May 31, 2014
To: Scott Sheeley, Regional Permit Administrator, Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 8 Office, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414
Cc: frontierstone@gw.dec.state.ny.us; State Sen. George Maziarz;
Assemblywoman Jane Corwin; Joe Martens, DEC; Gov. Andrew Cuomo; Rep. Chris Collins;
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand; Sen. Charles Schumer
Subject: Frontier Stone's Proposed Quarry in
Shelby
Dear Mr. Sheeley:
I'd like to thank the DEC for rejecting Frontier
Stone's four previous draft environmental impact statements regarding the
proposed Shelby Quarry.
I bet you wish the state would pass a
three-strike rule so company's like Frontier Stone would stop wasting your time
and taxpayer money with nonsense like this.
Reading the final [fifth draft?] I can just
imagine your frustration's peaking, as I have 41 specific objections to Frontier Stone's environmental impact
statement in three general areas, and I'm by no means an expert. That means I
expect you should be having many more substantial problems with it, being that
you're tasked with environmental
conservation by the citizens of New York state.
These are the general categories my
objections fall under:
1) Frontier Stone's proposed quarry's
environmental impact statement avoids any
rational or reasonable appeal to counter and allay the heightened civic concerns
over its plan;
2) Frontier Stone's planned quarry would
negatively affect the lives of more local residents than it would benefit. Most
visitors rely on the Alabama Swamps as a place to reinvigorate their souls and
live fuller lives more involved with the planet and their natural surroundings.
Frontier Stone seems unable to empathize
with a nature-loving sensibility;
3) Frontier
Stone has shown itself to be uncaring and dishonest in all drafts of its
environmental impact statement, and should not be trusted to run a quarry in
such a sensitive location, going the extra step necessary to preserve INWR and
state wildlife management areas.
Please excuse the outline format and length
of this critique, but the mind-numbing redundancy and convoluted nature of
Frontier Stone's statement made it difficult to absorb, much less coherently
re-present.
The outline method seems to offer the most
coherence.
I've taken the time to spell things out
because I love the swamps so dearly, and would hate to see this project move forward.
I. NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT ADDRESSING PUBLIC
CONCERNS
1. The DEC required the DEIS because of the proposed quarry's potential to "impact wildlife and wildlife
habitats found in and adjacent to the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge,"
especially regarding the effects of blasting. The statement does not adequately
address this concern as there are no
long-term studies on the effects of blasting on wildlife habitat similar to the
swamps.
2. Of particular interest is the effect the quarry will have on flood
control, especially in light of weather resulting from global warming that
would make Frontier Stone's plans for dewatering the quarry inadequate. The
Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment from 2011: "Over half of the Refuge is wetland
(6,500 acres) with 4,000 of these wetland acres contained in 19 managed
freshwater impoundments [this does not include the two state Wildlife
Management Areas]. Water levels are
adjusted within and between years to mimic natural hydroperiods associated with
unaltered wetlands.
3. Page 7 details a whole lot of blasting. I live 3
miles east of LaFarge in Lockport, which is allowed to blast only once a month.
When it does, the windows in my house rattle. I can't imagine what it's like on
Hinman Road. I also can't help but wonder about the integrity of the berms
undergoing such constant shock waves. Most important, I shudder to think how the wildlife will handle this invasion of their
refuge. No adequate studies have ever been done…to do so would be cruel.
4. Page 7: "During
operation of the quarry, groundwater and precipitation will seasonably
accumulate in the quarry sump, initially located in the southeast corner of
Phase 1. This water will be discharged via pipe to the adjacent agricultural
drainage ditch via a settling basin system pursuant to a State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit…" We're talking about a possible
average of 1.44 million gallons of water
per day containing dissolved natural gas, salt brine and hydrogen sulfide
entering the Oak Orchard Creek watershed [if the climate remains the same]. The
DEIS ignores climate change, among other things.
5. "There may be instances such as NYSDOT mandated night
paving projects that necessitate mining
and (or) processing outside of normal hours." (pp. 7-8). Considering
the drastic increase in truck traffic and the effect of seismic waves on
roadways, one might imagine ongoing road
construction and a seemingly continuous mining operation. Also,
"Operations that are limited to these restrictions do not include,
maintenance activity or other operations associated with industrial activity at
the site (ex. HMA production or RMC production)." This could totally mess with the circadian rhythms of neighboring
fauna, and much more.
