Joe Miller
District Engineer
Jacksonville District
RE:199250153 (IP-DD)
Dear Colonel Miller:
This is to denounce irregularities in the
Public Comments Processes at the
The aforementioned irregularities are the
discriminatory way the Antilles Office of the Corps acted against
environmentalists and community conscious citizens opposing the 404 Permit
Application by the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority for the
construction of the proposed PR-66 (199250153, IP-DD).
The
BACKGROUND
I
will briefly explain the chain of events leading us to consider the Antilles
Office acted in an irregular manner in favor of the Puerto Rico Highway
Authority (PRHTA) and in a discriminatory way towards the communities,
environmentalists, and general public opposing the construction of PR-66.
The
proposed PR-66 is a four-lane tollway originally designed to go from Rio
Piedras to Fajardo,
Due
to the strong opposition to PR-66, the PRHTA started a series of actions
including the fragmentation of the route into three parts. This fragmentation had three main purposes:
·
Reduce
the opposition - since each component was to be constructed
separately.
·
Start
with the middle segment (the
·
Take
out the attention from sensitive impacted areas like the El Yunque Rain Forest
and the Botanical Garden in Río Piedras - that where to be affected
by the two tail sections of the route.
When
the rural communities in the middle segment of the route organized and opposed
strongly the construction of the PR-66 (though the grassroots organization Communities Against Route 66) the PRHTA
responded by harassing and intimidating the residents. When we saw the human drama unfolding among
the PRHTA and the affected communities we decided to put our sound scientific
and engineering knowledge in the search of a win-win solution for the island
transportation needs, the communities, and the environment.
The
result of our intervention was the creation of Citizens for the
In
the Environmental Impact Statement Evaluation (EIS) for the PR-66 the PRHTA
discarded the conversion of PR-3 to expressway alleging capacity
limitations. In our research for the
sources of the alleged capacity limitations, we discovered that the PRHTA
intentionally used deficient conceptual design in their EIS with the purpose of
eliminate the possibilities of the conversion of PR-3 to expressway. We also found that the conversion of the PR-3
to an expressway is a better option since it did not affected any community,
forest or body of water, was less costly than the PR-66 and provided the
required capacity. All of this while it
promoted urban densification and was a barrier against the urban sprawl.
The
no impact to water bodies of the Super Highway 3 when compared to PR-66, was
our point and the basis of our first letter to the Army Corps Antilles Office
in the process of public opinion consideration.
To this position the Army Corps Antilles Office responded diligently
requesting the
For the second set of submissions we developed a full
geometrical and traffic study showing that our claims of sufficient capacity
for Super Highway 3 were scientifically sound and were based on the actual
engineering practices used effectively in other projects in
This was a novel way of environmentalism and community
activism in
With this final submission we again requested public hearings to go in more detail over our summary report. With all hopes in the opportunity of having public hearings we trusted the Antilles Office of the Corps process and waited for the due response.
All of the sudden we receive the news (through the press) that the permit was awarded to PRHTA in a fast track fashion. This is where the irregularities start.
Irregularities
1)
The approval letter of the 404 Permit was faxed to PRHTA the same day that the
permit was awarded. We received the
information letter about 10 days later.
The letter sent to us was typed
2) In the second paragraph of the letter sent to us, Lt. Fowler states that all the concerns of the citizens have been taken into account by the PRHTA. This is not correct, none of our concerns as participating citizens were addressed, and we were denied by the Antillles Office the opportunity to have public hearings to express further our concerns and proposals and to challenge PHRTA statements.
3) To our surprise, in the fourth paragraph, Lt. Fowler indicates that our requests for further evaluation do not warrant a public hearing. With this statement, Lt. Fowler indicates that our extensive study showing that the PRHTA manipulated the alternative evaluation to eliminate a socially, economically and environmentally attractive alternative to favor a highly impacting one is insubstantial. In addition, with this statement, Lt. Fowler implies that the PR-66 life cycle does not deserve to be evaluated; when this road is specifically designed to promote urban sprawl affecting hundreds of acres of forests, dozens of rives, wells, water bodies and wetlands up to the El Yunque Rainforest mitigation zone.
4) Lt. Fowler implies that there is no valid public interest in having public hearings but does not explain the basis for this decision.
5) Lt. Fowler indicates that “all issues raised have been resolved in compliance with the public interest review and the Corps Regulatory process”. This is incorrect, the public interest has not been granted the opportunity to be heard and express its concerns as requested twice.
6)
The letter sent to all community representatives was a pro-forma superficial letter showing no
objectivity nor respect for concerned citizens statements, that have, through
vast effort, and in good faith, tried to save the
We respectfully ask for your immediate action on this matter.
Speaker, Citizens for
3919
Isla Verde Avenue 5-G
Carolina,
P.R. 00979
Phone: (787) 728-5961
Fax: (787) 728-1775
Pager: (787) 759-1255
U#388-9931