ER 1165-2-130 15 Jun 89 Water Resources Policies and Authorities

CECW-PR

Regulation No.

1165-2-130

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

Water Resources Policies and Authorities

FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN

SHORE PROTECTION

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

ER 1165-2-130

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

CECW-RR

15 June 1989

Regulation

No. 1165-2-130

Water Resources Policies and Authorities

FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN SHORE PROTECTION

Table of Contents

Subject Para. Page

Purpose......................................... 1 3

Applicability................................... 2 3

References...................................... 3 3

Definitions..................................... 4 4

Program Legislation............................. 5 4

Program Policies................................ 6 4

Shore Protection.............................. 6a 4

Related Recreation.......................... 6a(1) 5

Related Dredged Material Disposal........... 6a(2) 8

Geographic Applicability...................... 6b 9

Coastal Zone Management Plans................. 6c 9

Coastal Barrier Resources System.............. 6d 9

Beach Creation................................ 6e 9

Project Purposes.............................. 6f 9

Shore Categories.............................. 6g 10

Public Use.................................... 6h 12

Improvements for Recreation................... 6i 13

Federal Role in Project Development............. 7 13

Preauthorization Studies...................... 7a 13

Postauthorization Studies..................... 7b 14

Construction.................................. 7c 14

Maintenance................................... 7d 15

Periodic Nourishment.......................... 7e 15

Plan Formulation and Evaluation................. 8 16

Formulation................................... 8a 16

Evaluation.................................... 8b 16

This regulation supersedes ER 1165-2-130, 15 January 1979.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

Cost Sharing................................... 9 17

General Policy............................... 9a 17

Applicability................................ 9b 17

Policies Regarding Formulation,

Evaluation and Cost Allocation............. 9c 17

Cost Apportionment........................... 9d 18

Policies Limiting Corps of Engineers

Participation.............................. 9e 20

Emergency Authorities........................ 9f 22

Multiple-Purpose Projects.................... 9g 22

Related Dredged Material Disposal............ 9h 22

Local Cooperation Requirements................. 10 22

Local Cooperation Standard Wording............. 11 23

Local Cooperation Agreements................... 12 23

Tables

1 - Federal Participation in Shore Protection

Projects that Include Recreation Facilities

or Generate Recreation Benefits..................... 6

2 - Percent Federal Participation in Costs for

Shore Protection by Shoreline Ownership

Category and Project Benefits....................... 11

Appendices

Appendix A - Definitions of Terms Used in ER

Appendix B - Synopsis of Program Legislation

Appendix C - Example Computations for Cost Sharing

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

1. Purpose

. This Engineer Regulation (ER) provides policies and

guidelines for determining the extent of Federal participation in

potential Federal projects for protection from shore erosion,

hurricanes, and abnormal tidal and lake flooding that result in damages

or losses to coastal resources and/or development.

2. Applicability

. This ER is applicable to all HQUSACE/OCE elements

and all field operating activities (FOAs) having Civil Works

responsibilities. The policies and guidelines set forth in this

regulation are applicable to all Congressionally-authorized

preconstruction studies and preconstruction studies conducted under the

authority of Section 103, Public Law (P.L.) 87-874, and under the

authority of Section 111, P.L. 90-483 for projects not specifically

authorized by the Congress.

3. References

a. P.L. 71-520, 3 July 1930, River and Harbor Act (R&HA).

b. P.L. 79-526, 24 July 1946, Flood Control Act (FCA) of 1946.

c. P.L. 79-727, 13 August 1946.

d. P.L. 84-71, 15 June 1955.

e. P.L. 84-99, 28 June 1955.

f. P.L. 84-826, 28 July 1956.

g. P.L. 85-500, 3 July 1958, R&H and FCA of 1958.

h. P.L. 86-645, 14 July 1960, R&H and FCA of 1960.

i. P.L. 87-874, 23 October 1962, R&H and FCA of 1962.

j. P.L. 88-172, 7 November 1963.

k. P.L. 89-72, 9 July 1965, Federal Water Project Recreation Act.

l. P.L. 90-483, 13 August 1968, R&and;H and FCA of 1968.

m. P.L. 91-611, 31 December 1970, R&and;H and FCA of 1970.

n. P.L. 91-646, 2 January 1971, Uniform Relocations Assistance and

Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970.

o. P.L. 92-583, 27 October 1972, Coastal Zone Management Act of

1972.

p. P.L. 93-251, 7 March 1974, Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) of 1974.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

q. P.L. 94-587, 22 October 1976, WRDA of 1976.

r. P.L. 97-348, 18 October 1982, Coastal Resources Barrier Act.

s. P.L. 99-662, 17 November 1986, WRDA of 1986.

t. P.L. 100-676, 17 November 1988, WRDA of 1988.

u. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977.

v. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977.

w. ER 200-2-2, Policy and Procedures for Implementating NEPA.

x. ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook.

y. ER 1110-2-1407, Hydraulic Design for Coastal Shore Protection

Projects.

z. ER 1130-2-307, Dredging Policies and Practices.

aa. ER 1130-2-400, Management of Natural Resources and Outdoor

Recreation at Civil Works Water Resource Projects

bb. ER 1130-2-435, Preparation of Project Master Plans.

cc. ER 1165-2-18, Reimbursement for Advance Non-Federal

Participation in Civil Works Projects.

dd. ER 1165-2-131, Policy Guidance for New Start Construction

Projects.

ee. ER 1165-2-400, Recreation Planning, Development, and Management

Policies

4. Definitions

. To facilitate use of this ER and promote understanding

the policies and procedures set forth herein, definitions of terms as

used in this ER are provided in Appendix A.

5. Program Legislation

. Legislation that provides the bases for and

changes in the policies and procedures set forth in this ER is

synopsized in Appendix B.

6. Program Policies

a. Shore Protection

. It is Corps policy to provide Federal

assistance in reducing damages to shorefront development and coastal

resources from shore erosion, hurricane, and abnormal tidal and lake

flooding by undertaking shore protection projects where such projects

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

best serve the public interest. Plans will be developed, evaluated, and

selected in accordance with the Water Resources Council's (WRC) Economic

and Environmental Principles and Guidelines (P&and;G) for Water and

Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (dated 10 March 1983) as

required by ER 1105-2-100. WRC P&and;G directs water and related land

resources planning toward the Federal objective of contributing to

national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation's

environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable

Executive Orders, and other Federal planning requirements. In

connection with existing shore protection, hurricane protection, and/or

beach erosion control projects, it is Corps policy to consider extension

of Federal participation in any periodic nourishment for the project as

a new investment decision subject to current evaluation criteria, and

cost apportionment and cost sharing will be in accordance with P.L.

99-662. In any case in which the use of fill material for beach erosion

control or beach nourishment is authorized as a purpose of an authorized

water resources project, it is Corps policy to consider acquiring such

material by purchase, exchange, or otherwise from nondomestic sources

and use such materials for such purposes only if such materials are not

available from domestic sources for environmental or economic reasons.

The extent of Federal participation in any shore protection plan will be

based on the policies and requirements given in the following

paragraphs. Section 934 of P.L. 99-662 will not be used to extend the

period of authorized periodic nourishment of projects that use

sand-bypassing/backpassing plants.

(1) Related Recreation

. It is the policy of the United States to

assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works to protect

against erosion by waves and currents along the shores of the United

States for the purposes of preventing damages to property and promoting

and encouraging healthful recreation (P.L. 79-727, as amended).

However, recreation is not considered to be a high priority or primary

project output under current Department of the Army policy.

