`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 103992-104029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29652]



[[Page 103991]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 244

December 19, 2024

Part III





 Department of Defense





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





 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers





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





33 CFR Part 234





Corps of Engineers Agency Specific Procedures To Implement the 
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for Federal Investments in 
Water Resources; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 103992]]


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

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, Army, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes Agency Specific Procedures (ASPs) for 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement the Principles, 
Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal water resources 
investments. It provides a framework to govern how the Corps would 
evaluate proposed water resources investments, subject to the PR&G. The 
rule incorporates recommendations from interested parties. The Army is 
issuing this rule in response to congressional direction in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 17, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Milton Boyd, Acting Director for 
Policy and Legislation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Civil Works), 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108, at (202) 
761-8546 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Executive Summary
B. Background
C. Response to Public Comments
D. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule and Revisions 
from the Proposed Rule
E. Expected Benefits and Costs
F. Procedural Requirements

A. Executive Summary

    The Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water 
Resources (P&R) \1\ were established pursuant to the Water Resources 
Planning Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-8), as amended (42 U.S.C.1962a-2), and 
consistent with Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (WRDA 2007) (Pub. L. 110-114, 42 U.S.C. 1962-3). In WRDA 2007, 
Congress instructed the Secretary of the Army to revise the 1983 
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (P&G) \2\ for the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Section 110 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020) (Division AA of Pub. L. 116-260) 
directed the Army to issue its final Agency Specific Procedures (ASPs) 
necessary for the Corps' Civil Works program to implement the P&R and 
Interagency Guidelines \3\ (henceforth ``Principles, Requirements and 
Guidelines,'' or PR&G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_march_2013.pdf. Last 
accessed May 21, 2024.
    \2\ See https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/Guidance/Principles_Guidelines.pdf. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
    \3\ See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/prg_interagency_guidelines_12_2014.pdf. Last accessed May 
21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The P&R were released in March 2013 and set the overarching policy 
direction. The Interagency Guidelines were finalized in 2014 and 
provide a common framework for Federal agencies to implement the P&R. 
The PR&G provide a framework to guide how Federal water resources 
agencies develop proposed investments in water resources. The PR&G 
replace the 1983 P&G. Each water resources agency is to develop ASPs to 
implement the PR&G.
    This rule establishes the Corps' ASPs to implement the PR&G. The 
ASPs provide a framework for the Corps to use in the planning process 
for projects, plans, and programs. The ASPs focus project development 
on maximizing net public benefits. Public benefits are documented 
across economic, environmental, and social categories. The evaluation 
of alternatives will be consistent with the principle that 
environmental, economic, and social impacts are interrelated. The 
analysis of benefits may be quantified using monetary or non-monetary 
metrics. Qualitative descriptions of benefits may also be developed. 
The environmental, economic, and social benefits and costs are to be 
fully considered in formulating and evaluating alternative plans and 
making recommendations to decision-makers.

B. Background

    The 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 
Civil Works program. This document refers both to the Army (for policy 
direction) and the Corps (for implementation responsibility).
    Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114, 42 U.S.C. 1962-3) 
established a national water resources planning policy. The national 
water resources planning policy states that all water resources 
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 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.
    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 (79 FR 77460). The PR&G were 
developed 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 
resources projects, programs activities, and related actions, consist 
of the following three components: (1) the P&R, 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, 
providing more detailed guidance for affected Federal agencies,

[[Page 103993]]

including the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, for determining 
the applicability of the P&R; and (3) the ASPs, outlining agency-
specific procedures for incorporating the P&R into agency missions and 
programs.
    The P&R describe the Federal Objective as reflecting national 
priorities, encouraging economic development, and protecting the 
environment. The Federal Objective is rooted in the national water 
resources planning policy established in Section 2031 of WRDA 2007. Two 
key concepts are ``Federal investment'' and ``public benefit.'' The 
PR&G focus on Federal water resources investments, including projects, 
plans, and programs that either directly or indirectly affect water 
quality or water quantity, including ecosystem restoration or related 
land management activities. The level of a given Federal investment 
will be determined on a present value basis over the life of the 
Federal investment, and the net public benefits of an investment will 
be assessed and used to guide Federal decision-making. Federal water 
resources investments should strive to achieve water resources goals 
and seek to maximize net public benefits, consistent with the PR&G.
    The PR&G modernize the Federal Government's approach to water 
resources development. They take a more comprehensive approach to water 
projects that seeks to maximize public benefits relative to the cost of 
an investment in water resources. Under the PR&G, decision-making is 
intended to be more transparent and better informed through risk 
recognition. Recommendations will be aimed at meeting the broader 
Federal Objective of reflecting national priorities, encouraging 
economic development, and protecting the environment by seeking to 
maximize sustainable economic development, seeking to avoid the unwise 
use of floodplains, and protecting and restoring the functions of 
natural systems and mitigating unavoidable damage to natural systems. 
The ASPs will serve as the framework for how the Corps will implement 
the PR&G.
    The Army pursued rulemaking to provide codified direction for the 
Corps project planning process, which will achieve the purposes of the 
PR&G with input from robust and meaningful Tribal and public 
engagement. The Corps also reviewed and considered the approved ASPs of 
other Federal agencies in developing this final rule.
    This final rule follows the general framework laid out in the PR&G. 
This rule formalizes the planning framework of the Corps under the PR&G 
in a transparent manner.
    The final ASPs will apply to plans, projects, or programs that are 
initiated after this final rule takes effect. The Corps will 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 the final rule effective date.

C. Response to Public Comments

    Initially, the Army sought input from Tribes, Federal, and State 
agencies, stakeholders, and other interested parties through the 
issuance of the 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).
    Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works published a proposed rule to establish the ``Corps 
of Engineers Agency Specific Procedures To Implement the Principles, 
Requirements, and Guidelines for Federal Investments in Water 
Resources'' (89 FR 12066). A 60-day public comment period closed on 
April 15, 2024.
    On February 16, 2024, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works sent letters to Tribal Nations, Alaska Native Corporations, and 
Native Hawaiian Organizations and Communities requesting consultation 
and seeking comments on the proposed rule. Tribal Nations, Alaska 
Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations could request 
consultation through April 26, 2024.
    During the comment period, three virtual public meetings were held 
to accept oral comments on the proposed rule. In addition, written 
comments were submitted by almost 250 organizations and individuals. 
Comments were provided by States, agencies, local governments, 
utilities, business interest groups, environmental organizations, 
academic institutions, farmers, businesses, and private citizens. 
Comments ranged from fully supportive of the proposed rule to 
viewpoints that were skeptical or not supportive. Many groups and 
individuals offered support along with recommendations to change parts 
of the proposed rule.
    Virtual public meetings were hosted by the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on February 26, 2024, and March 
12, 2024, and a virtual Tribal meeting was held on March 19, 2024. In 
total, 133 people attended the virtual meetings. The Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works led the meetings and 
presented slides and moderated the public comment sessions. Verbal 
comments were accepted along with comments in the chat messages. Some 
of the meeting participants asked questions, and clarifying responses 
were provided to assist the public in understanding the proposed rule. 
All presentation materials, transcripts, and video recordings from the 
virtual meetings are available on the Army's website (https://www.army.mil/article/273436/procedures_to_evaluate_water_resource_investments).
    The Army received 13,292 pages of comments during the comment 
period. There were public comment letter submissions with multiple 
cosigners, including a single letter with over 100 signing 
organizations. The Army also received thousands of duplicated form 
letters within a single submission. Not counting the duplicated 
comments, the Army received over 500 unique comments.
    One Tribal Nation elected to conduct Government-to-Government 
consultation on the proposed rule that resulted in revisions to the 
rule regarding Tribal treaty and reserved rights and consultation 
requirements.
    The supporting materials used to prepare this rule, and the 
comments and materials received on the proposed rule are available on 
the Federal e-rulemaking portal (https://www.regulations.gov) (search 
Docket ID: COE-2023-0005).
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
reviewed all comments and made changes, as appropriate, to the final 
rule based on those comments and an internal review. Those changes are 
described in detail in the ``Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final 
Rule and Revisions from the Proposed Rule'' in this preamble.
    Most comments received were supportive of the ASPs but included 
specific recommendations and/or line-by-line edits. A significant 
portion of entries requested additional guidance on how to 
appropriately value non-monetized benefits when comparing economic, 
environmental, and social parameters and determining the net public 
benefits. Several commenters were concerned that the rule incorporates 
too much subjectivity into the planning and decision-making process. 
Others encouraged earlier and more consequential involvement of

[[Page 103994]]

Tribes and communities from the onset of and throughout the study 
process. A few letters expressed concerns that the rule will not be 
sufficient to ensure substantial changes on its own. At least two 
commenters recommended that the ASPs not be codified, indicating that 
not every agency went through rulemaking for their respective ASPs, and 
cited concerns over litigation. At least one commenter supported the 
decision to codify the ASPs, indicating it aligned with the good 
government principles of consistency, predictability, transparency, and 
accountability.
    Some commenters did not broadly support the proposed rule. A couple 
commenters asserted that the ASPs exceed Congressional intent and the 
Army's authority. The Army notes that Congress expressly directed it to 
develop these ASPs for the PR&G in Section 110 of WRDA 2020. The Army 
is executing this direction.
    A few comments focused on potential Federal budgeting and financing 
implications of the rule. One comment expressed that economic 
development remains an important objective of Federal budgetary 
criteria. Others sought the inclusion of Federal budget considerations 
in the rule and other supporting information. While these are valid 
considerations, the budget development and approval processes are 
separate from the framework outlined in the rule. Federal budgets are 
developed and proposed by the Administration and presented to Congress 
for appropriations considerations and approvals. These are separate and 
independent actions not related to the formulation of solutions to 
water resources related problems for potential implementation via the 
Army Civil Works program.
    There were a few comments on specific project concerns. The rule 
will apply to plans, projects, or programs that are initiated after 
this final rule takes effect. In general, the Corps will 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 the final rule effective date.
    In general, changes to the final rule included technical and 
grammatical corrections. In accordance with the Office of the Federal 
Register ``Document Drafting Handbook,'' footnotes have been removed 
from the rule. A technical correction to the rule included updating the 
cited authority. The authority for the rule has been corrected to 42 
U.S.C. 1962-3. Throughout the rule, the abbreviation of ASPs was added 
when necessary. Other technical corrections made to the final rule, not 
covered in Section D of this preamble, included: correction of the 
issuing office for the PR&G in Sec.  234.1; removal of ``and'' prior to 
``buyouts/acquisition'' in the second sentence of Sec.  234.2(l); name 
correction for the Corps' Interagency and International Services 
program in Sec.  234.4(d)(2)(xi); clarifying the reference in paragraph 
234.4(d)(2)(xv) to ``Section 234.3''; added ``protect Tribal treaty 
rights'' to list of environmental justice principles in Sec.  
234.6(c)(1)(ii); deleted duplicative text in next-to-last sentence 
within Sec.  234.6(c)(6); fixing a typographical error in the numbering 
of Sec.  234.6(f)(7); deleting the caveat in Sec.  234.7(h) ``where 
feasible and consistent with the purpose of the water resources 
study''; deleted the caveats in Sec.  234.8(a) ``, if one exists,''; 
deleted duplicative text in the sixth sentence of Sec.  234.9(c); and a 
numbering correction within Sec.  234.11(a)(2).
    Based on comments received, text within the rule was updated to 
better describe the full consideration of economic, environmental, and 
social benefits in decision-making. The rule text has also been updated 
to add clarity and emphasis to respecting Tribal treaty rights 
throughout the planning process for any plan, project, or program.
    A large majority of comments received were seeking further clarity 
on process, procedures, methodology, and tools. The Corps will review 
current guidance following publication of the final rule to determine 
the need for updates.
    The Army received many comments stressing the importance of 
environmental protection or conservation. This input is incorporated 
into various sections of the rule ranging from Guiding Principles to 
alternatives formulation to benefits analysis and the clear 
presentation of evaluation results.
    The proposed rule included 58 items where the Army solicited 
specific input from interested parties. The public provided input on 44 
of the topic areas. The input received is presented in the ``Section-
by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule and Revisions from the Proposed 
Rule'' section of this preamble, including how the information was used 
to change the rule or whether the information was not incorporated into 
the rule.
    The items that did not receive input were: the use of the term 
``water resources development projects;'' the inclusion of additional 
resilience measurement concepts; the exclusion of Corps watershed 
studies from the ASPs; the type of data to use in inflating the 
monetary applicability thresholds; whether to account for the non-
Federal share of the costs in setting the monetary thresholds; whether 
there are alternative forms to measure ecosystem health; comment on 
particular models, tools, methodologies, or other information that may 
be helpful in assessing ecosystem resilience; whether the description 
of public safety as proposed should be broadened; whether additional 
threats to public safety should be included for consideration beyond 
those related to natural events; comment on risk informed frameworks 
that can supplement or improve the current risk informed planning 
processes used by the Corps; comment on when a multi-criteria decision 
analysis would be appropriate for the application within PR&G analysis; 
and 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.
    The input request also solicited comment in general on issues or 
concerns related to this proposed rule. That feedback, when received, 
is noted in the ``Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule and 
Revisions from the Proposed Rule'' section of this preamble.

D. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule and Revisions From 
the Proposed Rule

    The final rule incorporates changes based on input received through 
the comment process. A summary of the comments received, responses, and 
changes to each section are as follows:
    Section 234.1 General. This section of the rule describes the 
background of the PR&G as well as the authority for the development of 
the Corps' ASPs. Nothing in this rule will change any other legal 
requirements to which the Corps is subject, including applicable WRDA 
provisions. There were no public comments submitted on this section. No 
changes were made to the final rule.
    Section 234.2 Definitions. This section provides definitions for 
relevant terms used in the rule. The Army solicited input on additional 
terms that needed to be defined and on whether the definitions required 
additional clarity. Several commenters recommended adding various 
definitions to Sec.  234.2. A letter was received seeking clarity on 
the terms ``actionable science'' and/or ``best available science,'' and 
another sought to include a definition of ``environmental 
infrastructure projects.'' The following paragraphs describe other 
comments received with respect to definitions and the Army responses.

[[Page 103995]]

    Response: As a result of the public comment process, the only 
addition made to the definitions section is the addition of the term 
``professional judgment.''
    Section 234.2(a) Acceptability. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``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. There were no public 
comments concerning the definition of the term ``acceptability.''
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``acceptability.''
    Section 234.2(b) Adaptive management. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``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. One Tribal Organization proposed that the 
definition should reference the need to monitor ecological responses to 
the Corps' operations and to institute operational flexibility to 
respond to changing conditions. Another comment was received suggesting 
that future guidance related to adaptive management include 
requirements for how and when those measures are to be evaluated 
throughout a project's lifecycle.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``adaptive management.'' The Army disagrees with the comment proposing 
a change to the definition. The ASPs will apply to all Army Civil Works 
water resources investments (except in cases outlined in Sec.  
234.3(d)(1)), where analysis may include the monitoring of ecological 
responses to proposed Civil Works projects.
    Section 234.2(c) Completeness. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``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. No comments were 
received concerning the definition of the term ``completeness.''
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``completeness.''
    Section 234.2(d) Effectiveness. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``effectiveness'' and describes that an 
alternative is effective when it alleviates the specific problems and 
achieves the specified opportunities. One comment letter was received 
that recommended adding resiliency to the definition.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``effectiveness.'' The Army does not agree that the suggested changes 
would improve the definition, and is retaining the definition provided 
in the P&R for consistency with other Federal agencies.
    Section 234.2(e) Efficiency. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``efficiency.'' This definition is provided in the P&R and 
describes the extent to which an alternative may alleviate the 
specified problems and realize the specific opportunities at the least 
cost. Efficiency is similar to effectiveness with the additional 
element of cost consideration. Two commenters recommended including 
environmental and social efficiency in the definition. Another 
commenter recommended referencing economic efficiency in the 
definition.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``efficiency.'' The Army does not agree that the suggested changes 
would improve the definition, and is retaining the definition provided 
in the P&R for consistency with other Federal agencies.
    Section 234.2(f) Federal investment. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``Federal investment.'' The ASPs are intended 
to assist the Corps in designing and evaluating potential Federal 
investments in water resources. Federal investment, as used in the 
PR&G, is broad and intended to capture a wide array of activities that 
the Federal Government undertakes relating to water resources, 
including projects, programs, and plans. The definition in this rule is 
specific to the Corps. A few comment letters recommended expanding the 
definition to reference Corps mission areas and to include water supply 
and hydropower, among others.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``Federal investment.'' The final rule applies broadly, including 
investments in primary missions, as well as hydropower and water 
supply.
    Section 234.2(g) Federal objective. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``Federal Objective,'' which is the fundamental 
goal of Federal investments in water resources. This basic definition 
is provided in the PR&G but originates in Section 2031 of WRDA.
    Multiple comments were received about the definition of the term 
``Federal Objective.'' Comments were received recommending the 
inclusion of the complete text from Section 2031 of WRDA 2007. One 
commenter recommended text from Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 where 
the planning objectives describe the desired results of the planning 
process. Two commenters recommended adding the terms ``resiliency'' and 
``sustainability'' and including broader public benefits to key parts 
of the definition. One comment recommended including ``remedying past 
inequities'' and ``respecting the treaty rights of Tribal Nations'' as 
a part of the definition of the term ``Federal Objective.'' One 
commenter recommended the rule clearly state that the Federal Objective 
be considered as project outcomes for all Federal water resource 
projects. Another comment sought to incorporate clearer standards, 
thresholds, and directives in the definition to provide for robust 
stakeholder engagement similar to current guidance in Engineer 
Regulations and Engineer Pamphlets.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``Federal Objective.'' The Army does not agree with adding the terms 
``resiliency'' or ``sustainability'' or broader public benefits to the 
definition. The full definition of Federal Objective is detailed in law 
(Section 2031 of WRDA 2007) and mirrored in the PR&G. The definition in 
the ASPs is abbreviated but the full concepts are detailed in other 
parts of the rule. See Sec. Sec.  234.4 and 234.6 of the rule.
    The Army does not agree with adding text from Engineer Regulation 
1105-2-100 as that description explains the planning objectives of the 
study and not necessarily the Federal Objective itself. The Army 
already provides guidance that the alternatives should be compared to 
the Federal Objective during the formulation stage of a study.
    The Army does not agree with including ``remedying past 
inequities'' in the definition of the term ``Federal Objective.'' The 
P&R defines the Federal Objective based on section 2031(a) of WRDA 
2007, which does not include this term.
    Regarding respecting treaty rights of Tribal Nations, the Corps is 
committed to meeting its trust responsibility by integrating the Civil 
Works Tribal Consultation Policy into the implementing guidance for the 
PR&G. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where

[[Page 103996]]

warranted, following completion of the final rule. This would include 
identification of any guidance needed to address the protection of 
Tribal treaty rights and trust resources and identifying opportunities 
for communities with environmental justice concerns. The final rule was 
modified with respect to the treatment of Tribal treaty rights in 
Sec. Sec.  234.6, 234.7, and 234.9.
    Section 234.2(h) Indigenous Knowledge. This paragraph provides a 
description of the term ``Indigenous Knowledge''. The description used 
in the rule is consistent with the definition codified by the 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management in 43 CFR 2361.5, and 
43 CFR 6101.4 (h); and with the description in the November 30, 2022 
White House memorandum, ``Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies 
on Indigenous Knowledge.'' Indigenous Knowledge must be considered in 
and used to inform all aspects of the implementation of the ASPs, where 
relevant and applicable.
    Multiple comments were received concerning the proposed rule's 
definition of Indigenous Knowledge. One noted that the term should be 
defined by Tribal Governments through Government-to-Government 
consultation. Another called for incorporating a definition from the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The other expressed the need 
to recognize other types of first-hand and long-term knowledge from 
local communities.
    Response: The final rule describes Indigenous Knowledge, and is 
consistent with the descriptions and definitions used in existing law 
and existing Federal guidance. The Corps has revised the description 
for clarity. While no substantive changes were made, aspects of the 
comments received are key to the successful implementation of the 
Corps' Civil Works Tribal Consultation Policy and will be considered in 
the development of future Corps guidance.
    Section 234.2(i) Nature-based alternatives. This paragraph provides 
a definition for the term ``nature-based alternatives.'' Two commenters 
recommended changes to the definition by adding text recognizing that 
the same land can be used for multiple purposes and benefits as well as 
the addition of created ecosystems. One comment letter requested 
further details regarding establishing clear objectives for use of 
nature-based solutions, monitoring requirements, and adaptive 
management parameters. One commenter indicated that nature-based 
solutions should be excluded from the definition of nonstructural 
approaches. Another commenter recommended that the Corps actively 
partner with industry to test technologies for nature-based solutions.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``nature-based alternatives.'' The Army does not agree that the 
suggested changes would improve the definition, and is using the 
definition provided in the report entitled, ``Opportunities to 
Accelerate Nature-based Solutions: A Roadmap for Climate Progress, 
Thriving Nature, Equity, & Prosperity'',\4\ issued by CEQ, the White 
House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the White House 
Domestic Climate Policy Office (2022). This approach aligns with the 
practice of other Federal water resources agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Nature-Based-Solutions-Roadmap.pdf. Late accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where warranted, following completion of the rule to include 
any necessary details regarding the application, evaluation, and 
recommendation of nature-based alternatives.
    Section 234.2(j) Non-Federal interest. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``non-Federal interest.'' The definition is 
taken from 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b). The Army solicited comment on whether 
equating the non-Federal interest with the local interest is an 
appropriate approach for implementation. The Army also solicited 
recommendations on how the ASPs can incorporate and identify the role 
of the non-Federal interest.
    Multiple commenters recommended expansion of the definition of the 
term ``non-Federal interest'' to include responsibilities required of 
the non-Federal interest as well as their role in the development of a 
water resources development project. Several comments were received 
suggesting early coordination with non-Federal interests to establish a 
solid foundation for any study, to include problem identification, 
objectives, constraints, etc. One comment letter suggested the 
definition be expanded to acknowledge contributions of non-Federal 
interests in defining problems, objectives, and constraints associated 
with a water resources development project. One comment letter sought 
details on cost-sharing and ownership responsibilities associated with 
a completed project. One comment letter requested the acknowledgement 
of multiple non-Federal partners on any given study/project. One 
comment letter requested early coordination to leverage contributions 
from a non-Federal interest in a study/project. Another suggested the 
Army should recognize that many projects with non-Federal and local 
interests are also of Federal interest because regional economic 
benefits have spillover and additive benefits to the national economy. 
Another comment letter requested clarity on the implementation 
authorities of the non-Federal interest and details on locally 
preferred plans.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term ``non-
Federal interest.'' The Army does not agree that changes to the 
definition of the term ``non-Federal interest'' are required as the 
definition is codified in law. Existing Corps documents such as 
``Partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A Guide for 
Communities, Local Governments, States, Tribes, and Non-Governmental 
Organizations'' (2019) outline the role and responsibilities of the 
non-Federal interest(s) in development (planning, design, construction, 
and maintenance) of water resources projects. Cost-share requirements 
for non-Federal interest(s) are established in statute, or otherwise 
directed by Congress.
    Section 234.2(k) Nonstructural alternative. This paragraph provides 
a definition for the term ``nonstructural alternative.'' One comment 
letter was received stating the opinion that nonstructural measures are 
distinctively different from natural and nature-based measures.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``nonstructural alternative.'' The Army has retained the definition 
provided in the P&R for consistency with other Federal agencies.
    Section 234.2(l) Nonstructural approaches. This paragraph provides 
a definition for the term ``nonstructural approaches.'' Nonstructural 
approaches are intended to apply across the Corps missions and 
activities that are subject to the PR&G. Since WRDA 1974, the Corps has 
been required to evaluate opportunities to reduce flood damages using 
nonstructural approaches in plan formulation. Congress has expanded the 
definition of nonstructural approaches and included the requirement for 
nonstructural approaches in specific study authorities and for the 
rehabilitation of existing structures.
    The Army solicited comment on whether the examples in the 
definition are appropriate and provide context for the term 
``nonstructural'' or whether modifications should be made to the 
definition. The Army also solicited comment on whether the definition 
best

[[Page 103997]]

enables the Corps to achieve the long-term planning goals and 
objectives of the PR&G, including the P&R's healthy and resilient 
ecosystems and floodplains Guiding Principles.
    A few commenters recommended modifying the definition of the term 
``nonstructural approaches'' to show that the approach contributes to 
the Federal Objective and reduces project risks or accounts for 
externalities. One commenter recommended removing the nature-based 
alternative from the list of examples so that it may be presented as 
its own alternative during the evaluation process. One comment letter 
suggested that nonstructural approaches should not be mandatory when 
none exist to address the water resources problem under investigation. 
Another commenter worried that developing nonstructural alternatives 
would add unnecessary cost to studies.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``nonstructural approaches.'' The Army does not agree that the 
suggested changes would improve the definition, and is retaining the 
definition provided in the P&R for consistency with other Federal 
agencies. Text was added to Sec.  234.8(f) of the rule requiring 
documentation of any decision to not evaluate a particular measure/
alternative if none exists. The Corps already routinely develops 
nonstructural measures and approaches in many of its studies without 
adding undue costs.
    Section 234.2(m) Professional judgment. In response to comments 
seeking clarity on use of the term, a definition was added to the rule.

    Note:  From this point forward, the definitions within Sec.  
234.2 will advance one position in the rule (i.e., Sec.  234.2(m) in 
the proposed rule will become (n)), due to the addition of the term 
``professional judgment.''

    Section 234.2(n) Public benefits. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``public benefits.'' Public benefits encompass 
economic, environmental, and social benefits, and include those that 
can be quantified in monetary terms, as well as those that can be 
quantified or described in other ways qualitatively. The PR&G provide 
for the maximization of public benefits relative to costs. This 
definition is adapted from the definition provided in the P&R.
    One comment letter suggested public benefits should capture 
benefits for affected populations and not communities further removed 
from the issue at hand. One comment letter requested further details on 
how public benefits will be used to determine the price of storage and 
water supply investigations. Another sought clarification of the 
meaning and role of public benefits.
    The Army solicited comment on how benefits to Tribal Nations should 
be described, such as whether benefits to Tribal Nations should be 
considered a Federal trust responsibility, and whether benefits to 
Tribal Nation should be called out separately from the overarching 
``public benefits.'' The Army also solicited 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 overall benefits of the proposed project 
and the alternatives to the U.S. Nation (including the affected Tribal 
Nations).
    Multiple comments supported the distinction of Tribal benefits from 
public benefits. Two comments highlighted the challenges with 
adequately capturing or quantifying Tribal benefits through a cost-
benefit analysis. One Tribal Nation stated that Tribal treaty and 
reserved rights, including treaty-protected resources and habitats, are 
not and should not be characterized as ``benefits'' (whether ``Tribal'' 
or ``public''); rather, they are the supreme law of the land, which 
should not be evaluated in a cost-benefits analysis.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``public benefits.''. The Army acknowledges that Tribal benefits are 
categorically separate from public benefits and must be identified in 
consultation with the Tribal Nation to which the benefits would accrue. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, 
where warranted, following completion of the rule to include additional 
details or procedures for presenting quantitative or qualitative public 
benefits and benefits to Tribal Nations. Additional clarifying text was 
added to the rule regarding the treatment of Tribal treaty rights in 
Sec. Sec.  234.6, 234.7, and 234.9.
    Section 234.2(o) Regulatory. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``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'' actions can 
include the promulgation of regulations as well as other activities 
such as permit decisions. There were no public comments concerning the 
use of the term ``regulatory.''
    Response: No change was made to the definition of the term 
``regulatory.''
    Section 234.2(p) Resilience. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``resilience.'' This definition is provided in the P&R. 
The Army solicited comment on whether the resilience definition 
provided in Executive Order 13653 (Preparing the United States for the 
Impacts of Climate Change) (78 FR 66817 (Nov. 6, 2013)), the National 
Climate Resilience Framework, or M-24-03 (Advancing Climate Resilience 
through Climate Smart Infrastructure Investments and Implementation 
Guidance for the Disaster Resiliency Planning Act) should be included 
in the regulation instead of or in addition to the proposed definition. 
The Army also solicited comment on whether additional concepts from 
these documents should be included in the rule.
    Some commenters felt the proposed definition of resilience was too 
narrow and recommended expanding the definition. Other commenters 
suggested that the definition was too broad, and asked that it be 
aligned with current Corps guidance.
    Response: The Army updated the definition of resilience in the 
final Rule in accordance with the National Climate Resilience 
Framework.
    Section 234.2(q) Sustainable. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``sustainable.'' This definition is provided in the P&R 
and refers to the conditions where humans and nature can coexist.
    One commenter recommended expansion of the definition of 
sustainable to include a characterization of the effects or outcomes of 
potential actions to be assigned to benefits.
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``sustainable.'' The Army does not agree that the suggested changes 
would improve the definition, and is retaining the definition provided 
in the P&R for consistency with other Federal agencies.
    Section 234.2(r) Tribal Nation. This paragraph provides a 
definition for the term ``Tribal Nation.'' This definition is 
consistent with the Federal Government's definition and identification 
of a Tribal Nation by the Secretary of the Interior (25 U.S.C. 5130).
    Environmental justice is one of the Guiding Principles of the P&R 
and this rule. The Army recognizes that there are other Indigenous 
populations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and non-Federally 
recognized Tribes that may not meet the definition of the term ``Tribal 
Nation.'' Many of these include communities having environmental 
justice concerns. Regardless of definitions and legal authorities

[[Page 103998]]

applicable to the Civil Works programs, the Corps would ensure full 
outreach and coordination occurs with all Tribal Nations, Indigenous 
populations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and non-Federally 
recognized Tribes as relevant to a particular water resources 
investment as addressed in the preamble's discussion of Sec.  234.6(d). 
Such outreach and coordination would be separate from Government-to-
Government consultation requirements.
    The Army solicited comment on whether non-Federally recognized 
Indigenous populations should be defined separately for the purposes of 
the PR&G. One public comment recommended that Indigenous populations be 
defined separately from Federally recognized Tribes for the purposes of 
the PR&G. One public comment supported full outreach with all 
Indigenous populations, regardless of Federal recognition, to fully 
assess environmental and equity concerns. One Tribal Nation supported 
the definition as proposed in the draft rule.
    Response: In consideration of the comments received and after 
Nation-to-Nation consultation, the Army did not make a change to the 
definition of the term ``Tribal Nation.'' The Army recognizes the 
complexities of Federal recognition for Indigenous communities, many of 
which have significant environmental justice concerns regardless of any 
status as Federally recognized Tribes. The Army will continue outreach 
and other best practices for Indigenous populations that do not have 
Federal recognition.
    Section 234.2(s) Unwise use of floodplains. This paragraph provides 
a definition for the term ``unwise use of floodplains.'' This 
definition is adapted from the definition provided in the P&R. The 
proposed definition of ``unwise use of floodplains'' included any 
action that is incompatible with or adversely impacts one or more 
floodplain functions that leads to a floodplain that is no longer self-
sustaining. The Army solicited comment on how the Corps should evaluate 
the self-sustainment of a floodplain that is occupied or inhabited.
    Multiple commenters recommended clarification and/or expansion of 
the definition. One commenter recommended alignment of the definition 
with Executive Order 11988. Others sought the inclusion of broader 
concepts such as a climate-informed science approach and a Federal 
Flood Risk Management Standard. Other commenters supplied recommended 
language to identify the category of broad impacts on attributes of the 
floodplain. One comment letter requested the definition be expanded to 
acknowledge the importance of floodplains to fish and wildlife. Others 
noted that wetlands and floodplains are essential resources that 
provide numerous ecosystem services.
    Response: The Army added the following sentence to the Rule 
definition: ``To identify floodplain areas for the purpose of this 
section, the Corps will use the best-available and actionable science 
including a climate-informed science approach.'' This was done for 
consistency with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard established 
under Executive Order 13690 (Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and 
Considering Stakeholder Input) (80 FR 6425 (Feb. 4, 2015)).
    Section 234.2(t) Watershed. This paragraph provides a definition 
for the term ``watershed.'' This general definition for watershed is 
provided in the P&R. There were no public comments concerning the 
definition of the term ``watershed.''
    Response: No changes were made to the definition of the term 
``watershed.''
    Section 234.3 Exceptions. This section describes a way to request 
an exception from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
to the requirements or policy contained in this rule. Exception 
requests must be submitted in writing.
    Several comments were received on this topic. One comment letter, 
from a Tribal Organization group representing seven Tribal Nations, 
recommended including criteria for the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Civil Works to grant exceptions. Several comment letters similarly 
requested clear parameters and criteria for seeking an exception from 
the Secretary for any policy exception. One comment letter requested 
additional details on unique circumstances that may require exceptions. 
Two comments were received requesting a public notification process 
when exceptions are obtained for an undertaking. Another recommended 
striking the provision allowing non-Federal sponsors to request 
exemptions. One comment requested an explanation of the intended use of 
the exception authority and a requirement for periodic reporting of the 
use of exceptions. A State water agency noted that stranded asset 
situations should be specifically identified as eligible for an 
exception.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the rule regarding process and procedures for 
exceptions.
    Section 234.4 Objectives and applicability.
    Section 234.4(a) Introduction. This paragraph of the final rule 
states the goals and objectives of the ASPs. The final rule will help 
ensure consistency and transparency in the Corps' implementation of the 
PR&G by providing a common framework codified in regulation. The 
rulemaking process provided an opportunity for review and comment prior 
to finalization. The Corps has various guidance documents for its water 
resources development project planning process, but the final ASPs will 
ensure all projects, plans, and programs subject to the PR&G are using 
the same Guiding Principles and considerations in developing 
alternatives and recommendations. After finalizing the ASPs, the Corps 
will review its guidance documents and rescind, modify, or develop new 
guidance as needed to comport with and further the objectives of the 
ASPs. However, the final ASPs are intended to stand on their own 
regarding the overall framework and provide the guideposts for the 
Corps when implementing the PR&G.
    The Army solicited comment to identify where additional details may 
be warranted in the final rule and preamble, and where additional 
specific technical tools or methodologies may be warranted in follow-on 
Corps guidance documents.
    A comment was received during a virtual public meeting questioning 
how the ASPs will integrate with the Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100, 
which was recently updated with Engineer Regulation 1105-2-103.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the rule for any process and procedures 
necessary to implement the final rule.
    Section 234.4(b) Objectives for Federal water resources 
investments. This paragraph of the rule discusses the Federal 
objectives for Federal water resources investments, building on the 
definition of the Federal Objective provided in Sec.  234.2(g). Section 
2031 of WRDA 2007 describes 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

[[Page 103999]]

protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and 
mitigating any unavoidable damage to natural systems. Consideration of 
the P&R Guiding Principles when developing Federal water resources 
investments will assist in achieving the Federal Objective. Section 
2031 did not provide a hierarchy for how to accomplish the objective 
nor does this final rule.
    National priorities may include general priorities (for example, 
health and safety) but can include more specific priorities that emerge 
and may evolve over time. There are 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 laws or developed by the Administration and 
are informed by stakeholder and community engagements. The Corps will 
also fulfill its Tribal trust responsibilities under applicable 
treaties.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Please see this 
preamble's discussion of Sec.  234.2(g) for a response to the public 
comments on the definition of the term ``Federal Objective.''
    Section 234.4(c) Net public benefits. This paragraph of the rule 
describes the net public benefits to society, which are sought to be 
maximized. Per the P&R, public benefits encompass economic, 
environmental, and social goals. Public benefits include benefits that 
can be described in monetary terms and those that can be quantified or 
described in other ways or qualitatively.
    A key aspect of the PR&G is that the environmental, economic, and 
social impacts are interrelated. In addition, the potential solutions 
to a water resources challenge or opportunity may produce varying 
degrees of effects relative to environmental, economic, and social 
goals. As a result, the Corps will describe, assess, and consider the 
tradeoffs among the potential solutions to inform the decision-making 
process.
    The study should evaluate all key benefits and costs to society 
that are relevant to the investment decision. The extent to which the 
alternatives would have effects across the three categories will 
naturally vary across Corps studies.
    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 will allow decision-makers to view a more complete 
range of effects of alternative actions and will lead to more socially 
beneficial investments.
    Some benefits may be difficult to categorize as economic, 
environmental, or social. Analysts should be as specific as possible 
when categories cannot easily be assigned and to describe the relevance 
when evaluating alternatives. Double-counting should be avoided. In 
addition, when economic, environmental, and social goals compete, the 
Corps will describe such instances and include the considerations in 
the tradeoff analysis (see Sec.  234.10(b)).
    Under the ASPs, consideration of the range of economic, 
environmental, and social benefits is an integral component of the 
planning process. Development of a comprehensive plan to address the 
water resources challenge or opportunity must begin in the earliest 
phases of the planning process and continue throughout the process.
    The Army solicited comment on whether net public benefits should be 
described without the additional step of categorizing them into 
economic, environmental, and social categories, 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.
    The Army received a number of comments on this topic. Several 
commenters indicated that environmental, economic, and social impacts 
should be displayed separately. One commenter indicated that providing 
both combined and segregated data may provide a better understanding of 
projects as a whole and in parts but indicated that the benefit-to-cost 
ratio should not commingle non-economic costs in an economic efficiency 
analysis. Another commenter indicated that net public benefits should 
be described and displayed in separate national accounts for analysis, 
evaluation, and comparison. It suggested that tradeoffs, double-
counting, overlaps, and other relationships between national accounts 
can be more easily identified when displayed in separate accounts. A 
commenter suggested that benefits should not be categorized as they 
felt that avoiding categorization implicitly avoids double-counting and 
allows the benefits to be included independent of any bias or 
importance ascribed to a particular category. Another felt that they 
should not be categorized as doing so suggests sharp distinctions 
between economic, environmental, and social effects.
    One comment suggested the consideration and evaluation of a range 
of benefits (environmental, economic, and social), especially for 
natural and nature-based solutions. Related comments focused on 
including environmental and social considerations in the comprehensive 
evaluation of costs and benefits.
    Another commenter indicated that details on the methodology for 
determining net public benefits are not included in the rule and said 
that it is unclear how economic benefits calculated in the traditional 
national economic development approach will be reformulated to remove 
the bias toward higher property values, which it said is inherent to 
the calculation of avoidable damages. Multiple commenters mentioned the 
need for future guidance on how net benefits will be determined and 
displayed. One comment specifically called for clarification on how 
this concept will be used in pricing water supply storage.
    Several commenters recommended including in the rule language from 
the Interagency Guidelines stating that there is no hierarchy among 
environmental, social, and economic benefits to ensure that economic 
objectives do not remain the driving force. However, one commenter 
suggested that life safety be given priority over all other 
considerations.
    One commenter indicated that adherence to the P&G's national 
economic development objective, which avoids internal redistribution of 
economic benefits and costs, is inconsistent with elements of social 
impacts where the intent is the redistribution of benefits towards 
disenfranchised communities, and also said that a philosophical 
reconciliation needs to be explicitly addressed or a higher emphasis 
placed on regional economic development.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Net public 
benefits will be determined based on the economic, environmental, and 
social benefits and costs to society as a whole. There is no stated 
goal of redistribution of benefits for Corps projects but rather an 
emphasis on analyses and metrics that can account for communities with 
environmental justice concerns and Tribal lands. The use of social 
impacts (positive or negative) in the evaluation of potential Federal 
actions will allow the direct consideration of effects that are not 
captured by traditional economics. Any new metrics or monetization will 
be economically and scientifically sound.

[[Page 104000]]

    Regional economic development effects are the changes in the 
distribution of economic activity that would result from implementation 
of an 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. A separate regional economic development analysis can 
account for the transfer effects of a proposed Federal investment where 
the effects of spending or jobs on the local area may be a 
consideration.
    The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    The Army solicited comment on whether it should be acknowledged 
that Tribal benefits are part of the trust responsibility in 
implementing the PR&G.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. 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, non-use values of wildlife loss (such as 
existence or bequest values), or some culturally valued experiences 
(for example, spiritual connection to nature and option to lead a 
subsistence way of life).
    The Army solicited comment on approaches and tools that may be 
employed to best enable the Corps to have consistent and transparent 
implementation, including using any final guidance provided by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on ecosystem services in response 
to its August 2, 2023, proposal (88 FR 50912). OMB finalized its 
ecosystem services guidance, ``Guidance for Assessing Changes in 
Environmental and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis,'' in 
February 2024.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ESGuidance.pdf. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Army received some comments suggesting potential tools and 
considerations regarding the use of ecosystem services valuations when 
assessing project alternative plans. One commenter indicated that the 
ASPs should state that the Corps must account for the value of 
ecosystem services lost as a project cost, and account for the value of 
ecosystem services gained as a project benefit and that potential 
mitigation measures may not be used to offset the loss of ecosystem 
services. Another commenter mentioned that discounting methodologies 
applied to ecosystem services or natural resources incorporate the 
impact of potential scarcity into future cost/value of these natural 
services and resources.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule. Ecosystem service impacts will 
be considered in the benefit costs analysis as appropriate. The Army 
disagrees that mitigation may not be used to offset the loss of 
ecosystem services.
    The quantification of benefits relates to several evolving fields 
and new methods may develop over time. The PR&G and the 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.
    The Army solicited comment on whether life safety benefits should 
be specifically identified, and if so, under which of the three 
benefits categories. Several commenters responded to this inquiry. One 
responder indicated that life safety benefits should be identified, 
include national security, and be considered under other social 
effects. Another responder indicated that they should be identified and 
have a greater focus while being integrated across economic, 
environmental, and social categories. Another responder indicated that 
they should be front and center to any analysis and not placed in any 
one category.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Life safety 
benefits will be displayed in the social benefits category. The Corps 
will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.4(d) Applicability. This paragraph describes the 
projects and programs that must use the ASPs and outlines those 
projects and programs that are excluded from the requirements of this 
rule. Essentially, the PR&G apply to all Corps projects and programs 
that are not identified as excluded in Sec.  234.4(d)(2) or granted an 
exception under Sec.  234.3. 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 qualifies for a NEPA 
categorical exclusion, such exclusion does not automatically trigger an 
exclusion for applicability of the ASPs. However, projects or programs 
may meet the terms of an exclusion under both NEPA and this rule.
    This rule will also apply to non-Federal interests who undertake 
feasibility studies to support an authorization to construct a Corps 
water resources development project, such as under Section 203 of WRDA 
1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2231).
    The following actions are excluded from the ASPs as these actions 
and activities do not result in the consideration of a proposed Federal 
water resources investment: Corps Regulatory actions; real estate 
actions; technical services programs, such as Planning Assistance to 
States and Flood Plain Management Services; Section 408 actions; the 
Public Law 84-99 program; the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act Program; environmental infrastructure projects; land 
management plans; operation and maintenance (O&M) activities carried 
out in a manner consistent with an existing O&M manual or O&M plan; 
Interagency and International Services and Support for Others program 
actions; research or monitoring activities; and emergency actions.
    Monitoring (e.g., water quality monitoring or fish monitoring) and 
research activities are excluded from the requirements of this rule. 
Such activities may be used to inform Federal investments in a proposed 
or existing water resources development project, but they are not 
themselves a water resources development project, program, or a related 
Federal investment decision. The Interagency Guidelines provide that 
the PR&G are 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 Services and Support for 
Others program actions are excluded from the requirements of this rule. 
These actions are provided on a reimbursable basis and as such are 
assistance to other programs and not a proposed Federal investment by 
the Corps, as are the other activities covered under the ASPs. All the 
work that the Corps performs under these programs is requested by other 
agencies that pay the

[[Page 104001]]

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 provides engineering and construction 
services, environmental restoration and management services, research 
and development assistance, management of water and related land 
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 
Corps ASPs. Although excluded from the Corps 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 Table 1 are generally for routine 
investments. In most cases, these investments would not have 
significant adverse effects on water resources. Projects or plans 
implemented under programmatic authorizations from Congress (e.g., 
Tribal Partnership Program and Continuing Authorities Program) are 
potentially included under the ASPs depending on the monetary 
thresholds for the actions. Any study, project, or plan that meets the 
monetary thresholds contained in Table 1 would need to be assessed to 
determine the appropriate level of analysis to be applied. Any study, 
project, or plan that falls below the $15 million threshold would be 
excluded from the ASPs.
    Also included in the list of exclusions are those programs, plans, 
or projects that fall under an exception in Sec.  234.3.
    Excluded activities within these projects or programs will follow 
the relevant laws, Tribal treaty and reserved rights, regulations, and 
general planning processes, and will still strive to meet the intent of 
the PR&G by applying similar concepts where relevant.
    The Army solicited comment on whether modifications allowed under 
the Public Law 84-99 program should not be excluded from the 
requirements of this rule. Two responders commented on the ASPs 
applicability to the Public Law 84-99 program. One commenter indicated 
that the Corps should apply the improved planning framework in the ASPs 
to Public Law 84-99 to the greatest extent practicable to help 
communities prepare for natural disasters and ensure these projects are 
designed and evaluated for the full range of comprehensive benefits, 
and that the process for applying these ASPs to the Public Law 84-99 
program should be scaled in a manner to be consistent with the 
emergency response nature of this program. Another responder indicated 
that the Army and the Corps should consider removing or limiting the 
proposed exclusion of the Public Law 84-99 program regarding repair or 
restoration activities on flood control and shoreline management works 
threatened or destroyed by flooding. However, the commenter indicated 
that it is appropriate to retain the exclusion for inspections, 
preparedness activities, technical assistance, direct flood fighting 
assistance, rescue operations, and post-flood response.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Upon further 
consideration, modifications implemented under the Public Law 84-99 
program are better addressed in the Public Law 84-99 rule (33 CFR part 
203) and associated guidance and thus have been excluded from the PR&G.
    The Army solicited comment on whether additional exclusions should 
be added, such as dredged material management plans, Tribal Partnership 
Program activities, Continuing Authorities Program, and major 
rehabilitation evaluation reports due to scope, scale, level of 
investment, project partner, technical nature of the product, etc.
    One commenter suggested that the ASPs should be applied to 
operating manuals and water control plans. One comment sought the 
addition of renewals and replacements to the actions in Sec.  
234.4(d)(2)(x). Another suggested removing Sec.  234.4(d)(2)(xv) or 
prescribing a process for these decisions. It was also suggested that 
Sec.  234.4(d)(2)(xiv) be deleted or clarified with provisions. Another 
commenter indicated that the ASPs should apply to existing projects. 
Comments received from a Tribal Nation and a Tribal Organization also 
recommended that the PR&G should apply to existing operations of Corps' 
projects affecting Tribal land or water. One commenter responded and 
suggested that when formulating dredged material placement 
alternatives, the Corps should account for all benefits of beneficial 
use placement opportunities, including the economic value of clean 
dredged material for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction 
and cost savings available.
    One comment recommended adding a sentence indicating that excluded 
projects should still strive to meet the intent of the PR&G and ASPs by 
applying similar concepts where relevant.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The ASPs will 
apply to all new Army Civil Works' water resources investments that 
meet the threshold criteria contained in Table 1, to include 
feasibility studies; general reevaluation reports; major rehabilitation 
reports; studies performed under the continuing authorities program of 
the Corps; studies to support significant changes to operations 
including any such changes that warrant preparation of an environmental 
impact statement, re-allocation studies, and studies conducted under 
Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 349a); and any 
other project or program not otherwise excluded under Sec.  
234.4(d)(2).
    The suggestion to add operating manuals and water control plans 
under the ASPs was not adopted for O&M activities that are carried out 
in a manner consistent with the existing approved O&M manual or plan 
that are routine in nature. However, the ASPs would apply to 
significant proposed changes to an existing O&M plan that may be 
controversial, significant changes to the existing plan to meet new 
goals, and other significant changes that may warrant a fresh 
exploration of the options.
    Section 234.4(d)(2)(xiv) was modified to remove ``that meet the 
threshold criteria for exclusion or''. This was done to clarify that 
Table 1 determines the cost-based threshold criteria for the 
application of the ASPs to projects, programs or plans.
    Section 234.4(d)(2)(xv) was retained to preserve the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works' ability to make exceptions on a 
case-by-case basis.
    The ASPs provide a framework to govern how the Corps would evaluate 
proposed water resources investments and do not apply to existing 
projects where no changes are proposed. The Corps will review existing 
guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, following 
completion of the final rule.
    In addition, the Army solicited 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. The Army did 
receive input in response to whether any of the actions identified as 
proposed exclusions should not be excluded. This input was related to 
the Public Law 84-99 program and those comments are addressed earlier 
in this section of the preamble.
    Response: The final rule clarifies the scope of the O&M exclusions. 
No other

[[Page 104002]]

changes were made to the list of exclusions in the final rule.
    The Army solicited 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.
    A number of respondents indicated that studies should follow a 
watershed approach. Multiple responders indicated that the PR&G should 
apply to watershed studies. One responder indicated that if watershed 
studies include the development of specific future projects or 
potential future projects, they should follow the ASPs. The specific 
requirement for such plans might be less than the full planning 
approach outlined for specific projects, but these studies seek to 
maximize net public benefits in a manner consistent with the ASPs and 
the Federal Objective.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule.
    The Army solicited comment on whether watershed studies should be 
excluded from the requirements of this rule. A responder indicated that 
the concept of watershed studies brings its own set of challenges, 
highlighted by concerns regarding the practicability of advancing 
individual Civil Works projects within broader watershed study areas.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Watershed studies 
do not typically result in specific Federal investment construction 
recommendations; in those cases, they would not be subject to the ASPs. 
If a watershed study does include recommendations that meet the 
monetary thresholds for inclusion, then the ASPs would apply. The Corps 
will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.5 Level of analysis. Once a decision is made that the 
PR&G apply under Sec.  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 applied based on the 
scope and magnitude of the proposed projects, programs, or plans, and 
the significance of the Federal investment. The different levels of 
analysis allow for investment decisions to be made effectively and 
efficiently. Many small, routine activities are excluded from the PR&G 
analysis under the rule (refer to Sec.  234.4(d)(2)) such as O&M 
activities that are carried out in a manner consistent with the 
existing approved O&M manual or routine investments in invasive species 
removal. 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 
ASPs include a table that provides the monetary threshold criteria to 
be used for identifying the types of projects, programs, or plans and 
their corresponding level of analysis.
    The Army solicited comment on whether the proposed rule language 
regarding benefit-cost analysis in this section is adequate or whether 
additional content or examples are needed in the rule text. The Army 
also solicited comment on the types of analyses that may best be used 
to evaluate the full range of public benefits under both standard and 
scaled levels of analysis.
    The Army received comments that more rigorous analysis may be 
warranted if significant non-monetized effects are likely to occur. The 
Army also received comments that the standard level of analysis is 
appropriate for any proposal that would require an Environmental Impact 
Statement under NEPA. Another comment advised in-depth analysis when 
the uncertainty is so high that the performance metric ceases to be 
informative.
    Other comments were that the benefit transfer methods discussed in 
this section of the proposed rule were weak and that the Army should 
define what should be similar for projects to apply other studies' 
benefit functions, and to include guidance on how to scale or weight 
studies to better match the local context. Another comment expressed 
concern over the use of benefit transfer and expressed the need for 
more clarity regarding when it is appropriate.
    One organization offered that a benefit-cost analysis tool has an 
inherent error that could be avoided with external review. One 
commenter expressed concern that the ASPs should also clarify that they 
do not establish a new requirement for a positive, quantified benefit-
cost determination to justify the recommendation of an ecosystem 
restoration project.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.5(b) Determining the appropriate level of analysis. 
This paragraph of the rule describes the process for determining the 
appropriate level of analysis under the PR&G. In addition to the 
considerations and descriptions provided in Sec.  234.5(a) for the 
scaled and standard analysis and the criteria provided in Table 1 to be 
used as a general guide, the ASPs note that professional judgment and 
available resources are also important factors in determining the 
appropriate levels of analysis.
    The Army solicited comment on additional considerations to be 
applied when determining the appropriate level of analysis under the 
PR&G and whether additional clarity is needed on how such 
determinations may be made.
    One commenter indicated that mechanisms other than project cost 
should be considered to determine the appropriate level of analysis and 
indicated that planning efforts that do not exceed the monetary 
thresholds can inform major investment decisions that vastly exceed 
these thresholds, and it would be difficult to reassess climate change 
during the implementation phase if a quantitative climate change 
analysis is not included in the planning phase.
    One commenter indicated that the rule fails to identify specific 
criteria that will be applied to determine the level of analysis, and 
to address this lack of clarity additional content or examples are 
needed in the regulatory text. Another commenter indicated that the 
Corps should consult with State and local partners when determining the 
appropriate level of analysis. In particular, the Corps should work 
with State partners that have permitting and review obligations to 
ensure that the planning analysis, including investigations and data 
collection, meets both the Corps' and State review data needs. Another 
commenter expressed concern that the ASPs puts too much emphasis on 
monetary criteria and inadequate emphasis on potential environmental 
impacts in discussing how the Corps will determine which level of 
analysis to apply to a particular project. The commenter recommended 
including language describing factors that could justify deviating from 
Table 1 in the text of the final rule. The responder also recommended 
adding language to Table 1 to clarify that the monetary thresholds are 
not decisive on their own. Finally, this responder indicated that that 
the standard level of analysis is appropriate for any project that 
would require an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. Another 
commenter stated that industrial-scale offshore wind projects that 
involve significant ocean area must trigger the full PR&G and must 
require in-depth,

[[Page 104003]]

extensive scientific analysis as part of the Corps' regulatory process 
to ensure no harm to the ocean ecosystem and the communities that 
depend on access to fisheries.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. This rule does 
not apply to the Corps' Regulatory program. The Corps will consult with 
Federal, State, and local partners in determining the appropriate level 
of analysis to include State partners with permitting and review 
obligations. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide 
updated guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule regarding the level of analysis to be used in planning studies.
    Section 234.5(c) Scope and magnitude of analysis required. The 
threshold criteria provided in 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. In the proposed 
rule, Table 1 was taken straight from the Interagency Guidelines. The 
monetary thresholds were designed to be relevant to all agencies 
implementing the PR&G to provide a common framework and baseline. 
Programmatic-level analyses require the detail necessary to ensure 
decision-makers have sufficient information to make an informed 
decision, but they may be conducted differently than project-level 
analyses. The Corps may choose to analyze the effects of a Federal 
investment at a higher level of detail than called for by Table 1.
    The Interagency Guidelines state that the P&R specifically apply 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 in Table 1. O&M activities 
resulting in consequential effects on water quantity or water quality 
that have not been previously analyzed should be appropriately analyzed 
using either the project- or programmatic-level processes laid out in 
the 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 excluded 
(see Sec.  234.4(d)). O&M activities that are included in original 
project authorizations do not require a 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 at the standard or the scaled 
level.
    The Army solicited comment on whether the values provided in Table 
1 are the appropriate thresholds to apply for the Corps and also 
whether the amounts should be adjusted for inflation from the original 
amounts provided, which were developed in 2014. The Corps further 
solicited comment about what data should be used to make those 
adjustments going forward, such as Gross Domestic Product deflator, 
Consumer Price Index, or something else. The Army solicited comment on 
whether the Corps should account for the non-Federal share of the costs 
in setting these thresholds to reflect the total cost to society 
(Federal plus non-Federal costs) of the proposed investment. The Army 
also solicited 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 solicited comment 
on whether either of those considerations warrant a revision to Table 1 
for the Corps.
    Comments received from a Tribal Nation and a Tribal Organization 
recommend threshold criteria provided in Table 1 should not limit the 
evaluation of proposed activities that could impact Tribal Nations. 
Another commenter recommended indexing the threshold values to account 
for economic conditions since 2014.
    Response: Table 1 was modified in response to comments received. 
Threshold values and ranges were updated and increased to reflect total 
investment (Federal and non-Federal). These thresholds are not intended 
to preclude or minimize the Tribal trust responsibility and resulting 
Government-to-Government consultation requirements when determining the 
scope and scale of analysis where a Federal action may have Tribal 
implications.
    Section 234.6 The planning process.
    Section 234.6(a) Introduction. This paragraph describes how the 
planning process will incorporate the Guiding Principles from the P&R 
in the analysis and development of Corps Federal investments in solving 
water resources problems.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. In response to comments from Tribes and a Tribal Organization 
concerned that the Army recognizes Tribal treaty rights, the following 
text was added to this section of the rule: ``The Corps will identify 
impacts to Tribal treaty and water rights at the earliest phases and 
throughout the plan evaluation process, screening alternatives that 
impact Tribal treaty and water rights.''
    Section 234.6(b) National Environmental Policy Act. This 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. Compliance under NEPA and this rule does not eliminate 
the Corps' obligations under other statutory requirements (for example, 
Endangered Species Act compliance) or fulfillment of Tribal trust 
responsibilities.
    The Army solicited comment 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, in particular.
    One comment was received requesting that the Corps update its 
models and policies to better reflect the full economic and 
environmental benefits of channel expansion projects.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.6(c) Guiding principles. This section describes the 
Guiding Principles for the planning process that the P&R identify, 
which are environmental justice, avoiding the unwise use of 
floodplains, healthy and resilient ecosystems, public safety, 
sustainable economic development, and a watershed approach. The Guiding 
Principles are intended as overarching concepts to ensure that Federal 
water resources investments best serve the public.
    Many comments suggested that the rule provides insufficient 
guidance for achieving goals aligned with the Guiding Principles. 
Another comment suggested including a new Guiding Principle associated 
with rising sea levels.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Guiding 
Principles were identified in the P&R. The Corps will review existing 
guidance and

[[Page 104004]]

provide updated guidance, where warranted, following completion of the 
final rule.
    Section 234.6(c)(1) Environmental justice. This section defines the 
term ``environmental justice'' and states that communities with 
environmental justice concerns will be ``at the front and center of 
studies.''
    The Army received multiple comments about the Guiding Principle of 
environmental justice. The majority of commenters support the inclusion 
of environmental justice as a Guiding Principle. Comments recognized 
the benefits to communities with environmental justice concerns of the 
broader evaluation framework and the decision-making criteria in the 
ASPs. Another organization suggested adding text from the preamble to 
the rule itself to highlight potential issues that should be evaluated.
    Some commenters requested additional specifics about how the Corps 
will realize the goals of environmental justice, including how relevant 
communities will be identified. One commenter mentioned the need to 
define communities with environmental justice concerns and 
disadvantaged communities.
    Some commenters recommended specific tools, techniques, or 
procedures to help realize these goals; others called for environmental 
justice to be prioritized throughout all aspects of the ASPs. Others 
advocated to strengthen the standard for project selection.
    Commenters noted the need to transparently include communities in 
decision-making. One commenter recommended targeted outreach to ensure 
equitable access to participation.
    Another commenter asked how communities would be compensated should 
they endure negative environmental impacts from Corps' projects.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final rule. In 
accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Section 
2036, the Corps is required to develop a mitigation plan to address 
environmental impacts from Corps projects. If a community is enduring 
long-term negative environmental impacts from a Corps project, 
appropriate response could be considered on a case-by-case basis in 
accordance with Federal law, regulation, and policy.
    The opportunity for meaningful input by affected communities is a 
component of the definition of the term ``environmental justice.'' 
Comments pertaining to outreach and collaboration with communities with 
environmental justice concerns are addressed under this preamble's 
discussion of Sec.  234.6(d).
    Additional commenters expressed concerns, not about the Guiding 
Principle itself, but about the tone with which environmental justice 
is discussed in the rule. Some wished for the principle to be 
emphasized more strongly; others expressed concern that the rule over-
emphasizes the importance of environmental justice and that such over-
emphasis ultimately could impair the quality of the Corps' decision-
making, especially in cases when achieving environmental justice-
related goals may appear to conflict with the objectives or feasibility 
of specific projects.
    Response: The Army reiterates that environmental justice is an 
important Guiding Principle of these ASPs, identified in the P&R 
alongside the other Guiding Principles. The Army disagrees with the 
supposition that any of these principles, including environmental 
justice, will negatively impact the Corps' work. On their own, the 
Guiding Principles do not mandate specific mission or project outcomes; 
rather, they act as policy guideposts to ensure that the Corps serves 
the public in the execution of its authorities.
    One commenter asserted that the inclusion of environmental justice 
as a Guiding Principle exceeds Congressional intent and asked for it to 
be removed from the rule.
    Response: The P&R identifies environmental justice as a Guiding 
Principle, and the consideration of impacts on local communities 
embodied by that principle is reflected in Section 2031(a) and (b)(3) 
of WRDA 2007. Congress expressly directed the Corps to develop these 
ASPs for the PR&G in Section 110 of WRDA 2020. The Army is executing 
this direction.
    Some commenters, including a Tribal Organization, suggested that 
remedying past inequities should be a Guiding Principle or a standard 
decision-making factor in the planning criteria for existing and future 
water resources development projects. One comment from a Tribal Nation 
supported the inclusion of subsistence and social impact assessments, 
and greater transparency for evaluating benefits and impacts under 
environmental justice analysis of a proposed project. Through 
Government-to-Government consultation with another Tribal Nation, a 
comment was made to differentiate broader environmental justice 
concerns from protected Tribal treaty or reserved rights.
    Response: The Guiding Principles are defined in the P&R. The Army 
agrees that subsistence activities should be considered in agency 
decision-making under the environmental justice Guiding Principle. The 
rule includes this language at Sec.  234.6(c)(1)(ii). The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    Related to environmental justice, the Army solicited comment on how 
the navigation program can use tools and resources to assess and, as 
appropriate, demonstrate project benefits for disadvantaged communities 
and other nearby communities.
    Commenters representing Tribes recommended a social impact 
assessment tool, not specific to navigation, for identifying impacts on 
Tribes and other communities with environmental justice concerns. These 
comments are addressed under the discussion of Sec.  234.9(c) in this 
preamble.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule.
    Section 234.6(c)(2) Floodplains. This section states that Federal 
investments shall strive to sustain floodplains' natural and beneficial 
functions to the maximum extent practicable.
    The Army received comments expressing support for the inclusion of 
floodplains in the Guiding Principles. Some sought for the principle to 
be strengthened, especially with respect to long-term implications of a 
changing climate, or to be aligned expressly with current Corps 
guidance and other Federal policy documents. Other commenters wanted to 
see explicit language in the ASPs ensuring that projects are self-
sustaining and do not result in the unwise use of a floodplain. A 
commenter suggested that the rule specifically address how the Corps 
would implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard established 
under Executive Order 13690 (Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and 
Considering Stakeholder Input) (80 FR 6425 (Feb. 4, 2015)).
    The Army solicited comment on how the Corps should evaluate the 
self-sustainment of a floodplain that is occupied or inhabited. Some 
commenters suggested a variety of specific assessment methodologies. 
They also recommended working with academic experts to identify 
approaches after the ASPs are finalized.

[[Page 104005]]

    Response: The following information was added to the Rule: ``To 
identify floodplain areas for the purpose of this section, the Corps 
will use the best-available and actionable science including a climate-
informed science approach.'' The Army reiterates that effective 
floodplain management and increasing resilience to flooding and storms 
are important Guiding Principles of these ASPs and the PR&G. For a 
discussion specific to the term ``unwise use of floodplains,'' see 
Sec.  234.2(s) of this preamble. The Corps will review existing 
guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, following 
completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.6(c)(3) Healthy and resilient ecosystems. The ASPs 
reinforce the directive in WRDA 2007 to protect and restore ecosystem 
functions and to minimize and mitigate those impacts if they cannot be 
avoided. The rule states: ``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 . . 
.'' Alternatives must include 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.
    Some commenters suggested that the phrase ``may restore'' be 
changed to ``shall restore,'' and others suggested removing ``where 
feasible'' from the text. Commenters also recommended specific 
approaches for how best to follow this Guiding Principle.
    The Army solicited input on whether there are alternative forms to 
measure ecosystem health such as specific assessment methods in 
particular for the Corps' aquatic ecosystem restoration mission.
    One commenter recommended quantification of multi-purpose benefits 
and effects of nature-based solutions.
    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. A Tribal Organization commented that the current baseline 
may already be degraded by an existing project or as a cumulative 
effect of a different Federal action and that this should be considered 
when establishing the baseline conditions.
    When determining the environmental baseline for new water resources 
development investment decisions, the Corps does consider impacts by 
existing projects or Federal actions.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Regarding ``may'' 
versus ``shall,'' the Army notes that, while aquatic ecosystem 
restoration is one of the Corps' missions, not all studies are 
authorized to restore damaged ecosystems. In some cases, imperative 
language would put the ASPs at odds with congressional authority. On 
the other hand, contingent language acknowledges potential 
opportunities. Thus, the original language has been retained. The Corps 
will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.6(c)(4) Public safety. The rule describes ``public 
safety'' in terms of loss of life and injury. It calls for alternatives 
to avoid, reduce, or mitigate significant risks to public safety.
    The Army solicited comment on whether the description of the term 
``public safety'' should be broadened and whether additional threats to 
public safety should be included for consideration beyond those related 
to natural events.
    Several commenters responded. One suggested that life safety should 
be recognized as a benefit of national security. Another commenter 
indicated that public safety should include both drought and flood 
resilience and stressed the role of water supply in ensuring public 
health and safety. Some commenters suggested that improved life safety 
be recognized as a benefit of many navigation projects. Another 
commenter indicated that alternatives should consider any risk of harm 
or injury to persons and property and should utilize qualified design 
professionals to achieve these safety goals.
    The Army solicited comment on whether life loss should be 
monetized.
    Some commenters supported monetizing loss of life, with one of 
these commenters suggesting that the Corps consider the methodologies 
used to determine the value of a statistical life presented in U.S. 
Department of Transportation and Federal Emergency Management Agency 
documents.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Army will 
consider additional factors in the discussion of public safety through 
future updates to planning and engineering guidance. However, the Army 
does not believe that changes to the rule are required to address these 
factors.
    The Corps includes an analysis of the risk to life safety in its 
flood and coastal storm risk management studies and in its dam safety 
modification studies. The Corps generally considers this risk in 
assessing costs and benefits and in formulating potential solutions. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, 
where warranted, following completion of the final rule, to include a 
review of Department of Transportation and Federal Emergency Management 
Agency approaches.
    Section 234.6(c)(5) Sustainable economic development. The term 
``sustainable'' is defined in the rule at Sec.  234.2(p). The 
sustainable economic development Guiding Principle in the P&R states, 
``alternative solutions for resolving water resources problems should 
improve the economic well-being of the Nation for present and future 
generations through the sustainable use and management of water 
resources . . .''
    Numerous commenters expressed support for the Guiding Principle of 
sustainable economic development. Commentors suggested that a set of 
quantitative and qualitative metrics and/or methodologies be developed 
for measuring sustainable development. Another commenter argued that 
the goal of sustainable development should be not just for humans and 
nature to coexist but to thrive. This commenter requested that the 
definition of sustainable development be strengthened accordingly.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule. The need for metrics and 
methodologies will be a specific area of review. The Guiding Principle 
of sustainable economic development is defined in the P&R. The Army 
reiterates the importance of this Guiding Principle.
    Section 234.6(c)(6) Watershed approach. The term ``watershed'' is 
defined in the rule at Sec.  234.2(s). When developing alternatives, 
the water resources problem being addressed should be analyzed on a 
watershed-based level to facilitate inclusion of a complete range of 
solutions, after considering the breadth of impacts across the 
watershed.
    The Army received multiple comments on the Guiding Principle of 
taking a watershed approach in the planning process. The majority of 
commenters expressed support for this principle. Some commenters 
offered suggestions for how best to implement this Guiding Principle. 
Some commenters worried that the watershed approach Guiding Principle 
effectively mandates a minimum scope (comprehensive, multipurpose 
watershed analysis) and geographic

[[Page 104006]]

scale for all Corps studies, increasing study costs and complexity.
    The Army solicited comment on example frameworks, tools, and 
methods for implementing a watershed approach, such as whether the 
Department of Energy's Basin-Scale Opportunity Assessment methodology 
could be adapted for use under the ASPs.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Army 
reiterates the importance of this Guiding Principle in the PR&G. As a 
Guiding Principle, the watershed approach does not mandate specific 
study methodologies or outcomes. The approach does not require all 
studies to conduct robust and detailed watershed analyses at any 
specific scope or scale, or require a multipurpose or comprehensive 
watershed analysis; rather, it acknowledges that watersheds are complex 
systems and that water resources management entails identifying and 
addressing systemically interdependent problems. A watershed approach 
encourages Corps planning teams to maintain awareness of watersheds as 
systemic units. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide 
updated guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule.
    Section 234.6(d) Collaboration.
    Section 234.6(d)(1). This 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 Corps will seek to collaborate 
fully with a wide range of affected entities, stakeholders, and the 
public in all stages of the planning process. The Corps will 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, analyses, and requirements needed for 
the planning decision and maximizing opportunities to avoid and 
minimize impacts to the human environment to the extent practicable. 
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 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.
    Section 234.6(d)(1) also makes clear that enhanced collaboration 
does 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 result in a greater 
understanding of the Tribal Nations' needs than what may be achieved in 
consultation. Tribal Nations may serve as Cooperating Agencies under 
the NEPA process, contributing their expertise on environmental issues. 
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.
    Multiple comments supported the intent of this section to enhance 
collaboration to ensure transparency, promote public participation, and 
have full collaboration with a wide range of affected Tribal, State, 
and local governments, non-governmental stakeholders, communities, and 
the general public. A significant number of letters were received 
requesting that the rule retain provisions that require the Corps to 
fully engage with local interests, stakeholders, and Tribal Nations. 
These letters also recommended that the Corps vigorously assess the 
impacts of climate change during project planning.
    One comment received through Nation-to-Nation consultation on the 
rule emphasized the importance of early and robust Government-to-
Government consultation, not just collaboration, with Tribal Nations, 
and that consultation, both at the initial stage of formulating 
alternatives and following more detailed analysis of alternatives, is 
critical to identifying Tribal treaty rights and water rights that may 
be impacted by a potential water resources development project. The 
comment also stated that details regarding the timing and notification 
of Tribal partners would be helpful guidance to include in the rule. 
Another comment from a Tribal Organization representing seven Tribal 
Nations expressed concern that the Corps will not follow the extensive 
requirements to consult and collaborate as prescribed in the ASPs.
    One commenter expressed concern over Indigenous communities being 
informed of any changes that could be made on potentially sacred lands.
    Response: In response to comments received, the rule was revised. 
The Corps acknowledges the unique relationship with Tribal governments 
and is committed to meeting its Federal trust responsibility in 
accordance with the Corps' Civil Works Tribal Consultation Policy. The 
rule was amended in Sec.  234.6(d)(1) to acknowledge that robust, early 
collaboration with Tribes is in addition to the requirement to conduct 
early, meaningful, and robust Government-to-Government consultation 
with Tribal Nations.
    Section 234.6(d)(2). Although this paragraph recognizes that tools 
and levels of engagement will vary based on a variety of factors, the 
section requires use of best practices of engagement, such as the 
spectrum of engagement from the International Association for Public 
Participation and modifications from various U.S. government agencies, 
including the Corps. 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 Sec.  
234.6(c)(1) of the rule and the discussion of Sec.  234.6(c)(1) in the 
preamble for other considerations in engaging communities with 
environmental justice concerns.
    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 either 
formal or informal public participation processes, 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. Following the ASPs 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 to implement.
    Enhanced collaboration also helps to ensure transparency, promote 
Tribal and public participation, and assist in

[[Page 104007]]

developing community-driven solutions to water resources problems. The 
Corps would ensure that the collaboration includes opportunities for 
engaged participants to assess the effectiveness 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.
    Multiple commenters expressed strong support for robust 
collaboration and enhanced transparency in the planning process, with 
many offering suggestions for implementation. One comment suggested 
incorporating more specific and explicit engagement requirements 
throughout the regulation, including that the Corps should bring to the 
table all relevant State agencies at key points in the planning 
process. Another comment recommended that the rule direct planners to 
establish a collaboration and public engagement plan prior to 
initiation of the formal scoping phase and to modify the plan as needed 
to improve collaboration throughout the planning process. Other 
comments suggested the Corps identify and perform outreach to a wide 
variety of organizations and informal groups, and that the Corps should 
be required to hold meetings with stakeholders at various stages of the 
planning process or invest in dedicated staff members for community 
engagement. Comments requested more details on, and made 
recommendations for, achieving robust collaboration throughout the 
planning process and developing a formal approach for community 
engagement in decision-making.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. The Army appreciates the supportive comments on this section. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, 
where warranted, following completion of the rule. This may include 
additional details on public engagement tools, techniques, and the use 
of information from local sources.
    Section 234.6(e) Investigations and data collection. This section 
discusses investigations and data collection, which should be ongoing 
and integrated early in planning process. However, additional 
investigations should be performed as necessary. The 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.
    Federally recognized Tribes indicated support for the inclusion of 
environmental considerations as discussed in the rule and noted that 
cultural impacts must also be considered. Additionally, one Tribal 
Nation commented that the rule should identify impacts on historic 
properties and traditional cultural properties, requesting that the 
planning process described in Sec.  234.6 identify the need to comply 
with the National Historic Preservation Act and Native American Graves 
Protection and Repatriation Act in water resources planning and the 
operation of existing projects.
    Another comment urged that local and regional technical and 
scientific data be included in the study when that data is available 
and more specific than Federal data.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Army concurs 
that impacts on cultural resources and practices will be identified in 
the planning process for water resources development investment 
decisions. The Corps must comply with existing Federal laws and 
regulations, such as the National Historic Preservation Act and Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, as well as treaties 
with Tribal Nations.
    Section 234.6(f) Identify purpose, problems, needs, and 
opportunities. This section sets out the requirements for framing the 
investigation of Federal water resources investments. The section also 
sets expectations for early collaboration with Tribal Nations and 
stakeholders (also see Sec.  234.6(d)). The Corps would begin with a 
clear statement of the water resources challenges, including the 
problems and opportunities to be addressed. The causes of the problems 
should be identified, as well as any planning objectives, constraints, 
and the relationship of the problems to the missions, statutory 
authorities, and other requirements of the Corps. A watershed-based or 
systems approach should generally be applied when defining the scope of 
a water resources challenge.
    The scope of any study should be broad enough to cover the full 
range of reasonable alternatives while avoiding an unwieldy 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 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 in the study process.
    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 NEPA; however, the scoping 
process for a Corps study may be different than what is required under 
NEPA scoping. To most fully integrate the PR&G and NEPA processes at 
the earliest stages, the Corps should describe and request public input 
on the study purpose, problems, needs and opportunities in the Notice 
of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
    The Corps would seek to align the study scoping for a project and 
NEPA scoping to the extent practicable. As implementation of NEPA and 
the PR&G should be fully integrated, the identification of problems, 
needs, and opportunities apply to both applications and can be 
accomplished in study scoping. Typically, more background information 
is available when NEPA scoping is conducted. Corps study teams may not 
have all the information that is identified in this section of the rule 
during the initial development of the project management plan. For 
example, finalizing the 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 Army solicited 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. The Army also solicited 
comment on whether there may be terms and conditions under which 
additional consideration may proceed that would enable the Corps to 
consider alternatives beyond those that the non-Federal interest 
supports.
    Several comments were received on this topic. One commenter 
suggested that study goals and objectives should align with the Federal 
Objective. Another commenter asked for this section of the rule to 
spell out specifically how the Guiding Principles would guide and 
constrain the planning process. One comment letter suggested that the 
Corps explain how individual study objectives comply with the Federal 
Objective established in WRDA 2007. Another stated that objectives 
should be broadly framed to avoid the

[[Page 104008]]

pre-selection of recommended alternatives and to avoid locking in 
structural approaches. Another letter encouraged early collaboration to 
reach agreement on problems to be addressed in a study. One Tribal 
letter expressed the need to establish study problems, needs, and 
objectives following consultation with Tribal Nations to better 
understand Tribal treaty rights. Another comment suggested the rule 
more clearly describe how social and environmental justice will be 
considered in the selection of the project study area.
    Response: A typographic correction was made to the numbering of 
this subsection. Additional edits were made to this section of the Rule 
for clarity. Planning objectives will be developed with input from 
stakeholders, including consultation with Tribes, and framed in such a 
manner that they do not prescribe a particular solution. The Guiding 
Principles are neither procedural mandates nor hard constraints; they 
are overarching policy polestars. The Corps will review existing 
guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, following 
completion of the final rule. Future planning guidance may provide 
additional details regarding the development of planning objectives, 
problems, needs, and opportunities.
    Section 234.6(g) Inventory existing resources and forecast future 
conditions. To determine baselines, the Corps will identify the 
existing conditions and the baseline levels 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-project 
conditions'' and the future ``without-project conditions.'' The 
inventory and forecast provide information for understanding existing 
conditions and for establishing a baseline for forecasting ``with-
project conditions'' and ``without-project conditions.'' The existing 
conditions and forecast provide a basis for comparing the effects of 
alternative water resources investments. These forecasts help define 
the problems, needs and opportunities that the study will address in 
the subsequent steps.
    The existing and forecasted future conditions will include 
descriptions of the economic, environmental, and social settings within 
the study area. The Corps will consider future climate change and 
economic development and land use change scenarios. A watershed 
approach should also be used in describing current and future 
conditions.
    The Corps will use peer-reviewed (where possible and appropriate) 
and reasonable projections. 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, consistent with memoranda and Executive Orders on the 
recognition and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge. The conditions would 
be described as appropriate and applicable to the specific investment, 
with consideration for the Guiding Principles of the P&R. 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.
    The forecast of future conditions is comparable to the NEPA 
identification of future impacts associated with the proposed 
alternatives. Such comparisons will also be conducted with the No 
Action alternative. Any key assumptions made for forecasting future 
conditions will be disclosed.
    The terms ``without-project condition'' and ``with-project 
condition'' 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. 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 Corps will use the scenario analysis and 
discussions on extreme weather events to inform how alternatives may 
perform under future conditions with respect to climate resilience. 
Scenario analyses may help to evaluate other sources of uncertainty 
beyond those associated with extreme weather or climate conditions.
    Reasonably foreseeable actions by public and private entities 
should be included to understand how key resources and services may 
change in the future, and 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. Characterization of uncertainty should be quantitative, 
when feasible, and qualitative when not, and should provide a 
commensurate level of detail to the analysis. Residual risk that is not 
proposed to be, or cannot be, addressed or mitigated should be 
disclosed to aid in the decision-making process. Where the effects of 
climate variability and climate change are relevant to the investment 
decision, the study should fully describe the key sources of 
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 
proposed further investment by the Corps in a project, action, or 
program. The Corps typically uses a 50-year timeframe for the period of 
analysis (see Engineer Regulation 1105-2-103 \6\ paragraph 2-4b(4)). 
Future land use changes would be incorporated. The future ``without-
project 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. Climate change would need to be 
considered in both the future ``without-project condition'' and the 
future ``with-project condition.'' Projections of future conditions 
would account for expected environmental, social, and economic changes, 
including those that result from climate variability and climate 
change, particularly for projects with relatively long service or 
operational lives, as these projects may be subject to additional 
climate variability and change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/ER%201105-2-103_7Nov2023.pdf. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the process used to identify the existing and future 
conditions for the administrative record ensures that appropriate 
considerations were incorporated and provides transparency in the 
process. 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 solicited comment on 
what the standard period of analysis should be when the Corps 
implements the PR&G.
    The Corps received several comments indicating that the period of 
analysis should not be limited to 50 years. Two commenters indicated 
that the period of evaluation should be extended to 100

[[Page 104009]]

years. One commenter indicated that the design analysis of structures 
should reflect their actual use life rather than being limited to 50 
years, and instead use an ``adaptive adaptation'' approach rather than 
planning for a time horizon and then rebuilding when the infrastructure 
is obsolete. Another commenter recommended that the final rule include 
new text clarifying the period of analysis regarding project lifespan 
and the cumulative effects of Federal projects. In particular, they 
noted that a shorter period of analysis may not account for sea level 
rise impacts. Another commenter stated that certain Corps projects have 
conflated existing conditions with the future ``without-project 
conditions,'' and requested that the rule specify parameters for the 
future ``without-project conditions.'' One comment was received 
suggesting that when forecasting future conditions, the Corps should 
also include scenarios for extreme weather events to determine 
sensitivity to a range of conditions, such as drought or hurricanes. 
The Corps also received a comment that the analysis consider future 
conditions that are plausible and result in a high risk of failure.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. The Army concurs that a period of evaluation longer than 50 
years may be appropriate in some instances. The Corps may issue 
additional guidance on how the period of analysis will be determined 
and used in studies. As described above, in standard Corps analyses, 
future ``without-project conditions'' include what is expected to 
occur, over the period of analysis, in the absence of a proposed 
further investment by the Corps in a project, action, or program. The 
Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.6(h) Formulate alternatives. The paragraph establishes 
the framework for developing a full range of alternatives that will 
address the water resources problem and sets the evaluation criteria of 
acceptability, efficiency, effectiveness, and completeness. 
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 an environmentally preferred alternative. 
Nonstructural measures and nature-based solutions are important 
considerations of the PR&G and should be integrated into alternatives 
for Federal water resources investments wherever appropriate. As with 
structural solutions, considerations should be made for technical 
feasibility, land use, cost, past performance, and longevity. In 
addition, the rule requires the Corps to include an environmentally 
preferred alternative in the final array of alternatives, which is 
consistent with the current Corps' planning process as well as 
consistent with NEPA.
    The Corps will formulate the alternative plans in a systematic 
manner that ensures that it has identified and considered the full 
range of reasonable alternatives. The studies will evaluate 
alternatives based on the most likely future conditions. The 
alternatives should seek to address the water resources challenge, 
problem, or need identified in Sec.  234.6(f), achieve the planning 
objectives of the study and the Federal Objective, and follow the 
Guiding Principles. Alternatives should reflect potential solutions 
that are feasible. The range of alternatives provides a framework for 
comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the alternatives 
in achieving economic, environmental, and social goals.
    In addition, as noted in Sec.  234.6(e), the same period of 
analysis should be used in alternatives analysis. The period of 
analysis selected can bias selection of one option or another. A 
shorter analysis period would benefit alternatives with fewer 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 
long-term effects.
    When an alternative is beyond the Corps missions, such an 
alternative may be carried forward for further analysis where it 
provides solutions to the identified problem, meets the identified 
economic, environmental and social goals, and appropriate funding is 
available or may be made 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, action, or program and appropriate 
sequencing of implementation. Any recommendations for authorization 
should clearly and specifically delineate the Federal water resources 
project being recommended for Corps authorization, and any condition 
precedent for construction. The rule provides that for Corps 
investments, the Corps would be the designated lead for completing the 
PR&G analysis.
    The Army solicited 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.
    Several comment letters were received that supported no limitations 
on alternatives when identifying effective water resources solutions. 
Another comment letter was received which suggested that in no case 
should a sponsor or non-Federal interest be asked to support water 
resources investments that include increments that do not meet their 
objectives or are beyond their capabilities.
    Additional comment letters were received regarding the treatment of 
alternative solutions, incremental analysis of separable elements and 
any additional costs to meet investment objectives. Specifically, 
comments were received indicating that the Corps should establish clear 
principles on how separable elements and investment increments will be 
considered within the budget formulation process. One recommended 
identification and evaluation of all investment increments and 
separable elements to achieve efficient and effective investment 
outcomes, to illuminate the value and impact of each project component.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance needs, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule. Specifically, the Corps will review guidance regarding the 
development of alternatives and treatment of separable elements.
    Section 234.6(h)(1). In this paragraph, the screening of 
alternatives in a systematic manner is discussed. An initial set of 
alternatives would be refined for reasons such as having excessive cost 
or unavoidable impacts, not sufficiently addressing the problem or 
opportunity, or 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, as well as the reasons for their elimination. The remaining 
alternatives are considered the reasonable range of alternatives to be

[[Page 104010]]

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 should describe not just the economic, environmental, and 
social conditions and benefits, but also impacts. Alternatives should 
also describe any potential institutional barriers that the Corps or 
others would have to address or overcome to implement the alternative, 
including Federal, State, or local statutory or regulatory 
requirements, and current policies. Transparency and full consideration 
of economic, environmental, and social effects, both quantifiable and 
non-quantifiable, must be provided for each alternative. Descriptions 
of the social, environmental, and economic impacts of not investing, or 
underinvesting, in any Tribal or disadvantaged community, under the 
future ``without-project condition'' and the No Action alternative, 
should be included. Programmatic-level procedures would generally be 
expected to have fewer alternatives than project-level 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 
will be included in the NEPA document. As discussed previously in Sec.  
234.6(f) of the preamble, the Corps will work to integrate the PR&G 
analysis with NEPA to the extent practicable.
    Response: The Rule was modified to clarify that the Corps will 
identify and consider a full range of reasonable alternatives.
    Section 234.7 Evaluation framework.
    Section 234.7(a) The ASPs provide a common framework and general 
requirements for the Corps to use in evaluating full consideration of 
social, environmental, and economic benefits and costs of any separable 
elements and potential alternatives for Federal investment. This will 
include their performance with respect to the Guiding Principles, and 
their contributions to the Federal Objective.
    Response: The Army made changes to the Rule for clarity. The Rule 
was updated to stress the need to fully consider all attributes when 
evaluating separable elements and alternatives. The Army added the word 
``clearly'' for emphasis.
    Section 234.7(b) Economic, environmental, and social effects. The 
Corps will identify and evaluate the economic, environmental, and 
social effects across alternatives. Such effects comprise the full 
range of relevant public benefits potentially provided by Corps 
projects.
    Many commenters supported evaluation of the economic, 
environmental, and social effects in the Corps planning process. Some 
commenters wanted to see stronger language emphasizing that the three 
categories of effects would be balanced and nonhierarchical between 
each other, and that the three categories would be equally considered.
    Multiple commenters wished to see methodologies detailed in this 
paragraph. For example, one commenter requested more specifics on how 
the Corps would account for the social, environmental, and economic 
impacts of chronic underinvesting in communities, especially 
disadvantaged communities, during the planning process, while another 
wanted to know how the Corps would incorporate evaluation of ecosystem 
services, and yet another wished to see inclusion of cost-effectiveness 
and reasonable cost as key approaches for evaluating environmental 
effects. One organization recommended adding language clarifying that 
the Corps must account for the value of ecosystem services lost as a 
project cost, and account for the value of ecosystem services gained as 
a project benefit.
    One commenter discussed discount rates and OMB Circulars A-4 and A-
94 in the context of this section. Another commenter discussed the 
similarities between this Section and OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94 and 
suggested that this section simply reference the OMB Circulars. See 
preamble Sec.  234.9(c) for the Army's response to comments on this 
topic.
    Another commenter proposed adding a new paragraph to Sec.  234.7, 
identifying biodiversity as a priority of alternative plans.
    The Army solicited comment on specific tools and methodologies that 
commenters wished to recommend for quantifying or monetizing economic, 
environmental, and social effects. Multiple such recommendations were 
received. Additional recommendations were received regarding 
qualitative and non-monetary evaluation approaches. Some commenters 
wished to see an explicit constraint on prioritizing any type of data 
(quantitative vs. qualitative, monetized vs. non-monetized) over any 
other. One commenter mentioned that monetization should follow sound 
economic principles and practices.
    Response: The Army edited the rule for clarity: ``Relevant 
monetary, quantitative, and descriptive information will be fully 
assessed and considered in the analysis.'' It is important to include 
relevant monetary, quantitative, and qualitative descriptive 
information in this section. The Army acknowledges the importance of 
biodiversity as an index of ecosystem health. The Corps already 
evaluates biodiversity in its studies; future guidance will describe 
any changes to biodiversity evaluation in the planning process, as 
appropriate. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide 
updated guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule. This may include how the Corps will identify, collect, assess, 
and consider relevant data of all types.
    Section 234.7(c) Best available actionable science and commensurate 
level of detail. This section of the rule specifies that to support the 
evaluation of alternatives, the analysis should use the best available 
actionable science, Indigenous Knowledge, data, techniques, procedures, 
models, and tools across a wide variety of pertinent subjects.
    Regarding data used for planning studies, one comment letter found 
the terms ``actionable science'' and ``best available science'' to be 
confusing. One commenter recommended including in the rule a commitment 
to use a specific sea level rise scenario adopted by an interagency 
task force. Another comment letter conveyed that the Corps should 
ensure that data utilized in planning studies should meet multiple 
objectives by producing it in a transferable, accessible, multi-use 
format at a high enough resolution for use by others beyond the 
planning context. An additional letter was received commenting on the 
capabilities that non-Federal interests contribute to water resources 
investigations, and how this should allow for the use of local or 
region-specific analysis. One commenter suggested inclusion of ``other 
place-based knowledge'' in addition to Indigenous Knowledge. One Tribal 
Nation letter supported the inclusion of environmental considerations 
as discussed in 89 FR 10266 and said that cultural impacts must also be 
considered in evaluations.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    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 feasible. This section explicitly calls 
for consideration of the costs and benefits of reducing risks and 
uncertainties.

[[Page 104011]]

    For project planning purposes, the ``risk'' of an adverse outcome 
reflects two factors--the probability that an adverse outcome will 
occur; and its consequences if it were to occur. The term 
``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 in Sec.  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 readily understandable by the public. In 
some instances, reducing risks and uncertainties may result in 
increased costs, and the advantages of doing so in informing decision-
making should be weighed against those additional costs. The Corps 
practices risk-informed decision-making (see Planning Manual Part II: 
Risk-Informed Planning).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/Guidance/PlanningManualPartII_IWR2017R03.pdf. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Army solicited comment on risk-informed frameworks to 
supplement or improve the current risk-informed planning process.
    Multiple commenters stated that all risk-informed planning should 
conform to OMB Circular A-4 and that the Corps should make risk-
informed decision-making apply to levee safety consistent with Circular 
A-4, and refrain from unconventional notions, such as tolerable risk, 
which are no more than expressions of the risk preferences of the 
agency or analysts within the agency. Another commenter indicated that 
the Corps needs to clearly and specifically articulate, in this rule 
and elsewhere, what the term ``risk-informed decision-making'' is, how 
it is to be applied, and under what statutory authorities.
    Response: OMB Circular A-4 covers regulatory actions, which are 
beyond the scope of the ASPs. The Corps may follow OMB Circular A-4, 
where applicable. The Corps consolidated the discussion of risk and 
uncertainty in one place in the final rule. Therefore, the final rule 
no longer includes Sec.  234.10(d); and some of the language proposed 
in that subsection has moved to Sec.  234.7(d). The Corps also has 
revised Sec.  234.7(d) to include language on providing an estimate in 
the study of the extent to which the uncertainty may change over time. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, 
where warranted, following completion of the final rule. That review 
will encompass risk-informed decision-making as well as levee safety 
guidance and practice.
    Section 234.7(e) Adaptive management. Adaptive management is 
defined under this rule in Sec.  234.2(b). Adaptive management is 
highlighted as a tool to help reduce or manage uncertainties. The rule 
calls for adaptive management measures to be clearly identified and 
evaluated as part of the alternatives. Adaptive management should be 
considered throughout the process and should be employed as soon as 
triggers are identified which necessitate such measures. Post-
construction adaptive management measures to address unforeseen 
conditions or impacts of the project should also be included in Corps 
recommendations for project authorization.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule.
    Section 234.7(f) and (g) Climate change and water availability, 
water use, and resilience. These paragraphs require consideration of 
climate change, water availability, water use, and drought and flood 
resilience in all aspects of the planning process.
    The Army received multiple comments supporting this requirement. 
Many commenters stressed the importance of both climate change and 
drought resilience and water supply to the health of ecosystems and 
communities. Some comments recommended specific methods, approaches, or 
data sources to meet the requirements described in the rule. One 
comment recommended that a framework be developed that establishes 
processes and procedures for using inland climate change in the 
evaluation, design, authorization, and construction of flood risk 
reduction facilities. One commenter stated that it would be difficult 
to reassess climate change if it was not evaluated during the planning 
stage. Another commenter stressed the importance of considering 
nonstationarity for drought resilience and water supply projects as 
well as flood risk management studies. One organization sought the 
inclusion of the consideration of multiple flood risks when conducting 
investigations.
    One commenter asserted that there may be a contradiction between 
maximizing economic outputs, and protecting and conserving the 
environment. The commenter did not make specific recommendations to 
change the rule.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.7(h) Nonstructural and nature-based alternatives. This 
paragraph further describes requirements to develop alternatives that 
use nonstructural and nature-based solutions to address the water 
resources problem. Nonstructural approaches are defined in Sec.  
234.2(l) of the rule. The paragraph requires the consideration of 
natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based solutions. 
Nonstructural and nature-based alternatives are to be developed with 
the same rigor as other alternatives. A full nonstructural alternative 
and a full nature-based solutions alternative will also be included in 
the final array of alternatives, to the extent that such a solution 
exists. In some cases, these may be one and the same. Nature-based 
solutions should also be considered as components of other alternatives 
in the final array, providing integrated or ``hybrid'' alternatives 
with these other measures.
    The Army received a comment on this section questioning the 
inclusion of caveat language for these types of alternatives but not 
including similar caveat language for structural alternatives. One 
comment letter was received which expressed the opinion that natural 
and nature-based solutions may not always be compatible as a remedy and 
recommended that flexibility be allowed for each situation. The Army 
received multiple comments suggesting that nonstructural and nature-
based alternatives be prioritized, by default, over other alternatives 
in the formulation and consideration of alternative plans. The Army 
received comment that nature-based solutions may reduce overall costs 
and offer more benefits than static-built infrastructure.
    Response: The rule text was changed to remove the caveat language. 
The Army disagrees with the prioritization of various alternatives 
because they would be inconsistent with a requisite standard of rigor 
in the evaluation and comparison of potential solutions to water 
resources problems. In addition, the PR&G note that nonstructural 
approaches must be given full and equal consideration in the decision-
making process. Establishing a higher priority for certain alternatives 
would contradict the concept of equal consideration. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.

[[Page 104012]]

    Section 234.7(i) Tribal treaty rights. This paragraph provides that 
each of the alternatives considered for a water resources investment 
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 evaluation of 
alternatives. The Corps will ensure consistency with the ``Memorandum 
of Understanding Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration 
for the Protection of Tribal Treaty Rights and Reserved Rights'' \8\ 
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 
alternative, the Corps will disclose such details. 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.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/interagency-mou-protecting-tribal-treaty-and-reserved-rights-11-15-2021.pdf.. Last 
accessed May 21, 2024.
    \9\ See https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/best_practices_guide.pdf. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters supported the inclusion of evaluating Tribal 
treaty and reserved rights during scoping and throughout the 
alternatives development and evaluation process in Sec.  234.7(i) of 
the rule. One public comment suggests consideration of Tribal treaty 
rights and other environmental justice impacts to ensure that Corps 
investments appropriately address the needs of historically 
underrepresented stakeholders and potential uncertainties that may 
threaten the viability of a project alternative. A Tribal Organization 
and a Federally recognized Tribe commented that only Congress may 
abrogate or interfere with Tribal treaty rights, and that the Corps may 
not recommend a water resources development project that violates 
Tribal treaty rights. Further, the Federally recognized Tribe 
recommends that evaluation of Tribal treaty rights starts as a 
threshold inquiry, not to be deferred to the evaluation phase, as any 
alternative that violates Tribal treaty rights is not a viable 
alternative and should be eliminated as soon as it is identified. One 
comment from a Tribal Nation acknowledges that in some cases the full 
extent of impacts to Tribal treaty rights and water rights may not be 
known until detailed environmental analysis is completed and recommends 
that impacts to Tribal treaty rights continue to be evaluated at each 
stage of the project planning process. The comment continues, stating 
if the Corps determines in consultation with a Tribal Nation that an 
alternative does not interfere with Tribal treaty or water rights, the 
Corps must then take affirmative steps to protect and advance Tribal 
interests throughout the remainder of the planning process, as required 
by its trust responsibility to Tribal Nations through consultation.
    Response: Section 234.7(i) was updated to remove reference to ``an 
otherwise viable alternative'' when identifying impacts to Tribal 
treaty and water rights. The Army agrees that unless Congress provides 
explicit authority, the agency does not have authority to recommend 
projects that interfere with Tribal treaty rights. The Army also 
concurs that this analysis must be done at the earliest phases and 
iteratively through the plan formulation and evaluation process. 
Additional edits in Sec.  234.6(d) of the rule added emphasis on the 
requirement to conduct Nation-to-Nation consultation in addition to the 
robust, early collaboration with Tribal Nations, which will be 
paramount in the development of implementing guidance for the PR&G.
    Another comment states while Tribal treaty rights should be 
considered in the analysis, it would be inappropriate for the Corps to 
determine any treaty or reserved rights that may be in dispute, that 
Federal agencies are not the appropriate arbitrators of these rights, 
and this determination is beyond the Corps' expertise and authority.
    Response: Treaties are between the Federal Government and Federally 
recognized Tribes. The Corps is required to consult with Tribal Nations 
on potential impacts on Tribal treaty rights through Nation-to-Nation 
consultation, as treaties are ``not a grant of rights to the Indians, 
but a grant of rights from them, a reservation of those not granted'' 
(United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905)). While the Corps 
does not get involved in water rights or treaty rights determinations 
unless it is a part of developing a water resources project, the Corps 
does have relevant expertise developed through implementation of its 
statutory authorities and in fulfilling the Federal trust 
responsibility.
    One comment recommends that this evaluation of Tribal treaty rights 
follow the Department of the Army permitting context to balance the 
broad range of public and private interest factors and weigh the cost 
and benefits of a proposed activity (33 CFR 320.4). Lastly, one comment 
recommended revisions to the existing Missouri River operations to 
comply with the treaty provisions in Sec.  234.7(i).
    Response: When planning a future water resources investment, the 
Corps is engaged at each stage of the process--from the initial 
scoping, through project formulation and evaluation, and ultimately to 
the recommendation of a water resources investment. In comparison to 
the Department of the Army permitting context, the project planning 
process provides multiple opportunities to identify and screen out 
alternatives that may adversely impact Tribal treaty rights. The Corps 
will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the rule to include an evaluation of guidance 
related to the Tribal Treaty Rights Effects Determination process.
    Section 234.7(j) and (k) State water law and international 
obligations. These 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. If any constraints within 
that compliance require an otherwise viable alternative to not be 
carried forward, then the Corps would disclose those details.
    A commenter suggested that a similar statement be added requiring 
compliance with Federal environmental laws. Another commented that the 
procedures should require deference to State and local preferences on 
trade-offs. A commenter noted that a set of statutes broader than 
``state water laws'' may apply to Corps projects and recommended 
broadening the language to acknowledge all applicable State laws. 
Another commenter stated the rule must be revised to give deference to 
State water allocation decisions.
    Response: Section 234.7(j) of the rule was modified to broaden the 
applicability of State laws. Compliance with applicable Federal law is 
a required baseline. These paragraphs acknowledge the diversity of 
State laws and international obligations, and explicitly establish a 
requirement to comply with all applicable such laws.
    The Army has not included language in the rule to give deference to 
State water allocations. The Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title III of 
Pub. L. 85-500) recognizes the primary responsibilities of the States 
and local interests in

[[Page 104013]]

developing water supplies. The Army does not allocate water but 
allocates the storage space within its reservoirs.
    Section 234.7(l) Period of Analysis. This paragraph complements the 
preamble discussion of Sec.  234.6(g) of the rule regarding the period 
of analysis and review of alternatives. The period of analysis selected 
will be documented with appropriate supporting information. The same 
timeframe would be used across all alternative evaluations. The Corps 
has typically used a 50-year timeframe for the period of analysis (see 
Engineer Regulation 1105-2-103 paragraph 2-4b). The Corps recognizes 
the importance of consistency and comparability within a given study in 
evaluating the alternatives. Under the final rule, the Corps would 
determine the period of analysis for each study to reflect a time frame 
that will sufficiently capture all important effects of each of the 
alternatives.
    The Army solicited comment on whether there should be an upper 
limit established for the period of analysis. The Army also solicited 
comment on whether the Corps' current timeframe is the appropriate 
period of analysis for implementing the Corps' projects. Further, the 
Army solicited comment on whether the period of analysis should be 
longer given that some benefits could accrue over timescales beyond 50 
years. To round out the period of analysis considerations the Army 
solicited comment on whether the period of analysis should vary based 
upon the mission area and the particular purpose and need of the 
proposed investment.
    The Corps received three comments addressing the period of 
analysis. Two commenters indicated that the period of evaluation should 
be extended to 100 years. Another indicated that the design analysis of 
structures should reflect their actual use life rather than being 
limited to 50 years, and instead use an ``adaptive adaptation'' 
approach rather than planning for a time horizon and then rebuilding 
when the infrastructure is obsolete. Another commenter recommended that 
the final rule include new text clarifying the period of analysis, 
including regarding project lifespan and the cumulative effects of 
Federal projects. In particular, the commenter noted that a shorter 
period of analysis may not account for sea level rise impacts.
    Response: The Army changed the name of this subsection from 
``Timing'' to ``Period of Analysis'' and made additional edits for 
clarity. As previously discussed within the Preamble for Sec.  
234.6(g), the Army concurs that a period of evaluation longer than 50 
years may be appropriate in some instances. The Corps will review 
existing guidance and provide updated guidance relative to the period 
of analysis for investigations, where warranted, following completion 
of the final rule.
    Section 234.8 Final array of alternatives. This paragraph outlines 
the final array of alternatives to address the problem that would be 
identified and subject to analysis and consideration. The rule requires 
the Corps to include six alternatives in the final array: a No Action 
or ``without-project condition'' alternative, a fully nonstructural 
alternative, a fully nature-based alternative, an environmentally 
preferred alternative, an alternative that seeks to maximize net public 
benefits, and a locally-preferred alternative. A single alternative 
might satisfy more than one category, such as a nature-based 
alternative that is also the net public benefits alternative. There may 
be cases where there are two or more alternatives in a category that 
will be considered as part of the final array of alternatives. All 
alternatives in the final array must be developed using a comparable 
level of rigor and detail.
    The Army received public comments about locally preferred 
alternatives. One commenter noted that impacted communities should have 
meaningful and informed input regarding the identification of the 
locally preferred alternative. Another emphasized the need for analysis 
to help justify a locally preferred plan as a Federal plan, while 
another mentioned a need to consider the locally preferred plan in a 
revised definition of non-Federal interest. Another commenter requested 
clarity on cost allocation among project purposes and the corresponding 
cost sharing.
    A number of letters were received regarding the treatment of 
alternatives. One comment identified conflicting statements regarding 
the requirements to include nonstructural approaches. Another commenter 
recommended that if any of the required alternatives is not included in 
the final array, the analysis will need to fully justify that decision. 
One comment letter suggested that the Corps consider alternatives 
outside of its authorities if they could maximize net public benefits. 
Another commenter suggested alternatives be described based on method 
rather than have alternatives that are based on achieving an objective. 
Another comment requested that any caveats associated with 
consideration of alternative plans be removed to force creative 
thinking about nonstructural and natural and nature-based solutions. 
One comment letter suggested consideration of natural and nature-based 
solutions over all other measures; whereas another letter suggested 
priority for structural measures in certain applications. One comment 
letter went further, requesting future guidance clearly identify 
procedural and methodology requirements to include nonstructural and 
natural and nature-based solutions. A commenter suggested that the 
Corps has the discretion to modify the identification of the nature-
based solution alternative based on project-specific considerations of 
local conditions. One commenter indicated that a fully nature-based 
alternative may limit efforts to identify an implementable nature-based 
alternative and that nature-based solutions could include structural 
and non-structural features. One comment recommended that the non-
Federal interest be fully involved in determining the final array of 
alternatives, especially to ensure that they can fulfill any associated 
requirements for lands, cost-share, and maintenance activities. Another 
commenter recommended that Sec.  234.8 be accompanied by standard 
guidance and case studies that exemplify the use of innovative and 
diverse tools and methods for comprehensive evaluation of economic, 
social, and environmental benefits. Another commenter indicated that 
the discussion on the final array of alternatives should be revised to 
reflect the fact that the final array will include the primary purpose 
of the analysis and the Federal Objective.
    Response: Changes were made to the rule to acknowledge that if one 
or more of the required alternatives is not included because the Corps 
was not able to identify a potential solution that is feasible and 
would be effective, the study must document that decision. The Corps 
will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, including 
procedural requirements and methodology considerations for determining 
the final array of alternatives, where warranted, following completion 
of the final rule. The Corps will consider the use of case studies to 
help illustrate examples of the types of alternatives required to be 
presented in the final array of alternatives.
    For the locally preferred alternatives, all costs above the 
identified alternative that maximizes net public benefits would be a 
100 percent non-Federal cost. Additional policies and procedures for 
recommending locally preferred alternatives will be covered in future 
implementing guidance.
    Section 234.9 Evaluate effects of alternatives.
    Section 234.9(a) and (b). These sections establish the general 
framework

[[Page 104014]]

for the analysis of the effects of the final array of alternatives. The 
analysis must evaluate how each alternative's benefits compare to its 
costs, how the alternatives 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. In doing 
so, the final array of alternatives will be assessed in a manner to 
best inform decision-making. The objectives of the study should be 
related to, or stem from, the identified water resources problem or 
opportunity, and must be clear and focused so that they can be used to 
evaluate alternatives.
    The Army received several comments that recommended including in 
the rule language from the Interagency Guidelines stating that there is 
no hierarchy among economic and environmental goals. The Army also 
received comments requesting that Tribal treaty rights evaluation be 
acknowledged throughout the planning process in consultation with 
Tribal Nations. One commenter supports aspects of this section and 
recommends the ASPs should include a methodology framework and plan 
selection criteria. Another commenter recommended that the Corps 
evaluate alternatives for potential impacts on the status of Federal 
jurisdiction for wetlands. Another comment suggested changing the text 
of Sec.  234.9(b)(2) to evaluate each alternative against the study 
objectives and the Federal Objective. One commenter noted that the Army 
needs to clarify the benefits analysis process on how benefits will be 
compared, leading to a clear and transparent path to project selection. 
Another commenter provided suggestions for how best to evaluate 
alternatives built around nature-based solutions. Another commenter 
suggested that guidance be developed to ensure the Corps analyzes 
multiple types of inundation risk in flood risk management studies.
    Response: The Army modified the rule text to require full 
consideration of economic, environmental, or social benefit categories 
and to require the analysis for the final array of alternatives to 
identify any impacts to Tribal treaty rights that were unknown earlier 
in the planning process and which prevent the selection of an 
alternative. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide 
updated guidance relative to methodologies and criteria, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule. The Corps considers 
jurisdictional status of wetlands during the planning process.
    Section 234.9(c) Consideration of benefits and costs. This 
paragraph establishes three categories to fully account for the costs 
and benefits of an alternative and its contributions to the Federal 
Objective: economic, environmental, and social.
    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 an array of 
alternatives, the Corps will keep in mind a number of key aspects, such 
as economic, environmental, and social impacts, which 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 
Objective and seeks to maximize the public benefits relative to costs.
    The 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 decision-
maker can make an informed decision understanding both the importance 
and magnitude of potential changes.
    This paragraph is the heart of the PR&G and encapsulates the 
largest change in Corps decision-making and consideration of Federal 
water resources investment alternatives. Rather than primarily focusing 
on national economic development in the alternatives analysis, the ASPs 
require economic, environmental, and social benefit categories to be 
considered fully. Qualitative information can be used to further 
contextualize their social relevance, but double-counting should be 
avoided.
    This paragraph calls for the current dollar value costs, along with 
non-monetized measures and descriptions of benefits, to be measured 
against the current dollar value benefits and non-monetized measures 
and description of benefits of each alternative, and compared to the No 
Action alternative. Future predicted cost and benefit value (monetized) 
estimates will 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 solicited 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, 
although noting that certain costs and benefits may not be as visible 
if they are not specifically called out in a category.
    Several commenters indicated that the Corps should use the three 
categories. Some commenters mentioned the need for additional guidance, 
and some recommended that future guidance discuss how non-monetary 
outputs are weighed against monetary. Multiple commenters suggested 
that the Corps continue to identify the national economic development 
plan but should modernize it to reflect environmental and social 
values.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule regarding the 
three benefit categories. The Corps will review existing guidance and 
provide updated guidance relative to benefit and cost methodologies, 
where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    The Army solicited comment on the selection of discount rates and 
consideration of whether declining discount rates should follow the 
guidance in OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94.
    The Army received multiple responses on this topic. Two commenters 
expressed concern about the use of higher discount rates and their 
impact on analyses. One of these commenters suggested that the Corps 
expand its consideration of relevant factors to include additional 
social and environmental factors, and that net present value estimates 
be reported at a zero-percent discount rate. They felt this can be 
invaluable when benchmarking new assumptions, methods, and policy 
approaches. Several commenters indicated that, to the extent 
practicable and allowable by law, the Corps and OMB should follow the 
guidance in OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94 related to discount rates. 
Another commenter suggested that the Corps define the term ``minimum 
standards'' in the final rule that can be supplemented with OMB- and 
Corps-specific guidance. Specifically, the commenter recommended that 
the Corps should follow A-4 and A-94, adopt the declining discount rate 
schedule outlined in Circular A-4, and should update the long-term 
discount rate schedule every three years. Another commenter expressed 
concern with OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94 and their use of risk adjusted 
discount rates to account for risk to discount future costs and 
benefits, and indicated that discounting should only be done to account 
for the time value of money. This commenter also expressed concern with 
using declining discount rates.

[[Page 104015]]

While not specific to discount rates, a commenter asked for the Corps' 
perspective on weighted benefit-to-cost ratios as discussed in OMB 
Circular A-94, while also providing support for including 
distributional effects in analyses. Support for inclusion of 
distributional effects was echoed by multiple respondents. Another 
commenter responded that discounting methodologies applied to ecosystem 
services or natural resources incorporate the impact of potential 
scarcity into the future cost and value of these natural services and 
resources.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule regarding discount 
rates. In general, the Corps will follow the principles presented in 
Circulars A-4 and A-94 for implementing a benefit-cost analysis. For 
clarification, Circular A-94 emphasizes that the preferred way to 
address risk is through project level certainty equivalents, which 
adjust uncertain expected values to account for risk. Per Circular A-
94, when direct determination of individuals' certainty equivalent 
valuations is not feasible, the inclusion of a risk premium in the 
discount rate serves as a practical alternative. The discount rate used 
by the Corps is based on a requirement in section 80 of WRDA 1974. 
Where appropriate, the Corps will consider using weighted benefit-to-
cost ratios as part of a sensitivity analysis to inform an investment 
decision.
    Distributional effects are often considered but may not be 
appropriate for some types of investments. For example, the primary 
benefits associated with an aquatic ecosystem restoration project are 
realized by the ecosystem that is being restored including the plant 
and animal species that use that habitat, rather than by any specific 
members of the public. The Corps does not discount non-monetized 
outputs.
    Another commenter provided several comments regarding how the Corps 
conducts economic analyses. In particular, the commenter expressed 
concern with the use of average annual values and the inclusion of 
interest costs of borrowing. The commenter also mentioned a spreadsheet 
tool that the Army uses for calculating benefit-to-cost ratios.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule regarding how the 
Corps performs its economic analyses. The Corps utilizes a constant 
dollar analysis. There is no comingling of constant or inflated values. 
Costs are counted in the analysis in the year they are incurred. The 
average annual calculations are the result of the present value being 
factored with the capital recovery factor. The capital recovery factor 
is calculated utilizing the discount rate used in the present value 
calculations and the period of analysis and represents sound economic 
evaluation. Current technical practices utilize the best available 
tools and are subject to peer review requirements. The Corps does not 
have a singular spreadsheet tool that is used to determine benefit-to-
cost ratios. While a particular study may use such a tool, the Corps 
uses a variety of approved models in aiding with economic analyses.
    The ASPs intentionally do not dictate specific evaluation tools, 
methods, or processes. These tools and methods will evolve over time 
and the Corps is committed to using the best available tools and 
methods appropriate for the analysis, now and in the future. 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 that may quickly become outdated.
    The Army solicited comment on tools and methodologies. While the 
ASPs do not prescribe the techniques to be used to quantify and 
monetize costs and benefits, the Corps' analysis must include 
information to justify the use of any technique as the most appropriate 
given the circumstances, 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 ASPs 
allow for the use of new analytical techniques and methodologies as 
they become available and cost-effective. Costs would include the costs 
of O&M. One comment was provided which indicated that the final 
regulation should more clearly describe how O&M costs projected for the 
Corps and local sponsors are to be included in the benefit-cost 
analysis used to evaluate the range of project alternatives.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule regarding tools 
and methodologies. All O&M costs incurred by the Corps or others during 
the period of evaluation for the study are included in the analysis. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, 
where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    The Army solicited 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 overall benefits of the proposed project and the alternatives to 
the U.S. Nation (including the affected Tribal Nations).
    One comment supported the inclusion of subsistence and social 
impact assessments and greater transparency for evaluating benefits and 
impacts under the environmental justice analysis of a proposed project. 
One comment stated that the impacts of existing Corps projects and 
climate change on Tribal watersheds should be fully evaluated, as the 
costs suffered by Tribes should be identified separately from any other 
costs or damages incurred, including mitigation. Two comments 
specifically supported the use of a social impact assessment 
methodology to determine social costs of a proposed water resources 
project, with one comment asking for it to be added as a Guiding 
Principle of the PR&G.
    Response: Changes were made to the final rule regarding the 
treatment of Tribal benefits. As noted in the discussion of Sec.  
234.4(c) in this preamble, several comments supported the separation of 
Tribal benefits from public benefits. The rule was amended to state 
that the consideration of benefits to Federally recognized Tribes will 
be done in direct consultation with the respective Tribal Nation and 
will supplement the public benefit analysis. While the PR&G apply to 
new water resources development investment decisions (except for those 
Federal activities noted in Sec.  234.4(d)(2)), compliance with other 
Federal statutes and laws would still be required. Social impact 
analysis is a methodology that could be used to evaluate social costs 
and will be considered during the development of implementing guidance, 
where warranted, following the completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.10 Compare alternatives.
    Section 234.10(a) Comparing alternatives. This section calls for 
alternatives to be compared with each other and the No Action 
alternative. The alternatives would include a description of the 
adaptability and resilience of alternatives to climate change and other 
risks. The alternative plan (or plans) that reasonably maximizes net 
public benefits would be identified. The 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.
    The Army solicited comment on how it could compare alternatives and 
develop a recommendation.

[[Page 104016]]

    One comment recommended that this section of the rule be 
strengthened to indicate that the considerations must include 
beneficiaries and any others that will be significantly impacted, and 
that their perspectives and preferences will be elicited on 
alternatives. Another commenter suggested the text in Sec.  234.10(a) 
include obtaining values and input from stakeholders and the affected 
community. One commenter recommended additional guidance to assist 
planners in determining how to maximize net public benefits. One 
commenter supported the inclusion of environmental justice benefits and 
costs among the display of effects of alternatives.
    Response: The Army made minor edits to this section of the Rule for 
clarity. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    The Army also solicited comment on when it would be appropriate to 
apply multi-criteria decision analysis within a PR&G analysis. One 
commenter responded and indicated that multi-criteria decision analysis 
would be appropriate to use as a decision aiding tool.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule regarding the use 
of multi-criteria decision analysis. Multi-criteria decision analysis 
is a tool that may be used for assessing the tradeoffs among 
alternatives and can aid in decision-making. The Corps will review 
existing guidance and provide updated guidance relative to comparing 
alternatives, where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Another approach that could be followed is structured decision-
making. In addition, in certain instances, the Corps has employed 
decision frameworks such as using resilience as a guiding strategy 
under the City Resilience Framework \10\ for the Coastal Texas study. 
The City Resilience 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 and Wellbeing, Economy and Society, Infrastructure and 
Environment, and Leadership and Strategy. The Army solicited comment on 
whether the City Resilience Framework aligns with the PR&G Guiding 
Principles and if it could be employed in a decision framework under 
the ASPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/city-resilience-framework/. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter mentioned that the City Resilience Framework could be 
used for assessing tradeoffs and effects of alternatives.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. The Corps will review 
existing guidance and provide updated guidance relative to the PR&G 
decision framework, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule.
    The Army solicited comment on the various frameworks and methods 
that may be employed in the 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.
    The Army received comments that there should be a specific system 
of accounts to realistically evaluate and balance tradeoffs. Others 
recommended that the four accounts from the 1983 P&G be included in the 
ASPs. One commenter requested additional detail and guidance related to 
the evaluation and comparison of factors that cannot be monetized or 
quantitatively evaluated.
    The Army solicited comment on whether the Corps should pursue a 
more straightforward approach, maximizing net public benefits as a 
primary metric for comparing the alternatives and evaluating the 
tradeoffs, and clarify the decision framework.
    The Army received comments that additional direction should be 
provided to assist planners in determining how to maximize net public 
benefits.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance relative to 
tools, methods, and processes, where warranted, following completion of 
the final rule.
    The Army received comments through Government-to-Government 
consultation regarding Tribal Nations as beneficiaries and 
appropriately identifying benefits to Tribes. Tradeoff analysis will 
not be used to identify potential mitigation of loss of treaty rights, 
and benefits to Tribal Nations can only be identified through direct 
consultation.
    Response: The rule was amended in Sec.  234.10(a)(3) to state that 
Tribal treaty rights are guaranteed by such treaties. As mentioned 
earlier, Sec.  234.9(c) was amended to ensure that the consideration of 
benefits to Federally recognized Tribes is done in consultation with 
the respective Tribal Nation.
    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 inform plan 
selection.
    The tradeoffs will be described throughout the decision-making 
process to ensure an informed decision. Different project elements may 
be justified for different types of public benefits, that should be 
described. Tradeoffs may be identified on the basis of both 
quantifiable and unquantifiable terms. In addition, each alternative's 
separable element's goals and objectives should be identified to 
provide a rationale for inclusion or exclusion from the alternative.
    The Army solicited 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.
    Multiple commenters indicated that a system of accounts to evaluate 
tradeoffs should be displayed to be complete and transparent. Several 
commenters suggested that the non-Federal interest and other 
stakeholders be included in the decision of the tradeoff analysis. One 
commenter requested that the phrase ``professional judgment'' be 
clarified. Another noted that investment decisions should be based on 
complete and transparent tradeoffs. One commenter mentioned that the 
Corps should clarify that benefit-cost analysis is an appropriate 
decision framework and that net benefit maximization is an appropriate 
decision criterion.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. Benefit-cost 
analysis is the basis for plan selection, and net public benefit 
maximization is fundamental to the ASPs. Section 234.10(a)(3) of the 
rule explicitly requires consideration of the preferences of Tribal 
Nations and stakeholders when comparing alternatives. The phrase 
``professional judgment'' is now defined in Sec.  234.2(m) of the final 
rule. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.10(c) Information for inclusion in the analysis. This 
paragraph outlines the information and tables that will promote 
consistency and transparency in comparisons across different studies. 
The information to be included in the analysis and documentation is 
consistent with other

[[Page 104017]]

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.
    Additional tradeoff displays should show any other relevant 
important information. A summary table will display the economic, 
environmental, and social costs and benefits, and another table would 
indicate the extent to which the alternatives achieve the Guiding 
Principles.
    The Corps should use the most readily available, scientifically 
acceptable, and best available data and information, to include 
Indigenous Knowledge, for assessing tradeoffs.
    The Interagency Guidelines support use of a common framework that 
would be used across agencies enhance transparency and clarity about 
the decision-making process, and encourage agencies to collaborate to 
develop these common displays.
    The Army solicited 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 
variation is expected due to the nature and diversity of water 
resources and their associated challenges, which vary greatly across 
the Nation.
    Several commenters identified the need to refine methodologies to 
ensure that local and regional benefits are not overshadowed by 
national considerations and should be acknowledged in the benefit 
evaluations and decisions.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.10(d) Risk and uncertainty. This section 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. From the vantage point of one who is deciding now 
whether to propose an investment in water resources to achieve results 
in the future, the risk and uncertainty in the outcome tend to increase 
over time. Therefore, the study should include an analysis of the range 
of expected results from the investment both in the short-term and in 
the less predictable future, in order more fully to account for the 
effects of the risk and uncertainty.
    The Army solicited comment on the Corps' approach to identifying 
areas of risk and uncertainty, including whether certain Corps studies 
should include an estimate of the return on investment under current 
conditions.
    Commenters supported using science to describe risks and 
uncertainty. One commenter suggested alternative methods to conduct 
efficiency analysis.
    Response: The Corps consolidated the discussion of risk and 
uncertainty in one place in the final rule. Therefore, the final rule 
no longer includes Sec.  234.10(d); and some of the language proposed 
in that subsection has moved to Sec.  234.7(d). The Corps also has 
revised Sec.  234.7(d) to include language on providing an estimate in 
the study of the extent to which the uncertainty may change over time. 
The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated guidance 
relative to methods to account for risks and uncertainties, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule.
    Section 234.11 Select the recommended plan.
    Section 234.11(a) Recommended plan. The Corps will recommend a 
decision to either: (1) propose authorization of an alternative 
project, program or plan; (2) pursue an alternative under existing law; 
(3) propose implementation of a project, program or plan to be 
implemented by others; or (4) take no further Corps action. Federal 
investments should 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 PR&G help the Federal Government improve decision-making by 
accounting for long-term 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.
    Multiple letters were received containing comments associated with 
Sec.  234.11. One comment suggested additional explanation of how 
preferences from non-Federal sponsors, Tribal Nations, stakeholders, 
and others will be considered in the decision-making process. The same 
letter also suggested the rule incorporate methods for monetizing 
environmental and social effects. One comment expressed a need for a 
requirement to explain how these preferences were incorporated into the 
analysis and considered in the decision-making process. A letter 
supported consideration of tools for tradeoff analysis for a more 
structured decision-making process, and supported explicitly 
documenting the process. Another letter requested that the rule require 
the rationale for plan selection to include how non-Federal sponsors 
and stakeholders were engaged in plan selection. One comment expanded 
on a recommendation to include plan selection criteria in the rule to 
inform non-Federal interests and the public of these requirements, and 
to further support Congressional authorization and appropriation steps 
to lead to successful cost-shared project implementation. One comment 
recommended an edit to Sec.  234.11 by adding ``consistent with 
achieving the Federal objective of protecting and restoring the 
nation's environment.'' Another commenter suggested tying the selection 
of a plan to the Federal Objective. One organization commented that it 
remains to be seen how benefits analysis would be used to select a plan 
and that there could be inconsistencies nationwide.
    Response: Edits were made to the final rule regarding investment 
recommendations and consideration of monetized and non-monetized 
outputs in the decision-making process. The Rule was further modified 
to require the Corps to analyze and fully consider all social, 
environmental, and economic benefits and costs of each separable 
element of a proposed investment. Section 234.10(a)(3) of the final 
rule explicitly requires consideration of the preferences of Tribal 
Nations and stakeholders when comparing alternatives. Sections 234.6 
and 234.7(i) of the final rule specify that the Corps will identify 
potential impacts to Tribal treaty rights at the earliest phases and 
throughout the plan evaluation process, screening alternatives that 
impact Tribal treaty and water rights. The Corps will review existing 
guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, following 
completion of the final rule.
    The Army disagrees with comments about the use of benefits analysis 
and potential nationwide inconsistencies. No changes were made to the 
rule in this regard.
    Section 234.11(b) Exceptions. The rule allows for exceptions for a 
recommended plan that does not maximize net public benefits; however, 
such exceptions must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Civil Works. This policy underscores the importance of the PR&G 
approach to put forth a recommended plan that seeks to maximize net 
public benefits.
    Multiple comment letters were provided regarding this section of 
the rule. One questioned whether an

[[Page 104018]]

exception would not be required for recommended plans that do not meet 
the authorized study purpose. Another letter suggested the rule 
consider options to require additional support from cost-share partners 
and others. Another recommended removing language in Sec. Sec.  234.3 
and/or 234.11(b) potentially allowing unbounded exceptions.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. Input from non-Federal 
interests, Tribal Nations, stakeholders, affected populations, and 
other interested parties is routinely considered in the decision-making 
process. The Corps will review existing guidance and provide updated 
guidance relative to policy and procedural requirements, where 
warranted, following completion of the final rule. An exception from 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will be required if 
recommending a plan other than the plan that maximizes net public 
benefits.
    Additional comments received. A number of comments that are outside 
of the various sections of the rule or did not explicitly address 
questions posed by Army in the proposed rule. For example, one 
commenter recommended the use of a commercial ecosystem-friendly marine 
concrete product that can be used for marine infrastructure work. While 
this input is noted, specific products are beyond the scope of the 
ASPs.
    Many of the comments received on the rule asked for additional 
details on the specific methods, procedures, tools, techniques, and 
relevant examples that the Corps would use for implementation of these 
ASPs. One comment requested that future guidance address requirements 
for how the Corps will complete studies under the ASPs within the 
three-year study duration and three-million-dollar Federal cost 
framework of Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-121). This letter further recommended earlier 
vertical integration within the Corps while freeing up more time for 
plan formulation. One comment stressed the need for vertical 
integration during the initial application of these ASPs to ensure 
implementation challenges are addressed efficiently. A comment was 
received during a virtual public meeting requesting that non-Federal 
interests be included in training opportunities associated with the 
application of the ASPs. A number of comments requested that any 
implementation guidance be developed in a transparent manner to include 
an opportunity for public input.
    Response: No changes were made to the final rule. The Corps will 
review existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule. The Corps will review the need 
for updated procedures, methodologies, and other requirements, as well 
as public engagement, to effectively implement the rule.
    A comment was received from a professional association recommending 
that project delivery teams be comprised of qualified staff and 
disciplines, including landscape architects, during all project phases. 
This association also indicated that landscape architecture design and 
planning can reduce and mitigate ecological harm, improve resilience, 
and adapt communities to the effects of climate change. Another 
organization offered its support and services in developing water 
resources projects and facilitating public processes. A local entity 
suggested adding language recognizing the non-Federal sponsor as a true 
member of the team. One letter noted the non-Federal sponsor should be 
highly valued and leveraged in the development of project authorization 
documents and for insights into the decision-making process. One 
organization suggested the inclusion of Engineering With Nature 
scientists to support the development and design of nature-based 
solutions for risk reduction.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. These comments are 
noted. It is current practice to build project delivery teams from 
appropriate qualified staff to address the particular water resources 
issue under investigation. This would include staff from within the 
Corps, non-Federal interests, partners, and other external resources.
    One commenter suggested that the ASPs include a discussion on the 
requirements of Section 8106 of WRDA 2022.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. The Corps issued 
implementation guidance for Section 8106(a) and 8106(b) of WRDA 2022 in 
February 2024.\11\ The Corps will review existing guidance and provide 
updated guidance, where warranted, following completion of the final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Legislative-Links/WRDA-2022/. Last accessed May 21, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One comment expressed concern that the ASPs mandate multi-purpose 
projects, and expressed particular concern about the impact that such a 
mandate would have on shoreline protection projects.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. The ASPs do not mandate 
multi-purpose projects. Alternatives will be formulated based on the 
specific study authorization and in consultation with the non-Federal 
sponsor and other stakeholders with no requirement for a project to be 
multi-purpose. While projects will evaluate social, economic, and 
environmental benefits, many studies will remain single purpose.
    One comment focused on regulatory protections for fishing grounds.
    Response: Comment is noted although it is beyond the scope of this 
rule. No changes were made to the rule.
    One organization noted that conflicting State and Federal 
regulations may hinder the implementation of nature-based solutions. 
They recommended convening leadership of State and Federal agencies to 
discuss which existing laws are relevant to promoting marsh and wetland 
preservation and restoration in response to the impacts of sea level 
rise, and which laws hinder improvements to coastal resilience. They 
noted that determining how to accept and compromise on habitat trade-
offs will be an important discussion topic and that placing dredged 
sediment in open water to maintain wetland footprints is needed for 
long-term coastal resilience. The commenters suggested that the meeting 
would aim to develop exemptions or revise regulations and policies to 
help promote the cost-effectiveness of nature-based solutions.
    Response: The proposed resolution of the comment extends beyond the 
need and intent of this rule. No changes were made to the rule.
    One comment was received regarding the feasibility of land 
acquisition that non-Federal interests are required to provide for 
project implementation.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. Real estate is the 
responsibility of the non-Federal interest for any Corps water 
resources development project. If a non-Federal interest is unable to 
acquire the necessary real estate, plan selection could be affected.
    A responding organization offered comment on the need for the Corps 
to expand its capacity and to begin attracting and elevating the skills 
necessary to apply the ASPs from within its ranks.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. The Corps recognizes 
the need to develop and train staff to perform the analysis and other 
elements of the ASPs. These efforts will be a key factor in the success 
of the new framework.
    One commenter indicated that the Corps should base cost estimates 
on realistic projections of the project's full

[[Page 104019]]

life-cycle costs, likely construction start date, likely funding 
streams over time, and historical cost increases by project type and 
geographic location.
    Response: No changes were made to the rule. The Corps will review 
existing guidance and provide updated guidance, where warranted, 
following completion of the final rule. The Corps considers life cycle 
costs, likely construction start dates, and geographic locations when 
developing its cost estimates.

E. Expected Benefits and Costs of the Rule

    Overall, this 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 resources projects that better 
serve communities and the public. Informed by a more detailed 
understanding of various risks, Federal, State, local, and Tribal 
governments can apply available resources to the activities that are 
most likely to produce public benefits. A full accounting of benefits 
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 the Federal Government's 
resources benefit disadvantaged communities, including many communities 
that are overburdened by pollution and marginalized by underinvestment. 
The Corps has eleven covered programs under the Justice40 Initiative 
\12\ that would apply the ASPs as described in this rule. The use of an 
ecosystem services approach allows the planning process to better 
anticipate and account for the effects of a Federal investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/. Last accessed May 21, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Corps starts implementing this new approach, evaluation and 
decision-making methods, tools, and processes will need to be 
developed, resulting in increased costs in time and effort for 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. The 
Corps Civil Works program is committed to ensuring development of an 
adequate study scope and documentation; 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 
and evaluation of alternatives.
    This rule will mostly affect the Investigations appropriations 
account of the Corps, that Congress uses to provide funding for 
authorized feasibility studies of 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 of the O&M appropriations account. 
We anticipate the costs to the Federal Government to implement the rule 
to remain roughly the same as under the current planning process since 
the ASPs change only the process to select the recommended project 
alternative rather than the 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 rule preamble which are existing, in development, 
or would evolve as science and analytical studies improve over time. 
The Corps uses tools and methods for the current approach, and will 
tools and methods to the current approach to include social and 
environmental considerations. This new process will require additional 
trainings and the development of tools and methods not currently 
available, which may result in some minor additional costs to the 
Corps. Those initial costs would be outweighed by the long-term 
benefits of the 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 that fall under the 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 Regulatory Impact Analysis for further discussion on the 
benefits and costs of the rule.

F. Procedural Requirements

    a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Executive 
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as amended by Executive Order 
14094 (88 FR 21879 (Apr. 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 three 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 the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs in each case.
    This rule has been found to be a significant regulatory action and 
has therefore been submitted to OMB for clearance.
    This rule establishes the procedures to implement the PR&G but 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. See the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for further discussion on the costs and benefits of the rule.
    b. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act. As required 
by NEPA, the Department of the Army prepares appropriate environmental 
analyses for its activities affecting the quality of the human 
environment. The Corps has determined that this regulation 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

[[Page 104020]]

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 draft Environmental Assessment was 
prepared and circulated to support this rule-making process. As a 
result of the public comment period, no significant changes were made 
to the final Environmental Assessment. The only edits included the 
removal of the proposed rule, adding a summary of the public 
involvement process, and adding the determination that an Environmental 
Impact Statement is not required for the promulgation of the 
regulation. The final Environmental Assessment to support this 
determination is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to this rule because this 
rule provides policy for Corps Civil Works 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 ASPs, there are other forms of non-Federal 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements for 
which OMB approval under the PRA is required.
    e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. This rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the 
Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    f. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of the 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-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field.
    The Army certified that this regulation does not have a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The 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 regulation do not place any 
burden on small entities.
    g. 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 Nations, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Tribal Nations, 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 the Federal 
Government consults with those governments. If complying by consulting, 
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to provide OMB, 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 regulation does not impose significant compliance costs on any 
Tribal Nation, nor does it otherwise have substantial direct effects on 
any Tribal Nation. 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's initiatives to comply with the Executive 
Order include: (1) initiating Government-to-Government consultation on 
the Federal Register notice to Modernize Civil Works (87 FR 33756 (June 
3, 2022)) to permit meaningful, early, and robust engagement in 
development of the 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-on-one consultation and meeting with three 
Tribal Nations at a leader-to-leader level and one Tribal Nation at a 
staff-level.
    The Army conducted Government-to-Government consultation on this 
rule action through a specific Dear Tribal Leaders letter sent to 
Tribal leaders. In addition, the virtual public meeting held on March 
19, 2024, was intended to receive Tribal comments on the proposed rule. 
Tribal Nations were invited to submit written comments to the docket 
for this rule. All letters received by the Army as part of the Tribal 
consultation process may be found in the docket (www.regulations.gov at 
Docket ID COE-2023-0005). In addition, the Army engaged in Government-
to-Government consultation with one Tribal Nation on this rule in 
accordance with the existing 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 rule will neither impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal 
governments nor preempt Tribal law.
    h. 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

[[Page 104021]]

have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the 
definition of the term ``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.
    i. 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.
    j. 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.
    k. 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.
    The ASPs amplify the goals of Executive Order 14096 by 
incorporating environmental justice principles into the Corps' planning 
processes, connected with and as part of environmental and economic 
goals, as opposed to solely relying on economic justification.
    For this rule, consistent with the governing statute 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 rule action establishes a process for the Corps to 
identify a final array of alternatives for water resources development 
project investments and to inform the recommended plan. The rule would 
not directly result or contribute to benefits to any particular 
community, 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 the Corps' recommended 
alternative. 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' Civil 
Works processes.
    l. Congressional Review Act (CRA). This action is subject to the 
CRA, and the Corps will submit a rule report to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Pursuant 
to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule'', as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 234

    Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, 
Technical assistance, Water resources.

    Approved by:
Jaime A. Pinkham,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).


0
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the preamble, 33 CFR part 234 is 
added to read 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: 42 U.S.C. 1962-3.


Sec.  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 Council on 
Environmental Quality and approved by the Water Resources Council, 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 (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. This 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) 
issued in March 2013 and the Interagency Guidelines 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).


Sec.  234.2  Definitions.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    Effectiveness. The extent to which an alternative alleviates the 
specified

[[Page 104022]]

problems and achieves the specified opportunities.
    Efficiency. The extent to which an alternative alleviates the 
specified problems and realizes the specified opportunities at the 
least cost.
    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.
    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.
    Indigenous Knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge may be described as 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, consistent 
with the definitions used in 43 CFR 2361.5 and 6101.4(h) and the 
Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge, 
issued November 30, 2022. 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 long-term experiences, as well as extensive 
observations, lessons, and skills passed from generation to generation.
    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.
    Non-Federal interest. (1) a legally constituted public body 
(including an Indian Tribe and a Tribal Organization (as those terms 
are defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304)); 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.
    Nonstructural alternative. An alternative comprised of a 
nonstructural approach or combination of nonstructural approaches that 
addresses the water resources problem.
    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; buyout/acquisition 
including the acquisition of flowage easements; dry flood proofing; and 
wet flood proofing. They may also include actions that are not the 
responsibility of the Corps such as providing flood insurance, 
establishing building codes for new construction, and other local 
floodplain management practices, installing early warning systems, and 
developing emergency evacuation plans.
    Professional judgment. An evidence-based decision that relies on 
appropriate training and experience.
    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.
    Regional economic development effects. The changes in the 
distribution of regional economic activity that would result from 
implementation of an 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.
    Regulatory. Generally, those activities subject to legal 
restrictions promulgated by the Federal Government.
    Resilience. Resilience is the ability to prepare for threats and 
hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover 
rapidly from adverse conditions and disruptions.
    Sustainable. The creation and maintenance of conditions under which 
humans and nature can coexist in the present and into the future.
    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.
    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.
    Watershed. A land area that drains to a common waterbody.


Sec.  234.3   Exceptions.

    Exceptions to any requirements or policy contained in this part may 
be requested by the Corps or the non-Federal 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.


Sec.  234.4   Objectives and applicability.

    (a) Introduction. The goal of the 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 resources 
investments, including a determination of the applicability of the 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 the 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

[[Page 104023]]

encompass economic, environmental, and social goals, include monetized 
and un-monetized effects, and allow for the consideration of both 
quantified and unquantified effects.
    (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 part is generally required for feasibility studies; 
general re-evaluation reports; major rehabilitation reports; studies 
performed under the continuing authorities program of the Corps; 
studies to support significant changes to project operations including 
any such changes that warrant preparation of an environmental impact 
statement, re-allocation studies, and studies conducted under section 
216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a); and any other 
project or program not otherwise excluded under paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section.
    (2) 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 part:
    (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 the 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) Operation and maintenance activities that are carried out in a 
manner consistent with the existing approved operation and maintenance 
manual or plan for an authorized project. This exclusion does not apply 
to significant proposed changes to an existing O&M plan including 
proposals that may be controversial, significant changes to the 
existing plan to meet new goals, and other significant changes that may 
warrant a further analysis of the options for operation and 
maintenance.
    (xi) International and Interagency Services and Support for Others 
actions.
    (xii) Research or monitoring activities.
    (xiii) Emergency actions.
    (xiv) Projects, programs, or plans that fall below the thresholds 
identified in table 1 to Sec.  234.5(c). 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 determines do not require 
analysis pursuant to Sec.  234.3.


Sec.  234.5   Level of analysis.

    (a) Standard and scaled levels of analysis. Once a determination 
has been made that the 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 should consider 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, have 
minimal consequences of failure, pose 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 to this paragraph (c). 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 the 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 programmatic-level 
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.

[[Page 104024]]



                              Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--Monetary Threshold Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total        Annual federal
              Type of activity                  investment      appropriations          Level of analysis
                                                   ($M)              ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects....................................             >30  .................  Standard analysis.
Proposed Corps investments in water                    15-30                     Scaled analysis.
 resources, such as infrastructure,                      <15                     Excluded.
 ecosystem restoration, new construction,
 modifications or replacements to existing
 facilities, and operations and maintenance.
Programs....................................  ..............               >100  Standard analysis.
                                                                         50-100  Scaled analysis.
                                                                            <50  Excluded.
Individual Plans............................  ..............                >50  Standard analysis.
Management plans, such as watershed, master,                              10-50  Scaled analysis.
 etc..                                                                      <10  Excluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  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. The 
planning process will ensure that plan formulation, evaluation, and 
recommendations for proposed Corps investments 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 identify or respond 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 Corps 
will identify impacts to Tribal treaty and water rights at the earliest 
phases and throughout the plan evaluation process, screening 
alternatives that impact Tribal treaty and water rights. 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 (NEPA). Where Federal 
investments in water resources require analysis under NEPA and this 
part, Army Civil Works should integrate, to the extent possible, the 
analysis in this part into existing planning processes, and may 
integrate this part 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, 
protecting Tribal treaty rights, 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, disclosing and considering 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. To 
identify floodplain areas for the purpose of this section, the Corps 
will use the best-available and actionable science including a climate-
informed science approach. If construction in the floodplain or adverse 
impacts to a floodplain's natural and beneficial functions 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 achieve flood 
risk reduction or other public purposes, that proposed Corps project is 
not automatically considered an unwise use of the floodplain. The Corps 
shall strive to sustain the floodplain's natural and

[[Page 104025]]

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 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 watershed-
based 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 the more thorough addressing of 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 harm 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 
starting in the scoping phase with other agencies or Tribal, 
territorial, State, and local government partners working in the 
watershed will 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 non-governmental 
stakeholders, communities with environmental justice concerns, and the 
general public throughout the planning process allows consideration of 
multiple perspectives and information sources, such as 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 
to help establish planning goals and objectives that are consistent 
with the objectives of this part 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 describing any concerns they may have with a potential 
project. Such early, meaningful, and robust engagement will help 
identify and address problems, possible solutions, and scope studies. 
Robust, early collaboration with Tribes does not negate the need for 
Tribal consultation. Robust, early collaboration with Tribes is in 
addition to the requirement to conduct early, meaningful, and robust 
Government-to-Government consultation with Tribal Nations when 
appropriate.
    (2) To improve Federal decision-making 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 use 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 the 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;

[[Page 104026]]

environmental, social, and cultural impacts and mitigation; 
opportunities for recreation; cost estimation for construction, 
operation, maintenance, replacement, and energy consumption; and 
climate change (to include greenhouse gas emissions). Investigation, 
data collection, and analysis should leverage and incorporate 
information from Tribal, State, local, non-governmental 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 are consistent 
with the study authority.
    (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) Describe the problems and opportunities to which the agency is 
responding in a manner that will not foreclose consideration of the 
full range of reasonable alternatives, including options that the non-
Federal sponsor may not support.
    (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.
    (7) 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) The phrase ``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 
government-produced.
    (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 a Federal investment by the Corps (through the proposed 
Corps project, action, or program that is 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 address a water resources challenge, 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 proposed Federal investment that is under consideration. 
Alternatives should address the defined water resources challenge that 
is the subject of the analysis, and may achieve multiple purposes. 
Alternative formulations should focus on solutions that are feasible 
and meet the planning objectives of the study, based on the 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 others may help provide solutions to the identified 
problem and meet the goals of the PR&G. However, such alternatives 
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, 
action, or program 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 that 
ensures that the Corps has identified and considered the full range of 
reasonable alternatives. 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 will comprise the range of reasonable 
alternatives 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 
of the development and evaluation of Federal investments in water 
resources.
    (3) Each alternative formulated for the PR&G analysis should align 
with the alternatives evaluated in the corresponding NEPA document.
    (4) The Corps should formulate the alternatives based on an 
incremental analysis of their benefits and costs to society. The 
economic, environmental, and social effects of a water resources

[[Page 104027]]

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 seek to maximize net 
public benefits.


Sec.  234.7  Evaluation framework.

    (a) General. To inform the overall decision-making process, this 
section describes the common framework and general requirements to be 
used by the Corps in evaluating and ensuring full consideration of the 
social, environmental, and economic benefits and costs to society of 
any separable elements and potential alternatives for Federal 
investment. This will include their performance with respect to the 
Guiding Principles and their contributions to the Federal Objective. 
Any key assumptions that affect the analysis of alternatives shall be 
clearly described in the study.
    (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. Ecosystem services are an important benefit-cost 
category that should be included in the benefit-cost analysis.
    (2) In addition, the scale of the analysis can be adjusted for a 
given study. While all analyses should share common elements, how these 
elements are achieved can depend on the identified problem or 
opportunity. It is important to establish a consistent analytic 
approach for each study. 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 the alternatives. In these cases, the Corps should 
quantify the social and environmental costs and benefits and when 
neither monetization nor quantification is possible, the Corps should 
qualitatively describe the social and environmental costs and benefits 
in sufficient detail to allow differentiation across alternatives. 
Relevant monetary, quantitative, and descriptive information will be 
fully assessed and considered 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 alternatives analysis 
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 (such 
as public concern) inherent in potential decisions.
    (d) Risk and uncertainty. When analyzing potential Federal water 
resources 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. 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. The study should estimate the extent 
to which the outcomes from an investment may vary over time from the 
estimates provided in the study, both in the short-term and in the less 
predictable future, due to uncertainty. Knowledge of risk and 
uncertainty and the degree of reliability of the estimated consequences 
will better inform decision-making. When there are considerable 
uncertainties concerning the ability of an alternative to function as 
desired (such as producing the 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, and uncertainties associated with climate change will be 
identified and described. Analysis of climate change impacts shall 
reflect the best available actionable science and will leverage region-
specific information from Federal, Tribal, State, local, and non-
governmental partners. The Corps shall incorporate a climate-informed 
science approach considering impacts such as inland and coastal climate 
change impacts on flood and drought hazards using the most up-to-date 
science, policies, and tools available. The Corps shall also ensure 
climate resilience and adaptation are 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 resources needs and 
how those needs can potentially be addressed.
    (g) Water availability, water uses, and resilience. The 
consideration of multiple uses, competing demands, and the potential 
future uses of the water resources shall be taken into account when 
formulating and evaluating solutions to a water resources problem or 
challenge. Water availability and efficient use of water shall be 
considered in designing the alternatives, as shall resilience, when 
applicable to the purpose of the study. The analysis

[[Page 104028]]

shall consider water availability, water uses, and resilience over a 
range of conditions, from too little water in drought and multiple-use 
scenarios, to too much water in flood scenarios.
    (h) Nonstructural and nature-based solutions. Nonstructural 
measures alter the use of existing infrastructure or human activities 
to generally improve, 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. Full consideration and 
reporting on nonstructural and nature-based alternative actions shall 
be an integral part of the evaluation of Federal water resources 
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 nature-based aspects should also be 
included in the other alternatives in the final array when appropriate.
    (i) Tribal treaty rights. Each of the alternatives considered for a 
water resources investment must be consistent with the protection of 
Tribal treaty rights. Alternatives that impact Tribal treaty and water 
rights should be screened out as soon as the Corps becomes aware of 
such impacts, and the study will document why the alternatives have 
been screened.
    (j) State water law. Alternatives for water resources investments 
must be consistent with applicable State laws, including water rights 
and decrees, to the extent that these do not conflict with Federal laws 
and regulations. Analyses should identify legal constraints that 
preclude selection of an otherwise viable alternative.
    (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) Period of analysis. The period of analysis for the study shall 
be documented with an appropriate justification, and used to evaluate 
each alternative.


Sec.  234.8  Final array of alternatives.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section, 
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 that can 
effectively address the problem through the feasible use of 
nonstructural approaches.
    (3) A nature-based solution alternative: An alternative 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 to 
society. In developing this alternative, the Corps shall not consider 
regional economic development effects.
    (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 nature-based 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) If one or more of the required alternatives is not included 
because the Corps was not able to identify a potential solution that is 
feasible and consistent with the purpose of the study, the study must 
document that decision.
    (g) 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; the number of people potentially 
affected and anticipated degree of impact; environmental justice 
considerations; 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.


Sec.  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. The analysis should 
identify any impacts to Tribal treaty rights which were unknown earlier 
in the planning process and which prevent the selection of an 
alternative.
    (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 full consideration of 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). The consideration of benefits to federally 
recognized Tribes will be done in direct consultation with the 
respective Tribal Nation and will supplement the public benefit 
analysis. 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. 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 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

[[Page 104029]]

be described across the period of analysis. The effects of alternative 
plans are displayed in terms of costs and benefits.


Sec.  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 separately with respect to other considerations, including 
distributional effects. These considerations may include:
    (1) Temporal factors, since certain effects may occur at different 
points in time.
    (2) Spatial factors, since certain costs, benefits, and transfers 
may accrue to different regions. Regional-scale analyses may be useful 
to inform regional-level economic development objectives. It is 
important to note that such regional analyses, while useful, are 
completely separate from the calculation of net public benefits 
described in Sec.  234.4(c).
    (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. Tribal reserved rights, including 
treaty-protected resources and habitats, are not benefits to the Tribal 
Nation, rather, they are guaranteed by such treaties. 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 decision-making 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 
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 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, such as 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 the 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.


Sec.  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. The 
report must include an explanation of the assumptions in the evaluation 
of monetized and non-monetized benefits and costs. This section will 
include a summary of elicited Tribal Nation and stakeholder 
perspectives on the alternatives and their effects.
    (2) The Corps should recommend:
    (i) Authorization of an alternative project, program, or plan;
    (ii) Implementation of an alternative under existing law;
    (iii) Implementation of a project, program or plan by others; or
    (iv) No action.
    (3) In its studies, the Corps shall analyze, evaluate, fully 
consider, and justify each separable element of the proposed investment 
independently of the other separable elements, based on its social, 
environmental, and economic benefits and costs to society.
    (4) The Corps should seek to meet water resources 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 will clearly 
delineate the Federal water resources project(s) or actions being 
recommended, including any condition precedent for construction.
    (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. 2024-29652 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P`