Letter to US Army Corps of Engineers

RE: Scope of Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) River System Water Control Manual (WCM) Environmental Impact Study (EIS)

Colonel Byron Jorns
US Army Corps of Engineers - Mobile District
PO Box 2288
Mobile AL 36628-0001

Dear Colonel Jorns, the update of the ACF Water Control Manual allows the Corps to take a giant step forward in equitable effective basinwide watershed management. We hope these comments will assist in accomplishing that. The Apalachicola Basin is a distinctive, highly productive and bio-diverse area of North America. Within its boundaries are:

• Highly productive farmlands and springs of Jackson and Gadsden counties.

• Vast pine and floodplain forests of Calhoun, Liberty, Franklin and Gulf counties.

• Coastal estuaries and Gulf waters of Franklin and Gulf counties, which team with commercially harvested oysters, crab, mullet, shrimp, scallops, grouper, snapper and many other seafood delicacies harvested by the tons.

• Harvest representing over 10% of the national oyster and 90% of the State of Florida oyster production comes from Apalachicola Bay. Additionally, harvest from the River and Bay of shrimp, finfish, blue crab, crawfish, and eel are commercially important on a national and regional scale. It should also be recognized that the contributions of the Apalachicola estuary to the commercial seafood harvest is significant as one of the most productive bays remaining on the Gulf of Mexico.

• Regionally and nationally significant recreational activities (i.e., fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreation activities are part of the social, cultural and economic pursuits in the Apalachicola River and Bay watershed).

The combinations of this unique natural environmental, cultural and economically important area are of national, regional, and local significance. A thorough and comprehensive assessment of impacts to this area from the alternative proposed actions should be accomplished in order to assure these functions and natural services provided within the Apalachicola Basin are sustained.

Define Lead and Cooperating Agencies with Appropriate Authority and Perspective

The proposed update of the Corps Water Control Manuals for the ACF Basin is the focus of the EIS, but its actions cannot be accurately assessed in isolation of other water management activities in the basin. A clear discussion and delineation of the pertinent water management responsibilities of federal and state agencies should be included as a part of the EIS process.

Because the proposed action is one of a number of water management functions that impact the ACF Basin water management, it would be prudent that alternatives be assessed in terms of the cumulative impacts from a basinwide perspective as part of this Environment Impact Study (EIS). The Corps has indicated that it does not have authority to consider issues and/or to implement pertinent actions because of constraints determined by its authorized purposes. A lead agency with a basinwide perspective such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be selected to be the Lead Agency and to make the final determination. Other cooperating agencies include but should not be limited to U.S. Geological Service (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) along with the Corps of Engineers. The National Research Council (NRC) should be employed to oversee the necessary objective scientific assessments.

Define and Use an Accurate and Historically Healthy Baseline

The baseline for the EIS must be comprehensive and complete, including actions initiated and undertaken since previous EIS(s) were accomplished. This would require using pre-dam flows as a baseline (See ATTACHMENT 1) for comparison to the proposed alternatives. The unimpaired flow data set should be calibrated to achieve a comparable representation of the pre-dam flows in ATTACHMENT 1 to ensure that it accurately reflects what would occur under natural conditions. It would also require the best possible scientific assessment of the ecological flow needs of the Apalachicola River and Bay to establish the flow regimes which would best mimic and protect the biological, physical and chemical integrity of the waterbody that were sustained and supported by these pre-dam flows.

The divergence from the baseline described above has resulted in significant impacts to Apalachicola River and Bay. The USGS has issued reports which established impacts that have and are occurring to the Apalachicola River due to the Corps’ actions and actions by the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, some of which were undertaken under the guidance of the EPA. The separate and cumulative downstream impacts of all these actions must be assessed in a comprehensive fashion if the total impacts to downstream, and in particular the Apalachicola River and Bay, are to be accurately measured from baseline.

Completely Consider All Alternatives

Alternatives should be considered that include:

• Maintaining the ecological flow needs of the Apalachicola River and Bay
• Increasing storage capacity by dredging sediments captured by the Lakes;
• Increasing storage capacity by raising the top of the Dams;
• Increasing storage by reducing flood control and acquiring flood prone areas;
• Increasing percentage of water returned to the river (in a clean condition);
• Aggressive conservation measures that could reduce withdrawals and depletions from the river (This may be the most cost effective and environmentally sound approach); and,
• Providing a navigation channel by using flows during a high water season.

The Corps has the authority and responsibility to protect reservoir inflows in order to achieve authorized purposes. This implies a responsibility for water use which impacts its operations. It is incumbent on the Corps to acquire the most up-to-date data on withdrawals and other uses in the basin and to make such requests and cooperation of Florida, Georgia and Alabama to determine a comprehensive assessment of withdrawals and depletions in the entire basin as necessary information to consider a full array of alternative operations. Once such information is made available and included in the analysis, a more accurate assessment should be accomplished to differentiate impacts due to Corps’ operations from withdrawals and ancillary water management and uses in the basin. Only then can a full array of alternative operations be considered on an equitable basis.

Consider Impacts to the Apalachicola River and Bay

As mentioned above, significant environmental impacts have and are occurring to Apalachicola River and Bay from hydrologic changes due to upstream water management. These impacts must be recognized and considered as part of the EIS and all alternatives proposed. The EIS should also consider an assessment of the Ecological Flow Needs of the Apalachicola River and Bay, which will in turn allow analysis of alternatives that will sustain the historic functions of the Apalachicola River and Bay.

The ecological flow assessment and alternatives should be based on and accomplished using the best possible objective science. This could be best accomplished under the guidelines and oversight of the NRC supplemented with locally experienced ACF subject-matter-experts, as has been proposed by the Florida Congressional delegation, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the Director of the GA Environmental Protection Division, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The Nature Conservancy and others. The credibility and usefulness of this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-required EIS would be greatly enhanced through connecting the results of such an independent assessment with visible outcomes in the proposed Water Control Manual update. At a minimum NRC should be secured to perform an “Independent Verification and Validation” role in review of the EIS.

To accurately analyze and understand the impacts to natural resources, consideration of rainfall must be included and appropriate compensation made for climatic changes. Our evaluation of the relationship indicates that the most recent droughts are no worse than the previous droughts, yet flows are significantly reduced, invalidating justification for lowering minimum flows because droughts are more severe. Please consider such an analysis in the scope of the EIS. Using this information in conjunction with comprehensive depletion data should allow the Corps to dispense with its current methodology of calculating basin inflow, which portrays an inaccurate representation of inflows to the basin and cumulative impacts of Corps’ operations on the Apalachicola system.

We believe that to accurately reflect the source of impacts in the basin and differentiate changes in flows to the Apalachicola system resulting from Corps’ operations and depletions in the basin that a similar assessment of ecological flow needs should be accomplished for the Flint River. Evaluations for the Flint would also be necessary for the assessment to follow NRC recommendations to use a basinwide perspective when managing river systems within coastal areas.

Define Sustainable Limits

Establishing water allocation (i.e., budgets) and compatible reservoir operations requires understanding the sustainable limits on the amount of water use within a basin. The first step is to determine the ecological flow needs to establish the sustainable limits of water available from a river system for current and future uses. Without such a determination of limits, increased water use will result in increased conflict for changes in water allocation and pit community against community and a final detriment to all users in the basin. When natural drought and low flows occur, compounded by unlimited water withdrawals and depletions, without consideration of alternatives, in particular, water conservation, the impact on this diverse, productive, world-class river and bay can be catastrophic. Such events may include:

• Increased potential, duration, frequency, and intensity of red tide in Apalachicola Bay and the near Gulf of Mexico waters,
• Reduction and loss of wetlands, floodplain forest, wildlife habitat and bio-diversity,
• Loss of traditional livelihoods resulting in impacts to the economic, social and cultural structure of the Apalachicola Basin.
Consideration of these and related impacts should be addressed through a comprehensive economic, environmental, social and cultural analysis.

Include All Socio-Economic Impacts to Ecosystem Services

The tremendous economic benefits to water uses on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers have been well documented by a number of economic reports. Much of that water use has resulted in economic impacts to users along the Apalachicola River and Bay, the region and the nation. Since the continued productivity and bio-diversity of the Apalachicola River and Bay are historically the economic and cultural backbone of the rural riparian counties and communities of the Apalachicola region, and has national significance the EIS must include the socio-economic impacts to those specific users and to ecosystem services provided by a healthy functioning Apalachicola ecosystem to the nation.

Ecosystem services considered must include outdoor recreational activity such as fishing and swimming, water purification, flood mitigation, cycling and movement of nutrients, atmospheric carbon reduction, maintenance of biodiversity, protection of coastal shores, and more as identified in ATTACHMENT 2. The NRC has developed guidelines and recommendations for consideration of the economic value of ecosystem services. Using a methodology respected by the NRC will ensure the most objective scientific assessment.

Stakeholder Involvement and Process

Serious consideration of public comments and continued involvement of stakeholders throughout the process is critical for any accurate and meaningful analysis. To accomplish this a facilitated stakeholder process should be a necessary component of the EIS process.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Best regards,

Dan Tonsmeire