Detailed Information on the
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (with Dam Safety) Assessment

Measure: Percent Increase in Total Benefits Realized from Completed Projects

Explanation:Measure assesses effectiveness of completing projects (including Dam Safety) program in reducing flood & coastal damages.

Measure: 10-year running average of actual flood damage reduction benefits attributable to completed projects.

Explanation:Measure assesses actual reduction of flood & coastal damages from actual events.

Measure: Percent Increase in Total Affected Population with Reduced Flood Risk Attributed to Completed Projects

Explanation:Measure assesses effectiveness of completing projects (including DS) program in reducing number of people at risk.

Measure: Percent of Projects operating in Relative Risk Category 1-6 (LOW RISK PROJECTS)

Explanation: Measures percent of projects that from an operational and maintenance perspective are minimally adequate. The "Relative Condition" ranking matrix (5x5) box values are determined from "Condition Classification" and the "Consequence Category" values established for each project. The condition classification is an assessment to identify summary project conditions, assessing the likelihood or confidence level that they will occur and the consequences if it does occur. Those projects with safety concerns are addressed in the Dam Safety Action Classification chart and zones 21-25 while projects in relatively good condition and with little consequence fall into zones 1-6.

Measure: Percent of Projects operating in Relative Risk Category 21-25 (HIGH RISK PROJECTS)

Explanation: Measures percent of projects that from a safety and an operational and maintenance perspective are not adequate. The Relative Condition ranking matrix (5x5) box values are determined from Condition Classification and the Consequence Category values established for each project. The condition classification is an assessment to identify summary project conditions, assessing the likelihood or confidence level that they will occur and the consequences if it does occur. Those projects with safety concerns are addressed in the Dam Safety Action Classification chart and zones 21-25 while projects in relatively good condition and with little consequence fall into zones 1-6.

Measure: Number of dam safety projects in DSAC Class I, II and III, each and as a total percentage of the total number of dams screened with Screening Portfolio Risk Assessment (SPRA). The percentages in the Actual Column are for DSAC Class I, Class II and Class III dams, respectively.

Explanation:Measure assesses the number of dams that need fixes to remain conditionally safe. Class I dams are unsafe, urgent and compelling, Class II dams are potentially unsafe and urgent, Class III dams are conditionally unsafe, high priority. The percentages in the Actual Column are for DSAC Class I, Class II and Class III dams, respectively.

Measure: Total relative annualized risk to human safety per dam

Explanation:For those dams screened in the SPRA Process, this represents the total average annualized risk to human safety posed by all dams divided by the number of dams screened. This is an indicator of the DS program's effectiveness in reducing risk to the public.

Measure: Number of DSAC I, II, and III projects underway and completed in current year.

Explanation:This allows a comparison of progress in fixing problems when measured against the scheduled number.

Measure: Percentage of Screening Portfolio Risk Assessments (SPRA) completed in current year.

Explanation:This allows a comparison of progress in assessing portfolio when measured against the scheduled number.

Measure: Marginal cost of O&M relative to damages prevented of all operating projects (dams, levees, channels, flood gates, etc)

Explanation:Measures the efficiency of O&M based against actual performance (damages reduced).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program's goal is to assist in reducing flood risk from inland riverine flooding or coastal storms, as well as to ensure that existing dams do not pose unacceptable risks to human safety. This is accomplished through working with participating non-Federal partners - such as a local water district or city - to implement structural and non-structural measures - such as a levee, berm, or wetland - for individually-authorized projects. After construction, the program pursues its goals by working with project partners to ensure that long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) activities maintain a project so that it continues to deliver the intended benefits. The program also collects flood data and evaluates project performance, helps inform people about flood risk, and provides expert water resource advice to state and local authorities. The Dam Safety element of the program focuses on ensuring that Corps of Engineers water storage facilities are reliable and do not present unreasonable safety risks to the public, property, and/or the environment. The program accomplishes this through monitoring and periodically evaluating the physical status of Corps dams, and based on the results of those reviews, assessing the reliability and risk to human safety, loss of property, or loss of authorized project benefits. It then considers options to mitigate that risk, weighs the costs and benefits, and acts accordingly.

Evidence: The WRDA 1986, Section 103. WRDA 1948, section 205. WRDA 1954, Section 208. WRDA 1974 Section 22. WRDA 1960 Section 206. WRDA 1970, Section 216. Flood Control Act of 1941; P.L. 77-228, August 18, 194. Section 10, the last sentence of this act authorizes operations and maintenance of Flood Control projects. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (FEMA 93). National Dam Safety Program Act (full text provided but see Sec 8). Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Policy and Procedures. (see Chap 3).

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

Explanation: The Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Program addresses the specific problem of reducing flood risk to human safety and property through designing, building, and operating safe projects. As people have a tendency to live in flood-prone areas such as floodplains or on the coast, there is a long-standing need for government involvement in managing flood-related risk to property and human safety. Because there is significant existing Corps water infrastructure, there is also a need to ensure that this infrastructure is itself safe. This program provides the process to identify and assess flood risk management issues, and then develop and implement cost effective solutions. Assessing and managing flood risk is an ongoing issue complicated by aging infrastructure, climate variability, changes in land use, and the population that lives in flood-prone areas. Opportunities to further reduce risk are created by advancements in science, technology, and a better understanding of natural systems and risk assessment and management. Levees are usually only designed to provide a limited reduction in the probability of flooding (such as protecting against a flood with a certain percent chance of occurring in any given year), with the understanding that the levee will periodically encounter a flood that exceeds its designed level of protection. Levees pose a less catastrophic but more immediate threat than dams since they are expected to have their level of protection periodically exceeded, but when an event exceeds this design value, it often results in property damage and at times, loss of life. Dams pose a potential risk of sudden and catastrophic release of their waters that can result in significant damage. Sudden releases would also result in the loss of project benefits for multi-purpose dams (for instance, if the dam provides storage for a city water supply or for hydropower generation). Additionally, the high-profile nature of dams and the spectacle and violence of dam failure means that any lives lost from a catastrophic dam release disproportionately impacts the public psyche.

Evidence: 1944 Flood Control Act (Public Law 78-58), Sec 7. Dam safety programs date back to 1972's "National Dam Inspection Act" (P.L. 29-267). The program was further strengthened by a Presidential memorandum issued on April 23, 1977, which directed federal agencies to review their dam safety practices. Hazard Potential Classification for Dams (FEMA 333). Dam Safety Program Management Tools - hazard potential classifications of Corps Dams data. Engineering Circular 1110-2-6064, Interim Risk Reduction Measures for dam Safety.

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

Explanation: There are numerous Federal, State, and local entities that manage flood risk. Although the Corps of Engineers is the only Federal agency that has authority to study and construct large multi-purpose projects that address flood risk, the only thing unique to the Corps' role as it relates to flood risk management is its expertise in working with complex projects. Other Federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior, have constructed numerous large dams (although flood benefits of these are largely secondary) and the Bureau of Reclamation (within Interior) has its own dam safety program, which is similar to the Corps'. Many local and State groups have also constructed and maintained their own dams and/or levees. The Corps does have considerable expertise in flood and dam safety issues, and is equipped to guide its local project partners to operate and maintain a large number of levee systems. Two additional programs provide examples that complement the Corps program and provide a wide range of services and Federal support to jurisdictions in reducing their flood risk. To assist small communities with flood risk, the Corps has a Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) that plans, designs and constructs smaller-scale projects. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has a similar program for small projects, but it is restricted to flood works with less than 1,200 acre-feet of floodwater storage and focuses on agricultural water management. There is some overlap in service with a Department of Homeland Security program that only investigates elevation or removal of property insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The Corps works in partnership with non-federal sponsors to plan, design, and build structural and non-structural flood and storm damage reduction measures, along with other project purposes such as ecosystem restoration. A limited number of local or State groups design and construct multi-purpose flood projects. The Dam Safety Program of the Corps applies to those dams owned, operated, maintained, and/or constructed by the Corps of Engineers, although there are situations where the Corps coordinates with other agencies (such as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration) on dam operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. In addition, only those Corps water storage facilities, where failure or mis-operation could cause harm to human safety and/or significant property or environmental damage (high and significant hazard potential) are included in the Dam Safety Program. All other Corps water storage facilities and other water resource facilities are evaluated and maintained outside the Dam Safety Program. In addition, the Corps does some dam safety work on other Department of Defense Dams, such as Army and Navy dams.

Evidence: (see http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html). Search for "flood" and print all links. Dam Safety Program Management Tools -National Dam Safety Program Biennial Report for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (FEMA 576). Bureau of Reclamation PART on Dam Safety Program.

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

Explanation: The Corps flood program design has developed over many decades and with inconsistent guidance, therefore it presents many opportunities to improve program effectiveness, which can be broken into four areas: 1) Planning Challenges; 2) Unintended Consequences; 3) Methodological Problems; and 4) Implementation Problems. PLANNING CHALLENGES: ?? Cannot address nation-wide risk - can only build individually-authorized projects where the Corps can identify a local project sponsor, due to cost-share requirements. ?? Planning focuses on individual projects instead of a watershed approach (although this is changing). ?? Project sponsor involvement in the Corps planning process can result in less than the optimal project being implemented, based on their funding capabilities or priorities. This was cited as a problem in New Orleans. ?? Benefit-cost analysis used in project development and selection favors affluent communities over poorer communities that provide less return on investment. ?? Risk assessment methodologies create a situation where a dam that does not have an increased risk of failure could have an increased potential to impact human safety, due to a growing downstream population-at-risk. ?? Advances in state-of-the-art engineering make it possible for a dam to be targeted for corrective actions based on the ability to improve on the original design. If these corrections are undertaken at the above-standard 85% Federal cost-share for Dam Safety actions - as opposed to a higher local cost-share for any other activity - then resources are diverted away from other activities that may have more economic, environmental, or public safety benefit. ?? Many flood-related activities are outside of the Corps' purview. For example, local land use guidance through zoning is a local responsibility. ?? The Corps is still struggling on how to evaluate the benefits of flood projects that may have multiple project purposes. ?? Dam safety activities, while a growing part of the Corps' budget, have less planning oversight than other parts of the program. This leaves many unanswered questions as to whether proposed dam safety actions are the best investment for the Corps overall, or even whether they are the best investment to achieve the flood program's own goals. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ?? Projects may inadvertently encourage people to live in the flood plain, thereby increasing risk. ?? Flood projects tend to focus on providing 100-year flood protection (properties with 100-year flood protection or more do not have to purchase flood insurance), which may give homeowners a false sense of security and a reasonable chance of being flooded in any given year. It also leaves many other people and properties within a floodplain (for example within the 200-year floodplain) unprotected. These people in turn do not have to have flood insurance, although there is a reasonable chance that flooding could occur within any individual's lifetime. This results in unfunded burdens on FEMA's Flood Insurance Program. METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS ?? The program does not develop or build projects based on maximizing reduced risk to human safety, because the program applies different standards of risk to flood projects such as levees and dam safety projects. For example, a dam with a low chance of failure could be a higher priority for funding - even given a low annual chance of failure - than a levee that is only built to contain a 100-year flood, even though the overtopping of the levee may present a larger risk to human safety. IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS ?? Local sponsors may not maintain Corps-built levees to agreed-upon standards. ?? Slow construction can be frustrating and can skew the economic analysis used to justify projects. This may mean that marginally beneficial projects are in fact not justified (in that they could have a benefit-cost ratio of less than 1.0 to zero), because their benefits take longer to be realized.

