Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDonald Short Modified over 9 years ago
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?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.