SAN JUAN HARBOR SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION MITIGATION (2021)

CZ-2022-1109-029
Table of Received Comments

RESIDENTS AND OTHER CITIZENS

Comment NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENT CONTACT INFORMATION
ID #

Marisol Jimenez María S. Jiménez After reviewing the document sent and the environmental impact draft, I am concerned. I am a resident of the area and P.O. Box 9023632
1 Meléndez Law Offices I observe the fauna and flora of the Condado Lagoon daily. Manatees, fish, turtles, and other animals live in the Lagoon. San Juan, P.R. 00902-3632
They must include more specific information on what measures they are going to implement to minimize an adverse
Condado resident impact on the fauna and flora, and how they are going to protect them during the execution of the project. Notify me if E-mail: sol_mar@yahoo.com
public hearings are going to be held on this matter.
Phone: (787) 723-2455
2 Roberto Ortiz Condado resident Are you going to protect the manatees that are happy in the lagoon? matteiwilliam440@gmail.com

Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s)

Comment NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS CONTACT INFORMATION
ID #

Antonio Mignucci Caribbean Manatee We understand the need for the project and the positive impacts that this will bring in the long term for the +1-787-400-AQUA | +1-787-279-1912
3 Director Conservation Center flora and fauna of the Lagoon, and therefore its health as a habitat. However, as it is known, the area is x2070
Professor of Marine frequented by manatees, an endangered species, with up to a dozen manatees being sighted on occasions.
Sciences | E-mails: mignucci@manatipr.org
We understand that the works will only affect the manatee population temporarily.
Inter American amignucci@bayamon.inter.edu
University Adjunct
Professor | Notwithstanding, we want to let you know that as a rescue and rehabilitation center authorized by the DNER
Ross University School and the USFWS, the Caribbean Manatee Conservation Center is available and ready to be called in case of an
of Veterinary emergency with a manatee during the operational phase of the project (phones 787-400-2782 or 787-400-
Medicine 2783). We also have staff and volunteers who will be manatee observers during the operational phase if
necessary.

We remain at your service to support the JP, DNER and USFWS in this mitigation project which It will be of
benefit the manatees Condado Lagoon Manatees.

Mary Ann Lucking CORALations • In first place, this organization indicates that they had difficulties filing comments to the public notice of the PO BOX 750
4 Corps of Engineers. There were some issues accessing the documents page when copy-pasting the link Culebra, PR 00775
provided directly from the notice and some of the Corps’ documents. The extension file would automatically
change and link, inserting (20%), and sending them to Jacksonville’s splash page. Coralations felt it was worth 787-556-6234
documenting in case it happened to others. See Appendix A of Coralations comments for more details. The
analysis documents of most concern were not made available publicly and had to be requested by email. These email:coralations@gmail.com
included a document entitled: MPRSA Sect. 103 Sediment Characterization Testing. This document was not www.coralations.org
available publicly and sent upon request.
• While the Condado Lagoon is a great option to receive mitigation funding for the 20 year old impacts from a
dredge project in SJH, this proposed fill alternative will likely result in irreparable harm to the Condado Lagoon
Estuary Reserve, given the Corps most recent findings, recent Commonwealth emergency declarations
regarding the health of corals and coral reefs, and recent peer reviewed publications. The current project
proposes an amount of fill that is 5.6 times that found in the Corp’s 2015 EA, to be disposed of in the Condado
Lagoon in an area that has an acreage that is 4.5 times larger to complete the same 1.2 acre mitigation
project.
• The best science of today reflects the enormous risks such a fill presents to ecologically sensitive areas, with
backbone species like corals now in cascading collapse, and considered now to be in a State of Emergency by
the Governor of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico EO 2021-66.) The best science today indicates the sea grass
mitigation as envisioned will not only fail to recruit the target sea grass, but could also proliferate an invasive
species of sea grass, (Halophilia stipulacea) now the second most prevalent in the bay according to the most
recent benthic survey provided by the Corps upon request, and possibly not yet publicly available. (APPENDIX
a) The proliferation of invasive species from beneficial fill projects is a stated concern in CWA 404 (b). The target
sea grass for recruitment Halophilia dephicens is not one associated with valued ecological contributions and
science shows it does not secure sediment, making the proposal if it even worked, very dangerous given
shallow water body with wind driven currents. While beneficial sea grass communities like Thalassia and
Sryingodium have been recovering since the 2011 benthic survey, the introduced species, Halophioa
stilulacea poses additional risks to the beneficial sea grass species found in the lagoon. Just as the Corps
offers no scientific support for their assumptions the target sea grass species will recruit and restore habitat,
the Corps acknowledges the real possibility that the beneficial sea grasses of Condado along the edge of the
project will likely be directly covered during the filling process.
• What has delayed this "fill" over the decades appears to be the alignment of funding needed to accomplish
these lofty and logistically challenging objectives at the same time a source of suitable fill material presents
itself. To accomplish this risky fill, the Corps must find heavier and larger grained sediment of inert geological
composition, and therefore less of a threat regarding turbidity duration times, as well about the potential to
transport or communicate contaminants. The 2021SEA indicates the reason for the 15-acre new excavation
site is based on the premature conclusion that this new site has suitable material to “cap” what the 103
analysis shows is very likely extremely contaminated material removed from the channel under cut 6.
• The risks of this fill project and its presentation as the only mitigation option considered for the Condado
Lagoon Estuary Reserve, especially when considering their most recent data, and irrespective of protective
designations, current coral collapse and their most recent studies as well as the best available science, the
decision may have more to do with the following concerns, than the environment or concessions or listed
species and small businesses that depend on good water quality in the lagoon: 1) the significant federal
investment to date towards what was years ago the uncritical adoption of the mitigation idea to fill those holes
dating back to 2004, that today we know is not viable, but also extremely risky considering current conditions.
Navigational improvements project also linked to this was announced in the paper already by US Congressional
Resident Commissioner in a March 8, 2022 El Vocero article entitled: “Destinan $61 millones para mejoras en la
Bahía de San Juan”. 2) the positive optics of characterizing the disposal of dredge materials from an
industrialized and heavily trafficked harbor as “beneficial” and “creating habitat “ despite the Corp's failure to
demonstrate the suitability (lack of contamination) of the borrow material to be excavated for discharge or
disposal in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine Reserve, 3) the influence or pressure from very big interests,
including the petroleum and cruise vessel industries who in their comments about the proposed San Juan
dredging project found in Appendix J of the 2018 IFR/EA, have articulated that they will be bringing larger and
wider tankers, and larger and larger cruise ships. While their interests clearly informed the 2018 IFR/EA and SEA
concerns, environmental concerns, navigational safety concerns, input from the municipality of Çataño that
reminds the Corps people also live along the shores of the harbor, and stated concerns from the Department of
 Interior indicating the need for modeling of wave action associated with larger vessel traffic to protect the
shoreline defenses of El Morro appeared not to be well addressed, and in the case of NMFS related information
we can see graphic illustration figures were often used that conflicted with other information or even that
possibly misrepresented information.
• The anti-degradation rule adopted by Puerto Rico to comply to non-discretional Clean Water Act
requirements, prohibits discharges that further degrade the background levels, so this advice may not be
consistent with Puerto Rico’s regulations. Turbidity management plans are complicated and often fail as was
the case in the disastrous dredge of Port Miami Harbor. This consideration therefore must be informed by the
very similar project that recently resulted in disaster in Miami (https://www.usf.edu/marine-
science/news/2019/new-studyfinds-over-half-a-million-corals-killed-during-port-of-miami-dThe anti-
degradation rule adopted by Puerto Rico to comply to non-discretional Clean Water Act requirements, prohibits
discharges that further degrade the background levels, so this advice may not be consistent with Puerto Rico’s
regulations. Turbidity management plans are complicated and often fail as was the case in the disastrous dredge
of Port Miami Harbor. This consideration therefore must be informed by the very similar project that recently
resulted in disaster in Miami (https://www.usf.edu/marine-science/news/2019/new-studyfinds-over-half-a-
million-corals-killed-during-port-of-miami-d
• The Corps should be evaluating other less risky mitigation measures for the Condado Lagoon, based on post
hurricane studies and recent science that while these do not support the fill, would serve as studies in support
of other alternative actions that are less risky and more likely to restore the 1.2 acres.

Miyoko Sakashita, JD Center for Biological • On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to urge the Puerto Rico Planning Board object to miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org
5 and Diversity the proposed consistency of the San Juan Bay Harbor dredge disposal project under the Coastal Zone kcarden@biologicaldiversity.org
Dristin Garden, PhD, Management Act. The proposed project is not only inconsistent with Puerto Rico’s Coastal Management Plan,
JD but it also lacks a meaningful environmental analysis. While billed as a mitigation project, the proposal to fill
Condado Lagoon Estuary Reserve with dredge spoils from the San Juan Harbor navigation channel dredging will
damage corals, harm wildlife, resuspend contaminants, introduce invasive species, and impair the area’s
blossoming recreation economy.
• The USACE wrongly assume that the impacts of dredging do not go beyond the scope of the previously analyzed
navigation channel dredging to discount those harms. However, the dredging for the proposed project expands
the footprint and dredging beyond the impacts of the navigation channel dredging. Cut 6 dredged material “will
not be enough to complete the required amount for the mitigation.” The project requires significant dredging
outside of the navigation channel that the Corps is authorized to maintain. Because the other dredge spoils from
the massive expansion project are not the right type of materials for filling the depressions, this proposal expands
the dredging project. This increases the amount of dredging and its impacts, which must be fully analyzed and
mitigated. Dredging causes turbidity and resuspension of contaminants. Poor water quality conditions can harm
fish and fish nurseries, and sediments can smother and harm or kill benthic species (Wenger 2017).
• The proposed project is likely to result in greater harm than has been disclosed. Specifically, the project poses
risks to coral reefs, sea turtles, and manatees that have not been fully evaluated. The Planning Board cannot
rely on the Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), or Finding of No Significant Impact, issued by the
Corps. Those documents are insufficient, and unlawful under the National Environmental Policy Act, and cannot
be relied upon in granting any authorizations or consistency determination.
• The USACE improperly relies on “tentative” indications from USFWS and NMFS that “coordination and
determinations from 2018 would likely be applicable to the currently proposed project” to conclude that it need
not assess possible impacts further (Draft SEA at 29). As currently drafted, the SEA inadequately addresses the
environmental impacts flowing from the new dredge site.
The Corps’ discussion of potential adverse impacts to seagrasses and water quality in the Condado Lagoon
Estuary Reserve, as well as the methods that would be employed to avoid such harms, is incomplete. As for

Pedro Saade, Sqr. El Puente de Williamsburg,
6 University of Puerto Inc
Rico Legal Assistance
Clinic Enlace Latino de Acción
Climática (“El Puente –
ELAC”)
Sierra Club Puerto Rico
(“Sierra Club PR”)
Comité Yabucoeño Pro-
Calidad de Vida (“YUCAE”)
Comité Diálogo Ambiental,
Inc. (“CDA”)
Amigos del Río Guaynabo,
Inc. (“ARG”)
Coalición de
Organizaciones Anti-
Incineración, Inc. (“COAI”)
minimizing harm to existing seagrass beds, the USACE states that seagrass habitat in Condado Lagoon has been
identified and would be avoided to the extent practical” (Draft SEA at 26). The agency asserts that effects from
pipe overlay and turbidity would be “minor” and “temporary” (id.). While the goal of the proposed project—to
restore 18 acres of seagrass habitat in Condado Lagoon—is a laudable one (Draft SEA at 4), the Draft SEA does
not provide adequate assurance that seagrass habitat in the lagoon would not be harmed by the proposed
project (in turn affecting habitat for, inter alia, the Antillean manatee).
• The Corps also does not provide adequate assurance that lagoon water quality would not be adversely affected
using potentially contaminated fill material or via disturbance from the filling activity itself. The depressions
slated to be filled have a high silt content (Draft SEA at 16-17, 23). Silt resuspension is expected during fill
placement, which would increase turbidity and potentially mobilize organic and nutrient pollutants (id. at 22-
23). The fill material itself may be contaminated, which would introduce additional contaminants into Condado
Lagoon Estuary Reserve
• Water clarity, water quality, and sediment quality (in terms of contaminant levels as well as other
characteristics e.g., nutrient content, organic matter content, and pore water sulfide concentrations) all affect
the success of seagrass restoration efforts (see generally Kaldy et al. 2004, Rezek et al. 2019). The Draft SEA
does not outline protocols sufficient to minimize the introduction of contaminated sediments into the lagoon,
minimize turbidity, and minimize contaminant mobilization. These shortcomings raise concerns both about the
project’s effects on water quality and the probability of a successful seagrass restoration effort.
• The proposed project is not the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, and therefore is not
consistent with Puerto Rico’s Coastal Management Plan. The Corps only analyzed the proposed project and the
no action alternative. As described above, the proposal has several unexamined environmental impacts that have
not been fully mitigated.
• These comments are submitted on behalf of the following community and environmental groups: El Puente de Clinica de Asistencia Legal
Williamsburg, Inc – Enlace Latino de Acción Climática (“El Puente – ELAC”), Alianza Comunitaria Ambientalista del 7 Ave,. Universidad Ste. 701
Sureste (“ACASE”), Sierra Club Puerto Rico (“Sierra Club PR”), Comité Yabucoeño Pro-Calidad de Vida (“YUCAE”) San Juan, PR 00925-2527
Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc. (“CDA”), Amigos del Río Guaynabo, Inc. (“ARG”) and Coalición de Organizaciones
Anti-Incineración, Inc. (“COAI”). The community and environmental groups El Puente and Sierra Club PR have Phone: (787) 999-9570
membership close to the dredging and deposit activities object of the Certificate of Consistency CZ-2022-1109-
029 while the other groups represented here are users of the Laguna del Condado and seek its protection.
E-mail: pedrosaade5@gmail.com
• The Legal Assistance Clinic offers guidance and legal representation services to individuals and non-profit entities
in matters that affect or may affect environmental health, natural resources, or the enjoyment of the
Lcda. Ruth Santiago: rstgo@gmail.com
environment. These comments are submitted in the exercise of those functions in relation to the Public Notice
on the Request for Certification of Federal Consistency with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program,
CZ-2022-1109-029 (hereinafter, the "Notice") with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program presented
by the United States Corps of Engineers (hereinafter, “USACE”).
• It is requested that the Puerto Rico Planning Board not concur with the USACE Determination of Federal
Consistency with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program (hereinafter, PMZCPR”) submitted to the
Puerto Rico Planning Board for mitigation of seagrasses in the Laguna del Condado. It should be denied because:
a) the dredging and eventual deposit in the lagoon will have adverse environmental effects and significant risks
to the environment, species and human health that are inconsistent with the program; in particular, the section
of the PMZCPR that prohibits the deposit of dredged material from coastal areas in estuarine waters is violated,
b) the notice and related documents lack basic information that allows concluding whether there is such
consistency with the PMZCPR and, in other cases, the provided information is confusing, incomplete or not
available, c) The federal regulations on the issuance of the Certificate of Consistency (15 CFR Part 930, hereinafter
"CFR") are violated, in particular the determination of the USACE issuing a certificate of consistency violates
section 930.39(a) and cannot be accepted by this Board, d) the proposed dredging expansion is intended to
 fragment the analysis of project impacts and requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement
and e) the Bay Estuary Program de San Juan has issued several analyzes demonstrating the significant adverse
impacts that the proposed dredging would have.
• The deposit of dredged material in the Laguna del Condado, an estuarine body of water that is home to a growing
and significant population of mangroves, directly contravenes the criteria established by the local management
program. Specifically, when it establishes that “dredged material cannot be transported from coastal waters to
mangroves or estuarine areas or fresh waters for disposal” (p. 106 PMZCPR 1978, our translation). The impact of
the proposed actions on the mangroves found in the San Juan Bay Estuary and, in the Condado Lagoon Estuarine
Reserve, represents a point of inconsistency with worrisome adverse potential. After almost two decades of
reforestation initiatives carried out in the Laguna, the approval of the proposed action without proper
identification of environmental impacts could imply adverse impacts on an ecosystem of great importance. Said
affectation represents a major point of concern within the contemporary Puerto Rican context since these species
mitigate the impact of coastal erosion, a phenomenon that increases in the face of the impact of the climate
change, extreme weather events and strong waves.
• According to the SEA, zones 2, 3 and 4 contain limestone essential for the diversity of the seabed, including the
growth of macroalgae, sponges, stony corals, and reef fish. USACE assures that the establishment of the zones is
given according to surveys that are not attached to the SEA, nor the Notice.
• The outlined argument that this is the best alternative for the seabed is not convincing, first because nothing is
said about what machinery will be used and what preventive plan would be implemented to avoid machinery
impacts on zones 2, 3 and 4. In addition, the marine diversity found in zone 1, established as the proposed
dredging zone, is itself a "hardbottom habitat", even though it does not appear to have the same marine
biodiversity as other zones. It is essential to perform a study (benthic study) as part of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Document (EIAS) requested by the Non-Governmental Groups (stakeholders) that ensures the
protection of the Coastal Zone and recognizes the "hardbottom habitat" that is one of the foundations of healthy
and balanced marine biodiversity. In this way, the extraction of the seabed from an area adjacent to Cut 6 cannot
be examined in any other way than as irreparable damage to marine biodiversity. The PMZCPR 1978 establishes
about dredging that “Diking or filling coastal Waters (other than shoreline structure) shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be permitted only where necessary and where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative
for […] (2) land restoration.” P. 105. The SEA recognizes the existence of a place that represents less environmental
risk.
• The SEA, in Page 14 states “Only suitable material with grain sizes greater than 0.21mm would benefit the lagoon
based tidal and current flows and therefore should be used for filling the depressions in the Condado Lagoon.”
Investigations for these aspects in the coastal zone conclude that those grains of sand oscillating between 0.21
mm and 0.46 mm in diameter may be incompatible with practices of restoration. Specifically, the study of Dr.
Alfredo Torruella titled "The Hydrodynamics of the Condado Lagoon: Determination of Stable Sand Grain Size
for Restoration Initiative" concludes that a grain size greater than 0.46cm would be beneficial for this area of
the Condado lagoon. Specifically, Dr. Torruella mentions that the grain size which remain stable in 98% of the
cases is greater than 0.46. This is because in certain specific places the significant changes in wind will move
those grains smaller than 0.46mm away from the artificial depression of the Laguna del Condado that is to be
restored. Sediments from 0.21 to 0.46mm can erode, transport, and precipitate in areas other than out of the
filling activity occurred.
• The UPR Legal Assistance Clinic established the following conclusions in relation to the proposed mitigation
project and USACE Federal Consistency Determination:
1- The actions proposed by USACE, consist of: 1) the dredging of the seabed in an area of about 15 acres,
called the "Borrow Area", located west of "Cut 6", in the Canal Anegado or “Anegado Channel”, 2) the
transport of the dredged material by unspecified means to the Laguna del Condado and 3) the deposit of the
 dredged material in said Lagoon and includes the deposit of dredged materials in other places in San Juan
Bay.
2- For adequate evaluation of the proposed project consistency with the PRCZMP, it is essential to know and
analyze the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed actions in all their phases. However, neither the
Notice, nor the Application for the Federal Consistency Certification, nor the SEA contain information on the
composition and contaminant content of the material to be dredged in the 15 acres or other locations to be
dredged. Nor is there enough information on how the dredged material is transported to the Lagoon and its
consequences. Given these circumstances, it is impossible to determine the consistency of the proposed
federal actions with the PMZCPR.
3- The public notices, USACE Federal Consistency Determination and the SEA did not consider the Final Study
required by section 103 of CWA, which according to performed samplings show the harmful chemical
characteristics of the bottom of the Bay that is proposed to be dredged, transported, and deposited in the
Condado lagoon.
4- Contrary to what the SEA indicates, the potential damage or impact of the proposed dredging material
disposal on the Condado lagoon was not considered or evaluated in the EA of 2018, and it was certainly not
considered with respect to the additional 15 acres that are now intended to be dredged as well.
5- The deposit of dredged material in the Condado lagoon is contrary to the criteria established by the PMZCPR
on page 106 for the deposit of dredged material, which is prohibited in estuarine waters and mangroves.
6- Neither the public notices, nor the SEA, disclosed the final version of the “MPRSA Section 103 Sediment
Characterization Testing and Analysis” document for public review. Therefore, it is impossible to know and
comment on it.
7- Regarding the dredging itself of the 15 acres, it is inconsistent with the PMZCPR in view of its adverse
environmental consequences, including the contravention of the dredging deposit criteria and the high
possibility that the dredged material contains the same toxic characteristics identified in Section 103 study.
8- The Condado lagoon was declared as a natural estuarine reserve due to its ecological and recreational
importance. To the extent that the toxicity and granular dimension of the dredging material are not
examined, it cannot be concluded that the proposed activity is consistent with the PRCZMP. These remarks
are particularly critical given the intense human use and contact with its waters that have developed in the
Condado lagoon in recent years, as well as with the marine biodiversity found here, including manatees.
9- The Project unjustifiably impact the "hardbottom habitat" located in the proposed additional dredging area,
adjacent to Cut 6, depriving it from the development of the marine biodiversity typical of this ecosystem. In
the same way, it affects the own balances of the water quality in the Condado lagoon since it is proposed to
use an inappropriate grain, and significantly contaminated material that will only have adverse effects. It is
not clearly established what all the machinery to be used will be, nor how it will avoid affecting the migratory
patterns of the species that are included in the area, among these species in danger of extinction. All of these
adverse effects demonstrate that the Project is inconsistent with the PMZCPR.
10- The USACE Federal Consistency Determination is contrary to sections 930.33(a)(1), 930.36(d), 930.39,
930.42(c) of the regulations at 15 CFR Part 930. It does not consider the direct and indirect effects of the
proposed project and don’t comply with the required content to evidence consistency with the PRCZMP.
11- Due to the importance of this matter for the residents near the San Juan Bay Estuary and its Condado Lagoon,
its users and the public, this Board must hold public hearings prior to issuing any decision on the issuance of
the Federal Consistency Certification for this project.
12- Before issuing any Federal Consistency Certificate in relation to this Project, the PRPB must, at minimum
require the USACE, to report and document: (i) the characteristics and chemical composition of the
dredging materials to be deposited in the Condado lagoon; (II) toxicology indicating the concentration of
heavy metals, pesticides and others: (iii) and complying with the other indications set forth in this
 document and in the comments of the San Juan Bay Estuary Program. Without this information, the USACE
Federal Consistency Determination under section 930.39 (a) cannot be considered valid or complete.

World Net Arnaldo Acosta • WorldNet certifies that does not have an external plant in the project area. Phone] 787.706-2600 | [Direct] 787-
7 Project Engineer 705-7014 [Mobile] 787-717-1004
Engineering and Strategic [E-mail] aacosta@worldnetpr.com
Planning Dept. Centro Internacional de Mercadeo
90 Carr. 165 Suite 201 Guaynabo, PR
00968

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Comment CONTACT NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS CONTACT INFORMATION
ID #

Plan. Ivette Colón Municipality of Cataño After reviewing the application for Federal Consistency Certificate with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Progra E-mail: icolon@catano.pr.gov
8 Meléndez number CZ -2022 - 1109 - 029, the Administration of the Municipality of Cataño has no comment. (787) 788-0404 ext. 4147
Municipio Autónomo de Guaynabo
Luis A. Martínez Torres Municipality of Guaynabo Seagrass meadows provide different benefits, from acting as a nursery and food source for a wide variety of marine Oficina de Planificación y Ordenación
9 Acting Director Territorial Planning Office species; provide a habitat for fish and other species, as well as provide protection by absorbing wave energy; produce Territorial
oxygen and clean the ocean by absorbing nutrients and pollutants. After evaluating the request and aware of the PO Box 7885
environmental benefits of the project, the Autonomous Municipality of Guaynabo has no objection to the proposed Guaynabo, PR 00970
activity.
Phone: 787-720-4040 ext. 6601 or 6015

E-mail: lmartinez@guaynabocity.gov.pr
rlozano@guaynabocity.gov.pr

Brenda Torres Barreto San Juan Bay Estuary The restoration of the Condado Lagoon is one of the CCMP’s main priorities. The San Juan Bay Estuary Program (SJBEP)
10 Executive Director Program applauds the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commitment to mitigating the impacts of dredging the San Juan Harbor
by restoring the seagrass beds in the Condado Lagoon. However, we have several questions and serious concerns
regarding USACE’s plan for implementing the project to ensure that the benefits to the ecosystem and communities come
to fruition.

1. Impacts on the Condado Lagoon:

• The SJBEP want to correct when it stated that the only seagrass to be restore is Halophila decipiens (misspelled
in the CLC Public Notice letter of February 4, 2022). The SJBEP urges to clarify that most of the seagrass benthic
communities in Condado Lagoon is composed of turtle seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) and Syringodium
filiforme, commonly known as manatee grass. The USACE must employ methods and practices that guarantee
 compliance with water quality standards, the protection of habitat and wildlife, and the health of the San Juan
Bay and the Condado Lagoon in the short, medium, and long term.
• The SJBEP emphasize that special deployment and monitoring protocols should be implemented to manage
the discharge of dredged material, including turbidity increases, in an environmentally acceptable manner. Thus,
the SJBEP requests specific details to confirm the appropriateness and effectiveness of proposed protocols to
protect the water quality and its fauna & flora of the Condado Lagoon during deployment of dredged material.
Therefore, we request specify details what the USACE will entail before moving ahead with the project.
• The SJBEP will also await to see evidence of the Water Quality Certification when USACE receives it.
• The SJBEP have concerns with the selected grain size (greater than 0.21 mm) for the mitigation. In 2011, Dr.
Alfredo Torruella from the Caribbean Oceanography Group published a study titled “The Hydrodynamics of the
Condado Lagoon: Determination of Stable Sand Grain Size for Restoration Initiative.” The study states that, in
certain locations, the shear stresses generated by high-speed wind events will transport sand grains with
diameters smaller than 0.46mm away from the restoration area. In other sites, sand grains with diameters
smaller than 0.21mm will also be eroded. In summary, sand grains that range between 0.21mm to 0.46mm in
diameter can erode, transport, and precipitate on areas outside the deployment sites. The study by Dr.
Torruella suggests that to remain stable under a 98% exceedance wind event, certain restoration sites require
material composed of sand grains with a diameter greater than 0.46mm (medium to coarse sand). Other
restoration sites can receive material composed of sand grains with a diameter greater than 0.21mm (fine to
medium sand). Sand grains smaller than 0.21mm - under high wind conditions - will be transported away from
the restoration site and precipitate on other locations. Even if the suspended sediments eventually precipitate
and settle in the restoration site itself, the increase in turbidity would reduce light transmission within the water
column and render an unstable substrate, creating unfavorable conditions for the colonization of seagrass beds.
The SJBEP recommended to USACE in a letter of comments submitted on December 1, 2021, the use of sediment
with grain sizes above 0.46mm for the seagrass restoration project in the Condado Lagoon. The objective is to
create a thick capping layer that covers and stabilizes the sediments with grain sizes between 0.21mm and
0.46mm in diameter used to fill the depressions. We also recommend that the project implement a Quality
Control/Quality Check protocol to audit the diameters of the sediments used to restore seagrass beds and ensure
they are at least 0.46mm. The SBEP request the USACE access to the documents reference in the SAE and results
related to the geotechnical investigations mentioned on page 4 that “indicate there is less material suitable for
beneficial use (coarse grain size) within the authorized channel expansion footprint than anticipated in the
2018 IFR/EA.”
• The sediment characteristics of the dredge sites (burrows sites) should be correlated not just by grain size but
also physically and chemically with the substrate types in the Condado Lagoon. The goal is to introduce material
that sustains optimum species density and abundance regarding seagrass beds. To assess substrate compatibility,
we recommend to the USACE to conduct further studies, such as calcium carbonate content and particle size
distribution, in the restoration site at Condado Lagoon and the dredge sites (burrow sites). We also recommend
to the USACE perform a chemical analysis of the sediments in the dredging site for at least the following
parameters: low level semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs as Congeners), metals (including mercury), nitrate+nitrite, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total ammonia-nitrogen, total organic carbon, and total phosphorus.
• The SEA fails to provide a detailed description of the equipment, operational procedures, and methods USACE
will use to transport and deploy the dredged material to the Condado Lagoon. The SEA description in this regard
is imprecise and brief. The SEA the SEA includes no specific details on the installation process for the SJBEP to
assess and conclude whether it is appropriate and correct. The document also does not properly explain how
USACE will monitor and avoid any impact to seagrasses along the route to the placement area and the existing
seagrass habitat in Condado Lagoon. The SBEP respectfully requests the USACE to elaborate on the installation
process, explain the methodology to be employed, describe the proposed pipeline, and specify which control
 measures it will use to respond to the exceedance of regulatory levels, such as sediment curtains and turbidity
monitoring. The revision should include a timetable detailing the plan to complete the project.
• The SEA does not provide details on how, in what locations, and with what frequency USACE will monitor the
turbidity level, nor does it specify which response protocols will be in action in case of high turbidity levels.
Other parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, should be monitored continually during sediment deployment, and
observations evaluated following Puerto Rico’s water quality standards. The SJBEP respectfully requests the
USACE describe its mitigation actions in greater detail and recommends implementing a Water Quality Monitoring
Program in the Condado Lagoon.
• On page 28, the SEA states that the “dredge operations would not be permitted to violate Puerto Rico’s water
quality standards as discussed in Section 3.5.” The consultation concludes that "the proposed action will not
adversely affect water quality and will be compliant with Federal and local standards. Applicable Water Quality
Certifications will be obtained prior to construction.” However, there is no reference as to how USACE reached
this conclusion. The SJBEP respectfully requests to the USACE a copy of the water quality report and a detailed
description of the mitigation strategies USACE will employ to comply with current quality standards (10NTU).
• On page 12, the SEA states that “No effect to the tidal range is predicted. Currents will generally remain the same.
Some areas of the harbor may experience a reduction in currents due to wider deeper channels.” On that same
page, the SEA also claims that the deepening of the navigation channel will reduce shoreline erosion through
deepening actions.” However, the consultation does not refer to any study to support this claim.

Impacts on Fish and Wildlife

• The SJBEP recommends that an Antillean Manatee Watch Program and Sea Turtles Watch Program be
implemented simultaneously in the sediment burrow sites in San Juan Bay, sediments transport route, and
Condado Lagoon. SJBEP also requests a detailed description that categorically establishes which protection
measures USACE will implement. The DESCRIPTION should also address mitigation measures to address the
impact on giant manta rays and Nassau grouper found in or near the ODMDS or vessel disposal routes.

Impacts on the Entire Ecosystem

On page 19, the SEA establishes that “sediments from the mainland are continuously deposited in the Harbor
requiring periodic maintenance dredging of the navigational channel.” We invite USACE to reconsider the design of
projects within the estuarine system that will significantly impact the success of this project, such as the Río Puerto
Nuevo Flood Control Project. Integrating gray and green infrastructure measures would improve the hydrological-
hydraulic conditions in the estuary that promote sedimentation and increase the speed and flow of water.
Additionally, implementing the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project will reinstate the connection
between the San José Lagoon and the San Juan Bay, significantly improving water flow in the estuary and potentially,
the sedimentation issues in the navigation channel.

Stakeholder Engagement

The SJBEP understands that the stakeholder engagement for this project was insufficient and inadequate. The
stakeholder engagement process is particularly disappointing when one considers that the last opportunity for the
community to provide comments on the San Juan Harbor Navigation Improvement Study was the Integrated
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment in August 2018. At the time, SJBEP priority, like the rest of the
island, was the island’s recovery after the disaster of Hurricane María. Indeed, SJBEP SJBEP was working on the
#EstuarioRevive campaign, providing direct support to communities in the clearing of aquatic debris from
waterways, and monitoring water quality, amongst others. We understand the importance of these projects and
the need to continue moving them forward. Still, it is just as important to consider the context in which these projects
 are happening and adjust as necessary to ensure ample stakeholder engagement. We submitted the above comments
to the USACE on a letter dated December 1,2021. Furthermore, we requested to the USACE a frank and constructive
dialogue regarding restoring the Condado Lagoon and other projects within the estuarine system. We SJBEP and
USACE can collaborate in a way that fulfills USACE’s mission and mitigation requirements 8 while also advancing the
implementation of the state and federal policy established in the CCMP. However, at the date of redacting this letter,
the ESTUARIO still waiting for a respond from the USACE regarding the comments, concerns, and recommendations
from the ESTUARIO. Thus, the ESTUARIO request to the PR Planning Board to deny the issue of the Federal Consistency
Certification with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program for CZ-2022-1109-029 application until the
USACE provide the information requested and the information be evaluated by the SJBEP.

SJBEP Comment Letter of March 15, 2022

• On February 9, 2022, we submitted our official comments to JP Public Notice Condado CZ-2022-1109-029..
However, after sending that letter, the SJBEP received the report titled “MPRSA Section 103 Sediment
Characterization Testing and Analysis San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico, May 2021”, from now on referred to as the
"SCTA," that details the field sampling, analysis, and results of MPRSA Section 103 sediment testing and study to
support the San Juan Harbor dredging operations.

• Based on the data presented on the SCTA report (Table 1), the percent of silt/clay content of all the composited
sampling areas average 80% and, in some units, scale up to 98% (Table 1). Clay/silt grains are particles of up to
0.074 mm in diameter, much smaller than the desired grain size recommended to USACE. Thus, the sediments
from all the sampling units are entirely incompatible in size with the material suggested (above 0.46mm) for
the seagrass restoration project in the Condado Lagoon.

• Approximately 260,000 cubic yards (198,784 m3) of dredged materials are needed to fill and restore the bottom
of Condado Lagoon. Suppose the source of this material is exclusively obtained from the San Juan Bay navigational
channel dredged sediments. In that case, a disturbing contamination scenario will occur in the lagoon, as is
explained next. We used the trace metal concentration data in Table 2 and the bulk density of sediment in cores
to calculate the number of toxic metals introduced to the Condado Lagoon by the material extracted by USACE
from San Juan Bay. Based on these calculations, the Condado Lagoon may receive from 1.70 to 3.67 tons of
arsenic, from 1.93 to 7.07 tons of lead, from 5.69 to 9.81 tons of chromium, and from 0.02 to 0.07 tons of
mercury in just 102 acres.

• The Condado Lagoon was declared a natural estuarine reserve in 2013 due to its ecological and recreational
importance. Many people use the lagoon for nautical activities such as swimming, kayaking, and paddleboarding.
These users will be exposed to this contamination level and the aquatic life that the lagoon sustains. The results
of laboratory analyses of sediment samples were compared to published sediment screening values. These
screening levels are the threshold effects level (TEL), and effects range low (ERL). The TEL represents the
concentration below which adverse effects on aquatic species are expected to occur only rarely. The ERL is the
value at which toxicity may begin to be observed in sensitive species. All composited sediments units exceeded
the TEL level in one way or another. For example, M-A-S-20-COMP had concentrations of arsenic, copper,
mercury, and nickel that exceeded the TEL and (or) ERL, M-B-S-20-COMP had concentrations of arsenic, copper,
and mercury that exceeded the TEL and (or) ERL, D-ATw-S-20-COMP had concentrations of arsenic, copper, and
nickel that exceeded the TEL and (or) ERL, and finally D-SAx-S-20 had arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver,
and zinc concentrations that exceeded the TEL and (or) ERL. Furthermore, many pesticides, PAHs, and PCBs were
detected above the Median Detection Level (MDL) at one or more composites or subsamples.
 • Based on the sediment contaminant levels, the high mass of heavy metals to be added to the lagoon sediments,
the unsuitable sediment grain size, and imprecise information about the final sediment donor sites, the SJBEP
requested to the PR Planning Board to deny the Federal Consistency Certification with the Puerto Rico Coastal
Zone Management Program for CZ-2022-1109-029 application.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Comment CONTACT NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS CONTACT INFORMATION
ID #
Mary C. Zapata Acosta Puerto Rico Electric Power PREPA has identified a substation and distribution lines nearby the project area. Considering the information submitted Email: btorres@estuario.org
11 Executive Sub director Authority (PREPA) with your request, PREPA has no objection to the project if the proposed work does not affect these lines. Otherwise,
of Operations the USACE should consult PREPA for any infrastructure that will be impacted prior to start the project. Phone: (646)510-7595

Hery J. Correa Point Sources Permit • According to an e-mail sent on February 4, 2022, the Water Quality area commented the proposed mitigation (787) 999-2200 ext. 6175
12 Division activity was contemplated during the evaluation and issuance of the Water Quality Certificate for the Project for
Water Quality Area Improvements and Maintenance.

• The Water Quality Certificate (WQC) emitted on February 22, 2022, only consider the “San Juan Harbor
Improvements Project and Maintenance Dredging” as presented at that moment. Therefore, the disposal of
material from Cut 6 of the Anegado Channel was not included or covered under this WQC. The DNER Secretary
indicated the following in this document:
“there is the opportunity for a beneficial use of taking approximately 230,00 cubic yards of the material
dredged from the San Antonio Channel and the Cruise Ship Basin East during the SJHIP to Condado
Lagoon to fill the artificial depressions and thereby restore the lagoon’s water quality and seagrass
habitat. Although the disposal of the dredged material in the Condado lagoon is not being considered
at this time due to lack of funds, if a non-federal sponsor is identified during the construction of the
project that provide cost-share of the incremental costs above the base proposal, the COE could use
this disposal alternative”.

• The DNER Water Quality Area (Division of Permits for Point Sources) indicated the following in an e-mail
dated: March 31, 2022:
1- 1) The Water Quality Certificate (CCA) issued, on February 2, 2022, for the PMDM contemplates the
opportunity for the beneficial use of approximately 230,000 cubic yards (yd3) of the dredged material
in the San Antonio Channel and the East Pier for Cruises to fill artificial depressions to restore water
quality and seagrass habitat in the Condado Lagoon. Therefore, we wish to clarify that the CCA for
the Bay improvement project does not contemplate the disposal or use of the dredged material from
Cut 6 as fill material for the Condado lagoon. In addition, the CCA issued for the San Juan Bay
Improvement project does not exempt the petitioner from having to request or obtain the proper
CCA for the mitigation activities in the Condado lagoon.