EP 1165-2-1
30 Jul 99
features is typically defined in authorizing legislation. However,
since the passage of WRDA 1986, Corps policy has been for the non-
Federal interest to assume 100 percent of the OMRR&R. Mitigation
features should be operated and maintained by the agency that can most
efficiently do the job. Reports proposing the authorization of
mitigation measures should identify the agency that will subsequently
be responsible for funding and managing the OMRR&R. Responsibility
for funding OMRR&R rests with the agency responsible for those
activities. Authorization reports should not propose that the Corps
budget funds annually for transfer to other agencies for OMRR&R
activities. At projects not operated and maintained by the Corps,
where local interests other than the project sponsor is the managing
agency for mitigation features, a lump sum payment for the Federal
share of the OMRR&R (when minor) will be made to the managing agency
rather than being deducted from the non-Federal contribution toward
first costs. This will be covered in preauthorization planning
studies, and, unless there is some legal restraint, the Corps will
require the project sponsor's share of mitigation OMRR&R costs to be
capitalized and turned over to the managing agency concurrently with
the Federal contribution.
e. Review of Completed Projects. It is the general policy of
the Corps to review completed projects for additional mitigation
measures only in response to congressional authorization, other legal
requirements, or through the application of Section 216 of the River
and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970 (RHFCA 1970). This provision
of the RHFCA 1970 authorizes the Corps to undertake studies to review
the operation of completed federal projects and recommend project
modifications " ... when found advisable due to significantly changed
physical or economic conditions ... and for improving the quality of
the environment in the overall public interest". (See also ER 1165-2-
119, "Modifications to Completed Projects")
f. Monitoring. Post-construction monitoring of mitigation
measures may be necessary, in some cases, and should be designed to
evaluate whether or not the mitigation measures are working as planned
following their construction. Adaptive management is a technique that
should be considered for monitoring programs for projects/measures
that have the potential for uncertainty in achieving their objectives.
(See ER 1105-2-100, Chapter 4) The cost and duration of a mitigation
monitoring program should be included in the estimate of the
construction cost of the project and in appropriate reports
(feasibility reports, re-evaluation reports, or other decision
documents, as well as cost sharing agreements). The monitoring plan
will describe the nature of the monitoring required as well as the
period of time within which it will be conducted. Monitoring
proposals will consider the local sponsor's ability to carry out and
fund its monitoring responsibilities and specify who will actually
carry out the monitoring activities. Any monitoring requirements will
be clearly specified in the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA).
(1) Monitoring for mitigation measures will be cost-shared
with the local sponsor in accordance with the project purpose that
caused the damages to the fish and wildlife resources.
(2) The local sponsor will assume normal O&M responsibility
for the project, including any monitoring requirements specified in
the PCA, upon receipt of the O&M manual. There may be instances where
it would be more cost effective for Corps operational elements to
conduct specified monitoring responsibilities, with appropriate non-
Federal reimbursement.
19-16
Previous Page
