Order Code RL32574
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Proposed Authorization of
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Investments
Updated November 17, 2004
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Kyna Powers
Analyst in Environmental and Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Proposed Authorization of
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments
Summary
Thirty-seven lock and dam sites and thousands of channel training structures
create a 9-foot-deep, 1,200-mile-long navigation channel known as the Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System. The UMR-IWW makes
commercial navigation possible between Minneapolis and St. Louis on the
Mississippi River, and along the Illinois Waterway from Chicago to the Mississippi
River, thus facilitating low-cost barge transport of agricultural and other products to
and from upper midwestern states. Since the 1980s, the system has experienced
increasing traffic delays, raising concerns about competitiveness of U.S. products in
some international markets. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the agency
responsible for the system, began studying the feasibility of navigation efficiency
improvements in 1993. The study has been the subject of much controversy. In 2000,
a Corps economist alleged that the agency manipulated analyses to support
navigation investments, and a series of newspaper articles criticized the Corps’
planning process for the UMR-IWW study and other Corps studies.
In response, the Corps halted the study, and reinitiated it in 2001 with a
reformulated economic analysis and an ecosystem restoration objective. Ecosystem
restoration was included to respond to criticisms that the study was too limited in its
environmental analysis. The study objective for restoration is to identify measures
that address ecosystem decline, including the ongoing effects of navigation operation
and maintenance; the goal is to benefit a broad array of species by reducing the loss
of habitat, habitat quality, and habitat diversity. Under the reformulated study, in
September 2004, the Corps produced a final feasibility report recommending (1) a
50-year plan for combined navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration, and
(2) authorization of an initial set of measures, including seven new locks, and an
initial 15-year increment of restoration measures. The Corps recommended that the
investments in the 50-year plan be made within an adaptive implementation
framework, which would provide checkpoints for the Administration and Congress
as more information was gained and project milestones were reached. The
continuing debate over the urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded
UMR-IWW navigation capacity now revolves around those recommendations.
Three pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S.
2773 (Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2004) — would authorize
combined investments in navigation ($1.73 billion) and ecosystem restoration ($1.46
billion). The final feasibility report and the bills differ from the standard Corps
feasibility report and authorizing language. The bills authorize most of the initial set
of activities recommended in the Corps’ feasibility report; the authorization,
however, is not contingent on a recommendation by the Chief of Engineers or a
policy review by the Administration. A fourth bill — H.R. 4686 — proposes
investing in UMR-IWW ecosystem restoration using an existing Environmental
Management Program, without authorizing navigation improvements. This report
compares the bills with each other and with the Corps’ preferred plan. The report
will be updated as warranted.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
UMR-IWW Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Navigation Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ecosystem Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
UMR-IWW Feasibility Study Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Final Feasibility Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Project Development and Authorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Standard Process
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
UMR-IWW Feasibility Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Navigation Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corps Navigation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Adaptive Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
First Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Environmental Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Comparison of Legislation and Corps Navigation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ecosystem Restoration Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corps Ecosystem Restoration Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15-Year Restoration Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Comparison of Legislation and Corps Restoration Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
H.R. 4686 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Corps Navigation Plan and H.R. 4785, S. 2470,
and S. 2773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. Comparison of Corps Restoration Plan and H.R. 4785, S. 2470,
and S. 2773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Proposed Authorization of
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Investments
Most Recent Developments
In September 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released its Final
Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study.1 It lays out a 50-year plan for
combined navigation investments ($2.4 billion) and ecosystem restoration
investments ($5.3 billion) for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-
IWW). From the 50-year plan, the Corps recommends authorization of a first
increment of investments — $1.88 billion for seven new locks and small-scale
navigation measures, and $1.46 billion for ecosystem restoration.
Three bills in the 108th Congress — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 — would
authorize many of the UMR-IWW investments recommended by the Corps; they
would authorize $1.73 billion for navigation, and $1.46 billion for ecosystem
restoration. No action has been taken on H.R. 4785 or S. 2470. On August 25,
2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 2773 — the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2004. WRDA is the traditional
legislative vehicle for authorizing Corps projects. The House passed a WRDA 2003
(H.R. 2557) without a UMR-IWW authorization on September 26, 2003 (before the
Corps’ UMR-IWW feasibility report was available). WRDA legislative action is
tracked in CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and
Other Army Corps of Engineers Legislation, coordinated by Nicole T. Carter.
A fourth bill — H.R. 4686, the Mississippi River Protection and Restoration
Act of 2004 — would expand ecosystem restoration under the existing
Environmental Management Program (EMP) for the Upper Mississippi River System
(UMRS); it would not authorize navigation investments. No action has been taken
on H.R. 4686. For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) and Other Army Corps of Engineers Legislation,
coordinated by Nicole T. Carter.
1 Hereafter referred to as Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS. Available at
[http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/documents/Main_Report_Final.pdf].
CRS-2
UMR-IWW Background
Navigation Conditions
The UMR-IWW is a 1,200 mile, 9-foot-deep navigation channel created by 37
lock and dam sites and thousands of channel training structures. The UMR-IWW
makes commercial navigation possible between Minneapolis and St. Louis and along
the length of the Illinois Waterway. Five of the nation’s top agricultural production
states — Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin — have relied on the
UMR-IWW system as a principal conduit for export-bound agricultural products —
mostly bulk corn and soybeans. The low-cost, high-volume UMR-IWW system has
provided an important competitive advantage for U.S. agricultural products in
international markets. Commercial users of the waterway argue that this
competitiveness is in danger because of increasing transit delays.
Most of the lock and dam infrastructure of the UMR-IWW navigation system
were built by the Corps in the 1930s. These 600-foot locks require the prevalent
1,100-foot barge tows to split in half and pass through in two steps. This decoupling
process contributes to wait times at some locks; the Corps reports that the UMR-
IWW system has over half (19 of 36) of the most delayed locks of the country’s
inland waterways.2 Commercial users advocate that the federal government should
expand lock capacity by building new 1,200-foot locks parallel to the existing 600-
foot locks (keeping both operational). They argue that commercial UMR-IWW barge
operators have been paying a fuel tax into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF)3
for making this type of infrastructure investment. In contrast, a taxpayer advocacy
group — Taxpayers for Common Sense — and some environmental groups have
argued that inexpensive small-scale measures like traffic scheduling, congestion tolls,
and switchboats could manage demand and reduce lockage delays; and unlike new
locks that will take years to design and build, small-scale measures can be
implemented quickly at a fraction of the cost.4 Navigation investment supporters
argue that in practice the usefulness of small-scale measures is limited. Some
2 Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, p. 57.
3 The IWTF is funded by a 20 cent per gallon diesel tax paid by barge operators of vessels
engaged in commercial transportation on designated waterways. The IWTF pays half the
cost of new construction and major rehabilitation of barge infrastructure. In recent years,
collections have exceeded expenditures, so there is a growing unspent balance in the fund.
For further information on the IWTF, see CRS Report RL32192, Harbors and Inland
Waterways: An Overview of Federal Financing, by Nicole T. Carter and John F. Frittelli.
4 Twice-Cooked Pork: The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study, a
report prepared by a coalition of interest groups in opposition to large-scale lock expansion;
available at [http://www.iatp.org/enviroag/]. Hereafter referred to as Twice-Cooked Pork.
The National Taxpayers Union has also spoken out against the navigation investments:
[http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2004/5-20mississippi.htm]. In response to
Twice-Cooked Pork, Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 (MARC 2000) — “a coalition of
shippers, carriers, agricultural, industrial, environmental and government interests to
promote Midwest economic growth by responsibly developing and improving the UMR-
IWW” — released a report available at [http://www.marc2000.org/Documents/Twice_
Cooked_Pork_vs_Reality_Final.pdf].
CRS-3
environmental groups are also concerned that additional stress, caused by
construction activities and increases in barge traffic above current levels, could
accelerate ecosystem decline. (For a discussion of the environmental impacts of
incremental navigation improvements and traffic on the UMR-IWW, see CRS Report
RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion: An
Agricultural Transportation and Environmental Context, coordinated by Randy
Schnepf.)
Opponents of expanding capacity contend that the improvements are not
economically justified based on current agricultural and transportation trends and
costs.5 They argue that steady barge traffic on the UMR-IWW, since the mid-1980s,
indicates that foreign demand for U.S. feedstuffs is stagnant. Navigation proponents
counter that barge traffic has been steady recently because of delays; that is, delays
are forcing grain shippers to switch to alternate transportation modes to ensure timely
arrival at downriver processing plants or gulf ports. Navigation supporters cite that,
since the late 1940s, the UMR-IWW has experienced substantial traffic growth —
from less than 10 million metric tons in the mid-1940s to more than 80 million
metric tons in the 1990s. For an analysis of the historic trends and the prospect for
future traffic, see CRS Report RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Navigation Expansion: An Agricultural Transportation and Environmental Context,
coordinated by Randy Schnepf.
Although 1,200-foot locks are expected to reduce current waiting times at locks,
they are not expected to eliminate all lock delays, because decoupling is only one
cause of delay. Lock delays also occur because of closures for operation and
maintenance and the variability in demand — more than one boat arriving at the
same time results in a queue, and the seasonality of crop harvesting assures strong
autumn demand. The Corps has not published an estimate of the proportion of delays
expected to be eliminated by new locks.
Ecosystem Decline
The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) — an ecosystem defined as
including the UMR-IWW navigation system, and the aquatic and terrestrial habitats
and species that are critically important to the river floodplain ecosystem6 — is losing
the habitat and habitat diversity that support the ecosystem’s diverse species. Two
structural elements — dams and locks that facilitate navigation, and flood reduction
levees — have changed the riverine ecosystem’s structure and functions, altering
basic processes and habitats by modifying water levels and their fluctuations. The
UMRS provides habitat and food to at least 485 species of birds, mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, and fish, including 10 federally listed endangered or threatened
species and 100 state-listed threatened or endangered species. It is a critical
migration corridor for 40% of North America’s waterfowl and shorebirds, and home
to at least 118 fish species and almost 50 freshwater mussels species.
5 Twice-Cooked Pork.
6 The lateral boundaries of the UMRS are defined by the full extent of the floodplains —
toe-of-bluff to toe-of-bluff, varying from 300 to 500 meters (1,000 feet to 1,600 feet) wide.
Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, p. 113.
CRS-4
In WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), Congress declared the UMRS a nationally
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system, and
created the Environmental Management Program (EMP) for conducting habitat
rehabilitation/enhancement projects and long-term resource monitoring for the
UMRS. The ecosystem encompasses four National Fish and Wildlife Refuges, and
three national parks lie within or immediately adjacent to the river system. The
UMRS ecosystem also is viewed as significant because of its recreational use and the
economic value of recreation. Annually, there are 12 million daily visits for
recreation in the UMRS; boating, sightseeing, sports fishing, hunting, and trapping
are some of the popular recreational uses.7 It is estimated that recreational activities
generate $1.2 billion and over 18,000 jobs annually.8
According to the Corps, current annual environmental investments — $33.9
million, on average, in federal and state funds — are inadequate to prevent continued
degradation. Side channels, backwater, and wetlands are filling in with sediment.
The ecosystem is also experiencing a loss of connectivity of the floodplain to the
river, impeded fish migration, loss of island habitat, and loss of native plant
community diversity and abundance. Although the navigation system and levees
significantly altered conditions, they are not the only stressors causing decline. The
Mississippi River and Illinois River have a long history of impaired water quality
largely caused by contamination from agricultural, industrial, residential, and
municipal sources,9 as well as increased sedimentation and altered runoff patterns
from land use changes.
