CAP 14

 CAP 14 is the obvious choice.  With the combination of infrastructure (railroad) and residential impacts, there is clear reason to choose this option. 

So what is CAP 14?

"Authorized by section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. Work under this authority allows emergency streambank and shoreline protection for public facilities, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and water/sewage treatment plants, that are in imminent danger of failing.  The non-Federal sponsor is responsible for a minimum of 35% to a maximum of 50% of total project costs and the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of total project costs.   The Federal share of planning, design, and construction cannot exceed $1,500,000 per project." 

You hustle to read the CAP guidance like the burrocratic automaton that you are, and you see the following:

Wooohoo! The addition of a §14 project to protect the 205 project is authorized.  

Okay.  this is about what we expected.  We are not really combining any of the authorities, at least not at one time.  But the problem may arise that the perception of the authorities being combined to address the problem might make it seem like we are doing that.  Better check with OC.  Or you can read further and find out whether there is additional guidance.  After all, you haven't even gotten to that 8b mentioned above.  

Drat.  This means that you have to get a full call from OC as to whether the original authorization of the existing project is considered a building block.  I mean... the time delay between the original project and the proposed action makes it unlikely that there is a nexus, but...

What do you do?

Call OC,

or, 

Call the whole thing off.  The Local Sponsor will have to get specific authorization or will have to come up with the money themselves.  

Starting Off, Big Creek

The local sponsor calls you and wants you to come and see the problem that the county is having.  It sounds complicated, with railroads and streams and old levees and erosion and scouring and lots of economic damage.  You listen with a sympathetic ear; after all, you are with the Federal Government, and you are here to help.

Some of the features he mentions in his discussion sound familiar, and they are a short car ride away - about an hour drive, with traffic.  You take a look with googleearth and create a quick .kmz file with a rough outline.  Zooming in, you see the following:

You export the file into the https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen browser, and determine that there is no preference for disadvantaged communities.  

Your local partner asks you a question again, and you start, realizing you were multi-tasking and had not heard the question, either the first or the second time.  You apologize, and ask for a third repeat of the question.  

"I said, 'Do you think there is a project here?'"

You choose to:

Enthusiastically say yes. And ask for a letter of intent. 

Waffle a little, and discuss the authorities that might be able to be used. 

Take a breath, and ask if you can get back to him. 

Authorities Decision

Well, crap.  At some point, you just have to hang it all on the line and decide. So you open your handy-dandy pamphlet 
and look at the options.  And at some point, you have to PICK ONE.

Ecosystem projects: 

Description of 206 - Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (PL 104303), as amended.   Is there anything here that feels like an Ecosystem restoration?  

Description of 1135 - Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment, Water Resource Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-662), as amended.   So there is a Federal project adjacent, and this almost seems like the right decision.  But it is not the eco link that we are looking for.  But maybe... #link

Section 204 - Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (PL 102580), as amended. Nothing here like that.  But if you want to, you can click on this link. It is always nice to learn about other authorities.

But wait.  Isn't this a Flood risk Management project? 

Section 205 - Flood Control Act of 1948 (PL 80-858), as amended, for flood control. This project is flood control related - when the river got out of the bankline in 2010, there was a large amount of damage to nearby homes - $300M and more.  There have been floods for a number of the previous 20 years, and the flooding period seems to be accelerating.  #link

Or maybe a CAP 14

Section 14: Flood Control Act of 1946 (PL 79-526), as amended for emergency streambank & shoreline erosion protection for public facilities & services. 

This one is probably the right choice.  There are public facilities (railroad) and the erosion of the streambank makes it the likely choice.  

Site visit

 A site visit will definitely help understand the on-the-ground issues better than anything else.  You coordinate with the local sponsor and prepare the visit.  There will be a little bit of walking, but a nice day in the field always beats a day in the office, doesn't it?

In preparation, you need to decide who is coming.  You, as the CAP lead, will obviously be coming - you know the authorities, and can work out the next steps.  You decide to take with you:

The project engineer and the planner #link

The Project engineer, the environmental lead, the hydraulic engineer, the planner, and the real estate lead.   

Or, 

The project engineer and the archaeologist 

Take a breath

 "You know, let me have a quick conversation with the CAP manager, and see whether he thinks we have a viable project." 

The NFS hangs up, and you send an SOS message through MS Teams to your friendly neighborhood MVD CAP manager, who is on vacation for two weeks in the Greek aisles (much more affordable than a real trip to Greece), and is out of wifi range.  His Out-of-Office memo explains his situation and tells you to pound sand until he gets back.  

You can:

Wait two weeks (well, now ten days, since he has already been gone a weekend plus two working days), and call him again, or

Go back to the authorities page. 

Site Visit Participants, Full Krewe

 Yep, you have busted the project before you started.  With even 6 hours for the site visit, and two hours for evaluation, you have spent more than the program provides in coordination budgets.  For the whole year.  The CAP Division manager is furious, and you are being explained - in detail - what an Anti-Deficiency Act violation is by Office of Counsel.  Who is, for the most part, just upset that they were not invited on the field day.  

<Insert Price is Right Sad Trombone soundclip >>here<< >

Return to decide again on how to plan your site visit.  

1-Katun Lady of Lawton

This week, I explained to my Sunday school class how to count using Maya long count notation.  It was an odd, silly exercise, and I tied it loosely into a discussion of annual religious celebrations and New Years resolutions and how we make sense of seasons.

I talked about Maya stone monuments and how they recorded important events on a 20-year cycle (they use a vigesimal system, after all).  And that rulers were named on the monuments on the basis of how many katuns - twenty year periods - that they had been ruler.  

And the real reason I did it was to let everyone in the class know that today I have been married to Kathe for 20 years.  

An awful lot of water under that bridge: happy memories, exultations, struggles, sadness, and incredible joy.  We completed fieldwork in Yucatan and Guatemala together.  We have watched as two grandchildren came of age and turned into outstanding adults.  We have both buried our fathers, and have loved on our mothers.  We have both changed careers a couple of times, and found things - both inside and outside of work - that fulfill us.  We have fought and loved and gotten angry and sad.  Sometimes with each other, and other times with each other besides.  

And we have done all of it together.  

The lovely wedding took place at MARI.  Thank you to those of you who were there.  The students, the friends from high school and college, the family members and the friends from the art studio.  Thank you for bearing witness to the love that we had - and still have - for one another.   Y'all being able to participate with us on that day made it the happiest one of my life.

Dr. Matt Moriarty's wedding gift to us was a hand-drawn commemoration
of the marriage of Lord La-tun and Lady Ka-te on January 8, 2000.

Twenty years seemed like an eternity when I was 30 years old, getting married just before heading off for six months in the field. Today, it seems like just prelude.

I like that.  My one-katun anniversary is prologue.  We have started the book.  I just can not wait to see what happens next.

Happy anniversary, Kathe.  I love you.