1. Cost Effectiveness/ Incremental Cost Analyses & Applications to Indian River Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project Leigh Skaggs, HQUSACE Planners’ Core Curriculum: Economic Analysis March 2009

2. Objectives What are Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) ? What are Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) ? Why are CE/ICA conducted in evaluating ecosystem restoration alternatives? Why are CE/ICA conducted in evaluating ecosystem restoration alternatives? How is CE/ICA performed & how was it done for Indian River Lagoon, FL Project? How is CE/ICA performed & how was it done for Indian River Lagoon, FL Project? What are some of the Nuances/ Issues/ Lessons from this project related to CE/ICA? What are some of the Nuances/ Issues/ Lessons from this project related to CE/ICA?

3. References ER 1105-2-100 ER 1105-2-100 –Chapters 2 & 3, Appendix E IWR Report 95-R-1 IWR Report 95-R-1 –“Procedures Manual: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses” IWR Report 94-PS-2 IWR Report 94-PS-2 –“Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY Steps” IWR Report 02-R-5 IWR Report 02-R-5 –“Lessons Learned from CE/ICA” Central & Southern Florida Project: Indian River Lagoon – South, Project Implementation Report (2004) Central & Southern Florida Project: Indian River Lagoon – South, Project Implementation Report (2004) “IWR Planning Suite User’s Guide” “IWR Planning Suite User’s Guide” –Draft IWR Report, Nov 2006 (www.iwr.usace.army. mil/)

4. Why do CEA/ICA? What are CEA/ICA?

5. Plan Comparison For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION: Environmental benefits not in $ Therefore no B/C Can still compare costs and benefits For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION: Environmental benefits not in $ Therefore no B/C Can still compare costs and benefits For TRADITIONAL PURPOSES: Compare costs and benefits Traditional benefits measured in $ For TRADITIONAL PURPOSES: Compare costs and benefits Traditional benefits measured in $ BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs $ OUTPUT$ OUTPUT

6. BenefitCostAnalysis CostEffectivenessAnalysisIncrementalCostAnalysis Increased Information for Decision Making Increased Information for Decision Making CostObliviousDecisionMaking

7. Plan Comparison

8. CEACEA

9. CEACEA

10. ICAICA

11. ICAICA

12. CEA/ICA are NOT... NOT (a substitute for the) planning process NOT (a substitute for the) planning process NOT measurement technique NOT measurement technique NOT way to minimize requirements NOT way to minimize requirements NOT in addition to, but instead of... NOT in addition to, but instead of... NO single right way NO single right way NO single right answer NO single right answer NOT (a substitute for the) planning process NOT (a substitute for the) planning process NOT measurement technique NOT measurement technique NOT way to minimize requirements NOT way to minimize requirements NOT in addition to, but instead of... NOT in addition to, but instead of... NO single right way NO single right way NO single right answer NO single right answer

13. Who does CEA/ICA? Interdisciplinary Team Plan formulator Plan formulator Biologist Biologist Economist Economist Cost estimator Cost estimator Engineer Engineer Decision maker Decision maker ALSO, Multi-stakeholder ALSO, Multi-stakeholder Plan formulator Plan formulator Biologist Biologist Economist Economist Cost estimator Cost estimator Engineer Engineer Decision maker Decision maker ALSO, Multi-stakeholder ALSO, Multi-stakeholder

14. How do you do CEA/ICA? Before you start, you need: Solutions Solutions Costs Costs Outputs Outputs Solutions Solutions Costs Costs Outputs Outputs

15. Solutions =

16. SolutionsSolutions Management measures Management measures –Examples: dredging, planting, reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, water diversions, substrate improvement, fencing, exotic removal Alternative plans Alternative plans –Fully-formulated alternatives Different sites Different sites Management measures Management measures –Examples: dredging, planting, reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, water diversions, substrate improvement, fencing, exotic removal Alternative plans Alternative plans –Fully-formulated alternatives Different sites Different sites

17. A1 D2H0S1 Plan Alternative Example Substrate Improvement = S Aquatic Plant Harvesting = H Dredging = D Aeration = A (Cubic Yards) 140,000 = D1 185,000 = D2 220,000 = D3 No Action = H0 21 Acres = H1 42 Acres = H2 63 Acres = H3 “Perform aeration, dredge 185,000 cubic yards of sediment, do no aquatic plant harvesting, and improve the substrate.” do no aquatic plant harvesting, and improve the substrate.” Improve Substrate = S1 Perform Aeration = A1 Plan alternative broken down: Perform Aeration is A1 Dredge 185,000 Cubic Yards is D2 Do not harvest (No Action) is H0 Improve Substrate is S1 No Action No Aeration = A0 No Dredging = D0 No Harvesting = H0 No Substrate = S0

18. Solutions Incur Costs

19. Cost Components Implementation costs Implementation costs –construction –operation & maintenance –monitoring –LERRD Annualized Annualized Implementation costs Implementation costs –construction –operation & maintenance –monitoring –LERRD Annualized Annualized

20. Solutions Produce Output

21. Environmental Outputs No universal environmental output No universal environmental output Increases in ecosystem value & productivity, quantity & quality Increases in ecosystem value & productivity, quantity & quality Traditional outputs Traditional outputs –physical dimensions ( acres of spawning habitat, stream miles restored) –population counts ( number of breeding birds, increases in target species) –“habitat units” & similar –diversity indices, e.g., IBI Annualized Annualized No universal environmental output No universal environmental output Increases in ecosystem value & productivity, quantity & quality Increases in ecosystem value & productivity, quantity & quality Traditional outputs Traditional outputs –physical dimensions ( acres of spawning habitat, stream miles restored) –population counts ( number of breeding birds, increases in target species) –“habitat units” & similar –diversity indices, e.g., IBI Annualized Annualized

22. Environmental Outputs (cont’d) Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat units Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat units Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary” Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary” Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI) Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat units Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat units Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary” Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary” Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI)

23. Sample Results: Average Annual Wetlands HU’s

24. Solutions, Costs and Outputs CEA/ICA … Bringing it all together COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

25. Step-by-step process: Plan formulation Plan formulation Cost effectiveness analysis Cost effectiveness analysis Incremental cost analysis Incremental cost analysis Decision making Decision making Plan formulation Plan formulation Cost effectiveness analysis Cost effectiveness analysis Incremental cost analysis Incremental cost analysis Decision making Decision making

26. Cost Effectiveness Student Exercise Part 1

27. Cost Effectiveness 1. No other plan provides the same output for less cost OR 2. No other plan provides a higher output level for the same or less cost

28. Cost Effective Plans Higher Cost Same Output

29. Cost Effective Plans Same Cost Higher Output

30. Cost Effective Plans Same Cost Higher Output

31. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 n Increasing Output, Increasing Costs

32. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14

33. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14

34. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14 4A1D10.5315.829.81

35. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14 4A1D10.5315.829.81 5C10.5421.439.63

36. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14 4A1D10.5315.829.81 5C10.5421.439.63 6J10.5612.321.96

37. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs ($1000) Average Cost 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 2A10.259.638.4 3D10.286.2022.14 4A1D10.5315.829.81 5C10.5421.439.63 6J10.5612.321.96

38. AnswersAnswers

39. Incremental Cost Analysis Student Exercise Part 2

40. Incremental Cost Analysis Completed only on the cost effective set of plans Completed only on the cost effective set of plans (Change In Cost)/ (Change in Output) as you move to successively larger cost effective plans (Change In Cost)/ (Change in Output) as you move to successively larger cost effective plans

41. Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis Definitions Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness –Conducted to ensure that the least cost alternative is identified for each possible level of output Incremental Cost Analysis Incremental Cost Analysis –Reveals changes in costs as output levels increase –Allows an assessment of whether the increase in output is worth the additional cost

42. Incremental Cost & Output Incremental Cost Incremental Cost –The difference in total cost between 2 alternatives –(Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs) –Example: ($6,200 - 0) = $6,200 Incremental Output Incremental Output –The difference in output between 2 alternatives expressed in the output unit of measurement –(Plan 3 Output - Plan 1 Output) –Example: (0.28 – 0) = 0.28

43. Incremental Cost per Unit Examining the change in cost and output across alternatives Examining the change in cost and output across alternatives (Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs) / (Plan 3 AAHU - Plan 1 AAHU) (Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs) / (Plan 3 AAHU - Plan 1 AAHU) Example: ($6,200 - 0) / (0.28 - 0) = $6,200/0.28 = $22,143 per AAHU Example: ($6,200 - 0) / (0.28 - 0) = $6,200/0.28 = $22,143 per AAHU

44. Best Buy Plans: Subset of cost effective plans Subset of cost effective plans Most efficient in production Most efficient in production Greatest increase in output for least increase in cost Greatest increase in output for least increase in cost Lowest incremental costs per unit of output Lowest incremental costs per unit of output Subset of cost effective plans Subset of cost effective plans Most efficient in production Most efficient in production Greatest increase in output for least increase in cost Greatest increase in output for least increase in cost Lowest incremental costs per unit of output Lowest incremental costs per unit of output

45. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs $1000 Incremental Cost per output 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 3D10.286.222.14 n [ (6.2-0.00) / (0.28-0.00) ] = 22.14

46. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs $1000 Incremental Cost per output 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 3D10.286.222.14 6J1.5612.321.96 n [ (12.3-0.00) / (0.56-0.00) ] = 21.96

47. Plan Name Habitat Score Costs $1000 Incremental Cost per output 1 No Action 0.000.000.00 3D10.286.222.14 6J10.5612.321.96 11D1J10.8414.717.5 n [ (14.7-0.00) / (0.84-0.00) ] = 17.5

48. Best Buy Plans 1 st Best Buy Plan 1 st Best Buy Plan –Complete calculations between NO ACTION and all subsequent plans –Lowest incremental cost is 1 st Best Buy 2 nd Best Buy Plan 2 nd Best Buy Plan –Complete calculations between 1 st Best Buy and all subsequent plans –Lowest incremental cost is 2 nd Best Buy Likewise until all Best Buy Plans are identified Likewise until all Best Buy Plans are identified

49. AnswersAnswers

50. CE/ICA Applied to Indian River Lagoon – South Ecosystem Restoration Project Study Area Martin Co. St. Lucie Co. Small part of Okeechobee Co.

51. Indian River Lagoon – South Area Map

52. The Plan Flow Current Flow Historic Flow Water Flow Patterns in Central & South Florida

53. IRL-S Problems & Opportunities Ecological: Ecological: Declining fisheries resources, fish kills & lesions Declining fisheries resources, fish kills & lesions Accumulation of unconsolidated sediments (muck) Accumulation of unconsolidated sediments (muck) Extensive & frequent algae blooms Extensive & frequent algae blooms Decline of submerged aquatic veg (SAV), oyster reefs Decline of submerged aquatic veg (SAV), oyster reefs Decline in spatial extent & functional quality of watershed wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic Decline in spatial extent & functional quality of watershed wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic Water Quality: Water Quality: High freshwater discharges disrupting salinity regime High freshwater discharges disrupting salinity regime Pattern/location of freshwater discharges Pattern/location of freshwater discharges Eutrophication (excessive P & inorganic N) Eutrophication (excessive P & inorganic N) Economic & Social Well-Being: Economic & Social Well-Being: Irrigation demand Irrigation demand Resource-based recreation & tourism Resource-based recreation & tourism Commercial & recreational fisheries Commercial & recreational fisheries

54. Problems: Water Quality

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

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

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

58. Development of Alternative Plans Potential features/components: Potential features/components: Reservoirs for above ground storage of freshwater runoff Reservoirs for above ground storage of freshwater runoff Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) for water quality treatment of captured flows Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) for water quality treatment of captured flows Restoration of historic native upland/ wetland habitat Restoration of historic native upland/ wetland habitat Natural areas for storage of freshwater runoff Natural areas for storage of freshwater runoff Natural areas for water quality treatment Natural areas for water quality treatment Enhanced estuarine habitats utilizing artificial habitat methods Enhanced estuarine habitats utilizing artificial habitat methods Muck remediation in the SLR & SLE Muck remediation in the SLR & SLE Hydrologic diversions within the watershed to mimic historic/ natural flow patterns Hydrologic diversions within the watershed to mimic historic/ natural flow patterns Enhance estuarine health through restoration of North Fork of the SLR Enhance estuarine health through restoration of North Fork of the SLR

59. Indian River Lagoon – South Alternative 6

60. IRL-S Outputs: Issues & Lessons Issue: How to evaluate alternatives on multiple performance measures, multiple outputs? Issue: How to evaluate alternatives on multiple performance measures, multiple outputs? Strategy: Linked habitat unit indices to performance measure achievement, conducted multiple analyses, developed combined metrics, weighted “primary” output Strategy: Linked habitat unit indices to performance measure achievement, conducted multiple analyses, developed combined metrics, weighted “primary” output Lesson: Importance of output metric in portraying results (CE/ICA) & justifying plan selection Lesson: Importance of output metric in portraying results (CE/ICA) & justifying plan selection

61. IRL-S Outputs Used for CE/ICA  For each alternative, –Average annual outputs: Oyster habitat units Oyster habitat units Benthic habitat units Benthic habitat units SAV habitat units SAV habitat units Wetlands requiring 100% restoration habitat units Wetlands requiring 100% restoration habitat units Wetlands requiring 50% restoration habitat units Wetlands requiring 50% restoration habitat units Uplands habitat units Uplands habitat units Combined estuary habitat units Combined estuary habitat units Combined watershed habitat units Combined watershed habitat units Estuary & watershed combined index (normalized) Estuary & watershed combined index (normalized) Estuary & watershed combined index (normalized & estuary given four times the weight) Estuary & watershed combined index (normalized & estuary given four times the weight)

62. Average Annual Habitat Unit Calculations Required. HU’s estimated for existing condition (2003), first year of project operation (2011), future with- & without- project condition (2050), & all intervening years Required. HU’s estimated for existing condition (2003), first year of project operation (2011), future with- & without- project condition (2050), & all intervening years Differences between with & without summed for all years, then divided by # years to yield “average annual value” Differences between with & without summed for all years, then divided by # years to yield “average annual value” Different assumptions for each resource regarding w/o project conditions, ecological response rates, effects of Lake O damaging discharges, effects of other CERP projects (“interim benefits”), etc. Different assumptions for each resource regarding w/o project conditions, ecological response rates, effects of Lake O damaging discharges, effects of other CERP projects (“interim benefits”), etc.

63. Example of IRL-S Outputs: Average Annual Oyster HU’s

64. IRL-S Costs & Outputs Used for CE/ICA

65. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Combined Estuary HU’s Alt 4 Alt 3 Alt 5 Alt 6 w/ artificial Oyster & SAV (best buy) Alt 2 Alt 7a (best buy) Alt 7b Alt 7

66. CEA: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output – Total Estuary Habitat Units

67. ICA: Cost Effective & Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output – Total Estuary Habitat Units AlternativeAverage Annual Cost ($1000) OutputAverage Cost Per Output ($1000) Incremental Average Annual Cost ($1000) Incremental Output Incremental Cost Per Output ($1000) Best Buy? Without Plan $00N/A Alternative 2 $30,5941,024$29.88$30,5941,024$29.88 Alternative 7a $64,5014,045$15.95$64,5014,045$15.951 st Best Buy Alternative 6 w/ artificial SAV $76,3254,050$18.85$11,8245$2,364.80 Alternative 6 w/ artificial SAV & oyster $76,9554,053$18.99$12,4548$1,556.752 nd Best Buy

68. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary (Weighted) Index Alt 4 (Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV & w/ artificial oyster & SAV are Best Buys) Alt 3 Alt 5 Alt 2 Alt 7a Alt 7b Alt 7 Alt 6 ( Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV is a Best Buy)

69. Cost Effective Plans: Combined Watershed & Estuary (Weighted) Index Alt 7a Alt 7b Alt 6’s Alt 4’s Note: In addition to Alts 6 & 4, those same alternatives w/ SAV artificial habitat & w/ both oyster & SAV artificial habitat are also cost effective, but the symbols overlap on this figure and are difficult to distinguish. Alt 2

70. Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary (Weighted) Index Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV habitat Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV habitat

71. Summary of CE/ICA Results Output Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 w/ SAV Alt 6 w/ oyster & SAV Alt 7a Alt 7b Total Estuary Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Total Watershed Cost Effect & Best Buy Combined Index Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Combined Weighted Index Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Cost Effect

72. Telling the Story: Rationale for Alt 6 Best meets planning objectives: 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: 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 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) Lowest per unit costs of all alts in production of all outputs (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV) Why include artificial habitat? (NOT supported by ASA) Why include artificial habitat? (NOT supported by ASA) –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

73. Indian River Lagoon – South Project Selected Plan Features Water Storage & Water Quality Treatment 4 surface storage reservoirs - 135,000 acre-feet 4 surface storage reservoirs - 135,000 acre-feet 4 STA’s - 35,000 acre-feet 4 STA’s - 35,000 acre-feet 3 natural storage areas - 30,000 acre-feet 3 natural storage areas - 30,000 acre-feet Upland & Wetland Habitat Improvement 3 restored natural areas - 92,000 acres 3 restored natural areas - 92,000 acres Floodplain restoration - 3,100 acres Floodplain restoration - 3,100 acres Estuarine Habitat Improvement 7.9 million cubic yards of muck removal 7.9 million cubic yards of muck removal

74. Indian River Lagoon – South Initial Project Costs (Oct 2003 price levels) Indian River Lagoon – South Initial Project Costs (Oct 2003 price levels) Project Feature Construction Cost Real Estate Cost Total Reservoirs + STA’s $329,756,000$291,293,000$621,049,000 Natural Storage Areas $82,322,000$385,952,000$468,274,000 Muck remediation, artificial habitat, floodplain restoration $83,353,000$21,692,000$105,045,000 Monitoring (construction) $12,620,000$12,620,000 Total (Including PMP cost of $300,000) $508,352,000$698,937,000$1,207,289,000

75. VERSION 3.33 VERSION 3.33

76. IWR-Planning Suite Software version of CE/ICA procedures Automates tedious math Automates tedious math – Allows you to do more complicated analyses Tables & graphs as record of analyses Tables & graphs as record of analyses

77. IWR-Planning Suite Available on web Available on web Website: www.pmcl.com/iwrplan Website: www.pmcl.com/iwrplan – Instructions – Student tutorial – User’s Guide For on-line help, click on “?” For on-line help, click on “?”

78. IWR Planning Suite Basics IWR Planning Suite Basics Assists in plan formulation Assists in plan formulation Builds “all plan combinations” Builds “all plan combinations” 52 solutions, 20 scales each 52 solutions, 20 scales each Also, fully formulated alternatives Also, fully formulated alternatives Dependency & combinability relationships Dependency & combinability relationships No limit on number of variables, including: No limit on number of variables, including: Costs Costs 1 or more outputs 1 or more outputs Other “effects” Other “effects” “Derived” outputs (formulaic combinations of other variables) “Derived” outputs (formulaic combinations of other variables) Performs CE/ICAPerforms CE/ICA CEA: Cost effective plans CEA: Cost effective plans ICA: Best buy plans ICA: Best buy plans

79. IWR Planning Suite Features IWR Planning Suite Features Analytical Multiple planning sets Multiple planning sets Constraints Constraints Sensitivity – variable & solution Sensitivity – variable & solution Automated Editing – non-additive effects Automated Editing – non-additive effects Exclude solutions Exclude solutions Multi-planning set comparisons Multi-planning set comparisons “Plans of Interest” “Plans of Interest”Reporting Multiple display/ report options Multiple display/ report options Import/ Export options Import/ Export options

80. IWR Planning Suite Features IWR Planning Suite Features Comprised of modules: Plan Editor Plan Editor also “framework” for other modules also “framework” for other modules Plan Generator Plan Generator builds combinations builds combinations Plan Analysis Plan Analysis performs CE/ICA performs CE/ICA Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (forthcoming) Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (forthcoming) scores & ranks alternatives scores & ranks alternatives

81. ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000) Recommend the NER Plan Recommend the NER Plan “… justified alternative & scale having the maximum excess of monetary & non-monetary beneficial effects over monetary & non-monetary costs.” “… justified alternative & scale having the maximum excess of monetary & non-monetary beneficial effects over monetary & non-monetary costs.” “...occurs where the incremental beneficial effects just equal the incremental costs, or alternatively stated, where the extra environmental value is just worth the extra costs.” (App. E-28.e(1)) “...occurs where the incremental beneficial effects just equal the incremental costs, or alternatively stated, where the extra environmental value is just worth the extra costs.” (App. E-28.e(1))

82. Is it worth it?

83. Significance of Ecosystem Outputs Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputs Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputs Who or what says the resource is significant? Who or what says the resource is significant? –Institutional –Public –Technical Important info in “telling your story” Important info in “telling your story” Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputs Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputs Who or what says the resource is significant? Who or what says the resource is significant? –Institutional –Public –Technical Important info in “telling your story” Important info in “telling your story”

84. More on Technical Recognition of Significance Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding: Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding: –Scarcity - relative abundance, rareness –Representativeness - exemplifies natural, undisturbed habitat –Status & trends - occurrence & extent over time, how & why changed –Connectivity - habitat corridors, fragmentation, barriers –Limiting Habitat - essential to species survival –Biodiversity - species richness, genetic variability Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding: Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding: –Scarcity - relative abundance, rareness –Representativeness - exemplifies natural, undisturbed habitat –Status & trends - occurrence & extent over time, how & why changed –Connectivity - habitat corridors, fragmentation, barriers –Limiting Habitat - essential to species survival –Biodiversity - species richness, genetic variability

85. FY 2008 Budgetary Significance Criteria Scarcity Scarcity Connectivity Connectivity Special Status Species Special Status Species –Provides significant contribution to key life requisite of special status species Plan Recognition Plan Recognition –Contributes to watershed or basin plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan” Self-sustaining Self-sustaining –Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem consisting of natural processes Scarcity Scarcity Connectivity Connectivity Special Status Species Special Status Species –Provides significant contribution to key life requisite of special status species Plan Recognition Plan Recognition –Contributes to watershed or basin plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan” Self-sustaining Self-sustaining –Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem consisting of natural processes

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

87. Decision making guidelines: output target output target output thresholds output thresholds cost limit cost limit breakpoints breakpoints unintended effects unintended effects does it make sense? does it make sense?

88. A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock Pk B = Carolanne FarmsH = Lancelot Dr C = Somme Ave I = Grandy Village D = ScuffletownJ = ODU Drainage E = NW Jordan BrK = Prtsmth City Pk F = Crawford Bay E +I+B+F +J +D +G +H +K +A +C Output Target TargetTarget

89. A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock Pk B = Carolanne FarmsH = Lancelot Dr C = Somme Ave I = Grandy Village D = ScuffletownJ = ODU Drainage E = NW Jordan BrK = Prtsmth City Pk F = Crawford Bay E +I+B+F +J +D +G +H +K +A +C Output Thresholds Minimum Maximum

90. Total Cost Limit Cost Limit

91. A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock Pk B = Carolanne FarmsH = Lancelot Dr C = Somme Ave I = Grandy Village D = ScuffletownJ = ODU Drainage E = NW Jordan BrK = Prtsmth City Pk F = Crawford Bay E +I+B+F +J +D +G +H +K +A +C BreakpointsBreakpointBreakpoint

92. Intended and Unintended Effects A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock Pk B = Carolanne FarmsH = Lancelot Dr C = Somme Ave I = Grandy Village D = ScuffletownJ = ODU Drainage E = NW Jordan BrK = Prtsmth City Pk F = Crawford Bay E +I+B+F +J +D +G +H +K +A +C

93. Does it make sense? Red face test test test “Idiot” test

94. ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000) “Selecting the NER plan requires careful consideration of the plan that meets planning objectives and constraints and reasonably maximizes environmental benefits while passing tests of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, significance of outputs, acceptability, completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness.” (Appendix E, E-41) “Selecting the NER plan requires careful consideration of the plan that meets planning objectives and constraints and reasonably maximizes environmental benefits while passing tests of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, significance of outputs, acceptability, completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness.” (Appendix E, E-41)

95. ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000) Additional factors to consider: Additional factors to consider: –Partnership context higher priority to those projects planned in cooperation with other Federal resource agencies & regional & national interagency programs higher priority to those projects planned in cooperation with other Federal resource agencies & regional & national interagency programs –Reasonableness of costs decision-maker ascertains that the benefits are really worth the costs decision-maker ascertains that the benefits are really worth the costs –Rarely will the NER plan not be among the best buy plans (App. E, E-41)

96. Applicability Restoration and mitigationRestoration and mitigation All scopes of problemsAll scopes of problems All types of resourcesAll types of resources –HU’s, acres, river miles, IBI, water quality parameters All scales of projectsAll scales of projects All phases of workAll phases of work Many agencies and interestsMany agencies and interests

97. Challenges K.I.S.S. - don’t go too fast too soon K.I.S.S. - don’t go too fast too soon Set-up - getting started Set-up - getting started Commensuration Commensuration –Multiple metrics

98. Benefits Flexibility - - Handles various resources & approaches - - From simple to complex Rational, equitable approach Saves time Saves costs - Greatest “bang for the buck” Allows you to focus on what’s important It’s easy More informed decisions!

99. Visit IWR’s Homepage www.iwr.usace.army.mil

100. Visit the IWR-PLAN Homepage www.pmcl/com/iwrplan

101. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS Questions?

102. Truckee Meadows Flood Control Project, NV CE/ICA Applied to Fish Passage Component Leigh Skaggs, CEIWR-GW

103. Study Area Overall Study Project Manager: Chan Modini, SPK Planning Technical Lead: Jerry Fuentes, SPK Environmental Technical Lead: Dan Artho, SPK Fish Passage Component Environmental Benefits Assessment: ERDC Formulation: SPK, ERDC & IWR CE/ICA: IWR

104. Truckee Fish Passage Component Latecomer to project Latecomer to project Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe approached ASA(CW): “We don’t want additional flood flows on our lands.” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe approached ASA(CW): “We don’t want additional flood flows on our lands.” 1990 Corps study investigated improving fish passage on Truckee River – but Tribe could not afford to cost-share 1990 Corps study investigated improving fish passage on Truckee River – but Tribe could not afford to cost-share Now opportunity to pressure Washoe County to cost-share Now opportunity to pressure Washoe County to cost-share Tribe a big player in watershed & has good case against BOR & cities Tribe a big player in watershed & has good case against BOR & cities –BOR Newlands project (1903, BOR’s first!) diverted up to ½ Truckee flow to Carson River; Pyramid Lake dropped 80’ by 1960; results: head-cutting, channel incision, disconnected river from floodplain, riparian vegetation disappeared –Effluent from Reno/Sparks wastewater treatment degrades WQ –Lake has a great fishery (historically) –threatened by declining WQ –Pyramid Lake is greatest source of income for Tribe – economically dependent on Lake resource OASA(CW): Examine fish passage opportunities in FCP OASA(CW): Examine fish passage opportunities in FCP

105. Truckee Fish Passage Plan Formulation Collaboration between SPK, ERDC & IWR Collaboration between SPK, ERDC & IWR For Upstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Upstream” For Upstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Upstream” For Downstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Downstream” For Downstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Downstream” For Combinations of Upstream & Downstream Alternatives, see next slide For Combinations of Upstream & Downstream Alternatives, see next slide Note: IWR Planning Suite was not used for formulation. Although it can handle dependencies between sites, it could not handle the calculation of benefits for > 200,000 combinations (because benefits at each site dependent on whether or not other sites implemented). Note: IWR Planning Suite was not used for formulation. Although it can handle dependencies between sites, it could not handle the calculation of benefits for > 200,000 combinations (because benefits at each site dependent on whether or not other sites implemented). Rational combinations of upstream & downstream sites were formulated Rational combinations of upstream & downstream sites were formulated

106. 45 Combinations of Upstream & Downstream Alternative Plans Considered: Upstream Plan Downstream plan FWOP-UMaxBenefit-UERDC1-UERDC2-UERDC3-U FWOP-DPlan1Plan10Plan19Plan28Plan37 MaxBenefit-DPlan2Plan11Plan20Plan29Plan38 ERDC1-DPlan3Plan12Plan21Plan30Plan39 ERDC2-DPlan4Plan13Plan22Plan31Plan40 ERDC3-DPlan5Plan14Plan23Plan32Plan41 ERDC4-DPlan6Plan15Plan24Plan33Plan42 ERDC5-DPlan7Plan16Plan25Plan34Plan43 ERDC6-DPlan8Plan17Plan26Plan35Plan44 ERDC7-DPlan9Plan18Plan27Plan36Plan45

107. Benefits/Outputs For explanation of how upstream & downstream benefits were calculated, see Conyngham et al. 2008, “Truckee River Fish Passage: Environmental Benefits Analysis” For explanation of how upstream & downstream benefits were calculated, see Conyngham et al. 2008, “Truckee River Fish Passage: Environmental Benefits Analysis” –Upstream & downstream benefits/outputs were calculated differently & used different metrics; therefore could not be combined to assess “total benefits” without normalizing each category For CE/ICA analysis, both upstream & downstream benefits were normalized on a percent of maximum basis, 0 -1 scale (0=no output, 1=maximum output of any alternative) For CE/ICA analysis, both upstream & downstream benefits were normalized on a percent of maximum basis, 0 -1 scale (0=no output, 1=maximum output of any alternative) –Therefore, max output possible for any alternative for both upstream & downstream output = 2 3 scenarios/predictions of outputs estimated: average (expected outcome), minimum (worst case) & maximum (best case) 3 scenarios/predictions of outputs estimated: average (expected outcome), minimum (worst case) & maximum (best case) –Reason for 3 scenarios is to conduct sensitivity analysis & address uncertainties regarding output predictions

108. Plan 44 Plan 39 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 38 = Plan 39 (except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all u/d) + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc. Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 37

109. Plan 39 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 37 Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 38 = Plan 39 (except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all u/d) + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc.

110. Plan 39 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (u/d) + S-S (pump) (u/d) +Fellnagle (u/d) + Herman (u/d) Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 38 = Plan 39 (except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all u/d) + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc.

111. Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstrea m Output (Avg) Avg Cost per unit Output Cost Effective ? No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes Plan 9 FWOP up + ERDC 7 down $280,2240.13$2,155,569Yes Plan 5 FWOP up + ERDC 3 down $404,7670.18$2,248,706Yes Plan 8 FWOP up + ERDC 6 down $420,0740.23$1,826,409Yes Plan 4 FWOP up + ERDC 2 down $745,2130.38$1,961,087Yes Plan 7 FWOP up + ERDC 5 down $950,1950.43$2,209,756Yes Plan 37 ERDC 3 up + FWOP down $992,0030.86$1,153,492Yes Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7150.99$1,127,995Yes Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.09$1,152,812Yes Plan 35 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 6 down $1,406,7631.12$1,256,038Yes Plan 40 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 2 down $1,737,2161.25$1,389,773Yes Plan 43 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 5 down $1,786,6861.29$1,385,028Yes Plan 34 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 5 down $1,936,8841.32$1,467,336Yes Plan 39 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down $2,161,8741.52$1,422,286Yes Plan 30 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 1 down $2,302,8701.54$1,495,370Yes Plan 33 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 4 down $2,332,4491.55$1,504,806Yes Plan 21 ERDC 1 up + ERDC 1 down $2,633,8081.62$1,625,807Yes Plan 24 ERDC 1 up + ERDC 4 down $2,701,6521.63$1,657,455Yes Plan 38 ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down $2,944,5561.86$1,583,095Yes Plan 29 ERDC 2 up + Max Ben down $3,085,5521.89$1,632,567Yes Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6211.97$1,696,762Yes Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,9412.00$1,995,971Yes Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Average Output Estimate

112. Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Average Output Estimate Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstrea m Output (Avg) Avg Cost per Unit Output Best Buy? Increment al Cost Increme ntal Output Incremental Cost per Unit Output No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes00.00NA Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7150.99$1,127,995Yes$1,116,7150.99$1,127,995 Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.09$1,152,812Yes$139,8500.10$1,398,500 Plan 39 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down $2,161,8741.52$1,422,286Yes$905,3090.43$2,105,370 Plan 38 ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down $2,944,5561.86$1,583,095Yes$782,6820.34$2,302,006 Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6211.97$1,696,762Yes$398,0650.11$3,618,773 Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,9412.00$1,995,971Yes$649,3200.03$21,644,000

113. Plan 42 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 29 Plan 37 Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 42 = Plan 44 + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (d) + Fleisch (d only) Plan 38 = Plan 42 + Verdi (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 29 = Plan 38 except Washoe both up & down Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc.

114. Plan 42 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 37 Plan 29 Plan 43 Plan 8 Plan 8 = Numana (down only) + S-S (pump) (down only) + Fellnagle (down only) + Herman (down only) + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 43 = Plan 42 minus Washoe Plan 42 = Plan 44 + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (d) + Fleisch (d only) Plan 38 = Plan 42 + Verdi (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 29 = Plan 38 except Washoe both up & down Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc.

115. Plan 42 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 38 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 29 Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (u/d) + S-S (pump) (u/d) + Fellnagle (u/d) + Herman (u/d) Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 42 = Plan 44 + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (d) + Fleisch (d only) Plan 38 = Plan 42 + Verdi (d) + Steamboat (d only) Plan 29 = Plan 38 except Washoe both up & down Plan 20 = Plan 38 (except Washoe, Verdi, Steamboat & Fleisch all u/d) Plan 11 = Max plan: all sites, all u/d where possible, except the downstream only sites, such as Tracy, Cochran, etc.

116. Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstream Output (Avg) Avg Cost per unit Output Cost Effective ? No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes Plan 9 FWOP up + ERDC 7 down $280,2240.14$2,001,600Yes Plan 5 FWOP up + ERDC 3 down $404,7670.18$2,248,706Yes Plan 8 FWOP up + ERDC 6 down $420,0740.25$1,680,296Yes Plan 4 FWOP up + ERDC 2 down $745,2130.37$2,014,089Yes Plan 7 FWOP up + ERDC 5 down $950,1950.44$2,159,534Yes Plan 37 ERDC 3 up + FWOP down $992,0030.91$1,090,113Yes Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7151.06$1,053,505Yes Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.17$1,073,987Yes Plan 35 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 6 down $1,406,7631.18$1,192,172Yes Plan 40 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 2 down $1,737,2161.28$1,357,200Yes Plan 43 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 5 down $1,786,6861.35$1,323,471Yes Plan 34 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 5 down $1,936,8841.37$1,413,784Yes Plan 39 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down $2,161,8741.55$1,394,757Yes Plan 42 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 4 down $2,191,4531.58$1,386,996Yes Plan 33 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 4 down $2,332,4491.60$1,457,781Yes Plan 24 ERDC 1 up + ERDC 4 down $2,701,6521.62$1,667,686Yes Plan 38 ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down $2,944,5561.91$1,541,652Yes Plan 29 ERDC 2 up + Max Ben down $3,085,5521.93$1,598,732Yes Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6211.96$1,705,419Yes Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,9412.00$1,995,971Yes Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Minimum Output Estimate

117. Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstrea m Output (Avg) Avg Cost per Unit Output Best Buy? Incremental Cost Incremen tal Output Incremental Cost per Unit Output No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes00.00NA Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7151.06$1,053,505Yes$1,116,7151.06$1,053,505 Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.17$1,073,987Yes$139,8500.11$1,271,364 Plan 42 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 4 down $2,191,4531.58$1,386,996Yes$934,8880.41$2,280,215 Plan 38 ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down $2,944,5561.91$1,541,652Yes$753,1030.33$2,282,130 Plan 29 ERDC 2 up + Max Ben down $3,085,5521.93$1,598,732Yes$140,9960.02$7,049,800 Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6211.96$1,705,419Yes$257,0690.03$8,568,967 Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,9412.00$1,995,971Yes$649,3200.04$16,233,000 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Minimum Output Estimate

118. Plan 39 Plan 20 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 37 Plan 21 Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 21 = Plan 37 + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (up only) + Fleisch (u/d) Plan 20 = Plan 45 + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)

119. Plan 39 Plan 20 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 37 Plan 21 Plan 37 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up only) + S-S (pump) (up only) + Fellnagle (up only) + Herman (up only) Plan 45 = Plan 37 except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle & Herman all up & down Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 21 = Plan 37 + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (up only) + Fleisch (u/d) Plan 20 = Plan 45 + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)

120. Plan 39 Plan 20 Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (u/d) + S-S (pump) (u/d) + Fellnagle (u/d) + Herman (u/d) Plan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 39 = Plan 45 (except Numana, S-S, Fellnagle, Herman all up only) + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch down Plan 20 = Plan 45 + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)

121. Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstream Output (Avg) Avg Cost per unit Output Cost Effective ? No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes Plan 9 FWOP up + ERDC 7 down $280,2240.12$2,335,200Yes Plan 5 FWOP up + ERDC 3 down $404,7670.19$2,130,353Yes Plan 8 FWOP up + ERDC 6 down $420,0740.22$1,909,427Yes Plan 4 FWOP up + ERDC 2 down $745,2130.40$1,863,033Yes Plan 7 FWOP up + ERDC 5 down $950,1950.43$2,209,756Yes Plan 37 ERDC 3 up + FWOP down $992,0030.79$1,255,700Yes Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7150.91$1,227,159Yes Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.01$1,244,124Yes Plan 35 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 6 down $1,406,7631.04$1,352,657Yes Plan 37 ERDC 3 up + FWOP down $1,681,2931.12$1,501,154Yes Plan 40 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 2 down $1,737,2161.19$1,459,845Yes Plan 43 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 5 down $1,786,6861.22$1,464,497Yes Plan 34 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 5 down $1,936,8841.25$1,549,507Yes Plan 39 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down $2,161,8741.46$1,480,736Yes Plan 30 ERDC 2 up + ERDC 1 down $2,302,8701.49$1,545,550Yes Plan 21 ERDC 1 up + ERDC 1 down $2,633,8081.67$1,577,131Yes Plan 38 ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down $2,944,5561.79$1,645,003Yes Plan 29 ERDC 2 up + Max Ben down $3,085,5521.82$1,695,358Yes Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6212.00$1,671,311Yes Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Maximum Output Estimate

122. Alternative Name Alternative Description Cost (Avg Annual) Total Upstream + Downstream Output (Avg) Avg Cost per Unit Output Best Buy? Incremen tal Cost Increm ental Output Increment al Cost per Unit Output No Action Plan Future Without Project $00.00$0Yes00.00NA Plan 45 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down $1,116,7150.91$1,227,159Yes$1,116,7150.91$1,227,159 Plan 44 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down $1,256,5651.01$1,244,124Yes$139,8500.10$1,398,500 Plan 39 ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down $2,161,8741.46$1,480,736Yes$905,3090.45$2,011,798 Plan 20 ERDC 1 up + Max Ben down $3,342,6212.00$1,671,311Yes$1,180,7470.54$2,186,569 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Maximum Output Estimate

123. What does CE/ICA Tell Us? Plans 45, 44, and 20 are consistently Best Buy plans under 3 scenarios (avg, min, & max output) Plans 45, 44, and 20 are consistently Best Buy plans under 3 scenarios (avg, min, & max output) –Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up & down) + S-S (pump) (up & down) + Fellnagle (up & down) + Herman (up & down) –Plan 44 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) –Plan 20 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)

124. Fish Passage Alternatives Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Numana (up & down) + S-S (pump) (up & down) + Fellnagle (up & down) + Herman (up & down) Plan 44 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only) Plan 20 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d) Plan 45 Plan 44 Plan 20

125. What does CE/ICA Tell Us? –Plan 45 focuses on upstream & downstream passage below Derby Dam. It costs $20,275,700 (first costs) & provides about ½ the output of the largest, most expensive alternative (Plan 11, ~$65.3 million). It does so at less than 1/3 the cost. –Plan 44 delivers what Plan 45 does, plus provides additional downstream passage benefits at Tracy power plant & Orr. It costs $22,364,200 (first costs). It provides ~ 5% more output than Plan 45 for an additional ~$2.1 million. –Plan 20 is practically the “Cadillac” plan. It provides upstream & downstream benefits through the river. The only component it does not include is the fishway retrofit (BOR option) at Marble Bluff Dam. It costs $54,846,500 (first costs), providing about twice as much output as Plans 44 and 45, but at 2 ½ times the cost. The question is whether that additional benefit is “worth it,” considering the study planning objectives, the significance of the resources, completeness, acceptability, etc. –There are other reasonable Best Buy Plans, e.g., Plans 42, 39 & 38, but they were not Best Buys under all scenarios… –Tentatively selected plan is Plan 44. Benefits upstream fish passage near Pyramid Lake and downstream fish passage in middles reaches of river.