<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:78070.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-319
CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
__________
APRIL 26, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-070 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
RON WYDEN, Oregon
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 26, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 11
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio...... 2
WITNESSES
Flowers, Lt. Gen. Robert B., Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 29
Senator Wyden............................................ 31
Tornblom, Hon. Claudia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Management and Budget)........................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 21
CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:55 a.m. in room
628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Voinovich and Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Senator Baucus is not here, but he is en
route and told us to go ahead.
Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony from the
Deputy Assistant of the Army for Management and Budget, Claudia
Tornblom and Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the fiscal year 2002
request from the Corps of Engineers.
As a fiscal conservative, I appreciate the efforts of the
Administration to rein in Government spending. Each program in
the Federal budget must undergo careful scrutiny with an eye
toward less spending as opposed to more spending. Certainly,
the Corps budget is no exception, and it would appear the
Administration has done just that with this budget request.
While I will reserve judgment in the appropriate funding
level for the 2002 Corps Civil Works Program until after I have
heard from our witnesses, I will admit some concerns with the
amount. A 14 percent decrease over fiscal year 2001 enacted
levels appears to me to be unrealistic given the existing
backlog. That is especially true when you consider the flooding
that is taking place right now in the Mississippi River in the
Midwest. The proposed request would cut flood control along the
Mississippi River by 20 percent over 2001 enacted levels and
almost 10 percent less than the 2001 requested level.
I recognize that Congress has a habit of increasing the
level of funding for the Corps' programs above the President's
request and I expect this year will be no different. Perhaps
that is a part of the calculation when developing the request.
My concern is it is this type of gamesmanship that results in
unnecessary spending. It would be far better for Congress to be
presented with a realistic budget request up front than to be
subject to endless upward revisions.
In short, I think we are making it too easy for us to spend
more money because it would appear you have sent us a request
that does not meet the need. I hope I am wrong and have merely
misunderstood your proposal.
There are so many things out there now that should be
funded, should be begun. We will have a chance to talk about
some of these things with the General. I look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State
of Oklahoma
Today the subcommittee will receive testimony from Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Management and Budget,
Claudia L. Tornblom and Lt. General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of
Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
As a fiscal conservative I appreciate the efforts of the
Bush Administration to reign in Government spending. Each
program in the Federal budget must undergo careful scrutiny
with an eye toward less spending as opposed to more spending.
Certainly, the Corps budget is no exception and it would appear
that the Administration has done just that with this budget
request. While I will reserve judgment on the appropriate
funding level for the fiscal year 2002 Corps Civil Works
program until after I have heard from our witnesses, I will
admit to some concerns with the amount. A 14 percent decrease
over fiscal year 2001 enacted levels appears to me to be
unrealistic given the existing backlog.
This is especially true when we consider the flooding that
is taking place right now along the Mississippi River in the
Midwest. The proposed request would cut flood control along the
Mississippi River by 20 percent from fiscal year 2001 enacted
levels and is 10 percent less than the fiscal year 2001
requested level. I recognize that Congress has a habit of
increasing the level of funding for the Corps program above the
President's request and suspect that this year it will be no
different . . . perhaps that is part of the calculation when
developing the budget request. My concern is that it is this
type of ``gamesmanship'' that results in unnecessary spending.
I believe it would be far better for Congress to be presented
with a realistic budget request up front then one subject to
endless upward revisions. In short, you are making it too easy
for us to spend more money because it would appear you have
sent us a request that does not meet the need. I hope I am
wrong and have merely misunderstood your proposal.
With that said, I am anxious to hear the explanation of our
witnesses of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Voinovich, will you have an opening
statement?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, I do.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. As chairman of this subcommittee during
the 106th Congress, I was pleased to have an opportunity to
help develop the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 and
especially pleased to use that experience in drafting the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000, including provision to
restore the Everglades.
Authorizations are very important and are the first part of
the process of developing and maintaining our Nation's water
infrastructure. Equally important is having a liquid level of
funding to construct as well as operate and maintain the water
resource projects Congress authorizes.
Under the Bush Administration's fiscal year 2002 proposal,
overall funding increases were 4 percent, although the Army
Corps of Engineers faces significant cuts. I note that the
budget funds no new starts and that there is only 60 percent of
the optimum funding level needed for projects to move forward
on schedule. For instance, the Corps construction budget is
nearly $100 million less, a 23 percent cut in the level
appropriated for fiscal year 2001.
Further, the Corps budget for Operation and Maintenance is
$150 million less than the level appropriated for fiscal year
2001, an 8 percent cut. This cut increases the backlog of
critical maintenance needs from $415 million in fiscal year
2001 to $835 million in fiscal year 2002. That is a 100 percent
increase. Overall in the President's budget, the Corps will
sustain a reduction of 14 percent in fiscal year 2002 as
compared to fiscal year 2001.
As you know, this Nation has an aging water resources
infrastructure. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, the
deterioration of our locks and dams, our flood control and
storm damage projects for navigation channels will continue and
we will risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, and decreases
in protection from floods and damages to the environment.
I think it is up to us to ensure that the operation and
funding levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to
priority needs. Since I have been a member of this committee, I
have been concerned about the overall Corps infrastructure
investment requirement estimate of $38 billion. There are
already more water resources projects authorized for
construction than can be completed in any timely and efficient
construction schedule.
At the current levels of general funding, it would take 25
years to complete the active projects and the backlog, not even
considering additional project authorizations that were
included in WRDA 2000, let alone future WRDA bills. There are a
number of reasons why the Corps has such a backlog and most
significant is the decreasing Federal investment in water
resources infrastructure. We need to make those unmet needs a
priority. I believe we need to spend our Federal resources on
the right things, and among the right things that are not
receiving adequate funding are many of the worthy projects
authorized by this subcommittee. We need to sit down and make
some hard choices about where to allocate taxpayer money, where
we want to increase spending, where we want to make cuts or we
want to flat fund.
For example, for the National Institutes of Health, the
President included a generous increase in the amount of money
the NIH will receive in its budget, boosting NIH spending to
$2.8 billion in fiscal year 2002, almost a 14 percent increase.
Then the Senate added another $700 million to NIH funding.
Therefore, under the Senate's plan, NIH funding will rise by
over 17 percent.
Do I think we should spend money on important health
research? By golly, I do, but what we need to remember and what
is missing around this place is the true cost of what we spend
in the Federal budget is not just a dollar figure, it is what
you give up or what you could have purchased with that money.
Economists call the concept ``opportunity costs.'' When the
Senate thinks about spending money on one thing, we need to
recognize that we are giving up the ability to use that money
for other worthy purposes.
Another thing we need to remember in figuring opportunity
costs is the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs,
needs that are a Federal responsibility. One of the things we
talked about is school construction. Not our responsibility, it
is a State and local responsibility. In my State we have
undergone the most active, expensive, rebuilding of a school
program. That is a State responsibility. Now the Federal
Government wants to get into school construction and we cannot
provide the money for infrastructure needs, take care of the
Army Corps needs and some of those things. It doesn't make
sense.
We have to look at the way we deal with our money. We
increase the budget over the President's proposal by 4 percent.
That is a 333 percent increase over what the President proposed
and not a dime of it was involved in any of these things that
have come before this subcommittee. We cannot continue to
increase money for good things.
I know the subcommittee members who are not here, all of us
have things we would like to do and nobody wants to say you
can't increase education spending 20 percent and not have
something else suffer. I am saying it is time for us as a
subcommittee to face some of the responsibilities that we have
in terms of some of the realities and not keep putting these
things in the drawer, hoping they will go away. Some of our
colleagues say we have to spend more money and the answer is,
let's go from 8 percent to 12 percent, or let's do what we did
last time, 14.5 percent for non-defense discretionary spending
over the budget and didn't do diddly in terms of the problems
we have in this committee.
I am exercised about this and we need to communicate this
to our colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State
of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As chairman of this subcommittee
during the 106th Congress, I was pleased to have had the
opportunity to help develop the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999, and especially pleased to use that experience in
drafting the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 including
a provision to protect the Everglades.
Authorizations are a very important first part of the
process of developing and maintaining our Nation's water
resources infrastructure. Equally important is having an
adequate level of funding to construct as well as operate and
maintain the water resources projects Congress authorizes.
Under the Bush Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget
proposal, overall funding increases by 4 percent, although the
Army Corps of Engineers faces significant cuts. I note that the
budget funds no new starts, and provides only 60 percent of the
optimum funding level needed for projects to move forward at an
efficient schedule. For instance, the Corps' construction
budget is nearly $400 million less--a 23 percent cut--than the
level appropriated for fiscal year 2001. Further, the Corps'
budget for operation and maintenance is over $150 million less
than the level appropriated for fiscal year 2001--an 8 percent
cut. This cut increases the backlog of critical maintenance
needs from $415 million in fiscal year 2001, to $835 million in
fiscal year 2002. That's a staggering 100 percent increase!
Overall, under the President's budget, the Corps will
sustain a reduction of 14 percent in fiscal year 2002 as
compared to fiscal year 2001. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this
Nation has an aging national water resources infrastructure. If
we continue to ignore the upkeep, the deterioration of our
locks and dams, our flood and storm damage control projects and
our navigation channels will continue, and we will risk
disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased protection
against floods and damages to the environment. It is up to
Congress to ensure that operation and maintenance funding
levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to priority
needs.
Mr. Chairman, since I have been a member of this
subcommittee, I have been concerned about the Corps overall
infrastructure investment requirement estimate of $38 billion.
There are already more water resources projects authorized for
construction that can be completed in any timely and efficient
construction schedule. At the current low levels of general
construction appropriations, it would take 25 years to complete
the active projects in the backlog without even considering
additional project authorizations that were included in WRDA
2000, let alone future WRDAs.
There are a number of reasons why the Corps has such a
large backlog. The most significant reason is the decreasing
Federal investment in water resources infrastructure over the
last several decades. At the same time, the Corps' mission
continues to expand into areas like environmental restoration.
I strongly believe that Congress and the Administration need to
develop a strategy to address the Corps' growing backlog. This
strategy should give paramount consideration to effective
management of the backlog to assure that it only includes
needed projects that are economically justified,
environmentally acceptable, and supported by willing and
financially capable non-Federal sponsors.
Senator Graham and I recently wrote to General Flowers
asking the Corps to develop and implement a process of regular
review for existing Corps projects and to make recommendations
about the Corps' future involvement in those projects.
To determine the extent of unmet needs throughout our
Nation, I have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
conduct a study on the unmet infrastructure needs of our
Nation. This includes such items as: highways, mass transit,
airports, drinking water supply and wastewater treatment,
public buildings, water resources (flood control and
navigation), and hydropower generating facilities. Addressing
these unmet needs should be a priority in the Senate, and I
intend to make it so.
I believe we need to spend our Federal resources on the
right things, and among the right things that are not receiving
adequate funding are many of the worthy projects authorized by
this committee.
We need to sit down and make some hard choices about where
to allocate the taxpayers' money, where we want to increase
spending, where we want to make cuts or where we want to flat-
fund.
