U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–369 PDF 2014

A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS CHIEF’S REPORTS 

(113–22) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 5, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

JANICE HAHN, California 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for Civil 

and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of Engineers; accompanied by Theodore A. ‘‘Tab’’ Brown, P.E., Chief, Planning and Policy 

Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................ 6 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WITNESS 

Major General Michael J. Walsh ............................................................................ 36 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for Civil 

and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of Engineers, response to request for information from Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 

of the District of Columbia .................................................................................. 19 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81369.001

11iill ~I,u$trr 

[h,airman 

TO: 

FIWM: 

RE: 

May 31, 2013 

Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

Start; Subcommittee on Water Resources and Enviromnent 

:XLdt ,ij, ~\tllFIIL ]]1 

:a\al1htug ltlcmhtl" 

Subcommittee I fearing on "j\ Review oCtIle lJnitcd States AlTny Corps of 

Enl!illee~S:hi<"~s Re!"'_rt,,'~___ __ 

I'URI'OSI( 

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will meet on Wednesday, June 

5,2013, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Raybum IIouse Oftice Building, to receive testimony li'om the 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 011 pending Chiefs Reports. Th.is hearing is intended to 

provide Members with an opportunity to review the 25 Chiefs Reports submitted to Congress 

since the last Water Resources Dcvelopmcnt Act (WRDA) was cnaeted in 2007, and the process 

thc Corps of Engineers undcrtakes when developing its projccts and activities that bencfit the 

Nation. 

BACKGROUND 

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers lS the federal government's largest water resources 

development and management agency. The Corps began its water resources program in J 824 

when Congress for the tirst time appropriated money for improving river navigation. Since the 

192Ws, the Corps has been rcducjng nood damage along rivers, lakcs~ and (he coasL Along with 

these missions, the COQ1S generates hydropo"ycr, supplies \vatcr to cities and industrY1 regulates 

devc!opment in navigable watcrs~ restores aquatic ecosystems, assists in nalional crrlCrgencies~ 

and manages a recreation program. Today, the Corps manages ne[ll'ly 1,500 water resources 

projects. 

The Corps or Fngincers constructs projects for the purposes of navigation. flood control, 

beach erosion control and shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, r~cl'cation_ \vater supply, 

environmental protection. r~storation ilnd enhancement. and fish and vvildlifc mitigatloll_ The 

Corps of Fnginct::'l's planning process considers economic dt'velopmcnl and environmenlal needs 

as it addresses water rcsnurCC's problems. The planning process addresses lhe Nalinn's \\(ltcf 
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81369.002

re;::.ources needs in a systems context and c-xplorcs a full rang':) oraHcrnativcs 111 devdoping 

solutions, 

1'h(' first step 1n a Corps water rc:.;ources development project is a of the project. 1 r ha.::: done a study in the area bdofl:, the new sludy can be by a resolution of 

I louse Committee on Transportation and lnfrastlucture or the Senate Cmmnittcc on 

Environment and Public Works. lflhe arca has not been studied previously by the Corps. then an 

Act of Congress is necessary to authorize the study, Generally, studies are authorized by 

Committee resolution, The Committee authorliy to carry out these resolutiolls is vested in section 

4 of the Rivers and Harbors Aet of 1913. 

The Corps perfol1TIs a reconnaissance study at federal expense., subject to appropriations, 

typically taking about one ycar to compiete and costing between $100.000 and $300,000. This is 

a preliminary analysis ofthe costs. henel'!s, and environmental impacts ofthe project and 

contains an estimate of the costs ofprcparing a feasibility study. i\ccorJing to the Congressional 

Research Service, around one-third of reconnaissance studies eventually lead to feasibility 

studies; only 16 of every] 00 reconnaissance studies lead to constructed projects. 

[f the reconnaissance study indicates that there may be a viable lederal project and thai a 

more detailed study should be undertaken. the Corps enters into a cost-sharing agreement w"ith 

the non-ledcral project sponsor that was identilicd during the reconnaissance study process. The 

cost o[the tCasibility study is shared 50 percent by the tCdcral government. subject to 

appropriations. and 50 percent by the non-Iedcral interest. 

During the teasibilily study phase. the Corps of Engineers District Office, (the Corps is 

comprised of 38 District oftices IYithin 8 Divisions), prepares detailed analyses on the economic 

costs and benefits of carrying out the project and any associated environmental, social. and 

cultural impacts, In some cases, dozens of project altcl11atives arc identified and rcvlc\vcd. The 

study typically describes \vith reasonable certainty the economic, sociaL and environmental 

bcndits and detriments of the each of the alternatives and the engineering fcaturcs~ public 

acceptability, and the plll1l0Ses. seopc. and scale of each of the alternatives. The feasibility study 

also includes any associated enviromncntal impact statement and a m~tiga1ion plan ror 

environmental damages that cannot be reasonahl:y avoided. 

The feasibility STudy also contains the vic\vs of mher federal agencies and non-Icdcral 

agencies on the project altcmatives~ a descriptlon of nOll-structural alternatives to the 

recommended plans. and 1:1 description of the federal anJ l1on,·fcdcral participation in the project 

Following completion of the feasibility sludv phase. the study ;s lransmiticd to Division 

i1>r r",iew and. if approved, then sent to the h""dquarters level ofthc U.S. 1\11111 Corps of 

Engineers fl.w final and lechnical reVi8\v. ;\tLcr a full study the results and 

recommendatiolls stndy arc suhmitted to Cnngr(3)s. usuaJly in the ofa report of the 

ChicI' of I~nginccrs, commonly n.:!erred to as a Chief's RerorL If such results and 

rccommcndali()]ls arc favorable, the n(:xl step ;,.vould he authori:rlltlon by Cungress. Proje~t 
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81369.003

authorJ/a(10ns arC' contained in \Vater Resources Development Acts, the last of which \vas 

enacted in 2007. 

'nlC (JS Anny is sut~jcct l() all f'Cderal statutes, including th(; National 

Environmental Policy Act the Clean Air Act, the CJcan \Vater Act, the Endangered 

Species l\ct the Hsh and Coordination /\Cl, and previous Water Resources 

Development Acts, Flood Control Acts, and Rivers and Harbors ACls. These laws and n%ociated 

regulations and guidance provide the legal basis ror thc Corps of Engineers planning process. 

For instance. when carrying oul a feasihility stuc1y~ NFp!\ requires the Corps of 

Hngineers include an identification of significant environmental resources likely to be impacted 

by the proposed project, an assessment of the impacts, a full disclosure of likely impacts, and a 

considcration of a full rangIC of alternatives, including a No Action Altel11ativc and Action by 

Others altel11atives. fmportantly, Nl~PA also requires a 30 day public review of any dratl 

document and a 30 day public review or any final document produced by the Corps of Engineers. 

Additionally. 'when carrying out a feasibility study, the Clt::an \Vater Act requires an 

evaluation of the potential impacts of a proposed pr~iecl or action and requires a Idter from a 

state agency ensuring the proposed project or action complies with state \-vater quality standards. 

The Anny Corps or Engineers also has to adhere to the Economic and Enl"iromnental 

Principles and Guidelines./(Jr JVater and Related Land Resources Impfemenla!ioJ1 Studies (P&G) 

developed in 1983 by the United Stales Waler Resources Council, an Executive Branch 

document that guides formulation and evaluation or study objectl\'Cs. The P&G is intended to 

ensure proper and consistent planning by federal agencies engaged in the ronnulation and 

evaluation -offedera] \vater resources development projects and actlvities. The P&G also 

established federal objectives in pursuing waler resources development projects. including 

defining contrjbutions to national economic development consjstcnt with protecting the 

environment. 

The P&G requires the fixmulation of aHemative plans to ensure all reasonable 

altcmativcs arc evaluated, induding plans that m?..xlmize nct national economic development 

benefits and other plans that incorporate other fcderal, statc, and local concerns, Mitigation of 

adverse impacts is to l,1c included in eaeh of the allcmativc plans reviewed in the study. The 

Corps of Engineers is also responsible for areas of risk and uncertainty in the study, 

so decisions can be made with some degree the estimated costs and benefits of 

each aiternatlYc plan. 

Typically. the plan recommended by the Corps is the plan with the grl~alest 

net economic benefit consistent v .. ith protection of the environment flowcver. the 

orthe Army has the discretion to recommend another alternative ifthcrc arc uverriding 

recommending arh)thcr plan, based on other fcJcral, statc. Or local conc(:rns. 
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81369.004

')'hc Natiml 's aging inn·astruclure, increased dernsl)us of the ('0'1)$ of I~ngineers, and 

limited funding require the in focus resources on the highest perfDrming programs and 

pmjccts within the main of the or Engineers. In January 20JI. the Corps of 

Engineers undertook an initiative to its planning activities to better al ign its project 

development process \vith national priorities. 

Commonly rden·cd to as the >'3X3X3" approach, this planning modernization limits 

stlldics 10 3 years, $3 million, and ensures that all 3 levels of District. Division. and lleauquarlers 

personnel arc vertically integrated throughout the process and rcvic\vs arc held concul1'cnHy, 

rather than in a step-by-step method. The target length of the main report tor leasibility studies 

should be 100 pages or less and not largcr than one three-inch binder. 

This planning modemi'l'ation initiative is fhCllSCt1 on risk-based scoping to morc: quickly 

define water resources needs and opportunities ,",vith a target goal of completing typical 

f~asibility studies within 18 to 36 months. While not every study will meet this goal, the new 

process could shorten the amount of time and decrease the typical cost of carrying out stuuies. 

All Corps of Engineers stuuies are intended to be "3X3X}" compliant by fiscal year (FY) 2014. 

When the "}X3XT initiative was begun in January 20.11, the Corps had more than 650 

active studies. Since beginning the implementalion of th-js new planning modemization initiative, 

the Corps has reduced this to tCwer than 20() studies by either completing ongoing studies or 

tetulinatjng those studies that have received little funding or provide questlonable benefits to the 

Nation. The belief is that by l(lcusing resources on fewer studies, the better studies will be 

completed sooner. 

The President's budget requests $90 million for the Investigations account I()f FY 2014. 

This is $28 million less than the FY 2013 appropriations 01'$ I 18 million. These funds are uscd 

for the study of potential projects related to river and hm'bor navigation, flood damage reduction. 

shore protection, environmental restoration, and related purposes. They also covcr the restudy of 

authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations. and rlmls and spccillealions ofprojecls prior 

to construction. Under this proposed budget, while ten new studies are Ilmded, the toells is on 

completing existing studies. OCthe rnorc than !OO studies authorized in \VRDA 2007, only 21 

have been initialed, 

Since the lust Water Resources Devciopment Act was cnacicd in 2007. 25 Chiefs 

Reports have been delivered to Congress. 
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81369.005

Major General Michael J. Walsh 

Deputy Commanding General. Civil and l~mcJ'gcncy Operations 

United Stales Anny Corps or Engineers 

Accompanied hy: 

Theodore A. "Tat,· Brown, 

Chic( Planning and Policy 

United Stales Am1Y Corps of Engineers 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF’S REPORTS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good morning. The Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, 

will convene. 

At this time I would like to welcome General Walsh with our testimony here. And our committee hearing today is to review the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Chief’s Reports. 

And at this time I want to ask unanimous consent that Members 

not on the committee be permitted to sit with the committee at today’s hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

At this time I want to yield time to our chairman of the full T 

and I committee, Chairman Shuster, for any opening remarks you 

may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you letting 

me go first. I have probably about a 14-hour day in the Armed 

Services Committee today. I hope it is only 14 hours, but we will 

see. 

And I would also like to welcome Representative Cramer from 

North Dakota, who has a keen interest in what the Corps does, 

here today to sit at the dais and listen in. 

Again, I want to say thank you to General Walsh. Thank you 

first for your service, and I know you are going off to greener pastures later in the year, so we really appreciate your service, and 

thanks for being here today. As well as Mr. Brown, thank you for 

being here. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Today’s hearing will play a valuable role in the committee’s development of the Water Resources Development Act, also known as 

WRDA. Based on extensive studies, Chief’s Reports make final recommendations to authorize specific construction activities. And 

that, I understand, is a Chief’s Report. That is the first I have seen 

of them. I have heard how large they are and how extensive they 

are, but seeing is believing. 

This hearing will bring greater transparency to the process and 

will provide the committee the opportunity to closely examine curVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
2 

rent pending Chief’s Reports. It is critical for Congress to reengage 

in the development of the Nation’s water. Congress must have a 

role in determining the agency priorities and ensuring we fulfill 

our constitutional responsibilities. 

Over the last few months, we have held a number of public educational forums, roundtables and hearings on the Corps of Engineers program. And I thank Chairman Gibbs for all his hard work 

in putting those together and participating. 

The themes that have emerged from these public forums include 

the importance of project prioritization, public-private partnerships, 

empowering non-Federal project sponsors, and especially study acceleration. While it once took the Corps 3 to 5 years to complete 

a study, it has now become the norm for the Corps to take 10, 12 

or even 15 years to produce a study. And it is no wonder it takes 

so much time since the Corps by law and regulation has to review 

in detail many different alternatives. 

Just because a study is costly, complex and long does not necessarily mean it is a better project. This is not necessarily the fault 

of the Corps of Engineers. The agency has to clear hurdles placed 

in their way by other Federal agencies like the Department of Interior, and in some cases non-Federal project sponsors have difficulties on their end. 

Congress has only enacted two WRDA laws in the last 14 years, 

and we have many goals we want to accomplish in WRDA, but one 

of the most important is to get WRDA back to a 2-year cycle to ensure Congress has a fundamental role in the development of the 

Corps of Engineers projects and in the oversight of the agency. 

Again, that is absolutely for me critical that we get back on a 2- 

year process. There is no reason we can’t as long as we all dedicate 

ourselves to working towards that goal. 

I want to again thank Chairman Gibbs for holding the hearing. 

And again, General Walsh, thank you for being here today and 

thank you so much for your service to the Nation, and your wife’s 

service to the Nation, because I know that she has been there by 

your side all along. So again, thank you. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. And I also thank you 

for your interest and your hard work too in working on this WRDA 

bill that really is going to improve our economic competitiveness 

and move our commerce up, especially our exports and job creation. 

All right. At this time I yield time to Ranking Member Tim 

Bishop for any comments he may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too welcome 

General Walsh and his colleagues, and I thank you very much for 

your service to our country. 

Let me begin with a very simple statement. The Water Resources 

Development Act can create jobs and can provide critical protection 

and support for our communities, our businesses and our future. 

Over the last 6 months, this committee has had roundtables, listening sessions, discussions with stakeholders, meetings with the 

Corps of Engineers, and has held hearings, all with the intent of 

working towards developing a viable path forward on a WRDA bill. 

Congress has been integral to the planning and construction of 

water resources since—projects since our Nation’s founding. From 

the authorization of Aids to Navigation in the 1700s, to the passage 

3 

of several rivers and harbors acts in the 1900s, to the enactment 

of the first Water Resources Development Act in 1974, Congress 

has established an ordered process for integrating needed policy, 

direction and project authorization. 

The original goal was to have a WRDA bill every 2 years, an ordered process that would support a definitive water management 

process. Since 1974, a period of almost 40 years, we have had ten 

subsequent WRDAs, not quite the 2-year average Congress had envisioned. 

Our challenge is that the last successful WRDA was in 2007, and 

now we are faced with substantial hurdles with respect to water 

infrastructure needs, increasing numbers of water-related disasters, national financial challenges, and reluctance by this body to 

provide project-specific guidance to the administration. 

We have heard repeatedly from Members of Congress and the 

public on the importance of WRDA to the Nation and to our local 

communities. No one has questioned the value of a well designed, 

constructed and managed Corps of Engineer project, whether they 

are for flood control, navigation, storm damage reduction or environmental restoration. The cumulative assemblage of these projects 

helps the Nation. 

Our responsibility in this committee and especially in this subcommittee is to authorize WRDA projects and direct the mission of 

the Corps of Engineers. If we do not perform that responsibility, we 

end up with two things happening: one, the administration ends up 

prioritizing projects, often on an entirely different set of metrics 

than what we as Members of Congress would want; and two, the 

process becomes more convoluted and time-consuming, resulting in 

inefficiencies and frustration. 

Let me reiterate. A well constructed and legislatively designed 

WRDA bill will provide jobs, provide direction and most importantly allow water projects to be constructed that will protect our 

communities, their economy and their lives. Nothing could be more 

important for us to do. 

Today’s hearing is about the process that the Corps goes through 

to develop, review and ultimately authorize Chief of Engineers Reports. These Chief’s Reports become the vehicle for Congress to authorize a select group of new projects and get in line for appropriations to actually construct them. Hearings in this Congress have focused on several of the policy-related issues that may be addressed 

in this WRDA. This hearing is focused on addressing the 25 yet unauthorized Chief’s Reports. 

I wish to state clearly and unequivocally: a successful WRDA 

must include more than just policy and Chief’s Reports. We have 

to find a way to address specific projects for flood control, hurricane 

and storm damage reduction, navigation, harbors and waterways, 

environmental restoration, and water supply. This requires that we 

provide the Corps with adequate resources and direction. 

The bottom line is that we have to do more, and by doing more, 

we will create jobs, jobs that will help sustain our Nation’s financial recovery. 

Today we are going to hear about the amount of time that it 

takes to get a Chief’s Report developed and shepherded through 

the process. The Chief’s Report list today includes 25 vetted and 

4 

administratively approved projects. We have had some good discussions with our colleagues across the aisle and with Corps technical 

staff to look for ways to make the process more efficient. While we 

all may have our own ideas about why it takes so long, in the case 

of some of these Chief’s Reports, upwards of 10 years to make it 

through the system, one thing has become clear to me, and that is 

we have met the enemy and it is us. 

Congress, in our desire to help direct the administrative activities of the Corps of Engineers, has set up a long, convoluted, 

multistep process to move projects from planning to construction. 

We, the Congress, have overlaid a project process largely developed 

by technical experts with one developed by politicians, overlaid by 

yet another that is defined by the reality of the appropriations 

process, overlaid by yet another process, the budget oversight approach performed behind closed doors by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The end result is a mind numbing, convoluted, multilayered flow chart that now includes a minimum of 21 major steps 

along the journey. We have aided and abetted in the creation of 

this convoluted and time-consuming approach, and we now have a 

chance to move ahead if we work together. 

In summary, our approach can be captured in three simple bullets: the Water Resources Development Act is designed to work 

most efficiently when it is done under regular order with Congress 

providing leadership on moving specific projects insist a timely 

manner; WRDA works when projects are funded at the appropriate 

levels, not nickel and dimed over 10 years and done in spurts and 

starts; WRDA works best when Congress, not the administration, 

determines project priorities and when it is done in a bipartisan 

way. 

We are committed to working with the chairman of both the subcommittee and the full committee and staff to develop a WRDA bill 

that will meet the needs of the American people, our colleagues 

and the administration. 

I thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. And I will yield myself time for an opening statement. 

First like to welcome General Walsh and also thank him for his 

service as he looks for retirement here in October. I think the 

Corps is going to lose a huge asset. 

Today we are holding a hearing to review the Army Corps of Engineers Chief’s Reports, the process the Corps undertakes to develop these projects and some of the steps the Corps is carrying out 

internally to accelerate the process. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal Government’s 

largest water resources development and management agency. The 

Corps began its water resources program in the 1800s when Congress for the first time appropriated money for improving our river 

navigation. Today the Corps of Engineers constructs projects for 

the purpose of navigation, flood control, beach erosion control and 

shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply, 

environmental protection, restoration, and enhancement in fish and 

wildlife mitigation. 

The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic development and environmental needs as it addresses water reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
5 

sources problems. The planning process addresses the Nation’s 

water resources needs in a system context and explores a full range 

of alternatives in developing solutions. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is subject to all Federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, the 

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and all previous Water Resources Development Acts, Flood Control Acts, and Rivers and Harbors Acts. These laws and associated regulations and guidance provide the legal basis for the Corps of Engineers planning process. 

For instance, when carrying out a feasibility study, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requires the Corps of Engineers 

to include an identification of significant environmental resources 

likely to be impacted by the proposed project, an assessment of the 

impacts, a full disclosure of likely impacts and a consideration of 

a full range of alternatives, including a no action alternative and 

action by other alternatives. NEPA also requires a 30-day public 

review of any draft document, and a 30-day public review of any 

final document produced by the Corps of Engineers. 

Additionally, when carrying out a feasibility study, the Clean 

Water Act requires an evaluation of the potential impacts of a proposed project or action and requires a letter from a State agency 

ensuring the proposed project or action complies with State water 

quality standards. The Army Corps of Engineers also has to formulate alternative plans to ensure all reasonable alternatives are 

evaluated, including plans that maximize net national economic development benefits and other plans that incorporate other Federal, 

State and local concerns. Mitigation of advance impacts is to be included in each of the alternative plans reviewed in the study. The 

Corps of Engineers is also responsible for identifying areas of risk 

and uncertainty in the study so decisions can be made with some 

degree of reliability on the estimated costs and benefits of each alternative plan. 

Typically, a plan recommended by the Corps of Engineers is a 

plan with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with protection of the Nation’s environment; however, the Corps does have the 

discretion to recommend another alternative if there is overriding 

reasons for recommending another plan based on other Federal, 

State and local concerns. 

By now many of us have seen the actual size of the typical studies carried out by the Corps of Engineers. On the desk down here 

on the dais is one feasibility study from the Louisiana coastline 

that is 9,000 pages. You can see it stacked up there. 

While these are complex projects that need be reviewed by the 

public and other State and Federal agencies, the level of analysis 

required by other laws and regulations are crippling the project delivery process. For example, the study at the Sabine-Neches Waterway navigation project was authorized in June 1997 and the 

Chief’s Report was transmitted to Congress in July of 2011. According to the feasibility study of the Sabine-Neches Waterway navigation projects, more than 120 alternatives at nine different depths 

were evaluated prior to a completed Chief’s Report. 

We are literally studying infrastructure projects to death, but 

this is not solely the fault of the Corps of Engineers. Congress 

6 

needs to change the way the Corps of Engineers carries out its 

business. It is no longer acceptable that these studies take dozens 

of years to complete. Ultimately the Federal taxpayer is on the 

hook for these studies and for the length of time it takes to carry 

them out, delaying the benefits these projects ultimately are supposed to provide. 

As we move forward with what will be a policy heavy Water Resources Development Act, we will be focusing on accelerating the 

study and project delivery process as well as better prioritizing 

these worthwhile investments that the American public has relied 

on for decades. 

At this time, again I want to welcome General Walsh as our oneperson panel. General Walsh is the deputy commanding general for 

Civil and Emergency Operations of the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers. And he is also accompanied today by Mr. Theodore 

‘‘Tab’’ Brown. He is the chief of the Planning and Policy Division 

for the Army Corps of Engineers. 

So, General Walsh, welcome again, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH, DEPUTY 

COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE A. ‘‘TAB’’ BROWN, P.E., CHIEF, 

PLANNING AND POLICY DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. I really am honored and it is a 

privilege to be testifying before you today to discuss the planning 

process and the Chief’s Reports for the Army Corps of Engineers. 

My full testimony will describe all 21 reports that have favorably 

completed the executive branch review since enactment of the 

WRDA 2007. These proposals fall within the main missions of the 

Corps of Engineers and all of them will provide a net benefit to the 

Nation. 

I want to take the time here to discuss the four campaign goals 

of the Corps of Engineers and specifically the efforts we are making 

to transform the Civil Works program. 

First, we must support the warfighter with our work in areas of 

operations under the combatant commanders and on U.S. installations around the world. Many of our deployed civilians have civil 

works experience, which supports the mission inside the theater, 

and this work also provides them a broadening experience that will 

assist them and us when they return from harm’s way. 

Second, we must transform Civil Works by modernizing the 

project planning process, enhancing the budget development process, using a smart infrastructure strategy to evaluate our portfolio 

of water resource projects and improving our methods of delivery. 

Third, we must reduce disaster risk and continue to respond to 

natural disasters under the national response framework as well as 

our ongoing efforts and authorities under flood risk management. 

Fourth, we must prepare for tomorrow, positioning our workforce 

and processes for the future challenges and focusing on research 

and development efforts that will help solve the Nation’s greatest 

challenges in the Army and in the Nation. 

7 

The Corps has been working to better equip the Civil Works program to effectively meet the current and future needs and ensuring 

that decisionmakers are fully informed. The Corps planning process modernization effort emphasizes execution, instills accountability, and improves the organizational and operational model to 

produce quality products that address the water resource priorities. 

The current focus of our planning modernization efforts is to facilitate the timely completion of decision documents that appropriately address the increasingly complex water problems that 

plague communities and constrain economic activity. 

The Corps has recognized the need to modernize its approach 

through the initiative that we call SMART planning. SMART 

stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Risk-Informed, and 

Timely. The SMART planning approach to investigations reduces 

resource requirements by appropriately focusing on the key drivers 

to resolving water resource problems while complying with all the 

applicable laws and regulations. The goal under SMART planning 

is to complete most feasibility studies within 3 years for $3 million 

or less. The end product is a decision document that has been fully 

coordinated by all three levels inside the Corps of Engineers organization. In shorthand, we call this goal 3x3x3. The Corps expects 

full implementation of this new approach in fiscal year 2014 and 

has been working with its Federal and non-Federal partners to use 

this new approach in evaluating water resource problems. 

The Corps is prioritizing its current portfolio of planning studies 

and applying this new approach to new and ongoing studies, thus 

reducing the number of active studies in its portfolio and focusing 

on efforts to complete these studies more effectively by prioritizing 

funding. 

Ensuring the continued performance of key features of our infrastructure is becoming more costly over time. Operational demands 

have also grown and changed, particularly over the past 30 years, 

creating additional stress, and we are working on the infrastructure strategy to address these growing needs. 

The infrastructure strategy incorporates four focus areas: integrated approach to asset management, managing a system over its 

life cycle, evaluating whether a project or group of projects or related projects should remain a Federal responsibility prior to substantially furthering investment in that project, and potentially 

looking at alternative financing mechanisms. 

Transforming the way we deliver Civil Works programs requires 

state-of-the-art processes and a highly skilled workforce that is capable to responding to current and future demands. The strategy 

is to have reliable and efficient methods of delivery by linking technical capabilities to uniform national standards, maintaining corps 

competencies, and having consistent methods and processes 

throughout the Corps. 

The Corps has a strong tradition of working collaboratively with 

non-Federal interests and plan to deliver products. The current 

transformation initiative is no different. Our transformation partners include States, tribes, local governments, nongovernment organizations, nonprofit agencies, and the public. These partnerships 

are increasing and will likely continue to increase as we share a 

8 

common goal of looking at reliable and resilient infrastructure for 

our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. And, again, I appreciate the opportunity to address today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start a round of questions here. 

We are talking about the process, and sometimes there has been 

multipurpose projects, navigation projects and eco-restoration 

projects in conjunction. Let’s give an example: if we have a port for 

a deepening project, which we know we have major challenges to 

a lot of projects that way, should it be bootstrapped with a restoration project, ecosystem restoration project, or can we break these 

projects up and focus on the economic ones to help move our economy along and really look at the economic benefit. And not saying 

there is nothing of merit to environmental benefits, but if we can 

get an economic benefit right away by focusing on that project and 

maybe laying off the rest of the complex projects. Does the Corps 

see itself moving that way to look at the benefits, both economic 

and environmental, and say if we get this part of the project going, 

we can get this part done and then maybe work on the latter later 

when the resources become available, especially if the partnership 

of the local sponsor is having challenges meeting their obligations 

for their cost share? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. On a particular project, we have three 

major missions in the Corps, as you know: flood risk reduction, 

navigation, and ecosystem restoration. As we put forward the 

President’s budget, we look at a balanced approach in making sure 

the portfolio is funded in all three of those major missions. 

In a specific project that has different features, we work along 

with the local sponsors in putting together a schedule that tries to 

meet all of the requirements in that balanced project. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I noticed in these 25 Chief’s Reports we have 

here today before us, it is totaled about $14 billion of proposed 

spending. And I noticed on the navigation side, it is about $2.1 million, environmental restoration is about four times that, flood control is about $4 mil-—if I get it right, billion. So basically, what we 

are looking at, environmental restoration four times more and 

navigation twice as much on flood control. 

Can you comment why there is such a difference in the numbers 

when you have four times more in navigation, twice as much in 

flood control? Why that would come about that way, especially 

when you consider the challenges we have out there on our infrastructure on rebuilding and refurbishing our hard assets. 

General WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I think they came in, because 

that is how the Chief’s Reports were completed. They were not, as 

far as I know, directed one way or another. I know that there are 

more Chief’s Reports that are out there that will be coming in between now and the end of the year that will change that ratio drastically as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. But you are aware that—— 

General WALSH. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. You know, that the ratios are sort of—— 

General WALSH. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Way out of place there. 

9 

On your SMART process, you talk about SMART planning, I 

have a chart here of the Civil Works project delivery process. It is 

a 20-some-step process. This could take, I don’t know how many 

years, maybe 15 years. Seven years to get a Chief’s Report. Is that 

typical? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are you familiar with this? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Is there any way in your SMART or your 3x3 that 

you can combine some of these different areas and condense them, 

do you have any recommendations? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. The key item that we are looking underneath the SMART planning process is to make sure that we 

have the project scoped realistically. Many times we have looked at 

a lot of alternatives that may have not quickly gone to a solution 

that is required by the project. 

I am not looking at particularly cutting out particular processes 

there, but making sure we get through them more rapidly by putting together a planning charrette, which is where we bring all 

three levels of the Corps of Engineers, the headquarters, the division and the district together and we come and look at that scope 

rapidly, make sure that we agree so that we give direction to the 

district to move forward more rapidly. 

Mr. GIBBS. And let me just interrupt you right there, General. 

I have got a question on that. When you bring the district, the region and the DC headquarters together, I assume the purpose is 

everybody is looking at it the same time, so it is not going through 

one level and then they don’t know about it, but I guess my concern would be if it is done right, it makes sense, but my concern 

would be is that we don’t have just a top-driven system from Washington that overrides and doesn’t let the process work either, so I 

am really concerned about one-size-fits-all policies coming out of 

this town. 

So if they are all looking at it the same time to speed up the 

time, that makes sense, but I would have a concern about taking 

the local and the regional more out of the picture of the decisionmaking process. How do see that fitting? 

General WALSH. Sir, the local sponsor who typically comes up 

with a good deal of the funding has significant control of the of the 

process. When we go through the planning charrette, we are looking at the different alternatives and whether they are going to 

have policy issues as they bring things forward. We also look at 

risk assessments if there is a particular solution that they want to 

bring forward. There are half a dozen risks that you need to identify and work through to get through the policy review that we do 

here at the headquarters. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think you have been in this position a little over a 

year now? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think you have made some work to speed up some 

of these processes. What have you seen of the backlog? How are we 

doing on the backlog? 

General WALSH. Sir, we have been working on the planning process specifically. We had about 650 feasibility reports that were out 

10 

there in various shapes, many of them unfunded for many years. 

We went through a process of putting these projects that were active into an inactive status and took those off the shelf. We reduced 

that to about 200, and will be funding those that are closest to 

being complete. We will put a priority on those, finish those and 

get to the next one. 

Mr. GIBBS. That makes a lot of sense. My time is up. I yield to 

Ranking Member Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Walsh, thank 

you very much. Just to pick up on one of the points that the chairman made in his question, he cited the Chief’s Reports that are 

post-WRDA 2007. The 14 Chief’s Reports that we are getting in between now and December 31st, their breakdown, navigation 21 percent, environment 14 percent, flood risk management 43 percent, 

and hurricane and storm damage 21 percent. So it just shows the 

difference that you had one crop that had a density in the environment, we now have another crop that has a density in flood risk 

management. So I would imagine that that is typical in terms of 

how projects distribute themselves over a period of time. Is that 

about right? 

General WALSH. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. General Walsh, you have been perhaps 

the prime mover of the 3x3x3 process. It has been in place now for 

about 3 years. Can you identify with some degree of specificity how 

it has actually worked? Has it improved the efficiency? Has it reduced the time it takes to move a project from the point where it 

is initiated to the point where it is ready for construction or actually under construction? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. I believe that it will move the process 

forward in regards to getting a Chief’s Report, mostly because we 

will have the full vertical team, that is the division headquarters, 

my headquarters and the district, working together before a project 

starts in what we call a planning charrette to make sure that we 

are looking at all the alternative solutions to a particular project. 

Really what we are looking at is at the start, make sure that we 

have realistically scoped what the possible solutions are. We then 

put together a risk register, those things that we have looked at 

but we think are not going to be a major player in a particular 

project. We will put a risk register together, say we looked at that 

particular issue and don’t believe it is going to be a major part of 

the project, so people understand that we have looked at that particular issue and moved it off to the side. 

So, yes, I think we are going to move things more rapidly as we 

move into a decision type of report, not getting so much data just 

to fill the report up and look at a lot of different things. What are 

the minimum things that I need to look at for the decisionmaker 

to make a decision. We have been looking at a more efficient and 

effective way of doing planning for a number of different chiefs. 

General Strock was looking at that specifically, General Van Antwerp as well. And General Bostick has adopted this approach in 

his Campaign Plan. So the 3x3 method of planning modernization 

is codified in the Chief’s Campaign Plan. 

11 

Mr. BISHOP. What impact, if any, has the 3x3x3 approach had 

with respect to the process followed by other Federal agencies with 

respect to Corps-related projects? 

General WALSH. Sir, we are working with the other Federal 

agencies both here in Washington and at the local level, explaining 

to them how the process works as we move from decision to decision to decision, so I think we are working together closely. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. It remains the case, does it not, and 

please, please correct me if I am wrong, that the biggest impediment to moving a Corps project from its initiation to its completion 

is the funding source, whether it be the funding source from the 

Federal Government or whether it be funding from the non-Federal 

partner with which the Corps is working. Is that correct? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. The stop-and-start funding certainly 

hurts or increases the duration of a study. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So when I said in my opening remarks that we 

have met the enemy, and it is us, in part what I was referring to 

was a process that we have imposed on the Corps, coupled with the 

process that exists in other Federal agencies, but the other is that 

we are simply not giving you sufficient resources to do the jobs that 

we have tasked you with doing. Is that correct? 

General WALSH. There are two things, sir. One, a lot of projects 

throughout the U.S. and trying to get to them all with the limited 

funds that we have. What we are looking at now is taking those 

projects that are closest to completion, give those a little bit more 

on the budget priority, knock them out and go to the next one, but 

certainly how much funds we put on a project significantly impacts 

its duration. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Crawford, questions. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Walsh, 

thank you for being here today. In your testimony, you mentioned 

the need for the Corps to prioritize Federal funding on the highest 

performing projects and studies. Could you give us some more detail on how the Corps measures the performance of pending 

projects and studies? 

General WALSH. There are a number of metrics that we look at. 

Certainly one that we utilize is the net economic development number, the cost-benefit ratio, but that is just one of the items that we 

look at. We also look at impacts to the environment and a number 

of other ratios as well, sir. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. What role does the Corps division and district office play in determining priority projects? 

General WALSH. Sir, when we were looking at the 600 projects 

that were on the shelf, I asked the division and district commanders specifically which ones that they would not be able to continue because of lack of funding or a non-Federal sponsor, and they 

sent back to us which ones they were not able to move forward. So 

they are clearly inside the loop and prioritizing. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. Let me shift gears a little bit. Can you give 

me your assessment of the MRT, Mississippi River and Tributaries 

project? 

General WALSH. Could you repeat that question, sir? 

12 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Your assessment of the MRT. 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. My assessment is that it has been quite 

successful from a systems approach. In 1928 after the 1927 flood, 

the Chief of Engineers at that time decided to look at the lower 

Mississippi as a system. The Nation has invested about $13 billion 

over the last 60 years on that project, and it has prevented hundreds of billions of dollars worth of flood damages. 

In 2011, when we had the record high flows, we had to open up 

all three floodways so that we were able to move water laterally 

and not stack it up and lose some of our major cities. 

In 1927, tens of thousands of people lost their lives. In 2011, 

there was no one that lost their life due to flooding because of that 

project. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. And how would you gauge the recovery of the 

MRT in light of the 2000 flooding that took place? Has it recovered 

pretty well? 

General WALSH. General Peabody has been repairing the levees 

and using the emergency supplemental funds that were appropriated, and so I think it is recovering very well. Right now there 

are heavy flows, heavy water down in the lower Mississippi, and 

the system hasn’t been significantly impacted from the damages 

that we had from 2011. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Excellent. And, finally, in October 2012, the 

Corps began reducing lock hours of operation due to stagnant funding and the need to address a growing list of maintenance projects. 

Is it currently possible for the Corps to accept non-Federal funds 

to increase the hours of operation of Corps-operated locks? 

General WALSH. Sir, we are looking at that specifically as to how 

to address the concern where we have for what I call levels of service. If you have over a thousand lockages a year, then we will continue to provide the 24/7 service that many folks have gotten used 

to. If you have less than that, then we are reducing those levels 

of service on a graduating scale. 

We have a team trying to figure out how to pull together a public-private partnership on how to transfer some of those lockage responsibilities to someone else. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, General. And congratulations on 

your retirement and thank you for your service. Yield back. 

General WALSH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to dovetail, General—and thank you for your service, and good luck on your retirement. 

General WALSH. Thank you so much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the things that is not spoken to is the 

sequestration impact on your staff, on your ability to move some 

of the projects. And if you were to by some crystal ball magic or 

something get the money to do the projects that need to be done, 

would you have the trained personnel to do it? 

General WALSH. It is tremendously important that we have 

trained people. I look at really to be a master at this, you need 

three things. You need education, you need training and you need 

experience. A lot of our staff have that, but a lot of them are reaching that mature age and moving on to other places. So we are reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
13 

vamping our training, particularly in the planning community. We 

are putting that training together now, and we are requiring that 

planners be certified in the work that they do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So it is possible you may not have enough experienced personnel to carry out some of the projects if you did 

have some of the funding? 

General WALSH. Congresswoman, we call this methods of delivery. If the planners in one particular district don’t have the experience needed to bring a feasibility study home, they will go to other 

districts that have that trained personnel that can get that work 

accomplished. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? 

General WALSH. No. Actually it is to work that experience part. 

And so those people that have a lot of experience, let’s get them 

in there and they will—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

General WALSH [continuing]. Bring the folks who have not done 

a feasibility study along with them. The sequestration has required 

us to put $253 million off to the side for the sequestration bill, 

which is significantly impacting the water resources program. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for the answer. The fact that in my 

area we have had a problem with raising levees, and one of the 

water agencies wanted to participate and be able to help pay for 

the study, and we were finding it very hard to have the Corps accept money. So that should be a priority, because there are entities 

that are willing to work, financially support a project or at least 

to increase the State portion of it to be able to get it done, because 

of many factors: security, the environmental, keeping more water 

captured, et cetera. 

General WALSH. Yes. We have an ability to do that, it is called 

contributed funds, and there is a process where we are taking 

sponsors’ funds above what is required, making sure we bring it 

through our oversight committees, and we are accepting their 

funds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would love to have some of that information, 

General. 

The other question, from your experience, has the Chief’s Report 

development process provided a viable process to address critical 

procedure or construction issues, and are there examples of where 

your report development process has uncovered concerns that have 

led to a project either being rescoped or abandoned? 

General WALSH. Yes, Congresswoman. As we try to find solutions 

to the challenges that are out there, sometimes we will find where 

the solution costs more than the problem. We call it the national 

economic development number—NED—the benefit-cost ratio is less 

than one, and then we will stop work on that particular project. So, 

yes, as we go through the process, there are some that drop out because there is not a viable solution that we, the Corps, can be involved with. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, from your experience, does the Chief’s 

Report development process capture, review the necessary technical 

and financial issues that are important for the implementation of 

most cost and time effective Corps construction projects? If not, can 

14 

you identify where additional oversight or review could be value 

added? 

General WALSH. Congresswoman, WRDA 2007 requires an independent technical review of our work on particular projects that 

are over $45 million or are contentious. So Congress required us to 

do that, and have outside folks come and take a look at our work. 

Since Congress put that into place, we have executed 29 projects 

going through the independent expert review panel at a cost of 

about $9 million. Most of those reviews have not changed anything 

in our reports in regards to the solutions. They have recommended 

a number of different areas where we tell the story slightly differently as we put our reports together. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your answers. Mr. Chair, I 

yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Good morning, General. It is a project 

the Corps has been working on prior to my time and my 3 years 

in Congress and even prior to my 8 years before that in the State 

Senate. I have continued to work with them before I was in elected 

office and now for nearly 11 years that I have been in elective office. And my question is not so much on the project as much as it 

is on the process. And you presided over a Civil Works Review 

Board on March 27th, and that resulted in a unanimous vote on 

Orestimba Creek, the project that I am talking about. And as you 

know, this project has been long overdue and many of the new 

SMART planning techniques that you discussed in your testimony 

eventually applied to this study. 

So my question is, can you discuss the challenges that have led 

up to the delay in completing Orestimba Creek and how your new 

planning techniques were applied to get over the finish line, ultimately leading to a planning award that you received for the 

project; and secondly, do you think Orestimba can be used as an 

example for legacy projects going forward? 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Part of the delay 

was the funding stream that came in for that particular project 

that would start and stop, $100,000 one year, $50,000 the next 

year, the following year there wouldn’t be any funds, and so that 

caused a lot of concerns. 

Another good portion of that project was where the local sponsors 

wanted to find a solution that was not viable, and so we looked for 

a dam or flood storage up in the foothills, and we had to look at 

that from an engineering perspective, also from an environmental 

perspective and its impact on California water. It took a number 

of years to look at that and describe, as mentioned by Congresswoman Napolitano, that that solution is not viable. It took a while 

to get through that. 

Finally they came up with the solution that they delivered to the 

Civil Works Review Board 2 weeks ago, and it is an excellent product. We will put that out for State and agency review now. It is 

about 100 pages of what is needed to make that decision. 

Mr. DENHAM. So now the study has been released for the 38 

State and agency review, when do anticipate a completed Chief’s 

Report? 

15 

General WALSH. We will put it out for public comments, address 

those comments, and I suspect we will have a Chief’s Report by the 

end of the year. 

Mr. DENHAM. And going forward, what do you believe is the best 

course for Congress to take in authorizing new projects and ensuring they are completed in a timely manner? 

General WALSH. The process is to put together a WRDA and authorize the reports that the Chief of Engineers has gone through 

extraordinary details in making sure that they are complete and 

together. Before that report comes to Congress, we do a district 

quality control, make sure that that is reviewed from a quality control point of view. We take that report and bring it to another district to review it again, and we call that agency technical review, 

and then we have policy reviews up here at the headquarters. 

Twice it goes out for public review, State and agency review, and 

so by the time it comes over here as a Chief’s Reports through the 

administration, we are giving you an excellent, excellent product. 

I usually call the Chief’s Report the gold standard for Congress to 

authorize through a WRDA process. 

Mr. DENHAM. And as we are moving through the WRDA process, 

is there anything that you can see that can help us to make this 

process more efficient, more streamlined, things that you would 

need congressional authorization for? 

General WALSH. Sir, there are a number of items that we are 

working on as we are trying to streamline and husband the funds 

that we do have. We have a lot of projects that we should be looking at and perhaps seeing whether they should be de-authorized or 

repurposed or taken off the Federal books because they are not providing a Federal return. We are looking at the de-authorization 

process and how the administration can figure out how to work 

that particular process. 

Another thing that we are looking at, sir, is our alternative financing. Is there a way for others to finance. If we are not going 

to be able to get a steady stream through the Federal appropriations process, maybe others can do that, very similar to here in Virginia, where they have a public-private partnership where the private organization has built portions of the highway and are being 

reimbursed from a different process. There are a number of different ideas that are not quite ready for us to share; we are still 

working on those things as we move forward. 

Mr. DENHAM. And a final very quick question. Are dams no 

longer viable in California under the Corps opinion? 

General WALSH. I am not sure how to answer that. I think those 

dams that I worked on when I was a district commander in San 

Francisco and Sacramento, they were needed for their intended 

purpose. There are some projects where the intended purpose is no 

longer necessary, and they should probably be transferred off of 

Federal books to somebody else who does need those particular 

projects, but I couldn’t say from a blanket statement that any dam 

is not needed. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I will follow up in writing on more specifics on my question. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Frankel. 

16 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, one of 

the reasons I am sitting here is because projects that Army Corps 

is working on are very, very essential to the economy of south Florida, where I represent, and also helps in safety, because just for example, Everglades restoration and major dredging projects in our 

ports are very, very important. 

And I want to just say to both the chairman and the ranking 

member that I agree with both of your statements, and I am glad 

that we are stepping up to the plate to take responsibility, because 

just from my experience working back home, the process of getting 

a project—getting a Chief’s Report is—you just could pull the hair 

out of your head really. I can’t—I guess that is the best way I can 

explain it, without attributing blame, because I always think 

that—I think Congress should take the responsibility, and therefore, streamline this process and fund it where it is appropriate, 

but I don’t think it is one or the other. I think it is both that perhaps—certainly we are not doing our job with the funding, but it 

seems to me that we have created some roadblocks, maybe overprotectiveness in certain areas that we could really give a little bit 

of leeway. 

And, Mr. Chair, I wanted also to comment that I know the approach the Senate has taken, which is basically, it seems to me, to 

give away our responsibilities on these projects by, I think they 

have said that they are going to allow—authorize any project that 

has a Chief’s Report. And from my point of view, I will say from 

south Florida, we have been waiting, for example, for a Chief’s Report in Port Everglades for more than a dozen years; I don’t know, 

maybe 15 years or so. I think we are on track now, but maybe not 

to be finished till the end of the year. And with the—it is a dredging project. With the expansion of Panama Canal, we really can’t 

afford not to have an opportunity to be authorized just for the 

amount of money. 

Mr. GIBBS. Would you yield for a minute? Would you yield? I believe the Senate WRDA bill gives any Chief’s Report that goes 

through a Chief’s Report, gives OMB the ability to move it forward. 

