1. Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration Review Processes Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration Review Processes Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11

2. Objective: Understand what should happen to the Final Feasibility report when it comes to Washington!

4. What reports are reviewed? at the Washington level… — Decision Documents that support Congressional authorization FOCUS - Final feasibility reports (incl. NEPA documents)

5. Decision Document — Any report prepared for the purpose of : l obtaining project authorization, modification, or Washington level approval; l obtaining commitment of Federal funds for project implementation; or l obtaining approval to spend and receive money as a result of entering into an agreement.

6. Decision Documents — Obtaining project authorization, modification, or verification: – Reconnaissance Report* – Feasibility Report – Limited Reevaluation Reports** – General Reevaluation Reports (GRR)** – Post Authorization Change (Section 902) Report – Detailed Project Report* – Major Rehabilitation Report * Approval at MSC ** Approval at MSC if no additional Congressional action required

7. REFERENCE: EC 1165-2-203, dated 15 October 1996 “Technical and Policy Compliance Review”

8. Policy Review: — Analysis of decision factors and assumptions used to determine the extent and nature of Federal interest, project cost sharing and cooperation, and related issues. — Ensures uniform application of established policy and procedures nationwide. — Ensures that proposed action is consistent with overall goals and objectives of the program.

9. Review Process - “GOAL” Resolve issues and policy concerns as they arise during the study rather than identifying and resolving issues after decisions are made and the report prepared.

10. HQ Review HQ Review — MISSION - Consider whether proposed project conforms with laws & policies — MISSION - Consider whether proposed project conforms with laws & policies

11. — APPENDIX B - ER 1165-2-203 “Policy Compliance Review Considerations” — economics (benefits & costs) — engineering — environmental — local cooperation — plan formulation & selection — cost sharing HQ Review

12. — “The review prospective”- Value added comments and significant concerns on decision making process. — All review comments shall contain: – A clear statement of the concern – The basis of the concern – The significance of the concern – Specific actions to resolve the concern HQ Review

13. — Division submits 15 copies of Final feasibility report to Regional Integration Team (RIT) with Division Engineer’s Transmittal Letter – PGM Compliance Memorandum – Documentation and certification of agency technical and legal review – Division Engineer’s Transmittal Letter – Report mailing/distribution list – Proposed Draft Chief of Engineer’s Report – M-CACES cost estimate (one copy only) – Report Summary, project maps, and PowerPoint presentation Final Review Process

14. Five Required Members: PERMANENT MEMBERS Deputy Chief of Engineers (Chair) Deputy for Civil Works and Emergency Operations CW Community of Practice Leader for Planning Chief Counsel (advisory role only) PROJECT SPECIFIC MEMBERS One RIT leader not from the presenting MSC One COP leader from Engineering, Operations, Real Estate or other appropriate COP Civil Works Review Board See EC 1105-2-406 (31 Mar 2005) “District Engineers Presentation”

15. Required Attendees: CWRB members Appropriate MSC & District staff Appropriate HQ OWPR, HQ RIT members, HQ staff Requested Attendees Sponsor Rep to provide sponsor’s views ASA(CW) Office of Project Planning & Review Office of Management & Budget District Commander’s Briefing See EC 1105-2-406 (31 Mar 2005) “District Engineers Presentation”

16. — Briefing Contents – Report overview including NED and/or NER plans – PGM compliance actions – OWPR comments and their resolution – ATR and IEPR highlights and results – Public involvement process and results – Public/agency comments/responses on NEPA documents – How Environmental Operating Principles and P&G accounts were addressed including climate change – Project delivery process District Commander’s Briefing See EC 1105-2-406 (31 Mar 2005) “District Engineers Presentation”

17. — After CWRB approval, RIT provides coordination package to district to initiate 30- day State & Agency review. — District mails reports; EIS filed with EPA — Policy review completed by OWPR — IEPR completed and posted Final Review Process

18. — Review concentrates on the adequacy of the district’s compliance with the PGM. – Review considers new information in the final report not previously available and impact on critical issues. – Report addenda/revised pages may be necessary – Meeting may be necessary to resolve issues. Final Review Process

19. — RIT prepares recommendation package for submission to ASA(CW) which includes: – Materials previously submitted by District – Feasibility Report & appendices and/or supporting documentation (addendums, ATR, etc.) – Policy Compliance Review Documentation – Summary of agency, public, and IEPR comments – Correspondence received from state & agency Review – Draft Report of the Chief of Engineers Final Review Process

21. The Chief of Engineer’s Report provides the Secretary of the Army with the views, findings and recommendations on project authorization.

22. Processing the COE Rpt: — Recommendation package & Draft Chief’s Report received from RIT following completion of policy review (i.e. STEP 11) — Assess whether responses are required to letters received during state & agency review — Prepare response to report of IEPR — Final Chief’s Report and transmittal letters to Congress are prepared. — Report signed by the Chief of Engineers. — Transmittal letters signed by Chief of Staff — Example attached

23. Chief of Engineers Report - EXAMPLE

25. OASA(CW) - Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (OASA(CW)) ASA(CW) – Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy OMB - Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President of the United States

26. ASA(CW) Responsibilities: — Develops Administration Policy Goals. — Assures that authorization, implementation, and budgeting of project is consistent with applicable laws and policies. — Monitor policy review compliance. — Resolve policy issues.

27. 120 day maximum review time frame – mandated by WRDA 2007

28. ASA(CW) Report Processing: — Is the feasibility report complete? — If so, send the report to OMB. — Transmittal memorandum signed by ASA(CW). (see example) — Draft letters to Congress for submittal of the Chief’s Report provided. (see example)

29. ASA(CW) Transmittal Letter to OMB - EXAMPLE

30. Draft Transmittal Letter to Congress - EXAMPLE (Draft Act and Report Language not shown)

31. “… before any agency submits to Congress for approval, appropriation, or legislation action any report, proposal or plan relating to a Federal or Federally assisted water or related land resources project or program, such report, proposal or plan should be submitted to the OMB.” (Executive Order 12322, 17 September 1981)

32. — Coordinate Executive Branch reports and proposed legislation. — Review proposed projects to determine relationship to the budget priorities of the President — Review Executive Orders

33. — Formulates the President’s fiscal program — Assists in preparation of the President’s annual budget — Supervises and controls the administration of the budget. — Issue policies for the Executive Branch.

34. — Reviewed by: — Associate Director of Natural Resources, Energy and Science, Water and Energy Branch — What they are reviewing: — ASA(CW) transmittal letter — Draft letters to Congress — Copies of Final Feasibility Report & Appendices — PGM, Policy Review Assessment, ITR and Independent Peer Review documentation & other documents

35. — District gives briefing — OMB will ask anything (and everything) — OMB Clearance Letter signed by Associate Director (see example)

36. OMB Clearance Letter - EXAMPLE

37. AFTER OMB Clearance: ASA(CW) sends Chief of Engineers Report to Congress for project authorization. (see example) Congressional authorization ??

38. Transmittal Letter to Congress - EXAMPLE NOTE: Act and Report Language Not Shown

40. Authorization Process: — ASA(CW) submits Chief of Engineers’ Report to Congress. — Congress refers report to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for consideration. — WRDA Fact Sheets are important sources (see example)

41. Authorization Fact Sheet - EXAMPLE

42. Committee Hearings: — Report recommendation presented by Director of Civil Works and/or ASA(CW). — Testimony by: – Members of Congress – Other Federal Agencies – States/Local Agencies – Stakeholders – Public Interests

43. Committee Hearings: (cont.’d) In theory passed every two years! WRDA ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 2007

44. Water Resources Development Act - EXAMPLE

45. Project Deauthorization: — Section 1001 - Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized project deauthorization review program. — Submission of list every two years of authorized but unfunded projects for last 10 years — Congress has 30 months after submittal of list to fund projects or deauthorization is automatic. 5 years (WRDA 2007) every year (WRDA 2007) until the end of the next fiscal year (WRDA 2007)