Images de page
PDF
ePub

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD

Senator JOHNSTON: An appropriation of $280,000 is requested for the first time to support the Inland Waterways Users Board which was created by the Water Resources Development Act, Public Law 99-662. How have the Board's expenses to date been paid and under what authority?

General HEIBERG: The Board's expenses have been paid by the Corps of Engineers. The Board's activities and support are governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, and the implementing regulations of the Department of Army and the Corps of Engineers, which are AR 15-1 and ER 15-1-1, respectively. The law and regulations require a committee charter which specifies the agency that provides support as the committee ponsor. The Corps of Engineers has been so designated as the sponsor for the Inland Waterways Users Board. Section 12 (a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act specifies that. "Each agency shall be responsible for providing support services for each advisory committee established by or reporting to it unless the establishing authority provides otherwise." The Act creating the Users Board made no other provision for its expenses; therefore, the authority to pay Board expenses is based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Senator JOHNSTON: Where did the funds to cover the Board's expenses to date come from (be specific by program, project, and activity)?

General HEIBERG: A specific account was set up to pay the direct expenses allowed by law for holding Board meetings including travel and related costs of attendance by Board members. This account was funded by reprogramming funds in the Construction, General account.

Senator JOHNSTON: Why is this budget under Remaining Items and not under
General Administrative Expenses?

General HEIBERG: The duties of the Board are to provide advice to the Secretary of Army and to Congress on priorities for funding waterway system improvements. Because the Board provides independent oversight of Corps construction expenditures, it was not appropriate to include its expenses in the category that covers general direction and management of the Corps.

Senator JOHNSTON: Could more detailed documentation be supplied regarding the Board's actual expenses, including vouchers and receipts supporting expenses of the board members?

General HEIBERG:

Yes. The expenses charged to the special account for Board expenses are all documented. Travel expenses to Board meetings by its members are reimbursed based on the same requirements that apply to government employees. The other expenses charged to the account are for a public meeting room, recordings of meeting proceedings, and Board stationery.

How many times is the Board expected to meet this year?

The

Senator JOHNSTON: General HEIBERG: The organic legislation requires two meetings a year. Board met on March 2, 1988 and is scheduled to meet on June 1, 1988. No additional meetings have been set, but the need for a third meeting to produce the Board's 1988 annual report and recommendations was raised as a question at the March 2 meeting.

Senator JOHNSTON:

General HEIBERG:

What is the most meetings that could be expected in a year?

The law sets no maximum number for meetings in a year. The charter specifies an annual cost for the Board of $80,000, and that number was predicated on three or four meetings per year.

Senator JOHNSTON: What is the basis for the $280,000 funding request for fiscal year 1989?

General HEIBERG: The $280,000 consists of $80,000 for direct expense for Board meetings, as described, and $200,000 for Corps expenses incurred in Board support. The latter is principally for preparation of voluminous briefing materials provided to Board members prior to meetings.

Senator JOHNSTON:

Provide for the record a detailed breakout of the budget request by object classification and category for both the Board's and Corps' expenses.

General HEIBERG:

The amount requested for Board expense is based on the $80,000 specified in the committee charter. Actual estimated expenses are $5,000 per meeting for reimbursement of member's travel expenses, and $1,500 per meeting for room rental and recordings. The total for three meetings per year would be $19,500. Additional direct expense is estimated at $500 to cover stationery and miscellaneous expenses. At present, the time of Corps employees dedicated to Board support as staff coordinator and recording secretary is in addition to regularly assigned duties. The annual expense for this time is estimated to be $51,000, and would be charged to Board expense. The annual total of the above is $71,000.

The amount requested for Board support is $200,000. Virtually all of this would be for staff time spent in the preparation of briefing materials and analyses for the Board. It includes an estimated $175,000 for personnel, $2,400 for printing and postage and $6,050 per meeting for staff to Board meetings not held in Washington. Based on one Board meeting away from Washington, the annual total of the above is $183,450.

Senator JOHNSTON: What do you expect the annual funding requirements to be over the next five years?

General HEIBERG:

$280,000 per year.

DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

Senator JOHNSTON. Last year the Committee had testimony which indicated that the annual budget request for the Dam Safety Assurance Program would be around $25 $30 million for the next several years. Why is there no budget request for this program for fiscal 1989. Are projects moving slower than expected; if 90, why?

MR. PAGE. The Conference Report which accompanied the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1988, included $25 million for dam safety assurance new construction starts which may be approved through FY 1998 as 2 result of studies now Funds in the amount of $4 million and $21 million for

underway.

FY 1986 and FY 1987, respectively, were included in the Conference Reports which accompanied the appropriation acts for these years. Experience with dam safety assurance studies previously completed and currently underway indicate that the funds allocated for this program to date will be sufficient to initiate any new construction starts that may be approved through FY 1989 es a result of such studies. Therefore, no add tiones } funds are needed.

mong slower than

Some dam sa'ety &ssance studios expected 28 the result of the application

of newly developed analyses to determine whether upgrading modifications designed to meet current standards and knowledge in the interest of dam safety are effective risk reduction measures. However, a greater impact is due to the fact that many studies show that the dams in question to not warrant

modification.

Senator JOHNSTON. Are funds included 10 the FY 1999 Corps budget for this work: if 50, Waerel

Mr. PAGE. Funds in the amount of $7,429,000 are included in the FY 1989 budget under the Construction, General appropriation to continue five dam safety assurance projects for which studies have been previously approved. The projects are specifically included as part of the budget request for each applicable division. They are:

[blocks in formation]

Senator JOHNSTON. As was the case last year, the Committee is concerned with major changes in program funding from year to year. What do you expect the fund profile to be for the program over the next five years?

arise from

ले

numbe

of

a five

Mr. PAGE. Since dam safety needs can
factors, it is dificult to predict a funding profile tor
year period. However, based on our funding requests fr

specifically budgeted projects from FY 1985 through PY 1999, our

COST SHARING FOR DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS ON BEACHES Senator JOHNSTON. What is the basis of the $1,000,000 funding level for Cost Sharing for Disposal of Material Beaches?

оп

Mr. Fage. Since this is a new program that has not previously been budgeted, we have no experience with actual costs for prior years. We anticipate that non--Federal Sponsor s will desire to take advantage of opportunities which become apparent during subsurface investigations for plans and specifications for dredging projects and that sufficient time will not be available before contract award to budget for the Federal share of the incremental cost of placing the dredged Costs will vary from project to project,

sand on beaches.

depending, in part, on the distance between the area being dredged and the beach on which the sand will be placed. We consider the $1,000,000 requested for this effort in the FY 1989 budost to be a ruminal amount for this program until Some actual

costs become available.

[ocr errors]

Woude a lesser amount be sufficient to this program ur de "way until some experience is developed as fo Funding requirements?

the

MP. PAGE. We estimate that the $1,000,000 requested in budget is reasonable amount if one or More non-Federal sponsors desire to utilize this program to place dredged sand on beaches depending on the distance between the area being dredged and the beach on which the sand wil1 be placed.

Incremental

costs of $5 per cubic yard to place sand on a beach as opposed to depositing it in an ocean disposal site are not unlikely. Therefore, the $1,000,000 requested in the FY 1737 budget would 400,000 cubic yards of sand under these

allow placement

circumstances based on 50/50 percent Federal/non-Federal

cost

[ocr errors][merged small]

Senator JOHNSTON. What projects have beer funding under tins program, what 1 S the cost Q

[blocks in formation]

MR. PAGE. At this time, the Virginia Beach project 10

For

Virginia is being considered for fronding unde the program to place appro.imately 964,000 cubic yards of Land dredged from the Cape Henry navigation channel nder +te Baltimore Harbor and Channels progerk in Maryland and Virginia. The incremental cost to ple the sind on Virgi ia beach over the cost to deposit. it in the Dam Mack offshore di sposal 3/ea 13 about #5,221,000 or $0.42 per cubic yard. This compares favorably with the cost of $5.59 per cubic yard to renouri -h the Virginia Beach project in 1986 in accordance with the specifically budgeted construction project under which this work

was under taler.

DREDGING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator JOHNSTON. The appropriation for the Dredging Research Program was $3,000,000 to initiate this program in fiscal 1988. Now, the 1989 budget includes $7,000,000 an increase of 133%, to continue this activity. Explain the basis for such a large increase over the 1988 funding level.

Mr. PAGE. The increase represents a usual buildup from a relatively low initial or ramp-up year to a normal program activity level by the second year. Generally, in a program as large as the Dredging Research Program, considerable time is consumed the first year in preparatory activities such as conducting comprehensive literature research; planning, designing, and constructing testing apparatus; acquiring and installing instrumentation; selecting field sites and planning field measurements and tests; and preparing scopes of work and contractural documents for the procurement of university and private sector services and/or equipment. Though the preparatory activities are usually less cost-intensive than the conduct of the related work, they are crucial to an efficient performance of the research that follows. We have found this basic approach to be highly successful in the past. This basic pattern of a steep ramping-up from first to second year funding, reaching a peak in about the third year, and progressively declining in funding thereafter has been found to be the most efficient general way to conduct our large research programs.

Senator JOHNSTON. How do you expect these program costs to change over the next 5 years? Provide a funding profile for the record.

Mr. PAGE. As you know we are requesting $7.4 million in FY 89. Beyond that point, we anticipate reaching our maximum or peak budget request in FY 90 in the amount of $8.3 million. After that the planned budget requests progressively diminish. A funding profile for the Dredging Research Program is provided as follows:

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »