Transcript Matching programs with resources in Civil Works

Goals of presentation
 Place the Administration's proposed Principles and
Standards in a historical context and identify its
inherent problems
 Look at the FY 2013 President’s Budget for affirmation
of the policy signals articulated by CEQ’s draft
Principles and Standards
2
What is the present Federal
planning model?
 The 1983 WRC Principles and Guidelines planning
guidance is a simple constrained economic optimization
model.
• Monetized benefits and costs are given a pre-eminence over
non-monetized benefits and costs.
• Net “national” economic benefits (benefits minus costs) are to
be maximized subject to environmental, legal and social
constraints. (Each separable element of the project improves
the economic merit of the total investment.)
• Allows for addressing other concerns on an ad-hoc studyspecific basis.
• Selection of a plan other than the one that maximizes net
benefits requires a rationale.
3
The P&G’s policy perspective
 A Reagan Administration document that emphasized Civil
Works projects as contributors to economic growth:
 “The Federal Objective…is to contribute to national economic
development consistent with protecting the Nation’s
environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes,
applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning
requirements.”
 Was to complement the cost-sharing reforms finally
enacted in WRDA 1986
 With the elimination of WRC funding, the lead in
comprehensive planning and project integration was
passed to the states and regions.
4
Plan selection under the P&G
“A plan recommending Federal action is to be the
alternative plan with the greatest net economic benefit
consistent with protecting the Nation's environment
(the NED plan), unless the Secretary of a department or
head of an independent agency grants an exception to
this rule. Exceptions may be made when there are
overriding reasons for recommending another plan,
based on other Federal, State, local and international
concerns.”
5
Policy issues emerged in
subsequent administrations
 G. H. W. Bush Administration encouraged
development of projects promoting fish and wildlife
habitat. (Good for hunters and Fishermen!)
 Clinton Administration made ecosystem restoration a
Civil Works mission—gave an operational definition of
“environmental enhancement.”
 The Corps modified P&G plan formulation and plan
selection guidance that was seen as unnecessarily
restrictive.
6
Corps responds
 Planning Guidance Notebook (ER 100-2-100) in April 2000
made Ecosystem Restoration a Federal Objective.
 Maintains requirements for incremental justification based on both
monetary and non-monetary benefits of all separable elements
including those for ecosystem restoration and for mitigation.
 Long standing commitment to incremental analysis is affirmed
despite SEC. 907 of WRDA 86. BENEFITS AND COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES which states:
“In the evaluation by the Secretary of benefits and costs of a water
resources project, the benefits attributable to measures included in a
project for the purpose of environmental quality, including improvement of
the environment and fish and wildlife enhancement, shall be deemed to be
at least equal to the costs of such measures.”
7
Plan Selection in ER 1105-2-100
 “Benefits can be monetary or non monetary, as in the
case of ecosystem restoration projects. The process of
optimizing net benefits should be reasonable and
practical in seeking to maximize net benefits.”
8
Why redo the 1983 Principles and
Guidelines?
 The current guidance does not produce the project
recommendations that many environmental interests
want!
 It may be that any project at all is recommended.
 It may be that the recommended project does not comport
with someone’s a priori expectations of a proper project.
 It may be that the tradeoffs inherent in the project selection
are not in accord with someone’s values and priorities, e.g.,
inadequate mitigation.
9
What was to be the
Administration’s Solution?
 Direct CEQ to redirect project planning outcomes
 Develop new guidance-the Proposed Principles and
Standards dated December 2009
 Replace a simple constrained economic optimization
with “Multiple Objective” planning
 Make consideration of non-structural alternatives the
first order of business in problem solving
 Discourage use of floodplains for economic purposes
 Abandon commitment to incremental justification for
both separable elements and for mitigation measures
10
A new Federal Objective
 “The National Objective for water resources planning is to
develop water resources projects based on sound science
that maximize net national economic, environmental, and
social benefits.”
 “Consistent with this objective, the United States will
demonstrate leadership by modernizing the way the Nation
plans water resources projects by:
 (1) protect and restore[sic] natural ecosystems and the environment
while encouraging sustainable economic development;
 (2) avoiding adverse impacts to natural ecosystems wherever
possible and fully mitigating any unavoidable impacts; and
 (3) avoiding the unwise use of flood plains, flood-prone areas and
other ecologically valuable areas.”
11
Why can’t the new multiple
objective paradigm succeed?
 No way to tell Corps field planners how to credibly and
consistently value non-economic concepts of
“benefits” and “costs”—no broadly accepted theories
of ecological value, and social value.
 No way to tell field planners how to trade off among
these values, however measured, in a way that will
produce a recommendation that is sure to be endorsed
by the Administration.
12
The current situation
 The proposed Principles and Guidelines are incoherent,
and a National Research Council Committee said so.
 Still struggling to make the guidance coherent.
 Even if coherency is achieved, it can never be successfully
implemented under the Corps’ decentralized planning
approach.
 Predications:
 If any final guidance is ever released, it will be so vague as to
be without operational meaning for field planners.
 Signals will continue be sent though the authorization and
budgeting processes that traditional projects are unwanted.
13
This year’s budgetary signals
 INVESTIGATIONS –Total: 6
 Cano Martin Peña, PR
 Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, MD, VA, PA, NY, WV,
DE, & DC
 Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish
Passage, CA
 Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study, LA & TX
 Houston Ship Channel, TX
 Water Resources Priorities Study
 CONSTRUCTION-Total: 3
 Lower Hamilton City, CA
 Louisiana Coastal Area, Ecosystem Restoration, LA
 Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, TX
14
The message is clear
 Ecosystem restoration and mitigation are increasingly
important components of the Civil Works program.
 The Administration’s values and priorities are reflected
in its draft planning guidance but clear articulation is
difficult; coherency requires resolution of formidable
technical and policy conflicts.
 The Budget contains clear signals.
 There is no interest in a WRDA but that is not new.
15