Waters and Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Ensure That Permit Decisions Made Using Funds from Nonfederal Public Entities Are Transparent and Impartial
Published: 2007-05-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: When cities, counties, or other nonfederal public entities propose public  When cities, counties, or other nonfederal public entities propose public  works projects, such as road construction and sewer line construction or  works projects, such as road construction and sewer line construction or  maintenance, that could degrade or damage federally regulated waters and  maintenance, that could degrade or damage federally regulated waters and  wetlands, they must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of  wetlands, they must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers (Corps) before proceeding. The Corps is responsible for  Engineers (Corps) before proceeding. The Corps is responsible for  regulating activities that may impact wetlands, streams, and other waters  regulating activities that may impact wetlands, streams, and other waters  throughout much of the United States and decides whether to allow such  throughout much of the United States and decides whether to allow such  activities to occur. To obtain the Corps’ approval, the nonfederal public  activities to occur. To obtain the Corps’ approval, the nonfederal public  entity, like any other property owner, must submit a permit application  entity, like any other property owner, must submit a permit application  that contains a description of the proposed project, including its purpose  that contains a description of the proposed project, including its purpose  and location, and other information the Corps needs to evaluate how the  and location, and other information the Corps needs to evaluate how the  project will impact wetlands and other federally regulated waters. Once  project will impact wetlands and other federally regulated waters. Once  the Corps receives all of the required information from the applicant, the  the Corps receives all of the required information from the applicant, the  permit review process begins. This process varies depending on the  permit review process begins. This process varies depending on the  complexity of the proposed project, the extent of the resources likely to be  complexity of the proposed project, the extent of the resources likely to be  impacted, and the type of permit required.  impacted, and the type of permit required.
Some policymakers and others have expressed concerns that the Corps’  Some policymakers and others have expressed concerns that the Corps’  permit process takes too long and has significantly delayed some public  permit process takes too long and has significantly delayed some public  works projects. In 2000, the Congress included a provision in the Water  works projects. In 2000, the Congress included a provision in the Water  Resources and Development Act to expedite permit processing for  Resources and Development Act to expedite permit processing for  nonfederal public entities. Specifically, section 214 of the act authorizes  nonfederal public entities. Specifically, section 214 of the act authorizes  the Secretary of the Army, after providing public notice, to accept and  the Secretary of the Army, after providing public notice, to accept and  expend funds from nonfederal public entities to expedite the evaluation of  expend funds from nonfederal public entities to expedite the evaluation of  permit applications that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department 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  the Army. The act also requires the Secretary to ensure that the funds  accepted will not impact impartial decision making with respect to permit  accepted will not impact impartial decision making with respect to permit  approvals. Originally set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2003, this  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  temporary authority has been extended four times and is currently set to  expire in December 2008. The Secretary of the Army has delegated this  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  authority to the Corps and, in turn, the Corps has delegated day-to-day  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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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.  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  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  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. 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  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.
section_title: Four Corps Districts Have Evaluated Projects Using Section 214 Funds, and Use of This Authority is Likely to Expand in the Future
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Four Districts Have Evaluated Permit Applications Using Section 214 Funds
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: The Districts’ Use of Section 214 Authority Is Likely to Expand in the Future
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Corps Districts Received More Than $2 Million in Section 214 Funds That Were Used to Primarily Cover Personnel- Related Costs
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Changes in Permit Processing Times Have Varied Since the Districts Started Using Section 214 Funds, but Officials Agree That the Authority Provides Many Benefits
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Processing Times Have Both Increased and Decreased Since the Use of the Section 214 Authority Began
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Officials Cited Other Benefits of Using the Section 214 Authority
paragraphs: 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 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.
section_title: District Officials Also Identified Several Challenges to Implementing the Section 214 Authority
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Two of the Three Districts That Processed Standard Permit Applications under the Section 214 Authority Generally Followed the Permit Review Process
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Lack of Documentation for Projects Approved Using Nationwide Permits Inhibits the Assessment of the Process for Two of the Four Districts
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: The Districts Varied in Their Compliance with the Corps’ Additional Requirements for Ensuring Impartiality of Decisions Made Using Section 214 Funds
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
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 full- time-equivalent staff the districts procured using these funds. 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. 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. 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  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.
We performed our work between April 2006 and April 2007 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Results of GAO’s Review of Corps Permit Files for Districts That Used Section 214 Authority Between 2001 and 2006
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.