Accordingly, the Corps participates in shore protection plans that

include recreation facilities or generate recreation benefits if the

recreation outputs are incidental (i.e., no separable construction costs

are required to realize recreation outputs) and are not the primary

outputs (Table 1, Case 1). Corps participation in separable recreation

features at shore and hurricane protection projects, even though such

features may be economically justified, is precluded under current

Department of the Army policy (Table 1, Case 2). Federal funds are also

not used to support construction of shore or hurricane protection

projects which depend on separable recreation benefits for economic

justification (Table 1, Case 3), or for which incidental recreation

benefits are greater than 50 percent of the total benefits unless the

project is economically justified based on primary project outputs alone

(Table 1, Case 4), or based on the combination of primary benefits and

an equivalent amount of incidental recreation benefits (Table 1, Case

5). Land loss prevention benefits attributable to undeveloped private

lands are to be categorized as private benefits, even though the shore

may be public. Implementing policies and procedures on Corps

participation in recreation development are provided in ER 1105-2-100,

ER 1130-2-400, ER 1130-2-435, and ER 1165-2-400.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

TABLE 1 - FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS THAT

INCLUDE RECREATION FACILITIES OR GENERATE RECREATION BENEFITS

CASE 1 - Federal participation in this recreation benefit generating

shore protection (SP) project is warranted since the recreation benefits

are incidental, comprise less than 50 percent of total benefits, and,

when combined with the primary H&and;SDR benefits, produce an

economically justified project (i.e., project is not justified on H&SDR

benefit alone).

CASE 2 - Federal participation in this recreation benefit generating SP

project is limited to the portion that generates primary H&SDR benefits

(i.e., H&SDR portion of overall project is separably economically

justified). Federal participation in the separable recreation of the

overall project is restricted by Army budgetary policy even though it is

separably justified.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

CASE 3 - Federal participation in this recreation benefit generating SP

project is not warranted since separable recreational benefits are

necessary to justify the overall project (i.e., project is not justified

based on primary H&and;SDR benefits alone, or on the combination of

H&SDR and incidental recreation benefits, with incidental recreation

benefits limited to an equivalent amount of H&and;SDR benefits).

CASE 4 - Federal participation in this recreation benefit generating SP

project is warranted since the recreation benefits are incidental and,

even though they comprise over 50 percent of total benefits, they are

not necessary for project justification (i.e., project is justified

based on primary H&and;SDR benefits alone).

CASE 5 - Federal participation in this recreation benefit generating SP

project is warranted since recreation benefits are incidental, and, when

combined with and limited to an equivalent amount of primary H&and;SDR

benefits, they produce an economically justified project.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(2) Related Dredged Material Disposal

. It is Corps policy to

accomplish construction and maintenance dredging in the least costly and

most environmentally sound manner possible (ER 1130-2-307). If

placement of dredged material on a beach or beaches is determined by the

Corps to be the least costly acceptable means for disposal of the

material, then such placement should be considered integral to

accomplishment of the project work and not subject to any special

non-Federal cost-sharing requirements (unless benefits from the on-beach

placement are required for project justification and those benefits are

of a kind with which special cost sharing is associated).

(3) It is Corps policy to participate in the additional costs for

placing beach-quality sand or other suitable material, dredged by the

Corps during construction or maintenance of Federal navigation projects,

onto adjacent beaches or near shore waters subject to the following:

(a) Placement of the material on a beach or beaches and

Federal (Corps) participation in the costs must be requested by the

State in which the beach or beaches are located;

(b) The added cost of disposal must be justified by the

benefits associated with the protection of such beach or beaches;

beach protection must exceed 50 percent of the total benefits, unless

the placing of dredged material is economically justified based on storm

damage reduction benefits alone, or on the combination of storm damage

reduction benefits and an equivalent amount of incidental recreation

benefits if incidental recreation benefits exceed 50 percent of total

benefits.

(d) The beaches involved must be open to the public;

(e) The placement must be environmentally acceptable, pursuant

to all applicable statutes and regulations;

(f) Local interests must pay 50 percent of the added cost of

disposal above the alternative least costly method of disposal; and

(g) Local interests must provide (without cost sharing) any

necessary additional lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations.

(4) Should all of the foregoing conditions not pertain, it is Corps

policy to place beach-quality sand or other suitable material, dredged

by the Corps during construction and maintenance of Federal navigation

projects, onto beaches or nearshore waters, even though more costly than

alternative means of disposal, subject to the following:

(a) Placement on a beach or beaches must be requested by the

State in which the beach or beaches is located;

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(b) A finding can be made that, regardless of evaluated

benefits, protection of the beaches involved is in the public interest;

to all applicable statutes and regulations;

(d) Local interests must pay 100 percent of the added cost of

disposal above the alternative least costly method of disposal; and

(e) Local interests must provide any necessary additional

lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations.

b. Geographic Applicability

. Shore erosion control, hurricane, and

abnormal tidal flooding authorities are applicable to the shores of the

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the

estuaries and bays directly connected therewith of each of the States

(including the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands),

the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas Islands, and the

Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa) of the United

States. Authority for shore erosion control activities extend only the

distance up tributary streams where it can be demonstrated that the

dominant causes of erosion and damage are ocean tidal action (or Gulf of

Mexico and Great Lakes water motion) and wind-generated waves. They

will not address erosion at upstream locations caused by streamflows or

vessels. Lake flood protection activities are generally limited to the

Great Lakes, or as otherwise specifically authorized under public law.

c. Coastal Zone Management Plans

. Project proposals shall be

consistent to the maximum practicable extent with approved State Coastal

Zone Management Programs developed under the authority of the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

d. Coastal Barrier Resources System

. Project proposals shall be

subject to compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982.

e. Beach Creation

. Existing shore erosion control authority

provides for "restoration" and "protection." It does not provide for

Federal cost sharing in extending a beach beyond its historic shoreline

unless the extension is needed for engineering reasons to provide

protection from erosion or as otherwise specifically authorized under

public law.

f. Project Purposes

. Shore protection projects have been

authorized for a variety of purposes: beach erosion control,

shore/shoreline protection, hurricane/hurricane wave protection, and

storm protection. For cost sharing purposes, the benefits/outputs

associated with the foregoing project purposes will be reassigned to

conform to the appropriate purposes specified in Section 103(c) of P.L.

99-662 (normally, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and/or

recreation), and costs shared in the same percentage as the purposes to

which costs are assigned.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

g. Shore Categories

. Three general categories of shore, based on

ownership and use, and incidence and type of benefits, must be

considered in determining the extent of Federal participation in shore

protection. These categories, and the levels of Federal participation

applicable thereto, are listed in Table 2, with the following

clarifications:

(1) Private Shores.

All costs assignable to benefits to

privately-owned shores, within or downdrift of physical project limits,

(where use of such shore is limited to private interests) are

non-Federal, except that benefits to private shores beyond project

limits, if trivial in amount, are considered incidental for cost sharing

purposes. Federal participation may be recommended for the protection

of developed private shores if the use of such shores is not limited to

private interests. Benefits from prevention of losses of developed

private lands are treated as storm damage reduction benefits.

(2) Losses of Private Lands

. All costs assigned to the

prevention of losses of undeveloped private lands (including privately-

owned marshes and wetlands) are non-Federal, even though the beach may

be public. Normally determinations of the market value for the land

losses will be based on the value of nearshore upland. Nearshore upland

is sufficiently removed from the shore to lose its significant increment

of value because of its proximity to the shore, when compared to

adjacent parcels that are more distant (inland) from the shore. Other

valuation methods are potentially acceptable, if it can be shown that

the use of nearshore values does not provide a realistic estimate of the

value of lost land.

(3) Federal Shores.

All costs assigned to the protection of

Federally-owned shores are Federal, and the Federal agency benefiting

from the project is responsible for these costs.

(4) Non-Federal Public Shores (Park and Conservation Areas)

Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act provided that under special

conditions, beach erosion protection of a state, county, or other

publically-owned shore park and conservation area is eligible for

Federal cost sharing up to 70 percent of the total project costs,

exclusive of land costs. The WRDA of 1986 discontinues this special

cost sharing. Evaluation of land loss benefits at non-Federal public

shores will reflect the special use to which the land is dedicated, and

the value of the output produced by that use. Consequently lands

dedicated to non-Federal park and conservation areas (including historic

parks and landmarks) will normally be valued on the basis of loss of

recreation outputs, with cost sharing 50/50, and Federal participation

limited by current Department of the Army policy. In cases where the

use of the land cannot be accurately calculated in economic terms, the

value of nearshore upland may be used (see paragraph 6.g(2) above). No

land loss benefit will be claimed for beach areas, or for shorefront

lands subject to temporary shoreline recessions.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

TABLE 2 - PERCENT FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COSTS FOR SHORE PROTECTION BY

SHORELINE OWNERSHIP CATEGORY AND PROJECT BENEFITS

Shoreline Ownership Category (2) Federal Participation (%)

Project Benefits Construction(3) OM&R

I. Federally owned (4)

Hurricane &and; Storm Damage Reduction 100 100

Land loss (12) 100 100

Recreation (Separable) (5) 100 100

II. Publicly owned and/or privately

owned with public benefits (6)(7)

Hurricane & Storm Damage Reduction (8) 65 (11) 0

Land loss (9)(10)(12) 50 (11) 0

Recreation (Separable) (5) 50 (11) 0

III.Privately owned

Hurricane & Storm Damage Reduction 0 0

Land loss (12) 0 0

Recreation (Separable) (5) 0 0

(1) The Corps does not recommend construction authorization

for shore protection projects that protect only one private property

owner, (profit or non-profit) (see paragraph 9.e(1)). The Corps may

recommend construction authorization for shore protection projects that

protect only one public owner, if the project is formulated and

justified in accordance with policies applicable to hurricane and storm

damage reduction. Federal funds will not be used to implement a project

with recreation benefits greater than 50 percent of total benefits

unless the project is economically justified based on (a) primary

project outputs alone (see paragraph 6.a(1) above), or (b) the

combination of reduced storm damages and an equivalent amount of

incidental recreation benefits.

(2) Shores which lie within recognized Indian Tribal

Reservations do not usually fall within categories. The status of such

lands will depend upon the particular treaty provisions pertaining to

the lands under consideration and will need to be examined in each

instance. Specific cases should be referred to CDR, USACE (CECW-P),

WASH DC, 20314-1000 for guidance.

(3) Where appropriate, periodic beach nourishment is

considered construction (see paragraph 7.e below).

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(4) See paragraph 9.e(5) on protecting other Federal agency

shores and work for another Federal agency.

(5) Department of the Army policy precludes Civil Works

funding of separable recreation features at shore protection projects.

(6) Privately-owned shores under public control, as through a

sufficiently long-term lease assuring realization of public benefits

throughout the economic life of the project.

(7) See paragraph 9 below, concerning incidental protection of

privately-owned shores.

(8) Basic project may also include incidental recreation

benefits (i.e., inseparable from basic project purpose). Benefits from

prevention of loss of developed private lands are treated as storm

damage reduction benefits. Benefits from prevention of damages to

transportation facilities are considered as storm damage reduction

benefits.

(9) Non-Federal public shores dedicated to park (recreation;

historic/landmark) and/or conservation (fish and wildlife) uses.

(10) Adjusted by the ratio of public benefits along each

category of shore to total benefits along each category of protected

shore. Prevention of losses of undeveloped private lands is a private

benefit.

(11) These cost sharing percentages are applied to project

costs including the fair market value of LERRD.

(12) The Corps does not recommend construction of shore

protection projects where the benefits consist solely of land loss

prevention regardless of the number of owners.

h. Public Use

. Public use is a condition for Federal participation

in hurricane, abnormal tidal or lake flood protection projects. Current

shore erosion control law provides that "Shores other than public (i.e.,

privately owned) will be eligible for Federal assistance if there is a

benefit such as that arising from public use..." In the case of beaches

used for recreation, public use means use by all on equal terms. This

means that project beaches will not be limited to a segment of the

public. Unless the protection of privately-owned beaches is incidental

to protection of public beaches (paragraph 9), they must be open to all

visitors regardless of origin or home area, or provide protection to

nearby public property to be eligible for Federal assistance. Items

affecting public use are discussed below.

(1) User Fees

. A reasonable beach fee, uniformly applied to

all, for use in recovery of the local share of project costs is

allowable. Normal charges made by concessionaires and municipalities

for use of facilities such as bridges, parking areas, bathhouses, and

umbrellas are not construed as a charge for the use of the Federal beach

project, if they are commensurate with the value of the service they

provide and return only a reasonable profit. Fees for such services

must be applied uniformly to all concerned and not as a prerequisite to

beach use.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(2) Parking

. Lack of sufficient parking facilities for the

general public (including non-resident users) located reasonably nearby,

and with reasonable public access to the project, will constitute de

facto restriction on public use, thereby precluding eligibility for

Federal participation. Generally, parking on free or reasonable terms

should be available within a reasonable walking distance of the beach.

Street parking is not considered acceptable in lieu of parking lots

unless curbside capacity will accommodate the projected use demands.

Parking should be sufficient to accommodate the lesser of the peak hour

demand or the beach capacity. In some instances State and local plans

may call for a reduction in automobile pollutants by encouraging public

transportation. Thus, public transportation facilities may substitute

for or complement parking facilities. However, reports which consider

public transportation in this manner must indicate how the public

transportation system would be adequate for the needs of projected beach

users. In computing the public parking accommodations required, the

beach users not requiring parking should be deducted from the design

figure.

(3) Access

. Reasonable public access must be provided in

accordance with the recreational use objectives of the particular area.

However, public use is construed to be effectively limited to within

one-quarter mile from available points of public access to any

particular shore. In the event public access points are not within one-

half mile of each other, either an item of local cooperation specifying

such a requirement and public use throughout the project life must be

included in project recommendations or the cost sharing must be based on

private use.

(4) Beach Use by Private Organizations

. Federal participation

in private shores owned by beach clubs and hotels is incompatible with

the intent of the P.L. 84-826 if the beaches are limited to use by

members or paying guests.

(5) Public Shores With Limitations

. Publicly-owned beaches

which are limited to use by residents of the community or a group of

communities are not considered to be open to the general public and will

be treated as private beaches.

I. Improvements for Recreation

. Improvements to enhance the

recreational value of shore protection projects such as bathhouses,

access roads, toilet facilities, and parking areas are a local

responsibility. Provision of those facilities is not eligible for

Federal assistance through the Corps programs, and costs for those

facilities are not ordinarily included as project costs.

7. Federal Role in Project Development

a. Preauthorization Studies

. The Corps of Engineers may undertake

specific studies relating to shore erosion, hurricane, abnormal tidal

and lake flood problems with the authorization of Congress, either in

response to resolutions adopted by the Committee on Environment and

Public Works of the United States Senate or the Committee on Public

Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, or by an Act

of Congress. Without specific Congressional authorization, the Corps

may initiate studies for projects, under the authorities of Section 103

of P.L. 87-874,

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

Section 111 of P.L. 90-483, and Section 14 of P.L. 79-526, as amended,

which comprise part of the Corps Continuing Authorities Program.

Reconnaissance studies are 100 percent Federally funded; feasibility

studies are conducted under a contract (Feasibility Study Cost Sharing

Agreement) providing 50-50 Federal/non-Federal cost sharing.

b. Postauthorization Studies

. Planning and engineering studies for

shore protection projects authorized under Section 105 (a) and 105 (b)

of P.L. 99-662 are conducted under a contract providing 50-50

Federal/non-Federal cost sharing. Evaluation studies for disposal of

materials dredged from navigation inlets and channels, during original

Federal improvement or maintenance, onto adjacent beaches under Section

145 of P.L. 94-587, as amended, will be initially financed by the Corps;

the cost of the evaluation report will be added to the separable

construction costs for placement of dredged material on beaches and cost

shared accordingly. (In the event the Corps financed evaluation study

does not result in placement of materials on beaches as requested by the

State, costs will be absorbed by the Federal Government.) Studies for

extension of beach nourishment periods under Section 934 of P.L. 99-662

will be initially financed by the Federal Government. If extension of

periodic nourishment is approved, the cost of preparing the reevaluation

reports will be shared in the same proportion as the allocation of

construction costs to the type of benefits accruing from the project.

The non-Federal sponsor will reimburse its share to the Federal

Government at the time of initial construction. Costs of

preconstruction engineering and design (PED) of a water resources

project are considered part of, and included in the total project cost,

and are cost shared in the same percentage as the basic purpose(s) of

the project. PED is initially financed by the Corps and reimbursed to

the Federal Government during the first year of construction (refer to

ER 1165-2-131). PED may include project performance monitoring for up

to five years after completion of initial construction. Guidance on

cost sharing of projects authorized in P.L. 99-662 for planning,

engineering, and design pursuant to Sections 105b and 105c is provided

in ER 1105-2-100.

c. Construction

. Construction of authorized projects is a

responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. However, local interests may

construct portions of projects, after they are authorized by Congress,

and be reimbursed by the Federal Government within the limitations of

Section 215 of the 1968 Flood Control Act, as amended, if prior approval

is obtained from the Chief of Engineers (refer to ER 1165-2-18 for

approval procedures and policies). If local interests desire to proceed

with construction of the projects, they may do so with the understanding

that:

(1) Federal participation would be limited to the Federal

shares of the costs of the elements constructed which are in accordance

with the authorized plan;

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(2) Reimbursement will be subject to future appropriation of

funds applicable to the project and shall not take precedence over other

pending projects of higher priority; and,

(3) Local interests provide assurances that they bear any

increased costs of measures which may result from advance work, unless

there are extenuating circumstances which warrant omission of this

condition.

d. Maintenance

. Maintenance is generally a non-Federal

responsibility. However, if a portion of the benefited area is in

Federal ownership the Federal maintenance responsibility shall be

established as the same portion as the length of Federal shoreline is to

the length of total shoreline, provided costs are relatively uniform per

length of shore. In the case of multipurpose projects providing for

navigation, particularly those which involve complex operating

procedures, operation and maintenance responsibility for the entire

project might best be vested in the Federal Government. In such cases,

non-Federal interests should be obligated to contribute their share of

costs to the Federal Government on a scheduled basis throughout the

project life or to make a cash contribution of the capitalized value of

the non-Federal share of the maintenance cost. Future maintenance costs

are to be capitalized using the authorized discount rate.

e. Periodic Nourishment

. Periodic nourishment by placement of

suitable material on a beach at appropriate intervals of time, is

considered "construction" for cost-sharing purposes when, in the opinion

of the Chief of Engineers, such periodic nourishment would be a more

economical erosion protection measure than retaining structures such as

groins. Thus, projects recommending periodic nourishment should not

include structures which materially reduce littoral drift from reaching

downdrift shores. When sand replacement is proposed as a maintenance

measure, as for example when it would serve to maintain protection

accompanied by structures intended to confine the benefits of the sand

within a beach compartment rather than serving as a full or partial

alternative to such structures, Federal assistance toward its cost

should not be recommended, except to the extent warranted in paragraph

7d, above. Projects with short low-profile groins included to maintain

a shore alignment, but not to materially prevent littoral drift from

nourishing downdrift beaches are eligible for periodic nourishment.

Federal assistance for periodic nourishment may continue throughout the

economic life of the project, but a specified period of time up to 50

years after initiation of construction must be recommended in planning

reports. If there is reason to doubt the technical viability of

periodic nourishment for such a period of time, a shorter period may be

recommended. After that period, the project should be reexamined to

determine if Federal participation in periodic nourishment is the most

efficient and economic solution. Continuation of such Federal

participation beyond 50 years or other modification of the project

requires additional authorization. Prior to the expiration of the

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

nourishment period, the local sponsor will be notified that extension to

50 years is not automatic and that the sponsor must request the

extension and express willingness to cost share in accordance with P.L.

99-662.

8. Plan Formulation and Evaluation

a. Formulation

. Projects shall be formulated in accordance with

policies, principles, and procedures contained in ER 1105-2-100 and

related regulations (e.g., ER 200-2-2) describing the planning process

developed to implement the Water Resources Council's Principles and

Guidelines, the National Environmental Policy Act, EO 11988, EO 11990

and other requirements. Consideration shall be given to both structural

and nonstructural solutions. Plan formulation should be accomplished

systematically to arrive at the best solution, considering all factors,

including engineering, economic, environmental, and social.

b. Evaluation

. As required by ER 1105-2-100, effects of

alternatives will be determined and evaluated in terms of four accounts:

national economic development (NED); environmental quality (EQ);

regional economic development (RED); and other social effects (OSE).

Effects normally associated with hurricane and storm damage reduction

projects include but are not limited to the following. The impacts of

sea level rise on shore protection projects will be determined and

evaluated in accordance with guidance in ER 1105-2-100.

(1) Prevention of land loss and other physical damages;

(2) Reduction in maintenance costs of existing protection

works;

(3) Reduction of emergency costs to residences, businesses,

and governmental entities;

(4) Increased recreational usage, and where appropriate,

relief of overcrowding for existing recreational usage;

(5) Changes in maintenance costs associated with navigation

projects;

(6) Employment of unemployed or underemployed labor resources

for project construction;

(7) Prevention of loss of historic and scenic aspects of the

environment;

(8) Changes in shore processes and equilibrium conditions;

(9) Accretion or erosion along downdrift shores;

(10) Changes in tidal floodplain development;

(11) Changes in the extent and quantity of wetlands; and

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(12) Changes in water quality and ecology in vicinity of

construction activities.

9. Cost Sharing

a. General Policy

. Prior to enactment of P.L. 99-662 (WRDA of

1986), shore protection legislation was directed to the prevention and

control of beach erosion with no explicit legislative definition of a

Federal responsibility in protecting against hurricane and storm damages

to the nation's coasts and shores of the Great Lakes. With enactment of

the WRDA of 1986, Congress established hurricane and storm damage

reduction as a project purpose to which costs should be assigned. Beach

erosion control is not recognized as a project purpose, but subsection

103(d) specifies that the costs of constructing beach erosion control

measures will be assigned to "appropriate" project purposes listed in

subsections 103(a), 103(b), and 103(c), with cost sharing in the same

percentage as the purposes to which the costs are assigned. The

appropriate project purposes are hurricane and storm damage reduction,

and recreation. Subsection 103(d) provides for two exceptions to this

sharing of assigned costs. First, costs assigned to benefits to

privately-owned shores (where use of such shore is limited to private

interests) are non-Federal costs. Second, costs assigned to benefits

from the prevention of losses of private (undeveloped) lands are to be

non-Federal, and all costs assigned to the protection of Federally-owned

shores are Federal.

b. Applicability

. The cost sharing requirements of the WRDA of

1986, as described below, are applicable to any project (including any

Continuing Authorities Program project which is not specifically

authorized by Congress and for which the Secretary had not approved

funding before 17 November 1986), or separable element thereof, on which

physical construction was initiated after 30 April 1986. Physical

construction means an action that physically alters the environment,

such as dredging beach fill, removing existing structures, or placing

beach fill. Physical construction is distinguished from the acquisition

of land, award of a construction contract, and subsequent mobilization

of contractor's equipment, all of which are accomplished before physical

construction can begin.

c. Policies Regarding Formulation, Evaluation and Cost Allocation

(1) Shore protection projects are to be formulated first to

provide for hurricane and storm damage reduction. Recreation associated

with this type of project is considered incidental for cost sharing

purposes, although recreation benefits are NED benefits to be included

in the economic analysis. Additional beach fill, over that required for

the hurricane and storm damage reduction project, to satisfy recreation

demand is a separable recreation feature.

(2) Costs for measures for the prevention of land losses are

assigned to either Federal or non-Federal interests depending upon shore

ownership. At non-Federal public shores dedicated to recreation,

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

historic, or fish and wildlife purposes, the cost of measures for the

prevention of loss of land are eligible for 50 percent Federal

participation.

(3) When the cost of construction per unit of benefited shore

length is not reasonably uniform for the entire project area, the

project should be subdivided into elements (reaches) within which this

condition is met. The first cost for H&and;SDR measures for the

project, or each of the subdivided reaches, will then be allocated to

the various categories of directly benefited shore properties.

(4) Benefits to private shores beyond project limits, if

trivial in amount, may be omitted from cost sharing considerations. If

these benefits are significant (e.g., required for project

justification), they should be included in cost sharing considerations.

Where significant benefits accrue outside the project limits and the

non-Federal sponsor desires the recipients of these benefits to

contribute to the non-Federal share of the project costs, the

responsibility for negotiating with the recipients of the benefits rests

entirely with the non-Federal sponsor.

(5) Projects will be designed and implemented in the most cost

efficient manner (considering both Federal and non-Federal costs), using

appropriate engineering, economic, and environmental criteria. This

practice defines the alignment, size and location of project features

and LERRD requirements needed to make the project function in a safe and

reliable manner, independent of cost sharing determinations. From this

basic project design, the appropriate Federal and non-Federal

participation can then be calculated. The project area is normally

limited to the protected shore front area and does not usually include

the borrow area within its boundaries.

d. Cost Apportionment

. Federal participation in a project

formulated for hurricane and storm damage reduction is 65 percent of the

estimated total project first costs (including LERRD) assigned to this

purpose. Cost apportionment percentages for Federal participation in

shore protection by shore ownership and project benefit are given in

Table 2 (pg. 11). Non-Federal costs for a hurricane and storm damage

reduction project, or separable element, must be provided during the

period of construction.

(1) Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations, and Dredged

Material Disposal Areas (LERRD). Non-Federal interests must provide all

of the LERRD for shore protection projects, including borrow areas, at

non-Federally-owned shores. Generally, the fair market value of these

items (excluding the value of any publicly-owned beaches) is included in

the total project cost, and non-Federal interests receive a credit for

the value of these contributions against the non-Federal cost share.

However, the value of LER eligible for credit toward the non-Federal

share of shore protection project costs is that which is not subject to

loss through erosion in the without project condition. LER needed for

placement of shore protection project features that prevent the loss of

the land itself has no value for crediting purposes. The real estate

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

market may not however, reflect this and a project sponsor may in fact

incur costs in acquiring requisite interests. Accordingly, a sponsor

will be credited for his actual costs or for the net reduction in total

market valuation of the parcels (from which interests for the project

must be drawn) assuming no Federal project compared to assuming the

project in place (i.e., including consideration of special benefits to

the property owners), whichever is least.

(2) Additional Cash Contribution

. When the fair market value

of the LERRD items assigned to a project purpose is less than the

appropriate non-Federal percentage of the total first cost assigned to

that purpose (i.e., hurricane and storm damage reduction - 35%;

recreation (separable) - 50%; prevention of loss of land: Federal

shores - 0%; non-Federal public shores - 50%; private shores - 100%).,

the difference must be provided by non-Federal interests as a cash

contribution during construction.

(3) Limitation

. When the fair market value of the LERRD items

assigned to a project purpose exceeds the appropriate percentage of the

total first cost assigned to that purpose, as specified in paragraph

9.d(2) above, the non-Federal share is limited to that percentage, and

the excess will be reimbursed by the Federal government after completion

of project construction. Guidance on the mechanism for funding the

value of LERRD that exceeds the appropriate percentage is contained in

ER 1165-2-131.

(4) Credit for Borrow Areas

. Contractors will normally obtain

material for the project from available sources, subject to Corps

specifications and approval. In some cases (e.g., limited competition)

a borrow area source may be specified by the Corps.

(a) When a borrow area is provided by the sponsor as part

of its LERRD requirements, the resource invested by the sponsor and

available for credit against its non-Federal cost-sharing

responsibilities is the net cost of the borrow area, after deducting the

residual land value from the original acquisition cost. Only the net

cost should be included in project evaluations and credited against the

non-Federal cost-sharingresponsibilities. If a sponsor makes available

borrow already in its ownership, the net value for crediting purposes

will be established on the basis of borrow area appraisals before and

after use for project borrow.

(b) Where borrow materials can be more economically

obtained from nearby commercial sources, local provision of a borrow

area is not required. The Corps designates for the contractor what

sources will be acceptable and the contractor makes appropriate

arrangements. In such case, there are no related LERRD costs and the

material costs include the contractor's payment to the supplier for the

material and a delivery charge, if the supplier delivers, or the

contractors cost for hauling to the project site if the contractor loads

the material onto his equipment at the supply site.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

obtained from offshore sources, no credit will normally be given since

the before and after market values are considered identical.

(5) Operation, Maintenance, Replacement and Rehabilitation

(OMRR). Non-Federal interests are responsible for 100 percent of the

OMRR costs for shore protection projects and separable elements.

(6) Periodic Nourishment. Placement of sand on a beach at

suitable intervals of time is considered "construction" for funding and

cost-sharing purposes when it is more efficient and economical than

other methods of controlling erosion. Periodic nourishment should be

thought of as an alternative to construction of expensive seawalls and

groinfields and as staged construction of a beach. Sand-

bypassing/backpassing plants, which operate essentially on a continual

basis requiring annual funding, are normally considered operation and

maintenance (a non-Federal responsibility for beach erosion control

projects) and not staged construction. However, periodic nourishment

may include a sand-bypassing/backpassing plant, if the

bypassed/backpassed sand would substitute for sand which would be placed

on the beach as part of an existing Federal periodic nourishment

project, and if the cost of constructing and operating the

bypassing/backpassing plant would be more economical than other methods

of nourishing the beach. Recommendations for Federal involvement in

periodic nourishment using a sand-bypassing/backpassing plant will be

limited to the remaining life of an existing periodic nourishment

project. Section 934 of P.L. 99-662 will not, in such cases, be used to

extend the period of authorized periodic nourishment of such projects.

e. Policies Limiting Corps of Engineers Participation

(1) Single Property Owner Situations

. Federal participation

in the construction and/or costs of any shore protection project

presumes that the proposed shore protection project would protect more

than one property owner (public and/or private). In the event the

proposed shore protection project would protect only one private

property owner (profit or non-profit), the Corps would not recommend

construction authorization. If the proposed shore protection project

would protect only one public owner, the Corps may recommend

construction authorization if the project is formulated and justified in

accordance with policies applicable to hurricane and storm damage

reduction.

(2) Land Loss Prevention Benefits

. If the benefits for the

shore protection project consist solely of land loss prevention (i.e.,

no buildings or facilities subject to damage), recommendations for

Federal participation will not be made regardless of the number of

owners.

(3) Public Ownership and Use

. Section 103(d) of the WRDA of

1986 prohibits Federal participation in costs assigned to benefits to

privately-owned shores where the use of such shores is limited to

private interests. Non-Federal interests must, therefore, assure

continued conditions of public ownership and use of the shore upon which

the amount

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

of Federal participation is based during the economic life of the

project. Non-Federal interests must also provide and maintain necessary

access roads, parking areas and other public use facilities open and

available to all on equal terms. Specific cases may also warrant

assigning other additional local responsibilities, such as providing

appurtenant facilities required for realization of recreational

benefits.

(4) Federal Budgetary Resources

. Department of Army policy

precludes the use of Army Civil Works resources for implementing

recreation-oriented projects as part of the Civil Works program. Civil

Works funds normally may be used to support development of recreation

when recreation benefits are less than 50 percent of total project

benefits. In addition, recreation benefits must result from development

of recreation potential created by projects formulated for and justified

by other primary purposes. Exceptions to this 50 percent limit on

recreation benefits will be granted if a project is economically

justified by: (a) benefits from reduced storm damages alone, or (b) a

combination of reduced storm damages and incidental recreation benefits

limited to an equivalent amount of storm damage reduction benefits (see

Cases 2 and 3, Table 1, page 8; para. 6.a(1), pages 6 and 7). The

allocation or assignment of costs for projects granted exception to this

policy, will be on the basis of the benefits formulated for the project,

and not influenced by this arbitrary test to determine qualification for

an exception.

(5) Other Federal Agency Lands

. Costs for shore protection

for lands controlled by another Federal agency (for example, military

installations and National Park Service lands) will be borne by that

agency. The Corps will accomplish such work on a reimbursable basis

upon request. One exception would be a case wherein the lands in

question involve only a minor, but integral, part of the overall

protection frontage. In such case, protection would be included at

Federal cost using Civil Works funds to assure a complete overall

project.

