PLANNING MANUAL

by

Charles E. Yoe, Ph.D., Principal

The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc.

and

Kenneth D. Orth

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Water Resources Support Center

Institute for Water Resources

November 1996 IWR Report 96-R-21 
ii
iii

PREFACE

What is planning? Who does planning? How do they do planning? Why do

planning at all? When we looked at the guidance that has been prepared to help the

Corps in its role as a steward of the Nation’s water resources we saw a gap. There was

policy guidance for planners and numerous publications describing methods for

accomplishing many important tasks. But, there was nowhere for new planners or nonplanners to turn to find out what planning is all about. This manual attempts to fill that

gap.

Will you get answers to the questions raised here from the pages that follow? We

hope so. It may help to begin with two points about the manual’s contents.

! First, this manual was prepared for new Corps planners with five or

fewer years of experience. While this is our target audience, we hope

that other professionals, people outside the Corps, and even more

experienced planners will find something of value here.

! Second, this manual describes what planning is and how it is best

practiced by the Corps of Engineers. It is not a “how to” manual nor

does it deal with policy questions of why things are done the way

they are.

It is our hope that this manual will help planners understand what planning is all

about and that it will help them become better planners. The six-step planning process

that forms the core of this manual’s content is a flexible, robust and effective model for

systematic problem solving. Understanding it provides you with an invaluable method

for approaching a wide variety of problems within and outside the Corps program.

This manual was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for

Water Resources. Many people throughout the Corps, and some outside the Corps, 

provided invaluable assistance in a series of interviews and the review of early versions of

this manual. As the result of the good advice of so many experienced and knowledgeable

people we made many changes in the draft manual to produce this final. Even if you

read the draft, you should read this manual for more good ideas from practicing planners.

Reducing the Cost and Time of Doing Planning

As you will see, planning is a dynamic process. It takes place in a dynamic

environment that requires that the process continues to evolve to meet ever-changing

social needs. We have attempted to remain faithful to the planning process and the

public policies that guided it at the time this manual was prepared. 
iv

Even as this manual was being completed changes in the policies that guide the

planning process were under discussion. For example, beginning in Fiscal Year 1997, all

new reconnaissance planning studies are targeted for completion in 6 to 12 months and

are limited to $100,000 in study costs. Other changes to achieve “faster and cheaper”

planning, in the overall interest of better government, can be expected.

Good planning, working through a step-by-step process to reach a

recommendation, can fit any schedule or budget. Good planning can be done in an

hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade. You can do it with any amount of

time, effort and resources you care to dedicate to it. The one hour answer will rarely

be as good as the one year answer, but the realities of time and money constraints

need not preclude good planning.

A Word About the Principles and Guidelines

The Principles and Guidelines (usually referred to as the P&G) provide the

fundamental operating guidance for planning studies of the Federal water resource

development agencies, including the Corps Civil Works planning studies. The P&G

are the most recent in a series of Federal planning requirements (see Chapter Three)

that have evolved with changing national priorities. Sooner or later, we expect the

P&G will also be changed to reflect our Nation’s needs into the twenty-first century. 

While change in the guidance is inevitable, fundamental planning principles will

endure. A step-by-step process for problem solving is a timeless tool. Whether its in

six steps, or five steps, or any number of steps, such a process is useful far beyond the

planning of Federal water resource projects. The process is basic to human nature,

and it is the heart of this manual.

A Challenge

Read, or browse through, this manual. Pick out one thing that you can use to

do better planning. Use it, somewhere, somehow, to plan something in the next

thirty days. Repeat, as desired.

So...

What is planning? Who does planning? How do they do planning? Why do

planning at all? Read on, and we will tell you what we have found. Practice it, and

you can enlighten us with what you have discovered.
v

Acknowledgments

This manual was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water

Resources, under the Planning Methodologies Research Program. Ms. Jessica Fox, formerly of

the Institute, was the Work Unit project manager and directed the development of this manual

through February 1995; Mr. Kenneth Orth, of the Institute, was the project manager through its

completion. Mr. Michael Krouse, Chief of the Technical Analysis and Research Division,

Institute for Water Resources, was the Program Manager for this research. Mr. Kyle E. Schilling

was the Director for the Institute for Water Resources. Mr. Robert Daniel of the Corps

Headquarters, Civil Works Directorate, Planning Division, was the Program’s Technical Monitor;

and Mr. Steven Cone, Ms. Cheryl Smith, and Ms. Lillian Almodovar, all of the Headquarters,

Civil Works Directorate, Planning Division, oversaw this Work Unit.

Dr. Charles Yoe, a principal of The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc., and Mr. Kenneth Orth,

Institute for Water Resources, were the principal authors of this manual. Dr. Yoe started his

professional career as an economist in the Baltimore District, and has worked with many Corps

District planners and the Institute over the past several years. His work on this manual was for

The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc., under contract to the Institute for Water Resources. Mr. Orth

is a community planner with experience in the Buffalo, Los Angeles, and Jacksonville Districts

and the Headquarters.

An initial outline for this manual evolved from the results of over fifty interviews with

practicing Corps planners in early 1995. The outline was presented to an advisory group at a

May 1995 workshop, and a first draft manual was prepared as a result of the group’s suggestions

and direction. The advisory group and others reviewed the first draft during the summer of

1995. The final form of the draft manual was crafted at a second advisory group workshop in

August 1995. The advisory group included the following members:

Mr. Stuart Appelbaum, Jacksonville District

Ms. Sharon Bond, Louisville District

Mr. David Brandon, Omaha District

Mr. Edward Cohn, Southwestern Division

Mr. Steven Cone, Headquarters

Mr. Kenneth Cooper, Omaha District

Mr. Robert Daniel, Headquarters

Mr. George N. “Skip” Fach, Jr., Headquarters

Mr. William Fickel, Fort Worth District

Mr. Robert Gore, Baltimore District

Mr. William Hansen, Institute for Water Resources

Mr. James Karsten, Buffalo District

Mr. Harry Kitch, Headquarters

Mr. Michael Krouse, Institute for Water Resources

Mr. Robin Mooney, South Pacific Division

The draft manual was published in December 1995 as IWR Report 95-R-15 and was
vi

widely-circulated for a six-month review. Copies were distributed throughout all levels and

across the functional areas of the Corps. The draft was also provided to planning offices and

other interests in selected local, State and Federal agencies, professional and special interest

groups, planning businesses, and university planning programs. Eighteen letters of comment on

the draft manual were received through June 1996. These included many thoughtful ideas from

Planning, Engineering, Operations and Project Management offices across the Corps. We

particularly appreciated the ideas provided by people outside the Corps, which included

comments by representatives of:

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

Civil Engineering Department, University of Kansas

Planning Commission, The County of Chester (Pennsylvania)

St. John’s River Water Management District (Florida)

In May and June 1996, three two-day Planning Workshops were conducted in the

Baltimore District. The workshops focused on basic principles and the planning process, and

provided an opportunity to discuss material from the draft manual in an interactive format. 

Sixty-six planners, civil engineers, cost estimators, economists, biologists, archeologists and

others attended one of these sessions. Their comments and questions were a real-time check on

the manual and stirred some rethinking of topics. We appreciate the ideas from all those who

attended, and the additional effort of Mr. Robert Gore and Ms. Vaso Karanikolis of the Baltimore

District in arranging the sessions.

A smaller advisory group was assembled to assist in preparing the final manual. This

group met in July and October 1996, and included:

Ms. Lillian Almodovar, Headquarters

Mr. Steven Cone, Headquarters

Mr. George N. “Skip” Fach, Jr., Headquarters

Mr. Robert Gore, Baltimore District

Mr. William Hansen, Institute for water Resources

Mr. Michael Krouse, Institute for Water Resources

Mr. Ridge Robinson, Institute for Water Resources

Ms. Barbara Grider of the Baltimore District also provided a final editorial review.

The authors acknowledge and thank, without implicating, all who thought, wrote, spoke,

took action and otherwise contributed to this final manual.
vii
viii

Planning Manual

Contents in Brief

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1

CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED ..................................... 7

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING ................. 31

CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................. 54

CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS .......... 62

CHAPTER SIX: STEP ONE - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ......... 78

CHAPTER SEVEN: STEP TWO - INVENTORYING AND FORECASTING RESOURCES ... 108

CHAPTER EIGHT: STEP THREE - FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS .......... 130

CHAPTER NINE: STEP FOUR - EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS ............. 157

CHAPTER TEN: STEP FIVE - COMPARING ALTERNATIVE PLANS ................ 181

CHAPTER ELEVEN: STEP SIX - SELECTING RECOMMENDED PLAN .............. 194

CHAPTER TWELVE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 203

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TEAMWORK ................ 215

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TELLING YOUR STORY ............................. 238
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ..................................................... iii

Acknowledgments .............................................. v

Acronyms Used in This Manual ................................. xxii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................. 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE .......................................... 2

ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL ....................................... 3

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED .............................. 7

INTRODUCTION .................................................. 7

WHAT IS PLANNING? .............................................. 8

PLANNING AS A BASIC HUMAN ACTIVITY ...................... 8

PLANNING AS RATIONAL CHOICE ............................. 9

PLANNING AS CONTROL OF FUTURE CONSEQUENCES ........... 9

PLANNING AS A SPECIAL KIND OF PROBLEM SOLVING ........... 9

PLANNING IS WHAT PLANNERS DO ............................ 9

WHAT PLANNING IS NOT .................................... 10

HOW IS PLANNING DONE? ........................................ 12

A GENERIC PLANNING MODEL ............................... 12

THE CORPS’ PLANNING MODEL .............................. 14

EXAMPLES OF PLANNING IN THE CORPS ...................... 15

TYPES OF PLANNING AND PLANNERS .............................. 23

GENERIC TYPES OF PLANNING ............................... 23

PLANNERS ................................................. 24

WHERE DO PLANS COME FROM? .................................. 25

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ..................... 26
x

Table of Contents (Continued)

Project Development Process ............................... 26

Study Management ...................................... 27

Planning ............................................... 27

Plan Formulation ........................................ 28

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD .................................. 28

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ............................ 28

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING ...... 31

INTRODUCTION ................................................. 31

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE U.S. ...... 32

THE BEGINNINGS OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING ............ 32

EARLY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA ......... 33

The Conservation Movement ............................... 35

Flood Control ........................................... 36

PLANNING PRINCIPLES THROUGH THE YEARS ................. 38

The Early Years ......................................... 38

First Half of the 20th Century .............................. 38

Planning Studies ......................................... 39

Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47 ..................... 40

The Green Book .................................... 40

Plan Formulation in 1959 ............................ 41

Senate Document Number 97 ......................... 42

“Principles and Standards” ................................. 44

“Principles and Guidelines” ................................ 47

WRDA 1986 ........................................... 48

CONTINUING EVOLUTION ........................................ 48

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER READING ...................... 49

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD .................................. 52
xi

Table of Contents (Continued)

CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING GUIDANCE .......................... 54

INTRODUCTION ................................................. 54

THE PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ................................ 55

PRINCIPLES ................................................ 55

GUIDELINES ............................................... 55

Standards .............................................. 55

NED Benefit Evaluation Procedures .......................... 56

EQ Evaluation Procedures ................................. 56

ER 1105-2-100 PLANNING GUIDANCE ............................... 57

GUIDANCE LETTERS ............................................. 59

POLICY DIGEST .................................................. 59

OTHER CORPS GUIDANCE ........................................ 59

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD .................................. 60

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ............................ 60

CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORPS PLANNING

PROCESS ....................................................... 62

INTRODUCTION ................................................. 62

PLANNING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS .............................. 62

SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ....................... 63

What Is An Iterative Process? .............................. 63

What Is Iterated? ........................................ 63

Why Is The Planning Process Iterative? ....................... 63

How Do Iterations Differ From One Another? ................. 63

How Many Iterations Are Required? ......................... 64

When Do You Stop the Iterations? .......................... 64

THE ITERATIVE PROCESS .................................... 65
xii

Table of Contents (Continued)

SCREENING ..................................................... 67

SCOPING ........................................................ 69

PLANNING SETTING .............................................. 71

PARTNERSHIP .............................................. 72

PLANNING AREA ............................................ 73

PERIOD OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................ 73

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM .................................. 75

STAKEHOLDERS ............................................ 75

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD .................................. 76

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ............................ 76

CHAPTER SIX: STEP 1 - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND 

OPPORTUNITIES ................................................ 78

INTRODUCTION ................................................. 78

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................................. 79

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... 84

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ILLUSTRATED ....................... 85

FEDERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................ 87

PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................... 88

PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS ........................ 88

PROFILE FOR AN OBJECTIVE OR CONSTRAINT ................. 91

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS . . 92

WHAT A GOOD OBJECTIVE IS NOT ............................ 95

WHERE DO OBJECTIVES COME FROM? ............................. 96

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH OBJECTIVES? ........................... 104

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 104

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 106

CHAPTER SEVEN: STEP TWO - INVENTORYING AND FORECASTING

RESOURCES .................................................... 108
xiii

Table of Contents (Continued)

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 108

PLANNING CONDITIONS ........................................ 109

WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION ARE NEEDED? .................... 112

FOUR PARAMETERS OF DATA COLLECTION ................... 114

PREPARING AN INFORMATION STRATEGY .................... 117

What Types of Information Are Typically Needed? ............. 119

FORECASTING FOR THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS . 119

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ................................. 120

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ................................. 121

RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY IN WHAT YOU ARE DOING ......... 121

HOW TO FORECAST ............................................. 122

THE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITION ............................. 124

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION ..... 126

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................ 128

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 128

CHAPTER EIGHT: STEP THREE - FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE 

PLANS ......................................................... 130

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 130

FORMULATION DEFINED ........................................ 130

POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATION ........................ 131

FORMULATION CONCEPTS ...................................... 133

SOLUTIONS .............................................. 134

Management Measures ................................... 134

Alternative Plans ....................................... 135

Programs ............................................. 136

SCALES ................................................... 136

COMBINABILITY ........................................... 138

DEPENDENCY ............................................. 138
xiv

Table of Contents (Continued)

FORMULATION PHASES ......................................... 139

IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES ............................. 139

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................... 141

REFORMULATION ......................................... 141

SEQUENCE OF PHASES ..................................... 141

FORMULATION APPROACHES .................................... 142

HOW TO THINK FORMULATION ............................ 142

Ask an Expert - The Heuristic Search Approach ................ 144

Creative Problem-Solving Techniques ....................... 145

Objectives-Measures Matrix ............................... 147

Consider Plans of Others ................................. 148

Consult a Checklist ..................................... 148

Formal Methods ........................................ 151

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLUTIONS ............................... 152

NAMING ALTERNATIVE PLANS ................................... 153

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 154

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 154

CHAPTER NINE: STEP FOUR - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE 

PLANS ......................................................... 157

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 157

WHAT TO EVALUATE ............................................ 158

HOW TO EVALUATE? ............................................ 159

EVALUATION TASKS ............................................ 160

WITH PROJECT CONDITION ..................................... 160

COMPARE WITHOUT AND WITH CONDITIONS ..................... 161

ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBING DIFFERENCES ......................... 162

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES ................................... 163

APPRAISING PLAN EFFECTS ...................................... 164

QUALIFYING PLANS ............................................. 164

QUALIFYING CRITERIA .......................................... 165
xv

Table of Contents (Continued)

PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS IN EVALUATION . . 166

FEDERAL OBJECTIVE ............................................ 166

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............. 166

OTHER IMPACTS .......................................... 167

P&G SCREENING CRITERIA ................................. 167

Completeness .......................................... 167

Effectiveness ........................................... 168

Efficiency ............................................. 169

Acceptability .......................................... 170

ORGANIZING EVALUATION RESULTS ............................. 171

THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS ................................ 172

National Economic Development ........................... 172

Regional Economic Development ........................... 176

Environmental Quality ................................... 177

Other Social Effects ..................................... 177

DISPLAYING EVALUATION RESULTS ......................... 178

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 178

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 179

CHAPTER TEN: STEP FIVE - COMPARING ALTERNATIVE PLANS .... 181

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 181

STEPS RUNNING TOGETHER ..................................... 182

COMPARISONS OF WHAT ........................................ 182

COMPARING EFFECTS ........................................... 183

COMMENSURABILITY ...................................... 184

INCOMMENSURABILITY .................................... 185

METHODS OF COMPARISON ..................................... 185

WHAT ARE COMPARISON RESULTS? .............................. 190
xvi

Table of Contents (Continued)

COMMUNICATING RESULTS ..................................... 191

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 191

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 192

CHAPTER ELEVEN: STEP SIX - SELECTING RECOMMENDED PLAN . . 194

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 194

THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION .................................... 194

NO-ACTION .................................................... 194

THE NED PLAN ................................................. 195

THE LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN .................................. 195

DEFAULT ACTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN NED PLAN ............. 196

WHO SELECTS THE PLAN? ....................................... 197

THE CHOICE SET ............................................... 198

SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................... 198

DOCUMENTING THE SELECTION ................................. 199

WHY PLANS FAIL ............................................... 199

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 201

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 201

CHAPTER TWELVE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............... 203

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 203

PLANNING CAN BE A MESSY PROCESS ............................. 203

CHANGE IS THE ONLY CONSTANT ................................ 204

PLANNING BIASES .............................................. 205

TWO-STAGE PLANNING PROCESS ............................ 206

TIME CONSTRAINTS ....................................... 207

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS .................................... 208

LIMITED AUTHORITY ...................................... 209

COST-SHARING ............................................ 209

BIAS IN PLAN FORMULATION ............................... 210

NON-FEDERAL PARTNER .................................... 212

AVOIDING BIAS ............................................ 212

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 213

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 213
xvii

Table of Contents (Continued)

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TEAMWORK ... 215

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 215

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................... 216

GOALS OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................... 216

ATTITUDES TOWARD PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................ 217

Program Design Shows Public’s Value ....................... 217

Maintain Visible Program ................................ 218

Don’t Sell ............................................. 218

Recognize Limits of Expertise .............................. 218

Expertise Should Create Not Close Options ................... 218

Speak the Public’s Language .............................. 219

Feelings Are a Source of Valuable Information ................. 219

Identify Limits of Your Authority .......................... 219

Be Creative ............................................ 219

Designing a Public Involvement Program ..................... 220

SOME PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES .................. 221

Meetings ............................................. 222

Non-Meeting Techniques ................................. 222

TEAMWORK .................................................... 224

WHY A TEAM? ............................................. 224

Two Heads Are Better than One ........................... 224

Today’s Complexities Require Team Solutions ................ 226

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM? ........................... 227

Team Structure ........................................ 228

HOW TO WORK LIKE A TEAM ............................... 230

Characteristics of a Good Team ............................ 231
xviii

Table of Contents (Continued)

Characteristics of a Poor Team .................................. 232

THE TEAM LEADER ........................................ 233

ARE YOU A TEAM PLAYER? .................................. 234

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD ................................. 235

SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING ........................ 235

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TELLING YOUR STORY .................... 238

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 238

WHY IS DOCUMENTATION NEEDED? ............................. 239

WHAT IS DOCUMENTATION? .................................... 239

WRITING THE REPORT .......................................... 241

WHO IS THE READER? ...................................... 241

HOW TO MAKE YOUR REPORT EFFECTIVE .................... 242

Beginnings ............................................ 242

The Body of the Report .................................. 243

Endings .............................................. 244

SOME HINTS FOR GOOD WRITING .......................... 244

Gunning Fog Index ...................................... 244

A Few More Writing Rules of Thumb ....................... 246

SOME HINTS FOR PRESENTATION ........................... 248

Headings and Subheadings ................................ 248

Enumerate ............................................ 248

Visuals ............................................... 248

Common Chart Forms ................................... 249

Reader Guides ......................................... 251

SOME HINTS FOR REVISING ................................ 252

IS SIZE IMPORTANT? ............................................ 252
xix

Table of Contents (Continued)

OTHER MEDIA .................................................. 253

VIDEO REPORTS ........................................... 253

RADIO AND TV ............................................ 254

NEWSPAPERS ............................................. 254

INTERNET ................................................ 254

MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND THE LIKE ..................... 255

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................... 255

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ........................... 256

REFERENCES ................................................... 259

APPENDIX I: PLANNER’S LIBRARY ............................... 271

INDEX ......................................................... 285

FIGURES

Figure 1: Organization of Manual .................................... 4

Figure 2: Corps’ Planning Process ................................... 16

Figure 3: Relational Terminology ................................... 27

Figure 4: Planning Horizon ........................................ 73

Figure 5: National Goals & Objectives ............................... 87

Figure 6: Where Objectives and Constraints Come From ................. 98

Figure 7: Screening and Evaluation Criteria .......................... 168

Figure 8: Screening Plans ........................................ 171

Figure 9: Effects Matrix .......................................... 187

Figure 10: Monetary Evaluation Methods ............................. 189

Figure 11: Study Team Structure ................................... 229

TABLES

Table 1: Planning Defined ......................................... 8

Table 2: Two Planning Models ..................................... 12

Table 3: Planning in the Corps ..................................... 17
xx

Table of Contents (Continued)

Table 4: Types of Project Purposes .................................. 18

Table 5: Examples of Other Planning Functions ....................... 19

Table 6: Selected Planning Specialties ............................... 23

Table 7: Planner’s Skills .......................................... 25

Table 8: Content of P&G ......................................... 55

Table 9: Standards .............................................. 55

Table 10: NED Benefit Evaluation ................................... 56

Table 11: EQ Evaluation Process: Phases and Activities .................. 57

Table 12: Content of ER 1105-2-100 ................................ 57

Table 13: Corps Guidance ......................................... 59

Table 14: Differences Between Problems & Opportunities ................ 80

Table 15: Similarities Among Problems & Opportunities ................. 81

Table 16: Goals & Objectives ....................................... 86

Table 17: Similarities Among Objectives & Constraints .................. 90

Table 18: Differences Between Objectives & Constraints ................. 91

Table 19: Objective & Constraint Verbs .............................. 92

Table 20: Planning Scenarios ...................................... 110

Table 21: Selected Data for Planning ................................ 115

Table 22: Information Gathering Strategy ............................ 117

Table 23: General Sources of Data .................................. 118

Table 24: Examples of Macroenvironmental Factors .................... 120

Table 25: Forecasting Methods .................................... 123

Table 26: Characteristics of a Good Without Condition ................. 126

Table 27: Examples of Current Corps Programs ........................ 136

Table 28: Pairwise Compatible Measures ............................. 140

Table 29: Idea Generation Techniques ............................... 146

Table 30: Objectives & Measures ................................... 149

Table 31: Objectives-Measures Matrix ............................... 150

Table 32: Compare Without and With Plan Conditions ................. 161

Table 33: Assessment of Plan Effects ................................ 162

Table 34: Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio .... 173

Table 35: Simple Ranking Index ................................... 186

Table 36: Selected Publics & Team Members ......................... 229

Table 37: Types of Planning Reports ................................ 238
xxi
xxii

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS MANUAL

ASA(CW) - Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

BCR - Benefit-cost ratio

BOB - Bureau of the Budget

CAP - Continuing authority programs

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality

CW - Civil works

EC - Engineering Circular

EM - Engineering Pamphlet

EO - Executive Order

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

EQ - Environmental quality

ER - Engineering Regulation

ETL - Engineering Technical Letter

FCSA - Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement

FONSI - Finding of no significant impact

GIS - Geographic Information System

H&H - Hydraulics and hydrology

HEP - Habitat Evaluation Procedures

HSI - Habitat Suitability Index

HTRW - Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste

IWR - Institute for Water Resources

MCEM - Multi-criteria evaluation methods

NED - National economic development

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

No. - Number

NTIS - National Technical Information Service

O&M - Operations and maintenance

OMB - Office of Management and Budget

OSE - Other social effects

P&G - Principles and Guidelines

P&S - Principles and Standards

PCA - Project cooperation agreement

PED - Preconstruction engineering and design

PGL - Planning Guidance Letter

PGN - Planning Guidance Notebook

P.L. - Public law

SD - Senate Document

SOW - Scope of work
xxiii

SWB - Social well-being

U.S.C. - United States Code

WES - Waterways Experiment Station

WRC - Water Resources Council

WRDA - Water Resources Development Act
xxiv
1

What is

planning?

How is it done?

Where do plans 

come from?

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

“We must ask where we are and whither we are

tending.” Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) Sixteenth

President of the United States.

INTRODUCTION

Planningwith a little “p” is problem solving and it is done throughout the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers organization. Some of it is done by planners in Planning

Divisions on planning studies. Some of it is done by engineers in Construction

Divisions. Some of it is done by wildlife biologists in Regulatory Offices. Much of it

is being done by people who do not think of themselves as planners. Planning is called

for to one degree or another any time a decision is required. 

No matter who does it, planning is best when done well by people who

understand and value it. This manual offers a rational and systematic approach to

planning that is applicable to virtually any planning activities the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers needs to undertake.

Water resources planning is the bread and butter of the Corps’

planning functions. As national values and priorities change, new planning

functions are emerging outside the realm of water resources. Planning

within the Corps of Engineers is far more pervasive than most people would

imagine. There are the traditional reconnaissance and feasibility studies for

the typical single purpose project that virtually everyone recognizes as

planning. Then there are operations and maintenance budgeting problems,

dredged material placement, major rehabilitation, environmental

infrastructure, the regulatory program, military construction projects,

project validation assessments, mobilization planning, master planning for military

facilities, reservoir master planning, logistics planning, planning assistance to the

States, formerly used defense sites, the installation restoration program, special

projects, incidental hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW) issues, and

strategic planning as examples of some of the other newly emerging Corps planning

functions. Planners have a great deal to offer to these activities.

It’s of little importance whether planners are concentrated in one place in the

organization or spread throughout it. What is important is that the people who are

planning know how to plan. Planners are solvers of wicked problems; complex

intractable problems for which there is no one right answer. Planners are shapers of

the future. They are generalists with a specialty. They are the kinds of people 21st

century organizations are going to need.
2

Few people are trained as planners. Most learn on the job. To be a good

planner, however, one needs to know how to go about planning. There has to be a way

to approach planning. A planner needs a framework upon which plans can be built.

Over the last two centuries, a remarkably simple and flexible planning process has

emerged in the water resource development field. It is, in fact, one of the most logical

and best described planning processes to be found anywhere. The six-step planning

process currently used by the Corps and applicable to all the Corps’ water resources

and other planning functions is described and elaborated upon in this manual.

What is planning? How is it done? Where do plans come from? Elementary

questions, yet experience shows the answers are not so easily derived. Answering them

is the goal of this manual.

PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE

The primary purposes of this manual are twofold. First, it explains what

planning is. Second, it explains how planning can be done by the Corps of Engineers.

Its focus will be on water resources planning, though the principles, tools and

methodologies discussed are equally applicable to other planning functions as well.

This manual deals with planning. It is not about Planning Divisions, project

management, budgetary processes, or types of reports. 

The target reader for this manual is the Corps planner with less than five years

of experience. To the extent the manual succeeds in explaining the basic tenets of

planning in general and the Corps’ planning process in particular it may also be of

interest to anyone who has to find rational solutions to complex problems. Nonplanners within the Corps as well as non-Federal partners and members of the general

public may find it helpful to understand the planning process and the reasons for it.

Experienced Corps planners may also find the manual to be a useful refresher.

This is not a comprehensive planning document. It does not repeat in detail

the guidance or planning procedures that can be found in other documents. Nor does

this manual provide a cookbook approach to planning. As the reader will learn, that

would be antithetical to the planning process.

The manual has been written so you can read from it selectively, though it is

most congruent and complete if read in its entirety. Readers are encouraged to browse

through the manual and read what interests you. A measure of redundancy has been

added to ease the burden of those who do read this manual a piece at a time.
3

ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL

The manual consists of 14 chapters and an appendix as shown in Figure 1.

The first four chapters are introductory in nature and explain what planning is. Chapter

Two defines planning generally, and the Corps’ six-step planning process specifically,

as a rational problem solving process. The basic terminology and concepts needed to

understand the greater content of the manual are presented here. Chapter Three

provides a brief history of water resource planning by the Corps. This history is

presented against the backdrop of the larger issues of water resources development in

the United States. The final introductory chapter, Chapter Four, provides an overview

of the key planning guidance that directs the plan formulation process. These are

primarily the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and

Related Land Resources Implementation Studies ( also known as Principles and

Guidelines or P&G) and Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Guidance for

Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies.

The next seven chapters address the questions of how planning is done and

from where plans come. This is done in a detailed discussion of selected elements of

the Corps’ six-step planning process. A separate chapter is devoted to each of the

planning steps. Chapter Five, however, first discusses iterations, screening, and other

essential concepts that run throughout the six planning steps. Chapter Six addresses

the first step, identification of problems and opportunities. Substantial emphasis

is given to the specification of planning objectives and constraints, critical steps in

the formulation process.

Chapter Seven covers the second step of the plan formulation process, the

inventory and forecast of resources. Step three, the formulation of alternative

plans, is covered in Chapter Eight. The next chapter addresses plan evaluation, the

fourth major planning step. Chapter Ten discusses the comparison of plans and

Chapter Eleven describes the sixth and final step in the planning process, plan

selection. Though these steps are presented in separate and discrete chapters, the

conduct of the steps in actual practice is anything but separate and discrete. In practice

the planning steps entail a great deal of overlap, iteration, and even ambiguity.

The last three chapters address topics of special interest to Corps planners.

Chapter Twelve deals with some problems and constraints that planners frequently

encounter in the planning process. Chapter Thirteen is devoted to a discussion of

planning teams and public involvement. The final chapter describes the art of

documenting the planning process by simply telling your story. Appendix I presents

a list of planning publications that planners may want to include in their working

library.
4

FIGURE 1: ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL

PREFACE CHAPTER 9: STEP - FOUR 

TABLE OF CONTENTS EVALUATING

DIRECTORY OF ACRONYMS ALTERNATIVE PLANS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 10: STEP FIVE - 

CHAPTER 2 : PLANNING DEFINED COMPARING ALTERNATIVE 

CHAPTER 3: HISTORY OF CORPS PLANS

 PLANNING PROCESSS CHAPTER 11: STEP SIX - 

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING SELECTING RECOMMENDED 

GUIDANCE PLAN

CHAPTER 5: CHARACTERISTICS CHAPTER 12: PRACTICAL 

 OF THE CORPS PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

 PROCESS CHAPTER 13: PUBLIC 

CHAPTER 6: STEP ONE - INVOLVEMENT AND 

 IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS TEAMWORK

CHAPTER 7: STEP TWO - CHAPTER 14: TELLING YOUR 

 INVENTORYING AND STORY

 FORECASTIONG RESOURCES

CHAPTER 8: STEP - THREE REFERENCES

 FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX I: PLANNERS LIBRARY

 PLANS INDEX
5

...the six-step planning

process...offers a

rational, systematic,

and flexible approach to

planning that can be

used for any planning

activity in the Corps’

organization.

As noted above, the manual has been written so that it can be read selectively.

The only loss of continuity is likely to be an occasionally unfamiliar term or phrase.

To assist readers who find themselves in this situation an index

is provided at the back of the report along with

a list of references. Quotation boxes, in which

parts of the text are excerpted, are used to

highlight some important ideas in the chapter

and to aid “skimmers”. In addition, liberal use

of italics is made to further direct the selective

reader’s attention to important ideas of the

chapters. Sidebar boxes are used to introduce

details and explanations that supplement the

general flow of the material.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

This manual provides an introduction to planning in the Army Corps of

Engineers. The following chapter defines planning in general terms and then introduces

the six-step planning process the Corps uses, which is essential knowledge for all

Corps planners. It offers a rational, systematic, and flexible approach to planning that

can be used for any planning activity in the Corps’ organization.
6
7

P&G and the Corps

Over the Nation’s first two

centuries U.S. water resource development

policy has evolved to what it is now. 

Currently, and since 1983, the principles,

standards, and procedures that guide water

resource development at the national level

are articulated in the Principles and

Guidelines. The P&G were “...developed

to guide the formulation and evaluation

studies of the major water resource

development agencies.” In prior years, each

water resource development agency had

developed its own formulation and

evaluation procedures. The P&G is the

most recent effort to standardize these

practices.

Consequently, to characterize the

P&G’s six-step planning process as the

Corps’ planning process could be

misleading. It is indeed the Corps’ process

in that it is the process the Corps follows. 

However, it was neither developed by the

Corps nor restricted to the Corps’ use. 

Other agencies use the P&G’s planning

process to varying extents.

CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED

“We should all be concerned about the future because we will

have to spend the rest of our lives there.” Charles F. Kettering

(1876-1958) American engineer and inventor.

INTRODUCTION

Planning is a creative process. Like many

creative processes, it can tend to be unstructured

and ad hoc, at times bordering on chaotic. It

requires unequal measures of experience,

analysis, intuition, and inspiration. There are

many ways to add structure to this process.

The one used by the Corps has been

promulgated by the Federal government in the

Principles and Guidelines. Inasmuch as this

planning process has been adopted by the

Corps, it is referred to simply as the Corps’

planning process throughout this manual. It

provides a flexible, systematic, rational

framework from which planners can work and

to which they can return when chaos threatens.

It provides general guidance on how to

proceed and a logical means of describing the

thought processes that might otherwise remain

opaque to others. This chapter offers several

definitions of planning, then introduces the

Corps’ planning framework. That framework

is described at length in subsequent chapters.

Three questions are the focus of this

chapter. The chapter begins by answering the

question, “what is planning”? It then answers

the “how is it done” question with an overview

of the Corps’ planning process and a brief look

at some types of planning and planners. It next

turns to the question, “where do plans come

from?” by introducing some basic notions of

plan formulation, a significant step in the planning process.
 The material in this section is adapted largely from Ernest R. Alexander’s article, “Planning Theory,” found 1

in Introduction to Urban Planning edited by Anthony J. Catanese and James C. Snyder.

8

Table 1: Planning Defined

C Basic human activity

C Rational choice

C Control of future action

C Special kind of problem solving

C What planners do

...important to

have a sense of the

big picture of what

planning is

about...

WHAT IS PLANNING?

What is planning? That

seems a simple enough starting

point for our discussion, but a

review of the literature reveals a

wide range of opinion and very

little consensus on what planning

is. The following paragraphs

1

offer several definitions of

planning. They are summarized

in Table 1. 

Though we’ll offer a working definition, it is not important that you

agree. Pick the definition that most appeals to you. It is far more important

to have a sense of the big picture of what planning is about than that you

agree with any one of the definitions offered here.

PLANNING AS A BASIC HUMAN ACTIVITY

Somesee planning as a basic human activity that pervades our behavior at

every level of society. In this view, planning is a process of human thought

followed by action based upon that thought. This makes planning a very

general human activity. 

You plan what to wear to work, the route to take to the office and

what to have for lunch. This makes planning very ordinary. At the same

time, it does not preclude the notion of expertise. Many people run. Few of

them devote themselves to running to the point they become Olympic

athletes. Likewise, though everyone plans, few do it as well as the

professional planners.

If planning pervades human activity then surely it

pervades the development and use of water and related land

resources and the performance of the Corps’ various missions.

We, as a society, think about water resources, then take actions

based on those thoughts. These activities are complex enough,

however, to require the services of experts.
9

PLANNING AS RATIONAL CHOICE

This view of planning is confined to matters of deliberate choice. It

emphasizes the link between planning and rationality. Planning thus becomes

a process for determining appropriate future actions through a sequence of choices.

It is a structured rational approach to achieving desired ends.

As subsequent chapters will reveal, water resources planning is

nothing if it is not a rational decision-making process. The rationality of the

six-step planning process used by Corps planners is undeniable.

PLANNING AS CONTROL OF FUTURE CONSEQUENCES

Planning may be seen as an attempt to control future consequences through

present actions. This view fuses planning and action together, for if we do not

implement a plan, there can be no control exerted over the future. Some

would measure the success of planning by the future consequences we are

able to control. 

The Corps’ planning framework relies extensively on the

consideration of future consequences. The comparison of future scenarios

without and with a project in place is central to the Corps’ planning process.

PLANNING AS A SPECIAL KIND OF PROBLEM SOLVING

Another line of thought is that planning is problem solving that is

aimed at very particular kinds of problems. Planning theorists have defined

the problems they deal with as “wicked” problems. A wicked problem is one

with no clear answers; solutions are only better or worse. The data available to

solve these problems are usually messy. There are no rules for approaching

wicked problems and no clear tests to formulate or judge their solutions.

Water resource problems are always wicked problems, as are most of the planning

problems the Corps faces.

PLANNING IS WHAT PLANNERS DO

Planners help decision-makers identify their problems, conceive solutions to

them, and compare the importance of the inevitable conflicting values inherent in any

solution. This is a simple and intuitive definition with which many Corps

planners can identify. The job is unique; and it differs so from day-to-day that

it defies a more precise definition. 
10

Plan

“Plan” is both a noun and a verb:

“. . . n. 1. Any detailed scheme, program, or method worked out

beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective . . .”

“. . . v. 1. To formulate a scheme or program for the accomplishment

or attainment of . . .”

This manual focuses on the verb rather than the noun.

The definitions offered here are not mutually exclusive. They are

overlapping and somewhat imprecise, but taken together they provide a

fairly reasonable picture of what planning is. To further sharpen that picture,

let’s consider what planning is not.

WHAT PLANNING IS NOT

Though brief, this review of what planning is makes several points

clear. First, there is no consensus on what planning is. Second, it is easy to

see the

elements of what the Corps planner does in each of the definitions. It may be

helpful at this point to consider a few things that planning is not. 

The little “p” planning used in this manual is not the same as Planning

Division. Planning Division does little “p” planning but it also does big “P”

Planning. Big “P” Planning entails a great deal more than does little “p”

planning. This manual is concerned with little “p” planning, no matter who

does it or where it is done. The planning process is not the same as the report

review process, the budget process, or any of the many regulatory review and

consultation processes. These processes are important to successful planning;

but they are not substitutes for it.

Planning is not report writing or the technical work done by experts working

on a planning study. Good story telling is essential - Chapter Fourteen is

devoted to it - but it only describes how, what, and why you planned.

Planning requires sound scientific and engineering input from many

disciplines, but the science is only part of the story. Great hydrology, great

economics, great biology, or great anything alone is not planning. Great

planning weaves these inputs into a successful solution.
11

Planning is...the deliberate

social or organizational

activity of developing an

optimal strategy for

solving problems and

achieving a desired set of

goals.

Planning is not a purely

individual activity. It is done by

individuals in a team environment

intended to affect groups of people.

While there may be personal planning,

that is not the concern of this manual.

Additionally, planning is not present

oriented. Planning is primarily

concerned with the future. Future

actions and their consequences involve

substantial uncertainty.

Planning cannot be routinized. Problems that are unique can be

approached with existing solutions or problem-solving algorithms, such as

standard operating procedures, rules, or programs. These problems,

however, are not the wicked problems that planners confront. Let this serve

as fair warning to the reader; there will be no standard operating procedures

for planning found in this manual!

Planning is not a trial-and-error process. It is not experimental. It is

a focused, thoughtful, and rational process. The plans themselves may

involve feedback loops, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. Such

adaptive management is a concept the Corps encourages for ecosystem

restoration plans. The point is that while it may be reasonable for the plans

themselves to be experimental, the planning process should never be.

Neither is planning just the imagining of desirable futures. While

specifying objectives and creating alternative plans to achieve them are

extremely important parts of the planning process, they are not sufficient for

planning. Planning is more than utopian thinking. The intention to implement

plans and the power to do so are essential elements of planning. Planning is not

done for planning’s sake. Do not confuse the planning process with the

report writing or the review process. Planning goes well beyond completing

a report.

If planning is not an individual action, not routinized, not trial-anderror, not academic or utopian, then what is planning? Planning is societal,

future-oriented, non-routinized, deliberate, and action oriented. Planning is

here defined as the deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an

optimal strategy for solving problems and achieving a desired set of objectives.
12

Table 2: Two Planning Models

Generic Model Corps Model

1. Problem diagnosis 1. Identify problems & opportunities

2. Goal articulation 2. Inventory & forecast resources

3. Prediction and projections 3. Formulate alternative plans

4. Alternative development 4. Evaluate plan effects

5. Feasibility analysis 5. Compare effects of

alternative plans

6. Evaluation 6. Select best plan

7. Implementation

HOW IS PLANNING DONE?

Planning is done by people. It’s done in a sequential, multi-staged process

in which many of the stages are linked to their predecessors by feedback loops. It can

be done in an hour, a day, a week, or a year. Conclusions reached at a later

stage of the planning process may lead to revisions of an earlier stage or

another iteration of the entire process. The specific sequence and stages of a

planning process vary with the type of planning and the institutional setting

in which the planning is done. Generalizations about how planning is done

are reflected in the two planning models that follow. The first is a generic

model of the planning process, the second introduces the planning model

used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its Civil Works activities.

A GENERIC PLANNING MODEL

There is no such thing as “the” planning model. Planning models

abound in the literature. Sometime in your education, way back in

elementary school, you probably encountered the “scientific method.” It told

you how to learn things. You observe a condition and form a hypothesis.

You test your hypothesis in an experiment and compare the results to your

hypothesis. You either confirm your hypothesis or repeat the process with

a revised hypothesis. It was probably your first step-by-step, iterative,

problem-solving process. Well, that same time-tested method has been

dressed up, modified, and recycled as a planning process. The major

components in Table 2 can be found in most of the planning models in

general use. 
 Lichfield, Nathaniel, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitebread. Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford: 2

Pergamon, 1973, p. 13.

13

...alternatives...must be

generated by people from

some mix of experience,

analysis, inspiration,

and creative invention.

Planning often begins with some notion that we are dissatisfied with

the status quo. If there is no problem, there is no reason for plans or actions.

Diagnosis of the problem requires an image of a desired state. 

Goals relate to problem definitions. Translating vague, incoherent or

conflicting goals into operational objectives is one of the toughest jobs a

planner faces. 

Solving problems and achieving goals always involves moving from

where we are now to some different place in the future. Prediction is

essential for evaluating and selecting alternatives and for moving to future

places. We need to make some guesses about the future to formulate and

evaluate plans.

The development of alternative plans has a profound effect on the

quality of the final decision. As Lichfield has said: 2

“The ability of an evaluation exercise to demonstrate the

comparative merits of possible courses of action is limited,

ultimately, by the quality of the plans put forward for

assessment. A “good” plan cannot be chosen from a “poor”

set of alternatives.”

Where do alternatives come from? They must be generated by people from

some mix of experience, analysis, inspiration, and creative invention.

Feasibility analysis asks, can the alternatives be done given known

constraints and available resources? Evaluation begins when planners have

a number of alternatives they know can be implemented. Which alternative

do you like most? What does it do for you? The answers to these questions

depend on the evaluation criteria you use: benefit-cost analysis, costeffectiveness, environmental quality, other social effects, program output

indices, and so on.

Implementable plans seem to require a strong political

commitment, though that is not a sufficient condition. Plans that

can be implemented within existing organizational frameworks

are more likely to succeed than complex plans that require new

institutional structures and relationships. 

There are any number of ways to include these basic tasks

in a planning process. The Corps of Engineers’ planning process
14

...the planning process is

anything but linear.

is but one of many possible planning models. It is one of obvious interest

here, however, for it is the focus of this manual.

THE CORPS’ PLANNING MODEL 

The direct correspondence of the generic planning model with the

Corps’ six-step planning process is also shown in Table 2. The language used

in the generic model differs somewhat; however, the elements of the steps

indicate a clear correspondence in concept and theory. The two models

together show the Corps’ planning process is consistent with good planning

theory.

Though the Corps’ process is presented as if it is a simple sequence of six

rational steps, it is not that easy. No clean lines can be drawn among the steps

in the Corps’ planning process. Problem definition, goal setting, devising

alternative solutions, etc. are more simultaneous activities that wax and wane

throughout the process with the relative importance of each step varying

from time-to-time, often in an unpredictable manner. The steps do, however,

suggest that the emphasis in the planning process will occasionally change to

one of these activities as shown in Figure 2. 

 In the beginning, the emphasis will be on step one, identification of

problems and opportunities, even though work may be proceeding on the

other steps. There may even be several iterations or passes through the steps

in which step one is emphasized. But, in time, the emphasis will shift to step

two, as the second large rectangle indicates. At this stage in the planning

study there may again be one or more iterations through the various steps but

the emphasis is clearly focused on the second step. This process of iterating

through the steps continues with a continually shifting emphasis on the next

step.

The steps are presented in a linear fashion in the P&G, but the

planning process is anything but linear. At times it borders on chaotic. But

always it comes back to the order imposed by the rational

framework present in the steps. There is a chapter on each of

these steps later in the manual. For now, we simply list the steps.

It is easy to see the relationship of the Corps’ specific model to the

generic planning model. The generic steps have in essence been

restated in a water resources context.

The six-step planning process is described in the P&G as follows: 

1) Specification of the water and related land resource

problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning
 Section III paragraph 1.3.2(a) of Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land 3

Resources Implementation Studies.

15

setting) associated with the Federal objective and specific

State and local concerns.

2) Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related land

resource conditions within the planning area relevant to

the identified problems and opportunities.

3) Formulation of alternative plans.

4) Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans.

5) Comparison of alternative plans.

6) Selection of a recommended plan based upon the

comparison of alternative plans.3

This process makes use of several tools, including criteria,

goals, objectives, constraints, solutions, and effects. The success of

the process depends on the involvement of the right people at

the right time; in other words, interdisciplinary planning and

public involvement. These tools will be highlighted

throughout the discussions of the planning process that

follow.

EXAMPLES OF PLANNING IN THE CORPS

On the verge of the 21st century, in a world of

changing missions and tight budgets, planning is needed

more than ever. At the highest levels of the organization

where the future of the agency and new missions are

discussed there is a role for planning. The need for planning

pervades the functional levels of the Corps as suggested in

Table 3.
16
17

Table 3: Planning in the Corps

Water resources development planning

flood and storm damage reduction

ecosystem restoration

navigation

Watershed planning

Planning assistance to states

Operations and maintenance planning

major rehabilitation

maintenance dredging

master planning

Regulatory permits planning

special area management plans

mitigation banking planning

Environmental infrastructure planning

Drought preparation planning

Military planning

master planning

military construction planning

logistics

project validation assessment

mobilization planning

Restoration planning

formerly used defense sites planning

installation restoration program planning

Support for others planning

Strategic planning

Operations

and maintenance

personnel are forced

by tight budgets to

plan their O&M

work. Construction

operation s

personnel must

choose from among

options to correct

design deficiencies

and compare them

t o continued

maintenance ,

choosing the option

that best meets

public and agency

needs. Military

constructio n

branches are

formulatin g

alternatives and

recommending the

best course of action.

Resourc e

managemen t

personnel evaluate

and compare

options for getting

the Corps’ essential

support work done.

Planning is problem solving and there is no shortage

of problems. Planning offers a structured, rational approach to

solving problems of all types. If planning can improve agency

performance through problem solving and informed, rational

decision-making, it is essential to accomplish the agency’s

missions. 

The bread and butter of Corps planning has been the

traditional civil works water resources development

planning. Such Corps planning currently is:

C Authority based, relying on various

public laws and Congressional
18

Table 4: Types of Project Purposes

C Navigation

C Flood damage reduction

C Shore protection

C Hydroelectric power

C Recreation

C Water supply

C Fish & Wildlife enhancement

C Ecosystem restoration

Committee resolutions to provide the

authority to study and implement

projects. This includes the Corps’

Continuing Authorities Program.

C Phased, with an initial 100% Federally

financed, 6-12 month reconnaissance

study, followed by a feasibility study

that is 50/50 cost shared with a nonFederal sponsor and targeted for

completion in three years.

C Oriented toward the Federal objective

of national economic development

consistent with protecting the nation’s

environment. Planning in other Corps

programs may be directed at other

national goals.

C Oriented toward specific types of

water-related problems and

opportunities. Today’s water

resources program focuses on flood

and storm damage reduction,

commercial navigation, and ecosystem

restoration as priority outputs. Table

4 lists historic project purposes.

The Corps’

expanded environmental

mission has brought

about something of a

revived interest in

watershed planning.

Watershed planning

resembles the basin level

planning studies of the

past.

Section 22 of

Public Law 93-251

authorized the Corps to cooperate with the states and Native

American Tribes in the preparation of comprehensive plans

for the development, utilization and conservation of the water

and related land resources of drainage basins located within
19

Table 5: Examples of Other Planning

Functions

C Master planning

C Military construction

C Mobilization planning

C Logistics planning

C Disaster preparedness & emergency

response

C Operations & maintenance budgeting

C Facilities management

C Formerly used defense sites

C Installation restoration program

C Work for others

C Strategic planning

C Special studies

the boundaries of the state. This program is often called

“Planning Assistance to States.”

Several drought preparation study (DPS) prototypes

were conducted as part of the recent National Drought Study.

Such studies recommend actions to be taken by government

and community in advance for the purpose of preparing for

the occurrence of droughts, coordinating a proper response to

drought, managing water supply and water use during

drought, and otherwise mitigating the effects of the impacts

associated with droughts.

In 1982, the Operation and Maintenance, General,

portion of the Corps’ budget exceeded $1 billion for the first

time. By 1985, the O&M portion of the budget exceeded

Construction, General, for the first time. Little “p” planning

is becoming increasingly important as this function grows

ever larger and more complex. Dredged material placement

plans, beneficial uses of dredged material, project master

planning, and major rehabilitations are some examples of

O&M functions in which planning is already used.

While water resources related

planning remains the bread and butter of

most Corps’ planning, other Corps

missions can and do benefit from good

planning, as Table 5 indicates. The Corps

has a substantial military program. In the

1980s, planners became actively involved

in mobilization master planning. More

generic master planning is basically the

development of long-term plans for the

optimal usage of lands and facilities at

reservoirs and military installations.

Military installation master planning

might involve housing, office space,

production and research facilities, health

care, signage, and infrastructure including

water, sewage, street lighting, roads,

energy, and the like. In other words, it

includes anything and everything needed

to make the installation effective and

efficient in performing its missions. 
20

What’s a Continuing Authority?

Once all Corps projects required a specific act of Congress to

authorize their construction. In other words, if Congress did not

specifically mention its desire to construct a project in a piece of legislation

the project would not be built. Typically, all projects were bundled

together into an omnibus bill that included all water resource development

projects. Initially, flood damage reduction projects were included in Flood

Control Acts and navigation projects in Rivers and Harbors Acts. The

current omnibus acts are called Water Resource Development Acts (also

known as WRDA, pronounced “word-uh”).

Congress has decided to give the Secretary of the Army the

authority to approve and construct certain size and type projects. This can

be done on a continuing basis. Thus, we have the so-called continuing

authority programs (CAP). Congress establishes the type of projects that

can be built without specific Congressional authorization in the language

that creates the authority. These authorities are generally found in one of

the omnibus acts. The Federal cost share of the projects is established by

dollar limits periodically set by Congress. The programs include the

following:

 - Section 14: Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Erosion

 - Section 103: Beach Erosion Control

 - Section 107: Navigation

 - Section 111: Mitigation of Shore Damage

 - Section 204: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

 - Section 205: Flood Damage Reduction

 - Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration

 - Section 208: Snagging & Clearing (Flood)

 - Section 1135: Environmental Improvement

The number of projects constructed is established through the joint

interaction of Congress and the Administration in the budget process. Each

continuing authority program has a separate authorization, spending limit,

and budget. See ER 1105-2-100, Chapter Three for more information.

Planning has also been used to assist the military construction

projects program. In these projects a few objectives are established,
21

an estimate of the cost of accomplishing these objectives under a

status quo situation is prepared, then one or more alternative ways of

accomplishing the objectives are formulated and costed out for the

purpose of identifying the best option for attaining the objectives.

This type of planning has been done for child care facilities,

family housing, barracks, communications centers, wastewater

treatment, training facilities, research facilities, parking garages,

laundry facilities, and many other functions and facilities. A variation

of this type of planning is the project validation assessment. This is

a planning process used to obtain funding for projects that have not

been appropriated funds. It usually entails a cashflow or pay-back

analysis.

Logistics planning is another area in which planning has

made significant contributions. Moving materials and people in the

most effective manner that meets the objectives of the move is a

natural for planning. Planners have been involved with the military

traffic management command to help plan movements of Army

Reserve and National Guard units at a number of locations

throughout the country.

Corps offices are occasionally asked to become involved in

planning efforts that do not fit neatly into any of the above categories.

Special studies are

authorized by Congress from time-to-time. Support for others

planning involves work for other Federal agencies. This has included

planning for embassies, wastewater treatment facilities, prisons,

roads, and other infrastructure. In addition to these special studies,

strategic planning has become more widely used by Corps offices.

Strategic planning highlights the significance of devoting more

attention to analyzing operating environments and formulating

strategies that relate directly to environmental conditions. The

ultimate purpose of strategic planning is to help the organization, be

it the agency, a district, or an
22

Environmental Planning

“Environmental planning,” though an expanding Corps mission, is nothing new. In

fact, a case could be made that the Corps has always been involved in environmental planning,

it’s just that the desired adjustments to the environment have evolved and changed over time. 

There are different types of planning activities Corps planners do that relate to the

environment. First, there is the evaluation of environmental effects of alternative plans. This

is sometimes referred to as environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact

assessment became a formal necessity for the Corps with the promulgation of the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations following the passage of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) in 1969. Under NEPA, the environmental assessment (EA) may lead to a finding

of no significant impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). This type of

environmental planning has been done for over two decades and the methods are well defined

and well executed.

The Corps has also done extensive planning for environmental mitigation. Section 661

of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 provided that fish and wildlife conservation

receive equal consideration with other project purposes. Section 906(a) of WRDA 1986

authorized mitigation of unavoidable damages to fish and wildlife that result from construction

of a project. 

Finally, ecosystem restoration is now a priority output for the Corps. Restoration of

degraded ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes represents a new challenge for

Corps planners. For example, Section 1135 of WRDA 1986 makes restoration of fish and

wildlife habitat possible and it authorizes the Secretary of the Army to modify Corps projects for

the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in the public interest.

Although there are environmental planning objectives and new environmental programs

and authorities, the simple truth is that planning for and about these values is exactly the same

planning process described in this manual. The only difference is a focus on nonmonetary

outputs rather than the traditional economic outputs.

office, to increase performance through improved effectiveness,

efficiency, and flexibility.

The important point to make here is that no matter whether the

planning responsibility is in water resources or other areas, whether it is

formal or informal, the Corps’ six-step planning process is equally

applicable. It is a robust, rational planning framework that is

sufficiently flexible for any and all types of planning encountered by

Corps personnel. That is not to suggest that it is or should be pursued

with equal resources, detail, or rigor in every situation. As mentioned
23

...the entire planning

process can be completed

in an hour, a day, a

week, a month, a year,

or a decade.

Table 6: Selected Planning Specialities

C Land Use Planning

C Policy Planning & Management

C Transportation Planning

C Housing & Community Development

Planning

C Human Services Planning

C Historic Preservation Planning

C Economic & Resource Development Planning

C Environmental Policies Planning

C International Development Planning

C Urban Design and Physical Planning

C Computers in Planning

Source: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

earlier, the entire planning process can be completed in an

hour, a day, a week, a month, a year or a decade. The level of

detail and quality of the results can be expected to vary with

the time and resources devoted to planning. But, no matter

what the time frame, it is inevitable that a planning decision

made based on a planning process is going to be better than a

decision made without one. Budgets, schedules, the

significance of the work, knowledge of the planning process

and other factors will dictate the extent to which a structured

planning process is pursued. The basic approach to problem solving

embodied in these steps is, however, sound and proven and can be

used in all planning situations.

Planning can contribute to agency performance wherever

problems are encountered. When those problems are wicked,

planning is indispensable.

TYPES OF PLANNING AND PLANNERS

Planning is best done by planners. In this section, we consider

some of the planning specialties and who planners are.

GENERIC TYPES OF PLANNING

The present-day planning profession has emerged in response

to the growth, changing values and critical

problems of 20th century urban

development. Though planning theory

may have developed around the needs of

cities, there are many different types of

planning, water resources development

planning and military master planning

being but two examples. 

Based on the variety of definitions

of planning offered above, we are able to

identify a rather lengthy list of different

planning specialties. Table 6 shows the

areas of specialty recognized by the

Association of Collegiate Schools of

Planning. Interestingly, the typical Corps

planner may find herself involved in
24

A Planner’s Best Friends

C The newspaper(s) and telephone book(s) that cover the area

under study.

C The alphabet and chronology; two organizing tools that just

about everyone understands and can agree to.

C Lists of everything and anything, such as telephone numbers,

reasons why Plan 7 won’t work, what to talk about at the

next team meeting, etc.

C Questions, particularly: “Why?”, “How do you know that?”,

“Who cares?”, and “What will happen if we don’t?”

C The abilities to tell the story (spoken and written), and to

listen.

virtually all of these specialty areas at one time or another.

PLANNERS

Within the Corps, you will find planners and other people

who plan. A planner is “a generalist with a specialty.” Planning

requires men and women with knowledge, imagination, and skills,

and a commitment to critically examine and act on objectives

concerned with the improvement of the human condition. Planners

must respond to complex and interrelated processes of social,

economic, cultural, environmental and political change at every scale

from the local to the global. Their specialized expertise derives from

their ability to relate scientific and technical knowledge to action in

the public domain. No one discipline prepares a person to be a

planner. Planning is intrinsically an interdisciplinary process. 

The skills of a planner, which should be considered “in

addition to” their specialty skill, are shown in Table 7. The skills,

ranked in order based on a somewhat dated (1976) survey of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology planning graduates might

show a different order today (computer skills would surely rank

higher and more communication skills would be prominently

ranked), but the array of skills is still relevant. 

Planners come from many backgrounds, including urban studies,

environmental studies, architecture, political science, engineering,

economics, sociology, law, the natural sciences, management,

geography, and public administration among others. The Corps’

study team would reflect this same mix of skills, adding some
25

Table 7: Planner’s Skills

C Writing C Original Information Getting

C Synthesis C Management

C Interaction C Economic Analysis

C Consulting C Spatial Design

C Research Design C Evaluation

C Community Organizing C Site Planning

C Information Retrieval C Computer Skills

C Environmental Analysis C Operations Research

C Data Analysis C Recording

C Teaching

particularly useful in water resources problems. Chapter Thirteen

discusses the planning team in more detail. 

In addition to planners there are the other people who plan. These are the

specialists who may not recognize the work they do as planning.

They may be found in operations and maintenance, engineering, or

construction divisions, the front office or virtually anywhere else in

the organization. Helping other people who plan to do their job

better is one of the greatest values of the Corps’ planning process.

WHERE DO PLANS COME FROM? 

Where do plans come from? They come from people. There comes

a time in every planning model when alternatives are designed to

address the problems that motivated the planning process in the first

place. Alternatives are solutions to problems that contribute to stated

planning objectives. In the Corps’ planning process the emphasis shifts

to identifying and designing alternatives that solve a problem in step

three, plan formulation. Thus, plans emerge from the plan

formulation process, a subject addressed at length in Chapter Eight.

For now, we content ourselves with the “big picture” and how this

formulation activity fits into it.
26

Yes, There Really Are “Planners”

Planners have been called generalists with a specialty. Planners are

often civil engineers, architects, or from other professional disciplines. But

some people are truly “planners” and their specialty is planning.

C There are about 90 graduate and post-graduate university planning

programs in the United States.

C Most planners work in government agencies. Some are consultants, and

some are academics.

C Many planners work for local governments. Common products in local

planning are comprehensive plans, zoning regulations, and subdivision

regulations.

C The Federal government’s personnel series GS-0020 Community Planner

recognizes the unique specialty of planners.

C The American Planning Association is the nation’s largest professional

society for planners.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

It’s fair to say that not everything Corps planners do during

the course of a day can be called plan formulation or even planning.

Thus, we find it necessary to invent terminology that makes

distinctions among the types of work Corps planners do. Their work

can be considered one of four different types: project development, study

management, planning, and plan formulation. The relationship of

these tasks to one another is shown in Figure 3. The two larger tasks

are part of what we call big “P” Planning, practiced more in Project

Management and Planning offices. The last two tasks are little “p”

planning that can be done anywhere in the organization.

Project Development Process

Planning and plan formulation can be separated from the

milieu in which they take place. To facilitate that distinction, we

define the most inclusive concept to be project development, i.e., all the

activities from initiation of a study through construction. This is done to

allow the separation of the planning process from implementation

activities as well as from the institutional setting in which planning is

done. 
Study Management

Planning

Plan

Formulation

Project Development

Figure 3: Relational Terminology

27

The Corps’ way of doing business has evolved over time. This “way”

includes the financial, administrative, organizational and management styles; the

requirements of the agency; and the multitude of institutional relationships they have

developed. Some of this culture is clearly related to the planning process. Other

tasks may be necessary to the planning process, but they are not part of it. 

Study Management

This subset of project development includes all the planning process tasks plus

activities that include study management. Study management activities include the

activities that support the planning process that may not be directly involved with

the problem solving aspects of planning. These activities include: contracting; budget

work; inter-agency transfers of funds and personnel; other personnel issues; report

preparation, printing, and distribution; shepherding the report through the review process;

and so on.

Planning

Planning, of course, comprises all the work associated with the six-step planning

process. More details on this are provided in subsequent chapters.
28

Study Levels

Sometimes you need a lot of information

to make a decision and other times you only need

a little. There are different levels of detail

required for different decisions. We gather less

information when buying a candy bar than when

we buy a car. The consequences of the decision

are substantially different. 

Just as the Corps has different project

purposes and different types of reports, there are

different levels of studies. Since the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986 there have

been reconnaissance and feasibility studies. 

The feasibility study is the more detailed of the

two. In reconnaissance efforts there may be less

detail or emphasis at some points in the planning

process than there would be in a feasibility study,

but the differences are of degree, not in

approach. The Corps’ six-step planning process

can be used for all types of planning studies at all

Plan Formulation

This is the point in

the planning process

“where plans come from.”

How that bit of magic

happens is considered at

greater length in Chapter

Eight.

SUMMARY AND

LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One.

Planning is what Corps

planners do. There is a

process, a set of steps, a

way to do planning.

Lesson Two.

There is no single “right”

process but some steps

are universal among all

processes.

Lesson Three. The Corps uses a six-step planning process.

Little “p” planning has been defined here as the deliberate social or

organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy for solving problems and

achieving a desired set of objectives. It will take the remainder of this manual to

detail some of the nuances of this process. That detailing begins in the next chapter

with brief histories of water resources development in the United States and the

evaluation of water resources planning by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

For a nice introduction to planning theory we suggest Introduction to Urban

Planning, Anthony J. Catanese and James C. Snyder, editors. It has a collection of

informative articles that are easy to read. More recent books that provide some nice
29

overview concepts are Ernest R. Alexander’s Approaches to Planning, Introducing

Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues; Jay M. Stein’s (editor) Classic Readings

in Urban Planning; Edward J. Kaiser, et al in Urban Land Use Planning, and Planning

in the Public domain: From Knowledge to Action, by John Friedman.

A fair number of books have been written specifically about water resources

planning. Some of the better ones were written during the 1970s and 1980s including

the following:

Alvin Goodman’s Principles of Water Resources Planning

Otto Helweg’s Water Resources Planning and Management

David Major’s Multi Objective Water Resources Planning

Jim Mulder, et al’s Integrating Water Resources and Land Use Planning

Margaret Petersen’s Water Resources Planning and Development.

You can’t go wrong with these for starters. For something more recent we suggest

Jim Heaney’s article, “New Directions in Water Resources Planning and

Management,” which appeared in the Autumn 1993 edition of Water Resources.
30
31

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER

RESOURCES PLANNING

“The past is only the present become invisible and mute; and

because it is invisible and mute, its memorized glances and its

murmurs are infinitely precious. We are tomorrow’s past.”

Mary Webb(1881-1927) English novelist.

INTRODUCTION

The Principles and Guidelines (P&G) is only the latest version

of a planning process that has been evolving for 200 years. It is not

likely to be the last version of a planning process to be used by the

Corps of Engineers. The nation’s water resources planning

framework has evolved gradually, reflecting the changing political

and social values of the day. The current P&G have persisted for 13

years at this writing, a modern record for longevity among planning

principles.

Knowledge of the historical background of Federal policies for

water and related land resource planning is indispensable to an

understanding of the present-day situation and its future prospects.

In this chapter, we provide a brief review of some events and

circumstances of the past 200 years that are still shaping problems

and issues in the controversial field of water resource development

and, consequently, water resource planning. Examined without

perspective, current policy may look contradictory, arbitrary, and

confusing. In historical perspective it makes sense, embodying

constitutional traditions, political convictions, institutional

developments, and changing national values to be reckoned with now

and into the future.

The values of a society are reflected in its public policy goals.

Different mixes of values will appear in different historical epochs.

As a result, policy goals will shift and evolve over time. Corps

personnel recognize the present as a time of significant changes. The

advent of changes in the cost-sharing formulas and an expanded role

for non-Federal partners befitting their expanded financial

responsibilities marks a serious change in the Corps’ programs.

When the history of the Federal government’s role in water

resource development and planning is recounted, however, we see
 Reference to several of these writings can be found in the bibliography of this manual. Nonetheless, two 4

authors merit special recognition. Beatrice Hort Holmes has done an extraordinary job of documenting the history of

water resource policy through 1970. The many works of Henry P. Caulfield, Jr., present one of the most thoughtful

and farsighted analysis of Federal water policy available in the literature. This chapter owes a great debt to the work of

Henry P. Caulfield, Jr. Much of the history of water resource development given here has been taken directly from his

works.

32

...seeds of change

would blossom into

periods of upheaval

and major

reorientations in water

resource development.

wave after wave of significant change. Even in relatively stable

periods during which “business as usual” had enough time to take on

meaning, we see the seeds of change sown in the Nation’s political

and public landscapes. With remarkable regularity, these seeds

would blossom into periods of upheaval and major reorientations in

water resource development. Only the passage of time and the

change of personnel mask the significance of these upheavals to the

programs and those executing them. If nothing else, recent history

shows the resiliency of the planning process as it has repeatedly

adapted to changing priorities and circumstances.

While there are many excellent, detailed writings on the

history of Federal water resource planning, there are none concisely 4

focused on the evolution of the planning process. There is a great

deal of historical and institutional knowledge in danger of being lost

in the absence of this work. This chapter does not pretend to be such

a work. It is, however, an attempt to document some of the more

important events and circumstances in the evolution of Federal water

resources planning in the U.S. as related to the greater focus of this

planning manual, so that interested students of this subject can begin

their own study.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WATER

RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE U.S.

THE BEGINNINGS OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING

The purpose of this section is to provide a sense of

the evolution and change that has shaped and continues to

shape Federal water resource programs. Water resource

planning is as old as civilization itself. Navigation began when

people learned wood floated. Irrigation accompanied agriculture.

Parts of one of the earliest water supply systems, the Roman

aqueducts, are still in use. 
33

Water

resources

planning is as

old as

civilization

EARLY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA

Look at the United State’s first major urban centers: Baltimore,

Philadelphia, New York, Boston. All are port cities. Find the oldest

towns in the original states and they are generally nestled along the

rivers and coasts as ports, mill towns, or fishing villages, all

dependent on water.

One of the first acts of the Congress of the newly formed United

States was, on August 7, 1789, to authorize construction of a lighthouse at

Cape Henry, Virginia. This was the first public works project

undertaken by the Federal government. It was built in recognition of

the fact that coastal and foreign shipping was the lifeblood of the

nation’s economy.

Before the advent of the railroad in the 1820s, water

transport on rivers, lakes and canals - although largely

undeveloped - was by far the cheapest means of internal bulk

transport. The interest in internal improvements was so great

that, in 1807, the Senate directed

Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin to

make a thorough investigation of

waterways, canals, and roads. Apologizing

for the “lateness” of his report, Gallatin in

1808 presented a foresighted summary guide

to future development of a system of roads and

inland water routes that would unite the states

and provide access to the interior of the continent. The objectives of

the Gallatin report were economic development of the

West, political unity, and national defense. Gallatin

believed these improvements were of little value unless they

were all undertaken at once.

 During the period 1817 to 1838, state and city

governments took the lead in the development of inland

waterway projects in cooperation with private enterprise.

Most of these canals failed to pay back the substantial

investments required for their construction, the Erie Canal

being a notable exception. State and private enterprise lacked

the financial resources and the technical personnel required

to make these projects economically viable, despite the fact
34

...support for Federal 

navigation development

grew stronger because of

popular disenchantment 

with railroad rates and

that the Federal government provided some land grants and

army surveying personnel to assist the canal-building efforts.

The failures of the great canal era are significant because they

opened the door for Federal assumption of responsibility for planning,

financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining inland

navigation.

There were many milestones in the evolution

of water resource development in the U.S. during the

19th century. The 1824 landmark case of Gibbons

vs. Ogden that gave Congress power over “...

navigation within the limits of every state in the

union” was based on the Supreme Court’s

interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That same

year, the first Rivers and Harbors Act was passed.

It provided for $75,000 worth of improvements to navigation

on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.

The Swamp Acts of 1849 and 1850 turned lands

over to the states to be sold, with the revenues being used for

flood control, drainage and reclamation. In these actions, we

find the beginnings of a national flood control function,

although it was initially linked with navigation.

After the Civil War, support for Federal navigation

development grew stronger because of popular

disenchantment with railroad rates and discrimination.

Waterways were seen as a way to regulate rail rates through

competition. 

A catastrophic flood on the Mississippi in 1874 led to

a Congressional report and the 1879 establishment of the

Mississippi River Commission (MRC). The MRC was

empowered to survey the river and prepare plans to improve

navigation and prevent floods. Flood control was still tied to

navigation improvements. Despite the introduction of flood

control, drainage, irrigation, and water power as new water

development purposes, the century ended as it had begun with

navigation for the purpose of uniting the expanding nation for
35

...basin flood

control evolved from

a local concern to a

national interest...

economic development as the major force in water resource

development.

The Reclamation Act of 1902 introduced a new major

water resource purpose, irrigation. This act enabled the

government to make use of its proprietary powers over public

lands in the West to build irrigation reservoirs to supply

water for family farm settlement. By the late 19th century,

Congress could see that Federal resources would be required

to settle the West. Large water projects were expensive and

required more expertise in planning, development and

management than was locally available.

The Conservation Movement

One of the political reactions to the rise of

industrialism and large cities after the Civil War was an elite

reformist drive favoring government action to “preserve”

natural resources. At the turn of the century, natural

scientists had become established in some of the new and

important Federal government agencies. They and their

professional colleagues in academia developed the knowledge

of the natural environment that, combined with ethical and

aesthetic concerns, provided the intellectual basis for the

Conservation Movement. The future of the world’s energy

resources was a particular concern of this movement. 

“Development and wise use”

may stand as an odd philosophy of

conservation today but it was a

water resource policy philosophy

formulated during the Roosevelt

years that prevailed into the

1960s. The trend toward planning

and developing multi-purpose projects fit nicely into the

traditions of the 19th century that included pork barrel politics,

nearly semi-annual omnibus bills, an expanding concept of national

interest, a rapidly advancing state-of-the-art for engineering and

other sciences, a growing base of political and public support, and an
36

intangible sense of adventure in the great engineering projects of that

age. Multi-purpose projects in the early 20th century meant

navigation, irrigation, hydroelectric power, water power, and,

soon, flood control.

Flood Control

The 1927 flood resulted in the 1928 Flood Control

Act in which Congress adopted a project for the control of

floods on the Mississippi because of the large local

expenditures in the past and the failure of these works to

contain the flooding. As the magnitude of the national flood

problem grew, basin flood control evolved from a local

concern to a national interest as expressed in the Flood

Control Act of 1936. Flood control became a Federal policy

with this act.

The River and Harbor Act of 1925 authorized the

Corps of Engineers to estimate the costs of conducting

comprehensive multi-purpose planning studies for all the

major river basins of the U.S. That cost estimate was

submitted to Congress in House Document No. 308 in

1926. In the decades that followed, the Corps completed

reports on some 200 rivers. The resulting “308 Reports” were

the most complete and comprehensive studies of the river basins of the

U.S. ever undertaken to that point in time. 

Although the plans did not set forth recommendations,

they did include specific plans of improvements and projects.

The plans addressed problems with and potential for

navigation, flood control, power, and irrigation throughout

the U.S.

During the 1940s, Congress gave the Corps the

continuing authority to conduct studies and implement

projects for clearing and snagging (Section 3 of River and

Harbor Act of 1945), emergency bank protection (Section

14 of Flood Control Act of 1946), and small flood control

projects (Section 205 of Flood Control Act of 1948).

With these authorities, it was no longer necessary for the
37

The environmental

movement of the

1960s...was built

upon...

nature preservation

 principles.

Corps to receive explicit authorization and appropriations for

small-scale projects. The Flood Control Act of 1944 further

authorized the Corps to develop recreation facilities at its

projects.

Section 107 of the River and Harbor and Flood

Control Act of 1960 established a continuing authority for

the construction of small navigation projects. Over the years

the annual program and individual project limits for the

various continuing authorities have changed with the budget

imperatives of the day. 

Looking back on the history of water resource

development, particularly as it relates to the Corps of

Engineers, we see, beginning with the River and Harbor Act

of 1875, a series of omnibus bills defining, expanding and

changing the Corps’ programs, authorities and responsibilities in

managing the nation’s water resources. The River and Harbor

Acts were generally omnibus bills dealing with navigation

improvements. The last of 24 River and Harbor Acts was in

1958. Omnibus flood control laws began with the Flood

Control Act of 1917. The ninth and final Flood Control

Act was passed in 1948.

Beginning in 1960, the omnibus bills were combined

in a series of five River and Harbor and Flood Control

Acts. The last act was in 1970. Since that time, the omnibus

bills have been called Water Resources Development Acts

(WRDA). The first was in 1974.

In addition to these omnibus bills there have been many

significant pieces of legislation that have affected Corps programs.

These are discussed in more detail in the Corps’ Policy

Digest (1996).

The environmental movement of the 1960s through

the present was built upon the nature preservation principles

that the conservation movement of Pinchot-Roosevelt rejected in

favor of multi-purpose project development. Gradually the word

“environment” was used officially in policy considerations in

place of the earlier “natural resources” which, at the time,

implied economic development and use of the resources. The
38

word, “natural,” did not seem to encompass the interest in

preservation of historic buildings, landscape architecture, job health

and safety protection, control of highway billboards, screening of

junkyards, anti-littering campaigns and other means of enhancing

environmental quality.

The animus that seemed to guide the development of the

official objective of environmental quality was concern for the

aesthetic and the ethical, in the tradition of Emerson, Thoreau, and the

19th century Naturalists. Congressional response to the growing

concern for environmental quality was positive, strong, and manifest

in many acts of Congress.

PLANNING PRINCIPLES THROUGH THE YEARS

The Early Years

Little is known about the planning principles employed

during the first 150 years of our nation’s water resource development.

For most of our national history, water resources planning has been

oriented toward understanding the physical and natural systems at

work in order to harness or modify them to preserve and enhance

human values. 

What has changed most about the planning process has been

its level of sophistication, made possible by advances in our

understanding of the complex natural, environmental, economic,

social, and political systems involved. The P&G planning framework

in use today reflects decades of evolution in thought about and in

experience with methods of water resources planning in the United

States. It also reflects the current balance of politically determined

national values. Though that evolution is far from complete and the

framework is far from perfect, it is currently considered better than

any other framework available. The P&G planning framework can be

better appreciated from a historical perspective.

First Half of the 20th Century

Prior to 1900 and for some years thereafter, investigative,

planning, and reporting procedures used by the Corps were largely

those developed in consideration of navigation improvements. The

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was created by the Act

of June 13, 1902.
39

District offices developed

their

own methods of engineering

and economic analysis.

The Federal government in 1917 prescribed that all

examinations and surveys for flood control should include a

comprehensive study of the watershed. This would include water

power and “other such uses as may be properly related to or

coordinated with the project.”

The River and

Harbor Act of June 5, 1920

provided that all reports

“Shall contain a statement

of special or local benefit

which will accrue to

localities affected by such

improvement and

statement of general or national benefits, with recommendations as

to what local cooperation should be required, if any, on account of

such local benefit.” 

Experience gained and procedures used to prepare some 200

comprehensive 308 Reports were to exert a strong influence over

subsequent planning activities of the Corps. In preparing the 308

reports, district offices developed their own methods of engineering

and economic analysis. These methods were widely exchanged

among the field offices. Planning remained very much focused on the

engineering aspects of solutions to problems. In the 1930s, planning

guidance began to appear in the form of Circular Letters and

Engineer Bulletins, precursors to the modern ERs, ECs, and similar

guidance.

One of the first and most significant developments in the

articulation of a Federal water resource planning framework occurred

with the Flood Control Act of 1936. Section 1 declared that flood

control is a proper Federal activity, that improvements for flood

control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare, and that the

Federal government should improve or participate in the improvement of

navigable waters or their tributaries for flood control “if the benefits to

whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the

lives and social security of people are otherwise not adversely affected” (49

Stat. 1570, 33 U.S.C. 701a).

Planning Studies

The actual study process, as it evolved near the middle of this

century, tended to comprise two steps. A preliminary examination

was done first. This is clearly akin to the modern reconnaissance

study. 
 Ibid, pp. 238-241. 5

40

If the preliminary report was favorable it was followed by a

more detailed “survey”. The survey report was to determine:

“the most suitable plan for improvement and whether such

improvement is economically justified...If...the improvement

appears to be justified, engineering and economic data are

developed to the extent necessary for project formulation and

evaluation.”5

The “Report on the Federal Civil Works Program as Administered by

the Corps of Engineers U.S. Army: Appendix D Policies and Procedures for

Investigating and Planning Civil Works” describes the “Procedures for

Project Formulation and Evaluation” circa the early 1950s. These, in a sense,

were the major steps in the planning process. The procedures must: (1)

establish the need for the project; (2) select the proper scope, type, and details

of design; (3) demonstrate its economic value; and, (4) provide for allocation

of costs when a sharing of cost between various interests is involved. 

Though a comparison of benefits and costs was required only for flood control

projects the Corps applied the benefit-cost analysis test to all its projects. Thus,

economic analysis of projects has been essential to the planning process for

well over half a century. The with- and without-project condition analysis

framework was introduced during this time.

Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47

By the middle of the century, several familiar elements of the planning

process were well established. What was missing was a Federal policy that would

assure uniformity of planning among all water resource agencies. There were

several agencies involved in water resource development including the

Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service. In

December 1952, the Bureau of the Budget issued Circular A-47 to water

resource agency heads to inform them of the standards it intended to use to

accept or reject agency evaluations of water resource projects.

The Green Book

In 1950, a report of the Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs was

circulated among the agencies. This document was revised and published in

May 1958 as a comprehensive and objective approach to project formulation

and evaluation called “Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River
 The Green Book was originally issued in 1950 and was revised in 1958. The final, 1958 version is 6

generally what is meant by the Green Book.

41

Basin Projects.” This document came to be known as “the Green Book ” like 6

its 1950 predecessor, because of the color of its cover. The report covers the

basic principles and concepts of benefit-cost analysis; principles and procedures

for project and program formulation; standards, problems and procedures in benefit

and cost measurement; analysis of various project purposes; and, cost allocation.

The Green Book clearly established the principle of maximizing net

benefits. The major planning steps appear to include an analysis of needs

and available resources and the consideration of alternative means of

accomplishing project purposes. 

The discussion of the formulation process describes a “nucleus of

development” that is identified. Then alternative scales of development

greater and lesser than the nucleus are considered. The optimum scale is that

which maximizes net benefits. The consideration of alternative plans

concentrates on assuring that there is no cheaper means of accomplishing the

same purpose. It is recognized that “in theory, the broadest range of

alternatives...should be considered,” but the emphasis is clearly on a severely

limited range of objectives.

A project is “...properly formulated and economically justified if: (1)

project benefits exceed project costs; (2) each separable segment or purpose

provides benefits at least equal to its costs; (3) the scale of development is

such as to provide the maximum net benefits; and (4) there are no more

economical means of accomplishing the same purpose...” There is no explicit

mention of any criteria other than economics. 

Though the document was never formally adopted by the Federal

Inter-Agency River Basin Committee or its successor, many of its principles

were embodied in Circular A-47 and others were followed by the water

resource agencies. These principles and Circular A-47 were mandating one

objective for water resources projects, national economic efficiency. This was

contrary to the history of American water resource development, which had

always included a strong regional economic development component. This

and other possible water resource objectives, like unity, national defense,

environment, and other human satisfactions, were effectively being denied

a role in the planning process.

Plan Formulation in 1959

A statement prepared for the Appropriations Committee of the first

session of the 86th Congress entitled “Laws and Procedures Governing
 From a letter dated May 15, 1962 by Director of the Bureau of the Budget, David G. Bell to the heads of 7

all executive agencies, rescinding Circular A-47.

42

Conduct of the Civil Works Program” dated April 1959 contains one of the

earliest and most concise descriptions of the planning process. Section IV of

this statement describes plan formulation as follows:

“Project formulation is the process of designing water resource

improvement projects and programs to serve specific needs

efficiently and economically.”

The four “principal phases of study” were:

C Determination of the nature and scope of the

problems for which solution is sought;

C Identification of all alternative measures and

combinations of measures which reasonably might be

applied in the solution of these problems;

C Determination of the benefits and costs or, more

broadly, the determinate effects, beneficial or adverse,

tangible or intangible, of the alternative projects and

programs which have been identified; and,

C Selection of the best solution from the array of

alternative solutions which have been considered.

Formulation is described as, from beginning to end, largely a matter of

weighing and comparing alternatives to determine their relative efficiency in

doing the desired water resources improvement job. Subsequent

articulations of the planning steps clearly show the debt they owe in spirit to

these earlier versions of the plan formulation process.

Senate Document Number 97

President Kennedy, on May 15, 1962, “...approved a statement of

policies, standards and procedures to be used...in the formulation, evaluation,

and review of plans for the use and development of water and related land

resources.” This was “Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the

7

Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and Development of

Water and Related Land Resources” contained in Senate Document Number

97 (SD 97), the name by which these policies are better known. 
43

River basins were to be the 

preferred planning area...

SD 97, an interdepartmental agreement that was never formally

approved by Congress, was in response to the President’s request for a

review of existing standards for formulating and evaluating water resource

projects. These changes superseded Circular A-47 (the Green Book was never

officially adopted) and were to enable Congress and the President to make

informed judgments about the desirability of water projects. The changes,

like all the changes before them, reflected the evolving values of the Nation

and moved the decision process away from the consideration of a single

planning objective.

SD 97 identifies three objectives of planning that are each to receive full

consideration. They are (1) Development, i.e., national economic development

and development of each region within the country (comprising what today

would be considered two objectives); (2) Preservation, i.e., proper

stewardship in the long-term interest of the Nation’s natural bounty; and (3)

Well-being of people. Significantly, the document says “Well-being of all

people shall be the overriding determinant in considering the best use of

water and related land resources.”

For the first time, preservation of resources is added as an objective that is

distinct from the development of resources. This was a significant step in the

evolution of environmental planning objectives that was due to the

growing strength of the environmental movement. Also for the

first time, policies, procedures, and standards for plan formulation

were put forth in a single document. It was directed that all

viewpoints - national, regional, State, and local - be taken into

account, although the national viewpoint is clearly preeminent.

River basins were to be the preferred planning area, and multipurpose planning was to be used. 

The Water Resources Council began its review of the principles and

standards for planning water and related land resource projects mandated by

the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 in 1968, amidst much controversy.

The Council had to respond to the imperatives of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). A Special Task Force to the Council prepared reports on

“Principles” and “Standards.” A third report on “Procedures” was to be

completed later. These two reports known as “the Orange Books” suggested

major changes from the SD 97 planning framework. Four objectives for

planning were proposed. They were (1) to enhance national economic

development; (2) to enhance the quality of the environment; (3) to enhance

social well-being; and (4) to enhance regional development. No one of any of

the four objectives was to be considered more important than any other. 
44

Four Accounts

In the 1970 Flood Control Act,

Congress identified four equal national

objectives for use in water resources

development planning. They were: national

economic development; regional economic

development; environmental quality; and

social well-being. During the 1970s two of

these, NED and EQ, were actually national

objectives. Now only NED remains a national

objective. However, these four categories of

plan effects remain important considerations of

water resource projects.

All significant effects of a plan should

be accounted for in the planning process. In

order to facilitate an orderly display of project

effects it has been suggested they be grouped

into one of four accounts. Those effects

resulting in changes in national economic

development would be included in the NED

account, those affecting environmental quality

would be in the EQ account, etc. The four

accounts remain an effective way to organize

and present plan effects for the consideration

of decision-makers and the public. 

...environmental

concerns were placed

on an equal basis

with national

economic

development.

“Principles and Standards”

Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 expressed Congress’

intent that all four objectives be equal. Nonetheless, the Orange Books were

never adopted. Instead, the Water

Resources Council in December 1971

issued its own “Proposed Principles

and Standards for Planning Water

and Related Land Resources” (italics

added for emphasis). The major

changes from the Orange Books were

that (1) social well-being was

dropped as an objective; (2) using

regional development as an objective

in plan formulation would require

advance approval; (3) a plan

maximizing contributions to national

economic development was now

required; (4) a plan contributing to

environmental quality was now

required; and (5) the discount rate

would not be that used by OMB.

Two years of extensive

review and debate ensued. On

September 10, 1973, “Principles and

Standards for Planning Water and

Related Land Resources” (P&S) were

published in the Federal Register,

finally replacing SD 97. The major

change in the final P&S was that

environmental concerns were placed on

an equal basis with national economic

development. There were two objectives

for water resource planning. First, to

enhance national economic

development by increasing the value of the nation’s output of goods and

services and improving national economic

efficiency. Second, to enhance the quality of

the environment by the management,

conservation, preservation, creation,

restoration, or improvement of the quality of

certain natural and cultural resources and

ecological systems. 
45

In addition to the two objectives, there would be four accounts: national

economic development (NED); environmental quality (EQ); regional development

(RD); and social well-being (SWB). Plan impacts on the different accounts were

to be evaluated and displayed in a system of accounts. The obligation to

formulate an EQ plan was eliminated from the final rules. A six-step planning

process was provided. The major steps of the evolving planning process were

(1) Specify components of the objectives relevant to the planning setting; (2)

Evaluate resource capabilities and expected conditions without any plan; (3)

Formulate alternative plans to achieve varying levels of contributions to the

specified components of the objectives; (4) Analyze the differences among

alternative plans which reflect different emphasis among the specified

components of the objectives; (5) Review and reconsider, if necessary, the

specified components for the planning setting and formulate additional

alternative plans as appropriate; and (6) Select a recommended plan from

among the alternative plans based upon an evaluation of the trade-offs

between the objectives of national economic development and environmental

quality and considering, where appropriate, the effects of the plans on

regional development and social well-being.

The Carter Administration issued its “Water Policy Initiatives” in

1978, challenging the then-current way of doing business. Proposed changes

in cost-sharing formulas also began to be publicly debated. Following a very

controversial “Hit List” in which numerous authorized projects in various

stages of planning or construction were threatened with being halted, another

round of changes in water policy resulted. Chief among these may have been

the development of the Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic

Development (NED) Benefits and Costs in Water Resources Planning (Level C) and

Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Planning Water and Related Land

Resources. The NED procedures standardized the estimation of benefits and

costs for Federal projects for the first time. The P&S were revised effective

September 29, 1980. 

The language describing the national objectives of planning studies

was modified to make the status of the two objectives clearer: 

“Two coequal objectives provide the basis for water and

related land resources planning. These objectives are

protection and enhancement of national economic

development (NED) and protection and enhancement of

environmental quality (EQ).”

More generally, the language of the P&S was considerably changed with

relatively little change in substance. 

The six major steps of the revised P&S planning process were

essentially the same, but they are more clearly described as follows:
46

1) Specification of the water and related land resources

problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning

setting) associated with the NED and EQ objectives.

2) Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related

land resource conditions within the planning area

relevant to the identified problems and opportunities.

3) Formulation of alternative plans.

4) Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans.

5) Comparison of alternative plans.

6) Selection of a recommended plan based upon the

comparison of alternative plans.

The revised P&S go on in §711.101(b) to say:

“Plan formulation is a dynamic process with various steps

that should be iterated one or more times. This iteration

process, which may occur at any step, may sharpen the

planning focus or change its emphasis as new data are

obtained or as the specification of problems or opportunities

changes or becomes more clearly defined.”

The new P&S required that alternative plans be formulated in consideration

of the four tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability.

The major changes in the formulation of plans were (1) the requirement to include

a primarily non-structural plan whenever structural projects were considered and

(2) the requirement to establish water conservation as a new national priority to

be fully integrated into project and program planning. The alternative plans were

now to include an NED plan and an EQ plan, a notion proposed by the Orange

Books but rejected in the original P&S. Plans were to be formulated without

regard to which level of government had the authority to implement them.

The effects of the plans on the four accounts were still to be displayed

and traded-off in the selection process. The name of the Social Well-Being

account was changed to Other Social Effects (OSE). Environmental planning

procedures were formally added at this time as well. Though not actually

part of the P&S, a significant addition to planning guidance was the

“Environmental Quality Evaluation Procedures for Level C Water Resources

Planning: Final Rule” which accompanied the P&S. The relationship

between the planning process and the EQ evaluation phases and stages was

detailed here.
47

The only required plan

was

the NED plan.

“Principles and Guidelines” 

The new P&S were in effect for about two years. The Reagan

Administration repealed the Principles and Standards in September 1982, replacing

them

with proposed “Principles and Guidelines.” The new Principles were approved

by the President in February 1983, and the new Standards and Procedures

were approved March 10, 1983, in the “Economic and Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Implementation Studies” better known as Principles and Guidelines or P&G.

The “Principles” changed the focus

from two coequal national objectives back to a

single Federal objective. “The Federal

objective of water and related land

resources project planning is to contribute

to national economic development

consistent with protecting the nation’s

environment, pursuant to national

environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal

planning requirements.” The only required plan was the NED plan.

The only change in the major steps of the planning process in the P&G

was a minor modification of the first step, shown below with the changes

italicized:

1) Specification of the water and related land resources

problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning

setting) associated with the Federal objective and specific

State and local concerns.

The intent of the P&G was clearly to give economic development a higher

standing than environmental quality as a criteria for Federal water project

planning. The requirements to formulate EQ and nonstructural plans were

eliminated. 

The new guidelines make mandatory only the NED account. The other

three accounts are to be used when they contain information that may bear

on the decision-making process. They are no longer required in the sense

they once were. The detailed procedures for evaluation of NED benefits and

costs, published by the Carter Administration in 1979 as rules, were included

in the P&G as administrative guidelines. The EQ evaluation procedures of

1980 were also included in the P&G.
48

The major change with the P&G was to focus on a single economic

development objective. Some had argued that multi-objective planning had

become too time consuming, complicated, and costly. Environmental groups

objected vigorously to the elimination of an EQ objective. Many considered

this in conflict with the expressed intent of the National Environmental Policy

Act. Also significant was the downgrading of this material from rules to

guidelines. Changes to the Guidelines can be made by agency heads if they

have the approval of the Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and the

Environment.

WRDA 1986

The Water Resources Act of 1986 (WRDA’86), Public Law 99-662, was one

of the most significant pieces of water resources legislation in recent history. It

marked the first omnibus water act in a decade, a decade in which many

policy changes had taken place. Section 101 of the Act established new

project cost-sharing percentages that required non-Federal interests to

contribute a greater share of project costs than they had been accustomed to

in the past. Section 105 required non-Federal interests to contribute 50% of

feasibility study costs. Raising the costs of Federal projects in these ways is

believed to have reduced the demand for Federal projects as well as increased

the role of the non-Federal partner in the study process.

Among the other significant impacts of this law were the creation of

an Inland Waterways Users Board to direct Inland Waterways Trust Fund

expenditures; the authorization of fish and wildlife enhancement; legislation

of the assumption that the benefits of environmental measures at least equal

the costs of creating them; and the establishment of a continuing authority

program to modify projects to improve the environment. 

Subsequent WRDA’s have continued the evolution of Federal water

resources development policy. None have had the same impact as WRDA

’86, however.

CONTINUING EVOLUTION

The Corps’ water resource programs continue to be revised - expanding in

some areas, contracting in others - by Water Resource Development Acts and a

planning process that continues to develop. Increased cost-sharing

responsibilities for the non-Federal partner (WRDA ’86) highlight the need to

quantify and assess the importance of regional and local economic impacts

of plans. These are often of far more importance to local partners than are

NED benefits. Burgeoning interest in environmental investments, ecosystem
49

restoration (WRDA ’86), and environmental impacts argue for an enhanced

role for environmental quality.

Some would suggest that the P&G are ill-suited to meet water

planning needs today. History has shown the opposite. Despite the swing to

and from emphasis on NED, only the planning process itself and the fouraccount framework remain remarkably robust and resilient. An iterative sixstep planning process that assesses plan impacts in a multiple-account

framework offers planners an organized, comprehensive, and rational

approach to assessing and evaluating plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER READING

The reader interested in the historical background of water resource

development in the U.S. has many options. The single best source for

comprehensive detail are the works of Beatrice Holmes, a former Department

of Agriculture employee. The shame is that she did not continue her work

beyond 1970. 

Holmes, Beatrice Hart. A History of Federal Water Resource Programs, 1800-

1960. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Holmes, Beatrice Hart. History of Federal Water Resource Programs and Policies,

1961-1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

One of the best sources for insight and understanding of the

underlying historical and political themes are the works of Henry P.

Caulfield. His works tend to papers that can be a little difficult to find without

the assistance of a good interlibrary loan librarian to help you. A few

suggestions follow, but you’ll be rewarded by any of his works. The

following works were used extensively in this chapter.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “History of U.S. Water Policy.” Colorado Agribusiness

Roundup. Fall/Winter 1980-1981. Colorado State University. 1981.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Let’s Dismantle (Largely but not Fully) the Federal

Water Resource Development Establishment, or the Apostasy of a

Longstanding Water Resource Development Federalist.” Denver

Journal of International Law in Policy. Volume 6. Special Issue 1976.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “The Living Past in Federal Power Policy.” Resources

for the Future 1959 Annual Report. Washington, D.C. 1959.
50

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Perspectives on Instream Flow Needs.” Paper

delivered at Instream Flow Needs Conference. Boise, Idaho. May 4,

1976.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Planning Programs and Water Problems: Do They

Match?” Paper delivered at 1977 National Conference on Water. St.

Louis, Missouri. May 24, 1977.

The most serious students will want to make use of the extensive

public record. Committee reports on the major legislative actions can be

revealing sources of information obscured from the public eye by time or the

rigidity of the act’s language. Likewise, testimony before the committees

considering the acts can be rich sources of information. Want a glimpse

behind the scenes? Only the most serious students will want to review the

one-of-a-kind documents of the Rivers and Harbors Congress, now part of the

library collections of Tulane University in New Orleans.

The evolution of the P&S and P&G is well documented in a series of

documents available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),

U.S. Department of Commerce. The working files of the Water Resources

Council are another source of valuable information. Some documents of

possible interest are listed below with their NTIS order numbers.

The “Green Book” of 1958. Order # PB-209 180.

Senate Document Number 97. Order # PB-209 171.

Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force, Procedures

for Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resource Projects, June

1969 (“Blue Book”). Order # PB-209 171.

Summary: Federal Agency Technical Comments on the Special Task Force

Report Entitled “Projects for Evaluation of Water and Related Land

Resource Projects,” July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. I). Order # PB-209

172.

Summary and Index: Public Response to the Special Task Force Report

entitled “Projects for Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resource

Projects,” July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. II). Order # PB-209 173.

Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force: Findings

and Recommendations, July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. III). Order #

PB-209 174.
51

Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force: Principles

for Planning Water and Land Resources, July 1970. (“T.F. Report” -

Vol. IV). Order # PB-209 175.

Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force: Standards

for Planning Water and Land Resources, July 1970. (“T.F. Report” -

Vol. V). Order # PB-209 176.

Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force: A Summary

Analysis of Nineteen Tests of Proposed Evaluation Procedures on

Selected Water and Land Resource Projects, July 1970. (“T.F. Report”

- Vol. VI). Order # PB-209 177.

Interested in a history of the agency? Many of the districts have

commissioned their own histories. A nice history of the Corps has also been

prepared. But if you read the official history, you owe it to yourself to read

the Maass book, which is another view of the Corps, a scathing one that must

be read by any serious student of history.

Maass, Arthur. Muddy Waters. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The History of the US Army Corps of Engineers.

EP 360-1-21. Washington, D.C. January 1986.

A somewhat prophetic study is a study published by Colorado State

University. It provides some statistical analysis of then-developing trends in

the Corps’ program.

Yoe, Charles. The Declining Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the

Development of the Nation’s Water Resources. Colorado Water Resources

Research Institute, Fort Collins. 1981.

To round out your reading list with a few more current titles you

might find some of the following of interest. 

Arnold, Joseph L. The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act. Office of History,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia. 1988.

Moore, Jamie W. And Dorothy P. Moore. The Army Corps of Engineers and the

Evolution of Federal Flood Plain Management Policy. Institute of

Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. 1989.

Reus, Martin. Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Institute for Water Resources. IWR Policy Study 91-PS-1. October

1991.
52

Rosen, Howard and Martin Reus, ed’s. The Flood Control Challenge: Past,

Present, and Future. Proceedings of a National Symposium, New

Orleans, Louisiana, September 26, 1986.

National Academy of Sciences. “Alternatives in Water Management.”

National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1966.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Today’s planning process has evolved from a rich history

of changing policies, practices, and national priorities. It will continue to

evolve.

Lesson Two. The fundamental principles of a step-by-step planning

process, driven by national objectives and evaluations across different

accounts, have endured through this history of change.

This chapter provides an overview of water resource development

and planning in the United States over two centuries. It describes in general

terms how the planning process evolved to the current Principles and

Guidelines. The next chapter picks up where this one has left off and goes on

to describe in a bit more detail the current state of planning guidance.
53
54

...sooner or later the

P&G will be changed...

CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING GUIDANCE

“If you obey all the rules you miss all the fun.” Katharine

Hepburn (1909- ) American actress.

INTRODUCTION

The Corps’ planning guidance comes from different places. National

policy is expressed by the Congress and the Administration in legislation,

Federal rules and regulations, and Executive Orders as well as in the

Principles and Guidelines. The Corps itself has generated a great deal of

guidance in the form of engineering regulations, circulars, etc. Though only

the planning guidance is of interest here, the Corps is subject to guidance that

covers a wide variety of topics and functions.

The Corps of Engineers’ planning guidance can be found in five

primary sources. The first and most important of these is the Economic and

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Implementation Studies, also known as the Principles and Guidelines or the

P&G. The second most important source is Engineering Regulation 1105-2-

100 Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies. In no particular

order the remaining sources of information are the Digest of Water Resources

Policies and Authorities,; Guidance Letters series, and, a series of engineering

regulations (ERs) and engineering circulars (ECs) in addition to ER 1105-2-

100.

Planning policy and guidance are dynamic things. If

past is prologue to the future, the previous chapter would

suggest that sooner or later the P&G will be changed in

another evolutionary leap forward. Policy will likewise

continue to evolve as national priorities change. As a

result, it’s not possible to provide you with a timeless and

unchanging handbook to planning guidance. Though current at the time of this

writing, the materials discussed in this chapter are subject to regular revision

and change.

To function effectively as a planner, one must read these documents

and have a working knowledge and understanding of their contents. Those

who would like to understand what Corps planners do would be well

advised to browse through the P&G and ER 1105-2-100. 

This chapter presents an overview and introduction to these and other

selected planning documents. The original documents should be consulted
55

Table 8: Content of P&G

C Principles

 - 13 principles

C Guidelines

 - Chapter I - Standards

 - Chapter II - National Economic

 Development (NED) Benefit

 Evaluation Procedures

 - Chapter III - Environmental 

 Quality (EQ) Evaluation

 Procedures

Table 9: Standards

C Introduction

C The Federal Objective

C Summary of the Planning Process

C General Planning Considerations

C Inventory and Forecast of 

 Conditions Without a Plan

C Alternative Plans

C Accounts

C Displays

C Cost Allocation

C Plan Selection

C Risk and Uncertainty

for a more detailed explanation of the topics found in this chapter. Appendix

I contains a list of relevant Corps planning documents.

THE PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

The P&G is currently the Corps planner’s bible. It is the philosophical

source document. Established March 10, 1983, the most significant aspects of

the P&G are as follows: (1) They marked a departure from their predecessor

Principles and Standards’ reliance on multi-objective planning; (2) They

established national economic development as the

one and only Federal objective for water resources

planning; and (3) The P&G were intended to serve

as guidance that is recommended, rather than as

rules that are required. The structure of the P&G is

shown in Table 8.

PRINCIPLES

The Principles comprise a two-page statement

that ensures proper and consistent planning by Federal

agencies that formulate and evaluate water resource

implementation studies. Because they represent a

philosophical statement for Federal agency

planning they are reproduced in their entirety

inside the front cover of this manual.

GUIDELINES

Table 8 also shows the

structure of the Guidelines. Each

of the three components is

discussed in turn.

Standards

In Chapter I of the

Guidelines, the Standards

establish the criteria upon which

plans will be formulated,

evaluated, and weighed. They

are shown in Table 9. The
56

Table 10: NED Benefit

Evaluation

1. M&I Water Supply

2. Agriculture

3. Urban Flood Damages

4. Hydropower

5. Inland Navigation

6. Deep Draft Navigation

7. Recreation

8. Commercial Fishing

9. Other Direct Benefits

10. Unemployed or Under- 

 employed Labor Resources

11. NED Costs

standards establish the basic process for Federal agencies to follow in their

planning activities. The six-step planning process is presented in this section

of the P&G. Many of the principles identified in the two pages of the

Principles are explained in more detail in the Standards. The four accounts

are addressed at some length in the Standards.

NED Benefit Evaluation Procedures

The general approach to NED benefit evaluation is to estimate changes in

national economic development that occur as a result of differences in project outputs

with a plan, as opposed to national economic development without a plan. Only

project-related changes in levels of national economic development are

estimated. These values are to be expressed in average

annual equivalent dollars. Specific procedures have

been developed to estimate NED benefits of the types

shown in Table 10.

Chapter II of the Guidelines presents detailed

procedures for estimating national economic

development benefits for most of the Corps’ water

resource planning purposes like flood damages,

navigation, hydropower, and the like. Most of these

benefit procedures have been supplemented by a series

of National Economic Development Procedures

Manuals produced by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers’ Institute for Water Resources. Thus, anyone

interested in how the Corps of Engineers estimates

benefits for its traditional planning projects should begin

by consulting the procedures in the P&G. For more

detailed explanations and examples, the procedures

manuals are the next logical step. A list of procedures

manuals is provided in Appendix I.

EQ Evaluation Procedures

A sometimes overlooked part of the P&G is Chapter III, which

presents environmental quality procedures. The definitions, general

evaluation requirements, and processes of this chapter provide the basis for

environmental impact assessment analyses at which the Corps has become

so proficient.

The purpose of the EQ evaluation process is not to identify plans that

meet planning objectives. Rather, EQ evaluation is used to identify significant

beneficial and adverse effects of alternative plans on significant EQ resources. Just
57

Table 11: EQ Evaluation Process: Phases and Activities

Phases Activities

Define resources Identify resources

Develop evaluation framework

Inventory resources Survey existing conditions

Forecast without-plans condition

Forecast with-plan condition

Assess effects Identify effects

Describe effects

Determine significant effects

Appraise effects Appraise significant effects

Judge net EQ effects

Table 12: Contents of ER 1105-2-

100

1. Introduction

2. Planning Programs

3. Continuing Authorities Program

4. Project Purposes

5. Planning Principles

6. Economic Considerations

7. Environmental Planning &

Evaluation

 Considerations

8. Washington Level Review

9. Seventeen Topical Appendices

as the NED benefit evaluation procedures are used in the planning process,

so, too the EQ evaluation process is used.

The EQ impact evaluation process proceeds in the four phases and 10

activities shown in Table 11. Phases are shown at the first level of detail,

activities at the second. These phases and activities are natural, integral parts

of the six-step planning process.

ER 1105-2-100

PLANNING GUIDANCE

Prior to the publication of ER

1105-2-100, planning guidance was

provided in a series of engineering

regulations (ERs). Now, all planning

guidance is collected and presented

in ER 1105-2-100 Guidance for

Conducting Civil Works Planning

Studies. The ER is alternately

known as ER 100, the Planning

Guidance Notebook, or PGN

(pronounced “pigeon”). The
58

contents of the 28 December 1990 version of the ER are summarized in Table 12. 

This ER provides guidance that is specific to the Corps’ conduct of planning

studies. In essence, it puts the Corps’ spin on the P&G, fleshes out the P&G, and fills

the voids the P&G fail to address. The first task of any new planner should be to read

this regulation from cover to cover. How can we recommend this over the P&G?

Not to worry, the P&G comprises most of Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the ER.

Chapter 2 of the ER provides the best summary of the types of studies,

reports, and study procedures available. Planning assistance to states as well as

other planning assistance is also described there. Chapter 2 is recommended reading

for anyone who will be intimately involved in the Corps’ planning study process.

The third chapter of the ER describes the Corps’ continuing authority

programs (CAP). The CAP are a set of legislative authorities that allows the

Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to plan, design, and

construct certain projects without specific Congressional authorization. These CAP

projects are usually smaller scale, limited scope, single purpose projects with

periodically adjusted Federal funding limits. Chapter 3 is recommended reading for

anyone pursuing a project through one of the Corps’ continuing authority programs.

Chapter 4 of the ER provides a detailed introduction to important aspects of

the Corps’ traditional project purposes. Important terminology and policy issues are

presented in this chapter. It is recommended reading for anyone involved in a Corps

study.

Chapters 5, 6, and 7 basically present the P&G. The chapters begin with a

verbatim reproduction of part of the P&G. The ends of each chapter add relevant

additional material to the P&G Standards (in Chapter 5, beginning on p. 5-34), P&G

Economic Evaluation Procedures (in Chapter 6, beginning on p. 6-141), and

Environmental Evaluation (in Chapter 7, beginning on p. 7-37). The report submittal,

assessment and processing procedures of the Corps are described in Chapter 8,

“Washington Level Review.” A set of 17 appendices provide technical details on a

number of subjects, sample documents, and examples.

ER 1105-2-100 is a lengthy document. It is not a compendium of all planning

guidance, however. Additional materials can be found in a series of related ER’s and

other Corps guidance. Nonetheless, it is the best single source of planning guidance.

It’s currently under revision. Though it is updated periodically, updating is a major

undertaking and it is not done on a routine basis. Thus, it may be necessary to look

to other sources for the most up-to-date policy. 
59

Guidance Letters

CGL Counsel Guidance Letter

DGL Dredging Guidance Letter

PGL Planning Guidance Letter

PGL Policy Guidance Letter

PM Policy Guidance

Memorandum

RGL Regulatory Guidance Letter 

Table 13: Corps Guidance

AR Army Regulation

EC Engineer Circular

EM Engineer Manual

EP Engineer Pamphlet

ER Engineer Regulation

ETL Technical Letter

OM Office Memorandum 

1105 Planning

1110 Engineering

1120 Construction - Operations

1130 Construction - Operations

1140 Construction - Operations

1165 Policy

GUIDANCE LETTERS

The Guidance Letters are an effective

vehicle for providing guidance on issues

needing clarification or on changing priorities.

Guidance Letters are issued by the Planning,

Policy, and other offices of Headquarters. They

are an important source of information that

Corps planners should not overlook. A selected

list of Guidance Letters is included in Appendix

I.

POLICY DIGEST

The “Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities” is a periodically

updated compilation of existing administrative and legislative water resource

policies and authorities pertinent to the Civil Works activities of the Corps of

Engineers. The most recent version of the digest at the time of this writing was dated

1996. The reader must beware that as the digest becomes more dated, it will contain

no information about more recent initiatives. Insofar as more recent initiatives are the

ones planners most need information about, the digest may be of limited use in

describing the most recent policy initiatives. 

The 1996 Digest provides a comprehensive

overview of policy considerations, as opposed to

the planning or procedural considerations. This is

a technical and detailed document that is very

faithful to the legislative and administrative history

of the Corps’ activities. 

OTHER CORPS GUIDANCE

It’s difficult to stay abreast of Corps policy

because it is contained in so many documents. If

you want to be familiar with the Corps’ guidance,

read the materials referenced above. Once you

have done that, you are ready to tackle the Army

regulations (ARs), engineering regulations (ERs),

engineering circulars (ECs), engineering pamphlets

(EPs), engineering technical letters (ETLs),
60

engineering manuals (EMs), and office memorandums (OM) that have accumulated

over the years. Table 13 provides a guide to the various types of guidance and the

numbering system commonly used by the Corps. The guidance identification system

begins with the type of guidance, AR, ER, EC, EP, and soon followed by a four-digit

number from Table 13 that indicates the subject of the guidance.

There is an Index of Publications EP 25-1-1 that has been updated from timeto-time. Though it is a logical place to start, it must be used with caution because of

frequent changes in the listed guidance.

Another important source of guidance is the annual budget guidance found in

the Annual Program and Budget Request for Civil Works Activities Corps of

Engineers, Fiscal Year 199X. Additional guidance helpful in the planning process can

be found piecemeal in the ER’s and EC’s of Corps functions other than Planning. The

reports of the Institute for Water Resources and the Waterways Experiment Station,

such as the NED Manuals and reports from the Evaluation of Environmental

Investments Research Program (EEIRP), are additional resources for Corps planners.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. To understand the Corps’ planning process, read ER 1105-2-

100.

Lesson Two. If you want to be an expert on the Corps’ planning process,

read all the materials mentioned in this chapter then do planning for a few decades.

How do you do planning? That question is addressed (notice we did not say

answered) in the next seven chapters that describe a couple of characteristics of the

Corps’ planning process and its six steps. We begin with a consideration of several

very important and somewhat unique characteristics that pervade the Corps’ planning

process.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

The reader is encouraged to read and become familiar with the documents

described in this chapter. For more detailed or specific information, consult the

documents listed in Appendix I.
61
62

Planning is...more

marble cake than

layer cake.

CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

CORPS PLANNING PROCESS

“Let all things be done decently and in order.”

Corinthians 14:40.

INTRODUCTION

Each of the following six chapters addresses one of the six planning

steps. Though the sequence of presentation is a simple linear progression, the

practice of planning is anything but simple or linear. There are some

characteristics of the Corps’ planning process that pervade and even pre-exist

the six-step planning process and that warrant consideration before we begin

to consider the steps. The iterative planning process; screening as a tool for

making on-going, criteria-based decisions throughout the planning process;

scoping, a special kind of screening; and the general planning context are

some of these characteristics that form the basis for this chapter.

PLANNING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS

Planning has six steps, but it is not a nice, neat, sequential process.

It is more marble cake than layer cake. Understanding the iterative nature of

the planning process is one of the more difficult things for new planners to

grasp. You do a step and then you do it over

and you keep on doing it until it is done. All

the steps will be finished when planning is

done well. But, along the way, they may be

started in any order and addressed a different

number of times to varying extents before they

are finished. The discussion that follows

begins with what we imagine might be some

frequently asked questions about the iterative process.
63

SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What Is An Iterative Process?

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines iterate as reiterate.

Reiterate is defined as: to say or do over again or repeatedly sometimes with

wearying effect. This latter part of the definition conveys a nuance many

experienced planners can identify with easily. An iterative process, then, is

one that is repeated, at times over and over.

What Is Iterated?

The six steps of the planning process are the things that are repeated.

A planning iteration is essentially a pass through some or all of the six steps

of the planning process. Or, it could be simply returning to a single step in the

process to elaborate, refine, correct, or complete what was done before.

Why Is The Planning Process Iterative?

It’s impossible to anticipate, execute, and revise each of the six steps

of the planning process in one run through the steps. Typically, each iteration

has a different emphasis. In the early iterations, problem identification and

resource inventories and forecasts receive more emphasis than in later

iterations, when the other steps are emphasized.

You learn as you plan. Information becomes available, our

understanding improves and it is often necessary to go back over something.

The process is designed to be iterative, and so it is.

How Do Iterations Differ From One Another?

Iterations typically differ in the emphasis placed on the different

planning steps. The six steps describe a logical and sequential thought

process. The emphasis in the various iterations shifts at a varying rate from

one step to the next in general accordance with the step sequence. That is,

step one is generally emphasized before step two, which is generally

emphasized before step three, and so on. 

Iterations may also differ in their duration. It can take an hour, a

day, a week, or longer. It is quite possible the study team may make an
64

Purists and Philistines Among Planners

Does each iteration start at step one? 

Does each iteration include all the steps? 

These are some of the questions planning

purists and Philistines might debate in the

locker room after a long day of planning. They

differ little if at all over the reality of what

planners do, it is more their philosophical

views of what is done that digress.

The non-Federal partner walks in on

day one of a study with a plan. Is the Corps’

study team “starting” at step three? The

Philistine says who cares. The purist says the

author of the plan has already done steps one

and two.

On the initial site visit, the study team’s

senior member sizes up the situation and

announces that dredged material from the

channel can be used to create wetlands along

the west bank of the river. There is already a

front runner for the recommended plan. Has

the planning process begun at step six? Again

the Philistine says who cares. In the purist’s

view steps one through five have been done

implicitly. They may have been private mental

exercises, possibly done in the blink of an eye. 

Almost certainly there is no record of what the

planner’s assumptions were or why they were

made.

There appear to be differing views on

this aspect of the Corps’ planning process. 

Some hold it is impossible to take the steps out

of sequence. The preceding steps are always

accomplished, albeit sometimes in implicit,

undocumented, even snap judgment ways. 

Others believe the process is a bit more chaotic,

can begin anywhere, and proceeds at times in

an almost random order.

Both would agree, however, the

entire iteration during their initial

site visit. None of the steps will

have been very detailed, but each

step would have been preliminarily

considered. As the sidebar on

purists and Philistines indicates,

some steps may be virtually

instantaneously processed, while

others can be long and laborious.

How Many Iterations Are

Required?

If you’re trying to count

iterations you’re missing the big

picture. There is no prize for either

the most or the fewest iterations.

You do as many iterations as it

takes to arrive at the best plan.

Iterations, like the six steps

themselves, willrarely have a

discrete beginning or ending other

than the start and end of the study.

The big picture view is that the

steps are repeated. You do

something then you do it again.

The initial iteration of a step may be

little more than an educated guess.

Subsequent iterations may be

because you have more definitive

data or they may be simple fine

tunings of an earlier result.

When Do You Stop the

Iterations?

When all of the planning

steps have been completed as fully

and as well as they are going to be

done in your study effort, the

iterations can stop. That could be
65

Levels of Iterations

Though there is no ideal or

recommended number of iterations it is

possible to identify different levels of

iterations. Each level may require a

variable number of iterations but

generally the planning process can be

recognized as passing through different

levels. We’ve identified three.

The first level of iterations is

devoted to identifying possibilities. The

second level of iterations is the screening

level. Possibilities are whittled down and

evaluated. The third level of iterations is

the optimization level. At this level plan

dimensions are fine-tuned. This level

culminates in the selection of a plan.

The basic theme running through

these levels is an increasing sense of

purpose and quality of information. 

Level 1 iterations can be likened to

turning on a TV set. Level two is

scanning the channels for possibilities. 

Level 3 is watching candidates for awhile

and fine tuning the pictures and sound. 

When all levels are completed you select

a show and watch. Or, you turn the TV

off.

after a day or after a year. The culmination of the iterative process is the

identification of a recommended plan.

THE ITERATIVE PROCESS

What would the ideal iterative planning process look like? It’s easier

to describe what it is not, so let’s begin there. Though the planning process

is sequential, it is not done by beginning only with step one and completing it

before moving to step two, then once that step is complete, proceeding to step

three, and so on. That is a sequential step process devoid of iterations. Good

planning cannot be done that way.

Iterations are

necessary because the

planning process is a fluid,

dynamic, evolving process

that relies on feedback

loops of every stripe and

variety. Information

becomes available over

time and our understanding

is adjusted to reflect the

increased understanding

that comes from additional

knowledge.

The identification

of problems and

opportunities is the focus

of the first iteration of the

planning process. The

study’s early emphasis is

on this first step.

However, experienced

personnel know that

certain data are going to be

needed. Mapping or

hydraulics and hydrology,

for example, will be

required for many water

resource studies regardless

of the specific details of the
66

problems. Efforts to obtain these data can begin simultaneously. This is

important to the resource inventory and description of the without- project

condition. Thus, we have two steps beginning simultaneously, though the

emphasis is on step one, problem identification. 

In initial site visits, study team members will see situations that

connect with some of their past experiences and begin to suggest measures

that may work here or that won’t work here. This kind of thought process is

the embryo of plan formulation (step three). As soon as a team member

begins to think about measures, she applies some preliminary, often intuitive,

evaluation, assessment, comparison, and selection criteria. These are the first

iterations of the later planning steps (four, five and six) and is a form of

screening, discussed later in the chapter.

As the problems and opportunities become well defined and give way

to planning objectives (a process explained in the next chapter) the study team

is better prepared to identify the data required to inventory relevant resources

and to complete the existing and without-project future condition scenarios.

This represents a move away from the first step and an increasing focus on the

second. What iteration are we in at this point? It doesn’t matter. Problem

identification may be completed in a single comprehensive iteration or it may

be revisited dozens of times throughout the study. The number of iterations

is not important; that the step is completed and done well is.

During this time, people continue to make progress on tasks that

contribute to the other steps. Team members talk and compare notes, and

preliminary project sites may be identified along with the preliminary list of

appropriate measures. When step one is essentially complete and planning

objectives have been identified, people can begin to think about potential

measures and their possible effects more explicitly. This can aid the

evaluation, comparison, and selection steps in this and subsequent iterations.

As the existing conditions become defined and a forecast of the most

likely future without a project comes into focus, it is easier to begin to

identify specific plans that can address the planning objectives and the creation

of alternative futures. None of this precludes the fact that as the study

progresses, it may be necessary to go back and revise the problem definitions,

the planning objectives, or any other supposedly completed step in the

planning process.

In subsequent iterations, when specific plans are identified, precise

evaluations of the plans can be made. When the evaluations have progressed

to a sufficient point, comparisons of the assessed effects of the plans will be
67

Criteria for Screening

criCteCriCon, n.: pl. criCteCriCa, a test, means

of judging, a standard of judging; any

established law, rule, principle or fact by

which a correct judgment may be formed.

Screening is not an arbitrary

process. Criteria are used to decide what

data, measures, scenarios, plans, and the

like pass through the screening process to

the next iteration. Some criteria are

absolutes (i.e., pass/fail, like a toggle

switch), but most are not (they are more or

less, like a fader switch). Some of the

criteria, such as the P&G criteria of

completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and

acceptability (discussed in Chapter Nine),

are given for all planning studies. Other

criteria are derived from the specific

planning study, based on the planning

objectives and the opportunities and

problems of the affected communities. 

made. All the while, revisions to previous steps may be on-going, and

subsequent steps will be anticipated.

