CORAL APPENDIX C Communications CZ-2022-1109-029

CORALations, Inc APPENDIX C IC’s CZ-2022-1109-029
APPENDIX C - IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS
EMAILS
1. CORALations to DeMarco Dec 1 2021 Comments to NEPA Record Page 3-4
2. SEA GRANT Dec 3 2021 Comments to NEPA Record. Page 5
3. Demarco to Sea Grant Dec 3 2021 DeMarco confirms comments added to

NEPA record. Page 6
4. Demarco to CORALations Dec 8 2021 Demarco sends 2011 disposal plan SJH
Page 8
5. Demarco to CORALations Feb 22 2021 Sends link to doc page Page 9
6. Demarco to CORALations Feb 22 2021 Sent Final Benthic Survey Page 12
7. Demarco to CORALations Feb 24 2021 Sent 2022 WQC and SHPO docs.
Page 15
8. Demarco to CORALations Feb 24 2021 Sent 1120 document and indicates the
SEA being reviewed for comments is not final and firm, and that the final 2021SEA will
include NMFS information from NOAA (does not specify bi-op) Page 19
9. Demarco to CORALations Feb 24 2021 Buffer area is 400m SE of New Borrow

Area. Page 21
10. DeMarco to CORALations Feb 24 4:02 PM Cultural resources not in borrow area
Page 24
11. DeMarco to CORALations Feb 25 2022 12:04 Geotechnical info for new borrow
area: Vibracore-map, borrow-vc-1-3a-graphs, borrow-vc-1-3a-logs Page 28
12. DeMarco to CORALations Feb 25 2022 3:30. Considers 2021SEA evaluation of

report. (No lab certification necessary?) Page 33
13. DeMarco to CORALations Feb 25 2022 3:46 Barbara Nist/ Lab information
and chain of custody for latest samples sent Page 39
14. DeMarco to CORALations March 8 2022 9:38 States he coordinated with EPA
for 103 (accidentally copied notes email) Page 46
15. Javier Cortes to CORALations FEB 24 2022 6:25pm.
DRAFT DATED APRIL 2021 Harbor_103_DreftFinal_043021, and is 75 pages long

CORALations, Inc APPENDIX C IC’s CZ-2022-1109-029
This document has “DRAFT" stamped over every page in bright red letters. Page 93
16. Javier Cortes to CORALations FEB 28 2022
Final 103 Report Sent DATED MAY 2021, and is 142 pages long. Page 53
17. Javier Cortes to CORALations. FEB 28 202. Sends appendix G after indicated
IMPORTANT Page 63
18. Javier Cortes to Dr. Lugo FEB 28 2022. Appendix C attached with document
requested by Dr. Lugo - not all appendices requested by Dr. Lugo were sent. Page 74
19. CORALations to EPA March 8 2022 Regarding documentation of 103

concurrence Page 85
20. EPA to CORALations March 11, 2022 Confirms receipt of email but has not
sent consultation issued document. Page 89
3/15/22, 1:42 PM Gmail - San Juan Harbor dredge/ Condado lagoon fill
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>
San Juan Harbor dredge/ Condado lagoon fill

1 message
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:06 AM

To: paul.m.demarco@usace.army.mil, "Guerrero, Carmen" <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>, Kerry Kehoe - NOAA Federal
<kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov>, Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>, "Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)"
<Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Cc: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>, Edwin Hernandez-Delgado
<edwin.hernandezdelgado@gmail.com>, "Coalición Restauración Ecosistemas Santurcinos (CRES)"
<crespuertorico@gmail.com>, Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>, Arrecife Islaverde <pacolopez11a@gmail.com>, "Hon.
Juan Carlos Delmau" <jdelmau@senado.pr.gov>
Bcc: Nicolás Gómez <nicolas.x.gomez@gmail.com>, "alfredo.a.montanez@gmail.com" <alfredo.a.montanez@gmail.com>,
bgraglau@gmail.com, Jose Maldonado <jose@miprv.com>
Dear Mr. Demarco -

Please reply that you received this.
RE: COMMENTS: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass Mitigation, Additional Sand Source
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll7/id/19495
Dear Mr. Demarco:
CORALations is an award-winning, coral conservation organization, founded in 1995 and based in Puerto Rico. We strongly disagree with the
conclusion that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the above mentioned project, or even the characterization of this project
as having in any way a potential for environmental benefit or ecological restoration. This project involving over one mile of pipeline proposes to
transport dredge material from what may possibly be the busiest and most toxic bay in the Caribbean, to be used as fill in the shallow Condado
lagoon, an epicenter for various water sport activities including dragon boats, paddle boards, and snorkeling.
This fill is being proposed as a separate project (?), when it appears to be the same dredge project. This fill idea, poses a direct threat to the
great strides that have been made to improve water quality of the Condado Lagoon by the USEPA and affiliate organizations. The project will
also pose cumulative impacts when the sediment laden waters resulting from the fill, mix with waters from Club Nautico Marina, under the
Condado bridge and through the bathing beach of La Playita in front of the Condado Playa Hotel.
Older documents are referenced and conclusions we believe may be incorrectly drawn that there have been no significant changes over these
years when San Juan Bay, a busy commercial port lined with industry and subject to rising waters was impacted by two major hurricanes in
2017, as well as more recent major swell events.
There appears to be no mention of the recent construction of a liquified natural gas dock in the bay, adjacent to very busy cruise boat terminals,
that may have failed to pass through any local or federal permitting process, let alone federal consistency evaluation, at least that we know of to
date.
It is a matter of public record that the waters of San Juan Bay were the recipients of contamination from the cruise boat industry so egregious as
to warrant the highest water quality fines ever issued by the US Federal Court system. These fines were issued in associated with a cruise ship
caught intentionally retooling their sewage discharge tube configuration in order to discharge while at port in the bay. Thanks to the Coast
Guard who documented the violation there was a massive conviction and fine, however, it is not clear how widespread this practice was in the
cruise ship industry, and for how long in this bay.
The Corps cannot claim that the benthic substrate to be dredged and filled into Condado lagoon is not toxic without current and complete
evaluations.
It must be stressed that the water quality ramifications from this proposal have potential to impact the swimming/snorkeling area of the Condado
lagoon, La Playito de Condado Lagoon with health ramifications to bathers that are local and also visitors to the Condado Plaza Hotel and area
resorts.
While this project title “sounds" ecological, the concept is anything but. Proposing the use of what has to be toxic dredge materials from the
bottom of San Juan Bay, in order to fill Condado lagoon and replant Halophila sp is ill-conceived in concept. Haliphila sp have become such an
aggressive invasive over the years that it completely out-competes the ecologically important native sea grass Thallasia testinudum. It may be
worth it to note that Thallasia around Culebra to three miles from shore is listed as Critical Habitat and has itself almost all been destroyed and
replaced by the invasive Haliphila sp. (personal communication regarding report issued by Dr. Edwin Hernandez Delgado) This invasion was
likely proliferated thanks to increasing and cumulative stress from massive sargassum invasion, chronic sedimentation, and shoreline
development and destruction of mangroves that have to date gone completely unregulated by local and federal agencies.
To refer to Halophila sp. restoration as a sea grass restoration is itself misleading and depending on the severity of the toxicity of the sediments
dredged for the harbor, unlikely to be successful.
The waters of Conado lagoon are listed Critical Habitat for two coral species A. palmata and A. cervicornis, with other listed species found in a
site visit years ago (not sure if they are still alive) near the mouth of the opening to the sea as well as around Fortín San Geronimo where waters
benefit from Atlantic circulation.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar4442290847621281328%7Cmsg-a%3Ar505104625816430878&si… 1/2
3/15/22, 1:42 PM Gmail - San Juan Harbor dredge/ Condado lagoon fill
We are opposed to this moving forward in concept alone. The fill will likely involve small toxic particles that could result in the chronic
sedimentation of Condado Bay Lagoon, leaving waters toxic and turbid. There will not be a positive outcome and likely there will be signifiant
risks to bathers, chronically compromised water quality with ramifications to sustainable commercial water sports.
The Corps minimally should present current toxicity information on the benthic materials being dredged from the lagoon, and proposed for fill
with concerns ranging from heavy metals to particle size of sediment.
We would appreciate any recent toxicity analysis the Corps has obtained on the sediments to be moved from San Juan Bay.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
PO Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
c. Carmen Guerrero
Karen Urelius
Rose Ortiz
Kerry Kehoe
--
Mary Ann Lucking
Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234
email: maryann@coralations.org, coralations@gmail.com
Trabajando con comunidades del Caribe para proteger y restaurar

sus arrecifes de coral.
<<><<<>>><>>
Working with Caribbean communities to protect and restore their coral reefs.
CORALations_USACE_Condado Lagoon Fill Project .pdf

483K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar4442290847621281328%7Cmsg-a%3Ar505104625816430878&si… 2/2
3/15/22, 1:43 PM Gmail - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

1 message
Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu> Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:59 AM

To: "paul.m.demarco@usace.army.mil" <paul.m.demarco@usace.army.mil>, Carmen Guerrero
<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>, "Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov" <Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov>, Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>,
"Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>, Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>, Ruth Santiago
<rstgo2@gmail.com>, Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>, Rene F Esteves Amador <rene.esteves@upr.edu>,
Michelle Scharer Umpierre <michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Dear Mr. Demarco:
Find attached for your consideration, the Puerto Rico Sea Grant comments regarding the
proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass
Mitigation, Additional Sand Source.
COE Demarco.docx
14K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1718129943063066653%7Cmsg-f%3A1718129943063066653&sim… 1/1
3/15/22, 1:44 PM Gmail - RE: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
RE: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:36 AM
To: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Carmen Guerrero <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>,
"Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov" <Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov>, Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>, "Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY
CESAJ (USA)" <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>, Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>, Ruth Santiago
<rstgo2@gmail.com>, Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>, Rene F Esteves Amador <rene.esteves@upr.edu>,
Michelle Scharer Umpierre <michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Thank you for your comments which will be incorporated into the final NEPA document.
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
Corps of Engineers - SAD
Jacksonville District
Planning and Policy Division
701 San Marco Blvd - P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232
904-232-1897
From: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>

Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 8:00 AM
To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Carmen Guerrero
<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius, Karen M CIV
USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago
<rstgo2@gmail.com>; Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves Amador
<rene.esteves@upr.edu>; Michelle Scharer Umpierre <michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Dear Mr. Demarco:
proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass Mitigation, Additional
Sand Source.
3/15/22, 1:46 PM Gmail - Fwd: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Fwd: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

1 message
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:31 PM

To: Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:54 AM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897
From: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)

To: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Carmen Guerrero <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>;
Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth
Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>; Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves Amador
Subject: RE: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1718129943063066653%7Cmsg-a%3Ar9110758552043710180&si… 1/2
3/15/22, 1:46 PM Gmail - Fwd: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Dear Mr. Demarco:
proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass Mitigation,
Additional Sand Source.
--
Mary Ann Lucking
Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
SanJuanHbrODMDS_SMMP_2011.pdf
1679K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1718129943063066653%7Cmsg-a%3Ar9110758552043710180&si… 2/2
3/15/2 2 , 1:48 PM Gmail - RE: [URL V erdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge
1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:53 PM
To: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>, "Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)"
<Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
Mar Ann Lucking,
r this link and please let me know if it does not work.
https://www.sa .usace.arm .mil/About/Divisions- ffices/Planning/Environmental- ranch/

Environmental-Documents/
Javier should be able to provide 103 testing data.
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
Paul.m.demarco@usace.army.mil
904-232-1897
From: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 8:01 AM
To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Saludos Mr. DeMarco:
Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay Dredge and fill of condado lagoon project.
Thank You,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a1 1e4c1& view=pt& search=all& permthid=thread-f% 3A171812 94306306653% 7Cmsg-f% 3A172 54862 90904003& sim 1/3
3/15/22, 1:48 PM Gmail - RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
wrote:
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

Dear Mr. Demarco:
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
dredge
1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:04 PM
Mary Ann,
Here is the final benthic survey report as we discussed today.
Paul DeMarco
904-521-5627

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 12:54 PM
To: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Subject: RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Importance: High
Mary Ann Lucking,
Try this link and please let me know if it does not work.
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/Planning/Environmental-Branch/
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Thank You,
wrote:
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

Dear Mr. Demarco:
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
SanJuan_Benthic_FINAL.pdf
19031K
dredge
1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:06 AM
Good morning as we discussed please see attached WQC and SHPO letter for the harbor
improvements project.
Paul DeMarco
NEPA Lead
904-232-1897

Mary Ann,
Here is the final benthic survey report as we discussed today.
Paul DeMarco
904-521-5627

Importance: High
Mary Ann Lucking,
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Thank You,
wrote:
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

Dear Mr. Demarco:
--
Mary Ann Lucking
Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
2 attachments
SJH-Improvements_WQC.pdf
181K
C#5 SHPO 10-05-15-02.pdf
157K
3/15/22, 1:55 PM Gmail - RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Appendix D not posted
RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Appendix D not posted

1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:22 PM
To: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>
Ms. Lucking,
There were no documents included in the draft SEA Appendix D as that page is a placeholder. The
final SEA will include correspondence received in response to the NOA. Attached is the information
you requested for the 1122 program.
Paul DeMarco
NEPA Lead
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:00 AM
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Appendix D not posted
Can you please send a link to appendix D of the SEA not available online.
Or the document as an attachment?
Many thanks.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar5368018551503980978%7Cmsg-f%3A1725663331919379731&si… 1/2
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
2 attachments
Condado Lagoon 1122 Proposal_022118.1.pdf
229K
7154.pdf
7292K

1 message
Good afternoon the area to be buffered is approximately 400 meters to the southeast of the new
borrow area and is West of the Anegado channel.

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:06 PM
Cc: Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Appendix D not posted
Thank you for the documents.
Do you have any maps or documentation referenced in the SHPO letter,
that shows where the modifications to the dredge footprint in the harbor will be for this project in order to comply
to those SHPO concerns? I'm assuming this involves the 15 acre dredge planned outside the permitted
boundaries of the shipping channel near cut 6?
Many thanks,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:39 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Ms. Lucking,
There were no documents included in the draft SEA Appendix D as that page is a placeholder.
The final SEA will include correspondence received in response to the NOA. Attached is the
information you requested for the 1122 program.
Paul DeMarco
NEPA Lead
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Many thanks.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>

1 message
Good afternoon,
We conducted a cultural resources survey of a much larger area than we thought we would need,
working with the geologists and engineers to determine a survey area that we could reasonably be
certain the actual dredge area would fall within. That was done in 2020, well before the
development of the alternatives for final NEPA analysis, permitting, or creation of plans and
specifications. We did a new survey to supplement the 2016 survey that had been conducted, and
it was complete in time to use for the supplemental EA that was provided to the public for comment
in October 2021.
Our contractor went out and surveyed this larger area prior to the refinement of the ultimate dredge
box. For comparison, we surveyed 58.5 acres in this effort, of which 17.8 is the area we have on
the plans to dredge. The area with the magnetometer anomaly (M067) and its buffer zone is
minimally 340 meters to the southwest. So we ended up surveying about three times as much
area as we ultimately needed, but were able to avoid the potential resource.
Thanks!
Paul DeMarco
904-521-5627

I’m not sure what you mean by buffered in this context. If the suspected wreck is already outside of either the Anegado
Channel or the new dredge site (borrow area) then what needs to be done to comply with SHPO concerns?
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
email: coralations@gmail.com
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 24, 2022, at 1:41 PM, DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Good afternoon the area to be buffered is approximately 400 meters to the southeast of
the new borrow area and is West of the Anegado channel.

Cc: Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>
Thank you for the documents.
Do you have any maps or documentation referenced in the SHPO letter,
that shows where the modifications to the dredge footprint in the harbor will be for this project in order to
comply
to those SHPO concerns? I'm assuming this involves the 15 acre dredge planned outside the permitted
boundaries of the shipping channel near cut 6?
Many thanks,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:39 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Ms. Lucking,
There were no documents included in the draft SEA Appendix D as that page is a
placeholder. The final SEA will include correspondence received in response to the
NOA. Attached is the information you requested for the 1122 program.
Paul DeMarco
NEPA Lead
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Many thanks.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
dredge
1 message
DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:04 PM
To: "Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>, CORALations Culebra
<coralations@gmail.com>
Here is the geotechnical information for the new borrow area
From: Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>

To: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
Attached is the draft final text portion of the report. This is the version before final approval
Difference is in the title. The word draft gets removed.
Thanks
Javier

Cc: Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is supposed to be provided by Javier?
Can you please send the document that is supposed to link under
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on each section of WRDA 2016,
click on the hyperlinked provision.
If the provision is not hyperlinked, guidance is in the process of being developed."
Section 1122, a - j.
The link appears blue as if actively hyperlinked, but unfortunately it does not connect to any information...
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Legislative-Links/wrda2016/wrda2016_impguide/
Can you please provide these guidance documents as well as the testing data Javier is supposed to provide?
Thank you,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:21 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Mary Ann Lucking,
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay Dredge and fill of condado lagoon
project.
Thank You,
wrote:
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

Dear Mr. Demarco:
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
3 attachments
vibracore-map.pdf
901K
borrow-vc-1-3a-graphs.pdf
499K
borrow-vc-1-3a-logs.pdf
108K
dredge
1 message
Cc: "Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
Good afternoon Mary Ann,
I have reached out to the geologist for your questions on the geotechnical data. We did incorporate
the grain-size results into the draft SEA.
Thanks!
Paul DeMarco
904-521-5627

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:42 PM
I’m sorry- one more question.
Is the data provided for Cut 6 in the last email sent, part of a final, complete and dated report that includes analytical
interpretation of those findings sent.
Specifically such a report would include things like the name of lab analyzing the samples, so their GMP, GLP and state
lab certifications can be reviewed.
An analytical report would include a description of sample collection and handling methods, including chain of custody.
While we appreciate the graphs sent, taken out of context from a comprehensive report, it does not inform if other
parameters of concern were evaluated, but not disclosed.
Can you please let us know where in the planning documentation/ process this data is presented?
It does not appear here to be part of an appendix to an EA, but maybe it is?
Thank You,
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><

Thanks
Javier

Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is supposed to be provided
by Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on each section of
WRDA 2016, click on the hyperlinked provision.
The link appears blue as if actively hyperlinked, but unfortunately it does not connect to any
information...
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Legislative-Links/
wrda2016/wrda2016_impguide/
Can you please provide these guidance documents as well as the testing data Javier is supposed to
provide?
Thank you,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:21 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Mary Ann Lucking,
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/Planning/Environmental-
Branch/Environmental-Documents/
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay Dredge and fill of condado
lagoon project.
Thank You,
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:54 AM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

To: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Carmen Guerrero
<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius,
Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Pedro Saade Llorens
<pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>; Ernesto Otero Morales
<ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves Amador <rene.esteves@upr.edu>; Michelle Scharer
Umpierre <michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Thank you for your comments which will be incorporated into the final NEPA
document.
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Carmen
Guerrero <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>;
Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Dear Mr. Demarco:
Find attached for your consideration, the Puerto Rico Sea Grant comments
regarding the proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto
Rico Seagrass Mitigation, Additional Sand Source.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234
<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
<vibracore-map.pdf>
<borrow-vc-1-3a-graphs.pdf>
<borrow-vc-1-3a-logs.pdf>
3/15/22, 2:08 PM Gmail - FW: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge
FW: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge
1 message
Please see response from our geologist
From: Nist, Barbara U CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Barbara.U.Nist@usace.army.mil>

Hi Paul,
The laboratory which was completing the lab work is our IDIQ contractor CSI geo from Jacksonville. Their contract did not
include a report. The chain of custody is attached. The CSI representative who signed the CoC is Liam Capstick (CMT
manager). See his reference at the company link below.
https://csi-geo.com/about-csi-geo/
The contractor uses our (SAJ) template for the graphs which does not contain logos. The USACE validation of the
laboratory can be found at the link below. Type into the search fields Florida and CSI Geo, Inc. - Jacksonville, FL.
https://mtc.erdc.dren.mil/searchvalidation.aspx
Barbara Nist, P.G.
Geology and Exploration Section
USACE Jacksonville District
Phone 904-232-1890

I’m sorry- one more question.
Is the data provided for Cut 6 in the last email sent, part of a final, complete and dated report that includes analytical
interpretation of those findings sent.
Specifically such a report would include things like the name of lab analyzing the samples, so their GMP, GLP and state
lab certifications can be reviewed.
An analytical report would include a description of sample collection and handling methods, including chain of custody.
While we appreciate the graphs sent, taken out of context from a comprehensive report, it does not inform if other
parameters of concern were evaluated, but not disclosed.
Can you please let us know where in the planning documentation/ process this data is presented?
It does not appear here to be part of an appendix to an EA, but maybe it is?
Thank You,
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><

Thanks
Javier

Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is supposed to be provided
by Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on each section of
WRDA 2016, click on the hyperlinked provision.
The link appears blue as if actively hyperlinked, but unfortunately it does not connect to any
information...
Can you please provide these guidance documents as well as the testing data Javier is supposed to
provide?
Thank you,
Mary Ann Lucking,
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/Planning/Environmental-
Branch/Environmental-Documents/
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay Dredge and fill of condado
lagoon project.
Thank You,
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius,
Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Thank you for your comments which will be incorporated into the final NEPA
document.
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Carmen
Guerrero <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>;
Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Dear Mr. Demarco:
Find attached for your consideration, the Puerto Rico Sea Grant comments
regarding the proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto
Rico Seagrass Mitigation, Additional Sand Source.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
<vibracore-map.pdf>
<borrow-vc-1-3a-graphs.pdf>
<borrow-vc-1-3a-logs.pdf>
COC-SJH_vibracore_June2021.jpg
577K
3/15/22, 2:31 PM Gmail - Re: NOTES IMPORTANT [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
Re: NOTES IMPORTANT [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and

request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
1 message
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:07 PM

To: "coralations@gmail.com" <coralations@gmail.com>
NOTES
No analysis was found associated with the following sample designation numbers
shown in a sampling location graphic.
Our search for this data included Appendix A of the 2018 EA, and the 103 compliance report -
CB-SJH20-41 1991?
CB-SJH20-01
CB-SJH20-42
CB-SJH20-02
CB-SJH20-04
PROBLEMS WITH COC
VB-SJH20-04 (Vibrational core samples taken in either April or May of 2021)
VB-SJH20-05
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:38 AM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Good morning,
As discussed in the draft SEA Section 1.1: "This draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) evaluates only
the dredging of a new area outside the Federal channel west of Cut-6 (Figure 1-3) as an additional sand source for the
seagrass mitigation." The new borrow area is only proposed as an additional sand source for Condado restoration.
See draft SEA Sections 2.2 and 3.3 for a discussion of harbor sediments and the geotechnical information.
We have coordinated EPA Region II who has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has issued 103
concurrence.
The 2018 IFR/EA, Engineering Appendix A is online (https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/

Planning/Environmental-Branch/Environmental-Documents/) under Puerto Rico then San Juan Harbor Navigation
Study. The Appendix is 93 MB so please be patient but let us know if it will not download.
Paul DeMarco
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 11:45 PM
To: Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
Cc: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Ruperto Chaparro
<ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>;
Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Nelson Lugo
<nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo <ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
Saludos Mr Cortes and Mr Demarco:
Are there reasons other than to borrow fill for the lagoon that the 15 acre dredge expansion is being proposed for the
harbor?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar1106974229001391441%7Cmsg-a%3Ar-2020567856410835843&s… 1/4
Weren’t the physical characteristics of benthic samples taken throughout the navigation channel, and also including cut
6 inside the channel proposed for borrow, very similar? They were small particle - clayey or was all of cut six of the Nav
Channel proposed for borrow natural sand? Wasn’t there also observational data from an ROV of cut 6 in Nav
Channel, that shows a muddy bottom there (requested in prior e-mail)- and I think this is why vibrational core sampling
was needed?
Do you have communications from local EPA regarding the suitability of these borrow materials for fill in the Condado
Lagoon?
Finally, is it possible to send or post Appendix A of the 2018 EA?
Thank you both for your time,
Mary Ann Lucking

CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
Blockedwww.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 4:29 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> wrote:
>
> CORALations:
>
> At this moment I am working in several projects, sorry for the late answer.
>
> But, natural sand deposits are excluded from chemical and toxicological testing, and this is the case for the borrow
area.
>
> Thanks
>
> Javier
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 1:13 PM
> To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY
CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
> Cc: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>;
Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo <Ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>; Tana Wood
<wood.tana@gmail.com>
> Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
>
> Saludos Mr Demarco and Mr. Cortes:
>
> I wrote two previous emails with the hopes of obtaining a response regarding the borrow site proposed in San Juan
Harbor for the Condado Lagoon fill.
>
> The SEA mentions two documents, the 2015 and the 2018 EA’s as pertinent to this project proposal.
>
> The 2018 EA indicates the Corps solicited public input on the draft in 2017, but the 45 day comment period fell within
a time when the island was impacted by two major hurricanes.
>
> Without the benefit of review of these studies, and in a final and firm form with access to appendices, especially
where so much of the analysis done in 2018 EA defers specifically to appendix A, we can’t answer our questions, and I
am hoping you respond for the record today. It would save us all hours of digging.
>
> 1) Was an analysis of core samples taken in borrow area (inside navigation channel in cut 6 and outside in 15 acre
borrow site) proposed for the Condado Lagoon fill, limited to “geotechnical” analysis, focussed on particle or grain size
and composition,
>
> OR
>
> 2) Is there an analysis somewhere of borrow area samples that includes chemical and toxicological analysis you can
please share or point us too, at this time?
>
> Can the corps upload all relevant docs if they are too large to send, or can you please answer the question as to if cut
six in the nav channel, and expanded or borrow area enjoyed the same analysis as in those sites from the report
entitled “103 compliance” that was sent to us later by you and Mr Cortes?
>
> It appears the none of the sites analyzed in that 103 document were proposed for fill into the Condado Lagoon? Can
you please confirm?
>
> We are also interested in any relevant communications with EPA in this 103 document because while I’m not a lawyer
an EPA website indicating the marine dumping (in trench) may be governed by Section 102, and alternate site disposal
selection which in this case would be the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve, is governed by Section 103? Our
concern is that while that report says 103 we found no comprehensive analysis or discussion of the latest proposed
borrow area- - just analysis limited to particle or grain size and composition.
>
> It may be that while the Corps governs disposal of dredge locations that do not comply with the definition of ocean or
marine, they must collaborate with EPA on the selection of an alternate disposal site?
>
> Has or will EPA weigh in on the 103 determination or look at that document in relation to the Condado fill?
>
> Is there an appendix you can share that has those communications with EPA, or a number assigned for this
consideration by EPA?
>
> We need either cooperation answering questions for the record and/ or access to all documents- including
appendices - final and firm or based on the evidence we have today we are assuming the comprehensive analysis does
not exist for the borrow area- and given the amount of analysis- we need to make sure in order to comment.
>
> Again- analysis of borrow area inside and outside of channel, is what we are interested in.
>
> Also please double check the chain of custody form you sent because the sample log and dates do not match the
other documents sent (specifically the map document and and 6 page sample analysis log)
>
> There may be an error.
>
> Many thanks-
>
> Mary Ann Lucking
> CORALations
> PO BOX 750
> Culebra, PR 00775
> 787-556-6234
> email: coralations@gmail.com
> Blockedwww.coralations.org
> <>< <>< <><
--
Mary Ann Lucking
Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
3/15/22, 2:33 PM Gmail - Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix
A of 2018 EA
1 message
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:45 AM

To: "Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
Cc: "DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>, Ruperto Chaparro
<ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>, Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>, Miyoko
Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>, Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>, Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>,
Ricardo Lugo <ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>, Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>
Bcc: coralations@gmail.com
Are there reasons other than to borrow fill for the lagoon that the 15 acre dredge expansion is being proposed for the
harbor?
Weren’t the physical characteristics of benthic samples taken throughout the navigation channel, and also including cut 6
inside the channel proposed for borrow, very similar? They were small particle - clayey or was all of cut six of the Nav
Channel proposed for borrow natural sand? Wasn’t there also observational data from an ROV of cut 6 in Nav Channel,
that shows a muddy bottom there (requested in prior e-mail)- and I think this is why vibrational core sampling was
needed?
Do you have communications from local EPA regarding the suitability of these borrow materials for fill in the Condado
Lagoon?
Mary Ann Lucking

CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 4:29 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> wrote:
>
> CORALations:
>
>
> But, natural sand deposits are excluded from chemical and toxicological testing, and this is the case for the borrow area.
>
> Thanks
>
> Javier
>
>
> To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY
CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
> Cc: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Nelson
Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo <Ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>; Tana Wood
<wood.tana@gmail.com>
>
>
> I wrote two previous emails with the hopes of obtaining a response regarding the borrow site proposed in San Juan
Harbor for the Condado Lagoon fill.
>
>
> The 2018 EA indicates the Corps solicited public input on the draft in 2017, but the 45 day comment period fell within a
time when the island was impacted by two major hurricanes.
>
> Without the benefit of review of these studies, and in a final and firm form with access to appendices, especially where
so much of the analysis done in 2018 EA defers specifically to appendix A, we can’t answer our questions, and I am
hoping you respond for the record today. It would save us all hours of digging.
>
> 1) Was an analysis of core samples taken in borrow area (inside navigation channel in cut 6 and outside in 15 acre
borrow site) proposed for the Condado Lagoon fill, limited to “geotechnical” analysis, focussed on particle or grain size
and composition,
>
> OR
>
> 2) Is there an analysis somewhere of borrow area samples that includes chemical and toxicological analysis you can
please share or point us too, at this time?
>
> Can the corps upload all relevant docs if they are too large to send, or can you please answer the question as to if cut
six in the nav channel, and expanded or borrow area enjoyed the same analysis as in those sites from the report entitled
“103 compliance” that was sent to us later by you and Mr Cortes?
>
> It appears the none of the sites analyzed in that 103 document were proposed for fill into the Condado Lagoon? Can
you please confirm?
>
> We are also interested in any relevant communications with EPA in this 103 document because while I’m not a lawyer
an EPA website indicating the marine dumping (in trench) may be governed by Section 102, and alternate site disposal
selection which in this case would be the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve, is governed by Section 103? Our concern
is that while that report says 103 we found no comprehensive analysis or discussion of the latest proposed borrow area- -
just analysis limited to particle or grain size and composition.
>
> It may be that while the Corps governs disposal of dredge locations that do not comply with the definition of ocean or
marine, they must collaborate with EPA on the selection of an alternate disposal site?
>
> Has or will EPA weigh in on the 103 determination or look at that document in relation to the Condado fill?
>
> Is there an appendix you can share that has those communications with EPA, or a number assigned for this
consideration by EPA?
>
> We need either cooperation answering questions for the record and/ or access to all documents- including appendices -
final and firm or based on the evidence we have today we are assuming the comprehensive analysis does not exist for the
borrow area- and given the amount of analysis- we need to make sure in order to comment.
>
>
> Also please double check the chain of custody form you sent because the sample log and dates do not match the other
documents sent (specifically the map document and and 6 page sample analysis log)
>
>
> Many thanks-
>
> Mary Ann Lucking
> CORALations
> PO BOX 750
> Culebra, PR 00775
> 787-556-6234
> <>< <>< <><
3/15/22, 2:15 PM Gmail - RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge/ Condado Lagoon disposal site.
RE: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor
proposed dredge/ Condado Lagoon disposal site.
1 message
Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:17 AM
Cc: "DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>, Miyoko Sakashita
<miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>, Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>, Tana Wood
<wood.tana@gmail.com>, Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>, Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>, Freddy Velez
<eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Good Morning,
Attached is the final version, of the 103 report.
Thanks
Javier

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:02 AM
Cc: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Miyoko Sakashita
<miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana
Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>; Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>;
Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge/ Condado Lagoon
disposal site.
Good Morning Mr Cortes and Mr DeMarco:
Good News- this is the last day I have to review. However because if this crunch time and limited access to lots of documents,
and their referenced appendices, I am hoping you can reply all to these final questions in this email, in an email to be included for
the record with our organization’s comments.
Thank you for sending the April 2021 study report. Unfortunately the “draft” stamped over the front of every page renders the date
of the study moot, and could reflect that there’s more information yet to be added?
Is this a final analysis and if so can you please send the final document with all appendices?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1725747752884051574%7Cmsg-f%3A1726009416717025012&si… 1/10
Specifically, we are looking for the analysis that supports information provided that there is a larger grain size throughout the 15
acre “new borrow” area in San Juan Harbor, to be dredged outside of routine maintenance of existing Navigation Channel, and
any tox and chemical analysis that you may have on this benthic sediment, since these are the materials to be disposed of in the
Condado Estuarine Reserve for habitat creation.
I understand that since the lagoon does not constitute “ocean” dumping, the Corps and not EPA makes these disposal
determinations? Is that true?
The water quality concerns therefor must influence the Corps and DRNA’s (formerly EQB) decision making here and specific to
water quality concerns? Is that true?
While it is sad that in 2022 we continue to dump dredge spoils from San Juan Harbor
into the Puerto Rico trench, and that EPA has failed to update their guidelines limited only to monitoring, and not preventing
impacts, it seems intuitive that it is orders of magnitude worse to risk discharging dredge spoils from the SJ Harbor into this
shallow estuarine reserve area where waters already flag consistently as impaired by EPA, and based only on the assumption this
wont result in even more severe degradation.
From the WQC you received, signed by Mr Marchago of the DRNA, it does not appear that physical water quality concerns are not
as important as cost share concerns to DRNA?
I can’t figure that certification out and I am interested in the Corp’s interpretation, because the legality of the decision to dispose of
dredge spoils in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve for any reason, likely largely depends on the legality of this
certification.
This WQ certification letter states the discharge or disposal in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve is not being analyzed for
consideration in this certification, but then goes on to say, it may, depending on cost share considerations. Can you please share
with me the Corps’ interpretation?
Specifically, does the Corps consider this WQC for dredge disposal into Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve as issued, or do they
consider the WQC for discharge into the lagoon as still pending?
Did the national competition to select 10 areas for beneficial use of dredge spoils require a private match through San Juan Bay
Estuary Program, and if so, is that match still secure after community management priorities appear to be shifting to tidal flood
abatement?
Is there a match of some kind needed from the Commonwealth for this routine dredging, and then fill of Condado Lagoon outside
of the funds from the beneficial use of dredge competition?
Is there any non-federal funding commitment needed for any of these projects? (—-routine Harbor dredge, expansion of dredge
in harbor and Condado Lagoon disposal for habitat creation)
Did you find in the SJBE Program‘s draft management plan for the Condado Lagoon protected area, any mention of this fill
project as an actions priority today?
While I saw the 2018 letter from SJBE president supporting the National beneficial fill competition, that letter references a different
acreage to be filled, and did not make reference to the management plan priorities- which are largely focussed on implementing
all aspects of the PR Law 112,
2013 that designated protective status as an estuarine reserve area.
Was any tox or chemical analysis provided to the DRNA regarding this Water Quality Certification decision and with regard to
either the ocean disposal site or the Condado Lagoon disposal?
This is of particular concern to us because Puerto Rico has been consolidated local planning and permitting and multiple years of
associated regs have been nullified by the local Supreme Court so far back now that today, these regs fail to mesh with local
planning and permitting fast track laws-
Federal NEPA compliance depends on the legal issuance of local permits and certifications, this making your job moving NEPA
compliant projects, especially in the coastal zone, orders of magnitude more difficult. We have seen consideration of Federal
statutes in programs like the CWA largely ignored by local permitting agency consolidations, and despite the CWA’s remaining
federal nexus. Any illegal certifications or permits issued unfortunately don’t remove the Corps legal obligations under NEPA and
CWA, they only make things much for complicated for you today. I sympathize with those challenges you face today in Puerto Rico
and want to stress our issues are limited to concerns about disposal for any use, in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve.
As of today, what is the water quality classification the Corps understands applies to the waters in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine
Reserve?
Is my understanding correct here, that while some dredge will come from the Nav channel, one document described the benthic
substrate inside the Nav Channel as as muddy, small particle, and as a result difficult to sample which may be why there was a
need for vibrational core sampling, off Good Vibrations? Is that true?
(great name for that sampling vessel!)
Also this April draft analysis shows areas where benthic particles analyzed and taken from multiple sites to the south of borrow
site but in the center of the navigation channel, often fell above the normal range parameters measured by the analytical
equipment? Did I understand that correctly? And this mainly regarding metals?
I gathered from phone conversation with Mr. DeMarco, that the new borrow area was chosen for larger grain size that has more
solid composition (composed of what?) and is being harvested here maybe to “cap.?” dredge spoils also proposed for fill in the
lagoon, and taken from more muddy small particles center of existing nav channel?
Is that correct?
This is based on an assumption that larger particles would sink faster and therefore result in less time of associated turbidity and
also consideration that these particles (composition?) would be less likely to transport toxins?
Did I understand that correctly?
Is there any data supporting this and particle size and composition, chem or tox data from
borrow site?
Is it possible the new borrow area and increased overall quantities of fill from the borrow area have been recently proposed as a
“cap” after the April 2021 analysis revealed those levels of benthic contaminants from the fine sediment mud bottom found in the
center of Nav channel? Fill amounts change and fill area for Condado differs in different studies and even in letter from San
JuanBay Estuary. 4 acres of fill was proposed in 2015, 14 acres of fill today, but both limited to same physical fill parameters to
restore 1.2acres of habitat for natural sea grass recruitment in the lagoon?
If so, or if not, are there any other reasons motivating the 15 acre dredge expansion outside normal maintenance boundaries,
around cut 6 near El Morro,
and if so what are they?
When was this new borrow area proposed and was this proposed solely because of composition and differences in grain size?
Will the new borrow area then permanently expand the areas to be managed and routinely maintained by dredging in the future, in
other words will this expand existing Nav Channel boundaries near cut 6, or is this a one time dredge?
Based on Mr DeMarco’s last email, it’s my understanding that the SHPO concerns fall way outside of the 15 acre borrow area
adjacent to cut 6, however, we still have not received and we cannot access any info from inside this borrow area or maps
presented to SHPO or relevant appendices attached to studies and EA’s. It looks to us that SHPO evaluated concerns around cut
5?
To date, the April dated draft study shows sampling only from these sites to the south of new borrow area. This doesn’t show
borrow area samples, or samples inside cut 6 inside the Nav Channel proposed for disposal as a beneficial use of dredge spoils
disposal in order to create habitat in the Condado Lagoon Reserve Estuary.
We are interested in any and all post hurricanes data from the borrow site and also any and all post hurricanes data from the
depressions to be filled inside the Condado Reserve for habitat. If not we appreciate a response regarding why we cannot have
access to these studies.
(Below: This draft shows sampling way south of cut 6 only…)
Final Question- Near the back of the 2018 EA there is mention that an “EIS was originally planned” (pg 175 of .pdf document,
labeled
7-3) but then goes on to specify the “San Juan Bay Harbor Improvements Project” had already been issued a FONSI, so the
Corps decided an EA was sufficient.
Is the fill disposal into the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve then considered a part of the San Juan Bay Improvements
project? Is the 15 acre expansion of dredge near cut 6? there’s different project titles referenced on multiple documents so this is
very confusing.
On what studies was the FONSI based if not the EA?
Regarding public participation,( and for the record we are only just now seeing the 2018 EA on which this proposal is largely
based), this states that a draft of this ES was released in August of 2017 for public review, and a meeting was held in San Juan
on Friday, Aug 22, 2017. It specifies 45 days was given for public comments.
Can you please provide the official notice from the federal registry or local paper regarding this. we didn’t see it but then Puerto
Rico was nailed not just by one, but two major hurricanes during this 45 day time frame.
Thank You- please respond to all due to time constraints-
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 24, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Thanks
Javier

Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is supposed to be provided by
Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on each section of WRDA
2016, click on the hyperlinked provision.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Lucking,
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

project.
Thank You,
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius, Karen M
CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Karen.M.Urelius@usace.army.mil>
Dear Mr. Demarco:
proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
<San Juan Harbor_103_Draft Final_043021jc.pdf>
San Juan Harbor_103_Final_051021_Compiled.pdf

10407K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bf7a11e4c1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1725747752884051574%7Cmsg-f%3A1726009416717025012&s… 10/10
1 message
Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Cc: "DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)" <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>, Miyoko Sakashita
<miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>, Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>,
Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>, Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>, Nelson Lugo
<nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>, Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Attached is the requested document.

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:20 AM
<miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>; Nelson
Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge/ Condado
Lagoon disposal site.
g please-
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:57 AM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Ms. Lucking;
I cannot provide you a link, due to security concerns, and the appendixes are too big to be send via e-mail
(Over 1Gb).
If you will like to see and specific appendix, please let me know which one, and I will try to send it via e-mail.
You also can request a full copy, to our Corporate Communications Office.
Thanks
Javier

<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde
<juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>; Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge/ Condado Lagoon disposal site.
Saludos Mr Cortes:
Can you also please send the appendices- or provide a link to those documents.
Many thanks,
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 28, 2022, at 8:20 AM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
<Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Good Morning,
Thanks
Javier

Cc: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>;
Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ruperto Chaparro
<ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana Wood
<wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>; Nelson Lugo
<nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor
Good News- this is the last day I have to review. However because if this crunch time and
limited access to lots of documents, and their referenced appendices, I am hoping you can
reply all to these final questions in this email, in an email to be included for the record with our
organization’s comments.
Thank you for sending the April 2021 study report. Unfortunately the “draft” stamped over the
front of every page renders the date of the study moot, and could reflect that there’s more
information yet to be added?
<image001.jpg>
Specifically, we are looking for the analysis that supports information provided that there is a
larger grain size throughout the 15 acre “new borrow” area in San Juan Harbor, to be dredged
outside of routine maintenance of existing Navigation Channel, and any tox and chemical
analysis that you may have on this benthic sediment, since these are the materials to be
disposed of in the Condado Estuarine Reserve for habitat creation.
I understand that since the lagoon does not constitute “ocean” dumping, the Corps and not
EPA makes these disposal determinations? Is that true?
The water quality concerns therefor must influence the Corps and DRNA’s (formerly EQB)
decision making here and specific to water quality concerns? Is that true?
into the Puerto Rico trench, and that EPA has failed to update their guidelines limited only to
monitoring, and not preventing impacts, it seems intuitive that it is orders of magnitude worse
to risk discharging dredge spoils from the SJ Harbor into this shallow estuarine reserve area
where waters already flag consistently as impaired by EPA, and based only on the assumption
this wont result in even more severe degradation.
From the WQC you received, signed by Mr Marchago of the DRNA, it does not appear that
physical water quality concerns are not as important as cost share concerns to DRNA?
I can’t figure that certification out and I am interested in the Corp’s interpretation, because the
legality of the decision to dispose of dredge spoils in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve
for any reason, likely largely depends on the legality of this certification.
This WQ certification letter states the discharge or disposal in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine
Reserve is not being analyzed for consideration in this certification, but then goes on to say, it
may, depending on cost share considerations. Can you please share with me the Corps’
interpretation?
Specifically, does the Corps consider this WQC for dredge disposal into Condado Lagoon
Estuarine Reserve as issued, or do they consider the WQC for discharge into the lagoon as
still pending?
Did the national competition to select 10 areas for beneficial use of dredge spoils require a
private match through San Juan Bay Estuary Program, and if so, is that match still secure
after community management priorities appear to be shifting to tidal flood abatement?
Is there a match of some kind needed from the Commonwealth for this routine dredging, and
then fill of Condado Lagoon outside of the funds from the beneficial use of dredge
competition?
Is there any non-federal funding commitment needed for any of these projects? (—-routine
Harbor dredge, expansion of dredge in harbor and Condado Lagoon disposal for habitat
creation)
Did you find in the SJBE Program‘s draft management plan for the Condado Lagoon
protected area, any mention of this fill project as an actions priority today?
While I saw the 2018 letter from SJBE president supporting the National beneficial fill
competition, that letter references a different acreage to be filled, and did not make reference
to the management plan priorities- which are largely focussed on implementing all aspects of
the PR Law 112,
Was any tox or chemical analysis provided to the DRNA regarding this Water Quality
Certification decision and with regard to either the ocean disposal site or the Condado Lagoon
disposal?
This is of particular concern to us because Puerto Rico has been consolidated local planning
and permitting and multiple years of associated regs have been nullified by the local Supreme
Court so far back now that today, these regs fail to mesh with local planning and permitting
fast track laws-
Federal NEPA compliance depends on the legal issuance of local permits and certifications,
this making your job moving NEPA compliant projects, especially in the coastal zone, orders
of magnitude more difficult. We have seen consideration of Federal statutes in programs like
the CWA largely ignored by local permitting agency consolidations, and despite the CWA’s
remaining federal nexus. Any illegal certifications or permits issued unfortunately don’t remove
the Corps legal obligations under NEPA and CWA, they only make things much for
complicated for you today. I sympathize with those challenges you face today in Puerto Rico
and want to stress our issues are limited to concerns about disposal for any use, in the
Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve.
As of today, what is the water quality classification the Corps understands applies to the
waters in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve?
Is my understanding correct here, that while some dredge will come from the Nav channel,
one document described the benthic substrate inside the Nav Channel as as muddy, small
particle, and as a result difficult to sample which may be why there was a need for vibrational
core sampling, off Good Vibrations? Is that true?
Also this April draft analysis shows areas where benthic particles analyzed and taken from
multiple sites to the south of borrow site but in the center of the navigation channel, often fell
above the normal range parameters measured by the analytical equipment? Did I understand
that correctly? And this mainly regarding metals?
I gathered from phone conversation with Mr. DeMarco, that the new borrow area was chosen
for larger grain size that has more solid composition (composed of what?) and is being
harvested here maybe to “cap.?” dredge spoils also proposed for fill in the lagoon, and taken
from more muddy small particles center of existing nav channel?
Is that correct?
This is based on an assumption that larger particles would sink faster and therefore result in
less time of associated turbidity and also consideration that these particles (composition?)
would be less likely to transport toxins?
borrow site?
Is it possible the new borrow area and increased overall quantities of fill from the borrow area
have been recently proposed as a “cap” after the April 2021 analysis revealed those levels of
benthic contaminants from the fine sediment mud bottom found in the center of Nav channel?
Fill amounts change and fill area for Condado differs in different studies and even in letter
from San JuanBay Estuary. 4 acres of fill was proposed in 2015, 14 acres of fill today, but both
limited to same physical fill parameters to restore 1.2acres of habitat for natural sea grass
recruitment in the lagoon?
If so, or if not, are there any other reasons motivating the 15 acre dredge expansion outside
normal maintenance boundaries, around cut 6 near El Morro,
When was this new borrow area proposed and was this proposed solely because of
composition and differences in grain size?
Will the new borrow area then permanently expand the areas to be managed and routinely
maintained by dredging in the future, in other words will this expand existing Nav Channel
boundaries near cut 6, or is this a one time dredge?
Based on Mr DeMarco’s last email, it’s my understanding that the SHPO concerns fall way
outside of the 15 acre borrow area adjacent to cut 6, however, we still have not received and
we cannot access any info from inside this borrow area or maps presented to SHPO or
relevant appendices attached to studies and EA’s. It looks to us that SHPO evaluated
concerns around cut 5?
To date, the April dated draft study shows sampling only from these sites to the south of new
borrow area. This doesn’t show borrow area samples, or samples inside cut 6 inside the
Nav Channel proposed for disposal as a beneficial use of dredge spoils disposal in order to
create habitat in the Condado Lagoon Reserve Estuary.
We are interested in any and all post hurricanes data from the borrow site and also any and all
post hurricanes data from the depressions to be filled inside the Condado Reserve for habitat.
If not we appreciate a response regarding why we cannot have access to these studies.
<image002.jpg>
Final Question- Near the back of the 2018 EA there is mention that an “EIS was originally
planned” (pg 175 of .pdf document, labeled
7-3) but then goes on to specify the “San Juan Bay Harbor Improvements Project” had already
been issued a FONSI, so the Corps decided an EA was sufficient.
Is the fill disposal into the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve then considered a part of the
San Juan Bay Improvements project? Is the 15 acre expansion of dredge near cut 6? there’s
different project titles referenced on multiple documents so this is very confusing.
Regarding public participation,( and for the record we are only just now seeing the 2018 EA on
which this proposal is largely based), this states that a draft of this ES was released in
August of 2017 for public review, and a meeting was held in San Juan on Friday, Aug 22,
2017. It specifies 45 days was given for public comments.
Can you please provide the official notice from the federal registry or local paper regarding
this. we didn’t see it but then Puerto Rico was nailed not just by one, but two major hurricanes
during this 45 day time frame.
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 24, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Attached is the draft final text portion of the report. This is the version before
final approval
Thanks
Javier

To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Cc: Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor
proposed dredge
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that
is supposed to be provided by Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific

guidance on each section of WRDA 2016, click on the hyperlinked provision.
If the provision is not hyperlinked, guidance is in the process of being
developed."
The link appears blue as if actively hyperlinked, but unfortunately it does not
connect to any information...
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Legislative-
Links/wrda2016/wrda2016_impguide/
Can you please provide these guidance documents as well as the testing data
Javier is supposed to provide?
Thank you,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:21 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ
(USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Mary Ann Lucking,
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/
Planning/Environmental-Branch/Environmental-Documents/
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor
proposed dredge
Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay
Dredge and fill of condado lagoon project.
Thank You,
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:54 AM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ

(USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan

for the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

<Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry.keyhoe@noaa.gov; Rose Ortiz
<Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Urelius, Karen M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Pedro Saade
Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>;
Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves
Amador <rene.esteves@upr.edu>; Michelle Scharer Umpierre
<michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Thank you for your comments which will be incorporated into

the final NEPA document.
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Carmen Guerrero
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; Pedro Saade
Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>;
Ernesto Otero Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves
Amador <rene.esteves@upr.edu>; Michelle Scharer Umpierre
<michelle.scharer@upr.edu>
Dear Mr. Demarco:
Find attached for your consideration, the Puerto Rico Sea

Grant comments regarding the proposed Draft Supplemental
Environmental Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
<San Juan Harbor_103_Final_051021_Compiled.pdf>
Appendix-G-ANAMAR San Juan Harbor 2020 Sediment Evaluation Report.pdf

18925K
1 message
Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:07 PM
To: Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>
Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>, "DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)"
<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>, Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>, Ruperto Chaparro
<ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>, Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>, Nelson
Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>, Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Attached is appendix C.
From: Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>

Cc: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>; DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ruperto Chaparro
<ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>;
Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge/ Condado
Lagoon disposal site.
I am interested in appendices c, d, e, and g; in that order of priority.
Thanks.
Ariel E. Lugo
Tamesis #1528, El Paraiso
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00926
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:57 AM Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Ms. Lucking;
I cannot provide you a link, due to security concerns, and the appendixes are too big to be send via e-mail (Over 1Gb).
If you will like to see and specific appendix, please let me know which one, and I will try to send it via e-mail.
You also can request a full copy, to our Corporate Communications Office.
Thanks
Javier

<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde <juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>;
Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez <eddyvega.fv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed dredge/
Condado Lagoon disposal site.
Saludos Mr Cortes:
Can you also please send the appendices- or provide a link to those documents.
Many thanks,
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 28, 2022, at 8:20 AM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Good Morning,
Thanks
Javier

Cc: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Miyoko
Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>; Sonia Villaverde
<juicy.gpsygirl@gmail.com>; Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Freddy Velez
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Final Questions - San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge/ Condado Lagoon disposal site.
Good News- this is the last day I have to review. However because if this crunch time and limited access
to lots of documents, and their referenced appendices, I am hoping you can reply all to these final
questions in this email, in an email to be included for the record with our organization’s comments.
Thank you for sending the April 2021 study report. Unfortunately the “draft” stamped over the front of
every page renders the date of the study moot, and could reflect that there’s more information yet to be
added?
<image001.jpg>
Specifically, we are looking for the analysis that supports information provided that there is a larger grain
size throughout the 15 acre “new borrow” area in San Juan Harbor, to be dredged outside of routine
maintenance of existing Navigation Channel, and any tox and chemical analysis that you may have on
this benthic sediment, since these are the materials to be disposed of in the Condado Estuarine Reserve
for habitat creation.
I understand that since the lagoon does not constitute “ocean” dumping, the Corps and not EPA makes
these disposal determinations? Is that true?
The water quality concerns therefor must influence the Corps and DRNA’s (formerly EQB) decision
making here and specific to water quality concerns? Is that true?
into the Puerto Rico trench, and that EPA has failed to update their guidelines limited only to monitoring,
and not preventing impacts, it seems intuitive that it is orders of magnitude worse to risk discharging
dredge spoils from the SJ Harbor into this shallow estuarine reserve area where waters already flag
consistently as impaired by EPA, and based only on the assumption this wont result in even more severe
degradation.
From the WQC you received, signed by Mr Marchago of the DRNA, it does not appear that physical
water quality concerns are not as important as cost share concerns to DRNA?
I can’t figure that certification out and I am interested in the Corp’s interpretation, because the legality of
the decision to dispose of dredge spoils in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve for any reason,
likely largely depends on the legality of this certification.
This WQ certification letter states the discharge or disposal in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve is
not being analyzed for consideration in this certification, but then goes on to say, it may, depending on
cost share considerations. Can you please share with me the Corps’ interpretation?
Specifically, does the Corps consider this WQC for dredge disposal into Condado Lagoon Estuarine
Reserve as issued, or do they consider the WQC for discharge into the lagoon as still pending?
Did the national competition to select 10 areas for beneficial use of dredge spoils require a private match
through San Juan Bay Estuary Program, and if so, is that match still secure after community
management priorities appear to be shifting to tidal flood abatement?
Is there a match of some kind needed from the Commonwealth for this routine dredging, and then fill of
Condado Lagoon outside of the funds from the beneficial use of dredge competition?
Is there any non-federal funding commitment needed for any of these projects? (—-routine Harbor
dredge, expansion of dredge in harbor and Condado Lagoon disposal for habitat creation)
Did you find in the SJBE Program‘s draft management plan for the Condado Lagoon protected area, any
mention of this fill project as an actions priority today?
While I saw the 2018 letter from SJBE president supporting the National beneficial fill competition, that
letter references a different acreage to be filled, and did not make reference to the management plan
priorities- which are largely focussed on implementing all aspects of the PR Law 112,
Was any tox or chemical analysis provided to the DRNA regarding this Water Quality Certification
decision and with regard to either the ocean disposal site or the Condado Lagoon disposal?
This is of particular concern to us because Puerto Rico has been consolidated local planning and
permitting and multiple years of associated regs have been nullified by the local Supreme Court so far
back now that today, these regs fail to mesh with local planning and permitting fast track laws-
Federal NEPA compliance depends on the legal issuance of local permits and certifications, this making
your job moving NEPA compliant projects, especially in the coastal zone, orders of magnitude more
difficult. We have seen consideration of Federal statutes in programs like the CWA largely ignored by
local permitting agency consolidations, and despite the CWA’s remaining federal nexus. Any illegal
certifications or permits issued unfortunately don’t remove the Corps legal obligations under NEPA and
CWA, they only make things much for complicated for you today. I sympathize with those challenges you
face today in Puerto Rico and want to stress our issues are limited to concerns about disposal for any
use, in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve.
As of today, what is the water quality classification the Corps understands applies to the waters in the
Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve?
Is my understanding correct here, that while some dredge will come from the Nav channel, one
document described the benthic substrate inside the Nav Channel as as muddy, small particle, and as a
result difficult to sample which may be why there was a need for vibrational core sampling, off Good
Vibrations? Is that true?
Also this April draft analysis shows areas where benthic particles analyzed and taken from multiple sites
to the south of borrow site but in the center of the navigation channel, often fell above the normal range
parameters measured by the analytical equipment? Did I understand that correctly? And this mainly
regarding metals?
I gathered from phone conversation with Mr. DeMarco, that the new borrow area was chosen for larger
grain size that has more solid composition (composed of what?) and is being harvested here maybe to
“cap.?” dredge spoils also proposed for fill in the lagoon, and taken from more muddy small particles
center of existing nav channel?
Is that correct?
This is based on an assumption that larger particles would sink faster and therefore result in less time of
associated turbidity and also consideration that these particles (composition?) would be less likely to
transport toxins?
borrow site?
Is it possible the new borrow area and increased overall quantities of fill from the borrow area have been
recently proposed as a “cap” after the April 2021 analysis revealed those levels of benthic contaminants
from the fine sediment mud bottom found in the center of Nav channel? Fill amounts change and fill area
for Condado differs in different studies and even in letter from San JuanBay Estuary. 4 acres of fill was
proposed in 2015, 14 acres of fill today, but both limited to same physical fill parameters to restore
1.2acres of habitat for natural sea grass recruitment in the lagoon?
If so, or if not, are there any other reasons motivating the 15 acre dredge expansion outside normal
maintenance boundaries, around cut 6 near El Morro,
When was this new borrow area proposed and was this proposed solely because of composition and
differences in grain size?
Will the new borrow area then permanently expand the areas to be managed and routinely maintained by
dredging in the future, in other words will this expand existing Nav Channel boundaries near cut 6, or is
this a one time dredge?
Based on Mr DeMarco’s last email, it’s my understanding that the SHPO concerns fall way outside of the
15 acre borrow area adjacent to cut 6, however, we still have not received and we cannot access any info
from inside this borrow area or maps presented to SHPO or relevant appendices attached to studies and
EA’s. It looks to us that SHPO evaluated concerns around cut 5?
To date, the April dated draft study shows sampling only from these sites to the south of new borrow
area. This doesn’t show borrow area samples, or samples inside cut 6 inside the Nav Channel
proposed for disposal as a beneficial use of dredge spoils disposal in order to create habitat in the
Condado Lagoon Reserve Estuary.
We are interested in any and all post hurricanes data from the borrow site and also any and all post
hurricanes data from the depressions to be filled inside the Condado Reserve for habitat. If not we
appreciate a response regarding why we cannot have access to these studies.
<image002.jpg>
Final Question- Near the back of the 2018 EA there is mention that an “EIS was originally planned” (pg
175 of .pdf document, labeled
7-3) but then goes on to specify the “San Juan Bay Harbor Improvements Project” had already been
issued a FONSI, so the Corps decided an EA was sufficient.
Is the fill disposal into the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve then considered a part of the San Juan
Bay Improvements project? Is the 15 acre expansion of dredge near cut 6? there’s different project titles
referenced on multiple documents so this is very confusing.
Regarding public participation,( and for the record we are only just now seeing the 2018 EA on which this
proposal is largely based), this states that a draft of this ES was released in August of 2017 for public
review, and a meeting was held in San Juan on Friday, Aug 22, 2017. It specifies 45 days was given for
public comments.
Can you please provide the official notice from the federal registry or local paper regarding this. we didn’t
see it but then Puerto Rico was nailed not just by one, but two major hurricanes during this 45 day time
frame.
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
www.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
On Feb 24, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Thanks
Javier

Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is
supposed to be provided by Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on
each section of WRDA 2016, click on the hyperlinked provision.
The link appears blue as if actively hyperlinked, but unfortunately it does not connect to
any information...
Can you please provide these guidance documents as well as the testing data Javier is
supposed to provide?
Thank you,
Mary Ann Lucking,
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-Offices/
Planning/Environmental-Branch/Environmental-Documents/
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Re: San Juan Harbor proposed
dredge
Can you please share the 2018 IFR/EA associated with the San Juan Bay Dredge and
fill of condado lagoon project.
Thank You,
Attached is the latest Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

<pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>; Ernesto Otero
Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves Amador
Thank you for your comments which will be incorporated into the final
NEPA document.
Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

<Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Carmen Guerrero
<pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ruth Santiago <rstgo2@gmail.com>; Ernesto Otero
Morales <ernesto.otero3@upr.edu>; Rene F Esteves Amador
Dear Mr. Demarco:
Find attached for your consideration, the Puerto Rico Sea Grant
comments regarding the proposed Draft Supplemental Environmental
Assessment San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico Seagrass Mitigation, Additional Sand
Source.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
<San Juan Harbor_103_Final_051021_Compiled.pdf>
App C - Physical Data.pdf

984K
3/15/22, 2:34 PM Gmail - time sensitive: 103b concurrence document
time sensitive: 103b concurrence document

1 message
CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 8:06 PM

To: Carmen Guerrero <Guerrero.Carmen@epa.gov>, Jose Rivera <rivera.jose@epa.gov>
Cc: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>, Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>, Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>, Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>, Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>, Nelson
Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>, Ricardo Lugo <ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>, Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>,
Ricardo Lugo <Ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>
Bcc: coralations@gmail.com
Saludos Ms. Guerrero and Mr Rivera:
Would you have on record documents that show 103 consultation and/or concurrence with the Corps regarding plans to
discharge dredge materials from the San Juan Harbor into the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve Area?
I ask because this EPA website on ocean dumping, (https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/ocean-disposal-site-

designation)
states the following:
“Under MPRSA section 103(b), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in consultation with
EPA, can select an “alternative” site for dredged material disposal for short-term use in the
cases where it is not feasible to use a designated ocean disposal site. EPA must concur on
use of “alternative” ocean sites selected by USACE for the disposal of dredged material.”
All please see communications below with Mr DeMarco of the US Corps of Engineers.
Mr DeMarco indicates in a communication below that concurrence was obtained through
Region II.
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
On Mar 8, 2022, at 6:35 PM, CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you please share the documentation regarding the 103 concurrence from EPA Region II, for the
discharge into Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve.
Many thanks for your time on this.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:38 AM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
Good morning,
As discussed in the draft SEA Section 1.1: "This draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA)
evaluates only the dredging of a new area outside the Federal channel west of Cut-6 (Figure 1-3) as an
additional sand source for the seagrass mitigation." The new borrow area is only proposed as an
additional sand source for Condado restoration.
See draft SEA Sections 2.2 and 3.3 for a discussion of harbor sediments and the geotechnical
information.
We have coordinated EPA Region II who has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has
issued 103 concurrence.
The 2018 IFR/EA, Engineering Appendix A is online (https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-

Offices/Planning/Environmental-Branch/Environmental-Documents/) under Puerto Rico then San Juan
Harbor Navigation Study. The Appendix is 93 MB so please be patient but let us know if it will not
download.
Paul DeMarco
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 11:45 PM
Cc: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Ruperto
Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ariel Lugo
<aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Rose Ortiz
<Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo
<ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] questions and request for Appendix A of 2018 EA
Are there reasons other than to borrow fill for the lagoon that the 15 acre dredge expansion is being
proposed for the harbor?
Weren’t the physical characteristics of benthic samples taken throughout the navigation channel, and
also including cut 6 inside the channel proposed for borrow, very similar? They were small particle -
clayey or was all of cut six of the Nav Channel proposed for borrow natural sand? Wasn’t there also
observational data from an ROV of cut 6 in Nav Channel, that shows a muddy bottom there (requested in
prior e-mail)- and I think this is why vibrational core sampling was needed?
Do you have communications from local EPA regarding the suitability of these borrow materials for fill in
the Condado Lagoon?
Mary Ann Lucking

CORALations
PO BOX 750
Culebra, PR 00775
787-556-6234
Blockedwww.coralations.org
<>< <>< <><
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 4:29 PM, Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)
>
> CORALations:
>
>
> But, natural sand deposits are excluded from chemical and toxicological testing, and this is the case for
the borrow area.
>
> Thanks
>
> Javier
>
>
> To: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>; Cortes, Javier
CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil>
> Cc: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Pedro Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Ariel
Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Rose Ortiz
<Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Nelson Lugo <nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo
<Ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>; Tana Wood <wood.tana@gmail.com>
>
>
> I wrote two previous emails with the hopes of obtaining a response regarding the borrow site proposed
in San Juan Harbor for the Condado Lagoon fill.
>
>
> The 2018 EA indicates the Corps solicited public input on the draft in 2017, but the 45 day comment
period fell within a time when the island was impacted by two major hurricanes.
>
> Without the benefit of review of these studies, and in a final and firm form with access to appendices,
especially where so much of the analysis done in 2018 EA defers specifically to appendix A, we can’t
answer our questions, and I am hoping you respond for the record today. It would save us all hours of
digging.
>
> 1) Was an analysis of core samples taken in borrow area (inside navigation channel in cut 6 and outside
in 15 acre borrow site) proposed for the Condado Lagoon fill, limited to “geotechnical” analysis, focussed
on particle or grain size and composition,
>
> OR
>
> 2) Is there an analysis somewhere of borrow area samples that includes chemical and toxicological
analysis you can please share or point us too, at this time?
>
> Can the corps upload all relevant docs if they are too large to send, or can you please answer the
question as to if cut six in the nav channel, and expanded or borrow area enjoyed the same analysis as in
those sites from the report entitled “103 compliance” that was sent to us later by you and Mr Cortes?
>
> It appears the none of the sites analyzed in that 103 document were proposed for fill into the Condado
Lagoon? Can you please confirm?
>
> We are also interested in any relevant communications with EPA in this 103 document because while
I’m not a lawyer an EPA website indicating the marine dumping (in trench) may be governed by Section
102, and alternate site disposal selection which in this case would be the Condado Lagoon Estuarine
Reserve, is governed by Section 103? Our concern is that while that report says 103 we found no
comprehensive analysis or discussion of the latest proposed borrow area- - just analysis limited to particle
or grain size and composition.
>
> It may be that while the Corps governs disposal of dredge locations that do not comply with the
definition of ocean or marine, they must collaborate with EPA on the selection of an alternate disposal
site?
>
> Has or will EPA weigh in on the 103 determination or look at that document in relation to the Condado
fill?
>
> Is there an appendix you can share that has those communications with EPA, or a number assigned for
this consideration by EPA?
>
> We need either cooperation answering questions for the record and/ or access to all documents-
including appendices - final and firm or based on the evidence we have today we are assuming the
comprehensive analysis does not exist for the borrow area- and given the amount of analysis- we need to
make sure in order to comment.
>
>
> Also please double check the chain of custody form you sent because the sample log and dates do not
match the other documents sent (specifically the map document and and 6 page sample analysis log)
>
>
> Many thanks-
>
> Mary Ann Lucking
> CORALations
> PO BOX 750
> Culebra, PR 00775
> 787-556-6234
> <>< <>< <><
--
Mary Ann Lucking
Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
3/15/22, 2:37 PM Gmail - RE: Corps analysis on Borrow Area for Condado Fill
RE: Corps analysis on Borrow Area for Condado Fill

1 message
Rivera, Jose <Rivera.Jose@epa.gov> Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:26 AM

Cc: "Guerrero, Carmen" <guerrero.carmen@epa.gov>
Good morning:
EPA is in receipt of your email and documents.
Good day!
José A. Rivera, BSCE | Team Leader
Clean Water Act Team
Multimedia Permits and Compliance Branch
US EPA Region 2 | Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
Direct Dial: (787) 977-5842
Main: (787) 977-5865
e-mail: rivera.jose@epa.gov
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside
government information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this
message and then delete it from your system.

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2022 3:47 PM
To: Rose Ortiz <Ortiz_r@jp.pr.gov>; Rivera, Jose <Rivera.Jose@epa.gov>; Guerrero, Carmen
<guerrero.carmen@epa.gov>; Kerry Kehoe - NOAA Federal <kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov>
Cc: Pedro Saade Llorens <pedrosaade5@gmail.com>; Miyoko Sakashita <miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org>; Nelson Lugo
<nelsonlugo.md@gmail.com>; Ariel Lugo <aelugo1234@gmail.com>; Ricardo Lugo <ricardo.juan.lugo@gmail.com>;
Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>; Nicolás Gómez <nicolas.x.gomez@gmail.com>;
alfredo.a.montanez@gmail.com; Kristin Carden <kcarden@biologicaldiversity.org>; Ricardo Laureano
<ricardolaureanopr@yahoo.com>; Edwin Hernandez-Delgado <edwin.hernandezdelgado@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Corps analysis on Borrow Area for Condado Fill
Saludos Ms. Ortiz:
Im sorry the last email below I accidentally attached the 2015 WQC for a different dredge site albeit also to dispose fill in
Condado Lagoon Estuary Reserve Area.
Attached is the Feb 2, 2022 WQC document that I would like to know JP's position on, specifically regarding if this fulfills
JPs requirement for
water quality certification based on financial criterion (?) as Marchargo states in the letter, regarding fill into the Condado
Lagoon Estuarine Reserve.
Has EPA has yet weighed in on their MPRSA Section 103 (b) consultation responsibilities?
Again, please note that the analysis entitled 103 Compliance provided by the Corps (attached), was performed on
samples areas that fall outside of the borrow area, and that no chemical or tox analysis was found for dredge in the
borrow area to date. Samples inside the borrow area and cut 6 of the channel were limited to " geotechnical " analysis -
(particle and grain size and composition)
Please see the last sentence on Page 2, Paragraph 1.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> wrote:
Saludos Ms. Ortiz - please see this attached DRAFT MEMO- this is not final comments but notes with screen shots
from Corps documents. Our conclusions are based on Corps data alone.
1) The analysis of "borrow site" both inside and outside of the channel to be dredged, is limited to "geotechnical"
analysis. This is only particle / grain size and composition.
We could find NO CHEMICAL ANALYSIS - NO TOX ANALYSIS for the proposed 15 acre borrow area or borrow area in
cut 6 of the channel which is of greatest concern as that's what's going to Condado Lagoon. I keep asking the Corps.
2) The Corps has a document with analysis of sample sites outside the borrow area called 103 Compliance report that
we were only recently sent a copy of albeit without relevant appendices. They are sending them separate but to date
we still do not have access to this and some other documents "final and firm." We cannot analyze info that is not
presented as "final and firm " assuming there's no other analysis out there? We need to Corps to state if they did a full
chemical and tox analysis on the borrow site for the record and if so can we please see the report?
Section 102 of the MPRSA appears to govern the disposal to the trench considered marine or ocean dumping and
under jurisdiction today of EPA, albeit through an already expired 2011 management plan. Links are embedded in the
attached document.
Pagraph 4 of this EPA webpage discusses Section 103 (b) governs alternate disposal sites and is supposed to be
selected in close collaboration with EPA.
This is not a "beneficial use of dredge" if they have to venue shop for new dredge materials because the routine
maintenance dredge is too toxic. The attached 103 analysis shows concerns in the bay but again, nothing in the
borrow site. This report should have been called 102 compliance?
This is a use of what is likely some of the most contaminated dredge material taken from cut 6 of the channel and the
15 acres from the harbor in order to fill the lagoon and under an assumption that the larger grained material is not
carrying toxins. The Corps bears the burden to prove that it is not toxic under 103 and yet their report does not include
chemical or tox analysis for borrow material - only physical grain size and composition.
The channel is small grained material and they want to "cap" it but
without benefit of chemical or toxic analysis they can in no way say this will create viable habitat for passive sea grass
recruitment.
The only thing I can say about San Juan Estuary's support of the project is likely they were influenced by the way this
"beneficial use" was sold to them...you really need some experience in forensic toxicology to see this. Sometimes Ive
seen these giant projects that must be done (maintenance dredging in the harbor) create their own contractor food
chains, propelled without scientific basis to the detriment of area resources.There is no evidence of corruption here,
just this has been a past observation and we cannot let Condado Lagoon be destroyed after so much effort to restore.
We are at a critical juncture now - corals and associated ecosystems are in cascading collapse. Neither the natural
resources of this protected area and the businesses that depend on them can likely survive any period of compromised
water quality that would result from this project.
However on the bright side - the SJBE shellfish project is cleaning up water quality and any organisms in that lagoon
that have survived this long genetically need to be protected today as the hope for the future.
Attached is the WQ certificate letter from Marchargo that indicates Condado Lagoon will not be considered in this
certification depending on financial considerations? (see page 2) Does this mean the project enjoys a WQ Certificate
and has EPA gone on record to weigh in on their MPRSA 103 " alternatie disposal sites" first?
Please let me know if based on what you have on record, the JP recognizes a WQ certificate for this fill into the
Condado Lagoon?
Final comments coming if we can get either all documents from the Corps with appendices or a statement from Mr.
Demarco indicating no Chem or Tox benthis analysis was done on borrow area samples.
Many thanks for looking at these considerations.
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
dredge
1 message
Cortes, Javier CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Javier.Cortes@usace.army.mil> Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:21 PM
To: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>, "DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)"
Thanks
Javier

Dear Mr. DeMarco:
Just a reminder we are still waiting for testing data you mention in the email that is supposed to be provided by Javier?
WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance stie says "To view specific guidance on each section of WRDA 2016,
click on the hyperlinked provision.
Thank you,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:21 PM DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA) <Paul.M.DeMarco@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Mary Ann Lucking,
Paul DeMarco
Lead Biologist
USACE-PPD-EC
904-232-1897

project.
Thank You,
wrote:
Disposal Site
Paul DeMarco
904-232-1897

Paul DeMarco
Nepa Lead
904-232-1897

Dear Mr. Demarco:
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
--
Mary Ann Lucking

Director
CORALations
P.O. Box 750
Culebra, PR 00775
www.coralations.org
787.556.6234

<<><<<>>><>>
San Juan Harbor_103_Draft Final_043021jc.pdf

2669K

CORAL APPENDIX C Communications CZ-2022-1109-029

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CORAL APPENDIX C Communications CZ-2022-1109-029

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CORALations, Inc APPENDIX C IC’s CZ-2022-1109-029

APPENDIX C - IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS

1. CORALations to DeMarco Dec 1 2021 Comments to NEPA Record Page 3-4

2. SEA GRANT Dec 3 2021 Comments to NEPA Record. Page 5

3. Demarco to Sea Grant Dec 3 2021 DeMarco confirms comments added to

5. Demarco to CORALations Feb 22 2021 Sends link to doc page Page 9

6. Demarco to CORALations Feb 22 2021 Sent Final Benthic Survey Page 12

9. Demarco to CORALations Feb 24 2021 Buﬀer area is 400m SE of New Borrow

12. DeMarco to CORALations Feb 25 2022 3:30. Considers 2021SEA evaluation of

15. Javier Cortes to CORALations FEB 24 2022 6:25pm.

DRAFT DATED APRIL 2021 Harbor_103_DreftFinal_043021, and is 75 pages long

16. Javier Cortes to CORALations FEB 28 2022

19. CORALations to EPA March 8 2022 Regarding documentation of 103

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

San Juan Harbor dredge/ Condado lagoon fill

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:06 AM

Dear Mr. Demarco -

Dear Mr. Demarco:

Mary Ann Lucking

Trabajando con comunidades del Caribe para proteger y restaurar

CORALations_USACE_Condado Lagoon Fill Project .pdf

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu> Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:59 AM

Dear Mr. Demarco:

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

RE: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

Corps of Engineers - SAD

Planning and Policy Division

701 San Marco Blvd - P.O. Box 4970

From: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>

Dear Mr. Demarco:

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

Fwd: San Juan Harbor proposed dredge

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:31 PM

From: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)

Corps of Engineers - SAD

Planning and Policy Division

701 San Marco Blvd - P.O. Box 4970

From: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>

Dear Mr. Demarco:

Trabajando con comunidades del Caribe para proteger y restaurar

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

Mar Ann Lucking,

r this link and please let me know if it does not work.

https://www.sa .usace.arm .mil/About/Divisions- ffices/Planning/Environmental- ranch/

Javier should be able to provide 103 testing data.

From: CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

Saludos Mr. DeMarco:

From: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)

Corps of Engineers - SAD

Planning and Policy Division

701 San Marco Blvd - P.O. Box 4970

From: Ruperto Chaparro <ruperto.chaparro@upr.edu>

Dear Mr. Demarco:

Mary Ann Lucking

Trabajando con comunidades del Caribe para proteger y restaurar

CORALations Culebra <coralations@gmail.com>

Here is the final benthic survey report as we discussed today.

From: DeMarco, Paul M CIV USARMY CESAJ (USA)

Mary Ann Lucking,

Javier should be able to provide 103 testing data.