19–010

Calendar No. 751

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 107-338

RESTORE THE APALACHICOLA RIVER ECOSYSTEM (RARE) 

ACT OF 2002

NOVEMBER 12, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JEFFORDS, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[to accompany S. 2730] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a bill (S. 2730) to modify certain water resources projects 

for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 

Florida, and Alabama, having considered the same reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT, BACKGROUND, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE

LEGISLATION

The bill amends the existing authorization for the project for 

navigation, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located 

in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the 

Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and modified by the 

first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), 

and the project for the West Point Reservoir, Chattahoochee River, 

Georgia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 

(76 Stat. 1182) to deauthorize the channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near Apalachicola, Florida to the Jim Woodruff 

Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida and to authorize the development of a restoration plan. 

2

The Apalachicola River is located in northwest Florida. It is 

home to a bottomland hardwood forest, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and 

sloughs. These sloughs deliver fresh water to tupelo honey trees located in the river basin. The Apalachicola River provides key habitat for one endangered and two threatened species and a large 

sportfish population. Its waters empty into the Gulf of Mexico 

where oysters, Gulf shrimp, and blue crab can thrive on the brackish waters. 

The statutes cited above authorize the Army Corps of Engineers 

to maintain a 9-foot deep channel for year-round navigational use 

of the Apalachicola River. The Corps has never been able to maintain a 9-foot channel for year-round navigational use. The Corps 

has turned instead to the use of a combination of dredging and 

water releases to provide navigation windows for barge traffic. 

This approach has caused severe environmental damage to the 

Apalachicola River. Releases of large quantities of water for navigation windows has drastic effects on fish and wildlife, including one 

endangered species—the fat three-ridge mussel (Amblema 

neislerii)—and two threatened species the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) and the purple bankclimber mussel 

(Elliptoideus sloatianus.) Water releases trigger spawning behavior 

for many fish species, leaving them stranded upstream in backwater areas when the water subsides, resulting in massive fish 

kills and the loss of future generations of fish. According to a letter 

dated June 7, 2000 from then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works, Joseph Westphal, an April 2000 navigation window 

implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers resulted in an almost 

complete failure of sportfish spawn along the entire Apalachicola 

River and reservoirs upstream. 

Dredging of the Apalachicola River has destroyed approximately 

one-quarter of the banks of the Apalachicola River, in some instances leaving giant walls of sand—one of which is known as Sand 

Mountain. In a letter to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection dated April 23, 2002 regarding Permit Modification No. 

0129424–003, Permit No. 0129424–001-DF, Gulf and Liberty Counties, Site 40 Rejuvenation Modification, the Army Corps measures 

the height of this mountain at 60 feet, plus or minus 8 feet. The 

disposal of large amounts of sand in and around the river and its 

tributaries has choked sloughs, cutting off water supply to surrounding habitat. 

The dredging of the Apalachicola River also threatens the local 

production of tupelo honey an industry that generates at least $2.4 

million dollars a year in the Florida economy, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture statistics (Sept. 2002.) The many 

sloughs in the Apalachicola River basin are the main transportation route for fresh water, which is critical to the health of the 

tupelo trees. Because these sloughs are serving as dredged material 

disposal sites, fresh water cannot move through the river basin, 

cutting off the tupelo trees from their only source of water. 

Tupelo honey is not the only agricultural impact from the dredging of the Apalachicola River. Fresh water pulses from the Corps’

water releases also affect the salinity of brackish water in Apalachicola Bay, which has been recognized by the State of Florida 

as an Outstanding Florida Water, by the Federal Government as 

a National Estuarine Reserve, and by the United Nations as an 

3

International Biosphere Reserve. Changes in salinity threaten the 

largest oyster harvesting area in the Gulf of Mexico which produces 

90 percent of Florida’s oysters, one of the principal nurseries for 

Gulf shrimp and blue crabs, and major commercial fishing operations. 

The combination of dredging and low commercial barge traffic 

makes the Apalachicola River the most expensive Corps river 

project in the south. The Congressional Budget Office, in its May 

1992 report entitled, ‘‘Paying for Highways, Airways, and Waterways: How Can Users Be Charged?’’, estimated that the average 

cost per ton-mile from 1995–98 is 14.1 cents, almost 24 times more 

than the cost of the Upper Mississippi River (.597 cents.) The 

Corps estimates that there is a return of 40 cents for every Federal 

dollar invested in the river. These conclusions are based on the 97 

barge movements that occurred in 1998. Since this CBO analysis 

and the Corps’ estimate of 40 cents for every Federal dollar invested were completed, barge traffic has fallen to a low of 4 barges 

in 2001. This change is a 96 percent reduction in barge traffic between 1998 and 2001, which has resulted in an even higher cost 

per ton-mile than CBO estimated for the period 1995–1998. 

The impacts to the environment and the low commercial use of 

the Apalachicola River led then-Secretary Westphal to describe the 

project in a letter of August 9, 2000 as not ‘‘economically justified 

or environmentally defensible.’’ The Apalachicola River was named 

one of America’s most endangered rivers by American Rivers in 

2002. Various pieces of the ACF system have been listed as threatened or endangered by American Rivers since 1991. The ACF river 

project is listed as one of the nation’s ‘‘Top Ten Most Wasteful 

Projects’’ in the report, ‘‘Troubled Waters,’’ written by the National 

Wildlife Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense in 2000. It 

was first listed as a project proposed for elimination in 2001 by the 

Green Scissors Report, written by Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers 

for Common Sense, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and 

others. In 2002, this report cited the project as a ‘‘Boondoggle for 

Barges.’’

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title 

The act may be cited as the ‘‘Restore the Apalachicola River Ecosystem Act’’ or the ‘‘RARE Act.’’

Sec. 2. Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 

Florida, and Alabama 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This section modifies the project for navigation, Apalachicola, 

Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in Georgia, Florida, and 

Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 

Stat. 17, chapter 19), and modified by the first section of the Act 

of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), and the project for the 

West Point Reservoir, Chattahoochee River, Georgia, authorized by 

section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182). 

4

First, this section deauthorizes the 9-foot by 100-foot channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near Apalachicola, Florida, 

to Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida. 

Second, this section authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the State of Florida, to develop a restoration plan for 

the Apalachicola River. The Secretary is required to coordinate 

with the State of Florida, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Geological Survey in developing the 

plan. Upon completion, the Secretary shall submit the plan to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives. 

This section also specifies requirements for the plan. The sole 

goal of the plan is the reestablishment of the ecological integrity 

of the Apalachicola River basin ecosystem (including restoration of 

bendways, interconnecting waterways, sloughs, watersheds, associated land areas, and fish and wildlife habitat.) The plan shall reestablish an ecosystem that supports and sustains a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of 

the natural habitat of the Apalachicola River. The plan shall also 

include a method of monitoring and assessing the biota, habitats, 

and water quality of the Apalachicola River basin for use in assessing restoration activities and impacts of restoration activities. 

This section authorizes funding for plan development of 

$4,000,000. It also requires that the Secretary of the Army engage 

in significant public outreach while developing the plan. 

This section also explicitly requires that activities conducted by 

the Army Corps under this section not interfere with water compact activities and negotiations being carried out as of the date of 

enactment of this Act with respect to the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. 

This is a key element of S. 2730. The committee does not intend 

for this legislation to interfere with the development of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint River compact being developed 

by the States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. 

Finally, this section includes a limitation, which states that nothing in this section limits the authority of any agency under any 

other provision of law to require compliance with any applicable 

statutory or regulatory requirement. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Graham (D-FL) introduced S. 2730 with Senator Nelson 

(D-FL) on July 16, 2002. It was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. No hearing was held on the bill. The 

committee considered the bill in a business meeting on September 

26, 2002 and ordered the bill reported to the Senate. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 2730 on September 26, 2002. The committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Senator Smith requested to be officially recorded as voting ‘‘yes, with enthusiasm.’’ Senators Inhofe, 

Bond, Chafee, and Specter requested to be recorded as voting ‘‘no.’’

5

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor 

will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee finds that S. 2730 would impose 

no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal governments. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. That statement follows:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 25, 2002.

Hon. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Chairman, 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2730, a bill to restore the 

Apalachicola River ecosystem. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie Middleton, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN. 

S. 2730, Restore the Apalachicola River Ecosystem Act, as ordered 

reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works on September 26, 2002

Summary 

S. 2730 would deauthorize a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

project for maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot wide 

navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola. River. This 

channel is part of the Apalacfficola-Chattthoochee-Flint Rivers 

navigation project which spans the States of Florida, Georgia, and 

Alabama. In addition, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the 

Army, acting through the Corps, to work with the State of Florida 

to develop a restoration plan for the Apalachicola River. 

Assuming appropriation action consistent with this legislation, 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 2730 would result in a net 

savings of about $6 million over the 2003–2007 period. Enacting S. 

2730 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on the budgets of State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

6

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government 

The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2730 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

End Apalachicola Maintenance Dredging: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................................................. 0 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................. 0 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

Apalachicola Restoration Plan: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................................................. 2 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................. 1 1 0 0 0

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................................................. 2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................. 1 ¥1 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

Basis of Estimate 

For this estimate, CEO assumes that S. 2730 will be enacted in 

fiscal year 2003 and that amounts will be appropriated to complete 

the restoration plan. Based on information from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2730 

would result in a net savings of about $6 million over the 2003–

2007 period. 

S. 2730 would deauthorize an Army Corps project for maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot wide navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola River. Currently, the Corps 

spends about $2 million annually to dredge this navigation channel. According to the Corps, suspending maintenance dredging on 

the Apalachicola River may affect the Corps’s ability to dredge the 

Chattahoochee River as well as perform operations and maintenance work, including work on some locks and darns, along the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers navigation project. It 

is uncertain, however, if and when other dredging and operations 

and maintenance work would be disrupted or discontinued. CBO 

estimates that implementing S. 2730 would save about $2 million 

a year starting in fiscal year 2004; however, savings could increase 

as other maintenance costs are discontinued. 

S. 2730 also would authorize the Corps to develop a restoration 

plan for the Apalachicola River in conjunction with the State of 

Florida at a total cost of $4 million. Under current law, the Corps 

would be responsible for approximately one-half of the cost of the 

restoration plan. 

CEO estimates that the Federal cost of the plan would be about 

$2 million over fiscal years 2003 and 2004. 

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact 

S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in TJMRA and would impose no costs on the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.

Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton (226–2860); 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller 

7

(225–3220); Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson (226–

2949).

Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget and Analysis.

Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS BOND AND CRAPO

The legislation proposed would deauthorize an entire river system that affects three States, not simply Florida. Deauthorization 

of the Apalachiacola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System is opposed 

by State and local governments, communities, as well as businesses 

and industries. Such an action would have a significant negative 

economic impact on the communities that depend on the river system. 

There is a recognition by those opposed to deauthorization that 

there are a number of environmental concerns. To that end there 

has been an attempt in recent years to address those concerns. 

Most importantly, the FY2002 Energy and Water Appropriations 

bill included funding specifically for the Army Corps of Engineers 

to address ‘‘Sand Mountain’’ and the disposal of dredged spoils on 

the Apalachiacola River which were mentioned during consideration of the legislation. 

The amount of barge traffic that moves along the ACF was also 

raised. While opponents of deauthonzition concede that barge traffic has dropped off significantly in recent years, they would point 

to the lack of available water for navigation windows due to a 

multiyear drought rather than a lack of interest along the river in 

utilizing barges. 

Finally, any attempt to deauthorize the ACF would severely 

hamper already difficult on.-going water compact negotiations 

among the three States. These negotiations have been under discussion for more than 3 years now and very recently almost collapsed due to the very delicate situation associated with water allocations. 

It is our understanding that Senator Shelby has committed to 

working with Senator Graham and others to reach a reasonable solution for the ACF that would both protect the rivers’ ecosystem 

while maintaining a Corps presence for navigation. Additionally, he 

is investigating options that would increase the amount of water 

available to the river system, such as additional reservoirs. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made by 

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to 

existing law.

Æ