BY MARK J. CRAWFORD
Telegraph Editor
STARKE — Bradford County commissioners continue to hear from both sides, but there’s been no compromise on how to amend the county’s regulations on mining permits.
At the center of the disagreement is whether wetlands can be restored after mining. The answer depends on who is at the microphone. One side sees wetlands and their benefits worthy of protecting them from new mining activities. For the other, prohibiting mining and excavation in wetlands amounts an outright ban on mining in the county, even though the mining and restoration processes are already regulated.
Paul Still brought an endorsement from the Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District for the changes drafted by North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which have already been adopted in Union County. In general, it’s an excellent document, he said.
“It is really what is needed for environmental protection here in Bradford County, particularly in protecting our wetlands,” Still said, also offering suggestions for further distinguishing between mining and borrow pits.
Still said wetlands cannot be restored after mining.
Tim Hollingsworth was among the Chemours employees in the audience.
“I can say that in my 15 years with the company, I’ve never seen a company more dedicated to the county and the environment,” he said. Not only that, the minerals mined by Chemours are used in the manufacture of items used by everyone, he said.
Carol Mosley said wetlands have been under appreciated and destroyed for hundreds of years.
“We know the value of functioning wetlands and their ability to clean pollutants, replenish the aquifer, protect against flooding, provide habitat for animals and nurseries for fish, which we need for our fishing industries,” she said. By comparison, ecotourism contributes more to the economy than mining, she said.
According to Mosley, state regulations are broad and not tailored to the county’s needs.
“They are minimal standards that broadly apply across the state. Locales need their own specific protections for vital natural resources,” she said. “We are part of a region that shares many of our natural resources, such as rivers and wetlands.”
Mosley said the proposed changes would not impact Chemours current operation, only future permit application.
Joanne Tremblay representing Our Santa Fe River said mining adversely affects the water basin, disrupting and changing the flow of water, resulting in flooding that causes taxpayers millions of dollars as well as decreasing water quality and threatening endangered species.
“The decision to protect the wetlands from mining will help minimize future damage to our river basin. The damage that this industry has brought to our area is immense, from deforestation to fractured hydrology. They are not good stewards of our land and have no incentive to change. The only protection we have going forward is to stop them from mining any more wetlands,” she said.
Representing Sierra Club, Kristin Rubin said the county needs “comprehensive and meaningful” regulations for mining activities. Protecting the public’s health and safety is the commission’s job, she said.
“Wetlands play many key hydrologic roles in sustaining the health of our environment. These roles include groundwater recharge, attenuation of floodwaters, and the filtration of nutrients and pesticides that can be present in surface runoff. They also provide food and shelter for many wildlife species, including species that are listed as threatened or endangered,” she said.
Attorney Beth Moore returned to represent Chemours, saying the commission should not attempt to prohibit all mining that impacts wetlands and surface waters. She said the wetlands impacts caused by Chemours mining are “primarily temporary.”
“After the reclamation process, any wetlands that have been impacted are restored and can potentially function better than the wetlands that were already in place. For example, if there was a low quality wetland, then it can potentially be put back in place and restored to a higher quality wetland,” she said.
Through the proposed comprehensive plan changes, Moore said the county would also be treating mining differently than any other development activity that is allowed to impact wetlands.
“There’s an existing regulatory process in place with the state to allow a property owner to impact wetlands on their property, whether they’re building a house, a road, a restaurant, you name it. But the proposal here is to treat mining differently than any other activity that would be allowed to get a permit, which I think is troubling and problematic,” she said.
While prohibiting mining may be what some want, it’s not what’s best for the county, according to Moore.
“So let’s say there’s a mineral rich pocket of dry upland, but in order to access it, you’d have to build a road through a low quality wetland that could have been later restored to a higher quality wetland after the reclamation process. Under the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan this mining would not be allowed, regardless of fact that it could get a permit from the state. Regardless of how many jobs it would create or families that would support, it would be prohibited,” she said.
Scott Koons from the regional planning council was asked about potentially reducing the recommended buffer zone around wetlands and surface waters in the amendments drafted by the council. Koons said the 500-foot buffer recommendation was based on 73 peer-reviewed studies, but added the size of the buffer is at the board’s discretion. He also offered clarification that the wetlands mining prohibition should not impact forestry operations.
As Commissioner Danny Riddick pointed out, the commission would like to develop something that works for all stakeholders, but he also said they wouldn’t be able to please everyone.
Commissioner Chris Dougherty said those in favor of the comprehensive plan amendment were clearly pushing to regulate an industry that is already regulated.
“We have agencies that need to be held accountable, and it’s up to this board to hold those agencies accountable,” he said. “Putting more regulations on the businesses and more regulations for the county is just extra layers of government. And I just don’t think that we need to move forward with doing anything other than what’s already in place, and letting the agencies oversee that just as they are paid to do.”
If those responsible are not doing the work, he said the county needs to hold them accountable.
Rayonier’s representative suggested the Florida Department of Environmental Protection be invited to share information about how these industries are regulated. Riddick, however, said the county has already experienced issues seeking assistance from FDEP, including the improper disposal of raw sewage.
Commission Chair Diane Andrews said they want the final product to be fair to everyone while protecting the environment.
Another workshop will be scheduled pending further research.
