Nicollet Island Coalition has Moved

The Nicollet Island Coalition has  new website.  

Please visit us at

www.nicolletislandcoalition.org

Follow our blog at the new location

www.nicolletislandcoalition.org/news

Corps Releases Draft Environmental Assessment for Lock Closure

Upper St Anthony Falls | Olivia Dorothy

In December, the St. Paul District of the Army Corps of Engineers released the draft environmental assessment for the Upper St. Anthony Falls lock closure.  This assessment is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which outlines how federal agencies engage the public as they determine projects and programs that will have an impact on natural resources.  NEPA requires agencies to consider different project alternatives and document how each of those alternatives will impact the environment and that information must be shared with the public.  Any public response must be taken into consideration by the agency before the preferred project alternative can move forward.  The public may comment on the lock closure and respond to the environmental assessment until January 23, 2015.

The lock closure was mandated last summer by Congress in response to public concerns about the spread of aquatic invasive species like silver carp.  St. Anthony Falls has historically been a barrier to northern migration of fish.  Early records indicate that only a fraction of native Mississippi River fish species are found north of the falls.  But the lock opens the channel and could facilitate the spread of the dramatic flying fish into Minnesota’s popular lakes. 

The lock will close June 10, and the environmental assessment considers three alternatives:

1. No action.  This alternative would leave the lock in operation.  This option is required to be considered under the NEPA, but for this project it isn’t viable because it would violate the Congressional mandate
2.  Leave the lock closed.  The lock is closed now because ice and winter whether prohibits river traffic from moving. 
3. Open the lock in the spring and permit traffic until the mandatory closure June 10.

Even though the assessment concludes that leaving the lock closed is a slightly better environmental option, the Corps prefers the third option, to open the lock for navigation traffic until the mandatory closure date in June.  This option would allow two business that transport scrap metal and aggregates, like sand and gravel, to operate on the river in the spring.  This option delays some of the inevitable economic impacts to local businesses associated with the lock closure.  But the Corps doesn’t provide any figures on the federal taxpayer money that could be saved if the lock remained closed. 

The Corps also omits any substantial discussion on the longer-term impacts, like the cost to operate and maintain the lock for high water events when it must be open to prevent flooding and the need to prevent the lock from deteriorating into a safety hazard.  In meetings the Corps has stated that this will be considered in a disposition study.  But to improve the public understanding of the process, the Corps should include a discussion on their plans to do a disposition study.  The Corps needs to explain why a broader array of project alternatives, economic costs, and environmental factors aren’t considered in the assessment.

The assessment also includes faulty statistics on fuel efficiency and air pollution impacts between transportation sectors that were provided by the navigation industry.  Since the early 1990s, independent studies have shown that railroads, especially unit-trains (those really long trains) are, in most instances, the most fuel efficient mode of transportation. On the Mississippi River above the Missouri River, barges averaged 436 revenue ton-miles per gallon between 2007 and 2009.   Compared to rail in the region, river navigation is less efficient than non-unit and unit trains, which obtain 431 and 596 revenue ton-miles per gallon respectively.[1]  And a study on the Illinois River showed that trucks were less polluting than barges in some instances.[2] 

The Corps will need to make these corrections in their final environmental assessment, which will be out soon because the NEPA requirements must be complete before the lock is closed in June.  You can review the 30 page assessment here and submit comments here. 

---

[1] Tolliver, Denver, Pan Lu, and Douglas Benson.  2013.  Comparing rail fuel efficiency with truck and waterway.  Transportation Research Part D.  24:69-75.

[2] U.S. Maritime Administration, 2013, “America’s Marine Highway Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.”

President Obama Releases the First Update to the Rules for Army Corps Project Selection Criteria in More Than Thirty Years

The new Interagency Guidelines will enable the Corps to consider 

projects that promote and protect natural ecosystem functions, like floodplains.  

Photo credit: Chris Young 

Yesterday was a big day for rivers.  On December 17, President Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality released the final Interagency Guidelines, the companion to the Principles and Requirements that were finalized in March 2013.  These guidance documents outline how Federal agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers, are supposed to make decisions about how to spend your taxpayer dollars. 

It’s shocking to realize that the last time these guidelines were updated was in 1983.  A lot has changed since the Police topped the Billboard Charts with “Every Breath You Take,” Return of the Jedi was released, and otherwise respectable people regularly wore legwarmers.  It’s actually been so long that Sting has reemerged as a popular solo artist, the Star Wars trilogy was tragically remade, and I’m knitting all my friends fashionable leg warmers for Christmas.  But here’s what hasn't changed in all that time: the Army Corps of Engineers is still making decisions based on outdated and ecologically unsustainable principles laid out by James Watt (Ronald Reagan’s controversial Interior Secretary, not the famous 18^th Century inventor). 

In all seriousness, during the thirty years since these guidelines were last updated, science and research has expanded our understanding of ecosystem services and how naturally functioning environments can provide a suite of economic, social, public safety, and social justice benefits.  That’s why its great news that the final Interagency Guidelines released this week will recognize and institutionalize some of these diverse benefits. 

The new Interagency Guidelines will replace the – yet to come back in fashion – 1983 system of evaluating traditional economic benefits, like a business’ profit margin, against poorly quantified environmental losses.  The new guidance will require federal agencies to evaluate project alternatives against six guiding principles.  These principles seek to

1. Improve ecosystem health and resiliency;
2. Encourage economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable development;
3. Discourage development in floodplains;
4. Enhance public safety;
5. Avoid negative impacts to communities that are already at risk due to economic, health, safety, social, and/or environmental factors; and
6. Evaluate all decisions on a watershed scale.

While evaluating alternatives under these principles, the agencies will consider several new and important factors, like long-term decommissioning costs for large projects, ways that environmental degradation can hurt the economy, and the social fabric of communities that depend on the rivers that flow through them.  Agencies will also be required to consider and evaluate project alternatives that restore naturally functioning ecosystems.

These new guidelines should require decision-making that leads to taxpayer-funded projects that truly benefit the public and the environment, not just corporate special interests. 

But while this guidance is a good first step, it really is just a first step.  This guidance covers many federal agencies, and each of them has to translate these new guidelines into action. Over the next several months, these agencies – not just the Corps, but also the Department of the Interior, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, among others – will be working to prepare Agency Specific Procedures for implementing this new guidance. 

American Rivers is ready to engage with these agencies through what will hopefully be a robust and open public process over the next several months to develop these procedures. We plan to make sure they get it right. After all, it could be thirty years before we get this chance again!

Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock Disposition Study

I am really excited this week to learn the magic words for initiating the decommissioning process for infrastructure managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.  “Disposition studies” re-evaluate federal interest in any particular project and lay out alternatives for decommissioning the specified infrastructure. 

As you probably know already, Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock will be closed in June 2015 due to insufficient traffic.  Although the real reason the Minnesota Congressional delegation pushed to close the lock was to create a permanent barrier against advancing Asian carp.  The Corps’ draft environmental assessment for the closure will be available for review by the end of December 2014 and will be open for 30 days for public comments.

The assessment will review two alternatives: 1. Open the lock for the start of the shipping season and closing it in June or 2. Don’t reopen the lock after winter.  The Corps only plans to look at the shipping impacts above Upper St. Anthony Falls, not below it or in Pool 1.  Although, it’s possible that shipping will drop precipitously in the Twin Cities after the northern lock is closed. 

The assessment that is being drafted only reviews the immediate future of the lock, i.e. the imminent closure.  To plan beyond the closure, the Corps will request $200-350,000 for an Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock Disposition Study in the next fiscal year to evaluate a long term plan for the closed lock.  Obviously, if left alone, it will deteriorate, fall apart, become a safety hazard, and fail to provide a barrier to invading carp. 

The disposition study will evaluate options like deauthorizing the 9-foot channel above the lock, altering the lock, or replacing the lock with some other kind of structure that creates a barrier to advancing fish but still allowing flood waters to pass through.  The study could also provide an opportunity to plan a portage around the falls for all those brave souls who paddle Old Man River from Lake Itasca to the Gulf of Mexico.

When the environmental assessment is available for review, I’ll write about it here.  And since I usually do a budget request blog, you can expect to see more information about the disposition study when it becomes available.  

Illinois' Proposed Public-Private Partnership

Last week, the Illinois General Assembly tried to hold a subject matter hearing on aging navigation infrastructure (I say “try” because it was rescheduled for December 2 at 10AM).  The hearing was based on this memo provided by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.  They propose to establish a new Inland Rivers and Waterways Authority with a scope of work that includes advocacy for lock expansion via the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP).  And they propose the General Assembly support an application for an Illinois and Middle Mississippi River Public Private Partnership pilot program (IMMR P5).  The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 established this pilot program and the Corps of Engineers is accepting applications to designate the pilot projects.  It looks like private interests are seeking NESP funding through this new program. 

American Rivers submitted testimony, along with several Nicollet Island Coalition partners, opposing both of the above mentioned proposals.  Instead, we recommended Illinois abandon pursuit of funding for lock expansion and submit an IMMR P5 designation request for private financing of operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation only, using river coordinating bodies that already exist in statute – instead of creating a new authority.

The rationale behind the lock expansion opposition is detailed in the 2010 report, Big Price – Little Benefit:  Why Proposed Locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers are not Economically Viable.

Our other concerns are more nuanced.  The Inland Waterways System is the most subsidized mode of freight transport in the nation. More than 90 percent of the infrastructure costs are paid by federal taxpayers. While Illinois is trying to identify private investments under the IMMR P5 program, it’s possible much of the federal subsidies will be shifted onto Illinois taxpayers and will not significantly reduce the overall public subsidy for the private navigation businesses.

There are also major problems around the proposed cost recuperation plan outlined in the IMMR P5 Factsheet.  Tonnage tariffs and user fees are the only revenue stream listed from the private sector.  However, the barge industry has routinely fought every effort to incorporate such fees. A May 12, 2009 Press Release from the American Waterways Operators states:

“Replacing the excise tax on fuel that equitably distributes taxes on all commercial waterways users with a lock usage tax would impose disproportionate tax burdens on vessels transiting certain segments of the inland waterways, while other vessels using the system would pay little or nothing. This flawed approach would increase the cost of shipping essential commodities such as grain and petroleum and would undermine the nation’s inland waterways transportation system…”

Basically, the barge industry is saying that the fees Illinois plans to rely on to pay for the infrastructure would eventually drive barge traffic from those segments that have locks. It seems likely that the costs for major construction projects will not be recuperated.

We also opposed the creation of any government body or authority established specifically to pursue state or private funding for the NESP.  NESP has several fundamental flaws, which we detail in Big Price – Little Benefit.  The Corps of Engineers’ own study of the lock expansion component of the program demonstrates that the program is not economically justified, and that increasing barge traffic in the region will increase carbon emissions. There also is no evidence that taxpayer investment by the State of Illinois under the proposed IMMR P5 program will improve the benefits.  Pursuing funds for lock expansion would likely turn into a state financed boondoggle, and while it might benefit the navigation industry, it would certainly not benefit the Illinois taxpayer.

We also pointed out in the testimony that the work of the new “Inland Rivers and Waterways Authority” proposed to be created legislatively would significantly overlap with the already existing Illinois and Mississippi Rivers Coordinating Councils.  These Councils have the authority to make recommendations to the General Assembly and Governor regarding funding and spending in the Illinois and Mississippi River watersheds.  They also have the authority to identify new funding sources for river management needs and serve as a well-established public forum for discussions between all stakeholders on the rivers.  And these Councils are not mandated to pursue projects within any particular authority.

Instead of forming a new authority or submitting a proposal to the Corps of Engineers to expand locks, we recommend the state pursue IMMR P5 designation for private financing of operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation only, using river coordinating bodies that already exist in statute.  Funding under these authorities would remain independent of NESP and its related controversies.  Applications for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation would stand a greater likelihood for federal approval and funding.

Barge Fuel Efficiency Claims are Bogus

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you've probably read the Nicollet Island Coalition 2010 report Big Price – Little Benefit: Proposed Locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Are Not Economically Viable. In Big Price, the Coalition tackles claims by the Corps of Engineers and navigation industry that expensive new locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers are justified because inland towing is “the most fuel efficient mode of transportation” based on the following data[1]:



In the 2010 report section “Superior Barge Fuel Efficiency Claims are Questionable,” the Coalition discusses 1. How navigation industry conveniently uses inappropriate railroad fuel efficiency data and 2. How circuity reduces the fuel efficiency of navigation. To recap what the Coalition said in 2010:

1. Railroad fuel efficiency

The railroad figure above is actually the average from all railroads and does not accurately represent the railroads in direct competition with inland towing. Unit trains carry bulk commodities long distances and compete with navigation for export traffic. Unit train fuel efficiency is 640 ton-miles per gallon – significantly higher than inland towing.

2. Circuity

Inland navigation is confined to rivers, which are squiggly. Both road and rail can increase their fuel economy by constructing direct routes. The Universities of Illinois[2] and Iowa[3] evaluated how much further barges have to travel to export goods from the Midwest to New Orleans and found that on average, barges travel 1.3 to 1.38 times further than rail.

Adjusted fuel economy data[4]:



Take the above realities into account and you see that navigation is not the most fuel efficient mode of transportation. Since the report was published in 2010, I've found two additional studies to bolster the Coalition’s criticism of navigation fuel economy claims.

The university studies referenced in the 2010 report did not evaluate truck fuel efficiency because trucks do not carry a significant portion of bulk commodities over long distances like trains and barges. But a recent study published by the Maritime Administration[5] does look at carbon emissions between trucks and barges for a hypothetical container-on-barge route between Peoria, IL and New Orleans, LA. They found that, due to circuity, inland towing would emit 23,906 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. While trucks, carrying the same load to and from the same port, would only emit 13,739 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

But, circuity is hard to generalize. This is why the Coalition has been searching for river segment specific fuel efficiency data. Rivers are like roads – your car’s fuel efficiency is better on the interstate than in town. Locked rivers are like driving in town – all the stop and go decreases fuel efficiency. To get regional inland towing fuel efficiency data, I started trying to calculate it from the regional fuel tax revenues provided in a recent National Academy of Sciences report[6] (I know the fuel tax is $0.20 per gallon and I know the ton-miles carried on each river segment). But the revenues were provided as a graph, so I didn’t have accurate figures for a calculation. Like a good academic, I followed the citations in hopes of finding the regional fuel tax receipts. What I found instead: The Tennessee Valley Authority[7] already did this calculation!

The fuel efficiency for the Mississippi River according to the TVA:



275.8 ton-miles per gallon on the locked portion of the Mississippi River! That means the navigation industry has a fuel efficiency error of more than 300 ton-miles per gallon! Holy crap! Just this month, Hyundai and Kia agreed to pay a $360 million settlement because they sold cars with posted average fuel economy 1 to 6 miles per gallon above the actual fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, taxpayers are forking over about $700 million annually to maintain navigation infrastructure – and most of that money goes to locks and dams where towing is the least efficient. If anyone from the Corps is reading this now, I hope you’re doing a face-palm. It’s time to rethink our water resource investments.

---

[1] Texas Transportation Institute – Center for Ports & Waterways, December 2007 (amended March 2009), “A Model Comparison of Domestic Fright Transportation Effects on the General Public Final Report,” prepared for the U.S. Maritime Administration and the National Waterways Foundation.
[2] Anthony V. Sebald, 1974, “Energy Intensity of Barge and Rail Freight Hauling,” CAC Document No.27, University of Illinois.
[3] Baumel, C. Philip, Charles R. Huburgh, and Tenpau Lee, 2008, “Estimates for Total Fuel Consumption in Transporting Grain from Iowa to Mayor Crain Countries by Alternative Modes and Routes,” Iowa State University.
[4] Circuity figures are based on the 576 ton-miles per gallon provided by the industry.
[5] U.S. Maritime Administration, 2013, “America’s Marine Highway Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.”
[6] Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science, Engineering, and Planning; Water Science and Technology Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council, 2012, “Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment?”
[7] Bray, Larry G., et al. July-August 2002, “River Efficiencies, Fuel Taxes, and Modal Shifts: Tennessee Valley Authority Model Assists Policy Makers.” TR News issue 22.

Corps found to be in blatant violation of deauthorization laws

Photo Credit: Olivia Dorothy

This summer, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) deauthorization process and found it to be woefully lacking and blatantly in violation of federal statute.

The Corps has been required to identify projects for deauthorization since 1974.  Almost every Water Resources Development Act has new language to prompt the Corps to get old projects off the books.  But guess what… almost no projects have been deauthorized!

The GAO found that the Corps does not even keep a comprehensive list of projects that have been authorized. And when the Corps did try to compile a list of projects for deauthorization, many districts removed eligible projects from the list due to local interest.  This is contrary to clear statutory requirements that deauthorization is based on actual appropriations and obligations, not private interest levels.

I’m not surprised by these findings.  I’ve encountered several instances where the Corps reprograms small amounts of funds to prevent deauthorization.  I’ve also seen the resurrection of projects that haven’t been funded in decades.  The GAO report found both of these strategies to be violations of the deauthorization statutes.

The Corps’ excuse?  They claimed that they could not follow the statute because implementation guidance was never developed for it.  Implementation guidance is the internal policy that guides day-to-day activities within the agency.  Who was supposed to develop that guidance? The Corps.   

The latest deauthorization law was passed in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act.  Congress is mandating that the Corps provide a list of projects that cost $18 billion to be summarily deauthorized.  Following this initial list, the Corps must provide annual deauthorization lists of projects that have not been funded in the proceeding seven years.  When those lists are provided, there will be a public commenting opportunity. If Congress does not provided funding for any of the projects listed, they are automatically deauthorized.

The Corps is developing a centralized database to track project authorizations and funding and they promise to submit the $18 billion list for deauthorization by March 2015.  I hope the Corps follows the new deauthorization law and not history.