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  But here’s what hasn't changed in all that time: the Army Corps of Engineers is still making decisions based on outdated and ecologically unsustainable principles laid out by James Watt (Ronald Reagan’s controversial Interior Secretary, not the famous 18^th Century inventor).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!

“Should we build more large dams?”

Photo Credit: Olivia Dorothy

As lock and dam infrastructure on the upper Mississippi River ages, we will be faced with some tough choices.  Ultimately, Congress must decide whether or not to replace the infrastructure.  With this in mind, I found a recent study[1] from Oxford particularly fascinating. 

Published in Energy Policy, researchers looked at the benefits and costs of large dams.  The study focused on large hydropower dams, but included other dams and asked whether large dams are worth it from a purely economic perspective, without evaluating environmental and social costs.

The result: “Even before accounting for negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” 

If the costs are so high and uneconomical, why are large dams continuing to be planned and built?  Because project planners, like the Corps of Engineers, are “delusional” and “deceptive” as they routinely fall into the “planning fallacy.”   

The planning fallacy occurs during the project planning process when experts (i.e. Army

Corps of Engineers) focus too much on what constituents (i.e. Congress, barge industries) want to accomplish rather than evaluating similar completed projects.  Rewards (i.e. political incentives) feed a delusional overconfidence, which is exacerbated by “strategic misrepresentation by project promoters” (a.k.a. deception) to obtain funding and approval for the project.

The study shows that the planning fallacy has and continues to drive large dam cost underestimation and delays.  Worldwide, the actual costs of dams were 96% higher than the estimated costs on average – the U.S. had the lowest average cost overrun at 11%. Eight out of every 10 large dams run over their scheduled completion date.  And we haven’t gotten better with time, the magnitude of cost and scheduling inaccuracies have been consistent since the early 1900s. 

What does this mean for planning?  The U.S., like most governments, requires experts to develop benefit to cost ratios to determine whether a project is a good economic investment.  Water resources projects require a minimum 2.5 ratio before the president recommends Congressional funding.  This means that for every dollar invested in water resource projects, at least $2.50 must be returned (for a net profit of $1.50).  The typical pre-construction benefit cost ratio worldwide for large dams is 1.4.  But the authors found that costs for large dams are underestimated by 44-99%!  So, the actual benefit cost ratios for most dams were less than 1, indicating net economic loss. 

If governments were provided more accurate information about dam costs, fewer large dams would be built.  This is why the authors are calling on planners and managers to develop a comprehensive global database to track costs and performance.  Such a database would help planners develop more accurate cost estimates and timelines, prevent unnecessary dam construction, and ultimately protect wildlife, habitat, cultural sites, farmland, and other resources.

---

[1] Ansar, A., et al. 2014.  Should we build more large dams?  The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development.  Energy Policy.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069

Pool 2 Channel Realignment

Just above Lock and Dam 2 at Hastings, MN the navigation channel in the Mississippi River makes a tight turn, almost 90 degrees.  According to the navigation industry, 54 groundings have occurred at the site since 1990 and tows cannot move through the turn with a full load of 15 barges. 

In an effort to make navigation more profitable on this stretch of the Mississippi River, the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to cut a new channel to circumvent the bend through what was known before the dam was built as Boulanger Slough. 

Source:  US Army Corps of Engineers

Is it a good idea?  The navigation industry argues that new channel is necessary to increase profitability.  But the Corps must justify the new channel from an operations and maintenance cost-benefit perspective.  When companies have to pay more to run smaller barge fleets, it’s not a public operations and maintenance expense.  

What are the public expenses of the proposed Boulanger Slough channel?  So far, the public expenses add up to cutting the new channel itself, dredging more sediment downstream, mitigating the environmental impact, and disposing of contaminated sediment

The new channel cut will certainly increase sedimentation downstream, which may increase the cost of operations and maintenance since it will require more dredging downstream.  There may also be costs associated with special handling of contaminated sediment since the site has elevated levels of contaminates including nickel, PAHs, PCBs, and other heavy metals.  But the Corps hopes to dodge environmental mitigation requirements by asking the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program do a restoration project downstream – a program that is not in the mitigation business. 

Even with all these certain costs, the Corps still thinks the project will overall reduce channel maintenance expenses, but they haven't produced the figures for all of it.  If the project moves forward, the Corps will be holding public meetings within the next year.  So stay tuned for opportunities to comment.

How to Kill Zombies: Deauthorization

This week the Obama Administration hosted their first listening session on the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act to solicit ideas on how to implement the Water Resources Reform and Development Act signed into law last June. 

The Act is huge and sweeping and the Administration is hosting four sessions that focus on different parts of the bill.  This week, we talked about deauthorization and project planning.  I came prepared to talk about the chosen topics.  But a contingent of farmers had something else in mind.

Photo by Olivia Dorothy

Within the first minute a farmer from Illinois called on the Corps to fund the Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program…  Totally off topic.  Unfortunately the Illinois farmer wasn't alone.  The session was crashed by a team of pro-NESP cheerleaders.  Ugh!

What’s even more troubling is that some of the Team NESP cheerleaders actually had some articulate suggestions for the deauthorization guidance like “ensuring non-federal sponsors approve the project deauthorization.” 

I’m sorry, but nothing would ever be deauthorized if every single local interest group had the power to approve or deny a Corps project.  It’s bad enough local interests can pressure the Corps to reprogram funds to keep projects like NESP walking dead.

But it is not Congress's intent to make deauthorization harder.  The 2014 Act requires the Corps to produce a list of projects that total $18 billion for deauthorization.  But there is no way a penny will be deauthorized if local sponsors have the power to deny it.

Hopefully, the Administration will see through this and take a heavy hand to downsize the $60 billion plus list of unfunded Corps projects.  And I hope NESP will be taken out with the other dead ones.

How to comment on WRRDA implementation

Dragonflies on Illinois River by Olivia Dorothy

On Wednesday, the Army Corps of Engineers will host their first listening session on the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) signed into law a few months ago.  At the listening session, the Corps will take public comments on how they should implement the new WRRDA.  These listening sessions will be held every two weeks through the end of September.  This week’s session will cover backlog reduction, deauthorization, and project planning. 

A lot of environmental and conservation groups are very interested in the project planning discussion. This part of WRRDA significantly changed how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are applied water resources development projects. 

NEPA is credited with producing less damaging and more effective projects; preventing some of the most damaging and ill-conceived projects from moving forward; protecting wetlands vital to flood protection, migratory waterfowl, and water quality; and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately, these changes in WRRDA did not strengthen environmental laws like NEPA. 

The listening session on Wednesday is an opportunity for the public to help the Corps develop implementation guidance that ensures robust public participation and protects natural resources.

If you’re planning to attend Wednesday’s listening session, make a comment!  Here are some suggestions.

Ensure agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency can work effectively to review and deny projects as appropriate. 

WRRDA language establishes a system that, if abused, allows the Corps of Engineers to pressure, harass, and fine other regulating agencies if they take too long to review Corps’ project proposals.  How will the Corps make sure other agencies aren’t being punished for doing their jobs?

Ensure there are steps in the planning process to vet and remove bad projects. 

WRRDA eliminated what was called the “reconnaissance phase” in project planning.  This short, cheap, cursory review created an opportunity to toss the duds if the Corps identified obvious problems.  Without reconnaissance studies, at what point will the Corps vet project proposals?

Ensure environmental reviews are robust. 

WRRDA language promotes less detailed environmental reviews for a broad range of programs and activities.  These “cursory reviews” will promote the use of outdated information and lead to uninformed decision-making.  How will the Corps ensure their expedited environmental reviews will protect natural resources?

Need more background?  Check out this great article about WRRDA written by Nicollet Island Coalition member Eileen Fretz Shader.  

Full Funding for Upper Mississippi River Restoration Likely

Pelican Farm by Chris Young

Last week, the Senate approved their fiscal year 2015 budget, which, like the House budget, included $33.17 million for Upper Mississippi River Restoration.  This is full funding for the popular restoration program!  The House and Senate 2015 budgets still needs to be reconciled before it goes to the President, but it is very likely the Upper Mississippi River Restoration funding will be included. 

Over the past few years, Congress has been incrementally increasing funding for the restoration program after decades of minimal funding.  Through the 1990s and 2000s the program received an average $20 million annually, so this is the first time since the program’s inception in 1986 that Congress has appropriated its full authorized amount.

Why is Congress suddenly so interested in Upper Mississippi River Restoration?  Partly because groups like the Mississippi River Network and Nicollet Island Coalition have stepped up their advocacy for the program.  But also, the Corps fixed a major budgeting error in 2014 allowing them to finally request full funding for the program. 

This money will go towards important work that will protect and restore the upper Mississippi River.  About two-thirds of the money will be put to habitat rehabilitation on the river and one-third will be spent on monitoring.  Go here for more information about the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program.

Thank you Congress for recommending full funding for this essential program!

The Zombie Project

This month, the Rock Island District of the Corps of Engineers announced that it reprogrammed $50,000 to bring Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) back from the dead. 

The majority of environmental and conservation groups in the Mississippi Basin oppose this project because NESP handcuffs ecosystem restoration funding to expensive, unnecessary, and environmentally damaging navigation infrastructure spending.  By handcuffing ecosystem restoration to navigation infrastructure, it puts the restoration funding at greater risk.  And it prevents managers from addressing a main cause of environmental degradation in the Upper Mississippi River:  the navigation infrastructure itself.  Congress actually stopped funding for the program in 2011 because the navigation projects could never be economically justified by the Corps. 

Thankfully, the four year lifespan of NESP wasn't enough to fully implement the project by 2011.  If it had been fully implemented, important ecosystem restoration spending would have dried up in 2011 also.  Fortunately, the successful Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program, which NESP was planning to replace, remains intact and funded today.

Since Congress last funded NESP in fiscal year 2010 it is slated for deauthorization consideration starting in fiscal year 2015 (according to a 2007 law passed by Congress).  So, the Rock Island District is throwing a pittance at the program this year in hopes of restarting the deauthorization clock. 

 

So, what will the $50,000 accomplish?  The Corps’ program manager says the funds will be used “to develop a plan to update the construction cost estimates.”  Not actual update any part of the project, just plan to update it.

This is an annoying strategy the Corps practices nationally to keep bad programs on life support.  Throw a penny in the account, don’t do any real work, and keep these zombie programs running around terrorizing those of us trying to protect and restore rivers around the country.

The silver lining is that the Corps may not be allowed to keep their zombie projects much longer.  The President signed a new law this year that revamps the 2007 deauthorization process.  The law intends to clear the Corps’ more than $60 billion backlog of projects that are minimally funded, lack local support, and/or are no longer feasible.

With the new law, the public will be given opportunities to comment on the list of projects for deauthorization, and the Nicollet Island Coalition will be looking forward to taking out these zombie projects.