Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Natural Disaster Procedures, 8014-8017 [2015-03033]
Download as PDF
8014
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE TO § 165.506—Continued
[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983]
No.
Date
Location
7 ...................
June—2nd Saturday; July 4th
Pamlico River, Washington,
NC, Safety Zone.
8 ...................
July 4th ....................................
Neuse River, New Bern, NC,
Safety Zone.
9 ...................
July 4th ....................................
Edenton Bay, Edenton, NC,
Safety Zone.
10 .................
July 4th. November—Saturday
following Thanksgiving Day.
Motts Channel, Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC,
Safety Zone.
11 .................
July 4th ....................................
Cape Fear River, Southport,
NC, Safety Zone.
12 .................
July 4th ....................................
Big Foot Slough, Ocracoke,
NC, Safety Zone.
13 .................
August—1st Tuesday ..............
New River, Jacksonville, NC,
Safety Zone.
14 .................
July 4th ....................................
Pantego Creek, Belhaven, NC,
Safety Zone.
15 .................
July 4th ....................................
16 .................
September—4th or last Saturday.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Swansboro, NC, Safety
Zone.
Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC;
Safety Zone.
17 .................
May—3rd Saturday .................
Pasquotank River; Elizabeth
City, NC; Safety Zone.
18 .................
October—2nd Saturday ..........
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway;
Bogue Inlet, Swansboro,
NC; Safety Zone.
Dated: February 2, 2015.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–02965 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Regulated area
All waters of Pamlico River and Tar River within a 300 yard
radius of latitude 35°32′25″ N., longitude 077°03′42″ W., a
position located on the southwest shore of the Pamlico
River, Washington, NC.
All waters of the Neuse River within a 360 yard radius of the
fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 35°06′07.1″
N., longitude 077°01′35.8″ W; located 420 yards north of
the New Bern, Twin Span, high-rise bridge.
All waters within a 300 yard radius of position latitude
36°03′04″ N., longitude 076°36′18″ W., approximately 150
yards south of the entrance to Queen Anne Creek,
Edenton, NC.
All waters of Motts Channel within a 500 yard radius of the
fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude
34°12′29″ N., longitude 077°48′27″ W., approximately 560
yards south of Sea Path Marina, Wrightsville Beach, NC.
All waters of the Cape Fear River within a 600 yard radius of
the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude
33°54′40″ N., longitude 078°01′18″ W., approximately 700
yards south of the waterfront at Southport, NC.
All waters of Big Foot Slough within a 300 yard radius of the
fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude
35°06′54″ N., longitude 075°59′24″ W., approximately 100
yards west of the Silver Lake Entrance Channel at
Ocracoke, NC.
All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of the
fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude
34°44′45″ N., longitude 077°26′18″ W., approximately one
half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, North
Carolina.
All waters on the Pantego Creek within a 600 foot radius of
the launch site on land at position 35°32′35″ N., 076°37′46″
W.
All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300
yard radius of approximate position latitude 34°41′02″ N.,
longitude 077°07′04″ W., located on Pelican Island.
All waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of a
fireworks barge anchored at latitude 35°54′31″ N., longitude 075°39′42″ W.
All waters of the Pasquotank River within a 300 yard radius
of the fireworks barge at latitude 36°17′47″ N., longitude
076°12′17′ W., located north of Cottage Point at the shoreline of the Pasquotank River.
All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300
yard radius of the fireworks launch site at latitude
34°41′02″ N., longitude 077°07′04″ W., located at Bogue
Inlet, near Swansboro, NC.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
33 CFR Part 203
Emergency Employment of Army and
Other Resources, Natural Disaster
Procedures
AGENCY:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
DoD.
Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
ACTION:
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) is issuing this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Feb 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ANPR) to request public comment on
potential revisions to its regulations.
USACE is specifically requesting input
on potential changes to policies related
to disaster preparedness; eligibility
criteria for rehabilitation assistance for
flood control works; options to address
complex natural resource challenges
while mitigating impacts to threatened
or endangered species; and nonstructural alternative projects.
Consideration of Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014
provisions regarding resiliency for
hurricane or shore protection projects,
Section 3022, and the inclusion of
modifications for hurricane or shore
protection projects, Section 3029, are
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
not covered by this advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking and may be
addressed at a later date.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number COE–
2015–0004, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: 33CFR203@usace.army.mil
and include the docket number, COE–
2015–0004, in the subject line of the
message.
Mail: HQ, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, ATTN: 33CFR203/CECW–
HS/3D64, 441 G Street NW.,
Washington DC 20314–1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to
security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or
courier.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket number COE–2015–0004. All
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the commenter indicates that the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected, through regulations.gov or
email. The regulations.gov Web site is
an anonymous access system, which
means we will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email directly to the
Corps without going through
regulations.gov, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the comment that is placed in
the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, we recommend that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If we cannot read your
comment because of technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, we may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic
comments should avoid the use of any
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Feb 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
the docket are listed. Although listed in
the index, some information is not
publicly available, such as CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jeffrey D. Jensen, Office of Homeland
Security, Directorate of Contingency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, at (703) 428–9068 or
Jeffrey.D.Jensen@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority. Section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1941, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 701n), commonly and hereinafter
referred to as Public Law 84–99,
authorizes an emergency fund to be
expended at the discretion of the Chief
of Engineers for: Preparation for natural
disasters; flood fighting and rescue
operations; repair or restoration of flood
control works threatened, damaged, or
destroyed by flood, or nonstructural
alternatives thereto; emergency
protection of federally authorized
hurricane or shore protection projects
which are threatened, when such
protection is warranted to protect
against imminent and substantial loss to
life and property; and repair and
restoration of federally authorized
hurricane and shore protection projects
damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or
water of other than ordinary nature. The
law includes provision of emergency
supplies of clean water when a
contaminated source threatens the
public health and welfare of a locality,
and activities necessary to protect life
and improved property from a threat
resulting from a major flood or coastal
storm. This law authorizes the Secretary
of the Army (Secretary) to construct
wells and to transport water within
areas determined by the Secretary to be
drought-distressed. The Secretary of the
Army has delegated the authority vested
in the Secretary under Public Law 84–
99 through the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) to the Chief of
Engineers, subject to such further
direction as the Secretary may provide.
B. Need for Revision. The Code of
Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part 203,
details administrative policies,
guidance, and operating procedures for
the Public Law 84–99 program and was
last revised in 2003, 68 FR 19357–01, 21
April 2003. Since then, significant
disasters, including Hurricane Sandy
(2012), flooding on the Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013)
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8015
and Hurricane Katrina (2005), provided
information regarding system
performance and the need for improved
system and community resilience that
should be considered in formulating
revised Pub. L. 84–99 rehabilitation
policies. A more detailed understanding
of the nature and severity of risk
associated with flood control projects
and the development of risk-informed
decision making approaches and other
technological advancements have
influenced the outlook about how Pub.
L. 84–99 activities could be
implemented with a shift towards better
alignment with USACE’s Levee Safety
and National Flood Risk Management
Programs as well as the National
Preparedness and Response
Frameworks. Both of these USACE
programs work with non-federal
sponsors and stakeholders to assess,
communicate and manage the risks to
people, property, and the environment
associated with levee systems and flood
risks. Additionally, significant input
from state and federal agencies,
stakeholders, and other interested
parties regarding the challenges of
satisfying USACE vegetation
management guidelines in light of the
needs of listed threatened and
endangered species caused USACE to
reevaluate using technical criteria to
determine active status in the Public
Law 84–99 Rehabilitation Program.
II. References
The following reference material is
available on the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov to
assist the public in reviewing this ANPR
and providing comments.
• 33 CFR part 203
• Engineer Regulation 500–1–1, ‘‘Civil
Emergency Management Program’’,
September 30, 2001
• Engineer Pamphlet 500–1–1, ‘‘Civil
Emergency Management Program
Procedures’’, September 30, 2001
• Engineering and Construction
Bulletin, ‘‘Interim Risk Reduction
Measures (IRRMs) for Levee Safety’’,
March 5, 2014
• HQUSACE memorandum, ‘‘Interim
Policy Guidance for Eligibility
Determinations’’, March 21, 2014
• HQUSACE memorandum, ‘‘Policy for
Development and Implementation of
System-Wide Improvement
Frameworks (SWIFs)’’, November 29,
2011
• Levee Owner’s Manual for NonFederal Flood Control Works, March
2006
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8016
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
III. General Information for the
Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
This action is directed to the public in
general, but will be of particular interest
to a wide variety of organizations, to
include tribal, state, and local
emergency management agencies, water
resource agencies, environmental and
fish and wildlife management agencies
and organizations, floodplain and levee
safety managers, and non-federal
interests (this term should be
understood to include ‘‘non-federal
sponsors’’ as used in 33 U.S.C. 701n and
as defined at 33 CFR 203.15) with flood
control works and hurricane or shore
protection projects.
B. What Should I Consider As I
Prepare My Comments for Submission?
Commenters not familiar with current
policy should review the references
cited above available on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments should
reference a specific paragraph or
subparagraph of 33 CFR part 203 or one
of the questions or issues in Section IV
below. If the subject of the comment is
not addressed in either the current CFR
or the questions and issues below, then
the commenter should clearly state the
issue or concern, provide or reference
any supporting documentation (e.g.,
reports, statistical data, and studies),
and make a proposal or
recommendation about how to improve
the current policy.
C. What Is the Intent of USACE in this
Rulemaking Effort? The intent of
USACE is to revise and update 33 CFR
part 203 so that it incorporates new
information from recent storm events
and better aligns with the current
strategy of the USACE National Flood
Risk Management Program and Levee
Safety Program, while following these
guiding principles:
1. Effective risk management and
levee safety includes working with nonfederal sponsors and stakeholders to
assess, communicate, and manage lifesafety risks.
2. Federal assistance under authority
of Pub. L. 84–99 supplements tribal,
state, and local efforts, and does not
replace them.
3. Non-federal sponsors have primary
responsibility for operations and
maintenance (O&M) of flood control
works and risk communication
activities associated with their projects.
4. USACE will promote the use of a
risk-informed decision making process
to guide non-federal sponsors O&M
activities and inspection activities for
flood control projects.
5. USACE will encourage a
collaborative approach to address
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Feb 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
complex natural resources issues, tribal
treaty rights, and complex systemic
deficiencies.
6. USACE will work to develop
policies and procedures that maintain
the benefits of any federal investment(s).
IV. Questions and Issues To Shape the
Revision of 33 CFR Part 203. Summary
of Intended Policy Changes and
Questions on Specific Activities
A. Preparedness
1. Advance Measures. USACE may
undertake emergency measures in
advance of imminent threats of unusual
flooding. The current eligibility criteria
are listed in 33 CFR 203.72.
(a) USACE may perform Advance
Measures prior to flooding or flood
fighting activities to protect against loss
of life and significant damages to urban
areas and public facilities due to an
imminent threat of unusual flooding.
Advance Measures assistance may be
technical and/or direct assistance.
Technical assistance may include:
providing personnel to inspect projects
to identify problems and solutions and
requirements for additional flood
protection; provide existing hydraulic,
hydrologic, structural and/or
geotechnical analysis; provide existing
information to local entities for use in
evacuation or contingency flood fight
plans. Typically direct assistance will
be temporary in nature, using temporary
construction standard and methods,
technically feasible, designed to deal
effectively with the specific threat, and
capable of construction in time to
prevent projected damages. To be
eligible for Advance Measures a public
sponsor must agree to execute a
cooperative agreement (CA), and, at no
cost to USACE, when the operation is
over, remove all temporary advance
measures constructed by USACE or
agree to upgrade the work to standards
acceptable to USACE. In addition, the
public sponsor is responsible for
providing the traditional lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and borrow and dredged or excavated
materials disposal areas (LERRDs)
necessary for the project, at its own
expense, in accordance with the CA.
