[Back]
[Home]
Rock Mining Comment Letter
April 18, 2001
Colonel Joe R. Miller
District Engineer
Department of the Army
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 Joseph.R.Miller@saj02.usace.army.mil
Re: Actual Notice Requested, Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
Denial of 10 Consolidated Permit Applications for Mining:
"Lake" Belt Area of Miami-Dade County
1 - Continental Florida Materials, Inc. (93.50 acres)
2 - CSR Rinker Materials Corp. (957.9 acres)
3 - Florida Rock Industries (474.06 acres)
4 - Kendall Properties and Investments (442.68 acres)
5 - Lowell Dunn Company (108.27 acres)
6 - Pan American Construction (252.85 acres)
7 - Sawgrass Rock Quarry, Inc. (61.82 acres)
8 - Sunshine Rock (37.35 acres)
9 - Tarmac America, Inc. (795.01 acres)
10 - White Rock Quarries (735.63 acres)
Dear Colonel Miller,
I am responding to the joint Revised Public Notice dated March 1, 2001, for the 10 individual permit applications and reported acres of wetlands lost, as referenced above. The referenced permit applications were consolidated for public comment, for the convenience of the reviewers. The referenced permit applications propose to mine approximately 4,000 acres of the Biscayne aquifer matrix (waters/wetlands of the United States) in the so-called "Lake" Belt Area of Miami-Dade County. According to the referenced Public Notice, all of the proposed projects would occur "immediately east of Water Conservation 3B", except for "Kendall Properties and Investments". That proposed project would be located "immediately east of Everglades National Park Expansion Lands". The duration of the proposed permits would be for 10 years of mining.
Page 4 of the referenced public notice includes the following statement:
"COMMENTS: Any comments submitted to the Corps will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit. To make or deny this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest in the proposed activity."
On March 30, 2001, Ms. Dianne Griffin with your agency forwarded the following response to me regarding the referenced permits consolidated for public comment.
"Our record remains open, in effect, until such time a final decision is rendered. [sic] Therefore, any comments submitted up until that time will be considered by the Corps. Our evaluation and coordination is still ongoing, and the Corps is precluded by law to issue any Section 404 permit without State water quality certification. Information we have to date is the State considers these applications incomplete."
Page 4 of the Revised Public Notice also states:
"ACTIONS AFTER CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The Corps will consider the information in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, comments on that document, and comments on this public notice to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny permits related to mining activities within the areas described as mining by the enclosed drawing."
Upon my request, Ms. Griffin also forwarded a copy of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (aka Problematic EIS), for my review. As a member of the public and an interested party, and based on Ms. Griffin's statements, I am submitting comments on the proposed permit applications referenced above. However, preceding my comments, I have included the following brief synopsis of my background, to emphasize the scientific validity of my comments.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
I received a BS and MS from Florida State University. The topic of my masters research was the influence of hydrologic conditions on wetland and aquatic plant community distribution. Immediately upon completion of my masters degree I was hired by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER - now known as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection - DEP), where I worked for approximately 10 years on various aspects of wetland and aquatic ecosystems.
During and subsequent to my employment with governmental regulatory agencies in Florida, I served as an expert witness for countless enforcement and permitting cases/potential cases throughout the entire State of Florida, in addition to overseeing numerous large-scale "restoration" projects. I then returned to the academic realm to obtain my doctoral degree. The foundation of my groundwater flow/hydrogeology/geochemistry background was graduate-level courses at the University of South Florida (Departments of Engineering and Geology). That university has one of the most prominent programs in karst hydrology in the nation (possibly the world). I then transferred to the University of Georgia to complete additional courses focusing on forest hydrology, pathology and ecology. That extensive multidisciplinary background enabled me to solve my complex doctoral research problem.
For the past 10 years my research has involved surfacewater/groundwater interactions and the ecological impacts of anthropogenic groundwater perturbations in the southeastern Coastal Plain. I have published approximately 30 peer-reviewed papers (including contributing a book chapter on surfacewater/groundwater interactions), have received several awards for my hydrologic contributions to communities, and have been invited to present papers at several International Hydrologic Conferences. I also was nominated as a Technical Advisory Member in the field of hydrology for the proposed mining of the Trail Ridge relict sand dunes in the vicinity of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, and was selected to serve as a Peer Reviewer for the related proposed mining issues.
My research has included the types of waters and wetlands of the United States that occur on the sites of the proposed permit applications referenced above, as well as areas surrounding those sites. Consequently, my background and training are relevant specifically to the proposed mining projects referenced above.
COMMENTS ON THE 10 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS (CONSOLIDATED), ABOVE:
MINING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE "LAKE" BELT AREA
A. PROPOSED WORK:
1. This section of the referenced revised public notice describes the activities to be permitted as follows:
"Placement of fill related to excavation activities for the purpose of limestone quarrying. In 1998, approximately 5,600 acres of pits existed. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received requests to renew Department of the Army Permits. Acreage figures for the individual mining operations are as follows."
The Corps of Engineers (COE) regulations (40 CFR 230.10(3)) specify that a project must be water-dependent to qualify for a permit from your agency. No information appears to be contained in either the Revised Public Notice, or the Problematic EIS to substantiate that the proposed mining is water-dependent (or wetland-dependent). I am unaware of any scientific evidence that would support the conclusion that the proposed limestone quarrying is a water-dependent (or wetland-dependent) activity. In fact, I have personal knowledge of such quarrying that has been conducted in the uplands in Florida, as well as in other areas. It is clear that the 10 consolidated applications for limestone quarrying do not represent a "water-dependent" activity and the requested permits should be denied based on the lack of water-dependency of the proposed activities.
2. Under a hypothetical scenario, if limestone quarrying was presumed to be a "water-dependent" activity which could be granted a permit from the COE, the referenced applications again would have to be denied because they are incomplete. As indicated above, Ms. Griffin has stated that, "Information we have to date is the State considers these applications incomplete." Consequently, the COE file also must be incomplete. Furthermore, the alternatives analysis in the Problematic EIS did not consider the "no mining" alternative (in addition to other inadequacies described below). For example, selection of the "no mining" alternative prevailed for the less destructive "mineral sand" mining that was proposed to be associated with the Okeefenokee Swamp in Georgia. Selection of that alternative was based, in part, on the off-site impacts that would have resulted from the proposed mining activities in that case. Certainly the Everglades and associated ecosystems are of comparable importance.
3. Prior to the major hydrologic alterations of the Everglades (primarily at the hands of your agency), the Everglades was at least comparable to the more northern Okeefenokee Swamp, with respect to both hydrologic and ecological characteristics. For example, both of those systems are critical water sources and provide critical nesting and forage habitat for federally-listed species, as well as supporting the very waters of the United States that are regulated by your agency.
4. The Okefenokee Swamp has been determined to be hydrologically-linked (by both surface and ground water) to waters of the United States as far away as the coast of Georgia and northeast Florida (more than 75 miles). Comparable connections have been demonstrated for the Everglades/Biscayne aquifer system for the east/south coasts of Florida. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposed mining activities could extend for a similar distance beyond the actual point of the mining.
5. Like the Okefenokee Swamp, numerous local, regional, state, and federal lands and public resources would be adversely affected by the proposed mining.
6. The mining that was proposed to be associated with the Okeefenokee Swamp (referenced above) was "mineral" mining in sand deposits. Mineral mining in sand deposits uses more highly advanced techniques than the techniques associated with the limestone mining that is proposed under the permit applications currently being considered by your agency, and is associated with the Everglades. The pits that are excavated as the result of mineral mining in sand deposits are considered to be "short-term" and are back-filled while the mining is taking place. However, despite the fact that the pre-existing contours are re-established in the pits that are excavated for mineral mining of sand deposits, the integrity of the zones of lower permeability are destroyed, resulting in long-term, possibly permanent adverse impacts to waters of the United States and critical nesting and forage habitat for federally-listed species.
7. The limestone mining that is proposed under the referenced permit applications would result in similar adverse impacts to those described in paragraph A. 6. above, in addition to adverse impacts from the excavation of permanent mine pits. Therefore, the adverse impacts from the referenced permit applications would be more severe, extensive, and irreversible than those that would have been associated with the Okefenokee Swamp, if the "no mining" determination had not been made.