Evidence: ER -1105-2-100, Appendix E. Selected pages or the Planning Manual, Chapter 8 at web link (http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-regs/er1105-2-100/entire.pdf). The 2001 Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) Peer Review of the Dam Safety Program. Dam Safety Evaluation Reports (Wolf Creek and Dover). Data from the Dam Safety Program Management Tools in the National Dam Safety Program Biennial Report for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (FEMA 576).

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

Explanation: The program targets resources at the highest-priority authorized projects. However, resources may not be allocated to facilitate efficient program execution, which may delay realization of the flood risk reduction benefits of those projects. This in turn compromises achievement of the program's purpose. The Corps uses performance metrics in the budget to attempt to target resources to the program's purpose and to the intended beneficiaries. These metrics are intended to help allocate resources to those projects that have the highest risk reduction potential. However, the allocation of resources does not align with any strategic plan for risk reduction, and the program lacks any coherent method for making tradeoffs between risk reduction and economic benefits, either between projects within the flood program or between the flood program and the dam safety program. The program also lacks a programmatic goal for flood risk reduction; rather, goals are set project-by-project, which may not maximize achievement of the program's stated purpose. Having too many authorized flood projects competing for finite resources also delays the realization of project benefits. This also has the impact of making many projects economically unfeasible in retrospect, for their economic viability was determined based on a projected construction schedule that is usually not met. The project development process effectively identifies high flood risk reduction projects. Project selection includes collaboration with other Federal agencies, the public, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. In the Dam Safety Program, risk assessment is the basis of targeting resources to reduce risk to the three groups of beneficiaries: the population at risk from a dam failure, the project sponsors of a particular dam, the population who would receive any ancillary benefits from the project, and the broader public in terms of the psychological impact of a dam failure, broader disruption of infrastructure, etc. Risk assessment increasingly provides the fundamental basis for decision making, prioritization and verification to ensure resources are being targeted to the highest risk reduction activities. Technical analysis and recommendations resulting from inspections and the evaluation of specific issues are peer reviewed both internally and in many cases by external consultants. Decisions regarding Corps actions to address risk are made through collaboration of the Regional Business Center Dam Safety Officer, the District Dam Safety Officer, and the Corps Dam Safety Office. Risk assessment also provides the basis for separating operations and maintenance (O&M) activities from supplemental dam safety activities, which also defines the level of Federal and non-Federal cost share. O&M activities at facilities address routine maintenance issues and are not subsidized by Dam Safety Program funds.

Evidence: EC 11-2-187 Budget EC Ch III. Example application is the modifications to Wolf Creek Dam (Evaluation Report; Wolf Creek Weekly Report ). Risk Assessments for East Branch Dam. Interim Risk Reduction Measures Plan for Clearwater Dam.

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 Corps uses two outcome-oriented long term measures for the flood control aspect of the program, one that focuses on damage to property and a second that focuses on risk to human safety: 1) the 10-year average of actual flood damage reduction economic benefits attributable to completed projects; and 2) the percent increase in total affected population with reduced flood risk, attributed to a completed project. Although flood control works are available to reduce some level of risk 100 percent of the time, whether benefits can be actively attributed to any given project depends on actual hydrology and weather. The dam safety element of the program has two outcome-oriented long term performance measures that focus on outcomes. The first measure, percent of Dam Safety recommendations that have been approved for rehabilitation and completed, shows the reduction in dam safety risk, over time, to the public, property and/or the environment, relative to a baseline of outstanding recommendations. Dam Safety Modification recommendations are made to further evaluate or to correct dam safety deficiencies based on agency risk- based prioritization. The second measure is the percentage of Screening for Portfolio Risk Analysis (SPRA) evaluations completed in the current year. This measure helps the Corps identify risks across its entire dam inventory and establish risk-based investment priorities.

Evidence: EC 11 -2-187, Ch 3. SPRA Percentage.

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

Explanation: The program has established targets and timeframes for its long-term measures, and based on minimal baseline data it appears that some of the targets are ambitious. For many of the measures, targets may be difficult to set, and actual performance difficult to predict, because it is based on whether completed projects are subjected to potential flooding situations, which often takes several years of operation. The program has established preliminary baselines for many of its dam-safety related measures (the methodology is still evolving so these preliminary baselines may change), but has established targets that appear to be ambitious given challenges the program faces from aging infrastructure.

Evidence: EC 11-2-187, Ch 3. Spreadsheet showing CG wedge funding for DSAC I, II, and III projects.

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: There are a limited number of annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals. The first is the Percent of Projects operating in Relative Risk Category 1-6, which are projects found to be in good condition and which have a low consequence of failure when operated to reduce flood risk. The second is the Percent of Projects operating in Relative Risk Category 21-25 which are projects considered to be in an inadequate condition and have substantial consequences due to unsuccessful performance. Data for these measures will be collected annually and used to inform maintenance decisions. Both measures demonstrate progress on meeting goals for long-term measures which assess both economic damages and risk reduction associated with completed projects. For the dam safety program, the measure showing the number of dam safety projects in the Dam Safety Assessment Category (DSAC) class I, II, and III, and the percentage of Screening for Portfolio Risk Assessments (SPRA) together give an annual picture of the process to assess dam safety, and to track annual progress on taking action to improve safety. The total relative annualized risk to human safety per dam also shows a useful annual and long-term trend of the actual risk. Finally, the program's efficiency measure assesses the marginal cost of operating projects, relative to damages prevented. An additional measure to be added in the future is the Dam Safety Report Card (DSRC), currently being finalized, which will be a discrete and quantifiable annual performance outcome. The DSRC is a numerical rating from 0 to 100 which reflects the overall maintenance conditions that impact the reliability of the facility. The score will be affected if there is a reservoir and operating restriction for dam safety reasons. The score will also be affected if dam safety recommendations and decisions, including a structural modification, are not addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence: Corps Average Annual Damages Report. ER 1105-2-100. USACE Dam Safety Report Card. Safety Report Card Info from SWD for Clearwater Dam. Results from Senior Oversight Group as presented in the 2006 and 2007 briefing to Senior Leaders (PowerPoint presentations).

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

Explanation: Although many of the program's measures are new, it has retroactively established baselines for many of them, particularly on the flood side of the program. With little historical baseline data it is difficult to assess whether targets are ambitious, but given the challenges the program faces from aging infrastructure the targets seem reasonable but by no means assured. The Corps Dam Safety program is developing a baseline and ambitious targets for its annual measures - it has established preliminary baselines, but the methodology is new so these numbers may change. The DSRC for all of the Corps' high and significant hazard dams are being benchmarked (baseline data) in 2008. The Dam Safety Program has established ambitious annual targets for specific components, as described above, of the DSRC.

Evidence: EC -2-187, Ch 3. USACE Dam Safety Report Card (Scorecard?) Info from SWD for Clearwater Dam. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - performance metrics data.

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: The risk-reduction program goals are broadly supported in the floodplain management community, but the action of individual actors attempting to maximize their own short-term development goals work against the broader flood risk reduction aims of the program. Flood risk reduction and dam safety projects occur within watersheds that inherently have many project partners. In general, the Corps' direct project partners are committed to the program's long-term goals, to the extent that achieving those goals means constructing the local project. Many lower-return projects may not maximize achievement of those goals, though, and in those instances project partners undermine achievement of the Corps' long-term goals by advocating for their own projects instead of the highest-return projects or those projects that would protect more lives. In addition, other government entities may pursue other objectives within their own authorities which work against the Corps' programs goals. For example, local governments, which are responsible for zoning decisions, may be seeking a flood-control project, while promoting development that changes the population make-up within the watershed, and by encouraging or not discouraging people to live or build businesses in the floodplain; these actions thereby increase the overall risk to human safety or property, contrary to program goals. For specific projects, the Corps pursues projects jointly with sponsors that meet the three requirements for cost sharing: provide cost-share contributions, provide land easements and rights-of-way, and operate and maintain their finished project to agreed-upon standards. Project sponsors support the overall dam safety goals of the program by performing and participating in the dam safety process. However, the beneficiaries' goals are not always consistent with the cost of actions necessary to ensure dam safety. Dam safety project development is carried out in a collaborative process with different levels of review within the Corps. Many of these projects have non-Federal sponsors, who via Section 1203 of WRDA 1986 must provide a 15% cost-share. Potential impacts to stakeholders, such as irrigators and Power Marketing Agencies, are also considered during the decision process. In some locations, joint funding agreements with Power Marketing Agencies promote collaboration on annual dam safety investment decisions. The Division and District Dam Safety Officers report annual performance as it relates to accomplishments of Program goals.

Evidence: Model PCAs and FCSAs. ER-1165-2-131. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Chapters 8 and 9. Data from the Dam Safety Program Management Tools in the National Dam Safety Program Biennial Report for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (FEMA 576).

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: The program has an established system for reviewing the technical aspects of some program elements, but does not have a track record of independent evaluations of the actual program itself. In particular, the evaluations lack sufficient scope and are conducted irregularly. There are three areas of independent evaluation used in this program to improve and evaluate effectiveness of project development: external project peer review, review of completed projects (Federal) and inspection of completed works (Non-Federal). Peer review utilizes external professional organizations during the formulation of alternatives and project selection to assure the conclusions are well founded, effective and relevant to the problem. The other two processes are intended to review completed projects and evaluate their effectiveness and relevance to the problem. The review of completed projects is for federally operated projects and includes dam safety evaluations. The inspection of completed works is for projects constructed in partnership with sponsors and that are turned over to them for continued O&M. The Dam Safety Program conducted an independent program evaluation via the Association of State Dam Safety Officers (ASDSO) Peer Review, in 2001. The scope includes an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the basic components of the Dam Safety program and the technical and administrative practices that support these components.

Evidence: Peer Review Guidance. Dam Safety Program Management Tools -National Dam Safety Program Biennial Report for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (FEMA 576). USACE Status Update - Implementation of 2001 ASDSO Peer Review Recommendations -- 2003 Responses to Peer Review. Jacksonville District Annual Report 2004. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007.

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 program budget is not well-integrated with performance metrics, although in recent years it has made strides in that direction. Construction funding is targeted at individual projects, which are selected based on a project's net economic return to the nation. While there is a tenuous link with program goals, budget requests do not currently show how any individual line-items or even an aggregate of project requests can help achieve program goals. For the FY 2008 and FY 2009 President's Budgets, flood projects with low economic return have also been funded if they were found to pose a sufficiently high risk to human safety. In this instance also, the budget requests cannot show how funding an individual project or the projects in aggregate help achieve program goals. For Dam Safety there is not a clear linkage between budget requests and the ability of the program to achieve the targets for its performance measures, or even of what resources are necessary from a qualitative perspective. Study of individual projects and modification projects are covered as individual project line items, but those individual line-items are only minimally justified, with no clear linkage to long-term programmatic goals. Other items within the flood and dam safety programs that focus on investigations may have clearly defined project goals (such as assessing the condition of a certain number of facilities), but may not be clearly linked to programmatic goals. Even though the level of detail is not sufficiently transparent to receive "Yes" answer, funding, policy or legislative decisions have a clear impact on the program's ability to identify, evaluate, and correct dam safety deficiencies and therefore reduce risk to the public. However, the FY 2007 through FY 2009 requests did include a greater level of detail regarding actions to be undertaken for dam safety at particular facilities. While this is not enough to meet the criteria necessary for a "Yes", the recent direction of budget and performance integration has been positive, and hopefully will continue to improve.

Evidence: EC 11-2-187. Annual Report of Dam Safety Expenditures from CEFMS.

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

Explanation: The program has in recent years taken numerous steps to improve the long-term course for both the flood and dam safety elements of the program. For instance, it has increased emphasis on assessing facility condition and risk to human safety, and integrating that information into planning and budgeting decisions. It has also made significant strides in turning that technical information into performance and budget information that is transparent and useful to decision-makers. The Civil Works (CW) Strategic Plan, dated March 2004 provided new goals and objectives for the program. The new goals and objectives are integrated with performance measures in the annual program guidance. Each year the Corps revisits the performance measures for relevance with the project ranking process. The Dam Safety Program is diligent about taking and documenting its responses to address any strategic planning deficiencies identified through internal and external programmatic and project specific reviews. In 2005, the Corps Dam Safety program initiated Screening for Portfolio Risk Analysis (SPRA), which shifted decision making from a basis of engineering judgment and engineering standards to incorporate risk analysis as the primary indicator of the need for risk reduction actions. In the aftermath of the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast, and in particular New Orleans, the Corps undertook an evaluation of lessons learned that resulted in the inclusion of the Chief's Actions for Change. The Actions for Change are areas that the Chief of Engineers has targeted for improvement.

Evidence: CW Strategic Plan. EC 11-2-187. SPRA Percentage. Dam Safety Officer's Update Report dated 30 August 07.

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: For individual projects, the Corps regularly analyzes alternative cost, schedule, risk and performance goals, and uses them to guide project development - recent examples of this include the study on closing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and the study on potentially raising Folsom Dam. The Corps has also assessed internal processes. Two examples of this are the planning process and Project Cooperation Agreement review. The dam safety program conducts systematic, meaningful, and credible analysis of alternatives for individual projects. This includes: 1) Specific Project Evaluation Studies, which consider different conceptual design alternatives; 2) An Independent Consulting Review Board (CRB) comprising experts, to review all critical aspects of high risk projects; 3) Value Engineering Studies (VE) for all projects with construction costs in excess of $1 million; and 4) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Cultural Resource permitting processes are applied to all projects.

Evidence: EC 1110-2-6061 (Draft ER 1110-2-1156) dated 30 April 2004 Chapters 8 and 9. ER 11-1-321, Army Programs, Value Engineering. SPRA Percentage; Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), Louisiana, Deep Draft Deauthorization; Post Authorization Change Report - American River Watershed - Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise

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: Overall the program does a good job of collecting timely and credible performance information on a project-by-project basis, although there are significant areas for improvement. Most of this performance information, however, is at best poorly linked to program-wide performance goals, and instead focuses on the progress of individual projects. The program office regularly collects data on financial obligations and milestone accomplishments. Project milestones include completing reconnaissance and feasibility studies, finishing designs, executing Project Cooperation Agreements (PCA), and finishing particular phases of project construction. Each of these phases is financially tied to obligations since each milestone has a discrete funding requirement. Project schedules are used as the project baseline at initiation and require an approval for schedule and cost changes. Information is also collected on sponsor contributions, and contractor status to assure key partners are performing. The Corps District offices execute the program and this performance information is used to make resource decisions required to efficiently manage the program. The Corps has initiated an assessment team to determine how to apply earned value principals to the Corps scheduling process. The Dam Safety Program team regularly collects data on the status of decision documents, facility reviews, dam safety modifications, dam safety related O&M issues and beginning in FY08, the DSRC. The districts and the research and development centers are partners that provide services to the program team. Annual and quarterly reports from the financial management database provide information on the status of dam safety work. The program team uses this information to recommend resource reallocations, adjust program priorities and take other appropriate management action. The program has been collecting data for several years and has baseline data to set performance targets. Areas for improvement include tracking obligation and expenditure funds associated with activities funded through supplemental appropriations. There is little if any connection between performance and funding information for activities funded in this manner. This applies to funding associated with work to improve flood and storm damage protection for New Orleans, as well as to the host of other so-called emergencies funded annually, for many of which their urgency is belied by slow obligation and expenditure rates. Although these 'emergency' repairs often require environmental assessments which slow obligation and expenditure rates, such process requirements strongly suggest that if funds cannot be obligated and spent quickly, these activities should be funded through the regular budget development process.

Evidence: ER 5-1-11, Business Process. EC 11-2-194, Execution of the Annual Civil Works Program. Jacksonville District Annual Report 2004. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - Performance Metrics Data. Annual Report of Dam Safety Expenditures from CEFMS; monthly obligation and expenditure reports to Congress for tracking supplemental appropriations.

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: Federal managers, sponsors, and contractors are held accountable through contractual agreements that specify performance, cost, and schedule. Federal managers, subject to appropriations, are held accountable by the agreements and through their job performance objectives to execute the project. Federal managers and sponsors partner together using cooperation agreements to implement different phases of the project and these agreements specify cost and schedule performance. Federal managers solicit contractors to construct these projects and both are held accountable though performance standards specified within the agreement. Contractors' past performance is used to assist in the selection process. Dam Safety decision-making authority resides with the Corps Dam Safety Officer, with support from the Division and District Dam Safety Officers. The Delegation of Decision-making Authority Guidelines (EC 1110-2-6061, safety of Dams) further delegate decision-making authority to Division Dam Safety Officers and Program Managers as appropriate. Consistent with other Corps programs, Dam Safety projects are routinely monitored to verify accomplishment of cost, schedule, and quality objectives. In addition, the Steering Committee provides performance feedback on program accomplishments.

