[Back]

[Home]

Everglades Urban Comment Letter

 

Lesley Blackner, Esquire

123 Australian Avenue

Palm Beach, FL  33480

tel:  (561)659-5754

fax:  (561)659-3184

 

April 2, 2001

 

Via Fax

 

Mr. Bradley C. Myers

Department of the Army

Miami Regulatory Office

11420 North Kendall Drive

Suite 104

Miami, FL  33176

 

Re:       U.S. Department of Justice/INS Krome Processing Center

ACOE Permit No.  200002404(IP-BCM)

                                           

Dear Mr. Myers:

 

This letter is submitted on behalf of Floridians for Environmental Accountability and Reform, as comment on the permit referenced above.  Deficiencies in the public notice are noted, and it is expected that further comment will be allowed once sufficient information is provided.

 

1.      According to the public notice, the applicant proposes to fill 4.29 acres to build a parking lot.  A parking lot is not a "water-dependent" activity.  The Corps' rules (40 C. F. R. 230.10(3)) specify that the discharge of dredge and fill material is not permitted for activities that are not water dependent.  They further provide that "[p]racticable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise".  The public notice provides no alternatives analysis; therefore the permit application should be denied.

 

2.      The public notice provides no analysis of any attempt to first avoid wetlands loss, as required. Why is mitigation even broached when there has been no determination made that all "potential impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable; only then are unavoidable impacts then mitigated to the extent appropriate and practicable by requiring steps to minimize impacts, and finally, compensate for aquatic resource values."  See Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and Corps dated November 15, 1989.  How is the construction of a parking lot unavoidable as mentioned in the public notice?

 

3.      FEAR wishes to note to the INS and Department of Justice that it is ironic that INS seeks to destroy valuable wetlands for the construction of a parking lot at the Krome detention site, given that INS has never attempted to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act through the promulgation of NEPA guidelines to govern discretionary INS activities relating to the admission and exclusion of aliens.  INS has adopted NEPA regulations only governing the building of INS facilities, but nothing relating to the enormous federal actions it engages in everyday relating to the growth of the US population through immigration.  INS should read the goal and purpose of the NEPA statute, which states that unrelenting, unending population growth is contrary to the national interest.  What has INS done to comply with this Congressional priority?  INS should consider promulgating NEPA regulations to cover its discretionary immigration related activities, particularly since the US population is estimated to reach 400 million by 2050 due largely to current federal immigration policies and programs.  

 

4.      Given the size of the proposed project and the large impact to wetlands, a detailed analysis of practicable alternatives must be provided, in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter, No. 93-2, "Guidance on Flexibility of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and Mitigation Banking" 11 (August 23, 1993), which provides in relevant part that "The amount of information needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the [Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines] is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact and the scope/cost of the project."  The guidance establishes less stringent alternatives review for projects that would have only minor impacts.  It also provides that "[g]enerally, as the scope/cost of the project increases, the level of analysis should also increase."  Corps' rules require detailed analysis of alternatives for this proposed project.

 

4.      No discussion of whether and to what extent this proposed project will "cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States" is provided, as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(c).  The 1999 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-181 indicates that both proposed project sites are within the Everglades watershed boundary.  These pending permit applications are demonstrative of the piecemeal dredge and fill of the historic Everglades that has, in part, produced the ecological calamity the Corps is now attempting to restore in an unprecedented and historic effort. Why would the Corps permit activities that will confound and negate the restoration effort?  

 

5.      This wetland was once a several hundred-acre sawgrass marsh.  After Krone was built, the filling never stopped.  A small Doppler radar facility was constructed next door and INS has done additional filling.  Probably the worst example of the sprawl was the filling of 235 acres of marsh surrounding the INS site to construct prisons for the state and county.  Mitigation for the prisons amounted to a cash donation to kill melaluecas on the Big Cypress Preserve, which is practically on the other side of the state.  Notwithstanding the good done by removing exotics, that project resulted in a net loss of 235 wetland acres.  Yet the filling continues.  It would appear that Dade County is being completely written off as a place worthy of any conservation, apart from that part directly within the Everglades National Park.

 

6.      The quality, function, and character of the wetlands are not specified in sufficient detail to allow for adequate comment. 

 

7.      Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act provide that all effects, both direct and indirect, shall be considered by the Corps.  40 C.F.R. 1508.8.  All cumulative impacts shall also be considered.  40 C.F.R. 1508.7.  Please provide analysis of all direct effects, indirect effects, secondary and cumulative impacts.  Why was this project segmented from building of the processing center?  The entire "master plan" should have gone through a single, comprehensive environmental review.

 

8.      The public notice provides no analysis of how the proposed dredge and fill will affect remaining abutting wetlands.  No data is provided regarding the existing hydroperiods of the natural wetlands on the proposed site, the natural hydroperiods of the wetlands (assuming these natural hydroperiods were altered, as suggested), how the natural hydroperiods were altered, or how the hydroperiods of any remaining abutting wetlands will be altered.

 

9.       What is the function and value of the proposed mitigation? It is a violation of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act not to detail the terms of the mitigation in the final public notice. 

 

10.  Finally, with respect to the "mitigation" statement, the public notice provides that the amount and the details of mitigation will be determined at some unspecified time in the future.  This statement provides further evidence that the particular permit application is not complete.

 

11.  Whatever happened to the Corp's policy of "no net loss"?   It would appear to be dead in Dade County.

 

12.  Regarding the Public Interest Review required by 33 C.F.R. 320.4, no information is provided with respect to the following elements of the review.  Please provide adequate information to allow proper comment on the following:

 

  1. In what way does this project serve the public interest?  Why is the Corps encouraging population growth and sprawl in western Dade County, activities that harm the Everglades?
  2.  Sprawl is contrary to the public interest.  Such development results in increased gasoline consumption, air pollution, undesirable traffic, as well as destroys green space, wetlands, wildlife habitat and aquifer recharge lands.  The cost of municipal services to outlying developments like this in the form of fire, police, garbage, schools, ambulance, sewer, roads, etc., has been demonstrated to far outweigh any increased property tax revenue generated by the development.
  3. The value of conserving these wetlands must be evaluated.
  4. The floodplain values of this land must be evaluated.  Will this project be subject to flooding? Will it cause flooding in adjacent areas? Has FEMA been consulted?
  5. This project will increase demand for water and also degrade water quality in the area.  Please evaluate.
  6. Does the environment receive any benefit from this project?  Why is essentially complete fill of historic Everglades wetlands contemplated?
  7. What is the long-term affect on wetlands in the area?
  8. Will this project destroy all wildlife habitat value of this land?
  9. Is conservation of wetlands important to the public interest?
  10. What will this proposed activity do to water quality in the area?

 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.  If a permit is forthcoming in this project, I request it, along with a copy of the EASOF and any alternatives analysis performed by the Corps.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

Lesley Blackner

 

cc:  Haynes Johnson, EPA

David Hankla, Field Supervisor, Fish & Wildlife Service

Beverly Banister, EPA

John Hall, Corps

FEMA

[Back]

[Home]

[Back To Top]