6. "If an emergency situation occurs outside the Department [of
Environmental Conservation's] normal working hours, the permittee shall notify
the Department the next business day." [p. 8] REALLY? NEXT TO A NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE? IF SOMETHING HAPPENED 6 P.M. FRIDAY BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY, THEY
WOULDN'T HAVE TO CONTACT ANYONE UNTIL 9 A.M. TUESDAY? 63 HOURS OF SPILLAGE WITHOUT HAVING TO REPORT?
REALLY?
7. Have any studies been done on the effects of long-term blasting on the
wetlands' water table, silt, clay and bedrock? What about climate change? These
concerns are ignored and Frontier's mitigation [p. 21], of "avoidance and
buffer zones" and use of existing drainage ditches is dishonest and/or
absurd.
8. The entire DEIS depends on the historical climate remaining the same.
9. "…it is apparent that there
will be no drawdown impacts or disruption of flow from the groundwater flow
systems associated with the Oak Orchard Acid Springs…The amount of impact, if
any, is only theoretical at this time [as is the lack of impact only theoretical]."
And once again, climate change is not considered. What happens if we have much more or much less water for extended
periods of time in the not too distant future? Considering the
"interconnected nature" of the present Lockport dolomite formation,
might a more thorough water study be appropriate?
10.
Pages
116-17, which discusses "Water Quantity," where it states "The
construction of the quarry…will introduce a certain added volume of groundwater
to the normal runoff volume" of
the normal amount of precipitation
that falls on the "project area and migrates to the Refuge," thus
affecting the amount of "normal"
run-off from the Refuge, considering the climate remains normal. The water quantity estimate is "based on the proposed
plan to pump continuously throughout the year (including the winter months) and
under the assumption that all the
precipitation during December, January and February will accumulate as a snow
pack that is assumed to melt during
the month of March…It is also assumed
that there will be no evaporation in March. The assumption of accumulated snow pack and lack of evaporation…will
occur during the winter months…September is the month when water levels are at
their seasonal low and the
associated inflow to the quarry will be at a minimum." What
did Felix Unger say about ass-u-me?
11.
On page 123,
the DEIS states that "Ditches and culverts below the USFWS-controlled
Schoolhouse Marsh dam have been assessed and found to be or more than
sufficient capacity to accommodate the quarry water discharge. Little to no change is expected in these
downstream systems from the quarry discharge water." But again, what about
radically different water quantities thanks to climate change? On page 125,
the DEIS admits that increased water
discharges from the quarry, even without considering the possible radically
increased amounts of precipitation due to climate change, will result in
changes in or adaptations by the fauna and flora to "adapt to the new
equilibrium." Not if the weather's unusual for a few years. Even more
asinine is the DEIS effort to extrapolate for "precipitation on an annual
average basis. The precipitation data
used in this case was obtained from the NOAA…Rochester station…for the year
2012." [127] A yearly average takes more than one year of measurements.
Those measurements should also occur on site, not in the next county closer
to Lake Ontario. This is really shoddy
work.
12.
In its
mitigation plans, Frontier claims "The location of the site access road is
placed far from potential off-site receptors to minimize off-site
impacts." In other words, the quarry's gate is as far away from human
residences, which means it's as close as feasible to the swamps. These priorities are contrary to the stated
purpose of INWR and the surrounding complex. The statement further
addresses air quality on p. 54, referring to the "few farm residences
along Fletcher Chapel Road, Sour Springs Road and Southwood [sic] Road, which
are existing receptors for air emissions." They forget to mention all the
wildlife and other humans "using" the land for
"recreational" purposes. Astonishingly, this DEIS uses ambient measurements from a Rochester air quality
station in Monroe County as typical background measurements of air quality in
the swamps rather than actually test the air there [Rochester is also downwind
of the Swamps, as the prevailing weather patterns flow from the west in
general, southwest in particular]. So the background air quality for INWR
is the same as downwind Rochester's industry and exhaust emissions from road
traffic. It also uses state average
ambient air qualities as a measuring stick, rather than the air quality that
actually exists in the swamps now. So,
of course, the quarry activities will not exceed Rochester's air pollution.
Nice. The rest of the air quality study is based on industry standards and
funded research from the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
13.
On page 111,
the DEIS states: "Explosives used during the excavation process are
comprised of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, a potential contaminant to
groundwater quality… Nitrogen, carbon dioxide and steam are produced upon
detonation…These byproducts would be diffused and dispersed into the air at
levels so low that it is unlikely that a
potentially significant impact would occur…Environmental factors such as the
introduction of acid rain or changes in groundwater table elevation due to, for
example, drought [or flood, climate change] conditions can alter groundwater
chemistry affecting solubility of minerals." This is as close as the study
comes to admitting that future projections based on historical data are faulty.
14.
Also, the estimated decibel level of a
similar quarry the DEIS compares Shelby to has an average decibel level of
about 75, which lies somewhere between a
vacuum cleaner in the next room and something loud, intolerable like a jackhammer in the street [Figure 15
and p. 160]. On page 166 the DEIS reveals that quarry noise at the Iroquois Job Corps will be 56.3
decibels, somewhere between an air
conditioner and "loud unusual background noise." The same holds true
at the Mallard and Schoolhouse Marsh overlooks.
15.
Traffic and
Transportation—"Potential impacts from trucks include [and therefore are not
limited to] combustion emissions and dust, noise and impacts to local traffic
patterns [no mention of road maintenance that could waive the quarry's normal
operating hours]…The project is projected to generate a daily average of 8 to
10 trucks per hour [about 1 truck every 6.25 minutes] based on projected
maximum annual production over 220 days. This is equivalent to 128-160 truck trips per 8 hour day (64-80
trucks entering and…exiting [the Sour Springs Road gate])…
16.
Fishing—"There is no water body suitable for fishing within
the AOI. No disturbance to fishing activity on Ringneck March [sic] is
anticipated based on distance."
FALSE. THE MARSH IS ABOUT A HALF-MILE AWAY. THERE ARE NUMEROUS SPOTS TO DROP A
FISHING LINE WITHIN A MILE OF THE QUARRY.
17.
Hiking—"Current
refuge regulations would restrict hiking to designated areas from March 1 to
July 14. There are no hiking trails within the AOI near the quarry and none are
proposed." It should be noted the seasonal
restrictions are due to nesting Canada geese, great blue heron, osprey, bald
eagles, great horned owls, and numerous other creatures giving birth in what is
a designated safe haven. The mining will definitely affect them in numerous
ways. But also, it's important to note that two trails, Onondaga on Sour Springs Road and Swallow Hollow on
Knowlesville Road, are about 2 miles south and southeast of the proposed quarry…so
again, like the canoeing, the study's walking a fine line here…p. 15
18.
In April 2006 the DEC
said "The
wildlife assessment needs to be significantly expanded and must clearly
identify impacts to the nearby Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge. The
assessment must include habitat impacts related to blasting, hydrology, noise,
dust or any other potential environmental issues." [Vol. 3, Appendix 2,
p.6]. THE FINAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOESN'T
EVEN COME CLOSE TO DOING THIS.
19.
APRIL 2006,
DEC ASKED FOR "a more thorough analysis of seasonal discharge volumes and
impacts must be provided." [p.7] IMPOSSIBLE
IN LIGHT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
20.
APRIL 2006 DEC: "The conclusion that ongoing
mining and blasting activities will have no impact to wildlife in the INWR is
unsupported [ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMPARABLE MINES LOCATED NEXT TO A WILDLIFE REFUGE WETLANDS?]. The
assessment of blasting focuses primarily on structural impact to nearby
buildings. A discussion regarding the impacts of noise and vibration on
wildlife and wildlife recreation is needed [NONE PROVIDED IN FINAL DRAFT, NONE EXISTS, THIS QUARRY WOULD BE THE
EXPERIMENT].
21.
DECEMBER 2009 DEC
response, p. 38:
"The report indicates [p55] that no potential bald eagle habitat exists on
site, however, eagles could potentially use habitat on the refuge just to the
south of the proposed site. Due to this species' need for 'quiet solitude' as
mentioned in this report, the quarry
could make a section of the refuge unusable for bald eagles in the future, both
for nesting and other activities….Please provide detailed methods from
field surveys. In particular, include the methods used for bird surveys
including both on and off site. Short-eared Owl surveys (time periods surveyed,
survey methods, survey locations, etc.) Also provide details from the walking
survey of the Refuge. Spring bird surveys should be completed in the area of
the refuge adjacent to the proposed quarry…" THEY DON'T ADEQUATELY DO THIS IN THE FINAL DRAFT, AS ANYONE FAMILIAR
WITH THE SWAMPS WILL TELL YOU THESE NUMBERS CAN FLUCTUATE DRAMATICALLY FROM
YEAR TO YEAR…
II. FRONTIER STONE'S NOT
PROPERLY ATTUNED TO THE SURROUNDING ECOSYSTEM
1. Page 7: "The bedrock will be
drilled and blasted by industry standard techniques. Blasting will take place
on an as-needed basis. The days of the week or frequency is determined by
market conditions, weather conditions and operational restraints during quarry
development. NO WILDLIFE OR HUMAN[E] RESTRAINTS
CONSIDERED.
2. Truck traffic will travel on Oak
Orchard Ridge Road [1 every 6.25 minutes]…There is a potential for annoyance to wildlife watchers at the Schoolhouse
Marsh overlook [omitted here are Mallard and Ringneck Marsh overlooks and those
accessing Oak Orchard Creek and the newly developed trail on Rt. 63, onto which
these trucks must turn]. It might also be noted this "potential for annoyance" would last a lifetime, as the
planned quarry would operate for 75 years.
3. On p. 21, Frontier says it plans
to "mitigate" the quarry's effect on wildlife by easing into the
mining over a long period of time to "allow
a gradual relocation of common wildlife species, if any, to a new habitat
location." It's important to note the DEIS is only talking about
wildlife on the property, not the surrounding area. But the effect will likely
be the same, a dwindling of INWR's
wildlife over time.
4. Furthermore, the dodgy report
says in a roundabout way on page 61 that a pair of Northern Harriers were seen
foraging on the site and likely nest nearby. On page 60, the statement minimizes the importance of the swamps' rebounding bald
eagle population, in which there are four active nests, by citing the fact
the bird was delisted by USFWS as an endangered species due to its recovery.
Horned Larks, however, a state species of concern, are present on the proposed
quarry site. The statement minimizes this concern by saying horned larks
"are a fairly common breeder locally in western and central New
York." When it comes to osprey, the
DEIS is false: "TES observed one osprey fly over the site on July 13, 2010 and one was
recorded on the INWR during the 2012 breeding bird survey…Recently an active
osprey nest was observed on a powerline pole in the National Grid easement near
the substation at the south end of the site." Typically, these folks
did one-day walk throughs and looked at historical records. I can tell you for a fact of many more osprey and bald eagles nests
around the complex—two in Ringneck Marsh alone. The blasting, if it's anything
like LaFarge's, will destroy this habitat as well as an ever-changing blue
heron rookery of several hundred nests. This rookery, a wonder to stumble
across, is never mentioned in the DEIS. Frontier proposes these Wildlife
mitigation measures [p. 210]: "Phased mining will allow a gradual
relocation of wildlife species to a different habitat location." So Frontier's suggesting wildlife will have to
seek refuge from the refuge.
5. Frontier claims "Hunting has
not been impacted by the numerous quarry settings elsewhere in the
region." As wildlife disperse due to loss of habitat, they form rich pools
for hunters to dive into. It's like herding them. Deer shell-shocked from mine blasts, covered in dust, with increasingly
dense populations are easier prey than healthy deer. But are they as good to
eat if they were overly-stressed and sick at the time of shooting? I also
wonder if Frontier Stone is even aware of wetland trapping. Hunting is more
than just using a shotgun on deer.
6. Interestingly, of the six
alternatives to this project listed, only one, "No action," implied
no quarry. A rather interesting way of presenting the situation…
7. The DEIS states INWR was created
in 1958 from what "appears to be abandoned from active agricultural use
within the last 50 to 60 years" [in other words, it's a wasteland; the
statement says nothing about the duck hunters who made it happen through the
Duck Stamp Act]…It goes on to say current
plans for INWR usage "provides a proposed management plan for the next 15
years," after which the INWR plan and purpose can be modified [p. 32]. TO
WHOSE BENEFIT?
8. Page 219 lists Frontier's best
guess at the proposed quarry's "Adverse Environmental Impacts That Cannot
Be Avoided:" Increased traffic on Sour Springs and Oak Orchard Ridge
roads; Increased noise near the project site; Permanent removal of farmland;
Potential for temporary development of a groundwater cone of depression. Obviously missing from the list are the
effects on wildlife and the emotional, spiritual toll this suffering will have
on nature lovers [I can hear them laughing at me right now].
9. APRIL 2006 DEC: Any increase in
noise on the area will detract from the peaceful atmosphere which many visitors
enjoy when visiting the INWR and state WMAs. You asked Frontier Stone to address this issue in these terms and it
failed to do so.
10.
Page 154, INWR's manager states that "…If the project site
was not farmed, the only alternative would be residential development…This site
could be used as open space and in fact INWR
has asked the landowner if he would be willing to sell the land to be
incorporated into the refuge. The landowner declined…" I feel a certain
hostility toward nature and the rule of law here on the part of the small
minority of local individuals who would benefit from this deal at their
neighbors' expense.
11.
INWR's 2011
response, pp. 185-86. 4.2.7.1: "…the
statement that an area is not conducive to hikers is a values judgment.
Different people have different perception regarding what is a quality
recreation area." Frontier Stone
makes no effort to show it cares the least about people, biological entities
with feelings, who think and perceive things differently than "it"
does. And if it can't empathize with people, what chance does it have of
feeling Nature's pain? Hear them laughing?
III. FRONTIER STONE SEEMS UNETHICAL
1. Regarding its location: "South of the site is a National Grid power line and south of
the power line is the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge." [Vol. 1, p. 3]. Power
line runs North-South, not east-west, and between the proposed mine and INWR
lies the Iroquois Job Corps. Evidently the study's authors chose to omit this
fact, in this particular place in the study, for some reason. This is at least the
fifth time they've submitted a DEIS since 2006, each time it's been rejected
for reasons that include sloppiness and laziness.
a. SLOPPINESS AND DECEPTION. FRONTIER STONE REFUSES TO SUBMIT A CLEAR
AND PRECISE IMPACT STATEMENT.
1) The statement begins by understating INWR's ecological function
within the Great Lakes bioregion, referring to it as merely "a
significant natural resource," as opposed to an essential regional
ecosystem [p. 32]. Furthermore, it claims
"The Refuge is approximately 25 miles west of Lake Erie [which would put
it in Canada]" VERY SLOPPY. The
study also incorrectly states the direction of Route 63, which runs
north-south, by stating the road "bisects" the swamps east to west.
It also describes Route 63 as "functionally classified as a minor
arterial" on p. 32, downplaying how
busy it is, after having up-played its traffic to say how little the 10
trucks an hour from the quarry will affect Route 63's wear and tear, omitting Sour Springs and Oak Orchard Ridge
roads, which are on the Refuge.
2) DECEMBER 2009 DEC: …"IT WAS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THAT SOME OF OUR COMMENTS PROVIDED IN OUR JUNE 13,
2008 AND JULY 8, 2008 LETTERS WERE
ADRESSED IN YOUR RECENT RESUBMISSION…I HAVE EXAMPLES THAT I CAN PROVIDE OF
SIMILAR RESPONSE LETTERS…" IN
GENERAL, THIS DEIS STATEMENT IS A TRAVESTY BOTH IN FORM AND CONTENT. IT
APPEARS INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT, LAZY…THEY
CALL THEMSELVES PROFESSIONALS, BUT IF THEY WERE STUDENTS THEY'D GET AN F FOR
THIS PAPER...
3) Dec. 2011, same thing all over again, dEIS and mine land use plan deemed insufficient by DEC. Comments to Hellert begin with critique of
statement's sloppiness.
4) INWR'S RESPONSE TO THE DEIS IN
2011: "Page 66. 3.1.4.2. We were unable to find a Holt and Leasure (2008)
reference in the Birds of North America (BNA). However, the Short-eared Owl
section of the BNA…is available online and it appears that this is the
reference that the applicant used. The
applicant suggests that based on BNA No. 62 'short-eared owls are also known to
frequent mines and quarries.' In fact, BNA 62 states that short-eared owls 'may
use' gravel pits and rock quarries. This information is cited from an earlier
paper written by R.J. Clark (1975) in which he lists 'abandoned limestone quarry
partially filled with stumps' and 'abandoned gravel pit' as places where he
found short-eared owl winter assemblages. Both of these areas are far
different than the active stone quarry being proposed and to suggest that this
area will somehow be attractive to short-eared owls once quarrying operations
commence is misleading."
5) INWR's 2011 response: "Page
129. 4.1.2.2.4. We find the applicant's statement that '…the quarry's impact
beyond natural seasonal variations and storm events is insignificant' to be misleading. We feel that the continuous pumping of 251 gpm [1.44 million gallons
per day] (or other volumes) of water into Refuge wetlands could be very
significant. Natural seasonal variations in water levels will certainly be
altered as will the ability of the wetlands to absorb storm events."
