spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
Planning Community Toolbox
USACE Castle
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
Toolbox Home Link to Planner's Library Link to SMART Guide Link to Project Delivery Link to People Link to Tools Link to Processes Link to Training Link to Search Link to Contact Us spacer
spacer
spacer Description spacer spacer

Red divider graphic

Categories
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic
ball graphic

 
Red divider graphic

ball graphic
Delegations

  • 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¬ís 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 to make initial project delivery processes, as well as the full project lifecycle processes, more efficient and effective. This Memorandum is applicable to all Headquarters USACE (HQUSACE) elements, Divisions, Districts, laboratories, and field operating activities related to USACE Civil Works projects. The actions and policies in this memorandum will also be applied in the execution of studies funded by the 2018 Disaster Relief supplemental appropriations (P.L. 115- 123).
    • 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. This includes all appendices that were written at a later date.
    • Engineer Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works
      This Circular establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through design, construction, and Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). It also provides the procedures for ensuring the quality and credibility of USACE decision, implementation, and operations and maintenance documents and work products.

  • 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 and 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 and 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.

  • 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 nearly 12 years since, USACE improved its quality management and strengthened all layers of review. IEPR remains an important aspect of USACE's overall quality management strategy for producing sound federal investment decisions and projects. 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 Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works
      This Circular establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through design, construction, and Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). It also provides the procedures for ensuring the quality and credibility of USACE decision, implementation, and operations and maintenance documents and work products.

  • 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 Circular 1165-2-217: Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Review Policy for Civil Works
      This Circular establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through design, construction, and Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). It also provides the procedures for ensuring the quality and credibility of USACE decision, implementation, and operations and maintenance documents and work products.

  • 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
      The purpose of this Planning Bulletin is to clarify the decisions and processes associated with feasibility study milestones. This bulletin was developed to assist teams in development of the feasibility study products and clarify processes and procedures to reach each of the decision milestones. This bulletin also defines the decision-making delegation for each milestone. Please see PB 2018-01-S for clarification. This bulletin supersedes Planning Bulletin 2017-01: Feasibility Study Milestones and also supersedes specific sections of ER 1105-2-100 (Planning Guidance Notebook) that reference feasibility study milestones, including: Appendix G (30 June 2004) exhibits G-3, G-4, G-5, Appendix H (20 November 2007) section H-4 (discussion of Feasibility Scoping Meeting and Alterative Formulation Briefing), and Appendix H exhibits H-3, H-4, H-5, and H-7.

  • 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
      The purpose of this Planning Bulletin is to clarify the decisions and processes associated with feasibility study milestones. This bulletin was developed to assist teams in development of the feasibility study products and clarify processes and procedures to reach each of the decision milestones. This bulletin also defines the decision-making delegation for each milestone. Please see PB 2018-01-S for clarification. This bulletin supersedes Planning Bulletin 2017-01: Feasibility Study Milestones and also supersedes specific sections of ER 1105-2-100 (Planning Guidance Notebook) that reference feasibility study milestones, including: Appendix G (30 June 2004) exhibits G-3, G-4, G-5, Appendix H (20 November 2007) section H-4 (discussion of Feasibility Scoping Meeting and Alterative Formulation Briefing), and Appendix H exhibits H-3, H-4, H-5, and H-7.