BRANNEN. STILLWELL & PERRIN. PA. J
JOE S. BNANNEN
CLARK A. SnL.WELL FA
OONA&c r eLAW" ORst 260
EVIN K. OION 113 l .
-0 COjN a mNVeRNS. RORIOA 3451 -OS
a6O ic CERTWORiD IN aREL. MATE
July 6. 1995
FO 7.' R INFO^idT:
Mr. Jim Ouinn, Chief
Bureau of State Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
Re: Revised Public Workshoo Draft of the 1995
Florida Land Plan; the State Land Develooment
Dear Mr. Quinn:
Thank you for your copy of the revised Public workshop Draft
of the 1995 Florida Land Plan: the State Land Development Plan. I
have reviewed such with keen interest as our office, on behalf of
the Citrus County limestone mining industry, has recently been
involved with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council on its
draft of the Strategic Reaional Resource Plan. The issues raised
by the limestone mining industry with the regional council are
similarly aoolicable to the state land use plan.
My comments are specifically directed to text material at
pages 25-26 of the Plan and the implementation of that text
material on page 31. As to the text, this material fails to
address the distinctions which exist between limestone and
phosphate mining. The draft state olan relies heavily on
information pertaining to phosphate mining. While both are mining
activities, these operations are distinctly different in their
processs ana the character of the land post mining activities. The
rel ance uoon data solely pertaining to phosphate mining results
in policies which are imoractical as applied to the limestone
minino industry. Shallow. wet pits that result from ohosphate
mrninr. are capable of restoration; 60 foot open oits or lakes
whtcr, re'e~ult from limestone extraction are; not. Also. reclamation
as discussed within the text would appear to be identical for
phlch't..ae. i gravel ald limestone mining. That. is simply not rhe
zcae. Existing state regulations recognize a distinction as to
euc<:h form of miniini activitr.y given the nature and manner each
re-souce is r;ned. A coinoetent. complete state plan should
r'e.:bcqnl ize thrj- e cdistinctions.- -
SJUL-24-1995 14:34 P
Mr. Jim Quinn
.uly 6, 1995
Turning then to the goals, advocacy policies, planning
policies and standards set forth on page 31, 1 would make the
First, the use of "restored" in goal 4 of the State
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and its application to limestone
mining is not supported by legislative history. If you review the
legislative history of the state plan, Chapter 187.00 Law of
Florida. you will find the word "restored" originating from then
existing phosphate mining industry policies. Sep F...
Stat. 211.32. The utilization of this statutory language in the
State Plan Plan has an onerous result on limestone mining. The
result has been threefold:
(1) Limestone mining, which is either a wet mining process
or a deep pit process, cannot "restore" environmentally sensitive
lands to the same type, kind or function pre-mining. At best,
restoration can occur in the same water shed adjacent to the
(2) The word "restore" imposes a higher standard for
wetlands permitting on mining than other industries such as
commercial or industrial development. A wetland impacted by
mining under the State Land Plan, is required to be restored.
This same wetland impacted by other industries, is require.d to be
mitigated in accord with state regulatory permitting policies.
The ret effect is the limestone mining industry, having a
different type of mining operation than phosphate mining, cannot
meet in many instances the "restore" standard. Yet, the same
operation can obtain valid state regulatory permits allowing for
mi ti gation.
(3) A restoration standard precludes mitigation banking by
t.he mining industry a currenT. state policy.
It would be my recommendation that the Department of
Community Affairs take a serious look at the continuing use of the
word "restored". If in fact the historical basis is from the
phosphate mining industry, then the term should be applicable only
to the phosphate mining industry. If a phosphate industry term is
being applied industry-wide, then the basis for the policies need
;o be evaluated and the policies need to recognize the inherent
difference in types of mining. Finally. the policies utilize the
hr.ase "envirormentallv sensitive areas". Not all environmentally
sensitive areas are strategic from a state, regional, or local
s.andpoI int. If the policy of restoration is to remain, then the
appropriate ol anrning policy should require that only str.ftgi1.
state, regional and local environmentally sensitive areas be
identified and the restoration term would apply to these strategic
areas. I also note from reviewing Aooendix C, Glossary of Terms.
that "environmentally sensitive areas" is an undefined term.
- BRANNEN. STILLWELL & PERRIN. P.A.
. JUL-24-1995 14:34
SMr. Jim Quinn
July 6, 1995
Hopefully the above comments clearly set forth the goals of
the limestone mining industry. The industry recognizes a
responsibility to reclaim land. The industry recognizes a
responsibility to secure necessary permitting for impacts to
protected environmental areas. However, those drafting the State
Land Use Plan have to recognize that the prior casual use of the
word "restore" as used in FLa.- iL.t. 187.201(14)(a) and (b)(S) has
resulted in an inequitable application of a higher standard
applicable to the mining industry than other industries having
Very truly yours,
BRANNEN, STILLWELL & PERRIN, P.A.
cc: The Mining Group
- BRANNEN. STILLWELL & PERRIN. P.A.