1. US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses Using IWR Planning Suite Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11

2. BUILDING STRONG ® Learning Objectives  To explain what are Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA)  To explain why CE/ICA are conducted in evaluating ecosystem restoration alternatives ► How can procedures be used in decision-making?  To explain how IWR Planning Suite software can be used to perform CE/ICA procedures  To demonstrate examples of CE/ICA from ecosystem restoration projects

3. BUILDING STRONG ® References  Planning Guidance (ER 1105-2-100) (www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp/) ► Chapters 2 & 3 ► Appendix E, Civil Works Missions & Evaluation Procedures  “Procedures Manual: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses” ► (IWR Report 95-R-1) (www.iwr.usace.army.mil/)  “Lessons Learned from CE/ICA” ► IWR Report 02-R-5 (www.iwr.usace.army. mil/)  “IWR Planning Suite User’s Guide” ► Draft IWR Report, Nov 2006 (www.iwr.usace.army. mil/)

4. BUILDING STRONG ® References (cont’d)  Indian River Lagoon – South Project Implementation Report ► Section 6 ► (Jacksonville District, March 2004) (www.evergladesplan.org)  Elizabeth River, Virginia Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report ► (Norfolk District, 2000) (www.cenao.usace.army.mil)

5. BUILDING STRONG ® Why do CEA/ICA? What are CEA/ICA?

6. BUILDING STRONG ® Why do CE/ICA? ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS n Environmental benefits not in $ n Therefore no B/C n Can still compare costs and benefits ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS n Environmental benefits not in $ n Therefore no B/C n Can still compare costs and benefits TRADITIONAL OUTPUTS  Compare costs and benefits  Traditional benefits measured in $ TRADITIONAL OUTPUTS  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

7. BUILDING STRONG ® BenefitCostAnalysis CostEffectivenessAnalysisIncrementalCostAnalysis Increased Information for Decision Making Increased Information for Decision Making CostObliviousDecisionMaking

8. BUILDING STRONG ® What are CE/ICA?

9. BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Comparison: CEA

10. BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Comparison: CEA

11. BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Comparison: ICA

12. BUILDING STRONG ® Results of Incremental Cost Analysis

13. BUILDING STRONG ® Why do CEA/ICA? To make more informed decisions… about good financial investments. To make more informed decisions… about good financial investments.

14. BUILDING STRONG ® CEA/ICA are NOT…

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

16. BUILDING STRONG ® CEA/ICA are...  Tools to inform environmental investment decision-making.

17. BUILDING STRONG ® Who does CEA/ICA?

18. BUILDING STRONG ® Interdisciplinary  Plan formulator  Biologist  Economist  Cost estimator  Real estate specialist  Decision maker  Other disciplines

19. BUILDING STRONG ® Multi-Stakeholder  Corps  Local sponsor  Local, State, and other Federal agencies  Interest groups  Others

20. BUILDING STRONG ® How do you do CEA/ICA?

21. BUILDING STRONG ® Before you start, you need:  Solutions  Costs  Outputs

22. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions =

23. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions  Management measures ► Examples: dredging, planting, harvesting, aerating, substrate improvement, fencing  Alternative plans ► Fully-formulated alternatives ► Different sites  Programs ► Examples: Louisiana coastal wetlands, Upper Mississippi River Env. Mgt. Plan

24. BUILDING STRONG ® 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.” 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

25. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions Incur Costs

26. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Components  Implementation costs ► construction ► operation & maintenance ► monitoring ► LERRD

27. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions Produce Output

28. BUILDING STRONG ® Environmental Outputs  No universal environmental output  Increases in ecosystem value & productivity, quantity & quality  Traditional outputs ► physical dimensions (acres of spawning habitat, stream miles restored) ► population counts (number of breeding birds, increases in target species) ► “habitat units” ► diversity indices  Annualized

29. BUILDING STRONG ® Environmental Outputs  Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs  Ex: Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat units  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)

30. BUILDING STRONG ® Sample Results: Average Annual Wetlands HU’s

31. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions, Costs and Outputs CEA/ICA … Bringing it all together COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

32. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Effective Plans:  No other plan produces same output for less cost  No other plan produces more output for same or less cost

33. BUILDING STRONG ® Best Buy Plans:  Subset of cost effective plans  Most efficient in production  Greatest increases in output for least increases in cost  Lowest incremental costs per unit of output

34. BUILDING STRONG ® Step-by-step process:  Plan formulation  Cost effectiveness analysis  Incremental cost analysis  Decision making

35. BUILDING STRONG ® VERSION 3.33 VERSION 3.33

36. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite Software version of CE/ICA procedures Automates tedious mathAutomates tedious math Allows you to do more complicated analysesAllows you to do more complicated analyses Tables & graphs as record of analysesTables & graphs as record of analyses

37. BUILDING STRONG ® 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 “?”

38. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR Planning Suite Basics IWR Planning Suite Basics 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

39. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

40. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

41. BUILDING STRONG ® CE/ICA Applied to Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration Project CE/ICA Applied to Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration Project

42. BUILDING STRONG ® CE/ICA Applied to Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration Project CE/ICA Applied to Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration Project

43. BUILDING STRONG ® Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration  Planning objectives: ► Overall, restoration of the Elizabeth River’s aquatic & wetlands ecosystems ► Specifically: Wetlands restoration Sediment quality restoration

44. BUILDING STRONG ® Elizabeth River Looking North

45. BUILDING STRONG ® Wetlands Loss: Since 1944

46. BUILDING STRONG ® Wetlands & Sediments Sites Somme Avenue Sugar Hill Crawford Bay

47. BUILDING STRONG ® Scuffletown Creek Future Without

48. BUILDING STRONG ® Scuffletown Creek Future With Restoration

49. BUILDING STRONG ® Woodstock Park Future Without

50. BUILDING STRONG ® Woodstock Park Future With Restoration

51. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions - Elizabeth River  Wetlands Restoration - 11 sites: ► Sugar Hill, Carolanne Farms, Somme Ave, Scuffletown Creek, NW Jordan Bridge, Crawford Bay, Woodstock Park, Lancelot Dr, Grandy Village, ODU Drainage Canal, Portsmouth City Park  At wetlands sites: ► Excavation, filling, regrading with suitable soils, erosion protection ► Brush clearing, exotic species removal ► Planting native marsh vegetation

52. BUILDING STRONG ® Solutions - Elizabeth River  Sediment Contamination: ► Originally, 4 sites considered – Scuffletown Creek, Scotts Creek, Campostella Bridge, Eppinger & Russell site ► 3 Alternative clean-up levels at Scuffletown Creek (0.8, 0.6, 0.4 SQV levels) ► Clean-up levels a function of amount of sediment dredged ► Clean-up process: environmental dredging, sediment transportation, sediment treatment as required, sediment disposal

53. BUILDING STRONG ® Scuffletown Creek SQV Contaminant Levels Blue = 0.4 (Minimum) Green= 0.6 (Medium) Red = 0.8 (Maximum)

54. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Components - Wetlands  Implementation costs ► Site prep, earthwork, landscaping ► maintenance ► periodic monitoring ► real estate, disposal  Avg annual equivalent ► 50-yr life, 6 3/8% discount rate, FY 2000 prices

55. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Components - Sediments  Implementation costs ► cubic yards sediment removed, transport material to DMMA, remediation, disposal ► initially, 2 sets of costs based on dredging depth  Avg annual equivalent ► 50-yr life, 6 3/8% discount rate, FY 2000 prices

56. BUILDING STRONG ® Environmental Outputs – Wetlands - 2 Methods  Habitat Evaluation Procedure ► habitat units for clapper rail  Functional Assessment Score ► primary production ► fish & wildlife habitat ► water quality ► erosion buffer ► flood buffer ► aesthetics ► public access & educational value

57. BUILDING STRONG ® Sediments Clean-Up Outputs Reduced Sediment Toxicity Improved Bottom Community Health and Diversity Reduced Fish Cancers Improved Sediment Quality

58. BUILDING STRONG ® Elizabeth River Wetlands Case Study

59. BUILDING STRONG ® Enter Cost & Environmental Output Data (Wetlands)

60. BUILDING STRONG ® Perform CE/ICA: Wetlands Restoration - HEP

61. BUILDING STRONG ® Formulate All Plan Combinations (2,048)

62. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Effectiveness Analysis (92 CE Plans)

63. BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Effective & Best Buy Plans First Best Buy Plan: NW Jordan Bridge

64. BUILDING STRONG ® Incremental Cost Analysis (11 Best Buys) 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

65. BUILDING STRONG ® Incremental Cost Display E +I+B+F +J +D +G +H +K +A +C 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

66. BUILDING STRONG ® Ranking of Best Buy Plans by Benefit Assessment Methodology

67. BUILDING STRONG ® What do you do with the results?

68. BUILDING STRONG ® ER 1105-2-100  Recommend the NER Plan  “… 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))

69. BUILDING STRONG ® Is it Worth it?

70. BUILDING STRONG ® Decision Making Guidelines CEA/ ICA Results Is it worth it?

71. BUILDING STRONG ® Is it Worth it? 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?

72. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

73. BUILDING STRONG ® Output Target TargetTarget

74. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

75. BUILDING STRONG ® Output ThresholdsMaximum Minimum

76. BUILDING STRONG ® Total Cost Limit Cost Limit

77. BUILDING STRONG ® BreakpointsBreakpointsBreakpoints

78. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

79. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

80. BUILDING STRONG ® Does it make sense? Red face test test “ Idiot ” test

81. BUILDING STRONG ® ER 1105-2-100  “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)

82. BUILDING STRONG ® ER 1105-2-100  Additional factors to consider: ► Partnership context 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 ► Rarely will the NER plan not be among the best buy plans (App. E, E-41)

83. BUILDING STRONG ® Elizabeth River - 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

84. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

85. BUILDING STRONG ® CE/ICA Applied to Indian River Lagoon – South Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Project

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

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

88. BUILDING STRONG ® Problems: Water Quality

89. BUILDING STRONG ® Problems: Water Quantity …too much …too little

90. BUILDING STRONG ® Problems: Timing & Hydroperiod Wrong timing & distribution of flows Ditched and drained wetland systems

91. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

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

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

94. BUILDING STRONG ® IRL-S Outputs: Issues & Lessons  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  Lesson: Importance of output metric in portraying results (CE/ICA) & justifying plan selection

95. BUILDING STRONG ® Example of IRL-S Outputs: Average Annual Oyster HU’s

96. BUILDING STRONG ® IRL-S Costs & Outputs Used for CE/ICA

97. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

98. BUILDING STRONG ® CEA: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output – Total Estuary Habitat Units

99. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

100. BUILDING STRONG ® 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)

101. BUILDING STRONG ® 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

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

103. BUILDING STRONG ® Summary of CE/ICA Results OutputAlt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5Alt 6 w/ SAV Alt 6 w/ oyster & SAV Alt 7aAlt 7b Total Estuary Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Total Watershe d Cost Effect & Best Buy Combine d Index Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Combine d Weighted Index Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy Cost Effect

104. BUILDING STRONG ® Telling the Story: Rationale for 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

105. BUILDING STRONG ® Uses of CEA/ICA:  Formulation  Evaluation & Comparison  Selection

106. BUILDING STRONG ® Applicability Restoration and mitigation Restoration and mitigation All scopes of problems All scopes of problems All scales of projects All scales of projects All phases of work All phases of work All types of resources All types of resources Many agencies and interests Many agencies and interests

107. BUILDING STRONG ® Challenges  K.I.S.S. - don’t go too fast too soon  Set-up - getting started ► Formulation of management measures ► Selection, measurement of outputs  Commensuration (multiple metrics)

108. BUILDING STRONG ® 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!

109. BUILDING STRONG ® Visit IWR’s Homepage www.iwr.usace.army.mil

110. BUILDING STRONG ® Visit the IWR-PLAN Homepage www.pmcl/com/iwrplan

111. BUILDING STRONG ® COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS Questions? INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS