SENT VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL June 23, 2011 Deborah J. Cedeno-Maldonado U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Antilles Regulatory Section Jacksonville District 400 Fernandez Juncos Ave. San Juan, PR 00901-3299 Email: Deborah.J.Cedeno-Maldonado@usace.army.mil Loida Soto Nogueras Secretaria Oficina de Secretary Junta de Planificacin de Puerto Rico PO Box 41119 San Juan, PR 00940 1119 Email: Soto_L@jp.pr.gov Rose A. Ortiz Unidad de Zona Costanera Oficina de la Secretaria Junta de Planificacin P.O. Box 41119 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-1119 Email: Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov Maryguel Fuentes Oficina de la Secretaria Junta de Planificacin P.O. Box 41119 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-1119 Email: fuentes_m@jp.pr.gov

Re: Public Notice/Permit Application SAJ-2010-01592 and Puerto Rico Joint Permit Application CZ-2010-0601-064 Dear Decision-makers: Please accept the following comments on behalf of the staff and members of the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), CORALations, Vegabajeos Impulsando Desarrollo Ambiental Sustenible (VIDAS), GuardaMar, and La Asociacin de los Pescadores de la Isla de Culebra. The Center is a national, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect and restore endangered species and wild places through science, policy, education, advocacy, and environmental law. The Center has over 320,000 members and on-line activists, some of whom reside and recreate on mainland Puerto Rico and on Culebra. CORALations is an award winning Caribbean coral reef conservation organization based on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico. CORALations is a membership organization, with over 500 long term members located in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Its mission is to conserve, nurture and educate with a focus on Caribbean coral reefs and local community empowerment through collaborative partnerships to protect and restore these critical coastal resources. We have reviewed Public Notice Permit Application No. SAJ-2010-01592 and the Puerto Rico Joint Permit Application CZ-2010-0601-064 and have the following comments.

In its Puerto Rico Joint Permit Application (JPA), the applicant seeks a 404 Clean Water Act permit, a CZM Certification, Water Quality Certification, and Submerged Land Use Concession. In the JPA, the applicant states that the application is not a part of a multi-phase project, yet admits that the purpose of the proposed project is for the transportation of homeowners, guests, staff, workers, service personnel and government officials, materials, and supplies to and from Cayo Norte, and that the applicant has plans for a residential compound comprising three (3) houses, staff housing and accessory facilities including a maintenance building.1 The applicant envisions the need for the dock to include mooring of vessels transporting people and supplies, to accommodate the owners and visitors vessels, and for the transportation of vehicles, equipment, supplies, construction materials and work force.2 Finally, the applicant offers as mitigation the use of informational buoys and a three-year seagrass and coral monitoring program, and concludes that the proposed project will not have any significant impact on the environment. The PR Junta de Planificacin and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) cannot issue permits or approvals for the proposed project at this time because it is evident that the full impacts of the proposed project cannot yet be known. The Corps has a mandatory duty to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and determine whether there will be unavoidable significant impacts. The overall project purpose is to provide reliable access to Cayo Norte for future residential development,3 yet the applicant has not provided plans for the future residential development or disclosed the potential impacts. This major issue notwithstanding, the proposed project on its own may have considerable affects to the natural environmental of Cayo Norte, affecting imperiled species and water quality. Because of the significant impacts the proposed project may have on Cayo Norte, off-site waters, and other localities, a permit issuance is not legally possible or defensible. Unless the Corps can ensure that all potential impacts have been disclosed and will be fully mitigated or avoided through additional special conditions not specified in the public notice and environmental assessment (EA), the Corps must deny the permit. Should it move forward with the application, the Corps must fully analyze the future residential development and likely produce an Environmental Impact Statement prior to issuing a permit. Additionally, we urge the PR Junta de Planificacin to deny the CZM Certification and any other environmental permitting the applicant seeks for the reasons detailed below. I. Clean Water Act Compliance The proposed project presents several obstacles preventing the Corps from issuing a 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA): the project is improperly segmented; the EA does not meaningfully offer practicable alternatives; the project is not in the public interest; and permitting the project may cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The Corps has a mandatory duty to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and determine whether there will be unavoidable significant impacts. The applicant intends that this dock construction will be the first stage and a necessary project for the additional, subsequent island construction. By omitting plans for the future residential
1 2

JAP at 1. JAP at 1. 3 SAJ Permit Application at 1.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -2-

development, the applicant is attempting to impermissibly segment the project. This hamstrings the Corps duty to consider the immediate full impacts of the proposed project as well as the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed project, including the future plans to develop the island. Without detailed information about the planned future residential development, the Corps is unable to assess impacts of the dock since it does not truly know how the dock will be used such as increased boat traffic (how many boats, how frequently the boats arrive/department, and how the passengers may affect the area), nor is it able to assess the cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future residential development and whether the impacts will be fully mitigated. The applicant must first avoid all impacts to the maximum extent practicable, then it must minimize any remaining impacts so they are as small as practicable, and then finally for any remaining impacts, there must be compensatory mitigation. In issuing the permit, the Corps must ensure that the project will not cause any significantly adverse effects on human health, welfare, aquatic life, and aquatic ecosystems; or recreational, aesthetic, or economic values. It is unclear how the project, as currently proposed, will avoid such significant impacts or how the Corps will assess those impacts. A. Practicable Alternatives Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA guidelines provide that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative...which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.4 A practicable alternative is one that is both available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. An aquatic site possesses special ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values, and includes wetlands.5 A water dependent activity require[s] access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose.6 Because plans for the future residential development have not been provided, it is difficult to analyze whether there are practicable alternatives. The Corps may find that the proposed action fails to comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less effect on the aquatic ecosystem or if there is not sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the proposed discharge will comply with the guidelines.7 Here, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information, as is his burden, for the Corps to make a reasonable judgment as to whether there is a practicable alternative that will have less effect on the aquatic ecosystem. B. Public Interest Pursuant to 404 of the CWA, the Corps may issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States if such discharge is in the public interest.8 For
40 CFR 230.10(a). 40 C.F.R. 230.3(q-1); 40 C.F.R. 230.41. An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2). 6 40 C.R.R. 230.10(a)(3). 7 40 CFR 230.12(a)(3)(i), (iv). 8 33 USC 1344(a).
5 4

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -3-

purposes of the Corps obligations, public interest encompasses a broad range of values, including conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain supply and conservation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.9 In essence, before issuing a 404 permit, the Corps must identify, evaluate and balance all the competing and sometimes conflicting interests in a project. It is clear that the proposed project particularly the future residential development would not be in the public interest. The proposed area enjoys shoreline coral reefs and listed corals considered essential fish habitat. Area seagrass support at least three different species of conch important to local subsistence fishers. Shallow shoreline reef are important habitat for juvenile fish especially in areas that border healthy coastal wetlands as nutrients and detritus enter the environment in quantities beneficial to corals reef and related benthic organisms, in contrast to shoreline wetlands where fragile beach berms are compromised by deforestation and construction activities. Deforestation and construction that compromises the integrity of beach berms separating these wetland areas from shore can result in large influxes of sediment lethal to corals and sea grass. This has been well documented even in relatively low density subdivisions (RO-5) in the southeast sector of Culebra where poorly planned and constructed dirt roads have laden coastal wetlands with sediment that now discharges into coastal waters with every heavy rainfall. National Marine Fisheries Service of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has recently demonstrated concern by allocating funding toward restoration of these problem areas. The dock and future residential development may likely impact these important coral reefs. 1. Inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Plan The Culebra Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan of 1975, adopted verbatim imperatives from the Joint Report, issued in 1973 by the US Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Puerto Rico. The overall stated objectives with respect to the conservation and economic development (III-1) of the island of Culebra are stated as follows: It is consequently the firm resolve of the undersigned, the Secretary and the Governor, that the highest priority shall be given to the protection of Culebras natural and human environment...The Governor has assured the Secretary that the Commonwealths concern for the ecological integrity of Culebra will be manifested by strong legislative and executive action to safeguard the environment in the interim. The report goes on to indicate the two principle opportunities created by the Navys departure, which also represent the overall goals that Puerto Rico expects to achieve through the implementation of a management program on Culebra, are Conservation and Economic Development for the Culebrenses. First, conservation. Slow economic development and low population have largely spared Culebras reefs, mangroves and other remarkable natural assets from the
9

33 CFR 325.3(C)(1).

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -4-

destruction that has so often been a consequence of development elsewhere. Widespread appreciation of Culebras assets, heightened by growing popular awareness of past mistakes of the development process, creates a special opportunity to preserve the unique attributes and resources of Culebra and its surrounding waters, reefs and keys. Second, economic development. Partly as a result of the Navys presence, the economic development of Culebra has been stunted. The departure of the Navy will create an opportunity to replace that stunted growth with normal growth growth sufficient to provide for the residents of Culebra a standard of living comparable to the average standard enjoyed on Puerto Rico's main island. Today, and largely because of these slow growth initiatives adopted by the Culebra Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Culebra, and the Culebra Master Plan, originally adopted by the Puerto Rico Planning Board I 1971, substantially revised and then signed by the Governor in 1976, maintain a focus of development that directly benefits the local community. Because of this dual focus on conservation and local development, slow growth tourism based on natural resources has benefitted the local population who for the past two decades, enjoyed up until this latest financial recession, 0% involuntary unemployment when these statistics were measured independent of statistics for the east coast of Puerto Rico. The Joint Report, that is the basis for the Culebra Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, goes on to state that to achieve the overall goals of conservation and development, four categories of land and water use are proposed: Wildlife or biological preserves, recreation, development, and conservation areas. The ecological value specifically of offshore keys is recognized: Many areas in Culebra are natural habitats for native species of birds, fish and reptiles. Culebras offshore keys and the northwest tip of Peninsula Flamenco (Punta Molinos) comprise one of the most prolific nesting areas for the oceanic birds found anywhere in the world. The mangrove roosts are high breeding grounds for many species of fish and other marine animals. Other sites on Culebra are habitats for rare and endangered species of waterfowls and reptiles. It is essential in these areas that the natural conditions which have made such areas natural habitats be preserved, that people be prevented from adversely interfering with the wildlife found there, and that harmful development be prohibited in these and adjacent areas. Therefore, these areas in Culebra should be set aside and protected, and should be managed so as to maintain and improve their natural characteristics. The Joint Report also recognizes that Culebra and its surrounding keys offer opportunities for a tremendous variety of outdoor active and passive recreational activities, and that Included are the entire littoral zone, especially the beaches, the surrounding coral reefs, the bioluminescent bays, areas which have concentrations of flora with special natural significance, and open areas

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -5-

which are ideal for relaxed and passive recreation. These natural resources are among the most important ones in Culebra. Their virtually unspoiled state makes them an asset for both the residents of Culebra and visitors; every attempt should be made to keep them so. The Plan assumed that potable water limitations would naturally impede rapid or remote development: Thus even without the strict controls this Joint Report contemplates, the transfer of naval training activities away from Culebra can not lead to large scale development. Scarcity of water is the most important of the natural limits to growth. In the case of Cayo Norte, which has no natural sources of potable water, this appears to have been a bad assumption. The Joint Report also required that: To protect the natural qualities of Culebra against pressures for haphazard and insensitive development, it is not enough to designate and protect the limited areas set aside for wildlife refuge, recreation, and development. The recommended policy of this Joint Report is that those areas which are not specifically set aside for wildlife refuge, recreational use, or development, be designated as conservation areas, that is, as open space, for agricultural and other low intensity uses consistent with the natural character of the island. The Culebra Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Program included all of Culebras mangroves, lagoons and beaches in their inventory of significant coastal natural resources. (see map below) and states: Since the Culebra Segment includes all of Culebra and surrounding waters, it clearly includes all transitional and intertidal areas, wetlands and beaches.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -6-

The area proposed for development is considered by the Culebra Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan to be a Geographic Area of Particular concern. The offshore reefs in the area proposed for development are characterized as Particular need for continuing surveillance (reefs-mangroves) with potential conflicts indicated where recreation conflicts with natural resource conservation. Finally, the public policy as established by PR Ley 66, 1975 (as amended) is clear and states it is to protect the ecological integrity of the island. Issuing the permits would frustrate the intent of this policy. 2. Inconsistent with Cayo Norte Zoning Cayo Norte enjoys RO-25-C zoning where R reflects Residential, O-Special zoning intent on conserving natural integrity of Culebras spectacular resources and reducing the threat of fragmentation, 25 for one house per 25 cuerdas to reduce density and development stress and C reflecting the Planning Boards definition for the best use of the area Conservation. The proposed beach infrastructure which is indicated as a necessity to support unspecified development of the island of Cayo Norte, does not comply with Culebras special zoning definitions. The PR Planning Board establishes as a special case for any development proposed in R0-25C under JP-215 (First Extension). This norm designates the R-0 zones of Culebra as special areas within the meaning of section 6.18. Thus, any developer within the R-0 zones becomes a special case subject to special rules. Planning Board Resolution JP-215-A, is another norm. It establishes zoning standards, which are much stricter than those otherwise applicable to govern the special cases in Culebra (i.e. , all development within R-O zones in Culebra.) The JP 215, August 13, 1975, recognizes the PR Planning Board has the responsibility of preserving and protecting the few natural areas of Puerto Rico for the enjoyment of present and future generations, and also the responsibility to watch over the places of exceptional beauty and to prohibit isolated development that may deteriorate or destroy that beauty. The JP 215-A August 13, 1975 also recognizes that these norms pursue the purpose of regulating the special cases that arise in special areas established in low density residential districts (R-0) of Culebra. The same have their legal basis in Article 6.18 of Planning Board Regulation #4. They also have their legal basis in the special areas, which are identified by numbers that are added as a suffix to the zoning symbol of R-0-25-C and R-0-1-C. These districts pursue the purpose of calculating the direction and the control of development in the Municipality of Culebra, and to protect and preserve the various unique natural and agricultural areas. The island municipality of Culebra is of exceptional beauty, of unique characteristics, of historical, socio-economic, physical and natural. At present existing pressures may provoke disorganized development in the municipality. This adds a sense of urgency to the establishment of norms and controls that may permit directing adequately urban suburban and rural development of Culebra, and to preserve and protect from deterioration its valuable natural resources and agricultural lands. Article 11 of this norm indicates that in these special areas, Occupied Area (including accessories building) in an Area 25-C will depend on the use to be given the structure, which

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -7-

must conform to the permitted uses of the area 25-C. For residential use, such area must not exceed three hundred square meters for living space. Article 12: Gross floor area: In no case may the gross floor area exceed twice the permitted occupied area. No residential structure for one family may exceed three hundred square meters of gross floor area. It also notes that Culebra is not suitable for most types of facilities serving more than one locality. The size and location of the island, together with the severe natural constraints on its development, cause this unsuitability. pg V-12 3. Unexploded Ordnance As you are aware, the island of Culebra, including its cays, was used for U.S. Navy and Marines and NATO forces for training throughout the 20th century. It was principally used as a bombing and gunnery range. Unexploded ordnance is suspected in these offshore waters as indicated by NOAA Nautical Chart warnings found throughout this area. According to unexploded ordnance division experts these bombs can be too deep under the sand to defy detection, even if there were an attempt at in water clean up of the area. The bombs can surface or be exposed as changing offshore currents or storms expose these hazards. To issue permits for construction or boat traffic in such an area could be reckless endangerment. The Corps is responsible for clean up on the island, and has recognized that this area is medium or high risk.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -8-

The unexploded ordnance causes a huge concern for the public health and welfare and is scarcely address in the JPA. The Corps cannot approve a project where the public interest weighs so heavily against the proposed project. C. Water Quality Standards: CWA 404(b) guidelines prohibit discharges from a permitted project that cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or toxics effluent standards.10 Because the 404 permit may not legally authorize the discharge of these impairing pollutants above water quality standards, the Corps analysis must fully address the discharge and relative distribution of these impairing pollutants resulting from the development.11 According to the Soil Survey of Humacao Area of Eastern Puerto Rico, issued in 1977, Cayo Norte soils are volcanic and highly erodible in nature. To the west, the island is characterized as DrF Descalabrado-Rock land complex, 40-60% slope, and to the east, DeE2- Descalabrado clay loam, 20 to 40 percent slope, eroded. Any disturbance of these steep sloping volcanic soils, held together with fragile, xeric and specialized vegetation poses a serious risk to these coastal wetlands, coastal waters and shoreline reef. As the stated purpose of the dock is to support the future residential development of the island, the Corps must consider these impacts.
10 11

40 CFR 230.10(g)(1-2). 40 CFR 131.12.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -9-

Water at Cayo Norte and Canal de Cayo Norte is currently classified as SB: Coastal waters and estuarine waters intended for use in primary and secondary contact recreation, and for propagation and preservation of desirable species, including threatened or endangered species. These waters serve as a resource area for fragments of threatened staghorn corals used in regional coral farming and transplant projects in the waters of Puerto Rico, and as permitted by the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico by Sociedad Ambiente Marino, VIDAS, Dr. Edwin Hernandez Delgado and CORALations. Turbidity shall not exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity units. The applicant does not provide any information on how the proposed project will impact water quality. Consequently, it is unclear how the wastewater discharge will affect nearby species of coral. It is also unclear whether the future construction associated with the future residential development will create storm water runoff. Also the future construction of access roads to the boating facilities will likely result in significant erosion and transport of materials to nearshore waters of which there are no proposed mitigation measures. Modification of this landscape will likely increase incidents of landslides, erosion, and sedimentation. In order for the Corps to fully evaluate the impacts to water quality, the applicant must provide plans for the residential development, explain what measures will be taken in the event that water quality violations are detected, describe how nearby corals will be affected by inevitable runoff, and indicate how the applicant plans to divert storm water runoff. II. Endangered Species Act Compliance The Corps is responsible for protecting federally listed species and their critical habitat when exercising their jurisdictional authorities under 404 of the CWA. Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that all Federal agencies seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. Section 7 of the ESA requires that all Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of the Interior to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencyis not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. In order to legally issue the requested 404 permit, the Corps must first make a finding that the proposed project will not jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify the critical habitat of any federally listed species.12 The Corps has an independent duty under 7 of the ESA to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.13 If a listed species may be present in the area of the proposed action, the action agency must prepare a biological assessment to determine the potential effects of its proposed action on the listed species and its critical habitat.14 If the action agency determines that the proposed action may adversely affect a listed species, it must consult with the FWS and/or the NMFS.15
12 13

