My name is Edward Perry and I am here today representing the Raymond Proffitt Foundation. I am an aquatic biologist who retired in 2002 after a 30-year career with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service whose office is located in State College, PA.
I supervised the section involved in stream and wetland protection so I am very familiar with the Corps of Engineers’ regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines pertaining to projects that may affect waters of the United States.
I have four points I would like to make today:
1) A project of this size and potential impact should require an environmental impact statement.
2) This project appears to violate the Environmental Protection Agency’s 404(b)(1) guidelines in that practicable, less damaging alternatives to the aquatic environment are available.
3) Not withstanding the Corps’ public notice, this project is a dam, not simply a structure, and therefore requires a Section 9 permit.
4) This project may cause significant water quality impairment in this reach of river due to inundating 5 combined sewer overflows and impounding acid-impaired water.
According to the applicant, the stated project purposes are to create river-based recreational opportunities, mitigate the intangible negative socio-economic impacts caused by the levee raising project, and provide economic development potential for the Wyoming valley region.
It seems clear that there are numerous, practicable alternatives that would meet the stated project purposes. For example, the $10 million the Corps is spending to improve the waterfront in this area would constitute mitigation for the socio-economic impacts of levee-raising, although this is the first time I have ever heard anyone argue that building a levee to protect economic interests behind the levee constitutes an adverse effect on them. That claim of adverse effect does not pass the straight-face test. In regards to those other project purposes, any of those could easily be met without building a dam.
This is one reason why an environmental impact statement is needed. An EIS would require the applicant to consider all reasonable alternatives to meet project purposes, not just the project as proposed, and not just what they would like to do. The EIS process would require the applicant to hold scoping meetings so that both project proponents and opponents would have an opportunity to submit alternatives and be a part of the process. The procedures for implementing the EIS process are found at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.
Because there are alternatives to the proposed work, this project appears to violate the EPA’s 404(b)(1) guidelines. The guidelines state “…no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem…” In other words, if the Corps’ $10 million expenditure to improve the riverfront would meet the stated project purposes, this would constitute the least environmentally damaging alternative.
At first, I was puzzled why this dam was being called a structure. It appears we are quibbling over words, but in this case the change in wording has significant meaning.
According to the Corps regulations (33 CFR Parts 320 through 322), Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, “…prohibits the construction of any dam….across any navigable water of the United States in the absence of Congressional consent…” In other words, if this structure is a dam, then the project can only be built if approved by the United States Congress.
As you can see, this is no small matter.
Shortly before I retired, I participated in the Dock Street Dam project where the City of Harrisburg proposed to raise the dam at Harrisburg by 17 feet. Authorization for the dam, and the Corps did call it a dam, was discussed and it was pointed out that a Section 9 permit would be necessary to raise the dam. It was pointed out that the Corps also had to get a Section 9 permit to authorize the inflatable dam at Sunbury, which they also called a dam. So at that time, the Corps was calling these dams dams, and not structures and knew these dams needed Congressional authorization. For dams that are already in place, with no increase in pool level contemplated, there would be no objection. However, based on my nearly 30 years of experience on Pennsylvania, it is unlikely those dams would be built today.
When discussing this project, I’m sure we will hear that although some sediment will collect behind the dam when the bags are up, when the bags are lowered, and the river is flowing freely, the fine sediment will be washed out. I would agree if we are discussing silt, but if the interstitial spaces in the substrate fill in with small and large gravel, it is unlikely the river will move significant amounts of that material downstream.
Just downstream from the Sunbury inflatable dam, the substrate is composed of boulders, large and small cobble, and gravel. I suggest that as part of the EIS process, the applicant use EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for rivers to establish transects upstream and downstream from that dam and sample and record substrate size. In that way, an existing dam can be used to verify if impacts to the substrate have occurred. We would also recommend that the applicant sample the fish and macroinvertebrate community upstream and downstream from the Sunbury dam to determine if the dam has affected the aquatic community. In this instance, there is an opportunity to use an existing structure to predict with a fair amount of certainty what would occur if another dam was built.
Which leads to my final point. I cannot believe that in the year 2006 we are actually proposing to build another large dam on a major river. It is inconceivable that at a time when the State of Pennsylvania is spending enormous amounts of money to remove dams, we are actually contemplating building another one. There is hardly an activity that causes more of an adverse effect to rivers than building dams across them. Dams hinder the migration of species along the river corridor, cause sediment to settle out, smothering benthic macroinvertebrates and mussels inhabiting that reach, alter the fish communities within that reach, and alter the composition of the substrate. We observed this alteration of the substrate when evaluating the Dock Street Dam project. The substrate outside the influence of the permanent pool was composed of rock ledges, boulders, cobble and gravel. Within the influence of the pool, sand and fine and large gravel filled in spaces between the rocks, essentially converting a diverse river bottom substrate into what appeared to be a smooth layer of carpeting. This high degree of embeddness has major consequences for the aquatic community and is one of the factors EPA uses to determine the degree of degradation to a riverine system. And for this reach of river, a dam would have even more severe consequences.
According to EPA, fecal coliform levels often exceed State water quality standards. EPA states “We are extremely concerned that the impoundment of poor quality river water may pose significant risks to human health from exposure to bacterial pathogens…..” and that although efforts are being made to resolve the problem, “…full implementation of these plans will not be completed until 2020 at the earliest. In addition, an estimated cost associated with upgrading all four municipalities is in the range of $1 billion dollars.” EPA concludes by saying “Based on the potential significant environmental and human health related impacts that could result from implementation of the project as proposed, we recommend denial of the permit.” EPA also strongly recommended that an EIS be prepared.
The question we have for the Corps is: Would you continue to improve riverfront access if the water quality in the river due to dam construction constituted a human health hazard?
Before we even consider another major dam on this river, extensive studies should be carried out to determine the individual and cumulative impacts of this project and whether practicable alternatives exist that would meet the project purpose. This can only be done via the EIS process.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.
END