On May 4, 2023, the Army Corps sent a letter to Summers End identifying extensive deficiencies, errors, and non-responses in the benthic resource survey submitted by Amy Dempsey on behalf of SEG.

The survey was reviewed by the NOAA / NMFS agencies and by the Army Corps.  The comments and analysis submitted by Save Coral Bay were thoroughly considered.  In the end, all parties – the NMFS agencies, the Corps, and Save Coral Bay – agreed that the submitted benthic resource survey did not come close to what had been promised by SEG and previously agreed with the agencies.

SEG was provided a lengthy list of deficiencies to address, as well as an excerpt of the Save Coral Bay comments for response.

SEG was given 30 days – until June 3, 2023 – to respond to the Army Corps request for additional information on the benthic resource survey.

The Summer’s End Group, LLC
c/o Chaliese N. Summers, Managing Member
5000 Estate Enighed, Suite 63
St. John, Virgin Islands, 00830

Dear Ms. Summers:

This correspondence is in reference to your Department of the Army (DA) permit application to impact waters of the United States in the Caribbean Sea in association with the construction of a commercial marina. The project site is located at 10-17, 10-18, 10-91, 10-41 (Rem), 13A, 13B and 13 (Rem), in Estate Carolina, within Coral Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. This project has been assigned permit application number SAJ-2004-12518, which should be referenced on all future correspondence.

The results of the comprehensive benthic survey for the project submitted on January 16, 2023 (supplemented with an email on January 18, 2023) was reviewed by the Corps and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and determined to be deficient and incomplete in various agreed upon deliverables when compared to the approved Scope of Work (SOW). The Corps also received public comments identifying similar deficiencies/omissions as those identified by the agencies. The deficiencies in the report that need to be address are outlined in the Completeness Summary/ Request for Additional Information (below).

As the Corps considers the application incomplete to make a permit decision, we will not take action on it until we receive the required information. We request you provide this information within 30 days. If the Corps does not receive a response, we will assume you have no further interest in obtaining a Department of the Army permit and the Corps will withdraw your permit application.

Should you have any questions or comments regarding this request for additional information, please contact me at the letterhead address, by phone at 305-779-6055, or by electronic mail.
Sincerely,
Albert Gonzalez
Project Manager
Enclosures:
Completeness Summary/RAI for 2023 Comprehensive Benthic Report
Excerpt figures from Save Coral Bay, Inc public comment submittal pgs.9-12

Copy Furnished:
Bioimpact, Inc., c/o Amy Dempsey, President
Applicant: The Summer’s End Group, LLC

Excerpt from Save Coral Bay comments for SEG response

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download Document [649.64 KB]

File No.: SAJ-2004-12518 (SP-AG)
Completeness Summary/ Request for Additional Information
1. Total area to be surveyed/ transect data:

• Based on the information provided, the Corps or NFMS is unable to determine if the 114 acre survey area was covered by the sampling due to the lack of transect and quadrat location data provided in the submittal.
• There is no data or visual presentation of the location of transects, no corresponding number, length or width and direction was not identified or provided and this information remains unknown.
• For the 1,100 quadrats surveyed, Latitude/Longitude information was only provided for 643 of the quadrats and the location information was missing from the table for the remaining 467 quadrats.
• Please explain how the survey meets the established quadrat density outlined in the SOW and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) guidance used.
• NMFS and the Corps is requesting the data provided with the current survey and for any future data, be more clearly labeled with table name, row and column headers. The is needed to better assess what data has been provided.
• Please provide geospatial evidence and data that supports that the 5m width requirement between transects was met for the survey as referenced in the approved SOW.
• Please provide a response/rebuttal to the excerpt provided via public comments from Save Coral Bay, Inc. (attached) in reference to this requirement not being met.

2. Characteristics and parameters to be recorded:

• The SOW included a deliverable to record the following parameters: sediment/seafloor substrate, depth, salinity, water temp, current speed and direction, green algal blooms, signs of eutrophic bacteria, and sargassum, debris, propeller scars, or vessel blowouts during the sampling within the surveyed action area. This information is missing and only Braun-Blanquet cover data was provided for the sample points in the submittal.

3. Reference Site Data:

• The SOW proposed a deliverable for the sampling of reference sites for both seagrasses and corals in Hurricane Hole offshore to be used as comparison when addressing coral and seagrass health. This information is missing in the submittal.
• Separate to this current benthic report review and something that will need to be potentially discussed at a future time will be the surveying of any proposed transplanting areas for either seagrass or corals in addition to reference sites for those as well if they are being proposed for mitigation. The Corps reserves further comments on this topic for a future time.

4. Coral Data:

• With the limited information provided, NMFS has indicated that coral areas don’t appear to be surveyed sufficiently well.
• It is unclear on how corals or critical habitat have been surveyed. No number of quadrats or transects are mentioned for the coral survey areas.
• No coral condition data provided, relief measurements, or sediment types were provided as required in the SOW.
• Only limited photos of some corals without metered scales were provided.
• Were drones deployed or used to help delineate the hard bottom areas within Harbor Point and Pen Point prior to the survey as identified in the SOW? If not, please describe how the hard bottom areas were delineated.

5. Seagrass Data:

• Please provide clarification of how the required quadrate density of 50 (1m2) quadrates per acre was met with just the 1,100 quadrates sampled for the 114 acre area.
• Please provide supporting information for how seagrass was quantitively evaluated within randomized quadrats as states in the SOW. No quantitative data was provided in the report only visual coverage abundance percent coverages were provided.
• Please see the attached exhibit provided as a public comment which includes geospatial mapping of the quadrates data provided thus far. This information appears to show missing or incomplete data for a large portion of the project footprint. Please provide a rebuttal or additional information to clarify this comment and support the summary figures provided in the report for coverage types within the project footprint and impact assessments.
• No observations on grazing or species use was provided as referenced and required by the SOW.
• Please clarify if QA/QC of 10% of the transects was completed and which transects were resampled.

6. Excel Spreadsheets/ ArcGIS Package:

• The SOW proposed to provide excel spreadsheets as well as spatial data and meta data. This information was not included in the submittal.

7. Other Information/Comments:

• The section for “Non-sessile species” in the report references a table that was provided documenting hawkbill and green sea turtles sightings. This table was not included in the submittal. The report later goes on to reference 13 total sea turtles (11 green and 2 hawksbill) and provides approximate locations on figure 12. Are these the same sightings from the referenced table referenced earlier in the document? Does the applicant have any other records of sighting surveys for sea turtles done for the Harbor?
• For the “Impacts of Marina Construction and Operation” section of the report, the assumption of 50% survivorship from shading at the proposed slip areas has already been rejected by NMFS on several previous submittals in the past. Based on the Corps and NMFS experience with permitting similar marinas and docks, we do not agree with this assumption and will consider the shading impacts within the slip areas to be 100%. There is no measurable assurance that the slip would not be occupied for lengths if time that would cause full impacts to seagrasses from shading within the slips. Additionally, the size of the vessels and the density and proximity of adjoining slips would also cause shading and prop wash impacts of adjacent slips even during unoccupied intervals of time.
• Please explain what information was used to assume the 10% for the additional (5,922 sf) of impacts from tug and barge movement prop wash. What information/data was used to generate this assumption?
• Please note NMFS and the Corps still do not have a clear understanding of the clearances from the max vessel drafts at the various slips to the top of the existing seagrass resources. As NMFS previously identified (in comment #9 of their RAI) these resources have a potential to grow to a height of up to 15 inches from the substrate. The clearances for vessels located over seagrasses would need to take that into account to allow for sufficient clearance.
• the report references planting of mangroves along the shoreline below the Mean Low Water (MLW), however does not provide any additional details of location, type of treatment or existing baseline conditions related to this comment. The Corps reserves further comment in regard to mitigation at a later time once avoidance and minimization has been determined satisfied.
• The Corps views the proposed coral out-planting as a component of mitigation and therefore, the Corps reserves comments related to this topic for a future time.