1. US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP FIVE: COMPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11

2. BUILDING STRONG ® OBJECTIVES  TO UNDERSTAND COMPARISON PROCESS AND METHODS  TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY OUTPUTS OF COMPARISON PROCESS

3. 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

4. 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?”

5. 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)

6. BUILDING STRONG ® FOCUS ON MOST IMPORTANT IMPACTS  DETERMINED BY: ► LAW & POLICY ► PARTNERS ► PUBLIC ► TECHNICAL INFO

7. 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)

8. 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

9. BUILDING STRONG ® COMPARISON METHODS  INFORMAL ► Simple Description ► Ranking of plans  FORMAL ► Monetary evaluation ► CE/ICA ► Multi-criteria decision- making evaluation

10. 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!

11. 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

12. BUILDING STRONG ® EXAMPLE TRADE-OFF TOOLS  System of Accounts  Off-the-Shelf Software (commercial)  IWR-Planning Suite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Prototype

13. BUILDING STRONG ® Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio No ActionNED PlanLocally Preferred Plan Plan DescriptionWithout 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 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”

14. Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont) No ActionNED PlanLocally Preferred Plan Impact Assessment B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont) 1) Air/ NoiseNormal noise levels created by traffic. Ranks 1st. Temporary increase in noise levels during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 2 nd. Temporary increase in noise levels during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 3rd. 2) Water QualityExisting WQ poor due to discharges into stream from combined sewer outfalls & flood runoff from industrial areas. Ranks 3 rd. Temporary increased turbidity levels during 4-yr construction period. Contamination from flood runoff partially eliminated in DCA and fully eliminated in DCB & DCC. Ranks 2 nd. 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. Sample “System of Accounts”

15. Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont) No ActionNED PlanLocally Preferred Plan Impact Assessment B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont) 4) VegetationExisting veg typical for streams in SW OH. Excellent habitat for woodland songbirds & urban wildlife. Ranks 1 st. Permanent loss of 12 acres to project features. Temp loss of 8 acres during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 2 nd. Permanent loss of 13 acres to project features. Temp loss of 8 acres during 4-yr construction period. Ranks 3rd. 5) Aquatic birdsExisting biological community sparse due to discharges from combined sewer outfalls. Ranks 3 rd. Temporary decreased biota populations during 4-yr construction period. Possible increase in biota population with decrease in contaminant runoff from protected industrial areas. Ranks 1 st (tie). Sample “System of Accounts”

16. Table 29. Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio (cont) No ActionNED PlanLocally Preferred Plan Impact Assessment B. Environmental Quality (EQ) (cont) 6) Cultural Resources No cultural resources or historic properties in study area. No impact. C. Regional Economic Development (RED) Same as NED impacts. Ranks 3 rd. Same as NED impacts. Ranks 1st. Same as NED impacts. Ranks 2nd. Sample “System of Accounts”

17. 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

18. Expert Choice Example: Pairwise Comparison of Alternative Plans Using Selected Criteria DEFGCB A

19. Expert Choice: Pairwise Comparison of Alternatives with Respect to “FishSave” Criteria DEFGCB A

20. Expert Choice: Pairwise Comparison of Criteria DEFGCB A

21. Expert Choice: Sensitivity of Plan Selection to Criteria Preferences DEFGCB A

22. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite MCDA Basic Framework 1)Create decision matrix 2)Develop weights 3)Rank alternatives 4)Analyze results… this is critical!

23. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite MCDA Decision Matrix

24. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Weighing Criteria Using AHP

25. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Plans Ranked on Cost, HU’s, 5 Cover Types

26. BUILDING STRONG ® IWR-Planning Suite MCDA: Analyzing Results DEFGCBA

27. BUILDING STRONG ® Comparison of Plan Ranks Across All Scenarios DEFGCB A

28. 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

29. 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?

30. 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.