Environmental groups seek investments in ecosystem restoration that will
support a mosaic of habitats and river management that more closely resembles a
natural hydrograph and river-floodplain connectivity. Some cite the loss of migratory
birds in the areas of the Illinois River and the Middle and Lower Mississippi River
as examples of a possible outcome if investments are not made. Environmental
groups want to reverse ecosystem decline and to increase the services and benefits
provided by a healthy ecosystem (e.g., recreational uses).
UMR-IWW Feasibility Study Evolution
To inform the congressional decision on whether to authorize UMR-IWW
investments, the Corps conducted a feasibility study.10 The Corps’ feasibility study,
which began in 1993 to investigate the long-run navigation needs of the UMR-IWW,
has been the subject of much controversy. In February 2000, a Corps economist
approached the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative
and prosecutorial agency that protects government whistleblowers, and contended
that the Corps manipulated a cost-benefit analysis to support UMR-IWW lock
improvements.
7 Ibid., pp. 146-147.
8 Ibid., p. 147.
9 Ibid., p. 127.
10 For more information see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, UMR-IWW
Project History, by Kyna Powers, May 3, 2004.
CRS-5
The feasibility study was temporarily halted while the allegations were
investigated by the Army Inspector General, and available study documents were
reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of
Sciences. The Inspector General’s investigation found no incidents of fraud or waste;
it did reveal serious misconduct and improprieties with the study and suggested an
institutional bias that favored large-scale projects.11 The NRC pointed out several
flaws in the economic modeling methodology and the data used for navigation
estimates, including overly optimistic river traffic projections.12 It also criticized the
Corps for limiting the study’s environmental analyses to incremental effects of
expanding navigation capacity. In response, in 2001, the Corps reformulated the
economic analysis and added an ecosystem restoration component to the study.
The NRC continues to review the study. A second NRC panel produced a report
in December 2003 that reviews the reformulated study,13 and another report in
October 2004 that comments on an April 2004 draft Corps feasibility report (which
is similar to the final feasibility report).14 The NRC suggested in its reports that,
until small-scale measures were investigated and implemented where feasible, it
would be impracticable to evaluate the benefits of new locks and lock extensions.
Following on the earlier reports, the October 2004 report found: “Economic
feasibility for any of the navigation alternatives has therefore not been
demonstrated;” that NRC panel concluded that “many of the flaws and omissions in
this study can be corrected in the course of implementation by the application of
adaptive management principles.”15
Final Feasibility Report. In September 2004, the Corps released a final
feasibility report based on the results of the reformulated study. It recommends a 50-
year plan for combined navigation efficiency and ecosystem restoration investments.
The Corps proposes authorization of a first increment of measures as well as a dual-
purpose (navigation and ecosystem restoration) management of the UMR-IWW. The
Corps’ navigation improvement plan would cost an estimated $2.4 billion over 50
years, while the ecosystem restoration plan would cost an estimated $5.3 billion over
50 years. The Corps recommends that Congress authorize a first increment of the
navigation measures at $1.88 billion and a first 15-year increment of ecosystem
restoration measures at $1.46 billion. The Corps has not implemented small-scale
measures as the NRC suggested, but has evaluated them as part of the reformulated
11 U.S. Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army Inspector General Agency Report of Investigation
(case 00-019) (Washington, DC: December 2000).
12 NRC, Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
13 NRC, Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway
Restructured Study: Interim Report (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003).
Hereafter referred to as December 2003 NRC report.
14 The prepublication version of the October 2004 report, Review of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway feasibility Study: Second Report is available
at [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11109.html]. Hereafter referred to as October 2004 NRC
report.
15 October 2004 NRC report, p.8.
CRS-6
study. Some small-scale measures are included in the Corps’ recommendation for
navigation investments. A Chief’s report on his recommendation for the project is
expected by the end of 2004.
In addition to supporting navigation and ecosystem restoration investments, the
Corps recommends creating a structure for UMR-IWW investments and operations
consisting of three basic elements:
! adding ecosystem restoration as a UMR-IWW project purpose,
creating a dual-purpose navigation and restoration authority,
! approving a combined navigation and ecosystem restoration plan as
a framework, and
! adaptively implementing navigation investments and adaptively
managing ecosystem restoration investments.16
According to the Corps, these three elements combined would allow the agency to
proceed with operational changes and near-term investments for navigation and
ecosystem restoration. Investments would be part of a long-term river management
framework that minimizes risk by establishing a process to incorporate acquired
information into ongoing decision-making and phased authorizations.
Three bills — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 — would authorize most
navigation and ecosystem restoration activities recommended by the Corps; a fourth
bill, H.R. 4686, would authorize expansion of ecosystem restoration under an
existing program, without authorizing navigation investments. The next section of
this report discusses the standard project development and authorization process for
Corps projects, and how the UMR-IWW feasibility report and authorizations in H.R.
4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 differ from the standard process. That section is followed
by two other sections: one that compares the Corps’ navigation plan to proposed
legislation, and one that compares the restoration plan to proposed legislation.
Project Development and Authorization Process
Standard Process
For most Corps projects to be eligible for construction appropriations, Congress
must authorize the project, typically in a WRDA bill. Once authorized,
commencement of construction-related work must await appropriations.
Appropriations are generally made in the annual Energy and Water Development
16 Part of the Corps definition of adaptive management is:
An approach to natural resources management that acknowledges the risk and
uncertainty of ecosystem restoration and allows for modification of restoration
measures to optimize performance. The process of implementing policy
decisions as scientifically driven management experiments that test predictions
and assumptions in management plans, using the resulting information to
improve the plans. (sic) (Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, p. 611)
CRS-7
Appropriations Act. Although some projects may be authorized and received
appropriations simultaneously in an appropriations bill, this has not been the norm.
The formal Corps project development and authorization process typically has
Congress authorizing a project based on a report by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers
(i.e., a Chief’s report) that has been reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).17 The Chief’s
report contains a final feasibility report (including studies of engineering feasibility
and analyses of benefits and costs), environmental studies, and the Chief’s
recommendation for the project. In recent years, Congress increasingly has
authorized projects based on informational copies of the Chief’s report before
complete reviews by the Assistant Secretary and OMB; however, a majority of
projects are still authorized after full executive branch review. Since WRDA 1996,
Congress also has increasingly authorized Corps projects before a Chief’s report is
completed; these authorizations generally have been contingent upon completion of
a favorable Chief’s report by the end of the calendar year.
UMR-IWW Feasibility Report
The Corps’ UMR-IWW feasibility report is distinct from the typical feasibility
report. The Corps usually recommends authorization of an entire project that it has
analyzed and compared to alternatives. Because the UMR-IWW is an extensive
navigation system, the Corps analyzes and compares alternative 50-year packages of
projects for navigation and ecosystem restoration, and it recommends that Congress
approve the combined plans as a framework and authorize a subset of initial projects,
with the implication that the remaining projects in the 50-year plan would be
authorized later.18 The subset of projects was not analyzed as a stand-alone plan. For
example, the Corps feasibility report does not have a benefit-cost analysis for the first
increment of navigation activities separate from the analysis of the 50-year plan. The
report also does not present a cost-effectiveness analysis for the first increment of
ecosystem restoration projects.
Proposed Legislation
The authorization of UMR-IWW investments in H.R. 4686, S. 2470, and S.
2773 is also distinct from the standard project development and authorization
process. The bills include no requirement for a Chief’s report (or a review by the
Administration) to be completed before authorization would take effect. Most
project authorization language in WRDA bills state that a project is to be carried out
in accordance with the Chief’s report, rather than specifying authorized activities.
The bills specify navigation activities to be authorized, without referencing any report
17 For more information on the Corps’ project development and authorization process, see
CRS Report RL32604, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Activities: Authorization
and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter.
18 A similar framework approach was used for the Corps’ first large-scale restoration effort
in the Florida Everglades; WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541) approved the final feasibility report
as a framework, authorized a few specific projects under the framework, and established a
process for developing and authorizing additional projects.
CRS-8
and not subject to any larger framework or plan. In contrast, the bills would
authorize ecosystem restoration measures “in accordance with the general framework
outlined” in the feasibility report.
Supporters of exceptions from the standard process generally argue that the
completion of a Chief’s report and the Administration’s reviews and the timing of
authorizing legislation are not always synchronized, and that exceptions provide the
flexibility to bridge the two schedules when most of the Corps’ analysis is already
complete. These differences from the standard process may be viewed negatively by
environmental and taxpayer groups because of the controversy and disagreement over
the UMR-IWW study and its conclusions. These groups have been critical of other
exceptions to the Corps’ standard process; they contend that authorizing without a
Chief’s report and Administration review rushes projects through critical
development stages, congressional decisions are made with incomplete information,
and the Corps and its Chief may be pressured to make favorable recommendations.
Navigation Investments
The analysis performed to justify federal investment in navigation
improvements in the UMR-IWW feasibility report is atypical; the analysis had to
account for a complex set of risks and uncertainties resulting from a 50-year planning
horizon for the extensive UMR-IWW system. For the Final Feasibility Report and
PEIS, the Corps used a scenario-based approach, rather than forecasting navigation
demand over 50 years (which the Corps was doing prior to the criticism in 2000 and
2001). The scenario approach examines UMR-IWW movements for five traffic
scenarios based on differing world trade, crop area, crop yield, and consumption
patterns.
The Corps uses the scenarios to arrive at a preferred navigation plan and to
make three general findings. First, no single navigation alternative was a clear best
choice across a range of economic conditions.19 Second, the preferred navigation
alternative depends on two variables: (1) traffic forecasts derived from future trade
scenarios, and (2) price sensitivity of shippers.20 Third, “the risks are high if no
action is taken and high traffic occurs. Risks are also high if a large investment is
made and increases in traffic do not materialize.”21 Stated another way, the Corps
found every alternative (including no action) to contain risk in the face of an
uncertain future. Meeting a fundamental criterion for federal involvement — that
national economic development benefits exceed costs — depends on what the future
holds. For example according to the Corps’ analysis, if UMR-IWW traffic continues
at the fairly constant level of the last 20 years, costs of large-scale measures would
likely exceed benefits.22 If navigation traffic on the system increases (i.e., follows the
19 Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, pp. x, 437-438, and 493.
20 Ibid., pp. 462 and 493.
21 Ibid., p. 493.
22 Ibid., p. 458.
CRS-9
longer 50-year growth trend), benefits probably will exceed costs.23 These findings
are useful for understanding why proceeding with navigation capacity expansion
remains controversial. For a discussion of the difference of opinion on the urgency
of new locks, the feasibility of using alternatives to new locks for reducing delays,
and the confidence level in the Corps analysis, see CRS Report RL32470, Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion: An Agricultural
Transportation and Environmental Context, coordinated by Randy Schnepf.
Corps Navigation Plan
Adaptive Implementation. The Final Feasibility Report and PEIS states
that sufficient analysis has been completed to support an initial navigation investment
to be implemented using an adaptive approach that minimizes risk by controlling the
magnitude of investment decisions.24 The Corps is recommending authorization of
an initial set of navigation investments from its 50-year navigation plan, including
seven new 1,200-foot locks; authorization for the remaining navigation investments,
which consist primarily of extending five 600-foot locks to 1,200 feet, would be
sought in later legislation. To support this adaptive approach, the Corps recommends
continued study and monitoring of UMR-IWW navigation to produce the data to feed
into an adaptive implementation approach.
In another departure from standard practice, the Corps recommends that the
seven new locks be reconsidered after congressional authorization, as additional
information becomes available. The Corps would transmit reports to the
Administration and Congress containing acquired information. First, the Corps
would produce a notification report at the end of the first phase of lock design, and
before the award of a construction contract. The notification report would present
all new information resulting from monitoring river traffic and markets, and results
of any improved models and analysis. The Corps plans to break up preconstruction
engineering and design work for the seven new locks into two segments — first the
design work on three locks, followed by the design work on the remaining four locks.
The design work for the first three locks is expected to take three years following
initiation of appropriations, so the Corps anticipates a notification report in 2008 if
appropriations are received starting in 2005. At that point, the Corps estimates that
it would have spent $30 million on pre-construction engineering and design for the
first three lock sites. The second report would come five to seven years into
implementation (i.e., 2010 to 2012) when the Corps submits a reevaluation report
upon the development and use of “new and widely accepted models”; the report
would conclude with a recommendation to Congress on whether to continue, stop,
or delay lock construction underway.
A third report would be an updated feasibility report for the 50-year plan
evaluating investments in a second increment of measures; the second increment of
navigation measures would consist primarily of five lock extensions upstream of the
23 Ibid., p. 459.
24 Ibid., p. 493.
CRS-10
new locks on the Mississippi River. This report is anticipated 16 years into
implementation (i.e., around 2021).
First Increment. The Corps’ 50-year navigation plan consists of small-scale
measures (structural and nonstructural, including switchboats25) and large-scale
improvements — seven new locks and five lock extensions. The plan would have
a “first cost” (i.e., design and construction costs) of $2.4 billion plus annual
switchboat costs of $18 million. In the Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, the Corps
recommends that Congress approve the 50-year plan as a framework and authorize
a first increment of $1.88 billion (to be paid 50% from federal general revenue funds
and 50% from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, consistent with standard policy for
inland waterway projects). The first increment would include seven new locks and
small-scale measures for use during lock construction. The seven new locks would
be 1,200-foot locks parallel to existing 600-foot locks.
The $1.88 billion authorization proposed by the Corps would cover the first
costs for authorized navigation measures; like most Corps authorizations, the
authorized amount would not reflect operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses.
O&M for inland waterways is 100% a federal responsibility. The O&M for the
recommended navigation measures would be $7.8 million annually; the federal
government would be responsible for this amount as well the $115 to $126 million
annually spent on O&M of the existing UMR-IWW navigation system.
The Corps estimates that it will take 13 years for each lock to proceed from the
start of pre-construction engineering and design to completion of construction, if
fully funded. The first three of the seven new locks would be complete at the earliest
by 2019; the remaining four locks would be started three years later and completed
no earlier than 2022.
Environmental Mitigation. The Final Feasibility Report and PEIS assesses
and sets out a process and specific measures for mitigating impacts directly
associated with the navigation improvements in its preferred navigation alternative.
The Corps concludes that the impacts of large-scale UMR-IWW measures can be
mitigated; it states that by using mitigation, the net effect from both increased traffic
and site-specific impacts would be no loss to the five principal areas of concern —
fisheries, submerged aquatic plants, backwaters, secondary channels, and historic
properties.26
Comparison of Legislation and Corps Navigation Plan
As recommended by the Corps, H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 would
authorize seven new locks and small-scale and non-structural measures (see Table
25 Switchboats would be used to assist tows, by managing the second half of their hauls as
they move the first half through the 600-foot locks, resulting in a shorter lockage time.
Switchboats would be employed as hired vessels permanently stationed on both the
upstream and downstream sides of a lock.
26 Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, p. 419. The Corps has not established specific
mitigation actions; instead, it identifies potential mitigation measures for each river reach.
CRS-11
1). The language in the three bills emphasizes that IWTF funds come from a tax on
commercial waterways users. The navigation sections of H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S.
2773 make no reference to the Corps’ preferred plan as a long-term framework. In
short, it appears that the bills would authorize construction of specified activities,
without committing to a long-term management framework.
Table 1 identifies other differences between the Corps’ recommendation and
the three bills. These include: (1) the bills do not include an adaptive implementation
process; (2) the bills do not include a continued monitoring and study provision,
except for development and testing of a lock appointment scheduling system; and (3)
the bills require the Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to provide switchboats for
five years (instead of the 15 years recommended by the Corps). In effect, the bills
rely on the continued involvement of Congress through the appropriations process,
rather than the Corps’ adaptive approach and continued study and monitoring.
Table 1. Comparison of Corps Navigation Plan and
H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773
Corps’ Preferred
H.R. 4785/S. 2470/S. 2773
Navigation Alternative
Reference to Feasibility
Dual-purpose plan approved
No comparable provision.
Report or Plan
as a framework.
Adaptive Implementation
15-year process with three
No comparable provision.
reporting requirements.
First Increment.
$218 million (50% IWTF and
$48 million (50% IWTF and
Small-Scale and
50% general funds (GF)),
50% GF), not including
Non-Structural Measures
including mitigation.
mitigation.
Mooring Facilities
At 7 locks.
At 7 locks.
Switchboats
At 5 locks for 15 years during
At 5 locks for 5 years.
construction of 7 new locks.
First Increment.
$1,660 million (50% from
$1,460 million (50% IWTF
Large-Scale Measures
IWTF and 50% GF),
and 50% GF), not including
including mitigation.
mitigation.
New Locks
Seven 1,200-foot locks.
Seven 1,200-foot locks.
Mitigation
Mitigation is incorporated
$200 million (50% from
directly into authorized
IWTF/50% general funds) for
amounts for the new locks
new locks and small-scale
and small-scale and non-
and non-structural measures.
structural measures.
Continued Study and
5 activities, including
1 activity - development and
Monitoring
development of a lock
testing of a lock appointment
appointment scheduling
scheduling system.
system.
Total Navigation
$1.878 billion (50% from
$1.728 billion (50% from
Authorizations
IWTF and 50% GF).
IWTF and 50% GF).
Source: Congressional Research Service.
CRS-12
Ecosystem Restoration Investments
The Corps’ Upper Mississippi River System restoration plan is unique because
the investments are aimed at benefitting a diverse set of species. Most of the Corps’
other environmental investments have been for project mitigation, often targeted at
specific threatened or endangered species. For the UMRS, the Corps is proposing a
large-scale restoration effort that is not directed at specific species, but at providing
habitat and habitat diversity to benefit populations of multiple native species in situ.
(For a more detailed discussion of the ecosystem restoration proposal, see CRS
Report RL32630, Upper Mississippi River System: Proposals to Restore an Inland
Waterway’s Ecosystem, by Kyna Powers and Nicole T. Carter.) The Environmental
Management Program for the UMRS, authorized in WRDA 1986, has allowed the
Corps to test the impacts of measures similar to those proposed for the UMRS.
However, since large-scale implementation of these measures may produce uncertain
outcomes, the Corps is recommending an adaptive management approach. Since the
UMRS restoration plan is among the first large-scale restoration efforts being
planned across the country, it raises numerous unanswered policy questions (that are
not addressed in this report), including:
! What distinguishes ecosystem restoration from mitigation for past
and ongoing damages of navigation projects?
! What qualifies as restoration? For example, is a system that needs
regular intervention, such as dredging, “restored”?
! Is restoration a feasible goal for a waterway managed for intensive
commercial navigation? Is dual-purpose management for ecosystem
restoration and navigation possible for a high-use commercial
waterway?
! How should federal appropriations be distributed among the
universe of ecosystem restoration projects nationally? For example,
how does restoration of the UMRS rank compared to the restorations
of the Florida Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the California Bay
Delta?
Corps Ecosystem Restoration Plan
The final feasibility report recommends an ecosystem restoration plan for
combating the environmental damage resulting from ongoing navigation O&M and
other factors degrading the UMRS ecosystem. It recommends a long-term (50-year)
restoration framework, an adaptive management approach, and authorization of a 15-
year first increment of activities. The restoration goals are:27
! maintain viable populations of native species in situ;
! represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of
variation;
! restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (e.g.,
disturbance regimes, hydrologic processes, nutrient cycles, etc.); and
! integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints.
27 Ibid., p. 171.
CRS-13
The Corps limits its ecosystem restoration plan to the navigation project and
study, and to addressing the cumulative impacts of operations of federal projects and
other stressors without reducing the benefits of existing federal projects. As such,
restoration measures are constrained because they cannot harm navigation, and they
are limited to the UMR-IWW and its floodplain (rather than the larger watershed).
For example, dramatic water level changes that could produce substantial restoration
benefits are not in the Corps’ plan because they would interfere with navigation.
Another consequence of limiting restoration to the navigation project and study is
that some of the stressors leading to degradation are excluded from the preferred
plan. The recommended UMRS restoration plan does not include changes to land
use practices, flood protection practices that isolate the river from its floodplain on
a large-scale, or significant alterations to navigation infrastructure. For example, the
Corps’ plan recommends backwater dredging measures; dredging addresses the
symptom of elevated sedimentation, but not the land use practices that can cause it.
Directly changing land use is outside the scope of the navigation study and navigation
project. Because only some of the stressors causing ecosystem degradation are
managed under the Corps plan, not all of the ecosystem’s natural river processes
would be restored, resulting in the need for regular human intervention to obtain
some restoration benefits.
15-Year Restoration Increment. In the final feasibility report, the Corps
proposes that Congress authorize an initial 15-year, $1.46 billion increment of the
Corps’ 50-year $5.3 billion ecosystem restoration plan. The $1.46 billion would
cover the first costs (i.e., design and construction) for the authorized activities,
breaking down as $1.33 billion (93%) federal and $0.13 billion (7%) nonfederal.
This cost-share arrangement is unusual. For most Corps’ ecosystem restoration
projects, a cost-share of 65% federal and 35% nonfederal is applied to the project.28
The cost-share arrangement proposed by the Corps for the UMR-IWW has drawn
attention because it distinguishes between activities that have the 65%/35% split and
activities that will be 100% federal. In general, the 100% federal components
address impacts of the existing 9-foot navigation project or are on federal land.29
According to the Corps, measures in the 15-year increment were selected to
provide (1) the best return on investment, (2) the best gains in habitat diversity, and
(3) additional knowledge that will facilitate implementing the 50-year plan.30 The
Corps also favored measures for which planning, design, construction, and
monitoring could occur during the 15-year window. However, some organizations
contend that 15 years will be insufficient to demonstrate substantial improvements.
28 Currently, the Corps has authorization to lead only one large-scale restoration effort —
the Florida Everglades restoration. The Everglades restoration was split 50% federal and
50% nonfederal. The Everglades ecosystem was also harmed by operations of federal
projects and encompasses extensive federal lands. For information on Everglades
restoration, see CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
29 The 100% federal components include any project (1) below the ordinary high water mark
or in a connected backwater; (2) that modifies navigation structures or operations; or (3)
located on federal land.
30 Corps, Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, pp. 511-512.
CRS-14
Unlike the analysis of the 50-year ecosystem restoration options, the final report does
not analyze in detail the ecosystem benefits expected from the 15-year increment; it
also does not present alternative 15-year increments, or a cost-effectiveness analysis
of the 15-year increment.
The recommended 15-year increment includes 225 measures, from the 1,010
measures in the 50-year plan. The 225 measures are grouped into three main
categories of activities:
! Fish Passage and Dam Operations. Fish passage construction at
four dams and fish passage planning and design at two dams ($209
million), and new dam operating procedures (and related land
acquisition or easements) at two dams ($41 million) ($250 million
total — 100% federal).
! Programmatic Restoration Authority. Programmatic authority to
implement island building, floodplain restoration, water level
management, backwater restoration, side channel restoration, wing
dam/dike alternation and shoreline protection ($935 million total,
not to exceed $25 million/measure — 100% federal).
! Land Acquisition. Land acquisition of 35,000 acres from willing
sellers, for floodplain connectivity and wetland and riparian habitat
protection and restoration ($277 million total — 65% federal).31
The $935 million in programmatic restoration authorization includes $136
million for adaptive management and $136 million for restoration monitoring and
evaluation. The $1.46 billion does not include O&M expenses. O&M for ecosystem
restoration for Corps projects is typically 100% a nonfederal responsibility. Because
some of the projects would be managed by federal agencies, their O&M would be a
federal responsibility. The O&M costs (which will be incurred over the 50-year
planning horizon) for the 15-year increment are estimated at $61.5 million, with an
expected split of $9.6 million federal and $51.9 nonfederal.
Comparison of Legislation and Corps Restoration Plan
Three bills — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 — are largely similar to each
other and use many of the Corps recommendations; they authorize the same projects,
the same cost-share arrangement, and the same total authorization of $1.46 billion.
In contrast, H.R. 4686 would authorize an increase in UMRS ecosystem restoration
investments under the existing EMP, separate from navigation investments.
H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773. Although H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S.
2773 would require that restoration be implemented in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Final Feasibility Report and PEIS, there are some
differences between the Corps’ 15-year increment and the proposed authorizing
language in the three bills. (See Table 2.) For example, the Corps recommends
adaptive management of the ecosystem restoration plan, but the bills make no
mention of adaptive management. Instead, they require some complementary
31 Ibid., p. 522.
CRS-15
measures. They require an ecosystem restoration implementation report by July
2005, and every four years thereafter; the report is to include baselines, benchmarks,
goals, and priorities for restoration projects and to measure the progress in meeting
goals. The bills would also authorize a science panel, which was one of 12 elements
of the adaptive management strategy outlined in the final feasibility report.32 Because
the bills do not specifically authorize the adaptive management approach, it is
uncertain if the Corps will have the authority to implement the $136 million adaptive
management program and the complementary $136 million monitoring and
evaluation that the agency recommends. Similarly, the Corps recommends adding
ecosystem restoration as a project purpose;33 bill language would require the Corps,
“consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation,” to modify
UMR-IWW operations to address cumulative environmental impacts and improve
ecological integrity and to carry out ecosystem restoration projects. The bills do not
explicitly add ecosystem restoration as a project purpose of the UMR-IWW. How
managing for both navigation and restoration will play out remains to be seen.
Another distinction is that H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 would authorize the
lump sum of $1.46 billion with one primary limitation that land acquisition be
limited to $35 million annually. In the final feasibility report, the Corps makes no
recommendations on an annual limitation on land acquisition, instead it recommends
a cap of 35,000 acres on land acquisition. The final report had provided a breakdown
of the $1.46 billion between three categories of restoration activities — fish passage
and dam operations, programmatic restoration authority, and land acquisition.
32 Ibid., p. 516.
33 Ibid., p. 491.
CRS-16
Table 2. Comparison of Corps Restoration Plan and
H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773
Corps’ Preferred Plan
H.R. 4785/S. 2470/S. 2773
Ecosystem Restoration
Ecosystem restoration as a
Requires that UMR-IWW
Authority
project purpose.
operations be modified to
address cumulative
environmental impacts and
improve ecological integrity
consistent with requirements
to avoid any adverse effects
on navigation.
Reference to Feasibility
Combined plan approved as a
No language approving the
Report or Combined Plan
framework.
report or plan as a
framework; however, the
language requires restoration
projects to be carried out in
accordance with the general
framework outlined in the
final feasibility report.
Initial 15-Year Authorized
(a)Fish Passage and Dam
List of 15 project types to be
Activities
Operations, (b) Programmatic
carried out in accordance
Restoration Authority for
with the general framework
multiple project types, (c)
outlined in the final
Land Acquisition limited to
feasibility report.
35,000 acres.
Adaptive Management
Corps recommends an
Establishes an advisory panel
adaptive management strategy
to provide guidance in the
that includes organizations
development of each
(River Management Council,
quadrennial report. (See
Science Panel, and River
Continued study and
Management Teams),
Monitoring for
systemic studies, & evaluation
complementary provisions.)
of restoration measures.
Continued Study and
Report after 15 years.
Implementation report by
Monitoring
June 30, 2005 and every 4
years after that. Reports to
include baselines,
benchmarks, and priorities,
and measures in progress to
meet the objectives.
Cost Share
Mixture of 100% federal
Same as recommended by
elements, & ones shared 65%
the Corps.
federal & 35% nonfederal.
Total Ecosystem
$1.46 billion
$1.46 billion
Restoration Authorizations
($1.33 billion &
($1.33 billion &
(Est. Federal & Nonfederal)
$0.13 billion)
$0.13 billion)
Appropriations Limitation
No comparable provision.
Land acquisition limited to
$35 million in federal funds
used for land acquisition.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
CRS-17
The major difference among the three bills is that S. 2773 includes three
sections that are not in H.R. 4785 and S. 2470 — restoration project design
requirements, linked navigation and ecosystem restoration progress, and project
ranking based on restoring natural river processes.
Project Design. S. 2773 requires that before an individual restoration project
can begin construction, the Secretary shall establish restoration performance
measures (including a baseline indicator) and target goals. The design of these
projects must also include a monitoring plan for the performance measures, including
a timeline for project completion. The provision appears to be aimed at addressing
concerns over what would be achieved both under the first increment of authorized
activities and the longer, 50-year plan, and when restoration will be complete. This
provision is complementary to the Corps’ recommendation for an adaptive
management approach which requires establishing baselines and performing
monitoring to incorporate new information into on-going investments.
