|
|
Corps of Engineers may get more restoration projects, scrutiny
Public-private partnerships deemed key to restoration funding
Bay region leads nation in stream restoration but lags in monitoring
The Army Corps of Engineers may soon dramatically accelerate its restoration of islands, wetlands and oyster bars in the Bay region — one part of an effort to overhaul an agency long associated with building ports, levees and dams.
In a sense, not much has changed since Robert E. Lee was the commander of the agency’s Baltimore district — the vast majority of the Corps’ $4 billion annual budget is still dedicated to building and maintaining water projects.
But, the agency’s impact on the Bay is substantial: The Corps built and operates 14 dams on Bay tributaries, constructed scores of flood control projects in the watershed and stabilizes hundreds of miles of riverbanks and shoreline.
Every year, the Corps grants developers hundreds of permits to drain wetlands. And, the Corps dredges river channels and ports — maintenance activities that generate mountains of sand.
Now, some members of Congress, led by Maryland Republican Reps. Wayne Gilchrest and Connie Morella, hope to give the Army agency, which has been beset by scandals lately, new marching orders.
Gilchrest is leading efforts to subject new water projects to tougher standards and greater scrutiny, and Morella plans to introduce legislation in September to expand Corps efforts to restore Bay habitat.
Bay advocates welcome more federal funds to restore lost habitat but hope the nation’s first federal agency — the Corps was created by George Washington during the Revolutionary War — will find ways to cut through the red tape.
Working with the Corps to restore oyster bars has been a “bureaucratic nightmare,” said Bill Goldsborough, a scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “We’ve had some good results working with the Corps, but it’s been frustrating,” he said.
The Corps began placing shell on natural oyster bars in 1997, focusing on five rivers.
But last year, the agency stopped “putting anything in the water,” Goldsborough said, even though Congress had appropriated $3 million.
The problem, according to the Corps’ Claire O’Neill, was that more money was being spent than the Corps had originally anticipated, and money was now going to the Corps’ Norfolk district as well as the Baltimore district. That required a new “decision document,” O’Neill said.
“Just because Congress says ‘build a project’ doesn’t mean you can just build the project,” she explained. “We have to follow certain procedures before we can spend the money.”
Ultimately, the Corps only spent $60,000.
The money was spent on other Corps projects, O’Neill said, but “it’s not lost forever. It’s like a loan we can call in whenever we need it.”
Goldsborough thinks the problem was more “institutional inertia” than strict adherence to rules and regulations.
Some local groups have rejected the Corps’ offer of federal funds because they believe its involvement is often not worth the added cost, and hassle.
The Corps has a 21-step project development process that often takes more than three years before it is determined whether a project is “feasible.” Then the project is designed to survive for 50 years or more, further increasing costs.
Critics say many projects could actually be built for one-third the cost — or what local sponsors are typically required to contribute.
Another lingering concern is that some projects may be “restoration” projects in name only.
A $427 million project to rebuild Poplar Island using 40 million cubic yards of sediment dredged from the approach channels to Baltimore Harbor was initially hailed as a “win-win” solution for commerce and the environment. But, 10-foot-high dikes built to contain the mountain of sand make the site appear more like a fortress than an island, and critics say the project is less valuable for wildlife than originally advertised.
But, despite the frustrations, Bay advocates like Goldsborough would like to see the Corps’ restoration role expanded.
The Corps has asked Congress for permission to spend $30 million on oyster restoration efforts, and O’Neill said the agency could ultimately spend up to $6 million a year on oyster recovery efforts alone.
Morella plans to introduce a bill in September to authorize the Corps to spend $168 million on Bay restoration efforts over the next decade.
The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries Restoration Act of 2002 would also authorize the Corps to restore floodplains, wetlands and islands; upgrade wastewater treatment plants; remove and retrofit dams; plant Bay grasses; and reclaim abandoned mines. It would work with local interests to develop watershed restoration plans.
“The Chesapeake Bay watershed is an incredibly complex ecosystem with rivers, wetlands, forests and the Bay itself. Every person, plant and animal within the watershed depends on each other to help the Chesapeake Bay system thrive and function,” Morella said.
“The Army Corps of Engineers currently plays an important role in protecting and preserving the Chesapeake Bay. The goal of my legislation is to increase their ability and their authority to work to promote the health and vitality of the Bay ecosystem. The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries
Restoration Act would simply give the Corps new authority to complete pro-environmental restoration and water quality work in the Bay watershed.”
To address concerns about red tape and project design, Morella’s bill would permit local interests to design projects, subject to Corps review and approval, and give veto power over proposed projects to state officials.
“There’s an opportunity for the Corps to play a huge role in Bay restoration efforts,” said Bill Street of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
“There are plenty of opportunities for the Corps to expand its environmental mission in the Bay and its watershed,” Street said. In particular, he said the Corps should focus on “engineering-intensive, capital-intensive” projects like upgrading wastewater treatment plants and retrofitting urban storm water systems.
The Corps has already studied, designed or constructed more than 50 restoration projects in the Bay watershed, according to Corps officials. Completed projects have ranged from creating oyster habitat to restoring wetlands to installing fish passages around dams.
In the Anacostia River watershed, one of three, toxic-laced “regions of concern” identified by the Bay Program, the Corps has constructed 15 restoration projects, including wetland and stream restoration, a fish passage, riparian buffers, and the retrofitting of stormwater systems.
In the Elizabeth River, another “region of concern,” the Corps plans to remove 60,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
Some Corps projects could potentially damage Bay habitat, including controversial proposals to dredge the Port of Baltimore. But even Corps critics say those projects are driven by local interests, not necessarily by the Corps.
Expanding habitat restoration efforts by the Corps is just one way that members of Congress are trying to refocus the agency’s mission in the wake of a series of scandals, including evidence that a Corps study to deepen the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal had serious flaws.
The General Accounting Office — the investigative arm of Congress — recently concluded that a Corps study to deepen the Delaware River overestimated project benefits by 300 percent, and found that the Corps routinely fails to mitigate for project impacts or, at best, fails to mitigate quickly.
The National Academy of Sciences in July called for independent review of some Corps projects after concluding last year that the Corps had manipulated a study to justify building longer Mississippi River locks. The Army’s inspector general concurred, and several senior military officials were reprimanded and later retired.
“The Corps has constructed countless projects that have done more harm than good,” said Rebecca Wodder of American Rivers, a national river conservation group supporting Gilchrest’s proposed reforms. “The agency’s studies are frequently self-serving, claim economic benefit from environmental damage; and, projects often fail to produce promised benefits.”
Gilchrest has proposed to subject Corps projects to modern accounting standards, greater outside scrutiny, and to ensure that project impacts on the environment are quickly and fully mitigated. Under his proposal, projects that cost more than $25 million would subject to review by experts appointed by a water expert outside the Corps. He would also require the Corps to update the way the agency measures benefits and costs.
But even Gilchrest, who crossed swords with the Corps over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, is enthusiastic about the Corps’ growing restoration mission.
“The Corps has an extraordinary amount of expertise that needs to be redirected towards restoring the hydrology of the Bay and its watershed,” said Gilchrest, who has enlisted the Corps in his efforts to establish conservation corridors throughout the Delmarva peninsula that would serve as migration routes for wildlife and filter polluted runoff. “When we’ve come to the Corps with specific projects, they’ve jumped at the opportunity to help.”
In particular, Gilchrest is working with the Corps to remove several obsolete dams that once powered tomato canning factories but now only block migrating fish from spawning grounds. The Corps is tapping into a national fund set aside for small-scale restoration projects like dam removal.
“The Corps knows more about the hydrology of the Bay and its watershed than any other agency or organization,” he said.
