Detailed Information on the
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Assessment

Increasing focus on project effectiveness through environmental benefit assessment research. Increased project effectiveness will contribute to increased program effectiveness. The focus of the research will be on three key areas: increased consistency and efficiency in data collection, tools and models linking physical processes to environmental benefits, and exploration of alternative benefit metrics.

Identifying the most effective means to obtain independent program evaluation. Specific criteria will be developed to be considered in a program review by building on previous and ongoing reviews of the Corps Civil Works program. Work will also be done on defining the qualifications required to conduct an appropriate review.

Develop a database for aquatic ecosystem restoration project data

Develop a new outcome measure

Improve tracking of costs of project construction

Acquiring baseline data for our performance measures and increasing the accuracy of our evaluations. Fiscal year 2006 results will be used as the baseline for additional measures and compared to estimates developed based on the fiscal year 2006 budget to adjust out year targets.

Measure: Number of acres of habitat restored, created, improved, or protected.

Explanation:The number of acres of habitat restored is an appropriate measure for documenting progress toward restoration of degraded ecosystems. Acres are credited in the year the project construction is physically complete. This is not a cumulative number.

Measure: Number of acres of habitat restored, created, improved, or protected during a four-year period.

Explanation:This measure is an aggregate of the total acres of habitat restored, created, improved or protected every four years. For example, the 2009 target reflects the sum of the actual and target acres for fiscal years 2006-2009. Acres are credited in the year the project construction is physically complete. The long-term measure uses the five year development plan associated with the budget as the basis for the estimate.

Measure: Number of nationally significant acres of habitat restored, created, improved, or protected.

Explanation:This measure will document the subset of acres of habitat restored each year that have high quality outputs as compared to national needs. Acres are credited in the year the project construction is physically complete. This is not a cumulative number.

Measure: Number of nationally significant acres of habitat restored, created, improved, or protected during a four year period.

Explanation:This measure is an aggregate of the total number of nationally significant acres of habitat restored, created, improved or protected every four years. For example, the 2009 target reflects the sum of the actual and target acres for fiscal years 2006-2009. Acres are credited in the year the project construction is physically complete. The long-term measure uses the five year development plan associated with the budget as the basis for the estimate.

Measure: Percentage of all acres of habitat restored, created, improved or protected in a four year period that are nationally significant.

Explanation:The long-term goal is for 75% of the total acres of habitat restored, created, improved or protected in a four year period to be nationally significant. The 2009 target reflects the actual and target data for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Measure: Dollars per acre to restore, create, improve or protect nationally significant habitat.

Explanation:The cost of the projects that produce nationally significant acres in any given year will be used to calculate this figure. In the long run through efficiencies in project execution or other considerations the goal would be to restore more acres per dollar expended.

Measure: Comparison of estimated costs of construction with actual costs.

Explanation:This measure monitors changes in construction costs by comparing the cost in the initial Partnership Agreement for construction of a project to the actual costs at the point of physical completion of the project. The goal is that 75% of the projects completing in any one year should be within 15% plus or minus of the original cost estimate.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to help restore aquatic habitat to a less degraded and more natural condition in ecosystems whose structure, function, and dynamic processes have become degraded. The emphasis is on restoration opportunities associated with aquatic resources including wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. The Corps generally is best able to assist where the solution primarily involves manipulating the hydrology and hydraulics of a river system, rather than projects that consist primarily of the acquisition of an interest in lands. Its projects mostly help to reestablish or rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems, but at times may also include measures to establish, enhance, or protect such ecosystems. These activities may be undertaken as a stand-alone project or as an element of a multipurpose project whose primary purpose is flood or storm damage reduction or commercial navigation.

Evidence: Aquatic ecosystem restoration authorities have been included in or modified by every Water Resources Development Act since 1986. Highlights include section 210 of WRDA 1996 (cost sharing for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration environmental projects); and section 306 of WRDA 90 (environmental protection mission). Individual aquatic ecosystem restoration projects may be authorized or aquatic ecosystem restoration features may be included in the authorizations for multipurpose projects. The primary Corps policy statements and implementation guidance include Engineer Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, ER 1165-2-501, and Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 1165-2-502. Corps policy reflects the requirements of the Principles and Guidelines and has been refined over time to reflect experience with projects authorized since 1986.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: This program focuses on the best opportunities for the Corps to contribute to aquatic ecosystem restoration. The President's Budget places an emphasis on areas with nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems where problems are occurring on a large scale such as the Everglades and coastal Louisiana. Scientists estimate that roughly half of the original wetlands in the Nation and more than two-thirds of its original riparian habitat have been lost. The loss of original habitat and the degradation of much of what remains has led to the Federal listing of many species. The species at risk include amphibians, crayfishes, freshwater mussels, and freshwater fishes.

Evidence: Various statutes, Executive Orders, and reports from Federal agencies and private commissions have recognized the need for aquatic ecosystem restoration. President Bush's Wetlands Initiative announced April 24, 2004; Section 306 of WRDA 90 (environmental protection mission); Section 307 of WRDA 90 (wetlands); at least 21 projects with ecosystem restoration as the purpose in whole or in part and several ecosystem restoration programs have been included in the various WRDAs since 1986; The Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, PL 106-457; Status and Trends in the Conterminous U.S. 1986-1997, EPA website; the NatureServe website; Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation, Biological Report 28, 1995, Department of the Interior National Biological Service.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: This program is best suited to aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts that involve significant changes in the pattern or timing of water flows (hydrology) or the physical structure (geomorphology) of large rivers, or require complex engineering analysis. Most of the program's funding is currently allocated to large-scale restoration efforts to offset some of the environmental damage resulting from various sources, or to the Everglades Restoration program. The Corps also contributes to aquatic ecosystem restoration in some cases by designing a watershed solution that involves not only commercial navigation or flood or storm damage reduction but also restoration of aquatic ecosystem functions and values,. In some other instances, state and local interests could build the aquatic ecosystem restoration project on their own or another Federal agency could help fund it; however, once Congress authorizes a Corps study, the state and local interests generally rely on the Corps so there is no duplication of effort.

Evidence: The willingness of non-Federal sponsors to share in the costs of a Corps aquatic ecosystem restoration study and project suggests that the project meets their needs. During the planning of a proposed project, the Corps seeks input from other Federal agencies, the state, and local interests. In some cases, non-profit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy have confirmed the value of a project by serving as the non-Federal cost-sharing partner, contributing lands, or otherwise helping the state or local interests to meet the non-Federal cost-share.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The one major design flaw relates to the targeting of resources and is addressed in section 1.5. The program is designed to work with local non-Federal sponsors to restore degraded ecosystems. Each Corps project requires a non-Federal sponsor to share a significant percentage of the cost and Congressional authorization and appropriations. The Corps ecosystem restoration program is unique in its ability to address issues at a watershed scale and to consider multiple purposes and impacts during planning and implementation of ecosystem restoration projects. The projects submitted for authorization are planned in accordance with the "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies" and reviewed for cost effectiveness. This in addition to substantial review by other Federal agencies results in a program free of major design flaws and deficiencies. The Corps has made some progress in selecting projects that should be a priority for budgeting purposes during the last several years. On projects that include both aquatic ecosystem restoration and other purposes, the Corps sometimes has difficulty in determining how to accommodate conflicting project purposes at a reasonable cost. There is little concrete evidence to suggest that one approach or mechanism could increase Corps efficiency or effectiveness, outside of some Corps project costs, which is addressed in question 4.4.

Evidence: Congress specifically authorizes each project and program. Performance criteria have been developed and used for budget prioritization. The Corps regulations require documentation of the cost effectiveness and the results of incremental cost analyses for each project (ER 1105-2-100). The requirement for a cost-share sponsor assures leveraging funds and demonstrates a willingness to pay for the proposed project. The Corps has clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability for managing capital assets and has implemented financial and program management programs to assure effective use of its resources. The Corps tracks financial information through the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System, which is distributed and linked throughout the Corps. Since the Corps' projects are authorized by Congress on a project by project basis, the Corps has little opportunity to design and implement a broad, regional development plan, which could more effectively and efficiently meet the Corps' mission.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Although the projects in this program that the Corps recommends for construction generally address legitimate ecological needs directly, the program as a whole is not designed to ensure that the suite of projects under construction - or the allocation of funding among them - reflects the best overall use of resources from a national perspective. Because Congress specifically authorizes each project and program, the Corps often pursues site-specific problems regardless of a project's national or regional significance. In evaluating individual projects, however, the Corps compares the "with project" and "without project" futures to determine the extent to which the expected benefits derive from the project and would not occur in its absence. The Corps has used performance criteria during the development of its budgets for FY06 and FY07 to help develop national priorities. Projects also comply with NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and undergo additional state and agency review and receive endorsement from the appropriate Governors prior to submission to Congress for authorization.

Evidence: Congress specifically authorizes each project and program. The criteria currently being used to determine the "significance" of a proposed aquatic ecosystem restoration project, which appear in ER 1105-2-100, ER 1165-2-501, and EP 1165-2-502, are subjective. The Corps is working to develop more objective criteria for budgetary purposes. The Corps has made some progress in selecting projects that should be a priority for budgeting purposes and is developing several performance measures which will aid in this endeavor. Each project proposed for authorization has undergone a Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The purpose of this program is to help restore to a less degraded more natural condition aquatic habitat in ecosystems whose structure, function, and dynamic processes have become degraded. Budget priority is placed on projects that contribute to the restoration of regionally or nationally significant habitat. The desired outcome in all cases requires identifying and implementing a cost-effective strategy to restore the hydro-geomorphic conditions required for aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. Although ecological science has not yet developed a universally accepted measure for habitat value, outcome measure(s) still needs to be identified that assesses improvement in aquatic ecosystem habitat quality of completed projects and the impact of Corps restoration efforts on a regional and/or national level. The Corps is currently working to develop benefit evaluation methods for aquatic ecosystem restoration. Improved assessment of ecosystem restoration benefits is essential to enable decision-makers to recommend the most productive environmental projects. Research will include efforts on improved models, the use of more realistic data requirements, and development of more meaningful metrics to permit ecologically optimal solutions. This initiative will focus on the development of robust assessment tools that incorporate modern ecosystem principles, are relatively easy to apply, offer significant user flexibility to meet individual project requirements and provide output suitable for performance measurement.. In the meantime, the Corps has proposed two long-term output measures and one long-term proxy outcome measure to address numbers of acres restored and acres of nationally significant habitat restored and goal to increase the proportion of national significant acres restored. A baseline and targets have been set for one of the long-term output measures. Estimated baselines and targets have been developed using FY 06 data and the FY 07 budget for the other measures.

Evidence: The Corps proposed preliminary performance measures in its March 2004 Civil Works Strategic Plan. It continues to work on possible ways to improve these measures and to identify the best candidates for Corps funding. Data from FY 05 has been used to establish a baseline for the long-term output measure regarding number of acres of habitat restored. The projects completed in FY 06 will provide data for baselines for the other long term measures; number of nationally significant acres of habitat restored, created, improved or protected based in part on the Five Year Development Plan (FYDP) and the Percentage of all acres of habitat restored based in part on the FYDP that are nationally significant. Within the scientific community there is currently no consensus on the appropriate means for measuring outcomes, such as return of functionality, for ecosystem restoration in a cost effective and timely manner.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Baseline program performance data and/or targets are only available for a limited number of long-term measures that were recently developed. The Corps has made progress in developing estimated baselines and targets for its other measures.

Evidence: Baselines and targets for new measures are under development.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: In developing a proposed budget, the Corps considers information on project costs, the number of acres to be restored, whether the project will benefit Special Status Species, and other factors. The Corps has developed an annual output measure of number of acres of habitat restored, created, improved, or protected. It has also proposed an annual output measure of number of acres of nationally significant acres of habitat restored and an annual efficiency measure of acres of nationally significant habitat restored, created, improved, or protected per dollar invested with an estimated baselines and targets. While these do not directly measure the expected long-term outcome of ecosystem restoration they do measure progress towards that goal. Factors affecting noticeable change on an ecosystem level, the hoped for outcome of the program, are difficult to measure since a multitude of factors affect the outcome, however, the Corps proposed measures do measure progress toward the goal.

Evidence: The Civil Works Strategic Plan Fiscal year 2004-Fiscal Year 2009 goal 2, Objective 2.1 and EC 11-2-187 (FY 2008 budget Engineer Circular). Baseline program performance data and/or targets are only available for a limited number of annual measures that were recently developed. The baseline for the Corps' annual efficiency measure will be established based on FY 2006 results.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baseline program performance data and targets are only available for a limited number of annual measures that were recently developed.

Evidence: Baselines and targets for most new measures are under development.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Corps aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts generally involve a non-Federal sponsor that contributes cash, work-in-kind, and real estate and is responsible for future operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation work on the project. The non-Federal sponsor has a strong interest in the completion of the study and project construction, as well as in cost effective outputs. Project completion is necessary to achieve the program goal. Effective restoration plans are critical to project approval and the performance measures are used to set priorities for budgeting. This provides additional motivation for working toward the annual and long-term goals. The affected states and other Federal agencies typically provide comments during development of a proposed project and often are involved during its construction and follow-up studies. These resource agencies also have a vested interest in timely cost effective restoration. Construction primarily occurs through contracts managed by the Corps.

Evidence: The Corps enters into a Project Cost-share Agreement with each non-Federal sponsor, which sets forth the responsibilities of each party during and after project implementation. Each Project Cost-share Agreement is subject to a final audit at completion to ensure that each party has met its financial obligations. On several large aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts, interagency boards (including both Federal and state agencies) provide periodic guidance on studies and project implementation. In addition, the Corps sometimes signs Partnership Agreements or Memoranda or Understanding with other Federal agencies or with nongovernmental organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy. Corps construction contracts include performance clauses to help ensure cost and schedule objectives are met.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Project by project review with input from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other Corps reviews conducted on an as-needed basis. Neither the Corps nor any outside party has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of this program as a whole, although recent National Academy of Sciences/ National Research Council reports have reviewed the Corps planning process and many of the resulting recommendations are directly applicable to the ecosystem restoration program. A growing number of Corps ecosystem restoration projects, including those on the Upper Mississippi and Everglades, include post construction monitoring as part of the project costs. Experience with constructed projects informs the planning and design of new projects. The Corps is placing increased emphasis on ensuring long-term success of its projects and will use FY 07 funding for inspection of completed ecosystem features similar to the account used to inspect locally operated flood control projects. Furthermore, large-scale restoration efforts account for the bulk of the funding in this program. On these efforts, the Corps seeks independent evaluations by university researchers and groups like the National Academy of Sciences where appropriate. Each project proposed for authorization or funding is subject to review by the public and other agencies as part of the NEPA compliance process and is reviewed by the Office of Water Project Review prior to submittal to Army and OMB. An Environmental Advisory Board advises the Chief of Engineers on environmental matters.

Evidence: EC 11-2-187 and ER 1105 -2 -100 (Planning Guidance Notebook). Additionally the Corps has recently issued guidance regarding independent peer review for large or complex projects, EC 1105-2-408, Peer Review of Decision Documents. The Corps has utilized the National Academy of Sciences to accomplish a comprehensive review of the Civil Works program (six since 1999), including Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning (2004). Other reports have addressed aspects of the large scale restoration efforts underway. These include three reports reviewing various aspects of the Everglades (Does Water flow Influence Everglades Landscape Patterns?- 2003, Regional Issues in Aquifer Storage and Recovery for Everglades Restoration- 2002 and Science and the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration- 2003)and four reports on the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Feasibility Study (one in 2001, two in 2004, and one in 2005) and most recently published Drawing Louisiana's New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana- 2006. While all of these efforts have identified some opportunities to further improve the program, they have also found that the Corps program is currently responding to an important need. Ultimately, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program's projects have been evaluated, but a program-wide evaluation has not yet been conducted.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The budget is built in increments and the impact of varying increments on performance is displayed. Each increment (program level) defines what is achievable with each additional increment/decrement of funding within each business program. The Corps is a leader in activity-based costing, in that all district costs are charged to projects, and there is no account for District General and Administrative costs. Consequently, resource costs are transparent. The Corps continues to work to improve its budget presentation. While the program has made progress in developing performance measures, targets and baselines for most measures are still under development. Therefore, the Budget has not yet been specifically tied to the program's annual and long-term goals. The screening factors contained in the Corps budget guidance (EC 11-2-187) reflect the initial steps toward using information related to performance in establishing priorities among projects. Screening criteria initially developed for use in preparation of the FY06 budget request continue to evolve as the Corps has worked to define more meaningful criteria.

Evidence: Corps annual budget guidance for FY 06, FY 07, and FY 08 (EC 11-2-187) identifies initial screening factors that the Corps considers in developing a budget proposal and reflects incremental progress toward using information related to performance in establishing priorities among projects. Baselines and targets for most new measures are under development.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Corps has made significant process in developing new long-term and annual performance measures. The Civil Works Strategic Plan, published in 2004, contains the basic performance measures used in budget preparation. The Corps began using information related to performance to develop the FY 2005 budget and has taken further meaningful steps since then. This includes the development of significance factors that enable the evaluation and measurement of project and program outcomes. While the Corps is committed to developing appropriate performance measures and goals, the emphasis will continue to be on evaluating possible ways to measure the quality of the anticipated and actual project outputs with a goal of restoring more nationally significant habitat while directing resources to the most effective and efficient projects. One annual and one long-term measure have been developed and four additional measures are proposed with estimated baselines and targets.

Evidence: The Corps is continuing to improve upon the measures proposed in its March 2004 Civil Works Strategic Plan, in consultation with other agencies and stakeholders. The Corps met with a group of Federal agency, non-Federal, and NGO ecosystem restoration stakeholders in January 2006 to focus on performance measures. This dialogue will continue. Performance measures continue to be refined and improved. FY 2005 results provided the baseline data for one annual and one long-term performance measure. Baselines for three additional measures will be established based on FY 2006 results.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Most analyses of alternatives and trade-offs occur at the project level. Although further refinement is necessary, the Corps of Engineers has developed a number of techniques to assist in formulating projects, comparing projects and outputs, and measuring results. When formulating an aquatic ecosystem restoration project, the Corps seeks to identify the point at which a further investment would not significantly improve the functions and values of the ecosystem. In weighing whether to incur additional costs, the Corps also considers the significance of the resources being restored. The reports for the large individually authorized projects that make up the majority of the budget request are reviewed by the Office of Water Policy Review, the various Federal and State agencies and OMB prior to being recommended for authorization at which point the Corps defends or alters its position. Additionally the Corps has just issued new guidance (EC 1105-2-408) on Peer Review including external peer review for projects that involve the use of novel models and assumptions, are controversial or precedent setting, have significant interagency interest, or have significant economic, environmental and social effects. The budget guidance since FY 06 has included initial criteria for selecting high performing projects when setting budgetary priorities.

Evidence: Each project is formulated in accordance with planning regulations, including the "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies" authored by the U.S. Water Resources Council in 1983, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100. In addition there is detailed guidance for conducting Cost Analysis and Incremental Cost Effectiveness reviews. Engineer Circular 1105-2-408. Budget guidance EC 11-2-187.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program has not yet collected enough baseline and performance data necessary to set meaningful and ambitious performance targets. However, baseline program performance data and targets are available for a limited number of performance measures that were recently developed. These will be used in setting budgetary priorities such as consideration of increased funding to complete high performing projects. Feedback from non-Federal sponsors and stakeholders continues to influence Corps regulations regarding its business processes, including recent guidance on submittal of reports requiring specific authorization that requires a summary in a standard format facilitating comparisons among projects and that should help increase consistency and performance. Implementation of peer review will also provide feedback to be used to improve the program. At the project level, the Corps collects performance information for use in managing individual large-scale projects and programs such as the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, the Everglades restoration program, and Coastal Louisiana (under both the Breaux Act and the proposed near-term restoration plan). These efforts include periodic post-construction monitoring of the performance of completed project components, and use of this information to adjust priorities and improve the design of future project components. An increasing number of additional projects both specifically authorized and in the programmatic authorities include a post-construction monitoring component. Experience with constructed projects informs the planning and design of new projects. The Corps is placing increased emphasis on ensuring long-term success of its projects and added an account in the FY 07 budget guidance to directly fund inspection of completed ecosystem features similar to the account used to inspect locally operated flood control projects. Finally, the Corps collects information on schedules, obligations, and expenditures, and uses this information to manage program execution for the aquatic ecosystem restoration program and other programs.

Evidence: EC 1165-2-408 (Peer Review of Decision Documents), Individual project monitoring plans; EC 11-2-187, Budget Guidance; the Corps financial management system. Baselines and targets for new measures are under development.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Regional and local Federal managers are held accountable for their program management performance which is either directly or indirectly tied to development of quality projects, maintaining project schedules and costs as well as satisfactory issue resolution and problem solving. On individual projects, much of the work on studies and most of the construction is contracted out using contracts that include detailed performance requirements and identify financial penalties for missed schedules. Contractor performance is rated. Work done by the sponsor is subject to audit, as well as review and inspection. The Corps has adopted Project Management and assigns individual to be responsible for each study and project. Performance is tracked at all levels of the organization on monthly, quarterly and on an annual basis with senior management.

Evidence: Contractors are subject to performance controls and quality reviews. ER 415-1-17 "Contractor Performance Evaluations" requires Contracting Officers to prepare a standard performance report for most contracts. A record of performance is recorded in the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System and used to review contractor responsibility prior to future awards. The project cost-share agreements have detailed documentation of the non-Federal sponsor's responsibilities, including time frames for actions. Non-Federal sponsors execute binding agreements to perform. The Corps has adopted Project Management and assigns individual to be responsible for each study and project. The Corps personnel performance management system, "Total Army Performance Evaluation System" links program and project managers' performance with achieving program goals.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: A major concern of the Corps is the efficient obligation and expenditure of funds and the Corps is diligent in tracking such through Project Review Boards and Resource Management Boards that monitor the obligation and expenditure of project funds. The Corps places a strong emphasis on reducing carry over and staying on schedule with regard to expenditures.

Evidence: The obligation and expenditure of Federal and partner funds are tracked in the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System, a distributed, real-time database that allows project managers to track work items and their associated costs and funding streams. The project manager can readily identify deviations from approved schedules and take the appropriate action.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: In the project study and design phase, each project undergoes value-engineering analysis to identify ways to construct the project more inexpensively and efficiently. Contracts are acquired through the competitive procedures outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Engineer supplements. Each project is also subject to Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analyses. Cost-sharing agreements with non-Federal project sponsors provide a strong incentive to achieve cost efficiencies and an effective project. The Corps has proposed an annual efficiency measure, however still needs to refine its baseline and targets using FY 2006 data.

Evidence: Various internal policies and engineering regulations including ER 1105-2-100 and ER 1110-2-1150 prescribe analytical methodologies for cost-effective project design and construction. The actual baseline and targets for the proposed annual efficiency measure are not yet defined.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Corps has Memorandum of Understanding and/or Partnership Agreements with several other Federal departments and agencies including EPA, USGS, and FWS and with The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and the Audubon Society. In compliance with NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, other agencies, Federal, state, local, and nongovernmental organizations are involved in project formulation. Sponsors for Ecosystem restoration projects include state departments of natural resources or comparable entities as well as local communities. As the watershed perspective is increasingly incorporated in project planning, the plans of other agencies and organizations for restoration activities or activities that would impact a restoration project either positively or negatively are being considered when recommending a project for Corps implementation.

Evidence: The Corps has an active program of coordination with The Nature Conservancy. For the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study, the Everglades Restoration Project, and the proposed Louisiana Coastal Project there are interagency Principles groups that meet to discuss issues related to the study and project implementation. Funding is provided for coordination activities related to the American Heritage Rivers program, National Estuary Program, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and Coastal America. The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and the Audubon Society as well as NOAA, NRCS, EPA and FWS were key participants in the Corps January 06 stakeholders meeting on performance measures.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program tracks the rates at which funds are scheduled, obligated, and expended, but it is not currently using an earned value management system. No material weaknesses were found during the recent audit of Civil Works financial statements but the overall Civil Works program has not yet received a clean audit opinion on recent fiscal year financial records. The audit agency has noted that the Corps has made significant progress in producing sound annual financial statements.

Evidence: The Corps tracks financial information through the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System, which is distributed and linked throughout the Corps. The system enforces the 30-day prompt payment act for contracted services and is available almost real-time to all users. Also the Corps has recently developed improved contract management controls as a result of the newly implemented P2 tool.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: There are currently no reported management deficiencies for the Ecosystem Restoration Program. Performance measures were included in the Civil Works Strategic plan and progress is being made on performance based budgeting. The Corps uses yearly evaluation at all levels of the organization to identify and correct management deficiencies using an internal control procedure. The management control system is common to all Business programs in the Corps.

Evidence: Civil Works Strategic Plan, budget guidance for FY 2006 through FY 2008 and ER 11-1-30.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Deliverables are defined on a project-by-project basis through various decision documents and are tracked through the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System. The Corps mostly uses fixed price contracts that address various potential variables and include appropriate safeguards to cover unsatisfactory performance. Contract requirements are linked to performance outcomes to the maximum extent possible. Progress is tracked in monthly Program Review Boards at various levels of the organization.

Evidence: Planning documentation for individually authorized projects is reviewed at the Headquarters level and by staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Deliverables and cost and schedule goals are defined in Project Management Plans and Cost Sharing Agreements executed by the Corps and non-Federal sponsors. Expenditures are tracked on a monthly basis and supporting data for the Corps annual budget provides details on projected contract requirements.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Until the Corps has refined its baselines and targets for its proposed performance measures, it will be hard to assess whether it is making sufficient progress toward meeting its long-term performance goals. After an initial attempt late in the process of preparing the FY 05 budget, a more concentrated effort has been made in subsequent years to use performance data in the development of the budget. However, since the Corps has developed two long-term output measures to address numbers of acres restored and acres of nationally significant habitat restored, it has moved toward achieving its long-term performance goals to a small extent.

Evidence: Civil Works Strategic Plan, budget guidance EC 11-2-187 and proposed measures. The Corps Five Year Development Plan discusses its initial long-term goals and initial methods in achieving them.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Baseline program performance data and targets are only available for a limited number of annual measures that were recently developed. Until the Corps has refined its baselines and targets for its proposed performance measures, it will not be possible to assess whether it has achieved its annual performance goals and whether its targets are ambitious.

Evidence: Civil Works Strategic Plan, budget guidance EC 11-2-187 and proposed measures.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: An annual efficiency measure has been developed but baselines and targets still need to be finalized.

Evidence: The Corps has proposed an annual efficiency measure, however still needs to refine its baseline and targets using FY 2006 data.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The large scope of this program relative to similar state, local and private efforts makes it difficult to draw comparisons on program performance. Data collected for the wetlands common measures exercise indicates that the average cost per acre of wetlands is higher for Corps restoration projects than for other Federal wetlands-related projects. The common measures data, however, do not address possible differences in wetlands quality or other factors that may affect the cost of projects. The cost to restore an acre of wetlands can vary greatly and Corps projects often involve complex and expensive hydrologic manipulation affecting relatively large tracts, usually require the non-Federal sponsor hold fee title or a perpetual easement to the underlying real estate, and usually require compatible public access and use of the restored area. Most other agencies use grants, cooperative agreements or technical assistance to effect ecosystem restoration, frequently do not require that the restoration be maintained in perpetuity, and do not place an emphasis on public accessibility. The Corps also gives funding priority to aquatic ecosystem restoration projects that cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem for which the Corps is uniquely well suited or that have become degraded as a result of a civil works project. It may be possible to better compare this program to others once outcome measures, baselines and targets fully in place.

Evidence: Wetlands common measure exercise, FY 2003 and FY 2004 Budgets.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Recent comprehensive NAS/NRC reports have reviewed the Corps planning process and the resulting recommendations are largely applicable to the ecosystem restoration program. These efforts have identified some opportunities to further improve the program; they have also found that the Corps program is effectively responding to an important need. For the Upper Mississippi and Everglades efforts high-level representatives of several Federal Agencies meet routinely as a Federal coordinating council to monitor the progress of these efforts. Many other projects include post-construction monitoring as part of the project design. However, since no comprehensive evaluation of the entire aquatic ecosystem restoration program has been done, the evaluations of components of the aquatic ecosystem program conducted by independent parties are incomplete for the purpose of this program's evaluation.

Evidence: The Corps employed the National Academy of Sciences to do a comprehensive review of the Civil Works program. In 2004, the NAS published reports on "Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning" and "Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Project Planning". Four other reports on Corps planning were published between 1999 and 2004. Additionally, three reports were prepared on the Everglades (2002-2003) and four on the Upper Mississippi River Illinois Waterway planning and study efforts (2001-2005). In 2006, "Drawing Louisiana's New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana" was published.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: The Corps tracks cost and schedule data at all levels of the organization. Due to a variety of factors, the Corps often does not complete its aquatic ecosystem restoration projects within the time frames established in project planning documents. The schedules that the Corps sets each fiscal year once construction has begun are more realistic. The Corps does not routinely collect data to support an assessment of its cost estimates, except where the total costs for a project are likely to exceed the estimate by 20 percent or more in real terms. In those cases, the Corps evaluates the reasons for the discrepancy.

Evidence: Schedules and targets are adjusted to reflect budget and appropriation decisions. Some projects have required reauthorization due to cost growth. Projects are authorized with the cost-ceiling that allows for a maximum 20% increase in constant dollars. Congress must approve projects exceeding the maximum authorized amount, which generally keeps Corps projects within their budgeted costs.