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

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

3. 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.

4. CAP Authorities
The CAP Programs are named for the sections in the acts that authorized them. So for example Section 205 is of the Flood Control Act of 1948, and Section 14 is of the Flood Control Act of 1946.

5. What are the differences
between
CAP & GI Projects?
GI and regular CG projects are usually the specifically authorized, line item funded projects. CAP projects are programmatic their authorization and funding. CAP projects are funded from the CG program, put into the CAP category.

6. 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
While CAP projects are more straightforward and easy to implement, the progress in a CAP project is still subject to availability of Federal and local funding. CAP projects are supposed to be limited in scope and geographic area. Because we are dealing with water projects, there are occasionally CAP projects that are large, more complex, and difficult to implement, but these should be the exception and not the rule.
Phased construction is allowed on CAP projects. Largely because of the program became oversubscribed in many respects, and subsequent program limitations and budget constraints starting in 2005, many CAP projects have been getting funded incrementally. Some have had to wait longer for funding in in phases or for funding to start new phases.

7. 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
Be very cautious about taking on a project in CAP that really requires a watershed approach or a specific GI study authorization. Sometimes it has been done, but very often will lead to disappointed sponsors and/or unintended consequences.
As another example of a restriction, Section 14 projects cannot be used specifically to stabilize eroding banks to protect a Federal levee constructed by the Corps under another program.

8. CAP Program Structure Two Phase Program Prior to January 31, 2006 –
Feasibility Phase
Design & Implementation Phase (D&I)
Prior to January 31, 2006 –
Recon, Feasibility, and Construction Phases
There are some of the extended projects that were started before the advent of the new phasing. Section 1135 and 206 projects that were already in feasibility phases before 2006 which were fully Federally funded during the phase, were grandfathered by legislative language.

9. 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
Typically only the small projects (often Section 14 projects) can have feasibility phases be completed under $100,000.
It should be noted that the current policy per the model PPAs allows for NEPA to be deferred until design. As such this can save some costs. However, on projects with many effects such as a large Section 205, you will want to do NEPA during feasibility phase.
The review requirements under EC are resulting in more costs incurred during feasibility phase and may be part of what drives cost above $100,000 on some projects.
However, for most Section 14 projects and perhaps small ecosystem restoration projects not involving endangered species, not controversial a not requiring an EIS, it is legitimate to defer NEPA until design.

10. 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)
The basic milestones required in CAP are not many nor complicated, as it should be.

11. 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

12. 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
Make sure that when project construction or construction of a significant stand alone feature is completed, and passes final inspection, that it is turned over to the sponsor expeditiously for O&M. For small projects like uncomplicated Section 14s, the O&M manual can be a short form of instructions in an attachment to the letter. No reason to delay the process or make it more costly than is justified by the nature and scope of the project.

13. Typical CAP Study Documentation
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
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
A report, with appropriate technical appendices such as Engineering, Economics if needed, a Real Estate Plan with the certifications included, Public Involvement if needed, and an EA or EA integrated into the report if performed during feasibility phase.
Baseline cost estimate in the approved version of M2 (MCACES) software that passes review by the Cost DX in Walla Walla District.
PMP and Review Plan / Quality Plan commensurate with size and complexity of the project are required.
A draft PPA is usually prepared by the time the final report is drafted.

14. 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
You must identify a legally eligible non-Federal sponsor willing to cost share in implementation and operate and maintain the project as early as possible in the study phase.
Environmental compliance and permits can be deferred until design, but this should be carefully applied to projects with minimal effects or impacts.

15. 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”

16. 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
Congressional earmarks for individual CAP projects have declined somewhat recently, with a more reasonable compromise being that Congress name projects for priority, but allow the Corps based upon sponsor ability to fund and status of the project, to determine the funding allocation in any given year.
Since 2005 the programs have been somewhat oversubscribed, especially Section 206 of the WRDA of 1996, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. It is more difficult to get funding for new starts or significant work in Section Even if a project is named there may be limited funds available depending upon how many 206’s have been named in a year.

17. 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

18. 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
While this authority technically exists, it receives very little or no funding from year to year. It requires economic justification very similar to a flood risk project (Section 205). Further, they are in the modern era considered potentially very environmentally damaging. As such, permitting might be extremely difficult.

19. 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
Section 206 implementation cost sharing is 65 percent Federal, 35 percent local. It is one of the most popular and oversubscribed programs, and funding is much harder to get than some other programs.

20. 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
Section 205 can be structural or non-structural projects. Also Section 205 can be multiple purpose if ecosystem restoration as a component can be justified under NER procedures.

21. 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

22. 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
Public facilities include bridges, highways, roads, water infrastructure, structures on Historic Preservation lists, cemeteries, and other culturally significant sites in public ownership (including Native American/Native Alaskan)
Section 14 is unique in that if the sponsor already owns the land at time of signing the PPA, they do not get credit for the value. In Section 14 to have to purchase the land or easement in order to get credit.
Photos depict a rock and bio-stabilized stream to protect the Kansas State Museum of History and a major water line (left), and a 900 foot reach of longitudinal peaked stone toe protection (LPSTP) on Stranger Creek protecting a major east-west highway, K-32 in Kansas City. Baffles are starting to fill in with vegetation nicely and someday the rock will be barely or not at all visible.

23. 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

24. NAVIGATION 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

25. Cost Sharing For Section 107
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)
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)
OMRR&R cost share varies according to channel depth
Federal share cannot exceed 2.25 times initial Federal costs, or $4.5 million, which ever is greater

26. NAVIGATION 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
Congress has snuck in funding under O&M. Weird

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

28. 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

29. 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)

30. 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
Federal typically means Corps, but there are exceptions.

31. Cost Sharing For Section 1135
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)
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

32. 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

33. Cost Sharing For Section 204
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)
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.”

34. Program Funding Limits
Section Description Project Program
($ million) ($ million)
3 Navigation Clearing & Snagging None
14 Streambank/Shore protection
103 Beach Erosion Control
107 Navigation
111 Mitigation of Shore Damage None
205 Flood Damage Reduction
208 Snagging/Clearing
206 Aquatic Restoration
1135 Ecosystem Restoration
204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

35. Fiscal Year 2007 - Funding Levels
Section Authority 07 Budget 07 Approp ($ million) ($ million)
14 Streambank/Shore protection
103 Beach Erosion Control
107 Navigation
111 Mitigation of Shore Damage
205 Flood Damage Reduction
208 Snagging/Clearing
206 Aquatic Restoration
1135 Ecosystem Restoration
204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

36. Fiscal Year 2008 - Funding Levels
Section Authority 08 Budget 08 Approp ($ million) ($ million)
14 Streambank/Shore protection
103 Beach Erosion Control
107 Navigation
111 Mitigation of Shore Damage
205 Flood Damage Reduction
208 Snagging/Clearing
206 Aquatic Restoration
1135 Ecosystem Restoration
204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

37. Fiscal Year 2009 - Funding Levels
Section Authority 09 Budget 09 Approp ($ million) ($ million)
14 Streambank/Shore protection
103 Beach Erosion Control
107 Navigation
111 Mitigation of Shore Damage
205 Flood Damage Reduction
208 Snagging/Clearing
206 Aquatic Restoration
1135 Ecosystem Restoration
204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat

38. Fiscal Year 2010 - Funding Levels
Section Authority 10 Budget 10 Approp ($ million) ($ million)
14 Streambank/Shore protection
103 Beach Erosion Control
107 Navigation
111 Mitigation of Shore Damage
205 Flood Damage Reduction
208 Snagging/Clearing
206 Aquatic Restoration
1135 Ecosystem Restoration
204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat