Inside PBS Blog

During the course of your career, you have interviewed a number of former presidents and world leaders. From those conversations and your observations, what would you say are the most important qualities for strong leadership? And how could such qualities best be demonstrated by our civic leaders to support the needs of the elderly?

How has your musical training benefited other areas of your life?

Through interviewing many members of the retirement community for Retirement Revolution, What are the common personality traits you have found among the successful members of that group? and is there a certain personality, mindset, or attitude that you've found over your career in happy, content people all over the world, whether they are a president, famous musician, or retiree? Paula, what amazing information you have put on record for all, taken from the minds of humans world wide. The knowledge obtained from your work will truly benefit earth infinitely for centuries to come. thank you.

Paula,

As boomers experience empty nests and think about retirement years, their relationship begins to change. Sitting across the dinner table no longer can they avoid their couple relationship by just talking about their children.
In a conversation this week with Dr. Terri Orbuch, The Love Doctor, about her new book, "5 Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage from Good to Great," we covered many love topics that boomers over 50 are now experiencing.
One myth that she covers in her book is, "If you are truly in love with your spouse, passion will never fade." From her research, Dr. Orbuch concludes that the reality is passion declines over time but is replaced with a different type of love that is associated with marriage longevity and happiness. When excitement declines or disappears, to worry about their marriage is typical. To keep the marriage together with a loving friendship is an option but a "companionate love" of friendship, intimacy and commitment can increase the couple's happiness.
What is your take on boomer marriage longevity and happiness as retirement years approach?

The Retirement Revolution provides such important information for boomers and, as member of that generation, I thank you for all you and PBS are doing to help us navigate this new stage in our lives.
My question concerns the results of a recent report conducted by The United States General Social Survey. It showed that boomer women are far less happy than we were forty years ago and far less happy than men our age. I find this totally incomprehensible because I believe women get more powerful, more outspoken, and have greater self-esteem as we grow older. Moreover, I think this is especially true for a generation of women who were reared with the 1950's gender role expectations.
What are your thoughts on this? Have you found boomer women to be sadder as we grow older? Or, do you think that, despite the challenges of age, we grow more personally powerful and more content with ourselves?

i have the same question/How has your musical training benefited other areas of your life?

Please can you help me get the word out to Ken Burns, or someone with clout to intercede or ask these senate or congressional committees to act? Below is my letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, Chaired by John D.Rockefeller, IV. Time is of the essence. Thank you.

Susan K. Wolterbeek, Esq.

September 30, 2009

Ellen Doneski
Legistative Director
Senate Commerce Committee
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Director Doneski:
I am writing to you as a citizen concerned about the coastal waters and the endangered species of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although I happen to be an attorney from NY, NH and Mass, I write to you on behalf of the turtles and corals of St. Thomas. I was an intern to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, New York, and represented the State of New Hampshire on child abuse cases for many years, so you can understand my orientation and that I am very concerned for those who cannot protect themselves.

Please help us save our coral reefs, turtles, fish and waters of the U.S. Virgin Islands, today, before a decision is made which may cause irreversible devastation to all marine life on the entire southern side of the island of St. Thomas. The local representatives of federal agencies seem to be tap dancing around following the intent and wording of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and have stated their intention to allow our local VI government and the West Indies Company (WICO) to dump silty dredging spoils, with higher than recommended levels of mercury and arsenic, into Lindbergh Bay, home to Staghorn Coral, Elkhorn Coral, and their critical habitat, Green Turtles, Hawksbill Turtles, Nassau Groupers, and a nest of Leatherback Turtle eggs, all of which are endangered or threatened species specifically protected by the ESA.

The reason for this proposed dumping is that Royal Caribbean has launched a new, larger class of cruise ship. There are two cruise ship docks in St. Thomas, the WICO dock and the Crown Bay dock, owned by the VI Port Authority, which is in deeper water. Apparently, the Crown Bay Dock would need only minor dredging, if any, for its sandy turning area, but WICO is the agent of Royal Caribbean, and wants the ship at its own dock, which needs a lot of dredging, so that it will receive the passenger fees.

The VI Port Authority owns the land of Lindbergh Bay. This is a great bay for snorkeling and diving. It was named after Charles Lindbergh who flew in and landed on the golf course in St. Thomas when he was 25 years old. Aptly, Lindbergh Bay is near our airport. There is a Children’s Park in Lindbergh Bay, along with the Emerald Beach Hotel, The Carib Beach Resort and the Island Beachcomber Resort all of whom provide services and accommodation to thousands of guests bringing in $30,000,000.00 (thirty million) dollars per year to the island’s economy, and employing 100 Virgin Islanders. These thousands of guests stay in Lindbergh Bay because the hotels are great and the beach and bay are wonderful. Lindbergh Bay is the only beach on St. Thomas accessible by public transportation.

Elsewhere, coral is dying off. In Lindbergh Bay, it is growing. There are many new recruits of Elkhorn Coral, a threatened species. There are 25 nassau grouper, also a protected species and commercially extinct. After the CZM approved the dumping, a 600 pound Leatherback Turtle climbed up on the beach and made her nest of eggs right in front of the Island Beachcomber Resort. http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/07/leath...

Lindbergh Bay is home to Hawksbill Turtles and Green Turtles, both also protected by the ESA. Elsewhere around St. Thomas, seagrasses have been dying off at an alarming rate. The green turtles who live in these waters surrounding St. Thomas have fewer and fewer food sources. There is runoff in many places around this island. The St. Thomas dump is near the island’s mangroves, which is a nursery for many aquatic species. The Water and Power company is currently polluting Lindbergh Bay, and still the bay is resilient. The seagrass beds are lush, and plentiful, and 90% turtlegrass, but much of the grasses are as shallow as 12 feet, which would be destroyed by heavy props and thrusters pushing barge loads of sludge to be dumped in this beautiful bay. Add to that the sludge itself, to be dumped here, for no reason, when there are appropriate alternatives which won’t hurt endangered or threatened species. The sea grass beds of Lindbergh Bay are home to literally thousands of juvenile queen conch, and these beds act as a natural filter for some sediment and turbidity. If these grasses are churned up there will be no food for the green turtles, and all of the other aquatic life in the bay will suffer as well, but none as badly as the corals and their critical habitat, because they cannot tolerate turbidity and sedimentation, and they cannot swim away, as turtles can.

Thousands of citizens have signed petitions against this dumping. We have not been permitted to see the full lab report on the dredge spoils, even though the full report has been subpoenaed. WICO refuses to release it. USVI Citizens have particular reason to be anxious about our environment. Last year, former DPNR Commissioner Dean Plaskett was convicted of demanding and accepting bribes and obstructing justice, Former DPNR Director of the Division of Environmental Protection Hollis L. Griffin, plead guilty to conspiring to violate the federal program bribery statute, honest services mail fraud, and structuring currency transactions in furtherance of the underlying bribery and kickback scheme. Former DPNR Director of Permits Blyden pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct the joint federal and local investigation into the bribery and kickback scheme. Many other local government workers and officials have been convicted or plead guilty to various crimes, but these above named officials are the very ones who were supposed to be protecting our endangered species, our coastal waters… and they have been convicted of taking bribes. It is not known to what extent those prior illegal activities have impacted or will impact the waters of St. Thomas, and people are thus all the more anxious about this project. The current DPNR quickly permitted this dredging and dumping. Currently, a man who apparently works for either DPNR or the EPA is renting out jetskis on Lindbergh Bay, which is a no-wake area.

These are the people who are supposed to be protecting this bay, not exploiting it. DPNR is the local agency representative of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. DPNR is the very agency which would supervise the dredging and dumping, and which must be prepared to shut the project down, if necessary, for environmental reasons. However, the agency’s employer, the VI government, is pushing the project forward as quickly as possible. There is a clear conflict of interest, and we badly need your Committee’s help.

The citizens of the Virgin Islands were not all allowed to attend the CZM hearing. CZM was notified in advance of the large numbers of citizens planning to attend the meeting, yet CZM refused to hold the hearing at a larger facility, despite the fact that it had done so in the past for other hearings. Thus, not all citizens could hear or be heard on this highly publicized, highly criticized permit application.

At present, WICO’s application is before Jose Cedeno-Maldonado, USACE Project Manager, Antilles Office of the Jacksonville District. His contact information is: Jose.Cedeno-Maldonado@usace.army.mil, telephone: (787) 729-6905, extension 3063. I met with Mr. Cedeno-Maldonado on September 8, along with Dr. LisaMarie Carrubba, of the NMFS Division of NOAA. Mr. Cedeno-Maldonado stated that he had not yet decided whether to have an informal or formal consultation with NOAA in this matter.

This decision is vital, as informal consultation just takes a few weeks. The process of a formal consultation, carefully scrutinizing the impact to all the endangered and threatened species in Lindbergh Bay, takes 135 days, and results in a biological opinion as to whether this dumping shall occur. Thus, once USACE decides which consultation is appropriate, the consultation is initiated, and results in a biological assessment, or a biological opinion, and it is only at that point that a determination is made whether to permit the dumping in Lindbergh Bay.

However, minutes after my conversation with the Project Manager, Dr. Carrubba stated that they would probably allow the dumping in Lindbergh Bay, using geobags, just not during hurricane season. How can this have been decided, when it had not even been determined which kind of ESA Chapter 7 consultation to have, all of the analyses have to be applied to data, and no opinion has yet been formulated? Further, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 230.10 et seq., alternative sites must be fully considered before any decision is made about dumping in Lindbergh Bay.

There are alternative sites available to dump these dredging spoils, which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and do not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.

USACE has suggested that WICO apply for a waiver to dump these spoils at one of the off-shore locations available to Puerto Rico, for example. There is also a site on 1200 acres of land in St. Croix, which has asked for the dredging spoils all along. WICO knowingly and willfully twice made materially false statements or representations concerning the St. Croix property to the USACE Project Manager, a federal employee, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Please see the attached letter to USACE Project Manager, Jose Cedeno-Maldonado, below, which deals with the specifics of the problem areas of this project in greater detail.

Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral and their Critical Habitat Will be Adversely Impacted by this Dumping

In 2002, according to the Caribbean Acropora Workshop, “Overall tissue reduction in the reef zones formally dominated by Acropora palmata (elkhorn coral) has been catastrophic, two orders of magnitude or greater.” In 2005, over 40% of the remaining coral in the US Virgin Islands was killed off due to global warming. Now what remains is only 3% of the former abundance of corals.

In 2006, Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral were both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 71 FR 26852. On November 26, 2008, the Final 4(d) Rule of the ESA went into effect for these species: 73 FR 64264. On December 26, 2008, 50 CFR 23 and 26 came into effect, defining the critical habitat of Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral to be the marine habitat surrounding the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and sections of Florida, from the shoreline out to 98 feet of water, where there is found the essential feature of substrate of suitable quality and availability. 73 FR 72210. In Lindbergh Bay, the critical habitat of Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral line both sides of the bay, for almost the entire length of the bay.

Pursuant to 73 FR 72210, “Elkhorn and Staghorn coral require relatively clear, well-circulated water and are almost entirely dependent upon sunlight for nourishment…” These corals are unable to clean sediment off themselves, which is why dredging and dumping activities, which stir up sediment, or in this case, dump contaminated sediment, can be fatal to them.

The savelindberghbay.com website offers a wealth of information on this matter. If you click on the documents on the left, you will see a report by Elizabeth Kadison, who is a research biologist with the Marine and Environmental Studies Dept. of the University of the Virgin Islands. There is a supplemental report from Dr. Kadison, dated September 25, 2009, which is attached to this email. On that website you will also see the report by Dr. Cherubin, of the University of Miami, who works with NOAA.

Wave and Current Study

The CZM asked if WICO had prepared a wave and current study. Mr. Hendrick referred the question to Mr. Winslow who said, at page 113 of the CZM transcript that the fact they have not done a wave and current study “doesn’t mean that we can’t make an educated guess.” A wave and current study was performed in April, 2009, by Dr. Laurent M. Cherubin, Research Scientist at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and Co-PI with NOAA on Implementation of the Caribbean Regional Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Dr. Cherubin concludes:

“The effect of such spoil dispersal on the environment will be twofold:

(1) dissolved pollutants such as arsenic will reach healthy reefs and habitats, and contaminate waters and marine organisms, such as fish over a broader range than will do sediments, and in an invisible manner. Therefore based on December scenario, all beaches south and north of the eastern side of St Thomas will be contaminated each time wave action will become significant and last for more than a week. Some commercial fish species will become contaminated over time, what will represent a threat to human health if consumed.

(2) suspended sediments, according to the simulation, could have a concentration much larger than the tolerance level of the marine organisms present in the area to the point that they would be entirely covered by sediment leading to a massive die-off of the entire ecosystem in a few month with no hope for recovery because of the permanent threat. This die off could extend to areas within 10km around Lindbergh Bay reaching healthy reefs and islands such as Flat Cays that are host of two healthy elkhorn corals species, along with Acropora Palmata, a species listed as “threatened” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Bruckner 2002). In summary, the impact on the reef ecosystem would be disastrous with no hope of recovery over a range that could reach the entire southern shelf of the island as shown by the simulation.”

As you can see, Director Doneski, this proposed project demands careful scrutiny, to protect our endangered and threatened species, and to protect our waters, which subjects are on your current agenda. I knew this committee was the right one after reading Chairman Rockefeller’s speech of June 9, 2009:

I want to state very clearly – for those who live on our coasts and those who do not, like my state –
we must all be a part of the effort to improve the health and well-being of our
oceans. America’s economic growth and the livelihood of so many workers depend on the decisions we make now.
What is good for the health of our coastal communities and oceans is good for the nation.

Director Doneski, would you please contact Jose Cedeno-Maldonado, USACE Project Manager, Jose.Cedeno-Maldonado@usace.army.mil, telephone: (787) 729-6905, extension 3063, to let him know you will be looking at this matter, so that USACE does not issue a permit until you have had a little time to review documents, at least? Once they get started dredging and dumping, it will already be too late, especially because they should be doing the dumping on land in St. Croix. This is one bad project. There are others, as well. We thousands of U.S. citizens, the many endangered and threatened species, our coastal waters and our oceans need your Committee’s help to get our local government in compliance with federal laws, and to ensure that the federal agencies involved follow their own protocols and the mandates of the applicable statutes.

J. Lowe Davis is the Editor in Chief of the Virgin Islands Daily News. Her email is: lowedavis@dailynews.vi. Her telephone number is: (340) 774-8772, extension 350. The Daily News has written special reports on Deadly Force (about the V.I. citizens’ overwhelming fear of, and lack of confidence in, our VI Police Department) and Contracts and Cronies Parts One and Two (about the high level of corruption and horrendous fiscal mismanagement in the VI government). The Daily News is a good resource here, as are the St. Thomas Source and the St. Croix Avis, for accurate, factual information. I hope this letter and the attached documents will give you a good overview of the issues, and I will be glad to share any and all documentation and contact information with you. Just let me know what you need. I am available at all times. Thank you for your consideration in regard to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Susan K. Wolterbeek, Esq.

______________________________________________________________________________

Susan K. Wolterbeek, Esq.
P.O. Box 306658
St. Thomas, VI 00803-6658
(340) 714-2233 susanremy@vipowernet.net

September 28, 2009

Jose Cedeno-Maldonado
US Army Corps of Engineers, Antilles Office
400 Fernández Juncos Ave.
San Juan PR 00901-3299

Dear Mr. Cedeno-Maldonado:

It was a great pleasure to meet with you. Thank you for your patience in dealing with non-biologists, and for your conscientious attitude in regard to this matter. Pursuant to your suggestion, I wrote to Mark Reiss, of the EPA, concerning WICO’s continuing refusal to release Lancaster Laboratories’ entire report.

On Friday, Mr. Reiss and I had an in depth conversation for over two hours, touching on many subjects. In regard to the issue of the lab report, Mr. Reiss has not seen the entire laboratory report either.

Therefore, since the report has been subpoenaed, and concerned citizens and VI Senators have repeatedly requested this report, as you are the USACE Project Manager, won’t you please direct Permit Applicant WICO to have Lancaster Laboratories send a copy of the entire laboratory report directly to the CZM, who should then make the report available to anyone wishing to view and copy any portions of it? Surely the federal agencies do not agree with WICO, in secreting the report, and refusing to allow U.S. citizens to see the full analysis of the sludge intended to be dumped in our public bay.

Alternative Sites

Time Constraint Created by WICO

In this matter, although timing was apparently critical to the applicant, WICO chose to start the application process quite late. WICO did not submit additional documents, plans and studies which were requested by the CZM. WICO chose to not consult early in the application process with the EPA and other federal agencies. WICO chose to submit materials which were kicked back by the federal agencies in regard to many areas, as incomplete, inadequate and not supported by facts. Thus, WICO has created its own time pressure. WICO then has been using this time pressure, of its own making, as its excuse to severely restrict the careful consideration of alternative sites.

“ I believe using time constraints as an argument is irrelevant. It seems the time delays are due more to the consultants for this project not submitting the appropriate and requested information in a timely manner.”

NMFS email dated July 10, 2009.

WICO representatives have said emphatically, repeatedly, that they must start dredging by the first week of September, or they will not have the time to complete the project by the target date. It is now in the fourth week of September, thus the target date is no longer possible. If WICO would still like to continue with the project, then it must comprehensively consider alternative dump sites, which is mandated by federal law, and which you repeatedly requested in your letter dated June 8, 2009, and again in your letter dated July 21, 2009, when you further reminded WICO of 40 CFR Part 230.10 (a):

"[N]o discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences".

The St. Croix Alternative:

In WICO’s first set of responses dated 6/24/09, answering your letter of June 8, 2009, WICO stated:

“In regard to the use of uplands in St. Croix for sediment disposal, we have learned that the landfill at this location is in the process of closing down and is not available to take additional fill material.”

The above statement is false. To underscore this fact, the St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP, wrote a letter on July 7, 2009, specifically stating its willingness to receive the dredging spoils on a part of its 1200 acres of land in St. Croix. This organization has always been willing to receive these dredging spoils.

Later, in WICO’s Response to Agency Request for Additional Information Part 2, dated August 4, 2009, WICO stated:

“The owners have since withdrawn all offers to accept the dredge spoils for this project and have only agreed to pursue permits for acceptance of future material. See email from Jack Thomas of the Renaissance Group at Attachment D.”

However, said email does not state that the St. Croix Renaissance Group has withdrawn their offer. Indeed, they never have.

The above statement by WICO is also false, or at the very least, grossly misleading, with no attempt made to verify the facts. By letter dated September 15, 2009, the St. Croix Renaissance Group again confirmed and reiterated their wish to receive the dredging, stating:

“We are at a loss over the statement made and confusion regarding the dredge spoils, as our letter dated July 7, 2009 states contrary.”
Twice USACE has requested that WICO include the St. Croix site in their analysis, and twice WICO has answered your request with false information, to preclude the St. Croix site from being considered as an alternative site to Lindbergh Bay.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to:
1) knowingly and willfully;
2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;
3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.
USACE recognizes this statute as applying to statements made by Applicants in permitting matters, and cautions them accordingly. The requirement that the falsehood must be "material" is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). The alternative sites issue is at the crux of this case; if WICO dumps elsewhere, there is no opposition to its permit application. But WICO does not want to dump in St. Croix, or even have the federal agencies consider the St. Croix site, thus it made the two statements cited above. WICO has given you false information, in writing, on two separate occasions, on an issue vital to this permitting process.
Does USACE have a protocol for dealing with Applicants who give false information? Will USACE reject the permit at this point, or have you reiterated your requests of June 8 and July 21, 2009, that WICO provide a comprehensive analysis of the St. Croix site now? Mr. Reiss stated that he has not been informed of any details about the St. Croix site, so one can conclude that the site has not been under consideration yet. This alternative site is on a large tract of land, and may be ideal for the dredge spoils. With the September 15, 2009 letter from the Renaissance Group in hand, will WICO now be performing that alternative site analysis USACE has been requesting?

Puerto Rican Dump Site

Similarly, there are Puerto Rican dump sites available, and apparently the off-shore site between Vieques and the eastern coast of Puerto Rico, Yabocoa Harbor, offers a reasonable disposal alternative for certain Puerto Rican dumping projects; anyone else would require the granting of a waiver, or a change in the rule.

As recently as May 27, 2009, Senator Craig Barshinger purportedly spoke with Mr. Sindulfo Castillo, and Mr. Castillo stated that:

“The Army Corps hopes that the Applicant will consider alternate dumping
sites. There are alternate dumping sites available right now.”

The EPA would have to amend the rule to allow dredging spoils from the USVI. Apparently, if WICO had only requested a waiver from the EPA, early on, when WICO should have begun this permitting process, Mr. Reiss would have then gone through the analysis and necessary steps to make a determination whether to modify the language to allow WICO’s use of the dump site. In that instance, no one would have opposed the permit, and WICO would be going forward with everyone’s backing, once WICO had finally given sufficient data to satisfy the various federal agencies. There is nothing to prevent WICO from requesting a waiver, or modification of the rule, now.

Is it not reasonable to request that WICO fully explore this option, particularly when it has been already considered to be an appropriate and available alternative by Mr. Castillo of USACE? Will you recommend that WICO apply for a waiver, now, since these sites are available and time is no longer an issue for WICO?

This permit would then be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 230.10, should WICO dispose of the dredging at the St. Croix or the Puerto Rico site, neither of which are inhabited by endangered or threatened species, or people, as opposed to Lindbergh Bay, which is teeming with endangered and threatened species, and is utilized currently by thousands of tourists, three hotels, a restaurant and a children’s park.

WICO’s Dumping Will Cause Harmful Turbidity and Sedimentation

Previously, when WICO’s co-applicant, the VI Port Authority (VIPA) and expert Amy Dempsey investigated dumping into Lindbergh Bay in 1998, VIPA wrote:

“After the inspection of the site and revisiting the proposed area to be dredged in Charlotte Amalie Harbor, we could not recommend the deposition of this fill material in the depression in Lindbergh Bay. Much of the material to be dredged is just as silty and fine as that in the depression in Lindbergh Bay. Deposition of these materials in Lindbergh Bay would further degrade the water quality within Lindbergh Bay.”

Neither WICO nor their expert Dempsey have shown how that material has become less silty in the past 11 years, or why it would not degrade the water quality now. The primary concern of all the federal agencies in this case appears to be WICO’s ability, or lack thereof, to prevent sediment and turbidity from fouling the waters and injuring the aquatic resources of Lindbergh Bay. In May, the EPA recommended rejecting WICO’s permit application:

“In summary, EPA believes that the proposed dredging of the Charlotte Amalie
Harbor and the subsequent disposal of the dredged material at Lindbergh Bay could result in unacceptable impacts to significant aquatic resources.”

EPA letter dated May 21, 2009.

In its Response to said EPA letter, and being fully aware of the vital importance of this issue, WICO stated that:

The dredged material, including sediment and water, resulting from the
mechanical dredging will be loaded into a containment barge with no discharge of
sediments or water to the surrounding environment. The material and water will be transported to Lindbergh Bay where it will be placed using a tremie tube. No
supernatant water will be released or discharged from the barge at the dredging site.” (Emphasis added).

Clearly, the EPA did not believe the above statement by WICO, stating by email dated July 15, 2009:

“Release and resuspension of these fines represents the greatest ecological threat associated with this project. It is irrelevant whether the grain size distribution of the sediment is within the normal range for pristine sites and its relationship to the grains size distribution within the Lindbergh depressions is also irrelevant. Releases will occur during and shortly following discharge before the material has dewatered and compressed.”

NMFS found WICO’s statement to be false as well.

“Applicant states that "turbidity will be greatly reduced" by the use of a clamshell bucket. NMFS has never observed a clam shell dredge that did not leak like a sieve as it was being lifted up from the bottom and into the barge so we would like information regarding the new clam shell technology available to the applicant.”

“Do not believe the statements regarding supernatant water are possible. How can they ensure no water enters tremie tube for discharge in Lindberg Bay if material will be taken immediately to disposal site once it is dredged? Where will the water go? Do not believe that barges are ever 100% contained, but even if they are, where will water that drains from dredged sediments into barges be disposed of? How will the turbidity curtain “force any suspended sediment downward into the water column?...In addition, in the response it is indicated that the boom to be used in Lindbergh Bay needs to allow some escape of sediment-laden water to remove pressure on boom.”

NMFS letter dated July 10, 2009.

Thus, even if the proposed dumping were to work exactly according to plan, turbidity and sedimentation discharges will result, and are expected to occur, from the projected dumping in Lindbergh Bay. WICO admits this in its response to Comments from Attorney Weiss dated May 22, 2009:

“Pressure created by tidal changes and the depositing of dredge spoils must be relieved and some water containing sediments must be allowed to escape.”

Response dated 6/24, comment 15.

Another factor to bear in mind is that although each individual planned discharge might not cause significant sediment or turbidity, the cumulative effects and/or the secondary effects of these discharges can still result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems.

Further, one must fully consider the likelihood of accidental groundings or malfunctions of barges, human error, and any accidental or incidental spills from the barges along the way. Will the barges be 100% contained and enclosed? If not, how much spillage will occur, how often, from each barge load? Will these barges be driven under their own power, or pushed by tugboats?

WICO intends to have its workers dredging and dumping onto barges, then navigating to Lindbergh Bay, watching for turtles and other wildlife, and making sure there are no sludge spills, in all weather, at all hours, nonstop, 24 hours a day, to dump the barge loads, yet WICO only intends to have 2 wildlife monitors for this project. Either both people will be working 12 hour shifts for 90 days without rest, or WICO plans to dredge and dump some of the hours or some of the days without any monitors present. WICO says it is easy for the monitors to spot plumes, and, if necessary, stop work immediately. The biologists cannot see the plumes if they are sleeping, or off duty. Without a team of several independent wildlife monitors to watch for turtles, to watch for spillage and accidents, and to stop all activity when necessary, the monitoring plan is unreasonable, and the likelihood of negative impacts to aquatic resources are probable.

WICO Fails to Include Staghorn Coral in any of its Analyses

In the case at hand, both Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral are found living in Lindbergh Bay, and WICO has not disputed that fact. Whereas elsewhere in the USVI these threatened corals are dying off, so that we only have 03% left of the coral of 30 years ago, in Lindbergh Bay the Elkhorn Corals are actually expanding, growing new recruits.

Under section e. Threatened & Endangered Species, USACE specifically lists Staghorn Coral as one of the several endangered and threatened species in Lindbergh Bay which WICO needs to address in various sections of the Application. However, WICO did not analyse the project’s impact on Staghorn Coral at all, completely ignoring a threatened species. Where is the Staghorn Coral in Lindbergh Bay? WICO identifies this threatened species as being located in the 5th quadrat of its benthic survey, but does not include Staghorn Coral in any of its lists, responses or analyses, in contravention of USACE guidelines and the ESA.

