or

contain features for prevention mitigation of shore damages or to change the responsibility for maintenance or to modify portions of constructed navigation projects that contain features for prevention or mitigation of shore damages.

(iii) For prevention or mitigation of shore damages caused by non-Federal navigation projects.

(iv) To construct, maintain, modify or change the cost sharing of authorized beach erosion or combined beach erosion and hurricane protection projects, or portions thereof, located adjacent to Federal navigation projects. Except, when it is determined that shore damage to a portion of an authorized beach erosion project is attributable to the navigation project, mitigation measures may be accomplished under this authority, only to the extent of damages that can be directly identified and attributed to the navigation project.

(2) Where the erosion attributable to the Federal navigation project consists of only a portion of the total erosion problem in a specific area and cannot be considered as a separable reach for effective mitigation measures then a Section 111 project cannot be considered for authorization unless,

(i) There is an authorized beach erosion control or combined beach and hurricane protection project for the area with which the Section 111 mitigation measures could be combined to become effective, or

(ii) A general study of the entire problem area is made and leads to the development of an authorized beach erosion control project, (specific authority must be obtained to conduct a general study of the entire problem area) or

(iii) Local interests indicate a willingness to have the erosion problem outside the scope of Section 111 remedied at local cost.

(d) Cost Limitations. Section 111 provides that the Chief of Engineers has authority to authorize projects for which the estimated first costs will not exceed $1,000,000. The first costs will be the cost of the initial preventive or mitigative measures only. The limitation on costs does not include the cost

of project maintenance. The project must be planned as a complete unit and not broken into reaches or stages for cost limitation purposes.

(e) Reports. The Recon Report required by § 263.15(c)(1) will:

(1) Determine whether or not Federal navigation works are responsible for causing or contributing to the erosion problem.

(2) Determine the extent of the area affected by the navigation works.

(3) Determine total area experiencing significant erosion.

(4) Determine the approximate percentage of the total erosion problem in a specific area that is attributable to the navigation works.

(5) Recommend whether further study of the specific area affected by the Federal navigation works is justified and whether study of the entire area is desirable.

(f) Evaluation of Mitigation Measures. The objective of Section 111 is to provide mitigation measures for shore damages attributable to Federal navigation projects, when equitable and in the public interest. All practicable alternatives, structural and non-structural should be identified and considered. Work recommended for construction should provide the most practicable and economical means of mitigating existing damages or the prevention of subsequent damages. Justification of mitigation measures should be made by comparing their costs with the values represented by the damages preventable. Any intangible values should be described and given due weight along with the tangible values in this justification. Exercise of the authority of Section 111 to provide mitigation measures at Federal expense is not mandatory. A finding for or against its use should fully consider the pre-project conditions and the justification of incurring mitigation costs.

(g) Criteria for a Favorable Recommendation. A recommendation favorable to adoption and construction of work to prevent or mitigate shore damage attributable to a Federal navigation project under the authority of Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 may be considered war

ranted when both of the following conditions exist:

(1) The navigation project has been determined to be the cause of the damage.

(2) Analysis based on sound engineering and economic principles clearly demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed work.

(h) Cost Sharing-(1) Construction. (i) If the work recommended in the report is confined to mitigation work only under Section 111, i.e., erosion totally attributable to the navigation works, costs will be 100 percent Federal.

(ii) If the work recommended is a combination of mitigation under Section 111 and restoration of beaches eroded due to other causes and there is no authorized beach erosion project, mitigation work under Section 111 will be 100 percent Federal and the remaining work will be 100 percent local.

(iii) If the work recommended in the report is a combination of mitigation under Section 111 and the restoration of beaches under an authorized beach erosion project or combination beach erosion-hurricane protection project, the mitigation work under Section 111 will be 100 percent Federal and the remainder in accordance with the cost sharing procedures as specified in project authorization documents.

(2) Maintenance. (i) If the initial work is confined to mitigation under Section 111, all maintenance costs are 100 percent Federal.

(ii) If the work is a combination of mitigation under Section 111 and restoration of beaches eroded due to other causes, and there is no author

ized beach erosion project, maintenance costs will be shared in the same proportion as recommended for initial construction, i.e., the Section 111 portion will be 100 percent Federal and remaining work 100 percent local.

(iii) If the work is a combination of mitigation under Section 111 and an authorized beach erosion control project or combination beach erosion-hurricane protection project, the Federal maintenance cost for the mitigation work under Section 111 will be in the same proportion as the damage attributed to the Federal navigation work is to the total damage. For the remaining work the cost sharing procedures of the authorized beach erosion or combined beach erosion-hurricane protection project will apply.

(i) Local Cooperation. (1) The law as written provided that the cost of installing, operating and maintaining projects under this authority shall be borne entirely by the United States; therefore there are no requirements for local cooperation. The cost of any lands, easements or rights-of-way required for construction or subsequent maintenance will be borne entirely by the United States.

(2) Where Section 111 projects are to be accomplished in conjunction with other works (§ 263.15(a)(2)) local interests will be required to furnish assurance of local cooperation similar to those required for regularly authorized projects for their assigned portion of the work.

(3) Where Section 111 projects are to be accomplished in conjunction with authorized projects, the requirements of local cooperation specified in the authorizing document or report will apply.

APPENDIX B

APPLICATION OF MULTIOBJECTIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK TO CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

1. General. The planning process described in the ER 1105-2-200 series of regulations including the implementation of Federal planning and evaluation criteria, are generally applicable to studies conducted under the Continuing Authorities Program. However, due to the limited scope of many of the plans and projects considered under this program, modification of the process is appropriate. Specific modification of the requirements of the planning criteria

is not appropriate since the legislative and executive authorities setting forth these criteria do not differentiate between various types of level C implementation studies. Discretion must be employed by reporting officers and reviewers of Detailed Project Reports to insure that projects recommended for implementation by the Corps have been selected on the basis of information and analyses consistent with the WRC Principles and Standards, while at the same time keeping the requirements for information and analyses consistent with the scope of the study, solutions recommended, and the Program completion-time objectives outlined in § 263.18 of this regulation. 2. Plan Formulation Stages.

a.

Stage 1-Reconnaissance Study (Recon). As presented in para. 6c, a Reconnaissance will replace the Development of a Plan of Study as the primary element of Stage 1 planning. As a general rule, a Recon should be conducted by a study team consisting of an engineer, an economist, and an environmentalist. A one-to-two day field reconnaissance should be sufficient to analyze the need for a project, to develop sketch plans, discuss views and capabilities of local interests, and identify the economy of the potential project area and possible environmental issues that would need to be addressed if a feasibility study were to be conducted. Additional effort should pinpoint all data deficiencies, types of investigations required for the feasibility study, and the estimated cost of the study. The latter identification process can be developed as a Plan of Study for the feasibility study, if approved and funded. To accomplish the intended purpose of the Recon, within the time and cost objectives given in this regulation, reporting officers are not required to develop a specific project (except for emergency situations under Section 14 or 3 Authorities), but should only provide the information required to make a decision as to whether there is a Federal interest in conducting a feasibility study. Mature, seasoned judgment is a prime requisite.

b. Stage 2-Development of Alternative Plans. While the ER 1105-2-200 series of regulations provides for a three-stage development of plans, studies under Continuing Authorities may consolidate these two final stages (intermediate and detailed), into a single stage, if appropriate. This consolidation does not eliminate any of the planning tasks, as discussed in para 3 below, nor does it diminish the concept of screening a full array of alternatives including nonstructural measures, with increasing levels of detail in the assessment of impacts and evaluation as planning progresses to plan selection. The primary emphasis in making the consolidation of these two stages is that the plan selection is normally made on the basis of more limited data and analyses than appropriate for studies conducted under the Level C Survey Program or the Phase I AE&D Program.

c. Stage 3-Development of Recommended Plan. The feasibility study under the Continuing Authorities Program will include the design of a recommended plan to the extent necessary to proceed directly from the Detailed Project Report to preparation of plans and specifications. While studies under the Level C Survey Program would complete plan formulation prior to accomplishing detailed project design, the nature of this Program necessitates a flexible design phase, wherein changes in scope of the selected plan, with accompanying

changes in project impacts and evaluation, are to be expected and handled by planning personnel in order that the DPR will reflect a selected plan consistent with completed detailed design and a plan justified under the current Federal evaluation criteria for recommending Federal participation.

3. Planning Tasks.

a. Problem Identification. While planning under Continuing Authorities is to be on a multi-objective basis, the range of problems that can be addressed under a particular Program authority is more limited than normally considered in the conduct of studies specifically authorized by Congress. A good effort to focus the study on relevant problems should be made in the Recon phase of the study, while more intense efforts at data collection and definition of the problems and associated needs should be accomplished during Stage 2 planning.

b. Formulation of Alternatives. There are no fundamental differences in the process of formulating alternatives under these Program authorities than in Level C Survey studies, with the exception that the array of alternatives will normally be more limited based on the discussion in para 3a above. The level of detail to which the alternatives are formulated, with associated assessments of impacts and evaluation of beneficial and adverse contributions, will vary greatly depending on the study authority. In some cases, alternatives will be screened and eliminated for various reasons without full development of a tentative plan which can be assessed and evaluated. Such screening is consistent with the nature of this Program; however, good judgment and interdisciplinary participation should be emphasized in such preliminary screenings. The guidance in the ER 1105-2-200 series of regulations with regard to consideration of non-structural measures and formulation of NED and EQ plans, is fully applicable to studies conducted under this Program.

c. Impact Assessment. There is no difference in the requirements for the assessment of impacts for studies conducted under Continuing Authorities and those under the Level C Survey Program. As in all studies, the extent to which information is obtained to adequately assess impacts of alternative plans is a matter of discretion of the reporting officer, bearing in mind the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 122, Public Law 91-611.

d. Evaluation. The processes, analyses and displays for evaluation of alternative plans as prescribed in the ER 1105-2-200 series of regulations are generally applicable to studies conducted under Continuing Authorities. Again, the level of detail, and not the process itself, is to be consistent with the study

Appendix A-Joint Agreement for Interagency Coordination of areawide waste treatment management planning assistance to State and local Government between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. Appendix B-Application of the multiobjective planning framework of the Urban Studies Program.

Appendix C-Institutional analysis and arrangements.

Appendix D-The Plan of Study (POS).

AUTHORITY: Sec. 1, Pub. L. 685, June 20, 1938, 52 Stat. 802 (33 U.S.C. 540); Sec. 4, Pub. L. 429, as amended, Mar. 4, 1913, 37 Stat. 826 (33 U.S.C. 542).

SOURCE: 40 FR 51146, Nov. 3, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

§ 264.10 Purpose.

This regulation provides policy and procedures for studies conducted under the Urban Studies Program.

§ 264.11 Applicability.

This regulation is applicable to all OCE elements and all field operating agencies having Civil Works responsibilities.

§ 264.12 References.

(a) Pub. L. 92-500 (70 Stat. 498, 84 Stat. 91), Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972, October 18, 1972.

(b) ER 18-2-2, Intensive Management Program Monitor System.

(c) ER 1105-2-10, Intensive Management.

(d) ER 1105-2-105, Guidelines for Assessment of Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Civil Works Projects (33 CFR 209.400).

(e) ER 1105-2-402, Organization and General Content of Feasibility Reports.

(f) ER 1105-2-403, Format and Appearance of Feasibility Reports.

(g) ER 1105-2-502, Public Meetings (33 CFR 209.405).

(h) ER 1105-2-507, Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Statements (33 CFR 209.410).

(i) ER 1105-2-180, Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policy (33 CFR Part 275).

(j) ER 1105-2-800, Public Involvement: General Policies (33 CFR Part 380).

(k) ER 1105-2-811, A-95 Clearinghouse Coordination (33 CFR Part 384).

(1) ER 1120-2-112, Coordination of Investigations and Reports with Clearinghouses.

(m) ER 1165-2-21, Flood Control Works and Storm Sewer Systems in Urban Areas.

As used in this regulation, the following definitions apply.

(a) "Public." Any affected or interested non-Corps of Engineers entity. This includes other Federal, regional, State and local governments entities and officials; public and private organizations; and individuals (ER 1105–2800).

(b) "Institution." Any organization or process that is highly structured, systematized, and stable. It may be a type of group, e.g., a metropolitan sanitary district or a council of governments, or it may be a formalized practice, e.g., a water rights law or a water usage ordinance.