works) needed to provide the best obtainable water control system for the entire Mississippi River Basin, utilizing the coordinated capabilities of projects now in operation and scheduled to be placed in operation in the reasonably near future.

(3) Oversight of basin-wide operating/regulation plans for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the Mississippi River Basin.

(4) Periodic reports to the Chief of Engineers regarding the Board's activities and its plans.

(f) Procedures. The procedures used by the board to carry out its responsibilities are as follows:

(1) The Board meets periodically to review past activities and project operations, and to discuss new or revised basin-wide operating/regulation plans.

(2) The Board acts on all proposals for (temporary or permanent) deviation from approved basin-wide operating plans.

(3) The Board provides instructions to committees under its jurisdiction and reviews their recommendations for improvements in basin-wide water control management.

(g) Board Authority. The Mississippi River Water Control Management Board is delegated authority to establish continuing or ad hoc inter-divisional operating or study committees comprised of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel to facilitate the work of the Board.

(h) Funding. Routine activities of the Mississippi River Water Control Management Board and its committees, such as travel and meeting expenses, will be funded by the separate members' offices using General Expense funds otherwise available. Major expenses connected with special studies or activities will be funded through the normal budgetary process. Budget requests will be supported by appropriate justification material.

(Act of Congress approved 1 March 1917, (33 U.S.C. 701) and Section 2 of the Act of Congress approved 28 June 1938 as amended (33 U.S.C. 701c-1))

[43 FR 52236, Nov. 9, 1978]

(1) Provide general local government for specific population concentrations, and,

(2) Occupy an essentially continuous area of developed land, containing such structures as residences, public and commercial buildings, and industrial sites.

(b) "Flood damage reduction works in urban areas" are the adjustments in land use and the facilities (structural and non-structural) designed to reduce flood damages in urban areas from overflow or backwater due to major storms and snowmelt. They include structural and other engineering modifications to natural streams or to previously modified natural waterways. Flood damage reduction works are designed to modify flood behavior typified by temporary conditions of inundation of normally dry land from the overflow of rivers and streams or from abnormally high coastal waters due to severe storms.

(c) "Storm sewer systems" are the facilities in urban areas designed to collect and convey runoff from rainfall or snowmelt in the urban area to natural water courses or to previously modified natural waterways. They include storm drains, inlets, manholes, pipes, culverts, conduits, sewers and sewer appurtenances, on-site storage and detention basins, curbs and gutters, and other small drainageways that remove or help to manage runoff in urban areas. Storm sewer systems are designed to solve storm drainage problems, which are typified by excessive accumulation of runoff in depressions; overland sheet flow resulting from rapid snowmelt or rainfall; and excessive accumulation of water at the facilities listed in this paragraph because of their limited capacity.

tions of a watershed are expected to be urbanized in the future. Changes in land use may result in major alterations of the runoff characteristics of the watershed. Hydrologic changes must be projected for the period of analysis. In this effort, responsible local planning organizations should provide information and assist the Corps in development of projected land uses and expected practices for collection and conveyance of runoff over the period of analysis. Conversely, the Corps may be able to provide non-Federal interests with valuable information about water related consequences of alternative land uses and drainage practices.

§ 238.6 General policy.

(a) Satisfactory resolution of water damage problems in urban areas often involve cooperation between local nonFederal interests and the Federal flood control agencies. In urban or urbanizing areas, provision of a basic drainage system to collect and convey the local runoff to a stream is a nonFederal responsibility. This regulation should not be interpreted to extend the flood damage reduction program into a system of pipes traditionally recognized as storm drainage systems. Flood damage reduction works generally address discharges that represent a serious threat to life and property. The decision criteria outlined below therefore exclude from consideration under flood control authority small streams and ditches with carrying capacities typical of storm sewer pipes. Location of political boundaries will not be used as a basis for specifying project responsibility. Project responsibilities can be specified as follows:

(1) Flood damage reduction works, as defined in this regulation, may be accomplished by the Corps of Engi

neers.

(2) Construction of storm sewer systems and components thereof will be a non-Federal responsibility. Non-Federal interests have a responsibility to design storm sewer systems so that residual damages are reduced to an acceptable level.

(b) Consideration will be given to the objectives and requirements of Ex

ecutive Order 11988 (reference 3a) and the general guidelines therefor by the U.S. Water Resources Council (reference 3b).

§ 238.7 Decision criteria for participation.

(a) Flood control. Water damage problems associated with natural streams or modified natural waterways may be addressed under the flood control authorities downstream from the point where the flood discharge is greater than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood (one chance in ten of being equalled or exceeded in any given year) under conditions expected to prevail during the period of analysis. Drainage areas of less than 1.5 square miles shall be assumed to lack adequate discharge to meet the above criterion. Flood damage reduction works must conform to the definition in paragraph 4b and must be justified based on Corps of Engineers evaluation procedures in use at the time the evaluation is made.

(b) Storm sewer system. Water damage problems not consistent with the above criteria for flood control will be considered to be a part of local storm drainage to be addressed as part of the consideration of an adequate storm sewer system. The purpose of this system is to collect and convey to a natural stream or modified natural waterway the runoff from rainfall or snowmelt in the urbanized area.

(c) Man-made conveyance structures. (1) Man-made conveyance structures will be assumed to be a part of storm sewer systems except when: (i) A natural stream has been or is to be conveyed in the man-made structure; or (ii) The man-made structure is a costeffective alternative to improvement of a natural stream for flood damage reduction purposes or is an environmentally preferable and economically justified alternative. Water damages associated with inadequate carrying capacity of man-made structures should be designated as a flood problem or a local drainage problem in a manner consistent with the structure's classification as flood damage reduction works or a part of a storm sewer system.

(2) Man-made structures that convey sanitary sewage or storm runoff, or a combination of sanitary and storm sewage, to a treatment facility will not be classified as flood damage reduction works. Flows discharged into a natural or previously modified natural waterway for the purpose of conveying the water away from the urbanized area will be assumed to be a part of the flow thereof regardless of quality characteristics.

(d) Joint projects. Certain conditions may exist whereby the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or another Federal agency, could jointly undertake a project that would be impractical if one agency were to undertake it alone. The Corps may, for example, under provisions of section 219 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, design or construct a project that is part of a larger HUD plan for an urban area (see ER 1140-2-302). Such efforts should be undertaken only when requirements cannot be handled better by one agency acting alone. If a joint effort is preferable, then the Corps may participate as required.

(e) Disagreements. If a disagreement arises between the Corps and another Federal agency that cannot be resolved at the field level, the matter will be forwarded to HQDA (DAENCWR) Washington, D.C. 20314, for guidance.

§ 238.8 Other participation.

In addition to providing flood damage reduction works in urban areas, the Corps may provide related services to State and local governments on a reimbursable basis. Under Title III of the Inter-governmental Cooperation Act of 1968, specialized or technical services for which the Corps has specific expertise may be furnished only when such services cannot be procured reasonably and expeditiously from private firms (see ER 1140-2-303).

§ 238.9 Local cooperation.

(a) Cost sharing and other provisions of local cooperation shall be in conformity with applicable regulations

for structural and non-structural flood damage reduction measures.

(b) Responsible non-Federal entities will be required to provide satisfactory assurances that they will adopt, enforce, and adhere to a sound, comprehensive plan for flood plain management for overflow areas of communities involved. To this end, District Engineers will inform HUD, and other concerned Federal and non-Federal planning and governing agencies, of flood plain management services available under Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, as amended (33 USC 709a).

§ 238.10 Coordination with other Federal agencies.

In conducting flood damage reduction studies, reporting officers shall comply with the 1965 Agreement between the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps (contained in EP 11652-2) in determining the responsible Federal agency. Corps personnel should also keep abreast of the public works programs administered by other Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Farmers Home Administration and the Department of Commerce, in order to coordinate flood control improvements with storm sewer system improvements and to avoid program overlap. Coordination of planning activities with A-95 clearinghouses will help to achieve this objective (see ER 1105-2-811).

PART 239-WATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES: FEDERAL PARTICIPATION COVERED

IN

§ 239.1 Purpose.

This regulation establishes policy for determining the extent of Federal participation in covered flood control channels.

§ 239.2 Applicability.

This regulation applies to all OCE elements and all field operating agencies having civil works responsibilities.

§ 239.3 References.

(a) Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977. (b) ER 1105-2-200. (c) ER 1165-2-21.

§ 239.4 Policy.

Projects will be formulated and evaluated in accordance with the policies and procedures described in ER 11052-200. If, during the planning process, it appears that covered flood control channels are desirable, reporting officers may evaluate them and include them when they best serve the public interest. Selection of the plan which best serves the public interest is based upon the ability of the plan to meet planning objectives, the contributions which the plan makes to the National Economic Development (NED), Environmental Quality (EQ), Regional Development (RD) and Social Well Being (SWB) accounts, and the public response to alternative plans. Thus, covered flood control channels may be proposed if they are desired by the public and (a) increase net EQ and/or NED benefits; or, (b) reduce adverse effects on RD or SWB without incurring an unjustified loss in net NED or EQ benefits.

§ 239.5 Engineering considerations.

Reports on proposals to provide covered channels shall include a discussion of the following matters.

(a) Impacts of sudden reduction in discharge and increased upstream channel stages when the channel entrance is submerged. This discussion shall include the effects resulting from the SPF.

(b) Dangers of rupture resulting from pressurization.

(c) Features provided to prevent human ingress and their impact on project functions.

(d) Effect of the cover on inspection and maintenance costs.

(e) Features provided for pressure release and air venting.

(f) Need for a storm warning system. (g) Facilities provided to divert flows exceeding the design flow.

§ 239.6 Level of protection.

en

Evaluation of the above items may indicate that submergence of trances to covered channels may have significant impacts on the level of flooding. The requirements of EO 11988 and the significance of the resulting flood damage may require that the covered portion of the channel be enlarged to provide capacity to pass the SPF. If inclusion of SPF capacity on the covered portions of the project cannot be justified, the added capacity may be reduced to the extent that the project will not increase upstream stages resulting from the SPF when compared to the without-project condition. If this capacity is still not feasible, covered channels shall not be recommended.

§ 239.7 Separation of flood control works from urban drainage.

Covered channels are likely to be considered in boundary areas demarking urban drainage and flood control. Reporting officers shall apply the policies given in ER 1165-2-21 to separate flood control facilities from urban drainage facilities.

§ 239.8 Cost sharing.

At local protection projects local interests are required to provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way and all alterations and relocations of utilities, streets, bridges, buildings, storm drains and other structures and improvements; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works except damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractor; and assume operation and maintenance of the works after completion. In addition, local interests are required to provide additional cost sharing to re

flect special local benefits or betterments. Such additional special cost sharing will not be required for covered channels when the addition of the cover increases net NED flood control benefits when compared to the open channel or when they are provided for safety in schoolyards, playgrounds, or other known play areas for juveniles. However, the separable cost of providing covers for mitigating SWB or RD impacts or to provide areas for public or private uses such as parking, or the provision of areas for recreation development, etc., will be assigned to local interests. The separable cost of recreational facilities to be constructed on or adjacent to the cover, i.e. picnic facilities, etc., are eligible for Federal participation in accordance with cost-sharing policies for recreation facilities at local protection projects. Cost-sharing policies for project features which are included to make positive contributions to the EQ account are being developed. Until such policies are developed, proposals to cover channels on this basis will be coordinated with HQDA (DAENCWP), Washington, D.C. 20314.