Take the National Institutes of Health, for example. The
President has included a generous increase in the amount of
money that the NIH will receive in his budget, boosting NIH
spending by $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2002--a 13.8 percent
increase.
The Senate added an additional $700 million in NIH funding.
Therefore, under the Senate's plan, NIH funding would rise by
17.2 percent over last year.
Do I think we should spend money on important health
research? Absolutely. But, how much is enough?
We need to remember that the true cost of what we spend in
the Federal budget is not just the dollar figure, it is what
you give up, or what you could have purchased with that money.
Economists call the concept ``opportunity cost.'' When the
Senate thinks about spending money on one thing, we need to
recognize that we are giving up the ability to use the money
for other worthy purposes.
Another thing we need to remember in figuring opportunity
costs is the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal
needs--needs that are a Federal responsibility, and which we
should address as part of our full and balanced approach to the
Federal budget.
Do we spend Federal dollars on things like school
construction, which is a State and local responsibility, or do
we prevent flood and storm damage from ravaging people's
property?
These are the kinds of spending decisions that we, as
elected officials, have to make. I realize that in virtually
any situation, the easy decision would be to simply increase
spending.
However, it is that logic that has caused us to spend well-
beyond the rate of inflation over the past few years. In my
view, we need to stiffen our ``backbones'' and bring an end to
Congress' spending habit. Families need to carefully budget
their resources, and so do cities and States. So, too, should
the Federal Government.
The American people want us to make hard choices regarding
our budget priorities. I believe it should be this committee's
responsibility to make sure that the projects we have
authorized get funded.
We must convince our colleagues about the seriousness of
the Corps' construction and operation and maintenance backlog
and that the necessary resources for the Corps to adequately
meet its current responsibilities must be provided.
I appreciate and support the fact that the President
restrains the growth of Federal spending in his 2002 budget
proposal. He made hard choices that needed to be made. However,
I would have placed greater emphasis on funding an important
Federal responsibility such as those undertaken by the Corps.
With an overall cut of 14 percent in the Corps' fiscal year
2002 budget, we will not be able to fulfill these
responsibilities. I'm sure many of my colleagues would agree
with me.
Again, I don't believe that we should simply ``tack on''
new spending as some would like to do, and which the Senate did
in the budget resolution, increasing spending by 8 percent of
last year's level.
To counter rampant spending, we should re-establish our
priorities, and shift funds away from clearly non-Federal
responsibilities, or, in the alternative, from programs that
are clearly ``over-funded'' in order to more evenly distribute
funds to cover a broader range of unmet needs.
Absent such action, I would be interested to hear if
today's witness could possibly shed some light on how the Corps
can address its backlog while simultaneously absorbing the
reductions proposed in its budget request.
I look forward to the testimony of General Flowers and Ms.
Tornblom and their responses to any questions that may follow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. We are going to wait and not hear from our
witnesses until Senator Baucus gets here, at least for a few
minutes. I have to comment on some of the things you said. I
agree.
One of the questions I am going to be asking is concerning
the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. We have been working with
that for so many years and to have that slide at this point, it
is going to end up costing considerably more--I don't think
anyone questions this--in the long run by not meeting the
construction schedule that we had set initially.
This is one of those projects that if you don't get on it
right away and show and demonstrate to the potential carriers
out there that we are going to correct that problem, they are
not going to make the long term decisions that will get the
maximum use out of the waterways.
I don't know if you were here when I mentioned that it just
seems to me we get in the habit of depending on the upgrades,
so we don't have a realistic budget to start with. Maybe that
is my suspicion and others don't share it, but I suspect that
might be the case.
Senator Voinovich. Sometimes I think they do that. They
low-ball it and they know we will make it up so they can add on
to the spending.
Senator Inhofe. We will go ahead and start with our
witnesses. We will start then with Ms. Tornblom. Your entire
statement will be entered into the record. Try to keep your
comments a bit abbreviated.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDIA TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET)
Ms. Tornblom. Good morning.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
President's Budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2002.
Accompanying me today are Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the 50th
Chief of Engineers, and Mr. Rob Vining, Chief of the Civil
Works Programs Management Division.
The 2002 Civil Works budget reflects the President's
overall goals to slow the growth of Federal spending, provide
for a tax cut, and reduce the national debt, while providing
greater emphasis on education and protecting Social Security.
The budget for Civil Works requires appropriations of $3.9
billion. In addition to these appropriations, about $514
million will be contributed by Bonneville Power Administration,
non-Federal cost-sharing sponsors, and other sources. In
combination, these funds will support a total Civil Works
Program for 2002 of $4.4 billion.
The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration. As you have already mentioned, the program
currently has a significant active construction backlog which
is about $40 billion. Of this amount, $26 billion represents
requirements to complete projects currently budgeted for either
construction or pre-construction engineering and design. In
order to address this backlog, available funding in 2002 is
directed toward the construction of continuing projects. As a
result, no new project construction starts or project-specific
study starts are budgeted.
Although no project specific studies are budgeted, the
budget does propose two new national studies that will provide
information needed by the Army and the Chief of Engineers to
assess potential changes in Civil Works policies and
procedures. The first of these new studies, which was
authorized in Section 223 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000, is a 12 year program to monitor the economic and
environmental results of up to five projects constructed by the
Corps of Engineers.
The second new national study was authorized by this
committee in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
Section 215. This study will assess the extent, causes and
impacts of shoreline erosion on the coastal shores of the
United States.
The 2002 budget presents a new Administration policy toward
shore protection projects that involve beach nourishment. For
initial sand placement of these projects, the Administration
proposes no change in the currently authorized 65 percent
Federal, 35 percent non-Federal cost sharing. However, for
subsequent periodic renourishment of such projects, the
Administration will seek a 65 percent non-Federal share,
reducing the Federal share to 35 percent. This policy would
apply to all renourishment work funded in 2002 and beyond.
Until now, beach nourishment projects started since 1995
have not received budgetary support. However, due to this
policy change, the budget includes funding for projects with
2002 requirements regardless of when they were started.
Altogether, $82 million is budgeted this year for beach
nourishment projects.
For the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, the
budget targets funds to high priority flood damage reduction
projects, which are on the mainstem of the Mississippi River
and in the Atchafalaya River Basin in Louisiana.
In the Operation and Maintenance Program, the budget gives
priority among port and harbor and inland waterway activities
to those that support higher commercial navigation use. Funds
for the operation and maintenance of shallow-draft harbors are
limited to $47 million. Among shallow-draft harbors, the
subsistence harbors in isolated communities and harbors that
involve relatively greater use for commercial cargo and fishing
are given priority, whereas harbors that are essentially
recreational in nature are deemphasized.
The budget includes $42 million for operation of low
commercial-use inland waterways, or waterways with less than 1
billion ton-miles of traffic per year. Funds for maintenance of
low commercial-use inland waterways are limited to $25 million
for maintenance dredging. Again, these funds are targeted at
the waterway segments with relatively greater commercial use.
Recreation user fees will be increased in order to raise
2002 receipts by about $10 million to an estimated total of $44
million. This is the first step of a 4-year effort to increase
recreation user fees by a total of $25 million. About $4
million of this total will be realized by increasing fees under
current authority. In addition, we plan to transmit proposed
legislation to Congress to authorize certain changes in current
fee collection authorities. All of the increase in fees would
be available without further appropriation for operation,
maintenance, and improvement of Corps recreation facilities.
In the Army Secretariat we are working closely with the
Chief of Engineers to identify opportunities to strengthen the
Civil Works planning process. In addition, as indicated in the
President's Budget Blueprint, the Army is considering options
for strengthening the ability of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Works to ensure appropriate policy
oversight of project planning. Already, General Flowers and I
have agreed to restore the past practice of concurrent vertical
involvement of all organizational levels, including the Office
of the Assistant Secretary, at critical steps in the
formulation of projects.
The Army Corps of Engineers is the premiere Government
agency for water resources project planning, construction and
operation, for protection of the Nation's waters and wetlands,
and for emergency response. As a decentralized, watershed based
organization with strong engineering, environmental and
research capabilities, the Corps is well positioned to continue
developing integrated solutions to complex, modern water
resources problems.
With the Corps' strong emphasis on technical and analytical
approaches to these problems, the Army Civil Works Program is a
wise investment in the Nation's future.
Thank you. This concludes my statement.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
General Flowers.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ROBERT B. FLOWERS, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Flowers. Thanks for inviting me to come before you
again in support of the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for
the Civil Works Program. The prepared statement we have
furnished, I ask you make it a part of the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
General Flowers. Two days ago, the Mississippi River
reached a flood crest at Davenport, IA. Their homegrown levee
held back the flood waters from the snow melt and the heavy
spring rains that have brought floods to the upper Midwest. I
was in Davenport, IA on Sunday and met local officials together
with residents and volunteers as they engaged in a heroic
effort to keep flood damage at a minimum. Their actions are an
affirmation of the spirit of that community.
I am proud to say our Army Corps of Engineers provided
assistance for the flood fighting effort in Davenport and other
communities large and small. Corps men and women have been
helping to keep high water from overwhelming homes, farms,
businesses and livelihoods. I would like to describe two of our
heroes.
Michelle Schneider and Terry Zien of our St. Paul District
were checking the main tributaries of the Minnesota River on
the afternoon of April 7. After a night of heavy rain, they
were checking the flood waters and observed a large volume on
the Pomme de Terre River upstream of Appleton, Minnesota. They
immediately notified city officials who had not yet begun
flood-fighting preparations. The city quickly began sandbagging
operations and was able to keep ahead of the flood waters. The
river rose 8 feet overnight. Thanks to their rapid response,
damage to the community was averted.
You can be proud of these public servants. They are 150
strong and have been working around the clock to control the
effects of high water on the Red, the Minnesota and the Upper
Mississippi. Their efforts and expertise are paying off for the
citizens of hometown America.
While we stayed on course in carrying out our missions, we
have been surrounded by controversies the past year. When I
became Chief last October, I found an organization that as on
solid ground. Our very capable men and women have soldiered on
to provide sound solutions to our Nation's water resources
problems while we have had our credibility assailed and our
integrity challenged.
When I testified before you a few weeks ago, I offered my
reactions to the investigation of our Army Inspector General
and the review of the National Academy of Sciences on our Upper
Mississippi Navigation Study and the whistleblower allegations.
I commented that it was unfortunate the Inspector General did
not have the benefit of the National Academy of Sciences review
available when his report was published. I believe he would
have taken an entirely different view of the proceedings.
My view is this: If the Inspector General had had that
report, he would have found good, decent and honorable people
coming to grips with both a flawed economic model and
insufficient data. Since then, I have met with a wide spectrum
of Americans with different interests and viewpoints and all
have thanked me for speaking up for the quality and the
integrity of the scientific and engineering services that we
offer our Nation.
Let me assure you again, the Corps has sound systematic
processes that consistently provide decisionmakers, the
Congress, the Administration and the American people with solid
recommendations based on sound engineering, scientific fact and
objectivity. Our intent is to achieve a synergy between
economic objectives and environmental values.
I submit that the Corps program is subject to more
Executive Branch and Congressional oversight than any other
Federal activity. Corps projects are separately authorized in a
bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Every project is reviewed annually by both the Administration
and the Congress as part of the appropriations process. Each is
also subjected to a benefit cost ratio that is unique among
Federal agencies.
I think we receive this scrutiny because of our profound
impact on the Nation's well-being. For example, U.S. deep water
ports, coastal and inland harbors and waterways move $2.3
billion tons of domestic and foreign commerce annually. Flood
and shore protection projects prevent $22 billion in damages
each year. Over 120,000 acres of wetlands, aquatic and flood
plain ecosystems have been added to the national habitat since
1998.
The Nation's investment in the Corps of Engineers produces
a 26 percent annual rate of return and has put $30 billion in
tax revenues and savings into the Treasury. These statistics
confirm my belief that the American people have invested wisely
in our Nation's investment in water resources infrastructure.
Your Corps of Engineers has responded to our Nation's call
for over 2 centuries, from the time we first explored and
mapped the western frontier to this day when we are helping to
save lives and protect property. We have sought to improve the
quality of life for our citizens.
Today, however, our population has increased and our
infrastructure has aged. Our investment in water resources has
decreased. The Corps today has a $40 billion backlog of
authorized, but unfunded, new capital investments that, when
implemented, will provide benefits to the American people. Our
critical maintenance backlog amounts to over $800 million. As
the infrastructure ages, the costs escalate.
Have we as a society, and as a Nation, paid enough
attention to the future? I say no. In the report card recently
released by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
Nation's navigable waterway infrastructure received a D+. We
also heard that same answer from 1,300 people, a cross section
of concerned stakeholders from all walks of life in all areas
of the country when we went out and listened to their concerns
last year.
These sessions raised important issues. Examples include
the need to make improvements to our water transportation
system, the need to manage our flood plains better, and the
need to restore and protect the environment.
In closing, I am firmly convinced our Army Corps of
Engineers has a critical contribution to make in solving our
country's problems today and in the future. Ours is an
organization that has built flexibility into its structure to
seek out the best economic, environmental and social solutions
to our Nation's toughest jobs. We strive to bring synergy to
problem-solving. I am proud that America looks to us when it
needs the best.
That concludes my remarks. We are prepared to respond to
your questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
We have been joined by our ranking member, Senator Baucus,
and I would recognize him now for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. I thank the witnesses and thank General
Flowers. It is not the first time we have seen him and I doubt
it will be the last.
I am concerned about the Administration's budget request
for the Corps of Engineers. I think, frankly, it is way too
low. In fact, as you all know, the budget has been slashed by
about 14 percent in the President's proposal. That is at a time
when the Corps is facing lots of challenges, a construction
backlog of over $40 billion to name one.
In addition, the Administration's budget, I must say, has
hit my State of Montana very hard and it has hit where it
hurts. Basically, the eastern part of Montana. Those of you may
not know a lot about Montana, but let me tell you eastern
Montana is a part of the State where we don't have near as many
people as in the western part of the State and recreation on
the Ft. Peck Reservoir and the Ft. Peck Dam is key, critical to
the economy in eastern Montana, but for some agriculture and
even that is getting a bit shaky at times. We desperately need
help and the Administration's budget does not help us in any
way whatsoever. We receive no funding under the
Administration's budget request for the Ft. Peck Reservoir
projects.
I emphasized at the last hearing we had with you, General
Flowers, that recreation is really everything to the economy
around the Ft. Peck Lake. One project in particular is the fish
hatchery that was authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000. It is very popular. I have to tell you whenever I
am home, even in Helena several hundred miles away from Ft.
Peck, people walk up to me and say, ``Max, thanks so much for
that fish hatchery.'' You won't believe, on a per capita basis,
I probably get more compliments on that fish hatchery than on
any other project in the State and I'll bet you more than any
other Senator receives on any project in his or her own State.
It is incredible. I emphasize on a per capita basis because
there aren't a lot of people in eastern Montana. It is
extremely popular and will bring huge environmental benefits,
and economic benefits to Montana, environmental--improving fish
stocks--because that is a wonderful fishing opportunity there,
help for the endangered sturgeon and basic recreation. It is a
wonderful opportunity for those people.
Private individuals are searching for ways to raise money
for hatchery design, but they are waiting for the Corps to come
through with its money. As you know, there are no dollars
proposed in this budget for the fish hatchery.
A few weeks back, this subcommittee explored some
criticisms about the Corps management and the Corps alleged
bias toward large projects. I believe at that time, General,
you were very sincere in your expressed efforts to respond to
the criticisms that had been leveled at the Corps. We even held
out hope there would be real reform in the way the Corps does
business.
I must say my enthusiasm has dampened a bit basically
because I don't think this budget allows the Corps to achieve
the reforms it would like. You have to have resources.
Sometimes that is not popular to say, but you have to have
resources to get the job done. You don't want to waste
resources, but you have to have resources.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the General and
other witnesses and I hope they can persuade me that the
President's budget will allow the Corps to faithfully respond
to some of the criticisms that have been waged, legitimate ones
I might add, to help ensure the integrity of the Civil Works
planning process.
I also have concerns about the Administration's proposal to
substantially increase recreation user fees. I don't know how
that is going to work. I know how it is going to work in one
sense, I don't know how it is going to work in another. I worry
about how it will be implemented and I must say again, when you
talk about places like eastern Montana, Montana per capita
income, wage per capita income is 50th in the Nation. That is
statewide. Think of those people in eastern Montana. It is a
lot lower and they have to pay user fees? There is just no way.
It's not going to work.
We are a huge country, there are projects in New Orleans,
all over this country, that are much different. There is
dredging, there are barges, locks and so forth, but there are
also fish hatcheries in eastern Montana. I just want you to
realize we are a very varied, complex country. We are not all
locks and dams along the Mississippi and we are lots of other
things in this country that are as valid, as important and
don't cost as much. I deeply regret they are not included in
this budget.
In short, General, as usual, I want to get these things
solved, but we need some help.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the
State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our two
witnesses for attending this hearing today. I know this is a
busy time for you. I have a lot of concerns about the
Administration's Budget Request for the Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works program. The President has slashed the Corps'
budget by 14 percent, at a time when the Corps is facing a
construction backlog of over $40 billion and has been asked to
explore serious institutional reforms. Not only that, but the
Administration's budget has hit my State pretty hard, and hit
it where it hurts--the recreation economy of Central and
Eastern Montana. Several authorized projects in my State,
mostly around Fort Peck Reservoir, will receive no funding
under the Administration's budget request.
As I emphasized at the last hearing that General Flowers
attended, recreation is everything to the economy of my State
around Ft. Peck Lake. One project in particular that was
authorized by the Water Resources and Development Act of 2000
provides for a Fort Peck Fish Hatchery. This project is hugely
popular because it will bring many environmental and economic
benefits to my State, including improved fish stocks, help for
the endangered pallid sturgeon, and economic opportunities for
Central and Eastern Montana communities.. Private individuals,
in cooperation with the State of Montana, have already begun
laying plans for the hatchery, and are even now searching for
ways to raise money for a hatchery design until the Army Corps
comes through with funding. However, no funding has been
proposed.
A few weeks back, this committee explored some serious
criticisms about the Corps' management practices and the Corps'
alleged bias toward large construction projects. I believe at
that time General Flowers was sincere in his expressed desire
to respond to the criticisms leveled at the Corps. He held out
the hope that there would be real reform in the way the Corps
does business, that we would see independent review of large
Corps projects, that we could see more public participation in
the development of projects.
However, I don't hold out a lot of hope that the
President's Budget Request will allow the Corps to achieve real
reform because I don't think the budget gives them the
resources to do it. I look forward to hearing the testimony of
the witnesses on this issue, and I hope they can persuade me
that the President's budget will allow the Corps to faithfully
respond to criticisms, and will ensure the integrity of the
Civil Works planning process.
I also have concerns about the Administration's proposal to
substantially increase recreation user fees. I have concerns
about how such a proposal will be implemented, and what the
impact increased fees will have on the residents of my State.
In short, I question the ability of the Corps to carry out the
reforms it has been asked to undertake, attend to its huge
backlog of projects, and meet its many other responsibilities
to the citizens of my State and the country.
Again, I would like to thank General Flowers and Claudia
Tornblom for being here. I look forward to exploring these and
other issues with them at today's hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Mr. Vining, I assume you are here for support?
Mr. Vining. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I am going to reverse the order of the
questions because of a couple of things Senator Baucus said and
I do agree with him. In my opening, I said essentially the same
thing about the inadequacy of parts of this budget and with the
things out there, the reforms that are needed and the projects
that are ongoing, do you really believe this budget is
adequate?
Ms. Tornblom. This budget needs to be considered in the
context of the overall government-wide budget of the President
of the United States. It is in that context that the budget can
be understood as directing the limited resources that were
available, in light of the President's other priorities,
directing them to the highest priority missions of the Corps of
Engineers, those being flood damage reduction, commercial
navigation and environmental restoration.
Senator Inhofe. That didn't really answer the question. As
far as the construction programs underway right now and the
schedules we have had, do you feel it adequately keeps us on
those schedules?
Ms. Tornblom. I can certainly confirm that it does not keep
them on schedule. The budget provides approximately 57 percent
of what would be needed to keep the ongoing construction
projects on schedule.
Senator Inhofe. General Flowers, I mentioned this to you
briefly before and some of this Senator Baucus said, and it is
certainly true in Oklahoma. As I go around and have our town
meetings, it is very difficult for me to be near any of our
Corps lakes without having a lot of the complaints concerning
upcoming increases in the camping fees. I have calculated in
just one of our areas what I think it would be if I understand
correctly. We go from $11 to $17.
I am going to make an effort to try to keep from having to
raise these fees. I think this is probably a good forum in
which I can make that statement. I would like to get a response
from you concerning these fees if you would.
General Flowers. Yes, sir. I am probably the last person to
favor raising the fees, even though an argument could be made
about market value of the services provided, but I won't do
that. What I will tell you is we are very interested in trying
to modernize the services at our recreation parks. We have
attempted in the past to budget those and it has not been
permitted.
In part what was happening with the increase in user fees
was an attempt to try and see to some of that modernization
with a commitment that the increase in fees would be plowed
back into the facilities. I think what we were trying to seek
is some way to improve those facilities.
I will give you an example. Last week I was visiting the
Northwest and I visited Hood Park by the confluence of the
Snake and Columbia Rivers. That park was probably put in back
in the 1950s.
Senator Inhofe. Where is that?
General Flowers. It is in the State of Washington near the
confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, near the town of
Pasco.
The park was built probably 30 or 40 years ago and 20 amp
was the standard in those days for electrical plug-in. Today
with more modern appliances and rigs, you need substantially
more. In an attempt to keep service available for people, I saw
a junction box there that had a coat hanger stuck on top of it.
I was wondering what that was all about and they told me that's
where they put a drip bottle so that when they plug in new
rigs, the water can drip and keep the box cool. We have to do
better than that. Not only do I question the safety of that,
but it is our park rangers and others trying to provide a
service to the public and keep things open and available, we
have to do a better job in seeing to those. I think the attempt
to try and increase the fees was to try and shed some light on
that and perhaps get some funds to help modernize.
Senator Inhofe. We have had fee increases and I want you to
know we would be concerned about that.
I have several things to get into, including Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam which has been a concern for some time. We
are all concerned about the energy crisis we have right now.
I'd like to have you tell us how your projects would relate to
the energy crisis and how it would affect it?
General Flowers. I think most of our effects would be in
the area of the hydropower we provide. Is it possible for us to
provide more power? Yes, sir, it is. In a number of projects,
space has been left to add additional capacity, so that's one
thing that could be done. I think the effectiveness of our
generating systems would be improved if we could do something
about the maintenance backlog.
While in the Northwest, I visited the Bonneville
powerhouse, the first one constructed on the Columbia River.
They are replacing the generators in the original powerhouse
built in the 1930s. That project was scheduled for completion
in about 2003 and because of the budget, it has been stretched
and I think will now complete in about 2009 if my memory serves
me correctly. Those new generators provide a fairly significant
increase in efficiency and in the amount of power that can be
generated. They also are an environmental benefit in that the
new design of the turbines reduces cavitation and improves fish
survival of any fish that pass through those turbines.
Hydroelectric power is used to provide peak power and that
peak power is probably the most expensive.
Ms. Tornblom. In addition what the Chief has stated, the
Corps regulatory staff, particularly in California, has been
very actively working with the State government and the
regional representatives of the other Federal agencies to
expedite the permitting process so that those sites being
considered by the State and private developers can be very
quickly passed through the regulatory process and get approved
for construction.
Senator Inhofe. I had in mind also the predictability of
barging capacity.
General Flowers. That's a great point. What happens when
you have to delay projects that are under construction, I'll
give you a typical example. Marmet Lock and Dam in West
Virginia, I learned from Senator Byrd, has more lockages than
any other lock and dam in the system. The prime commodity moved
through there is coal that is moving to power plants, so if you
improve the efficiency of your system to carry, then you
improve the efficiency to supply those critical plants for
power supply.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I concur with the chairman, and Senator
Baucus, you didn't have a chance to hear my remarks prior, but
the overall 23 percent cut in the appropriated fiscal year
2001, the 8 percent cut in terms of maintenance is not
acceptable. I really think you have an obligation, General, and
the Secretary of the Army has a responsibility to come back
with some realistic numbers in terms of getting the job done
that needs to be done.
The money that has been appropriated in the past hasn't
been enough and now we are cutting back from that. The least
you should have received is a cost-of-living increase in your
budget. This is ridiculous. As I pointed out, we just added 4
percent spending increase over what the President proposed, and
that's a 333 percent increase and we didn't do anything about
some of these needs and other unmet needs of the Federal
Government. Yet, we increased NIH spending astronomically, we
are going to increase spending for education astronomically.
Education is not fundamentally a responsibility of the Federal
Government; it is basically a State and local responsibility.
We are not doing the things the Federal Government is supposed
to be doing.
I think it is the obligation of the Administration and you
ought to take it back to Mr. Daniels and I will call him and
tell him and Mr. O'Keefe that there are certain Federal
responsibilities and local and State responsibilities. Our
fundamental job is to take care of our Federal
responsibilities.
I think the least you should ask for is a cost-of-living
increase, the least.
Ms. Tornblom. I am sure the new Secretary of the Army and
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works will be working within the
Administration to take up these matters as soon as they come on
board.
Senator Voinovich. I am relatively new to this business and
Senators are always talking about projects in their State and
ordinarily I don't do that, I talk about the big picture of
things. As Governor and as Senator, we have worked very hard on
a floodwall for Columbus, OH, it's a big deal. We know one of
these days we are going to have a big flood and that wall is
not finished yet. We have asked for some $11 million and I
think you allocated $6 million for that floodwall.
I have talked with Secretary Westphal about the dredging of
harbors in the Great Lakes, the water level is at its lowest in
30 or 40 years. It is almost impossible for some of our
commercial vessels to get in and we need more dredging to be
done. There is nothing in this budget to take care of that
problem.
Senator Baucus talks about recreation. One of the things
I've tried to get the Corps to do is look at the economic
impact recreation has on States. Recreation in the Great Lakes
is enormous and has more to do with our economy than commercial
travel by some of our lake carriers. Yet, it is not a priority
in terms of this issue of dredging. I'd like to know what we
are going to be able to do about this dredging problem we have
in the Great Lakes in moving not only commercial boats and some
of our recreational vehicles in and out of the harbors. I want
an answer, what are you going to do about it? What does this
budget do to take care of that situation?
I have a steel mill in Ohio, LTV Steel that we are trying
to keep alive, a big deal. They are trying to get loans from
the Federal, State and so on, but they have a big problem and
that is they have to get their big boat in to bring their
taconite to the facility. We need to get an answer from the
Corps of Engineers. We are not asking for money from the Corps,
but they are asking for permission to dredge that and put the
stuff that is dredged into a facility the Corps has. We have
been trying to get that done now for several weeks and haven't
gotten an answer. I want an answer, I'd like to know. All I
need is permission for them to go ahead and dredge this
material and put it in one of your disposal sites.
General Flowers. Let me respond about LTV Steel. That is a
critical need. There are some issues with respect to making
available the existing combined disposal facility, there is a
process to get that approval. We received the package to
support that a week ago. Two days ago, the letter was signed
over to the Secretary's office to get the Secretary of the
Army's approval. We are anticipating that, which would allow
the dredging to proceed as the need has identified in the month
of May.
Ms. Tornblom. That letter has not arrived at my desk yet. I
will make sure that I pay attention to it as soon as I get back
this afternoon.
Senator Voinovich. I appreciate it.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. I am curious about why we got left out?
What were the priorities?
General Flowers. The priorities were to continue work that
had been begun, albeit at a reduced level. As the Secretary
testified, it's about 57 percent of what we would like, an
average. Some are better, some are a little lower. We made a
conscious decision to try not to terminate any projects and
proceed with projects already underway. What that means is
there are no new starts. So if it falls into a category of
something that would have to be started this year, it was not
put in the budget.
I am in absolute agreement with you that projects like the
hatchery at Ft. Peck are fantastic projects and we sure would
like to do them, but we are going to do the absolute best job
we can with the money that has been made available.
Senator Baucus. Have you given much thought to Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial?
General Flowers. Yes, sir and part of my trip last week
through the Northwest was to visit several places. That was why
I was at Hood Park. It is near one of the campgrounds we
anticipate between the years of the Bicentennial 2003 to 2006,
a substantial increase in visitation to a lot of the places in
that part of the country. I am very concerned about our ability
to handle the public that will come there for that celebration.
I am trying to find ways to get those facilities up to snuff.
Senator Baucus. I agree, there will be a lot of people. It
is going to be an important event. My sense is there is not
adequate planning, not adequate preparations for it. Have you
read Steve Ambrose's book?
General Flowers. ``Undaunted Courage''?
Senator Baucus. Yes.
General Flowers. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. And Senator, I'm halfway through it. I
read it 15 minutes every night before I go to sleep and it's
wonderful.
Ms. Tornblom. One of the things we have highlighted in the
budget this year as a new line item, although there was a minor
level of ongoing activity prior to this, was the funding to pay
for a Lewis and Clark coordinator, the hours, expenses and
activities of that person who is located in the Corps' Omaha
District.
Senator Baucus. When are we going to see some actual
projects commemorating the Bicentennial? When are we going to
see some recommendations by the Administration to the Corps?
Ms. Tornblom. I am not aware of any proposals by the
Administration. We did have in past years a recreation
modernization plan, but that did not receive funding when the
past Administration proposed it.
Senator Baucus. I made my points in my statement basically.
I am very concerned that it is a bit weak, I am really
distressed at the budget levels. I don't want to get into
political argument here and I won't, but I heard you say, Ms.
Tornblom, that this request is consistent with the President's
other priorities and I do think there is another priority which
is causing this and that is the tax cut, the proposed $1.6
trillion tax cut. Money is not free and it is a zero sum game.
You have to budget these things and if there is no money, there
is no money.
I know the chairman may disagree with me, but I hope the
budget resolution that comes back is more realistic with
respect to the size of the tax cut so that some of these items
can be more appropriately considered. America has many, many
needs. One of them is getting the surpluses back in the hands
of the people, that is clear, but we also have needs like the
ones we are addressing here today.
In the Corps backlogged projects, as the Senator from Ohio
said, we have a national responsibility here and the Corps fits
into that category as an agency with national responsibilities
compared to some other spending that we do engage in around
here.
I hope you send the message back with whatever influence
you have that if the Administration starts to negotiate the
budget resolution, maybe save a bit for the Corps.
Senator Inhofe. I do disagree, but we all have different
philosophies. When you look at what is the function of
Government, the infrastructure is way up there. I was talking
to a prominent Senator yesterday who was not aware that we are
navigable in Oklahoma, yet with the billions of dollars of cost
in which my father-in-law was very involved, it may have been
considered to be a boondoggle at the time, but the investment
is there and we have certain things necessary to keep that up.
One is the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam and I do want to talk
about that.
Toward the end of your statement, General Flowers, you
talked about these listening sessions. The Corps has had some
PR problems. I'd like to know if that was what you were using
these for, and if so, are you getting things from them? How are
you going to convey that to Congress?
General Flowers. We have put the listening sessions almost
in toto on our website, we have created a brochure that
captures an executive summary of what we heard in the listening
sessions and did take that information and included it in a
strategic plan for our Civil Works function. That plan is
currently being reviewed at the Secretariat and at OMB. That is
how we would propose to communicate that.
Senator Inhofe. Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, we have been
dealing with this for some time. The delays built into this
with this year's budget are of great concern to me for one
major reason. When you go upstream and have people making
decisions that are not decisions as to what are they going to
do this year, but making barging decisions that are done years
in advance, there has to be an assurance they know by some
year, whether 2002, 2003 or 2004, that it is going to be able
to handle the draft capacity in order to get those goods
shipped back and forth.
Without that certainty, decisions are going to be made to
use other forms, maybe expensive forms, of transportation. I've
been told as far as the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, we're
only asking for about $18 million. That is less than half of
what is really going to be necessary to get it done and keep it
on schedule.
Also I've been shown and had demonstrated to me that if we
don't do it, it is going to end up costing considerably more by
lagging the construction schedule we had. I would like to have
you address that specific project.
General Flowers. Your assessment is absolutely accurate. As
part of the desire to keep all ongoing projects ongoing, we
have had to cut back on the funding of all projects to include
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. For all project benefits
foregone, we are probably looking at about $5.8 billion and
another $.5 billion in costs which would be mostly inflation,
so it is over $6 billion in costs on all projects.
Senator Inhofe. When you say all projects, you are talking
about all ongoing projects like Montgomery?
General Flowers. Yes, all projects and about 10 months
delay on average for each project. Specifically, on Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam, in the budget is $18 million. With that
it's going to delay completion, probably if the budget
continues that way, year to year until December 2005.
Senator Inhofe. As opposed to when?
General Flowers. As opposed to December 2003. It will delay
that project 2 years. If we were working at max capacity on
Motgomery Point, we would need $60 million in fiscal year 2002
and the impact if we delay is about $42 million benefits lost.
Senator Inhofe. That is my point. That is why I agree with
both the other Senators. We don't always share the same
philosophy. Economically, we are better off to go ahead and get
these things done. This has a far greater cost than just the
direct cost you mentioned, because it has the cost of those
people who are planning to use that improvement in order to
ensure they are able to carry their goods in the future.
I am going to be working pretty hard to see if we can't get
that accelerated on that specifically.
In the Tulsa District, recently the office, in response to
concerns raised by the Fish and Wildlife Service, decided to
stop issuing dock permits on Corps lakes. Is this in that
particular district, or is this happening all over? And kind of
give me the reasons as you understand them. and if not, you can
answer it for the record. I'd like to get some response as to
why this is being done and the reasons behind it.
Mr. Vining. Let me respond in part and then provide a more
complete answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
dock facility permits at corps of engineers projects in tulsa district
A moratorium has been placed on the issuance of new shoreline
management permits for private boat docks at eight Tulsa District Corps
of Engineers projects. A moratorium period of 30 to 60 days is a normal
part of the periodic review process to receive public review and
comment on shoreline management plans every 5 years. The moratorium was
extended, however, to allow further coordination with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and two Oklahoma State agencies concerning
cumulative environment impacts of the entire shoreline management
program. This moratorium is scheduled to be lifted before the end of
May 2001, thus allowing resumption of issuance of permits for private
boat docks. Permit requests for boat docks in new areas not currently
zoned for this type of use will still be held in abeyance until the
implications of cumulative environmental impacts are more thoroughly
evaluated.
For the lakes in question, there is a plan that provides
for a programmatic approval of permits for dock facilities that
is periodically updated every 5 years. There have been issues
raised particularly by the State Historic Preservation Office,
also Fish and Wildlife Service. We are working through those
now and anticipate to have that resolved by May, which will
allow the permit activities to resume in the area presently
covered by those plans.
Our normal update of those plans would be next year, which
would allow for an expansion of the permit activities perhaps
beyond what is presently contained in the geographic scope.
I could give you a very specific answer for the record.
Senator Inhofe. I would like that. When would that be?
Mr. Vining. We could have that next week.
Senator Inhofe. Candy Lake, are you familiar with that?
Mr. Vining. I am happy to talk about Candy Lake.
Senator Inhofe. For those not familiar, this is a problem
where we are trying to return land to original owners. However,
because of the problem we are having with NEPA and the cultural
artifacts, we seem to have gotten into a standstill that I'd
like to work ourselves out of. I would like the feeling of the
Corps as to how we can resolve this problem.
Mr. Vining. As you know, we own the land around Candy Lake
so we are required to go through NEPA process on that. Whether
that is an environmental assessment or an EIS is going to have
a significant impact on the schedule. Our hope is we can get
through with an environmental assessment on that and can give
you a specific schedule at that time within 6 months.
Senator Inhofe. How about Kaw Lake? That's a situation
where a town has relocated and the two wells are a nominal
amount, but in terms of who is responsible, I'd like to get
some dialog there.
General Flowers. In general, I think what we can do to help
Kaw Lake falls probably in the realm of providing technical
assistance to try and assess and help out with the issues and
problems there. If it's going to involve any subsequent work or
construction, following that we would probably need some
authority's help.
Senator Inhofe. For the record, you might provide a little
more detail as to what type of authority that would be.
[The information follows:]
kaw city, ok, water supply facilities
Construction of water supply and related facilities near Kaw Lake
for Kaw City, OK, are considered to be a non-Federal responsibility by
the Administration. Consequently, bill language and construction,
general funding of $1,500,000 would be required to authorize and direct
the Corps of Engineers to design and construct this project. Bill
language similar to the following would be needed: ``Using the
$1,500,000 provided herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, is directed to design and construct new wells
near Sarge Creek in Oklahoma, that are capable of producing 500 acre-
feet of water annually, and to design and construct a pipeline from the
wells near Sarge Creek to Kaw City, OK at full Federal expense.''
I also chair the Senate Armed Services Readiness Committee,
so between those two, we do have the total jurisdiction so we
will be seeing a lot of each other. I am looking forward to
working with you.
We know there have been some problems in the past--and PR
problems. We want to work through those things. I think we had
a good start with our last hearing. On these items I mentioned
today, four of them, I want to become very active on those. One
of those was the campsite increase. I am a little more familiar
with that than most, because in the real world for 30 years, I
was somewhat involved in the private sector in that type of
recreation.
When Senator Baucus talks about the type of people who use
these facilities, a lot of them are not real wealthy people.
These are facilities, most of them, built for a totally
different reason, but this is an auxiliary benefit that has a
huge benefit to the local areas in terms of tourist attraction.
I do want to specifically talk to you and your staff about
what we can do with this budget to keep from having to raise
those fees. I have strong feelings about that.
Is there any question or statement the three of you would
like to make specifically concerning the budget, but about
anything else also?
General Flowers. I'd like to close by telling you, with
your connection with Armed Services, we in the Corps are
engaged in about 93 countries around the world providing, in
part, technical assistance to help shape the peace, some water
resources help in places like sub-Saharan Africa, providing
technical assistance in trying to get power plants restarted in
Nigeria and Kenya.
One of the side benefits that is not very well understood
by the American public, and maybe not by most members of the
Armed Forces, is the tremendous benefit our Nation derives from
having the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involved in Civil Works
activities. We are unique in the world in that, and this Nation
is able to leverage that expertise every day, particularly when
we have to transition from peace to conflict. It gives us a
distinct advantage. No other nation can do what we can do,
because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can leverage this
expertise when it needs to help our men and women in uniform
around the world.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that. You mentioned Nigeria
and I have been active in a mission in West Africa for a number
of years from Nigeria, Gabon, Togo, Congo, Rwanda and Burundi
and I agree with you. I'd like to look at some of the things
you are doing in that general area.
Other comments?
Ms. Tornblom. We appreciate the opportunity to present the
President's budget to you today.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Let's see how this ends.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional materials submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Claudia L. Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Management and Budget)
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee and to present the President's budget for the
Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2002.
Accompanying me this morning are Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, Chief
of Engineers; Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Director of Civil
Works; and Mr. Robert F. Vining, Chief of the Programs Management
Division, Directorate of Civil Works. My statement provides an overview
of the fiscal year 2002 Army Civil Works program and discusses
highlights of the program.
fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
The Army Corps of Engineers is the premier Federal agency for
managing water resources project planning, construction, and operation;
protecting the Nation's waters and wetlands; and responding to
emergencies. As a decentralized, watershed-based organization with
strong engineering, environmental, and research capabilities, the Corps
is very well positioned to continue developing integrated solutions to
complex, modern water resources problems. To carry out the Civil Works
program, the Corps works in partnerships with other Federal agencies,
States, and local communities, including the non-Federal cost-sharing
sponsors for studies and projects.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works
program includes $3.9 billion in appropriations. Of the $3.9 billion,
about $765 million will be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and other sources offsetting
general revenues. In addition to the $3.9 billion, about $514 million
will be contributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, non-Federal
cost sharing partners, and other sources supplementing appropriated
funds. Details are presented in Table A.
The budget reflects the President's overall goals to slow the
growth of Federal spending, provide for a tax cut, and reduce the
national debt, while providing greater emphasis on education and
protecting social security. The President is committed to a collegial,
bipartisan approach to working with Congress. We look forward to
working with you throughout your deliberations on the President's
fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works program.
highlights of the fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
The fiscal year 2002 Army Civil Works program includes a number of
proposals and initiatives, such as targeting funds on continuing work
with high priority outputs, increasing user fees for recreation
services, and modifying the cost sharing for periodic renourishment at
shore protection projects.
The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
restoration. The budget also provides funds for storm damage reduction
studies and projects and for multiple purpose studies and projects that
include other outputs such as hydroelectric power, water supply, and
recreation. No funds are provided to continue additional missions that,
in the view of the Administration, should remain the responsibility of
non-Federal interests. In addition, the budget does not fund individual
studies and projects that are inconsistent with established policies
governing the applicable missions.
Construction Backlog
There is a construction backlog of about $40 billion, including
about $26 billion to complete ongoing regular construction projects,
about $6 billion to complete ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries
construction projects, and about $8 billion for projects in
Preconstruction Engineering and Design. Available funding is directed
toward construction of the continuing projects, and no new project
construction starts or project-specific study starts are budgeted.
Shore Protection Policy
The fiscal year 2002 budget presents a new Administration policy
toward shore protection projects that involve periodic sand
renourishment. Until now, beach nourishment projects started since
fiscal year 1995 have not received budgetary support. However, ongoing
shore protection projects that involve periodic renourishment and that
are otherwise consistent with established policies are supported in the
fiscal year 2002 budget, no matter when these projects were started,
provided that non-Federal interests agree to pay 65 percent of the
costs of renourishment work funded in fiscal year 2002 or thereafter.
This increased non-Federal cost share reflects the substantial economic
benefits that these projects provide to State and local economies and
ensures that the Federal Government's long-term nourishment obligations
do not crowd out other important funding needs. The existing cost
sharing for initial sand nourishment, which is 65 percent Federal and
35 percent non-Federal in most cases, is not affected by the new
policy.
The new 65 percent non-Federal cost share would apply to all
periodic renourishment costs for which the Federal share is financed
with funds allocated to the project after fiscal year 2001. The Army
Corps of Engineers will develop amendments to the project cooperation
agreements to establish the new 65 percent non-Federal cost share for
periodic renourishment.
In addition, beach nourishment study phases started since fiscal
year 1995 have not received budgetary support until now. With the
policy change, this restriction has been lifted. Project reports will
recommend the same new cost sharing formula for the resulting projects.
Altogether, the budget provides $82 million for beach nourishment
projects.
Recreation User Fees
Recreation user fees will be increased by $10 million, to an
estimated $44 million per year. This is the first step of a 4-year
effort to increase recreation user fee receipts by a total of $25
million per year. All of the increase in fees will be made available to
the Corps of Engineers, without further appropriation, for operation,
maintenance, and improvement of Corps recreation facilities. A portion
of these increases will be accomplished by increasing day use fees,
camping fees, annual pass fees, and special use permit fees under
existing authority. For the other portion of the increases, we plan to
transmit proposed legislation to Congress to authorize certain changes
in current fee collection authorities.
General Investigations
The budget for the Civil Works study program is $130 million. This
funding level is intended to slow the growth of the ongoing
construction backlog and avoid unrealistic funding expectations among
non-Federal project sponsors. Cost-sharing sponsors, who are being
asked to invest in these studies, expect timely construction, once
studies and design are completed and the projects are authorized.
No project-specific new study starts are included in the budget.
However, policy-consistent studies that are under way will continue to
move seamlessly from the reconnaissance phase to the feasibility phase
and from the feasibility phase to preconstruction engineering and
design, as they receive the necessary levels of review and approval
within the Corps and the Army.
