This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-45
entitled 'Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project
Eligibility Decisions Needed' which was released on December 8, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives:
November 2011:
Highway Emergency Relief:
Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligibility Decisions Needed:
GAO-12-45:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-12-45, a report to the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), within the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), administers the Emergency Relief Program to
provide funds to states to repair roads damaged by natural disasters
and catastrophic failures. In 2007, GAO reported that in recent years
states’ annual demand for emergency relief funds often exceeded the
program’s $100 million annual authorization from the Highway Trust
Fund and required supplemental appropriations from general revenues to
address a backlog of funding requests from states. GAO recommended
that FHWA tighten eligibility standards and coordinate with states to
withdraw unneeded emergency relief funds, among other actions. For
this report, GAO reviewed (1) Emergency Relief Program funding trends
since 2007, (2) key program changes made in response to GAO’s 2007
report, and (3) the extent to which selected emergency relief projects
were approved in compliance with program eligibility requirements. GAO
reviewed projects in New York, Texas, and Washington state, states
selected based on the amount and frequency of funding allocations
since 2007, among other factors.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Emergency Relief Program
received about $2.3 billion, of which $1.9 billion came from three
supplemental appropriations compared with about $400 million
authorized from the Highway Trust Fund. FHWA allocated this funding to
42 states and 3 territories to reduce the backlog of funding requests,
with $485 million in unfunded requests remaining as of June 2011. This
backlog list did not include funding requests for August 2011 damages
from Hurricane Irene. Because the program lacks time frames to limit
states from requesting funds years after events occur, the June 2011
backlog list includes about $90 million for events that occurred prior
to fiscal year 1994. Without time limits for emergency relief funding
requests, FHWA’s ability to anticipate and manage future program costs
is hindered.
In response to GAO’s 2007 report, FHWA withdrew about $367 million of
unobligated emergency relief funds from states and redistributed most
of this funding for other emergency relief needs. However, additional
funding remains unused, including (1) at least $63 million allocated
to states before fiscal year 2007 that has yet to be obligated to
projects and (2) $341 million obligated between fiscal years 2001 and
2006 that remains unexpended. Due to a lack of time frames for states
to close-out completed projects, FHWA lacks project status information
to determine whether unexpended funding is no longer needed and could
be deobligated. FHWA has not addressed GAO’s 2007 recommendation to
revise its regulations to limit the use of emergency relief to fully
fund projects that have grown in scope and cost as a result of
environmental or community concerns. The Emergency Relief Program
faces the continued risk of escalating costs due to projects that have
grown in scope beyond the program’s goal of restoring damaged
facilities to predisaster conditions.
GAO’s review of 83 emergency relief project files in three FHWA state
offices found many instances of missing or incomplete documentation-—
as such, GAO was unable to determine the basis by which FHWA made many
eligibility determinations. For example, about half of the project
files did not include required repair cost estimates, and 39 of 58 (67
percent) emergency repair projects approved for 100 percent federal
funding did not contain documentation of completion within 180 days—a
requirement for states to receive 100 percent federal funding. FHWA
lacks clear requirements for how states submit and FHWA approves key
project documentation, which has resulted in FHWA state offices
applying eligibility guidelines differently. Establishing standardized
procedures for reviewing emergency relief documentation and making
eligibility decisions would provide greater assurance that projects
are in fact eligible and that FHWA makes eligibility determinations
consistently and transparently.
Table: Instances of Missing or Incomplete Emergency Relief Project
Documentation:
GAO-identified areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing or
incomplete detailed damage inspection reports;
Instances: 47 of 83.
GAO-identified areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing repair
cost estimates;
Instances: 42 of 83.
GAO-identified areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing or
incomplete dates for 100 percent federal funding projects;
Instances: 39 of 58.
GAO-identified areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing
documentation for specific improvements;
Instances: 6 of 15.
Source: GAO analysis of Emergency Relief Project documentation in
three FHWA state offices.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes several recommendations including that FHWA establish (1)
time frames to limit states’ requests for emergency relief funds and
to close completed projects and (2) standardized procedures for
reviewing emergency relief documentation and making eligibility
decisions. DOT provided technical comments on project time frames and
costs which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-45] or key
components. For more information, contact Phillip R. Herr at (202) 512-
2834 or herrp@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Supplemental Appropriations Comprise Most Emergency Relief Funding
Provided to States, and a Backlog of Funding Requests Remains:
FHWA's Program Revisions Have Not Fully Addressed Prior Concerns:
Incomplete Information in Emergency Relief Project Files in Three
States Raises Concerns about FHWA's Eligibility Decisions and Program
Oversight:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of Emergency Relief Funding for Projects at
Devils Lake, North Dakota:
Appendix III: Results of GAO's File Review of Emergency Relief Project
Documentation Available in Three FHWA Division Offices:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Projects Receiving State Oversight versus FHWA
Oversight:
Table 2: Emergency Relief Program Obligations and Expenditures, Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2006:
Table 3: Instances of Missing or Incomplete Project Documentation:
Figures:
Figure 1: Examples of Emergency and Permanent Repairs:
Figure 2: Emergency Relief Project Processes and Areas of
Responsibility:
Figure 3: Total Emergency Relief Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2010:
Figure 4: Emergency Relief Allocations by State, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2010:
Figure 5: Unobligated Emergency Relief Allocations Withdrawn from
States since 2007 by the Fiscal Year in Which the Events Occurred:
Figure 6: Results of GAO's File Review of Emergency Relief Projects in
Three FHWA Division Offices:
Abbreviations:
Caltrans: California Department of Transportation:
DDIR: detailed damage inspection report:
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FMIS: Fiscal Management Information System:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
S.R.1: State Route 1:
TXDOT: Texas Department of Transportation:
WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 8, 2011:
The Honorable Tom Latham:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
In recent years, many states have experienced natural disasters, such
as hurricanes, floods, and storms, which have caused catastrophic
damage to transportation infrastructure and overwhelmed the capacity
of state and local governments to respond and recover. Reconstruction
after these events can cost taxpayers billions of dollars. As part of
the continuing federal role in responding to and recovering from
natural disasters and similar events, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), administers the Emergency Relief Program which provides funding
to repair or reconstruct federal-aid highways and roads on federal
lands damaged or destroyed by natural disasters and other catastrophic
events.[Footnote 1]
Since 1972, Congress has authorized $100 million annually in contract
authority for FHWA's Emergency Relief Program to be paid from the
Highway Trust Fund.[Footnote 2] However, in recent years the Highway
Trust Fund has not been the only source of funds for the Emergency
Relief Program. The $100 million annual authorization of contract
authority has remained constant since 1972, and due to inflation, it
has declined in real value. States' need for assistance from fiscal
years 1998 through 2006 consistently exceeded the $100 million annual
authorization of contract authority, resulting in a backlog of funding
requests that reached $740 million in 2004. As a result, the program
has relied on supplemental appropriations for 86 percent of its
funding from fiscal years 1998 through 2006.[Footnote 3] In past
years, supplemental appropriations were drawn from the Highway Trust
Fund. However, with the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
in August 2005, Congress authorized additional necessary funding for
the Emergency Relief Program in excess of the $100 million annual
contract authority to be appropriated from general revenues.[Footnote
4]
In our 2007 report, we identified a significant fiscal imbalance
between available funds and eligible projects in the Emergency Relief
Program.[Footnote 5] We found that FHWA was not recapturing or
redistributing unused Emergency Relief Program allocations to states
with immediate program needs, as specified in FHWA's program guidance.
We also raised concerns about the use of emergency relief funds to
fully finance projects whose scope and costs had grown as a result of
environmental and community concerns. We made several recommendations
to FHWA to improve its management, including ensuring that unneeded
emergency relief allocations were withdrawn on a timely basis so the
backlog of unfunded requests could be addressed, and to revise program
regulations to tighten the eligibility criteria for emergency relief
funding, among other recommendations.
As requested and in light of these concerns, this report reviews (1)
FHWA Emergency Relief Program funding trends since our 2007 report,
(2) key changes to the Emergency Relief Program implemented in
response to concerns raised in our 2007 report, and (3) the extent to
which selected emergency relief projects were approved in compliance
with program eligibility requirements.
To identify Emergency Relief Program funding trends and key changes
made to the program since our 2007 report, we reviewed federal
statutes, including supplemental appropriation acts, and FHWA data on
emergency relief allocations to states from fiscal years 2007 through
2010. Our scope of work did not include any Emergency Relief Program
activities in response to Hurricane Irene, which occurred in August
2011. We also reviewed and analyzed financial data from FHWA's fiscal
management information system (FMIS) on emergency relief allocations
and obligations to states as of May 31, 2011, as well as funds that
were obligated to and expended by states for events occurring from
fiscal years 2001 through 2010. We reviewed the procedures used by
FHWA to enter and verify data into FMIS, and we found the data to be
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed FHWA
Emergency Relief Program regulations and guidance, including FHWA's
Emergency Relief Manual as revised in 2009. We interviewed FHWA
officials in the Office of Program Administration to determine why and
how specific changes were made to the program.
To determine the extent to which selected emergency relief projects
were approved in compliance with program eligibility requirements, we
reviewed federal statutes, regulations, and FHWA guidance on emergency
relief eligibility requirements and examined a sample of emergency
relief project files in three FHWA division offices. We selected a
nongeneralizable sample of 88 emergency relief project files from FHWA
division offices in three states--New York, Texas, and Washington
state--to demonstrate the range of practices and projects that the
Emergency Relief Program funds across the country. Five of the 88
projects in our review had been withdrawn by states because, in part,
FHWA had determined them ineligible for emergency relief funds,
bringing the total number of projects reviewed to 83. We selected New
York, Texas, and Washington state because they were among the states
receiving the most funding allocations from fiscal years 2007 through
2010, among other factors. We chose the files according to several
criteria, including a criterion to examine a mix of active and closed
projects that were obligated more than $1 million in emergency relief
funds. Prior to our site visits, we requested that the division
offices provide all documentation they maintain for each of the
projects selected in our sample, which represented approximately 67
percent of all emergency relief funds that FHWA obligated to those
states during that time period. We reviewed all the documentation
provided during our site visits, and requested follow-up information
as necessary. To gather additional information on the project files,
we reviewed the procedures used to manage and oversee emergency relief
projects and interviewed officials in the FHWA division offices and
state departments of transportation for all three states. We provided
the results of our file review to FHWA for their comment and
incorporated their responses as appropriate.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to November
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We provided a copy of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT
officials provided technical comments by e-mail, including information
on Emergency Relief Program time frames and growth of project costs.
We incorporated this information into the draft as appropriate.
Background:
The Emergency Relief Program, authorized by section 125 of title 23 of
the U.S. Code, provides assistance to repair or reconstruct federal-
aid highways and roads on federal lands that have sustained serious
damage from natural disasters or catastrophic failures. Congress has
provided funds for this purpose since at least 1938. Examples of
natural disasters include floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes,
tsunamis, severe storms, and landslides. Catastrophic failures qualify
if they result from an external cause that leads to the sudden and
complete failure of a major element or segment of the highway system
that has a disastrous impact on transportation. Examples of qualifying
causes of catastrophic failures include acts of terrorism or incidents
such as a barge striking a bridge pier causing the sudden collapse of
the structure or a truck crash resulting in a fire that damages the
roadway. For natural disasters or other events to be eligible for
emergency relief funding, the President must declare the event to be
an "emergency" or a "major disaster" under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act[Footnote 6] or the
governor must declare an emergency with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Transportation.[Footnote 7]
Since 1972, Congress has authorized $100 million annually in contract
authority for the Emergency Relief Program to be paid from the Highway
Trust Fund. Accordingly, FHWA may obligate up to $100 million in any
one fiscal year for the program. Any unobligated balance remains
available until expended.[Footnote 8]
Additionally, obligations to a single state resulting from a single
natural disaster or a single catastrophic failure may not exceed $100
million.[Footnote 9] In some cases, Congress has enacted legislation
lifting this cap for large-scale disasters. Moreover, as provided in
FHWA's regulations, states are eligible for assistance under the
Emergency Relief Program if the cost of the damage from a single event
exceeds $700,000 for emergency assistance.[Footnote 10] The $700,000
threshold includes the damage cost for all sites in any state affected
by the disaster. According to FHWA guidance, each prospective damage
site must have at least $5,000 of repair costs to qualify for funding
assistance--a threshold intended to distinguish unusually large
expenses eligible for emergency relief funding from costs that should
be covered by normal state maintenance funding.
