.
CONSERVATION ARCHIVE
May 28, 1999
Mr. William Porter U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville,
FL 32232-0019
Re:
Comments of the Sierra Club on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Rock Mining —
Freshwater Lake Belt Plan.
The National Sierra
Club, the Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and the Sierra Club, Miami
Group (collectively referred to herein as "Sierra Club"), submit these
comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Rock Mining - Freshwater Lake Belt Plan.
INTRODUCTION
The ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem is a national
environmental issue of the highest significance for Sierra Club, the
oldest environmental group in the United States. For 500,000 members
of Sierra Club, restoration of this unique wetlands system is a litmus
test of the government's capacity to protect the public interest.
Protection and restoration of the Everglades is also a very high priority
of the Administration and has enjoyed long-term bipartisan support
in Congress. Federal and state agencies recognize the unique opportunity
presented by Everglades restoration: to coordinate resources and energy
in order to protect the public interest in wetland systems of irreplaceable
economic and social value.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Rock Mining - Freshwater Lake Belt Plan ("DPEIS"),
dated February 1999, has become the single most expensive element
in the Corps' Restudy. At well over $1 billion dollars, it consumes
about 15% of the total Restudy budget. Yet there has been minimal
coordination of the analysis of this DPEIS with methods used in the
Restudy. Moreover, the Restudy has been constrained by the problem
of trying to deal with what proves to be an incredibly vague plan
as presented in this DPEIS.
The members of Sierra Club strongly oppose the current proposed
action, and we outline below a significant number of shortcomings,
inadequacies and flaws in the DPEIS. Sierra Club contends that
this DPEIS, for the reasons stated herein, fails to comply with the
minimum requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other federal statutes and regulations.
The Sierra Club requests that this DPEIS be substantially revised
to address these inadequacies, and reissued in draft form for further
public review and comment.
OVERVIEW OF THE DPEIS
The Sierra Club has fundamental objections to the apparent lack of
objectivity evidenced in the DPEIS. From the outset, Sierra Club objects
to the euphemism of a so-called "Lake Belt Plan," when what is actually
being evaluated is an immense system of quarry pits. Studies included
in the DPEIS make it clear that there are no naturally occurring lakes
anywhere in the state of Florida that even remotely resemble anything
like these pits. See, e.g., page D-39 of the DPEIS: "Of the 3,191
named, natural Florida lakes, 88.6% are less than 200 acres, 8.2%
area between 200 and 1000 acres, and 3.2% are greater than 1000 acres
... Many of the existing rock-mined lakes are 200 to 300 acres in
size, with the largest lake approximately 580 acres. . . . Most of
the lakes proposed in the South Florida Limestone Mining Coalition
(SFLMC) Lake Belt Plan are greater than 1000 acres. " Therefore, we
will hereinafter refer to the plan as the "quarry pit plan" to avoid
even the suggestion that such pits are similar to any natural lake
in the state of Florida.
Sierra Club recommends that on page 70, section 6.11, the last sentence
should delete reference to "natural lakes." The sentence should read:
"The human perspective will be of square or rectangular sided open
water quarry pits that abruptly transition into forest or marsh."
Sierra Club submits that there is nothing "natural" about rectangular,
60' deep quarry pits filled with groundwater.
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The DPEIS identifies the basis for the need for the proposed action
as Florida legislation (Chapter 373.4149 (4), Florida Statutes), which
established a committee to develop a plan to, among others, "maximize
efficient recovery of limestone while promoting the social and economic
welfare of the community and protecting the environment." (DPEIS,
p. 2).
The Army Corps of Engineers is obligated by its Central and Southern
Florida Review Study -- under federal law, and in compliance with
the State of Florida's Governors Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida -- to ensure the protection, restoration and enhancement of
the natural environment of the Everglades and southern Florida. The
DPEIS makes it abundantly clear that these obligations are being severely
compromised to meet the need to maximize efficient recovery of limestone
in this DPEIS, and to accommodate the economic interests of the rock
mining industry in South Florida.
A significant number of well developed alternatives that were presented
for evaluation, including detailed plans for habitat enhancements
on-site, which would have benefited Everglades restoration without
significantly effecting maximum efficiency of limestone recovery,
were totally ignored. Instead, the DPEIS presents the public with
a plan that not only focuses entirely on maximizing limestone recovery,
but compromises the equally important goal of the Florida Statute
of "protecting the environment." Moreover, at best this DPEIS merely
promises future mitigation that may protect or benefit the environment.
The remainder of the attention of this DPEIS attempts to rationalize,
minimize or explain away enormous ecological problems generated by
adopting a plan to maximize limestone recovery.
Examples of significant environmental consequences of this plan that
the Corps attempts to "sweep under the rug" include, but are not limited
to: increases in seepage which threatens the ecological integrity
of the east Everglades as well as the proposed mitigation area; threats
to water quality in the project area; and uncertainties about the
county's Northwest Wellfield water supply designation. The need for
the proposed action has resulted in the requirement for the restudy
to design over $1 billion dollars in operational and structural features
to deal with the environmental consequences and uncertainties that
the proposed action recommends.
