[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF RECENTLY COMPLETED UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CHIEF'S REPORTS, PART 3
=======================================================================
(114-52)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-646 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California JARED HUFFMAN, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TODD ROKITA, Indiana ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JOHN KATKO, New York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Columbia
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina Officio)
MIKE BOST, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Major General Donald Jackson, Deputy Commanding General for Civil
and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Bob Gibbs, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio.......... 23
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington................................... 16
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of June 27, 2016, from Hon. Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Washington, et al., to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), U.S. Department
of the Army, submitted by Hon. Rick Larsen..................... 26
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A REVIEW OF RECENTLY COMPLETED UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CHIEF'S REPORTS, PART 3
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. We will call the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to order.
Today we are having a hearing to review the recently
completed United States Army Corps of Engineers Chief's
Reports.
I would like to welcome everybody to the hearing.
This past May, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure unanimously passed H.R. 5303, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016. This legislation builds upon
the success of WRRDA 2014, one of the most policy- and reform-
focused pieces of legislation related to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
H.R. 5303 is a bipartisan bill that was developed by
working across the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing
in America's future. H.R. 5303 contains no earmarks, as WRRDA
2014 did, and strengthens our water transportation networks to
promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth.
This committee held numerous public roundtables and
official hearings in developing this legislation. We have heard
from the public, industry, stakeholders, and from our
colleagues in Congress while developing this legislation and
have incorporated their ideas into H.R. 5303.
I appreciate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
Mrs. Napolitano's bipartisan work to address the vital need for
America.
Today we are holding a hearing to review two Army Corps of
Engineers reports that have been delivered to Congress since
this subcommittee met last in May of this year. We intend to
review these proposed projects to ensure they meet our criteria
for authorization.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers has delivered to
Congress two Post-Authorization Change Reports recommending
modifications to ongoing construction projects at Swope Park,
Missouri, and Picayune Strand, Florida.
These Chief's Reports and Post-Authorization Change Reports
address the missions of the Corps and balance economic
development and environmental considerations equally.
The Corps of Engineers constructs projects for the purposes
of navigation, flood control, shoreline protection,
hydroelectric power, recreation, environmental protection,
restoration and enhancement, and fish and wildlife mitigation.
The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic
development and environmental needs as it addresses water
resource challenges. This rigorous planning process addresses
the Nation's water resources needs by exploring a full range of
alternatives in developing solutions that meet both national
and local needs.
The two Chief's Reports and two Post-Authorization Change
Reports we are discussing today are the result of this rigorous
planning process. These projects are proposed by the non-
Federal interests in cooperation and consultation with the
Corps. All of these Chief's Reports and Post-Authorization
Change Reports, while tailored to meet locally developed needs,
have national economic and environmental benefits.
I would like to welcome General Jackson for being here
today. It is an important hearing today, and thank you for your
hard work on both the Upper Ohio River and southwest coastal
Louisiana's Chief's Reports.
And before I move on, I do want to ask unanimous consent
that Representative Rick Larsen be permitted to join this
subcommittee for today's hearing, if there is no objection.
Without objection, so ordered.
At this time I recognize my colleague from California, Mrs.
Napolitano, for any comments she may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing will review the Chief's Reports and Post-
Authorization Change Reports that have been completed and
submitted to Congress since our hearing in May of this year. We
applaud the chairman's willingness to make sure that all of the
pending Chief's Reports are eligible for inclusion in the new
Water Resources Reform and Development Act and for the decision
to hold this hearing today.
Since February, the committee has received completed Corps
feasibility studies on the southwest coastal Louisiana project.
In addition to the project, it brings the total to 29 pending
Chief's Reports by the upcoming Water Resources Reform and
Development Act. These important projects representing a
diversity of projects' purposes and geographic regions are the
next general of water infrastructure investment for our Nation.
They all help to maintain and it helps national, regional and
local economies in a variety of ways.
As noted in our last hearing, the range of pending projects
include ecosystem restoration projects ranging from Los Angeles
River, California, to the Central Everglades in Florida;
navigation projects, such as the project for the Port of
Brownsville, Texas; and flood control projects, such as the
American River common features project, also in California.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are discussing
the pending Chief's Reports, and I would remind the chairman of
the constraints we continue to face in utilizing Corps
expertise on a host of other issues within the Corps
authorities.
While Chairman Shuster has been accommodating to many
Members on both sides of the aisle, including new Corps
projects and studies in the pending water resources bill, I
also recognize the constraints placed on him and this committee
by the ill-conceived moratorium on infrastructure investment of
the Republican Conference.
To that end, I want to call to this committee's attention a
bipartisan House resolution, H.R. 813, introduced by a
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rooney, that would exclude water
resources development projects of the Corps from the definition
of a congressional earmark. This is a first good step to what I
hope is a refocus of Congress on this wise infrastructure
investment throughout the Nation. Regardless of the party, we
should all support robust investment in our water resources and
our water infrastructure.
For too long we have been simply closing our eyes to the
condition of our Nation's infrastructure as it crumbles around
us. Now in places like Flint, MI, Toledo, OH, and in my home
State in California, we face what decades ago should have been
unthinkable: questions about the continued reliability and
safety of our water systems and water-related infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is now past due. This is a serious
issue for our States and our local communities for the safety
and well-being of our families and for our overall quality of
life. Yet day after day no action is taken in this Congress to
address these issues. Mr. Chairman, we need to change that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today's hearing, and I welcome
General Jackson for his testimony.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing.
So ordered.
At this time I want to recognize Chairman Shuster of the
full committee for any comments he may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, and thank you
Ranking Member Napolitano for holding this hearing today.
This is a critical part of getting back to a 2-year, every
Congress process where we conduct oversight of WRDA and
authorize these projects.
So today, looking at these two Chief's Reports and these
Post-Authorization Change Reports, it's critical we do this to
make sure that it is in the next WRDA bill as we move forward
hopefully here in the coming days and weeks or at least months.
I really want to especially thank General Jackson and
General Semonite for your swift action on the Upper Ohio River,
the Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks Facilities, which
is critical to the Port of Pittsburgh, one of the Nation's
busiest inland ports.
I cannot thank you enough for that speed. We hope and I
understand talking to General Semonite that you are doing some
standardization, and you want to do that to make sure we save
dollars and, again, be able to use the taxpayers' dollars
wisely. And as Representative Napolitano said, and I echo her
words, we are not investing the way we should in these locks
and dams. It is a critical part of our infrastructure, and it
is one of the reasons this country is a great economic power,
going back 200 years, because of the rivers and the ports and
the harbors we have in this country.
So, again, thanks for being here today, and I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
At this time I want to welcome General Ed Jackson. He is
the Deputy Commander General for Civil Emergency Operations in
the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He is here to talk
about the two Chief's Reports and the Change Reports, and
anything else.
So welcome, General. The floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL DONALD JACKSON, DEPUTY COMMANDING
GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
General Jackson. Chairman Gibbs, Chairman Shuster, Ranking
Member Napolitano, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, as the chairman said, I am Major General Ed
Jackson with a long title, Deputy Commanding General for Civil
and Emergency Operations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to discuss the Chief's Reports that have been completed since I
last testified for you on May 17th of this year. My written
testimony includes detailed descriptions of the six Chief's
Reports and two project Post-Authorization Change Reports that
have completed executive branch review since May 17 of 2016.
I will cover these projects briefly in my remarks today. My
written testimony also identifies Corps decision documents that
are still under review by the administration, including eight
potential projects that have Chief's Reports and two projects
with Post-Authorization Change Reports.
On the first, the Upper Turkey Creek Chief's Report was
transmitted to Congress on June the 30 of 2016. The recommended
plan reduces flood risk along the Turkey Creek, a tributary to
the Kansas River in Merriam, Kansas, which is a part of the
Kansas City metropolitan area. Based upon October 2015 price
levels, the total initial cost for this project is estimated at
$37.8 million.
The West Sacramento Chief's Report was transmitted to
Congress on August 22, 2016. The report recommends flood risk
management improvements along the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass
and Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel within the
metropolitan area of West Sacramento, California.
Based on October 2015 price levels, the total initial cost
for this project is estimated at $1.2 billion.
The American River Watershed, Common Features Chief's
Report was transmitted to Congress on August 29, 2016. The
report recommends flood risk management improvements along the
American and Sacramento Rivers and Eastside tributaries in the
Sacramento, California, area.
Based upon October 2015 price levels, the total initial
cost for this project is estimated at $1.6 billion.
The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Chief's Report was
transmitted to Congress on 28 July of 2016. The report details
plans to reduce flood risks for the community of Alviso,
California, as well as ecosystem restoration measures in the
Alviso pond complex.
Based on October 2015 price levels, the total initial cost
for this project is estimated at $173.9 million.
The Craig Harbor Chief's Report was transmitted to Congress
on August 22 of 2016. The report outlines navigation
improvements to Craig Harbor, Alaska, including the
construction of an L-shaped breakwater and provision of
additional moorage for approximately 145 vessels.
Based on October 2015 price levels, the total initial costs
for this project is estimated at $32.3 million.
The Corps has also completed a Chief's Report on the
disposition of Green River Locks and Dams Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and
Barren River Lock and Dam No. 1. This report was submitted to
Congress on June 30 of 2016.
The locks and dams identified in this report have not
hosted commercial navigation for several decades and no longer
support the congressionally authorized project purpose.
Following deauthorization of commercial navigation at these
facilities, the Corps will dispose of these properties and
facilities through existing Army regulations and General
Services Administration procedures unless Congress provides
specific disposal authority.
Yesterday the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works signed the Record of Decision for the West Shore Lake
Pontchartrain project. The Chief's Report for this project has
already been submitted to the Congress, and we just received
confirmation this morning that the administration transmitted
the report to Congress today.
An additional Chief's Report recommending restoration of
the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem has completed the necessary
policy and statutory reviews and has been provided to the Chief
of Engineers for consideration and signature. This report is
expected to be signed by the Chief within the next several
days.
Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
sets a maximum percentage cost increase for Civil Works
projects. A further authorization is required to use Federal
funds beyond this maximum authorized project cost. In these
cases, the Corps completes a Post-Authorization Change Report,
which is then provided to Congress if there is a recommendation
for a further authorization.
There are two of these projects or reports that have been
completed since our last testimony in May. The Swope Park
industrial area project, which is located along the Blue River,
reduces flood risk in the Kansas City, Missouri, metropolitan
area, and the Picayune Strand Restoration Component of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which provides for
ecosystem restoration benefits.
I would also like to take this opportunity to provide a
brief update on the 2017 report to Congress on future water
resources development as required by section 7001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. The open season
for submission of proposals by non-Federal interests closes on
Monday, September 19. The Corps has proactively engaged with
potential non-Federal sponsors to generate interest in
submission of proposed water resources projects through various
solicitations, informational sessions, and outreach
opportunities.
Notifications have been placed in the Federal Register,
Corps Web sites, and on several social media platforms, and
agency leadership has endeavored to promote this initiative at
conferences and applicable information meetings.
The Corps has also advertised and hosted a public Web-based
information session to explain the 7001 criteria and how to
submit proposals. We look forward to reviewing the proposals
that we have received.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering
any questions that you may have.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Just for clarity, in your testimony you talk about these
that OMB sent in in June and stuff. Those were already in the
bill. We had Chief's Reports. It is just how OMB functions. So
I am really focusing on the two new Chief's Reports and the two
new Change Reports that we just received and maybe the ones
that we are going to receive before the deadline Monday, I
believe, September 19.
My first question is a question I always need to ask to
hold everybody accountable. Between these two Chief's Reports
and the two Post-Authorization Change Reports that came in
since our previous hearing, did the Corps encounter any
significant opposition to these reports?
And if they did, can you kind of generalize what that
opposition was and the concerns?
General Jackson. No, Mr. Chairman, we did not encounter any
significant opposition. We have been able to work through all
of the issues with our resource agency partners and
stakeholders to deliver these reports.
Mr. Gibbs. That is great. That is good to hear.
And on this hearing the two Post-Authorization Change
Reports that we are looking at, can you give us several reasons
why these projects cannot be completed within the budget that
Congress has already provided?
General Jackson. Generally speaking, as we work through the
completion of these reports, over time we found in some cases
differing site conditions that we had to address. In other
cases we had cost increases that were not foreseen at the time
when these reports were initiated. As always it is to make sure
that the report that we deliver and have to update from time to
time is technically and policy compliant. That is what we have
attempted to do with these particular reports.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Now, the deadline to submit to get into this
bill hopefully is Monday, September 19, and I know that the
annual report process is in February. Your testimony was that
the Corps posted on their Web site a Webinar on August 17 to
inform the non-Federal sponsors of submission requirements.
How else has the Corps provided assistance to non-Federal
project sponsors prior to submission, knowing about the
deadline coming up?
General Jackson. Sir, we have done a number of things. We
have, again, used social media to the extent that was can to
get the word out about what this process is and how sponsors or
potential project sponsors can take advantage of this.
We have certainly blanketed and done extensive training
within our own organization to make sure that at the district
level where we have the greatest outreach, they are able to
have that face-to-face contact through townhall meetings and
other relational opportunities to get the word out on what we
are trying to accomplish.
And I will go so far as to say I even did a personal
YouTube video to encourage folks to take advantage of this
opportunity, which I hope you will never look at, but we went
to that extent to try to get the word out so we could get as
many opportunities as we could as a result of this process.
Mr. Gibbs. That is great to hear because for our process
that we set up in WRRDA 2014, for it to work, to function
right, the non-Federal project sponsors need to know how the
mechanism works. So I am glad to hear that we moved forward on
that.
On the Houston Ship Channel that addressed navigation
safety and what we call the Bayport Flare, which I know you are
aware of, why does the Corps no longer use the bend easing
authority contained in U.S. Code 562 for carrying out that type
of activity?
General Jackson. Sir, I am going to have to ask if I can
get back to you on that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
General Jackson. That is a technical question I am not
prepared to answer.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
General Jackson. I will say this though, that we are
working very hard with the administration to get this report
cleared. I was personally at the Port of Houston 2 weeks ago to
make sure that I understood the significance. The Port of
Houston Authority was very kind in laying all of this out, not
only the Post-Authorization Change Report that we are trying to
get to address this one issue, but also the channel extension
project that we are in the midst of working through right now
where we are trying to schedule Civil Works Review Board by the
end of the calendar year.
Mr. Gibbs. Can you give us any more details on the Puget
Sound Chief's Report that we expect is probably coming in the
next couple of days for what this project would do?
General Jackson. Yes, sir, I am glad to do that.
This particular project is an aquatic ecosystem restoration
project. It is a part of the EPA's Ecosystems of National
Significance. So it is a very significant effort on a national
basis.
We have had significant participation at the Federal and
State level. We started out with about 35 different potential
project features, and we have worked that down to the four that
we have in the report, which will be the Duckabush River
Estuary, the Nooksack River Delta, and two parts of the North
Fork Skagit River.
The cost information that we are looking at right now is
about a $450 million project that is 65 percent Federal, 35
percent non-Federal. We have had wholesale support by about 15
different Federal agencies in developing this, so I am very
excited about the way it was formulated and looking forward to
getting this signed by the Chief.
Mr. Gibbs. And back to my first question. Was there any
significant opposition or concerns about this project?
General Jackson. No, sir, none that I am aware of.
Mr. Gibbs. All right. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was starting to say that we have been working with you
for a short-term deviation for the current water control plan
for a specific area, Whittier Narrows, in my area, augmenting
the critical water shortage. I thank the Corps for their
efforts in that regard, but we are still in a drought.
According to the latest map, we are heavily in drought and must
continue to address it.
Thank you to Chairman Shuster there is language in the
committee approved Water Resources Development Act to benefit
L.A. County drainage area, and I encourage the Corps to make
more frequent and timely reviews and revisions of existing
water control manuals in drought prone areas. We certainly are
and most of California is in that same position.
I look forward to the enactment of the language before the
end of this session. However, I expect that Los Angeles will
need to make another attempt for a short deviation during the
2016-2017 winter storm to capture as much water as we can.
And I would like to know if you can commit towards working
to approving a second season deviation for that area,
especially Whittier Narrows, to help prepare for what looks
like another seasonal crippling drought for the Southwest. It
would help tremendously, and of course, we are still looking at
dredging to be able to prepare the dams for capturing more
water.
General Jackson. We will certainly commit to doing that. We
are certainly committed to addressing the drought through
whatever means that we have, and working the short-term
deviations and the long-term reservoir fixes that we are in the
process of working through across southern California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I thank you very much, sir.
And, Mr. Chairman, I am certain that Mr. Larsen's request
for the Puget Sound is going to be well received since it has
already received quite a bit of support from his area.
And I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Just for a point of clarification, I think I
misspoke when I talked about the September 19 Monday deadline.
That is for going into the February 2017 annual report, not
WRDA. I just wanted to clarify that when I spoke.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing.
And I want to take my time just to thank General Jackson
for presenting the Post-Authorization Change Report for the
Picayune Strand restoration project authorized in 2007 and
redesigned post Hurricane Katrina. The project will restore
55,000 acres of former residential unit in southwest Florida.
The completed project will deliver restoration benefits to
170,000 acres in Western Everglades, including downstream the
Ten Thousand Islands Estuary and neighboring preserves, which
will reap the benefits of the restoration with natural sheet
flow.
In addition, the project will enhance the protection
recovery of the iconic, though sometimes imperiled, Florida
species, including the Florida panther, the wood stork and the
Florida manatee. Inclusion in this change report and WRDA 2016
will be a significant milestone for the Western Everglades.
I am grateful for Army Corps and for the South Florida
Water Management District for their substantial investment in
resources to date and ongoing commitment to completing this
component of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and
the subcommittee for allowing me to sit in since I am on the
full committee but not on the subcommittee. I want to say
thanks.
I want to thank General Jackson and the Army Corps team for
your work as well, the local folks on the Puget Sound Nearshore
Ecosystem Restoration Project, and our Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, as well those who worked with you on this,
for their work on the study.
This is going to be one of the largest habitat restoration
efforts in the U.S. It is integral to our own State's Puget
Sound Action Agenda, which includes recovery and protection of
several fish and mammal species and the fulfillment of tribal
treaty rights.
As Congress continues to work towards WRDA, I am encouraged
by the progress being made on this particular report and
pleased to see the report recommends construction authorization
for the three tier 1 projects. You mentioned four, but you
split the North Fork Skagit into two: so the Duckabush River
Estuary, the Nooksack River Delta, and North Fork Skagit River
Delta.
Together these projects improve title exchanges, restore
freshwater tidelands, improve sound restoration activities,
among other things.
I just would ask that given the importance as well of tier
2 projects at the overall restoration, I strongly support the
inclusion of the tier 2 projects as well in the final Chief's
Report, along with these tier 1 projects.
But I do want to, if I could, ask unanimous consent to
include my full statement for the record, which also includes,
Mr. Chairman, a letter I signed along with the Members of the
Washington State Delegation who have districts abutting the
Puget Sound, representing our complete support for this Chief's
Report.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
Mr. Larsen. And in closing, I would like to reiterate the
importance of this restoration project to the entire Puget
Sound region and look forward to the Army Corps.
So with that, before I yield back, I have a couple more
minutes and I will not take long. I have just one question for
General Jackson.
Could you clarify the timeline for the Chief's signature on
this?
General Jackson. Yes, Congressman. We have provided the
Chief the report for him to review. He is out of the country.
He is on his way back. He will be back late tonight. We are
going to sit down and review it with him tomorrow and make sure
he does not have any questions. He could sign it as early as
sometime tomorrow.
Depending on how he wants to synthesize the information, it
may take a few days, but we are going to press him to get it
done as soon as possible. He is committed to doing that.
Mr. Larsen. Where is he? And does he have Skype?
General Jackson. I think he is over the Atlantic right now,
sir. So unless he is logged into the Gogo in flight, I am not
sure if I can get him.
Mr. Larsen. All right.
General Jackson. But we will hit him as soon as he lands.
Mr. Larsen. Well, you understand my urgency. I appreciate
it. Thank you so much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Dr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for being here, General Jackson.
I offer my thanks to the Corps for completing the section
902 report for the Houston Ship Channel project, which I
represent there at Houston Ship Channel. I understand that the
purpose is essentially to update the calculated cost of the
project, which was completed in 2005, and that this report
reflects a project cost at the same level as the Corps reported
in its original Chief's Report from 1996, which was $508
million; is this correct?
General Jackson. Yes, sir. The cost that I am showing is a
total cost of $508 million.
Dr. Babin. OK. Thank you.
Can you provide assurances that the Corps will do
everything possible to assure the report is released by this
administration for full consideration by the Congress?
General Jackson. Congressman, I commit to that. I do.
Dr. Babin. All right. Thank you.
Then I know you just mentioned in the hearing today that
you had recently visited the Port of Houston to see firsthand
all of the exciting navigation work that is going on there and
being accomplished by the Corps and the Port Authority. I
understand that there is some confusion regarding Corps
policies and appropriate sites for oyster mitigation, which is
a very important issue for Galveston Bay and the people of
Texas.
Can you assure me that the Corps will fully communicate
with the sponsor about the basis for its draft decision to
abandon the State and Federal preferred oyster reef location
and resolve this issue so that the pending environmental
restoration contracts will be as successful as the original
mitigation projects?
General Jackson. Sir, I commit to that. That was an issue
that was raised when I was at the port. We committed to work
with the sponsor to try to work through the confusion and the
concern so that we can get a project that meets all of the NEPA
compliance requirements in the best interest of all parties. So
we will continue to work that.
Dr. Babin. Well, that is a very important industry for us
there in the seafood and oysters. So we certainly hope it is as
successful as the last one.
And finally, as you may know, the Limited Reevaluation
Report, LRR, for the Sabine-Neches Waterway is due at the end
of this month, and I am hopeful and confident that this report
will reflect the military and economic importance of this
waterway.
I grew up on this waterway as a matter of fact, which has a
direct link to two strategic seaports, Beaumont and Port
Arthur, Texas. Can you speak briefly to the importance of
strategic seaports not only in my area, but across the country
and how you weigh their importance when performing evaluations,
such as an LRR?
General Jackson. Well, certainly, sir. When we take a look
at all of the economic and environmental work that we do to
evaluate the importance of every project, we factor in national
security, force projection, and all the things that the ports
do to provide for the national defense.
That is all part of the calculus that goes into assessing
what the benefit-cost ratios are for projects of this type.
Then, as you take a look at those benefit-cost ratios, that
pretty much lays out the strategic importance of any particular
project across the Nation.
That is how we evaluate it in our reports, and then the
administration prioritizes them for their funding purposes once
we get these projects authorized. So we are working hard to do
that.
Dr. Babin. Excellent. Thank you very much, General.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General, thank you so much for your work and the
Corps' work both in terms of the ongoing projects as well as
the emergency situations that all of us face and you handle so
very well.
A couple of things. Mr. Chairman, there is a longstanding
project that has been underway. It is authorized. It is the
Hamilton City project in California. It is really the first of
its kind in which the environmental organizations and the
Nature Conservancy are working with the Corps and the local
community to establish both habitat restoration as well as
flood control.
Construction is ongoing. It is an authorized project.
Construction is going on as we speak. However, a couple of
bumps, well, let's say pipelines and property have perhaps put
this project in jeopardy, and what I would like to do is set up
a situation here where if and when the Corps presents its Post-
Authorization Cost Report, it can be included in the WRDA bill,
which may pass the House next week and get out of Congress in
the lame duck session.
So I am trying to set things up here so that we can do not
an air drop, but a modification. So, General, is it the case
that the Sacramento District is actually in the process now of
looking at the 209 limits as it pertains to the cost of land
that was actually donated, but has significantly increased
because of the inflation in the area and also the discovery of
the gas pipeline and how to deal with it?
General Jackson. Yes, sir, I think you are absolutely
right. When we did our last certified cost estimate on this
particular project in 2014, it revealed some cost growth along
the lines of what you described. Unforeseen site conditions
which had an impact on the current contract that required
modification, and then also the increase in the real estate
cost.
So what we are doing now is doing the 902 revision. The
calculations and the certified cost is due in December of 2016.
What the staff is telling me is that once we get that, if the
costs that have been estimated are going to exceed the 902
limit, then we are going to work with the sponsor to try to
descope so they can stay below the 902 and continue to move
forward.
If it does not, then they will just continue to move
forward. It is more of a precautionary measure to make sure we
do not run out of authorization limit on this project so we can
continue to move forward, given some of the bumps that we have
encountered.
Mr. Garamendi. Just a couple of things here that I think we
need to understand. The land cost is actually land that was
purchased some 10 years ago by the Nature Conservancy. It is
donated.
The cost issue is a result of the inflation that has
occurred in that intervening time. There is no additional cost
to the Federal Government here. It is already land that has
been donated for the purposes of habitat restoration.
But the rules are the rules, and I guess the new cost,
inflated cost, is included, and that may drive up over the
authorized cost. The pipeline, as I said earlier, was recently
discovered. It may be that it will have to be relocated, or it
may be able to stay in place and protected in place. We will
see what happens.
You did say something a moment ago that is troublesome, and
you said December 1. That does not or may not coincide with the
work that needs to be done in a conference report to WRDA, and
so I am asking if you might be able to get it done quicker,
like maybe early October. Is that possible?
General Jackson. Congressman, I will have to get back to
you on that because I cannot commit to that without knowing
what is left to be done on that particular report. But if you
would allow me to do two things, one is to come back to you
with a detailed accounting of how we got to where we are and to
clarify what we are actually verifying, and then, two, give you
some options on what we think the future holds.
And we will try to get that done really quickly so we can
make some good, informed decisions on how to go forward.
Mr. Garamendi. I think I heard you say you are going to ask
the Sacramento District Office how quickly they can get it
done. Is that what I heard you say?
General Jackson. Congressman, what I said was I need to
understand what they have left to do on it.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, then let me ask you to ask them how
quickly they can get it done. If we can meet our own deadline
here, I think we can drop this in, and I will let it go at
that.
But I am looking for a placeholder here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, the last time the Corps testified before this
committee, I requested the Corps respond to a request for them
to examine the deep flaws in the agency's environmental impact
statement whenever they put it together for the next NGA West
Campus, and I still have not received that and any information
on that inquiry.
Let me kind of explain what all was involved with that and
why that is important.
The Corps EIS was used by the agency to determine where to
locate the NGA West. The EIS misidentified in that report St.
Clair County, Illinois, by going with St. Clair County,
Missouri, along with St. Clair County, Michigan.
In that study they wanted to bring up the environmental
impact for the Osage River, which is in Missouri, not in
Illinois. That was then used in making the determination. Now,
let me tell you that the Secretary said that it was not the
only thing used in making the determination, but in the St.
Clair County, Illinois, the county owned and controlled the
land that they were offering and were going to give it to the
Federal Government for free.
The St. Louis site that they did look over is an already
developed urban area, and it required imminent domain of 42
properties, land acquisition movements, and also the removing
of historical structures. It also has some environmental
impacts that we know exist from the Cold War days, and that is
not even digging into the ground yet to figure that out.
This site, then the Corps EIS claimed it would be cheaper
on the St. Louis site than the St. Clair County site. This
makes no sense to me whatsoever, and that is why I asked for
the report, and it has been quite some time to try to figure
out exactly what was done here and why.
Everything I have done with the Corps since being elected
has been fairly good. I mean, it really has, and believe me, I
deal with you a lot because, lucky me, I have three navigable
waterways in the Illinois 12 and so from that side and other
projects.
But this one has really got me concerned because for a
professional agency to come forward with a report like that,
and of all things, the agency that they were getting the study
for is geo mapping, but they cannot figure out what county or
where their county is located that they need to be looking at.
So that is why I really need if you could to get that
report to me and find out why.
General Jackson. Well, Congressman, thank you very much for
that, and I remember very well the conversation we had when I
testified last to the committee on the 17th. We received a
letter from your staff shortly thereafter, maybe within a
couple of days, asking for an engineering inspector general
investigation into that. I am told as of yesterday it is done
and they are working to schedule an out-brief to you that will
lay out all of the details of the investigation and answer the
questions that you posed.
So I want to let you know that that is coming to you
shortly.
Mr. Bost. Thank you.
General Jackson. If it can be scheduled, that will probably
answer all of the questions.
As an agency leader, we are always looking to do the right
thing. We are always looking to be technically proficient in
everything that we do. I do acknowledge that as we have done
our own investigative work, there were errors made in the draft
EIS that we put together, and we acknowledge also that the EIS
was a part of the decision calculus that NGA has used to make
final decisions.
But I will leave the details that you have asked for to the
EIG update, and I will be glad to follow up with you on any
questions that you might have that the update does not answer,
sir.
Mr. Bost. OK. I look forward to that meeting. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Gibbs. They called votes. We have 11 minutes to go yet.
We are going to go to Ms. Frankel, and when she finishes her
questions the hearing is adjourned.
Go ahead.
Ms. Frankel. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you to the Army Corps, General Jackson, for your
work.
Just three quick things. I want to echo Mr. Webster and say
thank you, thank you so much on the course modification on the
Picayune Strand, the Central Everglades restoration projects.
All of those restoration projects are very, very important to
Florida. So thank you for that.
I wanted to remind everybody that we have this archaic law
that does not allow us to buy sand from the Bahamas, and we are
running out of sand in Florida, and I do not understand why we
have that in the law. So I persist in saying that we have
really got to do something about that.
And the third thing, which is very serious, and I brought
this up with you last time, General Jackson, and, Mr. Chair, I
really hope that maybe this committee could work with some of
the other pertinent committees on this issue, which is the cost
analysis that is used in evaluating these projects.
And I want to use an example, Port Everglades, which after
18 years finally we got the Chief's Report. Thank you for that.
It was a lot of hard work, and I sat in the final review and I
saw how many different people and committees, whatever, had to
go through, and in that review I sat in there for hours and
hours, and now I understand why almost it takes so long.
Eighteen years was a little long.
Now we are learning that the Office of Management and
Budget uses a completely different formula in terms of
evaluating the benefit-cost analysis, and that could actually
prevent the project from going forward. I would guess, although
I have not looked at every single project, that this might be
something that is a problem with other projects, too.
So my concern is not only that we might get our project
stalled again, but my concern is this. Army Corps working on
getting a Chief's Report for many, many years, with a lot of
people, and it is costing millions of dollars, and you are
using a different cost analysis than the Office of Management
and Budget, and that just does not make any sense to me.
Because in a sense, they can say, ``All right. All of your
18 years of work,'' and now it is going to be three under the
new law, ``is for naught.''
Have you given any thought to how we can try to resolve
that situation?
General Jackson. Ma'am, I will tell you that we struggle
with this. What is authorized in law for addressing a problem
is a 1.0 BCR based on the current discount rate, and that
changes very slightly over time. The budget-ability rate is
different, as you described. It is based upon a 7-percent
discount rate, which has a serious impact on BCR.
We have had discussions with OMB leadership about what
other ways could we calculate investment decisions outside of
the BCR, and so we are working with the administration to try
to figure out what that might be.
And certainly this current administration and senior
leadership is open to that if we can come up with something we
can all live with.
If there are any good ideas that Congress has that can help
us, we are all ears. We would like to be able to make it make
more sense, but we also realize that the administration has
tough budget decisions to make, as you do, and has to set some
type of criteria to separate projects into what can and cannot
be budgeted. I cannot speak for them, but we will certainly say
we are working on this to the extent that we can at the levels
that we are.
Ms. Frankel. All right. If I can make an analogy, it is
almost like sending someone out to run the marathon, and then
all of a sudden somebody hides the finish line from them. And
they have done all of this running and now somebody else moves
the finish line.
Mr. Chair, I really again would just like to request that
this committee take a look at this issue and maybe reach out to
I do not know whether it would be the Budget Committee or what
committee in the Congress that would also have jurisdiction. Do
we know what it would be? Probably the Budget Committee,
because this just does not make any sense to put the Army Corps
and the communities through all of this work and effort and
then all of a sudden have a whole different analysis of the
cost.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. I think the administration has some input in
that, too.
We have 6 minutes to go over and vote, and thank you,
General Jackson for being here today, and this adjourns our
hearing.
General Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]