Army Corps of Engineers: Budget Requests Included Construction Projects Located in Over 30 States, Selected Using a Multi-level Process
Released: 2018-12-19T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Corps has eight regional divisions and 38 districts that carry out its domestic civil works’ program (see fig. 1). Corps headquarters primarily develops policies based on administration guidance; plans the direction of the organization; and approves projects to recommend for inclusion in the President’s annual budget request to Congress. The divisions approve projects for submission to headquarters and coordinate projects within their districts, while the districts plan and implement the projects. The Corps’ construction appropriations account has three main business lines— aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation— that correspond to the three primary missions of its civil works program. Some projects may be multipurpose and fit into more than one business line within the program.

For fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the President’s budgets requested about $4.78 billion per year, on average, in discretionary funding for the Corps’ civil works program to plan, construct, operate, and maintain a wide range of water resources projects (see fig. 2). Of this total, the budget requested an average of about $1.39 billion total per year for construction projects in the aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation business lines.

The total construction amounts in Corps budget documents include funding for the hydropower business line; hydropower funding is represented in the other discretionary funding in this figure. We excluded those funding amounts from our business line totals, in part because these projects are now mainly funded through the operations and maintenance account. They represented less than 4 percent of the construction account requests from fiscal years 2008 through 2017.

Discretionary funding refers to the level of budget authority, outlays, or other budgetary resources (other than those for mandatory programs) that is provided in, and controlled by, appropriation acts.

Construction Projects Included in the President’s Budget Requests for the Corps Located In Over Half of the States

For fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the President’s budget requests for the Corps included 164 construction projects located in 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The five states for which the most funds were requested in this period were:

Florida, with $2.4 billion requested for 15 construction projects, Illinois, with $2.3 billion requested for 15 construction projects,

California, with $1.6 billion requested for 24 construction projects,

Washington, with $924 million requested for 9 construction projects,

Kentucky, with $646 million requested for 6 construction projects.

The projects in these five states accounted for 61 percent of the $12.9 billion that the President requested for Corps construction projects in these years. Figure 3 shows the total number of construction projects and funds included in the President’s budget requests for fiscal years 2008 through 2017, by state, within the Corps’ three main business lines— aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation. See appendix I for the number of construction projects and funds requested for each fiscal year during this period, by state. See appendix II for a list of the names of construction projects, locations, business lines, and funds requested per year during this period.

For fiscal years 2015 through 2017, the Corps provided us with detailed data for the construction projects included in the President’s budget requests. This information included latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates to locate projects within states and divisions, as well as business-line-specific data. A total of 71 projects were included in the budget requests for these business lines during this period. Construction projects included in the President’s budget requests for the Corps’ three main business lines for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 were geographically distributed in 26 states and Puerto Rico. According to our analysis of Corps budget data, most of the projects were near either water sources or Corps-constructed water infrastructure. Figure 4, which is an interactive map, identifies the locations and describes budget data for each construction project (see interactive instructions). See appendix III for a list of these construction projects by Corps division, state, business line, and funds requested for each fiscal year.

Corps headquarters officials said that the Corps does not specifically use geographic locations to select construction projects to recommend for inclusion in the President’s budget requests. However, Corps officials explained that geographic characteristics, such as population, might have affected how they considered including construction projects within specific business lines. For example, Corps officials within the flood risk management business line may have considered a construction project located in a population center that could be severely impacted by a flooding event to be a higher priority over other projects in less populated areas.

For fiscal years 2015 through 2017, the Corps requested more than $3 billion for the 71 construction projects that fell within the three main business lines:

Aquatic ecosystem restoration. The President’s budget requested $618 million for 15 Corps construction projects in the aquatic ecosystem restoration business line, which were located in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. According to the Corps budget guidance, these projects were located in areas of federal significance that have some degree of habitat scarcity, connectivity, and special-status species, among other characteristics. Moreover, according to the Corps budget guidance, construction projects in this business line emphasize the restoration of nationally or regionally significant habitats where the solution primarily involves modifying the hydrology and geomorphology. For example, the goals of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program—a collection of several projects— includes improving the health of over 2.4 million acres of the south Florida ecosystem (including Everglades National Park), enhancing water supply, and maintaining flood mitigation, according to a Corps document and Corps officials. According to a Corps document, since 2000, the Corps has invested a total of $2.4 billion in the program including other initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and Central and Southern Florida.

Flood risk management. The President’s budget requested $1.33 billion for 33 Corps construction projects in the flood risk management business line, which were located in California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. According to the Corps’ budget guidance and strategic plan, these projects are located in areas that may experience riverine and coastal flooding, and they are to provide water supply storage. For example, the Bluestone Lake project, in West Virginia, is to address deficiencies that could lead to a breach of a dam built by the Corps in the 1940s. According to the Corps, the dam’s spillway cannot discharge enough water without substantially increasing the potential for a breach of the dam. According to the Corps, a breach could cause catastrophic flooding along the largest river valleys in West Virginia, including locations of major manufacturing and chemical industries, and put 165,000 lives at risk. The Corps started the project in 1998, and plans to award the next phase of the project in 2022. A draft supplementary study has been completed to identify a plan to address this additional deficiency, according to the Corps. The Corps is planning for a 10-year construction period, with an estimated cost of $575 million, according to a Corps document and a headquarters official.

Navigation. The President’s budget requested $908 million for 20 Corps construction projects in the navigation business line, which were located in coastal, inland, and intracoastal navigation systems in California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. According to Corps’ budget guidance, these projects are intended to provide safe, reliable, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable waterborne transportation systems for the movement of commercial goods. For example, the Corps’ Olmsted Locks and Dam project is located on the Ohio River, which connects to the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mississippi rivers and is considered critical for commercial navigation. According to the Corps, the project consists of two 110-foot by 1,200-foot locks, which are located adjacent to the Illinois bank, and a dam comprising of five tainter gates, which control the amount of water that flows downstream. According to a Corps document, over the last several years, approximately 80 million tons of bulk commodities (for example, coal, grain, rock, and sand) per year, on average, have passed through navigation structures that are part of the project. The Corps estimates that this project has been under construction for nearly 30 years.

According to Corps documents and headquarters officials, the project became operational as of September 2018, with a total estimated cost of $3 billion by the time of project completion.

Corps Used a Multi- level Process to Prioritize Construction Projects

To prioritize construction projects to recommend for inclusion in the President’s budget requests for fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the Corps used a process involving the three levels of its organization—districts, divisions, and headquarters.

Districts Prepared Work Packages for Ranking

To begin the process, Corps district officials divided projects into work packages—increments of work that can be considered for inclusion in the budget. According to Corps policy guidance for budget development (budget guidance), these work packages should contribute to the overall project and be executed without being dependent on the funding of additional work packages. According to a district official, district officials then assigned one of six priority levels to indicate the order in which work packages for the same project should be completed for that fiscal year. Priority levels are categories used to differentiate work packages within the same project. Corps budget guidance instructed district officials to assign priority levels based on criteria including whether a project is new or continuing and where a work package falls within a project’s overall work plan. Corps budget guidance also instructed officials to group work packages either by business line or appropriations account, depending on the fiscal year, based on the budget guidance for that fiscal year.

Districts, Divisions, and Headquarters Ranked Work Packages

Corps districts, divisions, and headquarters consecutively ranked the work packages, as shown in figure 5. In doing so, they established criteria specific to the business line for each project. Corps budget guidance provided instructions on which criteria to use for each business line to determine rankings in a particular year. The ranking criteria in the guidance—such as the rate of economic return, populations at risk, or the environmental impact—varied nearly every year from fiscal years 2008 to 2017 for two of the three main business lines: flood risk management and navigation (see appendix IV for the criteria used, by business line and fiscal year). Corps officials said they routinely revised the criteria while developing the annual budget guidance, for reasons such as addressing changes in the policy guidance from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works or OMB, or improving the ranking process.

Corps officials we interviewed noted that although each level used the same criteria to rank work packages, the districts, divisions and headquarters had different focuses and increasing numbers of work packages to rank and compare. Specifically, officials at each level considered the overall needs of their respective jurisdictions when making ranking decisions: districts had a local focus; divisions had a regional or watershed focus; and headquarters had a national focus. The number of work packages to be ranked increased at each level according to Corps officials: districts ranked local work packages; divisions re-ranked work packages from four to seven districts; and headquarters re-ranked work packages from all of the divisions nationwide.

After ranking all work packages within their respective jurisdictions by business line or appropriations account, officials from all three levels entered the rankings into the database for use in the budget review process. According to information from the Civil Works Integrated Funding Database, the Corps ranked more than 25,000 work packages for the fiscal year 2017 budget recommendation.

Headquarters Developed Final Recommendations for Budget Requests

According to one headquarters official, Corps officials in the Program Development Branch at headquarters facilitated discussions among business line and account managers to develop the final rankings of all work packages. As part of this process, headquarters officials noted that business line managers compared work packages with different characteristics across business lines or accounts. According to Corps budget guidance and headquarters officials, business line managers and account managers are instructed to consider two key factors when determining their final rankings each fiscal year. Specifically, those managers are instructed to give top priority to work packages that significantly impact the risk to human life posed by potential disasters. In addition, the managers are to prioritize work packages that address a legal requirement to mitigate potential negative effects caused by construction, such as adverse environmental effects.

Using the final rankings, Corps headquarters officials said they developed the final budget recommendations for each fiscal year, including a recommended funding amount for each project, with input from various levels of the organization. More specifically, to determine the budget recommendations, Corps headquarters officials obtained feedback from district commanders, generals, directors, and the Chief of Engineers. In fiscal year 2017, the Corps used its final rankings to determine recommended funding amounts for 89 construction projects, each of which included one or more work packages; ultimately, these projects comprised about 298 work packages. Once the Corps headquarters officials developed these recommendations, they briefed the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on their recommendations. An official from the Assistant Secretary’s office said they reviewed the Corps recommendations and compared them with the Assistant Secretary’s priorities, after which they developed the final recommendations to send to OMB for review and potential inclusion in the President’s budget requests. According to a Corps official, 34 percent of construction projects included in the fiscal year 2017 President’s budget request received funding.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Department of Defense. The department told us they had no comments on the draft report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 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 V.

Appendix I: Corps Construction Projects Included in the President’s Budget Requests, by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017

Table 1 lists the 164 construction projects and funds requested, by state, within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) three main business lines—aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation—for fiscal years 2008 through 2017.

Appendix II: Corps Construction Projects Included in the President’s Budget Requests, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017

Table 2 lists the names and locations of the 164 construction projects the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) identified as included in the President’s budget requests for its three main business lines for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. The Corps’ three main business lines are aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation.

Appendix III: Corps Construction Projects Included in the President’s Budget Requests, by Division, Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017

Table 3 lists the names of the 71 construction projects, their locations, and the agency divisions that manage them, as shown in interactive figure 4 of this report, and includes the figure’s rollover information. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) identified these projects as included in the President’s budget requests for its three main business lines for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. The Corps’ three main business lines are aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation.

Appendix IV: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Criteria Used to Rank Construction Projects in Main Business Lines

Table 4 lists the criteria included in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) annual budget guidance for its three main business lines for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. The Corps’ three main business lines are aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

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

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant Director), Leah E. English, Kerstin Hudon, Susan Malone, and Cynthia Norris made significant contributions to this report. Important contributions were also made by Melinda Cordero, Justin Fisher, Juan Garay, Patricia Moye, and Danny Royer.

Related GAO Products

Army Corps of Engineers: Factors Contributing to Cost Increases and Schedule Delays in the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project. GAO-17-147. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2017.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 2014.

Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization. GAO-14-699. Washington, D.C.: August 21, 2014.

Army Corps of Engineers: Cost Increases in Flood Control Projects and Improving Communication with Nonfederal Sponsors. GAO-14-35. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2013.

Army Corps of Engineers: Budget Formulation Process Emphasizes Agencywide Priorities, but Transparency of Budget Presentation Could be Improved. GAO-10-453. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2010.

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process. GAO-05- 734SP. Washington, D.C.: September 2005.