• Question 1: What (if any) additional
types of Advance Measures assistance
should be considered?
• Question 2: What (if any) additional
eligibility or performance requirements
should be considered generally for
Advance Measures assistance?
(b) Permanent structures constructed
as Advance Measures are currently cost
shared at 75 percent federal and 25
percent local with the LERRDs
necessary for the project provided at no
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
cost to the federal government.
However, flood control works
constructed under other USACE
authorities have a minimum cost share
of 65 percent federal and 35 percent
local with credit provided for the
LERRDs necessary for the project.
USACE is considering changing the cost
share for permanent structures
constructed as part of Advance
Measures to be consistent with other
authorities and to encourage non-federal
interests to develop permanent
structures through the standard USACE
planning process for new projects so
that full cost and benefit analyses can be
conducted and appropriate public
comments considered.
Question 3: Would changing the cost
share serve as an effective incentive for
promotion of the standard USACE
planning process? If not, what other
incentives or requirements for using the
standard USACE planning process for
permanent construction should be
considered?
B. Rehabilitation
1. Eligibility for Rehabilitation
Assistance. USACE is considering
changing the criteria used to determine
eligibility for rehabilitation assistance
(commonly known as Active status
under 33 CFR 203.41) for flood control
projects from a strict, condition-based
overall inspection rating of the project
to a broader set of actions by non-federal
sponsors such as emergency
preparedness planning, flood risk
communication, and implementation of
risk-prioritized O&M activities. USACE
is considering these changes to: 1)
promote risk-informed, cost effective
prioritization of risk management
activities; 2) encourage community
awareness of risks and promote a broad
set of flood risk management activities
to manage risk; 3) encourage dialogue
and problem solving between USACE
and non-federal sponsors, and 4)
provide flexibility to align flood risk
management activities with
requirements to protect and restore
natural resources.
Question 4: What should USACE
evaluate to determine if a non-federal
sponsor is adequately operating and
maintaining its flood control project?
What should be considered adequate
operations and management for
eligibility purposes?
Question 5: How should USACE
evaluate a non-federal sponsor’s
emergency preparedness, notification,
evacuation planning and exercise plan
and activities to determine if they are
adequate? What should USACE
evaluate? What should be considered
adequate?
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Question 6: How should USACE
evaluate a non-federal sponsor’s risk
communications plan and activities for
informing local officials, residents, and
business owners about risks associated
with the potential failure of the flood
control project (e.g., a levee breach)?
Question 7: Are there other criteria
that USACE should consider using to
determine eligibility for rehabilitation
assistance that would assist and
encourage non-federal sponsors and
flood-prone communities to reduce their
risks from flooding?
2. Improving Collaboration to Address
Complicated Natural Resources
Challenges and System-Wide Repairs.
USACE intends to incorporate the
System Wide Improvement Framework
(SWIF) policy into 33 CFR part 203. The
SWIF allows non-federal sponsors
(currently, of levees and floodwalls
only) to retain eligibility for
rehabilitation assistance while actively
conducting longer-term, system-wide
improvement activities that are beyond
the scope of usual O&M activities. This
includes activities related to complex,
serious or systemic deficiencies,
addressing complex natural resources
challenges such as threatened or
endangered species, undocumented
encroachments, and tribal treaty rights,
all of which require additional time and
coordination beyond what is normally
allowed under current policy. The
purpose is to ensure the imperatives of
public safety, tribal rights, and
environmental principles are met while
still reducing the risk from floods.
Question 8: What improvements to
the existing SWIF policy should be
made?
Question 9: Currently, the SWIF
policy has only been used for levee
projects. Should the SWIF concept be
applied to other types of flood control
projects like channels? If so, for what
purposes and using what criteria?
Question 10: If the eligibility for
rehabilitation assistance moves away
from a standards-based inspection
criteria and moves toward an activitiesbased approach (as is considered in
Section B.1 above), what role should the
SWIF policy play? Under what
circumstances would development of a
SWIF be useful to non-federal sponsors?
3. Mitigating Impacts to Threatened or
Endangered Species and Tribal Treaty
Rights During Project Rehabilitation.
USACE is considering allowing
additional types of features and
approaches that can be incorporated
into rehabilitation efforts to minimize or
address impacts to threatened and
endangered species and impacts on
tribal treaty rights. Features currently
being considered include planting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Feb 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
berms, set back levees, and overbuilt
sections.
Question 11: Are there other types of
features and approaches that USACE
should allow during rehabilitation
efforts to minimize or address impacts
on threatened and endangered species
and tribal treaty rights while still
providing the intended benefits of the
flood control projects and reducing the
risk of loss of life and significant
economic damages?
4. Early identification of
Nonstructural Alternative Projects
(NSAPs). USACE currently has the
authority to undertake a nonstructural
alternative project in lieu of a structural
rehabilitation effort at the request of the
non-federal sponsor and in accordance
with 33 CFR Section 203.50. However,
15 years of experience shows that
NSAPs can be difficult to implement in
the immediate aftermath of a flood.
Challenges to NSAP implementation
include difficulties in obtaining
easements, land transfers, and
municipal permits, as well as legal
limitations of some non-federal
sponsors, and a lack of public
awareness. USACE is considering how
to enable non-federal interests to
identify viable NSAPs prior to a flood
event so that the non-federal sponsors
may be able to effectively implement as
viable NSAPS an alternative to
structural rehabilitation efforts after a
flood event.
Question 12: What advance planning
activities could USACE undertake with
non-federal interests to enable nonfederal interests to consider NSAPs as
viable alternatives to structural
rehabilitation efforts if the project is
damaged in a future flood event?
Question 13: How can the current
NSAP policy be improved?
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), USACE must
determine whether a regulatory action is
‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to
review by OMB and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
8017
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
After consideration of Executive
Orders 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563, entitled
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’ (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),
this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking has been determined to be
not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Because this document does not
impose or propose any requirements,
and instead seeks comments and
suggestions for USACE to consider in
possibly developing a subsequent
proposed rule, the various other review
requirements that apply when an agency
imposes requirements do not apply to
this action. Nevertheless, as part of your
comments on this ANPR, you may
include any comments or information
that could help the Agency to assess the
potential impact of a subsequent
regulatory action on small entities
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
pursuant to Executive Order 12898,
entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994); or to consider potential impacts
to state and local governments or tribal
governments. USACE will consider such
comments during the development of
any subsequent rulemaking.
Dated: February 9, 2015.
Karen Durham-Aguilera,
Director of Contingency Operations/
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015–03033 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8014-8017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 203
Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Natural
Disaster Procedures
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is issuing this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to request public comment
on potential revisions to its regulations. USACE is specifically
requesting input on potential changes to policies related to disaster
preparedness; eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance for
flood control works; options to address complex natural resource
challenges while mitigating impacts to threatened or endangered
species; and non-structural alternative projects. Consideration of
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 provisions regarding
resiliency for hurricane or shore protection projects, Section 3022,
and the inclusion of modifications for hurricane or shore protection
projects, Section 3029, are
[[Page 8015]]
not covered by this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and may be
addressed at a later date.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-
2015-0004, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: 33CFR203@usace.army.mil and include the docket number, COE-
2015-0004, in the subject line of the message.
Mail: HQ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: 33CFR203/CECW-HS/
3D64, 441 G Street NW., Washington DC 20314-1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or courier.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number COE-2015-0004.
All comments received will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available on-line at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the commenter
indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or
email. The regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system,
which means we will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your
comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey D. Jensen, Office of
Homeland Security, Directorate of Contingency Operations, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, at (703) 428-9068 or
Jeffrey.D.Jensen@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, as
amended, (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly and hereinafter referred to as
Public Law 84-99, authorizes an emergency fund to be expended at the
discretion of the Chief of Engineers for: Preparation for natural
disasters; flood fighting and rescue operations; repair or restoration
of flood control works threatened, damaged, or destroyed by flood, or
nonstructural alternatives thereto; emergency protection of federally
authorized hurricane or shore protection projects which are threatened,
when such protection is warranted to protect against imminent and
substantial loss to life and property; and repair and restoration of
federally authorized hurricane and shore protection projects damaged or
destroyed by wind, wave, or water of other than ordinary nature. The
law includes provision of emergency supplies of clean water when a
contaminated source threatens the public health and welfare of a
locality, and activities necessary to protect life and improved
property from a threat resulting from a major flood or coastal storm.
This law authorizes the Secretary of the Army (Secretary) to construct
wells and to transport water within areas determined by the Secretary
to be drought-distressed. The Secretary of the Army has delegated the
authority vested in the Secretary under Public Law 84-99 through the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to the Chief of
Engineers, subject to such further direction as the Secretary may
provide.
B. Need for Revision. The Code of Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part
203, details administrative policies, guidance, and operating
procedures for the Public Law 84-99 program and was last revised in
2003, 68 FR 19357-01, 21 April 2003. Since then, significant disasters,
including Hurricane Sandy (2012), flooding on the Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013) and Hurricane Katrina (2005),
provided information regarding system performance and the need for
improved system and community resilience that should be considered in
formulating revised Pub. L. 84-99 rehabilitation policies. A more
detailed understanding of the nature and severity of risk associated
with flood control projects and the development of risk-informed
decision making approaches and other technological advancements have
influenced the outlook about how Pub. L. 84-99 activities could be
implemented with a shift towards better alignment with USACE's Levee
Safety and National Flood Risk Management Programs as well as the
National Preparedness and Response Frameworks. Both of these USACE
programs work with non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess,
communicate and manage the risks to people, property, and the
environment associated with levee systems and flood risks.
Additionally, significant input from state and federal agencies,
stakeholders, and other interested parties regarding the challenges of
satisfying USACE vegetation management guidelines in light of the needs
of listed threatened and endangered species caused USACE to reevaluate
using technical criteria to determine active status in the Public Law
84-99 Rehabilitation Program.
II. References
The following reference material is available on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov to assist the public
in reviewing this ANPR and providing comments.
33 CFR part 203
Engineer Regulation 500-1-1, ``Civil Emergency Management
Program'', September 30, 2001
Engineer Pamphlet 500-1-1, ``Civil Emergency Management
Program Procedures'', September 30, 2001
Engineering and Construction Bulletin, ``Interim Risk
Reduction Measures (IRRMs) for Levee Safety'', March 5, 2014
HQUSACE memorandum, ``Interim Policy Guidance for Eligibility
Determinations'', March 21, 2014
HQUSACE memorandum, ``Policy for Development and
Implementation of System-Wide Improvement Frameworks (SWIFs)'',
November 29, 2011
Levee Owner's Manual for Non-Federal Flood Control Works,
March 2006
[[Page 8016]]
III. General Information for the Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking
A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the
public in general, but will be of particular interest to a wide variety
of organizations, to include tribal, state, and local emergency
management agencies, water resource agencies, environmental and fish
and wildlife management agencies and organizations, floodplain and
levee safety managers, and non-federal interests (this term should be
understood to include ``non-federal sponsors'' as used in 33 U.S.C.
701n and as defined at 33 CFR 203.15) with flood control works and
hurricane or shore protection projects.
B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for Submission?
Commenters not familiar with current policy should review the
references cited above available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference a specific
paragraph or subparagraph of 33 CFR part 203 or one of the questions or
issues in Section IV below. If the subject of the comment is not
addressed in either the current CFR or the questions and issues below,
then the commenter should clearly state the issue or concern, provide
or reference any supporting documentation (e.g., reports, statistical
data, and studies), and make a proposal or recommendation about how to
improve the current policy.
C. What Is the Intent of USACE in this Rulemaking Effort? The
intent of USACE is to revise and update 33 CFR part 203 so that it
incorporates new information from recent storm events and better aligns
with the current strategy of the USACE National Flood Risk Management
Program and Levee Safety Program, while following these guiding
principles:
1. Effective risk management and levee safety includes working with
non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess, communicate, and
manage life-safety risks.
2. Federal assistance under authority of Pub. L. 84-99 supplements
tribal, state, and local efforts, and does not replace them.
3. Non-federal sponsors have primary responsibility for operations
and maintenance (O&M) of flood control works and risk communication
activities associated with their projects.
4. USACE will promote the use of a risk-informed decision making
process to guide non-federal sponsors O&M activities and inspection
activities for flood control projects.
5. USACE will encourage a collaborative approach to address complex
natural resources issues, tribal treaty rights, and complex systemic
deficiencies.
6. USACE will work to develop policies and procedures that maintain
the benefits of any federal investment(s).
IV. Questions and Issues To Shape the Revision of 33 CFR Part 203.
Summary of Intended Policy Changes and Questions on Specific Activities
A. Preparedness
1. Advance Measures. USACE may undertake emergency measures in
advance of imminent threats of unusual flooding. The current
eligibility criteria are listed in 33 CFR 203.72.
(a) USACE may perform Advance Measures prior to flooding or flood
fighting activities to protect against loss of life and significant
damages to urban areas and public facilities due to an imminent threat
of unusual flooding. Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/
or direct assistance. Technical assistance may include: providing
personnel to inspect projects to identify problems and solutions and
requirements for additional flood protection; provide existing
hydraulic, hydrologic, structural and/or geotechnical analysis; provide
existing information to local entities for use in evacuation or
contingency flood fight plans. Typically direct assistance will be
temporary in nature, using temporary construction standard and methods,
technically feasible, designed to deal effectively with the specific
threat, and capable of construction in time to prevent projected
damages. To be eligible for Advance Measures a public sponsor must
agree to execute a cooperative agreement (CA), and, at no cost to
USACE, when the operation is over, remove all temporary advance
measures constructed by USACE or agree to upgrade the work to standards
acceptable to USACE. In addition, the public sponsor is responsible for
providing the traditional lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and borrow and dredged or excavated materials disposal areas (LERRDs)
necessary for the project, at its own expense, in accordance with the
CA.
Question 1: What (if any) additional types of Advance
Measures assistance should be considered?
Question 2: What (if any) additional eligibility or
performance requirements should be considered generally for Advance
Measures assistance?
(b) Permanent structures constructed as Advance Measures are
currently cost shared at 75 percent federal and 25 percent local with
the LERRDs necessary for the project provided at no cost to the federal
government. However, flood control works constructed under other USACE
authorities have a minimum cost share of 65 percent federal and 35
percent local with credit provided for the LERRDs necessary for the
project. USACE is considering changing the cost share for permanent
structures constructed as part of Advance Measures to be consistent
with other authorities and to encourage non-federal interests to
develop permanent structures through the standard USACE planning
process for new projects so that full cost and benefit analyses can be
conducted and appropriate public comments considered.
Question 3: Would changing the cost share serve as an effective
incentive for promotion of the standard USACE planning process? If not,
what other incentives or requirements for using the standard USACE
planning process for permanent construction should be considered?
B. Rehabilitation
1. Eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance. USACE is considering
changing the criteria used to determine eligibility for rehabilitation
assistance (commonly known as Active status under 33 CFR 203.41) for
flood control projects from a strict, condition-based overall
inspection rating of the project to a broader set of actions by non-
federal sponsors such as emergency preparedness planning, flood risk
communication, and implementation of risk-prioritized O&M activities.
USACE is considering these changes to: 1) promote risk-informed, cost
effective prioritization of risk management activities; 2) encourage
community awareness of risks and promote a broad set of flood risk
management activities to manage risk; 3) encourage dialogue and problem
solving between USACE and non-federal sponsors, and 4) provide
flexibility to align flood risk management activities with requirements
to protect and restore natural resources.
Question 4: What should USACE evaluate to determine if a non-
federal sponsor is adequately operating and maintaining its flood
control project? What should be considered adequate operations and
management for eligibility purposes?
Question 5: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's
emergency preparedness, notification, evacuation planning and exercise
plan and activities to determine if they are adequate? What should
USACE evaluate? What should be considered adequate?
[[Page 8017]]
Question 6: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's risk
communications plan and activities for informing local officials,
residents, and business owners about risks associated with the
potential failure of the flood control project (e.g., a levee breach)?
Question 7: Are there other criteria that USACE should consider
using to determine eligibility for rehabilitation assistance that would
assist and encourage non-federal sponsors and flood-prone communities
to reduce their risks from flooding?
2. Improving Collaboration to Address Complicated Natural Resources
Challenges and System-Wide Repairs. USACE intends to incorporate the
System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) policy into 33 CFR part 203.
The SWIF allows non-federal sponsors (currently, of levees and
floodwalls only) to retain eligibility for rehabilitation assistance
while actively conducting longer-term, system-wide improvement
activities that are beyond the scope of usual O&M activities. This
includes activities related to complex, serious or systemic
deficiencies, addressing complex natural resources challenges such as
threatened or endangered species, undocumented encroachments, and
tribal treaty rights, all of which require additional time and
coordination beyond what is normally allowed under current policy. The
purpose is to ensure the imperatives of public safety, tribal rights,
and environmental principles are met while still reducing the risk from
floods.
Question 8: What improvements to the existing SWIF policy should be
made?
Question 9: Currently, the SWIF policy has only been used for levee
projects. Should the SWIF concept be applied to other types of flood
control projects like channels? If so, for what purposes and using what
criteria?
Question 10: If the eligibility for rehabilitation assistance moves
away from a standards-based inspection criteria and moves toward an
activities-based approach (as is considered in Section B.1 above), what
role should the SWIF policy play? Under what circumstances would
development of a SWIF be useful to non-federal sponsors?
3. Mitigating Impacts to Threatened or Endangered Species and
Tribal Treaty Rights During Project Rehabilitation. USACE is
considering allowing additional types of features and approaches that
can be incorporated into rehabilitation efforts to minimize or address
impacts to threatened and endangered species and impacts on tribal
treaty rights. Features currently being considered include planting
berms, set back levees, and overbuilt sections.
Question 11: Are there other types of features and approaches that
USACE should allow during rehabilitation efforts to minimize or address
impacts on threatened and endangered species and tribal treaty rights
while still providing the intended benefits of the flood control
projects and reducing the risk of loss of life and significant economic
damages?
4. Early identification of Nonstructural Alternative Projects
(NSAPs). USACE currently has the authority to undertake a nonstructural
alternative project in lieu of a structural rehabilitation effort at
the request of the non-federal sponsor and in accordance with 33 CFR
Section 203.50. However, 15 years of experience shows that NSAPs can be
difficult to implement in the immediate aftermath of a flood.
Challenges to NSAP implementation include difficulties in obtaining
easements, land transfers, and municipal permits, as well as legal
limitations of some non-federal sponsors, and a lack of public
awareness. USACE is considering how to enable non-federal interests to
identify viable NSAPs prior to a flood event so that the non-federal
sponsors may be able to effectively implement as viable NSAPS an
alternative to structural rehabilitation efforts after a flood event.
Question 12: What advance planning activities could USACE undertake
with non-federal interests to enable non-federal interests to consider
NSAPs as viable alternatives to structural rehabilitation efforts if
the project is damaged in a future flood event?
Question 13: How can the current NSAP policy be improved?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), USACE
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
After consideration of Executive Orders 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), this advance notice of proposed rulemaking has
been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
Because this document does not impose or propose any requirements,
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for USACE to consider in
possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other
review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do
not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on
this ANPR, you may include any comments or information that could help
the Agency to assess the potential impact of a subsequent regulatory
action on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994); or to consider potential impacts to state and local
governments or tribal governments. USACE will consider such comments
during the development of any subsequent rulemaking.
Dated: February 9, 2015.
Karen Durham-Aguilera,
Director of Contingency Operations/Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-03033 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P