|
|
Disappearance of U.S. Aquatic Species
Sources of Harm For at Risk
Species
Percentage of federal endangered, threatened,
and proposed species harmed by types of habitat destruction and degradation.
STATEMENT OF
MONTGOMERY FISCHER
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
WATER RESOURCES
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FOR HEARING ON
PROPOSALS FOR A WATER
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2002
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
JUNE 18, 2002
On behalf of the
National Wildlife Federation (NWF), I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking
Member and the members of the Committee for the opportunity to present the
Federation=s views on issues
pertaining to water resources development programs of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
The National
Wildlife Federation and our affiliates have a long history of interest and
involvement with the development of our nation=s water resources, particularly as it
relates to projects and programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Much of our nation=s wildlife is
dependent on critical aquatic habitat, which includes rivers, streams, bays,
estuaries, wetlands and coastlines. But, our wildlife resources are hurting.
Artificially altering waterways B along with water pollution and introduction
of foreign species B have been
identified by the scientific community as the principal causes of the shocking
state of decline of aquatic ecosystems and wildlife that has been experienced
in many regions across the country. Through its Civil Works and regulatory
programs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a profound impact on the health
of aquatic ecosystems. While much of the Corps= work in the 20th Century
has had devastating impacts on the natural environment, NWF believes that with
the right direction from Congress, the 21st Century Corps can become
the premier federal agency for restoring and protecting our nation=s aquatic ecosystems
and the species that depend on them. The Corps= efforts to restore the Florida
Everglades is a prime example of the type of restoration work the Corps should
focus on during this Century.
As this Committee
considers proposals for a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a fundamental
goal must be to address the serious and growing crisis in confidence that much
of the American public has about the Corps of Engineers. A series of recent
reports and investigations over the past several years by policy experts and
scientists have found that the Corps= planning process for major water resource
projects is failing in fundamental ways to address contemporary needs of
communities and regions in an environmentally sound and cost effective manner.
A Water Resources Development Act presents Congress with a critical opportunity
to provide the Corps greater oversight and clearer direction to meet the nation=s water resource
needs and to restore confidence in this agency.
NWF congratulates
the Ranking Member of this Committee and other Senators who have sponsored
legislation that would make critical, common sense reforms in Corps programs B particularly, S.
1987, the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002, and S.
646, the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001.
The National
Wildlife Federation strongly supports both S. 1987 and S. 646 because these
bills contain critically needed reforms to improve and modernize the way the
Corps responds to the nation=s water resources development needs and to ensure every project the Corps undertakes
represents a sound, environmentally sustainable investment. The bills improve
the Corps= accountability,
modernize its principles and practices, improve mitigation of wetlands, pull
the plug on projects that no longer make sense, keep federal costs down, and
stop the Arace to the bottom@ among ports and
harbors.
Improve
Accountability. S. 1987 and S. 646 would make the Corps more
accountable to help restore the public=s confidence in this agency by:
_ requiring
independent peer review for costly projects and controversial projects;
_ enhancing the public=s ability to
participate in the Corps= planning process;
and
_ increasing the
public=s access to
information.
Modernize the Corps. S. 1987 and S. 646 would modernize the Corps= basic approach to
developing and planning water resources projects by:
_ directing that the Principles
& Guidelines be revised and updated to define environmental protection
and restoration as a co-equal goal with economic development, and to
incorporate other changes that ensure this goal is carried out; and
_ modernizing the
basic criteria used by the Corps to justify moving forward with a project.
Wetlands Mitigation
Improvement.
_ S. 646 would improve
the way the Corps mitigates for wetlands impacted by Corps projects; and
_ both S. 646 and S.
1987 would exclude from economic justification analyses benefits derived from
draining wetlands.
Pull the Plug on
Outdated Projects. S.1987 would help prioritize the Corps= efforts by:
_ expediting the
automatic deauthorization process to reduce the Corps= burgeoning backlog;
and
_ updating the Corps= benefit-to-cost
ratios to ensure taxpayers get a better return on their investment.
Keep Federal Costs
Down. S. 1987 would reduce the federal government=s burden for sand
pumping projects.
Stop the Race to the
Bottom. S. 1987 would improve the way the Corps
plans to deepen ports and harbors by requiring regional port planning.
Given the record of
problems that has amassed over the past several years, the Corps should not be
allowed to continue with business as usual. The problems are so grave, a WRDA
should not move forward without these reforms. I will now spend a few minutes
discussing some of the problems that have plagued the Corps and that the bills
seek to address.
CORPS CRISIS IN
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.
There Is No
Effective, Independent Technical and Policy Review of Corps Projects.
Mr. Chairman, among
the most critical issues that must be addressed in any potential WRDA is the
establishment of an effective, independent system of technical and policy
review by outside experts for Corps of Engineers projects. For years, the public, other federal and
state agencies, academicians and scientists, government auditors, and many
Members of Congress have questioned the accuracy of Corps planning documents,
and, in some cases, whether under the present system, the Corps is capable of
being truly objective in planning its projects. In the 1980s, the General
Accounting Office identified numerous serious issues in this regard. A critical
means to help ensure objectivity in the planning process is to formally engage
outside experts to conduct public reviews of Corps plans and their underlying
studies and assumptions.
In recent years, the
number of major concerns regarding the quality and accuracy of Corps plans has
increased in both seriousness and number, and the need for independent review
has become increasingly clear. During the 1990s, several factors converged to
bring about this situation.
Changes in the
Review Process.
Since the early
1990s, the level of effective project review has dramatically decreased within
the Corps. In part, this is in response to continuing calls for Astreamlining@ the planning
process and changes in the general focus of the Corps to operate more as a
service agent, particularly to local project sponsors.
Over the past
decade, the Corps has instituted substantial changes that have greatly weakened
what was already a weak and inadequate review process. Up to the early 1990s,
the primary mechanism for independent review was the congressionally
established Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. This Board, consisting
primarily of Division Engineers, and supported by a staff of 30 to 40
professional project reviewers, was independent of Corps Headquarters
management, and had the job of top-to-bottom review of all new Corps project
proposals. In WRDA 1992, however, in an effort to cut expenses and improve
efficiency, the Board was abolished, and the professional staff was reorganized
into a Washington Level Review Center, still organizationally outside the
Headquarters Division of Civil Works. In 1995, in another reorganization, the
Review Center became a Review Branch within the Headquarters Division of Civil
Works. The staff was cut from 35 to about 24, and their responsibilities were
substantially expanded to include other duties.
In a series of
steps, the responsibility for project technical reviews was devolved to the
Corps Districts themselves, and the Washington level review became focused on policy
compliance only. The District-level technical reviews are generally conducted
by peer staff or are focused on reviewing the work of Corps contractors. Two
years ago, in yet another reorganization, the Project Review Branch became the
Policy Compliance Support Branch and the Washington level review staff was cut
back to a dozen.
Time frames for
review have been cut to a minimum with final reviews by other federal agencies
and states running concurrently with that of Corps headquarters. In recent years,
many Corps Districts rush to complete project plans in order to seek Acontingent
authorization@ in even-years for
inclusion in WRDA bills, which puts immense and inordinate pressure on the
Corps to approve projects while deferring many studies and often deferring
serious unresolved issues until after construction authorization.
The result of all
this reorganization has been a substantial reduction in resources and emphasis
on critical review of projects within the Corps. The devolution of much oversight to the local District level B where the greatest
pressures exist to justify the projects sought by local sponsors and promoters B often comes at a
far greater ultimate cost to the taxpayers and the environment than it should.
Lessons From the
Upper Mississippi River.
The case of the
potential $1.2 billion Upper Mississippi River Navigation Expansion project
illustrates the strong need for a system of truly independent review, outside
of the agency. The $56 million study to expand a system of locks and dams on
the Upper Mississippi River was among the most expensive in Corps history. It
became the subject of an Army Inspector General investigation after a Corps
economist alleged that the books had been cooked in order to justify the
project. In addition, the Department of Defense requested that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review the economic analysis in the Corps= feasibility report.
The Army Inspector General and the NAS found evidence of bias in the planning
process, utter failure by the Corps to evaluate alternatives to large-scale
construction that would be less expensive and less environmentally damaging,
such as scheduling and tolls, and flawed economic analysis.
The Army Inspector
General=s November 2000
investigation found: ANearly all the
economists expressed a view that the Corps (or individuals within the Corps)
held an inherent preference for large scale construction.@ The Inspector
General made clear that problems were not limited to a single project, but in
fact, agency-wide: AAlthough this
investigation focused on one study, the testimony and evidence presented strong
indications that institutional bias might extend throughout the Corps.
Advocacy, growth, the customer service model, and the Corps reliance on
external funding combined to create an atmosphere where objectivity in its
analyses was placed in jeopardy.@ In addition, the report concluded, AThe overall
impression conveyed by testimony of Corps employees was that some of them had
no confidence in the integrity of the Corps study process.@
In the follow-up
February 2001 report of the National Academy of Sciences, Inland Navigation
System Planning: The Upper Mississippi River B Illinois Waterway, the NAS
recommended: AThe feasibility
study would benefit from a second opinion from an independent, expert, and
interdisciplinary body from outside the Corps of Engineers and Department of
Defense. Congress should thus direct
the Corps to have the waterway system management and lock extension feasibility
study reviewed by an interdisciplinary group of experts B including
environmental and social scientists B from outside the Corps of Engineers.@
The Corps has
attempted to diffuse the significance of the Inspector General and NAS findings
in the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Expansion case by stating that the
feasibility study was in draft form. This argument may have carried some
credibility if there were a strong independent review process in place. But as
just explained, that process has been weakened severely B without the
Inspector General or the NAS, there is no guarantee that anyone would have
checked the Corps= math. Since then,
the Corps has rescoped the Upper Mississippi Navigation study and is now
engaged in a collaborative process with other state and federal resource
agencies and stakeholders to identify a comprehensive range of issues and
potential solutions that address navigation and the environment. NWF would
strongly oppose any attempts to prematurely authorize construction of the
expansion project before the Corps submits a completed report to Congress. A
comprehensive approach must not focus solely on the transportation issues
without addressing the very serious environmental impacts associated with the
project. An authorization request at this time is nothing more than an attempt
to once again short-circuit the planning process.
Mr. Chairman, the
findings of the General Accounting Office=s (GAO) report, Delaware River Deepening
Project -- Comprehensive Reanalysis Needed, (GAO-02-604, June 2002),
released last week, demonstrate a fundamental breakdown of the Corps= internal project
review process. In the case of this $420 million navigation dredging proposal,
the GAO concluded that Corps review was Aineffective@ and Adoes not provide a reliable basis for
deciding whether to proceed with the project.@ In March of 2000, the National Wildlife
Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense identified this project as the number
two worst Corps project in our report, Troubled Waters, because of
extremely questionable economic justification and potential environmental
threats to the Delaware Bay region, yet the Corps continued to claim the
project was completely and properly justified.
The GAO found that
despite the Corps= claims of $40.1 million in annual benefits from the
project (largely from transportation savings to shippers), only $13.3 million
in annual benefits had Acredible support.@ The Corps= economic
justification was fraught with Amiscalculations, invalid assumptions, and the use of
significantly outdated information.@ The Corps greatly overstated benefits based
upon improperly double-counted time savings for shippers in both the Delaware
Bay and in foreign ports, Amiscalculated trade route distances,@ blamed certain
unjustified benefits on Acomputer error@, hugely overestimated
crude oil and scrap metal traffic projections, and utterly failed to make the
required adjustments in benefit projections during the 1990s to reflect
shipping realities, among many other fundamental errors.
No stronger case
could be made for the need for basic reform of the project review process.
Other Examples of
Projects Under Investigation.
As documented by the
Inspector General, NAS and GAO reports, problems within the Corps= planning process
are not limited to a single project study. Other examples of where the Corps= planning process
has failed or is currently under serious investigation include:
_ The Oregon Inlet
Jetties Project in
North Carolina is also the subject of a General Accounting Office
investigation. There, the Corps has continually refused to consider
alternatives to constructing stone jetties on environmentally significant
public lands on North Carolina=s Outer Banks, despite more than two decades of
objections from other responsible federal agencies and independent economists,
who believe the Corps economic justification is false. This project is also
subject to a referral to the President=s Council on Environmental Quality.
_ Savannah Harbor
Expansion Project
in Georgia received contingent authorization for $230 million of construction
in 1999. The Chief of Engineers approved the project despite numerous basic
environmental and economic issues that were left unresolved over the objections
of other federal and state agencies and the State of South Carolina to
post-construction authorization. The project is now a subject of litigation and
the Corps is undertaking a major new planning study.
_ Dallas Floodway
Extension Project
in Texas is yet another example of where the Corps has refused to give serious
consideration to a less costly and more environmentally friendly alternative,
involving buy-outs and voluntary relocations being sought by a lower income
community in south Dallas. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget
concluded that the Corps had failed to follow its own planning guidelines and
rules in designing the $140 million (2001 dollars) project by not identifying
the most cost-effective alternative consistent with protecting the environment.
This spring, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Corps= environmental
analysis failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act because
the Corps did not analyze the cumulative effects of the project with other
activities planned in the area. The Administration has refused to budget this
project and the Court ordered the Corps to cease work until it has completed
evaluating the cumulative environmental impacts.
_ Projects in the
Lower Mississippi River Basin, such as the Yazoo Pumps and the Big Sunflower
River Dredging Project in the State of Mississippi would cost more than $200
million and threaten to destroy hundreds of thousands of wetlands acres, even
though less costly and more environmentally sound options exist to reduce flood
damage risks in the region. An independent economic analysis of the Corps= Yazoo Backwater
pumping plant in Mississippi, revealed that the Corps overestimated just the
agricultural benefits of that project by $144 million, and that even if all of
the remaining benefit calculations were correct, it could not justify
construction of the project. For the Big Sunflower Project, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service found that the Corps significantly overestimated the costs of
purchasing easements, which could achieve the project objectives without
dredging.
_ Columbia River
Deepening Project
was recently the subject of a six-month investigation by a Portland newspaper,
which found that the Corps had overestimated project benefits by 140 percent,
and that the benefits only amount to 88 cents on the dollar. The proposed
dredging of 103 miles of the lower Columbia has also raised huge questions
about the Corps= proposed mitigation
for water quality and wetlands impacts, and impacts to salmon and other sport
and commercial fisheries habitats. After the newspaper stories ran the Corps
agreed to review its economic analysis.
At a minimum,
Congress should require that studies of all Corps projects representing a
significant investment of taxpayer dollars, and studies of all projects that
generate controversy because of threats posed to the environment be reviewed by
a panel of qualified and independent experts in various fields, such as
economics, engineering, biology, geology and hydrology. This type of review can
take place without delaying the overall planning process for justified
projects, and would help to restore confidence in the process. Perhaps most
importantly, a system of independent project review would provide the Corps= own study preparers
with a strong incentive to resist pressures to Acook the books.@ It would help to
ensure that the Corps projects that do proceed to construction are the best
they can be. NWF strongly supports implementing a system of independent project
review, which is a critical element in each of the Corps reform bills, S. 646
and S. 1987.
Corps= Approach to
Planning and Developing Water Resource Projects Gives Short Shrift to the
Environment.
Among the key
findings of recent National Academy of Sciences reports are the need for the
Corps= planning process to
be updated to reflect current economic and environmental procedures and
approaches to water resources development and management. The 1999 report, New
Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
points out that the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies (AP&G@) have been frozen
in time for almost 20 years. At the same time, economic and environmental
sciences have increasingly evolved sophisticated methodologies to evaluate
benefits and costs of structural and nonstructural approaches in response to
changing public needs and attitudes toward the environment and natural
resources.
The need to amend
the P&G to require that national economic development and
environmental protection and restoration be afforded co-equal status in the formulation
of Corps of Engineers projects is even more relevant today than it was when the
NAS made the recommendation three years ago. This is a fundamental change that
is needed in the Corps= project planning
that must be included in any future Water Resources Development Act.
Update the P&G
to Reflect 21st Century Principles and Practices.
The NAS 1999 New
Directions report recommended updating the P&G, including these
specific examples:
(1)
Movement away from
consideration of the National Economic Development (NED) account as the most
important concern in order to encourage consideration of innovative and
nonstructural approaches to water resource planning, which can often better
address ecological and social concerns.
(2)
Many aspects of the
Corps= environmental programs are not reflected in the P&G
requirements because they were enacted after the P&G was approved in
1983. The P&G needs to be updated to reflect these new and important
Corps programs.
(3)
The P&G
should be updated to reflect new advances and techniques for risk and
uncertainty analysis.
(4)
The P&G
should be updated to eliminate biases or disincentives that work against
nonstructural approaches, and to ensure that the benefits of flood damages
avoided by nonstructural projects are consistently and uniformly considered.
The P&G were written by the Water Resources
Council (WRC), which was created in the 1960s to coordinate the formulation and
execution of federal water policies. The WRC is dormant today because of lack
of funding. The lack of procedural
clarity for how to update the P&G should be eliminated by
identifying a clear mechanism for review.
The Corps=
customer-service model, aimed at providing services to local communities that
are sharing the cost of a project, is undermining the Corps= responsibility to promote the national interest in
its water planning activities. To
promote efficient plans and projects across the nation=s river basin systems, the Corps should use the
watershed or river basin, estuarial region, and coastal unit as the basic
spatial units in water project planning, when and where it is appropriate and
circumstances allow. The use of such hydrologic units for planning can help
account for downstream effects of flood damage reduction projects, for example,
or provide a system to account for cumulative effects of Corps projects. Most of the nation=s large river basins cross state lines, which requires
federal involvement to store and manage data, model hydrology and analyze
system-wide impacts.
The 1999 New Directions report strongly
recommends modernizing and revising the P&G, and requiring that
ecosystem protection and restoration be established as co-equal goals with
economic development. The report also recommends that Corps planning be more
oriented to watershed and regional perspectives, particularly where projects
have significant upstream and downstream impacts, or for functions that serve or
impact regions, such as ports and harbors. Advances in scientific knowledge,
ecological sciences, and economic analytic techniques should be further
incorporated in Corps planning procedures. A growing cry of support for these
changes is coming from states and professional societies as among the greatest
failings of Corps water resources development programs.
Several of these key elements are included in S. 646
and S. 1987, and we strongly urge that these provisions be incorporated into
WRDA legislation.
Corps Projects Continue to Threaten Enormous Amounts
of the Nation=s Critical Wetland Resources and the Corps Fails to
Mitigate Losses.
The National Wildlife Federation is very concerned
about the Corps= growing backlog of mitigation for Civil Works projects.
Although the Corps is required to mitigate for wetlands lost as a result of a
Civil Works project, the existence of a growing mitigation backlog means that
the mitigation is not being done and the environment is suffering.
Despite requirements that mitigation occur
concurrently with Civil Works projects, the Corps has failed to follow through
on significant amounts of acres of mitigation required for projects that are
well underway, or for all practical purposes, completed. For example, in the
Lower Mississippi River Valley, the Corps has been authorized to purchase tens
of thousands of acres of mitigation land that have not been purchased. The
mitigation backlog in the Vicksburg District alone currently exceeds 28,000
acres. The time lag in completing mitigation for water resources projects is
resulting in an enormous temporal loss of wetland functions and values in many
valuable and vulnerable watersheds.
Ironically, the Corps reports that permits issued
under the entire Section 404 dredge and fill permit program of the Clean Water
Act account for 24,000 acres of direct wetlands loss per year. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service estimates that on average just under 30,000 acres of
wetlands were lost each year between 1987 and 1997 from urban and rural
development. Yet the Corps Civil Works program currently threatens 300,000
acres of critical bottomland hardwood losses from just a handful of projects
that are among the most controversial in the nation to reduce flooding in what
are often low-lying areas in two-year floodplains to promote marginal soy bean
production. We urge the Committee to help redirect the Corps away from such
activities that are environmentally damaging to wetlands and toward programs
that would help rural economies benefit from restoring wetland resources and
develop sound, sustainable economies that benefit from these special resources.
NWF strongly supports the wetland mitigation
provisions of S. 646, which would clarify the definition of concurrent
mitigation and improve the standards for mitigation, including improving the
probability of cost-effectively and successfully mitigating habitat losses. In
addition, S. 646 would address the mitigation backlog by requiring the Corps to
establish a tracking system to identify the status of mitigation.
We further recommend that the Corps prepare a
Mitigation Backlog Management Plan that is updated each year and will enable
the Corps to eliminate its backlog of mitigation by seeking to have lands in
place by FY 2005, and future schedules for initiating and completing mitigation
activities in a timely fashion. Further, as proposed in S. 646, new requirements
should be placed upon mitigation for Corps Civil Works projects to ensure that
at least 50 percent of mitigation is completed in advance of the start of
construction, with mitigation to be completed by the time construction is
complete. All mitigation should be, in addition, initiated and completed at
least within two years of a resource impact due to a Civil Works project. NWF
also supports proposals in S. 646 and S. 1987 that would disallow benefits for
increased private property and service values derived from draining wetlands.
Corps projects that would destroy hundreds of thousands of wetland acres should
not be authorized because the extent of environmental destruction could never
be fully mitigated.
Last month, the GAO issued a report assessing the
Corps= fish and wildlife mitigation guidance, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers: Scientific Panel=s Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance (GAO-02-574, May 15, 2002). The GAO found that in a
majority of the projects authorized since WRDA 1986 that required a fish and
wildlife mitigation plan and that received construction appropriations, the
Corps completed less than 50 percent of the required mitigation before project
construction started. According to the GAO, the Corps has completed at least 50
percent of the mitigation before project construction in just a few cases. This
report documents that while it is feasible for the Corps to complete half of
the mitigation before starting project construction, the Corps= mitigation work has been shoddy and inconsistent.
Additionally, NWF objects to the Corps= reliance upon preservation or enhancement of existing
lands or wetlands as the sole mitigation for destruction of natural
habitats. When mitigation is limited to
protecting or enhancing existing habitats, a net loss of habitat occurs. The
Corps has further entrenched this concept in its Regulatory Guidance Letter
[RGL 01-01] on wetlands compensatory mitigation, allowing unlimited use of
preservation of existing wetlands, and even upland areas as mitigation for the
loss of natural wetlands. NWF calls on
the Committee to substantially elevate mitigation requirements, evaluation and
monitoring for Civil Works projects, using the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences report on Compensating for Wetlands Losses Under the
Clean Water Act (National Research Council, 2001) to ensure that no net
loss of ecosystem functions or values occur in the construction of Civil Works
projects, as required by the 1990 WRDA Ano
net loss of wetlands@ policy.
Corps= Construction
Backlog Is Out of Control.
Mr. Chairman, the Corps has a huge construction
backlog with some estimates as high as $52 billion dollars worth of projects.
This enormous stockpile of uncompleted projects serves no one well. With
hundreds of projects in various stages of construction and hundreds more having
passed through the authorization process, the backlog can only be expected to
increase. It prevents the Corps from completing a smaller number of projects
sooner, which in turns adds to the ultimate cost of all projects. Congress
authorizes new projects faster than the Corps can reasonably complete them.
Unfortunately, this means that many new projects that would address
contemporary needs, including critical environmental restoration projects,
cannot be completed efficiently. The Corps continues to assume an optimal
construction schedule in its cost-benefit analysis, even though the optimal
schedule is not at all realistic because of the project backlog, which has the
effect of artificially understating project costs and overstating project
benefits.
Expedite
Deauthorization for Outdated, Unconstructed Projects and Prioritize.
Throwing more money
at the Corps= construction
backlog without prioritizing and focusing the Corps= work only
perpetuates the problem. In order to effectively address the ever-mounting
project backlog, we urge the Committee to adopt a mechanism that identifies the
projects that no longer make economic or environmental sense in light of
current circumstances, and to impose some discipline on the new projects that
are authorized. NWF urges the Committee to include provisions from S. 1987 that
would expedite the current deauthorization process.
In addition,
Congress could insure that high priority projects are completed in a timely
manner by deauthorizing those projects that are no longer economically
beneficial or that are proven to be environmentally destructive. Wasteful Corps
projects can be replaced with positive developments by submitting them to
rigorous economic analyses and environmental impact reviews. S. 1987 proposes
updating the current 1.0 to 1.0 benefit-to-cost ratio, which was originally
established in the 1930s, with a more modern 1.5 to 1.0 ratio. We urge the
Committee to include such a provision in a WRDA to help prioritize among the
nation=s water resource
investments. Finally, NWF strongly supports President Bush=s policy decision in
the fiscal year 2003 budget to focus the Corps on its traditional mission areas
of flood damage reduction, navigation and environmental protection.
Beach Sand Pumping
Projects Are Exploding.
Funding for beach
sand pumping projects is consuming increasingly larger portions of the Corps= budget. Currently,
the federal government pays 65 percent of the cost of construction and periodic
renourishment of beach projects authorized before 2000. Beginning in 2003, the
federal portion will be 65 percent for construction and 50 percent for
renourishment of new beach projects authorized after 2000. For currently
authorized beach projects, it could easily cost federal taxpayers more than $10
billion in the next several decades to continue to put sand on beaches that is
literally washed away to sea. In many cases, these projects tend to promote high-risk
development along coastlines. The Corps is currently pumping sand onto the
beaches of 18 of America=s 200 richest towns
listed in Worth Magazine, including Gulf Stream, Florida, where the
typical home sells for $1.5 million.
While sand pumping activities
have existed in certain locations for decades, America=s coastlines have
never been subject to the magnitude of sand pumping activity that would be
represented if Congress stays on the present course of authorizing large
numbers of new projects in each WRDA bill. For instance, virtually the entire
Atlantic shoreline in New Jersey and half of North Carolina=s shoreline is
authorized for beach sand pumping. NWF is extremely concerned about the
long-term ecological effects that are likely to accompany such massive and
expensive shoreline dredging and pumping activities. Sand pumping projects,
which generally involve dredging sand from one location and dumping it on
another, put aquatic wildlife and their habitat at great risk. Among the most
immediate effects of beach projects is the burial of habitats and organisms
living in these zones. Sand pumping projects also pose a problem to the nesting
patterns of both sea turtles and bird species. Nesting turtles and birds can be
easily deterred by the pipelines, lights and noise that accompany beach
projects. In addition, the success of hatching eggs is affected by changes in
the incubating environment, such as density, color, moisture content,
compaction, and gas exchange of the beach sands. The dredged material used for
the beaches often contains a different composite than the natural sands.
If sea levels rise
as predicted B the predictions
range from two feet per century for the next few hundred years to as much as
fifteen feet by the year 2200[1]
B erosion pressures
will accelerate and the current response is unsustainable. We urge oversight
and a much more thoughtful, scientifically-based response than we have seen to
date to help guide a rational approach to erosion.
Reduce the Federal
Government=s Burden for Sand
Pumping Projects.
While there are
instances where sand pumping may be either economically justified or can serve
as temporary measures to allow communities that face erosion problems to make
permanent adjustments, such as relocating at-risk buildings, a fundamental
concern is that many believe this should not be largely a federal
responsibility, given the range of demands on the federal budget. NWF strongly
urges the Committee to seriously consider supporting a substantial reduction in
the federal cost-share for beach nourishment activities, such as proposed by S.
1987 and the President=s fiscal year 2002
budget recommendation. In addition, we urge the Committee to resist attempts to
allow more of these types of projects that are primarily for recreation rather
than storm damage prevention. Until a much clearer picture can be gained of the
ecological impacts that may be represented by expanding federal beach
nourishment activities, the Committee should resist new authorizations.
A Race To The Bottom
Among Ports and Harbors Is Bad for Taxpayers and the Environment.
Our nation=s ports and harbors
are critically valuable resources for our economy and our environment and they
must be managed in a manner that continues to support both. NWF has previously
expressed our severe concern to the Committee that a number of ports and
harbors are engaged in a race to deepen their channels in order to accommodate
many of the largest and deepest draft ships operating on the trans-oceanic routes.
At the same time, port authorities have sought to increase federal subsidies
for deep draft harbor dredging by modifying current cost-share formulas to
treat ports from 45 to 55 feet in depth the same as 45-foot depth or less
general cargo ports. This would amount to a 25 percent increase in federal
costs for deep draft dredging. The Corps is not currently dredging any
commercial U.S. port deeper than 55 feet.
We also caution the
Committee about relying on generalized future growth in trade predictions as a
rationale for an across the board effort to deepen our ports. For instance,
just two years ago at the time predictions were made that trade would double
over the next 20 years, eastbound trans-Pacific trade grew at very high rates
of 12% to 14% per year. Since then, trade traffic has seen far less significant
growth. According to recent reports in the Journal of Commerce, cargo volumes
in the eastbound Pacific increased by only 2% last year, and despite the nation=s recovering
economy, volumes are expected to grow by single digit rates through next year. See,
e.g., Bill Mongelluzzo, The Dire TransPacific, Journal of Commerce,
March 18, 2002. The uncertainties associated with port and harbor needs argue
even more strongly for the development of regional port planning to integrate
the Corps program with national transportation policy.
The Corps Should
Strive to Focus Deep Draft Port Dredging Activities to the Most Efficient,
Environmentally Sound Ports.
We must invest in
our ports wisely. Growth tends to be concentrated in a few major U.S. ports.
More than half is concentrated in 20 ports and more than a quarter is handled
by just five ports. In 1997, 25 ports handled 98 percent of the foreign
container cargo, and the leading 10 ports accounted for 80 percent with the
Los-Angeles-Long Beach port complex responsible for one-third of all container
traffic. The 50 leading U.S. ports handle nearly 90 percent of all waterborne
commerce. (NAS, Applying Information Systems to Ports and Waterways
Management, 1999).
NWF supports
provisions from S. 1987 that would require the Corps to conduct comprehensive
coordinated planning to look regionally at shipping needs and the economic and environmental
cumulative impacts of deepening ports and harbors. In WRDA 1986, Congress
wisely established a cost sharing formula requiring that the very deepest ports
B those with channels
dredged deeper than 45 feet B pay a higher share of the costs for dredging than those
below 45 feet. We believe any decision to increase the federal subsidy, such as
the proposal sought by the port authorities to increase the subsidy by 25
percent, would unnecessarily fuel major expansions of capacity at too many
locations that would have dire long-term environmental consequences. There is
no reason to believe that the current formula will not allow the necessary
capacity to meet the nation=s transportation needs where the business exists. We
strongly oppose this cost-sharing change because it will undoubtedly fuel the
race to the bottom, thereby unnecessarily wasting taxpayer resources and
threatening further harm to the nation=s bays, rivers and estuaries. Instead, we
urge the Committee to require regional port planning as an element of helping
to guide the federal interest in ensuring U.S. ports can meet national
transportation needs, consistent with protecting the environment.
21ST
CENTURY VISION FOR THE CORPS: THE PREMIER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
AGENCY.
The National
Wildlife Federation is greatly encouraged by the substantial efforts made by
the Committee and Congress in past WRDAs to authorize environmental programs,
such as Section 1135 Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment,
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Floodplain Management Services, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the Upper Mississippi River
Environmental Management Program, and numerous others. We remain concerned,
however, that without a focused and highly disciplined Corps program, there
will be, in fact, insufficient resources available for the Corps= environmental
programs to make the critical contributions that the public seeks. We support
adjustments to Corps flood damage reduction cost-sharing requirements that
would increase the level of responsibility taken by local and state governments
in managing flood risk. Among the ideas that have significant merit is to
establish a sliding cost-share formula that gives communities incentives to
reduce and manage their flood risk.
We are also
especially concerned, for instance, that the Corps has received no funding to
date for the landmark Challenge 21 program, which provides the Corps with
substantial opportunities to add nonstructural approaches to its flood damage
reduction programs. These are areas where the need for priority-setting becomes
of paramount importance.
CONCLUSION.
In sum, the Corps of
Engineers has a vital role to play in managing the nation=s water resources.
Continuing business as usual, however, is not acceptable. Several new reports
by the National Academy of Sciences and others, the results of extensive audits
and investigations, as well as much thoughtful legislation, have provided
critically important recommendations for long-needed reforms. We applaud the
Corps of Engineers for taking a first step in signaling its commitment to a
sustainable environment by formalizing a set of AEnvironmental Operating Principles@ applicable to its
decision-making and programs. These principles were recently articulated by the
Chief of Engineers, Lt. General Flowers, at the dedication of the Davis Pond
Fresh Water Diversion Project in Louisiana. We urge the Environment and Public
Works Committee to directly address the Corps= crisis in confidence by including
important legislative reforms in the next WRDA. These reforms would provide
critical direction for all Corps programs, including direction for what may be
among the Corps= most important
functions in the twenty-first century B ecosystem restoration and protection.
Chairman Jeffords
and Ranking Member Smith, once again, thank you for the opportunity to present
our views. We look forward to working with you and the other members of the
Committee to help bring the Corps into the 21st Century by
incorporating critically needed reforms in the next WRDA legislation. I am
happy to respond to any questions the Committee Members may have.
APPENDIX
The State of the
Nation=s Aquatic Resources
The U.S. leads the
world in species number for many freshwater organisms including insects,
snails, salamanders, turtles, and mussels. It also ranks high for subterranean
invertebrates and freshwater fishes.
This vast array of diversity is primarily the result of the unparalleled
system of watersheds that filter through the country. It is no coincidence that the greatest species loss has occurred
in the precise regions where large water projects have rearranged the natural landscape. The impacts of water development affect 30
percent of the listed endangered species, ranking behind only agriculture and
commercial development. According to the Association for Biodiversity
Information, ASpecies that depend
on freshwater ecosystems are, as a whole, faring the worst of any group of U.S.
organisms.@ The deteriorating
conditions are undeniable with the list of extinct/imperiled species growing
every year. Modern science has
concluded that the three leading threats to aquatic species are agricultural
non-point pollution, alien species, and altered hydraulic regimes due to dams
and impoundments. Many Corps projects
and programs are directly involved in exacerbating these threats.
Global Significance
of Select U.S. Plant and Animal Groups/Species:
Mammal: 416 in U.S. out of 4600
globally 9% of total
Freshwater Fish: 799
in U.S. out of 8400 globally 10%
of total
Amphibian: 231
in U.S. out of 4400 globally 5% of total
Salamander: 140 in U.S. out of 350 globally 40% of total
Freshwater Mussel: 292
in U.S. out of 1,000 globally 29%
of total
Freshwater Snails: 661
in U.S. out of 4,000 globally 7%
of total
Crayfishes: 322
in U.S. out of 525 globally 61%
of total
Freshwater insects:
Caddisfly: 1400 in U.S. out of 10769
globally 13% of total
Mayfly: 590
in U.S. out of 1967 globally 30%
of total
Stonefly: 610
in U.S. out of 1525 globally 40%
of total
All information in this Appendix is
from Precious Heritage: The Status
of Biodiversity in the United States.
The Nature Conservancy & Association for Biodiversity
Information. Oxford University Press
(2000).
|
|
Sources of Harm For at Risk
Species
Percentage of federal endangered, threatened,
and proposed species harmed by types of habitat destruction and degradation.
|
|
Overall
(n=1207) |
Vertebrates
(n=329) |
Inverte-brate
(n=155) |
Bird
(n=91) |
Reptile
(n=39) |
Amphibian
(n=16) |
Fish
(n=116) |
Insect
(n=39) |
Mussel
(n=69) |
Mollusk
(n=23) |
|
Agriculture
|
38 |
40 |
57 |
42 |
33 |
63 |
45 |
56 |
64 |
35 |
|
Commercial
Development |
35 |
30 |
42 |
33 |
56 |
44 |
16 |
67 |
29 |
13 |
|
Water
Development |
30 |
47 |
66 |
22 |
28 |
63 |
91 |
21 |
99 |
48 |
|
Outdoor
Recreation |
27 |
16 |
19 |
15 |
31 |
25 |
9 |
41 |
4 |
26 |
|
Livestock
grazing |
22 |
17 |
10 |
20 |
8 |
19 |
16 |
15 |
1 |
9 |
|
Pollutants
|
20 |
27 |
66 |
10 |
21 |
25 |
55 |
26 |
97 |
48 |
|
Infrastructure development |
17 |
16 |
12 |
8 |
28 |
38 |
17 |
23 |
6 |
9 |
June
12, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
The Honorable James Connaughton,
Chair
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
The Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels,
Jr., Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dear Messrs. Connaughton and
Daniels:
We are writing to urge the
Administration to work with members of Congress and with our conservation,
taxpayer, and professional organizations to support legislation that will
reform the way the Corps of Engineers (Corps) plans, evaluates, and implements water
resources projects. The Corps’ failure to address the contemporary needs of
communities in an environmentally sound and cost-efficient manner is taking a
tremendous toll on the nation’s natural and financial resources. Your
leadership in this effort is critical.
The Corps’ implementation of its
much touted nationwide project “pause” starkly underscores the need for the
Bush Administration and Congress to act now to reform the Corps. We had hoped
that the project “pause” was a genuine sign of the Corps’ interest in ensuring
that its water resource projects were economically and environmentally sound.
Unfortunately, the review appears to have been little more than a charade, and
the Corps has made it abundantly clear that it is either unwilling or unable to
reform itself.
First, less than three weeks after
announcing the “pause,” the Corps announced that it had reviewed 172 projects
and cleared 118 to move forward. Only eight projects were flagged for
additional review as a result of this process (with the remainder already
undergoing reevaluation due to previously identified problems). That timeline
made it abundantly clear that General Griffin’s direction to conduct a new
economic analysis for projects approved prior to FY 99 was not followed.
Second, just a few days later, the
Corps released a “corrected” list that deviated in significant ways from the
first list. The second list identifies only 164 projects as having been
reviewed, clearing 80 to proceed (with the remainder already undergoing reevaluation
due to previously identified problems). Again, only eight projects were said to
require additional review as a result of the project pause directive.
With no explanation, the Corps
completely removed from the second list some of the worst projects that were
identified on the original list with the nomenclature “review complete.” These
projects include the Grand Prairie Irrigation Demonstration Project in
Arkansas, the Yazoo Pumps Project in Mississippi, St. John’s Bayou Project in
Missouri and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (Industrial Canal) Project in
Louisiana. In addition to being costly, these projects are highly controversial
and would destroy some of America’s most valuable wetlands and aquatic habitat.
Because the Corps has left the public completely in the dark on the process
used in its review, the only conclusion we can reach is that although the Corps
originally announced to Congress and the public that these projects had in fact
been reviewed, the reviews never occurred. If the Corps’ review and
reevaluation process is to have any credibility, these projects must be fully
and openly re-evaluated.
Third, in addition to the Corps’
apparent inability to be able to accurately identify projects that were
reviewed, the list contains glaring omissions of projects that most certainly
should have been reevaluated. For example, the list does not include the Dallas
Floodway Extension project in Texas – an authorized project for which
construction has not begun. Not only did the Office of Management and Budget
inform the Corps that they had failed to comply with their own planning
guidance for this project, but a U.S. District Court also ordered the Corps to
reevaluate the project’s cumulative environmental impacts.
Finally, the project reevaluation
was conducted behind closed doors with no involvement from the public, other
federal and state agencies, or apparently the Administration. The Corps has not
identified or described the information reviewed, the results of each review,
or the documentation supporting its conclusions. The fact that the Corps
originally cleared more than 100 projects in less than three weeks – including
some of the most highly questionable and controversial Corps projects – and
then substantially revised the list of projects reviewed and their status (once
again all behind closed doors), gives the public no confidence that the
“cleared” projects represent a sound and environmentally sustainable investment.
Instead, the Corps’ actions have
increased the public’s lack of confidence in the Corps’ ability to plan water
resource projects in an objective and reliable manner. Now more than ever,
Congress must enact meaningful Corps reforms to improve the broken process and
help restore faith in this scandal-plagued agency. The Corps reform bills introduced
in the Senate and House (S. 1987,
S. 646, H.R. 1310 and H.R. 2353)
contain crucial reforms that cannot be postponed. We urge the Administration to
actively support these legislative proposals as Congress considers authorizing
even more water resource projects during debate over the Water Resource
Development Act.
We very much appreciate the
leadership of the Bush Administration in proposing a more environmentally
responsible budget for the Corps of Engineers for FY 03, and hope that you will
fight to keep this year’s budget from growing as it moves through Congress. We
also hope that the Administration will work to make the Corps’ entire program
more environmentally and fiscally responsible by actively supporting the important
legislative proposals directed at reforming the Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely,
Bradford T. McLane
Executive Director
Alabama Rivers Alliance
Kathy Andria
President
American Bottom Conservancy
S. Elizabeth Birnbaum
Director of Government Affairs
American Rivers
David McLain
Executive Director
Apalachicola Bay and Riverkeeper
David Gowdey
Executive Director
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Daniel DeVun
Vice President
Arkansas Nature Alliance
Jim Wood
Representative
Arkansas Wildlife Federation
Rob Fisher
Conservation Director
Audubon Arkansas
Sidney Maddock
Environmental Analyst
Biodiversity Legal Foundation
John Koeferl
Founding Board Member
Citizens Against Widening the
Industrial Canal
Jamie Matera
Outreach Coordinator
Coast Alliance
Peter Huhtala
Executive Director
Columbia Deepening Opposition
Group
Matthew Van Ess
Director
Columbia River Estuary
Study Taskforce
Patricia A. Pendergrast
President
Connecticut Ornithological
Association
Karen Blue
Executive Director
Conservation Council for Hawaii
Michael E. Riska
Executive Director
Delaware Nature Society
Maya K. van Rossum
Delaware Riverkeeper
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Val Washington
Executive Director
Environmental Advocates of New
York
Mona Shoup
Chair
Friends of Clear Creek
Erich Pica
Director, Green Scissors
Campaign
Friends of the Earth
Manley K. Fuller, III
President
Florida Wildlife Federation
Jim Blackburn
Chair, Galveston Bay
Conservation and Preservation Association
Jerry L. McCollum
President and CEO
Georgia Wildlife Federation
Margaret Wooster
Executive Director
Great Lakes United
Cyn Sarthou
Executive Director
Gulf Restoration Network
Marilyn Blackwell
President
Help Save The Apalachicola River
Group
Pamela Dashiell
President
Holy Cross Neighborhood
Association
Steven G. Sorensen
Past President
Kansas Wildlife
Federation
Tom Fitzgerald
Director
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Judy Petersen
Executive Director
Kentucky Waterways Alliance,
Inc.
Cam Davis
Executive Director
Lake Michigan Federation
Larry Mitchell
President
League of Ohio Sportsmen
Mark F. Ten Eyck
Advocacy Director
Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy
Kenneth Hiemenz
President
Minnesota Conservation
Federation
Tim Sullivan
Executive Director
Mississippi River Basin Alliance
Bea Covington
Executive Director
Missouri Coalition for the
Environment
Perry Plumart
Director of Government Relations
National Audubon Society
Jamie Rappaport Clark
Senior Vice President
National Wildlife Federation
Marian Maas, Ph.D.
Conservation Programs Chair
Nebraska Wildlife Federation
Jim Stephenson
Program Analyst
North Carolina Coastal
Federation
Chuck Rice
Executive Director
North Carolina Wildlife
Federation
Nina Bell, J.D.
Executive Director
Northwest Environmental
Advocates
Vicki Deisner
Executive Director
Ohio Environmental Council
Ella F. Filippone
Executive Administrator
Passaic River Coalition
Jim Stevens
President
People to Save the Sheyenne
Gerald H. Meral, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League
Clark Bullard
Member of the Board
Prairie Rivers Network
Magi Shapiro
Member of the Board
Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility
Todd Ambs
Executive Director
River Alliance of Wisconsin
Mike Fremont
President
Rivers Unlimited
Angela Viney
Executive Director
South Carolina Wildlife
Federation
Chris Hesla
Executive Director
South Dakota Wildlife Federation
Gwen Griffith, DVM, MS
Program Director
Tennessee Environmental Council
Michael Utt
President
The Ohio Smallmouth Alliance
Melanie Winter
Director
The River Project
Wilfred Cwikiel
Water Resource Program Director
Tip of the Mitt Watershed
Council
Kelly D. Lowry, Esq.
General Counsel and Water
Program Director
Vermont Natural Resources
Council
Larry Baesler
Executive Director
Wyoming Wildlife Federation
[1] See WORKING GROUP 1,INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE,CLIMATE CHANGE 1995:THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, at 6
(estimating that IPCC =s best estimate is that global sea
level will rise 49 cm from 1990-2100). See
also JAMES G.TITUS &VIJAY K. NARAYANAN, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, THE PROBABILITY OF SEA LEVEL RISE iii, 145-46 (1995)(explaining that
along much of the U.S. coast sea level is likely to rise about 10 cm more than
the global average).