This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-574 
entitled 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Scientific Panel’s Assessment 
of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance' which was released on 
January 22, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2002: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

Scientific Panel’s Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance: 

GAO-02-574: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Water Resources Projects Authorized Since the 1986 Act That Required a 
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan: 

Scientific Panel’s Assessment of the Quality of National Fish and 
Wildlife Guidance, Suggested Improvements, and Estimated Success of 
Mitigation: 

Views of the Agencies: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Corps’ 47 Projects Since the Act of 1986 with a Fish & 
Wildlife Mitigation Plan & Receiving Construction Appropriations: 

Appendix III: Guidance Documents Reviewed by Panel: Governmentwide 
Policy Guidance: General Technical Guidance: Corps of Engineers’ Civil 
Works Program Guidance: Corps of Engineers’ Regulatory Program 
Guidance: Federal Highway Administration Guidance: 

Appendix IV: Assessment Instrument Used by Panel 

Appendix V: Panel of Scientific Experts’ Assessment of Fish & Wildlife 
Mitigation Guidance by Attribute & Stage of Mitigation: Determination 
Stage: 
Design Stage: 
Construction Stage: 
Monitoring Stage: 
Evaluation Stage: 
Complete: 
Current: 
Clear: 
Broad: 
Viable: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VII: Panel of Scientific Experts, Technical Adviser, and 
Expert Reviewers: 

Appendix VIII: 
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: 
Acknowledgments: 

Tables 

Table 1: Panelists’ Overall Quality Rating of the Mitigation Guidance 
for the Three Programs: 

Table II.1: Percent of Mitigation Completed for 47 Water Resources 
Projects Authorized Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
That Required a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan and Received 
Construction Appropriations, as of September 30, 2001: 

Table V.1: Summary of Expert Panel’s Final Assessment of the Corps of 
Engineers’ and Federal Highway Administration’s Fish and Wildlife 
Mitigation Guidance: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 15, 2002: 

The Honorable James M. Jeffords: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Bob Smith: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Don Young: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James L. Oberstar: 
Ranking Democratic Member: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

Concerns have been raised by a variety of interests about the possible 
negative impacts that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction 
of water resources projects may have on fish and wildlife and their 
habitat. Because projects such as deepening harbors and constructing 
dams could disturb fish and wildlife, the Corps is required to 
mitigate potential damage. Mitigation may include, for example, 
acquiring lands to replace lost habitat, creating wetlands to replace 
lost wetlands, and planting seedlings and other vegetation to 
stabilize soils and prevent erosion. 

The Corps’ Civil Works Program manages projects dealing with 
commercial navigation and flood damage, while its Regulatory Program 
oversees primarily privately financed projects that affect water and 
related land resources, such as residential development near a 
seashore. The Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway 
Program within the Department of Transportation oversees road 
construction and, like the Corps, must ensure compliance with 
environmental laws designed to mitigate the impact of construction on 
fish and wildlife. For the purposes of this report,[Footnote 1] the 
five stages of a mitigation project are (1) determination—deciding 
whether and how much mitigation is needed; (2) design—deciding on the 
necessary features and performance characteristics of the project, 
including all preconstruction activities; (3) construction—acquiring 
land, building structures, creating habitat, and introducing animals 
and plants; (4) monitoring—-periodically assessing the mitigation site 
before, during, and after construction; and (5) evaluation—-
determining the success of the project, actions needed if the project 
is not successful and implications for improving future projects. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 required GAO to obtain 
information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ efforts to mitigate 
for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources and their habitat 
at water resources projects since the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986. In discussions with the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, we agreed to (1) determine the number of U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers’ civil works projects for which the Corps completed 
less than 50 percent of mitigation (the measure cited in the 2000 act) 
before starting construction and (2) establish a panel of scientific 
experts to compare the Corps’ Civil Works Program’s national guidance 
on fish and wildlife mitigation with mitigation guidance for the 
Regulatory Program and the mitigation guidance for the Federal-aid 
Highway Program. We selected our seven-member scientific panel on the 
basis of their expertise in mitigation and familiarity with the 
operations of these three programs. We mailed the panel members an 
assessment instrument and 2,500 pages of guidance documents from the 
three programs for their review. We asked the panel to assess the 
quality of each program’s guidance (1) for the five stages of 
mitigation; (2) for five attributes—-currency, clarity, completeness, 
breadth, and viability of the natural and man-made systems into the 
future; and (3) overall, taking into consideration the stages and 
attributes. (Appendix I describes our scope and methodology; appendix 
III lists the documents reviewed; appendix IV contains the assessment 
instrument; appendix V describes the panel’s assessment of the 
guidance; and appendix VII lists the panel members and their 
affiliations.) 

Results in Brief: 

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 28 of the 47 water 
resources projects authorized since enactment of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, that required a fish and wildlife mitigation 
plan, and that received construction appropriations, completed less 
than 50 percent of the mitigation before project construction started. 
Of the remaining 19 projects, 7 completed at least 50 percent of 
mitigation before initiating construction; 2 projects had not started 
construction but had done some mitigation; and 10 had not started 
construction or mitigation. As of September 30, 2001, of the 34 
projects where construction had begun, 16 had completed 100 percent of 
the mitigation. Neither the 1986 act nor subsequent Water Resources 
Development Acts require the Corps to complete a specific amount of 
mitigation before beginning to construct a project. In fact, according 
to the Corps, completing a specific amount of mitigation might not be 
feasible in some cases. For example, the Corps may need to use the 
material it excavates during construction to create the mitigation 
project, such as the material dredged from a navigation channel that 
is used to create wetlands. 

The panel of scientific experts rated as similar the overall quality 
for the national fish and wildlife mitigation guidance of the Corps of 
Engineers’ Civil Works and Regulatory Programs as well as for the 
Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program. Most 
panelists rated the overall quality as “moderate” or “good.” The 
Federal-aid Highway Program, however, received more “good” ratings 
than the Corps’ two programs. When assessing the overall quality of 
all three programs’ guidance, some panelists indicated that the 
guidance was strong because of its clarity, currency, or the inclusion 
of ample technical guidance. Some panelists were critical, however, of 
the three programs’ guidance. They pointed out that the programs’ 
guidance emphasizes the determination and design stages to the 
detriment of the monitoring and evaluation stages; emphasizes wetlands 
to the detriment of other lands, such as those that have a higher 
elevation and tend to be drier (uplands); or fails to require 
corrective actions in those instances where projects do not succeed. 
The panelists also suggested areas for improvement: a unified body of 
guidance, more information on the monitoring and evaluation stages, or 
more discussion of uplands species and habitat. Based on the guidance 
alone, panelists expressed concerns about their ability to reliably 
estimate the percent of success that mitigation projects would have in 
restoring the natural hydrology and native vegetation and in 
supporting native fish and wildlife species. Panelists said factors 
other than guidance, such as major storms that are difficult to 
control or manage or invasive weeds or wildlife species that dominate 
the site unexpectedly, affect the success of mitigation projects. 

The Department of Transportation reviewed the draft report and chose 
not to provide comments. The Department of Defense made generalized 
observations about the issues addressed in the report and offered 
specific comments on the panel’s assessment of the Civil Works and 
Regulatory Programs’ mitigation guidance. A copy of the Department of 
Defense’s comments is included as appendix VI. 

Background: 

Generally, the Congress authorizes the Corps’ water resources projects 
every 2 years through a Water Resources Development Act. After project 
authorization, the Corps may request construction appropriations in 
order to initiate a project; the Congress might not appropriate 
construction funding for all authorized projects. The Corps uses its 
construction funds to support both mitigation and construction 
activities. 

According to staff in the Corps’ Civil Works Program, between the 1986 
act and September 30, 2001, 

* 217 water resources projects were authorized, 

* 150 of these received construction appropriations, 

* 103 of these 150 projects did not require a fish and wildlife 
mitigation plan, and, 

* 47 of the 150 projects required a plan. 

Under the Federal-aid Highway Program, the Federal Highway 
Administration must ensure compliance with federal, state, and local 
environmental laws and regulations. The administration apportions 
funds to state transportation departments for planning and 
constructing the national highway infrastructure. State governments 
determine the priorities and distribute the funds. 

Water Resources Projects Authorized Since the 1986 Act That Required a 
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan: 

Of the 47 Civil Works projects authorized since the 1986 act that 
required a fish and wildlife mitigation plan and that received 
construction appropriations, 28 projects completed less than 50 
percent of the mitigation before project construction began, according 
to the Corps.[Footnote 2] Of the remaining 19 projects, 7 completed at 
least 50 percent of mitigation before initiating construction; 2 had 
not started construction but had done some mitigation; and 10 had not 
started construction or mitigation.[Footnote 3] As of September 30, 
2001, 16 of the 34 projects where construction had begun had completed 
100 percent of the mitigation. 

The 1986 act requires the Corps to initiate mitigation before or 
concurrent with construction, but it does not specify the amount of 
mitigation required-—nor does any subsequent Water Resources 
Development Act. According to the Corps, it may not complete 50 
percent of the mitigation prior to initiating project construction for 
the following reasons: 

* The proposed mitigation will occur in the construction area or when 
material excavated during construction is used to create the 
mitigation. For example, the Corps creates wetlands with material 
dredged from a navigation channel. 

* Mitigation activities may be scheduled concurrently with 
construction as a logical construction sequence. 

* The Corps considers “construction” to begin when it receives 
construction appropriations, not when it actually starts construction, 
even though months or years may pass between the two dates. Therefore, 
since construction appropriations fund both mitigation and 
construction activities, mitigation cannot technically begin before 
construction begins. 

Scientific Panel’s Assessment of the Quality of National Fish and 
Wildlife Guidance, Suggested Improvements, and Estimated Success of 
Mitigation: 

The panel of scientific experts rated as similar the overall quality 
of the national fish and wildlife mitigation guidance for the Corps of 
Engineers’ Civil Works and Regulatory Programs as well as the Federal 
Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program. Most panelists 
rated the overall quality as “moderate” or “good.” The Highway 
Program, however, received more “good” ratings than the Corps’ two 
programs. In commenting on possible improvements to the guidance, the 
panelists suggested a unified body of guidance for the three programs, 
more information on the monitoring and evaluation stages, or more 
discussion of uplands species and habitat. Based on the guidance 
alone, panelists expressed concerns about their ability to reliably 
estimate the percent of success mitigation projects would have in 
restoring the natural hydrology and native vegetation and in 
supporting native fish and wildlife species. 

Panelists said factors other than guidance, such as major storms that 
are difficult to control or manage or invasive weeds or wildlife 
species that dominate the site unexpectedly, affect the success of 
mitigation projects. 

Panel’s Assessment of Guidance: 

When asked to rate the overall quality of the collective guidance for 
each of the three programs, panelists generally rated it “moderate” or “
good,” as shown in table 1. The distribution of moderate and good 
ratings varied slightly across programs. 

Table 1: Panelists’ Overall Quality Rating of the Mitigation Guidance 
for the Three Programs: 

Overall quality rating: 

Program: Civil Works; 
Panelist 1: Moderate; 
Panelist 2: Good; 
Panelist 3: Moderate; 
Panelist 4: Moderate; 
Panelist 5: Moderate; 
Panelist 6: Moderate; 
Panelist 7: Moderate; 
Average rating: 3.1. 

Program: Regulatory; 
Panelist 1: Good; 
Panelist 2: Good; 
Panelist 3: Moderate; 
Panelist 4: Good; 
Panelist 5: Moderate; 
Panelist 6: Fair; 
Panelist 7: Moderate; 
Average rating: 3.3. 

Program: Highway; 
Panelist 1: Moderate; 
Panelist 2: Good; 
Panelist 3: Good; 
Panelist 4: Moderate; 
Panelist 5: Good; 
Panelist 6: Good; 
Panelist 7: Good; 
Average rating: 3.7. 

Note: The response scale ranged from 0 to 5 (0=No Guidance, 1=Poor, 
2=Fair, 3=Moderate, 4=Good, and 5=Excellent). None of the respondents 
rated the overall quality for any program as poor or excellent. 

[End of table] 

When assessing the quality of the three programs’ guidance 
collectively, some panelists indicated that the guidance was strong 
because of its clarity or currency, or the inclusion of ample 
technical guidance. Some panelists, however, were critical of the 
three programs’ guidance overall, noting that the guidance emphasizes 
the early determination and design stages to the detriment of the 
monitoring and evaluation stages, emphasizes wetlands to the detriment 
of uplands or adjacent lands, or fails to require corrective actions 
in those instances where projects do not succeed. 

In commenting on the strengths of the Civil Work’s guidance, some 
panelists indicated that the guidance emphasizes an ecosystem approach 
and considers adjacent lands and uplands; includes a good integration 
of other agencies’ roles and responsibilities and the various laws and 
policies; or provides good technical guidance for the design, 
construction, and monitoring stages. The majority of panelists, 
however, criticized the Corps’ reliance on economic tradeoffs to 
determine the acceptable mitigation alternatives as presented in the 
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.[Footnote 4] Several 
panelists indicated that the Corps’ reliance on this guidance 
interferes with the current thinking, which emphasizes selecting the 
least damaging alternative and considering adjacent lands when 
determining which alternative to select. In addition, some panelists 
criticized the Civil Works guidance as possibly being too broad, too 
detailed, incomplete as it relates to determining how much and what 
kind of mitigation should be undertaken, lacking examples of 
mitigation, or not current because it does not consider mitigation 
activities in a landscape context.[Footnote 5] 

In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Corps’ Regulatory 
Program’s guidance, the panelists primarily commented on the recently 
issued October 2001 Regulatory Guidance Letter.[Footnote 6] The 
panelists generally viewed the new guidance as an improvement over 
existing guidance because it: 

* is clearer, simpler, and more in line with current technical 
findings; 

* strengthens the importance of watershed context[Footnote 7] and 
functionality[Footnote 8] of affected areas; 

* enhances the existing guidance in the areas of determination and 
evaluation and places new emphasis on ecosystems rather than citing a 
preference for on-site in-kind mitigation;[Footnote 9] 

* suggests the consideration of landscape setting and indicates a 
continuing evolution to a function-based approach to mitigation; 
[Footnote 10] 

* is a positive step toward helping assess and quantify the amount of 
mitigation that is required; 

* calls for monitoring to be included as a permit condition; or; 

* provides more definitive instructions on how to determine mitigation 
ratios[Footnote 11] and types of mitigation, and addresses the long-
term viability of mitigation through establishing success criteria. 

While complimenting the new guidance, panelists also identified 
weaknesses. Namely, it: 

* still lacks the details and performance measures to truly advance 
wetlands protection; 

* continues to need to strengthen monitoring and evaluation activities; 

* still lacks sufficient specifics on how much and what type of 
mitigation is needed and what functions should be replaced; 

* does not provide specifics on how landscape settings should be 
considered; 

* allows credit for efforts undertaken in uplands, which means that 
wetlands functions and values will less likely be replaced in those 
situations; or: 

* continues to lack guidance on the minimum requirements of a 
conceptual mitigation plan. 

In assessing the Highway Program’s guidance, panelists were generally 
more complimentary of its content and presentation than of the Corps’ 
guidance. Several panelists found the guidance to: 

* be clearer and more focused; 

* be more effective in communicating current thinking; 

* be more user-friendly, with a step-by-step format; 

* provide the right amount of background information and technical 
alternatives; 

* include design options and examples; 

* be stronger than the Corps’ guidance in ensuring the long-run 
viability of the project because it calls for a compensation ratio 
greater than 1 to 1; or; 

* be more professionally presented because it allows the exercise of 
professional judgment. 

Panelists cited few weaknesses with the Highway Program’s guidance, 
and they did not point out the same weaknesses. For example, one 
panelist noted that monitoring activities involved monitoring 
compliance with the mitigation design rather than with measuring the 
functions and values[Footnote 12] to determine replacement success. 
This same panelist reported that more monitoring of construction is 
needed because mitigation will fail because of construction flaws and 
not because of design problems. Another panelist found that the 
guidance overemphasizes the use of mitigation banks,[Footnote 13] 
which may not always be appropriate. 

One panelist appeared to sum up the panelists’ comments, stating “... 
The three programs reviewed are within reach of mitigating many, but 
not all types of wetland habitats for fish and wildlife..... With 
modest improvements in guidance, the combined efforts of the three 
programs could reach a higher level of successful wetlands mitigation.” 

Suggestions for Improving Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance: 

Panelists offered several suggestions for improving both the format 
and the content of the three programs’ fish and wildlife mitigation 
guidance. In terms of format, almost all the panelists suggested the 
need for a single, unified body of guidance that would include both 
the regulatory and technical details necessary to effect successful 
mitigation. Doing so, according to some panelists, would improve the 
usability and readability of the guidance and better achieve 
consistency in operations and results. Among the suggested 
improvements, panelists recommended that the unified guidance include: 

* user-friendly, step-by-step instructions that tell applicants when 
they have to mitigate and that provide a general idea of how much 
mitigation will be required; 

* current guidance regularly updated on a website; 

* annotated outlines, more illustrations, case studies, and examples 
of lessons learned from past failures or successes and the reasons for 
them; 

* a requirement for an operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation 
funding plan to provide greater assurance that all project services 
will be provided over a broad range of contingencies; 

* a technically appropriate and consistent set of sampling measures 
applied throughout all stages of mitigation; or; 

* opportunities for flexibility and the exercise of professional 
judgment. 

Regarding the content of the guidance, some panelists strongly urged 
that more guidance be included on the monitoring and evaluation 
aspects of mitigation projects. Two panelists recommended ongoing—“
life cycle”—-monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation in 
light of explicit performance criteria and to provide a rationale for 
corrective action where appropriate. Some panelists suggested that the 
expanded monitoring and evaluation requirements should include systems 
to provide for feedback of evaluation results or that a separate 
budget be designated for monitoring and evaluation to ensure that 
adequate data be collected to determine project success. 

Panelists also suggested that the content of the current guidance be 
expanded to more fully include discussions on uplands species and 
habitat other than vegetated wetlands, such as open waters, streams, 
or stream banks. In addition, most of the panelists suggested that the 
current guidance more fully discuss the functions and values and how 
to determine the best way to replace them. According to one panelist, 
once the key functions are determined, general guidance should exist 
on how to translate the replacement of these functions into 
compensation ratios and combinations of in-kind and out-of-kind 
[Footnote 14] mitigation to ensure that the key functions are 
replaced. Another panelist suggested that permits should be denied if 
the functions and values will not be compensated and indicated that 
this requirement would decrease the likelihood of environmental 
degradation and increase the likelihood of successfully replacing lost 
functions. 

Panel’s Estimation of Achieving Successful Mitigation: 

We asked the panelists to estimate the percentage of success that 
mitigation projects could be expected to achieve in restoring the 
natural hydrologic conditions and native vegetation, and otherwise 
supporting native fish and wildlife species, under two circumstances: 
(1) if the present mitigation guidance were followed and (2) if the 
guidance were followed after being improved in the ways panelists 
proposed. Some panelists expressed concern in providing estimates 
because of (1) a lack of an empirical basis for any estimate, (2) 
insufficient first-hand knowledge about how closely the guidance is 
being followed, (3) insufficient basis for connecting success or 
failure with the degree to which the guidance was followed, or (4) a 
lack of knowledge about the competencies of the persons implementing 
the guidance. The panelists emphasized that any numbers provided would 
not be reliable, and GAO agrees. 

Panelists did, however, provide insights to the primary factors, other 
than the guidance, that could prevent a project from restoring 
hydrologic conditions, restoring native vegetation, and otherwise 
supporting native fish and wildlife species. The panel explained that 
project success could be affected by: 

* lack of experience or competence of those doing the work, or lack of 
proper project management; 

* cost constraints or inadequate funding; 

* poor site selection, poor construction, or improper implementation 
of design; 

* lack of control and/or lack of attention to surrounding landscape 
conditions, or external influences from adjacent areas such as urban 
development, heavy infestations of exotic species, and human and 
animal impacts; 

* unexpected conditions, such as major storms, that are difficult to 
control or manage or invasive weeds or wildlife species that dominate 
the site unexpectedly; 

* inadequate monitoring for fish and wildlife values and more focus on 
the easier measurement of hydrology and vegetation success; 

* monitoring to determine compliance with the design plan rather than 
monitoring functions and values, thus failing to account for poor 
designs; 

* lack of available biological materials, such as no seed bank; 

* problems in creating some types of wetlands because they are 
inherently difficult to replicate (peat bogs being the extreme 
example); 

* wetlands that cover extremely small areas, or appropriate land is 
unavailable; 

* not ensuring that corrective measures will be taken for failures in 
the restoration project after construction; or; 

* not fully restoring lost hydrology or vegetation if mitigation banks 
are used to compensate for losses in different watersheds. 

One panelist noted that a certain percentage of all restorations will 
fail in the attempt to restore native vegetation and wildlife. 
According to the panelist, the failure rate for “created” wetlands and 
other habitats is much higher than for restored sites, so it is 
important to distinguish the type of site being discussed. Another 
panelist stated that in some situations, lost functions and values are 
impossible to replace because of their location within the watershed, 
the lack of mitigation sites within the watershed, or the type of 
wetlands that were damaged. 

A third panelist noted that, in general, restoring “natural hydrologic 
conditions” is only possible in “restoration” efforts (rather than “
creation” or “enhancement” efforts or both), and this is only a 
portion of the compensation activities undertaken in these programs. 
According to the panelist, restoration of natural conditions is most 
likely to succeed when the impacts of projects occur only on the site 
under restoration. In all other circumstances, the panelist said, the 
probability of success diminishes regardless of the technical 
sophistication of the practitioner. Furthermore, restoring native 
vegetation is theoretically possible only when appropriate natural 
hydrologic conditions have been established. Therefore, success in 
this effort cannot exceed the success in hydrologic engineering. In 
addition, restoring native fish and wildlife species is more 
difficult, generally because the surrounding area has been affected, 
and thus the landscape setting is uncontrollably altered. In the 
panelist’s view, restoration of a natural community of species on 
compensatory mitigation sites is exceptionally difficult. 

Views of the Agencies: 

We provided the Departments of Transportation and Defense with copies 
of the draft report for review and comment. The Department of 
Transportation reviewed the draft report and chose not to provide 
comments. The Department of Defense, in its comments, stated its view 
that GAO’s study has shown that the Corps met the mitigation 
requirements of section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986. However, we did not review or evaluate the Corps' overall 
compliance with section 906 nor did we reach any conclusion in this 
regard. Additionally, the department clarified that for three projects 
identified in appendix II for which mitigation had not begun, 
mitigation is scheduled for later in the construction sequence because 
site conditions do not allow mitigation to occur earlier. We have 
added a footnote to the table in appendix II to reflect the Corps’ 
explanation. 

In addition, the department raised concerns about the difficulties in 
comparing the fish and wildlife mitigation guidance of the three 
programs. 

Specifically, the department pointed out that the Corps’ two programs 
are primarily water resource development-oriented, while the Highway 
Program is oriented to building highways. Additionally, the department 
said that both the Highway and Civil Works Programs operate on a much 
longer timeline than the Corps’ Regulatory Program and the Corps’ 
Regulatory Program’s activities are generally on a much smaller scale 
and rarely approach the scope of the Civil Works Program. While we 
agree that the focus of the three programs selected for comparison is 
different, we believe that the agencies’ programs include similarities 
in that they are nationwide in scope and provide for mitigation 
against environmental impacts to fish and wildlife in the course of 
their construction activities. Additionally, our panelists did not 
express concern that the differences among the three programs affected 
their ability to assess the content and format of the three agencies’ 
fish and wildlife mitigation guidance. A copy of the Department of 
Defense’s detailed comments is included as appendix VI. 

We conducted our work from February 2001 through April 2002 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Details of our scope and methodology are discussed in appendix I. 

We are sending copies of this report to the secretaries of defense and 
transportation, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the army 
(civil works) and the administrator, Federal Highway Administration. 
We will also provide copies to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call 
me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

Barry T. Hill: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541, section 224 
(b)) required GAO to obtain information on the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers’ efforts to mitigate for adverse impacts on fish and 
wildlife resources and their habitat in the construction of its water 
resources projects authorized since the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986. In discussions with the Senate Committee on Environment 
and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, we agreed to (1) determine the number of U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works projects for which less than 50 
percent of mitigation was completed before the start of project 
construction and (2) establish a panel of scientific experts to 
compare the Corps’ Civil Works Program’s national guidance on fish and 
wildlife mitigation activities with the mitigation guidance for the 
Corps’ Regulatory Program and with the guidance for the Federal 
Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program. 

Number of Corps’ Projects: 

To determine the number of the Corps’ water resources projects subject 
to the mitigation requirement of the 1986 act and the number of those 
projects not completing 50 percent of the required fish and wildlife 
mitigation before initiating construction, we formally requested that 
the Corps provide us with the following information: (1) the universe 
of projects authorized since the 1986 act; (2) of these authorized 
projects, the number for which federal construction funds were 
appropriated; and (3) of the authorized projects receiving federal 
construction funds, the number that did and did not require a fish and 
wildlife mitigation plan in accordance with the 1986 act. For those 
projects requiring a mitigation plan, we asked for the number of 
projects that had and had not begun construction, the number of 
projects that had and had not begun mitigation activities, the 
percentage of mitigation completed before construction began, and the 
percentage of mitigation completed as of September 30, 2001. We also 
requested that the Corps provide project-specific information, 
including project name, location, and purpose or type of project. The 
Corps solicited the information from its district offices. 

The 2000 act does not define what constitutes completion of 50 percent 
of required mitigation. For the purposes of this report, the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure asked us to request that the Corps 
develop its own definition. In our request to the Corps, we asked the 
Corps to apply this definition when obtaining the data from its 
district offices. The Corps defined the completion of 50 percent of 
required mitigation as follows: 

“Construction is initiated when the first non-mitigation related 
construction contract is awarded. The compensatory mitigation 50-
percent completion point occurs in the fiscal year that the district 
makes expenditures toward the mitigation plan that cumulatively total 
at least 50 percent of the estimated cost of these activities. The 
expenditures could consist of hired labor, contracts, etc., as well as 
lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas 
required for any compensatory mitigation plan identified in the 
feasibility report.” 

Because the congressional committees asked us not to collect original 
data, we limited our analysis to clarifying any apparent 
inconsistencies in the Corps’ data with agency officials. 

Scientific Panel’s Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance: 

The 2000 act requested that we assess the Corps’ Civil Works Program’s 
mitigation methods compared to those used in other publicly and 
privately financed mitigation projects and did not specifically 
identify the other entities. In discussions with committee staffs, we 
agreed that the scientific panel should review and compare the fish 
and wildlife mitigation guidance of these entities rather than 
assessing the methods. Therefore, we needed to (1) identify and select 
other entities undertaking mitigation activities, 

(2) obtain the relevant fish and wildlife mitigation guidance from the 
entities, and (3) establish a scientific panel of experts. To identify 
which publicly and privately financed projects should be compared with 
the Corps’ Civil Works Program, we spoke with representatives of the 
Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, 
the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Transit 
Administration, and the National Academy of Sciences to obtain 
suggestions for relevant entities to select. On the basis of these 
discussions, we selected the Corps’ Regulatory Program and the Federal 
Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program for comparison to 
the Corps’ Civil Works Program. Both programs are national in scope 
and some individual construction projects undertaken could be of the 
same magnitude as those of the Corps’ Civil Works Program. 

To obtain the fish and wildlife mitigation guidance, we spoke with 
representatives of the Corps’ Civil Works and Regulatory Programs, the 
Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program, as well 
as the Corps’ Office of Research and Development to identify the (1) 
role of national and local/regional mitigation guidance in 
implementing the agencies’ projects, (2) types of guidance provided to 
program participants, and (3) guidance the agencies considered to be 
the key fish and wildlife mitigation guidance. We requested that the 
agencies provide us with copies of key national policy, procedural, 
and scientific/technical guidance (including applicable models) on 
mitigating adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and their 
habitat. We limited our request to national guidance because both the 
Corps and the Federal Highway Administration rely on local districts, 
regions, or states to supplement the national guidance to address 
local environmental considerations, and the potential existed for 
obtaining voluminous guidance from 38 Corps districts and the 50 
states. Such voluminous guidance would be unreasonable for a 
scientific panel to assess in a short time frame. 

Initially, the agencies provided about 78 documents-—or about 5,400 
pages-—that they considered to be key national policy, procedural, and 
scientific/technical guidance. Because of the complexity of the issues 
involved in assessing this mitigation guidance, we employed a 
consultant as a technical adviser. The adviser reviewed this guidance 
and identified documents that potentially could be excluded from the 
panelists’ review. We met with agency representatives to seek 
agreement on which documents would be essential to review. From those 
discussions, we decided to provide the panelists a total of about 
2,500 pages of guidance in the categories of (1) policy guidance 
applicable to all agencies, (2) technical guidance applicable to all 
agencies, (3) Corps’ Civil Works Program guidance, (4) Corps’ 
Regulatory Program guidance, and (5) Federal Highway Administration 
guidance. (See appendix III for the guidance documents the panelists 
reviewed.) 

To establish our scientific panel of experts, we needed to identify 
persons who collectively would possess the necessary knowledge, 
skills, and experiences related to fish and wildlife mitigation and 
have a general knowledge of the Corps’ Civil Works and Regulatory 
Programs and/or the Federal-aid Highway Program. The Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the National Academy of Sciences, and some of our 
staff suggested names of potential panelists. We contacted several of 
the identified persons, inquired whether they had an interest in 
serving on the scientific panel, asked them for the names of 
additional persons whom we might want to consider having on the panel, 
and received their biographical data. Our technical adviser suggested 
factors to consider in developing and assessing a pool of candidates, 
reviewed the list of potential candidates and suggested additional 
names, and provided recommendations about the size and makeup of the 
panel. (See appendix VII for a listing of the panel members.) 

