Five Federal Agencies Have Spoken
No, No, No, No, No to Coral Bay Marina
On March 5 the Army Corps of Engineers closed a sixty day public comment period for the proposed mega yacht marina in Coral Bay, St John. By the end of the comment period close to fourteen thousand people had sent letters opposing the Summers End Group marina. Over five thousand people had signed a petition urging the Army Corps to deny the permit request. The Coral Bay Community Council, in conjunction with Save Coral Bay, had submitted three binders containing a thousand pages of legal analysis, expert reports, and environmental studies detailing the many ways this marina would create irreversible damage to the economic, social, and natural environment of Coral Bay.
As gratifying as this public outcry was, it was even more gratifying when we received copies of the comments submitted to the Army Corps by five federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Every single one of these federal agencies identified extensive deficiencies in the Summers End Group application, with some agencies going so far as urging the Army Corps, in the strongest terms, to immediately deny the permit requested by the Summers End Group. This affirmation by the federal government of the sentiments expressed by thousands of individuals should leave no doubt that the Summers End Group marina is the wrong project for Coral Bay.
Some people have asked me why the federal government is involved in a local development project. The answer to that is quite simple: the United States Department of the Army has jurisdiction over all of the “Waters of the United States” and any project in or on these waters requires a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The “Waters of the United States” essentially includes all navigable waters, and so all of the ocean waters of the Virgin Islands are within this jurisdiction. The Army Corps looks basically at two sets of concerns – hazards to navigation and environmental impacts. To do the latter – environmental impacts – the Corps consults with other federal agencies who have specific expertise on the aquatic environment.
And what have the federal agencies said about the Summers End Group marina project in Coral Bay harbor? Of the five agencies whose comments we have seen, they have ALL said that the potential for serious environmental impacts leads them to recommend that the Army Corps require extensive additional studies, or simply deny the permit.
The EPA stated in their comment letter that the waters of Coral Bay are an “Aquatic Resource of National Importance (ARNI),” a classification meaning that Coral Bay provides significant and unique ecological functions that benefit valuable marine species. But most significantly, this designation means that any permit application in Coral Bay must be subject to a higher level of review within the Army Corps, and that the EPA has ultimate veto power in the permit process. If the Army Corps were ever to issue a permit that did not follow the recommendations of the EPA, then under the ARNI designation the EPA holds the “trump card” and could veto that permit.
In the case of the Summers End Group application the recommendation of the EPA was explicit. They said: “After reviewing the available data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes that this project will result in significant impacts to aquatic resources of national importance. EPA thus strongly recommends the denial of a Department of the Army permit for this project.”
The National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for conservation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The NMFS letter states: “In addition to the impacts to Aquatic Resources of National Importance, NMFS concludes the docking structure construction, mooring facility, and upland development will adversely impact EFH. The Department of the Army shall not authorize the project as proposed.”
The Superintendent of the Virgin Islands National Park echoed the concerns of the thousands of letter writers who expressed dismay that this marina was being proposed in such close proximity to the Virgin Islands National Park. The Superintendent wrote: “What is most disturbing … is the complete lack of consideration given by the applicant to the potential negative cumulative impacts to Park and Monument resources … Given that the applicant indicates that the single most important reason for locating the marina in Coral Harbor is the proximity of Park and Monument resources, I would ask that your office not issue a permit until the impacts on these critical resources are adequately considered with mitigation for negative impacts identified and required as a condition of this permit.”
A recurring theme in the expert reports, the letters from marine biologists and hundreds of people who have enjoyed the waters of Coral Bay was the presence of endangered species – sea turtles and corals – within the footprint of the marina. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is responsible for the protection of marine endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA stated: “After reviewing … the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared for the project, we continue to be unable to determine the potential extent of project impacts to Endangered Species Act resources ” and “sea turtles are known to use Coral Bay … but, despite several requests, no sea turtle surveys have been conducted for the project,” and there was no “quantification of potential acoustic impacts to sea turtles given that 1,333 piles will be driven in order to construct the proposed facilities.” Finally, NOAA expressed concern about the potential impacts to “ESAlisted corals, acroporid coral critical habitat, and habitat for ESAlisted sea turtles, as well as the presence of ESAlisted sea turtles.”
Throughout the review of the Summers End Group application – starting with the St John CZM hearings last August – we have repeatedly questioned the accuracy of the habitat impact estimates provided by the environmental consulting firm, Bioimpact. We provided analysis demonstrating numerical errors, logical errors and ungrounded assumptions, resulting in a gross underestimate of impacted areas. We questioned the total lack of “compensatory mitigation” which is a requirement of both CZM law and federal law. The law is explicit – if your project is likely to impact an aquatic resource or function, you need to compensate for this by creating, restoring, or enhancing habitat elsewhere. The Summers End Group project seemingly ignored this requirement.
Today we received the comment letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS echoed every single benthic habitat concern expressed in the analysis conducted by the Coral Bay Community Council. They questioned the acreage of impacted habitat and concluded that it might be as much as 300% more than what was claimed by Bioimpact. They questioned the lack of mitigation. They questioned the lack of any analysis of toxic chemicals that are known to be problematical in marinas – specifically citing Benner Bay as an example. They concluded by urging the Army Corps to stop further work on the permit application until fundamental questions about impacts and mitigations are answered. USFWS said: “We believe the direct and indirect impacts of the project have not been adequately assessed and mitigated. We recommend that the Corps place this permit application in abeyance until our concerns have been addressed.”
Five federal agencies, and five letters to the Army Corps all urging the Corps not to issue a permit to the Summers End Group. The EPA went as far as to assert authority over any eventual permit action by virtue of their recognition that Coral Bay is an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. This is a huge win for Coral Bay and for environmental protection.
Last August our St John Coastal Zone Management (CZM) committee held a public hearing and heard testimony from St John residents on the Summers End Group marina plans. Between the oral testimony, the hundreds of pages of written comments, and hundreds of letters, our CZM committee had at their disposal virtually the same information that was available to the federal agencies involved in the Army Corps permit review. But their conclusion on the suitability of this marina was as different as night and day. The St John CZM Committee approved the permits without any significant conditions attached. Clearly the local review process failed.
Our local CZM failed to require a complete application from the developers. They failed to convene hearings with a full quorum of non conflicted members. They failed to consider the legitimate comments of hundreds of St Johnians. They failed to follow the guidelines of the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act. The island of St John was let down by those in whom we trust the protection of our precious coastal resources. We need to learn a lesson from this process and make real improvements in the way major projects in the coastal zone are assessed.
We are now quite certain that Summers End Group project will not receive permits and will not be a threat to the waters of Coral Bay. But not all projects require a federal review. Had this project been entirely on land then we would not have had the protective benefits of the Army Corps process and the professionalism of the federal government in their scrutiny and evaluation of the application.
It is our job, and the job of our elected representatives, to fix what is wrong in our territorial permit review process. We must learn from this experience that large-scale development projects should be evaluated based on long range planning, good science, and adherence to laws and regulation, not on marketing spin and hype. Environmental consultants who make fundamentally unsound recommendations should not be permitted to offer advice on projects that impact our territorial resources.
We will Save Coral Bay, just as we have Saved Mandahl Bay from irresponsible, environmentally destructive development. But if we are to truly save our precious and irreplaceable natural resources for future generations we need to commit to comprehensive land and water use planning and have the fortitude to stand by our plans.
David Silverman for Save Coral Bay