Coastal States Organization, Inc.
444 N. Capitol
Street, NW • Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 508-3860 • Fax: (202) 508-3843 • Email:
cso@sso.org
Testimony of Tony MacDonald
Executive Director
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. Senate
June 18, 2002
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee:
Good afternoon. I am Tony MacDonald, Executive Director of
the Coastal States Organization (CSO).
On behalf of CSO, I want to thank Chairman Jeffords and the Members of
the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on the US Army Corps of
Engineers water resources programs and Water Resources Development Act of
2002 (WRDA). Since 1970, the
Coastal States Organization (CSO) has represented the Governors of the nation’s
coastal and Great Lakes states, Commonwealths and Territories on issues relating
to the improved management of coastal development and the protection of coastal
resources.
My comments today focus primarily
on the need to get beyond the criticism of the implementation of the Corps of
Engineer’s current limited single-purpose, project approach to water resources
management to building support for an affirmative national policy that
encourages efficient and sustained investment in the nation’s water resources
and port infrastructure. This must include investment in the nation’s “green” infrastructure
including wetlands, critical habitats, nonstructural and natural flood and
storm protection features, and the beneficial use of dredged material. In CSO’s view, this can best be achieved by
making individual Corps projects accountable to a consistent national policy to
manage the nation’s shoreline and navigable waterways. This policy should be
supported by an enhanced partnership with the states that builds upon the
expertise of states and other local project sponsors in coastal, watershed and
basin-wide management.
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), states develop programs for the management
of rapidly developing coastal areas, and protection of water dependent uses and
coastal resources. Under the CZMA,
States must develop a planning process for assessing the effects and ways to
control or lessen the impact of improper development in flood prone, storm
surge and shoreline erosion prone areas, and to restore areas adversely
affected by coastal hazards. Corps and
other Federal activities are required to be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with federally approved coastal zone management plans.
Under WRDA ‘86, States share in
the cost of Corps Civil Works projects.
States also serve as local project sponsors, or work with port
authorities and local governments that serve as local project sponsors. States have a public trust responsibility to
their citizens to protect coastal resources including navigation, fishing and
public access. Increasingly, states
and local governments are also embracing initiatives to manage coastal sprawl
and collaborative community-based planning and management models such as the
National Estuary Programs. Effort to
“reform” the Corps must take into account these multipurpose, multi-stakeholder
efforts that go beyond traditional economic benefit analysis to take into
consideration the value of
environmental, cultural and social inputs, as well as so-called national
economic development benefits.
Recent conflicts over significant
port expansion projects in Delaware River and Charleston, SC and challenges
posed by port expansion in places like the Columbia River, Houston and New York
demonstrate the importance of a broader incorporation of local and regional
concerns into national port planning. A
closer look at port project success stories such as Oakland and Houston reveal that
port and transportation benefits can and must be matched with environmental
restoration and enhancement efforts.
The National Interest in the
Coastal Water and Natural Resource Infrastructure
The critical importance of the
Corps’ Civil Works programs to the nation should not be lost amidst the often
legitimate criticism. More than half of
the nation’s population lives within 50 miles of the shore. Our ports and harbors are the nation’s
interface with the global economy. Ports are connected by inland waterways and
other transportation access to every state.
Ninety-five percent of international trade by volume passes through US
ports. In 1996, U.S. Customs revenues
totaled $15.6 billion. A recent report
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, The US as a Coastal Nation,
observed: “...the coastal concentration of U.S. economic activity reflects a
productivity effect of access to navigable water.” In addition, the report examined the significant historical and
cultural importance, as well as quality of life factors that draw people to
live, work and recreate along the nation’s coasts and beaches.
The coast provides a staging area
for fishing fleets, seafood processing, and offshore oil and gas production, as
well as supports critical habitats for spawning fish, shellfish and threatened
and endangered species. Any visit to
the beach confirms that they are the nation’s premier recreation areas. Their beauty and accessibility provide a
magnet not only for international visitors, but also provide readily accessible
recreation and respite for millions families from diverse urban and rural areas
that may not have other options.
