were not recommended, relevant supporting analyses, and a clear explanation of the recommendation made for the most controversial decisions. In addition, recommendation of a preferred plan by the Chief of Engineers should not be compulsory.

10. Portfolio planning will be most effectively and appropriately conducted over large spatial scales and extended periods of time. Current reconnaissance study and study cost share guidelines, however, may inhibit studies that will entail these more comprehensive perspectives. A review of the applicability of reconnaissance study cost limitations, of the importance of distinguishing between the reconnaissance and feasibility study stages, and possible modifications of study cost-sharing requirements, should thus be undertaken, with subsequent adjustments made to advance portfolio planning.

11. The presence of “backlogged” Corps projects—those that have received congressional authorization but have not yet received financial appropriations—could limit the utility of portfolio planning. When assessing potential new projects and alternative operations of existing projects, this backlog can confuse the setting of priorities that will derive from execution of the new study authority. Congress should develop a process for inventorying and ranking the funding priority of authorized, but unfunded, Corps projects that constitute the current project backlog. This process of prioritization can both inform and benefit from portfolio planning.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement