- Establishment of Policy and Legal Compliance Review Teams and Conduct of Policy and Legal Compliance Review
Policy and legal compliance reviews for draft and final planning decision
documents are delegated to the MSCs responsible for execution of the study. At
the start of each study, and as needed throughout study execution, the MSC Chief
of Planning and Policy and the HQUSACE Chief of Office of Water Project Review
(OWPR) will ask the MSC and HQUSACE functional chiefs/leaders to collaborate to
identify the policy and legal compliance review team representatives for their
respective functional areas. The following resources provide additional information
on the policy and legal compliance review processes:
-
Director's Policy Memorandum Civil Works Program 2018-05: Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness in USACE Civil Works Project Delivery (Planning Phase and Planning Activities)
This Memorandum covers the actions that must be taken within the planning phase of the USACE Civil Works project delivery process in order to embrace and operationalize risk informed decision making. The Memorandum includes delegations for Feasibility Milestone decision making, as well as delegation of Policy Review.
-
Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100: Planning Guidance Notebook
The Planning Guidance Notebook provides the overall direction by which the Corps of Engineers civil works projects are formulated, evaluated, and selected for overall implementation. ER 1105-2-100, the Planning Guidance Notebook will be superseded by several different pieces of new guidance. This December 2023 version of the ER contains the elements of the Planning Guidance Notebook that are still in effect (Chapter 4 and Appendices C, D, E and G).
-
Engineer Regulation 1165-2-217: Civil Works Review Policy
This Engineer Regulation (ER) establishes policy and procedures for a comprehensive accountable review strategy for Civil Works by providing a seamless process for review of all projects throughout the lifecycle. This ER will ensure the quality and credibility of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision, implementation, and other work products. It reinforces quality and comprehensive review are equal to cost and schedule compliance. This ER supersedes Engineer Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works which expired on 31 March 2020.
- Certification and Approval of Planning Models
Certification of planning models is delegated to the Directors of the Planning
Centers of Expertise (for models developed by USACE). The Director of a PCX may
approve models under its purview for single/limited use (for models developed by
an entity outside of USACE). The following resources provide additional
information on models and model certification:
-
Delegation of Model Certification
This memo directs that guidance contained within EC 1105-2-412, Assuring Quality of Planning Models, as well as the memorandum issued 4 December 2017, Modification of the Model Certification Process and Delegation of Model Approval for Use, remain applicable until an update of the EC is issued, with the exception that certification of models is now delegated to the Directors of the Planning Centers of Expertise.
-
Modification of the Model Certification Process and Delegation of Model Approval for Use
This memo directs that guidance contained within EC 1105-2-412, Assuring Quality of Planning Models, remains applicable until an update of the EC is issued and, further, that the requirement for a HQUSACE Model Certification Panel is rescinded and the responsibilities are transferred to the PCX in accordance with their enterprise-wide role in their mission areas.
-
Engineer Circular 1105-2-412: Assuring Quality of Planning Models
This circular establishes the process and the requirements for assuring the quality of planning models. Per Planning Bulletin 2013-02 (March 2013), EC 1105-2-412 remains in effect until permanent planning model guidance is issued. The Assuring Quality of Planning Models: EC 1105-2-412 Rollout Webinar provides an overview of the EC. Note: This EC has since been modified by the Modification of the Model Certification Process and Model Approval for Use (4 December 2017) and Delegation of Model Certification (11 May 2018) memos from the Director of Civil Works.
- Continuing Authorities Program (CAP)
-
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) - Approval Level for Locally Preferred Plans
This memo delegates authority to approve policy waivers for Locally Preferred Plans (LPPs) from the Chief of Engineers to MSC Commanders when the non-federal sponsor has agreed to pay for all cost over the federal share of federal plan and the LPP has outputs that are in kind, and equal to or greater than the outputs of the federal plan.
-
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) - Approval Level for Section 14, Section 103, Section 107, Section 204, Section 205, Section 206, and Section 1135 Decision Documents
This memo authorizes MSC Commanders to further delegate to District Commanders the approval of CAP decision documents for Sections 14, 103, 107, 204, 205, 206, and 1135 that are consistent with policy.
-
Continuing Authorities Program Approval Level for Costs in Excess of the Federal Participation Limit
This memo authorizes the Director of Civil Works to approve policy waivers for projects where the federal share of total project costs would otherwise exceed the federal per-project limit from 25 to 50 percent, provided that non-federal sponsor has agreed to pay for all study and construction costs that exceed the federal participation limit. Similarly, this memo authorizes MSC Commanders to approve policy waivers for projects that would otherwise exceed the federal per-project cost limit by 25 percent or less.
- Need for Type I Independent External Peer Review
Three mandatory conditions trigger the need for a Type I IEPR: when the estimated
total cost of the project, including mitigation costs, is greater than $200 million;
when the Governor of an affected state requests a peer review by independent
experts; and when the Chief of Engineers determines the project study is
controversial due to significant public dispute over the size, nature, or effects of
the project or the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project
(including but not limited to projects requiring an environmental impact statement
(EIS)). When none of the three mandatory triggers for IEPR are met, MSC
Commanders have the discretion to conduct IEPR based on a risk-informed
assessment of the expected contribution of IEPR to the project. The following
guidance document provides additional detail on delegated IEPR authorities.
-
Interim Guidance on Streamlining Independence External Peer Review (IEPR) for Improved Civil Works Product Delivery
This memorandum summarizes the current guidance on delegated IEPR authorities to the field, and provides updated guidance on IEPR mandatory triggers. In particular, it streamlines the mandatory triggers to reflect only the statutory requirements for Type I IEPR. When the statutory requirements for IEPR were first introduced in the WRDA 2007, USACE adopted a broad application of these reviews. In the years since, USACE improved its quality management and strengthened all layers of review. In a resources constrained environment, USACE must focus its IEPR implementation on the most complex, highest cost projects, as well as those that pose a high risk to public safety, the economy, and the environment.
- Need for Safety Assurance Review/Type II Independent External Peer Review
The District Chief of Engineering makes the determination of the necessity for
Type II Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) also known as Safety Assurance
Review (SAR) for design and construction activities. A recommendation to not
conduct a SAR would require the endorsement of the Review Management Office
(RMO) prior to approval of the Review Plan. The following resource provides more
information on IEPR and SAR:
-
Engineer Regulation 1165-2-217: Civil Works Review Policy
This Engineer Regulation (ER) establishes policy and procedures for a comprehensive accountable review strategy for Civil Works by providing a seamless process for review of all projects throughout the lifecycle. This ER will ensure the quality and credibility of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision, implementation, and other work products. It reinforces quality and comprehensive review are equal to cost and schedule compliance. This ER supersedes Engineer Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works which expired on 31 March 2020.
- Review Plan Approval
Review Plan approval remains with the MSC Commander; however, the Commander
may now delegate signature authority for these Plans to either the MSC Programs
Director or the MSC Regional Business Director. The following resource provides
more information on Review Plan approval:
-
Engineer Regulation 1165-2-217: Civil Works Review Policy
This Engineer Regulation (ER) establishes policy and procedures for a comprehensive accountable review strategy for Civil Works by providing a seamless process for review of all projects throughout the lifecycle. This ER will ensure the quality and credibility of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision, implementation, and other work products. It reinforces quality and comprehensive review are equal to cost and schedule compliance. This ER supersedes Engineer Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works which expired on 31 March 2020.
- Feasibility Study Milestone Decision Making
The three feasibility study milestones representing key planning decisions (the
Alternatives milestone, Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) milestone, and Agency
Decision milestone) are delegated to the MSC in most circumstances. The
Alternatives and TSP milestone decision maker is the MSC Planning & Policy Chief;
the Agency Decision milestone decision maker is the MSC Programs Directorate
Chief (SES). The following resource provides additional information on feasibility
study milestones:
-
Planning Bulletin 2018-01: Feasibility Study Milestones
This Planning Bulletin was superseded by EP 1105-2-61, Feasibility and Post-Authorization Study Procedures and Report Processing Requirements. The original bulletin clarified the decisions and processes associated with feasibility study milestones.
- Feasibility Report Approval
If a study meets any of the three listed criteria (draft report released before 3 May
2018; ASA(CW) policy waiver required to complete the study; or vertical team
elevates feasibility study milestone decision-making based on study complexity
and risks), the final report will be approved at HQUSACE by the Director of Civil
Works. If the study does not meet any of these three criteria, the final report will
be approved at the MSC by the Division Commander. The following resource
provides additional information on feasibility report approval:
-
Planning Bulletin 2018-01: Feasibility Study Milestones
This Planning Bulletin was superseded by EP 1105-2-61, Feasibility and Post-Authorization Study Procedures and Report Processing Requirements. The original bulletin clarified the decisions and processes associated with feasibility study milestones.
|
|
|
 |
