(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.