ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
Y 4.AP 6/1: EN 2/2/997/ PT.l
Energy and Hater Developnent Approp. . . "VT^^ Q
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan VIC FAZIO, California
FRANK RIGGS, California JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JIM BUNN, Oregon
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon, Staff Assistants
PART 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
HEAEINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan VIC FAZIO, CaUfomia
FRANK RIGGS, California JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JIM BUNN, Oregon
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon, Staff Assistants
PART 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 24-080 O WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Oflfice
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052619-1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
RALPH REGULA, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
TOM Delay, Texas
JIM KOLBE, Arizona
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
RON PACKARD, CaUfornia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
JAMES T. WALSH, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North CaroUna
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
DAN MILLER, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
FRANK RIGGS, CaUfornia
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington
JIM BUNN, Oregon
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES WILSON, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULLVN C. DDCON, California
VIC FAZIO, CaUfornia
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RICHARD J. DURBIN, lUinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
NANCY PELOSI, CaUfornia
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, CaUfornia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
Thursday, March 21, 1996. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WITNESSES H. MARTIN LANCASTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL
WORKS ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, UEUTENANT GENERAL, CHIEF, CORPS OF
ENGINEERS STANLEY G. GENEGA, MAJOR GENERAL, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS GARY LOEW, ACTING CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS
Mr. Myers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased this morning to have a former colleague coming in now, with all of the Chiefs and the back-up crew here. I shouldn't say that. That's the front line, isn't it? It's not Reserve forces here.
We are pleased to have our colleague, Secretary Lancaster. Your prepared statement will be placed in the record and you may pro- ceed as you like.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here with you this morning to present the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers and to be backed up by such an impressive team. I draw great strength from the presence of these Division commanders and the Headquarters leadership that's here with me and it's certainly good to be back among former colleagues here at the House in my new role.
Accompan5dng me at the witness table are Lieutenant General Art Williams, the Chief of Engineers, and Major General Stan Genega, the Director of Civil Works, and Gary Loew, the Acting Chief of the Civil Works Programs Management Division.
As you've indicated, we do have an extended statement, which we appreciate your including in the record at this point.
president's budget for 1997
I am pleased to be in a position where I can contribute to the debate about the future of the Army Civil Works program in ad- dressing the Nation's critical water resources challenges. The Presi- dent's budget for 1997 and the outyears shows that the funds for domestic discretionary spending must continue to decline in order to balance the budget. But ways must be found to both reduce total
(1)
costs and at the same time shift more of the costs of providing serv- ices from the general taxpayer to project beneficiaries.
My summary will cover the following subjects: an overview of the fiscal year 97 Civil Works budget; new policies and legislative pro- posals in the fiscal year 97 budget; new investments and highlights of the continuing program; and the status of the Corps of Engi- neers restructuring.
The President's budget includes $3.49 billion for fiscal year 97 Army Civil Works program. This program would require $3.29 bil- lion in new discretionary Energy and Water Development appro- priations, slightly greater than the level of fiscal year 96 appropria- tions.
The 1997 budget provides for continuing studies, design and con- struction; a healthy level of funding for maintenance and rehabili- tation of existing infrastructure; continuing and new investments in research and development; and new water resources studies and projects. The total investment represented by these new studies, projects and research is $588 million, of which the Federal share is $414 million and the non-Federal share is $174 million.
Today I will share with the Subcommittee the Administration's proposal to restructure the Civil Works mission of the Corps. I am committed to working closely with Congress and with others within the Administration in pursuing these new proposals.
Mr. Myers. Pardon me for interrupting you. We have some housekeeping we must take care of, so I apologize for
Mr. Lancaster. No problem.
Mr. Myers. I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Bevill, for a motion.
Mr. Bevill. Mr. Chairman, because the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will be dealing with national security and other sensitive matters in its hearings next week; I move that the afternoon session on Thursday, March 28, 1996, be held in execu- tive session.
Mr. Myers. We've all heard the question. It is necessary to have it on recorded vote. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Myers?
Mr. Myers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rogers?
Mr. Rogers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. KnoUenberg?
Mr. Knollenberg. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Riggs?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr, Frelinghuysen?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bunn?
Mr. Bunn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Livingston?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bevill?
Mr. Bevill. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fazio?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chapman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Obey?
[No response.]
The motion
Mr. Myers. It being six in favor and none against, tlie motion carries. The session on Thursday will be a closed session requiring clearance. It includes the staff. Thank you for — pardon us for doing that, Martin.
Mr. Lancaster. No problem, Mr. Chairman.
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
The budget justification documents for proposed new flood dam- age reduction projects are based on a 50-50 cost sharing, as well as on proposed requirements for new non-Federal flood plain man- agement activities. This approach is expected to encourage wise use of flood plains by states and communities and to reduce overall Federal expenditures. Examples of specific flood plain management activities which non-Federal sponsors would be expected to carry out include public information and education on flood hazards with- in the community; flood plain regulation to promote sound use and to reduce flood plain damages; storm water runoff controls; and preservation of open space.
The 1997 budget, supported by the Civil Works legislative pro- gram, proposes to include dredged material disposal facility costs within the scope of total shared costs and to expand allowable uses of the trust fund to cover the Federal share of the costs of con- structing, operating and maintaining these facilities, as well as of draining and disposal facilities for contaminated sediments, and of the mitigation and environmental impacts resulting from Federal dredging activities.
MAINTENANCE OF RECREATIONAL HARBORS
Regarding maintenance of recreation harbors, the Administration believes these projects generate significant regional and local bene- fits and that users can reasonably be expected to finance the re- quired maintenance. We anticipate that, beginning in fiscal year 98, the Civil Works budget will not include funding to dredge har- bors without commercial traffic unless a new, dedicated source of funding can be established based on the "beneficiary pay" principle.
The Administration also is proposing to discontinue maintenance of low commercial use harbors beginning in fiscal year 98. I recog- nize, however, that many small communities whose incomes are de- rived principally from commercial fishing and related activities would be hurt by such a policy. In addition to these communities, I realize that there are areas in Alaska, Hawaii and certain U.S. Territories where a community, because of its geographic location, receives most of its subsistence needs from its harbor. These com- munities need to be given appropriate consideration in applying any new policy. I would like to work closely with Congress and other affected interests to develop a rational policy that will meet our deficit reduction goals in a way that is both equitable and effi- cient and which recognizes the special needs of these unique com- munities.
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS
The Administration believes that shore protection projects that support mainly recreation activities and that provide substantial regional income to the state and local economies can be undertaken by non-Federal interests. In many cases, the cost of the investment would represent a small fraction of the income it would generate. It is unlikely that sufficient Federal funds will be available in the future to continue the prior level of Federal participation in this area and still achieve deficit reduction goals. We recognize, how- ever, that Federal involvement may be required in some instances. I would be happy to work with you on the conditions to which the policy should be applied. Exceptions for new and recently initiated activities funded in the fiscal year 97 budget do not involve signifi- cant placement of sand, but rely on other structural measures to protect existing development and public infrastructure in areas subject to damage by hurricanes and other storms.
FINANCING OF PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
In order to reduce budgetary impact in the short-run and guar- antee sponsor commitment to costly new engineering and design ef- forts, the budget reflects up-front financing by non-Federal project sponsors of the non-Federal share of the costs of new engineering and design efforts.
The new investments included in this budget are three recon- naissance studies, all of which are for flood damage reduction; one preconstruction engineering and design new start; 11 construction new starts; four major rehabilitation new starts; one deficiency cor- rection; one levee reconstruction; and one new research and devel- opment program to address environmental impacts associated with the Corps dredging activities.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
In February I joined the Vice President in Everglades National Park, where he announced the Administration's comprehensive Ev- erglades restoration program. I am proud to say the Corps will be a major player in this initiative and this budget includes $39.5 mil- lion for various ongoing activities associated with this new project.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY PROGRAM
The fiscal year 97 budget includes $107 million to continue the Corps involvement in the Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Pro- gram to protect and rebuild Snake River stocks of Pacific salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps will continue to construct and improve juvenile fish bypass systems for its eight dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, as well as to conduct a comprehensive mitigation analysis to assist in determining reason- able measures for restoring the listed stocks.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
The Administration has included $41 million in the 1997 budget for a full program of continuing and new work under the Continu- ing Authorities Program. Earlier this month, I notified this Sub- committee of our plan to reprogram additional 1996 funds into the
Continuing Authorities Program. I am pleased to report that the reprogrammed funds are being allocated as we speak and as need- ed to complete underfunded phases and to move forward on many small projects that were stopped.
Over the course of the last year, the Corps has made commend- able improvement in expending available funds. In previous years, program execution schedules tended to be overly optimistic. As a part of our continuing effort to improve the Corps' efficiency, effec- tiveness and responsiveness, I am personally committed to finding ways to further shorten the Corps study process.
CORPS RESTRUCTURING
Finally, I would like to bring to the — bring the Subcommittee up to date on Corps restructuring. Last October, the role of divisions was significantly changed and those offices were restructured. Divi- sion offices now concentrate on four functions: command and con- trol, regional interface, program management, and quality assur- ance. Technical review is now performed at the district level, and all policy review is now performed in Washington. Many other business process changes have been implemented to streamline work flow and provide frontline offices with increased authority.
Following consideration of many comments received from project sponsors, interest groups and Corps employees, guidelines for dis- trict restructuring were sent to Secretary West, but have not yet been approved. Under these guidelines, primary authority would be delegated to the division commanders to restructure their subordi- nate districts.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 96 stipulated that the Secretary was to develop a plan to re- duce the number of its division offices to a total of six to eight, without closing or changing the Civil Works function of any district offices. Earlier this month, the Chief of Engineers and I released a draft plan, which was provided to this Committee. If the Sec- retary approves this plan, the number of Corps division offices would be reduced to a total of eight, while complying with the other relevant provisions of the Act. The recommended plan will be sent to the Secretary for final approval shortly.
In conclusion, I would emphasize my commitment to work with this Subcommittee and other interested parties to ensure that "the Army Civil Works program in the Corps of Engineers continues to serve the vital interests of the Nation in a way that supports and contributes to the President's commitment to balance the Federal budget. I would ask for your support as we move forward to meet these challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes my oral statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lancaster follows:]
6
COMPLETE STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE H. MARTIN LANCASTER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 CIVIL WORKS BUDGET
MARCH 21, 1996
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 1
Overview of the FY 1997 Civil Works Budget 2
FY 1995 Perfonnance 3
The FY 19% Program 4
FY 1997 Prqwsals to Increase Non-federal Involvement 4
New Investments in the FY 1997 Civil Works Program 7
Highlights of the FY 1997 Continuing Program 8
Corps of Engineers Restructuring 11
Qmclusirai - 13
TABLES
Table A FY 1997 Civil Works Appropriation Request by
Account and Source of Funds
Table B Quarterly Army Performance Review Summary
Table C FY 1997 New Construction Work
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE H. MARTIN LANCASTER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 CIVIL WORKS BUDGET
Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Subcommittee:
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be in a position where I can contribute to the debate about the future of the Army Civil Works program in addressing the Nation's critical water resources challenges. Accompanying me are Lieutenant General Arthur E. Williams, the Chief of Engineers; Major General Stanley G. Genega, the Director of Civil Works; and Mr. Gary A. Loew, the Acting (Thief of the Civil Works Programs Management Division.
My appointment as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works comes at a time when die (Torps, like all Federal agencies, has been re-examining its roles and missions widi an overall goal of reducing the scope of the Federal (jovemment and eliminating die Federal budget deficit. One of the primary objectives of this re-examination is to determine which Federal agency activities could more apprq)riately be conducted at the State and local levels.
On February Sth, die Presidoit sulxnitted the oudine of his budget for FY 1997 and the outyears leading to a balanced budget. That outline shows that the funds available for domestic discretionary ^pending must continue to decline in order to balance the budget. Therefore, ways must be found to both reduce total costs and shift more of the costs of providing services from the general taxpayer to project beneficiaries.
My statement will cover the following subjects:
An overview of die FY 1997 Civil Works budget;
FY 1995 performance and die FY 19% program;
New policies and legislative proposals reflected in die FY 1997 budget;
New investments and continuing program highlights of the budget; and
The status of (Torps of Engineers restructuring.
OVERVIEW OF THE FY 1997 CIVIL WORKS BUDGET
The President's budget includes $3.49 billion for the FY 1997 Army Civil Works program. The FY 1997 budget would fund a balanced program focussed principally on commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration. While this program does not keep all projects on schedules previously announced to Congress, it does provide for continuing studies, design and construction; a healthy level of funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing Civil Works infrastructure; continuing and new investments in research and development; and new water resources studies and projects. The latter are consistent with the proposed policies to increase non-Federal involvement, strengthen flood plain planning and management at the State and community level, and reduce Federal expenditures.
The Civil Works budget requires $3.29 billion in new discretionary Energy and Water Development ^propriations, slightly greater than the level of FY 1996 appropriations. In addition, it reflects the transfer of $44 million from the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund, $13 million in mandatory permanent apprq)riations, and $136 million in non-Federal cash contribution through the Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds account. Nearly 21 percent of the budget would be derived fl-om user fees.
The new appropriations request is distributed as follows: $142.5 million for General Investigations; $914 million for Construction, General; $1,663 billion for Operation and Maintenance, General; $112 million for tiie Regulatory Program; $292.5 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; and $168.9 million for other accounts. Table A, attached to this statement, shows the Civil Works budget by account and source of funding, including anticipated non-Federal contributions.
The FY 1997 Civil Works budget proposes a new investment program with a total cost of $583 million, of which the Federal share is $408 million. This investment program would initiate water resources studies, design, construction, rehabilitation and research. The weighted average remaining beneflt-to-cost ratio for tiiese new investment is estimated to be 2.4 to one.
The Army will transmit to Congress its proposed legislation for a 1996 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) after completion of Administration review. The bill will include authorizing language related to several policy proposals in the FY 1997 budget, as well as language to authorize or reauthorize a number of new construction starts in the budget. These projects are proposed for funding contingent on receiving the necessary project-specific authorization and contingent on authorization, as needed, to reflect revised cost sharing, financing and program participation proposals.
10
FISCAL YEAR 1995 PERFORMANCE
Several recent Executive and Legislative Branch initiatives have been directed at improving Government services and measuring achievement based on output and outcomes. Among these initiatives are the President's National Performance Review and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
During FY 199S, significant progress was made in the development of performance goals and measures required under GPRA. Performance goals will be presented in annual performance plans, and performance measures will be adopted to track the attainment of those goals. While performance measures may not be available for all goals initially, it is expected that they will be devtloped over time to allow Congress, the Administration, sponsors and other stakeholders to assess the progress we are making in implementing the general goals of this plan.
Consistent with the objective of GPRA to move toward measuring performance in terms of outputs and outcomes, the Army Civil Works Program Annual Performance Report completed last December reported the following performance: In FY 1995, the Corps completed 96 percent of scheduled reconnaissance studies, a record for recent years. However, Uie Corps completed only 46 percent of scheduled feasibility studies, a marked decline from past years which has prompted die initiation of a concerted improvement effort on the part of the Corps. On a more positive note, the Corps completed 98 percent of scheduled designs in FY 199S; 90 percent of scheduled construction contract awards; and 99 percent of scheduled Continuing Authorities Program construction awards, which achieved another performance record. With the exception of feasibility studies, program performance has dramatically improved since 1993.
The Corps has made significant improvement in recent years in shortening the time from initiation of studies to initiation of project construction. I am personally committed to finding ways to further shorten the Corps study process as part of our efforts to improve agency efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness.
The Secretary of the Army has established a process for regular performance reporting called the Quarterly Army Performance Review (QAPR). Through the QAPR, we report quarterly to the Secretary on the performance of the Civil Works program. During FY 199S, die Corps has made great strides in improving its performance. Each Corps office established a realistic schedule of expenditures. Overall for FY 1995, the Corps expended 95 percent of scheduled Civil Works funds and significantiy reduced its carryover. This was a commendable improvement over previous years, when program execution schedules tended to be overly optimistic.
11
THE FY 1996 PROGRAM
We were pleased that the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 1996 was passed by Congress and signed by the President on November 13, 1995, thereby enabling the Corps to avoid the shutdowns that affected much of the Federal Government. Careful management of available funds is required to meet contractual commitments and to make meaningful progress on the work added by Congress, as well as on budgeted studies and projects.
Table B, attached to this statement, summarizes information presented in the QAPR report on the Corps' Civil Works program during the first quarter of FY 1996. This table shows the total funding available over the last two years, the Corps' success in drawing down its unexpended carryover, and the improvement in FY 1995 in accomplishment of scheduled expenditures.
The President's request for FY 1996 emergency supplemental appropriations, transmitted to Congress on March 5, included $165 million for the Civil Works program. Of this amount, $135 million is for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account, where the funds are needed for three purposes: (1) to repair damage to non-federally operated and maintained levees and other flood control works located in States affected by the Northeast and Northwest floods of 1996; (2) to reimburse other Civil Works accounts for funds transferred earlier this year, under the emergency authority of the Secretary, to partially finance the repair of damages from 1995 floods and hurricanes; and (3) to have contingent funding available in the event of additional emergencies during the spring storm season. The remaining $30 million, for the Operation and Maintenance, General, account, is needed to repair damages to the Corps' own projects from the Northeast and Northwest floods of 1996.
FY 1997 PROPOSALS TO INCREASE NON-FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Last year, the budget for the Civil Works program proposed several major policy changes. We recognize that these proposals did not receive support in this Committee or in Congress overall. Today I will share with the Subcommittee revised proposals to restructure the Civil Works missions of the Corps. I am committed to working closely with Congress and with others within the Administration as we consider these new proposals.
Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Policy
The Administration committed significant time and energy in 1995 to examining alternatives to the flood damage reduction policy proposed last year. The FY 1997 Civil Works program represents the Administration's new proposed policy for determining which flood
reduction projects should qualify for Federal support. Under this policy, the FY 1997
12
budget proposes to start 9 new flood damage reduction projects and one levee reconstruction project. The budget justification documents for these projects are based on SO-SO cost sharing, as well as on proposed requirements for specific non-Federal flood plain management activities beyond die current requirement to participate in die National Flood InsuranceTrogram.
Active flood plain management at the State and community levels is critical to reducing Federal expenditures for flood recovery and disaster assistance. The Administration believes that this approach will encourage wise use of flood plains by States and communities and will reduce dependence on structural flood damage reduction projects. Examples of specific flood plain management activities which non-Federal sponsors would be expected to carry out under Uiis pn^sal include public information and education on flood hazards within the community; flood plain regulation to promote sound use and to reduce future flood damages; storm water runoff controls; and preservation of open space. This policy would apply to projects for which cost sharing agreements have not yet been signed.
The proposed reduction in the Federal share of project costs is critical in planning for Corps' activities in the future, as die Federal budget is tightened. Stretching the Federal dollar will help to ensure that the Corps can continue these important missions.
Commercial Navigatign
One of the biggest challenges facing the Corps' navigation program is the disposal of dredged material. World trade is an essential element of our national economy, dictating that our navigati<m channels and harbors be improved to accommodate Uie larger ships in the world fleet and tiiat die maiatenance of existing navigation projects be timely and efficient. At die same time, we also recognize that our Nation's ocean, coastal and riverine resources are important natural, economic and recreational resources diat must be protected, conserved, restored and sustained. Managing the disposal of dredged material in a way that meets bodi national economic and environmental objectives takes the cooperation and partnership of several Federal agencies (die Corps, die National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency), die States, die port communities, and environmental interests. The need for diis increased cooperation and coordination was recognized in die December 1994 report of die Interagency Working Group on die Dredging Process, and we are making significant progress in achieving diat increased level of coordination and cooperation.
Last June, President Clinton endorsed a Federal dredging policy which committed to maintaining and dredging our ports and navigation channels to support international trade in a way diat ensures the protecticm of the Nation's environment. The following month, all Federal agencies involved in die dredging process signed a charter to form a National Dredging Team to facilitate communication, coordination, and resolution of dredging issues among the participating Federal agencies. Under the leadership of die National Dredging Team, similar teams are being formed on a regional basis. The Corps is also active in a parmering initiative widi the Nation's ports dirough die American Association of Port Audiorities to explore ways
13
to improve the efficiency of the project development and implementation process and to empower the ports to be more involved in project planning, design, execution, and management.
The FY 1997 budget, supported by the Civil Works legislative program, proposes to include dredged material di^sal facility (DMDF) costs within the scope of total shared project costs. Qjnsistent with this change, the Army proposes to expand allowable uses of the HMTF to cover: (1) the Federal share of the costs of constructing DMDFs associated with all Federal navigation projects for commercial harbors; (2) the Federal share of the costs of DMDF qjeration and maintenance associated with Federal navigation projects; and (3) the Federal share of the costs of dredging and disposal facilities for contaminated sediments in or affecting Federal navigation channels and of the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from Federal dredging activities.
Dredging of Recreation and Low Commercial Use Harbors
Regarding maintenance of recreation harbors, the Administration believes these projects generate significant regional and local benefits and that users can reasonably be expected to finance the required maintenance. We anticipate that, beginning in FY 1998, the Civil Works budget would not include funding to dredge harbors without commercial traffic unless a new, dedicated source of fimding can be established based on the "beneficiary pay" principle.
The Administi^tion also is proposing to discontinue maintenance of low commercial use harbors beginning in FY 1998. I recognize, however, that many small communities whose incomes are derived principally from commercial fishing and related activities would be hurt by such a policy. In addition to these communities, I realize that there are areas in Alaska, Hawaii and certain U. S. Territories where a community, because of its geographic location, receives most of its subsistence needs fi-om its harbor. These communities need to be given appropriate concideration in applying any new policy. I would like to work closely with Congress and other affected interests to develq> a rational policy that will meet our deficit reduction goals in a way that is both equitable and efficient and which recognizes the special needs of these communities.
Proposed Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Policy
The Administration believes that shore protection projects that support mainly recreation activities and that provide substantial regional income to the State and local economies can be undertaken by non-Federal interests. In many cases, the cost of the investment would represent a small fraction of the income it would generate. Moreover, it is unlikely that sufficient Federal funds will be available in the future to continue the prior level of Federal participation in this area and still achieve deficit reduction goals. We recognize, however, that Federal involvement may be required in some instances. I would be happy to work with you on the conditions to which the policy should be applied. Exceptions receiving funding in the FY 1997 budget do not involve significant placement of sand, but rely cm other structural measures to protect existing development and public infrastructure in areas subject to damage by hurricanes and other coastal storms.
14
Up-front Financing for New Preconstruction Engineering and Design fPED^
In order to reduce budgetary impact in the short-run and guarantee sponsor commitment to costly new engineering and design efforts, the budget reflects up-front financing by non- Federal projert ^nsors of the non-Federal share of the costs of new FED efforts. This would change the current practice of Federally financing FED costs and then recovering the non- Federal share during the construction phase. We can no longer afford the luxury of federally financing all of these costs. Consequently, for new FED activities in FY 1997, whether or not the feasibility study was cost-shared, we will ask the ^wnsor to finance 25 percent of FED costs concurrently with Federal financing. Adjustments to reflect final project cost allocations will be made to ensure the overall cost sharing is consistent with applicable law.
Regulatory Program User Fees
The Administration is proposing legislation to establish a more rational system of permit application fees for the Corps regulatory program. In the current system, most permit fees do not cover the cost of collection, let alone the cost of administering the program. Under this proposal, the fees for individual landowners would be eliminated, and fees for commercial qjplicants would be increased to cover the costs of evaluating and processing the permits, using a sliding scale based on the complexity of the application. If enacted, the revenues from this pr(q)osal would partially offset the general revenue requirements of the program.
NEW INVESTMENTS IN THE FY 1997 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM
The budget provides for initiation of new Civil Works investments widi a total cost of $583 million, of which the Federal share is $408 million and the non-Federal share is $175 million. Initial funding for these investments, in the amount of $28.3 million, is included in the FY 1997 budget. The investment program includes studies, design, construction, rehabilitation and research. Within the total Federal share, the cost of rehabilitating 3 hydroelectric power projects would be reoaid to the Treasury out of revenues from the sale of power generated at Federal projects.
The new investments included in the FY 1997 budget are 3 reconnaissance studies, all for flood damage reduction; one preconstruction engineering and design new start; 11 constniction new starts; four major rehabilitation new starts; one deficiency correction; one levee reconstruction; and one important new research and development program to address environmental impacts associated with the Corps dredging activities. Under the "seamless funding" practice followed in recent years, the budget also includes funding to proceed into the PED phase, either from cost-shared feasibility studies or from restudies of authorized projects, <m 19 other projects, bssed on non-Federal sponsors providing up-front financing for 25 percent of the costs. Attached to this statement is a table listing the new construction work funded in the FY 1997 budget (see Table Q.
15
The flood damage reduction construction new starts are budgeted contingent on consistency with new flood damage reduction policy and the willingness of the non-Federal sponsors to meet changed cost sharing and flood plain management requirements reflected in that new policy.
On March 19, 1 wrote to the local sponsors of all flood damage reduction new starts and all PED activities to be initiated during FY 1997 to inform them of the proposed changes in cost sharing and flnancing and to request afflrmations of their continued interest and ability to proceed during FY 1997 under the proposed new policies.
This year, the Appendix to the President's Budget includes tables showing the estimated ranaining Federal costs of construction of all budgeted Corps projects, including both the new starts discussed above and continuing projects already under way. For projects in the Corps' CtMistniction, General, account, the remaining Federal cost of construction is $15.8 billion. For projects in the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, account, the remaining Federal cost of construction is $4 billion.
HIGHUGHTS OF THE FY 1997 CONTINUING PROGRAM
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
The FY 1997 budget includes $39.5 million, within the total fiinding for associated projects, for the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a major environmental activity to which we are committed. On Monday, February 19th, I joined Vice-President Gore in the Everglades National Park, where he announced the Clinton Administration's comprehensive Everglades restoration program. I am proud to say the Corps is a major player in the initiative.
The Administration is proposing a new Everglades Restoration fund in the Department of the Interior. This fund would finance porticms of Corps projects, under pressed legislation, related principally to non-Federal land acquisition responsibilities.
These continuing activities include the Kissimmee River RestoraticMi, for which the budget includes $3 million in addition to available carryover funding from prior years; die Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park; die Canal 111 porticm of the Central and Soutiiem Florida Project; and modification of tiie Canal 51 project to provide for water supply for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The Army also was asked by the Administration to initiate a study to develop a comprehensive restoration plan for South Florida, the Central and South Rorida Restudy. The purpose of tiiis study is to determine the feasibility of structural and operaticxial modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project to restore die Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems, while providing for other water-related demands. This study exemplifles the Corps ability to conduct comprehensive watershed studies involving complex tradeoffs among competing project purposes. During the reconnaissance phase, the Corps identified environmental, water quality, water supply, and flood problems in the study area.
16
During the feasibility phase, the Corps will evaluate potential project elements that preliminary modeling showed to be productive in restoring historic hydrologic fimctions.
Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program
The FY 1997 budget includes $107 million to continue the Corps involvement in the Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery program to protect and rebuild Snake River stocks of Pacific salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps will continue to construct and improve juvenile fish bypass systems for its eight dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In addition, funding for a mitigation analysis is included in this program. The analysis is a comprehensive and regionally coordinated effort to assist in determining reasonable measures for restoring the listed salmon stocks.
Regulatory Program
The budget includes $112 million for the Corps Regulatory Program. The increase of $11 million over FY 1996 appropriations is necessary to support completion of initiatives already underway that were part of the President's 1993 Wetlauids Plan, as well as to cover cost increases in this personnel-intensive program. The major initiatives and their status are and administrative j^peals process, increased State involvement, and a wetlands delineator certification program. Final regulations for th6 administrative ^peals process will be published in the ^ring of 1996, with full implementation in early FY 1997. This process will allow the regulated public to contest regulatory decisions without going to court. The Corps will undertake an intensive, $2.5 million effort to increase State responsibility for wetlands regulation, including encouraging the development of State Programmatic General Permits and allowing States to assume permitting authority in some areas. The Corps also is developing a national program for the training and certifying of non-Federal individuals as wetlands delineators. Implementation will begin in the spring of 1996, witii FY 1997 start-up costs for full implementation in all districts amounting to approximately $500,000. The availability of this non-Federal technical expertise is expected to increase the quality of permit ^plications and allow the Corps to process applications more quickly.
Continuing Authorities Program
In recognition of the importance of the Corps' Continuing Authorities Program to Congress and non-Federal ^nsors, the Administration has included $41 million in the FY 1997 budget for a fiill program of continuing and new work. Recent delegations of authority and approval of standard cost sharing agreements for many of these activities will help to ensure a more efficient program able to respond quickly to the needs of local communities. Earlier this month, I notified this Subcommittee of our plan to reprogram additional funds into the Qmtinuing Authorities Program. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that reprogramming, and I am pleased to rqx)rt that funds are being allocated as needed to complete underfunded phases and to move forward on many small projects.
17
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MRATt Program
The budget of $292.5 million for the MR&T program includes funding to initiate one construction new start for flood damage reduction, contingent on authorization of a new Federal policy, as discussed previously, affecting cost sharing and flood plain management. This funding level treats MR&T continuing construction schedules comparably witii those in the Construction, General, account. Within this total, the amount for the streambank Demonstration Erosion Control (DEC) program will provide for the phase out of the Corps' involvement in the DEC. Limited new construction contracts are included as necessary to protect work that is currently in place. In addition, the budget would continue necessary engineering and design for future work, in order to turn the DEC over to the local sponsor in an orderly manner.
Section 1135 Environmental Modifications
The FY 1997 budget includes $15 million for the program authorized by Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, for structural or operational modifications to existing Corps projects for ecosystem restoration purposes. Section 1135 projects have ranged from small wetiand restoration projects to modifications of fish ladders and the restoration of river or stream oxbows. Since the initial funding for the Section 1135 Program in 1991, twelve projects have been completed. Among recently completed projects is the construction of a water control structure at one of the outlets connecting Salt Bayou, Texas with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. This modification will aid in managing salinity levels in a 60,0(X)-acre freshwater marsh complex. As more projects have been completed and more sponsors have become aware of the program's potential, both the number and the size of the projects being studied have increased. The Section 1135 program has matured beyond the developmental stage and is clearly meeting national needs. This program demonstrates that the Corps can develop innovative, cost effective, and technically sound solutions to a variety of environmental problems, while continuing to provide flood damage reduction and navigation services to the Nation.
Section 204 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
The FY 1997 budget includes $4 million for the program of Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material under Section 204 of WRDA 92. This valuable program benefits the environment, while making good use of clean material dredged from die Nation's navigation projects.
Poplar Island
The FY 1997 budget includes $22 million for die Poplar Island environmental restoration and dredged material di^sal project, which was developed under the authority of Section 204. The Civil Works legislative package will propose authorization to exempt funding for Poplar Island from the annual funding limitation on the Section 204 program. We hope to initiate
10
18
construction of Poplar Island during FY 19%, either through a reprogramming, if sufficient funds become available, or through an advance of funds from the State of Maryland, of which the Federal share would be reimbursed.
Montgomerv Point I^k and Dam
The budget includes $5.9 million for the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System to complete the contract for utilities and an access road that will be awarded in FY 1996, pursuant to provisions of the appropriations act, and to continue engineering and design of the project. In accordance with die Administration's established position, we propose to submit statutory language that would derive 50 percent of the funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. We would defer further construction of die project until the traffic on the waterway indicates greater need for the project, but we believe it is important to establish the precedent now of relying on the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for half of the costs of this project.
Southeast Louisiana
The FY 1996 apprc^riations act provided $2 million for the Southeast Louisiana Project in the New Orleans Area. The Corps is using these funds to prepare a report and to initiate design and construction of measures to address serious area flooding problems. We propose to provide $10 million in FY 1997 to continue these activities, as authorized last year.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESTRUCTURING
Finally, I would like to bring the Subcommittee up to date on Corps restructuring efforts. Early in 1994, the Army began a process to examine four aspects of the Corps Civil Works program: roles, missions, business processes, and infrastructure. In May 1994, the Army and the Corps initiated a review of the roles of the various levels of the organization and developed a roles matrix that was approved by the Secretary of the Army in September 1994. Efforts to develop organization structures to implement the roles matrix began shortly thereafter. Bodi the Assistant Secretary's office and the Corps Headquarters were streamlined. Operational and technical review functions were moved out of the Corps Headquarters.
A new streamlined division organizational structure was developed which downsized diviaons by over 20 percent. Division offices now concentrate on four functions: command and control, regional interface, program management and quality assurance. In keeping witii tiiese new roles, division staffs have been reduced in size to an average of 100 full time equivalent workyears. Technical review is now performed at the distria level, and all policy review is now performed at die Washington level. Many otiier business process changes have been implemented to streamline work flow and provide ft-ont-line offices witii increased autiiority.
U
19
Draft guidelines for district office restructuring, consistent with the new roles matrix, were distributed for review in the fall of 1995. These draft guidelines emphasize restructuring to achieve die primary goals of maintaining Corps technical competence and enhancing efficiency. Following consideration of the many comments received from project sponsors, interest groups and Corps employees, revised guidelines were sent to Secretary West, but have not yet been approved. Under the revised guidelines, primary audiority would be delegated to the division conunanders to restructure their subordinate districts in order to achieve efficiencies, while maintaining technical and engineering capability in each current district office.
Also in 1995, acting on the second element of the restructuring process, the Army and the Corps reviewed the Civil Works niissions to develop options concerning which missions should be retained, reduced in scope, or transferred to other agencies or to the private sector.
The third element of the restructuring process is an examination of the Corps' business processes. The process of reviewing project documents was streamlined to eliminate duplication of effort and to focus the districts on technical review and the Washington level on policy review. These restructuring efforts are resulting in considerable saving of time in presenting project documents to the Administration and Congress for decisions. The Corps made similar improvement in the processing of small projects under the Continuing Authorities Program, in the handling of permits in the Regulatory Program, and in operation and maintenance activities.
The fourtii element of the restructuring process is directed at reducing the costs associated with the Corps infrastructure. Under this phase of restructuring, one example of the potential efficiencies the Corps examined is the housing of its districts and divisions where they are co- located in the same city. In two cities, the Corps is in the process of co-locating district and division offices in the same building to reduce rent and utility costs.
The FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act stipulated that the Secretary was to develop a plan to reduce the number of its division offices to a total of six to eight, without closing or changing the Civil Works fimctions of any district offices. At the time this law was enacted, the Corps of Engineers had 13 division headquarters offices. Since that time, two of those division offices, at Huntsville, Alabama and Winchester, Virginia, were redesignated as the Army Engineer and Support Center, Huntsville, and the Army Engineers Transatlantic Programs Center, respectively. Neither of these locations has Civil Works program responsibilities.
Earlier this month, the Chief of Engineers and I released a draft plan, which was provided to this Subcommittee. If the Secretary approves this plan, the number of Corps division offices would be reduced to a total of eight, and each new division would have at least four subordinate districts, as required by the 1996 Act. The recommended plan will be sent to the Secretary of the Army for sq)proval shortly. In accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act, after ^proval by the Secretary, the Corps would begin implementing the plan by August 15 of this year.
12
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would emphasize my commitment to work with this Subcommittee, others in Congress, the broader array of interests within the Administration, and the non-Federal partners of Civil Works projects to develop new policies and priorities to ensure that the Army Civil Works program in the Corps of Engineers continues to serve the vital interests of the Nation by providing efficient, priority investments in public infrastructure. Moreover, this must be achieved in a way that supports and contributes to the President's commitment to balance the Federal budget. Managing the Civil Works program during the coming years of severe funding constraints will be a tremendous challenge requiring the cooperation of all interests. I ask for your support as we move forward to meet these challenges.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement.
13
21
.IF I
o
5
lit
in
%U1
I § § I § § 2
^ £ ? S S 5-
i i I • i "
sf sf - tf
1 1 1 • •
fi
§ §
II
§ § i 1 i i
H ^ ri t* rf r(
5 5 S ^ R 5
M- §- I I §â–
? 5 I ? g 5
.1
§ §
iff
i 1 1
ri
i " i
rl
I i. I
if
i I
ii
1 1 f 1 1 ! I
g a C 5 K Ik o
^ n ^
i 1 1
I I ,^ ^
• if I Ii
III
HI
I h ill
ill
li
ill!
}p|i
ilm
22
c §
^^
^§.
CD
»- I— o ^
CO ^O ^
^ Q.
|
n |
â– ^ |
|
|
-^f |
^ |
|
|
^ |
1^ |
|
|
3 |
||
|
u |
^ |
|
|
r |
||
|
(I) |
||
|
Q. |
, . |
|
|
LU |
^ |
|
|
o |
ro 3 |
ID ID |
|
CNJ |
^ |
ro |
|
o |
T^k; |
|
^ |
?^ |
55 |
^ |
" ?^" |
?i5 |
|
|
, . |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
c |
Q |
O) |
CO |
r-- |
CD |
in |
|
0) |
||||||
|
Q- |
1 |
k^ — ■|
23
2
1 1
z
O, 5^^ — \o_ f^, r^. r>-_ o, rn — r*
â– = g8Sg;r8gS'82S
I S| g ^ r^ « «■- c^â– r-- »• o ^â–
S8§ S" t::' S !
if
ii
11
8£
lliilli ilil
s
1^ • 1/^ 0_ <S_ •» O, ri (N «^ f-^ 5 —
Ml iS
• ^ 3 S e
I Ills
I
Is
24
Statement of General Williams
Mr. Myers. Thank you. Chief? The Committee will be pleased to hear you.
Lieutenant General Williams. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I do appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee today in our 1997 Civil Works program. Due to my retirement this summer, this will be my last of ten appearances be- fore your Committee. It's been an honor and a privilege to appear before Congress and we appreciate the support you've provided to our nation.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I propose to summarize my prepared statement. Is my complete statement in the record?
Mr. Myers. Your prepared statement will be placed in the record. We're pleased to hear from you. General.
Lieutenant General Williams. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to summa- rize my statement into basically three topics: (1) a little bit on sig- nificant accomplishments of the Civil Works program, (2) a little bit about the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (or CEFMS, as we refer to it), and (3) the program execution and out- look.
Let me start with my first topic and highlight a few significant accomplishments in the Civil Works program over the past few years.
corps restructuring
Secretary Lancaster set forth our efforts at restructuring the Civil Works program. These efforts have brought about significant role changes throughout the organization but most importantly in our Headquarters and division offices. In addition to the changes outlined by the Secretary, we have either eliminated or transferred operating functions to subordinate activities. We terminated the fi- nancing of the Headquarters' activities with project funds. Head- quarters is now completely focused on policy review and program management activities. Divisions now focus on quality assurance for the planning and engineering functions of their districts. The districts now control the quality of their products, including the technical review of all the planning and engineering documents.
Additionally, we adopted a standardized structure for divisions which requires staffing of approximately 100 full-time equivalent employees. Full implementation of this structure in fiscal year 96 will save approximately 140 full-time equivalents, which equates to an annual savings of approximately $8 million.
Secretary Lancaster also briefly described the process of restruc- turing our district offices. Some of the highlights of that revised guidance will be that no district offices in the United States will be closed; organizational changes will be linked to workload; tech- nical expertise in engineering, construction, planning, and oper- ations, and project management will be maintained in each district; greater use will be made of private industry (I've referred to that as outsourcing); small activities will be consolidated at one location for greater efficiency; and division commanders will have the au- thority and the responsibility to restructure their districts.
25
In response to ongoing initiatives in the Administration and the Corps' enhanced focus on customer service, we surveyed our cus- tomers this past year to gather information about their expecta- tions and views of our service. We were pleased with the overall customer rating of "excellent" and especially the high ratings in the categories of "delivering quality products" and "treating customers as team members." We will use this information to further improve our customer service and help in streamlining our process.
As I testified last year, we took actions on the recommendations of the House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations [S&D staff. As you recall, they investigated several areas of our fi- nancial and program management, including our Civil Revolving Fund and the Information Systems Modernization program. Re- cently our internal audit staff reviewed our actions and determined that effective corrective actions have been completed or are under- way in all the areas that were recommended.
As you know, the Corps continues to respond to natural and man-made disasters throughout our nation.
CORPS' RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS
I am proud to have served as Chief of Engineers during a period when the Corps has responded so well to natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992, the Midwest Floods of
1993, the earthquake — Northridge Earthquake in California in
1994, the Southeast, Midwest, and California Floods of 1995, plus Hurricanes Opal and Marilyn, and, more recently, the Northeast and Northwest Floods. In addition to the natural disasters, the Corps has called — has been called upon to respond to the tragic bombings of the World Trade Center in New York City and Federal Building in Oklahoma City. We also provided a variety of assist- ance in humanitarian and peace-keeping missions in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia. I'm obviously extremely proud of the re- sponsiveness of the Corps of Engineers to these various missions, and I am confident that the dedication and vigilance of the Corps team members to respond to emergencies will continue.
CORPS' WORK WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Another important part of our program is helping other Federal agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. By doing this work, we maintain and enhance our capabilities for execution of our Civil Works and our Military Program missions. The Office of Manage- ment and Budget views our work for these other agencies as a business-like franchise that results in savings to the Government as a whole. Beginning in fiscal year 97, 0MB will set aside an ad- ditional allocation of up to 500 full-time equivalents to enable an even greater Corps response to other Federal agency requests.
CORPS STAFFING
Let me just mention a little bit about our staffing. As you know, the Corps work force continues to downsize. Total staffing is now allocated 89% to the districts, 4% to our laboratories and other sep- arate field operating agencies, 5% to our division offices, and about 2% to our headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
26
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Let me turn now to my second topic, CEFMS. When I last testi- fied before j'ou, we were about to begin the crucial field testing of CEFMS in our Fort Worth District in Texas where all systems functions would be used for the first time, and at our Headquarters here in Washington, where any defects would be visible at the highest level. While the development and the field testing has not been an easy job, I feel our testing of CEFMS has accomplished what was intended. I have been told that we have satisfied the re- quirement of the Department of Army Automated Information Sys- tems Review Council (MAJSRC) and we will soon recommend that CEFMS is ready for deployment.
Our deplojrment schedule is very ambitious. It calls for comple- tion at our last sites during the first quarter of 1998. We will keep you informed of our progress with the quarterly progress reports which we have been providing to you.
CORPS PROGRAM EXECUTION AND THE FUTURE
The fourth and final topic deals with program execution and the outlook. As Secretary Lancaster highlighted, during fiscal year 95 we improved significantly our expenditure performance of sched- uled work. The districts established realistic schedules and they met them. My complete statement provides the details. In fiscal year 96 we have again focused attention on establishing realistic schedules. I fully expect our districts to perform as well as they did in fiscal year 95.
However, looking to the future, I do have some concern. The fis- cal year 97 budget request and our projected carryover from fiscal year 96 indicate a declining program. The near outyear ceilings in the President's Budget continue this trend.
For studies and projects scheduled to be completed after Septem- ber of 1997, our justification sheets show completion dates both "Being Determined." The reason for this is because our outyear ceilings were unavailable to our divisions and to our districts for their use in developing their project schedules in time for this hear- ing. However, now that we have the ceilings, the completion dates for the budgeted projects are being developed.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe our Civil Works program continues to benefit the nation, as evidenced by our investment analyses and customer feedback surveys. However, we have a num- ber of performance improvement challenges facing us; but I am confident in our ability to respond. We realize the future will con- tinue to be filled with changes and challenges, but rest assured the Corps will do its very best to be responsive to these challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of General Williams follows:]
27
COMPLETE STATEMENT
OF
LT. GENERAL ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1997
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
lntro<<MPtion
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you, with the new Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable H. Martin Lancaster, on the President's Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97) Budget for Army's Civil Works Program. Due to my retirement this summer, this will be my last of 10 appearances before your committee. It has been an honor to appear before Congress, and I appreciate the support you have provided to our Nation.
My statement covers these four topics:
o FY97 Civil Works Program Budget,
o Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS),
0 Significant Accomplishments of the Civil Works Program, and
o Program Execution and Outlook.
FY97 QJYil Work? Prpqram PM«Jqet
Overview
The proposed FY97 Civil Works direct program budget is $3.49 billion, exclusive of offsetting receipts. This includes $3.29 billion requested through the FY97 Energy and
28
Water Development Appropriations Act; $13 million in permanent appropriations; $44 million to be transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Trust Fund into the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund for Louisiana coastal restoration work; and $136 million in nonfederal financing from Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds.
As shown in the table, the budget is slightly larger than the one for FY96. It includes funding for 3 new reconnaissance studies, 1 new preconstruction engineering and design effort, 1 1 new construction projects, 4 major rehabilitation projects, 1 reconstruction project, and 1 deficiency correction project. It also provides for follow-on funding of nearly all studies and projects undenway, including a large number that received initial funding in FY96.
Of the $3.49 billion budget, $723 million, or 21 %, would come from existing user fees and trust funds, including ad valorem freight tax, fuel taxes, and recreation facilities user fees. The budget proposes eliminating fees for individual landowners and increasing permit fees for commercial activities of the Regulatory Program to help cover the costs of evaluating applications and issuing permits. We estimate that these increases would generate $7 million in FY97. New funding from sources other than general revenue of the Federal Treasury, including cost-sharing contributions, amount to 25% of new funding for the direct program .
Reimbursed Support for Others
A part of the Civil Works Program is helping other agencies with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs. By doing this work, we maintain and enhance our capabilities for execution of our Civil Works and Military program missions. The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) views this program as a business-like franchise that results in savings to the government as a whole. Beginning in FY97, 0MB will set aside an additional allocation of up to 500 full-time equivalents (FTEs), to the extent that work is available and is consistent with enhancing execution of the Corps' missions, to enable even greater response to customers' requests.
Overall we provide reimbursed support for about 60 other federal agencies and governments through work in environmental, engineering, and construction management. Total reimbursement funding for such work in FY97 is projected to exceed $700 million. (About half of this is for environmental work.) The largest share - nearly $250 million - is expected from the Environmental Protection Agency for cleanup of wastes at numerous sites under its Superfund Program.
StafTing
Civil Works Program staffing for FY97 is 27,201 FTEs, reflecting a reduction of 354 FTEs from the FY96 total. This includes 25,934 for the direct program and 1 ,267 FTEs
for reimbursed support for others. Total staffing is allocated 89% to districts, 4% to laboratories and other separate field operating agencies, 5% to division offices, and 2% to headquarters. Under restmcturing, the headquarters share will remain essentially unchanged, wfiile district and separate field operating agency shares will-grow from reallocation of division office savings.
Corps of Engineers Financial Management System
When I last testified before you, we were about to begin crucial field testing of our Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) in our Fort Worth District, where all system functions would be used for the first time, and at our headquarters, where any defects would be visible at the highest level. The testing has been completed, all critical deficiencies have been corrected, and I anticipate that the Department of the Army Automated Infonnation Systems Review Council (MAISRC) will approve Corps-wide deployment of the system in the near future.
In a recent study, the Department of the Treasury compared the capability of CEFMS to support financial management requirements with capabilities of commercially available accounting systems used by other federal agencies, and found that CEFMS capability was substantially superior, without a comparable difference in cost.
Our deployment schedule is ambitious, calling for completion of installation at the last site during the first quarter of FY98. We will keep you informed of our progress through the quarterly progress reports.
Significant Accomplishments of the Civil Works Program
Introduction
This part of my testimony summarizes significant accomplishments in the Civil Works program over the past few years.
Restructuring of Civil Works Program
Roles and Missions
As Secretary Lancaster described in his statement, significant efforts have been made to restructure the Civil Works Program. We have continued efforts to streamline executive functions in compliance with the Administration's National Performance Review and Reinventing Government initiatives. Study teams were established to develop organizational guidelines to achieve downsizing of the headquarters, division, and district offices. Significant role changes, approved by the Secretary of the Army, included elimination of technical review at headquarters and division offices, policy
review at divisions offices, and operating functions at headquarters and division offices.
Quaiitv Assurance / Qualitv Control
The definitions of roles and missions approved by the Secretary of the Army have led to important changes in how we produce the high quality projects for which the Corps of Engineers has been so justly credited. Headquarters now focuses on policy review to ensure consistency of all Civil Worlds decision documents with law and executive branch policy. Divisions now focus on quality assurance, and, to this end, each has implemented a quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) plan for planning and engineering activities of its districts. And, districts now control the quality of their products, including technical review of all planning and engineering documents. The assignment of responsibility for quality control, including independent technical review to districts, represents a major management change for the Corps. In the past, both divisions and the Headquarters had technical review responsibilities. Because this new business process represents a fundamental change in organizational culture, we have focused on timely and effective implementation. Each division has developed and implemented a quality assurance plan. Also, a task force of Headquarters and division personnel has been created to evaluate initial implementation of the new process, identify adjustments needed, and develop a common understanding of where we are headed.
Implementation of our new roles and missions has led to significant reduction in review time for our projects and reports. Formerly, successive reviews at districts, divisions, headquarters, the former Washington Level Review Center, Army, and 0MB made the process very lengthy. Our nonfederal project partners and Congress were critical of this. In response, we reduced the number of successive reviews by more than half, while preserving product quality and project integrity. Under our new "one stop" process, technical review is done only at districts, where most of our technical expertise resides, while policy compliance review is done only at Corps headquarters (we abolished the Washington Level Review Center). By Executive Order, 0MB reviews projects to check on quality assurance, and to ensure adherence to Administration policy.
Restructuring
About five years ago, senior managers of our Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program undertook development of a plan to improve the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the O&M program. This initiative was undertaken so that we would be in a better position to comply with resource constraints while continuing to serve our customers. Some of the more significant provisions of the plan were that:
o the agency budget process be made more rigorous and streamlined,
31
o one person be made fully accountable for managing each project,
o the number of employees per supervisor be doubled,
o the number of management positions be reduced by 175,
o engineering regulations be updated, consolidated, and reduced in
number, and o a results-oriented performance measurement system be instituted.
We have implemented all of these provisions and are realizing improved cost efficiency and effectiveness from all but the last, which must evolve over several years.
Last July the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and I began the process of restructuring our district offices. Our focus was to find a method for reducing costs, providing quality products to our customers, while complying with projected manpower and budget constraints. Instead of developing and imposing a Washington-designed centralized plan, we developed a set of principles, guidelines, and responsibilities that will allow division commanders to decide, within this guidance, how best to organize their districts to meet the regional needs of their customers. The first draft of this guidance was widely distributed for comment to our employees, customers, partners, and members of Congress, and elicited over 1400 pages of comments. In view of these comments, we revised the guidance and submitted the result to the office of the Secretary of the Army for approval. Highlights of the guidance are that:
o no district offices in the United States be closed;
0 organization changes be linked to workload;
0 technical expertise in engineering, construction, planning, operations, and
project management be maintained in each district; o greater use be made of private industry (outsourcing); o small activities be consolidated at one location for greater efficiency; and o division commanders have authority and responsibility to restructure
their districts.
Additionally, we adopted a standardized structure for divisions, requiring staffing of approximately 1 00 FTEs, to provide Executive Direction and Management for both civil and military missions in subordinate districts. Full implementation of this structure in FY96 will save approximately 140 FTEs, which equates to an annual savings of approximately $8 million.
Partnering
The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) / Partnering program is a corporate success story which has growm into a cultural phenomenon as we share methods and practices of a new way of doing business. ADR has grown from roots in construction contract
24-080 - 96
32
dispute resolution through a partnering process in which goals are established in common interest to produce win-win outcomes. Partnering is a way of doing business based on trust, openness, teamwork, and risk-sharing by all stakeholders in projects - customers and vendors alike. Its purpose is to minimize misunderstandings and claims, avoid costly litigation, and expedite production. The success of partnering has resulted in better administrative and cost control throughout the Corps.
In September 1995, the program was recognized in the annual report of the National Performance Review as having had a dramatic impact on construction and trade industries, the legal community, and citizens and governments throughout the United States. The program was also recognized by the Ford Foundation and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. This year we are focusing on training, technical assistance, and design of ADR applications for the regulatory and hazardous/toxic wa&ie programs.
Cpntinginq AMthpritig? Prpgram
Under our Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), projects are accomplished expeditiously and result in a high level of customer satisfaction. Over the last two years, the program has been streamlined substantially, with our field offices now empowered to make most approval decisions. This has contributed to improved program execution. As an example, in the Section 14 program, projects approved under delegated authority have taken 20% less time to reach construction approval. However, it has increased pressure on limited funds. CAP projects continue to be an important segment of our total water resources infrastructure investment program.
Proiect Cooperation Agreements
One of the key milestones in cost-shared projects is execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Negotiation and processing of PCAs is complex and time-consuming and can affect a project's overall schedule. Since 1991 , we have worked to make such negotiation and processing more predictable and efficient in two ways.
First, in consultation with nonfederal interests, the Army has developed new model PCAs that incorporate federal/nonfederal partnering concepts and address many of the recurring concerns of our nonfederal project sponsors. These include models for specifically authorized structural flood control projects and recreation features, and for continuing authorities projects. Soon we will have a new model for harbor projects.
Second, division and district commanders have been delegated authority to sign, without Washington-level review, P^As that conform to the models. We believe that these steps have fostered partnership, expedited negotiations, and, in cases of
conforming PCAs, saved at least 60 days.
Changes in Corps Headquarters
For most projects, we have consolidated policy review at our Washington headquarters and either transferred technical review and operating functions to subordinate activities, or eliminated them. !n programs for w^ich we have delegated project approval authority to divisions, policy compliance review is also accomplished at the division level. We terminated the financing of headquarters activities (centralized activities) with project funds. These activities were made line items in the General Expenses budget; converted to fee for service operations, in limited cases; or, abolished. Now, only General Expenses funds are being used to support headquarters activities and executive direction and management activities at division offices. Headquarters is now completely focused on program management activities. In the interest of better financial management and reporting, as mentioned above, we converted the headquarters to the new CEFMS. Efforts are ongoing to establish the USACE Finance Center - the Corps' central financial center - in Memphis, TN, and to transfer human resources management functions to the Army Human Resources Regionalization effort.
Headquarters Responsiveness to Field Offices
One of our several initiatives to streamline business processes involved simplifying policy review of project decision documents at the Washington level. (These documents include reconnaissance, feasibility, design, and real estate reports, and project cooperation agreements.) We are beginning to reap the fruits of that initiative. In FY94, our composite average processing period for such documents was 122 days. We were able to cut 47 days from this in FY95 - a 38% reduction. The highlight of this achievement was in cutting the processing period for PCAs (in which our partnering relations and negotiations with project sponsors are most involved) to an average of 54 days - down 35 days from our FY94 average of 89 days - and well within our goal of 60 days. This was done despite a 60% increase in the number of PCAs submitted for policy clearance. While it is too early to establish trends in processing of all types of project decision documents in FY96, based on results with the few such documents received to date, we appear to be maintaining our efficiency gains. We continue to refine our efforts to look only at documents of relevance to headquarters. Our current efforts are focused on a few troublesome types of documents for which we have yet to reduce processing times. In light of our ongoing downsizing and restructuring, these accomplishments are significant - a credit to our dedicated and responsive workforce.
In response to ongoing initiatives in the Administration and the Corps' own focus on customer service, we surveyed our customers this year to gather information about their expectations and views of our service. We were pleased with our overall
34
customer rating of "excellent" and especially our high ratings in the categories of "delivering quality products" and "treating customers as team members." We will use this information to further improve customer service and help in streamlining our process.
Response to Survevs and investigations Reports
As I testified last year, we took actions on the recommendations of the House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations (S&l) staff, based on its examination of several areas of our financial and program management, including the Civil Revolving Fund and the Information Systems Modernization Program. Recently, our internal audit staff completed review of these actions and determined that effective corrective actions have been completed or are underway in all areas. We will continue to emphasize the importance of full implementation of all actions recommended.
Emergency Responses
The Corps continues to provide leadership in response to natural disasters throughout the Nation. Since receiving its emergency mission in 1941, the Corps has developed and sustained an engineering organization capable of responding to both natural and man-made disasters - hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and any other disasters.
I am proud to have served as Chief of Engineers while the Corps has responded so well to natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992, the Midwest Floods of 1993, the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, the Southeast, Midwest, and California Floods of 1995, plus Hurricanes Opal and Marilyn, and, more recently, the Northeast and Northwest Floods. We are very proud of the performance of Corps flood damage reduction projects during these recent events.
In the Northeast, an already heavy snow pack was topped off with an additional two feet of snow from the "Blizzard of '96"; by mid-January, two to six feet of snow covered the area from North Carolina and Tennessee to the Canadian border. From January 19-22, the snow-covered area was subjected to unseasonably warm temperatures and widespread heavy rainfall, combining to produce considerable flooding and widespread destmction. Skillful operation of reservoirs by corps project managers reduced flood crests by as much as ten feet on many rivers, v^rhile Corps-constructed levees protected thousands of homes and businesses from inundation. Preliminary estimates of the flood damages prevented by the operation of Corps projects total $4.4 billion, with about 70 percent of the damages prevented in Pennsylvania.
In the Northwest, a similar scenario unfolded early last month, when a series of severe storms drenched Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Some tributaries collected 25-30 inches of combined snowmelt and rain in just four days. By coordinating the operation
35
of multiple reservoir projects, project operators were able to significantly reduce flood crests and reduce flood damages by about $3.2 billion. Of particular note is the successful operation of the reservoir and levee system on the Willamette River, which reduced flood crests in Portland by at least seven feet and saved the cityxif Portland from major flooding.
It has been a winter when floods once again caused millions of dollars in economic damages and tragic loss of life. The situation would have been even worse had the Corps not been there.
In addition to natural disasters, the Corps was also called upon to respond to the tragic bombings of the World Trade Center and Federal Building in Oklahoma City. We also provided a variety of assistance in humanitarian and peace-keeping missions in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia. I'm extremely proud of the responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers to these various missions, and confident that the dedication and vigilance of Corps team members to respond to emergencies will continue.
Program Execution and Outlook
Introduction
As noted by Secretary Lancaster, Program Execution is of utmost importance. We provide support to the Assistant Secretary in preparing for the Quarterly Army Performance Review. We made program execution a priority issue throughout the Corps for FY95 and our divisions and districts responded well. I have directed each division commander to discuss his division's performance in execution of its programs in his testimony this year. We are continuing an emphasis of meeting schedules in FY96.
General Investigations
Scheduled expenditure for the General Investigations program in FY95 was $222 million. We spent $201 million of this for an expenditure performance rate of 91 %. This was 12% better than in FY94.
Total available for expenditure for the General Investigations program in FY96 is about $20 million less than spent in FY95. Our goal is to expend 95% of the amount scheduled for expenditure, and, for the first quarter, we have exceeded that goal. Nevertheless, the shortage in available funds will not allow all studies and projects to remain on schedule. There will be delays and elimination of some research programs. This will result in lost opportunity for cost and time savings at Corps projects throughout the Nation.
We are restructuring our research program in concert with changes in the overall Civil Works Program to comply with the Administration's National Performance Review and Reinventing Government initiatives. Additionally, we are incorporating into our research and development program lessons learned about private sectorresearch investment processes and down-sizing strategies.
The President's FY97 budget includes $142.5 million for the General Investigations program. The outlook for program workload is healthy. We will continue to work diligently at enhancing our performance during these times of limited resources.
Constmction, General
In FY95, $1.74 billion was available for expenditure in the Construction, General, account. Of this, $352 million was programmed as unobligated carryover into FY96. In line with historic expenditure rates for the account, our goal was to expend $1.11 billion in FY95. We were able to better this amount by $50 million, accomplishing corTstruction valued at $1 .16 billion for the year.
Total carryover into FY96 in the Constmction, General, account was approximately $583 million. This, plus new appropriations totaling $805 million, less transfers of $22 million to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FC&CE) account and $1 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, yields $1.36 billion available for expenditure during the year. At the end of the first quarter, we were slightly ahead of schedule to expend $1.12 billion in FY96, and we expect to meet or exceed this target again this year. Unscheduled funds total $242 million. This is significantly less than our historical average carryover, and includes approximately $154 million earmarked in law for specific activities or projects which cannot be accomplished this year.
The President's FY97 budget includes $914 million for the Construction, General, account. This amount, plus the anticipated carryover of $242 million from FY96, would provide $1.16 billion for expenditure in FY97. We expect to expend about $1 .00 billion, and to carry over about $160 million unexpended into FY98. Part of this carryover would be used to finish projects funded for completion; the rest represents the balance of funding for Congressional adds not completed in the year funded.
Funding at this level will necessitate stretching our construction schedules and extending project completion dates.
For projects scheduled to complete after September 1997, our justifications sheets show "Being Determined" in lieu of completion dates because outyear ceilings, which govern them, were unavailable to divisions and districts for use in developing project schedules in time for this hearing. Now that ceilings are available, completion dates for budgeted projects are being developed.
10
37
Operation and Maintenance, General
In FY95, the expenditure rate for the O&M, General, account was 94.5% - the best since FY89, when the record of 97% was set. The FY95 obligation rate was 97% of funds available for obligation. This performance reflects outstanding management of resources by headquarters and field staff.
FY96 performance is off to a good start and should equal or exceed that for FY95. In addition to our normal workload, we are challenged to keep projects adversely impacted by recent flooding in the Northeast and Northwest and Hurricane Opal fully operational. Also, the O&M account balance has been reduced by $28.5 million transferred to the FC&CE account.
FY97 performance of the Operation and Maintenance, General, Program is expected to be on par with that of FY95. We are working to constrain the cost growth of this program in order to maintain a balance in the Civil Works Program. This will have a growing effect over time.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
In FY95, we expended 98% of funds available for expenditure in the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Project account. Of the unexpended funds, $1 million was left unobligated with an additional $5 million obligated but unexpended. The unobligated carryover was less than 1% of new budget authority for FY95.
We anticipate excellent financial performance on the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for FY96. However, we also anticipate difficulty in accomplishing some work planned for FY96, especially our Channel Improvement program, due to an appropriation of $1 1 million less than requested, and transfer of $5 million to the FC&CE account.
The President's FY97 Budget request for the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Project continues the recent downward trend of funding for this program. We anticipate completion of our Yazoo Basin Demonstration Erosion Control work in Mississippi and transferring implementation of any remaining work to the local sponsor.
Balancing New Investments and O&M
During my watch as Chief of Engineers, we have been able to make sound new investments in water resources development, as well as provide a higher level of service from our existing Civil Works projects. One of the challenges that the Corps of
11
V ~
Engineers faces is the degree to which it can continue providing these services to the Nation within the context of a balanced budget.
Future funding constraints will impact both programs. New construction may need to be stretched out over a longer period of time. Steps also have to be taken in the O&M arena to contain future growth as much as possible. We have taken the first step in this endeavor by embarking on a five-year cost reduction strategy to accommodate declining resources while still providing our customers with a quality level of service. We will continue to evaluate opportunities to use technology leveraging to reduce cost and save time in this program.
I have no doubt that the Corps of Engineers will meet this and other future challenges with the same excellent results of its past achievements.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
The initiatives, discussed earlier, to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of our business processes and the challenges of balancing scarce budget resources between new investments and O&M ultimately benefit or impact the delivery of our products and services to the nation. We are using the landmark Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as our catalyst and challenge to reflect how this all comes together in delivering program results. I have discussed how our process improvements have translated into more efficient processes, e. g., better partnership relations, higher rates of expenditures, shortened review times, and more responsive decision processes. We, however, do not have measures in place to demonstrate how this translates into improved program results. We know that different funding levels will influence when program results can become available and what level of services can be offered. We have measures at the project level to demonstrate such impacts, but not at the program level. As noted by Secretary Lancaster, we have miade progress in complying with the GPRA. We have efforts underway to develop results-oriented program performance measures that will allow us to demonstrate the contributions and impacts of internal process improvements and levels of funding. Such information will be invaluable to managers, the Administration, the Congress, and the American people in relating what they are actually receiving in products and services for the revenues entrusted to us.
Conclusion
Our Civil Works Program continues to benefit the Nation as evidenced by our investment analyses and customer feedback surveys. We, however, have a number of performance improvement challenges facing us; and I am confident in our ability to respond. We have a long history of continually seeking improvement in the delivery of our programs. Our most significant recent effort in adjusting the Corps' business
12
culture to achieve improved performance and greater customer satisfaction has been the institution of project management. The need was apparent when we entered the era of cost sharing on the projects we build. The fruits of that cultural adjustment are beginning to emerge in terms of greatly improved partnership relationships with state and local governments.
We are now devoting our energies to empower our workforce at the lowest possible level and improve the efficiencies of our decision processes. This will improve our performance in delivering projects authorized by Congress and simultaneously enable us to be responsive to current initiatives to downsize government.
Finally, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1 996, although timely for us, presents us with a challenge to accomplish all the work awaiting us in the cun-ent year. Moreover, as the President's Budget for FY97 and beyond shows, the Nation must continue to cut discretionary spending in order to balance the budget as planned. In view of this, we must find even more ways to reduce our costs, and shift more of those remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, our program will continue to change, and we will do our very best to analyze, plan, and execute it.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes my statement.
13
40
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CML WORKS PROGRAM
FUNDING SUMMARY
(millions of dollars)
Source /Account
APPROPRIATION Discretionary
General Investigations
Construction, General General Fund
Harlx)r Maintenance Trust Fund Inland Waterway Trust Fund Total
Operation and Maintenance, General General Fund
Hartxjr Maintenance Trust Fund Special Recreation User Fees Fund Total
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Regulatory Program General Fund Proposed Permit Fees Total
General Expenses
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Oil Spni Liability Trust Fund
Total Mandatory
Permanent Appropriations Total TRANSFER
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund CONTRIBUTION
Rivers and Hartwrs Contributions TOTAL
Actual/Assumed
Requested
|
863,991 0 54,509 |
729,573 0 53.000 |
806.000 22,000 86,000 |
|
918,500 |
782.573 |
914,000 |
|
1,090,080 519.196 33,000 |
1,148,197 500,000 27,000 |
1,106,000 528,000 29,000 |
|
1.642:276 |
1.675.197 |
1.663:000 |
|
327,252 |
302.885 |
292.500 |
|
100,733 0 |
101.000 0 |
105,000 7.000 |
|
100,733 |
101.000 |
112.000 |
|
152,250 |
151.500 |
153.000 |
|
14.979 |
65.500 |
15,000 |
|
900 |
850 |
850 |
|
3.327.458 |
3.201.272 |
3.292.850 |
41
RETIREMENTS
Mr. Myers. Well, thank you, General Williams. We, too, are sorry to see you are retiring. The — we have been friends for a good many years. So when we saw you were going to retire, Mr. Bevill and I decided we'd do the same thing.
You're going to beat us out by a few months, and then Jim Chap- man— Mr. Chapman of Texas decided it looks so good he's going to do the same thing and leave us. But we do wish you well.
Earlier, Mr. Bevill made a motion to close the meeting on Thurs- day the 28th because of the sensitivity of our hearings. Would you like to be recorded on that motion?
Mr. Chapman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded aye.
Mr. Myers. Thank you. Mr. Bevill?
Mr. Bevill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Myers. Excuse me. A number of— I think each of the divi- sion engineers have given us statements, and those will be placed in the record. You may have some questions today that you may respond to, but your prepared statements will be placed in the record. And General Genega, your statement will be placed in the record also. Thank you.
ten minute rule
And I think because of the number of questions we're going to have, shall we hold it to ten minutes the first round and go around the second time? Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bevill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I'm cer- tainly delighted to have you appear before our Subcommittee today and I want to congratulate you on your employment. And we're cer- tainly happy that you are in this position. And we've worked to- gether in the Congress, and certainly we are looking forward to working with you in this capacity.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
Mr. Bevill. And I also want to welcome back our Chief General Williams, and also our friend. General Genega. We all appreciate you and commend you for the fine job you're both doing and we cer- tainly know that our — ^the leadership of the Corps of Engineers is in good hands. I want to say we appreciate the commitment that each of you make, and you know my strong commitment to our Civil Works program and the good work that the Corps of Engi- neers has always accomplished.
And I want to point out also improving and maintaining our wa- terways. And I might say that the maintaining part concerns me a little because I see we're continually postponing maintenance, and this, in my judgment, is false economics and it is going to cost the taxpayers more just to make the budget look a little better at the present time. And I hope we can get out of that gig, because I don't think that's very good business.
And — ^but, you know, when we talk about the importance of our waterways and we realize that 80% of all the exports in this coun- try go through our inland waterway system, the greatest in the world, our 25,000 miles, that that brings home the important role that you play in keeping them operational. And we are talking about also — when we talk about exports, we are talking about jobs.
42
So, really, the work that the Corps does is not only in emergencies, where you do such a great job, but the economy of this country £ind the jobs that you create by keeping these ports in top shape, and I mean the waterways especially and some of the ports.
So, we appreciate you and we realize the important role you play in this Government. I've said this before. I wish that every agency of our Government performed with the efficiency and the expertise that you apply. And I frequently like to point out what a tremen- dous credit you are to this country's security, because you are the one part of our military that's really — you're doing what you would do in an emergency. And, so, I hope that our Congress continues to realize the important role that you play in so many ways.
And you know, actually, you and I have — this Committee has al- ways worked to try to make things possible for you to do and to accomplish and — but we always face a lot of criticism. And, of course, that goes with anything we do, as you know, Mr. Secretary. So, I just want to congratulate you and we appreciate you.
COST SHARING
So, I'm going to follow up this with a few questions here. And I just want to point out — ^you may have touched on this, if you did, I'd like for you to repeat it — last year, the Administration proposed to change the cost-share for flood control projects to 75 percent local and 25 percent Federal, which shocked us. I note this year the program is improving and it's 50-50. It still needs to go a little ways. Can you tell me approximately, Mr. Secretary, how much money would be saved in Fiscal Year 1997 by changing the cost share to 50-50? And if you don't have those figures right there, just answer that in the record.
Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Bevill, it really is not a question of saving money. It is a question of being able to help more commu- nities than we would be able to with the existing cost-share for- mula. We are not asking that the program be reduced, but we are recognizing that the problem we face into the future is growing de- mand for the services of the Corps, but at a time of decreasing re- sources. And, so, our effort to continue to respond is reflected in this change in cost-share and in a recognition that, first of all, there is significant benefit to our projects. They are, in fact, invest- ments in America's future, and those investments bring a return to the local sponsors.
And, so, that is the reason for this change; not that we want to reduce the Federal role, but rather that we want to spread that Federal role to more communities that have demonstrated need. We recognize that with a change in the cost-share formula that the ability-to-pay provisions of existing law will become increasingly important in the number of projects. Where in the past a commu- nity might be able to afford the cost-share anticipated in a project, under the new cost-share formula we may have to use the ability to pay in more communities to raise that Federal share commensu- rate with their ability to pay. We hope that ability to pay will not be a limiting factor and that this new 50-50 share will make it pos- sible for us to respond to more communities than we would be able to under existing formula.
[The information follows:]
43
Fiscal Year 1997 Savings
In formulating the fiscal year 1997 budget request, all savings to the Federal share of the cost of the ten recommended new flood control projects were used to reduce outyear funding requirements. Consequently, under both the existing 75-25 cost sharing formula and the proposed 50-50 cost sharing formula, the fiscal year 1997 amounts requested for these ten new construction starts are identical.
Mr. Bevill. Well, sir, this is a step in the right direction and it is an improvement over last year. And you, of course, and I, we've seen these little towns that can't raise
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bevill [continuing]. 50-50 and you and I know that as a certain matter. And, so, I'm glad that you are aware of that fact, because it seems sometimes people don't know that.
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bevill. And you have also proposed to eliminate — I should say the budget has proposed to eliminate the funds for shore pro- tection, but you said you are willing to work with the states on an individual basis. So
Mr. Lancaster. Actually, Mr. Chairman, this year we are not proposing to eliminate that program, but to continue it on an ex- ceptional basis. The general rule would be that shore protection as we have known it in the past would not continue, but we recognize that there is a Federal role to play in a number of communities where the primary purpose of protection is to protect residential, commercial, and industrial facilities rather than its primary pur- pose being to benefit a recreational destination.
We are anxious to work with the Committee on refining the ex- ceptions which would be used in this particular area. We would continue the program on the same cost-share as currently. We probably would ask that the period of Federal support be short- ened, because now it can be as much as 50 years and, of course, we don't know what 50 years is going to bring us. And, so, we want to be a little more prudent in the number of years and also be more prudent in the selection of these shore protection projects to make certain that they are protecting investment rather than providing a benefit to a recreational destination that would generate suffi- cient income to allow those communities to pay the cost of the pro- tection and restoration.
CORPS restructuring
Mr. Bevill. The — do you have an idea of when the Secretary of the Army will make a decision on the proposal to reduce a number of Division offices?
Mr. Lancaster. We are at the present time completing our meet- ings with affected delegations. As soon as we have completed that interface with Members of Congress who are concerned about the Division draft that has been proposed, we will be forwarding that final draft to the Secretary for decision. We hope that that will be in the next couple of weeks because we are — if we are to begin the process of implementing this on August 15th, we need some lead time. So, we are very anxious to get them to the Secretary as soon as possible. But just as we thought it was prudent to report our proposal to the Congress before we took action, as we were directed by last year's Appropriation Bill, we think it's also prudent for us
44
to have full discussion with the affected delegations to see if there are issues that can be resolved before we submit the plan to the Secretary for his approval.
Mr. Bevill. And I believe you have a meeting scheduled for that purpose?
Mr. Lancaster. We actually have a meeting tomorrow with one of the delegations. We have met with others already.
Mr. Bevill. Our colleague, Congresswoman Carrie Meek has sev- eral questions here for the Secretary to be answered on the record. So, I'll — Mr. Chairman, I'll submit that for that purpose and that is all my questions at this time.
[The information follows:]
45
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM MS. MEEK
SOUTH DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Question. Would you please provide for the record the status and timetable for cos^letion of engineering, design and construction of the South Dade County, C-111, project?
Answer. Plans and specifications are underway for the first two construction contracts; the spoil mound removal and the construction of S-322D. These contracts are scheduled for award in May 1996 and October 1996, respectively. Overall project completion is scheduled for December 2001.
C-7, C-8, AND C-9 CANALS, FLORIDA
Question. Would you please provide for the record the status and timetable for coii5)letlon of the design and construction of improvements to the C-7, C-8 and C-9 canals in North Dade Coiinty, Florida?
Answer. The field investigations are underway including survey work on the C-7 canal. Review of locally performed surveys on C-8 and C-9 canals are also ongoing. Modeling and real estate analyses will begin this summer and environmental investigations and engineering analysis will be initiated in Fiscal Year 1997. The General Reevaluation Report is scheduled for completion In December 1998. This report will determine the scope of the project and construction will be scheduled at that time.
MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA
Question. Regarding the Port of Miami Harbor dredging project, as you )inow, the local sponsor, the Miami Port Authority, has entered into a 2 04 reimbursement agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers. Conference Report #103-672 directs the Corps of Engineers to reprogrzun funds as necessary to reimburse the local sponsor for the Federal share of completed work. Could you comment on the Army Corps* plans to reimburse the Port Authority for the remainder of the phase I dredging work, as well as that portion of the phase II work which will be completed in Fiscal Year 1996?
Answer. The Port Authority has submitted its remaining costs on the Phase I contract and they are under review at this time. The original Section 204(e) agreement provided for reimbursement for Phase II construction when the contract was complete. At the recjuest of the Port Authority, an amendment to the agreement has been prepared and is under review.
Question. Does the Army Corps plan to reprogram funds in order to reimburse the Port Authority for the dredging work cos^leted to date, and for the work which will be cos^leted during Fiscal Year 1996? If so, when will the funds be disbursed?
46
Answer. Once the analysis and audit of Phase I costs are completed, reimbursement could be made in Fiscal Year 1996 with funds reprogrammed to the project. Subject to approval of the amendment to the Section 204(e) agreement, an audit of the work completed in Fiscal Year 1996 will be performed. Funds could be reprogrammed to the project and reimbursement made in Fiscal Year 1997. These reimbursements will be siibject to the availability of funds i however, given current f\indlng constraints, it is unlikey that such sources will materalize during the remainder of Fiscal Year 1996.
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA
Question. Jacksonville Harbor has been experiencing increased shoaling rates that have Impacted the draft of the vessels transiting the harbor, resulting in restricted use. What are the Army Corps of Engineers' plans to correct this situation at the Jacksonville Harbor?
Answer. The current authorized project provides for a 38 -foot project which is maintained to that depth. A feasibility study is underway to address potential deepening and widening. That report is scheduled for completion in March 1998.
Question. How much funding is needed in Fiscal Year 1997 to assure that the Jacksonville Harbor Is maintained at its authorized Federal depth?
Answer. The requested amount for maintenance dredging of the project is $4,119,000. These funds are sufficient to maintain the authorized Federal project.
47
COST SHARING POLICY
Mr. Myers. Thank you. Mr. Rogers?
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you in that chair.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. And we're dehghted with your appointment, and we think that you will make a great one.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. And most of the questions that I have to you and the panel probably relate to matters that took place before you as- sumed this chair, matters which I think if you have the time now you can correct.
Now, whose idea was it that we change the local cost-share on flood projects? Was that the Corps' or was that the White House?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Rogers, as you know, last year's policy direction from the Administration, which was rejected by the Con- gress, was, as Mr. Bevill has already indicated, significantly dif- ferent from this. When I came on-board we undertook what has been a very positive and cooperative effort between the White House, the Corps of Engineers, and the Assistant Secretary's Office to fashion policies that do in fact reflect the Congressional intent expressed in last year's Appropriation and, at the same time, take into account the Administration's
Mr. Rogers. So you split the
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. Policies. So what we have done is try to achieve a program that we believe will receive significantly more support this year than did those policy changes last year
Mr. Rogers. Don't count on it.
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. And that will ultimately be the basis on which we can come to
Mr. Rogers. Now, Mr. Secretary
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. Our senses.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Tell me whose idea it was, yours or the White House? Just answer the question, please. Whose idea is the 50-50 split? Is it the White House or is it the Corps? A simple an- swer.
Mr. Lancaster. Well, it is a matter of collaborative effort on the part of both of us to address the concerns from last year's policy of the White House
Mr. Rogers. Who recommended 50-50? Did you or did the OMB? That's a simple question. It deserves a simple answer.
Mr. Lancaster. The 50-50 share is in fact the WTiite House re- sponse to our concern.
Mr. Rogers. All right. Now — so that — again, the ability of a local community to pay still would be involved?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Are we edging with this proposal toward a policy where only the rich can be flood-protected?
Mr. Lancaster. That is the reason for the ability-to-pay pro\'i- sion, to take into account the relative abilities of communities to cost-share, and we believe that that will be a more important provi- sion in the future than it has been in the past, because the 50-50
48
will make it more difficult for some communities to come up with their share.
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to quickly shift in the limited time that I have — and hopefully we can keep our questions and answers brief so we can get this all in — to specific flood projects. You're proposing in your budget submission to begin work on some new unauthor- ized projects and you're zeroing out budget requests for projects that are halfway done that are authorized — construction has been underway for years. How can you do that?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, first of all, with regard to new starts, we believe that it is important to keep faith with the communities that have cost-shared studies that have gotten us to the point of begin- ning construction. And we do not want to become an agency that is simply an O&M agency; but rather we want to play an impor- tant role in investment for the future. So, we thought that it was important to include in this year's budget submission a modest number of new starts.
Mr. Rogers. That are unauthorized by the Congress?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, of course, they are being offered on the condition that they be authorized, but that they
Mr. Rogers. But there are projects
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. Are at that point.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. That are authorized by the Congress and halfway finished which you are requesting zero funds for and those communities are in the middle of a muddy patch with a flood wall, for example, in Harlan that is practically done except for the final inspection of the closing of the gates, that you propose to just stop in mid-course and do nothing with, and yet you're asking money for new unauthorized projects. I want to know how that process works. Because the Congress year in and year out, and you know this, Mr. Lancaster, tells the Corps, "we want these projects done" — in spite of what the 0MB may request or what the Corps wants to do. The Congress as a policy has determined: these projects shall be done. And yet the Corps repeatedly, year in and year out, comes up here and says, "zero money for those projects," all the while giving us what you or the White House wants — money spent on programs that are not yet authorized by the Congress. When can we expect that practice to stop?
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Rogers, as you've indicated, this is a long- standing problem that goes back through several Administrations back to the original authorization of this
Mr. Rogers. This is the first chance you have had to stop it, be- cause you are now in charge. Can you stop that kind of practice?
Mr. Lancaster. I'm afraid that I am not in charge, Mr. Rogers. I am a part of the team that put this budget together. And I think there is a recognition on the part of many that these projects are in fact high priorities with the Congress. But when the budget was finally put together, it was determined that these should not be funded, just as they have been in years past.
Mr. Rogers. This is the White House. I assume what you're say- ing to me is that regardless of what you all ask money for, it's the
49
OMB that finally says: this, this, not this, this — we'll give money for this but not this. I hear that. But I don't understand it.
KENTUCKY FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Just a few weeks ago, for example, the Nashville Corps Colonel and the staff came to Middlesboro, Kentucky, to begin work on the much-needed flood protection project in that city. They've been waiting for it for 15 years. The Corps, of course, required the local sponsor to match funds and they came up with their money. And after years of haggling over details of a project cooperation agree- ment, finally the day came. And the community gathered in their city hall and the Corps came from Nashville in great resplendence and we had a wonderful ceremony there in the city hall with the mayor and the county executives and the state officials and the local officials and the Corps. It was a wonderful celebration, be- cause finally ever3rthing was in place to stop this gateway of the Cumberland Gap, the City of Middlesboro, finally to stop the flood- ing in that city. And the Corps gave their word: we're going to get this project done finally. And we signed the agreement. Here it is. It was a wonderful day. The credibility of the U.S. Government was clearly on display. And all the while you were signing this agree- ment with great fanfare, you were saying under the table, "zero on that." And you did. Now, what do I say to Middlesboro, Kentucky, about your word, your commitment, your publicity? We're going to stop flooding in Middlesboro, Kentucky, because you've got your money, locals. How do I explain to them that you were lying?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Rogers, I certainly would not want to characterize the actions of the Corps as lying, because the Corps then and now stands ready to carry out any project which is funded by Congress.
Mr. Rogers. But you requested no money for the project.
Mr. Lancaster. There is no money in the Administration's sub- mission.
Mr. Rogers. Did you request money of the OMB for this project?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, we did.
Mr. Rogers. And you were denied by the White House?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
HARLAN KENTUCKY
Mr. Rogers. Did you request money likewise for the Harlan project, section 202?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And were denied by the White House?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And did you request money for the Williamsburg flood wall?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And were denied by the White House?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And did you request money for the Salyersville project in Kentucky?
Major General Genega. No, sir. I don't believe so.
Mr. Rogers. Pardon me?
Major General Genega. No, sir. We did not.
50
Mr. Rogers. Did not request money for it? Well, you signed an agreement back in August of 1985 there on the premises, saying what a wonderful thing this is. We had a big ceremony on the foot- ball field with 5,000 people there. And your colonel came down and all the officials and the governor were there. The gubernatorial candidates were there. The bands played. The Corps marched out in great uniforms and signed an agreement saying: we're going to help solve this problem because you've got your local share. And the community celebrated. The editorials in the local newspaper flourished. And you didn't even request money for it. Is that right, General?
Major General Genega. Sir, I have to, I have to verify that. I'm sorry. I, I
Mr. Lancaster. The Administration has not requested funds, but I frankly don't remember whether that was one of the projects that we requested be included.
Major General Genega. No, sir. May I submit that for the record, please? I'm sorry. I just
Mr. Rogers. How soon can you get it? Somebody surely here knows.
Major General Genega. Sir, I can do that within a matter of minutes — we did not. No, sir. That's my
Mr. Rogers. You did not request money for it?
Major General Genega. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And what can I tell those people? That you signed the agreement saying you would do it and you didn't even try to do it. What kind of credibility do you think that gives to the public out there, who have respect for those stars on your uniform, sir?
Major General Genega. I understand that it can undermine the credibility, yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. What about Pike County? Did you request money for that?
Major General Genega. I believe that's no also, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Didn't request money?
Major General Genega. Did not.
Mr. Rogers. You signed an agreement with them in October 1994. You didn't request from the White House money for that?
Major General Genega. No, sir, I believe that's — I believe that is correct.
Mr. Rogers. Why not? I just want a simple answer. Why not?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Rogers, certainly in the general scheme of things we were not able to request funds for many projects that the Corps feels are appropriate for Federal participa- tion and are ready to go forward, simply because of a limitation of funds.
Mr. Rogers. But you signed the agreement saying you would do it.
Mr. Lancaster. Well, I can't respond to what happened in the past.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that.
Mr. Lancaster. But
Mr. Rogers. But these gentlemen can.
Mr. Lancaster. But
Mr. Rogers. They were here.
51
Mr. Lancaster. But the important thing is to remember that, that these are projects as are many other projects that perhaps we would like to fund but in the current fiscal climate that we find ourselves in we're simply unable to do so.
Mr. Rogers. You didn't want to fijnd this one because you didn't even request money for it, did you.
Mr. Lancaster. Again, Mr. Rogers, it is not a question of wheth- er or not we wanted to do it. It was in fact the problem of we had a cap within which to operate. And that cap simply made it impos- sible for us to request funds for every single project that we thought should have been funded.
Mr. Rogers. Now these projects, Harlan, for example, is 60 per- cent complete. You spent $129 million there. And you really pro- pose just to stop it. And for those people in the mud and the river half clogged and the flood wall half built and so forth on these projects. And yet now you say well, stop all those. But we want to start a new project that the Congress has not even authorized for example in — ^Virginia just across the state line. It's not grand- fathered. It's not authorized. And yet it's a brand new start with new money, and you're leaving these other projects unfinished. How do you explain that?
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Rogers, I don't know of any further expla- nation than I've already given that I could give at this point.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. My time is expired. I'll come back.
Mr. Myers. Previously, motion by Mr. Bevill was to close the meeting next Thursday, a week from today
Mr. Fazio. I'd like to be recorded as aye, Mr. Chairman.
RECOGNITION OF MR. FAZIO
Mr. Myers. Thank you. At this time, yield 10 minutes to the gen- tleman from California
Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a year of retire- ments but also a year of arrivals. And I want to start by saying how happy I am to see my good personal friend Martin Lancaster sitting there representing the Corps. Some of you in uniform and others in civilian jobs who have been at this hearing on an annual basis know that I have expressed increasing frustration with the absence of civilian leadership. I know Art does remember that. I, I came as close as I ever come to blowing my stack last time. But I must say I think the Administration has finally got it right. They couldn't have found a better, more fair-minded, balanced, support- ive individual in Martin. And I really believe that in one year, Mar- tin, you would be able to make all those tough political decisions that were deferred for three. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether you would survive that year.
Mr. Lancaster. They certainly are coming my way.
Mr. Fazio. There are a lot of deferred issues. And I, I know that you won't be able to absorb and resolve them all. But I certainly know that we now have somebody we can look to for some good calls on a whole lot of issues that this Committee has been frus- trated with for a long time.
I want to personally add to the accolades for Chairman Myers and Chairman Bevill. I call them my chairmen, because they actu- ally acted that way when the majority and minority were reversed.
52
So they are both chairman in my mind. And I know all of those here in the room join the rest of us
Mr. Bevill. Mr. Chairman, could we yield the gentleman more time?
Mr. Fazio. I knew Mr. Myers hadn't started the clock. But I wanted
Mr. Bevill. We just stopped it.
Mr. Fazio. I wanted the professional Corps if they would at this time to give those two gentlemen the hand they deserve for all they've done.
[Applause.]
Mr. Myers. Thanks to you, and what you'll do to get your budget approved.
Mr. Fazio. I also wanted to tell Art Williams how sorry I am that this will be the last time you will appear before this panel. And we look forward to a good and productive end to a great career in the military and serving the country. And I've been pleased to call him a friend since he was a colonel. And I really have appreciated all the work he's done.
And there's someone who wears a blue suit instead of a khaki colored suit. And he's sitting in the back as usual. Ed O'Neill, would you stand? He's done a great job for us out there in the South Pacific region, and this is his last year as I understand it coming back here and participating at whatever level was required. And by the way, that blue suit is not Navy blue, that is Army blue. And we do appreciate you too. Thank you.
Mr, O'Neill. Thank you for your kind words
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Mr. Fazio. We have — I have an awful lot of work to do. And he's been in the middle of doing a lot of it.
But now I get to concentrate on one of those issues, the American River Watershed study and all that goes with it. I know that there's been some controversy about the recent position taken by the Corps. I think, you know, if I have learned at the elbow of peo- ple like Bob Schmidt, it's that the Corps does a study of feasibility. And the 0MB, the President in the process makes decisions about the financial affordability. And I was just wanting both Art and Martin to comment on the process that led to the draft Administra- tion position on the American River Watershed study, and all that relates to the Auburn Dam and other related projects. Because I think it's important to this Committee to understand just how we've come to a point where the recommendations sit at the mo- ment.
Art, do you want to comment, and then maybe Martin can elabo- rate or whatever, the two of you.
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Fazio, as you know, this particular project was the first issue that you and I discussed after my nomination. And it's one that we recognize is of great importance to the Sac- ramento Valley. We also recognize that this is a very complex project that involves many pieces. And that because of the con- troversy surrounding this project and the lack of consensus in Cali- fornia, that if we had gone forward with a Chiefs report that would have recommended immediate, had made an immediate rec-
53
ommendation with regard to all of its pieces, especially the Auburn Dam, that the entire process would have been significantly length- ened. It was our belief that the Chief chose correctly in submitting his report which strongly backs those portions of this project around which there is consensus and strong support and allows those, will allow those portions to go forward while there is contin- ued debate not only on the Auburn Dam as a policy but also on the policy changes that are recommended in this year's budget.
In the past, the Chief of Engineers has had similar situations where projects were not fully, all pieces of projects were not rec- ommended in the initial Chiefs report such as the Santa Monica Breakwater project, the Las Cruces, New Mexico project and a Long Beach, New York project, all of which the Chief recommended going forward with certain portions while other aspects of the project were further debated. We think that it is critically impor- tant that the, all portions of this project be completed as expedi- tiously as possible around which there is consensus and behind which there is strong support. With regard to the dam, we believe that that falls in a different category and that before final rec- ommendation is made that this matter be studied further as it would be anyhow but at the expense of those elements of the project that we believe can be built immediately if they're funded.
Mr. Fazio. I appreciate the situation you face. But I just wanted to probe a little further, because it seems that we are moving be- yond the traditional in the way in which we formulated our final recommendations here. Normally in the Chiefs reports there's a disclaimer that says program and budgetary priorities inherent in the formulation of the national Civil Works construction program, nor the perspectives of higher review levels within the Executive Branch, are clearly not reflected. In other words, there is a dis- claimer which makes it clear that we're talking about feasibility in technical terms. And I'm wondering, do you think this is a process that has now undergone change? Are we going to continue to pump in the program and budgetary priorities in engineer's reports? Is that where we are now given the restraints that the cuts in discre- tionary spending have brought about? Do you think we're there on a regular basis?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, I think this is a unique project and there- fore calls for unique solutions. And I do not think this in any way signals any sort of trend or any usual practice that will be followed in the many reports that the Chief signs each year but is a recogni- tion of the uniqueness of this situation and the critical need in the Sacramento Valley of action as soon as possible on these other ele- ments of the project.
FUTURE CORPS PROGRAM
Mr. Fazio. I would like just to hear from anyone at the table on a broader level, and I apologize if I'm going over any material that's been covered prior to my arrival, just what kind of authoriz- ing backlog do we have in light of the appropriations that we have been trending toward? It seems to me that the backlog is growing of unauthorized or incomplete projects. We have many which are authorized. We've heard a number that in Mr. Roger's district re- main unattended to. And yet as we cut discretionary spending, and
54
everybody's plans do it because we always find that the easiest place to go when we're trying to protect entitlements or cut taxes, when does this all reach a crisis point? Or have we reached it? Is this Committee going to continue to have to piecemeal projects, in- creasing their cost through inflation and remain unattending to many worthy projects with good cost-benefit ratios in communities that are anticipating their arrival, leaving the Federal Government with fiarther liability for FEMA protection, etc. I mean have we reached a crunch this year that is unprecedented in recent history?
Mr. Lancaster. I would defer to Gen. Williams or Gen. Genega if they have the dollar figure. But I will respond to the policy ques- tion. Because I share your concern.
We recognize just as in the 202 projects that Mr. Rogers is con- cerned about and other authorized projects that are ready to go but for which we simply do not have the funds to go forward that we are in a critical time in the Corps' future in a time where we be- lieve that it is important for us to engage in the debate about where we go. We, we recognize that if current trend lines continue in small reductions each year in new investments that soon after the beginning of the new century we will be an organization that is simply an O&M organization, simply maintaining and perhaps not even maintaining as Mr. Bevill has indicated at an appropriate level the projects that we built in the past. And that is the reason that we have included modest new starts in this budget. Because we want to send a clear signal that the Corps of Engineers is not ready to accept that verdict. We do in fact believe that the Corps provides critically important investment for the future of this coun- try and for the economy of this country. But it is a debate that I believe it has now become critical that we engage.
There are far greater needs than can be met with existing avail- able funds. And we hope that out of this year's budget process we can come to some better understanding of where we should go for the future. Because we should not continue as Mr. Rogers has indi- cated to raise the hopes and expectations of communities by study- ing their projects, determining that they are in fact legitimate Fed- eral responsibilities, getting those communities then to find the local match, and then we at the Federal level not be able to come through on our end of the deal. We need to either cut back dra- matically on what communities can expect so that they know that there is simply no hope. Or we need to address the whole issue of whether or not these are investments that yield more tax dollars than they cost.
And of course, as you well know, Corps projects which we come to you all have a positive cost-benefit analysis. So we believe that all of our projects return more to the Federal Government than they cost us. But yet we are a part of a larger Federal budget proc- ess that requires that we share in the sacrifice as well to bring our country to a balanced budget.
It's frustrating I can assure you to the Corps personnel in the field who deal on a daily basis with these communities and know because of that close interaction the needs that exist in their dis- tricts and in their divisions. And they feel powerless and also feel when they sign these agreements as Mr. Rogers has pointed out
55
some sort of moral obligation to carry through. But then because of the budgetary realities that we face are not able to do so.
Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, I won't follow up any further. But I would be interested in hearing from the generals at some point.
Mr. Myers. Okay. Frelinghuysen is recognized for 10 minutes.
FLOOD CONTROL, BEACH PROTECTION, AND SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Lancaster. We haven't met, but I've enjoyed listening to what you've said. Certainly I join with my colleagues in saluting and supporting the Army Corps of Engineers. And I think most particu- larly recognizing what the Army Corps has done historically since its inception. I do feel that the mission has changed, and you some- what commented on that this morning.
As a new member of the Committee, I was thinking what might be included in this, in our language that was included in last year's report. And I'm talking about that portion that the Committee in- cluded in the 1996 report that had to do with flood control, beach protection and small navigation projects. And I think you may re- member that language. And I quote, "A closer look at these propos- als makes it apparent that they were ill-conceived and counter- productive to the well-being of the nation. The Committee strongly disagrees that the Federal Government should end its historic role in protecting citizens from devastating effects of floods. The Com- mittee is equally troubled by Administration's proposal to termi- nate the Federal Government's role in the shore protection projects and smaller navigation projects."
I can't imagine, as a new member of the Committee, that the lan- guage in the 1997 proposal would be remarkably different. And I'd like — I know that there's been a massaging of this area with the hopes that perhaps Congress would be more receptive. But you lit- erally need some Committee action in order to initiate these changes, besides the appropriations. From what I understand you need
Mr. Lancaster. That is correct.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. You need changes to imple- ment the 50/50 situation, the cost sharing initiatives. And I can't imagine the climate would be particularly receptive. I only speak for myself. But certainly many of us on this Committee, with Mr. Fazio and I representing two large shorelines, we and others in this Committee, I think, feel that there is a moral obligation and that, in fact, the rules of the game may be changed, if you'll pardon the expression, in midstream.
BEACH replenishment
My comment relates specifically to shore protection projects, namely beach replenishment. It's my understanding that currently shore protection projects are justified based on the benefit they pro- vide for flood protection. I understand in your statement, and I quote, "The Administration believes that shore protection projects that support mainly recreational activities and that provide sub- stantial regional income to the state and local economies can be un- dertaken by Federal interests."
56
Mr. Lancaster. Non-Federal.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Non-Federal interests. Now that is a switch. And I don't understand. If they're justified now — what's oc- curring, let's say in New Jersey where we have the 150 miles of coastline, or we could look at California, it's substantially larger — they're justified on the benefit they provide for flood protection. Are you suggesting that what you have been providing historically now is deemed to be recreational?
Mr. Lancaster. The projects of the past were studied and imple- mented by acts of Congress with one policy goal. The Administra- tion is proposing that those policies change. As you have indicated in your quote from last year's language, the proposals that were made a year ago were rejected by Congress. And in an effort to re- spond to that rejection, this year's policy initiatives are different. And in recognition of the fact that there are shore protection projects that should be built, we're proposing to make those changes and that would in fact recognize that there are projects, and I would cite one as an example which is included for Federal funding, the Roughans Point project in Massachusetts where the shore protection protects residential, industrial and commercial properties, does not in fact have any recreational aspect, and does not involve the placement of significant sand on a beach. It is that kind of project that we believe certainly falls within the new pa- rameters that would be set by the WRDA 1996 legislation that will be produced before long. Whereas other projects that — and that will not produce revenues from a recreational use that would help or that would pay for the cost of that.
There are other projects, however, where the benefit to the local communities generate such high volumes of revenue that it would be appropriate in a time of fiscal restraint where we're trying to balance the budget to expect more of the beneficiaries than has been in the past.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I think that's debatable. I think it's totally unacceptable to change the policy. It seems odd to me as a member of Congress and as a citizen. You've had a historic role working with shore communities on the west and south, the Great Lakes. And yet a couple of weeks ago, and I'm not here to bash the Everglades, somebody says my God, let the Army Corps have a major role in this project. I mean everybody's here to protect the Everglades. But my God, if in your own words, and you said it ear- lier, and I quote, there's a growing demand at a time of dwindling resources, it seems to me that you are abandoning your historic role. Maybe there's — ^you may have some legitimate reasons for doing it. Or the Administration does. But in reality, on the other side of the ledger, you're off embracing new ventures. Some of them may be Congressionally initiated. But this particular one comes right out of the White House.
Mr. Lancaster. Well, of course, I represented in Congress a shoreline of more than 200 miles.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, it makes New Jersey look small.
Mr. Lancaster. And as a result have an appreciation for these issues. That certainly makes me S3rmpathetic with the position you're taking. However, if we're going to balance the Federal budg- et, we're going to have to make policy choices not only on shore pro-
57
tection but on a wide range of issues where it would be I think im- portant for a continued Federal role if those funds were available. But they are not available any longer if the Corps of Engineers is going to contribute towards balancing the budget. And we simply believe in balancing all of the priorities that, that are before us that this is an area where we need to relook. And while it was an important initiative for many years of the Federal Government to protect these communities, we now have to determine whether or not there are other needs that must be met with Federal dollars that do not have the financial return that these do and therefore make it more difficult for local communities to pay for them on their own. I don't think there's any question that if funds were un- limited that this would be an area where we would want to con- tinue. But that is not the case. And we simply have to make
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But what worries me is that the Army Corps has had an historical role and I certainly, we both, can make the argument for beach protection and replenishment. Many of us represent communities that have been devastated by floods. And a lot of organizations that have put time and effort, their own money in there, now say that hey, the rules of the games are changing. We may have to put more money in. They're extremely unhappy about it. I just wanted one additional question. And I worry about the — language and words have a certain power. What did you mean by the terminology exceptional basis? I mean is that some- what akin to the whole notion that for instance so-called mainly recreational areas would not be categorized as not — it says here in your statement mainly recreational activities that provide substan- tial regional income to state and local economies, they wouldn't be in any way classified as having an exceptional basis?
Mr. Lancaster. The example that I gave of Roughans Point in Massachusetts was an illustration of what we believe would be an exceptional case. Where it is all protection, it is protection of resi- dential, commercial and industrial investment and does not have, in fact in that case has no recreational aspect at all. It is a protec- tion of homes and businesses. And we believe
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And, and
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. That that will be the exceptions on which future projects will be funded.
everglades restoration program
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But in reality it's somewhat contradicted by the fact that, that we appear to be embracing an Everglades recre- ation program. To the best of my knowledge there are no substan- tial factories and businesses. And for that matter, we continue to fund the Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program. I under- stand that was done because of environmental suits. I mean with all due respect, we as taxpayers have seen expansion of a role and a lessening of historic responsibilities.
Mr. Lancaster. First of all, the Everglades does not have signifi- cant recreational benefits but is in fact mainly a water resources issue because of the burgeoning growth in the Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties area and the practices of the past are in fact depleting the water resources of that region by talcing water
58
out of that limestone aquifer. This will be replenishing those aquifers.
There certainly are environmental aspects. And there is a minor recreational aspect, because people do visit the Everglades. But the Everglades is a huge area, and it is not anticipated that any addi- tional access will be provided as part of this project. This is in fact returning to the Everglades its water resources aspect that had been diminished of, of development and of other Corps projects in the area that simply removed those water resources from the, from the area.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
RECOGNITION OF MR. CHAPMAN
Mr. Myers. Mr. Chapman, you are recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Chapman. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to take this time for just a minute to — want to thank you for your leadership, to thank Mr. Bevill for his leadership and service and my col- leagues for the opportunity to serve with them on this Subcommit- tee. We are in
Mr. Myers. Welcome back to Committee. Welcome back.
Mr. Chapman. Thank you. It's good to be back. I look across the room today and see a lot of familiar faces, some folks I don't know, and realize that from the standpoint of being a member of Con- gress and of this Subcommittee with an opportunity to hear and visit with and question the Corps of Engineers, the Assistant Sec- retary for Civil Works, that this will be the last such opportunity I'm going to have as a member of the House of Representatives. And I'm a bit wistful I guess as I recognize that fact.
At the same time, I am both encouraged and optimistic as I see that the Corps is, I think, is under dynamic new leadership and, and continuing to do the good work it has done. And I particularly want to say as I look back over more than a decade now of my service in Congress at the things that have dramatically changed the landscape of the First Congressional District of Texas in par- ticular and portions of my state in general. And I will tell you that the tough decisions that you are having to make and the policy choices you're having to make I think in many ways, when I look at the dramatic improvement in the lives of the people that I rep- resent in the state that I'm a part of and the delegation I rep- resent, there is a bit of, in recognition of the budget realities we face, there is a bit of, I guess, sadness to recognize that our budget situation doesn't allow perhaps in the future the kinds of positive activities that have improved communities, improved businesses, improved the lives of the people, including when they play. Things that we have been able to do in the past.
But I want to say to my good friend Martin Lancaster, who came to Congress just a few months after I did, that I not only appre- ciated his friendship and his help and service when he was a mem- ber of this body, but I congratulate him on his new assignment. And I have every confidence in Martin. I hope that certainly the men and women you work with do as well, that your leadership is going to provide I think good focus and good direction. And I want to not only congratulate you but wish you well in your new assign-
59
ment and hope that you find this as productive as we have found in working with these ladies and gentlemen for over a decade.
That said, I just — ^Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I think probably for the sake of time, quite honestly and having been doing this for a number of years, can be more appropriately from the standpoint of efficiency submitted for the record.
NEW BUDGET PROPOSAL
Mr. Chapman. I have one general question I direct to the Sec- retary. And that is as I look at the new budget proposal, and Mr. Secretary to you or perhaps anyone else at the table, I see the re- alities of the budget constraints and what they do to you in the out years, OMB's projections in the out years. And recognizing the re- alities of if we in fact are to balance the budget, some of the choices those force on the Corps of Engineers in future years. Yet at the same time I see there are significant, in fact, a healthy number of new construction starts and new projects that are part of this budget. And I would ask you generally, as we view I think it's about $15 million, 11 new construction starts, while the funding this next year is modest, can as you look down the road at the out years, can you accommodate these new construction starts, do what you do without having an unacceptable stretch out in these projects and probably then an unacceptable increase in cost of completing them? How is your view of that in general?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, as I indicated previously, we thought that it was important to send the message that the Corps of Engineers has an important role to play in investment for America's future. And therefore, we have included what by previous years is a very modest list of new starts simply to send that signal. We recognize as you have stated and as others have stated that the out years present real challenges for the Corps. And that is the reason that this is a particularly crucial year for the Corps in determining what we will do for the future. Will we become an O&M only orga- nization, or will we have a role to play in the future in providing investment aind infrastructure that actually generates wealth through this country and not simply take that wealth and maintain what is already there.
We believe that what we have proposed if Congress continues to support the Corp's program can be built. The question will become next year even more difBcult. Do we include any new starts, be- cause at some point we obviously can't include any new starts with current trend lines. And that's why we welcome the opportunity as you work towards a final product in this Committee to, to really get down to serious discussions about the future of the Corps. We, we are concerned, and we are anxious to have this Committee's im- portant input in that debate. And we stand ready to debate with you on what that future should be.
Mr. Chapman. Well, I appreciate that response. And I expect every member of this Subcommittee, and I would hope perhaps joined by our colleagues on the full Committee and the House, view perhaps some of the budget priorities that we see reflected in the budget as shortsighted for the very reasons you've outlined. That what it is you're about and what it is this Subcommittee has worked with the Corps on in years past is in fact investments that
60
historically have paid tremendous dividends in all aspects, not just perhaps what we are looking at in the narrow roles of the Corps of Engineers. But have paid tremendous dividends for this country in actually developing and improving an infrastructure that have in all aspects, whether it be surface transportation, navigation, flood control, or even recreation, have historically paid multiples that are dramatic both in preventing losses and creating economic activity.
And I hope that, that those of our colleagues that perhaps are looking to trim the budget will recognize I think an appropriate role for the functions of both the Corps of Engineers and the roles and missions of this Subcommittee in making those kinds of invest- ments and in making those kinds of decisions. And I would hope that in the years ahead perhaps we will see, if not better budget times, at least smarter budget decisions about making these choices and these priorities. Because all of the concerns my col- leagues on both sides of the aisle have about the traditional roles of the Corps, the things we ought to be doing I would whole- heartedly agree are things that where there is not only an appro- priate Federal function and Federal role but an appropriate role for the Corps of Engineers. And I hope that we, I hope that we are smart enough to recognize that and not only keep you in business but keep you moving forward in a way that's, that continues to in- vest in America, its resources, its people and in its future.
Mr. Chairman, that's sort of a general topic. I have specific ques- tions which with your permission I will submit for the record. I ap- preciate this opportunity
Mr. Myers. Without objection, yes.
Mr. Chapman [continuing]. And thank you for the time.
[The information follows:]
61
CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED RECONNAISSANCE STUDY, TEXAS
Mr. CHAPMAN. I understand that you are preparing an executive summary which summarizes the findings of the reconnaissance study. What is the status of this study?
General MILLER. Sir, the report has been reviewed by higher authority, comments have been received and are being incorporated into the final report. The Executive Summary will be released to the public in April 1996.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Assuming there is one or more alternatives which have federal interest and a willing sponsor, what would be the next step in the study process?
General MILLER. Sir, with the assumptions of a Federal interest and a willing sponsor, the next step in the study process would be to negotiate, with the sponsor, a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement which includes a Project Study Plan identifying the scope of the future feasibility study. The Reconnaissance Report then has to be certified by higher authority before proceeding to the Feasibility Phase.
COOPER LAKE AND CHANNELS, TEXAS
Mr. CHAPMAN. If the Corps looks only at a "swap" of mitigation land for recreation land, which would not involve any additional land acquisition, can federal operational and maintenance funds be used to evaluate this proposal?
General MILLER. Yes, sir. However, before the evaluation of the proposal could begin, we need a detailed plan for development from a non-Federal sponsor.
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM
Mr. CHAPMAN. What is your unofficial capability for the Red River below Denison Dam project in FY97?
General MILLER. Sir, the Reconnaissance studies completed in March 1994 indicated that no economically feasible flood control alternative, including rehabilitation, could be identified. Funding for continuation of this project has not been recommended in the FY 1997 budget. Subject to the Administration's position on capabilities, the unofficial capability is $100,000 to complete plans and specifications for Bowie County Levee.
The Administration's position on capabilities is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
62
QUALIFYING LANGUAGE FOR EXPRESSED APPROVED CAPABILITIES
Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and manpower Army-wide. In this context, the Fiscal Year 1997 capability amounts shown consider each project or study by itself without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1997 is the appropriate amount consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal investments and the objectives of avoiding large budget deficits and the serious adverse effect that Government borrowing is having on the national economy. In addition, the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in the President's Budget is the maximum that can be efficiently and effectively used. Therefore, while we could utilize additional funds on individual projects and studies, offsetting reductions would be required in order to maintain our overall budgetary objectives.
RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL
Mr. CHAPMAN. What is your unofficial capability for the Red River Chloride Control project?
General MILLER. Sir, both the official and the unofficial capability for Fiscal Year 1997 is zero dollars. This is due to carrying over, from Fiscal Year 1996, $7.3 million of unexpended funds. This carry-over is caused by the need to address changes in design and to resolve environmental issues including a comprehensive environmental monitoring plan.
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TEXAS
Mr. CHAPMAN. What is the current status of the Wallisville Project?
General MILLER. Sir, the Galveston District, on 22 December 1995, awarded a $25 million contract for rehabilitation of the lock structure and construction of the navigation channel, gated control structure, administration building, bridge, and earthen dam. Construction on this project is underway. Other, but much smaller, construction contracts will provide for the construction of two small water control structures and a recreational facility.
Mr. CHAPMAN. When is the scheduled completion date for Wallisville?
General MILLER. Sir, the completion date for the Wallisville Lake, Texas, project is dependent on future funding and can not be determined at this time.
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TEXAS
Mr. CHAPMAN. What is the Corps' spending capability for FY 97?
General MILLER. Sir, the approved capability for Fiscal Year 1997 is $14,000,000. However, the Administration's review of this project, has identified economic and policy concerns.
Mr. CHAPMAN. What are the funding requirements to complete this project as scheduled?
General MILLER. Sir, after Fiscal Year 1996, $23.5 million will be required to complete the Wallisville Lake, Texas, project. We ha^e expressed a funding capability of $14 million in FY 1997 and will have an additional need of $9.5 million in FY 1998 to meet a project completion date of September 1998.
Mr. CHAPMAN. If the expressed capability is not funded, would it be necessary to stop the project?
General MILLER. Yes, sir. If the capability is not funded, we would be unable to proceed and the current construction contract would be terminated. The project would be stopped until such time that additional funding is made available.
Mr. CHAPMAN. If no more funds are appropriated for this project, what would be the total federal cost to terminate the project?
General MILLER. Sir, the Federal cost to terminate the contract alone would be approximately $5 to $10 million. Should the project be stopped permanently, several project features would have to be removed, including two saltwater skimmers and six miles of concrete low-overflow dam. The sector gates and lock facilities would also have to be removed and scrapped, and the project lands placed into a caretaker status. Complete restoration of the 19,000 acre site is estimated to cost in excess of $100 million.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Have the local sponsors demonstrated their willingness to support this project?
General MILLER. Sir, the three local sponsors, the city of Houston, the Trinity River Authority, and the Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District have demonstrated thieir support for the current plan, consistent with the water supply contract executed by the Secretary of the Army on 2 February 1968.
24-080 - 96
64
CONTRIBUTION OF MR. CHAPMAN
Mr. Myers. Well, thank you for your contribution. Thank you for the years that you've spent on this Committee. The Committee — next year we're going to miss you. And certainly Texas is going to. So we appreciate and thank you very much for your kind words and your contribution through the years. Gentlemen
Mr. Chapman. Mr. Chairman, I trust that you will continue to take care of Texas even if we want to make sure that — I know, I know Texas will probably miss me but
Mr. Myers. Be kind of difficult for Tom or me to help you, but if you need help just call on us.
Mr. Chapman. Maybe Mr. Fazio will continue to look out for Texas. I know that there's so much room in his, on his agenda for beyond California.
Mr. Myers. And playing second fiddle to California won't be very popular either.
Gentlemen, I think all of us share our concern about the budget, as we always have. Mr. Bevill and I have been on the Committee a good many years, and certainly Mr. Fazio has too. But — and the only thing that changes are the faces here. We always have faced the same problem. The Corps recommends, and then the OMB, who is usually faceless and nameless, makes the adjustments. And then you have to come back and defend that policy. And there's nothing new about that I'm sorry to say.
But the final decision rests with the Congress how we're going to appropriate the money. I mean it's a recommendation you're making. We try to follow your recommendations. But there reaches a point sometimes where we can't. And particularly we recognize that emergencies come along that we have to get out of our prior- ities. But this Committee has always felt that we ought to finish programs and projects before we start new ones. And we haven't always held to that if there are emergencies such as the dam gate failure. The gate on the dam in California. The dam gate, that was a damn gate that failed. Those things happen that you can't expect. So we sometimes do have to reprioritize. But we're both in the business of prioritizing the limited resources we have. And as been witnessed here this morning, there are some disagreements about that.
50/50 COST SHARING
And I don't necessarily agree with you about the 50/50. It would be ideal I think if everyone could put up 50 percent because the benefits are realized at home. But there are some smaller commu- nities and less fortunate communities that don't have the economic basis that have had the real problem. So there has to be some free- dom there and movement in the program such as. Gen. Williams, you mentioned, up-front money. Now if there are communities that have to put the cash on the barrel head, even though we don't here in Congress, if they're 50/50, it calls for $5 million and we just put it in a year at a time, it's a little unfair to those communities. I hope there will be some provision where they sign a contract as they used to do and as they still do that they will pay it but split it out over a reasonable period so they can. Otherwise, you penalize
65
some of the local communities that need it so badly. The local spon- sors just don't have that kind of revenue.
Mr. Lancaster. That is in case, Mr. Chairman, what is antici- pated.
Mr. Myers. What the question
Mr. Lancaster. That the up-front money as you've called it will be proportionate to the Corps' up-front money and that it will be cost shared over the period of time of pre-engineering and design. And it's not that it all must be up-front but that their propor- tionate share of it as the Corps' funds were expended would also be made available.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Myers. And we appreciated your response that if we go to 50/50 you can help more people. But looking at the Office of Man- agement and Budget, 0MB, our favorite, the policy, it shows here that construction general is going down by the year 2000, fiscal year 2000 down to $607 million which is a 25 percent reduction from this present year we're operating in now. Really it's not help- ing more people. We are cutting down. And we're concerned about this. And the General Investigations, which puts things in the pipe- line as we all know, it's going down too significantly to the year 2000.
But what really does bother me too is O&M. When we had the outside witnesses 2 and 3 weeks ago, most members of Congress, one of the complaints was that some of the infrastructure is failing or at least in bad condition. It's always been a concern of this Com- mittee that we aren't adequately funding Operation & Mainte- nance. We're saving pennies and losing pounds. Because as we all know, some of these structures are 40, 50 years old and require — so and here again that's what really concerns me. From this present year down to the year 2000 it's a 28 percent reduction in O&M. Aiid these things really concern me. And I know you have a real problem. But I think we've got to make some changes in that. And so I think we'd like to work with you as we make those changes. But I think we have to make some redirect, reprioritizing. We're not wanting to micro-manage you. You've got enough people doing that now. But we do feel strongly about the needs of some of these communities and some of the needs that we see.
Mr. Lancaster. With regard to O&M, Mr. Chairman, that as we've already indicated is a serious concern of ours as well. The Corps is however making we believe progress in doing O&M more smartly in a way that we're getting more bang for our buck. And I think it might be helpful if Gen. Genega could respond to some of the efforts that we're making to stretch those O&M dollars fur- ther in recognition of their decline but the growing need to, to keep these projects well maintained.
Mr. Myers. We'd be pleased to hear from General G«nega.
Major General Genega. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to do that. A few years ago, you funded and we embarked on what we call our O&M plan of improvement. And we've done a number of things under there. I'll highlight a couple of them. We looked structurally across the Corps and dramatically changed the structure. We have 200 fewer people doing what we, doing same thing we had them doing
2 years ago. Again, we were able to, to take care of those folks through voluntary early retirement and so forth, did not — were able to take care of the people problems in that regard. But that's a significant cost reduction.
We've looked at the way we do business. We've significantly re- duced the costs of producing our budget. We're embarked on an ef- fort right now to look at ways of reducing our budget in the next 5 years by 15 percent yet continue to deliver all those things that we're doing. It's got field involvement. The folks who actually do the job in the field are the folks who are telling us how to do that. We're implementing those things across the Corps. And, and we're comfortable that we're just making great strides in that area.
But I share your concern, sir. And the fact is that can only go so far. And we think we've got all the efforts underway with all the right, smart folks who know how to do that business telling us what to do. But even that will run out after a couple of years.
Mr. Myers. We appreciate
Mr. Lancaster. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think it also is im- portant for us to recognize that many of the projects built by the Corps in the 1930s and 1940s where the Operations & Mainte- nance responsibility was on the project sponsor have now reached in many cases the end of their useful life and not — that is no longer an O&M problem. That really is a problem of reconstruction, in some cases rehabilitation. That is something we've never gotten into before. Because the Corps has generally been able to continue with programs and to keep these projects up. But many of these projects that are now 50 and 60 years old are simply reaching the end of the road. And that is another issue which we have not dealt with in this budget but is going to have to be dealt with by, by the Corps, by the Administration and by this Committee in the not-too- distant future, because we are beginning to see projects that simply are now nearing collapse.
Mr. Myers'. And we see a lot of locks that were built for short tows and small tows, and now that's costing our ability to be com- petitive in the world because they can't get through. So those are — it's constantly backing up more and more. But the Committee would like to see the same number of dollars — we appreciate, Gen, Genega, your efficiency and improvement in delivering more effec- tively for less dollars. But we'd like to see the same dollars and just doing more work. That's I think what this Committee would like to see and I think we all — ^you know, we all have a cross to bear. You have 0MB, and we have a Budget Committee. And there's a lot of similarity. 0MB doesn't know your projects. They wouldn't know probably a lock from a dam. I use the word D-A-M. Not worth a dam. But then we of course have our bean counters, the Budget Committee who never has hearings. They never sit in on these hearings. So we all have our problems. But we have to fight that. And I, I think my recommendation is we do away with our Budget Committee. I guess you can't do away with 0MB. I don't think I voted for the Budget Committee years ago. And I am more proud of it every day.
But anyhow, I had several other questions we'll do on the second run. I've used my 10 minutes now. So
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Chairman?
67
Mr. Myers. Yes?
Mr. Lancaster. I am very pleased to yield to a second round of questioning, but I'd also be very happy if we could take a break be- fore we
Mr. Myers. Recess for about two minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Myers. Mr. Fazio?
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED
Mr. Fazio. I wanted to return to the American River Watershed issue. Obviously, we're going to be authorizing a project in this year. I certainly hope we will. We need to see the feasibility study on that project as part of the Water Resources Development Act. Can anyone give me assurances that that will not be an impedi- ment to getting Mr. Shuster's and Mr. Boehlert's committee to take appropriate action? We need to know when that's going to be com- pleted, the report, and available to the committee because I know they're on a short time frame schedule here to get their package to the floor.
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Fazio, I'll give you part of the question and perhaps General Genega can respond to another part of it. As you know, we have the proposal that's out on the street as they say, and the comment period goes on for about 90 days. So, our intent right now is to have a final chief report signed in late-June of this year. Now, I would refer to General Genega in regards to the time frame of how that melds into the second part of your question.
Major General Genega. Yes, sir, and then it would go to the Sec- retary's office from there and of course it appears that that's still in the general context of being available for water consideration, but I would defer to the Secretary.
Mr. Fazio. I think we've come to the center.
Major General Genega. Of course, it's our understanding that the committee hopes to move forward with their mark-up in April or May so that this report would not be available for the initial mark-up. The Senate of course will be behind that, I guess, and so it remains to be seen when a final product will be available. But if past history is any indicator of — will pass it will be on the last day of the session.
Mr. Fazio. With various unanimous-consent requests.
Major General Genega. It is our hope that the report will be use- ful in making a final decision on this project before that work is completed.
SECTION 205 AND SECTION 1135 PROGRAMS
Mr. Fazio. We've talked a lot about important issues here, small flood control projects, stream bank erosion, harbor navigation, costal issues. I've got two particular project areas that I'd like some discussion on. The Section 205 Small Flood Control Program and the Section 1135 Environmental Restoration Program both of which are $5 million or less in the way we categorize these pro- grams. I'm wondering if you could tell us what you think, and I'm opening this to any of you, what the future of these programs is. I get the impression that while they're still on the books, increas- ingly we're having a hard time fully funding them and yet for
68
many of the smallest communities in our country these are really still very fundamentally important. We have a lot of things back- logged here and I just wondered if you'd like to refer to them.
Mr. Lancaster. Well, with regard to 1135, you may recall that that was a major initiative of the Administration a year ago and that funding was cut dramatically from the request. We have come in this year with a more modest request but an increase over what was appropriated last year. It is an important program and one that is used to great benefit in many communities across the coun- try. The 205 is likewise important in providing some quick fixes in small-dollar amounts. It is however a modest request, and as you've indicated in both of these programs, more funds could be constructively used because there are communities waiting in line for both.
Mr. Fazio. What did you request? Could somebody give me some impression as to how far we got in terms of your budget in terms of 0MB approval in these two areas?
Major General Genega. The President's budget last year for 1996 requested $41 million, the appropriation was approximately $27 million plus some adds. We have within the last couple weeks gotten approval for about $13 million reprogramming to get that back up to what we requested for 1996. The 1997 budget is for $41 million.
Mr. Fazio. Forty-one, right?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fazio. You've done in your view what is really available?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir, we've looked for your support in that programming.
PROSPECT island RESTORATION PROJECT SECTION 1135
Mr. Fazio. Well, I wanted to thank you for your help on the — I appreciated that assist with reprogramming and I also wanted, however, to call attention to the Prospect Island Restoration Project under section 1135. It wasn't funded but I think our friends in the Interior Department feel it is a worthy addition and appro- priate under that code section to go forward on, particularly for the development of wetland and fish habitat, which is in the Sac- ramento Delta and river tributaries area a very high priority. And that brings me to the whole question of how we handle the Sac- ramento River Management Plan. I know Art knows about this. It's been something we've had in our purview for many, many years. I hear it from so many of my constituents on the river that we need to come up with an overall plan; we can't continue to piecemeal and to develop solutions that may be in isolation look like the an- swer but which can be literally eroded by time. Can we get to clo- sure on a management plan for the river so that all of our needs, the Endangered Species Act concerns, modernization of pumping facilities, fish screens, all of these things can be dealt with in a comprehensive way so the districts, the local cost-sharing partners and others can have some certainty?
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Fazio, I would certainly agree with your concept that that's the approach to take not only in the Sacramento River but in other rivers that we have. In regard to the specifics of where we are in that particular management plan, I don't have
69
those specifics in front of me. We can provide that. Perhaps Gen- eral Genega, I don't know if you're famiUar with the details.
Major General Genega. Sir, I'd like to — for the record if I might.
[The information follows:]
Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan
The Corp's two phase planning process (reconnaissance and feasibility) is an ap- propriate approach to take on the development of a management plan for the river. A reconnaissance study to identify endangered species concerns, modernization of pumping facilities, cost sharing, coordination requirements among affected interests, etc., was considered for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 1997 budget. However, in light of budget constraints, it was excluded without prejudice. The project will continue to be considered in future budget submissions.
RECONSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Fazio. Well, I did want to highlight the need to proceed on it. All along the river we've got requests for reconstruction of lev- ees, we've got other plans that some have based on our Mississippi experience to having some stretches of the river — other forms of flood protecting that might be more environmentally compatible. But whatever we do, we have got to get to a closure on plans so we can implement it with the scarce funds available over time. And I did want to thank you particularly for your assistance on the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and inclusion in the budget the funds for the River Gradient Project which directly relates to the Chinook salmon runs and the various ESA problems we have there. There's no question that is an extremely high priority for us.
I wonder if we could speak to the Little Holland Tract issue. We've had a continual discussion about that in front of his Commit- tee and in conference. This again is one of those breakthrough areas where the Crops is engaging in acquisition of land which we're legally empowered to do but still somewhat culturally having a difficulty accomplishing. And I thought maybe we could do some- thing on the Little Holland Tract that would break us out into new territory here. What do you think. General Genega?
Major General Genega. Well, sir, we're trying to comply.
Mr. Fazio. How close are we?
Major General Genega. Well, sir, I believe that by the end of May we will send all the real estate information to the Secretary concerning what needs to be done, prices and so forth, the right kinds of appraisals to ensure that we're ready to go forward.
Mr. Fazio. It does look like there's a Federal interest, is that your understanding, which is of course required under the lan- guage in our conference report of last year?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir. In fact, it requires the Secretary to make that determination.
Mr. Fazio. Well, we won't ask him to comment at the moment, but I wouldn't mind if he came to that conclusion myself.
Major General Genega. I understand that, sir. I'll be sure to tell him.
Mr. Fazio. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of questions and I'm going to put them all in the record so as not to reveal the degree to which I am indebted in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair- man.
[The information follows:]
70
QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN VIC FAZIO
FOR
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MARTIN LANCASTER
AND
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS ARTHUR WILLIAMS
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
REGARDING
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERING, CIVIL WORKS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
MID -VALLEY
Mr. FAZIO. Emergency PL 84-99 work was denied for flood damage because the Corps intended to perform the work as part of the Mid-Valley Area Construction. Is the funding sufficient to complete the emergency work that was denied?
Mr. LANCASTER. Funding was denied under PL 84-99 because the site had previously been identified under the Mid-Valley project. Sufficient funds are available in the FY 1996 appropriation for the Mid-Valley project to complete this critical site on Reclamation District 1500.
Mr. FAZIO. You have been in PGA negotiations with the non-Federal sponsors for approximately two years. You recently decided to divide the project into two parts, the first part being the most critical work. Further, I understand you are approaching completion of PCA negotiations for Part 1. Will the funding be sufficient to perform the work that will be described in the PCA?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, the funds received in FY 1996 are sufficient to complete all work included in the first PCA. FY 1997 funds will be used to initiate preparation of plans and specifications for the next contract to be awarded in FY 2000.
SACRAMENTO BANK PROTECTION
Mr. FAZIO. The most urgent work will protect the greater Sacramento Area and essentially has full local consensus. Will funding be sufficient to provide bank protection for Sacramento without deferring other critical and ongoing bank protection activities? Would you consider reprogramming funds for this project?
Mr. LANCASTER. Our FY 1997 budget for the Sacramento River Bank Protection project includes $3.4 million to initiate and complete construction of bank protection work along the Lower American River at River Park. This cost estimate is preliminary and the cost could easily be exceeded, based on recent experience with actual construction costs, and some site-specific conditions. In response to tlis: American River Flood Control District's letter to Sacramento District in February 1996, and your March 1996 letter to General Williams co-signed with Congressmen Matsui and Doolittle, we are accelerating design and construction of this critical site. We will have to delay design of
71
other sites along the Lower American River and elsewhere along the Sacramento River to accommodate this acceleration, unless we are able to reprogram surplus funds to the project this fiscal year. Once the design and final cost estimate are complete later this fiscal year, we may also identify a need for additional funds in FY 1997. I must inform the Committee that construction funding is very tight and there is no assurance that we will be able to reprogram funds in FY 1996 or FY 1997.
UPPER SACRAMENTO
Mr. FAZIO. Upper Sacramento Levee Reconstruction is part V of a five phase reevaluation of the Sacramento River. The first phase is complete and the second phase is under construction. Why is this phase being considered as a new start and subject to potentially new cost sharing requirements?
Mr. LANCASTER. We have been very careful to make it clear to all our customers that no investment decision has been implied or made until funds are appropriated for construction. In some cases, we execute Project Cooperation Agreements for an entire project and in others for only a separable element of an overall authoriz.-tion . This decision is normally based on how the project is designed and on how urgent our partners may regard some separable element to be. In the case of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees we divided the project into five phases for problem identification, design and construction. This allowed us to proceed with the most urgent work early on, long before we completed definition of the less urgent work. As we did this, the total commitment that the Federal Government was making, was clear to both the Government and to our partners. Funds for construction of the Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction have not been appropriated and therefore, no decision has yet been made to commit the Government to that construction investment decision. Since the Federal Government has not yet made a construction investment decision, we regard this project to be a new start and subject to whatever cost sharing changes are made for future projects.
Mr. FAZIO. Are you complying with my past budget language regarding use of system wide economic analysis when determining a Federal interest?
Mr. LANCASTER. There has been no change in our policy which requires each separable element to be economically justified. We performed an analysis of the project some time back which indicated that the benefits realized by reconstruction of the levees in the Sacramento and Marysville-Yuba City areas were great enough to justify reconstruction costs identified for all five phases. We still believe that the levees proposed for reconstruction be economically justified based on the benefits they are expected to -produce if we are to find a Federal interest in their reconstruction.
72
LITTLE HOLLAND TRACT
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have been working very hard to bring about the acquisition by the Corps of Engineers of a valuable piece of wetlands property in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Little Holland Tract. The Congress gave the Corps very clear statutory direction to acquire the property. Funds were also provided for the acquisition. The draft feasibility study on Little Holland Tract also includes a clear and unequivocal determination that acquisition is in the Federal interest. I urge you to make this acquisition a priority and to carry it out as expeditiously as possible. Please update the Committee on the status of this effort and provide the Committee with an estimate as to when we can expect this acquisition to be completed.
Mr. LANCASTER. I understand that the reconnaissance study has been transmitted to the Chief of Engineers, and it is under review in the Chief's office. I expect to have his recommendations shortly. Once I have received the Chief's recommendation, I will be able to make the determination of Federal interest required by Section 906 and the authority of the Corps to proceed with preparation of real estate acquisition plans and the necessary environmental documentation. Since we may be implementing this authority for the first time, I do not have a specific timetable for you; but you have my assurance that if our reviews and determinations are favorable, we will proceed expeditiously.
SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOODWALL
Mr. FAZIO. Can you provide me with the status of the Sacramento River Floodwall stabilization project?
General WILLIAMS. The Local Cooperation Agreement was amended in
September 1995 to incorporate the Sacramento River Floodwall work. A
contract was awarded in November 1995. However, due to an error in the
low bid, we expect to terminate the contract for the convenience of the Government and to award the floodwall stabilization contract to the
second low bidder next month, April 1996, with completion scheduled for August 1997.
WEST SACRAMENTO
Mr. FAZIO. What is the Corps capability in Fiscal Year 1997 for the West Sacramento Levee Reconstruction?
General WILLIAMS. Our FY 1997 capability for the West Sacramento project is $5,900,000, an increase of $200,000 over the budget. The amount, together with adequate funding in the subsequent year, would accelerate completion of the project by 12 months, from May 1999 to May 1998.
Mr. FAZIO. What is the optimum funding schedule - in terms of completing the project in the most timely manner possible - for the West Sacramento project?
General WILLIAMS. The optimum funding' schedule for this project would require $5,900,000 in FY 1997, and an additional $5,453,000 in FY 1998 for completion of the project.
73
WINTERS
Mr. FAZIO. I understand the reconnaissance phase was completed on this project in January 1996. This project is now proceeding to the feasibility phase. I want to commend you on how expeditiously this project is going forward. Can you advise me what the latest estimate is on completion of the feasibility study?
General WILLIAMS. I understand that we are on a very ambitious schedule and now expect to complete the feasibility study by December 1996. However, if an Environmental Impact Statement is required, the study completion date could be extended to March 1997.
SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mr. FAZIO. A new start was requested but did not get funded in the budget to comprehensively review the ecosystem of the Sacramento River Tributaries and Watershed. This is an extremely high priority for my area. b) Why was the study not funded? Would the Corps have the capacity to proceed with this project?
Mr. LANCASTER. There are only three proposed reconnaissance new starts in our Nationwide program, of which are flood damage reduction studies. They reflect a commitment to the concept that we must have new studies to demonstrate the proposed new cost sharing and flood plain management policy, despite the very severe constraints we all face as we move towards a balanced budget. In view of these constraints, exclusion from the budget is without prejudice to many worthwhile studies throughout the Nation, including this one. The Corps advised me that its FY 1997 capability for this study would be $300,000 to initiate the reconnaissance phase.
TEHAMA/HAMILTON CITY 205 STUDY
Mr. FAZIO. Can you advise me of how this Section 205 study is proceeding?
Mr. LANCASTER. The feasibility study for Tehama/Hamilton City was initiated in March 1996 and is currently scheduled for completion in March 1997. Adequate funding is available this year to perform work in FY 1996 to meet this schedule.
Mr. FAZIO. Does the Corps face any obstacles in pursuing this project?
Mr. LANCASTER. As you are aware, the Continuing Authorities Program experienced significant funding constraints in FY 1996. The Tehama/Hamilton City study completion and subsequent phases of work will be dependent on future funding availability and national budget priorities .
Mr. FAZIO. Is there anything we can do to help expedite this work?
Mr. LANCASTER. We appreciate your continued interest in this study. Of course, completion of this project will be dependent on future funding levels for the Continuing Authorities Program. However,
74
until Federal interest can be demonstrated, I believe the Corps is proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. FAZIO. It is my understanding that the Corps' outyear budgets do not include any funding for the Sacramento River Flood Control project (GCID Riffle) . Please provide, for the record, the amount of funding that will be needed to keep the project on an optimum schedule in each of the fiscal years starting in fiscal year 1998 until the project is completed.
General WILLIAMS. The Bureau of Reclamation is scheduled' to select their preferred alternative for fish screen modifications this July. Until they do that we will not know the extent of gradient restoration, if any, required to allow the screens to operate in an optimum fashion. Once that parameter is established, we can press forward with our design and develop a reliable plan and cost estimate. We will not be able to develop an optimum funding schedule until we have that plan and cost estimate defined. I do not have a timetable for the design since, for example, a six foot gradient increase would be far more complex than a three or one foot increase. I can assure you that we will keep you fully informed as we develop these issues, and will furnish you the optimum funding schedule as soon as we are able to develop one.
Mr. FAZIO. Secretary Lancaster, when do you anticipate that the limitations of Section 902 will become an obstacle to continued funding of the project, assuming that budget constraints are not an obstacle to continued funding of the project and that the project stays on the aforementioned optimum funding schedule?
Mr. LANCASTER. As General Williams indicated, there is considerable uncertainty until we have a plan and a cost estimate. I understand that we expect a cost estimate that will substantially exceed the current authorized cost estimate and an increase in the Section 902 limit will probably be required. Prudent management would expect the increase in the 902 limit to occur before we initiate construction.
MARY SVILLE /YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. FAZIO. What is your capacity in FY 1997 for this project?
General WILLIAMS. Our full capability is $4.2 million, the same as the budget.
Mr FAZIO. Do you see any potential obstacles to this project?
General WILLIAMS. The project seems to be going well. We have delayed award of the second contract, and split the originally intended scope into two separate contracts. This will allow us to include betterments requested by our sponsor to increase the level of flood protection and we've also had some design delays to confirm geotechnical conditions. With all of this, completion slipped 12 months from September 1998 to September 1999.
J
75
SANTA MONICA BREAKWATER
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Secretary, what is the Corps' capability with respect to the Santa Monica Breakwater project? b) Is there any remaining PE&D that can be done on the project, without further authorization from Congress, and if so, what is that dollar amount?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps' normal preconstruction engineering and design (PED) effort is fully funded and will complete in September 1996 with available funds. Since this project is not authorized, we have no capability to initiate construction. While additional PED work could be done, it would divert limited funding from work on other projects scheduled for FY 1997.
Mr. FAZIO. General Williams, what is the status of the feasibility study on the Santa Monica Breakwater? I encourage you to complete this work as soon as possible so that the Congress will have an opportunity to authorize the project as part of this year's Water Resources Development Act.
General WILLIAMS. The Santa Monica Breakwater feasibility study is under review in my office. The 90-day review period by state and other agencies has been completed. Comments and policy issues are being assessed, and the feasibility report is scheduled to be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in June 1996.
SAN LUIS REY
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of the San Luis Rey flood control project? There is no funding in the budget request, yet it is my understanding that there is a need for an additional $6.5 million to complete the project. b) Is there any additional need for funding in fiscal year 1997 to complete work on this project, and if so, what level of funding is required in fiscal year 1997?
General WILLIAMS. The cost estimate has increased by $6.5 million since we presented the project to the Committee, for completion last year. Of this increase, $6.4 million is a Federal cost. Most of this increase is due to flood damages the project experienced in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Unfortunately, this cost increase exceeds the current authorized Section 902 limit for the project and, consequently, we have no approved capability for FY 1997. Authorization for an increase is included in the proposed Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Once the increase is authorized we would expect to complete construction within one year after we receive funds.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Secretary, the budget request includes only $14.4 million for the LACDA project. This funding schedule extends the project construction schedule by four years. This seems like an unacceptably long delay in the project. b) What is the Corps' capability on this project? c) What is the most that could effectively be spent on this project and how much would this shorten the construction schedule? Isn't it to your advantage to get these projects completed as soon as possible?
76
Mr. LANCASTER. If we consider this project by itself, outside the context of our overall construction program, I would certainly agree that it would be cheaper and far more efficient to complete it on an optimum construction schedule. Unfortunately adequate funds are not available to our construction program in FY 1997 and subsequent years to avoid stretchouts of our construction projects. The Corps has advised me that the optimum funding level for this project in FY 1997, considered in isolation, would be $45 million. This level in FY 1997, followed by substantial increases in subsequent years, could shorten the construction duration by 84 months, from September 2006 to September 1999.
HANSEN DAM
Mr. FAZIO. There is a lease agreement being negotiated between the City of Los Angeles and Mr. Eddie Milligan on Army Corps land at Hansen Dam. What is the position of the Corps of Engineers on this agreement and why is this process taking so long?
Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Milligan manages the Equestrian Center on land sub-leased from the City of Los Angeles. I understand that he has been on a month-by-month basis since 1989. In recognition of the need for security, and for the safety of the horses and other livestock at the Equestrian Center m the event of a flood, the Corps has permitted the placement of two double-wide mobile homes at the center on land above the 100 year flood plain for the use of the manager and his assistant manager. We have limited the occupation of these mobile homes to the principals plus one additional person each. We have made it clear to the City that we will not permit additional mobile homes or permanent dwelling units within the flood basin. Since the actual negotiations for a longer term lease are between the City and Mr. Milligan, I am not sure we know all the factors that may have led to prolonged negotiations, but we have reaffirmed our position to the City.
Mr. FAZIO. Is the Corps considering reversing its position with regard to human habitation at the equestrian center? c) If so, what is the justification for such a change?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps has not changed its position concerning the equestrian center. The Corps policy on lease agreements within flood control basins is to oppose human habitation because having people within the basin could constrain operational decisions during flood events. In this case, with the mobile homes above the 100 year flood pool, and with an approved evacuation plan for the people and the livestock, we will continue to allow the two mobile homes.
GUADALUPE RIVER
Mr. FAZIO. Based on project schedule, the local sponsor for the Guadalupe River flood control project understood that the Corps FY 1997 budget request would be $12.5 million in continued construction. However, the budget includes only $5 million for construction. What is the effect of this flood funding reduction on the community, an area that was hit last winter with a Presidentially-declared flood disaster and suffered over $6 million in damages?
77
General WILLIAMS. The funding levels available for FY 1997 and subsequent years have resulted in a delay in completion of the Guadalupe River project from January 1999 to January 2002, a delay of 36 months. This will subject the community to the existing flood threat for an additional three years.
Mr. FAZIO. I understand that there was a special commitment made by Corps Headquarters to the sponsor to keep this project on schedule. How does this shortfall comport with that commitment?
General WILLIAMS. I believe we make a commitment to each of our project sponsors at the time we sign a Project Cooperation Agreement, to complete their projects in the least costly and most efficient way possible, consistent with sound engineering practice. National budget priorities have changed and unfortunately our program does not contain sufficient funds for us to keep the original schedule. Our program must carry a fair share of the Nation's effort to balance the Federal Budget.
Mr. FAZIO. Does it make sense that an area as floodprone as San Jose should have to bear an inordinate reduction in flood control, while other projects are allowed to stay on schedule?
General WILLIAMS. Every project in the South Pacific Division's construction program which will not be committed to completion with contracts awarded by 30 September 1996 will be delayed a minimum of one year. Many are delayed four or more years by our ceilings. I believe we have treated the Guadalupe River project in an equitable manner considering the constraints we are dealing with.
78
FLOOR VOTES
Mr. Myers. Thank you. We're going to have three votes which will mean we have about 20 or 25 minutes of voting shortly. We will come back probably about — going to be any problem, can we take a recess for a half-hour to try to finish this morning? Is it good with the members as well as
Mr. Rogers. If I could have
Mr. Myers. You're going to have five minutes. We have five min- utes for a regular vote, but I'm just getting a feeling here, to keep going instead of coming back at 2:00. Is that agreeable with every- one?
Mr. Lancaster. We would prefer that too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Myers. But you don't have luncheon plans?
Mr. RiGGS. Mr. Chairman, before you leave, sir
Mr. Myers. We're not going to leave. We got five minutes yet.
Mr. RiGGS. I understand we have a vote open. I'm just wondering if I could go on the record at this point.
Mr. Myers. Yes, both you and Joe would be — an Executive Ses- sion is what the vote was.
Mr. RiGGS. Right.
Mr. Myers. Next Thursday. A week from today. Would you like to be recorded?
Mr. RiGGS. I'd like to be recorded as voting yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knollenberg. I'm already in.
Mr. Myers. Mr. Rogers, the remaining five minutes.
OMB request
Mr. Rogers. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, a lot of us will want to know what you re- quested of the OMB rather than what they agreed. I wish that the process were that you could request of OMB only in categories, that they would not have fine-tuning capability as they do now and as our Budget Committee. I wish the procedure were such that you would get X numbers of dollars for each category and then you peo- ple who are on the front lines and on the ground out there then make the decision about specifically where that goes. Along with the Congress, of course. But that's not the case. But I'm very inter- ested to know, and I'm sure the rest of us are, the request that you made of OMB before they fine-combed it so that we can know what you, the professionals, feel like you can and should do as we make our determinations. So, can you provide that for the record for us?
Mr. Lancastfh. We will take that question for the record, Mr. Rogers.
[The information follows:]
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
[Funding in thousands of dollars]
to OMB (8 Sept. 1995)
General investigations 141,000 142,500
Construction, general 941,00 914,000
Operation and maintenance, genera! 1,535.000 1,663,000
79
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST— Continued
[Funding in thousands of dollars]
to 0MB (8 Sept. to Congress (19 1995) Mar. 1996)
F.C., Mississippi river and tribs 305,000 292,500
Regulatory program 112,000 112,000
Flood control and coastal Emergencies 15,000 15,000
General expenses 153,000 153,000
Oil spill research 850 850
Total 3,392,850 3,292,850
EARMARKED FUNDS
Mr. Rogers. And that's the specifics of everything that you asked of 0MB. Now, the 1996 Energy and Water Development Ap- propriations Act earmarked funds for various studies and projects. Are those proceeding as directed by the Congress in that law?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir. That is the case.
