1. Step 6: Plan Selection Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR Planning for Ecosystem Restoration PROSPECT 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Plan Selection – NER Benefits Only RULE: Reasonably maximize ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs PlanCostHU’s Incr. Cost Incr. HU’s Incr. $/HU NA$00 0 A$10550$10550$2.1 B$13560$3010$3.0 C$18065$455$9.0

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

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

13. 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?

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

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

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

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

18. Intended and Unintended EffectsA B C

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

20. NER Plan - Additional Considerations n Meets planning objectives & constraints n Passes criteria: –significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency n Ecosystem context –Restores structure, function, dynamic processes n Reasonableness of costs n 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” n Meets planning objectives & constraints n Passes criteria: –significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency n Ecosystem context –Restores structure, function, dynamic processes n Reasonableness of costs n 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 n Required analysis n Often poorly done or missing n 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 n Partnership context –Cooperative projects have higher priority –Regional or national interagency programs n Policy Issues –Terrestrial vs Aquatic –Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs) –Should not require mitigation –Recreation may not diminish ecosystem output (cannot increase costs >10%) n Partnership context –Cooperative projects have higher priority –Regional or national interagency programs n 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 EC Considerations n 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 n What is the sustainability of the plan? n Does it work with natural river / aquatic processes? n Can it be sustained in current setting? n Is the project working to address key issues associated with sustainability (dredging & sediment reduction)? n What are O&M requirements?

25. Multipurpose Plan “Combined NED/NER Plan” n For projects with NED & ecosystem restoration benefits n No alternative has higher excess NED benefits plus NER benefits over total project costs n Maximize sum of net NED & NER benefits –“Best” balance between objectives –Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off analysis n For projects with NED & ecosystem restoration benefits n No alternative has higher excess NED benefits plus NER benefits over total project costs n 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 n NED – National Economic Development –(FDR, Water Supply, Recreation, etc.) n RED - Regional Economic Development –(construction, employment, etc.) n OSE – Other Social Effects –(effects on tax base, etc.) n 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 n Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to participate n Must have > net benefits than smaller plans n Sufficient number of alternatives analyzed n ID tradeoffs & opportunities foregone n Complies w/ laws & policies –When LPP larger, may be approved n Sponsor pays difference n NED/NER does not meet local objectives n Outputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed plan n Complies w/ laws & policies –May deviate from NED & NER if requested by non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW) –When LPP smaller, usually approved n Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to participate n Must have > net benefits than smaller plans n Sufficient number of alternatives analyzed n ID tradeoffs & opportunities foregone n Complies w/ laws & policies –When LPP larger, may be approved n Sponsor pays difference n NED/NER does not meet local objectives n Outputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed plan n 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 n Planning objectives: –Overall, restoration of the Elizabeth River’s aquatic & wetlands ecosystems –Specifically: n Wetlands restoration n 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. 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 CE/ICA Results for Elizabeth RiverBreakpointBreakpoint

35. 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 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 BreakpointBreakpoint

36. National Ecosystem Restoration Plan n 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) n 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 n Significance - Ches. Bay Agreement - Region of Concern, priority urban area; LOC’s Local Legacies program; Eliz. River Project - Watershed Action Plan to restore river n Scarcity - historic wetlands loss, few “available” sites; toxic sediments - scarcity of aquatic life: low diversity, biomass, high cancer rates n Acceptability - ERP, Watershed Action Team: clean-up & wetlands #1 & #2 critical areas n Non-Federal sponsors - all 4 juris., VA, ERP n Effectiveness - addresses 2 greatest problems, large geographic area, interconnected to natural system n 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 much …too little

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

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

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

44. Telling the Story: Rationale for IRL-S Alt 6 n Best meets planning objectives: –Restoration of estuarine aquatic ecosystem (> all other alts) –Increased spatial extent of watershed wetlands & uplands (secondary objective) n Reasonably maximizes ecosystem output while passing tests of: –Cost effectiveness –(Best Buy) Incremental Cost Analysis (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV) n Provides 95% outputs of largest alternative (Alt 4), yet costs $53.4 million less than Alt 4 n Lowest per unit costs of all alts in production of all outputs (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV) n 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? n “Bottom-up” process – project delivery team selects with input from partners n Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical PDT) review & agree or disagree n For continuing authorities, review & approval by Division n For congressionally authorized projects, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, Congress n Bottom line: planners advise; decision- makers decide; good internal and external communication key n “Bottom-up” process – project delivery team selects with input from partners n Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical PDT) review & agree or disagree n For continuing authorities, review & approval by Division n For congressionally authorized projects, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, Congress n Bottom line: planners advise; decision- makers decide; good internal and external communication key

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

47. SummarySummary n No “NED-like” rule to select single NER plan n 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 n No “NED-like” rule to select single NER plan n 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