Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization
Released: 2014-09-22T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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).

Process for Developing Corps Projects

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.

Requirements for Corps Study and Construction Project Deauthorization

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.

The Corps Does Not Track All Construction Projects and Studies on Its Backlog

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.

The Corps Has Not Identified All Projects and Studies for Deauthorization or Complied with Statutory Deauthorization Requirements

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.

The Corps Has Not Identified All Projects Eligible for Deauthorization Due to Limited Data

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.

The Corps Has Not Complied with Statutory Requirements to Notify Congress of All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization

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.

The Corps Has Not Notified Congress of All Projects Eligible for Deauthorization

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).

The Corps Cannot Demonstrate It Has Consistently Notified Congress of Projects That Meet Deauthorization Eligibility

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.

The Corps Has Not Complied with Study Deauthorization Requirements

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

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.