The Senate WRDA bill actually delegates our response—I believe 

our congressional responsibility to the executive branch in a 3-year 

timeframe, my understanding. So I believe that is what you are referring to. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yeah. Right. That is correct. So, I mean, I think 

that—well, I think we should keep the authority, Mr. Chairman, 

but I also—I am concerned about the timing of getting these Chief’s 

Reports out and getting these projects authorized. And I wanted to 

emphasize the fact with the Panama Canal expansion, I think in 

2015, is that the projected date, that, you know, ports like Port Everglades, and there are others, really need to get moving on these 

dredging projects. 

So one of the questions—sorry. I have a very sort of simple question, which is, without authorization in this particular Congress, if 

we actually do pass legislation, is it true that there is—that you 

cannot go to the next—even if you get a Chief’s Report, let’s say 

by the end of the year, that you cannot go on to the next stage of 

17 

the planning and the design, that we would have to wait for another bill, another authorization? 

General WALSH. To begin construction, we would have to have 

the project authorized. There is a process where we can start planning, engineering and design to do some of the work prior to that, 

but again, from a funding level, there is less and less ability to put 

planning, engineering, design funds on a project before it is authorized. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

And just—Mr. Chair, I just would urge that—I agree with your— 

I absolutely agree with your comments that we need to streamline 

what is going on, but I hope that we will not use that as an excuse 

not to move some of these very important projects forward. Thank 

you, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Of the total number of projects that you work on, how many fit 

within the 3x3x3 criteria? 

General WALSH. Congressman, it is going to start in fiscal year 

2014, although most of the districts have taken and wrapped up 

with the ideas of SMART planning, looking at making sure we 

have the scope down correctly and are moving forward. The direction from the Chief out to the field is if you want to be in the budget request in the 2014, 2015 budgets, then you need to have your 

project rescoped using the 3x3x3 method. So you—— 

Mr. HANNA. But what does that look like in real terms? I mean, 

how many—you said we can look backwards and figure out how 

many projects would fit into that criteria. So as a percentage, what 

does it really cover, and are we avoiding the vast number of much 

larger projects that are even more important, letting them fall to 

the 8-, 10-, 12-, 15-year timeline? 

General WALSH. No. Those projects will be in the 3x3x3 methods, 

with the exception of watershed studies; we are still looking at how 

to streamline a watershed study. 

Mr. HANNA. You used from the 1974 Public Law 93–251, a discount rate for water—and this is in your testimony—Water Resource Development Act of 7 percent. You mentioned that this is 

not the same discount rate as used by the executive branch for 

budgeting and economic benefits. 

How do you—since it is almost 40 years old, how accurate is that 

and how much sense does it make to have two discount rates out 

there? 

General WALSH. Sir, as we put together the Chief’s Reports, we 

use the current rate. And as it goes through the administration 

budget process, they use the 7-percent rate as they try to, I guess, 

equalize the studies that were finished 7 or 8 years ago or 30 years 

ago to those studies that are coming through now. 

Mr. HANNA. How much time is spent spinning your wheels 

around a project that is funded and takes over 5 years and during 

the process actually the funding is lost and not refunded? 

General WALSH. I am sorry, sir. I didn’t understand the question. 

Mr. HANNA. Congress funds these projects for a period of time, 

and clearly that time span in many cases before the process can be 

studied has expired. What does that mean in real terms to you? 

18 

General WALSH. Certainly it slows the project down, both Federal and non-Federal funding; if there is not a steady stream of efficient funding, the project continues to be inefficient and not able 

to deliver on its benefits. 

Mr. HANNA. But does it also suggest, because you take so long 

to study these that the process shouldn’t even be started unless the 

funding is given to you through the entire timeline? 

General WALSH. We use the funds that are appropriated 

until—— 

Mr. HANNA. Hope for the best. 

General WALSH [continuing]. And then put a project on hold for 

lack of funds. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Actually, the question of my colleague went to one 

of my major concerns. Given the number of projects that have been 

fortunate enough to be started but not completed, is that process— 

does that process of funding depend upon annual appropriations or 

upon funding in your—that you have set aside somehow in your 

own budget? 

General WALSH. Typically, Congresswoman, that is from an annual perspective but there are a number of caveats that if you have 

funds that you didn’t expend in 1 year you can carry those funds 

over and keep the project going with carryover funds as well. 

Ms. NORTON. I am wondering what happens if a project is started, no funding for a number of years, I very much appreciate the 

new approach, seems to me a commonsense approach, I don’t see 

how it could have been avoided in the first place of going to those 

who were closest to completed, but the very fact that you are only 

doing that now suggests that you weren’t doing that before. If you 

weren’t doing that before and you had all of these uncompleted 

projects, how did you keep the funds from being wasted? 

How were you funding these projects if you weren’t going to the 

ones that were closest to being completed? 

General WALSH. Congresswoman, each of the projects that we 

have moved forward began with the idea that we are going to bring 

them to conclusion. As we are putting together a planning study, 

we are doing engineering analysis, we are doing real estate analysis, we are doing flood, economics, environmental and all of that 

data is still there and available and if we can’t use it to move forward with the Federal project, perhaps the locals can use that for 

a project. 

Ms. NORTON. I am interested in projects that may have been 

started and not completed. 

How many projects were out there that have been started and for 

lack of funding have not moved forward? 

General WALSH. Many. 

Ms. NORTON. Now if you ever get back to such a project, don’t 

you find that some of the work has to be repeated or that there has 

been deterioration from an engineering point of view? Would you 

describe to me what letting a project lie fallow for years waiting 

for funding does to that project, its completion and the efficiency 

of doing so? 

19 

General WALSH. It will significantly impact generating the benefits that the project was supposed to do. 

Ms. NORTON. There is some deterioration and degeneration of 

work already done? 

General WALSH. If we start a physical construction certainly that 

will be the case, and we have a project that we call Olmsted that 

will be out of authority at the end of the year and we will start 

slowing this project down to the point where we will be taking all 

the workers off of the site and just putting a security guard at it. 

Ms. NORTON. If anybody is interested in Government waste, this 

is one of the most, one of the greatest wastes one could even imagine because if you ever get back to that project and you can’t even 

assure me, General Walsh, can you, that you will ever get back to 

such a project because the funding may not be there? 

General WALSH. Right. Without the authority and the funding to 

move forward to complete a project, we would have to close it 

down. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are going to have a partially done project. 

All of that money should be counted as wasted. There is a project 

here in the District of Columbia which is considered quite high priority, and I am talking about the levee on the Mall. And the reason, of course, that it is high priority is that all your iconic monuments are located either on the Mall or in the vicinity of the Mall. 

You have difficulty with the contractor. I have been briefed on that. 

What is the state of this levee project on the Mall to protect the 

National Mall where you were only funded for phase 1 and what 

will come of phase 2? 

General WALSH. We will be able to use the funds appropriated 

to move forward as far as the funds are available and hopefully it 

will be enough to finish up phase 1. As you mentioned, we have 

had a challenge with the current contractor, and we have moved 

him off the site and asked his surety, his insurance bond, to come 

and take that project over. The district commander is still in negotiations with the surety. 

Ms. NORTON. Is there any chance that the levee on the National 

Mall would be left unfinished? 

General WALSH. If there is not enough funding then we would 

not be able to finish the project. 

Ms. NORTON. But you say the funds had been appropriated, you 

had problems with, of course, the contractor. You have surety. Now 

that you have surety, can you assure me that with the available 

insurance the levee, the Mall levee will be completed? 

General WALSH. I can’t give you—— 

Ms. NORTON. At least phase 1. 

General WALSH. I can’t give you that assurance right now but I 

will talk to the division and district commander and respond to 

you. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would get the response to the chairman, 

who I am sure will let me know within 30 days. 

[The information follows:] 

The Corps and the surety are finalizing a takeover agreement to resume construction of Phase I of the project. 

Upon execution of the takeover agreement, construction of 

20 

the 17th Street closure structure would resume, and 

should be completed within available funding. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Time is expired. 

Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, General, there is a list of final reports that are still under development 

and we have four projects in the Everglades I know you know 

about and there is still one that is still not finalized which would 

be the fifth project. There is an italicized date here of December 

2013, which would be this year, that the potential of it being finished. There is, though, a little sub thing that says, barring any 

legal problems. The project is the central Everglades pilot project 

and there is an ongoing decades old lawsuit dealing with water 

quality, and I would assume that would be maybe the biggest hold 

up, I don’t know. 

But my question is, is there any guarantees that that could be 

settled before the end of this year or anything that you might be 

able to tell me about that, that we could finalize that after it has 

been going on for a long time. 

General WALSH. Yes. We are working on it diligently. We brief 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army fairly often on that particular 

project. I couldn’t guarantee we are going to have it done but we 

are putting the appropriate amount of effort to make sure we can 

deliver on that. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Would it be true if we were to stay with the way 

it is done right now in the 2007 WRDA bill and policy would remain the same, if we miss that deadline for getting the Chief’s Report in, it would have to wait until the next passage of another 

WRDA bill in order to get included; would that be true? 

General WALSH. People sometimes think that it just needs a 

Chief’s Report submitted to Congress. What it really needs is a 

Chief’s Report which has been submitted to the administration, 

goes through administration review and then sent over to Congress. I believe the current authority is those Chief’s Reports that 

come to Congress from the administration are available for the 

Congress to authorize. So it would—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. I was only looking at my next step which is 

a big step is getting that Chief’s Report. 

General WALSH. The next step is the Chief’s Report but it won’t 

be over to Congress until it comes through administration review. 

Mr. WEBSTER. But my question is if we miss that deadline, we 

would have to wait, if current policy stayed in place we would have 

to wait until the next WRDA bill in order to get that project moving. 

General WALSH. Yes. That will be the next opportunity for regular order to authorize a project. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Nolan, do you have a question? 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And General Walsh, thank you for your service and your testimony here today. 

21 

I have got, I just have a couple of quick questions here. I don’t 

know if you can answer them or not. I hope so. 

A person who is quite familiar with the committee and the Army 

Corps and some others have suggested to me that in reviewing the 

Chief’s Reports over the years that perhaps as much as two-thirds 

of Corps projects have been concentrated in the southern United 

States. And perhaps that is the result of Katrina and the BP oil 

spill, but the States of Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and 

Florida, how much of the total Corps budget in your judgment is 

spent in the Katrina impact area versus elsewhere in the United 

States? 

General WALSH. Congressman, the Congress authorized $14 billion to build the flood damage risk reduction system around greater 

New Orleans. And so that large amount of funding kind of changes 

the ratio of what things look like from around the U.S. 

I don’t know what data your friend gave you, but certainly that 

$14 billion is—we are about $11 billion into that particular project, 

$3 billion left to work. 

Mr. NOLAN. So if you exclude that, take that out of the picture, 

how does it apportion across the country do you think? 

General WALSH. I hadn’t looked at it from that perspective, Congressman. I have worked as a district commander in California in 

both San Francisco, Sacramento, and we had plenty of projects 

there to work on. I was a commander for South Atlantic Division 

and we had a number of projects also in the Southeast and then 

I was a commander for the Mississippi Valley Division. So from 

where I have sat it seems to be evenly placed. But I never sat down 

to work the numbers or the authorizations. It really would depend 

on what data that you are looking for, authorized projects or funds 

or I am not quite sure what that data would show. 

Mr. NOLAN. I am trying to get a feel for where all the projects 

and all the money is going. 

One other unrelated question but an important one, and that is 

how much additional revenue do you estimate is needed for the 

Corps to meet what the Corps perceives to be the Nation’s existing 

needs? 

General WALSH. Sir, I don’t know if I can have an answer to 

that. Certainly the water resource needs of the future in America 

is going to become more acute, I think. Oil was the significant liquid in the last century. Water is going to be the significant liquid 

in this century certainly in the United States. As water becomes 

more dear we are going to have significant problems like we have 

between Georgia, Florida and Alabama on who is going to be able 

to take water out of the river, the same thing with the upper Missouri and the lower Missouri States are arguing over water as well. 

I think they are going to be more acute in the future and we are 

going to have to address those as we get to it. 

Mr. NOLAN. Are you reasonably certain in your mind that we will 

need additional revenues to meet the ongoing needs of the future? 

General WALSH. Yes, Congressman. We are going to have to address the water problems of this Nation in the future. 

Mr. NOLAN. And that will require more revenue in your judgment? 

22 

General WALSH. And that will require more authority and more 

funding. 

Mr. NOLAN. All right, thank you very much, General, for your 

service and the great job that you guys do. 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. General Walsh, Mr. Brown, thank you for 

being here. Jen Greer, thank you also for being here. It is always 

nice to embarrass the staff once in a while as a former staffer. 

General WALSH. I try and do that as well, Sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, good. Jen and I have worked together since she 

was in the St. Louis District and I have had the pleasure of working with the St. Louis District personnel, Rock Island personnel 

and Louisville District personnel for the last 16 years and you have 

some fine people that work for the Corps of Engineers. So thank 

you for what you do. 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. DAVIS. I want to center most of my comments and questioning on the Metro East levee project in southwestern Illinois. As 

you may know the levee district, a local levee district was created 

in 2009 called the Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District 

which was set up to bring in revenue to provide the local share of 

upgrading our levees that protect many of the areas in southwestern Illinois. 

It seemed at that time that FEMA was going to go through a deaccreditation process to move the levees into, to de-accredit them 

to put them in much more of a flood hazards zone and therefore 

rising costs for many of my constituents and Bill Enyart’s constituents in southwestern Illinois. 

The locals have done their job, they have put together the plan 

of action, they have made sure that they have gotten a revenue 

source to be able to move projects forward and they are a little 

frustrated right now. 

The first issue that has been brought to my attention is that 

there seems to be multiple layers of review in the St. Louis District 

and in Washington, DC, and it seems to stall the project to the 

sense that we are sometimes fighting a battle of who is going to 

wait the longest, FEMA or the Corps or the locals to actually get 

this project done. At a time when Federal funds are limited and we 

are asking these local sponsors like the Southwestern Flood Prevention District to take on more responsibility for improving these 

deficient levees, what is the Corps doing to expedite and streamline 

the technical and regulatory review process of these locally sponsored projects? 

In particular in the Metro East we have projects that are designed by private engineering firms, licensed professional engineers 

with documented expertise, but it seems these designs just get 

caught up in these layers that I mentioned. Can you explain this 

and answer this question? 

General WALSH. Yes, Congressman. By the way, the local levee 

district was excellent in bringing in revenues so that they can fund 

the projects that they need to move forward. The Metro East 

project was authorized to provide about 500-year level of protections and the locals want to work through, not go right to the 500, 

23 

they want to go through a 100-year level or 1-percent chance of 

flooding to the 500-year. We have been working very closely with 

that board in making sure as they do the engineering, we have 

something that is called a 408 permit, to make sure that they are 

doing the engineering correctly before they significantly influence 

that levee. We wouldn’t want, and I think you would agree, we 

wouldn’t want them to do something on a levee that protects that 

city that was not a tried and true method of providing flood risk 

reduction in that particular area. 

They were using a technique that we hadn’t seen used in a large 

way in that area. So we had to make sure that it was not only cutting edge but also going to be providing the benefits that were 

talked about. 

I think over time they recognized that that was not the solution 

and they have gone back and come up with a different more tried 

and true engineering solution to that project. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you, General Walsh. My time is running 

out so I am going to throw a few things in my last line of questioning to get you to respond. 

First of all, when do you expect the decision that might be made 

so that we can move through this 408 process? What is your, is any 

other information that the locals need to provide that is subject to 

review? And could we get a timeline on when a decision is expected? 

Also, could you let me know when a decision is expected on the 

request by the locals for a project labor agreement? The comment 

period is still open. I want to know if you expect a decision soon 

and if so when. 

And also, General, I look forward to working with you on a couple pieces of legislation that I have introduced. One is the private 

partnership, the Public-Private Partnership Act, the WIN P3 Act. 

I am really looking forward to seeing projects up and down the 

Mississippi and Illinois River move forward and I would love to 

hear a response on how you think that could affect the outcome of 

upgrading our locks and dams. And also since I represent an ag 

district we have a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Mississippi River Navigation Act. So hopefully both of these proposals 

that are in the Senate WRDA bill will be put in the House WRDA 

bill, and I would like your take on both of them. 

So thank you. 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, thank you very much for the work that you and the 

men and women in the Corps do. It is extraordinarily important 

across the Nation, I believe we have some issues on the Missouri 

or one of the rivers this morning with some levee breaks, so the 

protection of our population from flooding is of utmost importance. 

It certainly is in my district, I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River Valley, including the Feather and Yuba River systems and the Delta of California. For us, here in the dais, we have 

the responsibility, we just took $250 million out of your budget for 

this year in sequestration and asking you to do more. I don’t think 

that is responsible for us to do such a thing but we did it. HopeVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
24 

fully we can replace that money and more. The earmark is an 

issue, we have had many discussions about that in this committee, 

and we really need to get at that. It is something that is very, very 

important. We have the responsibility and we have foregone that 

responsibility by eliminating our ability to direct projects, and I 

would, I think we all know that. We have to find the courage to 

revisit and overcome the earmark. 

Specifically, General, you mentioned the 408 in the previous 

question. We have a 408 issue on the Sutter Butte Levee project, 

the Feather River program, about 40 miles of levee of utmost importance to Yuba City and the surrounding communities. I know 

this is being processed and I thank you for the work that is being 

done in getting that 408 approved and out of the way. There are 

no issues but if there is a further delay, we will miss this year’s 

construction on a section of the Feather River Levee that has broken twice in the last 40 years. Earlier many lives were lost. This 

is a Shanghai Bend portion of that. I ask for your attention to that 

and, if possible, quick action on it so that that project can get underway. It is not Federal funding involved here, it is a local program and State. 

Beyond that, there are going to be many issues. The WRDA bill 

that has been passed by the Senate only authorized those projects 

that have a Chief’s Report at the time of enactment, which will 

probably cause projects that are important to Members in this 

House and maybe some Senators to be delayed, as was discussed 

a moment ago, for some period of time until there is a new WRDA 

bill. I think we ought to take a very close look at that. 

General, your comments on this would be appreciated. How can 

we overcome that particular problem where we would be dependent 

upon a Chief’s Report until there is a new WRDA bill which could 

be years in the making? 

General WALSH. Congressman, both the chairman and ranking 

member talked about that in their opening statements. When the 

Water Resources Development Act started in the seventies it was 

planned that it would happen every 2 years. It hasn’t and that is 

the method to authorize water resources projects. So I won’t comment on the Senate piece but getting back to regular order as mentioned by the minority member probably is the approach. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I suppose it wasn’t a fair question to you. That 

is a question for us I suspect. So my apologies, General. I will let 

it go at this. If you would just take a quick look at the Sutter Butte 

project on the Feather River, the 408 issue is before you and your 

shop and quick review, all of the issues were addressed in the earlier review and if you could pop that out it would be very helpful 

and we can get that project underway this summer in anticipation 

of next year’s rain, particularly on the Shanghai Bend. 

Thank you very much, General, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

General WALSH. Yes, Congressman. We will take a close look at 

it. It hasn’t made it to headquarters yet. I am expecting it later 

this month. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, if I might, General, California 

has been in the President’s budget, has been well, not well cared 

for but there are many, many projects and a lot of work and I want 

to once again thank the Corps and the men and women in the 

25 

Corps for their work on those projects throughout California and 

we really appreciate it. Hamilton City and others. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Reid 

Ribble. I am from northeast Wisconsin, including the cities of 

Green Bay and Appleton, so right on the shore of Lake Michigan 

there. And I apologize in advance if my questions are redundant 

from something you have heard before. I had to step out of the 

room for about 10 minutes and somebody else might have talked 

along the same line but I have heard a lot of comments today about 

how do we speed things up, how do we make this more efficient, 

how do we actually get there. 

And based on your testimony today it sounds like a project typically begins with a reconnaissance study, which when that is done 

initiates a feasibility study, which is six steps in the feasibility 

study; concurrently going on there is a NEPA study, there are a 

series of checkpoints during this study to make sure you are complying with laws, and then after that there is a quality review of 

the study. After that there is an agency technical review of the 

quality review and then an external peer review. 

Going on into your testimony, the MSC commander performs a 

quality assurance review on documents that they are going to 

transmit to Corps headquarters which then Corps headquarters 

performs a 45-day policy review in advance of the Civil Works review. After the CWRB determines a report is sufficient, they release, the study is released for a 30-day State and agency review. 

After the State and agency review is done, the report of the Chief 

of Engineers is finalized and processed and the final package includes the agency responses to that, a signed report of the Chief 

of Engineers transmits a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. It then goes to there upon receipt of the report of the Chief of Engineers shall review and provide any recommendation regarding the project to Congress within 

120 days. The ASA(CW) prior to transmittal of a Chief’s Report to 

Congress is responsible for determining that the recommendations 

of the Chief of Engineers are compliant with other policy, including 

applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations, which entails 

an additional review to make sure that there are no unresolved 

issues. In addition, at the end of this you say in addition then the 

Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12322 reviews the proposed project for consistencies with the principles and 

guidelines. 

Well, I am glad that they are reviewed. 

I am assuming some of these are required by law, that men and 

women like those of us sitting at the tables up here are making you 

do all these reviews. Some of them are probably your efforts to 

make sure that things are done right. 

But it seems to me that we have created a system of review that 

is now handcuffing the Corps from doing things that your Corps 

competencies should be able to do without these layers. 

And I am wondering is there a lack of confidence in your teams 

that you require all these reviews? Or how do we get to a place 

where we could actually streamline these things so that the process 

26 

can move forward which would save the taxpayers’ money and 

work would actually get done which would boost our economy? 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. Sounds like you have 

got our process down. It is a difficult challenge to move a Chief’s 

Report through all of the processes, which is why the Chief of Engineers has adopted our planning modernization process as part of 

his Campaign Plan so that we can do a Chief’s Report in 3 years. 

That is his requirement to us, and we are moving forward with 

putting those together. 

What that means is at the beginning of the process, we bring the 

three levels of the Corps of Engineers, the headquarters, the division and the district, and the non-Federal sponsor together and we 

go through to make sure that we are scoping the project realistically. If it is a flood control project, what are the solutions to solve 

those, let’s look at the policy level issues at the beginning of it as 

we are scoping the project and bringing it forward. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Can I interrupt you for a second? Is this process the 

same for all projects? Or is there a difference between a flood management project, which seems to be fairly complex, and maybe 

dredging the harbor way in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which seems 

pretty simple to me? Is the process the same? 

General WALSH. If the project is going to get authorized by Congress, they have to go through this process. Now if it is a small 

project we have the Continuing Authorities Program for those 

projects that are $5 million and less, and some people say abbreviated process. But I think trying to get to a Chief’s Report in 3 

years is the key item that we are working on, to get through all 

of those hoops and hurdles that you just mentioned, and I call 

them hoops and hurdles, but there are good policy reasons on why 

we do a lot of those, particularly State and agency review and public review, because there are things that we might not have looked 

at as we are doing the engineering analysis. And so we are looking 

to get those things completed now in 3 years. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And I would encourage you to the ability that you 

can to let us know what we can do to help you to streamline this 

process, whether it is concurrent review system or something, because this is hugely expensive to the taxpayer and the delay is 

even more costly to the economy. 

Thanks again for being here. I don’t mean to be critical. I am just 

trying to get my arms around what we can do to get a better policy 

moving forward. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as I have recently had 

the pleasure of welcoming your crew from New England to my district a couple of weeks ago which made people very excited to have 

our Corps Day and you have an excellent crew, and I want to 

thank you. My grandfather helped build locks and dams on the 

Mississippi with the Corps back in the 1940s, so a long history. 

In the past, as has already been mentioned by my colleague, Mr. 

Garamendi, Congress prioritized projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Given that that is not now happening and we 

are much more restricted in that, I am concerned that the program 

is oversubscribed heavily. And can you talk to us a little bit about 

27 

how the Corps prioritizes projects in the Continuing Authorities 

Program at this point, how many projects are currently in the 

queue for example. 

General WALSH. The Continuing Authorities Program is oversubscribed and trying to get to those projects that are closest to being 

complete, prioritizing those, funding those at the highest that we 

can for capability reasons and then bringing them to a conclusion 

and then going to the next one down on the list is the best way 

I know to go get them to completion and then go down so you can 

get the next one. So instead of lots of projects with limited funds, 

let’s just work down the list. 

Ms. ESTY. And if you can give is us any advice. For example, I 

have a big I have a project in my district in Meriden, Connecticut, 

that has matched funding coming in from EPA on some elements 

on brownfields funds coming in from the State government on a variety of different issues. 

Is that something that would receive additional priority because 

you already have committed funds, HUD funds and elsewhere? 

General WALSH. It would certainly be included in the thought 

process in regards to prioritization. But again I don’t know where 

that project is and how close it is to completion. I would have to 

look at that, but certainly having more people at the table contributing funds to a particular project is something that we are looking 

forward to in the future. 

We are looking forward to putting a future budget together based 

on the watershed approach. Right now we look at the program 

project by project and sometimes a project may have negative impacts in another area. So we are looking at how to evaluate all of 

the water resource needs in a watershed. We would bring together 

all the Federal agencies, nongovernmental and local governments, 

and try to figure out how to work on solving the water resource 

needs from a watershed approach. 

Ms. ESTY. Well, I am very grateful to hear that because we are 

not in the water stressed regions of California but rather these 

issues on watersheds where if one community does one project, you 

can actually just aggravate issues further downstream with flooding issues. We are working very hard in Connecticut, for example, 

on restoration of borders of streams. Well, that has come in conflict 

with levee requirements in areas from 50 years ago and we are 

having a great deal of tension around that. So I think a watershed 

approach would actually be extremely helpful for a district like 

mine with New England where sadly with the increase of severe 

weather events, which was my previous hearing we were hearing 

about severe weather events on the Science Committee, that we are 

going to see more of this and we are going to see more rapid 

downpours putting stress on watersheds that previously didn’t 

have flooding and now are going to have flooding. 

So again we share concerns about inadequate funding making 

your job difficult, making your task and our shared task of ensuring the safety of our communities and our citizens, putting them 

at risk. And we look forward to working with you. Thank you for 

your service. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Rice. 

28 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir, and thank you, General Walsh, for 

being here today. I have had the opportunity to meet with General 

Walsh, and your decades of service—distinguished service—I believe him to be an honorable and bright man who has done a lot 

for our country and your work on this 3x3 is critically important. 

I don’t think there is anything more important than keeping our 

Nation competitive with the rest of the world. I think we are feeling a little bit in that regard not because of your efforts but because of ours, and infrastructure is the key to that. It is so hard 

to find the infrastructure dollars and when we have these processes 

and regulations in place that require these lengthy studies that you 

have to undertake, then a lot of those infrastructure dollars end up 

being diverted into the studies rather than into digging ports or 

laying asphalt or building levees. 

So, that is my key concern. 

I listened to the processes that Mr. Ribble ran out. I realize that 

we have got an incredible amount of work to do in that regard. 

Certainly we have to protect the environment, but we also have to 

protect our economy. So anything we can do, I think we have 

placed you in a vise. You are caught between Congress encouraging 

you, pushing you to make things happen more quickly and trying 

to satisfy the laws that we have in fact put in place. So I feel for 

you. I know you are in a tough spot. And I appreciate your efforts 

to do both. And I just want to know what we can do to help you 

accomplish that. 

General WALSH. Congressman, I think the recognition that infrastructure is key to the future, being competitive is going to be very 

important. A lot of times when we talk about infrastructure, we 

talk about roads, rails and runways and sometimes we forget to 

talk about rivers. And so as we as a Nation address the infrastructure issues of the future we need to also need to recognize that 

fourth R as we move forward. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers released their report a 

month ago that said that our infrastructure is a D, and not getting 

well fast. And so I don’t know how—it will be a challenge to remain 

competitive as we move into the future, as other people are beginning to develop their water resources such as Brazil, India, China 

and others. And so I think we as a Nation need to recognize that 

the infrastructure is tremendously important and not so much an 

expense but an investment on future benefits. 

Mr. RICE. I completely agree with you and use those same words 

when I look at projects like the Port of Miami which have taken 

over a decade for approval and don’t involve any Federal dollars, 

and when I look at the fact that the Panama Canal will be open 

for these post-Panamax ships in a year and a half and we are going 

only going to have two ports on the east coast that can take them, 

Baltimore and Norfolk. I recognize that we have got to get ourselves out of the way and get these infrastructure projects built because if they drop the cost of transporting a container by 10 percent and we can’t take these ships then we are placing our American businesses at a competitive disadvantage and we will lose real 

American jobs. So we have got to work ourselves out of this conundrum. We have got to simplify this process. 

29 

I so appreciate the fact that you have put yourself into this with 

this 3x3. My only encouragement to you is that we get it to a 1x1 

because when I think about the fact that they have been working 

on in Miami port project for 13 years and you mentioned Brazil 

and India and China, I wonder how many ports have been deepened in those areas in that 14-year period, and even if we started 

digging today that Miami port project would not be completed by 

the time the Panama Canal is open. 

So it is a real serious crux issue for this country. And I look forward to your suggestions on how we can deal with it. Thank you 

very much, sir. I yield back my time. 

General WALSH. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. DAVIS [presiding]. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Meadows, is recognized. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and thank you, General Walsh, for being here. Mr. Brown, thank you as well. And I 

don’t want to address any specific projects, but I do want to go back 

and follow up on what the gentleman from South Carolina was hitting on and it is about the speed of those projects. 

We never kill a project, we just study it. And the problem with 

that is we study it and study it and study it until eventually it either goes away or it gets defunded or people holler so much that 

we have got to do something about it. And so with the 3x3 process, 

I see a lot of our problem being more regulatory and administrative 

law versus just laws that are dedicated by Congress. And so what 

I would ask you to comment on specifically is what regulatory 

agencies do you see, whether they be Federal or State agencies, are 

creating the most burdensome regulatory compliance issues that 

you are having to deal with in order to get some of your studies 

done so that we can get construction to actually happen? 

General WALSH. Well, sir, we work with all the Federal and 

State regulatory agencies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if you could eliminate one which one would it 

be? 

General WALSH. I don’t know I would eliminate the mission of 

any of the agencies that are out there. Certainly, and I know you 

might agree if you have traveled to a lot of international places, 

there are places that don’t put as much effort in their environment, 

their water and air, and it is just deplorable. I think our environmental laws were put in place and have significantly helped our 

environment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying you wouldn’t change any of 

them? Because what I am trying to find out are what are the regulatory things that you are having to deal with that if you were in 

my position you would say well, let’s get rid of this and you are 

saying every regulation and every policy that we have out there 

right now has an ultimate good, I think your quote was it is good 

policy. 

So you are saying you wouldn’t get rid of anything to speed up 

the process? 

General WALSH. At this point as we go through the regulatory 

processes, people are looking at the things that were authorized by 

Congress for them to look at if they are talking from a Federal perspective. 

30 

From the State, certainly the State historic preservation is something that we need to look at as we go through a particular project. 

And I think there, to look at things from a historical perspective 

is important and we should be doing that as well. So I can’t think 

of something that I would say this is the red star cluster that I 

should ask you to take out. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Not a single Federal regulation that you would 

get rid of? 

General WALSH. Not a red star cluster that I would tell you, no, 

sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Are there any other agencies that you 

would prefer to be under your purview where you don’t have to 

work with somebody from a different agency so you can streamline 

the process that way? 

General WALSH. Sir, I think the laws of the land have put these 

agencies and processes into place to look at—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let’s assume that we can change the laws. What 

would you change? 

General WALSH. I wouldn’t be able to put that out to you right 

now in regards to change. We work very closely with our regulatory 

agencies so that we can respond to their requirements and meet 

the national goals from an environmental point of view. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so if we give you additional time, can you 

come up with recommendations that you can submit to this committee or are we just going to be going to have these kind feasibility studies that are sitting here in front of me forever that 90 

percent of the people don’t read anyways? What can we eliminate 

to streamline the process? 

General WALSH. What we are looking at now is, again, bringing 

the three levels of the Corps of Engineers to look at a project, at 

the scoping mechanism. We are looking at how to scope it realistically, and so I think that is what is really going to drive a smaller 

project volume than what you see there to what I am looking at— 

probably a 100-page report that we can bring over here to Congress. 

I think we can streamline from that perspective. 

But having our reports go through environmental, State and 

agency review I think is important to meet all of the needs of a 

particular project. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So I am out of time and I will yield 

back, but this last question. So am I to understand there is not a 

single regulatory act or agency at this point that you would do 

away with to streamline the process other than the State historic? 

General WALSH. No, sir. I wouldn’t. I would not be able to provide a list of those things that were put in place by law and that 

I have to abide by. And I did not say that the State Historic Preservation Office should be eliminated. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the Chair’s indulgence. I yield back. 

Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman from Long Island, New York, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick up where 

the gentleman from North Carolina just ended. We have, I thought 

Mr. Ribble did an excellent job of delineating the process, the overwhelming majority of which has been imposed on you by us. And 

31 

so I guess I want to ask the specific question, and I know you can’t 

answer it now, but I do know that as we are preparing WRDA 2013 

there have been conversations at the staff level about how we can 

try to streamline the process. 

Can I ask that you come back to us, not now, in writing, with 

whether of the 21 steps, are there any specific steps that we could 

either eliminate or consolidate with other steps? Or are there 

blocks of steps that we can either eliminate or consolidate as we 

look to go forward here? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, General. I appreciate it. I think that 

would be very helpful for all of us as we try to work our way 

through this process. 

The other thing I just want to sort of emphasize a point that I 

made earlier and then ask a question about that. When Mr. 

Denham asked you the questions about the project that he is interested in in California and his concerns about how long it has taken, 

your response was, I am summarizing your response, that basically 

the funding stream was uncertain which delayed the project and 

that there was then, I won’t say a disagreement, but some lack of 

consensus with your local cost share partner in terms of the right 

way to undertake the project, is that correct? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, two, a project that had a long gestation period 

and two of the problems were the problems that we have been talking about which are funding and cost share partner having either 

insufficient funds or a different idea on how the project should go 

forward. 

General WALSH. That significantly impacts the duration of a 

project. 

Mr. BISHOP. So here is my question. I represent eastern Long Island. I have about 300 miles of coastline, including about 75 miles 

of Atlantic coast. We now have $5.3 billion through the Sandy supplemental that will go to the Corps to repair Sandy-related damage 

and mitigate against further damage if we are to get another storm 

of the same intensity as Sandy. Now that is a lot of money. 

Will that not give us an opportunity to see how the Corps can 

work through a process when the funding stream is guaranteed 

and, at least in this particular case, for Fire Island and Montauk 

Point reformulation study area projects, the local cost share, Federal Government is going to take 100 percent of the cost share. So 

that will give us a mechanism or probably a living example for us 

to see how the Corps process works when it is adequately funded, 

right? 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. And that we also had that opportunity with 

Katrina right? Which we have got an awful lot done in a relatively 

short period of time with Katrina. 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. The three things we had at Katrina 

was full Federal funding, an abbreviated NEPA process, and a commitment from the Nation to get it done in a short amount of time. 

Mr. BISHOP. I guess what I am saying is I want to make sure 

we keep our eye on the ball, that we are all talking about regulatory agencies and 21 steps—and by the way I don’t mean to diVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
32 

minish the importance of those, but we could eliminate all of that, 

and if we give you funding in dribs and drabs year after year after 

year, projects are going to take a hell of a long time to get done, 

right? 

General WALSH. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And I really appreciate your work and I wish you well in your retirement. Thank 

you. 

General WALSH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS [presiding]. Hello again, General. I left off my line of 

questioning, I ran out of time and didn’t give you adequate time 

to respond to some of those questions. So I would like to reiterate 

a few of them. 

First off, can you give me an estimated time of when you think 

the 408 permit process for the Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District might be all issues settled and offered? 

General WALSH. Sir, the last time I looked at that was about 3 

months ago. I would have to get an update from that. Three 

months ago we had not yet had the submission from the local sponsor. So I couldn’t give you an answer because we hadn’t gotten the 

submission and I don’t know if we have it yet. So I will have to 

go back and look at it and certainly can have one of my staff call 

your staff later this week and tell you where we are in that process. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General WALSH. That particular issue had us look at 408 issues, 

both minor 408 and major 408, and if it is a minor 408 issue, they 

can resolve that locally, and if it is a major one it has to come to 

headquarters for our review. 

The last time I worked at that particular project, we decided that 

it was a major 408. But again if the submission has changed then 

it may be minor but I don’t know the details. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much for that. 

I know the locals have also requested to use a project labor 

agreement on one portion of construction, on the Wood River cutoff 

wall project in Wood River, Illinois. 

Do you have an estimated time of when a decision will be made 

of whether or not that request will be granted or denied? 

General WALSH. I think it is still out for comment and as soon 

as the comment period closes, the district commander will make a 

decision. I will have to have staff get back with you later this week 

on the timeframe because I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK, thank you for that. 

Another one of my pieces of legislation that I talked about hopefully it is going to be included in any WRDA bill that passes our 

Chamber just like it is in the Senate, is our Public-Private Partnership Act, the WIN P3 Act, which I think could give the Corps some 

valuable tools to move projects that are essential right now up and 

down the Mississippi River in and around my district that are essential to my constituents’ jobs and our local economy. 

Can you comment on how you think that piece of legislation or 

that language that is in the Senate WRDA bill in the language that 

is in our bill how could it positively affect some of the large infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Feb 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\6-5-13~1\81369.TXT JEAN
33 

structure projects that you may be working on in the future 

throughout this country? 

General WALSH. Congressman, generally, we don’t make comment on pending legislation. So I won’t comment on either the Senate or your—— 

Mr. DAVIS. But it is a good bill. 

General WALSH [continuing]. Your bill as well. But I think and 

we are working on how to use public-private partnerships in the future. Certainly our hydropower systems are running at about 89- 

percent efficiency. If we had more investments in our hydropower 

system and bringing the efficiencies up from 89 percent to normal 

industry standards, which is about 98 percent, if we can’t fund that 

out of the general fund then let’s bring in a public-private partnership, fund the difference and figure out a way for him to pull his 

investment out of that particular project. 

I have got guys working on trying to figure out how to do publicprivate partnership in water resources in the future, and that 

hasn’t developed far enough along for me to share yet. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. I have another bill, the Mississippi River Navigation Act, that I know you can’t comment on. So let me ask you can 

you comment on how further study, more navigation tools for the 

Corps and forecasting improvements can help Corps prevent further problems like we saw last year during the low water on the 

Mississippi when it comes to navigation? 

General WALSH. Certainly we have a project that is called NESP, 

Navigation Ecosystem Sustainment Program, that is work on the 

upper Mississippi and we are trying to figure out how to forecast 

grain prices 50 years from now and that is challenging to do and 

put together a decent cost-benefit ratio on that. But we are still 

looking at what kind of tools can we use to pull that together. 

In regards to floods and droughts, at the beginning of this year 

we were in the flood stage and we were briefing everybody that 

needed to be briefed and 2 months later we were in the drought 

stage and we had to blow up the pinnacles down in the St. Louis 

area and now we are in flood stage again. I don’t know, certainly 

working with the director of National Weather Service I don’t know 

if the climatologists were giving us this variability in the last 4 

months. I don’t know that we have a tool that could do that. But 

certainly we are working with what I call the fusion cell between 

the Corps of Engineers, the National Weather Service, and the 

USGS to figure out how and where should we be investing resources so that we can have a better predictability on water and 

water resources. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you very much for those comments. 

I am concerned about the flooding that is going on right now. I 

understand that you have to deal with a wide variety of issues, 

droughts, floods. Thank you for all your district service in helping 

to fight the floods along the Mississippi right now. My heart goes 

out to the hard work that they are putting in on a daily basis. 

We want to give you more flexibility to be able to address those 

situations, which is why I put that bill forward. So if that is something we can do to allow you to come in and address emergency situations, I think we should work together to make that happen. 

34 

My last line of questioning has to do with infrastructure. As I 

mentioned before, I have been working for your local districts for 

upwards of 16 years and we have talked about upgrading large lock 

and dam projects along the Mississippi and Illinois. I have heard 

comments from the Corps that even if we were to fully fund those 

projects that are authorized that it would take upwards of 40 years 

to complete the projects. 

Could you comment on the length of time that you think it will 

take to actually upgrade the locks and dams along the Mississippi 

and Illinois Rivers? 

General WALSH. Right now the funding stream is restricted with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which generates about $80 million a year and out of the general fund comes another $80 million, 

so $160 million a year to do the major work on the locks and dams. 

And so with that small funding stream, we are just not going to 

be able to keep up with the infrastructure that needs to be repaired. 

There is a lock down in Louisiana, it is call the Inner Harbor and 

it is 89 years old. As you go through that and the locks open and 

close, you can see concrete falling off the lock walls into the river. 

We are not going to get to that at this current funding stream for 

another 15 years. So it is going to have significant impacts on our 

infrastructure with the funding stream as it is currently structured. 

Mr. DAVIS. I completely agree, which is why we have our WIN 

P3 legislation that we are hoping to pass. 

I am concerned too about Olmsted. I think the Corps had the 

best intentions to build this in the wet and to come in as close to 

budget as possible but going from $775 million on a 7-year construction cycle to $3.1 billion, we have got some issues when it 

comes to large infrastructure projects. 

What has the Corps learned in constructing that project that we 

can then take away to ensure that we don’t hit those limits again 

or exceed them again? 

General WALSH. One of the issues that we are having with the 

Olmsted lock and dam again is the amount of funding that we can 

bring to that project. At $120 million a year is just a struggle to 

put together an efficient program to get that complete. What we 

have demonstrated down in Louisiana is if you give us, and Mr. 

Bishop already talked about that and the same thing for Hurricane 

Sandy, full Federal funding, we can go get it accomplished. 

In this case we are taking Federal funding and trust fund funding and moving forward at this little amount each year. 

The other piece is I think we just did not put together a good cost 

estimate when we initially put the project forward. So what we are 

doing now is we put together a center of expertise on cost reviews. 

That is in the Walla Walla District so every big project that we 

have we send over to Walla Walla. They make sure that we are 

doing a fair job saying how much it is going to cost as we move 

these projects forward. 

We will be pulling the men off of this project and right now we 

have three shifts. We will be pulling them off at the end of the year 

because there is not enough authority for us to put any more funds 

on that project. So it will have a significant impact on the benefits 

35 

that were supposed to be derived from this project because of the 

funding, because of funding authority at this point. 

Mr. DAVIS. I hope we can work together and come up with a solution to that issue and a solution to make sure that project is completed. 

I want to thank you again, General, thank you, Mr. Brown, for 

being here. Thank you, Jen Greer, for being here too. He pointed 

you out this time. Thank you all for attending this hearing and the 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81369.006

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

COMPLETE STATEMENT 

OF 

MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL WALSH 

DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR 

CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUB-COMMITIEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

On 

"A Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief's Reports" 

June 5,2013 
37 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81369.007

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Major General 

Michael Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations -

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and I am honored to be testifying before you 

today to discuss the planning process and Chiefs Reports for the Corps. My testimony 

will briefly describe the 21 reports that have completed Executive Branch review since 

enactment of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2007. These proposals 

fall within the main mission areas of the Corps (commercial navigation, flood and storm 

damage risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration). Also, I will address three 

other proposed projects that have reports by the Chief of Engineers but are still under 

review. 

Before I discuss the planning process and the actual Chiefs Reports, I would like to 

discuss the Corps' Civil Works Transformation initiatives. For the last several years, the 

Corps has been developing a strategy to addresses major challenges including 

ensuring the performance of the key features of the Nation's infrastructure, and 

responding to shifting demographics, changes in societal values, and climate variability. 

The intent is to better equip the Civil Works program to effectively meet current and 

future needs and ensuring decision makers are fully informed. This strategy is focusing 

on four main areas - planning modernization, budget development transformation, 

infrastructure strategy, and methods of delivery. 

The Corps planning modernization effort emphasizes execution, instills accountability, 

and improves the organizational and operational model to produce quality products that 

address water resources priorities. Part of this modernization focuses on improving the 

knowledge and experience level of Corps planners through additional training, 

professional certification, and updated planning guidance. The current focus of our 

planning modernization effort is facilitating the timely completion of decision documents 

that appropriately address the increasingly complex water problems that plague 

communities and constrain economic activity. For decades, the Corps has seen a 

steady increase in the costs and time required to complete investigations. This trend 

delays the realization of benefits from the construction of a project. The Corps has 

recognized the need to modernize its approach, through an initiative that we call 

SMART Planning. 

SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Risk-Informed and Timely. 

SMART Planning encompasses a new approach to investigations, accountability, and 

portfolio management. The new approach to investigations reduces resource 

requirements, both time and money, by appropriately focusing on the key drivers in 

resolving water resource problems while complying with all applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The goal under SMART planning is to complete most feasibility studies within 3 years 

for $3 million dollars or less. The end product is a decision document that has been 

fully coordinated by three levels of the organization (Corps headquarters, the Corps 

division office, and the Corps district office) from study inception to completion. As a 

shorthand, we are calling this goal "3x3x3". The Corps expects full implementation of 
38 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81369.008

this new approach in FY 2014 and has been working with its Federal and non-Federal 

partners to use this new approach in evaluating water resources problems. 

The Corps is prioritizing its current portfolio of planning studies and applying the 3x3x3 

approach to new and ongoing studies; thus reducing the number of active studies in its 

portfolio and focusing efforts on completing these studies more effectively by prioritizing 

funding. The more timely completion of studies will allow the Corps to better use its 

investigation funding. Since enactment of the Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) of 2007,21 reports on proposed projects have been forwarded to this 

Committee, 10 of which were completed in fiscal year 2012. 

The Civil Works budget is performance based. In order to achieve budget 

transformation goals, we must continue to prioritize Federal funding on the highest 

performing projects and studies. We are working to ensure that the budget 

development process considers the entire portfolio of potential studies and projects. 

The funded projects will be completed more quickly, thereby facilitating the realization of 

benefits for those projects that offer the best return on investment for the Nation. 

The Civil Works transformation links national objectives, strategic goals, and current 

and emerging needs using a systems-based watershed approach. When implemented, 

this new process will compare outcomes of competing studies and projects based on 

their returns. Collaboration with our customers, stakeholders, and the public (including 

input from the Congress) will enable us to successfully implementing this approach. 

Ensuring the continued performance of the key features of our infrastructure is 

becoming more costly over time, in part because of the age of the components of some 

of our projects, but also due to increases in the cost to repair and rehabilitate them 

periodically. Operational demands have also grown and changed, particularly over the 

past 30 years, creating additional stress and we are working on an infrastructure 

strategy to address these growing needs. The infrastructure strategy incorporates four 

focus areas: an integrated approach to manage assets, managing the system over its 

life cycle, evaluating whether a project or group of related projects should remain a 

Federal responsibility prior to making a substantial further investment, and potential 

alternative financing mechanisms. 

Preliminary efforts in this area include the development of a national inventory of Corps 

assets that includes the results of an assessment of the condition of each major 

infrastructure component. This will help us to develop a long term strategy to manage 

these assets and reduce risk, as well as help us determine where priority investments 

need to be made. End of life cycle decisions will be made regarding which projects to 

retain and recapitalize, which projects to repurpose, and which projects to recommend 

for de-authorization and decommissioning. 

Transforming the way we deliver the Civil Works program requires state of the art 

processes and a highly skilled workforce that is capable of responding to current and 

future demands. The strategy is to have reliable and efficient methods of delivery by 

2 
39 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81369.009

linking technical capabilities to uniform national standards, maintaining core 

competencies, and having consistent methods, processes and approaches throughout 

the Corps. The desired end result is high quality and timely products and services 

delivered to our customers and stakeholders. To that end, for example, the Corps has 

established Centers of Expertise for major dam safety modifications, inland navigation 

design, and deep draft navigation economics. 

The Army Corps of Engineers has a strong tradition of working collaboratively with nonFederal interests to plan and deliver products. The current transformation initiative is no 

different. Our transformation partners include states, tribes and local governments, 

non-governmental organizations, non-profit agencies, and the public. These 

partnerships are increasing and will likely continue to increase as we share a common 

goal of having reliable and resilient infrastructure for our Nation. 

I would now like to describe the life cycle of a Corps project. Typically, a project begins 

with a reconnaissance study performed in accordance with Section 905 (b) ofWRDA 

1986. The purpose of the reconnaissance study is to determine if the water resources 

problem warrants Federal participation and warrants moving to the next step which is 

the initiation of a feasibility study. Upon completion of a favorable reconnaissance 

report by a Corps district, the district commander transmits the report to the Major 

Subordinate Command (MSC) for approval. 

The district initiates negotiation of a feasibility cost share agreement and project 

management plan with a potential non-Federal sponsor upon approval of the 

reconnaissance report by the MSC Commander. These documents define the scope 

and cost of the feasibility study. The district concurrently develops the feasibility study 

and environmental documentation in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and 

regulations including the Nation Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The primary 

purpose of a feasibility study is investigate and determine if there is a Federal interest in 

implementing the recommended solution to the identified water resource problem. The 

study must follow the six-step planning process which includes: 

• Identifying the problem and opportunities 

• Inventorying and forecasting conditions 

• Formulating alternatives 

• Evaluating alternative plans 

• Comparing alternative plans 

• Selecting a plan 

Throughout the feasibility study there are several key checkpoints to ensure the 

planning process is being executed in a risk-informed and decision-focused manner 

transparently incorporating the full vertical Corps team, partners, and stakeholders. The 

first major checkpoint is to ensure alignment between all levels of the Corps and the 

non-Federal partners on the definition of the future without project conditions and the 

identification of the water resource problem(s) and solutions to be investigated during 

3 
40 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81369.010

the study. The next major checkpoint is to confirm that both the plan formulation and 

selection process leading to the identification of the tentatively selected plan is 

consistent with applicable laws, policies, regulations, and guidance. The district 

progressively documents decisions, risks, and analysis throughout the study process 

and this documentation and information feeds the main feasibility report. The district 

conducts a quality control review on the draft feasibility report and all other referenced 

or supporting documentation and data. The documentation and models produced will 

undergo agency technical review (A TR) and the Corps will initiate the independent 

external peer review (lEPR) process in accordance with Section 2034 ofWRDA 2007. 

The draft feasibility report must satisfactorily address issues identified during the 

checkpoints prior to initiating the 30-45 day NEPA public review, final ATR, IEPR, and a 

Corps Headquarters policy review. Upon completion of the review period and receipt of 

the review and legal certifications, the district commander transmits the feasibility report 

to the MSC. The district commander's transmittal includes a recommendation and a 

draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD). The MSC 

commander performs a quality assurance review on the documents and transmits the 

final recommendation to Corps Headquarters, which then performs a 45-day policy 

review in advance of the Civil Works Review Board (CWRB). The CWRB meeting 

determines if the report is sufficient and ready to be released for a 30-day State and 

Agency Review in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended by 33 

U.S.C.701-1. Upon completion of State and Agency Review, the Report of the Chief of 

Engineers is finalized and processed and the final package includes the Agency 

responses to IEPR panel comments as required by Section 2034 ofWRDA 2007. A 

signed Report of the Chief of Engineers transmits the recommendation to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ASA(CW), the chairpersons of the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In accordance with Section 2033 of 

WRDA 2007 and upon receipt of the Report of the Chief of Engineers, the ASA(CW) 

shall review and provide any recommendations regarding the project to Congress within 

120 days. The ASA(CW), prior to transmittal of a Chief's Report to Congress, is 

responsible for determining that the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers are 

compliant with Army policy, including applicable laws, Executive Orders, and 

regulations. This entails a review to ensure there are no unresolved issues and that the 

project being recommended is economically justified, environmentally and technically 

sound and that the proposed project was formulated and recommended in accordance 

with the Water Resource Council's "Economic and Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies" (PrinCiples 

and Guidelines). In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under 

Executive Order 12322, reviews the proposed project for consistency with the Principles 

and Guidelines and the policy and programs of the President. 

When the Corps evaluates and formulates a proposed project, in comparing the costs 

and the economic benefits over time, it uses a discount rate that varies each year, as 

required under section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93-251). The Executive Branch uses a different discount rate for budgeting 

4 
41 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81369.011

purposes to measure the performance of Corps of Engineers construction projects 

whose primary purpose is to provide an economic return to the Nation. That interest 

rate is seven percent. 

I will now provide a brief overview of the 21 proposed projects that have completed 

Executive Branch review since enactment of WRDA 2007. The Army has previously 

provided the results of those reviews along with the following project information to the 

Congress. 

MisSissippi River Gulf Outlet, st. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Deep Draft Deauthorization Study 

In January 2008, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on the deauthorization of the 

Mississippi River - Gulf Outlet (MRGO) deep draft navigation channel in Louisiana. The 

report is a final response to the authority provided in the Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 

2006 and Section 4304 ofthe U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans" Care, Katrina 

Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Public Law 109-234 

authorized a comprehensive plan at full Federal expense to deauthorize deep draft 

navigation on the MRGO extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway. Public Law 110-28 directed accelerated completion of the final report of the 

Chief of Engineers. Construction to close the MRGO was completed in July 2009. 

Topeka Flood Risk Management Project. Topeka, Kansas 

In August 2009, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on flood risk management 

improvements on the Kansas River in the vicinity of Topeka, Kansas. The report is a 

response to authority contained in Section 216 ofthe Flood Control Act of 1970 to 

determine whether any modifications to the local flood risk management projects are 

advisable to improve the reliability and performance of the existing levee system. 

The Report recommends modifications to the following four existing levee units: 

• the South Topeka Unit: a control berm and modifications to the Kansas Avenue 

Pump Station and three manholes; and replacement of about 2,000 linear feet of 

floodwall. 

• the Oakland Unit: a control berm, a stability berm, and pump station 

modifications. 

• the North Topeka Unit: a control berm, a series of pumped relief wel/s, and the 

removal of an unused pump station. 

• the Waterworks Unit: a stability berm. 

The levee improvements would provide greater than 90 percent reliability against 

damages from the base flood, which has a 1 percent chance of occurrence in any given 

year (formerly referred to as the "1 OO-year flood"). Based on October 2012 price levels, 

the estimated first cost of the project is about $23.8 million and will be shared 65 

percent Federal ($15.5 million) and 35 percent non-Federal ($8.3 million). 

5 
42 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81369.012

Mississippi Coastal Improvements Project, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties, Mississippi 

In September 2009, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on comprehensive water 

resources improvements associated with hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood 

risk management, and ecosystem restoration in the three coastal counties of 

Mississippi. The report is in response to the authority provided in the Department of 

Defense Appropriation Act, 2006. 

The Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP) is a comprehensive, systems 

plan for reducing flood and storm damage risk that incorporates structural and 

nonstructural risk reduction approaches and environmental restoration features. To 

address the most critical needs, the report recommends 12 near-term elements which 

would restore over 3,000 acres of coastal forest and wetlands; restore about 30 miles of 

beach and dunes; and flood proof or acquire approximately 2,000 tracts within the 100-

year floodplain. Based on October 2012 price levels, the estimated total first cost of the 

project is approximately $1.2 billion, to be shared 65 percent Federal ($815 million) and 

35 percent non-Federal ($439 million). However, in Public Law 111-32 (Supplemental 

Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2009), the Congress 

appropriated all of the funds for the barrier island element of the project ($439 million), 

at Federal full expense. 

West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), North Carolina 

In September 2009, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on hurricane and storm 

damage reduction along a five-mile reach of Atlantic Ocean shoreline at Topsail Beach, 

North Carolina. The report is a final response to the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act for General Reevaluation Report of the West Onslow Beach and 

New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) Shore Protection Project and the remaining shoreline at 

Topsail Beach. 

The report recommends a locally-preferred plan that includes a 26,200 foot long dune 

and berm system including a dune three feet lower than the National Economic 

Development Plan and extends 400 feet southwest to include additional properties that 

are vulnerable to coastal storm damage. The ASA(CW) approved a policy exception in 

May 2008 allowing the Corps to recommend the locally preferred plan. The locally 

preferred plan cost approximately 24 percent less than the NED plan resulting in a cost 

saving of nearly $11 million. The 400-foot extension costs an additional $320,000 and 

would be funded entirely by the non-Federal sponsor. Based on October 2012 price 

levels, the total initial cost of the plan is estimated at $47.9 million and will be cost 

shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The project also includes 50 

years of periodic nourishment at $264.7 million based on October 2012 price levels. 

This cost would be shared equally with the non-Federal sponsor. 

6 
43 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81369.013

Central and Southern Florida Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan. Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Project. Hendry County. 

FL 

In January 2011, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on ecosystem restoration 

improvements for the Caloosahatchee Estuary as part of the larger Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The report recommends capturing and storing 

excess C-43 runoff and regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee. The excess water 

captured and stored would be released to augment flows to the estuarine environment 

at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River during the low flow seasons. The reservoir 

will provide environmental water supply benefits to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and 

water quality benefits that will reduce the salinity and nutrient impacts of runoff to the 

estuary. The project will also provide water supply benefits and some flood attenuation. 

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total initial cost of the project is estimated at 

$594.4 million and will be cost shared 50 percent Federal ($297.2 million) and 50 

percent non-Federal ($297.2 million). 

Central and Southern Florida Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan. C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project. Florida 

In January 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on ecosystem restoration on 

the Spreader Canal located in the Everglades, one part of the larger Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The C-111 Spreader Canal Westem Project. 

along with a follow-on Eastern Project, will modify the existing C-111 Canal to change 

the flow of ground and surface water as a first step in the restoration of the southeastern 

portion of the Everglades ecosystem. The project will create a nine-mile hydraulic ridge 

just east of Everglades National Park. designed to keep more of the natural rainfall and 

water flows within Taylor Slough. The hydrauliC ridge will be created by two above 

ground detention areas-a 590-acre site at the Frog Pond area and a 2-mile 

modification of the Aerojet Canal. The detention areas will be fed by two 225 cfs pump 

stations and conveyance canals. Hydroperiods and hydropatterns within the wetlands 

of the Southern Glades and Model Lands will be improved by the construction of a new 

operable water control structure in the lower C-111 Canal. incremental operational 

changes at existing structure S-18C, changes in operations at the existing S-20 

structure, construction of a plug at existing structure S-20A. and the installation of ten 

earthen plugs in the C-11 0 Canal. The project is essential to achieving the restoration 

of Taylor Slough and downstream areas of Florida Bay and Everglades National Park, 

helping to improve ecological conditions in approximately 252,000 acres of wetland and 

coastal habitat. The increased flows in Taylor Slough will also serve to return salinities 

to more natural levels in portions of Florida Bay and its associated estuaries. The 

detention areas and canal levees will also provide public recreational opportunities. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels. the total initial project cost for this project is 

$177 million and will be cost shared equally ($88.9 million). 

7 
44 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81369.014

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 

Central and Southern Florida Project, Florida 

In May 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report for ecosystem restoration on 

Biscayne Bay located in the Everglades, as one part of the larger Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project will 

modify the flow of freshwater to Biscayne Bay as a first step in the restoration of the 

southeastern portion of the Everglades ecosystem. The project purpose is to 

redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal 

discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more 

natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project will 

also help restore saltwater wetlands and the near-shore bay through the reestablishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. 

The project will restore freshwater flows in Deering Estates, Cutler Wetlands, and 

wetlands adjacent to L-31 E. This will be accomplished through a series of pumps, 

culverts, spreader canals and mosquito ditch plugs throughout the project area. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$192.4 million and will be cost shared equally ($96.2 million). 

The American River Watershed (Common Features) Project Natomas Basin, 

Sacramento and Sutter Counties, CA, Flood Risk Management Project 

In December 2010, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on flood risk management for 

the Natomas Basin portion of the American River Watershed in the vicinity of 

Sacramento, California. This report supplements the 29 June 1992 and 27 June 1996 

reports of the Chief of Engineers, and the March 2002 (revised July 2002) PostAuthorization Change Report, and were prepared as an interim general reevaluation 

study of the American River Common Features Project. The present study was 

conducted specifically to determine if there is a Federal interest in modifying the 

currently authorized project features to address flood risk management issues related to 

levee seepage and stability in the Natomas Basin portion of the Common Features 

project area. The Common Features Project was authorized by Section 101(a)(I) ofthe 

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-303), as modified 

by Section 366 ofWRDA 1999 (Public Law 106-53) and as further modified by Section 

129 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-

137); and as amended by Section 130 the Energy and Water Development and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division C of Public Law 110-161). 

The report recommends modification of the authorized Common Features project to 

include a comprehensive plan to reduce the systemic risk associated with seepage and 

stability for the ring levee system surrounding the Natomas Basin. The principal 

features of the recommended modifications include widening of about 41.9 miles of 

existing levee, installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall and about 8.3 

miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation at State Route 99. In addition, 

mitigation features pursuant to the Endangered Species Act are recommended, 

including creation of 75 acres of canal habitat and up to 200 acres of marsh habitat, 

creation of up to 60 acres of landside woodlands, creation of 1,600 linear feet of tree 

8 
45 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81369.015

plantings, and establishment of a monitoring program for assessing mitigation 

performance. 

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total project cost of the project is estimated at 

$1.42 billion and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($943.3 million) and 35 percent 

non-Federal ($479.5 million). 

Louisiana Coastal Area (6) 

In December 2010, the Chief of Engineers signed a report recommending ecosystem 

restoration in coastal Louisiana. The report identifies six separable elements that 

consist of diversions, marsh creation, and shoreline restoration. There are six speCific 

projects covered under the December 2010 report signed by the Chief of Engineers. 

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total project cost for the 6 projects is estimated 

at $1.46 billion and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($954.4 million) and 35 

percent non-Federal ($513.9 million). 

Amite River Diversion Canal Modification: The primary purpose of this project is 

to stabilize and restore the natural hydrology of the Maurepas Swamp ecosystem, 

one of the largest remaining cypress swamps in coastal Louisiana. It provides 

habitat to threatened and endangered species and buffers Lake Maurepas from the 

highly developed 1-10 corridor. Based on October 2012 price levels, the total project 

cost for this project is estimated at $8.4 million and will be cost shared 65 percent 

Federal ($5.5 million) and 35 percent non-Federal ($2.9 million). 

Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes: The primary 

objective of this project is to reduce the current trend of marsh degradation in the 

project area that is a result of subsidence, sea level rise, erosion, saltwater intrusion 

and lack of sediment and nutrient deposition by utilizing fresh water and nutrients 

from the Atchafalaya River and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on October 2012 

price levels, the total project cost for this project is estimated at $290.9 million and 

will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($189.1 million) and 35 percent non-Federal 

($101.8 million). 

Houma Navigation Control Lock: The purpose of this project is to provide 

multipurpose operation of the proposed canal lock, if and when constructed, to 

achieve the project purposes previously described in Convey Atchafalaya River 

Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes. Based on October 2012 price levels, the 

total project cost for this project is estimated at $1.54 million and will be cost shared 

65 percent Federal ($998,000) and 35 percent non-Federal ($538,000). 

Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River: The purpose of this project is to 

reintroduce the periodic flooding by the Mississippi River to the Maurepas Swamp 

and Blind River area. This will restore not only freshwater, but also nutrients and 

sediment from the River, improving water distribution and hydrology, and improve 

habitat for many fish and wildlife species. Based on October 2012 price levels, the 

9 
46 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81369.016

total project cost for this project is estimated at $120.5 million and will be cost shared 

65 percent Federal ($78.3 million) and 35 percent non-Federal ($42.2 million). 

Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration: The purpose of this project is 

to reintroduce vital sediment into the coastal sediment transport system in the 

vicinity of Isles Dernieres and Timbalier Islands. This reintroduction of sediment will 

restore geomorphic and hydrologic conditions need to support essential habitat for 

fish, migratory birds and other wildlife species. The recommended plan includes 

beach, dune, and marsh restoration of Raccoon, Whiskey, and Trinity Islands. While 

additional authority is needed to raise the total project cost to allow implementation 

of the entire recommended plan, the Whiskey Island component of the 

recommended plan was identified be implemented under the existing authority 

provided in Section 7006(e)(3) ofWRDA 2007. The Whiskey Island component 

includes renourishment every 20 years to maintain the constructed features. Based 

on October 2012 price levels, the total project cost for this project is estimated at 

$673.4 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($437.7 million) and 35 

percent non-Federal ($235.7 million). 

Medium Diversion at White Ditch: The purpose of this project is to restore the 

supply and distribution of freshwater and sediment. It is a key component to 

demonstrating both the ability to stem or reverse the coastal land loss trend and 

provide a mechanism to combat relative sea level rise in coastal Louisiana. Based 

on October 2012 price levels, the total project cost for this project is estimated at 

$373.6 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($242.8 million) and 35 

percent non-Federal ($130.8 million). 

Surf City and North Topsail. North Carolina 

In December 2010, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on hurricane and coastal 

storm damage reduction along a ten mile reach of Atlantic Ocean shoreline near Surf 

City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. The report recommends constructing a 

sand dune at an elevation of 15 feet and a berm with a crown width of 50 feet and a top 

elevation of seven feet above NGVD over approximately ten miles of shoreline. 

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is $125.4 

million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($81.5 million) and 35 percent nonFederal ($43.9 million). The project also includes 50 years of periodic nourishment at 

$212.4 million based on October 2012 price levels. This cost would be shared equally 

with the non-Federal sponsor. 

Cedar River. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

In January 2011, the Chief of Engineers Signed a report on flood risk management 

improvements on the Cedar River. The report recommends constructing concrete 

floodwalls, earthen levees, closure structures and pump stations. Concrete floodwalls 

comprise approximately two thirds of the total alignment length totaling 2.17 miles. The 

remainder of the alignment length includes 0.75 miles of earthen levee and a total 

length of 0.23 mile for all closure structures. 

10 
47 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81369.017

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is $103.4 

million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($67.2 million) and 35 percent nonFederal ($36.2 million). 

Sabine-Neches Waterway, Southeast and Southwest. Texas 

In July 2011, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on navigational improvements 

along the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW). The waterway currently consists of a 

jettied entrance channel, 42 feet deep and 500 to 800 feet wide, from the Gulf of 

Mexico; a channel 40 feet deep and 400 feet wide to Beaumont via the Neches River; 

and a channel 30 feet deep and 200 feet wide to Orange via the Sabine River. When 

the channel was completed in 1960, it was common for crude oil tankers to average 

40,000 dead weight tons (DWT) with loaded drafts of 36 feet. Today, vessels over 

90,000 DWT are now used routinely for crude oil imports to both Beaumont and Port 

Arthur. The recommended plan consists of navigation improvements in seven phases: 

1) Deepening the SNWW from 40 to 48 feet and offshore channel from 42 to 50 feet 

in depth from offshore to the Port of Beaumont Turning Basin; 

2) Extending the 50-foot-deep offshore channel by 13.2 miles, increasing the total 

length of the channel from 64 to 77 miles; 

3) Decreasing the width of the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 to 700 feet; 

4) Tapering and marking the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide (Station 

23+300) to 700 feet wide (Station 25+800 through the end of the channel); 

5) Deepening and widening ofTaylor Bayou channels and tuming basins; 

6) Easing selected bends on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel; 

and 

7) Constructing new and enlarging/deepening existing turning and anchorage basins 

on the Neches River Channel. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total cost for all phases of the project is 

$1.1 billion with Federal cost share requirement of $779.4 million and non-Federal cost 

share requirement of $359.2 million. 

Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area, North Dakota and Minnesota 

In December 2011, the Chief of Engineers Signed a report on flood risk management 

improvements in the vicinity of Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area. The recommended 

project consists of constructing a diversion channel in North Dakota, tie-back levees, a 

staging area, and a storage area to reduce the existing and future flood risk and 

damages to public and private infrastructure in the metropolitan area. The locally 

preferred plan (LPP) is the plan that provides the locally desired level of benefits and 

follows the locally preferred alignment in North Dakota. The LPP includes: a 36-mile, 

20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) diversion channel; a 50,000 acre-feet storage area; a 

150,000 acre-feet staging area; 10 miles oftie-back levees; control structures on the 

Red and Wild Rice Rivers and Wolverton Creek; aqueduct and spillway structures on 

11 
48 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81369.018

the Sheyenne and Maple Rivers; drop structures on the Lower Rush and Rush Rivers; 

and non-structural mitigation for impacts in the storage area. 

Based on October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is $1.8 

billion with a Federal cost share requirement of $801.5 million and a non-Federal share 

of $979.8 million. The local sponsor is responsible for paying 100% of the cost 

associated with the LPP above the selected NED plan. 

Marsh Lake, Appleton, Minnesota Ecosystem Restoration Project 

In December 2011, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on ecosystem restoration for 

the Marsh Lake area. The purpose of the project is to restore of the habitat structure, 

form and function of Marsh Lake. The report recommends_restoring the Pomme de 

Terre River to its natural channel; modifying the dam with a fishway for fish passage; 

constructing a drawdown water control structure; breaching a dike to restore 

connectivity to an abandoned fish rearing pond adjacent to the dam; installing gated 

culverts at Louisburg Grade Road to maintain pool elevations in upper Marsh Lake; and 

providing compatible recreation features, including shoreline fishing access, picnic 

facilities, canoe access and a pedestrian bridge over the dam. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$10 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($6.4 million) and 35 percent 

non-Federal ($3.6 million). 

San Clemente Shoreline, California 

In April 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on coastal storm damage reduction 

along the San Clemente shoreline in California. The primary objective of the project is 

to reduce shoreline erosion and protecting coastal infrastructure from storm-induced 

wave attack. The infrastructure includes the Los Angeles to San Diego railroad corridor, 

which is a vital link for passenger and freight service and has been designated as a 

Strategic Rail Corridor by the Department of Defense. 

The recommended plan identifies initial construction of a 15-meter (50-foot) wide beach 

nourishment project along a 1 ,040-meter (3,412-foot) long stretch of shoreline using 

192,000 cubic meters (251,000 cubic yards) of compatible sediment, with periodic 

renourishment on the average of every 6 years over a 50-year period of Federal 

participation, for a total of 8 additional nourishments. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$11.5 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($7.5 million) and 35 percent 

non-Federal ($4.0 million). The project also includes 50 years of periodic nourishment 

at $86.8 million based on October 2012 price levels. This cost would be shared equally 

with the non-Federal sponsor. 

12 
49 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81369.019

Jacksonville Harbor (Mile Point) Navigation Project. Duval County. Florida 

In April 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on navigational improvements at 

the confluence of the St. John's River and the Intracoastal Waterway (IVWJ) known as 

the Mile Point area. Due to crosscurrents there is a navigational restriction on the ebb 

tide that affects all vessels that have a transit draft greater than 33 feet inbound and 36 

feet outbound, inhibiting the free movement of vessel traffic. The crosscurrents at Mile 

Point are also of concern for erosion on the Mile Point shoreline. Great Marsh Island 

and the Mile Point Training Wall divide Chicopit Bay, which is located to the south of the 

Mile Point erosion area. The recommended plan consists of removal of approximately 

3110 feet of existing training wall; construction of a new relocated 2050-foot eastern leg 

of training wall; construction of a new 4250-foot western leg of training wall at Great 

Marsh Island with the creation of up to 53 acres of salt marsh restoration through the 

beneficial use of dredged material; and construction of a flow improvement channel in 

Chicopit Bay to restore the historic channel through Chicopit Bay and offset any adverse 

effects of closing off Great Marsh Island. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$36.9 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($27.8 million) and 35 percent 

non-Federal ($9.1 million). 

Ohio River Shoreline. Paducah. Kentucky 

In May 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on flood risk management 

improvements along the Ohio River in Paducah, Kentucky. The primary purpose of the 

project is to minimize the risk of loss of life and damages to public and private 

infrastructure through the reconstruction of existing levees and f100dwalls completed in 

1949. Many of the original major components are still in use well beyond their normal 

expected service life. As system components continue to age, without reconstruction, 

the risk of project failure continues to increase. The primary features of the 

recommended plan include: rehabilitation of pumps, motors, motor control systems, and 

major pump plant; components and other miscellaneous items at each of the 12 existing 

pumping plants; construction of a new pumping plant at Station 111 +67 A; slip-lining 37 

existing deteriorated corrugated metal pipes; and bank protection. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$19.8 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($12.9 million) and 35 percent 

non-Federal ($6.9 million). 

Broward County Water Preserve Area, Central and Southern Florida Project. 

Florida 

In May 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on ecosystem restoration for 

Broward and Miami-Dade County Florida. The project will contribute to the 

environmental restoration of south Florida by providing regional water storage that will 

reduce demands on the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee for water supply. Anticipated 

fish and wildlife habitat benefits of the project include reduction of withdrawals of water 

13 
50 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81369.020

from Lake Okeechobee and Everglades wetlands, reestablishment of natural hydropatterns within existing natural areas, and improvement of water quality in Water 

Conservation Area 3. The report recommends construction of two above-ground 

impoundments and associated pumps and water control structures: the C-11 

Impoundment with an effective interior storage of 1,068 acres and two wetland marsh 

mitigation areas north of the C-11 Impoundment with 488 acres of wetland marsh; the 

C-9 Impoundment with an effective interior storage of 1,641 acres and two wetland 

marsh mitigation areas north of the C-9 Impoundment with 339 acres of wetland marsh; 

canal conveyance improvements to connect the two impoundments; and an 

approximately 4,633 acre seepage management area east of the Water Conservation 

Areas. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$866.7 million and will be cost shared equally ($433.4 million). 

Louisiana Coastal Area - Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project. 

Lafourche. Jefferson. and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

In June 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed an ecosystem restoration report to restore 

and protect Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline. The Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline is 

approximately 55 miles south of New Orleans, Louisiana, and is a key component in 

regulating estuary hydrology and slowing the rate of wetland loss. Caminada Headland, 

forming the western portion of the barrier shoreline, has experienced some of the 

highest rates of shoreline retreat on the Gulf coast. Shell Island forms the eastern 

portion of the barrier and has disintegrated into several smaller islands and shoals and 

is gradually converting to a series of bays directly connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The 

report recommends dredging and placing 5.1 million cubic yards (mcy) of sand to 

restore and create about 880 acres of dune at Caminada Headland; placing 5.4 mcy of 

material landward of the dune to restore and create approximately 1,186 acres of 

marsh; restoration of Shell Island to its pre-Hurricane Bob (1979) single island 

configuration using about 5.6 mcy of sand to build approximately 317 acres of dunes. 

Approximately 2.1 mcy of sediment would be placed to restore about 466 acres of 

marsh. The Caminada Headland restoration will be implemented using Section 7006 of 

WRDA 2007. Implementation of Shell Island Restoration will require additional 

authorization. 

Based upon the October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$436.3 million and will be cost shared 65 percent Federal ($283.6 million) and 35 

percent non-Federal ($152.7 million). 

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Savannah, Georgia 

In August 2012, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on navigation improvements 

within the Savannah Harbor. The general reevaluation report satisfies the statutory 

requirements in WRDA 1999 to develop a mitigation plan as well as providing a basis 

for raising the authorized total project cost.. The selected plan includes dredging 31 

miles of the existing navigation channel and one existing turning basin (Kings Island 

Turning Basin at Stations 98+500 to 100+500) 5 feet deeper (to an authorized 

14 
51 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81369.021

navigation depth of 47-feet), deepening eight berths at the Garden City Terminal, 

constructing three bend wideners, constructing two meeting areas, and constructing an 

approximately 38,000 foot (7.1 mile) long extension to the existing ocean bar channel. 

Mitigation is proposed for unavoidable impacts to significant resources such as loss of 

shortnose sturgeon and striped bass habitat, conversion of tidal freshwater, brackish 

and salt marsh in the project area, and changes in dissolved oxygen levels in the inner 

harbor. 

Based upon October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$662 million with the Federal share totaling $461 million and the non-Federal share 

totaling $201 million. 

Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project, Brazoria County, Texas. 

In January 2013, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on navigation improvements 

within the Freeport Harbor Channel in Brazoria County, Texas. The project will improve 

the existing Freeport Harbor Channel that provides a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf 

of Mexico to the City of Freeport through the original mouth of the Brazos River. The 

Freeport Harbor Channel and the Brazos River are completely separated due to 

diversion dams resulting in an entirely tidal system. The report recommends the locally 

preferred plan which consist of deepening the Outer Bar Channel in the Gulf of Mexico 

to -58 feet mean lower low water (MLLW); the outer end of the jetties in the Gulf of 

Mexico to the Lower Turning Basin to -56 feet MLLW; the Upper and Lower Turning 

Basin near Brazos port Turning Basin to -56 feet MLLW; and deepening and widening 

the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to -51 feet and 300 feet wide respectively. 

The remainder of Stauffer Channel will be deepened to -26 feet MLLW. 

Based upon October 2012 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project is 

$237 million with the Federal share totaling $121 million and the non-Federal share 

totaling $116 million. 

There are three other proposed projects with reports by the Chief of Engineers that the 

ASA and Office of Management and Budget are in the process of reviewing. These are 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration; Canaveral Harbor; and Neuse 

River Basin. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, I appreCiate the opportunity to 

testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

15