1 / 39

Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program

Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program. Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11. Objectives:. “Provide a basic overview and understanding of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) and the differences between the GI and CAP processes”.

llancaster
Download Presentation

Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Module 27ContinuingAuthoritiesProgram Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11

  2. Objectives: “Provide a basic overviewand understandingof 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

  5. What are the differences between CAP & GI Projects?

  6. 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 CAP Projects

  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

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

  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

  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)

  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 200-2-2) • 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

  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

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

  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. 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 FACTS

  17. CAP PROCEDURES • ER 1105-2-100, 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

  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

  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

  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

  23. 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 Cost Sharing for Sections 208, 206*, 205, 103, 14, *Section 206Sponsors 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. 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) Cost Sharing For Section 107

  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

  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. 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) Cost Sharing for Section 111

  30. Project Modifications forImprovement 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

  31. 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) Cost Sharing For Section 1135

  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. 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.” Cost Sharing For Section 204

  34. Program Funding Limits Section Description Project Program ($ million) ($ million) 3 Navigation Clearing & Snagging None 1 14 Streambank/Shore protection 1.5 15 103 Beach Erosion Control 3 30 107 Navigation 7 35 111 Mitigation of Shore Damage 5 None 205 Flood Damage Reduction 7 55 208 Snagging/Clearing 0.5 7.5 206 Aquatic Restoration 5 50 1135 Ecosystem Restoration 5 40 204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 5 30

  35. Fiscal Year 2007 - Funding Levels Section Authority 07 Budget 07 Approp.($ million) ($ million) 14 Streambank/Shore protection 1.3 15 103 Beach Erosion Control 0.6 7 107 Navigation 0.8 12 111 Mitigation of Shore Damage 0 0.5 205 Flood Damage Reduction 16 40 208 Snagging/Clearing 0 0.3 206 Aquatic Restoration 15 30 1135 Ecosystem Restoration 15 30 204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 0 5

  36. Fiscal Year 2008 - Funding Levels Section Authority 08 Budget 08 Approp.($ million) ($ million) 14 Streambank/Shore protection 0.9 9.8 103 Beach Erosion Control 0.4 4.4 107 Navigation 0.5 7.4 111 Mitigation of Shore Damage 0 4.8 205 Flood Damage Reduction 11.7 42.3 208 Snagging/Clearing 0.1 0 206 Aquatic Restoration 11.3 29.5 1135 Ecosystem Restoration 11.2 29.5 204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 0 5.3

  37. Fiscal Year 2009 - Funding Levels Section Authority 09 Budget 09 Approp.($ million) ($ million) 14 Streambank/Shore protection 2.3 8.6 103 Beach Erosion Control 0 4.3 107 Navigation 0.6 7.2 111 Mitigation of Shore Damage 0 4.3 205 Flood Damage Reduction 2.6 38.3 208 Snagging/Clearing 0 0.5 206 Aquatic Restoration 10.3 28.7 1135 Ecosystem Restoration 6.5 28.7 204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 0 3.8

  38. Fiscal Year 2010 - Funding Levels Section Authority 10 Budget 10 Approp.($ million) ($ million) 14 Streambank/Shore protection 1.5 5.8 103 Beach Erosion Control 0.7 3.9 107 Navigation 1.4 6.3 111 Mitigation of Shore Damage 0 6.3 205 Flood Damage Reduction 12.0 37.8 208 Snagging/Clearing 0.2 0 206 Aquatic Restoration 7.0 27.1 1135 Ecosystem Restoration 5.7 24.2 204 Beneficial Uses - Dred. Mat. 0 7.8

More Related