The deficiencies in the Jan 2023 and May 2023 submission by Summers End were analysed and reported, in detail to the Army Corps of Engineers.  The main conclusions of our review are listed below, with detailed findings in the document:

PROCEDURE AND SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

We completed a detailed review and analysis of the SEG submission and compared the document and file contents with the questions raised by USACE in the May 4, 2023, Request for Additional Information, as well as with the approved final “Scope of Work” previously submitted by SEG and approved by USACE and the involved NOAA agencies.  The findings of our review are contained within this report.  Due to heavy redactions, we were unable to comment on any materials related to impacts to cultural resources (i.e., the historically significant shipwreck which is the subject of a separate NHPA Section 106 review).

We have concluded, based upon the detailed analysis contained herein, that:

1. The transect data included in the submission is extremely limited, does not comply with the approved Scope of Work, and lacks credibility due to the absence of supporting data and documentation.
2. The transect data fails to identify numerous known features of Coral Harbor, including the location of known shipwrecks and the location of over 70 moorings and any associated mooring scars, all of which was required by the Scope of Work.
3. The transect data only provides rudimentary information on benthic fauna and is inconsistent with numerous reports on the presence of known species in Coral Harbor.
4. The quadrat data does not comply with the requirements of the approved Scope of Work. There are no quadrats reported for large regions of SAV, including Halophila colonized areas and Macroalgae colonized areas.
5. The quadrat data does not meet the stated requirements for density of quadrats required in the Scope of Work.
6. There is no quantitative quadrat data reported (stem counts), only qualitative Braun-Blanquet scores.
7. The apparent path of diver quadrat sampling is entirely inconsistent with the transect paths depicted in the submission. This contributes to doubts about the credibility of the transect data.
8. There are no video files of the transect dives, as required in the Scope of Work. There are no dates, time sheets, or other corroborating evidence of transect diving.  The analysis herein demonstrates that the period during which divers were in the water was grossly insufficient to complete the claimed extent of the transect coverage.
9. The comparison between seagrass survival rates in Charlotte Amalie Harbor with anticipated seagrass impacts in Coral Bay Harbor is flawed for the reasons detailed herein, including significant differences in the benthic and marine conditions at the two locations.
10. Many of the responses to the RAI submitted by SEG were either incomplete, non-responsive and/or not supported by the evidence in the submission.

For these reasons it is our opinion that the requirement for a comprehensive benthic resource survey, as identified by USACE, the NOAA agencies, and the EPA has not been completed by the Applicant.  Critical deficiencies in the coverage, the data collected, the accuracy and the ability for independent verification render this survey inadequate to characterize current baseline conditions and presence of protected resources within Coral Harbor, a necessary starting point for any discussion of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.