A sinkhole recently opened under a waste pit owned by one of the state's biggest polluters, a phosphate mining company called Mosaic. For weeks, the company and the state of Florida kept the secret: that hundreds of millions of gallons of slightly radioactive fresh water had emptied from a waste pond into the sinkhole to god-knows-where but likely straight into the aquifer used for the regional fresh water supply.
Gov. Rick Scott is trying to respond ...
to the avalanche of criticism; saying he now supports "immediate disclosure" of such pollution events which ought to be common sense. After all, we have a tornado warning system and what's the difference between a vortex in the atmosphere and one in the earth?
Secrecy protects wealthy campaign contributors who are polluters. A Florida law prohibits citizens from taking photos of factory farms or Big Sugar's highly polluted irrigation canals. Gov. Scott continues to obstruct the disclosure of block-level census data for rare pediatric cancers, which could indicate exactly where cancer clusters are occurring in Florida (including in Miami-Dade).
Secrecy is baked into the fabric of the Florida GOP, and taxpayers suffer the consequences.
The Mosaic incident is particularly instructive. More than fifteen years ago, citizens pleaded with the Jeb Bush administration and the US Army Corps of Engineers to support a regional aquifer study before issuing blanket permits to phosphate miners like Mosaic. The prevalence of sinkholes in the region was already well established. Here is an excerpt from the civic pleading, dated November 2002, and reprinted in full below. The letter was written by Dr. Sydney Bacchus who was sued in 2005 by consultants to the rock mining industry for "lacking credentials" to make public comments against mining permits in Putnam County. Here is what Dr. Bacchus asked for, on behalf of her clients nearly fifteen years ago.
The real losers are the taxpayers and voters of Florida who don't get the full story, because secrecy is baked into the foundation of the Florida GOP.
The following from Progress Florida:
November 27, 2002
Colonel James G. May, District Engineer James.G.May@saj02.usace.army.mil
Atten: Charles Schnepel, Team Leader Charles.A.Schnepel@saj02.usace.army.mil
U. S. Department of the Army
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
Tampa Regulatory Office
West Permits Branch
P. O. Box 19247
Tampa, FL 33686-9247
Fax: (813) 840-2123
Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor dave_hankla@fws.gov
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
North Florida Field Office
6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310
Jacksonville, FL 32216-0958
Fax: (904) 232-2404
Re: Proposed IMC Phosphates Company Ona Mine Project Draft EIS
Failure of Third Party Contractor to Respond
Request for Regional Public Hearings
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Dear Colonel May and Supervisor Hankla:
I am submitting this formal public comment letter in response to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) referenced above, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344). The initial Public Notice for the project referenced above was date-stamped "COT 29 2002", with comments accepted through December 2, 2002. My comments are submitted on behalf of the members of Floridians for Environmental Accountability and Reform, Inc. (FEAR), and Wetlands Alert, Inc. (Wetlands Alert), as well as on my behalf. All are interested and adversely affected parties. Please forward all responses regarding this letter to the individuals listed for those organizations, as well as to me, at the addresses provided below.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH
1. Before I provide comments on the proposed projects (referenced above), I am including the following brief synopsis of my scholastic and professional background, as support for the validity of my comments. 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, including the identification of wetlands in areas of dredge and fill violations.
2. 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 "restoration" projects. I then shifted from government regulatory work to return to the academic realm and 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, forest pathology, tree physiology, and ecology. That extensive multidisciplinary background was essential for both my doctoral and post-doctoral research problems, which included identifying anthropogenic (man-induced) groundwater alterations as a causal agent in the premature decline and death of trees, wetlands, and other significant and permanent adverse environmental impacts.
3. My research for the past 10 years has involved surfacewater/groundwater interactions and the ecological impacts of anthropogenic groundwater perturbations in the southeastern Coastal Plain. I have published more than 30 peer-reviewed papers (including contributing a book chapter regarding surfacewater/groundwater interactions affecting both water quality and quantity). I also have received several awards for my hydrologic contributions to communities, and have been invited to present papers at several International Hydrologic Conferences.
4. I 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. A "no mining" scenario was imposed for Trail Ridge, however, in part because of adverse impacts that would occur to Waters/wetlands of the United States in the Okefenokee Swamp if one of the primary recharge areas (Trail Ridge) was dredged. Note that it was recognized in that case that adverse impacts would occur beyond the boundaries of the property to be dredged. My Curriculum Vitae is provided as EXHIBIT 1 (forwarded as a hard copy), for more details regarding my background and related peer-reviewed publications.
Golder Associates, Inc.:
5. The Public Notice published by the COE (referenced above) stated that a copy of the draft EIS could "be obtained by contacting the third-party contractor", Golder Associates, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia. The contact person and e-mail address published for obtaining a copy of the draft EIS was Kathy Baumgaertner, kbaumgaertner@golder.com. Weeks ago I forwarded a message to the contact person, requesting a copy of the draft EIS. At the time this comment letter was prepared, the requested copy of the draft EIS still had not arrived.
6. The comments in this letter are based on excerpts from the web-based copy of the draft EIS; my experience with the adverse hydroecological impacts of phosphate and other mining throughout the extent of the regional Floridan aquifer system; my extensive research on the adverse hydroecological impacts of anthropogenic groundwater alterations throughout the regional Floridan aquifer system; and my past experience with Golder Associates, Inc.
7. The Atlanta-based Golder Associates, Inc. is the same consulting firm that was used for DuPont's proposed Trail Ridge mining operation that was to be located adjacent to the Okefenokee Swamp and National Wildlife Refuge, in south Georgia, the northeastern portion of the regional Floridan aquifer system. Golder Associates, Inc. failed to identify and address virtually any of the countless significant, irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would have occurred from the proposed DuPont Trail Ridge mining operation in south Georgia.
8. As a result of the inadequacies in the initial evaluations of adverse impacts that would have occurred if the proposed DuPont mine was permitted, a diverse group of stake-holders and scientists (including Ecologists) with relevant expertise from throughout Georgia and north Florida was organized to provide independent input during a series of public meetings run by an independent facilitator organization. As indicated above, the 'no mining' alternative was recommended by the diverse Review Panel (stake-holders and scientists) for the proposed DuPont mining project, due to the overwhelming irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed DuPont mining project would have had on surrounding (off-site) wetlands and uplands. Those off-site impacts included impacts to the Okefenokee Swamp and National Wildlife Refuge.
9. The irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the proposed DuPont mining operation were significantly less than the irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would occur from the proposed IMC Ona mining operation addressed by the draft EIS referenced above.
10. As was the case with DuPont's proposed mining project for Trail Ridge, in the northeastern portion of the regional Floridan aquifer system, the draft EIS by Golder Associates, Inc. failed to recognize and address any of the countless adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as irreversible (non-temporary). The few adverse impacts that Golder Associates, Inc. did address in the draft EIS (summarized in the Executive Summary, and basically confined to direct adverse impacts) erroneously were identified as "temporary" adverse impacts. None of the adverse impacts referenced in the draft EIS would be "temporary", as referenced in more detail below.
11. Unlike the independent Review Panel that was compiled for DuPont's proposed Trail Ridge mining project, the majority of Golder Associates' "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS were Engineers, rather than scientists with related expertise, and stake-holders from throughout the state (see pages 5-1 through 5-5 of the draft EIS). None of Golder Associates' "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS were Ecologists, or scientists with Ph. D. degrees in fields related to the adverse impacts that would result from the proposed Ona mine project. Likewise, there was no indication that any of the "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS have ever even published any peer-reviewed papers related to any of the myriad adverse impacts that would result from the proposed project. Consequently, it is not surprising that the draft EIS fails to address any of the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed Ona mine project.
12. A comprehensive review panel composed of scientists with expertise in relevant fields, in addition to representatives of all of the adversely-affected stake-holders must be established for the proposed Ona mine project, similar to the one established for the proposed DuPont Trail Ridge mining project, and funded by the applicant. Public Meetings, in conjunction with the Review Panel, must be held throughout the state to obtain sufficient input regarding all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Ona mine project. After the referenced Review Panel (with input from the Pubic Meetings) identifies and evaluates all of the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would have on surrounding (off-site) wetlands and uplands, then, a Public Notice should be advertised requesting Public Comments.
Examples of Factually-Unfounded and Inaccurate Statements in the Public Notice and Draft EIS:
13. The "Background" section of the Public Notice (date-stamped "COT 29 2002") states that the draft EIS was prepared "utilizing a third-party contractor." See the comments above, referencing examples of the factually unfounded and inaccurate statements made by the "third-party contractor".
14. The first paragraph of the "Summary" section of the same Public Notice describes the "preferred alternative as including mining of approximately 15,527 acres. The following two sentences of that paragraph state: "Temporary adverse impacts from site clearing in preparation for mining operations would result in the direct loss of approximately 8,000 acres of native habitat .......There would be a temporary adverse impact to 2,765 acres (56%) of the 4,901 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetland communities onsite. The preferred alternative would leave 2,136 acres undisturbed." That statement considers only the surface footprint of the proposed mining project, and ignores the subsurface footprint of the proposed project. In reality, the scientific literature supports the conclusions that none of the Ona site would remain undisturbed, due to the groundwater impacts associated with the proposed mining project. Furthermore, all of the wetlands on the proposed site are "Corps jurisdictional wetland communities", thus further increasing the loss of wetlands due to direct impacts.
15. The last paragraph of the "Summary" section of the same Public Notice states, "The DEIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences". It does NOT! The draft EIS describes only some of the direct adverse impacts that would occur if the proposed Ona Mine project was authorized, as currently proposed. For verification, refer to the definition, description and discussion of cumulative effects (aka cumulative impacts) included in EXHIBIT 2.
16. The un-numbered page of the draft EIS identifying the "Jacksonville District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers" as the "Lead Agency" and Charles A. Schnepel as the contact "for more information" included at least one factually-unfounded and inaccurate statement in the single paragraph on that page. The third sentence references the proposed mining of 15,527 acres of the Ona site, stating that "approximately 4,839 acres, or about 23 percent of the entire Ona site, would not be disturbed". That statement considers only the surface footprint of the proposed mining project, and ignores the subsurface footprint of the proposed project. In reality, the scientific literature supports the conclusions that none of the Ona site would remain undisturbed, due to the groundwater impacts associated with the proposed mining project.
17. A comprehensive regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis must be conducted. That analysis must include all of the cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system, including the surface water resources that are inextricably linked to the Floridan aquifer system. Refer to my previous comment letters to the COE (included as EXHIBIT 3a-g), that provide examples of only the cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system that are associated with recent mining applications authorized by the COE. All of those letters and Exhibits are incorporated by reference into this letter. Examples of other types of cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system that are permitted by the COE are Nationwide Permits (NWP's). See the letter dated "COT 9 2001" from EPA (G. Tracy Mehan, III) to the COE (Dominic Izzo) for a description of types of NWP activities and related concerns (EXHIBIT 4).
18. The Executive Summary includes numerous factually-unfounded and inaccurate statements. For example, although page ES-2 accurately notes that mining phosphate rock is depleting a "non-renewable resource" (which should be a critical consideration for the public interest test), page ES-2 further states, "Since there is no substitute for phosphate, and because of the important role of phosphate-based fertilizers in sustaining high levels of agricultural production, phosphate mining and processing will continue to be a necessary and important industry." Excrement, such as chicken and swine manure is sufficiently high in phosphorus to be (and is) an economically-viable fertilizer substitute for mined phosphate rock. Converting manure into fertilizer has the additional economic benefits of being "renewable" and converting the manure from a 'waste' product causing environmental harm, to a by-product with benefits. Please refer to my enclosed phosphate-mining comment letter dated July 16, 2002 (included as EXHIBIT 3f), and Exhibits 5 through 7 of that letter for a more detailed discussion and citations of alternatives to mining, as well as the large-scale problems (adverse impacts) associated with the mined phosphate product.
19. Page ES-2 also states, "Mining the Ona site would also maintain or increase the number of jobs and the amount of taxes provided to the region (IMC, 2002)." That statement ignores all of the jobs and income lost, and increased tax burdens at the local, state, and federal levels, due to the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would result in on a regional scale.
20. Page ES-3 states that "there is a need to mine the Ona site........to maintain or increase economic benefits to the region......." Refer to my comments in the preceding paragraph. Until a comprehensive, regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis are completed, there is no factual basis for the assumption that there is a "need to mine the Ona site", or that the proposed mining would "maintain or increase economic benefits to the region."
21. The "Major Findings and Conclusions - A. Beneficial Impacts" section on page ES-3 includes similar unfounded statements regarding economic "benefits". That same section also references "four conservation easements". Refer to previous paragraphs regarding irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would result in on a regional scale. The designation of "conservation easements" will not prevent the destruction of those areas due to all of the adverse impacts associated with the proposed project.
22. Section "B. Adverse Impacts" (page ES-3) states that clearing "would result in the direct loss of approximately 8,000 acres of native habitat", but that this "loss is not considered permanent". Similar claims were made for other, related mining operations permitted by the COE within the extent of the regional Floridan aquifer system. Based on my personal inspections of each operation associated with the Floridan aquifer system that reportedly "re-created" "native habitat" (including forested wetlands and uplands), the habitat - which includes the assemblage of characteristic animals and plants - had not become re-established, and showed no signs it was capable of being "re-created". In fact, as only one example, the irreversible alterations to the natural hydroperiod on-site and off-site result in the establishment and proliferation of alien and nuisance species in areas proposed for "re-creation", as well as in areas designated for "conservation", 'preservation", and "mitigation". The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientific Advisory Board ranked "hydrologic alterations" as the highest risk category of Environmental Stressors. EXHIBIT 5 shows the environmental stressors considered and ranked by the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, in addition to annotations of which other stressors can be introduced by anthropogenic groundwater alterations. Please refer to my enclosed phosphate-mining comment letter dated July 16, 2002 (included as EXHIBIT 3f), and Exhibits 8 through 10 of that letter for a more detailed discussion and citations of the large-scale alterations of groundwater and hydroperiod (adverse impacts) associated with the phosphate mining.
23. Page ES-4 states that there would be a "temporary adverse impact with 2,764.7 acres (56.4 percent) of the 4,901.0 acres of USACE jurisdictional wetland communities impacted". That statement is without factual basis. Refer to my preceding comments and the Exhibits. All 4,901 acres of the COE's so-called "jurisdictional wetlands" on the proposed Ona mine site, in addition to all of the wetlands not considered to be "jurisdictional" wetlands in the draft EIS will be irreversibly harmed (lost), rather than "temporarily" impacted (as suggested in the draft EIS). The same is true for all other claims of "temporary", "short-term", and "minor" impacts in the ES section.
24. Claims throughout the draft EIS (e.g., page ES-4) that mobile wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species would relocate to undisturbed areas, and that no federally-listed species would be affected by the proposed project are ludicrous. Refer to my previous comments and Exhibits. The proposed project would result in large-scale, irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to critical habitat for federally-listed species (e.g., wood storks, eastern indigo snakes, and Florida manatees). Those impacts represent harm to those listed species and constitute incidental "takes" for those species. Those impacts also prevent the recovery of those federally-listed species.
25. The preceding paragraphs represent only a few examples of the factually-unfounded and inaccurate statements in the Public Notice and Draft EIS that preclude meaningful comments from the general public and staff of other agencies. After, or in conjunction with the regional, comprehensive Cumulative Impacts Analysis referenced above, a comprehensive regional Economic Impact Analysis must be completed to identify the costs of all of the adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Only then can meaningful comments be obtained from the general public and staff of other agencies.
Not a Water-Dependent Activity/Public Interest Analysis:
26. The mining of phosphate and the production of fertilizers are not water-dependent activities. Therefore, alternatives that do not result in losses of Waters of the United States are presumed to be available, and the public interest tests are more stringent than for water-dependent activities. No information was provided in the referenced Public Notices regarding a comprehensive public interest analysis for any of the alternatives described in the draft EIS. The draft EIS failed to address alternatives for producing "fertilizers" by mining phosphate (e.g., fertilizers from animal excrement). The draft EIS also failed to provide a comprehensive analysis - including an economic impact analysis - of any alternatives.
Summary:
27. The proposed project would result in irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to wetlands, upland habitat and the regional Floridan aquifer system extending for miles from the surface footprint of the proposed mining activities and site of the proposed mine. Those irreversible adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would occur on State Parks, other public lands, Outstanding Florida Waters, Aquatic Preserves, and other critical natural resources, including critical habitat for at federally-listed species such as wood storks, eastern indigo snakes, and Florida manatees.
28. Additionally, the magnitude and extent of the indirect and cumulative impacts have not been determined, but would result in permanent, irreversible adverse impacts to critical habitat for at least 5 federally-listed species of animals (e.g., Florida scrub jays, bald eagles, wood storks, Florida manatee, alligators), which would result in a "taking" of those species, and prevent their recovery.
29. Despite this magnitude of adverse impacts, the COE has not conducted a Regional EIS, a Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis, or a Regional Economic Impact Analysis. Meaningful comments cannot be obtained from the general public and staff of other agencies until those tasks have been completed.
30. In closing, the proposed project is not denied with prejudice, the referenced Public Notice needs to be re-advertised, with the additional information, revisions, and corrections described above, so that the public and other agency staff will have the critical information needed to provide comments regarding the proposed project. Regional Public Hearings, a Comprehensive Regional EIS, and a Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis are essential to assimilate the information required determining the full magnitude and extent of the adverse impacts that would occur if the proposed projects were permitted and constructed. It is essential for the public comment period - including Consultations with other agencies, and comments from other agencies - remain open until after the requested Regional Public Hearings, Regional EIS, Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Regional Economic Impact Analysis have been completed.
31. For your convenience, I am forwarding a printed copy of my electronic letter with the referenced Exhibits as enclosures via Express Mail. The list of Exhibits referenced in this comment letter is provided in EXHIBIT 6, which also will be forwarded by standard mail.
32. By copy of this letter I am requesting that actual notice regarding any action the COE determines it will take regarding the referenced draft EIS and proposed project be forwarded to me, as well as to each of the individuals for the organizations referenced in the initial paragraph of this letter, above, at the addresses provided below.
Sincerely,
Sydney T. Bacchus, Ph. D.
Hydroecologist
appliedenvirserv@mindspring.com
Enclosures:
See: EXHIBIT 6 for complete list of Enclosures
cc: Federal Organizations
U. S. Corps of Engineers
John R. Hall, Chief, Regulatory Div. John.R.Hall@saj02.usace.army.mil
U. S. Department of the Interior
Gale Norton, Secretary gale_norton@ios.doi.gov
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Beverly Banister banister.beverly@epa.gov
Veronica Fasselt fasselt.veronica@epa.gov
Haynes Johnson Johnson.Haynes@epa.gov
Shawn Komlos komlos.shawn@epa.gov
A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Reg, Adm. banister.beverly@epa.gov
Ron Miedema miedema.ron@epa.gov
Ronald Mikulak mikulak.ronald@epa.gov
Tom Welborn welborn.tom@epa.gov
Christine Todd Whitman, Secretary whitman.christine@epa.gov
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sam Hamilton, Regional Director sam_hamilton@fws.gov
Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor dave_hankla@fws.gov
Don Palmer, Wildlife Biologist don_palmer@fws.gov
Jay Slack, Field Supervisor jay_slack@fws.gov
Federal Elected Officials/Staff
Senator Lincoln Chaffee Atten: Christy Plummer
Senator Tom Daschle Atten: Peter Hanson
Senator Bob Graham Atten: Pat Grise and Kasey Gillette
Senator John Kerry Atten: George Abar
Senator Patty Murray Atten: Rick Desimone
Senator Bill Nelson Atten: M. Bridget Walsh
Congressman Peter Deutsch Atten: Fritz Hirst
Congressman John Mica Atten: John Gaboton
Congressman Frank Pallone Atten: Heather Zickel
Congressman Clay Shaw Atten: Bob Castro
Congressman Robert Wexler Atten: Jonathon Katz
Jo-Ellen Darcy Democrat Majority Staff Member
Michele Nellenbach Minority Senate Committee Staff for Coastal Areas
State Elected Officials
Representative Suzanne Kosmas Florida State Representative
Senator Locke Burt Florida State Senator
Other Organizations
Clean Water, Inc.
Linda Young, President llyoung@igc.apc.org
Corridor 44
Pamela Winchester, President pjwinch@cfl.rr.com
Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Programs
Laurie Macdonald, Director lmacdonald@defenders.org
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
David Guest, Esquire, Florida Director dguest@earthjustice.org
J. Todd Hutchinson, Esquire, Staff Attorney thutchins@earthjustice.org
Aliki Moncrief, Esquire, Project Attorney amoncrief@earthjustice.org
Environmental Council of Volusia and Flagler Counties
Gwen Straub, Vice President gwens1@juno.com
Environmental Defense
Fred Krupp fkrupp@environmentaldefense.org
Flagler Beach Environmental Preservation Council, Inc.
Robert C. Mish, Director RDMish@msn.com
Florida League of Conservation Voters
Susie Caplowe SusieCaplowe@cs.com
Florida League of Woman Voters, Volusia Co.
Rosemarie Gore, Natural Resources Chair gorers@ucnsb.net
Ann Smith, President ahsmith5@att.net
Florida Wildlife Federation
Manley Fuller, III wildfed@aol.com
Floridians for Environmental Accountability and Reform
Steven Bell, Director, Everglades Basin Ch. steven195545@cs.com
Kathy Cantwell, Director, Suwanee River Regional Ch. Kacmd@aol.com
Clay Colson, Director, Nature Coast Regional Ch. Lincoln1960@cs.com
Gail Duggins, Director, Flagler Regional Ch. coryi62@msn.com
Richard Sommerville, Accountability Liaison RichSommerville@aol.com
Gordon Williamson, Director, St. Johns River Regional Ch. remoob22001@yahoo.com
Informed Volusian
Tom Visconti, Founder InformedVolusian@aol.com
League of Conservation Voters Denise_ryan@lcv.org
Deb Callahan deb_callahan@lcv.org
Legal Environmental Assisstance Foundation
Robert J. Martin, President rmartin@leaflaw.org
National Resources Defense Council
Erik Olson eolson@nrdc.org
Greg Wetstone gwetstone@nrdc.org
Nova Southeastern University
Dr. Brian Blackwelder blackwelderb@nsu.law.nova.edu
Richard Grosso, Esq. grossor@nsu.law.nova.edu
Save Our Springs
Terri Wolfe, President sos@3oaks.com
Save the Manatee Club
Patti Thompson pthompson@savethemanatee.org
Sierra Club, Florida Chapter
Alan Farago, Sprawl Co-Chair AFarago@ix.netcom.com
John S. Glenn, Wetlands and Waters Ch. glenjohn@email.msn.com
Frank Jackalone, Sr. Reg. Field Rep. frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org
Barbara Lange barbaralange@earthlink.net
Jonathan Ullman jonathan.ullman@sierraclub.org
State Historic Preservation
Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director jmatthews@mail.dos.state.fl.us
Surfrider Foundation
Tom Warnke, District Director twarnke@telocity.com
The Nature Conservancy
Steve McCormick, President smccormick@tnc.org
Dr. Deborah B. Jenson, VP, Con. Sci. Div. smccormick@tnc.org
Florida Chapter Board of Trustees -Atten: ballison@tnc.org
Florida Chapter News cmall@tnc.org
Robert Bendick, Jr., Director rbendick@tnc.org
Patricia T. Hardin, Stewardship Vice Chr Pat4fla@aol.com
Douglas T. Shaw, Ph. D., Biohydrologist dshaw@tnc.org
Walt Thomson, Asst. Dir. Stewardship wthomson@tnc.org
Jora Young, Science & Special Projects Dir. jyoung@tnc.org
The Partnership for a Sustainable Future, Inc.
Jim Egan, Co-Chair earthman2@juno.com
Barrier Island Preservation and Protection Association Inc.
Katherine Marin Ka_mart@hotmail.com
Conradina Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society
Kim Zarillo KearthwalkZ@aol.com
Friends of the Scrub
Margarett Broussard marbroussard@juno.com
Indian River Audubon Society
Ed Slaney slaney@digital.net
League of Women Voters of the Space Coast
Priscilla Griffith priscilla.p.griffith@att.net
Sea Turtle Preservation Society
Garry Hayes gheyes@aol.com
Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group
Amy Mosher abmosher@earthlink.net
Third Planet
Dr. David N. Benjamin, MNAL, President thirdgaia@thethirdplanet.org
Wetlands Alert, Inc.
Barbara Herrin, President bjerrin@yahoo.com
Media
ABC
John Thomas, Special Features
ABC 28
4045 N. Himes Ave.
Tampa, FL 33607 JThomas@wfts.com
Freelance Writers
Trish Riley TRiley9@aol.com
Donald Southerland donaldsutherland-iso14000@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
Naples Daily News
Cathy Zollo, Staff Writer crzollo@naplesnews.com
Orlando Sentinel
Robert Campbell, Staff Writer rcampbell@orlandosentinel.com
Debbie Salamone, Staff Writer dsalamone@orlandosentinel.com
Ramsey Sargent, Staff Writer rsargent@orlandosentinel.com
St. Petersburg Times
Julie Hauserman, Staff Writer
Florida Press Center, Suite, 105
Tallahassee, FL 32301 hauserman@sptimes.com
St. Petersburg Times
Craig Pittman, Staff Writer craig@sptimes.com
Jean Heller, Water Reporter heller@sptimes.com
P. O. Box 1121
St. Petersburg, FL 33731
Sun Sentinel
David Fleshler, Staff Writer dfleshler@sun-sentinel.com
Neil Santaniello, Staff Writer nsantaniello@sun-sentinel.com
Noaki Schwartz, Staff Writer NSchwartz@sun-sentinel.com
The Daytona Beach News Journal
Derek Catron, Staff Writer derek.catron@news-jrnl.com
Ivona Lerman, Environmental Writer ivona.lerman@news-jrnl.com
Dinah Pulver, Environmental Writer dinah.pulver@news-jrnl.com
911 Sixth St./P. O. Box 2831
Daytona Beach, FL 32120-2831
The Palm Beach Post
Thomas R. Collins, Staff Writer tcollins@pbpost.com
Bob King, Staff Writer bking@pbpost.com
Meghan Meyer, Staff Writer meghan_meyer@pbpost.com
Sally Swartz, Staff Writer sally_swartz@pbpost.com
P. O. Box 24700
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4700
The Tampa Tribune
Mike Salinero, Staff Reporter
336 E. College, Room 203
Tallahassee, FL 33301 msalinero@tampatrib.com
The Tampa Tribune
Lee Barnes, Senior Editor/News lbarnes@tampatrib.com
Larry Fletcher, Senior Editor/News lfletcher@tampatrib.com
Susan Green, Environmental Issues sgreen@tampatrib.com
Jan Hollingsworth, Environment jhollingsworth@tampatrib.com
Cheryl Schmidt, Sr Ed/Regional News cschmidt@tampatrib.com
Brad Smith, Growth bsmith@tampatrib.com
Gary Sprott, Legal Issues gsprott@tampatrib.com
Washington Post
Michael R. Grunwald grunwaldmr@washpost.com
Gov. Rick Scott is trying to respond ...
to the avalanche of criticism; saying he now supports "immediate disclosure" of such pollution events which ought to be common sense. After all, we have a tornado warning system and what's the difference between a vortex in the atmosphere and one in the earth?
Secrecy protects wealthy campaign contributors who are polluters. A Florida law prohibits citizens from taking photos of factory farms or Big Sugar's highly polluted irrigation canals. Gov. Scott continues to obstruct the disclosure of block-level census data for rare pediatric cancers, which could indicate exactly where cancer clusters are occurring in Florida (including in Miami-Dade).
Secrecy is baked into the fabric of the Florida GOP, and taxpayers suffer the consequences.
The Mosaic incident is particularly instructive. More than fifteen years ago, citizens pleaded with the Jeb Bush administration and the US Army Corps of Engineers to support a regional aquifer study before issuing blanket permits to phosphate miners like Mosaic. The prevalence of sinkholes in the region was already well established. Here is an excerpt from the civic pleading, dated November 2002, and reprinted in full below. The letter was written by Dr. Sydney Bacchus who was sued in 2005 by consultants to the rock mining industry for "lacking credentials" to make public comments against mining permits in Putnam County. Here is what Dr. Bacchus asked for, on behalf of her clients nearly fifteen years ago.
"A comprehensive regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis ... that analysis must include all of the cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system, including the surface water resources that are inextricably linked to the Floridan aquifer system."Dr. Bacchus eventually countersued, at significant emotional cost, for attacks against her by the regulated community. The comprehensive regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis she asked for in 2002 was never performed.
The real losers are the taxpayers and voters of Florida who don't get the full story, because secrecy is baked into the foundation of the Florida GOP.
The following from Progress Florida:
If we told you more than 200 million gallons of radioactive waste had leaked into the Floridan Aquifer – the main source of drinking water for most Florida residents – you’d think it was straight out of a sci-fi horror novel. But what if we added that Gov. Rick Scott’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) failed to notify the public for nearly three weeks? That would be downright sinister…but it’s exactly what happened.
Phosphate mining company Mosaic reported that a sinkhole opened beneath a pile of waste material at a mine in Polk County in central Florida, leaking the contaminated water into Florida’s main aquifer. Although Mosaic informed regulators including DEP about the incident on August 27th, the public was not informed until September 15th.Unfortunately this is what we’ve come to expect from Gov. Rick Scott’s DEP. Soon after taking the oath of office, Scott launched an unprecedented anti-environment agenda that has reshaped the institutions and laws intended to protect our wildlife, natural treasures, and precious water supplies. Just this summer, Gov. Scott’s DEP proposed allowing more carcinogens and toxic chemicals to be dumped into Florida waters by industrial polluters (it is being challenged in court).Simply put, Scott has transformed the DEP into a state agency that puts the interests of polluters ahead of people.The public outcry has been significant. Last week Congresswoman Gwen Graham demanded an investigation into DEP’s cover-up.Gov. Scott also has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to this incident. Media reports indicate that Gov. Scott owns stock in Mosaic1, the mining company responsible for jeopardizing the drinking water relied on by millions of Floridians. There must be a full investigation as to why government agencies including Gov. Scott’s DEP attempted to cover up this incident for weeks.The DEP should protect public health and the environment, not the wallets of big polluters. Sign on to our letter today.For clean water,Mark and the rest of the Progress Florida Team
November 27, 2002
Colonel James G. May, District Engineer James.G.May@saj02.usace.army.mil
Atten: Charles Schnepel, Team Leader Charles.A.Schnepel@saj02.usace.army.mil
U. S. Department of the Army
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
Tampa Regulatory Office
West Permits Branch
P. O. Box 19247
Tampa, FL 33686-9247
Fax: (813) 840-2123
Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor dave_hankla@fws.gov
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
North Florida Field Office
6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310
Jacksonville, FL 32216-0958
Fax: (904) 232-2404
Re: Proposed IMC Phosphates Company Ona Mine Project Draft EIS
Failure of Third Party Contractor to Respond
Request for Regional Public Hearings
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Request for a Comprehensive Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Dear Colonel May and Supervisor Hankla:
I am submitting this formal public comment letter in response to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) referenced above, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344). The initial Public Notice for the project referenced above was date-stamped "COT 29 2002", with comments accepted through December 2, 2002. My comments are submitted on behalf of the members of Floridians for Environmental Accountability and Reform, Inc. (FEAR), and Wetlands Alert, Inc. (Wetlands Alert), as well as on my behalf. All are interested and adversely affected parties. Please forward all responses regarding this letter to the individuals listed for those organizations, as well as to me, at the addresses provided below.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH
1. Before I provide comments on the proposed projects (referenced above), I am including the following brief synopsis of my scholastic and professional background, as support for the validity of my comments. 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, including the identification of wetlands in areas of dredge and fill violations.
2. 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 "restoration" projects. I then shifted from government regulatory work to return to the academic realm and 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, forest pathology, tree physiology, and ecology. That extensive multidisciplinary background was essential for both my doctoral and post-doctoral research problems, which included identifying anthropogenic (man-induced) groundwater alterations as a causal agent in the premature decline and death of trees, wetlands, and other significant and permanent adverse environmental impacts.
3. My research for the past 10 years has involved surfacewater/groundwater interactions and the ecological impacts of anthropogenic groundwater perturbations in the southeastern Coastal Plain. I have published more than 30 peer-reviewed papers (including contributing a book chapter regarding surfacewater/groundwater interactions affecting both water quality and quantity). I also have received several awards for my hydrologic contributions to communities, and have been invited to present papers at several International Hydrologic Conferences.
4. I 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. A "no mining" scenario was imposed for Trail Ridge, however, in part because of adverse impacts that would occur to Waters/wetlands of the United States in the Okefenokee Swamp if one of the primary recharge areas (Trail Ridge) was dredged. Note that it was recognized in that case that adverse impacts would occur beyond the boundaries of the property to be dredged. My Curriculum Vitae is provided as EXHIBIT 1 (forwarded as a hard copy), for more details regarding my background and related peer-reviewed publications.
Golder Associates, Inc.:
5. The Public Notice published by the COE (referenced above) stated that a copy of the draft EIS could "be obtained by contacting the third-party contractor", Golder Associates, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia. The contact person and e-mail address published for obtaining a copy of the draft EIS was Kathy Baumgaertner, kbaumgaertner@golder.com. Weeks ago I forwarded a message to the contact person, requesting a copy of the draft EIS. At the time this comment letter was prepared, the requested copy of the draft EIS still had not arrived.
6. The comments in this letter are based on excerpts from the web-based copy of the draft EIS; my experience with the adverse hydroecological impacts of phosphate and other mining throughout the extent of the regional Floridan aquifer system; my extensive research on the adverse hydroecological impacts of anthropogenic groundwater alterations throughout the regional Floridan aquifer system; and my past experience with Golder Associates, Inc.
7. The Atlanta-based Golder Associates, Inc. is the same consulting firm that was used for DuPont's proposed Trail Ridge mining operation that was to be located adjacent to the Okefenokee Swamp and National Wildlife Refuge, in south Georgia, the northeastern portion of the regional Floridan aquifer system. Golder Associates, Inc. failed to identify and address virtually any of the countless significant, irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would have occurred from the proposed DuPont Trail Ridge mining operation in south Georgia.
8. As a result of the inadequacies in the initial evaluations of adverse impacts that would have occurred if the proposed DuPont mine was permitted, a diverse group of stake-holders and scientists (including Ecologists) with relevant expertise from throughout Georgia and north Florida was organized to provide independent input during a series of public meetings run by an independent facilitator organization. As indicated above, the 'no mining' alternative was recommended by the diverse Review Panel (stake-holders and scientists) for the proposed DuPont mining project, due to the overwhelming irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed DuPont mining project would have had on surrounding (off-site) wetlands and uplands. Those off-site impacts included impacts to the Okefenokee Swamp and National Wildlife Refuge.
9. The irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the proposed DuPont mining operation were significantly less than the irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would occur from the proposed IMC Ona mining operation addressed by the draft EIS referenced above.
10. As was the case with DuPont's proposed mining project for Trail Ridge, in the northeastern portion of the regional Floridan aquifer system, the draft EIS by Golder Associates, Inc. failed to recognize and address any of the countless adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as irreversible (non-temporary). The few adverse impacts that Golder Associates, Inc. did address in the draft EIS (summarized in the Executive Summary, and basically confined to direct adverse impacts) erroneously were identified as "temporary" adverse impacts. None of the adverse impacts referenced in the draft EIS would be "temporary", as referenced in more detail below.
11. Unlike the independent Review Panel that was compiled for DuPont's proposed Trail Ridge mining project, the majority of Golder Associates' "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS were Engineers, rather than scientists with related expertise, and stake-holders from throughout the state (see pages 5-1 through 5-5 of the draft EIS). None of Golder Associates' "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS were Ecologists, or scientists with Ph. D. degrees in fields related to the adverse impacts that would result from the proposed Ona mine project. Likewise, there was no indication that any of the "preparers" and "reviewers" for the proposed Ona mine draft EIS have ever even published any peer-reviewed papers related to any of the myriad adverse impacts that would result from the proposed project. Consequently, it is not surprising that the draft EIS fails to address any of the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed Ona mine project.
12. A comprehensive review panel composed of scientists with expertise in relevant fields, in addition to representatives of all of the adversely-affected stake-holders must be established for the proposed Ona mine project, similar to the one established for the proposed DuPont Trail Ridge mining project, and funded by the applicant. Public Meetings, in conjunction with the Review Panel, must be held throughout the state to obtain sufficient input regarding all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Ona mine project. After the referenced Review Panel (with input from the Pubic Meetings) identifies and evaluates all of the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would have on surrounding (off-site) wetlands and uplands, then, a Public Notice should be advertised requesting Public Comments.
Examples of Factually-Unfounded and Inaccurate Statements in the Public Notice and Draft EIS:
13. The "Background" section of the Public Notice (date-stamped "COT 29 2002") states that the draft EIS was prepared "utilizing a third-party contractor." See the comments above, referencing examples of the factually unfounded and inaccurate statements made by the "third-party contractor".
14. The first paragraph of the "Summary" section of the same Public Notice describes the "preferred alternative as including mining of approximately 15,527 acres. The following two sentences of that paragraph state: "Temporary adverse impacts from site clearing in preparation for mining operations would result in the direct loss of approximately 8,000 acres of native habitat .......There would be a temporary adverse impact to 2,765 acres (56%) of the 4,901 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetland communities onsite. The preferred alternative would leave 2,136 acres undisturbed." That statement considers only the surface footprint of the proposed mining project, and ignores the subsurface footprint of the proposed project. In reality, the scientific literature supports the conclusions that none of the Ona site would remain undisturbed, due to the groundwater impacts associated with the proposed mining project. Furthermore, all of the wetlands on the proposed site are "Corps jurisdictional wetland communities", thus further increasing the loss of wetlands due to direct impacts.
15. The last paragraph of the "Summary" section of the same Public Notice states, "The DEIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences". It does NOT! The draft EIS describes only some of the direct adverse impacts that would occur if the proposed Ona Mine project was authorized, as currently proposed. For verification, refer to the definition, description and discussion of cumulative effects (aka cumulative impacts) included in EXHIBIT 2.
16. The un-numbered page of the draft EIS identifying the "Jacksonville District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers" as the "Lead Agency" and Charles A. Schnepel as the contact "for more information" included at least one factually-unfounded and inaccurate statement in the single paragraph on that page. The third sentence references the proposed mining of 15,527 acres of the Ona site, stating that "approximately 4,839 acres, or about 23 percent of the entire Ona site, would not be disturbed". That statement considers only the surface footprint of the proposed mining project, and ignores the subsurface footprint of the proposed project. In reality, the scientific literature supports the conclusions that none of the Ona site would remain undisturbed, due to the groundwater impacts associated with the proposed mining project.
17. A comprehensive regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis must be conducted. That analysis must include all of the cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system, including the surface water resources that are inextricably linked to the Floridan aquifer system. Refer to my previous comment letters to the COE (included as EXHIBIT 3a-g), that provide examples of only the cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system that are associated with recent mining applications authorized by the COE. All of those letters and Exhibits are incorporated by reference into this letter. Examples of other types of cumulative impacts to the regional Floridan aquifer system that are permitted by the COE are Nationwide Permits (NWP's). See the letter dated "COT 9 2001" from EPA (G. Tracy Mehan, III) to the COE (Dominic Izzo) for a description of types of NWP activities and related concerns (EXHIBIT 4).
18. The Executive Summary includes numerous factually-unfounded and inaccurate statements. For example, although page ES-2 accurately notes that mining phosphate rock is depleting a "non-renewable resource" (which should be a critical consideration for the public interest test), page ES-2 further states, "Since there is no substitute for phosphate, and because of the important role of phosphate-based fertilizers in sustaining high levels of agricultural production, phosphate mining and processing will continue to be a necessary and important industry." Excrement, such as chicken and swine manure is sufficiently high in phosphorus to be (and is) an economically-viable fertilizer substitute for mined phosphate rock. Converting manure into fertilizer has the additional economic benefits of being "renewable" and converting the manure from a 'waste' product causing environmental harm, to a by-product with benefits. Please refer to my enclosed phosphate-mining comment letter dated July 16, 2002 (included as EXHIBIT 3f), and Exhibits 5 through 7 of that letter for a more detailed discussion and citations of alternatives to mining, as well as the large-scale problems (adverse impacts) associated with the mined phosphate product.
19. Page ES-2 also states, "Mining the Ona site would also maintain or increase the number of jobs and the amount of taxes provided to the region (IMC, 2002)." That statement ignores all of the jobs and income lost, and increased tax burdens at the local, state, and federal levels, due to the myriad irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would result in on a regional scale.
20. Page ES-3 states that "there is a need to mine the Ona site........to maintain or increase economic benefits to the region......." Refer to my comments in the preceding paragraph. Until a comprehensive, regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis are completed, there is no factual basis for the assumption that there is a "need to mine the Ona site", or that the proposed mining would "maintain or increase economic benefits to the region."
21. The "Major Findings and Conclusions - A. Beneficial Impacts" section on page ES-3 includes similar unfounded statements regarding economic "benefits". That same section also references "four conservation easements". Refer to previous paragraphs regarding irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that the proposed Ona mine project would result in on a regional scale. The designation of "conservation easements" will not prevent the destruction of those areas due to all of the adverse impacts associated with the proposed project.
22. Section "B. Adverse Impacts" (page ES-3) states that clearing "would result in the direct loss of approximately 8,000 acres of native habitat", but that this "loss is not considered permanent". Similar claims were made for other, related mining operations permitted by the COE within the extent of the regional Floridan aquifer system. Based on my personal inspections of each operation associated with the Floridan aquifer system that reportedly "re-created" "native habitat" (including forested wetlands and uplands), the habitat - which includes the assemblage of characteristic animals and plants - had not become re-established, and showed no signs it was capable of being "re-created". In fact, as only one example, the irreversible alterations to the natural hydroperiod on-site and off-site result in the establishment and proliferation of alien and nuisance species in areas proposed for "re-creation", as well as in areas designated for "conservation", 'preservation", and "mitigation". The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientific Advisory Board ranked "hydrologic alterations" as the highest risk category of Environmental Stressors. EXHIBIT 5 shows the environmental stressors considered and ranked by the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, in addition to annotations of which other stressors can be introduced by anthropogenic groundwater alterations. Please refer to my enclosed phosphate-mining comment letter dated July 16, 2002 (included as EXHIBIT 3f), and Exhibits 8 through 10 of that letter for a more detailed discussion and citations of the large-scale alterations of groundwater and hydroperiod (adverse impacts) associated with the phosphate mining.
23. Page ES-4 states that there would be a "temporary adverse impact with 2,764.7 acres (56.4 percent) of the 4,901.0 acres of USACE jurisdictional wetland communities impacted". That statement is without factual basis. Refer to my preceding comments and the Exhibits. All 4,901 acres of the COE's so-called "jurisdictional wetlands" on the proposed Ona mine site, in addition to all of the wetlands not considered to be "jurisdictional" wetlands in the draft EIS will be irreversibly harmed (lost), rather than "temporarily" impacted (as suggested in the draft EIS). The same is true for all other claims of "temporary", "short-term", and "minor" impacts in the ES section.
24. Claims throughout the draft EIS (e.g., page ES-4) that mobile wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species would relocate to undisturbed areas, and that no federally-listed species would be affected by the proposed project are ludicrous. Refer to my previous comments and Exhibits. The proposed project would result in large-scale, irreversible (non-temporary) adverse impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to critical habitat for federally-listed species (e.g., wood storks, eastern indigo snakes, and Florida manatees). Those impacts represent harm to those listed species and constitute incidental "takes" for those species. Those impacts also prevent the recovery of those federally-listed species.
25. The preceding paragraphs represent only a few examples of the factually-unfounded and inaccurate statements in the Public Notice and Draft EIS that preclude meaningful comments from the general public and staff of other agencies. After, or in conjunction with the regional, comprehensive Cumulative Impacts Analysis referenced above, a comprehensive regional Economic Impact Analysis must be completed to identify the costs of all of the adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Only then can meaningful comments be obtained from the general public and staff of other agencies.
Not a Water-Dependent Activity/Public Interest Analysis:
26. The mining of phosphate and the production of fertilizers are not water-dependent activities. Therefore, alternatives that do not result in losses of Waters of the United States are presumed to be available, and the public interest tests are more stringent than for water-dependent activities. No information was provided in the referenced Public Notices regarding a comprehensive public interest analysis for any of the alternatives described in the draft EIS. The draft EIS failed to address alternatives for producing "fertilizers" by mining phosphate (e.g., fertilizers from animal excrement). The draft EIS also failed to provide a comprehensive analysis - including an economic impact analysis - of any alternatives.
Summary:
27. The proposed project would result in irreversible (non-temporary) adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to wetlands, upland habitat and the regional Floridan aquifer system extending for miles from the surface footprint of the proposed mining activities and site of the proposed mine. Those irreversible adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would occur on State Parks, other public lands, Outstanding Florida Waters, Aquatic Preserves, and other critical natural resources, including critical habitat for at federally-listed species such as wood storks, eastern indigo snakes, and Florida manatees.
28. Additionally, the magnitude and extent of the indirect and cumulative impacts have not been determined, but would result in permanent, irreversible adverse impacts to critical habitat for at least 5 federally-listed species of animals (e.g., Florida scrub jays, bald eagles, wood storks, Florida manatee, alligators), which would result in a "taking" of those species, and prevent their recovery.
29. Despite this magnitude of adverse impacts, the COE has not conducted a Regional EIS, a Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis, or a Regional Economic Impact Analysis. Meaningful comments cannot be obtained from the general public and staff of other agencies until those tasks have been completed.
30. In closing, the proposed project is not denied with prejudice, the referenced Public Notice needs to be re-advertised, with the additional information, revisions, and corrections described above, so that the public and other agency staff will have the critical information needed to provide comments regarding the proposed project. Regional Public Hearings, a Comprehensive Regional EIS, and a Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis are essential to assimilate the information required determining the full magnitude and extent of the adverse impacts that would occur if the proposed projects were permitted and constructed. It is essential for the public comment period - including Consultations with other agencies, and comments from other agencies - remain open until after the requested Regional Public Hearings, Regional EIS, Regional Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Regional Economic Impact Analysis have been completed.
31. For your convenience, I am forwarding a printed copy of my electronic letter with the referenced Exhibits as enclosures via Express Mail. The list of Exhibits referenced in this comment letter is provided in EXHIBIT 6, which also will be forwarded by standard mail.
32. By copy of this letter I am requesting that actual notice regarding any action the COE determines it will take regarding the referenced draft EIS and proposed project be forwarded to me, as well as to each of the individuals for the organizations referenced in the initial paragraph of this letter, above, at the addresses provided below.
Sincerely,
Sydney T. Bacchus, Ph. D.
Hydroecologist
appliedenvirserv@mindspring.com
Enclosures:
See: EXHIBIT 6 for complete list of Enclosures
cc: Federal Organizations
U. S. Corps of Engineers
John R. Hall, Chief, Regulatory Div. John.R.Hall@saj02.usace.army.mil
U. S. Department of the Interior
Gale Norton, Secretary gale_norton@ios.doi.gov
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Beverly Banister banister.beverly@epa.gov
Veronica Fasselt fasselt.veronica@epa.gov
Haynes Johnson Johnson.Haynes@epa.gov
Shawn Komlos komlos.shawn@epa.gov
A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Reg, Adm. banister.beverly@epa.gov
Ron Miedema miedema.ron@epa.gov
Ronald Mikulak mikulak.ronald@epa.gov
Tom Welborn welborn.tom@epa.gov
Christine Todd Whitman, Secretary whitman.christine@epa.gov
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sam Hamilton, Regional Director sam_hamilton@fws.gov
Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor dave_hankla@fws.gov
Don Palmer, Wildlife Biologist don_palmer@fws.gov
Jay Slack, Field Supervisor jay_slack@fws.gov
Federal Elected Officials/Staff
Senator Lincoln Chaffee Atten: Christy Plummer
Senator Tom Daschle Atten: Peter Hanson
Senator Bob Graham Atten: Pat Grise and Kasey Gillette
Senator John Kerry Atten: George Abar
Senator Patty Murray Atten: Rick Desimone
Senator Bill Nelson Atten: M. Bridget Walsh
Congressman Peter Deutsch Atten: Fritz Hirst
Congressman John Mica Atten: John Gaboton
Congressman Frank Pallone Atten: Heather Zickel
Congressman Clay Shaw Atten: Bob Castro
Congressman Robert Wexler Atten: Jonathon Katz
Jo-Ellen Darcy Democrat Majority Staff Member
Michele Nellenbach Minority Senate Committee Staff for Coastal Areas
State Elected Officials
Representative Suzanne Kosmas Florida State Representative
Senator Locke Burt Florida State Senator
Other Organizations
Clean Water, Inc.
Linda Young, President llyoung@igc.apc.org
Corridor 44
Pamela Winchester, President pjwinch@cfl.rr.com
Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Programs
Laurie Macdonald, Director lmacdonald@defenders.org
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
David Guest, Esquire, Florida Director dguest@earthjustice.org
J. Todd Hutchinson, Esquire, Staff Attorney thutchins@earthjustice.org
Aliki Moncrief, Esquire, Project Attorney amoncrief@earthjustice.org
Environmental Council of Volusia and Flagler Counties
Gwen Straub, Vice President gwens1@juno.com
Environmental Defense
Fred Krupp fkrupp@environmentaldefense.org
Flagler Beach Environmental Preservation Council, Inc.
Robert C. Mish, Director RDMish@msn.com
Florida League of Conservation Voters
Susie Caplowe SusieCaplowe@cs.com
Florida League of Woman Voters, Volusia Co.
Rosemarie Gore, Natural Resources Chair gorers@ucnsb.net
Ann Smith, President ahsmith5@att.net
Florida Wildlife Federation
Manley Fuller, III wildfed@aol.com
Floridians for Environmental Accountability and Reform
Steven Bell, Director, Everglades Basin Ch. steven195545@cs.com
Kathy Cantwell, Director, Suwanee River Regional Ch. Kacmd@aol.com
Clay Colson, Director, Nature Coast Regional Ch. Lincoln1960@cs.com
Gail Duggins, Director, Flagler Regional Ch. coryi62@msn.com
Richard Sommerville, Accountability Liaison RichSommerville@aol.com
Gordon Williamson, Director, St. Johns River Regional Ch. remoob22001@yahoo.com
Informed Volusian
Tom Visconti, Founder InformedVolusian@aol.com
League of Conservation Voters Denise_ryan@lcv.org
Deb Callahan deb_callahan@lcv.org
Legal Environmental Assisstance Foundation
Robert J. Martin, President rmartin@leaflaw.org
National Resources Defense Council
Erik Olson eolson@nrdc.org
Greg Wetstone gwetstone@nrdc.org
Nova Southeastern University
Dr. Brian Blackwelder blackwelderb@nsu.law.nova.edu
Richard Grosso, Esq. grossor@nsu.law.nova.edu
Save Our Springs
Terri Wolfe, President sos@3oaks.com
Save the Manatee Club
Patti Thompson pthompson@savethemanatee.org
Sierra Club, Florida Chapter
Alan Farago, Sprawl Co-Chair AFarago@ix.netcom.com
John S. Glenn, Wetlands and Waters Ch. glenjohn@email.msn.com
Frank Jackalone, Sr. Reg. Field Rep. frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org
Barbara Lange barbaralange@earthlink.net
Jonathan Ullman jonathan.ullman@sierraclub.org
State Historic Preservation
Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director jmatthews@mail.dos.state.fl.us
Surfrider Foundation
Tom Warnke, District Director twarnke@telocity.com
The Nature Conservancy
Steve McCormick, President smccormick@tnc.org
Dr. Deborah B. Jenson, VP, Con. Sci. Div. smccormick@tnc.org
Florida Chapter Board of Trustees -Atten: ballison@tnc.org
Florida Chapter News cmall@tnc.org
Robert Bendick, Jr., Director rbendick@tnc.org
Patricia T. Hardin, Stewardship Vice Chr Pat4fla@aol.com
Douglas T. Shaw, Ph. D., Biohydrologist dshaw@tnc.org
Walt Thomson, Asst. Dir. Stewardship wthomson@tnc.org
Jora Young, Science & Special Projects Dir. jyoung@tnc.org
The Partnership for a Sustainable Future, Inc.
Jim Egan, Co-Chair earthman2@juno.com
Barrier Island Preservation and Protection Association Inc.
Katherine Marin Ka_mart@hotmail.com
Conradina Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society
Kim Zarillo KearthwalkZ@aol.com
Friends of the Scrub
Margarett Broussard marbroussard@juno.com
Indian River Audubon Society
Ed Slaney slaney@digital.net
League of Women Voters of the Space Coast
Priscilla Griffith priscilla.p.griffith@att.net
Sea Turtle Preservation Society
Garry Hayes gheyes@aol.com
Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group
Amy Mosher abmosher@earthlink.net
Third Planet
Dr. David N. Benjamin, MNAL, President thirdgaia@thethirdplanet.org
Wetlands Alert, Inc.
Barbara Herrin, President bjerrin@yahoo.com
Media
ABC
John Thomas, Special Features
ABC 28
4045 N. Himes Ave.
Tampa, FL 33607 JThomas@wfts.com
Freelance Writers
Trish Riley TRiley9@aol.com
Donald Southerland donaldsutherland-iso14000@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
Naples Daily News
Cathy Zollo, Staff Writer crzollo@naplesnews.com
Orlando Sentinel
Robert Campbell, Staff Writer rcampbell@orlandosentinel.com
Debbie Salamone, Staff Writer dsalamone@orlandosentinel.com
Ramsey Sargent, Staff Writer rsargent@orlandosentinel.com
St. Petersburg Times
Julie Hauserman, Staff Writer
Florida Press Center, Suite, 105
Tallahassee, FL 32301 hauserman@sptimes.com
St. Petersburg Times
Craig Pittman, Staff Writer craig@sptimes.com
Jean Heller, Water Reporter heller@sptimes.com
P. O. Box 1121
St. Petersburg, FL 33731
Sun Sentinel
David Fleshler, Staff Writer dfleshler@sun-sentinel.com
Neil Santaniello, Staff Writer nsantaniello@sun-sentinel.com
Noaki Schwartz, Staff Writer NSchwartz@sun-sentinel.com
The Daytona Beach News Journal
Derek Catron, Staff Writer derek.catron@news-jrnl.com
Ivona Lerman, Environmental Writer ivona.lerman@news-jrnl.com
Dinah Pulver, Environmental Writer dinah.pulver@news-jrnl.com
911 Sixth St./P. O. Box 2831
Daytona Beach, FL 32120-2831
The Palm Beach Post
Thomas R. Collins, Staff Writer tcollins@pbpost.com
Bob King, Staff Writer bking@pbpost.com
Meghan Meyer, Staff Writer meghan_meyer@pbpost.com
Sally Swartz, Staff Writer sally_swartz@pbpost.com
P. O. Box 24700
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4700
The Tampa Tribune
Mike Salinero, Staff Reporter
336 E. College, Room 203
Tallahassee, FL 33301 msalinero@tampatrib.com
The Tampa Tribune
Lee Barnes, Senior Editor/News lbarnes@tampatrib.com
Larry Fletcher, Senior Editor/News lfletcher@tampatrib.com
Susan Green, Environmental Issues sgreen@tampatrib.com
Jan Hollingsworth, Environment jhollingsworth@tampatrib.com
Cheryl Schmidt, Sr Ed/Regional News cschmidt@tampatrib.com
Brad Smith, Growth bsmith@tampatrib.com
Gary Sprott, Legal Issues gsprott@tampatrib.com
Washington Post
Michael R. Grunwald grunwaldmr@washpost.com
3 comments:
We are all going die from the toxic water. . .
Simply put, Scott has transformed the DEP into a state agency that puts the interests of polluters ahead of people.
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Prostitution
Sadly I don't think Scott is the only one...
the polluters give money to the Politicians and others to be quiet, etc.
But we need to keep fighting back to do whatever we can to keep our waters clean.
We need to share this information with others.
Post a Comment