Linked Progress. S. 2773 requires the Corps to establish milestones for the
ecosystem restoration and navigation projects. It also requires the Secretary of the
Army to determine if the projects are being carried out at “comparable rates.” If the
projects are not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding
would be adjusted to promote comparable progress. The provision appears to be an
attempt to address concerns about ecosystem restoration investments being outpaced
by navigation investments. Some environmental groups are willing to accept new
locks if ecosystem restoration is also authorized and funded; they want investments
in restoration and navigation linked. They fear that if the two are not linked,
ecosystem restoration may be authorized, but receive minimal appropriations.
Navigation and agricultural interests have expressed their dissatisfaction with
wedding navigation and restoration progress; they consider navigation and ecosystem
restoration investments as separable. They do not want navigation construction
slowed down due to constrained federal appropriations for ecosystem restoration, in
light of the multiple multi-billion dollar, large-scale restoration projects already
underway or under development nationally. They also contend that linking may
delay progress of lock construction, thus extending the environmental and traffic
disturbances caused by construction. Linked progress may ultimately be a political
question of how Congress wants to direct its appropriations.
Project Ranking. S. 2773 requires the Secretary of the Army to develop a
ranking system for restoration projects that emphasizes projects that restore natural
river processes. Project ranking based on restoring natural river processes appears
to be an attempt to promote projects that trigger “self-repair and self-maintenance
over large areas at relatively modest cost.”34 This provision would likely give priority
to water level management and other dam alterations, floodplain measures such as
levee modifications and removals, and alteration of river training structures such as
wing dams and dikes. The impact of this provision on the implementation of the
Corps’ final plan is uncertain. It would give priority to a single aspect of a project,
rather than considering multiple objectives. For instance, prioritizing projects that
restore natural river processes may not be appropriate for all river reaches, especially
34 December 2003 NRC report, p. 19.
CRS-18
lower reaches that are more altered than less-disturbed upper reaches. In the lower
basin which is more heavily developed and leveed, a greater number of engineered
restoration activities are being recommended by the Corps than in the upper basin.
For example, the Corps recommends artificially mimicking a natural hydrograph to
restore ecological processes (e.g., pumping water out of areas with water levels raised
by dams) for reaches where natural river restoration options are limited by the
navigation system and development. A solution using a more natural river process
might be to change dam operations to decrease water levels, thus harming navigation,
but this option is not considered in the Corps plan because the agency considers it
outside the scope of the feasibility study and navigation project.
H.R. 4686. The Mississippi River Protection and Restoration Act of 2004 —
H.R. 4686 — provides for ecosystem restoration of the UMRS by expanding the
Environmental Management Program and establishing a trust fund (financed by the
Federal Treasury and charitable donations) to pay for the program. The bill calls for
half of the annually appropriated funds for UMR-IWW operations and maintenance
to be reserved to carry out restoration projects, recreation projects, and monitoring
of waterway traffic movements. It amends the existing EMP in numerous ways,
including increasing the authorized appropriation level for the habitat restoration
projects from $22.75 million to $80 million annually (until the trust fund contains
$2.5 billion), authorizing $35 million annually for purchase of floodplain land, and
increases the annual appropriation limit for recreation projects from $0.5 million to
$10 million. The bill also addresses other environmental and flooding issues along
the entire Mississippi River.
In contrast, the Corps plan would create a new structure and program for
restoration investments. It does not recommend dismantling the EMP, but its
coordinated implementation with the proposed ecosystem restoration plan. In contrast
to the annual authorization limits in H.R. 4686, the Corps recommends a 15-year
authorization of $1.46 billion. This would be in addition to the current EMP
authorization. Although the Corps plan has no annual authorization for or annual
restriction on land acquisition (beyond its 15-year limit of 35,000 acres), H.R. 4785,
S. 2470, and S. 2773 would restrict floodplain land acquisition to $35 million
annually. Neither the Corps plan, H.R. 4785, S. 2470, nor S. 2773 specify
authorizations for UMRS recreation projects.
Conclusions
The Corps’ preferred plan recommends a first increment of navigation ($1.88
billion) and ecosystem restoration investments ($1.46 billion); the Corps
recommends that these investments be made using an adaptive approach and as part
of a long-term framework for dual-purpose operations. The plan aims to improve
navigation efficiency by building seven 1,200-foot locks that will reduce delays
caused by decoupling of barge tows. The study’s objective for ecosystem restoration
is to recommend measures to address cumulative impacts that are degrading the
UMRS ecosystem, including the ongoing effects of O&M of the navigation system.
Restoration efforts are limited geographically to the UMR-IWW and its floodplain
and to the scope of the navigation project and its feasibility study; a more
CRS-19
comprehensive watershed approach is not part of the plan recommended in the
feasibility report.
Three bills — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 — would authorize many of the
elements of the Corps’ recommendation for the first increment of investments. The
Corps anticipates a Chief’s report by November 2004. The bills would authorize
seven new navigation locks and small-scale navigation measures; no mention is made
of a Chief’s report, or a long-term framework or plan for navigation investments.
The adaptive implementation process that the Corps recommended for integrating
new information into the lock construction decision to manage the risk and
uncertainty of making large-scale investments is also not addressed.
Following the Corps’ preferred plan, the three bills would authorize ecosystem
restoration activities to be carried out in accordance with the framework in the
feasibility report, and they would require operational changes to the UMR-IWW
consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse impact on navigation. In addition,
S. 2773 contains three provisions related to implementation of ecosystem restoration.
The provisions would require a comparable rate of progress for navigation and
restoration projects, outcome-oriented project design, and the development of a
ranking system for restoration projects that prioritizes natural river processes.
H.R. 4686 differs from the Corps’ plan, because the Corps recommends (1)
integrated investments in navigation and ecosystem restoration, and (2) a new
structure for UMRS ecosystem restoration efforts. In contrast, H.R. 4686 would
build on the existing EMP, thus emphasizing that some groups consider ecosystem
restoration investments separate from the decision to expand navigation capacity.