To better ensure the panel’s consistent assessment of the three 
programs’ fish and wildlife mitigation guidance, we developed an 
assessment instrument to rate the guidance and included a series of 
open-ended questions that each panelist would complete. The assessment 
instrument asked the panelists to rate each program’s guidance for 
five stages of a mitigation project-—determination, design, 
construction, monitoring, and evaluation. The rating consisted of a 
numeric score (0 for no guidance to 5 for excellent guidance) for each 
of five attributes of the guidance (complete, current, clear, broad, 
and viable) as well as a rating for the overall quality of the 
guidance for each mitigation stage. For each stage, panelists provided 
narrative justifications for their ratings. Panelists then rated each 
program’s collective guidance and provided a narrative summary of the 
strengths and weaknesses of the guidance and the relative quality of 
the three programs’ guidance. We also asked the panelists to answer a 
number of open-ended questions dealing with mitigation. Before sending 
the assessment instrument to the panelists, we asked two mitigation 
experts, who were familiar with the three programs and our target 
population of panelists, to conduct an expert review of our assessment 
instrument. The experts reviewed the questionnaire for clarity, logic, 
and to ensure the appropriateness of the questions for the panelists. 

On October 31, 2001, after we had sent the original material to the 
panelists, the Corps’ Regulatory Program issued some new mitigation 
guidance. We subsequently asked the panelists to respond to questions 
regarding the new guidance, improvements to the mitigation guidance, 
and estimating the success of mitigation projects. The panelists 
provided their preliminary assessments, we compiled the responses, and 
then distributed this compilation to the panelists so they had an 
opportunity to review and revise their numeric and narrative responses. 

We conducted our work from February 2001 through April 2002 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Corps’ 47 Projects Since the Act of 1986 with a Fish & 
Wildlife Mitigation Plan & Receiving Construction Appropriations: 

According to the Corps of Engineers, 47 of its 217 water resources 
projects authorized since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
required a fish and wildlife mitigation plan and received construction 
appropriations. Of these, 28 did not complete at least 50 percent of 
mitigation before the start of project construction. Of the remaining 
19 projects, 7 completed at least 50 percent of mitigation; 2 projects 
had not started actual construction but had done some mitigation; and 
10 projects had not started construction or mitigation as of September 
30, 2001. Almost half (21) of the 47 projects are located in three 
states—California (10), Florida (6), and West Virginia (5). Of the 34 
projects starting construction, 16 completed 100 percent of the 
mitigation as of September 30, 2001, according to the Corps. 

Nearly half (13) of the 28 projects not completing at least 50 percent 
of mitigation before the start of construction were flood control 
projects; 11 were navigation-type projects; 3 were bluff stability-
type projects; and the remaining project was an irrigation project. 
Some of the mitigation activities planned for these 28 projects 
included acquiring lands and obtaining easements; creating wetlands; 
planting seedlings, trees, shrubs, and other vegetation; creating 
artificial reefs for shore protection; and protecting slopes with 
stone. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Corps’ 47 Projects Since the Act of 1986 with a Fish & 
Wildlife Mitigation Plan & Receiving Construction Appropriations: 

Table II.1: Percent of Mitigation Completed for 47 Water Resources 
Projects Authorized Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
That Required a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan and Received 
Construction Appropriations, as of September 30, 2001: 

Projects not completing 50 percent of mitigation before construction 
initiated: 

Project: 1. Petaluma River; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 25%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 55%. 

Project: 2. Guadalupe River; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 24%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 75%. 

Project: 3. West Sacramento; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 22%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 24%. 

Project: 4. Norco Bluffs; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 5%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 60%. 

Project: 5. Olmsted Locks and Dam; 
State: Kentucky; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 1%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 90%. 

Project: 6. Sitka Harbor; 
State: Alaska; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 7. Coyote and Berryessa Creeks; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 8. San Lorenzo River; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 9. Rio Grande; 
State: Colorado; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 10. Martin County; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Shore Protection; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 11. Ft. Pierce Harbor; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 12. Savanna Harbor Deepening; 
State: Georgia; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 13. Hickman Bluff; 
State: Kentucky; 
Purpose: Bluff Stability; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 14. Port Fourchon; 
State: Louisiana; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: No[B]; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 15. West Columbus; 
State: Ohio; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 16. McGrath Creek; 
State: Texas; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 17. Wolf and Jordan Rivers; 
State: Mississippi; 
Purpose: Dredging; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 90%. 

Project: 18. Aloha-Rigolette; 
State: Louisiana; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 78%. 

Project: 19. Wilmington Harbor; 
State: North Carolina; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 75%. 

Project: 20. Houston-Galveston Ship 
State: Texas; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 67%. 

Project: 21. La. State Penitentiary; 
State: Louisiana; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 66%. 

Project: 22. Palm Valley Bridge; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 50%. 

Project: 23. Kentucky Lock Addition; 
State: Kentucky; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 35%. 

Project: 24. American River Watershed; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 10%. 

Project: 25. Ft. Pierce Beach; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Shore Protection; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 10%. 

Project: 26. Grand Prairie; 
State: Arkansas; 
Purpose: Irrigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: No[C];
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 27. Oakland Harbor; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: No[C]; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 28. Duck Creek; 
State: Ohio; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: No[C]; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 0; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Projects completing 50 percent or more of mitigation before 
construction initiated: 

Project: 1. Tropicana & Flamingo Washes; 
State: Nevada; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 100%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 2. Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek; 
State: South Dakota; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 100%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 3. Moorefield; 
State: West Virginia; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 100%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 4. Petersburg; 
State: West Virginia; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 100%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Project: 5. Wood River; 
State: Nebraska; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 63%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 86%. 

Project: 6. Kaweah River; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 50%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 78%. 

Project: 7. Miami Harbor; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: Yes; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: 50%; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 100%. 

Projects where some mitigation occurred but construction has not been 
initiated: 

Project: 1. Brunswick Harbor; 
State: Georgia;
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 3%. 

Project: 2. Marmet Lock; 
State: West Virginia; 
Purpose: Navigation; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: Yes; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 2%. 

Projects where neither construction nor mitigation has been initiated: 

Project: 1. Nogales Wash and Tributaries; 
State: Arizona; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 2. Success Dam; 
State: California; 
Purpose: Dam Safety; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 3. Wares Creek; 
State: Florida; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 4. Bear Grass Creek; 
State: Kentucky; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 5. Comite River; 
State: Louisiana; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 6. Arecibo; 
State: Puerto Rico; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 7. Rio de La Plata; 
State: Puerto Rico; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 8. Upper Jordan River; 
State: Utah; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 9. Greenbrier River; 
State: West Virginia; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable;
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

Project: 10. Lower Mud River; 
State: West Virginia; 
Purpose: Flood Control; 
Construction initiated: No; 
Mitigation initiated: No; 
Percent of mitigation completed before construction initiated[A]: Not 
applicable; 
Percent of mitigation completed as of 09/30/01: 0. 

[A] Is not applicable because construction has not been initiated. 

[B] Project is self-mitigating through beneficial use of dredged 
material. 

[C] Mitigation is scheduled for later in the construction sequence 
because site conditions do not allow mitigation to occur earlier. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Guidance Documents Reviewed by Panel: 

Governmentwide Policy Guidance: 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, (1977) [entire 
document]. 

CEQ Regulations on the National Environmental Policy Act, (1978) 
[entire document]. 

FWS mitigation policy, (1981) [entire document]. 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, (1980) [entire document]. 

EPA/Corps memorandum of agreement concerning section 404(b)(1) 
guidelines, (1990) [entire document]. 

Joint FWS/NMFS/NOAA Regulations on the Endangered Species Act, [entire 
document]. 

Memorandum: Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for 
Implementation of the Endangered Species Act, (1994) [entire document]. 

Multi-agency Guidance on Mitigation Banking, (1995) [entire document]. 

NMFS Regulations on Essential Fish Habitat, (1997) [entire document]. 

General Technical Guidance: 

Wetlands Engineering Handbook, Corps of Engineers, (2000) [paper copy 
and compact disc]. 

“EXHGM: Expert Hydrogeomorphic Approach,” Corps of Engineers’ Fact 
Sheet, (2000) [entire document]. 

“Habitat-Net: An Interactive Network for Habitat Evaluation 
Professionals,” Corps of Engineers’ Fact Sheet, (2000) [entire 
document]. 

“WIMS: Wildlife Information Management System,” Corps of Engineers’ 
Fact Sheet, (2000) [entire document]. 

“Erosion Control for Restoration and Environmental Benefits,” Corps of 
Engineers’ Fact Sheet, (2000) [entire document]. 

“Wildlife Habitat Restoration and Management,” Corps of Engineers’ 
Fact Sheet, (2000) [entire document]. 

Examples of Performance Standards for Wetland Creation and Restoration 
in Section 404 Permits and an Approach to Developing Performance 
Standards, Corps of Engineers, (1999) [entire document]. 

Case Study: Application of the HGM Western Kentucky Low-Gradient 
Riverine Guidebook to Monitoring of Wetland Development, Corps of 
Engineers, (1999) [entire document]. 

Restoration of Mangrove Habitat, Corps of Engineers, (2000) [entire 
document]. 

Design and Construction of Docks to Minimize Seagrass Impacts, Corps 
of Engineers, (1999) [entire document]. 

Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Hydrologic Assessments of 
Potential Wetland Sites, Corps of Engineers, (2000) [entire document]. 

Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands, Corps of 
Engineers, (2000) [entire document]. 

Importing Plant Stock for Wetland Restoration and Creation: 
Maintaining Genetic Diversity and Integrity, Corps of Engineers, 
(2000) [entire document]. 

Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management 
Alternatives—A Technical Framework, EPA and Corps of Engineers, (1992) 
[entire document]. 

Consultation Handbook for Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered 
Species Act, FWS and NMFS, (1998) [Web site location: Go to 
[hyperlink, http://endangered.fws.gov] and click on “consultations” 
and then click on “Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook”. The 
final website is [hyperlink, 
http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm.] 

Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program Guidance: 

Digest of Water Resource Policies and Authorities, (1999) [chapters 3 
and 19]. 

Planning Guidance Notebook, (2000) [chapters 1-4, appendixes C and E]. 
Corps of Engineers NEPA Procedures, (1988) [entire document]. 

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, (1983) [pages iii-ix, 
107137]. 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY 
Steps, (1994) [pages iii-viii and 1-10]. 

FWS/Corps Agreement on funding FWCA activities, (1982) [entire 
document]. 

Corps of Engineers’ Regulatory Program Guidance: 

Administrative Regulations, 33 C.F.R. Parts 320, 322, 323, 325 and 330. 

Regulatory Guidance Letter 93-2, on Flexibility of the 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines and Mitigation Banking [entire document]. 

Regulatory Guidance Letter 01-1 on Guidance for the Establishment and 
Maintenance of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Under the Corps 
Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act 
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, (2001) [entire 
document]. 

Standard Operating Procedures [section 18, Compensatory Mitigation]. 

Federal Highway Administration Guidance: 

Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands and Natural Habitat, 23 C.F.R. Part 
777, (2000) [entire document]. 

Memorandum: Participation in Funding for Ecological Mitigation, (1995) 
[entire document]. 

Memorandum: Guidelines for the Consideration of Highway Project 
Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Resources, (1989) [entire document]. 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, (2000) [chapter 5]. 

Memorandum: Financial Assurances for Wetland Mitigation Banks, (1997) 
[entire document]. 

Memorandum: Eligibility of “Historic Wetlands” for ISTEA Funding, 
(1997) [entire document]. 

Memorandum: Use of Private Wetland Mitigation Banks as Compensatory 
Mitigation for Highway Project Impacts, (1995) [entire document]. 

Memorandum: Funding for Establishment of Wetland Mitigation Banks, 
(1994) [entire document]. 

Memorandum: Wetland Delineation and Mitigation, (1994) [entire 
document]. 

DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, (1978) 
[entire document]. 

NCHRP Report 379: Guidelines for the Development of Wetland 
Replacement Areas, Transportation Research Board, National Research 
Council, (1996) [entire document]. 

Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to Federal-Aid Highway 
Projects, FHWA, COE, EPA, FWS, NOAA, (1988) [entire document]. 

Highways and Wetlands: Compensating Wetlands Losses, (1986) [entire 
document]. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Assessment Instrument Used by Panel: 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GA0:  

Evaluation of Guidance on Mitigating Fish and Wildlife Impacts: 

Introduction: 

The U.S. General Accounting Office, an independent agency of the 
Congress, is authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
to review and report on the quality of the guidance used in the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Civil Works Program for mitigating 
losses of fish and wildlife. As part of this effort, GAO is consulting 
with a panel of experts to compare the guidance on mitigating the 
losses to fish and wildlife that is available for the following three 
federal programs: the Corps' Civil Works Program, the Corps' 
Regulatory Program and the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-
Aid Highway Program. As you know, you are one of the experts who have 
agreed to serve on that panel.  

Panel Responses:  

Panelists will be expected to rate the guidance for the three 
programs. We recommend that you spend several hours reviewing the 
binders of guidance. First, after reviewing the agencies' guidance, 
panelists will assess-—for each program-—five attributes (complete, 
current, clear, broad, and viable) and an overall rating considering 
all five attributes. This assessment will be for each stage of a 
mitigation project-—determination, design, construction, monitoring, 
and evaluation. Panelists will record these numeric ratings on the 
answer form for question 1. The summary numeric rating assessing the 
quality of the guidance for all attributes at all stages should be 
provided on the answer form for question 3. In determining the 
specific numeric rating (0 for no guidance to 5 for excellent), 
panelists should review the considerations listed in appendix A for 
each attribute and for each stage of a mitigation project. The 
considerations should serve as a starting point, but not a 
comprehensive set of considerations.  

Secondly, for question 2, panelists will be expected to provide a 
narrative that supports the overall ratings for each of the mitigation 
stages. As part of this effort, panelists could explain the rating for
certain attributes of a stage of a mitigation project or why a certain 
program was given a certain rating. Providing references or citations 
to specific documents would be helpful. Our final report will present 
the results of these assessments. These narrative explanations should 
be included in hardcopy or preferably on the computer diskette 
provided (file name "responses.doc"). 

Thirdly, in question 4, panelists will be expected to provide a 
supporting narrative for the summary ratings in question 3 that 
considers collectively each of the five attributes and each of the 
mitigation stages. This narrative should present the panelist's 
summary assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the guidance and 
the relative quality of the three programs' guidance. We are 
requesting that you provide references or citations to specific
documents in your narrative responses. In question 5, panelists are 
being asked to provide their opinion on whether implementation of the 
mitigation guidance would result in restoration of natural hydrologic 
conditions and native vegetation and support native fish and wildlife 
species. Our final report will present the results. The narrative
explanations should be included in hardcopy or preferably on the 
computer diskette provided (file name "responses.doc"). 

Finally, for questions 6 and 7, panelists will be expected to answer 
two specific questions on the guidance of the three programs. These 
narrative explanations should be included in hardcopy or preferably on 
the computer diskette provided (file name "responses.doc"). 

Documents Provided: 

The carton that accompanies this letter contains binders with several 
hundred pages of documents about mitigation guidance. The materials 
come under the following general headings: 

I: GOVERNMENTWIDE POLICY GUIDANCE: 

II: GENERAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE:  

III: CORPS' CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM GUIDANCE:  

IV: CORPS' REGULATORY PROGRAM GUIDANCE  

V: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION'S GUIDANCE: 
 
Appendix B lists all documents contained in the binders. Appendix C is 
a shorter version of appendix B, listing key documents by stage of 
mitigation and providing page numbers or chapters within those 
documents that you should use as a starting point for completing the 
ratings in question 1. However, you should refer to the larger set of 
documents to provide a broader and complete perspective when answering 
question 1.  

In accordance with our contract, your completed questionnaire and any 
electronic files must be submitted in the enclosed pre-addressed, 
postage-paid envelope by November 7, 2001. In the event the envelope 
is misplaced, the return address is: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Ms. Linda Harmon:
441 G Street, NW, Room 2T23A: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

If you have technical questions related to the stages of mitigation, 
the attributes of the guidance, or the considerations in appendix A, 
please contact Bill Matuszeski at 202-544-2691, bmat@olg.com. If you 
have any general questions, please contact either Posey McCarthy at 
(202) 512-4916, mccarthyr@gao.gov or Linda Harmon at (202) 512-
8046, harmon@gao.gov. 
 
1. How do you rate each attribute of the guidance for each of the five 
mitigation stages? (Give a separate rating for each attribute on each 
of the five stages. Record your answers to this question in the grid 
below.) 0 No guidance, 1 Poor, 2 Fair, 3 Moderate, 4 Good or 5 
Excellent. 

Stage of Mitigation Project: Determination Stage: This is the stage 
when a determination is made of (a) whether compensatory mitigation is 
required for project impacts, and (b) the amount of mitigation: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Current:  
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Design Stage: This includes all pre-
construction guidance once the decision on the need and extent of 
compensatory mitigation has been made. It should include both policy 
and technical guidance with respect to the necessary features and 
performance characteristics of the mitigation project: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Current:  
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Construction Stage: This includes land 
acquisition as well as all activity on the site of the mitigation 
project, and the timing and other relationships with respect to the 
project creating the need for mitigation. The application of the 
guidance to all entities that have roles in construction of the 
mitigation project also needs to be considered: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Current:  
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Monitoring Stage: This includes 
monitoring of the mitigation site before, during, and after 
construction. Monitoring guidance should establish the extent of 
federal agency responsibility and should be clear about its 
applicability to others involved in the mitigation project: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Current:  
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Evaluation Stage: This includes three 
elements: (1) determining the overall effectiveness and success of the 
mitigation project; (2) determining what to do if a project is shown 
by the monitoring program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; 
and (3) determining the implications for improving future mitigation 
projects: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Current:  
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge): 
Corps Civil Works: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
 
Stage of Mitigation Project: Determination Stage: This is the stage 
when a determination is made of (a) whether compensatory mitigation is 
required for project impacts, and (b) the amount of mitigation: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Clear: 
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Broad: 
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Design Stage: This includes all pre-
construction guidance once the decision on the need and extent of 
compensatory mitigation has been made. It should include both policy 
and technical guidance with respect to the necessary features and 
performance characteristics of the mitigation project: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Clear: 
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Broad: 
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Construction Stage: This includes land 
acquisition as well as all activity on the site of the mitigation 
project, and the timing and other relationships with respect to the 
project creating the need for mitigation. The application of the 
guidance to all entities that have roles in construction of the 
mitigation project also needs to be considered: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Clear: 
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Broad: 
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Monitoring Stage: This includes 
monitoring of the mitigation site before, during, and after 
construction. Monitoring guidance should establish the extent of 
federal agency responsibility and should be clear about its 
applicability to others involved in the mitigation project: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Clear: 
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Broad: 
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Evaluation Stage: This includes three 
elements: (1) determining the overall effectiveness and success of the 
mitigation project; (2) determining what to do if a project is shown 
by the monitoring program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; 
and (3) determining the implications for improving future mitigation 
projects: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Clear: 
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Broad: 
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Determination Stage: This is the stage 
when a determination is made of (a) whether compensatory mitigation is 
required for project impacts, and (b) the amount of mitigation: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Overall quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Design Stage: This includes all pre-
construction guidance once the decision on the need and extent of 
compensatory mitigation has been made. It should include both policy 
and technical guidance with respect to the necessary features and 
performance characteristics of the mitigation project: 
Attributes of Mitigation Guidance: 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Overall quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Construction Stage: This includes land 
acquisition as well as all activity on the site of the mitigation 
project, and the timing and other relationships with respect to the 
project creating the need for mitigation. The application of the 
guidance to all entities that have roles in construction of the 
mitigation project also needs to be considered: 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Overall quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Monitoring Stage: This includes 
monitoring of the mitigation site before, during, and after 
construction. Monitoring guidance should establish the extent of 
federal agency responsibility and should be clear about its 
applicability to others involved in the mitigation project: 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Overall quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Stage of Mitigation Project: Evaluation Stage: This includes three 
elements: (1) determining the overall effectiveness and success of the 
mitigation project; (2) determining what to do if a project is shown 
by the monitoring program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; 
and (3) determining the implications for improving future mitigation 
projects: 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future): 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Overall quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
Corps Regulatory: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance: 
FHWA: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 
0 No guidance:  

Open-ended Questions: Narrative Explanations: 

2. After considering all the factors that led to your overall quality 
rating of the guidance documents at each stage, please compare and 
contrast the quality of the guidance documents for the Corps' Civil
Works Program to the guidance documents for both the Corps' Regulatory 
Program and the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid Highway 
Program. What are the primary factors that you considered in rating 
the guidance for each of the mitigation stages in Question 1? In your 
response, please provide justification for your rating on the 
attributes (e.g., complete, current, clear, broad, and viable) that 
influenced your overall rating of the quality of the guidance 
documents for each stage. 

A. Determination Stage: 

B. Design Stage: 

C. Construction Stage: 

D. Monitoring Stage: 

E. Evaluation Stage: 
 
Summary Rating: 

3. What is your single summary rating of the guidance provided for 
mitigating the losses of fish and wildlife and associated habitat? 
(Please circle one number for each program and return to GAO along 
with Question 1 answer form.)    

Summary rating of guidance for mitigating losses of fish, wildlife 
habitat: 

Corps' Civil Works Program: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 

Corps' Regulatory Program: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 

FHWA Program: 
5 Excellent: 
4 Good: 
3 Moderate: 
2 Fair: 
1 Poor: 

4. What aspects of each program's guidance were most important in 
determining the differences and similarities of your summary ratings 
in Question 3? In your response, consider the quality of the guidance 
documents for each program as they relate to the various attributes–
complete, current, clear, broad, and viable. Please include any other 
considerations that led to you summary rating. (Provide a complete 
explanation in the electronic file on the diskette provided.) 

5. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 requests that GAO 
examine the extent to which mitigation projects restore natural 
hydrologic conditions, restore native vegetation, and otherwise 
support native fish and wildlife species. In your opinion, if you 
followed the guidance for each of the three programs, would the 
mitigation projects restore natural hydrologic conditions, restore 
native vegetation, and otherwise support native fish and wildlife 
species? Please explain the basis for your response. 

6. The Corps' Civil Works Program relies on the Economic and 
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land 
Resources Implementation Studies (P&G) (tab P in the binder entitled 
"Corps Civil Works Program Guidance") as a part of the Corps' project 
construction determination. Unlike the Planning Guidance Notebook, the 
P&G establishes a trade-off between economic and environmental 
benefits. Does reliance on the P&G interfere with current thinking 
with respect to the Civil Works Program's approach to fish and 
wildlife mitigation? (Provide a complete explanation in the electronic 
file on the diskette provided.) 

7. The two Corps of Engineers' programs each rely heavily on a single 
document for nationwide guidance--the Planning Guidance Notebook (tab 
N in the binder entitled "Corps Civil Works Program Guidance") for the 
Civil Works Program and the Administrative Regulations (tab T in the 
binder entitled "Corps Regulatory Program Guidance") for the 
Regulatory Program. The FHWA guidance is less centralized and more 
issue-specific. Is one approach more effective than the other with 
respect to mitigation guidance? Is each approach appropriate to the 
nature of the program it applies to? (Provide a complete explanation 
in the electronic file on the diskette provided.) 

8. On October 31, 2001, the Corps' Regulatory Program issued new 
guidance in response to the National Research Council's June 2001 
report. Considering the five stages of mitigation—determination, 
design, construction, monitoring, and evaluation—and the six 
attributes of the guidance complete, current, clear, broad, viable, 
and overall quality—and your previous responses to questions 1 to 7, 
please assess the new guidance (Guidance for the Establishment and
Maintenance of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Under the Corps 
Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 (a) of the Clean Water Act 
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899) and answer the 
following two questions: 

* Does the new guidance enhance any of the strengths of the previously 
reviewed Corps' Regulatory Program guidance, correct any of the 
previous weaknesses identified, conflict with existing guidance, or 
leave unanswered some of the issues you previously identified during 
your review? Please explain. 

* If you initially had this guidance as part of the documents from the 
Corps' Regulatory Program, would you have modified any of your 
narrative or numeric scores? If so, which ones and why? 

9. A number of panelists remarked favorably that the Corps Civil Works 
program guidance takes an ecosystem-based approach to mitigation. 
Other panelists criticized all three programs for failing to deal 
effectively with adjacent lands and offsite impacts. Please more fully 
explain your position on this issue to help us better understand these 
evidently divergent views. 

10. Intertwined among the panelists' responses were a number of 
suggestions to improve the mitigation guidance for the three programs. 
Please identify your top three proposals for change. These proposals 
may be program-specific or more general.  

11. In your opinion, what is a reliable estimate of the percentage of 
success that mitigation projects could be expected to achieve in (a) 
restoring the natural hydrologic conditions, (b) restoring native 
vegetation, and (c) otherwise supporting native fish and wildlife 
species, under the following three situations: (1) "Business as usual" 
implementation of present guidance (e.g., present guidance followed to 
the extent it is currently followed); (2) if the present guidance were 
actually followed; and (3) if the guidance were followed after being 
improved in the ways you and the other panelists have proposed? 

Note: Estimate percentages across all projects for which you can 
judge, and take into account any other factors, such as site 
characteristics, professional qualifications of planners, quality of 
contract execution, policy constraints, legal constraints, resource 
limitations, cost/benefit trade-offs, etc., that might affect    
outcomes.  

If you feel that you are not able to give a reliable estimate, enter 
"NA" in the answer space(s) and explain in Question 13 below. 

Program: Corps Civil Works; 
Outcome: Restore natural hydrologic conditions;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 
    
Program: Corps Civil Works; 
Outcome: Restore native vegetation;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 

Program: Corps Civil Works; 
Outcome: Otherwise support native fish and wildlife species;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 

Program: Corps Regulatory; 
Outcome: Restore natural hydrologic conditions;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 
    
Program: Corps Regulatory; 
Outcome: Restore native vegetation;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 

Program: Corps Regulatory; 
Outcome: Otherwise support native fish and wildlife species;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 

Program: Federal Highway Administration; 
Outcome: Restore natural hydrologic conditions;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 
    
Program: Federal Highway Administration; 
Outcome: Restore native vegetation;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed: 

Program: Federal Highway Administration; 
Outcome: Otherwise support native fish and wildlife species;   
Estimated percentage of success to be achieved (Enter "NA" if you 
cannot make a reliable estimate):   
"Business as usual" implementation: 
If present guidance followed: 
If improved guidance followed:  
 
12. Where you feel elaboration might be helpful, please briefly 
explain your rationale for your percentage estimates above.  

13. What factors prevent you from providing a reliable estimate of the 
percentages in Question 11? (Answer only if you marked "NA" in one or 
more of the cells in the table above to indicate that you
could not make a reliable estimate.) 

14. What are the primary factors, other than the guidance, that could 
prevent a project from restoring natural hydrologic conditions, 
restoring native vegetation, and otherwise supporting native fish and 
wildlife species? (Answer only if any of the answers in Question 11 
are less than 100% or are "NA".) 

Appendix A: Considerations For Evaluating Quality Of Mitigation 
Guidance: 

Stage of Mitigation Project: 
Determination Stage: This is the stage when a determination is made of 
(a) whether compensatory mitigation is required for project impacts, 
and (b) the amount of mitigation; 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Consider whether the guidance:
* covers the range of circumstances in which mitigation requirements 
might reasonably arise; 
* covers the amount of required mitigation; 
Current:
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* demonstrates consistency with current statutory and regulatory 
requirements for mitigating fish and wildlife and associated habitat 
losses; 
* includes the most current technical developments that affect the 
need and extent of mitigation. 

Design Stage: This includes all pre-construction guidance once the 
decision on the need and extent of compensatory mitigation has been 
made. It should include guidance with respect to the necessary
features and performance characteristics of the mitigation project; 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Consider whether the guidance:
* provides essentially all parameters needed to design effective 
mitigation projects.
* provides adequate examples of good design and information about 
successes and failures or lessons learned, or (if previous two not
included); 
* provides adequate cross-references to other documents or sources.
Current:
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* reflects the most recent analyses of the effectiveness of mitigation 
projects; 
* provides a means to access the latest updated information on 
effectiveness; 
• evaluates recent experiences with mitigation projects both within 
and outside the agency; 
* indicates how such results should affect design decisions. 

Construction Stage; This includes land acquisition as well as all 
activity on the site of the mitigation project, and the timing and 
other relationships with respect to the project creating the need for 
mitigation. The application of the guidance to all entities that have 
roles in construction of the mitigation project also needs to be 
considered; 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Consider whether the guidance:
* covers all aspects of construction, from site acquisition to 
turnover of the completed mitigation project.
* applies to all persons and entities, federal and nonfederal, 
involved in the project.
* provides performance standards for the completed project, or
cross-references to other documents and sources. 
Current:
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* discusses recent lessons learned from building similar types of 
mitigation projects; 
* reflects successes and failures of mitigation projects; 
* describes the latest technologies authorized; 
* contains instruction on how to access and include updated 
information. 

Monitoring Stage: This includes monitoring of the mitigation site 
before, during, and after construction. Monitoring guidance should 
establish the extent of federal agency responsibility and should be 
clear about its applicability to others involved in the mitigation 
project; 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Consider whether the guidance:
* requires monitoring for the mitigation project;
* requires quality and other reporting procedures;
* specifies the parameters of the monitoring program and who does the 
monitoring and to whom the monitoring is reported;
Current:
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* provides the latest information about monitoring techniques to those 
responsible for carrying out the monitoring;
* includes information on monitoring activities that are most useful 
in measuring the success level of mitigation projects, or: 
* guidance should provide cross-references to other documents or 
sources; 
* allows for the program to bear added costs related to monitoring 
techniques that it is learned will be more effective. 

Evaluation Stage: This includes three elements: (1) determining the 
overall effectiveness and success of the mitigation project; (2) 
determining what to do if a project is shown by the monitoring 
program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; and (3) 
determining the implications for improving future mitigation projects; 
Complete: 
How do you rate the completeness of the guidance? (i.e., designation 
of tasks and responsibilities; range of mitigation alternatives; 
inclusion of examples and cross-references; discussion of quality 
control, feedback, reporting; measures of success): 
Consider whether the guidance:
* requires evaluation;
* includes the critical aspects for measuring the success of mitigation.
* includes corrective action steps;
* requires feedback mechanisms to ensure that mistakes are not 
repeated in future mitigation projects.
Current:
How do you rate the guidance for being up-to-date? (i.e., reflects 
current laws and regulations and up-to-date technical knowledge.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* includes the most current approaches for evaluating the 
effectiveness of constructing what are essentially natural systems.
* contains concepts of functional equivalency and ecosystem stability 
that are reflective of the extensive experiences in recent years with 
mitigation projects. 

Stage of Mitigation Project: 
Determination Stage: This is the stage when a determination is made of 
(a) whether compensatory mitigation is required for project impacts, 
and (b) the amount of mitigation; 
Clear:
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information.
Consider whether the guidance: 
* leaves no doubt when mitigation is required and how much must be done.
* contains an organized set of procedures that lead to the mitigation 
decision; 
* specifies when discretion may be exercised, and establishes the 
limits of discretion and the points in the process where it is
exercised; 
* clearly states who exercises discretion. 
Broad:
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation, fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands.)
Consider whether the guidance:
* contains mitigation requirements that apply to a wide range of 
natural systems.
* addresses required mitigation beyond wetlands to other
aspects of fish and wildlife and associated habitat.
* indicates that mitigation projects are required to consider losses 
beyond wetlands.
* includes consideration of the impact of adjacent lands on the 
mitigation project and vice versa. 

Design Stage: This includes all pre-construction guidance once the 
decision on the need and extent of compensatory mitigation has been 
made. It should include guidance with respect to the necessary
features and performance characteristics of the mitigation project; 
Clear:
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information.
Consider whether the guidance: 
* sets out a logical approach to mitigation project design.
* provides user with specific design criteria and demonstrates how the 
criteria should be applied.
* is at the appropriate level for users who will need to make design 
decisions.
* clearly provides the range of options and the areas of discretion.
* clearly states who should make the design decisions.
Broad:
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation, fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands.)
Consider whether the guidance: 
* includes design elements to deal with loss of fish and wildlife 
species, as well as restoration of hydrology, native vegetation and 
non-wetlands habitat.
* includes design measures related to impacted uplands and
interests in such lands as they relate to design of mitigation 
projects. 

Construction Stage; This includes land acquisition as well as all 
activity on the site of the mitigation project, and the timing and 
other relationships with respect to the project creating the need for 
mitigation. The application of the guidance to all entities that have 
roles in construction of the mitigation project also needs to be 
considered; 
Clear:
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information.
Consider whether the guidance: 
* provides an organized set of procedures guiding construction steps.
* supplies answers to questions that
may arise during construction.
* identifies and addresses timing and other construction aspects 
related to the project that causes the loss of resources.
* lays out the range of construction options and the areas of
discretion.
* specifies who has responsibility for constructing the mitigation 
project.
* discusses agency controls to ensure on-time deliver; 
Broad:
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation, fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands.)
Consider whether the guidance: 
* covers mitigation projects for aquatic resources.
* discusses restoring natural hydrology and native vegetation.
* covers mitigation projects for terrestrial resources. 

Monitoring Stage: This includes monitoring of the mitigation site 
before, during, and after construction. Monitoring guidance should 
establish the extent of federal agency responsibility and should be 
clear about its applicability to others involved in the mitigation 
project; 
Clear:
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information.
Consider whether the guidance: 
* contains a set of procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the 
mitigation project.
* establishes a program to utilize monitoring data.
* assigns duties and responsibilities for monitoring programs.
* establishes protocols for implementing monitoring, and for 
documenting the outcomes.
* specifies who has responsibility for reviewing the monitoring 
reports; 
Broad:
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation, fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands.)
Consider whether the guidance: 
* includes coverage of the most important measures of success of a 
mitigation project.
* requires the examination of off-site impacts.
* requires monitoring of vegetation, fish and wildlife species, and 
hydrology. 

Evaluation Stage: This includes three elements: (1) determining the 
overall effectiveness and success of the mitigation project; (2) 
determining what to do if a project is shown by the monitoring 
program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; and (3) 
determining the implications for improving future mitigation projects; 
Clear:
How do you rate the clarity of the guidance? (i.e., clear on duties, 
responsibilities, distinction between required and discretionary 
actions, logical organization of information.
Consider whether the guidance: 
* establishes an evaluation process for judging the success of 
mitigation projects.
* indicates who is responsible for evaluating mitigation projects, 
when the evaluation should be done, and what are the implications of 
findings, both for the project evaluated and for future projects.
* specifies the range of options and areas of discretion for evaluation
* establishes criteria for which mitigation projects are evaluated.
Broad:
How broad is the scope of the mitigation impacts addressed by the 
guidance? (i.e., hydrology, vegetation, fish and wildlife species, 
adjacent lands, wetlands.)
Consider whether the guidance: 
* requires that projects be evaluated for the full range of benefits 
they are intended to provide.
* specifies whether benefits include such aspects as hydrology, 
vegetation, and fish and wildlife species.
* includes the effects on natural systems in surrounding land and 
water areas as part of the evaluation. 

Stage of Mitigation Project: 
Determination Stage: This is the stage when a determination is made of 
(a) whether compensatory mitigation is required for project impacts, 
and (b) the amount of mitigation; 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future.) 
Consider whether the guidance:
* establishes responsibility for ensuring that the mitigation is 
successful and adequately replaces the loss of resources and natural 
functions.
* accounts for variables affecting the risk of success and longterm 
viability.
* provides for required reconsideration of the proposed Corps or 
highway project if evidence exists that the required mitigation 
project is not viable. 
Overall Quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
Taking all the above into account, and using your judgment to weigh 
the relative importance of the five attributes, how would you rate the 
guidance overall with respect to determining the need and extent of 
mitigation for fish and wildlife and associated habitat impacts of 
projects? 

Design Stage: This includes all pre-construction guidance once the 
decision on the need and extent of compensatory mitigation has been 
made. It should include guidance with respect to the necessary
features and performance characteristics of the mitigation project; 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future.) 
Consider whether the guidance:
* addresses the long-term survival of the natural systems in 
mitigation projects.
* includes criteria and standards expressed in terms of survival times 
and stable natural systems.
* includes interventions to deal with failures.
* provides for opportunities to minimize the cost and extent of 
required maintenance.
Overall Quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
Taking all the above into account, and using your judgment to weigh 
the relative importance of the five attributes, how would you rate the 
guidance overall with respect to the treatment of the design of 
projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife and associated habitat 
losses associated with projects? 

Construction Stage; This includes land acquisition as well as all 
activity on the site of the mitigation project, and the timing and 
other relationships with respect to the project creating the need for 
mitigation. The application of the guidance to all entities that have 
roles in construction of the mitigation project also needs to be 
considered; 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future.) 
Consider whether the guidance:
* addresses the need to construct mitigation projects so that 
naturally sustainable ecosystems are put in place.
* discusses the concern that
natural resources affected by construction should be treated in
ways that will maximize their survivability.
* contains standards and expectations with respect to the longevity of 
the project. 
Overall Quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
Taking all the above into account, and using your judgment to weigh 
the relative importance of the five attributes, how would you rate the 
guidance overall with respect to the treatment of the construction of 
projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife and associated habitat 
losses? 

Monitoring Stage: This includes monitoring of the mitigation site 
before, during, and after construction. Monitoring guidance should 
establish the extent of federal agency responsibility and should be 
clear about its applicability to others involved in the mitigation 
project; 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future.) 
Consider whether the guidance:
* requires the monitoring needed to ensure long-term success of the 
mitigation project.
* establishes a time limit for the monitoring program and if so, 
ensures that viability will be proven within the monitoring timeframe.
* provides the basis for determining how long the monitoring should 
continue. 
Overall Quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
Taking all the above into account, and using your judgment to weigh 
the relative importance of the five attributes, how would you rate the 
guidance overall with respect to the treatment of the monitoring of
projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife and associated habitat 
losses? 

Evaluation Stage: This includes three elements: (1) determining the 
overall effectiveness and success of the mitigation project; (2) 
determining what to do if a project is shown by the monitoring 
program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; and (3) 
determining the implications for improving future mitigation projects; 
Viable: 
How do you rate the guidance in addressing the long-term viability of 
the ecosystems? (i.e., survivability of natural and man-made systems 
into the distant future.) 
Consider whether the guidance:
* is sufficiently focused on the sustainability of the natural systems 
being created.
* specifies assumptions for projecting into the future conditions at 
the time of the evaluation. 
Overall Quality: 
How do you rate the overall quality of the guidance for fish and 
wildlife mitigation at this stage? 
Taking all the above into account, and using your judgment to weigh 
the relative importance of the five attributes, how would you rate the 
guidance overall with respect to the treatment of the evaluation of 
projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife and associated habitat 
losses? 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Panel of Scientific Experts’ Assessment of Fish & Wildlife 
Mitigation Guidance by Attribute & Stage of Mitigation: 

The panel of scientific experts was tasked with comparing the Corps of 
Engineers’ Civil Works Program’s, the Corps’ Regulatory Program’s, and 
the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-aid Highway Program’s 
national fish and wildlife mitigation guidance. In assessing this 
guidance, the panel was to focus on various attributes of the guidance 
and the five stages of a mitigation project.[Footnote 15] The panel 
provided numeric ratings ranging from “0” for no guidance, “1” for 
poor guidance, “2” for fair guidance, “3” for moderate guidance, “4” 
for good guidance, to “5” for excellent guidance for the various 
mitigation stages. Summaries of the panelists’ numeric and narrative 
responses follow. 

Table V.1 Summary of Expert Panel’s Final Assessment of the Corps of 
Engineers’ and Federal Highway Administration’s Fish and Wildlife 
Mitigation Guidance 

Stages of Mitigation Projects: Determination; 

Civil Works Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.1; 
Current: 3.4; 
Clear: 3.3; 
Broad: 3.0; 
Viable: 2.4; 
Overall rating: 3.3. 

Regulatory Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.3; 
Current: 3.4; 
Clear: 3.4; 
Broad: 2.7; 
Viable: 2.4; 
Overall rating: 3.1. 

Highway Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.1; 
Current: 3.3; 
Clear: 3.6; 
Broad: 3.6; 
Viable: 3.0; 
Overall rating: 3.6. 

Stages of Mitigation Projects: Design; 

Civil Works Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.6; 
Current: 3.7; 
Clear: 3.4; 
Broad: 2.9; 
Viable: 3.6; 
Overall rating: 3.4. 

Regulatory Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.6; 
Current: 3.7; 
Clear: 3.9; 
Broad: 3.0; 
Viable: 3.6; 
Overall rating: 3.6. 

Highway Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 4.1; 
Current: 3.7; 
Clear: 4.1; 
Broad: 3.6; 
Viable: 3.6; 
Overall rating: 3.7. 

Stages of Mitigation Projects: Construction; 

Civil Works Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.3; 
Current: 3.4; 
Clear: 3.4; 
Broad: 3.1; 
Viable: 3.6; 
Overall rating: 3.6. 

Regulatory Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.4; 
Current: 3.3; 
Clear: 3.6; 
Broad: 3.6; 
Viable: 3.7; 
Overall rating: 3.7. 

Highway Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 4.0; 
Current: 4.0; 
Clear: 4.1; 
Broad: 4.0; 
Viable: 3.9; 
Overall rating: 4.1. 

Stages of Mitigation Projects: Monitoring; 

Civil Works Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.6; 
Current: 3.4; 
Clear: 3.0; 
Broad: 3.1; 
Viable: 2.9; 
Overall rating: 3.1. 

Regulatory Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.6; 
Current: 3.4; 
Clear: 3.3; 
Broad: 3.1; 
Viable: 3.0; 
Overall rating: 3.0. 

Highway Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 3.7; 
Current: 3.7; 
Clear: 3.6; 
Broad: 3.6; 
Viable: 3.3; 
Overall rating: 3.6. 

Stages of Mitigation Projects: Evaluation; 

Civil Works Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 2.0; 
Current: 2.7; 
Clear: 2.6; 
Broad: 2.1; 
Viable: 1.9; 
Overall rating: 1.9. 

Regulatory Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 2.4; 
Current: 2.7; 
Clear: 2.7; 
Broad: 2.3; 
Viable: 2.4; 
Overall rating: 2.3. 

Highway Program: 
Attributes: 
Complete: 2.7; 
Current: 3.0; 
Clear: 3.1; 
Broad: 2.9; 
Viable: 2.9; 
Overall rating: 2.7. 

Overall rating: 
Civil Works Program: 3.1; 
Regulatory Program: 3.3; 
Highway Program: 3.7. 

Note: Table cells include the average rating given by the seven 
panelists for each program, for each attribute, in addition to an 
overall rating. The individual panelists’ ratings underlying these 
averages are not shown. In some cases, panelists’ ratings may vary 
widely. 

[End of table] 

Determination Stage: 

The determination stage is when the agencies decide (a) whether 
compensatory mitigation is required for project impacts, and, if so, 
(b) the amount of mitigation that will be required. 

Numeric Ratings: 

* Civil Works Program—-3.3; 
* Regulatory Program—-3.1; 
* Highway Program—-3.6. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Overall, the ratings for the determination stage were the third 
highest among the five stages. This stage includes two separate 
decisions—-whether mitigation is required and, if so, how much. The 
panelists felt that, in general, the guidance did a better job on the 
first decision than on the second. 

Most panelists cited the existence of governmentwide guidance and how 
it contributes to determining whether mitigation is required. They 
indicated that this determination is aided by a clear, long-standing 
sequential definition of “mitigation” that requires avoidance first, 
then minimization of impact, and finally mitigation of unavoidable 
impacts. According to one panelist, however, while the governmentwide 
guidance provides definitions and indications of desired outcomes, the 
governmentwide guidance stops short of specifying exactly when or how 
a program should make a case-specific determination that compensatory 
mitigation is necessary and/or how much should be required. This 
panelist indicated that none of the three programs have explicit 
guidance for determining whether compensatory mitigation is required, 
and the outcome apparently is more a result of due diligence and 
quality of staff than quality of regulatory guidance. 

Various panelists indicated that strengths of the Civil Works 
Program’s guidance include detailed planning formulation guidance and 
state-of-the-art planning tools, emphasis on the ecosystem approach 
and the inclusion of adjacent lands, or the emphasis on resource 
evaluation to determine the mitigation needed. Other panelists, 
however, cited weaknesses in the Civil Works’ guidance, including the 
confusion caused by considering economic tradeoffs in determining 
which mitigation alternative to select, the lack of currency or 
consistency in the information included, or the lack of assurance that 
the resources and functions lost by development will be replaced. 

Regarding the Regulatory Program’s guidance, several panelists 
expressed favorable comments regarding the program’s new October 2001 
guidance as it strengthens the importance of watershed context and 
functionality of impacted areas in decision making, emphasizes an 
ecosystem approach, integrates financial requirements into the permit, 
recognizes the need for adaptive management, better explains the 
criteria for determining compensation ratios, provides a more specific 
mechanism for determining exactly how much mitigation will be 
required, or details success criteria. Other panelists cited 
weaknesses, however, including that the detailed guidance was not 
adequately summarized and presented for ease of use, the guidance 
placed too much discretion at the Corps’ district level for decisions, 
it lacked currency or consistency in materials, or the new guidance 
conflicts with other Regulatory guidance on the issue of preservation. 

Panelists identified some strengths and weaknesses of the Highway 
Program’s guidance. Among the strengths cited, panelists indicated 
that the guidance appropriately emphasized aquatic resources and other 
habitats with unique or important values under federal law, 
incorporated ratio goals for wetlands replacement that were considered 
noteworthy, was more current than the other two programs because of 
the emphasis on using consolidated mitigation sites in the form of 
mitigation banks when appropriate, emphasized resource evaluation to 
determine mitigation need, more effectively conveyed the information 
necessary to fully understand the process for determining whether 
compensatory mitigation is required, more effectively called for a 
compensatory mitigation ratio of 1.5 to 1, or included the preference 
to fund and then monitor mitigation banks as a means of ensuring the 
long-term success of the mitigation to increase ecosystem viability. 
One panelist emphasized the strengths of the Highway Program’s 
guidance by indicating that it, in sharp contrast to the Corps’ 
guidance, is clear, concise, summarized in an understandable way, and 
makes it clear who has what responsibilities. 

Further, the panelist said that the guidance applies to a range of 
systems and addresses wetlands and other habitats in an appropriate 
manner and makes it clear that mitigation is required and that it will 
be done as compared to the Corps where it leaves it open. Two 
panelists, however, indicated that the Highway Program’s guidance in 
this stage was weak because it did not really focus on determining the 
need for or amount of mitigation required. 

The design stage includes all preconstruction activities once the 
decision 

Design Stage 

on the need and extent of compensatory mitigation has been made. It 
includes the necessary features and performance characteristics of the 
mitigation project. 

Numeric Ratings: 

* Civil Works Program—-3.4; 
* Regulatory Program-—3.6; 
* Highway Program-—3.7. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Overall, the ratings for the design stage were the second highest 
among the five stages, but panelists provided relatively little 
narrative comments about this stage. As one panelist pointed out, the 
design stage is considered more a technical element of mitigation and 
not as subject to policy guidance as are other stages such as the 
determination and evaluation stages. Panelists’ generalized comments 
related to the Wetlands Engineering Handbook and included both 
strengths and weaknesses. Specifically, some panelists believed that 
the handbook includes detailed background on wetlands and statistical 
evaluation techniques; is relatively complete, reasonably current, and 
very clear; or as one panelist put it, the handbook provides very good 
technical information on the design, construction, and monitoring of 
wetland ecosystems. According to the panelist, the information is 
timeless and remains a standard in the field of mitigation. Yet, other 
panelists cited weaknesses with the same handbook. Namely, one 
panelist said that it does not provide a comprehensive explanation of 
how to design a replacement wetland and puts emphasis only on one 
technique to evaluate functions, even though the technique has been 
criticized by wetlands professionals. The panelist further stated that 
the handbook is very complicated to follow with its overemphasis on 
statistical techniques over basic design procedures. Another panelist 
criticized the handbook as addressing the structural aspects of 
viability but paying little attention to long-term habitat function. 
Panelists pointed out that the guidance at this stage was weak in the 
areas of non-wetland fish and wildlife and upland mitigation, such as 
open waters, streams, stream banks and uplands, and in fact, the 
guidance was heavily focused on wetland mitigation. 

Regarding the Civil Works Program’s guidance, two panelists commented 
on the strength of the guidance. One panelist indicated that the 
guidance generally includes a relatively complete description of the 
parameters needed to design a successful and effective wetlands 
mitigation project and has sufficient criteria on uplands, land use, 
and other offsite factors. Another panelist said the guidance has 
enough information related to policy that is pertinent in the 
selection of the conceptual design; and case studies that are 
informative and provide constructive insight in applying the 
principles and techniques to other types of mitigation work. Three 
panelists, however, cited weaknesses in the Corps’ guidance for this 
stage. Among the weaknesses cited were that practitioners will need 
more specific technical guidance because the guidance addresses 
various administrative attributes of the process rather than the 
mitigation aspects of projects; the guidance includes a few examples 
of projects but should include more and the examples should be 
discussed in greater detail; the guidance sets out how the design 
criteria should be applied, but is sometimes confusing and overly 
complex in its presentation; or the guidance lacks specific technical 
information other than to address simple hydrology and soil factors. 

Two panelists commented about the Regulatory Program’s new guidance 
when reflecting on this stage. One panelist indicated that the new 
guidance strengthened existing guidance by emphasizing the need to 
integrate buffer zone design into the plans. Another panelist 
indicated that the new approach cited in the guidance potentially 
provides a better mechanism for designing a successful replacement 
project; that the new guidance begins to set out the user-friendly, 
step-by-step set of instructions that previously had been missing; and 
that the new guidance makes the design stage guidance clearer and 
broader in at least some respects and clarifies some of the previous 
vagueness. While basically complimenting the new guidance, however, 
this panelist indicated that in other respects, the new guidance is 
not an improvement because it provides more flexibility than it should—
for example, awarding credits for preservation—that does not serve to 
fulfill the goal of replacing lost functions and values. 

Panelists cited some strengths in the Highway Program’s guidance for 
this stage. One panelist for example, indicated that the guidance was 
the most complete, current and clear guidance on the design of 
mitigation projects, although it tended to include too much emphasis 
on wetland banking. Further, this panelist indicated that the guidance 
provides excellent detail and good examples of the design stage, 
offers several alternative methods to assess wetland functions, and 
provides an excellent tool for learning how to design and construct 
wetland replacement projects. Another panelist indicated that while 
the guidance primarily relates to wetlands, it is very user-friendly 
both in information and format; the overall process is clear, logical, 
and comprehensive; from a viability perspective, the guidance is more 
effective because it links the need to replace lost functions at each 
step in the process; and the discussion on applying a cost analysis is 
more instructive and easier to apply than the Corps’ guidance. Yet, 
this panelist also indicated that the guidance suffers from the 
absence of information gained and lessons learned over the last 5 
years and that some of the guidance conflicts with other documents. 
Finally, a third panelist indicated that the guidance provided good 
information to help in developing mitigation designs, promoted site 
analysis, and included sound and consistent logic for investigating 
site characteristics needed for sustaining wetlands. However, this 
panelist also indicated that information on evaluating mitigation 
designs, technical guidance, and standards for measuring success is 
missing. 

Construction Stage: 

The construction stage includes land acquisition as well as all 
activity on the site until the mitigation project is turned over to 
the nonfederal sponsor. Construction activities include building 
structures, creating habitat, and introducing animal and plant 
material. 

Numeric Ratings: 

* Civil Works Program—-3.6; 
* Regulatory Program—-3.7; 
* Highway Program-—4.1. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Overall, the ratings for the construction stage were the highest among 
the five stages. In general, the two key technical guidance documents—
the Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Engineering Handbook and the 
Transportation Resources Board’s Guidelines for the Development of 
Wetland Replacement Areas—received compliments from the panel. In 
particular, one panelist indicated that although these guides address 
primarily wetlands, the two documents together provide a significant 
body of technical information. Another panelist indicated that the 
guidance is relatively current and on target with the best 
professional knowledge in the area of wetland replacement 
construction. Further, this panelist indicated that the guidance 
provides good, specific information on a broad range of features 
including construction of water control structures, soils, how to 
ensure proper hydrology, and the sequence of construction. However, 
this panelist pointed out that the guidance does not discuss what 
happens after construction or how to do site acquisition. 

Where panelists commented extensively about the Wetlands Engineering 
Handbook, very few additional comments about the strengths and 
weaknesses of the Civil Works Program’s guidance were given. One 
panelist did indicate, however, that the overall materials are not 
always current with appropriate techniques, while another panelist 
pointed out that the guidance lacks information about buildability and 
constructive construction and that the Planning Guidance Notebook 
lacks helpful information other than rough guidelines on timing. 

Panelists generally limited their comments about the Regulatory Program’
s guidance. Two panelists commented on the program’s new guidance. 
Specifically, one panelist indicated that the new guidance added 
information related to the timing in the construction stage. Another 
panelist indicated that the new guidance potentially provides an 
effective mechanism for guiding the design and construction of a 
mitigation project with the analysis set forth in an organized set of 
procedures for guiding construction steps. In addition, this panelist 
indicated that the new guidance goes a long way toward establishing 
performance standards. In considering the Regulatory Program’s 
guidance, this panelist indicated that the amount of information was 
overwhelming and unnecessary unless it is meant to serve as a general 
primer to anyone with marginal expertise on how to create or restore a 
wetland. Further, this panelist indicated that “its use as a resource 
tool is limited because too much information must be digested in order 
to get an answer or specific guidance.” 

Regarding the Highway Program’s guidance, one panelist indicated that 
the program has superior guidance because of the Guidelines for the 
Development of Wetland Replacement Areas. According to the panelist, 
this document provides additional specifications and step-by-step 
guidance on wetland construction, over and above the relatively 
comprehensive construction details provided in the Wetlands 
Engineering Handbook. Another panelist indicated that the guidance is 
clear and well organized and specifically lists project construction 
techniques that work and those that have not. The panelist further 
indicated that the guidance provides an excellent list of plants that 
have been incorporated in successful compensatory mitigation sites. 
Finally, a third panelist indicated that the Highway Program’s 
guidance, as it does in all stages, makes it clear that competent 
professional decisions by experienced personnel will be used to answer 
questions and that this is not open to negotiations. Additionally, 
this panelist indicated that the Highway Program’s guidance is strong 
in all categories and easily understood. 

Monitoring Stage: 

The monitoring stage includes periodic assessments of the mitigation 
site before, during, and after construction. A monitoring plan 
establishes the requirements for the periodic assessments, the extent 
of federal agency responsibility, and the applicability to others 
involved in the mitigation project. 

Numeric Ratings: 

* Civil Works Program-—3.1; 
* Regulatory Program—-3.0; 
* Highway Program—-3.6. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Overall, the ratings for the monitoring stage were the second lowest 
among the five stages. This rating reflects the panel’s general 
opinion that the guidance emphasizes the determination stage and to a 
lesser extent the other earlier stages of mitigation at the expense of 
the monitoring and evaluation stages. Yet, panelists indicated that 
overall, the guidance material addressing monitoring was reasonably 
well developed, and that since the programs use the same basic 
reference material, they do a fairly good job at addressing the issue. 
Three panelists specifically mentioned the Wetlands Engineering 
Handbook as providing a good reference for setting performance 
criteria and providing methods for sampling everything from soils, 
hydrology, and vegetation to birds, fish, and invertebrates. Several 
panelists, however, pointed out that the coverage of monitoring 
activities fails to provide sufficient rationale or detail to 
encourage this critical stage of the mitigation process; that the 
material does not require upward reporting of the results so that top 
agency management can monitor both project or program performance with 
regard to the degree of success of mitigation; or that no real 
specific guidance on site-specific design of a monitoring program 
exists in the guidance. 

Most panelists did not comment on the strengths of the Civil Works’ 
guidance, but several panelists noted shortcomings in the guidance. 
For example, one panelist mentioned that the guidance is technically 
sound but addresses only wetlands for the most part and is not 
programmatically helpful because it lacks the details on who should do 
what with the reports. Two other panelists indicated that the 
monitoring discussions focused too much on the cost considerations of 
monitoring, while another panelist indicated that the guidance 
downplays the need for monitoring and that the guidance tends to be 
dated. 

Regarding the Regulatory Program’s guidance, panelists provided 
limited comments. In commenting on the October 2001 guidance, three 
panelists indicated that it provides a stronger emphasis on the 
importance of monitoring, but “permanent” monitoring is not required; 
this guidance is more explicit that monitoring should be included as a 
permit condition; or it authorized the extension of the monitoring 
period where appropriate. Two panelists commented that the Regulatory 
Program’s guidance on monitoring needed to be strengthened if 
continued effectiveness of even state-of-the-art mitigation plans were 
to be ensured or that the guidance has some useful components but 
fails to provide any type of standardized approach. 

Panelists indicated that the Highway Program’s technical publications 
give extensive treatment of monitoring as an essential element of 
successful mitigation; the materials were considered excellent as they 
were complete, relatively current, clear, and understandable; some of 
the information provides a very good overview of monitoring and 
outlines strategies for defining success; or the information is 
clearly presented and provides enough technical information to be 
informative without being too overly technical. One panelist, however, 
indicated that some of the guidance could be adapted to address fish 
and wildlife and upland habitats but does not do so, while another 
panelist indicated that the guidance provides an overview of what to 
monitor, but does not provide any additional specifics. 

Evaluation Stage 

The evaluation stage includes three elements: (1) determining the 
overall effectiveness and success of the mitigation project; (2) 
determining what to do if a project is shown by the monitoring 
program, or otherwise, not to be a complete success; and (3) 
determining the implications for improving future mitigation projects. 

Numeric Ratings: 

* Civil Works Program-—1.9; 
* Regulatory Program—-2.3; 
* Highway Program-—2.7. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Overall, the ratings for the evaluation stage were the lowest among 
the five stages. Panelists considered three separate aspects of 
project evaluation— success of the project, capacity to take 
corrective action on an unsuccessful project, and ability to make 
changes in future projects. From a positive perspective, various 
panelists thought the guidance emphasized why performance criteria are 
needed and who is responsible for the assessment, or these panelists 
said the guidance contained helpful examples of performance standards. 
However, several panelists generally felt the guidance was weak among 
all three agencies. Two panelists thought the Highway Program’s 
guidance was good, but the guidance for the Corps’ two programs was 
not useful in any way. Panel members disagreed over whether the Corps’ 
new Regulatory Program’s guidance made significant improvements in the 
evaluation stage. 

Regarding the Civil Works Program’s guidance, various panelists 
identified the following as strengths of the guidance: it is current 
and reflects the latest technical knowledge; it talks about how to 
develop performance standards for a particular site; and it includes 
very pertinent information regarding wetland monitoring and evaluating 
success criteria. Various panelists cited weaknesses of the guidance 
in that evaluation is given short shrift, is not addressed in a useful 
way, or lacked much discussion on specifics. Among specific weaknesses 
cited by the panelists were: the guidance provides little or no 
encouragement or support for continuing evaluation and correction of 
individual Civil Works project performance deficiencies or in 
developing additional guidance based on lessons learned from completed 
projects; the guidance does not encourage Corps’ offices to undertake 
routine or systematic evaluations of existing project performance with 
the intent of either identifying on-going performance deficiencies or 
providing “lessons learned” to assist in the planning of mitigation or 
other project features; the guidance includes a laundry list of 
factors to measure but does not require corrective actions nor does it 
establish a feedback mechanism; the guidance does not include impacts 
on natural systems in surrounding land and water areas as part of the 
evaluation; and the guidance does not contain much discussion on the 
role and responsibilities of various parties. 

Regarding the strengths of the Regulatory Program’s guidance, one 
panelist said it gives extensive technical guidance for developing 
evaluation criteria. Two panelists said the recent Regulatory Program’
s guidance enhances the evaluation stage guidance. One of those 
panelists said that the guidance attempts to provide more definition 
to the components of evaluating the effectiveness and success of 
mitigation, and the other panelist said that the guidance potentially 
provides an effective means of tracking project success. Regarding 
weaknesses in the Regulatory Program’s guidance, various panelists 
said the guidance basically does not address evaluation in any useful 
way or continues to need strengthening with regard to the evaluation 
stage. According to one of these panelists, while the Corps talks 
about evaluation, it has “not provided any method to use such 
evaluation in corrective actions either on the current or future 
mitigation projects.” 

Regarding the Highway Program’s guidance, various panelists identified 
the following strengths: it includes a recommended assessment method; 
it addresses fixing problems in mitigation efforts; it allows for 
extending the monitoring period if the project’s goals have not been 
achieved at the completion of the established period; it provides 
funding for additional restoration activities if needed; it recommends 
maintenance for 3 to 5 years or longer to ensure the project’s 
success; it recommends a liberal budget for expected and unexpected 
maintenance costs at 2 to 3 percent of budget in reserve; or it makes 
the effort to see that learning is incorporated into future efforts 
and to “fix” projects that were not successful. Two panelists, 
however, said that the guidance is silent in project evaluation or 
that evaluation is not covered in any significant degree. 

Complete: 

In this assessment, panelists were to consider whether the three 
programs’ guidance included, for example, designation of tasks and 
responsibilities; ranges of mitigation alternatives; examples and 
cross-references; discussions of quality control, feedback, and 
reporting; or measures of success. 

Panelists’ Assessment 

For four of the five mitigation stages, panelists’ average ratings for 
completeness were higher for the Highway Program’s guidance than 
either of the Corps’ two programs’ guidance. Several panelists 
commented that the collective guidance emphasized wetlands replacement 
too heavily at the expense of considering other habitats that support 
fish and wildlife. One panelist reflected that while none of the 
programs did a good job of defining the amount of mitigation required, 
the Highway Program’s guidance was the most detailed, written in a 
user-friendly, step-by-step fashion, and the Civil Works’ guidance did 
not provide many technical details and emphasized cost over the 
evaluation of success. Another panelist indicated that the Highway 
Program’s guidance was more complete because it set forth the range of 
circumstances when fish and wildlife impacts should be mitigated and 
its evaluation guidance specifically allows for the extension of the 
monitoring period if the project’s goals have not been achieved. In 
contrast, this panelist indicated that the Civil Works’ guidance falls 
short of identifying who should do the monitoring, who should receive 
the monitoring reports, and who should bear the cost of additional or 
off-site monitoring; and finally, that the guidance does not include 
impacts on natural systems in surrounding land and water areas. In 
discussing the Corps’ Regulatory Program’s recently issued guidance, 
one panelist indicated that the new guidance enhances the existing 
guidance particularly in the areas of determination and evaluation as 
there is a new emphasis on the ecosystem approach to mitigation. The 
panelist further stated that the new guidance gives more criteria for 
determining compensation ratios and details the components of a 
compensatory mitigation plan and success criteria to evaluate its 
success. 

Current: 

In this assessment, panelists were to consider whether the three 
programs’ guidance reflected current laws and regulations and up-to-
date technical knowledge. 

Panelists’ Assessment 

In general, the panelists did not provide many comments related to the 
currency of the three programs’ guidance and with the exception of the 
construction stage, panelists rated the currency of the guidance 
similarly among the three programs. One panelist specifically noted 
this similarity among the currency of the three programs’ guidance 
while another panelist did not feel as if any of the programs 
presented a complete, current picture of the entire process of 
determining what type of mitigation is needed, designing and 
constructing the site, and then monitoring and evaluating the project’
s success. The panelist further indicated that all three programs rely 
on a basic set of policy guidance that may not be up-to-date with 
current thinking about wetland replacement, and the programs rely on 
technical guidance that is not always in tune with current thinking. 
Finally, another panelist indicated that none of the programs’ 
guidance is as up-to-date as they might be on the effectiveness of 
mitigation efforts and that much of the material is dated, and while 
still conceptually good, it does not address current techniques 
related to mitigation in many instances. Three panelists commented 
that the Regulatory Program’s new guidance overall contributes to 
currency in that it is more in line with current technical findings 
by, among other things, including an ecologically based success 
criteria. 

Clear: 

In this assessment, panelists were to consider whether the three 
programs’ guidance was clear on duties, responsibilities, distinction 
between what is required and what are discretionary actions, and 
whether it was logically organized. 

Panelists’ Assessment 

Panelists provided a lower average rating for the Civil Works 
Program’s guidance than the Corps’ Regulatory Program’s guidance and 
the Highway Program’s guidance for all five mitigation stages as it 
relates to clarity. One panelist indicated that the Corps’ Civil Works’
guidance was the clearest as it related to the detail for determining 
the need for mitigation, while the Highway Program’s guidance was the 
most clear as it relates to the design of mitigation projects, and the 
guidance is relatively current and understandable related to the 
monitoring stage. Another panelist, however, indicated that the Civil 
Works’ guidance is compromised by the less-than-clear inclusion of 
cost considerations, while the Highway Program’s guidance includes 
explicit guidance on evaluation, including a recommended assessment 
method. Another panelist criticized the Civil Works’ guidance as 
providing a general listing of what will be required and the 
procedures for making the determination, but falling short of 
providing a clear explanation of the process. Also, related to 
monitoring, this panelist said that the Civil Works’ guidance does not 
make clear who should do the monitoring, who should receive the 
reports, or who bears the cost of any additional or modified 
monitoring. Conversely, this panelist indicated that the Highway 
Program’s guidance more effectively conveys the information necessary 
to fully understand the process for determining whether compensatory 
mitigation is required and if so, how much. While most of the 
panelists indicated that the Regulatory Program’s new guidance 
contributed to the overall clarity, one panelist indicated that the 
new guidance was clearer than other Regulatory guidance, but did not 
improve the body of material significantly and raised additional 
confusion. The panelist indicated that the confusion arose because 
certain sections of the new guidance were poorly written and difficult 
to interpret. 

Broad: 

In this assessment, panelists were to consider whether the guidance 
for the three programs was broad in its subject matter coverage. 
Panelists considered the breadth of the three programs’ guidance as it 
related to the scope of the mitigation impacts and whether hydrology, 
vegetation, fish and wildlife species, adjacent lands, and wetlands 
were addressed. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

For this attribute, the panelists’ average ratings were higher for the 
Highway Program’s guidance than the Civil Works’ guidance. One 
panelist, however, criticized all three programs’ guidance as not 
being particularly broad because they cover only wetland habitat and 
not adjacent uplands and the guidance focuses more on restoration of 
hydrology and vegetation than direct design elements to deal with the 
loss of fish and wildlife species. This same panelist indicated that 
two of the guidance documents provide good specific information on a 
broad range of features, including construction of water control 
structures, soils, how to ensure proper hydrology, and the sequencing 
of construction. One panelist indicated that the Corps’ Regulatory 
Program’s new guidance better explains when off-site mitigation is 
appropriate and that it ensures that the compensatory mitigation 
project will include design elements that deal with the entire 
ecosystem. 

Viable: 

In this assessment, panelists were to consider whether the guidance 
for the three programs presents sufficient information to best ensure 
the success of the project. Panelists considered whether the guidance 
addressed the long-term viability of the ecosystem, for example the 
survivability of natural and man-made systems into the future. 

Panelists’ Assessment: 

Assessing the viability attribute resulted in the widest variance in 
the ratings among the panelists. For two stages—determination and 
evaluation—most of the panelists rated the Civil Works Program’s 
guidance lower than the Highway Program’s guidance. For two other 
stages—design and monitoring—most panelists rated the two programs’ 
guidance the same. For the remaining stage—construction—an equal 
number of panelists rated the Civil Works Program’s guidance the same 
as or lower than the Highway Program’s guidance. One panelist 
indicated that the guidance for the evaluation stage for all three 
programs does not provide confidence that completed projects will 
successfully meet their performance objectives. Panelists’ narrative 
comments generally did not include comments for weaknesses in the 
Civil Works’ guidance and strengths in the Highway Program’s guidance. 
One panelist, however, criticized the Civil Works’ guidance because it 
contained no requirement to reconsider the proposed project if the 
compensatory mitigation project is not likely to succeed, that the 
information in the guidance is unlikely to lead to the replacement of 
habitat losses in at least some instances, and that the guidance does 
not consider the impact of the mitigation project on adjacent lands. 
Conversely, this panelist indicated that the Highway Program’s 
guidance was more effective because it calls for a compensatory 
mitigation ratio of 1.5 to 1, it clearly states that no net loss goal 
applies only to wetlands, and the guidance allows funding for the 
establishment period to increase the likelihood of project success. 
One panelist indicated that the new Regulatory Program’s guidance 
provided more definitive instructions on how to determine mitigation 
ratios and types of mitigation and addressed the long-term viability 
of mitigation through establishing success criteria while another 
panelist pointed out that strengthening the financial assurances 
requirements also will improve a project’s chance for long-term 
success. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Department of The Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 

Reply to Attention of: CEIR  

May 6, 2002: 

Memorandum For Director, Natural Resources And Environment, Attn: Mr. 
Barry T. Hill, 441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Subject: GAO Draft Report on Scientific Panel's Assessment of Fish and 
Wildlife Mitigation Guidance -- Response. 

Attached is the official USACE response to subject GAO audit. The 
point of contact for this action is Ms. Pearlena Patters who can be 
reach at 202/761-4461. 

For The Commander: 

Signed by: 

John E. Templeton: 
Chief, Internal Review Office: 

[End of letter] 

Gao Report on Fish and Wildlife Mitigation: 

Overall Corps of Engineers Evaluation of the Report: 

The Corps was pleased to note that the results of the investigation 
has shown that the Corps has met the mitigation requirements 
established in section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act 
(WRDA) of 1986. Section 906 of WRDA 1986 established the requirement 
for mitigation to be done either prior to the construction or 
concurrent with construction. Appendix II of the GAO report shows that 
only three projects that require mitigation and are in construction, 
have yet to begin mitigation activities. Mitigation for the three 
remaining projects is scheduled for later in the construction sequence 
since site conditions do not allow an earlier accomplishment. 

While GAO's intent was to look at comparable programs, the three 
programs (Corps' Civil Works and Regulatory programs and the Federal 
Highway Administration's program) selected have certain differences 
that make them difficult to truly compare. While all three programs 
are nationwide and at times impact similar habitats, that is where 
their similarity ends. The two Corps programs are primarily water 
resource development oriented, while the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) program is oriented to building highways across 
all resource types. Both the FHWA and the Corps Civil Works programs 
operate on a much longer timeline than the Corps Regulatory program. 
The Corps Regulatory program has a goal of issuing a standard permit 
in 120 days (Nationwide permits in 30 days) while the Corps Civil 
Works planning horizon is about three years. The Corps' Regulatory 
program is charged with evaluating applications from a broad spectrum 
of applicants. The activities being evaluated are generally on a much 
smaller scale and rarely approach the scope of the Corps Civil
Works program. The Corps regulatory program in fact, is a 
participating agency in the FHWA NEPA process for evaluating Federal-
aide highway projects by the States. The Corps' Civil Works program is 
cost shared with a non-Federal sponsor and is line item authorized and 
appropriated by Congress. The Regulatory program evaluates proposals 
whose costs are borne by the applicant. The FHWA's program is a 
Federal-aide program to the states and is not subject to the same 
constraints brought to bear in a cost shared or regulatory program. 
Finally, the FHWA's program does not approach the complexity of the 
Corps Civil Works program. Basically the FHWA's program deals with 
aspects of building highways which means each project is similar to 
others in the program, while the Corps Civil Works program has a 
greater variety of projects. The Corps Civil Works program includes a 
variety of projects designed for flood damage reduction projects, 
hurricane and storm damage projects, navigation projects, hydropower 
projects, recreation projects, and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Civil Works Comments on Findings: 

One of the points that was brought out by the GAO panelists a number 
of times was that they preferred the FHWA approach to mitigation 
"because it calls for a compensation ratio greater than 1 to 1, and is 
more professionally presented as it allows for exercising professional 
judgment." While this certainly simplifies mitigation planning, it 
raises concerns with the adequacy of the mitigation. A required 
mitigation ratio does not assure that the impacts were mitigated. For 
example, highly productive wetland habitat could be lost and the 
proposed mitigation could be marginal wetland habitat and even at a 
ratio of 1.5 to 1 this would be inadequate mitigation. This is one 
reason the U.S. Fish and Wildlife mitigation policy opposes ratios in 
favor of basing mitigation on calculated values. The Corps uses a 
habitat based evaluation to calculate values and functions to 
determine appropriate mitigation. The goal of mitigation should be to 
replace those values for a variety of functions. These are then used 
to calculate an appropriate amount of mitigation necessary and should 
not be artificially constrained by a mitigation ratio. 

The GAO panelists placed great emphasis on professional judgment of 
qualified professionals (FHWA approach) rather than relying on written 
information that would guide the "amateur" through the mitigation 
process (Corps approach). The GAO panelist may have missed some 
salient points with regard to the Corps Civil Works mitigation 
planning. While the Corps guidance is written at a level that allows 
an amateur to comprehend the process, it is not intended that the 
mitigation planning will be done by amateurs or even by the Corps 
alone. In the Corps Civil Works program mitigation planning is a joint 
effort among the Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the state 
natural resources agencies. This nationally consistent approach brings 
to bear both the best professional expertise on calculating values and 
functions lost and the best methods of mitigating the losses combined 
with a local knowledge of the habitats to be impacted. 

A criticism, by GAO panelists, of all the programs reviewed was that 
"none of the three programs have explicit guidance for determining 
whether compensatory mitigation is required and the outcome apparently 
is more a result of due diligence and quality of staff than quality of 
regulatory guidance." From a Corps Civil Works standpoint, there can 
be no definitive guidance that would apply to all circumstances when 
mitigation is required. There are no statutory requirements mandating 
mitigation, even the National Environmental Policy Act does not 
require mitigation, but only requires that mitigation be considered 
during the decision making process. Not all impacts require 
mitigation, for example the simple act of mowing a lawn causes impacts 
to grass, but there is no proposal to mitigate those impacts because 
they are not significant. However, if there are impacts to bottomland 
hardwoods then mitigation is not only considered, but the mitigation 
goal is to mitigate the losses in-kind. The Corps Civil Works program 
produces a wide array of projects in size, scope, and purpose; 
therefore mitigation planning must be of a scope to allow the 
necessary flexibility in determining if mitigation is necessary and 
then how much is required to offset the impacts. For example, while the
Corps' Civil Works program may include compensatory fish and wildlife 
mitigation for impacts of a flood control project, it is not likely to 
include compensatory mitigation for a project whose purpose is 
ecosystem restoration. In fact, the Corps Civil Works policy is that 
if an ecosystem restoration project requires fish and wildlife 
mitigation, then the project should be evaluated to determine whether 
it is appropriate because there should be no fish ad wildlife 
mitigation required for an appropriate ecosystem restoration project. 

With regard to the Corps Civil Works program reliance on the Economic 
and Environmental Principle and Guidelines for Water Related Land 
Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), this is not by choice but by 
presidential direction. The Corps Civil Works program has developed 
its environmental planning guidance based on the P&G because the 
document signed by the President directed all Federal Agencies 
involved in water resources planning to use the P&G. The P&G guidance 
was developed in response to the requirement of the Water Resources 
Planning Act, as amended. 

One of the points that the GAO panelists split on concerned the Corps 
Civil Works guidance with regard to habitats other than wetlands. The 
Corps has extensive information for evaluation and design of all kinds 
of habitat. The Corps has several research institutions (e.g., 
Environmental Laboratory (formerly part of what was known as Waterways 
Experiment Station), Cold Regions Research Laboratory, Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory) whose function is to find better ways 
of accomplishing the Corps mission, which includes fish and wildlife 
mitigation. These efforts are not restricted to just wetlands, but 
includes a full range of habitat types. These institutions have a long 
history in these efforts and are available to districts as support 
organizations. For example, the Environmental Laboratory has a program 
where if a district needs help on a particular issue, the laboratory 
provides three days at no cost to help define and/or resolve the 
problem. If that is not enough, the Environmental Laboratory can be 
contracted to bring their expertise to bear on a given project. 

One of the major criticisms of the Corps Civil Works program was that 
there is not enough encouragement or support for continuing long-term 
evaluation and correction of mitigation problems on individual Civil 
Works projects. One of the Corps Civil Works program's goals is to 
ensure adequate fish and wildlife mitigation for its projects. The 
best way to ensure adequate mitigation is to use proven successful 
techniques. If proven techniques are used then only shorter term 
monitoring is necessary to assure the mitigation is on track. For 
those instances, where there is more uncertainty, then longer-term 
monitoring and adaptive management techniques are included. The Corps 
Civil Works program is both line item funded and cost shared with a 
non-Federal sponsor. Hence, there is no continuing general fund to 
draw upon for follow up on mitigation. Short-term monitoring and 
adaptive management is cost shared, while long-term efforts are part 
of operation and maintenance and are therefore usually a 100 percent 
non-Federal responsibility. For the Corps' Civil Works program to 
participate in a long-term monitoring and/or adaptive management 
effort, it would have to be included in the original project planning 
report, authorized by Congress. In addition, Congress would have to 
provide a specific appropriation for the monitoring/adaptive 
management or the Corps would have to keep the project construction 
account open for the length of time specified, which would preclude 
closing the construction account which could lead to the non-Federal 
sponsor not getting reimbursed for project participation for many years.
This is why the Corps has a program, Section 216 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970, that allows the Corps to become involved again with a 
project should it be determined that further efforts are necessary to 
achieve the environmental mitigation needed. 

Regulatory Comments on Findings: 

The GAO report criticized the Corps' regulatory guidance for its 
emphasis on the early determination and design stages of mitigation 
projects to the detriment of the evaluation and monitoring stages. The 
Corps Regulatory program considers the early determination and design 
stages as the most critical stages for most mitigation projects. Past 
evaluations of completed mitigation projects indicated those that are 
unsatisfactory resulted primarily from lack of attention to planning 
factors, i.e., site selection and project design. Most Corps research 
has therefore been related to those factors and mitigation policy 
reflects the results from those investigations. 

The policies in the Regulatory program are for the most part directed 
at the Federal project manager making the evaluation and the decision 
concerning a permit. Permit applicants are provided information that 
will facilitate their compliance with the requirements of those 
policies, but are left for the most part to be independent decision 
makers concerning the timing of decisions and the financing of their 
proposal. Corps decision making timeframes in the program are directed 
at being public oriented and timely. Timeliness is related in some 
ways to the environmental complexity of the effects of the proposal, 
and ranges from automatic to a year. Therefore policies formulated 
concerning mitigation must take time into consideration. Corps 
regulatory policies tend to be a combination of cookbook practice, 
mixed with flexibility for professional judgment, where the regulated 
party does the decision-making. After action monitoring on mitigation 
sites is a permittee responsibility, required as a condition in the 
permit. Monitoring reports are required to be submitted for evaluation 
on a periodic basis. This results in a more efficient program. 

The GAO report stated that the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory program 
emphasizes wetlands to the detriment of uplands or adjacent lands. The 
Regulatory program was initially established to oversee development in 
navigable waterways. The regulation of impacts in wetlands came about 
as a result of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Wetlands were 
recognized as a resource in decline early on during the implementation 
of the CWA. Since 1990, the Corps regulatory program has been pursuing 
a Presidentially established interim National goal of no overall net 
loss of wetlands. This goal will most likely remain in affect until 
other local state and Federal programs begin to provide significant 
increases in the Nation's wetland base. Thus, most of the emphasis and 
resulting guidance has been on wetlands compensatory mitigation. 

A perceived deficiency noted by the GAO report is that the Regulatory 
program fails to require corrective actions in those instances where 
projects do not succeed. The Regulatory program defines success with 
regard to wetlands mitigation based on conditions in the permit. 
Corrective actions can only be required to the degree there are 
measurable standards in the permit. The report indicated a success 
should be defined in terms of ensuring that mitigation projects were 
providing "ecological success." 

Currently, there are no defined, measurable criteria, about 
"ecological success," for the Corps regulatory program to rely upon. 
This is one reason for the National goal statement including the word 
"overall." 

The Regulatory program was criticized in the GAO report as lacking the 
details and performance measures to truly advance wetlands 
protections. As indicated in the previous discussions concerning 
compensatory mitigation success, there is no detailed set of criteria 
that fit the requirement. Advancing wetlands protection is not done 
through a "one size fits all" program. The resource base (wetlands) 
varies as a result of climate, landscape conditions and human resource 
conditions. Decisions concerning what resources to protect and how to 
protect them must be made at the local level. National guidance must 
be flexible enough to provide opportunities for local solutions. 

The GAO report's characterization of the Regulatory program as needing 
strengthening on monitoring and evaluation activities is noted, but 
should be looked at in context of the overall Regulatory program. 
Monitoring and evaluation for compliance is the number one priority 
for the Corps regulatory enforcement program. None-the-less, there 
will always be criticism from those that do not see the benefits that 
accrue from requiring mitigation monitoring reports to be submitted to 
the Corps, rather than having Corps personnel actually inspect the 
mitigation project. Individual inspections are difficult to carry out 
with the current work force constraints in the program. 

The GAO report characterized Regulatory program guidance as lacking 
sufficient specifics on how much and what type of mitigation is needed 
and what functions should be replaced. In particular the GAO report 
appears to not have understood that specifics were not included in the 
Regulatory Guidance Letter because it was developed as a general 
guidance document. Specifics concerning the comparison of authorized 
impacts to required compensatory mitigation are contained in 
methodologies developed for that purpose. While there are a number of 
those methodologies that have been developed to satisfy local and 
regional needs, none have been adopted as national standards for the 
regulatory program. Concern about effectiveness, suitability, cost and 
other logistical considerations have precluded the Corps from taking a 
"one size fits all" approach. 

The GAO report notes that the Regulatory guidance allows credit for 
efforts taken in uplands, which means that wetlands functions and 
values will not be replaced in those situations. While it may seem 
that this allows wetlands to be.traded off in favor of uplands, there 
are reasons why this flexibility has been provided. Aquatic resource 
mitigation sites, particularly those directed at wetlands, require 
protection from encroachment in order for the site to be viable. In an 
ideal circumstance a wetland would be surrounded by undisturbed 
uplands, thus minimizing unwanted impacts from outside the aquatic 
reach. However, this is not the case for most mitigation sites. When a 
wetland is impacted, usually the surrounding uplands are impacted as 
well. Those impacts occur without regulation under the Clean Water 
Act. Requiring a permitee to provide an upland buffer around a wetland 
mitigation site results in protection for the aquatic resource. 
Without a policy allowing some credit to accrue for that upland buffer 
there is no justification for the requirement, and protection would be 
lost, making the wetland mitigation less viable. 

Finally, the GAO report suggests that in the Regulatory program there 
continues to be a real absence of guidance on the minimum requirements 
of a conceptual mitigation plan. The perceived absence of guidance 
concerning requirements reflects the difficulty in developing minimum 
standards that are acceptable in every circumstance. Therefore, the
Regulatory program has provided general guidance concerning the 
evaluation of mitigation plans, and their content. The regulator must 
exercise some judgment based on experience and training to determine 
if a plan is adequate to provide appropriate compensatory mitigation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Panel of Scientific Experts, Technical Adviser, and 
Expert Reviewers 

Panel of Scientific Experts: 

Robert P. Brooks, Ph.D. 
Director, Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center and Professor of 
Wildlife and Wetlands, Penn State University. 

G. Edward Dickey, Ph.D. 
Senior Adviser, Dawson and Associates and Cassidy and Associates. 

Ellen Gilinsky, Ph.D. 
Manager, Virginia Water Protection Permit Program, Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality. 

Carl Hershner, Ph.D. 
Director, Center for Coastal Resources Management, and Associate 
Professor, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine 
Science. 

Robert G. Hoyt, Esq. 
Principal and Founding Partner, EcoLogix Group, Inc. 

Alan Wentz, Ph.D. 
Group Manager for Conservation Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

David Yam, Branch Chief 
Erosion and Sediment Control Branch, California Department of 
Transportation, Office of Landscape Architecture District 4. 

Technical Adviser: 

William Matuszeski, Esq. 
Former Director, Chesapeake Bay Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

Expert Reviewers: 

Russell J. Bellmer, Ph.D. 
Marine Ecologist, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration Restoration Center. 

Thomas Kelsch, Director; 
Mid-Atlantic Region, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda L. Harmon (202) 512-8046 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the above, Nancy S. Bowser, James M. Fields, H. Brandon 
Haller, and Rosellen McCarthy made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) listed 
four stages of mitigation: (1) design, (2) construction, (3) 
monitoring, and (4) evaluation. For ease of discussion, we chose to 
divide the design stage into determination and design stages. 

[2] According to the Corps, the point at which 50 percent of 
mitigation is completed occurs in the fiscal year in which the Corps 
district office’s cumulative expenditures toward the mitigation plan 
total at least 50 percent of the estimated cost of these activities. 

[3] Appendix II includes more details on the 47 projects authorized 
since the 1986 act that received construction appropriations and 
required a fish and wildlife mitigation plan. 

[4] The U.S. Water Resources Council originally developed these 
administrative guidelines in 1983 to implement the requirement of the 
Water Resources Planning Act that the Water Resources Council 
establish principles, standards, and procedures for planning water and 
land resources projects. According to the Corps, it developed its 
guidance to reflect the direction of the Water Resources Council’s 
guidance. Funding for the Water Resources Council ceased in fiscal 
year 1983 and the guidance has not been updated. 

[5] Landscape context refers to the current view of how to assure the 
success of mitigation projects. It includes consideration of the 
impact of the project to surrounding land and water areas, and vice 
versa. 

[6] Regulatory Guidance Letter 01-1 on Guidance for the Establishment 
and Maintenance of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Under the Corps 
Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act 
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (2001). 

[7] Watershed context refers to activities and effects from throughout 
the entire land area drained by a stream or wetland, which could be 
quite extensive. In contrast, landscape context refers to a more 
localized impact area, usually considered what can be seen with the 
naked eye. 

[8] Functionality is a focus on the natural activities and benefits 
provided by a resource such as a wetland; therefore, depending on the 
richness and concentration of those benefits, one acre of wetland 
could provide substantially more functionality to an ecosystem than 
another acre of wetland. Also, one acre of wetland could provide many 
more functions (wildlife, flood control, fish habitat, etc.) than 
another, thereby having higher functionality. 

[9] Traditionally, mitigation projects were focused on replacing as 
much of the lost habitat as possible on the site and in the same form—
known as on-site in-kind. 

[10] The function-based approach looks beyond the mere acreage of a 
resource, and evaluates the full range and intensity of ecosystem 
benefits in determining replacement requirements. Thus, one acre of 
high-function or multi-function wetlands might require substantially 
more replacement habitat than another acre of wetlands with less 
functionality. 

[11] Mitigation ratios refer to the amount of replacement acreage per 
acre of lost resources such as wetlands. While many mitigation 
programs traditionally assumed a 1 to 1 ratio, the current focus on 
assuring the replacement of all functions, as well as widespread 
performance problems in constructed wetlands, has led to consideration 
of higher replacement ratios such as 1.5 or 2 acres of mitigation for 
each lost acre. 

[12] Values are quantifications of the functions of resource areas 
such as wetlands. Functions and values are related, in that functions 
describe the nature of the natural assets of resources, while values 
describe how much of the function is present. 

[13] A mitigation bank is an area set aside to be restored and used 
for mitigation for multiple projects. 

[14] In-kind mitigation involves replacing the lost resource with the 
same kind of resource, e.g., salt marsh wetland with new or restored 
salt marsh wetland. Out-of-kind mitigation replaces the lost resource 
with a different type of resource, e.g., a salt marsh with a forested 
wetland. 

[15] While the law only included project design, construction, 
monitoring, and evaluation stages of a mitigation project, we 
subdivided the project design stage to separate the guidance that 
focuses on how the decision is made that fish and wildlife mitigation 
is required, and if so, how much, and how the project is actually 
designed to address the need for fish and wildlife mitigation. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the 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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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. General Accounting 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: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: