cost effectiveness/ incremental cost analyses & applications to indian river lagoon ecosystem...

Cost Effectiveness/Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost AnalysesIncremental Cost Analyses

& Applications to Indian River & Applications to Indian River Lagoon Lagoon

Ecosystem Restoration ProjectEcosystem Restoration Project

Leigh Skaggs, HQUSACELeigh Skaggs, HQUSACE

Planners’ Core Curriculum: Economic AnalysisPlanners’ Core Curriculum: Economic Analysis

March 2009March 2009

ObjectivesObjectives

• What are Cost Effectiveness & Incremental What are Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) ?Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) ?

• Why are CE/ICA conducted in evaluating Why are CE/ICA conducted in evaluating ecosystem restoration alternatives?ecosystem restoration alternatives?

• How is CE/ICA performed & how was it done How is CE/ICA performed & how was it done for Indian River Lagoon, FL Project? for Indian River Lagoon, FL Project?

• What are some of the Nuances/ Issues/ What are some of the Nuances/ Issues/ Lessons from this project related to CE/ICA?Lessons from this project related to CE/ICA?

ReferencesReferences• ER 1105-2-100ER 1105-2-100

– Chapters 2 & 3, Appendix EChapters 2 & 3, Appendix E• IWR Report 95-R-1IWR Report 95-R-1

– ““Procedures Manual: Cost Effectiveness and Procedures Manual: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses”Incremental Cost Analyses”

• IWR Report 94-PS-2IWR Report 94-PS-2– ““Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental

Planning: Nine EASY Steps”Planning: Nine EASY Steps”• IWR Report 02-R-5IWR Report 02-R-5

– ““Lessons Learned from CE/ICA”Lessons Learned from CE/ICA”• Central & Southern Florida Project: Indian Central & Southern Florida Project: Indian

River Lagoon – South, Project Implementation River Lagoon – South, Project Implementation Report (2004)Report (2004)

• ““IWR Planning Suite User’s Guide”IWR Planning Suite User’s Guide”– Draft IWR Report, Nov 2006 Draft IWR Report, Nov 2006 ((www.iwr.usace.army. mil/)www.iwr.usace.army. mil/)

Why do CEA/ICA?Why do CEA/ICA?

What are CEA/ICA?What are CEA/ICA?

Plan ComparisonPlan ComparisonPlan ComparisonPlan 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/$ CostsBC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs

Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ CostsNet Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs

BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ CostsBC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs

Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ CostsNet Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs

$ $

OUTPUTOUTPUT

$ $

OUTPUTOUTPUT

BenefitBenefit

CostCost

AnalysisAnalysis

BenefitBenefit

CostCost

AnalysisAnalysis

CostCost

EffectivenessEffectiveness

AnalysisAnalysis

CostCost

EffectivenessEffectiveness

AnalysisAnalysis

IncrementalIncremental

CostCost

AnalysisAnalysis

IncrementalIncremental

CostCost

AnalysisAnalysis

Increased InformationIncreased Information

for Decision Makingfor Decision MakingIncreased InformationIncreased Information

for Decision Makingfor Decision Making

CostCost

ObliviousOblivious

DecisionDecision

MakingMaking

CostCost

ObliviousOblivious

DecisionDecision

MakingMaking

Plan ComparisonPlan ComparisonPlan ComparisonPlan Comparison

Alternative Restoration

Plans

Plan Outputs

No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units

Green Plan 950 Habitat Units

Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units

Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units


Plans

Plan Outputs

No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units

Green Plan 950 Habitat Units

Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units

Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units

CEACEACEACEA


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs

No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0

Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000

Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000

Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs



Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000


ICAICAICAICA


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs





Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs




ICAICAICAICA


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs

Increm. Cost/ Unit Output

No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0 NA

Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000 $526/HU

Red Plan 1,000 Habitat

Units $ 1,000,000 $10,000/HU


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs

Increm. Cost/ Unit Output

No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0 NA

Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000 $526/HU

Red Plan 1,000 Habitat

Units $ 1,000,000 $10,000/HU

CEA/ICA are NOT...CEA/ICA are NOT...CEA/ICA are NOT...CEA/ICA are NOT...

• NOT (a substitute for the) planning NOT (a substitute for the) planning processprocess

• NOT measurement techniqueNOT measurement technique• NOT way to minimize requirementsNOT way to minimize requirements• NOT in addition to, but instead of...NOT in addition to, but instead of...• NO single right wayNO single right way• NO single right answerNO single right answer

• NOT (a substitute for the) planning NOT (a substitute for the) planning processprocess

• NOT measurement techniqueNOT measurement technique• NOT way to minimize requirementsNOT way to minimize requirements• NOT in addition to, but instead of...NOT in addition to, but instead of...• NO single right wayNO single right way• NO single right answerNO single right answer

Who does CEA/ICA? Who does CEA/ICA? Interdisciplinary TeamInterdisciplinary Team

Who does CEA/ICA? Who does CEA/ICA? Interdisciplinary TeamInterdisciplinary Team

• Plan formulatorPlan formulator• Biologist Biologist • EconomistEconomist• Cost estimatorCost estimator• EngineerEngineer• Decision makerDecision maker• ALSO, Multi-stakeholderALSO, Multi-stakeholder

• Plan formulatorPlan formulator• Biologist Biologist • EconomistEconomist• Cost estimatorCost estimator• EngineerEngineer• Decision makerDecision maker• ALSO, Multi-stakeholderALSO, Multi-stakeholder

How do you do CEA/ICA?How do you do CEA/ICA?Before you start, you Before you start, you

need:need:

How do you do CEA/ICA?How do you do CEA/ICA?Before you start, you Before you start, you

need:need:

• SolutionsSolutions

• CostsCosts

• OutputsOutputs

• SolutionsSolutions

• CostsCosts

• OutputsOutputs

Solutions = Solutions =

Solutions = Solutions =

OUTPUT

CO

ST

SolutionsSolutionsSolutionsSolutions• Management measuresManagement measures

– Examples: dredging, planting, Examples: dredging, planting, reservoirs, stormwater treatment reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, water diversions, substrate areas, water diversions, substrate improvement, fencing, exotic improvement, fencing, exotic removalremoval

• Alternative plansAlternative plans– Fully-formulated alternativesFully-formulated alternatives

• Different sitesDifferent sites

• Management measuresManagement measures– Examples: dredging, planting, Examples: dredging, planting,

reservoirs, stormwater treatment reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, water diversions, substrate areas, water diversions, substrate improvement, fencing, exotic improvement, fencing, exotic removalremoval

• Alternative plansAlternative plans– Fully-formulated alternativesFully-formulated alternatives

• Different sitesDifferent sites

A1A1 D2 D2 H0H0 S1S1A1A1 D2 D2 H0H0 S1S1

Plan Alternative ExamplePlan Alternative Example

Substrate Improvement = SSubstrate Improvement = S

Aquatic Plant Harvesting = HAquatic Plant Harvesting = H

Dredging = DDredging = D

Aeration = AAeration = A

(Cubic Yards)(Cubic Yards)140,000 = D1140,000 = D1185,000 = D2185,000 = D2220,000 = D3220,000 = D3

No Action = H0No Action = H021 Acres = H121 Acres = H142 Acres = H242 Acres = H263 Acres = H363 Acres = H3

““Perform aeration, dredge 185,000 cubic yards of sediment, 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 = S1Improve Substrate = S1

Perform Aeration = A1Perform Aeration = A1

Plan alternative broken down:Plan alternative broken down:Perform Aeration is A1Perform Aeration is A1Dredge 185,000 Cubic Yards is D2Dredge 185,000 Cubic Yards is D2Do not harvest (No Action) is H0Do not harvest (No Action) is H0Improve Substrate is S1Improve Substrate is S1

No ActionNo ActionNo Aeration = A0No Aeration = A0

No Dredging = D0No Dredging = D0No Harvesting = H0No Harvesting = H0

No Substrate = S0No Substrate = S0

Solutions Incur Solutions Incur Costs Costs

Solutions Incur Solutions Incur Costs Costs

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

CO

ST

Cost ComponentsCost ComponentsCost ComponentsCost Components

• Implementation costsImplementation costs– constructionconstruction– operation & maintenanceoperation & maintenance– monitoringmonitoring– LERRDLERRD

• AnnualizedAnnualized

• Implementation costsImplementation costs– constructionconstruction– operation & maintenanceoperation & maintenance– monitoringmonitoring– LERRDLERRD


Solutions Produce Solutions Produce Output Output

Solutions Produce Solutions Produce Output Output

0 20 40 60 80 100

OUTPUT

Environmental OutputsEnvironmental OutputsEnvironmental OutputsEnvironmental Outputs

• No universal environmental outputNo universal environmental output• Increases in ecosystem value & Increases in ecosystem value &

productivity, productivity, quantitquantity & y & quality quality • Traditional outputsTraditional outputs

– physical dimensions (physical dimensions (acres of spawning acres of spawning habitat, stream miles restored)habitat, stream miles restored)

– population counts (population counts (number of breeding birds, number of breeding birds, increases in target species)increases in target species)

– ““habitat units” & similarhabitat units” & similar– diversity indices, e.g., IBIdiversity indices, e.g., IBI


• No universal environmental outputNo universal environmental output• Increases in ecosystem value & Increases in ecosystem value &

productivity, productivity, quantitquantity & y & quality quality • Traditional outputsTraditional outputs

– physical dimensions (physical dimensions (acres of spawning acres of spawning habitat, stream miles restored)habitat, stream miles restored)

– population counts (population counts (number of breeding birds, number of breeding birds, increases in target species)increases in target species)

– ““habitat units” & similarhabitat units” & similar– diversity indices, e.g., IBIdiversity indices, e.g., IBI


Environmental Outputs Environmental Outputs (cont’d)(cont’d)

Environmental Outputs Environmental Outputs (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Make the connection between planning objectives Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs& outputs

• Conceptual ecological models: sources -> Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat unitshabitat units

• Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary”Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary”Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI) load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI)

• Make the connection between planning objectives Make the connection between planning objectives & outputs& outputs

• Conceptual ecological models: sources -> Conceptual ecological models: sources -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> stressors -> effects - > attributes - > HSI’s -> habitat unitshabitat units

• Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary”Example: CEM for “St. Lucie Estuary”Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated Source (agric runoff) -> Stressor (elevated phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal phosphorus levels) -> Effect (increased algal blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ blooms) -> Attribute (decreased estuarine WQ levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus levels) -> Performance Measure (phosphorus load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI) load) -> HSI (oyster) -> HU’s (acres x oyster HSI)

Sample Results: Average Annual Sample Results: Average Annual Wetlands HU’sWetlands HU’s

Figure 6-B. Change in Wetlands Requiring 50% Restoration (HU's) over Period of Analysis

05000

100001500020000250003000035000

Year

HU

's

No Action Alt 6 Alt 5 Alt 4 Alt 3 Alt 2

Solutions, Costs and Solutions, Costs and Outputs Outputs

CEA/ICA … Bringing it all together

CEA/ICA … Bringing it all together

OUTPUT

CO

ST

OUTPUTIN

CR

EMEN

TAL

CO

ST

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

Step-by-step process:Step-by-step process:Step-by-step process:Step-by-step process:

• Plan formulationPlan formulation• Cost effectiveness analysisCost effectiveness analysis• Incremental cost analysisIncremental cost analysis• Decision makingDecision making

• Plan formulationPlan formulation• Cost effectiveness analysisCost effectiveness analysis• Incremental cost analysisIncremental cost analysis• Decision makingDecision making

Cost EffectivenessCost Effectiveness

Student ExerciseStudent ExercisePart 1Part 1

Cost EffectivenessCost Effectiveness


Cost EffectivenessCost EffectivenessCost EffectivenessCost Effectiveness

1.1. No other plan provides the No other plan provides the same outputsame output for for less costless cost

OROR

2.2. No other plan provides a No other plan provides a higher outputhigher output level for the level for the same or less costsame or less cost

Cost Effective PlansCost Effective Plans

0

250

500

750

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25Output

Co

st

($)

Non-Cost Effective Cost Effective

Higher Cost

Same Output

Cost Effective PlansCost Effective Plans

0

250

500

750

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25Output

Co

st

($)

Non-Cost Effective Cost Effective

Same Cost

Higher Output

Plan NamePlan Name Habitat Habitat ScoreScore

Costs Costs ($1000($1000

))

AveragAverage Coste Cost

11 No ActionNo Action 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.00

22 A1A1 0.250.25 9.69.6 38.438.4

Increasing Output, Increasing CostsIncreasing Output, Increasing Costs


Costs Costs ($1000($1000))



22 A1A1 0.250.25 9.69.6 38.438.4

33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.206.20 22.1422.14


Costs Costs ($1000($1000))



22 A1A1 0.250.25 9.69.6 38.438.4

33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.206.20 22.1422.14

44 A1D1A1D1 0.530.53 15.815.8 29.8129.81


Costs Costs ($1000($1000))



22 A1A1 0.250.25 9.69.6 38.438.4

33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.206.20 22.1422.14

44 A1D1A1D1 0.530.53 15.815.8 29.8129.81

55 C1C1 0.540.54 21.421.4 39.6339.63


Costs Costs ($1000($1000))



22 A1A1 0.250.25 9.69.6 38.438.4

33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.206.20 22.1422.14

44 A1D1A1D1 0.530.53 15.815.8 29.8129.81

55 C1C1 0.540.54 21.421.4 39.6339.63

66 J1J1 0.560.56 12.312.3 21.9621.96

AnswersAnswersAnswersAnswers

Incremental Cost Incremental Cost AnalysisAnalysis






• Completed only on the Completed only on the cost cost effectiveeffective set of plans set of plans

• (Change In Cost)/ (Change in (Change In Cost)/ (Change in Output) as you move to Output) as you move to successively larger cost effective successively larger cost effective plansplans

Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis DefinitionsCost Analysis Definitions

• Cost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness

– Conducted to ensure that the least cost Conducted to ensure that the least cost alternative is identified for each possible alternative is identified for each possible level of outputlevel of output

• Incremental Cost AnalysisIncremental Cost Analysis

– Reveals changes in costs as output levels Reveals changes in costs as output levels increaseincrease

– Allows an assessment of whether the Allows an assessment of whether the increase in output is worth the additional increase in output is worth the additional costcost

Incremental Cost & Incremental Cost & OutputOutput

• Incremental CostIncremental Cost– The difference in total cost between 2 The difference in total cost between 2

alternativesalternatives– (Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs)(Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs)– Example: ($6,200 - 0) = $6,200Example: ($6,200 - 0) = $6,200

• Incremental OutputIncremental Output– The difference in output between 2 The difference in output between 2

alternatives expressed in the output alternatives expressed in the output unit of measurementunit of measurement

– (Plan 3 Output - Plan 1 Output)(Plan 3 Output - Plan 1 Output)– Example: (0.28 – 0) = 0.28Example: (0.28 – 0) = 0.28

Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per UnitUnit

• Examining the change in cost and Examining the change in cost and output across alternatives output across alternatives

• (Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs) / (Plan 3 (Plan 3 Costs - Plan 1 Costs) / (Plan 3 AAHU - Plan 1 AAHU)AAHU - Plan 1 AAHU)

• Example: ($6,200 - 0) / (0.28 - 0) = Example: ($6,200 - 0) / (0.28 - 0) = $6,200/0.28 = $22,143 per AAHU$6,200/0.28 = $22,143 per AAHU

Best Buy Plans:Best Buy Plans:Best Buy Plans:Best Buy Plans:

• Subset of cost effective Subset of cost effective plansplans

• Most efficient in productionMost efficient in production• Greatest increase in output Greatest increase in output

for least increase in costfor least increase in cost• Lowest incremental costs Lowest incremental costs

per unit of outputper unit of output

• Subset of cost effective Subset of cost effective plansplans

• Most efficient in productionMost efficient in production• Greatest increase in output Greatest increase in output

for least increase in costfor least increase in cost• Lowest incremental costs Lowest incremental costs

per unit of outputper unit of output

Plan NamePlan NameHabitaHabita

t t ScoreScore

Costs Costs $1000$1000

Incremental Incremental Cost per Cost per outputoutput

11No No ActionAction 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.00

33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.26.2 22.1422.14

[ (6.2-0.00) / (0.28-0.00) ] = [ (6.2-0.00) / (0.28-0.00) ] = 22.1422.14


t t ScoreScore




33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.26.2 22.1422.14

66 J1J1 .56.56 12.312.3 21.9621.96

[ (12.3-0.00) / (0.56-0.00) ] = [ (12.3-0.00) / (0.56-0.00) ] = 21.9621.96


t t ScoreScore




33 D1D1 0.280.28 6.26.2 22.1422.14

66 J1J1 0.560.56 12.312.3 21.9621.96

1111 D1J1D1J1 0.840.84 14.714.7 17.517.5

[ (14.7-0.00) / (0.84-0.00) ] = [ (14.7-0.00) / (0.84-0.00) ] = 17.517.5

Best Buy PlansBest Buy PlansBest Buy PlansBest Buy Plans

• 11stst Best Buy Plan Best Buy Plan– Complete calculations between NO ACTION Complete calculations between NO ACTION

and all subsequent plansand all subsequent plans– Lowest incremental cost is 1Lowest incremental cost is 1stst Best Buy Best Buy

• 22ndnd Best Buy Plan Best Buy Plan– Complete calculations between 1Complete calculations between 1stst Best Buy Best Buy

and all subsequent plansand all subsequent plans– Lowest incremental cost is 2Lowest incremental cost is 2ndnd Best Buy Best Buy

• Likewise until all Best Buy Plans are Likewise until all Best Buy Plans are identifiedidentified

AnswersAnswersAnswersAnswers

CE/ICA Applied to Indian River Lagoon – South CE/ICA Applied to Indian River Lagoon – South

Ecosystem Restoration ProjectEcosystem Restoration Project

Study Area

• Martin Co.• St. Lucie Co.• Small part of Okeechobee Co.

Indian River Lagoon – South Indian River Lagoon – South Area MapArea Map

The PlanFlow

CurrentFlow

HistoricFlow

Water Flow Patterns in Central & South Florida

IRL-S Problems & IRL-S Problems & OpportunitiesOpportunities

• Ecological:Ecological: • Declining fisheries resources, fish kills & lesionsDeclining fisheries resources, fish kills & lesions• Accumulation of unconsolidated sediments (muck)Accumulation of unconsolidated sediments (muck)• Extensive & frequent algae bloomsExtensive & frequent algae blooms• Decline of submerged aquatic veg (SAV), oyster reefsDecline of submerged aquatic veg (SAV), oyster reefs• Decline in spatial extent & functional quality of watershed Decline in spatial extent & functional quality of watershed

wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic wetlands & native upland/wetland mosaic • Water QualityWater Quality:: • High freshwater discharges disrupting salinity regimeHigh 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 demandIrrigation demand• Resource-based recreation & tourismResource-based recreation & tourism• Commercial & recreational fisheriesCommercial & recreational fisheries

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

Development of Alternative Development of Alternative PlansPlans

• Potential features/components:Potential features/components: • Reservoirs for above ground storage of freshwater runoffReservoirs for above ground storage of freshwater runoff• Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) for water quality treatment Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) for water quality treatment

of captured flowsof captured flows• Restoration of historic native upland/ wetland habitatRestoration of historic native upland/ wetland habitat• Natural areas for storage of freshwater runoffNatural 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/ Hydrologic diversions within the watershed to mimic historic/

natural flow patternsnatural flow patterns• Enhance estuarine health through restoration of North Fork of Enhance estuarine health through restoration of North Fork of

the SLR the SLR

Indian River Lagoon – South Indian River Lagoon – South

Alternative 6Alternative 6

IRL-S Outputs: Issues & IRL-S Outputs: Issues & LessonsLessons

• Issue:Issue: How to evaluate alternatives on How to evaluate alternatives on multiple performance measures, multiple multiple performance measures, multiple outputs?outputs?

• Strategy:Strategy: Linked habitat unit indices to Linked habitat unit indices to performance measure achievement, performance measure achievement, conducted multiple analyses, developed conducted multiple analyses, developed combined metrics, weighted “primary” combined metrics, weighted “primary” output output

• Lesson:Lesson: Importance of output metric in Importance of output metric in portraying results (CE/ICA) & justifying portraying results (CE/ICA) & justifying plan selectionplan selection

IRL-S Outputs Used for CE/ICAIRL-S Outputs Used for CE/ICA

For each alternative, For each alternative, – Average annual outputs: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 & watershed combined index (normalized &

estuary given four times the weight)estuary given four times the weight)

Average Annual Habitat Average Annual Habitat

Unit CalculationsUnit Calculations

• Required. HU’s estimated for existing Required. HU’s estimated for existing condition (2003), first year of project condition (2003), first year of project operation (2011), future with- & without-operation (2011), future with- & without-project condition (2050), & all intervening project condition (2050), & all intervening yearsyears

• Differences between with & without summed Differences between with & without summed for all years, then divided by # years to yield for all years, then divided by # years to yield “average annual value”“average annual value”

• Different assumptions for each resource Different assumptions for each resource regarding w/o project conditions, ecological regarding w/o project conditions, ecological response rates, effects of Lake O damaging response rates, effects of Lake O damaging discharges, effects of otherdischarges, effects of other CERP projects CERP projects (“interim benefits”), etc.(“interim benefits”), etc.

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

Figure 6-D. Change in Estuarine Oyster Habitat (HU's) over Period of Analysis

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Year

HU

's

No Action Alt 6 w/ arthab Alt 6Alt 6 w/o CERP Alt 5 w/ arthab Alt 5Alt 5 w/o CERP Alt 4 w/ arthab Alt 4Alt 4 w/o CERP Alt 3 w/ arthab Alt 3Alt 3 w/o CERP Alt 2 Alt 2 w/o CERP

IRL-S Costs & Outputs IRL-S Costs & Outputs Used for CE/ICAUsed for CE/ICA

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7a Alt 7b Alt 7 Variable Average Ann. Cost ($1,000) $30,594 $67,000 $80,622 $76,379 $76,320 $64,501 $28,909 $93,378 Cost w/ Art Oyster Habitat NA $67,315 $81,252 $77,009 $76,951 NA NA NA Cost w/ Art SAV Habitat NA $67,002 $80,626 $76,383 $76,325 NA NA NA Cost w/ both Art Habitats NA $67,317 $81,256 $77,014 $76,955 NA NA NA Oyster AAHU’s 192 505 771 771 771 771 0 771 Artificial Oyster Habitat 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 SAV AAHU’s 204 517 783 783 783 783 0 783 Artificial SAV Habitat 0 3 5 5 5 0 0 0 Benthic AAHU’s 628 1,635 2,491 2,491 2,491 2,491 0 2,491 All Estuarine AAHU’s 1,024 2,663 4,053 4,053 4,053 4,053 0 4,053 Wetlands 100% AAHU’s 0 14,361 23,791 27,699 27,699 0 27,699 27,699 Wetlands 50% AAHU’s 0 12,843 18,049 12,835 12,835 0 12,835 12,835 Uplands AAHU’s 0 27,182 27,475 13,149 13,149 0 13,149 13,149 All Watershed AAHU’s 0 54,386 69,315 53,683 53,683 0 53,683 53,683

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Combined Estuary HU’sCombined 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

CEA: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing CEA: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing

Output – Total Estuary Habitat UnitsOutput – Total Estuary Habitat Units

Alternative Average Annual Cost ($1000)

Output Average Cost per

Output ($1000) Cost Effective?

Without Plan 0 0 N/A Alternative 7b 28,909 0 N/A Alternative 2 30,594 1,024 29.88 Yes Alternative 3 67,000 2,657 25.22 Alternative 3 w/ artificial SAV habitat 67,002 2,660 25.19 Alternative 3 w/ artificial oyster habitat 67,315 2,660 25.31 Alternative 3 w/ artificial SAV & oyster habitat

67,317 2,663 25.28

Alternative 7a 64,501 4,045 15.95 Yes Alternative 6 76,320 4,045 18.87 Alternative 5 76,379 4,045 18.88 Alternative 4 80,622 4,045 19.93 Alternative 7 93,378 4,045 23.08 Alt 6 w/ artificial oyster 76,951 4,048 19.01 Alt 5 w/ artificial oyster 77,009 4,048 19.02 Alt 4 w/ artificial oyster 81,252 4,048 20.07 Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV 76,325 4,050 18.85 Yes Alt 5 w/ artificial SAV 76,383 4,050 18.86 Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV 80,626 4,050 19.91 Alt 6 w/ oyster & SAV 76,955 4,053 18.99 Yes Alt 5 w/ oyster & SAV 77,014 4,053 19.00 Alt 4 w/ oyster & SAV 81,256 4,053 20.05

Alternative Average Annual Cost ($1000)

Output Average Cost per

Output ($1000) Cost Effective?

Without Plan 0 0 N/A Alternative 7b 28,909 0 N/A Alternative 2 30,594 1,024 29.88 Yes Alternative 3 67,000 2,657 25.22 Alternative 3 w/ artificial SAV habitat 67,002 2,660 25.19 Alternative 3 w/ artificial oyster habitat 67,315 2,660 25.31 Alternative 3 w/ artificial SAV & oyster habitat

67,317 2,663 25.28

Alternative 7a 64,501 4,045 15.95 Yes Alternative 6 76,320 4,045 18.87 Alternative 5 76,379 4,045 18.88 Alternative 4 80,622 4,045 19.93 Alternative 7 93,378 4,045 23.08 Alt 6 w/ artificial oyster 76,951 4,048 19.01 Alt 5 w/ artificial oyster 77,009 4,048 19.02 Alt 4 w/ artificial oyster 81,252 4,048 20.07 Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV 76,325 4,050 18.85 Yes Alt 5 w/ artificial SAV 76,383 4,050 18.86 Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV 80,626 4,050 19.91 Alt 6 w/ oyster & SAV 76,955 4,053 18.99 Yes Alt 5 w/ oyster & SAV 77,014 4,053 19.00 Alt 4 w/ oyster & SAV 81,256 4,053 20.05

ICA: Cost Effective & Best Buy Plans ICA: Cost Effective & Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output – Total Arrayed by Increasing Output – Total

Estuary Habitat UnitsEstuary Habitat Units Alternative Average

Annual Cost

($1000)

Output Average Cost Per Output ($1000)

Incremental Average

Annual Cost

($1000)

Incremental Output

Incremental Cost Per

Output ($1000)

Best Buy?

Without Plan

$0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative 2

$30,594 1,024 $29.88 $30,594 1,024 $29.88

Alternative 7a

$64,501 4,045 $15.95 $64,501 4,045 $15.95 1st Best Buy

Alternative 6 w/ artificial SAV

$76,325 4,050 $18.85 $11,824 5 $2,364.80

Alternative 6 w/ artificial SAV & oyster

$76,955 4,053 $18.99 $12,454 8 $1,556.75 2nd Best Buy

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary Combined Watershed & Estuary

(Weighted) Index(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)

Cost Effective Plans: Combined Cost Effective Plans: Combined Watershed & Estuary (Weighted) Watershed & Estuary (Weighted)

IndexIndex

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

Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Incremental Cost Analysis Results: Combined Watershed & Estuary Combined Watershed & Estuary

(Weighted) Index(Weighted) Index

Alt 6 w/ artificial SAV habitat

Alt 4 w/ artificial SAV habitat

Summary of CE/ICA ResultsSummary of CE/ICA Results

OutputOutput Alt 2Alt 2 Alt 3Alt 3 Alt 4Alt 4 Alt 5Alt 5 Alt 6 w/ Alt 6 w/ SAVSAV

Alt 6 w/ Alt 6 w/ oyster & oyster &

SAVSAV

Alt 7aAlt 7a Alt 7bAlt 7b

Total Total EstuaryEstuary

Cost Cost EffectEffect

Cost EffectCost Effect Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy& Best Buy

Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy& Best Buy

Total Total WatershedWatershed



Combined Combined IndexIndex


Cost EffectCost Effect Cost Effect Cost Effect Cost Effect Cost Effect Cost EffectCost Effect Cost Effect Cost Effect & Best Buy& Best Buy

Combined Combined Weighted Weighted IndexIndex




Cost EffectCost Effect Cost EffectCost Effect Cost EffectCost Effect

Telling the Story: Rationale for Telling the Story: Rationale for Alt 6Alt 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? (NOT supported by ASA)(NOT supported by ASA)– 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

Indian River Lagoon – South Indian River Lagoon – South Project Selected Plan FeaturesProject Selected Plan Features

Water Storage & Water Quality TreatmentWater Storage & Water Quality Treatment• 4 surface storage reservoirs - 135,000 acre-4 surface storage reservoirs - 135,000 acre-

feetfeet• 4 STA’s - 35,000 acre-feet4 STA’s - 35,000 acre-feet• 3 natural storage areas - 30,000 acre-feet3 natural storage areas - 30,000 acre-feetUpland & Wetland Habitat ImprovementUpland & 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 ImprovementEstuarine Habitat Improvement• 7.9 million cubic yards of muck removal7.9 million cubic yards of muck removal

Indian River Lagoon – SouthIndian River Lagoon – South Initial Project Costs Initial Project Costs

(Oct 2003 price levels)(Oct 2003 price levels)

Project FeatureProject Feature Construction CostConstruction Cost Real Estate CostReal Estate Cost TotalTotal

Reservoirs + STA’sReservoirs + STA’s $329,756,000$329,756,000 $291,293,000$291,293,000 $621,049,000$621,049,000

Natural Storage Natural Storage AreasAreas

$82,322,000$82,322,000 $385,952,000$385,952,000 $468,274,000$468,274,000

Muck remediation, Muck remediation, artificial habitat, artificial habitat, floodplain floodplain restorationrestoration

$83,353,000$83,353,000 $21,692,000$21,692,000 $105,045,000$105,045,000

Monitoring Monitoring (construction)(construction)

$12,620,000$12,620,000 $12,620,000$12,620,000

Total (Including Total (Including PMP cost of PMP cost of $300,000)$300,000)

$508,352,000$508,352,000 $698,937,000$698,937,000 $1,207,289,000$1,207,289,000

VERSION 3.33VERSION 3.33

IWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning Suite

• Software version of CE/ICA Software version of CE/ICA proceduresprocedures• Automates tedious mathAutomates tedious math

– Allows you to do more complicated Allows you to do more complicated analysesanalyses

• Tables & graphs as record of Tables & graphs as record of analysesanalyses

IWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning SuiteIWR-Planning Suite

• Available on web Available on web • Website: Website: www.pmcl.com/iwrplanwww.pmcl.com/iwrplan

– InstructionsInstructions– Student tutorialStudent tutorial– User’s GuideUser’s Guide

• For on-line help, click on “?”For on-line help, click on “?”

IWR Planning Suite IWR Planning Suite BasicsBasics

• Assists in plan formulation Assists in plan formulation • Builds “all plan combinations”Builds “all plan combinations” • 52 solutions, 20 scales each52 solutions, 20 scales each• Also, fully formulated alternativesAlso, fully formulated alternatives• Dependency & combinability relationshipsDependency & combinability relationships

• No limit on number of variables, No limit on number of variables, including:including:

• CostsCosts• 1 or more outputs1 or more outputs• Other “effects”Other “effects”• “ “Derived” outputs (formulaic combinations of other Derived” outputs (formulaic combinations of other variables)variables)

•Performs CE/ICAPerforms CE/ICA• CEA: Cost effective plansCEA: Cost effective plans• ICA: Best buy plansICA: Best buy plans

IWR Planning Suite IWR Planning Suite FeaturesFeatures

AnalyticalAnalytical • Multiple planning setsMultiple planning sets• ConstraintsConstraints• Sensitivity – variable & solutionSensitivity – variable & solution• Automated Editing – non-additive Automated Editing – non-additive effectseffects• Exclude solutionsExclude solutions• Multi-planning set comparisonsMulti-planning set comparisons• “ “Plans of Interest” Plans of Interest” ReportingReporting• Multiple display/ report optionsMultiple display/ report options• Import/ Export optionsImport/ Export options

IWR Planning Suite IWR Planning Suite FeaturesFeatures

Comprised of modules:Comprised of modules:• Plan Editor Plan Editor

• also “framework” for other modules also “framework” for other modules

• Plan Generator Plan Generator • builds combinationsbuilds combinations

• Plan Analysis Plan Analysis • performs CE/ICAperforms CE/ICA

• Multi-criteria Decision Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (forthcoming) Analysis (forthcoming)

• scores & ranks alternativesscores & ranks alternatives

ER 1105-2-100ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000)(22 April 2000)

• Recommend the NER PlanRecommend the NER Plan• “… “… justified alternative & scale having justified alternative & scale having

the maximum excess of monetary & the maximum excess of monetary & non-monetary beneficial effects over non-monetary beneficial effects over monetary & non-monetary costs.”monetary & non-monetary costs.”

• ““...occurs where the incremental ...occurs where the incremental beneficial effects just equal the beneficial effects just equal the incremental costs, or alternatively incremental costs, or alternatively stated, where the extra environmental stated, where the extra environmental value is just worth the extra costs.” value is just worth the extra costs.” (App. E-28.e(1))(App. E-28.e(1))

Is it worth it?Is it worth it?Is it worth it?Is it worth it?

Significance of Significance of Ecosystem OutputsEcosystem Outputs

Significance of Significance of Ecosystem OutputsEcosystem Outputs

• Qualitative info critical to Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputsdetermining “worth” of outputs

• Who or what says the resource is Who or what says the resource is significant?significant?– InstitutionalInstitutional – PublicPublic – TechnicalTechnical

• Important info in “telling your Important info in “telling your story”story”

• Qualitative info critical to Qualitative info critical to determining “worth” of outputsdetermining “worth” of outputs

• Who or what says the resource is Who or what says the resource is significant?significant?– InstitutionalInstitutional – PublicPublic – TechnicalTechnical

• Important info in “telling your Important info in “telling your story”story”

More on Technical More on Technical Recognition of Recognition of SignificanceSignificance

More on Technical More on Technical Recognition of Recognition of SignificanceSignificance

• Describe in terms of scientific Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding:knowledge/ judgment regarding:– ScarcityScarcity - - relative abundance, rarenessrelative abundance, rareness – RepresentativenessRepresentativeness - - exemplifies natural, exemplifies natural,

undisturbed habitatundisturbed habitat– Status & trendsStatus & trends - - occurrence & extent over time, occurrence & extent over time,

how & why changedhow & why changed– ConnectivityConnectivity - - habitat corridors, fragmentation, habitat corridors, fragmentation,

barriersbarriers– Limiting HabitatLimiting Habitat - - essential to species survivalessential to species survival– BiodiversityBiodiversity - - species richness, genetic species richness, genetic

variabilityvariability

• Describe in terms of scientific Describe in terms of scientific knowledge/ judgment regarding:knowledge/ judgment regarding:– ScarcityScarcity - - relative abundance, rarenessrelative abundance, rareness – RepresentativenessRepresentativeness - - exemplifies natural, exemplifies natural,

undisturbed habitatundisturbed habitat– Status & trendsStatus & trends - - occurrence & extent over time, occurrence & extent over time,

how & why changedhow & why changed– ConnectivityConnectivity - - habitat corridors, fragmentation, habitat corridors, fragmentation,

barriersbarriers– Limiting HabitatLimiting Habitat - - essential to species survivalessential to species survival– BiodiversityBiodiversity - - species richness, genetic species richness, genetic

variabilityvariability

FY 2008 Budgetary FY 2008 Budgetary Significance CriteriaSignificance CriteriaFY 2008 Budgetary FY 2008 Budgetary Significance CriteriaSignificance Criteria

• ScarcityScarcity• ConnectivityConnectivity• Special Status SpeciesSpecial Status Species

– Provides significant contribution to key Provides significant contribution to key life requisite of special status specieslife requisite of special status species

• Plan RecognitionPlan Recognition – Contributes to watershed or basin Contributes to watershed or basin

plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan”Plan”

• Self-sustainingSelf-sustaining– Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem

consisting of natural processesconsisting of natural processes

• ScarcityScarcity• ConnectivityConnectivity• Special Status SpeciesSpecial Status Species

– Provides significant contribution to key Provides significant contribution to key life requisite of special status specieslife requisite of special status species

• Plan RecognitionPlan Recognition – Contributes to watershed or basin Contributes to watershed or basin

plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic plans as emphasized in “CW Strategic Plan”Plan”

• Self-sustainingSelf-sustaining– Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem Ideal goal is self-sustaining ecosystem

consisting of natural processesconsisting of natural processes

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?

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

Output TargetOutput TargetOutput TargetOutput Target

Targ

et

Targ

et

Targ

et

Targ

et







EE +I+I +B+B +F+F+J+J+D+D +G+G +H+H

+K+K

+A+A

+C+C

Output ThresholdsOutput ThresholdsOutput ThresholdsOutput Thresholds

Min

imu

mM

inim

um M

axim

um

Maxim

um

Total Cost Limit

Cost LimitCost LimitCost LimitCost Limit








+K+K

+A+A

+C+C

Breakpoints

BreakpointBreakpointBreakpointBreakpoint

Intended and Unintended Effects

LAND OWNERSHIP IMPACT ON OTHER SPECIES RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION

NO ACTION NOT APPLICABLE NO IMPACT NONE

E STATE NO IMPACT NONE

E + I STATE -5 NONE

E + I + B STATE -15 NONE

E + I + B + F STATE AND PRIVATE -20 5 HOMES

E + I+ B + F + J STATE AND PRIVATE -7 17 HOMES

LAND OWNERSHIP IMPACT ON OTHER SPECIES RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION

NO ACTION NOT APPLICABLE NO IMPACT NONE

E STATE NO IMPACT NONE

E + I STATE -5 NONE

E + I + B STATE -15 NONE

E + I + B + F STATE AND PRIVATE -20 5 HOMES

E + I+ B + F + J STATE AND PRIVATE -7 17 HOMES








+K+K+A+A+C+C

Does it make sense?Does it make sense?

Red faceRed face testtest

testtest

““Idiot”Idiot” test test

ER 1105-2-100ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000)(22 April 2000)

• ““Selecting the NER plan requires Selecting the NER plan requires careful consideration of the plan that careful consideration of the plan that meets meets planning objectives and planning objectives and constraintsconstraints and reasonably maximizes and reasonably maximizes environmental benefits while passing environmental benefits while passing tests of tests of cost effectiveness and cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysesincremental cost analyses, , significancesignificance of outputs, of outputs, acceptabilityacceptability, , completenesscompleteness, , efficiencyefficiency, and , and effectivenesseffectiveness.” (Appendix E, E-41).” (Appendix E, E-41)

ER 1105-2-100ER 1105-2-100 (22 April 2000)(22 April 2000)

• Additional factors to consider:Additional factors to consider:

– Partnership contextPartnership context• higher priority to those projects planned in higher priority to those projects planned in

cooperation with other Federal resource cooperation with other Federal resource agencies & regional & national interagency agencies & regional & national interagency programsprograms

– Reasonableness of costsReasonableness of costs• decision-maker ascertains that the benefits decision-maker ascertains that the benefits

are really worth the costsare really worth the costs

– Rarely will the NER plan not be among Rarely will the NER plan not be among the best buy plans the best buy plans (App. E, E-41) (App. E, E-41)

ApplicabilityApplicability

• 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, HU’s, acres, river miles, IBI, water quality parameterswater quality parameters

• All scales of projectsAll scales of projects• All phases of workAll phases of work• Many agencies and interestsMany agencies and interests

ChallengesChallenges

• K.I.S.S. - don’t go too fast too K.I.S.S. - don’t go too fast too soonsoon

• Set-up - getting startedSet-up - getting started• CommensurationCommensuration

– Multiple metrics Multiple metrics

BenefitsBenefits• 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!

Visit IWR’s HomepageVisit IWR’s Homepagewww.iwr.usace.army.milwww.iwr.usace.army.mil

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

OUTPUT

CO

ST

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

OUTPUT

INCR

EM

EN

TAL

CO

ST

INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSISINCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

Questions?

Truckee Meadows Flood Truckee Meadows Flood Control Project, NVControl Project, NV

CE/ICA Applied to Fish Passage CE/ICA Applied to Fish Passage ComponentComponent

Leigh Skaggs, CEIWR-GWLeigh Skaggs, CEIWR-GW

Study AreaStudy AreaOverall 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

Truckee Fish Passage Truckee Fish Passage ComponentComponent

• Latecomer to projectLatecomer to project• Pyramid Lake Paiute TribePyramid Lake Paiute Tribe approached approached ASA(CW):ASA(CW): “We “We

don’t want additional flood flows on our lands.” don’t want additional flood flows on our lands.” • 1990 Corps study investigated improving fish passage on 1990 Corps study investigated improving fish passage on

Truckee River – but Tribe could not afford to cost-shareTruckee River – but Tribe could not afford to cost-share• Now opportunity to pressure Washoe County to cost-shareNow opportunity to pressure Washoe County to cost-share• Tribe a big player in watershed & has good case against Tribe a big player in watershed & has good case against

BOR & citiesBOR & cities– BOR Newlands project (1903, BOR’s first!) diverted up to ½ BOR Newlands project (1903, BOR’s first!) diverted up to ½

Truckee flow to Carson River; Pyramid Lake dropped 80’ by 1960; Truckee flow to Carson River; Pyramid Lake dropped 80’ by 1960; results: head-cutting, channel incision, disconnected river from results: head-cutting, channel incision, disconnected river from floodplain, riparian vegetation disappearedfloodplain, riparian vegetation disappeared

– Effluent from Reno/Sparks wastewater treatment degrades WQ Effluent from Reno/Sparks wastewater treatment degrades WQ – Lake has a great fishery (historically) –threatened by declining WQLake has a great fishery (historically) –threatened by declining WQ– Pyramid Lake is greatest source of income for Tribe – economically Pyramid Lake is greatest source of income for Tribe – economically

dependent on Lake resourcedependent on Lake resource• OASA(CW): Examine fish passage opportunities in FCPOASA(CW): Examine fish passage opportunities in FCP

Truckee Fish Passage Plan Truckee Fish Passage Plan FormulationFormulation

• Collaboration between SPK, ERDC & IWRCollaboration between SPK, ERDC & IWR• For Upstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file For Upstream Alternatives considered, see Excel file

“Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Upstream”“Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Upstream”• For Downstream Alternatives considered, see Excel For Downstream Alternatives considered, see Excel

file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab file “Results_SKM_02-27-08vSKM2”, tab “Downstream”“Downstream”

• For Combinations of Upstream & Downstream For Combinations of Upstream & Downstream Alternatives, see next slideAlternatives, see next slide

• Note: IWR Planning Suite was not used for Note: IWR Planning Suite was not used for formulation. Although it can handle dependencies formulation. Although it can handle dependencies between sites, it could not handle the calculation of between sites, it could not handle the calculation of benefits for > 200,000 combinations (because benefits for > 200,000 combinations (because benefits at each site dependent on whether or not benefits at each site dependent on whether or not other sites implemented).other sites implemented).

• Rational combinations of upstream & downstream Rational combinations of upstream & downstream sites were formulatedsites were formulated

45 Combinations of Upstream & 45 Combinations of Upstream & Downstream Alternative Plans Considered:Downstream Alternative Plans Considered:

Upstream PlanUpstream Plan

Downstream planDownstream planFWOP-UFWOP-U MaxBenefit-UMaxBenefit-U ERDC1-UERDC1-U ERDC2-UERDC2-U ERDC3-UERDC3-U

FWOP-DFWOP-D Plan1Plan1 Plan10Plan10 Plan19Plan19 Plan28Plan28 Plan37Plan37

MaxBenefit-DMaxBenefit-D Plan2Plan2 Plan11Plan11 Plan20Plan20 Plan29Plan29 Plan38Plan38

ERDC1-DERDC1-D Plan3Plan3 Plan12Plan12 Plan21Plan21 Plan30Plan30 Plan39Plan39







Benefits/OutputsBenefits/Outputs• For explanation of how upstream & downstream benefits For explanation of how upstream & downstream benefits

were calculated, see Conyngham et al. 2008, “Truckee were calculated, see Conyngham et al. 2008, “Truckee River Fish Passage: Environmental Benefits Analysis”River Fish Passage: Environmental Benefits Analysis”– Upstream & downstream benefits/outputs were calculated Upstream & downstream benefits/outputs were calculated

differently & used different metrics; therefore could not be differently & used different metrics; therefore could not be combined to assess “total benefits” without normalizing each combined to assess “total benefits” without normalizing each categorycategory

• For CE/ICA analysis, both upstream & downstream benefits For CE/ICA analysis, both upstream & downstream benefits were normalized on a percent of maximum basis, 0 -1 scale were normalized on a percent of maximum basis, 0 -1 scale (0=no output, 1=maximum output of any alternative)(0=no output, 1=maximum output of any alternative)– Therefore, max output possible for any alternative for both Therefore, max output possible for any alternative for both

upstream & downstream output = 2upstream & downstream output = 2• 3 scenarios/predictions of outputs estimated: average 3 scenarios/predictions of outputs estimated: average

(expected outcome), minimum (worst case) & maximum (expected outcome), minimum (worst case) & maximum (best case)(best case)– Reason for 3 scenarios is to conduct sensitivity analysis & Reason for 3 scenarios is to conduct sensitivity analysis &

address uncertainties regarding output predictionsaddress uncertainties regarding output predictions

Plan 44

Plan 39

Plan 38

Plan 20

Plan 11Plan 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 & downPlan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only)Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch downPlan 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

Plan 39

Plan 38

Plan 20

Plan 11

Plan 45Plan 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 & downPlan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only)Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch downPlan 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 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 downPlan 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.

AlternativAlternative Namee Name Alternative DescriptionAlternative Description

Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

Annual)Annual)

Total Total Upstream Upstream

+ + DownstreDownstre

am am Output Output (Avg)(Avg)

Avg Cost Avg Cost per unit per unit OutputOutput

Cost Cost Effective Effective

??

No Action No Action PlanPlan

Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes

Plan 9Plan 9 FWOP up FWOP up + ERDC 7 down+ ERDC 7 down $280,224$280,224 0.130.13 $2,155,569$2,155,569 YesYes





Plan 37Plan 37 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + FWOP down+ FWOP down $992,003$992,003 0.860.86 $1,153,492$1,153,492 YesYes

Plan 45Plan 45 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down+ ERDC 7 down $1,116,715$1,116,715 0.990.99 $1,127,995$1,127,995 YesYes

Plan 44Plan 44 ERDC 3 upERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down + ERDC 6 down $1,256,565$1,256,565 1.091.09 $1,152,812$1,152,812 YesYes










Plan 38Plan 38 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + Max Ben down+ Max Ben down $2,944,556$2,944,556 1.861.86 $1,583,095$1,583,095 YesYes

Plan 29Plan 29 ERDC 2 upERDC 2 up + Max Ben down + Max Ben down $3,085,552$3,085,552 1.891.89 $1,632,567$1,632,567 YesYes


Plan 11Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben downMax Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,941$3,991,941 2.002.00 $1,995,971$1,995,971 YesYes

Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Average Output Estimate

Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Average Output Estimate

Alternative Alternative NameName

Alternative Alternative DescriptionDescription

Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

Annual)Annual)

Total Total UpstreaUpstrea

m + m + DownstrDownstr

eam eam Output Output (Avg)(Avg)

Avg Avg Cost Cost per per Unit Unit

OutputOutput

Best Best Buy?Buy?

IncremeIncremental ntal CostCost

IncreIncrementamenta

l l OutpuOutpu

tt

IncrementIncremental Cost al Cost

per Unit per Unit OutputOutput

No Action PlanNo Action Plan Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes 00 0.000.00 NANA

Plan 45Plan 45 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down+ ERDC 7 down $1,116,71$1,116,7155

0.990.99 $1,127,99$1,127,9955

YesYes $1,116,71$1,116,7155

0.990.99 $1,127,995$1,127,995

Plan 44Plan 44 ERDC 3 upERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down + ERDC 6 down $1,256,56$1,256,5655

1.091.09 $1,152,81$1,152,8122

YesYes $139,850$139,850 0.100.10 $1,398,500$1,398,500

Plan 39Plan 39 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down+ ERDC 1 down $2,161,87$2,161,8744

1.521.52 $1,422,28$1,422,2866

YesYes $905,309$905,309 0.430.43 $2,105,370$2,105,370

Plan 38Plan 38 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + Max Ben + Max Ben downdown

$2,944,55$2,944,5566

1.861.86 $1,583,09$1,583,0955

YesYes $782,682$782,682 0.340.34 $2,302,006$2,302,006


$3,342,62$3,342,6211

1.971.97 $1,696,76$1,696,7622

YesYes $398,065$398,065 0.110.11 $3,618,773$3,618,773

Plan 11Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben Max Ben up + Max Ben downdown

$3,991,94$3,991,9411

2.002.00 $1,995,97$1,995,9711

YesYes $649,320$649,320 0.030.03 $21,644,000$21,644,000

Plan 42

Plan 45Plan 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 & downPlan 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 & downPlan 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 42

Plan 45Plan 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 & downPlan 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 & downPlan 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 42

Plan 45Plan 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 & downPlan 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.


Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

Annual)Annual)






??

No Action PlanNo Action Plan Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes




















Plan 11Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben downMax Ben up + Max Ben down $3,991,941$3,991,941 2.002.00 $1,995,971$1,995,971 YesYes

Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Minimum Output Estimate

AlternativAlternative Namee Name


Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

AnnualAnnual))

Total Total UpstreaUpstrea

m + m + DownstrDownstr

eam eam Output Output (Avg)(Avg)

Avg Avg Cost Cost per per Unit Unit

OutputOutput

Best Best Buy?Buy?

IncremenIncremental Costtal Cost

IncremIncremental ental

OutputOutput

IncremenIncremental Cost tal Cost per Unit per Unit OutputOutput


Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes 00 0.000.00 NANA

Plan 45Plan 45 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 + ERDC 7 downdown

$1,116,71$1,116,7155

1.061.06 $1,053,50$1,053,5055

YesYes $1,116,715$1,116,715 1.061.06 $1,053,505$1,053,505

Plan 44Plan 44 ERDC 3 upERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 + ERDC 6 downdown

$1,256,56$1,256,5655

1.171.17 $1,073,98$1,073,9877

YesYes $139,850$139,850 0.110.11 $1,271,364$1,271,364

Plan 42Plan 42 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 4 + ERDC 4 downdown

$2,191,45$2,191,4533

1.581.58 $1,386,99$1,386,9966

YesYes $934,888$934,888 0.410.41 $2,280,215$2,280,215


$2,944,55$2,944,5566

1.911.91 $1,541,65$1,541,6522

YesYes $753,103$753,103 0.330.33 $2,282,130$2,282,130

Plan 29Plan 29 ERDC 2 upERDC 2 up + Max Ben + Max Ben downdown

$3,085,55$3,085,5522

1.931.93 $1,598,73$1,598,7322

YesYes $140,996$140,996 0.020.02 $7,049,800$7,049,800


$3,342,62$3,342,6211

1.961.96 $1,705,41$1,705,4199

YesYes $257,069$257,069 0.030.03 $8,568,967$8,568,967

Plan 11Plan 11 Max Ben up + Max Ben Max Ben up + Max Ben downdown

$3,991,94$3,991,9411

2.002.00 $1,995,97$1,995,9711

YesYes $649,320$649,320 0.040.04 $16,233,000$16,233,000

Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Minimum Output Estimate

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 & downPlan 44 = Plan 45 + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only)Plan 39 = Plan 37 + Washoe down + Verdi down + Fleisch downPlan 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)

Plan 39Plan 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 downPlan 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)


Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

Annual)Annual)






??

No Action PlanNo Action Plan Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes










Plan 37Plan 37 ERDC 3 upERDC 3 up + FWOP down + FWOP down $1,681,293$1,681,293 1.121.12 $1,501,154$1,501,154 YesYes










Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: CE Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Maximum Output Estimate

AlternativAlternative Namee Name


Cost Cost (Avg (Avg

Annual)Annual)




Avg Avg Cost per Cost per

Unit Unit OutputOutput

Best Best Buy?Buy?

IncremIncremental ental CostCost

IncreIncrementment

al al OutpOutp

utut

IncremeIncremental ntal

Cost per Cost per Unit Unit

OutputOutput


Future Without ProjectFuture Without Project $0$0 0.000.00 $0$0 YesYes 00 0.000.00 NANA

Plan 45Plan 45 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 7 down+ ERDC 7 down $1,116,715$1,116,715 0.910.91 $1,227,159$1,227,159 YesYes $1,116,71$1,116,7155

0.910.91 $1,227,159$1,227,159

Plan 44Plan 44 ERDC 3 upERDC 3 up + ERDC 6 down + ERDC 6 down $1,256,565$1,256,565 1.011.01 $1,244,124$1,244,124 YesYes $139,850$139,850 0.100.10 $1,398,500$1,398,500

Plan 39Plan 39 ERDC 3 up ERDC 3 up + ERDC 1 down+ ERDC 1 down $2,161,874$2,161,874 1.461.46 $1,480,736$1,480,736 YesYes $905,309$905,309 0.450.45 $2,011,798$2,011,798


$3,342,621$3,342,621 2.002.00 $1,671,311$1,671,311 YesYes $1,180,74$1,180,7477

0.540.54 $2,186,569$2,186,569

Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Best Buy Plans – Upstream + Downstream Benefits, Maximum Output Estimate

What does CE/ICA Tell Us?What does CE/ICA Tell Us?

• Plans 45, 44, and 20 are consistently Best Plans 45, 44, and 20 are consistently Best Buy plans under 3 scenarios (avg, min, & Buy plans under 3 scenarios (avg, min, & max output)max output)– Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) + Plan 45 = Marble Bluff (bypass channel) +

Numana (up & down) + S-S (pump) (up & down) Numana (up & down) + S-S (pump) (up & down) + Fellnagle (up & down) + Herman (up & down)+ Fellnagle (up & down) + Herman (up & down)

– Plan 44 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (down Plan 44 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (down only) + Orr (down only)only) + Orr (down only)

– Plan 20 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (d) + Plan 20 = Plan 45 components + Tracy (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Cochran (d) + Idlewild (d) + Orr (d) + Lake (d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Last Chance (d) + Washoe (u/d) + Verdi (u/d) + Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)Steamboat (u/d) + Fleisch (u/d)

Fish Passage Fish Passage AlternativesAlternatives

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

What does CE/ICA Tell Us?What does CE/ICA Tell Us?– Plan 45 focuses on upstream & downstream passage below Derby Plan 45 focuses on upstream & downstream passage below Derby

Dam. It costs $20,275,700 (first costs) & provides about ½ the Dam. It costs $20,275,700 (first costs) & provides about ½ the output of the largest, most expensive alternative (Plan 11, ~$65.3 output of the largest, most expensive alternative (Plan 11, ~$65.3 million). It does so at less than 1/3 the cost.million). It does so at less than 1/3 the cost.

– Plan 44 delivers what Plan 45 does, plus provides additional Plan 44 delivers what Plan 45 does, plus provides additional downstream passage benefits at Tracy power plant & Orr. It costs downstream passage benefits at Tracy power plant & Orr. It costs $22,364,200 (first costs). It provides ~ 5% more output than Plan $22,364,200 (first costs). It provides ~ 5% more output than Plan 45 for an additional ~$2.1 million. 45 for an additional ~$2.1 million.

– Plan 20 is practically the “Cadillac” plan. It provides upstream & Plan 20 is practically the “Cadillac” plan. It provides upstream & downstream benefits through the river. The only component it downstream benefits through the river. The only component it does not include is the fishway retrofit (BOR option) at Marble Bluff does not include is the fishway retrofit (BOR option) at Marble Bluff Dam. It costs $54,846,500 (first costs), providing about twice as 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 much output as Plans 44 and 45, but at 2 ½ times the cost. The question is whether that additional benefit is “worth it,” question is whether that additional benefit is “worth it,” considering the study planning objectives, the significance of the considering the study planning objectives, the significance of the resources, completeness, acceptability, etc.resources, completeness, acceptability, etc.

– There are other reasonable Best Buy Plans, e.g., Plans 42, 39 & 38, There are other reasonable Best Buy Plans, e.g., Plans 42, 39 & 38, but they were not Best Buys under all scenarios…but they were not Best Buys under all scenarios…

– Tentatively selected plan is Plan 44.Tentatively selected plan is Plan 44. Benefits upstream fish Benefits upstream fish passage near Pyramid Lake and downstream fish passage in passage near Pyramid Lake and downstream fish passage in middles reaches of river.middles reaches of river.

cost effectiveness/ incremental cost analyses & applications to indian river lagoon ecosystem...

Documents

traditional benefits

environmental benefits

single right answer

single right way

costs net benefits

ceacea slide

icaica slide

output slide