|
<br />24188
<br />
<br />RE'OOmmended
<br />plan with Recom- Durer-
<br />service to mended dl<<l
<br />RD objective Plan F
<br />deleted
<br />
<br />N'BDobjeetlv&:
<br />BeDedtB:
<br />IrrlgBtlOD_________
<br />Other..__________
<br />TotaL__un___
<br />Costsn.__________
<br />
<br />$70._.__...
<br />130 moo_._
<br />
<br />,SO
<br />130
<br />180
<br />110
<br />
<br />200
<br />ISO
<br />
<br />Thus:
<br />Gross tncremento.l NED coats = $40
<br />Net lncremenieJ. NED eoats=='20
<br />
<br />3. Remaining Joint NED costs af Plan F:
<br />
<br />Total NED COGtr:l of Plan F ______n_n_ '160
<br />Less net Incremental NED costs tor low
<br />flow &ugmentatIODn______nn_u_ -20
<br />Less net lnerementBl NED costs for
<br />benchland. ,lrrlgatlon____n__nn__ -20
<br />
<br />Remaining Joint NED c06tS af Plan p__ .110
<br />
<br />4. NED cost allocatIon ta.ble for Plan P
<br />for objectives:
<br />
<br />Objective
<br />NED EQ RD
<br />
<br />1. Benetlu___________uuu '200 (') (') (~
<br />2. Alternative NED coet.:L_ 'ISO . 'SO ".. 1~
<br />3. Benetl.t.l!llmUoo_________ $160 1140 , ,<0
<br />4. Net. incremental NED
<br /> ooskl_____.____._______n_ (') '20 $'>I "0
<br />., Remal.nIng benetlt.l!______ $150 '20 ,20 '190
<br /> P6/'C(lDt d19trlbutlon..____ 75 II II 100
<br />., Re.maln1ng Joint NED
<br /> c:osta..._..____...._______ ... '12 ,12 SilO
<br />7. Total allocated NED
<br /> costa_____n_______..___n $86 $32 $32 $ISO
<br />
<br />I WQ standards 100 m.I1('S.
<br />I Incrll88ed benefits Irom $305 to $.'1M.
<br />. Not applIcable.
<br />'NED COlla. of treatment at tbe IiOurM EU:l.l'qllu.le~ J
<br />:meet. water quality standn.rd.9 over 100 mlles of strMm.
<br />I NED 00I9t.s oldtroct trall9rer eQwvalent to Increaseln
<br />rElfl~=:,~tod by amount of ass lncremental
<br />NBD eoeta. In this Cll.SO It I.!I assumed go envJronmonta.1
<br />queJ.lty benll1lts associated witb mEletiog water Quality
<br />.taodudll over 100 mlles 01 stream Is worth at le09t $oW
<br />NEDeost.
<br />r Banefltll ll1nlted by amount of gross IncrE\mental
<br />NBD calLs. In th1ll coso It 18 assumed the regIonal de.
<br />velopment benefit 8S6oclated wltb provIding solrvlce to
<br />bencblandllls worth at least $40 NED cost.
<br />
<br />C. AUOcat'lon 01 NED Casu Among Com-
<br />ponent. of 'NED Objective.
<br />1. B8pe..rable NED coste tor NED oompo-
<br />neDlt8:
<br />
<br />Plan J!'
<br />Plan F wtth Fe
<br />omitted
<br />
<br />Plan F
<br />wlth
<br />1m.
<br />gation
<br />omltted
<br />
<br />Pian F
<br />wllh
<br />recre.
<br />atlon
<br />omltted
<br />
<br />'!'otal NED ClOl!ItB_ '1M
<br />
<br />$140
<br />
<br />'OB
<br />
<br />PIanF
<br />
<br />Plan F
<br />wllh
<br />power
<br />omltted.
<br />
<br />Plan F with
<br />ezternal
<br />economles
<br />omJtled
<br />
<br />Total NBD COlrt.8___
<br />
<br />"SO
<br />
<br />'121,
<br />
<br />Separable
<br />NBD costa
<br />~ control ________________________ $10
<br />~~on (62-32) ____________________ 20
<br />~tiOD ___________________________ 5
<br />Power _______________________________ 26
<br />Ex.ternaJ. eoonom.1es _n___n_nn______ 0
<br />
<br />Tb~ __________________________ 60
<br />2. RemaIning Join'\; NED 0l'JIrlB 01 NED
<br />objeotlve:
<br />
<br />NOTICES
<br />
<br />Total NED '00G"ts a.uoca.ted to NED ob-
<br />, Jectlve _____________ _____________ te6
<br />Leas total oopamble NEb- oOsta !or NED
<br />~~ents _______________________ --60
<br />
<br />Remaining JoJ.n,t NED 00Gt6 ore NED ob-
<br />Jective __~_________________________ 20
<br />3. NED oost; 8JlOC8ltlon table fOr Plan P
<br />for NED components:
<br />
<br />Fe
<br />
<br />NED oomponents
<br />Irrlgatlon Recreation Power
<br />
<br />Erlornal
<br />_om!..
<br />
<br />Total
<br />
<br />S20
<br />'"
<br />
<br />LB611elits___n_____oo__n____.._oo.n_oo___h_____ "" $10 $30 $40 $10 $200
<br />2. Altcmo.tlve NED oosts_____.____._____.____oo_._ $1>0 fIOO '00 $30 1$10 $2<0
<br />3. BenE'fitl:l1mlted_______n__n_________..._n_____ $1>0 '70 130 $30 $10 ,too
<br />4, Boparahle NED oosts_.______n___nnnn_.n___ "0 $20 $0 $25 0 '00
<br />li. RewolnlngbE'DeftlLnn______oo_n__nn___.___ "0 $50 '" $I> $10 ~130
<br />Pt'roent distribution. _ _.________u______nn._.__ 31 38 19 4 8 100
<br />e. Remaining Joint NED C06ts___oo______:_._______ $8 '10 55 'I '2 !i2e
<br />7. Total allocated NED coats____.._____oo__._n___ '18 $30 '10 '26 $2 '"
<br />
<br />I Alternative NED costs assumed to beeqllal to NED benefits for thl~ componont.
<br />
<br />Total
<br />
<br />vm. NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL AND
<br />FEDERALLY AsSISTED AC'I'IVI'I'IES
<br />
<br />A. INTRODUCTION.
<br />
<br />With an ideally developed system of
<br />mult10bJectlve planning 111 which na-
<br />tional priorities and budget constraints
<br />were integrated with local and regional
<br />priorities, the approaches in the prin-
<br />ciples and standards would result 111 &.
<br />national program of the appropriate em-
<br />phasis and size. In the Ideally developed
<br />system, there would be no necessity for a
<br />second round where national priorities
<br />- and budget constraints are Imposed on
<br />plans developed according to other
<br />priorities.
<br />Since we are far from the Ideal mU1ti-
<br />objective system of planning, an interim
<br />approach is descrtbed. below. .
<br />Up to th1s point, these standards have
<br />been concerned with alternative plans
<br />for projects, states, regions, or river
<br />basins. The evaluation, systematic dis-
<br />pla.y, and comparison of alterna.tlve
<br />plans provide a.n indication of the priori-
<br />ties given the various objectives in select-
<br />ing a recommended plan whether for
<br />projects, States, regions, or river basins.
<br />Such plans include both Federal and
<br />non-Federal activities and are of concern
<br />to all levels of government.
<br />In formulating a national program of
<br />.Federal and federally assisted activities
<br />for water and land resources, national
<br />priorities must be. established among
<br />recommended project, State, region, or
<br />river basin plans. The system of accounts
<br />for beneficial and adverse effects for
<br />recommended plans, together with other
<br />criteria such as a.vailable budget re-
<br />sources, national policy toward the
<br />environmental quality, or regional
<br />development objectives, social effects,
<br />and publiC and private investment alter-
<br />natives, will provide infonnatlon needed.
<br />for formulating a national program.
<br />The Councll will develop and put into
<br />operation a national programing system
<br />. to support decisions as to long-range
<br />priorities for water and land resource
<br />-activities. While _the elements of such a
<br />system already exist in the member de-
<br />partments, what is needed is a common
<br />system to bring the information together
<br />and to insure that future field studies in
<br />multiobJective planning are consonant
<br />with the national system.
<br />It is essential that the planning process
<br />not only articulate the full range of
<br />choice avallable tor meeting any given
<br />
<br />level of needs, but that it also provide
<br />information which would be a b85ls for
<br />determining the order in which needs are
<br />to be fuIfllled. Criteria. for such selections
<br />should fiow- from the decisions made in
<br />regard to the priorIties assigned to the
<br />muItiobJectives. .
<br />Clearly, B choice exists as to which of
<br />the multlobJectives are to be emphasized..
<br />However, having assigned priorities to
<br />these respective objectives, .these dect-
<br />sions must then be related to tlie instru-
<br />ments available for policy implementa-
<br />tion-the most important being the an-
<br />nual budget within which national
<br />priori ties are reflected for all Federal
<br />and federally assisted activities.
<br />The appropriation of funds to imple-
<br />ment a. particular plan represents the
<br />termination of one planning cycle and
<br />the initiation of another. For this reason.
<br />priorities est81blished in the planning
<br />process may be reinforced or ~tered by
<br />subsequent budgeting decisions. Differ-
<br />ent types of priority decisions 'are re-
<br />quired 111 each level of pla.nn1ng. Priority
<br />decisions in fonnulating plans for proJ..
<br />ects are responsive to the kinds ~d
<br />quantities of project outputs exp~ted.
<br />In formulating plans for regions or river
<br />basins, priorities are established among
<br />alternil.tive courses of action. In fonnu-
<br />lating national programs, priorities may
<br />be assigned among the various river
<br />basin -plans which are in competition far
<br />the same limited funds.
<br />
<br />B. PRIORITIES Il'f PLAN FORMULATION
<br />
<br />Fonnulation of plans for projects can
<br />be viewed as the process of selecting spe-
<br />c1fic measures for meeting identified
<br />problems and needs. Since comblnattOIlB
<br />of 111d1vtduaI meBBures generate differ..;
<br />ent effects in a geographiC area. and since
<br />a multitude of such combtnations is pos-
<br />sible, formulation of plans for projects
<br />requires that priorities be established not
<br />only in regard to the objectives which are
<br />to be emphasized. in each alternative for-
<br />m11latJon, but also in regard to which of
<br />the alternative formulations are to be
<br />recommended. Therefore, it should be
<br />clear that priorities are necessarily 65-
<br />tabllsl1ed, either explicItly or lmplicitly.
<br />during the process of tonnulating proJ-
<br />ect plans.
<br />A plan for a region or river basin Is ..
<br />sequence of actions or measUres which
<br />upon implementation will result in meet..
<br />ing the problems Bnd needs far water a.nd
<br />land resource development. The project
<br />
<br />FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 36, NO. NS-TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1971
<br />
<br />$I4B
<br />
<br />'100
<br />
|