Mr. Rogers. The reports that accompanied the 1996 Energj^ and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the Corps to un- dertake various studies and projects. Are those proceeding as re- quested?
Major General Genega. Sir, I believe that's generally the case. I guess I'd have to look at each one. I believe generally we track those very carefully. I only hesitate, sir, to make sure that I'm 100- percent accurate.
Mr. Rogers. Well, if you will provide that for the record.
Major General Genega. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
80
PROJECTS WITH CONGRESSIONAL GUIDANCE IN REPORTS
The Corps is proceeding in accordance with report language provided last year in almost all cases. This table shows work which is not proceeding in accordance with guidance, together with a reason for the lack of progress for each effort.
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS - Congress directed the Corps to use not to exceed $100,000 of available MR&T funds to repair non- Federally owned roads to the dam. The cost of the repairs is $1.4 million, and no repairs can be accomplished for $100,000.
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA - Congress directed that available funds be used to install lighting at Pool's Bluff Sill. Since no safety problem exists at this lock, the lighting is not being installed.
CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING, SC - Congress provided an additional $1,200,000 for ditching, clearing, site preparation, and initiation of diking at the Clouter Island disposal area. These funds are not being used because this work is a non-Federal responsibility by statute, and must be undertaken by the non- Federal sponsor, absent legislative direction.
VALDEZ HARBOR, AK - Congress provided direction to accomplish maintenance dredging in this harbor. This work is not proceeding because recent hydrographic surveys indicate minimal shoaling and navigation is not impeded.
OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION, IN - Congress added funds to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction of levee repairs. The Corps has treated repair work on local flood control projects as a responsibility of the local sponsors and has not performed such work at Federal expense absent specific congressional direction in law. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has stated that he does not believe it would be appropriate for the Corps to perform repair work on the Ohio River local flood protection projects in Indiana absent such specific Congressional direction in law.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CALIENTE CREEK, CA - Congress directed the Corps to take all necsessary steps to complete this feasibility study in FY 1996. However, the feasibility study was suspended at the request of the local sponsor.
81
PROJECTS WITH CONGRESSIONAL GUIDANCE IN REPORTS (CONT'D)
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TULE RIVER, CA - Congress provided direction to resume the feasibility phase of the study to enlarge Success Dam, California. At this point in time, no agreement has been reached with the local sponsor on revisions to the feasibility study's scope and cost.
82
FRUSTRATIONS
Mr. Rogers. All of us are frustrated I guess, Mr. Secretary, and I know when you were here you were frustrated on various things, and I don't guess that will end now that you've got a new job. But it doesn't end our frustrations about some of the seeming illogical and I won't say immoral, but questionable judgments that are made on various things. But I hope that you will bear with us as we try to muddle through our responsibilities even as you do yours. Let me say to you that we wish you the very best. You were a great member of Congress and a very conscientious member of the body, notably so, and we're delighted that you have been picked by the President to handle this heavy responsibility with very difficult de- cisions that you're going to have to make. And to your military col- leagues, we wish you the best. I know you're frustrated in your roles from time to time as we all are, and you're trjdng to do the best you know how to do with the limited dollars and — demands. So, we wish you the best and we stand ready to try to help you. Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to you.
Mr. Myers. Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess until approximate 12:15. Thank you.
[Recess. 1
Mr. Myers. Committee will come to order. Mr. Knollenberg. Pret- ty much what time you need I guess. Everybody has had a pit stop now.
CORPS STAFFING
Mr. Knollenberg. I do have just a couple questions, and I'm going to be very brief. And welcome, Mr. Secretary, and congratula- tions on your appointment, and you can refer to whomever this question might be or should be directed to. I as we all are, am con- cerned about the size of staffing, the amount of money that goes into personnel, and I noticed that — and if I could piece these to- gether it will help me a little bit in terms of understanding if this is just a glitch in some arithmetic or if it is in fact something that we should look into. My understanding is that the staffing in 1996, I'm looking at the pass-out sheet here, says that there are 27,201 FTEs for Fiscal Year 1997. Now, it also says that there's a reduc- tion of 354, which would bring it down to something under 27,000. But I noticed also in the report by General Williams, I believe, that it indicates that there are currently the 27,359 FTEs which is a dif- ference of 158. Now, maybe that's just an error, but if you look at the report that I have which I presume is the phrasing or verbaliz- ing that you provided in my absence when I wasn't able to be here, there is a difference of some 158. In other words, 27,201 minus 354 is something under 27,000. You're indicating that you reduced it by 354 but I see where it can only be 158 because currently you're saying that there are — the differences here, 27,359 on General Wil- liams' report, you have a another report here that it's 27,102. So, there is a discrepancy of 158. Now, that may be minor and maybe this is something that we should just refer for some research and investigation because I don't think the numbers match. Overall though, I have some concern about staffing and I noticed that, and there's probably a very good answer for this, but I noticed that you
83
have — more people, personnel than the entire Department of En- ergy. I understand also that DOE will contract out. Could you ex- plain and give me some picture of the private contracting that's done and why these numbers are as high as they are in relation let's say DOE?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir. I'm not familiar with the DOE numbers so I guess a contrast and comparison perhaps with them I'd be a little short on, but I can talk about what the Corps does, and let me take it over the life cycle of our projects. In the planning business we do about 60 percent of our work in-house and about 40 percent of it by contracting out. On the engineering side it's about this year it's 62 percent in-house, about 38 percent outsourced. In the construction business, we literally do 100 per- cent of the construction by contract. The Corps personnel involved in that are contract administrators and technical types who over- see, quality assure, if you will, that construction. On the operations side, that's our most people-intensive part of the operation, in fact, about 13,000 of those 27,00 people. Places like lock masters, for ex- ample, that are government employees on the several hundred locks that we operate; hydro power plants operated by government employees. We have moved on the operations business to a great deal of contracting on routine housekeeping kind of tasks like cut- ting grass at campgrounds and around hydro power facilities. But that is our most people-intensive part and that is where the people do those if you will governmental functions like lock master oper- ations. Does that help someone, sir?
Mr. Lancaster. I might comment also, that with the power houses we're doing a lot of remote operations now where you have maybe several hydroelectric plants at a particular area, thanks to the advent of the computer operations a lot of those power houses now are managed from one spot and people have been eliminated that previously were on-site at each of those hydroelectric plants operating them; another example of how we're trying to reduce the number of FTE.
Mr. Knollenberg. I think there's a question too I have about — I don't have these numbers in front of me right now — if you were to classify or categorize the people in your organization, reorganiza- tion— omnibus way, but if you were to take administrative or call them business suit people, administrative people versus the lab coat people or interior people and maybe you don't have any of those perhaps, and then finally the hard hat or those that are real- ly out doing the labor, the work, do you have some numbers on that?
Mr. Lancaster. Let me try to address it in very broad terms. In addition to the 27,000 plus or minus people that you referred to in our Civil Works Program which this Committee has oversight, we also have a Military Construction Program. So, when you look at the Corps of Engineers, our command, we have about 40,000 plus or minus civilians and out of that 40,000 plus or minus there's around 16,000 plus or minus that are engineers and scientists of various categories. And then in addition to that we've got real es- tate people, we've got attorneys, we've got people who run the com- puters and so forth and so on. And then we have people that are out on our locks and our dams, rangers running our reservoirs and
84
those types of things. All of them have a classification attached to them with regards to what their classification grade is, their classi- fication grade series and so forth. But that's a rough go at how we're broken out.
Mr. Knollenberg. What percentage of the administration of the management types or we'll call them the business suit types are in Washington?
Mr. Lancaster. About two percent of our total staff is in the Washington Headquarters, about five percent are out at our Divi- sion Headquarters that oversee our districts. About I think it's
Mr. Knollenberg. I remember a figure as 89.
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. 89 percent I believe is the fig- ure
Mr. Knollenberg. Yes, sir,
Mr. Lancaster [continuing]. Of our staffing at the districts which are doing the operation, the maintaining and the overseeing of the construction of the projects and the design of the projects.
Mr. Knollenberg. The five-percent figure you mentioned, now, that takes in all of the administrative?
Mr. Lancaster. The five percent that I mentioned with regards to our division headquarters is the oversight of running that divi- sion program, overseeing the command and control of the districts they're responsible for. It includes within that five percent all the various categories of people I've referred to. You're going to have engineers and scientists and administrators and lawyers and so forth.
Mr. Knollenberg. I guess I would just then — it wouldn't be ac- curate or fair to compare the personnel categories of DOE with the categories that you folks are involved in because it does embrace some other kind of work mix?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, I think you'd have a hard time and I think you'd probably end up comparing apples and oranges, as they say.
Mr. Knollenberg. What further downsizing do you anticipate looking ahead? Have you telescoped into the future a year or two, maybe three long-range?
Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. The Corps of Engineers has to downsize in regards to the number of FTE in accordance with the Executive Order of downsizing the federal civilian work force. Of the 272,900 reduction in the federal civilian work force that was directed by Ex- ecutive Order from 1993 to 1999, the Corps of Engineers' portion of that was 3,400 FTE. In addition to that in our military construc- tion part of our program we also have a reduction. In addition to that of the directed civilian reduction, the budgetary problems that we're facing, our government is facing, will further require reduc- tion in our personnel. But that becomes somewhat fuzzy in regards to not knowing exactly what the out-year budget will be, but it's on a downward slope.
carryover funds
Mr. Knollenberg. I don't recall, are there any unspent balances from the prior year?
Mr. Lancaster. I'm not sure what you mean by unspent bal- ances. Carryover money perhaps?
85
Mr. Knollenberg. Maybe staff would know if carryover would be
Mr. Lancaster. General Genega, perhaps.
Major General Genega. Yes, sir, there is. It's been significantly reduced. From 1994 to 1995 we carried over about $1.2 billion. We expect that to be slightly over $200 million at the end of this year of which slightly over $100 million is fenced dollars that we cannot use for other purposes.
Mr. Knollenberg. I believe that that rounds out the questions. I have a couple more, but what I'll do is I'll submit those in writing and they are a little more detailed and probably a little more dull, but I would appreciate a response. And if you need some input I'll make sure my staff gets that to you because the numbers don't check in, and they're somewhat insignificant, but they're not right.
Mr. Lancaster. It might be helpful if you would make reference to the particular document where the inconsistency appears so that we can
Mr. Knollenberg. I'll be glad to, and I'll make sure you'll get that in a short time. So, I'm concluded, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
CORPS STAFFING
Mr . KNOLLENBERG . In Lieutenant General Arthur E. William's testimony before this Subcommittee on February 21, 1995, the General cited "Civil Program staffing for FY96 as 27,359 FTEs, reflecting a reduction of 480 FTEs from the FY95 total." Today, Lieutenant General Williams testified that "Civil Program staffing for FY97 is 27,201 FTEs, reflecting a reduction of 354 FTEs from the FY96 total" . By subtracting the FY97 level from the FY96 level, I only find a reduction for FY97 of 158 FTEs. I support the Corps's continued efforts to streamline their work force. However, I cannot reconcile whether there was a reduction in FY97 of 354 FTEs as Lieutenant General Williams testified or whether it was 158 FTEs as I have calculated. I recognize that whether it is 158 FTEs or 354 FTEs in FY97 is rather insignificant, especially in a Corps with over 27,000 FTEs. However, in a matter of five of ten years of continued down sizing the differences become much more significant. Please list the employee FTEs for FY94, FY95, FY96, FY97 and any fiscal years in the future if estimates have already been determined by the Corps.
Mr. LANCASTER. The 27,359 Full Time Equivalent workyears, or FTE, mentioned in the Chief of Engineers testimony last year reflects a reduction of 196 FTE associated with the then proposed new policies which Congress subsequently rejected. Without this reduction, the correct number for fiscal year 1996 is 27,555 FTE. The FTEs for fiscal years 1993 through fiscal year 1999 are provided in the table below:
|
Fiscal Year |
FTE |
|
1993 |
29,194 |
|
1994 |
28,482 |
|
1995 |
27,839 |
|
1996 |
27,555 |
|
1997 |
27,201 |
|
1998 |
26,559 |
|
1999 |
25,808 |
87
Mr. Myers. Thank you. In reference to your figure of $200 mil- lion, that's unobligated?
Major General Genega. Yes, sir. That would be carried over from 30 September to 1 October this year. That's correct. Yes, sir.
MONTGOMERY POINT DAM
Mr. Myers. We have a colleague from Arkansas who has been in and out of the room a number of times this morning and waiting for his opportunity to — I never remember the project down there.
Mr. Dickey. Montgomery Point Dam.
Mr. Myers. But he's a member of the Appropriations Committee, so he has some questions. Mr. Dickey?
Mr. Dickey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for giving me a chance to mention Montgomery Point Dam again. Mr. Secretary, I want to say for the record that it's such a pleasure to have you as our Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
Mr. Dickey. And congratulations to you. I have two questions about the Arkansas River and the White River and I'd like to dis- cuss them just a second with you. Montgomery Point Dam is the first discussion and we've talked about it, about the fact that 12- month navigability is at risk. We have gotten from the President as I understand it, from the Administration, the amount of money that we needed appropriated but it's coming from the Inland Wa- terways Users Trust Fund. I would like to ask you if this of course means it would be delayed I don't know how many years, I don't know what the projection would be, but there's $6 billion ahead of us coming out of that fund. I'd like to know what the Corps' posi- tion is, what your position is, on Montgomery Point Dam and whether we can continue what we've started in this year.
Mr. Lancaster. Certainly what you have begun this year will be continued. In fact, we will be going to contract soon on the piece that was in this year's budget and the funds are available for us to continue next year. The construction dollars are anticipated to come from both general fund and from trust fund. And again, it's a situation where we're trying to stretch the dollars as far as we can and to obtain them from whatever sources are available. We believe that this is a program that is justified under the Trust Fund and that therefore since that is an appropriate source of funds that we should use it in this particular case.
Mr. Dickey. Is there any way that you can prioritize appropria- tions within the trust?
Mr. Lancaster. I'm going to yield to one of the generals because I'm not sure how the Trust Fund operates sufficiently to give that kind of response.
Major General Genega. Sir, we may not use the Trust Fund un- less the Congress appropriates money from it for us in our pro- gram. So, this is not a fund that we manage, sir, and we only get the funds as appropriated by the Congress.
Mr. Dickey. Well, how does it stand? Is it Genega?
Major General Genega. Genega, sir.
Mr. Dickey. Genega?
Major (General Genega. Yes, sir.
88
Mr. Dickey. How does the Montgomery Point Dam appropriation stand right now with regard to being — what I'm concerned about is just the continuous nature of it. Are you looking at something that will be continuous now until completion?
Major General Genega. Continuous in funding, sir?
Mr. Dickey. Yes.
Major General Genega. Sir, I don't know that we've made that determination yet. The difficulty here is that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is running out of money, and I don't have the exact numbers with me here, but I've got a number of charts that I'd be happy to visit with you and show you this and that's based on on- going construction, actually locks that are physically under con- struction on other parts of the Inland Waterway right now. And so now there are a lot of assumptions in those kinds of projections, as- sumptions as to bid prices and inflation prices as you might imag- ine. We adjust them frequently, but that's the real issue here, and the real issue is how much can get done with those limited amount of dollars.
Mr. Dickey. Can you give us any prognosis?
Major General Genega. Sir, can I take that for the record with laying out for you where the Trust Fund stands and where those dollars are £ind where we think it would fit?
[The information follows:]
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
Mr. Dickey. As a follow-up to my question, allow me to ask one more question. While the President designated trust ftind money for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam for FY 1997, if there is no trust fund money available, wiU the Corps then des- ignate other funding for continued construction and activity for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam?
General Genega. The authority to use the Inland Waterway Trust Fund for Mont- gomery Point Lock and Dam, on a 50/50 cost sharing basis, would need to be pro- vided in either appropriation act language or in a Water Resources Development Act. If Congress does not provide this authority, any funds appropriated for the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam would be derived solely from the Construction, General appropriation. However, the Administration would not expect to budget for continued construction absent authority, as requested, to finance the project one- half from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Mr. Dickey. Well, that would be fine. But you are committed to the program, to the project?
Mr. Lancaster. Not only are we committed to the project, butj the President is too.
Mr. Dickey. I wasn't sure you'd remember where he's from. That's not true, for the record. Well, is there anything else on that? I Because I have worn the Chairman out and his patience has been! absolutely historical.
Mr. M\'ERS. We are proceeding with the next step as it comes! along, but where those steps will run out are into the future and^ it's difficult for us to see. But for what is needed for next year we] have included those dollars in this year's
Mr. Dickey. What can I do, if anything?
Mr. Myers. Continue to be on the Appropriations Committee.
WHITE river
Mr. Dickey. Okay. I'll try to do that. If you Democrats won't run I anybody against me I can get reelected. Now, I'll talk about the]
89
White River. This is a small matter in comparison to the Montgom- ery Point Project, but the White River is being used for navigation, the upper parts, around Newport and that area, for grain pri- marily. Last week they had a gauge of nine feet I think, and a se- ries of barges stuck at eight, maybe less than eight feet. It's going to create an enormous additional cost to our farmers of some 20 cents a bushel on one commodity, which is in the millions of dol- lars. I'd like to ask two questions about that. How can a gauge be off, if that's possible? And two, is there anything that you all are planning that will accelerate the dredging of the White River and that area so that we won't have this problem occur again?
Major Greneral Genega. Sir, I'll have to get for the record the an- swer about the schedule for the White River. I don't have it. I'm not aware of the problem with the gauge. I would just suspect that it perhaps could have been hit or some such thing and displaced, but I don't know. I'll do my best to get an answer for you for what we think happened to it.
[The information follows:]
White River, Arkansas, Navigation Channel
The gages on the White River measure relative changes in the water levels and, as such, the gage reading is not an indicator of actual depths of water. For a given stage reading at the Clarendon gage, the channel depth can vary considerably, de- pending on the location along the channel. The Corps maintains some of the gages and some are maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey. We have no reports of any problems with the gages.
The current authorized White River project provides an 8-foot channel depth downstream of Augusta, Arkansas, for gage reading greater than 12 feet at Clarendon, Arkansas. For gage readings below 12 feet, the authorized channel depth is five feet. We are aware Qiat the White River is experiencing abnormally low river stages for this time of year. Hydrographic surveys, taken this month, indicated that the authorized project bottom grade is being maintained. However, the authorized project does not provide the necessary water depths to ship fully loaded barges year round. The Corps is expediting the annual maintenance dredging contract, but is not authorized to provide additional improvements.
Mr. Dickey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for all the things that you've done for us.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Mr. Myers. Well, thank you. You don't let us forget it. He's very persistent. Gentlemen, we are still concerned about the budget, of course, but looking at what the Office of Management and Budget is projecting out, it doesn't look very good for the future unless we can turn that around. I think we have to work with our Budget Committee to do that, that you fully understand, each of you do. But I'm concerned about what you are going into, such as the Ever- glades restoration. Somehow this doesn't seem quite to fit into the mold that I always had about the Corps' responsibilities, to take care of natural resources which the Corps has some responsibility for. But usually I've always associated the Corps with flood control and transportation, not keeping a national park. What's the esti- mated cost of this restoration, and how much of it would the Corps have to assume responsibility for?
Mr. Lancaster. This year's budget I believe it is $39.
Mr. Myers. That's what you have for this year, $39 million, is it ever going to finish or is it ongoing?
90
Mr. Lancaster. It is a project that is now under study. There is a comprehensive study of South Florida water resources that will ultimately determine the total cost, but there are many pieces that are being brought together in this study that have previously been authorized and funded at various points. So, a final figure is prob- ably not available at this point. But I would comment on that as a Corps obligation. I believe it was — that gave the Corps a third obligation which is environmental restoration in addition to its tra- ditional navigation and flood control. But nonetheless, it is one of our obligations and as I indicated in a previous question today, that particular project is in addition to its environmental restora- tion aspects is a water resource project because of the need for re- charging the South Florida Aquifer which is being quickly dimin- ished or depleted by the exploding population in that area. And this project will have a significant impact on recharging that aqui- fer by putting this additional water into the region which is now going into the gulf into the Atlantic Ocean.
Mr. Myers. Is the Department of Interior helping? How much is the State of Florida putting in?
Mr. Lancaster. They are. This is in fact a multiagency project. We're a part of that. I believe the Interior budget will have signifi- cantly more money for this project than we will. And then the South Florida Water Management District likewise produces its own revenue in South Florida which is also contributing, as well as other sources of funds. Everglades Forever which resulted in an obligation on the part of property owners in the area to contribute. So, there are many sources of funds. We are a significant part of it, but I believe Interior's portion is significantly larger than ours.
Mr. Myers. Would you provide for the record what that is this
year.-" Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. [The information follows:]
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
The United States Department of the Interior's FY 1997 Budget request includes $155,792,000 for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.
SALMON RESTORATION
Mr. Myers. The next one is the salmon restoration and recovei in the Northwest. How much is that going to cost?
Mr. Lancaster. This year I believe it's $107 million.
Mr. Myers. How far out, and how much is it going to cost whei it ever gets done?
Mr. Lancaster. Well, I guess that will depend on the Corps which is actually in control of this issue, and we are in fact operat- ing under previous guidance from the court in providing protection] and restoration. And so we simply are responding to what is ourj obligation under that decision.
Mr. Myers. Again, is it only the Corps' responsibility? Does thi Department of Interior make any contribution to this too, the salm- on recovery?
Mr. Lancaster. Sir, I'm not sure about the Department of Inte-] rior, but there are a number of other folks who are contributing. Fish and Wildlife Service is certainly a part of the Department of
91
the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Services, Bonneville Power Administration to name just a few.
Mr. Myers. Kind of expensive fish aren't they? Staff says it's $1.3 billion. I wonder how much that is per fish.
Mr. Lancaster. There have been computations made that I've heard but can't remember.
Mr. Myers. This Committee has had some bad experiences with fish, the snail darter years ago. We brought it to the Supreme Court, had the expert over there, had about five glasses of dead snail darters. The court asked, pick out the snail darter we have in issue here and this expert, so-called self-appointed expert, picked up the wrong one. Wasn't endangered at all, and he picked out the wrong one, how many dots they had on their belly or something like that. Whoever eats a snail darter anyway. Gentlemen, I know that we'll keep it open here. Mr. Frelinghuysen had some other questions and possibly we'll have to have him provide it for the record, but we have been here for a long time.
[The information follows:]
92
FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN . Given the years of controversy about the various studies that have been undertaken or are underway on the need for the Federal hopper dredges, wouldn't a real world market test be a more meaningful barometer of the need to keep Federal vessels in an active status than another study, particularly if the Federal vessels can be kept in a high state of readiness should they be needed?
Mr. LANCASTER. It is our intent to reduce the Federal dredge fleet in a manner that insures the dredging requirements of the Nation will be met by the private sector in a timely manner and at reasonable prices. I believe that it would be premature to initiate another test until we have completed the current analysis. While each previous study has contributed to the better understanding of the dredging needs and variables that impact the dredging operations, substantial changes have occurred and significant specific events and environmental windows have changed the ability to evenly schedule dredging operations throughout , the year, causing unforseen peaks in dredging requirements. Deepening of some major ports has resulted in increased dredging requirements for hopper dredges that were not anticipated in the recent past. Longer haul distances have increased the time requirements of some annual dredging operations. All of these changes impact the dredging capacity and availability of hopper dredges. Fortunately, these changes will be incorporated in the analysis that is scheduled to be completed in July 1997.
MINIMUM DREDGE FLEET
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How soon can we expect a decision on the minimum dredge fleet?
Mr. LANCASTER. The data collection will be completed at the end of Fiscal Year 1996, and the analysis is expected to be completed by the end of July 1997.
94
DREDGE McFARLAND -- STATUS
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the present status of the Dredge McFarland?
Mr. LANCASTER. The dredge McFarland is currently operating on a normal 180 day dredging schedule this fiscal year. This is the same as the other three Corps hopper dredges.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are you proposing to do for maintenance of the Dredge McFarland for the current and next fiscal year?
Mr. LANCASTER. The McFarland will undergo normal shipyard repairs this fiscal year and next fiscal year.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you planning any improvements or major rehabilitation on the Dredge McFarland?
Mr. LANCASTER. No, as I Stated previously the McFarland will undergo only normal shipyard repairs. No improvements to increase the dredging efficiency or major rehabilitation will be performed.
95
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGING
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much work has the McFarland done in the Delaware River this last year? and provide for the record the past five years?
Mr. LANCASTER. The McFarland did not perforin maintenance dredging in the Delaware River in FY 95. The Delaware River maintenance dredging normally performed by the McFarland was accomplished by private industry. I will provide for the record, a table showing work that the McFarland accomplished in the Delaware River in the last five years:
(The information follows:)
DREDGE MCFARLAND WORK ON THE DELAWARE RIVER
|
FISCAL YEAR |
CUBIC YARDS |
DREDGING DAYS |
|
1991 |
200,000 |
20 |
|
1992 |
521,366 |
51 |
|
1993 |
430,154 |
55 |
|
1994 |
307,663 |
46 |
|
1995 |
0 |
0 |
24-080 - 96 - 4
96
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: Can you describe the type of work the Corps performs under the Superfund program?
Major General GENEGA: Since 1982 the Corps of Engineers has provided assistance to EPA for the Superfund program. The Corps executes and manages "Federal Lead Financed" remedial design and action contracts assigned by EPA, provides enforcement oversight of responsible party remedial activities, provides technical assistance to EPA supporting remedial clean-up of hazardous waste sites, and executes and manages remedial investigations and feasibility studies.
97
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN : What percentage of work does the Corps handle for the Environmental Protection Agency?
Major General GENEGA: The Corps received $300M from EPA in support of Superfund in FY 95. For FY 96 we projected that we would receive $200M from EPA, to date we have received $31M. Based upon discussions with EPA, we should receive $200M from EPA for Superfund work in FY 97. Im not sure what percentages these amounts are of EPAs appropriations or budgets. 1 defer to EPA to provide that information.
98
Mr. FRKLINGHUYSEN: How many people does the Corps have working on Superfund?
Ma1or General GEHEGA: The number of Corps personnel working in «unoort of tife superfund program varies from year to year. In FY 95 the Co?S^^st^ 732 fuU-time equivalents (FTE) in support of Superfund. At S^Laim^ing of FY 96 we estimated that 435 FTEs would be needed for SuSeSSiriork? although this number may change if we do not receive full FY 9rfuAding in a timely manner. For FY 97 we project that approximately 400 dorps FTEs will be needed to support the program.
99
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: Are the activities performed by the Corps funded from the Army Corps budget or from the Superfund Trust administered by the Environmental Protection Agency?
Major General GENEGA: The Corps receives all funding for activities in support of the Superfund program on a reimbursable basis from EPA. No Corps funds are used.
100
CX>RPS SUPPORT TO HUD
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: This morning I met with the Public Housing Authorities from New Jersey, they informed me that the Army Corps has been awarding contracts through the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to conduct work for them (HUD) . Could you describe this work? How much funding comes from HUD to the Army Corps?
Major General GENEGA: The Corps does not award construction contracts for HUD. Since FY 1993, the Corps has furnished inspection services to Htn). Work consists of periodic physical inspections, contract administration reviews, drawing and specification review and final inspections of HUD renovation contracts with local Public Housing Authorities. In addition, IzUooratory services (i.e. lead paint testing) are provided. The Corps does do some minor contracting out in support of HUD, but only for speciality testing. The Corps has not served as a construction contracting officer for HUD or the Public Housing Authorities. The only time we do become involved before the housing construction contract is awarded is when we are requested to perform a pre-advertisement biddability, constructability and operability review to ensure the construction bid package does not have major errors. The Corps expects to receive approximately $6M from HUD for the above services in FY 97.
101
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR DISPOSAL CRISIS
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Have any significant storms occurred in our area during the last year which complicated the dredging and disposal issues for the New York-New Jersey Harbor?
General HUNTER. No, sir. There have not been any significant storms in our area during the last year which complicated the dredging and disposal issues for the New York-New Jersey Harbor.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of your progress on the issu- ance of permits for dredging in the New York-New Jersey Harbor?
General HUNTER. Sir, during 1995, thirteen permit applications were received. Two permits were issued, one was denied due to sediments that failed the ocean dunging criteria, one was withdrawn at the applicant's request and nine remain incomplete pending submission of sediment testing results. Seven new applications were received during the first three months of 1996 that also remain incomplete pending submission of sediment testing results.
102
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please describe the progress the Corps and others have made over the last year to resolve the disposal crisis in the New York-New Jersey Harbor area?
General HUNTER. Sir, the following progress has been made:
In July 1995, the Corps completed its Plan of Study for the Dredged Material Management Plan. We are revising the Plan of Study to address Washington level review comments.
In December 1995, the State of New Jersey's Dredging Team released its report on near term actions, including construction of new borrow pits in Newark Bay for the placement of contaminated dredged material, and two new dredging and ocean disposal permits. For long term actions, the State of New Jersey has promulgated regulations for the management of dredged material .
In February 1996, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey published its Dredging and Dredged Material Management Plan. The Port Authority has applied for the required Department of Army permit for New Jersey' s plan for subaqueous borrow pits in Newark Bay and they are preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
In February 1996, a committee was formed among representatives of the Governors of New York and New Jersey, the Mayor of New York City, the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Admin- istrator of Region III of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Division Commander for the North Atlantic Division to resolve issues pertaining to the disposal crisis.
In April 1996, the Governors of New York and New Jersey and the Environmental Protection Agency will complete their review of a dredged material management chapter in the New York-New Jersey Estuary Program's draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understand from the testimony of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and others that $6,000,000 is needed in the Fiscal Year 1997 for the ongoing development of the Corp's Dredged Material Management Plan. Are these funds contained within your request for the operation and maintenance of the New York Harbor?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Dredged Material Management Plan is not a separately budgeted line item. Funds in the amount of $5,798,000 are included in the budget request for New York Harbor . Within this amount, $2,500,000 is required for the Dredged Material Management Plan. The balance of the budget request is for operations and mainte- nsmce of New York Harbor.
103
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If SO, how are they distinguished from the rest of the project funding?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Operation and Maintenance, General budget request for New York Harbor does not distinguish the $2,500,000 for the Dredged Material Management Plan study from the rest of the project funding.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the additional $3,500,000 is provided by Congress can you complete the effort?
General HUNTER. No, sir. We cannot complete the study if Congress provides an additional $3,500,000 because it is a multiyear effort.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the Status of the Corps' Dredged Material Management Plan for the New York-New Jersey Harbor?
General HUNTER. Sir, our initial step in preparing the Dredged Material Management Plan for the New York-New Jersey Harbor is to develop a Plan of Study outlining the tasks to be accomplished. We are responding to recent comments from our Washington Headquarters on the Plan of Study. The $12,800,000 Dredged Material Management Plan effort will include a feasibility evaluation of dredged material disposal alternatives, a Federal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on alternatives to ocean disposal, and a series of comprehensive studies, such as a navigation economic study, physical and biological investigations, and risk assessments.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How quickly can this be completed?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Dredged Material Management Plan and its accompanying Supplemental Environmental In^iact Statement can be completed in three years.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are there some elements that can be started without completion of the entire plan?
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. There are several elements that can be started by the Corps and others before con^letion of the entire plan. These elements consist of: Newark Bay confined disposal facility, which is being pursued by the Port Authority,- beneficial uses of dredged material; hot spot remediation to neutralize highly contaminated areas,- innovative upland uses, such as land fill for a shopping mall project in Elizabeth, New Jersey,- and, redesignation of the Mud Dump Site as an expanded dredged material disposal area.
104
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN . When you testify next year, will we be any closer to a solution to the dredging crisis in the New York-New Jersey Harbor?
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. The Plan of Study will have been approved and the Dredged Material Management Plan will be underway. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers will attempt to convene a summit among the Governors of New York and New Jersey and other interested parties to focus on the crisis, with the intent of establishing a clear direction on solving the issues.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What Federal Navigation Channels which require maintenance dredging are not being funded and dredged due to the nature of the material or a lack of disposal site in the New York-New Jersey Harbor area, including how much or the channel depth is compromised?
General HUNTER. Sir, there are six channels in the New York-New Jersey Harbor area that are not being dredged due to the nature of the dredged material or lack of a disposal site. This represents approximately 2 million cubic yards of material that is not being dredged .
[The information follows:]
PROJECTS NOT BEING FUNDED AND DREDGED
Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ Bay Ridge Channel, NY Red Hook Channel, NY Hackensack Channel, NJ Eastchester Creek Channel, NY Port Chester Harbor Channel, NY
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Because of your inability to maintensuice dredge Federal Channels, there is a critical need for frequent channel condition surveys for the harbor pilots to safely move vessels through the New York-New Jersey Harbor. What is the estimated cost to perform these surveys on a semi-annual basis?
General HUNTER. Sir, semi-aumual surveys are currently estimated at $750,000.
105
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN'. Please provide a status listing of the semi-annual channel condition surveys added by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Bill .
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. The following is a status listing of the semi-annual chaiinel condition surveys for the projects that Congress directed be accomplished within available funds in Fiscal Year 1996.
[The information follows:]
CHANNEL DEPTHS
Navigation Channel
Authorized Depth (Feet)
Current Controlling Depth (Feet)
Tidal Survey Range Date (Feet)
Sandy Hook Channel 35
Raritan Bay Channel 35
Arthur Kill Channel 35
Newark Bay Channel 45
Kill Van Kull Channel 45 (Port Newark and Elizabeth Channel)
29.5 34.0 17.8 33.1 35.1
4.7 5.1 5.2 4.9
Feb 1996 Oct 1995 Nov 1995 May 1995 May 1995
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much funding could be effectively utilized in Fiscal Year 1997 to perform these channel condition surveys if again directed by Congress?
General HUNTER. Sir, our Operations and Maintenance, General budget request for Project Condition Surveys in the states of New York and New Jersey is $1,206,000 and $354,000, respectively. These amounts support hydrographic surveys, inspections, and studies to determine the condition of navigation channels that are not budgeted for maintenance work. This information is provided to the users to advise them of the channel conditions. These funds are not sufficient to perform the semi-annual surveys for the Sandy Hook Channel, NJ, Raritan Bay Channel, NY & NJ, Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ, Newark Bay Channel, NJ, and Kill Van Kull Channel, Port Newark and Elizabeth Channel, NY & NJ. If directed by Congress, we could use an additional $750,000 to conduct these semi-annual channel condition surveys.
106
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is my understanding that the Corps' has been deferring maintenance dredging in the Harbor. Is this true and how confident can we be that these dredging projects will occur as soon as a disposal sight is located?
General HUNTER. We have been deferring maintenance dredging in the Harbor due to a lack of disposal sites. When the States of New York and New Jersey provide suitable disposal facilities, maintenance dredging will be programmed as high priority items.
107
PASSAIC RIVER, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of this project?
General HUNTER. Sir, the initial review and public response period have been completed for the draft General Design Memorandum and we are responding to comments from Federal, state, and local agencies. It has been determined that the Preservation of Natural Storage Area is a separable element and is eligible for consideration of construction funding in future budget submissions. The Design Memorandum for the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area has been reviewed and we are responding to comments. The review indicates that this subfeature needs reauthorization at a higher project cost than was originally authorized.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the balance of appropriated funds for this project?
General HUNTER. Sir, presently $2,600,000 are unobligated and we expect to carry over $2,200,000 of these funds into Fiscal Year 1997.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Corps determination of the Preservation of Natural Storage Area (wetlands) as a separable project?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Corps has determined that the Preservation of Natural Storage Area is a separable element of the Passaic River Mainstem Project.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What remaining items would need to be completed before construction could be initiated on the wetlands portion?
General HUNTER. Sir, before construction can be initiated, the General Design Memorandum must be revised. Real Estate documentation and plana and specifications must be prepared, and a project sponsor must execute a to-be-developed Project Cooperation Agreement.
108
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Within the remaining available funds in Fiscal Year 1996, do you have a sufficient amount to complete the real estate documentation?
General HUNTER. Sir, with the scheduled Fiscal Year 1996 funds, we will begin the Real Estate documentation and continue it with the carryover funds in Fiscal Year 1997. There are sufficient funds to complete this effort scheduled for completion in July 1997.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is your capadDility to initiate construction?
General HUNTER. Sir, although project capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and manpower Army- wide. In this context, the capability amount provided here considers the project by itself without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works program in the President's Budget is the appropriate aimount consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal investments and the objectives of avoiding large budget deficits and the serious adverse effect that government borrowing is having on the national economy. In order to maintain these overall budgetary objectives, we could only utilize additional funds on individual projects and studies if offsetting reductions were taken. Having said that, the approved capability on this project for Fiscal Year 1997 is $100,000.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, how much funding could be utilized to initiate construction of this project in Fiscal Year 1997.
General HUNTER. Sir, if directed by Congress, $100,000 could be utilized to initiate construction in Fiscal Year 1997.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much funding would be required to complete this project?
General HUNTER. Sir, the total estimated cost of this element is $18,000,000. Based on the proposed 50/50 flood damage prevention cost -sharing policy, the Federal and non- Federal share would be $9,000,000 each. Funds in the cimount of $400,000 have been expended to date on preconstruction engineering and design activities. Therefore, $8,600,000 would be required to complete this element.
JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER WATERFRONT PARK AND HISTORIC AREA, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area project?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Design Memorandum for this project has been reviewed and we are responding to comments received. The review indicates that this subfeature needs reauthorization at a higher project cost than was originally authorized.
109
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is your capability to initiate construction?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Administration's position is not to support funding for this project on policy grounds due to low priority project outputs. Therefore, no capability is approved by the Administration for this activity.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, how much funding could be utilized to initiate construction of the bulkhead portion of the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area project, as requested by the Governor of New Jersey?
General HUNTER. Sir, as far as the amount that could be used in Fiscal Year 1997 if directed in "Act" language, that amount is $900,000.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the total cost of the bulkhead portion?
General HUNTER. Sir, the total cost of the bulkhead portion of this project is currently estimated to be $32,400,000. This is over the maximum authorized project cost limit of $25,000,000.
no
POLICY IMPACTS
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Were there any projects or studies reduced or phases not funded from your original budget submission due to the Administration's policy on shore protection emd could you provide the dollar amounts for the record?
General HUNTER. Sir, 19 shore protection items were not included in
the budget request due to the Administration's policy on shoreline protection as follows:
Projects not Funded for Construction Phase:
AMOUNT
1. Virginia Beach, VA $3,100,000
2. Sandbridge, Virginia Beach, VA 500,000
Subtotal (2) $3,600,000
Projects not Funded for PED Phase:
1. Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach, DE 200,000
2. Delaware Bay Coastline,
Roosevelt Inlet and Lewes Beach, DE 250,000
3. Delaware Bay Coastline, Maurice River, NJ 150,000
4. Delaware Coast Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE 286,000
5 . Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet
Absecon Island, NJ 450,000
6. Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ 375,000
7. Norfolk, VA, Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, VA 500,000
Subtotal (7) $2,211,000
Studies not Funded for Feasibility Phase:
1. Bamegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, NJ 558,000
2. Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ 550,000
3. Manasquan Inlet to Bamegat Inlet, NJ 600,000
4. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, NJ 250,000
5. Montauk Point, NY 125,000
6. North Shore of Long Island, NY 250,000
7. South Shore of Staten Island, NY 300,000
8. Yonkers Shoreline, NY 93,000
9. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, VA 280,000
10. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Poquoson, VA 100,000
Subtotal (10) $3,106,000
Total Items not Funded (19) $8,917,000
Ill
Mr. FRELINGHXrySEN. How much of a Federal investment would be lost?
General HUTfTER. Sir, the Federal investment which could be considered lost would be $3,845,000, which is the amount spent on the reconnaissance studies. Additional investment in the amount of $11,900,000, spent on feasibility studies, preconstruction engineering and design efforts would provide useful information to the sponsors: construction accomplished to date would provide benefits until the need for maintenance or periodic nourishment diminishes its effectiveness.
BARNEGAT BAY, NEW JERSEY
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please describe the current ecological condition of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.
General HUNTER. Sir, a study of the Barnegat Bay estuary, sponsored by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has determined the need for additional studies for environmental measures to offset the continued decline of tfie estuary.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, how much funding could be utilized to initiate a comprehensive evaluation of the Bay's ecosystem and watershed?
General HUNTER. Sir, subject to the qualifying language I previously noted, the approved capability on this activity is $350,000.
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please describe the current ecological conditions associated with dredging along the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.
General HUNTER. Sir, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has identified the need for new dredged material disposal sites associated with the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway project. Many upland and overboard sites have been depleted requiring the use of environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, how much funding could be utilized to initiate a study addressing maintenance dredging and environmental restoration in this area?
General HUNTER. Sir, subject to the qualifying language I previously noted, the approved capability on this activity is $370,000.
112
SOUTH SHORE OP STATEN ISLAND, NY
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How are you utilizing the funds provided by Congress in Fiscal Year 1996 for the South Shore of Staten Island, NY study?
General HUNTER. Sir, funds are being utilized to complete the reconnaissance phase and continue into the feasibility phase of the study to the extent allowed within availeible funds.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, what funding could you utilize to continue the feasibility study in FY 97?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Administration's position is not to support funding for this study on policy grounds. Therefore, no capability is approved by the Administration for further feasibility studies. As far as the amount that could be used in Fiscal Year 1997 if directed in "Act" language, that amount is $300,000.
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report will be completed in March 1996. It will identify shore protection measures to protect this area from storms.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are your tentative findings?
General HUNTER. Sir, the tentative findings of the reconnaissance report identify potential plans of in^rovement and sponsor support for continuation into a feasibility study.
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey, study for which Congress added funds as a new start in Fiscal Year 1995?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report will be completed in April 1996.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are your tentative findings?
General HUNTER. Sir, the tentative findings of the reconnaissance report identify potential plans of iit?)rovement and sponsor support for continuation into a feasibility study.
113
•BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG INLET, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the Status of the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey, project for which Congress added funds in Fiscal Year 1996 to initiate the feasibility study?
General HUNTER. Sir, Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being utilized to continue into the feasibility phase of the study to the extent allowable within available funds.
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ ABSECON ISLAND INTERIM PROJECT
Mr. FRELINGHXTYSEN. What is the Status Of Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, Absecon Island Interim Project?
General HUNTER. Sir, Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being used to finalize the draft Absecon Island interim study report and draft Environmental Impact Statement. Fiscal Year 1997 funds will be used to complete the Absecon Island interim feasibility report in December 1996.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are your tentative findings?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Absecon Island draft feasibility report identifies a potential beachfill plan including a dune for the ocean front communities of Absecon Island euid bulkheads with revetment for vulnerable areas of Atlantic City's Absecon Inlet frontage. The draft report has been approved by our Washington Headcjuarters for release to thft public for review.
TOWNS ENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, we are currently preparing the draft feasibility report and draft Environmental Inqoact Statement. Fiscal Year 1997 funds will be used to con^lete the feasibility study in March 1997.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are your tentative findings?
General HUNTER. Sir, my preliminary formulation analysis identifies potential beachfill and dune plans for the area with non- Federal sponsor support. The plans will be dociomented in the draft feasibility report in July 1996, and subsequently reviewed at the Washington level.
114
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK, AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK, AND PATERSON, NJ .
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey Project?
General HUNTER. Sir, we have initiated work on the flood control channel and will complete demolition of the Cheese Factory building this summer. In Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, we will award additional contracts for channel construction. Due to increased Real Estate and bridge alteration costs, the total project cost will exceed the maximum authorized project cost limit, thus reauthorization will be required. A Post Authorization Change Report is being prepared for submittal to Congress for project reauthorization. The maximum authorized project cost limit will not impact the Federal construction portion until January 1998. However, the non-Federal construction portion for the relocation of bridges will be delayed until the maximum authorized project cost is raised.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (SECTION 934 WRDA 1986)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the Section 934 Study of Raritan Bay Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey?
General HUNTER. Sir, we are coordinating the reevaluation report with the State of New Jersey. It is scheduled for completion in May 1996.
RARITAN BAY Sc SANDY HOOK BAY, CLIFFWOOD BEACH, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the reconnaissance effort for Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, NJ study?
General HUNTER. Sir, we will be completing the reconnaissance report in May 1996.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Why is this study conducted separately from Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay feasibility report?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey, area is being studied separately because it was believed to be authorized under an existing construction authority. It was later found that the unconstructed portion of the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey, project had been deauthorized, euid we were too far along in the overall area survey to study Cliffwood Beach in sufficient detail.
115
KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN . What is the current status of the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Cheuinel project?
General HUNTER. Sir, we have coit^jleted the Phase I construction of the project, deepening the channels to 40 feet mean low water. As directed last fiscal year, we are conducting a General Reevaluation Report for the Phase II construction to prepare a cost estimate to deepen the chauinels from 40 to 45 feet. The construction cost of Phase II work will exceed the maximum authorized project cost limit, thus reauthorization will be required.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the $600,000 requested for Fiscal Year 1997 allow you to conplete the current reevaluation?
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. With the funds requested in Fiscal Year 1997, we will complete the General Reevaluation Report in September 1997.
RARITAN BAY ANCHORAGES, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY & N J
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the New York and New Jersey Anchorages?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, conpleted in December 1993, identified navigation improvements at the Perth Amboy, New Jersey, anchorage area. The feasibility study is being deferred until a willing cost-sharing partner is identified.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If directed by Congress, how much funding could be utilized to initiate the feasibility phase for this study in Fiscal Year 1997?
General HUNTER. Sir, no funds can be utilized because we caumot begin the feasibility phase of this study until a willing cost sharing partner is identified.
NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS. NY
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the New York Harbor Anchorages feasibility study?
General HUNTER. Sir. the reconnaissance report, con^leted in December 1993. identified navigation improvements at the Red Hook Flats Anchorage area. The study has been deferred until a willing cost- sharing partner is identified.
116
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much funding could be utilized to initiate the feasibility study in Fiscal Year 1997?
General HtJNTER. Sir, no funds can be utilized because we cannot begin the feasibility phase of this study until a cost -sharing partner is identified.
NEW YORK HARBOR & ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANNEL, NJ
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the status of the construction on the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channel, Port Jersey Project?
General HUNTER. Sir, this project has been deferred due to the lack of a suitable sediment disposal site. The local sponsor was notified in July 1995 of our decision. With Fiscal Year 1996 funds, we are preparing a project summary report which lays out the remaining work required, the costs, and the schedule for resumption of work after a suitable disposal site is identified by the local sponsor.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the State of New Jersey provides a suitable disposal area, could you proceed into construction in Fiscal Year 1997?
General mnOTER. If the State of New Jersey provides a suitable disposal site, we could initiate construction of this project in Fiscal Year 1997.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much funding could be utilized for this project in Fiscal Year 1997?
General HUNTER. Sir, no funds could be utilized in Fiscal Year 1997. We have deferred this construction project because the toxicity testing of sediments found that the material is unsuitable for ocean disposal. The local sponsor was notified in July 1995 that work is being suspended until a suitable non- ocean disposal site is identified.
117
ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL TO HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the current status of the Arthur Kill Channel to Howland Hook Marine Terminal Project?
General HtJNTER. Sir, in 1989, we were essentially complete with our design for the Arthur Kill Channel when the tenant at the Howland Hook Marine Terminal went bankrupt. We stopped design awaiting the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's identification of a new tenant. In 1994, the Port Authority identified a new tenant and we resumed design. We are continuing preconstruction engineering and design including, a General Reevaluation effort to update the design cost estimate, benefits, environmental information, real estate requirements, and ship simulation modeling, and additional surveys, borings, geotechnical and structural analyses based upon the uses of the new tenant .
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are the requested funds sufficient to complete Preconstruction Engineering and Design for the Arthur Kill Channel to Howland Hook Marine Terminal Project?.
General HUNTER. No, sir. Fiscal Year 1997 funds will be used to complete a draft General Reevaluation Report and continue this preconstruction engineering and design effort which is scheduled for completion in June 1998.
118
CLOSING
Mr. Myers. I do want to wish General Williams, who has been a friend of this Committee and a personal friend of the membership for a good many years — and you've done a great job as chief — we wish you well. I just learned that Ed O'Neill is retiring also. How many more are retiring? Any other retirees that knowingly are going to retire voluntarily or
Lieutenant General Williams. I was waiting to see if there are any hands from the green suits.
Major General Genega. Sir, we were waiting whether you
Mr. Myers. No volunteers. I guess it's not an easy thing to do. We do appreciate the work that you have all done, and Chief, espe- cially what you have done, the contribution you've made to your country and to helping this Committee. Always been most conge- nial. So, we wish you good luck.
Lieutenant General WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a pleasure to serve.
Mr. Myers. Same with Ed and anyone else who's going to an- nounce their retirement. We have sometimes been on your back, but in the best interests of the country, and we're probably going to be this year too, Martin. Just because you're a good friend doesn't mean — -
Mr. Lancaster. I already found that out.
Mr. Myers. We might take our spurs off, but otherwise — I'm sure we'll have some questions for the record, but you've been here a long time. We appreciate your responses and the Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday.
[Questions and answers for the record follow:]
119
ChMrman Myers Questions for
Honorable H. Martin Lancaster
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
FUNDING CONSTRAINTS
Mr. MYERS: You indicate that the fiscal year 1997 budget request does not keep all projects on schedules previously announced to Congress. If funding constraints are causing you to stretch out construction schedules, which increases the total cost of projects, why have you requested funds to initiate new projects, particularly when many of them are not yet authorized?
Mr. LANCASTER: Mr. Chairman, there are two forces at work here. Last year, the Corps took a hard look at schedules for continuing construction projects and adjusted many of them in recognition of the fact that they were overly optimistic. This year, the Army's budget reflects the importance we place on being able to help more communities within funding constraints. Our efforts to assist more communities also are reflected in proposed changes to cost sharing. The proposed new projects are, in fact, investments in America's future.
120
SAVINGS FROM REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DIVISION OFHCES
Mr. MYERS. Do you have an estimate at this point of the savings to be derived from the draft plan for reducing the number of di\asion offices you submitted to the conrunittee in February of this year?
Mr. LANCASTER. The proposed plan is pending approval by the Secretary of the Army. Once we have an approved plan, an implementation plan will be developed and savings projections will be formulated. We do not have firm estimates available at this time. However, preliminary estimates based on current staffing levels at the affected divisions, less staffing adjustments for realigned districts, are that about 70-80 FTE would be saved, generating savings of approximately $6.5 to $8 million annually by FY 1998.
121
COST PROJECTIONS OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DIVISION OFFICES
Mr. MYERS. What is the cost of the division office restructuring plan?
Mr. LANCASTER. The costs of restructuring cannot be determined until the proposed plan is approved, an implementation plan is developed, and staffing realignments and personnel impacts are determined. Actual costs will depend on timing of personnel actions, vacating offices, and transferring or disposing of equipment, furniture, records, etc. In addition, other divisions may have some restructuring costs where districts are proposed for realignment along watershed boundaries. However, we anticipate that the restructuring costs can be funded from within available General Expenses funds from labor and other savings, assuming eariy implementation in FY 1997.
122
DIVISION OFFICE RESTRUCTURING
Mr. MYERS. When will the division office restructuring plan be submitted to the Secretary of the Army for his review?
Mr. LANCASTER. The division office restructuring plan will be submitted to the Secretary of the Army for his review soon. We are coordinating with the effected delegations to understand and resolve their concerns.
123
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
Mr. MYERS. Do you anticipate that you will be able to meet the schedule for implementation of the plan contained in the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act?
Mr. LANCASTER. While we do not yet have an approved plan, I fully anticipate that we will be able to meet the schedule for implementation as contained in the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development ^propriations Act.
124
Mr. MYERS. We are pleased that the Administration has decided to abandon some of the ill -conceived proposals presented in the fiscal year 1996 budget. However, we still have serious concerns about your currents proposals to restructure the Civil Works missions of the Corps of Engineers. Beginning with flood control, you propose that the local share of project costs be increased to 50% for any project which does not have a signed project cooperation agreement. Are you concerned that at that level of local cost sharing, poorer communities will be unable to participate in projects and you will wind up with a program where federal funds will be going to communities that need help the least?
Mr. LANCASTER. The change in cost sharing for flood damage reduction projects from that proposed last year will allow the same number of projects to be considered for Federal funding as under WRDA 86. However, we believe it is critical to focus on the apppropriate Federal role in flood damage reduction projects that will both achieve budgetary savings and promote flood plain management measures at the community level which are critical to reducing Federal expeditures for flood recovery and response. We believe this can be achieved under our current proposal. We have not proposed any changes in the c±)ility to pay provision and communities will continue to be eligible for a reduced cost share under this provision. It is possible that more communities may qualify under the ability to pay provision with the new cost sharing policy in place.
125
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COST SHARING PROVISIONS
Mr. MYERS: You indicate that the proposals for flood control projects will apply to all projects which do not have signed cost sharing agreements. When does an agreement have to be executed to avoid being subject to this new proposal?
Mr. LANCASTER: In our budget proposal, we have recommended certain projects, specifically the recommended new construction starts, as candidates to be subject to these new cost sharing percentages. I have personally written to representatives of the local cooperating agencies for these 10 flood control projects, and offered them an explanation of the new proposal. In actual practice, I assume the necessary legislation will contain an effective date for implementation. I understand that this is how it was done both in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985.
126
Mr. MYERS. Many communities have provided 50% of the cost of flood control feasibility studies with the understanding that they would be responsible for 25% of the construction costs. We understand that participation in a feasibility study is not a guarentee that a project will be built, but if the 50% requirement makes the project unaf fordable, how would you respond to a community that claims that by changing the rules of the game you have wasted their hard earned money?
Mr. LANCASTER. I understand that communities would be concerned about this change in the cost sharing policy. However, without this change the Army Corps of Engineers will have to further limit its role in the development of the nation's water resources. Under the current proposal the Corps will be able to participate in more flood damage reduction projects albeit at a lesser cost share.
Mr. MYERS. You are also proposing that flood control projects be subject to requirements for specific non- Federal flood plain management activities beyond the current participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Do you have details of the flood plain management activities that would be required under this proposal?
Mr. LANCASTER. Although we have not finalized the specific flood plain management activities that would be required, the types of activities we are considering include the following: public information and education on flood hazard within the community; technical interpretation of flood hazards to the community; flood plain regulation to promote sound use and reduce future flood damages; preservation of open space; development of a flood warning/preparedness system; implementation of environmental protection and /or restoration measures related to the flood plain; and, control of storm water runoff.
Mr. MYERS. Will the same set of flood plain management activities be applied to all projects?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, the same set of flood plain management activities will be applied to all projects unless there are unusual or unique characteristics of the community or project which preclude implementation or require modification of certain of these activities.
127
Mr. MYERS. How will the flood plain activities be implemented?
Mr. LANCASTER. The flood plain management activities will be implemented by the local communities which are benefitting from the project. However, the cost of developing and adopting certain measures may be considered part of the total project cost and cost shared accordingly.
Mr. MYERS. Does this proposal provide for restrictions on development in areas that would be protected by a flood control project following construction?
Mr. LANCASTER. Although we have not finalized the specific flood plain management measures that will be required under this cost sharing policy, we are considering including a requirement for flood plain regulation to promote sound use and reduce future flood damages in the flood plain. It is only through wise use of the flood plain that we will be able to reduce future Federal expenditures for disaster relief.
Mr. MYERS. Will there be any exceptions to the proposed new policies for flood control projects?
Mr. LANCASTER. At this point in time we do not foresee any exceptions to this policy.
24-080 - 96 - 5
128
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM FY 1996 PROPOSED TERMINATION
Mr. MYERS. Last year, the Administration proposed to terminate the various Corps of Engineers Continuing Authorities Programs. Have you abandoned that proposal?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes we have. The FY 1997 budget request for the program is based on continuation of the program.
129
SHORE PROTECTION POLICY
Mr. MYERS: Moving on to shore protection projects, we see that you have resubmitted the proposal to end federal participation in shore protection, which was rejected last year by the Congress. Why is the Administration resubmitting this proposal?
Mr. LANCASTER: Basically, the underlying reason for the proposed change in priority has not changed. It is unlikely that sufficient Federal funds will be available in the future to continue the prior level of Corps participation in this area while reducing the Federal deficit. The Administration believes that shore protection projects that support mainly recreation activities and that provide substanital regional income to the State and local economies can be undertaken by non-Federal interests. In many cases, the cost of the investment would represent a small fraction of the income it would generate.
Mr. MYERS: You indicate in your statement, however, that Federal involvement in shore protection projects may be required in some instances. What criteria will you use to determine if a project is eligible for participation by the Federal government?
Mr. LANCASTER: This year, rather than proposing to end Federal participation in shore protection, we are proposing to be more selective and to target reduced funds at protecting existing residential and commercial development and public infrastructure from hurricanes and other coastal storms.
Mr. MYERS: You indicate that exceptions to the policy include projects that rely on structural measures other than the placement of sand to protect existing development and public infrastructure. Why is there a bias against the placement of sand to protect existing development?
Mr. LANCASTER: By concentrating on structural projects, we expect to see smaller, less expensive shore protection projects that lack the long term Federal financial commitment to expend hundreds of millions of dollars for periodic nourishment. Once constructed, these projects can be turned over to the non- Federal sponsor for normal operation and maintenance. Both of the shore protection projects which appear for the first time in the fiscal year 1997 budget request, Roughans Point, MA, and Chicago Shoreline, IL, are projects of this type.
130
Mr. MYERS: Doesn't a shore protection project perform the same function as any other local flood protection project, with the only difference being that one is on the coast and one is on a river?
Mr. LANCASTER: Our intention in proposing this policy is to concentrate our limited shore protection funds on reducing the same kinds of urban residential, commercial and public infrastructure damages as are typically accomplished with local flood control projects rather than focusing on areas that are recreation destinations.
Mr. MYERS: How will the proposed policies on shore protection projects be applied to ongoing projects?
Mr. LANCASTER: Projects with executed project cooperation agreements will not be affected during the period of time in which the agreement is in effect. This also applies to projects scheduled for execution of a project cooperation agreement this fiscal year. For other projects that are either in the study or preconstruction engineering and design phase, we propose in most cases to complete the present phase and provide the results to local interests for their use and consideration.
Mr. MYERS: Are any projects included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request that qualify as exceptions to the proposed shore protections policies? If so, what are they?
Mr. LANCASTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are. Two projects are budgeted for construction for the first time as a result of the application of this proposed policy. The Roughans Point, Revere, project in Massachusetts will protect an older established community containing homes and businesses. Funds to initiate construction were provided by Congress last year, and we are proposing to continue construction in fiscal year 1997. One reach of the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois, which includes the site of the water treatment plant, will provide structural protection from damage caused by severe storms to a major investment in public infrastructure in the Chicago area. This reach of the project is budgeted for initiation of construction in fiscal year 1997.
131
FUNDING FOR LOW USE COMMERCIAL HARBORS IN FY 1997
Mr. MYERS. You have also proposed to not budget for maintenance of harbors without commercial traffic and low use commercial harbors beginning in fiscal year 1998. How much is included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request for those activities?
Mr. LANCASTER. We will develop a list of harbors and channels that do not produce commercial benefits which exceed the cost of harbor maintenance as part of our specific proposal dealing with discontinuance of maintenance at low use harbors in the Army's WRDA 96 legislative initiative. When we have developed this list we can identify how much is funded in fiscal year 1997 for these activities and provide the information to you.
132
LIST OF LOW USE HARBORS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of the projects in the FY 1997 budget request that fall into each of those two
categories.
Mr. LANCASTER. As I indicated, we will develop such a list as part of our specific proposal dealing with discontinuance of maintenance at low use harbors in the Army's WRDA 96 legislative initiative. The list will be transmitted to the Congress for its consideration by 30 June 1997.
133
DEFINITION OF LOW USE COMMERCIAL HARBORS
Mr. MYERS. How do you define a "low use commercial harbor?"
Mr. LANCASTER. A low use commercial harbor is a port or harbor where the annual cost of maintenance exceeds the commercial benefits produced by that harbor. I am proposing, however, that the Corps continue to maintain subsistence ports or ports serving communities where the economy is substantially dependent upon commercial fishing, charter fishing, or related commercial activities. A subsistence port is a maritime port located in Alaska, Hawaii, or any possession of the United States, which is the principal reliable harbor available to the general public for the transport of cargo necessary to support the life and economy of the population residing at that geographic location.
134
DREDGING POLICY PROTECTION OF THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MYERS. In your statement, you indicated that last June, the President endorsed a Federal dredging policy which conunitted to maintaining and dredging our ports and navigation channels to support international trade in a way that ensured protection of the Nation's environment. How is that any different from what the Corps of Engineers has always done?
Mr. LANCASTER. The significance of the President's commitment to a Federal dredging policy is that this policy was developed as a result of an interagency effort involving not only the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce. The policy represents a commitment by all the Federal agencies involved in the dredging process, whether in an implementation, regulatory, or environmental resource protection role, to work together to assure the maintenance of U.S. ports while protecting the environment.
135 '
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND PROPOSED FUNDING OF CONTAINED DISPOSAL FACILrn£s 1
Mr. MYERS. You indicate that you will be proposing legislation that includes dredged material disposal facility costs within the total shared project costs for navigation projects and that expands use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to cover those costs. Is that proposal reflected at all in your fiscal year 1997 budget request?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes it is.
136
/
MOTIVATION FOR PROPOSAL TQ USE HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUgT FUNDS
Mr. MYERS. Would you be making this proposal if there were not large balances in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a legitimate source of funding for the Federal share of dredged material disposal facilities. The driving force behind the proposal is to establish a consistent cost sharing policy for the disposal of dredged material, and reduce the bias against land-side disposal of dredged material. The first inconsistency is the current cost sharing policy for land-side disposal facilities, which varies from project to project depending on when the project was authorized. In many cases it is a 100 percent non- Federal responsibility; in a few cases the costs are Federal, and in other cases the authorizing documents do not assign the cost for disposal facilities to either the non-Federal sponsor or Federal government .
A second issue is that current policies concerning maintenance costs encourage non-Federal sponsors to force open ocean disposal alternatives. Upland confined disposal costs are often a 100 percent non-Federal responsibility, but open water disposal is 100 percent Federal cost from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This policy favors open water disposal because the non-Federal sponsor is not required to share in the cost of open water disposal. The proposed legislation would reduce this bias by sharing in the cost of land-side and confined disposal facilities under the same cost sharing rules as for Construction, General, typically about a 35 percent non-Federal share, depending upon the depth of the project. We also feel that this policy remains consistent with the authorized purpose of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund since the disposal facilities will be used only for the maintenance of commercial navigation projects.
137
CONTAINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES -- ANNUAL COST
Mr. MYERS. If implemented, what would be the annual cost of this proposal?
Mr. LANCASTER. The cost of implementation is expected to be the highest in the earlier years of enactment, and would likely vary from year to year as the demand varies. However, it is expected that the additional annual cost would be no more than $5-15 million during any given year.
Mr. MYERS. Are all projects which are receiving first year funding for preconstruction engineering and design in fiscal year 1997 subject to your proposal for up- front financing for PED?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, with the exception of the London Locks and Dam, Kanawha, WV navigation study. The construction of the project would receive 50 percent of the funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
139
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. One of the items you include in your "Highlights of the FY 1997 Continuing Program" is the Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program. Last year our panel referred to that progrsun as a "black hole for money." Part of the reason for that characterization of the program was that its total estimated cost had grown from $345 million in FY 1994 to $583.6 million in FY 1996. The FY 1997 budget shows a total estimated cost of about $1.4 billion. This appears to be a program where no eunount of money will be too much. Wouldn't you agree that this program needs to be brought under control and that more effort should be made to determine that proposed work will actually benefit fish before the money is spent?
Mr. LANCASTER. I agree fully that we should pursue measures consistent with the best scientific information available and, certainly, we should be confident that our actions will not worsen the situation. One of the challenges is to move forward with recovery actions in a timely manner in the face of uncertainty regarding causes of decline auid regarding effectiveness of recovery measures. In view of uncertainty surrounding recovery, the region has developed an adaptive management approach to provide a freunework for action. My challenge is to carry out biologically warranted actions, as defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service through the Biological Opinion, in a cost-effective manner.
140
MINIMUM DREDGE FLEET STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Secretary, in October of 1994, Dr. Zirschky announced that the Corps of Engineers dredge fleet would not be reduced because existing studies did not provide sufficient certainty that the dredging needs of the country could be met by the private sector alone. He further announced that a new dredging data collection system was being developed that would more accurately confirm the performance and capability requirements for dredging and that the decision could be revisited in about two years. Would you please give the committee a progress report on those activities?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps is continuing to collect data that can be used to more accurately evaluate the performance and capability requirements for dredges. The data collection will be completed at the end of Fiscal Year 1996, and the analysis is expected to be completed by the end of July 1997.
141
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX LITIGATION CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONALITY
Mr. MYERS. On October 25, 1995, the U.S. Court of International Trade opinion found that the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which is the source of revenue for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, is unconstitutional for exports. Has the government appealed that decision? If so, what is the status of the case? Has the collection of the tax on exports ceased? If the decision is upheld, are revenues derived from the imposition of the tax on imports sufficient to pay for costs associated with operation and maintenance of the Nation's ports and harbors? Have there been any challenges to the continued collection of the tax on imports?
Mr. LANCASTER. Notice of Appeal was formally submitted to the Court of International Trade by the Department of Justice on January 31, 1996. The Court has allowed Harbor Maintenance Fee collections to continue throughout the appeal process. The Harbor Maintenance Fee is collected on imports, exports and domestic cargo, including passengers. With some reductions in spending levels, there should be sufficient funds from imports and domestic users to sustain the Corps of Engineer's maintenance program. We would expect, however, that such a decision would be strongly opposed by importers. Currently the Harbor Maintenance Fees on imports account for about 62 percent of total collections. In 1992, the Harbor Maintenance Fee was challenged by the European Union member of the World Trade Organization, who contend that the Harbor Maintenance Fee is already biased against imports into the United States. The current litigation, as well as the growing balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, exacerbate this problem.
If use of the Harbor Maintenance Fee, as applied to exporters, is found to be unconstitutional, revenue from this source would be eliminated. Currently, exports constitute about 26-32 percent of total Harbor Maintenance Fee collections. This amounted to approximately $215 million during FY 1995. At a minimum, this amount would have to be funded from an alternative source, presumably from the General Fund of the Treasury.
If this litigation is successful, however, it is likely that we will receive other challenges to the Harbor Maintenance Fee. In 1992, for example, the European Union members of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, now the World Trade Organization, challenged the Harbor Maintenauice Fee on many of the same grounds as is being decided
142
under the current litigation. If a challenge to all aspects of the Harbor Maintenance Fee is successful, all revenue from this source would be lost. In FY 1995, this amounted to approximately $670.5 million. Total expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund during FY 1995 were approximately $531.1 million.
143
ADMINISTRATION'S COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN CHANNELS AND HARBORS
MR. MYERS: Is this Administration committed to maintaining the Nation's harbors and ports regardless of the availability of funds in the Harbor maintenance Trust Fund?
MR. LANCASTER: The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has provided an appropriate and reliable source of revenue for the maintenance of commercial navigation channels and harbors since its inception in 1986. Prior to this, the cost to maintain these commercial channels and harbors was funded from general tax revenue. This Administration is committed to maintaining the Nation's harbors and ports, however, the source of such revenue is a separate issue. A return to the funding of these commercial facilities from the General Fund of the Treasury would not be consistent with the Administration's objectives of reducing the Federal deficit and of relating the cost of Federally constructed and maintained projects to the beneficiaries whenever possible.
144
HARBOR ^4AINTENANCE TRUST FUND RECEIPTS AND OUTLAYS, WITH AND WITHOUT TAXING EXPORTS
MR. MYERS: Please provide for the record two estimates of payments into and appropriations out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the next five years — one assuming that collections on exports continue and one assuming they do not.
MR. LANCASTER: During FY 1994, Net Collections totaled $621,184,000. Of this amount, $168,241,000 was derived from fees on exports; approximately 27 percent of total collections. This is fairly typical of recent years, except for FY 1995, when collections on domestic cargo and passengers dropped dramatically, while collections on exports increased to 32 percent. Whatever the reason, FY 1995 appears to be an anomaly. Current projections show the following collections would be expected with, and without, collections on exports; outlays are in accordance with those shown in the FY 1997 budget. This table will be provided for the record.
(The information follows:)
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
ESTIMATED COLLECTIONS AND OUTLAYS
(Dollars in Millions)
|
With |
Without |
Total |
|
|
Year |
Outlays |
||
|
1995 |
670.5 |
456.0 |
531.1 |
|
1996 |
730.9 |
533.6 |
513.4 |
|
1997 |
817.9 |
597.1 |
608.9 |
|
1998 |
906.1 |
661.5 |
594.9 |
|
1999 |
985.7 |
720.0 |
584.0 |
|
2000 |
1,158.1 |
845.4 |
574.0 |
145
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Mr. MYERS. We understand that at some point In the future, balances in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund will not be sufficient to meet the needs of new lock construction and lock rehabilitation. When will that occur?
Mr. LANCASTER. The balance in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is dependent on applicable fuel tax receipts and interest earnings on invested funds together with the mix of projects under construction, new lock rehabilitation requirements, budgeted and Congressionally added new starts, and outyear budget ceilings. At this time, because of the overall budget constraints, the balance in the Trust Fund appears to be adequate for the foreseeable future.
Mr. MYERS. Is it the policy of this Administration to recommend that lock construction and lock rehabilitation projects be undertaken only to the extent that funding is available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to complete them?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, it is. We would only propose funding projects when an adecjuate balance is expected to be available in the Trust Fund to support 50 percent of the construction costs. However, as I indicated, we do not foresee a problem in the near future.
146
STATUS OF THE INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record your best estimate of payments into and appropriations out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the next 5 years. The appropriations from the fund should be broken down into new work and rehabilitation by project.
Mr. LANCASTER. A list follows showing projected FY 1997-FY 2001 budget authority for the projects currently eligible and proposed in the FY 1997 budget for funding from the trust fiind. The list is broken out by new work and rehabilitation. The current estimates of revenues and withdrawals from the fund and the result'mg balances are as follows:
|
Balance, Oct. 1 |
1997 325.5 |
1998 1999 2000 (In millions of dollars) 388.3 467.7 566.1 |
2001 678.3 |
||
|
Receipts: Fuel taxes Interest on Investments Total Receipts |
131.0 18.3 149.3 |
137.0 21, Q 158.0 |
142.0 25.1 167,1 |
147.0 . 30.2 177.2 |
153.0 35.7 188.7 |
|
Budget Authority: |
86.5 |
78,6 |
68.7 |
65.0 |
76.$ |
|
Balance, Sep. 30 ^^ |
388.3 |
467,7 |
566.1 |
678.3 |
790.4 |
|
(The information follows) |
^"^^"~-- |
147
oooo>ooa>r>
o o o o o
I* w r- M
ot o o Oi r> oi o m r» «
o o o o
ooococninoko ininin-iinr-i^io
o o o o m
r
« o o A o n <o
9 a n o
il
P a
11 s
t
d S a
^1
COM
'.ill i!i
£ n q a X
â– â– -H -a â– u
<M «a a> o> rt
n n ^4 CD «
m m »
in .H i~ » oi
At
add
i! i! % > > >
fi-i -s
1 III I 3
I 111 t ^
M M M 4 e
333 g 5
148
OHIO RIVER BASIN STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Last year Congress provided $500 thousand to initiate the Ohio River Basin Study. The Committee was favorably disposed to including funding for the study due to a letter to project sponsors from ORD Commander Genetti stating that he would direct his staff to work with headquarters in budgeting this effort. Why are no funds requested to continue this study?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps requested no funds to continue since studies which investigate water quality and pollution abatement problems are low budget priority.
Mr. MYERS. Were funds included in the request to headquarters from ORD?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, I understand that the Ohio River Division requested funding in Fiscal Year 1997 to initiate a new reconnaissance phase study.
INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. The FY 96 Energy and Water Appropriations bill authorizes construction for the Indianapolis Central Waterfront project. In addition, $2 million is included in the measure to initiate construction. Do you plan to obligate the $2 million in this fiscal year?
Mr. LANCASTER. The $2 million provided in the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill will not be fully obligated in Fiscal Year 1996. Continuing engineering and design in Fiscal Year 1996 will be funded from prior year General Investigations appropriations to the project carried over into Fiscal Year 1996.
Mr. MYERS. Will you be able to have the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in place by June 1?
Mr. LANCASTER. No, the Project Cooperation Agreement is currently scheduled for execution in November 1996.
Mr. MYERS. What issues would forestall getting it executed by that date?
\^. LANCASTER. A legal opinion is being prepared that addresses Corps- authority to afford credit for work performed by non- federal interests after February 15, 1994 as directed by the Committee of Conference. In addition, a supplement to the February 1994 Concept Master Plan is being prepared to address project scope and cost sharing, inclusion of preconstruction engineering and design costs in total project costs and credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas. The supplemental report is scheduled for transmission to Headquarters in June 1996. Upon approval of the report by the Headquarters, the PCA will be prepared for approval and execution.
149
OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
Mr. MYERS. Last year this committee provided $1 million for construction of the Ohio River Flood Protection project. It is my understanding that the Corps is refusing to obligate this funding. What is the reason for that?
Mr. LANCASTER. It would be inappropriate for the Corps to perform repair work on the existing local flood protection projects on the Ohio River without specific congressional direction in law. In similar cases in the past, the Corps consistently has treated repair work on local flood protection projects as a responsibility of the local sponsors and has not performed such work without such direction.
Mr. MYERS. It is also my understanding that the ORD approved this project for funding. Why would headquarters reverse this favorable review?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Ohio River Division forwarded to the Corps Headquarters a legal opinion that adequate authority does exist to proceed with repair of the existing local flood protection projects on the Ohio River. However, these projects were constructed in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1936, and for such projects the long held position of the Corps, the Army, and numerous Administrations is that local sponsors' responsibilities for operation and maintenance include the repairs and other work that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the projects. In addition, the operation and maintenance manuals for these projects indicate that the local sponsors are to keep drains, drainage systems, and pipes through the levees in good working condition and to make needed repairs.
150
SAN CLEMENTE CREEK
Mr. MYERS. This is a compelling flood control project to mitigate storm, tidal and fluvial damage near the City of Corte Madera. Therefore, the Committee has added funding to The President's FY 1996 recommendation last year in order to start design. But, there appears to be no FY 1997 request from The President for this public safety project. Even if some of the flooding is from San Francisco Bay, application of an Administration rigid rule against shoreline protection seems unwise in this case. How do you plan to deal with this situation involving a basic Corps mission concerning public safety and flood protection of municipal and other governmental assets?
Mr. LANCASTER. We deleted all follow-on funding for projects and studies beyond the reconnaissance phase that were identified as producing shoreline storm damage prevention or recreation benefits even though the Committee added funds for the current year to initiate design. I also understand that this study is looking at potential solutions to tidal and fluvial flooding problems at Corte Madera, California, rather than recreation outputs. This is the type of project we might have to take a closer look at for future budgets as we refine our long range policy proposals.
SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEL
Mr. MYERS. Secretary Lancaster, the Committee has previously provided for deepening reconnaissance studies of the Southampton Shoal Channel of the Sacramento River because it is the gateway to the Baldwin Ship Channel and for other compelling navigation priorities that support the regional economy of the several western states. Surprisingly, the project was not included in the President's FY1997 Budget Recommendation. What is the capability of the Corps to proceed with the investigations and what are your intentions to facilitate this increment of your basic navigation mission?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Department of the Army included Southampton Shoal
Channel as one of the very few proposed new reconnaissance studies in the FY
1996 Budget. The Congress deleted this study from last year's Budget and we took that action into consideration in developing our recommendations for
this year. Subject to the normal constraints, the Department of the Army
would have a capability of $240,000 for FY 1997 to initiate the reconnaissance study.
151
AVAILABLE UNOBLIGATED BALANCES OF EARMARKED FUNDS
Mr. MEYERS. Of the unobligated balances estimated to be available at the end of fiscal year 1996, how much, for each account, has been earmarked for specific projects in bill language? Please provide a list of those projects for the record along with the amount expected to remain unobligated at the end of fiscal year 1996 for each and the reason the funds have not been obligated. Will any of these funds be utilized in fiscal year 1997 If so, for which projects?
Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, I will provide that information for the record.
(The information follows:)
152
|
^ |
||
|
<? |
0|g. |
o |
|
Ip |
||
|
ll |
1 |
|
|
o |
^ So |
|
|
fn |
||
|
9 |
if
s I
2 §
I I
>, >, S
:? f O » 2 £
"o >.>.->.-s^ 2 I £ £ S 2 E i ,
° g s s » si '
I I I I I
>•>•>• 5 5
(OOiOOOOOOOO>^'VC7)0)00
CNO -^ T-T- m r- c^ ai -9 -
o> r- (D r^
0 0)0'-
5 ^ i
LUX O
t; •-. CD a. u
SI
11
< to
z 5 S
12
u: O < a: I O
t=S O ui
o d 3 d 5 5
o f?. a:
< o t S <-> Q
dig (0 uj O
6 tK > "i 3
- ^Bz^
1 Q ^ S K 5 I UJ !« O
2 O ^ m z
(r Hi <o
â– V <N O
II
III
2- >s
153
{1
T3 o S I
& 1 I I
o £
I! IS
I s f o 5 5 g ° °
I "
If I
^ 10
I i
c c e
C 3 S
c 5 ra g
1 .1 1, I I
l|llo|r|ill|ll^|l|||.|l
5 » ■S o S S
I- ? s 2 i i
S x> 5.(0 O) O)
«c<Sc°-cccc3
^O^OOOOOOo
QOQOZOOOO-J
1 5
S S
b m ^
fJ ::r ^
$8t
< o o
i
£ o
o" o
2 < <
55 § z Q 5 Q
O O Z _l
5 O z
« -1 K
SS5
6 s
I
i § ^ 0 - ^"
" £ i ^ d §
< < o ^ nice
< < = I c ^
i
S2
s"2
2 UJ UJ 5 (K >
ill
pi
iD O O <" ^ n
owwo)WQ.iz:
ii
154
H
a I-
II
1^
o "8 1
a> a
^5
I ill
â– g 5) -g -5 ^ 1^
I Q I
1 i
â– o ^
II
I i
I M II II 5 1
& 5. « o Q 2
S ?
£ g- g- & o o o o
? g
o 2 = w o
I .° ^ I ° i
w I I E I I -5
i H ! ii^
o 8 » o S o e & E i S E ^ ^
S " ? § s- g, s
g -s o o « 2 i;
Jj o o O D Q. o o I-- o CO o «- n o TT
oc*>a)Oi^r^(o^coooooi-T-t-ooKoooo o)0>moooo><N*-0)000)or^mr^oooo^cn r^ in n •>» CO o> O) o. ^r <o r- <o ^ t-_ <n o_ ■« cm" t- T-' V T- cm" co" »ft o* o>"
Z 2
s s
II
< 3
2 2
33
iii
!3
D uj"
S3
$2?
q: j: ""
O " 2
£ < ff, a 2
) Q. yj - Q.
5 ^ oil I
J 1- o I I o
^ 9 "- 5 5 I
t < 2 2 2 t;
c O UJ o o ^
5 m d 3 3 w
i iiii
UJ ^cf
2 2
5 UJ UJ _
; 5 Q Q q:
^5 5 5 2
m O r; m m t-
i I ^ ^- ffi s §
' 3 UJ 2 > > <
;|§itiss§
I 2 o u) K q: _i
is
iiif
q: > Ji CO
155
CO c
Q n
u
a I-
II
a> Di b
til
a " w
ill « Is
" s o 2
2 ?? S. CO q: (A »
S S
2 £ o
I I
I I"
c c
I I
I I
O O
I I
Jill I Hi I
i|£|l
fe°l§B
-fill
tilil
1.
CO)
II 3
ilil
iio|
•«g Si's ,
Hi
^3
c »
e 3
III
111 III III
I III I
If lll^l III Ifillls
I f II
£ o _ 4, £ 2 ™
O ^ O -C (C CO c
■|gsil§l
9- o 2 "5 o fj oj
156
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
Mr. MYERS. What will the Corps' level of civilian employment be at the end of fiscal year 1997? How does this compare with the levels at the beginning of fiscal year 1993? Please provide the same information for the districts, the divisions, and headquarters.
Mr. LANCASTER. The civilian employment at the end of fiscal year 1997 will be 27,201 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) . The level in fiscal year 1993 was 29,194 FTE. The same information for the districts, the divisions, and headquarters is provided in the table below:
1993 1997 *
|
Headquarters |
605 |
2% |
553 |
2% |
|
|
Divisions |
1,841 |
6% |
1,213 |
5% |
|
|
Districts |
25,493 |
87% |
24,242 |
89% |
|
|
Labs and Sep |
offices |
1,255 |
5% |
1,193 |
4% |
|
Total FTE |
29,194 |
27,201 |
* Note: FY 1997 reflects 11 Division structure.
157
PERSONNEL COSTS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record, by account, the amounts requested in fiscal year 1997 for personnel costs.
Mr. LANCASTER. The personnel costs, by account, are:
General Investigations $ 77 million
Construction, General 129
Operation and Maintenance, General 552
Regulatory 58
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 8
General Expense 108
Mississippi River and Tributaries 81
Permanent 2
Revolving Fund 0
Rivers and Harbors, Contributed 40
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 0
Coastal Wetlands Trust Fund 2
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Q.
Total Personnel costs $1,057 million
158
Chairman Myera' Questions for
Lieutenant General Arthur E. Williams
Chief of Engineers
Mr. MYERS. General Williams, are you confident that performing the technical review of projects at the districts will not result in a decline of the quality of Corps of Engineers projects?
General WILLIAMS. Yes sir, I am. Quality control for military projects has been performed at the districts for several years. Our experience with that program gives me confidence that our quality will be maintained. We have also reviewed current quality control practices in the A/E community and our procedures are consistent with the way quality is managed in that community.
Mr. MYERS. What processes do you have in place to assure the quality of projects?
General WILLIAMS. There are two key components to our quality control/quality assurance procedures. First, districts have the responsibility for performing an independent technical review of the project documents. We consider independence of the technical review to be the essential element necessary to insure quality. Second, divisions have the responsibility for performing quality assurance, including selective auditing. Each division has a quality assurance plan in place.
159
COMPLETION SCHEDULES
Will you please provide for the record the revised completion schedules for all those projects where the justification sheets show "being determined" in lieu of actual completion dates?
General WILLIAMS. Yes sir. The completion dates are as follows:
COMPLETION DATES
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STODY /PROJECT NAME
RECONNAISSANCE FEASIBILITY
ALEXANDER AND POLASKI COUNTIES, IL BAYOU TIGRE, ERATH, LA CHESTERFIELD, MO FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, LA JEFFERSON PARISH, LA LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA LOWER RIVER DBS PERES, MO MCKINNEY BAYOU, AR & TX MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS, LA ORLEANS PARISH, LA ST TAMMANY PARISH, LA ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS
LOWER PLATTE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NE MISSOURI RTVER LEVEE SYSTEM,
UNITS L455 & R460-471, KS & MO SALINA, KS
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO TOPEKA, KS WILSON LAKE, KS
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT
ASSESSMENT, MD ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK, NY BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER RESOURCES
STUDY, MD BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE & NJ DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK
ISLAND, DE HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS - CAPE MAY POINT, NJ
31-Mar-1998
31-Mar-1998 31-Mar-1998
31-Oct-1997
30-;^r-1999 30-Sep-2002 30-;^r-2000 30-Apr-2001 30-Sep-2001 30-Sep-2001 30-Sep-2002 30-Jul-2001 31-JU1-2000
30-Jul-2000 30-Sep-2002 31-Jan-1998 31-Jul-2001 30-Sep-2001
31-Dec-2000
31-Oct-2000
31-Mar-1999
31 -Aug- 1999 30-NOV-1998 31-May-1999
31-Jul-2000 30-Sep-2001 30-Sep-2001 31 -Aug- 1998
24-080 - 96
160
COMPLETION DATES
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STODY/PROaECT HftME
RfiCQMHAISSMCE FEASIBILITY
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RVR ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION, WV & MD OCEAN CITY, MD AND VICINITY PATUXENT RIVER WATER RESOURCES, MD RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ SCHYULKILL RIVER BASIN, SCHUYLKILL HAVEN
AREA, PA SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT,
NY, PA t MD CORALVILLE LAKE, lA DEVILS LAKE, ND
FABIUS RIVER LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT, MO FREEPORT, IL GRAND FORKS, ND ONONDAGA LAKE, NY UPPER MISSISSIPPI & ILLINOIS NAV STUDY,
IL, lA, MN, MO & WI ANIAK, AK
CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK CHIEF JOSEPH POOL RAISE, WA COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING,
OR & WA DUTCH HARBOR, AK DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER, WA HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY KUSKOKWIM RIVER, AK LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA SAND POINT HARBOR, AK SEWARD HARBOR, AK SKAGIT RIVER, WA
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR WRANGELL HARBOR, AK CHEAT R B, N BRANCH, LICK RUN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, WV KANAWHA RIVER NAVIGATION, WV
METROPOLITAN CINCINNATI, NORTHERN KENTUCKY, KY METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY,
KY, IL, IN, PA, WV t OH TYGART VALLEY R B, GRASSY RUN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, WV BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, OAHU, HI
30-NOV-1997
31-Oct-1997 30-May-1998
31-Mar-1999 30-Jun-1998 31-JU1-2001 31-Mar-2001
31-Mar-1999 30-Jan-2000
30-JU1-02
30-Sep-2000
08-May-1999 31-Mar-1998 30-Sep-1998
31-Oct-2000
30-Mar-1999
Ol-Feb-1999 30-Oct-1997 30-Mar-1999 30-NOV-1997 30-Sep-1999
30-May-1999 3I-Oct-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Dec-1998 30-Sep-1999 30-NOV-2000 27-Feb-2000
30-Sep-1998 31-Dec-1997 31-Jan-1999 30-Sep-1999
30-Sep-2000
30-Jun-1998 31-Jul-1999 28-Feb-1998
161
COMPLETION DATES
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUDY /PROJECT NAME
RECONNAISSANCE FEASIBILITY
ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC
DOG RIVER, AL
FLINT RIVER BASIN STUDY, GA
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL
SANTEE, COOPER, CONGAREE RIVERS, SC
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ
CENTRAL BASIN GROUNDWATER PROJECT, CA
GILA RIVER Sl TRIBUTARIES, N SCOTTSDALE
DRAINAGE AREA, AZ GILA RIVER Sl TRIBUTARIES,
SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN, AZ GILA RIVER, TORTOLITA DRAINAGE AREA, AZ IMPERIAL COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, CA LACDA WATER CONS & SUP (HANSEN & LOPEZ DAMS) , CA LACDA WATER CONS & SUP
(WHITTIER NARROWS & SANTA FE DAMS) , CA LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV LOWER TRUCKEB RIVER, PAIUTE, NV LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, WASHOE COUNTY, NV MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA N CA STREAMS, CACHE CREEK
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA N CA STREAMS, SACRAMENTO RIVER
FISH MIGRATION, CA N CA STREAMS, YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA NORTH LAS VEGAS, CHANNEL "A", NV NORTHERN CALIFORNIA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA PORT HUENEME, CA PRADO BASIN WATER SUPPLY, CA PROVO AND VICINITY, UT RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ RIO SALADO WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM, AZ RUSSIAN RIVER, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA SACRAMENTO -SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,
LITTLE HOLLAND TRACT, CA SACRAMENTO -SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,
WESTERN DELTA ISLANDS, CA SAN ANTONIO
31-JU1-1998
30-Dec-1997
30-Sep-2001 31-Mar-1998 28 -Feb- 1999 30-Sep-2000
30-Jun-2001 30-Mar-1998 30-NOV-2000 30-NOV-1997
30-Sep-2000 30-;^r-1998 30-Mar-1999
30-Oct-1999
30-Sep-1998 31-Jul-1999 30-May-2000 18-;^r-1998
18-;^r-1998 02-Oct-2000 Ol-Feb-1998 Ol-Feb-1998 30-Oct-1999
30-;^r-1999
30-Jul-1999 30-Sep-1998
30-Oct-1998
30-JU1-2000 30-Mar-1998 30-Dec-1997 15-Sep-1998 31-Jul-2000 30-Apr-1998 13-Oct-2000 24-Jul-1998 30-Aug-2000 Ol-Feb-1999
30-Apr-1999
22-Feb-1999 30-Apr-1999
162
COMPLETION DATES
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BODGET
STODY /PROJECT NAME
RECONNAISSANCE FEASIBILITY
SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, PINE FLAT DAM,
FtWL HABITAT RESTOR, CA SAN JOAQDIN RIVER BASIN,
ARROYO PASAJERO (FRESNO CO) , CA SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,
STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, CA SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TULB RIVER, CA SAN JUAN AND ALISO CREEKS
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA SANTA BARBARA COUNTY STREAMS,
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA SEVEN OAKS AND PRADO DAMS WATER
CONSERVATION, CA TRUCKEE MEADOWS, RENO, NV UPPER PBNITENCIA CREEK, CA WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED, TX GIWW - HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX PLAINVIBW, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TX RIO CHAMA, ABIQUIU DAM TO ESPANOLA, NM UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX
31-Mar-1999
31-Dec-1997
31-Jan-199e
31-JU1-2000 30-Sep-1998
28-Jan-2000
15-Jun-1999
15-Apr-1997 30-Sep-2000 15-Jul-1999 15-JU1-1999 30-Sep-2001 31-Oct-1999 30-Aug-2000 30-Jun-1999 30-Jun-1998 30-NOV-1998 OI-Sep-1999 30-Apr-2000
MRS.T, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS STUDIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUDY /PROJECT NAME
RECONNAISSANCE FEASIBILITY
NORGANZA, LA TO GULF OP MEXICO
REELFOOT LAKE, TN
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN
30-Sep-1999 31-Dec-1998 30-Sep-2000
163
COMPLETION DATES
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUDY /PROJECT NAME ££]2
MRD NAD
NPD ORD
POD SAD
COMITE RIVER, LA 30 -Sep- 2001
EAST BATON RODGE PARISH, lA 31 -Dec- 1999
JACKSON METROPOLITAN AREA, MS 30-Sep-2000
NOTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL 30-Jul-2001
BLOB RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO 31-Mar-2000
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS t MO 31-Jul-2000 ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL - HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY i NJ 30-Jun-1998
BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES & CHANNELS, MD 30-;^r-1999 CtD CANAL - BALTIMORE HER CONN CHANNELS, DE & MD (DEEPENING) 30-Sep-1999
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE - REALLOCATION, MD & WV 30 -Apr- 2000
NCD CROOKSTON, MN 31-Jan-1999
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL Ol-Oct-1998
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR 31-Mar-1998
KENTUCKY LOCK, KY 30-Sep-1998
LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, WV 30-Sep-1999
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY 31-Jan-1999
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI 31-Aug-1998
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC 30-Sep-1998
CROWN BAY CHANNEL, VI 30 -Mar- 1999
HILLSBORO INLET, FL 29 -Jan- 2000
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER, GA t SC 30-Sep-1997
NASSAU COUNTY, FL 30-Sep-1999
RIO GOANAJIBO, PR 30-Sep-1999
SAN JOAN HARBOR, PR 30-Sep-1997
ST LUCIE INLET, PL 30-Sep-1999
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND CHANNEL, PL 31 -Dec- 1998
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 30-Sep-1998
KAWEAH RIVER, CA 30-Sep-1999
NAPA RIVER, CA 30-Mar-1998
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA 30-Jun-1998
SEVEN OAKS AND PRADO DAMS WATER CONSERVATION, CA 31 -Jan- 1998
TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 30 -Mar- 1999
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 15-Dec-1999
CYPRESS CREEK, HOUSTON, TX 27 -Feb- 2000
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER, TX 30-Apr-2000
GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN) 30-Sep-1998
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 30-Jun-2000
HOUSTON - GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX 30-Sep-1998
NBCHES RIVER & TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX 30-Sep-1999
SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX 30-May-2000
164
COMPLETION DATES
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUPY/PRQJBCT
CONSTRUCTION
ALOHA - RIGOLETTE, LA
CAPE GIRARDEAU - JACKSON, MO
EAST ST LOUIS, IL
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA
(HURRICANE PROTECTION) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL & MO
(MAJOR REHAB) LOCK AND DAM 25, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL & MO
(MAJOR REHAB) MELVTN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL & MO MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO
RIVERS (REG WORKS) , MO t IL MISSISSIPPI RIVER - GULF OUTLET, LA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE,
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)
RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LA
REND LAKE, IL (DBF CORR)
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA
ST GENEVIEVE, MO
WESTWEGO TO HARVEY CANAL, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)
BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE & SD
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, lA, NE, KS & MO
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, lA, NE, KS & MO
PERRY CREEK, lA
WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, NY
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ
JAMES R OLIN FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, VA
KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY & NJ
LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA
LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRAHTON, PA
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND PATBRSON, NJ
MOOREFIBLD, WV
NEW YORK HARBOR COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT, NY t NJ •
30-SEP-1999 29-DEC-1999 15-DEC-1998
OI-NOV-2013 Ol-SEP-2004
30-JAN-2005
30-JUL-2003 30-SEP-2004 30-JUN-2000
30-DEC-2005
INDEFINITE
LA 30-SEP-2000
Ol-SEP-2013
30-SBP-2002 30-SBP-1998 Ol-MAR-2002 30-SEP-2004 Ol-DEC-2005 30-SEP-2002 30-SEP-200e 30-SEP-2006 30-SEP-2008
30-SBP-2007 31-DEC-2005 31-JUL-2001 30-SEP-1999 30-SEP-2041 30-SBP-2000 30-SEP-2021
30-SBP-2004 INDEFINITE 30-SBP-2043 31-DEC-1997 INDEFINITE 30 -NOV- 1999 30-SEP-2000
30-JUN-1999 31-MAR-1998
O-JUN-1998
165
COMPLETION DATES
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUDY /PROJECT NAME
CQMSTRUCTIQM
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING) , VA INDEFINITE
PETERSBURG, WV 31-ADG-1997
POPLAR ISLAND, MD 30-SEP-2021
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ 30 -SEP- 2004
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ 30-SEP-2048
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT) 28-FEB-1997
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) 30-SEP-2003
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN (MAJOR REHAB) 30 -SEP- 1999
CHASKA, MN 31-DEC-1996
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL 30-SEP-2000
FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN 30 -SEP- 2001
HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) 30-SEP-2001
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY) 30 -SEP- 1999
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (MAJOR REHAB) 30 -SEP- 1999
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN 30-JUN-2004
LOCK AND DAM 14, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, lA (MAJOR REHAB) 31-AUG-2000
LOVES PARK, IL 30-SBP-2000
MARSHALL, MN 30-SBP-2001
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS (CUP) , IL INDEFINITE
MUSCATINE ISLAND, lA 31-JUL-2000
O'HARE RESERVOIR, IL 31-JUL-1997
PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) 30-SEP-2002
PORTAGE, WI 30 -SEP -1999
PRBSQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) 30-JUN-2042
SHEYBNNE RIVER, ND 30-SEP-2003
SOURIS RIVER, ND 31 -OCT- 1997 UPPER MISS RIVER SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROG,
IL, lA, MO, MN i WI Ol-SBP-2002
WEST DES MOINES, DBS MOINES, lA 31 -MAY- 1997
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 30-SBP-2001
ROUGHANS POINT, REVERE, MA 30-SEP-1998
TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA 30-SEP-1997
BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION, AK 30-SEP-1997
BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE I, OR i WA (MAJOR REHAB) 15 -MAR- 1997
BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR & WA(MAJOR REHAB) 30-SBP-2003
BONNEVILLE SECOND POWERHOUSE, OR & WA 30-SBP-1997
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, «A, OR & ID 30-SEP-2007
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR S WA 30-SEP-2002
COOS BAY, OR 31-MAY-2000
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR INDEFINITE
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) 31-JAN-1998
KAKE HARBOR, AK 30-SEP-1998 LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION,
WA, OR & ID 30-SBP-1999 THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14) , WA & OR
(MAJOR REHAB) 30-SEP-2005
166
COMPLETION DATES
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STDDY/ PROJECT NAME
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN
BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH <DAM SAFETY)
DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)
GRAYS LANDING LOCK AND DAM, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA
HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH
JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB)
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND
RIVER, WV, VA & KY LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA MCALPINE LOCKS & DAMS, KY & IN METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, IL i KY ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, WV & OH SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA WEST COLUMBUS, OH WINFIBLD LOCKS AND DAM, WV ALENAIO STREAM, HAWAII. HI
lAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DBF CORR) KAWAIHAE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HAWAII, HI MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI
AIWW - REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC ARECIBO RIVER, PR BAYOU LA BATRE, AL BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY
OF JACKSON, AL CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, HC CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PL DADE COUNTY, FL FOUR RIVER BASINS, FL
HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA & SC (MAJOR REHAB) JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE,
FL & GA (MAJOR REHAB) KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL MANATEE HARBOR, PL MARTIN COUNTY, FL MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL MYRTLE BEACH, SC
PALM BEACH COUNTY, PL (REIMBURSEMENT) PINELLAS COUNTY, FL PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC RIO DE LA PLATA, PR RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR RIO PUERTO NUBVO, PR
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA TENNESSEE - TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE
MITIGATION, AL & MS THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA & SC (MAJOR REkAB) WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA (MAJOR REHAB)
30-SEP-1998 30-SEP-1999 30-SEP-2001 INDEFINITE 31 -AUG- 1998 30-SEP-2000
167
COMPLETION DATES
CXJNSTROCTION, GENERAL
PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUtXSET
STODY /PROJECT NAME
CONSTROCTION
CLIFTON, AZ
COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA
GOADALUPB RIVER, CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA
LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA
LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA
MID -VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA
RILLITO RIVER, AZ
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA
SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA
SURFSIDE - SUNSET - NEWPORT BEACH, CA
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
ABIQUIU DAM EMERGENCY GATES, NM
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM
ALAMOGORDO, NM
ALAMOSA, CO
ARKANSAS CITY, KS
BEALS CREEK, BIG SPRING, TX
CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX
CLEAR CREEK, TX
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB)
EL PASO, TX
FRY CREEKS, BIXBY, OK
GALISTEO DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY)
GIWW - SARGENT BEACH, TX
MCCLELLAN - KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,
AR & OK 30-SEP-2005 MCGRATH CREEK, WICHITA FALLS, TX MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION,
BERNALILLO TO BELEN, NM MINGO CREEK, TULSA, OK MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK & DAM, AR RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX i OK RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, K SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX (DAM SAFETY) SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX SIMS BAYOD, HOUSTON, TX
Ol-JUL-1997 30-JAN-1997 31-JAN-2002 30-SBP-2006 29-SEP-2002 30-SEP-2003 30-SEP-2000 31-JAN-1994 30-SEP-2004 30-APR-1997 31-JUL-1999 Ol-JUN-1997 30-SEP-2008 INDEFINITE INDEFINITE 30-SEP-2001 30-MAR-2003 Ol-SEP-1999 31-MAR-1997 30-SEP-2006 30-SEP-1998 31-MAY-1999 30-APR-1998 Ol-MAR-2009 30-SEP-2006 15-SEP-1998 30-JAN-2002 30-JUL-1997 31-MAR-1998 30-SEP-2006 31-DEC-1999 30-SEP-2000 15-DEC-1998 30-SEP-2000 30-JAN-1998
16-AUG-1999
30-JUN-2005 30-SEP-1999 INDEFINITE 31-JUL-1997 24-SEP-2006 03-MAY-2006 30-NOV-1996 31-MAR-1997 30-SEP-2006
168
CraiPLETION DATES
CONSTROCTION, GENERAL
PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STODY/PROJECT NAME
CONSTRDCTION
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR (DAM SAFETY) TBNKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) TWO RIVERS DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY) WACO LAKE, TX (DAM SAFETY) WINFIELD, KS
30-MAR-2005 30-SEP-2007 30-SBP-1998 30-MAR-2001 30-JAN-2000
MR&T, CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
STUPY/PRQJBCT HflMB
CONSTRUCTION
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA 30-SEP-2016
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA 30-SEP-2021
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, M3 & TN 30-SEP-2020
EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR 30-SEP-2003
HELENA & VICINITY, AR 30-SEP-2001
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA & MS 01 -APR- 2007
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA 01 -FEB -2 003
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN 30-SEP-2029
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS 30 -SEP- 1999
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO 30-SEP-2003
TENSAS BASIN - OVERALL 01 -APR- 2013
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN 30-SEP-2000
WHITEMAN'S CREEK, AR 30-SBP-1999
YAZOO BASIN - OVERALL Ol-SBP-2029
169
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 101
Mr. MYERS. What steps have you taken to implement Section 101 of the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
General WILLIAMS. Similar to FY 1995, the Army Corps of Engineers will advertise for competitive bid at least 7.5 million cubic yards of the hopper dredge volume accomplished with government owned dredges in Fiscal Year 1992. This is now part of our standard operating procedure. As for improvements or major repairs of the McFarland, the Corps is complying by performing only normal maintenance and repairs necessary to maintain the vessel in its current operational condition.
170
COST EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRY DREDGING
Mr. MYERS. Have you been able to assess the cost effectiveness of having private industry perform dredging that had been previously been performed by the Government hopper dredge fleet?
General WILLIAMS. Industry has performed the dredging at a reasonable cost.
Mr. MYERS. Has any work been delayed as a result of having private industry perform work previously performed by the Corps' fleet?
General WILLIAMS. No, Mr. Chairman.
171
DREDGING FLEET OPERATION IN FY 1997
Mr. MYERS. How do you plan to operate the Corps' hopper dredge fleet in FY 1997?
General WILLIAMS. Each of the four Corps hopper dredges will continue to operate on a 180 day per year dredging schedule. This will allow us to continue to advertise for competitive bid at least 7.5 million cubic yards of hopper dredge volume accomplished with government dredges in FY 1997.
172
PORT MAINTENANCE FUNDING AVAILABILITY
Mr. MYERS. The committee has received testimony indicating that ports around the country are concerned that sufficient funds will not be available this year to fully maintain projects. Can you comment on that situation?
General WILLIAMS. Yes. I am also aware of this concern. We have heard from some port interests that they would like to have full project dimensions available at all times. This is understandable in a competitive global economy. As a practical matter, however, this would be very expensive and in many cases safe navigation can be provided without maintaining full project dimensions at all times. For example, some shoaling along the edges of the channel is usually acceptable until sufficient material accumulates to make dredging worthwhile. Additional depth of water provided by tides is also considered in scheduling dredging. The number and size of vessels using a harbor are other factors taken into consideration. While there have been some instances where funds were not immediately available in a particular project to perform needed dredging, we have been able to reprogram sufficient resources to keep the navigation channels open.
Mr. MYERS. Does the fiscal year 1997 budget request contain sufficient funds to maintain the Nation's ports and harbors at depths that are justified based on the usage of the projects?
General WILLIAMS. Barring unforeseen circumstances, such as unusually high rates of sedimentation caused by flooding or low water conditions brought on by drought, the FY 1997 budget contains sufficient funds to provide channel dimensions for commerce using Federal navigation projects.
173
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CEFMS)
Mr. MYERS: Please provide the committee with a status report on the development and deployment of the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System. Have you been satisfied with the performance of the system thus far? If you wish, you can provide a more detailed progress report for the record.
General WILLIAMS: We have completed the field testing phase and are on the verge of deployment Corps-wide. Once final approval from the Department of the Army Automated Information Systems Review Council (MAISRC) has been received, we will begin deployment at the remaining four districts in the Southwest Division, closely followed by the remaining sites in the National Capitol Region and the South Atlantic Division. Corps -wide deployment will continue through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1998. We have corrected the most serious problems which users experienced during field testing, and, although our focus will be on deployment during the next two years, we will continue to make improvements to increase its operational efficiency. By any measure, CEFMS is already a vast improvement over our current system and I am confident that it will meet our needs well into the next century. The Corps will continue to provide the subcommittee with quarterly status report, as requested in House report 103-533, dated 26 May 1994.
174
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. MYERS: Are all the projects for which funds have been requested in fiscal year 1997 authorized?
General WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman. Of the 11 projects budgeted for initiation of construction, seven are not yet authorized for construction.
Mr. MYERS: Please provide for the record the authority for each of the new reconnaissance studies and new construction starts included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
General WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I will furnish two tables for inclusion in the record.
[The information follows:!
175
FISCAL YEAR 1997 RECOMMENDED NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS
PROJECT NAME:
AUTHORITY:
RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLE, NE
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
NOT AUTHORIZED
BIG SIOUX RIVER AT SIOUX FALLS, SD
METRO. CINNCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH
METRO. LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY
ARECIBO RIVER, PR
NOT AUTHORIZED
NOT AUTHORIZED
NOT AUTHORIZED
NOT AUTHORIZED
SAN LORENZO, CA CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL KAKE HARBOR, AK HELENA AND VICINITY, AR
SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA
NOT AUTHORIZED
NOT AUTHORIZED
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1968
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1986, SUBJECT TO REAUTHORIZATION
lAW SECTION 902 OF THAT ACT.
176
FISCAL YEAR 1997 RECOMMENDED NEW START SURVEYS
STUDY NAME:
AUTHORITY:
FLINT RIVER BASIN, GA
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1994.
NORTH LAS VEGAS, CHANNEL "A", NV
RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC WORKS ADOPTED OCTOBER 1, 1982.
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC WORKS OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, ADOPTED AUGUST 12, 1986.
177
Mr. MYERS: Are there any projects budgeted for construction that will require reauthorization pursuant to the provisions of Section 902 of P.L. 99-662? If so, can the funds requested in fiscal year 1997 for those projects be utilized absent reauthorization?
General WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there are seven projects budgeted for construction that require reauthorization because cost growth has exceeded the limits imposed by Section 902 of the Water Resources Development of 1986. I will furnish a table for inclusion in the record. In all cases, the funds requested for FY 1997 will not result in the project exceeding its maximum authorized cost. All seven projects have been proposed for reauthorizaton.
(The information follows:]
178
FISCAL YEAR 1997
BUDGETED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AFFECTED BY SECTION 902
($000)
PROJECT NAME:
CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO
MOOREFIELD, WV
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK, NJ
SAW MILL RUN, PA
GRAY'S LANDING LOCK AND DAM, PA $ 100
CLIFTON, AZ
|
FY 1997 |
|
|
REQUEST |
TOTAL COST |
|
$1,000 |
$ 45,800 |
|
$6,385 |
$ 23,200 |
|
$ 250 |
$ 12,000 |
|
$8,150 |
$ 33,600 |
|
$ 500 |
$ 14,100 |
|
$ 100 |
$181,000 |
|
$ 204 |
$ 17,800 |
179
PROJECT COMPLETIONS
Mr, MYERS: Please provide for the record a list of all construction projects scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997,
General WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr, Chairman. [The information follows:]
180
CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED WITH FUNDS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 APPROPRIATIONS
PROJECT NAME:
HOLBROOK, AZ
SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CA (DEF. CORR.)
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA
FRANKFORT, SOUTN FRANKFORT, KY
NORTH ELLENVILLE, NY (DEF. CORR.)
TURTLE CREEK, PA
KODIAK HARBOR, AK
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA
SONOMA BAY WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, CA
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL
SALEM RIVER, NJ
FORT FISHER, NC
CENTER HILL DAM, TN (DAM SAFETY)
YOLO BASIN WETLANDS, SACRAMENTO RIVER, CA
FOUR LOCKS, ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL (MAJOR REHAB)
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI
INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN
MATEWAN, KY
KLAMATH RIVER, KLAMATH GLEN LEVEE, CA
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA
WILLIAM BACON OLIVER L&D, AL
CHEHALIS RIVER, SOUTH ABERDEEN-COSMOPOLIS, WA
RICHARD B. RUSSELL MITIGATION, GA
SAVANNAH HARBOR DEEPENING, GA
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS
181
CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED
WITH FUNDS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
($000)
PROJECT NAME: FY 1997 REQUEST:
TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA
PETERSBURG, WV
MATE WAN, WV
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT)
O'HARE RESERVOIR, IL
WEST DES MOINES, DES MOINES, lA
CHASKA, MN
SOURIS RIVER, ND
BETHEL BANK ST7VBILIZATI0N, AK
BONNEVILLE SECOND POWERHOUSE, OR & WA
BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE I, OR & WA
(MAJOR REHABILITATION) HOWARD HANSEN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) KAWAIHAE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HAWAII, HI ALENAIO STREAM, HAWAII, HI BAYOU LA BATRE, AL TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY
WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS RILLITO RIVER, AZ CLIFTON, AZ OAKLAND HARBOR, CA
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX BEALS CREEK, BIG SPRING, TX RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX SAM RAYBURN DAM & RESERVOIR, TX (DAM SAFETY)
|
$ 3 |
137 |
|
$ 4 |
516 |
|
$ 2 |
587 |
|
$ |
487 |
|
$-1 |
918 |
|
$ 2 |
814 |
|
$ 1 |
609 |
|
$ 1 |
700 |
|
$ 3 |
800 |
|
$ |
600 |
|
$ |
500 |
|
$ 1 |
400 |
|
$ 2 |
238 |
|
$ |
500 |
|
$ 1 |
123 |
|
$ 4 |
281 |
|
4_4 |
406 |
|
$ |
204 |
|
$ 4 |
306 |
|
$ 1 |
600 |
|
$ 1 |
396 |
|
$ 3 |
004 |
|
$ 1 |
200 |
182
PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS
Mr. MYERS: Please provide a list of the construction projects included in the budget request that do not have signed Project Cooperation Agreements along with the scheduled dates for execution of those agreements.
General WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
183
BUDGETED PROJECTS WITHOUT EXECUTED PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS
PROJECT NAME
SCHEDULED PCA EXECUTION DATE
ROUGHANS POINT, REVERE, MA
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ
LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA
LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD
POPLAR ISLAND, MD
ARECIBO RIVER, PR
RIO GRANDE DO LOIZA, Pr
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS,
VICINITY OF JACKSON, AL METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY METRO REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHABILITATION) BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES,
OH (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) L&TF, GRUNDY, VA SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL MARSHALL, MN PORTAGE, WI
HOMME DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) SHEYENNE RIVER, ND (BALDHILL DAM) ARKANSAS CITY, KANSAS WINFIELD, KANSAS ALAMAGORDO, NM RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO
BOSQUE DEL APACHE, NM TWO RIVERS DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) WACO LAKE, TX (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE KAKE HARBOR, AK COOS BAY, OR LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA RICHMOND HARBOR, CA LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION, CA MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT,
(GLEN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT), CA
APR 1996
SEP 1997
MAY 1997
FEB 1997
APR 1996
JUL 1996
OCT 1996
MAY 1997
APR 1997
FEB 1999
OCT 1996
OCT 1996
NOV 1996
JUN 1996
APR 1996
JUN 1996
SEP 1996
SEP 1996
FEB 1997 UNSCHED
APR 1996
APR 1996
NOV 1996
FEB 1998
JUN 1996
SEP 1996
SEP 1998
MAY 1997
FEB 1997
NOV 1996
APR 1997
APR 1997
NOV 1996
APR 1996
JUN 1996
OCT 2000 JUN 1996
UNSCHED
184
BUDGETED PROJECTS WITHOUT EXECUTED PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS (CONTINUED)
PROJECT NAME
SCHEDULED PCA EXECUTION DATE
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE
RECONSTRUCTION, CA SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA WEST SACRAMENTO, CA SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI lAO STREAMS, MAUI, HI HELENA AND VICINITY, AR (MR&T) MISSOURI RIVER LEVEES, L-385 EAST ST. LOUIS, IL
MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR HELENA AND VICINITY, AR MISSISSIPPI-LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREA, WHITEMAN'S CREEK, AR BEACH CITY LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) L&TF-GRUNDY, VA (SECTION 202)
JAN 1997 JAN 1997 APR 1996 JUN 1996 UNSCHED DEC 1996 APR 1999 OCT 1996 DEC 1996 JAN 1997 UNSCHED MAY 1996 JULY 1996 NOV 1996 JUN 1996 MAY 1996 SEP 1996 SEP 1996
185
UNSTARTED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. MYERS: Please provide for the record a list of all projects for which construction funds have been provided in the past but for which construction has not actually begun along with the reason why construction has not been initiated. Include with the listing the date the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed for each of those projects^ and if one has not been executed, the scheduled date. "
General WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I will provide a table for the record.
[The information follows:)
186
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WITH CONSTRUCTION NOT STARTED
PROJECT NAME
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY (QUIVERA BASIN), CA
Proceeding to construction
INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN Proceeding to construction
MELALEUCA QUARINTINE, FL
Insufficient funds provided
PORT SUTTON CHANNEL, FL
Lack of local coooperation
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL
Contrary to policy
DILLINGHAM, AK
Insufficient funds provided
FORT YATES BRIDGE, ND
Dispute concerning Indian lands
OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION, IN
Non-Federal statutory responsibility
HOMER SPIT, AK
Proceeding to construction
ST. GEORGE HARBOR, AK
Lack of local cooperation
COLUMBIA RIVER SEAFARERS MEMORIAL, HAMMOND, OR
Lack of local cooperation
SOWASHEE CREEK (RECREATION), MS Lack of local cooperation
PLATTE RIVER STREAMBANK EROSION, MN Lack of local cooperation
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI
Lack of local cooperation
SCHEDULED PCA EXECUTION DATE
APR 1996
UNSCHED
UNSCHED
UNSCHED
UNSCHED
UNSCHED
UNSCHED
MAY 1996
UNSCHED
UNSCHED UNSCHED
187
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WITH CONSTRUCTION NOT STARTED (CONT' D)
PROJECT NAME
SCHEDULED PCA EXECUTION DATE
STILLWATER, MN APR 1996
Proceeding to construction
SILVER BAY, MN APR 1996
Proceeding to construction
LAKE PONCHARTRAIN STORM WATER DISCHARGE, LA JUL 1996 Proceeding to construction
PEARL RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WALKIAH BLUFF, MS & LA UNSCHED
Detailed Project Report and EIS being prepared
MUD LAKE, TN UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
CACHE RIVER, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
CLARENDON LEVEE, LOWER WHITE RIVER, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
L'ANGUILLE RIVER BASIN, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
TENSAS BASIN, TENSAS RIVER, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
TENSAS BASIN, LOWER RED RIVER, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
WEST MEMPHIS AND VICINITY, AR UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
HICKMAN BLUFF, KY MAR 1996
Proceeding to construction
WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KY UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
YAZOO BASIN, ROCKY BAYOU, MS UNSCHED
Lack of local cooperation
188
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WITH CONSTRUCTION NOT STARTED (CONT'D)
PROJECT NAME
SCHEDULED PCA EXECUTION DATE
YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS Lack of local cooperation
AUGUSTA TO CLARENDON, LOWER WHITE RIVER, AR Lack of local cooperation
GLEN FOERD, PA
Proceeding to construction
UNSCHED
NOV 1996
BROAD TOP REGION, PA
Proceeding to construction
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ
Lack of local cooperation
UNSCHED
189
FY 1997 CORPS ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Mr. Myers. Please provide for the record a breakdown, by project or program, of the fijnds included in tlie fiscal year 1997 budget request for environmental activities.
MG Williams. Yes Sir.
[THE INFORMATION FOLLOWS]
190
5 o im ■<»•. n P: S S "
'S§1
â– ss
:>o-
53
55 <
85 = 2
><^ 5
- m > 2 °=
3^0l >
Sacra uj
°Oo o
I- I-
191
HYDROPOWER RELIABILITY DECLINE
Mr. MEYERS. How do you respond to those who claim that the reliability of Corps hydropower facilities has been declining for the least several years?
General WILLIAMS. The reliability of the Corps hydropower facilities has declined since fiscal year 1990. This is due to the combination of aging capital equipment and relatively flat funding levels in the 1980' s. The average age of a Corps hydropower unit is now over 32 years, with the oldest being 57 years old. The time required to move a major undertaking, such as a rehabilitation or major maintenance item, from budgeting, through design and procurement, to the completion of installation, is rather lengthy. We have now started the first of these maintenance and rehabilitation investments, with additional projects scheduled to start in fiscal years 199$ and 1997. With the investments being made, we are beginning to see a slight improvement in our availability. We will continue to closely monitor these reliability trends and include funds for maintenance and rehabilitation in future budget requests to preserve this facet of the Civil Works infrastructure .
24-080 - 96
192
HISTORICAL FUNDING FOR HYDROPOWER
Mr. MEYERS. How much is included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request for the maintenance and rehabilitation of hydropower projects? Please provide for record the same information for the last five fiscal years.
General WILLIAMS. The Corps has hydropower maintenance and rehabilitation funds identified in both the O&M, General and Construction, General accounts. The FY 97 request has $74.8 million for Operation and Maintenance, General, and $31.9 million for major rehabilitation in Construction, General. The Construction, General amount includes $4.2 million for three new starts. The hydropower maintenance and rehabilitation funding information for the previous five years has been compiled and is submitted for the record.
(The Informiation Follows:)
HISTORICAL FUNDING FOR HYDROPOWER
(Dollars in Millions)
|
â– iscal Year |
Operations (O&M, General Appropriation) |
|
1992 |
44.1 |
|
1993 |
43.8 |
|
1994 |
44.8 |
|
1995 |
45.1 |
|
1996 |
46.6 |
|
1997 |
46.8 |
Maintenance
(O&m, General
Appropriation)
63.4
61.7
71.8
81.5
77.6
74.8
Rehabilitation (Construction,
General Appropriation)
0.0
1.1
2.9 18.7 15.1 31.9
FY96 and FY 97 are budget amounts, FY92 thru FY95 are expenditures.
HYDROPOWER BREAKDOWN MAINTENANCE
Mr. MEYERS. With regard to the maintenance of hydropower facilities, is it the Corps of Engineers policy to schedule replacement or rehabilitation of project components in order to avoid forced outages, or do you wait until breakdowns occur before undertaking that work?
General WILLIAMS. Our policy is to schedule replacements and rehabilitations in order to prevent in-service failures. While this is our preferred way of doing business, we do experience forced outages due to the age and complexity of the hydropower infrastructure. In order to minimize these occurrences, we are continuing to develop analytical tools to determine the optimum time to perform maintenance and rehabilitation of hydropower facilities.
194
HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION
Mr. MYERS: Has the Corps ever postponed the rehabilitation of hydropower generating units until a non-federal sponsor could be found who was willing to provide up-front financing for that work? If so, what were the results:
General WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman, rehabilitation of existing units has always been considered wholly a Federal responsibility. At various times, local interests have proposed non-Federal financing for uprating hydropower generating capacity, in exchange for the incremental power that would be generated. However, none of the proposals for uprating are presently being pursued by local interests.
195
AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FUNDS FOR HYDROPOWER MAINTENANCE
Mr. MEYERS. Does the Corps currently have the authority to accept funds from non-federal interests for maintenance of hydropower facilities?
General WILLIAMS. Under present interpretation of our authorities, we can not receive funds for maintenance from a third party. We do have authority under Section 2406 of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 to receive direct funding from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) . We have an agreement with them that establishes the framework for funding of repair, replacements and rehabilitation of existing capital equipment. While the other Power Marketing Administrations do not have the same self financing capability as BPA, they and their preference customers have expressed interest in exploring some form of direct funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of hydropower facilities. To implement this type of funding may require enabling legislation of some type.
196
RECREATION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. MYERS. How much is included in the budget request for the construction, operations, and maintenance of recreation facilities?
General WILLIAMS. The fiscal year 199-7 budget includes a $198 million request for the construction, operations and maintenance of recreation facilities.
Mr. MYERS. Is the amount requested sufficient to operate all recreation areas that are being operated in fiscal year 1996?
General WILLIAMS. Yes, this request provides us with sufficient funds to continue operating recreation areas that were operated in fiscal year 1996.
197
COMMERCE ON NAVIGATION PROJECTS FUNDED IN FY 1997
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record the commerce moving through each of the navigation projects for which operation and maintenance funds have been requested in Fiscal Year 1997.
General WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the waterborne commerce for each project in the President's FY 1997 budget is currently being compiled from the Corps of Engineers 1994 edition of "Waterborne Commerce of the United States". Calendar year 1994 is the latest available information. The information will be provided to you by May 1, 1996.
198
Fiscal Year 1995 Corps Revenues
Mr. MYERS. Provide for the record a list showing the total revenues generated by Corps projects and programs in fiscal year 1995 indicating where the funds are deposited and how they are used.
General WILLIAMS. We will provide that list. All such revenues were returned to the Treasury, and were available to the Corps as offsetting receipts or appropriations in fiscal year 1995 or future years, unless otherwise noted.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 1995 REVENUES GENERATED BY CORPS CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS AND RETURNED TO THE TREASURY
Miscellaneous fees for regulatory and
judicial services, NOC 5/ $ 1,264,330
Fines, penalties, and forfeitures, immigration
and labor laws 5/ Forfeitures of unclaimed money and property 5/ Fines, penalties, and forfeitures, NOC 5/ General Fund Proprietary Interest, NOC/ General Fund Proprietary Receipts, All Other, NOC/ Special Recreation Use Fees, Army Corps of Engineers,
Civil Hydraulic mining in California, tax, debris reservoirs 1/ Hydraulic mining in California, water storage and use of
facilities, debris reservoirs Lease of land acc[uired for flood control, navigation and
allied purposes 1/ 3/ Headwater benefits 1/ 4/ Inland Waterways Trust Fund 6/ Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 6/ Allocated by Power Marketing Agencies 2/ 5/ Gross total revenues, fiscal year 1995 Budget clearing account 7/
Net total revenues, fiscal year 1995 $1,278,360,033
1/ Permanent Appropriation, warranted to Corps the year following
collection. 2/ Revenues for power generation includes only those amounts that
marketing agencies have allocated to Corps projects. 3/ This amount is 75 percent of funds collected and is returned to
States in lieu of taxes. 4/ Is appropriated under the account title Maintenance and Operation
of Dams. 5/ Is not available to be appropriated and is not accounted for as an
offsetting receipt. 6/ Is not accounted for as an offsetting receipt. 7/ Deposits held in suspense transferred to correct accounts
NOC - Not otherwise Classified.
|
0 |
|
|
12,772 |
|
|
255,112 |
|
|
23, |
,195,295 |
|
34, |
,533,889 |
|
26, |
,862,818 |
|
86,670 |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
5, |
,600,354 |
|
6, |
,651,565 |
|
94, |
,777,965 |
|
519, |
,196,150 |
|
571 |
,009,187 |
|
$1,283 |
,564,107 |
|
- 5, |
J^,074 |
199
ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGE REPORT
Mr. Myers. Please provide for the record the annual flood damage report .
General WILLIAMS. Sir, the report on flood damages during the fiscal year 1995 is currently being prepared and will be submitted to the Committee by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) upon completion, which I expect to occur in May.
200
Mr. MYERS. Bring the Committee up to date on the status of any project in litigation. LTG WILLIAMS. I will provide the information for the record. (The information follows:)
1. Columbia/Snake River Basin Projects, Idaho and Oregon - Several lawsuits have been filed in the District Court of Oregon and several appeals have been taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Corps' and Bureau of Reclamation's operation of multiple-purpose dam and reservoir projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. These projects, along with other public and private hydroelectric projects, are coordinated in accordance with regional agreements and a treaty between the U.S. and Canada. Numerous environmental groups claim the operation of the projects is in violation of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the course of the litigation, there have also been challenges to the coordination of project operations under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Plaintiffs, interveners, and amicus involved include numerous environmental groups; the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington; the region's Indian Tribes; utility groups; and the aluminum industry. The Snake River sockeye salmon and spring/summer and fall stocks of Snake River chinook salmon are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, requiring federal agencies to avoid actions which jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. The actions of the Corps in providing releases of stored water, spilling more water at certain projects, transporting species in barges and trucks, and other operations of the projects involve issues of scientific, social, and economic debate within the region. The National Marine Fisheries Service released a biological opinion on March 2, 1995, which describes actions that it recommends to the Corps to avoid jeopardizing the listed species. The Corps issued a decision on March 10, 1995 to implement the recommendations. On March 14, 1996 another suit was filed challenging the biological opinion and Corps actions. (Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al.)
2. Dade County Beach Restoration Project, Florida - In an opinion entered on September 22, 1994 the judge found the Corps ^ed to comply with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to this project, and injoined work en it. The Corps has prepared a revised Environmental Assessment, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in May 1995. The parties are now in discovery and will file motions for summary judgement. (Town of Golden Beach v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
201
3. Elk Creek Dam, and Lake, Oregon - In June 1987, the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enjoin construction of the $120 million project until completion of a Federal Environmental Impact Sutement Supplement addressing certain NEPA deficiencies. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision on May 1, 1989. The case was remanded to the Corps to prepare a supplemental EIS. On January 24, 1992 a Record of Decision was executed by the Division Engineer wherein the project was recommended for completion of construction and operation with a dry pool area until public demand for the use of the water which can be stored behind the dam is made. At that time another supplemental EIS will be prepared. In December 1992 a second lawsuit was filed against the Corps, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management alleging violations of NEPA for the Corps' failure to consider new information on fish resources in the Rogue River Basin, and violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by its failure to withdraw the Record of Decision after the USFS/BLM issued an adverse finding that the existing project is an unreasonable diminishment of the fishery values supporting the downstream wild and scenic river segments on the Rogue. Several petitions under the Endangered Species Act have been filed for the coho salmon and summer and winter steelhead. The court held hearings in May and December, 1993. On February 1, 1994 the court issued an opinion finding the Corps had complied with the requirements under the first lawsuit; the court lifted the injunction and dismissed that suit. However, in the second suit the court found that the Corps had not adequately considered new information on the migrating fish, and enjoined the Corps fi-om constructing the project until such consideration is given. In addition, the court found that the Corps was obligated to withdraw the Record of Decision (ROD) after the USFS/BLM issued their adverse finding. It ordered the Corps to withdraw the ROD and enjoined the Corps fi-om constructing and operating the project until it can eliminate the objections of USFS/BLM on the impairment to fish passage at the existing project. The Corps is now developing criteria with resource agencies in a study to provide successful fish passage through the project and overcome the adverse finding firom USFS^LM. The decision of the court was appealed by all parties to the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs seek removal of the dam, and the government argued that the court exceeded its authority when it ordered withdrawal of the ROD under the EIS Supplement in the face of the adverse USFS/BLM finding. In April 1995, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision stating that the Corps continued to be in violation of NEPA, because it did not update its analysis to consider changes in the environment since its last EIS Supplement (EISS). The Corps has determined not to perform additional studies to update the EISS. The Corps believes that today's environmental conditions dictate that a free flowing stream be provided on the Elk Creek Tributary to the Rogue River in order to allow fi-ee passage of migratory fish into upstream waters for spawning. The District is preparing a Plan of Action to determine how to restore the streamflow through the project at the least cost and provide optimum conditions for spawning fisheries. The District will then seek authority and fianding to restore the stream conditions and provide long term management of the project in its uncompleted state. The injunction issued against the project is still in effect, but all litigation relating to the project has ended. The Corps will proceed to plan for the restoration of the streamflow through the project (Phase I) to assure unimpeded fish runs, and long term management of the project area (Phase II) (Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Harrell)
4. Luxapalila Creek, Alabama - This case is no longer in litigation. An environmental group challenged the stream channelization project on Luxapalila Creek, a tributary of the Aliceville Pool of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The plaintiff alleged that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared in 1991 and supplemented by a subsequent Environmental Assessment in 1992 and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in April, 1994 are legally inadequate because they fail to "adequately explore meaningful alternatives." On March 22, 1996, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Plaintiff- Appellant's motion for rehearing. (The Alabama Conservancy v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
5. Richard Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina and Georgia - The South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources secured an injunction halting all construction and installation of pumpback units at the project. They challenged the authorization of the project and alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. The U.S. appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. Installation of the units was permitted, but operation is still enjoined. Installation of the four pumpback turbines has been completed. A final supplemental EIS has been completed and the record of decision was signed in August 1991. The parties negotiated a consent order which allows the Corps to proceed with environmental and mechanical testing of the units. This includes a monitoring program to determine the impact of operation on the fish in the vicinity of the dam. The testing and monitoring program is ongoing and scheduled to be completed in October 1996. At the conclusion of the program a decision will be made - either by agreement of the parties or by court order - regarding operation of the pumpback units. (South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources v. Marsh)
6. West Pearl River Navigation Project, Louisiana - Three environmental plaintiff groups filed suit against the resumption of dredging, challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for this projea, alleging that the Corps (1) failed to consider the adverse impacts of dumping contaminated dredged material into Lake Pontchartrain, and (2) did not take into account the existence of a toxic waste site near a port proposed to be developed as part of the project. A collateral threat to the project also exists because the Sierra Club has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its failure to designate the Pearl River as a critical habitat for the endangered gulf sturgeon. Two of the three groups filed motions for a preliminary injunction which was granted on May 25, 1995. The Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the gulf sturgeon became a major issue. The Court ruled that the Service did not use the best available information in the preparation of the BO. During the course of the Corps' gulf sturgeon monitoring program, a second endangered species was discovered in the project area. Shells of the inflateid heelsplitter mussel were found, but no live specimens. The Corps voluntarily rescinded the Record of Decision and has entered into formal consultations with the Service over the mussel and the gulf sturgeon. This process will be completed this calendar year and no dredging is anticipated prior to the spring of 1997 at the earliest. The plaintiffs sought and were denied an award of attorney fees for the preliminary injunction. The lawsuit was stayed on November 1, 1995, pending the completion of the ongoing environmental studies by the Corps. (Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Phemambucq)
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Port Isabel to Brownsville Reach, Texas - Several environmental groups sued the Corps for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgement that its 1975 EIS for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway needed supplementation based on new information and changed circumstances. The district court denied injunctive and declaratory relief The environmental groups appealed to the Fifth Circuit, asking that the Corps be ordered to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Although the Corps announced its intention to prepare a supplemental EIS, the Fifth Circuit denied the Government's motion to dismiss on mootness grounds. Negotiations with environmental groups resulted in a proposed settlement agreement on April 12, 1996, approval of such settlement is pending. (National Audubon Society, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.)
8. Everglades National Park - The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida, a Federally recognized Tribe, sued the Government and the South Florida Water Management District alleging that the management of the system for the benefit of others, including the Everglades National Park, resulted in abnormally high water levels in Water Management Area 3a and in other areas which impacted wildlife (traditionally hunted by the Tribe), destroyed flora (traditionally used by the Tribe for food and medicine) and prevented the Tribe from planting com on tree islands for their most sacred yearly ceremony, the Green Com Dance. The Tribe sought a preliminary injunction. The Government and the Water Management District responded that any interests that the Tribe had in the lands ( the Tribe has a leasehold fi-om the State) are subject to flowage easements held by the Water Management District for the benefit of the project. On March 31, 1995, based upon Supreme Court precedent refiising to recognize tribal "religious easements" over publicly owned lands, the Court denied a preliminary injunction and opined that the Tribe had little likelihood of success on the merits. There has been no action on the case since this court ruling. (Miccosukkee Tribe v. U.S. and State of Florida)
9. Kissimmee River and Lake Kissimmee - In March 1996, suit was filed to compel the Corps, F&W Service and the State to exert regulatory jurisdiction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) over the Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project and Lake Kissimmee Extreme Drawdown Project. Plaintiff alleges that these projects are interdependent and their goals are essentially the same; that defendants have failed to comply with NEPA and the ESA and that damage v^ll result to plaintiff's property as a result of higher water levels. (Reddy v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.)
10. Albeni Falls Project, Idaho - On January 18, 1996, Plaintiff; Lake Pond Oreilla Idaho Club, Inc., alleges the operation of Albeni Falls is beyond Corps authority because it emphasizes power production and does not balance the multiple purposes to include fish, waterfowl, wildlife and recreation. Plaintiff also alleges the operation is a violation of its civil right and constitutes a deprivation of private property rights and due process rights in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and is a violation of the national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction requiring a specific minimum lake level. (Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club, Inc. v. United States)
204
1 1 . Fire Island to Montauk Point - On February 9, 1996, 402 property owners on or near the beachfront on Fire island (a barrier island which runs along the southern edge of Long Island, N. Y.) filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims claiming that their property had been taken due to erosion caused by the Corps' actions and inactions in constructing a series of groins and inlet stabilization projects to the east of their property without using sand bypass techniques. They seek an award in excess of $200 million. In June, 199S, 389 property owners on Fire Island filed a suit in Federal District Court claiming damages in excess of $200 million based on a continuing tort theory associated with the same Corps actions and inactions. The Fire Island property which is the subject of the two DeVito lawsuits is located west of Moriches Inlet and west of Westhampton Beach - the subject of an earlier related lawsuit. In 1984, a number of beachfi-ont property owners located on Westhampton Beach filed a lawsuit claiming they had been damaged by the same Corps actions and inactions as cited in the two DeVito cases (Rapf, et al. v. Suffolk County, et al., E.D.N. Y.). The 1984 suit was the subject of the so-called Westhampton Settlement, which was approved on December 5, 1994, after the Federal, State and County Governments agreed to undertake additional construction at and immediately west of the existing groins. Although not addressed in the complaints which initiated the two recent DeVito lawsuits, it appears the plaintiffs in the DeVito cases may be hoping for a settlement which provides for construction of beach protection or restoration on Fire Island. However, based on the nature of the pending lawsuits, the courts are not in a position to affirmatively order the Corps to do such project construction work. (DeVito et al., v. U.S., Civ No. 96-781, Ct. Fed Cls; and DeVito et al. v. U.S. Civ No. 95 (Civ 2349 (USDC, E.D. NY).
205
BALANCE-TO-COMPLETE REPORT
Mr. MYERS. Prepare a detailed "balance-to-complete" report similar to that submitted for last year's hearings.
General WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
(The Information follows:)
206
(X>RPS OF ENCINBBRS - CIVIL WORKS
SUMMARY OF PRECONSTRUCTIOH ENCINESRINO t DESIGN (FED)
AMD CONSTRUCTION IN FY 1997 BUDGET REQUEST
|
No. of |
Est. |
Allocations Thru |
Budget Request |
Balance to Complete |
||||
|
(Thousands of Dollars) |
ProJ. |
Cost |
FY 1996 |
FY 1997 |
Programed |
Unprogramed |
||
|
PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION I |
||||||||
|
Continuing PED |
40 |
2 |
,445,025 |
65,792 |
25,246 |
24.574 |
2.329.413 |
|
|
Navigation |
17 |
997,354 |
35,657 |
11.780 |
5,755 |
944,162 |
||
|
Beach Erosion Control |
2 |
241,340 |
1,775 |
1,025 |
0 |
238,540 |
||
|
Flood Control |
19 |
956,381 |
17,916 |
10,653 |
18,301 |
909,511 |
||
|
Multiple Purpose |
1 |
45,200 |
1,232 |
1,000 |
518 |
42,450 |
||
|
MR6T Feature |
1 |
204,750 |
9,212 |
788 |
0 |
194,750 |
||
|
FULLY AUTHORIZED PROJECTS. |
||||||||
|
PED New Start/Flood Control |
1 |
23,400 |
0 |
600 |
1,275 |
21,525 |
||
|
Continuing PED |
22 |
1 |
,488,936 |
78,435 |
13,682 |
14,484 |
1,382,335 |
|
|
Navigation |
10 |
481,863 |
21,677 |
4,241 |
2,955 |
452,990 |
||
|
Beach Erosion Control |
1 |
11,622 |
1,282 |
400 |
75 |
9,865 |
||
|
Flood Control |
11 |
995,451 |
55,476 |
9,041 |
11.454 |
919,480 |
||
|
PED Total |
63 |
~3 |
,957,361 |
144,227 |
39,528 |
40.333 |
3.733,273 |
|
|
Construction New Starts |
13 |
195,957 |
16,535 |
16,440 |
162.322 |
660 |
||
|
Navigation |
1 |
10,116 |
1,206 |
4,000 |
4,910 |
0 |
||
|
Beach Erosion Control |
1 |
8,100 |
1,015 |
1,300 |
5,785 |
0 |
||
|
Flood Control |
10 |
172,041 |
12,289 |
10,990 |
148,102 |
660 |
||
|
NR£T Feature |
1 |
5.700 |
2,025 |
150 |
3,525 |
0 |
||
|
Continuing Construction |
152 |
34 |
,624,138 |
16,982,726 |
971,933 |
12 |
,069,022 |
4,600,457 |
|
Navigation |
33 |
8 |
,720,699 |
4,916,087 |
240.522 |
2 |
.250,668 |
1,313,422 |
|
Beach Erosion Control |
14 |
2 |
,744,981 |
282,423 |
75.877 |
2 |
.346,275 |
40,406 |
|
Flood Control |
83 |
9 |
,888,766 |
4,273,943 |
335.217 |
2 |
.378,573 |
2,901,033 |
|
Multiple Purpose |
6 |
3 |
,105,280 |
1,928,275 |
121,400 |
1 |
.055,605 |
0 |
|
Environmental Restoration |
3 |
519,900 |
33,564 |
25.206 |
461,130 |
0 |
||
|
NR6T Features |
13 |
9 |
,644,512 |
5,548,434 |
173.711 |
3 |
.576,771 |
345,596 |
|
Major Rehabilitation (OG) |
16 |
545,820 |
57,002 |
53.337 |
435,481 |
0 |
||
|
Navigation |
4 |
78,880 |
14,047 |
12.800 |
52,033 |
0 |
||
|
Flood Control |
3 |
56,600 |
5,028 |
8.600 |
42,972 |
0 |
||
|
Multiple Purpose |
9 |
410,340 |
37,927 |
31,937 |
340,476 |
0 |
||
|
Dam Safety Assurance |
12 |
212,364 |
53,640 |
9.250 |
149,474 |
0 |
||
|
Navigation |
1 |
14,600 |
540 |
680 |
13,380 |
0 |
||
|
Flood control |
8 |
67,850 |
15,130 |
6,220 |
46,500 |
0 |
||
|
Multiple Purpose |
3 |
129,914 |
37,970 |
2.350 |
89,594 |
0 |
||
|
Construction Total |
193 |
3? |
,578,279 |
17,109,903 |
1,050.960 |
12 |
,816,299 |
4,601.117 |
GRAND TOTAL
256 39,535,640 17,254,130 1,090,488 12,856,632 8,334,390
207
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
LMV Lower Mississiopi Vallev Division ORD Ohio River Division
LMM Memphis District LMN New Orleans District LMS St. Louis District LMK Vicksburg District
ORH Huntington District
ORL Louisville District
ORN Nashville District
ORP Pittsburgh District
MRD Missouri River Division
POD Pa
MRK Kansas City District MRO Omaha District
SAD South Atlantic Division
NED New Enoland Division
NAD North Atlantic Divison
SAC Charleston District SAJ Jacksonville District SAM Mobile District SAS Savannah District SAW Wilmington District
|
NAB Baltimore District |
|
|
NAN New York District |
SPD South Pacific Division |
|
NAO Norfolk District |
|
|
NAP Philadelphia District |
SPL Los Angeles District |
|
SPK Sacramento District |
|
|
SPN San Francisco District |
|
|
NCD North Central Division. |
|
|
NCB Buffalo District |
SWD SouthwQStgrn Divigjon |
|
NCC Chicago District |
|
|
NCE Detroit District |
SWA Albuquerque District |
|
NCR Rock Island District |
SWF Fort Worth District |
|
NCS St. Paul District |
SWG Galveston District |
|
SWL Little Rock District |
|
|
SWT Tulsa District |
|
|
NPD North Pacific Division |
|
|
NPA Alaska District |
|
|
NPP Portland District |
|
|
NPS Seattle District |
|
|
NPW Walla Walla District |
208
|
o |
s |
s |
5 |
o |
i; |
i |
o |
g |
o |
S |
S |
K |
s |
g |
- |
â– n |
o in |
|
|
!^i |
a |
in |
- |
~ |
• |
« |
M |
n |
a |
a |
5 |
C In |
||||||
|
mi |
1 |
B |
JO |
a' |
a |
»" |
||||||||||||
|
if |
" |
s |
" |
" |
? |
** |
" |
" |
a |
« |
*" |
|||||||
|
â–º- |
||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
o |
o |
in |
in |
o |
a |
o |
O |
o |
o |
||||||||
|
II |
n |
s |
s |
s |
o |
c |
o |
S |
1 2 |
|||||||||
|
_â– |
_• |
|||||||||||||||||
|
"i |
||||||||||||||||||
|
2 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
^ |
^ |
„ |
„ |
^ |
o |
^ |
||||||||||||
|
o |
o |
in |
«1 |
in |
K |
n |
s |
o |
s |
n |
a a |
|||||||
|
- "1 |
"^ |
~ |
o |
- |
m |
in |
"" |
n |
n |
5 |
2 2 |
|||||||
|
H ^i |
||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
< |
||||||||||||||||||
|
O |
||||||||||||||||||
|
t- |
||||||||||||||||||
|
2 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
a " |
s |
in |
o |
o |
in |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|||||||||
|
« |
a |
in |
« |
N |
S |
|||||||||||||
|
t ss |
o |
a |
". |
a |
• |
n |
||||||||||||
|
J |
||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
E too |
o |
o |
i |
o |
||||||||||||||
|
> < oru |
s |
Kl |
s |
IM |
g |
§ |
« |
le |
K |
M |
r« |
i |
o |
S |
5 |
» a |
||
|
z^ 11 |
_• |
_• |
„■|
_• |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
-O UIO |
||||||||||||||||||
|
5S |
||||||||||||||||||
|
oz |
||||||||||||||||||
|
i |
||||||||||||||||||
|
au> t- |
s |
o |
?~ |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
||||||
|
Z 3 KM |
« |
s |
o |
o |
o |
in |
in |
o |
o |
o |
O N |
|||||||
|
"S ss |
lO |
s |
". |
o |
o |
in |
o |
ID |
o |
U |
in n |
|||||||
|
s! :: |
lO |
in |
a |
a |
a' |
« |
s |
|||||||||||
|
n |
o |
N |
||||||||||||||||
|
- OU |
w |
« |
||||||||||||||||
|
so KIL |
||||||||||||||||||
|
lUUI |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Ilia |
||||||||||||||||||
|
£o |
||||||||||||||||||
|
UZ |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Z x |
||||||||||||||||||
|
U3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
It |
i |
§ z" |
||||||||||||||||
|
uo |
< |
o |
o |
|||||||||||||||
|
u |
||||||||||||||||||
|
z |
<- |
K |
s |
o |
||||||||||||||
|
o |
< |
O |
-1 |
|||||||||||||||
|
u |
> |
< |
||||||||||||||||
|
< |
1 |
a |
||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
I |
iJ |
s |
" |
s |
3 |
^ |
l£ |
||||||||||
|
2 |
^ |
o |
> |
s |
s |
•a |
> |
s |
||||||||||
|
UI |
•• |
3 |
S |
K |
||||||||||||||
|
B |
s |
o |
J |
! i |
< |
|||||||||||||
|
J |
s |
|||||||||||||||||
|
z |
s |
o |
S |
< |
Z |
|||||||||||||
|
u |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Z |
ac |
1- |
1- |
s |
1- |
w |
a |
o |
||||||||||
|
i |
< |
a |
||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
s |
< |
(L< |
u |
i |
i |
a |
|||||||||||
|
s |
« |
2 |
lu |
o |
o |
> |
< |
vt |
||||||||||
|
:l |
o |
s . |
B |
-1 |
< |
|||||||||||||
|
« |
< |
•< |
z o |
|||||||||||||||
|
z |
z |
> |
11 |
a K |
||||||||||||||
|
5 |
ui |
< |
> |
z |
||||||||||||||
|
g |
5 |
n |
g |
z |
B |
5 5 |
z |
2 |
g |
~ |
o |
1 |
Ul |
i » |
||||
|
s |
IK |
1 |
i' |
i 5 |
z |
< |
i |
t; |
o> |
5 |
1 |
>. |
g |
8 |
< |
2 |
K g |
|
|
i |
i |
s |
5 |
« |
II |
a. |
i |
1 |
J; |
H |
ii |
§ 5 |
||||||
|
< |
oo |
o o |
3 |
I |
s |
SI |
K < |
|||||||||||
|
-1 |
1- z |
z |
o |
sx |
UI |
"< |
5 ' |
|||||||||||
|
z |
||||||||||||||||||
|
u |
||||||||||||||||||
|
< |
o |
I |
& |
i |
||||||||||||||
|
s |
n |
S |
s |
i k |
Si |
Si |
^ |
g |
s |
g |
3 |
1 |
1 |
S 3 |
m.
3i
209
g r I 2
^ I § 1 T
-5 luo
5S
210
Hi.
^ i i
g„ I S 5
|s ' g i
^^ ; I; i
S2 *x Sx g
0» Ol- IK 5
ii § S 3
I i
Ul W 1-2 OZ
I
211
s&
■? S£
212
1
s i I ; s ^ i g s
w
n±
213
21
0 I I u.
1 u.
§ 3
a u g OK
" Siiizo -K
§ ^ ^ z ai i" i '£ ^1 °l
g I i : S li 5l z 5i 2° 1°
=1 -^
§i
214
" g IS I " i si
i ^ S o" g I i I E 2 5 "
sit; ssis°g«°'. aii^fH *St
Is S IB ^ I «• I i > ° = 5 g 5 i5
o 8iau.oo""Sk aK°-dmS2i/>ii. iv>u.''u.
g 5 K â– J Z 0.0 o" K O "lU *lUOO*-oS*.<.
£ 5 et S 5 %S 28 SI f SS S 5 S S eg r ; gf gg e S
215
!2§
00
i i
a. oa JO oo
HI
g;
if
216
i 2
|
I |
a |
s |
z |
i |
p |
s |
||||||||
|
5 > |
||||||||||||||
|
o |
U B |
|||||||||||||
|
I s |
5 |
i |
u |
a |
' i |
s |
i |
|||||||
|
B |
z |
a. |
||||||||||||
|
a |
5 |
o |
J 5 |
3 |
* , |
i |
1 |
|||||||
|
1 2 |
i |
z |
5 g |
1 |
z "^ |
1 |
s |
|||||||
|
a |
K |
|||||||||||||
|
1 |
K O |
|||||||||||||
|
z u |
< 1- |
» 3 |
a |
|||||||||||
|
lU |
o |
> 3 |
||||||||||||
|
z |
M |
|||||||||||||
|
u i |
° |
; ^ |
1 i |
> |
!^- ^ s ^ |
|||||||||
|
1 |
g |
S £> |
"S |
* i |
ii |
|||||||||
|
o |
z |
z |
I a. |
K |
||||||||||
|
u |
01 |
o > |
||||||||||||
|
" S |
-I |
< |
1- •« ■|
< Ul |
||||||||||
|
I |
z |
z |
> > |
o |
||||||||||
|
1 o |
§ |
X < < |
z |
S M |
o |
o |
||||||||
|
s |
s ;;; |
3 |
2 |
5 |
i |
i ^: |
< |
s ^ |
1i |
2 |
s |
ilU |
||
|
« s |
a |
> 'n |
z |
« |
||||||||||
|
^ 3 |
K |
i^ |
a ^< |
o |
JO |
|||||||||
|
o |
a J |
a |
z |
a |
z Ma |
a |
1 |
M U & H • |
||||||
|
£ |
^ s |
i |
2 |
< |
s |
s s? |
^ |
s g |
i |
Is |
5 5 g gS |
|||
|
3 |
i 1 |
s |
3 |
2 |
1 |
I |
1 i |
1 |
1 s |
? |
s |
i |
i s 1 |
217
is si
if
s i 2
s ^ s < i 5
5 '3 S. " S 5
u o z z o :
8 =; d;
O JOHIUJZ W >in O < S S- M <« <
a uj I- M K < < KZ irt z uj > < <ec < < o Gc
2 2S SS SI s
S 5 X 5
II-
218
- ?
zaooa-i o
u,- d I § : £ IL S 5
o -
I ! s I
S 5 < 3 . §5 ^H T^
^ S 5 3 S b
H f^ S 2 S K 5 r 5 u,g Sli °"' '^
1 i
219
0 on
5 u. u, 5 S So S 5«
3 i
s o u ss VI Sit H sa
^ i 3 ; 5 i
5 i ii >" 2 3 3 § ::!i SS - - - jg J 2 S < oi o.
220
^i
^i
if "'
< - I
r H 3
I uj o
i i
ID O lU I
X X X S S I X
221
s s
ii ! 11 ?
: i
1< i i a
a ■a ti » o ui
2-2 a,§ !ii
O * < • U. M o MU. a K lU > 0 • CD z (/tu.
o < Sot ii)~ o lii o od lu " < o o- do oo od o -> a< Jot S 0. S t-l J K o a omu- ju hz
K S
3
g5
IS 23 5 S- Sit 5
S . i - 5 :i
)- U. Ot I D _
- I -OS
iS - g
s;; Su; 2 ' "
I- « :l> OIOOOO -lO 1/1 -a lU- K s a I- J
1- i'"''^i/iS<ioSoSauo°'--.o--<u»- ui o z o 2 J I ^ u I I 1^ I 5 2 2 i " o ^ a a 3 a a
z z - ^w K -II <s<(.i>inij in« _j VI i/io u
o z»-o>zi2:5uzz<J<-)ia.u)>-<i/iioi-oi
X Z Z 3 Z I
il^ssii5g§ i
223
^ si g I Z I S I
i i : ^
< • I
§ ..• g s
a o IT
• z < o< 1- <
-iz *~ S- o <> u> < % ot
M ui K *^ oc o a« O" X — o- X ft ZQ <B u OS -la u u z:
S S !S
24-080 - 96
224
Kza *"" ' i-o< OK d
CEUO lUU I
Sil Si"
2 2 S
^ i
£ 53 525 "■-'I «<ji
> 111 M M I lii < < §iA m ° m m k h
g g* ozo"" *' Q 1 ui uj u o
-I 3z5s-i-5ii^*^iii M^
0 lUl- «lo<irtaii.u.w-inz"i/iii.u.
i I- I S' ' i S 5 5 H S S i t; <° 5°
8 5i S 5S S S J 5 5 55 5 ; i S Si 5i
1 i I i I 3 I § § § § 3 M
^i
225
00
< 3 S
M I : : ° ° = :
I § ° 5 3 I uj uj ^
2 5 S ^ • S5 g g o 5 i i-
w V) ui :c oz a a z u tu lu a c
s 5- < t; g- y- --s u, u, * g_ g_ g? t
4 3 01 a uj oo -I o u. 3C :£ z am am a lu u
-J < I â– O UJ OI lU I 30 _J J O lU I Ull (A C
. 5 |S I S S .S dS |2 j o z ^S ^S ^g E
o V) <a: t- */)u. a qck zoc Ov U'-^ o^ v)» >a: >ac << mu
a u o (A -JO 3 uo <o S s m x m ^a uio u o OS -ic
Z O 3£ < Z t- • ^< a< so KZ 3Z oc z z< z< u^ »-
o o <s o oo UJ <s <z -i < UJ z ui <ui ox ox za oc
^5X5
226
r!!
go u..
s s § ix 5 ; s s
:£ .s
- oo oo 3 oa
Is . 2
227
^ X a ^ < X < <
3 S ; ; : i :'.
° i " - * .•- s s .
i . 5 i 3 5J: X z t
so 3 -IIUI-O u
! s I 5 I- BJ 5 f ^J
i i i nl i§ i 1 1!
issuij a sa
OWMZZ o Sz
2 IS
s
i i
S ^3
^o 00
If Si
2^
ABILITY TO PAY
Mr, MYERS: Have any projects qualified for a reduced non- Federal cost share under the ability to pay rules published January of 1995?
General WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. One project included in the fiscal year 1997 budget. Perry Creek, Iowa, has qualified for a reduction in the non-Federal cost share under the rules published in January 1995. In addition, a number of projects in the Section 202 program, in Kentucky and West Virginia, have qualified for a reduction in the non-Federal cost share. These projects would have also qualified under the rules in effect prior to January 1995.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FUNCTIONS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a table showing the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 1996 and requested in fiscal year 1997 for studies, construction projects, and operation and maintenance activities in each of the major function areas of flood control, navigation, shore protection, hydropower, and environmental mitigation/restoration.
General WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
(The information follows:)
230
^1
uj O I
lit
Ills 8
giT
« "- «
li. «
o S
11
"I
s&
li
n
"1^
ss
I
gaSlI
i ^' S '^^ S ^
Ml
It
ll!
si
St
§ § S I i l|S i § s - S il i
i § s ^ S B
^ ^ ^ ^%
R t" s s
A S. ^. I S
flfil
illr
231
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. Please bring the committee up to date on your efforts to adopt an administrative appeals process for permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations.
General WILLIAMS. In 1995, we proposed a regulation for the appeals program. We plan to issue the final regulation in May. We are currently completing job descriptions for the appeals officers and will begin the process of hiring once the regulation is published. With the funds requested in the budget, we expect to have the appeals program fully operational at the beginning of FY 1997.
Mr. MYERS. Last year, $250,000 was provided for work associated with the vernal pool preservation plan in Santa Rosa, California. What is the status of that work?
General WILLIAMS. The study plan for the vernal pools was completed last summer with $250,000 of FY 1994 funds that were carried over into FY 1995. Following completion of the study, the San Francisco District's only remaining FY 1995 funding requirement for vernal pools was $50,000 for initial mapping efforts. Although we provided these funds, the district was not able to complete the necessary procurement actions to begin work prior to the close of the fiscal year. Thus far in FY 1996, $100,000 in regulatory funds has been provided for mapping, a public outreach program, and development of a general permit. This work is currently underway. We are discussing with the district what additional work and funds will be needed this fiscal year.
Mr. MYERS. The committee has been advised that in fiscal year 1995 the Corps issued 8,756 individual and letter permits and denied 347 permits. How many applications were submitted in fiscal year 1995? How many of those applications were subsequently withdrawn?
General WILLIAMS. A total of 13,856 applications for individual permits were received in FY 1995. In addition, 6,395 applications were already in process on the first day of FY 1995, yielding a total number of individual permit applications on hand in FY 1995 of 20,251. A total of 6,009 applications were either withdrawn or cancelled in FY 1995 for various reasons.
232
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. Vfhat percentage of your permit actions are completed within 60 days?
General WILLIAMS. In FY 1995, 93 percent of all our permit actions were completed within 60 days. This includes actions authorized by regional and nationwide permits, as well as through standard individual and letter permits. In FY 1994, we completed 91 percent within 60 days. We have been improving by 2 percent per year since FY 1991, despite an overall increase in permit workload .
Mr. MYERS. Are You currently engaged with any states regarding state takeover of the section 404 program?
General WILLIAMS. I understand at this time that there are no states actively pursuing state assumption. Consequently, we are working to increase the role of the states via other mechanisms, most importantly progreunmatic general permits, or PGP's. Under PGP's, states with appropriate wetlands programs can assume most of the responsibility for regulating certain activities or geographic areas. Our FY 1997 budget request includes additional funds to increase our efforts in this area. In May, will issue guidance on the development of PGP's to encourage Corps districts to work with states.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. How was the reduction in Regulatory Program for FY 1996 applied?
General WILLIAMS. The FY 1996 appropriation funds the Regulatory Program at essentially the FY 1995 level. The Committee directed, in report language, that any reduction that was necessary to implement the initiatives listed in the President's FY 1996 Budget were to be taken from enforcement activities. Thus far, the reduction has not caused significant adverse impacts on the effectiveness of the program and our service to the public. In compliance with the report language, any funding shortfalls are being taken from enforcement, primarily by not filling position vacancies. Meanwhile, we continue to provide timely processing of permit applications. Looking ahead to FY 1997, it is very important that we receive the requested additional funding to facilitate the administrative appeals program and allow us to work more closely with states that desire to accept more responsibility for wetlands protection. Since enforcement already makes up only a small part of our overall program, it would not be prudent to reduce it further .
234
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGEWCIES
Mr. MYERS. What Is the current status of the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account?
General WILLIAMS. The Corps response to major flooding events in 1995 and 1996 has placed extraordinary demands on the emergency fund. On February 2, 1996, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) used his emergency transfer authority under P.L. 84-99 and approved the transfer of $55,500,000, to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account from other civil accounts. This was necessary to repair severely damaged levees which protect people and property. However, there is much more work to be done. Funds to replenish the emergency fund and also the accounts from which the transfers were made have been requested by the President and are included in H.R. 3019, now awaiting final Congressional action. Additional information regarding the account follows:
FY 96 Funds
Unobligated Carryover from FY 9S $35,000,000 Appropriation, FY 96 1 0,000,000
Emergency Transfer under P.L. 84-99 Authority 55.500.000 1/
Available Funds, FY 96 1 00.500,000
Less
Emergency Preparedness Program, FY 96 (Basic Operating Costs) (1 0,000,000)
Earmart(ed Carryover Funds (Hurricane Andrew) ( 6,000,000)
Funds for Emergency Work, FY 96 (Programmed) (84.500.000)
Balance Available for Emergency Requirements 0
iJnfun^g^l EmgrggncY Rwuifcments
California Floods of January and March 1 995 $1 3,000,000
Midwest Floods of May-June 1 995 42,500,000 Southeast Floods of 1 995 1 ,500,000
Northeast Floods of 1 996 1 6,500,000
Northwest Floods of 1 995-96 40,000,000 Hurricane Luis/Marliyn/Opal Emergency Operations 2,500,000
Advance Measures and Rehabilitation for Other 1995-96
Emergencies at Various Locations 9,000,000
Contingency for Other Natural Disasters 10.000.000
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Request 1 35,000,000 21
To Replenish Funds Transferred from Other Accounts (55.500.000^
Net Unfunded Emergency Requirements $79,500,000
1/ The Army exercised its emergency authority under P.L 84-99 to transfer $55,500,000 to the FCCE account from Construction, Genera! ($22 million); Operation and Maintenance, General ($28.5 million); and Flood Control, Mesissippi River and Tributaries ($5 million), for urgent repairs and rehabilitation of levees, pending receipt of emergency supplemental appropriations for FCCE.
2J The emergency supplemental appropriation request for FCCE ($135,000,000) is contained in H.R. 3019. The bfll is awaiting final Congressional action and approval by the PresidenL
PROJECTS WITH CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
Mr. MYERS: The FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-4 6, earmarked funds for various studies and projects. Are those studies and projects proceeding as directed by Congress in the law?
General WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, all studies and projects which were provided with funding in law last year are proceeding as directed in law. Of course, our compliance with those directives must be consistent with the amount of funds Congress has provided for the statutory purposes.
Mr. MYERS: The reports accompanying FY 1996 Energy and Water Developmemt Appropriations Act also directed the Corps of Engineers to undertake various studies and projects. Are those studies and projects proceeding as directed by Congress?
General WILLI7\MS: Mr. Chairman, we are proceeding in accordance with report language provided last year in almost all cases. I will provide a table showing those studies and projects which are not proceeding in accordance with guidance, together with a reason for the lack of progress for each effort.
(The information follows: ]
WORK NOT PROCEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDANCE CONTAINED IN FY 1996 REPORTS
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS - Congress directed the Corps to use not to exceed $100,000 of available MR&T funds to repair non- Federally owned roads to the dam. The cost of the repairs is $1.4 million, and no repairs can be accomplished for $100,000.
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA - Congress directed that available funds be used to install lighting at Pool's Bluff Sill. Since no safety problem exists at this lock, the lighting is not being installed.
CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING, SC - Congress provided an additional $1,200,000 for ditching, clearing, site preparation, and initiation of diking at the Clouter Island disposal area. These funds are not being used because this work is a non-Federal responsibility by statute, and must be undertaken by the non- Federal sponsor, absent legislative direction.
VALDEZ HARBOR, PX - Congress provided direction to accomplish maintenance dredging in this harbor. This work is not proceeding because recent hydrographic surveys indicate minimal shoaling and navigation is not impeded.
OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION, IN - Congress added funds to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction of levee repairs. The Corps has treated repair work on local flood control projects as a responsibility of the local sponsors and has not performed such work at Federal expense absent specific congressional direction in law. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has stated that he does not believe it would be appropriate for the Corps to perform repair work on the Ohio River local flood protection projects in Indiana absent such specific Congressional direction in law.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CALIENTE CREEK, CA - Congress directed the Corps to take all necsessary steps to complete this feasibility study in FY 1996. However, the feasibility study was suspended at the request of the local sponsor.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TULE RIVER, CA - Congress provided direction to resume the feasibility phase of the study to enlarge Success Dam, California. At this point in time, no agreement has been reached with the local sponsor on revisions to the feasibility study's scope and cost.
237
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Major General Stanley O. Genega
Director of Civil Works
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record the actual unobligated balances available in each of your appropriation accounts at the end of fiscal year 1995 and the amounts estimated to be available at the end of fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
General GENEGA. The actual and estimated end-of-year unobligated balances In each of our appropriation accounts for FY95 through FY97 are shown below.
[The information follows:]
|
U. S. AKMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CML WORKS PROGRAM CARRYOOT UNOBUGATEO BALANCE («K) |
|||
|
Account |
Fiscal Ytar | |
||
|
S6 |
M |
97 |
|
|
Flood Contral, Mississippi RIvtfindTrttMiUrtes |
946 |
2.000 |
3.000 |
|
38.7ie |
22.000 |
34,000 |
|
|
Constnicllon, G«wnl |
3*2.582 |
198.000 |
23.000 |
|
OpwsUon and Malnttnanct. CmmtsI |
58.344 |
28.000 |
26,000 |
|
2.493 |
2,000 |
0 |
|
|
Flood ConUol and Coastal |
3S.8S8 |
6.000 |
0 |
|
GtntfalExpMs.s |
10J54 |
8.000 |
2.000 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
OflSpillR«.a.cl. |
77 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
507.371 |
264.000 |
88.000 |
Mr. MYERS. What portion of those unobligated balances are programmed for use in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998
General GENEGA. All of the unobligated balances will be used for the studies, projects, or activities for which they were appropriated. We have specifically scheduled use of programmed carryover of $ 16.5 million on three projects in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. MYERS. For which projects?
General GENEGA. The unobligated balances programmed for use in fiscal year 1997 are on the McCook and Thorton Reservoirs (CUP), !L; St. Genevieve, MO; and Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX and OK projects. I will provide a table showing the planned obligations of programmed canyover in FY 97 and FY 98. [The information follows:]
PLANNED OBLIGATIONS OF PROGRAMMED CARRYOVER ($ in thousands)
Project
McCook and Thorton Reservoirs (CUP), IL
St. Genevieve, MO (General Investigations) (Construction, General)
Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX & OK 5,300
|
FY 97 |
FY 98 |
|
$6,672 |
0 |
|
500 3.986 |
690 0 |
i
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of all reconnaissance studies scheduled to be completed in fiscal year
1996 for which funds have not been requested in fiscal year 1997 to continue into the feasibility phase along with the reason why.
General GENEGA. Yes sir. The list of reconnaissance studies budgeted for completion in fiscal year 1996 for which follow on feasibility funds are not requested for fiscal year
1997 and the corresponding reasons are as follows:
RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES BUDGETED FOR COMPLETION IN FY 1996 WITHOUT AN FY 1997 BUDGET REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY
NAME - Reason
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW, LA - Lacks economic justification
MILTON, PA - Budgeted for additional reconaissance.
REYNOLD'S CHANNEL AND NEW YORK STATE BOAT CHANNEL, NY - Not in
State budget at this time. SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY - Shoreline protection is
inconsistent with Administration priorities NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY - Shoreline protection is
inconsistent with Administration priorities YONKERS SHORELINE, NY - Shoreline protection is inconsistent
with Administration priorities RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY (CLIFFWOOD BEACH) , NJ -
Shoreline protection is inconsistent with Administration
priorities EASTERN SHORE, ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, VA - Potential
projects being pursued under other authorities GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ - Shoreline protection
is inconsistent with Administration priorities MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ - Shoreline protection
is inconsistent with Administration priorities LITTLE CALUMET RIVER BASIN, DYER, IN - Being pursued under the
Continuing Authorities program SNY ISLAND, IL - Lacks economic justification COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR - Being pursued as a Section 1135 project SOUTH SANTIAM FISHERY RESTORATION, OR - Under Administration
review as a design deficiency project to be pursued using Operation and Maintenance, General account funds. HANCOCK, HARRISON AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MS - Being pursued under
the Continuing Authorities program. CITY OF ENCINITAS, CA - Shoreline protection is inconsistent with Administration priorities
240
ROCKY ARROYO/DARK CANYON, PECOS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NM -
Local funding constraints BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBUTARIES - ADDICKS & BARKER RESERVOIRS , TX
- Negative reconnaissance report
241
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of the new feasibility studies included in the budget request, along with the scheduled date for execution of the cost -sharing agreement for each.
General GENEGA. Yes sir. The feasibility studies that are budgeted for initiation in the fiscal year 1997 budget request and the corresponding scheduled cost -sharing agreement execution dates are as follows:
FEASIBILITY STUDIES BUDGETED FOR INITIATION IN FISCAL YEAR 1997
SCHEDULED
EXECUTION OF
FEASIBILITY
COST- SHARING
STUDY NAME AGREEMENT
BAYOU TIGRE, ERATH, LA SEP 96
METROPOLITAN CINCINNATI, NORTHERN KENTUCKY, KY JAN 96
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER, WA MAY 9 7
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK JUL 9 6
WRANGELL HARBOR, AK JISH 97
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK JUL 97
RUSSIAN RIVER, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA SEP 97
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA JUL 97
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO SEP 96 MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM,
UNITS L455 & R460-471, KS & MO NOV 96
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS OCT 96
ST TAMMANY PARISH, LA SEP 96
MCKINNEY BAYOU, AR & TX JUL 97
LOWER PLATTE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NE OCT 96 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
WATER MANAGEMENT, NY, PA & MD JUL 97
PATUXENT RIVER WATER RESOURCES, MD JUL 97
JUNIATA RIVER BASIN, PA MAY 96 SCHYULKILL RIVER BASIN,
SCHUYLKILL HAVEN AREA, PA SEP 96
SKAGIT RIVER, WA OCT 96
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA MAR 97 CHEAT RIVER BASIN, NORTH BRANCH,
LICK RUN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, WV SEP 96
242
TYGART VALLEY RIVER BASIN,
GRASSY RUN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, WV ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ ALAMO LAKE, AZ
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC
RIO CHAMA, ABIQUIU DAM TO ESPANOLA, NM SEWARD HARBOR, AK
IMPERIAL COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, CA SANTA BARBARA COUNTY STREAMS,
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA PROVO AND VICINITY, UT SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,
STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, CA TRUCKEE MEADOWS, RENO, NV
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA PLAINVIEW, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TX CHESTERFIELD, MO FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO LOWER RIVER DBS PERES, MO DOG RIVER, AL SAN JUAN AND AilSO CREEKS
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA MAY 97
1/ Not Required. Inland Waterway Navigation
2/ Not Required. Purpose is to reduce Federal expense.
|
SEP |
96 |
|
1/ |
|
|
MAR |
97 |
|
2/ |
|
|
JUN |
97 |
|
AUG |
97 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JAN |
97 |
|
JUN |
97 |
|
JAN |
97 |
|
NOV |
96 |
|
MAY |
97 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
JUL |
97 |
|
JUL |
97 |
|
SEP |
97 |
|
JUL |
97 |
|
SEP |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JUL |
97 |
243
Mr. MYERS. Are there any continuing feasibility studies included in the budget request that do not yet have executed cost-sharing agreements? If so, please provide a list of those projects for the record along with the scheduled date for execution of the cost -sharing agreements.
General GENEGA. Yes sir. The continuing feasibility studies budgeted in fiscal year 1997 which do not yet have executed cost -sharing agreements and the corresponding scheduled execution date of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement are as follows:
CONTINUING FEASIBILITY STUDIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET WITHOUT AN EXECUTED COST SHARING AGREEMENT
STUDY NAME
SCHEDULED
EXECUTION OF
FEASIBILITY
COST- SHARING
AGREEMENT
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC APR 96 OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY,
KY, IL, IN, PA, WV & OH 1/
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA APR 96
DUTCH HARBOR, AK MAR 96
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR MAY 96
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, LA 1/
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA MAR 96 NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RVR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, WV & MD APR 96
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ APR 96
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY APR 96
FOX RIVER, WI 2.1 UPPER MISSISSIPPI & ILLINOIS NAV STUDY,
IL, lA, MN, MO & WI 1/
PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA JUL 96
KANAWHA RIVER NAVIGATION, WV 1/
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI 21 MAR 96
MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA JUN 96 GILA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES,
N SCOTTSDALE DRAINAGE AREA, AZ AUG 96 GILA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES,
SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN, AZ AUG 96
LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PAIUTE, NV JUL 96
METRO CENTER LEVEE, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN JUN 96
244
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA
GIWW - HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR
CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED, TX
LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, WASHOE COUNTY, NV
JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY
PRADO BASIN WATER SUPPLY, CA
SAN ANTONIO CREEK, CA
GILA RIVER, TORTOLITA DRAINAGE AREA, AZ
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA
SACRAMENTO -SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,
WESTERN DELTA ISLANDS, CA CENTRAL BASIN GROUNDWATER PROJECT, CA N CA STREAMS, CACHE CREEK
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA N CA STREAMS, SACRAMENTO RIVER
FISH MIGRATION, CA CONEMAUGH RVR BASIN, NANTY GLO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, PA WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN
|
OCT |
96 |
|
MAY |
96 |
|
1/ |
|
|
JUN |
96 |
|
OCT |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
SEP |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
JUL |
96 |
|
APR |
96 |
|
SEP |
96 |
1/ Not Required. Inland waterway navigation study.
2/ Not Required. Study purpose is to reduce Federal expense.
245
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of all feasibility studies scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1996 for which funds have not been requested in fiscal year 1997 to continue into preconstruction engineering and design along with the reason why.
General GENEGA. Yes sir. The list of feasibility studies budgeted for completion in fiscal year 1996 for which follow on preconstruction engineering and design funds are not recjuested for fiscal year 1997 and the corresponding reasons are as follows:
FEASIBILITY STUDIES BUDGETED FOR COMPLETION IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 WITHOUT A FOLLOW- ON PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET REQUEST
NAME - Reason
WABASH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, IN & IL (MIDDLE REACHES) -
Budgeted for additional feasibility BREVARD COUNTY, FL - Shore protection is not an Administration
priority MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA - Shore
protection is not an Administration priority SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, OCEAN BEACH, CA -Shore protection is not
an Administration priority ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM - Being pursued
under the Continuing Authorities prograim UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX - Budgeted for additional
feasibility
246
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of projects receiving first year funding for preconstruction engineering and design in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
General GENEGA. Yes sir. The list of studies and projects in the fiscal year 1997 budget request for first year preconstruction engineering and design are as follows:
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN BUDGETED TO START IN FY 97
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE - REALLOCATION, MD & WV
BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES & CHANNELS, MD
C&D CANAL - BALTIMORE HBR CONN CHANNELS, DE & MD (DEEPENING)
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL
CROOKSTON, MN
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK
COOK INLET, AK
LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, WV
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY
CROWN BAY CHANNEL, VI
RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR
RIO GUANAJIBO, PR
CAPE FEAR - NORTHEAST (CAPE FEAR) RIVER, NC
TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ
N CA STREAMS, WINTERS & VICINITY, CA
GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN)
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING & WIDENING)
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND CHANNEL, FL
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
SEVEN OAKS AND PRADO DAMS WATER CONSERVATION, CA
247
Mr. Myers. Include in the record a list of all preconstruction engineering and design projects scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
General GENEGA. The preconstruction engineering and design studies and projects which were budgeted for completion in the fiscal year 1996 budget request or are budgeted for completion in fiscal year 1997 budget request are as follows:
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN BUDGETED FOR COMPLETION IN FISCAL YEARS 1996 OR 1997
NAME
PORT FOURCHON, LA
WEST BANK - EAST OF HARVEY CANAL, LA
COMITE RIVER, LA
BOSTON HARBOR, MA
WASHINGTON, DC & VICINITY
LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ
AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA
SANDBRIDGE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, DE, NJ & PA
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK
KAKE HARBOR, AK
COOK INLET, AK
MARMET LOCKS AND DAM, WV*
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH, KY & IN
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN
CHARTIERS CREEK, PA
Mc ALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING & WIDENING)
HILLSBORO INLET, FL
RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL
PANAMA CITY BEACHES, FL
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER, GA & SC
CAPE FEAR - NORTHEAST (CAPE FEAR) RIVER, NC
WILMINGTON HARBOR, CHANNEL WIDENING, NC
WILMINGTON HARBOR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER, NC
SANTA MONICA BREAKWATER, CA
248
PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING) . CA SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA
N CA STREAMS, WINTERS & VICINITY, CA NAPA RIVER, CA UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA SAN RAFAEL CANAL, CA
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR (BREAKWATER) , CA LAS CRUCES, EL PASO AND VICINITY, NM ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX WINFIELD, KS
EASTERN ARKANSAS REGION COMPREHENSIVE (GRAND PRAIRIE AREA GENERAL REEVALUATION)
249
SUPPORT FOR OTHERS
Mr. MYERS: Please provide a detailed breakdown. Including the dollar volume and personnel requirements, of the work the Corps Is scheduled to perform in fiscal year 1997 for other Federal agencies and state and local governments.
Major General GEMEGA: The Corps of Engineers current estimate of support to other agencies and entitles In FY 97 will be provided for the record. This projection, which Is being updated since the release of the President's budget, is based upon our knowledge of the progrzus at this time. The following estimates are the value of work we expect to accomplish during FY 97 and not funds we expect to receive from the agencies. There may likely be additional requests for assistance that are unknown at this time. For exeuaple, our emergency work for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is dependent upon natural disasters and is unpredictable.
(The information follows:)
PROJECTED SUPPORT FOR OTHERS PROGRAM FY 1997
Agency Department of Energy
Environmental
Facilities Environmental Protection Agency
Super fund
Construction Grants
Other Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior
Environmental
Facilities Department of Justice
Environmental
Facilities Other Federal/State/Local Agencies
Environmental
Facilities
Note: Environmental support to Other Federal agencies Includes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Treasury, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the General Services Administration. Facilities support to Other Federal agencies Includes Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Transportation, Treasury zmd Veterans Affairs, the General Accounting Office, the General Services Administration, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
|
$(M) |
Work Years (FTE) |
|
10 35 |
60 60 |
|
268 5 8 |
400 75 29 |
|
18 |
85 |
|
6 |
80 |
|
7 65 |
35 80 |
|
9 70 |
43 110 |
|
35 111 |
75 135 |
250
CIVIL FUNCTIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES UPDATE
MR. MYERS. Please bring the Committee up to date on the work the Corps is doing in civil functions in foreign countries. Is all the work the Corps performs for foreign countries reimbursable? If not, what funds are used and under what authority?
General GENEGA. All work the Corps performs for other countries or international organizations is reimbursable. All work the Corps performs for other U. S. agencies or U. S. firms in foreign countries is reimbursable. In addition, we execute civil works activities in other countries when congressionally authorized and appropriated to do so and engage in a limited number of science and technology activities with other countries that benefit the Civil Works program. I will provide a summary description of these activities for the record.
(The information follows:)
CORPS CIVIL FUNCTIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
The following is a list of Corps reimbursable work for other Federal agencies .
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — The Corps is supporting EPA in Poland through the Support for Eastern Democracies Act. The program is valued at $4 million, of which Corps services are $300,000 and includes procurement of water and wastewater treatment for the City of Krakow. Chlorination and ozonation systems were delivered in FY 1995. We are also working with EPA in Eastern Europe to demonstrate waste treatment technologies under the U.S. TIES (Technology for Innovative Environmental Solutions) program. This effort is valued at $700,000. Both of these efforts have the potential to increase foreign purchase of U.S. manufactured equipment. The Corps also supports EPA on environmental initiatives at the U.S. /Mexico border at San Diego- Tijuana. So far, the Corps' portion of this $400 million program is approximately $11 million.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — We are managing repairs to Anguar Harbor, Palau. Construction started in January 1996 on this $1.2 million project and is to be completed in one year.
U.S. Information Agency — Since 1984, the Corps has provided design and construction services for the U.S. Information Service (USIS) and Voice of America (VOA) . Although the work is largely over, the Corps continues to provide minor support to both agencies.
251
Department of Interior -- The Corps is managing design and construction for the 53-mile Palau road project agreed to in the Compact of Free Association. The Corps has received about $1 million for preliminary activities on this $149 million project. Since 1988, the Corps has received about $1.4 million for its efforts in support of DOI ' s Capital Improvement and Operation and Maintenance Improvement Programs for the Territories and the Freely Associated States.
National Science Foundation (NSF) — By agreement with the NSF, the Corps' Cold Regions Research Lab (CRREL) is providing technical support for Antarctic operations in the areas of construction and maintenance, including design of concepts and testing for snow and ice runways and roads; over snow transport; and design of facilities and special purpose equipment. Total value of support is estimated at $4.5 million. The Corps is also supporting NSF in Greenland at a cost of $120,000.
Panama Canal Commission (PCC) — The Corps is providing $722,000 in design and quality assurance services for construction of stoplogs for the Panama Canal Locks, valued at $7.2 million. In September 1995 the Corps signed an agreement with the PCC to conduct an operation and maintenance study of the Canal for $650,000.
Department of State (DOS) — The Corps is providing design and construction support to the Narcotics Affairs Sections in Bolivia, Columbia and Peru. This work consists of design and construction management of various facilities for drug interdiction and control. Project value is $5.1 million.
The following is a listing of our reimbursable support to foreign countries.
Bahamas -- Under an agreement signed in May 1995 the Corps is providing technical assistance to the Bahamas Government Department of Public Works for flood control solutions in low income housing areas in
The following is a listing of our reimbursable support to U.S. private firms.
Under a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) with Alden Research Laboratory the Corps performed a physical hydraulic model to analyze ice concerns at the Niagara Power Project Intake. Work was completed in 1995 for $107,000.
A TAA has been executed with Louis Berger International, Inc. (LBII), for technical assistance to improve navigation and signalization on the Paraguay-Parana River system in Latin America. Cost is estimated at $88,000.
252
The following is a listing of our Congressionally authorized civil works activities overseas.
International Joint Commission (IJC) -- Congress annually appropriates funds for the Corps to provide engineering and technical support to the IJC for water resources issues between the U.S. and Canada.
Northern Sea Route — Congress has authorized the Corps to do a reconnaissance study of American channel and port improvements that might be justified on the basis of future Northern Sea Route commerce in the Arctic Ocean. The study is to be completed in FY 1996 at a cost of $600,000. Russian, Canadian, and Finnish experts are participating in providing expertise and/or data.
Flood Warning System, Mexico — As part of flood damage reduction measures for Santa Cruz county, Arizona, WRDA 90 authorization included installation of a flood warning system in Mexico.
The following is a listing of scientific and technology exchanges with foreign nations.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- The Corps, through the Institute for Water Resources, was a key player on the IPCC, and is a lead author of four chapters of the IPCC report, just completed in December 1995. The IPCC's second assessment addressed potential impacts on sea level rise, hydrology, water resources management and wetlands, among others. Another Corps effort in support of the IPCC is a research program directed towards the study of economic impacts on water resources associated with global warming. This program is being coordinated with the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources. All climate change activities are scheduled for completion by the end of FY 96.
U.S. -Japan Natural Resources Exchange — This technological exchange focuses on seismic engineering for dams and large structures, coastal engineering for storm damage reduction, and environmental technology for managing contaminated dredge material. The Corps is also exploring the benefits of possible cooperation with Japan on water resources technology.
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses — This body was founded to foster progress on inland and maritime navigation and port development. The Corps participates under the authorization of 22 use 266 and 275a.
U.S. -Finland Agreement on Science and Technology — The Corps is cooperating with the Technical Research Centre of Finland on cold regions pavement design and geotechnics, concrete technology, and the effect of ice on structures.
London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution -- The Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is a member of the U.S. delegation, primarily to remain fully informed on issues which might affect the Civil Works Program and Corps dredging activities.
In addition to the above. Corps personnel travel to foreign countries primarily for the following purposes: inspection of the manufacture of turbines and generators and other equipment for Corps hydropower facilities; Columbia River management activities and ice and snow research with Canada; snow surveys in Canadian watersheds that drain into the U. S.; visits to project sites where advanced technology is being employed that might have application to our projects; and attendance at international meetings and conferences on topics of importance to our Civil Works mission. The Corps also leverages its research funds by contracting with foreign institutions that are doing research in areas of importance to our Civil Works mission.
254
OVERSEAS TRAVEL
Mr. MYERS. Are funds included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request for overseas travel of Corps employees. If so, how much is included, under which appropriations are they requested, and under what authority are they expended. Please provide the same information for the last five fiscal years.
General GENEGA. Each year we establish a ceiling on funds appropriated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act that may be used for overseas travel that benefits the Civil Works program. We have currently set the ceiling at 0.01% of our annual appropriation. For FY 1996 this would amount to a ceiling of $326,000. Our ceiling is based on guidance contained in the Committee Report accompanying the House version of the Energy and Water Development Bill, 1987, in which a ceiling of $276,662 was established for that fiscal year. These funds are not specifically identified in our budget request but are contained in the amounts requested for General Expense, General Investigations, Construction General and Operation and Maintenance. Purposes of such travel include: inspecting the manufacture of turbines and generators for use in Corps hydropower plants; coordinating Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway and Columbia River management activities with our Canadian counterparts; conducting snow surveys in Canadian watersheds that drain into the U. S.; participating with Canada on ice and snow research; and attending international conferences on topics where we might learn from other countries ways to more efficiently and effectively manage water resources. Such conferences include: zebra mussel control, dredged material management, coastal engineering, earthquake design and concrete technology. I will provide for the record a listing of our actual civil expenditures for foreign travel for the fiscal years 1991 through 1995.
(The information follows)
OVERSEAS TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year Actual Expenditures
1991 $176,707
1992 $243,042
1993 $227,946
1994 $279,661
1995 $280,585"
255
REMAINING ITEMS
Mr. MYERS. You indicate that the total Remaining Items budget request is $440,952 million. How does that compare with the FY 1996 appropriation for remaining items?
General GENEGA. The FY96 appropriation for remaining items was $391,400,000, or $49,552,000 less than the RTg? budget request.
Mr. MYERS. Please provide a comparison of FY 1996 and FY 1997 by appropriation account.
General GENEGA. The FY96 appropriation or allocation and FY97 budget request for each appropriation account is shown in the following table.
[The information follows:'
|
U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CMU WORKS PROGRAM REMAINING ITEMS FUNDING (*K) |
|||
|
Account |
FY97 Request |
Difference |
|
|
General InvestlgaUons |
40.849 |
51.985 |
11,138 |
|
Construction, General |
64,328 |
83.617 |
19.291 |
|
Operation and Maintenance, General |
22.875 |
24.500 |
1.625 |
|
ReflulatoryPfOflram |
101.000 |
112.000 |
11.000 |
|
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies |
10.000 |
15.000 |
5.000 |
|
General Expwues |
1S1.500 |
153,000 |
1,500 |
|
Revolving Fund |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oil Spill Research |
850 |
850 |
0 |
|
ToUi |
391.400 |
440.952 |
49.552 |
24-080 - 96 - 9
^56
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES
Mr i:RS. Since FY 1991, how much have you spent per year on the i-lanning Assistance to States program?
General GENEGA. The amounts spent on the Planning Assistance to States program since FY 1991 are shown on the following table.
|
FY |
Federal Funds |
Cost -Share Receipts |
Total |
|
1991 |
3,202,000 |
,000 |
3,355,000 |
|
1992 |
4,157,000 |
1,589,000 |
5,746,000 |
|
1993 |
2,237,000 |
1,629,000 |
3,866,000 |
|
1994 |
2,435,000 |
1,970,000 |
4,050,000 |
|
1995 |
2,113,000 |
1,515,000 |
3,628,000 |
|
1996 * |
1,482,000 |
1,270.000 |
2,752,000 |
* Anticipated expenditure'
257
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a list of studies to be undertaken in FY 1997 under the Planning Assistance to States program .
General GENEGA. The following is a list of studies anticipated to be initiated in FY 97 under the Planning Assistance to States Program:
STATE
STUDY NAME
Alabama Montgomery County Water Supply Study
Arkansas Lake Atalanta Dam Break Analysis
Florida Monroe County Water Resources Study
Florida Black Creek Water Resources Planning Study
Flori.da Miccosukes Indian Tribe Water Resources Planning
Florida Seminole Indian Tribe Water Resources Planning
Georgia Bostwick Water Resources Planning
Idaho Boise River Basin Study
Idaho Big Wood River Study
Idaho Duck Valley Study - Shoshone/Paiute Indian Tribe
Illinois Metro East Planning Assistance
Iowa Sac-Fox Indian Tribe Water Resources Planning
Kansas Johnson County Water Planning
Kansas Kansas Water Office Assistance
Louisiana Plaquemines Parish Mapping Assistance
Louisiana Hammond Mapping Assistance
Louisiana East Baton Rouge Mapping Assistance
Louisiana Orleans Parish Mapping Assistance
Louisiana Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Water Resources Study
Louisiana Chitimacha Indian Tribe Water Resources Planning
Maryland Anacostia Neighborhood Flood Relief Study
Maryland Savage River Hydrologic Study
Maryland Montgomery Co., Little Falls Watershed Restoration
Maryland St. Mary's County Surface Water Study
Michigan Oneida Indian Tribe Wetlands Study
Minnesota Redwood River Basin Study
Minnesota Minnesota River Basin Study
Minnesota Vermillion River Hydrologic Investigation
Minnesota Prairie Island Sioux Indian Tribe Watershed Study
258
Missouri Jefferson City Water Planning
Nebraska Eastern Nebraska Degradation Study
Nebraska Boyer, East Boyer Rivers Hydrologic Investigation
Nebraska West Papillion Creek Hydrologic Investigation
Nebraska South Sioux City Riverfront Study
Nebraska Lower Platte River Water Distribution Study
New Mexico Silver City Water Resources Inventory
N. Carolina Chapel Hill Planning Assistance
Oklahoma Lake Tenkiller Water Treatment /Conveyance Study
Oregon Chetco River Study
Oregon Fir Island Restoration Study
Oregon Useless Bay Restoration Study
Oregon Green River Environmental Database Assistance
Pennsylvania Cumberland County Water Supply Study
Pennsylvania York County, Tyler Run/Mill Run Flooding Study
Puerto Rico Dept . of Natural Resources Planning Assistance
S. Dakota Bear Creek Bank Stabilization Study
S. Dakota Ponca Indian Tribe Resource Development Plan
S. Dakota Rosebud Sioux Indian Tribe, Little White R. Plan
S. Dakota Upper Vermillion Creek River Basin Study
Texas Water Supply/Drought Study
Texas Waco Metropolitan Area Water Resources Study
Texas Lake Somerville Water Resources Study
Texas Lake Waco Algae Study
Virgin Islands Water Resources Planning Assistance
Virginia Roanoke /Roanoke County Mapping Assistance
Wisconsin Cultural Resources Study
259
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION
Mr. MYERS. Last year you requested $4,000,000 for the Coastal Field Data Collection program and $3,600,000 was provided for it. This year, you are requesting $1,500,000. What is the reason for the decrease?
General GENEGA. Sir, since we are eliminating new initiatives on shore protection, $1,500,000 is believed to be adequate to serve the 54 existing shore protection projects and our 800 or so coastal navigation projects, plus any coastal regulatory, emergency management, or Coastal America program needs.
260
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. MYERS. How much will the Department of Defense contribute to the Scientific and Technical Information Centers program in FY 1997?
General GENEGA. There are no funds for the Scientific and Technical Information Centers program identified in the Department of Defense budget. The operation of the Scientific and Technical Information Centers is supported by the Civil Works General Investigations Appropriation. The Department of Defense does not contribute to center operations with the exception that research results acquired as part of military RDT&E appropriations or military reimbursable studies may be archived at the centers if there is the potential of contribution to the Civil Works mission.
261
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a breakdown of the amount requested in FY 1 997 under the Research and Development Program by laboratory.
General GENEGA. While the distribution of FY97 funding has not been finalized, the following table shows the anticipated $27M General Investigations funding breakout for each R&D laboratory and performing element based on estimated field priorities.
US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) $ 930,000 US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) 2,456,000
US Army Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) 521 ,000
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) 19,736,000
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) 1 ,207,000
Institute of Water Resources ( I WR) 2 , 1 50, 000
TOTAL $ 27,000,000
262
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. MYERS. What is the total amount for all appropriations that each laljoratory will receive in FY 1997?
General GENEGA. The following table shows the anticipated funding breakout for each R&D laboratory and performing element.
|
FY 1997 R&D ALLOCATIONS BY LABORATORY | |
|||||||
|
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS |
|||||||
|
CERL |
CRREL 1 |
TEC |
WES |
HEC |
IWR |
TOTAL |
|
|
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS |
930 |
2.456 j |
521 |
19,736 |
1,207 |
2,150: |
27.000 |
|
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE |
400 |
500| |
1 |
4,600 |
5,500 |
||
|
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL | |
1 |
' |
2.500 |
2.500 |
|||
|
GENERAL EXPENSES '. |
i |
1 |
325 |
325 |
|||
|
PRUSTFUND |
425 |
90: |
335 |
850 |
|||
|
! 1 ; ' â– â– 1 |
|||||||
|
TOTAL R&D |
^330. |
3,381 |
611. |
-2L12S_ |
1,207 |
2,150 |
36.1751 |
263
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM PROJECTS UNDERWAY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a table showing all projects to be undertaken in FY 1996 under the various continuing authorities programs that includes type of work to be performed and that amount allocated to each project. Please provide for the record a list of projects you currently plan to undertake in FY 1997 under the various continuing authorities programs that includes type of work to be performed and the amount to be allocated to each.
General GENEGA. We can provide those. However, due to the dynamic nature of these programs, the values shown represent the Corps of Engineers estimate as of March 25, 1996. As studies proceed and costs and benefits are determined, and local interests' willingness to cost share is ascertained, some activities will be terminated and others, not listed, may be initiated.
(The information follows:)
264
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
Section 14
Planning and Design Analysis
STATE fflGHWAY 3066 BELOW INDIAN VILLAGE, LA
FAYETTE COUNTY RD. 23 AND KASKASIOA RIVER, IL
LINCOLN COUNTY ROAD 729 AND BIG CREEK, MO
LINCOLN COUNTY ROAD 984 AND CUIVRE RIVER, MO
OSAGE RIVER, LAKE OZARK SEWERLINE, MO
102 RTVER, PICKERING BRD, NODAWAY CNTY, MO
GRAND RIVER, SALT CREEK BRD, CHARITON CNTY, MO
FOUR MILE CP^EK, CASS COUNTY BRIDGE, NE
CANASERAGA CREEK, VILLAGE OF DANSVILLE, NY
AUGLAIZE RIVER, BROWN TOWNSHIP, PAULDING CO., OH
TONAWANDA CREEK, BLOCK CHURCH RD, NIAGARA CTY, NY
LAKE ONTARIO, SODUS POINT LIGHT HOUSE, NY
HENNEPIN COUNTY CSAH 116, MN
VERNON CENTER, MN
MELROSE, WI
MANITOU BEACH ROAD AT MURDEN COVE, WA
SNAKE RIVER ABOVE BLACKFOOT, ID
SNAKE RIVER, FORT HALL, LANDMARK,ID
WILLOW CREEK BELOW LA CROSSE, WA
LITTLE WEISER RIVER, GLADHART LANE, ID
OHIO RIVER, SEWER LINE, SISTERSVILLE, WV
OHIO RTVER BOAT LEVEE, MARIETTA, OH
TWELVEPOLE CREEK, WAYNE COUNTY, WV
WHITEWATER RIVER, BROOKVILLE, IN
EAGLE CREEK, WATERFRONT PARK, INDIANAPOLIS, IN
OHIO RIVER, NEW RICHMOND, OH
OHIO RIVER, CARROLLTON, KY
WABASH RIVER, RUSSELL AND ALLISON LEVEE, IL
BIG RACCOON CREEK, PARKE COUNTY, IL
NORTH FORK KY RTVER, HIGHWAY 15N, WHITESBURG, KY
NORTH FORK KY RIVER, RIVER ROAD, WHITESBURG, KY,
MOUNT VERNON SEWER OUTFALL, IN
SO FK HOLSTON RV, KINGSPORT, TN
UT AGRICULT EXP STA, TN
DITTO LANDING, HUNTSVILLE, AL
CLINCH RIVER, KINGSTON, TN
TENN RIVER, KNOXVILLE,TN
TN RTVER, ROSS'S LANDING, CHATTANOOGA,TN
TN RIVER PARK, CHATTANOOGA, TN
|
100 |
0 |
|
32 |
0 |
|
24 |
0 |
|
36 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
46 |
0 |
|
41 |
0 |
|
10 |
21 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
28 |
0 |
|
25 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
|
39 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
40 |
0 |
|
45 |
0 |
|
42 |
0 |
|
20 |
20 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
0 |
20 |
|
38 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
80 |
0 |
|
80 |
0 |
|
80 |
0 |
265
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item
CONNEAUT LAKE, PA
OHIO RIVER, CHESTER, WV
OHIO RIVER, MOUNDSVILLE, WV
MON. R, SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, POINT MARION, PA
MONONGAHELA RIVER, WATER STREET, POINT MARION, PA
BUFFALO CREEK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, FREEPORT, PA
POWER PLANT ROAD. CABRAS ISL, GU
SOUTH AGAT (ROUTE 2), GU
ALII DRIVE, HI
PUNALUU HIGHWAY, OAHU, HI
HAUULA HIGHWAY, OAHU, HI
KAAAWA HIGHWAY, OAHU, HI
GARAPAN BEACH ROAD, CM
INDIAN BLUFF PARK, EUTAWVILLE, SC
SOUTH CAROLINA DOT BRIDGES, SC
BALDWIN SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY, GA
NC AQUARIUM, DARE COUNTY, NC
BIG TUJUNGA WASH, LOS ANGELES, CA
CLARKDALE, AZ. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AZ
PINAL CREEK, GLOBE SEWER PLANT, AZ
TUTHILL ROAD BRIDGE, MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ
WASHINGTON ON THE BRAZOS STATE PARK, TX
HUTTON BRANCH, REACH H, STREAM 6D3, CARROLTON, TX
DUDLEY BRANCH, HEBRON PARKWAY, CARROLTON, TX
GARVIN COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE, WASHITA RIVER, OK
RALSTON COUNTY ROAD & BRIGDE, ARKANSAS RTV, OK
US HIGHWAY 65, EAST CARROLL PARISH, LA
BEAR CRK, 24-INCH SEWERLINE, WARRENSBURG, MO
102 RIVER, HOPKINS BRIDGE, NODAWAY CO, MO
DELAWARE R WATER INTAKE, KICKAPOO RES, KS
BOUQUET RIVER, ELIZABETHTOWN, NY
MANASQUAN RIVER, HOWELL TWP, NJ
STONEY CREEK, EAST NORRISTON, PA
LAUNIUPOKO, MAUI, HI
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Planning and Design Analysis
Construction
CULLEY-BRASHEAR DIVERSION DITCH, MADISON CO., MS
BARTLETT ROAD BRIDGE, TN
WOLF RIVER, RT 51 BRIDGE, MEMPHIS, TN
|
FY 1996 FY 1997 |
|
|
20 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
|
110 |
0 |
|
0 |
70 |
|
0 |
70 |
|
K 35 |
35 |
|
0 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
2 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
|
70 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
28 |
28 |
|
35 |
0 |
|
36 |
0 |
|
75 |
28 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
6 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
0 |
55 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
22 |
0 |
|
14 |
5 |
|
145 |
1578 |
|
2U00 |
20UU |
|
181 |
0 |
|
41 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
266
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
PARISH ROAD 218, MERMENTAU R, GRAND CHENIER, LA
FOUR MILE CREEK, CASS COUNTY BRIDGE, NE
PUNCH ISLAND ROAD, MD
SENECA FALLS, NY
OCONTO RIVER, CITY OF OCONTO, WI
RIVER RAISIN, VILLAGE OF DUNDEE, MONROE COUNTY, MI
MAZON RIVER, GOOSE LAKE TOWNSHIP, GRUNDY CO., IL
BIG FORK RIVER, MN
RED LAKE RIVER, CROOKSTON. MN
MANKATO TOWNSHIP, MN
FARMINGTON R, SIMSBURY, CT
NORTH NASHUA RIVER SEWER LINE, LEOMINSTER, MA,
WABASH RIVER, RUSSELL AND ALLISON LEVEE, IL
WARREN, OH, TRUMBULL METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTH, OH
ORIENTAL, SOUTH AVENUE, NC
SOUTHERN BLVD, BLACK'S ARROYO, RIO RANCHO, NM,
MADRID FIRE STATION, MADRID ARROYO, NM
FURNEAUX CREEK, CARROLLTON, TX
HUTTON BRANCH, REACH H, STREAM 6D3, CARROLTON, TX
BEAR CREEK, COUNTY ROAD 485, COLLIN COUNTY, TX
STATE HWY 84, N CANADIAN R, OKFUSKEE CNTY, OK
CITY DAM, LITTLE CANEY RIVER, CANEY, KS
CITY DAM, FALL RIVER, NEODESHA, KS
CITY OF JEANETTE, BRUSH CREEK, PA
BAYOU DES GLAISES, MOREAUVILLE, LA
CONNEAUT LAKE, PA
OHIO RIVER, CHESTER, WV
FRENCH CREEK, WATTSBURG, PA
BEAR CREEK, 24 INCH SEWERLINE, WARRENSBURG, MO
US HIGHWAY 65, EAST CARROLL PARISH, LA
SAN ISIDRO, SANTA FE, NM
OHIO RIVER BOAT LEVEE, MARIETTA, OH
NC AQUARIUM, DARE CO., NC
KING (WATER PLANT), NC
OSAGE RIVER, LAKE OZARK SEWERLINE, MO
DUDLEY BRANCH, HEBRON PARKWAY, CARROLTON, TX
102 RIVER, HOPKINS BRIDGE, NODAWAY CO., MO
DELAWARE RIVER, WATERINTAKE, KICKAPOO RES., KS
OHIO RIVER SEWER, MARIETTA, OH
102 RTVER, PICKERING BRIDGE, NODAWAY CO., MO
EAGLE CREEK, WATERFRONT PARK, INDLM^APOLIS, IN
SEWAGE LAGOON, WASHITA RIVER, ALEX, OK
INDIAN BLUFF PARK, EUTAWVILLE, SC
|
82 |
0 |
|
48 |
0 |
|
139 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
|
12 |
0 |
|
35 |
0 |
|
11 |
0 |
|
156 |
0 |
|
60 |
0 |
|
154 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
125 |
0 |
|
229 |
0 |
|
265 |
0 |
|
155 |
0 |
|
50 |
0 |
|
79 |
0 |
|
200 |
0 |
|
217 |
0 |
|
226 |
0 |
|
220 |
0 |
|
186 |
0 |
|
93 |
0 |
|
0 |
331 |
|
210 |
0 |
|
0 |
67 |
|
0 |
123 |
|
0 |
363 |
|
49 |
0 |
|
171 |
0 |
|
376 |
0 |
|
224 |
0 |
|
0 |
425 |
|
179 |
0 |
|
133 |
79 |
|
163 |
0 |
|
21 |
72 |
|
40 |
80 |
|
0 |
110 |
|
8 |
26 |
|
0 |
53 |
|
0 |
59 |
|
0 |
132 |
267
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
SOUTH CAROLINA DOT BRIDGES, SC 100 320
SEBAGO LAKE, STANDISH, ME 525 0
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS 249 3260
Subtotal Construction 5427 5500
Total Section 14 7427 7500
Section 103
Feasibility Studies
NORTH NANTASKET BEACH, HULL, MA
NANTASKET BEACH, HULL, MA
SILVER BEACH TO CEDAR BEACH, MILFORD, CT
LUMMI SHORE ROAD, BELLINGHAM BAY, WA
MICRO BEACH, CM
ARCADIAN SHORES, HORRY COUNTY, SC
LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, FL
EL TERRAPLEN PINONES, PR
FORT JACKSON, CHATHAM COUNTY, GA
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD CA
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Feasibility Studies
Plans and Specifications
RIKERS ISLAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. NY
HIGHWAY 1, GRAND ISLE, LA
SHELTER ISLAND, NY
OAKWOOD BEACH, STATEN ISLAND, NY
POINT BCH, MILFORD, CT
COMMERCL^L PORT ROAD, CABRAS ISL, GU
WEST SILVER SANDS BCH, EAST HAVEN, CT
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Plans and Specifications 700 510
Construction
COLONIAL BEACH, VIRGINIA, RENOURISHMENT, VA 0 15
ASHAROKEN VILLAGE, NORTHPORT, NY 450 0
|
10 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
43 |
0 |
|
34 |
0 |
|
110 |
0 |
|
56 |
0 |
|
85 |
0 |
|
28 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
|
0 |
450 |
|
421 |
450 |
|
25 |
0 |
|
90 |
0 |
|
165 |
0 |
|
140 |
0 |
|
19 |
0 |
|
90 |
60 |
|
18 |
0 |
|
153 |
450 |
|
48 |
0 |
|
746 |
0 |
|
13 |
0 |
|
199 |
2025 |
|
1456 |
2040 |
|
2577 |
3000 |
268
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
LAKESHORE PARK, ASHTABULA, OH SANDY POINT OUTFALL, WEST HAVEN, CT BATTERY PRINGLE, JAMES ISLAND, SC UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Construction
Total Section 103
Section 107
Feasibility Studies
TAYLOR POINT CUT, ST. MARY PARISH, LA
VERMILION RIVER, LA
SHALLOW CREEK SPUR CHANNEL, MD
CRISFIELD HARBOR, MD
COAN RTVER, VA
NEALE SOUND, MD
BELFORD HARBOR, NJ
MESSICK POINT, BACK RTVER, POQUOSON, VA
JONES CREEK, VA
WILMINGTON HARBOR CHANNEL, DE
KING COVE, AK
LARSEN BAY, AK
METLAKATLA, TAMGAS HARBOR, AK
TATITLEK, AK
WHITTIER, AK
PORT OF MORROW, MORROW COUNTY, OR
NEWPORT, OR
TOKELAND, WA
CALABASH CREEK, BRUNSWICK CO., NC & HORRY CO. SC,
PORT EVERGLADES, FL
SALT RUN, ST. AUGUSTINE, FL
CROWS NEST CHANNEL, NC
HARKERS ISLAND, CARTERET COUNTY, NC
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Feasibility Studies
Plans and Specifications
BAYOU DULARGE, TERREBONNE PARISH, LA
|
25 |
8 |
|
14 |
150 |
|
2 |
0 |
|
92 |
95 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
20 |
28 |
|
21 |
43 |
|
0 |
78 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
25 |
0 |
|
22 |
108 |
|
4 |
0 |
|
100 |
99 |
|
114 |
124 |
|
90 |
12 |
|
60 |
0 |
|
58 |
0 |
|
-28 |
28 |
|
6 |
0 |
|
40 |
0 |
|
7 |
13 |
|
14 |
45 |
|
74 |
60 |
|
310 |
109 |
|
1100 |
1000 |
269
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
TEDIOUS CREEK, DORCHESTER CO., MD
YORK AND PAMUNKEY RIVERS VA
HUNTING-GUILFORD CREEKS ACCOMACK CO., VA
NEWPORT NEWS CREEK, VA
LAKE ERIE AT COOLEY CANAL, LUCAS COUNTY, OH
ROCHESTER HARBOR (WAVE SURGE), NY
SAUGUS RIVER, SAUGUS, MA
HYANNIS HARBOR, HYANNIS, MA
LARSEN BAY, AK
OUZINKIE, AK
KAHULUI SBH, MAUI, HI
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
♦ Subsubtotal ♦
Construction
ISLAND CREEK, ST.GEORGE ISLAND, ST. MARY'S CO., MD AUNT LYDL\'S COVE, CHATHAM, MA PROVINCETOWN HARBOR, PROVINCETOWN, MA NEAH BAY, WA
ROCHESTER HARBOR (WAVE SURGE), NY UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
* Subsubtotal * Total Section 107 Section 111 Feasibility Studies UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS Total Feasibility Studies Plans and Specifications UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS Subtotal Plans and Specifications Construction
|
0 |
15 |
|
211 |
159 |
|
106 |
81 |
|
22 |
56 |
|
100 |
100 |
|
130 |
0 |
|
-27 |
155 |
|
170 |
50 |
|
194 |
0 |
|
82 |
0 |
|
81 |
0 |
|
231 |
384 |
|
1300 |
1000 |
|
572 |
0 |
|
44 |
0 |
|
88 |
0 |
|
1864 |
0 |
|
1000 |
1800 |
|
340 |
1200 |
|
3908 |
3000 |
|
6308 |
5000 |
|
120 |
100 |
|
120 |
100 |
|
0 |
150 |
|
0 |
150 |
270
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/I tem
POINT CHEHALIS, GRAYS HARBOR, WA UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Construction
Total Section 111
Section 205
Feasibility Studies
ARLINGTON, KY
JEAN LAFITTE. LA
W15 CANAL BASIN, SLIDELL, LA
ROSETHORNE BASIN, JEAN LAHTTE, LA
BOIS BRULE L & D DISTRICT, MO
GRAND TOWER D & L DISTRICT, IL
MITCHELL & PEARSON CRKS, WAYNESVILLE, MO
NISHNABOTNA R AND MAIN DITCH 6, HAMBURG, LA
SALT CREEK LEVEES, LINCOLN, NE
OAK CREEK, WAKPALA, SD
BLOOMSBURG, PA
MILL BROOK, HIGHLAND PARK, NJ
POPLAR BROOK, NJ
FULMER CREEK, VILLAGE OF MOHAWK, NY
MOYER CREEK, VILLAGE OF FRANKFURT, NY
STEELE CREEK, VILLAGE OF ILION, NY
MARTINS CREEK, TULLYTOWN, PA
RANCOCAS CREEK, NJ
MILL CREEK, UPPER MORELAND PA
NAYLOR'S RUN, COBBS CREEK, PA
WEST BRANCH DELAWARE R. VILLAGE OF STAMFORD, NY,
CROSS LAKE, NY
MILL CREEK, GAF.FIELD HEIGHTS, OH
VALLEY VIEW IL
FOX RIVER MCHENRY COUNTY IL
MCCOOK LEVEE, MCCOOK IL
KANKAKEE RTVEP., NEWTON COUNTY, IN
AVOCA, WI
KAWISmWI RIVEPv, MN
WILD RICE - MARSH RIVERS, MN
PENINSULA DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1, OR
|
FY 1996 FY 1997 |
|
|
835 0 |
0 250 |
|
835 |
250 |
|
955 |
500 |
|
31 |
21 |
|
32 |
11 |
|
-19 |
54 |
|
40 |
0 |
|
113 |
113 |
|
35 |
178 |
|
0 |
110 |
|
14 |
0 |
|
15 |
27 |
|
0 |
40 |
|
0 |
80 |
|
135 |
0 |
|
25 |
130 |
|
70 |
100 |
|
70 |
100 |
|
70 |
100 |
|
0 |
21 |
|
15 |
90 |
|
30 |
100 |
|
30 |
43 |
|
60 |
120 |
|
90 |
0 |
|
90 |
100 |
|
-43 |
43 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
-4 |
104 |
|
140 |
75 |
|
20 |
40 |
|
10 |
10 |
|
135 |
70 |
|
60 |
0 |
271
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
NEHALEM R, SUNSET DRAINAGE DISTRICT, OR
LONG ROAD AT CENTRALIA, WA
CEDAR RIVER AT RENTON, WA
SNOQUALMIE RIVER AT SNOQUALMIE, WA
ROLLING FORK RIVER, LEBANON JUNCTION, KY
FLATROCK RIVER, RUSHVILLE, IN
KENTUCKY RIVER, BELLEPOINT, KY
PLEASANT CREEK, GREENWOOD, IN
BEECH FORK, BARDSTOWN, KY
SALT CREEK, NASHVILLE, IN
PIGEON ROOST CREEK, SCOTTSBURG, IN
WHITE RIVER, ANDERSON, IN
RED RIVER, CLAY CITY, KY
DALLAS BRANCH HUNTSVILLE, AL
SINKING CREEK, MURFREESBORO, TN
FIRST CREEK, KNOXVILLE,TN
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER, CONNELLSVILLE. PA
CONQUENESSING CREEK, MARION TOWNSHIP, PA
PALAI STREAM, HI
TURKEY CREEK, SUMTER COUNTY, SC
RIO GUAMANI, GUAYAMA, PR
RIO LOCO AT GUANICA, PR
RIO CULEBRINA/ MADRE VIEJA, AGUADILLA, PR
RIO EL OJO DE AGUA, AGUADILLA, PR
WHITAKER BAYOU, FL
RIO CULEBRAS, AGUADA, PR
RIO PATILLAS, PATILLAS, PR
ITCHEPACKASASSA CREEK, POLK CO., FL
BIG ESCAMBL\ CREEK, ESCAMBIA CO., AL
KINCHAFOONE CREEK, GA
FLINT RIVER, SOUTH ALBANY, GA
SAND CREEK, TUPELO, MS
OCMULGEE RIVER LEVEE, MACON, GA
CHATHAM CO. STREAMS, GA
MAGPIE AND DON JULIO CREEKS, SACRAMENTO, CA
BATTLE MOUNTAIN, NV
TEHAMA-HAMILTON CITY, CA
LOWER FINGER WASH, PIMA COUNTY, AZ
MISSION ZANJA, REDLANDS, CA
N. SULPHUR SPRINGS VALLEY, WILCOX, AZ
SAN PEDRO CREEK, PACIFICA, CA
ZUNI RIVER, ZUNI, NM
LITTLE PUERCO RIVER, GALLUP, NM
|
10 |
0 |
|
23 |
0 |
|
155 |
24 |
|
50 |
200 |
|
20 |
40 |
|
49 |
0 |
|
65 |
0 |
|
17 |
0 |
|
57 |
0 |
|
50 |
35 |
|
11 |
74 |
|
50 |
50 |
|
20 |
78 |
|
50 |
52 |
|
52 |
55 |
|
100 |
75 |
|
25 |
54 |
|
25 |
60 |
|
30 |
95 |
|
21 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
50 |
0 |
|
96 |
0 |
|
136 |
0 |
|
30 |
350 |
|
5 |
235 |
|
25 |
300 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
28 |
52 |
|
74 |
0 |
|
276 |
0 |
|
40 |
30 |
|
200 |
0 |
|
40 |
245 |
|
46 |
0 |
|
190 |
0 |
|
175 |
25 |
|
40 |
10 |
|
180 |
0 |
|
26 |
0 |
|
24 |
0 |
|
40 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
272
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shovm In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item
MIDLAND/JAL DRAW, MIDLAND, TX
BUFFALO BAYOU, LYNCHBURG PUMP STATION, HOUSTON, TX
WOLF CREEK, LAWTON, OK
LIBERAL, KS
EAST BOOMER CREEK, TRIB. 3, STILLWATER, OK
W14 CANAL BASIN, SLIDELL, LA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, MONROE COUNTY, IL
WILSHIRE CANAL, SAVANNAH, GA
ELOY, PINAL COUNTY, AZ
LITTLE COLORADO NAVAJO NATION, AZ
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Feasibility Studies
Plans and Specifications
OUACHITA PARISH, RIVER STYX BAYOU, LA
MAIN DITCH NO. 8, PEMISCOT COUNTY, MISSOURI, MO
ST. PETERS, MO
MILK RIVER, MALTA. MT
NISHNABOTNA R AND MAIN DITCH 6, HAMBURG, LA
VAN BIBBER CREEK, ARVADA, CO
MOCCASIN CREEK, ABERDEEN, SD
GWYNNS FALLS, BALTIMORE, MD
SAUQUOIT CREEK, WHITESBORO, NY
ELIZABETH RIVER, HILLSIDE, NJ
PALMERTON LOCAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, PA
LIBERTYVILLE ESTATES IL
FOX RIVER MCHENRY COUNTY IL
LIVERPOOL, IL
S.E. OTTAWA, IL
CEDAR FALLS, lA
ROOT RIVER, HOUSTON, MN
FEATHER CREEK, CLINTON, I
NORTH FORK KENTUCKY RIVER, JACKSON, KY
CITY DITCH, BREVOORT LEVEE, IN
DESHEE RIVER, BREVOORT LEVEE, IN
SUGAR CREEK, BELLBROOK, OH
LIL LIMESTONE CK, JONESBORO, TN
MUSCLE SHOALS, AL
ESTATE MON BIJOU, ST. CROIX, VI
TURPENTINE RUN, ST THOMAS, VI
ESTATE LA GRANGE, ST CRODC, VI
|
FY 1996 FY 1997 |
|
|
-9 |
209 |
|
< 64 |
0 |
|
5 |
27 |
|
5 |
30 |
|
32 |
54 |
|
-34 |
34 |
|
0 |
4 |
|
14 |
20 |
|
8 |
0 |
|
0 |
24 |
|
480 |
179 |
|
4500 |
4600 |
|
400 |
169 |
|
160 |
21 |
|
225 |
0 |
|
25 |
0 |
|
78 |
72 |
|
248 |
292 |
|
186 |
131 |
|
0 |
25 |
|
313 |
0 |
|
55 |
0 |
|
60 |
0 |
|
135 |
0 |
|
50 |
223 |
|
80 |
15 |
|
41 |
9 |
|
121 |
101 |
|
110 |
335 |
|
8 |
0 |
|
180 |
0 |
|
34 |
0 |
|
64 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
50 |
0 |
|
592 |
0 |
|
42 |
0 |
|
65 |
0 |
|
51 |
34 |
273
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item
FY 1996 FY 1997
RIO MANATI, BARCELONETA, PR
CEDAR CREEK, JACKSONVILLE, FL
BLACK WARRIOR RIVER, NORTHPORT, AL
CHOCTAWHATCHEE & PEA RIVERS, ELBA LEVEES, AL
CHOCTAWHATCHEE & PEA RIVERS, GENEVA LEVEES, AL
GREAT COHARIE CREEK, SAMPSON CO., NC
DANVILLE, VA
MORAVIAN CREEK, WILKESBORO, NC
ADKIN BRANCH, KINSTON, NC
ARIZONA STATEWIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, AZ
MOHAVE CO. FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, CA, AZ
PETALUMA RIVER, CA
DUCK CREEK, GARLAND. TX
DRY JORDAN CREEK, HARRISON, AR
BLACK RIVER, POPLAR BLUFF, MO
PLUM CREEK, WICHITA FALLS, TX
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Plans and Specifications
Construction
ARKANSAS TRIBS. (CANAL 19), BOEUF-TENSAS BASIN, AR
PEBBLE CREEK & ELKHORN R, SCRIBNER, NE
LODGEPOLE CREEK, SIDNEY, NE
MAPLE CREEK, HOWELLS, NE
KEUKA LAKE, NY
OELWEIN, lA
DES MOINES, RACCOON RIVER, lA
SNAKE RTVER, ALVARADO, MN
WILD RICE RIVER, HENDRUM/LEE, MN
MINNESOTA RIVER. HENDERSON, MN
GILMORE CREEK, WINONA, MN
ROOT RTVER, HOUSTON, MN
MAD R, WOODTICK, WATERBURY, CT
HARGUS CREEK, CIRCLEVILLE, OH
LANCASSANGE CREEK, CLARK COUNTY. IN
JONES RUN PUMP STATION. FRANKFORT. KY
DRY CREEK. GOODLETTSVILLE, TN
KAHAWAINUI STREAM, HI
KAWAINUI MARSH, OAHU, HI
SOCASTEE CREEK, HORRY CO., SC
SAVAN GUT, ST. THOMAS, VI
|
182 |
360 |
|
105 |
0 |
|
275 |
100 |
|
175 |
0 |
|
175 |
0 |
|
65 |
0 |
|
11 |
0 |
|
20 |
73 |
|
110 |
55 |
|
200 |
0 |
|
25 |
0 |
|
415 |
0 |
|
202 |
0 |
|
134 |
0 |
|
74 |
0 |
|
10 |
56 |
|
239 |
2729 |
|
5800 |
4800 |
|
255 |
0 |
|
45 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
201 |
0 |
|
0 |
20 |
|
22 |
0 |
|
502 |
50 |
|
8 |
27 |
|
55 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
|
100 |
0 |
|
340 |
1310 |
|
650 |
220 |
|
209 |
0 |
|
18 |
0 |
|
44 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
|
208 |
300 |
|
2167 |
146 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
130 |
3125 |
274
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item FY 1996 FY 1997
RIO CIBUCO, VEGA BAJA, PR
UPPER GORDONS CREEK, HATTIESBURG, MS
ESLAVA CREEK, MOBILE, AL
COLORADO RIVER, GRAND JUNCTION, CO
DELAWARE CREEK, IRVING, TX
TEN MILE CREEK, DESOTO, TX
UPPER ZACATE CREEK, LAREDO, TX
DRY BRANCH, GRAND PRAIRIE, TX
SULPHUR BRANCH, EULESS, TX
RUSH CREEK, ARLINGTON, TX
CALLOWAY BRANCH, RICHLAND HILLS, TX
JOHNSON CREEK, GRAND PRAIRIE, TX
JACKSONPORT, AR
WHITE R, BATESVILLE, AR
MILL CRK, FT. SMITH, AR
CATO SPRG BR, FAYETTEVILLE, AR
ST PETERS, MO
ESTATE MON BIJOU, ST. CRODC, VI
DANVILLE, VA
LIVERPOOL, IL
SUGAR CREEK, BELLBROOK, OH
S. E. OTTAWA, IL
MILK RIVER, MALTA, MT
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Construction
Total Section 205
Section 208
Planning and Design Analysis
HATCHIE RIVER, ALCORN & TIPPAH COUNTIES, MS
NEABSCO CREEK, VA
SNAKE RIVER, WARREN, MN
LEMONWEIR RIVER, WI
JUAN MENDEZ CHANNEL, PR
UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Planing and Design Analysis 200 200
Construction
|
200 |
0 |
|
500 |
0 |
|
40 |
0 |
|
456 |
0 |
|
920 |
0 |
|
1117 |
600 |
|
34 |
0 |
|
1483 |
300 |
|
380 |
0 |
|
105 |
0 |
|
475 |
0 |
|
104 |
0 |
|
73 |
0 |
|
1849 |
0 |
|
292 |
0 |
|
159 |
0 |
|
0 |
4500 |
|
0 |
500 |
|
0 |
70 |
|
0 |
482 |
|
25 |
354 |
|
0 |
829 |
|
275 |
537 |
|
3471 |
1730 |
|
16997 |
15100 |
|
27297 24500 |
|
47 |
0 |
|
41 |
0 |
|
21 |
0 |
|
15 |
65 |
|
20 |
0 |
|
56 |
135 |
275
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAMS (Funds Shown In $1,000)
Program/Category/Item
JUAN MENDEZ CHANNEL, PR UNSPECIFIED PROJECTS
Subtotal Construction
Total Section 208
Total Continuing Authorities Program
|
1996 FY 1997 |
|
|
0 |
111 |
|
378 |
189 |
|
378 |
300 |
|
578 |
500 |
|
45142 41000 |
276
SECTION 1135, PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MEYERS. Provide for the record a list of the projects currently underway and planned for fiscal year under the Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment program.
General GENEGA. Currently vinder the Modifications for Improvement of the Environment program, 74 studies and projects are underway. Two additional projects, Kissimmee, FL and Yolo Basin Wetlands, CA, have been individually authorized citing this authority. Additional studies and projects will be initiated in fiscal year 1996 as funding allows and requests are received and approved. A list of the projects underway will be provided for the record.
(The information follows:)
277
SECTION 1135 PROJECTS - 26 MARCH 1996
APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATTOW
1. MISSOURI RIV. BANK STAB&NAV PROJ. , NE (BOYER CHUTE)
2. TRESTLE BAY RESTORATION, OR
3. NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER, CHESTER, CA
4. LAKE O' THE PINES (FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM), TX
5. LACUNA MADRE SEAGRASS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, TX
6. ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD
7. CARLYLE LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, IL
8. DUCK ISLAND SUB IMPOUNDMENT, LAKE BARKLEY, KY
9. MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS, VENICE, LA
10. MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAST TREE PLANTING PROJECT, lA and IL
11. GALILEE SALT MARSH RESTORATION, RI
12. HIDDEN LAKE RESTORATION, NE
13. MUNYON ISLAND WETLAND RESTORATION, PAIJi BEACH CO., FL
14. MORGAN POINT BENDWAY CLOSURE STRUCTURE, AR
15. YOLO BASIN WETLANDS, DAVIS SITE, SACRAMENTO, CA
16. MURPHY ISLAND, SANTEE WILDLIFE REFUGE, SC
17. ROOSTER ISLAND RESTORATION, MD
COMBINED FEASIBILITY AND PTAWS AND SPECTPTCATTOMS PHASB
18. TYGART RIVER LAKE WETLAND RESTORATION, WV
19. WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION, BARKER RESERVOIR, TX
20. CEASAR CREEK WETLAND AND PRAIRIE DEVELOPMENT, OH
21. SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, SOO LOCK COMPLEX, MI
22. LITTLE PITCHER LAKE, IN
23. CATHERINE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, UNION, OR
24. COOS BAY, WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER HABITAT MANAGEMENT, OR
25. SOUTH PASS, MISSISSIPPI RIV., BATON ROUGE - GULF OF MEXICO, LA
26. SOLDIER CREEK RESTORATION, ID
27. CAPE FEAR L&D No. 1, FISH LADDER, NC
FEASIBILITY PHASE
28. TUNICA CUTOFF LAKE, WEIR, MS & AR
29. WETLAND RESTORATION, OCKLAWAHA RIVER, FL
30. CORDELL HULL LAKE, WATERFOWL HABITAT, TN
31. WYNOOCHEE ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION, WA
32. SIMMON'S FIELD CONTROL STRUCTURE, BIG LAKE AREA, AR
33. LOWER CACHE RIVER STATE NATURAL AREA - WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE, IL
34. HABITAT RESTORATION OF LAKE HASTY AT JOHN MARTIN DAM, CO
35. BUCK RUN MODIFICATION , MO
36. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNIT L-246, MO.
37. OLD HICKORY LAKE WILDLIFE SUB-IMPOUNDMENTS, TN
38. SAGAMORE MARSH, CAPE COD CANAL, MA
39. LAKE WHITTINGTON WEIR, MS and AR
40. CENTER HILL LAKE - CANEY FORK RIVER, TN
41. GULF INTRA COASTAL WATERWAY, PLAQUEMINE LOCK, LA
42. PORTNEUF RIVER, POCATELLO, ID, UNIT RESTORATION
43. SAN LORENZO RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, CA
44. BIG CYPRESS BAYOU BELOW LAKE O'the PINES, TX
45. TWENTYMILE CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION, MS
278
SECTION 1135 PROJECTS - 26 MARCH 1996 (con't)
FKASTBTT.TTY PHASE (con'H)
46. RIP RAP LANDING MOIST SOIL UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IL
47. AMAZON CREEK WETLANDS, OR
48. DAIRY CREEK - STURGEON LAKE RESTORATION, OR
49. REDMOND CHANNEL RESTORATION, UT
50. KAWAINUI MARSH RESTORATION, HI
51. TENKILLER LAKE, OK - TAILWATER RESTORATION
52. KOOTENAI RIVER POND MODIFICATION, MT
53. DEROIN BEND CHANNEL RESTORATION, MO
54. VALDEZ HARBOR, AK
55. CALIFORNIA BEND CHANNEL RESTORATION PROJECT, NE
56. WALLA WALLA RIVER, OR
57. LATHAM RIVER, JEKYL ISLAND, GA
58. MILFORD LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT, KS
59. LITTLE WEISER RIVER, ID
60. FERN RIDGE LAKE MARSH RESTORATION, OR
61. KINZUA CREEK SUB IMPOUNDMENT, PA
62. FISHERY HABITAT RESTORATION, EL DORADO LAKE, KS
63. LITTLE FALLS FISH PASSAGE No. 2, MD
64. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF COOSA AND OOSTANAULA RIVERS, ROME, GA
65. PIEDMONT LAKE, LICK RUN RECLAMATION PROJECT, OH
66. RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT, I A
67. MURPHY SLOUGH PLUG RESTORATION, CA*
68. NIMROD WATERFOWL LEVEE, AR
69. PINE FLAT TURBINE BYPASS, CA
70. HOWARD HANSON DAM, ANADROMOUS FISH & WILDLIFE RESTORATION, WA
71. PUTAH CREEK SOUTH FORK PERSERVE, CA
72. RESTORATION OF LA ESPERANZA PENINSULA, SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR
73. THORNTON CREEK, WA
74. KAUNAKAKAI STREAM IMPROVEMENT, HI
♦formerly called - UPPER SACRAMENTO RIV. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION/GOLDEN STATE ISLAND, CA
279
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Mr. MYERS. Are all the funds requested in FY 1997 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program for research activities? Where does this research take place?
General GENEGA. Yes, all the funds requested in FY 1997 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program are for research activities to support Civil Works projects. This research will be performed by the WateoArays Experiment Station in Vicksburg, MS.
280
SECTION 204, BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL
Mr. MEYERS. Please provide for the record a list of the projects currently underway and planned for FY 1997 under the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material program.
General GENEGA. Currently under the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material program, 7 studies and projects are active. Additional studies and projects will be initiated in fiscal year 1996 as funding allows and requests are received and approved. The budget request for the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material program is programmatic, rather than project specific. No projects have been specifically selected for initiation in fiscal yeeu: 1997, however, all projects now underway with continuing requirements in fiscal year 1997 will be funded to the extent possible within our budgetary limits. A list of the projects underway will be provided for the record.
(The information follows:)
SECTION 204 - BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. CHESTER RIVER, BODKIN ISLAND, MD
2. BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, GRAND TERRE, LA
3. SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, CAMERON PARISH, LA
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PHASE
4. POPLAR ISLAND, MD FEASIBILITY PHASE
5. HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, CAT ISLAND PASS, LA
6. LOWER JAMES RIVER OYSTER REEF RESTORATION, VA
7. MISSISSIPPI RIVER - GULF OUTLET, MILE 14 -11, MARSH CREATION, LA
281
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. MYERS. How much has the Corps of Engineers spent on dredging and dredged material disposal research since the first Dredged Material Research program was undertaken in the 1970's?
General GENEGA. The Corps has spent approximately $54M on three dredging related research programs since the Dredged Material Research Program. These programs have addressed the priority research needs of the Corps $500M per year O&M dredging program. Two have been completed on schedule consistent with Congressional funding.
Field Verification Program (FVP) - $7.2M over 6 years
Dredging Research Program (DRP) - $35M over 7 years
Long-Term Effects of Dredging Operations (LEDO) is an ongoing program and is presently funded at approximately $1 .3M per year.
282
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. MYERS. What new knowledge do you hope to gain through the proposed Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program?
General GENEGA. The Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Program will concentrate on a limited number of high priority field R&D needs in which the Corps Operations and Maintenance Program will receive major benefits. The DOER Program recognizes the need to balance operational and environmental initiatives and requirements and will develop tools and techniques to meet this challenge. The following technologies and capabilities will result from the DOER program:
• Low-cost, rapid, and interpretable biological screening methods for chlorinated hydrocarbon (e.g., dioxins, PCB) contaminated sediments.
• Methods for reclaiming and managing moderately contaminated material from existing confined disposal facilities as sites for placement of additional volumes of highly contaminated sediments.
• Automated operational monitoring and characterization of contract dredges to assure compliance with environmental requirements and increased incentives for increased dredging efficiencies through development of appropriate instrumentation and monitoring methods.
• Demonstration of economically preferred and environmental beneficial nearshore placement of dredged material (e.g., shoreline stabilization, fishery enhancement) with inaeased acceptance by regulatory agencies and the public and lower costs for overall maintenance dredging operations.
• The development of the technical basis for establishment of proper environmental windows for dredging for safeguarding threatened and endangered species and their habitats.
• A risk framework integrating dredging and disposal management that will help in selecting alternatives and minimizing uncertainty in dredging operations.
283
Chainnan Myers' Questions for
Brigadier General Robert B. Flowers
Commander, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, and
President Designee, Mississippi River Commission
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW, LOUISIANA; LAKE CHARLES SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA; • MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA; AND ST. LOUIS REGION, MISSOURI
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record the status of each of the following studies: Bayou Bartholomew, Louisiana; Lake Charles Ship Channel, Louisiana; Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana; and St. Louis Region, Missouri
General FLOWERS. Sir, the reconnaissance report completed in November 1995 for the Bayou Bartholomew study indicated that none of the various levee alternatives considered is economically feasible. In February 1996, we issued a Notice of Study Findings stating no further studies are anticipated at this time.
Before the reconnaissance report for the Lake Charles Ship Channel, Louisiana, study can be certified for continuation into the feasibility phase, we are required to identify a local sponsor who will agree to provide necessary cost sharing. The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, the potential non-Federal sponsor, declined to execute an agreement to share in the cost of the feasibility study and work on the study was terminated in January 1996.
The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Bank Erosion, Louisiana, study is inactive at this time because of a lack of a local sponsor. However, based on information on bank erosion and maintenance dredging presented in the reconnaissance report and cost information obtained from constructing approximately 3 miles of rock dike along the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet in 1993, the possibility exists that construction of additional rock dikes in other critical reaches may be economically justified based on reduced dredging costs. We are evaluating the advisability of constructing additional rock dikes, consistent with other operation and maintenance priorities, within available Operation and Maintenance, General funds in accordance with House Report 104-149. An evaluation report is currently being prepared to determine which reaches may be economically justified. The evaluation report is expected to be completed in July 1996.
The reconnaissance report on the St. Louis Region, Missouri, study was certified on 19 March 1996. Remaining efforts in FY 1996 will be to develop and execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreements for three separate feasibility studies recommended by the reconnaissance report. These recommended feasibility studies are Chesterfield, Festus and Crystal City, and Lower River des Peres. For each of these recommended feasibility studies, FY 1997 funds are requested to continue into the feasibility phase.
284
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. When will the feasibility cost sharing agreement for the Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, study be executed?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development signed the Lafayette Parish Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement on 15 March 1996. The agreement is expected to be executed by the District Commander no later than 29 March 1996.
285
ST. LOUIS REGION, MISSOURI, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Mr. MYERS. What is the source of the FY 1996 funds for the Chesterfield, Missouri, study, the Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, study, and the Lower River Des Peres, Missouri, study?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the funds were provided in FY 1996 for the St. Louis Region, Missouri, reconnaissance study which was the origin of these feasibility studies. We have now essentially completed the reconnaissance phase study and distributed the estimated cost of it to these three feasibility studies in accordance with their applicable share.
286
COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. What has caused the delay in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Comite River, Louisiana, study?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the preconstruction engineering and design completion date has been extended a total of 5 years, from September 1996 to September 2001. Part of this delay is due to discovering much more erosive soils in the project area than were previously anticipated. These more erosive soils have resulted in the need to design larger structures and channels and other features to control erosion and provide structure stability. Accordingly, one year of the five years is associated with the additional preconstruction engineering and design required for the erosive soils. The remaining four years are required due to budget constraints and time necessary to prepare the appropriate document to seek Congressional authority to raise the total project cost limit established for this project under Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
287
MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. Last year, you reported that the final Evaluation Report for the new lock for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, project would be completed in January of 1996. What has caused the delay in completion of the report to December of this year?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the delay is the result of the complexity of this project, including innovative designs that would allow continuation of navigation while the replacement lock is being constructed, extensive requirements for handling local vehicular traffic while the existing bridges are being modified, and a unique mitigation program to compensate for social and economic dislocation in local neighborhoods as a result of the project construction. However, the draft evaluation report has been completed and is now under review.
24=080 - 96 - 10
288
RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the acquisition of mitigation lands for the Red River Waterway project?
General FLOWERS. Sir, Congress has authorized the Corps to acquire 26,000 acres of land from willing sellers to mitigate for adverse impacts from the project. As directed, we are focusing our efforts on acquiring lands in the vicinity of Loggy Bayou and Bayou Bodcau Wildlife Management Areas.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the Corps to acquire 14,000 acres to mitigate project impacts above pre-project river mile 104. This and subsequent legislation directed that up to 5,000 acres of the 14,000 authorized should be purchased in or near the Loggy Bayou Wildlife Management Area in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. For mitigation lands near the Loggy Bayou Wildlife Management Area, we have executed a project cooperation agreement to acquire and develop up to 5,000 acres. To date, 2,060 acres have been acquired and property owners have been contacted concerning an additional 392 acres. We have been unable to identify potential willing sellers for the remaining 2,548 acres in the Loggy Bayou area. We will continue to look for opportunities to purchase additional lands, but we plan to complete acquisitions from known willing sellers by early summer. The total estimated Federal cost for purchase and development of the 14,000 acres is $9,680,000. Expenditures to date total $1,564,000, which have been used for planning and acquisition of lands in the Loggy Bayou area.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized acquisition of up to an additional 12,000 acres of land for mitigation in the vicinity of the Bayou Bodcau Wildlife Management Area. We are -urrently coordinating a Project Cooperation Agreement for the purchase and development of these lands with the local sponsor. The Project Cooperation Agreement is scheduled to be executed in August 1996. Lands available from willing sellers will be purchased subsequent to execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement. The total estimated Federal cost for purchase and development of the Bayou Bodcau lands is $7,852,000. Expenditures to date total $136,000, which have been used for the preparation of the real estate design document a-i the Project Cooperation Agreement.
289
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), Louisiana, project being utilized?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the funds that were provided in FY 1996 for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project are being used to continue construction on the levees, floodwalls and related appurtenances. In the New Orleans East Unit, funds are being used to continue a bridge modification contract and to initiate a floodwall contract. For the parallel protection work in this unit, funds are being used to continue a floodwall contract on the Orleans Avenue canal and to complete a floodwall contract on the London Avenue canal. In the New Orleans West Unit, funds are being used to complete a levee enlargement contract, initiate one rock dike breakwater mitigation contract, initiate two levee enlargement contracts, initiate and complete a floodwall contract, and initiate one contract to intercept and convey landside runoff from the Jefferson Parish lakefront levees. In the Chalmette Unit, funds are being used to complete a levee enlargement contract and initiate and complete a floodwall contract.
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the construction of parallel protection along the Orleans Avenue and London outfall canals?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the parallel protection along the Orleans Avenue and London Avenue canals is about 50 percent complete. To date, a total of seven contracts have been awarded, three on the London Avenue canal, and four on the Orleans Avenue canal. Of these, five have been completed. In FY 1996, funds will be used to continue a floodwall contract on the Orleans Avenue canal and complete a floodwall contract on the London Avenue canal.
Mr. MYERS. Are funds included in the FY 1997 budget request to continue the work for this work?
General FLOWERS. No, sir. The Fiscal Year 1997 budget request does not include funds to continue this work since the Administration's review has identified economic and policy concerns.
290
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Red River Emergency Bank Protection project being utilized?
General Flowers. Sir, we will use carry over funds from FY 1995 along with the funds provided in FY 1996 to complete construction of Mays Lake Revetment repair. Sulfur Revetment and Finn Phase I Revetment; to initiate design of Finn Phase II Revetment; to complete design of Cat Island Revetment; and to fully fund construction of Canale Revetment.
291
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI RIVE-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA
Mr. MYERS. What actions have you taken to respond to the language in House Report 104-149 regarding the Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to Gulf of Mexico, project and the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet project?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the House Report provided for consideration of dredging a minimum of 2 feet of overdepth dredging, or such other overdepth as the Corps determines most effective, early in the dredging season to ensure the project depth would be maintained. We have historically provided two feet overdepth as advance maintenance dredging. Normally, we start dredging when the river is rising and reaches a 10-foot stage on the Carrollton gage at New Orleans. This year we started dredging earlier with an 8-foot stage on a rising river. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this change during the upcoming dredging season.
For the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet project, we are conducting studies to determine if construction of riprap or other hardened bank protection on the north bank of the channel will reduce maintenance dredging and result in savings to the project. If our study finding is favorable, we will carefully evaluate using Operation and Maintenance, General funds, consistent with our work priorities and funding availability, for bank protection measures along the north bank.
292
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES FUNDING
Mr. MYERS. The amount requested for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program, if enacted, would be the lowest level of funding for the program since FY 1984 and is over $50,000,000 below the FY 1994 level. Does this mean that the project is nearing completion?
General FLOWERS. No, sir. As you have noted, the FY 1997 budget request is a significant reduction from previous budget requests, but represents the project's contribution toward the President's overall goal of reducing the scope of the Federal Government and eliminating the Federal budget deficit. Actually, work on the project is being slowed down, and completion is being delayed. This is the second consecutive year that project completion has been substantially delayed. In the FY 1996 budget request, completion was delayed from 2013 to 2020, and this year it was delayed from 2020 to 2029, a total of 16 years within a two-year period. Even though the Missis.sippi River and Tributaries project provides significant flood control, navigation, and other benefits and is about 85 percent physically complete, there is still considerable critical work to be accomplished. Many reaches of the Mississippi River levees are deficient in grade, some as much as 5 to 7 feet. Many are in need of work to eliminate the risk of failure resulting from instability and underseepage during floods. Grade deficiencies also exist in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway which must handle flows equivalent to 50 percent of the project flood. Channel improvement works are also far from complete. Significant additional channel improvements are needed to assure that alignment of the Mississippi River remains stable to provide a dependable navigation channel and to prevent the natural meander of the river from destroying valuable flood protection works. In tributary basins such as the St. Francis, Yazoo, and Tensas, substantial flood control and other work needs to be completed to ensure the long-term integrity, safety, and success of the project. It is extremely important to note that the project was conceived and designed as a multi -component system to safely convey flood waters that accumulate within a vast drainage area through the Lower Mississippi River Valley to the Gulf of Mexico. Until this complete system is in place, I cannot assure you that a project flood can be safely conveyed or assure stability of the river for navigation.
MORGANZA, LOUISIANA, TO THE GULF OF MEXICO
Mr. MYERS. Why has the cost of the Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico, feasibility increased from $4,000,000 to $7,450,000?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the original cost estimate was based on limited knowledge prior to completion of any engineering studies. Based on previous experience, we expected to develop alternatives for ring levees at multiple locations in the Houma, Louisiana, area. However, the reconnaissance studies showed that a larger, more encompassing levee system is needed. This more comprehensive project will require greater effort in the feasibility phase and has resulted in a cost increase.
294
HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS
Mr. MYERS. What is the schedule for execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement for the Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas, project?
General FLOWERS. Sir, the current schedule for execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement is November 30, 1996. However, this schedule was developed prior to release of the President's budget request and, consequently, without benefit of discussion with the local sponsor of the proposed new cost sharing and other requirements for structural flood control projects. These proposed changes provide for 50-50 cost sharing, as well as additional requirements for specific non- Federal flood plain management activities for each new flood control project, beginning with the FY 1997 budget. These proposed changes will result in a substantial increase in the city's share of the cost for the Helena project, from approximately 27 percent to 50 percent. The city was advised on 19 March 1996 of these proposed changes; however, we will be unable to determine the impact of the new requirements on execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement until detailed discussions are completed with the city.
295
YAZOO BASIN, DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. MYERS. Have you had any indication that local interests are interested in and capable of accomplishing the work being performed under the Demonstration Erosion Control project?
General FLOWERS. No, sir. However, we are proposing to complete our participation in construction of the project in an orderly manner, including the engineering and design to assist a non-Federal interest in continuing the project. Further, the purpose of the orderly manner in which we are completing our participation in the demonstration project includes identification of a willing and capable non-Federal interest. This would not exclude discussions with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
296
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Colonel Richard W. Craig, Commander
Missouri River Division
GENERAL INVBSTZGATZONS
JAMES RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL, SOOTH DAKOTA
Mr. MEYERS. Why have no funds been requested to continue the James River, South Dakota, environmental study?
Colonel CRAIG. The scope of this reconnaissance phase study was reduced to the currently reconmended low head dam in the upper James River. Continuing this study to the feasibility phase is dependent on the sale of the project land into public ownership. Due to the uncertainty of the sale of the land, a request for funds was not made. When the sponsor has resolved the land issue and is prepared to negotiate and sign the feasibility cost sharing agreement, funds will be requested.
ANTELOPE CREEK, NEBRASKA
Mr. MEYERS. Last year's justification sheets stated that the feasibility cost-sharing agreement for the Antelope CreeJc, Nebraska, project was signed in January 1995. This year you state it was signed in February of 1995. Which is correct?
Colonel CRAIG. At press time last year, the agreement was anticipated to be signed in January 1995. Signing actually took place in February 1995.
Mr. MEYERS. Why has the estimated cost of the feasibility phase of the project increased by over 40 percent?
Colonel CRAIG. The feasibility phase cost has increased because of a change in study scope initiated at the request of the local sponsor, and because of significant increases in the negotiated in-kind service costs. The study scope change incorporates the contplexity of integrating flood control measures into a major road project involving city, state, and federal highway agencies.
WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. MEYERS. What is the status of the Watertown and Vicinity, South Dakota, preconstruction engineering and design project?
Colonel CRAIG. Although local government subdivisions support the project, a dry dam to provide 100 -year flood protection to Lake Kanrpeska and Watertown, South Dakota, it is currently on hold because the local electorate voted down financial support. We expect this issue to be voted on again during the general election scheduled for Fall 1996. The sponsor is investigating the possibility of a lower level of protection, 10 -year flood, which would be more acceptable to the electorate.
297
CONSTROCTIOM, OENERAL
BIG SIOOX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. MEYERS. Do the local sponsors for the Big Sioux River, South Dakota, project understand that with the project in place, the project area will still be subject to $2,300,000 in average annual dcunages?
Colonel CRAIG. Yes, sir. That fact is clearly stated in the feasibility- report and has been communicated to the sponsor. This amount reflects anticipated damages that would be caused by floods in excess of the project's capacity, averaged over the 100-year life of the project. These damages represent a 64 percent reduction of average damages under existing conditions.
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
Mr. MEYERS. Why was $2,125,000 reprogrammed from the Blue River Channel, Missouri, project in FY 199G?
Colonel CRAIG. The funds were surplus to FY 1996 requirements due to planning delays on railroad relocation contracts.
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IOWA, NEBRASKA, KANSAS, AND MISSOURI
Mr. MEYERS. Who will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Missouri River Pish and Wildlife project?
Colonel CRAIG. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operation and maintenance of the project.
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IOWA, NEBRASKA, KANSAS, AND MISSOURI
Mr. MEYERS. Why are the cost -sharing requirements different for Units L385 and H42 of the Missouri River Levee System project?
Colonel CRAIG. The cost -sharing requirement for Unit L385 is in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. However, the sponsor voluntarily agreed to pay 100 percent of the costs associated with land development in the Quindaro Bend portion of the project to gain Administration support for construction. Unit L385 was included in the
298
President's FY 1994 Budget as a new construction start. The cost-sharing requirement for Unit L142 is based on the Administration's proposed new policies, since the project will not be available for construction for several years .
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. GENERAL
MISSOORI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE
Mr. MEYERS. What is the status of your efforts to update the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual?
Colonel CRAIG. The public ccnment period for the Draft Environmental Intact Statement (DEIS) was completed on March 1, 1995. A review of the DEIS comments indicated that additional technical analysis was necessary. Technical studies have been initiated, and alternative reevaluation is scheduled to be completed in December 1996. A Revised DEIS (RDBIS) , scheduled for completion in May 1997, will be subjected to a public comment period. A Final EIS (FEIS) is scheduled for cootpletion in Mcurch 1998. No substantial change in the operation of the main stem reservoir system will be inplemented until the selected water control plan is published in a FEIS and a Record of Decision is signed. Any potential operational changes will receive a conplete Administration review before they are undertaJten or proposed for authorization. The Master Manual will then be revised, cuid used as a basis for subsequent Annual Operating Plauis for the Missouri River Mainstem System. Under the current schedule, the earliest any cheinge could take place in the operation of the system is the spring of 1999 .
Mr. MEYERS. The committee received testimony this year vrtiich indicated that in adopting the Annual Operating Plan for the Missouri River, the Corps has administratively implemented many features of the preferred alternative of the Master Water Manual Review and Update even though NEPA coapliance of that document has not yet been carpleted. Would you please comment on that?
Colonel CRAIG. The Annual Operating Plan is currently based on the water control plan described in the existing water control manual and does not iinplement the preferred alternative of the Draft Environmental Inpact Statement (DEIS) . The DEIS on the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update is being revised. The DEIS preferred alternative may not be the one selected in the Revised DEIS.
Mr. MEYERS. We also understsuid that you have been sued by the State of Missouri over this issue. What can you tell us about the specifics of the suit and its status?
299
Colonel CRAIG. The State of Missouri sued the Corps on March 12, 199G, alleging that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) before implementing the 1995-1996 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Missouri River. The State alleges that the AOP deviates from the Missouri River Master Manual. The suit asks that the AOP be declared void and that the Corps be ordered to operate the main stem system as specified in the Missouri River Master Manual until appropriate EISs or EAs are prepared. An answer is due to the Court on May 13, 1996.
300
Chairman Myers Questions for
Colonel Earle C. Richardson, Commander
New England Division
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT COASTAL FLOODING STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested to continue the Central Connecticut Coastal Flooding study?
Colonel RICHARDSON. We completed our reconnaissance study of the flooding problems along the Central Connecticut coast in June 1995. The study area encompassed the six communities of Branford, Guilford, Madison, Clinton, Westbrook and Old Saybrook. Eleven areas in these six communities were found to warrant further investigation. Due to the size and nature of the potential solutions, any further investigation will be conducted through the Continuing Authorities Program.
BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. MYERS. Why has the date for completion of preconstruction engineering and design of the Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, project slipped by one year?
Colonel RICHARDSON. The additional year for completion of preconstruction engineering and design reflects the additional time required to complete the Environmental Impact Statement.
BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS STUDY
Mr. MYERS. What were the results of the Brockton, Massachusetts, water supply reconnaissance study, which was scheduled to be completed in June of last year?
Colonel RICHARDSON. Our water supply reconnaissance study for Brockton and 30 other Taunton River Basin communities was completed in June of last year. Present and future water supply needs of the 31 communities were evaluated and alternatives to meet those needs were identified. Brockton has been experiencing a water supply shortage since 1986. Ten of the additional communities studied are expected to have a water supply shortage by the year 2010. The reconnaissance study found that a Taunton River diversion project and desalinization could provide two solutions to satisfy regional demand. Further, connection to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority System was found to be a solution for Brockton's water supply. Potential solutions involving subregional and local water supply development and water conservation techniques were also found. However, Federal involvement in such projects would not be consistent with current Corps missions or Administration policies.
301
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. MYERS. In fiscal year 1995, approximately $3,600,000 was provided for "dam safety repairs" at Hodges Village Dam in Massachusetts. Was that work connected in any way with the major rehabilitation project proposed in the fiscal year 1997 budget?
Colonel RICHARDSON. Yes, sir. It is the same work.
Mr. MYERS. Why is the Hodges Village Dam project classified as a major rehabilitation project rather than a dam safety project?
Colonel RICHARDSON. When we initiated our activity, we had not expected that the cost of remedial -repairs would be of the magnitude to warrant inclusion in the major rehabilitation program, consequently funding was being pursued under the O&M program. The preliminary estimated cost was predicated on the use of a steel sheetpile cutoff wall for the remedial repair. However, subsequent field explorations and sheetpila driveability tests concluded that this method was not feasible due to the nature of the dam embankment material. The repair will now consist of a concrete panel cutoff wall resulting in a significantly higher cost than originally programmed and requiring it be handled under the major rehabilitation program. Although the initial work under the O&M program was described as "dam safety repairs" to correct seepage problems, such work is properly part of the major rehabilitation program.
HODGES VILLAGE COST SHARING
Mr. MYERS. Why is no cost sharing required for the Hodges Village Dam, Massachusetts, major rehabilitation project?
Colonel RICHARDSON. The cost sharing for a major rehabilitation project is determined by its original authorization. There were no cost sharing requirements for Hodges Village Dam as authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1941, so therefore the project is one hundred percent Federally funded.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. What projects do you have underway this fiscal year and do you have planned for fiscal year 1997 under the various continuing authorities programs?
Colonel RICHARDSON. We remain very active in the Continuing
302
Authorities Program providing solutions to the water resource needs of our region. We have a total of 18 active studies and projects within the program. This includes 9 construction contracts, 5 design efforts and 4 studies. During the balance of this fiscal year, we plan to complete 3 studies, 3 design efforts and construction of 8 projects. We also anticipate award of 3 additional construction contracts and initiation of 3 design efforts. Our program for fiscal year 1997 is expected to be about the same size. We will complete 1 study, 5 design efforts and construction of 4 ongoing projects. We anticipate award of an additional 4 construction contracts and initiation of 1 design effort, as well as new study efforts in response to local requests. I will provide the specific study and project names for work underway for the record.
[The inform.ation follows:]
Continuing Authorities Program for FY 96
Authority
Project Name
Stage
14 Connecticut River, Middletown, CT Construction
14 Farmington River, Simsbury, CT Construction
14 Nashua River, Leominster, MA Construction
14 North Nashua River, Leominster, MA Construction
103 Sandy Point Outfall, West Haven, CT Construction
107 Aunt Lydia's Cove, Chatham, MA Construction
107 Provincetown Harbor, MA Construction
205 Mad River, Woodtick, Waterbury, CT Construction
205 Riverdale, West Springfield, MA Construction
14 Sebago Lake, Standish, ME
103 Point Beach, Milford, CT
107 Saugus River, MA
107 Hyannis Harbor, MA
1135 Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration, RI
Design Design Design Design Design
103 Nantasket Beach, Hull, MA
103 North Nantasket Beach, Hull, MA
103 Silver to Cedar Beaches, Milford, CT
1135 Sagamore Marsh, Cape Cod Canal, MA
Study Study Study Study
CAPE COD RAILROAD BRIDGE
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on repairs to the Cape Cod Canal railroad bridge.
Colonel RICHARDSON. Bay Colony Railroad operates the railroad under contract with the Massachusetts Executive Office
303
of Transportation and Construction. Under an existing 1935 agreement, Bay Colony has the right to perform the repair work with Federal reimbursement. They have been financially unable to undertake this significant repair work. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, with concurrence from Bay Colony, now agrees that it is best for the Corps to do the work directly.
A steel inspection of the bridge was completed in August 1995 which revealed continued deterioration and the need for immediate replacement of the elevator system and emergency generator. A modification to the 1935 Agreement was executed on 1 November
1995 to allow the Corps to perform this work. Plans and specifications are being prepared and we expect to award a contract by late summer.
A second modification to the 1935 Agreement is being prepared to address liability issues associated with steel repairs and painting of the bridge. All parties agree in concept to this modification which we hope to execute this spring. Preparation of plans and specifications for this work could then be initiated.
A third modification to the 1935 Agreement will have to be negotiated for cable and bearing replacements which require shut down time for the bridge.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS
Mr. MYERS. The amount requested for project condition surveys is over 80% more than the fiscal year 1996 amount. Please justify this large increase.
Colonel RICHARDSON. Although the amount requested for project condition surveys is over 80% more than the fiscal year
1996 allocation, it is only 12% higher than the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The project condition survey allocation in fiscal year 1996 was 39% less than the budget request because funds were reprogrammed to meet higher priority needs. Our fiscal year 1997 budget request reflects the amount necessary to perform hydrographic surveys of the harbors in New England to evaluate conditions and report the information to shipping and marine interests. This program level is commensurate with program levels prior to fiscal year 1996.
304
Giainnan Myers' Questions for
Brigadier General (P) Milton Hunter, Commander
North Atlantic Division
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Manasquan Inlet to Baimegat Inlet, NJ, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report will be completed in March 1996. It will identify shore protection measures to protect this area from storms.
MONTAUK POINT, NY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Montauk Point, NY, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, completed in February 1993, identified shore protection measures to protect the area from storms. The State of New York did not include funding in their budget for the feasibility study due to the Administration's policy on shoreline protection projects.
NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY & NJ
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the New York Harbor Anchorage Areas, NY and NJ, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, completed in December 1993, identified navigation improvements at the Red Hook Flats anchorage area. The feasibility phase of the study is being deferred until a cost -sharing partner is identified.
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the North Shore of Long Island, NY, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, completed in September 1995, identified storm damage reduction measures at Asharoken, Bayville and other areas along the north shore of Long Island, New York. No further effort is planned for this study in accordance with the current policy on shore protection projects.
RARITAN BAY ANCHORAGES, NY & N J CHANNELS, NY & NJ
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Raritan Bay Anchorages, NY and NJ, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, completed in December
1993, identified navigation improvements at the Perth Amboy, New
Jersey, anchorage area. The feasibility study is being deferred until a cost -sharing partner is identified.
REYNOLDS CHANNEL AND NEW YORK STATE BOAT CHANNEL, NY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Reynolds Channel and New York State Boat Channel, NY, study?
General HUNTER. Sir, the reconnaissance report, completed in June 1995, identified channel improvements in Reynolds Channel and the New York State Boat Channel. Completion of the reconnaissance phase is not being accomplished at this time because matching non-Federal funds for the feasibility phase were not included in New York State's budget for their fiscal year beginning 1 April 1996.
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY
Mr. MYERS. What caused the estimated cost of the Hudson River Habitat Restoration, New York, feasibility study to increase from $1,200,000 to $5,300,000?
General HUNTER. Sir, the initial feasibility study cost estimate was prepared before the reconnaissance report was complete. Based on the completed reconnaissance report, the feasibility study cost estimate increased because it identified 14 sites for further study.
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY
Mr. MYERS. What caused the estimated cost of the Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, New York, feasibility study to increase from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000?
General HUNTER. Sir, the initial feasibility study cost estimate was prepared before the reconnaissance report was complete. Based on the completed reconnaissance report, the feasibility study cost estimate increased because the reconnaissance report identified additional environmental initiatives and significant environmental restoration opportunities for the Jamaica Bay area.
BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGE AND CHANNELS, MD & VA
Mr. MYERS. Has the Maryland Port Administration agreed to pay 25% of the cost of preconstruction engineering and design for the Baltimore harbor Anchorages and Channels project?
General HUNTER. Sir, on March 19, 1996, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works notified the Maryland Port Administration of the new preconstruction engineering and design cost -sharing proposal. We have not yet received the Port's response, but we are hopeful that they will agree to the proposal.
306
ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY & NJ
Mr. MYERS. Why has the cost of preconstruction engineering and design of the Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook Marine Terminal project increased by $900,000?
General HUNTER. Sir, in 1989, we were essentially complete with our design for the Arthur Kill Channel when the tenant at the Howland Hook Marine Terminal went bankrupt. We stopped design awaiting the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's identification of a new tenant. In 1994, the Port Authority identified a new tenant and we resumed design. The preconstruction engineering and design cost estimate increased to include a General Reevaluation effort to update the design cost estimate, benefits, environmental information, real estate requirements, and ship simulation modeling, and perform additional surveys, borings, geotechnical and structural analyses based upon the uses of the new tenant .
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of preconstruction engineering and design for the Anacostia River and Tributaries project?
General HUNTER. Sir, we are completing the plans and specifications for 13 project sites and will complete preconstruction engineering and design in August 1996.
NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, CLAREMONT TERMINAL, NJ
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of preconstruction engineering and design for the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Claremont Terminals project?
General HUNTER. Sir, we have deferred this design effort because the toxicity testing of sediments found that the material is unsuitable for ocean disposal. The local sponsor was notified in July 1995 that preconstruction engineering and design was suspended until a suitable non-ocean disposal site is identified.
BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG INLET, NJ
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Bamegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey, study being utilized?
General HUNTER. Sir, Fiscal Year 1996 funds are. being utilized to continue into the feasibility phase of the study to the extent allowable within available funds.
307
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the South Shore of Staten Island, New York, study being utilized?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Fiscal Year 1S96 funds are being utilized to complete the reconnaissance phase and continue into the feasibility phase of the study to the extent allowable within available funds.
MUSSERS DAM, PA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania, project being utilized?
General HUNTER. The funds provided in Fiscal Year 1996 are being utilized to provide technical assistance and continue preconst ruction engineering and design to the extent allowable within available funds.
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE
Mr. MYERS. Does the state of Delaware operate the sand bypassing plant at Indian River Inlet, Delaware?
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. In accordance with the project's Local Cooperation Agreement, the State of Delaware operates the sand bypassing plant and is reimbursed for the Federal share of the operational costs.
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ
Mr. MYERS. Are the funds requested for the Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, New Jersey, project sufficient to complete the scheduled periodic nourishment?
General HUNTER. The $380,000 is sufficient to continue planning, engineering, and design and to award the contract for the second periodic nourishment cycle in Fiscal Year 1997. Funds to complete the contract will be required in Fiscal Year 1998.
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY
Mr. MYERS. Do you Still expect to execute the Project Cooperation Agreement for the Westhampton Interim of the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point project this month?
General HUNTER. Sir, I am pleased to report that the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed on February 29, 1996.
308
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD
Mr. MYERS. The justification sheets for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery project state that $98,000 will be spent in FY 1997 for "fish and wildlife." Please give a more detailed description of that work.
General HUNTER. Sir, with the Fiscal Year 1997 funds, we will complete two oyster hatchery upgrades, initiate construction of new oyster reefs, and restore existing oyster reefs.
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, MO & VA
Mr. MYERS. Under the existing authorization for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels project, is the cost of providing dredged material disposal areas a non-Federal responsibility?
General HUNTER. Yes, sir. The cost of providing dredged material disposal areas is a non-Federal responsibility.
POPLAR ISLAND, MD
Mr. MYERS. Under what authority do you propose to undertake the Poplar Island, Maryland project?
General HUNTER. Sir, we are proceeding under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 for the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material. However, the project is budgeted for construction under proposed legislation to exempt Poplar Island from the annual funding limitation on Section 204.
Mr. MYERS. Where is the dredged material that will be disposed of at Poplar Island currently placed?
General HUNTER. Sir, the dredged material that will be disposed of at Poplar Island, Maryland, is currently being placed in the Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, disposal site and the Pooles Island, Maryland, open water placement areas.
Mr. MYERS. Why will that method of disposal no longer be available?
General HUNTER. Sir, based upon the estimated capacity of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, for dredged material disposal, there are only two years of useful life remaining. The Pooles Island, Maryland, open water placement areas are nearing capacity.
Mr. MYERS. What additional costs will be incurred as a result of the use of Poplar Island compared with current methods of dredge material disposal?
General HUNTER. Sir, the current cost of dredging and placement of dredged material in Pooles Island, Maryland, open water placement area is $2.40 per cubic yard; at Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, it is $4.75 per cubic yard. The estimated costs for dredging and placement at Poplar Island, Maryland, is $5.88 per cubic yard.
Mr. MYERS. Why has no benefit-cost ratio been computed for this $383,000,000 project?
General HUNTER. Sir, no benefit-cost ratio has been computed for this project because it is an environmental restoration project and the benefits are not quantifiable.
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Virginia Beach, Virginia, project being utilized?
General HUNTER. Sir, we are currently completing plans and specifications and negotiating a Project Cooperation Agreement with the local sponsor. Subsequent to execution of this agreement, we will award a construction contract within the funds available this fiscal year.
Mr. MYERS. When will the Project Cooperation Agreement for the project be executed?
General HUNTER. Sir, I expect to complete negotiations and execute the Project Cooperation Agreement in June 1996.
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested to continue/the project in FY 1997?
General HUNTER. Sir, the Administration does not support funding for shore protection projects that support mainly recreation activities which provide substantial regional income to the state and local economies. In many cases, the cost for the shore protection investment at recreation destination areas would represent a small fraction of the income it would generate.
310
PASSAIC RIVER, NJ
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Passaic River, New Jersey, Project?
General HUNTER. Sir, the initial review and public response period have been completed for the draft General Design Memorandum and we are responding to comments from Federal, state, and local agencies. It has been determined that the Preservation of Natural Storage Area is a separable element and is eligible for consideration in future budget submissions. The Design Memorandum for the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area has been reviewed and we are responding to comments . The review indicates that this subf eature needs reauthorization at a higher project cost than was originally authorized.
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, PA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration Project being utilized?
General HUNTER. Sir, we executed a Project Cooperation Agreement with the Altoona City Authority in October 1995, and will initiate construction of the Mill Run Water Treatment Plant. In addition, we are coordinating the Design Project Cooperation Agreements with the Chestnut Ridge Area Joint Municipal Water Authority for design of a new sewage treatment plant and 26 miles of associated sewer line, and the Broad Top Township and Coaldale Borough for a new sewage treatment plant, lagoons, and sewer lines.
CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL ST. GEORGE'S BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, MD
Mr. MYERS. When will the St. George's Bridge replacement project be completed?
General HUNTER. Sir, the newly constructed St. George's Bridge replacement was opened to traffic in December 1995.
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA
Mr. MYERS. How are the additional funds provided in FY 1996 for the Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, project being utilized?
General HUNTER. Sir, with the additional funds provided in Fiscal Year 1996, we are designing a universal-access fishing pier at Corbin's Island, designing a multi-purpose center in the Seven Points Recreation Area and upgrading the sanitary facilities and water facilities in the Nancy's Can^ Area.
311
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Colonel James R. Van Epps, Commander
North Central Division
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, ILLINOIS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Waukegan Harbor, Illinois study?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, initiation of the feasibility phase of the study has been delayed due to the lack of a site for confined disposal of the polluted dredged materials, which precludes maintenance dredging of the existing authorized project. The proposed study calls for deepening of the existing Federal project to a depth that is below the accumulated sediment caused by the backlog of deferred maintenance dredging. The maintenance dredging issue must be resolved before meaningful alternatives for the proposed new work can be evaluated.
SNY ISLAND, ILLINOIS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status at the Sny Island, Illinois, study?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Myers, the Reconnaissance Report will be compiled and reviewed by 30 April, 1996. There are no economically justifiable alternatives, therefore, the Reconnaissance Report recommendation will be to terminate the study and not proceed to the feasibility stage.
DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. MYERS. Please describe the additional work that caused the estimated cost of the feasibility study for the Devils Lake, North Dakota, project to increase from $2,620,000 to $7,792,000.
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Chairman, language included in the Energy and Water Development impropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-377, directed the Corps to address all authorized study purposes during the feasibility phase. Accordingly, a collaborative, interagency effort conducted in 1995 for the feasibility study of the Devil's Lake Basin resulted in a pleui of study (POS) for five general areas: (1) basin water management, (2) lake stedjilization, (3) water quality, (4) recreation, and (5) enhancement and conservation of fish and wildlife. The POS was approved in December 1995 and had the support of the local sponsor. The previous feasibility study cost estimate of $2,620,000 was based on a limited scope of work, concentrating on flood control.
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the reports you were directed to submit to Congress in the conference report acconpanying the fiscal year 1996 Energy eund Water Development Appropriations Act?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works provided a letter report discussing upper basin storage and enhemced diking to Congress on March 18, 1996. The Corps will provide a letter report on Feasibility Study progress by September 30, 1996.
312
ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. MYERS. ,What does your participation in the Onondaga Lake Management Conference consist of?
Colonel VAN EPPS . Mr. Myers, the Corps is working with the Technical Review Committee and participating in the Ad-hoc and Working Group Meetings. Specific activities include reviewing completed technical reports and data, identifying, prioritizing, and selecting projects for implementation by the Management Conference and cooperating in the finalization of the Management Conference plan.
Mr. MYERS. When will your participation in the Conference end?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, a date when Corps participation in the Conference will end cannot be provided at this time due to complexity of the issues in the Onondaga Lake restoration plan.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS, NAVIGATION STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a detailed description of the additional work that has caused the total estimated cost of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation feasibility study to increase from $43,400,000 to $50,360,000.
Colonel VAN EPPS. Yes Sir, I will provide that information.
[The information follows:]
UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS STUDY COST INCREASE
The additional study costs are the result of reaching decision points that are described in the May 94 Project Study Plan (PSP) , additional requirements for the study, impact analyses that were originally under -estimated, and inflation adjustments. The details are as follows:
1. Fish Studies (Decision point in PSP) $1,362,000
2. Plant Studies (Under- estimated activity) 532,000
3. Math Modeling (Under- estimated activity) 3,330,000
4 . Regional Economic Development Analysis (Additional requirement - requested by the
five state governors) 320,000
5. Innovative Lock Design (Alternatives to
reduce construction cost) 525,000
6. Salary and Inflation 891,000
Total $6,960,000
Mr. MYERS. What portion of the total study cost is for environmental studies?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, of the $50,360,000 total study cost, the environmental portion is $20,850,000.
313
Mr. MYERS. What is the "without project condition" for this study?
Colonel VAN EPPS . Mr. Myers, the without project condition is the most likely condition expected to exist in the cibsence of any navigation improvements to the existing navigation system.
LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Lake George, Hobart, Indiana project?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, the planning and engineering report was completed in May 1995. Work on the design memorandum is scheduled for completion in December 1996. Plans and specifications will then be initiated and are scheduled for completion in December 1997. The design memorandum and the plans and specifications will be completed with funds provided by prior appropriations.
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER BASIN, CADY MARSH DITCH, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana, project?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Chairman, the design memorandum was 60 percent complete at the end of FY 1995 and is scheduled for completion in September 1996.
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS AND HARBORS, REPLACEMENT LOCK AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, project being utilized?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, FY 1996 funding is being used to develop a computer model needed to estimate vessel delays and associated savings from the replacement lock. Completion of the Limited Reevaluation Report will require an additional year in order to use the model to estimate benefits due to reduced vessel delays, reduced commodity stockpiles, and standby fleet reductions.
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. MYERS. The Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program has been funded at $19,4S5,000 since FY 1992. Why are we only requesting $15,694,000 for FY 1997?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Myers, as indicated in the Assistant Secretary of the Army's statement before this committee, the President's
314
budget for FY 1997 and the outyears shows that funds available for domestic discretionary spending must continue to decline in order to balance the budget. The overall Construction General budget request has been formulated within budgetary ceilings to recognize the requirements of many worthy competing line items such as the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program and flood damage reduction and commercial navigation projects. The North Central Division intends to work with the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association member states to prioritize elements of the program to insure that the greatest benefit can be realized within available funds.
CHICAGO SHORELINE, ILLINOIS, SOUTH WATER PURIFICATION PLANT
Mr. MYERS. The justification sheets state that the Chicago Shoreline, Illinois project is being budgeted for construction proposed legislation. What changes are being proposed for projects like this?
Colonel VAN EPPS. None, however, we are proposing to include this project in WRDA 1996 for authorization of construction. Also, language could be proposed that the project sponsor would be reimbursed for the Federal share of the costs incurred in undertaking that portion of the project which consists of reconstruction of the breakwater near the South Water Filtration Plant.
McCOOK RESERVOIR, ILLINOIS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the ongoing negotiations between the local sponsor and the property owner for the McCook Reservoir project?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the Vulcan Materials Company are awaiting the public release of the Corps' Special Reevaluation Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, currently scheduled for June 1996, before either will make any significant commitment.
INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds appropriated in FY 1996 for the Indiana Shoreline, Indiana project being utilized?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Chairman, the FY 1996 funds will be used to complete the baseline monitoring program and initiate construction. Approximately 53,000 cubic yards of beach fill will be placed.
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested in FY 1997 to continue this project?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, no funds have been requested because the primary benefit is the protection of recreational lands which has low budget priority within the Administration. Also, as a matter of Administration policy, the Civil Works budget is not used for projects owned by cinother Federal agency, in this case the National Park Service.
315
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MICHIGAN
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Cedar River Harbor, Michigan, project?
Colonel VAN EPPS. Sir, funds were provided in FY 1995 and FY 1996 by Congress for the new recreational harbor at Cedar River. The funds are being used to prepare a Limited Reevaluation Report which includes updating the project economics. The Report is scheduled to be completed by September 1996.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
TOLEDO HARBOR, OHIO, LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the Toledo Harbor, Ohio, Long Term Management Strategy.
Colonel VAN EPPS. Mr. Chairman, the Phase 3 Long Term Management Strategy Report for the disposal of dredged material in Toledo Harbor has been agreed to by all the members of the Intergovernmental Agency Planning Committee in December 1995. The report is currently under public review and is to be finalized in April 1996. This report addresses the dredge disposal problems for Toledo Harbor and contains recommendations for a joint 5 -year Interim Plan to develop the long-term sediment management plain. Specifically, the plan calls for: continued maintenance dredging with open- lake disposal until FY 1999, a program with the National Resource Conservation Service to reduce sediment load entering the river, feasibility projects by local interests to remove and recycle sediments from the Confined Disposal Facilities (CDF's), consolidate sediments to increase their storage capacity in the CDF's, and to scientifically and environmentally evaluate the option of open- lake disposal.
316
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Major General Russell L. Fuhrman, Commander
North Pacific Division
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK
COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR
JOHNSON CREEK, OR
SOUTH SANTIAM FISHERY RESTORATION, OR
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record the status of each of the following studies: Anchor Point Harbor, Alaska; Columbia Slough, Oregon; Johnson Creek, Oregon; and South Santiam Fishery Restoration, Oregon.
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the Anchor Point Harbor reconnaissance report was completed in August 1995. The study is now in an "inactive" status until a qualified sponsor is identified. The community of Anchor Point is not incorporated and can not assume the responsibilities of sponsorship. The Kenai Peninsula Borough does not have harbor authority for construction or operation of the harbor at present, but could sponsor the feasibility study. The State of Alaska, as a matter of policy, is reluctant to sponsor the project. The community of Anchor Point is investigating incorporation in order to sponsor the study. Coordination with potential sponsors is continuing.
The conceptual plans developed for ecosystem restoration in Columbia Slough were more suitable for study and implementation under Section 1135 (b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Consequently, we are pursuing the study under Section 1135. A Preliminary Restoration Plan was prepared and approved in December 1995 and we are preparing to move into the feasibility phase .
The Johnson Creek study has been terminated at the sponsor's request. The local sponsor for the Johnson Creek Study, The city of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services, made a decision to pursue non- structural alternatives for flood damage reduction, particularly floodplain land acquisition. The Corps' draft Project Study Plan focused on structural alternatives, including detention ponds and channel improvements. The city of Portland was informed that there would be little or no Federal interest in a land acquisition project.
The South Santiam Fishery Restoration reconnaissance study investigated the problem of adult and juvenile fish passage at the Green Peter project in the South Santiam subbasin of the Willamette Basin. Adult and juvenile fish passage facilities were originally constructed at the project in 1966, but have not been effective. The report concluded that there was a design deficiency for the fish passage facilities and that there is
317
merit to continuing the study. The Reconnaissance report is currently under review by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested in FY 1997 to continue these studies?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, based on the status of all these studies, there is no indication that General Investigations funds would be required in Fiscal Year 1997.
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK SEWARD HARBOR, AK SKAGIT RIVER, WA
Mr. MYERS. What is the source of the funds allocated in FY 1996 for the Sand Point Harbor, Alaska; Seward Harbor, Alaska; and Skagit River, Washington, studies?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the source of funds for the Sand Point Harbor study was the Anchor Point Harbor, AK study.
The source for the Seward Harbor study funds was the Columbia Slough, OR, the Willcimette River Basin Review Study, OR, and the Columbia River Channel Deepening study, OR & WA.
At the request of Skagit County, WA, the resumption in Fiscal Year 1996 of the Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Reconnaissance Study is currently under review. We anticipate that funds for this resumption will be from available sources within North Pacific Division.
DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVERS, WA
Mr. MYERS. Who do you anticipate the local sponsor for the Duwamish/Green Rivers, Washington, Study will be?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, King County has expressed strong interest in this study and its willingness to be the local sponsor. Local funding may be a cooperative effort among King County, cities in the river basin, and two Indian tribes.
Mr. MYERS. The justification sheets state that over $10,000,000 have been targeted for restoration of aquatic habitat. Under what prograun will that restoration take place and where will the money come from?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are the lead agencies for restoration of acjuatic habitat. The funding has been targeted through the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team and the Natural Resource Deunage Assessment Program. The
318
Corps of Engineers is working closely with these agencies through studies like the Duwamish/Green to identify restoration needs throughout the basin related to hydrologic/hydraulic impacts including Corps projects.
Mr. MYERS. Why is it necessary that fish runs be restored to historic levels, rather than sustainable levels?
General FXJHRMAN. Sir, our intention is to restore the fishery to a less degraded condition, not necessarily to historic levels. Overall, the study will focus on identifying restoration opportunities on a ecosystem- wide basis for a variety of fish and wildlife species. The study process will assess the feasibility of restoring ecosystem structure and function to a less degraded condition and will include evaluating fish restoration needs in order to establish sustainable fish runs.
JACKSON HOLE, WY
Mr. MYERS. Who is the local sponsor for the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Restoration study?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the local sponsor is Teton County, Wyoming .
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA
Mr. MYERS. With regard to the Lake Washington Ship Canal study, when will the negotiations between the City of Seattle, the state of Washington, and the Muckleshoot Tribe be completed?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the negotiations are scheduled for completion late this summer, before the start of Fiscal Year 1997.
COOK INLET, AK
Mr. MYERS. When will the feasibility study for the Cook Inlet, Alaska, be completed?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the District Engineer's Feasibility Report will be completed in April 1996 and the public notice of report completion will be issued in May 1996.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
FISH- FRIENDLY TURBINES
Mr. MYERS. What makes a turbine, fish friendly?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, major sources of mortality to juvenile fish passing turbines are cavitation and shear zones in the area surrounding the turbine blades. The Kaplan turbines at our
319
projects are made more fish friendly by increasing the turbine efficiency, thereby reducing cavitation and shear zones.
JUVENILE FISH BYPASS FACILITIES AT BONNEVILLE
Mr. MYERS. Have you been able to improve the efficiency of juvenile fish bypass facilities at the Bonneville Dam second powerhouse such that the powerhouse can be operated when migrating juvenile fish are present?
General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. We have installed turbine intake extensions and streaimlined trashtracks, and have lowered the submerged traveling screens. These actions have improved fish guidance efficiency. We are continuing to make improvements such as relocation of the juvenile fish bypass system outfall. Presently, the powerhouse is operated during juvenile fish migration, along with the first powerhouse and spill, in order to maximize the percentage of fish diverted away from the turbines.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA
Mr. MYERS. Were funds appropriated in FY 1996 for the Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites project transferred to the Secretary of the Interior as directed in P.L. 104-467?
General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. The funds were transferred at the Washington level .
Mr. MYERS. Can the funds requested in FY 1997 for the project be expended absent the enactment of additional authorization to change the boundaries or locations of sites?
General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. The FY 1997 request is for work that is within our current authority provided by Congress.
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a description of the work to be accomplished in each of the two phases of the project along with a schedule for completion of each phase.
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the sites in both phases include items such as boat ramps, parking and sanitary facilities. Phase I includes construction of improvements on four sites. The schedule for completion of construction is February 1997; however, the contractor is currently forecasting substantial completion by July of 1996. Phase II, as currently scoped, includes completion of the remaining sites in four additional contracts, labeled B through E. Our current schedule is as follows: Contract C is being designed in FY 1996/1997 and constructed in FY 1997/1998; Contract B will be designed in FY 1997/1998 and constructed in FY 1998/1999; Contract D will be designed in FY 1998/1999 and constructed in FY 2000/2001; Contract E, the last contract to complete the project, will be designed in FY 2000 and construction in FY 2001/2002.
24-080 - 96 - 11
320
Mr. MYERS. Is the work proposed for FY 1997 part of phase I or phase II?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the work proposed for FY 1997 is for both phases. It will complete Phase I construction and initiate Phase II construction.
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION
Mr. MYERS. Last year our committee referred to the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program as a "black hole for money. " It appears the black hole has gotten much larger in the last year. You indicate that the current cost estimate of almost $1,400,000,000 is very preliminary pending the outcome of additional studies. When, if ever, will you be able to pin down the total cost of this program?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the total cost will be relatively firm when final decisions are made on the long-term configuration and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System to restore anadromous fish runs. At this time, we expect these decisions to made near the turn of the century. The National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on hydropower operations contains many measures for which implementation decisions are dependent on the outcome of research, engineering and design evaluations, prototype testing and further regional decisions. For example, we have been asked to aggressively develop and test new juvenile fish bypass technology such as surface bypass. It is premature, now, to make definite conclusions about its ultimate application in recovery efforts. Similarly, continued evaluation of drawdown at the Lower Snake River projects is called for in the Biological Opinion, with decision slated for 1999.
Mr. MYERS. Except for the mitigation analysis, what is the total estimated cost of the work currently underway or proposed to be initiated in Fiscal Year 1997? Please provide the information for each activity at each project. Also provide the amount requested in FY 1997 for each activity at each project.
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the FY 97 budget request of $107,000,000 contains estimated costs of $40,974,000 for the implementation work, excluding the mitigation analysis study costs. I will provide for the record the requested information on the FY 97 subproject activities and their FY 97 costs. (The information follows . )
321
The FY97 and total estimated cost for work currently underway or proposed to be intiated in FY97 is shown in the table below. The table reflects total implementation costs but does not reflect how much of that cost has already been invested. Alt of these near-term implementation activities are responsive to the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative and the Incidental Take Statement in the NHFS biological opinion for operation of the Federal Colinbia River Power System. The table does not reflect the studies and evaluations called for in that NHFS biological opinion which are necessary to define other potential implementation measures for the salmon recovery effort.
Coluii)ia River Fish Mitigation Project FY 97 Implementation Activities and Costs
FY 97 Total
irolCTigmgUwi AttlYttY I Pwtrtpticn cost cost
LOWER GRANITE: ($000) ($000)
Extended Length Screens - Screen installation will be completed in 490 12,772
March 1996. FY97 work under this item will be limited to completing the post construction evaluations.
Juvenile Bypass Facility ESD - Complete design and initiate construction 1,055 17,660 of the new facility, which includes a new flune, holding S loading facility, and charmet modifications. Construction will begin during late FY97.
Barge Exit Modifications - Modifications began in FY96. Remaining barges 385 1,295 will be completed in FY97. Post construction evaluations will be conducted in the spring of 1997 ($90k).
Additional Barges - Construction of three new barges is scheduled for 1997. 4,555 23,345 As many as six more barges will be constructed through 1999.
Picketed Lead Fences - New fences will be installed in the adult channel 110 110
entrances. This will significantly reduce the rate of fallout from the
channel. Work will also continue on adult passage evaluations. ===== ======
Lower Granite Subtotal 6.595 55,182
Extended Length Screens - Screen installation will be completed in January 1997. Post construction evaluations will be confjleted in spring 1997.
Outfall Pipe - Construction of a new outfall pipe will begin in late FY 96, with completion scheduled for March 1997. Post construction evaluations will be conducted.
Picketed Lead Fences - New fences will be installed in the adult channel entrances, replacing the test structure. This will significantly reduce the rate of fallout from the channel. Work will also continue on adult passage evaluations.
Little Goose Subtotal
tWER M9NUMENTA1.;
Barge Loading Facilities Modification - An additional barge mooring dolphin will be constructed on the upstream end of the barge loading facility. This additional dolphin is required to address a safety problem with the existing facility.
Gate Raise Modifications • The Alternative Intake Gate Closure Study will be completed in 1996. Implementation of the alternative selected in that report will begin in FY97.
Gantry Crane - A new gantry crane will be procured. A new crane is required to handle the operating gates when in a raised position as well as handling of the new screens.
Lower Monunental Subtotal
322
FY 97 Total Implementation Activity / Description Cost Cost
Juvenile Bypass Facility - Construction of the new JBS will be completed by 398 23,721 March 1996. FY97 woric is limited to post construction evaluations of the new facility.
Flip Lips - Detailed design will be completed and a construction contract 6,102 11,248 awarded in FY96. Construction of a full complement of deflectors will be
completed during the work window in FY97. i==ss s^ssss
Ice Harbor Subtotal 6,500 34,969
Extended Length Screens - Completion of installation of new screens is 2,721 38,420 scheduled for December 1996. Additional work includes post construction evaluations and design of a new screen maintenance facility which will be constructed in 1998.
Juvenile Fish Facility Completion - This will complete the Juvenile Bypass 1,688 26,161 Facility. Work includes miscellaneous contracts to correct design deficiencies, complete O&M manuals and add an emergency water supply system to the JBS.
Fish Ladder Exit Mods. - To simplify and improve the fish ladder exits, 300 990 the existing tilting weirs will be replaced with fixed vertical-slot control weirs.
Gate Raise Modifications - Design of necessary permanent modifications 4S0 6,070
required to accommodate raising the operating gates will begin.
Construction would occur in the out years. ===== ======
McMary Subtotal 5,159 71,641
JOHN DAY:
Monitoring Facility - Complete construction, operational in March. 8,160 23,000
Post-construction evaluation.
Flip Lips - Designs completed in FY 96. Complete construction contract 7,100 13,600 award, initiate construction in FY97.
Extended Length Screens Implementation - Initiate and complete P&S for 289 32,000
implementation of full installation. ===== ======
John Day Subtotal 15,549 68,600
Juvenile Bypass System - Implementation of conventional screened bypass deferred pending surface bypass evaluations.
Power Distribution - Initiate procurement and installation of equipment to 900 2,417 allow independent powerhouse operations
PH2 DSH, Monitoring and Outfall Relocation - Continue and complete FDM and 1,820 39,583
PSS for FY 98 construction start. Evaluate combined PH1/PH2 monitoring
facility.
PHI DSM, Monitoring and Outfall Relocation - Restart designs, FDM and P&S 2,480 32,300 for FY 99 construction start and 2000 completion (outfall), 2001 (DSM). ===== =====
Bonneville Subtotal 5,200 74,300
IMPLEMENTATION TOTALS 41,479 329,550
HlTlQftTIWI ANALYSI? FOR FT 97;
Continue studies, including surface bypass, drawdown of Lower Snake reservoirs, John Day hatchery mitigation, turbine passage, gas abatement, light and sound guidance, adult passage. Mitigation Analysis for FY 97 65,521
Total FY 97 107,000
Mr. MYERS. When will the mitigation analysis be completed and what is its total cost?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the mitigation analysis is scheduled be completed in 2001 for a total cost of $349,898,000.
Mr. MYERS. Why doesn't it make sense to wait until the mitigation analysis is con^jlete before committing to more work?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, for those contingent measures, i. e., measures for which decisions are dependent on additional research, design, testing or other information, it does make sense to complete the analysis before final commitments are made. The project cost estimate is based on assumptions regarding long-term decisions but does not represent a firm commitment to measures for which implementation is not decided. For instance, construction of new surface bypass facilities must await development of the technology, but we have included an assumption about future construction in the total cost estimate in order to provide a more realistic estimate of ultimate costs.
Mr. MYERS. Does the budget request include funds for planning and design associated with operation of the John Day project at minimum pool levels?
General FUHRMAN. No, Sir. Pending development of scientific justification requested in the FY 1996 appropriation we do not intend to request funds.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM OPERATION REVIEW
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Columbia River System Operation Review?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the Columbia River System Operation Review final EIS was completed and distributed to agencies and the public in January 1996. The 30-day no action period has expired and the agencies are currently preparing records of decisions on the system operating strategy, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, and the Canadian Entitlement Allocation Agreements .
Mr. MYERS. Please describe the preferred alternative that has been identified for operation of the system.
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the preferred alternative is the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative as described in the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seirvice Biological Opinions on endangered Snake River salmon and Kootenai River sturgeon, respectively.
324
This plan was implemented in March 1995 in accordance with records of decisions executed by the operating agencies at that time. The preferred alternative includes several means to assist anadromous fish recovery: improvements in juvenile fish passage facilities, additional transportation barges, evaluation of surface bypass technology, spill, releases from storage projects to augment flows, and further study of the feasibility of deep drawdowns .
The plan continues to provide for system and local flood control at current levels of protection, year-round deep and shallow draft navigation, and access to irrigation water from reservoirs. The plan also affects resident fish and wildlife resources, power generation, and recreation opportunities.
Mr. MYERS. The December 1995 newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association included an article on the System Operation Review which contained the following statement, "When asked about how the four-year SOR process resulted in the selection of the preferred alternative, a Corps of Engineers official said, 'The preferred alternative was given to us by the National Marine Fisheries Service. It was not the result of any analytical process.'." Would you care to comment on that?
General FUHRMAN. Sir, the biological opinions were developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response to the operating agencies proposed biological assessments of continuing operations of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System. The biological assessments were prepared utilizing information from a variety of sources including a wide range of alternatives considered and evaluated in the screening and detailed phases of the System Operation Review.
The contents and direction of the opinions were shaped over a period of several years by the interaction of a number of processes, parties, and events, including the Salmon Summit convened by Senator Hatfield, the 1992 and 1993 EISs prepared by the Corps on operating the system, the System Operation Review, and the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife recovery plans for endangered species. In addition, the opinions were prepared utilizing information developed in a series of post- judgment discussions and technical working groups with the states, tribes and other parties in the Idaho Department Of Fish and Game v. National Marine Fisheries Service litigation.
All of those activities involved complex analytical processes for which the System Operation Review made a substantial contribution .
325
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Colonel Robin R. Cababa, Acting Commander
Pacific Ocean Division
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, HAWAII
Mr. MYERS. Has the reconnaissance report for the Barbers Point Harbor Modification, Hawaii, project been certified to be in accord with policy?
Colonel CABABA. Yes, sir. The reconnaissance report for the Barbers Point Harbor Modification project was certified in September 1995 to be in accord with policy.
Mr. MYERS. Do you still expect to execute the feasibility cost sharing agreement for the project this month?
Colonel CABABA. Yes, sir. The feasibility cost-sharing agreement was executed on March 21, 1996.
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HAWAII
Mr. MYERS. Why has the total estimated cost of preconstruction engineering and design for the Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii, project increased from $789,000 to $1,169,000?
Colonel CABABA. The costs of preconstruction engineering and design have increased because of the requirement to conduct additional studies including numerical modeling of harbor alternatives, littoral transport measurements, and geotechnical investigations.
Mr. MYERS. The justification sheets state that the current benefit to cost ratio for the project is 1.3 to 1 and that the benefits are primarily attributed to Btorm damage reduction. The justification sheets also state that in the 1980 GDM, benefits were identified as being primarily attributed to recreational navigation. Please explain this apparent discrepancy.
Colonel CABABA. The benefits in the 1980 GDM were based on recreational navigation. However, because of the time lapse between ccnpletion of the GDM and the initiation of preconstruction engineering and design activities in FY94, a reevaluation of the project's benefit to cost ratio was required. The reevaluation indicated that the current economic benefits, conditions, and usage of the harbor have shifted to ccninercial fishing operations and associated storm damage reduction.
326
HAALAEA HARBOR, HAWAII
Mr. MYERS. What has caused the delay in the execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement for the Maalaea Harbor, Hawaii, project?
Colonel CABABA. Execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement was delayed because of the State of Hawaii's budget shortfall and unresolved environmental issues. The State of Hawaii has reaffirmed their financial capability to cost share the project. However, the OS Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management agency continues to be concerned about the potential impacts of the project on the coral reefs in the area. We are currently participating in a joint task force with State of Hawaii resource agencies to develop environmental mitigation measures.
Mr. MYERS. The justification sheets indicate that funds requested for fiscal yeaLT 1997 would be used to continue bresOcwater construction and harbor dredging. Will construction of the project begin this fiscal year?
Colonel CABABA. No, sir. Award of the construction contract is scheduled for March 1997.
lAO STREAM, HAWAII
Mr. MYERS. Why are the cost -sharing requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 being applied to the lao Stream, Hawaii, deficiency correction project?
Colonel CABABA. Tlie cost-sharing requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 are being applied to the lao Stream project in accordance with current policies regarding deficiency correction projects.
Mr. MYERS. Please explain the nature of the deficiency that will be corrected by this project?
Colonel CABABA. The project's existing levee system has experienced extensive erosion and undermining due to high velocity storm flows.
Mr. MYERS. Why will it take until fiscal year 1999 to execute the Project Cooperation Agreement for the project?
Colonel CABABA. Prior to execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement, we will be preparing a Design Memorandum which will include an environmental inpact statement and extensive hydraulic model testing of alternative plans. The model studies are required to insure proper correction of the deficiency and for the preparation of construction plans and specifications.
Mr. MYERS. Will this project be subject to new cost-sharing formula being proposed for flood control projects?
Colonel CABABA. We do not propose that the project be subject to the new cost- sharing formula being proposed for flood control projects.
CONTINOING AOTHORITIES PROGRAM
Mr. MYKRS. What projects do you have underway this fiscal year and do you have plamned for fiscal year 1997 under the various continuing authorities programs?
Colonel CABABA. We have the following Continuing Authorities Projects underway in FY96 and planned for FY97.
Section 14 - Emergency Streambank
Agat South, Guam Alii Drive, Hawaii, Hawaii Garapan Beach Road, Saipan, CNMI Hauula Highway, Oahu, Hawaii Kaaawa Highway, Oahu, Hawaii Launiupoko Shoreline, Maui, Hawaii Power Plcint Road, Guam Punaluu Highway, OaUiu, Hawaii
Section 103 - Shoreline Protection
Commercial Port Road, Gueun Micro Beach, Saipan, CNMI
Section 107 - Navigation
Kahului Small Boat Harbor, Maui, Hawaii
Section 205 - Flood Control
Kfihawainui Stream, Oeihu, Hawaii Kawainui Marsh, OeJiu, Hawaii Palai Stream, Hawaii, Hawaii
328
Chainnan Myers' Questions for
Colonel Alexander R. Jansen, Conunander
Ohio River Division
MONONGAHELA RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, WEST VIRGINIA, STUDY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Monongahela River Comprehensive, West Virginia, study?
Colonel JANSEN. The Monongahela River Comprehensive, West Virginia reconnaissance study was completed in June 1995. The report contained an inventory of potential waterfront development projects and includes site specific conceptual designs for waterfront development at eight locations. Although these plans are supported by the involved communities, implementation of recreation-oriented projects is not in accordance with Administration budgeting priorities. Therefore, the report concluded that there is no Federal interest in the construction of urban waterfront development projects at these locations and that the study should be terminated.
OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Please describe for the record the additional work that has caused the estimated cost of the Ohio River Mainstem study to increase from $10,740,000 to $38,400,000.
Colonel JANSEN. The study plan has been re-worked to more broadly inventory waterv-^y investment needs for the entire Ohio River main stem over the next 20 to 30 years. This will allow for an optimization of investments, as well as for a trade-off analysis between different levels of operations and maintenance investment versus new improvements. This strategic review of investment options for the entire river will allow better utilization of future funds in an environment of increasingly constrained budgets. This broader geographic coverage and scope necessitated the increase in total study cost to $38,400,000.
The study cost estimate of $10,740,000 was defined in the previous Uniontown Ohio River Main Stem Study, which focused on the future needs, at just three locks and dams: Uniontown; Newburgh; and Cannelton. The study cost increase results from expansion of the study to address all twenty locks and dams along the entire Ohio River main stem, from Cairo, Illinois to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The expanded study will include: a comprehensive analysis of existing facilities to forecast future maintenance costs; risk and uncertainty analysis of different maintenance and other investment strategies; an inventory of environmental problems; update of the system traffic projections and rates; and optimization analysis of various low cost capital improvements and/or major rehabilitation needs over the next 20 to 30 years .
Mr. MYERS. Will the final product of this study be a single report that will recommend a number of projects for authorization?
Colonel JANSEN. The Project Study Plan is under review. The scope of the authorization recommendations will be determined by the approved Project Study Plan. During the review period, system wide and prototype development work is continuing.
329
Mr. MYERS. What is the benefit of performing a systems analysis rather than following the traditional method of performing site specific studies?
Colonel JANSEN. The benefit of performing the system study is that it allows for a much better optimization of investment needs as well as for a trade-off analysis between different levels of operations and maintenance, major rehabilitation, and new capital investments for the entire Ohio River mainstem system. This comprehensive review of investment option for the entire river will allow better utilization of future funds.
Mr. MYERS. What is the "without project condition" for this study?
Colonel JANSEN. The appropriate "without project condition" is being developed as part of the early phases of the study. It will be a forecast of the optimum mix of system and site specific operation and maintenance activities that would be undertaken during the period of analysis in the absence of new major rehabilitation starts and new authorization to improve the capacity of the system. Key inputs to this analysis include comprehensive condition analysis of all locks, traffic rate and commodity movement projections for the system, risk and uncertainty associated with dependability and reliability of the current system, and identification of innovative operation and maintenance techniques that could improve system efficiency.
Mr. MYERS. Following completion of the system- wide study, will it be necessary to perform additional site specific studies prior to making authorization recommendations?
Colonel JANSEN. It is not anticipated that any additional feasibility-level site specific studies will be necessary. We would be able to initiate preconstruction engineering and design at the priority sites.
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a detailed description of the work proposed for FY 1997 along with the cost of each item of work.
Colonel JANSEN. Fiscal Year 1997 activities can be broken down into three major categories: planning; engineering; and environmental efforts.
Planning activities total $2,458,000 and consist of public involvement, social impact studies, cultural resources investigations, concept-level system economic analysis and screening level operation and maintenance cost profiles. Engineering activities total $3,766,000 and consist primarily of development of prototype lock plans, identification of specific sites for more detailed study and prototype design development of low cost lock capacity additions. Environmental efforts account for $1,495,000 of the total and consist of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and identification of restoration sites.
330
CONEMAUGH RIVER BASIN, NANTY GLO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MYERS. When will the feasibility study cost-sharing agreement for the Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration project be executed?
Colonel JANSEN. The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSAS) is scheduled to be executed between the Corps and the Cambria County Conservation and Recreation Authority in April 1996.
MARMET LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. MYERS. When will plans and specifications for the first construction contract for the Marmet Locks and Dam, West Virginia, project be completed?
Colonel JANSEN. Plans and specifications for the first construction contract, consisting of the resident engineer's office, construction of four floating mooring buoys and partial anchoring of the existing landwall, are scheduled for completion in September 1997.
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, project being used?
Colonel JANSEN. Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being used to complete detailed design and preparation of plans and specifications for three Greenway Corridor components parallel and adjacent to the Ohio River on the Indiana shoreline for the communities of Jef fersonville, Clarksville and New Albany, Indiana.
WEST VIRGINIA PORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the West Virginia Port Development study?
Colonel JANSEN. A feasibility cost sharing agreement was signed
for the Cabell/Wayne Port District study in April 1995. The local
sponsor has provided its share of the feasibility study cost. The study is scheduled for completion in February 199 7.
A feasibility cost sharing agreement was signed for the Erickson/Wood County Port District study in June 1995. The local sponsor has provided its share of the feasibility study cost. The study is scheduled for completion in April 1997.
A feasibility cost sharing agreement was signed for the Weirton Port District study in September 1995. We are currently waiting non- federal sponsor funding to initiate the feasibility phase. It is expected that initial non- federal funding will be provided in April 1996. The feasibility study is scheduled for completion in July 1997.
Each study will include an analysis of the engineering, environmental, and economic feasibility of these public port sites. The feasibility studies will serve as guides to the local port districts for the development and marketing of the ports.
The West Virginia Public Port Authority has indicated its desire to cost share additional studies for the communities of Millwood, Murraysville and Buffalo. The Port Authority is currently seeking funds through the State budget process. If sponsor funding becomes available, a feasibility cost sharing agreement will be executed and feasibility studies for these communities will be initiated and completed with available funds .
OHIO RIVER BASIN STUDY
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 199 6 for the Ohio River Basin Study being utilized?
Colonel JANSEN. Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being used to initiate and complete a special study in partnership with Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and other basin interests. The study will identify and evaluate hydrologic measures to monitor, detect, prevent and manage severe water quality and environmental problems associated with point and non-point source releases and spills. The study report is scheduled for completion in September 1996 and will include full definition of a potential program, a recommendation as to Federal interest, and, if applicable, a draft Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement .
NEW FLOOD CONTROL POLICY
Mr. MYERS. Are the local sponsors for the new flood control construction starts contained in your budget request aware of the Administration's proposal to require 50% local cost sharing?
Colonel JANSEN. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, by letter dated March 19, 1996, notified the local sponsors of the flood damage reduction new starts and PED activities to be initiated during FY 1997 of the proposed changes in cost sharing and financing and requested affirmations of their continued interest and ability to proceed during Fiscal Year 1997 under the proposed new policies. This included the sponsors for the Metropolitan Louisville, Pond Creek, Kentucky new start, the Metropolitan Region of Cincinnati, Duck Creek, Ohio new start, and the Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania new start projects. In addition, Corps District offices personally contacted representatives of the sponsors to make them aware of the Administration's proposals.
332
WEST COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. MYERS. Why was $3,050,000 reprograitrmed from the West Columbus, Ohio, project in FY 1996?
Colonel JANSEN. It has been determined that $3,050,000 was surplus to project needs in Fiscal Year 1996 because of delays in identification of material disposal areas, acquisition of real estate and highway relocations by the State. Funds were reprogrammed to other projects having additional funding requirements in Fiscal Year 1996.
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF BIG SANDY RIVER AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a table showing the percent complete at the end of FY 1996 for each element of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River project currently under construction.
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record the percent complete at the end of Fiscal Year 1996 for each of the project elements currently under construction.
(The information follows:)
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES COMPLETE AT END OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR ELEMENTS
OF THE LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF BIG SANDY AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER
PROJECT THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PERCENT COMPLETE
PROJECT ELEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1996
Barbourville, Kentucky:
Structural 100
Nonstructural 100
Harlan, Kentucky:
Structural 78
Nonstructural 40
Lower Mingo County, West Virginia (Nonstructural) : 38
Matewan, West Virginia:
Structural 90
Nonstructural 100
Matewan, Hatfield Bottom, West Virginia
(Nonstructural) : 50
Middlesborough, Kentucky:
Structural 24
Nonstructural 13
Pike County, Kentucky (Nonstructural) : 21
Pineville, Kentucky:
Structural 100
Nonstructural 100
South Williamson, Kentucky:
Structural 100
Nonstructural 100
Upper Mingo County, Kentucky (Nonstructural) : 7
Williamsburg, Kentucky:
Structural 45
Nonstructural 92
Williamson, West Virginia:
Structural 100
Nonstructural 100
334
Mr. MYERS. Please provide for the record a status report on the Pike County, Kentucky; Williamsburg, Kentucky; Harlan, Kentucky; Middlesborough, Kentucky; and Hatfield Bottoms, West Virginia, elements of the project.
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record the status of the requested project elements.
(The information follows:)
Pike County. Kentucky - The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in October 1994. Phase I of the project concentrated on nonstructural work in the Buskirk and McCarr areas, including 119 eligible structures. Homeowners for 84 structures have elected to participate in the prograim. Work on Phase I will be completed in April 1996. Phase II, including the community of Preeburn, Kentucky, was initiated in June 1995. Of the 159 eligible structures, 117 structures currently are of being floodproofed or acquired. Phase III, including the Burnwell, Kentucky area, has 49 eligible structures. Nonstructural work will begin on Phase III and IV in April 1996. The final phase, Phase IV, including the Big Creek area, has 163 eligible structures.
Williamsburg. Kentucky - The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in March 1995. The structural work consists of a 5800 foot levee and floodwall, including an additional 2000 feet added in accordance with the direction of the Committee of Conference on the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act. A construction contract for interior drainage features, relocations, and the levee and flood wall west of the Cumberland Street Bridge will be awarded in June 1996.
Nonstructural work was initiated in July 1995 with receipt of local sponsor's funds. Currently 13 homeowners have elected to participate. Twelve of the 13 structures are scheduled for completion by the end of Fiscal Year 1996.
Harlan. Kentucky - Phase I tunnels to divert Clover Fork around the city of Harlan were completed in December 1992. The Phase II flood wall to protect Harlan from flooding along Martins Fork was completed in January 1996. Coordination is currently underway with the sponsor to transfer the two phases for its operations and maintenance by September 1996. Phase III includes a diversion and levee/flood wall system to protect Loyall and Rio Vista from flooding along the Ciomberland River downstream of Harlan. Construction of the diversion began in September 1994. The flood wall and diversion contract will be awarded in April 1996.
The nonstructural program consists of 226 structures divided into four project phases. To date, 76 structures have been floodproofed or acquired with an additional 15 structures scheduled through September 1996. Detailed evaluation of the remaining 125 structures along the Cumberland River will be completed in September 1996.
Middlesborough. Kentucky - The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in January 1996. The structural work consists of widening and deepening of 4.7 miles of channel along the Yellow and Little Yellow Creeks in two phases. Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being used to initiate real estate acqnisition and complete plans and specifications for 3.6 miles of the lo'. er channel .
335
Nonstructural work consists of f loodproof ing and acquisition of 15 structures. Two structures are scheduled for completion by the end of Fiscal Year 1996.
Hatfield Bottom. West Virginia - The nonstructural project consists of f loodproof ing and acquisition of 75 structures and the construction of a ringwall around the Magnolia High School. Homeowners of 38 structures have elected to participate. To date, 21 structures have been completed. Nonstructural f loodproof ing is scheduled for completion in June 1996. The construction contract for the high school ringwall was awarded on March 22, 1996.
OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION, INDIANA
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, project?
Colonel JANSEN. In a March 20, 1996 letter to Congressman Lee Hamilton, Assistant Secretary Lancaster stated the Army's position that, absent specific Congressional direction in law, it would be inappropriate for the Corps to perform repair work on the six local protection projects included in this project. This position is consistent with the Army's treatment of other Federally constructed local flood protection projects that are the responsibility of non- Federal interests.
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the project being utilized?
Colonel JANSEN. Fiscal Year 1996 funds have been used to coordinate with prospective non- Federal sponsors and to prepare an opinion on authority to implement the project. No further work will be performed on the project absent specific Congressional direction in law.
SALYERSVILLE, KENTUCKY
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Salyersville, Kentucky, project?
Colonel JANSEN. The project is ready to initiate construction pending the completion of real estate acquisition by the local sponsor. Real estate acquisition by the local sponsor has been delayed due to adverse weather conditions. Upon real estate certification, a construction contract will be advertised and awarded.
336
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration project being utilized?
Colonel JANSEN. Congress appropriated $3,500,000 in the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to carry out additional high priority work under the program. Section 107 of the Act also reauthorized the project to increase the funding limitation to $50 million, expanded the study area by 9 counties, and provided for grants. These funds will be utilized to expand the General Management Plan to include potential new projects in the additional counties and to execute Project Cooperation Agreements for design or construction within the funds appropriated.
KENTUCKY RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS 5 THROUGH 14, KENTUCKY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on your efforts to transfer Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5-14 to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Colonel JANSEN. The Corps is continuing to undertake critical maintenance repairs to safeguard the water supply function of the dams on the Kentucky River prior to transferring these facilities to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Corps, in conjunction with Coirimonwealth of Kentucky officials, developed a prioritized list of repairs which relate to water supply and this work was divided into four separate contracts. Work associated with the first two contracts has been completed. Tne third construction contract for work at Lock and Dam 11 was awarded in June 1995 and is scheduled for completion in December 1996. Award of the fourth construction contract for remaining work at Lock and Dam 12 scheduled for May 1996 and construction completion is scheduled for November 1997. Federal funds in the amount of $13,000,000 have been made available for this work to date.
Water supply repairs have been completed at Locks and Dams 5 through 10. Coordination efforts for transfer of facilities are ongoing. Initial efforts have concentrated on transfer of Lock and Dam 10. A deed package for Lock and Dam 10 has been executed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The environmental documentation accompanying the deed is being revised. The deed and revised environmental documentation will be processed for execution by the Secretary of the Army.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has indicated a desire that additional stabilization work be performed at Dams 13 and 14 and also that environmental cleanup of lead paint contaminated soil be performed near project buildings. This additional work currently is unfunded and is estimated to cost $7,500,000.
337
WABASH RIVER BASIN, (MIDDLE REACHES) , INDIANA AND ILLINOIS
Mr. MYERS. Your budget request contains $105 thousand to complete the feasibility study for the Greenfield Bayou area of Vigo County. Once the study is completed, what do you assume the next step will entail?
Colonel JANSEN. The feasibility phase study is investigating a dual project for an agricultural levee and environmental restoration. The next phase would be preconstruction engineering and design if the feasibility study recommends federal participation in a project or projects.
Mr. MYERS. Are both the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and Vigo County still committed to this project?
Colonel JANSEN. A coordination meeting was held on 22 December 199 5 with Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Vigo County and the Greenfield Bayou Levee District to discuss both the agricultural flood control and environmental restoration features of the project/study. The Levee District has since provided an alternative levee alignment that is being evaluated and discussed with Vigo County and Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Vigo County has agreed to support limited expenditures for this evaluation. We expect that Vigo County will finalize support or non- support for the flood control component of the Study in the April -May 1996 time frame.
The feasibility phase of the study currently is scheduled for completion in August 1997. When we get a firm sponsor position, we will finalize the scope and schedule for completion of the feasibility report .
338
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Brigadier General Ralph V. Locurcio, Commander
South Atlantic Division
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Myers. Please provide for the record a status report on each o£ the following studies: Brevard County, Florida; Daytona Beach Shores, Florida; Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi; Lomides County Barge Fleeting Area, Mississippi; New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia; and Naccamaw River, South Carolina.
General LOCORCIO. I will provide for the record the status of the requested studies.
(The Information follows:)
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
The feasibility study to extend Federal participation In the project Is scheduled for coiopletlon In May 1996.
DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, FLORIDA
The feasibility study was completed In August 1995. Although the study Identified a feasible project, no further action Is being taken due. to the lack of a willing local sponsor.
HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI
The reconnaissance report for the study was coii^>leted in June 1995. The report recommended further studies for flood control at Brickyard Bayou, and for navigation iaqprovements at Ocean Springs Harbor and Old Fort Bayou \inder the Continuing Authorities program. The Brickyard Bayou project is being iaqplemented by non-Federal Interest. Allocation of ftinds has been requested for Ocean Springs emd Old Fort Bayou to negotiate a feasibility cost sharing agreement with the non- Federal sponsor.
LOWNDES COUNTY BARGE FLEETING AREA, MISSISSIPPI
The reconnaissance report was con^leted in June 1995. The report recommended no further studies since a fleeting area is not required for the safe and efficient use of the waterway or port channel.
NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GEORGIA
No work has been performed on this study since funds have not been appropriated.
WACCAMAW RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA
No work has been perfoxioed on this study since ftinds have not been appropriated.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. What kind of vessels are requiring deeper depths In the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Palm Beach County?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, vessels currently using the Intracoastal Waterway In the vicinity of Palm Beach County consist of commercial barges and fishing vessels, and mega-yacht recreational vessels. Existing depths in the waterway are inadequate to allow these vessels access to existing docking, maintenance, and repair facilities.
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Broward County, Florida project?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, a reevaluation report based on Section 934 of the Water Resources Development Act of 19 86 was approved in Jtme 1995 for the middle portion of this project between Hlllsboro Inlet and Port Everglades. This area Includes Ponpano Beach and Lauderdale by the Sea. A review of the locally prepared plans for the Pompano Beach to Lauderdale by the Sea area is underway and a PCA package for the southern portion of the project is under review with f\inds added by Congress for Fiscal Year 1996. However, initiation of construction by the Federal government following completion of the review Is not in accord with current Administration policy.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY (ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH), FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the St. Johns County (St. Augustine Beach) , Florida project?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, a General Reevaluation Report for the project is being prepared. Geotech data collection, engineering analysis, cind numerical modeling are underway. The report is scheduled for completion in April 199 8.
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. At what locations will work on the Dade County, Florida, project be accon^lished in Fiscal Year 1997?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, beach renourlshment for the project in Fiscal Year 1997 is scheduled for Sunny Isles, North Miami Beach, South Miami Beach and Surf side. Additionally, a submerged geottibe breakwater will be constructed at Sunny Isles and the north jetty at Government Cut will be sand tightened.
Mr. MYERS. What is the purpose of the Bahamian Aragonite Sand Test Beach?
340
General LOCTTRCIO. Sir, the purpose o£ the aragonlte test fill Is to determine the economical and environmental viability o£ this material. This Is necessary since the sand located Immediately offshore Is Insufficient for the life of the project. Consequently, alternative sources need to be Investigated.
Mr. MYERS. Is all work on the Dade County project performed by the local sponsor with reimbursement by the Federal government?
General LOCURCIO. No, Sir. The project Is designed and constructed by the Corps of Engineers with local sponsor financial participation .
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. Myers. Why Is only $109,000 required In Fiscal Year 1997 for the Martin County, Florida, project?
General LOCDRCIO. Sir, the Initial nourishment of the project will be completed In Fiscal Year 1996. The requested amount Is sufficient to monitor project performance and Impacts on sea turtles.
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided In Fiscal Year 1996 for the Pinellas County, Florida, project being utilized?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the f\mds provided for the project are being used to renourish the Upham Beach portion of the project on Long Key. Additionally, design efforts are luiderway for renourishments on Long Key, Treasure Island and Sand Key.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA
Mr. MYERS. Please explain what the Corps' role will be in the Federal government's efforts to restore the Everglades.
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the Corps' role in the Federal Government's efforts to restore the Everglades includes: Working closely with the Presidential Task Force, the Department of Interior and the State of Florida; in Area Management, continuing to operate and maintain portions of the Central and Southern Florida project and the Okeechobee Waterway; under Water Quality and Habitat Protection, administering the permitting of placement of fill material in the waters of the United States; for Infrastructure, filling part of the Klsslmmee River to restore the ecosystem, modifying portions of the Central and Southern Florida project elements to restore more natural hydrologlc conditions in the Everglades National Park, and preparing a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of structural and operational modifications to the Central and Southern Florida project to restore the Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems, while providing for other water-related demands such as the quality of the environment, protection of the groundwater acqulfer and conservation of urban water supplies.
Mr. MYERS. How much is Included in your Fiscal Year 1997 budget request for activities associated with Everglades restoration?
341
General LOCtJRCIO. Sir, the Fiscal year 1997 budget request includes $39,550,000 for activities associated with Everglades restoration. This includes $17,680,000 for area management, $2,200,000 for water quality and habitat protection and $19,670,000 for infrastructure investment which includes $4,400,000 for scientific activities.
Mr. MYERS. What is the total estimated cost of work to be performed by the Corps of Engineers in connection with the restoration of the Everglades?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the total estimated cost of work to be performed by the Corps with appropriated f\mds includes new infrastructure investment and annual costs. The estimated total cost for the infrastructure for the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem is $402,000,000. The annual costs for area mimagement and water quality and hitbitat protection is about $19,800,000.
NORTHPORT, AUkBAMA
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the Northport, Alabama, section 205 project.
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the feasibility report was approved in January 1996. Construction plzms and specifications are \mderway and scheduled for completion in October 1996.
Mr. MYERS. When will the Northport project be ready for construction?
General LOCORCIO. Sir, the project will be ready for construction upon execution of the Project Cost Sharing Agreement. A construction contract is scheduled to be awarded in January 1997.
Mr. MYERS. Does the Fiscal Year 1997 budget request include funds for the Northport project?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the Fiscal Year 1997 budget request for the Continuing Authorities Program includes funds for the project. Assuming we receive an appropriation as requested, we would expect to have funds available to initiate construction.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GEORGIA
Mr. MYERS. The committee is aware that in recent years you have not been performing adequate maintenance dredging of the Savannah Harbor, Georgia, project. What is the reason for that?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, based on environmental concerns, modifications to the Savannah Harbor project have significantly effected the channel hydraulics resulting in changed shoaling patterns. These changed shoaling patterns, due to location and distribution in relationship to the disposal areas, have resulted in maintenamce costs higher than anticipated and budgeted.
342
Mr. KYERS. What are you doing to address this problem?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, in Fiscal Year 1996, we Initiated a model study o£ the Savannah Harbor. The model study will simulate flow patterns in the river and identify shoaling rates and patterns that can be used to better identify future harbor maintenance dredging needs.
Mr. MYERS. Are the funds requested in Fiscal Year 1997 for the Savannah Harbor project sufficient to maintain the project at authorized depths?
General LOCORCIO. Yes, Sir. The $14,714,000 rec[uested for Fiscal Year 1997 are sufficient to maintain the project at the authorized depths .
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE, FLINT - ALABAMA, COOSA, TALLAPOOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint - Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa CoB^rehensive Water Study.
General LOCDRCIO. Sir, the study effort is going well, and the identification of alternatives is underway. An interim report was provided to the State delegations in December 1995.
Mr. MYERS. When will the study be completed?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, the study is scheduled for completion in September 1996.
Mr. MYERS. Are any additional funds required for the cos^letlon of the study?
General LOCURCIO. Sir, no additional funds are required to complete the study.
343
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Brigadier General Bruce K. Scott, Commander
South Pacific Division
STUDY STATUS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the following studies: City pf Encinitas, California; Gila River, Gillespie Dam to Yuma, Arizona; Malibu Coastal Area, California; Marin County Shoreline, California; San Diego County, Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad, California; San Francisco Bay, Leonard Ranch, California; San Francisco County, Ocean Beach, California; San Francisco Harbor, California; and San Joaquin River Basin, Caliente Creek Stream Group, California?
CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
General SCOTT. We will complete the City of Encinitas reconnaissance study at the end of March 1996. The study results indicate that shore protection improvements do not appear economically justified. Accordingly, we will complete a report recommending no further Federal action at this time .
GILA RIVER, GILLESPIE DAM TO YUMA, ARIZONA
The reconnaissance report for the Gila River, Gillespie to Yuma study was completed in January 1995. It identified economically feasible plans for water conservation at Painted Rock Dam and environmental restoration downstream along the Gila River. At this time, we have been unable to identify a sponsor for water conservation. The Arizona Department of Game and Fish supports environmental restoration, but has requested delay of the feasibility study due to its funding constraints.
MALIBU COASTAL AREA, CALIFORNIA
We completed the Malibu Coastal Area reconnaissance report in September 1994. The study identified economically feasible shore protection improvements for the Las Tunas area of Malibu, but the sponsor is unable to obtain local financing to continue into the cost shared feasibility phase.
MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA
The feasibility study for Marin County Shoreline, San Clemente Creek is scheduled for completion in September 1996. Study findings indicate that improvements including a floodwall and tidal barrier to prevent fluvial and tidal flooding are economically justified. The Congress added $150,000 to the FY 1996 Budget to initiate design of the project. However, the Department of the Army did not budget to proceed with design in accordance with proposed policy not to fund shore protection projects.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CITIES OF OCEANSIDE AND CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
We completed the reconnaissance report in September 1994; however, the Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad are not interested in cost sharing the feasibility phase because they feel it is a Federal responsibility.
344
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, LEONARD RANCH, CALIFORNIA
We completed the reconnaissance report for San Francisco Bay, Leonard Ranch in August 1995. The study was unable to develop an economically justified plan with Federal interest.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, OCEAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Our feasibility study for San Francisco County, Ocean Beach was initiated in September 1992. The local sponsor, the City and County of San Francisco, requested a delay in the study in July 1995 to review its support of the shoreline protection alternatives determined feasible in the study, project cost sharing requirements, and national policy decisions affecting the project. Further work efforts are still on hold pending a final decision from the sponsor.
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CALIFORNIA
While our reconnaissance report identified an economically justified plan of improvement for San Francisco Harbor, the local sponsor, the Port Of San Francisco, withdrew its support for the study due to a lack of funding to cost share the feasibility phase.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CALIENTE CREEK STREAM GROUP, CALIFORNIA
As you are aware, the Caliente Creek feasibility study has been underway for quite some time, over ten years, and as of December 1995 study activities have been discontinued at the request of the sponsor. The sponsor has requested that we postpone any further work until additional public input is received and local consensus determined regarding future cost sharing and direction of the project. A formal response is expected from the sponsor by the end of May 1996.
YUBA RIVER BASIN
Mr. MYERS. What is the reason for the increased cost and schedule slippage for the Northern California Streams, Yuba River Basin, feasibility study?
General SCOTT. In retrospect we simply had a bad cost estimate to start with. Our cost estimate has increased from $2.6 to $4.1 million. Clarifying the project scope and alternative plans have required much more extensive environmental and technical studies than we originally allowed for. This effort was necessary to define the National Economic Development plan and has required more time and funding than initially anticipated. We expect to identify the NED plan by May 1996. Once we have done this, our sponsor will be in a position to make an informed decision on whether they should agree to modify our existing cost sharing agreement and proceed towards completion of the study. Our completion date has slipped from February 1996 to September 1998 to accommodate the increased scope of work based on the assumption that our sponsor will agree to this cost increase.
TULE RIVER BASIN
Mr. MYERS. Has the feasibility cost sharing agreement for the San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River, California, study been executed?
General SCOTT. We originally signed a feasibility cost sharing agreement with the sponsor in May 1988 and the sponsor agreed to amendments
to cover cost increases in June and October 1990. We estimate that a further increase of $1.2 million is required to complete the study for a total of $2.6 million. The sponsor has not agreed to this further increase.
SEVEN OAKS AND PRADO DAM WATER CONSERVATION
Mr. MYERS. What can you tell us at this point about the recommendations of the Seven Oaks and Prado Dam Water Conservation study?
General SCOTT. The feasibility study is currently scheduled to be completed in January 1997, and based on studies to date, our report will recommend the modification of Seven Oaks Dam for water conservation. It does not appear likely that we will recommend any modifications to Prado Dam under this study.
LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE
Mr. MYERS. Has the feasibility cost sharing agreement for the Lower Truckee River, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe been executed?
General SCOTT. Based on ongoing coordination and input from the sponsor, the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is currently scheduled to be signed in June 1996.
CITY OF ARCADIA WATER INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the City of Arcadia Water Infrastructure Restoration, California, study?
General SCOTT. The study was initiated in the beginning of this month, March 1996, and is scheduled to be completed in February 1997.
NORCO BLUFFS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of the Norco Bluffs, California, study?
General SCOTT. The Norco Bluffs study, which has been in the feasibility phase since May 1994, is currently scheduled to be completed in January 1997.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIH, FIREBAUGH AND MENDOTA
Mr. MYERS. How are the funds provided in FY 1996 for the San Joaquin River Basin, Firebaugh and Mendota, California, study being utilized?
General SCOTT. The Firebaugh and Mendota reconnaissance study did not identify an economically viable plan. All funds provided in FY 1996 to initiate feasibility studies have been reprogrammed to other studies in our General Investigations program.
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested to continue preconstruction engineering and design for the Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California, project?
General SCOTT. Funds provided in FY 1996 are adequate to complete preconstruction engineering and design for Humboldt Harbor and Bay. Design will be completed by January 1997.
346
NAPA RIVER
Mr. MYERS. What has caused the schedule for completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Napa River, California, project to slip and the cost to increase by $1,800,000?
General SCOTT. The change in schedule and cost is partially due to a request by the local sponsor for the development of a Community Consensus Plan which will provide information on project alternatives and outline the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We also received extensive comments from Resource Agencies and others when we circulated our draft Environmental Impact Statement and Design Memorandum for comments. Many of these comments raised areas of concern that we had to address if the project is to proceed.
SEVEN OAKS DAM WATER CONSERVATION
Mr. MYERS. Please explain in more detail the work that will be performed under the Seven Oaks Dam Water Conservation project.
General SCOTT. The proposed work on Seven Oaks Dam would include the modification of the outlet works intake structure, including the dam's bulkhead, bridge and tower access. The current estimated cost of this work is $11 million, and is expected to be all non-Federal.
Mr. MYERS. If construction costs for this project are a non-Federal responsibility, why is PED being cost-shared?
General SCOTT. We have no separate policy for this kind of a modification. While the benefits of the proposed change would be for water supply, the structure being modified is a Federal flood control dam and we are concerned that any modifications for water supply must be compatible with the existing project purposes. The decision to cost share was based upon a previous experience where the Corps conducted the PED study at full Federal expense and was reimbursed by the non-Federal interest at the onset of construction. We are budgeting this project in the same way because cost sharing for the underlying project has not yet been determined pending the completion of a Feasibility study. Consistent with proposed policy on PED financing, the non-Federal sponsor will be asked to finance 25 percent of PED costs concurrently with Federal financing. If the project is confirmed as 100-percent non-Federal reimbursement of the Federal PED cost at the onset of construction in accordance with the final cost sharing determination will be expected .
RICHMOND HARBOR
Mr. MYERS. Why was $2,359,000 reprogrammed from the Richmond Harbor, California project in FY 1996?
General SCOTT. We reprogrammed $2,359,000 from the project because the construction start was rescheduled from April to August 1996. The reason for the slip was a delay in final identification of a disposal site for material unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
347
Mr. MYERS. What caused the delay in the execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement for the project?
General SCOTT. The Project Cooperation Agreement was delayed due to the need to design and evaluate the disposal site, and extra time required to establish an assessment district to obtain funds for the Port's share.
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested for FY 1997 to continue work on the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, California, project?
General SCOTT. The sponsor has been unable to identify local funding to continue with construction of the project and has asked for a delay in the project for an indefinite period.
SONOMA BAYLANDS WETLANDS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the Committee with a status report on the Sonoma Baylands Wetlands Demonstration, California, project.
General SCOTT. The project is essentially complete. The project's pilot unit was restored to tidal influence in January 1996. The unit is being monitored to determine how it is performing. Placement of 1,713,000 cubic yards of material in the main unit from the Oakland Harbor project was completed in November 1995. The main unit will be restored to tidal influence in September 1996.
COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS
Mr. MYERS: Is the unprogrammed work on the Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California, project the work remaining to be done on Berryessa Creek element of the project?
General SCOTT. That is correct. Construction of the Coyote Creek portion of the project is scheduled to be completed in January 1997. A General Design Memorandum for Berryessa Creek is scheduled to be completed in November 1997. Construction of Berryessa Creek is unscheduled.
NOGALES WASH
Mr. MYERS. Why have no funds been requested to continue the Nogales Wash, Arizona, project?
General SCOTT. The sponsor is not financially able to provide their share of project costs so we cannot proceed with the project. However, we are attempting to break out the flood warning system element of the project, which will cost about $250,000 of which the sponsor will pay $62,000, and do this piece separately. Available funds are adequate for this purpose.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA
Mr. MYERS. The committee has learned that the Corps and the Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works have reached an agreement with a number of groups who have filed a suit challenging the LACDA project that would establish a task force funded by the Corps and the county. Has such a task force been established?
General SCOTT. A task force has not been established as yet. Formation of such a group is one of the items being negotiated in an attempt
348
by Los Angeles County to settle the law suit brought by Friends of the Los Angeles River.
Mr. MYERS. What is the purpose of the task force?
General SCOTT. The task force, if formed, would investigate overall watershed management concepts for the Los Angeles River, which could possibly be incorporated into the Los Angeles County Drainage Area flood control project to achieve a more environmentally effective use of the resources within the watershed. The draft agreement between the County and the Friends of the Los Angeles River specifies that the task force will not affect the progress of the LACDA flood control project.
Mr. MYERS. Who is on the task force?
General SCOTT. The composition of the task force is also one of the issues that is being negotiated between the Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the plaintiffs of the suit. Ideally, the task force would be comprised of all stakeholders in the Los Angeles River watershed. This could include representation from the County flood control district, the Coastal Commission, the cities, the industrial sector, private and public environmental groups, resource agencies, and any of the homeowners associations that would be affected. The Corps would be invited as a member of the task force, but there is no commitment to incorporate the recommendations of the task force into the Corps' Los Angeles River Watercourse feasibility study or the LACDA construction project.
Mr. MYERS. How will the task force be funded and what is its total cost?
General SCOTT. Funding for the task force is also being negotiated as part of the lawsuit settlement. No Federal monies would be used to fund or partially fund the task force. Should products of the task force satisfy tasks identified by a Project Study Plan for the Corps' feasibility study, there may be opportunities for credit for in-kind services from the local sponsor .
Mr. MYERS. Are funds included in the FY 1997 budget request for the task force? If so, how much?
General SCOTT. No Federal funds are in the FY 1997 budget request for this task force.
Mr. MYERS. As a result of the activities of the task force, is it possible that the scope of the ongoing project could change?
General SCOTT. Potential improvements to the ongoing project will be considered if compatible with our construction schedule.
Mr. MYERS. What impact will the activities of the task force have on the work to be undertaken with funds requested in FY 1997?
General SCOTT. At this time we do not anticipate an impact on work scheduled with FY 1997 funds from activities of a task force.
LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. MYERS. You indicate that construction of the Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, California, project, will be delayed until FY 2002 due to budget priorities and constraints. The total Federal cost of the
project is, however, only $3,450,000. Please give a better explanation of why the project is being delayed.
General SCOTT. Given the amount which could be provided for our Construction Program in FY 1997 and subsequent years, we were unable to maintain the astablished schedules for projects already underway. In this situation, giving priority to the Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction project would cause further delays to other projects which had been started in earlier years. Accordingly, we decided that construction of this project would have to wait its turn and the earliest that it could be accommodated within our ceilings is the schedule now before you.
MARYSVILLE/YXJBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. MYERS. Why was $2,370,000 reprogrammed from the Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction, California, project in FY 1996?
General SCOTT. In preparing the FY 1996 budget, we had scheduled award of the Marysville/Yuba City contract in February 1996. Although last year I testified that we did not anticipate any obstacles, we subsequently split this work into two contracts to incorporate betterments requested by the local sponsor. We also incurred delays due to the need for additional geotechnical explorations. Our current schedule is to award one contract in August 1996 and the second contract in August 1997. Accordingly, excess FY 1996 funds of $2,370,000 will be reprogrammed to other projects.
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION
Mr. MYERS. Please provide more information on the post contract award and other estimating adjustments that caused the total Federal cost of the Sacramento River Bank Protection project to increase by about $47,000,000.
General SCOTT. The cost increase is predominantly due to increases required to adequately respond to environmental sensitivities along the Sacramento River and Delta areas. In the past, we were able to construct bank protection sites within the range of $300 to $500 per linear foot. However, recent construction contracts have cost in the range of $700 to $1,000 or more per linear foot, due to the incorporation of environmental mitigation. We therefore applied this cost increase to the remaining work, which is authorized by the number of linear feet.
GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. MYERS. What is the unprogrammed work on the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District)?
General SCOTT. The unprogrammed effort is the construction of the Gradient Restoration Facility. The Bureau of Reclamation is scheduled to make a decision on selection of an alternative for the fish screen element of the project in July 1996. Once they have made this decision, we will be able to identify the scope of any required gradient restoration and proceed with design. Until design can be completed, and a cost estimate established, we cannot schedule construction. We expect that the Section 902 limit on the existing authorization will be substantially exceeded by this cost estimate and that the project will require additional authorization.
SAN LORENZO RIVER
Mr. MYERS. Do the Administration's proposed changes to cost sharing requirements for flood control apply to the San Lorenzo River, California, project?
General SCOTT. Yes, because this is a proposed new construction start project in FSf 1997, the Administration's proposals for revised cost sharing would apply. The City of Santa Cruz would be required to provide a cash contribution sufficient to bring the non-Federal share of the costs to 50 percent.
SAN TIMOTEO CREEK
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of construction of the San Timoteo feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, project?
General SCOTT. Construction of Reach 1 of San Timoteo Creek is scheduled to be completed in July 1996. Construction of the remaining work, Reaches 2 and 3, is postponed indefinitely until the local sponsor establishes an assessment district to provide funding for the project.
UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. MYERS. Why is the initiation of construction of the Upper Sacramento River Levee Reconstruction, California, project being delayed until FY 2004?
General SCOTT. We have revised the schedule for construction of the Upper Sacramento River Levee Reconstruction project since the President's budget was submitted to you. Our revised schedule will allow for completion of the project by September 1998.
LITTLE HOLLAND TRACT
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of acquisition of the Little Holland Tract in California?
General SCOTT. The reconnaissance report for Little Holland Tract and Liberty Island, California, is being used as the decision document to address acquisition of Little Holland Tract. This report was transmitted to our Headquarters in March 1996 for review and forwarding to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works for final approval. Upon determination by the Secretary that, in accordance with Section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, acquisition is in the Federal interest, we would proceed with preparation of real estate acquisition plans and required environmental documentation.
S.F. BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy.
General SCOTT. The draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report will be released for public review in April 1996. The public review will include a substantial public outreach program. The preferred long-term plan will be presented in the final EIS/EIR, which is scheduled for release in October 1996. Publication of the 50-year Management Plan is scheduled for May 1997.
351
COMPTON CREEK
Mr. MYERS. Is the Corps of Engineers responsible for maintenance of the Compton Creek segment of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project?
General SCOTT. The Compton Creek channel feature of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project extends 44,700 feet upstream from its confluence with the Los Angeles River. The Corps is responsible for maintenance of 21,200 feet of the channel, approximately in the center section, with Los Angeles County maintaining approximately equal length segments upstream and downstream of the Corps portion.
Mr. MYERS. In your opinion, has that segment of the project been adequately maintained?
General SCOTT. We maintain a total of about 38 miles of channel on the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project. From July 1993 to September 1994, we spent a total of $464,000 to maintain these channels, of which $239,250 was spent along the four miles of Compton Creek that is our responsibility. We believe we have maintained the Compton Creek channel adequately to permit its functioning in a flood event, but local officials have expressed concern over the accumulation of trash and debris in the channel. We share their concern. We awarded an open-end contract on 18 March for routine maintenance, to remove vegetation and debris from all of the channels we maintain on this project, which we hope will alleviate this situation. We have also requested the support of local officials for increased police attention to the dumping problem along Compton Creek which would also help to alleviate the problem.
24-080 - 96 - 12
352
LOS ANGELES HARBOR
Mr. MYERS. Last year, the President's Budget included the Los Angeles Harbor project as a new construction start-one of only two budgeted new construction starts. What is the Corps' capability to initiate construction of Stage 2 in late FY 1997, so as to meet the non-Federal sponsor's schedule and commitment with its customers?
General SCOTT. The non-Federal sponsor is scheduled to complete construction of Stage 1 about May 1997. We would have the capability to begin construction in FY 1997 if adequate funds could be made available in FY 1997 and subsequent years. Subject to the usual constraints, we could use $27,850,000 in FY 1997 to maintain an optimum construction schedule for the project. This funding level would accelerate project completion by 36 months from September 2002 to September 1999.
i
Chairman Myers' Questions for
Brigadier General Henry S. Miller, Jr.. Conunander
Southwestern Division
ESPANOLA VALLEY, NEW MEXICO
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Espaftola Valley, New Mexico?
General MILLER. Sir, we are currently finalizing the Feasibility Report. It will recommend construction, under the Continuing Authorities Program, of an earthen levee along the west bank of the Rio Grande through the city, providing 500-year level of protection, at an estimated cost of $1.6 million. The majority of project lands are within the Santa Clara Indian Reservation. Additional coordination has been required between the local sponsor, the city of Espaftola, and the tribe to insure their support during the implementation of the project. Completion of the report and its release for public review have been delayed by difficulties experienced by the city in reaching agreement with the tribe. The city now anticipates a final determination of whether it can support the project in April 1996. The report is currently scheduled to be forwarded to higher authority for approval in June 1996.
ROCKY ARROYO/DARK CANYON, NEW MEXICO
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Rocky Arroyo/Dark Canyon, New Mexico?
General MILLER. Sir, we are in the process of responding to comments and finalizing the Reconnaissance Report. The plan identified in reconnaissance studies consists of an earthfill embankment and detention basin located on Hackberry Draw. The project, with an estimated cost of $7.2 million, would contain the 100-year flood. The Reconnaissance Report was submitted to higher authority in June 1995. Completion of reconnaissance studies have been delayed due to unresolved floodplain issues between the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the local sponsor, the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico; and the Corps of Engineers. Resolution of these issues, preparation of the final report, and development of the draft Project Study Plan, detailing the scope of feasibility studies, are currently scheduled to be completed in April 1996. The local sponsor currently does not have funds available to initiate feasibility studies in Fiscal Year 1997. We will negotiate a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement with the sponsor in Fiscal Year 1997 in order to initiate feasibility studies in December 1997.
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Addicks, and Barker Reservoirs, Texas?
General MILLER. Sir, an 18-month reconnaissance study was initiated in April 1994 and a report was completed in October 1995. Several alternatives to modify the existing reservoirs, including
354
refinements in operational procedures, were investigated and none were found to be economically justified. The Reconnaissance Report,^ recommending termination of studies, is under review by higher authority.
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY CORPUS CHRISTI BAY TO PORT ISABEL, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. What is the status of GIWW, Corpus Christi Bay to Port Isabel, Texas?
General MILLER. Sir, the Reconnaissance Report was completed in July 1994 and concluded: that environmental restoration measures were feasible and in the Federal interest; that rerouting of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Port Isabel was not economically justified; and that appropriate environmental documentation should accompany future study recommendations. Feasibility studies for the environmental restoration measures can not be initiated unless a cost-sharing sponsor is identified for the studies. Several aspects of the Port Isabel channel rerouting analysis have been challenged by local property owners and lobbying to reduce vehicular traffic delays caused by a swing bridge. To resolve this issue, additional reconnaissance level analyses at Port Isabel were initiated in March 1996. These analyses, scheduled for completion in July 1996, will include more refined vehicular and navigational traffic analysis and delay-cost computations, and will utilize recent privately-obtained bathymetric data. If additional justifications are not identified, a final Reconnaissance Report recommending termination of the study will be submitted. The environmental impacts of dredging related to this reach of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway are being addressed through the Operation and Maintenance program..
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. When do you expect to execute the feasibility cost sharing agreement for the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, study?
General MILLER. Sir, it is anticipated that negotiations on a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement will be initiated in the summer of 1996 with anticipated execution of the agreement in January 1997. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, the local sponsor for this project, has requested additional time to review the feasibility of an offshore monobuoy project. This review is being considered by the Port and private interests prior to entering into negotiations with the Corps of Engineers to execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement for modification of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel.
Mr. MYERS. Why has the estimated cost of the feasibility study increased from $5,400,000 to $9,470,000?
355
General MILLER. Sir, the original feasibility study cost estimate of $5.4 million was developed prior to completion of reconnaissance studies. Based on information developed during reconnaissance studies, it was determined that the environmentally sensitive Corpus Christi Bay system would require significant modeling studies to evaluate proposed alternatives and to define the recommended plan; therefore, increasing the cost.
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. What has caused the estimated cost of the Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas, feasibility study to increase from $8,000,000 to $14,850,000?
General MILLER. Sir, since the initiation of this study, it has always been envisioned that the feasibility study would be conducted following a two-phase process. Efforts during the first phase were directed toward developing detailed and comprehensive mapping, hydrologic/hydraulic modeling, economic analysis, and identification of a wide range of potential measures throughout the Trinity River Basin study area to address flood control, recreation, environmental restoration, and water quality. The second phase was to proceed with detailed studies on these alternatives with Federal interest. The overall scope of potential projects to be addressed in the second phase is significantly greater than originally anticipated, resulting in the large increase in the feasibility study cost.
CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. Have you been able to identify a local sponsor for the Cypress Valley Watershed, Texas, study?
General MILLER. No, sir. However, potential sponsors include the Cypress Valley Navigation District; the City of Jefferson, Texas; the County of Marion, Texas; and possibly others. Full sponsorship, if any, is to be determined after the public release of the Executive Summary and Reconnaissance Report.
Mr. MYERS. If so, when will the feasibility cost-sharing agreement be executed?
General MILLER. Sir, since a local sponsor has not yet been identified, the execution of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement can not be scheduled.
356
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. .You indicate that the GIWW, High Island to Brazos River, Texas, reconnaissance study concluded that modifications to the project were feasible and had an overall benefit to cost ratio of over 30 to 1. With such obvious justification, why is it necessary to spend an additional $7,000,000 on feasibility studies?
General MILLER. Sir, the current feasibility study estimate of $7.1 million includes $3.4 million to be funded under General Investigations and $3.7 million to be funded under the Operation and Maintenance program. The studies include advanced detailed engineering and analyses of design changes which could be implemented to resolve identified navigation problems to allow for a more effective, safe, and efficient waterway; and environmental investigations for the development of a long-term dredged material management plan which is critical to ensuring continued operation of the */aterway. Such studies are necessary to address the long term disposal problems and navigation problems along this 85-mile reach of extremely high volume traffic and environmentally sensitive areas. Detailed feasibility-level studies would require four years to accomplish engineering, economic, and environmental analyses. This would include additional public involvement activities; data collection and analysis; plan formulation and evaluation; cost estimating; detailed engineering studies; environmental studies, coordination, and documentation; historic property investigations; beneficial uses of dredged material studies; development of a long-term dredged material management plan; and report preparation, processing, and review. The reconnaissance study established a Federal interest, but did not necessarily identify the most cost effective alternatives for design changes. In regard to identified navigation problems, the feasibility study will look at a range of alternatives for each problem area to assure that improvements are optimized for the least costly repair.
Mr. MYERS. Why has the cost of the feasibility study more than doubled since last year?
General MILLER. Sir, the original feasibility study cost estimate of $3.1 million, of which $1.7 million was to be funded under General Investigations and $1.4 million from Operation and Maintenance, was developed prior to completion of the reconnaissance studies.
357
GRAHAM, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. What is the cost of the "current plan" for the Graham, Texas project?
General MILLER. Sir, the cost estimate for the current plan is being prepared at this time and will be described in the draft Feasibility Report scheduled to be forwarded to higher authority for policy review in April 1996.
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM
Mr. MYERS. What is purpose of the land acquisition to be undertaken on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System project in FY 1997?
General MILLER. Sir, the purpose of the land acquisition program on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System is to acquire sufficient title to the lands required for operation of the project. Some existing land easements which allow us to occasionally flood the tracts of land, are being converted to allow us to permanently flood those tracts. Also, new easements are being acquired to allow us to occasionally flood additional lands adjacent to the navigation pools.
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM
Mr. Myers. Why are you proposing that the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project be funded using the Inland Waterways Trust Fund?
General MILLER. Sir, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires that all new inland navigation projects be cost shared with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Therefore, cost sharing the construction of this project with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund is appropriate.
MINGO CREEK, OKLAHOMA
Mr. MYERS. Why was $2,900,000 reprogrammed from the Mingo Creek, Oklahoma, project in FY 1996?
General MILLER. Sir, funds were excess to the Mingo Creek, Tulsa, Oklahoma, project as they could not be expended in either Fiscal Year 1996 or Fiscal Year 1997 because of delays in contract awards.
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL
Mr. MYERS. What is the basis of the opposition of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation to the Red River Basin
358
Chloride Control project?
General MILLER. Sir, the basis of opposition of the natural resource agencies rests mainly on the potential impact of decreased chloride concentrations in the Red River Basin on primary production and sport fish abundance in Lake Texoma; the potential impact of decreased chloride concentrations on the upper Red River ecosystem; changes in land use at the Area VI disposal site; and the potential impacts of selenium concentration in the brine storage lakes.
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. Please provide the committee with a status report on the WallisVille Lake project.
General MILLER. Sir, on 22 December .1995, the Galveston District awarded a $25 million contract for rehabilitation of the lock structure and construction of the navigation channel, gated control structure, administration building, bridge, and earthen dam. This contract, with future funding, will take about three years to complete. Other, but much smaller, construction contracts will be required for the construction of two small water control structures and. a recreational facility to complete the project.
Mr. MYERS. At the end of FY 1996, what percent complete will the project be?
General MILLER. Sir, the project will be approximately 70 percent complete at the end of Fiscal Year 1996.
CANYON LAKE, TEXAS
Mr. MYERS. Why is there a need for increased funding for management of recreation areas at Canyon Lake in Texas?
General MILLER. Sir, the increased funding for management of recreation areas at Canyon Lake reflects our commitment to restore an appropriate, basic level of funding commensurate with our other operating lakes. In 1994, we recognized that the resources available to operate and maintain Canyon Lake were not on par with other comparable lakes. The recreation areas, in particular, wejre beginning to show undue wear and tear from the nearly 1.5 million visitors to this lake in a given year. We have attempted to alleviate some of the basic problems facing the lake by using available funds to perform one-time needed repairs at Comal Park which have been completed. These repairs are the primary reason for the increase in maintenance funding in Fiscal Year 1996 over the normal budget request for Canyon Lake.
QUESTIONS FOR THB ASSISTANT SBCRBTART FOR CIVIL WORKS
1997 BUDGET REQUEST
SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
NEW STUDY AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT START
Mr. ROGERS: Please provide a brief description and justification of each project proposed for initial study or for construction in the 1997 budget rec[uest. Include the total estimated cost of each project and the 1997 appropriation request.
Mr. LANCASTER: Certainly, Mr. Rogers. Two tables will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 1997
RECOMMENDED NEW START SURVEYS
($000)
rY 1997 STUDY NAME AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TOTAL COST
FLINT RIVER BASIN, GA $ 260 $ 400
Recent flooding in the Flint River basin during July 1994 caused 31 deaths in Georgia, destruction of several hundred thousand acres of crops, and overall damages of $500,000,000. Approximately 30,000 residents (one-third of the population) were evacuated from Albany, Georgia. Other damage centers include Newton, Bainbridge, Montezuma, and Americus, Georgia. The reconnaissance study will review the three proposed multipurpose projects located on the Flint River which were deauthorized by WRDA of 1986 and conduct engineering, economic, and environmental investigations to identify potential alternatives that would alleviate flood damages.
NORTH LAS VEGAS, CHANNEL "A", NV $ 100 $ 400
The "A" Channel has a limited capacity and is subject to extreme flow velocities during storm runoff. Development associated with the rapid urbanization in the area has encroached upon the limited capacity channel. Protection is needed to prevent damages to two public elementary schools, numerous residential neighborhoods and businesses, and to provide access for emergency vehicles. In addition several major road crossings are undersized and lack the capacity to pass flood flows safely. The reconnaissance study will evaluate the damage potential of flooding and overflows within the study area.
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX $300 $400
Recent rapid development in the northwest section of El Paso has increased the potential for flooding and related problems. Summer thunderstorms on the west side of the Franklin Mountains cause high flows in several unnamed arroyos that enter the Rio Grande valley. There is no existing outlet in the valley to convey the flood flows to the Rio Grande. In September of 1987, flows resulting from thunderstorms on the 12.4 square mile drainage area flooded several areas in the northwest section of El Paso and caused over $400,000 damage. Based upon a peak flood of 7000 cfs measured at the El Paso gage on the Rio Grand, the flood was estimated to be about a ten year frequency event. Potential solutions to the flooding problem include detention dams, diversion structures, and non-structural alternatives.
361
FISCAL YEAR 1997
REC<»1MENDED NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS
($000)
FY 1997 PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TOTAL COST
ARECIBO RIVER, PR $ 350 $ 23,400
Local protection project consists of channel improvement^ levees and floodwalls. Severe floods occurred in May and October 1985.
RIO GRANDE DO LOIZA, PR $ 2,540 $178,100
Local protection project consists of channels, floodwalls and levees in three communities. Five major floods have occurred in the last 35 years.
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE,
POND CREEK, KY $ 3,089 $ 16,810
Local protection project consists of detention storage and channel enlargement. Due to rapid residential and commercial development, basin has only 2-year protection.
METRO REGION OF CINCINNATI,
DUCK CREEK, OH $ 466 $ 17,375
Local protection project consists of levee and channel construction, floodwalls and pumpstations. The most recent flood event was in i^ril 1994.
SAWMILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA $ 500 $ 14,100
Local protection project consists of channel deepening and realignment, and upstream gauges. Low level flooding has occurred regularly in the drainage area.
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL $ 1,300 $ 12,400
Shore protection project consists of reconstruction of breakwater protecting water purification plant.
BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD $ 2,200 $ 34,300
Local protection project consists of levee raisings, channel modifications and bridge improvements. There have been eight floods in the past 45 years.
. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE $$ 1,000 $ 11,800 Local protection project consists of construction of diversion channel and bridges. Floods occur once every two years, on average, with most recent in the summer of 1993.
FISCAL YEAR 1997
RECOMMENDED NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS
(Cont'd)
($000)
FY 1997 PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TOTAL COST
KAKE HARBOR, AK $ 4,000 $ 11,248
Naviagation project consists of construction of rubblemound brealcwater and relocation of existing floating breakwater. Violent southeast and northwest storms damage vessels anchored in the existing harbor.
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA $ 200 $ 17,800
Local protection project consists of levee raising, bridge modifications, and floodwalls. Existing local protection project is no longer adequate and must be upgraded.
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR $ ' 150 $$ 11,400
Local protection project consists of construction of channel improvements. Flooding has occurred to some extent on an annual basis in the recent past.
lAO STREAM, MAUI, HI $ 345 $16,150
Local protection project consists of replacement of deficient levees with a concrete channel. A storm which "occurred in March, 1990, substantially damaged the project.
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA $ 300 $ 5,740
Local protection project consists of reconstruction of 4 miles of deficient levees. Severe flood events, the last of which occurred in January and March, 1995, have revealed structural problems caused by ongoing seepage and levee subsidence.
Mr. ROGERS: Please list those new starts which require an authorization .
Mr. LANCASTER: Certainly, A table containing this information will be provided for the new construction starts, seven of which are not authorized for construction and one of which requires reauthorization. All three study new starts are authorized.
(The information follows:]
364
FISCAL YEAR 1997 UNAUTHORIZED NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS
PROJECT NAME;
WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLE, NE
BIG SIOUX RIVER AT SIOUX FALLS, SD
METRO. CINNCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH
METRO, LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY
ARECIBO RIVER, PR
SAN LORENZO, CA
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL
SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA (REAUTHORIZATION)
365
OTHER NEW ITEMS
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide a summary of all other new programs and activities for which first-time flinding is being provided.
Mr. LANCASTER. The information follows:
nSCAL YEAR 1997 NEW STARTS AND OTHER NEW WORK
(Amounts in Dollars)
Total Program FY 1997
New tnitiativgs Requirement Pmlget
Qeneral Investigations
Flood Damage Data Program $1,250,000 $250,000
Construction. General
None 0 0
Operation and Maintenance. General
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) 48000000 1,000 000
TOTAL $49,250,000 $1,250,000
BUDGET REQUEST GENERAL
Mr. ROGERS. Is the Administration requesting any 1997 funding for projects which were congressional additions to the 1996 budget request? If so, please list with the 1996 appropriation and 1997 request amount.
Mr. LANCASTER. The list of studies and projects, the amount that was appropriated in FY 1996 and the budget request for 1997, is as follows:
367
FY 1997 FOND IMG FOR FY 1996 ADDS
Study /Project
Geperal Irtv??t;j,g^1;Xons
Dog River, AL
Aniak, AK
Nome Harbor, AK
St. Paul Harbor, AK
Wrangell Harbor, AK
Gila River 4 Tributaties, N. Scottsdale
Drainage Area, AZ Gila River & Tributaries, Santa Cruz
River Basin, AZ Gila River & Tributaries, Tortolita
Drainage Area, AZ Rio De Flag, AZ Imperial County Watershed, CA Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, CA Northern California Streams, Middle Creek, CA Peninsula Beach, CA Prado Basin Water Supply, CA Russian River Environmental Restoration, CA Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, Western
Delta Islands, CA San Antonio Creek, CA
San Joaquin River Basin, Kaweah River, CA San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton
Metropolitan Area, CA San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River, CA San Juan and Aliso Creeks, CA Upper Penitencia Creek, CA
Ventura and Santa Barbara County Shoreline, CA Atlantic Intracoastal WW, Palm Beach County, FL Lido Sarasota Beach, FL Indianapolis, White River (North), IN Coralville Lake, lA Grand (Neosho) River, KS Green River Lock and Dam No. 6, KY Kentucky Lock and Dam Addition, KY Metropolitan Lexington, Fayette County, KY LaFayette Parish, LA
Mississippi River Ship Channel Improvements, LA West Shore - Lake Pontchartrain, LA Jackson Metropolitan Area, MS Fabius River Drainage District, MO Lower Truckee River, NV South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ Arthur Kill Channel - Howland Hook Marine
Terminal, NY& NJ Devils Lake, ND Alpine, TX
Colonias Along U.S. - Mexico Border, TX Provo and Vicinity, UT Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Poquoson, VA
FY 1996
Appropriated
Amount
200 50 280 150 175
300 200 150 200 300 200 100 100
200 250 240
400 200 150 300 200 150 100 255 100 500 50
2,000 400 234 300 500
1,299 125 400 300
800 600 300 300 450 100
FY 1997 Budget
100 113 160 165 200
200 500 389 377 410 252 350 386
400 128 600
540 200 365 450 252 239 26 475 235 129 380
3,000 149 200 278 129
2,7S0 318 250 400
1,200 1,100 178 320 320 301
24-080 - 96 - 13
FY 1997 FUNDING FOR FY 1996 ADDS
Study/Project
Construction. General
FY 1996 Appropriated
FY 1997 Budget
Los Angeles Harbor, CA
Lower Sacramento Area Reconstruction, CA Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, CA Sacramento River Flood Control Project (GCIDCA Santa Paula Creek, CA Central and Southern Florida, FL Pinellas County, FL Arkansas City, KS Winfield, KS
McApine Lock And Dam, Ky, IN Southeast Louisianna, LA -Roughans Pt, Revere, MA Marshall, MN Ste. Genevieve, MO Acequias Irrigation System, NM Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH
Columbia River In-Lieu Indian Fishing Sites, OR & WA Coos Bay, OR Portage, WI
1/ BUDGETED WORK WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE PRIOR YEARS FUNDS.
|
250 |
850 |
|
500 |
50 |
|
500 |
100 |
|
300 |
2000 |
|
2,300 |
4200 |
|
4,026 |
17237 |
|
3,000 |
5865 |
|
700 |
50 |
|
670 |
50 |
|
3,487 |
7501 |
|
2,000 |
10,000 |
|
710 |
2663 |
|
850 |
500 |
|
1,000 |
1/ |
|
1,500 |
300 |
|
190 |
592 |
|
1,720 |
4300 |
|
WAF |
4900 |
|
250 |
1700 |
Operation and Maintenance. General
Newport Bay Harbor, CA
Scarborough River, ME
York Harbor, ME
Jennings Randolph Lake, MD & WV
New York Harbor, NY
Astoria Harbor, North Breakwater, OR
(Part of Columbia and Lower Willamette, OR)
|
1,265 |
40 |
|
960 |
1,167 |
|
714, |
714 |
|
1,764 |
140 |
|
6,020 |
4,500 |
|
275 |
103 |
Mr. ROGERS. Please list those projects for which congressional additions to the 1996 request were made, or which were funded with carryover amounts from previous appropriations, but for which no further funding is sought by the Administration in 1997.
Mr. LANCASTER. The following is a list of studies and projects that either were congressional additions to the 1996 request or were budgeted with programmed carryover, but for which no funding is requested in 1997. This list does not include a number of projects for which no additional funding is required in 1997.
FISCAL YEAR 1996 COKGRESSZOHAL ADDITIONS AND PROGRAMMED CARRYOVERS FOR WHICH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS REQUESTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET WITH UNFUNDED FISCAL YEAR 1997 REQUIREMENTS
Qenaral Invaatlyatlona
Pacific Northwest Forest Study
Great Lakes Remedial Action Program (Sec. 401)
Arkansas River Levee, AR
Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, AR
City of Arcadia Water Infrastructure Restoration, CA
Norco Bluffs, Santa Ana River, CA
San Clemente Creek, CA
San Joaquin River Basin, Pirebaugh and Hendota, CA
Indiana State University, IN
Ohio River Greenway, IN
Walsash River (Scenic Corridor) , IN
Djpper Kentucky River Basin, KY
Bayou Bartholomew, lA
Calcasieu Ship Channel at Hackberry, LA
Lake Charles Ship Channel By Pass and General Anchorage Area, LA
Lake Dauterive and Lake Fausse Point, LA
Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet Bank Erosion, LA
Port Fourchon, LA
Muddy River, MA
Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors, MI (Replacement Lock)
Bamaegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, NJ
South Shore of Staten Island, NY
Ohio River Basin Study, OH, IL, IN, KY, PA, & WV
Lackawanna River Basin, PA
Hussars Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, PA
Black Fox, Murfree and Oakland Springs Wetlands, TN
Tygart River Basin (Barbour County) , WV
West Virginia Port Development, WV
370
FISCAL YEAR 1996 CONGRESSIONAL ADDITIONS AND PROGRAMMED CARRYOVERS FOR WHICH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS REQUESTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET WITH UNFUNDED FISCAL YEAR 1997 REQUIREMENTS
Conatructlon. General
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR
Sacramento River Flood Control Project, CA (Deficiency Correction)
St. Johns County (St. Augustine Beach), FL
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, IN
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN
Ohio River Flood Protection, IN
Salyersville, KY
Lake Pontchartrain And Vicinity, LA (Parallel Protection)
Lake Pontchartrain Storm Water Discharge, LA
Ouachita River Levees, LA
Red River Below Denison Dam, LA, AR, TX
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ
Broad Top Region, PA
Glen Foerd, PA
South Central Pennsylvania, PA
Wallisville Lake, TX
Virginia Beach, VA
Levisa and Tug Forks and Dpper Cumberland Rive;ir, WV, VA & KY-Harlan, KY
Levisa and Tug Forks and Dpper Cumberlcuid River, WV, VA & KY-Hatfield Bottom, WV
Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland River, WV, VA & KY-Middlesboro, KY
Levisa and Tug Forks and Dpper Cumberland River, WV, VA & KY-Dpper Mingo County, WV
Levisa and Tug Forks and Djpper Ciomberland River, WV, VA & KY- Williamsburg, KY
Oparatlon and Maintenance. General
Valdez Harbor, AK
Red River Waterway - Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA
Missouri National Recreational River, NE, SD
Raystown LaUce, PA
Charleston Harbor, SC
371
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide a complete list of projects by appropriation account which were requested by the Corps to 0MB, but are not contained in the Administration's 1997 budget request. For each, provide the amount requested by the Corps.
Mr. LANCASTER. I will provide the information you requested for the record.
(The information follows:)
372
^Si ;HI§li|S§§8i§ g
C 3 *-' to" CO <o CO CO It" •*" cm" cm* in lo nT
Op -- - k
HI H
Xl2 3$
!3!3!3!3!3
373
SECTION 1135, PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide a brief list and description of project modifications undertaken under the Section 1135 authority.
Mr. LANCASTER. A list of project modifications constructed and under construction using the Section 1135 authority will be provided for the record.
(The information follows:)
374
Description of Section 1135 Projects Constructed and Under Construction, 27 March 1996
CONSTRUCTED
1. SAVANNAH HARBOR, CHATHAM CO., GA & JASPER CO., SC - Deactivated the tidal gate and filled the "New Cut" allowing salinity levels in Savannah National Wildlife Refuge to revert to historic levels and preventing striped bass eggs and letrva from moving from Back River to Front River.
2. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA - Almost two million cubic yards of dredged material were placed into Sabine National Wildlife Refuge to create 150 acres of marsh.
3. FERN RIDGE LAKE, LONG TOM RIVER, OR - Three impoundments totaling 150 acres were constructed to allow management for moist soil plant communities, resulting in improved conditions for wintering waterfowl.
4. HOMME LAKE, ND - A variety of measures resulting in creation of nesting islands, open water areas and improved water level control in the upper reaches of the reservoir.
5. BOYER CHUTE, NE - Restoration of wetland and aquatic habitat resulted when a cutoff previously closed by the navigation project was reopened at the upstream end.
6. SAMMAMISH RIVER RESTORATION, WA - Minor modifications to the flood control channel, reestablishment of fish access to two tributaries and vegetative plantings to improve DOD and temperature for anadromous fish.
7. GREEN ISLAND HEADWALL MODIFICATION, lA - Modification of the headwall str^icture where three culverts pass through the Corps levee allowing for better control of water levels to a 3,722 acre wildlife area.
8. ORWELL LAKE, MN - Two subimpoundments on existing embayments were created allowing for controlled water levels on 66 acres resulting in improved wetland habitat primarily for waterfowl.
9. WATERFOWL PONDS, LAKE WINNIBIGOSHISH, MN - Installed a 30 foot extension on the inlet of a water supply pipe passing through the dam which provides water to a downstream area where wetland habitat is being restored by the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa.
10. TRESTLE BAY RESTORATION, OR - A 500 foot section of the Columbia River South Jetty was lowered allowing for unimpeded exchange between 603 acres of intertidal habitat and the rest of the estuary.
11. SALT BAYOU, MCFADDIN RANCH WETLANDS, TX - A new water control structure was constructed, in material dredged from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) which separates the GIWW from Salt Bayou, contributing to better management of the salinity levels in a 60,000 acre area, resulting in improved conditions for wintering waterfowl.
12. NARROWS DAM - LAKE GREESON, AR - Modifications resulting in release of weumer water with higher dissolved oxygen levels from this hydropower
375
facility were constructed resulting in improved downstream aquatic habitat.
CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY
13. NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER, CHESTER, CA - Modify a previously constructed fish ladder at the Corps dam and the associated debris barrier to improve passage of migratory fish.
14. LAGUNA MADRE SEAGRASS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, TX - Transplant seagrass critical to numerous species to improve habitat quality in disposal areas restoring a fraction of the habitat lost in this area.
15. ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD - Alteration of two existing drop structures and selectively placing boulder fields and wing dams to restore habitat and hydraulic variation to the low flow channel facilitating spawning runs of migratory fish.
16. CARLYLE LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, IL - Modifications designed to provide improved water control on 2,565 acres which will result in improved habitat for waterfowl and other species.
17. MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAST TREE PLANTING PROJECT, lA and IL - Restore an oak-hickory-peczin component to about 558 acres of bottom land forest in Pools 13, 18, and 21.
18. LAKE O'the PINES WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION, TX - Various measures to improve the forestry, maximize nesting habitat for waterfowl and establish food plots within a 4000 acre area.
376
Mr. ROGERS. How much funding has been appropriated to Section 1135 projects? Please provide a total and an amount by project?
Mr. LANCASTER. In fiscal year 1996, the Section 1135 program received an appropriation of $10,850,000 prior to a proportionate reduction for anticipated savings and slippage, resulting in an allocation of $9,950,000. A list of the amount provided to the various projects will be provided for the record.
(The information follows:)
377
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SECTION 1135 PROJECTS IN FY 1996 (Funds Shovm In $1,000)
1996
CONSTRUCTTOW /MQWTTORTWG
NARROWS DAM - LAKE GREESON, AR 59 MISSOURI RIV. BANK STAB&NAV PROJ, NE (BOYER CHUTE) 10
HIDDEN LAKE RESTORATION, NE 1593
MISSISSIPPI R MAST TREE PLANTING PROJECT, IA,IL 148
TRESTLE BAY RESTORATION, OR 5
NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER, CHESTER, CA 462
LAKE O'THE PINES, TX 22
LAGUNA MADRE SEAGRASS RESTORATION PROJECT, TX 94
GALILEE SALT MASH RESTORATION, RI 500
MUNYON ISLAND, FL 300
UNSPECIFIED NEW STARTS 400
* Subtotal *
3593
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIQHS HIDDEN LAKE RESTORATION, NE ROOSTER ISLAND, MD
MURPHY ISLAND, SANTEE WILDLIFE REFUGE, SC
MUNYON ISLAND, FL
YOLO BASIN WETLANDS, DAVIS SITE, CA
MORGAN PT, ARKANSAS R. , AR
UNSPECIFIED NEW STARTS
45
80
469
288
400
* Subtotal *
1435
COMBINED PLANNING AND DESIGN
SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, MI
CATHERINE CREEK RESTORATION, UNION, OR
SOLDIER CREEK RESTORATION, ID
LITTLE PITCHER LAKE, IN
TYGART RIVER LAKE WETLAND RESTORATION, WV
CAPE FEAR L&D NO. 1, FISH LADDER, NC
BARKER RESERVOIR HABITAT REST. , TX
COOS BAY, WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER HABITAT MGT,
UNSPECIFIED NEW STARTS
* Subtotal *
FEASTBILITY
LAKE WHITTINGTON WEIR, MS AND AR
TUNICA CUTOFF, MS
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, PLAQUEMINE LOCK,
LWR CACHE R. , WATER CONTR. STRUC, IL
MILFORD LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION, KS
RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION, lA
CALIFORNIA BEND, NE
DEROIN BEND, MO
LITTLE FALLS FISH PASSAGE #2, MD
BUCK RUN MODIFICATION, MO
40 75 84
149
150 30
145 70
100 32
378
ACTUAL AND PENDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SECTION 1135 PROJECTS IN FY 1996 (con't) (Funds Shown In $1,000)
FEASIBILITY (con't)
RIP RAP LANDING MOIST SOIL UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IL 78
FERN RIDGE LAKE MARSH RESTORATION, OR 45
AMAZON CREEK WETLANDS, OR 168
HOWARD HANSON DAM 1135 FISH & WILDLIFE, WA 80
THORNTON CREEK, SEATTLE, WA 50
WYNOOCHEE RIVER, WA 70
WALLA WALLA RIVER, OR 52
PORTNEUF RIVER, POCATELLO, ID UNIT RESTORATION 20
KAWAINUI MARSH RESTORATION, OAHU, HI 180
KAUNAKAKAI STREAM IMPROVEMENT, HI 50
WETLAND RESTORATION, OKLAWAHA RIVER, FL 20
LA ESPERANZA PENINSULA REST., SAN JUAN HB,PR 90
TWENTYMILE CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION, MS 20
COOSA AND OSTANAULA RIVERS RESTORATION, GA 55
LATHAM RIVER/JEKYLL ISLAND, GA 702
PINE FLAT BYPASS, CA 250
PUTAH CREEK, S FK PRESERVE, CA 190
REDMOND CHANNEL RESTORATION, UT 80
SAN LORENZO RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, CA 250
MURPHY SLOUGH PLUG RESTORATION, CA** 390
BIG CYPRESS BAYOU BELOW LAKE O'THE PINES, TX 23
NIMROD LAKE WATERFOWL AREA, AR 18
TENKILLER LAKE, OK, TAILWATER RESTORATION 275
UNSPECIFIED 200
* Subsubtotal * 4231
♦ ♦formerly called - UPR SAC R, HABITAT RESTORATION, GOLDEN ST. IS, CA
OTHER FUNDS
PRELIMINARY RESTORATION PLAN ACCOUNT 238
COORDINATION ACCOUNT 166
379
Mr. ROGERS. Has this progrzuB been successful In your view?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, this has been a successful program. Interest In the program continues to build as demonstrated by the growing number of projects vmder construction and Investigation. The average size, in terms of cost, of the projects has also Increased. This reflects an interest in larger emd more complex projects as we have demonstrated our ability to perform and commitment to the progrzun. The completed projects have generated a generally favorable response and we have some repeat sponsors, which may also be taken as a sign of a successful progreun. He have been able to accomplish some Important restoration projects with relatively low costs within a relatively short time frame.
Mr. RCX;ers. You have requested an Increase in 1997 for the Section 1135 program. To what projects and in what zunounts will funds be provided if the full $15 million is provided?
Mr. LANCASTER. The section 1135 budget request is programmatic, rather th£m project specific. Therefore, the precise allocation of the funds has not yet been determined, however, all projects and studies now underway with continuing requirements in fiscal yeeur 1997 will be funded to the extent possible within the funds available. Additional new studies will be initiated as funding allows and requests are received and approved.
380
IMPACT OF COST SHARING PROPOSALS
Mr. ROGERS: The Corps is proposing to require non-federal sponsors to provide 50% of the cost to construct local protection projects. This policy is supposed to apply to all projects not under construction. How will the Corps' proposed authorization language define "construction" for purposes of the cost sharing language?
Mr. LAl'ICASTER: In our budget proposal, we have reconunended certain projects, specifically the recommended new construction starts, as candidates to be subject to these new cost sharing percentages. I have personally written to representatives of the local cooperating agencies for these 10 flood control projects, and offered them an explanation of the new proposal. In actual practice, I assume the necessary legislation will contain an effective date for implementation. I understand that this is how it was done both in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985.
OHIO RIVER DIVISION QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF BIG SANDY RIVER AND
UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY
(SECTION 202)
Mr. ROGERS. How much has been requested for Section 202 projects in the FY 97 request? Please describe by project element.
Colonel JANSEN. The Fiscal Year 1997 budget request for Section 202 is $ 6,521,000. I will provide for the record a breakdown of this request by project element.
(The information follows:)
SECTION 202 FISCAL YRAR 1997 BUDGET REOUR.qT
Grundy. Virginia - $1,400,000 is included to initiate engineering and design for relocation of the elementary and junior high schools and relocation of utilities and the fire station in the central business district, and to initiate the voluntary f loodproof ing and floodplain evacuation program.
Matewan. Hear Virginia - $2,587,000 is included to complete
floodwall and piomp station construction and to complete relocations/landscaping for the Mate Creek Housing and Community Development site.
Detailed Project Reports - $2,772,000 is included to continue or complete Detailed Project Reports for the City of Cumberland, Kentucky; Harlan County, Kentucky; Martin County, Kentucky; McDowell County, West Virginia; and Wayne County, West Virginia. The Fiscal Year 1997 budget also includes $162,000 to complete the General Plan of Study for the Levisa Fork Basin in Kentucky and Virginia.
Mr. ROGERS. What is the FY 97 capability for the Harlan, Williamsburg, Middlesborough, and Pike County elements? If capability for any of these is zero, please provide the eimount which could be used by the Corps in FY 97 to undertake continued planning, design or construction.
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide the approved Fiscal Year 1997 capabilities for the Harlan, Williamsburg, Middlesborough, and Pike County project elements for the record. Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and manpower army- wide. In this context, the capability amounts shown consider each project or study by itself without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is emphasized that the total eimount proposed for the Army's Civil Works prograun in the President's budget is the
382
appropriate amount consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal investments and the objectives of avoiding large budget deficits and the serious adverse effect that Government borrowing is having on the national economy. In addition, the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works program in the President's budget is the maximum that can be effectively and efficiently used. Therefore, while we could utilize additional funds on individual projects and studies, offsetting reductions would be required in order to maintain overall budgetary objectives. In addition, the Administration's review of the Section 202 project has identified economic and/or policy concerns.
(The information follows:)
FISCAL YEAR 1997 CAPABILITIES FOR SELECTED SECTION 202 ELEMENTS
Harlan. Kentucky - The Fiscal Year 1997 capability is $20,500,000. Funds would be used to continue construction of the Phase III Loyall Diversion, the Rio Vista levee and f loodwall/closure structures, and continue nonstructural f loodproof ing and land acquisition.
Williamsburg. Kentucky - The Fiscal Year 1997 capability is $4,700,000. Funds would be used to continue construction of Phase I of the levee/floodwall, award Phase II of the levee/f loodwall and complete nonstructural f loodproof ing and acquisition.
Middlesborough, Kentucky - The Fiscal Year 1997 capability is $4,000,000. Funds would be used to award a construction contract for the lower channel, complete plans and specifications and initiate real estate acquisition for the upper channel, and continue nonstructural f loodproof ing and acquisition.
Pike County. Kentucky - The Fiscal Year 1997 capability is $3,000,000. Funds would be used to complete nonstructural measures in the Freeman area and initiate nonstructural measures in the Burnwell area.
Mr. ROGERS. Describe the progress to date and planned FY 96 activities relating to the Martin County flood control report, including the schedule for PCA completion, and initiation of construction. Also provide the FY 97 capability for this 202 element and describe how funds would be utilized if provided.
Colonel JANSEN. The Detailed Project Report for Martin County will be completed in July 1996. The project is not budgeted for construction in Fiscal Year 1997 and PCA execution and construction are unscheduled. The Fiscal Year 1997 capability is $500,000. If funds were appropriated, they would be used to execute the PCA by April 1997 and to initiate construction of non- structural measures by July 1997.
Mr. ROGERS. Have FY 97 requirements for any Kentucky 202 elements changed since submission to 0MB? If so, please indicate.
Colonel JANSEN. Since submission of the Fiscal Year 1997 budget request to 0MB, we have reevaluated our capabilities for all elements of the Section 202 project based upon a realistic assessment of each element's schedule. I will provide for the record the changes since submission to 0MB.
(The information follows:)
CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 1997 CAPABILITIES COMPARED TO AMOUNTS REQUESTED IN 0MB SUBMISSION FOR KENTUCKY SECTTON 7.07 RT.RMKMTfi
Project Element
Clover Fork
Harlan
Martin County
Williamsburg
Middlesborough
Pike County
Town of Martin DPR
Harlan County DPR
City of Cumberland DPR
Martin County DPR
Pike County Tributaries
DPR Supplement Levisa Fork Basin 0 162 162 162
General Plan of Study
Mr. ROGERS. What is the status of the Harlan, Barbourville, Williamsburg, Middlesborough, and Pike County, Kentucky elements?
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record the status of those project elements.
{The information follows:)
STATUS OF KENTUCKY SECTION 202 ELEMENTS THAT ARR TINDRR CONSTRUCTION
Harlan. County - Phase I tunnels to divert Clover Fork around the City of Harlan were completed in December 1992. The Phase II flood wall to protect Harlan from flooding along Martins Fork was completed in January 1996. Coordination is currently underway with the sponsor to transfer the two phases for its operation and maintenance by September 1996. Phase III includes a diversion and levee and flood wall system to protect Loyall and Rio Vista from flooding along the Cumberland River downstream of Harlan. Construction of the diversion began in September 1994. The levee and flood wall contract will be awarded in April 1996.
|
OMB |
FY 97 |
FY 97 |
Change |
|
Request |
Capahi^i^y |
Ofi^ |
|
|
0 |
0 |
500 |
500 |
|
16,500 |
0 |
20,500 |
4,000 |
|
0 |
0 |
500 |
500 |
|
4,700 |
0 |
4,700 |
0 |
|
6,400 |
0 |
4,000 |
-2,400 |
|
0 |
0 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
|
0 |
0 |
660 |
660 |
|
1,112 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
-122 |
|
478 |
600 |
600 |
122 |
|
100 |
142 |
142 |
42 |
|
105 |
0 |
105 |
0 |
The nonstructural program consist of 226 structures divided into four project phases. To date, 76 structures have been floodproofed or acquired with an additional 15 structures scheduled through September 1996. Detailed evaluation of the remaining 125 structures along the Cumberland River will be completed in September 1996.
Barbourville. Kentucky - Construction of the structural components of the project is complete. The utility relocation contracts are nearing completion. Operation and maintenance manuals are complete and have been provided to the sponsor, the City of Barbourville. Operation and maintenance responsibility, together with real estate titles, will be transferred to the sponsor by June 1996.
Forty- seven owners have elected to participate in the nonstructural program. To date, 40 structures are complete. In Fiscal Year 1996, two structures will be raised, one will be floodproofed, and four will be demolished and replaced.
Williamsburg. Kentucky - The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in March 1995. The project consists of a 5,800 foot levee and floodwall, including an additional 2,000 feet added in accordance with the direction of the Committee of Conference on the .Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act. A constiruction contract for interior drainage features, relocations, and the levee and flood wall west of the Cumberland Street Bridge will be awarded in June 1996.
Nonstructural work was initiated in July 1995 with receipt of the local sponsor's funds. Currently 13 home owners have elected to participate. Twelve of the 13 structures are scheduled for completion by the end of Fiscal Year 1996 with the remaining structure completed during Fiscal Year 1997.
Middlesborough, Kentucky - The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in January 1996. The project will consist of widening and deepening of 5.2 miles of channel along the Yellow and Little Yellow Creeks in two phases. Fiscal Year 1996 funds are being used to initiate real estate acquisition and complete plans and specifications for the first phase, 3.6 miles of the lower channel.
Nonstructural work consists of f loodproof ing and acquisition of 15 structures. Two structures are scheduled for completion by the end of Fiscal Year 1996. Work will continue into Fiscal Year 1997.
ElKs County. Kentuc}ty
The Project Cooperation Agreement was The project is entirely nonstructural.
executed in October 1994
Phase I includes 119 eligible structures in the Buskirk and McCarr areas. The owners of 84 structures have elected to participate. Phase I will be completed in April 1996. Phase II, including the Freeburn, Kentucky area, was initiated in June 1995. Of the 159 eligible structures, 117 structures currently are being floodproofed or acquired. Phase III, including the Burnwell, Kentucky area, has 49 eligible structures. Phase IV, including the Big Creek area, has 163 eligible structures. Work will begin on Phases III and IV in April 1996.
Mr. ROGERS. What do you expect to obligate in FY 96 on each investigation and project report for Section 202, Kentucky, and what are your estimated requirements in FY 97 for each?
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide the amount which we expect to obligate in Fiscal Year 1996 and the estimated Fiscal Year 1997 capabilities on Detailed Project Reports in Kentucky for the record.
(The information follows:)
FISCAL YEAR 1996 OBLIGATIONS AND FISCAL YEAR 1997 CAPABILITIES
FOR KENTUCKY SECTION 2 02 DETAILED PROJECT REPORTS
Detailed project report (DPR)
City of Cumberland Clover Fork, Kentucky Harlan County, Kentucky Levisa Fork Basin, Virginia
And Kentucky Martin County, Kentucky Pike County, Kentucky
Tributaries Supplement Town of Martin, Kentucky 0 660,000
1/ Capability corresponds to amount requested in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1997.
Estimated Fiscal Year 1996 Obligations
$ 608,000
43,000
484,000
792,000
332,000 0
Estimated Fiscal Year 1997
Q^Pf^biliripfi
$ 600,000 1/ 0 1/
1,000,000 1/ 162,000 1/
142,000 i/ 105,000
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide the percent complete at the end of FY 95 and projected for FY 96 for each Section 202, Kentucky project element which has been funded for construction to date.
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record the percent complete at the end of Fiscal Year 1995 and Fiscal Year 1996 for each Section 202 Kentucky project element funded for construction.
(The information follows:)
PERCENTAGES COMPLETE FOR KENTUCKY .qECTTOW 7.02 PRO-TRPT ELEMRNTS
Project Element
Barbourville, Kentucky: Structural Nonstructural
Harlan, Kentucky: Structural Nonstructural
Middlesborough, Kentucky: Structural Nonstructural
|
Percent Complete Fiscal Year I99i |
Percent Complete Fiscal Year 199^ |
|
100 72 |
100 100 |
|
66 24 |
78 40 |
|
17 1 |
24 13 |
Pike County, Kentucky (Nonstructural) 12
Pineville, Kentucky: Structural Nonstructural
South Williamson, Kentucky: Structural Nonstructural
Williamson, Kentucky: Structural Nonstiructural
Williamsburg, Kentucky Structural Nonstructural
|
100 100 |
100 100 |
|
100 100 |
100 100 |
|
100 100 |
100 100 |
|
23 5 |
45 53 |
387
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide for the record the amount requested by Army to 0MB for the Section 202 program, by project element .
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record the amount requested by Army to 0MB for the Section 202 prograun.
(The information follows:)
AMOUNT REQUESTED TO 0MB FOR SECTION 202 PROJECT RT.RMBNTfi
Fiscal Year 1997 Project Element Request to OMR
Pineville, Kentucky $ o
Barbourville, Kentucky 0
Clover Fork, Kentucky 0
Harlan, Kentucky 16,500,000
Williaimsburg, Kentucky 4,700,000
Middlesborough, Kentucky 6,400,000
South Williamson, Kentucky 0
Matewan (excluding Hatfield Bottom), 3,586,000
West Virginia
Matewan (Hatfield Bottom), 3,200,000
West Virginia
Lower Mingo, West Virginia 0
Pike County, Kentucky 0
Martin County, Kentucky 0
Upper Mingo, West Virginia 4,000,000
Grundy, Virginia 0
Town of Martin DPR, Kentucky 0
Harlan County DPR, Kentucky 1,122,000
City of Ciimberland DPR, Kentucky 478,000
McDowell County DPR, West Virginia 851,000
Wayne County DPR, West Virginia 173,000
Martin County DPR, Kentucky 100,000
Lower Mingo County Tributaries DPR 105,000
Supplement, West Virginia
Pike County Tributaries DPR 105,000
Supplement, Kentucky
Levisa Fork Basin General Plan of 0
Study, West Virginia, Kentucky
Total 41,320,000
Mr. ROGERS. Why are the Grundy, VA, and Matewan, WV, elements of the Section 202 Program being funded while other elements are not?
Colonel JANSEN. The Grundy, Virginia element of the Section 202 project involves coordinated, interagency development of infrastructure on jointly used land. The project includes elements of a state highway, a flood control project and a redevelopment site involving the town of Grundy, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Corps, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Administration, in consultation with the Congress, agreed that elements of the Section 202 project under construction prior to April 1986 would be budgeted to completion. Of those elements, Matewan is the only element that has not been fully funded.
Mr. ROGERS. The City of Martin, Floyd County, has expressed the desire for a local protection project, and has requested that the Corps begin a draft project report under the authority of the Section 202 program. How has the Corps responded to the City's request and has funding been requested in the 1997 budget to initiate a report?
Colonel JANSEN. Funds were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1996 for the Levisa Basin General Plan of Study, West Virginia and Kentucky, which includes Floyd County and the City of Martin. No funds were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1996 to initiate a Detailed Project Report for Floyd County or the City of Martin. The President's budget for Fiscal Year 1997 requests funds to complete the General Plan of Study and does not request funds to initiate a Detailed Project Report for Floyd County or the City of Martin.
Mr. ROGERS. If funding is not requested for the City of Martin, how much would the Corps be capable of spending in 1997 on this effort?
Colonel JANSEN. The Corps capability to initiate a Detailed Project Report for the City of Martin is $660,000.
SALYERSVILLE , KENTUCKY
Mr. ROGERS. What is your capability for FY 97 for the Salyersville, KY, project? If approved capability is zero, please provide the amount which can be used in FY 97 to continue the project.
Colonel JANSEN. The Fiscal Year 1997 capability for the Salyersville, Kentucky, project is $4 million.
Mr. ROGERS. What is the status of the Salyersville project?
Colonel JANSEN. The project is ready to initiate construction pending the completion of real estate acquisition by the local sponsor. This effort has been delayed due to severe weather conditions. Upon real estate certification, a construction contract will be advertised and awarded.
Mr. ROGERS. How much was requested by the Army to 0MB for continuation in FY 97?
Colonel JANSEN. The requested amount in the Army's submission to 0MB was zero.
JACKSON, KENTUCKY
Mr. ROGERS. Provide the status of the Jackson, KY, (Cy-Bend cut-through) project being planned under Section 205. Have plans and specifications been completed?
Colonel JANSEN. The reconnaissance study identified a feasible project using a channel cutoff with a 25-foot bottom width located at Cy-Bend and recommended further study under the Section 205 of the Continuing Authorities Program. A cost shared feasibility study was initiated in February 1994 to identify project features that maximize national economic development benefits. The feasibility study was completed in October 1995. Funds for plans and specifications were allocated in January 1996 and are scheduled for completion in August 1996.
Mr. ROGERS. Will it be possible to begin real estate acquisition and construction on the Jackson project in FY 97? Please describe the present schedule for this project and projected total cost.
Colonel JANSEN. The local sponsor is expected to complete real estate acquisition during Fiscal Year 1997. Depending upon the sponsor's capability, real estate acquisition may take less than 12 months thereby enabling a possible Fiscal Year 1997 construction start. The construction contract for this $2 million project currently is scheduled to be awarded in September 1997, provided that sufficient Section 205 funds are available at that time.
390
BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY
Mr. RCX3ERS. What is the status of the special project report concerning road flooding problems at Buckhorn Lake, KY, and what are the principal conclusions?
Colonel JANSEN. The report was completed in December 1995 and contains a feasibility- level engineering appendix. The technically complete solution would provide access to all affected residents when lake elevations are at maximum flood stage elevation of 840. A partial solution would provide access to affected residents until lake elevations attain the 5-year frequency level at pool elevation 820. Based on the conditions existing at the time of the study, the coir^lete solution would benefit 308 families (200 who are isolated by maximum flood stages and 108 who are inconvenienced by maximum flood stages) and would cost $28 million. The partial solution would benefit 220 families (95 isolated by 5- year flood stages and 125 inconvenienced by 5 -year flood stages) and would cost $10 million. To implement either solution to the road flooding problems would require authorization of a project modification.
DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY
Mr. ROGERS. Provide the status of the dam safety project at Dewey Lake, Kentucky, and a description of the FY 97 budget
request.
Colonel JANSEN. The Dewey Dam Lake dam safety assurance report was approved by the Assistant Secretary of Army for Civil Works on June 23, 1994. Funds were subsequently allocated to the project to begin detailed design. The $18.3 million project consists of upgrading the existing spillway adequacy by raising the height of the dam and dike by constructing a three foot parapet wall, adding a 125 -foot wide auxiliary spillway and restricting the existing spillway to its original design capacity by providing vertical restriction walls on each side. The Fiscal Year 1997 budget request will be used to initiate relocations and continue engineering and design. The project modification is two percent complete with contract award scheduled for August 1998 and construction completion scheduled for August 2000.
391
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND
Mr. ROGERS. Does the Corps continue to seek authority for upgrade of the generation facilities at Wolf Creek Dam, Kentucky, and if so, what are the projected costs, justification, and project benefits?
Colonel JANSEN. Yes, we continue to seek authority for the upgrade. The Report of the Chief of Engineers was signed on June 28, 1994, and on August 22, 1994, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works forwarded the report to the authorizing Committees with a recommendation that the upgrade be authorized. The Administration continues to support authorization of the upgrade .
The existing powerplamt at Wolf Creek was placed in service in 1951-2 and has a capacity of 270 Megawatt (MW) , with maximvim peaking capacity of 310 MW. The six 45 -MW Francis units have been operated primarily to meet base -to- intermediate load power demands, and full advantage has not been taken of the flexibility inherent in the 2 million acre -feet of storage available at the project. Power generated at Wolf Creek and other projects in the Cumberland River System is marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and a number of publicly- owned utilities in states adjacent to the TVA service area. The Wolf Creek powerplant uprate will provide additional capacity needed to meet future demands in the market area, thereby offsetting more costly, non- renewable alternative fuel sources. The report recommends uprating the existing plant to 390 MW at an estimated first cost of $55.3 million, with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.2 and average annual benefits of $3.7 million.
24-080 - 96 - 14
392
IMPACT OF COST SHARING PROPOSALS
Mr. ROGERS. Please provide a list of all local protection projects in Kentucky which are under reconnaissance level review, feasibility study, or preconstruction engineering and design, or otherwise, which would be subject to the new cost -sharing policy. Please provide the total estimated cost of the projects, if available.
Colonel JANSEN. I will provide for the record a listing of all ongoing local protection efforts that would be subject to the new cost -sharing policy. The listing includes both projects and separable elements.
(The information follows : )
ONGOING LOCAL PROTECTION EFFORTS IN KENTUCKY THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW COST SHARING POLICY
PROJECT
Reconnaiaaance Phase
Lexington, Fayette County, KY Metropolitan Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky, KY Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, KY
Feaaibility Phase
Metropolitan Louisville, Beargrass Creek, KY
Preconatruction Engineering and Design
Metropolitan Louisville, Pond Creek, KY
Detailed Project Reports (Leviaa/Tug Forka /Upper Cumberland Project)
City of Cumberland, KY Harlan County, KY Levisa Basin, KY Martin County, KY Clover Fork, KY
EST. PROJECT COST
Not determined
Not determined Not determined
Not determined
$16,810,000
Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined
394
Questions Posed by Representative Frank D. Rxggs to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works,
and Army Corps of Engineers
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development March 21, 1996
LOW COMMERCIAL USE HARBORS
Mr. RIGGS. Assistant Secretary Lancaster, your testimony recites the Administration's proposal to discontinue maintenance of low commercial use harbors beginning in FY 1998; but then you state that small communities that rely on commercial fishing should be given "appropriate consideration" in applying the new policy. I represent a number of harbors that would be adversely impacted by the President's proposed policy. As you know, the policy would be a further blow to the already-devastated commercial fishing industry. What type of "appropriate consideration" do you have in mind?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps would continue to maintain subsistence ports or ports serving communities where the economy is substantially dependent upon commercial fishing, charter fishing, or related commercial activities. A subsistence port is a maritime port located in Alaska, Hawaii, or any possession of the United States, which is the principal reliable harbor available to the general public for the transport of cargo necessary to support the life and economy of the population residing at that geographic location.
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY
Mr. RIGGS. When the Humboldt Bay and Harbor representatives testified before the Subcommittee earlier this month, they requested $3,000,000 to begin construction of the Harbor deepening project. I recognize that funds have not been included in the budget because authorization has not been enacted. Assuming that authorization is enacted and construction can begin in FY 1997, what amount should be appropriated?
Mr. LANCASTER. As you noted, the project is not yet authorized and we do not have an approved capability. Design will be completed by January 1997. I understand that an optimum schedule would require about $3.0 million for the first year of construction once the project is authorized.
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR
Mr. RIGGS. Crescent City Harbor representatives have expressed concern to me about the need to replace a sinking sea wall and adjacent parking lot. Are any efforts being made to address this as an "Operations and Maintenance" item? Is additional authorization necessary?
Mr. LANCASTER. The seawall and parking lot are not features of the Federal project. They were built by local interests and are the
395
maintenance responsibility of local interests. Federal responsibility is limited to the general navigation features of the project, such as the channels and breakwaters. Shoreside facilities are always a non- Federal responsibility so we have no authority to use Federal Operation and Maintenance funds.
NAPA RIVER
Mr. RIGGS. Representatives of the Napa River Flood Control Project requested a Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation of $1,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering, and Design. The proposed Corps of Engineers Budget includes $700,000 for FY 1997, with an indication that an additional $250,000 will be needed in the future. What is the reason for the difference between the Corps' request and that of the sponsors? Does the Corps believe that the revised timetable suggested by the sponsors can be met?
Mr. LANCASTER. The $700,000 included in the budget is the full capability of the Corps of Engineers. An additional $250,000 will be required in FY 1998 to complete Preconstruction Engineering and Design by March 1998, which is the schedule we and our sponsor have agreed upon. I assuiTie the sponsor made the request before the President's budget was released so they just did not know the final numbers.
SANTA ROSA VERNAL POOLS
Mr. RIGGS. The Committee included $250,000 in the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for the Santa Rosa Vernal Pools Task Force. Have all these funds been allocated?
Mr. LANCASTER. The full $250,000 directed by the Committee, from within the amount provided for FY 1996, has not been allocated. The guidance in the Committee Report was that these funds were to be used for an Environmental Impact Statement. We have subsequently determined that no Impact Statement is required for implementation of the Vernal Pools Preservation Plan. Consequently, we allocated $100,000 for the current year. These funds will be adequate to complete area mapping including location of vernal pools, and for initiating the Public Outreach Program to explain the Plan's purpose. The remaining $150,000 will be used to, develop guidelines for preserve/mitigation bank management, identify entities who have the capability to manage preserves, develop Memorandums of Agreement' (MOA's) for mitigation banks, train agency staff and consultants in vernal pool evaluation system, assist the City and County in developing information and process for a General Permit, and accomplish more precise mapping for preserve sites and low quality areas .
Mr. RIGGS. What is the status of the activities of the Task Force?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Vernal Pool Task Force has reviewed and approved the Preservation Plan, completed in June 1995, which
396
completed Phase I of their overall planning effort. The Task Force has also recently prioritized the objectives for Phase II, which are tasks for Plan Implementation, that will be accomplished with the $100,000 provided this year.
Mr. RIGGS. Has the Corps addressed complaints of local Farm Bureau members that their views are not being considered by the Task Force?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps has responded to the concerns of local Farm Bureau members and has specifically included them in the Public Outreach Program to insure we have their input.
Mr. RIGGS. Is the Corps going to contract with the Farm Bureau for outreach to the agricultural community?
Mr. LANCASTER. At this time, I believe there are discussions underway with the Farm Bureau, but no final decision has been reached concerning the Outreach Program contract.
MARE ISLAND
Mr. RIGGS. The Mayor of the City of Vallejo testified in support of Army Corps of Engineers dredging at the former Mare Island Naval Station. While funds for dredging Pinole Shoal are included in the FY 1997 Budget, no funds are included for Mare Island. Why not? What is the position of the Corps on the need for such dredging?
Mr. LANCASTER. The authorized depth of Mare Island Strait is 30 feet. The Corps had been maintaining the channel to 36 feet to meet the Navy' s needs but the Navy informed the Corps last year that they no longer required the additional depth. Corps policy provides that they maintain the authorized project to meet the needs justified by existing commerce. The Corps will carefully evaluate the residual commerce for Mare Island Strait and determine whether this waterway should be maintained to its full authorized dimensions or perhaps some lesser depth. In any case, since the Corps had been providing deeper channels for the Navy, we do not anticipate that any maintenance will be necessary through 1997.
KLAMATH GLEN LEVEE
Mr. RIGGS. What is the status of repairs on the Klamath Glen levee? What efforts are being made to gain access to property for which access is required? What efforts are being made to assure Del Norte County an opportunity to review and comment on the repair plans?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps has reprogrammed the $1.0 million estimated to be needed for repair of the levee. The sponsor is acquiring the necessary real estate, including negotiations with property owners. The Sacramento District is negotiating the Project Cooperation Agreement with the sponsor, and they will fully coordinate
397
with 'the sponsor on repair plans. The schedule provides for initiation and completion of construction this summer.
NOYO HARBOR
Mr. RIGGS. A number of boats have been destroyed recently in Noyo Harbor. Attached is a copy of a letter sent by the Noyo Port District to Colonel Michael Walsh. What response was given to the Port District?
Mr. LANCASTER. The San Francisco District responded to the Port District's letter on 19 March 1996. The area of concern to the Port District is outside the limits of the authorized Federal Channel, and it is not clear that there is any technical solution within the ability of the Port District to finance its share of a project modification.
Mr. RIGGS. What is the status of the Noyo Harbor breakwater study for which funds were earmarked in FY 1996?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps is evaluating the Scottish breakwater proposal directed by this Committee. The breakwater theoretically would provide erosion protection and wave damage protection and could be used for power generation. However, the power generation concept has not worked in Scotland, and it is doubtful that it could work in the turbulent waters of Northern California.
Mr. RIGGS. It has been suggested that Noyo Harbor be designated a "Harbor of Refuge" so that safety improvements can be given higher priority. Does the Corps of Engineers believe such a designation is warranted? How do safety conditions at Noyo Harbor compare to those at other, already-designated Harbors of Refuge in areas such as Lake Michigan?
Mr. LANCASTER. I understand that Noyo Harbor is the only harbor accessible to fishing vessels for over 100 miles in either the northern or southern directions. Obviously, the long reaches of the Pacific Ocean can result in severe wave conditions along the coast, with 40 foot waves not being unusual in the winter. We are aware of 30 deaths which have occurred at, or in the vicinity of, Noyo Harbor due to these conditions and Noyo Harbor is the only refuge for fishing vessels caught in severe winter storms common to that area. As such, it is obviously a refuge for the fishermen caught in those storms. However, the Corps no longer designates harbors as "Harbors of Refuge," nor is there any provision in the cost sharing requirements of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act distinguishing a "Harbor of Refuge" from any other harbor. It is difficult to make a meaningful comparison of safety conditions between Lake Michigan and the Northern California Coast. Obviously, the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean create the potential for much larger and more violent waves than found on Lake Michigan, but equally obvious is the fact that vessels venturing out into the Pacific are designed and constructed with these conditions in mind. I am unaware of any
readily available statistical data comparing the two areas but both have certainly experienced serious problems.
Mr. RIGGS. The Corps has surveyed Noyo Harbor near the entrance. Emergency dredging may be necessary for safety reasons, but the Corps may not have authority to conduct such an effort beyond the end of the breakwaters, where the problem exists. Is additional authorization necessary to enable the Corps to proceed?
Mr. LANCASTER. The area of concern to the Port District is outside the limits of the existing project. Additional authorization would be required to expand the scope of the project but no study has been accomplished to define the Federal interest in the expansion, the environmental effects and requirements, or the respective responsibilities of Federal and non-Federal partners. I should also mention that the Corps has not yet identified a dredging solution that they are certain would improve safety conditions.
JACOBS AVENUE DIKE, EUREKA
Mr. RIGGS. There has been an ongoing dispute between the Corps of Engineers, City of Eureka, California, and landowners regarding the Jacobs Avenue dike. I have been informed that attorneys' fees for landowners have reached $80,000, where underlying repairs would cost only $7,500. A Corps of Engineers employee publicly expressed an intention to "get the City." Why did the dispute reach this stage? What is the status of efforts to resolve the matter?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps' San Francisco District is working very hard to prevent the type of communication breakdowns that have obviously contributed, to some degree, to this type of problem. The laws you have charged us to enforce are clear and we must execute our responsibilities under them. However, I understand that progress that has been made by the San Francisco District in being more customer oriented and I am pleased with recent customer satisfaction survey results which reflect that progress. I understand progress has been made with the Jacobs Avenue Dike problem and the District has reached agreement with the landowners over appropriate mitigation. I am hopeful this issue will be fully resolved shortly.
LAKE EARL
Mr. RIGGS. Does the Corps of Engineers believe it would be helpful to undertake an Environmental Assessment to determine the historical level of Lake Earl in Del Norte County? What might such a study cost?
Mr. LANCASTER. As I understand the situation, the contentious issue relates to the level the lake should reach before it is breached, with landowners wanting a much lower lake level maintained than the resource agencies believe is warranted. The Corps advises me that it is unlikely any long term solution will ever be reached without a full Environmental Impact Statement which is estimated to
cost about $300,000. No Federal project is involved so the responsibility for an Environmental Impact Statement is entirely a non-Federal responsibility. I also understand that economic conditions in Del Norte County are not good and that it is doubtful that the County will have the resources to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement anytime in the foreseeable future.
CLINE CASE
Mr. RIGGS. The Department of Justice has filed a civil
enforcement suit against Frederick Cline and Cline Wine Cellars. Why
was the Corps of Engineers unable to settle this matter without litigation?
Mr. LANCASTER. I believe that the basic problem is that the Clines disagree with provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and reject the concept that the Federal Government should regulate certain activities of landowners on their land. We are charged with the responsibility for administering Section 404 of the CWA, which requires permits, and does regulate the activities a landowner can perform on wetlands. We have tried to reach some reasonable accommodation but the views of the Clines could not be reconciled with the goals of the CWA. As you noted, the issue is now in the hands of the Justice Department and is no longer under our control.
BATES - SANTA ROSA
Mr. RIGGS. I have been contacted by Mr. Steve Bates of Santa Rosa, California, discussing efforts he is undertaking to establish new wetlands to mitigate possible damage to existing wetlands. Correspondence I have received describing difficulties he is having is attached. What is the status of any discussions between the Army Corps of Engineers and Mr. Bates?
Mr. LANCASTER. I understand that discussions with Mr. Bates have been underway continually to resolve the necessity for wetland m.itigation. The next scheduled meeting is on 2 April 1996 to discuss the viability of alternative mitigation proposals which Mr. Bates is considering.
NAPA VALLEY MARINA
Mr. RIGGS. I have received correspondence from the attorney for Napa Valley Marina, complaining the Corps of Engineers has prohibited the Marina from dredging its property since 1991, and that, as a result, the Marina is threatened with closure. What efforts being made to resolve this matter?
Mr. LANCASTER. The correspondence from Mr Lavezzo contains some disturbing allegations. I understand that General Scott is undertaking a review of the history of this permit action. Upon receipt of the Division Commander's report, and the Chief of
400
Engineer's comments on that report, I will furnish you, and the Committee, a letter detailing our findings.
REGULATORY CONSOLIDATION
Mr. RIGGS. Has the Department of the Army considered consolidating all or some of the functions, such as regulatory enforcement, of the San Francisco and Sacramento Districts? What has been the result of any such study? What is the position of the Corps on such a consolidation?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps has not recently considered consolidating all or some of the functions of the San F'-ancisco and Sacramento Districts. In fact, the Corps is precluded from making any such evaluation by specific prohibitions in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1996. Workload and manpower availability considerations from time to time have forced the South Pacific Division to transfer some projects and activities between the two Districts, but the Regulatory Functions of the two Districts have never been affected.
DIVERSION OF FUNDS FROM CALIFORNIA PROGRAMS /PROJECTS
Mr. RIGGS. Of amounts appropriated for Corps of Engineers General Investigations programs or projects in California in Fiscal Year 1996, are any of the funds being diverted outside of the South Pacific Division for programs or projects othe^: than those for which originally earmarked? Please specify which programs and projects are not receiving the full amount appropriated, the reason why, and the use of the funds.
Mr. LANCASTER. To date, funds totaling $75,000 have been reprogrammed from three studies in California, which were excess to the needs of these three studies, for activities outside the Division area. The reprogrammed funds will be used to initiate selected high priority biological, physical and mathematical study activities that are critical to maintaining the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study schedule. We will inform you of any subsequent reprogramming actions which affect the South Pacific Division in this manner. I will provide a table that displays the specific studies and amounts involved.
401
DIVERSION OF GI FUNDS FROM SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
Study/Project
Conference
Amount
SavingsS Slippage
Work Allowance
Funds Diverted/ Reprogrammed from South Pacific Division
Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, Little Holland Tract, California
$290,000
$75,000 $215,000
$10,000
Kaweah River, California
$52, 000
$40,000
San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River, California
$52,000
Total Funds Diverted/Reprogrammed from from South Pacific Division
$75,000
NEW POLICY IMPACTS
Mr. RIGGS. What would be the impact on programs and projects in California's First Congressional District of the new policy assumptions proposed by the Administration?
Mr. LANCASTER. Small harbor projects which do not collect ad- valorero taxes for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, such as Bodega Bay, Noyo River and Harbor, and possibly Crescent City Harbor could ultimately be affected by the proposal to cease Federal maintenance of these harbors. For projects resulting from favorable studies, the proposed policy would require that sponsors provide 25 percent of the cost of preconstruction engineering and design during that phase, rather than recovering the non-Federal share of these costs during construction as is the current practice. Structural flood control projects would have 50/50 cost sharing during construction. It is possible that the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, the Russian River Ecosystem Restoration and the Middle Creek studies might produce some structural flood control outputs which would be subject to these proposals. The Napa River flood control project would clearly be subject to the 50/50 construction cost sharing proposal since its output is structural flood control.
FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PROJECTS
Mr. RIGGS. Were any Corps of Engineers recommendations to the Administration for programs or projects in California' s . First Congressional District not included in the Budget? If so, what programs or projects?
402
Mr. LANCASTER. All projects or activities in the First Congressional District, for which I recommended FY 1997 funding, were included in the President's Budget.
AUBURN DAM
Mr. RIGGS. What is the position of the Corps of Engineers on construction of the proposed Auburn Dam?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps of Engineers has not yet developed a final position on the proposed Auburn Dam. The District and Division Engineers both recommended that the National Economic Development plan, which includes a detention dam at the Auburn site, be authorized. The Chief of Engineers draft report, now out for State and Agency comment, proposes proceeding only with those flood control features common to all of the reasonable alternatives and deferral of a decision to authorize the detention dam. The Chief of Engineers will carefully consider all the viewpoints he receives during the review period before submitting a final Chief of Engineer's position to me.
BENBOW LAKE
Mr. RIGGS. California park officials are seeking a five-year permit to dam Benbow Lake in Benbow, California, each Summer. They are also seeking from the Corps of Engineers permits for a special channel to aid juvenile salmon migration. What is the status of this application?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps received the Park officials application for a permit in October 1995, issued its public notice in February 1996, and the comment period closed on 9 March 1996. The Sacramento District forwarded the comments and objections to the applicant for consideration and response. Once the Corps receives the Park's response they will be in a position to make a final determination with respect to the application.
DRY CREEK DAM, MIDDLETOWN
Mr. RIGGS. Officials in Lake County, California, have suggested to me that $500,000 should be allocated to update a 1958 feasibility study and perform environmental assessment work regarding Dry Creek Dam in Middletown. What is the position of the Corps of Engineers on this request?
Mr. LANCASTER. We understand that there may be some interest in examining the results of prior studies of Dry Creek Dam near Middletown. However, at this time the Corps has not yet identified a sponsor who has indicated a willingness to cost share the feasibility phase of a study nor have they developed a cost estimate for a reconnaissance study. It is appropriate to note that prior studies of this proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as other studies
in the area for flood control by the Corps, did not result in a recommendation for Federal participation.
LEONARDO LEVEE
Mr. RIGGS. Humboldt County, California, officials have informed me that approximately 2,000 lineal feet of the Leonardo Levee is threatened by erosion caused by flood waters of the Eel River. If the levee fails, thousands of acres of dairyland would be flooded during the next high water. Is there any action the Corps of Engineers can take to assist?
Mr. LANCASTER. The San Francisco District has inspected the area in question and determined that the riverbank has eroded, but not the levee itself. The district has informed the Humboldt County Department of Public Works that the bank erosion is a local maintenance responsibility, and does not qualify for rehabilitation under Corps authorities.
MAD RIVER
Mr. RIGGS. Humboldt County, California, officials have informed m.e that the Mad River has eroded about 500 feet of river bank immediately upstream of the sewage ponds. There is concerns that the river could erode the bank to a point that allows the river to get in behind the ponds, which would be a disaster. The Corps has assisted by placing rock at the site. Is there any further action the Corps of Engineers believes necessary in the long-term?
Mr. LANCASTER. The San Francisco District placed rock adjacent to the Humboldt County Sewage Treatment Plant during the floods of January and March 1995, as an emergency measure to protect the plant from an immediate threat. Since the floods have abated, the District has determined that the five hundred feet of erosion upstream of the treatment plant does not constitute an immediate threat to the property, nor does it meet the Corps criteria for rehabilitation. The repairs are a local maintenance responsibility.
MONITORING PROGRAM - MAD AND EEL RIVERS
Mr. RIGGS. Gravel operators in Humboldt County, California, have developed a monitoring program for aggregate extraction operations in the lower Mad and Eel Rivers and are seeking further assistance from Corps of Engineers staff. Are resources available within the budget for this activity, or is additional appropriation action required?
Mr. LANCASTER. At this time there are no funds contained in the budget for the aggregate extraction operations monitoring program. The Corps is currently evaluating gravel operations in Humboldt County under the Section 404 permit process. It is my understanding that additional assistance is being requested for the long term sedimentation and biological monitoring of impacts of gravel
404
operations on the aquatic ecosystem, including potential mitigation measures. This level of effort, which is beyond the authorized scope of the Section 404 permit process, would cost about $250,000. Since no Federal project is involved in or impacting the aggregate extraction operations in Humboldt County, we feel that additional monitoring activities are a non-Federal responsibility.
CLEARIAKE OAKS BOAT RAMP
Mr. RIGGS. The Sacramento District of the Corps was working last year to assist Lake County officials with the Clearlake Oaks Boat Ramp. What progress has been made?
Mr. LANCASTER. The application for a permit is being processed, and the public comment period closes on 11 April 1996. One aspect of concern is that, in addition to the boat ramp, the County also proposes construction of a parking lot within the lake bed which will require abut 2,000 cubic yards of fill. Since the parking lot feature is proposed for location within the lake bed and is not in itself a water dependent function. County must demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to this location. We have requested the County to provide the alternatives analysis, but until we receive it, final action on the permit cannot be scheduled.
405
TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD FOR CONGRESSMAN JIM BUNN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF -nffl ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS 3\21\96
Mr. Secretary, before tummg to a few questions, I want to commend you and the entire Coq)s, and paiticularly the people in the Portland District, for their reqwnse to our recent floods in the Pacific Northwest. The cooperation and leadership Corps officials provided helped all of us involved in this tragedy. Will you please convey my deep appreciation to the men and women of the Portland District.
Secretary Lancaster, I next want to thank you for your remarks last week to the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA). I believe it was the first q)eech you have given to a ports group since you took office. Over the course of last week, I mrt with many Oregon port commissioners and mangers here for the meeting. All of them appreciated your remarks, and the fact that you already knew about ports and their benefits - and their problems ~ from your service here in the House.
In your remarks to the PNWA group, you raised the issue of O&M dredging for small ports, an issue of great importance to many members of this Committee. As I understand it, you said you are looking at differences in ability to pay.
I support your looking at this issue, but am once again disturbed that the Administration proposes to discontinue maintenance of small ports begiiming in FY 98. In view of Congress' negative response last year to this Administration's O&M initiative, I am surprised to see this issue once again raise its head.
406
LOW USE COMMERCIAL HARBORS
Mr. BUNN. With regard to maintenance of low commercial use harbors you mentioned in your statement that the communities affected by any new proposal "need to be given appropriate consideration in applying any new policy." What do you consider to be appropriate consideration?
Mr. LANCASTER. The Corps would continue to maintain subsistence ports or ports serving communities where the economy is substantially dependent upon commercial fishing, charter fishing, or related commercial activities. A subsistence port is a maritime port located in Alaska, Hawaii, or any possession of the United States, and which is the principal reliable harbor available to the general public for the transport of cargo necessary to support the life and economy of the population residing at that geographic location.
407
OPTIONS FOR DEDICATED SOURCES OF FUNDING
Mr. BUNN. Regarding the maintenance of recreation harbors, in your testimony you also mentioned that beginning in FY 98 the Corps will discontinue dredging these harbors "unless a new dedicated source of funding can be established based on the 'beneficiary pay' principle." Without committing yourself to any one option, what are some of the options that you or your staff may be looking at for new "dedicated sources of funding?"
Mr. LANCASTER. One example might be a small engine fuel tax collected and transferred into a special account, similar to the Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Program. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to allow states and local governments to levy the fees on the beneficiaries of these projects. That would allow the states to set dredging priorities and determine the appropriate method of assessing the charges on beneficiaries.
408
LIST OF LOW USE COMMERCIAL AND RECREATION HARBORS
Mr. BUNN. What is the status within the Corps of the determination of which ports and harbors would be forced to share the burden of O&M Dredging?
Mr. LANCASTER. The list of projects for which the Corps will discontinue maintenance is currently being developed. In developing this list, we will be analyzing the impacts on specific projects.
Mr. BUNN. Do you plan to involve this subcommittee in those deliberations?
Mr. LANCASTER. When the list has been developed and each project thoroughly analyzed to ensure either low commercial or recreational use, I will provide the list to the Appropriations Committees, the public works committees, each House and Senate member whose district and state is affected, and the respective Governors,
Mr. BUNN. Will you resolve this issue prior to your submission of authorizing language to the House Transportation Committee as part of your WRDA Legislative Package?
Mr. LANCASTER. Our list will not be completed prior to submission of our authorizing language to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. However, I expect our WRDA 96 initiative will include a provision to transmit the list of projects to Congress, for its consideration, no later than 30 June 1997.
409
COORDINATION OF LIST DEVELOPMENT
Mr. BUNN. Will your announcement be accompanied by a list of the ports impacted by the Decision?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BUNN. What data have you been collecting from the ports which may be impacted by this decision?
Mr. LANCASTER. We are currently reviewing existing waterborne commerce data and have not concluded what additional data, if any, will be needed from the ports.
Mr. BUNN. Have you or your staff met with representatives from these smaller ports?
Mr. LANCASTER. It would be premature to advise representatives on the impacts of this policy on smaller ports, as we are still reviewing waterborne commerce data. However, we are always willing to meet with people interested in the Civil Works program.
410
Mr. BUNN. I'd like to turn to the issue of Columbia River Fish Mitigation. I cLin very much a supporter of the Corps' effort to increase the fish passage, do juvenile fish monitoring, and other activities to help improve the salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin. However, I eun concerned that in Fiscal Year 1994 the Corps reported that the total estimated cost of the program was $345,000,000; last year the Corps reported that the total estimated cost would be $583,600,000; this year I note that the estimate has increased to $1.4 billion. Do you expect this trend to continue? Or, can we expect that $1.4 billion is the final total estimated cost?
Mr. LANCASTER. The $1.4 billion cost is our best estimate of the program cost that is responsive to the measures and schedules incorporated in the 1995 Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System. It is what is needed for the implementation activities at our projects for the Snake River salmon recovery effort. The total cost will be firmer when final decisions are made on the long-term configuration and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System to restore anadromous fish runs. At this time, we expect these decisions to be made near the turn of the century. The National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on hydropower operations contains many measures for which implementation decisions are dependent on the outcome of research, engineering and design evaluations, prototype testing and further regional decisions. For example, we have been asked to aggressively develop and test new juvenile fish bypass technology such as surface bypass. It is premature, now, to make conclusions about its ultimate application in recovery efforts. Similarly, continued evaluation of drawdown at the Lower Snake River projects is called for in the Biological Opinion, with decision slated for 1999.
Mr. BUNN. What is the major cause of this substantial increase in the estimated cost?
Mr. LANCASTER. The major causes of the increase in the estimated cost were additional measures called for in the 199S National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and inclusion in our budget request of estimated implementation costs that are the likely outcome of research, engineering and design evaluations, prototype testing and regional decisions. Previous budget requests noted that additional costs would be incurred as a result of implementing regional decisions but did not actually attempt to estimate the costs.
Mr. BUNN. I have also noted that not only has the total estimated appropriations increased, but the $107 million request for Fiscal Year 1997 is a substantial increase from 1996. Is this year's request in line with what you had expected to request
411
when you put together the fiscal year 1996 budget?
Mr. LANCASTER. This year's request reflects increases over what we had expected to request when we put together the Fiscal Year 1996 budget because of additional measures we are addressing in the 1995 National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion.
Mr. BUNN. Is the FY 1997 request in line with the agreement that was reached between Senator Hatfield and the White House to limit the total cost of salmon recovery borne by the Bonneville Power Administration and the ratepayers of the Northwest to $435 million per year?
Mr. LANCASTER. Yes it is.
Mr. BUNN. I hope that the Administration has no intentions of turning its back on this hard reached agreement.
Mr. LANCASTER. No, sir.
412
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM REPROGRAMMING OF FY 1996 FUNDS
Mr. Bunn. Mr. Secretary, Continuing Authorities Programs of the Corps have played a very important role in the economic development in my region of the country, as I presume they have in coastal areas throughout the country.
I understand that the Corps' budget for FY 1997 ftilly funds the continuing authorities program. I support the program, and look forward to working with you in this area.
I am aware that Congressional funding fell short of your fiscal year 1996 needs. Now that we are about halfway through the fiscal year, I would like to know about the outlook for reprogramming fiscal year 1996 funds in order to move some continuing authorities projects ahead from the feasibility phase into the construction phase?
Although I have a specific project in Oregon in mind, I am sure there are other projects around the country which also were put into limbo.
Mr. Lancaster. We have reprogrammed $13 million fi'om other Construction, General sources to the Continuing Authorities Program. This will allow us to proceed with all continuing phases of projects, and to initiate some new phases, including construction.
INDEX
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Page
50/50 Cost Sharing 64-65
Ability to Pay 228
Actual and Pending Allocations for Section 1135 Projects in FY 1996 377-379
Adminstration's Commitment to Maintain Channels and Harbors 143
Amount Requested to OMB for Section 202 Project Elements 387
Annual Flood Damage Report 199
Authority to Accept Funds for Hydropower Maintenance 195
Available Unobligated Balances of Earmarked Funds 151-155
Balance-to-Complete Report 205-227
Beach Replenishment 55-57
Budget Request— General 366-368
Carryover Funds 84—85
Civil Functions in Foreign Countries Update 250
Civilian Employment 156
Coastal Field Data Collection 259
Commerce on Navigation Projects Funded in FY 1997 197
Completion Schedules 159-168
Compliance with Section 101 169
Construction Projects 174-177
Construction, General 279
Contained Disposal Facilities — ^Annual Cost 137-138
Continuing Authorities Program 4
Continuing Authorities Program — Reprogramming of FY 1996 Funds 412
Continuing Authorities Program FY 1996 Proposed Termination 128
Continuing Authorities Program Projects Underway 263-275
Continuing Feasibility Studies in the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Without and
Executed Cost Sharing Agreement 243-244
Contribution of Mr. Chapman 64
Coordination of List Development 409
Corps Civil in Foreign Countries 250-253
Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) 26, 173
Corps Program Execution and the Future 26
Corp's Response to Natural Disasters 25
Corps Restructuring 5, 24, 43
Corps Staffing 25, 82-86
Corps' Work with Other Federal Agencies 25
Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency of Industry Dredging 170
Cost Projections of Reducing the Number of Division Offices 121
Cost Sharing 42
Cost Sharing Policy 47
(i)
u
Page
Definition of Low Use Commercial Harbors 133
Diversion of Funds from California Programs/Projects 400
Diversion of GI Funds from South Pacific Division 401
Division Ofiice Restructuring 122
Dredging Fleet Operation in FY 1997 171
Dredging Policy — Protecting of the Nation's Environment 134
Earmarked Funds 79
Effective Date of Cost Sharing Provisions 125-127
Everglades Restoration 4
Feasibility Studies for Completion in Fiscal Year 1996 Without a Follow- on Preconstruction Engineering and Design Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Re- quest 245
Feasibility Studies Budgeted for Initiation in Fiscal Year 1997 241-242
Financing of Preconstruction Engineering and Design 4
First Congressional District Projects 401—402
Fiscal Year 1995 Corps Revenues 198
Fiscal Year 1996 Congressional Additions and Programmed Carryovers
36^370
Fiscal Year 1997 Budgeted Construction Projects Affected by Section 902 178
Fiscal Year 1997 New Starts and Other New Work 365
Fiscal Year 1997 Savings 43
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 234
Flood Control Project 48
Flood Control, Beach Protection, and Small Navigation Projects 55
Flood Damage Reduction 3
Floor Votes 78
Frustrations 82
Funding Constraints 119
Funding for Low Use Commercial Harbors in FY 1997 131
Future Corps Program 53-55
FY 1996 Total Program 22
FY 1997 Budget 21
FY 1997 Corps Environmental Activities 189-190
FY 1997 New Construction Work 23
General Investigations 260-262
Harbor Maintenance Tax Litigation Challenging Constitutionahty 141-142
Harbor Maintenance Trust' Fund — Proposed Funding of Contained Disposal
Facilities 135
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Receipts and Outlays, With and Without
Taxing Exports 144
Historical Funding for Hydropower 192
Hydropower Breakdown Maintenance 193
Hydropower Rehabilitation 194
Hydropower Reliability Decline 191
Impact of Cost Sharing Proposals 392-393
Impact of Cost Sharing Proposals 380
Implementation of the Plan 123-124
Inland Waterways Trust Fund 145
Kentucky Flood Control Projects 49
List of Low Use Commercial and Recreation Harbors 408
List of Low Use Harbors 132
Low Commercial Use Harbors 394
Low Use Commercial Harbors 406
Maintenance of Recreational Harbors 3
Ul
Page
Motivation for Proposal to Use Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 136
New Budget Proposal 59-60
New Flood Control Policy 331
New Policy Impacts 401
New Study and Construction Project Start 359-362
0MB Request 78-79
Operation and Maintenance 65-66, 281-282
Options for Dedicated Sources of Funding 407
Other New Items 365
Overseas Travel 254
Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program 4
Percentages Complete for Kentucky Section 202 Project Elements 386
Personnel Costs 157
Planned Obligations of Programmed Carryover 238
Planning Assistance to States 256-258
Port Maintenance Funding Availability 172
Preconstruction Engineering & Design Budgeted for Completion in Fiscal
Years 1996 or 1997 247-248
Preconstruction Engineering & Design Budgeted to Start in FY 97 246
President's Budget for 1997 1
Project Completions 179-181
Project Condition Surveys 303
Project Cooperation Agreements 182-184
Projected Support for Others Program FY 1997 249
Projects in Litigation 200-204
Projects Requested by the Corps to 0MB, but not in Administration's 1997
Budget Request 371-372
Projects with Congressional Direction 235-236
Projects with Congressional Guidance in Reports 80-81
Prospect Island Restoration Project Section 1135 68
Qualifjdng Language for Expressed Approved Capabilities 62
Recognition of Mr. Chapman 58-59
Recognition of Mr. Fazio 51
Reconnaissance Studies Budgeted for Completion in FY 1996 Without a FY
1997 Budget Request for Feasibility 239-240
Reconstructions 69
Recreation Facility Construction, Operations and Maintenance 196
Regulatory Consolidation 400
Regulatory Program 231-233
Remaining Items 255
Retirements 41
Savings from Reducing the Number of Division Offices 120
Section 1135, Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
Environment 276-278, 373-375
Section 204, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material 280
Section 205 and Section 1135 Program 67
Shore Protection Policy 129-130
Shore Protection Projects 4
Statement of Honorable H. Martin Lancaster 6-23
Conclusion, Statement of Hon. H. Martin Lancaster 20
Corps of Engineers Restructuring 18
Fiscal year 1995 Performance 10
FY 1996 Program 11
FY 1997 Proposals to Increase Non-Federal Involvement 11
IV
Page
Statement of Honorable H. Martin Lancaster — Continued
FY 1997 Proposals to Increase Non-Federal Involvement — Continued
Commercial Navigation 12
Dredging of Recreation and Low Commercial Use Harbors 13
Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Policy 11
Proposed Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Policy 13
Regulatory Program User Fees 14
Up-front Financing for New Preconstruction Engineering and Design
(PED) 14
Highlights of the FY 1997 Continuing Program 15
Continuing Authorities Program 16
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Program 17
Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program 16
Regulatory Program 16
Section 1135 Environmental Modifications 17
Section 204 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material 17
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 15
New Investments in the FY 1997 Civil Works Program 14
Overview of the FY 1997 Civil Works Budget 9
Statement of LTG Arthur E. Williams 27-40
Balancing New Investments and O&M 37
Conclusion 38-39
Construction, General 36
Corps of Engineers of Financial Management System 29
Emergency Responses 34
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries 37
Funding Summary 40
General Investigations 35
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 38
Operation and Maintenance, General 37
Program Execution and Outlook 35
FY 97 Civil Works Program Budget 27
Overview 27-28
Reimbursed Support for Others 28
Staffing 28-29
Significant Accomplishments of the Civil Works Program 29
Changes in Corps Headquarters 33
Continuing Authorities Program 32
Headquarters Responsiveness to Field Offices 33
Partnering 31
Project Cooperation Agreements 32
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 30
Response to Surveys and Investigations Reports 34
Restructuring 30
Restructuring of Civil Works Program 29
Roles and Missions 29
Status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 146-147
Summary of Major Functions 229-230
Support for Others 249
Ten Minute Rule 41
Unauthorized New Construction Starts 364
Unobligated Balances 237
Unstarted Construction Projects 185-188
V
Page
PROJECTS AND STUDIES
American River Watershed Study, CA 52, 67
Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC 306
Anchor Point Harbor, AK 316-317
Antelope Creek, NE 296
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Fhnt — AL, Coosa, Tallapoosa Comprehenshive
Water Study 342
Arecibo River, PR 361
Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook Marine Terminal, NY & N J 117, 306
Auburn Dam, CA 402
Baltimore Harbor Anchorage and Channels, MD & VA 305
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD & VA 308
Barbers Point Harbor Modification, HI 325
Barbourville, KY 384
Bamegat Bay, NJ Ill
Bamegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, NJ 113, 306
Bates— Santa Rosa, CA 399
Bayou Bartholomew, LA 283
Benbow Lake, CA 402
Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, SD 297, 361
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO 297
Boston Harbor, MA 300
Brevard County, FL 338
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, NJ — ^Abescon Island Interim
Project 113
Brocton, Massachusetts Study 300
Broward County, FL 339
Buckhom Lake, KY 390
Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, TX 353-354
C-7, C-8, and C-9 Canals, FL 45
Canyon Lake, TX 358
Cape Cod Railroad Bridge 302-303
Cedar River Harbor, MI 315
Central Connecticut Coastal Flooding Study 300
Charleston Harbor Deepening, SC 236
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal St. George's Bridge Replacement, MD 310
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD 308
Chicago Shoreline, IL 361
Chicago Shoreline, IL, South Water Purification Plant 314
City of Arcadia Water Infrastructure Restoration, CA 345
City of Encinitas, CA 343
Clearlake Oaks Boat Ramp, CA 404
Cline Case, CA 399
Columbia River Fish Mitigation 320-322, 410-411
Columbia River System Operation Review 323-324
Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites, OR & WA 319-320
Columbia Slough, OR 316-317
Comite River, LA 286
Compton Creek, CA 351
Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration, PA 330
Continuing Authorities Program 301-302, 327
Cook Inlet, AK 318
Cooper Lake and Channels, TX 61
VI
Page
Corps Support to HUD 100
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX 354-355
Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, CA 347
Crescent City Harbor, CA 394
Cypress Valley Watershed Reconnaissance Study, TX 61
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX 339-340, 355
Dade County, FL 339-340
Daytona Beach Shores, FL 338
Delaware Coast Protection, DE 307
Delaware River Dredging 95
Devils Lake, ND 311
Dewey Lake, KY 390
Dredge McFarland — Status 94
Dry Creek Dam, Middletown, CA 402-^03
Duwamish/Green Rivers, WA 317-318
Espanola Valley, NM 353
Everglades Restoration 89-90
Everglades Restoration Program, FL 57-58, 340-341
Federal Hopper Dredges 92
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY 307
Fish Friendly Turbines 318-319
Flint River Basin, GA 360
Gila River, Gillespie Dam to Yuma, CA 343
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, CA 74, 349
Graham, TX 357
Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ 307
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ 112
Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors, Replacement Lock at Sault
Ste. Marie, MI 313
Grundy, VA 381
Guadalupe River, CA 76-77
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Corpus Christi Bay to Port Isabel, Tx 354
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway High Island to Brazos River, TX 356
Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, MS 338
Hansen Dam, CA 76
Harlan County, KY 49, 334, 382-383
Hatfield Bottom, WV 335
Helena and Vicinity, AR 294, 362
Hodges Village Cost Sharing 301
Hodges Village Dame, MA 301
Hudson River Habitat Restoration, NY 305
Humboldt Harbor and Bay, CA 345, 394
lao Stream, HI 326-327, 362
lao Stream, Mavii, HI 362
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, IN 314
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN 148
Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach County, FL 339
Jackson Hole, WY 318
Jacksonville, Harbor, FL 46
Jackson, KY 389
Jacobs Avenue Dike, Eureka, CA 398
Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, NY 305
James River Environmental, SD 296
Johnson Creek, OR 316-317
vu
Page
Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area, NJ
107-109
Juvenile Fish Bypass Facihties at Bonneville 319
Kake Harbor, AK 362
Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5 through 14, KY 336
Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor, HI 325
Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, NY & N J 115
Klamath Glen Levee, CA 396-397
Lafayette Parish, LA 284
Lake Charles Ship Channel, LA 283
Lake Earl, CA 398-399
Lake George, Horbart, IN 313
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, LA 289
Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA 318
Leonardo Levee, CA 403
Levisa and Tug Forks of Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River,
WV, VA & KY 332-333, 381
Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, IN 313
Little Holland Tract, CA 72, 350
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA 71-76, 347-348
Los Angeles Harbor, CA 352
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, CA 348-349
Lower Truckee River, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, CA 345
Lowndes Country Barge Fleeting Area, MS 338
Maalaea Harbor, HI 326
Mad River, CA 403
Malibu Coastal Area, CA 343
Manasquan Inlet to Bamegat Inlet, NJ 112, 304
Mare Island, CA 396
Marin County Shoreline, CA 343
Marmet Locks and Dam, WV 330
Martin County, FL 340
Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction, CA 74, 349
Matewan, WV 381
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR 357
McCook Reservoir, IL 314
Metro Region of Cincinnati, Duck Creek, OH 361
Metropolitan Louisville, Pond Creek, KY 361
Miami Harbor, FL 45
Middlesborough, KY 334, 382, 384
Mid-Valley, CA 70
Mingo Creek OK 357
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study 93, 140
Mississippi River and Tributaries Funding 292
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, LA 283, 287
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to Gulf of Mexico, LA, and Mississippi River- Gulf Outlet, LA 291
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, LA, NE, KS, & MO 297
Missouri River Levee System, lA, NE, KS, & MO 297-298
Missouri River Water Control Manual 298-299
Molly Ann's Brook, at Haledon, Prospect Park, and Paterson, NJ 114
Monitoring Program — Mad and Eel Rivers, CA 403-404
Monongahela River, WV, Comprehensive, Study 328
Montauk Point, NY 304
VIU
Page
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System, AR 18
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR 87-88, 357
Morganza, LA, to the Gulf of Mexico 293
Mussers Dam, PA 307
Napa River, CA 346, 395
Napa Valley Marina, CA 399-400
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway Environmental Restoration Ill
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, GA 338
New York-New Jersey Harbor Disposal Crisis 101-104
New York Harbor Anchorage Areas, NY & NJ 115-116, 304
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Claremont Terminal, NJ 306
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ 116
Nogalses Wash, CA 347
Norco Bluffs, CA 345
North Las Vegas, Channel "A", NV 360
North Shore of Long Island, NY 304
Northport, AL 341
Northwest El Paso, TX 360
Noyo Harbor, CA 397-398
Ohio River Basin Study 148, 331
Ohio River Flood Protection Project 149
Ohio River Flood Protection, IN 149, 236, 335
Ohio River Greenway, IN 330
Ohio River Main Stem Systems Study 328-329
Onondaga Lake, New York Management Conference 312
Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Program 139
Passaic River, NJ 106-107, 310
Pearl River, MS & LA 236
Pike County, KY 334, 382, 385
Pinellas County, FL 340
Policy Impacts 110
Poplar Island, MD 17, 308-309
Projects Not Being Funded and Dredged 104-106
Raritan Bay Anchorages, New York and New Jersey Channels, NY & NJ
115,304
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ (Section 934 WRDA 1986) 114
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, NJ 116
Raystown Lake, PA 310
Red River Below Denison Dam, TX 61
Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX 62, 358-359
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR & LA 290
Red River Waterway, LA 288
Reynolds Channel and New York State Boat Channel, NY 305
Richmond Harbor, CA 346-347
Rio Grande Do Loiza, PR 361
Rocky Arroyo/Dark Canyon, NM 353
Sacramento Bank Protection 70-71
Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA 349
Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, CA 347
Sacramento River Floodwall, CA 72
Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan, CA 69, 73
Salmon Restoration 90-91
Salyersville, KY 335, 388-389
IX
Page
San Clemente Creek, CA 150
San Diego County, Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad, CA 343
San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, CA 350
San Francisco Bay, Leonard Ranch, CA 344
San Francisco County, Ocean Beach, CA 344
San Francisco Harbor, CA 344
San Joaquin River Basin, Caliente Creek Stream Group, CA 236, 344
San Joaquin River Basin, Firebaugh and Mendota, CA 345
San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River, CA 236
San Lorenzo River, CA 350, 362
San Luis Rey, CA 75
San Timoteo Creek, CA 350
Sand Point Harbor, AK 317
Santa Monica Breakwater, CA 75
Santa Rosa Vernal Pools, CA 395-396
Savannah Harbor, GA 341-342
Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh, PA 361
Seven Oaks and Prado Dam Water Conservation, CA 345
Seven Oaks Dam Water Conservation, CA 346
Seward Harbor, AK 317
Skagit River, WA 317
Sonoma Baylands Wetlands, CA 347
South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration, PA 310, 336
South Dade County, FL 45
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL 90
South Santiam Fishery Restoration, OR 316-317
South Shore of Staten Island, NY 112, 307
Southeast Louisiana Project, LA 18
Southhampton Shoal Channel, CA 150
St. Johns County (St. Augustine Beach), FL 339
St Louis Region, MO 283
St Louis Region, MO, Feasibility Studies 285
Superfund 96-99
Syn Island, IL 311
Tehama/Hamilton City 205 Study, CA 73-74
Tolego Harbor, OH, Long Term Management Strategy 315
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ 113
Tule River Basin, CA 344
Upper Mississippi and Illinois, Navigation Study 312-313
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program 313-314
Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, CA 350-362
Upper Sacramento, CA 71
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX 355
Valdez Harbor, AK 236
Virginia Beach, VA 309
Wabash River Basin, (Middle Reaches), IN & IL 337
Waccamaw River, SC 338
Wallisville Lake, TX 62-63, 358
Watertown and Civinity, SD : 296
Waukegan Harbor, IL 311
West Columbus, OH 332
West Sacramento, CA 72-73
West Virginia Port Development Study 330-331
White River, AR 88-89
-UDLIl^ LIBHAHY
Illllil
^ 3 9999 05571 193 9
White River, AR, Navigation Channel 89
WilHamsburg, KY 332, 382, 384
Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, KY 391
Wood River, Grand Island, NE 361
Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS 236
Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control Program, MS 295
Yuba River Basin, CA 344
o
ISBN 0-16-052619-1
9 780160"526190
90000