Step 6: Plan Selection Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR Planning for Ecosystem...
-
Upload
miranda-todd -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Step 6: Plan Selection Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR Planning for Ecosystem...
Step 6: Plan SelectionStep 6: Plan Selection
Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWRLeigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR
Planning for Ecosystem Restoration Planning for Ecosystem Restoration
PROSPECT 2010PROSPECT 2010
Specify Problems Specify Problems
& Opportunities& Opportunities
Inventory & Forecast Inventory & Forecast
ConditionsConditions
Formulate Formulate
Alternative PlansAlternative Plans
Evaluate Effects of Evaluate Effects of
Alternative PlansAlternative Plans
Compare Compare
Alternative PlansAlternative Plans
Select Select
Recommended PlanRecommended Plan
Corps Corps
Planning Planning
Process:Process:
Six Steps Six Steps
Learning ObjectivesLearning ObjectivesLearning ObjectivesLearning Objectives To describe possible plans that To describe possible plans that
may be recommendedmay be recommended To explain what is meant by the To explain what is meant by the
National Ecosystem Restoration National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan (NER) Plan
To explain the criteria and To explain the criteria and considerations used to designate considerations used to designate the NER Plan and Recommended the NER Plan and Recommended PlanPlan
To describe possible plans that To describe possible plans that may be recommendedmay be recommended
To explain what is meant by the To explain what is meant by the National Ecosystem Restoration National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan (NER) Plan
To explain the criteria and To explain the criteria and considerations used to designate considerations used to designate the NER Plan and Recommended the NER Plan and Recommended PlanPlan
ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences Planning Guidance Notebook Planning Guidance Notebook
(ER 1105-2-100) - April 2000(ER 1105-2-100) - April 2000– Chapter 2, Planning PrinciplesChapter 2, Planning Principles– Appendix E, Civil Works Missions & Appendix E, Civil Works Missions &
Evaluation ProceduresEvaluation Procedures Planning Manual Planning Manual
(IWR Report 96-R-21)(IWR Report 96-R-21)– Chapter 11 Chapter 11
Collaborative Planning (EC 1105-2-Collaborative Planning (EC 1105-2-409) 409)
Planning Guidance Notebook Planning Guidance Notebook (ER 1105-2-100) - April 2000(ER 1105-2-100) - April 2000– Chapter 2, Planning PrinciplesChapter 2, Planning Principles– Appendix E, Civil Works Missions & Appendix E, Civil Works Missions &
Evaluation ProceduresEvaluation Procedures Planning Manual Planning Manual
(IWR Report 96-R-21)(IWR Report 96-R-21)– Chapter 11 Chapter 11
Collaborative Planning (EC 1105-2-Collaborative Planning (EC 1105-2-409) 409)
SelectionSelectionSelectionSelection
Screening is an iterative activity Screening is an iterative activity based on criteria based on criteria
Selection of a recommended plan is Selection of a recommended plan is the final screening activity the final screening activity
Different selection criteria will give Different selection criteria will give you different recommendationsyou different recommendations
Plans don’t go away; they’re just Plans don’t go away; they’re just not selectednot selected
Screening is an iterative activity Screening is an iterative activity based on criteria based on criteria
Selection of a recommended plan is Selection of a recommended plan is the final screening activity the final screening activity
Different selection criteria will give Different selection criteria will give you different recommendationsyou different recommendations
Plans don’t go away; they’re just Plans don’t go away; they’re just not selectednot selected
GeneralGeneralGeneralGeneral Single alternative selected & Single alternative selected &
recommended from all those considered recommended from all those considered ““No Action” is the default No Action” is the default
recommendation recommendation Why is recommended plan preferable to Why is recommended plan preferable to
No Action or any other alternative?No Action or any other alternative?– ““Telling your story”Telling your story”
P&G: display sufficient number of P&G: display sufficient number of alternatives; include mitigation; identify alternatives; include mitigation; identify R&UR&U
Single alternative selected & Single alternative selected & recommended from all those considered recommended from all those considered
““No Action” is the default No Action” is the default recommendation recommendation
Why is recommended plan preferable to Why is recommended plan preferable to No Action or any other alternative?No Action or any other alternative?– ““Telling your story”Telling your story”
P&G: display sufficient number of P&G: display sufficient number of alternatives; include mitigation; identify alternatives; include mitigation; identify R&UR&U
Possible Plans to Possible Plans to Recommend Recommend
Possible Plans to Possible Plans to Recommend Recommend
No ActionNo Action National Economic Development National Economic Development
(NED) (NED) National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Multipurpose Plan formerly Multipurpose Plan formerly
“Combined NED/NER Plan”“Combined NED/NER Plan” National Interest Plan – reflect full National Interest Plan – reflect full
range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, EQ, and OSEEQ, and OSE
Locally Preferred PlanLocally Preferred Plan
No ActionNo Action National Economic Development National Economic Development
(NED) (NED) National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Multipurpose Plan formerly Multipurpose Plan formerly
“Combined NED/NER Plan”“Combined NED/NER Plan” National Interest Plan – reflect full National Interest Plan – reflect full
range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, range of Federal Interest – NED, RED, EQ, and OSEEQ, and OSE
Locally Preferred PlanLocally Preferred Plan
NED Plan NED Plan NED Plan NED Plan For all project purposes other than For all project purposes other than
ecosystem restorationecosystem restoration Reasonably maximizes net national Reasonably maximizes net national
economic benefits (consistent w/ economic benefits (consistent w/ protecting environment)protecting environment)
Recommend NED, unless ASA(CW) Recommend NED, unless ASA(CW) grants exceptiongrants exception– locally preferred plan smaller than NEDlocally preferred plan smaller than NED– LPP larger but sponsor pays differenceLPP larger but sponsor pays difference
For all project purposes other than For all project purposes other than ecosystem restorationecosystem restoration
Reasonably maximizes net national Reasonably maximizes net national economic benefits (consistent w/ economic benefits (consistent w/ protecting environment)protecting environment)
Recommend NED, unless ASA(CW) Recommend NED, unless ASA(CW) grants exceptiongrants exception– locally preferred plan smaller than NEDlocally preferred plan smaller than NED– LPP larger but sponsor pays differenceLPP larger but sponsor pays difference
NER Plan NER Plan NER Plan NER Plan For ecosystem restoration projectsFor ecosystem restoration projects ReasonablyReasonably maximizes net maximizes net
ecosystem benefits compared to ecosystem benefits compared to costs costs
Must be cost effectiveMust be cost effective Desired level of incremental Desired level of incremental
output must be justifiedoutput must be justified– Is it “worth” it?Is it “worth” it?
For ecosystem restoration projectsFor ecosystem restoration projects ReasonablyReasonably maximizes net maximizes net
ecosystem benefits compared to ecosystem benefits compared to costs costs
Must be cost effectiveMust be cost effective Desired level of incremental Desired level of incremental
output must be justifiedoutput must be justified– Is it “worth” it?Is it “worth” it?
Plan Selection – NER Benefits Plan Selection – NER Benefits OnlyOnly
RULE: Reasonably maximize ecosystem RULE: Reasonably maximize ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costsrestoration benefits compared to costs
Plan Cost HU’sIncr. Cost
Incr. HU’s
Incr. $/HU
NA $0 0 $0 0 $0
A $105 50 $105 50 $2.1
B $135 60 $30 10 $3.0
C $180 65 $45 5 $9.0
NER Plan – Incremental Cost NER Plan – Incremental Cost DisplayDisplay
AA BB
CC
NER Plan = NER Plan = Is it Worth it?Is it Worth it?
Decision MakingDecision Making
GuidelinesGuidelines
CEA/ ICA ResultsCEA/ ICA Results
Is it worth it?Is it worth it?
Is it worth it?Is it worth it?
Decision making guidelines:Decision making guidelines:• output targetoutput target• output thresholdsoutput thresholds• cost limitcost limit• breakpointsbreakpoints• unintended effectsunintended effects• does it make sense?does it make sense?
NER Plan – NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Decision-Making Guidelines -
TargetsTargets
AA BB
CC
Ou
tpu
t ta
rget
?O
utp
ut
targ
et
?
NER Plan – NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Decision-Making Guidelines -
ThresholdsThresholds
AA BB
CCMin
imu
mM
inim
um
Maxim
um
Maxim
um
NER Plan – NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines – Cost Decision-Making Guidelines – Cost
LimitsLimits
AA BB
CCCost limitCost limit
AA BB
CC
NER Plan – NER Plan – Decision-Making Guidelines - Decision-Making Guidelines -
BreakpointsBreakpoints
BreakpointBreakpoint
Intended and Unintended Effects
PLAN LAND OWNERSHIP IMPACT ON OTHER SPECIES RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION
NO ACTION NOT APPLICABLE NO IMPACT NONE
A STATE NO IMPACT NONE
B STATE -5 NONE
C STATE AND PRIVATE -20 5 HOMES
PLAN LAND OWNERSHIP IMPACT ON OTHER SPECIES RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION
NO ACTION NOT APPLICABLE NO IMPACT NONE
A STATE NO IMPACT NONE
B STATE -5 NONE
C STATE AND PRIVATE -20 5 HOMES
AA BB
CC
Does it make sense?Does it make sense?
Red faceRed face testtest
testtest
““Idiot”Idiot” test test
NER Plan - Additional NER Plan - Additional Considerations Considerations
NER Plan - Additional NER Plan - Additional Considerations Considerations
Meets planning objectives & constraintsMeets planning objectives & constraints Passes criteria:Passes criteria:
– significance, acceptability, completeness, significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiencyeffectiveness, efficiency
Ecosystem context Ecosystem context – Restores structure, function, dynamic processesRestores structure, function, dynamic processes
Reasonableness of costsReasonableness of costs In most cases, should be “best buy” planIn most cases, should be “best buy” plan
– ER 1105-2-100 (E-41 c.): Rarely will the NER ER 1105-2-100 (E-41 c.): Rarely will the NER plan not be among the “best buys”plan not be among the “best buys”
Meets planning objectives & constraintsMeets planning objectives & constraints Passes criteria:Passes criteria:
– significance, acceptability, completeness, significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiencyeffectiveness, efficiency
Ecosystem context Ecosystem context – Restores structure, function, dynamic processesRestores structure, function, dynamic processes
Reasonableness of costsReasonableness of costs In most cases, should be “best buy” planIn most cases, should be “best buy” plan
– ER 1105-2-100 (E-41 c.): Rarely will the NER ER 1105-2-100 (E-41 c.): Rarely will the NER plan not be among the “best buys”plan not be among the “best buys”
NER Plan - Additional Considerations: NER Plan - Additional Considerations: Risk and UncertaintyRisk and Uncertainty
Required analysisRequired analysis Often poorly done or missingOften poorly done or missing Report should address differences Report should address differences
in:in:– Risk and uncertainty of the Risk and uncertainty of the
alternatives (strive to minimize R&U)alternatives (strive to minimize R&U)– Potential for failurePotential for failure– Certainty of outcomeCertainty of outcome– Potential for Adaptive ManagementPotential for Adaptive Management
NER Plan - Additional NER Plan - Additional Considerations Considerations
NER Plan - Additional NER Plan - Additional Considerations Considerations
Partnership contextPartnership context– Cooperative projects have higher priorityCooperative projects have higher priority– Regional or national interagency programsRegional or national interagency programs
Policy Issues Policy Issues – Terrestrial vs AquaticTerrestrial vs Aquatic– Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs)Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs)– Should not require mitigationShould not require mitigation– Recreation may not diminish ecosystem Recreation may not diminish ecosystem
output (cannot increase costs >10%)output (cannot increase costs >10%)
Partnership contextPartnership context– Cooperative projects have higher priorityCooperative projects have higher priority– Regional or national interagency programsRegional or national interagency programs
Policy Issues Policy Issues – Terrestrial vs AquaticTerrestrial vs Aquatic– Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs)Real Estate proportion (< 25% costs)– Should not require mitigationShould not require mitigation– Recreation may not diminish ecosystem Recreation may not diminish ecosystem
output (cannot increase costs >10%)output (cannot increase costs >10%)
Budget ECBudget ECConsiderationsConsiderations
While not direct role in selection, affects eventual While not direct role in selection, affects eventual ability to advance project; these criteria change ability to advance project; these criteria change over timeover time– Scarcity Scarcity – Connectivity Connectivity – Special Status Species (provides significant Special Status Species (provides significant
contribution to key life requisite of special contribution to key life requisite of special status species)status species)
– Hydrologic character (restoration of natural Hydrologic character (restoration of natural hydrology) hydrology)
– Geomorphic condition (restoration of natural Geomorphic condition (restoration of natural geomorphic processes: erosion, sediment geomorphic processes: erosion, sediment transport, deposition)transport, deposition)
– Plan Recognition (contributes to watershed or Plan Recognition (contributes to watershed or basin plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic basin plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan”)Plan”)
– Self-Sustaining / SustainabilitySelf-Sustaining / Sustainability– Cost per AcreCost per Acre
SustainabilitySustainability
What is the sustainability of the plan?What is the sustainability of the plan? Does it work with natural river / aquatic Does it work with natural river / aquatic
processes?processes? Can it be sustained in current setting?Can it be sustained in current setting? Is the project working to address key Is the project working to address key
issues associated with sustainability issues associated with sustainability (dredging & sediment reduction)?(dredging & sediment reduction)?
What are O&M requirements?What are O&M requirements?
Multipurpose PlanMultipurpose Plan“Combined NED/NER Plan”“Combined NED/NER Plan”
Multipurpose PlanMultipurpose Plan“Combined NED/NER Plan”“Combined NED/NER Plan”
For projects with NED & ecosystem For projects with NED & ecosystem restoration benefitsrestoration benefits
No alternative has higher excess NED No alternative has higher excess NED benefits plus NER benefits over total benefits plus NER benefits over total project costsproject costs
Maximize sum of net NED & NER Maximize sum of net NED & NER benefitsbenefits– ““Best” balance between objectivesBest” balance between objectives– Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off
analysisanalysis
For projects with NED & ecosystem For projects with NED & ecosystem restoration benefitsrestoration benefits
No alternative has higher excess NED No alternative has higher excess NED benefits plus NER benefits over total benefits plus NER benefits over total project costsproject costs
Maximize sum of net NED & NER Maximize sum of net NED & NER benefitsbenefits– ““Best” balance between objectivesBest” balance between objectives– Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off Based on B/C analysis, CE/ICA, & trade-off
analysisanalysis
National Interest (Balanced) Plan – National Interest (Balanced) Plan – reflect full range of Federal Interest – reflect full range of Federal Interest –
NED, RED, EQ, and OSENED, RED, EQ, and OSE
NED – National Economic DevelopmentNED – National Economic Development– (FDR, Water Supply, Recreation, etc.)(FDR, Water Supply, Recreation, etc.)
RED - Regional Economic DevelopmentRED - Regional Economic Development– (construction, employment, etc.)(construction, employment, etc.)
OSE – Other Social Effects OSE – Other Social Effects – (effects on tax base, etc.)(effects on tax base, etc.)
EQ – Environmental Quality EQ – Environmental Quality – (ecosystem, water quality, cultural (ecosystem, water quality, cultural
resources, etc.)resources, etc.)
Locally Preferred Plan Locally Preferred Plan Locally Preferred Plan Locally Preferred Plan – May deviate from NED & NER if requested by May deviate from NED & NER if requested by
non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW)non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW)– When LPP smaller, usually approvedWhen LPP smaller, usually approved
Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to participateparticipate
Must have > net benefits than smaller plansMust have > net benefits than smaller plans Sufficient number of alternatives analyzedSufficient number of alternatives analyzed ID tradeoffs & opportunities foregoneID tradeoffs & opportunities foregone Complies w/ laws & policiesComplies w/ laws & policies
– When LPP larger, may be approvedWhen LPP larger, may be approved Sponsor pays differenceSponsor pays difference NED/NER does not meet local objectivesNED/NER does not meet local objectives Outputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed planOutputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed plan Complies w/ laws & policiesComplies w/ laws & policies
– May deviate from NED & NER if requested by May deviate from NED & NER if requested by non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW)non-Federal sponsor & approved by ASA(CW)
– When LPP smaller, usually approvedWhen LPP smaller, usually approved Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to Assist sponsor in identifying others willing & able to
participateparticipate Must have > net benefits than smaller plansMust have > net benefits than smaller plans Sufficient number of alternatives analyzedSufficient number of alternatives analyzed ID tradeoffs & opportunities foregoneID tradeoffs & opportunities foregone Complies w/ laws & policiesComplies w/ laws & policies
– When LPP larger, may be approvedWhen LPP larger, may be approved Sponsor pays differenceSponsor pays difference NED/NER does not meet local objectivesNED/NER does not meet local objectives Outputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed planOutputs similar in kind & = or > than Fed plan Complies w/ laws & policiesComplies w/ laws & policies
Systematic Formulation and Systematic Formulation and Plan Selection OptionsPlan Selection Options
Formulate small plan that makes senseFormulate small plan that makes sense Add justified incrementsAdd justified increments If Sponsor constraint: Stop.If Sponsor constraint: Stop.
Select LPP Select LPP NED / NER / Balanced PlanNED / NER / Balanced Plan If no Sponsor constraint: Maximize net If no Sponsor constraint: Maximize net
benefits.benefits. Select NED / NER / Balanced PlanSelect NED / NER / Balanced Plan
If NED / NER / Balanced Plan does not meet If NED / NER / Balanced Plan does not meet objectives: Add Unjustified Increments.objectives: Add Unjustified Increments.
Select LPP > NED / NER / Balanced PlanSelect LPP > NED / NER / Balanced Plan
NER Example #1: Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration NER Example #1: Elizabeth
River Ecosystem Restoration
SouthernBranch
Eastern BranchNWestern Branch
Elizabeth River Elizabeth River Ecosystem RestorationEcosystem Restoration
Planning objectives: Planning objectives: – Overall, restoration of the Overall, restoration of the
Elizabeth River’s aquatic & Elizabeth River’s aquatic & wetlands ecosystems wetlands ecosystems
– Specifically:Specifically: Wetlands restorationWetlands restoration Sediment quality restorationSediment quality restoration
Wetlands & Sediment SitesWetlands & Sediment Sites
Somme Avenue
Sugar Hill
Crawford Bay
Wetlands Loss: > 50% since 1944Wetlands Loss: > 50% since 1944
Sediments Clean-Up OutputsSediments Clean-Up Outputs
• Reduced Sediment Toxicity• Improved Bottom Community Health and Diversity• Reduced Fish Cancers• Improved Sediment Quality
A = Sugar Hill A = Sugar Hill G = Woodstock PkG = Woodstock Pk
B = Carolanne FarmsB = Carolanne Farms H = Lancelot DrH = Lancelot Dr
C = Somme Ave C = Somme Ave I = Grandy VillageI = Grandy Village
D = ScuffletownD = Scuffletown J = ODU DrainageJ = ODU Drainage
E = NW Jordan BrE = NW Jordan Br K = Prtsmth City PkK = Prtsmth City Pk
F = Crawford BayF = Crawford Bay
EE +I+I +B+B +F+F+J+J+D+D +G+G +H+H
+K+K
+A+A
+C+C
CE/ICA Results for Elizabeth River
BreakpointBreakpointBreakpointBreakpoint
CE/ICA Results for Elizabeth River
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
BreakpointBreakpointBreakpointBreakpoint
National Ecosystem Restoration National Ecosystem Restoration PlanPlan
Wetlands:Wetlands: – 9 of 11 candidate restoration sites (ranked sites up to & 9 of 11 candidate restoration sites (ranked sites up to &
including Portsmouth City Park) - 19.5 acresincluding Portsmouth City Park) - 19.5 acres– Cost effectiveCost effective, 9th , 9th best buybest buy plan plan– On functional score, On functional score, sharp breakpointsharp breakpoint after P. City Park after P. City Park– On HEP score, On HEP score, breakpointbreakpoint before P. City Park before P. City Park– Include P. City Park: only site on Western Branch Include P. City Park: only site on Western Branch
(completeness)(completeness), complements city’s plan for site, public , complements city’s plan for site, public access & educational value access & educational value (acceptability)(acceptability)
Sediment Restoration:Sediment Restoration:– Medium level clean-up (0.6 SQV)Medium level clean-up (0.6 SQV)– Cost effectiveCost effective, 1st , 1st best buybest buy plan - lowest cost per unit of plan - lowest cost per unit of
clean-up benefit of any alternativeclean-up benefit of any alternative– Sharp Sharp breakpointbreakpoint after medium (0.6 SQV) level after medium (0.6 SQV) level– Substantial benefits include reduced toxicity & Substantial benefits include reduced toxicity &
contamination, improved benthos & aquatic resourcescontamination, improved benthos & aquatic resources
NER Plan - Additional Decision NER Plan - Additional Decision CriteriaCriteria
SignificanceSignificance - Ches. Bay Agreement - Region of - Ches. Bay Agreement - Region of Concern, priority urban area; LOC’s Local Legacies Concern, priority urban area; LOC’s Local Legacies program; Eliz. River Project - Watershed Action program; Eliz. River Project - Watershed Action Plan to restore riverPlan to restore river
ScarcityScarcity - historic - historic wetlandswetlands loss, few “available” loss, few “available” sites; sites; toxic sedimentstoxic sediments - scarcity of aquatic life: low - scarcity of aquatic life: low diversity, biomass, high cancer rates diversity, biomass, high cancer rates
AcceptabilityAcceptability - ERP, Watershed Action Team: - ERP, Watershed Action Team: clean-up & wetlands #1 & #2 critical areasclean-up & wetlands #1 & #2 critical areas
Non-Federal sponsors - all 4 juris., VA, ERPNon-Federal sponsors - all 4 juris., VA, ERP EffectivenessEffectiveness - addresses 2 greatest problems, - addresses 2 greatest problems,
large geographic area, interconnected to natural large geographic area, interconnected to natural systemsystem
EfficiencyEfficiency - passes tests of CE/ICA - passes tests of CE/ICA
NER Example #2: Indian River Lagoon – South NER Example #2: Indian River Lagoon – South Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ProjectComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Project
Problems: Water Problems: Water QualityQuality
Problems: Water Problems: Water QuantityQuantity
…too much
…too little
Problems: Timing & Problems: Timing & HydroperiodHydroperiod
Wrong timing & distribution of flows
Ditched and drained wetland systems
IRL-S Objectives & IRL-S Objectives & ConstraintsConstraints
Restore Ecological Values:Restore Ecological Values: Re-establish a natural pattern of freshwater flows to the St Re-establish a natural pattern of freshwater flows to the St
Lucie Estuary (SLE) & Indian River Lagoon (IRL)Lucie Estuary (SLE) & Indian River Lagoon (IRL) Improve water quality in the SLE and IRLImprove water quality in the SLE and IRL Improve habitat for estuarine biotaImprove habitat for estuarine biota Increase spatial extent & functional quality of watershed Increase spatial extent & functional quality of watershed
wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic Increase diversity & abundance of native plant & animal Increase diversity & abundance of native plant & animal
species, including threatened & endangered species species, including threatened & endangered species Improve Economic Values & Social Well-Being:Improve Economic Values & Social Well-Being: Increase water supplyIncrease water supply Maintain existing flood protectionMaintain existing flood protection Improve opportunities for tourism, recreation, & Improve opportunities for tourism, recreation, &
environmental educationenvironmental education Improve commercial & recreational fisheries Improve commercial & recreational fisheries
Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary Combined Watershed & Estuary
IndexIndex
Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV habitat
Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV habitat
BreakpointBreakpointBreakpointBreakpoint
Telling the Story: Rationale for Telling the Story: Rationale for IRL-S Alt 6IRL-S Alt 6
Best meets planning objectives:Best meets planning objectives:– Restoration of Restoration of estuarineestuarine aquatic ecosystem ( aquatic ecosystem (>> all other alts) all other alts)– Increased spatial extent of Increased spatial extent of watershedwatershed wetlands & uplands (secondary wetlands & uplands (secondary
objective)objective) Reasonably maximizesReasonably maximizes ecosystem output while passing tests of: ecosystem output while passing tests of:
– Cost effectivenessCost effectiveness– (Best Buy) Incremental Cost Analysis (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV)(Best Buy) Incremental Cost Analysis (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV)
Provides Provides 95% outputs95% outputs of largest alternative (Alt 4), yet costs $53.4 of largest alternative (Alt 4), yet costs $53.4 million less than Alt 4million less than Alt 4
Lowest per unit costsLowest per unit costs of all alts in production of all outputs (Alt 6 w/ of all alts in production of all outputs (Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV)artificial SAV)
Why include artificial habitat?Why include artificial habitat?– Low total costLow total cost of artificial habitat increment ($630k aaec) of artificial habitat increment ($630k aaec)– ““Jump-start” in benefitsJump-start” in benefits provides immediate results provides immediate results– Builds Builds public supportpublic support by demonstrating “restoration” quickly by demonstrating “restoration” quickly– Strong Strong inter-agency/ stakeholderinter-agency/ stakeholder support support
Who Selects the Plan? Who Selects the Plan? Who Selects the Plan? Who Selects the Plan?
““Bottom-up” process – project delivery team Bottom-up” process – project delivery team selects with input from partnersselects with input from partners
Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical PDT) review & agree or disagreePDT) review & agree or disagree
For continuing authorities, review & approval For continuing authorities, review & approval by Divisionby Division
For congressionally authorized projects, For congressionally authorized projects, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, CongressCongress
Bottom lineBottom line: planners advise; decision-: planners advise; decision-makers decide; good internal and external makers decide; good internal and external communication keycommunication key
““Bottom-up” process – project delivery team Bottom-up” process – project delivery team selects with input from partnersselects with input from partners
Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical Chain-of-command decision-makers (vertical PDT) review & agree or disagreePDT) review & agree or disagree
For continuing authorities, review & approval For continuing authorities, review & approval by Divisionby Division
For congressionally authorized projects, For congressionally authorized projects, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, ultimate decision makers are ASA(CW), OMB, CongressCongress
Bottom lineBottom line: planners advise; decision-: planners advise; decision-makers decide; good internal and external makers decide; good internal and external communication keycommunication key
Why Plans Don’t Why Plans Don’t Succeed Succeed
Why Plans Don’t Why Plans Don’t Succeed Succeed
Plan is flawed Plan is flawed – wrong objectives; incomplete; bad wrong objectives; incomplete; bad
assumptionsassumptions Circumstances change Circumstances change
– priorities; policies; people; valuespriorities; policies; people; values Never funded Never funded
– lack of $; prioritieslack of $; priorities Implementation is blocked Implementation is blocked
– decision-makers; interest groups; legal actiondecision-makers; interest groups; legal action
Watch for the signs & take time to reevaluate!Watch for the signs & take time to reevaluate!
Plan is flawed Plan is flawed – wrong objectives; incomplete; bad wrong objectives; incomplete; bad
assumptionsassumptions Circumstances change Circumstances change
– priorities; policies; people; valuespriorities; policies; people; values Never funded Never funded
– lack of $; prioritieslack of $; priorities Implementation is blocked Implementation is blocked
– decision-makers; interest groups; legal actiondecision-makers; interest groups; legal action
Watch for the signs & take time to reevaluate!Watch for the signs & take time to reevaluate!
Summary Summary Summary Summary No “NED-like” rule to select No “NED-like” rule to select
single NER plansingle NER plan Rather, NER plan is Rather, NER plan is designateddesignated
as the plan that:as the plan that:– Best meets planning objectives & Best meets planning objectives &
constraintsconstraints– Reasonably maximizes ecosystem Reasonably maximizes ecosystem
restoration benefits while passing restoration benefits while passing tests of CE/ICA (“worth it?”)tests of CE/ICA (“worth it?”)
– Meets significance, acceptability, Meets significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, & completeness, effectiveness, & efficiency criteria + R&Uefficiency criteria + R&U
No “NED-like” rule to select No “NED-like” rule to select single NER plansingle NER plan
Rather, NER plan is Rather, NER plan is designateddesignated as the plan that:as the plan that:– Best meets planning objectives & Best meets planning objectives &
constraintsconstraints– Reasonably maximizes ecosystem Reasonably maximizes ecosystem
restoration benefits while passing restoration benefits while passing tests of CE/ICA (“worth it?”)tests of CE/ICA (“worth it?”)
– Meets significance, acceptability, Meets significance, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, & completeness, effectiveness, & efficiency criteria + R&Uefficiency criteria + R&U