The budget proposes two new national studies that will provide
information needed by the Army and the Chief of Engineers to assess
potential changes in Civil Works policies and procedures. The first of
these new studies was authorized in Section 223 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 and involves a Project Monitoring Program to
monitor the economic and environmental results of up to 5 projects
constructed by the Corps. The budget includes $100,000 to initiate the
monitoring program.
The second new national study, a National Shoreline Study, was
authorized by Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 and will assess the extent, causes, and impacts of shoreline
erosion on the coastal shores of the United States. The budget includes
$300,000 to initiate this study.
A number of continuing studies focus on basin-wide solutions to
interrelated water resources problems, where the Corps of Engineers can
be especially effective as an integrator of multi-agency efforts. These
studies include the comprehensive studies initiated in fiscal year 2001
for the Rio Grande River Basin, the White River Basin, and the
Yellowstone River Basin.
Coordination, technical assistance, and research activities also
will be continued. Ongoing coordination of Federal estuary management
activities will include funds to enable Army participation in the
National Estuaries Council.
Construction, General
The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General program is $1.324 billion. Of the total, $61 million would be
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and $9 million would be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Funds are included for continuing projects that are consistent with
established policies, including congressional adds that have completed
Administration review and are policy consistent. No funds are included
to initiate construction of new specifically authorized and funded
projects, new projects funded in the Dredged Material Disposal Facility
Program, or new projects under the Continuing Authorities Program. A
number of projects added to the construction program in fiscal year
2001 have not completed Administration review and, thus, are not known
to be policy-consistent. Where a project report is being prepared
during fiscal year 2001 and additional funds are needed in fiscal year
2002 to complete the project report, the fiscal year 2002 budget
includes the needed funds.
The budget emphasizes the continuing, multi-agency efforts to
restore the South Florida and Everglades ecosystem and to mitigate the
impacts of projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers on threatened and
endangered salmon species.
$139 million is budgeted for the South Florida and Everglades
program, including $28 million for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration program authorized in Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000, $65 million for other elements of the Central
and South Florida project, $26 million for the Kissimmee River
restoration, and $20 million for critical restoration projects.
$81 million is budgeted for the salmon impact mitigation program.
These funds are needed to comply with Biological Opinions issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service under the Endangered Species Act, while continuing to operate
the projects for authorized flood control, navigation, and
hydroelectric power purposes. Potentially conflicting requirements of
the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act also must be
reconciled.
The budget provides $88 million for planning, design, and
construction of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
These are small projects for flood damage reduction, navigation, beach
erosion control, shore and streambank protection, navigation project
impact mitigation, clearing and snagging, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, beneficial uses of dredged material, and project
modifications for improvement of the environment.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
The budget includes $280 million for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program. The budget targets funds to high priority flood
damage reduction projects, which are on the mainstem of the Mississippi
River and in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana.
Operation and Maintenance, General
The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
account is $1.745 billion. Of this amount, $666 million would be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and $29 million would be
derived from Special Recreation User Fees. In addition to these funds,
operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific
Northwest will be directly financed by a transfer of approximately $114
million from Bonneville Power Administration revenues, pursuant to an
agreement signed 4 years ago. Among port and harbor and inland waterway
projects, recreational shallow-draft harbors and low commercial-use
inland waterway segments are de-emphasized so that scarce resources can
be available for navigation facilities with higher commercial use, as
well as for other project purposes.
Operation and maintenance funds for shallow draft harbors are
limited to $47 million. These are harbors that have authorized depths
of 14 feet or less. Among shallow draft harbors, the subsistence
harbors for isolated communities and the harbors that involve higher
use for commercial cargo and commercial fishing are emphasized, while
the harbors that are essentially recreational in nature are de-
emphasized. The budget includes $42 million for operation of low
commercial-use inland waterways, that is, inland waterways with less
than 1 billion ton-miles of traffic per year. Funds for maintenance of
low commercial-use inland waterways are limited to $25 million for
maintenance dredging, and the dredging funds are targeted at the
waterway segments with relatively higher commercial use. No funds are
requested for structural maintenance on the low-commercial use inland
waterways.
As always, funds will be reprogrammed as necessary for emergencies,
such as to protect human health and safety, to perform emergency
repairs, or to perform emergency dredging of shoaled-in waterways.
Regulatory Program
The budget for the Regulatory Program is $128 million, an increase
of $3 million over the fiscal year 2001 amount for labor cost
increases. These funds are needed to help maintain program performance,
protect important aquatic resources, and support partnerships with
States and local communities through watershed planning efforts. These
funds will be used for permit evaluation, enforcement, administrative
appeals, and studies and environmental impact statements, in order to
provide effective regulation of the Nation's waters and wetlands.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
FUSRAP is an environmental cleanup program that was transferred by
Congress from the Department of Energy to the Army in fiscal year 1998.
We are continuing to implement needed clean-up at contaminated sites.
This year's budget includes $140 million in new appropriations for this
program.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Funding that remains available from prior year appropriations is
sufficient to fund normal program activities during 2002. In order to
finance responses to emergencies that may arise during the year, the
Administration is proposing a governmentwide emergency reserve fund.
Civil Works is one of the programs that will be able to tap this
proposed nationwide emergency reserve fund, in the event that response
costs for qualifying emergencies exceed available funds.
General Expenses
Funds budgeted for the General Expenses program are $153 million.
These funds will be used for executive management and direction
activities of the Corps of Engineers headquarters, the Corps Division
headquarters, and related support organizations. Among these funds,
$1.8 million will be used to continue the management study authorized
by section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This
study, which is being initiated in fiscal year 2001, is examining Corps
of Engineers planning and review procedures.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes that $675 million
be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, including $666
million in the Operation and Maintenance, General program for harbor
maintenance, and $9 million in the Construction, General program for
the addition of dredged material disposal facilities at existing
projects.
government performance and results act
A performance plan is in preparation for the Army Civil Works
program, based on the fiscal year 2002 budget. After completion of
Administration review, the plan will be submitted to the Congress, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
In fiscal year 2002, we plan to maintain high use commercial
navigation facilities in a fully operational state at least 90 percent
of the time, maintain flood damage reduction facilities in a fully
operational state at least 95 percent of the time, and achieve ``no net
loss'' of wetlands by creating, enhancing, and restoring wetlands
functions and values that are comparable to those lost.
project planning and review
The Army is working closely with the Chief of Engineers and others
to identify opportunities to strengthen the Civil Works planning
process. In addition, as indicated in the President's Budget Blueprint,
the Army is considering options for strengthening the ability of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to ensure policy
oversight of project planning. Already, General Flowers and I have
restored the past practice of concurrent, vertical involvement at all
organizational levels--including the Office of the Assistant
Secretary--at critical steps in the formulation of studies.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a solid one. It continues support to ongoing
work, emphasizes primary missions and applies resources to areas likely
to have the greatest national economic benefit. The Army Civil Works
program is a wise investment in the Nation's future.
Thank you.
Table A.--FY 2002 Direct Program-President's Program Funding, by Account
and Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Discretionary Appropriations:
General Investigations............................... 130,000,000
Construction, General................................ \1\ 1,324,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, General................... \2\ 1,745,000,000
Regulatory Program................................... 128,000,000
Flood Control, Mississipppi River & Tributaries...... 280,000,000
General Expenses..................................... 153,000,000
FUSRAP............................................... 140,000,000
------------------
Total Appropriation Request...................... 3,900,000,000
Sources of Appropriations:
General Fund......................................... (3,135,200,000)
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (gross)................ (675,000,000)
Inland Waterway Trust Fund........................... (61,000,000)
Special Recreation User Fees......................... (28,800,000)
------------------
Total Appropriation Request...................... 3,900,000,000
Additiional New Resources:
Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds................. \3\ 315,000,000
Bonneville Power Authority Transfer.................. 114,000,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust................... \4\ 59,976,000
Permanent Appropriations............................. \5\ 15,992,000
San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund................... \6\ 8,615,000
------------------
Total Program Funding............................ 4,413,583,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $61,000,000 from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and
$9,000,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
\2\ Includes $666,000,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
$28,800,000 in Special Recreation User Fees receipts.
\3\ Cost-sharing contributions required by law for budgeted work and
work financed 100 percent by non-Federal interests.
\4\ Transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund for planning, protection, and restoration of
coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana.
\5\ Included $8,000,000 in rent of project lands, $92,000 in fees for
use of a Hydraulic Mining Debris Reservoir in California for other
purposes, and $7,900,000 in license fees.
\6\ Estimated non-Federeal contribution. In addition, a portion of
Federal funds appropriated in fiscal year 2001 (estimated at
$16,000,000) would become available in fiscal year 2002 as non-Federal
contributions are provided.
__________
Statement of Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am honored to be
testifying to your subcommittee today, along with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Management and Budget), Ms. Claudia L. Tornblom,
on the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the United States Army
Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. I am proud of my association
with this program, first as a field engineer and research project
manager for the Portland District, then as commander of the Mississippi
River Valley Division, and, since October, as Chief of Engineers. I am
especially honored to have the opportunity to lead the Corps through
its current challenges to serve this great Nation in meeting its many
water and related land resources management needs.
Thanks to this subcommittee's support, the Civil Works Program
remains strong, balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I look
forward to working with you in furtherance of our partnership in
prosecuting this fine program, so broadly beneficial to our Nation. In
this statement, I will focus on significant challenges for the Nation
in water and related land resources management. I will say just a few
words about the budget, then devote the balance of my testimony to an
assessment of national water and related land resources management
needs.
Accordingly, my statement covers just these two topics:
<bullet> Summary of the Civil Works Program Budget, and
<bullet> Assessing the Nation's Needs for Water and Related Land
Resources Management.
summary of civil works program budget
Introduction
This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
$5.11 billion.
As shown in Table 1, Direct Program funding, including
discretionary and mandatory amounts appropriated directly to the Corps,
totals $4.41 billion. Discretionary amounts total $3.90 billion;
additional amounts total $514 million. Reimbursed Program funding is
projected to be $700 million.
Direct Program
The proposed budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
continued sound development and management of the Nation's water and
related land resources. It provides for continued efficient operation
of the Nation's navigation, flood protection, and other water resource
management infrastructure, fair regulation of the Nation's wetlands,
and restoration of the Nation's important environmental resources, such
as the Florida Everglades. It is consistent with the President's
overall domestic priorities and continued commitment to a balanced
budget. The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all studies
and projects underway, including many started in fiscal year 2001. It
also provides for funding of two new starts under the General
Investigations (GI) program.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, States, and other countries with timely,
cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and
enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program
missions. These customers rely on our extensive capabilities,
experience, and successful track record. The work is principally
technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is fully
funded by the customers.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2002 is projected to be $700
million. The largest share--nearly $270 million--is expected from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
sites under its Superfund program. 90 percent of Reimbursed Program
funding is provided by other Federal agencies.
assessing the nation's needs for water and related land
resources management
Introduction
Water and related land resources play major roles in how Americans
live and work. There are many competing and conflicting demands on use
of these limited resources. When, where, how, to what extent, by whom,
and by what means should the demands be addressed? Over the years, the
Corps has employed various means to gather information for use in
defining and understanding national water and related land resource
management issues. Recently, it has employed ``Listening Sessions'' to
improve the accuracy, currency, and relevancy of its information.
Initial Assessment of Circumstances
Last year, through assessment of trends and results of research,
literature searches, and consultations with selected water and related
land resource management experts, we concluded that the Nation is
facing important water and related land resources management challenges
with serious implications. We made the following observations and
interpretations:
<bullet> As the world's climate changes, changing hydrology and
water distribution and, in turn, environmental and socioeconomic
conditions, we must anticipate need for changes in and additions to the
Nation's water and related land resources management facilities,
systems, and practices, and effect such changes as opportunely as
feasible.
<bullet> As global markets expand, international commerce will
demand more efficient domestic ports and harbors, and improved vessel
and intermodal cargo handling facilities.
<bullet> With many properties and major populations located in the
Nation's floodplains, flooding will continue to threaten national
welfare. Moreover, as pressures continue to develop, flood-prone lands
and natural flood management systems will be compromised, and the
threat of flood damage will increase.
<bullet> Ongoing migration of the Nation's population to coastal
plains and coasts, and attendant property development, will increase
risks of loss from coastal erosion, floods, and hurricanes.
<bullet> The ongoing migration to coastal plains and coasts will
put increasing pressure on coastal habitat, especially wetlands, and
other fish and wildlife ecosystems.
<bullet> Through Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 1999
(WRDA 96 and WRDA 99), the American public placed national
environmental health in the forefront of social priorities. These acts,
providing additional authorities to the Corps for ecosystem and
watershed protection and restoration, increase emphasis on national
need for ecosystem restoration, wetlands management, and nonstructural
floodplain management.
<bullet> As the Nation's water and related land management
infrastructure ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or
removed.
<bullet> As the Nation's population grows, there will be growing
conflicts among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use
available water and related lands for diverse needs.
<bullet> The American public has a strong and growing interest in
downsizing the Federal Government and, in turn, its workforce. In light
of this, ongoing outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of
government work, including engineering, will increase. An implication
of this is that the nonFederal sector, comprising States and private
interests will have to share greater responsibility in water and
related land resources management.
Challenges Based on Listening Sessions
In light of these observations, particularly, the last one, the
Corps invited Americans to ``Join the Dialogue'' about management of
the Nation's water and related land resources.
The purpose of the dialog was twofold, specifically, to provide
opportunities for citizens to:
<bullet> identify and discuss water and related land resources
management needs, opportunities, and problems impacting their lives and
future sustainability of their communities and environments; and,
<bullet> express what they believe the Federal role should be in
addressing these issues.
This dialog was carried on from June through November 2000 in 16
listening sessions--14 regional and two national--at locations across
the country. A cross-section of stakeholders, totaling nearly 1300,
participated in the sessions. This included representatives from
Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, environmental
organizations, port authorities, private companies, legal
professionals, farmers, navigators, journalists, and homeowners. The
sessions were open to the public and comprised a combination of small
group and plenary sessions. Corps participation generally was limited
to note-taking. Consensus on water resources issues was not sought.
Detailed reports on each session are available at the website of
our Institute for Water Resources. We invite you to read them,
particularly our summary report: America's Water Resource Challenges
for the 21st Century: Summary Report on Identified Water Resource
Challenges and Water Challenge Areas. Views expressed in this document,
although not reflecting official policies or positions of the Corps,
nevertheless, and importantly, accurately reflect views of the
participants. This information will be used in dialog on water and
related land resources challenges in the future. Significantly, we have
already used it in developing goals and strategies for our Civil Works
Program Strategic Plan.
Participants in the listening sessions identified more than 3,400
water and related land resources management issues and grouped them
into sets of challenges, forming 30 to 50 sets at each regional
session, and 542 sets all told. We then distilled these sets into 18
for the above-cited report, and, ultimately, into 10.
Solutions to these challenge sets are complex and will require the
concerted effort of many government organizations, at all levels,
working for the collective good of the Nation. Moreover, optimal
solutions will require involvement and participation of all Americans.
The more, the better.
conclusion
The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one. We
must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift more of those
remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will
do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit
to the Nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This concludes
my statement.
Table 1.--Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
[FY02 Direct Program--Funding]
(New obligation authority in $K)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------
Source/Program/Account Actual/
Actual 00 Assumed 1/ Requested
01 \1\ 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATION:
Discretionary and Related
Additional (Defense):
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial $150,000 $140,000 $140,000
Action Program (FUSRAP).........
Domestic:
General Investigations/General
Fund............................
Appropriation.................. 164,497 160,520 129,947
Receipts....................... 68 66 53
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 164,565 160,586 130,000
Construction General/General Fund
Appropriation.................. 1,259,362 1,566,409 1,253,975
Receipts....................... 26 32 25
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.... 9,000 5,000 9,000
Inland Waterway Trust Fund....... 104,618 119,724 61,000
San Gabriel Basin Groundwater 0 25,000 0
Restoration, California.........
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 1,373,006 1,716,165 1,324,000
Operation and Maintenance,
General (General Fund)..........
Appropriation.................. 1,106,596 1,128,114 1,035,640
Receipts....................... 15,483 15,835 14,560
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.... 701,000 725,000 666,000
Special Recreation User Fees Fund 32,539 28,826 28,800
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 1,855,618 1,897,775 1,745,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River
and Tributaries (General Fund)..
Appropriation.................. 309,326 350,356 279,919
Receipts....................... 90 102 81
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 309,416 350,458 280,000
Regulatory Program............... 117,000 124,725 128,000
General Expenses................. 149,500 151,666 153,000
Flood Control and Coastal 0 0 0
Emergencies.....................
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 3,969,105 4,401,375 3,760,000
Total Defense and 14,119,105 4,541,375 3,900,000
Domestic................
--------------------------------------
Additional, Only/(Defense)
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 20,000
Action Program (FUSRAP).........
Domestic:
Permanent Appropriations......... 14,530 15,408 15,992
Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Trust Fund (CWRTF)..............
Corps.......................... 679 679 13,500
Others......................... 52,228 51,980 46,476
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 52,907 52,659 59,976
Rivers and Harbors Contributions. 318,705 376,118 315,000
Bonneville Power Administration 107,000 108,000 114,000
Transfer........................
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife 0 0 0
Restoration Trust Fund..........
San Gabriel Basin Restoration 0 0 0
Fund............................
Washington Aqueduct (borrowing 0 0 0
authority, excluded)............
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 493,142 552,185 513,583
Total Defense and Domestic:...... 513,142 552,185 513,583
--------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 4,632,247 5,093,560 4,413,583
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Discretionary and related additional is actual; additional, only, is
assumed.
__________
Responses by Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
tuloch rule
Question 1. Has the Corps considered the potential impact of this
rule in extractive industries, such as those involved in aggregate
mining? If so, how is the regulation of aggregate mining, which is
essentially an extractive industry, under section 404 consistent with
the holding of the Court of Appeals in National Mining Association v.
Corps of Engineers, 145 F. 3d 1399, 1403 (DC Cir. 1998), that section
404 does not allow the regulation of activities involving the ``net
withdrawal'' of material from the waters of the United States?
Response. Most mining activities will continue to be regulated.
Examples of those activities that involve the discharge of dredged or
fill material include the construction of roads, fill pads, dikes,
berms, and containment ponds. Where there is more than incidental
fallback the actual extraction of the material also would require a
permit.
Question 2. Has the Corps considered the costs of gathering the
``project-specific evidence'' that the activity ``results in only
incidental fallback?''
Response. The gathering of ``project-specific evidence'' normally
will not be required unless the applicant assets that the activity will
not result in only incidental fallback. Generally, the ``project-
specific evidence'' will involve a description of the actual physical
methods of removal and disposal of the excavated material, the location
of its disposal, and any other information that would demonstrate
whether the activity will result in only incidental fallback. At this
time, we have no reliable basis for estimating any costs that might be
incurred for gathering such information, but we do not believe that
this requirement would pose a large burden to any applicant.
Question 3. The rule says that it qualifies as a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 only because it
``raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.''
To what extent did the Corps conduct any economic impact analysis in
order to determine that the impact of the rule does not exceed the $100
million threshold under that Executive Order?
Response. Although the Corps generally considered the effects of
this rule on applicants and on the environment, we did not conduct a
detailed economic analysis. This determination was based upon the fact
that the rule does not alter or enlarge Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Its purpose is to clarify which activities the Corps and EPA view as
requiring prior approval in the form of a Department of the Army
permit, pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Question 4. What type of ``project-specific evidence'' would the
Corps consider sufficient to prove that a proposed activity will not
involve ``incidental fallback?''
Response. As discussed earlier, this ``project-specific evidence''
generally will involve a description of the actual physical methods of
removal and disposal of the excavated material, the location of its
disposal, and any other information that would demonstrate whether the
activity will result in only incidental fallback.
Question 5. Will the Corps eventually use field data to exempt
certain activities?
Response. An ``exemption'' is not possible. However, the Corps
district offices will consider data for certain classes of activities
to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that no
permit would be required for those types of activities.
Question 6. Will the Corps issued field guidance? If so, when?
Response. The Corps Headquarters, after coordination with the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, will
issue working guidance to the field. The guidance is under development;
we have not yet established a timetable for implementation.
Question 7. The Corps states that is has dropped the ``rebuttable
presumption'' concept. Please explain the difference between the
``rebuttable presumption'' in the proposed rule and the language in the
final rule where the Corps states that it ``regards the use of the
mechanized earth moving equipment to conduct land clearing . . .
instream mining . . . that results in discharge unless project-specific
evidence shows that the activity results in ``incidental fallback.''
Response. The proposed ``rebuttable presumption concept'' would
have provided that any excavation would result in a discharge of
dredges or fill material, unless the landowner proved otherwise. In
other words, under the proposal of providing that the discharges are
incidental, although the rule states that the Corps and EPA generally
regard excavation as a discharge of dredged material, unless case-
specific information indicates that there will be only incidental
fallback, the Government has the burden of proving that the discharges
are more than incidental.
Question 8. Doesn't this language still place the burden on the
regulated party to demonstrate that the activity will not result in a
discharge? If not, please explain.
Response. In most cases, the permit applicants provide, as part of
their application or notification packages, sufficient information for
the Corps to determine whether a particular project would result in
more than incidental fallback. In some cases, the Corps may need to
request additional information.
Question 9. The final rule states that the Corps may ``rely on any
available information'' as well as ``site visits or field observations
during and after project execution'' to determine if a unpermitted
discharge has occurred. Has the Corps considered the risk to the
regulated community of applying such a standard? Given the vagueness of
the rule, explain how this standard is consistent with notices of due
process?
Response. Case-by-case determinations have been, and will continue
to be, made regarding whether an activity requires a Department of the
Army permit. The Corps has great experience in the administration of
the regulatory program, and our staff have been making decisions
regarding incidental fallback for some time. I am confident that
overall sound decisions are being made. However, as noted in response
to a previous question, we are in the process of developing clarifying
guidance.
Question 10. How is the definition of this rule more consistent
with the Clean Water Act than was the original Tulloch Rule?
Response. The new definition clarifies the definition of discharge
of dredged material and also reflects the relevant court decisions on
what would not require a Department of the Army permit.
Question 11. As discussed in the National Mining Association
decision, how does the rule meet the intent of Congress that ``either a
temporal or geographic separation between excavation and disposal'' is
necessary in order to meet the requirements under section 404(a) that
dredged material be discharged at ``specified disposal sites?''
Response. The temporal separation can be fairly immediate, as in
the case of side casting. In a pure excavation activity, the geographic
separation would be off-site or to waters of the United States that
have not been excavated.
guadalupe river flood control project at san jose, ca
Question 12. The President's budget proposes $4 million for the
Guadalupe River flood control project in Sane Jose, CA. It has been
suggested that the Corps will reprogram an additional $8 million from
other projects, which are not ready for construction to bring the total
for the Guadalupe River project to $12 million. Is this accurate?
Response. The Corps will consider reprogramming funds based on
conditions as they exist during the year.
montgomery point lock and dam, ar
Question 13. Although we discussed Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
(MPLD) during the hearing, I would appreciate it if you could provide
the same information in writing. Specifically: What is the dollar
amount needed to keep the work on schedule?
Response. The budget amount is $18 million. Subject to the usual
qualifications on capabilities, one capability is $60 million. The
schedule will be adjusted to reflect the availability of funds.
[``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 2002 capability amounts shown consider
each project or study PY itself without reference to the rest
of the program. However, it is emphasis that the total amount
proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in the President's
budget for fiscal year 2001 is the appropriate amount
consistent with the Administration's assessment of national
priorities for Federal investments. 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 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.''
[Hereafter, this statement is referred to as ``the usual
qualifications.'']
Question 14. If there is a shortfall, can the balance needed be
made available to the Little Rock District through reprogramming?
Response. If there is a shortfall, we expect to be able to
reprogram most of the balance by restoring funds previously
reprogrammed from the project.
Question 15. What is the Corps construction capability in fiscal
year 2002 for MPLD?
Response. Sir, subject to the usual qualifications on capabilities,
the fiscal year 2002 construction capability is $60 million.
Question 16. What impact will $18 million proposed in the
President's budget request for FT02 have on construction--how much
extra time will be required to finish it and at what estimated cost?
Response. The balance to complete after fiscal year 2001 is $84
million. The scheduled completion date, without reprogramming, is
December 2005. The maximum rate at which we can spend funds efficiently
would result in a completion date of December 2003. This can be
attained through additional appropriations, reprogramming, or a
combination of the two. Accelerating the schedule by the entire 2 years
could reduce budgetary costs by $5 million (which reflects the
estimated impact of inflation.)
______
Responses by Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Additional Questions from
Senator Ron Wyden
columbia river fish mitigation
Question 1. At a funding level of $81 million for the Columbia
River Juvenile Fish Mitigation Program, will the Army Corps be able to
meet all of the requirements in the National Marine Fisheries Service
Biological Opinion? If not, how much is needed to meet these
requirements and what are likely impacts if the necessary funding is
not provided?
Response. Not all measures called for in the Biological Opinion
(Biop) will be undertaken in fiscal year 2002 at a funding level of $81
million. The Corps has expressed a capability of $110 million, which
would allow us to address additional measures. The overall project
currently consists of approximately sixty (60) separately executed
measures established in response to prior and new biological opinions.
Prioritization of the list of measures is coordinated with regional,
Federal, State and tribal interests in anticipation that actual annual
appropriations will not be sufficient to address all of the measures in
a given fiscal year and some measures will need to be deferred. The new
Biop provides ten (10) years to meet performance goals for improved
juvenile and adult survival for the ESA listed stocks. The additional
amount would assist in completing the project within this timeframe.
Increased funding levels will be required in the future in order to
meet the requirements within the 10-year performance plan.
willamette basin projects
Question 2. The Administration's budget request for the Willamette
Valley operating projects is less than requested last year. Is this
year's request adequate to fund all ongoing operations and maintenance
requirements and address new Endangered Species Act requirements for
the Willamette Basin?
Response. Subject to the usual qualifications regarding
capabilities, we have the capability to use another $1,000,000, in
addition to the budget request, to carry out additional actions
associated with the biological opinions that address the Endangered
Species Act for the Willamette Valley operating projects. That
additional $1,000,000 would need to be spread among the Fern Ridge,
Cougar, Detriot-Big Cliff, Green Peter-Foster, and Lookout Point-Dexter
projects.
columbia river and tillamook estuaries
Question 3. No funds have been included in the Administration's
budget request to begin work on the projects authorized by section 536
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Doesn't the Corps need
to have funding in order to initiate these important projects in the
Columbia River and Tillamook Estuaries in fiscal year 2002? And, if so,
what is the funding level needed to proceed with work in these
estuaries?
Response. Yes, the Corps requires funding in order if we are to
initiate projects in the Columbia River and Tillamook estuaries in
fiscal year 2002 under section 536 of WRDA 2000. The Corps has stated a
capability of $7.5 million to collaborate with stakeholders, identify
and prioritize restoration actions and identify non-Federal sponsors to
cost share, plan, design and construct restoration projects.
columbia river channel improvements
Question 4. No funds have been included in the Administration's
budget request to continue the consultation and planning for the
Columbia River Channel Improvements Project. What is the funding level
needed to continue the consultation and planning for this project?
Response. We are using funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001 to
continue the consultation and planning for this project. However, we
could use an additional $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 to accelerate this
effort. This amount has been expressed as capability for fiscal year
2002.
tillamook bay and bar
Question 5. Only $14,000 was included in the Administration's
budget request for operation and maintenance work on the Tillamook Bay
and Bar. Tillamook County and the Port of Garibaldi estimate $550,000
is needed to repair and restore the jetties, which were last repaired
in 1991 and have since experienced serious erosion. In light of this
erosion problem, which has worsened since the Corps began preparing its
budget request for fiscal year 2002, why was the Administration's
request only $14,000?
What level of funding would be required in fiscal year 2002 to
enable the Corps to complete a Major Maintenance Report and Plans and
Specifications for the restoration and repair of the North and South
Jetties on Tillamook Bay?
Response. The Corps has not developed as estimate for repairing and
restoring the jetties, but the amount mentioned in the question,
$550,000, might cover the cost of the major maintenance report and the
plans and specifications. Our next step would be to initiate the Major
Maintenance Report. Subject to the usual qualifications regarding
capabilities, we have the capability to use up to $200,000 to prepare a
major maintenance report for repairing the north and south jetties at
Tillamook Bay and Bar. After completion of a favorable report, we would
prepare the plans and specifications in a future fiscal year. Due to
overall budget constraints, we could not include the funds necessary
for the Major Maintenance Report in the President's fiscal year 2002
budget.
tillamook bay and wilamette estuary
Question 6. No funds have been included in the Administration's
budget request for the ``Challenge 21'' program authorized by section
212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This law designated
Tillamook County and the Willamette Basin in Oregon as priority areas
for flood damage reduction and conservation projects under this
program. Doesn't the Corps need to have funding in order to initiate
these important projects in Tillamook County and the Willamette Basin
in fiscal year 2002? And, if so, what is the funding level needed to
proceed with work in these areas?
Response. A General Investigations study for Tillamook Bay and
Estuary is approved and the ongoing cost-shared feasibility study began
in August 1999. $500,000 is already included in the fiscal year 2002
President's budget. No additional capability has been stated. $170,000
is included in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget, under General
Investigations, for the Willamette River Basin Floodplain Restoration
Study. This level of funding is adequate to initiate Phase I of the
feasibility study for the Willamette Basin. Additional funding under
section 212 of WRDA is not required in fiscal year 2002.
environmental values
Question 7. The Corps has testified before Congress that the agency
is concerned about the environmental impacts of proposed projects and
project operations. But a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel
found that the Corps' analysis underestimates the environmental impacts
of its projects. How will the Corps ensure that environmental impacts
of its projects are fully considered and addressed in its planning and
implementation of projects?
Response. The Corps of Engineers routinely includes the full
integration of environmental values in all our planning processes.
First, all planning teams are consistently and conscientiously
comprised of a truly multidisciplinary planning team that includes
members representing ecological/biological/and environmental
disciplines, staff formally trained in cultural, historical and
archeological disciplines, as well as engineers, economists and real
estate experts. Further, in response to specific criteria provided in
the Water Resources Council's ``Economic and Environmental Principle
and Guidance for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies,'' the Corps of Engineers has promulgated their own Planning
Guidance Regulation that explicitly, and fully, includes strict
planning criteria addressing proper and thorough consideration of all
environmental values throughout the planning, project identification
and implementation process. Finally, in response to compliance with the
Council on Environmental Quality's ``Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)'', the Corps rigorously, and simultaneously fully addresses
those requirements for each and every planning effort, while at the
same time being fully integrated with the study/planning process.
It should also be noted that the Corps has several programs whose
sold goal is to produce environmental values. These include section
1135 (Modification of Existing Projects for the Improvement of the
Environment), section 204 (Beneficial Use of Dredge Material), and
section 206 (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration), all under the Continuing
Authorities Program. There is also the ecosystem restoration mission
added as a separate mission by the Congress whose purpose is to plan
ecosystem restoration projects for authorization.
Question 8. The Corps recently testified before Congress that Corps
projects seek to achieve both economic and environmental values. But
the Corps' planning guidelines require the Corps to maximize economic
benefits. And the recent NAS panel criticized the Corps for failing to
update regulations to include environmental restoration as a project
purpose and not providing guidance on including environmental
improvements in project planning. How will the Corps address the NAS
criticism and achieve its goal of maximizing both economic and
environmental values?
Response. The Corps has already expanded and revised its methods
for evaluating environmental values during the formulation of its
projects. Further, the Corps has numerous initiatives underway which
are looking at better defining and evaluating environmental benefits
and incorporating environmental sustainability into Corps projects.
We continue to refine our benefit evaluation methodologies to keep
up with advances in economic evaluation and environmental science. We
have placed particular emphasis in our research program in looking at
ways to measure and value environmental outputs. We have refined our
planning processes to achieve better synergy between economic and
environmental values. For example, in April of last year, we improved
our planning guidance to clarify our ability to develop projects for
environmental restoration.
The Corps guidance for the conduct of feasibility studies provides
the framework and criteria to be used in the evaluation of projects
both in terms of costs and benefits, monetary and non-monetary. We are
continually striving to improve our methodologies and processes for
evaluating all alternatives and options. There are basic guidelines on
methodologies and criteria for making determinations of appropriate
factors for inclusion in different evaluations. These guidelines allow
for the use of new, improved or different methodologies, but require
validation of variations from proven techniques. The guidelines are
also updated to assure that all alternatives are evaluated in an
unbiased manner. We recently revised the guidelines on the methods to
be used to calculate benefits for non-structural measures as well as
revising and expanding our methods for evaluating environmental values.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<greek-d>