Home Page.

Sept. 6, 2002
Sierra Club and others ask EPA and FWS to veto possible Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for Holcim

The Sierra Club national conservation director was one of eight co-signers of this letter asking for a veto of possible Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for Holcim Cement Plant.

September 6, 2002

Dear Agency Officials:

The undersigned organizations are writing to reiterate our concerns regarding the proposal by Holcim (US), Inc. (Holcim) to build an enormous cement plant project along the Mississippi River in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. We have previously written the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) asking it for an environmental impact statement (EIS) before it acts on Holcim’s § 404 application to destroy wetlands. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Missouri Department of Conservation, and Missouri Governor Bob Holden also submitted letters requesting that the Corps prepare an EIS prior to deciding whether or not to grant Holcim’s § 404 permit. In addition, both the EPA and FWS have stated that aquatic resources of national importance are at stake, signaling their intent to elevate the Corps’ decision if it proceeds without preparing an EIS.

The Corps has given no indication that an EIS will be performed, and it appears to be moving towards issuing the permit. Therefore, we urge your agency to proceed with elevation from the regional to the national level in the likely event that the Corps does not perform an EIS and a permit is granted. If elevation does not prevent the issuance of a § 404 permit, EPA should protect the site by vetoing the § 404 decision.

Holcim’s use of the 4,000-acre site is extensive. The company proposes to convert nearly half of this undeveloped and ecologically rich land and water into a heavily industrialized and highly polluting facility. The proposal includes the development of an inland harbor for barge loading and unloading that would destroy 30 acres of wetlands and floodplain adjacent to the Mississippi River; the creation of an in-river barge fleeting area; the mining of a 1,600 acre open-pit limestone quarry that will disrupt upland streams; and construction of the largest cement plant in North America that will deposit air pollutants, including mercury, ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds), and particulate matter, into the atmosphere, the Mississippi River, Isle du Bois Creek, and other waters of the states of Missouri and Illinois.

In addition, the project threatens to further degrade air quality throughout the bi-state St. Louis Metropolitan area (currently a moderate non-attainment area for ozone) due to emissions of ozone precursors from the proposed plant. The EIS provides the only opportunity to examine comprehensively the impacts of the enormous air pollutant emissions to air quality, water quality, crops, habitat, and human health and the environment. Because the plant’s air pollution would degrade the surrounding environment, and because the proposed site contains four of the twenty-one most endangered ecosystems in the United States (two of which are aquatic), note 1 this massive facility has the capacity to threaten and destroy aquatic resources of national importance. EPA and FWS should elevate the Corps’ decision if it proceeds to grant Holcim a § 404 permit without performing an EIS.

 The St. Louis District of the Corps has before it substantial and reliable information indicating that the Holcim project would have significant adverse environmental impacts. The Holcim project threatens spectacular habitat, home to two endangered species, the Indiana bat and the pallid sturgeon, and numerous other mammals, amphibians, and birds. FWS stated that “[t]he Service believes that the proposed activity will result in substantial adverse impacts to aquatic resources and to a large contiguous forest tract containing valuable wetlands, caves, streams, hollows, ravines and glades.” note 2 In commenting on the Indiana bat, FWS concluded that the project area “provides important habitat for this endangered species,” and the Service outright disagreed with the Corps’ determination that the project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. note 3 Yet even if the endangered species issues are resolved to FWS’ satisfaction, the project will continue to impact fisheries and wildlife habitat—both grounds for elevating a Corps decision on a § 404 permit. 

The EPA has also commented on the importance of the site. EPA has noted that the site contains four of the twenty-one most endangered ecosystems in the United States, and that two of these endangered ecosystems are aquatic—the Mississippi River (a large river ecosystem) and Midwestern wetlands. note 4 In addition, six of the ten most critical ecosystems in Missouri are found within the project boundaries: karst habitats, Ozark Plateau, non-jurisdictional wetlands, un-impounded major rivers and streams, big rivers, and glades. note 5

Yet, even though EPA and FWS have recognized that the Holcim property contains spectacular habitat and have affirmed that the project will have significant adverse environmental impacts, the Corps has given no indication that it will prepare an EIS.

Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps and EPA, the EPA may elevate a decision by the Corps to grant an individual permit for projects involving aquatic resources of national importance. Under a similarly worded memorandum of agreement, FWS also possesses this elevation power. Both EPA and FWS have laid the foundation for elevation through letters to the Corps. note 6 If the Corps decides to base its permitting decision on only an environmental assessment (EA) and submit a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), the decision should be elevated by the EPA and/or FWS. The organizations signing this letter urge the EPA and FWS to proceed with elevation should the Corps reject your requests for the completion of an EIS before deciding on Holcim’s § 404 permit application.

In addition to elevation, § 404(c) of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to prohibit the use of an area as a dredged or fill material disposal site. Pursuant to § 404(c), the EPA administrator may initiate a veto action if the impact of a proposed permit activity will likely result in significant loss of, or damage to, fisheries or wildlife habitat. Because of the important role the Holcim site plays in the area's ecology, EPA should exercise its veto power if elevation fails to protect the resources.

The Holcim site is home to many species of birds, amphibians, mammals, and fish. The EPA has previously noted the biodiversity and significant habitat resources present on site, including aquatic resources providing habitat to “amphibians (frogs and numerous species of salamander), aquatic gastropods, amphipods, flatworms, small fish, liverworts, mosses and reptiles (snakes).” note 7 The letter also states that “[h]ealthy headwater streams are vital to the ecological integrity of the entire watershed[,] … critical to the maintenance of the food webs of all of the streams into which they feed … [and] support local and migratory birds, provide critical habitat for amphibians, provide pathways for wildlife and provide aesthetically pleasing recreational opportunities for the public.” note 8 With such ecological value, the Holcim site is a perfect example of a resource the EPA should protect by invoking its veto power. Yet, the aquatic resources destroyed by the proposed project only scratch the surface of reasons to veto any Corps § 404 permit. “In addition to hydrological impacts, … [p]otential water quality impacts include contamination due to stormwater run-off, alterations of groundwater discharge and recharge, and the loss of purification due to vegetative clearing.” note 9

Holcim’s proposed project creates significant environmental concerns that warrant EPA's use of its veto power. In previous cases where it has used its veto power, EPA has looked at the significance of the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed activity. For example, in James City County, VA v. EPA, 12 F.3d 1330, 1336 (4th Cir. 1993), EPA assessed whether the affected aquatic and wetland ecosystems could recover from the projected impact. Here, we believe Holcim’s proposed use of the pristine property creates significant impacts from which the site’s resources would not recover. The impacts to aquatic and wetland resources on the Holcim site are severe. EPA has discussed the significance of the resources, note 10 and FWS has stated that the proposal will “irreversibly impact the plant and animal species that use” the wildlife habitats found on the project site. note 11 Therefore, we believe EPA should find the ecological loss at the Holcim site unacceptable and veto any Corps decision to grant the § 404 permit.

The undersigned organizations urge the EPA and FWS to invoke the elevation power given to each agency in its respective memorandum of agreement with the Corps, and, if necessary, for EPA to use its veto power to deny any permit granted to Holcim by the Corps. By elevating, EPA and FWS will better ensure that the Corps will take the agency comments into consideration and perform an EIS, and by vetoing, EPA can protect the spectacular habitat that will be lost if the project were to proceed.

Sincerely yours,

1 Letter from United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)(Cheryl A. Crisler, Chief, Water Resources Protection Branch) to United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)(Michael A. Brazier, Chief, Regulatory Section), 1 (Dec. 21, 2000).

2Letter from FWS (Charles M. Scott) to Corps (Colonel Michael R. Morrow), March 26, 2001.

3 Letter from FWS (Charles M. Scott) to Corps (Colonel Michael R. Morrow), May 8, 2002.

4 Letter from EPA (Cheryl A. Crisler) to Corps (Michael A. Brazier), 1 (Dec. 21, 2000).

5 The ten most critical ecosystems were identified at the Ninth Regional Wetlands and Water Resources Meeting, Missouri Breakout Session (April 2002).

6See Letter from FWS (William F. Hartwig) to Corps (Colonel Michael R. Morrow), February 2, 2001; Letter from FWS (Kelly Srigley Werner) to Corps (Colonel Michael R. Morrow), January 5, 2001; Letter from EPA (Cheryl A. Crisler) to Corps (Michael A. Brazier), December 21, 2000.

7 Letter from EPA (Cheryl A. Crisler) to Corps (Michael A. Brazier), 1 (Dec. 21, 2000).

8Ibid.

9Ibid.

10 See text accompanying notes 8-10, supra.

11 Letter from FWS (Charles M. Scott) to Corps (Colonel Michael R. Morrow), March 26, 2001.