US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Step 6: Selection Of The Recommended Plan Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Economic Guidance Summary The Basis for Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Corps.
Advertisements

Flood Risk Management Pete Rabbon Association of State
Plan Formulation: General
F4B - 1 BU ILDING STRONG SM Flood Damage Reduction Module F4: Reformulation – Optimization, Incremental Analysis and Selection of the NED Plan.
F1B - 1 BU ILDING STRONG SM Flood Risk Management Module F1: Authorities and Policies.
Formulation from an Economic Perspective An Exercise:
MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE IN NONMONETARY TERMS: A REVIEW Richard Cole Institute for Water Resources U. S. Army Corps of Engineers May 2008.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Planning Principles & Procedures – FY 11 LARGE GROUP RESPONSE EXERCISE.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Vertical Team Roles & Responsibilities Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Dam Safety Modification Studies Robert Taylor, P.E. Dam Safety Program Manager Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
Compulsory Schooling Policies EGPA (2006) Implementation and New Policies and Procedures Workshop – November 2006.
Engineer Circular Requests to Alter USACE Projects
Module 23 STEPS 15 & 16 Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) and Other Decision Documents Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
US Army Corps of Engineers PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Project Planning with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Presenter Name Presenter Title.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Missouri River Flood Task Force (MRFTF) Concept Briefing
1 Building Strong! THE ECONOMIST’S ROLE Ken Claseman Senior Policy Advisor for Economics Office of Water Project Review HQUSACE
Ecosystem Restoration Module ER4: Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis and the NER Plan BU ILDING STRONG SM.
SMART Feasibility Study Process
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Overview
Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration Review Processes Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration.
NED COSTS And Other Bewilderments Of COE Planning And Other Bewilderments Of COE Planning.
Module 19 STEP 9 Completion of the Feasibility Study Module 19 STEP 9 Completion of the Feasibility Study Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
Module 24 STEPS 17, 18, & 19 Project Implementation Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP FOUR: EVALUATE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
Normative Criteria for Decision Making Applying the Concepts
Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program Module 27 Continuing Authorities Program Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
BUILDING STRONG SM Plan Formulation: General Module G-1: What is plan formulation?
Module 14 STEP 8 Conduct Feasibility Study Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
Module 11 STEPS 4 & 5 Conduct Reconnaissance Study & Report Certification Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
Project design & Planning The Logical Framework Approach An Over View Icelandic International Development Agency (ICEIDA) Iceland United Nations University.
Roles of Economists and New Analytical Requirements
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® US Army Corps of Engineers Watershed Authorities, Policies and Procedures Michael Greer Regional Technical.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP FIVE: COMPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
1 Environmental Planning in the Army Corps of Engineers Ch 2 Mod 5 Relationship of the NEPA to Principles & Guidelines
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® PLANNING GUIDANCE Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
1 Cost Effectiveness (CE) and Incremental Cost Analyses (ICA) “IWR-Planning Suite” Ch 6 Mod 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING.
Civil Works Transformation Foundations of SMART Planning
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® PLANNING FUNDAMENTALS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
Integrated Risk Management Charles Yoe, PhD Institute for Water Resources 2009.
Welcome To: PCC4: Economic Analysis In Planning U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Planners Core Curriculum.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
M4 - 1 BU ILDING STRONG SM Multi-Purpose Projects Module M4: Telling the Plan Formulation Story.
Step 6: Plan Selection Leigh Skaggs, CECW-PC, and Erin Wilson, CEIWR Planning for Ecosystem Restoration PROSPECT 2010.
Policies and procedures for developing acquisition plans; determining whether to use commercial or Government resources; whether it is more economical.
Building Strong! May Deep Draft Navigation Cost Sharing Jeremy LaDart Office of Water Project Review HQUSACE.
National Levee Safety Act, Title IX, WRDA 2007 Update for Levee Summit Eric Halpin, P.E. Special Assistant for Dam and Levee Safety Headquarters, US Army.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11 AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OR “It Takes Two to Tango"
PP 4.1: IWRM Planning Framework. 2 Module Objective and Scope Participants acquire knowledge of the Principles of Good Basin Planning and can apply the.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Planning Products & Milestones Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
© 2009 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Flood Risk Management Cosgrove Creek Section 205 Planning Basics.
Harbors Module NH3: Formulation – Measures, Strategies and Plans.
PDP SUBMISSION Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable.
Request to Alter USACE Projects
BUILDING STRONG ® TELLING THE PLANNING STORY Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
Preliminaries Federal/Corps Planning Process PA Program Plan Formulation Supplement - FY 08.
David Moser USACE Chief Economist
1 “IWR-Planning Suite” Ch 6 Mod 5 See ICA Tutorial in Reference Folder ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING.
US Army Corps of Engineers PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® SMART PLANNING TO SUPPORT FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT USACE Flood Risk Management and Silver Jackets.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® OVERVIEW OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROCESS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY 11.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP 3 - FORMULATION BRAINSTORMING MANAGEMENT MEASURES Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
RECREATION AUTHORITY  P.L , Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended  P.L , “…require cost-sharing…”  P.L , “…est.
US Army Corps of Engineers PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® PCoP Webinar Series Section 7001: Preparing the 2017 Annual Report to Congress on Future Water.
Environmental Planning in the Army Corps of Engineers Relationship of the NEPA to Principles & Guidelines 1 Ch 2 Mod 5
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Miles City, Montana Section 205 Gwyn M. Jarrett - Project Manager Omaha District April 27, 2016.
Chapter 9: Systems architecting: Principles (pt. 3) ISE 443 / ETM 543 Fall 2013.
Economic Analysis Watershed Rehabilitation Workshop St. Louis, MO August 20-22, 2002 Dale Pekar, Economist National Water Management Center
STUDY TITLE Presenter Name Presenter Title Duty Location
PRINCIPLES & GUIDELINES
Chapter 2 par Overview.
Presentation transcript:

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Step 6: Selection Of The Recommended Plan Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11

BUILDING STRONG ® References:  ER ; Chapters 2, 3, & 4; Appendix E  Planning Manual, Chapter 11  EC , Planning Civil Work Projects Under The Environmental Operating Principles

BUILDING STRONG ® Objectives  To be able to identify the plans that can be recommended.

BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Selection Requirements  Select a single plan from all alternatives considered.  Consider a sufficient number of alternatives.  The recommended plan should be “preferable” to No Action.  Selection criteria depend on type of project and outputs.

BUILDING STRONG ® Plans That Can Be Recommended  National Economic Development (NED) Plan  National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan  Combined NED / NER Plan (Combined)  Locally Preferred Plans (LPP)

BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Selection - NED Benefits Only RULE: Reasonably maximize net economic benefits (NB = B - C).

BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Selection - NER Benefits Only RULE: Reasonably maximize ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs (CE/ICA)

BUILDING STRONG ® NER Plan – Incremental Cost Display A B C Is It Worth It?

BUILDING STRONG ® Plan Selection - Combined NED & NER Benefits Rule: Achieve the best balance and synergy between net NED and net NER benefits. Procedures (EC ): Formulate plans for the primary purpose. Identify NED or NER plan. Formulate plans to address other purpose(s). Rank plans for decision criteria. Determine justification of each purpose. Compare highest ranked justified plan to NED or NER Plan. Consider tradeoffs, benefits foregone, benefits gained, differences in cost and other decision criteria. Document rationale for selecting highest ranked Combined plan over NED or NER plan.

BUILDING STRONG ® LPP Smaller Than NED / NER / Combo Plan Categorically exempted when:  LPP scale is based on sponsor constraints  LPP has greater net benefits than smaller plans  Consider sufficient number of plans  Identify tradeoffs and opportunities foregone  Flood control: residual risk is not unreasonably high  LPP complies with laws and policies WRDA cost sharing applies

BUILDING STRONG ® LPP Larger / Different Than NED / NER / Combined Plan ASA(CW) exemption likely when:  NED / NER / Combined Plan does not meet Local objectives  LPP complies with laws and policies  LPP outputs are similar in-kind and  outputs of NED / NER / Combined Plan  Other outputs are allowed Sponsor pays all costs > NED / NER / Combined Plan

BUILDING STRONG ® NED Plan Is Less Than 1% Chance Flood Protection ASA(CW) considerations for exemption to participate in 1% Protection:  NED Plan leaves significant residual risk  Unique characteristics of protected area  LPP reduces NFIP enforcement  LPP incremental costs are not unreasonable WRDA cost sharing applies

BUILDING STRONG ® NED & Locally Preferred Plans

BUILDING STRONG ® NER & Locally Preferred Plans

BUILDING STRONG ® Combined & Locally Preferred Plans  Combined Plan is highest ranked justified plan  The LPP would be a lower ranked justified plan  HQ needs to address cost sharing policy

BUILDING STRONG ® Systematic Formulation and Plan Selection Options Formulate small plan that makes sense  Add justified increments If Sponsor constraint: Stop.  Select LPP  NED / NER / Combined Plan If no Sponsor constraint: Maximize net benefits.  Select NED / NER / Combined Plan If NED / NER / Combined Plan does not meet objectives: Add Unjustified Increments.  Select LPP > NED / NER / Combined Plan

BUILDING STRONG ® Agency Decision Making: Who Selects the Recommended Plan?  District Project Delivery Team (PDT) selects with input.  Chain-of-command decision-makers (Vertical PDT) may agree or disagree.  MSC Commander approves CAP projects.  Decision is ultimately made by the Congress via authorization and appropriation.

BUILDING STRONG ® Cleveland Harbor - Which Plan Was Selected?

BUILDING STRONG ® Summary The following plans can be recommended:  National Economic Development Plan (NED)  National Ecosystem Restoration Plan (NER)  Combined NED / NER Plan (Combined)  Locally Preferred Plans (LPP) ► LPP < NED / NER / Combined Plan ► LPP > NED / NER / Combined Plan ► 1% Flood Protection