United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-81-090
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE January 1982
Agency Atlanta, QA 30365
EPA Environmental
Impact Statement F|NAL
Mississippi Chemical Corporation
Hardee County Phosphate Mine
Hardee County, Florida
-------
r?7 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^
'¦<> ^
REGION iV
v. r. •/; a
343 COURTLAND STREET
0* • N
'= 0^3
Vj o *-i ^
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365 - &• #
EPA 904/9-81-090 o r;'A
'J §
NPOES Application Number:
FL 0037745 «.•> U g
... r -
Final
> : S.
^ -o
v j r** -a
o_
'2
Environmental impact Statement 0® «
for a
Proposed Issuance o£ a New Source National £?
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit S
to
Mississippi Chemical Corporation
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
Mississippi Chemical Corporation has proposed to operate an
open pit phosphate mine and benaficiatioa plant and rock dryer
on 14850 acres in west central Hardee County, Florida. Mining
and processing will product 3 million tons of phosphate rock
per year for 32 years, the EXS examines project alternatives,
impacts, and mitigative measures related to air, groundwater,
surface water, radiation, ecological, socioeconomic* and
cultural systems.
Comments will be received until March 29, 1982
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
Dario J. Dal Santo, EIS Project officer
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881-7458
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HARDEE COUNTY PHOSPHATE MINE
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
( ) DRAFT
(X) final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative { )
2. Description of Action
Mississippi Qiemlcal Corporation (MCC) i§ proposing tiTconstruct and
operate a phosphate mine, beneflciation pi ant, and rock drying facility
1n west-central Hardee County, Florida (Figure 1). The USEPA Region IV
Administrator has declared the proposed paosphate mine to be a new
source as defined 1n Section 306 of the federal Clean Mater Act.
In compliance with Its responsibility under th» National Envtrorraen-
tal Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the USEPA Iteftxai IV Administrator has
determined that the Issuance of a rtew sjtfee National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) pentR #or the proposed nrinltig and
beneflciation facility would constitute a mljor federal action signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, this
Environmental Impact Statement has be€$ prepared in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations for Implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500-1508) and EPA regulations at 40 €FR Part 6.
The proposed facility, the Hardee Cowty Mine, enccxipasses 14,850
acres of which approximately 9,000 acres are deemed mineable under pre-
sent economic, environmental, and technological condition*.. The ulaing
operation 1s planned to produce 3 million tons of phosphate ore animal-
ly for a period of 31.5 years (Figure 2). ICC, a farmer-owned fertili-
zer producing cooperative, presently operates a chemical complex in
Pascagoula, Mississippi, whldt requires a«?ra*irately 1 million tons of
-------
Figure 1. MCC Mine Site Location.
L
-------
LEGEND
AREAS TO BE MINED
DRAGLINE 1
DRAGLINE 2
After: MCC, 1977.
Figure 2. Mining Unit Sequence.
-------
iry phosphate rock per year for the production of fertilizers. To
ensure its ability to obtain long-term supplies of phosphate ore for
its fertilizer production, MCC proposes mining the tract of land under
:onsideration. The other 2 million tons of annual mine production
*>uld be sold to generate sufficient revenue to make the mine an
economically viable project.
Principal components of the proposed facilities include two draglines
with 45 cubic yard buckets; hydraulic ore transportation via pipelines
from the mine to a central washer for ore disaggregation and pebble
recovery; a feed preparation and flotation plant for extraction of
finer phosphates; a drying facility to reduce moisture in the phosphate
rock from 13 percent to 2 percent; and shipment via rail, principally
to Tampa from which the rock would be barged to Pascagoula and other
customer-receiving ports.
The mining plan proposed by MCC calls for mining approximately 9,000
acres fn Hardee County. Existing land use is shown on Figure 3. Three
wetlands on the property, totalling 120 acres of swamp and 113 acres of
marsh, would be preserved (figure 4). These wetlands would not be
affected by mining operations unless, and until, the USEPA determines
that MCC has proven the feasibility of creating wetlands of essentially
the same, or equivalent, ecological functions. An additional 440 acres
of wetlands (including 35 acres of swamp) on the site would be unaf-
fected by the proposed action. The mining plan would include disturb-
ance of approximately 4 miles of 5 cfs streambeds.
The proposed water management plan would divide the needed supply
between surface and ground water resources and would minimize mining
process consumption. The Consumptive Use Permit Issued by the South-
west Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) allows ground water
withdrawal at a rate of 17.4 million gallons per day (mgd) for the
first 3 years. During this time, a 200-acre surface water reservoir
would be constructed to provide storage for surface water diverted from
Brushy Creek. Approximately 5.1 mgd (annual average) would be taken
from the storage reservoir, thereby reducing ground water use to 12.3
iv
-------
Figure 3. Vegetation Map of MCC Property.
-------
\
%
rJ~l %
II
LE6EN0:
-------
mgd for the remainder of the project life. A schedule of minimum flows
has been established by SWFWMD to assure that downstream uses of Brushy
Creek would not be impaired.
The proposed waste disposal plan would be a modification of the con-
ventional and sand/clay mix methods. A 4-foot thick sand/clay cap
(approximate ratio of 8 parts sand to 1 part clay by weight) would be
placed on approximately half of the clay disposal areas. This would
result in creation of a minimal number of lakes and above-grade storage
areas. Of the 10,722 acres to be used for waste disposal, less than
3,700 acres would be above-grade after final reclamation is complete.
Areas not receiving a sand/clay cap would be partially capped with a
mixture of sand tailings and overburden.
The proposed reclamation plan would be accomplished by the physical
restructuring and refilling of disturbed sites (mine cuts and clay
storage areas), followed by revegetation. The proposed methodology
would return the site to land forms compatible with its rural, agricul-
tural setting and would reclaim approximately 82 percent of the
disturbed wetland acreage (Figure 5). The reclaimed site would consist
of improved pasture, marsh and swamp environments, two lakes, and
meandering streambeds providing surface drainage. The proposed plan
aims to provide long-range water quality and biological diversity as
well as aesthetic values in landform diversity, wildlife protection,
recreational uses, and water resources. Wetland areas and streams, if
successfully recreated as proposed, would be of generally better
quality than those presently on the site.
3. Major Alternatives Considered
The Draft EIS identified and evaluated various alternatives available
to accomplish the objectives of MCC's mining and beneficiation plans.
The major alternatives are summarized in the following tabulation; each
alternative, including "no action," is briefly described in the suc-
ceeding paragraphs.
vii
-------
Legend
Undisturbed Hardwoods
(r-r^ Undisturbed Marsh
f . ) Proposed Hardwoods
J Proposed Marsh
C > Po»ture
O Lakes
Cj Flotwoods
SCALE IN MILES
I
Figure 5. Expected Final Land Use on MCC Site.
-------
Component
Object Ive
Alternatives Considered
Benef i c f at ion
P I ant
Mining Method
Matrix Transport
Matr I x Process 1ng
Process Water
Sou rce
Effluent Disposal
Rock Drying
Waste DIsposal and
RecIamat1 on
Wetlands Preserva-
t i on
Product Transport
Should be centrally
located with minimum
loss of phosphate
resources.
Remove overburden and
deli ver matrIx to a
transport system.
Transport matrix from
the mine to the bene-
f I c i at I on pI ant.
Process the matrix to
separate the phosphate
rock product from the
waste sand and clay.
Provide a continuous
source of freshwater
(about 17.4 mgd) for
use In matrix processing
and as make-up for
losses to the recircu-
lating system*
Provide a means to re-
duce the volume of water
in the recirculating
system.
Reduce the water con-
tent of phosphate pro-
duct from approximately
13 percent to 2 percent.
Dispose of the waste
sand and ciay generated
by matrix processing
in a manner which
creates a desireable
mix of I and uses.
Protect ecologically
valuable wetlands from
destruction by mining
act Iv11 i es.
Transport phosphate rock
rock from benefic1 at Ion
plant to chemical plant.
Ore centroid, m-ining and
waste centroid, Vandolah
sIte.*
Dragline,* dredge, and
bucket whee I .
Slurry pipeline,* con-
veyor belt, truck.
Wet process beneftcia-
tion,* dry separation,
direct acidulation.
Surface water, ground
water, combination of
surface and ground
water.*
Surface water discharge,<
ground water discharge.
Dryer at On a,* dryer at
chemical plant(s), no
rock d ryer.
Conventional d!sposaI
with land and lakes cre-
ation, sand/clay mining,
convent IonaI disposal
with sand/clay capping.*
Preservation according
to: Florida DER Develop
ment Order,* USEPA Area-
wide Categorization Plan
SIte-Spe*eI f Ic Applicatio
of USEPA Criteria, Sys-
tems Evaluation.
Railroad/barge combina-
tion*; truck/barg« com-
bination} slurry pipe-
line/barge comb I nationj
ra I I road atofle.
•MCC's proposed action.
1x
-------
A. Beneficiation Plant Sites
Alternatives were evaluated primarily with regard to minimizing loss
of phosphate resource, water pumping, ore and waste transportation,
road and utility construction, and destruction of environmentally sen-
sitive areas. No substantial difference in environmental impacts was
noted among the sites considered.
Vandolah Location (Proposed)
The Vandolah site is an unmineable tract of land close to existing
rail lines and roadways. It is also close to the ground water supply
wells and the first waste disposal area and is less than one mile from
the ore and waste transportation centroid. This site is a considerable
distance from the surface water reservoir on Brushy Creek.
Centroid of Phosphate Ore Processing
This site minimizes the distance over which ore must be transported
dur-ing the life of the project; it is also near a major highway. The
site is a considerable distance from an existing railroad spur and the
ground water supply wells. It is also located on mineable land.
Centroid of Mining and Waste Disposal
This site minimizes the transport distance for ore and waste mater-
ials, considered together, over the life of the project. Both railroad
and highway spurs would have to be constructed to service the site
which is approximately one mile from the water supply wells.
B. Mining Methods
Mining methods were evaluated to assess ore recovery rates, energy
use, mxer use antf conservation, environmental resources, and safety.
Draglines were identified as the most environmentally preferable and
energy-efficient alternative.
Dragline (Proposed)
MCC proposes to use two large (45-cu jd) draglines to move overburden
and mine matrix during the 31.5 years of operation. Draglines are the
x
-------
mining method conventionally practiced in the Florida phosphate
industry.
Dredge
Mechanical dredges excavate bulk material by any of several methods,
including the grapple dredge, dipper dredge, and bucket ladder dredge,
all mounted on a barge. Hydraulic dredges continuously remove sedi-
ments from below the water line through the suction of a dredge pump,
supplemented by mechanical excavators, when necessary. At least two
large capacity dredges would be required to mine MCC's Hardee Cbunty
tract, one to strip the overburden and the other to mine the matrix.
Bucket Wheel
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. Over-
burden would be conveyed for disposal in previously mined areas', while
matrix would be sent to the beneffciatiorr plant.
C. Matrix Transport
Ore transportation alternatives were evaluated considering technical
and operational feasibility, cost, energy use, water conservation, and
impact to the environment. Conventional slurry pimping, conveyors, and
trucks were considered. Conveyors would be the environmentally prefer-
able alternative and would be energy-efficient. However, they are an
unproven technology in the central Florida phosphate region and are
capital and maintenance intensive. Slurry pimping is proven techno-
logy, extremely flexible, much less costly, and environmentally accep-
table.
Slurry Transport (Proposed)
Slurry transport is used at most existing Florida phosphate mines.
Matrix would be placed into a slurry pit and mixed with recycled water
from high pressure nozzles, breaking down ttig clay arid sand matrix into
a slurry which would then be transported via pipeline to the beneficia-
x1
-------
tion plant by a series of large pumps. Two independent slurry systems
would be required.
Conveyor Transport
Conveyor transport would require that the matrix be placed onto a
belt conveyor at the mine for transport to the beneficiation plant. As
with the slurry system, two independent conveyor systems would be
required.
Truck Transport
A dragline would load the trucks, which would then transport the
matrix via haul roads to the beneficiation plant. At the plant, the
matrix would be dumped and/or washed out of the trucks.
D. Ore Processing
Beneficiation process alternatives were evaluated for energy and
water use efficiencies and for environmental impacts. Alternatives
considered were conventional beneficiation, direct acidulation, and dry
beneficiation.
Dry beneficiation and direct acidulation are energy-intensive and,
although they would eliminate clay disposal areas, air emissions would
increase substantially. Both are unproven technologies in the Central
Florida phosphate district. Although clay disposal areas are created
by conventional beneficiation practices, this is considered the pre-
ferred alternative.
Conventional Processing (Proposed)
Conventional 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 operation in the Florida phosphate
industry today.
-------
Dry Processing
Hie general concept of dry processing involves the production of us-
able phosphate product from the matrix directly following its excavat-
ion and drying. The method utilized would probably involve both air
separation and electrostatic separation. There are no such plants in
operation in the Florida phosphate industry today.
Direct Acidulation
This process basically consists of direct digestion of the matrix
with sulfuric acid, recovering the product as phosphoric acid. The
matrix must be dried and ground prior to acidulation. There are no
beneficiation plants employing this process in the Florida phosphate
industry.
E. Process Water Sources
Alternatives considered were use of ground water, use of surface
water with rainfall catchment, and a combination of ground and surface
water. Water sources were evaluated with consideration for conserving
this regional resource while providing a sufficient quality and quanti-
ty of process water. A combination of using ground and surface water
resources was identified as a workable and environmentally acceptable
alternative. MCC has been issued a consumptive use permit from the
Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed facility.
Ground Water
Water could be pumped from the lower unit of the Floridan aquifer.
This water is of sufficient high quality for beneficiation process
needs. Care must be taken to avoid excessive drawdowns which might
interfere with other water users in the area.
Surface Water
Though surface water flows on the MCC site are variable and intermit-
tent, catchment basins could be constructed to store water during high
xiii
-------
flow periods for drawdowns by MCC. However, surface water quality is
not sufficient for the wet beneficiation process needs. Also, down-
stream water uses must be protected.
Combination of Surface and Ground Water (Proposed)
Approximately 17,410,000 mgd (annual average) of ground water can be
pimped from the Floridan aquifer without adversely affecting nearby
users. In order to further reduce the drawdown of ground water, ap-
proximately 5.1 mgd (annual average) of surface water would be taken
from Brushy Creek Reservoir starting in year 4 of operation. This
would be accomplished in conjunction with maintenance of a schedule of
monthly average stream flow rates in Brushy Creek, below which no sur-
face water may be diverted for mine use.
F. Wastewater Treatment
Effluent discharge alternatives considered included surface and
ground water disposal. Ground water discharge through coonector wells
to the Floridan aquifer would not offer any-significant environmental
advantages and would be much more costly than surface discharge. Dis-
charge of effluents to surface waters would occur primarily during the
rainy season and would meet applicable federal and state effluent
1 imitations.
Surface Water (Proposed)
Discharges from the clear water pond could be routed either to Oak
Creek or to Hickory Creek. For much of the mine life, the discharge to
Hickory Creek would be made near its exit from the site and thus would
not provide the onsite natural filtering obtained with Oak Creek dis-
charge.
Ground Water
Deep injection wells could be constructed to dispose of the liquid
effluent. Because the discharge is strongly related to storm water
runoff, the injection well capacity would have to be large and the
costs very high.
xiv
-------
G. Rock Drying
Rock drying alternatives were evaluated to select one which provided
an environmental, energy, and cost-effective means of meeting project
needs. Alternatives included were construction of a dryer at the mine
site, shipment of wet rock with drying at a remote location, and ship-
ment and processing of wet rock.
Rock drying at the mine site was determined to be environmentally
acceptable. It would be the preferred alternative from a technological
and economical perspective and, based on current and projected near-
term demand for wet and dry phosphate rock, would also be the least
Snergy intensive. Air emissions would meet federal and state air qual-
ity standards. Based on current data, rock drying at MCC's Pascagoula
facility would probably require emission offsets from existing indus-
tries since the available air quality degradation increment in the area
is extremely small. Additionally, a Class I area in proximity to the
Pascagoula fertilizer plant might be adversely impacted by emissions
from a rock dryer. Conversion from dry rock phosphate processing to
wet rock processing at MCC's Pascagoula facility would require sub-
stantial financial commitments and energy use. An initial analysis has
indicated that such conversion would probably create water quality
problems at the complex.
Rock Dryer at Mine Site (Proposed)
A dryer would be constructed at the beneficiation plant with the
capacity to dry all of the phosphate rock produced at the mine. This
would provide MCC with the dry rock needed at the Pascagoula plant and
the flexibility to market either wet or dry rock to other customers..
MCC has agreed to actively seek wet rock customers so that the amount
of rock drying can be reduced in the future.
Rock Dryer at Chemical Plant
Wet phosphate rock would be shipped directly from the beneficiatfon
plant. MCC could install a rock dryer at Pascagoula; other customers
which cannot process wet rock would have to do the same.
xv
-------
Process Met Rock
MCC could ship wet rock to Pascagoula and alter their fertilizer
process so that drying is not necessary. This would require a sub-
stantial capital investment and, for MCC, construction of a boiler to
evaporate excess water to avoid a water balance problem at Pascagoula.
H. Waste Disposal and Reclamation
Evaluation of waste disposal and reclamation plans focused on methods
to dispose of sand and clay wastes in a manner that would reduce above-
grade storage and economically restore disturbed land to a productive
state. Physical restoration and revegetation were considered in light
of existing and planned environmental systems. Conventional, sand/clay
mixing, and sand/clay cap methods of waste disposal were considered.
Land and lakes reclamation and minimun above-grade storage were
eval uated.
Conventional Disposal with Land and Lakes Reclamation
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 60 feet above-grade.
More than 9,500 acres would be covered with waste clays which would
slowly consolidate to 20 percent solids. Sand tailings would be used
for sand fill, land and lakes reclamation, and dike construction.
Nearly 3,000 acres of lakes would be created by this method.
Sand/Clay Mixing
Sand/clay mixing involves the recorablning of the waste sand and clay
removed from the phosphate matrix during separate processing steps.
The purpose of this method is to obtain a maximum rate of consolidation
so that minimal areas of above-ground clay storage are necessary; this
is desirable in order to return the land as much as possible to its
original topography. On the MCC property, however, there is insuffi-
cient sand available tp achieve the minimun ratio (2 parts sand to 1
part clay) necessary for good consolidation.
xvi
-------
Conventional Disposal Plus Sand/Clay Capping (Proposed)
This method was devised specifically for the MCC site in order to
maximize consolidation rates with the available sand. Sand and clay
would be deposited initially in separate holding areas. Following
initial settling, a sand/clay mix cap would be placed on some clay
ponds and a tailings/overburden cap on others. Above-grade clay stor-
age areas would be reduced to approximately 3,700 acres with only 300
or so acres of lakes. Reclamation of wetland and upland vegetation
would proceed over the life of the mine (Figure 5).
I. Wetlands Preservation
Preservation alternatives include direct application of the USEPA
Areawide EIS wetlands categories, site-specific application of those
same categories, wetlands systems protection, and protection of wet-
lands as specified in the Hardee County Development Order. Alterna-
tives were primarily evaluated for effects on ecological functions of
the wetlands and on phosphate ore recovery.
Based upon the USEPA's evaluation of the project and-onsite wetlands,
a site-specific application of the USEPA Areawide EIS wetlands categor-
ization criteria was identified as an environmentally acceptable al-
ternative.
Wetlands Identified for Preservation in the Hardee County Development
Order (Proposed)
This plan involves the preservation of three wetlands totaling 233
acres (120 acres of swamp forest and 113 acres of marsh). An experi-
mental wetlands restoration project, consisting of six one-acre sites,
would also be conducted to develop the expertise for replacing wetlands
which are mined or otherwise destroyed by the project. In the future,
if satisfactory evidence can be developed to show successful restora-
tion of high quality wetlands, the three preserved areas would be con-
sidered for mining. Streams disturbed by mining or waste disposal
would also be restored to a condition at least eijyal to the pr«sa»t.
Phosphate rtserve losses would total 6.71 million tans.
xvii
-------
USEPA Area-Wide Categorization of Wetlands
Direct application of the wetland categorization scheme developed by
EPA (1978) would preserve 1,060 acres of wetlands. These could not be
mined until successful restoration techniques are developed. Phosphate
reserve losses would be 30 million tons.
Site-Specific Application of USEPA Wetland Categorization Criteria
This alternative would place the same 233 acres of wetlands identi-
fied in the Development Order in preservation status. In addition, a
90-acre pilot project would be conducted by MCC to develop techniques
for creating wetlands in historically wet areas.
Wetlands Systems
Application of systems ecology principles to identify valuable
habitats would preserve 1,007 acres (including 720 acres of wetlands
and 287 acres of mesic hammock). Phosphate reserve losses would total
29 million tons.
J. Phosphate Rock Transport
Alternatives evaluated included railroad (with trucks as emergency
mode), trucks only, pipeline to port, and conveyor. Current transport
practices in the phosphate district rely predominantly on the rail
system. Rail transport was determined to be the environmentally arnS
economically preferred alternative.
K. No Action
A no action alternative was evaluated to consider the effects and
implications of not issuing an NPDES permit to MCC for the phosphate
mine. This would effectively preclude mining on the site at the pre-
sent time. Seasonally heavy rainfall would prevent implementation of a
zero discharge water management design. (A zero-discharge design would
not require an NPDES permit.)
No action would allow the area to be left in its present environ-
mental and socioeconomic state for at least the near future. Air
xviii
-------
resources would not be impacted by a rock dryer. Land use would remain
predominantly unimproved pasture. The existing wetlands and water
resources would not be restructured. No intensive development would be
expected at the site in the immediate future.
No action would result in loss of project investment to MCC and its
farmer-owners. It would also cause a loss ta MCC of approximately 94.5
million tons of phosphate rock reserves. Though reserves would likely
be mined at some future date when high-grade phosphate reserves are
depleted and the ore on the MCC site becomes strategically and economi-
cally more valuable, it is unlikely that MCC would retain ownership
until that time.
4. Summary of Major Environmental Effects
Each of the selected alternatives was integrated into the appropriate
land or water management strategy: the mining plan, waste disposal/
reclamation plan, and water management plan. Environmental impacts of
the proposed activity were then assessed. The major emphasis of the
impact assessment was to identify means of minimizing the degree and
extent of negative impacts caused by the mining operation at any one
time and to minimize the permanent alteration and/or destruction of
natural systems and environmental resources.
The direct effect of mining would be the physical destruction of
much of the present natural vegetation and the alteration of the site's
soils and topography. The proposed reclamation plan is intended to
mitigate the long-term negative impacts of the mining operation. Major
impacts to the three major topographic systems would be:
Land - Overall, 69 percent of the native upland vegetation w>uld be
lost. Reclamation is designed to replace most natural land com-
munities with improved pasture (Figure 5), thereby largely pre-
cluding the re-establishment of original vegetation.
Land-Water Interface - There are approximately 2,980 acres of swamps
and marshes on the site. Mining operations wsuld not affect 440
acres (15 percent). An additional 233 acres (8 percent) would
xtx
-------
be preserved; mining or waste disposal on these wetlands would
only be allowed if the USEPA determines at some future date that
MCC has successfully demonstrated creation of wetlands onsite to
an equivalent functional capacity. The mining and reclamation
plans would result in post project wetlands consisting of 425
acres of swamp (87 percent of present acreage) and 2,025 acres
of marsh (81 percent of present acreage) (Figure 6). The pro-
posed reclaimed wetlands would have greater contiguity with sur-
face streams than do those now in existence and would possess
greater functional wetland value.
Water - Approximately 4 miles of streambeds with annual average flow
greater than 5 cfs would be mined or used for waste disposal.
Additional ephemeral streams on the site would be displaced.
Aquatic areas would be stressed through changes in temperature,
insolation, erosion, water table drawdown, and addition of vari-
ous chemicals. Streambed reclamation would result in replacing
predominantly channelized ditches with meandering, vegetated
streams. Viable stream habitat would be maintained throughout
the mine life by limiting mining activities to one side of a
strean at a time and by creating a biologically functional al-
ternate streambed sufficiently in advance of mining the existing
streambed. Mining would create approximately 300 acres of lakes
on the site, which is a significant expansion of the aquatic
environment.
The proposed activity would thus significantly alter the site's
original topography through strip mining and waste clay disposal acti-
vities.» The long-term, net effects on topography are directly re-
flected in the proposed reclamation plan, which returns the site to
pre-mining elevation and relief to the maximum possible extent. Ap-
proximately 2,200 acres would have a final elevation 40 to 45 feet
above-grade and 1,500 acres would be approximately 25 feet above-
grade.
xx
-------
T Mb
T J5S
Legend
Undisturbed Hardwoods
r~~T=l Undisturbed Marah
CZD Propoaod Hardwooda
Proposed Marah
Proposed LaKes
Figure 6. Proposed Final Wetlands Configuration.
-------
Proposed mining activities would disturb the existing soils on ap-
proximately 72 percent of the site. Existing soil profiles would be
destroyed and, in general, the surface horizon would be buried. Waste
disposal and physical reclamation would result in three types of sur-
face soils: overburden, sand/clay cap mix, and tailings/overburden
mix. Each of the new, reclaimed soil types would have distinct agri-
cultural and engineering properties that relate to post-reclamation
land use potential.
The average annual ground water withdrawals would be limited to 12.3
mgd (17.4 m§d during first three years). During the fourth year of
mining, approximately 5.1 mgd of water would be diverted from Brushy
Creek Reservoir for project use. Approximately 3.3 mgd is expected to
seep into ground and surface waters from waste storage areas so that
consunptive water use would be 14.1 mgd.
The primary effect of withdrawals from the deep ground water system
would be the lowering of the potentiometric surface within the area of
influence of the wells. This effect would be extremely small in com-
parison to the large seasonal fluctuation. Potential impacts to water
quality in the deep aquifer system might occur as a result of these
withdrawals and gradual recharge from the shallow aquifer to the deep
aquifer system. Monitoring of the quality of ground water is required
by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
The primary effect of mining activities on the shallow ground water
system would be the localized, lowering of the water level caused by
mine pit dewatering. The proposed reclamation project might cause
changes in water quality 1n the surficial aquifer as well as changes in
onsite flow patterns within the surficial aquifer.
During active mining, stream flow 1n Brushy Creek would decrease by
approximately 26 percent. After reclamation, the average flows of sur-
face streams draining the site would be approximately the sane as at
present.
xxii
-------
Discharges to streams from the plant water system may be necessary
due to temporal variation in rainfall. It is anticipated that an aver-
age of 10.71 cfs could be discharged into Oak Creek during the period
from June through September. This would increase the average flow in
Oak Creek by approximately 62 percent during these months. Effluents
discharged to Oak Creek would generally meet applicable federal and
state effluent guidelines. However, the ambient concentrations in Oak
Creek for dissolved oxygen and pH violate (are below) Florida Water
Quality Standards for Class III waters. MCC proposes to discharge
effluents to this creek and would need to obtain relief from the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (e.g., for Site Specific
Alternative Criteria) to discharge these parameters. In addition,
specific conductance and oil and grease concentrations in the mixed
stream might violate Florida water quality standards (see Section 6,
"Unresolved Issues").
The proposed mining activities would have both primary and secondary
air quality effects. Primary effects would occur as a result of opera-
tion of the phosphate rock dryer; phosphate rock storage, handling, and
transport; and fugitive dust from land clearing and reclamation activi-
ties. Secondary effects would result from transportation of materials
and products associated with the proposed project. Primary emissions
from the rock dryer and associated facilities would be very fine clay
and phosphate rock particulates and by-products of the combustion of
the fuel oil (e.g., sulfur dioxide and ash). Emissions from the pro-
posed activities would not violate air quality standards or signifi-
cantly degrade air quality. Sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
emissions would satisfy New Source Performance Standards and BACT.
Noise levels associated with mine-related activities would not be
intrusive or detrimental to sensitive receptors.
Mining, waste disposal, and reclamation activities would alter the
distribution of radioactive materials in soils on the property. Future
indoor r«don daughter working levels (WL) could exceed USEPA proposfd
limits on clay storage areas if residences were built on these areas in
xxlfi
-------
the future. Remedial action, such as topsoil emplacement, might be
necessary to lower these working levels. If the clay settling areas
are excluded from such development for structural reasons or if topsoil
replacement occurs, no restrictions on land use would be required. All
other reclaimed lands on the site are predicted to produce radon
progeny levels below the proposed 0.02 WL remedial action level.
Radium-226 concentrations in surface water onsite and downstream
could increase very slightly due to effluent discharge and runoff from
mined lands. Concentrations should be less than 2 pCi/liter, which is
below the drinking water standard of 5 pCi/liter. Ground water
concentrations should be slightly reduced because the surficial
materials would contain less radioactive material after reclamation
than at present.
Calculated individual and population dose commitments from inhala-
tion, ingestion, and direct exposure pathways (including food chain
contributions and airborne particulates from rock drying) indicate that
increases during any phase of the project could not be measured within
the statistical variation of natural background levels.
The socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project would be generally
beneficial. Operation of the mine would directly employ 450 workers.
It is estimated that 70 of these workers would originate from the
Hardee County labor force. The mine would produce approximate annual
tax revenues of more than $6.5 million. The total economic benefits
including direct, indirect, and induced Impacts, for the operating
phase of the project would total $42.4 million annually. The mine
would exert no directly discernable effects on community services and
facilities as the operation vould be self-sufficient in terms of minor
medical treatment, water supply, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, and internal transportation facilities. The mine would
not measurably increase demand on regional facilities for education,
major medical treatment, recreation, and transportation.
xxtv
-------
.ong-term land use patterns should not be adversely affected by the
nining activity. The planned mine reclamation program would return the
site to land forms amenable to a variety of agricultural uses. The
Droposed mine site would be located near several other phosphate mines
and, therefore, should not disrupt near-future land use trends in the
area.
5. Mitigative Measures
MCC has included a broad range of measures to protect the environment
as part of their mine development plans. These are detailed in the
Draft EIS, Section 3.0. Several additional measures which would
further serve to mitigate the impacts of the proposed.project on the
surrounding environment were identified during the environmental review
process. These measures are outlined below:
# Implement a program to minimize impacts to the eastern indigo
snake (a threatened species) which occurs on the site. The
program would emphasize capture of the snake and release through
coordination with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commis-
sion.
0 Implement a program to excavate an aboriginal site eligible for
National Register listing.
0 Mine only one side of a stream at a time to prevent disruption
of surface drainage and maintain biological systems in the
streambed.
# Preserve from mining and waste disposal activities the major,
functionally significant wetlands onsite (Figure 4). At such
time as MCC has demonstrated the creation of wetlands having
essentially equal functional values, MCC could re-open the pos-
sibility of mining the preserved areas with the USEPA.
# Conduct a 90-acre experimental wetland restoration program in
Sections 31 and 32, T34S-R24E to demonstrate the ability of
creating wetlands in historically wet areas.
XXV
-------
° Implement a sand/clay capping technique to minimize above-grade
clay storage areas and restore topography to as close to origi-
nal conditions as possible.
• Establish a "no-mining" setback around the periphery of the pre-
served wetlands to preserve the hydrology of these wetlands.
0 Allow qualified paleontologists reasonable opportunity to sal-
vage paleontological specimens and information from the site.
6. Unresolved Issues
Mississippi Chemical Corporation and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation are currently discussing procedures to
establish appropriate relief (e.g., Site Specific Alternative Criteria)
from Florida water quality standards. Relief from the standards 1s
necessary since some water quality parameters in the receiving stream
(Oak Creek) violate the standards. This Issue has not been resolved.
7. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was made available to
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the public on September
3, 1981. A public hearing on the Draft EIS was held 1n Wauchula,
Florida, on October 21, 1981.
Several comments on the Draft EIS were received during the comment
period. The comments are addressed in Chapter 4 to the Final EIS,
"Public Participation."
8. Agency Decision
Based on the environmental, technical, and economic analyses detailed
in the DEIS and supporting documents ami on the contents received on
these documents, the USEPA's preferred alternatives for the major
project components are as follows:
Mining: Dragline
Matrix Transport: Slurry pipeline
xxvl
-------
Matrix Processing: Conventional beneficiation
Rock Drying: Dryer at Ona Site
Process Water Source: Ground/surface water
Wastewater Treatment; Discharge to surface waters
Reclamation: Conventional with sand/clay cap
Wetlands Preservation: Site-specific application of Areawide EIS
wetland criteria
As noted, the USEPA's preferred alternatives for the major project
components are generally identical to those proposed by MCC. With
regard to waste disposal, a sand/clay mix process would normally be en-
vironmentally preferable. However, because of the low ratio (<2 to 1)
of sand to clay on the property, full implementation of this alterna-
tive is not technically possible. The sand/clay cap alternative pro-
posed by MCC optimizes use of onsite geological resources and is en-
vironmentally acceptable.
The wetlands- preservation alternative preferred by the USEPA is
the site-specific application of the Areawide EIS wetlands criteria.
The site-specific alternative identified three onsite wetlands, total-
ling 233 acres (Figure 4), as being characteristic of Category I wet-
lands and worthy of preservation. The wetlands systems alternative
identified two additional wetland areas as being of importance on the
site. Because of the extensive stream channelization existing on the
property, the small and isolated nature of most wetlands, and the
generally lesser habitat and water quality value of these wetlands,
they were not determined by the USEPA to be characteristic of Category
I wetlands. In view of the loss of these wetlands, a 90-acre restora-
tion program would be conducted as an integral part of the USEPA's pre-
ferred alternative. This 90-acre program would be in addition to the
restoration program identified in the Hardee County Development Order
alternative. The extensively alterred hydrologic character of the MCC
property provides suitable sites for conducting a study of this nature.
Functionally more valuable wetlands would likely be created during
reclamation of the property for the wetlands uhlch are not preserved.
xxvii
-------
Pursuant to provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977, EPA proposes
to issue an NPDES permit to Mississippi Chemical Corporation for the
Hardee County Phosphate Mine. The decision to issue the NPDES permit
is based upon USEPA's review of the project and the associated environ-
mental implications. USEPA considered, in the decision process, the
comments raised on the Draft EIS and related studies by other federal
and state agencies, interested groups, and concerned citizens.
Several measures which would serve to mitigate"the impacts of the
proposed project on the surrounding environment were identified during
the environmental review process. These measures were identified
previously in this document and have been made conditions of the NPDES
permit.
xxvltf
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS xxix
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 3-41
3.3 HEARING TRANSCRIPT ..... 3-65
4.0 COORDINATION 4-1
4.1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION
LIST 4-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FINAL DRAFT NPDES PERMIT FOR THE MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL
CORPORATION MINE PROJECT, HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
6.2 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT
6.3 CORRESPONDENCE WITH ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
xxix
-------
1.0 PREFACE
In August of 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region IV published and distributed a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed Mississippi Chemical Corpora*
tlon Hardee County 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 Information and
supporting data were presented 1n a Technical Support Document. The
DEIS was distributed to the appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies and to Interested Individuals. The Technical Support 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 deci-
sion process 1s contained 1n the Summary Sheet for the FEIS; 1t de-
scribes the existing problem requiring a decision, summarizes alterna-
tives - Including m1t1gat1ve measures - and their associated Impacts,
Identifies major concerns and Issues, and presents USEPA's conclusions
and decision.
In an effort to avoid excessive paperwork and costly reproduction,
the DEIS text has not been reprinted 1n the FEIS. The supporting In-
formation furnished 1n the DEIS and its Technical Support Oocument
should be reviewed and are Incorporated herein by reference.
Chapter 2.0, Errata, comprises the corrections to substantive
errors and omissions In the DEIS and support document.
Chapter 3.0 contains a description of the public participation
program conducted for the EIS. Included 1n this chapter are copies of
written communications submitted to USEPA 1n response to the DEIS, fol-
lowed by USEPA's responses to each Individual comment. These ftre fol-
lowed by a transcript of the public hearing on the DEIS and a point-by-
point response to the hearing comments.
1-1
-------
Chapter 4.0 of the FEIS lists the agencies and groups to whom the
FEIS will be sent for review and comment. Chapter 5.0 identifies the
Individuals involved 1n Its preparation. An appendix-to the FEIS
(Chapter 6.0) contains the Final NPDES permit, the Consunptlve Use
Permit issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management 01 strict, and a
letter response to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
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
2.2-1 3 4
2.6-1 2 3
4
2.8-8 3 3,4
3.1-7 1 4
3.2-19 1 4
1 4
3.2-20 3 5
3.2-21 4
Correction
Change "SW corner of Section 30," to
"NE corner of Section 30."
Change "of 2.31 mgd might be..." to "of
6.93 mgd might be..."
Change "period (Figure 2.5-1)." to
"period (see Section 3.2.1.2 and Figure
2.5-1)."
Insert period after "tails," delete
line 4 "along with the years they would
be placed."
Change "designated as "M,"" to
"designated as "MC,""
Change "aquifer (see Figure 3.1-2)." to
"aquifer (see Figure 3.1-3)."
Delete last sentence, beginning "Re-
gional..." and replace with "Regional
and site characterlitlcs of each of
these units, Including well logs, are
detailed In tht ADA/DRI (HOC, 1977) and
Consumptive Use Permit application sup-
porting document (LaMoreaux, 1976).
The site characteristics of these units
are summarized herein."
Change "Florldan aquifer (Figure
3.1-2)." to "Florldan aquifer (Figure
3.1-3)."
Replace paragraph with the following:
"At the property, a comprehensive
aquifer pimping test program was Im-
plemented in order to calculate the
aquifer coefficients of each limestone
unit. Details of the program, test
results, and analytical methods are
presented 1n the ADA/DRI (MCC, 1977)
and Consumptive Use Permit supporting
document (LaMoreaux, 1976). Table
3.2-7 summarizes the results of the
program showing the thickness and the
range of values for transmlsslvlty and
storage coefficients within the
Stnmrm L1«esto*»e. the Ocala Croup,
and the WflfTPark Limestone."
2-1
-------
Page Paragraph Line Correction
Table 3.2-6 Column "Florida Standards"
17 Insert "1.0 wax." (reference to Iron)
18 Delete "1.0 max." (reference to
mangneslurn)
Table 3.2-7 2 Change "1.1 x 10"5" to "1.3 x
i n-5»
io-=
3 Change "1.5 x 10?" to "1.5 x 1(£"
and
10"
and.change "1.4 * 10~2 to "4.2 x
1-4 N
3.5-1 2 6 Change "between 1970 and" to "between
1975 and"
-------
3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published 1n
August 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. 172) dated September 4, 1981, an-
nounced the availability of the DEIS and the proposed issuance of an
NPDES permit. The OEIS was provided to numerous federal, state, and
local agencies as well as concerned Individuals, Interest groups, and
public officials.
A notice of the public hearings was published on September 3,
1981. The public hearing was held In Wauchula, Florida, October 21,
1981. The comment period on the OEIS remained open through November
13, 1981. In addition to the opportunity for public Input afforded by
the hearing (transcript provided herein), a number of letters were
received during the comment period and ere Included 1n this Final EIS.
The designations 1n the margins of the letters (W-l thru W-47)
Identify those specific comments for which responses have been devel-
oped. These responses follow the letters. THera were no comments at
the public hearing which require a response.
3.1 WRITTEN COMMENTS
3-1
-------
THE FLORIDA STATE MUSEUM
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL SCIENCES
the florida
state museum
museum road
university
of florida
gainesvilie
3267?
904/392.7721
August 10, 1981
Ms. A. Jean Tolman
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
EIS Branch
345 Gourtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Tolman:
On several occasions recently, we have received Inquiries as
to the paleontologlcal resources of the phosphatlc sediments of
the Bone Valley Mining District of central Florida. To date this
district hie been centered 1n Polk and Hillsborough counties, but T
now, as ye# knelt* it Is rapidly extending southward Into Manatee, *
Hardee, and Sarasota counties. In view of this pattern of activity,
I believe 1t may be worth stating directly to you the paleontologlcal
Importance of this area.
Tbe Boot VaVley District has produced a rich series of samples
of fossil vertebrates ranging 1n age from late Miocene through late
Pleistocene. The Importance of these samples stems from the fact
that for most ages they are among the richest~1n eastern forth
America. They are also Important for their ecological relationships
which span from terrestrial through estuartne to marine habitats.
The basic outline of this rich series of fossil samples had been
estafeltftfeed by 1930 (see especially Simpson, 1930). nonetheless,
mny new discoveries have been added 1n recent years (e.g. Hebb 1973;
MacFadden and Waldrop, 1960). And, so great 1s the potential of
this area, according to the Judgement of paleontologists, that two
current grants from the National Science Foundation feature new
collecting efforts throughout the marine and terrestrial sediments
of the Bone Vallay District (N$F grants to Daryl Downing, Howard
University, 1981; Webb and MacFedden, University of Florida, 1979).
Thus, there 1s every reason to expect Important paleontologlcal
discoveries In this district.
In the newer southern extension of this district, there 1s only
a limited basis ftor predicting exect locetlons of fossil concentrations.
The few exposures that have occurttd, such as the ftinatee County Oam
Site (Mb and Tessman, 1968), hive encouraged greet expectitlons.
In general, the phosphatlc formations are widespread laterally, so
that the few known localities prabibly are generally indicative of
fossilIfereus terrain.
A UNIVERSITY MUSEUM WITH RESEARCH EMPHASIS ON CARIBBEAN NATURAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY
COUAU KM0LOVMCNT 0»»0*TumfyACTIO*
-------
Ms. A. Jean Tolman
Page Two
August 10, 1981
For these reasons we strongly urge that any environmental
Impact statements 1n the Bone Valley Phosphate Mining District
or its southward extensions 1n Hardee, Manatee, and Sarasota
counties, be required to take Into account the potential for
valuable paleontologlcal resources.
If you wish to discuss these matters further, please let
us know.
References Cited:
MacFadden, B.J. and J.S. Waldrop. 1980. Ntnnlppus ahltoon (Mawnalla.
Equldae) from the PIio-Pleistocene (Blancan) of Florida.
Bulletin Florida State Museum. Biological Sciences, vol. 25,
Simpson, G.G. 1930. Tertiary Land Mammals of Florldt. Bull. Amer.
Mus. Nat. Hist., 59:149-211.
Webb, S.O. 1973. Pliocene Pronghorn* of Florida. Journal of Mammalogy.
54:203-221.
Webb, S.O. and N. Tessman. 1966. A PIlocene vertebrate fauna from
Manatee County, Florida. American Journal of Science, 266:777-811.
SDW:BJM:map
S. David Webb and Bruce J. MacFadden
Curators of Fossil Vertebrates
Florida State Museum
3-3
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street. NW
Washington. DC 20005
September 18, 1981
Ms. Rebecca V. Hanmer
y+g*frm*1 Administrator, Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ma. H«paer:
On flip rentier 8, 1981, the Council received a letter and supporting draft
eovirooawntal impact statement from Mr. Robert B. Howard, Chief, EIS
Preparation Section, concerning issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Eli*ria*tl
-------
2
In accordance with Secclon 800.8 of the Council's regulations, a copy of
your determination of no adverse effect, along with supporting documentation
and this conditional concurrence, should be Included in the final environmental
impact statement prepared for this undertaking In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. Is should also be included in your
records as evidence of your compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Council's regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact Ronald Anzalone, our Staff Archeologlst, at FTS 234-3495.
Sincerely
Project Review
I concur:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, legion CT
3-5
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
UN TOMM OMICI SUILOINO
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKIL
IICMTMY
BOS QHAHAM
OOVIRNOR
September 18, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan, IZZ
United States Environmental
Protection Agency - Region IV
34S Courtland street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
18: Consent 13.5.4 Noise) EIS Mississippi Chemical Corporation
Hardee County Phosphate Mine, Hardy County, Plorida.
Dear Sirs
As a suggestion, for everyone's consideration, I would
point out that based on ambient levels showing in Table
3.5-1 (Summary of Environmental Sound Levels ) that this
baseline of quiet be preserved.
To insure that the cosswnity of Ona, Florida, and three
other loeations mentioned bordering this site, has the
consideration for keeping their quiet, I would make these
suggestions:
1) All buildings perform as buffers between
noise sensitive locations and mining opera-
tions where practical.
2) All overburden stock piled, from mining „
activities, be used as a been protecting i
thoee most sensitive locations, if possible.
3) That all equipment on site or serving the site
be double Miff led with hospital mufflers, and
that tbe integrity of each vehicle's exhaust
fysta* be stock, and not modified. That any
wii&lewith either defective or modified ex-
haust systems be barred from the site until
retrofit is made.
3b»6
Protecting Florida «M> Vbur Quality of UH
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
September 18, 1981
Page Two
4) That, from the outset, a policy of being
neighborly, be pointed out, by stating
that every effort to mitigate noise from
intruding into the community, will be made.
5) That those activities which are more offensive
noise-wise will be carried out during daylight
hours and not at night.
6) That some person be designated as laison for
noise complaints with the community and i.n
the beginning of the Company18 project.
7) That a Buy Quiet Policy be adopted for purchase
of equipment and vehicles to be used on the site.
Armed with this approach, and any other quieting technique to
preserve or to gain quiet, Z predict the possibility of keeping
a good relation with the neighbors should follow.
Dennis S. Wile
Environmental Specialist
Noise Control Program
DEW: Is
3-7
-------
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Southeastern
Service Area
1720 Peaohtree Road, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
imp*» 1950 (PP)
dm: September 30, 1981
r. Davis J. Dal Santo, BIS Projeot Officer
nvironmental Protection Agenoy
45 Courtland Street, H.B.
itlanta, Georgia 30365
>ear Mr. Dal Santo:
fe have reviewed the draft EIS for the Mississippi Chemical Corporation
lardee County Phosphate Mine, Hardee County, Florida and have the following
30—enta:
1. Overall, the draft EIS, teohnloal support document and a good reclama-
tion plan for the disturbed phosphate mined areas were well written* The
unique presentation, le. showing the description of the resources followed
iaaedlately by the environmental and teohnloal considerations greatly aided
the reader in the review process.
2. Mississippi Chemioal Corporation plans to develop a phosphate Bine and
benefloiatlan plant on approximately 23 square miles or 14,850 aores in
Hardee County. Approximately 10,722 aores of vegetative oonmmities and
aoreage will be affected by the proposed mining, day storage and reclamation.
Of this area, 4,500 aores of palmetto/pine flatwoods, haomoohs and 2,540
acres of wetland (swamps and marshes) will be disturbed. In addition, 4
miles of stream beds will be affeoted. This loss of natural vegetation on
these areas will have a large negative impaot on the terrestrial ecology and
wildlife habitat more so than the loss of pasture and citrus land. The
mining operation will result in the displacement and loss of numerous plant,
animal, bird and other wildlife spedes. The mltlgative measures, which have
been suggested, are very good and provisions should be made to see that these
are done. Some thought should be given to establishing slash pine and
euoalyptus plantations on good forest sites in the reolalmed pine flatwood
areas. High yielding, well managed pine plantations would produce at least
150 board feet per acre per year through a rotation*
It la suggested that Mississippi Qiemloal oontaot the District Forester or
the State Forester, Florida Division of Forestry to request assistance on
the forestry recommendations of the reclamation plan and its implementation.
The State Forester's address is Mr. John Bethea, Division of Forestry.
REGION IV • EPA
3-8
PMMMKMO)
-------
Mr. Davis J. Dal Santo
2
3. Another important ooncern, whioh we have, is the effeot of the use of
large quantities of ground and surface water for the mining and benefioia-
tion prooess. The presented data shows there will be little affeot on water
levels and water supplies neoessary for the mining prooess, as well as, the
irrigation systems and wells already in operation. However, if more mining vo
operations were started and more wells for irrigation drilled in Hardee and 3
surrounding oounties, there no doubt would be an adverse effeot on the water
tables, levels, and aquifers espeoially in times of low rainfall and drought.
Water levels and water quantities and qualities should be oonstantly monitored
to make oertain that aquifers are being recharged and not being destroyed
when actual mining operations are being oonduoted.
We appreoiate the opportunity to review this draft EIS and look forward to
receiving a oopy of the final when it is published.
Sinoerely
3-9
-------
United StatM
Agriculture
Depertment of
Sou
CooMrvitton
Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, FL 32602
sublet EVT - Draft Environmental Impact Statements dm* October 8, 1981
Toe Darlo J. Dal Santo, EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
We have no comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Mississippi Chemical Corporation Hardee County Phosphate Mine, Florida. *
State Conservationist
cc; Norman Berg, Chief, NO, SCS, Washington, D.C
3-10
-------
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION'S COMMENTS TO
THE DRAFT EIS AND THE DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
SUBMITTED TO USEPA BY MCC
AT PUBLIC HEARING IN WAUCHULA 10/21/81
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Timing of Discharge
In Section 3(f) of EPA's Executive Summary discussing
the wastewater treatment, EPA notes that "(D)ischarge of the ef-
fluents to surface waters would occur during the rainy
season ..." [Page v].
Response:
Under normal operating conditions, MCC expects dis-
charges of process wastewater to occur only during the rainy
season. However, this does not preclude discharges during other
periods. It may be necessary to discharge from the plant
wastewater system during other periods due to temporal variations
in rainfall, unforeseen circumstances and emergencies. Most of
these anticipated discharges will be the result of unusual rain-
fall events and should coincide with increased flow in the
receiving stream.
B. Florida Ambient Water Quality Standards
In Section 6 of the Executive Summary, EPA indicates
that an "unresolved issue" regards the possibility that the am-
bient concentrations in Oak Creek may not satisfy Florida water
quality standards for Class III waters and that MCC would need to
obtain relief from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation <"DER") for site specific alternative criteria
("SSAC") to discharge the parameters of dissolved oxygen, pH and
possibly specific conductance and oil and greases. [Pages xiv-
xv].
Response:
As indicated in Response No. III-A, MCC is currently
discussing SSAC and other appropriate relief with DER.
II. DRAFT EIS
A. Non-Degradation of Ambient Water Quality in Oak Creek
EPA comments that the discharge to Oak Creek (discharge
point 001) would not have a significant adverse effect on exist-
ing water quality [Page 2.6-3].
3-11
-------
Response:
MCC agrees that the discharge will not significantly de-
grade existing water quality in Oak Creek. MCC has evaluated
typical phosphate mine wastewater discharges (Table 3.2-4) and
has determined that the constituent concentrations reasonably ex-
pected to be contained in the effluent discharge will not degrade
the water quality and will in most cases improve the water
quality.
B. Discharge not Limited to Wet Season
EPA contemplates that "the most likely time for effluent
discharge is during the wet season from June through September."
[P. 3.2-7].
Response:
MCC agrees that the most likely time for the discharge
will be during the rainy season months as indicated in Response
No. I-A. However, MCC cannot control the temporal variations in
rainfall or other conceivable emergencies and emphasizes that it
may be necessary to discharge in months other than June through
September.
C. Size of Mine Alternatives
EPA evaluated viable alternatives to the mining method
proposed by MCC, including the use of dragline excavators.
[Section 2.1.1] EPA commented that the characteristics of MCC's
Hardee County phosphate deposit and the desired production levels
are such that two large draglines, each with a 45 cubic yard
bucket capacity, will be required. [P. 2.1-4].
Response:
MCC has evaluated various sizes of phosphate mines for
their feasibility and desirability, including sizes of
1.5 million tons per year, 3 million tons per year and 4 million
tons per year product output. Feasibility and desirability are
essentially business decisions.
Environmentally, there are essentially no differences
among the mine size alternatives. Generally, the same areas
would be mined in each case and there would be no differences in
product tonnages or waste volumes produced over the life of the
mine. The final reclamation results are essentially the same
with each alternative.
In view of the environmental indifference among the
alternatives, the election of mine size remains basically a busi-
ness decision. The 3mm tpy mine size is preferred by MCC as best
-2-
3-12
-------
serving its business purposes. However, some adjustments could
ue made based on business factors such as cost, market
conditions, product needs, and interest rates at the time. A
combination of the alternatives might be used. For example, min-
Lng operations might begin at 1.5mm tpy and after a few years be
axpanded to 3mm tpy.
The 3mm tpy mine size as presently proposed is favored
for economic, financial and production considerations. The 4mm
tpy alternative offers lower unit costs but carries a heavier
iebt load and has a shorter mine life. In addition, this higher
nining rate carries the risk of overtaxing the available water
supply, at least during portions of the year. The- 1.5mm tpy mine
size offers the lesser debt load and longer mine life, but unit
costs would be higher.
1.5 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
The 1.5mm tpy alternative would increase mine life to
about 63 years. The construction work force would be smaller and
employed for a shorter period of time than for the 3mm tpy mine
presently proposed. The plant work force would be smaller but
would be employed for a longer period of time. Water withdrawals
would be at a lower rate for a longer period of time. Mining
area and waste clay disposal area would be the same as the
proposed 3mm tpy mine. Reclamation would proceed proportionately
slower since waste material used for reclamation fill would be
generated at a slower, rate.
This alternative is less attractive to MCC because of
the increased cost per ton of product. In addition, operation
wich one dragline on this orebody would produce substantial year-
to-year variations in both production tonnage and product
quality, a situation which is mitigated by the use of two or more
draglines in the other alternatives. While different approaches
to mine planning might reduce these variations to an acceptable
level for a few years, the year-to-year variations expected over
full mine life would be unacceptable.
3 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
The 3 million ton per year (3mm tpy) alternative is the
proposed action. Its environmental, social, and economic impacts
are those discussed fully in the EIS.
This alternative is favored by MCC because of the
balance among all factors including cash flow and production.
-3-
3-13
-------
4 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
The 4 million ton per year (4mm tpy) alternative would
require a larger work force and/or longer construction time and
a larger plant work force, but for a shorter period of time. At
4mm tpy production rate, mine life would be approximately 23
years. Water withdrawals would be greater but for a shorter
period of time, and water availability may limit production rates
over portions of some years. Mining area and waste clay disposal
area would be about the same as the proposed 3mm tpy mine, al-
though the initial clay settling area might have to be somewhat
larger due to its shorter life span. Reclamation would proceed
proportionately faster due to more rapid generation of mine void
and waste material used as fill in reclamation.
This alternative is less attractive to MCC because of
the higher total capital investment, the higher rate of
production, the potential operating limitations because of insuf-
ficient water supply and the shorter mine life, while the cost
per ton of product is only slightly lower.
III. Draft NPDES Permit
A. Effluent Limitations
1. Total Suspended Solids: 30 mg/1 Daily Average
60 mg/1 Daily Maximum
2. Specific Conductance: 550 micromhos/cm Daily Average
900 micromhos/cm Daily Maximum
3. Radium: 5 pci/1 Daily Average
(Combined Radium 10 pci/1 Daily Maximum
226 & 228)
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units
nor greater than 8.5 standard units.
Response:
MCC has no objection to the effluent limitations that
incorporate the published EPA guidelines for pH and TSS. We un-
derstand the other discharge limitations contained in the Draft
KPDES Permit are based on EPA's expectation of the limits to be
required by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation J2
(DER). The State, however, has indicated that routine require- i
ments may not be adequate for the Hardee County mine, and may ap-
ply special conditions. These conditions are currently being
discussed with DER. Accordingly, MCC requests that the Draft
-4-
3-14
-------
MPDES Permit be revised to incorporate the published EPA
guidelines only and to simply state that any conditions imposed
Dy DER will be incorporated by reference in the federal permit.
MCC agrees to comply with the published EPA limitations.
B. NEPA Requirements
The Draft NPDES permit incorporates requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act in Part III of the Draft
Permit.
Response;
MCC has no objection to the recommended mitigating meas-
ures themselves. However, these conditions are unrelated to the
point of discharge itself. Accordingly, MCC believes that EPA is
not authorized to include the NEPA conditions as discharge
conditions.
-5-
3-15
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Sei\xe
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta. Georgia 30333
(404) 262-6649
October 26, 1981
Mr. Dario J. Dal Santo, EIS Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Dal Santo:
He have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed
Issuance of a New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
(NPDES) to the Mississippi Chemical Corporation-Phosphate Mine in Hardee County,
Florida. We ara responding on behalf of the Public Health Service and are
offering the following comments for your consideration in preparing the Final EIS.
We understand that EPA "tentatively proposes to issue an NPDES permit" provided
the project incorporates all of EPA's recommended conditions. In general, we
find that the EIS satisfactorily addresses the environmental impacts of the
proposed phosphate mine and beneflciation plant. However, we believe that
measures should be taken to monitor the effect of the mine's groundwater with-
drawals upon private wells close to the withdrawal area.
Disposal basins and ponds should be designed and managed to prevent the in-
crease of any vector populations that have the potential to cause disease or
nuisance problems. The capability of local health authorities and mining
personnel to detect and prevent excessive onsite breeding of problem vectors
should be discussed. Consideration should be given to incorporating the above
recommendations on vector management and control as a permit condition.
Will the applicant conduct any type of blasting during the operation of the mine?
If so, noise impacts upon local residents should be addressed.
It appears that the projected indoor radon daughter working levels (WL) for certain
reclaimed portions of the mine may exceed EPA recommended limits. Therefore, all
disturbed and reclaimed lands should optimally be in compliance with applicable
State and Federal radiation standards before being sold or transferred by the
applicant. At a minimum, a deed restrletion(s) should be recorded as soon as
project lands become disturbed and/or reclaimed to protect future public health.
The deed restriction could require: (1) the property to be in compliance with
applicable State and Federal radiation standards before any structures can be
constructed or (2) the use of special structural design features to permit
compliance with applicable standards.
3-16
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Darlo J. Dal Santo, EIS Project Officer
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us one copy
of the Final EIS when it becomes available. Should you have any questions regarding
our comments, please call Robert Kay of my staff at FTS 236-6649.
Sincerely yours,
c^^4 A
Frank S. Llsella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPAtf S1MEMCNT
6J?4n.;h
[jpaeiETCs
w OCT 27 1931
I
EtSEinnsiMJ
REGION IV - EPA
3-17
-------
^&zx>&
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Southeast Region / Suite /Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street. S. W.
October 28, 1981
ER-81/1846
Regiona1 Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
340 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mississippi
Chemical Corporation Phosphate Mine, Hardee County, Florida, and have the
following comments.
General Comments
In our view, the draft statement could describe more clearly the cumulative
impacts this proposal will have on the terrestrial ecology and human environ
ment for Hardee County and the region as a whole.
While we fully realize thai an exhaustive number of studies are referenced
in the Instant analysis, we are, nevertheless, deeply concerned that the
DEIS only addresses the most recent statement (EPA 904/9-81-072B DEIS for
Farmland Industries, Inc., Phosphate Mine, Hardee County, Florida) in only
one impact section (hydrology). It 1s important to note that the data
generated for this May 1981 Farmland DEIS 1s not only timely but highly
valuable in that the two proposals physically abut each other. By this
omission, the EPA seemingly fails to "tier" the analysis of the socio-
economic and off-site Impacts these actions will have singularly and
cumulatively as required by Council of Environmental Quality regulations.
Due to these deficiencies, 1t 1s difficult to establish preproject con-
ditions. Once this information is presented 1n a sufficient manner, an
easier analysis of project Impacts could be completed. We suggest that
the following remedial actions be Included 1n the final environmental
statement:
1. Present the full array of data about each alternative In tabular
form for easier comprehension and analysis.
2. Include a site-specific map that depicts existing and proposed
phosphate mining relative to the proposal under study.
3-18
-------
3. Present a table of the environmental impacts for all phosphate
mining (on and off-site impacts) for the immediate and adjacent
area(s).
The draft environmental statement adequately addresses our concerns for
recreation and cultural resources. Also, the proposed project will not
adversely affect any existing, proposed, or known potential units of
the National Park System.
Specific Comments
2.10.1.1
As we understand the approved plan by EPA, certain wetlands will not be
mined until the company establishes their ability to reclaim wetlands
Into both swamp and marsh habitats. Specific marsh and swamp reclamation
plans should include a monitoring plan which has diversity and similarity
indices as the measurement.
2.10.5
We agree that 1f the wetlands as shown on Table 2.10.6 cannot be preserved
because of the company's mining plan, then the 90 acres of additional
wetland creation proposed by EPA should be added to the restoration program.
This additional acreage should be subject to the findings after monitoring
occurs on the test reclamation areas ordered to be completed by Hardee
County.
2.3.3.2.3
We agree with the planned buffer zone around wetlands planned to be pre-
served.
3.1.1.4
The section, "Mineral Resources," should mention in some detail the
phosphate mine proposal (7,810 acres) of Farmland Industries, Inc., and
highlight the major consequence, If any, this proposal may have on the
environment should both companies be permitted at the same time. Throughout
the remainder of the document, EPA should attempt to answer these types of
questions as they do In the hydrology section.
Although BLM does not have any pending or active leases on any of the
3,400 acres of Federal mineral ownership located 1n Hardee County, the
draft should address public and private phosphate reserves for the Involved
area at least to make the document more complete.
Summary Comments
The draft statement does not present a uniform discussion of mitigation
and/or monitoring requirements Imposed by Hardee County, the State of Florida,
or other licensing authorities for development and operational components
1-19
-------
for the life of the mine. Inclusion of this type of discussion or
table would appreciably improve the document and should be included in
the final environmental statement.
We urge the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure, through the use
of stipulations in the NPDES permit, execution of development and
operational plans in a timely and orderly fashion. Adequate provisions
concerning site reclamation activities should be included in the permit
to minimize long-lasting adverse environmental impacts.
Sincerely,
3
3-20
-------
"Ta b ¦©:=» ZT-ZZ^za.^ 2» s:m bxl" ti IEDis'13?- o* c
VKiO I'.S. HIGHWAY 41. s< »LTH — BKn-T;H
*• il I lilNiilNii %iri«>u JtM M MBH*'i C»l!. tu#
BRl C.T. V dumaa. r.im.. ¦pmN„ , vlttH I l'HIKK. Jll . U.r *
*m u jTVBRv JR.. Vk»1 V. d
J AMIS CAMPBELL. iwwm. 1'l.m l)uS ' * " ' WILLIAM C- TATX.H. Ehmm Director
RONALD ¦. LAMBERT. Tnmn*. Wwrtwle
October 29, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Chief EIS Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, FL 30365
SUBJECT: Draft EIS, Mississippi Chemical Corporation
Hardee County Phosphate Mine
Hardee County, FL
NPDES « FL 0037
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Upon review of the above referenced document by District staff, it was noted
that the subject of the EPA NPDES permit pertains to discharges into Oak Creek.
As a tributary of the Peace River, a Work of the District, any discharge or
other activities making use of Oak Creek and all other tributaries are
subject to District evaluation pursuant to Chapter 40D-6, F.A.C.
Thank you for the opportunity to comnent.
Sincerely,
tl&icV-ktiL, P.
DOROTHEA P. COLE
Planner
Planning and Program Development Division
DPCikag
cc* Mississippi Chemical Corporation
ENVIRONMENTAL ItfOAfT STATIC
BMW •
"lJ
J
3_21 KEG'.ON IV • EPA
fc.ou L/'tdlij
VO
CM
-------
©Hit* of il]£ (iobernur
THC CAPITOV
LAHAMCC 32301
Bob Graham
OOVIRNOR
November 12, 1981
Mrs. A. Jean Tolman
EZS Project Offioer
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Oourtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
This office, functioning as the state planning and development clearinghouse,
pursuant to your request, has reviewed and coordinated a state agency
review of the Draft Environmental Intact Statements for Mississippi
Chemical Corporation, Phosphate Mine, Hardee County, SAI IFL8109010351E
anl Mobil Chemical Ccrtpariy, South fort Meade Phosphate Mine, PoUc County,
SAI #EL8109230441E. Attached for your consideration are commits and
information regarding these proposals frcm the Departments of Environmental
Regulation, State, Veterans and Connunity Affairs and the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Gcmnission. These proposals will have significant
inpact on Florida's natural and economic resouroes, therefore, we recommend i
that extreme care and caution be exercised in your review process.
The affected agencies, in addition to expressing a variety of technical
ooncems, have suggested alternative mining proposals and activities
which should be considered by your agency in the granting of any
permits.
The State of Florida welcomes the opportunity to work with your agency
and the ocnyanies in resolving our concerns. To meet your November 13
deadline and in the interest of time, I have requested that the Department
of Bwircranental Regulation forward directly to you their comments on
the Mississippi Chemical Corporation's phosphate mine inpact statement.
Dear Ma
Sr. Governmental Analyst
MGK:dnc
Enclosures
cc: Steve Foe
F. G. Banks
George Percy
An Affirm*k* Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
3-22
-------
blAlt Uh HLUHIUA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
BOB GRAHAM. GOVERNOR
JOAN M. HEGGEN. SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY
December 3, 1980
Mr. Charles Lee
Florida Audubon Society
Post Office Drawer 7
Maitland, Florida 32751
Re: Mississippi Chemical Company Appeal
Dear Mr. Lee:
My staff has reviewed your letter of November 4, 1980,
concerning the status of the Mississippi Chemical Company (MCC)
appeal. They have evaluated the information that you supplied
concerning the Enviro-Clear technique, and have some unanswered
technical questions at this point.
For example, the pilot studies were performed with clay
waste in Polk County but not with those from Hardee County.
According to MCC's consultants, the clays in MCC's ore body have
slower settling properties than those in Polk because of the qo
greater percentage of attapulgite. The test data is, therefore,
not directly applicable to this project. Dr. Bromwell, who
directed the testing of the Enviro-Clear technology for the M.S.
French Company, has stated that there would be little benefit
from utilizing this technology on the MCC tract.
Since a difference in opinion apparently exists among the
experts on the best technology for disposing of MCC's clay waste,
we would be happy to meet with you, representatives of the M.S.
French Company, MCC's cdnsultants, and Department of Natural
Resources' (DNR1 staff %.o discuss and evaluate any technological
alternative which might reduce MCC's proposed above-ground clay
waste ponds. Additionally, I believe we should invite the other
parties to the appeal to this meeting, i.e., Hardee County,
Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and overlook Groves.
We appreciate your concern about a possible conflict
between the draft settlement and DNR's new mining reclamation
rules concerning wetlands and lake designs. In our opinion, the
3-23
...... l-*«T imiinimm . ,»w-,
-------
Mr. Charles Lee
December 3, 1980
Page Two
present draft stipulation is compatible with DNR rules. The draft
agreement with MCC contains the provision for the restoration of
85% or sore of the disturbed wetlands. Since the adoption of DNR's
new rules, MCC has agreed to language which makes it clear that
DNR may require more wetlands restoration. In addition, we feel
that the lake design requirements in the draft stipulation are
general in nature and are compatible with the more specific stan-
dards of DNR.
If you call Mr. Jorge Southworth in the Bureau of Land and
Water Management, he will be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss
the Enviro-Clear technology and your concern about the potential
conflicts between the proposed settlement and the new DNR standard
in greater detail. He can be reached at (904) 488-4925.
^incerely,
yp^irr). —
^7oan M. Heggen (/ &
JMH/JS/pcb
cct Mr. Lester Abringer, Ofc. of the Treasurer
Ms. Carole Barice, Ofc. of Secretary George Firestone
Mr. Charles Blair, Ofc. of Comm. of Agriculture
Mr. Lee Chotas
Dr. Elton Gissendanner
Ms. Casey Gluckman
Mr. Brad Hartman, Fl. Game & Fresh Commission
Mr. Mark Ives, Ofc. of the Comptroller
Ms. Judy Kavanaugh
"t!r. Walter Kolb, Ofc. of the Governor
Ms. Nancy Linnan, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Frank Mirabella, Ofc. of Comm. of Education
Mr. Jere Moore, Ofc. of the Governor
Mr. Roger Sims, Holland and Knight
Mr. Estus Whitfield, Ofc. of the Governor
Mr. Xen Woodburn, Ofc. of the Governor
3-24
-------
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
thomas l. hires sr.
Chairman. Tampa
C. TOM HAINEY O.V.M.
Viea Chairman, Miami
ROBERT M. BRANTLY. Exacutiva Diractor
P. G. BANKS, Aniitant ExaeiniM Director
Mr. Walt Kolb
Office of The Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301
CECIL C. BAILEY
Jaekjonvilia
WILLIAM Q. SOSTICK JR.
Winter Havan
W. O. (DON! BAXTER
Marianne
F ARRIS BRYANT BUILDING
620 South Meridian StrMt
Tailahaaaaa. Florida 32301
November 3, 1981
ryifp- •- :rPnn pp
M :
A 1 6 iiiJl
i!
_j j j
Re: Mississippi Chemical Corp.
Phosphate aine, Hardee County
SAI FL 810901035IE
Dear Mr. Kolb:
The Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Mississippi Chemical Corporation (MMC). The following comments are
submitted to reduce impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
Mississippi Chemical Corporation proposes a phosphate mine, beneficiation
plant, and rock drying facility in Sardee County on a 14,850 acre site
of which approximately 9,000 acres are deemed minable. Upland vegetation
communities consist of xeric hammock, mesic hammock, palmetto range/pine
flatwoods, improved pasture and ruderal lands. Wetlands on the property
consist of 2,490 acres of freshwater marsh and 490 acres of hardwood
swamp scattered throughout the site and associated with stream floodplains
and depressions. The site is drained by Brushy, Horse, Troublesome,
Oak, Lettis, and Hickory creeks. Portions of the floodplains of these
creeks have been altered by prior clearing and channel re-routing.
Various development alternatives for the site were evaluated in the
EIS primarily with regard to minimizing loss of phosphate resource,
water pumping, ore and waste transportation, road and utility construction,
snd destruction of environmentally sensitive areas. Under the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's preferred alternative and recommended
action, the major environmental effects include:
1. loss of approximately 69 percent of the native upland vegetation,
and 72 percent of the existing native soils. After mining,
the overall reclamation plan is designed to replace native
plant communities with improved pasture.
3-25
-------
Mr. Walt Kolb
November 3, 1981
Page 2
2. A total of approximately 2,307 acres of swamps and freshwater
marsh would be mined and about 440 acres preserved. An additional
233 acres of wetlands could be mined if MCC successfully
demonstrates creation of wetlands onsite to an equivalent
functional capacity. The mining and reclamation plan would
result in post project wetlands consisting of 425 acres of
swasps and 2,025 acres of freshwater marsh which is 87 percent
and 81 percent of the present acreage respectively.
3. Approximately 4 miles of streambeds with average annual flows
greater than 5 cfs would be mined or used for waste disposal.
Additional ephemeral streams on the site would be displaced.
Aquatic areas would be stressed through changes in temperature,
erosion, water table drawdown and addition of chemicals and
other pollutants. Streambed reclamation would result in
replacing predominantly channelized creeks with meandering,
vegetated channels. Viable stream habitat would be maintained
throughout the mine life by limiting mining activities to one
side of a stream at a time and by creating a biologically
functional alternate streambed sufficiently in advance of
mining the existing streambed. Mining would create approximately
300 acres of lakes on the aite which is a significant expansion
of the aquatic environment.
In order to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources from
stripmining, we recommend the following:
1. Identify, evaluate, and preserve from mining and waste disposal
activities the major functionally significant wetlands on the
site.
2. Conduct a wetlands restoration program early in the mine life
to demonstrate the ability to reclaim herbaceous freshwater
aarah, wooded wetlands and streams. The demonstration site
should be located on stripmined land and performance standards
set to guide final evaluation of the effort. Future permits
to mine wetlands should be dependent on the success of the
demonstration effort.
3. Replace all mined wetlands on an acre for acre basis and alter
the reclamation plan to include re-establishment of at least
10 percent of the uplands in mixed forests, consisting of a
variety of conifers and hardwoods, according to the rules of
the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Chapter 16C-16.
Pleaae contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
F. 6. Banks
Aaaistant Executive Director
E202/bl/2/19-20
tk 3-26
EHV 2-3-2
-------
r-.r^n
ra
vjci i» "til \\V
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
George Firestone
Secretary of State
October 7, 1981
Walt Kolb
Governmental Analyst
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
In reply refer to:
Louis Tesar
Historic Sites Specialist
(904) 487-2333
Re: September 15, 1981 Memorandum and Attachments
SAI *FL8109010351E
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
^Mississippi Chemical Corporation
Hardee county Phosphate Mine
Bardee County, Florida
Dear Mr. Kolb:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R.,
Part 800 ("Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties"), we have reviewed the above referenced
project for possible impact to archaeological and historical
sites or properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places. The authorities for
these procedures are the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) as amended by P.L. 91-243, P.L.
93-54, P.L. 94-422, P.L. 94-458, and P.L. 96-515 and Presiden-
tial Executive Order 11593 ("Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment").
We previously reviewed this project on February 11, 1981
(See attachement) and determined that only one potentially
significant archaeological site (8Hr5) would be affected by
the proposed project. Because of the extensive alteration
of the surrounding environment, we recommend Data Recovery
rather than in situ preservation.
Environmental"Protection Agency subsequently sought
and received a determination from the Keeper of the Register
that site 8Hr5 is eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. Furthermore, Environmental Protection
Agency has consulted with this agency and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (see attachment) and determined that
3-27
FLORIDA-State of the Arts
-------
Walt Kolb
October 7, 1981
Page Two
issuance of the NPDES permit would not be in conflict with
historic preservation concerns if Data Recovery at 8Hr5 is1
required prior to initiating mining or other land-disturbing
activities in the site area, and if the proposed Data Recovery
Plan is acceptable to this agency and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. We, therefore, have no further,
comments at this time for the proposed project.
If you have any questions about our comments, please
do not hesitate to contact this office.
On behalf of Secretary of State George Firestone, and
the staff of the Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties,
I would like to thank you for your interest and cooperation
in preserving Florida's historic resources.
'"oeorgM*. I
Sinp4r£ly,
Deputy Stat«
Preservation Officer
GWP:Tsds
Enclosures
3-28
-------
STATE OF FLORIOA
THE CAPlTOl
TALLAHASSEE 32304
(904)«88-36W
Ct.oncr. Firkstone
SiCMTARv or ir'f>%. Neither preservation nor salvage r *e.i v «/r i on or
h i r tor i c '?'~cu~:>-?> t i' i is rccormotnlrid f»r any of th* ;><¦>*.
3-29
-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
February 11, 1981
Page Two
On the other hand, aboriginal site H, which is recoided in
the Florida Master Site File as site 8HrS and located in the *w*
of the SEk of the SWk of Sec. 30, T34S-R24E, is potentially signifi-
cant a* it represents one of the northernmost sites of the Okeechobee
Basin peoples. Since the upper levels of the site have boon dis-
turbed through land clearance activities some of the categories o
data contained within the site have been lost. However, subsurface
testing revealed that '...large portions (of this site) are
intact» (Draft SIS, p. 19-6). In view of this information .md the
site's significance as one of the few Okeechobee typ°rS1)°*.
recorded in this area, it is deemed potentially eligible ^hAoioJ-
on the National Register of_ Historic Places. Th°refore, archaool^g
ical salvage excavation is recommended to record the data
within this site. in view of the extensive alteration of the
ding environment, site preservation is not recommended.
If you have any questions about our comments, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
On behalf of the Secretary of State, George Firestone, *nd
the staff of the Bureau of Historic Sites and properties, I wouJd
like to thank you for your interest and cooperation in preserving
Florida's historic resources.
George
Deputy State Historic'
Preservation Officer
GWP:Teh
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Slroet. NW
Washington. DC 20005
ieptember 18, 1981
SEP 28 1981
CULTURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT TEAM
Is. Rebecca W. Hanmer
legional Administrator, Region IV
'. S. Environmental Protection Agency
45 Courtland Street
itlanca, GA 30365
rri I
l«vl# J - •- !
a.-V
-JJ
SEP 21 15.^
DIVISION OF V:,;^SS
ear Ms. Hanmer:
¦ 'fvSJk.-Ct-uc.iht
n September 8, 1981, Che Council received a letter and supporting draft
nvlronmental impact statement from Mr. Robert B. Howard, Chief, EIS
reparation Section, concerning Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
llmlnatlon System (NPDES) permit for a proposed phosphate mine in
Hardee County, Florida. It is our understanding that EPA, In consultation
with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), has determined
that Issuance of the permit will have no adverse effect on Archeologlcal
site SHr5 (Aboriginal Site #1), a property eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. This determination is based on EPA's
intention to condition the permit on archeologlcal data recovery at the
site prior to mining or other land-disturbing activities.
Under the Council's regulations (36 CFR Part 800), the Executive Director
will not object to your determination*of no adverse effect if you will
agree to the following condition:
A data recovery plan, -Including a detailed research design, for
archeologlcal investigations at archeologlcal site 8Hr5 will be
submitted to the Florida SHPO and the Council for review prior to
implementation. If neither the SHPO nor the Council objects within
15 days after*receipt, EPA will ensure that the proposed data
recovery plan .is implemented prior to mining or other land-disturbing
activities. If either party objects, EPA will consult with the
SHPO, the Council, and the Mississippi Chemical Corporation in
order to resolve the objections.
If you agree to this condition, please sign en the concurrence line
below and return this letter to us. This will then be incorporated Into
your determination, and the Executive Director will concur in your
determination of no adverse affect*
3-31
-------
2
In accordance with Section 800.8 of the Council's regulations, a copy of
your determination of no adverse effect, along with supporting documentation
and this conditional concurrence, should be included in the final environmental
impact statement prepared for this undertaking in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. Is should also be Included In your
records as evidence of your compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Cornell's regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact Ronald Anzalone, our Staff Archeologist, at FTS 254-3495.
Sincerely,
E. Tannenbaua
Eastern Division of
Project Review
I concur
(d»te)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
3-32
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
JEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
twin towers omics building
2S0Q BLAIR STONE ROAO
TALLAHASSSS. FLORIDA 32301
November 13, 1981
BOB GRAHAM
SOVSRNOR
VICTORIA J. TSCHINK8L
SKCRCTARY
Mr. Walt Kolb
Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
415 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
D*ar Walt:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Mississippi
Chemical Corporation, Hardee County Phosphate Mine,
Hardee County, Florida, SAI No. FL8109010351E
The draft environmental document was prepared pursuant to EPA's
determination that the issuance of a new source National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to Mississippi Chemical
Corporation would constitute a major federal action significantly
Impacting the quality of the environment. Hie document has been prepared
in accordance with NEPA requirements. The mining plan has also been
subject to a DRI review under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and approval
by the Governor' and Cabinet sitting as the Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission.
According to the report, Mississippi Chemical plans to produce 3
million tons of phosphate, ore annually for a period of 31.S years.
Approximately 1 million tons of dry phosphate rock is required for
fertilizer production at their Pascagoula Mississippi plant. The remaining
2 jtillion tons of »nnn»i production will be sold to other domestic
or foreign markets.
2
_Jhe.. Hardee County Mine site encompasses 14,850 acres (23.2 miles )
of.which the applicant has determined that 9,000 acres are mineable
under existing economic, environmental and technological limitations.
The mining and processing plain is typical of the Central Florida Phosphate
Industry consisting of dragline mining, slurry matrix transport, conventional
matrix processing and surface water discharge. The Mississippi Chemical
plant, however, does have two exceptions from the normal processing plan
that we have seen in recent EIS's. They include a surface water impoundment
to reduce groundwater withdrawals and rock drying facilities. The
Department has recently completed a review of the Prevention of Signi-
ficant-. Deterioration (PSD) application for the rock drying facilities.
The application has been approved with conditions and forwarded to EPA.
3-33
Prottcting Florida and Your uumiiry or um
-------
Mr. Walt Kolb
Page Two
November 13, 1981
As proposed by the applicant approximately 2,540 acres of wetlands
(freshwater swamps and marshes), 4 miles of 5 cfs streambeds and other
seasonally flowing streams will be mined, altered or disturbed by mining
or processing operations. Approximately 440 acres of swamps and marshes
are scheduled for preservations, however, an additional 223 acres of
wetlands will be mined if CPA determines at some future date that
Mississippi Chemical cam successfully demonstrate the ability to re-
create wetlands on-site to an equivalent functional capacity. Th#
latter requirement appears to be perfunctory in that other wetlands and
streambeds are scheduled for mining without amy assurance that they can
be restored. In fact, all attempts to date in wetland reclamation have
been unable to restore the pretaining groundwater tables, soil conditions
and drainage patterns necessary to wetland creation and maintenance. We
are enclosing comments by our Biological Section which address this
issue further.
Many of the wetlands and streambeds scheduled for mining or other
alterations are within the Department's dredge and fill jurisdiction
pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. Permits would be
required prior to undertaking any construction activities in areas
determined to be waters of the State. Applications for permits to n*
such areas aire routinely subjected to biological/ecological appraisals
and a hydrographic review. We, therefore, suggest that it is premature
to approve mining activities in areas under the Department1s jurisdiction.
Furthermore, based on past agency decisions concerning mining in areas
exhibiting good water quality and providing fish and wildlife habitat,
an application cam be expected to receive a negative assessment. Recently,
members of my staff met with representatives of Mississippi Chemical in
Tallahassee to discuss these issues.
Our Bureau of Water Analysis indicates that the water quality
assessment for the proposed mine is not adequate to address their concerns.
No on-site water quality data collection program was initiated nor were
all pertinent parameters considered. All data used to analyse the
proposed receiving water were historical and from different streams, in
the case of Horse Creek, the data were collected in a different county.
Therefore, the information will have to be supplemented by a specific
data collection program, the design of which should be approved by this
Department.
The draft NPDES permit was also reviewed by our Water Quality
Analysis Section with the conclusion that no decision could be made
regarding the adequacy of the draft permit effluent limits. They could
not recommend certification of the draft permit, until such i-im^ as data
from the collection program mentioned above is completed and submitted
.by the applicant. Furthermore, as indicated in the document analysis,
3-34
-------
Mr.. Walt Kolb
Page Three
November 13, 1981
several water quality criteria are being violated in the receiving
streams. Before we cam develop any effluent limits for pollutants that
might further contribute to these violations, some form of relief from
the Department rules must be entertained by the applicant.
Our Groundwater Section reports that not only were there no well
logs included in the subject document, but no groundwater supplement
appeared at all.1 The apparent reason for the lack of groundwater data
is the fact that Mississippi Chemical has already obtained its consumptive
use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Never-
theless, the following concerns for groundwater impacts are submitted
and will hopefully be addressed in the final document.
Mississippi Chemical's mine would comprise 14,850 acres, and its
CUPs total 17.4 mgd, which exceed even SWFWMD's 1000 gal/acre/day rule -
at least for the first 3 years while mining makeup water would be derived
entirely from groundwater sources. After 3 years, 30% of makeup would
be derived from the Brushy Creek surface water reservoir, while 12.3 mgd
would be made up from groundwater sources - for 32 years.2
Table 3.2-7 lists the following transmissibility values in gpd/ft:
Suwannee - 1.7 x 10s; Ocala - 8.1 x 10s; and Ocala and Avon Park - 1.2S
x 106 (which together total 1.42 x 10® gpd/ft for the "Lower Floridan"),
but there is no suggestion of how these values might have been derived.
Certainly type-curve derivations from pump test data could have been
interpreted anywhere within the broad range of 10s to 10^ gpd/ft as the
drawdown/time curves were necessarily almost flat.
Figure 3.2-10 predicts a maximum drawdown at the nearest Mississippi
Chemical property line just over 3''. That prediction is evidently based
on a projected pumping rate of 11.5 mgd. However, according to that
projection, even at 17.4 mgd, SWFWMD's 1,3,5 rule would be handily met,
based on the claimed T of 1.4 x 106 gpd/ft; one can only hope so, at any
rate, based on the paucity of data presented.
Figure 3.2-8 and 3..2-11 and Table 3.2-9 reveal that some 100 wells
•xist already on Mississippi Chemical's property. How many of these
wells would be properly plugged during mining activities, from bottom to
top with neat grout cement? How many would simply "disappear"?
Consider just EPA's statement that, "... lowering of the potentio-
metric surface . . . would be extremely small in comparison to the large
regional fluctuation .". Said regional fluctuation is caused by hundreds
of individual enterprising farmers, ranchers, and citrus growers whose
groundwater withdrawals are not continuous and are thus rendered highly
visible upon a background of near zero resource use for the rest of the
hydrologic year. Not so readily seen is the mammath 80' decline in the
3-35
-------
Mr. Walt Kolb
Page Four
November 13, 1981
regional piezometric surface, which has developed since the 1940's when
turbine pumps began to appear, caused by all the individual continuous
groundwater withdrawals such as Mississippi Chemical's proposed 17.4
mgd. While EPA points its finger at the highly visible 10 to 30' regional
wave in head, which commences in early spring and culminates in May or
June, it ignores completely the 80' permanent, regional head decline,
which can scarcely be called, "... extremely small in comparison. .
*
Enclosure
cc: Jean Tolman/EPA
Bill Hennessey/Tampa
Bill Kutash/Tampa
Mickey Bryant
Steve Palmer
Rodney DeHan
Andy Feinstain
3-36
-------
Mr. -Walt KoLb
Page Five
November 13, 1981
FOOT NOTES
1. Wall logs are crucial in pump test data analysis, vary oftan providing
mora information than tha pump tast itsaif.
2. Local recharging of tha Floridan aquifer would ba permanently diminished,
however, since 15% of tha 14,850 acres would ba covarad by "inparaaable"
slimes disposal areas, half of which would ba opan ponds. What little
recharge might take place would constitute water of elevated radiation
contant, since even fish and birds living in and around axis ting slime
ponds have Ra^® contents 4 times that of controls.
3-37
-------
Sumo* Florida
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
far Routing To OtaMn Off*
Anri/Or To OtMar Than Dm am
tm
TO; Mr. John Outland, Intergovernmental Programs
THROUGH: Dr. G. J. Thabaraj, Chief, BWA
Or. Landon T. Ross, Chief Biologist
Administrator of Biological Section
FHOM^ J^l^Lwrenca a. Olsen, Biological Section
•DATE: October 21, 1981
SUBJECT: Projects - Dredge and fill - Review of CIS for Planned Mississippi
Chemical Corporation Hardee County phosphate Mining
As per your request, I have reviewed the documents which pertain to the mining of
phosphate which is proposed by Mississippi Chemical Corporation for a site in
Hardee County. Though only 72% of the site is scheduled to be mined (9,000 acres
out of a 14,850 acre total), Z am concerned about two points: mining in the wet*
lands and the method of filling in the waste disposal areas (10,722 acres total).
The company proposes to preserve three areas of wetlands —a 120 acre swamp, 113
acres of marsh and an additional 440 acres of wetland area —out of a total of
about 3,000 acres of wetlands on the site. In addition, over four miles of
streams will be mined out, including the two major streams on the property,
Brushy Creek and Oak Creek. My concern, beyond the outright destruction of these
waterways and wetland areas, is with the proposed restoration. The document states
that the restored wetlands would have a greater functional value than at present
and that streambed reclamation would result in replacing channelized ditches with
meandering, vegetated streams. As is usually the case in these documents, one is
always given the impression that, aside froa those acres to be preserved outright,
the wetlands onsite are in sad shape. Though we are not dealing with a pristine '
area here, (there are orange groves, areas which have been ditched, and otherwise
modified), data submitted by the company are indicative of sound functional wetland
areas^ Species diversities from sampling taken in the two aforementioned creeks
rango from 2.9 to 3.7, very good numbers as those indices go (Table 11-16, Tech.
Supp. Doc.). Likewise, the fish populations of both creeks appear to be
well-balanced and healthy, with 26 spp. and 19 spp. having been identified in
Brushy Creek and Oak Creek, respectively. While channelization within several
of the swamps and marshes has resulted in isolation of several of the wetlands
from the rest of the system during dry periods, the wetlands system as d«nntntiid
(A through E, pp. 11-69-11-71) appeal* to function well, in my opinion.
3-38
-------
Mr., John Outland
page 2
October 21, 1981
It is this question of function which worries me here. The EPA is apparently willing
it is this quastiu destruction of large areas of wetland because they believe the
££ ^ actually Action b.«« In that
than at prM»t. That th. EPA h».
fested in the stipulation that the company actually restore a 90 acre tract
m"ed-oS wetland to the satisfaction of federal personnel before that agency will
approve another 233 acres of wetlands which the company wants to mine. This area
must be held in escrow until the 90 acre demonstration project is satisfactorily
completed.
, ., ^ 4-vi« of waste sediments will not result in a
My second concern is that the disposal oi wm _„t _ That
desirable aubatrata aftar the is * enough sand in the material on the site
is, the company indicates that there is not « * r.Coir«nending 8:1
to mix with clay tailings in the disposal material.^ The efa ^ ^ ^ Caption-
sand relay caps on much of the area. As noted P° , _lane
ally good for agricultural u.. but would allow for aor. u« than jua^ola^ .Ion.
a. ii usually th« cas. in ^uch mimng op.ratio°«• MMthtt bMWfit of Mndiclay
•idar a 4 = 1 sandsclay mijetur. which might than covar th. whol. Sit..
ftr conclusion, I would hasitat. to approv. th. l*
Rath.r, I would t.cmnd that anothar look b. gi«nto s«in, mora of th.
w.tland, and ,tr«« on.it., A. th. m ««£«
of watland. ia highly anp.rm.ntal. ¦"'"'t' consideration b. giv.n to
•xp.rim.nt, s.condly, I would r.ccm«nJttatte r^laiMd ar.a. in an .ffort
a lower sand:clay ratio in the proposed caps
to eliminate pure clay caps.
IAO/11
3-39
-------
3.2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Response W-l
The comment is acknowledged. To ensure that onsite paleontologi-
cal resources may be recovered, MCC will allow qualified paleontolo-
gists reasonable opportunity to salvage specimens and information from
the site. The paleontologists must be verified by the Florida State
Museum (FSM) and arrangements made with MCC through the FSM. Qualified
individuals will be allowed onsite subject to MCC's requirements for
safety, liability, and visitor accountability and on a non-m1n1ng
interference basis.
If a specimen 1s uncovered during mining operations, MCC will
directly notify the FSM.
Response W-2
Comment noted. See letter dated December 2, 1981 from USEPA to
the Advisory Council (Section 6.3).
Response W-3
The analysis of noise impacts presented in the DEIS considers the
worst case effects of mining at 500 feet from the property boundary.
Only a few noise-sensitive land uses (residences and the New Zion
Church) are located near the MCC property. Noise impacts were computed
at these locations by combining ambient (baseline) sound level measure-
ments with predicted sound levels of mining and processing equipment.
Mining activities would have the greatest effect on sound levels.
The "day/night" sound level at a residence 500 feet from mining
activity (the closest MCC could mine) would be 59 dB. This level
slightly exceeds levels (55 dB) Identified by USEPA as requisite to
protect public health and welfare, but would not exceed the USEPA's
near-term goal of reducing community noise below an of 65 dB.
Furthermore, such a level would be experienced only 1n a very limited
situation as most residences would be much further than 500 feet from
3-40
-------
mining activity most of the time. The worst case increases in sound
level at the four locations monitored are as follows:
Baseline Highest Future
Day/Night Day/Night
Sound Level (dB) Sound Level (dB)
1. Ona 64.7 65.7
2. East Boundary 53.3 60
3. Vandolah Road 54.2 60
4. New Zion Church 61.6 63.5
The above effects were calculated without any reductions due to miti-
gative measures.
MCC will employ buildings and stockpiled overburden as buffers
between noise sensitive locations and mining operations wherever prac-
tical. Vehicle exhaust systems will be equipped with stock mufflers,
which will be inspected and maintained in a condition which meets all
applicable noise standards. Every reasonable effort will be made to
mitigate noise effects on the community. For example, transient traf-
fic and other non-essential operations will be limited to daylight
hours whenever possible (dragline operations must continue 24 hours a
day, however). MCC will assign a company liaison to hear and respond
to complaints from the community. Finally, all vehicles and equipment
purchased for use on the project will, if other specifications are
equivalent, be the quietest readily available.
Response W-4
The loss of natural vegetation which results from clearing and
mining the MCC site will have a more significant impact on the terres-
trial ecology of the site than will the loss of agriculturally managed
lands. Replacement and improvement of some of the wildlife values
provided by the natural communities would be obtained through the
establishment of pine flatwoods, hardwoods, hammocks, wetlands, and
pastures. As MCC is limited to planting native species by the Hardee
3-41
-------
County Development Order (except for agricultural areas), it is not
expected that eucalyptus or slash pine plantations will be established.
If these species are deemed appropriate and if such plantations appear
to be a promising choice of land use, consideration will be given to
their establishment.
Response W-5
The comment is acknowledged. MCC will contact the State Forester
for assistance on selection of tree species and other pertinent aspects
of the reclamation plan.
Response W-6
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) exercises
regulatory jurisdiction related to consumptive use of water over
substantially 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. The applicant for a
SWFWMD Consunptlve 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 1f
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 potentiometr1c
surface, or for surface water;
Saltwater encroachment; or
* Lowering of the water table so that the lake stages or vegeta-
tion will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other
than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the appli-
cant.
The Consumptive Use Permit will also be denied 1f the amount of
water consumptively used will exceed the "water crop" on lands owned,
3-42
-------
leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The assumed size of
the water crop throughout the District Is 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 water crop
for a particular area depends upon rainfall and evapotransplratlon
rates, vrfilch 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 potentlo-
metrlc 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 1n any lake or other
Impoundment to be lowered by more than 1 foot unless the lake or
Impoundment 1s wholly owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
applicant. Finally, the withdrawal must not cause the potentlometr1c
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.
MCC has been Issued a Consumptive Use Permit by SWFWMD (see
Appendix D of the Draft EIS). In Issuing this permit, SWFWMD found
that all of the required criteria were met except that limiting stream
flow reductions to no more than 5 percent. However, SWFWMO found that
3-43
-------
such withdrawal "is consistent with the public interest by making ef-
ficient use of available surface water sources, while requiring the
applicant to maintain the monthly minimum rates of flow specified."
Under the provisions of the Consumptive Use Permit, MCC will
monitor the levels and quality of the various aquifers present at the
site. Continuous measures of water level will be obtained from
recorders installed in nine wells - five from the lower Floridan
aquifer, two from the upper Floridan aquifer, and two from the surfi-
cial or shallow aquifer. Data collected will be reported on a quarter-
ly basis. The level of fresh/mineralized water interface will also be
monitored. Monthly tests of water quality will be performed on samples
pumped from the fresh/mineralized water monitor well and from the five
production wells 1n the lower Floridan aquifer. Results will be sub-
mitted to SWFWMD annually, to include the following constituents:
Calcium Magnesium Sodium
Potassium Bicarbonate Sulfate
Chloride Nitrate Total Dissolved
Specific Conductance Gross Alpha Radiation Solids
Radium 226 Total Phosphate
Finally, MCC will install propeller-type flow meters with mechanical-
ly or magnetically driven totalizing registers on withdrawal wells and
will submit this Information quarterly to SWFWMD.
The Brushy Creek stream flow rate will be monitored continuously
at three locations (Including extrance and exit from the MCC property).
Records will be provided to SWFWMD annually. The purpose of this
monitoring 1s to verify that the schedule of average monthly minimum
flows is maintained 1n Brushy Creek.
Response W-7
No Response Required
3-44
-------
Response W-8
The USEPA recognizes that discharge of wastewater might occur in
other than the rainy season. Discharge during extreme storm and rain-
fall events (greater than the 10-year, 24-hour event) Is permitted
under the NPDES program. However, to ensure water quality criteria 1n
the receiving stream are not violated, discharge other than during 10-
year, 24-hour event must not occur when the receiving stream has a flow
less than 1.4 times the effluent flow. MCC should also pursue variance
proceedings with the FDER for specific conductance.
Response W-9
No Response Required
Response W-10
No Response Required
Response W-ll
Refer to Response W-8
Response W-12
Comment and response noted. The USEPA appreciates the Information
MCC has provided on mine size options. The USEPA has no involvement in
basic corporate decision making (such as mine size). The Draft EIS and
Technical Support Document address the general considerations which
resulted 1n MCC's selection of the proposed mine size.
Response W-13
The Florida DER limits to which this comment relate are specified
1n Chapter 17-3 (Water Quality Standards) of the Florida Administrative
Code. These standards were established 1n accordance with Section 303
of the Clean Water Act. Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.62[d][l])
specify that an NPDES permit shall include conditions meeting water
quality standards and state requirements 1n addition to, or more
stringent than, promulgated effluent limitations or guidelines that we
lecessary to achieve water quality standards under Section 303 of the
3-45
-------
Clean Water Act. Consequently, those appropriate state water quality
criteria have been incorporated in the draft NPDES permit.
Response W-14
The NEPA conditions have been included in the NPDES permit in
accordance with provisions establishing management and regulations of
the NPDES program. Section 40 CFR 122.66 (e)(2)(H). of the Code of
Federal Regulations establishes that a new source NPDES permit be Is-
sued, conditioned, or denied following a complete evaluation of any
significant beneficial and adverse environmental impacts and a review
of the recommendations contained 1n the EIS. These NEPA conditions to
the NPDES permit were established based on review of the EIS and they
identify measures to be taken to prevent or minimize any adverse en-
vironmental impact.
Under provisions of 40 CFR 122.62(d)(9), a new source NPDES permit
shall incorporate any requirements, conditions, or limitations under
NEPA when USEPA Is the issuing authority.
Response W-15
Under provisions of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District's consumptive use permit (Appendix D of the Draft EIS), MCC 1s
to obtain written consent from all parties controlling lands within 450
feet (area of projected impact) of dewaterlng activities. Observation
wells are also required for the purpose of providing an early
indication of changes 1n the conditions of the water resources 1n the
area. The consumptive use permit has been included 1n Section 6.2 of
the Final EIS as have clarifying information (see also Response
W-6).
Response W-16
Discussions with Hardee County Health Department officials Indi-
cate that there are no known vector-borne disease patterns 1n the area
and no vector management plans required for a project such as the pro-
posed MCC mine.
3-46
-------
Response W-17
No blasting will be conducted during construction of the project
or operation of the mine.
Response W-18
In the spring of 1980, the State of Florida established a
phosphate-related Task Force to identify problems resulting from con-
struction of homes on phosphate mined and reclaimed lands and to recom-
mend appropriate 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 «re still under-
way, the Task Force Is expected to produce recomriended State of Florida
guidelines for radon exposure levels 1n homes built on reclaimed
lands.
Meanwhile, 1n December of 1980, the USEPA initiated a study en-
titled, "Program for Control of Indoor Radon Levels - Common Building
Practices and Soil Gas Entry Routes 1n Central Florida." This study,
which 1s 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 recom-
mended building practices for the construction of new homes on re-
claimed lands.
The results of EPA's study will be made available to the State of
Florida, and 1t 1s expected that the Task Force will use the Informa-
tion 1n 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 com-
pleted and adopted well 1n advance of the time that the MCC site would
be considered for residential development. In light of these facts,
EPA does not consider it necessary or appropriate to condition the MCC
Final NPDES permit to require the recording of deed restrictions for
the mine property.
3-47
-------
Response W-19
In 1978, the USEPA published the Final EIS for the Central Florida
Phosphate Industry. This Areawide EIS established the broad,
comprehensive NEPA assessment upon which subsequent, site-specific
phosphate EISs were to be based. This practice is consistent with the
CEQ regulations and the concept of tiering.
The Areawide EIS presents a cumulative impact assessment of the
phosphate industry on the terrestrial ecology and human environment, as
well as on other environmental disciplines, in the region. The Draft
EIS for the MCC project presented analyses based on the Areawide EIS
but adapted specifically for the Hardee County area. Hydrologic
impacts were developed in greater detail and related to the proposed
Farmland project because of the close physical proximity of the
facilities and the potential for locally significant impact on surface
and ground water quality.
The USEPA believes the MCC Draft EIS is adequate in content and
consistent with the provisions of the CEQ regulations. The commentor
is directed to the Areawide EIS for a comprehensive analysis of the
central Florida phosphate district and associated impacts from mining
operations.
Response W-20
The Hardee County Development Order (see Appendix C of the DEIS)
specifies that a wetlands restoration pilot project be conducted early
in the mine life (see Response W-43). A monitoring program designed to
assure that ecologically functional wetlands are created is included in
that pilot project. The USEPA supports this monitoring plan.
The development order stipulates that "the adequacy of any wetland
creation experiments shall be based on progression of the experimental
areas toward functional equivalency as compared to model areas." Six
existing wetlands are specified as model areas. The determination of
functional equivalency is to be determined by comparing fauna and
flora, including diversity and density; hydroperiod and water storage
3-48
-------
per acre; and water quality enhancement. Specific field parameters to
be monitored include vegetation composition, structural complexity, and
productivity; soil characteristics, including organic matter, litter
weight and litter depth; wildlife observations and quantitative
measurements; water quality parameters (total suspended solids,
phosphorus, pH, dissolved solids, and biochemical oxygen demand); and
hydrology (level recorders, ground contour systems, rain gauges, pan
evaporators, and piezometer wells). Specific sampling periods, dura-
tions (generally for one year in model wetlands and for the duration of
the pilot project for experimental wetlands), and methods are speci-
fied. The reclamation methods within a particular pilot project will
be considered successful only when the parameters exhibit a consistent
progression toward "natural" values found in model systems. That is, a
finding of functional equivalency does not require actual parameter
equivalency.
The USEPA will base any future decision on whether to modify the
NPDES permit'to allow mining in preserved areas on the results of this
experimental pilot project. Results will also be used to guide restor-
ation of Category II wetlands on the site. It is USEPA's belief that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will participate in establishing the
above-described restoration monitoring plan.
Response W-21
Ninety (90) acres of wetlands are to be created in historically
wet areas as part of an experimental restoration program. These 90
acres are in addition to the wetlands to be reclaimed as part of MCC's
proposed project. The NEPA-related NPDES permit condition requires a
restoration monitoring plan for these 90 acres and for all other
wetlands to be restored on the site.
3-49
-------
Response W-22
No Response Required
Response W-23
See Response W-19
Response W-24
Discussions of mitigation proposed by MCC, including those actions
required by local and state agencies with jurisdiction over portions of
the phosphate mine project, are presented in Section 3.0 of the Draft
EIS. Additional mitigative measures imposed by USEPA are listed in the
Executive Summary and/or appended to the draft NPDES permit. Below is
a listing of all mitigation and/or monitoring requirements by each
agency.
Hardee^County, through the phosphate mine development order. dat.PH
1. Conditional preservation of three wetlands, totaling 233
acres, which can be considered for mining in the future only
after successful wetlands restoration has been demonstrated
2. Implementation of state-of-the-art waste disposal and land
reclamation technology to minimize the above-grade storage of
waste clays. During the life of the mine, MCC will investi-
gate and implement feasible advances in technology to further
reduce above-grade storage.
3. Lakes created by the project will be limited to 25 feet in
depth and have extensive littoral zones to enhance water
quality and fish and wildlife values.
4. Creek beds which are to be mined will be restored to a
meandering condition with adjacent floodplains.
5. MCC will actively seek customers for wet phosphate rock so
that the effects of rock drying are minimized.
3-50
-------
6. Stream flows and drainage areas will be restored to their pre-
mining quantity and quality following reclamation.
7. Install and operate three observation wells, one each in the
surficial aquifer and in the upper and lower units of the
Floridan aquifer, for the purpose of monitoring potentiometric
surface and water quality.
8. Minimum water levels will be established for the shallow water
table aquifer and the upper and lower units of the Floridan
aquifer. MCC must reduce ground water withdrawal rates if
water levels fall below the minimum.
9. MCC shall be responsible for, and take corrective action to
place in operable condition, any well damaged due to the
lowering of the water level by ground water withdrawal.
10. MCC shall be responsible for restoring to operable condition
any shallow well rendered inoperable by matrix excavation.
11. An experimental wetlands restoration pilot project is to be
conducted early in the mine life. Results will be monitored
for effectiveness and "successful" restoration based on com-
parisons with model wetland areas.
12. MCC will create, or restore, 475 acres of hardwoods and 1975
acres of marsh using techniques developed in the pilot project
or otherwise found to be appropriate.
13. Reclamation will employ only native species except for agri-
cultural use. MCC will maintain vegetation on preserved areas
and on reclaimed land.
14. Above grade waste disposal areas shall not exceed an average
of 60 feet bove natural grade. Dams shall not exceed 65 feet
and those approaching this height shall not be longer than 100
yards in any one place.
15. Above-grade clay storage areas shall not exceed 3,700 acres.
3-51
-------
16. Streams and wetlands shall be restored to a (generally)
specified configuration and shall not degrade water quality
below state standards.
17. MCC will either provide for, or coordinate with other
phosphate companies, the upgrading of certain roads to all-
weather, land surfaces capable of supporting state maximum
load and size standards.
18. MCC will deed 50 feet of additional right-of-way for public
roads where MCC owns the adjacent land.
19. MCC shall notify the County Engineer whe/iever vehicles greater
than 40,000 pounds will make more than four daily trips and
will get a special county permit whenever a state permit is
required.
20. MCC shall deed a minimum of 640 acres of land and lakes to the
County for a public recreation park.
21. MCC shall abide by the SWFWMD Consumptive Use Permit.
Southwest Florida Water Management District, through the
Consumptive Use Permit, dated May 3, 1977
1. MCC must cease withdrawal of water from Brushy Creek for
diversion to the storage reservoir whenever the average
monthly flow in Brushy Creek drops below an amount specified
in a schedule of minimum monthly flow rates.
2. Establishes a maximum average annual and a maximum daily sur-
face water withdrawal rate from Brushy Creek. A concurrent
condition is to minimize withdrawals of ground water subject
to the established maximum surface water limitations.
3. Establishes a maximum average annual and maximum daily com-
bined withdrawal rate of surface and ground water.
4. MCC must continuously monitor the flows in Brushy Creek.
3-52
-------
5. MCC must obtain the prior written consent of land owners with-
in 450 feet of any proposed pit dewatering project.
6. MCC must install flow metering devices in MCC's production
wel 1 s.
7. MCC must maintain continuous water level recorders on 5 wells
in the lower unit of the Floridan aquifer, 2 wells in the
upper unit, and 2 wells in the surface aquifer (see Response
W-5).
8. A well will be constructed to monitor the fresh/mineralized
water interface.
9. Water quality analyses will be conducted on the fresh/
mineralized monitor well and on 5 wells in the lower unit of
the Floridan aquifer.
10. A study of the feasibility of recharging water to the Floridan
aquifer will be conducted.
11. Six (6) rain gages will be maintained witin the property
boundaries.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, through the NPDES
Permit, contained in the FEIS
These conditions are listed in full in Section 6.1 and in the
Executive Summary of this document.
In brief, they are:
1. Undertake a program to minimize harm to the eastern indigo
snake.
2. Perform any excavation of archaeological sites in accordance
with the guidance of the State Historic Preservation Officer.
3. Preserve from mining 233 acres of Category I wetlands.
4. Provide a 250 foot minimum mining setback around the periphery
of wetlands. Mine only along one side of a stream at a time.
3-53
-------
5. Conduct an experimental 90-acre wetland restoration program to
demonstrate wetlands creation in historically wet areas; a
protocol for this program shall be approved by USEPA prior to
start of mining.
6. Implement sand/clay capping to minimize above-grade clay
storage and restore topography to near original condition.
7. Implement its proposed project in complete accord with the
proposed action described in the Draft EIS; deviations of a
more stringent nature will be allowed if specified as a condi-
tion to a permit by USEPA or other governmental agency.
Significant modifications require prior USEPA approval.
8. Allow qualified paleontologists onsite to salvage specimens
and information.
Response W-25
The NEPA process and Draft EIS identified several issues of en-
vironmental concern relative to MCC's proposed project. Provisions to
prevent or minimize these adverse environmental impacts have been
included as NEPA related permit conditions in the NPDES permit.
Response W-26
The comment is acknowledged. EPA recognizes that MCC must obtain
environmental permits and approvals from various state, regional, and
local governmental bodies. To the extent these processes have been
coordinated in the NEPA process, the reviews and analyses are contained
in the Draft EIS.
Response W-27
USEPA acknowledges and appreciates the coordinated state agency
review. Responses W-28 through W-47 are provided for these comments
which are addressed individually.
Rpsponse W-28
The Enviro-Clear technology for treatment and disposal of dry
wastes from the phosphate rock beneficiation process involves the use
3-54
-------
of chemical flocculants to separate and concentrate the clays. MCC and
its consultants have considered the application of this technology for
the Hardee County mine but have determined it to be technically un-
satisfactory from the standpoint of cost, reduction in phosphate re-
covery efficiency in the flotation process, and the potential for
release of flocculants to the environment in the waste stream. MCC is
committed to a continuing review of state-of-the-art waste disposal
technology (including refinements in the Enviro-Clear technique)
throughout the mine life and will adopt an improved technique if one
should be developed.
It should be noted that the Florida Department of Community Af-
fairs has already agreed (Final Development Order, dated 26 March 1981)
to MCC's proposed project as described in the Draft EIS. Since alter-
natives were addressed in the Draft EIS, EPA believes that no comment
that has been provided would require a re-evaluation of alternatives.
Response W-29
During the environmental assessment of the proposed Hardee County
Phosphate Mine, USEPA identified four alternative wetland preservation
schemes (Section 2.10 of the DEIS). These were the following:
(1) wetlands identified in the Hardee County Development Order;
(2) wetlands classified for preservation under the USEPA Areawide cate-
gorization system; (3) wetlands classified for preservation by site-
specific application of the USEPA categorization system; and (4) wet-
land systems providing important ecological functions. The USEPA sur-
veyed each of the candidate preservation areas for their habitat value,
hydrologic functions, and ecological values. Also considered were the
potential loss of phosphate resources associated with each area. The
decision to preserve 233 acres of site-specific Category I wetlands was
made on the basis of these investigations, including an evaluation of
functional significance.
3-55
-------
Response W-30
Two wetlands restoration programs are being imposed on MCC.
First MCC must develop 6-one acre experimental wetland plots to satis-
fy the Hardee County developnent order. This program will be carried
out on former upland areas. The results of this program will provide
the technologies to be used in the restoration of the 2,010 acres which
are intended to replace wetlands to be mined. The second wetlands re-
citation program is the go-acre restoration in historically wet areas
required by USEPA as a part of the selected preservation alternative.
Neither of these two restoration programs will be located on stripmined
land. However, both programs will have performance standards imposed
and will be regularly monitored to evaluate success. Wetlands identi-
fied for preservation will not be considered for mining unless the
restoration programs prove to be successful.
Response W-31
The replacement of wetlands and reclamation of other mined areas
on the MCC property will adhere to the rules of the Florida Department
Of Natural Resources (ONR), Chapter 16C-16. The wetlands reclamation
plan described in the DEIS provides for restoration of 2,100 acres of
the 2 540 acres to be affected by the mining operations. The DNR
requirement for replacement of wetlands on an acre-for-acre basis will
result in an additional 440 acres of wetlands being reclaimed.
Re-establishment of at least 10 percent of the 8,182 acres of
upland habitats as mixed forests will result in approximately 820 acres
Of these habitats being developed onsite. This wuld be approximately
two-for-one reclamation of similar forested communities to be affected
since only about 6 percent of the existing uplands (44g acres) could be
considered mixed forests. The remaining 7,733 acres are predominantly
pastureland and pine flatwoods.
The replacement of wetlands and reclamation of other mined areas
on the MCC property will adhere to the rules of the Florida Department
of Natural Resources, Chapter 16C-16.
3-56
-------
Response W-32
The comment is acknowledged. USEPA will continue to consult and
cooperate with the Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Response W-33
The USEPA has determined that wetlands and streambeds which are
identified to be mined do not provide essential hydrologic or ecologic
functions and that mitigation in the form of restoration under an ap-
proved program can actually improve these wetland values. Wetlands
identified for preservation, on the other hand, are considered to
provide essential wetlands functions; mining will not be considered
until restoration to an equivalent functional value can be demon-
strated. Please refer to the response to comment W-43.
Response W-34
The USEPA approval for MCC to mine certain wetlands and streambeds
is given within the context of an NPDES-related environmental review.
Such an approval does not preclude the State of Florida from imposing
more restrictive conditions or from denying a permit to conduct activi-
ties within its jurisdiction. It is for this purpose that NEPA-related
condition No. 8 was imposed on the draft NPDES Permit.
Response W-35
The commentor does not provide any rationale to support the com-
nent. Onsite water quality data were collected and may be noted in the
Draft EIS in Table 3.2-3. Water quality data from the Peace River and
iorse Creek were included in the Draft EIS to present an overview of
•egional water quality. More detailed water quality information may be
:ound in MCC's ADA/DRI (MCC, 1977).
The surface water quality sampling program conducted on streams
issociated with the MCC site included eight stations to evaluate
hysico-chemical parameters for the ADA/DRI (MCC, 1977), and six
tations to evaluate physical parameters for the EIS. Four of these
3-57
-------
stations, two each on 8rushy and Oak Creeks, were identical for both
studies. Additional stations included one each on Horse, Hickory, and
Troublesome Creeks, one on an unnamed drainage leading to Brushy Creek
and an additional station on both Oak and Brushy Creeks. All of the
stations selected were either onsite or within one half mile of the
site boundary. The 24 parameters included in the surface water
analyses represented a standard water quality series and are considered
by USEPA to be adequate from a biological perspective to characterize
the physico-chemical environment of these lotic systems.
The information presented in the Draft does not preclude the FDER
from working within FDER's statutes. The USEPA understands that MCC
has met with the FDER to discuss the FDER's concerns. USEPA believes
the Draft EIS is adequate and sufficient under NEPA and the NPDES
program.
Response W-36
See response to W-35. It should be clarified that by "water
quality criteria are being violated" it is meant the anbient concentra-
tions for some parameters (i.e., pH, and dissolved oxygen) are below
the criteria. Although MCC's proposed effluent would increase the
concentrations for some parameters, the mixed concentrations would
still be below the pH criteria (see Table 3.2-6 of the Draft EIS)
Likewise, it is probable that specific conductance and oil and grease
concentrations would exceed the established criterion upon addition of
MCC's effluent.
MCC has recently discussed site-specific alternative criteria with
the FDER.
Response W-37
Well logs were not included in the Draft EIS; well logs were
however, contained in MCC's Consumptive Use Permit application and in
the ADA/DRI and were referenced in the Draft EIS. This reference is
reinforced at the end of the first paragraph on page 3.2-19 by adding
the following: "Regional and site characteristics of each of these
3-58
-------
units, including well logs, are detailed in the ADA/DRI (MCC, 1977) and
Consumptive Use Permit application (LaMoreaux, 1976). The site charac-
teristics of these units are summarized herein." (See Errata, Section
2.0.)
Response W-38
The combined surface and ground water withdrawals are not to
exceed 16,981,920 gallons per day on an average annual basis. However,
14,084,640 gpd will be consumed. SWFWMD regulation 16J-2.11(3) states
that the amount of the water consumed should not exceed the water crop,
which is assuned to be 1000 gpd/acre unless otherwise determined.
Since the site acreage is 14,850 acres, the water crop is 14,850,000
gpd. MCC, therefore, proposes to utilize 94.8 percent of the water
crop.
With regard to the footnote to the comment, the regulation does
not exclude slime ponds from the water crop calculation. It is pre-
dicted that, following mining and reclamation, the average radium con-
centration of material in contact with the surface aquifer will de-
crease from 5.2 pCi/liter to about 4.3 pCi/liter and that seepage into
the aquifer from surface impoundments would have a minimal effect due
to low suspended solids content. The Ra-226 levels are highest in the
upper unit of the Floridan aquifer and lowest in the lower unit (with
the surficial aquifer in between). Based on this information, the
USEPA does not believe that recharge water would have elevated
radiation content (compared to the present) following mining
reclamation.
Response W-39
Aquifer coefficients listed in Table 3.2-7 were derived by P.E.
LaMoreaux and Associates, Inc. Page 3.2-21, paragraph 4, has been
revised as follows (see Errata, Section 2.0):
"At the property, a comprehensive aquifer pumping test program was
implemented in order to calculate the aquifer coefficients of each
limestone unit. Details of the program, test results, and
analytical methods are presented in the ADA/DRI (MCC, 1977) and
3-59
-------
Consumptive Use Permit supporting documents (Lamoreaux, 1976).
Table 3.2-7 summarizes the results of the program showing the
thickness and range of values for transmlsslvity and storage co-
efficients within the Suwannee Limestone, the Ocala Group, and the
Avon Park Limestone."
Response W-40
Projections of the drawdown resulting from production ground water
withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer show that SWFWMD's drawdown
restrictions will not be exceeded. Response W-39 references the
sources of data on which the projections were based.
Response W-41
As Indicated 1n paragraph 2, page 3.2-23, of the Draft EIS, shal-
low aquifers would be physically removed during mining, and Floridan
aquifer wells would be abandoned 1n accordance with the Rules of the
Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter 17-21, "Rules and Regu-
lations Governing Water Wells 1n Florida." The abandonment procedure
would involve plugging the well from the bottom to top with neat cement
grout.
Response W-42
Kaufman, M.I. (1967) shows the potentiometrlc surface of the
Floridan aquifer near Wauchula in 1934 to be approximately +75 feet
MSL. (Reference: Kauftaan, M.I., 1967, "Hydrologlc effects of ground
water punpage 1n the Peace and Alafla River Basins, Florida, 1934-
1965." Florida Div. Geology, Rept. Inv. 49, 32 p.) Yobbi (1980) re-
ports the Floridan aquifer potentiometrlc surface at Wauchula to be
approximately +50 feet MSL at the end of the dry season 1n May 1980
(Reference: Yobbi, O.K., Woodham, W.M., and Schaner, G.R., 1980,
"Potentiometrlc surface of the Floridan aquifer, Southwest Florida
Water Management District, May, 1980,* U.S. Geol. Survey, Open-File
Rept. No. 80-587). This 1s a decline of only 25 feet in the last 46
years at the site area. Kaufman also reports a potentiometrlc level
decline of approximately 20 feet between 1934 and 1965 1n the site
3-60
-------
vicinity. According to the Tampa office of the U.S. Geological Survey,
potentiometrlc surface declines of over 80 feet have been experienced
in the phosphate mining district 1n the past (prior to 1975 in south-
western Polk County). Current data Indicate a maxlmun drawdown of 60
feet 1n the vicinity of southwestern Polk County. Current drawdowns in
the area of Interest are approximately 30-35 feet. These data reflect
the recent (1975-1980) rise 1n the potentiometric surface in the SWFWMD
region. See also Response W-6.
Response W-43
There are no plans to Impound Brushy Creek but rather, as noted in
Section 2.5.1 and illustrated in Figure 3.2-9 of the DEIS, to direct
some water from Brushy Creek to form an off-channel storage basin.
Response W-44
The description of wetlands values 1n the Technical Support Docu-
ment (Sections 3.2.1 and 6.2.1) Indicates that a considerable variation
1n wetlands quality typifies these habitats on the MCC site, although
there was no intent to suggest that wetlands are 1n "sad shape." In
fact, as noted in Section 3.2.1, these communities are described as
"the most valuable ecological resource on the site." However, exten-
sive modifications and societal perturbations have resulted 1n con-
siderable stress to significant areas of wetlands habitats. Modifica-
tions in drainage patterns have resulted in many of these systems being
hydrologlcally stressed for much of the year. Additionally, the open
pasture lands on the MCC site have resulted in wetlands and streams
being criss-crossed by numerous cattle trails, further modifying the
normal surface flows. The decision to preserve only the highest
quality wetlands was based on the development of a wetlands reclamation
scenario by MCC which, 1f successful, would 1) return restored wetlands
to a more hydrologlcally functional condition, 2) add substantially to
the base of knowledge concerning wetlands reclamation, and 3) assure
the retention of Important seed sources (in preservation areas) until
successful reclamation has been proven. The proposed mining plan does
3-61
-------
not involve destruction of functionally important wetlands or stream
beds until restoration of new wetlands and stream beds has been
completed (Section 3.3.2.3).
The primary streams associated with the site have generally been
channelized and have steep banks and unstable streambeds. Oak Creek,
the water body proposed to receive periodic effluent discharge, ex-
hibits high organic loads and concomitant low dissolved oxygen values,
attributed to water hyacinths that have overgrown much of this stream.
Nonetheless, the aquatic communities for these two streams are diverse
and represent a balanced ecosystem. The concern over the destruction
of these waterways, however, is unwarranted since no significant modi-
fications 1n stream beds or the aquatic communities will be undertaken
until after MCC has adequately provided a functional waterway to re-
place those sections to be affected. Additions of littoral zones,
snags, and stream contouring should result 1n aquatic communities at
least as well-balanced and healthy as those streams currently on site.
Additionally, these restored stream/wetland systems will afford habi-
tats that are subject to fewer natural stresses than presently occur,
such as drought and flooding.
Response W-45
The USEPA has determined to its satisfaction that the wetlands
which would be approved for mining satisfy the criteria established for
Category II and III wetlands 1n the Areawlde EIS; that 1s, these wet-
lands do not serve essential environmental functions. Mitigation for
their destruction 1s nevertheless required 1n the form of restoration,
as described 1n the DEIS. Wetlands which are considered to be of high
quality were placed 1n Category I; these Include 233 acres of swamps
and marshes which are to be preserved. The distinction drawn by the
USEPA 1s one of quality and ecological function.
Response W-46
MCC's waste disposal and reclamation plan was developed to mini-
mize above-grade storage of waste clays and to return the land as close
3-62
-------
to original topography as was reasonably possible. In order to accom-
plish this objective, MCC's engineering consultants devised the pro-
posed plan of capping clay disposal areas with a 4-foot sand/clay
mix (ratio of 8 to 1) on approximately 4,100 acres. Approximately
5,000 acres will be left uncapped until the end of mining, at which
time all available sand tailings and overburden material onsite,
principally from dams and dikes, will be used to cap the clay. Every
effort will be made to provide a one-foot thick tailings/overburden cap
on these clays; if Insufficient material 1s available some of the clays
may not be capped but this would be much less than 3,600 acres.
As described in Section 3.6 of the DEIS, the proposed waste
disposal plan will reduce radioactivity levels on the site compared to
conventional methods which do not employ caps. It 1s true that a 4:1
sand/clay ratio in the cap would produce Improved soil conditions for
subsequent agricultural use, the 8:1 ratio will be similar to existing
conditions and will not require the cost of additional clay removal and
mining.
Response W-47
This comment is a restatement and summary of concerns expressed in
comment W-45 and W-46. Please refer to the appropriate responses.
USEPA believes that the rationale used in wetlands categorization, and
therefore wetlands preservation, 1s sound; restoration technology is
expected to be sufficient to recreate Category II wetlands within the
time frame of MCC mining. Permission to mine Category I wetlands would
not be given until the technology for restoration to an equivalent
quality is demonstrated.
A lower sand/clay ratio 1s more costly and 1s not needed to cover
clay areas with a sand/clay cap.
3-63
-------
SECTION 3.3
PUBLIC HEARING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
IN CONJUNCTION WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
OCTOBER 21, 1981
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
PROPOSED PHOSPHATE MINE AND BENEFICIATION PLANT
HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
3-65
-------
PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the pro-
posed issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit,
and State Certification of the NPDES Permit for the Mississippi Chemical
Corporation, proposed Phosphate Mine and Benef1c1at1on Plant, Hardee
County, Florida, was held on October 21, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Hardee
County Agricultural and Civic Center, at Altman Road and Stenstrom Road,
in Uauchula, Florida.
Thereupon, the following proceedings were had and taken:
MR. ZELLER: Good evening Ladles and Gentlemen. My name 1s Howard
Zeller and I am acting Assistant Regional Administrator for the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Our Headquarters 1s 1n Atlanta,
Georgia.
With me this evening are Mr. Mickey Bryant on my right, who represents
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, next to me is Ms. Jean
Tolman, who is the EIS Project Officer, and on my left 1s Lionel Alexander,
Environmental Engineer with the Enforcement Division, and developed the
NPDES permit which appears 1n the draft EIS.
This hearing tonight will address possible actions by EPA with respect
to Mississippi Chemical Corporation's proposed phosphate mine and benefl-
ciation plant which 1s to be constructed and operated near the Town of Ona
in Hardee County, Florida.
3-66
-------
The hearing is for the purpose of receiving comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed issuance of a National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and consideration for
State Certification of the permit. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act, the State of Florida has been requested to certify that the proposed
NPDES permit will not cause violations of Florida's Mater Quality Standards.
The permit application describes one proposed discharge from the facil-
ity which would discharge from the clear water pond to Oak Creek at a loca-
tion near the Vandolah Plant site. The receiving stream, which 1s intermit-
tent 1n flow. Is a tributary to the Peace River.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which 1s commonly referred to
as the Clean Water Act, has as Its goal the "elimination of the discharge of
pollutants" by 1985. To accomplish this goal, the Act created the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, which 1s a national permit
program, to control the discharge of pollutants Into the nation's waters.
Under this permit program, anyone who proposes to discharge wastes Into
waters of the United States must receive a permit which sets limits and
conditions for the discharge of those pollutants. The NPDES permit Is the
basic regulatory tool for water pollution abatement under Federal law. The
discharge must be 1n compliance with Its permit effluent limits upon Initia-
tion of its discharge. Any violations of the terms, the limits, or condi-
tions of the permit will subject the discharger to civil or criminal penal-
ties.
The proposed project we're talking about here tonight was determined
by the Regional Administrator of EPA to be a New Source as defined by Section
3-67
-------
306 of the Clean Water Act. Now the issuance of the NPDES is subject to
the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. This act
was passed in 1969 and it requires an Environmental Impact Statement be
developed since it 1s a new source as defined under Section 306 of the
Clean Water Act.
The Draft NP.DES Permit proposed for Mississippi Chemical Corporation
was prepared by the staff of Region IV, we used all of the applicable guide-
lines and standards in preparation of this permit.
We have made available for distribution here this evening copies of
the Public Notice and the Fact Sheet. A few copies of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS) are available also. These documents, as well
as other relevant documentation and all comments received tonight or sub-
mitted 1n writing by October 30, 1981, will become a part of the administra-
tive record. The information In the record will be used 1n evaluating the
Draft Permit and either preparing a final NPDES permit or denying the appli-
cant a permit for the proposed discharges. Permit Issuance could not occur
before release of the final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition,
you should be aware that all the public conments on Mississippi Chemical
Corporation's facility and the Draft EIS, whether received here tonight
and transcribed for the record, or submitted In writing directly to the
EPA, will be summarized and addressed 1n the Final Impact Statement. A
copy of the proposed NPDES permit will also be Included 1n the Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement.
A permit under the Clean A1r Act, the Prevention of Significant Deter-
ioration will also be required for Mississippi Chemical Corporation. A
3-68
-------
revised preliminary determination with regard to that permit was published
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The comment period on this
permit also closes on October 30, 1981, after which time a final determin-
ation may be Issued.
The hearing tonight 1s an EPA public Information hearing and 1s con-
ducted pursuant to 40 CFR 124.42(b) of our regulations.
Notice of the public hearing was published 1n the Uauchula HERALD
ADVOCATE and the Tampa TRIBUNE on September 3, 1981. Additionally, copies
of the Public Notice were mailed to Individuals and organizations on the
EPA mailing list and to all appropriate government agencies. Also, a copy
was posted at the Town of Ona Post Office for thirty days.
Now, at this time, I would like to Introduce and ask Mickey D. Bryant
of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to make any comments
he has relative to the State of Florida under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Zeller. I would also like to welcome every-
one to tonight's hearing on behalf of the State of Florida, Governor Graham,
and Secretary Tschinkel of the Department. The Department of Environmental
Regulation 1s a State agency given the responsibility to process applica-
tions for State certification of NPDES permits. Section 401 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended requires 402 NPDES and 404 applicants
to obtain certification of their projects. The NPDES section of the Depart-
nent's Bureau of Permitting has been assigned the responsibility for handl-
ing State certification activities for Section 402 permits. The terms and
3-69
-------
conditions of State certifications are guided by Section 401 of the Act,
which authorizes the State to evaluate projects requiring Federal permits
and to determine whether such projects will comply with Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, and 307 of the Act and with appropriate requirements of State law.
In Issuing State certifications, the Department will, of course, usu-
ally impose terms and conditions under which the project is certified. The
requirements of State certifications are subsequently attached to and become
conditions of the Federal Permit. An applicant or citizen may challenge
the denial or issuance or terms of State certification through the formal
administrative hearing process in accordance with Chapter 120 of the Florida
Statutes and Chapter 17-1 of the Florida Administrative Code. Before issu-
ing State certification, the applicant must have demonstrated that the pro-
ject will comply with applicable State and Federal regulations. Among
other things, the applicant must have provided reasonable assurance that
the proposed project during all phases of proposed construction, operation,
and discharge, will not discharge pollutants 1n violation of State water
quality standards assigned to the receiving stream or streams.
State water quality standards apply at the point or points of discharge
unless mixing zones have been obtained 1n accordance with Department rules.
So the minimum criteria also applies within mixing zones. If there are any
water quality parameters 1n the receiving streams that fall to meet exist-
ing State water quality standards, the applicant may need to petition for
Site Specific Alternative Criteria for those parameters that do not meet
standards. The Department has not yet established a position on certifi-
cation of this proposed new source phosphate mine. Public conments received
3-70
-------
during tonight's hearing will be reviewed and considered prior to taking
final actions. Are there any questions concerning the function that the
State assumes 1n the NPDES process? If not, I have no further comments.
MR. ZELLER: Any questions for Mr. Bryant? Thank you. Next I'd like
to ask Jean Tolman to discuss the Environmental Impact Statement and some
of the requirements 1n the Impact statement and the requirements of the
National Environmental policy. Ms. Tolman.
MS. TOLMAN: Thanks, Mr. Zeller, and good evening Ladles and Gentlemen.
As Mr. Zeller Indicated 1n Ms opening statement, EPA Region IV has deter-
mined that Mississippi Chemical Corporation's proposed mining operation
constitutes a new source as defined In Section 306 of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA Region IV Administrator has determined that issuance of a new source
NPDES permit for the proposed facility would constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and
1s subject to the provision of the National Environmental Policy Act requir-
ing preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS. Notice of
availability of the draft EIS was published 1n the Federal Register, Vol-
ume 46, Number 172, on September 5, 1981. The EIS was prepared using the
so-called "Third Party EIS" process. Under this arrangement, MCC retained
a consultant to prepare the EIS subject to EPA guidance and direction.
Dames & Moore of Atlanta was nominated by MCC and approved by EPA as the
Third Party Consultant to prepare the Draft EIS. Ultimate responsibility
for the content of the EIS rests with EPA. The purpose of th« EIS 1s to
provide governmental agencies and the public information to assure that a
3-71
-------
thorough review of the environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action
is included in the decision making process. To comply with the goals of
the National Environmental Policy Act, abbreviated NEPA, the EIS must:
1. Provide a thorough description of the environmental background
and setting;
2. Evaluate all reasonable alternatives which meet project objec-
tives, as well as no action alternatives;
3. Assess the environmental impacts of the alternatives; and
4. Identify all potentially adverse Impacts and evaluate means to
mitigate these Impacts.
The Council on Environmental Quality guidelines for Implementing NEPA
further specify that the EIS should focus on the major Issues associated
with the proposed project. The major Issues identified with respect to
MCC's proposed mining operation Included the preservation and restoration
of wetlands, rock drying, waste clay disposal and post-m1n1ng land reclama-
tion. Possible Impacts were radiation and Impacts to ground water. The
MCC draft EIS accordingly has concentrated on Identifying and evaluating
alternatives which would serve to minimize the impacts 1n these particular
areas. Also, the final areawlde EIS for the central Florida phosphate
Industry published by EPA 1n 1978 contains several recommendations for
future phosphate mining operations. These guidelines were kept closely 1n
mind in evaluating MCC's proposed project and 1n developing and evaluating
alternative and mitigating measures. The key alternatives addressed 1n
the MCC EIS were wetlands preservation, waste disposal, rock drying, and
reclamation as well as the no.action alternative of permit denial. Other
alternatives addressed in the EIS but receiving less emphasis Included
3-72
-------
location of the benefielation facility, matrix transport and processing
methods, mining methods, sources of water, location of water discharges and
product transport methods. EPA's recommendations and proposed agency action
are embodied 1n the draft NPDES permit which Is contained 1n the draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Several measures which would mitigate
the environmental, impacts of MCC's proposed project were identified during
the preparation of the draft EIS. These conditions were made - pardon me -
these measures were made conditions of the Draft NPDES permit and are con-
tained in the last four pages of the draft permit. Briefly, these permit
conditions require the following:
1. Implementation of a program to minimize impacts to the eastern
1nd1go snake, a threatened species occurring on the site, as
recommended by the U.S. Fish 4 Wildlife Service.
2. Completion of consultations under the National Historic Preser-
vation Act and performance of any excavations under the guidance
of the State Historic Preservation Office.
3. Preservation from mining of significant or Category I Qnslte
Wetlands. MCC may reapproach EPA on this Item when wetlands
creation has been successfully demonstrated.
4. Establishment of a no-mining setback around wetlands and streams
to protect the hydrologlc Integrity of this area.
5. Implementation of a sand/clay capping technique to minimize above-
grade clay storage areas.
6 Performance of an experimental wetland restoration program to
demonstrate the ability of creating wetlands 1n historically
wet areas.
A final EIS will be published after the close of the draft EIS comment
period. The final EIS will consist of the Agency's statement of findings,
tentative permit decision, substantive comments on the draft EIS and any
responses to the comments, transcripts of this hearing, and any additional
3-73
-------
evaluations performed after release of the draft EIS. A copy of the draft
EIS should be retained 1f a complete evaluation of the project 1s desired.
Thank you for your attention this evening. I'll return the microphone
to Mr. Zeller.
MR. ZELLER: Thank you, Ms. Tolman. Does anybody have any questions
about the EIS? If not, let me ask Mr. Lionel Alexander to give some of the
background on the NPDES permit which 1s also Included 1n the EIS. Mr.
Lionel Alexander.
MR. ALEXANDER: Thankyou, Mr. Zeller. The draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Mississippi Chemical Corpor-
ation was developed by the Permit Processing Section of EPA's Consolidated
Permits Branch. It 1s our responsibility to Insure that requirements of
the Clean Water Act are carried out.
Mr. Zeller has stated that the proposed project was determined by the
Regional Administrator to be a "new source" under Section 306 of the Clean
Water Act. For this reason, the environmental aspects of the project are
subject to review procedures specified 1n the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The review process, as Jean Tolman discussed, 1s directed by
our EIS Branch. The NPDES permit Issuance process is conducted 1n conjunc-
tion with this review process.
In this regard, effluent guidelines have been published to address the
wastewater generated from this facility. However, 1n some cases, effluent
3-74
-------
guideline requirements are not enough to protect the Integrity of water
quality within the receiving stream. This brings me to my discussion of
the terms and conditions of this proposed permit. A copy of the permit
can be found 1n Appendix A of the draft EIS.
The effluent limits on Page 1-1 are applicable to wastewater discharges
dependent on heavy rainfalls, which will result 1n non-continuous discharges.
Discharge 001 will consist of over-flow from waste clay settling areas to
Oak Creek. The effluent guidelines for this Industry, Phosphate Rock Sub-
category of the Mineral Mining and Processing Category, only identifies
Total Suspended Solids and pH as parameters warranting permit conditions.
As I stated before, the effluent guidelines alone will not protect the water
quality within Oak Creek. The creek 1s classified as Class III waters suit-
able for contact recreation and the management and propogatlon of fish and
wildlife; therefore, additional parameters 1n the draft permit are Specific
Conductance and combined Radium 226 and 228. State of Florida standards
for Class III waters require that the Instream measurement of Specific Con-
ductance not be raised above a maximum level. By the way, Specific Conduc-
tance 1s a measure of the water's ability to conduct electricity. This mea-
surement can be used to indicate the total amount of dissolved sol Ids.
State standards also require Radium limits and the upper pH limit of 8.5
The effluent guideline limit is 9.0 for upper pH.
Also, on Page 1-2 is a statement which will relieve the company from
complying with the Total Suspended Solids and pH permit conditions during
heavy rainfall events which might occur once in ten years 1f the facility
Is designed and constructed to meet certain criteria.
3-75
-------
Finally, the permit conditions I have discussed constitute the prin-
ciple part of the permit from an NPDES standpoint. However, as previously
explained, a "new source" such as Mississippi Chemical Corporation is sub-
ject to additional environmental regulations under NEPA. Thank you, Mr.
Zeller.
FURTHER REMARKS
Mr. ZELLER: This concludes the official comments and statements that
we wanted to get Into the record by the Involved governmental agencies. We
will now proceed with the main purpose of the hearing, that 1s, to receive
comments. One of the goals of the Clean Water Act and the National Environ-
mental Policy Act and the regulations 1s to encourage and provide for public
participation 1n the decision making process for actions authorized by these
acts, and to encourage goveVnment responsiveness to public concerns and to
promote a greater public awareness of the actions proposed by EPA.
I hope all of you have registered for the meeting tonight so that we
m«y have a record of those 1n attendance, and also so that we-can send you
a notice after our final determination relative to the permit. If you have
not already registered and wish to make an oral statement tonight, would
you please register your intent at this time.
Members of this panel may ask questions of persons presenting oral
comments where 1t is felt necessary to clarify the nature or substance of
any comments. I would like to emphasize that persons commenting for the
record will not be expected nor required to respond to any questions from
the public.
3-76
-------
I would ask that each person who makes a statement to please step to
the microphone, state your name and the interest or organization that you
represent. This hearing 1s being recorded and a transcript will be included
1n the public record and final EIS. In addition to any oral or written com-
ments submitted this evening, the comment period on the draft EIS will be
open until October 30, 1981. A written record of this hearing and any
other comments received will be held as a matter of public record at the
regional office of EPA in Atlanta.
At this time I would like to recognize the Mississippi Chemical Corp-
oration representative, Mr. R. A. Risley, who would like to make a state-
ment regarding the facility. Mr. Rlsley.
MR. RISLEY: Mr. Zeller, and ladles and gentlemen, I am Dick Rlsley,
General Manager of Phosphate Development for Mississippi Chemical Corpora-
tion. Mississippi Chemical 1s pleased to have this opportunity to comment
on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. We believe it represents a
sound environmental analysis of our proposed project. We appreciate the
hard work that has gone Into this well-prepared document. We would like
to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the consultants
who have worked so diligently on behalf of Mississippi Chemical to produce
the required Information for the EIS, and finally we would like to thank
Dames & Moore, the Third Party Contractor, who prepared the draft EIS under
EPA's supervision. We also look forward to working with DER 1n obtaining
State certification of the NPDES permit.
3-77
-------
As you are aware, Mississippi Chemical Corporation 1s a fertilizer
producing cooperative owned by fanners. The project is particularly Impor-
tant to Mississippi Chemical because 1t represents a continued source of
fertilizer for the farmers who own our company. Without 1t, these farmers
would be deprived of necessary fertilizer at the more reasonable price
this mine will furnish to them. In addition, this project will provide
new jobs and substantial tax revenue for Hardee County and the State of
Florida. Although we recognize that this mine will have some environmental
Impact on the area, we believe that the plan minimizes that Impact to the
maximum extent possible.
In addition, because of the sound mitigation and reclamation measures
to be taken, the environment will be restored to a condition better 1n many
respects than what It was prior to the mining activity. -We have additional
written technical comments which we, I, would like to submit for the record
at this time. [See page 3-11 ff of this Final EIS.]
MR. ZELLER: Thank you. These comments will become a part of the offi-
cial record.
MR. RISLEY: These comments will address fully our technical comnents
on the draft EIS without the necessity of my reiterating them now. If you
have any questions once you've looked over these comnents, we would be happy
to address them or any other questions that arise. Again, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the draft EIS tonight. We will be happy to answer
any questions or provide additional Information as may be necessary. I
3-78
-------
understand the record will remain open until October 30th to receive addi-
tional comments. Should any questions arise which cannot be adequately
addressed tonight, we will submit further comment In writing at that time.
MR. ZELLER: Thank you, Mr. Rlsley. That Is correct. The record will
stay open until October 30th and your comments will become a part of that
record and you will be addressed 1n the final Environmental Impact State-
ment when It's Issued.
I do not have any cards filled out by anyone here who registered with
any Intent to make a statement at this hearing. Let me just ask - 1s there
anyone here who did not fill out a card that would like to make a statement
at this time? This 1s a public Information hearing and 1f you have any
questions relative to the permit or the Environmental Impact Statement*
now 1s the opportunity to ask those questions and we would be happy to
respond to any Issues Do any members of the panel have any ques-
tions or comments at this time? Mr. Bryant? No. Ms. Tolman? No, thank
you. Mr. Alexander?
Well, If not let me just thank you all very much for your attendance
here this evening and for your participation and your cooperation. The
record of the hearing and the comment period will remain open through close
of business October 30th. This should allow anyone wishing to submit addi-
tional statements sufficient time to do so. Further submissions to be
included in the official record must be In writing, and they should be sent
to the attention of Ms. Jean Tolman, E1S Braneh of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region IV, at 345 Courtland Street, Northeast in Atlanta,
3-79
-------
Georgia. After consideration of all written comments and of the require-
ments and policies in the act and appropriate regulations, we will make a
determination regarding permit issuance. If the determinations are substan-
tially unchanged, we will so notify all persons making oral statements
tonight and all persons submitting written comments. If the determinations
are substantially changed, we will Issue a public notice indicating the
revised determinations. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final
determination or the date of the public notice, any Interested party may
request an evidentiary hearing on this determination. The request for an
evidentiary hearing should be addressed to the EPA Regional Hearing Clerk
for Region IV. Procedures for filing evidentiary hearing requests are set
out 1n Title 40, the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 124, Subpart E and
Vol. 45 of the Federal Register on Page 33498 which was published on May
19, 1980. Please-note than any issues posed by an evidentiary hearing
request must have previously been raised by the requestor during the public
comment period or at the public hearing. Unless a request for an evidenti-
ary hearing 1s granted, our determination will be the final action of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Pending final agency action on an eviden-
tiary hearing concerning this facility which 1s granted by the Regional
Administrator, the applicant will be without a permit as the project for
which the permit has been applied 1s a new source. The record upon which
the determination, to issue 1s made will Include both comments received at
this hearing and received 1n response to the public hearing. The final
permit will be issued no sooner than thirty (30) days after Issuance of
the final Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to 40 CFR, Section 124.61.
Roughly, I think what we're saying 1s that we should have the final
3-80
-------
Environmental Impact Statement out 1n about sixty (60) days from today and
1f there are no substantive comments received, the permit could be Issued
about thirty (30) days after that for final action pending certification
by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation could be
completed relative to this project 1n about ninety (90) days. That's prob-
ably the earliest time frame that we could accomplish what we are talking
about.
Again, let me thank you all very much for your participation 1n this
hearing and 1f no one has any further comments, then I would like to close
the record and announce that this public hearing is now closed.
3-81
-------
4.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION LIST
The following Federal, state, and local agencies, public offi-
cials, organization, and interest groups have been requested to comment
on this impact statement.
Federal
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
Agenices
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Department of Energy
Federal Highway Administration
Fish and WIldTife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Economic Development
Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Public Health Service
Members of Congress
Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Paula Hawkins
United States Senate United States Senate
Honorable San Gibbons Honorable Andy P. Ireland
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable L.A. Bafalis
U.S. House of Representatives
State
Honorable D. Robert Graham,
Governor
Coastal Coordinating Council
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Department of Community
Affairs
Geological Survey
Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission
Department of State
Department of Commerce
Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Transportation
4-1
-------
Local and Regional
Polk County Commission
Manatee County Commission
DeSoto County Commission
Hardee County Commission
Hardee County Building & Zoning
Department
Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
Central Florida Regional
Planning Council
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
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
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Name
Robert B. Howard
Darlo J. Dal Santo
Wll llam H. Cloward
Lionel Alexander III
William L. Kruczynskl
Ph111p J. Murphy
H. Richard Payne
Thomas R. Cavinder
Willi am P. Davls
A. Eugene Coker
D. Br I an Ml tchel I
Lewis Nagler
James E. Or ban
ResponslblIIty
Acting Chief, EIS Preparation UnIt
Project Officer
NPDES Permit Coordinator
NPDES Permlt Coord Ina+or
Biology and Ecology
Biology and Ecology
Radiation
Surface Water
Surface Water
Ground Water/Geology
Atr Qua IIty
A i r Qua 11ty
Noise
Dames & Moore
ResponslbiI(ty
PrIncI pa I-1n-Charge
Project Manager,
Rock Drying Alternative
Assistant Project Manager
Alternatives (except rock
drying and wetlands
preservation)
Wetlands Preservation
Alternative, Biology
Geology/Sol Is
Surface Water Hydrology
Ground Water Hydrology
Botany
Ibert K. Langley, Jr. Zoology, Threatened and
Endangered Species
Air Quality, Climatology
Socioeconomics
lame
tonal d E. Kear
lavld E. Hawkins
Shrlstine E. Poulos
Mike Gurr
homos E. Simpson
lobert E. Hunter
iteve H. Blair
lark R. Stephens
iteven G. Cox
• Raymond Brown
Kill am W. Wade
larvln F. Smith
rederlck M. Kessler No's*
Land Use, Archeologleal/
Historical Resources
ary C. Re
Radiology
or Information on this material, contact Darlo J. Dai
t (404) 881-7458 (FTS/237-7458).
5-1
Education
B.S., Civil Engineering
M.E., Environmental
Engineering
M.S., Aerospace Engineering
M.S., Environmental
Engineering Science
M.A., Geology
Ph.D, Biological
Science
B.St, Zoology and Geology
M.S, Civil Engineering
M.S., Geology and Water
Resources
M.S., Botany
Ph.D, Ecology
Ph.D, Physics
B«A«, Business Admini-
stration
B.A., Business Admfnlstratf
and Industrial Geography
Ph.D, Electrical
Engineering
M.S., Environmental
Health Science
Santo
-------
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FINAL DRAFT NPDES PERMIT FOR THE MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL
CORPORATION MINE PROJECT, HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
-------
Permit Ho.: FL0037745
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RKCSION IV
MS COUWTLANB STRCCT
ATLANTA. OSOROIA MM1
AUTHORIZATION' TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELLMLNATION SYSTEM
la compliance with the proviiioM o£ the Clean Water Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 «t. seq; tha "Act"),
Mississippi Chemical Corporation
is authorised to discharge frea a
near the Vandolah(PlaBt Site
Latitude - 27° 30 10
Longitude - 81° 55 59
to racaiving waters named
Oak Creek
in accordance with affluent liaitatiws.monitoring Mquiremwts^andit
other conditions sot forth in Parts I, II» an * 12 Ma#(s
eonaiata of thia cov.r abut. Part I J. ?»««<•>. 11 -ii-
•ad Part III 4 page(a).
This pemit shall become effectire on
thia panait ch. „th«ri»ti» to Uaclutp •h*11 *xfir* "
aitfnight,
facility located at
oata Signed
Paul J. Traina
Director
Water Management Division
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the terw of this perait,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s)001-proce8s generated wastewater.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow—m* /Day (MOD)
Total Suspended Solids
Specific Conductance
Radius*
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units (Specify)
Measurement Sample
Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency Type
(during discharge)
_ _ Continuous Recorder
Daily Avg Daily Max
30 mg/1 60 tag/1 1/week
550 iimhos/cm 900 pathos/cm 1/week
5pci/l 10pci/l 1/week
Composite
Composite
Composite
—n
~Combined Radius 226 & 228
The pH ihail not Ik leas than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored once per
week with a g«sb sample. ^
S » 1
There shall be no Parting of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in c*M>liance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following Im-aiionfs):
nearest accessible point after final treatswnt but prior to actual discharge or mixing with
the receiving wfttera. g
The flow 1n Oak Creek must be at least 1.4 times the discharge flow to the creek. 3
§ « a
8' If «
? M "
I
N|
-------
B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AMD MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Any overflow froa facilities designated, constructed and aaintained to contain
or treat the voluae of wastewater which would result from a "10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event shall not be subject to the suspended solids liaitation
or the pH liaitation listed on the preceeding pages. Monitoring and reporting
shall be required for all other parameters.
The effluent liaits and any additional requireaents specified in the state
certification supersede any less stringent effluent liaits listed above. During
any tiae period in which aore stringent state certification effluent liaits are
stayed or inoperable, the effluent liaits listed above shall be in effect and
fully enforceable.
-------
PARTI
Pag* 1-3
Permit No. FL0037745
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
Operational Laval Attained Effective Data of Permit
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
5T25SMS? SSL* *. »' —«¦«*•
requirement
-------
Part II
Page II-l
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Discharge Violations
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with 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.
DRAFT
2. Change in Discharge
Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications which will result in new, different, or increased
discharges of pollutant* must be reported by submission of a new
NPDES application at least 180 days prior to commencement of such
discharge. Any other activity which would constitute cause for
modification or revocation and reissuance of this permit, as
described in Part II (B) (4) of this permit, shall be reported to the
Permit Issuing Authority.
3. Noncompliance 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
with the following information at the time when the ntxt Discharge
Monitoring Report is submitted.
A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times
and/or anticipated time when the discharge will return to
- - a
(1)
(2)
(3)
compliance; and
Steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of
the noncomplying discharge.
-------
Part II
Page II-2
e. 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
set 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 maimer 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 funding, 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 might necessitate unavoidable
interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality,
shall be scheduled during noncritieal weter 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
•hall control production and all discharges upon reduction, loss,
or failure of the trettment facility until the facility is
restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided.
S. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimise any
adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting from
-------
no APT
Unra i Pag.n_3
noncompliance with any affluent limitation, specified in this
permit, including auch accelerated or additional monitoring as
neceaaary to determine the nature of the noncomplying discharge.
Bypaaaing
"Bypaaaing" means the intentional divaraioa of untreated or partialis
treated waatea to waters of the United Statea from any portion of a
treatment facility. Bypaaaing of waet«w«eera ia prohibited unleaa
all of the following conditiona are nt:
a. The bypaaa ia unavoidable-i.e. required to prevant loas of life,
personal injury or severe property damage;
b There are no feasible alternativea euch aa uae of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periode of equipment down time;
c. The permittee reports (via telephone) to the Permit Iaauing
Authority any unanticipated bypaaa within 24 houra after
becoming aware of it and followa up with written notification
in 5 daya. Where the neceaaity of a bypaaa ia known (or ahould
ba known) in advance, prior notification shall be aubmitted to
the Permit Iaauing Authority for approval at leaat 10 daya
beforehand, if poaaibla. All written notification, .hall contai
information as required m Part II (A)(3)(b),
d. Ih. by.... i. 'H—* condition. d«t.r«in.d to b.
bv ttaPermit H.uinj Authority to »inl«iM My «d«r.. .ff.ct..
Th. oublic .h.11 b. notified «nd giv.n «n opportunity to com.tit
« b^«. i«U..t. of .ignificnt dur.tioo to th. «t.«
feaaible.
-ru- i. waived where infiltration/inflow analyses ere
TJZUIZ'LITZ SSZ -
Agency facilitiea planning project.
Removed Subatancea
. . kaetauih. or other pollutants removed in
Solida, fL, nt ot control of waatewatera shall be diapoaed
the courae of trea5" ,a urevent any pollutant from auch materiala
of in a manner auch aa to prevent may y**
from entering watera of the United States.
-------
Part II
Page II-4
I. 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 aeans 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 wastis. 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 authorise 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
authorised 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 times 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 reaaonable times any collection, treatment, pollution
managesMnt or discharge facilities required under the permit; or
Sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants.
-------
DRAFT
Part II
Page II-5
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 proposa
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 applicati
be filed.
Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
r lu n S C 1318) all reports prepared m accordance with
if "J'p.™it lh.n b« for public inspection «
the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Perm:
the offices of tne a re effiuent data shall not
be*considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on
-'b "Port '"?lt 5° "I ITml)"
•a provided for in Section 309 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319;.
Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be oodifj
terminated or revoked for cause (as described in 40 CFR 122.15 et sec
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.
-------
Part II
DRAFT p"*iM
If the permittee believes that any past or planned activity would
be cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under
40 CTR 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.
Toxic Pollutants
a. Notwithstanding Part II (B)(4) above, if m 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 authorised 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 polluMnt 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.
Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing", Part II
(A) (6), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
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).
State Law*
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
mef responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable 8tate law or regulation under authority
AMMrvcd bv Saetion 510 of tha A et.
-------
DRAFT
Part II
Page II-7
9. Property Rights
The itauance 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
lavs 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
exniration date of this permit. Where EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority the terms and conditions of this permit are automatically
^in«d'in!e"".nc. «th 40 CP* m.5, provid.d «h« th. p.r»itt..
lubmitted a timely and sufficient application for a renewal permi
S t l .^ Authority is unable through no fault of the
permit b«for* the .xpir.cion <«*.
S. 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
Monitorim results obtained during each e*i«dar month shall be
summarized for each month 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
28 th day of the month following the end of thequarter^ The first
report is due by the 28th day of the month following the first full
quarter after the effective date of this permit.
-------
Part II
urw i
HDAL-•
Pag* II-8
Signed copies of these, end ell other reports required herein, shell
be submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority et the following
address(es):
Permit Compliance Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to all
regulations published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Uater
Act, as amended (40 CFR 136, "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants").
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 enalyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of all required analyses.
Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors eny 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 value* required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA Ho. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
-------
DRAFT
6. Records Retention
The permittee shall maintain records of ell monitoring including:
sampling dates and tines, 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 Lev 92-500, as amended by Public
Law 95-217 and Public Law 95-576, 33 U.8.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "average monthly discharge" ie 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
such month. It is, therefore, en 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 Che permit and the average menthly 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
all daily discharges saapled and/or measured during a calendar
week on which daily discharges are soiled end/or measure#
divided by the number of daily disch—fs ««t/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
sample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant
-------
Part II
Page 11-10
calculated from it it the "maximum daily discharge". This
limitation ia identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part Z of the
permit and the highest such value recorded during the reporting
period is reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity"
oa the DMR.
Concentration Measurements
a. Ibe "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal
coliform bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges
•mapled 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 Z 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 dischsrgee sampled
and/or measured during a calendar week on which daily discharges
are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges
sealed 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 die counts for sample* collected during a calendar week. This
limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits"
in Part Z of the permit and the average weekly concentration
value is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on
the mm.
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 Psrt Z of the permit
and the highest such value recorded during the reporting period
is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on the
nu-M
I f p, £«*, \
-------
DRAFT p,rti1
Page 11-11
5. Other Measurements
a. The effluent flow expressed as M^/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 DHR.
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 OMR.
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 rate 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
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 My set of values is the
Nth root of the product of the individual values where N is equal
the number of individual values. The geometric mean is
Luivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the ldgarithm
*2 eh* individual values. For purposes of calculating the
geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one
a.
-------
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value mean* the
•uBBation of each concentration tiaes it* respective flow
divided by the auanation of the respective flows.
Calendar Day
a. A calendar day is defined as the period fron aidnight of one
day until aidnight of the next day. However, for purposes of
this perwit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day aay be used for saapling.
-------
Fat* IH-1
Permit No. FL00377*
Part ill
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
I. In accordance with Section 306(d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (PL 92-500) the standards of performance for.conventional
Pollutions as contained in this permit shall at be mad* any more
stringent during a ten year period beginning on the date of completion
of construction or during the period of depreciation of amortisation
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
provisions of Section 306(d) do not limit the authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency to modify the permit to require
compliance with a toxic effluent limitation promulgated under BAT
or Toxic Pollutant Standard established under Section 307(a) of the
FWPCA.
National Environwntal Policy Act BequLrawits
1) The Permittee shall undertake a prograa as rtcoaasaded by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid injuring or
killing the eastern indigo snake. If this species is
encountered during mining or related activities, the snake
should be collected and safely reaoved from the area. MCC
shall coordinate with the Florida Endangered Species
Coordinator for the relocation of the snake.
To insure this prograa is acceptably implemented, MCC shall
develop a prograa to faailarize MCC eaployees with the
characteristics of th*» species and in safe capture,
handling, and holding procedures.
2) A data recovery plan, including a detailed research design,
for archaeological investigations at archaeological site 8
Hr 5 will be submitted to the Florida SHPO and the Advisory
Council by August 1982, for r«vi«* and approval *rlor to
implementaiton and prior to co—sneeaetft of Hlhiag related
activities. If neither the SHPO nor the Council bfcject
within 15 days after receipt, the plan will be considered
approved and iapleaentable subject to being conducted under
guidance of the SHPO. If either party objects the SHPO,
the Council, MCC, and EPA (as appropriate) will consult to
resolve the objections.
MCC will submit the recovery plan to EPA who in turn will
subait copies to the Florida SHPO and the Advisory Council.
-------
Part III
Page III-2
a r T
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS continued
r-r
-4
3) Th« Permittee shall preserve from mining and ether
disturbances those significant onsite wetlands designated
as Category I wetlands for the site (attached Figure I).
If, in time, onsite wetland systems of an equally
functional value as those currently onsite have been
created, an MCC proposal to mine the preserved wetland
areas would be reevaluated.
4) To preserve the hydrologic integrity of the preserved
wetland systems, a "no-mining" setback shall be established
around the periphery of the preserved wetlands. The
setback (currently identified as 250 feet) shall be
formally established by well pump testing prior to
dewatering activities in the vicinity of each preserved
wetland. EPA will review the testing results and confirm
the setback prior to dewatering activities.
5) Mining in the vicinity ot streams shall be conducted only
along one side of the stream at a time. The Permittee
shall meet the conditions oi its Southwest Florida Water
Management District Consumptive-Use Permit.
6} The Permittee shall implement the sand/clay capping
technique to ,minimize above-grade clay storage areas and
shall restore topography to as close to the original
conditions as possible.
7) The Permittee shall conduct an experimental 90 acre wetland
restoration program to demonstrate the ability of creating
wetlands in historically wet areas. The program shall be
conducted in areas of Section 32, T34S-F24E and Section 31,
T34S-R24E (attached Figure II). A protocol for the wetland
creation program identifying proposed locations, proposed
methodology, and evaluation criteria shall be approved by
EPA not.later than the start of mining operations.
8) Mot later than the commencement of earth moving operations
the Permittee shall submit for EPA review and approval an
implementation protocol for the wetlands
creation/restoration program. The protocol shall identify
All creation/restoration efforts proposed (including test
plots), proposed locations and acreages, proposed
methodologies and evaluation criteria, and proposed time
frames. *nie protocol shall also identify the individuals
(and qualifications of same) who will be actively involved
in the program.
-------
Part III
Page III-3
PART III
?AFT
OTHER REQUIREMENTS - continued
The protocol shall form the basis for the Permittee's
wetlands program and for EPA's continued involvement in the
program. The EPA will coordinate protoco* and program
evaluation with the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
9) The Permittee shall allow qualified paleontologists
reasonable opportunity to salvage paleontological specimens
and information from the site. The paleontologists must be
verified by the Florida State Museum (FSM) and arrangements
made with MCC through the FSM. Qualified individuals will
be allowed onsite subject to MCC's requirements fQC safety
liability, and visitor accountability and on a non-mining
interference basis.
IF a specimen is uncovered during mining operations MCC
will directly notify the FSM.
10) Unless a proceeding condition specifies otherwise, the
Permittee shall implement its proposed project in complete
accordance with the proposed action described in the Draft
EIS and Final EIS. This shall not preclude implementation
of additional or more stringent conditions required by
local or state governmental bodies. Should the Permittee
desire significant modification of the project, such
modification must be approved by EPA prior to initiation.
-------
\
l—r^
I
LECENO:
^ CATECONV X «nUWI
—— IS YEAN ruxw LEVEL
y. CHEEKS
Figure I, Sit* Specific Category I Wetlands, Mississippi Chealcal Corporation.
-------
©ir>
s
*. ' '.:•
Kir^ynic J
Aii *r
m
V Z ' |i^t p
\ 1 i''
na
5
i
V
Figure II.
(Not to scale.)
-------
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT
-------
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
XH B)
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT
APPLICATION MO. 27703567
"WORK or THE DISTRICT" PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 76-326
^I
ORDER GRANTING PERMIT PURSUANT TO
HEARING BEFORE GOVERNING BOARD
This natter cam on Co be hoard by the Governing
Board of Cho Southwest Florida Vatar Management District at a
public hearing on May 4, X977. fold public hearing, being duly
and properly noticed, was conducted at District Headquarters,
5060 U.S. Highway 41 South, Brooksville, Florida, and all
parties hereto wore present or given the opportunity to be
present, and together with the general publle, vera given an
opportunity Co present testimony end evidence. Xho Board, having
reviewed the applications and all documents in the File df Record,
having heard testlaony, and having received and
documentary evidence, makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 16J, Florida Administrative Code, Mlaslsalppl Chemical
Corporation has made application (Application No. 27703567) to
Cha Southwest Florida Vatar Management District for a consumptive
use permit authorising the average annual withdrawal of
16,981.920 gallons of water per day (gpd) awl the aulra dally
withdrawal of 33,830,500 gallons par day (gpd) In Hardee County.
Florida. The applicant presently owns, controls, or will own
or control (prior to Initiation of consumptive water use)
approximately 14,719 «era« of Iftpd In Hardee Causey, Florida.
The applicant proposes to withdraw the water for the purpose of
mining and bonoficlatlng 3 million tons per year of phosphate rock.
2. AC the present time 11,501.4 acres of the
forogolng 14,719 aero tract la aervlng as a source of wator
ORDER HO. 77-9
-------
supply for person* withdrawing water under existing use permits,
to-wic:
Donald E. and Susan Smith - Permit No. 27703508
Doyle E. Carlton. 211 • Permit Ncs. 27703518,
27703519, and 27703520
Jane Carlton - Permit No. 27703521
3. The foregoing existing consumptive use of
5,579,589 gallons per day on an annual average basis is 4IX
lass than the average water crop throughout the District and is
being withdrawn for the purpose of providing diteh irrigation
of approximately 5,000 acres of improved pasture. This existing
use represents about 15 inches of irrigation water applied to
the pasture per year.
4. The withdrawal proposed by the applicant herein
might affect the foregoing named existing legal uses of water,
but, as provided above, the applicant will own or otherwise
control all portions of the tract, including those subject to
the existing agricultural use described above, prior to the
initiation of its consumptive use. Cjpon commencement of the
withdrawals by the applicant, the withdrawal by the "existing
users" is to be reduced and ultimately terminated in accordance
with the terms of the written agreement (dated April 12, 1977)
between the applicant and said "existing users" on fil« with the
District.
5. The applicant proposes to withdraw the water la.
the following manner:
a. When the applicant achieves ownership or
control of the subject tract, comprising some 14,719 acres of
land in Hardee County, Florida, the maximum authorized withdrawal
therefrom shall be no greater than 16,981,920 gallons of >water
per day on an annual average basis and no greater than 33,850.500
gallons per day on a maximum dally withdrawal basis. These
withdrawal rates include those amounts whleh could
otherwise be withdrawn by the above named "existing users" under
their existing uso permits. By agreement between the applicant
and said "existing users", it la contemplated that as tho
-------
Applicant's vlthdi.rfil rat* Increasea, tne wx..iaravaj. race ot
the "existing users" will decrease aa raqulrad to Insure that
maximum levels specified herein are not exceeded. The applicant
will be responsible for coordinating the termination of existing
uses aa the new uses are phased in.
b. During the firat three <3) years following
eomaencement of mining operations, the total withdrawal for
phoephate mining and beneflciatlon purposes la to be from the
Plorldan Aquifer by means of six production walla. Thereafter,
cosmenclng with the fourth yeas of mining operations, the
applicant propoaes to divert water from Brushy Creek, a tributary
of the Peace River, to -a surface water storage basin to be
constructed by applicant on its lands, and hereinafter referred to
as the Brushy Creek Storage Basin. The applicant proposes to maxl
vise the quantity of water diverted to the storage basin by divert
tag such amounts aa may be required to fill, or attempt to fill,
the basin to capacity, while simultaneously maintaining
flows in Brushy Creek, downstream from the point of diversion.
The applicant has submitted an application for a "Work of the
District" Permit (16J*1.051, F.A.C.) for the proposed weir struc*
ture and the proposed diversion of water. (Application No. 76-326)
a. The applicant proposes that the subsequent
withdrawal of water from the Brushy Creek Storage Basin will not
exceed 3.860,000 gallons per day on an average annual basis or
12,942,720 gallons per day on a maximum dally basis. However,
subject to the foregoing marfimm limitations, the applicant pro-
poses to maximise the use of this available surface water by
according its withdrawals from the storage basin such priority
over its withdrawals of ground water as is consistent with good
water management practices in order to minimize the Impact of
applicant's proposed operations upon the ground water resources
of the tract and area. In any event, the combined withdrawal
from the Brushy Creak Storage Basin and the six production wells
la not to exceed the total average annual withdrawal authorised
herein of 16,961,920 gallons per day or the <« dally with-
drawal authorised heroin of 33,S50,500 gallons per day.
d. The applicant further proposes to maintain
monthly minimum rates for flow for Brushy Creek downstream along
-------
Brushy Creek froo Che polnc of diversion Co Che Brushy Creek
Storage Basin. The monthly minimum races of flow shall be
computed on an average nonchly basis. The applicant Is to
continuously monitor the flows on Brushy Creek and has proposed
that the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Vatar
Management District retain authority in the requested permit to
increase or otherwise modify the proposed monthly minimum rates
of flow where deemed appropriate by tha Governing Board in order
to protect fish and wildlife, promote Che public health and
safety, or otherwise safeguard tha public interest.
a. The applicant has acknowledged that its
mine pit dewaterlng operations within approximately 450 feet
of its property boundary could causa tha watar table under
lands not owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant
to ba lowered mora than three (3) feet. The applicant proposes
to obtain tha written consent from all peraons owning, leasing,
or otherwise controlling lands within 450 feat of any proposed
pit dewaterlng project prior to tha excavation and dewaterlng of
the pit.
f. The applicant proposes to install and
construct such monitoring facilities in the vicinity of its
lands as may ba neeessary to give early indication of changes in
tha conditions of tha vatar resources in tha area, as designated
by tha staff of tha District and as specified in the consumptive
use parmit attached to this Order.
6. The applicant has conducted extensive aquifer
tests on tha property in question for tha purposa of predicting
tha affects of the proposed withdrawals upon tha hydrologie
•ystaa and upon existing lagal users of water. The data collect*
during these tests has been submitted to the District for review
end study. The Board is of the opinion and so finds that if the
applicant withdraws the water in the quantity and in the.manner
specified abovet
a. The prfposed withdrawal will not cause the
level of the potentlonetrie surface to be lowered below any
existing regulatory level established by the Southwest Florida
-4-
-------
Water Management Diatrict.
b. Tha proposed withdrawal wtll not aignifieantly
indue* saltwater intrusion.
e. The proposed withdrawal will not eause the
water table to be lowered so that the lake stages or vegetation
will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than
Chose owned, leased or otherwise legally controlled by the
applicant.
d. The proposed withdrawal of water from Brushy
Creek will reduce the rate of flow by siore than 51 at the tiae
and point of withdrawal. Tha Board finds that such withdrawal
is consistent with the public interest by aaking efficient use
of available surface water sources, while requiring the applicant
to maintain the aonthly minimum rates of flow specified herein.
e. The proposed withdrawal will not cause the
level of the potentiometric surface under lands not owned,
leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered
¦ore than five (5) feet.
£. The proposed withdrawal will not eause the
level of the water table under lands not owned, leased or
otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered sore than
three (3) faat. However, when mine pit dewetering occurs within
approximately 450 feet of the property boundary, the water table
under lands not owned* leased, or otherwise controlled by the
applicant could be lowered aore than three (3) feet. The Board
finds that this potential adverse impact is consistent with the
public Interest provided written consent and permission is
obtained from the adjacent property owners prior to coonenceaent
of the pit dewatering pro jacts.
g. The proposed withdrawal will not cause the
level of the surfaee of water in any lake or other impoundment
to be lowered aore than om foot unless the lake or impoundment
la wholly owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
h. Tha proposed withdrawal will not cause the
potentionotrie surface to be lowered below sea level.
1. Tho propoaed withdrawals for mining and
beneficiation operations will consumptively use about 811 of
-5-
-------
the withdrawal authorized by this Order.
J. Tha proposed consumptive usa of 14,084.640
gallon* of watar par day from 14,719 acres of land owned,
laasad or otherwise to be eontrollad by tha applicant is equi-
valent to a withdrawal at tha rata of 349,269 gallons par year
par acre, which la 4Z lass than tha average watar crop throughout
tha District.
k. There are insufficient monitoring facilities
In tha vicinity of tha applicant's lands to give early indica-
tion of any changes in the conditions of tha watar resources in
Che area. Tha Board finds that it is appropriate to require
Installation of flow-metering devices and installation or
construction of other monitoring facilities as described in the
consumptive use permit attached la Exhibit "1".
1. The proposed weir structure within and the
diversion of water from Brushy Creek will:
(1) 'Hot place fill material, or any non-water
use related structure within the mean annual floodplain of a
lake or other impoundment, or of e stream or other water course;
(2) Hot cauae significant adverse effecta
on landa not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
applicant by drainage or inundation;
(3) Restrict or alter the rate of flow of a
etream or other watercourse within the floodplain of a twenty-
five (23) year flood;
(4) Hot extend beyond a line of encroach-
ment established by the Board;
(5) Cause an increase or decrease in the
rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse by SZ or more;
(6) Hot cause an increase in the peak rate
of flow or total volume of storm runoff by 101 or more from
lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
m. Tha Board finds that the proposed diversion
from Brushy Creek is not inconsistent with the public interest
because It permits the applicant to make efficient use of
available surface water, thus minimizing the effect of its mining
-------
•ad beneficiation operations on Che ground water resources of
the area. Maintenance of minimum monthly flows downstream
froa the diversion will minimize the impact of the diversion
and permit Che public interest to be safeguarded.
a. The applicant has advised the District
Staff and this Board that it will need additional authority from
the District in the future to withdraw additional United
quantities of water froa relatively shallow wells for purposes
of obtaining "sealing water" for use In its aining operations.
Xn accordance with the foregoing, and in consideration
of applicable laws and regulations, the Board aakes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The applicant has established that the intended
consumptive use, as described herein,
a. Is a reasonable, beneficial use;
b. Is consistent with the public Interest; and
e. Will not interfere with any legal use o'f
water existing at the tine of application.
2. The applicant has shown good cause why the
Board should grant exception to the provisions of Section
16J-2.11(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, la connection with
pit dewaterlng operations within approxiaately 450 feet of the
applicant's property boundary. The effect of such pit dewaterlng
operation upon the water table of adjacent lands is temporary and,
if not objectionable to the adjacent property owner, consistent
with the public interest.
3. The applicant has shown good cause why the Board
aay grant an exception to the provisions of Section 16J-2:il(4) (a),
Florida Adainistratlve Code, in connection with the diversion of
water froa Brushy Creek. Although the withdrawal will exceed 5"
of the rate of flow at the tlae and point of withdrawal, the
Board finds that such withdrawal la consistent with the public
interest provided the minimum monthly rates of flow are maintained
downstream froa the point of diversion.
4. Tho proposed weir structure within and diversion
of water froa Brushy Creek 1st
-------
(«} a reasonable and beneficial activity; and
(b) not inconsistent with the public interest.
5. The applicant has shown good cause for this
Board to grant exceptions to the provisions of Sections 16J-
1.06(A)(c) and 16J-1.06(4)(a), Florida Adninistrative Code. The
proposed weir structure and diversion of water from Brushy Creek
is not inconsistent with the public interest provided the
monthly rates of flow are maintained downstream from the
point of diversion.
6. The intended consumptive use is in compliance
with the requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 16J, Florida Administrative Code.
7. In the event the applicant needs additional
authority froa the District to withdraw additional Halted
quantities of water froa relatively shallow wells for purposes
of obtaining "sealing water" for use in its mining operations,
applicant must obtain a separate, supplemental consumptive use
pantlt for such withdrawal, pursuant to Chapter 16J-2, Florida
Administrative Code, before cooaencing such withdrawal. Modi-
fication of this Order, or the permit authorized hereunder, need
not occur for this purpose.
WHEREFORE, UPON CONSIDERATION, it is
ORDERED
1. That the Executive Director of the Southwest
Florida Vatar Management District dr a duly delegated member
of his staff be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed
to issue a consumptive use peralt pursuant to the above
named applicant in substantially tha form and subject to the
terms and conditions, sat forth in Exhibit "1" attached
harato; and
2. That the Executive Director of tha Southwest
Florida Vatar Management District or a duly delegated member
of his staff bo, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to
Issue a "work of the District" peralt, pursuant to
Section 16J-1.051, Florida Administrative Code, to the above
-------
named applicant in *ub*tantially the form and tubjaet to the
com* and condition* *ct forth in Exhibit "2", attached
hereto.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ZMlZt
By: Q. "Vu*" Owtlcr j
PmiLL S/McATgER, "
CHAIRMAN
V_J
ATTEST:
StsrfrfflC
TaoCkgnxxmaLsansggx^
ASST. SECRETARY, N. jg/lOOKS JOHNS
SEAL
/fercve:'
A* To fa? /)/
-------
SOUTHWEST FLORID .VATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
tSWRVMIX
CONSUMPTIVE USIi PERMIT
PERMIT GRANTED TO:
irrni thairfeal• Corporation
P»«r Office tax 388
Yazoo Citv- Mississippi 391%
(JLcpl Name and Address)
27703567
PERMIT NO.
Bate permit granted: May
ATE PERMIT APPLICATION^
FILED: freSAarv ?j
i.f/7
1977
PERMIT EXPIRES ON: Hav.^i1" lyajt"
SOURCE CLASS1F1CA1 JON: wo-ncr^cer/sur:
USE CLASSIFICATION: Industrial. I—irtt:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
I.
4.
S.
That aO statements in the sppli cation and in supporting data are true and aeeuratc and
bated upon the best information available, and that all conditions set forth herein will
be complied with. If any of the statements in tha application and in the supporting dau
an found to ba untrue and inaccurate, or if applicant fails to comply with aU of the
conditions set forth herein, then this Permit shall automatically become null and void.
This Permit is predicated upon the assertion by applicant that the use of water applied
for and panted is and continues to be a reasonable beneficial use as defined in Seetion
379.019(3), Florida Statutes, is and eontinues to be consistent with the publie interest,
tad will not interfere with any legal uaeof water existing on the date this Permit is panted.
la granting this Permit. SWFWMD has, by regulation, reserved from use by applicant,
water in such locations and quantities, for such seasons of the year, as it determines may
be required for the protection of ash and wildlife and the public health and safety.
Such reservations are subject to periodic review and revision in tight of dunged conditions.
Based upon the application and, supporting documents. SWFWMD finds that the
applicant's use of water was in existence before January 1,197i at the rate w
gallons per
Nothing in this Permit should be construed to Emit the authority of Southwest Florida
Water Management District to declare water shortages and issue orders punuant to
Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to formulate a plan for implementation during
periods of water shortage pursuant to Section 573.246, Florida Statutes.
This Permit authorizes the a,
average annual withdrawal of
• ¦ uiitkflMlMr
maximum combined withdrawal rata not to exceed —
withdrawals are authorised as shows in tha table below.
above to make a maximum combined
if jsajer j»r Mv , with a
during a single day.
7. VOL WITHDRAWAL POINT
SO. . LATITUDE LONGITUDE
wall a™*1
GALLONS PER DAY
MAXIMUM
GALLON'S PER Da
AVERAGE
27 30 27 81 56 8
2/ '3U 46 Hi SJ> 4U*
27 30 32 81 55 35
27 30 14 bi Si Jo
27 29 50 81 55 27
27 JU J4 bl i!> btT
3394368
"335535T
3394368
339436H
3394368
UXkK)
Max. Dally
5040000
7200000
7200000
7200001}
7200000
HJ303—
16,981.920
Avg. Amual
25&049 *
2543040*
5,086.010 *
33,850,500
Mm. Daily
6471360 *
6471360 *
12,942.720 *
SUB-TOWLS
»ruahy Cr—k Star»e» Basin ~
27 29 37 81 57 35
27 29 37 81 57 35
SUB-TOMS
Goobinod
Authorised
Tbtals Rxn
Both Typos
Of Sources:
* Duriiv flrsc three years of withdrawal, well production up to max. nuchoria>d
lovQlsis authorised. Thereafter, witklravnl from Bruahy Crock Scorocu Hisin
lb.Vbi.WU
-------
vlll be required when available to reduce well production. See ParaGraph fb.
15 below. Combined witMrawl from Storage Basin and Production Well* is not
Co oceeed anounts authorized in Paragraph No. 6.
8. The use of said water is restricted to the use classificatiai set forth
above. Any change in the use of said water wi* 1 require a modification
of this Permit.
9. In the event an mtrgency water shortage should be declared, the District
ny alter, mdify or declare to be inactive, all or parts of this Permit.
An authorized District Representative nay. at any reasonable time, enter
Che property to inspect the facilities and may require Chat this Permit
be shown.
10. Applicant shall within the tic* llznits hereinafter set forth, eooplete
tz» following items, and if applicant fails to complete than by the
iffr* date, then this Persic shall automatically bacons null and void.
11. The permittee shall Install propeller type flow meters with mechanically
er magnetically d£ivn totalizing registers on Che following withdrawal
points:
27 30 27 81 56 B
27 30 32 81 S3 55
27 30 46 81 55 48
27 30 14 81 55 36
27 29 50 81 55 27
27 29 37 81 57 35
27 29 37 81 57 35
Said meters shall b« installed prior to operation of the mils.
12. The permittee shall submit to the District a record pf puopage for each
meter installed in No. 11 above. Said pis?age shall be provided on a
monthly basis, and submitted for each preceding calndar quarter.
Reports vill.be sent to:
Chief, Tfecfaical Information Service
SUEUS)
5060 U. S. 41 South
Broekaville, Florida 33512
13. The permittee shall, within three (3) years of the date withdrawals begin,
oonsGcuet the Brushy Creak Storage Basin and diversion jj,
accordance with conceptual plans en file with the District. Gransneing
with the fourth (4th) year of mining operations, the permittee shall
divert from Brushy Qretk such amounts of vater as cay be required to
fill, or attest to fill, the Brushy Creek Storage Basin to capacity.
Simultaneously, permittee shall maintain the average monthly
flows of water in Brushy Creek listed in Attactamnc "A", downstream of
the diversion point to the Brush?Greek Storage Basin, except when the
dm measured at gaging station SS-3 (see Attachment "&") is less than
the nrtnfnmn flat. In such event no diversion is auttorizad or permitted.
14. The permittee shall monitor contiiaously tte flow en Brushy freek at
Statim SC-1. SG-2, and SC-3, as indicated on Attachment "B". Records
of these flats (cfs) will be submitted to District staff by January 15
of each calendar year.
15. Ooanencing with the frnrth (4th) year of mining operations, the permittee
shall decrease its veil production by witWrawing vater from the Brushy
Greek Storage laain, whan available. Subject to the modem withdrawal
limits in Paragraph 7, Che permittee shall tto use of this
available surface wta by according its withdrawals frcra the storage
besin such priority over its withdrawals of groundvatcr as is consistent
with good voter management practices in order to minimise the ispact of
permittee's operations upon the grotretater resources of the tract and
-------
16. Prior to the initiation of withdrawal and continuinc throuchevt the lo^th
of the poait, the permittee shall maintain continuous water level
recorders an the wells indicated on Attachment "C". Graphical records of
Che voter level fluctuations will be submitted quarterly with the ptspage
reports.
17. The permittee shall cons tract a vnll for the purpose of monitoring the
fresh/mineralized water interface. Construction and location plans for
this well will be submitted to the District Staff for review by Septssbc
1, 1977.
Cbnaeruetlen will not begin until the District Staff has given written
approval of the plans and location. Construction is to be cospleted aid
emitorii? is to have begun before withdraw*]* authorised herein begin.
18. Utter quality analysis shall be performed on samples pu*ed fraa the
fresh/mineralized water monitor well described in paragraph 17 above,
ad on snples pissed from the production wells indicated on Attaclaent
*esim Sodkm
Bicarbonate Sulfate
Nitrate T^tal Dissolved Solids
££5*4.. conductance Grose Alpha FarifaHm Tbtal Phosphate
Jladim 226
Wjtrict Staff s«y reduce frequency of some or all of the foregoing required
Satsand may require other Opes of water quality analysis to be perforned
Sere required to provide early indication of any changes in the condition
of die water resaatces in the area.
„ _-ulttlt vui investigate the feasibility of recharging water to
£ rvSdan Aquifer within ti» prop«ty bamdaries. A report on the
•^J^^ySstudy will be submitted to the District by Jtauaxy 1, 1978.
*fi Prior to dewatering of mining pits within 450 feet of the property
2°- permittee will secure written consent fna adjacent
Srthe lowering of the wetertable below their lands.
A v consent will be submitted to the District prior to the
_ -j1T rain gages at the stations indicated on
21- tenthly rainfall records from these stations will be
to ci» SSiM » tar eta th. fifth
-------
25. Pcndttcc exist certify, In writing and under oath, that it has achieved
our (7 ship or otherwise obtained control of the 14,719 a art tract in
llardec Gotaty, (as described in its Application on file with the District)
before withdrawals are authorized hereunder.
26. In the event the Board of the District should determine that the minion
monthly rates of flow for Brushy Creek in Attachment "A" are no longer
consistent with the public Interest, the Board, after notice and opportunity
far hearing, nay make such adjustment in the required rates of flow as nay
thai be necessary to be consistent with the public interest.
27. Ihe awtts authorized to be withdrawn, as specified in paragraphs 6 and 7
above, are ehe total counts authorized to be withdrawn from the sact
of land (14,719 acres) described in permittee's Application including
specifically the anoints heretofore authorized to be withdrawn as "existing
was" for:
(a) Donald & Susan Stsith - Permit lb. 27703508
(b) Doyle E. Carlton. Ill - Pernit Nos. 27703518, 27703519. 27703520
(e) Jane Carlton - Pernit No. 27703521
Issuance of this pesaic was conditioned upon receipt of the letter
ureont between permittee and said "existing users", dated April 12,
All questions of priority betwen W and "existing" users are
Specifically left to the perties concerned.
This permit is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted as an attcpt
to, divest or otherwise Impair or infringe upon the rights of said
"existing users". Rather, it is to be regarded as the District's consent
and authorization to both "existing" and View" users to proceed as the
District perceives both parties with to proceed.
Authorized Signature, SwrVMD
Permittee hereby certifies that it will own, lease, or otherwise connrol
the property covered by this application prior to ccoraneing withdrawals,
that the Information contained in this application is true and accurate and,
if permittee is a corporation or a partnership, that tht undersigned has the
legal authority to execute tl£s application and affidavit on behalf of
corporation or partnership.
Signature ox Applicant
Swam to and subscribed before me
this day of . 1977.
fctotary Public —
fy Ocmsissian Expires:
Approved f\
A* 1° for ny ///.
5-3-77
4/
-------
BRUSHY CREEK AVERAGE MONTHLY MINIMUM FLOWS
MINIMUM (OS)
MONTH RATE of FLOW
OCTOBER 2.5
NOVEMBER 0.22
DECEMBER 0.21
JANUARY 0.20
FEBRUARY 0.45
March 0*19
APRIL
HAY °'°°2
JUNE 0-4®
JULY 6'58
AUGUST 16*4
SEPTEMBER U.O
Attachment A
-------
Hydrologlc Monitoring Network ^
-------
CONTINUOUS HATER LEVEL RECOMHlfc STATIONS
-------
-------
NO CARBON REQUIRED
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT Number
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BOCO US Highway 41 South
Vow> T*»» Or ha* * »«*J Brooksville, Florida 33512
I. Description of construction or u«e: '1—— —-
•' • ¦ • ¦ •• •
2. Location:
County! ni,'i'i?M i* ' Section! Township: Range!
— Lot: Subdivision: "
.-V: f"
3. HVorkt of the District" (Body of Water) Involved (Section 16 J-l (1.03) ~
4. Name of applicant: — Phone
Street or P.O. Box: —
City ¦ - State Zip
5. Nam# of owner if other than applicant: - Phone ..
Street or P.O. Box:
City —State - Zip
If applicant if not the owner, a letter dated and signed by owner authorizing the applicant to act
for nun must accompany this application.
6. Area (acre) proposed to be aerved: (If application is for drainage or irritation connection, list the
acreages Involved.)
7. How soon after receipt of the permit will work commence?-~i.^_-.days. When will work be
completed? (If not completed by this date and no extension of time is applied
for and granted, this permit is voided.)
-8 In the event that the requirements or interests of the Southwest Florida Water Management District
' indicate that the removal or alteration of any structure or works installed by the permittee is
necessary, or if the structure becomes in an unsafe condition, the structure or works must be
removed or altered within 60 days of notice and at no cost to the District. Should the permittee
fail or refuse to alter, or remove the structure when so notified, the SWFWMD may alter, repair
or reinove the structure or work and the costs incidental thereto must be paid by the permittee.
9 Any erosion to or shoaling in a "Work of the District" caused by the permittee's construction shall
' be removed or repaired promptly by the permittee at no expense to the District.
10 This application including sketches, drawing or plans and specifications attached contains a full
and complete description of the work proposed or use desired of the above described facilities
of the District and for which permit is herewith applied. It shall be a part of any permit that may be
11. This application is subject to all stipulations which may appear on the approving transmittal letter.
Submitted this —day of 19 JL'l _
Signature of Applicant
Regulatory Division Appioved^^.A».2^.«.^^!^iitf^J^^/?. Noufy Public —
Maintenance Division Approved ——— —— •; • r•• • /
Final Construction Completed — • h Cmwotmm t»,vn to. % u:
Applicant knnucond Copy *nd sends Mfttkt hnmrit
Revised: 3/7*
-------
6.3 CORRESPONDENCE WITH ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
-------
December 2, 1981
Mr. Jordan E. Tannebaum, Chief
Eastern Division of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1522 K Street, n.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
RE: Mississippi Chemical Corporation (MCC)
Hardee County Phosphate Mine
Dear Nr. Tannebaumt
On 21 September 1981 EPA received a letter dated 18 September
1981 (copy attached) from the Council concerning EPA's
determination (in consultation with the Florida SHPO) on
archaeological site 8 Hr 5 (aboriginal site 1) locating on
MCC'3 proposed mine tract in Hardee County, Florida. The site
is eligible for the National Register*of Historic Places. EPA
and the Florida SHPO's determination was no adverse impact
based on conditioning the NPDES permit for archaeological data
recovery prior to disturbing the site.
As expressed in the NEPA related NPDES condition (#3) on page
III-l of the draft NPDES permit appended to the Draft eis
consultations identified in 36 CFR 800 relative to significant
onsite archaeological sites shall be undertaken prior to
commencement of mining related activities. Any excavations
were to be approved and conducted under the guidance of the
SHPO.
While EPA has no problems with agreeing to having the MCC
excavation plan also approved by the Council and to the
condition contained in the Council's letter, a few points must
be clarified. First, a data recovery plan will be prepared by
MCC and not EPA. Second, excavation of the aboriginal site is
planned several years into the mining operation (i.e. - work on
the MCC tract has begun, but prior to mining the area of the
aboriginal site itself). Lastly, EPA cannot accept or approve
3uch a plan since we do not have expertise in this area. EPA
will rely on the expertise of the Florida SHPO for acceptance
of the excavation plan.
-------
2-
Therefore, we have modified the proposed NPDES permit condition
to read as follows:
A data recovery plan, including a detailed research
design, for archaeological investigations at
archaeological site 8 Hr 5 will be submitted to the
Florida SHPO and the Council by August 1982 for review and
approval prior to implementation and prior to commencement
of mining related activities. If neither the SHPO nor the
Council object within 15 days after receipt, the plan will
be considered approved and implementable subject to being
conducted under guidance of the SHPO. If either party
objects, the SHPO, the Council, MCC, and EPA (as
appropriate) will consult to resolve the objections.
We appreciate the assistance of the Advisory Council in
reviewing this aspect of the project and in establishing
appropriate archaeological control measures. If you have any
concerns or questions with the above proposed language, please
contact Dario Dal Santo of the EIS staff at FTS/257-7458.
Sincerely yours,
John E. Hagan ill, p.e.
Acting Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch
cc: Nr. George Percy
Florida Deputy state Historic Preservation Officer
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
u
r-i
1322 K Street. NW
Washington. DC 20003
September 18, 1981
SEP 28 1961
CULTURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT TEAM
- ':))
\ \ • t
L«VliSS
Ms. Rebecca W. Hanmer
Regional Administrator, Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street ' tcp t>\
Atlanta, GA 30365 "
. DIVISION or
B««r M.. Inw: -dil
On September 8, 1981, the Council received a letter and supportJtagr«fc
environmental impact statement from Mr. Robert B. Howard, Chief EIS
Preparation Section, concerning issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for a proposed phosphate fci
Hardee County, Florida. It is our understanding that EPA, in consultation
with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), has determined
that issuance of the permit will have no adverse effect on Archeoloeical
«ite 8Hr5 (Aboriginal Site #1), a property eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. This determination is based on EPA's
intention to condition the permit on archeological data recovery at the
site prior to mining or other land-disturbing activities.
Under the Council*s regulations (36 CFR Part 800), the Executive Director
will not object to your determination*of no adverse effect if you will
•gree to the following condition:
A data recovery plan, including a detailed research design, for
archeological investigstions at archeological site 8Hr5 will be
submitted to the Florida SHPO and the Council for review prior to
Implementation. If neither the SHPO nor the Council objects within
15 days after'receipt, EPA will ensure that the proposed data
recovery plan -is implemented prior to mining or other land-disturbing
activities. If either party objects, EPA will consult with the
SHPO, the Council, and the Mississippi Chemical Corporation in
order to resolve the objections.
If you agree to this condition, please sign on the concurrence line
below and return this letter to us. This will then be incorporated into
your determinntion, and the Executive Director will concur in your
^termination of no adverse effect.
-------
2
In accordance with Section 800.8 of the Council's regulations, a copy of
your determination of no adverse effect, along with supporting documentation
and this conditional concurrence, should be Included In the final environmental
Impact statement prepared for this undertaking in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. Is should also be Included in your
records as evidence of your compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Council's regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact Ronald Anzalone, our Staff Archeologist, at FTS 254-3495.
Sincerely,
E. Tatmenbaum
Eastern Division of
Project Review
I concur
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
(date)
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1922 K Street. NW
Washington. DC 20005
December 15, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Acting Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1981, concerning our response
to your determination of no adverse effect for archeologlcal site 8 Hr
5, which will be affected by mining at the Hardee County Phosphate Mine,
Florida. We appreciate EPA's constraints under the NPDES permitting
process, and we have no objection to your modification of the NPDES
permit condition.
As usual, please retain this letter and supporting documentation in your
compliance records for the National Environmental Policy Act, Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Council's regulations
(36 CFR Part 800).
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, or need further
assistance, please contact Ronald Anzalone, our staff archeologist, at
FTS 254-3974.
Sincerely,
^mll
------- |