Travel and tourism is the nation’s largest industry with more than 85
percent of industry revenues being generated in coastal areas. Federal tax revenues from beach tourism
activity has been estimated to generate $14 billion in California alone. Most importantly, these same beaches provide
protection of life and property as natural barriers to flooding, waves and
storm surges. A recent Corps of
Engineers study of six coastal communities in North Carolina showed that
communities with shore protection projects suffered significantly less from
Hurricane Fran.
Arcane cost-benefit ratios and
budgeting exercises obscure the full range of benefits — the economic stimulus,
tax revenues, environmental protection, and life and property protection —
derived from our nation’s coastal infrastructure. For example, we spend billions on constructing highways and
transportation corridors to enable people to get to coastal areas and the
beach. Yet, to spend several million on
ensuring that the beach exists protecting the natural and economic resource
which justifies the transit project is characterized by some as
extravagant. The entire national budget
for beach nourishment projects –
approximately $135 million in FY 2002 – would be a virtual rounding error on
most significant transportation projects.
I want to dispel several myths
which too often distort the debate over shore protection projects.
<
Shore protection projects do not simply wash
away into the sea. They absorb wave energies
that typically save millions of dollars in property damages. Although the sand is lost temporarily from
the beach, many times the majority of the sand remains in the littoral system
and is either returned to the beach or deposited on downstream beaches.
<
Nourishment projects are typically less
expensive in current dollars than structural solutions as much of the costs are
deferred well into the future while structures must be paid for at the time of
initial construction.
<
In addition, nourishment projects are
preferable to hard structures which would undermine the natural protective
features of the shoreline and would be less environmentally acceptable and
adversely impact downdrift beaches.
<
Finally, the federal investment is justified
based on formulating a project for hurricane/storm damage protection and not
recreation. In addition, for federal
participation, all shore protection projects must have a benefit / cost ratio
of greater than 1.0 and more than 50 percent of that justification must be
based on storm damage reduction benefits.
In addition to the
clear national interest and economic return of investment in the coastal water
resource infrastructure, many Corps Civil Works projects have historically had,
and continue to have, adverse effects upon the proper functioning of littoral
system. Dams, channelization and
improvements to navigation including navigational dredging and jetties often
disrupt the natural flow of sand and other sediment material resulting in
sediment starvation and erosion. While
it is a federal responsibility to mitigate damages resulting from these Civil
Works projects, current Corps policies only support mitigation of damages
directly induced by the project and do not give priority to a comprehensive
solution to overall shore protection problems.
While it is important to remedy past errors, it is even more important
to provide a framework for planning and implementing Corps projects that
encourages not simply mitigation but the maximization of economic and
environment benefits.
Problems
Identified with the Civil Works Program
There are
significant opportunities for project savings by simplifying Corps project
reviews and allowing local sponsors, working with private sector partners, to
take the lead more often in planning and implementing water resource
projects. However, given the Corps
continued insistence in controlling the planning process and the uncertainties
in obtaining sufficient funding to reimburse project sponsors, there is no
incentive for the Corps to take advantages of the efficiencies that could be
generated by implementing these changes.
There is a
catch-22, which is common among all Corps project types, that results from the
gap between construction authorizations under WRDA and annual Congressional
appropriations for the Civil Works Program.
With huge project backlog within the Civil Works Program, the Corps has
allocated funding among as many projects as it can keep going. By allocating less funding per project to
sustain a greater number of projects, the Corps has lengthened the completion
times and costs for projects, and consequently for local project sponsors. Timelier project completion is one of the
primary means of reducing costs within the Civil Works Program and reducing the
project backlog.
There are
fundamental problems with the Civil Works Program which should be addressed in
the Water Resources Development Act of 2002.
1. The
project by project approach to project planning and authorization does not take
into account how projects affect each other, including opportunities for
achieving efficiencies among projects or limiting cross-project impacts.
2. It
simply takes too long to complete a project.
If greater local participation in projects is sought, projects,
particularly project studies, needs to be simplified and streamlined.
3.
The Corps Districts and Divisions
are effectively discouraged from finding creative ways for the beneficial uses
of dredged material. The so-called
“federal standard,” least-cost environmentally acceptable alternative
requirement, favoring open water disposal of clean dredged material, thwarts the long-term cost savings to the
federal government and resource benefits resulting from keeping sand within
littoral systems. The effect of the
least-cost alternative policy is to miss opportunities for environmental
restoration and shift costs from the Corps budget to other federal accounts
such as disaster assistance due to the lack of protection that would otherwise
have been available from sand starved beaches.
4.
The full range of benefits resulting from projects, both economic
and environmental, are not being credited.
For example, states with comprehensive planning in place which limits
development along the shore and bans sea walls have difficulty meeting the
benefit thresholds for renourishment assistance, thereby penalizing states for
good coastal planning. Without the
availability of renourishment assistance, the pressure to allow sea walls or
other shore protection structures can be overwhelming. The effect of hard structures is increased
erosion as wave energy is focused at the point of impact with the wall. With the loss of the beach, the associated
recreational, economic and environmental benefits are also lost.
5. The
increasing pressure to reduce spending is impairing the ability of the Corps to
fulfill its service functions to support state and local efforts. In addition to assistance for project
planning and construction, the Corps provides much needed services to states
and coastal communities, such as technical advice and data for flood plain
management, planning assistance for state constructed projects, and research
for improved understanding of coastal littoral systems and project designs.
WRDA 2002: An
Opportunity
WRDA 2002 presents
the opportunity to improve the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program
through requiring more comprehensive and strategic planning, rational project
selection, effective project design, and enhancement of the cost effectiveness
of Civil Works projects. Making these
improvements will require institutional and legal changes, as well as changes
in the overall approach to managing the nation’s coastal infrastructure.
There are lessons
to be learned by passage of laws like the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act, which was championed by this Committee. That law not only set out a clear national
policy goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat, but also
called for the Corps to take the lead in development of a multi-agency national
restoration strategy to guide selection of the Corps projects funded under the
Act and to serve as guidance other federal, state and local investment in
estuarine restoration.
In changing the
overall approach to managing coastal water resources infrastructure, we
recommend that Congress incorporate the following basic premises:
Our
management of coastal infrastructure needs to take a systems-based approach . .
..
The
entry and movement of the sediment which forms our shoreline is a dynamic
system. Man has made many alterations
to the system through the erection of dams, navigational dredging, jetties and
groins. While man has altered the
system in many ways, we cannot stop it.
We can work with the system or against it. The difference is found mostly in long-term project effectiveness
and overall costs.
Working
within the littoral system, we need to develop a strategy for meeting regional
and state needs . . .. We need to
move away from taking a project by project approach to the coast and develop a
framework that addresses crosscutting coastal shoreline issues along with
setting priorities and strategies for meeting our Nation’s coastal
infrastructure protection needs including targeted needs for specific inlet and
regional management plans.
CSO
Recommendations
(1) Use of Dredged Material –
(a)
Congress should declare sand within littoral systems a natural resource which
is in need of management and conservation.
(b)
The federal standard should include a presumption that favors retaining sand within
the littoral system.
(c) The authorization for beneficial uses of
dredged material under section 204 should be expanded to include beneficial
uses in addition to ecosystem restoration but with ecosystem restoration being
the priority use of available funds.
Congress should
establish a national policy which mandates a preferred alternative to keep sand
and sediment within the littoral system.
In some cases, the difference between the preferred beneficial use
alternative and open water disposal is less than 5 percent of project
costs. The Corps is locked into rigid
cost-benefit analyses that do not take into account the long-term cost of
traditional disposal. If a beneficial
use is reasonably available, it should be incorporated into the project design and cost. There should be incentives provided for
Districts and Divisions to include
environmental restoration and beneficial use into planning and design
navigation and other Corps projects.
Currently, local projects sponsors are left to patch together a quilt of
disparate Corps authorities into a project that meet restoration, protection
and water resource goals.
When it is
determined through sampling and testing that dredged material from a project or
portion of a project, contains predominantly sand or other coarse grained
material, the Corps of Engineers, and other agents of the Federal government,
should be required to look to the beneficial use of dredged material as the
first option for dredged material. The
Corps should work with the states and other local partners to provide guidance
to the Districts and Divisions on the implementation of best management practices in beneficial use
to plan and implement the onshore or near-shore disposal of the dredged
material
Congress should
remove the institutional and legal constraints which deter better management,
e.g., the Corps’ least cost alternative policy which is limited to assessing
what is the least costly option to the Corps rather than the least cost.
(2) Regional Sediment Management Planning
–
(a)
Direct the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works to study and prepare recommendations including projected
resources to carry out a comprehensive program for regional sediment management
studies.
(b)
Authorize the Corps to amend existing project
authorities and expand the construction and maintenance of navigation projects
that promote the natural movement of sediments
With the objective of improved information-based decision making,
increased project coordination and more cost effective management, Congress
should direct the Corps to develop a plan to undertake regional sediment
management. The plan should include
estimates of baseline data requirements and their maintenance, and cost-savings
from implementation.
The project-by-project approach to
responding to shoreline change is costly, inefficient and sometimes
inconsistent. The nation’s water
resources policy long ago recognized that in order to manage rivers effectively,
the entirety of the river and its surrounding watershed needs to be
considered. The same needs to be done
for managing the nation’s shoreline.
Shoreline management requires an understanding of the littoral processes
and systems occurring along the shore, sediment sources and their movement
within the system.
The goal of regional sediment
management (RSM) is to manage sand for coastal projects on a regional
scale. RSM recognizes that the dynamics
of littoral systems extend beyond individual, local-scale projects. Regional sediment management planning will
provide an inventory and strategic vision of regional coastal sediment
management needs. RSM planning will
identify, evaluate and prioritize sediment management approaches in a Geographic
Information System framework that coordinates existing information into one
body of knowledge that can be applied to efficient implementation of sediment
management projects. By synthesizing data from past and current projects on a
regional basis, opportunities to address multiple sediment-related problems can
be developed and redundant studies avoided.
In addition to providing a better
understanding of littoral systems,
regional sediment management can provide improved information on the
environmental, economic and social consequences of proposed actions and
potential tradeoffs associated with management decisions. RSM can improve planning, development,
damage reduction, and resource management in coastal regions resulting in
reduced federal and local sponsor expenditures for channel maintenance and
nourishment of storm-damage reduction projects.
Among leading experts in the field of
coastal processes and shoreline management, there is already strong support for
the RSM concept. The Strategic Plan for the Corps of Engineers Coastal
Engineering program produced by the Congressionally chartered Coastal
Engineering Research Board (CERB) has recommended the adoption of a systems
approach to coastal sediment management.
The objectives of RSM are within reach
with new monitoring, modeling, and information management capabilities. Several RSM demonstration projects are
already underway–
Northern Gulf of Mexico Regional
Sediment Management (RSM) Demonstration Program – covers the shorline of
Mississippi, Alabama and the northern Gulf coast of Florida. The product of the demonstration program
will be a Regional Sediment Management Plan consisting of a calibrated regional
sediment budget, a calibrated numerical regional prediction system, and a
regional data management and Geographic Information System. These tools will
assist in making management decisions and will increase benefits resulting from
improved sand management throughout the region.
California Coastal Sediment Management
Master Plan — is a collaborative effort between federal,
state, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations to evaluate
California’s coastal sediment management needs on a regional, system-wide
basis.
Great Lakes Regional Sediment
Management – The Great Lakes region has been designated as one of the
demonstration sites for regional sediment management. The region being studied
is from Ludington, Michigan at the north end, to Michigan City, Indiana at the
south. This 172-mile region contains 11 Federal structures, several of which
have Section 111 beach nourishment programs in place. The goals of the Great
Lakes demonstration project are: to identify key stakeholders who have a role
in sediment management for the Southeast Lake Michigan Region; collect
available coastal data and develop a centralized web page and GIS database for
use by all regional stakeholders; improve current coastal programs and Corps
operations and maintenance performance by linking navigation, dredging,
disposal, and beach nourishment projects; and, to implement regional sediment
management practices for the southeast region of Lake Michigan. These results
will have direct ties to the operation of the Section 111 program, the National
Shoreline Management Study, the Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study, and the
National Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.
Additional demonstration sites are
planned for the New York/New Jersey, New England, North Carolina/Virginia, and
the Pacific Northwest.
The Corps also should be authorized to
expand the design and maintenance of navigation projects to promote the natural
movement of sediments to benefit adjacent shorelines and beaches. Small amounts of additional spending for
activities like advanced maintenance, sand bypassing, berm building and
catchment basin pump-out can enhance the movement of sand to produce
environmental and economic benefits.
The Corps presently has some authority to promote better sediments
management. For example, the Corps can
protect, restore or create aquatic habitat using dredged material (Section 204
of WRDA 92) and place suitable material on adjacent beaches (Section 145 of
WRDA 76). But these authorities are
difficult to apply to sediment management measures with indirect, delayed or
cumulative benefits, and activities with widespread beneficiaries across
multiple communities or states. These
authorities should be supplemented by authorizing the Corps to undertake
additional federal expenditures to promote proper sediment management.
(3)
Amend the Authorization for the National Shoreline Study –
(a) Congress should amend the authorization for
the National Shoreline Study (Section 215, WRDA 99) to require that it be
conducted by an independent body under a set time frame and budget,
(b) The study reauthorization should also
include a specific directive for state and federal interagency participation
including but not limited to the Corps. NOAA, USGS, and FEMA;
(c) The study authorization should include a
directive that the study be conducted using and analyzing existing information
and studies.
Section 215 (c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 requires the Corps to prepare a report
describing the —
C Extent
of erosion and accretion along the shores of the U.S.;
C Economic
and environmental effects of shoreline change;
C Systematic
movement of sand along the shores of the U.S.; and
C Resources
committed by federal, state and local governments to restore and renourish
beaches.
The report is to include
recommendations on the —
C Use
of a systems based approach to sand management; and
C Appropriate
levels of federal and non-federal participation in shore protection.
The study will bring into full view
the geophysical, anthropogenic, economic and environmental factors needed to be
assessed in order to improve the nation’s policy to manage the shoreline in a
manner which fulfills multiple objectives.
Much of the data and information
required for the completion of this study has already been developed. The Corps has a wealth of project specific
data including information being developed by on-going regional sediment
management demonstration projects. FEMA,
through the John H. Heinz Center, recently completed a Congressionally mandated
study of erosion and its economic impacts, The Hidden Costs of Coastal
Hazards. NOAA, through the use of
LIDAR laser technology, employed by the Coastal Services Center (CSC), has
remapped the shoreline of most of the continental U.S. CSC is also converting analog data contained
on over 14,000 T-sheets to a GIS format.
This will provide an electronic record of shoreline change for much of
the coast. The USGS Coastal and Marine
Geology Program has already compiled excellent regional and local studies of
the coastal geologic framework of the U.S.
Much of the most comprehensive information about shoreline change and
related economic and environmental impacts has been developed by states.
The National Shoreline Study is
particularly timely in two respects.
First, it has been nearly 30 years since the first National Shoreline
Study was completed in 1971. The new
study will provide an opportunity to re-examine the critical erosion areas
identified in the original study to determine what has happened in those areas
in terms of geophysical processes and the responses to shoreline change. The new study will determine whether the
number of critical erosion areas has increased and, more importantly, whether
the vulnerability in those areas has increased. The new Study is also warranted and particularly timely given
recent leaps in technology and methodology.
In just the last few years, a technology threshold has been crossed
which has provided the opportunity to examine shoreline process utilizing
complex modeling like never before. It
is expected that an ancillary benefit of the National Shoreline Study, which
may even exceed the prescribed outcomes for the study, will be improved
interagency cooperation and data integration.
The National Shoreline Study is a
necessary step towards examining and reassessing federal and state programs and
policies responding to shoreline change.
It is hoped that the study will provide a stimulus and objective basis
for —
C Recognizing
a shared national interest in responding to shoreline change;
C Developing
a systems based approach to responding to shoreline change through a better
understanding of shoreline processes; and
C Integrating
federal agency policies and processes, including data and information sharing,
to tailor shoreline change response decisions to littoral systems and regional
objectives.
Completion of the study has been
hampered by an oversight in the authorization for the study. Without an express authorization of funding,
it has been difficult for the Corps, Office of Management and Budget, and
Congressional appropriators to have a sense of the scale and funding parameters
of the study and we request that Congress included a specific funding
authorization and completion date based on the date when appropriations are
made available.
To this end, we also request that
Congress amend the study authorization with a specific directive that the study
is to be conducted using and analyzing existing data and information. Congress should also specify that the study
is to be conducted making use of information to be made available from the
United States Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and Federal Emergency Management Agency, and close cooperation with the states.
Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you. I am pleased to
answer any questions.