Step 6: Plan Selection

1. US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Step 6: Plan Selection Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR Planning for Ecosystem Restoration PROSPECT 2010

2. Specify Problems & Opportunities Corps Planning Process: Six Steps Inventory & Forecast Conditions Formulate Alternative Plans Evaluate Effects of Alternative Plans Compare Alternative Plans Select Recommended Plan

3. Learning Objectives • To describe possible plans that may be recommended • To explain what is meant by the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan • To explain the criteria and considerations used to designate the NER Plan and Recommended Plan

4. References • Planning Guidance Notebook (ER 1105-2-100) - April 2000 • Chapter 2, Planning Principles • Appendix E, Civil Works Missions & Evaluation Procedures • Planning Manual (IWR Report 96-R-21) • Chapter 11 • Collaborative Planning (EC 1105-2-409)

5. Selection • Screening is an iterative activity based on criteria • Selection of a recommended plan is the final screening activity • Different selection criteria will give you different recommendations • Plans don’t go away; they’re just not selected

6. General • Single alternative selected & recommended from all those considered • “No Action” is the default recommendation • Why is recommended plan preferable to No Action or any other alternative? • “Telling your story” • P&G: display sufficient number of alternatives; include mitigation; identify R&U

7. Possible Plans to Recommend • No Action • National Economic Development (NED) • National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) • Multipurpose Plan formerly “Combined NED/NER Plan” • National Interest Plan – reflect full range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, EQ, and OSE • Locally Preferred Plan

8. NED Plan • For all project purposes other than ecosystem restoration • Reasonably maximizes net national economic benefits (consistent w/ protecting environment) • Recommend NED, unless ASA(CW) grants exception • locally preferred plan smaller than NED • LPP larger but sponsor pays difference

9. NER Plan • For ecosystem restoration projects • Reasonably maximizes net ecosystem benefits compared to costs • Must be cost effective • Desired level of incremental output must be justified • Is it “worth” it?

10. Plan Selection – NER Benefits OnlyRULE: Reasonably maximize ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs

11. NER Plan – Incremental Cost Display NER Plan = Is it Worth it? C B A

12. CEA/ ICA Results Decision Making Guidelines Is it worth it?

13. Is it worth it? Decision making guidelines: • output target • output thresholds • cost limit • breakpoints • unintended effects • does it make sense?

14. NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Targets Output target ? C B A

15. NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Thresholds Maximum Minimum C B A

16. NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines – Cost Limits C Cost limit B A

17. NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Breakpoints Breakpoint C B A

18. Intended and Unintended Effects C B A

19. Does it make sense? Red facetest test “Idiot” test Laugh

20. NER Plan - Additional Considerations • Meets planning objectives & constraints • Passes criteria: • significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency • Ecosystem context • Restores structure, function, dynamic processes • Reasonableness of costs • In most cases, should be “best buy” plan • ER 1105-2-100 (E-41 c.): Rarely will the NER plan not be among the “best buys”

21. NER Plan - Additional Considerations: Risk and Uncertainty • Required analysis • Often poorly done or missing • Report should address differences in: • Risk and uncertainty of the alternatives (strive to minimize R&U) • Potential for failure • Certainty of outcome • Potential for Adaptive Management

22. NER Plan - Additional Considerations • Partnership context • Cooperative projects have higher priority • Regional or national interagency programs • Policy Issues • Terrestrial vs Aquatic • Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs) • Should not require mitigation • Recreation may not diminish ecosystem output (cannot increase costs >10%)

23. Budget ECConsiderations • While not direct role in selection, affects eventual ability to advance project; these criteria change over time • Scarcity • Connectivity • Special Status Species (provides significant contribution to key life requisite of special status species) • Hydrologic character (restoration of natural hydrology) • Geomorphic condition (restoration of natural geomorphic processes: erosion, sediment transport, deposition) • Plan Recognition (contributes to watershed or basin plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan”) • Self-Sustaining / Sustainability • Cost per Acre

24. Sustainability • What is the sustainability of the plan? • Does it work with natural river / aquatic processes? • Can it be sustained in current setting? • Is the project working to address key issues associated with sustainability (dredging & sediment reduction)? • What are O&M requirements?

25. Multipurpose Plan“Combined NED/NER Plan” • For projects with NED & ecosystem restoration benefits • No alternative has higher excess NED benefits plus NER benefits over total project costs • Maximize sum of net NED & NER benefits • “Best” balance between objectives • Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off analysis

26. National Interest (Balanced) Plan – reflect full range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, EQ, and OSE • NED – National Economic Development • (FDR, Water Supply, Recreation, etc.) • RED - Regional Economic Development • (construction, employment, etc.) • OSE – Other Social Effects • (effects on tax base, etc.) • EQ – Environmental Quality • (ecosystem, water quality, cultural resources, etc.)

27. Locally Preferred Plan • May deviate from NED & NER if requested by non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW) • When LPP smaller, usually approved • Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to participate • Must have > net benefits than smaller plans • Sufficient number of alternatives analyzed • ID tradeoffs & opportunities foregone • Complies w/ laws & policies • When LPP larger, may be approved • Sponsor pays difference • NED/NER does not meet local objectives • Outputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed plan • Complies w/ laws & policies

28. Systematic Formulation and Plan Selection Options • Formulate small plan that makes sense • Add justified increments • If Sponsor constraint: Stop. • Select LPP  NED / NER / Balanced Plan • If no Sponsor constraint: Maximize net benefits. • Select NED / NER / Balanced Plan • If NED / NER / Balanced Plan does not meet objectives: Add Unjustified Increments. • Select LPP > NED / NER / Balanced Plan

29. NER Example #1: Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration

30. Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration • Planning objectives: • Overall, restoration of the Elizabeth River’s aquatic & wetlands ecosystems • Specifically: • Wetlands restoration • Sediment quality restoration

31. Wetlands & Sediment Sites Somme Avenue Sugar Hill Crawford Bay

32. Wetlands Loss: > 50% since 1944

33. Sediments Clean-Up Outputs • Reduced Sediment Toxicity • Improved Bottom Community Health and Diversity • Reduced Fish Cancers • Improved Sediment Quality

34. CE/ICA Results for Elizabeth River A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock Pk B = Carolanne Farms H = Lancelot Dr C = Somme Ave I = Grandy Village D = Scuffletown J = ODU Drainage E = NW Jordan Br K = Prtsmth City Pk F = Crawford Bay +C +A +K +H +G +D +J +I +B +F E Breakpoint

35. Second Best Buy Plan: 0.4 Mean ERM Quotient Total Cost: $890,000 Total Score: 10.29 Incr. Cost: $476,200 Incr. Score: 2.45 Incr. Cost/ Unit: $194,367 First Best Buy Plan: 0.6 Mean ERM Quotient Total Cost: $413,800 Total Score: 7.84 Incr. Cost: $413,800 Incr. Score: 7.84 Incr. Cost/ Unit: $52,781 CE/ICA Results for Elizabeth River Breakpoint

36. National Ecosystem Restoration Plan • Wetlands: • 9 of 11 candidate restoration sites (ranked sites up to & including Portsmouth City Park) - 19.5 acres • Cost effective, 9th best buy plan • On functional score, sharp breakpoint after P. City Park • On HEP score, breakpoint before P. City Park • Include P. City Park: only site on Western Branch (completeness), complements city’s plan for site, public access & educational value (acceptability) • Sediment Restoration: • Medium level clean-up (0.6 SQV) • Cost effective, 1st best buy plan - lowest cost per unit of clean-up benefit of any alternative • Sharp breakpoint after medium (0.6 SQV) level • Substantial benefits include reduced toxicity & contamination, improved benthos & aquatic resources

37. NER Plan - Additional Decision Criteria • Significance - Ches. Bay Agreement - Region of Concern, priority urban area; LOC’s Local Legacies program; Eliz. River Project - Watershed Action Plan to restore river • Scarcity - historic wetlands loss, few “available” sites; toxic sediments - scarcity of aquatic life: low diversity, biomass, high cancer rates • Acceptability - ERP, Watershed Action Team: clean-up & wetlands #1 & #2 critical areas • Non-Federal sponsors - all 4 juris., VA, ERP • Effectiveness - addresses 2 greatest problems, large geographic area, interconnected to natural system • Efficiency - passes tests of CE/ICA

38. NER Example #2: Indian River Lagoon – South Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Project

39. Problems: Water Quality

40. Problems: Water Quantity …too little …too much

41. Problems: Timing & Hydroperiod Wrong timing & distribution of flows Ditched and drained wetland systems

42. IRL-S Objectives & Constraints • Restore Ecological Values: • Re-establish a natural pattern of freshwater flows to the St Lucie Estuary (SLE) & Indian River Lagoon (IRL) • Improve water quality in the SLE and IRL • Improve habitat for estuarine biota • Increase spatial extent & functional quality of watershed wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic • Increase diversity & abundance of native plant & animal species, including threatened & endangered species • Improve Economic Values & Social Well-Being: • Increase water supply • Maintain existing flood protection • Improve opportunities for tourism, recreation, & environmental education • Improve commercial & recreational fisheries

43. Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary Index Breakpoint Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV habitat Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV habitat

44. Telling the Story: Rationale for IRL-S Alt 6 • Best meets planning objectives: • Restoration of estuarine aquatic ecosystem (> all other alts) • Increased spatial extent of watershed wetlands & uplands (secondary objective) • Reasonably maximizes ecosystem output while passing tests of: • Cost effectiveness • (Best Buy) Incremental Cost Analysis (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV) • Provides 95% outputs of largest alternative (Alt 4), yet costs $53.4 million less than Alt 4 • Lowest per unit costs of all alts in production of all outputs (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV) • Why include artificial habitat? • Low total cost of artificial habitat increment ($630k aaec) • “Jump-start” in benefits provides immediate results • Builds public support by demonstrating “restoration” quickly • Strong inter-agency/ stakeholder support

45. Who Selects the Plan? • “Bottom-up” process – project delivery team selects with input from partners • Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical PDT) review & agree or disagree • For continuing authorities, review & approval by Division • For congressionally authorized projects, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, Congress • Bottom line: planners advise; decision-makers decide; good internal and external communication key

46. Why Plans Don’t Succeed • Plan is flawed • wrong objectives; incomplete; bad assumptions • Circumstances change • priorities; policies; people; values • Never funded • lack of $; priorities • Implementation is blocked • decision-makers; interest groups; legal action Watch for the signs & take time to reevaluate!

47. Summary • No “NED-like” rule to select single NER plan • Rather, NER plan is designated as the plan that: • Best meets planning objectives & constraints • Reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits while passing tests of CE/ICA (“worth it?”) • Meets significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, & efficiency criteria + R&U