MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT RESTORATION PROJECT Post Auth riz ti n Authorization Changes F b February 2, 2011 2 2011
Common Decision Documents for P Post-Authorization Changes h i i Ch • Minor Updates from Feasibility Report Mi U d t f F ibilit R t • Economic updates, typically approved by the Corps, District Commander • Limited Changes from Feasibility Report • Within the South Pacific Division (SPD) Commander’s authority uth rit • Project Exceeds Maximum Cost Limit • Requires Congressional reauthorization Requires Congressional reauthorization • Significant Changes from Feasibility Report • Post Authorization Decision Document (PADD) • Requires SPD or HQ/ASA/Congressional approval
Authority for Changes to an authorized project h d The discretionary authority to make post-authorization y y p changes without seeking further Congressional authority is restricted to circumstances where the scope, area to be served purpose function or plan of improvement of the served, purpose, function or plan of improvement of the project is not materially altered (within a specified range/scope). Changes in authorized projects may be made without Congressional permission if the changes are required either by engineering necessity or are needed to either by engineering necessity or are needed to accommodate changed economic and/or physical conditions. The approval authority depends on the type and The approval authority depends on the type and magnitude (scope/metrics) of a change….. magnitude (scope/metrics) of a change…..
Approval Authority for Changes Reauthorization by Congress The approval The approval authority is at Secretary of the one of five one of five Army levels: Chief of Engineers Division Commander Division Commander District Commander
Approval Authority of the District Commander h d Some limited changes may be approved Some limited changes may be approved by the District Commander: • Documentation of Design Refinements. D m nt ti n f D si n R fin m nts • Minor cost updates and scope changes associated with design associated with design refinements….i.e., less than 20%. • Insignificant changes in environmental Reauthorization by Congress i impacts (typically Supplemental EA). t (t i ll S l t l EA) Secretary of the Army Chief of Engineers Division Commander District Commander
Approval Authority of th Di i i the Division Commander C d Typical Criteria: Typical Criteria: • Within the Chief of Engineer’s delegated authority: th it • Does not require action by Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works y y (ASA (CW)) or authorization by Congress • Required Documentation Reauthorization - Generally, a Limited Reevaluation Report Generally a Limited Reevaluation Report by Congress (LRR) Secretary of the Army - NEPA Document is required (Likely EA) Chief of Engineers Division Commander District Commander
Approval Authority by Corps Headquarters d T Typical Criteria: i l C it i � Within the Chief of Engineer’s g authority h � Requires coordination with, but no authorization by ASA(CW) u z y ( W) � Does not require authorization by Congress � Required Documentation � Required Documentation Reauthorization by Congress - General Reevaluation Report Secretary of the Army (GRR) Chief of Engineers - NEPA Document (SEIS) Division Commander District Commander
Approval Authority by the ASA(CW) h ( ) Typical Criteria: � Change does not require authorization � Change does not require authorization by Congress. � Congressional discretion: delegated g g authority to the ASA(CW) � ASA(CW) does not delegate the authority to the USACE authority to the USACE Reauthorization by Congress � NEPA Document is required Secretary of the Army Chief of Engineers Division Commander District Commander
Changes Requiring Authorization by Congress h b T Typical Criteria: i l C it i � Addition or deletion of a project purpose. p j p p � Change in local cooperation requirements specifically referenced in authorizing language. � Cost increase greater than 20% (Section 902 Limit). g ( ) � Significant change in project scope. � Required Documentation Reauthorization - General Reevaluation Report (GRR) General Reevaluation Report (GRR) by Congress - NEPA Document (SEIS) Secretary of the Army � Other?...... Chief of Engineers Division Commander District Commander
Design Phase Decision Reauthor ization by Congres s Tree for Disposal of Secretary of the Army Fines Disposal Options Chief of Engineers Fines Division Commander District Commander Prior Objective: Retain Approval Authority pp y Sequester Fines Sequester Fines within the 1 st Tier BRDA MODA Upstream Other? (USA) Options: O ti Options: - Feas (94 Ac) Options: - BRDA 1-4 (136 Ac) - East/West Split (72 - 2 sites (USA 1&2) Ac) - BRDA 1-2 only (89 Ac) - MODA East (46 Ac) Issues: - Approx 37 Ac of addt’l impacts outside of Feas stockpile footprint Issues: (225 Ac Feas vs 262 Ac USA & BRDA 1-2 Issues BRDA 1-4 Issues: Stockpiles) - Property p y - Cost Increase of Cost Increase of - Cost Increase of approx Cost Increase of approx Owner/Community - Concerns regarding concept $34+ Million over Feas approx $20+ Concerns design: little/no erosion potential Million over Feas - Cost Increase of approx - Cost Increase of approx $14+ Million over Feas $15+Million over Feas
Design Phase Fines Disposal: Cost & Fines Disposal Options Schedule Impacts Sequester Fines Natural Transport of Transport of Fines Other Sites BRDA Upstream Downstream of Upstream of of BRDA Robles H Hwy 150 150 Sites 1-2: Sites 1-4: - Likely requires EIS - Supplemental - Likely requires EIS - At minimum, - Supplemental EA - PADD required EA EA Supplemental EA / Supplemental EA / due to change in water due to change in water - Requires 902 - If significant change in supply impacts Possible EIS - Requires 902 Congressional timeframe for project Reauthorization - PADD required - Possible PADD Reauthorization due to ecorest benefits, Required cost increase Congressional - 2-3 month - If significant change in impact for 902 Reauthorization likely timeframe for project - Assume no - Concurrent action significant change in g g ecorest benefits, with ongoing design: 2- g g g - Costs approx Costs approx - 7-10 year impact due 7 10 year impact due Congressional scope or timeframe 3 months impact likely to PADD (new Feas $150k Reauthorization likely for ecorest (HEP) for 902 approval study) & Congress benefits Reauth - 7-10 year impact due - Costs approx $150k to PADD (new Feas - 6-18 month impact - Costs approx $5-7M study) & Congress - Costs approx Reauth $400k $1 2M $400k-$1.2M - Costs approx $5-7M
Decision Document (PADD) Tasks Chief of Engineers First Report p Milestone Milestone Second Second Review of • Complete IEPR Milestone Tentatively • Respond to Review/ comments Recommend Public Draft • Finalize Report ed Plan • Detailed Public Documentation Initiate PADD Initiate PADD • Hold Public Hold Public Analysis of Analysis of Meeting Meeting • Complete District C l t Di t i t Study Workshop Recommende Report • Analyze Alts, d Plan • Prepare PMP Reinitiate • Transmit to MSC Env Impacts, • Respond to • Prepare & Corps HQ Design • Review & Costs, Real Review Public Draft Approval • Prepare for 30- Comments/ Estate Report • Administration day Washington- • Negotiate & g Requirements Requirements Finalize Finalize (EIS/EIR) (EIS/EIR) Review Review Level State & Sign Design Public Draft (includes • Initiate • Record of Agency Review Agreement model cert) Report Independent Decision Mod • Testify at Civil • Select • Complete External Peer • WRDA Works Review • 75%/25% Tentative Plan additional Review Authorization Board Cost Share ATR & Policy • Prepare (IEPR) Splie p • Initiate Review Interim Draft Interim Draft • Agency • Agency • Unknown Washington Report • Initiate 45-day Technical Timeframe Level Review • Approx 6 mo- Public Review • Agency Review • Prepare Chief Of 1 yr Technical • Policy Engineer’s Review • Approx 6-9 Review Report • Policy Review mo • Approx 1.5-2 A 1 5 2 • Approx 1 yr • Approx 1.5-2 yrs yrs
References • ER 200-2-2: Procedures for Implementing NEPA, March 1988 • ER 1105-2-100: Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix G (PAC reports) & Appendix H (Review & Approval of Decision Documents) November 2007 Documents), November 2007 • ER 1165-2-502: Delegation of Review and Approval Authority for Post-Authorization Decision Documents, March 2007 • ER 1110-2-1150: Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects, August 1999 Projects, August 1999 • CESPD-ET-P Memorandum: Guidance for Post-Authorization Decision Documents, April 1999 • ER 1130-2-530: Flood Control Operations and Maintenance ER 1130 2 530 Fl d C t l O ti d M i t Policies , November 1996
Upstream Storage of Fines p g
Slurry Disposal Sites MODA West MODA East BRDA 1 BRDA 2 BRDA 3 BRDA 4
Recommend
More recommend
