sive 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.

§ 238.5 Comprehensive planning.

Coordinated comprehensive planning at the regional or river basin level, or for an urban or metropolitan area, can help to achieve solutions to flood problems that adequately reflect future changes in watershed conditions, and help to avoid short-sighted plans serving only localized situations. This planning is particularly important in areas where significant portions 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 ca

pacities 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 Executive 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).

(a) Section 209, Pub. L. 92-500, (86 Statute 843, 33 U.S.C. 1289), Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, October 18, 1972.

(b) Public Law 89-80, Water Resources Planning Act, (79 Statute 244254) July 22, 1965.

(c) Water Resources Council Policy Statement, Water and Related Land Resources Planning, July 22, 1970, (available from Water Resources Council, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20037).

(d) Water Resources Council, Statement of Purpose, Policy, and Objectives, June 13, 1974, (available from the Water Resources Council).

(e) Water Resources Council, The New Approach, May 31, 1974, contained in the Second Annual Report to

the Congress of the United States on Level B planning (Appendix A).

(f) Water Resources Council, "75 Water Assessment, The Example," July 1974 (available from the Water Resources Council).

(g) ER 1105-2-10, "Intensive Management".

§ 252.13 Types of studies.

(a) General. There are generally three types of studies in the Federal water and related land planning programs. These are Level A Assessments and Framework Studies; Level B Regional or River Basin Studies; and Level C Implementation Studies. While the sequential lettering of these studies implies an order of procedure for those studies that are interrelated, studies are not restricted to that particular sequence. Level C or Implementation Studies may be undertaken in areas where the problems and potential solutions are well defined and the intermediate Level B study is not needed or has not yet been completed. In addition, a Level C study of a specific basin project or program may be conducted prior to or concurrent with Level B Studies unless it is apparent that interrelationships required a broader analysis to avoid potentially adverse and irreversible decisions.

(b) Level A Studies. Assessments and Framework Studies are the broadest comparison of water and related land planning problems in major regions of the nation. Generally, the assessment will involve a continuing program with reports prepared at five year intervals to serve as a national guide to more detailed studies. Assessments are characterized by utilization of available data organized around major policy and broad socioeconomic trends to determine their implications on more detailed planning studies. Required outputs of Level A Studies are identified in reference § 252.12(f).

(c) Level B Studies. (1) Level B studies are made at the Regional or River Basin level for water and related land resources where problems are of a complex, interdisciplinary nature necessitating an intermediate planning step between Level A and Level C studies. Level B studies are designed to

resolve long range problems identified in a Level A study by focusing on the associated midterm problems and solutions and recommending plans and programs to be pursued by appropriate Federal, State, or local entities. Water quality, water quantity and land management problems are the focus for integration. The primary characteristic of Level B Studies is that they are largely based on judgemental planning, no new data collection, strong public involvement, and a high level of participation and leadership by the states.

(2) Level B studies provide for an interpretation of national and regional projections; identify alternative plans (methods) and programs; and identify alternative programs for management and use of water and related resources by including multiobjective and multipurpose considerations in each plan or program. The measures or programs recommended for implementation at the conclusion of each Level B study must recognize and be based on reasonable assumptions of investment capabilities of agencies designated to carry out such programs or plans, whether the agencies are Federal, State, or local. Alternative levels of investment and their impacts may be shown where appropriate.

(3) The required outputs of a Level B study have not been clearly defined by WRC, but as a minimum, a Level B study should recommend implementation of projects and programs for inclusion in the overall early action plan for the basin. In addition, Level B studies will generally identify: implementation studies needed within a 1525 year time frame; other programs; a statement of their relationship to long-term and unresolved issues; and recommendations for new policies or changes in existing policies.

§ 252.14 Program legislative and executive authorities.

(a) Title I of the Water Resources Planning Act, Pub. L. 89-80 encourages the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the Nation on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by all levels of government and nongo

vernmental entities and individuals. This Act applies to both Level A and Level B studies. Title 11, section 201(b) of the Act provides the general authority for River Basin Commissions, including Federal and State members, to participate in preparing assessments and river basin plans.

(b) The WRC Policy Statement (reference § 252.12(c)) further states that multi-agency water and related land resources planning shall be performed under guidance of the Water Resources Council. Study leaders shall be designated by river basin commissions in their areas or by the Water Resources Council in other areas. Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, engaged in this type of planning are participants ir multi-agency studies.

§ 252.15 Program policy.

As a member of the Water Resources Council, the Department of the Army endorses the policies and procedures established by the Council for Level A and Level B studies. A summary of these policies, with appropriate references, is provided below. In addition, policies on the management aspects of Corps participation in Level A and Level B studies are contained in § 252.16.

(a) The WRC Statement of Purpose, Policy and Objectives (reference § 252.12(d)) will guide the Council's development and implementation of policies, programs and activities in the future. The Statement of Purpose defines the broad framework and legislative basis for the Council's functions and activities; the Statement of Policy is a summary of the criteria, assumptions and activities that will guide and carry out implementation of the purpose of the Water Resources Council; and the Statement of Objectives sets out a schedule of specific, desired accomplishments for the relative nearterm future (12-18 months).

(b) The WRC Second Annual Report to Congress on Level B Planning outlines the new approach to Level B studies adopted in 1973, (Appendix A). The new approach stresses the importance of Level B planning, the issues to be addressed, the study partici