# *[NAME OF STUDY]{.underline}*

# SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS

1\. Study Authority

a\. This Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis was prepared as an initial
response to the *([authority/authorities]{.underline})*, which reads as
follows:

"*[Provide the full text of the principle resolution(s) or other study
authority.]{.underline}*"

b\. Funds in the amount of *[\$100,000 or other amount]{.underline}*
were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1999 to conduct the reconnaissance
phase of the study.

2\. Study Purpose

The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to determine if there
is a Federal (Corps) interest in participating in a cost shared
feasibility phase study to determine if there is a Federal interest in
providing *[purposes]{.underline}* improvements to *[indicate
where]{.underline}*. In response to the study authority, the
reconnaissance study was initiated on *[indicate date]{.underline}*. The
reconnaissance study has resulted in the finding that there is a Federal
interest in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose
of this Section 905(b) Analysis is to document the basis for this
finding and establish the scope of the feasibility phase. As the
document that establishes the scope of the feasibility study, the
Section 905(b) Analysis is used as the chapter of the Project management
plan that presents the reconnaissance overview and formulation
rationale.

3\. Location of Study, Non-Federal Sponsor and Congressional Districts

a\. The study area is located *[short paragraph
description]{.underline}*.

b\. The non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study is
*[name of proposed sponsor]{.underline}*.

c\. The study area lies within the jurisdiction of the following
Congressional Districts:

1\)

2\)

4\. PRIOR REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS

a\. The following reports were being reviewed as a part of this study:

1\) Short paragraph discussion of each report.

2\)

b\. This study is investigating potential modifications of the following
project(s):

1\) *[Short paragraph discussion]{.underline}*

2\)

5\. Plan Formulation

During a study, six planning steps that are set forth in the Water
Resource Council's Principles and Guidelines are repeated to focus the
planning effort and eventually to select and recommend a plan for
authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify problems and
opportunities, 2) inventory and forecast conditions, 3) formulate
alternative plans, 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans, 5) compare
alternative plans, and 6) select recommended plan. The iterations of the
planning steps typically differ in the emphasis that is placed on each
of the steps. In the early iterations, those conducted during the
reconnaissance phase, the step of specifying problems and opportunities
is emphasized. That is not to say, however, that the other steps are
ignored since the initial screening of preliminary plans that results
from the other steps is very important to the scoping of the follow-on
feasibility phase studies. The sub-paragraphs that follow present the
results of the initial iterations of the planning steps that were
conducted during the reconnaissance phase. This information will be
refined in future iterations of the planning steps that will be
accomplished during the feasibility phase.

a\. National Objectives

1\) The national or Federal objective of water and related land
resources planning is to contribute to national economic development
consistent with protecting the nation's environment, pursuant to
national environmental statures, applicable executive orders, and other
Federal planning requirements. Contributions to National Economic
Development (NED) are increases in the net value of the national output
of goods and services, expressed in monetary units. Contributions to NED
are the direct net benefits that accrue in the planning area and the
rest of the nation.

2\) The Corps has added a second national objective for Ecosystem
Restoration in response to legislation and administration policy. This
objective is to contribute to the nation's ecosystems through ecosystem
restoration, with contributions measured by changes in the amounts and
values of habitat.

b\. Public Concerns: A number of public concerns have been identified
during the course of the reconnaissance study. Initial concerns were
expressed in the study authorization. Additional input was received
through coordination with the *(potential)* sponsor*(s)*, and some
initial coordination with other agencies. The public concerns that are
related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning
constraints are:

1\)

2\)

3\)

c\. Problems and Opportunities: The evaluation of public concerns often
reflects a range of needs, which are perceived by the public. This
section describes these needs in the context of problems and
opportunities that can be addressed through water and related land
resource management. For each problem and opportunity, the existing
conditions and the expected future conditions are described, as follows:

1\) *[Provide a discussion of each problem and opportunity, including a
description of existing and expected future conditions. Include any
critical findings and assumptions regarding the without project
conditions.]{.underline}*

2\)

3\)

d\. Planning Objectives: The national objectives of National Economic
Development and National Ecosystem Restoration are general statements
and not specific enough for direct use in plan formulation. The water
and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in this
study are stated as specific planning objectives to provide focus for
the formulation of alternatives. These planning objectives reflect the
problems and opportunities and represent desired positive changes in the
without project conditions. The planning objectives are specified as
follows:

1\) *[To reduce ... ...]{.underline} objectives should be achievable and
specific in time and location, but should not be stated in terms of
specific measures or level of output --" to reduce flood damages in the
xxx portion of the study area over a xx-year period of analysis" -- not
"to improve channel/build levees/remove structures for the floodplain,
etc".*

2\) *[To increase ......]{.underline}*

e\. Planning Constraints: Unlike planning objectives that represent
desired positive changes, planning constraints represent restrictions
that should not be violated. The planning constraints identified in this
study are as follows:

1\) *[Compliance with local land use plans (specify)]{.underline}*

2\) *[Applicable Executive Orders, Statutes and Regulations
(specify)]{.underline}*

f\. Measures to Address Identified Planning Objectives. A management
measure is a feature or activity at a site, which address one or more of
the planning objectives. A wide variety of measures were considered,
some of which were found to be infeasible due to technical, economic, or
environmental constraints. Each measure was assessed and a determination
made regarding whether it should be retained in the formulation of
alternative plans. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of
the measures considered in this study are presented below:

1\) No Action. The Corps is required to consider the option of "No
Action" as one of the alternatives in order to comply with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No Action
assumes that no project would be implemented by the Federal Government
or by local interests to achieve the planning objectives. No Action,
which is synonymous with the Without Project Condition, forms the basis
from which all other alternative plans are measured.

