WSP01328

• File Number: 8030
• Description: Section "D" General Correspondence - Other Organizations/Agencies ‎(Alpha, not Basin Related)‎
• Date: 12/21/1971
• Author: WRC
• Title: Proposed Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources-Notice of Public Hearing, Water Resources Council
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

24172

NOTICES

the set of complementary component
needs and plan elements. These essen-
tially are the building blocks for the
formulation of alternative plans. In
formulating a given alternative plan. InI-
tial consideration will be g:Iven to Its ori-
entation toward fulfilling the component
needs for one of the multiobiectLves.
Further additions should be made for
the component needs of other multi-
objectives, provIded tha.t their addition
to a given plan does not significantly
diminish the contributions of the overall
plan to that multlobJectlve toward whleh
the plan is oriented. An analysiS 01 the
alternative plan, In terms of beneficial
and adverse deets, will reveal the ex-
tent of any shortfalls against other
mult1objectives. The process is then re-
peated untU sufficient numbers of al-
ternative planS have. been formulated
60 that there 15 at least one plan that
generally satisfles each spec11led com-
ponent need of the muItlobjectlves. This
does not mean that there must be e.
plan for each mult10bJective that ex-
cludes plan elements that significantly
contribute to the component needs of
other multiobJectlves nor does it mean
tha.t a given aJtemative pla.n cannot
appropriately satisfy the component
needs of several multlobjectives. Addi-
, tional alternative plans may be required
where there are possible conflicts among
the component needs within a given'
multlobjective.
A precise number of alternative plans
cannot be specified In advance but will .
be governed by the relevancy of the
multiobJectlves to a given planning set-
ting, the extent of component needs and
their complementarity, the available al-
ternative means, and the overall re-
source cB.pablllties of the area under
study.
To fac1l1tate comparisons and tradeoffs
among alternative plans and compari-
sons' of beneficial and adverse effects
measured in nonmonetarY terms with
beneficial and ,adverse e:ffects measured
in monetary terms, one alternative plan
should be formulated In which optimum
contributions are made to the compo-
nent needs of the nat10nal economic de-
velopment objective. Additionally, dur-
Ing the planning process at least one al-
ternative plan will be fonnulated which
emphasizes the contribution to the en-
vironmental quality objective. Other al-
ternative plans refiecting significant
tradeotfs among the national economic
development and environmental quality
objectives m'ay be formulated so as not
to overlook a best overall plan.
Alternative plans emphasizing contri;..
. butions to specified components of the
regional development objective will be
.prepared only with advance approval.
In formulating alternative plans, tests
of acceptabHity, effectiveness, emciency,
and completeness should be applied.
The acceptability test refers to the
workability and Viablllty of the plan In
the sense of acceptance of the publlc
and compatlbUlty within known tnstl-
tutlonal constraints.
The effectiveness test refera to tech-
nical performance of the plan and the
level of contribution to the components
of the multlobJeetlves.

The efficiency test requlres that among
all accepta.ble alternatives, Federal and
non-Federal, water and nonwater, struc-
tural or nonstructural. the given alter-
native plan should be the least costly
considering all adverse effects to the
muItlobjectives -when comparably eval-
uated according to these standards.
The completeness test requires that a
given alternative plan provide and ac-
count for all necessary investments or
other actions that will be needed to as-
sure the full rea.lization of the contribu-
tions provided by the plan to the com-
ponents of mult1obJectives'specified for
the planning area. This may require re-
lating the water and land resources plan
to other types of publlc or private pl8.Ill5
where they are crucial to the full realiza-
tion ot the' contributions to the multJ-
objectives. 'TIle rule to follow 18 that
beneficial and adverse effects must be
treated comparably when relating water
and land resource plans to other plans.
In formulating alternative plans to
satisfy t.he comPonent needs ot the en-
vironmental quallt.y objective, considera-
tion may be given to an alternative which
explicitly preclud€6 any significant forms
of physical construction or development.
Where such.a, "no development" aIterna-'
tive is considered,. it must be recognized
that positive action is nonetheless re:"
qUired to assure that the "no develop-
ment" concept can be reaJized and, fur-
ther, that the particular enviromnentaJ
characteristics that i't is desired to main-
tain or enhance through the "no devel-
opment" altem.'B.itive may change through
time as a result of changing conditions
within '6' plann1ng setting. Positive ac'"
tiollS, such 88 zoning or public land ac-
quiSition. may be necessary to accom-
pUsh the "no development.. alternative.
The test of plan oompleteness must be
very oare:fully appUed for this type of
alternative plan. .

E. ANALYSIs.or ALTERNATIVE PLANS

In the previous formulation step, a se-
ries of altema.t1ve plans were fonnulated
and their bene:flcial and adverse effects
evaluated and measured in accordance
with the defin1tions and measuremen't
standards set forth In section m of these
standards, A display of the beneficial and
adverse effects will be developed for each
altem'ative plan in a form sim11ar to that
shawn and discussed In section VI, Sys-
tem of Accounts,
In 1lltlB fonnulation step, an analysis
and comparison of alternative plans is
outlined to make the folloWing deter-
minations :
1. The effectiveness of given altema-
ti ve plans in meeting the component
needs of the multtobJectlves;
2. The differences ~among alternative
plans in tenns of their contributions to
the multiobJect'ives and their effects on
social factors; and
3. The relative value of those benefi-
ci'B.l and adverse effects that are essen-
ti'ally presented. 'in nonmonetary terms,
In terms of what Is given up or traded
off among plans with varying degrees of
contJ;i.butions to the muItiobjectives.
These detemrlna.tions are essential to
the subsequent step for selection from
among the a.1ternattve6 of a recom-
mended Plan.

\,

The first detenninatlon Involves the
analysis of how well eacl1 alternative
plan perfonns aealnst the coIll\POnent
needs that served. as the 'baBis for its
formulatloIL The analys!:l should Include
an appraisal of any shortfalls against
component needs for which the plan wes
formulated and the extent 01 shortfall
against other component needs. For in-
stance, if a given alternative has been
formulated with emphasis on the com-
ponent needs for the national economic
development obJectJ.ve, the analysis
Shou!d Indicate the performance of the
plan In terms ot those needs and fI1rther
indicate the degree. to which the com-
ponent needs for the other muIt1objec-
t1ves have been lulfllled or remain un-
met. For this pU11J'06e,. me8S1lI'e6 of
perfDnnance should be developed tbat
characterize how a pa.rt1cular plan per-
forms against the component needs of
the multiobJectives,
The second determiriation Irwol-rea the
systematJc comparison of the perfonn-
ance of given aJ.ternat.1ves with ea.ch
other. The P1lI"POSe for these comparisons
Is to portray the extent of d1l!erence
among alternative plans as a basis for
reducing the number at alterna.tlve Pla.nB
to be considered In' the selection at a
recommended plan. The comparisons
should be carried out to display the type
of information on beneficIal and adverse
effects shown in section VI.
These comparisons will facilitate the
evaluation of the signiflcance of the dif-
ferences among aJtemative plans. Whlle
all alternative pia"" will tend to d1l!er.
the degree and extent of difference Is
critlcaJ in reducing the nwnber of .alter-
native pl'a.I1S to be seriously considered
for recommendation.
The third detenn1na.tion involves a
special analysis designed to provide an
approximation of rela.tive monet6ry va.l-
ues to lihase el!ects to multlobJectl_
tllat a.re generally cha.racter1zed and d1s-
played in nonmonetary terms. It Is not
the purpose of the analysis, however, to
convert such effects to monetary equiv-
alents but to gain an 1nslght with respect
to the relative value. of such effecUJ by.
lUlderstandlng their Impact upon mone-
tary values which, as a practical matter.
is a generally understood CODUnOn de-
nom1nator for decisiorunakers.
This analysis Involves extracting in-
formation from the previous eV-'aIuSition
involved in comparison of plmlS. For
the purposes at the special anaJys1s, the
o.lternative plan that optimizes the na-
tional econom1c development objective is
compared with the alternative plans that
emphasize the enviroronental quality or
regional development objectives. En-
hancement of envtromnental quality, for
example, can be related. t:.o beneficial ef-
fects foregone or increased adverse ef-
fects in national economic developement.
Likewise, an increase in natIonal eco-
nomic development can be compared
with adverse effects on environmental
quali-ty or regional development. From
this analysis, Jt should be possible to
develop an arra.y of relative values for
the nonmonetary effects.
While not designed to provide a basis
for coIlJVersion of nonmonetary beneficial
a.nd adverse effects to monetary terms.
thIs analysis does provide the range of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 36, NO. 245--TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1971