PART 234—CORPS OF ENGINEERS AGENCY SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE PRINCIPLES, REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN WATER RESOURCES Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1962-3. Source: 89 FR 104021, Dec. 19, 2024, unless otherwise noted. § 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). § 234.2 Definitions. Acceptability. Adaptive management. Completeness. Effectiveness. Efficiency. Federal investment. Federal Objective. Indigenous Knowledge. Nature-based alternatives. Non-Federal interest. (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. Nonstructural approach. Professional judgment. Public benefits. Regional economic development effects. Regulatory. Resilience. Sustainable. Tribal Nation (Federally recognized Indian Tribe or Tribal Organization). Unwise use of floodplains. Watershed. § 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. § 234.4 Objectives and applicability. (a) Introduction. (b) Objectives for Federal water resources investments. (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. (d) Applicability. (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 § 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 § 234.3. § 234.5 Level of analysis. (a) Standard and scaled levels of analysis. (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. (c) Scope and magnitude of analysis required. Table 1 to Paragraph ( c Type of activity Total Annual federal Level of analysis Projects >30 Standard analysis. Programs >100 Standard analysis. Individual Plans >50 Standard analysis. § 234.6 The planning process. (a) Introduction. (b) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (c) Guiding Principles. (1) Environmental justice. (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. (3) Healthy and resilient ecosystems. (4) Public safety. (5) Sustainable economic development. (6) Watershed approach. (d) Collaboration. (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. (f) Identify purpose, problems, needs, and opportunities. (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. (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. (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 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. § 234.7 Evaluation framework. (a) General. (b) Economic, environmental, and social effects. (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. (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. (e) Adaptive management. (f) Climate change. (g) Water availability, water uses, and resilience. (h) Nonstructural and nature-based solutions. (i) Tribal treaty rights. (j) State water law. (k) International obligations. (l) Period of analysis. § 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. § 234.9 Evaluate effects of alternatives. (a) Analysis of alternatives. (b) Evaluation procedures. (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. § 234.10 Compare alternatives. (a) Comparing alternatives. (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 § 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. (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. (1) Criteria. (2) Effects matrix. (3) Additional trade-off displays. (4) Summary table. (5) Achievement of objectives table. § 234.11 Select the recommended plan. (a) Recommended plan. (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.