May 21, 2007
Mr. Irwin Garskof
Chief, Pennsylvania Section
Operations Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Re: CENAB-OP-RPA (Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority/Wyoming Valley Inflatable Structure) 200301240-13
Dear Mr. Garskof:
On behalf of the Officers and Directors of the Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society (GWVAS), I submit these comments on Gannett Fleming's (the "Consultant") March 2007 Response to Corps of Engineers' Letter Dated January 30, 2007 (Response). I would appreciate your including these comments with any and all comments and testimony that the GWVAS has supplied concerning this project.
As we stated in our May 1, 2006 Testimony, we believe that the applicant's own criteria for choosing the Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) exclude the dam as the LEDPA based upon the dam's inability to satisfy purpose (3) as stated in the Inflatable Dam Permit Application and Supporting Documentation. In addition, we believe that the March 2007 Response submitted by the Consultant not only fails to adequately justify the issuing of permits to begin dam construction, but in fact, the Response necessitates the denial of permits for reasons that will be discussed in these comments. Hence, we continue to urge you to deny the applicant's request for permits, conditional or otherwise, for the proposed "inflatable structure."
We thank you for allowing us to comment on this issue, and we await your decision.
Sincerely,
Robert Wasilewski, President
Greater Wyoming Valley
Audubon Society
Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society
Comments on Gannett Fleming's (the "Consultant") March 2007 Response to Corps of Engineers' Letter Dated January 30, 2007
Section-Specific Comments
1. Alternatives
The Consultant states that "non-impoundment alternatives" need not be considered in the application's 404(b)(I) Alternatives Analysis since such non-impoundment alternatives would fail to meet the project's overall purpose of "'(1) mitigat[ing] the intangible negative socioeconomic impacts caused by the levee raising project, (2) provid[ing] economic development potential for the Wyoming Valley region, and (3) provid[ing] river-based recreational opportunities (USACE 1996).'" We have argued, as have others, that the proposed "inflatable structure," while representing an obstacle and a hazard for current river uses, would provide few, if any, river-based recreational opportunities beyond those that currently exist. The Consultant states in its "Alternatives Analysis -- Birds and Avian Habitat" response that "Motor boats and jet skis will not use the proposed pool....," and in its "Boating and Safety" response, that "Due to the narrow width and shallow depth of the river in the location of the proposed pool, boats not expected to be permitted include jet skis, power boats, sailboats, and large pontoon boats. Water skiing will not be permitted." If the "inflatable structure" will not provide opportunities for river users to engage in any of these activities, then what additional water-based recreational opportunities does the Consultant propose that the "inflatable structure" will provide? We support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) position that non-impoundment alternatives must be considered. Indeed, the planned improvements to the Nesbitt Park boat Launch, improvements that will be funded by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, will provide better access for river-based recreation without the proposed "inflatable structure." Moreover, if the USACE approves the permit application without an adequate alternatives analysis, then it will be in violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Sec. 102 [42 USC § 4332] C (iii) and E, and Executive Order 11988 -- Floodplain Management Sec. 2 (a) (2). Therefore, we believe that denial of the requested permits is the only action the USACE can take.
2. Mitigation
Attachment 1 -- Conceptual Open Water Habitat Mitigation Plan
The Consultant proposes "improv[ing] wildlife habitats and creat[ing] passive environmental education opportunities in existing open water habitats in remote areas of Kirby Park," focusing specifically on a pond/wetland area near the Black Diamond railroad bridge. Although we welcome the prospect of improving wildlife habitat in and near Kirby Park's riparian forest, we question the wisdom and the feasibility of creating and maintaining the proposed improvements. The area under consideration for habitat improvement is subjected to flooding at least annually. In addition to the proposed improvements being damaged directly by flooding, high water events often result in large carp or suckers becoming stranded in the ponds in the proposed mitigation area (personal observation). As noted in a 1973 study prepared by the National Audubon Society's now defunct Nature Center Planning Division (National Audubon Society 1973), the carp/suckers eat aquatic vegetation and roil the waters, thereby reducing the ponds' ability to support vegetation and varied aquatic life. The National Audubon Society study recommends improving one pond by first removing the carp/suckers, and then by planting a variety of vegetation. The Consultant's proposal incorporates this second point in its open-water mitigation proposal. However, for such a plan to be viable, carp/suckers would have to be removed after each high flow event that strands them in the pond. In addition, nesting enhancements and turtle basking habitats would have to be replaced and, depending upon the amount of scouring that results from flooding, vegetation would have to be replanted, necessitating continual maintenance. We fear that, because of the area's relatively remote location, such maintenance would fall by the wayside while limited maintenance funds and limited manpower are used for higher-profile Luzerne County or Wilkes-Barre City properties. Without such maintenance, the proposed mitigation would be temporary at best, whereas the proposed "inflatable structure" would be permanent. Hence, the proposed Open Water Habitat Mitigation Plan is insufficient in that it does not offer permanent or even long-lasting mitigation for permanent alterations to the Susquehanna River.
The Consultant addresses the USACE's concern about potential impacts to forested wetlands by concluding that "the principal hydrology source of the adjacent forested wetlands is surface water associated with rainfall and pooling of floodwaters as opposed to groundwater associated with a fluctuating river stage." This conclusion is supposedly based upon technical studies and anecdotal evidence from a field visit. The conclusion, however, is contrary to the conclusions reached in a 1994 study (Smith and others) conducted by Wilkes University Advanced Limnology students who traced pond fluctuations to river stage fluctuations through chemical analyses of pond water. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence obtained during GWVAS monthly bird walks in the riparian forest suggests conclusions in support of the Wilkes University study and contrary to the Consultant's results. GWVAS members have observed on a number of occasions rises in pond levels after no appreciable precipitation in the Wyoming Valley, but after precipitation upstream in New York State caused elevated river stages in the Wyoming Valley. Such conflicting studies and conflicting anecdotal evidence suggest that more studies of the connection between ponds/wetlands and the river are warranted before construction permits can be issued.
4. Combined Sewer Overflows
The Consultant again failed to address the potential for fecal coliform bacteria to survive in river sediments and to be resuspended in the water column as a result of wind-driven waves or boat wakes. This potential is well documented in the primary literature, and it is not, in the case of the Susquehanna River, contingent upon a buildup of sediments behind an "inflatable structure." Even if the "inflatable structure" does not cause additional sediment accumulation, as the Consultant contends it will not, normal sediment levels may be sufficient to sequester pathogens and later return them to the water column. Hence, this issue must be thoroughly addressed before permits can be issued.
Agency and Public Comments Received from the 2nd Public Notice Dated October 4th 2006
Alternatives Analysis
As stated in previous testimony and in the cover letter that accompanies these comments, we continue to maintain that the applicant's own criteria for selection of the LEDPA exclude any "inflatable structure" from consideration as the LEDPA, and we further maintain that viable alternatives have not been considered.
Birds and Avian Habitat
We acknowledge that an avian survey was conducted in the project area by a "reputable ornithologist," and we question neither his methods nor his results. Our argument is not with Dr. Master; our argument is with the studies that led Dr. Master to reach his stated conclusions, studies with which Dr. Master was not associated. Our concerns arise from the fact that Dr. Master's conclusions concerning impacts to forest species were based upon conclusions concerning groundwater hydrology, conclusions which we continue to believe are invalid. To elaborate on our previous testimony (Wasilewski 2006) concerning this issue, note that in defending its plan to allow for the passage of migratory fish (5. Fish Passage), the Consultant refers to "an inflation date within the first two weeks of June." Why, then, did the applicant include river stage data for March, April, and May, months that typically experience highest river stages due to spring rainfall and snow melt, but during which the proposed "inflatable structure" will not be in operation? Frost station data (Koss and others 1988; Freeze/Frost Occurrence Data) suggest that in northeastern Pennsylvania, the growing season runs from early May (although there is a 10% probability of frost occurrence as late as May 27) through September. Hence, there is no reason to include river stage data for March and April, and data for May should be considered with reservation. Furthermore, the applicant incorporated in its analysis river stage data from September 2004, data that the applicant admits were atypically high as a result of rainfall from Hurricane Ivan. These data should have been considered outliers and hence, should have been excluded from statistical analyses (and some calculation other than an arithmetic mean, the problems with which we highlighted in our May 1, 2006 Testimony, may have offered more convincing evidence). In short, the applicant used data from an atypically wet summer, data that obviously skewed the calculations of average river stage, to support its contention that the floodplain forest suffered no negative impacts despite having experienced average river stages that were higher than those that would be created by an "inflatable structure." Furthermore, the applicant failed to investigate relationships between tree growth (via growth ring analysis of tree core samples) and rainfall/river stage, an analysis that would have allowed for the correlation of tree growth with rainfall and river stage. The inclusion of irrelevant and atypical river stage data and the exclusion of tree growth/river stage correlation analyses call into question not only the conclusions of the groundwater hydrology study, but also Dr. Master's conclusions, which were based upon the groundwater hydrology study conclusions.
Regarding the project's potential to negatively impact wildlife habitat and wildlife populations, the Consultant validated our argument that its conclusions concerning the impact of increased visitation on wildlife populations in the project area are based purely on speculation. Moreover, although Dr. Master may have "coordinated with state-recognized peregrine falcon experts while preparing [his] report", unless the author of these comments is regarded as a state-recognized peregrine falcon expert, no state-recognized peregrine falcon expert has spent as much time observing and documenting the behavior of the Wyoming Valley's resident peregrine falcons as the author of these comments has, and the author of these comments has documented evidence of boats disturbing nestling peregrine falcons.
Miscellaneous
Regarding the use of mitigation funds for economic development, the Consultant suggests that we misunderstand the the term, "mitigation," as it is used in this application. To the contrary, we understand perfectly the Consultant's use of the term, "mitigation." That understanding is the basis for our argument that economic development is an inappropriate use of mitigation funds.
Any non-environmental impacts that might be associated with the levees have been primarily aesthetic through the loss of visual access to the river. That access has, to a degree, already been restored by the walking paths that top the levees from Forty Fort to Edwardsville and from South Wilkes-Barre to Hanover Township, and both visual and physical access will be restored in the downtown Wilkes-Barre area by the riverfront project that currently is underway. Physical access also will be enhanced via the planned improved boat launch facilities in Nesbitt Park. The proposed "inflatable structure" will effect neither visual nor physical access, and, as the Consultant makes clear in its Boating and Safety response, it will not create new opportunities for water-based recreation, as evidenced by the canoes, kayaks, jon boats, and bass boats that frequently can be seen on the river in its current dam-free condition. Hence, the proposed "inflatable structure" is unnecessary, and it cannot satisfy the applicant's own criteria for the LEDPA, nor can it satisfy the applicant's definition of "mitigation" as it is used in the Dam Application and Supporting Documentation.
As the Consultant states, "the mitigation funding in the case of this discussion ... is for social and economic impacts associated with the levee raising." If the Consultant would reread our testimony concerning the use of mitigation funds, we believe that the Consultant would understand our argument. However, to assist the Consultant, we herein restate that, "The levee raising project may have further hindered access to the River and may have further reduced the visibility of the River; the levee raising did not, however, hinder economic development in the Wyoming Valley. If the levee raising has had, or will have, any economic impact, then that impact could only have been, or could only be, positive due to the perceived increase in protection from flood damage to homes and businesses in the flood plain. Hence, there is no need to provide mitigation for something that has been enhanced by the levee raising project itself."
The Wyoming Valley's, indeed, the northeast Pennsylvania region's, economic downturn was not a result of the construction of a levee system following the 1936 flood, nor can that downturn be attributed to the recent raising of those levees. Rather, the region's economic downturn resulted from the demise of the anthracite coal mining industry in Pennsylvania. In northeast Pennsylvania, the final blow to deep mining was dealt by 1959's Knox Mine disaster. Socioeconomic conditions prior to, and one could assume for some time after, the construction of the original levee system likely were better than are current conditions. Hence, levees had no negative socioeconomic impact for Wyoming Valley residents and businesses. The levees did have a negative socioeconomic impact for residents living downstream from the Wyoming Valley.
The original levee system and the levee raising increased the likelihood and the severity of downstream flooding. Hence, the levee raising project contained a mitigation component to compensate affected downstream landowners. That compensation represents mitigation for the social and economic impacts of losing one's home to a flood, and that mitigation is appropriate. While we do welcome economic revitalization to downtown Wilkes-Barre, we believe that the original levee system, although having negatively impacted the environment (for example, by constricting the river into an unnaturally narrow channel, thereby preventing it from cleansing its main channel and depositing its sediment load onto its floodplain), neither the original levee system nor the levee raising caused negative social and/or economic impacts in the Wyoming Valley. To the contrary, the levees protect homes and businesses in the Wyoming Valley floodplain. Hence, the levee system and the levee raising have had only positive socioeconomic impacts in the Wyoming Valley. With no negative socioeconomic impacts for which to mitigate, the proposed "inflatable structure" cannot be considered mitigation. Therefore, the mitigation funds have been improperly appropriated.
Regarding our belief that critical oversights in the groundwater hydrology study influenced the conclusions of other studies, we have adequately explained in our May 1, 2006 Testimony our reasons for our belief that the groundwater hydrology study is flawed, and we have further addressed this issue in these comments. We add here only that if the groundwater hydrology study conclusions are correct, the project still may lead to the loss of trees in nearly 50% of the project area. Hence, permitting the construction of the "inflatable structure" could conflict with efforts outlined in "Chesapeake 2000" (Chesapeake Bay Program), which prescribes Chesapeake Bay Project goals for the restoration of that estuary through, among other means, "conserv[ing] existing forests along all streams and shorelines."
Regarding the Consultant's encouraging "the author's of the ... comments to visit the inflatable dam in Sunbury....," the author of these and previous comments and testimony has visited the inflatable dam in Sunbury on two occasions. On the first occasion, he met with Mr. Stan Rohrbach, then superintendent of Shikellamy State Park, who also was superintendent when the Sunbury Dam became operational. Anecdotal evidence gleaned from conversations with Mr. Rohrbach indicate that some tree die-off did occur during the years immediately following inflation of the dam. It is indeed unfortunate that a lack of baseline data and the intervening years' having erased evidence of tree damage do not permit the drawing of conclusions based upon observations of current conditions. Furthermore, if the Consultant wishes to compare the proposed "inflatable structure" to the Sunbury dam, then we request that studies of groundwater hydrology and plant inventories in the area of the Sunbury dam be conducted to compare that area's groundwater hydrology and plant species diversity with those of the proposed project area before the Consultant determines that a valid comparison can be made. In addition, since the Consultant has suggested comparing the proposed "inflatable structure" to the Sunbury dam, a comparison the project's chief Congressional proponent abandoned long ago in favor of a comparison to Tempe, Arizona, it is worth noting that during the author's second visit to the Sunbury facility in 2003, he discussed with then Shikellamy State Park superintendent, Mr. John Ferrara, the economic development that has resulted from the Sunbury dam. Anecdotal evidence from those conversations suggests that, aside from a few small, seasonal businesses, the Sunbury dam has not had a significant economic impact. The proposed Wyoming Valley "inflatable structure" is similarly unlikely to produce the economic revitalization project proponents have claimed it would produce.
Finally, regarding the Consultant's response that, "At no time during initial project coordination did any resource agency, or the Audubon Society for that matter, suggest a method that should be used to analyze potential impacts on wildlife and fish," although we cannot speak for any resource agency, in response to this statement allow us to state that the GWVAS was not privy to discussions "during initial project coordination," nor has the GWVAS received any of the approximately $1 million that have been spent to study this project. While we have voluntarily provided extensive comments at each of the project's steps about which we have been informed, we will consider offering more substantive suggestions when we are hired as a project consultant. In the meantime, we expect project consultants to competently and thoroughly study and assess the environmental ramifications of the proposed "inflatable structure."
To summarize, the Officers and Directors of the GWVAS continue to maintain that
1) the proposed "inflatable structure" does not satisfy the applicant's own criteria to represent the LEDPA;
2) the USACE must deny the applicant's request for permits, conditional or otherwise, or risk violating the terms of NEPA and executive Order 11988;
3) according to the Consultant's own statements, the proposed "inflatable structure" will not create any new water-based recreational opportunities, but instead will represent an obstacle not only to fish and other aquatic organisms, but also an obstacle and a hazard for current river uses; and
4) the use of mitigation funds for an "inflatable structure" is an inappropriate use of such funds.
We continue to urge the USACE to deny the permit request.
Literature Cited
Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake 2000. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/
agreement.htm
Executive Order 11988. May 24, 1977. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html
Freeze/Frost Occurrence Data. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim20supp1/states/PA.pdf
Koss WJ, Owenby JR, Steurer PM, and Ezell DS. 1988. Freeze/Frost Data. National Climate Data Center. Ashville, North Carolina. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/freezefrost/freezefrost.pdf
National Audubon Society. 1973. Kirby Park Environmental Education Center: A Survey & Comprehensive Plan.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/
nepaeqia.htm
Smith B, Wilkes S, Mushinsky H, Kovatch C, Sopka C, Ruane K, Kelechowa L. 1994. A preliminary assessment of the impact of the proposed inflatable dam on wetlands and ponds of the Kirby Park Natural Area in Kingston, Pennsylvania. Unpublished.
Wasilewski R. 2007. Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society Testimony for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Public Hearing Regarding Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority's Application to Discharge Dredge or Fill Material into the Susquehanna River in Order to Construct an Inflatable Dam in the Susquehanna River in Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. May 1, 2006. Unpublished.