12066 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/ 

Guidance/Principles_Guidelines.pdf, last accessed 

on January 31, 2024. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 234 

[Docket ID: COE–2023–0005] 

RIN 0710–AB41 

Corps of Engineers Agency Specific 

Procedures To Implement the 

Principles, Requirements, and 

Guidelines for Federal Investments in 

Water Resources 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule 

establishes Agency Specific Procedures 

(ASPs) for the Corps’ implementation of 

the Principles, Requirements, and 

Guidelines for water resources 

investments. It provides a framework to 

govern how the Corps would evaluate 

proposed water resource investments, 

including identification of which Corps 

programs and activities are subject to 

the Principles, Requirements, and 

Guidelines. The Corps is proposing this 

rule in response to congressional 

direction provided in authorizing 

language in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2020. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE– 

2023–0005, using any of these methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: stacey.m.jensen.civ@

army.mil and include the docket 

number, COE–2023–0005, in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Mail: Stacey M. Jensen, 108 Army 

Pentagon, Room 3E474, Washington, DC 

20310–0108. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2023–0005. The 

public docket will include all comments 

exactly as submitted and without 

change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. This 

will include any personal information 

provided, unless the commenter 

indicates that the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information where 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 website 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 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 http://

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: Ms. 

Stacey M. Jensen, Acting Director for 

Policy and Legislation, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works), 108 Army Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20310–0108, at (703) 

459–6026 or stacey.m.jensen.civ@

army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Since the Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1903 (Pub. L. 57– 

154), the Corps has been required to 

consider the benefits of water resources 

investments in relation to their costs. 

The Flood Control Act of 1936 (Pub. L. 

74–738) called for the Federal 

government to improve navigable waters 

or their tributaries for flood control 

purposes if the benefits to whomever 

they may accrue are in excess of the 

estimated costs. Since then, the Corps 

has been developing tools and methods 

for developing and evaluating water 

resource plans and projects. 

Multi-objective water resource 

planning concepts on a comprehensive 

and nationally coordinated basis were 

central to the Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89–80) and were 

reflected in Federal guidance, the 

Principles and Standards for Planning 

Water and Related Land Resources 

(P&S), issued by the Water Resources 

Council in 1973 (38 FR 24778). The 

Water Resources Council was 

established by the Water Resources 

Planning Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89–90) to 

assess and make recommendations on 

national water-related matters and 

policies (further information can be 

found at 18 CFR 701.3). The P&S 

reflected two Federal objectives for 

water resources planning, which were to 

enhance national economic 

development and to enhance the quality 

of the environment. 

Federal water policy moved away 

from this dual-objective concept with 

the 1983 Economic and Environmental 

Principles and Guidelines for Water and 

Related Land Resources Implementation 

Studies (P&G).1 The P&G combined the 

two objectives of the P&S into a single, 

integrated Federal objective, which was 

‘‘to contribute to national economic 

development consistent with protecting 

the Nation’s environment, pursuant to 

national environmental statutes, 

applicable executive orders, and other 

planning requirements’’. The Water 

Resources Council developed the P&G 

to guide the formulation and evaluation 

of alternatives in the project planning 

studies of four of the Federal water 

resources agencies, including the Corps. 

The Corps has implemented the P&G 

since 1983. The P&G provides that 

contributions to national economic 

development (NED) are the increases in 

net value of the national output of goods 

and services, expressed in monetary 

units. It also provides that contributions 

to NED are the direct net benefits that 

accrue in the planning area and the rest 

of the Nation. 

In the P&G, four accounts were 

established to facilitate evaluation and 

display of effects of alternative plans. 

The only required account is the NED 

account. The other three accounts were: 

the environmental quality account, 

which displays nonmonetary effects on 

significant natural and cultural 

resources; the regional economic 

development (RED) account, which 

registers changes in the distribution of 

regional economic activity that result 

from each alternative plan; and the 

other social effects account, which 

registers plan effects from those other 

perspectives that are relevant to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12067 

2https://aquadoc.typepad.com/files/crs_report_

35_years_water_policy_1973nwc_challenges_

11may2009.pdf, last accessed on January 31, 2024. 

3https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ 

default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_

march_2013.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

4https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ 

default/files/docs/prg_interagency_guidelines_12_

2014.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

planning process, but are not reflected 

in the other accounts. Under the P&G, 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works (ASA(CW)) may grant an 

exception to allow the Corps to 

recommend a plan that is not the NED 

plan. In addition, each alternative plan 

must be formulated in consideration of 

four criteria: completeness, 

effectiveness, efficiency, and 

acceptability. 

In 1981, the Water Resources Council 

chairman requested reduced Council 

funding. The action was consistent with 

the Reagan Administration’s position 

that states should play a more active 

role in water policy activities. All the 

organizational and staff planning 

functions of the Council and basin 

commissions were disbanded, and the 

revised set of ‘‘Principles and 

Guidelines’’ were issued in 1983 as one 

of the last formal actions of the Council. 

Although the Water Resources Planning 

Act has not been repealed and thus 

authorization of the Council remains 

statutorily, no funding for the Council 

has been appropriated since 1983 (CRS 

Report, May 11, 2009.) 2

Section 2031 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007) 

(Pub. L. 110–114 section 2031, 42 U.S.C. 

1962–3) established a National Water 

Resources Planning Policy. The 

National Water Resources Planning 

Policy states that all water resource 

projects should reflect national 

priorities, encourage economic 

development, and protect the 

environment by: (1) seeking to 

maximize sustainable economic 

development; (2) seeking to avoid the 

unwise use of floodplains and floodprone areas and minimizing adverse 

impacts and vulnerabilities in any case 

in which a floodplain or flood-prone 

area must be used; and, (3) protecting 

and restoring the functions of natural 

systems and mitigating any unavoidable 

damage to natural systems. 

Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 also 

called for the Secretary of the Army to 

revise the 1983 P&G for use by the Corps 

in the formulation, evaluation, and 

implementation of water resources 

projects. WRDA 2007 required that 

these revisions to the P&G address the 

following: the use of best available 

economic principles and analytical 

techniques, including techniques in risk 

and uncertainty analysis; the assessment 

and incorporation of public safety in the 

formulation of alternatives and 

recommended plans; assessment 

methods that reflect the value of 

projects for low-income communities 

and projects that use nonstructural 

approaches to water resources 

development and management; the 

assessment and evaluation of the 

interaction of a project with other water 

resources projects and programs within 

a region or watershed; the use of 

contemporary water resources 

paradigms, including integrated water 

resources management and adaptive 

management; and evaluation methods 

that ensure that water resources projects 

are justified by public benefits. 

In 2014, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) completed 

an interagency effort to update the 1983 

P&G, which became effective on June 

15, 2015 (79 FR 77460). This effort 

resulted in the Principles, Requirements 

and Guidelines (PR&G). CEQ developed 

the PR&G through this interagency 

process to improve Federal decisions on 

investments in water resources by 

giving more prominence to ecological, 

public safety, environmental justice, 

and related concerns. 

The PR&G, which govern how Federal 

agencies evaluate proposed water 

resource developments, include the 

following three components: (1) 

Principles and Requirements for Federal 

Investments in Water Resources (P&R, 

2013,3) providing the overarching 

concepts that the Federal Government 

seeks to achieve through policy 

implementation and requirements for 

inputs into analysis of Federal 

investment alternatives; (2) Interagency 

Guidelines (IG, 2014,4) providing more 

detailed guidance for affected Federal 

agencies, including the Departments of 

the Interior, Agriculture, and 

Commerce, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the Corps, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, for determining the 

applicability of the P&R; and (3) agency 

specific procedures (ASPs) providing 

agency specific guidance for identifying 

which programs and activities are 

subject to the PR&G. The Corps has not 

issued final ASPs to implement the 

2013 PR&G. 

Section 110 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020) 

(Division AA of Pub. L. 116–260) directs 

the Army to issue its final ASPs 

necessary for the Corps’ Civil Works 

program to implement the PR&G. 

Section 110 of WRDA 2020 also 

provides that the Army must develop 

Corps projects in accordance with the 

PR&G as well as Section 2031 of WRDA 

2007. The WRDA 2020 directs Army to 

provide notice and opportunities for 

engagement and public comments on 

the development of the ASPs. The Army 

is pursuing this rulemaking to provide 

codified direction for the Corps project 

planning process, which will achieve 

the purposes of the PR&G, with input 

from a robust and meaningful Tribal and 

public engagement. This proposed rule 

follows the general framework laid out 

in the PR&G. The Corps also reviewed 

and considered the ASPs developed by 

other Federal agencies in developing 

this proposed rule. This rulemaking 

seeks to formalize the planning 

framework of the Corps under the PR&G 

in a transparent manner, by providing 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed new planning paradigm 

and its requirements. The proposed 

ASPs would apply to plans, projects, or 

programs that are initiated after any 

final rule may take effect. The Corps 

would also apply the ASPs to plans, 

projects, or programs that have not yet 

issued a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement or similar level of 

documentation on or before any final 

rule effective date. Note that Army, 

through the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works, is responsible for 

policy direction and oversight of the 

Army’s Civil Works program, whereas 

the Corps has the lead in implementing 

the program. Hence this document 

refers both to the Army (for policy 

direction) and the Corps (for 

implementation responsibility). 

Although the proposed rule uses the 

language ‘‘water resources development 

project’’, which is consistent with the 

statutory language of section 110 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 

2020, and is the terminology generally 

used in Corps statutes and regulations, 

the Corps does acknowledge that its role 

has evolved over the years to include 

developing, managing, restoring, and 

protecting water resources. A more 

appropriate term to use throughout 

would be ‘‘water resources projects’’ 

rather than ‘‘water resources 

development projects.’’ Consistent with 

this approach, section 2031 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007, the 

2013 P&R, and the 2014 Interagency 

Guidelines (IG) refer to ‘‘water resources 

projects’’. The proposed rule uses 

‘‘water resources development 

projects,’’ which is the term that the 

Corps traditionally has used. The Army 

solicits comment on this issue. 

The Army received input from Tribes, 

Federal and State agencies, 

stakeholders, and other interested 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12068 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

5Summary document of comments received in 

response to the Federal Register Notice can be 

found at https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/ 

2022/12/01/d5bd08a7/written-comment-summaryfor-prg-for-frn-to-modernize-civil-works.pdf, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

parties through the issuance of the 

Federal Register Notice of Virtual 

Public and Tribal Meetings Regarding 

the Modernization of Army Civil Works 

Policy Priorities; Establishment of a 

Public Docket; Request for Input 

(Modernize Civil Works) that was 

published on June 3, 2022 (87 FR 

33756). This Notice solicited public 

comment on topics including the ASPs 

being considered for this proposed 

rulemaking. In response to the Notice, 

we received generally supportive 

comments on the policy revision 

concepts outlined in the Notice and the 

comments recognized the value of using 

more modern approaches for decision 

making. Many commenters mentioned 

the need to consider a broader set of 

benefits than can be captured by the 

Corps’ traditional NED account, and 

many endorsed the effort to more fully 

incorporate climate change, to increase 

collaboration with Tribal, state, and 

local organizations, and to better 

incorporate the potential ecosystem 

costs and benefits of water resources 

investments.5

For ease of comment review and 

consideration, commenters should 

consider referencing a specific section 

or paragraph of the proposed rule and 

preamble when providing comments. In 

addition to solicitation on specific areas 

identified in the preamble, the Corps 

solicits comments in general on issues 

or concerns related to this proposed rule 

which are not specifically identified in 

the proposal. For these comments, 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 proposed regulation. 

B. Overview of Proposed Rule 

To promote alignment across the 

Federal government in the 

implementation of the PR&G, Army 

opted to use the Department of Interior’s 

(DOIs) ASPs as a basis for development 

of the Corps’ ASPs. DOIs ASPs were 

released in 2015 and guide the Bureau 

of Reclamation in water resources 

investments that have similarities to 

Corps water resources investments. 

Other agencies with approved ASPs 

such as EPA, FEMA, and the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service make 

investments in water infrastructure that 

are less similar, although Army did 

review those agencies’ ASPs for 

background and for areas where 

consistency would be appropriate. 

Two key concepts in the PR&G are 

‘‘Federal investment’’ and ‘‘public 

benefit.’’ While the P&G applied to the 

planning and evaluation of alternative 

plans in the formulation and evaluation 

of water and related land resources 

implementation studies, the PR&G does 

not merely apply to studies, but rather 

focuses on Federal water resources 

investments, including projects, plans, 

and programs that the Federal 

government undertakes whose purposes 

either directly or indirectly alter water 

quantity, quality, ecosystems, or related 

land management. The level of a given 

Federal investment would be 

determined on a present value basis 

over the life of the Federal investment 

and the net public benefits of an 

investment would be assessed and used 

to guide Federal decision making. 

Federal water resources investments 

should strive to achieve water resources 

goals and maximize discounted net 

public benefits, with appropriate 

considerations laid out in the PR&G. 

These concepts are described in further 

detail in this preamble. The proposed 

rule ASPs provide a framework for the 

Corps to be used for projects, plans, and 

programs, and in the planning process, 

in implementing the PR&G for water 

resources investments. 

C. Proposed Sections 

Section 234.1 General. This section 

of the proposed rule describes the 

background on development of the 

PR&G as well as the authority for the 

development of the Corps’ ASPs as 

described in the Background section of 

this preamble. Nothing in this proposed 

rule would change any other legal 

requirements to which the Corps is 

subject (e.g., applicable WRDA 

provisions). 

Section 234.2 Definitions. This 

section provides proposed definitions 

for relevant terms used in the ASPs. The 

Army solicits input on additional terms 

that need to be defined or whether the 

definitions proposed require additional 

clarity. 

Section 234.2(a) Acceptability. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

acceptability. This definition is 

provided in the P&R. Acceptability is 

one of four criteria to be considered 

when formulating an alternative. 

Acceptability takes into consideration 

the general public’s perspectives in the 

determination of an alternative’s 

viability and appropriateness and 

ensures consistency with existing 

Federal laws, authorities, and public 

policies. 

Section 234.2(b) Adaptive 

management. This paragraph provides a 

definition for adaptive management. 

This definition is provided in the P&R 

and describes the process to address 

changes, uncertainty, and maximization 

of goals over time. Adaptive 

management should be incorporated 

into alternatives, where warranted, to 

address risk and uncertainty. 

Section 234.2(c) Completeness. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

completeness. This definition is 

provided in the P&R and describes 

when an alternative is complete enough 

to realize the planned effects. 

Completeness does not equate to a 

particular scope or scale to be 

considered complete. Completeness is 

one of four criteria to be considered 

when formulating an alternative. 

Section 234.2(d) Effectiveness. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

effectiveness. This definition is 

provided in the P&R and describes that 

an alternative is effective when it 

alleviates the specific problems and 

achieves the specified opportunities. 

Effectiveness is one of four criteria to be 

considered when formulating an 

alternative. 

Section 234.2(e) Efficiency. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

efficiency. This definition is provided in 

the P&R and describes the extent to 

which a Federal investment is efficient 

such that an alternative may alleviate 

the specified problems and realizes the 

specific opportunities at the least cost. 

Efficiency is similar to effectiveness 

with the additional element of cost 

consideration. The P&R also describes 

how the Federal investment should 

promote water efficiency to the extent 

possible when considering water use. 

Efficiency is one of the four criteria to 

be considered when formulating an 

alternative. 

Section 234.2(f) Federal investment. 

This paragraph provides a definition for 

Federal investment. The ASPs for 

implementing the PR&G are intended to 

assist in designing and evaluating 

potential Corps investments in water 

resources. Federal investments as used 

in PR&G is broad and intended to 

capture a wide array of activities (e.g., 

projects, programs, and plans) that the 

Federal government directly undertakes 

relating to water resources. This 

proposed definition is specific to the 

Corps’ potential Federal investments. 

The P&R does not define Federal 

investments. The P&R includes Federal 

investments that affect water quality or 

water quantity. However, using this 

language may result in confusion. The 

Corps has three main Civil Works 

mission areas (commercial navigation, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12069 

6https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/12/OSTP-CEQ-IK-Guidance.pdf, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

7https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/11/Nature-Based-SolutionsRoadmap.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

flood and storm risk reduction, and 

aquatic ecosystem restoration) and 

generally will not propose a project 

whose primary purpose is outside of 

these main missions. Many Corps flood 

risk management projects can be said to 

affect ‘‘water quantity’’ indirectly, 

insofar as they alter the timing and way 

that water flows in a flood. Similarly, 

many of the dams that the Corps has 

constructed (primarily to reduce flood 

risks or facilitate commercial 

navigation) also can be said to affect 

‘‘water quantity’’ insofar as they store 

water to serve ancillary purposes such 

as hydropower, fish and wildlife, 

recreation, and water supply. With this 

in mind, the Army invites comments on 

whether the language provided in the 

P&R or other language on this issue 

should be included in the rule 

definition. 

Section 234.2(g) Federal objective. 

This paragraph provides a definition for 

Federal objective, which is the 

conceptual goal of Federal investments 

in water resources. This basic definition 

is provided in the P&R but originates in 

the WRDA 2007 where it is further 

detailed in Section 2031 and can be 

found in this proposed regulation at 

section 234.1(b). The Corps would 

develop investment alternatives based 

on the Federal objective. The Federal 

objective should result in investments 

which provide various public benefits, 

including community resilience. 

Section 234.2(h) Indigenous 

Knowledge. This paragraph provides a 

definition for Indigenous Knowledge 

based on the Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Indigenous Knowledge 6. Indigenous 

Knowledge shall be considered in and 

used to inform all aspects of the Corps’ 

ASPs, where relevant and applicable. 

Section 234.2(i) Nature-based 

alternatives. This paragraph provides a 

definition for nature-based alternatives. 

The proposed definition aligns with and 

generally adopts the definition provided 

in the Opportunities to Accelerate 

Nature-based Solutions: A Roadmap for 

Climate Progress, Thriving Nature, 

Equity, & Prosperity 7 issued by the 

Council on Environmental Quality, the 

Office of Domestic Climate Policy, and 

the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy. Consistency with this document 

is important to ensure the Corps 

approach aligns with the other Federal 

water resources agencies involved in 

nature-based solutions. Section 1184 of 

WRDA 2016 provided definitions of 

‘‘natural feature’’ and ‘‘nature-based 

feature’’ specific to providing risk 

reduction. This authorization requires 

the Corps to consider such features, as 

appropriate, in its feasibility studies for 

flood risk management, hurricane and 

storm damage reduction, and ecosystem 

restoration projects, with the consent of 

the non-Federal interest. Section 1149 of 

WRDA 2018 modified Section 1184 of 

WRDA 2016 to include additional 

direction to the Corps on the inclusion 

of such features in flood risk 

management, hurricane and storm 

damage reduction, and aquatic 

ecosystem restoration projects. Section 

116 of WRDA 2020 requires the Corps 

to document the consideration of 

natural and nature-based alternatives in 

the study of flood risk management and 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, 

including estimates of long-term costs 

and benefits of such alternatives. Under 

the proposed regulation, a nature-based 

alternative is entirely comprised of 

nature-based features. The Corps would 

include for consideration in the final 

array of alternatives a nature-based 

alternative, if feasible. Where a naturebased alternative is not feasible or 

would not be fully effective, the Corps 

would consider including in the final 

array an alternative that includes 

nature-based solutions along with other 

features. The Army recognizes that 

nature-based solutions have an 

important place for consideration in 

Civil Works projects but may not be 

appropriate in all circumstances as a 

way to address the subject water 

resources problems. For example, other 

considerations in the proposed ASPs 

may result in the maximization of 

public benefits being achieved through 

an alternative method. The Corps would 

focus on results-driven solutions as 

opposed to dictating one specific 

method over another for addressing the 

water resources solution at hand, with 

appropriate consideration of the net 

benefits. In addition, nature-based 

solutions as components of the other 

alternatives included in the final array 

and as part of any final recommendation 

as part of a comprehensive solution are 

encouraged. 

Section 234.2(j) Non-Federal interest. 

This paragraph provides a definition for 

the non-Federal interest. The proposed 

definition is taken from 42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5(b). The P&R uses the term 

‘‘local interest’’ and does not define 

‘‘non-Federal interest.’’ The P&R 

definition of local interest is a nonFederal entity with some level of 

oversight or implementation 

responsibility associated with a water 

resources investment. Under the P&R, 

the local interest could be a community 

or a state or local government agency, 

for example. For Corps projects, this 

generally would be the non-Federal 

interest. For clarity on the Corps Civil 

Works process and consistency with 

who can legally be a partner on Corps 

projects and/or be responsible for 

operation and maintenance, as well as 

to tailor the PR&G to the Corps 

processes, the Army is proposing to use 

the term ‘‘non-Federal interest’’ rather 

than ‘‘local interest’’ in the proposed 

regulation. However, the Army intends 

for the non-federal interest to fill the 

role of the local interest as identified in 

the PR&G. For many of the flood risk 

management projects that the Corps 

constructs, the non-federal interest 

owns the project and is responsible for 

its operation and maintenance after 

construction. The non-federal interest 

generally also is the cost-share partner 

on the project, which includes having a 

level of oversight and implementation 

responsibility as envisioned in the P&R 

definition of local interest. The Army 

solicits comments on whether equating 

the non-federal interest with the local 

interest is an appropriate approach for 

implementation of this provision of the 

PR&G. The P&R provides that an 

alternative plan, strategy, or action that 

is preferred by a local interest with 

oversight or implementation 

responsibilities must be included in the 

final analysis. Similarly, this proposed 

regulation provides that an alternative 

that is locally preferred (i.e., the 

alternative preferred by the non-federal 

interest) must be included in the final 

array of alternatives. The Army also 

recognizes that the planning process is 

shared with the non-Federal interest 

and solicits recommendations on how 

best the ASPs can incorporate and 

identify the role of the non-Federal 

interest in the process. 

Section 234.2(k) Nonstructural 

alternative. This paragraph provides a 

definition for nonstructural alternative. 

A nonstructural alternative is entirely 

comprised of nonstructural approaches. 

The proposed regulation would require 

the Corps to include for consideration in 

the final array of alternatives a 

nonstructural solution, if feasible. 

Where a nonstructural solution is not 

feasible or would not be fully effective, 

the Corps would include for 

consideration in the final array an 

alternative that is primarily 

nonstructural, if feasible. 

Section 234.2(l) Nonstructural 

approaches. This paragraph provides a 

definition for nonstructural approaches. 

This definition is provided in the P&R; 

however, illustrative examples were 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/11/Nature-Based-SolutionsRoadmap.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 9https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/09/National-Climate-ResilienceFramework-FINAL.pdf, last accessed January 31, 

2024. 10https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/11/M-24-03-Advancing-ClimateResilience-through-Climate-Smart-InfrastructureInvestments.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

added for clarity. These examples are 

not intended to be limiting but instead 

provide a sense of the types of actions 

which fall under nonstructural 

approaches. The Army solicits comment 

on whether these are appropriate 

examples and context for the term 

‘‘nonstructural’’ or whether 

modifications should be made to any 

final definition or list. The 

nonstructural approaches are intended 

to apply across the Corps missions and 

activities that are subject to the PR&G. 

Nonstructural approaches are methods 

and practices employed to alter the use 

of existing infrastructure through 

human activities as opposed to altering 

physical interaction of water and land. 

Nonstructural approaches can include 

things like policy modifications or 

floodproofing of existing infrastructure. 

Alternatively, structural approaches 

would include things such as new 

construction of water resources 

infrastructure or structural modification 

to enlarge an existing dam or levee. As 

referenced under the nature-based 

alternative definition discussion in the 

preamble, various WRDA provisions 

require the Corps to incorporate 

nonstructural and nature-based 

solutions in plan formulation. Army 

solicits comment on whether this 

proposed definition best meets or 

enables the implementation of the PR&G 

to achieve long-term planning goals and 

objectives of the PR&G, including the 

avoidance of the unwise use of 

floodplains and the Guiding Principle of 

healthy and resilient ecosystems. 

Section 234.2(m) Public benefits. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

public benefits. Public benefits 

encompass economic, environmental, 

and social benefits, and include those 

that can currently be quantified in 

monetary terms, as well as those that 

can be quantified or described 

qualitatively. The PR&G provides for the 

maximization of public benefits relative 

to costs. This definition is provided in 

the P&R. In comparison, the P&G 

Federal objective of water and related 

land resources project planning is to 

contribute to national economic 

development (NED) (or national 

ecosystem restoration (NER) for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration), consistent with 

protecting the Nation’s environment, 

pursuant to national environmental 

statutes, applicable executive orders, 

and other Federal planning 

requirements. Contributions to NED 

under P&G are increases in the net value 

of the national output of goods and 

services, expressed in monetary units 

and are the direct net benefits that 

accrue in the planning area and the rest 

of the Nation. Contributions to NED 

include increases in the net value of 

those goods and services that are 

marketed, and also of those that are not 

marketed. 

A particular alternative may create 

changes that result in benefits in more 

than one benefit category; however, the 

Corps would assign the benefits to the 

most appropriate category and thereby 

avoid double counting. The definition is 

not intended to be construed as 

privately driven benefits, but rather for 

the general public reflecting the goals of 

the nation. Typically, public benefits 

(like public goods) are available to all 

(nonexcludable) and are non-rivalrous. 

Generally, these benefits are intended to 

accrue to society as a whole and not 

solely for the benefit of certain private 

persons or entities, although private 

persons or entities may ultimately 

benefit (e.g., reduction in private 

property damages as a result of a coastal 

storm risk management project). Costsavings to industry as a whole (e.g., 

navigation industry), for example, 

benefit society and therefore would be 

accounted for in the analysis. In 

addition, avoided property damages and 

life safety would also be accounted for 

as public benefits although they benefit 

individuals as well. Benefits which may 

be viewed as more local in nature are 

reflected in the ASPs through the use of 

the watershed-based approach that 

considers the benefits of water resources 

for a wide range of stakeholders within 

and around the watershed, through 

collaboration and coordination with 

communities and local governments, as 

well as including the locally preferred 

alternative identified in the final array. 

The Army solicits comment on how 

benefits to Tribal Nations should be 

described, such as whether benefits to 

Tribal Nations should be considered as 

a Federal trust responsibility, and 

whether Tribal Nation benefits should 

be called out separately from the 

overarching ‘‘public benefits.’’ 

Section 234.2(n) Regulatory. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

regulatory. This definition is provided 

in the P&R and is a general definition of 

actions which are regulatory in nature 

promulgated by the Federal government. 

Regulatory can include the 

promulgation of regulations as well as 

other activities such as permit 

decisions. 

Section 234.2(o) Resilience. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

resilience. This definition is provided in 

the P&R and can be applied to many 

different areas within the proposed rule 

such as climate resilience, including 

grid resilience when relevant, ecosystem 

resilience, and water resilience, 

regarding how climate, ecosystems, and 

water responds to changes. The 

resilience of a water resource solution 

should be considered in alternatives 

analysis and tradeoffs discussion. The 

Corps implements four principles 

related to resilience: prepare, absorb, 

recover, and adapt. There is also a 

definition provided for resilience in 

Executive Order 13653 (78 FR 66817), 

which the Corps currently uses in its 

Resilience Initiative.8 The definition 

provides that resilience is the ability to 

anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to 

changing conditions and withstand, 

respond to, and recover rapidly from 

disruptions. This definition can have 

application to both natural and humanmade entities. In addition, there is a 

definition of resilience provided in the 

National Climate Resilience 

Framework 9 as well as in M–24–03, 

Advancing Climate Resilience through 

Climate-Smart Infrastructure 

Investments and Implementation 

Guidance for the Disaster Resiliency 

Planning Act.10 The Army solicits 

comment on whether the resilience 

definition provided in the Executive 

Order or the National Climate Resilience 

Framework or M–24–03 should be 

included in the regulation instead of or 

in addition to the proposed definition. 

The Army also solicits comment on 

whether additional concepts from these 

documents should be included in the 

rule, and if so, in what manner related 

to the use of resilience in the rule. The 

usage of the Corps’ definition would be 

more efficient in implementation as it is 

familiar to the Corps and more directly 

relates to Corps missions; however, the 

proposed definition would be consistent 

with the PR&G and would apply 

resilience in a broader sense. There are 

areas discussed in the PR&G related to 

resilience that go beyond climate-related 

resilience. 

Section 234.2(p) Sustainable. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

sustainable. This definition is provided 

in the P&R and refers to the conditions 

where humans and nature are able to 

coexist. The P&R generally uses the term 

‘‘sustainable’’ in the context of seeking 

to maximize sustainable economic 

development, which is one component 

to achieve the Federal objective. 

Investments in sustainable economic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12071 

development contribute to the Nation’s 

resilience. The P&R also provides that 

alternative solutions should improve the 

economic well-being of the Nation 

through the sustainable use and 

management of water resources 

ensuring both water supply and water 

quantity. Sustainability would also 

incorporate the maximization of net 

benefits while fully considering the 

option of, and value of, preserving 

resources for future uses or non-uses, 

and fully considering the preferences of 

future generations through appropriate 

analytical timeframes and discount 

rates. 

Section 234.2(q) Tribal Nation. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

Tribal Nation. This definition is 

consistent with the Federal 

government’s definition and 

identification of a Tribal Nation by the 

Secretary of Interior. This definition is 

also used and applied to other Corps 

programs, such as the Tribal Partnership 

Program. The Army recognizes that 

there are other Indigenous populations, 

Native Hawaiian Organizations, and 

non-federally recognized Tribes which 

may not meet the definition as 

proposed, and solicits comments on 

whether these populations should be 

defined separately for purposes of the 

PR&G. Regardless of definitions and 

legal authorities applied to the Civil 

Works programs, the Corps would 

ensure full outreach and coordination 

occurs with all Tribal Nations, 

Indigenous populations, Native 

Hawaiian Organizations, and nonfederally recognized Tribes as relevant 

to a particular water resources 

investment as described in the preamble 

discussion under paragraph 234.6(d). 

Such outreach and coordination would 

be separate from government-togovernment consultation requirements. 

Many of these include communities 

having environmental justice concerns. 

Environmental justice is one of the 

Guiding Principles of the PR&G and this 

proposed rule. 

Section 234.2(r) Unwise use of 

floodplain. This paragraph provides a 

definition for unwise use of floodplain. 

This definition is provided in the P&R 

and describes conditions which result 

in a floodplain that is no longer selfsustaining. Seeking to avoid the unwise 

use of floodplains is also a component 

of how to achieve the Federal objective. 

The appropriate floodplain per this 

definition and application under the 

proposed ASPs is case-specific and 

should consider the scope and scale of 

the problem and potential benefits when 

determining the geographic boundary. 

Per the P&R, Federal actions should 

seek to reduce the Nation’s vulnerability 

to floods and storms. Unwise uses 

include those that would significantly 

increase or shift flood risks to other 

populated areas, or otherwise would 

result in net adverse impacts to human 

health, safety, welfare, property, natural 

resources, or the natural and beneficial 

functions of floodplains (e.g., natural 

water storage, water filtration, 

groundwater infiltration, sediment 

retention). The Army solicits comment 

on how evaluations of self-sustainment 

may occur in occupied or inhabited 

floodplains. 

Section 234.2(s) Watershed. This 

paragraph provides a definition for 

watershed. This general definition for 

watershed is provided in the P&R and 

does not go into detail regarding a 

specific method or size to identify a 

watershed. Using a watershed approach 

is a Principle under P&R to ensure a 

more holistic view of the problem and 

potential solutions. The appropriate size 

of watershed to assess is case-specific 

and should consider the scope and scale 

of the problem and potential benefits 

when determining the geographic 

boundary. 

Section 234.3 Exceptions. The 

proposed ASPs describe a way to 

request an exception to the rules or 

policies contained in the Corps’ 

proposed ASPs. The exception must be 

submitted in writing and the decisionmaker is the ASA(CW). As there are 

already proposed exemptions for the 

application of the PR&G laid out in the 

proposed rule as well as different levels 

of analysis proposed based on specific 

thresholds, the Army believes that 

exception requests would be a rare 

circumstance. In addition, since Army 

intends for PR&G to apply to those nonexempt programs and areas specified in 

the proposed rule, the ASA(CW) is the 

appropriate decision-maker level for 

approving exceptions. 

Section 234.4 Objectives and 

applicability. 

Section 234.4(a) Introduction. This 

paragraph of the proposed rule states 

the goals and objectives of the Corps’ 

ASPs. The proposed rule would help 

ensure consistency and transparency in 

implementation of the PR&G by the 

Corps. The common framework 

provided in the ASPs will drive that 

consistency and codifying the ASPs in 

regulation would ensure transparency 

for the public, as well as an opportunity 

for review and comment prior to 

finalization through the rulemaking 

process. The Corps has various guidance 

documents for its water resources 

development project planning process, 

but the proposed ASPs would ensure all 

projects, plans, and programs subject to 

the PR&G are using the same Guiding 

Principles and considerations in 

developing alternatives and 

recommendations. Upon finalization of 

any rule regarding the Corps’ ASPs, the 

Corps would review its existing 

guidance documents and rescind, 

modify, or develop new guidance as 

needed to comport with and further the 

objectives of the Corps’ ASPs. However, 

these proposed ASPs are intended to 

stand on their own regarding the overall 

framework and provide the guideposts 

for the Corps when implementing the 

PR&G. Comments are solicited which 

may help identify where additional 

details may be warranted in any final 

rule and preamble and where additional 

specific technical tools or 

methodologies may be warranted in 

follow-on Corps guidance documents. 

Section 234.4(b) Objectives for 

Federal water resources investments. 

This paragraph of the proposed rule 

provides the Federal objective for 

Federal water resources investments as 

provided in WRDA 2007 (Pub. L. 110– 

114 section 2031, 42 U.S.C. 1962–3) and 

elaborates on the definition of Federal 

objective provided at 234.2(l). The 

WRDA 2007 also described more 

specifically how to accomplish the 

Federal objective. The Federal 

investments must reflect national 

priorities, encourage economic 

development, and protect the 

environment by seeking to maximize 

sustainable economic development; by 

seeking to avoid the unwise use of 

floodplains; and by protecting and 

restoring the functions of natural 

systems and mitigating unavoidable 

impacts. Consideration of the Guiding 

Principles and the application of the 

Requirements in P&R through 

development of Federal water resources 

investment decisions assists in 

achieving the Federal objective. The 

WRDA provision did not provide a 

hierarchy for how to accomplish the 

objective nor does this proposed rule. 

National priorities may include 

general priorities (e.g., health and 

safety) but can also include more 

specific priorities that emerge and may 

evolve over time. There are also often 

multiple national priorities at any one 

time, all of which should be considered 

and reflected in Federal water resources 

investments to the extent relevant. Such 

priorities can be found in enacted laws 

and Administration priorities and are 

informed by stakeholder and 

community engagements. The Corps 

would also fulfill their Tribal trust 

responsibilities under applicable 

treaties. 

For example, the PR&G calls for 

sustained economic development 

through building more resilient 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

communities. The Federal water 

resources investments also must protect 

and restore the environment, where 

applicable, as part of the effort to 

maximize net public benefits to society. 

This protection and restoration could be 

achieved partly via improvements made 

to the environment through the 

proposed action, compliance with 

applicable environmental laws and 

regulations, including/or through the 

avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation sequencing applied to 

impacts to the water resources 

environment, and through assuring the 

greatest provision of ecosystem services 

achievable that protects public health 

and welfare. 

One means to accomplish the Federal 

objective is to seek to maximize 

sustainable economic development. As 

described in the definitions section of 

the proposed rule at 234.2(y), 

sustainable economic development 

would provide the conditions where the 

coexistence of humans and nature 

flourishes. Sustainable economic 

development would improve the 

national welfare through investments 

that improve national economic 

efficiency, but not at the expense of the 

water resources. Rather, economic 

activity would proceed in such a 

manner that is not negatively impacting 

the sustainability of the water resources 

environment. In some cases, for 

example, nature-based solutions may be 

both more resilient and maximize net 

public benefits. The sustainable 

economic development Guiding 

Principle is further described in Section 

234.6(c)(5) of the proposed rule and 

preamble. 

In accordance with WRDA 2007, 

another means to accomplish the 

Federal objective is through seeking to 

avoid the unwise use of floodplains and 

flood-prone areas. This Guiding 

Principle is also further described in 

Section 234.6(c)(2) of the proposed rule 

and preamble. The key principle is to 

avoid actions that result in a reduction 

in public health and safety or result in 

a floodplain that is no longer selfsustaining. However, it is important to 

recognize that many Corps Civil Works 

water resources development projects 

are out of necessity located in 

floodplains and are not considered an 

unwise use of floodplains simply due to 

their location. The Corps will strive to 

sustain the floodplains natural and 

beneficial functions to the maximum 

extent practicable in light of the 

project’s purpose. For example, public 

health and safety are considered in the 

evaluation and formulation 

development of a proposed Corps water 

resources development project, but this 

sometimes may result in a project that 

does not fully contribute to the 

sustainment of floodplain natural and 

beneficial functions. 

The last means to accomplish the 

Federal objective provides that the 

Corps shall protect and restore the 

functions of natural systems and 

mitigate any unavoidable damage to 

natural systems. This concept is 

embedded in the Corps’ compliance 

with environmental laws and 

regulations, such as the Clean Water Act 

and NEPA. In general, the Corps aims to 

improve environmental conditions 

when possible, and when not possible, 

sequences consideration of mitigation 

related to potential damages as 

avoidance, minimization, and 

compensatory mitigation. Certain Corps 

water resources development projects 

have the goal to restore and protect 

aquatic ecosystems as their primary 

purpose, such as aquatic ecosystem 

restoration projects under Section 206 of 

WRDA 1996 (Pub. L. 104–303), as 

amended. 

Section 234.4(c) Net public benefits. 

This paragraph of the proposed rule 

describes the net public benefits to 

society, which are to be maximized. Net 

public benefits are to be used to justify 

water resources development projects 

per WRDA 2007. Per the P&R, public 

benefits encompass three goals— 

economic, environmental, and social. In 

addition, public benefits include those 

that can be described in monetary terms, 

and those that can be quantified or 

described using other terms. The IG 

provides as a key aspect stating that the 

environmental, economic, and social 

impacts are interrelated, and there is no 

hierarchy among their goals in a PR&G 

analysis. In addition, the P&R provides 

that solutions to water resource needs 

may produce varying degrees of effects 

relative to environmental, economic, 

and social goals and that no hierarchal 

relationship exists among these three 

goals. As a result, tradeoffs among 

potential solutions will need to be 

assessed and communicated during the 

decision making process. All key 

benefits and effects relevant to the 

investment decision would be displayed 

and given consideration. For a 

particular water resources development 

project, the Corps study would take into 

consideration the given study purpose 

and specific water resource challenge to 

appropriately identify and assess 

benefits and effects across the categories 

which will naturally vary across Corps 

studies. 

Federal investments in water 

resources have been mostly based on 

economic performance assessments 

under the P&G, which largely focus on 

investments that will improve national 

economic efficiency. This focus on 

national economic gains sometimes 

resulted in an unduly narrow benefitcost comparison of the monetized and 

quantified effects. The P&G provided 

that contributions to NED would be 

expressed in monetary units. Although 

the benefits in the other three accounts 

were included in the overall analysis 

and available to decision-makers under 

the P&G, they often, with some 

exceptions (e.g., aquatic ecosystem 

restoration studies and dam safety 

studies), were not the key drivers in the 

final decision-making as compared to 

the monetized and quantified national 

economic efficiency effects. 

The PR&G emphasizes that relevant 

environmental, social and economic 

effects should all be considered and that 

both quantified and unquantified 

information will form the basis for 

evaluating and comparing potential 

Federal investments in water resources 

to the Federal objective. The ASPs make 

clear that the Corps will use monetized 

and quantified data to the extent 

practicable, but that unquantified 

information will be fully considered as 

well. This more integrated approach 

would allow decision-makers to view a 

more complete range of effects of 

alternative actions and lead to more 

socially beneficial investments. See 

preamble sections 234.9 and 10 for 

further discussion on the use of 

unquantified data and decision-making. 

A separate distributional analysis can 

be utilized to examine regional 

economic benefits. The P&G included 

regional economic development as one 

of four ‘‘accounts’’ for facilitating 

evaluation and display of effects of 

alternative plans. As stated in the 

Background section, the RED account 

registered changes in the distribution of 

economic activity that result from each 

alternative plan. These economic effects 

amount to a transfer of resources from 

one part of the Nation to another (either 

from one region of the country to 

another, or within a region). They 

accrue in a local area or region but are 

offset by equivalent losses elsewhere in 

the country. 

The PR&G implementation would 

include other potentially important 

distributional effects, including 

environmental and social effects 

considerations at the regional level. The 

non-federal interest and local 

organizations and communities can 

provide valuable information to inform 

these assessments for a proposed water 

resources investment, providing that 

local knowledge and valuation as the 

Corps seeks to identify more of a 

community-driven solution under the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12073 

implementation of the ASPs than what 

is implemented under the current P&G 

policy. 

Having a more holistic view and 

recognition that water resources 

development projects can provide a 

multitude of benefits allows for the 

whole story to be told regarding 

alternatives being considered for 

Federal water resources investments. 

For example, this more holistic view 

will enable more informed decisionmaking for Federal investments to truly 

identify in the final array of alternatives 

what will best enable resilience for the 

Tribal Nation, when applicable, or the 

community, the region, and the Nation. 

Public benefits also include 

consideration of public assets that 

contribute to community resilience, 

such as by reducing the flood risk to 

property, housing, and other existing 

infrastructure, etc. 

Some benefits may be difficult to 

bucket into a category of economic, 

environmental, or social. Analysts are 

encouraged to be as specific as possible, 

and when categories cannot easily be 

assigned, and to describe the relevance 

when evaluating alternatives. Double 

counting should be avoided. If benefits 

appear to accrue to more than one 

category, development of logic models, 

exploration with experts or other 

methods can help specify benefits 

further and parse effects into different 

categories, representing the full set of 

effects and avoiding double counting. In 

addition, when economic, 

environmental, and social goals 

compete, the Corps would describe such 

instances and include the 

considerations in the tradeoff analysis 

(see 234.10(b)). The important 

component is to consider 

complementary and consistent 

formulation of the various benefits. 

Army solicits comment on whether net 

public benefits should be described 

without the additional step to categorize 

them into economic, environmental, 

and social in order to display all 

benefits in their entirety without the 

risk of double-counting or having to 

identify a specific benefit category when 

there may be overlap. 

Army is also soliciting comments on 

whether it should be acknowledged that 

Tribal benefits are part of the Tribal 

trust responsibility in implementing the 

PR&G and whether Tribal benefits 

should be called out separately from 

‘‘public benefits’’. In addition, in many 

circumstances, Indigenous Knowledge 

can be used to inform the benefits that 

may accrue as a result of any given 

alternative providing more transparency 

on the entirety of benefits provided to 

better inform decision making. 

Some benefits are also difficult to 

monetize or quantify, for example, nonuse values of wildlife loss (e.g., 

existence or bequest values), or some 

culturally valued experiences (e.g., 

spiritual connection to nature and 

option to lead a subsistence way of life). 

In this particular area, we solicit 

comments as to approaches and tools 

that may be employed to best enable the 

Corps to have consistent and 

transparent implementation, including 

through the use of any final guidance 

provided by the Office of Management 

and Budget on ecosystem services in 

response to its August 2, 2023 proposal 

(88 FR 50912). 

The quantification of benefits relates 

to several evolving fields and new 

methods may develop over time. The 

PR&G and the Corps’ proposed ASPs 

emphasize that benefits should be 

monetized when possible, quantified 

when they cannot be monetized, and 

described when neither monetization 

nor quantification is possible with 

available methodologies and data. 

Where qualitative descriptions and 

analysis are used, they should be of 

sufficient detail and quality to enable 

the decision-maker to make informed 

decisions. In addition, the Army solicits 

comment on whether life safety benefits 

should be specifically identified, and if 

so, under which of the three ASPs 

benefits category, social, environmental, 

or economic category (see Section 

234.9(c) for additional information on 

these categories). 

Under the ASPs, consideration of the 

range of benefits (economic, 

environmental, and social benefits) is 

the integral component of the planning 

process. The process should look 

beyond simply starting with the 

National Economic Development/ 

National Ecosystem Restoration plan 

and then only filling in the other 

requirements of the ASPs when those 

benefits are needed for project 

justification. 

Development of a comprehensive plan 

to address the water resources challenge 

must begin in the earliest phases of the 

planning process and would continue 

throughout the process, as detailed 

through the Federal objective, Guiding 

Principles, and planning process 

framework provided in this proposed 

rule. There may also be instances where 

the Corps’ existing tools and resources 

in calculating the four P&G accounts, 

national economic development, 

regional economic development, 

environmental quality, and other social 

effects, may still be relevant in 

implementing the PR&G, where 

appropriate. 

Section 234.4(d) Applicability. This 

proposed rule paragraph describes the 

projects and programs that must use the 

PR&G framework and outlines those 

projects and programs that are excluded 

from performing a PR&G analysis. 

Essentially the PR&G will apply to all 

Corps projects and programs that are not 

identified as excluded in 234.4(d)(2). 

Per the PR&G, it was never intended 

that PR&G apply to all projects and 

programs for water resources agencies 

and the list of exclusions is consistent 

with the PR&G exclusions and 

applicability discussion. The Army 

invites comment on additional projects 

and programs that should be covered 

under the PR&G or, conversely, 

additional projects and programs to 

which the PR&G should not apply. The 

proposed excluded projects and 

programs either fall below the 

thresholds identified in Table 1 of the 

proposed rule, or are considered to be 

small and routine such that it would not 

be appropriate to have the PR&G apply. 

This does not mean that those projects 

or programs do not have to follow the 

relevant laws, regulations, and general 

planning processes simply because they 

are excluded from PR&G. Even though 

such projects or programs would be 

excluded from the full application of the 

ASPs and the PR&G, those projects and 

programs should still strive to meet the 

intent of the ASPs by applying similar 

concepts where relevant. With respect 

to a project or program that meets a 

NEPA categorical exclusion, such 

exclusion does not automatically trigger 

an exclusion for application of the 

PR&G. However, many of these projects 

and programs may meet the terms of an 

exclusion under both NEPA and the 

proposed ASPs. 

Also, the proposed ASPs would also 

apply to non-Federal interests who 

undertake feasibility studies, such as 

under Section 203 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended. The WRDA provisions, as 

amended, provide that the study, and 

the process under which the study was 

developed and conducted by a nonFederal interest would be reviewed by 

the Secretary to determine whether it 

complies with Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to feasibility 

studies of water resources development 

projects. These would include this 

proposed rule. 

In proposed paragraph 234.4(d)(2), 

some actions that are excluded under 

the PR&G for the Corps’ proposed ASPs 

include the Corps’ Regulatory Program 

as well as Section 408 actions as there 

is no proposed Federal water resources 

investment being considered. As 

provided in section 14 of the River and 

Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

amended (33 U.S.C. 408), the Section 

408 process serves to ensure that an 

action proposed by another entity (a 

party other than the Corps) for the 

temporary or permanent alteration or 

use of a civil works project will not be 

injurious to the public interest and will 

not impair the usefulness of that Corps 

project. Regulatory actions are listed in 

the Interagency Guidelines as excluded 

activities. However, this exclusion does 

not apply to regulatory compliance 

actions related to activities that are 

subject to the PR&G, such as compliance 

with the Endangered Species Act. Real 

estate actions of the Corps, such as 

easement decisions on existing Corps 

lands and land disposal actions, are also 

proposed to be excluded as these also 

do not result in a proposed Federal 

water resources investment. Technical 

services programs, such as Planning 

Assistance to States and Flood Plain 

Management Services, are also proposed 

to be excluded as these programs 

support state and local water resources 

planning efforts, rather than a proposed 

Federal water resources investment. 

Similarly, these actions were excluded 

under P&G as they do not develop 

Federal water resources planning 

studies. 

The Corps’ PL 84–99 Program is also 

proposed to be excluded from the PR&G 

as the program provides for emergency 

activities prior to, during, and after a 

flood event. The framework for the 

PR&G generally is not well suited for 

this program, under which the Corps 

prepares for, responds to, and assists 

certain eligible communities in their 

recovery after a flood or other natural 

disaster. The Army solicits comment on 

whether modifications allowed under 

the PL 84–99 program should not be 

excluded from the PR&G. Emergency 

actions in general under the Corps’ 

disaster response emergency operations 

are to be excluded from the PR&G as a 

different set of procedures and 

considerations must be employed in 

responses to emergencies, rather than a 

traditional planning-type process. The 

Interagency Guidelines provides that 

short-term actions to remove immediate 

danger to public health and safety or 

prevent imminent harm to property or 

the environment should be excluded. 

This would not apply to longer-term 

actions to rehabilitate damaged 

resources or prepare for future 

emergencies. 

Also proposed to be excluded is the 

Corps’ implementation of its Water 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act (WIFIA) program. The criteria for 

that program are included in the final 

rule issued for this program (88 FR 

32661). In general, the Corps’ WIFIA 

program is authorized to provide credit 

assistance in the form of direct loans 

and loan guarantees for investments by 

non-Federal interests to address dam 

safety concerns at their non-Federal 

dams. Corps water resources 

development projects are not eligible for 

funding under WIFIA and the program 

is limited to financial assistance for 

non-federal dam safety projects, so the 

PR&G would not apply. Similarly, 

environmental infrastructure projects 

are proposed to be excluded. The Corps 

may provide funding to certain of these 

non-federal projects such as wastewater 

treatment systems where authorized by 

law. These also are generally smallerscale projects. 

In addition, land management plans 

are proposed to be excluded from 

implementing the PR&G for the Corps. 

Land management plans are broadly 

used to guide the management and 

development of recreational, natural, 

and cultural resources on Corps project 

lands throughout the life of the Corps 

project. The Interagency Guidelines also 

provides that there may be existing 

agency procedures that meet the 

purpose and intent of the PR&G for 

Federal investments, which includes 

land management planning processes. 

The Corps’ development of land 

management plans is subject to such 

equivalent procedures. 

Also, operations and maintenance 

(O&M) activities carried out in a manner 

consistent with an existing O&M 

manual or O&M plan for an authorized 

project would be excluded under the 

proposed rule from the PR&G. The 

original O&M envisioned by the original 

project authorization would be 

considered and evaluated under the 

ASPs in the investment decision making 

process. In the absence of changed 

conditions, activities that are generally 

expected as part of normal, planned 

operations may be excluded from PR&G 

analysis using an appropriate threshold 

if they have been analyzed during the 

original project or program analysis and 

are consistent with the existing 

approved O&M manual or O&M plan. 

Compliance with other Federal statutes 

and laws would still be required. 

However, the PR&G would apply when 

significant changes to O&M plans are 

proposed or changes to meet new goals 

are proposed that raise additional 

considerations for water resources 

investments. 

Two other types of activities proposed 

to be excluded from the PR&G for the 

Corps are monitoring (e.g., water quality 

monitoring or fish monitoring) and 

research. Such activities may be used to 

inform Federal investments in a 

proposed or existing water resources 

development project, but they are not 

water resources development projects or 

investment decisions themselves. The 

Interagency Guidelines provide that the 

PR&G is not intended to include data 

collection, except insofar as its purpose 

is to inform an investment decision 

involving permanent site-specific 

actions. 

The Corps’ Interagency and 

International Support and Support for 

Others program actions are also 

proposed to be excluded. In addition, 

these actions are provided on a 

reimbursable basis and as such are 

assistance to other programs and not 

part of Federal investments as other 

activities covered under the proposed 

ASPs. The Corps performs these 

activities on a reimbursable basis. All of 

the work that the Corps performs under 

this program is requested by other 

agencies, which pay the Corps the full 

cost of providing these services. For 

example, on a reimbursable basis, the 

Corps provides technical assistance 

under this program to non-DoD Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, 

Tribal Nations, private U.S. firms, 

international organizations, and foreign 

governments. The Corps also provides 

engineering and construction services, 

environmental restoration and 

management services, research and 

development assistance, management of 

water and land related natural 

resources, relief and recovery work, and 

other management and technical 

services. While some of this work may 

be related to a water resources 

investment by another Federal agency, it 

is not related to an investment decision 

by the Corps and, as such, is not 

covered under the proposed ASPs. 

Although excluded from the ASPs, the 

Corps’ international programs are 

subject to other international 

environmental requirements and DoD 

environmental commitments. 

In addition, those projects, programs, 

or plans that meet the threshold criteria 

in the proposed Table 1 for exclusions 

are generally for routine investments. In 

most cases, these investments would not 

have significant adverse effects on water 

resources. Also included in the 

proposed list of exclusions are those 

programs, plans, or projects which fall 

under an exception at 234.3. 

The Army solicits comment on 

whether additional exclusions should 

be added, such as dredged material 

management plans, the Tribal 

Partnership Program, the Continuing 

Authorities Program, and Major 

Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports due to 

scope, scale, level of investment, project 

partner, technical nature of product, etc. 

Some of these also have programmatic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12075 

11See Circulars A–4 and A–94 for more 

information. 

authorizations from Congress (i.e., 

Tribal Partnership Program and 

Continuing Authorities Program) and as 

such will not follow the full planning 

process provided in the proposed ASPs 

as they do not result in a 

recommendation to the Congress. In 

addition, the Army solicits comment on 

whether any of the actions identified as 

proposed exclusions in the rule should 

not be excluded, in which case the ASPs 

would apply to them. Also, the Army 

solicits comment on whether watershed 

studies should be specifically included 

to ensure that they align with the goals 

of the PR&G and result in better 

outcomes for integrated water resources 

management. These studies do not fit 

into the categories described above and 

additional clarity may be needed as to 

whether they are covered under the 

PR&G. Section 729 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended, and other specifically 

authorized watershed authorities allow 

the Corps to study the water resources 

needs of river basins and regions of the 

United States, in consultation with 

federal, state, tribal, interstate and local 

governmental entities. These studies go 

beyond project planning for specific 

Corps projects towards more 

comprehensive and strategic evaluations 

and analyses that include diverse 

political, geographic, physical, 

institutional, technical, and stakeholder 

considerations. Watershed planning 

addresses identified water resources 

problems and opportunities from any 

source, regardless of agency 

responsibilities, and provides a shared 

vision of a desired end state that may 

include recommendations for potential 

involvement by the Corps, other federal 

agencies, or non-federal interests. 

Generally, Corps watershed studies do 

not result in a water resources 

investment recommendation. Instead, 

they highlight more strategic actions, 

some of which may not be a Corps of 

Engineers responsibility. The three main 

Civil Works missions of the Corps are: 

commercial navigation, flood and storm 

damage reduction, and aquatic 

ecosystem restoration. The Army 

solicits comment on whether Corps 

watershed studies should be excluded 

from the PR&G. 

234.5 Level of analysis. This section 

of the proposed rule describes and 

defines the next step in the PR&G 

process under the Corps’ proposed 

ASPs. Once a decision is made that the 

PR&G applies under 234.4, the next step 

is to determine what level of analysis 

should be applied. 

Section 234.5(a) Standard and scaled 

level of analysis. There are two levels of 

analysis under the PR&G that are 

proposed to be applied based on the 

scope and magnitude of the proposed 

projects, programs, or plans; and the 

significance of the Federal investment 

in terms of dollar value and potential 

environmental impacts. The different 

levels of analysis allow for investment 

decisions to be made effectively and 

efficiently. Just as not all investment 

decisions must trigger the application of 

the PR&G, not all investment decisions 

that do trigger the PR&G must require 

in-depth, extensive analysis. Many 

small, routine activities would be 

excluded from the PR&G analysis under 

the proposed rule (refer to 234.4(d)(2)) 

such as small-scale Tribal Partnership 

Program projects or routine investments 

in invasive species removal, while 

activities that are somewhat broader in 

scope but pose minimal risks are 

proposed to be subject to a scaled PR&G 

analysis, and those activities with larger 

potential impacts would be subject to a 

standard analysis. A scaled PR&G 

analysis would generally include fewer 

alternatives with a more streamlined 

formulation process and justification 

procedures than a standard analysis, 

while still adhering to the PR&G and 

resulting in a systematic decision. A 

scaled analysis reflects the scope and 

complexity of the problem being 

assessed. The proposed ASPs include 

Table 1, which provides the monetary 

threshold criteria for a general guideline 

to be used for identifying the types of 

projects, programs, or plans and their 

corresponding levels of analysis. The 

Army solicits comment on whether the 

proposed rule language regarding 

benefits/cost analysis in this section is 

adequate or whether additional content 

or examples is needed in the rule text. 

Various types of acceptable economic 

analyses and benefit categories may be 

applied,11 such as transportation rate 

savings, damages reduced, next least 

costly alternatives, commercial fishing, 

recreation benefits, etc. In addition, 

there are measurement standards by 

which such analysis may adhere, such 

as net changes to the ecosystem goods 

and services provisioned by the 

environment. The Corps would use best 

professional judgement in determining 

what is relevant to consider. Early 

engagement can also assist the Corps in 

providing considerations to inform 

selection of methodologies and benefit 

categories. 

For scaled analysis, the rule proposes 

that methods reliant on secondary data 

sources may more frequently be used 

(e.g., benefit function transfer methods, 

expert opinion, proxy valuations, 

windshield analysis). Those same tools 

may also be used in the application of 

the standard level of analysis when 

appropriate. The Army would also use 

various modeling techniques for the 

cost-benefit analysis when appropriate. 

The Army solicits comments on the 

types of analyses that may best be used 

to evaluate the full range of public 

benefits under both standard and scaled 

level of analyses. 

Section 234.5(b) Determining the 

appropriate level of analysis. This 

paragraph of the proposed rule 

describes the process for determining 

the appropriate level of analysis for the 

PR&G. In addition to the considerations 

and descriptions provided in 234.5(a) 

for the scaled and standard analysis, as 

well as the criteria provided in the 

proposed Table 1 to be used as a general 

guide, the proposed ASPs note that 

professional judgment and available 

resources are also important factors in 

determining the appropriate levels of 

analysis. In some scenarios where a 

potential investment may meet the 

threshold criteria in the proposed Table 

1 for a scaled analysis, based on 

considerations such as environmental or 

Tribal trust responsibilities or 

uncertainty in the information to be 

used in a decision, it may be best to 

conduct a standard analysis. And a 

similar scenario could occur in the 

reverse circumstances, such as where a 

potential investment meets the 

threshold criteria for a standard analysis 

but due to the routine nature or lack of 

complexity a scaled analysis may be 

more appropriate. This is not 

envisioned to be a common scenario. 

Even if a potential investment may 

otherwise meet the criteria to be 

excluded from the PR&G under the 

proposed Table 1, there may be 

circumstances that would nonetheless 

trigger analysis under the PR&G. Some 

areas to consider when making 

deviations from the criteria thresholds 

listed in the proposed Table 1 include: 

magnitude and significance of specific 

problems and opportunities the 

investment seeks to address; 

significance of natural resources within 

the study area; significance of the 

environmental justice concerns; 

magnitude and significance of expected 

impacts of the investment; expected 

investment scale and/or costs; 

complexity or significance in science, 

engineering, or resource management; 

projected service or operational life of 

the project or facility; stakeholder 

concerns; authority under which the 

investment decision/recommendation is 

made; uncertainty in decision variables 

and resulting risk exposure; degree of 

performance or irreversibility of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

potential investment decision; nature 

and extent of Tribal trust 

responsibilities in the study area; or, 

cumulative effects of, or controversy 

associated with, any of the above. 

Additional areas to consider include, 

when impacts may vary across 

alternatives such that analysis can help 

identify the best alternative, and when 

analysis will help the public and 

decisionmakers understand the effects 

of the project. Army solicits comments 

on additional considerations to be 

applied when making a determination 

as to the appropriate level of analysis 

under the PR&G, and whether 

additional clarity is needed on how 

such determinations may be made. 

Section 234.5(c) Scope and magnitude 

of analysis required. The threshold 

criteria provided in the proposed Table 

1 are guidelines to establish an 

appropriate scope and magnitude for the 

analysis based on the Federal cost 

(excluding the non-Federal share) of a 

proposed activity, measured in terms of 

the present value of the Federal 

investment. The present value is the 

current dollar value, after discounting. 

The proposed Table 1 was taken straight 

from the Interagency Guidelines. The 

monetary thresholds were designed to 

be relevant to all the agencies 

implementing the PR&G to provide a 

common framework and baseline. The 

Army solicits comment on whether the 

values provided in Table 1 are the 

appropriate thresholds to apply for the 

Corps’ ASPs, and also whether the 

amounts should be adjusted for inflation 

from the original amounts provided, 

which were developed in 2014. If 

inflation adjustments are appropriate, 

the Corps further solicits what data 

should be used to make those 

adjustments going forward, e.g., GDP 

deflator, CPI, or something else. The 

Army also solicits comments on 

whether the Corps should account for 

the non-Federal share of the costs in 

setting these thresholds, in order to 

reflect the cost to society (Federal plus 

non-Federal) of the proposed 

investment. In that case, the thresholds 

would be somewhat higher. 

The Interagency Guidelines state that 

the PR&G specifically applies to 

operational modifications, 

modernization of existing facilities, dam 

safety modifications, culvert 

replacements, water conveyance, and 

fish ladder modifications. The analysis 

of significant O&M investments of this 

kind would be subject to the thresholds 

provided in proposed Table 1. 

Operation and maintenance activities 

resulting in consequential effects on 

water quantity or quality that have not 

been previously analyzed should be 

appropriately analyzed using either the 

project- or programmatic-level processes 

laid out in the proposed rule. More 

significant operational changes, such as 

adding a new project purpose or 

significantly modifying project outputs, 

warrant analysis under the PR&G. 

However, routine O&M activities are 

proposed to be excluded (see 234.4(d)). 

To apply proposed Table 1 to an 

investment under consideration, the 

Corps would first determine whether 

the action is a project, program, or plan, 

then identify the appropriate relevant 

level of Federal investment under 

consideration. The Federal investment 

includes all capital and labor costs 

associated with the potential 

investment. Once those two steps have 

been made, the Corps can determine the 

recommended appropriate level of 

analysis for the Federal investment. 

However, in applying the proposed 

threshold criteria, the considerations 

and judgement described in 234.5(b) 

should be applied to determine whether 

a deviation from the criteria is 

appropriate. A scoping effort can be 

helpful in providing information needed 

to determine whether a deviation may 

be warranted. 

This paragraph also describes how to 

apply the threshold criteria for project, 

programmatic, and individual plan 

levels. A project-level analysis should 

be applied to water resources 

investments when the Corps has 

discretion in investment decisions for 

the planning process on a particular 

project. Project-level analyses typically 

require more detail and focus on a 

narrower scope and/or scale. This 

would include all of the relevant 

existing and proposed Federal, state, 

and local investments in infrastructure 

or ecosystem restoration, including any 

planned modifications or replacements 

to existing facilities, and their operation 

and maintenance. Programmatic-level 

analyses require the detail necessary to 

ensure decision-makers have sufficient 

information to make an informed 

decision, but it may be conducted 

differently than project-level analyses. 

For example, the scale and/or scope will 

likely be greater with a similarly broader 

level of detail. Programmatic-level 

analysis can apply when the Corps 

proposes a set of similar actions 

analyzed under one decision document. 

The Corps would apply the broadest 

and most rigorous analysis (e.g., 

standard analysis for a programmaticlevel analysis) wherever appropriate. 

The Corps would not split an action that 

is more appropriate under programmatic 

review into smaller project-level actions 

simply to avoid any perceived analytical 

burdens. Such actions may include 

those that have cumulative effects on 

water resources. If an individual project 

within this broader program is 

noteworthy or raises particular 

concerns, the Corps may decide to 

evaluate that specific project 

individually under the PR&G. Care 

would be taken to ensure that evaluating 

individual projects does not lead to 

underestimation or exclusion of 

cumulative effects. The Army solicits 

comment on whether more clarity is 

needed for which types of projects 

would fall under the project vs. program 

vs. plan criteria. The Interagency 

Guidelines state that if the Corps 

develops a revised proposed Table 1 

specific to the Corps, the following 

considerations should be taken into 

account: (1) thresholds relevant to the 

specific activities of the Corps; and (2) 

criteria relevant to the Corps for 

determining the level of analysis. The 

Army solicits comment on whether 

either of those considerations warrant a 

revision to proposed Table 1 for the 

Corps’ ASPs. 

Section 234.6 The Planning Process. 

Section 234.6(a) Introduction. This 

proposed paragraph describes how the 

planning process will incorporate the 

Guiding Principles from the PR&G in 

the analysis and development of Corps 

Federal investments in solving water 

resources problems. The section 

describes the planning process as 

orderly, systematic, and iterative, and 

establishes the desired outcome as 

investment advice in the form of a plan 

or plans that seek to maximize net 

public benefits. Investment advice 

supports the decision-making process. It 

provides analysis and a potential 

solution for the subject water resources 

problem and the Chief of Engineers uses 

such investment advice to make a 

recommendation to the Congress for 

consideration in the authorization 

process. Ultimately, the Congress 

decides whether or not to authorize a 

particular recommendation and how to 

consider such investment advice. The 

plan recommendation includes 

investment advice and shapes the 

federal role in a given planning 

situation. As in most Corps documents, 

Records Management and Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requirements 

should be considered throughout the 

development of PR&G analysis 

documents, with the inclusion of an 

index to facilitate the collection of 

records for any future FOIA requests. 

Section 234.6(b) NEPA. This proposed 

paragraph encourages the Corps to 

integrate the NEPA and the PR&G 

processes as much as possible to 

produce a single analytic document to 

meet both requirements. This concept is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12077 

12https://www.army.mil/article/254935/ 

assistant_secretary_of_the_army_for_civil_works_

issues_environmental_justice_guidance_to_the_

army_corps_of_engineers, last accessed on January 

31, 2024. 

13To identify communities with environmental 

justice concerns, the Corps would use a suite of 

tools and sources of information, such as the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and 

Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), the EPA’s 

EJScreen Tool, Indigenous Knowledge, state or local 

data or tools, and community- or resident-driven 

information. The CEJST ((https://screeningtool.

geoplatform.gov/), last accessed on September 21, 

2023, identifies disadvantaged communities that 

have been marginalized by underinvestment and 

overburdened by pollution and was developed for 

agencies to use for the Justice40 Initiative and other 

resource allocation purposes. There may be some 

communities that are not considered disadvantaged 

by the CEJST because they do not meet the lowincome threshold, but that face many 

environmental burdens and could be considered to 

have environmental justice concerns. The Corps 

would also evaluate any other relevant tools, 

including locally relevant data and any information 

received in public comment from any local 

communities with environmental justice concerns 

on unavoidable impacts and potential mitigation. 

discussed in the Interagency Guidelines 

and is currently common practice for 

the Corps’ planning processes. Through 

the integration, to the extent possible, a 

reduction in duplication is anticipated 

especially when the same information is 

being relied on when performing the 

PR&G and NEPA analyses. A single 

analytic document also could help to 

achieve reduced workload as well as 

consistency across alternatives analyzed 

and other components that are covered 

in both the PR&G and NEPA analyses. 

However, there may be instances when 

analyses under the PR&G results in a 

modification to the NEPA analysis, such 

as when an alternative under 

consideration is eliminated from further 

review because it conflicts with the 

Federal objective or a Guiding Principle. 

In this case, the Corps should include in 

the NEPA documentation why such 

alternative is not being carried forward 

in the review process. The formulation 

criteria are not appropriate screening 

criteria under NEPA. The Corps would 

include in the analysis an alternative 

that meets the purpose and need under 

NEPA and is feasible and reasonable. In 

all cases, the Corps would comply with 

NEPA while implementing the PR&G. 

Compliance under NEPA and this 

proposed rule, if finalized, does not 

eliminate the Corps’ obligations under 

other statutory requirements (e.g., 

Endangered Species Act compliance) or 

fulfillment of Tribal trust 

responsibilities. For example, Corps 

proposed projects involving the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States would be 

developed in accordance with the 

guidelines promulgated by the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction 

with the Secretary of the Army under 

the authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, unless 

these activities are exempted by Section 

404(f) (40 CFR 230.1(a)). The Corps 

should seek to maximize integration and 

reduce redundancy or duplication with 

other federal law requirements and 

compliance with statutory provisions. 

Section 234.6(c) Guiding Principles. 

This section describes the Guiding 

Principles for the planning process that 

the P&R identifies, which are: 

environmental justice, floodplains, 

healthy and resilient ecosystems, public 

safety, sustainable economic 

development, and a watershed 

approach. The Guiding Principles are 

intended to be used as overarching 

concepts to promote through water 

resources investments. They are 

described below and in the proposed 

rule in alphabetical order. 

Section 234.6(c)(1) Environmental 

justice. A focus of the PR&G and these 

ASPs is environmental justice and 

meeting the needs of Tribal Nations and 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns to achieve environmental 

justice for all populations. The ASPs 

provide a description of environmental 

justice consistent with other agency 

definitions and with existing Corps 

policy 12 on environmental justice. The 

proposed paragraph directs that 

environmental justice considerations 

shall be incorporated into all phases of 

the planning process and decisionmaking for Corps Civil Works programs. 

The proposed ASPs require that the 

planning process go beyond ‘‘do no 

harm’’ to also ensure meaningful 

engagement with Tribal Nations and 

other communities with environmental 

justice concerns as well as to increase 

community access to benefits provided 

by Civil Works programs. Working 

within congressional study 

authorizations provided to the Corps, 

the ASPs’ guiding principle of 

environmental justice drives inclusion 

of restorative justice for communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

Environmental justice efforts seek to 

find access for all to long-term, 

sustainable solutions. The ASPs require 

that burdens on Tribal Nations and 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns 13 that are not avoidable are to 

be mitigated. 

By removing the potential barriers to 

community participation in the 

planning process and the potential 

barriers to receiving the benefits of 

Federal investments, the Corps, in its 

implementation of the PR&G, will strive 

to provide equal access to the Corps’ 

services and programs and to ensure 

fairness in decision-making. As each 

community has different needs, 

allocation of resources for engagement 

may be different for different 

communities in order to reach an 

equitable outcome of participation 

opportunities. The Army acknowledges 

that every Tribal Nation and community 

with environmental justice concerns is 

unique, and may have different or 

preferred ways of engaging, different 

areas of concern, and different 

considerations for ways to address those 

concerns. For engagement, this may 

entail the use of different languages to 

ensure language access is achieved to 

support meaningful engagement, or 

various methods of providing 

information via written, oral, and virtual 

formats to ensure accessibility for 

individuals with disabilities, meetings 

held in the communities, etc. 

The Corps would ensure social 

(including health) environmental justice 

factors are evaluated during the 

planning process, to include 

consideration of such factors throughout 

the lifecycle of a water resources 

investment, and that consideration 

should be given to impacts that could 

affect Tribal Nations and communities 

with environmental justice concerns 

differently than other communities. For 

example, the historic disproportionate 

burden that a community may have 

faced in the past related to a lack of 

investment to reduce flood risks, or to 

exposure to toxins, should be 

considered in the impacts assessment in 

the planning process, similar to a 

cumulative impacts approach. An 

incremental change in an environmental 

impact may result in insignificant 

impacts to some communities, but 

significant impacts to others (e.g., a 

Tribal Nation or community with 

environmental justice concerns). In 

addition, the same could be said in the 

converse with benefits assessment. A 

small increase in recreational 

opportunities may have a much larger 

benefit to a community that has 

environmental justice concerns and also 

has limited access to recreational 

opportunities than it would benefit 

another community, which has 

environmental justice concerns but 

already has access to recreational 

opportunities. Potential issues that may 

be evaluated during the planning 

process for positive or negative impacts 

on a community with environmental 

justice concerns also may include, but 

are not limited to: exposure to climaterelated risks and opportunities for 

climate resilience, factors that subject a 

community to poorer health or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12078 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/, last 

accessed on January 31, 2024. Federal agencies use 

the CEJST to help identify disadvantaged 

communities that will benefit from programs 

included in the Justice40 Initiative and other 

statutory programs that direct resources to 

disadvantaged communities. 

15https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen, last accessed on 

January 31, 2024. 

16See OSTP–CEQ–IK-Guidance.pdf 

(whitehouse.gov) for additional information, last 

accessed on January 31, 2024. 

17E.O. 13690 was revoked by E.O. 13807, 

Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the 

Environmental Review and Permitting Process for 

Infrastructure Projects (82 FR 40463), but was later 

reinstated by E.O. 14030, Climate-Related Financial 

Risk (86 FR 27967). 

18The Guidelines for Implementing Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and 

Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal 

Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for 

Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder 

Input (2015) identify CISA as the preferred FFRMS 

approach when climate science and future 

conditions data are available and actionable. Where 

data are not available or actionable for CISA, the 

FVA and 0.2PFA are acceptable approaches. 

19https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

Portals/76/Users/182/86/2486/ER_1100-2-8162.pdf 

Incorporating Sea Level Change in Civil Works 

Programs, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

environmental conditions, subsistence 

hunting and gathering, Tribal resources 

of cultural and religious significance, 

cultural resources, access to greenspace 

or other natural areas, community 

values, factors that contribute to poorer 

physical or mental health conditions, 

income level, education level, and 

crime. Indigenous Knowledge is also a 

critical component and source for the 

evaluation process related to 

environmental justice concerns. Such an 

evaluation process would help the 

Corps assess risk, including perceived 

risk, and economic measures by using 

scientific factors and Indigenous 

Knowledge in risk assessments to 

characterize the nature and magnitude 

of human health and ecological risk 

from contaminants and other stressors 

that may be present. 

In analyzing each alternative’s 

potential environmental justice impacts, 

agencies can also use these tools to 

ensure a holistic view of the potential 

broader social effects. Environmental 

justice should be accounted for in all 

areas being assessed under the PR&G, 

the economic, environmental, and 

social, rather than solely as a social 

consideration. Every application of the 

PR&G would contain case-specific 

environmental justice strategies and 

considerations. The goal under this 

Guiding Principle of the PR&G, 

therefore, is to ensure that the Corps 

works to reduce barriers to equal 

opportunity in engagement and 

participation in the planning process for 

Corps water resources development 

projects to produce more sustainable 

and resilient solutions that will help 

these communities, particularly those 

that are among the most vulnerable, to 

reach their fullest potential. A key 

component of this is to listen to the 

communities and ensure that they are 

engaged throughout the planning 

process. The communities themselves 

will likely help identify concerns and 

solutions to their water resources 

problems and opportunities as well as 

participate in the identification of any 

potential effects, mitigation measures, 

and benefits, including through sharing 

Indigenous Knowledge, as they deem 

appropriate. 

In implementing the proposed ASPs, 

the Corps would ensure that it considers 

the opportunities to overcome past 

inequities, and identifies any 

disproportionate and adverse public 

safety, human health, or environmental 

burdens of proposed water resources 

investments on communities with 

environmental justice concerns, 

including cumulative impacts for 

already overburdened communities. 

This is consistent with Executive Order 

14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All (88 FR 25251). The Corps would 

use all available means to gather such 

information, including Indigenous 

Knowledge and information received 

directly from communities. The Corps 

would seek to identify solutions that 

would eliminate or avoid those 

disproportionate adverse effects. Each 

alternative analyzed would be 

transparent in the discussion of the 

effects as well as benefits to Tribal 

Nations and other communities with 

environmental justice concerns, where 

applicable. 

The Corps would use available tools 

and resources to identify and describe 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. This may include a suite of 

tools and sources of information, such 

as the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice 

Screening Tool,14 the EPA’s EJScreen 

Tool,15 Indigenous Knowledge,16 state 

or local data or tools, and communityor resident-driven information. The 

Army solicits comment in particular on 

how the navigation program can use 

tools and resources to directly assess 

and, as appropriate, demonstrate project 

benefits for disadvantaged communities, 

and other nearby communities. 

Section 234.6(c)(2) Floodplains. The 

proposed ASPs highlight the importance 

of floodplains and adopt the language of 

WRDA 2007 to avoid the unwise use of 

floodplains, and to minimize impacts to 

floodplains if those areas cannot be 

avoided. Floodplains are critical aspects 

of watersheds and connect land and 

water ecosystems while supporting high 

levels of biodiversity and productivity. 

Floodplains with unaltered natural and 

beneficial functions can increase the 

resilience of communities. There is no 

specific floodplain return interval 

identified for use in the PR&G and as 

such the floodplain should be 

considered on a case-by-case basis, as 

appropriate to evaluate the particular 

water resources problem or opportunity 

in that community and to identify the 

full range of reasonable alternatives. 

As part of the Corps’ implementation 

of this Guiding Principle, the Corps will 

continue to implement the Federal 

Flood Risk Management Standard 

(FFRMS), where appropriate, which is a 

flexible framework to increase reliance 

against flooding and help preserve the 

natural values of floodplains as 

provided in Executive Order (E.O.) 

13690 (80 FR 6425).17 Executive Order 

14030 (86 FR 27967), Climate-Related 

Financial Risk, reinstated the FFRMS as 

well as clarified that the guidelines for 

floodplain management under E.O. 

13690 (80 FR 6425), Establishing a 

Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder 

Input, remain in effect. The FFRMS 

provides four potential methods for 

delineating flood hazard areas, with the 

preferred method being the ClimateInformed Science Approach (CISA).18

The proposed ASPs recognize and 

incorporate the requirements of E.O. 

13690 and FFRMS. The Corps water 

resources investments may include 

facilities that must be located in the 

floodplain to provide a desired function 

(e.g., levees). The Corps would 

implement CISA methods for all Civil 

Works studies via online tools and 

technical guidance. As provided in the 

IG, the Corps would continue to 

incorporate considerations such as sealevel rise and rely on the best available 

actionable science on both current and 

future risk when planning proposed 

water resources investments. 

The CISA, as implemented by the 

Corps, considers two broad categories of 

climate change impacts on flood 

hazards: inland and coastal. Some 

projects located in the estuarine 

transition zone between inland and 

coastal water bodies may be required to 

consider both kinds of impacts. In the 

coastal zone, the Corps primarily 

considers the effects of relative sea level 

change, which can have a significant 

impact on the flood hazard. Internal 

Corps guidance (Engineer Regulation 

1100–2–8162) 19 requires Corps project 

delivery teams to consider the effects of 

sea level change when formulating, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12079 

20https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

Portals/76/Users/182/86/2486/EP-1100-2-1.pdf, 

Procedures to Evaluate Sea Level Change: Impacts, 

Responses, and Adaptation, last accessed January 

31, 2024. 

21https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/nwlon.html, 

last accessed January 31, 2024. 

22https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevel

rise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

23https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/ 

Public_Tools_Dev_by_USACE/sea_level_change/, 

last accessed January 31, 2024. 

24https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/engineeringand-construction-bulletins-ecb/usace-ecb-2018-14, 

Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Impacts 

to Inland Hydrology in Civil Works Studies, 

Designs, and Projects, last accessed January 31, 

2024. 

25https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/ 

Flood-Risk-Management/Flood-Risk-ManagementProgram/About-the-Program/Policy-and-Guidance/ 

Federal-Flood-Risk-Management-Standard/, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

26https://climate.sec.usace.army.mil/tst_app/, 

last accessed January 31, 2024. 

27https://climate.sec.usace.army.mil/tst_app/, 

last accessed January 31, 2024. 

28https://climate.sec.usace.army.mil/chat/, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

29https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/ 

Public_Tools_Dev_by_USACE/Climate-Impacted_

Hydrology/. 

30https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_

1100-1-2.pdf, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Resilience Initiative Roadmap, last accessed January 

31, 2024. 

31https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

Portals/76/Users/182/86/2486/EP%201100-1-5.pdf, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guide to Resilience 

Practices, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

32https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/engineeringand-construction-bulletins-ecb/usace-ecb-2020-6, 

Implementation of Resilience Principles in the 

Engineering and Construction Community of 

Practice, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

33E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, was 

amended by E.O. 13690, Establishing a Federal 

Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for 

Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder 

Input. 

selecting, and evaluating project 

alternatives. In addition, another 

internal guidance document (Engineer 

Pamphlet 1100–2–1) 20 provides 

technical information for how this 

consideration should be achieved, with 

techniques specified for each Corps 

Civil Works program area. 

Consideration of relative sea level 

change is made more accurate, timely, 

efficient, and reproducible through the 

use of web-based tools. The Sea Level 

Curve Calculator allows the user to plot 

and tabulate the three sea level 

scenarios for any NOAA National Water 

Level Observation Network (NWLON 21) 

tide gage with sufficient period of 

record, along with coastal extreme water 

levels, other federal and local scenarios, 

tidal and geodetic datums, and water 

elevations critical to project 

performance. The Sea Level Tracker also 

allows plotting and tabulation of these 

three scenarios (see footnote 16, and 

consistent with the three scenarios 

proposed by the National Research 

Council as updated by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration,22) alongside linear 

trendlines and computed water levels of 

various frequencies and averaging 

periods, based on observations. The 

Corps has also produced a static atlas of 

observed sea level change for offline 

viewing, and a specific calculator for the 

high-subsidence environment of coastal 

Louisiana. More information on these 

tools may be found at the Corps’ public 

tools web page.23 The Corps would use 

the social cost of greenhouse gases 

where appropriate throughout 

implementation of the ASPs (88 FR 

1196). 

The effects of climate change on 

pluvial, riverine, and lake flood risk is 

more complex and uncertain than the 

effects of sea level change. For inland 

hydrologic analyses, Corps teams 

implement the CISA using internal 

agency guidelines.24 Teams follow four 

basic steps to characterize potential 

project vulnerabilities to the effects of 

climate change on inland 

hydroclimatology: a review of available 

scientific literature; statistical detection 

of trends and changes in observed data; 

examination of projected future 

hydroclimatology based on climate 

modeling; and assessment of businessline specific indicators of project 

performance risks, which are related to 

the primary purpose or purposes of the 

proposed project.25

To aid teams in performing these 

analyses, the Corps has produced a suite 

of resources, several of which are 

publicly available. A series of 21 

summaries of scientific literature, 

organized by two-digit hydrologic unit 

code (HUC), simplifies the review of 

scientific articles relevant to project 

locations. The Time Series Toolbox 26

and Nonstationarity Detector 27 are two 

tools to perform statistical tests for 

changes in observed data and identify 

the timing and nature of those changes. 

The Timeseries Toolbox also performs 

time series modeling, breakpoint 

analysis, seasonal decomposition, and 

statistical summaries of user-provided 

data. 

The Climate Hydrology Assessment 

Tool (CHAT28) presents projected 

temperature, precipitation, and 

streamflow for 64 combinations of 

climate model and greenhouse gas 

emissions scenario, at the scale of the 

HUC–8 watershed. These projections are 

combined with business-line specific 

indicators of project vulnerability in the 

Civil Works Vulnerability Assessment 

Tool, which is not publicly accessible 

outside the Corps. This tool reveals the 

dominant sources of climate 

vulnerability and regions of particularly 

high or low vulnerability to various 

climate change effects, to inform 

evaluations of potential project impacts 

and corresponding adaptation options. 

More information on Corps tools for 

analysis of climate change effects on 

inland hydroclimatology is available 

through the Corps web page.29

In addition to guidance on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience, the Corps 

has also produced guidance for 

implementation of resilience principles 

across the agency. The internal agency 

guidance on resilience (Engineer 

Pamphlet 1100–1–2 30 and 1100–1–5,31

and Engineering and Construction 

Bulletin 2020–6) 32 detail how Corps 

teams incorporate resilience principles 

into planning, design, and construction. 

While not related to hazard area 

delineation under the FFRMS, these 

documents can help inform lasting 

responses to those hazards. The Corps 

reviews and updates the tools and 

guidance on an ongoing basis, when 

necessary. 

The Corps implements four principles 

related to resilience: prepare, absorb, 

recover, and adapt. These principles 

provide a lifecycle perspective for 

resilience-related actions in recognition 

of the fact that adverse events happen 

and conditions change over time. This 

includes the ability to anticipate, 

prepare for, and adapt to changing 

conditions and withstand, respond to, 

and recover rapidly from disruptions. 

The Corps contributes at three levels of 

applied resilience: (1) project, (2) 

system, and (3) community. These three 

levels of resilience are interdependent, 

and actions taken at any level will 

ultimately affect the others. 

The proposed paragraph in the 

proposed rule on the Guiding Principle 

for floodplains notes that Corps action 

may be located in floodplains where 

that is the best way to address the water 

resources problem or opportunity, such 

as a levee system that helps to reduce 

a flood risk. Such placement does not 

automatically trigger the labeling of a 

particular flood risk management 

measure as an ‘‘unwise use of 

floodplains.’’ The proposed ASPs also 

require a fully nature-based alternative 

to be included in the final array of 

alternatives, when appropriate, which 

also ensures full visibility of alternative 

approaches regarding the use of 

floodplains to meet the Guiding 

Principle as well as the principles of 

EOs 13690 (80 FR 6425) and 11988 (42 

FR 26951), as amended.33 Where a fully 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

34www.cramwetlands.org, last accessed on 

January 31, 2024. 

nature-based solution is not feasible or 

would not be fully effective, the 

proposal encourages the Corps to 

include nature-based solutions in other 

alternatives in the final array, where 

appropriate, as such solutions are 

required by law to be considered by the 

Corps in its water resource development 

project planning process. 

The P&R provides that Federal actions 

should seek to reduce the Nation’s 

vulnerability to floods and storms. 

However, that may necessitate water 

resources development projects located 

in the floodplain. The Corps would 

strive to sustain the floodplains’ natural 

and beneficial functions to the 

maximum extent practicable given the 

project’s purpose and need. 

The proposed rule provides that the 

Corps would avoid unwise uses of the 

floodplain where possible. This 

includes uses that would significantly 

increase or shift flood risks to other 

populated areas, or otherwise would 

result in adverse net impacts to human 

health, safety, welfare, property, natural 

resources, or the natural and beneficial 

functions of floodplains. Under this 

Guiding Principle, the Corps would 

comply with E.O. 11988 (42 FR 26951), 

E.O. 13690 (80 FR 6425), and E.O. 14030 

(86 FR 27967), and would implement 

FFRMS through CISA. This will ensure 

that there is no significant increase or 

transfer of flood risk to other populated 

areas, considering a systems approach 

that includes integrated water resource 

management. It also will ensure that the 

proposed water resources investment 

would not have a disproportionate effect 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns or vulnerable 

populations, considering the relevant 

current, future, and potential economic, 

environmental, and social risks, costs, 

impacts, and benefits. Where this is not 

feasible, the Corps would identify and 

communicate the potential adverse 

effects on floodplain functions. 

Section 234.6(c)(3) Healthy and 

resilient ecosystems. The proposed 

ASPs reinforce WRDA 2007’s direction 

to protect and restore ecosystem 

functions and to minimize and mitigate 

those impacts if they cannot be avoided. 

Ecosystems are dynamic complexes of 

plant, animal, microorganism, and other 

living communities and the non-living 

environment interacting as a system. 

Ecosystems provide important services 

to humans both directly and indirectly, 

and they also encompass vital intrinsic 

natural values. 

In order to implement this proposed 

Guiding Principle in the Corps’ ASPs, 

the Corps would develop alternatives 

that first seek to improve environmental 

conditions, then avoid any adverse 

environmental impact. If there are any 

remaining adverse impacts that are 

unavoidable, the alternatives would 

seek to minimize those adverse 

environmental impacts. When impacts 

are unavoidable, compensatory 

mitigation for adverse effects would be 

required as mandated by laws and 

regulations, such as under the Clean 

Water Act. This is generally known as 

mitigation sequencing and is described 

in regulations such as under the Clean 

Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines 

(40 CFR 230). 

The Corps would seek to enhance the 

health and resilience of the natural 

environment in alternative plans, where 

feasible and appropriate. When 

formulating a project primarily for a 

purpose other than aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, the Corps should consider 

alternatives that would better protect or 

help to restore the natural ecosystem. A 

resilient ecosystem may provide the 

most cost-effective option for achieving 

a project purpose, and has the capacity 

to respond to changes, including climate 

change. Resilient ecosystems can 

enhance services provided by the 

natural environment as well as 

contribute to the economic vitality of 

the Nation. For example, the Corps can 

incorporate nature-based solutions, such 

as restored vegetated beach dunes or 

oyster reefs, into a coastal storm risk 

management water resources 

development project. Such 

incorporation of nature-based solutions 

is encouraged under the reinstated E.O. 

13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a Process for 

Further Soliciting and Considering 

Stakeholder Input (80 FR 6425), where 

possible. 

Ecosystem health is a measure of the 

performance of complex and 

interrelated systems. Ecological 

processes function normally, within the 

range of natural variability, in a healthy 

ecosystem. Ecosystem health is often 

expressed in terms of ecosystem 

functions, as reflected in the third part 

of the Federal objective in the P&R. 

Functions can be particularly hard to 

measure, whereas the services such 

functions provide can be more readily 

measured. A healthy ecosystem also 

includes organization, structure (e.g., 

biodiversity), and resilience. There are 

assessment methods to measure 

indicators of ecosystem functions (e.g., 

hydrogeomorphic approaches, 

California Rapid Assessment Method,34

etc.) The use of ecosystem services as a 

proxy for ecosystem function tends to 

put a more anthropocentric focus on 

measuring ecosystem health versus a 

more habitat-based focus. This can be 

particularly challenging when applied 

to the Corps’ aquatic ecosystem 

restoration mission, which does not 

seek to maximize ecosystem services 

that may be more easily monetized (e.g., 

hunting, fishing, or timber sales) but 

rather focuses on improvements to the 

functions of the aquatic resources that 

will benefit the overall aquatic 

ecosystem. The Army solicits comment 

on whether there are alternative forms 

to measure ecosystem health such as 

specific assessment methods, in 

particular for the Corps’ aquatic 

ecosystem restoration mission. 

Ecosystems are resilient when they 

are able to respond to and maintain 

their structure and function under 

external stress, including climate 

change and invasive species. Measures 

of ecosystem resilience often address its 

two basic components: (1) the 

magnitude of stress an ecosystem can 

absorb before fundamentally and 

irrevocably changing; and (2) the 

amount of time required before an 

ecosystem returns to its pre-stressed 

condition or to another stable condition 

that functions in ways comparable to its 

original state. Some simple measures of 

ecosystem resilience include floodwater 

storage capacity and population 

recovery time for an appropriate, 

scientifically sound surrogate for 

designated species. 

However, systems-level models are 

needed to accurately describe the 

interactions of ecosystem components 

under stress and predict their response. 

No standard methods or models for 

measuring ecosystem resilience 

currently exist. Research on ecosystem 

resilience is rapidly changing how it is 

described and measured. Best available 

tools and methods would be used when 

evaluating ecosystem resilience of 

alternatives. The Army solicits comment 

on particular models, tools, 

methodology or other information that 

may be helpful in assessing ecosystem 

resilience, such as the use of keystone 

species to provide insight on resilience 

under changing conditions. 

When evaluating water resources 

investment alternatives, the health of 

the affected ecosystem should be 

measured in its current condition 

(baseline) and projected under each of 

the alternatives being considered. 

Where feasible and appropriate, 

alternatives also should be developed 

that would help to restore the health of 

a damaged ecosystem to a less degraded 

and more natural condition, where 

required by law (NEPA, ESA, etc.) or 

where the non-federal interest or others 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12081 

35See, e.g., Planning Bulletin on Incorporating 

Life Safety into Flood and Coastal Storm Risk 

Management Studies, PB 2019–04, https://planning.

erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/PB/PB2019-04.pdf, 

last accessed on January 31, 2024. 

agree to provide the non-federal share of 

the cost of this analysis. 

Section 234.6(c)(4) Public safety. The 

proposed ASPs explicitly call for 

alternatives to avoid, reduce and 

mitigate significant risks to public 

safety. Where appropriate, the Corps 

will incorporate measures to reduce the 

risk of loss of human life in the 

formulation of alternatives to address 

flood and coastal storm risks.35 The 

Corps would use available and 

appropriate tools and methodologies to 

evaluate the available options to reduce 

this risk. Although some other agencies 

use monetized life loss in various 

decision-making contexts, the proposed 

ASPs do not require monetization. The 

Army solicits comment on this issue. 

The proposed ASPs require the 

assessment of potential threats to 

people, including both loss of life and 

injury, from natural events in the 

determination of existing and future 

conditions as well as the decisionmaking process. Public safety threats are 

those resulting from environmentallyrelated events. The Corps would 

incorporate reasonable and appropriate 

public safety practices in its proposed 

water resources investments. In 

formulating and evaluating the 

alternatives, the Corps would use 

appropriate risk-based analysis 

techniques, including quantitative 

methods where practicable, to identify, 

address, and avoid any additional risk 

to public safety that a proposed water 

resources investment might otherwise 

present. 

The Corps would also include 

measures to manage and communicate 

the residual risks. The Corps would 

describe how the alternatives may affect 

the residual risks, as well as the 

reliability and durability of those 

estimates, and would share such 

evaluations with the public for 

transparency as well as to inform the 

investment decision. 

In this manner, decision-making 

would be improved by developing riskreduction alternatives or recommending 

alternative courses of action to address 

potential safety issues, improving the 

capability to plan, prioritize, and 

implement risk-reduction actions, and 

identifying and communicating residual 

risk. In line with the PR&G, risk analysis 

to address public safety issues, 

including public health issues, would 

include relevant external factors, sitespecific considerations, and quantified 

and non-quantified approaches to 

evaluate risks to public safety. 

The Corps, other Federal agencies, 

Tribes, state and local governments, 

non-Federal interest, and the affected 

public have a shared responsibility in 

flood risk management, including 

reducing the associated public safety 

risks. In implementing the ASPs, the 

Corps would work with each of these 

parties to help them understand their 

respective roles and responsibilities. 

The Army solicits comment on whether 

the description of public safety as 

proposed should be broadened, as 

public safety in general may also be 

threatened by acts of man, such as a 

terror attack causing a dam failure, or 

negligence, for example. The Army 

solicits comment on whether additional 

threats to public safety should be 

included for consideration beyond those 

related to natural events. 

Section 234.6(c)(5) Sustainable 

economic development. Federal 

investments in sustainable economic 

development activities contribute to the 

Nation’s resilience. Sustainable is 

defined in the proposed rule at 234.2(y). 

As provided in the Guiding Principle 

under the PR&G, alternative solutions 

for resolving water resources problems 

should improve the economic wellbeing of the Nation for present and 

future generations through the 

sustainable use and management of 

water resources. The proposed ASPs 

describe sustainable economic 

development and call for economic, 

social, and environmental metrics to 

measure impacts to be incorporated into 

the analysis of alternatives. The analysis 

for sustainable economic development 

would include information on 

environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions (e.g., income, 

demographics, etc.) in the affected area 

and how those resources and conditions 

may change over time. Physical capital, 

such as value or costs to maintain, may 

also be presented if relevant. The Corps 

would use this analysis, as well as the 

expected outcomes, as no standard set 

of metrics exist for analyzing 

sustainable economic development. 

As there are likely unintended effects 

that would be considered, metrics 

should be identified for both desired 

and other outcomes. Measures to 

consider in evaluating sustainable 

economic development include 

economic measures, social measures, 

and environmental measures. 

Additional measures could also be 

incorporated where necessary. The 

assessment would capture all of these 

measures. Economic measures may 

include net economic benefits and their 

distribution across vulnerable 

populations, income levels, 

unemployment considerations, labor 

force participation rates, job growth, 

among others where applicable. Social 

measures may include poverty rates, 

educational attainment, crime rate, 

disease rates, life expectancy and others, 

where applicable, which should be 

stratified by demographic metrics such 

as gender, age, race/ethnicity, etc. 

Environmental measures may include 

measures of air quality, presence of 

priority pollutants, hazardous wastes, 

changes in land use/land cover, water 

quality issues (e.g., Clean Water Act 

Section 303(d) listed), species 

distribution patterns, endangered or 

threatened species, wildlife prevalence, 

diversity, changes in ecosystem services 

and their impact on wellbeing, among 

others where applicable. The economic, 

social, and environmental measures 

would be stratified where appropriate. 

Section 234.6(c)(6) Watershed 

approach. Another Guiding Principle 

from the PR&G is the use of the 

watershed approach in the planning 

process. Watershed is defined in the 

proposed rule at 234.2(yy). The 

proposed ASPs require that upstream 

and downstream relationships are 

considered in formulating alternatives 

and in evaluating benefits and costs. 

In some cases, a proposed Corps water 

resources development project or the 

alternatives may have the potential to 

provide benefits across multiple Corps 

program areas, such as flood risk 

management benefits in addition to 

aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits. 

In these cases, a study may result in a 

recommendation for a multi-purpose 

project. In a post-authorization study, 

the Corps should not use the existing 

project authorization as a screening tool 

to limit reasonable alternatives that may 

otherwise provide a more complete 

solution. The Congress can amend the 

existing project authorization based on 

a recommendation of the Corps study. 

Also, a Corps study can recommend a 

community-based solution that the 

Corps would not implement, where the 

solution is more suited to another 

Federal agency or to a Tribal, state, or 

local government. 

The Corps conducts each of its project 

studies primarily to address an 

identified, specific water resources 

problem or opportunity. The watershed 

approach primarily ensures that the 

Corps will assess how the proposed 

project and the alternatives would affect 

both the existing and a full range of the 

potential future uses of water in the 

watershed. However, in some cases, this 

kind of an analysis may also lead to a 

more complete range of holistic 

alternatives, which would achieve 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

multiple goals. A watershed approach is 

conducted at a systems level to identify 

root causes and how they connect to 

problem symptoms. A watershed 

approach also ensures that alternatives 

consider the effects, including 

cumulative effects, and benefits 

conveyed throughout the watershed to 

understand the full range of public 

effects. The Corps would also assess any 

effects which may occur beyond the 

watershed, where appropriate, such as 

existence value benefits. 

There is no particular watershed scale 

dictated by the PR&G for use in 

evaluation, and as such, the Corps 

would identify the most appropriate 

delineation to address the identified, 

specific water resources problem or 

opportunity. The study area would 

include the most immediate part of the 

watershed, which is most likely to be 

affected by the alternatives under 

consideration. The analysis may also 

need to include other parts of the 

watershed, for example, to include the 

effects on all of the people potentially 

affected by the ecosystem service 

changes (e.g., by identifying relevant 

servicesheds). Where appropriate, the 

analysis also may include areas beyond 

the watershed that are connected to it by 

infrastructure (e.g., that transfers or 

affects flows of water among 

hydrologically unconnected watersheds 

or populations). The study area would 

potentially include these additional 

areas, where the impacts are sufficient 

to warrant a broader review. The scope 

and scale of watershed assessments can 

vary and the geographic area under 

review should be large enough to ensure 

plans address relationships among 

affected resources and activities 

pertinent to realizing public benefits. 

The extent of evaluations across a 

watershed should also reflect the nature 

of the relationships. 

In addition, the Corps’ assessments 

would evaluate the interaction of a 

potential Federal, state, local, or other 

known investment with other water 

resources projects and programs within 

a region or watershed. In this manner, 

all effects and potential benefits would 

be evaluated in an interconnected 

manner, as one Federal investment may 

affect another Federal or non-Federal 

investment. Watershed conditions 

would be assessed in the evaluation. 

Such information may include but is not 

limited to: current trends in aquatic 

habitat loss or conversion; cumulative 

impacts in the watershed; current and 

future projected water resources 

utilization trends; species and other 

natural resources conservation; and 

chronic problems such as flooding, 

among others as appropriate. This 

analysis would include the effects on 

the people, businesses, and 

environmental resources of the affected 

area, as well as relevant economic and 

social characteristics of this area. The 

watershed approach is not a mechanism 

to expand the scope of the proposed 

Federal investment, but is rather 

primarily a way to document and 

consider the context within which the 

Corps is proposing a targeted Federal 

investment. 

This type of approach may shift the 

Corps to think about water resources 

problems more holistically, to look at 

them from all sides and include all 

causes, effects and relationships, and 

then to identify who is best suited to 

implement the alternative (which may 

be another Federal agency, or a Tribal, 

state, or local government). The Army 

solicits comment on example 

frameworks, tools, and methods for 

implementing a watershed approach, 

such as whether the Basin-Scale 

Opportunity Assessment led by the 

Department of Energy could be adapted 

for use under the ASPs. However, the 

Corps would adapt to use the best 

available science for such evaluations as 

they are developed in the future. 

Section 234.6(d) Collaboration. 

Section 234.6(d)(1). This proposed 

paragraph outlines an increased focus 

on collaboration for the Corps to 

improve decision making and promote 

transparency. The Army recognizes that 

Tribal Nations, regional, state, local, and 

non-governmental entities, as well as 

communities and landowners are 

interested in the water resources 

problems that affect them, have 

expertise, and share in the 

responsibility of managing and 

protecting public water resources. The 

planning process would seek to 

collaborate fully with a wide range of 

affected entities and stakeholders, and 

the public in all stages of the planning 

process. The Corps would initiate 

coordination with appropriate Federal 

or state agencies administering Federal 

laws as early in the process as 

practicable to fully integrate 

environmental considerations into the 

planning process, identifying early on 

critical information and requirements 

needed for the planning decision, and 

maximizing opportunities to avoid and 

minimize impacts to the human 

environment to the extent practicable. 

For example, consistent and meaningful 

engagement between EPA and the Corps 

during early phases of the water 

resources project plan may help enable 

a more efficient and effective decisionmaking process, which meets all of the 

applicable environmental regulatory 

requirements. This proposed level of 

collaboration and engagement ensures 

that the Corps’ planning process 

integrates various considerations from a 

multitude of perspectives, allowing for 

a more thoughtful and holistic 

consideration of potential alternatives, 

and potential effects and benefits of a 

proposed water resources investment. 

The proposed paragraph recognizes that 

such enhanced collaboration can assist 

the Corps in improving the planning 

process to better identify the problems, 

opportunities, constraints, and goals 

and objectives of a planning study. More 

locally preferred and locally appropriate 

project elements may also be identified 

from such collaboration resulting in 

improved benefits to such communities. 

Ensuring meaningful, regular, and 

robust engagement will result in more 

opportunities for communities to 

directly contribute to projects that may 

have positive benefits for their 

communities as well as contribute to 

considerations of effects and costs to 

those communities and ways to avoid, 

minimize or mitigate for those effects. 

These engagements should account for 

the desired form and type of 

engagement from communities, to 

ensure such engagements are culturally 

relevant and appropriate. Another key 

element of the enhanced collaboration is 

transparency, ensuring that all relevant 

Tribal Nations and interested parties are 

kept informed about the Corps process 

and various factors under consideration. 

The Army recognizes that enhanced 

collaboration and engagement will take 

time, skill, and commitment on the part 

of the Corps and project sponsors, as 

well as those who are engaging in the 

Corps’ process. However, integration of 

enhanced collaboration into the 

planning process is necessary for 

informed and wise Federal investment 

decisions. Leveraging information and 

resources from others can result in 

improved efficiency and save resources. 

Collaboration can also be used to 

fulfill some of the Guiding Principles, 

such as a watershed approach, as 

working with others can best identify 

and understand problems and 

opportunities in a systems context. It is 

also useful to collaborate to identify 

other ongoing or planned activities in 

the watershed for understanding both 

the current and potential future 

conditions of a watershed. 

Environmental justice can also best be 

achieved when applying a collaborative 

approach to best understand community 

concerns. In addition, ecosystem 

services related to healthy and resilient 

ecosystems are also best understood 

using a collaborative approach. 

The proposed paragraph also makes 

clear that enhanced collaboration does 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12083 

not obviate the need for Tribal 

consultation, where appropriate. In 

addition, Tribal consultation does not 

obviate the need for the Corps to ensure 

that enhanced collaboration with Tribal 

Nations occurs. Consultation and 

enhanced collaboration are not the same 

thing, and in certain circumstances 

Tribal engagements demonstrate a 

desire for and result in a greater 

understanding of the Tribal Nations 

needs than what may be achieved in 

consultation. Engagement beyond 

consultation is necessary to improve 

overall relationships and 

communication with Tribal Nations, 

and to identify areas for participation in 

and access to Civil Works programs. 

Section 234.6(d)(2) Although this 

proposed paragraph recognizes that 

tools and levels of engagement will vary 

based on a variety of factors, the section 

requires intentional design based on 

best practices of engagement (e.g., the 

spectrum of engagement from the 

International Association for Public 

Participation and modifications from 

various U.S. government agencies 

including the Corps). Whereas 

collaboration is standard in current 

Civil Works planning at the scoping 

stage and after a plan has been 

tentatively selected, this section 

explicitly urges collaboration 

throughout the planning process 

including during alternatives evaluation 

and tradeoffs. In addition, the Corps 

will ensure that it considers and 

incorporates the information that it 

receives from Tribal Nations and 

external sources into the problem 

definition, the forecast of future 

conditions, and the alternatives 

analysis. See the environmental justice 

section of the proposed rule and 

preamble for other considerations in 

engaging communities with 

environmental justice concerns (see 

234.6(c)(1)). 

Another element of enhanced 

collaboration is in instances where a 

water resources problem identified in 

community engagement is beyond the 

Corps’ traditional mission areas. In such 

instances, the Corps can collaborate 

with Tribal Nations, Federal, state, and 

local agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations or private entities, 

through a formal or public participation 

process such as in scoping, to identify 

alternative solutions to the problem, 

including solutions that may be outside 

Corps mission areas but where 

communities may seek further 

assistance elsewhere. The PR&G may 

result in alternatives that are outside (in 

whole or in part) of the Corps mission 

areas or its core capabilities, or are 

better suited to another Federal agency 

or a Tribal, state, or local government. 

The benefits of enhanced Federal 

collaboration can include the sharing of 

data to identify the alternative solutions 

that maximize net public benefits or the 

leveraging of resources outside of the 

Corps to implement these solutions. 

Enhanced collaboration also helps to 

ensure transparency, promotes Tribal 

and public participation, and assists in 

developing community-driven solutions 

to water resources problems. In general, 

collaboration may include, but is not 

limited to: sharing of science and data, 

including Indigenous Knowledge; 

sharing of analytical tools or expertise; 

sharing of values and priorities; 

interdisciplinary or inter-agency teams; 

peer review processes; and post-project 

reviews. The Corps would ensure that 

the collaboration includes opportunities 

for engaged participants to assess the 

efficacy of the collaboration, identify 

areas of concern that could be redressed 

moving forward, note areas of success to 

continue to build on for the effort at 

hand, and discuss lessons learned to 

inform future efforts. It will also help 

ensure that the right problem is being 

identified and the study focuses on 

appropriate goals and objectives. 

Section 234.6(e) Investigations and 

data collection. This proposed section 

discusses that investigations and data 

collection should occur early and on a 

recurring basis throughout the planning 

process. The proposed section outlines 

areas for the study team to consider and 

relevant data to collect in investigations. 

It recommends that the Corps leverage 

existing information; and conduct new 

investigations and data collection, 

where appropriate, when existing 

information is not present. 

Section 234.6(f) Identify purpose, 

problems, needs, and opportunities. 

This proposed section sets out the 

requirements to identify purpose, 

problems, needs and opportunities. The 

section also sets expectations for early 

collaboration with Tribal Nations and 

stakeholders (also see 234.6(d)) to 

ensure that the right problem is being 

identified and the study focuses on 

appropriate goals and objectives. The 

Corps would begin with a clear 

definition of the water resources 

challenges, including a statement of the 

problems and/or opportunities to be 

addressed. The causes of the problems 

should be identified, as well as any 

constraints, and the relationship of the 

problems to the missions, statutory 

authorities, and other requirements of 

the Corps. Clearly defined problems, 

opportunities, and constraints are key to 

enable the Corps to identify a potential 

Federal investment for consideration. In 

general, this step corresponds to the 

identification of the project’s purpose 

and need under the NEPA; however, the 

scoping process for a Corps study may 

be different than what is required under 

NEPA scoping. Typically, more 

background information is available 

when NEPA scoping is conducted. 

Corps study teams may not have all of 

the information that is identified in this 

proposed scoping section of the rule 

during the initial development of the 

project management plan. For example, 

the formulation of planning objectives 

and constraints to be used in the 

analysis of the Federal investment 

cannot be developed until other actions 

have been conducted, such as 

inventorying and forecasting, that are 

identified in the study scope. The 

scoping process is an iterative process. 

The scope would include actions to 

obtain stakeholder, partner, and public 

input; however, that input may not be 

available early on in the study process. 

The Corps would seek to align the study 

scoping for a project and NEPA scoping 

to the extent practicable. A watershedbased or systems approach should 

generally be applied when defining the 

scope of a water resources challenge. To 

most fully integrate the PR&G and NEPA 

processes at the earliest stages, the 

Corps would describe and request 

public input on the PR&G analysis in 

the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. 

As implementation of NEPA and the 

implementation of the PR&G should be 

fully integrated, the identification of 

problems, needs, and opportunities 

applies to both applications and can be 

accomplished in study scoping. The 

Corps would ensure that the planning 

goals and objectives are consistent with 

the authorizing legislation for the study. 

The Corps should not limit the 

consideration of alternatives to those 

that fall within Corps missions, if the 

inclusion of other alternatives may 

otherwise provide a more complete or 

community-based solution and such 

additional consideration is within the 

Corps’ study authorization. Where 

possible, the Corps should strive to look 

holistically at the water resources 

problem. The Army solicits comment on 

how to address specific limitations on 

the scoping process, due to factors such 

as the scope of the study authority, cost 

sharing requirements, non-Federal 

interest support, and Corps mission 

areas and core capabilities. For example, 

other Federal, state, local, or Tribal 

programs or projects may align with the 

study’s goals and objectives and the 

consideration of these measures within 

an alternative may produce additional, 

synergistic net benefits. The Army 

solicits comment on whether there may 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

be terms and conditions under which 

additional consideration may proceed 

that would enable the Corps to consider 

alternatives beyond those that the nonFederal interest supports. 

The Corps would also identify the 

purpose of the study, the role of the 

Federal government, and the various 

perspectives of those participating in 

the process. The purpose and scope of 

the study should be broad enough to 

cover the full range of reasonable 

alternatives, while avoiding an 

unwieldly number of alternatives. The 

various perspectives from those 

participating in the process can ensure 

a more robust and holistic view of the 

current conditions and potential 

solutions to the key water resources 

challenges. 

The Corps would identify the water 

resources problems or opportunities in 

scoping, but would not use this process 

to exclude reasonable alternatives. The 

Corps would use enhanced 

collaboration and the Guiding 

Principles in developing the scope of 

the study. The Corps would define the 

study area and describe stakeholder 

engagement strategies. The Corps would 

ensure in doing so that it employs the 

watershed approach, and considers 

enhanced collaboration, as well as the 

Guiding Principles, such as 

environmental justice. The Corps also 

may refine or reconsider the scope of 

the study during the study, based on 

new information or at the request of any 

interested party, where appropriate. The 

Corps would prepare a summary of the 

planning objectives and constraints, 

including a summary of input received. 

The constraints could be legal or 

environmental, for example. The 

summary of input received should also 

provide responses, where appropriate. 

The Corps would also include a 

discussion of the social and cultural 

aspects of the affected area and its 

resources, including Tribal resources, 

treaty rights, and matters related to 

environmental justice. This can help 

identify potential areas of concern, 

needs which should be addressed, and 

helps inform the current conditions as 

well as the future conditions. There may 

be other important areas to be identified 

in scoping that would be included, as 

appropriate, such as specific areas of 

consideration for the study area and 

water resource challenge under review 

that are not captured in this preamble. 

Section 234.6(g) Inventory Existing 

Resources and Forecast Future 

Conditions. To determine baselines, the 

Corps would identify the existing 

conditions and the baseline levels of 

ecosystems services and, to the extent 

practicable, identify current trends and 

variability in key environmental and 

economic indicators and conditions 

such as climate, population, 

urbanization, and land use. The current 

existing conditions provide the baseline 

for forecasting both the future with- and 

without-project conditions. This 

proposed section describes the need to 

inventory existing information and 

resources and to forecast future 

conditions. This step corresponds to the 

NEPA identification of the affected 

environment. The inventory and 

forecast provide a basis for comparison 

of the effects of alternative water 

resources investments on objectives. 

The proposed section also describes the 

without-project condition and the withproject condition including the need to 

consider climate and other likely 

changes in establishing scenarios to 

compare effects of alternatives. Such 

evaluation and forecasting across the 

alternatives would confirm the 

problems, needs, and opportunities that 

the study would address in the 

subsequent steps. The inventory and 

forecast would provide information for 

understanding existing conditions and 

establishing a baseline for forecasting 

with- and without-project conditions. 

The inventory and forecast should 

include other related Federal and nonFederal investments within the region 

or watershed, which the Corps would 

consider to ensure consistency of 

purpose, maximize effectiveness, reduce 

costs, or identify other potential 

alternative solutions. 

The existing and forecasted future 

conditions would include descriptions 

of the economic, environmental, and 

social setting within the study area. It 

would take into account future climate 

change, and economic development and 

land use change scenarios. A watershed 

approach should also be used in 

describing current and future 

conditions. Those descriptions would 

discuss how affected resources are 

interrelated, describing their functional 

relationships, as well as their ability to 

produce or impact ecosystem services. 

In this manner, the connections between 

the resources and services within the 

study area and broader watershed will 

become apparent and allow the Corps to 

better analyze how a change in targeted 

water resources may impact those 

resources and services. The descriptions 

would also provide details on the 

existing and future conditions with 

respect to economic metrics, such as 

investment, markets, and productivity; 

environmental metrics, such as water 

quality and quantity or air quality 

components; and social metrics, such as 

income levels, race and ethnicity, and 

health burdens. 

The Corps would use peer-reviewed 

(where possible and appropriate) and 

common projections of the factors listed 

above. In addition, Indigenous 

Knowledge and local knowledge should 

be included in the descriptions, 

following appropriate procedures for 

free, prior and informed consent for use 

in the descriptions. The conditions 

would be described as appropriate and 

applicable to the specific investment, 

with consideration for the Guiding 

Principles of the PR&G. The Corps 

would also ensure consistency in the 

approach applied and conditions 

assessed across the existing and future 

condition inventories. The level of 

detail provided in the inventories 

should be commensurate with the rest 

of the analysis and level of scope and 

scale of the proposed Federal 

investment. Not every analysis must 

include detailed surveys and fieldwork 

and the Corps should rely on existing 

data, and information, and leverage 

existing resources to the extent 

practicable. In some circumstances, a 

conceptual model can be used to best 

explain to the public and decision 

makers in plain language and visual 

representation, how natural, social, and 

economic systems interact and how 

ecosystems provide services to 

communities and the natural 

environment. The inventory would also 

define the ecosystem services that exist 

in the study area. 

The forecast of future conditions is 

comparable to the NEPA identification 

of future impacts associated with the 

proposed alternatives. The Corps would 

predict and identify what the future 

conditions of the study area may be 

across the various alternatives. Such 

comparison would also be conducted 

with the No Action alternative. Any key 

assumptions made for forecasting of 

future conditions would be disclosed. 

The ‘‘without-project’’ and ‘‘withproject’’ conditions refer to the 

conditions that the Corps estimates are 

‘‘most likely’’ to occur in the future over 

the period of the analysis. Since the 

future is inherently uncertain, the Corps 

study should identify and describe the 

key known drivers of the uncertainties. 

In some cases, the Corps also would use 

scenario analysis to evaluate the extent 

to which the uncertainties may affect 

the investment decision. For example, 

for climate change, the Corps uses 

scenario analysis because the science 

relies on a range of values (i.e., levels of 

greenhouse gas emission and their 

impacts) and it is difficult to determine 

which value is more likely to occur than 

others within that range. The Corps 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12085 

36https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

portals/76/publications/engineerregulations/er_

1105-2-100.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

37See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/11/Nature-Based-SolutionsRoadmap.pdf (last accessed on September 21, 2023) 

for more information on nature-based solutions. 

would implement additional scenario 

analyses in cases where a reliable 

forecast of future conditions is not 

possible. The inventory of existing 

resources and forecast of future 

conditions should also include 

assumptions for scenarios and for 

extreme weather events to evaluate 

sensitivity of alternatives to a range of 

conditions, such as drought or 

hurricanes. The E.O. 14008 (86 FR 7619) 

directs agencies to build resilience 

against the existing impacts of climate 

change as well as those which will 

continue to intensify according to 

current trajectories. The Corps would 

use the scenario analysis and 

discussions on extreme weather events 

to inform how alternatives may perform 

under future conditions with respect to 

climate resilience. There are also 

uncertainties from other sources that 

would benefit from additional scenario 

analyses. 

As described in the collaboration 

section (234.6(d)), the Corps should 

ensure other relevant Federal and nonFederal investments are included in the 

conditions assessments. Reasonably 

foreseeable actions by public and 

private entities should be included to 

understand how key resources and 

services may change in the future and 

to be used to better understand the most 

likely future condition in the absence of 

the proposed Federal investment. As 

with any projections of future 

conditions, there is an inherent degree 

of uncertainty; the Corps would identify 

and characterize the degree of 

uncertainty for the projections made. 

Such characterization should be 

quantitative, when feasible, and 

qualitative when not and provide a 

commensurate level of detail to the 

analysis. Any residual risk that is not 

proposed to be, or cannot be, addressed 

or mitigated would be disclosed to aid 

in the decision-making process. If the 

uncertainty regarding current conditions 

is sufficient to affect the analysis, the 

Corps may develop multiple baselines. 

Where the effects of climate variability 

and climate change are relevant to the 

investment decision, the study should 

fully describe the key sources of the 

uncertainty and the range of its possible 

effects over time. 

The proposed future ‘‘without-project 

condition’’ is what is expected to occur, 

over the period of analysis, in the 

absence of a Corps project or program. 

The Corps currently uses a 50-year 

timeframe for the period of analysis (see 

ER 1105–2–100 36 section 2–4j). Future 

land use changes would be 

incorporated. The future ‘‘withoutproject condition’’ is the baseline for 

comparison of alternatives. The 

proposed future ‘‘with-project 

condition’’ is what is expected to occur 

in the future, over the period of 

analysis, with a specific Corps proposed 

project or program in place. As 

described in discussion of Floodplains 

in the preamble at 234.6(c)(2), the Corps 

uses the CISA when assessing climate 

change conditions and climate 

resilience related to flooding of all Civil 

Works studies, ensuring climate 

adaptation is considered. Climate 

change would need to be considered in 

both the future ‘‘without-project’’ and 

‘‘with-project’’ conditions. The Corps 

has a host of tools and guidance that it 

uses to implement the CISA, as 

previously described in 234.6(c)(2). 

Projections of future conditions would 

account for expected environmental, 

social, and economic changes, including 

those that result from climate variability 

and climate change, in particular for 

projects with a relatively long service or 

operational lives, as these projects may 

be subject to additional climate 

variability and change. 

The Corps would develop a summary 

of the process used to identify the 

existing and future conditions for the 

administrative record. The summary 

ensures that appropriate considerations 

were incorporated and provides 

transparency in the process. The Corps 

would ensure the summary includes 

discussion of Tribal, partner, 

stakeholder, and public inputs. 

Identification of existing resources seeks 

to quantify relevant resource conditions 

in the study area as they currently exist. 

The forecasting of future conditions 

would do the same over the period of 

analysis. The period of analysis does not 

reflect the expected service or 

operational life of the investment. The 

Army solicits comment on what the 

standard period of analysis should be 

when the Corps implements the PR&G. 

For example, rather than a traditional 

50-year period of analysis, should the 

Corps use a longer or shorter period of 

analysis of changes relative to the 

baseline and, if so, why? The Corps 

recognizes the importance of 

consistency and comparability both in 

evaluating alternatives and in 

comparing performance across a 

portfolio of projects. However, the Corps 

could consider multiple periods of 

analysis for different alternatives to not 

bias selection of one alternative over 

another. Where relevant, the Corps also 

could describe how the period of 

analysis may result in different 

assessments of alternatives to ensure 

transparency and informed decisionmaking. 

Section 234.6(h) Formulate 

Alternatives. The next proposed 

paragraph of the Corps’ ASPs 

establishes the primary function for 

plan formulation as developing the full 

range of alternatives that will address 

the water resources problem and sets 

the evaluation criteria of acceptability, 

efficiency, effectiveness, and 

completeness. These criteria carry over 

from the 1983 P&G. Investigations, data 

collection, and analysis should be 

ongoing, and should leverage and 

incorporate information from Tribal, 

state, local, non-governmental, scientific 

and economic literature, and other 

relevant sources. 

A range of potential plans must be 

investigated with a subset retained for 

further analysis, including alternatives 

with only nonstructural elements and 

the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Nonstructural measures and 

nature-based solutions 37 are important 

considerations of the PR&G and should 

be integrated into alternatives for water 

resources Federal investments wherever 

appropriate. As with structural 

solutions, considerations should be 

made for technical feasibility, land use, 

cost, past performance, and longevity, 

for example. In addition, the proposed 

rule requires the Corps to include the 

environmentally preferred alternative in 

the final array of alternatives, which is 

consistent with the current Corps’ 

planning process as well as consistent 

with NEPA. 

Alternatives analyzed shall seek to 

address the subject water resources 

challenge, problem, or need identified 

in 234.6(f) based on the most likely 

future conditions. Alternatives that do 

not address the problem should not be 

carried forward. The alternatives should 

seek to achieve the planning and 

Federal objectives and follow the 

Guiding Principles. Alternatives should 

identify solutions that are feasible and 

meet planning objectives. It is an 

unwise use of Federal investments to 

continue to explore alternatives that do 

not meet these goals. The range of 

alternatives provides a reasonable basis 

for comparing the relative effectiveness 

and efficiency of the alternatives. The 

alternatives must strive to achieve 

economic, environmental, and social 

goals. In addition, as noted in 234.6(e), 

the same period of analysis should be 

used in alternatives analysis. The period 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

38https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

portals/76/publications/engineerregulations/er_

1105-2-100.pdf, Planning Guidance Notebook, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

39Request for Comments on Proposed Guidance 

for Assessing Changes in Environmental and 

Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis. 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-08- 

02/pdf/2023-16272.pdf, last accessed on January 31, 

2024. 

of analysis selected can bias selection of 

one option or another. A shorter 

analysis period would benefit 

alternatives with less upfront costs and 

more upfront benefits, as compared to 

an alternative with more upfront costs 

but more long-term benefits and lower 

cost over time. Thus, the period of 

analysis selected must be long enough 

to account for costs and benefits 

including the principal significant longterm effects. On the other hand, some 

project features may have a very long 

expected lifetime. In these cases, it may 

not be productive to cover the project’s 

full lifespan in the analysis, e.g., if the 

costs and benefits in the far distant 

future are very uncertain or would not 

affect the Federal investment decision. 

When an alternative is beyond the 

Corps missions (which are: commercial 

navigation, flood and storm damage 

reduction, and aquatic ecosystem 

restoration), such alternatives can be 

carried forward for further analysis 

where they provide solutions to the 

identified problem, meet the goals of the 

PR&G, and appropriate funding is 

available or may be available (including 

from other agencies and partners 

without Corps action). In such case, the 

alternative should specifically identify 

the relevant parties with requisite 

responsibility for any action beyond 

Corps missions, their authority for that 

action, the interrelation between that 

action and the recommended Corps 

project, and appropriate sequencing of 

implementation. Any recommendations 

for authorization should clearly 

delineate the federal water resources 

project(s) being recommended for 

authorization and Corps 

implementation and any condition 

precedent for construction, with 

specificity. The proposed rule provides 

that for Corps investments, the Corps 

would be the designated lead for 

completing the PR&G analysis. In many 

Corps studies, the non-Federal interest 

pays a share of the cost. The Army 

solicits comment on whether and when 

the Corps should consider alternatives 

beyond those that the non-Federal 

interest supports, such as when an 

alternative may be beyond Corps 

missions. 

The rule provides that the Corps 

would continue to justify each project 

purpose separately, and to size each of 

the project features, based on an 

incremental analysis of the benefits and 

costs. In this incremental formulation of 

the alternatives, the Corps would decide 

how best to weigh the different kinds of 

benefits (rather than automatically 

giving each of the benefit categories 

‘‘equal’’ weight). Similarly, the rule also 

provides that the Corps would continue 

to justify each hydrologically separable 

element of a project separately, based on 

an incremental analysis of the benefits 

and costs, and to identify them in its 

recommendations as separable 

elements. 

Section 234.6(h)(1). In this proposed 

paragraph, the screening of alternatives 

in a systematic manner is discussed. An 

initial set of alternatives would be 

refined as determinations are made that 

such alternatives do not meet the 

purpose and need, are too costly, entail 

unacceptable unavoidable impacts, or 

do not meet other factors. The 

refinement would also consider the 

Federal objective and the Guiding 

Principles. Alternatives that are 

eliminated should still be briefly 

discussed in publicly available 

documents and the Corps would 

include the reasons for their 

elimination. The remaining alternatives 

are considered the reasonable range of 

alternatives to be carried through the 

analysis and NEPA evaluation. They 

should be distinct enough to warrant 

individual consideration and entail 

different potential solutions to the water 

resources challenges. The alternatives 

must also describe the avoidance, 

minimization, and compensatory 

mitigation considerations for each 

identified alternative solution. 

Appropriate mitigation of adverse 

effects is to be an integral part of each 

alternative plan. The alternatives should 

describe not just the economic, 

environmental, and social conditions 

and benefits but also impacts. 

Alternatives should also describe any 

institutional barriers that may be 

present to effectuate the solution, 

including statutory requirements, 

implementation authority, regulation 

changes, implementation policy, etc. 

Transparency and full consideration of 

economic, environmental, and social 

effects, both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, must be provided for each 

alternative. The Corps would also 

describe the social, environmental, and 

economic impacts of not investing, or 

underinvesting, in any Tribal or 

disadvantaged communities, in 

particular under the future ‘‘withoutproject’’ condition and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative. Programmatic-level 

procedures would generally be expected 

to have fewer alternatives than projectlevel procedures, as they are generally 

of a lower level of detail with fewer 

options for developing them. 

In all cases, the alternatives analyzed 

under the PR&G would be included in 

the NEPA document. As discussed 

previously (234.6(f)), the Corps would 

work to integrate the PR&G analysis 

with NEPA to the extent practicable. 

Where differences exist, the Corps 

would describe such differences in the 

documentation. In addition, where a 

Corps alternative has discrete measures 

or separable elements, each should be 

evaluated as discrete units. Plan 

formulation needs to describe the 

features and capabilities of any discrete 

measures as well as the full alternatives. 

Section 234.7 Evaluation 

Framework. 

Section 234.7(a) The proposed ASPs 

are intended to provide a common 

framework and requirements for the 

Corps to use in evaluating potential 

alternatives for Federal investments. 

The Corps would use the Guiding 

Principles and evaluate the 

contributions to the Federal Objective to 

inform the process. While the basic 

planning framework for the PR&G is 

similar to the P&G framework, this 

section includes many areas of new or 

additional focus specific to the PR&G 

planning framework. To the extent 

applicable, the Corps may use existing 

frameworks and practices (e.g., aspects 

of ER 1105–2–100) 38 as long as they are 

relevant and acceptable under the PR&G 

framework. 

The Corps would quantify/monetize 

effects to the extent feasible and 

appropriate, and describe effects that 

cannot be quantified or monetized. The 

Corps would focus evaluation on 

economic, environmental and social 

effects that could impact the decisionmaking to avoid unnecessary time and 

costs. The Corps would include all 

significantly affected economic, 

environmental, and social effects, and 

ensure the evaluation framework would 

not leave them out if they cannot be 

monetized or quantified. The Corps 

would generally follow Circulars A–4 

and A–94 in this approach. 

Section 234.7(b) Economic, 

environmental, and social effects. The 

Corps would identify and evaluate the 

economic, environmental, and social 

effects across the alternatives. In this 

evaluation, the Corps would focus in 

each study on the key data that will 

affect its estimates of the benefits and 

costs and are most pertinent to the 

decision at hand. 

The Corps proposes to consider 

adoption of any finalized OMB guidance 

on ecosystem services (proposed at 88 

FR 50912) 39 for any final rule issued for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12087 

40https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/a94/a094.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

41https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

42https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

08-02/pdf/2023-16272.pdf, last accessed on January 

31, 2024, provides additional information and 

guidance on this topic and the Corps proposes to 

consult that document upon finalization. 

the Corps’ ASPs to evaluate the social 

and economic outcomes resulting from 

environmental changes. The Corps 

would also employ other methods to 

evaluate the direct economic and social 

effects as well as traditional benefit-cost 

analysis (see Circulars A–4 and A–94). 

Ecosystems provide services to people. 

Ecosystem goods and services are those 

aspects provided by nature that benefit 

humans. A distinction is sometimes 

made between ecosystem goods 

(tangible commodities produced by 

nature, e.g., timber production) and 

ecosystem services (less tangible 

benefits of well-functioning natural 

systems, e.g., wetland water quality 

maintenance), but the phrase ecosystem 

services often refers collectively to all of 

these benefits. Federal investment 

impacts on the environment or 

ecosystems that affect people may be 

understood in terms of changes in 

service flows. A complete accounting 

identifies, at a minimum, impacted 

services and the projected trend of each 

service flow. This framework is well 

suited for analyzing many values 

associated with the natural resource, as 

it starts from the assumption that all 

relevant ecosystem services should be 

evaluated. The ASPs, consistent with 

OMB guidance, call for monetization 

where possible, quantification where 

not possible, or description of effects if 

neither is possible, of all ecosystem 

services that have economic, social or 

environmental impacts that will affect 

decision making. Qualitative 

information used when it is not 

practicable to provide quantified or 

monetized information would be given 

similar consideration in evaluation. 

The Corps’ PR&G analysis would 

display information on environmental 

and social effects in addition to 

economic effects in order to provide 

decision-makers with additional 

information as they select among 

alternative actions. Early engagement 

with communities that could be affected 

by a project would be helpful to obtain 

information on how various actions may 

improve or degrade social benefits. 

Environmental changes that result in 

changes in social benefits or changes in 

ecosystem services may include changes 

in social interaction and community; 

quality of life; safety, mental and 

physical health, family and individual 

well-being; improvements in attitudes, 

beliefs and values (includes culture and 

religion); and more. The Corps would 

ensure that these benefits are assigned 

to one category (environmental, social, 

or economic) to ensure that multiple 

benefits that may overlap are only 

counted once. 

Monetization should follow sound 

economic principles and practices (See 

OMB Circulars A–94 40 and A–4 41 for 

examples of currently accepted 

monetization practices). Discounting is 

to be used to convert future monetary 

values to present or annualized values, 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements for the agency and 

relevant agency or Administration 

guidance (e.g., OMB Circulars A–94 and 

A–4). 

Ecosystem services of potential 

interest in water resource evaluations 

could include, but are not limited to: 

water quality maintenance for drinking, 

health, recreation, energy production, 

transportation or industrial uses; flood 

risk management to reduce the risk of 

loss of life and the risk of damage to 

property and infrastructure; water 

supply or drought risk reduction for 

drinking, recreation, real estate, energy 

production, agriculture, transportation 

or industrial uses; aquatic and riparian 

wildlife and places for recreation or 

culturally valued experiences; wild 

populations, places or features 

existence; greenhouse gas effects on 

various services; productivity for food, 

timber, fish, crops and other products; 

and nature for aesthetics in viewsheds. 

In its flood and coastal storm risk 

management project studies, the Corps 

may include an additional analysis of 

the benefits using distributional weights 

to inform investment decisions as well 

as allow for the weighting of costs, 

where appropriate. This analysis could 

provide a more equitable way to 

measure the welfare impacts of these 

projects on people and their 

communities, by reducing the extent to 

which the average value of the property 

that is at risk affects the estimated 

project benefits. 

The Army notes that one of the 

Guiding Principles of the PR&G is 

healthy and resilient ecosystems. NEPA 

analyses evaluate environmental 

changes and will provide important 

information on environmental effects of 

alternatives. NEPA analyses may also 

include or provide inputs for effects 

analyses. The Corps analysis would 

account for relevant effects of 

alternatives on environmental changes 

that impact people, including analysis 

beyond what may be included in NEPA 

analysis. In addition, the Corps analysis 

would include its estimates of the costs 

and benefits in accounting for overall 

net benefits. This framework supports 

the identification of alternatives that 

maximize net public benefits. 

When monetization and 

quantification are not possible, 

descriptions that merely list and/or laud 

benefits are less useful to decisionmakers than descriptions that allow 

meaningful differentiation of effects 

across alternatives. For quantified and 

non-quantified effects, professional 

judgment, bolstered by evidence where 

available, is expected to be exercised in 

determining how important the benefits 

or costs may be in the context of the 

overall analysis. If the quantified or 

non-quantified benefits and costs are 

likely to be important, ‘‘threshold’’ or 

‘‘break-even’’ analyses are approaches 

that may be useful to evaluate their 

significance, as well as ‘‘screening’’ or 

‘‘order-of-magnitude’’ analyses. 

Whatever analytical technique is used, 

reports should indicate, where possible, 

which non-monetized described 

changes are most important and why. 

The proposed paragraph describes 

that ecosystem services to be considered 

include market and non-market 

commodities, in addition to the services 

that provide use and non-use values. As 

there are various methodologies 

appropriate for identifying and 

measuring changes, the Corps would 

use the most appropriate metrics and 

methods to evaluate the alternatives, 

commensurate with the scale, scope, 

and complexity of the water resources 

investment decision.42

In some cases, monetizing ecosystem 

services may be as simple as adding an 

additional parameter to other equations 

or calculations. For example, an agency 

may already be using a flood risk model 

to estimate property damages, but that 

model may not capture the way that 

natural vegetation affects flood risk. 

Assessments should monetize effects 

when possible. 

When assessing economic, 

environmental, and social effects, the 

Corps will first look for existing data 

that may be relevant to the question at 

hand, including market and non-market 

data. The Corps will also consider 

Indigenous Knowledge. Assessments 

should monetize effects when possible. 

Market data on production and sale of 

such goods is readily available, for 

example through the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. When monetization is not 

feasible, the Corps will quantify where 

possible and describe service changes, 

when it is not. Quantification does not 

have to be numerical; it can also be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

categorical as long as the indicators are 

clearly defined, capture the intended 

attribute as precisely as possible, free of 

observer bias (i.e., the same regardless of 

who estimates it), repeatable over time, 

and sensitive to changing conditions. 

Qualitative, quantitative and monetized 

information will be given full 

consideration in decisions. Where 

qualitative descriptions and analysis are 

used, they would be of sufficient detail 

to enable the decision-maker to make 

informed decisions. Such qualitative 

descriptions would be considered with 

quantitative information. 

For a proper accounting of changes in 

ecosystem service value, it is important 

to fully articulate the processes and 

functions that relate ecosystem structure 

and processes to the benefits directly 

enjoyed by humans. The evaluation of 

benefits should then focus on the final 

endpoints of this relationship that might 

be produced by one or more 

intermediate ecosystem services and 

supported by other ecological processes. 

Focusing on these final endpoints will 

help avoid double counting. Changes 

over time as well as any uncertainty in 

assessing impacts of an action on 

ecosystem service production would be 

described. 

Many ecosystem services provide 

benefits to people not located where the 

service is produced. For example, while 

those who live just downstream from a 

wetland or regularly view scenic 

landscapes in a known park may be 

well-understood as beneficiaries, others 

who live farther away may be harder to 

identify. Services that provide non-use 

values (e.g., existence values) might 

provide benefits to individuals across 

the U.S., with no clear relationship 

between distance to the resource and 

value. The Corps would identify those 

populations who may be impacted by a 

change in the resource to the extent 

feasible. The results of the analysis 

would clearly define these groups and 

describe how the groups were 

identified. The Corps would also note 

whether subgroups within a population 

may be affected differently by a change, 

such as on the basis of geographic 

location, income levels, etc. 

The Corps’ analysis would describe 

when benefits are likely to be realized, 

and when costs are likely to be incurred. 

To enable comparison of benefits and 

costs occurring at different times, 

appropriate discounting methods would 

be used. When benefits are not 

described monetarily, a discussion of 

the impact of waiting for future benefits 

would be included. 

The Corps uses ecosystem services 

now to evaluate the benefits and costs 

of its proposed water resources 

development projects, to assess 

resource-related losses and in 

determining restoration to compensate 

for resource-related losses, to improve 

resource program planning and 

management, and in application of 

modeling tools. This proposed rule 

preamble is not intended to provide a 

‘‘how to guide’’ on ecosystem services 

or to provide comprehensive or specific 

instructions on how to implement the 

analysis but rather to provide general 

concepts. As stated earlier, the Corps 

would consider and seek to implement 

any forthcoming final ecosystem 

services guidance from OMB (88 FR 

50912). 

The Army solicits comment on any 

specific tools and methodologies that 

commenters may wish to recommend 

for quantifying or monetizing economic, 

environmental, and social effects. 

Section 234.7(c) Best available 

actionable science and commensurate 

level of detail. To support the 

evaluation of alternatives, the analysis 

should use the best available actionable 

science, Indigenous Knowledge, data, 

techniques, procedures, models, and 

tools across the wide variety of 

pertinent subjects. As stated in other 

sections of this preamble, the effects of 

the alternatives should be monetized 

where feasible. Across the alternatives 

for any given proposed water resources 

investment, consistent methodology 

should be applied and established tools 

can also be routinely used to improve 

consistency across decisions. However, 

the Corps would adapt to new science, 

knowledge, data, and tools as they are 

developed and proven. This helps 

ensure the Corps does not simply react 

to constantly changing up-to-date 

science. By relying on actionable 

science rather than latest available, the 

Corps avoids requiring the adoption of 

new procedures only to remove them 

again shortly thereafter if differing 

scientific views emerge. Similar to other 

areas within the proposed ASPs, the 

level of detail, scope, and complexity of 

analyses should be commensurate with 

the scope of complexity of the decision. 

By scaling the level of detail and 

collection of data to the relevant 

decision for investment, unnecessary 

and excessive cost and expenditure of 

resources may be avoided. For example, 

for a smaller study that qualifies for 

scaled analysis under this proposed rule 

in Table 1, such as a study under the 

Corps’ Tribal Partnership Program or the 

Continuing Authorities Program, the 

Corps would generally use the best 

available actionable data and 

information using existing sources to 

the extent practicable. Rather than 

expending a large investment to gain a 

small level of refinement to existing 

data, the Corps may make judgments as 

to the range of acceptable information to 

make informed decisions. The level of 

detail and granularity of the data would 

generally be commensurate with the 

scale, scope, and complexity of the 

water resources investment decision. In 

addition, the most relevant and 

appropriate science for the particular 

investment would be used. This would 

result in the information best suited to 

inform a decision regarding a subject 

investment. Refer to 234.6(g) regarding 

describing future conditions and 

addressing the inherent uncertainty. 

Section 234.7(d) Risk and uncertainty. 

To improve decision-making, the ASPs 

require that risks and uncertainty be 

identified, described, considered, and 

quantified if possible. This section calls 

explicitly for consideration of the costs 

and benefits of reducing risks and 

uncertainties. The Corps would align its 

disclosure, consideration, and 

assessment of risk and uncertainty with 

Circulars A–4 and A–94 to the extent 

practicable. A useful definition of ‘‘risk’’ 

for planning purposes is the likelihood 

of a specific magnitude of a harmful 

outcome occurring in the future. 

‘‘Uncertainty’’ is used to express doubt 

or lack of knowledge about a positive 

(beneficial) or negative (harmful) 

outcome. Risk and uncertainty may be 

expressed either qualitatively or 

quantitatively. Some elements of 

uncertainty are described at section 

234.6(g) regarding future conditions. 

The risks and uncertainties need to be 

disclosed for transparency and in plain 

language and made relevant to the 

comparison of alternatives. When 

available, such risks and uncertainties 

should be contextualized in a format 

more readily understandable by the 

public. The Corps would also work to 

identify whether improvements to 

existing data or models may lessen risks 

or uncertainties. In some instances, 

reducing risks and uncertainty may 

result in increased costs and the 

advantages of doing so in informing the 

decision-making should be weighed 

against those additional costs. When 

analyzing potential Federal water 

resource investments, areas of risk and 

uncertainty would be identified, 

described, quantified where possible, 

and considered as part of the decision. 

The first step to evaluate risk and 

uncertainty would be to identify the 

nature of the harmful outcomes and 

possible benefits. The second step 

would be to identify the likelihood of 

each harmful or beneficial outcome, 

either qualitatively or quantitatively. 

The third step would be to identify a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12089 

43https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/ 

Guidance/PlanningManualPartII_IWR2017R03.pdf, 

last accessed January 31, 2024. 

44https://en.unesco.org/crida, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

45https://ewn.erdc.dren.mil/?page_id=4351, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

46https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/11/Nature-Based-SolutionsRoadmap.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

47https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/ 

interagency-mou-protecting-tribal-treaty-andreserved-rights-11-15-2021.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

48https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/ 

inline-files/best_practices_guide.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

specific magnitude or range of 

magnitudes of each outcome and 

interpret the significance of each. 

The Corps solicits comment on risk 

informed frameworks that can 

supplement or improve its current risk 

informed planning processes (see 

Planning Manual Part II: Risk-Informed 

Planning).43 One approach that shows 

promise domestically (e.g., California 

Dept of Water Resources) and 

internationally 44 is Climate Risk 

Informed Decision Analysis (CRIDA). 

CRIDA concepts for scenario planning 

use bottom-up, vulnerability-driven 

approaches including stress tests and 

triggers to provide a framework to 

consider the full range of future risks 

(e.g., climate, population, land-use 

change) that matter to communities and 

decisionmakers and help develop robust 

long-term decisions for large-scale, 

multi-generational water resources 

investments. By collaborating with 

stakeholders to identify thresholds for 

system failure, CRIDA concepts can 

help identify and communicate risks 

and ensure that water resource solutions 

meet the needs of communities in the 

short and long term. 

Section 234.7(e) Adaptive 

management. Adaptive management is 

defined under the proposed rule at 

234.2(b). As cited in the PR&G, adaptive 

management is highlighted as a tool in 

the proposed rule to help reduce or 

manage within uncertainties. The 

proposed rule calls for adaptive 

management measures to be clearly 

identified and evaluated as part of the 

alternatives. It should be considered 

throughout the process and should be 

employed as soon as triggers are 

identified which necessitate such 

measures. Post-construction adaptive 

management to address unforeseen 

conditions or impacts of the project 

should also be included in Corps 

recommendations for project 

authorization. 

Section 234.7(f) and (g) Climate 

change and Water availability, water 

use, and resilience. These proposed 

paragraphs require consideration of 

climate change, water availability, water 

use, and drought and flood resilience in 

all aspects of the planning process. This 

will involve the use of best available 

actionable science and the leveraging of 

local information on future climate 

change, including the associated 

uncertainty and likely impacts. This 

approach is consistent with the 

ASA(CW) Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience Policy Statement and helps 

to ensure that the Corps does not have 

to react constantly to every new 

scientific report and update. By relying 

on actionable science rather than the 

latest available, the Corps avoids 

requiring the adoption of new 

procedures only to remove or modify 

them again shortly thereafter as 

scientific views emerge and evolve. See 

preamble section 234.6(c)(2) on 

Floodplains for further discussion on 

how the Corps considers climate change 

in the planning process. The discussion 

should include the interrelated nature of 

flood-related climate change, climate, 

drought, water, and ecosystem 

reliability, availability, and resilience. 

The evaluation should consider how 

these areas interrelate and how they 

would affect the net economic, 

environmental, and social benefits of 

the proposed water resources 

investment. Effects from climate change, 

including impacts on water availability, 

for example, have been noted as an 

environmental justice issue. Climate 

change, water availability, water use, 

and resilience also impact 

environmental factors, such as wetlands 

and river systems and the animal and 

plant species that they support. The 

evaluation should ensure these factors 

are considered for the current and future 

conditions assessment to identify water 

resource needs now and in the future 

across the alternatives, and how those 

alternatives may result in added 

resilience, when applicable to the 

project purpose. 

Resilience should be considered 

under both the drought and flooding 

scenarios. The consideration of multiple 

uses and competing demands on water 

resources shall be taken into account 

when designing solutions to water 

resources problems. Water availability, 

water use, and resilience will be 

particularly important for projects that 

serve multiple purposes. 

Section 234.7(h) Nonstructural and 

nature-based alternatives. This proposed 

paragraph further describes 

requirements to develop alternatives 

that use nonstructural measures to 

address the water resources problem. 

Nonstructural approaches are defined at 

section 234.2(l) of the proposed rule 

text. The Corps led a large, diverse 

collaboration that developed and 

published (2021) the International 

Guidelines on Natural and Nature-Based 

Features for Flood Risk Management.45

In addition, a Report on nature-based 

solutions was recently issued to assist 

Federal agencies in moving ahead on 

implementing nature-based solutions to 

solve water resources challenges, where 

appropriate, titled ‘‘Opportunities to 

Accelerate Nature-based Solutions: A 

Roadmap for Climate Progress, Thriving 

Nature, Equity, & Prosperity.’’ 46 The 

proposed paragraph requires the 

consideration of natural systems, 

ecosystem process and nature-based 

approaches throughout alternatives 

development where they are feasible 

and consistent with the study purpose. 

A full nonstructural alternative and a 

full nature-based solutions alternative 

would also be included in the final 

array of alternatives. In some cases, 

these may be one and the same. 

Section 234.7(i) Tribal treaty rights. 

This proposed paragraph provides that 

any alternatives for water resources 

investments must protect Tribal treaty 

rights. Each treaty is unique and must 

be analyzed to ensure any possible 

impacts, as well as benefits, to treaty 

rights are fully understood and 

accounted for in the alternative 

evaluations. The Corps would ensure 

consistency with the ‘‘Memorandum of 

Understanding Regarding Interagency 

Coordination and Collaboration for the 

Protection of Tribal Treaty Rights and 

Reserved Rights’’ 47 during the 

evaluation framework process. The 

Corps commits to enhancing 

interagency coordination and 

collaboration to protect Tribal treaty and 

reserved rights and to fully implement 

Federal government treaty obligations. If 

Tribal treaty rights preclude selection of 

an otherwise viable alternative, the 

Corps would disclose as such. The 

Corps also commits to following the 

‘‘Best-Practices for Identifying and 

Protecting Tribal Treaty Rights, 

Reserved Rights, and Other Similar 

Rights in Federal Regulatory Actions 

and Federal Decision-Making’’.48

Section 234.7(j) and (k) State water 

law and International obligations. These 

proposed paragraphs provide that the 

alternatives for Federal investments 

must ensure compliance with State 

water laws to the extent they do not 

conflict with Federal laws and 

regulations as well as treaty and other 

international obligations, and if any 

constraints within that compliance 

require an otherwise viable alternative 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

49https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/ 

portals/76/publications/engineerregulations/er_

1105-2-100.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

to not be carried forward then the Corps 

would disclose as such. 

Section 234.7(l) Timing. This 

proposed paragraph provides in the 

regulation what is also discussed in 

section 234.6(g) regarding the period of 

analysis for review of alternatives. The 

time period selected would be 

documented with appropriate 

supporting information. The same 

timeframe would be used across all 

alternative evaluations. The Corps 

currently uses a 50-year timeframe for 

the period of analysis (see ER 1105–2– 

100 49 section 2–4j). Under the proposed 

regulation, a better approach may be for 

the Corps to consider a period of 

analysis sufficient to capture all 

important effects of each alternative. 

The Army solicits comment on whether 

there should be an upper limit 

established for the period of analysis. If 

an upper limit is established, the Army 

solicits comment on whether the Corps’ 

current timeframe is the appropriate 

period of analysis for implementing the 

Corps’ ASPs. Alternatively, should the 

timeframe be longer given that some 

benefits could accrue over timescales 

beyond 50 years. In addition, comment 

is sought on whether the period of 

analysis should be variable based on the 

Corps’ mission and particular purpose 

and need of the proposed investment. 

The Corps recognizes the importance of 

consistency and comparability in 

evaluating alternatives and projects. 

234.8 Final Array of Alternatives. 

This proposed paragraph of the ASPs 

outlines the final array of alternatives to 

address the problem that would be 

identified and subject to in-depth 

analysis and consideration. The 

proposed rule requires the Corps to 

include six types of alternatives in the 

final array: a no action or withoutproject condition alternative, a fully 

nonstructural alternative, a fully naturebased alternative, an environmentally 

preferred alternative, an alternative that 

maximizes net public benefits, and a 

locally-preferred alternative. A single 

alternative might satisfy more than one 

category (e.g., a nature-based alternative 

that is also the net benefit maximizing 

alternative and has broad support from 

local interests), and there may be cases 

where there are two alternatives in a 

category that need to be considered. 

The no action alternative describes 

the conditions where no Federal 

investment is made by the Corps in a 

water resources development project. 

The fully nonstructural alternative is 

comprised only of nonstructural 

approaches. This alternative must be 

considered feasible to be carried 

forward in the final array. There may be 

circumstances where a solely 

nonstructural approach alternative or 

fully nature-based alternative is not 

feasible due to technology or legal 

limitations, for example. The Corps 

would also consider nature-based 

solutions and non-structural approaches 

as components in the other alternatives. 

The environmentally preferred 

alternative generally provides the 

solution that maximizes environmental 

benefits. It causes the least damage to 

the biological and physical environment 

and best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historical, cultural, and 

natural resources. The alternative that 

seeks to maximize net public benefits is 

also required to be included in the final 

array. This alternative is the plan that 

the Corps estimates would achieve the 

greatest net public benefits, based on its 

estimates of the costs and of the overall 

economic, environmental, and social 

benefits to society. The last alternative 

to be included is the alternative 

preferred by the non-federal interest, 

called the locally preferred alternative. 

All alternatives in the final array must 

be developed using a comparable level 

of rigor and detail. The non-federal 

interest is defined in the preamble at 

section 234.2(g) and as described, is the 

local interest envisioned by the PR&G 

for purposes of the Corps’ 

implementation. The same alternative 

may be identified as one or more of 

these plans (e.g., the fully nonstructural 

alternative could also be the fully 

nature-based alternative, or the locally 

preferred alternative may be the same as 

the alternative that maximizes net 

public benefits). In addition, 

nonstructural measures and naturebased solutions should be considered as 

components of the other alternatives in 

the final array, essentially providing an 

integrated or ‘‘hybrid’’ of gray (hard) 

infrastructure with these other 

measures. The section also requires 

inclusion of any needed mitigation for 

unavoidable adverse effects in the 

alternative and analysis. The section 

also provides that if an alternative 

requires any changes in law, 

regulations, or policy, such changes 

must be clearly identified and 

explained. The last paragraph provides 

a summary of what the discussion of the 

final array of alternatives should 

include to describe the purpose, study 

area, impacts, as well as considerations 

described in the Guiding Principles and 

evaluation framework. 

Section 234.9 Evaluate Effects of 

Alternatives. 

Section 234.9(a) and (b) These 

sections of the proposed ASPs establish 

the general framework for the analysis 

of the effects of the final array of 

alternatives. The analysis must evaluate 

how an alternative’s benefits compare to 

its costs, how they perform with respect 

to the PR&G’s Guiding Principles, how 

they perform against the objectives of 

the study, and how they perform against 

the prescribed formulation criteria of 

completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, 

and acceptability. Therefore, the final 

array of alternatives will be assessed in 

a manner to best inform decisionmaking. The objectives of the study may 

be related or stem from the project’s 

purpose and need but must be clear and 

focused so that they can be used to 

evaluate alternatives. The Army notes 

that there can be tension between a plan 

that is efficient versus one that is robust 

or resilient. Ensuring that both 

resilience and uncertainty are accounted 

for in any decision-making framework is 

important. 

Section 234.9(c) Consideration of 

benefits and costs. This proposed 

paragraph establishes three categories to 

fully account for the costs and benefits 

of an alternative and its contributions to 

the Federal objective that are to be 

evaluated fully: economic, 

environmental, and social. This 

framework corresponds to the ‘‘triple 

bottom line’’ of sustainable economic 

development. Alternatively, Army is 

soliciting comment on whether to 

eliminate the three categories to simply 

account for all costs and benefits 

without further categorization which 

may make it easier to avoid double 

counting, noting though that certain 

costs and benefits may not be as visible 

if they are not specifically called out in 

a category. Distributional analyses, 

including an analysis of regional 

economic benefits, may be used to 

further compare alternatives in some 

cases (see Section 234.10). These three 

categories will facilitate the display of 

alternatives, tradeoffs, and support the 

identification of the alternative(s) that 

maximize net public benefits. These 

three categories encompass all 

significant effects of a plan on the 

human environment as required by 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). They also 

encompass social well-being as required 

by Section 122 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–611, 84 Stat. 1823). 

The proposed paragraph reiterates that 

the costs and benefits should be 

quantified and monetized to the extent 

practicable using a scientifically valid 

and acceptable way. If qualitative 

applications are used, they must be of 

sufficient detail to ensure the decisionVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Feb 14, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15FEP3.SGM 15FEP3

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12091 

maker can make an informed decision 

understanding both the importance and 

magnitude of potential changes. 

This proposed paragraph is the heart 

of the PR&G and displays the largest 

change in current Corps planning. 

Rather than primarily focusing on 

national economic development in the 

alternatives analysis, the proposed ASPs 

require all three categories to be 

considered fully. As previously stated, 

this is consistent with the PR&G (see 

preamble Section 234.4(c). Some 

benefits may appear to fit in more than 

one category. If this occurs, the use of 

logic models, exploration with experts 

or other methods can help further 

specify benefits and parse them into 

their appropriate different categories, 

representing the full set of effects and 

avoiding double counting. For example, 

an alternative that restores riparian 

habitat may reduce erosion, improving 

in-stream habitat for aquatic species and 

improving navigability for shipping and 

recreational boating. The benefit to 

aquatic species should be captured as an 

environmental benefit, the effect on 

shipping should be captured as an 

economic benefit, and the effect on 

recreational boating should be captured 

as a social benefit. These are three 

distinct benefits and all should be 

included as relevant. Some social 

benefits can also be monetized, and 

when feasible should be. In those cases, 

they should count only once, as 

economic benefits. Qualitative 

information can be used to further 

contextualize their social relevance, but 

double counting should be avoided. 

This proposed paragraph calls for the 

current dollar value costs along with 

non-monetized measures and 

description to be measured against the 

current dollar value and non-monetized 

measures and description benefits of 

each alternative and compared to the no 

action alternative. Future predicted cost 

and benefit value (monetized) estimates 

would be discounted to present value 

terms for the analysis. The evaluation of 

alternatives is part of the NEPA 

alternatives analysis, in which the No 

Action Alternative and Action 

Alternatives are described, evaluated, 

and compared. The Army solicits 

comment on whether the selection of 

discount rates, and consideration of 

declining discount rates should follow 

the guidance in OMB Circulars A–4 and 

A–94. 

The proposed ASPs intentionally do 

not dictate specific evaluation tools, 

methods, or processes. These tools and 

methods would evolve over time and 

the Corps would commit to using the 

best available tools and methods 

appropriate for the analysis, so the 

analysis does not get stale. In this 

manner, the Corps can be nimble in 

changing with the evolving science, 

knowledge, data, and methods, rather 

than promulgating a prescriptive 

method in regulatory text which may 

quickly be outdated. It is envisioned 

that internal agency guidance may be 

developed providing specific references 

for the Corps to employ in analysis, 

which can be updated more readily. 

This may include areas such as income 

weighting or the use of distributional 

analysis to inform a decision on a 

proposed investment that would 

primarily benefit a specific Tribal 

Nation or disadvantaged community. 

Such internal agency guidance would be 

posted for public transparency so the 

public understands which tools and 

methods the Corps may be applying. 

Recommendations for tools and 

methods are solicited through this 

proposed rule. In addition, as the Corps 

implements the ASPs, there may be 

lessons learned and best practices that 

also necessitate the Corps to be nimble 

with internal agency procedures 

regarding evaluation tools, methods, 

and processes to implement the ASPs. 

Due to regional variation in water 

resources and challenges, one common 

set of tools and methods may not be 

appropriate for nationwide use. The 

Corps would employ the most 

appropriate tools, methods and 

processes for different type of projects 

and problems. 

This framework would include the 

analysis of costs and benefits using tools 

that have long estimated the effects of 

an alternative on the Corps’ existing 

P&G’s four accounts where still relevant 

and appropriate: National Economic 

Development, Regional Economic 

Development, Environmental Quality, 

and Other Social Effects. Some of the 

tools the Corps uses to calculate the four 

accounts now may still be relevant 

when determining economic, 

environmental, and social effects under 

the ASPs. The Corps would do an 

assessment to determine which existing 

tools may still be helpful, which may 

need modification, and where gaps exist 

for creation of new tools. The Corps 

would not be identifying the four 

accounts but rather focusing on 

economic, environmental and social 

effects as described in this proposed 

rule. Additional methods, tools and 

processes may be used and would likely 

be developed over time to better achieve 

a fuller accounting of benefits and costs. 

In general, the Corps will follow 

Circulars A–4 and A–94 for 

implementing a benefit-cost analysis. 

The Army also solicits comment on how 

such analysis would best be conducted 

for projects affecting Tribal Nations, and 

whether the Corps should identify, 

characterize, and evaluate the benefits 

to the Tribal Nation separately, as 

opposed to including them in a broader 

assessment of the overfall benefits of the 

proposed project and the alternatives to 

the U.S. Nation (including the affected 

Tribal Nations). 

While the proposed ASPs do not 

prescribe the techniques to be used to 

quantify and monetize costs and 

benefits, the Corps’ ASP analysis must 

include information to justify the use of 

any particular technique as the most 

appropriate given the circumstances. 

The justification of any analytical 

techniques used would include 

discussion on why the method is the 

most appropriate for the analysis, how 

it compares to other methods that could 

have been used (pros vs. cons), and 

what are the risks and uncertainties 

inherent in using that particular 

technique. The Corps’ ASPs allows for 

the use of new analytical techniques 

and methodologies, as they become 

available and cost effective. Costs would 

include the costs of operations and 

maintenance. 

The PR&G does not direct the Corps 

to develop ASPs that require the 

selection of a particular alternative 

investment, but rather to evaluate a 

range of alternatives. When evaluating 

these alternatives, the Corps would keep 

in mind a number of key aspects, 

including: economic, environmental, 

and social impacts are interrelated; not 

all impacts can be monetized, and 

impacts described qualitatively should 

be given full consideration; and, there 

could be more than one alternative that 

reasonably and approximately meets the 

Federal objectives and maximizes the 

public benefits relative to costs. 

Section 234.10 Compare 

Alternatives. 

Section 234.10(a) Comparing 

alternatives. This proposed ASP section 

calls for plans to be compared with each 

other and the baseline. The alternatives 

would include a description of the 

adaptability and resilience of 

alternatives to climate change and other 

risks. The plan (or plans) that 

reasonably maximizes net public 

benefits would be identified to be 

included in the final array of 

alternatives. The proposed ASPs 

explicitly call for robust engagement to 

provide meaningful participation and 

input from Tribal Nations and 

stakeholders as they may have different 

perspectives, values, considerations, 

and information on potential effects to 

inform tradeoffs between alternatives. 

See section 234.6(d) in the preamble for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

50https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/ 

city-resilience-framework/, last accessed January 31, 

2024. 

discussion on collaboration and 

engagement. Army recognizes that 

different preferences will exist and 

understanding these perspectives helps 

the Corps deliver sound investment 

advice. 

The Corps solicits comment on how it 

could compare alternatives and develop 

a recommendation. Are there multiobjective decision frameworks or 

approaches that may have successfully 

been used in other contexts or purposes 

that may assist? How can the rule best 

ensure that the Corps will be comparing 

the options and developing its project 

proposals objectively and consistently 

with a national perspective? 

For example, a multi-criteria decision 

analysis (MCDA) could be employed 

and the Army solicits comment on 

when MCDA would be appropriate for 

the application within a PR&G analysis. 

Another approach that could be 

followed is structured decision making 

(SDM). 

In addition, in certain instances the 

Corps has employed decision 

frameworks such as using resilience as 

a guiding strategy under the City 

Resilience Framework 50 for the Coastal 

Texas study. The framework presents a 

broad, multi-dimensional perspective 

on the integrated conditions that 

support resilience within a community. 

The framework highlights four 

dimensions of resilience: Health & 

Wellbeing; Economy & Society; 

Infrastructure & Environment; and 

Leadership & Strategy. The Army 

solicits comment on whether the City 

Resilience Framework align with the 

PR&G Guiding Principles and could be 

employed in a decision framework 

under the proposed ASPs. 

In another example of a decision 

framework employed by the Corps for 

the Brandon Road project, system 

performance robustness was used as a 

criterion to evaluate alternative plan 

robustness in addressing current and 

future threats of invasive carp migrating 

from the Mississippi River into Great 

Lakes basins. Robustness considered the 

(1) ability to cycle in nonstructural 

measures, (2) ability to cycle in 

structural measures, (3) number of 

structural control points within the 

study area, and (4) number of modes of 

transport the alternative controls. 

Factors were assessed in a robustness 

tool that also considered cost 

effectiveness analysis as a component of 

plan selection. 

The Corps also collaborated with the 

State of Louisiana and researchers from 

RAND to develop a proof-of-concept 

application of Robust Decision-making 

(RDM) methods to support coastal storm 

risk management and ecosystem 

restoration multi-purpose planning for 

the Louisiana Coastal Protection and 

Restoration study. Although limited, the 

proof-of-concept illustrated how RDM 

may be an appropriate method in some 

cases to derive scenarios for planning 

and communicating risk and 

uncertainty to decisionmakers and 

stakeholders at the national, regional, 

state, and local levels. The process 

initially lacked a framework for 

integrating planning with the relevant 

uncertainties inherent to the problem. 

The method was later expanded to 

employ a risk-based tool to assess a full 

range of economic and non-economic 

assets at risk against various structural 

and nonstructural risk reduction 

measures. Information from this riskbased tool helped to inform decisionmakers and the public on the risks, 

costs, and consequences of a full range 

of potential flood risk reduction, coastal 

restoration, and hurricane and storm 

damage reduction measures. 

In another example for the Sutter 

Basin Pilot Study, the Corps employed 

a study process that relied on sound 

professional engineering, economics, 

and environmental judgment and 

analyses, and focused the amount and 

type of data collected and analysis on 

the risk and consequences of the 

decisions being made. Costs and benefit 

estimates used for the initial steps of the 

planning process were based on an 

appropriate level of detail for screening 

of draft alternatives to a final array of 

alternatives. For the study, the 

appropriate level of detail was selected 

using comparative cost estimates, rather 

than absolute cost estimates. The range 

of confidence in cost and benefit 

estimates was presented in the 

comparison of alternatives; however, 

only mean estimates were presented in 

the study. More detailed cost estimates 

were prepared for the evaluation of the 

final array of alternatives leading to the 

identification of the recommended plan. 

In that study, the Corps found that no 

single factor provided the basis for the 

Corps decision for a recommendation 

for Federal investment. Alternative 

comparison and selection suggested that 

there was no single ‘‘best’’ plan, and 

that there may be a variety of 

approaches (quantitative and 

qualitative) to decision-making using 

multiple criteria. 

The Army solicits comments on the 

various frameworks and methods listed 

above as well as other alternative 

frameworks that may be employed in 

the ASPs decision-making process when 

facing a multi-dimensional problem 

with complex tradeoffs between 

monetary and non-monetary outputs 

and quantitative and qualitative data, 

which would support objective analysis 

and sound decision-making. 

Section 234.10(b) Tradeoffs. 

Tradeoffs are anticipated and expected 

for the implementation of the ASPs 

regarding the potential alternatives. 

Tradeoffs are assessed from the 

perspective of the specific 

circumstances of each study, including 

the study area, resources, impacted 

populations, and study authority, to 

form the basis for deciding which plan 

best addresses the Federal Objective and 

Guiding Principles. The Army solicits 

comment on whether the Corps should 

pursue a more straightforward 

approach, using maximizing the net 

benefits as a primary metric for use in 

comparing the alternatives and 

evaluating the tradeoffs, and to clarify 

the decision framework. 

The tradeoffs would be described 

throughout the decision-making process 

to ensure an informed decision. They 

should describe the effectiveness of the 

alternatives in solving the water 

resources problems, the tradeoffs in 

monetary and nonmonetary terms of 

what must be given up to enjoy the 

benefits of the alternatives in relation to 

the baseline, and the differences among 

the alternatives. These factors will 

ensure the tradeoffs are fully described, 

contemplated, and understood for 

decision-making. Consideration should 

be given for whether some effects 

measured are more relevant than others, 

and whether others are more incidental 

in nature which should be noted and 

separated. The Corps would note effects 

that are irreversible or that have high 

end-of-lifecycle costs to reverse 

(including decommissioning costs). 

Different project elements may be 

justified on different types of public 

benefits, which should be described. 

Tradeoffs may be identified on the basis 

of both quantifiable and unquantifiable 

terms. In addition, each separable 

project element’s goals and objectives 

should be identified to provide a 

rationale for inclusion or exclusion from 

the alternative. 

Tradeoffs among potential alternatives 

and their anticipated effects may require 

professional judgment when a 

computationally driven ‘‘best’’ answer is 

not clear. Tradeoffs must be 

understandable and transparent, and the 

analysis should be conducted in a 

consistent manner across alternatives. 

The level of detail in assessing separable 

components and the associated 

description of the specific tradeoffs 

among the goals and objectives of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12093 

investment decision should be sufficient 

to inform the decisions to be made and 

to provide transparency to the decisionmaking process. The frameworks 

discussion provided earlier in the 

preamble at 234.10(a) may also be 

helpful in evaluating these tradeoffs. 

Section 234.10(c) Information for 

inclusion in the analysis. This proposed 

paragraph outlines various information 

and tables that will promote consistency 

and transparency in comparisons across 

different studies. The information is 

also consistent with other Federal 

agency approaches in their ASPs so it 

can also provide consistency across the 

Federal government. Information must 

highlight how alternatives achieve the 

four evaluation criteria of completeness, 

effectiveness, efficiency, and 

acceptability. The information must 

include the content from the Guiding 

Principles and the evaluation 

framework described in Sections 

234.6(c) and 234.7. 

Various tables that describe resource/ 

ecosystem tradeoffs would also be 

required, including changes in each 

affected resource. This matrix would 

summarize the tradeoffs, relative to the 

baseline, resource-by-resource. The 

matrix would include information on 

the financial elements of an alternative. 

For example, if the alternative involves 

repayment by non-Federal entities or 

other financial considerations are 

required, then the table would display 

the magnitude of the annual payments 

as well as the present value of the 

payments over the period of analysis. 

The matrix would generally be 

constructed using an ecosystem service 

framework but would also ensure 

inclusion of economic, environmental, 

and social effects that are relevant but 

may be difficult to include in an 

ecosystem services framework. The 

matrix would generally include 

estimates of the annualized and total 

changes in the quantity and/or quality 

of each effect, relative to the No Action 

alternative, over the period of analysis. 

The metrics used to evaluate changes in 

services and display tradeoffs would be 

clearly defined. Estimates of changes to 

relevant benefit indicators relative to the 

No Action alternative may be used. In 

addition, a quantitative measure of 

affected ecosystem services, even if not 

monetary, that goes beyond biophysical 

measures to address relevant social 

welfare would be included. Changes in 

estimated benefits would be quantified 

and monetized to the greatest extent 

feasible. The monetized costs and 

benefits of the project benefits would 

generally be presented on an annual 

basis over the period of analysis as well 

as in present value terms. The major 

structural and nonstructural features of 

the recommended plan, any special 

considerations for implementation, and 

the estimated cost of implementation 

would also be provided in the analysis. 

The monetized costs relative to the 

baseline would be quantified and 

presented on an annual basis as well as 

in present value terms. Estimates of the 

annual changes in effects including 

those on the relevant ecosystem 

services, relevant time periods over 

which the changes are anticipated to 

occur would be included, as well as the 

level of certainty associated with each 

estimate. Non-monetized quantitative 

and qualitative measures and 

description of changes in costs and 

benefits would also be included along 

with the monetized values of the project 

and presented on an annual basis where 

feasible. While use of an ecosystem 

services decision matrix provides a 

useful construct, it should not be 

constraining if there are economic, 

environmental, or social effects that 

need to be included but would not be 

considered ecosystem services. 

Additional tradeoff displays should 

show any other relevant important 

information. A summary table would 

display the present value of costs and 

benefits, and another table would 

indicate the extent to which the 

alternatives achieve the Guiding 

Principles. The summary table would 

include all benefit estimates, regardless 

of the technique used to estimate them. 

To the extent feasible, all cost and 

benefit estimates should be 

accompanied by either quantitative or 

qualitative estimates or descriptions of 

the certainty of the estimate. Qualitative 

information is considered with 

quantitative information. The summary 

table should include entries for any 

benefits and costs that are not 

monetized and briefly provide a 

rationale for why they were not 

monetized. The text of the analysis must 

include a more in-depth discussion of 

these issues. The achievement of the 

objectives table information may be 

qualitative in nature and each of the 

Guiding Principles must be addressed 

individually. 

The Corps would use the most readily 

available, scientifically acceptable, and 

best available data and information, to 

include Indigenous Knowledge as 

described in previous sections of this 

preamble for assessing tradeoffs. 

However, the Army solicits comment on 

the tools, methods, and processes for 

assessing the tradeoffs to best elicit 

preferences resulting in the most 

informed recommendations in a 

consistent manner, although regional 

variation is expected by the nature of 

water resources and their challenges 

having great variation across the Nation. 

The Army would also consider tools 

and techniques to assess perceived risk 

in the description and assessment of 

tradeoffs, which can provide additional 

information regarding community 

concerns and needs. 

The IG provided that common 

displays that are used across agencies 

enhance transparency and clarity about 

the decision-making process and 

encouraged agencies to collaborate to 

develop these common displays. The 

displays discussed above are described 

in the Department of Interior’s ASPs to 

help ensure a more common display for 

use by Federal agencies. 

Section 234.10(d) Risk and 

uncertainty. This section also requires a 

description of areas of risk and 

uncertainty with sufficient detail so that 

decisions can be made with knowledge 

of the degree of reliability and the limits 

of available information, recognizing 

that even with the best available 

engineering and science, risk and 

uncertainty will always remain. 

The economic analyses need to reflect 

the uncertainty inherent in the data or 

various assumptions as to future 

economic, demographic, environmental, 

and technological trends. The 

environmental analyses also should 

account for the uncertainties. Various 

projections and assumptions of 

reasonable alternative forecasts, if 

realized, should be analyzed to 

determine if they would appreciably 

affect estimated results. From the 

vantage point of one who is deciding 

whether to propose or make a particular 

investment, the risk and uncertainty in 

the outcome tend to increase over time. 

The risk and uncertainty include the 

extent to which the underlying 

assumptions that drive the predicted 

benefits and costs may overstate or 

understate the actual benefits and costs. 

To address this concern (at least in 

part), the Corps may include an estimate 

of the return on investment under 

current conditions both in its flood and 

coastal storm risk management project 

studies, and in its commercial 

navigation studies. The Army solicits 

comment on this approach. This could 

show the extent to which the estimated 

benefits assume a change in current 

conditions in the future: 

• For flood and storm damage 

reduction studies, this analysis may 

help communities and decision makers 

understand the extent to which the 

Corps estimates that the current flood 

risk is likely to increase due to climate 

change and how quickly that risk may 

change. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

51See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/11/Justice40-Initiative-CoveredPrograms-List_v2.0_11.23_FINAL.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

52See https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

environmentaljustice/justice40/, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

• For commercial navigation studies, 

this analysis may enable decision 

makers to understand the extent to 

which the Corps could (or could not) 

justify the proposed navigation 

investment under current conditions. 

This analysis could help in establishing 

priorities for investment, and would 

underscore the extent to which a study 

relies on an assumed sustained longterm growth in future traffic. 

Section 234.11 Select the 

Recommended Plan. 

Section 234.11(a) Recommended plan. 

The final part of the proposed ASP’s 

planning section describes how to 

recommend a decision to either: (1) 

implement an alternative project or 

program; or (2) take no Federal action. 

Federal investments would seek to 

achieve the Federal objective and 

maximize net public benefits, as 

measured by the economic, 

environmental, and social costs and 

benefits to the Nation. The Corps would 

clearly identify the alternative that 

achieves the water resources objectives 

and reasonably maximizes the public 

benefits to the Nation relative to costs. 

In addition, this proposed rule makes 

clear that more than one alternative in 

the final array may meet these 

conditions; for example, the non-federal 

interest locally preferred alternative 

may equate to the alternative which 

meets objectives and maximizes net 

public benefits. Decisions or 

recommendations involving Federal 

investments affecting water resources 

would be made through a dynamic 

process, both iterative and progressive. 

The process should be responsive to 

significant changes in information, 

conditions, and/or objectives. These can 

occur at any point in the process and, 

depending on the potential 

consequences of the changes, may 

dictate that previous decision points, 

assumptions, and forecasts be reviewed 

in light of these changes. 

Plan selection requires decisionmakers to assess tradeoffs and to 

consider the extent of both monetized 

and non-monetized effects. The plan 

selection must disclose the criteria and 

considerations used to be transparent to 

the public in how the recommended 

plan was selected. In addition, the 

summary of Tribal and stakeholder 

engagement and their reflections on the 

various alternatives should be included 

in the plan selection. 

The selected plan recommendation 

would provide a complete discussion of 

the tradeoffs involved in making a 

decision regarding the proposed Federal 

investment; a discussion of how 

economic, environmental, and social 

benefits (monetized, quantified and 

described) justify the costs (monetized, 

quantified and described); and 

adequately attain the goals outlined in 

the Guiding Principles, recognizing how 

tradeoffs between the various goals 

affect the level of attainment within 

each Guiding Principle. If the basis for 

plan selection depends on nonmonetized benefits or costs, the report 

would describe the benefit-cost analysis 

conducted for the alternative being 

selected which would include an 

explanation of the relative importance 

of these benefits/costs and why they are 

not monetized. 

Through this process, the PR&G helps 

the Federal government improve 

decision-making by accounting for longterm costs and benefits; developing 

investments to withstand or adapt to 

climate change; creating better, more 

resilient communities; and avoiding 

conflicts and project delays by 

including local input. 

Section 234.11(b) Exceptions. The 

proposed rule allows for exceptions for 

the recommended plan to maximize net 

public benefits; however, such 

exceptions must be approved by 

ASA(CW). This proposed policy 

underscores the importance of the PR&G 

approach to put forth the recommended 

plan that maximizes net public benefits. 

D. Expected Benefits and Costs of 

Proposed Rule 

Overall, this proposed rule provides 

greater flexibility to the Federal 

government and non-Federal interests to 

consider a wider range of benefits, 

improve the effectiveness of Federal and 

local investments in Civil Works 

projects, and provide water resource 

projects that better serve communities 

and the public. Informed by more 

detailed understanding of various risks, 

Federal, state, local and Tribal 

governments are able to apply available 

resources to the activities that are most 

likely to produce public benefits. A full 

accounting of benefit and costs will 

result in projects that increase public 

benefits. An increased focus on 

collaboration throughout the planning 

process ensures projects benefit from 

local knowledge, improves Federal 

decision-making, and promotes 

transparency and responsiveness. A 

focus on environmental justice ensures 

that Federal government resources 

benefit disadvantaged communities, 

including many communities that are 

overburdened by pollution and 

marginalized by underinvestment. The 

Corps has 11 covered programs 51 under 

the Justice40 Initiative 52 which would 

apply the ASPs as described in this 

proposed rule. Use of an ecosystem 

services approach allows the planning 

process to better anticipate and account 

for the effects of a Federal investment. 

As the Corps starts implementing this 

new approach, evaluation and decisionmaking methods tools and processes 

will need to be developed, resulting in 

increased costs in time and effort to all 

parties. More resources will likely be 

directed to the evaluation of social, 

environmental, and non-traditional 

economic benefits and costs; 

engagement with other governmental 

and non-governmental partners; and 

assessing and communicating risks and 

uncertainties to the public (see 

Preamble discussion at section 

234.7(d)). Civil Works planning is 

committed to ensuring development of 

an adequate study scope and 

documentation and establishing a 

realistic schedule and budget early in 

the study process and ensuring adequate 

leveraging of data, models, methods and 

information from Tribal, State, local, 

and non-governmental resources to 

assist in development. 

This proposed rule will mostly affect 

the Investigations appropriations 

account of the Corps, which the 

Congress uses to provide funding for 

feasibility studies for potential new 

Civil Works projects, major 

rehabilitation studies, and general reevaluation and review studies. The 

ASPs will also affect the Continuing 

Authorities program funded out of the 

Construction appropriations account, 

and Section 216 and reallocation studies 

funded out the Operations and 

Maintenance appropriations account. 

We anticipate the costs to the Federal 

government to implement the proposed 

rule to remain roughly the same as 

under the current planning process as 

the ASPs change only the process to 

select the recommended project 

alternative rather than Congressional 

appropriation process. The estimated 

value added to these projects as a result 

of the application of the ASPs would 

exceed any estimated added costs. The 

change to the Corps’ internal process 

results in a shift in focus from strictly 

an economic evaluation to one 

evaluating economic, environmental, 

and social considerations. This would 

require additional tools and methods as 

described in the proposed rule preamble 

which are existing or in development or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12095 

would evolve as science and analytical 

studies improve over time. The Corps 

uses tools and methods for the current 

approach and it would be a matter of 

adding tools and methods to the current 

approach to include social and 

environmental considerations. This new 

process will require additional trainings 

and development of tools and methods 

not currently available which may result 

in some minor additional costs to the 

Corps but those initial costs would be 

outweighed by long-term benefits of the 

Corps’ implementation of the ASPs and 

efficiencies gained by the use of new 

tools and methods. The costs to the 

public would be the same as under the 

current planning process. The Corps’ 

planning process and Civil Works 

programs and projects which fall under 

the proposed ASPs are not mandatory or 

obligatory requirements on the public 

but rather are initiated and voluntarily 

entered into by the non-federal interest 

and the Corps pursuant to congressional 

authorization. See the Corps’ Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for further discussion 

on the benefits and costs of the 

proposed rule. 

E. Procedural Requirements 

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review. Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

as amended by Executive Order 14094 

(88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), defines 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) have an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more 

(adjusted every 3 years by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs for 

changes in gross domestic product); 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, territorial, 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 legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities or the principles set forth in 

this Executive order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 

This proposed rule has been found to 

be a significant regulatory action and 

has therefore been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review. 

This rule establishing the Corps’ ASPs 

to implement the PR&G does not by 

itself impose costs or benefits. Potential 

costs and benefits would only be 

incurred as a result of actions taken 

under existing Corps programs relying 

on these procedures. The Corps does not 

initiate any actions that may be 

undertaken under the proposed rule on 

their own but rather in response to 

engagements by a non-Federal interest 

or at Congressional direction. See 

Section D of the Preamble for a 

discussion on expected costs and 

benefits of the proposed rule. Primarily, 

these costs would be incurred by the 

Corps and the non-Federal interest. 

Benefits would be incurred by the 

communities and ecosystems where the 

Corps projects occur. See the Corps’ 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for further 

discussion on costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule. 

b. Review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. As required 

by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), the Department of Army 

prepares appropriate environmental 

analysis for its activities affecting the 

quality of the human environment. The 

Corps has preliminarily determined that 

this proposed regulation, if finalized, 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. The 

rule establishes the procedure the Corps 

will consider in evaluating investments 

in projects, programs, and plans. The 

Corps will conduct an action-specific 

NEPA analysis before undertaking any 

activities that could potentially affect 

the quality of the human environment 

and will integrate the NEPA process 

with the procedure laid out in this rule. 

A. The draft Environmental Assessment 

to support this preliminary 

determination is available at http://

www.regulations.gov for public 

comment. The preliminary 

determination that an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) will not be 

required for the promulgation of the 

regulation will be reviewed in 

consideration of the comments received. 

c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). The Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act does not apply to 

this proposed rule because this rule 

provides policy for Corps planning 

processes authorized through 

congressional action. The Corps has also 

found, under section 203 of the Act, that 

small governments, as defined under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, will 

not be significantly and uniquely 

affected by this rulemaking. Although 

small governments may be non-Federal 

interests for a Corps project and 

therefore be involved in the proposed 

ASPs, there are other forms of nonFederal interests and other entities 

engaged in the process so small 

governments are not uniquely affected. 

The action imposes no enforceable duty 

on any Tribal, state, or local 

governments, or the private sector. 

d. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This 

proposed rule does not impose any 

information collection requirements for 

which OMB approval under the PRA is 

required. However, this action may 

change terms and concepts used by the 

Corps to implement certain programs. 

The Corps does not believe any of their 

existing information collection 

instruments would need revision at this 

time. 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

The Army did engage in early 

outreach with state and local 

governments, or their representative 

national organizations, prior to 

proposing this regulation as a matter of 

policy (see 87 FR 33756, Notice of 

Virtual Public and Tribal Meetings 

Regarding the Modernization of Army 

Civil Works Policy Priorities; 

Establishment of a Public Docket; 

Request for Input). Twelve 

intergovernmental organizations 

attended the early engagement virtual 

sessions to provide oral comments or 

provided written comments to the 

docket, as well as three associations 

representing state and local 

governments. Their comments included 

support for moving to a fuller 

consideration of project benefits than 

just economics and on robust 

collaboration with state and locals 

including use of local and regional 

information in the planning process. 

The ASPs reflect these themes. The 

Army will continue to engage with state 

and local governments during the public 

comment period through virtual 

meetings. 

f. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally 

requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business based on the 

Small Business Administration size 

standards; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This rule does not ‘‘subject’’ any 

entities of any size to any specific 

regulatory burden. The scope and 

content of the proposed rule is informed 

by the PR&G and would not be readily 

informed by an RFA analysis. See, e.g., 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 255 

F.3d 869 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (‘‘[T]o require 

an agency to assess the impact on all of 

the nation’s small businesses possibly 

affected by a rule would be to convert 

every rulemaking process into a massive 

exercise in economic modeling, an 

approach we have already rejected.’’); 

Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 688–89 

(D.C. Cir. 2000) (holding that the RFA 

imposes ‘‘no obligation to conduct a 

small entity impact analysis of effects’’ 

on entities which it regulates only 

‘‘indirectly’’); Am. Trucking Ass’n v. 

EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 

1999) (‘‘[A]n agency may justify its 

certification under the RFA upon the 

‘‘factual basis’’ that the rule does not 

directly regulate any small entities.’’); 

Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 773 

F.2d 327, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 

(‘‘Congress did not intend to require that 

every agency consider every indirect 

effect that any regulation might have on 

small businesses in any stratum of the 

national economy.’’). 

Under the RFA, the impact of concern 

is any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities, because the 

primary purpose of the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is to identify and 

address regulatory alternatives ‘‘which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603. In this case, the 

Army certifies that this proposed 

regulation does not have a significant 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed regulation merely 

provides ASPs for the Corps’ planning 

processes implementing the PR&G. 

Although small entities might benefit 

from such Corps water resources 

development projects—just as large 

entities and private individuals might— 

the agency procedures under the 

proposed regulation does not place any 

burden on small entities nor does it 

entail direct involvement by such 

entities except for those that may be 

non-federal interests for Corps projects. 

Nevertheless, the Army recognizes that 

the Corps’ implementation of the PR&G 

may be of great national interest, 

including within the small business and 

small entity community. The Army 

commits to meeting with small entities 

during the public comment period to 

hear their thoughts on the proposed 

rule. 

h. Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments. Under 

Executive Order 13175, the Federal 

government may not issue a regulation 

that has substantial, direct effects on 

one or more Tribal Nation, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Tribal Nation, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Tribal Nations. The 

Executive Order also states the Federal 

government may not issue a regulation 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on those communities, 

and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance cost incurred by the Tribal 

Nation governments, or we consult with 

those governments. If complying by 

consulting, Executive Order 13175 

requires agencies to provide the Office 

of Management and Budget, in a 

separately identified section of the 

preamble to the rule, a description of 

the extent of prior consultation with 

representatives of affected Tribal Nation 

governments, a summary of the nature 

of Tribal Nation concerns, and a 

statement supporting the need to issue 

the regulation. In addition, Executive 

Order 13175 requires that agencies 

develop an effective process permitting 

elected officials and other 

representatives of Tribal Nation 

governments an opportunity to provide 

timely input in the development of 

regulatory policies on matters that 

significantly or uniquely affect their 

communities. 

This proposed regulation does not 

impose significant compliance costs on 

any Tribal Nation or otherwise have 

substantial direct effects on the same. 

The regulation merely provides agency 

procedures specific to the Corps to 

implement the PR&G. Whether the 

Corps initiates a water resources 

development project for Federal 

investment depends on if it is 

authorized by Congress. The Army 

believes that the regulation itself does 

not directly result in a substantial, 

direct effect on the relationship between 

the Army and Tribal Nations but does 

recognize that implementation of the 

ASPs at a project, program, or plan level 

may result in improved engagement and 

collaboration, and appropriate solutions 

to water resources problems in 

partnership with Tribal Nations. The 

Army initiatives to comply with the 

Executive Order includes: (1) initiating 

government-to-government consultation 

on the Federal Register notice to 

Modernize Civil Works (87 FR 33756) to 

permit meaningful, early, and robust 

engagement in development of this 

proposed rule; (2) conducting a virtual 

meeting on this effort with Tribal 

Nations held on July 21, 2022; (3) 

responding to all requests for one-onone consultation and meeting with three 

Tribal Nations at a leader-to-leader level 

and one Tribal Nation at a staff-level. 

All letters received by the Army as part 

of Tribal consultation may be found in 

the docket for the Modernize Civil 

Works effort (www.regulations.gov at 

Docket ID No. COE–2022–0006). 

The Army has also initiated 

government-to-government consultation 

on this proposed rule action through a 

specific Dear Tribal Leaders letter sent 

to Tribal leaders. Tribal Nations may 

also submit written comments to the 

docket for this proposed rule. In 

addition, the Corps would engage in 

government-to-government consultation 

on a specific Federal action per the 

existing USACE Tribal Consultation 

Policy. The Corps’ provision of water 

resources development projects and 

services does not affect the distribution 

of power or responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Tribal Nations. 

This proposed rule will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

i. Executive Order 13045: Protection 

of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. The Army 

interprets Executive Order 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the agencies 

have reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

j. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. This action is not 

a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12097 

53https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/PandG, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

54https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/ 

Guidance/Principles_Guidelines.pdf, last accessed 

January 31, 2024. 

55https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ 

default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_

march_2013.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

56https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ 

default/files/docs/prg_interagency_guidelines_12_

2014.pdf, last accessed January 31, 2024. 

k. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act. This rulemaking 

does not involve technical standards, 

and as such, does not trigger 

requirements under the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act. 

l. Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing 

Our Nation’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice for All; Executive 

Order 12898: Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations. The Army believes that 

this action does not have 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns, as specified in Executive 

Order 14096 (88 FR 80 (Apr. 26, 2023); 

see also Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994)). 

The Army recognizes that the burdens 

of environmental pollution and climate 

change often fall disproportionately on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. Climate change will 

exacerbate the existing risks faced by 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. The proposed ASPs further 

the goals of E.O. 14096 by incorporating 

environmental justice and social goals 

into the Corps’ planning processes, in 

addition to environmental and 

economic goals, as opposed to solely 

relying on economic justification. 

For this rule, consistent with 

Executive Order 12898 and Executive 

Order 14096, the Army considered 

whether the change in benefits due to 

this rule may be differentially 

distributed among communities with 

environmental justice concerns in the 

affected areas when compared to both 

baselines. This proposed rule action 

establishes a process for Corps 

identification of a final array of 

alternatives for water resources 

development project investments and to 

inform the recommended plan. The 

proposed rule would not directly result 

or contribute to benefits to any 

particular communities as such projects 

must be congressionally authorized and 

appropriated. However, the 

consideration of social, environmental, 

and economic goals out of necessity 

incorporates environmental justice 

considerations into those alternatives 

and recommendation as the final 

recommendation must be the one that 

maximizes net public benefits. The 

impacts of the changes to the Corps 

processes proposed in this rule would 

be beneficial to communities with 

environmental justice concerns because 

it ensures environmental justice 

considerations are brought forth and 

considered in the Corps’ processes. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 234 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Intergovernmental relations, 

Technical assistance, Water resources. 

Approved by: 

Michael L. Connor, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

■ Accordingly, the Corps proposes to 

add part 234 to title 33 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 234—CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

AGENCY SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO 

IMPLEMENT THE PRINCIPLES, 

REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES 

FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN 

WATER RESOURCES 

Sec. 

234.1 General. 

234.2 Definitions. 

234.3 Exceptions. 

234.4 Objectives and applicability. 

234.5 Level of analysis. 

234.6 The planning process. 

234.7 Evaluation framework. 

234.8 Final array of alternatives. 

234.9 Evaluate effects of alternatives. 

234.10 Compare alternatives. 

234.11 Select the recommended plan. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 701n. 

§ 234.1 General. 

(a) This part prescribes the Agency 

Specific Procedures (ASPs) for the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) to execute its Civil Works 

mission, in accordance with the Water 

Resources Principles and Guidelines 

defined in Section 2031 of the Water 

Resources and Development Act 

(WRDA) of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–114; 42 

U.S.C. 1962–3), the Principles, 

Requirements and Guidelines (PR&G) 

issued by the Water Resources 

Council,53 and as called for in Section 

110 of WRDA 2020 (Division AA of Pub. 

L. 116–260). 

(b) Section 2031 of the WRDA of 2007 

(Pub. L. 110–114) directed the Secretary 

of the Army to revise the March 10, 

1983, Economic and Environmental 

Principles and Guidelines for Water and 

Related Land Resources Implementation 

Studies 54 (P&G) for Corps use and to 

address the following considerations: 

advancements in economic and analytic 

techniques; public safety; low-income 

communities; nonstructural approaches; 

interaction with other water resources 

projects and programs; integrated and 

adaptive management; and, use of 

public benefits to justify projects. The 

WRDA provision also provided that the 

Federal Objective is to reflect national 

priorities, encourage economic 

development, and protect the 

environment by seeking to maximize 

sustainable economic development, 

avoid the unwise use of floodplains, and 

protect and restore natural ecosystems. 

(c) The PR&G was issued as an 

interagency effort to modernize the P&G. 

The PR&G is comprised of the 

Principles and Requirements (P&R) 55

issued in March 2013 and the 

Interagency Guidelines (IG) 56 issued in 

December 2014. The PR&G emphasizes 

that water resources projects should 

strive to meet the Federal Objective and 

maximize public benefits relative to 

public costs. The PR&G is designed to 

support water infrastructure projects 

with the greatest public benefits 

(economic, environmental, and social 

benefits) relative to costs. 

(d) Congress directed the Secretary of 

the Army to issue ASPs to implement 

the PR&G in Section 110 of WRDA 2020 

(Division AA of Pub. L. 116–260). 

§ 234.2 Definitions. 

(a) Acceptability. The viability and 

appropriateness of an alternative from 

the perspective of the Nation’s general 

public and consistency with existing 

Federal laws, authorities, and public 

policies. It does not include local or 

regional preferences for solutions or 

political expediency. 

(b) Adaptive management. A 

deliberate, iterative, and scientific based 

process of designing, implementing, 

monitoring, and adjusting an action, 

measure, or project to address changing 

circumstances and outcomes, reduce 

uncertainty, and maximize one or more 

goals over time. 

(c) Completeness. The extent to which 

an alternative provides and accounts for 

all features, investments, and/or other 

actions necessary to realize the planned 

effects, including any necessary actions 

by others. It does not necessarily mean 

that alternative actions need to be large 

in scope or scale. 

(d) Effectiveness. The extent to which 

an alternative alleviates the specified 

problems and achieves the specified 

opportunities. 

(e) Efficiency. The extent to which an 

alternative alleviates the specified 

problems and realizes the specified 

opportunities at the least cost. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(f) Federal investment. Investments 

made by the Corps related to water 

resources development projects, 

including flood and storm risk 

management, ecosystem restoration, 

land management activities, navigation, 

recreation, and hydropower. 

(g) Federal objective. The fundamental 

goal of Federal investments in water 

resources. Federal water resources 

investments shall reflect national 

priorities, encourage economic 

development, and protect the 

environment. Federal investments 

should strive to maximize net public 

benefits. 

(h) Indigenous Knowledge. A body of 

observations, oral and written 

knowledge, innovations, practices, and 

beliefs developed by Tribes and 

Indigenous Peoples through interaction 

and experience with the environment. It 

is applied to phenomena across 

biological, physical, social, cultural, and 

spiritual systems. Indigenous 

Knowledge can be developed over 

millennia, continues to develop, and 

includes understanding based on 

evidence acquired through direct 

contact with the environment and longterm experiences, as well as extensive 

observations, lessons, and skills passed 

from generation to generation. 

(i) Nature-based alternatives. An 

alternative comprised of actions to 

protect, sustainably manage, or restore 

natural or modified ecosystems to 

address societal challenges, while 

simultaneously providing benefits for 

people and the environment. 

(j) Non-federal interest. (1) a legally 

constituted public body (including an 

Indian tribe and a tribal organization (as 

those terms are defined in section 5304 

of title 25); or (2) a nonprofit entity with 

the consent of the affected local 

government, that has full authority and 

capability to perform the terms of its 

agreement and to pay damages, if 

necessary, in the event of failure to 

perform. 

(k) Nonstructural alternative. An 

alternative comprised of a nonstructural 

approach or combination of 

nonstructural approaches that addresses 

the water resources problem. 

(l) Nonstructural approach. An 

approach that alters the use of existing 

infrastructure or human activities to 

generally avoid or minimize adverse 

changes to existing hydrologic, 

geomorphic, and ecological processes. 

This may include measures such as 

certain forms of nature-based solutions; 

modified floodplain practices; policy 

modifications; vessel speed limits; 

traffic management and tidal navigation 

restrictions; the reoperation of dams and 

reservoirs to restore or better mimic 

natural hydrology and flow patterns; 

invasive plant removal; signage to limit 

public access at an aquatic ecosystem 

restoration site; setbacks; elevations; 

relocation; and buyout/acquisition 

including the acquisition of flowage 

easements; dry flood proofing and wet 

flood proofing; providing flood 

insurance; establishing building codes 

for new construction; other local 

floodplain management practices; 

installing early warning systems; and 

developing emergency evacuation plans. 

(m) Public benefits. Encompasses 

economic, environmental, and social 

impacts, and includes those that can be 

quantified in monetary terms, as well as 

those that can be quantified or described 

qualitatively. 

(n) Regulatory. Generally, those 

activities subject to legal restrictions 

promulgated by the Federal government. 

(o) Resilience. The capacity of an 

ecosystem or community to respond to 

changes, including climate changes. 

(p) Sustainable. The creation and 

maintenance of conditions under which 

humans and nature can coexist in the 

present and into future. 

(q) Tribal Nation (Federally 

recognized Indian tribe or Tribal 

organization). An Indian or Alaska 

Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 

village, or community that the Secretary 

of the Interior acknowledges to exist as 

an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 

1994, 25 U.S.C. 5130. 

(r) Unwise use of floodplains. Any 

action or change that diminishes public 

health and safety, or an action that is 

incompatible with or adversely impacts 

one or more floodplain functions that 

leads to a floodplain that is no longer 

self-sustaining or degrades ecosystem 

services. 

(s) Watershed. A land area that drains 

to a common waterbody. 

§ 234.3 Exceptions. 

Exceptions to any requirements or 

policy contained in this part may be 

requested by the Corps or the nonFederal interest or responsible Tribal, 

State, or local government. Exceptions 

must be requested in writing and will be 

reviewed for a decision by the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

§ 234.4 Objectives and applicability. 

(a) Introduction. The goal of 

Department of the Army’s ASPs is to 

ensure that Army Civil Works 

consistently applies a common 

framework for analyzing a diverse range 

of water resources development 

projects, programs, activities, and 

related actions involving Federal 

investments. The ASPs will advance 

transparency and consistency of the 

Corps’ Federal investments in water 

resources. The intention of the ASPs is 

to outline the steps to apply the PR&G 

to Corps water resource investments, 

including a determination of the 

applicability of PR&G in the context of 

the Corps’ missions and authorities, to 

provide a common framework for 

evaluation of investment alternatives, 

and to ensure that the Corps adequately 

addresses the Guiding Principles 

identified in P&R. 

(b) Objectives for Federal water 

resources investments. Section 2031 of 

WRDA 2007 (Pub. L. 110–114; 42 U.S.C. 

1962–3) specifies that Federal water 

resources investments shall reflect 

national priorities, encourage economic 

development, and protect the 

environment. The Corps shall 

accomplish this Federal objective of 

water resources planning policy by: 

(1) seeking to maximize sustainable 

economic development; 

(2) seeking to avoid the unwise use of 

floodplains and flood-prone areas and 

minimizing adverse impacts and 

vulnerabilities in any case in which a 

floodplain or flood-prone area must be 

used; and, 

(3) protecting and restoring the 

functions of natural systems and 

mitigating any unavoidable damage to 

natural systems. 

(c) Net public benefits. The Corps 

shall strive to maximize net public 

benefits to society. Public benefits 

encompass economic, environmental, 

and social goals, include monetized and 

un-monetized effects, and allow for the 

consideration of both quantified and 

unquantified effects. The Corps shall 

take a comprehensive view in 

evaluating net public benefits. 

(d) Applicability. 

(1) The objectives in paragraph (b) of 

this section shall be embodied in all 

new Army Civil Works’ water resources 

investments, which include both 

structural and nonstructural approaches 

to water resources problems. The PR&G 

analysis under the Corps’ ASPs 

described in this regulation is generally 

required for feasibility studies, General 

Re-evaluation reports, Major 

Rehabilitation reports, Continuing 

Authorities Programs, significant 

changes to operations through reallocation studies or Section 216 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91– 

611), and any other project or program 

not otherwise excluded under paragraph 

(2) of this paragraph. 

(2) Excluded activities. The PR&G is 

not intended to apply to all Federal 

actions. The following types of Federal 

investments are identified as excluded 

from the requirements of this regulation: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12099 

57The Corps may choose to analyze the effects of 

a federal investment at a higher level of detail than 

called for by Table 1. For example, if the Corps 

considers an investment to be high risk, it could 

undertake a scaled analysis for that investment 

which might otherwise be excluded from the PR&G 

analysis. 58The financial threshold amounts will be 

indexed to inflation to stay relevant. 59Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities 

that are included in the original project 

authorizations do not require separate analysis if 

the activity is carried out in a manner that is 

consistent with that authorization. Significantly 

changed O&M plans or those changed to meet new 

goals may require a new analysis and potentially 

authorization. 

(i) Regulatory actions, such as the 

issuance of permits associated with 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1344). 

(ii) Real estate actions. 

(iii) Planning Assistance to States 

program. 

(iv) Flood Plain Management Services 

program. 

(v) Section 14 of Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) program. 

(vi) Public Law 84–99 program. 

(vii) Water Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act Program. 

(viii) Environmental Infrastructure 

projects. 

(ix) Land management plans. 

(x) Operations and maintenance 

activities that are carried out in a 

manner consistent with the existing 

approved operations and maintenance 

manual or plan for an authorized 

project. This does not include 

significantly changed O&M plans or 

those changed to meet new goals which 

may require a new analysis under this 

regulation and potentially authorization. 

(xi) International and Interagency 

Support and Support for Others actions. 

(xii) Research or monitoring activities. 

(xiii) Emergency actions. 

(xiv) Projects, programs, or plans that 

meet the threshold criteria for exclusion 

or that fall below the thresholds 

identified in Table 1. These excluded 

actions generally occur when 

investments are routine and have 

inconsequential effects on water 

resources. 

(xv) Additional programs, plans, or 

projects which the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works has 

determined do not require analysis 

pursuant to section 3 of this regulation. 

§ 234.5 Level of analysis. 

(a) Standard and scaled levels of 

analysis. Once a determination has been 

made that PR&G does apply, the level of 

analysis shall be determined. The level 

of PR&G analysis required will vary in 

scope and magnitude across programs 

and activities. There are two levels of 

analysis: ‘‘standard’’ and ‘‘scaled’’. In 

general, the level of analysis should be 

commensurate with the significance of 

the Federal investment in terms of 

dollar value and the potential 

environmental impacts. While there is 

not a clear distinction between the 

different levels of analysis, the two 

types of analysis can generally be 

distinguished in several ways: 

(1) A standard analysis seeks to 

evaluate all the relevant benefits and 

costs associated with the project or 

activity using original or secondary 

data. This type of analysis is typically 

used for new or significantly modified 

actions. The Corps would conduct a 

benefit-cost analysis of programs and 

activities that have some effect on the 

environment. For projects/activities that 

fall into the category of ‘‘standard 

analysis,’’ the analysis should make 

significantly greater efforts to quantify 

and monetize impacts. The extent to 

which effects can and should be 

monetized should be made on a 

resource-by-resource basis and 

considering the estimated present value 

cost of the project/activity and the 

significance of the effects. 

(2) A scaled analysis is an analysis 

that is more limited in scope for 

projects, programs, or plans that have 

low risk/low cost, or have minimal 

consequences of failure, posing minimal 

threats to human life or safety, or do not 

result in significant impacts to the 

environment. A scaled analysis may rely 

on benefits function transfer methods 

and readily available secondary data 

sources. Benefits function transfer 

methods are used to estimate monetary 

values by transferring available 

information about relationships from 

studies already completed to another 

location, context, or issue. Best practices 

would be applied when using this 

approach to avoid common pitfalls. 

(b) Determining the appropriate level 

of analysis. In many cases, professional 

judgment and available resources will 

be important factors in determining the 

appropriate level of analysis. The Corps 

will ensure that cumulative effects of 

many small, routine actions would not 

in itself elevate those investments to a 

scaled or standard analysis. Many of 

those small, routine actions would be 

excluded from PR&G analysis. 

(c) Scope and magnitude of analysis 

required. The threshold criteria for 

project, programmatic, and individual 

plan level analysis for Army Civil 

Works is shown in Table 1. These 

thresholds represent guidelines for the 

level of analysis that is likely to be most 

appropriate for an activity, given the 

level of investment in, appropriations 

for, or cost of that activity. In 

determining whether a given activity or 

project falls under or exceeds the 

financial thresholds, it is the level of 

present value of Federal investment that 

is the relevant criterion to use. However, 

for a particular activity, a different level 

of analysis may be more appropriate, 

and projects/programs may depart from 

these guidelines where such a departure 

is justified. In general, a scoping effort 

should be undertaken to evaluate the 

level of effort needed to analyze the full 

range of potential effects. Project-level 

analysis should generally be used for 

water resources investments when the 

Corps has discretion in site-specific 

investment decisions. A programmaticlevel analysis generally has a broader 

scale and/or scope than a project-level 

analysis. Programmatic-level analysis 

generally relates to funding programs or 

where a proposal for a set of similar 

actions analyzed under one decision 

document may occur. 

TABLE 1 57—MONETARY THRESHOLD CRITERIA 58

Type of activity 

Federal 

investment 

($M) 

Annual 

appropriations 

or plan 

development 

costs 

($M) 

Level of analysis 

Projects: All new or existing Federal investments, such as infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, new construction, modifications or replacements to existing facilities, and operations and maintenance 59.>20 

10–20 

<10 

............................

............................

............................

Standard analysis. 

Scaled analysis. 

Excluded. 

Programs ............................................................................................................................. .................... >100 Standard analysis. 

.................... 50–100 Scaled analysis. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

60https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/PandG, last 

accessed January 31, 2024. 

TABLE 1 57—MONETARY THRESHOLD CRITERIA 58—Continued 

Type of activity 

Federal 

investment 

($M) 

Annual 

appropriations 

or plan 

development 

costs 

($M) 

Level of analysis 

.................... <50 Excluded. 

Individual Plans: Management plans, such as watershed, master, etc ............................. ....................

....................

....................

>50 

10–50 

<10 

Standard analysis. 

Scaled analysis. 

Excluded. 

§ 234.6 The planning process. 

(a) Introduction. The following 

planning process will be used to 

implement the common framework 

summarized in the Interagency 

Guidelines for analyzing Federal 

investments in applicable water 

resources.60 The planning process will 

ensure that plan formulation, 

evaluation, and implementation of 

agency projects and programs reflect the 

Guiding Principles identified in the 

P&R: healthy and resilient ecosystems, 

sustainable economic development, 

floodplains, public safety, 

environmental justice, and a watershed 

approach. The planning process consists 

of a series of steps that identifies or 

responds to problems and opportunities, 

as well as specific Tribal, state, and 

local concerns, and, in most cases, 

culminates in a recommended plan. The 

process involves an orderly and 

systematic approach to making 

determinations and decisions at each 

step so that the interested public and 

decision-makers in the planning 

organization can be fully aware of the 

following: the basic assumptions 

employed; the data and information 

analyzed; the areas of risk and 

uncertainty; the reasons and rationales 

used; and the significant implications of 

each alternative. The planning process 

is iterative to adapt to new information 

and understanding. The result of the 

planning process is investment advice. 

The advice may be a recommended plan 

or plans that seek to maximize net 

public benefits in addressing the 

identified water resources problem and 

a description of the analysis of the 

benefits and costs of that and other 

potential plans. 

(b) National Environmental Policy 

Act. Where Federal investments in 

water resources require analysis under 

NEPA and this regulation, Army Civil 

Works should integrate, to the extent 

possible, the analysis in this regulation 

into existing planning processes, and 

may integrate this regulation and NEPA 

analyses in a single analytical document 

that reflects both processes. Army Civil 

Works shall seek opportunities to 

integrate other required Federal and 

state environmental reviews with their 

combined analyses. 

(c) Guiding principles. The Guiding 

Principles provide the overarching 

concepts that the Corps seeks to 

promote through investments in water 

resources. 

(1) Environmental justice. 

Environmental justice refers to the just 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of income, race, 

color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, 

or disability, in agency decision-making 

and other Federal activities that affect 

human health and the environment so 

that people: 

(i) are fully protected from 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health and environmental effects 

(including risks) and hazards, including 

those related to climate change, the 

cumulative impacts of environmental 

and other burdens, and the legacy of 

racism or other structural or systemic 

barriers; and 

(ii) have equitable access to a healthy, 

sustainable, and resilient environment 

in which to live, play, work, learn, 

grow, worship, and engage in cultural 

and subsistence practices. 

Environmental justice shall be 

considered throughout the Civil Works 

program and in all phases of project 

planning and decision-making. Army 

Civil Works projects and programs shall 

advance equity by meeting the needs of 

communities, such as by reducing 

disparate environmental burdens, 

removing barriers to participation in 

decision-making, and increasing access 

to benefits provided by Civil Works 

programs, including for disadvantaged 

communities. The planning process 

shall put these communities at the front 

and center of studies, providing robust 

opportunities for effective participation 

in the planning and decision-making 

processes. Any disproportionate adverse 

public safety, human health, or 

environmental burdens of project 

alternatives on communities with 

environmental justice concerns shall be 

avoided, minimized, or mitigated to the 

greatest extent reasonable. The Corps 

shall ensure that communities with 

environmental justice concerns have 

meaningful opportunities to identify 

potential alternatives, effects and 

mitigation measures. The Corps shall 

also be transparent in fully displaying 

the potential effects of alternative 

actions on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. 

(2) Floodplains. All future Federal 

investments in and affecting floodplains 

must meet some level of floodplain 

resilience. Alternatives affecting 

floodplains should aim to improve 

floodplain resilience if possible and also 

should avoid the unwise use of 

floodplains and/or flood-prone areas. If 

the areas cannot be avoided, then the 

alternative must minimize adverse 

impacts to these areas and mitigate 

unavoidable impacts using nature-based 

approaches where possible. The Corps 

shall identify and communicate 

potential adverse effects on floodplain 

functions for the various alternatives 

under consideration. Where the Corps 

proposes to construct a project feature 

in a floodplain because that is the best 

way to serve a public purpose such as 

flood risk reduction, that proposed 

Corps project is not automatically 

considered an unwise use of the 

floodplains. The Corps shall strive to 

sustain the floodplains natural and 

beneficial functions to the maximum 

extent practicable given the project’s 

purpose and need. 

(3) Healthy and resilient ecosystems. 

Alternatives shall protect the existing 

functions of ecosystems and may restore 

the health of damaged ecosystems to a 

less degraded and more natural state 

where feasible, and in accordance with 

current study and cost sharing 

authorities. When adverse 

environmental impacts cannot be 

completely avoided, alternatives shall 

strive to minimize environmental 

impacts. When a particular alternative 

will cause unavoidable damage to the 

environment, mitigation to offset 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12101 

damages shall be incorporated into that 

alternative and evaluated as part of that 

alternative. In developing alternatives, 

consideration shall be given to 

ecosystem resilience, including 

acknowledging the value of ecosystem 

services to people. When evaluating 

alternatives, the health of the affected 

ecosystem shall be measured in its 

current condition as the baseline and 

projected under the alternatives being 

considered, including the No Action 

alternative. 

(4) Public safety. Alternative solutions 

shall strive to avoid, reduce, or mitigate 

significant risks to public safety, 

including both loss of life and injury, 

and shall include measures to manage 

and communicate the residual risks. 

The impact and reliability of 

alternatives on significant risks to 

public safety must be evaluated for both 

existing and future conditions, 

considered in decision-making, and 

documented. 

(5) Sustainable economic 

development. The Corps’ investments in 

water resources shall encourage 

sustainable economic development. 

This is accomplished through the 

sustainable use and management of 

water resources ensuring overall water 

resources resilience. Sustainable 

economic development creates and 

maintains conditions under which 

humans and nature can coexist. 

Analysis under sustainable economic 

development shall present, where 

feasible, information about the 

environmental resources in the project 

area or the area where activities are 

occurring, and how the resources and 

their value might be expected to change 

over time. Physical capital information 

may also be included where relevant. 

Analysis shall also include information 

on socio-economic conditions under 

current and projected conditions. 

Economic, social, and environmental 

effects and benefits shall be 

incorporated into the analysis of 

alternatives. 

(6) Watershed approach. When 

developing alternatives, the water 

resources problem being addressed 

should be analyzed on a watershedbased level to facilitate inclusion of a 

complete range of solutions, after 

considering the breadth of impacts 

across the watershed. A key aspect of 

the watershed approach is the analysis 

of information regarding watershed 

conditions and needs, allowing for 

consideration of upstream and 

downstream conditions and needs, 

consideration of other projects and 

actions in place, underway or planned 

by other agencies within the watershed, 

and more thoroughly addressing the 

potential impacts of a proposed action. 

The scale of the watershed used to 

develop alternatives can vary. The 

appropriately sized watershed for the 

particular need being addressed shall be 

a case-specific determination based on 

the relevant facts and circumstances. 

The watershed scale used to develop 

alternatives should encompass a 

geographical area large enough to ensure 

plans address cause and effect 

relationships among affected resources 

and activities, both upstream and 

downstream and cumulative in nature 

that are important to gaining public 

benefits or avoiding harms from the 

project. The watershed approach 

ensures that the interconnectedness of 

systems is evaluated to fully understand 

the root causes and symptoms of the 

water resources problem and the full 

range of potential public benefits. 

Communication with other agencies or 

Tribal, territorial, state and local 

government partners working in the 

watershed starting in the scoping phase 

could help realize a watershed 

approach. In addition, other potential 

investments in the watershed shall also 

be accounted for under the watershed 

approach. 

(d) Collaboration. 

(1) The planning process will seek to 

achieve full collaboration with a wide 

range of affected Tribes, governmental 

and non-governmental stakeholders, 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns, and the public in all stages of 

the planning process. Collaboration 

with Tribes, governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns and the general public 

throughout the planning process allows 

consideration of multiple perspectives 

and information sources (e.g., 

Indigenous Knowledge) and shall be 

emphasized throughout the planning 

process. Collaboration with Tribes, 

communities, and local and state 

governments is a critical element to help 

identify specific problems, 

opportunities, and significant 

constraints within the study area, and 

help establish planning goals and 

objectives that are consistent with the 

objectives of this regulation and are 

locally appropriate. Starting at the 

earliest phase in the planning process, 

Tribes and other communities with 

environmental justice concerns shall 

have an opportunity to play a key role 

in identifying alternatives, enhancing 

the positive benefits to their 

communities from potential Federal 

investment and in describing any 

concerns they may have with a potential 

project. Such early, meaningful, and 

robust engagement will help identify 

and address problems and possible 

solutions and scope studies. Robust, 

early collaboration with Tribes does not 

negate the need for Tribal consultation, 

when appropriate. 

(2) To improve federal decisionmaking and to promote transparency, 

Army Civil Works shall seek to 

meaningfully collaborate with other 

Federal and non-Federal entities. 

Engagement methods and scope of 

engagement will depend on the stage of 

the planning process, the issues, and the 

groups that will be contributing ideas 

and information to the planning process 

and shall be intentionally designed 

using best practices and techniques for 

engagement. Engagement strategies shall 

consider Corps, Tribal, and community 

resource constraints. Indigenous 

Knowledge, information from Tribal 

Nations, local and state governments, 

non-governmental organizations and the 

public shall be incorporated into 

problem definition and forecasting of 

future conditions as well as the 

development and analysis of 

alternatives. Robust engagement and 

transparency throughout the planning 

process, including during the evaluation 

and comparison of alternatives, will 

help deliver sound investment advice 

for water resources solutions that 

maximize net public benefits. 

(e) Investigations and data collection. 

Investigations, data collection, and 

analysis should be ongoing and 

integrated early in the planning process. 

Investigations should be relevant to the 

planning objectives and constraints. The 

interdisciplinary study team should 

identify the most important areas to 

focus on in the study, such as: 

engineering and design; surface water 

and groundwater hydrology; hydraulics; 

geology; operations; water quality; land 

resources; power generation and 

conservation; economics; financing; 

environmental, social, and cultural 

impacts and mitigation; opportunities 

for recreation; cost estimation for 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacement, energy consumption; and, 

climate change to include greenhouse 

gas emissions. Investigation, data 

collection and analysis should leverage 

and incorporate information from 

Tribal, state, local, and nongovernmental sources, and the public. 

Additional investigations should be 

performed as necessary. 

(f) Identify purpose, problems, needs, 

and opportunities. To identify purpose, 

problems, needs, and opportunities, the 

Corps shall: 

(1) Ensure that the planning goals and 

objectives reflect the direction provided 

in the study authority. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Clearly identify the purpose of the 

study, the role of the Federal 

government, as well as the views of the 

non-Federal interest (if any), 

cooperating agencies, Tribes, various 

stakeholders, and the public. 

(3) Identify the problems and 

opportunities to which the agency is 

responding. 

(4) Define the study area including 

activities within the watershed that are 

relevant to the proposed project, and 

areas where impacts should be avoided. 

(5) Describe the plans for stakeholder 

involvement. 

(6) Prepare a summary of the planning 

objectives and constraints to be used in 

the analysis of the federal investment. 

This summary should include a 

discussion of stakeholder, partner, and 

public input. 

(6) Include a discussion of the social 

and cultural context of the region and 

resources. 

(g) Inventory existing resources and 

forecast future conditions. A summary 

of the specific economic, 

environmental, and social setting within 

the study area shall cover the condition 

and functional relationships of affected 

resources; their development potential 

and possible conflicts in producing 

affected ecosystem services; and the 

local situation with respect to 

investment, climate, markets, affected 

communities, and basic economic 

productivity. 

(1) ‘‘Forecast Future Conditions’’ 

generally relates to the identification of 

impacts associated with the alternatives, 

including the No Action Alternative. 

Future conditions should be assessed 

and analyzed as part of the evaluation 

process and the best available data and 

forecast should be used to complete an 

analysis of these uncertain conditions. 

(2) This exercise of identifying 

existing resources and forecasting future 

conditions will quantify, to the extent 

practicable, relevant water and related 

resource conditions as they currently 

exist within the study area and forecast 

future conditions over the period of 

analysis. This would also include 

resources and conditions regarding the 

economic, environmental, and social 

aspects within the study area, as well as 

ecosystem services and climate-related 

scenarios. The existing resources and 

future conditions will be established 

using generally accepted sources that 

are national, state, or regional in scope, 

such as from peer-reviewed sources or 

sources which are governmentproduced. 

(3) The ‘‘without-project condition’’ is 

the most likely condition expected to 

exist in the future over the period of 

analysis in the absence of the Corps 

project, or program under consideration, 

given current laws, policies, projects 

under construction, and any existing 

resources/conditions. It considers 

expected actions that may be executed 

by others, including potential future 

land use conditions, and shall consider 

effects of climate change using multiple 

scenario analyses. 

(4) The ‘‘with-project condition’’ is 

the most likely condition expected to 

exist in the future, over the period of 

analysis, with a specific Corps project or 

program in place. It considers expected 

actions that may be executed by others, 

including potential future land use 

conditions, and shall consider effects of 

climate change using multiple scenario 

analyses. 

(5) To ensure that the appropriate 

criteria and problems are incorporated 

into the analytical framework, a 

summary of the process used to define 

the relevant existing conditions and 

foreseeable future conditions shall be 

prepared and made available to the 

public and shared with stakeholders. 

(h) Formulate alternatives. The 

primary goal of an alternative is to meet 

the objective of the project to solve the 

water resources challenge as authorized, 

consistent with the Federal objective 

and Guiding Principles. The primary 

function of an alternative must be to 

alleviate unsatisfactory conditions or 

address a problem or opportunity that 

exists or will exist in the future without 

the programs or projects under 

consideration. Alternatives shall 

address the defined water resources 

challenge or function that is the subject 

of the analysis, and achieve multiple 

objectives as outlined in the P&R. 

Alternative formulations should focus 

on solutions that are feasible and meet 

the planning objectives. Alternatives 

should be formulated to meet planning 

objectives based on most likely future 

conditions expected with and without 

implementation of an alternative. The 

viability of an alternative should be 

determined through an evaluation of its 

acceptability, efficiency, effectiveness, 

and completeness, as required in the 

PR&G. The period of analysis should be 

the same for each alternative and 

sufficient to encompass the lifespan and 

significant long-term impacts of the 

project. In addition, alternatives may 

also include actions which are beyond 

the missions of the Corps where they 

provide solutions to the identified 

problem and meet the goals of the 

PR&G. However, such alternative shall 

identify the relevant parties with 

requisite responsibility for those actions 

beyond Corps missions (such as other 

Federal agencies and non-Federal 

partners), their authority for that action, 

the interrelation between that action 

and the recommended Corps project, 

and appropriate sequencing of 

implementation. For Corps investments, 

the Corps will be the designated lead for 

completing PR&G analysis. 

(1) Alternatives are to be developed in 

a systematic manner. A range of 

potential alternatives should be initially 

investigated reflecting a range of scales 

and measures, and as alternatives are 

refined, some would be screened out for 

reasons such as having excessive cost or 

unavoidable impacts, not sufficiently 

addressing the identified problem or 

opportunity, or other factors. The study 

report should include some analysis of 

the eliminated alternatives, and reasons 

for their elimination. The plans that are 

retained for additional analysis should 

determine the range of reasonable 

alternatives, as required for the NEPA 

analysis. Section 234.8 describes the 

alternatives required in the final array. 

(2) Consideration of nonstructural 

approaches and nature-based solutions 

that meet the planning objectives shall 

be an integral part in the development 

and evaluation of Federal investments 

in water resources. 

(3) Each alternative formulated for the 

PR&G analysis should be included in 

the NEPA document. 

(4) The economic, environmental, and 

social effects of a water resources 

development project are interrelated. In 

formulating alternatives to address the 

identified water resources problem or 

opportunity, the Corps shall consider 

each of these effects and maximize net 

public benefits. 

§ 234.7 Evaluation framework. 

(a) This section describes the common 

framework and general requirements to 

be used by the Corps in evaluating 

potential alternatives for Federal 

investments for their performance with 

respect to the Guiding Principles and 

their contributions to the Federal 

Objective to inform the overall decisionmaking process. Any assumptions made 

which are used in the analysis of 

alternatives shall be described in the 

analysis where applicable. 

(b) Economic, environmental, and 

social effects. 

(1) The Corps’ analytical framework 

for evaluating Federal investments 

should focus on the key economic, 

environmental, and social effects that 

are relevant to the investment decision. 

Typical NEPA analyses emphasize 

environmental effects and benefits, 

including ecosystem services, and these 

should also be used as a core part of 

water resources alternatives analysis. A 

benefit-cost analysis would be 

conducted for each alternative. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12103 

Ecosystem services are an important 

benefit-cost category that should be 

included in the benefit-cost analysis. 

In addition, the scale of an analysis 

can be adjusted to meet the needs of an 

individual project. While all analyses 

should share common elements, how 

these elements are achieved can depend 

on the needs of the project. For 

example, while it is important to 

estimate how values vary across 

alternatives, many different metrics and 

methods can be used; the best approach 

will depend on the needs and scale of 

the project. 

When implementing its ASPs, the 

Corps will consider and, where it deems 

appropriate, align with the latest 

Federal methods and guidance (for 

example, updated OMB Circulars and 

applicable interagency guidance) to 

ensure that the analytical framework 

accounts for all significant economic, 

environmental and social costs and 

benefits, including ecosystem services. 

Where possible, monetization enables 

the incorporation of the values placed 

on the benefits and costs evaluated, and 

provides a way to evaluate trade-offs in 

common analytical units (dollars). OMB 

Circulars A–4 and A–94 provide 

guidance on appropriate use of 

monetization methods. The Corps 

anticipates that it will not be possible to 

monetize all social and environmental 

costs and benefits of project alternatives. 

In these cases, the Corps should 

quantify the social and environmental 

costs and benefits and when neither 

monetization or quantification is 

possible, the Corps should qualitatively 

describe the social and environmental 

costs and benefits in sufficient detail to 

allow differentiation across alternatives. 

The relevant monetary, quantitative, 

and descriptive information will be 

considered fully in the analysis. 

(c) Best available actionable science 

and commensurate level of detail. 

(1) Analysis to support the evaluation 

of alternatives shall use the best 

available actionable science, to include 

Indigenous Knowledge, data, analytical 

techniques, procedures, models, and 

tools in ecology, hydrology, economics, 

engineering, biology, and other 

disciplines to the extent that sufficient 

funding is available and to the extent 

such information is relevant and 

appropriate to the subject investment. 

To the extent feasible, the effects of the 

alternatives should be monetized. 

Effects will be monetized, quantified or 

described, in that order. 

(2) The level of detail required to 

support alternative analyses may vary 

but should be sufficient to inform the 

decision-making process efficiently and 

effectively. The level of detail, scope, 

and complexity of analyses should be 

commensurate with the scale, impacts, 

costs, scientific complexities, 

uncertainties, risk, and other aspects 

(e.g., public concern) inherent in 

potential decisions. 

(d) Risk and uncertainty. When 

analyzing potential Federal water 

resource investments, the Corps shall 

identify, describe, and quantify (if 

feasible), areas of risk and uncertainty 

and consider them in decision making. 

Risks and uncertainties shall be 

identified and described in a manner 

that is clear and understandable to the 

public and decision-makers. This 

includes describing the nature, 

likelihood, and magnitude of risks, as 

well as the uncertainties associated with 

key supporting data, projections, and 

evaluations of competing alternatives. 

When there are considerable 

uncertainties concerning the ability of 

an alternative to function as desired 

(e.g., produce desired outputs and/or 

the general acceptability of the 

alternative) the option of pursuing 

improved data or models should be 

considered. Reducing risk and 

uncertainty may involve increased costs 

or loss of benefits. The advantages and 

costs of reducing risk and uncertainty 

should be explicitly considered in 

formulating alternatives and the overall 

decision-making process. 

(e) Adaptive management. Adaptive 

management measures shall be clearly 

identified and evaluated as part of 

alternatives to the extent that such 

measures are commensurate with the 

significance of the proposed activity and 

available resources. Adaptive 

management measures are particularly 

useful when making management 

choices in the face of uncertainty, such 

as when detailed information and tools 

are not readily available. 

(f) Climate change. Conditions 

resulting from a changing climate shall 

be identified and accounted for in all 

stages of the planning process; 

uncertainties associated with climate 

change will be identified and described. 

Analysis of climate change impacts 

shall reflect best available actionable 

science and will leverage region-specific 

information from federal, Tribal, state, 

local, and non-governmental partners. 

The Corps shall incorporate a climateinformed science approach considering 

impacts such as inland and coastal 

climate change impacts on flood and 

drought hazards using the most up-todate science, policies, and tools 

available. The Corps shall also ensure 

climate resilience and adaptation is 

incorporated and considered throughout 

the planning process and across 

alternatives, including a discussion on 

how climate, drought, and ecosystem 

resilience may intersect for that 

particular action and can contribute to 

the economic vitality and water 

resources resilience of the Nation. The 

changing climate should inform the 

understanding of water resource needs 

and how those needs can potentially be 

addressed. 

(g) Water availability, water use, and 

resilience. Water availability and 

efficient use of water shall be 

considered in alternative designs, as 

shall resilience, when applicable to the 

project purpose. The analysis shall 

consider water availability, water use, 

and resilience over a range of 

conditions, from too little in drought 

and multiple use scenarios to too much 

in flood scenarios. The consideration of 

multiple uses and competing demands 

on water resources shall be taken into 

account when designing solutions to 

water resources problems. 

(h) Nonstructural and nature-based 

solutions. Nonstructural measures alter 

the use of existing infrastructure or 

human activities to generally improve or 

avoid or minimize adverse changes to 

existing hydrologic, geomorphic, and 

ecological processes. Nonstructural 

measures may be combined with fewer 

or smaller traditional structural project 

components to produce a complete 

alternative plan or may be used instead 

of a structural project. In the 

development of alternatives, the use of 

natural systems, ecosystem processes, 

and nature-based solutions shall be 

considered, where feasible and 

consistent with the purpose of the water 

resources study. Full consideration and 

reporting on nonstructural and naturebased alternative actions shall be an 

integral part of the evaluation of Federal 

water resource investment alternatives, 

and a full nonstructural in addition to 

a full nature-based alternative will be 

included in the final array of 

alternatives. Nonstructural and naturebased aspects should also be included 

in the other alternatives in the final 

array when appropriate. 

(i) Tribal treaty rights. Alternatives for 

water resources investments must be 

consistent with protection of Tribal 

treaty rights. Analyses should identify 

Tribal treaty rights that preclude 

selection of an otherwise viable 

alternative. 

(j) State water law. Alternatives for 

water resources investments must be 

consistent with State water laws, water 

rights, and decrees to the extent these 

do not conflict with federal laws and 

regulations. Analyses should identify 

legal constraints that preclude selection 

of an otherwise viable alternative. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

61The Corps shall, in part, use Office of 

Management and Budget Circulars A–4 and A–94. 

(k) International obligations. 

Alternatives for water resources 

investments must be consistent with 

meeting treaty and other international 

obligations. Analyses should identify 

international obligations that preclude 

selection of an otherwise viable 

alternative. 

(l) Timing. The period of analysis for 

alternatives shall be documented clearly 

and with the appropriate justification in 

the analysis and used to evaluate each 

alternative. 

§ 234.8. Final Array of Alternatives. 

(a) The final array of alternatives shall 

include, at a minimum, the following 

six alternatives: 

(1) A no action alternative. 

(2) A nonstructural alternative: An 

alternative, if one exists, that can 

effectively address the problem through 

the feasible use of nonstructural 

approaches. 

(3) A nature-based solution 

alternative: An alternative, if one exists, 

that can effectively address the problem 

through the feasible use of nature-based 

solutions (including natural systems 

and ecosystem processes). 

(4) An environmentally preferred 

alternative. 

(5) An alternative that seeks to 

maximize net public benefits. 

(6) An alternative that is locally 

preferred. If this alternative differs from 

the net public benefits alternative, it 

will be required to have a comparable 

level of detail and analyzed using the 

same analytical framework as the net 

public benefits alternative. 

(b) The nonstructural and naturebased alternatives do not preclude 

consideration of these elements in other 

alternatives. Nonstructural measures 

and nature-based solutions shall be 

considered as components of the other 

alternatives in the final array, 

essentially providing an integrated or 

‘‘hybrid’’ of gray (hard) infrastructure 

with these other measures. 

(c) The same alternative may be 

identified as more than one of these 

required alternatives. 

(d) Mitigation of unavoidable adverse 

effects associated with each alternative 

must be included in the alternative and 

in the analyses. 

(e) If an alternative requires changes 

in existing laws, regulations, or policies, 

those changes must be clearly identified 

and explained. 

(f) The discussion of the final array of 

alternatives should include the primary 

purpose of the analysis; the geographic 

size of the study area; the types of 

impacts; number of people potentially 

affected and anticipated degree of 

impact; environmental justice 

considerations; and the size and 

location of communities potentially 

affected including the presence of 

Federally-recognized Tribes or Tribal 

members; and the type of data and 

information available from Indigenous 

Knowledge, collaboration, public 

involvement, and previous studies. 

§ 234.9. Evaluate Effects of Alternatives. 

(a) Analysis of alternatives. For the 

final array of alternatives, the analysis 

should describe, evaluate, and estimate 

the key social, environmental and 

economic effects, and assess the 

contributions of each alternative to the 

Guiding Principles. 

(b) Evaluation procedures. In addition 

to assessing how alternatives perform 

with respect to the Guiding Principles, 

the evaluation procedures shall 

incorporate methods to evaluate: 

(1) How public benefits of an 

alternative compare to its costs, 

including all important social, 

environmental and economic benefits 

and costs. 

(2) How alternatives perform against 

the objectives of the study. 

(3) How alternatives perform against 

the four formulation criteria: 

completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, 

and acceptability. 

(c) Consideration of benefits and 

costs. The report should fully account 

for the effects to society of alternative 

plans and their respective contributions 

to the Federal Objective, relative to the 

No Action alternative. The analysis will 

evaluate the economic benefits and 

costs, environmental benefits and costs, 

and social benefits and costs of 

alternatives, regardless of how they are 

included (monetized, quantified or 

described). To the extent practicable, 

such costs and benefits must be 

quantified in a scientifically valid and 

acceptable way, and such quantified 

costs shall be monetized where 

practicable.61 When monetization or 

quantification is not possible, costs and 

benefits must be described in sufficient 

detail to enable the decision-maker to 

understand the importance and 

magnitude of potential changes. For 

monetized costs and benefits, the 

present value cost of each alternative 

must be compared to the present value 

of the benefit to the public for 

monetized costs and benefits. For 

quantified but not monetized benefits 

and costs, the Corps would present the 

information on an average annual basis, 

and would also describe how the 

benefits and costs would accrue over the 

period of analysis. For qualitatively 

described benefits and costs, 

expectations would be described across 

the period of analysis. The effects of 

alternative plans are displayed in terms 

of costs and benefits. 

§ 234.10. Compare Alternatives. 

(a) Comparing alternatives. 

Alternatives shall be compared to each 

other and to the No Action alternative 

and shall include a comparison of the 

ability of the alternatives to perform 

under changing conditions, including 

climate change. The alternative (or 

alternatives) that reasonably meets the 

Federal objective and maximizes net 

public benefits shall be identified. In 

addition, alternatives may be evaluated 

with respect to other considerations, 

including distributional effects, 

separately. These considerations may 

include: 

(1) Temporal. Certain effects may 

occur at different points in time. 

(2) Spatial. Certain costs, benefits, and 

transfers may accrue to different 

regions. Regional-scale analyses may be 

useful to inform regional level economic 

development objectives. 

(3) Beneficiaries. Tribal Nations and 

stakeholders (including other 

governmental agencies and 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns) may indicate different 

tradeoffs among the various benefits and 

costs of a federal action. Robust 

engagement at this stage shall focus on 

eliciting preferences among the 

alternatives, their component elements, 

and their effects. When calculating net 

benefits, these distributional effects can 

be examined using techniques like 

income weighting. 

(b) Tradeoffs. Tradeoffs among 

potential alternatives will be assessed 

and described throughout the decisionmaking process and in a manner that 

informs decision-making. Based on the 

available analytical information, the 

Corps would use its professional 

judgment in making its 

recommendations on decisions among 

tradeoffs. The tradeoff displays shall be 

understandable, transparent, and 

constructed in a generally consistent 

fashion for all analyses. The analysis 

shall include a combination of both 

tables and explanatory materials to help 

inform a decision. Displays shall 

facilitate the evaluation and comparison 

of alternatives necessary to make the 

following determination and reflect the 

following: 

(1) The effectiveness of alternatives in 

solving the water resources problem and 

taking advantage of the opportunities 

identified in the planning process. 

(2) What must be given up in 

monetary and nonmonetary terms to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12105 

enjoy the benefits of the various 

alternatives, relative to the baseline. 

(3) The differences among 

alternatives. 

(c) Information for inclusion in the 

analysis. To promote consistency across 

the Corps, the following tables and 

information shall be included in the 

analysis and in the documentation 

prepared for a decision process: 

(1) Criteria. The analysis must 

explicitly address the extent to which 

an alternative achieves each of the 

following criteria: completeness, 

effectiveness, efficiency, and 

acceptability. This evaluation must be 

systematic and can include both 

quantitative and qualitative 

components. 

(2) Effects matrix. A matrix 

summarizing the tradeoffs, relative to 

the baseline, effect-by-effect must be 

included in the integrated report. 

(3) Additional trade-off displays. 

Additional text and tables should 

display other important trade-offs, e.g., 

trade-offs along temporal, spatial, and 

beneficiary dimensions. 

(4) Summary table. A summary table 

displaying the economic, 

environmental, and social costs and 

benefits as measured (monetized, 

quantified, quantitative) for each 

alternative. In addition, the summary 

table will display the economic, 

environmental, and social costs and 

benefits which were derived 

qualitatively. The summary table will 

also separately include information on 

level of risk or uncertainty for each 

alternative. 

(5) Achievement of objectives table. A 

table indicating the extent to which the 

Guiding Principles have been achieved. 

(d) Risk and uncertainty. Knowledge 

of risk and uncertainty and the degree 

of reliability of the estimated 

consequences will better inform 

decision making. Risk and uncertainty 

are inherent in economic analyses as 

well as the analysis of physical and 

biological factors, no matter the 

technique or methodology employed. 

Areas of risk and uncertainty will be 

described clearly, so that decisions can 

be made with knowledge of the degree 

of reliability of the estimated 

consequences and of the effectiveness of 

alternatives. 

§ 234.11. Select the Recommended Plan. 

(a) Recommended plan. 

(1) Plan selection will require 

decision-makers to assess tradeoffs and 

to consider the extent of both monetized 

and non-monetized effects. The basis for 

selection of the recommended plan 

should be fully reported and 

documented in a transparent manner, 

including the criteria and 

considerations used. This section must 

provide a discussion about the extent to 

which the alternatives achieve the 

Federal objective and maximize net 

public benefits to society. If the basis for 

selecting the recommended plan 

depends on non-monetized benefits or 

costs, the report must include an 

explanation of the relative importance 

of these benefits/costs and why they are 

not monetized. This section will include 

a summary of elicited Tribal Nation and 

stakeholder perspectives on the 

alternatives and their effects. 

(2) The Corps should recommend a 

decision to either: (1) implement an 

alternative project, program, or plan, or 

(2) take no Federal action. Federal 

investments should seek to meet water 

resource objectives and maximize net 

public benefits, relative to public costs. 

It is possible that more than one 

alternative might ‘‘reasonably and 

approximately’’ meet these conditions. 

‘‘Net public benefits’’ implies that the 

anticipated benefits will be presented 

relative to the costs associated with the 

accrual of those benefits. Net public 

benefits can include both quantified and 

non-quantified benefits. Any 

recommendation for authorization will 

clearly delineate the federal water 

resource project(s) being recommended 

for authorization and Corps 

implementation and any condition 

precedent for construction, with 

specificity. 

(b) Exceptions. A recommended plan 

for a federal water resources investment 

that does not maximize net public 

benefits requires an exception from the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. Requests for exception should 

describe the project or activity, the 

rationale for the exception, and present 

relevant data and analysis to support the 

request. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02448 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3