40 CFR 230.10(b)(3). 16 USC 1536. 14 16 USC 1536(c)(1). 15 50 CFR 402.14.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -10-

The Corps must undergo formal consultation with FWS and NMFS under 7 of the ESA to ensure that permitting the project will not result in jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species or the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. Because the project will likely jeopardize a number of federally listed species, and will certainly result in the adverse modification of critical habitat for a few, we maintain that application must be denied. At the very least, the risk to the species must be evaluated as part of a complete EIS, and the Corps must complete consultation with FWS and NMFS pursuant to the ESA. The EA acknowledges the following endangered and threatened species are known to occur in the project area: hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata). It also acknowledges that the entire Cayo Norte area falls within designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle, that the adjacent sandy beach is used by hawksbill sea turtles to nest, and that the project site includes consolidated hard bottom and dead coral rubble which provides the primary constituent elements of the designated critical habitat for A. palmata. However, the Corps has determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the species or their designated critical habitat. Such an assessment is premature given that, as describe above, the Corps is not yet able to assess the full impacts of the proposed project. The analysis of impacts to these species and the proposals to protect them are wholly inadequate. Absent complete avoidance and impacts, the Corps must undergo formal consultation before issuing a permit. Furthermore, the applicant completely fails to acknowledge the potential presence and impact to other threatened and endangered species including: loggerhead turtle, blue whale, finback whale, humpback whale, sei whale, sperm whale, West Indian manatee, and the Virgin Islands tree boa. Additionally, consultation on Essential Fish Habitat as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. The Corps must analyze the proposed project for impacts to these species and provide information on how the applicant plans to avoid impacts to these species. Also, Cayo Norte is littered with unexploded ordnance. In order to construct anything there, the area must be cleared. The Corps own guidance states:16 Prior to the commencement of clearance activities, including vegetation removal and removal of unexploded ordnance, on Culebra, Culebrita, Cayo Norte and Cayo Luis Pena the contractor shall appoint a Project Biological whose qualifications shall be submitted for the approval of the contracting officer and the FWS. All beach clearance activities, including vegetation removal and removal of unexploded ordnance, will be closely coordinated with FWSThe Project Biological shall perform morning beach patrols to identify the potential presence of new nests prior to and during nesting season.

16

US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, Standard Operating Procedures for Endangered Species Conservation and their Habitat on DERP-FUDS Project No. I02PR006802. Culebra Island, Puerto Rico.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -11-

The Standard Operating Procedures go on to list a litany of actions and protective measures that must occur to protect endangered species. The Corps must address these measures. A. Elkhorn coral The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified stressors contributing to the threatened status of the elkhorn corals to include reduced population sizes, sedimentation, and anthropogenic abrasion and breakage. Again, without knowing more about the future residential development, it is impossible to predict whether sedimentation from runoff from the construction and operation of the development will result in the take of the species, and how to estimate the frequency of the inevitable water vessel contact. Furthermore, the location of the dock to coral populations will increase the probability of human-coral interaction which is known to result in take of the species. Corals are slow to adapt to habitat changes and have a limited ability to reproduce over large distances.17 Habitat degradation is among the factors imperiling elkhorn coral. Sediment from coastline erosion, runoff, beach renourishment, and coastal development are known to threaten corals.18 Corals require nutrient-limited, clear waters and runoff from agriculture, sewage, and other land sources increases algal growth impairing the fitness of corals.19 Additionally, abrasion and breakage from vessels, construction, dredging, and other activities can harm corals and their habitat. The construction and operation of the project as planned will conclusively result in the take of the species. The projects proposed avoidance and mitigation measures are wholly inadequate to prevent the adverse modification of the species habitat or avoid the jeopardization of the continued existence of the species, and will certainly result in the take of the species. The proposed dock may lead to increased snorkeling which may lead to the take of the species. Recent studies have indicated that human impacts such as sunscreen may be responsible for reproductive consequences within Acropora species. Damage to acropora corals by inexperienced swimmers is well documented in Florida and Puerto Rico and is one of the most common impacts on these species. Studies consistently conclude that proximity to coastal development is a primary factor in the decline of coral reef ecosystems. Around the world, reefs close to population centers, ports, and tourism are either of lower quality than reefs removed from such activities or they have simply disappeared.20 Coastal development has long been a major problem throughout the Caribbean
73 Fed. Reg. at 6897. 73 Fed. Reg. at 6902. 19 Id. 20 Wilkinson, Clive (ed.). 2008. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. Townsville, Australia, 296 p.; Waddell, J.E. and A.M. Clarke (eds.). 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessments Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 569 pp.; Jokiel, Paul L. and Erik K. Brown. 2004. Global warming, regional trends and inshore environmental conditions influence coral bleaching in Hawaii. Global Change Biology 10: 16271641, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00836.x.; Pandolfi, J.M., J. B.C. Jackson, N. Baron, R.H. Bradbury, H.M. Guzman, T. P.Hughes, C.V.Kappel, F.Micheli, J.C. Ogden, H. P. Possingham, E. Sala. 2005. Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime? Science 307: 1725-1726; Jackson, Jeremy B.C. 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11458-11465.
18 17

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -12-

and is increasingly threatening the Coral Triangle, an area comprising 2% of the global oceans that hosts 75% of coral species and 35% of the worlds coral reefs.21 Coastal development causes both short and long term damage to corals. During initial development, construction can physically damage reefs through dredging to create and maintain shipping channels, building marinas and docks, and disturbances to the coastline resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and increasing water turbidity. After construction, long-term chronic impacts include pollution from sewage and chemicals associated with the increased human presence and storm run-off from roads.22 Runoff from developed watersheds tends to carry more sediment and higher concentrations of waste products (including freshwater inputs from wastewater, oil, pesticides and fertilizer, animal excrement, and garbage) than that from undeveloped areas.23 Sediments tend to accumulate in nearshore areas with gentle slopes and low flushing rates, and wave action typical of reef habitat can continuously re-suspend introduced sediment with subsequent negative impacts on coral communities.24 The Corps must address these issues as the applicant intends to use this dock to facilitate the development of the island. 1. Other Imperiled Coral Potentially in the Area: The public notice indicates that a benthic survey along the project area discovered that the sea bottom was dominated by communities of hermatipic corals, including Diploria strigosa, D. labyrinthiformes, D. clivosa, Siderastrea radians, Montastraea annularis, Porites asteroides, and Favia fragum. Executive Order 13089 created the U.S. Executive Coral Reef Task Force in response to unprecedented coral decline in United States Waters. It compels all federal agencies to do everything within their jurisdictional authority to protect existing coral reefs.

21

Turgeon, D.D., R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D. Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. Matos, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z. Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E. Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L. Hunter, R.S. Brainard, P. Craig, R.H. Richond, G. Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde. 2002. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 265 pp; Wilkinson 2008; Waddell and Clarke 2008. 22 Turgeon et al. 2002, Waddell and Clarke 2008. 23 Waddell 2005. 24 Id.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -13-

However, because neither the public notice nor the EA include an analysis of the impacts to those coral or what other corals may be found along the routes boats may take to get to and from the dock, we offer comments on the following coral that are known to be found throughout the Caribbean, and in particular Puerto Rico. Also, in a recent personal communication with Dr. Edwin Hernandez Delgado 6/21/2011, we learned all three Acroporid species are in this area. We are uncertain whether all of these sensitive species occur in the area, but recommend that if they do, that the Corps take into consideration impacts on these coral as they are valuable marine resources. Dendrogyra cylindrus The IUCN lists this species as vulnerable. It is widespread, yet uncommon throughout its range. It is susceptible to bleaching and disease, and localized threats including hurricane damage, other diseases, damselfish predation, and bioerosion from sponges. Elliptical star coral (Dichocoenia stokesii) The IUCN lists this species as vulnerable, and is susceptible to bleaching, disease, and sedimentation. It is suffering estimated population declines of 38% over 30 years and faces a significant likelihood of being lost within one generation from reefs. Boulder Star coral (Montastraea annularis) The IUCN lists this species as endangered and it is believed that the species has undergone a decline exceeding 50% over the past 30 years due to disease, bleaching, and other anthropogenic-related factors. Specifically, this species has suffered a severe decline in the overall cover and abundance in several parts of the Caribbean, including cover losses of 72% off of St. John.25 Threats to this
25

Edmunds and Elahi 2007.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -14-

species include climate-related ocean acidification and bleaching, infectious diseases, predation by Sparisoma viride (stoplight parrotfish), hurricane damage, loss of habitat at recruitment from algal overgrowth and sedimentation, localized bioerosion by sponges and other organisms, and other diseases. Mountainous Star coral (Montastraea faveolata) The IUCN lists this species as endangered and it is believed that the species has undergone a decline exceeding 50% over the past 30 years due to disease, bleaching, and other factors. This species faces similar threats to the Boulder Star coral and current rates of mortality are exceeding growth and recruitment, and the chances of recovery are limited due to the species extreme longevity, low recruitment rates, and long generation times. Montastraea franksi The IUCN lists this species as vulnerable and though it is widespread and common throughout the Caribbean. The species is at risk of being lost within one generation, and the species is projected to lose 38% of its population over 30 years. Mycetophyllia ferox The IUCN lists this species as vulnerable. It is widespread and common, but susceptible to bleaching and disease. It is vulnerable due to its recent increased threats and is estimated a loss of 38% of the population will occur within 30 years. Large ivory coral (Oculina varicose) The IUCN lists this species as vulnerable as the species is estimated to have undergone a decline of greater than 30% due to the effects of bottom-tending fishing gear. NMFS has identified this species as a species of concern and identifies it as a keystone species due to the scientific correlation established between the local health of the species colonies and the presence of both economically valuable fish and invertebrate biodiversity. They also provide essential fish habitat for federally managed species.

B. Brown Pelican Although no longer a listed species, the brown pelican is still monitored as a species of concern. Various studies have indicated a decline in the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands populations of the brown pelican.26 In addition to human causes of nest disturbances, the decline has been attributed to everything from a mystery illness to weather-related nest disturbances. The proposed project may result in the take of brown pelican. The Culebra Segment acknowledges that the coastal lagoons, marsh ponds and mangrove swamps support: Bahama pintail, the masked duck, and nesting areas for the ruddy duck and constitute the most important wintering grounds for migratory water fowl on the island. Adjacent small cay support nesting areas for the blue footed boobies, and the Northern cliffs of Cayo Norte itself, support nesting areas for the beautiful Tropic birds, whose populations are noticeably dwindling. Pelicans and listed species of terns also forage in these areas. Construction activities on or in these areas can irreparably harm through their disturbance, these coastal and wetland foraging grounds for birds. An environmental assessment could in no way properly evaluate the avian populations in the area and a complete EIS for this cay which supposedly enjoys protected zoning, must be
26

Williams, Ernest H., L. Bunkley-Williams, and I. Lopez-Irizarry, Die off of brown pelicans in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, American Birds, Winter 1992, p. 1106; Collazo et. al. 1998, pp. 63-4.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -15-

completed before reasonable assessment of risks and mitigation can be evaluated for avian species. C. Sea Turtles As you are no-doubt aware, Culebra has some of the most important sea turtle nesting beaches in the U.S. Caribbean. The leatherback, hawksbill, and green sea turtles use these beaches. The FWS designated the beaches on Culebrita, Cayo Norte, and Playa Larga, Brava, and Resaca on Culebra as critical habitat in recognition of their vital importance to the future of the species.27 Also, the Corps has recognized that the waters surrounding Culebra and its cays, including Cayo Notre, provide sea grass beds which are foraging habitat for the species and that the benthic habitat, including seagrass beds, coral reefs, and colonized hardbottom, around Culebra and its surrounding islands and cays provides foraging and refuge habitat for sea turtles.28 The green sea turtles nesting season in Puerto Rico is roughly June through October. The leatherbacks nesting season is from about February to August. However, the hawksbill can nest all year long, with the peak season between August to November. The Corp must explain how the applicant will avoid impacts to the species particularly during these very vulnerable times. We would also like to point out that the entire southeast side of the Cayo Norte beach is also designated critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle from mean high tide inland to a point 150 meters from shore.29

Also, the area up to three nautical miles around Culebra and its cays is designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle.

27 28

50 CFR 17.95. US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, Standard Operating Procedures for Endangered Species Conservation and their Habitat on DERP-FUDS Project No. I02PR006802. Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. 29 Image from USFWS, 2007, Critical Habitat Designations for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at 10.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -16-

Therefore, the Corps must not only consider impacts to the waters and nesting beaches generally, but must ensure that the proposed project will not adversely modify the critical habitat. Additionally, in 1993, FWS designated the Culebra seagrass beds as Resource Category 1, as they are critical foraging habitat for juvenile green turtles. Resource Category 1 habitat is unique and irreplaceable and loss of the habitat is not acceptable. The Corps must ensure that no seagrass beds will be lost.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -17-

Playa Zoni, across the water from Cayo Norte is now a major nesting beach, and leatherback nesting continues to be monitored there. Former National Wildlife Refuge Manager, Teresa Tallevast, indicated through personal communication that there have been multiple sightings of leatherbacks swimming in the water between Culebra and Cayo Norte that were reported to her over her years of service with the FWS. Also, one mortality has been reported to Department of Environmental and Natural Resources when parts of a slashed carapace of a leatherback washed ashore Playa Brava on Culebra, witnessed by a group of visiting volunteer students from the Ramy Highschool in Isabella on a turtle watch. The Department determined that the injuries were consistent with impacts from a large boat or ship propeller. The proposed infrastructure supports and unquantifiable number of boat related activities that pose a threat to not just to the threatened green sea turtles, but to these two endangered sea turtles en route to their nesting beaches. III. National Environmental Policy Act Considerations Before issuing a 404 permit, the Corps must comply with mandates of NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for any approval or action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.30 At this time it is unclear whether the proposed project will have significant impacts, jeopardize federally listed species and water quality, or be in the publics interest. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.31 In determining whether a federal action has significant effects, the Corps must consider both the context and the intensity of the proposed action.32 When evaluating the context of a proposed action, the Corps must consider it in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality[b]oth short and ling-term effects are relevant.33 The intensity of a proposed action refers to the severity of impact on everything from public health and safety, and roads and buildings, to cultural and historic sites and endangered species.34 Also relevant to intensity is how controversial the effects are likely to be; whether the action may establish a precedent; and whether the proposed action will have cumulatively significant impacts when considered with other federal and non-federal actions.35 NEPA regulations define direct effects as those that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.36 In this case, direct effects include: the taking of endangered species, the destruction of their habitat; the potential increased sedimentation and runoff affecting local water quality and corals, and impact to the Culebra community. NEPA regulations go on to define indirect effects to include those that

30 31

42 USC 4332(2)(C). Id. 32 42 USC 4332(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.27. 33 40 CFR 1508.27(a). 34 40 CFR 1508.27(b). 35 Id. 36 40 CFR sec 1508.8(a).

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -18-

are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.37 In this case, indirect effects include the growth-inducing effects of the proposed project, the precedent it sets for future development and destruction of Culebra coastlines, and the species that rely on them, the longterm affects to already imperiled corals, and the untold affect to water quality. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action will most certainly be significant. Under these circumstances, a Finding of No Significant Impact is not legally possible. If the Corps does not deny the application, it must prepare an EIS before it can properly consider the application and evaluate how issuing the requested 404 permit would jeopardize federally listed species, water quality, and how it would not be in the publics interest. At a minimum, the Corps should request additional information on the future residential development. If there is sufficient public controversy surrounding the potential impacts of a federal agency action, the agency is required to prepare an EIS. The controversy can arise where substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor or there is a substantial dispute about the size, nature, or effect of the major federal action. Here there is dispute over all three. A. Marine Resources Marine resources near Cayo Norte may be significantly impacted by the proposed development. The creation of the dock itself may have significant impacts. The operation of the mooring field may result in impacts to shallow patch reefs and shallow seagrass beds while vessels are maneuvering. The applicant offers assurance that the proposed dock will not evolve into a marina to better serve the residents by proposing a steel cable such an assurance is insufficient particularly in light of the fact that the applicant has not disclosed the details of the plan to construction a residential development. Also, boat traffic is a major threat wherever humans come in contact with coral reefs. Propellers speeding through shallow waterways break corals, scar seagrass beds, and kill endangered marine mammals. Coral reef habitat frequently overlaps with heavy shipping and boating traffic, and island ports as well as large ports located near shallow water reefs increase the probability of vessel-associated damage to reefs. Ship groundings and reef damage from navigational buoys are common in Guam due to the frequency of typhoons in the region.38 Boat groundings and anchors
37 38

40 C.F.R. 1508.8(b). Burdick, David, Valerie Brown, Jacob Asher, Mike Gawel, Lee Goldman, Amy Hall, Jean Kenyon, Trina Leberer, Emily Lundblad, Jenny McIlwain, Joyce Miller, Dwayne Minton, Marc Nadon, Nick Pioppi, Laurie Raymundo, Benjamin Richards, Robert Schroeder, Peter Schupp, Ellen Smith, and Brian Zgliczynski. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam. In: Waddell, J.E. and A.M. Clarke (eds.). 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -19-

cause significant localized damage to shallow water coral reefs.39 Physical coral reef damage associated with anchors and ship groundings includes the direct loss of corals and other marine invertebrates when they are dislodged, fractured, and crushed. In the US Virgin Islands, newly established anchorages on a highly valued local reef were shown to reduce coral cover by over 87%, coral species richness by 54%, and rugosity (reef surface complexity) by 43.5%.40 The applicant offers no avoidance or mitigation measures for the increased boat traffic. In fact, the applicant has not even provided a true estimate how boat traffic will increase. Furthermore, if the applicant intends to develop the island, it is unclear how electricity will be supplied to Cayo Norte absent either the submarine cable or regular fuel deliveries. The Corps must evaluate the impact of regular fuel deliveries and potential impacts to the environment. Groundings are a common cause of contamination from oil and toxic chemicals. One such grounding and fuel spill occurred in the popular, formerly intact snorkeling lagoon of Majuro (Marshall Islands) in 2007, resulting in the destruction of several dozen Porites colonies and the near destruction of an endemic colony of three-banded anemone fish.41 In Palau, a 2005 grounding event damaged 875 square meters reef edge with high coral cover, crushing 350 square meters of reef and causing an additional 300 square meters of coral to bleach.42 Virtually 100% of bleached corals died following this event, and studies of the area 14 months later revealed a complete lack of any coral recruitment in the damaged area, leading scientists to conclude that toxins from the large amount of copper-based bottom paint deposited during this event subsequently prohibited the reestablishment of many organisms.43 The applicant must propose avoidance and mitigation measures for the fuel transport. B. Terrestrial Resources The proposed project may also significantly impact terrestrial resources. However, the Corps and the public have no way of knowing that at this time. The applicant must provide adequate information regarding the future intended use of the island and propose avoidance and mitigation measures. C. Cumulative Impacts As is repeated throughout these comments, one of the factors the Corps must consider in evaluating the application is whether the proposed project, when taken together with other actions in the vicinity, will have cumulatively significant environmental impacts.44 NEPA regulations define cumulative impact as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes

NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessments Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD, pp. 465509. 39 Waddell and Clarke 2008. 40 Id. 41 Waddell and Clarke 2008. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 40 C.F.R. sec 1508.27(7).

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -20-

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.45 The Public Notice provides no information on any possible cumulative impacts even though the applicants stated purpose of the project is to facilitate a future residential development. The Corps cannot even identify, much less evaluate, many of the cumulative impacts the proposed project will have. Because the 404 permit will facilitate everything from the construction phase to post development, the Corps must address the proposed project including the future development at all phases of development, not merely the initial dock construction phase. It must also consider the cumulative impact on water quality standards and beneficial uses resulting from the discharge of impairing pollutants from the project. D. Climate Change & Ocean Acidification There is no evaluation of the effects of climate change. The applicant only considers the effect of hurricanes on the dock, and only to the extent that it acknowledges the dock could be collapsed. It does not address the carbon footprint of the construction and maintenance of the dock or the future residential development, or the impact the project will have on corals taking into consideration that fact that the coral will continue to be stressed due to climate change and ocean acidification. The world is getting warmer. Massive quantities of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere each year, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases reduce the amount of solar radiation that can escape from our atmosphere back into space, thereby causing the earths climate to warm, much like the interior of a common greenhouse. That global warming is occurring is no longer the subject of credible scientific dispute. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that over the next century, average global temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.5 degrees F (7-10 degrees C).46 Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, has stated that the world has already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that [w]e are risking the ability of the human race to survive.47 Atmospheric carbon dioxide rates are also leading ocean acidification. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which alters seawater chemistry causing slightly alkaline waters to become more acidic. Ocean acidification is advancing rapidly as humans release carbon dioxide

45 46

40 C.F.R. sec 1508.7. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 47 Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert, The Independent, January 23, 2005.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -21-

into the atmosphere, increasing 2 ppm annually.48 By the end of this century, carbon dioxide is predicted to reach 788 ppm and the pH of the ocean will drop by another 0.3-0.4 units, amounting to a 100-150 percent change in acidity.49 Changing marine pH and carbonate concentrations are fundamentally altering ocean chemistry. Carbonate is an important constituent of seawater because many organisms form their shells and skeletons by complexing calcium and carbonate. Calcium carbonate is present in the ocean in two common forms, calcite and aragonite. When seawaters become undersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate they are corrosive to organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells, liths, and skeleton. Modeling predicts that by the end of the century global aragonite production will be reduced by 29% and total calcium carbonate production by 19% relative to preindustrial levels.50 Ocean acidification also decreases the calcification of corals. Calcification rates of reef-building corals are expected to decrease 30-40% with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.51 Scientists predict that ocean acidification coupled with increasing ocean temperatures will destroy the worlds reefs by mid-century.52 Within the past decade, scientists have observed a significant decrease in the saturation state of a calcium carbonate mineral, aragonite, in the greater Caribbean region.53 Conclusion As explained in these comments, the Corps cannot permit this proposed project as currently envisioned. In addition to the insufficiencies detailed throughout the comment letter, we were also unable to secure a complete copy of the EA and have requested additional time to present more complete comments to the Corps and the PR Planning Commission. The EA was not available online, and when obtained via email was incomplete. Additionally, the public meetings on the project are being conducted in the mainland where it is difficult for the Culebra community to participate.

48

Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Ocean Acidification and Marine pH Water Quality Criteria; 74 Federal Register 17484. 49 Orr, J. C., et al. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681-686; Meehl, G. A., et al. 2007. 2007: Global Climate Projections. in S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and G. H. Miller, editors. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. 50 Gangst, R., M. Gehlen, B. Schneider, L. Bopp, O. Aumont, and F. Joos. 2008. Modeling the marine aragonite cycle: changes under rising carbon dioxide and its role in shallow water CaCO3 dissolution. Biogeosciences Discuss. 5:16551687. 51 Kleypas, J.A., et al. 2006. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers; HoeghGuldberg, et al. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, Science 318:1737-1742; Guinotte, J.M., Fabry, V.J. 2008. Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1134: 320342. 52 Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, Science 318:1737-1742. 53 Gledhill, D.K, et al. 2008. Ocean Acidification of the Greater Caribbean Region 1996-2006. Journal of Geophysical Research 113:C10031.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -22-

Executive Order 12898 (1994) on Environmental Justice applies to all requiring federal permits and or money. All PR communities are recognized as EJ communities. Further, Culebra is subsistence fishing community. Minimally there should time for community input, with public hearings held on Culebra. Notification of this was made and extension requested on the 22 of June, 2011 (attached). Also, we believe that pursuant to Puerto Rico Law 66, this project requires endorsement from the Culebra Conservation and Development Authority, which it has not received and likely will not receive as a private dock.54 Please keep me informed of any Corps decisions regarding this project. While these comments were primarily directed at the Corps, we also offer them to the PR Planning Commission and urge it to deny the CZM Certification for the reasons outlined throughout the comments, namely that the applicant has impermissibly segmented the project, preventing a true assessment of the projects impacts. Please contact us if you would like to discuss these comments or the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to have these comments taken into consideration.

Sincerely, /s/Jaclyn Lopez Jaclyn Lopez, Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 415-436-9682 x. 305 jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org Enclosures Courtesy copies sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Attn: CESAJ-DP (FUDS Program Manager) 701 San Marco Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207 Dr. Lisamarie Carrubba NOAA Fisheries Caribbean Field Office P.O. Box 1310 Boquern, PR 00622 Lisamarie.carrubba@noaa.gov Amanda D. Ellison Public Affairs Specialist Corporate Communications Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Amanda.D.Ellison@usace.army.mil /s/Mary Ann Lucking Mary Ann Lucking, Director CORALations 787-556-6234 maryann@coralations.org

Ricardo de Soto GuardaMar Programa GuardaMar de Puerto Rico PO Box 906-5920 Pta. de Tierra Sta. San Juan, PR 00906-5920 guardamar@ymail.com
54

Culebra and the Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 923.22(3) In Culebra, no work on private project can be approved by any agency without a prior endorsement from the CCDA certifying that the work done does not conflict with plans and policies. at V-24.

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -23-

Lourdes Feliciano, Secretaria La Asociacin de las Pescadores de la Isla de Culebra PO Box 240 Isla de Culebra, PR 00775 culebramarine@yahoo.com Edwin A. Hernndez-Delgado, Ph.D. Affiliate Researcher University of Puerto Rico Center for Applied Tropical Ecology and Conservation Coral Reef Research Group P.O. Box 23360 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3360 coral_giac@yahoo.com Charles Lee Director of the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460 Lee.Charles@epa.gov Jose M. Mendez, PE, MBA Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers 400 Fernandez Juncos San Juan, P. R. 00901 Jose.M.Mendez@usace.army.mil Wilmaire Rivera Otero WilmarieRivera@jca.gobierno.pr

Thomas R. Freeman III Thomas.R.Freeman.III@usace.army.mil

Ricardo Laureano Presidente e Investigador Arrecifal Independiente Vegabajeos Impulsando Desarrollo Ambiental Sustenible (VIDAS) PMB 304 Avenida Alejandrio 3071 Guaynabo, PR 00969 Grupo.vidas@gmail.com Felix Lopez Felix_Lopez@fws.gov

Mr. Jose Rivera NMFS Conservation Division Jose.A.Rivera@noaa.gov

Daniel Rodriguez Rodriguez.Daniel@epamail.epa.gov

Ana Roman Ana_Roman@fws.gov

Susan Silander Susan_Silander@fws.gov

SAJ-2010-01592 & CZ-2010-0601-064 Comments -24-

Untitled

6/22/11 9:18 PM

From: CORALations (coralations@yahoo.com) To: fuentes_m@jp.pr.gov; Ortiz_R@jp.pr.gov; Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 9:10:40 PM Cc: jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org; culebramarine@yahoo.com; perorl@yahoo.com; Enck.Judith@epamail.epa.gov; Subject: Fw: Documentos (CZ-2010-0601-064)

Buenos Dias:

Ms. Ortiz envo una copia de los documentos el 17 de junio de 2011 (abajo,) para el proyecto CZ2010-0601-064. Sin embargo, los documentos en el archivo adjunto A de EA, esta incompleto, con los nmeros impares solamente. Solicitamos respetuosamente el documento completo y ms tiempo para presentar nuestros comentarios. Esperamos su respuesta lo antes posible, porque hoy es la fecha limite.

El gobierno federal considera la comunidad de Culebra, como una comunidad de justicia ambiental.

Gracias, Mary Ann Lucking Director CORALations P.O. Box 750 Culebra, PR 00775 www.coralations.org 787.556.6234 email: maryann@coralations.org

Trabajando con comunidades del Caribe para proteger y restaurar sus arrecifes de coral. <<><<<>>><>> Working with Caribbean communities to protect and restore their coral reefs.
----- Forwarded Message ---Page 1 of 2

Untitled

6/22/11 9:18 PM

From: "ORTIZ DIAZ, ROSE A." <Ortiz_R@jp.pr.gov> To: Lourdes Feliciano <culebramarine@yahoo.com>; "maryann@coralations.org" <maryann@coralations.org> Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 3:12:37 PM Subject: Documentos (CZ-2010-0601-064)

Buenas tardes: Les hago llegar copia de la solicitud y documentos radicados por la parte proponente que son parte del expediente pblico. Voy a estar fuera de la agencia hasta el 11 de julio de 2011. De todas maneras, si tienen alguna pregunta, me la pueden enviar al correo o hablar con mi compaera Maryguel Fuentes. Telfono: (787) 723-6200 ext. 3067 E-mail: fuentes_m@jp.pr.gov Atentamente, Rose A. Ortiz Unidad de Zona Costanera
From: Lourdes Feliciano [mailto:culebramarine@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:50 PM To: ORTIZ DIAZ, ROSE A. Cc: Lourdes Feliciano Subject: CZ-2010-0601-064

Me podria enviar el proyecto de cayo norte

Page 2 of 2