Fox River Channel And Green Wisconsin Bay Harbor, Planning, Engineering, And Design The reconnaissance report, completed in April 1991, found that no deepening option was economically justified and the study was terminated.

CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO

Mr. BEVILL. When is the feasibility cost-sharing agreement scheduled to be signed by the local sponsor for the Cuyahoga River, Ohio, study?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the feasibility cost sharing agreement with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is scheduled to be signed in April 1992.

CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA

Mr. BEVILL. Last year you reported that the reconnaissance phase of the Crookston, Minnesota, study would be completed in March 1991. This year you report a completion date of February 1992. What caused the delay?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the completion date slippages are due to a policy determination needed to resolve issues regarding the amount of protection provided by existing levees which affects the project benefit analysis.

GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. BEVILL. The justification material for the Grand Forks, North Dakota, study indicates a significant schedule slippage. Why?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the scheduled completion date for the reconnaissance phase has changed from October 1991 to June 1992 and the feasibility phase has changed from December 1993 to October 1994. This change was due to the need for a policy determination to resolve issues regarding the amount of protection provided by existing levees which affects the project benefit analysis.

Mr. BEVILL.

MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA, WISCONSIN

The justification material for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area, Wisconsin, study indicates an 18-month slippage. Why?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the 18 month slippage is the result of the local sponsors request to expand the scope of the study which required time to complete coordination and certification requirements.

Mr. BEVILL. Please explain why the cost estimate for the study has increased from $1,040,000 to $1,760,000.

General PATIN. Sir, the study cost has increased due to the expanded scope of the feasibility studies as presented in the reconnaissance phase and due to out year inflation. The expanded scope includes additional geotechnical work on bridges, alternative retention basin siting, and project beautification involving grass versus concrete lined channels and channel terracing.

CLINTON RIVER SPILLWAY, MICHIGAN

Mr. BEVILL. What is the projected completion date for the Clinton River Spillway, Michigan, feasibility study and, if later than September 1993, please explain the reason for slippage.

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the feasibility study will not be completed by September 1993. We continue to explore the magnitude of habitat restoration benefits to determine if we have sufficient justification to warrant further study.

Mr. BEVILL. Please explain the need to determine habitat restoration benefits before completion of the reconnaissance phase of the study.

in

General PATIN. Sir, the reconnaissance report was completed September 1991. Upon review by higher authority it was determined that further analysis would be necessary to determine whether sufficient fish and wildlife habitat restoration benefits are available to justify further study under current environmental policies. Discussions are underway. We can complete the feasibility phase in about 24 months after this issue has been resolved.

GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS

Mr. BEVILL. What has caused the delay of 17 months in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors project?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, additional time was determined to be needed to optimize the channel design and prepare the design memorandum, and the plans and specifications. Also, additional time is needed for coordination with the Canadian Government on dredging in a section of the channel not in United States waters.

FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN

Mr. BEVILL. Do you anticipate any delays in completing negotiations with the State of Wisconsin for the transfer of ownership of the Fox River, Wisconsin, project in accordance with Section 109 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1992?

General PATIN. No sir, we expect to report to this committee the negotiation results by August 1992. Results of negotiations will then be incorporated in the on-going Section 216 study completing in FY 1993.

FORT WAYNE, INDIANA

Mr. BEVILL. What has caused the delay of 12 months in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Ft. Wayne Metropolitan Area, Indiana, project?

General PATIN. Mr. Bevill, the 12 month delay in completing PED for the Ft. Wayne project is needed to reanalyze the design to fully evaluate the impact of locally completed widening of the Maumee River downstream of our project location. The construction of the downstream works by Allen County made it necessary to redesign the proposed project's levees and floodwalls.

ECORSE CREEK, MICHIGAN

Mr. BEVILL. What has caused the delay of 12 months in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Ecorse Creek, Michigan project?

General PATIN. Sir, additional real estate requirements requiring a revision to the site plan caused the delay. The sponsor now intends to relocate a roadway, which will eliminate the need for a costly bridge. Additional design efforts are necessary to accommodate the new site plan and road relocation.

Mr. BEVILL. Why has the cost of PED for the Ecorse Creek, Michigan, project doubled since last year?

General PATIN. Sir, the cost increase is due to the additional effort required, working in conjunction with the project sponsor, in developing an acceptable revised site plan, extensive design work, and incorporation of out-year inflation.

PORTAGE, WISCONSIN

Mr. BEVILL. What has caused the delay of 12 months in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Portage, Wisconsin project?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the one year slippage of PED completion from September 1992 to September 1993 resulted from the need to coordinate and resolve project impacts on the historic lock and to reach agreement on water surface elevations for the with and without project conditions with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

HOUSTON, MINNESOTA

Mr. BEVILL. What has caused the delay of 13 months in completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Houston, Minnesota, project?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, following completion of a Reevaluation Report, it was determined that additional studies were required to better define and justify the National Economic Development (NED) plan and to resolve technical issues dealing with the Highway 76 bridges which affect the determination of the NED Plan. As a result, the PED completion schedule has slipped from May 1992 to June 1993.

MARSHALL, MINNESOTA

Mr. BEVILL. General, the justification material for the Marshall, Minnesota, project indicated that you plan to complete preconstruction engineering and design in June 1993. Several years have passed since the project was in the budget. What has caused the delay in completing preconstruction engineering and design?

General PATIN. Sir, the project was not funded in FY 1991 and FY 1992 because of an issue associated with deferred maintenance of an existing project that potentially impacted on the cost of the proposed project. A sedimentation study was performed and confirmed that the deposition that occurred in the existing diversion channel was in fact deferred maintenance which is the responsibility of the City of Marshall.

Mr. BEVILL. How confident are you that the local sponsor will execute the Local Cooperation Agreement for the project?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the City provided assurance of their willingness to complete deferred maintenance and sediment removal by letter received on 11 September 1991. The city has budgeted funds in 1992 to remove sediment from the existing diversion channel. These recent actions by the city and discussions with city officials clearly indicate their continued support for the project and their willingness to execute the local cooperation agreement for the project.

St. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN

Mr. BEVILL. The reconnaissance report for the St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan, project was completed in November 1990. According to the justification material, you still have not executed a cost-sharing agreement for the feasibility study. Why has it taken so long to execute the agreement?

General PATIN. Mr. Bevill, there has been a long standing problem with securing a disposal site for maintenance dredging of the existing project. Before proceeding with the feasibility study of new dredging work, we must resolve this problem. I'm pleased to report that a prospective disposal site has been identified and surveyed, and development of a site disposal plan is underway. We intend to complete environmental documentation and coordination by the end of FY 1992.

ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK

Mr. BEVILL. The Onondaga Lake, New York, study included in the budget request will address water quality problems. Is finding solutions to water quality problems a high priority for the Corps of Engineers?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, flood control, commercial navigation and environmental restoration are currently high priority missions of the Corps of Engineers. Where study authority does exist for an area and water quality improvements or recreation are the primary project outputs, the Corps does not recommend pursuit of the project.

NAVIGATION STUDIES

Mr. BEVILL. Why have you combined the Illinois Waterway and Upper Mississippi River navigation studies? What is your projected completion date for the combined feasibility study?

General PATIN. Sir, the studies have been combined to gain efficiencies in the conduct of the studies, such as environmental studies of the impacts of increased navigation, and to facilitate more direct comparison of the economic justification of improvements at the various sites under investigation. It is also expected that certain study management costs will be reduced by executing one study instead of two separate studies.

Mr. BEVILL. What is your projected completion date for the combined feasibility study?

General PATIN. Sir, determination of the completion date depends upon approval of the Initial Project Management Plan currently under review by my higher headquarters.

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN

Mr. BEVILL. When will the economic reevaluation report for the Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, project be completed?

General PATIN. Sir, we have initiated reevaluation of this project and the General Reevaluation Report will be completed by April 1994.

Mr. BEVILL.

ROUGE RIVER, MICHIGAN

When will the study of the Rouge River, Michigan streamflow enhancement project be completed?

General PATIN. Sir, a report will be completed by June 1992.

Mr. BEVILL. What actions do you plan to take after completion of the study?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, since the Corps has no authority for participating in single purpose water quality projects, no further effort is scheduled.

ROCHESTER HARBOR WAVE SURGE, NEW YORK

Mr. BEVILL. Are additional funds needed in FY 1993 to complete the Rochester Harbor, New York, reconnaissance report?

General PATIN. Mr. Chairman, the Rochester Harbor project has not been included in the FY 1993 budget request. Reconnaissance efforts to date have not progressed to the point of determination if further study is in accordance with the Administration's priorities.