AND AGAIN, NO MENTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
2. Page 6, under "Construction
and Operation," a berm ranging from 30-50 feet will surround the quarry
and "will form a visual/noise berm." In other words, a rather large
earthen wall will block the view of what was once a wide open space intended to
remain that way. To get an idea what one looks like, drive around the LaFarge quarry on Hinman Road in Lockport. Ask those
residents if the berms help much against the blasting.
3. Pages 99-100, section 4.1.2.2…
Even more questionable is the DEIS use of an "important study of the
Lockport Formation… conducted in the Love Canal Area" prior to 1984, to
suggest Frontier's proposed quarry will be right in line with such standards effecting
groundwater. Basically, to Frontier, The
Swamps=Love Canal for groundwater impact.
4. Surface water is not considered
in the statement's proposed mitigation measures. However, on p. 39, the DEIS
states that the quarry's drainage ditches, which will be used in their current
state, are considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be regulated as
wetlands until 2016. "Neither of those wetland areas would be affected
during the first five years of mining," says the statement. So obviously, those south-flowing ditches
have a pretty shaky future in the coming decade. "When mining advances to
Phase 2 the jurisdictional status of the wetlands will be confirmed and any
applicable Corps…permit requirements… will be obtained prior to
disturbance." So, by 2016 the ditches will get re-designated and fall
under a different set of jurisdictional regulations more advantageous for
Frontier. On page 112, the DEIS states: "There is potential that some
runoff may be associated with the overburden berms." THEY DON'T CONSIDER
WHAT THIS MIGHT DO TO THE SWAMPS.
5. The blasting conducted…will avoid
detrimental impact to structures in the vicinity…blasting will be monitored to
document compliance with any requirements that are set forth in the mining
permit." Not a word said in this initial
summary about the blasting's "potential" effect on wildlife.
Evidently, the ecosystem's not as of much concern as the neighbor farmer's shed
or well…On p. 22, Frontier plans to mitigate the negative effects of noise and
blasting by building those big berms that work so well for LaFarge's neighbors
on Hinman Road, and claim that "properly functioning mufflers" will
be on all equipment. Furthermore, heavy machinery that's not in use will not be
"allowed to idle unnecessarily" and will have sufficient "distance
to receptors," which I assume to be human ears that might hear a tree fall
in the woods. It will also be quiet during the winter [unless weather and
market conditions deem otherwise], hibernating like just about everything else
in these parts. And interestingly, Frontier claims "Mining activity is
largely confined within the excavation depression." Think about what that
means. And that just has to do with the machinery noise. Now for how Frontier
says it will minimize the effects of blasting: federal guidelines will be
followed, "use of blasting patterns to optimize the energy to break the
rock," "limit the number of blasts by increasing the yield of each
blast," "blasting during the middle of the day when ambient noise is
the greatest and people are most likely to be at work," "shots will
be monitored by seismographs to aid in corrective blast design if needed."
In other words, we'll follow
industry-lobbied guidelines and use our expertise to make bigger, more
productive explosions only a couple times during the day when the swamps are so
noisy anyway and the human population has left for work [and elsewhere].
6. No ancillary processing
facilities such as [and therefore not
limited to] ready-mix or hot mix asphalt are planned at this time which would generate additional
traffic." I think of the Peace Bridge on a hot August day, except I'm
sitting at Mallard Overlook at Ringneck Marsh a mile south of the quarry on
Sour Springs Road…eyes running, throat burning, wheezing…and all the poor
animals choking under an orange sky. Another
"ancillary project" could include natural gas extraction, which isn't
part of this plan, but would likely
include pipelines.
7. Wildlife—"…There are no
endangered or threatened wildlife species nesting on the site. Northern harriers
were noted foraging over the site. Adverse impact to northern harriers is not
anticipated as there is extensive open field and agricultural areas nearby for
foraging. Short-eared owls are known to occupy a winter roost over one mile
from the site. While there is potential for short eared owls use the site for
roosting during the winter months or for breeding. Short eared owls are known to use quarries for foraging. No adverse
impact to short-eared owls are anticipated." This statement walks a fine
line between truth and prevarication. And remember that bogus claim earlier
about short-eared owls using quarries? It's repeated here…and it's not
true…they use abandoned quarries.
8. Pages 58-60: Frontier also falsely states that "Proposed mining
areas have been located so as to avoid or minimize disturbance to any
potentially sensitive or significant habitat, such as wetlands." As the
study's use of "as well as" suggests, siting has been determined to
avoid human residences, not wildlife. So in this respect, among others, the
DEIS is dishonest
9. "With the exception of an
increase in truck traffic [1 truck every 6 minutes and 15 seconds for 12 hours
a day, 66 hours a week] on Oak Orchard Ridge Road [omits the hill on Sour
Springs Road], the potential for
disturbance to bird watchers is minimal." This is absurd…p. 15-16.
IV. WOULD YOU LET A
MONKEY WITH FINGERPAINT LOOSE IN AN ART GALLERY?
So the three
general reasons Frontier Stone [the monkey] should not be allowed to
develop a quarry [fingerpaint] in the Alabama Swamps [the art gallery] are: 1) The
impact statement avoids a rational
appeal that allays the heightened civic concerns over its plan; 2) Frontier
Stone can't empathize with nature lovers;
3) Frontier Stone has shown itself to be uncaring
and dishonest in all drafts of its environmental impact statement, and should not be trusted to run a quarry
in such a sensitive place or to take the extra steps necessary to preserve INWR
and state wildlife management areas.
In other words, this environmental impact statement
is a sham. This type of deviousness and/or incompetence could be avoided in the
future with three basic reforms to the
state mining application process:
1.
Instill a three-strikes rule, in which applicants only have three shots at
attaining a permit for a site; after which the bid would be dropped. Loopholes
regarding company name changes need to be applied.
2. Instill higher environmental standards and hurdles for quarry applicants who
wish to mine near protected ecosystems, understanding the web-like nature
of such systems.
3. Develop
a standard format for environmental impact statements that must be followed
to prevent companies like Frontier Stone from submitting shoddy applications as
a form of doing business, hoping they'll outlast the people to whom they're
applying. Environmental impact statements must be written in such a way the
general reading public can follow without hassle. Basically, a truly
professional statement must get an A in Comp 101 for a permit to be awarded
near protected land or water. Why is that so hard for "professionals"
to do?
I hope everyone who reads this open letter
will seriously consider these reforms.
I'm also quite sure there's really no way
you'll ever legitimately allow
Frontier Stone to blast away in the swamps. You have the power to stop this thoughtless
insanity now before it gets uglier, and I'm confident the DEC will do its job...though
not certain.
Sincerely,
Chuck Richardson
Lockport, NY
FURTHER READING
http://continentalplacer.com/pdf%20mar%202014/Volume%203web.pdf
321-page report on Frontier Stone's proposal.
http://chuckrichardson.blogspot.com/2014/05/will-iroquois-national-wildlife-refuge.html
http://chuckrichardson.blogspot.com/2014/05/battle-to-save-inwr-from-resource.html
http://www.godoshigen.co.jp/english/gas/index.html
http://www.frontierstonewny.com/about-us
http://www.freewebs.com/stopthequarry/
http://www.harrisbeach.com/about
http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_6929ee66-d021-11e3-8a36-0019bb2963f4.html
Fontier Stone's environmental impact study:
http://www.continentalplacer.com/
http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_c4b3a9d0-d660-11e3-a75b-0019bb2963f4.html
Cc:
frontierstone@gw.dec.state.ny.us
State Sen. George Maziarz, 175
Walnut St., Suite 6, Lockport,
NY 14094. Phone:
(716) 434-0680/Fax: (716)
434-3297. maziarz@nysenate.gov
Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, 8180 Main Street,
Clarence, NY 14221.
716-839-4691. http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Jane-L-Corwin/contact/
Joe Martens, DEC Commissioner, 625 Broadway,
Albany, NY 12233-1011.
518-402-8545
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo,
Governor of New York State,
NYS State Capitol Building,
Albany, NY 12224. (518) 474-8390. http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php
Rep. Chris Collins, 1117 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. Phone: 202-225-5265/Fax: 202-225-5910. http://chriscollins.house.gov/contact
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/, 202-224-4451
Sen. Chuck Schumer, Buffalo Office, 130 South Elmwood
Avenue
#660,
Buffalo, NY 14202 .
Phone: 716-846-4111/Fax: 716-846-4113 https://www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm
