United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives 

WATERS AND 

WETLANDS 

Corps of Engineers 

Needs to Ensure That 

Permit Decisions 

Made Using Funds 

from Nonfederal 

Public Entities Are 

Transparent and 

Impartial 

May 2007 

 

GAO-07-478 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2007

WATERS AND WETLANDS

Corps of Engineers Needs to Ensure That 

Permit Decisions Made Using Funds from 

Nonfederal Public Entities Are 

Transparent and Impartial 

Highlights of GAO-07-478, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives 

When a nonfederal public entity

such as a city or county wants to 

build a public works project that 

could degrade or damage federally

regulated waters and wetlands, it

must obtain a permit from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

before proceeding. To help

expedite the permit process for

these entities, the Congress

enacted section 214 of the Water 

Resources and Development Act of 

2000, providing the Corps with 

temporary authority to receive 

funds from such entities and use 

the funds to process permits. To

ensure the impartiality and 

transparency of section 214 permit

decisions, the Corps requires its

districts to adhere to all existing

permit review processes, as well as 

some additional requirements. 

GAO was asked to identify (1) how

many districts have used the 

section 214 authority, (2) the

amount of funds they have 

received, (3) how permit 

processing times have changed, (4) 

the extent to which districts have 

adhered to the existing review 

processes and the additional 

requirements. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Corps 

improve its guidance and oversight 

of districts’ use of the section 214 

authority. The agency generally

concurred with our 

recommendations. 

As of August 2006, 4 of the Corps’ 38 districts had agreements with 11 

nonfederal public entities to receive section 214 funds, which have been 

used to evaluate permit applications. These districts received, evaluated, and 

approved 187 applications using section 214 funds. The types of projects for 

which permits were requested included ecological restoration, water 

storage, transportation, and port construction. Most of the section 214

applicants were city or county departments, port authorities, or regional 

water authorities, but two applicants were private companies that were

allowed to submit applications under section 214 agreements with the Corps. 

The legislation does not expressly prohibit private companies from 

submitting applications under section 214 agreements. The use of the section 

214 authority may become more prevalent in the future because 7 additional 

districts are in the process of entering into such agreements, and 19 other 

districts told GAO that they would consider using the authority if the 

Congress makes it permanent. 

The Corps received more than $2 million in section 214 funds from 

nonfederal public entities between December 2001 and September 2006 and 

used these funds primarily to hire additional project managers to process 

permits. About 61 percent of the funds were used to cover personnel costs 

for the project managers who processed section 214 permits; the remainder 

covered overhead and other costs incurred to implement the authority. 

Since the Corps began using the section 214 authority, permit processing 

times have increased in some districts and decreased in others for both 

section 214 applicants and non-section 214 applicants. However, it is difficult

to attribute the changes in processing time directly to the use of the section 

214 authority because many other factors may have influenced processing 

times and may have masked the effects of the authority. For example, the 

complexity of 214 permit applications may have resulted in greater 

processing time for these applicants. Generally, Corps officials and 

nonfederal public entities who used the authority believe that it has 

expedited permit processing, saved them cost and time, and improved 

communication between the Corps and the section 214 applicants. 

The four districts varied in the extent to which they adhered to the existing

permit review process and the additional requirements to ensure impartiality

of section 214 permit decisions. For example, one district did not follow a 

key step in reviewing certain types of section 214 permits because officials 

did not know they were required to do so. In two other districts, lack of 

documentation in the permit files prevented GAO from determining whether 

they followed the existing review processes for another type of permit. With 

regard to the additional requirements imposed by the Corps for section 214 

permits, some districts did not comply with these requirements because they

were not aware of them, and others did not comply with them because they 

interpreted the requirements differently than Corps headquarters intended. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-478.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Four Corps Districts Have Evaluated Projects Using Section 214 

Funds, and Use of This Authority is Likely to Expand in the 

Future 11

Corps Districts Received More Than $2 Million in Section 214 

Funds That Were Used to Primarily Cover Personnel-Related

Costs 16

Changes in Permit Processing Times Have Varied Since the 

Districts Started Using Section 214 Funds, but Officials Agree 

That the Authority Provides Many Benefits 19 

When Using Section 214 Funds, the Districts Generally Followed 

the Permit Review Process for Standard Permits, but It Is 

Unclear Whether They Did So for Nationwide Permits 24 

The Districts Varied in Their Compliance with the Corps’ 

Additional Requirements for Ensuring Impartiality of Decisions 

Made Using Section 214 Funds 26 

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31 

Appendix II Results of GAO’s Review of Corps Permit Files for 

Districts That Used Section 214 Authority Between 

2001 and 2006 36 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 38 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Page i GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Tables 

Table 1: District Agreements with Nonfederal Public Entities to 

Receive Section 214 Funds and the Date of the Agreements 11 

Table 2: Permit Applications Approved Using Section 214 Funds, 

by Type of Permit and by District, as of August 2006 12 

Table 3: Types of Projects Approved by the Four Corps Districts 

That Processed Permit Applications with Section 214 

Funds, as of August 2006 13 

Table 4: Examples of Projects Evaluated and Approved by Four 

Corps Districts Using Section 214 Funds 14 

Table 5: Total Section 214 Funds Provided by the 13 Nonfederal 

Public Entities to Four Corps Districts from December 

2001 through September 2006 17 

Table 6: Number of Additional Project Managers Hired Using 

Section 214 Funds and the Full-time Equivalent Staff Used 

by the Corps Districts to Process Permits Using Section 

214 Funds, Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 18 

Table 7: Extent to Which Four Corps Districts Adhered to the 

Additional Requirements for Processing Section 214 

Permits 27

Table 8: Permit Files Reviewed by GAO at the Four Corps Districts 

That Used Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Permit 

Applications Between December 2001 and August 2006 32 

Table 9: Number of Permit Files GAO Reviewed for Evidence of 

Adherence to the Corps’ Existing Permit Review Processes 

and the Two Additional Requirements for Permit 

Applications Evaluated Using Section 214 Funds 35 

Table 10: Information GAO Extracted from Section 214 Permit 

Files 35 

Table 11: Results of GAO’s Review of the Districts’ Adherence to

Six Key Steps in the Permit Review Process When Using 

Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Standard Permit 

Applications 36

Table 12: Results of GAO’s Review of the Districts’ Adherence to

Two Key Steps in the Permit Review Process when Using 

Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Nationwide Permit 

Applications 37

Page ii GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Figures 

Figure 1: Section 214 Funds Received by the Four Corps Districts 

from December 2001 through September 2006 16 

Figure 2: Median Processing Times for Nationwide Permits Before 

and After Three Districts Began Using the Section 214 

Authority 20

Abbreviations 

CEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System 

DCI data collection instrument 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

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. However, 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. 

Page iii GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 16, 2007

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

When cities, counties, or other nonfederal public entities propose public 

works projects, such as road construction and sewer line construction or 

maintenance, that could degrade or damage federally regulated waters and 

wetlands, they must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) before proceeding. The Corps is responsible for 

regulating activities that may impact wetlands, streams, and other waters 

throughout much of the United States and decides whether to allow such 

activities to occur. To obtain the Corps’ approval, the nonfederal public 

entity, like any other property owner, must submit a permit application 

that contains a description of the proposed project, including its purpose 

and location, and other information the Corps needs to evaluate how the 

project will impact wetlands and other federally regulated waters. Once 

the Corps receives all of the required information from the applicant, the 

permit review process begins. This process varies depending on the 

complexity of the proposed project, the extent of the resources likely to be

impacted, and the type of permit required. 

When cities, counties, or other nonfederal public entities propose public 

works projects, such as road construction and sewer line construction or 

maintenance, that could degrade or damage federally regulated waters and 

wetlands, they must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) before proceeding. The Corps is responsible for 

regulating activities that may impact wetlands, streams, and other waters 

throughout much of the United States and decides whether to allow such 

activities to occur. To obtain the Corps’ approval, the nonfederal public 

entity, like any other property owner, must submit a permit application 

that contains a description of the proposed project, including its purpose 

and location, and other information the Corps needs to evaluate how the 

project will impact wetlands and other federally regulated waters. Once 

the Corps receives all of the required information from the applicant, the 

permit review process begins. This process varies depending on the 

complexity of the proposed project, the extent of the resources likely to be

impacted, and the type of permit required. 

Some policymakers and others have expressed concerns that the Corps’ 

permit process takes too long and has significantly delayed some public 

works projects. In 2000, the Congress included a provision in the Water 

Resources and Development Act to expedite permit processing for 

nonfederal public entities. Specifically, section 214 of the act authorizes 

the Secretary of the Army, after providing public notice, to accept and

expend funds from nonfederal public entities to expedite the evaluation of

permit applications that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

the Army. The act also requires the Secretary to ensure that the funds 

accepted will not impact impartial decision making with respect to permit 

approvals. Originally set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2003, this 

temporary authority has been extended four times and is currently set to 

expire in December 2008. The Secretary of the Army has delegated this 

authority to the Corps and, in turn, the Corps has delegated day-to-day 

Some policymakers and others have expressed concerns that the Corps’ 

permit process takes too long and has significantly delayed some public 

works projects. In 2000, the Congress included a provision in the Water 

Resources and Development Act to expedite permit processing for 

nonfederal public entities. Specifically, section 214 of the act authorizes 

the Secretary of the Army, after providing public notice, to accept and

expend funds from nonfederal public entities to expedite the evaluation of

permit applications that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

the Army. The act also requires the Secretary to ensure that the funds 

accepted will not impact impartial decision making with respect to permit 

approvals. Originally set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2003, this 

temporary authority has been extended four times and is currently set to 

expire in December 2008. The Secretary of the Army has delegated this 

authority to the Corps and, in turn, the Corps has delegated day-to-day 

Page 1 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
responsibility for implementing the section 214 authority to its 38 districts 

that have responsibility for processing permit applications. 

To accept funds under the section 214 authority, a Corps district typically

enters into a legal agreement with a nonfederal public entity that specifies

the duration of the arrangement, the amount of funds to be received, and

how the funds are to be used. Although the agreements are generally 

between the Corps and one nonfederal public entity, such as a city or 

county, various departments within an entity may submit permit 

applications for expedited review under the agreement. 

To ensure the transparency and impartiality of permit decisions when 

using section 214 funds, Corps districts must not only follow the same 

basic permit processing procedures applicable to all applicants but also 

meet two additional requirements. The basic permit processing 

procedures that all districts must adhere to depends upon the type of 

permit that is being considered for a project. For example, for those 

projects that are likely to have only minimal impacts on water and wetland 

resources, the Corps generally grants approvals under its “nationwide” 

category of permits. Applications for these types of projects generally only 

undergo a limited review process, which includes two key steps. In 

contrast, some projects could have substantial impacts on water and 

wetland resources, and for these projects the Corps generally issues what 

is known as a “standard” permit. The review process for standard permits 

is more extensive and includes six key steps. In addition to these basic 

review processes, permit decisions that are made using section 214 funds 

must also (1) undergo a “higher level” review—in other words, a Corps 

official senior to the decision maker must review the decision and (2) be 

posted on the district’s Web site. 

In this context, you asked us to review the (1) extent to which Corps 

districts have entered into agreements with nonfederal public entities to 

receive section 214 funds since 2001 and how many permit applications 

the Corps has evaluated using these funds, (2) amount of section 214 funds 

the Corps has received and how it has used these funds, (3) extent to 

which permit processing times have changed since the Corps began using

section 214 funds, (4) extent to which the Corps districts have followed 

the basic permit review processes when evaluating applications using 

section 214 funds, and (5) extent to which the districts have met the 

additional requirements for ensuring that permit decisions made using the 

section 214 funds are impartial and transparent. 

Page 2 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
We contacted each of the 38 Corps districts that have responsibilities for 

issuing permits to identify those districts that had entered into agreements

with nonfederal public entities and used section 214 funds to process 

permit applications. We also surveyed districts that had not used the 

section 214 authority to determine their reasons for not doing so, and their 

plans, if any, to use the authority in the future. We also visited each of the 

districts that had entered into section 214 agreements and processed 

permit applications with these funds to obtain and review financial and 

processing time data. We found the financial data related to the use of the 

section 214 authority to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes, and while 

the processing time data were generally reliable, it was not reliable for one 

district that had recently participated in a pilot program for a new permit 

database. We also reviewed permit files to determine the number and 

types of projects the districts had evaluated with section 214 funds 

between 2001 and the time of our review. To determine the extent to 

which Corps districts followed the basic review process when approving 

projects using section 214 funds, we first identified key steps for 

processing permits, in general. These steps were identified by the Corps as 

being important “safeguards” for ensuring objectivity in its permit 

decisions and must be completed before a permit is issued. In each 

district, we reviewed permit files to determine whether they contained 

evidence that the Corps followed each of these steps. We also reviewed 

the files for evidence that the Corps met the two additional requirements it 

had established to ensure that decisions for permits processed with 

section 214 funds are made impartially and were transparent. A more 

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is 

presented in appendix I. We performed our work between April 2006 and 

April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. 

Four Corps districts had entered into agreements with 11 nonfederal 

public entities to receive section 214 funds and had evaluated permit 

applications using these funds, as of August 2006 when we conducted our 

file reviews. These districts—Jacksonville, Fla.; Los Angeles and 

Sacramento, Calif.; and Seattle, Wash.—had received, evaluated, and 

approved 187 permit applications using section 214 funds. The types of 

projects for which applicants sought permits using section 214 funds 

varied. For example, nearly half of the projects in Seattle were for 

ecological restoration and pier and port repair, while the projects in Los

Angeles were mainly for maintaining sewer lines. Almost all of the section 

214 permit applicants were city or county departments, port authorities, or 

regional water authorities. However, two applicants in the Sacramento 

District were private companies that were allowed to submit permit 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
applications for expedited review under nonfederal public entities’ section 

214 agreements with the Corps. The legislation does not expressly prohibit 

private companies from submitting permit applications under a nonfederal 

public entity’s section 214 agreement with the Corps. We also determined 

that the use of the section 214 authority may become more prevalent in the

future. Of the 34 Corps districts with regulatory responsibilities that had 

not yet used the section 214 authority, officials from 7 told us they had 

begun negotiations to enter into such agreements or had entered into such

agreements, but had not yet processed any permit applications under this 

authority, at the time of our review. Moreover, officials from an additional

19 districts told us that they would consider using the authority if it were 

made permanent. 

The Corps received more than $2 million in section 214 funds between 

December 2001 and September 2006 and used these funds primarily to hire 

additional project managers to process permits. Specifically, about 61 

percent of the funds were used to cover personnel costs associated with

the project managers who were designated to process section 214 permit 

applications; about 37 percent of the funds were used to cover overhead 

costs such as the cost of office space, utilities, and administrative support 

directly attributable to implementing the section 214 authority; and about

1 percent of the funds were used to cover other costs such as equipment, 

transportation, and the cost of site visits, as well as legal advice related to

the processing of section 214 permits. 

Since the Corps began using section 214 funds, permit processing times 

have increased in some districts and decreased in others for both section 

214 applicants and non-section 214 applicants. A goal of using the section 

214 authority was to expedite permit processing for section 214 applicants; 

however, we found that the processing times for these applicants have not

consistently decreased in all four districts. For example, although the 

median processing times for some permits processed with section 214 

funds decreased by 37 percent in the Sacramento District they increased 

by 21 percent in the Seattle District. Another goal of using the section 214 

authority was to ensure that the use of the authority did not result in 

processing delays for non-section 214 applicants. However, we found that 

processing times for these applicants have not consistently remained the

same since section 214 funds have been available. For example, while the 

median processing time for permits processed without section 214 funds 

remained constant in the Los Angeles District, it increased by 29 percent in

the Sacramento District. However, it is difficult to attribute the changes in

processing time directly to the section 214 authority because many other 

factors may have influenced processing times and may have masked the 

Page 4 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
effects of the authority. For example, Seattle officials told us that section 

214 applications are considerably more complex than applications 

submitted by other permit applicants, and the extra time needed to 

process these applications has contributed to the overall processing time 

increases. Generally, Corps officials and nonfederal public entities in each

of the four districts told us that they believe the authority has expedited 

permit processing and has had other benefits as well. For example, they 

said that because permit applicants communicate earlier and more 

frequently with the Corps during the permit review process, applicants are 

able to avoid submitting project designs that might otherwise have 

required costly revisions in order to obtain Corps approval. 

One Corps district did not follow all the required steps of the basic project 

review process for standard permits, and it is unclear whether two 

districts followed the review process for nationwide permits because of

lack of documentation in the permit files. Specifically, we determined that 

three districts used section 214 funds to review projects that were seeking 

a standard permit. Two of the three districts—Jacksonville and Seattle—

followed the established permit review process for standard permits. One 

district—Sacramento—followed most of the steps in the established 

standard review process but did not complete one key step, which 

requires officials to balance the project’s benefits against the project’s 

detriments and ensure that the project is not contrary to the public 

interest. In addition, we found that all four districts used section 214 funds 

to approve projects with nationwide permits. Two districts—Jacksonville 

and Seattle—generally followed the established permit review process for 

approving projects with nationwide permits, but we could not make a 

similar determination for the Los Angeles and Sacramento districts 

because their permit files contained limited documentation supporting 

their permit decisions. Corps headquarters has recently recognized that 

maintaining consistent documentation of the districts’ permit decisions 

would help ensure that the decisions are transparent and legally defensible

and has begun to develop Corps-wide standards to address this issue. We 

are recommending that the Corps clearly identify the steps district officials

must complete when approving projects under a standard permit and 

clarify the information that needs to be documented to justify and support 

permit approval decisions for nationwide permits in the standards that are 

currently under development. In commenting on a draft of this report, the 

agency generally concurred with our recommendation. 

The four districts varied in the extent to which they met the two additional 

requirements for ensuring that permit decisions made using section 214 

funds are impartial and transparent. With regard to the Corps requirement 

Page 5 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
that permit decisions made using section 214 funds are to receive a higher 

level review, we found that the Sacramento and Seattle districts more 

frequently met this requirement for standard and nationwide permit 

decisions, 87 and 65 percent, respectively, than did the Jacksonville and 

Los Angeles districts, who met the requirement only 8 and 9 percent, 

respectively. With regard to the second requirement to post final decisions 

to the district’s Web site, both the Sacramento and Seattle districts 

generally posted the permit decisions made using section 214 funds to 

their district’s Web site, but the Jacksonville and Los Angeles districts did 

not. According to district officials, variations in their compliance with the 

additional section 214-related requirements were caused by the lack of 

specificity in the Corps guidance, causing some districts to believe that the 

requirements did not apply to projects that were approved with 

nationwide permits. In other cases, some project managers told us that 

they were simply unaware of one or both of the requirements. To monitor 

the districts’ implementation of the section 214 authority, the Corps’ 

guidance requires that annual reports be submitted to headquarters on 

their implementation processes. However, no reports have been submitted 

since the districts began using the section 214 authority in 2001. We

believe if these reports had been filed Corps headquarters may have 

become aware that some districts were not meeting the additional section 

214 requirements and could have taken corrective actions needed to

resolve these omissions. We are recommending that the Corps clarify 

which additional requirements districts must adhere to when evaluating 

projects with the section 214 authority, provide training to ensure that 

district officials are aware of the additional requirements, and develop an 

effective oversight approach to ensure that the districts are following 

required procedures when evaluating projects under the authority. In 

commenting on draft of this report, the agency generally concurred with 

our recommendation. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the principal federal program that 

provides regulatory protections for wetlands, which include bogs, 

swamps, and marshes. It generally prohibits the discharge of dredged or 

fill material into waters of the United States, which include certain 

wetlands, without a permit from the Corps. In addition, under the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899, the construction, excavation, or deposition of 

materials in, over, or under any navigable water of the United States, or 

any work which would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity 

of those waters is prohibited without a permit from the Corps. The Corps 

receives thousands of permit applications each year from individuals, 

businesses, and public agencies seeking to build houses, golf courses, and

Background 

Page 6 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
infrastructure projects, or to perform other activities that could destroy or 

degrade wetlands, streams, and rivers. The Corps’ decisions to allow 

particular activities to occur—and if so, under what conditions—are to 

reflect the national concern for both the use and protection of these 

important water resources. The Corps must balance the impacts that 

proposed projects may have on many factors, from wetlands and wildlife 

to recreation and the economy, and authorize projects only if it finds the 

projects are in the public interest. 

The Corps’ regulatory program is highly decentralized. Most of the 

authority to issue permits has been delegated from the Secretary of the 

Army to the Chief of Engineers who, in turn, has delegated the authority to

38 Corps districts. Regulatory program management and administration is 

focused at the district office level, with policy oversight at higher levels—

including the Corps’ 8 division offices and headquarters. 

To obtain a permit, project proponents, who may be the property owner or 

the owner’s authorized agent, such as a consultant, must submit an 

application to the Corps. The application details the proposed project, its 

purpose, location, and likely impacts to the aquatic environment. The 

Corps reviews the application to ensure it contains the minimum required 

information. The amount and type of information the Corps requests from 

the applicant may vary by the type of applicant and project, as well as the 

extent and functional values of the water resources that may be impacted. 

If the information submitted does not sufficiently identify the location or 

nature of the project, the Corps will request additional information. 

Once the permit application is complete, the permit review process begins. 

This process is governed by federal regulations and guidance documents 

from Corps headquarters. The regulations set the overall review 

framework by describing the factors the districts must consider when 

deciding whether to issue a permit and the general evaluation procedures.1

The guidance documents, including the Corps’ “Standard Operating 

Procedures” and “Regulatory Guidance Letters,” describe in more detail 

the steps the districts must follow to implement the regulations, including 

documentation that should be maintained in the administrative record to 

support the permit decisions. The regulations allow the districts to issue 

different types of permits—including nationwide permits, letters of 

permission, and standard permits—depending on the scope and likely 

 1

33 C.F.R. Parts 320–331. 

Page 7 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
impacts of the proposed projects. The specific steps the districts must 

follow to review a permit application depend on the type of permit the 

Corps uses to approve the proposed project. 

The Corps approves most projects using nationwide permits. These 

permits authorize classes of activities throughout the nation such as minor 

dredging, road crossings, and bank stabilization that the Corps has 

determined are likely to have minimal impacts to water and wetland 

resources. The Corps has developed nationwide permits for 49 different 

classes of activities. Each permit contains specific terms and conditions 

that a proposed project must meet to ensure its impacts will be minimal. 

The purpose of nationwide permits is to allow certain activities to be 

performed in an expeditious manner with limited, if any, delay or 

paperwork. Most prospective permittees may proceed with their activity 

without ever contacting the Corps; they simply review the terms of the 

different nationwide permits and self-certify that their activity falls within 

the restrictions of one or more of the permits. However, for some 

nationwide permits, a prospective permittee must notify the Corps if the 

impacts of their proposed activity exceed a certain threshold, for example 

filling in more than 1/10 acre of wetlands or other federally regulated 

waters. The Corps then reviews the project outlined in the permit 

application to determine whether it meets the terms and conditions of one 

or more of the classes of activities authorized by nationwide permits. If it 

does, the Corps notifies the applicant that the project is approved under 

certain nationwide permit(s). The Corps can combine two or more 

different nationwide permits to approve a single project. The Corps can 

also approve projects using regional general permits—which are similar to 

nationwide permits, but cover smaller geographic areas, such as a single 

state. In fiscal year 2006, the Corps issued about 67,000 nationwide and 

regional permit authorizations. 

For projects likely to have more substantial impacts on waters and 

wetlands, the Corps can issue standard permits. Given the potentially 

larger impacts of these projects, federal regulations and related guidance 

require a more extensive review for these permits. Specifically, the Corps 

must evaluate the proposed activity’s impact on a wide range of factors, 

from wetlands and fish habitat to public safety and energy needs. If the 

proposed project will adversely impact one or more of these factors, the 

Corps can place conditions on the issued permit, such as limiting work 

during particular times of the year to reduce impacts on wildlife or 

requiring the applicant to undertake mitigation activities to compensate 

for wetlands they damage or degrade. The Corps may issue a permit only if 

it concludes, after carefully weighing the project’s costs and benefits, that 

Page 8 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
the project is not contrary to the public interest. As part of this public 

interest review, the Corps must notify the public of the proposed project, 

request comments, and incorporate any comments they receive into their 

review of the overall public value of the project. In addition, the Corps 

must determine that the proposed project will (1) not adversely impact 

endangered or threatened species, (2) not discharge pollutants into 

federally regulated waters that violate state water quality standards, and 

(3) comply with guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection 

Agency to protect wetlands and other federally regulated waters.2

 In 

making these determinations, the Corps often coordinates with other 

federal and state agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In

fiscal year 2006, the Corps issued about 4,000 standard permits. 

The Corps may use letters of permission in lieu of a standard permit when 

it determines that the proposed work would be minor, not have significant 

individual or cumulative impacts on the environment, and is not expected 

to be controversial. In these situations, an abbreviated standard permit 

review process, involving coordination with other federal and state 

regulatory agencies and adjacent property owners—but not the general 

public—is used to expedite the permit’s approval. 

Some concerns have been expressed that the Corps’ permitting process 

takes too long and has significantly delayed public works projects, such as 

constructing and repairing ports. For example, the Pacific Northwest 

Waterways Association, which represents ports and businesses, believes 

that delays in permit processing in the Northwest have put U.S. ports at a 

competitive disadvantage to ports in Canada, where they argue permit 

requirements are not as strict. In 2000, the Congress included a provision 

in the Water Resources and Development Act to expedite permit 

processing for nonfederal public agencies. Specifically, section 214 of the 

act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, after public notice, to accept and 

expend funds contributed by nonfederal public entities, such as cities and

port authorities, to expedite the evaluation of permit applications under 

the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The act also requires the 

Secretary to ensure that the funds accepted will not impact impartial 

decision making with respect to permits. Originally set to expire at the end 

of fiscal year 2003, this authority has been extended four times and is 

currently set to expire in December 2008. The authority to accept section 

 2

EPA has overall authority and responsibility for carrying out the Clean Water Act. 

Page 9 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
214 funds has been delegated to the Corps’ 38 districts that have regulatory 

responsibilities. 

In 2001, and again in 2004, Corps headquarters issued guidance that 

described the procedures that Corps districts must follow to accept and 

use section 214 funds. Specifically, the guidance directs any district 

accepting such funds to 

• issue for public comment notices announcing the Corps’ intent to accept 

funds from a nonfederal public entity that include the reasons for 

accepting the funds and what activities the funds will be expended on, 

• after review of comments, notify the public of the District Commander’s 

decision to accept these funds, and 

• establish separate accounts to track the acceptance and expenditure of 

these funds. 

The guidance also calls for strict upward reporting to ensure that the 

section 214 funds will be used for their intended purpose. Specifically, the 

Corps’ divisions are to submit annual reports to headquarters that (1) 

document the acceptance and expenditure of funds, along with any public

notices, (2) assess how the use of the funds expedited the permit review 

process, and (3) highlight any issues regarding impartial decision making.

The guidance also specifies two steps that Corps districts must take to 

ensure that the permit decisions they make using section 214 funds are 

impartial and transparent. In addition to following the permit review 

process described above, the districts must (1) ensure that a Corps official 

senior to the decision maker reviews the final permit decision before 

issuing the permit and (2) post permit decisions to the district’s Web site. 

Finally, the guidance requires that section 214 funds be expended only to

expedite the final permit decision; funds cannot be expended on the 

higher level review. 

Page 10 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Four of the 38 Corps districts that have regulatory responsibilities had 

entered into agreements with 11 nonfederal public entities to receive 

section 214 funds and had evaluated 187 projects using these funds as of 

August 2006. Almost all of the section 214 applicants were city or county 

departments, port authorities, or regional water authorities. However, two 

applicants were private companies that were allowed to submit permit 

applications for expedited review under a nonfederal public entity’s 

agreement with the Corps. In addition, of the 34 Corps districts with 

regulatory responsibilities that had not used section 214 authority to 

evaluate permit applications, 7 had entered into agreements, or had begun 

negotiations to enter into such agreements, with nonfederal public entities 

at the time of our review. An additional 19 districts told us that they would

consider using the authority if it were made permanent. 

Since 2000 when Congress gave the Corps the authority to accept funds 

from nonfederal public entities, four Corps districts—Jacksonville, Fla.; 

Los Angeles and Sacramento, Calif.; and Seattle, Wash.—have entered into

agreements with 11 nonfederal public entities and processed permit 

applications using funds received from these entities. These agreements 

generally specify the duration of the agreement, the amount of funds to be 

received, and how the funds are to be used. Although the agreements are 

generally between the Corps and one entity, such as a city or county, 

various departments within that entity may submit permit applications for 

expedited review under the agreements. The Seattle District was the first 

to enter into an agreement with a nonfederal public entity and has entered 

into more agreements than the other three districts. Table 1 shows the 

nonfederal public entities with whom the four districts have agreements 

and the effective dates of the agreements. 

Table 1: District Agreements with Nonfederal Public Entities to Receive Section 214 

Funds and the Date of the Agreements 

Four Corps Districts 

Have Evaluated 

Projects Using 

Section 214 Funds, 

and Use of This 

Authority is Likely to 

Expand in the Future 

Four Districts Have 

Evaluated Permit 

Applications Using Section 

214 Funds 

District Nonfederal public entity Date of agreement

Jacksonville South Florida Water Management District August 2005 

Los Angeles City of San Diego September 2004 

Sacramento City of Elk Grove October 2004 

City of Redding October 2004 

City of Lathrop November 2004

Sacramento County November 2004

Seattle City of Seattle December 2001

Port of Seattle February 2002

Page 11 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
District Nonfederal public entity Date of agreement

Port of Tacoma February 2002

King County October 2002 a 

Snohomish County April 2003a

Source: GAO generated from Corps data. 

a

This agreement expired on September 30, 2005, and was not renewed. 

Using the funds received under the section 214 authority, the four districts 

evaluated and approved 187 permit applications, as of August 2006. As 

table 2 shows, 82 percent of these applications were for projects seeking 

approval under a nationwide permit. The districts approved the remaining 

applications with standard permits, regional permits, or letters of 

permission. The districts did not deny any permit applications processed 

using section 214 funds. According to district officials, the Corps rarely 

denies any permit applications, regardless of the source of funding used to

evaluate the applications. Instead, the Corps frequently requires applicants 

to redesign their projects to reduce impacts to the aquatic environment 

before receiving permit approvals. 

Table 2: Permit Applications Approved Using Section 214 Funds, by Type of Permit 

and by District, as of August 2006 

Number of applications approved using section 

214 funds 

District 

Nationwide

permits

Standard

permits

Letters of permission

and regional permits Total

Jacksonville 10 2 0 12

Los Angeles 11 0 3 14

Sacramento 29 2 0 31

Seattle 103 23 4 130

Total 153 (82%) 27 (14%) 7 (4%) 187 (100%)

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data. 

The types of projects for which permits were sought under the section 214 

authority varied by Corps district. For example, nearly half the projects 

evaluated and approved by the Seattle District were for ecological 

restoration and pier and port repair, while the projects evaluated and

approved by the Los Angeles District were mainly for maintaining sewer 

lines. Table 3 shows the number of projects that fell into each category, 

and table 4 provides examples of the different types of projects evaluated 

by the Corps districts using section 214 funds. 

Page 12 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Table 3: Types of Projects Approved by the Four Corps Districts That Processed

Permit Applications with Section 214 Funds, as of August 2006 

Type of project Jacksonville Los Angeles Sacramento Seattle Total

Bank stabilization 0 0 0 14 14

Dredging 0 0 0 4 4

Pier repair 0 0 0 22 22

Port construction 0 0 0 16 16

Residential and 

commercial 

development 0 0 1 0 1

Ecological

restoration 4 2 2 25 33

Sewer line 

maintenance and 

construction 0 10 3 1 14

Survey activities 4 0 2 8 14

Transportation 0 1 10 17 28

Water storage,

supply, and 

treatment 4 1 10 14 29

Other construction 

and maintenance 0 0 1 3 4

Other utility line 

maintenance and 

construction 0 0 2 5 7

Total 12 14 31 129a 186

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files. 

a

We were unable to determine the purpose of one of the projects approved by the district because 

district staff were unable to locate the permit file. 

Page 13 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Table 4: Examples of Projects Evaluated and Approved by Four Corps Districts Using Section 214 Funds 

District Project

Jacksonville In December 2005, the Corps approved a request from the South Florida Water Management District to construct 

two temporary storage reservoirs, approximately 30 acres each. These temporary reservoirs will provide data that 

will guide design and construction of a future water storage project in southwest Florida that is part of the 

Everglades restoration initiative. As a condition of the permit, the Corps required the applicant to implement 

measures to prevent harm to endangered species, including the Florida panther, that might be found within the 

project area. Because the loss of almost 28 acres of federally regulated waters caused by this project is expected 

to be offset by the construction of the larger water storage project, the Corps did not require the applicant to 

mitigate for the acres impacted, pending completion of that project. 

Los Angeles In July 2005, the Corps approved a request from the City of San Diego’s Engineering and Capital Projects

Department to temporarily dewater approximately 0.1 acres of the San Diego River to conduct an emergency 

repair/reconstruction of a river crossing. To ensure that impacts of the project were temporary, the Corps required 

that the department comply with 19 special conditions, including that all disturbed areas be replanted with 

preexisting or native vegetation and that a qualified biologist be on-site during project construction to ensure 

compliance with the permit. 

Sacramento In July 2005, the Corps issued a permit to the City of Elk Grove, Calif., authorizing the fill of .46 acres of wetlands 

and other federally regulated waters to construct a new roadway and intersection. As a condition of the permit, the 

Corps required the applicant to implement measures to prevent harm to endangered species that might be found 

within the project area and to undertake mitigation activities to compensate for the wetlands destroyed by the 

project. 

Seattle In September 2002, the Corps issued a permit to the Port of Seattle to repair and upgrade port piers to meet new 

seismic and building codes and increase port capacity. The project, encompassing 215 acres of urban waterfront, 

required the placement of fill and riprap and was expected to have short-term impacts on some fish and wildlife 

species and water quality. The Corps concluded that the proposed project represented the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative and would not result in the unacceptable degradation of the aquatic environment. 

The Corps also placed several conditions on the issued permit, including limiting when the work could be

performed and implementing measures to protect endangered species that might be present in the project area, to 

mitigate the project’s effects. 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files. 

Under the section 214 authority, the Corps received applications from 31 

different applicants. Most of the permit applications were from city or 

county departments, port authorities, or regional water authorities. In 

general, the applicants were either the entities, or departments within the 

entities, that entered into the section 214 agreement with the Corps. For 

example, San Diego’s Department of Engineering and Capital Projects and

Metropolitan Waste Water Department both submitted applications for 

expedited review under the city’s agreement with the Corps’ Los Angeles 

District. However, in the Corps’ Sacramento District, we found that two 

applications were submitted by private companies that were not part of 

the nonfederal public entities with whom the Corps had an agreement. 

One project was for a large, multiuse development that would fill 1.8 acres 

of wetlands. The other project was to fill in .46 acres of streams as part of

a larger ecological restoration effort to compensate for wetlands and other

waters that may be modified or destroyed by other construction projects.

Page 14 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
According to Corps officials, in each case, a nonfederal public entity 

requested that the Corps process the private company’s application under 

the section 214 agreement. The legislation does not expressly prohibit the 

practice of allowing private companies from requesting permit approval 

under a nonfederal public entity’s section 214 agreement with the Corps. 

The Districts’ Use of 

Section 214 Authority Is 

Likely to Expand in the 

Future 

Thirty-four Corps districts had not yet used the section 214 authority to 

evaluate permit applications at the time of our review, but many are 

considering doing so in the future. Officials from 28 Corps districts that 

had not entered into section 214 agreements cited two primary reasons for 

not yet doing so: (1) nonfederal public entities in their districts had not 

expressed an interest in entering into such agreements and (2) the districts 

were concerned that the section 214 authority was not permanent and 

could expire in the future. In addition, district officials identified two other 

disadvantages of using the section 214 authority. First, officials were 

concerned about the public’s perception of the objectivity of permit 

decisions made using section 214 funds. Second, officials were concerned 

that because the authority was not permanent and they could not 

guarantee a prospective employee’s tenure, it would be difficult for them 

to hire and retain qualified staff to process these types of applications. 

Despite these concerns, many of the districts are considering the use of 

the section 214 authority soon or in the future. Seven districts—

Huntington, W.Va.; Louisville, Ky.; Mobile, Ala.; Omaha, Neb.; Portland, 

Ore.; San Francisco, Calif.; and Savannah, Ga.—had already entered into 

agreements or had begun negotiations with nonfederal public entities but 

had not completed the evaluation of any permit applications at the time of

our review. Nineteen districts told us that they would consider entering 

into agreements with nonfederal public entities if the section 214 authority 

were made permanent. In addition, two of the four districts included in 

our review that had used section 214 funds to review permit applications 

have expanded their use of the authority. The Los Angeles District has 

entered into three new agreements—San Bernardino County in September 

2006 and Port of Los Angeles and San Diego Water Authority in October 

2006. The Sacramento District entered into two new agreements—one 

with the City of Roseville in September 2006 and one with the City of 

Rancho Cordova in October 2006. 

Page 15 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
From December 2001 through September 2006, nonfederal public entities 

provided over $2 million in section 214 funds to the four Corps districts 

with whom they had section 214 agreements. The districts hired additional 

project managers to process permit applications and primarily used the 

section 214 funds received to cover personnel-related costs, such as 

salaries and benefits. 

As figure 1 shows, of the four districts that received section 214 funds 

from nonfederal public entities from December 2001 through September 

2006, the Sacramento District received the most, $932,000, and the 

Jacksonville District the least, $225,324. Table 5 shows the amounts 

provided by each of the 13 nonfederal public entities. 

Corps Districts 

Received More Than 

$2 Million in Section 

214 Funds That Were 

Used to Primarily 

Cover PersonnelRelated Costs 

Figure 1: Section 214 Funds Received by the Four Corps Districts from December 

2001 through September 2006

10%

29%

18%

43%

Source: Data provided by the Corps districts.

$390,000 

Los Angeles

$225,324 

Jacksonville

$633,539 

Seattle

$932,000 

Sacramento

Page 16 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Table 5: Total Section 214 Funds Provided by the 13 Nonfederal Public Entities to 

Four Corps Districts from December 2001 through September 2006 

District Nonfederal public entity Amount provided 

Jacksonville South Florida Water Management District $225,324

Los Angeles City of San Diego 240,000

San Bernardino County 150,000a

Sacramento City of Elk Grove 178,000

City of Redding 220,000

City of Lathrop 178,000

Sacramento County 178,000

City of Roseville 178,000a

Seattle Port of Seattle 130,000

Port of Tacoma 150,000

City of Seattle 200,000

Snohomish County 8,539

King County $145,000

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data. 

a

This nonfederal public entity entered into an agreement with the Corps district and provided section 

214 funds in September 2006 after we conducted our file reviews. 

Each of the four Corps districts that received section 214 funds was able 

to increase its regulatory staff by either (1) combining the section 214

funds with appropriated funds to hire new project managers to process 

section 214 applications or (2) paying existing employees to process 

section 214 applications and using the offsets in regular program 

expenditures to hire new project managers to process non-section 214 

applications. Although the districts initially thought that project managers 

would work full-time on section 214 permits, this has not happened. None 

of the project managers added using section 214 funds worked full-time on 

processing section 214 permits; instead they split their time between 

evaluating section 214 permits and permits for other applicants. Table 6 

shows the number of additional project managers added using section 214 

funds and the full-time equivalent staff devoted to processing section 214 

permits in each of the four districts.3

 3

A full-time equivalent staff generally consists of one or more employed individuals who 

collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore, either one full-time 

employee, or two half-time employees, equal one full-time equivalent staff. 

Page 17 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Table 6: Number of Additional Project Managers Hired Using Section 214 Funds and the Full-time Equivalent Staff Used by 

the Corps Districts to Process Permits Using Section 214 Funds, Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 

District 

Total number of

additional project 

managers hired FY 2001a

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006

Jacksonville 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A .2 .7

Los Angeles 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A .9 .5

Sacramento 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 1.5

Seattle 4bN/A .6 1.5 .6 1.4 .5

Total 10 .6 1.5 .6 4.7 3.2

Source: GAO generated from Corps data. 

a

Although Seattle entered into agreements in 2001, it did not expend any funds from these 

agreements until fiscal year 2002.

b

Unlike the other three districts, Seattle does not have designated section 214 positions. Instead, 

these project managers are assigned section 214 workload periodically. 

Through September 2006, the districts used $1.398 million of the section 

214 funds that they received for costs associated with the project 

managers assigned to process section 214 permits. Specifically the funding

was used for the following purposes: $858,000, or 61.4 percent, was used 

to pay for personnel costs, including the salaries and cost of benefits, for 

project managers processing section 214 permits; $522,000, or 37.3 

percent, was used to cover overhead costs, such as office space, utilities, 

and administrative support associated with the section 214 authority; and 

$18,000, or 1.3 percent, was used to pay for equipment, transportation 

costs associated with site visits, and legal advice from the Corps for 

processing applications under the section 214 authority. 

Page 18 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Permit processing times have increased in some districts and decreased in

others since the Corps began using section 214 funds. Although officials 

from both the Corps and nonfederal public entities said they believe the 

use of the section 214 authority has been effective in expediting permit 

applications of nonfederal public entities, other factors may have also 

impacted processing times. Nonetheless, officials from both the Corps and 

nonfederal entities believe the authority provides significant other 

benefits. In addition, Corps officials identified some challenges in 

implementing the section 214 authority in their districts. 

Although a main goal of the Corps in using the section 214 authority is to 

expedite permit processing for section 214 applicants, the processing 

times for these applicants have not consistently decreased. For example, 

the median processing times for nationwide permits decreased by 37 

percent in the Sacramento District, from 41 to 26 days, but increased by 21

percent in the Seattle District, from 76 to 92 days. Similarly, another Corps 

goal is to ensure that the section 214 program does not delay permit 

processing for non-section 214 applicants; however, the processing times 

for these applicants have not consistently remained the same. For 

example, the median times for permits processed without section 214 

funds remained constant in the Los Angeles District but increased by 29 

percent in the Sacramento District, from 41 days to 53 days. Figure 2 

shows changes in nationwide permit processing times for the three 

districts that had data sufficiently reliable for this analysis: Los Angeles, 

Sacramento, and Seattle. The data in the Jacksonville District were not 

reliable because the district experienced difficulties entering data during 

its participation in a pilot project for a new permit database. We did not 

conduct a similar analysis for standard permits because the districts had 

not processed enough of these permits using section 214 funds to calculate 

a reliable estimate of processing times under the authority. 

Changes in Permit 

Processing Times 

Have Varied Since the 

Districts Started 

Using Section 214 

Funds, but Officials 

Agree That the 

Authority Provides 

Many Benefits 

Processing Times Have 

Both Increased and 

Decreased Since the Use 

of the Section 214 

Authority Began 

Page 19 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Figure 2: Median Processing Times for Nationwide Permits Before and After Three 

Districts Began Using the Section 214 Authority 

0

25

50

75

100

Los Angeles Sacramento Seattle

Median permit processing times (days)

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.

Corps districts

Nationwide permits processed in the 3 years before the district’s section 214 program began

Nationwide permits processed using section 214 fundsa

Nationwide permits processed after the district’s section 214 program began but without using

No change

+12%

+29%

-37%

-7%

+21%

74

83

74

41

26

53

76

92

71

section 214 funds

Los Angeles

Note: The median is the midpoint, with half of the permits taking more days to process and half taking fewer. 

a

According to Corps officials, because some section 214 agreements in the Seattle District had 

temporarily expired, some permits may have been only partially processed using section 214 funds. 

We believe that several factors may have influenced the permit processing 

times and masked the effect, if any, that the use of the section 214 

authority had on them. Specifically: 

• Seattle District officials told us that the applications from section 214 

permittees were considerably more complex than typical applications. For 

example, these officials said the section 214 applicants frequently sought 

permission for activities in or near Superfund sites, which required the 

Corps to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency before issuing 

the permits. According to Seattle officials, these consultations add several

weeks or months to the typical permit review process. These officials said

the extra time the Corps needed to process these applications because of 

their complexity exceeded the time savings that resulted from the section 

Page 20 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
214 authority. As a result, they said, the net processing times for these 

applicants increased, obscuring the benefit of the authority to section 214 

applicants. 

• Seattle District officials also told us that there are many threatened and 

endangered species within their district and that they must consult with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) for almost every permit the district issues to ensure that 

the proposed activity will not harm these species. According to these 

officials, the consultation process can add several months to the overall

permit review process. In 2000, the district entered into agreements with 

FWS and NMFS to streamline the consultation process for endangered 

species. Seattle officials said that this streamlined consultation is the main 

reason the permit processing times for non-section 214 applications 

decreased—as compared with the median processing time for the 3 years 

prior to the section 214 program. Therefore, while the decrease for these 

applicants appears consistent with the goal of ensuring that the section 

214 authority does not introduce delays for non-section 214 applicants, it

is not necessarily proof that the district met this goal. The section 214 

authority may have introduced delays, but these delays could have been 

more than offset by the streamlined consultation process that began close

to when the section 214 authority became available. 

• The Los Angeles District had processed only 11 permit applications using 

section 214 funds at the time of our review. These few permits may be 

outliers and may not accurately represent what processing times will be in 

the long-term for permits processed using section 214 funds. The impact 

the section 214 authority has, if any, on processing times may become 

more apparent as the district processes a larger number of permit 

applications using section 214 funds. 

Officials from the Corps and from nonfederal public entities that entered 

into section 214 agreements with the Corps told us that they believe the 

use of the section 214 authority has significantly expedited processing of 

permits for these applicants. For example, Sacramento officials said the 

project managers dedicated to working on section 214 applications 

typically work on two to three times fewer permits, at any given time, than

the other project managers. As a result, they have more time to review 

section 214 permit applications and determine more quickly whether they 

are complete. These officials said that, by contrast, it can take several 

weeks for other project managers to review permit applications for 

completeness. 

Officials Cited Other 

Benefits of Using the 

Section 214 Authority 

Page 21 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Officials from the Corps and nonfederal public entities that we spoke with 

also cited other benefits of the section 214 authority including the 

following: 

Project prioritization. Nonfederal public entities that enter into section

214 agreements with the Corps may specify which permit applications they

want the Corps to complete first and which projects can wait. Officials 

from participating nonfederal public entities told us that being able to set 

priorities for projects in this manner has allowed them to receive permits 

for their most important projects quickly. For example, officials from Elk 

Grove, Calif., said that, in 2004, city employees discovered that an old 

culvert was at risk of collapsing during a heavy rainstorm. City officials 

told the Corps’ Sacramento District that repairing the culvert was a top 

priority for them and, as a result, were able to get the permit needed to

complete the repairs before the next large storm. 

Enhanced communication. Officials from both the Corps and nonfederal

public entities said that the section 214 authority has helped improve 

communication between them. For example, Corps officials in the Seattle

District said that the section 214 funding has enabled project mangers to 

meet with the applicants before they submit their applications. During 

these preapplication meetings, the Corps officials and the applicants 

discuss ways to design the project to avoid impacting important resources 

and increasing the likelihood of receiving a permit. Officials from 

participating entities said that these conversations have reduced the 

overall costs of completing their projects because these conversations 

have enabled them to submit initial project designs that are more likely to

receive approval, thereby avoiding costly revisions and project delays. 

Increased staffing. Corps district officials said the section 214 funds have 

provided a valuable way for them to augment their regulatory staff, 

particularly given the large permit workloads these districts face. As we 

discussed earlier, each district has used the section 214 funds received

from the nonfederal public entities to add between one and four project 

managers to its regulatory staff. 

Corps officials have faced the following challenges when implementing the 

section 214 authority: 

Insufficient permit workloads. Officials in each of the four districts said 

that, when they first started using the section 214 authority, they expected 

each participating entity to submit enough applications to keep one 

District Officials Also 

Identified Several 

Challenges to 

Implementing the Section 

214 Authority 

Page 22 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
project manager busy full-time. However, this has not happened in any of

the four districts. Insufficient section 214 permit workloads have caused

particular problems in two districts. In the Seattle District, the permit 

workloads have been so small from some entities that the revenues 

generated from the agreement have not justified the costs of negotiating 

and establishing the agreement to accept section 214 funds. As a result, the 

Seattle District decided eventually not to renew agreements with some 

entities and is considering not entering into any new agreements unless 

they can sustain at least half a full-time equivalent staff worth of work 

from each agreement. Similarly, in the Sacramento District, an insufficient 

section 214 permit workload has meant that section 214 project managers 

have had to work on some non-section 214 permit applications to maintain 

a full workload. According to officials in the Sacramento District, this 

arrangement has meant that non-section 214 applications experienced 

some processing delays because project managers stopped working on 

them when higher priority section 214 applications came in. To avoid the

need to make choices between section 214 and other applications, the 

Sacramento District is currently considering assigning all section 214 

applications to a small pool of project managers who will work exclusively 

on section 214 permit applications. 

Delays in replacing project managers. Officials in the Sacramento District 

said that they were unable to hire new project managers to replace the 

ones they had transferred to work primarily on section 214 applications as 

quickly as they had anticipated. This lag in hiring project managers 

delayed permit processing for some non-section 214 applications because 

it meant that fewer staff hours could be devoted to processing these 

applications. According to these officials, one main reason for the hiring

lag was that the district did not begin looking for new employees until 

after it had signed the section 214 agreements and transferred experienced 

project managers into the new positions. The district is considering 

adjusting its hiring policy to transfer experienced project managers into 

the new section 214 positions only after it has hired employees to fill the 

non-section 214 positions. 

Decrease in project manager expertise. The Corps districts that received 

section 214 funds typically replaced more experienced project managers 

that were transferred to work primarily on the section 214 permit 

applications with new staff. Sacramento District officials said that this 

practice has decreased the overall level of expertise devoted to processing 

non-section 214 permit applications, which has both delayed processing 

for some of these applications and overburdened the experienced project

managers who have remained to process non-section 214 applications. To

Page 23 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
help increase the skill level of the new staff, the district now requires 

experienced project managers to mentor new employees. Officials from 

the Seattle and Los Angeles districts said that, while their section 214 

application workload is not yet large enough to significantly deplete the 

expertise devoted to non-section 214 applications, this could become a 

problem if the number of applications and agreements continues to rise. 

Three districts that used section 214 funds to process standard permits 

generally followed the permit review process, but one district did not 

follow all the required steps. Specifically, the Sacramento District did not 

comply with the Corps’ process that requires the districts to sufficiently 

demonstrate why the projects they approve are in the public interest. The 

four districts also used section 214 funds to approve projects using 

nationwide permits, however, we could only confirm that the Jacksonville 

and Seattle districts had generally followed the review process for these 

types of projects and could not make this determination for the Los 

Angeles and Sacramento districts because their files had limited permit 

documentation. Detailed results of our file reviews are presented in 

appendix II.

The Jacksonville and Seattle districts followed all of the six key steps in 

the permit review process for standard permit applications that they 

processed using section 214 funds. Specifically, these districts (1) ensured 

that the project proposed in the permit application would not harm 

threatened or endangered species; (2) analyzed whether alternative 

designs that would have fewer impacts to aquatic resources were feasible;

(3) ensured the project would not violate state water quality standards; (4) 

evaluated likely impacts to historic properties; (5) evaluated likely impacts 

to a wide range of other factors, from recreation to energy needs; and (6) 

balanced the project’s benefits against its detriments, when applicable, 

and concluded that the project would not be contrary to the public 

interest. In contrast, the Sacramento District followed five of the six steps 

but did not follow the last step for the standard permits it processed using 

section 214 funds. As a result, for the projects for which it approved 

standard permits, the Sacramento District did not show that the adverse 

effects of the projects were outweighed by the positive impacts of the 

projects and did not conclude that the projects were in the public interest.

When Using Section 

214 Funds, the 

Districts Generally 

Followed the Permit 

Review Process for 

Standard Permits, but 

It Is Unclear Whether 

They Did So for 

Nationwide Permits 

Two of the Three Districts 

That Processed Standard 

Permit Applications under 

the Section 214 Authority 

Generally Followed the 

Permit Review Process 

Page 24 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Officials in the Sacramento District recognize that they did not complete 

the sixth step of the review process, as required, and said that this 

happened because the section 214 project managers who processed these 

applications were relatively new to the district and were not fully aware of 

the requirement. These officials also said that a major reason why the 

project managers were unaware of the requirement is that, while the Corps 

guidance describes documentation requirements for standard permits in 

general terms, Corps headquarters has not provided explicit guidance that

would clearly show project managers how to document their decisions. 

Corps headquarters recognizes that more explicit guidance would help 

ensure consistency across its districts and is in the process of developing a

template for a standard decision document for all districts to use. 

However, since the template is not yet complete, we could not assess 

whether it will provide sufficient detail to prevent the types of lapses we 

observed in the Sacramento District from occurring again. 

For the projects that the four districts reviewed and approved using 

section 214 funds under the Corps’ nationwide permits, we found that the 

Jacksonville and Seattle districts generally followed the steps that are key 

to the review process. Specifically, of their nationwide permit decisions, 

the Jacksonville and Seattle districts (1) evaluated 100 percent and 79 

percent, respectively, of the proposed projects to ensure they met the 

terms and conditions of the relevant nationwide permit(s) and (2) ensured 

that 90 percent and 96 percent, respectively, of the projects they evaluated 

would not harm endangered species. For the remaining permit 

applications, there was not enough documentation in the permit files for 

us to determine whether Jacksonville and Seattle district officials had 

complied with these two requirements. In contrast, we were unable to 

make a determination of the extent to which the Los Angeles and 

Sacramento districts had evaluated projects for compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the nationwide permit(s) because only 3 percent of their

files contained enough evidence. In addition, 31 percent of the permit files 

in the Sacramento District also did not contain evidence that the district 

had considered the impacts of the proposed projects on endangered 

species. In the Los Angeles District, however, most files did contain 

evidence that officials had considered the impacts of the proposed 

projects on endangered species. 

We found that the districts vary in their level of documentation for 

projects approved using nationwide permits because, unlike standard 

permits, Corps headquarters has not developed uniform documentation 

standards for the districts to follow when making these decisions. In the 

Lack of Documentation for 

Projects Approved Using 

Nationwide Permits 

Inhibits the Assessment of 

the Process for Two of the 

Four Districts 

Page 25 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
absence of such guidance, the Seattle and Jacksonville districts have 

developed local standards that are more stringent than those in Los 

Angeles or Sacramento. Corps headquarters officials recognize that 

consistent documentation is needed to ensure permit decisions are both 

transparent and legally defensible and have begun to develop Corps-wide 

standards. However, because the Corps has not completed these 

standards, we could not determine to what extent they will require 

districts to fully document the basis for their determinations that the 

projects meet the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit(s) they 

used to approve the projects, and whether these requirements will 

alleviate the concerns we identified. 

The districts were uneven in their adherence to the additional

requirements established by the Corps to ensure that permit decisions 

made using section 214 funds were impartial and transparent. Two of the 

districts—Sacramento and Seattle—more often met both requirements, 

while the Jacksonville and Los Angeles districts rarely did. Corps officials 

cited several reasons for the variance in their adherence to the additional 

requirements. 

In addition to following the established permit review processes discussed 

in the prior section of this report, Corps districts must meet two other 

requirements designed to ensure the impartiality and transparency of 

decisions made using section 214 funds. First, a Corps official senior to the 

decision maker must review the final permit decision (higher level review) 

and second, the district must post its final decision to the district’s Web 

site. However, as shown in table 7, our review of the applications reviewed 

and approved by the four districts that used section 214 funds, indicates 

significant variations in the extent to which each district complied with 

these two additional requirements. 

The Districts Varied in 

Their Compliance 

with the Corps’ 

Additional 

Requirements for 

Ensuring Impartiality 

of Decisions Made 

Using Section 214 

Funds 

Page 26 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Table 7: Extent to Which Four Corps Districts Adhered to the Additional 

Requirements for Processing Section 214 Permits 

Requirement Jacksonville Los Angeles Sacramento Seattle 

Higher level review–standard 

permits 50% a

100% 0%

Higher level review–nationwide 

permits 0% 9% 86% 78%

Higher level review–both permit 

types 8% 9% 87% 65%

Post permit decisions to Web 

page 0% 0% 74% 85%

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data. 

a

The Los Angeles District had not processed any standard permits using section 214 funds at the time

of our review. 

According to district officials, the following factors contributed to why the 

districts varied in the extent to which they adhered to the additional Corps 

requirements for ensuring that section 214 permit decisions are impartial. 

• Different interpretations of the applicability of the requirements. 

Officials in the Los Angeles and Jacksonville districts told us that they had 

believed the additional requirements did not apply to projects approved 

using nationwide permits, which constitute the bulk of the permit 

applications processed in their districts using section 214 funds. According 

to these officials, they had believed the requirements applied only to new 

permit decisions and, since approvals under existing nationwide permits 

did not count as new permit decisions, the requirements did not apply to 

such approvals. Corps headquarters officials and legal counsel do not 

agree with the districts’ interpretation and said that the additional 

requirements apply to all permit types including approvals using 

nationwide permits. Los Angeles District officials told us that they have 

subsequently changed their position and plan to apply the requirements to 

nationwide permits in the future, but Jacksonville District officials have 

not changed their position. 

• Varying awareness of the requirements. The project manager responsible 

for processing section 214 permit applications in the Los Angeles District 

told us that he was unaware of the higher level review requirement and, 

therefore, did not adhere to it. Similarly, the project manager responsible 

for section 214 applications in the Jacksonville District told us she was 

unaware of the Web-posting requirement. In contrast, project managers in 

the other two districts were aware of both of the requirements and, as a 

result, did comply with them more often. 

Page 27 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
• Lack of specificity as to what higher level review entails. Corps 

headquarters guidance does not specify which documents the senior level 

officials must review and sign to meet the higher level review requirement. 

While Seattle District officials thought that it was sufficient for senior 

officials to review and sign the documents supporting standard permit 

decisions, Corps headquarters officials told us that it is the final permit 

document itself—not the supporting documents—that must be reviewed 

and signed. We noted during our review, that while many standard permits 

in the Seattle District did not receive higher level review in accordance

with headquarters requirements, they frequently did have decision 

documents reviewed by a Corps official senior to the official who would 

typically review those documents. According to Seattle District officials, it

is more important for a reviewer to review the decision documents than 

the issued permit since the decision documents provide the rationale for

why the project manager arrived at the decision to issue the permit while 

the permit itself is largely pro forma. 

• Lack of compliance with annual reporting requirement. Corps guidance 

calls for annual reports on the districts’ implementation of the section 214 

authority to be submitted to headquarters. However, according to the head 

of the Corps’ Regulatory Branch, no reports have been submitted since the

section 214 authority was first used in 2001. If this guidance had been

followed, we believe that Corps headquarters may have been alerted to the 

fact that some districts were not fully meeting the additional requirements 

and could have taken actions needed to resolve this lack of compliance.

When the Congress enacted the section 214 authority in 2000, it was to 

help expedite the permit review process for nonfederal public entities. 

Since that time, a handful of nonfederal public entities have taken 

advantage of the authority and believe that it has been beneficial to them.

These nonfederal entities had entered into agreements with four Corps 

districts that had actually received and used section 214 funds to process 

permit applications at the time of our review. However, the experiences of 

these four districts indicate that implementation of the section 214 

authority has been uneven. We identified a number of areas where 

improved oversight is needed to ensure that decisions made using the 

authority adhere to established permit processing regulations and 

guidance and are also impartial and transparent. Specifically, we found 

evidence to suggest that the district officials do not know what guidance 

they are to follow, do not know how to document the decisions that they 

make, and do not know which special requirements apply to the permit 

applications that they review under the section 214 authority. Because it 

appears that there is significant potential for many more Corps districts to 

Conclusions 

Page 28 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
begin accepting funds under the section 214 authority, and many are 

already poised to do so, we believe that it is imperative for Corps 

headquarters to address the concerns that have already been identified at

the four districts that have used the section 214 authority to process 

permit applications. 

To ensure that the permits processed under the section 214 authority 

comply with federal regulations and guidance, we are recommending that

the Secretary of the Army direct the Corps of Engineers to take the 

following four actions: 

• clarify the guidance that the districts must follow when evaluating permit 

applications under the section 214 authority, 

• clarify the documentation that district officials must include in project 

files to justify and support their decisions, 

• provide training to district officials to ensure that they are aware of the 

requirements that apply to permits processed under the section 214 

authority, and 

• develop an effective oversight approach that will ensure that the districts 

are following all the appropriate requirements when evaluating projects 

under the section 214 authority. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of 

Defense for review and comment. The Department of Defense generally 

concurred with the report’s recommendations and described actions that 

it is implementing to address them. In its written comments, the 

department stated that by December 2007 the Corps plans to issue revised 

guidance for the districts to follow when using section 214 funds that 

clarifies, among other things, the types of permit decisions that require 

higher level review and what documents must be reviewed and signed by 

an official senior to the decision maker. The department also indicated 

that the Corps is developing a national template that standardizes the 

documentation required to support standard permit decisions and will 

develop similar documentation requirements for projects approved with 

nationwide permits. In addition, the department noted that project 

managers that evaluate permit applications using section 214 funds and 

their management will be required to attend annual briefings on Corps 

guidance for implementing section 214 and that the Corps will conduct 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 29 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
annual reviews that will focus on the districts’ compliance with the 

guidance and documentation protocols. The Department of Defense’s 

written comments are presented in appendix III. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution for 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Chief of Engineers and 

Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and interested congressional 

committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In

addition, the report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@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. 

Sincerely yours, 

Anu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Page 30 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

In 2000, the Congress, through section 214 of the Water Resources and 

Development Act, authorized the Secretary of the Army, after providing 

public notice, to accept and expend funds from nonfederal public entities 

to expedite the evaluation of permit applications that fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The act also requires the 

Secretary to ensure that the funds accepted will not impact impartial 

decision making with respect to permit approvals. This responsibility has 

been delegated by the Department of the Army to the Corps of Engineers 

(Corps). In this context, we were asked to review the (1) extent to which 

Corps districts have entered into agreements with nonfederal public 

entities to receive section 214 funds since 2001 and how many permit 

applications the Corps has evaluated using these funds, (2) amount of 

section 214 funds the Corps has received and how it has used these funds, 

(3) extent to which permit processing times have changed since the Corps

began using section 214 funds, (4) extent to which the Corps districts have 

followed the basic permit review processes when evaluating applications 

using section 214 funds, and (5) extent to which the districts have met the 

additional requirements for ensuring that permit decisions made using the 

section 214 funds are impartial and transparent. 

To determine the extent to which Corps districts entered into section 214 

agreements with nonfederal public entities, we contacted each of the 38 

Corps districts responsible for issuing regulatory permits under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act to identify those districts that had entered into 

such agreements since the authority was available. We visited each of the 

four districts that had entered into such agreements and evaluated the 

permit applications that had been processed under these agreements as of 

August 2006. These districts were Jacksonville, Fla.; Los Angeles and 

Sacramento, Calif.; and Seattle, Wash. At each district, we reviewed the 

legal agreements between the Corps and nonfederal entities to identify the 

entities that had entered into such agreements and the date the 

agreements went into effect. To determine how many permit applications 

the districts evaluated using section 214 funds, we obtained and reviewed 

the Corps’ files for all but one of the permit applications that the districts 

evaluated using section 214 funds. We did not review one of the 

applications because the Seattle District was unable to locate the file. 

Table 8 shows the number of permit files we reviewed at each of the four

districts. We used a data collection instrument (DCI) to extract key pieces 

of information from each permit file, including the name of the applicant,

the type of project seeking approval, and the type of permit the Corps used 

to authorize the proposed project. An independent analyst verified the 

accuracy of the data we entered for each permit file. We also interviewed 

Corps officials in each of the four districts, as well as representatives from

Page 31 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

at least one of the nonfederal entities participating in the section 214 

program in each district, to gain their perspectives on the benefits and any 

challenges of implementing the section 214 authority. 

Table 8: Permit Files Reviewed by GAO at the Four Corps Districts That Used

Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Permit Applications Between December 2001 and 

August 2006 

Corps district Number of files reviewed

Jacksonville 12

Los Angeles 14

Sacramento 31

Seattle 129

Total 186

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files.

To determine whether the use of the section 214 authority may expand in

the future, we surveyed the 34 districts that had not used section 214 funds 

to evaluate permit applications to determine their reasons for not doing so 

and their plans, if any, for using such funds in the future; 28 districts (82 

percent) responded to our survey. The practical difficulties of conducting 

any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling 

errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted 

can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. To minimize 

nonsampling error, an independent survey specialist reviewed the survey 

for clarity and independence before we sent it out. We also pretested the 

survey with Corps officials in two districts. During these pretests, we 

asked each official to complete the survey as they would when they 

received it. We then solicited feedback to ensure that the questions were 

clear and unambiguous and that the survey was independent and 

unbiased. Based on pretest feedback, we made changes to the survey, as 

appropriate.

To determine the amount of section 214 funding the Corps has received 

and how it has used these funds, we obtained and analyzed financial data 

covering fiscal years 2001 through 2006 from each of the four participating 

districts. The data, which came from the Corps of Engineers’ Financial 

Management System (CEFMS), specify the amounts of section 214 funding

the districts had received since the program began and the major 

categories of expenditures. District officials told us the number of fulltime-equivalent staff the districts procured using these funds. A full-timeequivalent staff generally consists of one or more employed individuals 

Page 32 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

who collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore, 

either one full-time employee, or two half-time employees, equal one fulltime equivalent staff. We reviewed the financial data related to the receipt

and expenditure of section 214 funds and determined they were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We did not, however, audit the 

Corps’ financial statements to verify that the Corps expended funds as 

recorded in the CEFMS reports. 

To determine the extent to which permit processing times have changed 

since the Corps began using section 214 funds, we obtained permit 

processing data from three of the four participating districts: Los Angeles,

Sacramento, and Seattle. The data in these districts, which came from the 

Corps’ Regulatory Analysis and Management System database, were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We did not analyze processing times 

in the Jacksonville District because officials in this district told us their 

processing time data were for not reliable for permits issued in 2002 and 

2003.

1

 The processing time data that we used from the three districts that 

had reliable data included permits that each district issued in the 3 years 

prior to the district’s first use of section 214 funds to the time of our 

review. We calculated median permit processing times before and after the 

districts began using section 214 funds. We chose the median over the 

mean because the median is more resistant to the effects of outliers; for 

example, a few permits that took a relatively longer amount of time to 

process will impact the mean more than the median. We assigned a permit 

to the before or after category by comparing the date a Corps district 

issued a permit with the date it first began using the section 214 

authority—permits that a district issued after it began using the authority 

were assigned to the after category. We also analyzed an alternative 

approach: assigning before or after based on the date that the Corps began 

processing the permit. However, we determined this method made the 

post-section 214 processing times appear artificially low because it 

excluded permits that were still ongoing at the time of our review. 

Therefore, we did not present the results from this alternative analysis in 

the report. 

Our results show the processing time for nationwide permits, which 

constituted 82 percent of the total number of permits the districts 

 1

The district participated in a pilot project for a new database during those years and,

according to district officials, project managers were unable to enter processing time data 

during that time. 

Page 33 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

processed using section 214 funds. We did not analyze processing times 

for other types of permits (e.g., standard or letters of permission) since the 

Corps had not processed enough of permits of these types for us to 

calculate accurate processing times under the section 214 authority. We 

defined processing times to be the number of days between when the 

Corps first received a permit application and when it issued a final permit. 

This definition is different from the Corps’ because the Corps defines 

processing time as the number of days between when it receives a 

complete application and when it issues a permit. We chose a definition 

that would allow us to maximize our chances of observing the effects of 

the section 214 program. 

To determine the extent to which the Corps followed the existing permit 

review processes, we first identified key steps for processing permits. 

Specifically, we identified six key steps for standard permits and two key 

steps for nationwide permits. We selected these steps because the districts 

must complete each one before issuing a permit and, for the standard 

permits, the Corps identified the steps as important “safeguards” for 

ensuring objectivity in its permit decisions. We did not include some steps 

that the Corps identified as “safeguards” because (1) the districts do not 

have to complete these steps for every permit application or (2) the steps 

are outside of the districts’ responsibility, e.g., the Environmental 

Protection Agency can, at its discretion, review and revoke the Corps’ 

permit decisions. In each district, we reviewed all but two of the files for 

projects the Corps authorized using nationwide and standard permits. We 

did not review one file because the Corps processed the permit application 

under emergency procedures, which are substantially different from the 

regular review procedures. We did not review the other file because the 

Seattle district was unable to locate the file. Table 9 shows the number of 

permit files reviewed for adherence to existing Corps review processes. 

Table 10 presents a complete list of the information we collected with our 

DCI. We did not review the files for other types of permits that the Corps 

may also use—letters of permission and regional general permits—

because they undergo different review procedures and constituted less 

than 5 percent of permits evaluated using section 214 funds. During our 

file reviews, we used our DCI to record whether the permit file contained 

evidence that the district followed each of the key steps in the permit 

review process. We also reviewed the files for evidence that the Corps met 

the two additional requirements to ensure that decisions for permits 

processed with section 214 funds were made impartially and were 

transparent–-that is, that the permit decision received higher level review 

and was posted to the Corps district’s Web site. An independent analyst 

verified the accuracy of the data entered for each permit file. 

Page 34 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 9: Number of Permit Files GAO Reviewed for Evidence of Adherence to the 

Corps’ Permit Review Processes and the Two Additional Requirements for Permit 

Applications Evaluated Using Section 214 Funds 

Corps district Number of files reviewed

Jacksonville 12

Los Angeles 11

Sacramento 31

Seattle 124

Total 178

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files. 

Table 10: Information GAO Extracted from Section 214 Permit Files 

Type of permit files Information collected

All files • Name of applicant 

• Name of nonfederal entity under whose agreement the permit application received

expedited review

• Corps district that processed the application

• Type of project described in the permit application 

• Date permit was issued 

• Type of permit issued 

Files for projects authorized using nationwide

or standard permits 

• Whether the signatures on the final permit indicate that the permit was reviewed by 

a Corps official senior to the decision maker 

• Whether the permit decision was posted on the Corps district’s Web site 

Only files for projects authorized using 

nationwide permits 

• Whether there was evidence that the Corps followed each of two steps we identified 

as key to the review process for nationwide permits, and, if so, the type of evidence 

Only files for projects authorized using 

standard permits 

• Whether there was evidence that the Corps followed each of six steps we identified 

as key to the review process for standard permits, and, if so, the type of evidence 

Source: GAO.

We performed our work between April 2006 and April 2007 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 35 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s Review of 

Corps Permit Files for Districts That Used Appendix II: Results of GAO’ Section 214 Authority Between 2001 and s Review of 2006

Corps Permit Files for Districts That Used 

Section 214 Authority Between 2001 and 2006

This appendix presents the results of our file review at the four Corps 

districts—Jacksonville, Fla.; Los Angeles and Sacramento, Calif.; and 

Seattle, Wash.—that used section 214 funds to evaluate permit 

applications between December 2001 and August 2006. The results of our 

review for permit applications approved using standard permits are 

presented in table 11. The Los Angeles District is not included in table 11 

because it had not used section 214 funds to evaluate any standard permit 

applications at the time of our review. Results of our review for permit 

applications approved using nationwide permits are presented in table 12. 

Table 11: Results of GAO’s Review of the Districts’ Adherence to Six Key Steps in

the Permit Review Process When Using Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Standard 

Permit Applications

Number of permit files with evidence that the 

district followed the key step in the standard

permit review process 

Key step in the standard permit 

review process Jacksonville Sacramento Seattle

Ensured the project would not harm 

threatened or endangered species 2 2 22

 Analyzed whether alternative 

project designs that would have

fewer impacts to aquatic resources 

were feasible 2 2 20a

Ensured the project would not 

violate state water quality standards 2 2 22

Evaluated the project’s likely 

impacts to historic properties 2 2 22

Analyzed impacts to a range of 

other factors, from recreation to 

energy needs 2 2 22

Demonstrated that the benefits of 

the proposed project outweigh its 

detriments (when applicableb

) and 

that the project was not contrary to 

the public interest 2 0 22

Number of permit files reviewed 2 2 22

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files. 

a

This analysis of alternative project designs was not relevant for two permit files. Specifically, this 

analysis is only required for permits issued under authority of section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Two permit files were issued under authority of section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and did not

require such an analysis. 

Page 36 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s Review of 

Corps Permit Files for Districts That Used 

Section 214 Authority Between 2001 and 2006

b

An analysis showing that a project’s benefits outweighs its detriments is only relevant if the Corps 

has concluded that the project will have some detrimental effects. Twenty-four of the twenty-six Corps 

permit files avoided the need for such balancing by arguing that the project would only have positive 

or minimal effects after considering mitigation that the applicant proposed to compensate for impacts 

that would otherwise be detrimental. 

Table 12: Results of GAO’s Review of the Districts’ Adherence to Two Key Steps in

the Permit Review Process when Using Section 214 Funds to Evaluate Nationwide 

Permit Applications

Number of permit files with evidence that the districts 

followed the key step in the nationwide permit review

process 

Key step in the 

nationwide permit 

review process Jacksonville Los Angeles Sacramento Seattle

Evaluated proposed 

project to ensure it 

met terms of the 

nationwide permit(s) 

used to authorize 

the projecta

10 0 1 81

Ensured the project 

would not harm 

threatened or 

endangered

speciesa

9 10 20 98

Number of permit 

files reviewed 10 11 29 102

Source: GAO analysis of Corps permit files. 

a

Lack of evidence is not proof that the Corps failed to follow this step in the permit review process. 

Neither federal regulations nor Corps headquarters’ guidance requires districts to document their 

adherence to these steps. The districts may have followed the steps without documenting that they

did so. 

Page 37 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Page 38 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 39 GAO-07-478 Waters and Wetlands
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-07-478 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841, or mittala@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant 

Director, and Greg Peterson made key contributions to this report. Nancy 

Crothers, Melinda Cordero, Brian Chung, Jonathan Dent, Doreen Feldman, 

Diana Goody, Janet Frisch, Laura Kisner, Amanda Randolph, and Rebecca 

Shea also made important contributions to this report. 

We also wish to give special tribute to our dear friend and colleague,

Curtis Groves, who died many years too soon after a long battle with 

multiple myeloma near the conclusion of our work. 

Waters and Wetlands

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360692) 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER