ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS

The Corps Needs to 

Take Steps to Identify 

All Projects and 

Studies Eligible for 

Deauthorization

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2014

GAO-14-699

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-699, a report to 

congressional requesters

August 2014

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All 

Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization

Why GAO Did This Study

The Corps reports having a backlog of 

more than 1,000 authorized water 

resources construction projects in its 

Civil Works Program that it estimates

to cost more than $62 billion to 

complete, as of June 2014. Federal 

statute requires the Corps to identify 

for deauthorization projects that have 

had no obligations for 5 years and 

studies that have had no 

appropriations for 5 years. Once a 

project or study is deauthorized, it must 

be reauthorized to begin or resume 

construction or study.

GAO was asked to review the Corps’ 

construction backlog and 

deauthorization processes. This report 

examines (1) the extent to which the

Corps tracks its backlog of construction 

projects and studies, and (2) the extent 

to which the Corps identifies 

construction projects and studies 

eligible for deauthorization, and meets 

statutory deauthorization requirements. 

GAO reviewed legislation, Corps 

policy, guidance, and documentation of 

its backlog and deauthorization 

process. GAO interviewed Corps 

headquarters officials and officials from 

16 of the Corps’ 38 domestic civil 

works districts, selected based on 

geographical representation and 

number of projects.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that the Corps establish and 

implement policies to ensure projects 

and studies are tracked; establish a 

mechanism to track studies; and 

develop and implement policies to 

identify projects and studies that meet 

deauthorization criteria, and notify 

Congress. The Department of Defense 

concurred with the recommendations.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) backlog list of authorized water 

resources construction projects is incomplete because the agency does not track

all authorized projects and the list does not include studies. Specifically, GAO 

found that the backlog does not include some projects that were authorized but 

were not appropriated funds. Corps headquarters officials said that the agency 

does not have a policy instructing its district offices to enter into their databases 

projects that are authorized but have not been appropriated funds and that it is 

up to the discretion of the district offices to do so. Corps officials also stated that 

the agency does not include studies on its backlog, nor does it have a policy 

instructing district offices to track studies. Federal internal control standards state 

that agencies are to document internal controls in management directives, 

administrative policies, or operating manuals to help ensure consistent treatment. 

Officials at 15 of 16 district offices told GAO that they enter projects into the 

databases only after funds are appropriated. The Corps has begun to take steps 

to include all authorized projects in a new agency database; however, this 

database will not include studies. Federal internal control standards call for 

agencies to have mechanisms to appropriately document transactions and other 

significant events. Without written policies requiring districts to track all projects 

and studies and a mechanism to track studies, the Corps may continue to have 

an incomplete backlog list. The absence of a complete backlog list of projects 

and studies will likely make it difficult for the Corps to know the full universe of 

unmet water resource needs of the country, and Congress to make informed 

decisions when authorizing projects and studies, and appropriating funds.

The Corps has not identified all eligible construction projects and studies for 

deauthorization and has not complied with statutory requirements to notify 

Congress of all projects and studies eligible for deauthorization. The agency is 

unlikely to identify those projects that have been excluded from the databases 

and had no funds obligated for 5 fiscal years, because, as discussed above, the 

Corps does not require districts to enter all authorized projects into its databases. 

Officials GAO interviewed from 5 of 16 districts said they likely would not identify 

and add projects to the draft deauthorization eligible list because they were not 

required to do so. Moreover, the Corps has not complied with statutory 

requirements to notify Congress of all projects that have not had obligations in 5

fiscal years. Specifically, the Corps cannot demonstrate it transmitted a list of 

projects eligible for deauthorization 8 times in the 12 years it was required to do 

so since 1997. Corps headquarters officials said that the process and 

communication mechanisms for deauthorizing projects are not in Corps policies 

or procedures. Without documented policies and procedures consistent with 

federal standards for internal control, the Corps may continue its inconsistent 

publishing of deauthorization lists. In addition, the Corps has not complied with 

requirements to identify studies for deauthorization because officials have said 

the agency does not have the policies and procedures in place to do so. Without 

having the data, as discussed above, or policies and procedures in place to 

identify studies for deauthorization, the Corps and Congress will not have 

complete information to make decisions when prioritizing the water resources 

needs of the country. 

View GAO-14-699. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Letter 1

Background 4

The Corps Does Not Track All Construction Projects and Studies 

on Its Backlog 11

The Corps Has Not Identified All Projects and Studies for 

Deauthorization or Complied with Statutory Deauthorization 

Requirements 15

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 28

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Figures

Figure1: Locations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil 

Works Divisions and Districts 5

Figure 2: Major Steps in Developing a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Project 7

Abbreviations 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRRDA Water Resources Reform and Development Act

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

August 21, 2014

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

Chairman

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Timothy Bishop

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reports a backlog of more 

than 1,000 authorized water resources construction projects in its Civil 

Works Program that the agency estimates to cost more than $62 billion to 

complete, as of June 2014. These Corps construction projects can be 

found in 47 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto 

Rico and range from constructing levees for flood risk management, to 

waterway deepening for navigational purposes, to building structures to 

control invasive species for ecosystem restoration. Before the Corps can 

proceed with a construction project, it must first be authorized and 

appropriated funds to complete a study to determine, among other things, 

whether the project warrants federal participation, how the water resource 

problem can be addressed, and the level of interest of local sponsors for 

cost sharing. Once the study is complete and the Corps recommends a 

project for construction, Congress must authorize the project and 

appropriate funds before construction can begin. Since fiscal year 2007, 

annual appropriations for the Corps’ civil works construction projects have 

generally decreased from about $2.4 billion to $1.7 billion in fiscal year 

2014.1

 1

An appropriation is budget authority to incur obligations and to make payments from the 

Treasury for specified purposes.

Reports have found that declining appropriations, coupled with the 
Page 2 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

backlog of authorized projects, has left communities uncertain when or if 

their projects will be completed.

The Corps has been required to identify projects for possible 

deauthorization since 1974 and studies for possible deauthorization since 

1986. The requirements appear in various Water Resources 

Development Acts.2 Once a study or project is deauthorized, it generally 

must be reauthorized for study or construction to resume. Since the 

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended, the 

Corps has been required to identify all incomplete water resources 

studies that have not had funds appropriated in 5 consecutive fiscal years 

as well as being required to identify all projects that had not been 

obligated funds in 5 consecutive fiscal years and submit those lists to 

Congress.3

,

4

You asked us to review the Corps’ construction backlog and 

deauthorization processes. This report examines (1) the extent to which 

the Corps tracks its backlog of construction projects and studies, and (2) 

the extent to which the Corps identifies construction projects and studies 

If funds are not (1) appropriated to studies within 90 days or 

(2) obligated to projects by the end of the fiscal year following the 

submission of the lists to Congress, those studies or projects would be 

deauthorized. Most recently, the Water Resources Reform and 

Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 was enacted into law. Among other 

things, it creates a process to identify and deauthorize $18 billion in 

authorized projects that are no longer viable for construction and to 

compile and publish a comprehensive backlog report including all projects 

and separable elements of projects that have been authorized but for 

which construction is not yet completed.

 2

Water Resources Development Acts were enacted into law in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1988, 

1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2007, and in June 2014, the Water Resources Reform and 

Development Act of 2014 was enacted into law.

3

An obligation is most commonly defined as a commitment by the federal government that 

creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered 

or received, or a legal duty that could mature into a legal liability as a result of actions of 

another party beyond the control of the federal government. For example, an obligation is 

incurred when an agency places an order, signs a contract, or purchases a service. 

However, according to officials in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, in some cases, the Corps has obligated as little as one dollar on projects where no 

construction work has been initiated. 

4

Pub. L. No. 99-662, §§ 710, 1001, 100 Stat. 4082 (1986) (codified, as amended, 

respectively at 33 U.S.C. §§ 2264, 579a).
Page 3 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

eligible for deauthorization, and meets statutory deauthorization 

requirements. For purposes of this report, the reference to construction 

backlog includes any project or study that was authorized but for which 

the construction or study is not yet complete.

We addressed these objectives through a variety of steps. Specifically, 

we reviewed pertinent federal laws and the Corps’ policies and 

procedures related to data collection and deauthorization processes. We 

also reviewed obligations data contained in the Corps’ databases used to 

guide its deauthorization processes.5

 5

The Corps’ databases include two commercially available systems as well as the Corps 

of Engineers Financial Management System.

To assess data reliability, we 

reviewed data dictionaries, user guides, and other documentation that the 

Corps provided for the agency’s databases. Unless otherwise stated, any 

data reported were found to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

review. We interviewed Corps headquarters officials to obtain additional 

information about the agency’s policies, procedures, and processes for 

tracking its construction backlog and to determine its process for creating 

a list of projects and studies eligible for deauthorization. We also 

interviewed officials from a nonprobability sample of 16 of 38 domestic 

civil works district offices to determine how district offices track projects 

and implement the deauthorization process. We selected district offices 

based on geographical representation and number of projects, and we 

included those district offices with the most projects and the least projects 

in their respective divisions. The results of such a sample are not 

generalizable to all domestic civil works district offices, but provide 

illustrative examples of how district offices track projects and implement 

the deauthorization process. In addition, we interviewed nonfederal 

sponsors of Corps projects, selected through discussions with national 

associations, to determine how they were affected by the backlog and 

deauthorization process. We selected these associations to represent 

Corps water resources projects and with membership that includes 

nonfederal sponsors of Corps water resources projects. The views of 

representatives from these associations are not generalizable, but they 

provided perspectives on the Corps’ backlog and deauthorization 

processes. We collected and reviewed deauthorization documents 

produced by the Corps from 1997 to 2013. We chose this time frame 

based on changes to deauthorization timeline requirements found in 

WRDA 1996 and because the Corps did not have complete obligations 
Page 4 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

data for fiscal year 2014 at the time of our review.6

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to August 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix I provides 

additional information about our objectives, scope, and methodology.

The Corps is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and 

construction management agency. Located within the Department of 

Defense, the Corps has both military and civilian responsibilities.7

Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps plans, constructs, operates, 

and maintains a wide range of water resources projects. The Corps’ Civil 

Works Program has nine major functional areas, also known as business 

lines: Navigation, Flood Risk Management, Environment, Recreation, 

Hydropower, Water Supply, Emergency Management, Regulatory 

Program, and Support for Others.8

 6

Pub. L. No. 104-303, § 228(a), 110 Stat. 3658 (1996).

The Corps’ Civil Works Program is 

organized into three tiers: a national headquarters in Washington, D.C., 8 

regional divisions, and 38 local district offices (see fig. 1).

7

The Corps Military program provides, among other things, engineering and construction 

services to other U.S. government agencies and foreign governments. This report only 

discusses the Civil Works Program.

8

The “Support for Others” business line covers the Corps’ activities related to interagency 

and international support.

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Figure1: Locations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Divisions and Districts
Page 6 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps headquarters primarily develops policies and guidance to 

implement its responsibilities and plans the direction of the organization. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, appointed by the 

President, sets the strategic direction for and has principle responsibility 

for the overall supervision of functions relating to the Army’s Civil Works 

Program and supervises execution of the Civil Works Program by the 

Chief of Engineers. The Chief of Engineers, a military officer, is 

responsible for execution of the civil works and military missions. The 

divisions, which were established generally according to watershed 

boundaries, have the primary role of coordinating the districts’ civil works 

projects, and are commanded by military officers.9 The role of the 

districts, also commanded by military officers, is to plan and implement 

the studies and projects that are approved by the divisions and 

headquarters.

The major steps in developing a Corps construction project are shown in 

figure 2.

 9

Watersheds are areas that drain to a common body of water.

Process for Developing 

Corps Projects
Page 7 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Figure 2: Major Steps in Developing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil 

Works Project

a

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 eliminated the reconnaissance phase. 

As of July 2014, the Corps had not developed implementation guidance on the elimination of the 

reconnaissance phase.
Page 8 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Usually, the Corps becomes involved in water resource construction 

projects when a local community perceives a need or experiences a 

problem that is beyond its ability to solve and contacts the Corps for 

assistance. If the Corps does not have the statutory authority required for 

studying the problem, the Corps must obtain authorization from Congress 

before proceeding.10

Under WRDA 2007 amendments, after receiving authorization and an 

appropriation, studies were conducted in two phases: reconnaissance 

and feasibility.

Studies have been authorized through legislation, 

typically a WRDA, or, in some circumstances, through a committee 

resolution by an authorizing committee. Next, the Corps must receive an 

appropriation to study the project, which it seeks through its annual 

budget request to Congress.

11 A Corps district office conducted a reconnaissance study 

at full federal expense to determine if the problem warranted federal 

participation in a feasibility study and how the problem could be 

addressed. During the reconnaissance phase, the Corps also assessed 

the level of interest and support from nonfederal entities such as state, 

tribal, county, or local governments or agencies that may become 

sponsors. If the Corps determined that further study was warranted, the 

district office typically sought agreement from the local sponsor to share 

costs for a feasibility study. WRRDA 2014 eliminated the reconnaissance 

phase to accelerate the study process and allow the Corps to proceed 

directly to the feasibility study.12 The conference report accompanying 

WRRDA 2014 also states that the Corps may terminate a study when it is 

clear there is no demonstrable federal interest for a project or that 

construction of the project is not possible for technical, legal, or financial 

reasons.13

Cost sharing for feasibility studies varies based on the type of project 

being studied. The purpose of the feasibility study is to further investigate 

As of July 2014, the Corps had not developed implementation 

guidance on the elimination of the reconnaissance phase.

 10If the Corps has previously performed an evaluation in the geographic area for a similar 

purpose, a new study can be authorized by an authorizing committee resolution. If the 

Corps has not previously investigated the area, the study needs to be authorized through 

legislation.

11Pub. L. No. 110-114, § 2043(b), 121 Stat. 1041 (2007).

12Pub. L. No. 113-121, § 1002(a)(2), 128 Stat. 1193 (2014).

13H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 113-449 at 183 (2014). 
Page 9 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

the problem and make recommendations on whether the project is worth 

pursuing and how the problem should be addressed. Corps guidance 

states that typical feasibility studies should be completed in 18 to 36 

months. According to Corps documents, the district office conducts the 

study and the needed environmental studies and documents the results in 

a feasibility report that includes a total project cost estimate based on the 

recommended plan. The Chief of Engineers reviews the report and 

decides whether to sign a final decision document, known as the Chief’s 

Report, recommending the project for construction. The Chief of 

Engineers transmits the Chief’s Report and the supporting documentation 

to Congress through the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

and the Office of Management and Budget. Congress may authorize the 

project’s construction in a WRDA or other legislation.14

Most construction projects are authorized during the preconstruction 

engineering and design phase. The purpose of this phase is to complete 

any additional planning studies and all of the detailed, technical studies 

and designs needed to begin construction of the project. Once the 

construction project has been authorized and preconstruction engineering 

and design has been funded through completion of the plans and 

specifications for the first construction contract, the Corps seeks funds to 

construct the project through the annual budget formulation process. As 

part of the budget process, the Army, with input and data from Corps 

headquarters, division, and district offices, develops a budget request for 

the agency. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the Corps introduced what it 

refers to as performance-based budgeting as a way to focus funding 

requests on those projects with the highest anticipated return on 

investment, rather than a wider set of projects that meet budget policies 

as it sought to do in the past. Under its current budget formulation 

process, the Corps uses performance metrics to evaluate projects’

estimated future outcomes and gives priority to those it determines have 

the highest expected returns for the national economy and the 

environment, as well as those that reduce risk to human life. Budget 

justification materials are provided to the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committee for consideration. Through the conference 

When Congress 

approves a project for construction, it typically authorizes a total cost for 

the project based on estimates prepared by the Corps.

 14Corps officials estimated that about 75 percent of all feasibility studies result in a project 

authorized for construction.
Page 10 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

committee reports accompanying appropriations acts, Congress directs 

funds for individual projects in increments over the course of several 

years. The Corps considers a project or study to have been appropriated 

funds if the project or study has received such direction in a committee 

report. If the project has been appropriated funds, the district enters into a 

cost-sharing agreement with the nonfederal sponsor. Once funds have 

been appropriated and a cost-sharing agreement is in place, the 

construction phase can begin and the Corps may obligate funds for a 

project. Construction is generally managed by the Corps but performed 

by private contractors. During construction, the Corps may request and 

Congress may enact scope or cost changes.

Under current federal statute, the process for deauthorizing construction 

studies is initiated if the study has not been appropriated funds for 5 

consecutive fiscal years.15 Specifically, the Secretary of the Army is 

required to annually transmit to Congress a list of water resources studies 

that have not been completed and have not been appropriated funds in 

the last 5 full fiscal years.16

Current federal statute also requires a similar deauthorization process for 

construction projects.

Congress has 90 days after the submission of 

that list to appropriate funds, or the study is deauthorized.

17 The Secretary of the Army is required to transmit 

to Congress a list of projects—or separable elements18

 1533 U.S.C. § 2264.

—that have not 

had funds obligated for 5 full consecutive fiscal years. Beginning with 

WRDA 2007, this list was required to be sent to Congress annually; prior 

16The responsibility of the Secretary of the Army to carry out this requirement has been 

delegated to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

1733 U.S.C. § 579a(b)(2).

18A separable element is a portion of a project which is physically separable from other 

portions of the project, and which achieves hydrologic effects or produces physical or 

economic benefits which are separately identifiable from those produced by other portions 

of the project. For the purposes of this report, when we refer to the required reporting of 

such projects to Congress, we are also referring to required reporting of separable 

elements of projects.

Requirements for Corps 

Study and Construction 

Project Deauthorization
Page 11 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

to WRDA 2007, the list was required biennially.19 If funds are not 

obligated for planning, design, or construction of a project on that list 

during the next fiscal year, the project is deauthorized, and the Secretary 

of the Army is to publish the list of deauthorized projects in the Federal 

Register.

The Corps’ report of a $62 billion backlog list of more than 1,000 projects 

is incomplete because the agency does not track all of its authorized 

construction projects and studies. Specifically, the Corps does not enter 

all authorized projects and studies into its databases because of the 

absence of a policy to do so. As a result, we found the Corps’ reported 

backlog list likely underestimates the complete construction backlog. 

Without having complete information on its backlog, the Corps does not 

know the full extent of unmet water resources needs of the nation, and 

Congress does not have complete information to make informed 

decisions on project and study authorizations and appropriations.

We found that the Corps’ reported backlog likely under-represents the 

complete backlog of construction projects in terms of both cost and 

number of projects. According to Corps headquarters officials, the 

backlog list is manually maintained by one staff person as a secondary 

duty. Our past work has found that using manual processes to maintain 

data can hinder an organization’s ability to ensure that data are complete 

and accurate.20 Corps officials said, and our review found, that some 

projects that were authorized are included on the backlog list, but not their 

associated cost, therefore raising questions about the validity of the $62 

billion estimate. For example, the Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, 

East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed project was authorized in WRDA 

199921

 19A list of projects meeting conditions for deauthorization has been required since 

November 1987. The specific conditions for the list have changed at various times. 

Immediately preceding WRDA 2007, for example, the list was to include projects that had 

not received obligations for the prior 7 years.

and modified most recently in WRDA 2007 for a total cost of $187 

million, but according to Corps officials, construction funds have not been 

20GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance 

Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible, GAO-06-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 

2006).

21Pub. L. No. 106-53, 113 Stat. 269 (1999).

The Corps Does Not 

Track All Construction 

Projects and Studies 

on Its Backlog
Page 12 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

appropriated for this project.22 Although the project’s name appears on 

the Corps’ backlog list, there is no dollar amount associated with that 

project, so the cost is not included in the Corps’ reported backlog list. We 

found a total of 12 projects authorized in WRDA 1999 that are included in 

the Corps’ reported backlog list but do not have an associated cost. 

However, internal control standards in the federal government call for 

agencies to clearly and promptly document transactions and other 

significant events from authorization to completion.23

Corps headquarters officials told us that the agency does not have a 

policy instructing district offices to enter projects that are authorized but 

have not been appropriated funds into their databases, and it is left to the 

discretion of the district offices to do so. Officials from 1 of the 16 district 

offices we spoke with said the district has developed guidance to enter all 

authorized projects into the Corps’ centralized databases, regardless of 

whether the projects had funds appropriated. Officials at the 15 other 

district offices told us they enter projects into the Corps’ databases only 

after funds are appropriated. Corps headquarters officials said that the 

agency’s databases were created primarily as project management 

databases, and therefore, projects are generally not entered into the 

databases until they are active and funds are appropriated. However, 

federal standards for internal control call for agencies to document 

internal control in management directives, administrative policies, or 

operating manuals and be readily available for examination. We also 

have previously found that it is important to have agencywide policies and 

procedures to help ensure consistent treatment, especially if employees 

are geographically dispersed.

Corps headquarters 

officials acknowledged that information was missing from their databases 

and said they do not currently have an estimate for the cost or number of 

projects that are not included in their databases.

24

 22The Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed project 

was authorized for flood damage reduction and recreation purposes.

Without written policies or guidance, 

Corps district offices will likely continue to inconsistently enter projects 

23GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

24GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and Assessment of 

Temporary Assignments Needed, GAO-09-141 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2009) and 

Equal Employment Opportunity SSA Region X’s Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate 

Need for Agencywide Procedures, GAO-03-604 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2003).
Page 13 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

that are authorized but not funded into their databases, and that will 

continue to result in incomplete data.

In the absence of authorized projects not consistently being entered into 

the Corps’ centralized databases, officials from 10 of the 16 district offices 

we spoke with said they maintained their own lists of authorized projects, 

including those that were authorized but did not have funds appropriated. 

Officials from some of these districts said that they do so in order to 

maintain contact with nonfederal sponsors and so that they have 

complete project information for budget presentation preparations. 

Officials from two district offices we interviewed said that they do not 

maintain a list of authorized projects that did not have funds appropriated, 

but nonfederal sponsors often contact them regarding these projects, so 

the officials were aware of them. Officials from three districts we 

interviewed said they do not maintain a list of all authorized projects in 

their district and are unable to estimate how many projects from their 

district are not included in the Corps’ databases. Officials in one of these 

districts said that they are unaware of the number of projects that have 

been authorized and not funded but estimated the number to be large.

The Corps’ reported backlog does not include studies. Corps officials 

stated the agency does not track a backlog of all authorized studies, nor 

does it have a policy instructing districts to do so, due to manpower and 

resource constraints. However, because federal statute requires the 

Corps to submit a list to Congress of incomplete water resources studies 

for which no funds have been appropriated for 5 full fiscal years, the 

Corps needs to know which studies are eligible for deauthorization. 

Without having this data, the Corps cannot comply with the requirement 

to submit a list to Congress identifying studies for deauthorization that 

have not had funds appropriated for 5 fiscal years.

Without having a complete backlog list of projects and studies, it is 

difficult for the Corps to know the full universe of unmet water resources 

needs in the country. Our prior work also found that the Corps’ budget 

presentation is not transparent and only includes information on the 

projects the President proposes to fund in the budget year.25

 25GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Budget Formulation Process Emphasizes Agencywide 

Priorities, but Transparency of Budget Presentation Could Be Improved, 

According to 

that work, congressional users of the Corps’ budget presentation said that 

GAO-10-453

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2010).
Page 14 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

not having information on all projects limits the ability of Congress to 

make fully informed decisions. Similarly, WRDA 2007 required the Corps 

to submit an annual fiscal transparency report, including a list of all 

projects that have been authorized but for which construction is not 

complete.26

Corps headquarters officials recognize that they are missing project 

backlog data for some authorized projects and have begun to implement 

an initiative known as the Smart Use of Systems Initiative, which is 

designed to add projects to a new agency database. One of the goals of 

this initiative is to create a database to include all authorized projects. 

Headquarters officials said the agency hired a contractor in February 

2014 to create an inventory of all projects that were authorized since the 

passage of WRDA 1986. This inventory is a major component of a new, 

centralized project database called the Civil Works Integrated Funding 

Database. They said to create this inventory, the contractor will search 

WRDA 1986 and other legislation, such as appropriations acts, that may 

include project authorizations, and then match those projects with 

information contained in the Corps’ databases. Officials said this process 

will require the contractor to work closely with Corps staff because 

projects may have different names in legislation than the project names 

contained in the Corps’ databases. According to Corps headquarters 

officials, once the contractor completes the inventory of all projects 

authorized since WRDA 1986, Corps headquarters officials will add those 

projects authorized prior to WRDA 1986. Corps headquarters officials 

said that once the new database has been implemented, district or 

headquarters officials will be required to enter data on new construction 

projects following authorization. As of the end of June 2014, Corps 

headquarters officials said that the contractor has completed the initial 

phase of the inventory of projects authorized since WRDA 1986 and that 

the contractor is updating the inventory based on comments from Corps 

The Corps has not submitted this report. The Corps estimates 

it will submit the comprehensive backlog report of projects required in 

WRRDA 2014 by March 2015, once it completes its new database that is 

discussed below. Until the Corps submits such a report to Congress, 

lawmakers will not have complete information to make informed decisions 

on construction project and study authorizations and appropriations.

 26Pub. L. No. 110-114, § 2027, 121 Stat. 1041 (2007). The fiscal transparency report is to 

have detailed information including, the authorization date, last allocation date, percentage 

of construction completed, estimated cost remaining until completion, and an explanation 

of the reasons for the delay, among other items.
Page 15 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

headquarters officials. These officials estimate the Civil Works Integrated 

Funding Database will contain all authorized projects by the end of the 

2014 calendar year. Officials said the inventory will not include 

authorizations for studies and have not determined what, if any, 

mechanisms they would put in place to track these studies. However, 

federal internal control standards call for agencies to have mechanisms in 

place to appropriately document transactions and other significant events.

The Corps has not identified all eligible construction projects and studies 

for deauthorization and has not complied with statutory requirements to 

notify Congress of all projects and studies eligible for deauthorization. As 

discussed earlier, the Corps does not require its district offices to enter all 

authorized projects into its databases; therefore, the agency is unlikely to 

identify as eligible for deauthorization those projects that are excluded 

from the database and have not had funds obligated for 5 fiscal years. In 

addition, the Corps has not complied with its statutory requirements to 

notify Congress of all projects that have not had funds obligated in 5 fiscal 

years and cannot demonstrate it has notified Congress of projects eligible 

for deauthorization on an annual basis. Moreover, the Corps has not 

notified Congress of eligible studies for deauthorization as required by 

statute.

As discussed earlier, not all projects are included in the Corps’ databases 

because the agency does not have policies and procedures in place to 

enter all authorized projects; therefore, some projects that have not had 

obligations in 5 fiscal years are unlikely to appear on the Corps’ list of 

projects eligible for deauthorization. Corps headquarters officials said that 

the project deauthorization process begins when Corps headquarters 

officials and contractors query the agency’s centralized project databases 

to identify any project that has not had obligations in the previous 5 fiscal 

years. Corps headquarters officials then send a memorandum 

(deauthorization memorandum) outlining statutory deauthorization 

provisions for projects along with the draft list of projects that are eligible 

for deauthorization to the division offices, which in turn are to send the list 

to the district offices for verification, according to these officials. As part of 

this effort, district offices are to verify, among other things, the project 

name, the last year the project had funds obligated, whether it met 

deauthorization criteria as outlined in statute, and an explanation of why 

the project has not had funds obligated. As stated previously, the Corps 

does not generally enter projects into its databases until funds are 

appropriated, therefore, the Corps’ list of projects eligible for 

The Corps Has

Not Identified All 

Projects and Studies 

for Deauthorization

or Complied

with Statutory 

Deauthorization 

Requirements

The Corps Has

Not Identified All

Projects Eligible for 

Deauthorization Due

to Limited Data
Page 16 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

deauthorization is unlikely to contain those authorized projects that have 

not been appropriated funds nor obligated funds within 5 full fiscal years, 

as required by statute. Although Corps headquarters officials said that 

this deauthorization process occurs annually, headquarters officials 

provided us with the lists of projects that were verified and returned by the 

division and district offices for one year (2012).

The deauthorization memorandum instructs the district offices to review 

and verify the information contained on the draft list. Headquarters 

officials said that district officials also are to add information on the year in 

which the project was authorized to the list of eligible projects, but that 

information is not currently included in the Corps’ databases. However, 

the deauthorization memorandum does not specify that district offices are 

to add projects missing from the list that have not had funds obligated for 

5 years. Officials we interviewed from 5 of the 16 Corps district offices in 

our review said they do not attempt to identify and add projects to the 

draft list because they were not aware that they were to do so. Officials 

from two other district offices said their division does not send the draft list 

to them unless there are projects for that district listed, so there would not 

be an opportunity for these district offices to add projects in such 

situations. However, officials from three other district offices we spoke 

with added projects to the headquarters draft list. For example, 

Charleston district officials said they added seven projects to the 2012 

headquarters draft list that were authorized in WRDA 2007 but had not 

had funds appropriated and therefore did not have funds obligated. 

However, neither Corps headquarters nor the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works transmitted a list to Congress for projects eligible for 

deauthorization for fiscal year 2012 as required under statute.

The Corps has not consistently complied with statutory deauthorization 

notification requirements. Specifically, with respect to project notification 

requirements, the Corps has not notified Congress of all deauthorization 

eligible projects, nor has the Corps consistently provided Congress 

notification in the required time frames. With respect to study notification 

requirements, the Corps has not notified Congress of deauthorization 

eligible water resources studies.

As stated previously, current statutory requirements provide for a project 

to be reported to Congress for deauthorization if such projects have not 

been obligated funds for 5 consecutive fiscal years, and then to be 

automatically deauthorized if funds are not obligated in the next fiscal 

year after transmittal of the list to Congress. However, Corps district 

The Corps Has Not 

Complied with Statutory 

Requirements to Notify 

Congress of All Projects 

and Studies Eligible for 

Deauthorization

The Corps Has Not Notified 

Congress of All Projects 

Eligible for Deauthorization
Page 17 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

officials told us that they have recommended projects that headquarters 

officials have identified as eligible for deauthorization not be included on 

the list of projects sent to Congress, even though funds were not 

obligated for those projects for 5 consecutive fiscal years. Specifically, 

officials from 6 district offices informed us that they typically add 

comments to a draft list asking that a project not be included on the list of 

projects eligible for deauthorization if a nonfederal sponsor is still 

interested in pursuing the project or if the district finds continued federal 

interest in the project. Due to staff turnover at headquarters and missing 

documentation on past deauthorization efforts, headquarters officials said 

they are unable to determine the reasons why projects were not identified 

as eligible for deauthorization. Moreover, Corps headquarters officials 

were unable to provide us with agency guidance or policy used to 

determine what projects they consider exempt from project 

deauthorization eligibility.

In our analysis of the 2011 draft list of projects eligible for deauthorization 

sent to the district offices, we found that headquarters had included 43 

projects on the draft list that had not been obligated funds from fiscal year 

2007 through 2011—the 5 fiscal years preceding the date of the list for 

Congress. However, 41 of those 43 projects were not included in the 

Corps’ list of projects eligible for deauthorization that was sent to 

Congress. According to headquarters officials, some of the 41 projects 

may not have been eligible for deauthorization because, for example, 

they were Continuing Authorities Projects, which are not subject to 

deauthorization, or the project was incorporated into another ongoing 

project.27

• The Galveston district has had a project on the Corps headquarters 

draft list of projects eligible for deauthorization in 2010, 2011, 2012, 

and 2013. Galveston district officials said the nonfederal sponsor 

expressed continued interest in the project and requested that the 

Although Corps headquarters officials were unable to provide us 

with the lists that included district comments, officials from 6 of the district 

offices we interviewed told us that projects may be removed from 

consideration by headquarters if nonfederal sponsors support projects or 

if there is continued federal interest in projects that have not had funds 

obligated for 5 fiscal years, for example:

 27Continuing Authorities Program projects are conducted at the Corps’ discretion based 

on the availability of funds and generally do not receive specific congressional 

authorization or appropriations.
Page 18 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

project not be deauthorized. According to Corps data, funds have not 

been obligated for this project since 2006 but the project has not been 

deauthorized.

• The Jacksonville district has had a project on the headquarters list of 

projects eligible for deauthorization in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

According to Jacksonville district officials’ comments on the 2012 list, 

the nonfederal sponsor continued to support the project.28

• The Louisville district had a project on the headquarters list of projects 

eligible for deauthorization in 2008 and 2009. Louisville district 

officials said construction on some components of the project are not 

yet complete because the nonfederal sponsor has not been able to 

contribute its portion of the funds for those components. Because the 

nonfederal sponsor is still interested and some construction had been 

completed, district officials said they did not recommend that the 

project be included in the list of projects eligible for deauthorization.

According to Corps data, funds have not been obligated for this 

project since 1998 but it has not been deauthorized.

Corps data 

showed that funds have not been obligated for this project since 2006 

but it has not been deauthorized.

The Corps’ decision to remove projects from their draft list when such 

projects have not had funds obligated for 5 fiscal years and thereby not 

notify Congress of all projects eligible for deauthorization is not consistent 

with statutory requirements. As a result, Congress has not received a 

complete list of projects eligible for deauthorization, and some projects 

may still be listed as authorized without being subject to deauthorization 

as specified in statute.

Officials we interviewed from 10 of 16 district offices said that the 5-year 

time frame for deauthorizing projects without obligations, as specified in 

statute, is too short of a time frame to be eligible for deauthorization.29

 28Corps headquarters was only able to provide us with district comments to its 2012 draft 

list of projects eligible for deauthorization. 

For 

29Congress has previously taken action with respect to this time frame and such action 

has been to shorten the time frame. More specifically, WRDA 1996 changed this period 

from 10 years to 7 years. The Senate committee report accompanying this WRDA 1996 

had proposed a change from 10 years to 5 years, explaining that this “proposal would 

shorten the length of time authorized projects can languish on the shelves from 10 years 

to 5 years, thereby encouraging early development of projects with strong Federal and 

non-federal support.” WRDA 2007 subsequently changed this period from 7 years to 5 

years.
Page 19 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

example, officials in 4 of the 16 district offices we interviewed cited the 

current economic climate, including reductions in the Corps’ budget and 

fewer funds available for construction projects, as reasons why a project 

should not be deauthorized as it might still have value to the communities 

after the 5-year period. Additionally, officials from 2 Corps district offices 

said some projects may not receive priority in the agency’s budget 

request.30

Reports show that having a large backlog can have negative effects. For 

example, a 2007 report by the National Academy of Public Administration 

states that a backlog complicates the budgeting process and provides an 

incentive to spread funding widely, over many projects, rather than to 

complete high priority projects that have already begun construction.

For example, an official from the Alaska district said that 

projects within his district tend to rank lower than projects in high-traffic 

ports, such as New York and Long Beach, but authorized construction 

projects are still important to the Alaskan community and should not be 

deauthorized.

31

That report recommended that the Corps and Congress work to eliminate 

the backlog of projects that have little chance of being funded. Similarly, 

the National Academy of Sciences reported in 2011 that the backlog 

leads to projects being delayed, conducted in a stop-start manner, and 

contributes to overall inefficient project delivery.32

 30In recent years, the Administration’s budgeting process has used benefit-cost ratios as 

one metric for selecting projects for funding, but the benefit-cost ratio criteria used for 

project selection vary annually. The Corps calculates the benefit-cost ratio differently for 

various types of projects, but it generally represents the value of damages avoided as a 

result of constructing a project, divided by the life-cycle cost of the project for the Corps.

31National Academy of Public Administration, Prioritizing America’s Water Resources 

Investments: Budget Reform for Civil Works Construction Projects at the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: February 2007).

32National Academy of Sciences, National Water Resources Challenges Facing the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2011).
Page 20 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Current federal statute requires the Secretary of the Army to transmit to 

Congress a list of authorized projects or separable elements of projects 

that have had no obligations during the previous 5 full fiscal years. 

However, Corps headquarters officials were unable to provide us with 

copies of most of the deauthorization lists the agency has been required 

to send to Congress since WRDA 1996.33

The Corps’ 2012 deauthorization memorandum states that once verified, 

the list of projects eligible for deauthorization is to be sent to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for submittal to Congress. However, 

Corps headquarters officials and officials from the office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works did not provide us evidence of a 

recordkeeping system that tracked backlog lists sent to Congress or a 

timeline used to ensure a list was transmitted to Congress by the time 

frames specified in statute. Based on our discussions with officials from 

Corps headquarters and the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, lists to Congress may not have been sent each year as 

required by statute because the process and communication mechanisms 

are not documented in policies or procedures, and there is no 

recordkeeping system. Corps headquarters officials said they provided 

draft deauthorization lists to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works on an annual basis but were unable to provide us copies of these 

lists. The office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

could not, in turn, locate all required lists other than the four provided to 

us. Officials from both Corps headquarters and the office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works said staff turnover also may have 

been a factor in not submitting the lists of projects eligible for 

deauthorization to Congress. Officials from the Corps and the office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works provided us with a 

document that outlines the process with dates and responsibilities of the 

two offices, but said that it was not included in formal agency policies or 

procedures. Under the federal standards for internal control,

Specifically, the Corps located 

4 lists (2006, 2010, 2011, and 2012) out of the 12 lists that were 

transmitted to Congress for fiscal years 1997 through 2013, as required.

34

 33Prior to WRDA 2007, the Corps was required to submit its letter with the deauthorization 

eligibility list every 2 years. WRDA 2007 amended the project deauthorization notification 

provision to require an annual submission of the notifications.

agencies 

are to document internal control in management directives, administrative 

34GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

The Corps Cannot 

Demonstrate It Has 

Consistently Notified Congress 

of Projects That Meet 

Deauthorization Eligibility
Page 21 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

policies, or operating manuals and be readily available for examination. 

Without having documented policies or procedures that outline the 

deauthorization process, Corps headquarters officials and officials from 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works may not be clear 

about the specific responsibilities of each office, and Congress may not 

be notified annually about projects eligible for deauthorization.

Under what is commonly referred to as the Federal Records Act, each 

federal agency is required to make and preserve records.35 However, the 

Corps does not have a recordkeeping policy in place with respect to 

project deauthorizations, which has resulted in incomplete records of 

documents related to the deauthorization process, including documents 

sent to Congress. Without records and recordkeeping policies related to 

project deauthorizations, the Corps will have difficulty ensuring that its 

transactions related to deauthorization are done in a manner to comply 

with the statutory records management requirements. In addition, 

historical records related to project deauthorizations could be lost due to 

the absence of a recordkeeping policy and not be available for public 

access in the event of a Freedom of Information Act request.36

In addition to requiring the Corps to send lists of projects eligible for 

deauthorization to Congress, federal statute requires the publication of 

projects that are deauthorized in the Federal Register. According to the 

deauthorization memorandum, Corps headquarters officials are 

responsible for publishing in the Federal Register the list of projects that 

are deauthorized, as well as a list of projects removed from the list of 

projects eligible for deauthorization due to resumption of funding or 

reauthorization. The Corps has published 3 lists (1999, 2003, and 2009) 

of projects that are deauthorized in the Federal Register during the 12 

fiscal years from 1997 to 2013 during which the agency was subject to 

the statutory project deauthorization requirements. Corps headquarters 

officials told us that the statute does not specify dates for publishing 

projects that are deauthorized in the Federal Register. In addition, Corps 

 3544 U.S.C. § 3101. More specifically, the head of each Federal agency shall make and 

preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and 

designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of 

the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

36GAO, Information Management: The Challenges of Managing Electronic Records,

GAO-10-838T (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010).
Page 22 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

headquarters officials told us that the Corps has no formal written policy 

or guidelines consistent with federal standards for internal control,37

The Corps has not complied with statutory requirements to submit to 

Congress an annual list of incomplete water resources studies that have 

been authorized but for which no funds have been appropriated during 

the prior 5 full fiscal years. As discussed earlier, Corps headquarters 

officials told us the agency does not track studies and therefore cannot 

identify studies that meet deauthorization eligibility requirements. 

Moreover, the Corps does not require studies to be entered into its 

databases until funds have been appropriated. Corps headquarters 

officials also said the agency does not have policies and procedures 

outlining a process to identify and submit to Congress a list of studies 

eligible for deauthorization and have not submitted lists of studies eligible 

for deauthorization to Congress, as required by statute, due to manpower 

and resource constraints. Without having a mechanism to compile data 

on studies or a documented policy and procedures in place to 

deauthorize studies as noted in federal internal control standards,

to 

ensure that lists of projects that are deauthorized are published in the 

Federal Register. Without having documented policies or procedures that 

outline the deauthorization process, the Corps cannot ensure that 

projects deauthorized by operation of the statute are published in the 

Federal Register as required.

38

The Corps’ incomplete construction backlog and declining appropriations 

for construction projects have left communities uncertain when or if their 

projects will be completed. Although the Corps has taken the initial steps 

of compiling a database to include all authorized projects, the agency 

faces challenges in identifying backlogged projects and projects eligible 

for deauthorization. Specifically, the agency does not have complete data 

on its backlogged projects, because it does not have documented policies 

or procedures to enter projects into its databases when authorized as 

called for by federal standards for internal control. Without such guidance, 

the 

Corps cannot comply with deauthorization requirements for studies 

specified in statute, and the agency, Congress, and nonfederal sponsors 

have incomplete information on what is feasible to address the water 

resources needs of the country.

 37GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

38GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

The Corps Has Not Complied 

with Study Deauthorization 

Requirements

Conclusions
Page 23 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

it is likely that the Corps will continue to have incomplete data on such 

projects and cannot know the full extent of the construction project 

backlog, making it difficult to effectively deauthorize all eligible projects 

and for the Corps and Congress to effectively prioritize projects and plan 

the agency’s work. In addition, the Corps was unable to locate all of the 

lists of projects eligible for deauthorization that it has been required to 

transmit to Congress since 1997, and the Corps has published lists of 

deauthorized projects in the Federal Register inconsistently during that 

time period. Without a recordkeeping policy in place as required by 

statute and without a documented policy and procedures outlining the 

deauthorization process consistent with federal standards for internal 

control, the Corps cannot ensure that projects eligible for deauthorization 

are submitted to Congress and that projects deauthorized by operation of 

the statute are published as required in the Federal Register.

Furthermore, although federal statute places study-related 

deauthorization requirements on the Corps, the Corps has not complied 

with these provisions. Moreover, the Corps does not have a mechanism 

to compile data on studies or a documented policy and procedures for 

identifying eligible studies for deauthorization, as called for by federal 

standards for internal control. As such, the Corps, Congress, and 

nonfederal sponsors will not have complete information for making fully 

informed decisions on what is feasible to address the water resources 

needs of the country.

To ensure that the Corps meets the statutory requirements related to 

deauthorization of projects, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and 

Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take the 

following four actions:

• Establish and implement a written policy to ensure all authorized 

projects are entered into the agency’s database and tracked.

• Once the new database includes all authorized projects, determine 

what projects are eligible for deauthorization, transmit the list to 

Congress, and publish projects that are deauthorized in the Federal 

Register.

• Establish and implement written policies and procedures documenting 

the project deauthorization process, from initial compilation of a list of 

eligible projects to submitting the list to Congress and publishing the 

projects that are deauthorized in the Federal Register.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 24 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

• Establish and implement a policy for record-keeping to ensure that 

documents related to deauthorization are maintained as federal 

records.

To ensure that the Corps meets the statutory requirements related to 

deauthorization of incomplete water resources studies, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to direct 

the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers to take the following three actions:

• Establish a mechanism for tracking all authorized studies and 

establish and implement a written policy to ensure all authorized 

studies are tracked.

• Establish and implement policies and procedures documenting the 

deauthorization process for studies, from initial compilation of a list of 

eligible studies to submitting the list to Congress.

• Determine what studies are eligible for deauthorization and transmit 

the list to Congress.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Department of Defense. In its written comments, reprinted in appendix II, 

the department concurred with our recommendations and noted that it will 

take steps to address those recommendations.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the 

Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 25 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512- 3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

This report examines (1) the extent to which the Corps tracks data on its 

backlog of construction projects and studies, and (2) the extent to which 

the Corps identifies construction projects and studies eligible for 

deauthorization, and meets statutory deauthorization requirements. For 

purposes of this report, the Corps’ backlog includes any study or project 

that was authorized but for which the study or the construction is not yet 

complete. Our work focused on the deauthorization processes for 

construction studies and projects in fiscal years 1997 to 2013. We chose 

this time frame based on amendments to the deauthorization 

requirements enacted in WRDA 1996 and because the Corps did not 

have complete obligations data for fiscal year 2014 at the time of our 

review.

To determine the extent to which the Corps tracks data on its backlog of 

construction studies and projects as well as the extent to which the Corps 

identifies eligible construction studies and projects for deauthorization, we 

reviewed relevant federal statutes and the Corps’ policies and procedures 

related to data collection and deauthorization processes. We also 

obtained the Corps’ obligations data for fiscal years 1997 to 2013 in an 

attempt to recreate the Corps’ methods to identify projects for 

deauthorization. However, after multiple interviews with Corps 

headquarters officials responsible for the agency’s databases to discuss 

discrepancies, we determined the data were not reliable for our purposes 

because not all authorized projects were contained in the databases. We 

found that the obligations data that the Corps had were sufficiently 

reliable for us to compare those projects with the projects the Corps 

includes in its backlog and to compare with the Corps’ draft 

deauthorization lists. We also reviewed data dictionaries, user guides, 

and other documentation that the Corps provided for the agency’s 

databases. We reviewed these documents to help determine how the 

Corps used its databases to guide its deauthorization processes and to 

assess data reliability. We also reviewed deauthorization documents 

produced by the Corps from 1997 to 2013. These documents included 

draft deauthorization lists created by Corps headquarters, draft 

deauthorization lists that were verified by the division and district offices, 

lists of projects eligible for deauthorization that were sent to Congress, 

and Federal Register notices pertaining to deauthorized projects. Corps 

headquarters officials located one year of draft deauthorization lists that 

were verified from the division and district offices. We also reviewed any 

draft deauthorization lists that were provided by district officials we spoke 

with. Corps headquarters officials provided us with four (2006, 2010, 

2011, and 2012) lists of projects eligible for deauthorization the agency 

sent to Congress from 1997 to 2013. We interviewed Corps headquarters 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

officials to obtain additional information on the agency’s policies and 

procedures for tracking its construction backlog and to determine the 

process the agency uses to create a list of studies and projects eligible for 

deauthorization. In addition, we spoke with nonfederal sponsors of Corps 

projects who are members of two national associations, to determine how 

they were affected by the Corps’ backlog and deauthorization process. 

We selected these associations to represent the Corps’ water resources 

projects and with membership that includes nonfederal sponsors of Corps 

water resources projects. The views of representatives from these 

associations are not generalizable, but they provided perspectives on the 

Corps’ backlog and deauthorization processes.

We also interviewed officials from a nonprobability sample of 16 of 38 

Corps domestic civil works district offices to determine how district offices 

track data on studies and projects and implement the deauthorization 

process. We selected a non-probability sample of district offices that met 

our selection criteria of (1) geographical representation of two district 

offices in each of the Corps’ 8 civil works division offices and (2) number 

of projects per district office. Specifically, we selected the district offices 

with the most projects and the district offices with the least projects in 

each of the 8 division offices, based on a list, provided by Corps 

headquarters officials, of construction projects by division and district. 

Project data was obtained from headquarters officials and included active 

projects in each of the Corps districts. We used this data for the purpose 

of selecting our non-probability sample, and determined it was sufficiently 

reliable for this purpose. Because this is a non-probability sample, the 

experiences and views of the Corps district officials are not representative 

of, and cannot be generalized to, all Corps districts. However, these 

experiences and views provide illustrative examples of how district offices 

track projects and implement the deauthorization process.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to August 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 28 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 29 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 30 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 31 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 32 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-14-699 Army Corps of Engineers

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report 

included Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant Director), Cheryl Arvidson, Danny 

Baez, Elizabeth Beardsley, Cindy Gilbert, Geoffrey Hamilton, Kristin 

Hughes, Lisa S. Moore, Jerome Sandau, and Holly Sasso.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(361515)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.