POST-AUTHORIZATON DECISION DOCUMENTS
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this document is to provide general
guidance for the successful development and approval of post-authorization
decision documents to the districts in the South Pacific Division. This memorandum supercedes the previous
CESPD-ET-P memorandum, dated 30 April 1999, subject as above, and reflects
recent revisions to Headquarters regulations.
2. References.
a. ER 5-1-11,
27 February 1998, Program and Project Management.
b. ER 200-2-2,
4 March 1988, Procedures for Implementing NEPA.
c. ER
1105-2-100, 22 April 2000, Planning Guidance Notebook.
d. ER 1110‑2‑1150,
31 August 1999, Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects.
e. CESPD R
1110-1-8, 26 May 2000, Quality Management Plan.
f. Memorandum,
CECW-L/CECW-E/CECW-P, 17 March 1994, subject: Integration of Project
Cooperation Agreements (PCA’s) and Supporting Documents.
g. Memorandum,
CECW-ZA, 24 March 1999, subject: Delegation of Approval Authority for
Post-Authorization Decision Documents.
Enclosed as guidance with this memorandum was EC 1165‑2‑203,
15 October 1996, Technical and Policy Compliance Review.
h. Memorandum,
CESPD-ET-P, 5 June 2000, subject: Expedited Reconnaissance Phase Studies.
3. Definitions.
a. Authorized Project. An authorized project is defined as a
project specifically authorized by Congress for construction, generally,
through language in an authorization or appropriation act, or a project
authorized pursuant to Section 201, of the Flood Control Act of 1965.
b. General
Reevaluation. A study to affirm,
reformulate or modify a plan, or portions of a plan, under current planning
criteria. This study may be similar to
a feasibility study.
c. General
Reevaluation Report (GRR). A
general reevaluation report is a separate report that documents the analyses
undertaken in the general reevaluation study.
d. Limited
Reevaluation. A study to provide an
evaluation of a specific portion of a plan under current policies, criteria,
and guidelines; and may be limited to economics or environmental effects.
e. Limited
Reevaluation Report (LRR). A
limited reevaluation report is a separate report that documents the analyses
undertaken in a limited reevaluation study.
f. Engineering
Documentation Report (EDR). An
engineering documentation report is prepared to support the project cooperation
agreement when there are only minor changes in design and costs from the
authorizing reports. An engineering
documentation report may also be used for individual projects, which have been
authorized as part of a large system study.
In these cases, the report serves to define the specific design concept
and to firmly establish the baseline cost estimate. The engineering documentation report can also be used for
projects authorized by Congress without a feasibility report when only
technical decisions are required.
Guidance on engineering documentation reports is in ER 1110-2-1150,
Reference 2.d.
g. General
Design Memorandum (GDM). A general
design memorandum is an obsolete document and will not be prepared for any
project. Either a limited or general
reevaluation report shall be prepared in lieu of a general design memorandum. Previous general design memorandums
documented the planning analyses, including economic, environmental, and plan
formulation analyses, that were conducted during pre-construction design
studies.
h. National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation. National Environmental Policy Act documentation varies depending
on the situation. If there are no
changes to the project and no changes in the environment at and around the
project, and thus there are no changes in the environmental impacts of the
project, the fact that these possibilities have been considered is documented
in a memorandum to the file. If there
have been changes to the project or in the environment around the project so
that there are, or might be, changes in the environmental impacts of the
project that differ from those presented in the earlier environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), an environmental
assessment is prepared. This is
followed by either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), signed by the
District Engineer, or a supplement to the environmental impact statement (SEIS)
that is followed by a record of decision (ROD). Guidance is included in ER 1105-2-100, Reference 2.c. and ER 200‑2‑2,
Reference 2.b.
i. Post
Authorization Change (PAC) Report.
Recommended changes to authorized but unconstructed projects may require
a post authorization change (PAC) report. Guidance on post authorization change
reports is in Appendix G, Section III, of ER 1105-2-100, Reference 2.c.
4. Background.
The definitions in the preceding paragraph are taken
from current Headquarters guidance and illustrate apparent overlaps in the
scopes of the different documents that can be used to approve
post-authorization changes. This
guidance is aimed at filling the need for a
differentiation between the different post-authorization documents,
establishes information requirements and level of detail, and provides an
outline of the processing requirements that reflects the recent delegated
approval authorities provided in Reference 2.g.
5. Authority for Changes.
a. Authorized
Projects. As indicated above, an
authorized project is defined as a project specifically authorized by Congress
for construction. This section of
guidance applies to changes in uncompleted authorized projects which have been
described in a previous Washington-level report. For the purposes of the guidance in this memorandum, authorized
projects do not include projects in the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).
b. Authority
Delegated to District Commander. In
accordance with the authority provided in Reference 2.g., district commanders
may approve changes to authorized projects, or elements thereof, if such
changes meet all of the criteria listed below. The criteria are established in ER 1105-2-100, Reference 2.c.,
and Reference 2.g. allows for delegation of these changes to the district
commander. Such changes shall be
reported through the Division to Headquarters via the project review board
(PRB) process. Districts should submit
doubtful or controversial cases to the Planning Division, South Pacific
Division, for a determination of the proper approval authority, reports, and
report processing.
(1) Projects
Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and subsequent
legislation, an increase in the total authorized project cost no greater than 20
percent over[1]
increases in price level changes and cost of modifications required by
subsequent legislation. For projects authorized prior to the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, an increase in total baseline project cost estimate no
greater than 20 percent over increases in price level changes and the
cost of modifications required by subsequent legislation.
(2) Increase
or decrease in scope no greater than 20 percent of the scope authorized by
Congress. If the scope can be defined
by several parameters, (for example: storage capacity, outputs, environmental
impacts, acreage of land) and the change in any one parameter exceeds 20
percent, the change may not be approved by the district commander.
(3) Change in
the location or the design of the project to the extent that the location and
magnitude of the impacts of the change are determined to be insignificant
compared to the impacts assessed for the authorized project. The district commander may not approve a
change where an environmental impact statement or supplement to an
environmental impact statement is required.
(4) Change
does not add or delete a project purpose, except deletion of water quality
where the benefits attributed to water quality are less than 15 percent of the
total project benefits, pursuant to Section 65, of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974.
c. Approval
Authority of the Division Commander.
Reference 2.g. delegates the approval of changes that are within the
Chief of Engineer's discretionary authority to the Division Commander, for all
projects for which the Federal share of the total project cost is not greater
than $15 million. Generally, any change
to an authorized, uncompleted project that does not meet all of the criteria
listed in Paragraph 5.b., where the Federal share of the total project cost is
not greater than $15 million, and where the change does not require
authorization by Congress, may be approved by the Division Commander. Changes in scope, beyond those listed in Paragraph
5.b. should serve as an alert that the change may exceed the Chief of
Engineers' discretionary authority.
After review, the Division, in consultation with Headquarters, will
determine whether the change can be made under the Chief of Engineers' discretionary
authority which has been delegated to the Division Commander, or whether
additional Congressional authorization is required. Changes approved by the Division Commander shall be reported to
Headquarters through the project review board process.
d. Approval
Authority Reserved by the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Generally, any change to an authorized,
uncompleted project that does not meet all of the criteria listed in Paragraph
5.b., where the Federal share of the total project cost is greater than $15
million, and where the change does not require authorization by Congress, shall
be approved by the Director of Civil Works, or specifically delegated by the
Director to the Division Commander for approval.
e. Changes
Requiring Authorization by Congress.
In making any determinations in accordance with Paragraph 5.c. or
Paragraph 5.d., the following always require authorization by Congress:
(1) Addition
or deletion of a project purpose, unless permitted under existing general authorities
as discussed in Appendix G, Section III of ER 1105-2-100, Reference 2.c.
(2) For
projects more than ten percent complete as of 17 November, 1986, addition of
fish and wildlife mitigation measures requiring acquisition of lands by
condemnation. Acquisition of water
interests by condemnation.
(3) Change in
the local cooperation requirements specifically referenced in the authorizing
language, unless required by:
(a) Subsequent
legislation; or,
(b) Addition
of a project purpose within the general authority of the Chief of Engineers.
(4) Exceedance
of the $10 million Federal cost, exclusive of price level changes, if the
project was authorized under Section 201, prior to 22 October 1976; or $15
million Federal cost if authorized under Section 201, as amended by Section
131, of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, on or after 22 October
1976.
(5) Deepening
of navigation channels.
(6) For
projects authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and
subsequent authorities, an increase in total project cost, exclusive of price
level changes, of more than 20 percent of the total project cost stated in the
authorizing legislation.
f. Congressional
Direction. Congress, from time to
time, in authorization or appropriations acts, provides a requirement that
approval of a post authorization change must be specifically made by either the
Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Engineers. In those cases, the post authorization decision document will be
made at the level required by Congress, unless a specific delegation has been
issued for the project.
6. Decision Documents for
Post-Authorization Changes.
a. General. The following is a discussion of the types
of decision documents that may need to be prepared to support the project
cooperation agreement. Once Congress
authorizes a study, the reconnaissance and feasibility phases will normally
result in a feasibility report and NEPA document. Ideally, this feasibility report, is both the authorizing
document and the supporting document for the project cooperation
agreement. However, this requires the
following conditions to be true: that the project cooperation agreement is
completed within 3 years of the last approved economic analysis; that changes
do not occur between completion of the feasibility report and completion of the
project cooperation agreement; and that the project was developed after
September 1989. When any of these
conditions are not true, the following guidance is provided:
b. No
Change From Feasibility Report. If
more than 3 years have elapsed since the last approved economic analysis in a
feasibility report, and there are no changes, then a post-authorization
decision document, which may be titled as a limited reevaluation report, is
prepared to update the economic analysis to show that the project remains
justified (Reference
2.f.). This post-authorization decision document, along with the
feasibility report are then used as the basis for a Federal commitment and
supporting documents for the project cooperation agreement. As long as the Section 902 cost limit is not
exceeded, this post-authorization decision document may be approved by the
district commander.
c. Limited
Changes From Feasibility Report. If
the project has changed, but not
substantially, then a post-authorization decision document, which may
also be titled as a limited reevaluation report or a engineering documentation
report, is prepared. This situation covers reevaluations where more than an
economic update is needed but the changes are within the approval authority of
the district commander, described above in Paragraph 5.b. The post-authorization decision document may
also evaluate the recommended plan for compliance with current policies, criteria,
guidelines and incremental justification, and may involve limited changes in
economics and/or environmental effects or other technical aspects of the
recommended project. The post
authorization decision document along with the feasibility report are then used
as the basis for a Federal commitment and supporting documents for the project
cooperation agreement. In this case, the post-authorization decision document
may be approved by the district commander.
d. Project
Exceeds Maximum Cost Limit. Section
902, of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, legislates a
maximum total project cost. Projects to
which this limitation applies and for which increases in costs exceed the
limitations established by Section 902, as amended, will require further
authorization by Congress, raising the maximum cost established for the
project. If the current estimate of the
project exceeds the maximum cost limit and there are no other substantial
changes from the feasibility report, then a post-authorization decision
document, which may be titled as a limited reevaluation report is prepared as a
basis to obtain the required authorization by Congress. In this case, the post-authorization
decision document would recommend Congressional reauthorization of the project
and would not be approved by either the district or Division commanders. Pending Congressional authorization, the
post-authorization decision document along with the feasibility report are then
used as the basis for a Federal commitment and supporting documents for the
project cooperation agreement.
e. Significant
Changes From Feasibility Report. If
a project has changed substantially after authorization, then a
post-authorization decision document, which may be titled as a general
reevaluation report, is prepared and used as the supporting document for the
project cooperation agreement. Substantial changes are defined as changes that
are beyond the district commander's approval authority, which is described in
Paragraph 5.b. The post-authorization
document that reformulates a project would be similar to a feasibility report
and will contain an engineering appendix, and National Environmental Policy Act
documentation. A post-authorization
document that reformulates an authorized portion of a project, such as
recreation or mitigation features, along with the feasibility study, would be
used as the basis for a Federal commitment and supporting documents for the
project cooperation agreement. If the
Federal share of the total project cost is not greater than $15 million and the
changes proposed in the post-authorization decision document are within the
Chief of Engineers' discretionary authority, then the document will be
approved by the Division Commander. If
the Federal share of the total project cost is greater than $15 million and the
changes proposed in the post-authorization decision document are within the
Chief of Engineers' discretionary authority, then the document will be approved
at the Washington-level. If
reauthorization is necessary, the document will be processed in the same manner
as a feasibility report.
f. Projects
Developed Before September 1989. If
the project was developed prior to guidance issued in September 1989, has a
feasibility report without an engineering appendix and does not required
additional Congressional authorization, then a post-authorization decision
document, which may be titled as a general reevaluation report is
prepared. The post-authorization
decision document and the feasibility report are then used as the basis for a
Federal commitment and supporting documents for the project cooperation
agreement. The primary purpose of this
decision document is to supplement the feasibility report with the analysis
that would otherwise be included in an engineering appendix. If the Federal share of the total project
cost is not greater than $15 million, then the document will be approved by the
Division Commander. If the Federal
share of the total project cost is greater than $15 million, then the document
will be approved at the Washington-level.
The post-authorization decision document for the restudy of a project
that has been classified in either the deferred or inactive category may also
be titled as a general reevaluation report.
g. Document
Titles. As indicated in Paragraph
4., prior Corps guidance has established definitions for limited reevaluation
reports, general reevaluation reports, engineering documentation reports and
decision documents, which are all post-authorization decision documents, and
the definitions are not mutually exclusive.
While the paragraphs above provide criteria that can be used to define
these documents, use of these names is not required. While the paragraphs above indicate that an alternate title may
be used, each of the documents may be referred to as a post-authorization
decision document. This convention
would be especially appropriate in cases where the approval authority may
change during the development of the document.
7. Decision Documents for
Congressionally Added Actions.
a. Congressional
Actions. Congress, on occasion,
will take action to accelerate a project by authorizing it through a Water
Resources Development Act or an Appropriations Act, before a Washington-level
report has been prepared. When this
happens, the normal Civil Works study and authorization processes for that
project is changed and the post-authorization decision document that is
prepared to support the project cooperation agreement takes the form of a
modified feasibility report. A Federal
interest does not need to be established; however, the decision document is
needed to support a funding decision through the normal Executive Branch budget
process if Congress does not provide funds.
The purpose of the post-authorization decision document will depend upon
the situation and will be determined during the initial budgeting process:
(1) When
Congress authorizes a project but does not provide General Investigation funds,
and a positive funding decision is not expected through the normal Executive
Branch budget process due to policy objections or a low budget priority, then
no action will be taken.
(2) When
Congress authorizes a project but does not provide funds or project scope, then
a post-authorization decision document with an engineering appendix and National
Environmental Policy Act documentation can be budgeted and prepared that
defines and designs the project through the normal plan formulation and design
process, and provides information that will support continued funding through
the normal Executive Branch budget process. This post-authorization decision
document will then be used as the supporting document for the project
cooperation agreement.
(3) When
Congress authorizes a project and provides General Investigation funds, then a
post-authorization decision document, along with an engineering appendix and
National Environmental Policy Act
documentation, is prepared that develops a recommended plan through the normal,
plan formulation process and it is used as the supporting document of the
project cooperation agreement.
(4) When
Congress authorizes an existing, specific plan which was developed by a non‑Corps
entity and provides Construction General funds and directive language, then a
post-authorization decision document is prepared that assesses the technical
adequacy, cost estimate sensitivity and accuracy, and National Environmental
Policy Act compliance of the plan. If an environmental impact statement is not
required, then the post- authorization decision document may be titled as an
engineering documentation report.
b. Approval
of Congressionally Added Projects.
Approval of post-authorization decision documents that are required to
support a project cooperation agreement for a Congressionally added project is
delegated to the district commander if the Federal share of the total project
cost is not greater than $15 million, an environmental impact statement is not
required and additional Congressional authorization is not required. A post-authorization decision document for a
Congressionally added project will be approved by the Division Commander, if an
environmental impact statement is required, the Federal share of the total
project cost is not greater than $15 million and additional Congressional
authorization is not required. The
post-authorization decision document for a Congressionally added project where
the Federal share of the total project cost is greater than $15 million or
additional Congressional authorization is required, will be processed to
Headquarters and reviewed in the same manner as a feasibility report for which
authorization is being sought. As
indicated above in Paragraph 5.f., Congress may require that the approval of
the decision document be made by either the Secretary of the Army or the Chief
of Engineers.
8. Requirements of
Post-Authorization Decision Documents.
a. Specific
Requirements. The
post-authorization decision document that is used to support a project
cooperation agreement must, with the feasibility report, form a complete
package that at a minimum:
(1) Fully
describes the scope and economic justification of the project;
(2) Describes
any changes and provides the rational for such changes from the latest approved
report;
(3) Addresses
any unusual technical or policy aspects of the project, such as credits,
betterments, or the inclusion of a locally preferred plan;
(4) Fully
describes the Federal and non‑Federal allocation of costs among separable
elements, project purposes, and betterments;
(5) Certifies
compliance with National Environmental Policy Act and any other applicable
Federal statutes;
(6) Provides
an M‑CACES cost estimate and evidence of a value engineering study;
(7) Reaffirms
the sponsor=s financial willingness and capability to participate
in project cost sharing and to assume OMRR&R responsibilities;
(8)
Incorporates any further actions required during design, based on the
Report of the Chief of Engineers or the Report of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works; and,
(9)
Incorporates all real estate requirements for the project, including a
real estate plan supported by an approved gross appraisal.
b. Level of
Effort. It should be noted that
there is an apparent misconception that the different types of
post-authorization documents require different levels of detail. This is untrue - rather it is the scope of
the changes that dictates the level of effort.
The post-authorization decision document or the feasibility report with
a post-authorization decision document support the project cooperation agreement. The post-authorization decision document
must bring any changes up to a level of detail that corresponds with the
feasibility report (with engineering appendix, National Environmental Policy
Act documentation and M-CACES cost estimate.)
If the changes are limited, limited effort is required. If the changes are major, then more effort
is required.
c. Interest
Rates for Changes. Interest rates
used in formulating project changes are as follows:
(1) For
general reevaluation studies, the current interest rate is to be used.
(2) For
limited reevaluation studies, the current interest rate is to be used for
expanding an existing authorized purpose.
(3) For the
addition of mitigation, use of the rate applicable to the authorized project is
permissible.
d. Post-Authorization Change Report
Requirements. Changes where an
authority determination must be made by Headquarters, and changes where cost
increases exceed the limit established by Section 902 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, will be documented in a post-authorization decision
document and submitted to Headquarters (CECW-B). These reports will subsequently be referred to as post
authorization change reports. The
post-authorization change report format below is a guide and the reports will
be reviewed by Headquarters as feasibility reports seeking authorization. Reports will be reviewed by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and coordinated with the Office of
Management and Budget as appropriate for submission to the Congress.
e. Post-Authorization
Change Report Outline. The post-authorization change report outline below
is only suggested as a general guide, with pertinent, suggested paragraphs to
be included as appropriate.
(1)
Description of Authorized Project.
Describe the authorized project, its location, functions, size, land
requirements and local cooperation requirements.
(2)
Authorization. Identify the
authorization act: section, public law, title, date and statute citation. Identify the House or Senate document number
of the project document referenced in the authorization act.
(3) Funding
Since Authorization. Provide a funding
history, by fiscal year, indicating the category in which funds have been
appropriated.
(4) Changes in
Scope of Authorized Project. Give a
description and rationale of any changes in project scope, using a subparagraph
for each. Use tables for comparing
authorized numbers with recommended numbers; and indicate percentage of change.
(5) Changes in
Project Purpose. Describe and explain
reasons for any changes in purposes from those authorized for the project.
(6) Changes in
Local Cooperation Requirements. State
and explain the reasons for any changes in the local cooperation
requirements. Changes include any modification
of the wording used in the recommendation language adopted by Congress in the
authorization act, or in subsequent legislation applicable to the project, as
may be modified by general legislation.
(7) Change in
Location of Project. Briefly describe
any changes in location of the project, or project elements, including the
reasons for the changes. When the
change in location requires additional land or change in estate to be acquired,
the requirement should be addressed.
(8) Design
Changes. Describe design changes and
the reasons for the changes.
(9) Changes in
Total Project First Costs. Provide a
table showing a four column comparison of the estimated cost for the project
being recommended, the project as authorized by Congress, the authorized
project updated to current price levels, and the project last presented to
Congress. In subparagraphs, itemize the
reasons for the cost changes so that 100 percent of the cost increase since
authorization is explained. Minor
changes may be lumped in the table and in the narrative. The total increase due to changes in price
levels may be shown under one subparagraph.
(10) Changes
in Project Benefits. Benefits may be
monetary or non-monetary in the case of an ecosystem restoration project. Provide a table showing a comparison of the
benefits given in the project document, the benefits last reported to Congress,
and the benefits based on reevaluations that have been done to support the
recommended changes to the project.
Summarize each type of benefit in a subparagraph, stating any changes in
criteria or other factors, such as use of current interest rate, that resulted
in significant changes in the benefit estimates. State the increase in benefits attributed to price level
increases.
(11) Benefit‑Cost
Ratio. State the benefit-cost ratio
(where applicable) for the recommended project and the authorized project at
current price levels and the current interest rate. Also state the interest
rate used in the authorizing document.
(12) Changes
in Cost Allocation. Provide a table
showing the allocation of cost among the project purposes for the authorized
project and the recommended project.
Give both the dollar amounts and percentages allocated to each purpose.
Discuss any changes which are not the result of simply re-computing the cost
allocation based on current benefit and cost estimates.
(13) Changes
in Cost Apportionment. Provide a table
showing the Federal and non‑Federal costs of the authorized project and
the recommended project, both at current price levels. Indicate Federal appropriations requirements
and reimbursable costs.
(14)
Environmental Considerations in Recommended Changes. Discuss any environmental effects of the recommended changes. State whether the environmental impact
statement that is currently on file was determined to be adequate. Appropriate National Environmental Policy
Act documentation will be included in the accompanying report.
(15) Public
Involvement. Describe the public
involvement and coordination effected in formulating the recommended changes to
the project and discuss the impact of these activities on the recommendations.
(16) History
of Project. Provide a history of the
project since authorization including other studies accomplished, directions from
Appropriations Committees, any litigation, relationship of project to basin
plans and other pertinent information not found elsewhere in the report.
9. Review and Approval
Process.
a. Quality Control. Quality control for all project decision documents
is described in the South Pacific Division’s Quality Management Plan, CESPD R
1110-1-8, Reference 2.e.
Post-authorization decision documents will follow the guidance presented
in Appendix C of the Quality Management Plan.
A project management plan will be prepared for each post-authorization
decision document. The scope of the
project management plan is to be commensurate with the scope and complexity of
the post-authorization decision document.
Quality control will be specifically addressed in each project
management plan and the quality control portion of the plan will serve in lieu
of a separate quality control plan and be certified by the responsible function
chief. All aspects of any changes to an
authorized project must be fully evaluated, including plan formulation,
engineering, economic, environmental and real estate aspects of the project.
b. Project
Management Plan Approval. For
post-authorization decision documents that will be submitted for either
Division or Headquarters review, except where only the maximum cost limit is
exceeded, the scope and assumptions for the document will be subject to prior
approval. Following the recent
delegations of project management plan approvals for feasibility phase studies,
a project management plan summary, following the general outline of a Section
905(b) Analysis, will be submitted for approval, in lieu of the project
management plan. As indicated in the
Division’s guidance for expedited reconnaissance phase studies, Reference 2.h.,
this summary is an integral part of the project management plan development
that should be used as the chapter in the project management plan that
summarizes the scope and basic assumptions for the studies to support the
post-authorization decision document.
In those cases where the post-authorization decision document is to be
approved by the Division Commander, the summary will be submitted,
electronically to the South Pacific Division, Planning Division for review and
approval. In those cases where the
post-authorization decision document will be forwarded to Headquarters, the
summary will be submitted electronically to the South Pacific Division,
Planning Division and Headquarters (CECW-B) for concurrent review and
Headquarters approval. The district
project review board may approve the project management plan upon either
Division or Headquarters approval of the project management plan summary.
c. Milestone
Requirements. The South Pacific
Division milestone requirements for post-authorization decision documents will
generally follow the requirements for feasibility studies in Appendix C of the
Division’s Quality Management Plan.
Participation of the Division’s staff in these activities is to assure
that the quality control activities of the district are being accomplished in
accordance with the approved quality control plan.
d. Headquarters
Involvement.
(1) District
and Division approval authorities are limited to documents that are consistent
with statutory and policy guidance.
Where deviations occur, the issue(s) will be referred to Headquarters by
the Division for resolution, prior to district or Division approval.
(2) For
documents that are not approved at the district or Division, Headquarters has
the quality control responsibility for policy compliance and Headquarters will
participate in an issue resolution conference (IRC) held prior to the release
of the report to the public. This issue
resolution conference may take the form of a feasibility review conference
(FRC), but the use of the alternative formulation briefing (AFB) procedure,
that is described in Reference 2.c., is encouraged to streamline the review
process. The purpose of the alternative
formulation briefing is to foster early Washington-level participation in plan
formulation, to allow the districts to release the draft report to the public
concurrent with Washington-level review of the report prior to the feasibility
review conference equivalent, and to ensure that the project is formulated in
accordance with policy so that major issues do not arise late in the study
process.
(3) In cases where the project, or an element of the project, has been authorized by Congress, but not approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works or the Office of Management and Budget through a feasibility report, the project may also have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
(4) In cases
where reauthorization is required by Congress, the Washington-level processing
requirements are identical to those set forth in Reference 2.c., for a
feasibility report.
e. Documents
Approved by the Division Commander.
For the documents that are within the approval authority of the Division
Commander, as indicated in Paragraph 5.c., the Division will have both the
quality assurance responsibility for technical quality, as well as the quality
control responsibility for policy compliance.
For all documents that require public coordination, the report will be
furnished to the Planning Division for an initial policy compliance review at
least 2 weeks prior to the proposed release of the documents for public or
agency review. Within 10 working days,
the district will be notified that they may release the report for public
review, or that there are significant policy issues that may materially effect
the conclusions and recommendations in the report that would cause the report
not to be released. The Division will
continue its review, concurrent with the public review of the report,
concluding this effort within 30 days of the receipt of the documents. For a final decision document that includes
an environmental impact statement or supplement to an environmental impact
statement, the Division will provide approval for the district to file the final
environmental impact statement within 10 days of the receipt of the final
package. The approval action will
normally be taken within 45 days after the filing of the final environmental
impact statement. For a final decision
document that does not require an environmental impact statement, the approval
action will normally be taken within 30 days of the receipt of the final
package.
f. Documents
Approved by the District Commander.
For these documents, the district will have both quality control
responsibility for technical quality and policy compliance. The Division will have quality assurance
responsibility for both technical quality and policy compliance.
g. Record
of Decision. In cases where an
environmental impact statement or supplement to an environmental impact
statement is prepared in conjunction with a report, no decision or conditional
decision can be made until the record of decision has been signed in accordance
with Reference 2.b. The record of
decision is signed by the decision maker with the authority to approve the
report.