FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 15, 2003
CONTACT: Deena Wells, (850) 245-2112
Statement by Florida Department
of Environmental Protection Secretary David B. Struhs
regarding the issuance of the Final Order for IMC Phosphate’s
Altman Tract
TALLAHASSEE – “Based on the facts of this case, I agree
with Judge J. Lawrence Johnston’s recommendation and reject
the permit application and reclamation plan for IMC Phosphate
Company’s Altman Tract.
While I do not agree with all of the Judge’s findings, I
agree with many of the substantive issues outlined in the
recommended order.
The plan proposed by IMC to reclaim the land was
inadequate. IMC failed to provide accurate information, an
adequate reclamation plan, and necessary financial assurance,
which are required by law.
My decision today ensures that mining companies provide a
wetland reclamation plan that upholds the standards of the
law and protects Florida’s valuable wetland resources.”
Please see the Final Order.
###
Final Order for IMC's Altman Tract
Question and Answer
What is being announced?
The Department of Environmental Protection is rejecting a
consolidated Environmental Resource/Wetland Resource Permit
and Conceptual Reclamation Plan to IMC Phosphate Company for
phosphate mining in 2,200 acres in Manatee County. Known as
the Altman Tract, the area encompasses 1,535 acres of uplands
and 685 acres of wetlands.
Why did Secretary Struhs reject the permits?
The Final Order concluded that the permit application did
not meet the legal standards established by statute and rules
of the Department of Environmental Protection. IMC failed to
provide accurate information, an adequate reclamation plan
and necessary financial assurance.
What are the statutory and regulatory requirements for
approval of an Environmental Resource Permit and a Conceptual
Reclamation Plan for mined wetlands and uplands?
For wetlands:
- Requires wetlands to be restored acre-for-acre,
type-for-type.
- Requires reclaimed wetlands to maintain or improve the
water quality and biological systems present at the site
prior to mining.
For uplands:
- Requires upland areas to be restored to resemble premining conditions where practical and consistent with
proposed land uses.
Why was IMC’s reclamation plan inadequate?
The proposed reclamation plan would not have restored Central
Marsh, a large and varied system, to its pre-mining condition
acre-for-acre, type-for-type. Comprised of shrub marsh,
freshwater marshes and wet prairies, the natural system is a
high-quality wetland serving a variety of natural functions.
The proposed restoration plan for the Central Marsh would
have replaced the mosaic of diverse wetlands primarily with
“one large, relatively deep marsh” – a lower quality wetland
that serves fewer natural functions.
What are the statutory and regulatory requirements for
financial assurance?
Phosphate companies are required to provide assurance
that 110 percent of the cost of the wetland mitigation will
be available to restore the mined wetlands after mining is
completed.
How did IMC fail to provide reasonable financial
assurance?
First, IMC underestimated the cost of reclamation. Second,
IMC applied for a permit to mine the entire tract, but only
provided financial assurance for mitigation for wetlands they
planned to mine annually.
Has the Secretary denied a permit after the Department
indicated it would issue the permit?
Yes. The administrative process allows affected parties
to petition agency actions. Judicial review is an important
part of the process.
What happens next?
IMC can appeal the decision within 30 days or it can modify
its plans to address the issues in the Final Order and apply
for a new permit.
What about future mining permits?
The Secretary’s decision today will ensure that reclamation
activities by mining companies maintain or improve the water
quality and function of biological systems present at the
site before mining.
-30-
Press Office
2012 State of Florida