Coralations Drna:Eqb Sis Dec 11 2020 Mailreceipt
Coralations Drna:Eqb Sis Dec 11 2020 Mailreceipt
• The project soliciting these public comments has been observed moving at this site since
  October when we understand past facilities were demolished and removed.
• We want to stress that advocacy for transparency and accountability in a planning process
  should in no way insinuate a lack of trust with individuals, government agencies, or the non-
  governmental organizations (NGO’s) either partnered or endorsing this project. Rather,
  transparency and meaningful public participation are possibly the only cost effective, proven
  mechanisms that safeguards both planners and projects from unintended negative
  outcomes. Unindented outcomes encompass miss-communications, legal errors, and for
  projects moving in the coastal zone unintended outcomes can include irreparable harm to
  coastal waters and resources.
• Often rated by travel publications as one of the most beautiful beaches in the world, Flamenco
  Beach is of significant economic importance to both Puerto Rico and Culebra’s nature-tourism
  industries. Flamenco sits at this global tourism table in large part for what the beach does not
  have, in contrast to many Caribbean beaches that are today scarred by unsuccessful, short-
  sighted projects, or luxury resorts that restrict access to local islanders.
• The coral reefs and other natural blessings that grace Flamenco's shoreline provide critical
  ecological services, such as mitigating the energy from storm waves, the production of white
  sand valuable to beach tourism, shoreline armoring that slows beach erosion and the
  proliferation of fish and associated marine creatures, whose combined value likely greatly
  exceeds the dollars left behind by the tourists they attract.
• Oceanographic studies reveal hat coral reef management is not only critical to the health and
  associated fisheries for Culebra’s coral reefs, but demonstrate that Culebra reefs are a source
  of fish larvae important to reef restoration and function on a more regional scale.
• In the waters of Flamenco Bay stand some massive, algae covered, skeletal remains of once
  thriving stony corals. They evidence a fortress of bio-diversity now lost to cumulative
  anthropogenic impacts.
• While it is understandable that much of this likely feels beyond the control of local managers,
  the science indicates there are actions that can be taken at the local level to make a positive
  difference to protect the remaining living coastal resources, not the least of which is the
  importance of transparency and meaningful public participation in development plans that can
  impact the coastal zone. The 1976 Culebra Segment of the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone
  Management Plan indicates that all of Culebra less remaining federal lands, is designated as
  coastal zone.
• CORALations’ policy is to submit comments on final plans into a formal planning record, and
  like all citizens, we depend on government to provide an opportunity to do this. It is not
  productive to comment on promotional materials, or ideas presented verbally in a door to door
  fashion, because representations are subject to change. This represents the first opportunity
  we have had to do this.
• We understand, however, this is one of two opportunities for meaningful public participation.
  Indeed, DRNA webpage indicates there was a call for comments on the maritime terrestrial
  zone delimitation for the area that despite the importance of this beach to Puerto Rico,
  received no (0) comments. Given we monitor the coastal zone site for projects, we feel the
  burden now falls on agency to document when this notice was officially posted. In any event
  Coastal Zone Management officials from DRNA uncharacteristically failed to respond to an
  email request for more information regarding the maritime terrestrial zone delineated, and also
  critical in assessing the sustainability of this permit. If general basic lidar radar image was
  adopted for this delineation it must be noted this doesn’t not minimally encompass all of the
  beach to the eroding vegetation mark, let alone include biological markers and
  hydrogeological features critical to these determinations. Given the importance of this area
  and scope of project a ground-truthing would be required to validate the delineation.
• Projects moving on Culebra is remiss without reference to PR Law 66, 1975, that establishes
  public policy for the Commonwealth agencies and created the Authority for the Conservation
  and Development of Culebra (ACDEC):
  It is declared that it is the public policy of the Government of Puerto Rico to preserve and
  conserve the ecological integrity of Culebra, including its cays, islands and surrounding
 waters and ensure that the continuous development of Culebra protects and conserves, to the
   maximum, its extraordinary natural environment for future generations of Puerto Rico.
• While we understand public projects involving ACDEC may not require scrutiny in the form of
  a formal evaluation and an endorsement by the local board, public agencies of Puerto Rico
  are obligated to respect this law today in the planning process.
• Any and all plans and agreements that reference jurisdictional authority of the Plan de
  Ordinación Territorial for Culebra, (Dec 27, 2012) must understand that the record will show
  that plan was adopted during a change of administration by government officials who had
  been voted out of office. The subsequent zoning changes enjoyed no meaningful public
  participation and those residents affected by those zoning changes were not personally
  informed of changes affecting either private holdings. Further dramatic changes were made
  without respect to the island’s Quit Claim Deed.
• The municipality’s public relations person indicated (Oct 9) that the more controversial
  aspects of this project, specifically plans for glamor camping and a large shoreline restaurant
  located in the western end of the campgrounds, were no longer moving forward.
• On the 11th of November, this DRNA/EQB issued a 30 day notice for public comments
  regarding the permitting of three subterranean injection wells to holding tank for waste water,
  and these plans appear to include one well and two holding tanks in the western end of the
  campground, where the official indicated expansions were reconsidered. The public notice
  did not provide an agency point of contact nor email, but incorrectly indicated the email for
  DRNA was its website.
• Official requests for documentation regarding the project were either denied, or were not
  responded too. This was documented with other citizens.
• The comments we issue today are based on very limited official information found at the
  planning board website (permit summaries and “radication” dates) and the file we reviewed at
  DRNA /EQB office on November 17th, 2020.
• At a brief meeting with the DRNA/EQB representative, and due to travel time constraints, and
  concerns about COVID, the representative verbally confirmed that the file we were reviewing
  was the complete case file
• The filed consisted only of the following: 1) a site map entitle "construction drawings," 2) a site
  map entitled “Mejoras a Facilidades Playa Flamenco, 3) Permit # 2018-246963-DEA-002552,
  approved on the 19th of March 2019, and Permit # 2018-24696-REA-002831, approved on
  the 26th of December 2018, 4) the first page of Permit #2018-243318-PC0C-002167, a
  Memorial Explicativo for the project.
• It appears that the Puerto Rico permitting agency (OGPe) issued the environmental permits
  more than a year before the DRNA/EQB call for public comments. According to OGPe
  definitions for REA, even today’s fast-track environmental process expresses that the
  importance of the REA is to require the demonstration of infrastructure before environmental
  permits can be issued.
• Not found in the file for this project was a site map referencing all the proposed septic
  infrastructure tanks in relation to a delineation of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (ZMT) or the
  hydrogeology of this problematic watershed, prone to upland erosion of volcanic soils. 
• Not found in the file was any analysis regarding historic load and related capacity needs the
  system would be expected to sustainably accommodate, nor extrapolations of future needs
  associated to the project expansions proposed for the area. It needs to be emphasized that
  it is not clear to us today given the lack of transparency, what proposed expansions or new
  works are still moving today beyond the previous facilities restoration. 
• Not found in the file was input or review required by USFWS. A call to USFWS revealed that
  they reviewed plans in the summer of 2019, but they were unaware at this time of this call for
  comments regarding this SIS permit. Waste water management should of course be a
  significant concern to all projects moving on the upland border of listed critical habitat. 
• The following summarizes possible legal errors found in the limited information we were
  able to review: 
          2) The entire project borders upland of Flamnenco Beach and Bay, the waters of
             which enjoy two three dimensional, Critical Habitat designations. The waters of
             this bay were designated in 2008 as Critical Habitat for two endangered coral
             species found in the area, (Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis.), and in
             1998 for green sea turtles, (Chelonia mydas.) Living species of other listed corals
             are documented in the bay including O. annularis, O. faceolata, O. franksi, D.
             Cylindrus and M. ferox, although some may have suffered recent mortality
             attributed to the cumulative anthropogenic impacts affecting the area and known
             to make these animals vulnerable to disease, often resulting in irreparable harm or
             mortality. (NICO’s paper) The beaches of Playa Flamenco are known nesting
             grounds for the most critically endangered sea turtle, the spectacular Giant
             Leatherback, (Dermochelys coriacea) and the ornate shelled Hawksbill sea turtles
             (Eretmochelys imbricata.). This beach provides habitat critical to the nesting /
             reproductive activity of these listed species. Existing coastal vegetation in the
             area is known to be critical to the listed Virgin Island Tree Boa (Epicrates monensis)
             and the endangered Puerto Rican Boa (Chilabothrus inornatus) has been
             documented by DRNA and Cincinnati Zoo herpetologists in this area of the island.
             It should be noted that past reforestations permitted by the agency along this
             coast resulted in the use (and by qualified experts) of monofilament root balls and
             monofilament erosion control materials that quickly eroded in Culebra’s harsh
             coastal conditions, broke apart and were entangling marine creatures in coastal
             waters. Monofilament also poses a threat to listed snakes. 
• The REA permit approved on the day after Christmas in 2018, references the need for
  proponents to comply with a number of other local regs, for very high risk activities the extent
  of which is unspecified in their written descriptions. The file reviewed regarding this permit
  proposal although it comes almost a year and a half later, included no documentation of
  subsequent permit compliance to the REA approval, and failed to specify extend of works
  proposed or provide analysis associated with capacity, hydrogeological studies, critical
  habitat characterizations, ZMT etc…The extensive list is today a matter of public record, as
  the project continues to move today, and without benefit of this permit. 
• The Memorial Explicativo for this permit indicates the project proposes “ecosystem
  restoration ” without further definition. Ecosystem restoration is very complicated and
  expensive and appears to conflict not only with proposed expansions, but even with the
  restoration of toilet and bathing facilities so desperately needed in the campground. The
  restoration directly borders to the uplands, critical habitat waters and protected species. 
• We could not understand what was actually being proposed in this permit due to rather
  vague language describing proposed works in the Memorial Explicativo. The announcement
  for public comments was less vague that the Memorial, in that it labelled the proposed
  injection wells. Failure of consistent labels for each tank discussed, led to confusion trying to
  site them on the map, as well as led to confusion what tanks existed where, what tanks were
  being restored and where, where new tanks were going to be installed and where a tank was
  to be abandoned. No mention was made of a sealing protocol for the abandoned tank. It
  appears project proponents seek to renew or approve septic infrastructure based at least in
  part on permits approved over a decade earlier, and that in some cases permitted tanks
  never installed. We assumed those tanks were approved to accommodate proposed growth
  at that time, and we question if construction permits were based on infrastructure this was to
  provide at this time. We are concerned this failure to install permitted tanks at this time, may
  have contributed to subsequent failures of septic tanks documented post Maria and during
  periods of heavy tourism at this beach. Indeed this has created serious need for this project,
  and should serve as a precautionary tale regarding capacity to support expansions now
  proposed at this beach. 
• Based on limited information it was not clear to us if this permit in any way depends on legal
  support from a Categorical Exclusion of any kind. If it does, we would like to remind
  permitting authorities that Categorical Exclusions are themselves limited to use in projects
  that pose little significant environmental threat and/or are proposed in areas of low ecologic
  value. The memorial explicative reflects that the project is sited in an area that Flamenco
  enjoys a special protective, rustic zoning designation "O", and EPA NPDES storm water
  discharge permits confirm work is taking place in a watershed that impacts federally listed
  species and designated critical habitat If this project in anyway references Categorical
  Exclusion # 17, which would have applied at the time these DEA and REA ’s referenced in the
  permit document were issued, we need to remind the agency that at that time, CE# 17 was
  for use only at sites where same injections previously existed. It is a possible legal error that
  this permit references a fast-track Categorical Exclusion #17. Both migratory and listed bird
  species nest on western end of the Flamenco Peninsula.
• The memorial explicativo for this project failed to present the location of the individual septic,
  and or injection well storage tanks proposed, not just with regard to their type, location and
  work proposed, but also in relation to water bodies. Further, it may be an error in that the
  general proximity of all tanks to the waters of Flamenco Bay appear to be much closer than
  what is indicated, to the extend it appears those submitted the project may have confused
  the meters referenced with the feet that more closely resembles the reality at least in some
  areas where tanks are proposed. 
• In addition to DRNA failing to recognize federally listed critical habitat in the area, also not
  mentioned is that this project is taking place in shoreline area, designated as coastal zone by
  the Culebra Segment of the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Act 1976. 
• OGPe’s description of the REA permit describes as its primary function the documentation of
  infrastructure needed to support proposed projects. We question therefore why this permit
  was issued almost a year and a half before the call for comments on this proposal. Given
  how critical this aspect of the injection permit is to demonstrated sustainability of the project
 proposed, this should have been presented much earlier and for review I the permitting
 process. 
• Based on the DRNA/EQB formal announcement for these permits, the announcement which
  appears to label one leaching septic restoration and two subterranean injection wells,
  indicates a combined capacity for related holding tanks of a little over twenty-thousand
  gallons. It seems intuitive even without reference to past tourism use of these campgrounds,
  that this capacity will NOT accommodate expansions proposed. 
• From the limited environmental permit summaries posted online, and information obtained
  from the DRNA/EQB injection permit file, we understand the following works/expansions to
  be moving today: 
               1) A 90% increase in parking (from 102 to 194 spaces), with plans to expand over
               the eastern boundary of the campground, including the removal of well-
               established trees that themselves provide nature aesthetic and ecological
               services to the area. The area beyond the fence line are in an area high risk
               UXO area likely not yet scanned.
               4) The proposed bathrooms and a 350ft2 food kiosko with 1000ft2 deck, do not
               reconcile with structures presented on the site map posted at the entrance to the
               construction site. The site map posted does not show the western end of the
               campground where controversial expansions appear to continue, at least
               according to the DRNA/EQB documents.
               5) While the the memorial explicativo for the injection wells does not mention the
               restaurant or large kiosko, it does mention removable tent site, that we cannot tell
               if this is normal camping or glamor camping on platforms. Conversely, the
               environmental permits mention a large 350ft2 kiosko and 1,000ft2 deck, but does
               not mention the glamor camping.
               6) It appears from the site maps viewed at the EQB/DRNA office that one of the
               tree three subterranean injection wells found in this permit is proposed in the
               most ecologically sensitive area to the western end of the campground.
• At one point, and possibly still, federal law required that a trust be established to fund a rapid
  response to spills associated with these types of injection wells. (APPENDIX X) In addition
  to the existence of a trust, this raises concerns regarding the reliability of these systems, as
  agencies rarely implement such policies pro-actively. 
• The Class VII injection wells were not included or listed in information available on EPA’s
  injection permitting website for Puerto Rico. 
• Online permit summary associated with waste-water indicated it was denied by OGPe.
  Permit #. 2018-243318-SRI-021206. Further details not accessible. 
• It is difficult to assess if proposed holding tanks would support the facilities' needed
  restoration without reference to past campground user data. It seems intuitive that the limited
  waste water capacity proposed (approximately 20,000 gal.) could not sustainably
  accommodate the numbers of people the expansions will bring. 
• A more sustainable alternative would be to limit work to the restoration of the critical
  bathroom and bathing facilities, and managing the waste water capacity limits to include
  written management plans and protocols that can articulate obligations to tank maintenance,
  and that would require additional portable sanitary facilities in support of activities or general
  periods of heavy tourism load. 
• We understand that the local community envisioned camping casitas as far back as the first
  ACDEC management plans in 1976, however, the old plans proposed the casitas on the
  hillside above the campgrounds, with the objective of accommodating low-income visitors.
  Today’s glamor camping has a poor track record on similar Caribbean islands, and often are
  subject to conflicts between tent campers and glamor campers. 
CONCLUSION
        Given the limits of the holding capacity proposed, we hope what we are being told about
the glamor camping large restaurant no longer moving in the western, most ecologically
sensitive area of this campground, is true. The numbers of people likely attracted by the
dramatic expansions proposed, including the parking, represents unacceptable risks to federally
listed endangered species in the area given the stated limits of the septic holding capacity
proposed. mmHowever, failure to restore beach and bathing infrastructure specific to better
waste water treatment also presents risks to area protected species.
        We feel that the sustainable alternative is to restore and repair existing waste water
infrastructure, as well as to insure all works were conducted as permitted, and the expansions
proposed formally cancelled until the area enjoys a reliable hook up to the municipal waste
water system.
       Possible confusion may exist with a past septic containment facilities and as the
reference works at Flamenco Beach, in that the map on the EPA ECHO permits show the site of
a closed containment facility, located near the entrance to the dump access, above the
Flamenco Lagoon.
       That the Culebrenses have these natural blessings to inherit today stands as a
testament to the fortitude and perseverance of the Island's protectors of past generations:
Culebrenses that, in the mid-seventies, and against all odds, ended the then decades long use
of Flamenco Beach and Bay as epicenter for the North Atlantic Fleet's Training Area. On
Flamenco Beach lay the rusted remains of two military tanks that serve to remind us of a time
when this area unconscionably served as a target for US Navy and NATO forces,\ launching
bombs ship to shore and conducting air strike maneuvers.
                It is more effective to protect these living resources, then to engage in the much more
        expensive and challenging tasks of restoring them. Beyond the economic argument, we
        recognize a moral responsibility to defend Playa Flamenco’s natural treasures. Living treasure,
        as Law 66 and so many other many diverse cultures have so artfully articulated, bring for their
        people economic benefits, but also bear with them a moral obligation to protect and conserve
        them for future generations. Based on Culebra’s history, the moral obligation to defend these
        natural resources today transcends any oath of office or organizational mission statement, in
        that there would be no living treasures for this generation to enjoy, if not for the
        tremendous courage and sacrifice made by Culebra's past defenders.
                 Regarding unexploded ordnance (UXO) that still contaminates this area, even the best
        efforts to remove the bombs in dynamic beach areas prone to shifting sands, cannot leave the
        beach with a label of “safe." Given the tragedy of 2013 involving a seven year old girl allowed
        to board the ferry while being burned by white phosphorous from a munition, the UXO hazards
        clearly call for written management plans that we hope would also be open to meaningful public
        participation.
                Further it is not clear to us if there are plans to have military contractors present when
        burying the holding tanks, the depth of which falls on the limits of modern scanning equipment
        parameters. Areas to the east involving the expansion of parking beyond the fence line also
        require scanning.
Sincerely,
                                                              Incend
                                                                       iary bo
                                                                               mb expos
                                                                                        ing
                                                                                   Molina on Playa Flam
                                                                                          . 1930        enco’s P
                                                                                                 ’s.            unta
                                                     e ship
                      vess els lin in g up to practic
              ilitary
Photo of 37 m ore bombing maneuvers,
            to sh               co, 1930’s.
               Playa Flamen
  We dedicate the work involved in these comments to the late Don. Ramón Feliciano (Don
     Monchin) and all of the tremendous scientists, citizens, organizations and agency
             representatives whose tireless work and sacrifice over the years