Why It Matters
For roughly 70 percent of the Civil Works projects the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sent to Congress for authorization between 2020 and 2025, the Corps failed to clearly document why environmental mitigation was not needed, according to Army Corps of Engineers: Determinations That Projects Do Not Need Environmental Mitigation Should Be Clarified.
The Corps determined mitigation was unnecessary for 52 of the 74 Civil Works projects it submitted to Congress for authorization during 2020–2025, but the reports to Congress and supporting feasibility reports generally did not clearly document that determination or the reasons for it.
The Big Picture
Federal statute requires the Corps to report to Congress either its plans to mitigate fish and wildlife losses from Civil Works projects, or its determination that mitigation is not necessary, covering actions to avoid, minimize, or compensate for expected losses to fish and wildlife and damage to ecological resources.
The Corps's Civil Works program plans, constructs, and maintains water resources projects across the country, including navigation channels, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration, and some of those projects carry the potential for adverse environmental impact.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2022 includes provisions directing the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review Corps plans to mitigate fish and wildlife losses resulting from Civil Works projects, providing the statutory basis for this audit.
For the 22 projects where the Corps did determine mitigation was needed, GAO found that the plans generally included selected components from the 2008 rule, "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources." The Corps determined that 52 projects needed no mitigation plan, outnumbering the 22 projects with plans by 30.
Corps officials acknowledged they had not consistently focused on documenting no-mitigation determinations in a clear, summary format, and agreed that doing so could be beneficial for Congress and the public.
The Bottom Line
GAO issued one recommendation: the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should ensure that the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develop guidance for documenting and justifying no-mitigation determinations in reports submitted to Congress for project authorization.
The recommendation is open. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works did not concur, asserting that the existing reports contain sufficient technical information; GAO maintains the recommendation is warranted.
The non-concurrence means no corrective guidance is in development, and no timeline for agency action has been established. For congressional staff and environmental advocates, that gap is consequential: the next Water Resources Development Act cycle could move Corps project authorizations forward without the documentation standard GAO says is needed.
GAO said that clearly documenting no-mitigation determinations and their basis could better assure Congress that authorizing projects without mitigation will not result in undue impacts on fish and wildlife and ecological resources.
Until the Corps either concurs and issues new guidance or GAO closes the recommendation through some other means, the documentation gap identified across those 52 projects will persist for any new submissions that follow the same practice.
A linked invitation to track related legislative activity on Legis1
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article