The Dump Site is Close To the Critical Habitat of Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral

Under “Potential Effects Species/Critical Habitat” WICO states:

“There is no hardbottom in the project area… Rocky shorelines along the edges of the bay do provide attachments for corals, but these areas are well outside the influence of the project.”

How many feet away is “well outside the influence of the project”? WICO’s own Exhibit L reveals that the critical habitat of the staghorn and elkhorn coral almost completely line both sides of the bay. Therefore, this is another area of the application where the facts are again in conflict with WICO’s misstatement, in that some sections of the threatened corals’ critical habitat are very close to the dumping site.

Pollution, Sedimentation and Turbidity are Stressors
to Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral

There is disagreement about the level and type of pollution in the dredge spoils, and since WICO refuses to disclose the full lab report, the complete data and analysis are still not known.

When pollutants are discharged, nutrient levels (nitrates and phophates) in the water can increase. This can lead to an excessively nutrient-rich environment (eutrophic), which encourages algae blooms and the growth of other organisms that can stifle corals or outcompete them for space (Jones & Endean, 1976). In addition, direct sedimentation can smother a shoreline reef, and Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral are particularly sensitive to sediment as they are among the least effective of the reefbuilding corals at trapping and removing sediment from their surface. Sediment may also increase the water’s turbidity, which, in turn, obscures the light on which corals thrive. Light deprivation ultimately will starve a coral, which is dependent on its symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) to generate food photosynthetically (UVI, 2001; Bryant et al., 1998). [NOAA website]

WICO’s Project is Likely to Adversely Modify
This Project Would Damage Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals’ Critical Habitat
Thus far, WICO has continually tried, over the past several months, in a long series of questions and responses, plans and diagrams, to prove to the federal agencies that the proposed dumping will not cause turbidity and sedimentation, detrimentally affecting Lindbergh Bay. WICO has not been able to satisfy the agencies yet.

Pursuant to 73 FR 72210, “Elkhorn and Staghorn coral require relatively clear, well-circulated water and are almost entirely dependent upon sunlight for nourishment…” Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Pursuant to the 4(D) Rule of the ESA, the definition of “take” includes that no one may damage the species’ habitat or discharge any pollutant or contaminant that harms the species.

Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 230, subpart B, Sec. 230.10 (b) (3), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it results in the likelihood of the adverse modification of critical habitat. With the close proximity of the dumpsite to sections of the Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals’ critical habitat, which is particularly sensitive to sediment and turbidity, combined with the agreed fact that discharge of sediment and turbidity will occur, even during normal operation, there is indeed a likelihood of the adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, the permit should be denied.

This Project Will Negatively Impact the Food Source of a Protected Species

I am an avid snorkeler, and have observed that many large areas of other seagrass beds around St. Thomas in the past few years have turned yellowish brown, or died off completely. Lindbergh Bay is blessed with lush beds of seagrasses that serve as an “extremely important nursery ground” (Kadison) for thousands of juvenile queen conch, as well as being the food source of the threatened Green Turtles who live in Lindbergh Bay, and who rely heavily on those seagrasses.

As shown by the Kadison Environmental Marine Survey dated March 14, 2009, turtle grass now comprises 90% of the total composition of seagrasses in the bay. “This is important to note because turtle grass generally takes longer to establish in a disturbed area than manatee grass or sea vine, and is considered a more stable habitat.”

The Supplemental Kadison Response dated September 25, 2009, emphasizes that sea turtle densities are relatively high in this foraging area, and that three months of constant barge activity, using props and thrusters, will disturb and destroy significant seagrass beds. “The amount of seagrass to be impacted by the project is severely underestimated by the applicant as are the benthic organisms that exist in the depression.”
Kadison strongly recommends WICO conducts a thorough study of the bay, including quantative data on the abundance of seagrasses below 26 feet. This study, (with any additional agency input) would address the concerns raised by NMFS in its discussion of quantification of seagrass coverage at #3. of its email dated July 10, 2009.

Please consider how much the props and thrusters would ruin this important food source, how difficult it is to successfully transplant seagrass, how long it will take to replenish, and where around St. Thomas all of the turtles affected are supposed to find food in the months or years ahead.

Formal, not Informal, Consultation with NOAA

This is a permit application involving several species protected under the Endangered Species Act. Even if the project were to go according to plan, with no accidents, the cumulative effects of three months of heavy barges with props and thrusters going deep inside Lindbergh Bay, constantly stirring up the water, will affect the staghorn coral, elkhorn coral and their critical habitat. This project also will affect the green turtles and hawksbill turtles that live in Lindbergh Bay, as well as their food sources. Please see the Kadison Supplemental Report.

If there are any accidental dumpings of dredge spoils, the situation would be that much worse, and accidents can be expected when the work is constant, pressured, 24 hours a day. Please be protective of the aquatic resources of Lindbergh Bay, and conduct a formal consultation with NOAA, pursuant to your own guidelines. After all, it is the policy of the Corps to encourage the propagation of proposed and listed species and protect proposed and designated critical habitat.

“14. Formal Consultation. In those cases where it is determined that listed species or critical habitat may be affected by an activity undertaken by the Corps, Formal Consultation under the ESA is required.”

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/pdfs/05jun21-ESAO&M.pdf

Public Interest

Pursuant to 33 CFR 320.4, this project must be evaluated by USACE to ensure that it would not be contrary to the public interest. Lindbergh Bay has the only beach in St. Thomas serviced by public transportation. There are three hotels on Lindbergh Bay, a restaurant and a children’s park. The businesses bring thirty million dollars to the island per year, and employ 100 Virgin Islanders. These are hard numbers, not speculative, like the assumption of how much megacruiseship passengers will spend downtown, when they have enticing well-stocked boutiques on board.

There has been an enormous outcry by the people of the Virgin Islands against this dumping. On this small island, even with tens of thousands of citizens working for either the local government or the cruise ship industry, still over 2,000 residents have signed petitions not to dump in Lindbergh Bay.

Several environmental and citizen groups have together filed appeals of the CZM decision. The dredging and dumping issue is often discussed on the radio, and in all walks of life, throughout the territory. The VI Daily News, the VI Source and the St. Croix Avis have published dozens of articles, letters and photographs, almost all for the dredging, and against the dumping. There have been several informational and fundraising events, and more are scheduled.

The citizens of the Virgin Islands were not all allowed to attend the CZM hearing. CZM was notified in advance of the large numbers of citizens planning to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, CZM refused to hold the hearing at a larger facility, despite the fact that it had done so in the past for other hearings. Thus, not all citizens could hear or be heard on this highly publicized, highly criticized permit application. The public has not yet been able to see the entire lab report, even though it has been subpoenaed.

Governor de Jongh said in his letter dated March 30, 2009, that he was gratified to learn that dumping dredge spoils in Lindbergh Bay “will not compromise, but will improve the quality of the water…” Clearly we cannot depend upon our Governor to protect our coral, despite the fact that he is a member of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The VI Legislature’s Deputy Chief Legal Counsel Tharpes advised, in detail, why the CZM issuance of the Coastal Zone Permit was inconsistent with the requirements of the CZM Act, and is therefore illegal. Nevertheless, the subcommittee of the VI Legislature ignored her legal advice and ratified the permit.

Therefore, with the local VI government strongly behind the dumping, DPNR is put into a conflict of interest. Should the permitting go forward, DPNR would be the local enforcement, and would have to act, at times, contrary to the very strong wishes of its employers.

There is too much that can go wrong, if USACE allows the dumping in Lindbergh Bay, because USACE undoubtedly would be granting the permit subject to many limitations, which would then have to be enforced strictly, and promptly. It is clear that an enormous amount of pressure has been brought to push this permit forward, and it would be very difficult for a local agency, such as DPNR, to shut the project down, if necessary, for environmental reasons.

There is much public outcry in this matter, and for very cogent reasons. Lindbergh Bay has many important functions right now, growing recruits of Elkhorn Coral, providing lush seagrasses to green turtles, a nursery to thousands of juvenile queen conch. It is the home to Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral, to Nassau grouper, and where a leatherback laid her nest. Finally, the bay is lined on both sides with the critical habitat of Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral. The objective of the federal agencies is to get these projects done , if they can be done safely and appropriately. The dumping portion of the project cannot be done safely and appropriately. There are other alternatives, such as the St. Croix site for WICO to utilize.

Conclusion

This permit should be denied. USACE recognizes Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 as applying to statements made by applicants in permitting matters, and since WICO made several false statements or representations about material issues, its permit should be denied and WICO should be given appropriate sanctions.
This reasoning is twofold; first, to deal appropriately with actions already taken, and second, to preclude any further misrepresentations or negative impact on the environment. If Applicant has been trying to cut corners, in its haste to get this project done, and is not being truthful at this juncture, it is illogical to expect Applicant to become more scrupulous in the future, once it has gotten the green light.
If USACE decides to proceed regardless, please leave Lindbergh Bay alone. This bay serves an important function as a nurturing home to many endangered and threatened species, their food sources, and the critical habitat of Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral. Please seriously investigate alternative sites, and recommend them, or have WICO apply for the waiver in Puerto Rico.
Thank you for your careful consideration in regard to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Susan K. Wolterbeek, Esq.