Purpose of Central Florida Phosphate District AEIS RMPR Forum: The purpose of this forum is to
provide an opportunity to review & discuss the Central Florida Phosphate District Areawide
Environmental Impact Statement. Background Documents:
• CHNEP Restoration & Management Project Review Forum Guidelines (attached).
• Internet Location of USCOE CFPD AEIS documents (attached).
• USACE Final AEIS on Phosphate Mining in CFPD (on CHNEP FTP site, directions below).
• Appendices for USACE Final AEIS on Phosphate Mining in CFPD (on USACE website
•
http://www.phosphateaeis.org/).
CHNEP previous comment letters on CFPD AEIS & permit applications (on ftp site).
Directions to CHNEP FTP site:
• Internet Address: ftp://ftp.swfrpc.org
• User Name:
chnep
• Password:
chnepaccess
• Folder:
CFPD AEIS RMPR Forum May 17 2013
MEETING NOTES
Attendees:
Lisa, Judy, Elizabeth, Kaley, Don, Bob, Craig, Michelle, Dave, Karen, Sam, Shelly, Dee, Jim, Percy, Greg, Chris,
Dennis, Cassie, John, Tino, Wes, Mat, Bill; Deb;
9:00 – 9:15 am: Coffee & Networking
Welcome & Introductions — Lisa Beever, CHNEP
Not a formal committee meeting; bring folks together to share ideas; prepare draft letter to approve the CHNEP
mgmt committee thru advocacy review procedure.
Review RMPR Forum Guidelines — Lisa Beever, CHNEP
Disscussion only; sunshine at lunch;
Election of “Chair de Jour” for the CFPD EIS RMPR Forum — RMPR Forum Participants
Volunteers? Don McCormic elected as chair.
Overview of CFPD EIS — Lisa Beever
Slide 1: introStaff review; not policy opposition until reviewed.
Slide 2: with dates of CHNEP Draft AEIS Process; # of pparticipants from last june here today;
Slide 3:Evidence that COE did read our letter;
Final Aeis issued 5/3 w/30 day review; we’re aiming for june 2;
Policy committee meeting next Mon.
Next forum scheduled for may 24 if needed.
Slide 4: location
Slide 5: July 31 comments
Slide 6: Overall comment: chapts 1, 4 & 5 requested more info – see response.
Slide 7: Methodical treatment o f altnatives; no change to metholodical treatment but cumulative more thorough
Slide 8: mineable limit, historical, current…
Slide 9: Preferred Alternative: Only applicants preferred alternative cited
Slide 10: Project Purpose & Need: expanded ACE purpose – determine water dpendency
Slide 11: Project purpose & need con’t: noted on page 1-47
Slide 12: Soil Characteristices : Secion 3 general – Removed paragraph on phosphate mining results in very …
Slide 13: Estuarine Aquatic Comminities – no change…
Slide 14: Chapt 4 – see Draft on left vs Final on Right; so lost Overview of methods & added Radiation & Surficial
Geological Soils
Question – is Map from slide 8 ava8lable? Yes as hard copy & GIS (Chris’s colleague)
Q – Will poserpoint be on website (Jim) – yes on CHNEP Website next Monday
Slide 15: DWRM2 Analytical Overview; was a good justification to use this model but not included in EIA
Slide 16: Groundwater Resources: Foreseeable” alternatives…; “No Action” assessed; issue – water use permits
moved forward as if wouldn’t have been released; wasn’t addressed; so WU permits moved forward (see tape);
Q – Perry – Once you get to Cumulative analysis – include ag reduction only included in cumulative analysis not
individual mines…
\Slide 17: Groundwater Resources: requested monitoring well data; did include intermediate in final
Slide 18: questioned adequacy of SAS impacts; analysis limited to modeling;
Slide 19: Groundwater: analysis of impacts of alternative groups….
Slide 20: Groundwater – questioned adequ of tables 4-69… maximums not found
Slide 21: Groundwater Resources – order we3lls by most relevant… continued to be listed by alphabetical X
layer…paired wells an important tool
Slide 22: Groundwater resources: potentiall impacted permitted wells… See Tape
Slide 23: See wu well map; don’t include public water supply
Slide 24: Surface Water Resoueces – Requested “No Action’ No Action not analyzed with relamation; tables
replace figures w/wet/dry season…
Slide 25: Surface Resources: requests that Capture area graphs display cumulative captures… Add tables 4…
Slide 26: Surface Water Resources – asses related to surface water flows at confluence of PR & HC – completed
for CH tales 4…
Slide 27: surface WSater Resource: asses impaces of mon on water resources using… see slide & tape
Slide 28: Surface Water Resources – MFL – MFL violation listed as moderate, sig impact. No analysis by block;
Slide 29: Surface Water Resource re salinity: 4 current actions & 2 reasonabily foreseeable actions….4-276;
Slide 30: Water Quality – links to impairments – not changed; would have liked to see list of impairments….
Conceivable that moving target & pulled into permits, but still would have like to see it;
Slide 31: WQ: chl – not modified; NNC on 4-109 not cited; FDEP did adoptd & approved for flowing streams –
EIA says not…
Slide 32: WQ – pollutan loads…
Slide 33: EJ – county – wide analyisis added;
Slide 34: EJ – expanded alternative analysis significantly
Slide 35: Climate change – requests assessmt
Slide 36: Mitigation: need to apply full package to all alternatives… “Environ preferable” not identified…
Slide 37: Mitigation – mitication concepts – Added temporal lag table added; mitigatn framework added; including
buffers & wildlife corridors.
Slice 38: Conclusions – see slide – added minor, mod & major impact thresholds; added “without mitigation, direct
& .. Impacts are .. ACE does intend to issue permits, but will address… see tape
Good to have this opportunity to share information…
5 min break
Michelle – Mitigation.. see tape… documenting new mitigation – see chapt 5…
Bill – one concern – study tends to conclude that previous impacts have been mitigated adeuqtely…see tape re new
mitigation regs… when get to cumulative impacts; can’t add impacts from new mines to past mines as though past
impacts have all been mitigated; see tape – (this is good); applaud CFR
Percy – comment by USGS in past, stioll relevant – if take an impact & step back to larger geographic scale, can
step back far enough to make impact not show up; so are writing off impacts within mining area; “related area”
average water quality to make exceedences vanish;
Judy – what triggers need tor supplement EIS?
Greg – see CEQ section; EIA done for wide variety of projects;what triggers “ sometime Fed agency required…
Must… prepare… if it makes substantial changes to proposed action OR if there are significant new circumstances
or new information….what if now proposed action… goes back to comment on
Tino – unfair to criticize scale; are looking at a watershed modelo; WMD model is for N Tampa; Lisa – talking
about Peace R mode; Tino – only available in last couple of months;
Greg – can criticize COE for not using; but is a “new & significant source…” but need to have future presentation
soon;
Judy – see tape
Greg – Scale is important… could use diffent models for different scales; adequcey of background could be
improved - could explain different analyses used for different scales – see tape… many of our criticsisms could be
dealt with by addressing tha; does look like there is a better integrated model emergint tha we might consider
endorsing it;
Lisa – Appendix F does show different models & why used or not…
Don – Powerpoint pointed out specific areas of concern; should be start with that?
Lisa – what we are doing is helpful to get senbse of whole; didn’t see any objections to what she included in the
presentation;
Don – see tape…
Lisa – ie: Michell clarified DWORM
Greg – Detailed response to wheather comments were adequately addressed – will need to be drafted after staff
reads specific sections of EIS; see tape re: table… of detailed response… assemble table & recirculate for
commentws;
Lisa – good point to circulate request to mgmt conference for specific overall comments & specific comments;
valid to collect & convey.
Judy – we can do that.
Jim – Would May 24 be adequate time for next meeting?
Lisa – will have to be because ofJune 3 date…
Jim – will there be approval iof the draft responses as official?
Lisa – defined in advocacy & review procedures… see tape….quarterly meetings; if something comes up between
meetings, draft response & send to Policy Committee for concent.. Policy Committee meeting on Monday… will
outline structure of response… & how to go about final approval…
Bill – “we’re going to have to”… Jim requested exgtenstion but COE said not anticipating extension at this time…
Unfair to many people thatwould like to comment that won’t get opportunity… same time for review as dock
permit… doesn’t meet intentent of comment period… Should NEP ask for extension as we did in previous review?
Lisa – would take time away from review…
Dee – It is not a comment period, it is a review period = a period of time where they can’t issue a permit… but no
permits ready to go so won’t stop takeing permit… won’t be ROD for EIS just for each permit…
Don – at some point
Percy – don’t think that’s the case either… Email from John misleading; implys process isn’t done until EIS is
issued… our chance to say … never heard “no record of decisions on eis”…
Bill – Percy – could the COE use this EIS for basis of issuing permits before it’s adopted?
Percy – concerned … see tape…
Don – is there any huge obstacle to what are acceptable comments from CHNEP? Do we have a big problem with
the document – seems to be acceptable with improvement?
Percy – concerns are serious enough that this isn’t an acceptable document? Ie; defining moderate vs major
reolating to MFL & mitigating them away? Mitigation for surface flows = ditch & burm system – not scientifically
supported to change impacts… these are serious failures
Greg – agrees with Persy; this is where the draft should have been; opportunity to comment & adjust document;
level of deteail & effort & introducing elements we would like to see done; this is a position we need to take; next
issue is pressing timeframe; we are serious about our position; small staff & quick turn around, but it is a priority;
puzzeled by remaining process… indpendantly have staff consuclt with ACOE regardin; this is an AEIS;
Michell – see June 2012 presentation by John with schedule;
Sam – ifwe’re unsure about flow & stage, will affect water quality, plus not physically merging ground & surface
water; 20% low flow…wetland impacted by 7 day flows…
Don – is there a percentage in mine that makes sense?
Sam – understands pain of ciriticism; have done a lot of improvement, contnstious work; but as far as scientific
review – when we do Lee Co studies… DRGR model… can use it, but it hasn’t been finalized yet but no major
changes… integrated model would address many of the concerns…time scale is important – to show flought &
drought because averageing doesn’t show effects… critters… erosion… aquifer… see tape…fate & transport of
polluted water to a creek isn’t done; could be done better; need to say how they will integrate surface & ground
water impacts…we haven’t reached that point yet;
Don is there a percentage that is a good threshold;
Sam – if use this method – need to define, but if use continuous model… using continuous model as we
recommened… can see hydrograph & see how it behaves…yearly average masks effects of daily averages, can’t
detect variation…
Percy – John put it in a nut shell in TB times… without mitigation, would be impactive… the report is vague about
what mitigation … “hand wave at subject” is what law requires….see tape…demeaning to problem
Chris – NEPA requirements are substantial; found little met of requirements … see tape…. EIS is compromised
because comments & respons aren’t included… EIS might have been different if documentation included; look at
NEPA regulations… eye opener of what EIS should have been if purpose was to protect environment, which NEPA
requires…
Bill – add to what Greg said – refere to NEPA document… this study ran off the tracks on the covery page… Bill
spent 10 years lobbying COE do update of 1978 EIS & finally got it; when look at NEPA docs & criteris, this is in
appropriately called AEIS – this sould be a Regional EIS; AEIS 1978 did include Char & Lee Co & CH; 2/3 of CH
is in Lee Co; both counties CH is cornerstone of economic activitity – not addressed in EIS; if there are different
stadareds for AEIS vs REIS vs Individual EIS… asked that Char & Lee Co be included during scoping & draft b7t
still not included; confined study to CFPD; fisheries addressed…. MSA – no federal agency can take action that
will adversely affect EFH… CH is poster child for EFH… says can’t have ANY adverse impacts to EFH…idea that
strip mine 100 acres in PR above arcadia not affecting EFH is preposterous… didn’t look at CH or studies by UF,
Mote WMD, etc – when play around with feshewater inflow, mess with estuary, totally skirted in EIS, not even
include in EIS….