\(2\) *[Non-Structural]{.underline}*

\(3\) *[Structural]{.underline}*

\(4\) *[Separable Features - such as for recreation or restoration if
not already included above.]{.underline}*

\(5\) *[Additional Measures for Complete Alternatives -- secondary
features to make a alternative complete, such as dredging methods,
interior drainage, etc]{.underline}*.

g\. Preliminary Plans. Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more
management measures that survived the initial screening. The
descriptions and results of the evaluations of the preliminary plans
that were considered in this study are presented below:

1\) Preliminary Plans Eliminated from Further Consideration

2\) Preliminary Plans for further Consideration

3\) Alternative Implementation Authorities

h\. Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening. The preliminary
screening indicates that alternatives that *[summarize characteristics
of plans for further consideration]{.underline}* have the greatest
potential for implementation. The potential magnitude and types of
benefits from the proposed actions would *[qualitative evaluation with
any numbers or ranges that may be available]{.underline}*. Likewise, the
environmental effects are *[describe significant environmental
impacts]{.underline}* that would include *[describe potential mitigation
measures]{.underline}* as mitigation. Costs of the alternatives would
*[qualitative evaluation with any numbers or ranges that may be
available]{.underline}*. Based on this information, alternatives to
address the planning objectives appear viable.

i\. Establishment of a Plan Formulation Rationale. The conclusions from
the preliminary screening form the basis for the next iteration of the
planning steps that will be conducted in the feasibility phase. The
likely array of alternatives that will be considered in the next
iteration includes *[describe and provide rationale for the likely array
of alternatives]{.underline}*. Future screening and reformulation will
be based on the following factors: *[include factors.]{.underline}*

6\. Federal Interest

Since *[project purpose(s)]{.underline}* is an output with a high budget
priority and that *[project purposes]{.underline}* is the primary output
of the alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase, there is a
strong Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study. There is
also a Federal interest in other related outputs of the alternatives
including *[other project purposes]{.underline}* that could be developed
within existing policy. Based on the preliminary screening of
alternatives, there appears to be potential project alternatives that
would be consistent with Army policies, costs, benefits, and
environmental impacts*. [(expand as to why this conclusion is
reached]{.underline})*

7\. Preliminary Financial Analysis

As the local sponsor, *[name of sponsor]{.underline}* will be required
to provide 50 percent of the cost of the feasibility phase. The local
sponsor is also aware of the cost sharing requirements for potential
project implementation. A letter of intent from the local sponsor
stating a willingness to purse the feasibility study and to share in its
cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is required for
project construction is included as Attachment *[number]{.underline}* .

8\. Assumptions and Exceptions

a\. Feasibility Phase Assumptions: The following critical assumptions
will provide a basis for the feasibility study:

1\) *[Without Project Condition Assumptions]{.underline}*

2\) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives: The study will be
conducted in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and the Corps
of Engineers regulations. Exceptions to established guidance have been
identified that will streamline the feasibility study process that will
not adversely impact the quality of the feasibility study. Approval of
the Section 905(b) Analysis by HQUSACE results in the approval of the
following policy exceptions and streamlining initiatives:

1\) *[Simplified methods, default values, use of related study results,
etc.]{.underline}*

2\) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. Other Approvals Required: *[Include items that require HQUSACE
approval such as model studies and new benefit categories.]{.underline}*

9\. Feasibility Phase Milestones

![](media/image1.wmf)

![](media/image2.wmf)10. Feasibility Phase Cost Estimate

11\. Views of Other Resource Agencies

Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase,
only limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other
resource agencies. Views that have been expressed are as follows:

a\.

b\.

12\. Potential Issues Affecting Initiation of Feasibility Phase

a\. Continuation of this study into the cost-shared feasibility phase is
contingent upon an executed FCSA. Failure to achieve an executed FCSA
within 18 months of the approval date of the Section 905(b) Analysis
will result in termination of the study. Issues that could impact the
initiation of the feasibility phase include *[Explain any issues related
to the signing of the FCSA.]{.underline}*

b\. The schedule for signing the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
(FCSA) is *[Month/Year]{.underline}*. Based on the schedule of
milestones in Paragraph 9., completion of the feasibility report would
be in *[Month/Year]{.underline}*, with a potential Congressional
Authorization in a WRDA *[year]{.underline}*.

13\. Project Area Map

A map of the study area is provided as Enclosure A.

14\. Recommendations

I recommend that the *[Name of proposed feasibility study]{.underline}*
study proceed into the feasibility phase.

/s/

##  *[Date]{.underline} Name of District Commander*

Colonel

Corps of Engineers

##  District Engineer