Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies; Availability of Proposed Principles and Request for Comments, 52960-52964 [E8-21294]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
• Engineers Corps
• Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52960-52964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21294]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies; Availability of 
Proposed Principles and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Announcement of availability of proposed Principles and request 
for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(Pub. L. 110-114) directs the Secretary of the Army to revise the 
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), which the Water 
Resources Council issued on March 10, 1983. The Army Corps of Engineers 
(``Corps'') proposes to craft the revision in phases. The first phase 
would address the basic principles of water resources planning 
(``Principles'') and the next phase or phases would provide more 
detailed implementing guidance.
    This notice includes a copy of the proposed Principles (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION), which would replace the first two pages of 
the P&G. The proposed Principles may also be found at: https://
www.usace.army.mil/cw/hot_topics/ht_2008/pandg_rev.htm.

DATES: Written comments are invited and will be accepted through 
October 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to HQUSACE, Attn: 
P&G Revision, CECW-ZA, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000, by 
e-mail to: larry.j.prather@usace.army.mil or FAX: 202-761-5649.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry J. Prather, Assistant Director 
of Civil Works, at 202-761-0106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2031 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114) directs the Secretary of the 
Army to revise the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines 
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, dated 
March 10, 1983, and to apply the revisions to all water resources 
projects carried out by the Secretary, other than projects for which 
the Secretary has already commenced a feasibility study.
    The Corps requested interested individuals and organizations to 
submit suggestions for revision of the P&G in a notice published in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 26086) on Thursday, May 8, 2008. As announced 
in that notice, the Corps also held a public meeting to hear oral 
suggestions for proposed revisions on June 5, 2008. Several major 
issues were discussed in the oral or written comments, including 
watershed planning, collaborative planning, the reliance on benefit 
cost ratios, giving more standing to environmental values, and non-
structural flood damage reduction projects.
    The Corps is now asking interested individuals and organizations to 
submit comments on the proposed Principles. Comments on any aspect of 
the proposal are welcome.
    The issues on which the public may want to comment include: actions 
covered by the Principles (section 1), the language used to describe 
the national planning objective (section 2), the role of public safety 
in project formulation (sections 2, 7, and 9), the role of watershed 
analysis (section 4), the response to uncertainty (sections 5, 6, and 
9), ensuring consideration of all reasonable alternatives (sections 6 
and 7), the definition of and preference for non-structural plans 
(sections 7 and 9), and the plan selection criteria (section 9). 
Comments are also specifically invited on the appropriate discount rate 
to use in formulating proposed water resources projects.

[[Page 52961]]

    Section 9 of the proposed Principles includes use of a higher 
economic standard for projects, project features, and increments of 
work whose primary purpose is to achieve economic benefits. A benefit-
cost ratio (BCR) of 1.5, rather than the current 1.0 BCR threshold in 
the 1983 P&G, is proposed. This would result in projects that are more 
likely to provide a positive net economic return, and would provide 
better value from the available Federal and local resources. The 
proposed new standard would exclude projects, project features, and 
increments of work that provide a low return to the Nation.
    While section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act applies 
to water resources projects of the Corps, the proposed Principles are 
drafted more broadly to allow for the possibility that they can be 
applied to the other Federal water resource agencies currently covered 
by the P&G. Comments are invited on suggested changes in language that 
might be desirable to enable other water resources agencies to use 
these Principles as well.
    Written comments (by mail, fax, or e-mail) should be submitted to 
(see ADDRESSES). Comments will be posted on the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Web site (https://www.usace.army.mil/cw/hot_topics/ht_2008/
pandg_rev.htm). Interested individuals and organizations may access 
copies of the following documents at this Internet site: the Economic 
and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land 
Resources Implementation Studies, dated March 10, 1983; the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114); and the proposed 
Principles. Copies of these three documents may also be requested by 
mail or e-mail (see ADDRESSES). Other relevant documents, including the 
written suggestions received earlier, are also available at this 
Internet site.
    Proposed Principles. 1. Purpose and Scope. These principles and the 
associated guidelines are intended to ensure proper, consistent and 
transparent planning in the formulation, evaluation, and selection of 
proposed Federal water and related land resources projects.
    These principles establish the process for such planning studies 
and how each phase of the process functions. In addition, these 
principles provide the analytical framework to be followed for proposed 
further investments in, extensive modifications to, and expanded 
changes in operation of existing Federal water resources projects and 
systems.
    2. National Planning Objective. The national objective of water and 
related land resources planning is to foster environmentally sound, 
efficient use of the Nation's resources consistent with public safety. 
This can be accomplished through watershed analyses that recognize the 
interdependency of water uses. This is strengthened by capitalizing on 
a collaborative planning and implementation process which incorporates 
fully informed participation from Federal agencies, non-Federal 
interests, non-governmental organizations, State and local and Tribal 
governments, and a full range of water users and stakeholders.
    Water and related land resources planning that is consistent with 
the national planning objective seeks to incorporate some or all of 
these elements: facilitate sustainable national economic development, 
encourage wise use of water and related land resources--including 
floodplains and flood-prone coastal areas, support the protection and 
restoration of significant aquatic ecosystems, promote the integration 
and improvement of how the Nation's water resources are managed; and 
reduce vulnerabilities and losses due to natural disasters.
    3. Overview. The basic planning process consists of the following 
major steps:
    (1) Specification of the water and water related land resources 
problems and opportunities in the planning setting and their 
relationship to the national planning objective;
    (2) Inventory and analysis of the current condition of the water 
and related land resources relevant to the identified problems and 
opportunities;
    (3) Identification of study objectives with respect to the problems 
and opportunities, after taking into account current and potential 
future uses of the water resources;
    (4) Formulation of a full range of alternative plans reflecting 
those study objectives;
    (5) Evaluation of the potential effects of the alternative plans;
    (6) Comparison of the alternative plans; and
    (7) Selection of a proposed plan, which best meets both the study 
objectives and the national planning objective.
    The planning process is dynamic with various steps that should be 
iterated as new data are obtained, or as the understanding of the 
problems, opportunities, and study objectives or their significance 
changes or is better defined. These iterations, which may occur at any 
step, may sharpen the planning focus or change its direction or 
emphasis.
    4. Watersheds. Water and related land resources have many, and at 
times competing, alternative uses. Water resources planning can 
identify and address the synergies and trade-offs associated with these 
multiple uses within the watershed.
    Water and related land resources planning should commence from the 
watershed level to determine how the problems and opportunities being 
examined in a study fits into the current and expected watershed needs. 
The planning effort is primarily informed by such watershed analysis 
wherein proposed projects are considered in the full light of upstream 
and downstream conditions and needs that ensures project 
recommendations are part of a complementary systems solution. This 
highlights the importance that planning proceed, in a coordinated 
systems context, with the interactions of other programs, projects, and 
plans that are relevant within the related watershed being understood.
    Water resources planning is collaborative and may consider 
alternatives and strategies for implementation by other Federal 
agencies, state and local agencies, Native American tribes, non-Federal 
interests, non-governmental organizations, affected groups and 
individuals, and/or the public at large. The focus should be on 
developing plans that are consistent with the national planning 
objective and are efficient, complete, and effective.
    5. Science Based Analysis. Harnessing accurate and high quality 
data, using expert knowledge, and taking an interdisciplinary approach 
to incorporating the information into the planning process is critical 
to effective and well executed planning.
    Knowledge. Water and related land resources planning can only be 
successful when using knowledge and expertise effectively, as well as, 
the best information available in each step of the process. Objectivity 
and the elimination of sources of potential bias are critical in the 
planning process.
    Accuracy and Quality of Data. Decision-making can be of the highest 
quality when it is founded on the best available data and models with 
high degrees of accuracy in hydrology, engineering, geology, ecology, 
other physical and life sciences, economics and other relevant social 
sciences.
    Interdisciplinary Planning. Due to the complicated nature of water 
and related land resources planning, an interdisciplinary team approach 
to planning will ensure the proper

[[Page 52962]]

integration of engineering, physical and life sciences, social 
sciences, economics, and environmental design. Success in planning is 
best achieved by matching appropriate planning disciplines to the 
planning issues to be addressed.
    Peer Review. Peer review by experts from within the agency is an 
important element of successful planning. It can add to the knowledge 
available to planners and is best integrated into the planning process 
on an ongoing basis. Where appropriate, outside independent experts 
should be brought into the planning process to confirm the agency's 
analytical methods and analysis, the conclusions of the report based on 
these methods and analysis, or the way in which the agency conducted 
the planning process.
    Risk and Uncertainty. Water and related land resources planning, 
even with the best engineering, science, economics and other knowledge 
possible, will still have elements of risk (probability of occurrence) 
and uncertainty (imprecision of measurements and analysis). It is 
important to explicitly identify, characterize, and document the risks 
and uncertainty throughout the planning process. A clear description of 
the risks and uncertainties adds important value to the planning 
process by allowing decisions to be made with full knowledge of the 
degree of reliability and the limits of the data and information used.
    6. Conditions. Gathering information on the conditions in an area 
that is relevant to the planning issues under study is essential before 
defining a series of alternatives. Though conditions may change or 
become better defined during the planning process, it is essential to 
understand the conditions that are important to the planning issue and 
developing the assumptions based on those conditions in a logical, 
clear and transparent manner.
    Inclusion of Other Parties. Other interested Federal agencies, 
state and local agencies, affected groups and individuals, Native 
American tribes with an interest, and the public at large are to be 
provided a full opportunity to inform decisions throughout the planning 
process, including providing data and evidence necessary for plan 
formulation and evaluation.
    Inventory of Current Conditions. An inventory of current water and 
related land resources conditions in the area of the watershed that 
either is contributory to or affected by the planning effort is an 
integral part of being able to describe the existing conditions. An 
inventory, sufficiently broad in scale to encompass all significant 
causes and effects is integral to the planning process. Significant 
physical, economic, ecological, safety, cultural, social, aesthetic, 
and other relevant conditions that are part of this inventory provide a 
snapshot of the present, and are a consequence of the past. Therefore, 
the inventory is likely to include the relevant geologic, 
geomorphologic, hydrologic, climatic, economic, cultural, social, land 
use, and other historic data necessary to build the picture of the 
present.
    An inventory, which is expanded as needed to assist the planning 
process, can be used throughout the process to advance the national 
planning objective--for example, to revise the statement of problems 
and opportunities or further define them; to identify or revise the 
study objectives; to sharpen the planning focus or change its direction 
or emphasis; and to inform the formulation and refinement of 
alternative plans and the evaluation of those plans.
    Projection of with and without Plan Conditions. The world is 
dynamic and planning for the uncertain future requires a reasonable 
forecast of future events and outcomes. The inventory and analysis of 
current conditions provides the baseline data for use in forecasting 
future conditions.
    A specific set of assumed future conditions, based on the best 
estimate of the conditions that are likely to prevail in the presence 
and in the absence of a proposed action, is one approach to look at 
future conditions. The with and without plan condition is an 
objectively based, extrapolation of current conditions into the future 
which serves as one basis for estimating and evaluating the cost, 
effectiveness, and beneficial and adverse effects of the alternative 
plans.
    The development of the with and without plan condition is guided 
primarily by what is known and is the key part of the planning process 
that drives justification of recommended projects. Assumed changes from 
the present to the future are based on a series of observed past events 
that provide a reasonable basis to quantify the probability of 
occurrence of a similar trend into the future.
    The future conditions also reflect any such changes that are likely 
to occur under current government policy. As these are the basis for 
future analyses, it is important that the rationale for development of 
these conditions be clearly documented.
    7. Plan Formulation. Plan formulation is undertaken to determine 
the Federal interest in solving identified water resources problems. 
This is accomplished by creating a full range of alternative plans 
meeting the national planning objective while reflecting the study 
objectives for water and related land resources projects. While 
development of alternatives is generally unconstrained, the development 
of alternatives must take into account the ability to implement that 
plan in consideration of Federal and non-Federal resources considering 
their availability for water resources purposes nationwide is finite--
both at any point in time and over the long-term.
    7.1 General Considerations.
    Structural Plans. Structural plans are those that intentionally 
modify existing hydrologic and geomorphic processes, including most 
aquatic ecosystem restoration plans.
    Non-Structural Plans. Non-structural plans are those that avoid or 
minimize changes to the existing hydrologic and geomorphic processes by 
changed management or use of existing infrastructure or by emphasizing 
alternatives that manage human activity and development. Nonstructural 
alternatives also often avoid or minimize adverse impacts in the 
aquatic environment.
    Public Safety. Addressing concerns over public safety is achieved 
by assuring infrastructure is reliable, and that risks posed to human 
life and security are avoided, reduced, or mitigated consistent with 
current engineering standards and are a component of both structural 
and nonstructural plans. Additionally, plans that clearly describe any 
residual risk, the measures to address or manage that risk, its 
resiliency, and the associated components of cooperation needed to 
assure public safety stand to add value and understanding to the 
planning process.
    Environmental. Addressing concerns over adverse environmental 
impact and how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts on the 
environment are a component of both structural and nonstructural plans.
    Key Assumptions. Important to the planning process is understanding 
and explicitly stating the key assumptions, the supporting rationale 
for these assumptions, and the predicted and achieved outcomes based on 
similar approaches used in the past that have relied heavily on these 
assumptions.
    Lifecycle Considerations. An ongoing evaluation of the lifecycle 
and ability of current systems to meet contemporary needs is especially 
valuable during the planning process. The planning process provides an 
opportunity to evaluate and examine whether extensively modifying 
operations, adding features, or

[[Page 52963]]

discontinuing features would contribute to the national planning 
objective.
    Wide Range of Plans. A range of alternative plans, significantly 
differentiated from each other in terms of their composition of 
measures, the extent to which they comport with the national planning 
objective, and their scale and features, are necessary to have the 
greatest chance of identifying the best plan for addressing the 
planning issues.
    Integration with Other Plans. Alternative plans that are consistent 
with other established Federal, State, local and Tribal plans can add 
value to the alternatives. This includes any synergy with other 
entities watershed plans, aquatic ecosystem plans, and integrated water 
resource management plans or any elements contained within them. The 
inclusion of clear and explicit descriptions and consideration of these 
other entities' plans as well as describing the similarities and 
differences, synergies and discrepancies, potential implementation 
coordination, and other relevant explanations of their plans adds 
clarity to the planning process.
    Consistency with Existing Statutes, Regulations & Policies. 
Addressing concerns over the implementability of plans is best 
addressed by including plans that are consistent with existing 
statutes, regulations and policies along with describing explicitly how 
they influence the planning process. Statutory, regulatory, and/or 
policy changes necessary to facilitate a plan should be described in 
detail.
    7.2 Alternative Plans. Plans are formulated from combinations of 
structural and nonstructural measures that address the planning 
problems and opportunities.
    Required Alternatives. In order to facilitate the development of 
the widest range of practical alternative plans, the following required 
alternatives constitute the minimum series of plans necessary. The 
concept of a practical alternative plan means that any of the required 
alternatives below can and often will include elements that meet the 
other objectives.
    National Economic Development (NED) Plan: A plan that primarily 
maximizes the net contributions to the NED objective as part of the 
national planning objective.
    Environmental Quality (EQ) Plan: A plan that primarily maximizes 
the net quantity or quality of the environmental quality objective as 
part of the national planning objective.
    Primarily Nonstructural Plan: A plan which primarily employs 
nonstructural elements, and as a secondary consideration adds 
structural features to address the planning issues.
    8. Evaluation of Plans. All plans should be well characterized, 
explained, and justified. The thorough evaluation of the range of plans 
developed requires an open assessment of the plans ability to meet the 
evaluative criteria that begins with, but is not limited to, the 
national planning objective. Additionally, evaluating the effects of 
each alternative plan includes, but is not limited to, its impacts on 
current and potential future uses of the water resources and related 
land uses throughout the watershed, impacts and potential effects of 
climate change, the relationship of each alternative plan to other 
relevant water and related land resources projects, and the 
relationship of each alternative plan to other existing plans.
    8.1 General Considerations.
    Interdisciplinary Team Evaluation. An interdisciplinary team 
approach to the plan evaluation process can ensure the integration of 
engineering, economics, natural and social sciences, and the 
environment in a balanced manner based on the planning issues to be 
addressed. The disciplines of the planners are to be appropriately 
matched to the planning issues, and appropriate consultation and 
inclusion of those with specialized expertise is integral to develop a 
balanced plan that addresses the issues of concern.
    Multi-Criterion Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency. Evaluating 
each plan against each criterion in a comparative manner (e.g., matrix) 
facilitates the planning process. Effects accounted for in one account 
should only be used once in order to maintain the consistency of the 
evaluation methodology. Not all criteria can be quantified in a similar 
manner, therefore clearly describing the quantified value, the range of 
the scale, including any weighting factor, justification for the 
weighting factor, and the value used, along with how the weighting 
factor affected the overall plan, will produce multi-criterion 
evaluation for each alternative plan.
    8.2 Required Accounts. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the 
range of alternative plans, the following required accounts constitute 
the minimum evaluative framework necessary.
    The following five accounts are used to catalogue the significant 
effects of an alternative on the human environment.
    Public Safety (PS): The safety of populations at risk.
    National Economic Development (NED): The effects on the national 
economy.
    Environmental Quality (EQ): The effects on the ecological, 
cultural, aesthetic and other attributes of natural and cultural 
resources.
    Regional Economic Development (RED): The effects on the regional 
economy, including income effects, income transfers, and employment 
effects not addressed in the NED account.
    Other Social Effects (OSE): The effects on the urban or communities 
quality of life and health.
    9. Plan Selection. The planning process leads to the identification 
of alternative plans that could be recommended or selected. These plans 
are referred to as the final array of plans including the required 
plans. The culmination of the planning process is the selection of the 
recommended plan from among the final array of plans, including a 
potential decision to take no action. The selection of the recommended 
plan, as with the development of alternatives, must be cognizant of the 
national planning objective, national mission authorities and of the 
availability of Federal and non-Federal resources available for water 
and water related resources.
    9.1 Selection Criteria.
    National Planning Objective Criterion. The Chief of Engineers may 
propose a water and related land resources plan that involves Federal 
action only if that plan would advance the national planning objective. 
The goal is to formulate and propose a series of projects over time 
across the Nation, which together will amount in effect to an 
implementable national water resources plan.
    Net Beneficial Effects Criterion. A recommended plan (when 
considered on the basis of the with-plan versus without-plan 
comparison) must have combined NED and beneficial EQ effects that 
outweigh the combined NED and adverse EQ effects. Where both benefits 
and costs of the plans can be quantified and expressed in monetary 
terms, then these values will be produced to provide information on the 
net beneficial effects of the plan. Where benefits cannot be monetized 
with reasonable accuracy, or when statutes or other authorities require 
non-monetary values, water and related land resource plans should 
present the results of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and 
otherwise continue to provide the information called for in the multi-
criterion evaluation process.
    Uncertainty Criterion. Where significant uncertainty regarding a 
future trend exists, both the option of no action and an alternative 
plan based on proceeding in steps, using an

[[Page 52964]]

incremental adaptive management approach should be compared to one 
another, and the better of these two options should be pursued.
    9.2 Project Types.
    Commercial Navigation & Hydropower. For commercial navigation and 
hydropower features, the plan with high net economic return (benefit 
cost ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each increment of such 
work, consistent with protecting the environment, will be considered 
minimally acceptable. Plans that address the most critical needs and 
have an increasingly higher benefit cost ratio should be more heavily 
weighted in the selection process.
    Flood and Storm Damage Reduction. Flood and storm damage reduction 
features could include structural and non-structural components. As 
both monetary and non-monetary values are likely to be part of the 
decision process when non-structural components are included, a 
comparative approach as identified in the Multi-Criterion Evaluation, 
Consistency & Transparency section will provide the clarity in these 
situations for decision making. Where benefits are measured in monetary 
values only, the plan with high net economic return (benefit cost ratio 
of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each increment of such work, 
consistent with protecting the environment, will be considered 
minimally acceptable. Plans that address the most critical needs and 
have an increasingly higher benefit cost ratio should be more heavily 
weighted in the selection process. Generally, when structural and non-
structural components provide viable options when considering all 
evaluation criteria, including benefits, costs and adverse effects, 
preference should be given to non-structural components so long as the 
monetary benefits are at least at unity. If the non-monetary benefits 
represent a majority of the total benefits and are of National 
significance, then consideration can be given to selecting a plan with 
monetary benefits less than unity.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. For aquatic ecosystem restoration 
features, the plan that is cost-effective, sustainable, and is the 
alternative plan that best reflects an appropriate level to invest for 
that ecosystem from a national perspective, after considering the 
national or regional significance and cost of protecting or restoring 
that ecosystem compared to others will be considered as minimally 
acceptable for selection. Plans that address the most critical 
ecological needs using the minimum action needed to substantially 
improve the natural functions or services with increasingly higher cost 
effectiveness should be more heavily weighted in the selection process.
    Multiple Objectives. For multiple objective projects with features 
and increments of work whose benefits and costs are jointly distributed 
among more than one objective, each such feature or increment of work 
should yield a net overall return to the Nation after considering its 
cost, effectiveness, and other beneficial and adverse effects. Where 
the benefits are measured in monetary values only; those with high net 
economic return (benefit cost ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for 
each increment of such work, consistent with protecting the 
environment, will be considered minimally acceptable. Plans that 
address the most critical needs and have an increasingly higher benefit 
cost ratio should be more heavily weighted in the selection process. 
Where plans have both monetary and non-monetary values, a comparative 
approach as identified in the Multi-Criterion Evaluation, Consistency & 
Transparency section is to be used to inform a decision. The monetary 
benefits of a multi-criteria plan must at least be unity. If the non-
monetary benefits represent a majority of the total benefits and are of 
national significance, then consideration can be given to selecting a 
plan with monetary benefits less than unity.
    9.3 Agency Exception. The Secretary will ordinarily consider 
exceptions to the selection criteria under the following circumstances: 
where there are overriding reasons for doing so, including safety and 
other Federal, State, local, Tribal, and international concerns. The 
reasons for an exception are to be given in a request from the Chief of 
Engineers and must be appropriately documented. The full planning 
process carried forth through the study must be documented, completed 
and submitted along with the documented exception in order to uphold 
the ideal of a transparent process.

 Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21294 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-P