8. The reason that the referenced permit applications would result in more severe, extensive, and permanent adverse impacts than those that would have been associated with the proposed excavations in the Okefenokee Swamp is because the referenced permit applications would result in permanent excavated pits (erroneously referenced as "lakes" by your agency, and the Problematic EIS). Permanent pits excavated into Florida's aquifers result in numerous adverse impacts to both water quantity (e.g. water required for navigation) and water quality (e.g., regulated under the Clean Water Act). These adverse impacts are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
9. When the body of the surficial aquifer (the limestone) is dredged, that portion of the aquifer is removed permanently. Prior to dredging, the "void spaces" (spaces in the limestone) that are filled with aquifer water are a small percentage of what the "void space" for the mined pits (100%). Therefore, more aquifer water is required to fill the mined pit than was required to fill the non-rock spaces in the limestone. Clearly aquifer water is diverted into the newly created pits from an extensive area surrounding the pits, unless impermeable liners are secured along exposed surfaces of the excavated pits during the mining process. No reference has been made to the use of such impermeable liners. However, if such liners were used, they would preclude any recharge from entering the aquifer for the entire extent of the mined areas. The diversion of ground water from surrounding areas results in a permanent drop in the water table, a reduction of both flows and levels in associated navigable waters, and concomitant unaccounted impacts to both on-site and off-site United States waters/wetlands.
10. The volume of water that would be diverted permanently from waters of the United States, including associated wetlands, cannot be determined from the application, but would be extensive and would represent cumulative impacts to similar assaults that the aquifer already has experienced.
11. In addition to the permanent adverse impacts described above that would result from the mined pits, if a permit was issued for the referenced applications, other permanent adverse impacts will occur. The additional adverse impacts associated with the proposed mining activities are due to the loss of water that occurs due to evaporation when ground water is converted to surface water and is exposed to wind and high temperatures.
12. As a result of the adverse impacts described above, that would result from the proposed mining, it would be impossible to maintain essential minimum flows and levels in the surrounding areas, as state law requires to prevent significant harm to the resources.
13. In consideration of the facts described above, the actual acres of wetlands that would be destroyed if the proposed permits were issued would be significantly greater than what is indicated in the Revised Public Notice.
B. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION:
14. Under a hypothetical scenario, if limestone quarrying actually was a "water-dependent" activity which legally could be granted a permit from the COE, the referenced applications again would have to be denied because the applications fail to provide actual mitigation for even the acres that are described as being destroyed by the proposed activities. The proposed permits should not have been subjected to the public notice process because of the incomplete nature of the proposed projects. They simply should have been denied because of their incomplete status.
15. Page 3 of the Revised Public Notice for the referenced applications includes the following statement under the section titled COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.
"Compensatory activities fall within three broad areas. The proposal includes a review of the compensatory mitigation at 3 years after issuance of the Department of the Army Permit to provide for refinements based on new information."
There is no scientific basis for the insinuation that a review conducted 3 years after issuance of the proposed permits miraculously would reveal some aspect of mitigation that is not known currently. No valid mitigation was included, nor is any valid mitigation possible for the permanent and irreversible adverse impacts to waters/wetlands of the United States, Tribal Lands, and waters and other resources of the State of Florida that would result if the proposed permits were issued. Not only do the proposed applications fail to meet the "no net loss of wetlands" requirement, the acreage of wetlands that will be lost will far exceed the approximate 4,000 acres listed for the proposed applications referenced above, due to additional acres of wetlands off-site that will be destroyed. Clearly that is contrary to the Public Interest.
16. Item 1 under the section titled COMPENSATORY MITIGATION on page 3 of the Revised Public Notice for the referenced applications includes the following statement.
"Compensatory mitigation for the ecological impacts related to the removal of plant communities will be provided by acquiring, restoring and managing lands within the Pennsuco and other locations."
The Problematic EIS describes the high porosity [permeability?] of the limestone aquifer that is proposed to be mined by the referenced projects, as well as the existing impacts from well field pumping, indicating that, "Because of this condition, areas within the Everglades Protection Area and the Pennsuco wetlands are experiencing declining water levels and hydroperiods." [p. 12] The Problematic EIS also indicates that the permanent mining pits that are proposed to be created under the referenced applications are connected directly to the Biscayne aquifer.
17. Significant costs and liability to the general public associated with aquisition and attempts to "restore" and "manage" such lands already have been demonstrated. For example, a similar situation occurred many years ago at Little Gator Creek "Wildlife Environmental Area" (Little Gator Creek), in association with another rock-mining operation that diverted aquifer water, as described below.
18. After mining was complete at Little Gator Creek, this tract was sold to the State of Florida for $2.5 million in the mid 1980's, to establish and manage the wildlife area. Because the water table (surficial aquifer) was lowered permanently in the vicinity of the dredged pit, an 8-inch well had to be constructed to pump ground water into the wetlands in an effort to maintain essential water levels to protect the nests and provide forage areas for the wood storks. Unfortunately the deeper aquifer water used in an attempt to re-establish the hydroperiod in the wetlands differs chemically from the water in the surficial aquifer, resulting in additional damage to the wetlands. The wetland trees at this rookery are dying, due to permanent lowering of the water levels and other hydroperiod alteration associated with "restoration/managment" attempts due to dredging activities approximately 1 mile from the rookery. A field reconnaissance of Little Gator Creek in 1999, revealed that wetland and upland trees of various sizes were exhibiting windthrow from basal decay (butt rot) due to the damage to the aquifer from the mining operation. Some of those trees already had fallen. Some of those areas also had experienced catastrophic wildfires that had burned theses fire-resistant trees (common in areas that have been mined in Florida). These trees often experience a long period of premature decline (15 to 20 years) before succumbing to premature death after anthropogenic alteration of the natural hydroperiod. Otherwise these trees are known to live for more than 600 years. After the death of the remaining trees that were damaged by the mining operation, the wood stork rookery and forage habitat will cease to exist. No wood storks nested in that rookery the year prior to the reconnaissance, based on information from those who monitor the rookery. Widespread destruction of wetlands, including those that are critical nesting and forage habitat for the Endangered wood stork, will occur both on and adjacent to the site of the proposed application, if COE issues permits for any of the 10 referenced applications.
19. Item 1 under COMPENSATORY MITIGATION on page 3 of the Revised Public Notice for the referenced applications also includes the following statement, "That assessment will be used by the South Florida Water Management District, under guidance of an interagency committee, for the acquisition, ecological restoration and management of lands and other activities to compensate for the ecological impacts from mining activities with the 'Lake' Belt Study Area". Refer to the immediately-preceding discussion regarding the inability of "acquisition, ecological restoration and management of lands and other activities to compensate for the ecological impacts from mining activities". Also note that as a result of the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) inability to properly "manage" the water resources in their District, this spring the Florida Legislature proposed Legislation for emergency injections of contaminated water into the south Florida's aquifer system, as a futile attempt to reverse the damage that has resulted from SFWMD's mismanagement of those water resources. To suggest that SFWMD's "acquisition and management" of lands could constitute "Compensatory Mitigation" for losses under the proposed permits is farcical.
20. Item 2 under the "COMPENSATORY MITIGATION" section of the Revised Public Notice document indicates that the only proposed "creation" of wetlands are "littoral shelves" that "may be provided as additional compensatory mitigation on-site". [emphasis added] The referenced "littoral shelves" that are proposed to be "created" in the mined pits generally become over-grown by nuisance species (e.g., cattails) and alien species (e.g., melaleuca) due to the severe disturbance associated with the mining activities. Furthermore, the COE's and Problematic EIS's continual reference to the mined pits as "lakes" is extremely misleading to the general public who might construe that these pits (and any littoral shelves) represent actual wildlife habitat. They do not.
21. Item 3 under the "COMPENSATORY MITIGATION" section of the Revised Public Notice suggests that the permanent, irreversible ecological (and other) adverse impacts that would occur from the proposed excavation of these pits into the aquifer matrix could be mitigated by the "construction of structures either independently or in coordination with those that may be authorized under the Central and Southern Project for Flood Control and Other Purpose (Comprehensive Everglades 'Restoration' Plan). They cannot.
22. Item 3 also includes the statement, "The final design will be based on currently on-going modeling and planning efforts." Billions of tax dollars can be spent on "modeling or planning efforts", which can continue until the earth ceases to exist. However, no "modeling and planning efforts" can reverse the permanent drop in the water table and continual loss of water through evaporation that will occur if the proposed pits are excavated.
23. If, in fact, the actions referenced in the two preceding paragraphs were capable in reversing damage that results from the excavation of these quarry pits, the COE should require that the permittees of previously issued permits for limestone quarrying in south Florida implement those actions immediately, to come into compliance with state laws that require the prevention of significant harm due to reductions in minimum flows and levels of the State's water resources. When those actions are proven to be unsuccessful, the COE should immediately require that the previously excavated pits be filled to their pre-existing elevations.
24. Item 4 under the "COMPENSATORY MITIGATION" section of the Revised Public Notice states, "In addition, the applicants propose to implement several watershed protection measures to reduce probability of introduction of contaminants." Nothing could be more misleading to the general public. Not only will the excavated pits allow contaminants from surface runoff (e.g., agricultural chemicals, stormwater pollutants) to enter the aquifer directly, without any filtration, it will (and has) prompted the proposed emergency injections of billions of gallons of untreated, contaminated water into the aquifer system in south Florida to compensate for the very losses that are occurring because of these excavated pits.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
25. Under a hypothetical scenario, if limestone quarrying actually was a "water-dependent" activity which legally could be granted a permit from the COE, the referenced applications again would have to be denied because the final Problematic EIS released in June 2000 failed to conduct a viable alternatives analysis, as required by federal law. Examples of the inadequacies of the alternatives analysis, as well as factual inadequacies, are provided in the subsequent paragraphs of this subsection.
26. "Chapter 4.0 Alternatives" of the Problematic EIS indicates that a "detailed evaluation of the physical, ecological, and socio-economic impacts resulting from that plan" was not conducted. [p. 62] Such an analysis is the primary purpose of an EIS, and is essential to address all of the direct, indirect, cumulative and secondary impacts other than direct impacts associated solely with the footprint of the proposed activities. Examples of those impacts include (but are not limited to) those that would be associated with the proposed projects, as described in all of the paragraphs above.
27. The same page of the Problematic EIS also includes the following statement: "Only feasible alternatives will be carried forward for evaluation." The only feasible alternative for the proposed mining activities is the "no mining alternative". However, the "no mining alternative" was not considered in the Problematic EIS.
28. A "no mining" scenario was imposed for the proposed "mineral mining" from sand deposits on Trail Ridge in Georgia, in part, because of adverse impacts that would have occurred to waters/wetlands of the United States in the Okefenokee Swamp if the proposed "mineral mining" had been permitted. Note that it was recognized in the Georgia case that adverse impacts would occur beyond the boundaries of the property that was to be mined. Note also that "mineral mining" from sand deposits returns the mined areas to approximate pre-mining elevational contours, unlike the limestone mining proposed in this referenced Revised Public Notice.
29. The Problematic EIS also did not consider the alternative of attempting to reverse the adverse impacts of the original permits that are sought to be renewed under these applications. For example, as a result of the original permits issued for the removal of approximately 5,600 acres of Biscayne aquifer matrix (including those that seek renewal with the referenced permit applications), permanent reductions in the essential minimum flows and levels of surface waters and wetlands were permanently reduced in the Everglades region. These permanent reductions in the minimum flows and levels have resulted in significant harm to the water resources of the State of Florida, and constitute a violation of State law. Those permanent reductions also represent adverse impacts to waters/wetlands of the United States that were not permitted. Therefore, the activities permitted under the original permits constitute violations (noncompliance) of the original COE permits that were issued. Those previously-permitted activities should have been considered under the "Alternatives Analysis" and should be the subject of enforcement action by the COE.
30. When the applicant, the EIS and the COE fail to identify the actual magnitude and extent of the adverse impacts that will occur from proposed projects, and fail to include the necessary information for such a determination (as is the case in the referenced permit applications), the federal, state, and local agencies, general public, and concerned citizens" cannot possibly determine the full and actual adverse impacts that the proposed action will have.
D. EVALUATION (Direct, Indirect, Cumulative and Secondary Impacts):
31. Page 4 of the referenced Revised Public Notice for the referenced applications states,
"....each decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources."
There is noresource in south Florida (the entire state) that is more important than the aquifer, which supports all life forms (including humans and coastal ecosystems) in that portion of the state. Yet the proposed applications would excavate - permanently remove - more than 4,000 acres of the structure of that aquifer. It is beyond comprehension that an entire EIS (2 1/2 inches thick) could be generated for such an activity without blatantly concluding that the proposed activities clearly are contrary to the public interest and should be denied.
32. Neither the impacts from the previously-permitted limestone quarries nor the cumulative impacts of the mining proposed under the referenced permits were properly considered in the Problematic EIS. Furthermore, the Problematic EIS failed to show the hydrologic (including subsurface) and ecological links between the aquifer that is proposed to be mined under the referenced applications and the coastal ecosystems, including the coral reef ecosystems.
33. The Problematic EIS also failed to note that by changing the bottom elevation of the land (that in this case is the aquifer matrix), that adverse impacts (including conversion to uplands) would occur to waters/wetlands of the United States far beyond the actual site of the mining operation.
34. The Problematic EIS also failed to note that by destroying both on-site and off-site wetlands - approximately 15,800 acres total, for all proposed limestone mining - that significant flood hazards would be created.
35. The Problematic EIS also failed to note that issuance of permits for the referenced applications would result in additional discharges of pollutants, not solely as contaminated runoff discharging into the excavated pits, but also as point-source discharges of contaminated water injected into the aquifer system via so-called aquifer "storage" and "recovery" (ASR), in an effort to compensate for similar damage to the aquifer inflicted by previously-issued permits.
36. If permitted, the proposed applications would result in irreversible adverse impacts to conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, prevention of flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. No true public "benefits" have been identified for the proposed permit applications. The proposed project clearly is contrary to public interest and should be denied.
E. ENDANGERED SPECIES:
37. Page 4 of the referenced Revised Public Notice states,
"The Corps has determined the project is not likely to affect any known federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species or their critical habitat. Concurrent with the issuance of this public notice the corps will solicit information from State and Federal resource agencies and other sources, to determine if the proposed work will have an adverse effect on any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat areas."
Because neither the Problematic EIS nor the Revised Public Notice identified all of the adverse impacts (e.g., off-site adverse impacts, cumulative adverse impacts), including hydrologic impacts to federally-listed species, neither the State and Federal resource agencies, nor the general public can provide meaningful comments regarding the project impacts and the need for mitigation measures. In fact, if permitted, the proposed projects would have significant adverse impacts on listed species, including, but not limited to, wood storks. Additionally, the previously-permitted limestone quarrying activities also have significant adverse impacts on listed species.
38. Refer to the preceding discussion regarding the permanent and irreversible impacts to the water table and all associated wetlands, in addition to known impacts on federally-listed species such as wood storks from previous rock-mining activities in south Florida. The proposed project represents a "taking" of critical potential nesting and foraging habitat for wood storks, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, and may result in a "taking" of critical habitat for other federally-listed species.
F. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:
40. Page 5 of the referenced Revised Public Notice states,
"Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH [Essential Fish Habitat] or Federally managed fisheries. Our final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service."
Because neither the Problematic EIS nor the Revised Public Notice identified all of the adverse impacts (e.g., off-site adverse impacts that would occur to coastal resources), including coastal fish habitat of south Florida, neither the National Marine Fisheries Service, nor the general public could provide meaningful comments regarding the project impacts and the need for mitigation measures. In fact, if permitted, the proposed projects would have significant adverse impacts on marine fisheries, including those associated with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Additionally, the previously-permitted limestone quarrying activities also are have significant adverse impacts on marine fisheries.
G. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING AVAILABILITY OF NEW INFORMATION:
In conclusion, my comments are not meant to be inclusive of all of the countless inadequacies of the referenced permit applications to meet the regulatory requirements for receiving permits from your agency. The general public should not be burdened with responding to Public Notices for permit applications that clearly do NOT meet the legal requirements for permits issued by your agency.
Since the 10 proposed individual projects clearly are contrary to the public interest and fail to meet other basic requirements for permit issuance, the requested permits should be denied. At the most basic level, the courts have been clear that wetlands constitute a productive and valuable resource, that their unnecessary destruction constitutes a serious violation of the Clean Water Act, and that their destruction should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest. A summary of some of the failures of the referenced applications to meet the basic criteria of a complete application that qualifies for a valid permit by the COE (as referenced in my letter, above), is provided in the nonexhaustive list below.
1. The permit applications referenced above do not represent water/wetland-dependent activities.
2. The Problematic EIS erroneously concluded that the negative impacts of the proposed "Lakebelt" plan would be confined primarily to the immediate area, and no valid, comprehensive alternatives analysis was conducted (e.g., alternative sources for limestone not associated with waters/wetlands of the United States were not considered, alternatives to the use of limestone were not considered) despite the following statements in the Problematic EIS:
"The mining of approximately 21,000 acres of wetlands at total project buildout will have an irreversible significant impact on the environmental resources of the region. Once lost these environmental resources will be irretrievable. The limestone rock resources resulting from the mining will also be irretrievable as a natural product once used." [p. 81]
3. The "no mining" alternative was not considered or evaluated in the Problematic EIS.
4. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the direct, indirect, cumulative and secondary impacts that would result if the proposed permits were issued.
5. Because the Problematic EIS erroneously concluded that the negative impacts of the proposed "Lakebelt" plan would be confined primarily to the immediate area, no comprehensive assessment was conducted beyond the actual area of the foot-print of the proposed activities to determine adverse impacts as required by the Endangered Species Act.
6. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to Tribal Lands that would result if the proposed permits were issued. The adverse impacts include the diversion of ground water from Tribal Lands, which significantly diminishes the amount of water that is available and reserved to satisfy the purpose of their Reservation.
7. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to the Everglades from the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources that would result if the proposed permits were issued.
8. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to Everglades National Park from the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources that would result if the proposed permits were issued.
9. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to the Water Conservation Areas from the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources that would result, if the proposed permits were issued.
10. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to the aquifer system which serves as the primary - and currently "sole" source - of potable water, that would result from the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources that would result if the proposed permits were issued (e.g., irreversible declines in levels, increased loss via evaporation; contamination via direct surface runoff and injected contaminated water).
11. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted regarding the extent to which the proposed permits would result in the extensive degradation of remaining natural habitat, and the spread of alien and nuisance native species. In fact, contrary to established scientific literature (and admission in the Problematic EIS that melaleuca becomes established in wetlands "stressed by reduced wetlands" [p. 30]), the Problematic EIS erroneously concluded that the proposed projects would "vastly improve native plant communities and the habitat functions and values they supply" [p. 1].
12. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted regarding the extent to which the previous limestone quarry permits issued by the COE in the same waters of the United States have violated federal and state laws, rules, and regulations and have resulted in the degradation of habitat functions and values (including the expansion of melaleuca) that now are being used to down-play the significance of the "functions" and "values".
13. A comprehensive analysis was not conducted for all of the adverse impacts to the coastal resources, such as the coral reef ecosystems, that would result if the proposed permits were issued.
14. Despite the extensive and irreversible adverse impacts that would occur to recreational areas within Tribal Lands; Everglades National Park; other areas of the Everglades; and state and federal coral reef Parks, Sanctuaries, and Reserves if the proposed applications were permitted, the Problematic EIS erroneously concludes, "The proposed plan could have positive impacts on recreation resources within the project area." [p. 71] and "The recommended plan will not significantly impact existing recreational facilities." [p. 78]
15. No valid mitigation was included, nor is any valid mitigation possible for the permanent and irreversible adverse impacts to waters/wetlands of the United States, Tribal Lands, water and other resources of the State of Florida that would result if the proposed permits were issued - not only do the proposed applications fail to meet the "no net loss of wetlands" requirement, the acreage of wetlands that will be lost will far exceed the approximate 4,000 acres listed for the proposed applications referenced above.
16. The proposed activities would negate the ongoing attempts to restore the Everglades (which are being conducted at great cost to the Federal and State taxpayers).
17. The proposed activities would significantly increase saltwater intrusion and irreversible damage to the structure of the aquifer, which is the focus of emergency action by the State of Florida at the very instant that these comments are being prepared.
18. Neither the Revised Public Notice, nor the Problematic EIS documented - through a Public Interest Review - demonstrated that the proposed applications were in the public interest, and not contrary to the public interest. The activities proposed under the applications proposed clearly are contrary to the public interest.
In consideration of all of the above, the referenced permit applications should be denied and should not be reconsidered.
If the COE fails to deny the 10 referenced permit applications (or reconsiders any of the applications at a later date), and in consideration of new information that has become available since the completion of the Problematic EIS and the close of the comment period, a series of public hearings should be held at various locations throughout south Florida. The purpose of the public hearings should be to: a) facilitate the compilation of a comprehensive list of all of the countless irreversible direct, indirect, cumulative and secondary adverse impacts that would occur to United States waters/wetlands (both on-site and off-site), and to federally-listed species (e.g., wood storks); b) determine a comprehensive list of how many state laws, rules, and regulations would be violated; and c) determine what, if any, public benefits (interests) would occur as a result of the proposed projects.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting actual notice, via electronic posting to the address below, of any agency action taken on the referenced permit applications, or any related permit application if these applications are withdrawn and resubmitted in the future.
Sincerely,
Sydney T. Bacchus, Ph. D.
Hydroecologist
[Back]
[Home]