Chris – hydrology completely rmoved & restructured; unreasonable to think it wouldn’t affect the estuary; noticed
over 10-12 years = decline of saltwater fish up in creeks…impacts of phosphate mining to date have been
tremendous; all this mining down Horse Cr & Peace R & getting close to estuary; these areas are whole basis for
how the estuary functions; need strong statements.. see tape…
Elizabeth – has seen more snook in Myakka; there are a lot of questions & concerns; can we invite John Fellows?
Can we get our thoughts out & have John address via teleconference or in person; we need to see tape…
Don – do we need another meeting?
Lisa – seems like we will need to meet – could be an official CAC/TAC…
Discuss CFPD EIS — RMPR Forum Chair & Forum Participants
2 approaches for today:
Greg – suggestion for structureing meeting: respond at 3 levels: 1) over arching comments/impressions; staff
compile from partners; 2) specific evaluation of how they responded to our comments; suggest big table format to
convey comments/responses/adequacy; rigour of response is important; ie: take CHNEP comment letter & splitting
into pieces & match – similar to Lisa’s presentation; see COEs response to comments; 3) concerned that final has
come out without preferred/proposed alternative; Guide to NEPA requires adequacy of analysis of preferred
alternative can be calle dint question – triggers supplemental EIA; see CEQ regulations Citation; Guide is available
on NEPA website; “Citizens Guide to NEPA published by CEQ – Dec 2007; Supplemental EIS can be
requested/required if substantial changes to proposed actions…. (page 20); not having a proposed action will be a
problem for us; if we raise concerns on validity of analysis = leverage to have supplemental EIS performed;
Q – Greg – when comments went in did anyone get comments or requests for claificaion form COE or COE
consultant; of concern to Greg – Appendix of comments – some responses to comments missed the3 intent of the
comments; could have been resolved by quick phone call; no interactive process of concern;
Greg – over arching: much better than Draft; draft should have been as though as Final; but still lacks riggor;
looked at Exon Keystone supplemental EIS which was much more thougouth & transparent; general link to link to
local reg. processes – ie: TMDL, MFL, & general appreciation of our view of water resources in area being
limited… See Tape… doesn’t’ appreciate that everybody wants the 5 CFS that will be observed under some
alternasts – completition for water not adequately addressed in EIS, including natural systems.
Percy – appreciate Gret’s response to comments; listed a long comment but only included quick responses & was
very weak & insufficient; Appreciated Lisa’s review; Purpose & Needs doesn’t recognize public purpose – only
lists ist for Phosphate & doen’t include data on values of natural resources; also inh economic analysis doesn’t
include value of natural resources; Value of natural resources belongs in purpose & needs; purpose & needs
statement designed to meet only 1 need – phosphate; mitigation is poorly treated, too; didn’t listen o …see tape
Karen – as water recources manager, concerned that didn’t address TMDL & MFL & how they are going through
process without considering how it will affect local governments; if going through such large endeavor that affects
natural resource need to recognize how we will pay for unintended consequences in future – will Fed’s pay for
clean up in the future; unfunded mandates not in public interest
Dennis – when submitted comments on DAEIS – took broader perspective; now I n unique position because of 94
pages of comments weren’t included in AEIS or included in final; comments submitted 15 mg posted on FTP site;
direct correspondence that John received them & would submit to CH2MHill; didn’t find out until recentely that
comments weren’t included; are bound by law to consider public comments but there’s not considered; think AEIS
is useless.
Jim – good to see AEIS has expanded beyond borders of mines & expanded to EPA watershed & harbor being
protected by EPA; balance that is necessary is totally ignored; we know industry needs to mine phosphate – more
than just 4 permits in now; all will impact water resources that will – hopefully – get ot harbpr; timing of flow &
quality of water & fish habitats – interest of entire region & tax bass & economy; can have both but values of
harbor values need to be quatified economically & environmental … see tape… future implications of ppayment –
how do you attach a bond for environmental values; minors have right to mine property they own, but at the same
time – will continue 45 years for 4 & next phase – will need to be monitored for 100 years… CH is special because
still healthy & we have obligation that we don’t reach that tipping point; somethings we can’t control – acts of god
vs acts of man; do smart planning & strike a balance; hopeful that harbor is more involved in process, but fuzzed
out at tne – not guarentees…
Don – Re over arching concern – maybe simantics, but COE maybe couldn’t include values of natural resources;…
need to address AEIS as it exisits; continue to express concerns about process…
Percy – COE defines purpose & need & we can ask them to reconsider;
Rob – is control by sponsoring agency re purpose & need & need to address it better..
Elizabeth – read executive summary & NP related… when they classified impacts for surface water; in summary
table with & w/o mitigation… w/o mitigation is mod to sever; with mitigation = no impact; where did they group
things into mod – high – no – impacts? How did they arrive at those conclusions? Ie; math behind it?
Percy – no math – in each section define no-mod-high; “so major impact’ because no MFL… definitional
categories aren’t reached because… see tape
Elizabeth – ie; Myakka MFL not established yet
KIaren – citing problem – significantly revise those definitions… “no data”… see tape
Lisa – if mitigation hasn’t been determined, how can they define impacts?
Elizabeth – see tape…
Karen – if usingdata that way, coming into it blind & starts falling apart
Gregt – since purpose of NEPA is to inform agency permit decision making; if we identify all areas where current
data doesn’t allow evaluation of environmental impact, would be informing agency permitting process to address
data deficiency…back to comment re supplemental EIS…gets very specific
Percy – one of our efforts early was to find oadditional investigation CH2MHill was going to do; CH2MHill told
not to do more investigation; their charge was nmot to address any more issues but NEPA says if you don’t have
data, need to get more; comment regarding supplemental EIS is very relevant; should have had data from the
beginning; is an argument that in order to do job in future will
Judy…see tape
Bill – mitigation… Char Co spend several 100K $ evaluating mitigation & restoration & picked 20 sites… Kevin
Irwin.. wetland mining restoration … 40 sites between CC & phosphate… 38 of sites didn’t adequately mitigate
impacts…lack of data to support conclusions;
Chris – support Bill & Percy, is a lot of data not analyses; comprovises document; on one has benfit see their
comments; lots of data avialble for biodiversity, radition, reagents that wasn’t included; will continue to pursue
issues; specifically lack of documentation & site specific studies that need to be done…
Don – is there a presumption that in the future studies will be done to determine baseline conditions & evaluate
needed mitigation? Do we need to shut down phosphate for 20 years until we get the data?
Percy – Good question; one issue that is hidden by analysis is that they start with existing data (stream flow,,,) &
base models on existing situation where already have significatnt degredation; all of the data doen’t recognize the
stats of the the existing conditions… idea that there is no good baseline is correct – need to calculate baseline
without mining – ie: “turn off” mining in ground water modeling…defining baselinethat your are going to study
from - made an assumption
Chris – respond to Don – data analysis needs to come first –s hould be highly cojmprehansive; many ecosystems
not… ie: dry prairie impacts… genetic impacts & biodiversity if loose dry prairie… see tape… have list of items
but will wait until after lunch? Would like to go over foundational points - 10 minutes…
Sam – engineer, modelor; review for public…; this isn’t simple task – large area & lots of data; much improved
from draft, but this should have been the starting point; draft wasn’t acceptable for any scientific review process;
some degree now; need to analyse modeling; do separate modeling of surface vs ground water; if loos ground
water, loose wetlants – combined together; need to integrate surface & ground water modeling; model is available –
for this area; kdeling through 2019? 6 more years?.... see tape… destroying 10-20 sq miles of area & contain all
that rainfall – analysis in dry season…level of analysis doesn’t include … consider landuse change from current to
mining, but doesn’t show changes in hydrology?... changes sheet flow to channelized flow; up & doen & side
stream will be impacts that weren’t included; modeling is now available – already one – could expand geogrqapyic
area; could include lidar data to include in more scientificly convincing way; mitigation needs to be more
quantitative.
Don – need to set a goal that isn’t moving… see tape.. can’t always be updating criteria for decisions…
Jim – using best available data isn’t moving goal post; we only have 1 harbor & need to consider all impacts; need
to consider impacts to estuarine critters; if salinity moves up stream or estuary shrinks – will effect economy; we
aren’t duing our due diligence if .. see tape; this isn’t a 1 mine eis; flaw in 1978 was didn’t have good data; now we
have wonderful data that we need to use as good stewards; pint is that actual mine plans haven’t been evaluated so
there is time to get it better;
Craig – correction – if look at potential projects & potential future projects – have been in process for many years;
even though in EIA says date mines will beghin = date of extraction; requires several years ahead of time for
infrastructure & mitigation ; don’t have 6 years in all mines; in their particular project is far along in planning &
permitting process – mine plan & mitigation plan far ahead & avail; don’t lump all projects all together;
Jim – Craig’s is small project & small area & very defined; simpler & limited; others aren’t so limited;
Craign – not in all the same state;
Jim – 1 size fits all isn’t appropriate;
Lisa – Integrated model – in 2011 duing scoping CHNEP asked for integrated model; final validation of SWFWMD
model didn’t happen until after DAEIS; we were hpeful that they would use the integrated moed; WMD keeps of
DWRM & integrated model gave permission to use DWORM because integhrated model not finally validated; but
was available for the Final DAEIS – would be nice to see it ustilized sooner rather than later; but not likely;
Greg – we could put a comment in response that we prefer using integrated model for future decisions EIA &
permit review; time to start being specific;
Craig – integrated gnd/surf model required now; typically in late stage of permitting; hard to model meaningfully at
beginning if haven’t determined final minig configurations; not feasible to use for all these projects geographically
& for stage of minds; takes several years & is very iterative; give best information, but not pisslbe at this level;
Lisa – On basin wide integrated model use by WMD is basin wide, if you use it at mine level doe they clip it?
Craig – use Mike SHEA for integrated model;
Percy – is integrated model WMD required?
Craig – no required by ERP; district is doing it for groundwater withdrawl; compaly is using it for all components
of mining – see tape…
Percy – if we are comforted by WMD using integrated model in future, is there a way company modeling cant be
shown to be consistent with WMD model?
Lis – good subject for future TAC – integrated model; how … see tape… relative to Mike Shee & how compmares
to DWORM & use in WU permits… & assumptions & strengths & weaknesses…
11:45 am – 1:15 pm: Lunch — Suggest K’s Family Pizzeria 2000 Rio De Janeiro Ave., Port Charlotte
Discuss CFPD EIS, continued — RMPR Forum Chair & Forum Participants.
Chris – 3PR comments – see tape – radon & agriculture products; Pu210 tobacco.. uranium… Dept of Geol GA –
45% of uranium … in matrix… is in clay... gypsum.. percent of radium in fertilizer… radium ingestion causes
cancer… incidence of lukeium higher in counties with high levels of … on mine land & clay disposal sites…
JAVA… Canadian Coalition…radon gas given off by fertilizers… % of cancers associated with radium…residency
in CFPD associated with lung cancer – 2 X increase in male non smokers; washed into water, bioaccumulated; bone
concentration in birds on settling ponds…most radio elements accumulate in waste places…EIS doesn’t address
these or overall protection of environment.
Chemical reagents use in processing: matrix processed by flotation using petroleum products; end up in waste; FL
phos use ?? tons of ….?? Waste residenet of oil with many contaminants…
Exotic species.. cogan gass… exotic species dominate in substrates from mine reclamation…
Loss of genetic diversity… direct destruction of native habitats, especially dry prairie, causes equilibrium shifts &
… far outside mining area…
??
Regional deforestation not talked about
50,000 acres of clay waste currently; creation of settling basins interrupt… increases radioactivity… spills…
Existing communities inherit problems…
Death of ag & rural life…native soils,
Barrier to future land use planning…
Contamination of remote environments….
Lake Wales Ride & groundwater problems based on fertilizer…
Aesthetics…
Wildlife resources & non-game recreational… mining only provides a few local full time jobs… social injustice of
…irreplaceable resources… mitigation represenets loss to native habitats…
Loss of jobs & tax base,..long term prevention of jobs & tying up lands for long term
Environment & pollution…for phosphate, industry seems to be last to know about spills & react
Environmental Justice – concern that general public in counties where mining is occurring haven’t be educated
about potential…
14 page; NEPA has many provisions not addressed by AEIS
Lisa – if the number of CCMP issues brought up exotic species & dry prairie Lisa will calculate; radiation isn’t a
CCMP issue;
Deb – private citizen, Sierra Club, CAC, geologist… purpose & needs statement – compared draft to final; in Draft
there is no sec 1.2.3.1/USACE basic project purpose regarding water dependency… this is in final but wasn’t in
draft; concerned that phosphate mining isn’t water dependant;
Purpose & Need – look at PEIS 2005 mt top valley fill in Appalachia… Programatic – evaluates broad federal
actions…stated purpose is to minimize environmental …. Other EIS mention in their project purpose is to avoid
adverse environmental impacts…
Bill – Deb raises good point; doesn’t have complete understanding of “water dependant” aspects ? of mining… if
it’s not a water dependant activity, then there are less adverse alternatives that can be developed… move impacts
from wetlands to uplands? Where id COE drop ball on avoidance & mitigation – impact a lot of wetlands & linear
feet of streams – doesn’t include minimization –hold agencies to own regulations regarding minimization
Percy – it is more protective if it isn’t water dependant… startling if review charts – from mine to mine are vast
differences of wetlands avoided… 1 of the minors was protection a lot more of the wetlands than the others so it is
possible to figure out how to do it
Greg – water dependant is defined; does require port or water related infrastructure; Citizens Handbook to NEPA
isn’t perfect – doesn’t define water dependant; important for COE review because defines who has regulatory
authority;
Percy – Page 1-12 Defining Project Purpose – in Citizens Handbook to NEPA, 404 guidelines not in EIS but in
permit reviews… see tape…
Don – water dependant doesn’t mean wu but needs to be on waterway…
Identify Main Questions & Concerns with CFPD EIS— RMPR Forum Chair & Forum Participants
Staff will pull together what we can – present to Policy Monday; advertise next Fri as CAC/TAC to make action
recommendations
Bill – on las year’s letter copied letter – this time copy EPA & CEQ with comments…
Chris – what is process?
Lisa we will request over arching & specific comments for incorporation
Chris – what is process
Lisa – formal action by TAC 7 CAC next fri, send to policy committee & request comments; by June 2 will
have letter to formally submit to COE & copy…
Bill – seems clear we could send in lots of comments & won’t change document except demonstrate need to
prepare supplemental EIS; should we include in our comments that we request supplemental EIS
Greg – endorse asking for supplemental EIS with justification
Lisa – supplemental EIS would be consistent with our original comments
Percy – request – if we learn something from John about if there is going to be a ROD share it with partners;
Greg – ask John what their view of
Tino – how will we filter issues?
Lisa – consistency with CCMP & previous policy decisions….
Summarize Meeting Results & Identify Follow-Up Actions, including the need for a continuation of this RMPR
Forum on May 24, 2013 — RMPR Forum Chair
Meeting adjourned at 2:05
4:00 pm: Adjourn — RMPR Forum Chair