Summers End Group Army Corps History – 2014

It all began in 2014.  This was the year that the Summers End Group submitted their first (and their second) permit applications to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.  Read through the page for the 2014 events in chronological sequence, or click on an individual link to jump to that section.  Click on a year to move to the page for events in that year. Alternatively you can simply read through the entire story, which is still unfolding …

  1. Background: Army Corps Permits
  2. 2014:  The Year it All Started
    1. April 1, 2014:  Summers End Files First Army Corps Permit Application
    2. September 16, 2014:  Permit Application Deemed Incomplete by Army Corps
    3. September 22, 2014:  Second Army Corps Permit Application Submitted
  3. 2015:  The Public and Federal Agencies Weigh In
  4. 2016: No Response from SEG …
  5. 2017:  The Year of the Hurricanes … And Summers End Responds to Army Corps
  6. 2018: Army Corps Initiates Consultation With Federal Agencies
  7. 2019:  Agencies Request Additional Information to Initiate their Reviews
  8. 2020:  Federal Agencies and Army Corps Still Waiting for Adequate Responses
  9. 2021:  Major Developments – Historic Shipwreck and Extensive Deficiency List

April 1, 2014:  Summers End Files First Army Corps Permit Application

Ironically, it was on April Fools Day 2014 that Chaliese Summers signed and submitted her first permit application to the US Army Corps of Engineers.  That permit application was accompanied by the same documentation submitted to the Virgin Islands CZM department – two Environmental Assessment Reports (one for the land components, one for the in-water components) and site plan drawings for the structures and for the marina.

The requirements for “completeness” of an Army Corps permit application are fairly meager.  The post-application review process in the Corps is highly consultative – with other agencies, with the applicant, and with the public.  However, at the time of application submission, all that the Corps requires is sufficient information so that a Public Notice can be issued and interested parties can submit comments.  It does not require comprehensive environmental and resource information, which comes later in the process.  So it is relatively straightforward for the Corps to find a permit application “complete” – meaning sufficiently complete that people can ask questions, provided the applicant has “dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s.”

September 16, 2014:  Permit Application Deemed Incomplete by Army Corps

In spite of the meager requirements for completeness, Summers End did not even meet those standards in their first Army Corps permit application.  Whereas DPNR took only three months to determine the same application was complete for CZM processing, the Army Corps wrote to Chaliese Summers on September 16, 2014, five months after the Army Corps permit application was submitted, and notified her that it was deficient in several important regards.  In particular the Corps noted that impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation (sea grass) had not been properly quantified, and there was no statement on compensatory mitigation.  These issues would continue to be problems for the Summers End Group for years to follow.

September 22, 2014:  Second Army Corps Permit Application Submitted

One week following the first incompleteness letter, Summers End submitted a revised permit application, ostensibly addressing the missing items.  In the cover letter accompanying the submission, Summers End consultant, Amy Dempsey, wrote to Army Corps reviewer Johann Sasso “I have gone into a lot of detail on the impacts/mitigation but I think that will be useful. And we have also include the maximum amount of riprap I can imagine we would need. Both the applicants and I were kind of shocked when you asked, for some reason all of us thought we weren’t doing anything to the shoreline just planting mangroves.”  This casual response to the Corps, indicating that the Applicants were “shocked” by the Corps’ request and unaware of what “the engineers” included in the project, is once again indicative of the attitude of SEG towards the Corps.

Next Page:  SEG USACE History – 2015