Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization
Published: 2014-08-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. Reports have found that declining appropriations, coupled with the  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. 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., 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.
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  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. 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  data for fiscal year 2014 at the time of our review.additional information about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.  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.organized into three tiers: a national headquarters in Washington, D.C., 8  regional divisions, and 38 local district offices (see fig. 1).
subsections: section_title: Process for Developing Corps Projects
paragraphs: The major steps in developing a Corps construction project are shown in  figure 2.
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. 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.
Under WRDA 2007 amendments, after receiving authorization and an  appropriation, studies were conducted in two phases: reconnaissance  and feasibility. 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. 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.guidance on the elimination of the reconnaissance phase.
Pub. L. No. 110-114, § 2043(b), 121 Stat. 1041 (2007). 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. When Congress  approves a project for construction, it typically authorizes a total cost for  the project based on estimates prepared by the Corps.
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  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.
section_title: Requirements for Corps Study and Construction Project Deauthorization
paragraphs: 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. 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.that list to appropriate funds, or the study is deauthorized.
Congress has 90 days after the submission of  Current federal statute also requires a similar deauthorization process for  construction projects.  The Secretary of the Army is required to transmit  to Congress a list of projects—or separable elementshad funds obligated for 5 full consecutive fiscal years. Beginning with  WRDA 2007, this list was required to be sent to Congress annually; prior  —that have not  to WRDA 2007, the list was required biennially.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.
section_title: The Corps Does Not Track All Construction Projects and Studies on Its Backlog
paragraphs: 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. 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   and modified most recently in WRDA 2007 for a total cost of $187  1999million, but according to Corps officials, construction funds have not been  appropriated for this project. 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. 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.
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. Without written policies or guidance, Corps district offices will likely continue to inconsistently enter projects  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   According to  projects the President proposes to fund in the budget year.that work, congressional users of the Corps’ budget presentation said that  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. 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.
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  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.
section_title: The Corps Has Not Identified All Projects and Studies for Deauthorization or Complied with Statutory Deauthorization Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Corps Has Not Identified All Projects Eligible for Deauthorization Due to Limited Data
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: The Corps Has Not Complied with Statutory Requirements to Notify Congress of All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Corps Has Not Notified Congress of All Projects Eligible for Deauthorization
paragraphs: 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  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. 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:
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  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,   Corps data  the nonfederal sponsor continued to support the project.showed that funds have not been obligated for this project since 2006  but it has not been deauthorized.
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.
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.
For  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   For example, an official from the Alaska district said that  request.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.
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. 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.
National 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).
section_title: The Corps Cannot Demonstrate It Has Consistently Notified Congress of Projects That Meet Deauthorization Eligibility
paragraphs: 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. 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.
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 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. 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.
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  headquarters officials told us that the Corps has no formal written policy  or guidelines consistent with federal standards for internal control, 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.
section_title: The Corps Has Not Complied with Study Deauthorization Requirements
paragraphs: 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,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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.