“Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork” Initiative Implementation

This memo reflects a structural shift in how environmental mitigation is treated within navigation projects—from a project-specific compliance requirement to a system-level planning and delivery mechanism. Historically, dredging projects have been delayed by the need to design, permit, and implement bespoke mitigation solutions, often creating bottlenecks unrelated to the dredging work itself.

By elevating mitigation banking as the preferred approach and embedding it within Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMPs), the directive effectively aggregates mitigation demand across projects and time. This creates the foundation for a more predictable, scalable, and market-driven approach to environmental compliance. The policy aligns with broader directives emphasizing programmatic solutions, permitting efficiency, and leveraging non-federal capacity.

Key Actions

• Establish mitigation banking as the preferred/default mitigation approach
• Reduce reliance on project-specific mitigation design and delivery
• Streamline approval processes for mitigation banks
• Integrate mitigation banking into DMMPs to align mitigation with long-term sediment management strategies
• Encourage use of pre-approved mitigation credits to support project delivery

Potential Implications

• Faster delivery of navigation projects through pre-approved mitigation solutions
• Greater cost predictability due to standardized mitigation pricing
• Development of regional mitigation credit markets driven by aggregated demand
• Increased role for private and third-party environmental providers
• Potential tradeoffs in site-specific ecological outcomes versus regional efficiency

This memo refines existing federal Project Labor Agreement (PLA) policy by introducing a clearer framework for evaluating when PLAs support project delivery versus when they may hinder cost efficiency or competition. While PLAs remain an established tool—particularly for large, complex projects requiring coordinated labor across multiple trades—the directive signals a shift away from default application toward conditional use based on measurable criteria.

The policy introduces explicit thresholds and decision triggers, emphasizing cost discipline and competitive procurement outcomes. By elevating approval authority to the ASA CW for certain decisions, the memo also centralizes oversight and ensures that PLA use aligns with broader program priorities, including efficient use of federal funds and maximizing competition.

Key Actions

• Maintain PLA use for projects ≥ $35M, consistent with federal policy
• Require ASA CW approval for PLA use on projects below $35M
• Encourage exceptions where:
  • PLA requirements increase costs by ≥10 percent above government estimates
  • PLA requirements reduce competition or bidder participation
• Reinforce evaluation of cost-effectiveness and practicality in PLA decisions

Potential Implications

• Increased scrutiny of labor-related cost impacts during procurement
• Potential expansion of competition from non-union contractors
• Greater centralized oversight of labor policy decisions
• More project-specific labor strategies rather than standardized application
• Possible tension between schedule certainty (PLA benefit) and cost efficiency (policy emphasis)

This memo reflects a broader effort by USACE to actively manage and rationalize its project portfolio as a strategic resource allocation tool, rather than passively carrying forward legacy authorizations. Over time, the Civil Works program has accumulated a backlog of authorized projects that are inactive, lack local support, or are no longer economically justified. The memo operationalizes existing Water Resources Development Act authorities by directing districts to identify projects that are effectively dormant or infeasible. The intent appears to be to free up institutional capacity and signal to Congress which authorizations are no longer viable, enabling a reallocation of resources toward higher-priority infrastructure investments.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Identify projects that:
  • Have not started or progressed in extended periods
  • Lack funding, support, or economic justification
• Expand and refine the list of candidate projects
• Submit recommendations within 15 days of the date of the memo (March 10)—those recommendations are not publicly available.

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Accelerated portfolio cleanup and prioritization (this is the stated intent)
• Increased focus on high-value, active projects
• Potential political sensitivity where local stakeholders still support projects that may be deprioritized
• Improved alignment between authorized inventory of projects and an executable pipeline.

This memo establishes a top-down prioritization framework for allocating USACE resources across planning, design, and construction activities. It reflects a shift toward national-level prioritization criteria, rather than distributing efforts evenly across districts or project types. The intent is to ensure that limited federal capacity—particularly staff and funding—is directed toward projects with the greatest national significance.

The policy reinforces a transition toward a federal “core mission” focus, with lower-priority work increasingly shifted to non-federal sponsors or external delivery mechanisms. This aligns with broader themes across the directives emphasizing efficiency, prioritization, and leveraging non-federal capabilities. This represents a shift from geographically distributed workload management to a nationally optimized portfolio model.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Prioritizing work in the following order:
• Life safety
• Nationally significant infrastructure
• Navigation and supply chains
• Property protection
• Ecosystem restoration
• State-level infrastructure
• Local infrastructure
• Reallocating staff and funding to higher-priority efforts
• Shifting lower-priority work to:
  • Non-federal sponsors
  • Contractors or external delivery

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Stronger alignment with national economic and safety priorities
• Reduced federal involvement in local-scale projects
• Increased reliance on non-federal delivery models
• Potential geographic and political disparities in project advancement

Complementing the substantive prioritization framework, this memo establishes a formalized, bottom-up process for identifying and elevating priority projects within USACE. It introduces a structured mechanism for districts and divisions to nominate and rank projects, which are then consolidated at headquarters for final decision-making.

This approach institutionalizes portfolio management discipline, ensuring that prioritization is not ad hoc, but is instead systematically developed and aligned across organizational levels. It also creates greater transparency into how priorities are determined and advanced.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Require districts to identify and rank at least 5 priorities
• Require divisions to consolidate into at least 20 priorities
• Submit prioritized lists to headquarters for final review and approval

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Improved alignment between field offices and headquarters
• More disciplined and transparent project selection process
• Increased competition among projects for priority status
• Potential disadvantages for projects lacking strong internal advocacy

This memo targets one of the more complex and time-consuming aspects of USACE permitting: Section 408 approvals, which are required when activities have the potential to alter USACE projects. Historically, applicants and congressional oversight reports have criticized the 408 review process for inconsistency, long timelines, and lack of standardized procedures.

The memo directs a shift toward programmatic and rule-based approaches, including the development of categorical permissions and formal regulations. The goal is to align 408 processing with broader federal efforts to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory friction, particularly for infrastructure and energy projects. Such an approach will transition Section 408 authorizations toward a general permit-style framework analogous to Clean Water Act Section 404, reducing reliance on case-by-case reviews.

Key actions that USACE will undertake as directed in the memo:

• Initiate formal rulemaking for Section 408 procedures
• Develop nationwide categorical permissions
• Allow for regional general permits and programmatic approvals consistent with the approach to Clean Water Act Section 404 permits
• Align Section 408 reviews with broader permitting reform initiatives.

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Significant reduction in permitting timelines for routine activities requiring a 408 authorization
• Increased predictability for applicants
• Greater consistency across districts and regions
• Potential for increased legal and environmental scrutiny

This memo addresses the long-standing issue of lengthy USACE study timelines that delay delivery of tangible benefits. The Early Actionable Increments concept is designed to break large, complex projects into smaller components that USACE can implement more quickly. By emphasizing early deliverables and enforcing statutory study limits, the policy seeks to move projects from analysis to execution more rapidly. It reflects a broader cultural shift toward incremental delivery and practical outcomes, rather than comprehensive but delayed solutions. The approach shifts project development toward modular, phased delivery, which may alter how projects are scoped, authorized, and funded.

Key actions identified in the memo:

• Enforce study limits of 3 years/$3 million (the 3×3 framework)
• Identify and advance incremental, implementable components
• Prioritize near-term actions over long-term comprehensive plans
• Limit extensions and exceptions

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Faster realization of project benefits
• Reduced risk of prolonged study phases
• Increased use of phased project delivery
• Potential tradeoffs in long-term optimization versus near-term action

This memo represents one of the most consequential reforms in the package, targeting the front end of the USACE project pipeline—where studies are initiated, scoped, and justified. The core problem identified is that feasibility studies are too slow, too costly, and often initiated without sufficient discipline, leading to a backlog of studies that consume resources without producing implementable projects. The issue is compounded by the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 expanding the number of authorized studies, further straining an already oversubscribed portfolio (page 1).

The directive fundamentally reframes the investigation phase as a screening and scoping function, not an open-ended analytical process. It introduces a formal requirement to determine federal interest up front—before a feasibility study is even scoped, budgeted, or scheduled. This is a major shift: historically, federal interest was often refined during the feasibility process; now it becomes a threshold gate that must be cleared quickly and decisively. The memo also explicitly ties federal interest to core mission areas (navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration) and requires confirmation that a viable, cost-justified alternative exists that could ultimately support a Chief’s Report and congressional authorization (pages 1–2).

A critical addition is the requirement to evaluate non-federal sponsor capability early, including their legal authority, financial capacity, and ability to meet long-term operations and management (O&M) responsibilities. If federal interest is weak, USACE is directed to steer projects toward technical assistance authorities instead of full feasibility studies, effectively filtering out projects that should not enter the federal pipeline. This represents a clear shift toward shared responsibility and sponsor readiness as prerequisites, not afterthoughts.

Beyond Federal Interest Determination, the memo significantly tightens governance and oversight of the entire investigation phase. The Office of ASA CW is positioned as an active gatekeeper, requiring concurrence on study scope before feasibility work begins and at key decision points during Preconstruction Engineering and Design if scope changes occur. It also emphasizes that investigations are an enterprise responsibility, directing districts to leverage staff and contracting resources across USACE rather than operate independently. Hiring is discouraged in favor of enterprise-wide staffing and expanded use of contractors, reinforcing broader workforce efficiency directives.

The memo further introduces active portfolio management tools that were not highlighted previously. These include:

• Line-item portfolio reviews and “investigation reset” authority, allowing studies that exceed time/cost limits or drift from priorities to be rescoped or terminated
• Requirement to review the entire active investigations portfolio and report back by March 31, 2026)
• Direction to reassess and streamline the milestone review process (Alternatives, Tentative Selected Plan, Command Validation), which has historically contributed to delays
• A comprehensive review of all internal and external review requirements, including Independent external peer review, with the goal of eliminating outdated or duplicative steps 

Finally, the memo reinforces statutory discipline by reiterating that investigations should adhere to the 3-year/$3M limits, with waivers discouraged and exceptions treated as rare. Studies paused beyond their approved timelines are subject to termination, signaling a much more aggressive approach to managing schedule and cost performance.

Key actions identified in the memo:

Federal Interest Determination

• Require Federal Interest Determination of all new FY26 investigations within 45 days at a cost of less than $100K
• Federal Interest Determinations should evaluate:
  • Federal mission alignment
  • Sponsor capability
  • Economic and environmental justification
• Require early confirmation of non-federal sponsor capability (financial, legal, O&M responsibilities)
• Redirect low-federal-interest projects to technical assistance authorities

Governance and Oversight

• Require the Office of the ASA CW to concur on study scope before feasibility begins
• Require concurrence for scope changes during PED
• Escalate policy or controversial issues immediately to ASA CW
• Reinforce 3-year/$3M study limits
• Strongly discourage wavers for time/cost overruns

Enterprise Resource Management

• Treat investigations as an enterprise-wide responsibility
• Require districts to:
  • Use shared staffing across districts
  • Expand use of contracting support
• Discourage hiring of new staff; prioritize existing workforce optimization

Portfolio Control & Discipline

• Conduct line-item review of all ongoing investigations
• Enable rescoping or termination of non-performing studies
• Terminate studies paused beyond approved timelines
• Deliver portfolio review briefing by March 31, 2026

Process Streamlining

• Reassess and streamline milestone review framework
• Review and eliminate outdated internal/external review requirements
• Evaluate entire lifecycle review process, including:
  • Planning
  • Construction
  • O&M
  • Independent external peer review and safety reviews

Potential implications of the memo include:

• Fundamental shift to “gatekeeping” model
  • Federal interest becomes a hard entry threshold, not a study outcome
  • Likely significant reduction in new feasibility starts
• Increased burden on non-federal sponsors
  • Sponsors must demonstrate financial capability and long-term commitment
  • Sponsors without capacity may be filtered out early
• Aggressive portfolio pruning
  • Existing studies may face rescoping, a reset, or termination
  • Signals a move toward a leaner execution-focused pipeline
• Centralized decision-making
  • Office of the ASA CW becomes a direct gatekeeper on scope and policy alignment
  • Reduces district-level autonomy in shaping studies
• Acceleration potential
  • Faster study initiation decisions
  • Reduced time lost on non-viable projects
  • More efficient path to Chiefs Reports and authorization

Key actions identified in the memo:

• Require submission of a business case within 60 days of determining that a project will exceed the Section 902 limit
• Evaluate three delivery alternatives:
  • Continue with the current project delivery team
  • Reassign to a different team within the district
  • Reassign to a team in another district
• Require analysis of:
  • Cost containment strategies
  • Schedule impacts
  • Risks, including Anti-Deficiency Act compliance
• Require identification of any post-authorization change requirements and associated scope

Potential Implications

• Increased accountability for cost growth and project performance
• Greater willingness to restructure or reassign underperforming projects
• Reduced likelihood of projects remaining stalled after exceeding cost limits
• Potential disruption to project continuity due to team reassignment
• Improved alignment between project execution capability and project complexity

This memo targets one of the most consistent bottlenecks in Civil Works delivery: real estate acquisition, which frequently delays projects even after planning and design are complete. The directive recognizes that existing policies are overly rigid, risk-averse, and process-heavy, often resulting in late-stage acquisition requirements that create schedule and cost inefficiencies.

The policy shifts toward a more flexible, sponsor-integrated, and risk-managed approach to real estate, with an emphasis on enabling earlier acquisition and reducing unnecessary federal constraints. Importantly, it encourages rebalancing responsibilities between USACE and non-federal sponsors, while also modernizing internal processes such as appraisals and crediting. This aligns with broader directives emphasizing early action, non-federal participation, and removal of procedural barriers to construction.

Key Actions

• Review and update real estate policies to:
  • Reduce administrative burden and rigidity
  • Increase flexibility in types of property interests acquired
• Encourage early acquisition by non-federal sponsors
• Evaluate and improve:
  • Timing of acquisition actions relative to project milestones
  • Risk allocation between federal and non-federal parties
• Streamline appraisal, budgeting, and crediting processes
• Explore innovative financing mechanisms and simplified cost-sharing arrangements

Potential Implications

• Reduced delays between project authorization and construction start
• Increased responsibility and risk borne by non-federal sponsors
• Greater alignment between real estate acquisition and project delivery schedules
• Potential for more flexible and cost-effective acquisition strategies
• Risk of increased complexity in negotiation and coordination with sponsors

This memo promotes the integration of ship simulation technology into the design of navigation projects to address a recurring issue: infrastructure that is either overdesigned (increasing costs) or underperforms operationally (requiring redesign or modification). Traditional design approaches often rely on conservative assumptions that do not fully account for real-world vessel behavior or pilot decision-making.

The directive requires earlier and more consistent use of simulation tools, combined with input from pilots and maritime operators, to produce designs that are both operationally realistic and cost-efficient. It also emphasizes building institutional capacity through partnerships with external simulation providers. This reflects a broader shift toward data-driven, performance-based design and reducing lifecycle costs through better upfront decision-making.

Key Actions

• Require use of ship simulation early in the design process, unless waived
• Incorporate input from:
  • Maritime pilots
  • Other navigation professionals
• Apply simulation to:
  • Navigation channels
  • Locks and inland waterway infrastructure (as appropriate)
• Establish memoranda of agreement within 60 days with qualified simulation providers
• Leverage both:
  • USACE internal simulation capabilities
  • External institutions with specialized expertise

Potential Implications

• Improved design accuracy and operational safety
• Reduced risk of costly redesign during or after construction
• Potential cost savings through right-sized infrastructure design
• Increased upfront planning requirements and coordination
• Greater reliance on specialized technical expertise and external partnerships