Laserfiche WebLink
<br />D. Ecosystem Restoration IssueS <br /> <br />Statement Dl: <br />· The project likely wouldn't need Chiefs Report unless to serve as a basis for Congressional <br />authorization for implementation of reallocating to ER. <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· Assume we won't need a formal Chiefs Report if one ofthe following: <br />o No ER is pursued. <br />o OC decides we have sufficient authority with Sec 808, WRDA 1986. <br />o A new WRDA specifically adds ER. <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team <br />· Is it correct to assume that a Chiefs Report will not be necessary as described above? <br /> <br />Statement D2: <br />· Even if appropriations were necessary to share mitigation costs from storage reallocated either to ER or <br />Agriculture, this would have no bearing on the need for a Chief s Report, assuming sufficient <br />authorization as described in itemld. <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· Section 808 would not require a Report of the Chief of Engineers. More likely a finding by the Chief <br />that can probably be done via a DCW memo with recommendation to ASA. <br />· Unless there is need to add Ecosystem Restoration as a purpose, a typical COE report is not needed. <br />· Non-Fed interest should agree to repay the cost allocated to such storage in accordance with WSA58, <br />FWPRA, and such other Federal laws as the Secretary determines appropriate. This seems to open the <br />door for Federal appropriations. <br />· The assumptions should be checked out by counsel and policy staff. <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team <br />· Is it correct to assume that there would be no need for a Chief s Report even if federal appropriations <br />were requested for the mitigation costs? <br /> <br />Additional ER Issues to be discussed, time permitting, pursuant to the draft VTM agenda. <br /> <br />6 <br />