from disturbance:
• the hydric and mesic forests associated with the floodplain of
the Peace River (Sections 7 and 18, T35S, R25E)
• the forested wetlands associated with the floodplain of
Troublesome Creek (Section 1, T35S, R24E; and Section 36,
T34S, R24E)
• the heterogeneous mixture of upland forests, forested wet-
lands, and freshwater marshes known as Oak Creek Islands
(Sections 3, 10, 11, and 14, T35S, R24E)
• the forested wetlands area along a northern tributary to Oak
Creek (Section 34, T34S, R24E)
• the forested segments along the lower reaches of Hickory Creek
(Section 2 and 11, T35S, R24E).
The largest of these areas is the 822-acre area known as Oak Creek
Islands. Oak Creek Islands consists of a complex, highly interspersed
group of upland and wetland communities, generally grading from pine
flatwoods on the east through successional mesic hardwood stages to
mixed hardwood swamp and cabbage palm hammock in the northwest. Reduc-
tion in flow into the dissected drainage pattern of the north end of
the islands appears to have resulted in a successional trend of increased
upland species. Sweet gum and oaks have invaded the flatwoods whereas
upland shrubs and annual species have invaded the marshes. Marshes and
swamps appear to be limited to depressed areas which may be related to
underlying geologic conditions. The swamps in these areas are composed
primarily of coppaced or sprouted forms of Carolina willow and buttonbush.
Another large ecological unit to be preserved is the 598-acre
forested area along Troublesome Creek and the Peace River. This forest
has high value because of its high species diversity, high biomass,
unique habitat value, and the presence of large, old-age trees shel-
tering a mature and complex community. The floodplain forest also
provides the Peace River with a substantial area for sediment release,
energy dissipation, and additional storage volume.
3-42
-------
The wetlands proposed for mining (i.e., those outside preserved
area boundaries) are those which EPA considers to be Category 2 and 3
Wetlands (see page 3-114 of the DEIS). -Regarding Category 2 Wetlands,
the acreage to be mined must be restored as part of Farmland's recla-
mation plan. Category 3 Wetlands need not be restored. However, Farm-
land has proposed to enlarge its wetland restoration program such that
the total wetland acreage to be mined will be restored (605 acres).
Response W-34
The Category 2 "Acres Lost" acreage tabulation on pages 3-114 and
6-8 of the DEIS refers to the Category 2 "Wetlands Disturbed" shown in
Figure 3-12. The Category 2 Wetlands disturbed are primarily those
wetlands which occur within the 25-year floodplain above the point of 5
cfs and isolated wetlands which are larger than 5 acres in size. Both
freshwater marshes and swamps are included in this category. The
largest area, a 77-acre Bayhead/Inland Pond system, is located in the
southwestern portion of the mine site. Additional large areas within
this category are a 40-acre cattail-bulrush-maidencane marsh in the
north central portion of the site and two 30-acre sawgrass/bayhead
systems in the northwest portion of the site.
Response W-35
Farmland's plan for sand-clay mixing does not entail using the
sand-clay mix technique attempted by Brewster Phosphates, Inc. As
stated in Section 2.4.1 of the DEIS, during the early years of mining
Farmland plans to experiment with the most up-to-date techniques avail-
able and select the technique that is best suited to the conditions at
their mine. The technique to be employed could be any one or a com-
bination of the several techniques currently being refined (e.g., sand-
clay dredge mix, Enviro-clear, Gardinier, or Rotory frommel-PEO). An
important source of information regarding the selection of a technique
will be the presentations to be made on this subject during the seminars
planned at the Bureau of Mines Tuscaloosa Research Center in the summer
of 1982.
3-43
-------
Response W-36
The planned post-reclamation topography of the site is provided in
Figure 2-14 of the DEIS. Farmland's proposed reclamation plan as
presented in the DEIS (Page 3-125) provides for the creation of 339
acres of freshwater marsh and 59 acres of freshwater swamp. Current
plans for the restoration of the 59 acres of freshwater swamp include
plantings of native hydric species such as black gum, sweet gum, red
maple, and bald cypress. Of the 339 acres of freshwater marsh, 158
acres are located in the Hickory Creek and Oak Creek floodplains and in
the reclaimed clear water pool and land and lakes area. Detailed
descriptions of the reclamation plans for these areas are given in
Sections 2.7.1.1.1 and 2.7.1.1.4 of the DEIS. The details are somewhat
limited by the fact that specific measures to be utilized in Farmland's
wetlands revegetation programs will depend upon and take advantage of
the current research being conducted in the phosphate industry as well
as the onsite wetland revegetation experimentation planned for the first
available sand-clay mix landfill. Farmland plans to utilize a 24-acre
portion of Sand/Clay Area I (S/C 1) for this experimentation. Current
Farmland plans include the following experimental plots:
• areas in which volunteer vegetation is allowed to develop;
• areas in which organic substrates removed from disturbed
marshes onsite are introduced to provide a source for the
introduction of natural marsh vegetation;
• areas in which plantings of typical marsh-type species such as
maidencane, pickerelweed, and arrowhead are made; and
• areas in which plantings of hydric tree species—such as bald
cypress, blackgum, sweet gum, and red maple are made (trees of
2 to 4 inch diameter transplanted from onsite disturbed areas
would be included along with bareroot and potted seedlings to
help determine the optimum transplant size for forested
wetland restoration).
The knowledge gained in these experimental plantings will be used
to guide revegetation plans for the remaining freshwater marsh to be
located in depressions within the sand-clay mix landfills. The 181
3-44
-------
acres of restored depression wetlands described in the DEIS have been
expanded as a result of EPA and State requirements to total 388 acres
(see Farmland's Comment W-20).
Successful restoration of the total wetland acreages indicated is
imposed as a permit condition of the Draft NPDES permit. Should revege-
tation of the 388 acres of depression wetlands not occur by natural
colonization of indigenous species, other measures such as plantings and
seedings would have to be implemented in order to satisfy the permit
condition. EPA further proposes a requirement for Farmland to monitor
the results of their wetlands restoration effort. NEPA permit condition
No. 15 has thus been developed to require a wetlands restoration moni-
toring program (previous No. 15 is nov No. 17).
Response W-37
In discussions with Dr. Clayton Ray (Curator of Vertebrate Paleon-
tology at the National Museum of Natural History) and Dr. S. David Webb
(Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Florida State Museum) con-
cerning the mammoth skeleton reported from Hickory Creek, it was learned
that these remains were actually found in Hickey Branch, a tributary of
Payne Creek 15 miles north of the Farmland site. A number of such
Pleistocene remains have been found along the eroded channels of creeks
in the area (e.g., Horse Creek, Prairie Creek), and there is great
potential that fossil remains dating to the Pleistocene, Pliocene, or
even Miocene will be uncovered during the mining of the Farmland site.
From a strictly paleontological point of view, such mining can be either
very beneficial or very harmful. Inevitably some fossils will be
damaged, lost, or destroyed in the course of mining. If no provision is
made for salvage of fossils for science, then paleontologically it would
be better if no mining were done. If, however, modest opportunity is
provided for salvage of specimens and information, then the mining can
be regarded as paleontologically beneficial. The minimal requirement is
3-45
-------
the provision of regular access to dragline spoil windrows (most im-
portant) , ore residue, ore piles, and reject piles, on a strictly not-
to-interfere basis. This mitigation measure is proposed by EPA and
incorporated into the Draft NPDES permit as NEPA requirement No. 16.
Response W-38
No response required.
Response W-39
Mr. Charles Novak, Chief, Network Maintenance Branch was contacted
regarding the locations of geodetic control survey monuments in the
Farmland site area. Mr. Novak's review of such locations found no
markers in the site area.
3.3 HEARING TRANSCRIPT
3-46
-------
1
2
3 PUBLIC HEARING
4 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5 REGION IV
6 IN CONJUNCTION WITH
7 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
8 JULY 14, 1981
9 FARMLAND INDUSTRIES
10 PROPOSED PHOSPHATE MINE AND BENEFICIATION PLANT
11 HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
, ., 3X797
3~47 ) A 33830
-------
1 7/14/81 INDEX PAGE
2 HEARING 3
3 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 44
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
_ ,„ 0X797
3-48 3 A 33830
-------
1
PUBLIC HEARING
2 A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
3 Statement, the proposed issuance of a National Pollutant
4 Discharge Elimination System Permit, and State
5 Certification of the NPDES permit for the Farmland
6 industries, Proposed Phosphate Mine and Beneficiation Plant,
7 Hardee County, Florida, was held on July 14, 1981, at
8 7:00 p.m. in the Hardee County Agricultural and Civic Center,
9 at Altman Road and Stenstrom Road, in Wauchula, Florida.
10 Thereupon, the following proceedings were had and
H taken:
12 MR. IIAGAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name
13 is John Hagan. I am the chief of the Environmental Impact
14 Statement Branch of Region -IV, Environmental Protection
15 Agency in Atlanta, Georgia.
16 With me this evening on the hearing panel is
17 Mr. Mickey Bryant, representing the Florida Department of
19 Environmental Regulation, Mr. Roosevelt Childress, an
19 environmental scientist in the permitting process section,
20 Enforcement Division of EPA in Atlanta, and Ms. Jean Tolman
21 who has been the Environmental Impact Statement Project
22 Officer for the preparation of this EIS.
.23 This evening's; hearing will address possible action by
24 EPA with respect to Farmland Industries' phosphate mine and
25 ;beneficiation:-plant: proposed-for construction in or near the
ANN S. HpRNE REPORTING SERVICE
„ . _ '»797
3-49 33830
-------
1 town of Ona, Hardee County, Florida.
2 The proposed project was determined hy the Regional
3 Administrator of EPA, Region lv to constitute a new source
4 under Section 306 of the Clean Water Act. That's 33 U.S.
5 Code 1251. This requires the issuance of a national pollutan^
6 discharge elimination system permit, otherwise known as an
7 NPDES permit. Issuance of an NPDES permit to a new source
8 facility is by law a major federal action and is therefore
9 subject to the provisions of the National Environmental
10 Policy Act of 1969.
11 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
12 amended, requires federal agencies to prepare an environ-
13 mental -impact statement on major federal actions which
14 significantly effect the quality of the human environment.
15 The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV determined that
16 the proposed Farmland facility would have a significant
17 impact on the quality of the human environment.
18 To meet the requirements of NEPA, a draft environmental
19 impact statement has been prepared and FPA has distributed
20 it government agencies and to the public. Notice of its
21 availability was published in the Federal Register, Volume 46
22 No. 108, dated June 5th, 1991.
23 In addition to FPA's action, the state of Florida has
24 been requested to certify the proposed NPDF.S permit in
25 accordance with the provisions of Section 401 of the Clean
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
3-50 3830
-------
1 Act.
2 This hearing is for the purpose of receiving comment on
3 the draft environmental impact statement, the proposed
4 issuance of the NPDES permit, and the state certification
5 of that proposed permit.
6 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly
7 referred to as the Clean Water Act, has as its explicit goal
8 the elimination of discharge of pullutants by 1985. To
9 achieve this goal, the act created the National Pollutant
10 Discharge Elimination System, a national permit program to
11 control the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters.
12 Under this permit program, anyone who proposes to discharge
13 wastes into waters of the United States must receive a
14 permit setting limits and conditions on the discharge of
15 pollutants. The act requires strict limits for new sources
16 such as the Farmland Industries' facility. The NPDFS permit
17 is the basic regulatory tool for water pollution abatement
18 under federal law. This discharge must be in compliance
19 with it's permit effluents upon initiation of the discharge.
20 And any violation of the terms or limits of the permit will
21 subject the discharger to civil and/or criminal penalties.
22 In accordance with this NPDES permit system and
23 Subsection 306(c) of the Clean Water Act, Farmland Industries
24 has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a
25 permit to discharge pollutants from its plant to be
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
0X797
3-S1 >A 33830
-------
constructed and operated near the town of Ona in Hardee
County, Florida. The permit application describes two
proposed discharge points from the facility. The primary
discharge, proposed outfall Serial No. 001, would discharge
from the clear water pond to Hickory Creek at a location
given as Latitude 27 degrees 27' 54" and Longitude 81
degrees 53' 6". The proposed outfall Serial No. 002 would
discharge from the area described as the reclamation area
into Oak Creek at about Latitude 27 degrees 27' 44" and
Longitude 81 degrees 54' 43". Both receiving streams are
tributaries to the Peace River and are classified by the
state of Florida as Class III. That is recreation and
propagation and management of fish.
The draft NPDES permit proposed for Farmland Industries
was prepared by the staff of Region IV, FPA, using applicable
water quality standards and new source performance standards
for the mining—mineral and mining point source category,
phosphate rock subcategory, contained at Title 40 Part 436 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, and the best professional
judgment of the staff concerning the application of these
guidelines to the site-specific conditions. A fact sheet has
been prepared which details the rationale for the permit
limitations and conditions.
We have made available for distribution here this
evening copies of the public notice, the fact sheet, and othe
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
'.797
3-52 3383°
-------
permit rationale information, and the draft environmental
2 impact statement. Each of these documents, as well as other
3 relevant documentation and all comments received tonight or
4 submitted in writing by the close of business on July the
5 28th, 1981, will become a part of the administrative record
6 for this permit. The information in the record will be used
7 in evaluating the draft permit and in either preparing a
8 final draft NPDES permit in the final EIS, or denying the
9 applicant a permit for the proposed discharge. In addition,
you should be aware that all public comments on the
Farmland Industries' facility and the draft environmental
12 impact statement, whether received here tonight and
13 transcribed for the record or whether submitted in writing
14 directly to the EPA, will be summarized and addressed in the
15 final environmental impact statement.
16 This hearing is to be an EPA public information hearing
17 conducted pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations,
18 Subsection 124.42 (b).
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Tampa
20 Tribune and in the Wauchula Herald Advocate on May the 28th,
1981. Additionally, copies of the public notice and fact
22 sheet and the EIS were mailed to individuals and
23 organizations on the EPA mailing list and to all
24 appropriate governmental agencies.
25 At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Mickey Bryant
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
797
3-53 083°
-------
^^ 8
of the State Department of Environmental Regulation to make
any comments he has concerning the State 401 certification.
Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you. I'd like to, on behalf of the
state of Florida and Secretary Shinkle of the Department of
Environmental Regulation, also welcome everyone here to
tonight's hearing. My main reason for being here is to
listen and receive public input and comments relative to
state certification of this proposed phosphate mine. At
this point in time the department is also currently reviewing
the environmental impact statement and has not formulated
a definite position. And we certainly encourage public
input.
I might mention that in addition to the requirement
under Section 401 of the Clean VJater Act that a state
issues certification or act upon certification. The state
of Florida also will be involved in issuing or at least
considering a number of permits for this proposed facility.
These permits will consider the construction and operation
and discharges from the mine as well as permits for the
construction of dams around holding structures for receiving
wastes, clay wastes and sand wastes from the mine.
The public is also—has the opportunity to become
involved in the state permitting process. And it is
encouraged to send any comments that they might have relative
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
30X797
3—54 IDA 33830
-------
1 to state permits to our sub-district office in Tampa,
2 Florida.
3 I don't really have any other comments at this time.
4 And I am here to listen to your input.
5 MR. HAGAN: Thank you, Mickey.
-------
10
Farmland EIS. However, FPA retains ultimate responsibility
for the EIS.
To comply with the goals of NFPA, the ETS must do the
following: One, provide a thorough description of the
environmental background and setting; two, evaluate all
reasonable alternatives which meet project objectives, as
well as the no action alternative; assess the environmental
impacts of the alternatives; and No. 4, identify all
potentially adverse impacts and evaluate means to mitigate
these impacts.
At this time, I would like to call on Ray Hinkle of
Woodward-Clyde Consultants here tonight to describe how the
Farmland EIS preparation was conducted by the third-party
consultant to satisfy the requirements of MEPA. At the
conclusion of Mr. Hinkle's remarks, I would like to conclude
a discussion of the EIS development by comparing EPAls
recommendations and proposed agency action on the Farmland
project to the recommendations contained in the Central
Florida Phosphate Industry Areawide EIS. Ray.
MR. HINKLE: Thank you, Jean. What I would like to do
is just briefly describe in a little bit more detail perhaps
the way in which we were involved with EPA in the preparation
of the document and then talk a bit in addition about
content of the document itself. As some of you probably
recall, this all was started nearly two years ago in the
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
OX 797
3—56 3A 33830
-------
11
I scoping meeting held in Mulberry, August 1st, 1979. Of
2 course, several things have happened along the way to
3 bring us to this date. And I'll just briefly mention some
4 of those to kind of set our time—our spot in time today.
5 Following that scoping meeting, a final plan of study was
6 prepared for work on EIS and work was initiated and proceeded
7 through the end of 1980 when a modification project was made
8 by Farmland and at the direction of EPA the scope of FIS
9 was modified to reflect a—the—rather the exclusion of the
10 chemical plant portion which had previously been proposed as
11 part of the action.
12 At this point the alternatives considering—concerning
13 the chemical plant were omitted as well as any discussions
14 of impacts of that part of that project and the preliminary
15 draft was prepared for EPA review. That occurred in the
16 period between February and April 1981. And the draft which
17 was submitted for the reproduction and distribution was
18 completed in May of 1981.
19 As Jean indicated, the basic components of the draft
20 EIS are a description of the alternatives which meet the
21 project goals. These alternatives include Farmland's
22 proposed action. Also included is a description of the
23 existing environment of that of the Farmland site and a
24 description of the impacts of the various alternatives on
25 that existing environment. The alternatives evaluation is
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
X797
3_57 V33830
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
what is considered to be the part of the RIS. It is really
where the least damaging or most environmentally suitable
means of achieving the project goals come forth and can be
then evaluated with other alternatives, evaluating in
addition the technical and economic aspects of each. The
proposed action, that being the mine only, is the same
action as was discussed by Farmland during their DRI
hearings which again many of you may have heard or may have
had the opportunity to attend. So that, in effect, we're
talking about the same project. And the proposed action
with the addition of some mitigating measures is also as
Jean will discuss the EPA's preferred alternative. So that
we're all, really I think, talking about the proposed action
as kind of the alternative that is to get the—in the lime-
light, so to say.
Farmland's objective is to produce two million tons per
year of wet phosphoric rock over a 25 year life of the mine.
This will require the mining of some 4,951 acres of the
7,800 acre site with an additional 329 acres to be occupied
by other facilities such as the beneficiation plant. During
the. life of the mine, all of the rock mined from the tract
will be shipped to existing fertilizer plants for conversion
to finished fertilizer with approximately 50 percent of the
tonnage going to Farmland's existing phosphate fertilizer
manufacturing facility at Green Bay. The rock currently
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
E BOX 797
3.53 JRIDA 33830
-------
13
1 being processed at that existing facility has historically
2 been purchased from other producers of raw material in
3 Florida.
4 The initial phases of the proposed activity would
5 include land clearing and open burning in advance of the
6 mine. The cleared acreage in front of the mining operation
7 being about 20 acres. The mine operation will involve a
8 single large dragline supplemented beginning in year 10 by
9 a second smaller dragline. The mine matrix will be slurried
10 and transferred by a pipe line to the beneficiation plant
11 for washing, to separate several—pebble product, clay,
12 and fines and for floatation to recover additional product.
13 The wet rock will be stored temporarily at the plant.
14 Farmland plans to construct a railroad spur to the
15 plant linking it with the existing Seaboard Coastline
16 Railroad and rail ship the product from the plant to the
17 receiving phosphate fertilizer plants. There will be
18 impacts that will result as, or occur as a result of these
19 activities. And what I would like to do is just briefly go
20 through the various disciplines which are discussed within
21 the document and perhaps highlight some of the impacts that
22 would result.
23 Air quality meteorology and noise impacts will result
24 from both mining and processing activities. These will
25 however be minor increases, notably in fugitive dust
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3-59 IDA 33830
-------
14
! emissions and emissions from internal combustion engines.
2 There will also be minor emissions of all reagents used in
3 the processing. Noise levels will be increased in the
4 vicinity of operating equipment, but should dissipate within
5 relatively short distances. Geology and soils impacts will
6 result from the disruption of surface soils and overburden
7 over 4,951 acres of the site and a—and the mine will result
8 in a completion of some four million tons of phosphate rock
9 reserves over the life of the mine. Waste disposal and
10 reclamation will also result in the formation of unnatural
H surface soils on the site. The acreage being as follows:
12 sand-clay mix reclamation areas, 3,915 acres; clay disposal
13 areas, 583 acres; sand disposal areas 104 acres; other types
14 of land disturbance would be—and reclamation would be land
15 and lakes, 567 acres as well as 111 acres of land left
16 following construction. That would be buildings and such
17 that are removed, but the land disturbed. Radiation levels
18 will be increased at the surface within the surface soils.
19 The—this will result as a result of the natural—it will
20 result in the natural distribution being altered resulting
(picocuHe)
21 in higher levels than the generally less than one hy-Picocury
22
25
per gram radium 226 currently found on the site. Examples
23 are that the average radium 226 level in sand-clay mixer is—
(plcocurles per gram).
24 should be on the order of three to four hydrograms Picocury.
The levels in clay areas should be on the order of six
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
0X797
3-60
-------
1
2
3
4
' 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
(picocunes per gram), ~
hydrograms Picocury. Areas reclaimed with sand will have
the lowest of the three types of unnatural soils. These
(picocuries per
having radiation, radium 226 levels of about two hydrograms
gram)
Picocury. Groundwater will be withdrawn for use in process-
ing. The average rate being 8.83 mgd. This will cause a
lowering of the potentiometric surface in the immediate site
area. The Surficial Aquifer will also be lowered in the
vicinity of active mine cuts due to the dewatering simply
through the surface or the Surficial Aquifer waters draining
into the pits. Surface waters, there will be a disruption of
surface water flows from the mine site. Following
reclamation, however, these alterations will be such that
the end or the net difference is only -.5 CFS so that
surface flows will be returned following reclamation. There
will be discharged into surface waters from two discharge
points which will described to you. These are planned so
that they will occur at times when flows are above the
normal flow, I'll say, and that the streams should absorb
the pollutants, I'll say, that are contained within the
discharge so that they do not exceed any standards.
The destruction of aquatic habitats on the mine site
will result in losses of aquatic organisms. However,
reclamation of the site will be such that there will be many
acres of acquatic habitat provided that are now lacking.
Currently, the surface waters on the site support primarily
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
C797
3-61 .33830
-------
. 16
I fish species such as mosquito fish and ki.llif Ish. The
2 creation of some 500 acres of lakes and meandering streams.
3 will provide additional habitat for species such as large
4 mouth bass and bluegill and red-eared sunfish. The mining
5 will also result in destruction of terrestrial habitat on the
6 site. The totals being as follows: pasture 1,960 acres;
7 citrus 1,757 acres; early successional areas which are
8 really roadside type areas where the plants are just becoming
9 established 95 acres; pine flatwoods, palmetto range 583
10 acres; upland forest 280 acres; swamp 320 acres; marsh 285
11 acres. The species affected by the disturbance include a
12 species which is considered threatened by the US Fish and
13 Wildlife Service, that being the Eastern Indigo Snake.
14 The impacts on the Eastern Indigo Snake population, however,
15 are not considered to be significant. And therefore the
16 proposed action does not represent a threat to the
17 continued existence of the species. There are, however,
18 mitigation measures which are proposed to reduce the impacts
19 on this species.
20 The socio-economic impacts which the project will
21 result in include the generation of jobs with comparatively
22 high incomes for Hardee County, the addition of ad valorem
23 and sales tax revenue for Hardee County, the creation of
24 severance tax revenue for the state, land reclamation trust
25 fund, and Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. There
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3-62 IDA 33830
-------
17
! will be some additional influx of population to Hardee
2 County which will have an increased or will create an
3 increased demand for housing, transportation, fire protection
4 police, and medical services. But these should all be within
5 the capabilities of the county to handle. The monetary
6 returns to the county are sufficient to cover those increased
7 costs.
8 I think that basically provides an overview of the
9 impacts of the proposed action. There are other alternatives
10 as I say, that were considered which have different impacts
11 in some cases, particularly on surface waters and in some
12 cases on terrestrial habitats. These are discussed in the
13 EIS in more detail. And I think that would be a better
14 source rather than taking more time here.
15 MS. TOLMAN: Thank you, Ray.
16 The Central Florida Phosphate Industry Areawide EIS
17 published by EPA in 1978 contains several recommendations for
18 future phosphate mining operations. These guidelines were
19 kept closely in mind in evaluating Farmland's proposed project
20 and in developing and evaluating alternatives and mitigating
2i measures.
22 EPA's recommendations and proposed agency action are
23 embodied in the draft NPDES permit contained in the DEIS,
24 specifically in the 15 NEPA generated permit conditions
25 found in the last six pages of the draft permit. Those of you
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
10X797
3-63 DA 33830
-------
18'
! who have the fact sheet in hand might like to turn to
2 Attachment C, the permit. These permit conditions follow
3 the order of the Areawide EIS recommendations and I would
4 like at this time to quickly go over the recommendations and,
5 where applicable, the corresponding permit condition.
6 First, the Areawide EIS recommended the elimination of
7 the rock-drying process at beneficiation plants and the
8 transport of wet rock to chemical plants. The proposed
9 Farmland project does not include a rock dryer and calls
10 for all rock to be transported from the site in a wet
11 condition. Secondly, the Areawide EIS called for any new
12 source mine to meet state of Florida and local effluent
13 limitations for any discharge. The draft NPDES permit
14 prescribes limits which will meet those effluent limitations.
15 They will be addressed in some detail by Mr. Childress on my
16 left. Third, the elimination of conventional above ground
17 slime disposal areas was a recommendation by the Areawide
18 EIS. In order to meet this recommendation, the Areawide EIS
19 encourages the use of a mixture of sand tailings and waste
20 clays in reclamation while at the same time it recognized
21 the need for an initial above ground storage area. Farmland1!
22 proposal conforms to this recommendation, and NEPA generated
23 Permit Condition No. 1 reads: Farmland^ shall exclude the
24 utilization of any conventional above ground slime disposal
25 areas with the exception of clay setting areas I and II
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
X797
3-64 * 33830
-------
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
described in the EIS. Farmland's waste disposal and
reclamation plan shall employ a sand-clay mix process as
described in the EIS. Only settling area II shall remain
active for the life of the mine. Furthermore, Permit
Condition No. 2, proposed by EPA is a—as a further mitigatini
measure, reads: Farmland shall perform the dragline mining
operation in a fashion that increases the casting distance
of the overburden, causing the overburden to be piled higher
and thereby increasing by approximately 10 percent the below
ground volume available for waste disposal and lowering the
above ground profile of settling area II by approximately
four feet. I might add that this was the mitigation measure
that was suggested by the mining engineer as part of the
third party consultant team. The Areawide EIS recommended
that any new source mining operation meet Southwest Florida
Water Management District consumptive use permit requirements
Farmland is obligated to the terms and conditions of the
SWFWMD permit. Should Farmland fail to comply with the
permit, the permit will automatically become null and void.
In addition, EPA has made this obligation a part of the
NPDES permit by Condition No. 3 which reads: Farmland shall
meet the requirements of its Southwest Florida Water
Management District Consumptive Use permit. The Areawide
EIS recommended that new source minutes provide storage
allowing for recirculation of water recovered from slimes.
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
797
3-65 33830
-------
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The water recirculation system for Farmland's proposed mining
operation provides for containment and for approximately 90
percent water recirculation so that a discharge should be
required only during periods of heavy rainfall. Commitment
to this proposed system is required by Permit Condition No.
4, which I will not read out loud. I believe you have it
before you. Another AEIS recommendation was for the use of
connector wells. Farmland does not propose to use connector
wells for recharging the Floridan Aquifer from the Surficial
Aquifer, not does EPA recommend it in this case. It is not
considered desirable since high gross alpha radiation levels
were found in the Surficial Aquifer at the site. The
Areawide EIS recommended that new source mines develop minina
and reclamation plans that reduce the amount of radiation
at the surface. Permit Condition No. 5 states that: During
the dragline mining activity, Farmland shall employ the
technique of leach zone management by toe spoiling, that is,
overburden from near the interface with the matrix (the leach
zone, where radioactivity in the overburden is concentrated)
shall be placed at the toe of the spoil pile and covered with
overburden from upper strata. The Areawide EIS recommends
that new'source mines meet county and state reclamation
requirements and that they conduct an inventory of types of
wildlife in the mine site. On December 4th, 1980, Hardee
County issued Farmland a development order for their project.
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3-66 IDA 33830
-------
1
2
applicable—pardon me—the permit condition applicable to
4
3
this recommendation is No. 6, which states: Farmland shall
meet county and state reclamation requirements. Also, an
o
inventory of wildlife habitats on the site was made and
6
„ is included in the DEIS. The Areawide EIS recommends that
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
A master plan has also been filed pursuant to the county's
mining and earthmoving ordinance. The permit condition
the mining and reclamation plan take into account the
protection and restoration of habitat so selected species of
wildlife will be protected. Farmland's mining plan calls
for areas to be cleared only as mining approaches. Included
in the reclamation plan is the restoration of some mined
areas as wildlife habitat. Lastly, Farmland proposes to
preserve approximately 2,500 acres on the site. This
commitment is include in Permit Condition No. 7, which
states: Farmland shall preserve from mining, or any other
disturbance, the areas proposed for preservation in
Farmland's proposed action in the EIS. These areas are
depicted in the attached map, Figure 1. These areas—pardon
me—specifically, the total preserved acreage of 2,530 acres
shall include a minimum of 510 acres of forested uplands,
885 acres of freshwater swamp, 107 acres of freshwater marsh,
and 354 acres of pine flatwoods/palmetto range, all in the
locations depicted in Figure 1. Additionally, EPA proposes
as mitigating measures Permit Conditions No. 8 and 9. These
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
0 ,.„ XJX797
3-67 PA 33830
-------
22
1 also apply to that recommendation in the Areawide EIS. No.
2 8 reads: Farmland shall increase the acreage reclaimed as
3 forest habitat and provide corridors for wildlife movement
4 between reclaimed and preserved areas by planting additional
5 areas as depicted in Figure 2, attached, also in your permit
6 fact sheet. No. 9 reads: Farmland shall incorporate into
7 its reclamation plan a littoral zone at the downstream extent
8 of the proposed reclaimed open lake in the Hickory Creek
9 channel. This littoral zone shall be at least 500 feet wide
10 and at a depth suitable for emergent vegetation, providing
11 for the establishment of 7 to ten acres of marsh community.
12 I might interject at this point that this is not the only
13 instance of littoral zone provisions. This is in addition
14 to the littoral zone vegetation, revegetation already been
15 included in the proposed plan. This is a mitigating measure
16 which adds to that already being done. Farmland's proposed
17 project, as Mr. Hagan pointed out, will affect one species
18 considered threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
19 To mitigate effects on the Indigo snake, EPA proposes
20 Permit Condition No. 10. Permit Condition No. 10 reads:
21 Before beginning any land-disturbing activities, Farmland
22 shall develop a program whereby Indigo snakes encountered
23 in the work area are captured for relocation to other areas
24 of suitable habitat in the site region. This program shall
25 include informing Farmlarid workers of the importance of the
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
- ,_ >X797
3-68 JA 33830
-------
23
1 Indigo snake, familiaring them with its appearance and
2 instructing them as to its preservation. In addition, the
3 gopher tortoise population shall be protected to the extent
4 possible in the site area. Farmland shall coordinate its
5 recovery and relocation efforts with the Endangered Species
6 Coordinator, and shall maintain a record of the program to
7 be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The
8 Areawide EIS recommended the protection and restoration of
9 wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers
10 pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Areawide
11 EIS established three categories of wetlands. No specific
12 boundaries or wetlands area have been officially identified
13 by the Corps of Engineers. The following three categories
14 of wetlands, however, were established by the EPA in the
15 Areawide EIS: Category 1, wetlands to be protected, not
16 mined or disturbed; Category 2, wetlands which may be mined
17 but must be restored as wetlands capable of performing useful
18 wetland functions; Category 3, wetlands which can be mined
19 without restoration as wetlands. Wetlands on the Farmland
20 site were categorized "fallowing EPA criteria. Wetland area
21 on the property were classified as either Category 1, 2, or
22 3. Farmland's proposed mine plan will result in the loss
23 and protection of the following acreages of each of the above
24 wetland categories. Category 1, acres lost 0, acres protected
25 710, percent protected 100 percent. Category 2, acres lost
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
'797
3-69 33830
-------
24
1 502, acres protected 264, percent protected 34. Category 3:
2 acres lost 91, protected 18, percent protected 16. Farmland1
3 reclamation plan would restore 398 acres of wetlands on the
4 Farmland mined site. This amounts to 77 percent of the
5 Category 2 wetlands on the site. I might reiterate,
6 Category 2, wetlands according to EPA's criteria should be
7 restored in their entire acreage. Therefore, EPA proposes
8 Permit Condition No. 11. Permit Condition No. 11 reads:
9 Farmland shall comply with the categorization of wetlands
10 present on the mine site as set forth in the EIS and
11 illustrated in Figure 3, attached. In summary, within
12 Category 1 wetlands, Farmland shall not mine, shall limit
13 activities to those essential to and unavoidable for the
14 mining operation, and shall otherwise take all reasonable
15 measures to preserve all Category 1 wetlands. Additionally,
16 Farmland shall restore the total acreage of Category 2
17 wetlands disturbed by mining. Specifically, the acreage to
18 be restored as freshwater marsh or swamp according to
19 Farmland's proposed action in the EIS shall be increased by
20 at least 116 acres (from 398 acres to a minimum of 514
21 acres). This shall be done by differential grading and
22 settling of sand-clay mix areas in addition to that
23 already proposed by Farmland in the EIS. In addition,
24 Conditions 12 and 13 are mitigating measures proposed by EPA
25 to further minimize impacts on wetlands. No. 12: During
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3_7Q *IDA 33830
-------
25
the mining of the unpreserved portion of Hickory Creek, the
flow from this area shall be diverted around the active
mine area into the lower preserved section of Hickory Creek
rather than to Troublesome Creek. Thirteen: Mining in the
vicinity of lower Hickory Creek shall be scheduled such that
open mine pits exist adjacent to only one side of the
preserved portion of the creek at a given time.
The final Areawide EIS recommendation applicable to
Farmland is to attempt to preserve archaeological or
historical sites through avoidance or mitigation. An
archaeological and historical survey of the Farmland site
was conducted. The State Historic Preservation Officer for
Florida concluded that the archaeological and historical
resources of the site did not merit any mitigative measures
or preservation.
Permit Condition No. 14 has no direct relationship
to a recommendation of the Areawide EIS, but reflects rather
the new technology represented by the use of sand-clay mix.
No. 14 reads: Farmland shall monitor the water quality of
the Surficial Aquifer at the location identified on the
attached map, Figure 3. The following parameters shall be
monitored on a quarterly basis for the life of the mine: pHf
specific conductance, sulfates, fluoride, and ammonia. A
written report summarizing the data shall be submitted once
a year to EPA. The purpose of this is we are dealing with
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
IOX797
3-71 DA 33830
-------
26
I a new technology and we're trying to establish what exactly
2 does occur, what, if anything, does seep out and stand in
3 this area of the Surficial Aquifer.
4 No. 15 is what might be described as a general condition
5 It commits Farmland to carry out the project as described in
6 evaluating the EIS, so that everything that they propose to
7 do including all mitigating measures in their proposed action
8 shall be done.
9 No. 15 reads: Unless specified otherwise by a preceding
10 condition in this permit, Farmland shall carry out its mining
11 project in complete accordance with the applicant's proposed
12 action described and evaluated in the Farmland EIS, including
13 the employment of all mitigating measures presented as part
14 of the proposed action. However, this shall not preclude
15 the imposition of any additional or more stringent conditions
16 which may be required by any local or state regulatory agency
17 or governmental entity.
18 Thank you for your patience in going over these rather
19 extensive permit conditions. What we're trying to do is
20 supply information obtained through the EIS process in a
21 very real fashion to a permit issued—proposed to be issued
22 to Farmland.
23 MR. HAGAN: Thank you, Jean. Now, I would like to call
24 on Mr. Roosevelt Childress of our Permits Program in
25 Atlanta to discuss in a little different light the NPDES
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
(797
3—72 »33830
-------
27
I permit that is proposed to be issued. Mr. Childress.
2 MR. CHILDRESS: Thank you, John.
3 The draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
4 System, NPDES, permit—I'll start again. The draft—draft
5 National Pollutant Discharge Elination System—the draft NPDES
6 permit for the Farmland Industries was developed by the
7 Permit Processing Section of the Consolidated Permits Branch
8 in EPA. It is our responsibility to insure that the
9 requirements of the Clean Water Act are carried out.
10 Mr. Hagan has stated that the proposed project was
11 determined by the Regional Administrator to be a new source
12 under Section 306 of the Clean Water Act. For this reason,
13 the environmental aspects of the project are subject to
14 review procedures specified in the National Environmental
15 Policy Act, abbreviated NEPA. The review process, as Jean
16 Tolman just discussed, is directed by our EIS Branch. The
17 NPDES permit issuance process is conducted in conjunction
18 with this review process.
19 In this regard, effluent guidelines have been published
20 to address the wastewater generated from this facility.
2i However, in some cases, effluent guidelines requirements
22 alone are not enough to insure that the integrity of the
23 water quality within the receiving stream is protected. This
24 brings me to my discussion of the terms and conditions of
25 the proposed permit. You should have gotten a copy of it as
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
1797
33830
-------
28
l you entered and registered at the registration desk in the
2 rear of the room. It will be helpful if you refer to this
3 draft permit as I briefly cover its contents.
4 The effluent limits on page 1 and 2 of part I are
5 applicable to wastewater discharges dependent on heavy
6 rainfall events, which will occur in non-continuous
7 discharges. Discharge No. 1 will consist of overflow from
8 waste settling areas to Hickory Creek and discharge 002 will
9 originate from the reclamation area to Oak Creek. The
10 company expects to discharge 182 days out of the year. The
11 effluent guidelines for this industry, Phosphate Rock
12 Subcategory of the Mineral Mining and Processing Category,
13 only identifies total suspended solids and pH as parameters
14 warranting permit conditions. As I said before, the effluent
15 guideline requirements alone will not protect the water
16 quality within Hickory and Oak Creeks. Both creeks are
17 classified as Class III waters suitable for contact
18 recreation and the management and propagation of fish and
19 wildlife. Therefore, additional parameters included in the
20 draft permit are biochemical oxygen demand - five day,
2i Specific Conductance and combined Radium 226 and 228.
22 State of Florida requirements for Class III waters
23 require that the instream measurement of specific
24 conductance not be raised above a maximum level. The
25 dilution requirements on page 3 of part I will ensure
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3-74 IDA 33830
-------
__ 29
compliance with this standard. Conductivity is a measure
of the ability of water to conduct an electric current.
This measurement can be used to indicate the total amount of
. dissolved solids in the effluent. State standards also
4
require that radium limits and more stringent pH upper
3
6 limit of 8.5 to be placed in the permit. The effluent
7 guideline requirement for pH is 6.0 to 9.0. So in writing
the current conditions we had to use the more stringent
standard of 8.5.
10 Also on page 3 of part I is a statement which will
relieve the company from complying with the total suspended
solids and pH conditions during a heavy rainfall even which
13 might occur once in 10 years if the treatment facilities
14 are designed and maintained to meet certain criteria.
15 Finally, the permit conditions I have just discussed
16 constitute the principle part of the permit from an NPDES
17 standpoint. However, as previously explained, a new source
18 such as this facility is subject to additional environmental
19 regulations under NEPA. And those conditions were just
20 discussed by Jean Tolman.
Thank you. John.
22 MR« HAGAN: This concludes the Environmental Protection
23 Agency and the state of Florida's presentation with regard
24 to this permit. It is now time for the principal purpose of
25 our meeting which is to receive the public comments. A goal
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
0X797
3-75 DA33830
-------
30
1 of the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy
2 Act is to be encouraged and provide for public participation
3 and input into the decision-making process for actions
4 legislated by these two acts, to encourage governmental
5 responsiveness to the public, and to promote a general
6 awareness of the actions proposed by federal agencies, we
7 are now conducting this public meeting.
8 We asked you to register so that we may have a record
9 of those in attendance, and also that we can send you the
10 notices of our determination regarding this permit. If
11 you have not already registered and wish to make an oral
12 statement,tonight, we ask that you do register and indicate
13 that you wish to make a statement on the registration card.
14 There are some other formalities here that I think I
15 need not go through. The rules of our public hearing
16 process are really quite simple. We ask you to come to the
17 microphone, identify yourself and—for the benefit of our
18 court reporter, and then make your statement. We have only
19 one person so far who has indicated that they wish to make
20 a statement. So with that, I will not impose any kind of
21 time limit on the statement to be made. However, I would
22 ask that if the statement that is to be made is a lengthy
23 or highly technical statement, that you present to us in
24 writing so that the court reporter can get it entirely
25 correct. Our first and only registered speaker tonight is
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
'X797
3-76
-------
31
1 Murray Hellein, H-e-1-l-e-i-n.
2 MR. HELLEIN: Do you want me to come on up there?
3 MR. HAGAN: Yes, if you would come to the rostrum for
4 us/ please/ sir?
5 MR. HELLEIN: You know, on the—your overflow or that
6 waste material that is coming off of there, what effect now
7 will that have on the cattle?
8 MR. HAGAN: On the cattle? Does anyone—do you care
9 to address that? Do you have a specific concern for the
10 cattle? You know, are you in the cattle business?
11 MR. HELLEIN: I have. I've got some people here that
12 do, so that's, you know, whan you say you're going to unload it,
13 dump it down Hickory Branch, I was just wondering what effect
14 would that have on the cattle?
15 MR. HAGAN: I would have to defer, I think, to our
16 third-party consultant and ask him if it has—what the water
17 quality in Hickory Branch is going to be as a result of this
18 discharge.
19 MR. HINKLE: I think that's a question that we'll have
20 to address in specific terms, you know, in the response
21 section of the final EIS. I don't know if we can actually
22 come up with the numbers at this time.
23 MR. CHILDRESS: Well, one thing, one thing I would like
24 to say to address that, is that the discharge would only
25 occur during a heavy rainfall event such that the dilution
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
797
3_77 33830
-------
32
1 of the wastewater from the facility should be so great,
2 because the rainfall then should be one such that it might
3 occur maybe once in ten years.to cause the effluent to over-
4 flow. So it would not be a continuous discharge.
5 MR. HELLEIN: All right. Now, are they going to put
6 a monitoring station down on Hickory Branch there at Murphy
7 Road where it's coming out?
8 MR. HAGAN: Yes, there will be a monitoring station
9 there.
10 MR. HELLEIN: Mow, you just put one up down on Whidden
11 Road at Oak Creek.
12 MR. HAGAN: That's a USGS gauging station. That's not—
13 that's not one of our monitoring stations.
14 MR. HELLEIN: Then they'll be one put up on each road
15 though or on Hickory Branch there?
16 MR« HAGAN: There will be monitoring on the branch, yes.
17 MR. HELLEIN: All right.
18 MR. HAGAN: I might point out that the water quality
19 standards for both of these streams are for fish and wildlife
20 And the numerical standards, the water quality that goes
2i along with that use classification is specifically designed
22 to protect fish and wildlife. And, you know, it would be my
23 presumption that the same water quality would be sufficient
24 to protect that. That's a presumption on my part. And as
25 Mr. Hinkle indicated, we will address that specifically in
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
BOX 797
3-7S IDA 33830
-------
33
1 the final EIS.
2 MR. HELLEIN: Well, I know on the other ones, runoffs
3 on other mines, it's so brown you can't never see through it.
4 And I just wondered how that—how anything can live in that.
5 MR. HAGAN: We saw some pretty nice brown water streams
6 this afternoon and they had fish in them.
7 MR. CHILDRESS: I would like to—I would like to also
8 add that this industry is one which was studied by FPA to
9 identify the type of pollutants that would be in the waste-
10 water. And the only ones that can be identified to include
11 as permit conditions were suspended solids and pH. If they
12 had chemicals within the wastewater toxic enough to do any
13 harm to the fish and wildlife, we would have identified them
14 biochemical effluent guidelines. And also this industry is
15 not one of the industrial categories which were identified
16 in the NRPC as containing toxic materials.
17 MR. HELLEIN: All right. And what about on the dust
18 control now?
19 MS. TOLMAN: Dust emissions, do you mean dust that
20 MR. HELLEIN: Right.
21 MS. TOLMAN: OK. That is something also that is
22 evaluated and discussed in the environmental impact statement
23 The conclusions in the environmental impact statement were
24 to the effect that the emissions, and we're not talking about
25 emissions from handling dry rock or emissions from a
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
'OX 797
3-79 DA33830
-------
34
chemical plant, all we're talking about is earthmoving
2 equipment going out and stirring .up dust which is not
,, considered to have any impacts off the property.
o
4 MR. HELLEIN: All right.
MS. TOLMAN: Or during the—the dragline stirs up a
O
6 little dust when it picks up a, you know, a bucketful of
7 earth. The beneficiation plant, the rock product, everything
8 is in a wet condition. So in summary, I hate to paraphrase
9 the EIS because it's a much better source of information
10 than I am sitting here, but briefly it says that dust
n emissions are not considered to be a significant problem
12 with this mining and benefication operation as presently
13 proposed.
14 MR. HAGAN: Mr. Bryant had a remark about the water
15 guality.
16 MR. BRYANT: Yes, I'd just like to point out that, as
17 I mentioned earlier, the department has not taken the
18 position on this mine and while there are recommendations,
19 I'm sure in the record now there's certain monitoring and
20 for certain limitations on the discharge in the draft permit.
The department is not prevented and shall consider the
£»\
22 inclusion of any other monitoring—any other parameters in
23 the monitoring program and also other parameters as
24 limitations on this mine where we feel that it may be of
25 concern. I know of one parameter that I don't believe is
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
TC797
3-80
-------
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
listed in the parameters to be-monitored, is fluoride. And
that may be a parameter of some concern. However, fluoride
levels discharging from phosphate mines that are not
connected with a chemical plant are considerably lower. But
I'm sure that is one parameter that we'll be concerned about
and will be required to be monitored. And there is a current
limitation, a state board quality standard limitation for
fluorides. And I'm sure that that standard will be applied
to this permit. I can't say particularly at this point any
other particular parameters that may be included. I won't
exclude that there won't be others. In addition as far as
the monitoring goes, the department will evaluate where the
current monitoring requirements and may identify other
locations. If we feel they need to be monitored at least
over a period of time to ascertain some downstream impacts
or effects, and so very likely there may be a program to
monitor these effects for a period to determine the level of
impact. And if the impact shows to be very minor> then, of
course, those additional monitoring locations may be reduced
or the number of parameters be monitored may be reduced at
some future time.
MR. HELLEIN: All right. Will there be any effect on
any of the wells down there?
MR. HAGAN: Well, you're asking questions, sir, that I
believe are really addressed in the EIS. Have you read the
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
797
3-81 33830
-------
36
! EIS?
2 MR.. HELLEIN: Mot all of it.
3 MR. HAGAN: Well, you know, you're asking us to reiterate
4 information here that I believe is really contained in the
5 EIS. We're—we're primarily here to get comments on the FIS
6 and, you know, I think we should limit our discussion tonight
7 to comments on the FIS. And I would—I would ask you if you
8 would to take advantage of the information that's in the
9 document. And then if you have some questions that you—that
10 you don't understand or some information that is not included
11 in the document, then we'll be glad to address that.
12 MR. HELLEIN: All right. Fair enough.
13 MR. HAGAN: Thank you. Mr. Harwell, from Farmland, is
14 our first maybe on the list. Did you wish to say anything?
15 MR. HARWELL: Richard didn't have anything to say, so
16 I'll withhold anything.
!7 MR. HAGAN: Our—as I say, our meeting is quite
18 informal. Is there anyone else who has not previously
19 indicated that they wish to speak that would like to make a
20 comment or raise an issue? Sir, would you come to the
2i microphone and identify yourself, please, sir?
22 MR. ABRONS: I think my voice can carry if you don't
23 mind. I just have a very simple question. One of the
24 conditions is the establishment of a littoral zone.
25 MR. HAGAN: Would you identify yourself for us?
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
""1X797
3-82 A33830
-------
37
1 MR. ABRONS: Yes. Herbert Abrons.
2 MR. HAGAN: Thank you, sir.
3 MR. ABRONS: A-b-r-o-n-s, Overlook Groves.
4 MR. HAGAN: All right.
5 MR. ABRONS: One of the conditions is the establishment
6 of a littoral zone in the lower portion of Hickory Creek. I
7 just wanted to get a clear idea of what a littoral zone is.
8 I'm not 100 percent sure.
9 MS. TOLMAN: Ray Hinkle and I are both biologists. I
10 don't know who's going to get to answer this.
11 MR. HINKLF: You've got the mike.
12 MS. TOLMAN: The littoral zone refers to an area where
13 the water meets the shore. What you're talking about is
14 you have a slope of land where the water meets the shore.
15 And the littoral zone is that area of interface of water
16 and land where conditions are wet anywhere from the point
17 where it is wet down to a few feet below that where the
18 plants can root and grow and come up out of the water for
19 them to get sunlight. You see plants like your macro
20 benthic irivertrates, plants like that where they can—the
21 water is not too deep that they can root and grow and come
22 out of the water. And these littoral zone areas are marsh
23 areas and provide important habitat and play an important
24 role in the wetlands. So if you have a—the opposite would
25 be where you'd have just a straight vertical sloping—I mean
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
X797
3-83
-------
38
1 a vertical—what am I trying to say—what is the sort of
2 situation—where the water and the land meet, you don't have
3 this zone. You just have the one point. And there's no
4 opportunity for vegetation to grow there.
5 MR. BRYANT: Jean, in addition littoral zone should
6 reduce the amount of erosion that you might anticipate in a
7 straight body and also serve that function to prevent the
8 disturbance of the stream through the carrying of sediments
9 that are along the bank as well.
10 MR. HAGAN: Are there any additional comments from the
U floor or questions from the floor? Yes, sir. Would you
12 come to the podium and identify yourself for us, please, sir?
13 MR. MISLEVY: Paul Mislevy. My question is: You talk
14 about sand-clay mixing in your reclamation process. Can you
15 tell me where I can find some scientific or research data
16 on this to show specific vegetation, how certain vegetation,
17 whether it be pasture, perennial grasses, whether it be corn,
18 whether it be pine trees, whatever, how various vegetation
19 responds on this type of a mixture? And the second part of
20 the question which maybe should have been first. What is the
21 time period between digging this and getting that sand-clay
22 and getting the vegetation on there again?
23 MS. TOLMAN: Answering your first question first, what
24 I'd like to do is get your address. I have some references,
25 sources of information that I don't have with me tonight that
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
7Q7
3-84 33830
-------
1
2
.
tonight. There are several figures depicting the sequence of
O
reclamation. And there is also a table that shows exactly
7
o filled and then what year reclamation of that same area will
o
9 be complete. So—and in addition there are more details.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
I will send to you. And we'll be happy to provide that, mail
it to you when we get back to Atlanta. The second thing is
that in the draft environmental impact statement which is
available. Copies are available for distribution here
what year during the mine life any specific area will be
There are just-'-some of the drawings are in the EIS, you
know, not all of them. And the entire sequence of, I don't
know, maybe 20 drawings or something like that is in one of
the supplemental information documents which we do not have
available here tonight. But if you would like to have those
technical background documents, there are two volumes, again
if you '..ould give me your name and address we would be happy
to send you or anyone else here those drawings. Let me ask
Mr. Hinkle. He's looking at it. What page is that?
MR. HINKLE: The table is on page 11-78.
MS. TOLMAN: 11—78 for the table and the drawings are in
the general vicinity.
MR. HINKLE: And they start on page 11-67.
MR. TOLMAN: They start on page 11-67.
MR. HAGAN: Could I ask you, Paul, if you would spell
/our last name for our court reporter.
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
3-85 oo
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
MR. MISLEVY: Yes, M-i-s-1-e-v-y. You have a card there
MR. HAGAN: Right. Thank you.
MR. MISLEVY: You see, I've been trying to get
scientific data. And I have had the computer trying to find
me scientific data on this for over a year now. It comes up
with zero. And that's why I'm wondering if you have this,
where you have university or someone, some line of doing
this, where we have this type of information.
MR. HAGAN: I think a great deal of the work on sand-
clay mix reclamation is going on right now in this industry
right here in Hardee and Polk County. And that's probably
why you don't find it in the conventional literature.
Because the technology is so new and so developmental at
this point. It just hasn't gotten into the standard
literature yet. But, you know, it is
MR. MISLEVY: But Jean said she does have?
MR. HAGAN: It is available, yes. We have what's
available.
Are there any other comments?
There are several copies of the environmental impact
statement back there at the registration desk if anyone
would like to pick up an interesting copy. It's a great
cure for insomnia.
If there are no other—if there are no other questions
or comments tonight, I would like to thank you-all for coming,
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
'X797
A 33830
3-86
-------
41
1 And I have a closing statement which needs to be read into
2 the record if you'll bear with me.
3 The record of this hearing will remain open through the
4 close of business on July the 28th, 1981. This will allow
5 anyone wishing to submit additional statements sufficient
6 time to do so. Further submissions must be in writing to
7 be included in the official record and should be sent to the
8 attention of John E. Hagan, III, Chief, Environmental Impact
9 Statement Branch, EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,
10 Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia. Don't try to remember that.
11 It's in your agenda.
12 The final environmental impact statement will be
13 published after the close of the public comment period.
14 And that is after July the 28th, 1981. The final EIS will
15 consist of a summary of the draft EIS, the agency's tentative
16 decision on the project, responses to the comments received
17 on the draft EIS, the transcript of this public hearing, and
18 any other comments submitted between now and July the 28th,
19 and any other relevant information or evaluations developed
20 after the publication of the draft EIS. A copy of the draft
21 EIS should be retained if you wish to have a complete
22 evaluation of this project.
23 And I will reiterate to you saying that we do have a
24 two-volume set of technical opinions which goes into
25 considerable more detail on certain items than is included
ANN ° ' ""»»•* ocono-ri^Q SERVICE
f97
3-87 083°
-------
42
1 in this draft.
2 After consideration of all the written comments and of
3 the requirements and policies in the act and appropriate
4 regulations/ the EPA Regional Administrator will make
5 determinations regarding the permit issuance. If the
6 determinations are substantially unchanged, the Regional
7 Administrator will so notify all persons making oral
8 statements tonight and all persons submitting written
9 comments. If the determinations are substantially changed/
10 the EPA Regional Administrator will issue a public notice
11 indicating the revised determinations.
12 Within 30 days of the receipt of the final
13 determination or the date of the public notice/ any
14 interested party may request an evidentiary hearing on the
15 determination. Requests for an evidentiary hearing should
16 be addressed to the EPA Regional Hearing Clerk at the
17 address in your agenda. The procedures for filing
18 evidentiary hearing requests are set out in Title 40 of the
19 Code of Federal Regulations/ Part 124, Subpart E, or they
20 can also be found in Volume 45 of the Federal Register/ page
21 33498, published on May the 19th/ 1980.
22 Unless a request for an evidentiary hearing is granted,
23 our determination will be the final action for the EPA and
24 will be made public in the agency's record of decision a
25 minimum of 30 days after publication of the final EIS.
ANN? ^SERVICE
3-88 no
-------
43
I Pending final agency action or an evidentiary hearing
2 which is granted by the Regional Administrator, the applicant
3 will be without the permit.
4 The record upon which a determination to issue is made
5 will include both comments received at this hearing and
6 those received in response to the public notice. The final
7 permit will be issued not sooner than 30 days after issuance
8 of the final EIS, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations,
9 Subsection 124.61.
10 Thank you again for taking your evening to come to our
11 hearing. We appreciate your attendance. And I declare this
12 meeting adjourned.
13 (Hearing concluded.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
' n *>X797
3-89 DA 33830
-------
44
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
2 COUNTY OF POLK
3 I, ELAINE TURNER, do hereby certify that a public- hearin
4 of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, in
5 conjunction with Florida Department of Environmental
6 Regulation in re: Farmland Industries proposed phosphate
7 mine and beneficiation plant, Hardee County, Florida, was
8 heard on July 14, 1981; that I was authorized to and did
9 report on a shorthand machine the proceedings and evidence
10 in said hearing and that the above and foregoing pages
11 numbered 1 to 43 inclusive constitute a true and correct
12 transcription of my shorthand report of said proceedings,
13 IN WITNESS MY HAND, this the 31st day of July, A. D.,
14 1981, at Bartow, Polk County, Florida.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANN S. HORNE REPORTING SERVICE
797_
3-90 33830
-------
3.4 RESPONSES TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
Response T—1
A comparison of the water quality of surface water in the vicinity
of the Farmland site and the supernant from several clay settling areas
is presented in Table 3-12 of the DEIS. Since the primary discharge
from the proposed Farmland facility is to be limited to periods when
Hickory Creek's flow is no less than 1.8 X the discharge flow, the
resultant concentrations in the creek will not be those of the supernant
itself, but rather a combination of the two flows. If the values
presented in Table 3-12 of the DEIS are considered in this respect, the
mg/1 concentrations presented can be adjusted to account for this mixing
as follows:
Constituent
Total Dissolved
Solids
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Iron
Silica
Fluoride
Nitrate, as N
Phosphorus, as PO,
Radium, pci/1
Concentration
in Surface
(mg/1)
Concentration in Surface Waters
After Mixing with Discharge
(mg/1)
200
20
7.4
9.9
3.6
39.
19.
29.
0.76
8.2
0.2
1.2
253
33
12.6
12.8
2.8
65.
25.
25.
0.53
6.2
0.8
1.1
1.62
0.12
1.14
0.32
None of the levels listed above should have an adverse effect on
livestock downstream of the discharge point. The parameter with the
greatest potential for adverse effects is fluoride, which if consumed in
sufficient quantities can cause tooth and bone lesions, lameness and
stiffness, and decreased weight gain and milk yield. To produce adverse
effects, fluoride levels would have to be four times (4X) the concen-
trations after dilution listed above. Even the fluoride level listed
3-91
-------
for clay pond supernant in Table 3-12 of the DEIS (2.0 mg/1) is below
the threshold for adverse effects on livestock (3.0 mg/1).
Response 1-2
Farmland's proposed monitoring plans include surface water quality
monitoring of Hickory Creek where it enters (south of S.R. 64) and
leaves (near the Peace River) the Farmland property. However, the
Hickory Creek channel downstream of Murphy Road (upstream of the pro-
posed Farmland monitoring location) borders on both Farmland and Over-
look Groves, Inc. Thus, an additional Hickory Creek monitoring station
(at Murphy Road, or S.R. 661) has been added as a requirement (included
in NEPA Requirement No. 12) of the Draft NPDES permit for the project.
The parameters to be analyzed for and the frequency of sampling at this
location will be the same as for the other weekly surface water sampling
locations which Farmland has proposed in their "Monitoring Plan" sub-
mitted to and approved by Hardee County.
Response T-3
Fugitive dust emissions from the proposed mining operation are
discussed on pages 3-9 thru 3-12 of the DEIS.
Response 1-4
The projected drawdown resulting from groundwater withdrawal for
the proposed project is shown in Figure 3-8 of the DEIS. The contour
lines shown in this figure represent the number of feet which the
potentiometric level of the Floridan Aquifer (i.e., the level which
water would rise to in an open well) will be lowered by in the vicinity
of the proposed mine. As indicated in this figure, the proposed ground-
water withdrawals will reduce the water levels in open wells in the
immediate vicinity of the mine, but the effect should be less than
1-foot beyond about 3.5 miles from the well from which Farmland plans to
pump.
Response T-5
Information on sand-clay mix reclamation was sent to Mr. Paul
Mislevy.
3-92
-------
4.0
COORDINATION
4.1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION LIST
The following Federal, state and local agencies, public officials,
organizations, and interest groups have been requested to comment on
this impact statement.
Federal Agencies
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Bureau of Mines
Coast Guard
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Education
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human
Services
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Energy
Federal Highway Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Economic Development Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Members of Congress
Honorable Lawton Chiles
United States Senate
Honorable Sam Gibbons
U.S. House of Representatives
t
Honorable L.A. Bafalis
U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Paula Hawkins
United States Senate
Honorable Andy P. Ireland
U.S. House of Representatives
4-1
-------
State
Honorable D. Robert Graham Department of State
Governor Environmental Regulation Commission
Department of Natural Resources Department of Commerce
Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and
Consumer Services Rehabilitative Services
Department of Veterans and Department of Environmental
Community Affairs Regulation
Game and Freshwater Fish Department of Transportation
Commission
Department of Administration
Local and Regional
Polk County Commission Central Florida Regional
Manatee County Commission Planning Council
DeSoto County Commission Southwest Florida Water
Hardee County Commission Management District
Hardee County Building & Zoning
Department
Interest Groups
The Fertilizer Institute Florida Defenders of the
Florida Phosphate Council Environment
Florida Audubon Society Izaak Walton League of
Florida Sierra Club America
Manasota 88 Florida Wildlife Federation
4-2
-------
5.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
The Draft EIS for the Farmland project was prepared for EPA by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) of Clifton, New Jersey using the third
party EIS preparation method. The names and qualifications of the WCC
staff responsible for the preparation of this EIS are presented in Table
5-1. An independent evaluation of all information presented in the EIS
was also performed by the following EPA officials:
Name Responsibility
Robert B. Howard Chief, EIS Preparation Section
A. Jean Tolman EIS Project Officer
Lionel Alexander III NPDES Permit Coordinator
D. Brian Mitchell Air Quality
Doyle Brittain Air Quality
James E. Orban Noise
A. Eugene Coker Geology and Groundwater
H. Richard Payne Radiation
Curtis F. Fehn Groundwater
Thomas R. Cavinder Surface Water
John T. Marlar Surface WAter
William L. Kruczynski Biology and Ecology
Delbert B. Hicks Biology and Ecology
For information on the material presented in this section, contact
A. Jean Tolman at (404) 881-7458 (FTS/257-7458).
5-1
-------
Table 5-1. LIST OF PREPARERS.
Name
Richard A. Millet
Raymond L. Hlnkle
Perry H. Fontana
Donald R. Ganser
Ralph E. Luebs
Leland R. Bunney
John C. Halcpaaka
Raaponaibllity
Gary G. Kaufman
Thonaa G. Campbell
Wayna P. MacCallum
Milton G. Carter
Robert F. Brewer
Jerry J. Cape
Project Sponaor
Project Manager
Air Quality, Meteorology,
Noise
Geology
Soils
Quallflcatlona
M.S. Civil Engineering; Principal and Vice
President. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 17
years experience Including the direction of
Interdlsclpllne studies for phosphate mining
projects and power plant siting project*.
M.S. Wildlife Management; Project Scientist.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants; 9 years experience
In the preparation of environmental Impact
statements for a variety of projecta Including
phosphate mines.
M.S. Meteorology; Staff Scientist. Woodward-
Clyde Consultant!; 4 years experience In
environmental studies Involving meteorology
and air quality Including air quality lapset
assessments for phosphate rock processing
operations.
B.S. Geology; Project Geologist, Woodward-
Clyde Consultants; 10 years experience In
conducting engineering geologic Investigations
and groundwater studies for projects Including
phosphate mining operations.
Ph.D. Soil Fertility; Agronomist. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants; 33 years experience In-
cluding the planning of and Interpretation of
results from soils investigations for evalu-
ating the Impact of mining on the environment
and for reclamation of surface mined land.
M.S. Physical Chemistry; Radiological Chemist, Radiation
Woodward-Clyde Consultants; 31 years experience
in radlochemlstry. nuclear chemistry, ion
exchange, trace clement analyses, and the evalu-
ation of environmental hasard* of radioactive
materials.
Ph.D. Geosclence; Senior Hydrologlst, Woodward- Hydrology
Clyde Consultants; 18 years experience in the
study of various phases of groundwater hydrol-
ogy Including the theory and control of seep-
age from earth tailings dams, earth water
retention dams, and gypsum fields at phosphate
fertilizer plants.
M.S. Environmental Engineering; Senior Staff Water Quality
Engineer, Woodward-Clyde,Consultants; 9 years
experience Including the evaluation of poten-
tial water quality effects of solid and
hazardous waste disposal.
M.S. Marine Sciences; Staff Scientist, Woodward- Aquatic Ecology
Clyde Consultants; 6 years experience in the
collection and analysis of data from aquatic
environments as well as Impact analysis.
M.S. Wildlife Management; Senior Project
Scientist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants; 9
years experience In the collection and
analysis of data from terrestrial environ-
ments and Impact analyses for a variety of
projects.
M.C.R.P. City and Regional Planning; Staff
Scientist. Woodward-Clyde Consultants; 3 years
experience In evaluating socloeconomics impacts
for both large and small scale Industrial
developments.
Ph.D. Horticulture and Soil Chemistry; Asso-
ciate Horticulturist at the University of
California with 21 years experience as a con-
sultant in the area of air pollution effects
on agricultural crops, including citrus.
B.S. Mining Engineering; Consulting Engineer
(P.E.) with 18 years experience In mineral*
development projects from mining prospect
data evaluations through conceptual planning,
construction, and start-up.
Terrestrial Ecology
Socloeconomles
Citrus
Alternatives and Mine Plan
Evaluation
5-2
-------
6.0
APPENDIX
6.1 DRAFT NPDES PERMIT FOR THE FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. MINE PROJECT,
HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
6-1
-------
mit Ho.: FL0037915
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
343 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA )03«S
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision* of the Clean Water Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),
Farmland Industries
P. O. Box 441
Mulberry, Florida 33860
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
about 27° 27', 54" - Latitude
81° 53 06 - longitude
Hardee County, Florida
DRAFT
to receiving waters named
DSN 001 - Hickory Creek
DSN 002 - Oak Creek
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth in Farts I, II, and III hereof. The permit
consists of this cover sheet, Part I 4 pages(s), Part II 12 page(s)
and Part III 7 page(s).
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
midnight.
Date Signed Howard D. Zeller
Acting Director
Enforcement Division
6-2
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 001 Clearwater
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
kg/day (Ibs/day) Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg
Daily Max
Flow-m3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
Specific Conductance
(uohms/on @ 25°C)
Radium*
*Ocrribined Radiun 226 & 228
Daily Avg
1.24 MGD
30 mg/1
Daily Max
through the term of this permit,
Pond to Hickory Creek.
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
(during discharge)
Continuous Recorder
60 mg/1 I/week
2 mg/1
550
5pci/l
3 mg/1
1100
10pci/l
I/week
I/week
I/week
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored
once/Veek during discharge with 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 lor;uion(s):
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with
the receiving waters.
3 TO 3>
- n> H
Z H -
p I
O
O
U)
-J
10
M
cn
-------
JS
2. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term of this permit,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 0Q2, Reclamation Area to Oak Creek.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow-n3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended
Solids
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
Specific Conductance
(uohms/on @
Discharge Limitations
Daily Avg
/day)
Daily Max
—
—
—
—
Other Units
Daily Avg
2.51 M3D
30 mg/1
2 mg/1
550
SpciA
(Specify)
Daily Max
60 mg/1
3 mg/1
1100
10pci/l
Measurement
Frequency
(during discharge)
Continous
I/week
I/week
I/week
I/month
Sample
Type
Recorder
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
24-hr, composite
Radium* —
*Cbntoined Radium 226 & 228
Th«pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored
onceAreek during discharge with 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 I* taken nt the followinu l.uM
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with
the receiving waters.
>
f H
I
*l tJ
f
O
O
to
-J
\o
M
-------
Part II
Page II-4
8. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes
during electrical power failures either by means of alternate power
sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated
effluent. Should the treatment works not include the above
capabilities at time of permit issuance, the permittee must furnish
within six months to the Permit Issuing Authority, for approval, an
implementation schedule for their installation, or documentation
demonstrating that such measures are not necessary to prevent discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated wastes. Such documentation
shall include frequency and duration of power failures and an estimate
of retention capacity of untreated effluent.
9. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any
onshore or offshore physical structures or facilities or the
undertaking of any work in any waters of the United States.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the Permit Issuing Authority and/or
authorized representatives (upon presentation of credentials and
such other documents as may be required by law) to:
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source
is located or in which any records are required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy at reasonable tines any records required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this permit;
d. Inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution
management or discharge facilities required under the permit; or
e. Sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants.
6-5
-------
Part II
Page II-5
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be transferred to another party under the following
conditions:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit Issuing Authority of the
proposed transfer;
b. A written agreement is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority
containing the specific transfer date and acknowledgement that
the existing permittee is responsible for violations up to that
date and the new permittee liable thereafter.
Transfers are not effective if, within 30 days of receipt of proposal,
the Permit Issuing 'Authority disagrees and notifies the current
permitttee and the new permittee of the intent to modify, revoke and
reissue, or terminate the permit and to require that a new application
be filed.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, (33 U.S.C. 1318) all reports prepared in accordance with
the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at
the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Permit
Issuing Authority. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not
be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on
any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties
as provided for in Section 309 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319).
A. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified
terminated or revoked for cause (as described in 40 CFR 122.15 et seq) '
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either temporary
interruption or elimination of the permitted discharge; or
d. Information newly acquired by the Agency indicating the
discharge poses a threat to human health or welfare.
6-6
-------
Part II
Page II-6
If the permittee believes that any past or planned activity would
be cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under
40 CFR 122.15 et seq, the permittee must report such information to
the Permit Issuing Authority. The submission of a new application
may be required of the permittee.
5. Toxic Pollutants
a. Notwithstanding Part II (B)(4) above, if a toxic effluent
standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance
specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established
under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is
present in the discharge authorized herein and such standard
or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revoked and
reissued or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent
standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified.
b. An effluent standard established for a pollutant which is
injurious to human health is effective and enforceable by the
time set forth in the promulgated standard, even though this
permit has not as yet been modified as outlined in Condition 5a.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions pn "Bypassing", Part II
(A) (6), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. 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
(33 U.S.C. 1321).
8. 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.
6-7
-------
Part II
Page II-7
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor
does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations.
10. 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.
11. Permit Continuation
A new application shall be submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit. Where EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority, the terms and conditions of this permit are automatically
continued in accordance with 40 CFR 122.5, provided that the permittee
has submitted a timely and sufficient application for a renewal permit
and the Permit Issuing Authority is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issue a new permit before the expiration date.
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during each calendar month (quarter if
monitoring frequency is quarterly) shall be summarized for each
month (quarter) and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). Forms shall be submitted at the end of each
calendar quarter and shall be postmarked no later than the 28th day
of the month following the end of the quarter. The first report is
due by the 28th day of the month following the first full quarter
after the effective date of this permit.
6-8
-------
Part II
Page II-8
Signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall
be submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority at the following
address(es):
:. of Environmental Regulation
3. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to all
regulations published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended (40 CFR 136, "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants").
4. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements
of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The person(s) who obtained the samples or measurements;
c. The dates the analyses were performed;
d. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of all required analyses.
5. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s)
designated herein more frequently than required by this permit,
using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results
of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
6-9
-------
Part II
Page II-9
6. Records Retention
The permittee shall maintain records of all monitoring including:
sampling dates and times, sampling methods used, persons obtaining
samples or measurements, analyses dates and times, persons performing
analyses, and results of analyses and measurements. Records shall
be maintained for three years or longer if there is unresolved
litigation or if requested by the Permit Issuing Authority.
D. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV or designee.
2. Act
"Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public
Law 95-217 and Public Law 95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "average monthly discharge" is defined as the total mass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
•uch month. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding
the weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then
dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were reported.
This limitation is identified as "Daily Average" or "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit and the average monthly discharge
value is reported in the "Average" column under "Quantity" on
the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
b. The "average weekly discharge" is defined as the total mass of
•11 daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
week on which daily discharges are sampled and/or measured
divided by the number of 'daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by
adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and
then dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were
reported. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in
Part I of the permit and the average weekly discharge value is
reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. If only one
•ample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant
6-10
-------
Part II
Page 11-10
calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge". This
limitation is identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the
permit and the highest such value recorded during the reporting
period is reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity"
on the DMR.
4. Concentration Measurements
a. The "average monthly concentration," .other than for fecal
coliform bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily
concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite
sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean
(weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during
that calendar day. The average monthly count for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected
during a calendar month. This limitation is identified as
"Monthly Average" or "Daily Average" under "Other Limits" in
Part I of the permit and the average monthly concentration value
is reported under the "Average" column under "Quality" on the DMR.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during a calendar week on which daily discharges
are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is
equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of
grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of
all samples collected during that calendar day. The average
weekly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean
of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This
limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits"
in Part I of the permit and the average weekly concentration
value is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on
the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. It is identified
as "Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit
and the highest such value recorded during the reporting period
is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on the
DMR.
6-11
-------
Part II
Page 11-11
5. Other Measurement*
a. The effluent flow expressed as M3/day (MGD) is the 24 hour
average flow averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic mean of
the total daily flows recorded during the calendar month.
Where monitoring requirements for flow are specified in Part I
of the permit the flow rate values are reported in the "Average"
column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
b. Where monitoring requirements for pH, dissolved oxygen or fecal
coliform are specified in Part I of the permit the values are
generally reported in the "Quality or Concentration" column on
the DMR.
6. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample - A "composite sample" is any of the following:
(1) Not less than four influent or effluent portions collected
at regular intervals over a period of 8 hours and composited
in proportion to flow.
(2) Not less than four equal volume influent or effluent
portions collected over a period of 8 hours at intervals
proportional to the flow.
(3) An influent or effluent portion collected continuously
over a period of 24 hours at a tate proportional to the flow.
b. Grab Sample: A "grab sample" is a single influent or effluent
portion which is not a composite sample. The sample(s) shall be
collected at the period(s) most representative of the total
discharge.
7. Calculation of Means
a. Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is
the summation of the individual values divided by the number
of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the
Kth root of the product of the individual values where N is equal
to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is
equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms
of the individual value*. For purposes of calculating the
geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one (1),
6-12
-------
Part II
Page 11-12
Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the
summation of each concentration times its respective flow
divided by the summation of the respective flows.
8. Calendar Day
a. A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one
day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of
this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
6-13
-------
Page III-4
15. Farmland shall conduct a monitoring program to assess
their wetlands restoration efforts. Three wetland
restoration areas (the 24-acre wetland restoration area of
Sand/Clay Mix Area I (S/C 1, within Section 14), the
reclaimed Oak Creek stream channel in Special Mix Areas 1
and 2, and the littoral zone wetlands and adjacent hydric
tree species plantings within the reclaimed Hickory Creek
stream channel) shall be monitored for 1-year each
according to the following program:
(1) Beginning 12 weeks after completion of the
reclamation of each respective area, the water level
shall be monitored biweekly; and (2) following the
first full growing season, a biological assessment
shall be performed by a degreed biologist for each of
the three areas; the assessment shall include a
listing of plant species present, mapping of their
location, a visual estimate of the amount of cover
provided by the wetland species, and qualitative and
quantitative sampling of the benthic macroinverte-
brates to yield a list of the species present and
their density.
After the above-described monitoring program is
performed for the experimental wetland area of the Oak
Creek stream channel, a long-term monitoring program
shall be initiated in this area. This long-term
monitoring program shall consist of a yearly
biological assessment by a degreed biologist to
include the items in (2) above. In addition, in order
to determine the degree of subsidence occurring, if
any, in the marsh depression area in S/C 1, the
maximum depth of the marsh depression area relative to
a fixed elevation point shall be monitored quarterly
for the life of this permit. Farmland shall submit
annual reports of the described monitoring program to
the EPA Region IV Ecology Branch.
16. Farmland shall provide bona fide researchers reasonable
opportunity to salvage paleontological specimens and
information for the duration of mining operations on the
Farmland site. Prospective collectors availing themselves
of this provision must have credentials verified by the
Florida State Museum. Such individuals shall be allowed
regular access to dragline spoil windrows, ore residue,
ore piles and reject piles, subject to Farmland's
requirements for safety and visitor accountability and on
a strictly not-to-interfere with mining basis.
17. Unless specified otherwise by a preceding condition in
this permit, Farmland shall carry out its mining project
in complete accordance with the applicant's proposed
action described and evaluated in the Farmland E1S,
including the employment of all mitigating measures-
presented as part of the proposed action. However, this
shall not preclude the imposition of any additional or
more stringent conditions which may be required by any
local or state regulatory agency or governmental entity.
6-14
-------
Part III
Page III-l
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. In accordance with Section 306 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control ACL (PL92-500) the standards of performance for conventional
pollutants as contained in this permit shall not be made any more
stringent during a ten year period begining on the date of completion
of such construction or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of such facility for the purposes of section 167 or
169 (or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever period
ends first. The provision of this this Section 306 (d) do not limit
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, to modify the
permit to require compliance with a toxic effluent limitations
promulgated under BAT or toxic pollutant standard established under
Section 307 (a) of the FWPCA.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements
The below listed requirements, conditions and limitations were
recommended in the Farmland Industries Phosphate Mine site
specific Environmental Impact Statement, and are hereby
incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit No. FL0037915 in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62
1. Farmland shall exclude the utilization of any conventional
aboveground slime-disposal areas with the exception of
Clay Settling areas I and II described in the EIS.
Farmland's waste disposal and reclamation plan shall
employ a sand-clay mix process as described in the EIS.
Only Settling Area II shall remain active for the life of
the mine.
2. Farmland shall employ high profile overburden stacking in
the mining of the area covered by Settling Area II to the
maximum extent compatible with toe spoiling oi the leach
zone. Any increase in below ground waste storage realized
by the use of this technique shall be reflected in a lower
reclaimed elevation for Settling Area II.
3. Farmland shall meet the requirements of its Southwest
Florida Viater Management District (SWFV4MD) Consumptive Use
Permit.
6-15
-------
Page III-2
4. Farmland shall provide storage that allows recirculation
of water recovered from slimes. The water circulation
system and storage capacity shall be as described in the
EIS for Farmland's proposed project.
5. During the dragline mining activity, Farmland shall employ
the technique of leach zone management by toe spoiling,
i.e., overburden from near the interface with the matrix
(the leach zone, where radioactivity in the overburden is
concentrated) shall be placed at the toe of the spoil pile
and covered with overburden from upper strata.
6. Farmland shall meet county and state reclamation
requirements.
7. Farmland shall preserve from mining, or any other
disturbance, the areas proposed for preservation in
Farmland's proposed action in the EIS. These areas are
depicted in the attached map, Figure 1. Specifically, the
total preserved acreage of 2530 acres shall include a
minimum of 510 acres of forested uplands, 885 acres of
freshwater swamp, 107 acres of freshwater marsh, and 354
acres of pine f latwoods/palmetto range, all in the
locations depicted in Figure 1.
8. Farmland shall increase the acreage reclaimed as forest
habitat and provide corridors for wildlife movement
between reclaimed and preserved areas by planting
additional areas as depicted in Figure 2, attached.
Beginning with the experimental revegetation program
conducted on the first available (236-acre) sand/clay mix
reclamation area, Farmland shall contact the District
Forester or the State Forester, Florida Forest Service,
for assistance in the forestry aspects of the reclamation
program.
9. Farmland shall incorporate into its reclamation plan a
littoral zone at the downstream extent of the proposed
reclaimed open lake in the Hickory Creek channel. this
littoral zone shall be at least 500 feet wide and at a
depth suitable for emergent vegetation, providing for: the
establishment of 7-10 acres of marsh community.
10. Before beginning any land-disturbing activities, Farmland
shall develop a program whereby indigo snakes encountered
in the work area are captured for relocation to other
areas of suitable habitat in the site region. This
program shall include informing Farmland workers of the
importance of the indigo snake, familiarizing them with
its appearance and instructing them as to its
preservation. In addition, the gopher tortoise population
shall be protected to the extent possible in the site
area. Farmland shall coordinate its recovery and
relocation efforts with the Florida Endangered Species
Coordinator, and shall maintain a record of the program to
be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6-16
-------
Page III-3
11. Farmland shall comply with the categorization of wetlands
present on the mine property as set forth in the EIS and
illustrated in Figure 3, attached. In summary, within
Category 1 wetlands, Farmland shall not mine, shall limit
activities to those essential to and unavoidable for the
mining operation, and shall otherwise take all reasonable
measures to preserve all Category 1 wetlands. Addi-
tionally, Farmland shall restore the total acreage of
Category 2 wetlands disturbed by mining. Specifically,
the acreage to be restored as freshwater marsh or swamp
according to Farmland's proposed action in the EIS shall
be increased by at least 116 acres (from 398 acres to a
minimum of 514 acres). This shall be done by differential
grading and settling of sand/clay mix areas in addition to
that already proposed by Farmland in the EIS.
12. Farmland shall monitor the surface water quality of
Hickory Creek where it intersects Murphy Road (SR 661) and
of Troublesome Creek at a point within 500 feet downstream
of where the Hickory Creek diversion flow enters
Troublesome Creek. Parameters monitored shall include:
temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, redox
potential, alkalinity species, suspended solids, fluoride,
total phosphorus, ammonia, organic nitrogen, nitrate and
nitrite, total Kjeldahl, total nitrogen and turbidity.
Frequency of sampling shall be weekly, and the duration of
sampling shall be for the life of the mine for the Hickory
Creek station, and for the duration of the diversion for
the Troublesome Creek station., The data collected at
these two stations shall be reported monthly to Hardee
County, EPA and FDER.
13. During the second half of mine year 12 and all of mine
year 13, Farmland shall monitor the level of the Surficial
Aquifer within the preserved portion of Hickory Creek at
the location depicted on Figure 3. The level of the
Surficial Aquifer at the designated location shall not be
lowered by more than three feet due to the mining
activities. To prevent exceeding this three-foot limit,
Farmland shall employ rim ditching, rapid refilling of
mine pits or any other appropriate mitigative measure to
protect the preserved area from dewatering.
14. Farmland shall monitor the water quality of the Surficial
Aquifer at the location identified on the attached map,
Figure 3. The following parameters shall be monitored on
a quarterly basis for the life of the mine or until such
time that EPA and Farmland agree that the compiled data
indicate no adverse impact on the Surficial Aquifer: pH,
specific conductance, sulfates, fluoride, and ammonia. A
written report summarizing the data shall be submitted
once a year to EPA.
6-17
-------
The flow in Hickory Creek must be at least 1.8 times the discharge flow to the creek.
The flow in Oak Creek must be at least 1.6 times the discharge flow to the creek.
Any overflow from facilities designed, constructed, and maintained to contain or treat the volume
of wastewater which would result from a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event shall not be subject
to the suspended solids effluent limitation or the pH limitations listed on the preceding pages.
Monitoring and reporting shall be required for all the parameters including TSS and pH.
The effluent limits and any additional requirements specified in the attached certification
supersede any less stringent effluent limits listed above. During any time period in which more
stringent state certification effluent limits are stayed or inoperable, the effluent limits
listed above shall be in effect and fully enforceable.
2. DEFINITIONS
The term "10-year, 24-hour precipitation event" shall mean the maximum 24-hour precipitation
ON event with a probable re-occurrence interval of once in 10 years. This information is available
M in "Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 40, May 1961 and may be obtained from the Environmental
00 Data Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
o
o
10
t->
01
-------
PARTI
r«t*i-4
PcimitNo. PL0037Q15
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Permittee shall comply vith the effluent limitations by
the effective date of the permit.
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either • report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement
6-19
-------
Part II
Page II-l
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Discharge Violations
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent vith the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more
frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and
authorized by this permit constitutes a violation of the terms and
conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties as provided in Section
309 of the Act.
2. Change in Discharge
Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications which will result in new, different, or Increased
discharges of pollutants must be reported by submission of a new
NPDES application or, if such changes will not violate the effluent
limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing
authority of such changes. Following such notice, the permit may be
modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited.
3. Koncompliance Notification
a. Instances of noncompliance involving toxic or hazardous pollutants
should be reported as outlined in Condition 3c. All other instances
of noncompliance should be reported as described in Condition 3b.
b. If for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be
unable to comply with any discharge limitation specified in the
permit, the permittee shall provide the Permit Issuing Authority
vith the following information at the time when the next Discharge
Monitoring Report is submitted.
(1) A description of the discharge and causa of noncompliance;
(2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and tines
and/or anticipated time when the discharge will return to
compliance; and
(3) Steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of
the noncomplying discharge.
6-20
-------
Part II
Page II-2
c. Toxic or hazardous discharges as defined below shall be reported
by telephone within 24 hours after permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances and followed up with information in writing as
•et forth in Condition 3b. within 5 days, unless this requirement
is otherwise waived by the Permit Issuing Authority:
(1) Noncomplying discharges subject to any applicable toxic
pollutant effluent standard under Section 307(a) of the Act;
(2) Discharges which could constitute a threat to human health,
welfare or the environment. These include unusual or extra-
ordinary discharges such as those which could result from
bypasses, treatment failure or objectionable substances
passing through the treatment plant. These include Section
311 pollutants or pollutants which could cause a threat to
public drinking water supplies.
d. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
4. Facilities Operation
All waste collection and treatment facilities shall be operated in
a manner consistent with the following:
a. The facilities shall at all times be maintained in a good
working order and operated as efficiently as possible. This
includes but is not limited to effective performance based on
design facility removals, adequate finding, effective management,
adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory
and process controls (including appropriate quality assurance
procedures); and
b. Any maintenance of facilities, which night necessitate unavoidable
interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality,
ahall be scheduled during noncritical water quality periods and
carried out in a manner approved by the Permit Issuing Authority.
c. The permittee, in order to maintain compliance with this permit
ahall control production and all discharges upon reduction, loss,
or failure of the treatment facility until the facility is
restored or an alternative method cf treatment is provided.
5. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable atepa to minimise any
adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting from
6-21
-------
P'rt II
Page II-3
noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as
necessary to determine the nature of the noncomplying discharge.
6. Bypassing
"Bypassing" means the intentional diversion of untreated or partially
treated wastes to waters of the United States from any portion of a
treatment facility. Bypassing of wastewaters is prohibited unless
all of the following conditions are net:
a. The bypass is unavoidable-i.e. required to prevent loss of life,
personal injury or severe property damage;
•
b. There are no feasible alternatives such as use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time;
c. The permittee reports (via telephone) to the Permit Issuing
Authority any unanticipated bypass within 24 hours after
becoming aware of it and follows up with written notification
in 5 days. Where the necessity of a bypass is known (or should
be known) in advance, prior notification shall be submitted to
the Permit Issuing Authority for approval at least 10 days
beforehand, if possible. All written notifications shall contain
information as required in Part II (A)(3)(b); and
d. The bypass is allowed under conditions determined to be necessary
by the Permit Issuing Authority to minimize any adverse effects.
The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment
on bypass incidents of significant duration to the extent
feasible.
This requirement is waived where infiltration/inflow analyses are
scheduled to be performed as part of an Environmental Protection
Agency facilities planning project.
7. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in
the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials
from entering waters of the United States.
6-22
-------
Part III
Page III-l
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
m accordance with Section 306 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control ACL (PL92-500) the standards of perfornance for conventional
pollutants as contained in this permit shall not be made any nore
stringent during a ten year period begining on the date of completion
of such construction or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of such facility for the purposes of section 167 or
169 (or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever oeriod
ends first. The provision of this this Section 306(d) do not*limit
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to modify the
permit to require compliance with a toxic effluent limitations
prorulgated under BAT or toxic pollutant standard established under
Section 307 (a) of the FWPCA.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements
The below listed requirements, conditions and limitations were
recommended in the Farmland Industries Phosphate Mine site
specific Environmental Impact Statement, and are hereby
incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit No. FL0037915 in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62
(d)(9).
1. Farmland shall exclude the utilization o£ any conventional
aboveground slime-disposal areas with the exception of
Clay Settling areas I 'and II described in the EIS.
Farmland's waste disposal and reclamation plan shall
employ a sand-clay mix process as described in the EIS.
Only Settling Area II shall remain active for the life of
the mine.
2. Farmland shall employ high profile overburden stacking in
the mining of the area covered by Settling Area II to the
maximum extent compatible with toe spoiling or the leach
zone. Any increase in below ground waste storage realized
by the use of this technique shall be reflected in a lower
reclaimed elevation for Settling Area II.
3. Farmland shall meet the requirements of its Southwest
Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Consumptive Use
Permit.
6-23
-------
4. Farmland shall provide storage that allows recirculation
of water recovered from slimes. The water' circulation
system and storage capacity shall be as described in the
EIS for Farmland's proposed project.
5. During the dragline mining activity, Farmland shall employ
the technique of leach zone management by toe spoiling,
i.e., overburden from near the interface with the matrix
(the leach zone, where radioactivity in the overburden is
concentrated) shall be placed at the toe of the spoil pile
and covered with overburden from upper strata.
6. Farmland shall meet county and state reclamation
requirements.
1. Farmland shall preserve from mining, or any other
disturbance, the areas proposed for preservation in
Farmland's proposed action in the EIS. These areas are
depicted in the attached map, Figure 1. Specifically, the
total preserved acreage of 2530 acres shall include a
minimum of 510 acres of forested uplands, 885 acres of
freshwater swamp, 107 acres of freshwater marsh, and 354
acres of pine f latwoods/palmetto range, all in the
locations depicted in Figure 1.
8. Farmland shall increase the acreage reclaimed as forest
habitat and provide corridors for wildlife movement
between reclaimed and preserved areas by planting
additional areas as depicted in Figure 2, attached.
Beginning with the experimental revegetation program
conducted on the first available (236-acre) sand/clay mix
reclamation area, Farmland shall contact the District
Forester or the State Forester, Florida Forest Service,
for assistance in the forestry aspects of the reclamation
program.
9. Farmland shall incorporate into its reclamation plan a
littoral zone at the downstream extent of the proposed
reclaimed open lake in the Hickory Creek channel. this
littoral zone shall be at least 500 feet wide and at a
depth suitable for emergent vegetation, providing for the
establishment of 7-10 acres of marsh community.
10. Before beginning any land-disturbing activities/ Farmland
shall develop a program whereby indigo snakes encountered
in the work area are captured for relocation to other
areas of suitable habitat in the site region. This
program shall include informing Farmland workers of the
importance of the indigo snake, familiarizing them with
its appearance and instructing them as to its
preservation. In addition, the gopher tortoise population
shall be protected to the extent possible in the site
area. Farmland shall coordinate its recovery and
relocation efforts with the Florida Endangered Species
Coordinator, and shall maintain a record of the program to
be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6-24
-------
11. Farmland shall comply with the categorization of wetlands
present on the mine property as set forth in the EIS and
illustrated in Figure 3, attached. In summary, within
Category 1 wetlands, Farmland shall not mine, shall limit
activities to those essential to and unavoidable for the
mining operation, and shall otherwise take all reasonable
measures to preserve all Category 1 wetlands. Addi-
tionally, Farmland shall restore the total acreage of
Category 2 wetlands disturbed by mining. Specifically,
the acreage to be restored as freshwater marsh or swamp
according to Farmland's proposed action in the EIS shall
be increased by at least 116 acres (from 398 acres to a
minimum of 514 acres). This shall be done by differential
grading and settling of sand/clay mix areas in addition to
that already proposed by Farmland in the EIS.
12. Farmland shall monitor the surface water quality of
Hickory Creek where it intersects Murphy Road (SK 661) and
of Troublesome Creek at a point within 500 feet downstream
of where the Hickory Creek diversion flow enters
Troublesome Creek. Parameters monitored shall include:
temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, redox
potential, alkalinity species, suspended solids, fluoride,
total phosphorus, ammonia, organic nitrogen, nitrate and
nitrite, total Kjeldahl, total nitrogen and turbidity.
Frequency of sampling shall be weekly, and the duration of
sampling shall be for the. life of the mine for the Hickory
Creek station, and for the duration of the diversion for
the Troublesome Creek station. The data collected at
these two stations shall be reported monthly to Hardee
County, EPA and FDER.
13. During the second half of mine year 12 and all of mine
year 13, Farmland shall monitor the level of the Surficial
Aquifer within the preserved portion of Hickory Creek at
the location depicted on Figure 3. The level of the
Surficial Aquifer at the designated location shall not be
lowered by more than three feet due to the mining
activities. To prevent exceeding this three-toot limit,
Farmland shall employ rim ditching, rapid refilling of
mine pits or any other appropriate mitigative measure to
protect the preserved area from dewatering.
14. Farmland shall monitor the water quality of the Surficial
Aquifer at the location identified on the attached map,
Figure 3. The following parameters shall be monitored on
a quarterly basis for the life of the mine or until such
time that EPA and Farmland agree that the compiled data
indicate no adverse impact on the Surficial Aquifer: pH,
specific conductance, sulfates, fluoride, and ammonia. A
written report summarizing the data shall be submitted
once a year to EPA.
6-25
-------
15. Farmland shall conduct a monitoring program to assess
their wetlands restoration efforts. Three wetland
restoration areas (the 24-acre wetland restoration area of
Sand/Clay Mix Area I (S/C 1, within Section 14), the
reclaimed Oak Creek stream channel in Special Mix Areas 1
and 2, and the littoral zone wetlands and adjacent hydric
tree species plantings within the reclaimed Hickory Creek
stream channel) shall be monitored for 1-year each
according to the following program:
(1) Beginning 12 weeks after completion of the
reclamation of each respective area, the water level
shall be monitored biweekly; and (2) following the
first full growing season, a biological assessment
shall be performed by a degreed biologist for each of
the three areas; the assessment shall include a
listing of plant species present, mapping of their
location, a visual estimate of the amount of cover
provided by the wetland species, and qualitative and
quantitative sampling of the benthic macroinverte-
brates to yield a list of the species present and
their density. •
After the above-described monitoring program is
performed for the experimental wetland area of the Oak
Creek stream channel, a long-term monitoring program
shall be initiated in this area. This long-term
monitoring program shall consist of a yearly
biological assessment by a degreed biologist to
include the items in (2) above. In addition, in order
to determine the degree of subsidence occurring, if
any, in the marsh depression area in S/C 1, the
maximum depth of the marsh depression area relative to
a fixed elevation point shall be monitored quarterly
for the life of this permit. Farmland shall submit
annual reports of the described monitoring program to
the EPA Region IV Ecology Branch.
16. Farmland shall provide bona fide researchers reasonable
opportunity to salvage paleontological specimens and
information for the duration of mining operations on the
Farmland site. Prospective collectors availing themselves
of this provision must have credentials verified by the
Florida State Museum. Such individuals shall be allowed
regular access to dragline spoil windrows, ore residue,
ore piles and reject piles, subject to Farmland's
requirements for safety and visitor accountability and on
a strictly not-to-interfere with mining basis.
17. Unless specified otherwise by a preceding condition in
this permit, Farmland shall carry out its mining project
in complete accordance with the applicant's proposed
action described and evaluated in the Farmland EIS,
including the employment of all mitigating measures
presented as part of the proposed action. However, this
shall not preclude the imposition of any additional or
more stringent conditions which may be required by any
local or state regulatory agency or governmental entity.
6-26
-------
.
— — PROPERTY lOL'NDARV
CC~ OUT PARCEL (NOT FARMLAND PHOriRTYl
FRBHWATIR SWAMP
FRESH»ATER MARSH
FIGURE 1 EXISTING LAND USE OF AREAS TO BE PRESERVED ON
THE FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. MINE SITE, HARDEE
t COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PINE FLATWOODt PALMETTO RANGE
UTLAND FORfST
IMfHOVED PAinjRE
!•:•:•'. •:-.•! CTTRUS
^_ OTHER ACRICULTURI
0 2,000 4.000
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: FARMLAND INDUSTRIES. INC., HARDEE COUNTY MASTER PLAN. JUNE 1979
6-27
-------
r
-
X
FIGURE 2 PROPOSED AND ADDITIONAL REFORESTATION PLANTINGS
ON THE FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. MINE SITE
HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
» i »•».--• \\ /^r,
Proposed Reforestation Areas
Additional Reforestation Areas
-------
symbol
LEGEND
meaning Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 Category 3 Preserved
Wetl^-ds Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Area
Disturbed Undisturbed
FIGURE 3 WETLAND CATEGORIZATION AND SURFICIAL AQUIFER
MONITORING LOCATION, FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
SITE, HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SOURCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS (1980)
6-29
------- |