EP 1165-2-1
30 Jul 99
shared to the same extent as the other costs allocated to such
purposes are shared. The mitigation costs include separable first
costs (any lands and construction) and separable operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs.
a. Justification. The basis for justifying which fish and
wildlife resources are to be mitigated should be a combination of two
major factors: (1) those significant fish and wildlife resources that
will be unavoidably damaged as determined by an impact assessment of
various alternative plans being considered; and (2) an examination of
the cost effectiveness of various mitigation alternatives designed to
achieve the mitigation goals established by the impact analysis. The
significance of ecological resources to be protected, restored or
created must be established through their legal or institutional
recognition, their scientific recognition, and/or their public
recognition. (See also the P&G and ER 1105-2-100) A separate benefit
cost ratio for mitigation measures will not be computed, nor should
economics be used as the only basis for justification of mitigation.
However, dollar values associated with user-days generated by a
mitigation plan, as well as user-days lost because of project
construction, are proper factors to consider. Additionally,
nonmonetary values, e.g., habitat units lost and gained with each
proposed mitigation measure, should be developed and considered, along
with the monetary values, when selecting and determining the
justification of mitigation plans. Nonmonetary benefits should be
quantified in appropriate units such as, e.g., increased number of
nests, habitat units, quantity and quality of acres modified
(including acres of specific habitat type), diversity indices, etc.
With and without project conditions should be briefly described and
each additional increment of the proposed modification should have its
associated quantifiable benefits documented. Nonmonetary values
should also reflect the importance or significance of the affected
fish and wildlife resources from local, regional and national
recognition, as noted above. The objective is to maintain the
integrity and viability of significant natural resources and their
contributions to local and regional ecosystems rather than considering
all resource losses inherently equal. This demands that the concept
of ecosystem management be fully applied, i.e., planners need to be
aware of the biological and physical relationships among individual
species and among different species in assessing significance.
Finally, mitigation plans shall be justified incrementally, i.e., when
an increment or management measure is added to a plan, it should
increase the plan's net benefits.
b. Implementation. Generally, the Corps implements
mitigation measures concurrently with the initiation of construction
of other project features as per Subsection 906(a) WRDA 1986 (See also
paragraph 19-8a(1) and ER 1105-2-100, Chapter 7). Since this requires
that the Corps maintain the ability to condemn lands, reports
proposing land acquisition for mitigation purposes should not contain
recommendations that would preclude the Corps from exercising the
power of eminent domain.
c. Operation and Maintenance. Responsibility for operation,
maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement (OMRR&R) of mitigation
19-15
Previous Page
