The purpose of the Corps’ civil works project study process is to inform federal decision makers whether a water resources project warrants further federal investment. The study process is conducted in two phases: reconnaissance and feasibility. In the reconnaissance phase, the Corps conducts an initial evaluation of potential solutions to a water resources problem. If the Corps determines that a project potentially warrants federal investment, it proceeds to a more detailed feasibility study. The feasibility phase generally begins with the signing of a feasibility cost- share agreement between the Corps and the local project sponsor. Feasibility studies are generally prepared by the Corps’ 38 district offices, with review and oversight provided by the cognizant Corps division office and by headquarters. During the feasibility phase, the Corps formulates and evaluates alternative plans for achieving the project’s objectives and reviews the proposed project to assess whether the benefits of constructing it outweigh its costs. At the beginning of this phase, a feasibility scoping meeting is held to bring the Corps, the local sponsor, and other agencies together to reach agreement on the problems and solutions to be investigated during the feasibility study and the scope of the analysis required. The next step includes an alternative formulation briefing to identify and resolve any legal or policy concerns and to obtain headquarters approval of the tentatively selected plan and to release the draft report to the public. Finally, the draft feasibility report—which presents the study results and findings, including those developed in the reconnaissance phase—is released to the public. At the conclusion of the feasibility phase, the Corps selects a recommended plan for proceeding with the project. The feasibility report also includes analysis and documentation to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, federal agencies are to assess the effects of major federal actions, such as Corps construction projects, that significantly affect the environment and prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of those actions. NEPA has two principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts and (2) to ensure that this information will be made available to the public. NEPA requires an agency to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of any “major federal action” significantly affecting the environment. NEPA implementing regulations generally require an agency to prepare either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement (EIS).procedures—such as providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the draft EIS for at least 45 days. NEPA implementing regulations also specify requirements and Corps project studies have historically been subject to various levels of internal and external review under a number of authorities as well as the Chief of Engineers’ responsibility to ensure the quality of Corps studies. For example, in 1902, Congress created the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, which was the result of efforts to address inconsistent treatment of proposed Corps projects. The board was made up of Corps staff. Until 1992, when Congress terminated the board, it reviewed thousands of Corps studies for civil works projects and made unfavorable recommendations on more than half. At the time the board was abolished, there was concern that too much duplicative review was occurring between the board and other internal Corps review processes. Subsequently, in the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress established a mechanism for external review of Corps projects by giving the head of the Department of the Interior and the governors of affected states an opportunity to comment on proposed Corps projects before authorization. Furthermore, starting in 1970, under NEPA, environmental impact statements for Corps projects were required to be sent to the heads of other federal agencies and governors of affected states for comment. As a result of the Flood Control Act of 1970, Congress created the position of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who coordinates the review of Corps studies with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before they are submitted to Congress. Recent congressional interest in establishing an independent external peer review process for Corps project studies began in the late 1990s, following a series of damaging reports and events, including allegations that the Corps had manipulated information to justify projects. Investigations conducted by NAS and the Army’s Inspector General identified various problems with the Corps internal review process, including the manipulation of economic analysis and potential institutional bias toward large construction projects. Around this time, WRDA 2000 required the Corps to contract with NAS to study and make recommendations concerning the use of peer review for feasibility reports, including recommending potential criteria to determine how to apply peer review. In 2002, NAS released its study concluding that the Corps’ more complex water resources project planning studies should be subject to external, independent review. The study also found that not all Corps project studies necessarily require such review, recommending instead that external peer review be reserved for studies that are expensive, will affect a large area, are highly controversial, or involve high levels of risk. The study estimated that about five Corps projects per year would likely be subject to this level of review. According to the NAS study, criteria for selecting the appropriate level of review should balance the risks and consequences of inadequate review against the resources required for more complex and stringent levels of review. In addition, the study identified several criteria that should be considered in determining the appropriate level of review for Corps studies, primarily that as project magnitude and risks increase, an increasing degree of independence and scope of review are warranted (see fig. 1). In addition to recommendations related to the appropriate level of review for project studies, the 2002 NAS study made several other recommendations about the Corps’ peer review process. It recommended that peer review results be presented to the Chief of Engineers before a final decision on a project study is made, that the Chief of Engineers respond in writing to each key point of the peer review report, and that peer review be initiated early enough in the Corps’ study process so that review results can be meaningfully incorporated into project design. After NAS published its 2002 study, OMB in December 2004 issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review citing the Information as well as its general authorities to oversee the quality of Quality Act,agency information, analyses, and regulatory actions. This OMB bulletin established governmentwide guidance on enhancing peer review practices and covers what information is subject to peer review, the selection of appropriate peer reviewers, opportunities for public participation, and related issues. The Corps’ Engineering Circular 1105- 2-408 (EC 408) was issued in May 2005 and established procedures for ensuring the credibility and quality of Corps documents by supplementing its previous review process, including to add external peer review to its review process in special cases where risk and magnitude warrant this level of review. The Corps faced further criticism after the failure of Corps levees and floodwalls in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. In 2006, the Corps announced “Twelve Actions for Change,” which included a set of actions intended to transform the Corps’ priorities, processes, and planning and apply lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Among these actions was to employ independent review for projects with significant consequences, especially the potential for loss of life if the project were to fail. In November 2007, Congress passed WRDA 2007 and included section 2034, which establishes a 7-year trial period for peer reviews of certain studies of civil works projects; this trial generally applies to project studies initiated by the Corps from November 2005 through November 2014.The Corps was to provide an initial report to Congress on its implementation of the peer review trial under section 2034 by November 2010 and is to provide a final report by November 2013. In February 2011, the Corps submitted its initial report to Congress summarizing its experiences implementing the peer review process in response to the requirement in section 2034 of WRDA 2007. Section 2034 defines a project study as a feasibility or reevaluation study—including the EIS for that study—or any other study associated with a modification of a water resources project that includes an EIS. Under section 2034, project studies that meet at least one of the following criteria are required to undergo peer review: The project has an estimated total cost of more than $45 million. The governor of an affected state requests an independent peer review. The Chief of Engineers determines that the project study is controversial (i.e., significant public dispute exists as to the project’s size, nature, or effects or its economic or environmental costs or benefits). In addition, if the head of a federal or state agency charged with reviewing a project study determines the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources, he or she may request that the Corps consider a peer review by an independent panel of experts. WRDA 2007 also provides some instances where exceptions may be made to peer review. For example, the Corps may exclude from peer review certain projects having a total estimated cost of more than $45 million but do not include an EIS, have not been determined by the Corps to be controversial, and come below specified thresholds of adverse impacts. The Corps may also exclude other project studies meeting certain exclusion criteria. For example, the Corps may exclude studies that involve only the rehabilitation or replacement of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or flood control gates within the same footprint and for the same purpose as an existing water resources project; an activity for which the Corps and industry have ample experience, so the activity may be considered routine; and minimal life safety risk. Section 2034 also has requirements for the Corps concerning the peer review panel and its independence, as well as for timing the peer review and publishing peer review reports, as described in more detail below. Under section 2034, the Corps is required to contract with NAS, a similar independent scientific and technical advisory organization, or an “eligible organization” to establish a panel of experts that will review a project study. Section 2034 defines an eligible organization as having the following five characteristics: is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, is free from conflicts of interest, does not carry out or advocate for or against federal water resources has experience in establishing and administering panels.