The Emergency Relief Program's authorizing statute and FHWA's
regulations and guidelines distinguish between emergency and permanent
repairs. Emergency repairs are made during and immediately following a
disaster to quickly restore essential highway traffic service,
minimize the extent of damage, or protect remaining facilities,
including removing debris and constructing detours and temporary
roadway surfaces. Permanent repairs are undertaken, normally after
emergency repairs have been completed, to restore seriously damaged
highway facilities to predisaster conditions. In some instances, such
as the destruction of a bridge, complete replacement may be needed. In
these cases, the bridge would be rebuilt to current design
standards[Footnote 11] (see figure 1 for photographs of typical
emergency and permanent repair examples).
Figure 1: Examples of Emergency and Permanent Repairs:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Emergency repair example: debris removal;
Permanent repair example: bridge replacement.
Source: FHWA Washington state and Texas division offices.
[End of figure]
The Emergency Relief Program may fund up to 100 percent of emergency
repair project costs incurred within the first 180 days following an
eligible disaster.[Footnote 12] The program funds permanent repair
projects and emergency repair project costs after the first 180 days
at the percentage normally provided for work on that type of federal-
aid highway.[Footnote 13] For example, the federal share for
interstate highway projects is 90 percent of the cost, and the federal
share for most other federal projects is 80 percent.[Footnote 14]
Also, construction on permanent repairs must begin by the end of the
second fiscal year following the year in which the disaster
occurred;[Footnote 15] however, FHWA may grant time extensions for
projects needing extensive environmental evaluation, litigation, or
complex right-of-way. In addition, the program is not intended to pay
for "betterments," projects that change the function or character of
the highway facility, such as expanding road capacity. However, FHWA
may determine that betterments are eligible for program funding if
they pass a benefit-cost test that weighs their cost against the
prospective cost to the Emergency Relief Program for potentially
chronic future repairs.
Figure 2 shows processes and areas of responsibilities for the
Emergency Relief Program.
Figure 2: Emergency Relief Project Processes and Areas of
Responsibility:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Process: 1. State DOT submits letter of intent and governor's
proclamation to FHWA division office[A];
Time frame: During or immediately after the disaster occurrence.
Process: 2. Following FHWA's acknowledgment of the letter of intent,
the state DOT conducts initial damage assessments; FHWA may assist as
resources allow;
Time frame: Within the first 2-3 weeks following the disaster
occurrence.
Process: 3. If infeasible during the initial damage assessments, the
state DOT conducts detailed damage inspections of project sites; FHWA
may assist with assessments as resources allow;
Time frame: Within the first 6-10 weeks following the disaster
occurrence.
Process: 4. State DOT submits documentation of all damage inspections
to FHWA;
Time frame: Within 3 months following FHWA's finding that the event
was emergency relief-eligible.
Process: 5. FHWA reviews damage assessment documentation to determine
project eligibility:
* FHWA may request additional documentation or conduct additional site
visits;
Time frame: Within 1-2 weeks of receipt of the documentation of
damages.
Process: 6. FHWA approves eligible projects and obligates funds;
emergency repairs continue and permanent repairs begin:
* If project costs or scope change, state DOT may request to modify
project agreement and submit documentation for significant changes to
FHWA for review;
* Inactivity or failure to advance a project may prompt FHWA action,
including withholding of funding and deobligation of funds;
Time frame: Emergency repairs must be completed within 180 days to
qualify for 100 percent federal funding. Emergency work to open the
site to traffic should be completed within one month of accessibility
to the site under normal circumstances. Permanent work must advance to
construction by the second fiscal year following the disaster
occurrence, but extensions can be granted in one year increments.
Process: 7. Projects are completed and the state DOT conducts final
inspections:
* FHWA reserves the right to conduct final inspections on all projects;
Time frame: State DOTS should submit final bills to FHWA promptly
after final inspections.
Process: 8. FHWA reimburses the state DOT for the federal share of the
cost of the completed work.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA information.
[A] A governor's declaration is not required if the President has
declared the event to have been an emergency or major disaster under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
[End of figure]
FHWA division offices located in each state review applications for
emergency relief submitted by the state departments of transportation
and decide the eligibility of emergency relief projects. Once the
division office determines that an event is eligible for funding, it
requests an emergency relief allocation from FHWA's Office of Program
Administration, which manages the allocation of emergency relief to
division offices.[Footnote 16] If funding is not immediately
available, the request is added to a nationwide list of funding
requests, known as the emergency relief backlog list, which is used to
apprise Congress of states' requests for funding for specific events.
As funding becomes available for obligation--either through the
program's $100 million annual authorization of contract authority or
through a supplemental appropriation from Congress--FHWA enters into a
project agreement for individual projects formalizing the conditions
of its project approval and incurs obligations, based on the damage
estimates prepared by states and approved by FHWA.[Footnote 17]
As with other federal-aid highway programs, FHWA reimburses the states
for emergency relief work as that work is completed and invoiced. If
emergency relief funding is not immediately available for emergency
relief work, FHWA may obligate other available transportation funds
[Footnote 18] as may be necessary for the immediate execution of
emergency relief work and reimburse any funds actually expended once
emergency relief funds become available.[Footnote 19] Because
estimates are based on circumstances existing at the time funds are
obligated, more funding is sometimes obligated than is ultimately
needed. FHWA may deobligate unexpended funds which will not be needed
by states, increasing the amount of funds available for obligation for
use for other projects.
The level of FHWA's oversight in the design and construction of
federal-aid projects, including emergency relief, is determined by the
classification of the roadway. Since the passage of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991,[Footnote 20] states
have been allowed to assume an increased amount of oversight
responsibility for the design and construction of federal-aid
projects. However, this expanded authority does not diminish FHWA’s
responsibility to determine whether projects are eligible for federal
funds or ensure that federal funds are efficiently and effectively
managed. States are primarily responsible for oversight of federal-aid
highway projects, including emergency relief, on federal-aid highways
that are off the National Highway System—which represent approximately
83 percent of the nation’s road miles. In addition, states may assume
responsibility for National Highway System projects not on the
Interstate Highway System.[Footnote 21] State departments of
transportation may approve design plans and estimates and conduct
project inspections to ensure the completion of emergency relief
projects, among other things. FHWA exercises full oversight
responsibility for many projects on the Interstate Highway System, as
shown in table 1.[Footnote 22]
Table 1: Types of Projects Receiving State Oversight versus FHWA
Oversight:
Type of project: Federal-aid highways off the National Highway System;
Mileage: 798,000;
Design and construction oversight: State assumes oversight
responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates,
contract awards, and inspection of projects;
Exceptions: State determines state oversight is not appropriate.
Type of project: National Highway System, non-Interstate routes;
Mileage: 115,000;
Design and construction oversight: State may assume the oversight
responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates,
contract awards, and inspections of projects;
Exceptions: State or FHWA determines state oversight is not
appropriate.
Type of project: National Highway System, Interstate routes;
Mileage: 47,000;
Design and construction oversight: FHWA exercises full oversight
responsibilities to (1) prescribe design and construction standards,
(2) approve design plans and estimates, (3) approve the selection of
the contract award, (4) inspect the progress of construction, and (5)
render final acceptance on projects when they are completed;
Exceptions: Certain types of projects, or projects below a dollar
threshold, where FHWA and state have agreed state oversight is
appropriate.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Although FHWA administers the Emergency Relief Program in the same
manner as the regular federal-aid highway program, there are important
differences between the two. The regular program derives revenues from
highway users and funding is provided on a multiyear basis through
formulas designed to ensure that each state receives its "fair share"
based on estimated contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. Since the
passage of SAFETEA-LU, a majority of emergency relief funds, as we
have reported, have derived from general revenues, for expenses that
for the most part cannot be planned for, and states compete for
funding based on need. While formula funding for the regular federal-
aid highway program is limited by amounts annually apportioned to the
states, any emergency relief funds that a state receives are in
addition to such apportionments. And while regular federal-aid program
projects require a state to match its federal funding amount,
emergency repair projects may qualify for 100 percent federal funding.
Our 2007 report identified concerns regarding FHWA's financial
oversight of the Emergency Relief Program and the program's
eligibility criteria and made several recommendations to FHWA.
[Footnote 23]
* First, we found that FHWA was not routinely recapturing all unused
program funds allocated to states--including unused unobligated
emergency relief funds as well as unexpended obligated funds--that
were not needed for eligible projects. This contributed to a situation
in which states with immediate disaster needs were placed on the
backlog list of states requesting funds, while states with no current
disaster needs retained their allocations.[Footnote 24] We therefore
recommended that FHWA division offices annually coordinate with states
to identify unused emergency relief funds and withdraw any unneeded
amounts. Funds in excess of any outstanding need, if any, would be
identified to Congress for rescission or to reduce future
appropriations.
* Second, we expressed concern that the scope of eligible activities
had expanded in recent years as a result of congressional waivers or
FHWA rulemaking to revise eligibility criteria. As a result, emergency
relief funds were being used to fully finance projects that had
expanded in scope and costs beyond the typical emergency relief
project. To address this concern, we recommended that FHWA tighten the
eligibility criteria for funding, which could include limitations on
the use of emergency relief funds to fully finance projects that grew
in scope and costs as a result of environmental and community concerns.
* Third, we noted that the lack of a standard definition of what
constitutes an eligible damage site might allow many smaller costs to
be charged against the program and recommended that FHWA clarify its
program manual to better define an eligible site.
Supplemental Appropriations Comprise Most Emergency Relief Funding
Provided to States, and a Backlog of Funding Requests Remains:
From Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010, Congress Provided More than $2.3
Billion for Emergency Relief Events and to Address a Backlog of
Unfunded Requests:
From fiscal years 2007 through 2010, Congress provided more than $2.3
billion to the Emergency Relief Program, including more than $1.9
billion in three supplemental appropriations from general revenues and
about $400 million in contract authority paid from the Highway Trust
Fund (see figure 3). The supplemental appropriations represented 83
percent of the program's funding over that time period. This
percentage has been fairly consistent over time: 86 percent of the
total Emergency Relief Program funding provided from fiscal years 1990
through 2006 came from supplemental appropriations.[Footnote 25]
Figure 3: Total Emergency Relief Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Total annual authorizations: 17%; $402 million[A];
Supplemental appropriations: 83%; $1.9 billion;
May 2007: $871 million[B];
December 2007: $195 million[C];
September 2008: $850 million[D].
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] In fiscal year 2007, FHWA received almost $102 million in contract
authority rather than the typical $100 million. The additional $2
million was the Emergency Relief Program's share of additional budget
authority provided to all highway programs to align total highway
budget authority with revised revenue from the Highway Trust Fund for
that year.
[B] U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-28, title IV,
ch. 8, 121 Stat. 112, 160 (2007).
[C] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, div.
K, title I, 121 Stat. 1844, 2384 (2008).
[D] Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. B, title I, ch.
10, 122 Stat. 3574, 3598 (2008).
[End of figure]
Two of the supplemental appropriations that Congress provided to the
Emergency Relief Program since fiscal year 2007 were used to address
the backlog of unfunded emergency relief requests from states. In May
2007, Congress provided $871 million[Footnote 26] to help clear a
backlog of $736 million in funding requests from 46 states. In
September 2008, when the backlog list reached more than $560 million,
Congress provided $850 million to address this backlog and provide
additional funds for future requests.[Footnote 27] In December 2007,
Congress provided $195 million for the reconstruction of the
Interstate 35 West Bridge in Minnesota.[Footnote 28]
FHWA has allocated all of the $2.3 billion provided to the program
since fiscal year 2007, as well as an additional $100 million carried
over from previously provided program funding, among 42 states and
three territories.[Footnote 29] Sixty-five percent of the allocations
(almost $1.6 billion) went to six states--California, Louisiana,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington state (see figure 4).
California received almost $538 million, the most of all states, and
most of this was a result of the 2005-2006 winter storms. Washington
state was allocated almost $166 million in response to 10 events
ranging from a single event estimated to cost $1 million to about $58
million to respond to flooding caused by severe rains in December 2007.
Figure 4: Emergency Relief Allocations by State, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
$0:
Delaware:
District of Columbia:
Idaho:
Maryland:
Montana:
Nebraska:
Utah:
Virginia:
Wyoming:
$1 to 10 million:
Connecticut:
Kansas:
Maine:
Massachusetts:
Missouri:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:
New Mexico:
North Carolina:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Tennessee:
Vermont:
West Virginia:
$10,000,001 to $25 million:
Alabama:
Alaska:
Arkansas:
Colorado:
Florida:
Georgia:
Illinois:
Indiana:
Michigan:
$25,000,001 to $50 million:
Iowa:
Kentucky:
Oklahoma:
Wisconsin:
$50,000,001 to $100 million:
Arizona:
Hawaii:
Mississippi:
New York:
Ohio:
Oregon:
More than $100 million:
California:
Louisiana:
Minnesota:
North Dakota:
Texas:
Washington:
Sources: GAO analysis of FHWA data; Map Resources (map).
Note: The three territories that were provided allocations from fiscal
years 2007 through 2010 were American Samoa ($23 million), Puerto Rico
($20 million), and U.S. Virgin Islands ($730,591).
[End of figure]
In our 2007 report we noted that Congress has, on occasion, expanded
Emergency Relief Program eligibility criteria and increased the amount
of program funding to respond to specific disasters.[Footnote 30] For
example we noted that Congress directed the Emergency Relief Program
to fund 100 percent of all repair and reconstruction of highways,
roads, and bridges necessitated by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma, because the states' resources were inadequate to deal with the
string of disasters.[Footnote 31] From fiscal years 2007 through 2010,
FHWA allocated about $484 million in emergency relief in response to
two events--one in Minnesota and one in North Dakota.
* Collapse of the Interstate 35 West Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Since 2007, FHWA allocated about $373 million[Footnote 32] for the
reconstruction and repair of an 8-lane, 1,900 foot bridge spanning the
Mississippi River which collapsed on August 1, 2007, killing 13 people
and injuring 145 others.[Footnote 33] Five days after the disaster,
Congress passed legislation that authorized the use of emergency
relief funds for the repair and reconstruction of the bridge, waived
the $100 million limitation on emergency relief obligations, and
established a 100 percent federal share for all repair costs for the
project.[Footnote 34]
* Basin flooding of roadways at Devils Lake, North Dakota. Since
fiscal year 2007, North Dakota was allocated more than $111 million in
emergency relief funding for projects associated with Devils Lake--a
large natural basin that lacks an outlet for rising water to flow out
of the lake. Starting in the early 1990s, the lake level has risen
dramatically, threatening adjacent roadways. Although Emergency Relief
Program regulations define a natural disaster as a sudden and unusual
natural occurrence, FHWA determined that the gradual and predictable
basin flooding at Devils Lake is eligible for Emergency Relief Program
funding.[Footnote 35] In 2005, through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized
up to $10 million of Emergency Relief Program funds to be expended
annually, up to a total of $70 million, to address an additional
problem at Devils Lake and make repairs to certain roads which were
impounding water and acting as dams.[Footnote 36] In the absence of
other authority, this funding must come out of the $100 million annual
authorization of contract authority, effectively reducing the annual
emergency relief funding available to other states. As of March 2010,
the Emergency Relief Program has provided more than $256 million for
projects related to Devils Lake flooding.[Footnote 37]
Emergency Relief Faces Risk from Escalating Costs of Events Occurring
in Past Years:
In recent years, Congress has provided significant supplemental
funding to the Emergency Relief Program, but as of June 2011, a $485
million backlog of funding requests from states remained. This backlog
did not include funding requests for August 2011 damages from
Hurricane Irene. The backlog list provides a snapshot of states'
funding requests at a given time and is subject to change as states
experience new eligible events. According to guidance in FHWA's
Emergency Relief Manual, requested amounts are based on the states'
anticipated need for emergency relief for the current fiscal year and
may be less than the total emergency relief needs for any specific
event.
The June 2011 backlog list contained almost $90 million in formal
funding requests for several events that occurred between 1983 and
1993 that were previously determined to be eligible by FHWA.
Specifically, California requested almost $83 million for a single,
long-term project in response to a 1983 rockslide, known as Devil's
Slide, and an additional $6.5 million for four other events from
fiscal years 1990 through 1993. According to FHWA, these requests are
for approved emergency relief events with projects that have had
delays due to environmental issues or cost overruns.
Once an event has been approved for emergency relief by FHWA, current
program rules do not establish a time limit in which states must
submit all funding requests for repairs. Although FHWA requires states
to submit a list of projects within three months of approving a
state's application for emergency relief,[Footnote 38] eligibility
stemming from an approved event does not lapse, and a state's list of
projects may be amended at any time to add new work. Consequently,
FHWA faces the risk of receiving reimbursement requests from states
for projects years after an event occurs, including requests for
projects that have experienced significant delays and cost increases
over time, due to environmental or community concerns. The June 2011
backlog list included project funding requests for two events that
occurred more than 10 years ago and which demonstrate FHWA's risk of
escalating long-term costs due to older events.
Devil's Slide tunnel for State Route 1 in California. Total costs
estimated to be more than $631 million in emergency relief funds
resulted from the ongoing construction of a tunnel in response to a
1983 landslide in California. The Devil's Slide area in California is
an unstable cliff formation on the Pacific coast near San Francisco
that is subject to reoccurring rock slides onto State Route 1 (S.R.1).
Following a major landslide over the winter of 1983 that closed S.R.1
for 3 months, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
began to pursue the idea of relocating S.R.1 away from the slide area.
The project required a comprehensive environmental impact study, which
took several years to complete. The study was subsequently challenged
in U.S. District Court, which delayed construction for several more
years and resulted in an additional environmental review. As we
reported in 2007, in the years that passed since the original
environmental impact study, community attitudes shifted in favor of
relocating S.R.1 by way of a tunnel through the mountain behind
Devil's Slide so that S.R.1 would not be affected by future rock
slides. In 1998, Congress declared the Devil's Slide project to be
eligible for emergency relief[Footnote 39] and, after an additional
environmental review, the tunnel alternative was selected in 2002 and
construction of a pair of 4,200-foot-long, 30-foot-wide tunnels began
in 2006--23 years after the originating emergency relief event.
Construction of the tunnel is ongoing, with a planned completion in
March 2013. To date, FHWA has obligated about $555 million in
emergency relief funds to the Devil's Slide tunnel project out of an
estimated cost of $631 million. The $631 million total project cost
estimate includes the $83 million requested on the June 2011 backlog
list--which is for work completed during fiscal year 2011--as well as
an additional $120 million to be requested in the future to fully
reimburse Caltrans to complete the project.
Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, Washington. The June 2011 backlog list
also contained a "pending" request of $40.5 million from Washington
state in response to a February 2001 earthquake which damaged the
Alaskan Way Viaduct--a 2-mile double-deck highway running along
Seattle's waterfront.[Footnote 40] In the months after the event, FHWA
approved $3.6 million for emergency relief repairs to cracks in
several piers supporting a section of the viaduct, which were
completed by December 2004. At the time of the earthquake, the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) had begun
considering options for replacing the viaduct, which was approaching
the end of its design life. After continued monitoring, WSDOT found
that the viaduct had experienced accelerated deterioration as a result
of the earthquake and requested $2 billion in emergency relief to
replace the viaduct. Congress directed FHWA and state and local
agencies to determine the specific damages caused by the earthquake
and the amount eligible for emergency relief.[Footnote 41] In
response, FHWA found that while the replacement of the entire viaduct
was not eligible for emergency relief, the project was eligible to
receive $45 million to replace the section of the viaduct damaged by
the earthquake.[Footnote 42] FHWA further found that if WSDOT decided
to move forward with a more comprehensive replacement project for the
entire facility, the estimated amount of emergency relief eligibility
could be applied to that project. WSDOT now plans to replace the
entire viaduct with a bored tunnel under downtown Seattle, with an
estimated cost of almost $2 billion. According to FHWA's Washington
state division office, the $40.5 million listed on the June 2011
emergency relief backlog list will be obligated toward the
construction of the larger replacement project for the viaduct.
The lack of a time limit for states to submit emergency relief funding
requests raises the risk of states filing claims for additional
funding years after an event's occurrence, particularly for projects
that grow significantly in cost or scope over time. States may have
good reasons for submitting funding requests years after an event--
particularly for larger-scale permanent repairs that may take years to
complete--but such projects can grow unpredictably. The example of the
relocation of S.R.1 away from Devil's Slide and the cost and scope
increases that resulted from more than two decades of delays to
complete lengthy environmental reviews and address community concerns
is case and point. The absence of a time limit for states to submit
funding requests hinders FHWA's ability to manage future claims to the
program and creates a situation where Congress may be asked to provide
additional supplemental appropriations for emergency relief years
after an event occurs. Furthermore, states requesting emergency relief
funds for projects many years after an event raises questions as to
whether the repairs involved meet the goal of the Emergency Relief
Program to restore damaged facilities to predisaster conditions.
In 2007 we recommended that FHWA revise its regulations to tighten
program eligibility criteria, which could include limitations on the
use of emergency relief funds to fully finance projects that grew in
scope and cost as a result of environmental and community concerns. In
July 2011, DOT's regulatory agenda[Footnote 43] included a planned
rulemaking for the Emergency Relief Program that would, among other
actions, consider specific time restrictions for states when filing a
claim for emergency relief eligible work.[Footnote 44] However, in
October 2011, FHWA withdrew this planned item from its agenda.
According to an FHWA official, the planned rulemaking was withdrawn
because it was premature and because FHWA is still determining what
changes if any are needed to address GAO's 2007 recommendations.
FHWA's Program Revisions Have Not Fully Addressed Prior Concerns:
FHWA Now Has Procedures to Withdraw Some Unused Emergency Relief
Allocations from States, But Lacks Information to Verify Whether
Additional Unused Allocations Are Still Needed:
Since our 2007 report, FHWA has implemented a process to withdraw
unused allocations and reallocate funding to benefit other states.
FHWA undertook these actions in response to our recommendation to
require division offices to annually coordinate with states to
identify and withdraw unused allocations that are no longer needed so
funds may be used to reduce the backlog of other program requests.
[Footnote 45] Since 2007, FHWA has based its allocations on a state's
estimate of anticipated emergency relief obligations for the fiscal
year. Prior to fiscal year 2007, FHWA's policy was to allocate the
full amount of each state's emergency relief request, based on total
available program funds.
In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, FHWA division offices coordinated with
states to identify and withdraw unused allocations representing
approximately $367 million in emergency relief funds from a total of
25 states and 2 territories.[Footnote 46] To withdraw unused funds
from states, FHWA reviews its financial database, FMIS, to identify
the amount allocated to each state that has not been obligated to
specific projects. FHWA then asks each state to identify remaining
fiscal year need for new obligations and the amount of any allocations
that will no longer be needed. FHWA then withdraws the amount
determined by the state to be no longer needed and reallocates that
amount to other nationwide emergency relief needs, such as unfunded
requests on the backlog list. Most of the withdrawn allocations were
originally allocated to states from fiscal years 2003 to 2006, as
shown in figure 5. Of the $299 million that was withdrawn for events
occurring from fiscal years 2003 to 2006, about $230 million was
withdrawn from Florida.
Figure 5: Unobligated Emergency Relief Allocations Withdrawn from
States since 2007 by the Fiscal Year in Which the Events Occurred:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
FY 2002 or earlier: 5%; $20 million for events;
FY 2003 through 2006: 81%; $299 million for events;
FY 2007 through 2010: 13%; $48 million for events;
$367 million withdrawn in total.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of figure]
FHWA reallocated $295 million of the $367 million withdrawn from
states for other nationwide requests.[Footnote 47] According to FHWA,
the remaining $72 million that was withdrawn but not yet reallocated
will be made available to states in future allocations.
As of the end May 2011, $493 million that FHWA allocated to states in
response to events occurring since 1989 remains unobligated.[Footnote
48] A significant portion of this amount likely reflects the recent
allocation of $320 million in April 2011. However, at least $63
million of the unobligated balance is for older allocations, provided
prior to fiscal year 2007. Specifically, New York's unobligated
balance includes almost $52 million provided after the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks for roadway repairs delayed due to ongoing
building construction around the World Trade Center site.[Footnote 49]
FHWA's New York division reported that these repairs are not expected
to be completed until 2014. In addition, California maintained an
unobligated balance of more than $11 million from the October 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake. According to FHWA California division
officials, FHWA sought to withdraw some of this allocation, but
Caltrans and local officials indicated that this allocation was
necessary to complete environmental mitigation and bike path projects
that were part of reconstruction of the collapsed Bay Bridge
connecting San Francisco and Oakland in California.
Although the Emergency Relief Manual states that FHWA division offices
are to identify and withdraw unused program funding allocations
annually, we found several instances in which division offices applied
unused allocations from existing events to new events in the same
state without requesting a new allocation. Specifically, our file
review at the FHWA Washington state and New York state division
offices identified three events from fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that
the division offices approved as eligible and funded with allocations
that were no longer needed from previous events. This practice, which
was permitted in the 1989 version of the Emergency Relief Manual,
limits FHWA's ability to track unobligated balances for specific
events and determine whether those funds are no longer needed and may
be withdrawn. FHWA took steps to limit divisions from using this
practice by removing language permitting the practice in the 2009
Emergency Relief Manual. According to FHWA, this change was made so
that funds could be more equitably distributed across the nation to
address the backlog of funding requests, rather than allowing states
to hold unused funds in reserve for future events.
Although FHWA removed the language permitting this practice from the
manual, FHWA has not provided written guidance to its divisions to
prohibit them from applying unused allocations to new events in the
same state, and the practice is still being used. For example, in
February 2011, FHWA's headquarters allowed the Washington state
division to shift unused funds from a prior event to a new event, and
in doing so, the division office did not submit a request for an
allocation of funds for those new events and FHWA headquarters did not
provide an allocation for those events. Consequently, FHWA
headquarters did not have a record for the events, nor did it know the
amount of funds made available by the division for these events.
Furthermore, FHWA headquarters officials were unable to determine how
prevalent this practice was across division offices. As a result, FHWA
headquarters lacks information on what funding was made available and
remains unobligated to states for specific events. Because Emergency
Relief Program funding is not subject to the annual limits that the
regular federal-aid highway program is, states have an incentive to
retain as much emergency relief funding as possible by not returning
unused funds. The lack of information on the amount of funds that
could be made available for specific events could prevent FHWA from
verifying whether allocations provided to states are still needed or
may be withdrawn and used to meet current needs.
In Addition to Unused Allocations, Obligated Funds Remain Unexpended:
In addition to the unused allocations, substantial amounts of
obligated emergency relief funding have not been expended. About $642
million in emergency relief funding obligated for states from fiscal
years 2001 through 2010 remains unexpended as of May 2011--including
about $341 million in emergency relief funds obligated from fiscal
years 2001 through 2006.[Footnote 50] In total for the Emergency
Relief Program, 8 percent of all funding obligated from fiscal years
2001 through 2006 has yet to be expended (see table 2).
Table 2: Emergency Relief Program Obligations and Expenditures, Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2006:
Dollars in millions:
Obligations:
Fiscal year: 2001: $360;
Fiscal year: 2002: $67;
Fiscal year: 2003: $195;
Fiscal year: 2004: $1,082;
Fiscal year: 2005: $1,991;
Fiscal year: 2006: $758;
Total: $4,454.
Expenditures:
Fiscal year: 2001: $314;
Fiscal year: 2002: $65;
Fiscal year: 2003: $191;
Fiscal year: 2004: $1,072;
Fiscal year: 2005: $1,803;
Fiscal year: 2006: $667;
Total: $4,113.
Unexpended balance:
Fiscal year: 2001: $46;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $5;
Fiscal year: 2004: $10;
Fiscal year: 2005: $188;
Fiscal year: 2006: $91;
Total: $341.
Percent expended:
Fiscal year: 2001: 87%;
Fiscal year: 2002: 97%;
Fiscal year: 2003: 98%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 99%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 91%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 88%;
Total: 92%.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA financial data.
Note: The amounts provided for each fiscal year were rounded to the
nearest million and may not add to the total amount provided due to
rounding.
[End of table]
Almost half of the unexpended balance from fiscal years 2001 through
2006 is for projects in response to several extraordinary events that
occurred during those years, including the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks in New York and Gulf Coast Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
and Wilma in 2005. Specifically, about $45 million of the $46 million
that remains unexpended for fiscal year 2001 is for repair projects to
facilities around the World Trade Center site in New York City. Of the
$188 million that remains unexpended for fiscal year 2005, about $118
million is for projects in Louisiana in response to Hurricane Katrina.
As of the end of May 2011, FHWA obligated about $952 million to 155
emergency relief projects in Louisiana for this event and has since
made reimbursements to the state for all but 1 of these projects,
providing approximately 88 percent of the amount obligated.
Although substantial unexpended obligated funding remains, FHWA lacks
information to determine the amount that is unneeded and could be
deobligated because there is no time frame for closing out completed
emergency relief projects. FHWA division officials in New York and
Texas reported that many emergency relief projects are administered by
local public agencies, including towns and counties, and these
entities are often slow to process their reimbursement requests
through the state department of transportation. As such, FHWA lacks
information on the status of these projects and whether projects are
ongoing or have been completed. For example, in Texas, 28 of 30
projects since 2007 included in our file review were listed as active
in FHWA's national database, FMIS. However, according to Texas
Department of Transportation (TXDOT) officials, construction on 23 of
the 28 active projects was in fact completed and waiting to be closed
out. FHWA division office officials reported that FMIS is not a
project management system and does not provide the actual status of
the construction of projects. As such, states may have completed some
emergency relief projects but not processed reimbursement requests
from local public agencies or completed final project financial
audits. Projects remain active in FMIS until final vouchers have been
processed to reimburse states. DOT's Office of Inspector General and
external independent auditors have both identified inactive or
unexpended obligations as a significant concern within FHWA.[Footnote
51] Without clear time frames for states to close out completed
emergency relief projects, FHWA lacks important information on the
status of projects and whether unexpended project funds are no longer
needed and may be deobligated to be made available for other emergency
relief projects.
Prior Concerns about Project Eligibility Have Yet to Be Addressed:
FHWA has yet to address our longstanding concern about, and our 2007
recommendation for addressing, the use of emergency relief funds to
finance projects that have grown in scope beyond the original intent
of the program, which is to restore damaged facilities to predisaster
conditions.[Footnote 52] In 1996, we questioned FHWA's decision to use
more than $1 billion in emergency relief funds to replace the Cypress
Viaduct in Oakland, California, which collapsed as a result of the
Loma Prieta earthquake in October 1989.[Footnote 53] FHWA engineers
initially estimated that replacing the destroyed structure along its
predisaster alignment would cost $306 million. In response to public
concern, Caltrans identified several alternative alignments that it
studied in a 2-year environmental review. In 1991, Caltrans and FHWA
decided to replace the destroyed 1.5-mile structure, which had
bisected a residential area, with a new 5-mile structure running
through active rail yards. This cost estimate later increased to more
than $1.1 billion at the time of our 1996 report--an increase of
almost $800 million from FHWA's initial estimate of $306 million to
restore the facility to its predisaster condition. As such, we
questioned whether the improvements and costs resulting from the
significant relocation and changes in scope should have been funded
through the Emergency Relief Program rather than the regular federal-
aid highway program. We recommended that FHWA modify its guidance to
clearly define what costs can be funded through the Emergency Relief
Program, particularly when an environmental review recommends
improvements or changes to the features of a facility from its
predisaster condition in a manner that adds costs and risks to the
project.
Although FHWA took steps to address our 1996 recommendation,[Footnote
54] in 2007, we reported several cases in which the Emergency Relief
Program was used to fund large projects--such as a bridge replacement
or road relocation--that were either delayed, had grown in project
scope and costs, or went beyond the original intent of the Emergency
Relief Program to restore damaged facilities to predisaster
conditions.[Footnote 55] First, we noted that relocating California
S.R.1 at Devil's Slide could have been addressed through the state's
regular federal-aid highway program, rather than through the Emergency
Relief Program. If the regular federal-aid highway program had been
used, the project would not have been eligible for 100 percent federal
funding,[Footnote 56] and the federal government would have saved an
estimated $73 million.[Footnote 57] Second, we reported that the
reconstruction of the U.S. Highway 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge in
Mississippi--which was destroyed in August 2005 during Hurricane
Katrina--grew in scope and cost by $64 million as a result of
community concerns. Specifically, in response to a concern raised by a
local shipbuilder about the proposed height of the new bridge,
Mississippi department of transportation expanded the scope of the
bridge reconstruction to increase the bridge height to allow for
future ships to pass under the bridge. The original design was to
provide an 85-foot clearance at a cost of $275 million, but this scope
was expanded to its current design to provide a 95-foot clearance at a
cost of $339 million.[Footnote 58]
FHWA has clarified its definition of an eligible damage site as we
recommended in 2007, through its revisions to its Emergency Relief
Manual in 2009. Specifically, FHWA's 2009 revisions clarified that
grouping damages to form an eligible site based solely on a political
subdivision (i.e., county or city boundaries) should not be accepted.
This change addressed our concern that FHWA division offices had
different interpretations of what constituted a site, such that damage
sites that were treated as eligible for emergency relief in one state
may have not been eligible in another state.
Incomplete Information in Emergency Relief Project Files in Three
States Raises Concerns about FHWA's Eligibility Decisions and Program
Oversight:
Documentation for Many Project Files We Reviewed Was Missing,
Incomplete, or Inconsistent:
In our review of 83 selected emergency relief project files in three
FHWA division offices, we found that many of the project files
reviewed did not contain documentation called for in the Emergency
Relief Manual to support FHWA decisions that projects met program
eligibility requirements.[Footnote 59] Of the 83 projects in our
review (totaling about $198.5 million in federal funds), 81 projects
(about $192.8 million in federal funds) had at least one instance of
missing or incomplete documentation. As a result of this missing
information, we were unable to determine the basis of FHWA's
eligibility decisions for many of the projects in our file review.
The Emergency Relief Manual directs FHWA division offices to maintain
files containing information on the methods used to evaluate disasters
and FHWA's assessment of damages and estimates of cost. According to
the Emergency Relief Program regulations, program data should be
sufficient to identify the approved disaster and permit FHWA to
determine the eligibility of the proposed work.[Footnote 60] In our
file review, we identified several areas of concern with FHWA's
eligibility determinations based on missing, incomplete, or
inconsistent documentation, as illustrated in table 3 and described
below (see appendix III for detailed results of our file review).
Table 3: Instances of Missing or Incomplete Project Documentation:
Areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing or incomplete detailed
damage inspection reports;
New York: 16 of 22;
Texas: 28 of 28;
Washington state: 3 of 33;
Total instances: 47 of 83.
Areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing repair cost estimates;
New York: 12 of 22;
Texas: 14 of 28;
Washington state: 16 of 33;
Total instances: 42 of 83.
Areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing or incomplete
emergency repair completion dates to support 100 percent federal
funding;
New York: 18 of 18[A];
Texas: 0 of 17;
Washington state: 21 of 23;
Total instances: 39 of 58[B].
Areas of concern regarding eligibility: Missing betterment
justification;
New York: 1 of 1;
Texas: 0 of 4;
Washington state: 6 of 10;
Total instances: 6 of 15[C].
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA Emergency Relief Program documentation.
[A] The 18 projects with emergency repairs in New York provided only a
month and year for the completion of repairs. Without a specific date
we could not confirm completion was within 180 days of the disaster
occurrence. These 18 projects are indicated as partially complete for
having a completion date on file for 100 percent funded work in
appendix III, figure 6.
[B] Fifty-eight of the 83 projects in our review included emergency
repairs and were approved to receive 100 percent federal share funding
for either all or a portion of the total project cost.
[C] Fifteen of the 83 projects in our review were identified as
betterments in project documentation or by FHWA division office
officials with whom we spoke.
[End of table]
Missing or Incomplete Detailed Damage Inspection Reports:
Forty-seven of 83 project files (57 percent) lacked documentation for
on-site damage inspections. In particular, they did not include a
detailed damage inspection report (DDIR) or the DDIR was not complete.
According to the Emergency Relief Manual, on-site detailed damage
inspections are conducted by the applicant or a state department of
transportation representative if the applicant is a local public
agency, and an FHWA representative, if available, to determine the
extent of damage, scope of repair work, preliminary estimate of the
repair cost, and whether a project is eligible for emergency relief
funding. FHWA provides its division offices with a DDIR form that
states may use to document their inspections and provide critical
information necessary for determining project eligibility, such as a
listing of preliminary repair cost estimates for equipment, labor, and
materials for both emergency and permanent repairs. Without such
information on file for some projects, we could not confirm that FHWA
had that information to make emergency relief project eligibility
determinations.
These documents may be missing due to lack of clear requirements from
FHWA. FHWA requires documented on-site damage inspections but does not
have a clear requirement for how states submit the inspections to FHWA
officials or for how they approve inspection reports; as a result, the
three division offices we visited applied the Emergency Relief Manual
guidelines differently. For example, none of the 28 project files we
reviewed in Texas included a DDIR because FHWA's Texas division office
relies instead on a "program of projects," which is a spreadsheet of
all projects requesting emergency relief funds. In response to a draft
version of this report, FHWA's Office of Program Administration
explained that state departments of transportation may use any format
to submit the data necessary for FHWA to make an eligibility
determination. FHWA's Texas division officials stated that they find
the program of projects useful and believed it to be an FHWA
requirement; however, we found that the Emergency Relief Manual
guidance was ambiguous and did not directly state that this document
can be used in place of DDIRs. One section the Emergency Relief Manual
indicates that the state department of transportation is to submit the
program of projects to the FHWA division office, but it also states
that the program of projects should relate the damage to that
described in the DDIRs. Furthermore, the manual suggests in an
appendix that the program of projects is actually a package of all
DDIRs resulting from the detailed damage inspections.
In addition, our file review found that the project descriptions in
the program of projects did not always provide the detailed
information regarding damages and proposed repairs outlined in the
Emergency Relief Manual and found on a DDIR. For example, for one
Texas project totaling close to $1.7 million in both emergency and
permanent repairs, the project description was the same for both
emergency and permanent repairs and did not indicate what specific
repair activities were conducted for each repair type. Differentiation
between emergency and permanent repairs is important because emergency
repairs are eligible for a higher federal share and do not require
prior FHWA authorization. Without documentation showing a clear
distinction between the emergency and permanent repairs--information
that should be identified and documented on a DDIR per program
guidance--we could not determine the basis for FHWA's decision that
this project met the eligibility requirements for both repair types.
Overall, we found the program of projects was less useful than the
DDIR for evaluating the full range of information necessary to
determine the basis for FHWA's eligibility determinations.
Missing Repair Cost Estimates:
We found that about half of the projects in our sample (42 of 83) did
not include repair cost estimates. The Emergency Relief Manual states
that at a minimum the division office's project file should contain
copies of the FHWA field engineer's assessments on damage and
estimates of cost. Officials in each of the FHWA division offices that
we visited reported that the state's department of transportation is
responsible for preparing repair cost estimates, but that FHWA area
engineers also conduct some on-site inspections to verify the cost
estimates provided. In total, 42 projects in our sample did not
include any repair cost estimates; thus, we could not confirm that
FHWA officials had this information to make eligibility determinations
for those projects. For example, a portion of two projects in our
sample for emergency and permanent repairs was to remove sand from
drainage ditches and was initially approved by the FHWA Texas division
office for reimbursement of up to $1.3 million, although the project
file included no repair cost estimate for any of the work associated
with the project. Additionally, no information was available in the
project file to explain the FHWA Texas division office's decision to
later approve a nearly 40 percent increase from $1.3 million to the
final approved amount of $1.85 million. In responding to a draft of
this report, DOT stated that the cost of the project increased because
more sand was removed from the drainage ditches than originally
estimated. However, no documentation of this change was included in
FHWA's project files.
FHWA officials reported that the division office in Texas reviews a
sample of preliminary cost estimates based on risk, among other
factors, prior to making any eligibility decisions. According to the
officials, FHWA's Texas division office reviewed preliminary cost
estimates of at least 10 of the 30 projects included in our file
review before determining eligibility. The officials also reported
that this sampling approach is consistent with FHWA's stewardship
agreement with TXDOT and the fact that states have assumed oversight
responsibility for design and construction of many federal-aid highway
projects, including emergency relief projects.[Footnote 61] FHWA also
reported that TXDOT's oversight responsibilities do not extend to
determining whether particular projects are eligible for federal
funds. Furthermore, the Emergency Relief Manual states that Emergency
Relief Program eligibility determinations reside with FHWA, and
estimated repair costs should be documented to determine eligibility.
As such, the practice of reviewing a sample of preliminary cost
estimates does not appear to be consistent with the requirements in
the Emergency Relief Manual, and as a result, we could not determine
the basis of FHWA's eligibility decisions for those project cost
estimates it did not review.
We found other cases in which cost increases were not documented
according to the internal policies established by each of the division
offices we visited. In New York and Texas, FHWA division officials
stated they require additional documentation to justify cost increases
of 25 percent or more. In Washington state, FHWA division office
officials stated they require additional documentation if costs
increase by 10 percent or more. Yet 14 percent of the project files we
reviewed (12 of 83) showed total cost increases that exceeded the
limits established by the three division offices and no additional
documentation was on file to support the increases.[Footnote 62]
Missing or Incomplete Emergency Repair Completion Dates to Support
Eligibility for 100 Percent Federal Funding:
The majority of the emergency repair project files that we reviewed
did not include documentation demonstrating that emergency repairs
were completed within 180 days from the event to be eligible for 100
percent federal reimbursement.[Footnote 63] Fifty-eight of the 83
projects we reviewed included emergency repairs approved to receive
100 percent federal funding reimbursement if repairs were completed
within 180 days of the event occurrence. However, 39 of the 58 (67
percent) did not have documentation on file to show the completion
date of those repairs (see table 3). In total, only 14 of 58 (24
percent) emergency repair projects provided a completion date that was
within 180 days of the event's occurrence. For the majority (39 of 58)
of projects, we were unable to confirm whether the emergency repairs
were completed within 180 days and whether these projects were
eligible to receive 100 percent federal reimbursement.
The Emergency Relief Manual does not clearly establish specific
requirements that states demonstrate and FHWA verify the date of
project completion. As such, FHWA lacks a standardized process for
verifying the completion of emergency repairs within 180 days on
projects for which it does not exercise full oversight. By law, states
assume oversight responsibility for the design and construction of
many federal-aid highway projects,[Footnote 64] including the vast
majority of emergency relief projects in the three divisions we
visited. As such, the states--rather than FHWA--were responsible for
conducting final inspections of emergency relief projects. States are
required to conduct a final inspection for all federal-aid highway
projects under state oversight, and these inspections could be useful
to determine federal share eligibility of emergency repairs if they
provide project completion dates. While officials in each of the three
state departments of transportation told us that they conduct final
inspections of emergency repairs, we found only two final inspection
reports prepared by states in FHWA's records to confirm the completion
of emergency repairs within the required time frame. In addition, when
we reviewed final inspection reports from one of the state departments
of transportation in our review, we were frequently unable to verify
completion dates. Specifically, 11 of the 12 final inspections
performed by officials at New York State Department of Transportation
for projects in our review did not include project completion dates.
Although the Emergency Relief Manual states that FHWA division offices
reserve the right to conduct a final inspection of any emergency
relief project, only the FHWA Texas division reported conducting spot
inspections for a sample of emergency relief projects.[Footnote 65]
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOT stated that the FHWA New
York state division office uses other means to verify completion of
emergency repairs within 180 days. According to DOT, the state often
submits its DDIRs to FHWA after emergency repairs are completed, which
allows FHWA to verify the eligibility and completion of an emergency
repair when it reviews the DDIR. DOT reported that the FHWA division
office does not sign the DDIR until it confirms the work is completed,
and that its signature indicates verification that the work was
performed within the required time frame. However, our file review
found that 14 of the 18 emergency repair projects in New York that
were approved for 100 percent federal funding did not have an FHWA
signature on the DDIR.
In addition to a lack of documentation, we found eight instances in
which permanent repair projects may have incorrectly received 100
percent federal share reimbursement.[Footnote 66] According to the
Emergency Relief Manual, absent specific legislative approval,
permanent repair work is not to be considered emergency repair work
even if it is completed within 180 days. However, we found instances
in which projects were determined to be permanent repairs based on
information in the project files, but were later authorized to receive
100 percent federal share. For example, in one project in our review,
FHWA's Washington state division office approved permanent repairs to
a state highway for $2.6 million in estimated damages caused by a
landslide. Our review of FHWA financial records for this project
indicates that FHWA later authorized a federal reimbursement of $5.3
million, roughly 99 percent of the total project cost of nearly $5.4
million. FHWA Washington state division officials reported that this
project was considered to be a permanent repair performed as an
incidental part of emergency repair work.[Footnote 67] However, the
project files did not include any emergency repair work to accompany
the approved permanent repairs. According to these officials, the FHWA
Washington state division interpreted the 2003 version of the
Emergency Relief Manual as allowing incidental permanent work to be
funded at 100 percent federal share either with or as emergency repair
work. However, the manual states that during the 180 day period
following the disaster, permanent repair work is reimbursed at the
normal pro rata share unless performed as an incidental part of
emergency repair work. As such, based on the program guidance, this
project should have been reimbursed at 86.5 percent federal share.
Missing and Inconsistent Support for Betterments:
A primary purpose of the Emergency Relief Program is to restore
highway facilities to predisaster conditions, not to provide
improvements or added protective features to highway facilities.
However, according to FHWA regulations and the Emergency Relief
Manual, such improvements may be considered eligible betterments if
the state provides economic justification, such as a benefit-cost
analysis that weighs the cost of the betterment against the risk of
eligible recurring damage and the cost of future repair through the
Emergency Relief Program[Footnote 68]. In our file review we
identified two areas of concern regarding betterments, including
instances of missing documentation of benefit-cost analyses:
* Lack of documentation of required benefit-cost analyses. Six of the
15 projects (40 percent) identified as betterments in our review did
not contain the required benefit-cost analyses in their files to
justify the betterment.[Footnote 69] As a result we were unable to
determine the basis on which FHWA approved these six betterments. We
also found one instance in which the benefit-cost analyses used to
justify an approved betterment did not meet Emergency Relief Program
requirements. Specifically, FHWA's New York division office approved a
betterment of almost $1.6 million to repair and improve a damaged
roadway and shoulder caused by an April 2007 storm. However, we found
that the report prepared to justify the betterment did not weigh the
cost of the proposed betterment against the risk of future damages and
repair costs to the Emergency Relief Program, as required by program
regulations. Consequently, we were unable to determine the basis on
which FHWA approved the $1.6 million betterment.
* Lack of documentation indicating whether projects include
betterments. We found that it was often difficult to determine which
projects included betterments, as FHWA lacks a standard process for
where and how betterments should be identified in project
documentation. The Emergency Relief Manual states that betterments
must receive prior FHWA approval and that further development of
contemplated betterments should be accomplished with FHWA involvement,
necessitating that proposed betterments are specifically identified.
We found eight project files with indications that the projects may
have included betterments that were not identified explicitly in
project documentation or by FHWA officials.[Footnote 70] For example,
following the completion of emergency repairs to remove debris and
protect a bridge against erosion caused by a landslide, the FHWA
Washington state division office approved an additional $3.7 million
in permanent repairs in response to continued erosion and movement of
the hillside. The documentation in the project file indicated that
this permanent work was added to stabilize the slide area in
anticipation of future flooding. According to officials from the FHWA
Washington state division, this slide stabilization project was a
betterment, but the project file did not contain documentation to
indicate that this project was in fact a betterment.
FHWA provides considerable discretion to its division offices to
tailor the Emergency Relief Program within states and lacks a standard
mechanism to specifically identify whether a project includes a
betterment. FHWA's Office of Asset Management has developed an
Economic Analysis Primer for FHWA division offices to use when
evaluating benefit-cost analyses for federal-aid program projects.
However, neither the Emergency Relief Manual nor the Economic Analysis
Primer provide sample benefit-cost analyses or specific guidance on
what information should be included in the benefit-cost analysis to
demonstrate that the proposed betterment will result in a savings in
future recurring repair costs under the Emergency Relief Program.
Because we had found betterments without documentation of the required
benefit-cost analyses on file and identified possible betterments that
were not explicitly identified as such, we could not confirm that
federal funds were being reimbursed in accordance with the
requirements of the Emergency Relief Program. Further, absent specific
guidance for identifying and approving betterments to its division
offices, FHWA cannot be assured that the Emergency Relief Program is
being administered consistently.
Conclusions:
The federal government plays a critical role in providing financial
assistance to states in response to natural disasters and other
catastrophic events. Given the costs of these events and the
significant fiscal challenges facing both states and the federal
government, it is increasingly necessary that federal financial
support be delivered in an effective, transparent, and accountable
manner so that limited funds are put to their best use. FHWA's
stewardship of the Emergency Relief Program could be better structured
to meet that necessity.
First, because some emergency relief projects can be delayed for many
years due to environmental or community concerns and projects can grow
significantly in scope and cost, the federal government faces the risk
of incurring long-term costs for such projects. FHWA has limited tools
to control its exposure to the costs of older events and ensure that
as projects grow in scope and cost that they do not go beyond the
original intent of the program, which is to assist states to restore
damaged facilities to their predisaster conditions. Once an event has
been approved for emergency relief by FHWA, the Emergency Relief
Program as currently structured does not limit the time during which
states may request additional funds and add projects, which increase
the size of FHWA's backlog list. Because Emergency Relief Program
funding is not subject to the annual limits of the regular federal-aid
highway program, states have an incentive to seek as much emergency
relief funding as possible. Consequently, without reasonable time
limits for states to submit funding requests for such older events,
FHWA's ability to anticipate and manage future costs to the Emergency
Relief Program is hindered, as is Congress' ability to oversee the
program. Furthermore, without specific action by FHWA to address the
recommendation from our 2007 report that it revise its emergency
relief regulations to tighten eligibility criteria, the Emergency
Relief Program will continue to face the risk of funding projects with
scopes that have expanded beyond the goal of emergency relief and may
be more appropriately funded through the regular federal-aid highway
program.
Second, while FHWA has taken some important steps in response to our
2007 report to manage program funding by withdrawing unobligated
balances from states, it faces challenges in tracking allocations that
have been provided to states. In particular, because FHWA division
offices have allowed states to transfer unobligated allocations from
an existing event to new events, and because FHWA headquarters is not
tracking which divisions have done so, FHWA headquarters does not have
the information needed to identify and withdraw all unneeded funds. In
addition, without time frames to expedite the close-out of completed
emergency relief projects, FHWA lacks useful information to help
determine whether obligated but unexpended program funds are no longer
needed and could be deobligated.
Finally, the fact that we could not determine the basis of FHWA's
eligibility decisions in three states on projects costing more than
$190 million raises questions about whether emergency relief funds are
being put to their intended use and whether these issues could be
indicative of larger problems nationwide. While federal law allows
states to assume oversight over design and construction of much of the
federal-aid highway program, including many emergency relief projects,
FHWA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that federal funds are
efficiently and effectively managed and that projects receiving scarce
emergency relief funds are in fact eligible. This is especially
important in light of the fact that emergency relief funds have been
derived principally from general revenues in recent years and that the
funds that states receive are above and beyond the funding limits for
their regular federal-aid highway program funds. Without clear and
standardized procedures for divisions to make and document eligibility
decisions--including documenting damage inspections and cost
estimates, verifying and documenting the completion of emergency
repair projects within the required time frame, and evaluating
information provided to justify proposed betterments--FHWA lacks
assurance that only eligible projects are approved, and that its
eligibility decisions are being made and documented in a clear,
consistent, and transparent manner.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the accountability of federal funds, ensure that FHWA's
eligibility decisions are applied consistently, and enhance oversight
of the Emergency Relief Program, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the FHWA Administrator to take the following
four actions:
* Establish specific time frames to limit states' ability to request
emergency relief funds years after an event's occurrence, so that FHWA
can better manage the financial risk of reimbursing states for
projects that have grown in scope and cost.
* Instruct FHWA division offices to no longer permit states to
transfer unobligated allocations from a prior emergency relief event
to a new event so that allocations that are no longer needed may be
identified and withdrawn by FHWA.
* Establish clear time frames for states to close out completed
projects in order to improve FHWA's ability to assess whether
unexpended program funds are no longer needed and could be deobligated.
* Establish standardized procedures for FHWA division offices to
follow in reviewing emergency relief documentation and making
eligibility decisions. Such standardized procedures should include:
- clear requirements that FHWA approve and retain detailed damage
inspection reports for each project and include detailed repair cost
estimates;
- a requirement that division offices verify and document the
completion of emergency repairs within 180 days of an event to ensure
that only emergency work completed within that time frame receives 100
percent federal funding; and:
- consistent standards for approving betterments, including guidance
on what information the benefit-cost analyses should include to
demonstrate that the proposed betterment will result in a savings to
the Emergency Relief Program, and a requirement that FHWA approval of
funding for betterments be clearly documented.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT
officials provided technical comments by email which we incorporated
into the report, as appropriate. In response to our finding that the
Emergency Relief Program lacks a time limit for states to submit
emergency relief funding requests, and our recommendation to establish
specific time frames to limit states' ability to request emergency
relief funds years after an event's occurrence, DOT noted that the
program does include general time frames for states to submit an
application and have work approved. We incorporated this information
into the final report; however, since a state's list of projects may
be amended at any time to add new work, we continue to believe that
FHWA's ability to anticipate and manage future costs to the Emergency
Relief Program is hindered absent specific time frames to limit
states' requests for additional funds years after an event's
occurrence. Such time frames would provide FHWA with an important tool
to better manage program costs.
DOT also commented that its ability to control the costs of some of
the projects cited in the report that have grown in scope and cost
over the years is limited in some cases by the fact that DOT received
statutory direction from Congress to fund these projects. For example,
Congress directed FHWA to provide100 percent federal funding for all
emergency relief projects resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. We
incorporated additional information to recognize this statutory
direction; however, a determination by Congress that a particular
event should qualify for relief under the Emergency Relief Program, or
for other individual actions, does not relieve FHWA of its stewardship
and oversight responsibilities. Except as Congress otherwise provides,
this includes its responsibility to determine whether enhancements to
projects or betterments are consistent with its regulations and the
intent of the Emergency Relief Program to restore damaged facilities
to predisaster conditions. We continue to believe that, as a steward
of public funds, FHWA generally has the discretion to take reasonable
steps to limit the federal government's exposure to escalating costs
from projects that grow in scope over time.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies
of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the
Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Phillip R. Herr:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To identify Emergency Relief Program funding trends since our 2007
report,[Footnote 71] we reviewed federal statutes, including
supplemental appropriations to the Emergency Relief Program made since
2007, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) documentation on
annual funding authorizations to the program. We also reviewed FHWA
data on emergency relief funds allocated to states in response to
emergency relief events from fiscal years 2007 through 2010, as
provided by FHWA's Office of Program Administration. We interviewed
FHWA officials in the Office of Program Administration to gather
specific information on how data on allocations was collected and we
also reviewed FHWA financial data on total allocations to states from
FHWA's fiscal management information system (FMIS). We interviewed
officials from FHWA Federal Lands Highway, FHWA's North Dakota
Division Office, and the North Dakota state department of
transportation concerning funding and project activities for the
Devils Lake, North Dakota, emergency relief projects. To gather
additional information on the Devil's Slide project in California, we
interviewed the FHWA California division office and reviewed
information on the estimated project costs.
To identify key changes to the Emergency Relief Program implemented in
response to concerns raised in our 2007 report, we reviewed
recommendations made to FHWA in our 2007 report and FHWA Emergency
Relief Program regulations and guidance, including FHWA's Emergency
Relief Manual, as revised in 2009. We compared information in the
current version of the Emergency Relief Manual with information in the
previous version to determine which elements were revised. We
interviewed FHWA officials in the Office of Program Administration to
determine why specific changes were made, and we interviewed officials
in three FHWA division offices to determine how program changes were
implemented. To corroborate information provided by FHWA regarding its
process of withdrawing unused Emergency Relief Program funds from
states, we reviewed FMIS data on the emergency relief funds that were
allocated among all states and territories, obligated to specific
projects, and the remaining unobligated balance for all active
Emergency Relief Program codes as of May 31, 2011. To determine other
amounts of program funding that remained unused, we reviewed data in
FMIS on the amount of emergency relief funding obligated to specific
projects and expended by all states and territories for events
occurring from fiscal years 2001 through 2010. We provided FHWA
officials with our methodology for gathering data from FMIS to ensure
that our data queries were accurate. To ensure the reliability of data
collected in FMIS we interviewed FHWA officials on the procedures used
by FHWA and states' departments of transportation to enter and verify
financial information entered into FMIS. We found these data to be
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the extent to which selected emergency relief projects
were awarded in compliance with program eligibility requirements, we
reviewed federal statutes and regulations, and FHWA guidance on
emergency relief eligibility requirements. We selected a
nongeneralizable sample of state department of transportation and FHWA
division offices in three states--New York, Texas, and Washington
state. The states selected are not representative of the conditions in
all states, the state departments of transportation, or FHWA division
offices, but are intended to be examples of the range of practices and
projects being funded by the Emergency Relief Program across the
country. These states were selected based on several criteria:
1. The overall amount of emergency relief funding allocated to a state
from fiscal years 2007 through 2010, to identify those states that
were allocated the most funding (at least $15 million) over that
period, based on allocation data provided by FHWA headquarters.
2. Frequency of funding requests to identify those states that
requested funds for three or more fiscal years from 2007 through 2010.
3. The occurrence of an eligible emergency relief event since FHWA
updated its Emergency Relief Manual in November 2009. For our
purposes, we used emergency relief eligible events beginning October
1, 2009, as a proxy for identifying states with emergency relief
events since the November 2009 manual update.
A total of 10 states met all three criteria. We narrowed our selection
down by eliminating those states that experienced outlier events, such
as North Dakota's reoccurring basin flooding at Devils Lake and the
catastrophic failure of the Interstate 35 West bridge in Minnesota. We
judgmentally selected New York, Texas, and Washington state to reflect
a geographic dispersion of states.
We reviewed a sample of emergency relief project files in the FHWA
division office in each of these states to determine whether the
project files included required or recommended documentation cited in
federal statute, regulations, and FHWA program guidance. Such
documentation included the President or state governors' proclamation
of a disaster, detailed damage inspection reports, cost estimates for
repairs, photographs of the damage, and other information. Across the
three division offices, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of 88
Emergency Relief Program files out of a total universe of 618 project
files for emergency relief projects approved by FHWA in those states
from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Among the 88 projects in our
review, 5 projects had been withdrawn by states as FHWA had determined
them ineligible for emergency relief funds, or they were reimbursed
through a third party insurance settlement, bringing the total number
of projects reviewed to 83. The project files we reviewed represented
approximately 67 percent of all emergency relief funds obligated to
those states during that time period.[Footnote 72] Those projects were
selected based on the following criteria:
1. All projects with more than $1 million in obligated federal funds
between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, including a mix of active and
closed projects and various event or disaster types.
2. Projects with more than $1 million in obligated federal funds for
events from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 on the list of formal
emergency relief funding requests as of March 7, 2011, that were
either currently active or were completed more than five years after
the event occurred.
3. Projects that had other characteristics that we determined to
warrant further review, such as events with $0 amounts listed in
FHWA's FMIS database for total cost or which had expended relatively
small amounts of funding compared with the obligated amounts in FMIS.
Prior to our site visits, we requested that the division offices
provide all documentation they maintain for each of the projects
selected in our sample. We reviewed all the documentation provided
during our site visits, and requested follow-up information as
necessary. In conducting our file review, a GAO analyst independently
reviewed each file and completed a data collection instrument to
document the eligibility documentation that was included for each
file. A second reviewer independently reviewed the file to verify
whether the specific information identified by the first reviewer was
present in the file. The analysts met to discuss and resolve any areas
of disagreement until a consensus was reached on whether the required
information was included in the file. To gather additional information
on the project files we reviewed and the procedures used to manage and
oversee emergency relief projects, we interviewed officials in the
FHWA division offices and the departments of transportation in our
three selected states. We provided the results of our file review to
FHWA for their comment and incorporated their responses as necessary
within our analysis.
Lastly, we contacted state and local audit organizations through the
National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers
for the three states we reviewed, as well as North Dakota, to obtain
reports or analyses that were conducted on FHWA's Emergency Relief
Program. None of the states in our review had conducted substantive
work on the Emergency Relief Program.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to November
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Emergency Relief Funding for Projects at
Devils Lake, North Dakota:
Devils Lake in North Dakota lies in a large natural basin and lacks a
natural outlet for rising water to flow out of the lake. Starting in
the early 1990s, the lake level has risen dramatically--nearly 30 feet
since 1992--which has threatened the roadways near the lake which were
built in the 1930s and 1940s when lake water levels were lower. In
April 2000, FHWA issued a memorandum that authorized raising the roads
at Devils Lake in response to a predicted rise in the water level of
the lake that was within 3 feet of causing inundation, as forecasted
by the National Weather Service or U.S. Geological Survey. This
allowance to repair roadways prior to damages incurred by an event is
a unique provision for the FHWA Emergency Relief Program, which
otherwise funds only post-disaster repair or restoration. The basin
flooding events at Devils Lake also precipitated a related problem at
Devils Lake, as some communities around the lake plugged culverts
under roadways to impound rising water and protect property from
flooding, which increased the roadways' risk of failure. These roads
were subsequently referred to as "roads-acting-as-dams" which required
additional improvements to ensure their structural integrity to serve
as dams.
Devils Lake projects involve multiple stakeholders, depending on the
location and type of roadway. FHWA's North Dakota division office is
responsible for overseeing the Emergency Relief Program projects
administered by North Dakota department of transportation. FHWA's
Office of Federal Lands Highway is responsible for the oversight of
the Emergency Relief on Federally Owned Roads program, which covers
projects on the Spirit Lake Tribe Indian Reservation. The Central
Division of Federal Lands Highway leads the overall coordination among
the federal, state, and local agencies. FHWA reported that the two
FHWA offices are working together to address the roads-acting-as dams
projects which affect state highways and roads on the Sprit Lake Tribe
Indian Reservation. The North Dakota department of transportation and
the Spirit Lake Tribe are responsible for administering the
construction projects on their respective roads.
To ensure the integrity of the roads at Devils Lake, Congress included
funding provisions in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to raise
the roadways and make improvements to roads-acting-as-dams. Through
SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized up to $10 million of Emergency Relief
Program funds to be expended annually, up to a total of $70 million,
for work in the Devils Lake region of North Dakota to address the
roads-acting-as-dams situation.[Footnote 73] These funds are known as
section 1937 funds for the provision in SAFETEA-LU which authorized
them. In the absence of other authority, this $10 million must come
out of the $100 million annual authorization of contract authority
that funds the Emergency Relief Program, effectively reducing the
annual emergency relief funding available to other states to $90
million. SAFETEA-LU also included language that exempted the work in
the Devils Lake area from the need for further emergency declarations
to qualify for emergency relief funding.[Footnote 74]
[End of section]
According to a June 24, 2011, FHWA policy memo, the final allocation
of section 1937 funds was made on March 16, 2011, and the $70 million
limit has been reached. Although rising water levels at Devils Lake
are expected to continue into the future, no further federal-aid
highway funds are eligible to raise roads-acting-as-dams or to
construct flood control and prevention facilities to protect adjacent
roads and lands.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Results of GAO's File Review of Emergency Relief Project
Documentation Available in Three FHWA Division Offices:
Figure 6 represents the results of our review of 88 selected project
files from FHWA's division offices in New York, Texas, and Washington
state. Our data collection instrument was used to collect the values
for each field during our file review, and that information was
summarized and analyzed by at least two GAO analysts (see appendix I
for a complete discussion of our file review methodology).
Figure 6: Results of GAO's File Review of Emergency Relief Projects in
Three FHWA Division Offices:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
New York:
GAO project number: NY-1;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment:
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-2;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR:
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file; Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was not on
file;
GAO project number: NY-3;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-4;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-5;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file but only partially
complete;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-6;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-7;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-8;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-9;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-10;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-11;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-12;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file but only partially complete;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-13;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-14;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-15;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-16;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file but only partially
complete;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-17;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was not on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but
only partially complete;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file but only partially
complete;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-18;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-19;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-20;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-21;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: NY-22;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file but only
partially complete;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Unable to
determine the value based on documentation on file[B];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment:
Texas:
GAO project number: TX-1;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was on
file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-2;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-3;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-4;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-5;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment:
GAO project number: TX-6;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-7;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-8;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file but only partially
complete;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: TX-9;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-10;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: TX-11;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: TX-12;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: TX-13;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate:
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment:
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-14;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-15[A];
DDIR on file: Not applicable to that project;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Not applicable to that project;
Repair type: Not applicable to that project;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Not applicable to that project;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-16;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[C];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-17;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate:
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[C];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-18;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-19;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[C];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-20;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type:
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-21;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-22;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-23;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-24;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-25[A];
DDIR on file: Not applicable to that project;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Not applicable to that project;
Repair type: Not applicable to that project;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Not applicable to that project;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-26;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[C];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-27;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type:
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-28;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-29;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: TX-30;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
Washington State:
GAO project number: WA-1;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file but only partially complete;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-2;
DDIR on file:
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value based
on documentation on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value
based on documentation on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-3;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-4;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file but only partially complete;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was on
file but only partially complete;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-5;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-6;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Incidental permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was not on
file.
GAO project number: WA-7;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-8;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value based
on documentation on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value
based on documentation on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-9;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Incidental permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[D];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-10;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment:
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-11;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project; Documentation was not on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-12;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-13;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-14;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was not on
file.
GAO project number: WA-15;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-16;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-17;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-18;
DDIR on file: Documentation was not on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value based
on documentation on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Unable to determine the value
based on documentation on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-19;
DDIR on file: Not applicable to that project;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Not applicable to that project;
Repair type: Not applicable to that project;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Not applicable to that project;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-20;
DDIR on file: Not applicable to that project;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that
project;
Repair cost estimate: Not applicable to that project;
Repair type: Not applicable to that project;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Not applicable to that project;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-21;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file but only partially complete;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Incidental permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-22;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate:
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment:
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-23;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-24;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-25;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was not on
file.
GAO project number: WA-26;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Incidental permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-27;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate:
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Unable to determine the value based on documentation on
file[E];
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-28[A];
DDIR on file: Not applicable to that project;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Not applicable to that project;
Repair cost estimate: Not applicable to that project;
Repair type: Not applicable to that project;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Not applicable
to that project;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Not applicable to
that project;
Betterment: Not applicable to that project;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-29;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-30;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work:
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days:
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-31;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/incidental permanent/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-32;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Incidental permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[D];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-33;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/incidental permanent/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was on
file.
GAO project number: WA-34;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was not on file;
Repair type: Emergency repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was on file;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-35;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/incidental permanent/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was on file but only partially complete;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days:
Documentation was not on file[D];
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was not on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Not applicable to that
project.
GAO project number: WA-36;
DDIR on file: Documentation was on file;
FHWA engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
State/local engineer signature on DDIR: Documentation was on file;
Repair cost estimate: Documentation was on file;
Repair type: Emergency/Permanent repair;
Completion date recorded in file for 100% funded work: Documentation
was not on file;
Dates provided show 100% funded work completed in 180 days: Not
applicable to that project;
FHWA verification of completion within 180 days: Documentation was not
on file;
Betterment: Documentation was on file;
Benefit-cost analysis on file for betterment: Documentation was not on
file.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] These projects had been withdrawn by states as they had been
determined ineligible by FHWA for emergency relief funds or were
reimbursed through a third party insurance settlement.
[B] The information provided included the month and year repairs were
completed; without an exact date, we could not confirm completion was
within 180 days of the disaster occurrence.
[C] The completion dates provided were beyond the first 180 days after
the disaster occurrence and were also for a mix of emergency and
permanent repairs, but the state or division remarks field in FHWA's
Fiscal Management Information System modifications to the federal-aid
project agreements noted completion within 180 days.
[D] The state or division remarks field in FHWA's Fiscal Management
Information System modifications to the federal-aid project agreements
noted that portions of the repairs were not completed within 180 days
of the disaster occurrence and the federal share was modified
appropriately.
[E] These project files contained an indication that the project was a
betterment-—for example, discussion of the project's cost savings to
the Emergency Relief Program—-although the term betterment was not
specifically used, or the scope of work of the project matched the
Emergency Relief Manual's description of betterments.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Phillip Herr, (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to
this report were Steve Cohen, Assistant Director; Hiwotte Amare; Matt
Barranca; Melinda Cordero; Lorraine Ettaro; Colin Fallon; Bert
Japikse; Catherine Kim; Hannah Laufe; Kelly Liptan; Scott McNulty;
Josh Ormond; and Tina Won Sherman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Federal-aid highways are roads that are eligible to receive
federal funding through a series of formula grant programs
collectively known as the federal-aid highway program. About 1 million
miles of roadway across the country are eligible for federal aid and
these roads accounted for about 83 percent of the vehicle miles
traveled on the nation's roadways in 2007. The federal government has
provided assistance to states in response to natural disasters for
many years. The Emergency Relief Fund was established in 1938 (Act of
June 8, 1938, 75th Cong., 3d. Sess., ch. 328, § 4, 52 Stat. 633, 634-
635).
[2] The Highway Trust Fund is funded on a user-pay principle; it
derives revenues primarily from taxes collected on motor fuel and
truck-related items and distributes that revenue to the states
primarily though a series of formula grant programs collectively known
as the federal-aid highway program. The Highway Trust Fund was created
in 1956 (Highway Revenue Act of 1956, Pub. L. No. 84-627, § 209, 70
Stat. 387, 397). Contract authority allows federal agencies to incur
obligations in advance of appropriations. A subsequent appropriation
is needed to liquidate the obligations. Pursuant to this authority, up
to $100 million is authorized to be obligated in any one fiscal year
for the program. Any unobligated balance remains available until
expended. 23 U.S.C. § 125(c)(1).
[3] GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address
Fiscal Imbalance and Long-term Sustainability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23,
2007).
[4] Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 1112, 119 Stat. 1144, 1171 (2005).
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[6] Pub. L. No. 93-288, 88 Stat. 143 (1974), as amended, codified at
42 U.S.C. ch. 68. In September 2011, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency issued the National Disaster Recovery Framework which provides
a structure for federal, state, tribal, and local agencies to
coordinate disaster recovery activities in response to Stafford Act
events, which may include emergency relief from FHWA. See Federal
Emergency Management Agency, National Disaster Recovery Framework:
Strengthening Disaster Recovery for the Nation (Washington, D.C.,
September 2011).
[7] 23 U.S.C. § 125(d).
[8] 23 U.S.C. § 125(c)(1).
[9] 23 U.S.C. § 125(d).
[10] The criteria for administering emergency relief funds are set out
in 23 C.F.R. Part 668. See, also, FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual
(Washington, D.C., November 2009). The $700,000 threshold reflects a
presumption that lesser repairs should be covered as heavy maintenance
or routine repair activities and paid for using other funds. See 23
C.F.R. § 688.105.
[11] The Emergency Relief Manual makes a distinction between current
design standards and "betterments," which change the function or
character of the facility and are discussed later in this report. The
program manual states that repaired facilities may be built to current
design standards, which could result in improved or added features
that do not change the function or character of the facility. For
example, a repaired length of roadway may have wider lanes or
shoulders and additional roadside safety hardware that result from
following current design standards. According to the manual, these
features are not betterments.
[12] 23 U.S.C. § 120(e).
[13] The Emergency Relief Program also funds the repair of roads on
federal lands through the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads
Program, which is administered through FHWA's Office of Federal Lands
Highway. This program is intended to fund unusually large expenses to
repair and reconstruct roads and bridges on federal lands that are
seriously damaged by a natural disaster or a catastrophic failure. The
program may fund 100 percent of the cost of repairs to federal roads.
[14] States with high percentages of federally owned public lands may
be reimbursed at a higher federal share percentage, in accordance with
a predetermined sliding scale percentage.
[15] 23 C.F.R. Part 668.
[16] FHWA allocates available budget authority to states in a manner
that is in some respects similar to the process by which funding is
apportioned for purposes of the federal-aid highway formula grant
programs. Unlike those programs, however, allocation has no statutory
or even regulatory basis. However, as with apportionments, when funds
are allocated, cash is not actually disbursed. Instead, states are
notified that they have federal funds available for their use. As
projects are approved, funding is obligated. Federal funds are only
expended when the federal government makes payments to the states for
costs as work is completed.
[17] 23 U.S.C. § 106(a)(2),(3).
[18] Only funds for programs authorized under title 23 of the U.S.
Code are available for emergency relief work.
[19] 23 U.S.C. § 125(c)(2).
[20] Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 1016, 105 Stat. 1914, 1945 (1991),
codified as positive law at 23 U.S.C. § 106(c). See, also, 23 U.S.C. §
106(g) requiring federal oversight.
[21] The National Highway System is approximately 160,000 miles of
roadway, and it includes the Interstate Highway System as well as
other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility.
[22] Each state’s department of transportation and the FHWA division
office in that state have a federal-aid program stewardship and
oversight agreement in place which documents the expectations and
roles and responsibilities of the state and FHWA in implementing the
federal-aid highway program.
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[26] U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Pub. L. No. 110-28, title IV,
ch. 8, 121 Stat. 112, 160 (2007).
[27] Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. B, title I, ch.
10, 122 Stat. 3574, 3598 (2008).
[28] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, div.
K, title I, 121 Stat. 1844, 2384 (2008). This supplemental
appropriation followed separate legislation passed soon after the
bridge collapsed, in which Congress authorized $250 million in
emergency relief funds for this project. See Pub. L. No. 110-56, §
1(c), 121 Stat. 558 (2007).
[29] Of the $2.4 billion that FHWA allocated to states from fiscal
years 2007 through 2010, about 59 percent ($1.4 billion) was allocated
for events that occurred during those years. FHWA allocated the
remaining 41 percent ($988 million) for events that occurred from
fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[31] Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriation to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006, Pub. L. No. 109-148, ch. 9, 119 Stat. 2778 (Dec. 30, 2005).
[32] This amount includes $195 million made available through the
December 2007 supplemental appropriation.
[33] The National Transportation Safety Board later determined that
the probable cause of the collapse was inadequate load capacity of
critical bridge components due to an error in the bridge's design. See
National Transportation Safety Board, Collapse of I-35W Highway
Bridge, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1, 2007, Highway Accident
Report NTSB/HAR-08/03 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 14, 2008). Emergency
Relief Program rules define a catastrophic failure as a sudden failure
of a major element or segment of a federal road which is not primarily
attributable to gradual and progressive deterioration or lack of
proper maintenance.
[34] Pub. L. No. 110-56, § 1(a), (b), 121 Stat. 558 (2007).
[35] In 1996, FHWA amended its Emergency Relief Program regulations to
explicitly provide that raising road grades in response to an
unprecedented rise in basin water levels was an emergency relief-
eligible activity. 23 C.F.R. § 668.109(b)(8).
[36] Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 1937, 119 Stat. 1510 (2005).
[37] Appendix II provides additional information on Devils Lake
emergency relief projects.
[38] 23 C.F.R. § 668.113(a).
[39] The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub.
L. No. 105-178, § 1217(a), 112 Stat. 107, 214 (1998).
[40] According to FHWA's Emergency Relief Manual, a pending request is
considered an initial estimate of emergency relief needs that is
subject to change and is not to result in an actual emergency relief
allocation. Instead, pending requests are used to keep FHWA's Office
of Program Administration apprised of the most current needs for any
known eligible event.
[41] SAFETEA-LU directed DOT, along with WSDOT and the city of
Seattle, Washington, to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the
specific damage to the Alaskan Way Viaduct from the 2001 earthquake
and the amount of assistance from the emergency relief fund for which
the viaduct is eligible. Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 1934, 119 Stat. 1482.
[42] FHWA, WSDOT, Seattle City Department of Transportation, Alaskan
Way Viaduct Emergency Relief Eligibility, Report to Congress
(Washington, D.C., June 2007).
[43] The regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and
projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and recently
completed actions of the DOT.
[44] According to DOT's Spring 2011 regulatory agenda, the rulemaking
would have considered amending 23 C.F.R. Part 668 to update the annual
threshold for an emergency relief event, raise the site threshold and
clarify the definition of a site and other definitions, and provide
specific time limit restrictions for states when filing a claim for
emergency relief eligible work. This rulemaking would also have
considered requiring states to develop a plan for obligation needs for
emergency relief funding and impose restrictions on the applicability
of "quick release" emergency relief allocations.
[45] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245]. We also
recommended that in the event these funds are not needed for other
eligible projects, FHWA should identify these funds to Congress either
for rescission or to reduce future appropriations.
[46] The $367 million in unused allocations were withdrawn on two
separate occasions: on December 1, 2009, FHWA withdrew $105 million,
and on November 24, 2010, FHWA withdrew $262 million.
[47] FHWA redistributed this $295 million, as well as other funds made
available to the program, through two separate allocations to states.
In March 2010, FHWA allocated approximately $339 million to states,
which included amounts from the first withdrawal of $105 million from
December 2009. In April 2011, FHWA allocated $320 million to states,
which included amounts from the second withdrawal of $262 million.
[48] Unobligated funds refer to amounts that have been allocated to
states by FHWA, but have yet to be obligated for specific projects.
This amount includes all allocations to states as of the end of May
2011.
[49] In total, as of the end of May 2011, $97 million made available
to New York for emergency relief in response to the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks has yet to be used. This includes the
unobligated balance of $52 million, as well as an additional $45
million that has been obligated to projects but not expended as of the
end of May 2011. This unexpended balance is discussed later in this
report.
[50] Unexpended funds refer to program funding that has been obligated
to specific projects but has yet to be paid out to states (expended)
in reimbursement for completed work.
[51] DOT, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2010 (Washington, D.C.,
Nov. 8, 2010), and DOT, Office of Inspector General, Report on
Inactive Obligations, FHWA, Report No. FI-2004-039 (Washington, D.C.,
Mar. 31, 2004).
[52] Our 2007 recommendation was that FHWA revise its regulations to
tighten program eligibility criteria, which could include limitations
on the use of emergency relief funds to fully finance projects that
grew in scope and cost as a result of environmental and community
concerns. We also recommended that Congress consider tightening the
eligibility criteria for emergency relief funding, either through
amending the purpose of the Emergency Relief Program, or by directing
FHWA to revise its program regulations.
[53] GAO, Emergency Relief: Status of the Replacement of the Cypress
Viaduct, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-96-136]
(Washington, D.C: May 6, 1996). The Cypress Viaduct was a two-tiered
portion of Interstate 880 and an integral component of the area's
transportation system.
[54] In response to our recommendation, FHWA amended its guidance to
more clearly indicate when limits should be placed on emergency relief
funding, and when full funding is appropriate, and we closed this
recommendation.
[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[56] The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 established the
federal share as 100 percent at the time the Devil's Slide rockslide
occurred. See 23 U.S.C. § 120(f)(1982). In addition, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in
1998, made the Devil's Slide project eligible for Emergency Relief
Program funding. Pub. L. No. 105-178, § 1217(a), 112 Stat. 107, 214
(1998).
[57] Had the Devil's Slide project been funded through the state's
regular federal-aid highway program, it would have been eligible to
receive 88.5 percent federal funding or approximately $558 million--
about $73 million less than the $631 million estimated total project
cost to be reimbursed through the Emergency Relief Program.
[58] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[59] Among the 88 projects in our review, 5 projects had been
withdrawn by states as FHWA had determined them ineligible for
emergency relief funds, or they were reimbursed through a third party
insurance settlement, bringing the total number of projects reviewed
to 83.
[60] 23 C.F.R. § 668.113.
[61] 23 U.S.C. § 106(c)(2) states that for projects that are not on
the National Highway System, the state shall assume the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation under this title
for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and
inspection of projects, unless the state determines that such
assumption is not appropriate.
[62] For example, the FHWA Washington state division had approved a
project to repair erosion on a state road caused by flooding,
including improvements to the roadway for which a cost-savings to the
Emergency Relief Program was claimed. The approved DDIR on file
indicated a total estimated cost of $2 million, but our review of FMIS
records found that the total cost had grown to $2.8 million--36
percent more than the approved estimate--without documentation to
support the increase.
[63] Emergency repairs must be completed within 180 days from the
event to be eligible for 100 percent federal funding. See 23 U.S.C. §
120(e); also see the FHWA regulation 23 C.F.R. § 668.107(a).
[64] 23 U.S.C. § 106(c)(2).
[65] These inspections include an on-site review of completed work and
documentation maintained in the TXDOT project files to determine
whether emergency repair project charges were incurred after the 180
day time frame, and if so, whether the federal share was changed to 80
percent.
[66] Permanent repair projects--and emergency repair project costs
after the first 180 days--are typically reimbursed using an 80 or 90
percent federal share depending on the percentage normally provided
for work on that type of federal-aid highway.
[67] Eight of the Washington state projects in our sample included
incidental repairs. An incidental repair is a permanent repair
performed as an incidental part of the emergency repair work. Prior to
the November 2009 revisions to the Emergency Relief Manual, FHWA
treated incidental repairs as eligible for reimbursement based on 100
percent federal share. The incidental repairs included in the total
took place prior to the manual revision and received 100 percent
federal share reimbursement.
[68] 23 C.F.R. § 668.109(b)(6). The Emergency Relief Manual states
that a proposed betterment may be considered eligible for emergency
relief if it includes a benefit-cost analysis demonstrating a
projected savings in future recurring repair costs under the Emergency
Relief Program.
[69] The 15 projects in our sample were identified as betterments
based either on documentation in the files or by FHWA division office
officials with whom we spoke.
[70] These eight projects were identified as possible betterments
because the project files contained documentation discussing cost
savings to the Emergency Relief Program or the scope of work matched
the Emergency Relief Manual descriptions of the types of repairs that
are only eligible for emergency relief funding if the project is an
FHWA approved betterment. Examples provided in the Emergency Relief
Manual include stabilizing slide areas and slopes, lengthening or
raising bridges, replacing culverts with bridges, and adding lanes to
the highway, among others.
[71] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245].
[72] We also reviewed three older projects in Washington state that
were selected because the projects had more than $1 million in
obligated federal funds from events in fiscal years 2001 through 2006
and were on the backlog of funding requests at the time of review.
[73] Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 1937, 119 Stat. 1510 (2005).
[74] Ibid. § 1937 (a)
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548.