The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not pursue environmental mitigation measures for more than 50 civil works projects over the past five years, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The watchdog also found that the agency failed to give Congress detailed explanations for those decisions.

The Corps proposed measures to prevent environmental damage in only 22 of 74 civil works projects submitted to Congress for approval from 2020 to 2025. For the remaining 52 projects, the agency determined that no mitigation measures were necessary.

The GAO alleges that the Corps did not provide detailed evidence showing why those 52 projects required no action to protect fish, wildlife, or ecological resources. That omission left Congress without clear explanations of how the agency reached its determinations.

Through its civil works program, the Corps regularly conducts projects intended to improve water navigation channels, prevent flooding, and restore aquatic habitats across the country. Those projects can carry potential consequences for wildlife and the surrounding environment.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

Federal statute requires the Corps to submit detailed reports to Congress explaining whether its projects will require measures to prevent possible harm to fish, wildlife, and the environment. The watchdog’s findings focused on whether the submitted documents adequately explained the agency’s mitigation decisions.

According to the report, Corps engineers are expected “to plan for environmental mitigation — that is, to take actions to avoid, minimize, or compensate for expected losses to fish and wildlife and damage to ecological resources,” as part of their project planning.

Possible mitigation work can include reinforcing riverbanks or restoring wetland areas to establish new habitats for fish and wildlife. Such measures are intended to avoid damage, reduce expected losses, or compensate for ecological harm connected to civil works projects.

The Corps may determine that conservation measures are unnecessary when it concludes that a project will not cause environmental harm. Even in those cases, however, the Army is expected to provide Congress with a clear explanation supporting the decision.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

A chart released by the GAO showed a sharp decline in Corps decisions to prepare mitigation plans for wildlife and habitat protection between 2022 and 2025. The downward pattern was reflected in the limited number of projects receiving such plans during the later years examined.

In 2024, the Corps determined that just one of 13 projects required measures to safeguard the environment. That left 12 projects during that year for which the agency decided environmental mitigation measures were not needed.

The GAO chart showed that the Corps produced zero mitigation plans in 2025. The watchdog connected that result to its broader concern about the quality and specificity of the information supplied to Congress.

In its findings, the GAO alleged that the Corps failed to provide necessary details demonstrating how it decided that particular projects did not need environmental protection measures. The issue was not simply the lack of mitigation plans, but the lack of documented explanations behind those choices.

The watchdog said the vast majority of documents sent to Congress during the five years contained broad and general language. According to the GAO, that language did not clarify how the Corps reached its conclusions on whether mitigation was necessary.

The Army rejected the GAO’s recommendation in a Sept. 16 letter signed by D. Lee Forsgren. He was identified as the senior official performing the duties of the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works.

“We do not concur with the recommendation in the draft that we need to create more guidance about mitigation decision making on Civil Works projects,” Forsgren wrote.

Forsgren also defended the technical information already included in Corps reports. “The water resources project reports (including associated Chief’s Reports) produced by USACE have sufficient technical information for decision makers and the public and resource agencies to understand when habitat mitigation is or is not included in a final recommendation.”

The dispute leaves the GAO and the Army at odds over whether the Corps adequately informs Congress about its environmental mitigation decisions. The watchdog found the explanations lacking, while the Army maintained that its existing reports already provide sufficient technical information.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.