Three levels of potential mining activities are identified in the DAEIS:

Transcription

1 IC&R Intergovernmental Coordination and Review 4000 Gateway Centre Boulevard, Suite 100, Pinellas Park, FL Phone (727) FAX (727) Consent Agenda 8/13/12 Agenda Item #3.B.5. DRAFT AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DAEIS) ON PHOSPHATE MINING IN THE CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE DISTRICT; HILLSBOROUGH, MANATEE AND FIVE OTHER COUNTIES; SAI #FL C, IC&R # The aforementioned project has been reviewed for consistency with the Future of the Region: A Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region (2005). Introduction The Florida State Clearinghouse has requested review and comment on the above-referenced document, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which covers proposed and potential future phosphate mining within an area of + 2,100 square miles within portions of DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Sarasota counties known as the Central Florida Phosphate District (CFPD). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has received four applications for Department of the Army permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to expand existing phosphate mines, as well as to create new mines and to construct attendant facilities. The USACE has determined that, collectively, the proposed activities have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together in one comprehensive EIS. The primary federal involvement is the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. The Final Areawide Environmental Impact Statement will serve as the Basis for Decision by the USACE to deny, issue with modifications, or issue permits based upon 25 alternative scenarios that were evaluated. The FAEIS intended to be sufficient in scope to address federal, state, and local requirements and environmental issues and permit reviews for the proposed projects. Project Description Phosphate mining on a large scale has occurred in central Florida since The CFPD provides 51 percent of the U.S. supply, but mineable reserves within approved mines will be exhausted before 2030 and mining will cease unless new mines are approved. An estimated 600 metric tons of phosphate remains in the CFPD Three levels of potential mining activities are identified in the DAEIS: 1. Four mines or mine extensions under permit application review: Wingate East Mine Extension in Manatee County, Ona Mine and South Pasture Mine Extension in Hardee County (30,549 acres), and DeSoto mine in DeSoto County (18,463 acres). Within the boundaries of the Tampa Bay Region, the proposed Wingate East Mine Extension would add 3,635 acres to the Wingate Creek Mine in eastern Manatee County, all within the Myakka River watershed. Mining would be conducted over 27 years (ca ) with reclamation activities continuing for an additional eight years. Mining would impact 940 acres of wetlands and over 6.1 miles of streams under federal jurisdiction. Two other, small parcels (G&D Farms and Lambe) within Manatee County have also been proposed for mining, but are infill parcels within existing mines and are not addressed in the DAEIS. For Council Meeting of August 13, 2012

2 2. Three potential large mine projects: Pine Level/Keys mine tract in Manatee and DeSoto counties (24,509 acres), Pioneer Tract in Hardee County (25,231 acres), and Hardee County Mining Overlay - South Segment (14,966 acres), all using existing beneficiation plants. The Pine Level/Keys Tract, totaling 24,509 acres, is located in Manatee and DeSoto counties and within the Big Slough watershed of the Myakka River. This potential future mine would be an extension of the DeSoto Mine and operations would not occur until approximately About 25% of the area is wetlands while over half of the total area is in agriculture. 3. An additional 17 tracts identified due to size and proximity to existing or proposed mines or location within the study (Central Florida Phosphate District) boundaries, and assuming that phosphate ore is present and in economically mineable quantities. These sites could serve as alternatives to potentially be developed instead of Applicants proposed mines (see 1 and 2 above) or be proposed for mining at a far future date. Of these, eight are wholly in the Tampa Bay region and three are partially within the region. Tract sizes vary from about 7,250-9,000 acres, and total approx. 90,000 acres in Manatee County alone. Of these, eight are completely in the Myakka River watershed; two are in the Manatee River watershed; one is partially in the Little Manatee River watershed and one is partially in the Peace River watershed. The study considers each site individually, and also considers a No Action alternative, which entails continuation of mining activities already permitted but no issuance of federal permits for the proposed four mines/extensions. The mining companies would have the option to pursue mining of uplands and wetlands that are not under federal jurisdiction, but this scenario was not assumed or addressed within the DAEIS. The areas of concern addressed in the DAEIS include: ecological resources, including loss of wetlands and mitigation; groundwater quality and levels, especially the Floridan aquifer; surface water quality and quantity, including the flows of the Peace and Myakka rivers, their tributaries, and water delivery to the Charlotte Harbor estuary; local and regional economic effects of phosphate mining; federally-listed species; effectiveness of reclamation and ecosystem restoration; potential effects on recreation, public health, cultural resources and environmental justice; future uses of reclaimed areas; and more. Regional Significance The regional significance of the projects analyzed within the scope of the DAEIS is based on pertinence to the goals and policies of the Council s Future of the Region - A Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region, including impacts to natural resources of regional significance, the regional economy, and the regional transportation system. Applicable SRPP Goals and Policies 2.B: Promote export of Tampa Bay region products and services, attract venture capital, and build businesses to expand the number and quality of job opportunities. 2.E: Maintain and expand food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry and related industries production to be a competitive force in the national and international marketplace. 2.12: Encourage supportive and complementary industrial and commercial activities to locate in proximity to each other to establish linkages between such activities and the services they provide. 2.23: Support the development and consistent application of equitable site location standards for Locally Unpopular Land Uses (LULUs) or controversial public facilities where a balance is drawn between their efficient function and the fewest negative impacts in order to prevent the inequitable concentration of such uses in disadvantaged neighborhoods. 2.36: Protect historic properties that are designated to be of local, regional, or national significance and are eligible for nomination to the appropriate local or national historical register. For Council Meeting of August 13,

3 4.A: 4.B: 4.E: 4.F: Protect the quality of surface water and groundwater in the region. Assure an adequate supply of water to meet all projected human and natural needs. Protect regionally-significant natural resources from degradation resulting from dredging and dredge-material disposal. Maintain the integrity and natural value of marine, estuarine, and intertidal habitats. 4.1: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural functions of riverine systems including prohibiting new development in riverine floodways. 4.6: Reduce pollutant loading from permitted point sources and the number of sources which negatively impact the quality of receiving waters. 4.8: Manage agricultural runoff with Best Available Control Technologies and/or Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters. 4.16: Prevent new groundwater withdrawals that would increase salt water intrusion, interfere with existing uses of water, or cause damage to regionally-significant ecosystems or area geology. 4.18: Protect natural resources and ecosystem values from surface water and groundwater withdrawals that significantly impact the natural seasonal flows, water level, and hydrology. 4.34: Promote environmentally-acceptable effluent disposal alternatives and encourage water conservation and alternative water source use including the use of reclaimed wastewater. 4.42: Minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on wetlands and river systems by major water users. 4.43: Protect, preserve, and restore all regionally-significant natural resources shown on the Map of Regionally-Significant Natural Resources. 4.44: Allow impacts to regionally-significant natural resources only in cases of overriding public interest and when it is demonstrated and/or documented that mitigation will successfully recreate the specific resource. Mitigation should meet the following ratios, at minimum: Seagrass 4:1 FNAI Habitat 04 3:1 FNAI Coastal 04 3:1 FNAI Natural Communities 3:1 LULC Habitat Dry 2:1 LULC Habitat Wet 3:1 4.45: Ensure that mitigation by habitat re-creation employs native plant material which provides the same natural value and function. Monitor mitigation areas for a sufficient time to ensure success: a minimum 85 percent final coverage of desired species. Yearly maintenance and replanting should be undertaken to ensure final cover as necessary. 4.47: Recognize that mitigation efforts shall be: Performed within the same drainage basin where the unavoidable impacts to regionally significant wetlands occurs; and Allowed only after avoiding impact to the greatest extent possible; and that habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement, with long-term management, be considered as viable methods of impact mitigation. 4.49: Maintain and improve native plant communities and viable wildlife habitats, determined to be regionally-significant natural resources in addition to the Map of Regionally-Significant Natural Resources, including those native habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique. 4.57: Ensure that land use decisions are consistent with federal- and state-listed species protection and recovery plans, and adopted habitat management guidelines. For Council Meeting of August 13,

4 4.61: Permit mining activities in regionally-significant natural areas only when it has been demonstrated/ documented that the areas can be successfully restored, consistent with the requirements of permitting agencies and when no permanent adverse environmental impact will result. 4.62: Ensure that the exploration and development of mineral resources only proceed in an ecologically sound manner. 4.63: Design mining practices to protect regionally-significant natural resources from the adverse effects of resource extraction. 4.64: Promote landscape reclamation, including, but not limited to establishing functional and diverse ecological communities, achieving a balance of human uses and natural lands, and engineering post-reclamation hydrology compatible with regional hydrology. 4.65: Promote and enhance watershed health and viability through reclamation plans and activities which coordinate developed areas, operational mine areas, preservation areas, and mandatory, non-mandatory and unreclaimed lands within each watershed into a comprehensive watershed plan. 4.66: Utilize vegetation native to the Tampa Bay region for mining reclamation and mitigation. 4.67: Implement a regional mining clearinghouse or data center to facilitate the coordination of regional information on phosphate mining activities and the coordination of reclamation and future land use planning. 4.68: Encourage continued development and implementation of the integrated habitat plan. 4.69: Require within mining plans the preservation of sufficient contiguous upland areas adjacent to the 25-year flood plain for the purpose of establishing/maintaining wildlife corridors, greenways, buffering the floodplain, and promoting healthy wetland system values and functions. Protect these areas from adverse adjacent mining activity impacts. 4.70: Identify and map prior to any land clearing for mining activities, the habitats of species listed in , F.A.C., and 50 CFR and provide an opportunity for review by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the local government. Also, a habitat protection plan based on the identified habitat areas should be reviewed by FFWCC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the local government. The plan should be in effect throughout the mining and reclamation period. 4.98: Discourage development in the undeveloped 100-year floodplain. 4.99: Implement floodplain management strategies to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and protect natural functions and values : Incorporate specific mitigative measures to prevent fugitive dust emissions during excavation and construction phases of all land development projects which produce heavy vehicular traffic and exposed surfaces : Implement land use-related performance standards that minimize negative air quality impacts resulting from development. 5.9: Protect the functional integrity of the West Central Florida s Chairs Coordinating Committee s (CCC) Regional Roadway Network, the Florida Intrastate Highway System, and the Strategic Intermodal System through coordination of local government comprehensive plans, MPO plans, and land development regulations. 5.11: Support the coordination of truck route plans (goods movement plans) to minimize damage to roadways and reduce impacts on residential neighborhoods. 5.71: Identify, prioritize, and improve present and future intermodal surface links to the region s port facilities to improve the movement of cargo and people. 5.81: Discourage coal and phosphate shipment by truck on public highways due to the potential for road surface and subgrade deterioration. For Council Meeting of August 13,

5 Regional Comments The DAEIS identifies potential impacts associated with proposed or potential phosphate mining operations within the Central Florida Phosphate District. Issues of Concern:! Natural Resources of Regional Significance. The DAEIS states that NRRS would be adversely impacted by proposed or potential mining activities. The attached map identifies those resources which would be affected. Council policies provide the preferred manner for mining and other development to protect and restore regionally-significant natural resources. It is not possible to calculate the acres of Natural Resources of Regional Significance which occur on the Wingate East Mine Extension site. Analyses of the effects of imposing 1,500-, 3,000- and 6,000-foot buffer zones around the mine sites to protect high quality natural habitat and wetlands, perennial streams and all streams were conducted for each proposed mine site. At the present time buffer widths are not set by rule and have rarely exceeded 500 feet in width. For the Wingate East Mine Extension in Manatee County, the results were as follows: Wingate East Mine Extension - Net Mineable Lands (acres) and Tons of Phosphate Rock Not Mined if Buffers Zones are Delineated for Environmental Protection (Mine proposal = 3,367 acres) Category 1,500-foot Buffer 3,000-foot Buffer 6,000-foot Buffer High Quality Natural Habitat (CLIP Priority 1&2) 291 acres 36,656 tons 7 acres 40,040 tons 0 acres 40,124 tons High Value Wetlands 3,162 acres N/A 3,032 acres N/A 3,030 acres N/A Perennial Streams 2,121acres 14,848 tons 974 acres 28,516 tons 200 acres 37,741 tons Perennial and Intermittent Streams 1,387 acres 23,617 tons 261 acres N/A 0 acres 40,124 tons A similar analysis was not conducted for the reasonably foreseeable potential mining sites. Comparison of fauna (wildlife of all types) on unmined and mined/reclaimed sites generally showed a lower diversity of species on the mined sites. Due to large-scale, watershed-based reclamation planning, contiguous wildlife habitat is being reestablished across the landscape, and evolving techniques are resulting in more natural habitats. For the Wingate East Mine Extension, the applicant proposes to provide 18% more wetland acres and 3% more stream length, post-reclamation, than exist on the site. The key is long-term protection of the recreated wildlife habitat and corridors. About 30% of the land within the four proposed mines has been designated by the state for potential conservation as part of the Integrated Habitat Network. Under the four mining proposals, some percentage of the mining areas are proposed for reclamation into more natural habitats and turned over to the state under conservation agreements. No estimates are provided for the two reasonably foreseeable mine sites. Urbanization and agricultural practices result in fragmentation or permanent habitat loss. The DAEIS states that, due to existing regulatory and management agency oversight,...the cumulative effects of the four proposed mines, the two reasonably foreseeable mines, the alternatives, and other actions on aquatic resources and upland habitat are expected to be insignificant.! Surface and Ground Water. Water flow has been affected by agriculture, urbanization and mining within the region, but the mining industry has substantially reduced its daily water use from the practices of the 1970s and 1980s. It is estimated that surface water delivery to the Charlotte Harbor estuary via the Myakka and Peace rivers will be decreased by less than seven percent over the duration of projected mining ( ) by the four proposed and two reasonably foreseeable mines as compared to the base case (2010). The For Council Meeting of August 13,

6 Southwest Florida Water Management District has capped allocations beyond the current except for agriculture, where there is a required 50 million gallons per day reduction in water use between 2006 and By 2060 flows are predicted to return to the pre-mining condition except at the potential Pine Level/Keys Tract, where mining is expected to extend beyond the period of study. Under Alternative 1 - No mining - water use is expected to remain the same or increase due to population growth, increasing urbanization and other demands for the water. Water quality in surface waters is expected to be more affected by urbanization due to increased impervious surfaces, fertilizer use and other pollutants from developed land uses. The impact on surface water flows is being compared to the existing impact of mining industry operations and other surface water uses, rather than to flows without mining uses.! Economic ramifications. Operating the four proposed and two of the foreseeable mines has been determined to result in a loss of agricultural production, and an increase in mining-related production over the extension of time the industry would be operating in the region. Within Manatee County, the operation of the Wingate East Mine Extension and Pine Level/Keys mines would directly result in 141 jobs per year, with positive differences in wages of $2.2 billion and output of $7.5 billion over a projected continuation of current activity (predominantly agriculture) on the unmined lands during the 50-year study period. Operation of the proposed Wingate East mine (in Manatee County) alone would result in $7 million/year in tax revenues to the state and county over the 28 years of mine life. It is estimated that for every $1 million paid in local severance and property taxes 13.8 jobs are created within the local government and 20 throughout the multicounty region. By 2050, mining would account for losses of 4% of citrus and pasture and 2% of row crop acreage that exist currently (in the five-county region). While farm employment and output are forecast to be less, higher economic activity due to mining, reclamation, shipping, and other mine-related activities, along with the secondary economic impacts they cause, will completely offset losses in agriculture. Under Alternative 1 - No mining - the presumption is that existing mines will continue to operate until the reserves are depleted and reclamation is complete. In Manatee County the existing mines are expected to be exhausted within the first ten years of analysis. Direct economic impacts have been estimated for the 40-year period. Output (from combined mining and agricultural production) will drop from over $633 million to about $68 million after the tenth year. Annual local government revenues will drop from $2.3 million to $600,000 because severance taxes will not be collected. Based on the economic analysis performed for this AEIS, (the analyzed phosphate mining scenarios) would have a positive, significant effect on the regional economy. In, addition, Table 3-20 (Page 3-137) appears to be inaccurate and should be replaced or more sufficiently documented. The Table claims that 31% of Hillsborough County jobs are attributed to the agricultural sector. Likewise, 41% of all Manatee County employment is also directly attributable to agriculture. Table 3-20 identifies an employment base of 41,657 jobs exist related to agriculture in Manatee County.! Public Health. Identified sources of risk to public health are air quality degradation and increased radiation associated with the mining and reclamation process, and catastrophic clay settling area dam failures. The DAEIS indicates that air quality concerns are adequately addressed by existing mining practices; that the risk of mining-related exposure to radiation is low due to aerial dispersion; that radon gas levels in buildings constructed on reclaimed mine cuts should not create a health risk as long as Florida Building Code requirements are maintained; and that the risk of clay settling area dam failure is minimal with proper implementation of the current rules regarding design and construction.! Environmental Justice. The DAEIS included an analysis of potential impacts to minority and low income populations located in the vicinity of the four proposed and three potential mine sites. It was determined that, in Manatee County, the proposed Wingate East mine extension proposal and one of the alternative For Council Meeting of August 13,

7 tracts are located near minority and low income populations, and the projects warrant additional scrutiny for potential environmental justice issues.! Transportation. The DAEIS limits transportation-related impacts to infrastructure corridors (pipelines, access roadways and dragline walking paths) and an acknowledgment that new mining operations may require changes in local and regional traffic patterns and new railroad connections to allow transport of phosphate rock out of the area to fertilizer manufacturing facilities. There is no analysis of the impact of potential new railroad lines, or of new truck hauling routes, on regionally-significant transportation facilities.! Land Use. The DAEIS examined the changes in land use which have occurred in the four watersheds where the four mining proposals and three potential mining operations are located. Weather (freezes) and urbanization have caused more significant changes in land use than extractive uses to-date. Little additional urbanization is expected in far eastern Manatee County over the foreseeable future, while agricultural uses will remain relatively stable as some lands are mined and others reclaimed for agricultural use. Land Uses in the Watersheds within the CFPD in the Years 1974/1975 and 2009 PEACE & MYAKKA RIVERS LITTLE MANATEE & MANATEE RIVERS LAND USE Agriculture 712,516 acres 665,708 acres 160,828 acres 131,620 acres Urban 126,291 acres 268,666 acres 20,313 acres 90,421 acres Native Cover 804,986 acres 672,127 acres 186,234 acres 142,929 acres Extractive (Mining) 18,607 acres 25,981 acres 272 acres 2,227 acres Analysis of the 17 alternative tracts primarily identified land uses present, and the quality of the natural habitats and the agricultural lands on-site. Some inference is made, such as for groundwater use, surface water flows, water quality changes, etc., that the effects of mining the 17 alternative tracts would result in impacts similar to those caused by existing and proposed mines. Generally all potential impacts of mining these tracts were deferred until an actual mining proposal is submitted. If any of the sites are proposed for mining and would require new consumptive water use permits, the restrictions on such new uses within the Southwest Florida Water Management District s Southern Water Use Caution Area and the Most Impacted Area would come into play. Consistency with SRPP The Draft Areawide Environmental Impact Environmental Impact Statement on Phosphate Mining in the Central Florida Phosphate District addresses the pertinent goals and policies of the Future of The Region - A Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region for the proposed and reasonably foreseeable mines within the Tampa Bay region, except for transportation. The analyses are very similar to those which were conducted for proposed mines as Developments of Regional Impact. The analysis of the 17 alternative tracts was limited to existing land uses and characteristics. No analysis of potential mining-related impacts on regional resources was conducted for these tracts, and substantial additional study would be needed. For Council Meeting of August 13,

8 Because the DAEIS does not provide information concerning the 17 alternative tracts that would be reasonably useful if any of these tracts are proposed for mining beyond the next 10 years, and the industry itself has not indicated its interest in these tracts, it is recommended that the Final AEIS not include identification of alternative tracts. Additional future plans for phosphate mining in the Central Florida Phosphate District should be considered through the federal, state and local permitting and planning processes, or potentially another Areawide EIS. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council adopted August 13, Larry Bustle, Chair Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council PLEASE NOTE: This report constitutes completion of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council s review. For Council Meeting of August 13,

9 9