Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11

Objectives:Objectives: “Provide a basic overview and understanding of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) and the differences between the GI and CAP processes”

Continuing Authorities Program Congress Has Provided the Corps with Standing Authorities to Study and Build Specific Water Resource Projects for Specific Purposes and with Specified Federal Spending Limits.

CAP Authorities

CAP Projects — Quicker to Implement ! (usually 3 years from study to construction, SAF) — Limited in scope, geographic area and complexity — Have a Federal cost limit determined by the specific project authority — Feasibility Report or Definite Project Report (DPR) approved by Division Commander — Typically FCSA approved/executed by District Commander & PPA approved at Division — Do not need additional Congressional authorization for individual projects

What CAP is Not CAP is not for… — Study only activities — Avoiding specific Congressional authorization requirements (by “daisy chaining” together CAP projects) — Correction of design deficiencies on another project

CAP Program Structure Two Phase Program –Feasibility Phase –Design & Implementation Phase (D&I) Prior to January 31, 2006 – –Recon, Feasibility, and Construction Phases

CAP Feasibility Phase Sponsor submits request for assistance –Environmental (206/1135) may be “non-profit entity” – Request to include financial understanding Initially Federally funded up to $100,000 No FCSA required if Feasibility < $100k* Costs beyond $100k shared 50/50 with FCSA * Should a project (somehow) complete Feasibility under $100k, any remaining feasibility funds may not be used toward the D&I phase

Typical CAP Milestones — Federal Interest Determination (FID) –Acknowledge/Decline Federal Interest –Solution(s) which result in a project consistent with the intent of CAP and willing & capable sponsor — Project Management Plan (PMP) — Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) –Held after alternative plans formulated and prior to release of draft decision document for public review –Legal & policy issues identified w/ MSC concurrence — Final product is the Detailed Report (DPR)

Design & Implementation (D&I) Phase — Begins upon MSC approval of decision document — If EIS is completed, a Record of Decision (ROD) is to be signed by the Division Commander (ER ) — Requires PPA for D&I phase — Design-Completion of Plans and Specs — Implementation — Solicitation for Contracts

D&I – Project Completion — District Commander determines if project is functional and turns it over to the sponsor for O&M — OMRR&R manual provided to sponsor with turn over letter — Project completion of final accounting report

Typical CAP Study Documentation — A clear description of the recommended plan — Demonstration of project justification based on standard Corps project justification criteria for the particular purpose — Documentation of compliance with appropriate Federal, state, and local environmental and regulatory requirements — The non-federal sponsor signs a self-certification of financial capability for project implementation — District Real Estate certification that the non-federal sponsor has the capability to acquire and provide the required real estate interests — Identification of the anticipated O&MRR&R, including estimated costs — ATR documentation — District counsel legal sufficiency statement for the decision document and NEPA — A completed Real Estate Plan

CAP Study Cannot Be Approved When: — CAP authority is not appropriate for that purpose — Study costs exceed construction costs — Estimated Federal cost exceeds CAP authorization’s per- project funding limit — A non-federal sponsor for design/implementation is not identified — There are outstanding policy issues — Any required environmental compliance is not completed

Converting CAP to GI and Vice Versa — CAP studies may be converted to a specifically authorized GI program study if the proposed solution will exceed the specific CAP funding limit — GI Feasibility studies or a (separable element) may be converted to CAP if it appears they will result in a small, non-complex project — Cannot use CAP funds for GI studies except to finish a “logical increment”

CAP FACTS — Congressional Committees and HQUSACE have mandated that CAP be a national program. As such budget allocations and project new starts are approved by HQUSACE — Congress has been earmarking projects in each of the authorities, so much so that no other projects can be considered until this backlog has been completed — Demand exceeds funds available

CAP PROCEDURES — ER , Appendix F Provides Detailed Program Guidance for all CAP authorities: —Program/Project Funding and Allocation —HQ/MSC Responsibility —Cost-Sharing, FCSA & PPA’s —MSC’s responsible for establishing decision document requirements and formats

CLEARING & SNAGGING Section 208, Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended — Purpose - Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $500,000 — Annual Program Spending Limit of $7,500,000

Aquatic Ecosystem and Estuary Restoration Section 206, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996, as amended by WRDA 2007 — Purpose - aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $5,000,000 — Annual Program Appropriation Limit of $50,000,000

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT Section 205, Flood Control Act of 1948, as Amended — Purpose - Flood Damage Reduction — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $7,000,000 — Annual Program Spending Limit of $55,000,000

SHORELINE PROTECTION Section 103, River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended — Purpose - Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $3,000,000 — Annual Program Spending Limit of $30,000,000

Emergency Streambank Section 14, Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended — Purpose of Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Protection for Public Facilities and Services — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $1,500,000 — Annual Program Spending Limit of $15,000,000

Cost Sharing for Sections 208, 206*, 205, 103, 14, No reconnaissance phase Feasibility study initially Federally funded up to $100,000 to prepare Federal interest determination and follow on decision document Costs in excess of the $100,000 must be cost shared 50%-50% (FCSA) D&I are cost-shared 65% Federal (up to the per project limit) 35% Non-Federal Non - Federal share may be credit for work in-kind A PPA is executed after project approval and prior to initiation of D&I phase * Section 206 Sponsors can be a Non-Governmental Organization

NAVIGATIONNAVIGATION Section 107, River and Harbor Act of 1960, as amended — Purpose - Navigation — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $7,000,000 — Annual Program Spending Limit of $35,000,000

Cost Sharing For Section 107 No reconnaissance phase Initially Federally funded up to $100,000 to prepare Federal interest determination and follow on decision document Costs in excess of the $100,000 must be cost shared 50%-50% (FCSA) Non - Federal share may be credit for work in-kind Cost sharing of D&I is the same as specifically authorized navigation projects A PPA is executed after project approval and prior to initiation of D&I Phase Currently execution of all Section 107 agreements must be approved by ASA (CW)

NAVIGATIONNAVIGATION Section 3, River and Harbor Act of 1945, as amended — Purpose - Clearing & Snagging — No Per Project Fed Funding Limit — Annual Program Spending Limit of $1,000,000 — Not funded in recent years

Cost Sharing For Section 3 100% Federal cost for design and construction Non-Federal responsible for LERRDs Non-Federal responsible for O&M

SHORELINE MITIGATION Section 111, River and Harbor Act of 1968, as amended — Purpose - Mitigation of Shoreline Erosion Damage Caused by Federal Navigation Projects — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $5,000,000. If the Federal Share Exceeds $5,000,000, the Project May NOT Proceed Without Specific Congressional Authorization

Cost Sharing for Section 111 Non - Federal share may be credit for work in-kind D&I and construction phases are cost-shared the same as the navigation feature causing the damage. A PPA is executed after project approval and prior to initiation of D&I Phase No reconnaissance phase Initially Federally funded up to $100,000 to prepare Federal Interest determination and follow on decision document Costs in excess of the $100,000 must be cost shared 50%-50% (FCSA)

Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment Section 1135, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended — Purpose - Modification to improve the environment where an existing Federal project contributed to the problem — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $5,000,000 — Program Annual Appropriation Limit of $40,000,000

Cost Sharing For Section 1135 D&I are cost-shared 75% Federal (up to the per project limit) 25% Non-Federal Non - Federal share may be credit for work in-kind A PPA is executed after project approval prior to initiation of D&I Sponsors can be Non- Governmental Organization No reconnaissance phase Initially Federally funded up to $100,000 to prepare Federal interest determination and follow on decision document Costs in excess of the $100,000 must be cost shared 50%-50% (FCSA)

Ecosystem Restoration in Connection with Dredging Section 204, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, as amended — Purpose - protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in connection with dredging for construction, O&M of an authorized Federal project — Per Project Federal Spending Limit of $5,000,000 — Annual Program Appropriation Limit of $30,000,000

Cost Sharing For Section 204 l No reconnaissance phase l Initially Federally funded up to $100,000 to prepare Federal interest determination and follow on decision document l Costs in excess of the $100,000 must be cost shared 50%-50% (FCSA) l D&I are cost shared 65/35 A PPA is executed at the end of P&S Cost sharing is for the increment above the base disposal plan which are “costs necessary to carry out dredging…in the most effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.”

Program Funding Limits Section DescriptionProject Program ($ million) ($ million) 3Navigation Clearing & Snagging None 1 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage 5 None 205Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat Section DescriptionProject Program ($ million) ($ million) 3Navigation Clearing & Snagging None 1 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage 5 None 205Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 5 30

Fiscal Year Funding Levels Section Authority07 Budget07 Approp. ($ million) ($ million) 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 0 5

Fiscal Year Funding Levels Section Authority08 Budget08 Approp. ($ million) ($ million) 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

Fiscal Year Funding Levels Section Authority09 Budget09 Approp. ($ million) ($ million) 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

Fiscal Year Funding Levels Section Authority10 Budget10 Approp. ($ million) ($ million) 14Streambank/Shore protection Beach Erosion Control Navigation Mitigation of Shore Damage Flood Damage Reduction Snagging/Clearing Aquatic Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem Restoration Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat