Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Dam Safety and Dam Maintenance Assessment

Working with Tribes and Congress to obtain authority to deconstruct dams that no longer meet contemporary needs.

Using the data collected on the newly established performance measure to evaluate program effectiveness and make management changes where necessary.

Collecting data for newly established performance measures to allow management to make better informed decisions.

Measure: Annual percentage improvement in the mean Dam Facility Reliability Rating.

Explanation:The FRR is a numerical rating from 0 to 100 which reflects the overall reliability of the facility. Certain variables in the overall rating are directly related to Dam Safety and reflect the status of dam safety issues. The score will be affected if there is a reservoir and operating restriction for dam safety reasons. The score will also be affected if dam safety recommendations and decisions are not addressed, including a structural modification, in a timely manner. Tracking this measure will identify program effectiveness in identifying and resolving dam safety issues.

Measure: Percent of dams that are rated in fair or better conditions as measures by the FCI.

Explanation:This measure is used to track the condition of Dams in Indian country according to the BIA facilities condition index. (The lower the value the better.)

Measure: Percent of final construction contracts completed during the reporting year where amounts are within 17% of the initial contract award amount.

Explanation:This measure will track the cost increase during a construction contract--mainly due to change orders. This will help evaluate the quality of the design and the effectiveness of the construction management.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: 25 U.S.C. 3801 (The Indian Dam Safety Act of 1994), 108 Stat. 1560, is specific regarding the program purpose for Safety of Dams (SOD) and Dam Maintneance (DM) on Indian Trust lands. As outlined in the Act, the purpose is to protect people, property, resources and the environment by correcting identified safety deficiencies in dams. Rehabilitate/maintain each high and significant hazard dam to lower the risk of failure, and monitor each dam for signs of dam safety deficiencies.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 3803(a): " The Secretary shall establish a dam safety maintenance and repair program within the Bureau to ensure maintenance and monitoring of the condition of each dam identified pursuant to subsection (e) necessary to maintain the dam in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis." From IAM Part 55, Safety of Dams, "It is the BIA SOD Program policy to reduce the potential loss of human life and property damage due to a catastrophic dam failure by making BIA dams as safe as practically possible. In the BIA Safety of Dams Program Handbook, "The objective of the BIA SOD Program is to ensure that dams under the juridiction of the BIA do not present unacceptable risks to public safety and property. This requires identifying dams that pose unacceptable risks and taking corrective actions to reduce or eliminate these risks in an economically, technically, environmentally, and culturally sound manner.

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

Explanation: All dams pose failure risk. Currently, there are 125 high and significant hazard dams and BIA has identified over 300 low hazard dams with potential of many more dams becoming high hazard if circumstances change. Currently there are over 80 dams still requiring major repairs. The Emegency Action Plans and Early Warning Systems require annual updates and maintenance. Some dams still do not have Emergency Action Plans or Early Warning Systems.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 3801: "??inadequate attention in the past to problems stemming from structural deficiencies and regular maintenance requirements ?? unsafe Bureau dams continue to pose an imminent threat to people and property, (3) many Bureau dams have maintenance deficiencies regardless of their current safety condition and... must be corrected ... threats to human life and property, (4) safe working dams on Indian lands are necessary to supply irrigation water, to provide flood control, ..., (5) it is necessary to institute a regular dam maintenance and repair program, utilizing the expertise in the Bureau, ..." In addition, the Department of the Interior keeps a Technical Priority Rating list for dams, which ranks the DOI dams in order of technical risk. The BIA currently has 8 of the top 10 and 58 of the top 100 highest-risk dams.

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

Explanation: Under the Indian Dam Safety Act (25 USC 3803), the BIA is the only federal entity authorized to manage these dams on trust lands, and funding is appropriated specifically to the BIA for that purpose. The SOD/DM programs are not duplicative. They are accomplished through PL 93-638 contracts and self-governance compacts with Indian Tribes, and an interagency agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). While the same type of management activities might be conducted by BOR on their dam inventory, they are not authorized to manage dams on Indian Trust lands. All of the DOI agencies which own dams also have similar programs as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. FEMA is the lead agency for dam safety and prepares a biannual report of the dam safety programs across the federal government, which includes information from BIA.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 3803(a): " The Secretary shall establish a dam safety maintenance and repair program within the Bureau to ensure maintenance and monitoring of the condition of each dam identified pursuant to subsection (e) necessary to maintain the dam in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis." 25 U.S.C. 3801(5): "it is necessary to institute a regular dam maintenance and repair program, utilizing the expertise in the Bureau, Indian tribes, and other Federal agencies." (h): In addition to any other authority established by law, the Secretary is authorized to contract with Indian tribes, (under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)) {25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.}), as amended to carry out the the Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program established ..."

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

Explanation: The Indian Dam Safety Act of 1994 is specific regarding the program's purpose and the activities that are to be carried out to accomplish the purpose of rehabilitating and maintaining dams operated by the BIA. BIA develops a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (OMB-300) for all SOD rehabilitation projects to ensure proper capital management and measurement. However, the Safety of Dams program lacks authority to evaluate purposes of existing dams and determine if they are meeting their original intent if a determination is made that the dam is no longer needed for the purpose it was constructed, and if dam removal or breaching is the optimal solution for a specific dam, the program should have the authority to implement such a solution.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 3803(a): " The Secretary shall establish a dam safety maintenance and repair program within the Bureau to ensure maintenance and monitoring of the condition of each dam identified pursuant to subsection (e) necessary to maintain the dam in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis." Policy and guidelines are also laid out in Chapter 55 of the Indian Affairs Manual and the BIA SOD Hanbook, respectively. 25 U.S.C. 3803(c): "Under the Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, the Secretary shall perform such rehabilitation work as necessary to bring the dam identified, pursuant to subsection (e) to a satisfactory condition. In addition, each dam located on Indian lands shall be regularly maintained pursuant to the Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program established pursuant to subsection (a)." Based on the Indian Dam Safety Act of 1994, all rehabilitation work is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. The law does not mandate dam management and this program (and its funding) do not manage the operation of the dams. Management and operation of the dams are under other programs or performed by the people who use the dam (i.e. irrigation projects, tribes, stock farm owners, etc.) The BIA SOD Program does not have the authority to take dams out of service. Value Engineering studies are performed on SOD rehabilitation projects to ensure that maximum cost savings are realized.

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

Explanation: The direct beneficiaries of the BIA's SOD and DM programs are Indian tribes, individual Indians, and other members of the general public who may be at risk below these dams. The BIA utilizes the DOI Technical Priority Rating (TPR) to determine specifically how resources are allocated. Financial awards are specific to a given site and awards are restricted to Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations affected by projects. 95% of SOD/DM budget is dedicated to dam safety with slightly less than 5% going for administration. Emergency Action Plans are developed and exercised (the exercise helps to ensure the plan will work in an emergency) to know what to do in an emergency situation and who to notify in the downsteam community. Early Warning Systems are also being determined for each dam along with a 24/7 Early Warning System National Monitoring Center. These will assist in notifying downstream populations of emergencies at the dam.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 3801: "The Congress finds that-(4) safe working dams on Indian lands are necessary to supply irrigation water, to provide flood control, to provide water for municipal, industrial, domestic, livestock, and recreation uses, and for fish and wildife habitats. In addition, evidence included budget funding documents and DOI- TPR reports.

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

Explanation: The long-term goals call for the program to track the condition of dams through an FCI system and safety risk through a Facility Reliability Rating system (FRR). Additionally, three new metrics on contracting with tribes, Emergency Action Plans, and Early Warning Systems have been added in the Secretary's Strategic Task Tracking System (STTS).

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan, 2006 Performance Summary Table, STTS Report, and FCI methodology.

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

Explanation: Baselines and targets have been developed for the measures used to track program performance. Targets are ambitious, but achievable.

Evidence: 2006 Performance Summary Table

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

Explanation: The Long-term FCI and FRR goals are also tracked on an annual basis along with overall dam condition. The program also tracks completion of rehabilitation construction on dams per year, the performance of recurring maintenance activities on all 125 dams, and the performance of early warning systems maintenance on 62 dams per year. Additional measures are being proposed to monitor and improve the length of time spent on each phase of construction (Conceptual Design, Final Design, Actual Construction) as well as the effectiveness of Emergency Action Plans.

Evidence: 2005 GPRA Report Form

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

Explanation: Baselines and targets have been developed for the measures used to track program performance. Targets are ambitious, but achievable.

Evidence: Annual targets contained in GPRA and the Secretary's Strategic Task Tracking System

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

Explanation: All partners do work together and BIA participates on a Departmental Dam Safety Working Group along with all of the other DOI agencies to ensure the safety and security of dams. All tribes that operate projects or systems under compact have standard language that says they will comply with GPRA reporting requirements and new and existing contracts are being modified to include the same language. The affected tribes have formed the Inter-Tribal SOD Informal Advisory Committee to work closely with the BIA SOD Program to provide assistance in meeting the annual and long-term goals of the program.

Evidence: Charter Working Group on Dam Safety and Security; standard GPRA reporting language for compacts/contracts; Inter-Tribal SOD Advisory Committee Member List.

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

Explanation: The SOD program is subject to an independent evaluation every 6 years. The evaluation is conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation that has oversight for the Dam Safety programs within the DOI. The last review report was published in December 2001. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) performed a program peer review in 1996. Additionally, the program is scheduled for another peer review in FY2006. BIA also submits a biannual report on it's SOD Program to FEMA through DOI which FEMA is required by Law to report to the President and Congress on the National Dam Safety Program.

Evidence: Copy of Reclamation review of December 2001 and updated status report March 2004.

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

Explanation: Annual and long-term goals are cited in budget narratives and newly created measures under this review will be used in future budget requests. BIA develops a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (OMB-300) for all SOD rehabilitation projects. During the Construction in Progress (CIP) reporting, BIA employees are to use the project cost accounting subsystem (PCAS) for recording their time to a particular project. The PCAS code can then be tracked in the Department's financial system (FFS) and will be capitalized or expensed at the end of the project. Employee salary costs are included in the OMB-300s.

Evidence: Refer to BIA Budget Justifications and Performance Information.

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

Explanation: Five-year strategic plans have been developed for emergency management systems, dam inspections, conceptual designs, final designs, and construction. The strategic planning process is being refined and measures are being improved to better address the performance of the program.

Evidence: Refer to 5-year plans for emergency management systems, dam inspections, conceptual designs, final designs, and construction.

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

Explanation: During the conceptual design phase several alternatives are explored. Through consultations with tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation, the best alternatives are chosen based on cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals. Value engineering is also performed on all rehabilitation projects to ensure best alternatives are selected.

Evidence: Sample copies of in-depth conceptual design reports done by Reclamation or another consultant that provide alternatives, including a recommended alternative.

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

Explanation: Performance data on the condition of dams is collected on a quarterly basis from the Regional SOD officers and contractors. The Interim Dam Facitities Condition Index (FCI) is used for setting priorities and to help guide the management and focus of future program planning. An improved data collection and verification system is under development to maximize efficiency and validity. This database will be used to produce an annual performance report to Congress. (This has not yet been formally adopted by the Department of Interior.) BIA also develops a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (OMB-300) for each SOD rehabilitation project. Included in the OMB-300 is an Earned Value Management analysis. The earned value management analysis is also part of the quarterly asset management report.

Evidence: 2005 GPRA Report Form, 2006 Performance Summary Table, OMB Exhibit 300s, and Quarterly Asset Management Rports.

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

Explanation: SES Performance Plans include SOD and DM performance for BIA regional directors that have high and significant hazard dams, but the performance requirements have not yet been quantified or included in non-SES positions responsible for doing the work. Conceptual design plans which include cost and schedule alternatives and the Technical Priority Rating (TPR) list that ranks dams by funding priority according to risk of failure are used to initially determine construction funding priorities and reprioritize projects for performance slippage. Federal managers are responsible for adherance to the anti-deficiency act regulations on spending within their budgets.

Evidence: See SES Performance Plans, TPR list, DOI 5-Year Plan for SOD Capital Improvements and Deferred Maintenance

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

Explanation: Construction funds are obligated for project specific dam construction and maintenance operations. Some slight carryover (in the single digit millions) can occur in the program because funds are project specific and progress is dependent upon weather and field conditions. If a project is halted due to weather or field conditions, fund obligations are not made until work is ready to continue to ensure funding doesn't get used for some other purpose. Nationally consistent procedures for PL 93-638 contract audits and reviews are being developed for monitoring the timeliness of expenditures and determining that funds are used for their intended purposes.

Evidence: Budget execution files, 638 contracting training for regional and central office SOD and contracting staff who are involved with 638 SOD construction contracts. BIA also develops a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case (OMB-300) for all SOD rehabilitation projects. A project cost accounting subsystem (PCAS) code is developed for each project. All costs are obligated using the PCAS code. Quarterly construction reports document the costs for updating the progress of the project for the OMB-300. During the Construction in Progress reporting, the PCAS code can then be tracked in the Department's financial system (FFS) and will be capitalized or expensed at the end of the project.

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

Explanation: Front line managers are encouraged to seek the most competitive means of contracting and procurement. In additon, programmatic reviews are being conducted to determine deficiencies and recommend methods of improvement. A SOD/DM database is in the final stages of development and will be used to monitor costs and procurement methods and to report accomplishments under GPRA and to Congress. Additionally, value engineering is performed on the final designs in order to provide the most effective and efficient construction project. Baselines and targets have been developed for the efficiency measures.

Evidence: SOD/DM database and program review reports (PEER, value engineering)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The BIA is a member of the Working Group For Dam Safety and Security which has oversight of the Department's Dam Safety Program. Meetings are held quarterly (e.g., revising Departmental Manual (DM) Part 753, completion of a working group charter, and the revision of the TPR list). BIA has a Memorandum of Interagency Agreement (MOIA) with Reclamation for the provisions of services to the SOD/DM programs. The BIA provides program information to BOR for the Department's biannual submission to the FEMA dam safety report.

Evidence: Information on the Working Group on Dam Safety and copy of the MOIA

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program currently uses the FFS to monitor funds that have been allocated to the regions for SOD/DM projects. Capital asset plans (Exhibit 300s) are developed to track the progress and cost of certain projects (>$2M). There is no current material weakness for the SOD program.

Evidence: FFS reports and capital asset plans

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

Explanation: Every six years, Reclamation, serving as the Department's oversight entity for dam safety, conducts independent peer reviews of DOI dam safety programs. Management deficiencies are addressed as a result of recommendations published in the peer-reviewed report. An example of an addressed deficiency is the development of a program handbook. BIA's SOD/DM program conducts internal reviews of the regional SOD/DM programs.

Evidence: Peer review report published December 2001; Internal review reports of the Great Plains and Navajo regional SOD/DM programs conducted in 2002; Documentation of corrective actions taken.

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

Explanation: The BIA develops 5-year plans for early warning systems, emergency action plans, comprehensive design reviews, deficiency verification analyses, conceptual designs, final designs, and construction projects. These plans are contained in the SOD/DM database for shared viewing, updating, and reporting. This process allows program participants to define needs and track accomplishments. Projects contained in the 5-year plans are conducted by Tribes through the self-determination and self-governance processes. Nationally consistent procedures for 638 contract audits and reviews are being developed for monitoring the timeliness of expenditures and determining that funds are used for their intended purposes. Additionally, the BIA develops the OMB-300 for all rehabilitation projects, which include cost and schedule goals and progress. The quarterly asset management reports contain earned value management information.

Evidence: SOD/DM database and DOI 5-year Plan for Capital Improvement and Deferred Maintenance. Uniform procedures are being developed for Tribal 638 contracting and compacting).

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

Explanation: The long-term goals are the completion of the rehabilitation construction of priority dams and the continuing of recurring maintenance activities on all high and significant hazard dams. By FY 2005, the Bureau is on track to complete the rehabilitation of 25 high priority dam projects and recurring annual maintenance has been performed on 110 out of 117 dams.

Evidence: GPRA reports and SOD/DM database BIA has completed rehabilitation on 23 dams, perform maintenance on 110 dams per year, have 64 early warning systems in place, have 54 emergency action plans in place, and 55 emergency action plans were exercised over the past 3 years.

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

Explanation: Several of the annual performance measures are too new to assess whether targets are met, although some progress is certainly being made. While some targets have been met, some of those targets have been populated retroactively. Retroactive population of targets is not sufficient to achieve a "yes." For existing measures, annual performance goals are achieved in most years. Achieving the annual goals is related to the following factors: (1) the contracting of dams with tribes through the PL 93-638 process that is dependent on the management of construction by tribes; (2) weather and field conditions can delay start-up operations and shorten the construction and maintenance seasons; and (3) annual funding levels.

Evidence: GPRA reports, PL 93-638 contracts, and SOD/DM database

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

Explanation: The efficiency measrue is too new to assess wheter targets are met, although some progress is certainly being made. While it appears that targets have been met, the targets have been populated retroactively. Retroactive population of targets is not sufficient to achieve a "yes." Value engineering (VE) studies are conducted on nearly all dam construction projects. The VE process evaluates ways to accomplish the work through various cost-saving alternatives the program is developing standardized proceses for monitoring PL 93-638 constracts with tribes to ensure consistent and thorough contract performance.

Evidence: The BIA has defined 5 activities for activity-based costing for future annual monitoring of efficiencies. Evidence includes VE studies, future activity-based costing reports, and PL 93-638 guidelines being developed for inclusion in the SOD/DM Handbook.

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

Explanation: The BIA SOD/DM program compares favorably with other capital assets and service acquisition programs in regard to quantity and quality of deliverables. However actual cost comparisons with other programs are difficult, due to the additional constraints associated with the Federal Trust responsibility to Tribes and upon the self-determination of those Tribes.

Evidence: The SOD/DM program is developing a database to capture the costs of all phases of BIA dam safety work, These data will be used to make comparisons with other programs. Comprehensive dam review reports are produced every five years.

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

Explanation: The SOD program is subject to an independent evaluation every 6 years. The evaluation is conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation that has oversight for the Dam Safety programs within the Department. A peer review conducted in 1996 indicated several programmatic deficiencies. During the last review report, published in December 2001, program effectivness was demonstrated by achieving the 1996 recommendations.

Evidence: 1996 and 2001 peer-reviewed reports

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Some of the program goals are too new to assess whether targets are met, although progress is being made. Regional SOD offices work with Tribes and Reclamation in the accomplishment of SOD/DM activities. An improved accounting of annual and long-term costs associated with the activities is under development. This system will provide the data necessary to establish production goals and keep costs within budget. Data required for baselines and targets for new measures has been collected and the baselines and targets developed.

Evidence: Full implementation of SOD/DM database and improvements in capital asset acquisition processes