There has been no alternative suggested or designed that has been
acceptable to the rock mining industry, because all alternatives have
required some degree of compromise on designs to maximize recovery
of limestone. Sierra Club believes that it was not the intention or
the wording of the Florida Statute to prioritize limestone recovery,
and postpone evaluation and mitigation of damage to the environment
to a later date. The Sierra Club believes that most of the Florida
Statute's identified objectives have been ignored by this DPEIS for
the sake of maximizing recovery of limestone, and
therefore violates not only the spirit and intent, but the mandate
of the state legislation as well.
AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
EIS Analysis
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should serve as a comprehensive planning document, and contain an objective analysis of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of a wide range of possible alternatives for protection and compatible use of the Nation's natural resources. The EIS should present unbiased information for use by decision makers and the public as a basis for determining whether a proposed alternative or action is appropriate with regard to environmental and other public interests, and when compared to other reasonable alternative courses of action. Therefore, it must include a thorough analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and, based on a complete and objective review of the comparative costs and benefits of each alternative, it should justify a well-documented preferred alternative.
This DPEIS unreasonably postpones much of the needed analysis to a future "Phase II Master Plan" for the proposed rock-mined quarries. The DPEIS frequently references work to be done in the future, including well field protection studies, evaluation of habitat value of completed rock-quarries, mitigation planning, cultural and archeological surveys, and supplemental hydrologic modeling. Unencumbered by sufficient facts, reasoned analysis, or objective consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, the DPEIS nevertheless identifies -- indeed, it unabashedly touts -- a preferred action that happens to be the only alternative supported by and acceptable to South Florida's rock mining industry.
An EIS cannot justify an alternative without a specific plan. As we have observed from our reading of this DPEIS, there is no explicit plan, only suggestions of future planning. The studies referred to in the DPEIS as future studies and the Phase II Master Plan must be completed before an EIS can evaluate the alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative. This constitutes our primary basis for insisting on a revised and substantially updated DPEIS and further public review, before this document can be relied on to support future rock-mining permits in the project area.
NEPA Alternatives Analysis
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider alternatives to their proposed actions, including their social and environmental impacts. The alternatives analysis is designed to evaluate whether they can carry out their proposed action in a less environmentally damaging manner and whether alternative exist that make the action unnecessary. Indeed, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which are binding of the Corps, describe the alternatives requirement as the "heart" of the the EIS. 40 C.F.R. Section 1502.14. Similarly, courts have called the alternatives requirement the "linchpin" of the EIS. See, e.g., Monroe County Conservation Council v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1972).
As an initial matter, alternative actions and a no action alternative must be clearly presented in the text of an EIS. Instead, this DPEIS simply relegates the "Issue Advisory Team's" evaluation of alternatives to Appendix F. Once the Issue Advisory team had chosen a preferred plan, no further discussion or evaluation of impacts from a reasonable range of alternative plans were addressed. This DPEIS fails to make a full disclosure of the benefits and consequences of a reasonable range of alternative plans and, as stated previously, postpones evaluation of essential elements of the preferred alternative to a later date.
The alternative plans that were discussed in the DPEIS are wholly inadequate, and appear to be chosen simply to justify the proposed alternative. For example, the "No Action Alternative," which should have been the curtailment of future mining, was defined instead as allowing mining to proceed in a case-by-case manner with no comprehensive review at all, i.e., the status quo. See, DPEIS, at p.56. The description of this alternative suggests that existing regulatory permitting and mitigation requirements are not currently being appropriately implemented, because it ignores the fact that NEPA and the CWA already require a comprehensive review of all wetland permits, including secondary and cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably forseeable future projects. Thus, the "No Action Alternative" selected by the Corps boils down to "continue to issue permits without appropriate comprehensive review under existing laws and regulations." Clearly, the no action alternative contemplated by NEPA and implementing regulations is "not allow the regulated activity," and not, and the Corps seems to suggest, to continue to allow the activity without appropriate application and enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
The next alternative considered, "curtail Future mining," contemplates denial of all future mining permits. Id. This alternative is rejected out-of-hand for the following reasons:
1) already-permitted mining reserves would be depleted in about 15 years, and then stone products would have to be brought in from somewhere else;
2) domestic rock would become more expensive, and more "foreign rock" will have to be imported; and
3) it would take time to increase foreign rock imports to equal demands. For these reasons, this alternative would not even be "carried forward for further evaluation." Id. Nowhere does the Corps explain why the current 15-year supply of rock is inadequate to allow time to explore other sources of rock that don't involve destroying wetlands, or why an alternative that simply cost more or requires a different source of rock automatically renders that alternative unworthy of being further evaluated.
The Corps rejected these two alternatives, simply concluding that they "[do] not meet the objectives of this study and will not be carried forward for further evaluation. " Id. But the objectives of this study include describing and assessing "alternatives to the continuation of limestone mining in south Florida wetlands." See, DPEIS Objectives, section 2.1b., at p. 3. Hence, the DPEIS concludes, the only alternative worthy of further evaluation is the mining of 15,000 acres of wetlands, referred to as the "Miners Recommended Plan." Id. All or nothing, and nothing in between.
Thus, this DPEIS reduces NEPA's alternatives analysis requirement -- the "heart of the EIS" -- to an evaluation of only one proposed course of action, the Miners Recommended Plan. Apparently, the Corps is either unable or unwilling to imagine any other conceivable alternative worthy of further evaluation.
An appropriate range of reasonable alternatives should include, at a minimum, the following:
• No Action Alternative: Denial of all future permits and all permit renewals, obtain rock from an alternate source not involving wetlands;
• Denial of all future permits, but case-by-case renewal of existing permits, which would allow for up to a 15-year supply of rock from an existing 5,000 acres of already-permitted mines, and an investigation of alternate sources of rock;
• Evaluate a minimal-intermediate level of mining; * Evaluate a moderate-intermediate level of mining;
• Evaluate the "Miners Recommended Plan," or the maximum level of mining.
Because the DPEIS fails to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by NEPA, and also fails to reasonably consider any other practicable alternative to limestone mining in the Quarry pits region, this PEIS is fundamentally and fatally flawed, and must be substantially revised. When a reasonable NEPA alternatives analysis is completed, there is a high likelihood that a reduced mining footprint will be shown to be the supportable alternative. Moreover, although Appendix G discusses the effect of mining on the local economy, the document does not adequately demonstrate that other practicable sources of stone for construction do not exist, especially for rock that is shipped out of the region.
ESA Analysis
The DPEIS does not meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act because impacts of the proposed actions on the federally listed Wood Stork, which was commonly observed in and near the study area, were inadequately considered in the evaluation. Sierra Club contends that consultations regarding NEPA and ESA did not include sufficient information to permit final determinations by the appropriate state and federal resource agencies.
The DPEIS includes a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that the DPEIS erroneously suggests meets the requirements for consultation (Annex A). The Fish and Wildlife Service letter is inaccurate in that the presence of the federally listed Wood Stork in the quarry pit region was overlooked. The impacts of the quarry pit plan on foraging habitat of numerous Wood Storks identified in the area must be evaluated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
Moreover, the FWS also requested a significant amount of additional information in their letter. The FWS letter states that: "The FWS will review the Draft EIS and provide more specific recommendations under FWCA. We will need more specific information on: 1) Off-site wetland mitigation for the Pennsuco Marsh; 2) On-site mitigation plan." Such a cursory letter can not be contstrued to meet the requirements of a full and final consultation contemplated by the ESA, as stated in the DPEIS on page 89.
The study also ignores the impacts of the proposed plan on migratory birds pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Analysis Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the action or permit cannot be approved (in this context, permitting new mining or renewing existing mining permits) if there are other viable alternatives which will result in less environmental impacts to aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, because rock-mining is not water dependent, other practicable alternatives that do not involve filling in wetlands are presumed to exist, and are also presumed to have less adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems. See, 40 C.F.R. Û 230.10. These requirements have not been thoroughly discussed or evaluated, much less demonstrated, in the DPEIS. Therefore, absent a comparison with other potential practicable alternatives, the preferred alternative cannot be adequately assessed.
The DPEIS also includes a Programmatic Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation as Annex B. This so-called "evaluation" is, at best, superficial, cursory, incomplete and wholly inadequate to evaluate the proposed impacts of this proposed project. Not only does it contain no "evaluation" whatsoever, but it simply consists of unsupported conclusory statements that are often contradicted by the discussion contained in the body of the PEIS. By way of example, but not limitation, in discussing the anticipated secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, the body of the PEIS contains the following statements:
"The analysis conducted for the DPEIS has resulted in a determination that significant negative impacts would occur to the environment as a result of the proposed action. Build-out of the proposed Lakebelt plan is expected to cause negative impacts to native vegetation, wildlife, land use, and regional water supply." PEIS, section 6.61, p.71.
"In considering the proposed action, the geographic boundary of the area of impact ranges from the boundaries of the project area as in the review of land cover impacts to the entire southern Everglades region as in the review of water quality impacts due to increased seepage out of WCA-3B." Id., at p. 72.
"Past actions within the established geographic boundaries for resource evaluation have resulted in impacts to the environment. . . . Water management and land development activities have significantly altered the the region of the proposed action (the Everglades ecosystem) for the past 100 years. These activities have resulted in a well-documented general decline in water quality, wildlife resources, and ecological integrity." Id.
"Reasonably foreseeable actions related to the proposed Lakebelt plan would include the continued westward urban expansion of Miami." Id.
Incredibly, the "Factual Determination" section of the so-called "Programmatic Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation" that is supposed to determine, address, evaluate and disclose the cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem resulting from this proposal to convert over 15,000 acres of wetlands to open pits, simply and unabashedly dismisses all of these impacts in one conclusory sentence:
"There will be no cumulative impacts that result in a major impairment of water quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem as a result of placement of fill at the project site." PEIS, Annex B, p. 4. This is the sole and entire discussion of the anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed project that is contained in the 404(b)(1) evaluation.
Moreover, Sierra Club believes there are gross inaccuracies in the conclusions drawn by this "evaluation," and is not at all certain that these inaccuracies were not due to a lack of full disclosure of all pertinent information necessary for the proper determination. The document overlooks significant impacts to a wide range of benthic animals including apple snails, crayfish, dragonfly larvae, etc., when it states: "No benthic organisms are within the fill areas." (Annex B, p. 2). The document is also inaccurate in stating that there will be no long-term or significant impacts to primary productivity and photosynthesis, suspension/filter feeders, or sight feeders. Id., at p. 3.
The presence of the federally-endangered Wood Stork and a wide range of benthic organisms, suspension feeders, sight feeders, well-developed periphyton and other wetland plant primary productivity were all documented in the studies of vegetation and wildlife (App. C and D). The rock mining of over 20,000 acres of wetlands with such characteristics should have required distinctly different responses from the government agencies responsible for consultation under NEPA, CWA and ESA. The Section 404 "evaluation" states that: "The lakes and associated littoral zones will replace some of the functions and values lost by conversion of these wetlands." Because the actual design of littoral zones and the productivity of the lakes were not available for determination, it is difficult for Sierra Club to accept this determination as thorough, objective and comprehensive.
This so-called "Programmatic Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation" is, in actuality, a farce, virtually nothing more than a baseless, conclusory collection of unsupported statements to the effect that there will be absolutely no possible or conceivable adverse or negative impacts from this proposed project. There is, in fact, not one single negative statement in this entire "evaluation." To suggest that this document constitutes an objective analysis of the potential environmental effects of destroying 15,000+ acres of wetlands -- in an area that has already lost, or is scheduled to lose, over 5,000 acres of wetlands to previously permitted mining activities -- and that it fully and fairly evaluates all secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, is absurd.
Mitigation
The Sierra Club believes that the "mine now, mitigate later" (page 88) proposal is not in keeping with the standard method of mitigation. Mitigation normally must be well conceived, explicitly stated and carried out before or simultaneous with wetland destruction in order for mitigation credit to be applied to a project. The mitigation plans discussed in the DPEIS addresses only the development and calculation of a mitigation ratio. Actual mitigation areas, methods and designs are not included in the DPEIS. This is unacceptable and not in keeping with the requirements for an EIS (see, e.g., 43 FR 55994). The mitigation plan is largely postponed to the Phase II Master Plan. Sierra Club recommends that a detailed, comprehensive and specific mitigation plan for both on-site and off-site mitigation elements be prepared prior to the Phase II Master plan, as part of this DPEIS.
Wetland Mitigation
In the habitat evaluation process, existing cover types were evaluated in comparison to a reference wetland "Prairie" that was assigned a value of 1.0. The quarry pits and littoral zones were compared to a sub-tropical lake and littoral zone. There are only a few naturally occurring lakes in southern Florida. One of these is the second largest lake in the lower 48 states, Lake Okeechobee; another is Lake Trafford (Appendix D). However, the team of professional biologists made their estimates of comparative values without a specific reference source. This procedure is unacceptable. Moreover, both of the natural lakes mentioned above have extremely large littoral zones as a percentage of lake area, and both lakes are extremely shallow.
Sierra Club finds it impossible to understand how the functional indexes for quarry pits were scientifically derived based upon a theoretical comparison of this nature. Moreover, the number of professional scientists that actually filled out the matrix for functional indexes may have varied by cover type. For this reason the sample sizes on which the FI values were based should have been included. The simplistic procedure of replacing wetland FI's based upon a known reference with theoretical quarry pit/lake FI's is unacceptable. The Sierra Club recommends that existing scientific methods for evaluating the actual wetland functions of existing quarry pits need to be employed, and the results compared to existing cover types and data from existing natural lakes before the degree to which quarry pits can replace the functional values of existing wetlands can be evaluated.
The Sierra Club finds it hard to understand how a "lift" value was calculated for future mined areas in terms of lake and littoral values using expected Functional Indexes of 0.85 for littoral zones, and 0.98 for lake perimeters (Table 7.1-1, page 75), when no explicit design for littoral zones was included in the document. This does not appear to be a case of "incomplete or unavailable information," because a team of professional biologists was used to calculate these numbers based on a set of information. However, the information was not included in the DPEIS, which would appear to constitute a lack of full disclosure. If a design does exist for mitigation at quarry pits, it should have been included in the DPEIS.
There was no cover type designated as "lake perimeter" in the maps or in the calculations of HUs. However, the "lake perimeter" FI of 0.98 somehow was included in calculation of lift in the mitigation analyses. The amount of land included in "lake perimeter" should have been stated clearly, and the reasons why "lake perimeter" were not included as a separate cover type were never clearly explained.
The DPEIS states on page 76 that: "A well conceived and constructed littoral zone would add approximately 3,500 habitat units by increasing the functions and values of the lakes with their associated littoral zones." Nowhere in the DPEIS is it made clear what this design is. A detailed review of littoral zone designs was included in Appendix D. That review states that the existing lakes are too deep, the existing littoral zones are too narrow, and the current littoral zones have minimal shoreline development, i.e., they are straight-edged. Sierra Club recommends that the improved designs 44-48) should be explicitly stated to be the design that is to be required. If another design was chosen, it then should be explicitly described in the mitigation discussion. Design details should include the percentage of the quarry pits that will be littoral zone, the slope of the littoral zone, the maximum and minimum depth of the littoral zones, and enhancements to increase shoreline development.
The DPEIS failed to include information necessary for complete evaluation of the mitigation value calculations by not including the designs for lakes and littoral zones that the team of professional biologists used to calculate their "Expected FI's." This results in a lack of full disclosure regarding mitigation calculation. Moreover, from the obtuse manner in which these lift values were discussed, it is not at all clear whether the theoretical inclusion of certain littoral zone and lake perimeter designs were not included in the mitigation calculation on a per acre cost basis but will not be required as part of the actual design of lakes. Sierra Club requests full disclosure on whether any littoral zones will actually be created, on whether their theoretical value has been paid for "up front" as part of the mitigation fee, and on any specific littoral and lake design that was used for calculation of expected FI's. The DPEIS clearly states that the quarry pits are included in the calculation of Habitat Units (HUs) as part of the littoral zone habitat (pages 67 and 82). Because the acreage of these quarry pits is used as part of the mitigation credit calculations, all quarry pits, littoral zones, and adjacent uplands must have permanent conservation easements placed on them to ensure the protection of their mitigation values.
Mitigation should focus first on on-site mitigation of lands within the quarry pits boundary. When these mitigation options are exhausted, mitigation should then concentrate on lands adjacent to the quarry pits, which are not publicly owned or scheduled for public ownership (with the exception of lands specifically designated for mitigation as part of the quarry pit plan). Removal of melaleuca trees in the Pennsuco wetlands is to a large extent a matter of public agency responsibility at the current time.
If funds from the mitigation of rock mining are used as credit for wetland destruction in the quarry pit area, such mitigation should be credited at the concurrent average annual costs for such removal. The current mitigation cost per acre is $6,142.00 in the Pennsuco wetlands (page 87). When that figure is multiplied at 2.5, based on the mitigation ratio of 2.5:1, it calculates out to the $15,000.00 per acre cost established in the DPEIS. The 2.5:1 acreage ratio must be a requirement of the permit, as opposed to a fee per ton of mined rock. The value per acre would then be modified through time to reflect real world costs of mitigation. As it stands now, a change in the economics of rock mining products could result in a loss of wetland mitigation dollars due to a reduction in extraction rates.
A quarry pit should still require a minimum mitigation ratio and mitigation fee, regardless of how deep it is dug. Sierra Club recommends that the minimum mitigation fee per acre should be calculated in line with the current fee schedule levied in Miami-Dade County. For example, mitigation per acre in the Bird Drive basin is approximately $30,000.00 per acre. If significant on-site mitigation is paid for by the industry, then that should be calculated into the minimum fee, but the mitigation must be explicitly stated now, not after the quarry pits are dug.
Before additional mining permits are issued or permit renewals are approved, a comprehensive mitigation plan for the quarry pits must be developed. This plan must identify and delineate sufficient mitigation areas to accommodate all of the proposed mining as well as all mitigation that will be needed for mining associated with permit renewals.
Mitigation funds should not be spent to acquire mitigation bank credits.
The DPEIS states on page 88 that no increased mitigation will be required for areas currently permitted when permits expire. This is completely unacceptable. Wetland mitigation requirements for rock mining have been much too low in the past. Permitted sites incorporate about 6,000 acres of additional wetlands, which will be lost without appropriate wetland compensation. The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to review, and where appropriate, modify permit conditions when a permit renewal is requested. All permit renewals must be issued with mitigation standards consistent with the final mitigation plan to be developed for the quarry pit plan. Again, Sierra strongly recommends that this mitigation plan be made explicit and comprehensive before the Phase II Master Plan. Permit renewal applications to the Army Corps should not be renewed or extended until they are reviewed using current knowledge of the site. When environmental conditions identify sensitive habitat features the permit renewal must be denied.
If implemented, the quarry pit plan would have significant impacts on hydrologic resources. Therefore, mitigation for hydrological impacts must be required. Part of this hydrologic mitigation must include, at no cost to the public, deeding all lands within the quarry pits planning area needed for water resources. The public should not be burdened with purchasing quarry pits that have already caused significant environmental and hydrologic impacts.
HYDROLOGY
The Sierra Club believes there are serious inconsistencies between modeling that was done in the DPEIS and modeling done for the Central and Southern Florida Review Study (the Restudy). The Restudy modeling dealt with proposed "North Lake Belt" and "Central Lake Belt" components in evaluations. The Restudy based its modeling on a proposed plan that does not even occur in the DPEIS. The Restudy recognizes a large quarry pit area in its North and Central Lake Belt components, but the remaining areas to be mined seem to be ignored.
There has been a lack of significant overlap in the modeling and design elements for the rock mining between the documents. Section 6.1 of the Draft PEIS states: "Management of the natural resources within the quarry pits requires an accurate understanding of the hydrology within and surrounding the area." However, the DPEIS admits to needing additional hydrological modeling in order to obtain a better understanding of hydrology within and surrounding the quarry pit area. The Sierra Club strongly recommends that additional modeling that was promised for the development of the Phase II Master Plan be done as revisions of this DPEIS and before the development of the Phase II Master Plan.
Hydrological Modeling
The variety of projects, most importantly the Restudy, being undertaken at this time as part of the Everglades restoration will affect the local and regional hydrology. Modifications to regional hydrological conditions due to revisions in operational schedules and structural water management will affect hydrological conditions in and near the quarry pits. This information must be incorporated in the DPEIS modeling process. The quarry pits model(s) should be revised to reflect local and regional conditions that are anticipated to exist at the time of the quarry pits are mined. Improved modeling efforts will be needed for future permitting, legislation and/or rule making.
The DPEIS quarry pits modeling efforts would not or could not include the referenced hydrological conditions developed in the Restudy, even though it is apparent that the Restudy staff did communicate with the alternative team for the DPEIS. Moreover, the models used in the DPEIS have been improved and updated since they were initially used more than two years ago (e.g., new versions of Natural Systems Model, MODFLOW, etc). The Sierra Club recommends that the DPEIS and the Restudy documents should employ the same models and input data for analyses of quarry pit alternatives and this phase of additional modeling be completed prior to the development of the Phase II Master Plan.
The quarry pit modeling efforts must be better coordinated with the Restudy and with the Water Preserve Area and the Lower East Coast planning efforts. Without appreciable information sharing, there is the likelihood for potential changes in operational guidelines and structural changes that would impact hydrological conditions in the quarry pit region.
In conclusion, additional modeling, coordination and data analyses are needed before development of the Phase II Master Plan. These efforts are essential for evaluation of impacts of future quarry pit digging on the regional water supply and ecology.
Comparison of Models and Model Results
The South Florida Water Management District employed MODFLOW while the private hydrologists used MFL. Not surprisingly, the results differed between the modeling groups. Regardless of which model is used or preferred there are inconsistencies in the data used for inputs for conductance values of boundary conditions and the outputs as measures of hydropattern. Moreover, there are differences in the areas modeled and the values used for performance criteria. Finally, modifications to the regional hydrologic conditions and model boundary conditions that are expected to occur with the implementation of the Restudy were not included in previous model runs. Without incorporation of these conditions into the modeling it is impossible to determine whether regional demands of the system are capable of supplying the amounts of water modeled.
In future modeling, in order to facilitate evaluations, it would be best if there were agreed upon input values and agreed upon output criteria. In addition, future modeling should have agreed upon indicator areas where model performance, under the varying alternatives, are measured. These analyses should be conducted before the development of the Phase II Master Plan.
The effectiveness of suggested alternative seepage control methods must be evaluated before implementation of the Phase II Master Plan. Otherwise, incorrect assumptions regarding well field protection, flood protection and seepage control could become incorporated in the MasterPlan. A variety of seepage control alternatives have been discussed. The Restudy only promises to evaluate alternatives with modeling and small scale experimental designs (e.g. curtain walls, and pumping methods). The small scale experiments and additional modeling of these alternatives should be competed before development of the Phase II Master Plan.
Hydrology — Conclusions and Recommendations
Additional modeling is necessary because earlier quarry pits models did not incorporate hydrological conditions expected to occur during the digging of additional quarry pits. The additional modeling should make every effort to ensure that comparisons of model results are facilitated by using common criteria and clearly stated input data. Hydrological and structural analyses of alternative methods for seepage control and models of these alternatives are needed before the development of the Phase II Master Plan. Without these measures there is a danger of poorly informed decision making in the interim period.
Based on the above conclusions, The Sierra Club recommends that no additional permits be granted for mining in the quarry pits area. We also recommend that no permits be renewed until the recommended studies and Phase II Master Plan are completed and approved after appropriate agency and public reviews.
WATER QUALITY
Because the water in the quarry pits would be inseparable from the Biscayne Aquifer, and the pits would be near or adjacent to the Northwest and West Wellfields of Miami-Dade County, all possible precautions must be taken to protect the water quality in the quarry pits.
Monitoring
Due to the direct connection of the quarry pits to the Biscayne Aquifer, monitoring of water quality in the quarry pits should be maximized to protect waters to be used for ecological purposes and to protect existing wellfields from contamination.
Because the quarry pits are in the vicinity of the wellfields, and because quarry pit water is in direct contact with the source Aquifer for these wellfields, water quality in the eastern and southern portions of the rock mined area needs to be closely monitored by an intensified network of sampling stations, and more frequent sampling intervals. The Sierra Club recommends a monitoring system that will maximize the time available for contamination response in quarry pit waters. Because the quarry pits are so deep, water quality should be monitored along the entire depth of the quarry pits to minimize the potential for heavier contaminants to go undetected. Monitoring for such contaminants is needed due to the threat of illegal dumping or accidental spills along adjacent roads and the Florida Turnpike.
Protection
In addition to monitoring water quality in the quarry pits, The Sierra Club feels that it is important to protect the water in rock mined pits from existing sources of contamination in the vicinity including surface runoff. The Sierra Club recommends that a quarry pit protection plan be developed before implementation of the Phase II Master Plan. The protection plan should include defined buffer zones similar to those used around wellfields. These buffer zones should place restrictions on the activities that can occur in the vicinity to the quarry pits. The DPEIS states that Miami-Dade County is requesting assurances from rock mining companies that they mitigate the cost of required improvements, if the mining activities in the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield result in a "groundwater under direct influence of surface water" determination. This is unacceptable. The quarry pits Master Plan must ensure that both the Northwest and West Wellfields do not become classified as "groundwater under the direct influence of surface water." This must also be a permit requirement under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 program for this project.
The DPEIS must acknowledge that permanent and irrevocable conservation easements must be placed on all quarry pits, littoral zones and surrounding areas to ensure that the high water quality is maintained, and that groundwater resources are protected. Ecological buffer zones that are consistent with the Water Preserve Areas (WPA) planning need to be incorporated into the Master Plan in the area surrounding the quarry pits.
The Sierra Club recommends that an emergency response plan be produced for the quarry pits prior to the completion of a Phase II Master Plan. The response plan should address all potential sources of contamination and include proper and appropriate methods to control, isolate and remove contaminants of contamination if it occurs. Such a plan should also address the issue of alternative sources of drinking water in case contamination does occur in the quarry pits.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN THE QUARRY PIT AREA
The Sierra Club recommends that before development of the Phase II Master Plan, there is a need for specific restrictions on the use and storage of hazardous and toxic materials in the quarry pits. No hazardous or toxic substances should be stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise handled in the area of the quarry pits.
Hazardous or toxic materials that are typically related to use of vehicles should only be allowed in the area of the quarry pits if there are adequate means of containing accidental spills. No spraying of chemicals should be allowed in the vicinity of the quarry pits due to the potential for atmospheric dispersal of such chemicals into the quarry pits.
RECREATION
Because the quarry pits are to be used as a supplementary source of water for the Biscayne Aquifer and they are located near two Miami-Dade County's wellfields, the Sierra Club recommends that the quarry pits plan include restrictions on recreational activities within the quarry pit area. The Sierra Club recommends that all recreational activities be regulated to guarantee that water quality will be protected and be consistent with the ecological restoration goals outlined for the Water Preserve Areas and the Everglades Restudy.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The mining of additional rock from quarry pits entails an irreversible action. According to the DPEIS, the extensive mining will require construction of seepage control structures that may not be removable. Therefore the hydrological modeling and analysis of operational schedules and studies and modeling of the efficiency of structural elements should be done before granting any more rock mining permits.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
On page 50, the DPEIS states that 27 "potentially significant archeological sites" were recorded in the quarry pit area in 1981. The survey was not comprehensive or intensive, and additional potentially significant historic properties may be discovered in areas that have not been subjected to systematic, professional survey to locate such properties. Before completion of the Phase II Master Plan, a systematic and professional archaeological survey must be conducted for the entire study area. The results of the study must be incorporated into the Master Plan and all such properties should be protected from rock mining. The Sierra Club believes that this requirement must be met before new permits are issued, or old permits are renewed, in order to satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
LAND USE
The discussion of existing land uses in Section 3.13 is limited to descriptions of lands within the quarry pit plan's boundary. A discussion of the natural resources and land uses in adjacent areas should have been included in this section. In particular, references to the significance of proximity to Everglades National Park and Water Conservation Area 3B should be discussed. The relation of the quarry pit area to the planned Water preserve Area and to Miami-Dade County's Urban Development Boundary should also be included. The Sierra Club considers the issues and topics include in Section 6.7 to be critical to the success of any eventual plan for the region that includes the quarry pits. The phrasing of the listed statements should be made emphatic and more explicit. In other words, we are interested in having these issues incorporated into the project and not merely considered.
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Analysis of social and economic cost and benefits (included in Sections 3.20, and Appendix E) is completely unbalanced, inadequate and limited to an assessment of the economic benefits of rock mining. No effort was made to evaluate alternative building materials. Nor was any effort made to evaluate the negative economic impacts of the quarry pit plan. All of the discussions regarding socio-economics focused on the economic benefits of rock mining. Justification for rock mining emphasized the rapid growth in the state. The socio-economics assessments do not discuss alternative building materials, the costs associated with the loss of environmental lands, impacts on water resources, and quality of life.
Limestone is a nonrenewable resource and in the future it is likely to be recycled (p. 73) to meet needs. No detailed analysis was made of this alternative to unlimited and continued rock mining. An unlimited supply of limestone will keep the economic incentives for developing alternative building materials, including recycling of concrete, unattractive. It is necessary for the alternative building materials issue to be thoroughly investigated. It is in the public's interest to have this review completed at the current time. Only then can the need for and extent of continued mining be fairly evaluated. Methods and techniques for reducing the demand for local rock will also reduce the demand for destruction of more wetlands and water resources.
If continued rock mining is needed to keep up with future development and growth, then the concomitant negative impacts of the induced urban sprawl and drain on public services that are a consequence of supplying building material at current rates should also be evaluated. Moreover, the economic and social consequences of further growth when local rock is no longer available should also have been considered before it was concluded that continued rock mining at a rate that is dictated by market demand is in the best interest of the public and the natural environment.
The Sierra Club recommends that Sections 3.20, 6.14, and Appendix E include a balanced representation of the costs, as well as the economic benefits, of rock mining on the local and regional surrounding areas. The discussion and analyses should include the impacts of loss of open land and habitat, agricultural lands, water resource impacts, costs for maintenance of transportation infrastructure, increased traffic, increased demands for municipal services, the number of jobs and amount of payroll that will be specific to Miami-Dade County, and the economic and social impacts of continued blasting for rock.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
The Sierra Club recommends that the description of the Recommended Alternative should note that the plan developed by the Advisory Team was not a unanimous plan. Section 4.3 should include a discussion of the other plans that received support, including scenarios supported by the environmental interests.
The Lake belt alternatives were evaluated with a series of factors. These factors had measures. One factor was "Support Everglades Restoration." It was measured by: 1. Increase Spatial Extent; 2. Enhancing Hydropatterns in WCA3b and Everglades National Park, and; 3. Enhance Connectivity.
A series of alternatives were very briefly discussed in the DPEIS on pages F-10-F-30. For example, in the middle section or central lake belt alternative: "M4 was the only alternative that received a rating of high for all three measures Increase Spatial Extent, Enhancing Hydropatterns in WCA3b and Everglades National Park, and Enhance Connectivity" (page F-19).
In the decision on "which alternative to choose" by the Lake Belt Issue Advisory Team, the team relied very heavily on input from the Restudy staff. The final alternative chosen did not rank high for the measures for the factor "Support Everglades Restoration."
On page F-20, in evaluating alternatives for the FP&L right of way region, the original idea was to restrict mining from this area (as per alternative M4), but at a Lake Belt Issue Advisory Team meeting, "members of the Restudy Team indicated that approximately 2800 acres of land would be needed for water storage" from this FP&L strip. Eventually, most of the FP&L strip was identified for mining, either right away, in 3 years, or in 5 years as per page F-21 and Fig. 10, the final alternative agreed to, with the western 1/2 of the FP&L strip put into the category "mining allowable in five years unless needed for Everglades Restoration." However, this chosen alternative was not the best for the factor called "Support Everglades Restoration."
The mitigation plan section should be modified to address the fact that the Issue Advisory Team plan was developed prior to the completion of the Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The Sierra Club recommends that all original alternatives suggested by agencies as well as non-government organizations for a quarry pit plan should be re-evaluated in light of the completed Restudy.
SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The entire section discussing secondary and cumulative effects is insufficient, and should be expanded to include, among other issues, the following:
Section 6.16.1 should include a more thorough discussion of the list of significant negative impacts.
Section 6.16.3 is severely insufficient as it does not even attempt to summarize the impacts to the immediate area as a result of rockmining, development activities and related service demands (i.e., water supply), construction of public facilities, and cut/fill activities that have removed thousands of acres of wetlands from the ecosystem to date. Such impacts must be documented and discussed.
Section 6.16.4 should include a discussion regarding the potential incompatibility of rockmining and encroaching urban development. Impacts discussed should include, but not be limited to, traffic, roads, and detonation of explosives associated with mining activities.
The conclusion of section 6.16 should include a discussion of negative cumulative impacts to the Everglades ecosystem due to the extensive loss of wetlands, habitat, and water resources.
SHORT TERM USE/LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Productivity of lost wetlands should be discussed, particularly in terms of functional losses over time, and the lag time between functional loss and replacement of that functional loss through mitigation. Sole reliance upon a mitigation plan is shortsighted and insufficient in regards to addressing loss of long-term wetland productivity. These concerns are addressed under the section entitled Wetland Mitigation.
CONCLUSIONS
This DPEIS is incomplete and premature in its issuance. This project was originally touted by the rockmining industry as a great boon to the public and the environment. But this perspective has become tarnished as data, modeling and analyses have been supplied to evaluate the project objectively.
In this DPEIS, much of the data has been ignored and some promised analyses and data were never performed or collected. The DPEIS continually refers to studies that will take place in the future, promises only to consider many critical issues, but recommends the rock mining industry's preferred alternative for transformation of some 16,000 additional wetland acres into quarry pits. There are innumerable shortcomings in the DPEIS and they must all be addressed before a final alternative can be chosen. This DPEIS provides inadequate justification for this conclusion and relies on studies and planning of the future to support an undefined preferred alternative of the present.
The quarry pit DPEIS must be postponed until all relevant analyses, modeling, studies and master plan elements are completed. At that time a fair and comprehensive EIS can be completed, and properly reviewed by appropriate agencies and the public.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara J. Lange Conservation Chair
If you have comments or suggestions, email the webmaster
at betgrass@ix.netcom.com