1. Ecosystem Restoration Module ER1: Authorities and Policies

2. ER1 - 2 BU ILDING STRONG SM Student Learning Objectives  General understanding of the significant legislation  Define mitigation and distinguish it from restoration  Describe Corps ecosystem restoration authorities  List the types of projects that can be implemented  Identify the limitations of these authorities.  Apply appropriate cost sharing and policies.

3. ER1 - 3 BU ILDING STRONG SM Environmental Planning Laws  National Environmental Policy Act  Endangered Species Act  Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act  National Historic Preservation Act  Coastal Zone Management Act  Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act  Farmland Protection Policy Act

4. ER1 - 4 BU ILDING STRONG SM Regulatory Laws - RCRA & CERCLA  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  Regulates hazardous waste, solid waste, and underground storage tanks  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)  Imposes liability for cleanup of hazardous substances as a result of past activities

5. ER1 - 5 BU ILDING STRONG SM Regulatory Laws Clean Water & Clean Air  Clean Water Act  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Water quality certification  Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972  Ocean dumping  Ocean disposal sites  Clean Air Act  Comply with standards  Prepare air quality impact assessments

6. ER1 - 6 BU ILDING STRONG SM Executive Orders  EO 11988 – Floodplain Management  EO 11990 – Protection of Wetlands  EO 12898 – Environmental Justice  EO 13186 – Migratory Waterfowl

7. ER1 - 7 BU ILDING STRONG SM For Further Information  Attend Environmental Considerations in Planning Core Curriculum Course  Attend Environmental Laws and Regulations Prospect Course  Check Environmental Desk Reference on CD

8. ER1 - 8 BU ILDING STRONG SM Ecosystem Restoration Objective  Restore degraded significant ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural condition.  Improve or re-establish structural components and functions of natural areas  Mimic, as closely as possible, conditions, which would occur in the area in the absence of human changes to the landscape and hydrology

9. ER1 - 9 BU ILDING STRONG SM Ecosystem Restoration: Related Concepts  Enhancement  Environmental Restoration  Conservation  Rehabilitation  Protection  Preservation  Mitigation

10. ER1 - 10 BU ILDING STRONG SM What is Mitigation? Mitigation is the measures taken to lessen the adverse impacts of a project on physical, ecological and socio- economic resources

11. ER1 - 11 BU ILDING STRONG SM Mitigation  Mitigation seeks to maintain the value of significant resources at the without condition  Any improvement in the value of these significant resources is incidental

12. ER1 - 12 BU ILDING STRONG SM Sequence of Mitigation Approaches  Avoid, may include design considerations  Minimize  Rectify  Reduce  Compensate  In-kind  Out-of-kind

13. ER1 - 13 BU ILDING STRONG SM Restoration  Seeks to improve the without condition  Return a degraded condition to a less- degraded condition

14. ER1 - 14 BU ILDING STRONG SM Evaluation of Mitigation may lead to Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities  The resource base is the same  The agencies are the same  The local sponsor is motivated  Therefore, you may have an opportunity for ecosystem restoration

15. ER1 - 15 BU ILDING STRONG SM Major Environmental Resource Types Which Are Typically Mitigated  Ecological  Fish and Wildlife Service  State Fish and Game  National Marine Fisheries Service  Cultural/Historical  State Historic Preservation Office  Advisory Council on Historic Preservation  Tribal Historic Preservation Office  Aesthetic  Interested parties  Water Quality  EPA  State Water Quality Office (Regional Water Quality Control Board)  Other?

16. ER1 - 16 BU ILDING STRONG SM Mitigation Planning-Early Activities  Inventory and Categorize Ecological Resources  Coordination, Consultation and Public Involvement  Determine Significant Net Losses  Define Mitigation Objectives  Determine Units of Measure

17. ER1 - 17 BU ILDING STRONG SM Mitigation Planning-Later Activities  Identify and Assess Potential Mitigation Strategies  Define and estimate costs of mitigation plan increments  Display incremental costs  Compare mitigation alternatives  Reformulate?

18. ER1 - 18 BU ILDING STRONG SM Mitigation Planning: Selection  The District Commander makes the call  Staff is primary advisor  Don’t Need to Mitigate Everything but special policies govern  Wetlands  Bottomland Hardwoods  Monitoring (and Adaptive Measures)  Section 906: Concurrent mitigation

19. ER1 - 19 BU ILDING STRONG SM Mitigation Planning- New Activities  WRDA 2007 section 2036 now requires mitigations for flow and wetland losses w/monitoring plan; cost/duration defined responsibility and success criteria.  Requires monitoring until meeting ecological success criteria

20. ER1 - 20 BU ILDING STRONG SM Who Pays for Mitigation  Cost-sharing: Responsible purpose pays  Costs are allocated accordingly  PL 93-291 (“1% rule”) – A special provision. All Federal cost. Up to 1% of Federal share of construction cost, only for data recovery and documentation of cultural resources. Not included in NED costs. Not part of the cost-shared project mitigation for adverse environmental effects.

21. ER1 - 21 BU ILDING STRONG SM Evolution Towards Ecosystem Restoration Authorities and Policies  No mitigation  Mitigation incorporated into project plans  Restoration linked to past Corps projects  Restoration of other degraded water resources  Regional programs  Formulate comprehensive plans with restoration and NED purposes

22. ER1 - 22 BU ILDING STRONG SM Ecosystem Restoration Authorities  Specifically authorized studies  Programmatic authorities  Additional restoration opportunities

23. ER1 - 23 BU ILDING STRONG SM Specifically Authorized Studies/Projects  Single purpose  Multiple purpose  Review of completed projects  Study Cost Sharing – 50/50  Construction cost sharing – 35% non-Federal which includes lands

24. ER1 - 24 BU ILDING STRONG SM Programmatic Authorities  What you need to know to determine proper authority  Limits on authorities  Is linkage to a Corps project needed?  Are lands needed?  Size of the problem  Sponsor’s capability

25. ER1 - 25 BU ILDING STRONG SM Programmatic Authorities  Project modification for improvement of the environment  Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration  Beneficial use of dredged material

26. ER1 - 26 BU ILDING STRONG SM Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment Section 1135 of WRDA 1986, Amended  Purpose  Modify Federal projects to improve the environment (“Federal” in this case includes Corps projects and/or Corps participation in the original Federal project)  Constraint  Consistent with authorized project purposes  Non-Federal Cost-Sharing  25 percent of the implementation cost including lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas ( LERRD)  100 percent of operation and maintenance  80 percent of the non-Federal share may be work-in-kind

27. ER1 - 27 BU ILDING STRONG SM Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Section 206 of WRDA 1996  Purpose  Aquatic ecosystem restoration that improve environment  Non-Federal Cost-Sharing  35 percent of the cost of implementation which includes lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas  100 percent of OMRR&R  100 percent of the non-Federal share may be work- in-kind

28. ER1 - 28 BU ILDING STRONG SM Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Section 204 of WRDA 1992, Amended  Purpose  Habitat restoration using dredged material  Base plan  Least costly disposal method  Non-Federal Cost-sharing  25 percent of construction cost above the base plan  100 percent of OMRR&R for ecosystem restoration  No credit allowed for work-in-kind

29. ER1 - 29 BU ILDING STRONG SM Placement of Dredge Material on Beaches (Section 145, WRDA 1976)  Purpose  Placement of dredged material on beaches  Non-Federal Cost-Sharing  35% (WRDA 1996) of the incremental cost over the cost of the least costly method of disposal when placement is to obtain economic outputs

30. ER1 - 30 BU ILDING STRONG SM Section 312, WRDA 1990, Environmental Dredging as Amended by Section 224 WRDA 1999  Purpose  Removal and remediation of contaminated sediments from Navigable waters  Applies to non-CERCLA sites  Non-Federal Cost-Sharing  Normal O&M project cost sharing when project related  35% when not project related but in navigable waters

31. ER1 - 31 BU ILDING STRONG SM Federal Funding Limits AuthorityProjectAnnual Section 1135$5 million$25 million Section 206$5 million$25 million Sections 204none$15 million Section 312none$20 million

32. ER1 - 32 BU ILDING STRONG SM Additional Ecosystem Restoration Authorities  Section 906 of WRDA 1986 – Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement  Section 907 of WRDA 1986 – Benefits and Costs Attributable to Environmental Measures  Section 306 of WRDA 1990 – Environmental Protection Mission

33. ER1 - 33 BU ILDING STRONG SM Additional Ecosystem Restoration Authorities (Cont.)  Section 307 of WRDA 1990 - Wetlands  Section 203 of WRDA 1992 – Voluntary Contributions for Environmental and Recreation Projects  Section 210 of WRDA 96 – Cost Sharing for Environmental Projects  Section 212 of WRDA 99 (Challenge XXI)  Flood mitigation and riverine restoration program

34. ER1 - 34 BU ILDING STRONG SM How is Restoration Plan Formulation Different?  It makes environmental improvement an objective  The ultimate design is not of human origin  The ultimate design is self-maintaining  We can facilitate but not dictate restoration  Policy constraints differ

35. ER1 - 35 BU ILDING STRONG SM Policy Considerations  The project should restore ecosystem structure, functions and values  The project should result in improved environmental quality  The improvement should be of great enough national significance to justify federal expenditure

36. ER1 - 36 BU ILDING STRONG SM Policy Considerations  The sum of all monetary and non-monetary benefits should exceed the sum of all monetary and non-monetary costs  The measures taken to improve environmental quality should result in a more naturalistic and self-regulating system  The measures should reestablish to the extent possible a close approximation of preexisting conditions

37. ER1 - 37 BU ILDING STRONG SM Ecosystem Restoration Policies: Highlights  Ecosystem restoration is a priority mission  Systems context  Avoid need for mitigation  Public interest  Land acquisition  Water quality  Recreation  Monitoring and adaptive management  Applying Corps expertise  Operational effectiveness

38. ER1 - 38 BU ILDING STRONG SM Group Exercise  Problem  Existing WPA channel modifications have degraded the local creek’s ecosystem  Local community wants the creek restored to support local redevelopment initiatives

39. ER1 - 39 BU ILDING STRONG SM Deteriorated WPA Wall Along the Menomonee River in Valley Park (Piggsville), WI

40. ER1 - 40 BU ILDING STRONG SM View of Deteriorated WPA Wall Along the Menomonee River the Valley Park (Piggsville) Area of Milwaukee, WI

41. ER1 - 41 BU ILDING STRONG SM View of deteriorated WPA wall located on east bank of Menomonee River in the Valley Park area.

42. ER1 - 42 BU ILDING STRONG SM View of Railroad Bridge (Foreground) and Highway Bridge Located over the Menomonee River in the Valley Park, WI (Piggsville) Area, Milwaukee, WI

43. ER1 - 43 BU ILDING STRONG SM Looking south at Menomonee River channel RR bridge and I-94 freeway bridge.

44. ER1 - 44 BU ILDING STRONG SM Looking north at the Menomonee River channel in the Valley Park area.

45. ER1 - 45 BU ILDING STRONG SM Aerial View of The Valley Park (Piggsville)Area and the Menomonee River in Milwaukee, WI. This area receives substantial flood damages.

46. ER1 - 46 BU ILDING STRONG SM Another Aerial View of the Valley Park (Piggsville) Area, Milwaukee, WI that suffers flood damages from the Menomonee River

47. ER1 - 47 BU ILDING STRONG SM Group Exercise RR Local Road State Road Interstate Hwy Valley Park Retail/Commercial

48. ER1 - 48 BU ILDING STRONG SM Group Exercise  Tasks  Develop a list of “planning issues”  Develop an approach to help the local sponsor within Corps authorities.

49. ER1 - 49 BU ILDING STRONG SM Take Away Points  Mitigation is based on adverse project impacts comparing the without and with conditions  Restoration is based on improving the without condition  Early coordination and avoidance is the key to sound mitigation and restoration planning  Mitigation costs are allocated to the associated project purpose  The District Commander makes the mitigation call  Ecosystem Restoration is a high budgetary priority

50. ER1 - 50 BU ILDING STRONG SM What’s Next  First two steps of the planning process  Problem Identification  Inventory and forecast  Plan formulation Information needs  Methods for quantifying habitat values

51. ER1 - 51 BU ILDING STRONG SM Challenge Question  How does eco-friendly design relate to mitigation and ecosystem restoration?