(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 § 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.