Evidence: ER 5-1-11, Business Process. Dam Safety Officer Delegation Memo. EC 1110-2-6061 (Draft ER 1110-2-1156) dated 30 April 2004 Chapter 3. USACE Dam Safety Report Card (Scorecard?) Info from SWD for Clearwater Dam. ER 1110-2-12, Quality Management. EC 15-2-1, Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program Management Team.

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

Explanation: For much of the regular program, funds are obligated in a timely manner, tracked closely to ensure they are used for the intended purpose, and accurately reported. However, in recent years the magnitude of funding for reconstruction and flood and storm damage reduction in the Gulf Coast, especially in the greater New Orleans area, along with other funds appropriated in supplemental appropriations bills, has dwarfed the funding provided through the regular appropriations process. These latter funds have had extremely slow obligation rates - especially for so-called 'emergency activities' - have been targeted at poorly-defined activities, and have lacked clear and timely reporting. Funds derived from supplemental appropriations are problematic in that the required formulation and environmental considerations are not fully developed, thus causing additional time to obligate the funds. Often the targeted activities require reauthorization that further delays the intended action. There are also remaining unobligated funds and execution delays at the end of the year resulting from legally fenced and politically sensitive issues. All of these factors combine to strongly suggest that these 'emergency' activities could be better addressed through the regular budget development process, as opposed to funding through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Gulf Coast reconstruction funds have faced similar challenges, and obligation rates in Louisiana in particular have been slow, reflecting the immense scale of the work, but also the extremely accelerated project planning process, which leads to slow obligation of construction funding due to, for instance, project designs that are not complete. Elsewhere in the program, funds are obligated in a timely manner under the normal process that allows adequate time for formulation and completing environmental requirements. Sponsor funds and Federal funds are scheduled together for efficient program execution. Program funds are largely spent on the intended purpose authorized by Congress, although the Corps does use its reprogramming authorities to re-allocate funds between projects as needed. Appropriations are allocated to Corps Districts for execution by project according to the intent of Congress. The Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) is an accurate financial management system for reporting obligations and comparing them against the intended purpose. The system is balanced monthly and annually yielding an accurate reporting tool. Program awards are promptly reported to FAADS/FPDS. Dam Safety funds are obligated consistent with the overall program plan and annual carryover balances are minimal. The program and program partners establish schedules, annually, for program obligations which correspond to the program needs. Spending reports are produced monthly or quarterly, and compared to the obligation schedules and the intended use of the appropriated fund. However, programmatic annual goals are broad enough that there is a wide degree of flexibility in moving funds within the dam safety program, consistent with reprogramming guidelines. If one project is falling behind schedule, it is relatively easy to divert funds to another that may have additional capability. The program is defined broadly enough that 'intended purpose' can include a wide variety of actions other than what was specifically intended by the original request for Federal funding.

Evidence: Program Development Guidance. EC 1110-2-6061 (Draft ER 1110-2-1156) dated 30 April 2004 Chapter 8 and 9. ER 5-1-11, Business Process. Annual Report of Dam Safety Expenditures from CEFMS. Monthly obligation and expenditure reports to Congress for supplemental appropriations. Task Force Hope obligation reports.

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: The program has procedures to promote and measure efficiency and effectiveness in program execution. This is achieved through project management, peer review, value engineering and project sponsor involvement to ensure the risk reduction actions are accomplished with the least total project cost. The flood component of the program has several processes that encourage and track efficiency and effectiveness. For example, the program has implemented a Project Delivery Team (PDT) approach to project implementation. The PDT role is to design the project to ensure effective accomplishments and execution of an efficient and cost effective project process. The use of competitive sourcing and fixed price contracts is another example of a cost efficiency contracting tool. There are processes in place through peer review of project development to ensure effective accomplishments and execution of an efficient and cost effective project. In the project implementation phases, each project undergoes value engineering analysis to identify ways to construct the project more inexpensively and efficiently. The principles of cost sharing with non-Federal project sponsors should provide some incentive to achieve cost efficiencies and an effective project. The dam safety program has procedures in place to promote and measure efficiency and effectiveness, including an efficiency measure. The program has procedures in place through the peer review, Dam Safety Steering Committee, decision making triad, Dam Safety Evaluation Studies - corrective action alternatives evaluation process, and project sponsor involvement to ensure the risk reduction actions are accomplished with the least total project costs. The Dam Safety program has implemented a Project Management Team (PMT) approach for dam safety corrective actions. The PMT's role is to manage the project for the decision making triad to ensure effective program accomplishment and execution of an efficient and cost-effective project process. Value Engineering (VE) studies are performed on all projects and construction costs in excess of $1M. VE studies are performed to review if the project scope has considered cost saving alternatives. Once the project scope has been determined, state-of-the-art project management principles, including earned value analysis, are utilized to ensure projects are managed efficiently.

Evidence: Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Chapters 8 and 9. ER 11-1-132 - Army Programs Value Engineering. EC 1110-2-6061 (Draft ER 1110-2-1156) dated 30 April 2004 Appendices D, G, and I.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program works closely with other federal, state, local, and private entity programs. The Corps Districts coordinate with FEMA Regional offices to review priorities of related programs and projects and coordinate together to update these projects as they relate to overall floodplain management and emergency response issues. Another example is the collaboration and coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Corps in the support during and after national disasters providing potable water, damage estimates, etc. The dam safety program has a long history of working closely with other federal, state, local, and private entities, as well as professional societies, involved with dam safety issues. The program collaborates with and participates on: 1) The National Dam Safety Review Board on the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Act, and research efforts to improve dam safety at Federal and state levels; 2) Inter-Agency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) - Efforts to coordinate training of qualified dam safety engineers, efforts to further the acceptance and use of risk based decision-making nationwide. Other examples include the Defense Department's (DOD) biannual conference to share dam safety experience across DOD Dam Safety Programs and to train staff in specific and non-technical areas relevant to dam safety; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) - partnership agreement with provisions for addressing dam safety agreements; and Folsom Dam- coordination of Corps operations, dam safety and USACE flood control projects with USBR, USACE, and State and local entities. In 2007, USACE included leadership participation from the USBR and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Corps' Dam Safety Policy and Procedures Team. Since 2005, USACE has included leadership from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Association of Flood Plain Managers, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies on the Intergovernmental Flood Risk Management Committee.

Evidence: Silver Jackets - Many Agencies One Solution. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (FEMA 93). National Dam Safety Program Act (Sec 8). ICODS Risk Assessment Charter. ICODS Training Subcommittee Charter. USACE Dam Safety Officers Workshop 11-13 March 2008. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - USACE Partnership Agreement.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Corps uses a real time database (CEFMS) that accurately records appropriations, obligations, and disbursements that meet statutory requirements. This system also supports the day-to-day operations of the program and is free of material internal control weakness reported by auditors. It provides strong monthly and annual financial statements used to manage the program. Financial management systems meet statutory requirements. Financial information is accurate and timely. There are integrated financial and performance systems in place to support day-to-day operations. The program is free of material internal control weaknesses reported by auditors. Safeguards are in place to allocate unique Dam Safety work from Operations and Maintenance expenses.

Evidence: ER 415-1-16 Construction Fiscal Management. ER 5-1-11, Business Process. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. USACE Status Update - Implementation of 2001 ASDSO Peer Review Recommendations -- 2003 Responses to Peer Review.

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

Explanation: The program has taken meaningful steps to address some of its management deficiencies. In other areas, especially with obligation of supplemental appropriations and better linking performance information with both budgeting and execution, it has significant work remaining and lacks a clear path forward. The 2001 ASDSO Peer Review identified program management deficiencies and established a baseline to make necessary corrections in a timely manner. The program is taking steps to refine the role of the PMT to further ensure program funds are expended appropriately. In 2007-2008, the USACE Dam Safety Program is undergoing an audit from the Army Audit Agency. The Corps is proactively managing preliminary reports of management and control recommendations through establishing a new Dam Safety Scorecard and a national Dam Safety Management Center concept.

Evidence: FY07 Annual Statement of Assurance on Management Controls. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - Performance Metrics Data. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. USACE Status Update - Implementation of 2001 ASDSO Peer Review Recommendations -- 2003 Responses to Peer Review. USACE Dam Safety Report Card Info from SWD for Clearwater Dam.

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

Explanation: Individual projects are managed with clearly defined deliverables, performance characteristics, and cost and schedule goals - the program as a whole is not, and the contribution of individual projects toward achieving overall program goals varies widely and is difficult or impossible to track. The program is managed to focus on its main deliverable of risk reduction projects. When the program builds projects it prepares contract documents that validate the planning decisions, set clear expectations of scope, set intermediate milestones and a construction completion date. The contract documents and schedule goals are used to manage the asset acquisition and determine if performance is met. The Corps has various contracting and construction quality control methods in place to ensure that specific project completion parameters are achieved. The program acquires assets or services utilizing fixed-price type contracts for procurement. The dam safety program is managed to focus on its main deliverable of reducing risk at individual dams. The deliverables are dam safety decisions, reports, and construction. Also, the Corps has in place various contracting, design, and construction quality control methods to ensure that specified project completion parameters are achieved. Documentation of successful completion of risk reduction actions is signed by the Corps Dam Safety Office, the Division Dam Safety Officer, and the District Dam Safety Officer. In addition, the program conducts periodic Assessments on facilities after substantial completion to re-evaluate risks and the success of risk reduction actions.

Evidence: ER 5-1-11, Business Process. Fiscal Year 2007 United States Army Annual Financial Statement. Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Chapters 8 and 9. Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Policy and Procedures. ER 1110-2-12, Quality Management.

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

Explanation: The program is demonstrating progress in achieving its long term performance goals of increasing the total benefits (benefits = reduced flood damages) and population with reduced risk, However, the program's limited baseline performance information makes it difficult to assess long-term progress. In 2007 there were 14 projects completed adding $2,600,000 of property and 5,000,000 people with reduced risk. The 2008 Budget would complete an additional 3 projects and reduce risks to 95,000 people and provide benefits of $25,800,000. The dam safety program is on track to meet its long-term goals, but it likewise does not have a strong baseline from which to assess progress. The program appears on track to meet the long term goal of reducing the number of incomplete dam safety recommendations within established timeframes. The screening portfolio risk assessment (SPRA) of all dams begun in 2005 will be complete in 2009 and provide the baseline for the total number of actions required. In terms of reducing risk to the public, guidelines and parameters are being developed to baseline the status of the program and to evaluate the risk status of previously completed corrective actions to reduce risk. At this time studies are underway at 26 dams and construction is underway at 9 dams.

Evidence: Fiscal Year 2007 US Army Annual Financial Statement. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program, Five-Year Development Plan Fiscal Year 2008 - Fiscal Year 2012, dated June 2007. Engineering Circular 1110-2-6061 (Draft Engineering Regulation 1110-2-1156), Safety of Dams - Policy and Procedures. Jacksonville District Annual Report 2004. Dam Safety Officer's Update Report dated 30 August 07.

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

Explanation: The program has limited baseline data, so while it appears to be achieving its annual performance goals, it is difficult to assess progress toward its goals of operating projects with reduced relative risk. Also, some performance information has been populated retroactively, which makes it difficult to say that the program has been achieving its annual performance goals in those areas. Additional risk reduction goals are being developed as the Corps continues to develop its risk assessment methodology. The relatively low ranking of this question reflects the relative youth of tracking performance data for this program, and does not mean that the Corps has not significantly reduced flood risk over the years. One challenge to achieving annual performance goals for risk reduction is the ability of project partners to adequately operate and maintain their projects. As a result, some of these projects may be operating with a higher than desired risk.

Evidence: Fiscal Year 2007 United States Army Annual Financial Statement. EC 11-2-192, Execution of the Annual Civil Works Program. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - performance metrics data.

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

Explanation: The program has demonstrated some progress in using management practices to improve efficiencies in achieving program goals, although its efficiency measure does not have enough baseline information to merit a 'Yes'. The agency has developed management controls for administering multi-year contracts that should help achieve improved efficiencies, and the contract-based nature of the construction work ensures a certain level of competitiveness, which leads to efficiency. Project performance data, and the relative economic return (in terms of benefits realized for an investment) can demonstrate efficiency, but such information is not currently aggregated to allow an assessment of whether efficiency has improved over time. The dam safety program is improving efficiency through the implementation of risk informed decision-making, which should allow managers to target resources toward the most efficient buy-down of risk. However, use of risk information, and linking that information to budgeting decisions, is in its early stages and is insufficiently developed to allow an assessment of any efficiency gains.

Evidence: Fiscal Year 2007 US Army Annual Financial Statement. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program, Five-Year Development Plan Fiscal Year 2008 - Fiscal Year 2012, dated June 2007. Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - performance metrics data. Title 9 of WRDA 07, Levee Safety Program Act (P.L. 110-114).

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

Explanation: The performance of this program compares somewhat favorably to other programs with similar goals. This program is somewhat unique in the Federal government and the large scope of this program is not similar to state, local and private efforts, although many of the activities the program does are also done by other entities. However, these are often smaller-scale projects and may have to comply with different standards and legal constraints The program overall is a leader in using risk-based assessments in water resources; specific examples of this include the newly-implemented Corps Levee Safety Program, and the Dam Safety program it was modeled on. The flood program has long used teams of reviewers, closely collaborated with other dam safety professionals, and has diligently responded to (and often implemented) the recommendations of outside reviewers. The one formal evaluation done on the dam safety program was inconclusive. There are, however, areas where the Corps does not appear to compare favorably to other programs. For instance, many local project sponsors maintain - and in some instances have demonstrated - that they can build their projects (in some instances authorized Corps projects) much more efficiently than the Corps, for less money and in less time. There may be numerous reasons for this, including the need for the Corps to comply with Federal environmental laws, Corps quality standards, and the additional oversight and bureaucracy inherent to many Federal programs.

Evidence: Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - performance metrics data. Title 9 of WRDA 07, Levee Safety Program Act (P.L. 110-114).

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

Explanation: The program has had several evaluations, and while some are sufficiently independent, none have had programmatic scope, but rather have focused on specific program elements or individual projects. The Corps employed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to do a comprehensive review of the program study procedures with a goal of improving the planning process. The NAS review found the planning program to be relatively effective and recommended improvements, including more regular independent review of study outcomes. The Dam Safety Program undergoes a periodic evaluation as required in EC 1110-2-6061, Draft ER 1110-2-1156 (2004 Version). The 2001 Dam Safety Program Peer Review by the Association of State Dam Safety Officers (ASDSO) served as a basis to evaluate and improve the Corps Dam Safety Program. The scope is broad and includes an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the basic components of the Dam Safety Program and the technical and administrative practices that support these components. More recently, in 2007 the Corps contracted with a panel of independent experts to review new agency dam safety risk criteria, and the resultant risk classifications of 6 USACE flood control dams considered to be critically near failure or extremely high risk. The 2007 expert panel validated the risk criteria and project specific DSAC I classifications.

Evidence: WRDA 2000, Section 216. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service (2004), (see pages 44-86). Corps Input to Dam Safety Biennial Report to Congress for 2006 and 2007. USACE - ASDSO Peer Review 2001. USACE Status Update - Implementation of 2001 ASDSO Peer Review Recommendations -- 2003 Responses to Peer Review. Dam Safety Program Management Tools - performance metrics data. Center Hill Dam Consensus Report. Clearwater Consensus Report. Herbert Hoover Dike Consensus Report v4. Isabella Dam Final Consensus Report. Martis Creek Final Consensus Report- December 19- Rev. No. 1. Wolf_Creek_Dam_Consensus_Report_April_11_2007. DSAC I Dams Out Brief.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Program goals have generally not been achieved within budgeted costs and schedules, largely reflecting a disconnect between the planning, budgeting, and execution phases of the program. Cost estimates and schedules have often been missed for the recent work to improve the level of storm damage reduction for greater New Orleans, although in that instance, the planning process was significantly accelerated, which introduced additional uncertainty to the process. Many of the program activities are construction-related, and hence are subject to schedule slippage for many reasons including inclement weather, bidding climate and budget priority. Other projects are developed and justified based on unrealistic assumptions about program funding. When that funding does not support an optimal construction schedule, the program falls behind schedule, and costs increase due to lack of efficiencies. However, many projects are completed within budgeted cost and on the established schedule. Dam Safety Program goals are, to a certain extent, achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules. Some recent dam safety modification projects have exceeded budgeted costs, requiring addendums to the modification reports and changes to authorizing legislation. A recent study by the National Research Council suggests that the Corps has some problems with its cost estimates, and the recent performance of the Dam Safety program seems to support that finding. In addition, the nature of foundation forensic studies often provides incomplete data for construction cost estimates. There is some oversight at the Corps headquarters, but very little at Army headquarters or higher (such as OMB) of the development of dam safety projects, which may cause cost schedule issues with the Dam Safety element of the program.

Evidence: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program, Five-Year Development Plan Fiscal Year 2008 - Fiscal Year 2012, dated June 2007. Dam Safety Data on Cost Growth.