US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

STEP FIVE: COMPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11

BUILDING STRONG®

OBJECTIVES

TO UNDERSTAND COMPARISON PROCESS AND METHODS

TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY OUTPUTS OF COMPARISON PROCESS

BUILDING STRONG®

EVALUATION VS. COMPARISON

EVALUATION - LOOK AT A PLAN ON ITS OWN MERITS (with project condition vs. without project condition)

COMPARISON - CONTRAST THE MERITS AMONG PLANS (Plan vs. Plan)

HOWEVER, IN REALITY, THESE STEPS OFTEN OVERLAP

BUILDING STRONG®

WHY COMPARE?

BASIS FOR PLAN DESIGNATION► NED PLAN (Required)► NER PLAN (Required if Ecosystem Restoration)

► LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN ► MULTIPURPOSE PLAN► “NATIONAL INTEREST” PLAN – net beneficial effects

across all 4 P&G accounts

Provide & display info to answer, “What is the ‘best’ plan?”

BUILDING STRONG®

WHAT DO YOU COMPARE?

Same effects considered during evaluation:► Contributions to planning objectives & avoidance of

constraints► Benefits & costs► Environmental compliance impacts► Impacts important to stakeholders► P&G screening criteria► 4 P&G accounts (NED, EQ, RED, OSE) - Planning in a

Collaborative Environment (EC 1105-2-409)

BUILDING STRONG®

FOCUS ON MOST IMPORTANT IMPACTS

DETERMINED BY:►LAW & POLICY►PARTNERS►PUBLIC►TECHNICAL INFO

BUILDING STRONG®

CRITERIA FOR COMPARISON

NED PLAN:► Benefits – address planning objectives► Costs► Other Impacts (e.g., environ compliance, stakeholders concerns,

P&G criteria, other P&G accounts) NER PLAN:

► Outputs – address planning objectives► Costs► Other Impacts (e.g., incidental benefits, stakeholders concerns, P&G

criteria, other P&G accounts) MULTIPURPOSE (incl. COMBINED) PLAN:

► Multiple outputs – address planning objectives► Costs► Other Impacts (e.g., incidental benefits, environ compliance,

stakeholders concerns, P&G criteria, other P&G accounts)

BUILDING STRONG®

COMPARISON STEPS

COMPARE EFFECTS► Important effects have been identified

DESCRIBE DIFFERENCES DESCRIBE TRADE-OFFS

► Ideal: quantified impacts that are commensurable (e.g., $)• Transparent: add, subtract, ID min or max

► Reality: important impacts may be quantified, but not commensurable

• So, no “easy,” transparent way to add/subtract impacts RANK OF PLANS – ID best course of action

BUILDING STRONG®

COMPARISON METHODS

INFORMAL

► Simple Description► Ranking of plans

FORMAL

► Monetary evaluation► CE/ICA► Multi-criteria decision-

making evaluation

BUILDING STRONG®

COMPARISON METHODS

Simple Description ► ID differences & point them out

Simple ranking of plans► Rank plans 1 to n (# alts) for each impact category► Is any 1 plan dominant? ► Transparent► If sufficient, use it!

FORMAL COMPARISON METHODS

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ► All effects in $$$.► Net NED benefits

COST-EFFECTIVENESS/INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSES ► $$$ effects and (at least) one non-monetary effect► Most cost effective plan to produce a given level of outputs► Incrementally justified

TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS, including MCDA methods ► All effects in different units, give up one output to gain another► NED benefits, NER outputs, costs, other criteria► Often results in ranking of plans. However, #1 rank identifies plan

that best meets criteria & preferences (weights) for criteria

BUILDING STRONG®

EXAMPLE TRADE-OFF TOOLS

System of Accounts

Off-the-Shelf Software (commercial)

IWR-Planning Suite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Prototype

BUILDING STRONG®

Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio

No Action NED Plan Locally Preferred Plan

Plan Description Without Project Condition

Reach DC-A 25-yr protection; Reach DC-B 600-yr protection; Reach DC-C 100-yr

Reaches DCA, DCB, DCC uniform 100-yr protection

Impact Assessment

A. National Economic Development (NED)

Project Cost

Annual Cost

Annual Benefits

Annual Net Benefits

BCR

$0

$0

$0

$0

N/A

Ranks 3rd

$13,895,000

$1,357,000

$1,721,000

$364,000

1.27

Ranks 1st

$14,817,000

$1,445,000

$1,783,000

$338,000

1.20

Ranks 2nd

B. Environmental Quality (EQ)…

Sample “System of Accounts”

Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont)

No Action NED Plan Locally Preferred Plan

Impact Assessment

B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont)

1) Air/ Noise Normal noise levels created by traffic. Ranks 1st.

Temporary increase in noise levels during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 2nd.

Temporary increase in noise levels during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 3rd.

2) Water Quality Existing WQ poor due to discharges into stream from combined sewer outfalls & flood runoff from industrial areas. Ranks 3rd.

Temporary increased turbidity levels during 4-yr construction period. Contamination from flood runoff partially eliminated in DCA and fully eliminated in DCB & DCC. Ranks 2nd.

Temporary increased turbidity levels during 4-yr construction period. Contamination from flood runoff eliminated for all reaches. Ranks 1st.

3) Threatened & Endangered Species

No endangered species in study area.

No impact. No impact.

Sample “System of Accounts”

Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont)

No Action NED Plan Locally Preferred Plan

Impact Assessment

B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont)

4) Vegetation Existing veg typical for streams in SW OH. Excellent habitat for woodland songbirds & urban wildlife. Ranks 1st.

Permanent loss of 12 acres to project features. Temp loss of 8 acres during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 2nd.

Permanent loss of 13 acres to project features. Temp loss of 8 acres during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 3rd.

5) Aquatic birds Existing biological community sparse due to discharges from combined sewer outfalls. Ranks 3rd.

Temporary decreased biota populations during 4-yr construction period. Possible increase in biota population with decrease in contaminant runoff from protected industrial areas. Ranks 1st (tie).

Temporary decreased biota populations during 4-yr construction period. Possible increase in biota population with decrease in contaminant runoff from protected industrial areas. Ranks 1st (tie).

Sample “System of Accounts”

Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont)

No Action NED Plan Locally Preferred Plan

Impact Assessment

B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont)

6) Cultural Resources

No cultural resources or historic properties in study area.

No impact. No impact.

C. Regional Economic Development (RED)

Same as NED impacts. Ranks 3rd.

Same as NED impacts. Ranks 1st.

Same as NED impacts. Ranks 2nd.

Sample “System of Accounts”

BUILDING STRONG®

Multicriteria Decision Analysis Tools

Planning decisions usually include more than cost and a single output, for example:

• Acres restored• Sediment reduction• Flood damages reduced• Habitat units

►Expose conflicts and trade-offs►Provides a framework under which to conduct multi-purpose

analyses• Collaborative process involved is as useful as results

themselves►Support rather than replace decision making

Expert Choice Example: Pairwise Comparison of AlternativePlans Using Selected Criteria

D E F GC B

A

Expert Choice: Pairwise Comparison of Alternatives with Respect to “FishSave” Criteria

D E F GC B

A

Expert Choice: Pairwise Comparison of Criteria

D E F GC B

A

Expert Choice: Sensitivity of Plan Selection to Criteria Preferences

D E F GC B

A

BUILDING STRONG®

IWR-Planning Suite MCDA Basic Framework

1) Create decision matrix

2) Develop weights

3) Rank alternatives

4) Analyze results… this is critical!

BUILDING STRONG®

IWR-Planning Suite MCDA Decision Matrix

BUILDING STRONG®

IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Weighing Criteria Using AHP

BUILDING STRONG®

IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Plans Ranked on Cost, HU’s, 5 Cover Types

BUILDING STRONG®

IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Analyzing Results

D E F G C B A

BUILDING STRONG®

Comparison of Plan Ranks Across All Scenarios

D E F GC B

A

BUILDING STRONG®

OUTPUTS OF COMPARISON

Comparisons should be EXPLICIT Comparisons may be SIMPLE statements to COMPLEX

RANKINGS Comparisons should be OBJECTIVE to ensure integrity Comparison of plans necessary to identify:

► NED PLAN• Deviations• Rationale for deviations

► NER PLAN► MULTIPURPOSE PLAN

BUILDING STRONG®

OUTPUTS OF COMPARISON (cont.)

Communication of comparison results is KEY Should be TRANSPARENT

► How were plans compared?► What criteria were considered?► Which criteria most important? Why?► How were plans ranked?► What trade-offs are worth making? Why?

SUMMARY Evaluation is looking at each plan; comparison is looking among plans

Consider all effects but keep in mind that not all effects are created equal. Focus on what is important

Comparison can be qualitative or quantitative, simple or complex

Trade-off techniques usually involve professional judgment and value judgments. Use transparent method

NED, NER, Multipurpose plans are identified through comparison.

Planners identify the best plan; decision makers select the plan for implementation.