(6) Exception for the Territories

. Local cost sharing

requirements for all studies and projects in American Samoa, Guam, the

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of

the Pacific Islands, will be reduced by an amount not to exceed

$200,000, for each study and each project, in accordance with Section

1156 of the WRDA of 1986. Cost sharing for each study and/or project

will be established using the general cost sharing criteria, and the

non-Federal share will then be reduced by $200,000, or to zero if the

non-Federal share is less than $200,000. These reductions will not

raise the individual project ceilings for Federal participation

specified in Section 915 of the WRDA of 1986.

(7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

. Although Section

915(h) of P.L. 99-662 authorizes use of the Section 103 (P.L. 87-874)

and Section 111 (P.L. 90-483) authorities, under current budget

instructions funds are not to be expended in this region due to changing

governmental status.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

f. Emergency Authorities

(1) The cost sharing in Section 103 of P.L. 99-662 does not

apply to emergency operations and disaster assistance under P.L. 84-99,

as amended. However, cost sharing under Section 103 of P.L. 99-662

would apply to measures that may be required to restore the protective

function/level of a shore protection project prior to the onset of the

storm season or following a storm which exceeded design storm conditions

but did not necessitate action under P.L. 84-99.

(2) The flood control cost sharing in Section 103(a) of P.L.

99-662 is applicable to recommendations under Section 14 of the 1946

Flood Control Act, as amended.

g. Multiple-Purpose Projects

. For multiple-purpose hurricane and

storm damage reduction and recreation projects having separable

recreation facilities, Federal cost sharing in the recreation purpose is

limited to 50 percent of the construction costs of the separable

recreation facilities, while OM&and;R thereof is a non-Federal

responsibility in accordance with Sections 103(c) and 103(j) of P.L. 99-

662. However, Federal funds will not be used to implement the separable

recreation elements of a multiple-purpose project in accordance with

current Department of the Army budget priorities.

h. Related Dredged Material Disposal

. Federal participation in the

disposal of dredged material from construction and maintenance of

Federal navigation projects onto adjacent beaches or in nearshore water

is limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the incremental costs above the

least costly and environmentally sound method for the disposal of the

dredged materials (see paragraph 6.a(3)). FOA's must complete a report

providing a cost analysis supporting the least costly alternative method

of disposal of dredged material and other documentation and analyses to

meet the criteria set forth in paragraph 6.a(3).

10. Local Cooperation Requirements

. Reporting officers must obtain a

letter of intent from a public agency, authorized under State law, to

fulfill the non-Federal obligations of water resources projects

recommended for Federal participation. The letter will indicate that

prior to construction, the sponsor will enter into a written Local

Cooperation Agreement (LCA), as required by Section 221 of P.L. 91-611,

as amended, to provide local cooperation satisfactory to the Secretary

of the Army. Such local cooperation will include the following

non-Federal responsibilities in addition to the responsibility for

fulfilling the requirements of law for the recommended project:

a. Provide to the United States all necessary lands, easements,

rights-of-way, relocations, and suitable borrow and/or disposal areas

required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project,

including that required for periodic nourishment.

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

b. Hold and save the United States free from claims for damages

which may result from construction and subsequent maintenance,

operation, and public use of the project, except damages due to the

fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors.

c. Maintain continued public ownership and public use of the shore

upon which the amount of Federal participation is based during the

economic life of the project (normally 50 years).

d. Maintain and repair the protective measures and/or structures

during the economic life of the project as required to serve the

intended purposes at their design levels of hurricane and storm damage

protection and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the

Secretary of the Army (see ER 1110-2-1407 for specification of O&M

requirements and provision of an O&M manual).

e. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas and

other public use facilities open and available to all on equal terms.

f. Participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain

management and flood insurance programs prior to initiation of

construction and during the economic life of the project.

g. Contribute in cash the appropriate percentage of project

construction cost (computed from the policies given in paragraph 9), the

percentage to be in accordance with existing law and based on shore

ownership and use at the time of implementation, provided that credit

will be given for the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way and

relocations.

h. Contribute the local share of periodic beach nourishment, where

and to the extent applicable (up to 50 years) as required to serve the

intended purposes.

i. Specific cases may also warrant assigning other additional local

responsibilities, such as: providing appurtenant facilities required

for realization of recreational benefits.

11. Local Cooperation Standard Wording

. The wording given in

paragraphs 10.a through 10.h should be considered standard for all

recommended plans which include hurricane and storm damage reduction as

a plan purpose. In the case of dredged material disposal, the wording

in paragraphs 10.c and 10.e, in addition to the contributions required

by paragraphs 6.a(3) and 9.d, should be considered standard for all

recommended plans. Deviations from such wording should not be made

unless the reporting officer has justifiable circumstances warranting

such action.

12. Local Cooperation Agreements

. Any project or separable element

subject to the cost sharing provisions of P.L. 99-662 shall be initiated

only after non-Federal interests have entered into binding agreements

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

(LCA's) with the Secretary of the Army covering the appropriate items of

local cooperation described above. All agreements must comply with the

policies governing Federal and non-Federal financing and payments

included in ER 1165-2-131.

FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:

ALBERT J. GENETTI, JR.

Colonel, Corps of Engineers

Chief of Staff

3 Appendices

APP A - Definitions of Terms Used in ER

APP B - Synopsis of Program Legislation

APP C - Example of Computations for Cost Sharing

A-1

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

APPENDIX A - Definitions of Terms Used in ER

1. "Beach" - the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward

from the low water line to the place where there is marked change in

material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation.

2. "Coastal area" - the land and water area bordering the shore.

3. "Construction costs" - the project first costs associated with

initial construction or periodic nourishment (paragraph 7e) including

the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and

disposal/borrow areas (LERRD), and engineering and design and

supervision and administration (E&and;D and S&and;A).

4. "Historical shoreline" - the most seaward position of the mean high

water or mean higher high water position recorded by previous surveys or

interpreted from previous photographs, other historical records, or

other sufficiently reliable sources to permit comparison with the

present position.

5. "Hurricane and abnormal tidal flooding" - inundation from abnormal

rises and water levels due to hurricanes, storms, and tsunami.

6. "Incidental recreation benefits" - recreation benefits generated by

a basic project designed for some other primary purpose (e.g., hurricane

and storm damage reduction) which do not require construction of any

additional, incremental or separable recreational features (i.e.,

jointly produced).

7. "Investment costs" - the total costs of initially constructing a

project including E&and;D and S&and;A, LERRD and interest during

construction (IDC). Guidance on computation of IDC is provided in ER

1105-2-100.

8. "Lake flooding" - storm-induced inundation superimposed on the

ordinary fluctuations of the lake level, or inundation from abnormal

rises in static water level due to climatological changes (e.g.,

extended periods of abnormal precipitation, temperatures and/or

humidity) or tectonic changes.

9. "Land loss prevention benefits" - benefits from prevention of public

and/or private land loss due to shore erosion. Prevention of losses of

developed private land should be categorized as storm damage reduction

benefits. Prevention of losses of undeveloped private land (including

privately-owned marshes or wetlands) is a benefit category in which

there is no Federal interest (i.e., non-Federal interests are assigned

all costs of preventing losses of undeveloped private land), even though

the shore may be public. Prevention of loss of Federal and/or

non-Federal public land will reflect the special use to which the land

is dedicated and the value of the output produced by that use (e.g.,

lands dedicated to non-Federal park and conservation areas will normally

be valued on the basis of loss of recreation output).

A-2

ER 1165-2-130

15 June 89

10. "Maintenance" - periodic replacement or repair of the

measures/structures comprising a shore protection project, including

sand relocation and profile reshaping (i.e., moving sand laterally along

and perpendicular to shore, respectively), but excluding periodic beach

nourishment that is incorporated in the project as deferred

construction. Includes sand relocation and reshaping, and sand

replacement to the extent that it serves to maintain protection

accompanied by structures intended to confine benefits of the sand

within a beach compartment (rather than serving as an alternative to

such structures).

11. "Periodic nourishment" - fill placed at intervals of time to

replenish material eroded from the design beach section of a beach

erosion control project which is eligible for Federal participation as

deferred construction (paragraph 7e).

12. "Public benefits" - benefits resulting from public recreational use

and the prevention of damage to publicly-owned facilities such as

highways, buildings, parks, boardwalks, etc.

13. "Publicly owned" - ownership by a State, municipality, or other

political subdivision. Federal ownership is not included within) this

definition since Federal participation (cost sharing percentages) in

beach erosion control measures along Federal shores and publicly-owned

shores differ (see Table 2, page 16).

14. "Public use" - available for use by any and all of the general

public on equal terms.

15. "Separable recreation benefits" - recreation benefits generated by

construction of any additional, incremental or separable recreational

features associated with a basic project designed for some other primary

purpose (i.e., not jointly produced).

16. "Shore" - land adjacent to and in immediate contact with a body of

water, including the zone between high and low water lines. A shore of

unconsolidated material is usually called a beach.

17. "Shore restoration or protection" - measures or projects designed

to stabilize and/or restore shores, and/or to prevent or reduce damages

caused by erosion, flood, and wave impact due principally to storm tide

levels and wave action, including wave setup and runup in coastal areas.

The terms "shore restoration and protection" and "beach erosion

control" are used interchangeably.

18. "Storm damage reduction benefits" - benefits from prevention of

damages to Federal and public property and facilities (i.e., lands

and/or structures, except non-Federal public lands dedicated to park and

conservation uses) and developed private property and facilities due to

shore erosion and/or tidal inundation. Prevention of losses to private

undeveloped land should be categorized separately since there is no

Federal interest in this benefit category.

B-1

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

APPENDIX B - Synopsis of Program Legislation

SHORE PROTECTION

1. P.L. 71-520 (1930)

. Section 2 authorizes the Chief of Engineers to

conduct shore erosion control studies in cooperation with appropriate

agencies of various cities, counties, or States. Amended by Section

103, P.L. 86-645. Section 2 also established the Beach Erosion Board.

Amended by P.L. 88-172.

2. P.L. 79-526 (1946)

. Section 14 authorizes emergency bank-protection

works to prevent flood damage to highways, bridge approaches and public

works. Amended by P.L. 93-251 and P.L. 99-662.

3. P.L. 79-727 (1946)

. Establishes Federal policy to assist in the

construction, but not maintenance, of works to protect publicly-owned

shores of the United States against erosion from waves and currents.

Amended by P.L. 84-826, P.L. 87-874, and P.L. 91-611.

4. P.L. 84-99 (1955)

. Authorizes the Chief of Engineers to provide

emergency protection to threatened Federally authorized and constructed

hurricane and shore protection works, and to repair or restore such

works damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than

an ordinary nature.

5. P.L. 84-826 (1956)

. Expands the Federal role by authorizing Federal

participation in the cost of works for protection and restoration of the

shores of the United States, including private property if such

protection is incidental to the protection of publicly-owned shores, or

if such protection would result in public benefits. It also provides

for Federal assistance for periodic nourishment on the same basis as new

construction, for a period to be specified by the Chief of Engineers,

when it would be the most suitable and economical remedial measure.

Amended by Section 156, P.L. 94-587, and Section 934 of P.L. 99-662.

6. P.L. 86-645 (1960)

. Section 103 amends Section 2, P.L. 71-520, and

authorizes the Chief of Engineers under the direction of the Secretary

of the Army to conduct shore erosion prevention studies in cooperation

with the appropriate agencies of various coastal States, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and possessions of the United States.

7. P.L. 87-874 (1962)

. Section 103 increases the proportion of

construction costs borne by the Federal Government for beach erosion

control and shore protection projects. Section 103 authorizes the

Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to plan

and construct small beach erosion control projects within certain limits

without specific Congressional authorization. Amended by Section 112,

P.L. 91-611 and Section 915(e), P.L. 99-662. Implementing policies and

procedures for this authority can be found in ER 1105-2-100.

B-2

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

8. P.L. 88-172 (1963)

. Abolished the Beach Erosion Board, transferred

its review functions to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors

(BERH), and established the Coastal Engineering Research Center.

9. P.L. 89-72 (1965)

. Requires that planning of water resources

projects consider opportunities for outdoor recreation and fish and

wildlife enhancement. The Act specifies that outdoor recreation

benefits that can be attributed to a project shall be taken into account

in determining the overall benefits of a project (e.g., recreational use

of beach fill, groins or other shore protection structures).

10. P.L. 90-483 (1968)

a. Section 111 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, to study, plan, and implement structural and

nonstructural measures for the mitigation of shore damages attributable

to Federal navigation works. This authority applies to both public and

privately-owned shores along the coastal and Great Lake shorelines.

Amended by Sections 915 (f) and 940, P.L. 99-662. Implementing policies

and procedures for this authority may be found in ER 1105-2-100.

b. Section 215 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, to enter into agreements providing for

reimbursement to States or political subdivisions for work to be

performed by them at authorized Federal projects. Unless specifically

authorized by Congress, reimbursement for work commenced by local

interests subsequent to 13 August 1969 is to be made in accordance with

these authorities. Amended by Section 913, P.L. 99-662. Implementing

policies and procedures can be found in ER 1165-2-18.

11. P.L. 92-583 (1972)

. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act

requires all Federal agencies with activities directly affecting the

coastal zone, or with development projects within that zone, to assure

that those activities or projects are consistent with the approved State

program.

12. P.L. 93-251 (1974)

a. Section 27 raised the cost limits for emergency bank protection

projects to $250,000 and program fiscal funding limit to $10 million per

year. Project purpose was extended to cover construction, repair,

restoration and modification of emergency streambank and shoreline

protection works. Eligibility definition was extended to include

churches, hospitals, schools and similar non-profit public services.

Amended by Section 915(c) of P.L. 99-662.

b. Section 55 authorizes the provision of technical and engineering

assistance to non-Federal public interests in developing structural and

nonstructural methods of preventing damages attributable to beach

erosion.

B-3

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

13. P.L. 94-587 (1976)

a. Section 145 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, to place beach-quality sand obtained from

construction and maintenance dredging of navigation inlets onto adjacent

beaches, providing such placement is requested by the interested State

Government, is in the public interest, and local interests pay 100

percent of any increased costs above the cost required for alternative

methods of disposing of such sand that would be used in the absence of

beach disposal. Amended by Section 933, P.L. 99-662.

b. Section 156 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, to extend Federal participation in periodic

beach nourishment, where such nourishment has been authorized for a

limited period, up to 15 years from the date of initiation of

construction. Amended by Section 934, P.L. 99-662.

14. P.L. 97-348 (1982)

. Establishes policy that coastal barrier

islands and their associated aquatic habitats are to be protected by

restricting Federal expenditures which have the effect of encouraging

development of coastal barriers. The Act provides for a Coastal Barrier

Resources System (the extent of which is defined by a set of maps

approved by Congress on 30 September 1982) which identifies undeveloped

coastal barriers within which Federal expenditures (including

expenditures for flood insurance, roads, bridges, shoreline structures)

may not be made. Specific exceptions to the expenditure prohibition

include navigation, beach nourishment, and research works.

15. P.L. 99-662, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986.

a. Section 101(c) provides that costs of constructing projects or

measures for the prevention or mitigation of erosion or shoaling damages

attributable to Federal navigation works shall be shared in the same

proportion as the cost sharing provisions applicable to the project

causing such erosion or shoaling. The non-Federal interests for the

project causing the erosion or shoaling shall agree to operate and

maintain such measures. Also see Section 940 of P.L. 99-662 (page

B-5).

b. Section 103(d) specifies that the costs of constructing projects

for beach erosion control must be assigned to selected project purposes

such as hurricane and storm damage reduction, and/or recreation. Cost

sharing for these project purposes is specified in Section 103(c).

However, all costs assigned to benefits to privately-owned shores (where

use of such shores is limited to private interests), or to prevention of

losses of private lands are a non-Federal responsibility. All costs

assigned to protection of Federally-owned shores are a Federal

responsibility.

B-4

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

c. Section 103(i) specifies that non-Federal interests shall provide

all lands, easements and rights-of-way, and disposal areas required and

perform all necessary relocations (LERRD). The value of LERRD is

credited to the non-Federal share of the project cost.

d. Section 501 authorizes construction and preconstruction planning,

engineering, and design (PED) of various projects for shoreline

protection, beach erosion control, shore and hurricane wave protection,

and beach erosion control and hurricane protection, subject to various

conditions such as determination that construction will be in compliance

with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348).

e. Section 502 directs the Secretary of the Army to apply the cost

sharing provisions of Section 31(1), P.L. 93-251, to periodic

nourishment of the continuing construction project at Westhampton Beach,

New York, for a period of 20 years after 17 November 1986.

f. Section 706 (Great Lakes Levels Study) authorizes the Secretary

of the Army, to conduct a cooperative study of shoreline protection and

beach erosion control policy and related projects of the Secretary in

view of existing high lake levels and long-term expected increases in

the levels of the Great Lakes.

g. Section 713 (Louisiana Shoreline Erosion Study) authorizes the

Secretary of the Army to conduct a nearshore sediment inventory to

determine availability of suitable sediment in the offshore waters of

Louisiana between Southwest Pass and Sabin Pass, and in Lake

Pontchartrain and in Lake Borgne, and to determine the feasibility of

specific measures to diminish shoreline erosion, marsh deterioration,

salt water intrusion, hurricane vulnerability, and barrier island

destruction and to carry out reasonable planning efforts that require

suitable sediment for nourishment.

h. Section 731 (Study of Rising Oceans) authorizes the Secretary of

the Army to conduct a cooperative study of shoreline protection and

beach erosion control policy and related projects of the Secretary in

view of the prospect for long-term increases in the levels of the ocean.

i. Section 732 (Shoreline Erosion Damage on Lake Superior) directs

the Secretary of the Army to determine the extent of shoreline erosion

damage in the United States causally related to the regulation of the

waters of Lake Superior by the International Joint Commission United

States and Canada subsequent to an emergency application by the United

States made on 26 January 1973.

j. Section 913 increases Federal reimbursement up to $3 million for

work accomplished under Section 215(a) of P.L. 90-483.

B-5

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

k. Section 915(c) increases the Federal limits up to $500,000 for

participating in emergency shoreline protection of public works (Section

14) projects. Section 915(e) increases the Federal limits up to $2

million for participating in small beach erosion control (Section 103)

projects. Section 915 (f) increases the Federal limits up to $2 million

for participating in mitigation of shore damage attributable to Federal

navigation works (Section 111) projects. Section 915 (h) of P.L. 99-662

authorizes use of the Section 103 (P.L. 87-874) and Section 111 (P.L.

90-483) authorities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

l. Section 925 (Compilation of Laws) directs the Secretary of the

Army to compile and publish the laws of the United States relating to

beach erosion and other water resources development enacted after 8

November 1966 and before 1 January 1987.

m. Section 933 increases to 50 percent the proportion that may be

borne by the Federal Government of the additional costs, above that

required for alternative methods for disposal, for placement of material

dredged during the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets

onto adjacent beaches.

n. Section 934 increases to 50 years the authorized period of time

Federal participation can be extended in periodic beach nourishment

after the date of initiation of construction.

o. Section 935 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to acquire fill

material for beach erosion and beach nourishment by purchase, exchange,

or otherwise from nondomestic sources for authorized water resources

projects needing such materials, if they are not available from domestic

sources for environmental or economic reasons.

p. Section 940 increases the Federal cost limits for participating

in mitigation of shore damage caused by Federal navigation works to $2

million, and requires a non-Federal public body to operate and maintain

such measures. Structural and non-structural measures can be

implemented under the Section 111 authority of P.L. 90-483,

andimplementation costs will be shared in the same proportion as the

cost-sharing provisions applicable to the original project,

includingprojects constructed at full Federal expense.

16. P.L. 100-676, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988.

Section 14 amends Section 402 of the 1986 WRDA to require non-Federal

interests to agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal

flood plain management and flood insurance programs before construction

of any hurricane and storm damage reduction project.

B-6

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

HURRICANE AND ABNORMAL TIDAL FLOOD PROTECTION

1. P.L. 84-71 (1955)

. Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in

cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal agencies

concerned with hurricanes, to make studies of the Atlantic and Gulf

coasts of the United States to secure data on the behavior and frequency

of hurricanes and to determine means of preventing loss of life and

damages to property. This Act does not specify any cost sharing for

construction of protective works.

2. P.L. 84-99 (1955)

. Authorizes the Chief of Engineers to provide

emergency protection to threatened Federally authorized and constructed

hurricane and shore protection works, and to repair or restore such

works damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than

an ordinary nature.

3. P.L. 85-500 (1958)

. Section 203 added provisions of local

cooperation to three hurricane flood protection projects authorized

under this Act: non-Federal interests were required to assume 30

percent of total first costs, including the value of lands, easements

and rights-of-way, and to operate and maintain the projects.

4. P.L. 91-611 (1970)

. Section 208 authorized Federal participation in

hurricane protection projects up to 70 percent of the total cost

exclusive of land costs.

5. P.L. 99-662 (1986)

. Section 103(c)(5) requires non-Federal

interests to assume 35 percent of the cost assigned to the hurricane and

storm damage reduction purpose of a project.

6. P.L. 100-676, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988.

Section 14 amends Section 402 of the 1986 WRDA to require non-Federal

interests to agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal

flood plain management and flood insurance programs before construction

of any hurricane and storm damage reduction project.

LAKE FLOOD PROTECTION. The Federal interest in projects for lake flood

protection is not clearly defined by legislation.

1. Section 401(e)(4), P.L. 99-662, authorizes the Secretary of the Army

to construct dikes along the west side of the Great Salt Lake, Utah,

which rose above record levels in June 1986. These dikes are part of a

State plan to control lake level and flood damages. The non-Federal

share of the cost of those authorized dikes is specified as 25 percent

in the Act.

2. Section 706, P.L. 99-662, authorizes the Secretary of the Army to

conduct a cooperative study of shoreline protection and beach erosion

control policy and related projects of the Secretary in view of the

situation in 1986 and expected long-term increases in the levels of the

Great Lakes. This study will include recommendations for new or

additional criteria for Federal participation in shoreline protection

projects along the Great Lakes and connecting channels.

C-1

ER 1165-2-130

15 Jun 89

APPENDIX C - Example Computations for Cost Sharing on a

Hurricane and Storm Damage Deduction Project

PUblic

Private

Shore

ownership

Shores

Private

Shores Shores

Devel'd Devel'd

Non-Fed.

Public

Pub.

Not

Federal

(Park)

Use

Devel

:Reach

1 2

3 4 5

LeMth

(1)

1,000

5,000

10,000

3,000

1,000

Benefits

Damaqe

:Reduction

Facilities

$2,000

$2,000(3)

$13,000

$4,000

Land

Loss

3,000

4,000

3,000(4)

1,000(4)

3,000

:Recreation

(2)

(2,000)

(9,000)

,000)

Total

$5,000

$6,000

$16,000

$5,000

$3,000

Federal

:Reach 1

11000

100%

o.oso

20,000

:Reach 2

51000

SO%

0.125

20,000

:Reach 3

101000

65%

0.325

20,000

:Reach 4

31000

o.ooo

20,000

:Reach 5

11000

o.ooo

20,000

Total

Federal

o.soo

50%

(1)

Assumes

relatively

linear

distri.bution

costs.

(2)

costs

assigned

recreation

(benefits

incidental).

(3)

Assumes

facilities

subject

damaqe

serve

recreation

use.

(4)

Land

CXIDpOJlent

developed

properties

subject

damage.

Total

20,000

$21,00(

14,001

(18,00

$3S,OC