Generally, the ideal iterative process is one in which the current step

is being executed; previous steps are being revised, and subsequent steps are

being anticipated. A good iterative process continues to move the planning

process forward. It is not an endless loop that repeats forever. The number

of iterations in each stage is purely arbitrary. Do as many iterations as it takes

to do the job well.

It is fairly safe to say that the iterations end when the selection of a

plan has been completed. At this point, there is nothing more to do in the

planning process. The Corps’ planning process diverges from the generic

model of Chapter Two because implementation of the plan is often considered

an integral step in the generic planning process. Implementation is more

appropriately considered part of project development, the larger process that

encompasses the planning process. This distinction is more a matter of

semantics than substance, however, because implementation is clearly the

primary reason for planning for the

Corps of Engineers. 

SCREENING

Screening is a

discriminating thought process

during which we examine “things”

methodically and separate them into

groups of “drop” and “consider

further.”

It is a form of decision-making based

on criteria. Screening is a tool that

can be applied to any little “p”

planning task. It comes to the fore at

three points in a typical planning

process: first, during scoping.

Scoping is a special step in the

planning process during which

significant issues are identified; it’s

discussed at greater length in the

next section. Second, screening is

emphasized whenever the four
68

...use screening

criteria to separate

the good from the

bad...

criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, completeness, and acceptability are

applied. These criteria are discussed in Chapter Nine. Third, screening

emerges in the plan selection process, the subject of Chapter Eleven.

Screening is the process of separating what is important from what

is not. It distinguishes what is valuable from what is worthless. It is the

process of systematically eliminating options from the choice set. Planners

screen a lot of things. They use screening criteria to separate the good from

the bad: eliminating what is no longer of interest and extracting what is good

and worth keeping from all that is available. This is the purpose of the

screening process. 

Any aspect of the study can be screened.

Planners screen problems, opportunities,

objectives, constraints, data, forecasts, scenarios,

measures, plans, effects, and so on. Screening is

only applied to those things that have been

considered to some extent. Screening is selecting

the good parts of the work the planner has done,

based on planning criteria, and considering them further.

Screening is necessary because as the study progresses, the data,

measures, alternatives, and the like can multiply. In order to maintain the

problem-solving and opportunity-seizing focus of the study, it is essential that

the planner discern what is worth considering further and what is worth

eliminating. It’s the only way to get from the many to the few to the one.

Screening is more than eliminating plans. It’s more than executing

steps four (evaluation), five (comparison), and six (selection). These are the

specific steps used to select good plans from all possible plans, better plans

from good plans, and the best plan from among the better plans. Indeed,

taken together, these steps comprise a screening process. Evaluating,

comparing and selecting plans is the most visible type of screening in the sixstep planning process. However, screening is not limited to the screening of

alternatives. 

Data are screened. Measures are screened. You name it and there’s

a good chance you can screen it. The evaluation and assessment of data and

measures, however, are not to be confused with the evaluation, comparison,

and selection of alternative plans. They are two different types of screening.

The process by which an analyst decides which population forecasts are best

may be more or less formal. It may be as simple as considering the credibility

of the organization that prepared the forecast or it may involve a more
 From 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 § 1501.7. 8

69

Scoping is a special

kind of screening.

detailed examination of how well the forecasts have predicted actual

populations. 

The exception to this flexibility is encountered in the screening of

alternative plans. Here the process is prescribed by the planning process; you

apply steps four, five and six. The alternatives are evaluated, compared, and

the good ones are selected in the early iterations. In later iterations, the better

ones are kept. In the final iteration, the best plan is selected.

Screening is an essential part of each iteration of the planning steps.

In a sense, screening defines the beginning or end of an iteration. If the

iterations are devoid of screening we run the risk of entering an endless loop

in which the same alternatives are considered over and over with no progress

toward identification of a recommended plan. Screening ideas and plans over

a number of iterations is the essence of how a best plan emerges from a sea

of potential plans. 

Some amount of screening is required by law. One required screening

is called scoping. 

SCOPING

Scoping is a special kind of screening. It’s an

early planning activity that is required by both the P&G

and the regulations implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Scoping identifies

the most important issues raised by the proposed action. All public and

private organizations that may be affected should be involved in the scoping

process.

Scoping is defined in the Federal regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the NEPA as “...an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the

significant issues related to a proposed action.” Initiating a scoping process 8

as soon as practicable is a requirement with the force of law.

The accompanying sidebar details the requirements of the NEPA

scoping process. The P&G in section 1.4.8 detail a scoping process to be

used by Federal water resource planning agencies that is complementary to
70

the NEPA scoping process. The P&G have the following to say about

scoping:

(b) As part of the scoping process, the agency should: 

(1) Determine the extent to which the likely significant issues

will be analyzed.

(2) Define the planning area based on the problems and

opportunities and the geographic areas likely to be

affected by alternative plans.

(3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study any issues that

are not significant or that have been adequately covered by

prior study. However, important issues, even though

covered by other studies, should still be considered in the

analysis. 

(4) Identify any current or future planning that is related to

but not part of the study under consideration.

(5) Identify review and consultation requirements so that

cooperating agencies (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.5) may

prepare required analyses and studies concurrently with

the study under consideration.

(6) Indicate the tentative planning and decision-making

schedule.

(7) The scoping process should be integrated with other early

planning activities.

The NEPA scoping requirements along with the P&G scoping

requirements constitute decisions that planners are obligated to make as early

in the planning process as possible. Making incremental decisions that move

the planning effort toward a decision is what the screening process is all

about. Scoping is, in this sense, the regulatory screening process. These are

the things you must do. If you’re following the six-step planning process and

doing good planning, these are things that would naturally be done anyway.
71

NEPA Scoping Process

Section 1501.7 of the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations describes

the tasks of the scoping process beginning at paragraph (a).

(a) As part of the scoping process the lead agency shall:

(1) Invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian

tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons (including those who might not

be in accord with the action on environmental grounds), unless there is a limited exception

under §1506.6.

(2) Determine the scope (§1508.25) and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the

environmental impact statement.

(3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which

have been covered by prior environmental review (§1506.3) narrowing the discussion of these

issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on

the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere.

(4) Allocate assignments for preparation of the environmental impact statement among the

lead and cooperating agencies, with the lead agency retaining responsibility for the statement.

(5) Indicate any public environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements

which are being or will be prepared that are related to but are not part of the scope of the

impact statement under consideration.

(6) Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements so the lead and

cooperating agencies may prepare other required analyses and studies concurrently with, and

integrated with, the environmental impact statement as provided in §1502.25.

(7) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analyses

and the agency’s tentative planning and decision-making schedule.

PLANNING SETTING

Water resources planning takes place in a context or setting. This

setting is determined by national values, goals, objectives, policies, programs

and constraints. It exists in a political, economic and social context that is

unique to the time during which the planning is undertaken. We call that

context the planning setting and some of its elements are described below.
72

The partnership

exists...to

serve the interest of the

partners by meeting the

needs of their customers.

PARTNERSHIP

The P&G (paragraph IV.1.4.1(a)) mandate that the planning process be a

“coordinated planning effort.” The Corps of Engineers has gone substantially beyond

this mandate to create a Federal/non-Federal partnership in water resources

planning. The planning jurisdiction for the nation’s water resources is clearly

Federalist in structure, with both the Federal and state/local levels of government

involved.

Borrowing from the language of the

private sector, a partnership can be defined as

a business co-owned by two or more partners.

They share in the profits and the debts of their

enterprises. The sharing of profits and debts

need not be equal; the terms of the partnership

may vary from case-to-case. The partnership

exists, however, for one primary purpose: to

serve the interests of the partners by meeting

the needs of their customers.

Corps planners often see the “non-Federal sponsor” as their customer, i.e., the

entity whose needs are to be met. In a partnership, one’s partner is not the customer.

One’s partner is the party relied on to help meet the needs of the customer.

It is easy for some planners to think their job is to complete planning studies.

In this mode of thinking the customer would appear to be the one who makes the plan

possible. That could be the non-Federal partner who signs a Feasibility Cost-Sharing

Agreement (FCSA) or Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Or, it could be the

decision-makers in the chain of command, without whose support there is unlikely to

be Federal involvement in a plan. Without these parties there is no one to share study

costs or to provide evidence of a significant need for the study. 

This is not the proper view of a planner’s job. Meeting human wants and

needs is perhaps the simplest statement of a planner’s job. Solving problems and

taking advantage of opportunities to improve the quality of life for present and future

generations is another way to describe it. The customer is the community. The people

of the study area specifically and the people of the United States more generally are the

partnership’s customers.

 Thus, the planner participating in the new partnership must keep a clear focus

on who the customer is. Obviously, all partners have to be satisfied in order for a

partnership to work. However, the customers’ needs must come first or there is no

reason for a partnership to even exist. Once the basis for the partnership is understood,

the needs of the customers must come before the agendas of the individual partners.
73

PLANNING AREA

What geographic area should we take into consideration when formulating

plans? The area we end up considering is called the planning area. Related concepts

include the study area, project area, and affected area. Though related in meaning,

each has its different nuances. When planning, the planning area best describes the

area of interest. The terms, however, are essentially interchangeable.

Planning areas may encompass administrative regions, political jurisdictions,

states, or watersheds. River basin planning has long been recognized as the most

logical basis for planning the development and preservation of water resources.

Though basin level planning is beginning to enjoy a resurgence, many Corps planning

studies are still implementation studies that affect an area that does not encompass an

entire river basin.

The P&G (1.4.7) define the planning area as a geographic space that includes

the following (bold emphasis has been added): 

“(a) The area defined in the study’s authorizing document; (b) The

locations of alternative plans, often called “project areas”; and (c)

The locations of resources that would be directly, indirectly, or

cumulatively affected by alternative plans, often called the “affected

area.”

PERIOD OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

How long a time period should we use when considering the impacts of plans?

We should consider only the time it makes sense for us to consider. This time frame

is called the period of economic analysis, also known as the period of analysis. It’s

the period of time over which we think it is important to extend our analysis of plan

impacts. This time period is frequently confused with the planning horizon, which is

a longer and more encompassing concept. Figure 4 shows the period of analysis is part

of the planning horizon.
74

Planning Area Examples

A storm damage reduction project may require upland borrow sites several

counties removed from an eroding shoreline. The planning area should include the

area that includes the shoreline and the borrow sites. If the shoreline is a significant

recreation resource, the planning area should include the region from which

significant numbers of tourists come.

A deep water port improvement study need not include the entire United

States and all the foreign countries from/to which commodities move. It would be

sufficient to define the planning area as the hinterland of the port. That is, the area

from which most exports arise and the area to which most imports are destined. This

is the area that encompasses the bulk of the economic, social, and political impacts of

the port and port-related activities. It is not uncommon for such areas to encompass

numerous counties and several states.

A local flood control project may be confined to a single community, for

example, in the case of a Section 205 study. It is common practice to use the political

jurisdiction(s) or economic area encompassing the flood plain as the planning area. In

instances where goods and services produced in the flood plain have a significant

impact on other areas, they should also be included.

Few studies explicitly consider the source of construction materials when

defining planning areas. When unique resources are required for implementation,

like sand borrow, large rocks for jetties, and so on, the impact of the project on the

source areas should be considered when defining the planning area.

The time it takes to conduct the study and implement the plan is not part of the

period of analysis even though it is part of the planning horizon. The project may last

longer than the period of analysis. The period of analysis is the subset of the planning

horizon over which we consider plan effects.

The first rule for choosing a period of analysis is, you must use the same

period of analysis for each plan considered in a study. To do otherwise would mean

that we are considering different time streams of plan impacts, and that would render

any comparisons of plans invalid. The period of analysis is usually 50 years and is

never over 100 years. Forecasting conditions and impacts beyond 100 years is pure

guessing, even if some structural projects may last more than 100 years. 

If significant impacts do not last 50 years, the period of analysis should be

restricted to the duration of the significant impacts. Significance can be measured in

many ways. One of the most common measures has to do with the time value of

money. Future dollar values, whether benefits or costs, are worth less than current

dollar values. Discounting is the process used to place dollar values
 For example, if the discount rate is 10%, one dollar 50 years from now is worth only $0.0085. At 7% the 9

same dollar is worth $0.0339.

75

Period of Analysis

Planning Guidance Letter 96-01 in paragraph 10 defines the

period of economic analysis as follows:

C The period of time over which any alternative plan would have

significant beneficial or adverse effects; or

C A period not to exceed 50-years except for major multiple

purpose reservoir projects; or

C A period not to exceed 100-years for major multiple purpose

reservoir projects.

This does not negate the P&G requirement that appropriate

consideration should be given to environmental factors that may

extend beyond the period of analysis.

incurred at different times on an equivalent time basis. After 50 years the discount

factor alone reduces monetary values to a mere fraction of their former value . Unless 9

the future dollar values being discounted are large there is no apparent point to continue

to include these values among project impacts. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Chapter Thirteen is devoted largely to the planning team. Nonetheless, team

planning is essential to the modern planning context. As a result of the proliferation of

goals and objectives that must be addressed by water resources planning studies, it is

impossible for any single discipline to adequately address the more complex issues that

arise in a world that is multi-objective in its outlook. Many disciplines are needed for

planning. In addition to a diversity of disciplines, the planning team should include

a diversity of interests including other government agencies.

STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder is a word used in water resources planning that has come to

mean a person or group of persons who can stop you or whose support is necessary

for success. As members of the public, stakeholders are also addressed in more detail
76

in Chapter Thirteen. The Federal and non-Federal partners are two obvious

stakeholders in a study. Government agencies at all levels of government are frequent

stakeholders. Organizations and individuals that have an interest in the project should

be actively included in the planning process, as should public interest groups with a

particular point of view that bears on the project. They go a long way toward forming

the specific planning context of a study.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. The iterative nature of the Corps’ planning process is one of its

most distinguishing features. It is through the process of repeating the planning steps

and screening elements of the planning study that the recommended plan eventually

emerges.

Lesson Two. Screening is the ongoing process of eliminating, based on

planning criteria, what is no longer important or interesting from further consideration.

Alternatively, screening is the process of preserving what is important. Scoping is a

special kind of screening process. All of these tasks and those yet to be described are

carried out in a planning context.

Absent from our conversation to this point are the details of what the planning

steps are. That description begins with step one in the next chapter.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

Most of the material presented in this chapter is rather original. Some unique

discussion of the iterative nature of planning and the screening process can be found

in the water resources planning books referenced at the end of Chapter Two. The

interested reader should read about scoping in its original contexts found in 40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508 and the P&G beginning at section 1.4.8. The planning setting is a

mosaic that can be pieced together from ER 1105-2-100 and evolving policy guidance

such as guidance letters and sources like those described in Chapter Four.
77
78

CHAPTER SIX: STEP 1 - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS

AND OPPORTUNITIES

Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from

here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get

to,” said the Cat. “I don’t much care where --” said Alice.

“Then it doesn’t matter which way you walk,” said the Cat.

From Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Step One: "Specification of the water and related land

resources problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning

setting) associated with the Federal objective and State and

local concerns." (P&G Standards, Section III paragraph 1.3.2

(a)(1))

INTRODUCTION

As the conversation between Alice and the Cat points out, if you don't know

where you're going, it doesn't matter which way you go. In water resource planning it

is essential that planners have a sense of the direction in which they want to head. That

sense of direction is obtained in the first step of the planning process.

Historically the nation’s goals and objectives in water resource planning and

development have reflected national values. These national values have evolved and

changed over our two centuries as a nation as new problems, challenges and

opportunities have emerged. Water resource projects have been planned and

implemented to solve those problems, meet those challenges, and seize those

opportunities. If they did not, they would serve no purpose.

Without a clear statement of the problems to be solved or the opportunities

to be seized, there is no rationale, no reason for planning. As the first step,

identification and specification of the problems and opportunities to be addressed is the

most important step in the planning process that follows. This first step produces what

is essentially the mission statement of the Federal/non-Federal partnership. It is an

enduring statement of purpose that distinguishes this partnership from all others.

The identification of problems and opportunities ensures unanimity of purpose

within the partnership. Solving these problems and taking advantage of these

opportunities provides a basis for motivating and allocating the partners’ pooled

resources. This step provides a focal point for all stakeholders in the planning process.

It says, “This is why we are undertaking this study.” 
79

Two Sheets of Paper

Every planning study,

from the multi-million dollar

multiple purpose study to the

several thousand dollar military

study and everything in between,

should produce two sheets of

paper early in the study. One of

them lists the problems and

opportunities, the other the

planning objectives and

constraints. The first sheet says

this is what is wrong here, the

second says this is what we intend

to do about it. Together, these

two sheets of paper make the

most informative summary of

your study’s purpose that is

possible.

Identifying problems and opportunities facilitates translation of

the partnership’s purposes into appropriate planning objectives.

The concerns of both the Federal and non-Federal partners are

identified in this step. Ultimately, plans to meet these

objectives will be produced. The culmination of the planning

process depends critically on the success of this first step.

There are five basic concepts in this chapter:

problems, opportunities, goals, objectives, and constraints.

Understanding these concepts is critical to the success of the

planning process.

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines a

problem as a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or

solution; or an intricate unsettled question, a source of

perplexity or vexation. We can think of it as an undesirable

condition. Not everything is a problem and problem solving is

only part of the planning story. The other part of the story are

the opportunities. Webster defines an opportunity to be a

favorable juncture of circumstances; a good chance for

advancement or progress. Water resource projects often provide those chances.

Problems and opportunities are conditions that exist in every community. They

are the first things you seek to identify in step one of the planning process. Through

this first step in the planning process, some problems and opportunities will evolve into

planning objectives.

In practice, opportunities are sometimes treated as less important than

problems in the planning process. Capitalizing on opportunities, however, is every bit

as important as solving problems.

Is there really a difference between a problem and an opportunity? That

depends. In many cases it may come down to whether you see the glass of water as half

empty or half full. In general, problems tend to be both negative and current

conditions. Something is broken, something is missing, and the like. Opportunities

tend to focus on positive and future conditions. Something can be made better. Other

ways to think about the differences between problems and opportunities are suggested

in Table 14. If problems differ from opportunities in some ways, they are similar in

others. Some similarities are presented in Table 15. There are no absolutes in these

comparisons. The rule of thumb is to be flexible in defining problems and

opportunities. 
80

Table 14: Differences Between Problems and Opportunities

Characteristic Problem Opportunity

FOCUS Existing undesirable condition; Future desirable condition; description

Description of what is. of what could or should be.

MESSAGE Negative; objection. Positive; desire.

OCCURRENCE C Past - Usually occurred C Past - Usually didn’t occur.

C Existing - Usually occurs. C Existing - May or may not occur.

C Future “without” - Usually expected C Future “without” - May or may not 

 to occur. be expected to occur.

RELATIONSHIP C Existing condition may adversely C Existing condition does not affect 

TO OTHER affect other resources other resources.

RESOURCES C Survival may be an issue. C Survival not an issue.

IMPLICIT C Return to a past condition that was not C Create a future condition considered

OBJECTIVES OF considered objectionable (example: to be desirable (example: develop

ACTION restore a degraded habitat). new wetlands).

C Create a future condition that would C Return to a previous condition

 not be objectionable (example: stabilize considered to be desirable (example:

 an eroding shoreline). rehabilitate an historic structure).

CONSEQUENCES OF Usually direct, immediate, and adverse. Usually indirect and long-term due to 

DOING NOTHING benefits foregone.

Problem definition is the detailed description of a problem. It begins with a

problem statement; a simple, usually one sentence, assertion of what the basic

problem is. Pick up any Corps planning study and you'll find a section entitled

“Problems and Opportunities.” Read it, and you'll usually have a good idea what

problems the study is going to address. It is rare, however, to find a clear and concise

statement of these problems. It is far more common to find a problem described and

defined in a piecemeal fashion over several paragraphs of text than it is to find a direct

statement of a problem, like “The problem is loss of coastal wetlands along Utopian

Point.” It may require many paragraphs to properly characterize the nature, cause,

location, dimensions, origin, and importance of this problem, but it is important to be

able to clearly state it. If a planner can't finish the sentence, "The problem is . . ."

clearly and concisely, then nothing else that follows in the study is likely to be very

clear either. Every study should include a problem statement.

Problem definition can be expanded to identify the nature, cause, location, dimensions,

origin, time frame, and importance of the problem, as well as an indicationof who

considers this a problem. An opportunity can be defined the same way. A
81

Table 15: Similarities Among Problems and Opportunities

Characteristic Similarity

NUMBER Variable; few to many.

HOW STATED In practical, meaningful, operational terms 

in a single statement.

SOURCE Developed; from people, observation, 

analysis, and documentation.

SPECIFICITY Specific; narrow; essentially limited.

SPECIFIC SUBJECT Usually limited to a specific resource.

SPECIFIC LOCATION Usually found in a particular place or locale 

(example: “study area”).

SPECIFIC MEASURABILITY Moderate to high; usually measurable or

easy to recognize change that would result

in a “better” or “worse” condition.

ABILITY TO ACHIEVE High; problems can be solved, opportunities

can be realized.

“IDEAL” C An “ideal” usually exists and can be 

identified. 

C The “ideal” is not the same as the existing

condition.

C The “ideal” is not the same as the longterm “without”

condition.

detailed profile outline that may be handy to use in thinking about and describing your

study’s problems and opportunities can be found in the sidebar.

An important aspect of problem definition is describing its cause. If the

underlying causes of a problem are not identified, the solutions can end up being

superficial and unsuccessful. People usually complain about problem conditions long

before the underlying causes are known. People know the fish are disappearing from

a creek long before they know why. The solutions to the problem can vary considerably

depending on whether the cause is overfishing, loss of habitat, disease, or declining

water quality due to increasing urbanization.
82

A Simple Problem Statement

A problem statement need not be elaborate. It can be as simple

as the following example.

Franklin Creek Basin Problem Statement

The problems in the Franklin Creek Basin are:

1) Loss of fish habitat in Franklin Creek due to urbanization;

2) Flood damages in the industrial section of Central City;

3) Streambank erosion along Campus Park;

4) Saltwater intrusion in the Franklin Bay estuary;

5) Loss of coastal wetlands along the South Ditch section of Franklin

Bay.

The definition of these problems will take considerably more

A Simple Opportunity Statement

An opportunity statement need not be elaborate. It can be as

simple as the following example.

Franklin Creek Basin Opportunity Statement

There are opportunities in the Franklin Creek Basin to:

1) Increase wildlife habitat along Campus Park.

2) Restore indigenous fish species in the upper basin.

3) Provide increased recreational opportunities along

the waterfront.

. There are criteria that characterize good and bad statements of problems and

opportunities. For example, good problem statements never include solutions or the

suggestion of a specific solution. “The problem is we don't have a floodwall” is not a

good problem statement. As a matter of fact, it skips the entire planning process and

jumps to the selected plan. All the planner has to do is figure out the details; where the

wall should go, how high should it be, and so on. The problem is not that someone

does not have a floodwall. The problem may be that the watershed is developing

without thought being given to the effects on runoff and streamflow, thus expanding

the flood plain and exacerbating floods. The problem may be unrestrained

development of the flood plain itself. The problem may be the catastrophic damages
83

Problem/Opportunity Profile

1. Source. What source first identified the problem or opportunity? 

Examples: study authority, local

master plan, conversation with city mayor, Corps experts based on

field observations.

2. Public Concerns

a. Advocate - Who is the spokesperson for the problem or

opportunity? Identify specific groups,

agencies, and individuals.

b. Basis - What is the advocate’s basis for the problem or

opportunity? Examples: homeowners who

have experienced flooding, state agency legally mandated to

oversee wildlife resources.

c. Background - In the advocate’s view, what is the problem or

opportunity, and what are the causes

and effects?

d. Other Stakeholders - Who else believes the problem or

opportunity does or does not exist? Why

or why not? Identify specific groups, agencies, and individuals.

3. Technical Analysis

a. Subject - Describe the subject of the problem or opportunity.

b. Location - Describe the location of the problem or opportunity;

map it if possible.

c. Measurement - Identify one (or more) measurable indicator that

is used to measure change in the problem or opportunity.

d. Conditions - Describe past, present and future conditions related

to the problem or opportunity:

(I) Historic condition

(ii) Existing condition

(iii) Future “without project” condition

e. Decision Criteria - Identify any standard, target or other criteria

that may be used to define the magnitude of a problem or

opportunity. For example: state water quality standards, design

vessel dimensions, and so on.

that occur with infrequent flooding. Or, it could be the minor nuisance associated with

frequent floods. The problem is not what the customer wants but doesn't have. The

problem is usually far more complex than that.
84

What’s the Problem?

When you read a planning report,

you should be able to deduce the problem

and opportunity statements from a good set

of planning objectives and constraints. The

linkage between “problems and

opportunities” and “objectives and

constraints” is a critical one.

See if you get a feel for the problems to

which

these objectives refer:

C Increase habitat heterogeneity.

C Reduce flood damages on Seminole and

Miccosukee tribal lands.

Plans are formulated to achieve planning objectives. Planning objectives

and constraints are inexorably linked to problems and opportunities. Thus, clearly

articulated problem and opportunity statements are essential to the success of any

planning process. Planning objectives

provide a clear statement of the purpose

of a study. There is no study without

planning objectives and there are no

objectives without carefully defined

problems and opportunities. These simple

facts and this simple linkage between

problems and objectives make this step the

most important in the planning process. 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

To understand planning objectives

and constraints, we return to the basic

concepts of this planning step. In a perfect

world, the logical sequence for

encountering these ideas over the life of a

planning study is:

C Goals, which are given to us;

followed by

C Problems and opportunities, which we identify; followed by

C Objectives and constraints, which we base on the problems and

opportunities.

Will we always encounter them in this order? Probably not. But by the time a final

plan is selected, we will have struggled with each, and it is important to understand

their individual and complementary roles in getting us to a selected plan.

One thing these five concepts have in common is that each can and should be

expressed in a simple and clear statement - a sentence. It may require paragraphs,

pages, or volumes of backup documentation to fully explain their various technical

dimensions, complexities, interrelationships, public opinions, and other factors; but

they must also exist as short summary statements that can be read and understood by

everyone with a stake in the outcome.

Problems and opportunities have already been defined. Now we backtrack a

little to consider goals and objectives. A subsequent section will take up a comparison

of objectives and constraints.
85

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines a goal as the end

or final purpose. An objective is defined as something aimed at or striven for. Both

convey the same basic intent; in short, “do good.” And the definitions establish a

hierarchical structure that suggests we set goals first then establish objectives that will

help us attain our goals. A goal says “do good broadly;” an objective says “do good

specifically.” Other ways to think about similarities and differences between goals and

objectives are suggested in Table 16.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ILLUSTRATED

An example can help define these terms. Let's say that you and some friends

agree that you should all be happy. Your common goal is “happiness.” Everyone will

individually define what “happiness” means for themselves. These individual

statements will be their personal objectives to achieve “happiness.” Perhaps the results

look like this:

C Goal: Happiness

C Your Objectives:

Go on vacation next month.

Get a promotion.

Finish reading the Planning Manual.

C Friend 1's Objectives:

Double my salary.

Spend more time with my family.

C Friend 2's Objectives:

Get a motorcycle.

Go camping this summer.

Lose 10 pounds.

The group has a common goal. Some individuals' objectives are similar and

others differ among the group. Collectively, they are all consistent with the message

of the goal. The objectives follow from the goal. With this simple framework in mind,

we can understand the relationship between the NED Federal objective and planning

objectives. It begins with another important distinction between goals and objectives.
86

Table 16: Goals and Objectives

Characteristic Goal Objective

NUMBER Few in any given study. Variable; few to many.

HOW STARTED In idealistic terms. In practical, meaningful, operational

terms.

SOURCE Given. Developed from problems and 

opportunities

SPECIFICITY General; broad; conceptual; Specific; narrow; essentially limited.

Essentially unlimited.

SPECIFICITY: Covers a wide variety of subjects, Usually limited to a single subject,

SUBJECT resources, or issues. resource, or issue.

SPECIFICITY: Timeless; undated; intended for Dated; time-phased; can or intended

to

DURATION the long-term. be achieved within a particular time

frame.

SPECIFICITY: Applicable to large areas; Applicable to a particular place or

LOCATION international, national, or locale (“study area”); regional or local.

regional.

SPECIFICITY: Moderate to low; not necessarily Moderate to high; usually

measurable 

MEASURABILITY measurable or easy to recognize or easy to recognize achievement.

achievement.

ACCEPTABILITY High; generally acceptable to all; Low to high; may be conflicts;

Agreement. Consensus may be lacking.

CHANGEABILITY None (in the near-term) to low; Variable; low to high.

stable.

ABILITY TO Low to moderate; not realistic to High; can be achieved, in whole or 

ACHIEVE expect one solution to fully part, by a single solution.

achieve all aspects.

MESSAGE Do good (“motherhood and Do good.

apple pie”) and do not do bad

(“Thou shalt not...”).
Goals

O bjectives

Programs

Life, liberty,

pursuit of happiness

Freedom of press, equal protection under the law,

national economic development

Public works projects--highways, airports, water resource projects

Figure 5: N ational Goals and O bjectives

87

FEDERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Suppose for the sake of simplicity that we take “life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness” as some of our nation's goals. These are ultimate destinations for the

citizens of this country, and provide a broad and enduring direction for the nation's

government. The goal statements do not suggest a way to achieve these goals,

however.

Further suppose that freedom of the press, equal protection under the law, and

economic development are some of the objectives that could help us attain our national

goals. Now, suppose national economic development (NED) can be achieved through

a variety of missions and programs of various Federal government agencies, like

monetary policy, job training, education, and public works projects. In turn, public

works projects could consist of highways, airports, and water resource projects.

At the national level we have described the hierarchy shown in Figure 5. From

the perspective of the President, the Congress, and the general populace of the United

States, our national goals - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and others - are further

defined through a complex set of national objectives, such as national economic

development, that flow from and support the intent of the goals. Thus, we have

national economic development as a true national, or “Federal,” objective.

Beware. Perspectives change. What is a goal and what is an objective change

when you move from the national level to your local planning level. The Federal

objective becomes a goal for Corps' planners in each of their planning studies.
88

PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Because this is an instructional manual, let's not worry about the goals and

objectives of the Corps or its planning partners for now. Instead let's think about a

specific planning partnership, i.e., a specific study. Where do the planning goals come

from? Generally, the planning goals are the objectives of some organization higher up

in the hierarchy. For example, the P&G make it clear that national economic

development is the Federal objective. National economic development, from the

Federal perspective, is the primary purpose of a water resource project. It is not

something that water resources projects try to do a little of, it is the entire reason the

Federal government is involved in water resource development in the first place. Plans

are not formulated specifically for national economic development; that is understood

to be the reason for the program's existence.

The Federal NED objective is a goal for the planning partnership. One of the

planning team's first responsibilities is to develop planning objectives that will help the

partnership contribute to that goal.

There can be other goals as well. Goals are the broad, over-arching purposes

for a study. They may be defined by the non-Federal partner or any other stakeholder,

and will be unique to each study. In Corps' planning under the requirements of the

P&G, the NED goal (“Federal objective”) is always a given that you will start with.

Thus, for a planning partnership, Federal and non-Federal objectives become

planning goals. One person's objective is another person's goal. The objectives of the

organizations higher in the hierarchy become the goals of the planning partnership.

The planning partners must then develop planning objectives to help attain these goals.

Although the terminology may seem confusing, do not be confused about their roles in

doing planning. Goals will be given to you; you will develop objectives.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

An objective is a statement of the intended purposes of the planning process;

it is a statement of what an alternative plan should try to achieve. More specific than

goals, a set of objectives will effectively constitute the mission statement of the

Federal/non-Federal planning partnership.

Our planning partnerships exist in a world of scarcity where it is not possible

to do everything. Our choices are constrained by a number of factors. Planning is no

exception. An essential element of any planning study is the set of constraints

confronting the planners. A constraint is basically a restriction that limits the extent

of the planning process. Constraints, like objectives, are unique to each planning

study. 

Two distinctly different categories of constraints can be identified. First, there

are resource constraints on the planning process. These include limits to our
89

knowledge, expertise, experience, ability, data, information, money, and time. These

constraints limit the scope of a study in significant ways. Resource constraints are

considered again in Chapter Twelve. Here we need to focus on a second category of

constraints - planning constraints that restrict plan formulation. These can be divided

into universal constraints and study-specific constraints.

Universal planning constraints are the legal and policy constraints that need

to be included in every planning study. They may vary from study type to study type,

but for a given type of study, there are some predictable constraints. For example, you

don't formulate plans that intentionally adversely affect threatened or endangered

species. The Corps of Engineers will not formulate flood damage reduction plans for

streams where the 10 percent discharge is less than 800 cubic feet per second. The

Corps' guidance, regulations, policies, and authorities define some of these constraints.

Others are defined by the laws and regulations of the Federal government and the

applicable laws and regulations of the State and local governments. 

Study-specific planning constraints are statements of things unique to a

specific planning study that alternative plans should avoid. While universal constraints

are applicable from one study to another, study-specific constraints are not. Examples

of study-specific constraints include the following:

Do not induce salinity intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

No loss of flood protection from an existing levee system.

No increase in shoreline erosion related to navigation.

The significance of both types of constraints is that they can limit choices. The

presumption is that constraints limit choices in socially desirable ways.

Planning objectives are the things we want to accomplish with a plan. They

are the desired changes between the without- and with-project conditions. In contrast,

study specific planning constraints are things we want to avoid doing. Constraints

are designed to avoid undesirable changes between without- and with-plan conditions.

They are things we don't want to “mess up” with our plans. 

While plans are formulated to achieve planning objectives they are also

formulated to avoid violating the constraints. The simplest difference between the two

concepts can be summarized as follows: Objective--do good; Constraint--don’t do bad.

Some other similarities and differences between objectives and constraints are

suggested in Tables 17 and 18.
90

Table 17: Similarities Between Objectives and Constraints

Characteristic Similarities

NUMBER Variable; few to many.

HOW STATED In practical, meaningful, operational terms and in a single

statement.

SPECIFICITY Specific; narrow; essentially limited.

SPECIFICITY: Usually limited to a single subject, resource, or issue.

SUBJECT

SPECIFICITY: Moderate to high; usually measurable or easy to recognize

achievement.

MEASURABILITY

ACCEPTABILITY Low to high; may be conflicts; consensus may be lacking.

CHANGEABILITY Variable; low to high.

ABILITY TO High; can be achieved, in whole or part, by a single solution.

ACHIEVE
91

Table 18: Differences Between Objectives and Constraints

Characteristic Objective Constraint

SOURCE Developed from problems Given (example: some legal

and opportunities. design constraints); or

developed based on areaspecific conditions (i.e., public

views, resource limitations).

SPECIFICITY: Dated; time-phased; can be or Variable; may be dated and timeDURATION are intended to be achieved phased, or intended for the longwithin a particular time frame. term.

SPECIFICITY: Applicable to a particular Variable, depending on the subject

LOCATION place or locale (“study area”); being constrained.

regional or local.

MESSAGE Do good. Don’t do bad.

Planning objectives and constraints are indications of what is important to

people. Planning by objectives, i.e., formulating plans to meet valid social,

environmental, economic, and engineering objectives and to avoid undesirable

consequences, is what the planning team is supposed to do. This is very different from

planning to maximize NED benefits. When specifying planning objectives and

constraints is an exercise to be checked off a planning team's “to do” list, we see the

latter form of planning.

The planning objectives and constraints are in reality a statement of the

reasons for the planning effort. The objectives and constraints should reflect the views

of the public regarding the problems and opportunities of the planning area. They are

a list of results that are desired from a project. The planning objectives and constraints

are the reason for the Federal/non-Federal partnership. They are, in a sense, the

partners' mission statement - that enduring statement of purpose that distinguishes this

partnership from all others. Plans are formulated to meet the planning objectives and

to avoid the constraints; there can be no other reason for a plan.

PROFILE FOR AN OBJECTIVE OR CONSTRAINT

Objectives, as well as constraints, are written statements -- simple sentences --

that should generally include the following four types of information: effect, subject,

location, and timing and duration. The detailed profile in the sidebar can be helpful

in developing objectives and constraints. 
92

Table 19: Objective

& Constraint Verbs

abate preserve

advance prevent

avoid produce

compensate for prohibit

conserve promote

contribute to protect

control provide

create reclaim

destroy reconstruct

develop recover

eliminate recreate

enforce rectify

enhance reduce

establish rehabilitate

exchange repair

harmonize replace

improve restore

maintain retire

manage stabilize

minimize substitute

mitigate

The effect is the verb part of the statement that expresses the intent to “do

good” in an objective and “don't do bad” in a constraint. It describes the type of effect

that alternative plans should cause. Table 19 lists some verbs commonly used in

objectives and constraints. Many of them have specific regulatory meanings and in

certain situations carry policy implications, i.e., cost sharing for “mitigation” or

“restoration.” Others might invoke personal biases. Exercise caution and care in

choosing and using these terms or others.

The subject part of the statement tells us what

is to be changed for the better through meeting the

objective, or not changed through avoiding a constraint.

This part of the statement is the link to a problem or

opportunity. It captures the problem or opportunity in

a phrase.

The location defines where the objective is to

be achieved, or where the constraint is to be avoided. It

is often the planning area.

Time and duration define when and for how

long the objective is to be achieved or the constraint is

to be avoided. Oftentimes, “timing and duration” will

be the “period of analysis” and it will be the same for

the study's objectives and constraints. Such similar

conditions don't have to be repeated in each statement,

but could be described once as applicable to all the

objectives and constraints.

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD OBJECTIVES

AND CONSTRAINTS

There are few hard and fast universal rules that

must apply to all objectives. However, the following

characteristics that apply generally to both objectives

and constraints are helpful to keep in mind.

Specific. Specific objectives provide useful guidance

for plan formulation. The more specific the objective, the easier it is to identify

measures or to formulate plans necessary for attaining it. Non-specific objectives

cannot be effectively pursued or attained and are to be avoided. “Improve the

environment” is a non-specific objective that does little to aid planners or decisionmakers. “Increase tidal wetlands in the King River vicinity” is specific enough to guide

planners in the formulation process.
93

Objective/Constraint Profile

1. Problem/Opportunity Statement. Provide a clear and brief description of the problem

or opportunity that is the basis for the objective/constraint.

2. Analysis.

a. Effect - Describe the type of effect to be achieved. This is the

objective’s/constraint’s “verb”.

b. Subject - Describe what is to be changed by meeting the objective, or not changed

by meeting the constraint. This is the objective’s/constraint’s “subject”.

c. Location - Describe the location where the objective is to be achieved, or the

constraint is to be avoided.

d. Timing and Duration - Describe when and for how long the objective is to be

achieved or the constraint is to be avoided.

e. Measurement

(I) Output - Identify one (or more) indicator that will be used to measure

change. For each indicator, identify one (or more):

(1) Measurement Unit - Identify the unit to be used to measure change.

(2) Measurement Technique - Identify the procedure that will be used to

measure change in the specified unit.

(ii) Thresholds - If applicable, identify output thresholds:

(1) Minimum - Is there a minimum level of output, such that amounts of

output less than the minimum are not useful, are not reasonable, or

otherwise don’t make sense?

(2) Maximum - Is there a maximum level of output, such that amounts of

output greater than the maximum are not useful, are not reasonable, or

otherwise don’t make sense?

f. Decision Criteria - Identify any standard, target or other criteria that will be used

to judge how well or poorly the objective/constraint would be achieved. Identify

the source (law, regulation, master plan, etc.), responsible entity (agency,

organization, etc.), penalties for noncompliance, and other characteristics of each

decision criterion.

g. Sponsor - Identify an objective’s “sponsor” - what entity would potentially share

the cost of a solution that would achieve the objective? Identify a constraint’s

proponent.

h. Other Stakeholders - List any other stakeholders in the objective/constraint - what

other entities have an interest in seeing that the objective/constraint is achieved or

not achieved? Briefly describe the nature of each stakeholder’s interest.

I. Sources of Information - List sources of information about the objective/constraint

and its characteristics.

j. Studies needed - Briefly describe the types of additional studies needed in further

planning for the objective/constraint.

3. Statement. State the objective or constraint.

4. Potential Solutions. List any potential solutions that may meet, at some level, the

objective or constraint.
94

Flexible. Objectives should be flexible enough to accommodate alternative

ways for achieving them as well as to allow alternative levels of results. “Build a

floodwall that provides 100-year protection” is the worst kind of objective. First, it

states a solution rather than focusing on a problem or opportunity, thereby eliminating

any flexibility in choice of measures to reduce flood damages. Second, it does not

allow for any flexibility in determining the level of flood damage reduction. Planners

must be cautioned that flexibility in objectives may come at the expense of specificity

and the relative merits of the two must be assessed by the planner in light of customer

feedback.

Measurable. A good, specific objective can also be measured. To be

measurable an objective must be stated in terms that can be assessed or quantified.

Though it is not necessarily always desirable for the objective to specify the actual

measure, the objective should be measurable in some appropriate units. An exception

is where there are thresholds or legal mandates that make specific levels of output

necessary. An objective to “Enhance community cohesion” is not easily measured, but

“Increase the number of protected structures” gets at the same objective in a

measurable manner.

A measurable objective is useful to decision-making. If we can measure a

plan's contribution to increasing open space we can more easily evaluate its value.

Measurability allows us to observe exactly what a plan contributes. 

Attainable. Objectives should provide a challenge to planners, but they must

also be realistic and attainable. “Restoring the Minnow Creek ecosystem to its

natural condition” is an admirable objective that may be popular with the public, but

it is not realistic in an urban environment, hence it cannot be attained. “Increasing

dissolved oxygen in Minnow Creek” is a more attainable objective. Unattainable

objectives may do little more than frustrate people because they are unable to meet

them. Once such a situation arises, it may be very difficult to motivate people.

Specificity can often make an objective more attainable.

Congruent. Ideally, objectives will be congruent with each other. Congruency

means the objectives fit together. More specifically, attainment of one objective would

not preclude the attainment of another. This is not likely to be the case, however, when

the problems and opportunities involve any complexity at all. The variety of different

and, at times, conflicting viewpoints on the planning area's problems and opportunities

virtually assures some incongruencies among objectives.

Incongruent objectives can lead to conflict within the planning process.

Conscious or unconscious efforts to minimize conflict by eliminating incongruencies

among objectives are to be avoided when the incongruent objectives represent

legitimate, conflicting problems and opportunities. Incongruencies should be avoided

whenever they add nothing to the planning process. For example, there is no point to

specifying the objectives: “decrease flood damages” and “hold flood damages

constant.” These conflict for no apparent purpose. On the other hand it may be wholly

appropriate to specify the local objectives: “increase open space” and “increase

regional tax base.” In this latter case, there may be an incongruency if the former
95

objective would be served by relocating structures from the flood plain, and the latter

is served by developing the flood plain. Different plans can be formulated to meet

incongruent objectives. Conflicting objectives provide a good reason for different

alternative plans. 

Acceptable. Good objectives have to be acceptable to those responsible for

achieving them - that is, the planning partners. They must also be acceptable to the

partners' customers and major stakeholders. Not every objective must be acceptable

to all stakeholders, but the set of objectives should be acceptable in principle to all

study interests. The acceptability of objectives is founded in their responsiveness to

stakeholders' problems and opportunities. There is no better investment in a plan's

credibility than paying attention to people's problems and opportunities.

WHAT A GOOD OBJECTIVE IS NOT

Just as the aforementioned qualities will lead to good objectives, the following

characteristics are warning flags for objectives and constraints that could lead you

astray.

Absolute Target. Though specific, an objective should not specify an absolute

target as the only level of the desired result. It needs to be flexible. For example,

“Increase tidal wetlands in the King River vicinity by 2,000 acres” is not an appropriate

objective. Outputs vary with the nature and size of the alternative plan and are

therefore a product of the formulation process. While a target may be useful, or even

necessary, in later plan selection, objectives should generally not contain targets.

Solution. As mentioned earlier, objectives should not include solutions, i.e.,

neither individual management measures, alternative plans, nor programs. If we are to

seek optimal solutions that meet as many of the objectives as possible, we cannot begin

by ignoring the full range of measures available to us. Objectives should not specify

the measures or plans that can be used to meet the objective. Thus, unlike a for-profit

business, objectives should not specify a precise level of attainment or a specific means

for attaining it.

Federal Objective. National economic development is not a planning objective.

The Federal objective specified in the P&G is a goal. This goal, like other goals

supported by other study stakeholders, provides the reason for the study rather than a

reason to formulate alternative plans. Good objectives are not goals.
96

Good Planning Objectives... or Not?

Which of the following are good planning objectives?

1. Reduce flood damages in the City of Maccaville through the

year 2020.

2. Provide a levee to prevent flooding in the City of Maccaville. 

3. Contribute to National Economic Development in the City of

Maccaville consistent with protecting the Nation's

environment. 

4. Assess the impacts of a flood control project in the City of

Maccaville through the year 2020.

5. Minimize disturbance of riparian habitat used by the

endangered Ferocies along the Macca River.

Answers: 1). Yes; 2). No, includes solution; 3). No, this is a goal; 4). No, this is a study

task; 5). No, this is a constraint.

Account. The P&G define four categories (or “accounts”) of effects to

facilitate evaluation and comparison of alternative plans. They are discussed in more

detail in Chapter Nine. One account, national economic development (NED), includes

the effects that can be counted in demonstrating progress toward the Federal objective.

The other three accounts, environmental quality (EQ), regional economic development

(RED), and other social effects (OSE), are neither goals (“Federal objectives”) nor

planning objectives. Good objectives are not account entries.

Study tasks and study resource constraints. Study task objectives describe the

day-to-day activities that must be accomplished in planning. They are not planning

objectives. Similarly, study resource constraints define limits on resources like

knowledge, expertise, experience, ability, data, information, money, and time. They are

not planning constraints.

WHERE DO OBJECTIVES

COME FROM?

There is no one way to identify planning objectives. It’s a task easier

prescribed than accomplished. If your method works, it's a good one. Bearing in mind

who does it, why they do it, what a good one is, and so on, there are a few activities that

would appear to be a necessary part of any effort to identify objectives. They're listed

in an idealized process outlined in Figure 6.
97

Study Authority

In Corps reconnaissance and feasibility

planning studies conducted under the general

investigations program, a study authority is

usually a one-paragraph statement from a

committee of the U.S. Congress (i.e., “study

resolution”) or the full Congress (i.e., section in

a public law) that requests a senior Army or

Corps official to investigate a specified

problem or opportunity, and report the results

back to the Congress. For example:

“Resolved by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of

the United States House of

Representatives, that the Secretary of

the Army is hereby requested to review

the report of the Chief of Engineers on

the Big Blue River and Tributaries...

with a view to determining if further

improvements for flood control,

navigation, erosion, sedimentation,

water quality and other related water

resources needs are advisable at this

time.”

What does this tell you about the study area? 

What types of problems and opportunities are

identified? Notice that the door to other

problems and opportunities beyond those

explicitly listed is opened through the

recognition that there may be “other related

water resource needs.”

Begin at the beginning. What clues does the “study authority” provide about

planning objectives? A study authority (see sidebar) usually lists major categories of

problems and opportunities, i.e., navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem

restoration, and others, that are the reasons for the study. The authority also usually

includes a short verbal description of the “study area.” Always begin by squeezing the

clues from your authority.

The next step in identifying objectives and

constraints is to ask, “What does the public say?”

Given that your study authority points to one or

more problems and opportunities, the next step

should be to verify them and see whether there are

any others. You can do this rather simply. First,

ask the public. What are the problems and

opportunities they think should be investigated?

How do they know about those problems and

opportunities; have they experienced them? How

would they know if the problems were “solved” or

the opportunities “realized”? To whom else should

you talk?

Whom in the public should you ask? Ask

everyone who may have something to offer. Ask

the potential local sponsor. Ask officials and

representatives of local, State, and Federal

agencies. Ask people in local businesses, interest

groups, and homeowners' associations. Ask them

in whatever format makes the best sense --

individual conversations, single-interest meetings,

open public meetings. The means of asking the

public must be tailored to suit each individual

planning situation; the point is to ask. See Chapter

Thirteen for additional discussion of public

involvement.

Frequently the public will only be able to

describe their problems and needs in a general

form. For example, residents may be capable of

defining flooding from a stream as a problem, but

the study team will have to do some analysis to

determine the extent of the flood plain, the

frequency and depths of flooding, the properties

affected, and the expected annual damages under

existing conditions. The study team will have to

put a technical face on the community's problems

and needs.
Figure 6: Where Objectives and

Constraints Come From

Study

Authority

Continuum of Values, Ideas, Concerns, Facts, Data, etc.

PUBLIC

TECHNICAL

EXPERTS

"Is It So?"

"Does Anyone Care?"

Problems

& Opportunities

 Criteria:

- Federal Interest

- Corps Mission

- Budget Priority

- Others

Planning

O b jectives

Planning

Constraints

98

The second source of information about problems and opportunities is

technical experts. Relying on technical experts is a traditional approach to this step of

the planning process. The technical studies conducted to establish the scientific basis

for problems and opportunities are generally well known (see sidebar). The resulting

descriptions of technical concerns will look much different from the public's concerns.

Typically, they are included in great detail in report appendices for hydrology,

economics, real estate, and other specialty areas. Where brief statements are usually

adequate to convey public concerns, technical concerns often include maps, drawings,

tabular and graphic displays of data, and technical text.

Like the general public, experts include people from many backgrounds,

including hydrologists, engineers, environmental scientists, economists, and many

others. They can refer you to previous studies, identify other experts, and provide their

professional judgment about the situation. Your initial contacts will undoubtedly be

with the experts on your study team and elsewhere in your District office. Beyond them

are experts in other agencies, universities, consulting firms, and the general public.

This is where the line between “the public” and “technical experts” blurs but it doesn't
99

Key Factors

Although the study team actually specifies the planning

objectives, they must do so while taking several key factors into

account. 

! External Environment. The partnership's external

environment often exerts considerable influence on the objectives. The

external environment comprises all those factors that the partnership

cannot control. External stakeholders can influence the planning

process by social norms, specific constraints, pressure campaigns, court

challenges, direct controls (e.g., resource agencies sometimes have

effective veto powers), and so on. Thus, setting planning objectives is,

in part, a process of establishing a favorable balance of power between

the partnership and its external environmental factors.

! Resource Constraints. The partnership's resources influence

the nature of the objectives. Studies hampered by severe time and

money constraints will not be able to address as complete a range of

objectives. Plans will consequently be less comprehensive in scope. 

Non-Federal partners who contribute databases and work in-kind may

constrain a study from considering a broader range of objectives. Better

funded studies can set more objectives.

! Internal Relationships. The partnership's internal politics and

power relationships will influence planning objectives. Planning teams

with more overall support of the partners can set more ambitious

planning objectives. Innovative planning objectives that do not enjoy

the support of higher elements on either side of the partnership may

have a more difficult time gaining support.

! Decision-Makers' Values. The value system of top decisionmakers in the partnership affect the specification of planning objectives. 

In the Corps, annual budget guidance identifies the agencies’ priorities

for the year. Many planners will see no point in deviating from this

guidance in setting planning objectives, and in so doing, they may miss

the chance to solve other problems or to capitalize on opportunities. 

! Iterative Process. Defining objectives is an iterative process. 

Though specifying objectives early in a study is essential in order for

planning to proceed, the final set of objectives may not be available

until rather late in the planning process. Objectives, like plans, may

require clarification and refinement as additional information comes to

light or when it becomes clear some objectives cannot be addressed by

the study.
100

Examples of Technical Problem Definition

The Corps knows exactly how to

technically “define a problem” for flood

control and navigation. They know who has

to do what and in what order. Defining

other problems is not as straightforward. 

The point, however, is that there is a set of

technical tasks that have to be performed by

a group of people in order to define the

parameters of any problem the public might

surface. Following are some sample tasks

required to define a few selected problems:

Flood Damage Reduction

 floods of record - hydrologist

 cross-sections - survey engineer

 discharges - hydraulic engineer

 property inventory - economist, real estate

 specialist

 “ANSWER” = damages for selected

events

Commercial Navigation

 bathymetry - surveyor

 sedimentation studies - coastal engineer

 channel geometry - design engineer

 disposal area - design engineers and

 environmentalists

 commodity and fleet forecasts - economist

 “ANSWER” = costs of moving

commodities

 on commercial vessels

Ecosystem Restoration

 habitat suitability index models - 

 environmentalist

 hydrology - hydrologist

 “ANSWER” = environmental outputs

“Is that so?”...

“Who cares?”

really matter. What does

matter is that you get the

problems an d

opportunities identified

and described.

Once the public

and your technical experts

have become involved in

the problem identification

process, the time has come

to compare, verify and

reconcile what you've

heard about problems and

opportunities. This may be

the first truly difficult task

in planning, but the

difficulty is often more in

perception than reality.

Some basic questions can

be used to guide this task.

On the one

hand, the

technica l

experts should

examine the

problems and

opportunities

identified by the public,

and ask “Is that so? What

evidence do we have that

supports or refutes these

concerns?” For example,

what damages resulted

from the last flood? Or,

how many ships have

grounded in the channel?

Have fish populations

actually declined over the

last 10 years? Similarly,

the public should have an

opportunity to review

problems an d

opportunities identified by the experts to determine “Who cares?” While there may be

scientific evidence of a problem condition, it may not be important enough to the public

to warrant further attention.
101

At this point you’re ready to write statements of problems and opportunities.

Problems and opportunities that pass both the “Is that so?” and “Who cares?” tests

are good candidates for your planning objectives. The information you developed

from contacts with the public and technical experts should be presented, and

summarized in a brief statement, preferably a simple declarative sentence. 

If you look, and not even very hard, you will probably find an abundance of

problems and opportunities in your study area. The Corps cannot hope to solve them

all, and, indeed, is neither expected nor authorized to. The business of sorting out

which problems and opportunities your study will address and which it won't, is in

some respects very straightforward. There are many criteria that can give you a sense

of whether or not, or to what extent, the Corps will be likely to study and implement a

solution for a problem or opportunity. Some of them include the following:

Is there a “Federal interest” in the situation?

Does the language of the study authority cover the situation?

Is the situation related to a Corps “mission”?

Are traditional project purposes involved?

Is the situation related to current “priority budget outputs”? 

Is the situation within the scope of the Federal objective?

Can the outcomes be described in terms of NED benefit categories?

Does the situation involve significant environmental resources?

Is the situation covered by other Administration policies related to the Corps'

program?

These are not pass-fail criteria. There is much room for interpretation in arriving at

answers. The questions may lead to different answers at different times and among

different studies. Answers may even depend on whom you ask. However, these

questions are effective screens for focusing limited Corps resources on specific

problems and opportunities. 

The more questions you answer with “no,” the more you will have to work to

make the case for addressing a particular problem or opportunity. You may need more

information to be convincing. Or you may have to do an excellent job of telling the

story of a problem or opportunity. At the very least, you should recognize that policy

criteria will arise on the road that leads to your objectives. Good problem definition

will address these questions as a routine part of the job.

What is to be done about problems and opportunities that exceed the current

policies and authorities of the partners, especially the Corps? High crime rates near the

river, for example, may be a significant issue, but it's unlikely this problem can be

addressed by the Corps. When another entity has an established responsibility for the

 problem identified, it may be possible to involve them in the study process. For

example, although crime is well beyond the authority of the Corps' programs, it may

be possible to solicit police and other public safety agencies' input in the design of

floodwalls to assure that access through the wall, visibility of pedestrians, and

minimization of potential hiding places are considered in project design. 
102

Federal Interest

What is in the “Federal interest”? Although there is no single,

enduring answer to that question, you can get some idea of the

breadth and depth of the “Federal interest” from the following:

C Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Superintendent of

Documents, Government Printing Office. Library of Congress No.

73-600118 (revised quarterly). The Catalog lists all Federal

programs, including the Corps' programs. A recent catalog

included over 1300 listings.

C National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation

Procedures; Appendices I, II and III; Final Rule. Council on

Environmental Quality. 40 CFR Chapter V (Federal Register,

Friday, December 21, 1984, pages 49750-49782). Appendix II

includes a listing of Federal and Federal-State agencies with

jurisdiction by law or special expertise on environmental quality

issues, including the Corps.

In other cases, information about problems or opportunities may be passed on

to the appropriate authorities. Suppose, for example, a traffic flow problem is

identified during this stage of the study. Even if it is beyond the scope of the water

resource study, this information can be passed along to the appropriate agency for

attention, rather than be ignored because it is beyond the Corps' authority.

In some instances, problems may be water-related but beyond the current

Corps' authorities and policies. There are two schools of thought on this. One is to

decline involvement in any activities that are beyond the Corps' authority. The other

is to look for a way to blend these water resources needs into existing authorities,

perhaps stretching and extending them a little. Acid mine drainage is an example of

a problem over which the Corps has no current authority. New environmental

programs and a renewed interest in watershed planning have provided the impetus for

at least one district to address this problem. One aspect of watershed planning is to

identify issues like these that might require a broader partnership. Bringing other

Federal, State, and local agencies with an interest in these “new” issues into the

partnership can be an effective way to developp more comprehensive planes.

If the public believes there is a problem or opportunity and the technical

experts agree, or vice versa, and the situation seems to fall within the bounds of current

policies, you can write your study’s planning objectives and constraints. The results

become your mission statement. Agreement with and general support of this mission

statement by all of your study stakeholders is critical to the study’s success.
103

Planning Objectives and Constraints

In this example, adapted from a Corps study, the objectives

and constraints are directly associated with a problem or opportunity

statement. The report text that follows a statement like this can then

expand on each objective or constraint as necessary. 

Problem 1: Declining extent of wetlands ecosystem.

Objective 1: Increase the total spatial extent of wetlands. 

Objective 2: Reestablish relative balance among lost historic plant,

fish, and wildlife communities.

Constraint 1: Protect threatened and endangered species. 

Problem 2: Continuing flood damages.

Objective 3: Reduce flood damages on tribal lands.

Constraint 2: No loss of flood protection from existing flood damage

reduction projects.

Opportunity 1: Improve water supply. 

Objective 4: Restore more natural water quality.

Constraint 3: Meet state water quality standards.

Multi-Objective Planning

Multi-objective planning is a

confusing term. It has been used to mean

both multiple Federal objectives and

multiple planning objectives.

The Principles and Guidelines

officially commit the Nation's water

resource agencies to a single Federal

objective, national economic development

subject to certain environmental constraints. 

When people talk about multi-objective

planning, they are usually referring to the past

practice of planning for more than one Federal

objective. Federal policy is currently single

objective in nature.

Are you done? Yes, for a while, but keep in mind that the process is iterative.

Objectives and constraints will change or even drop out and new ones may arise as

planning progresses. The steps to identify

planning objectives are presented sequentially

because an orderly approach to the discussion

is needed. The actual identification of planning

objectives is not so orderly. The study team

may begin specifying objectives when they first

see the study area. We want the planning

professionals to have ideas and reactions from

day one. We don't want those ideas to become

crystallized and finalized, however, until all the

work is done. 

Nonetheless, the team will begin with

some very preliminary notions of planning

objectives. As problem identification proceeds

these objectives will change. When public

feedback about problems and opportunities is

sought, more refinement and clarification will

follow. As technical analysis begins to give

dimension to the problems, more specific

objectives can be fashioned. As the study
104

progresses through the various iterations of the steps of the planning process, further

refinements may be necessary. If your notion of specifying planning objectives is a

team meeting where the doors are closed and the objectives are set once and for all,

dispel that notion. That exercise may be a very useful starting point, but specifying

objectives is an iterative and participatory process.

Early in the planning study, objectives may be very general in nature. As

planning progresses and becomes more refined, the objectives should be continuously

reexamined so that a limited number of very specific objectives are identified and used

to develop alternative plans.

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH OBJECTIVES?

Use them. Use them to let people know what your study is all about.

In step 2, use them as guides to the information you gather. Collect

information that will enable you to convincingly tell the story behind your objectives

and constraints.

In step 3, use them as reasons for identifying management measures and

formulating plans. What can you do to meet the objectives and avoid the constraints?

In step 4, use your objectives and constraints to identify plan effects to be

evaluated. They can help you identify the plans that qualify for further consideration.

In step 5, use them to compare the relative effectiveness of your qualifying

plans. How well do the various plans do in meeting the objectives and avoiding the

constraints?

In step 6, use the objectives and constraints as reasons for selecting a plan. All

other things equal, the recommended plan should be the one that best satisfies your

objectives and constraints.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. The study begins with an identification of an area's problems and

opportunities. The partners, their customers and publics provide the information

needed to develop a consensus agreement on the problems and opportunities to be

considered in a study.

Lesson Two. Planning objectives and constraints may be a whole lot more

important than you ever imagined. The objectives specify what the planning team and

its plans intend to do. Constraints describe what the plans shouldn't do. Together, they

are, in a sense, the mission statement of the partnership. If you get the planning 
105

Multi-Purpose Planning

The purpose of a plan may be thought of as its primary output. 

Traditional purposes of Corps projects include: flood damage

reduction, navigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial

water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and

storm damage protection, aquatic plant control, water quality

improvement, fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement. Water

resource plans may be single-purpose or multi-purpose. A singlepurpose plan serves one of these purposes; a multi-purpose project

serves two or more of these purposes. In recent years, multi-purpose

projects have tended to be primarily for one purpose with some

ancillary inclusion of other purposes. There is nothing in the

Principles and Guidelines that precludes multi-purpose planning. 

Planners are often faced with a dilemma. On the one hand,

authorizations and the Principles and Guidelines challenge them to

develop plans that fully address a community's problems and needs. 

On the other hand, Administration policy tells them some problems

and opportunities may not be considered a priority in the budget

request. When walking through such political ground, planners must

tread with sensitivity. The sum total of the current situation is that

planners are limited in what they can do but there is some flexibility. True

comprehensive multi-purpose planning is not currently practical, but

some multi-purpose planning is possible. The Corps’ currently

evolving program for watershed planning and management is an

avenue for multi-purpose problem solving. Perhaps the best practice

is for planners to be positive and capitalize on what policy and

circumstance permit.

objectives wrong, the formulation, evaluation and selection will be wrong. The choice

of planning objectives determines to a significant degree the success of a planning

study.

Lesson Three. Planning objectives are used in every step of the planning

process.

The next chapter describes the second step of the planning process, the

inventory of resources and the without-project condition description. This step

establishes a benchmark for comparison of all alternative plan effects.
106

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

There is relatively little to read about the individual steps in the literature.

That is one of the primary reasons for this manual. Generally speaking, the water

resource planning references in Chapter Two and others like them are going to be the

best sources of additional discussion on these subjects. The National Technical

Information Service publications relating to the Principles and Standards listed in the

References section of this report provide an additional source of material that may be

of some limited interest.

Problem identification is a subject of many books in business management and

it is a recurring theme in many planning texts. These books can provide refreshing

insights from time-to-time, albeit from a different perspective.
107
108

Information is data put

to purposeful use.

CHAPTER SEVEN: STEP TWO - INVENTORYING AND

FORECASTING RESOURCES

Future, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper,

our friends are true and our happiness is assured. Ambrose

Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.

Step Two: “Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and

related land resource conditions within the planning area

relevant to the identified problems and opportunities.” (P&G

Standards Section III paragraph 1.3.2 (a)(2))

INTRODUCTION

Information gathering is one of the principal tasks of any planning effort.

Information is needed to identify and quantify problems and opportunities. It’s needed

to measure plan effects. Information is essential to making good decisions.

Information gathering is divided into two basic types by the P&G: inventory

and forecast. Gathering existing information, current and historical, is the inventory

type of data collection. Gathering information that describes potential future conditions

is the forecast type of information gathering.

Information gathering is distinguished from data

gathering by the quality of its content. For present purposes,

data are considered to be facts or figures from which

conclusions can be inferred. Information implies that data have

been considered, and conclusions useful to the planning process

have been inferred. Information is data put to purposeful use.

Information is used to define relevant conditions in the planning area under

various scenarios. These conditions include historic conditions, existing conditions,

base year conditions, most likely future conditions without a project, and most

likely future conditions with a project. The last three of these are forecasts of

conditions. Differences among these various conditions are evaluated and compared,

and provide a major basis for plan selection.

The gathering of useful information almost certainly will have begun long

before the planning effort. It will continue throughout the planning effort. Last-minute

revisions to relevant information have both vexed and saved many planning efforts.

Information gathering is one of the planning steps that is continued relentlessly,

although not necessarily by the planning team, even after the planning study is

completed. 
109

With and Without is not Before and

After

“Before storm protection was built

in the coastal town of Amity in 1960 there

was little economic activity. Now there is a

$1 billion tourist industry,” says the mayor

in a tribute to the artificial dunes. The

implication is clear. The dunes have caused

a tremendous economic growth. But did

they?

Suppose the mayor forgot to

mention that a bridge replaced the five-car

ferry in 1965. Population within two-hours

of the town has more than doubled and

personal income has tripled. In addition, a

very successful advertising campaign

attracts visitors from 15 states. Would it

still be fair to attribute the economic

growth to the dunes? These other changes

would have taken place anyway.

The mayor provides an example of a

before and after analysis that measures a

variable, economic activity, at one point in

time and again at a later point in time. 

There is no cause and effect analysis. A

without- and with-project condition

introduces cause and effect analysis to

these comparisons over time.

Information gathering is usually the most timeconsuming and expensive part of the planning

process. 

This chapter explores the dimensions of

information gathering. It begins by defining the

scenarios that plans require information to describe.

From there it proceeds to a consideration of some of

the types of data that may be collected to describe the

scenarios and to complete the study.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

To choose the best course of action from

among the alternatives available to us, we need to

know what difference any given course of action will

make. A “difference” implies that some sort of

comparison has been made. A future oriented

activity like planning requires the comparison of

different conditions at different points in time. Let’s

begin by considering the different points in time that

might be of interest.

The past may be very important to planners.

It is not easy to understand the present without

some knowledge of the past. Your present standard

of living is important information. Considered in

the context of your past standards of living, however,

the same information about your current situation is

far richer. With past information, we know whether

your standard of living is rising or falling. When a

scenario describing past conditions is required for a

study, it is called the historic condition. Because

there is the possibility for one or more historic

conditions, ten years ago, 50 years ago and so on, it

is necessary to adequately described the context and purpose of the historic condition

described in a study.

Conditions that exist at the time of the study are collectively called the existing

condition. Try to avoid getting too literal in the definition of this scenario. Reasonable

accuracy is more important than literal truth. You may have to rely on average

conditions in recent years rather than precise data for the year of the study. There is

nothing wrong with that if the average reasonably represents the relevant study area

conditions. The existing condition is sometimes called the base condition, or current

condition.
110

Unless these data become

information...time and

money were wasted in

collecting them and they

simply take up space in

the report.

Table 20: Planning Scenarios

WAS - historic condition

IS - existing condition

WILL BE - most probable future. . . 

. . .base year

condition

. . .without condition

. . .with condition

Because plans take time to

implement, it is quite possible that planning

area conditions will be different at the time

the project is finally operational from what

they are under the existing condition

scenario. When this is the case, the most

likely future condition at the time the project

is operational is called the base year

condition, not to be confused with the base

condition. The base year condition is a

short-run future forecast that is generally a without- project condition forecast, but it

can be a with-project condition forecast at times. The base year condition is often

important in the determination of the time value of benefits and costs. For a more

detailed discussion of these issues, see the National Economic Development Procedures

Manual. - National Economic Development Costs, IWR Report 93-R-12.

When describing future conditions in a planning area, planners are guessing.

At best, these guesses are reasoned, scientific forecasts based on experience, good data,

and the best appropriate forecasting methods. At worst, they are only guesses. Thus,

it is important to recognize from the outset that forecasts of future conditions are

fundamentally uncertain. To present them as deterministic or anything more than the

best guess possible would be misleading to decision-makers and the public.

Given the many ways the future could turn out, it is the planners’ task to

identify the most likely future condition or the most probable future. There may be

times when it is not honestly possible to identify one future condition as more likely

than another. If plan selection would be affected by the choice of the alternative future,

it is advisable to present the different alternative future scenarios. When different

futures are possible but none make a material difference to the decision-making

process, then a single most likely future condition can be identified. When there is

good reason to believe that one alternative future is indeed more likely than any of the

others, it is sufficient to identify that one as the most likely alternative future.

Two important most probable future condition

scenarios are the most probable future without a project and

the most probable future with a project. To avoid this

unwieldy terminology, these are commonly called the without

condition (or without-project condition) and the with

condition (or with-project condition). The structure of

these scenarios is summarized in Table 20.

The without-project condition describes the condition

that is expected to prevail in the planning area in the future if

the no-action alternative is selected as the best thing to do.
111

Condition Scenarios

Suppose there is a conveniently rectangular bird island; 43,560 feet long and

100 feet wide, a total of 100 acres in size, in 1996. Further suppose the island has

been eroding one foot in width each year and a nourishment plan that could be

operational by 2000 would widen the island to 150 feet but would have no effect on

the erosion rate. Let’s consider the size of the bird island under the various scenarios

planners encounter.

Historic

1990

Existing

1996

W/O

Base

Year

2000

W/Base

Year

2000

W/O

2010

W/

2010

Area in

Acres

106 100 96 150 86 140

In 1990 there were 106 acres but there are only 100 today. If nothing is

done there would only be 96 acres in the base year, 2000. By the year 2010 the

island would be down to 86 acres. However, if the island is restored to 150 acres in

2000 there will be 140 acres ten years later.

What are the impacts of the plan? The answer depends on our temporal

frame of reference. In the year 2000 there would be 150 acres rather than 96, a net

gain of 54 acres. In 2010 there would still be a net gain of 54 acres, due to the

simplicity of our the example. Thus, in this example, the project produces the

annual equivalent of an additional 54 acres of bird island.

The appropriate way to identify plan impacts is to compare future conditions

with the plan (140 acres in 2010) to future conditions without the plan (86 acres in

2010). The appropriate comparison is not a before (100 acres in 1996) and after

(140 acres in 2010) comparison. Corps planning uses without and with condition

comparisons, not before-and-after comparisons, in the evaluation of plan effects.

...each plan will lead to a

different with project

condition.

In other words, the without project condition describes the project area’s future if

there is no Federal action taken to solve the problem at hand. There will ordinarily

be one without-project condition for the planning area. Every alternative plan is

compared to the same without-project condition. The exception would be when it is

not possible to single out one future scenario as most likely. In

such a case, each alternative plan must be compared to each

without-project condition.

The with-project condition describes the condition

that is expected to prevail in the planning area in the future
112

Information: Existing and Future

Suppose one objective is to reduce

flood damages in the Minion Creek

Township. What might you need to do that? 

First, keep in mind this is a planning

objective and at this step in the planning

process we have two tasks. First, we need to

establish the nature of the existing flood

problem. That will require existing

hydrology and hydraulics as well as

information about the potential damages in

the flood plain.

Second, we need to establish a most

likely future scenario if we do not

implement any plans. That will require an

analysis of future hydrology, hydraulics, and

floodplain development. It would also have

to include consideration of any potential

activities that might be taken by others to

lessen flood damages in the future without a

plan.

If another objective is to preserve

wetlands in the area, this will require

additional information. Although

hydrologic requirements might overlap the

two objectives, it will be necessary to

document the amount and quality of

existing wetlands. In addition, it will be

important to identify activities that could

either diminish or increase these resources in

the future.

What about the information you

need to determine how much flood damage

each alternative plan reduces or increases

and how much wetland they affect? These

kinds of information are gathered in much

the same way.

if a particular plan is implemented. There

could be more than one with project condition

if it is not possible to single out one future

scenario as most likely. However, each plan

will lead to a different with-project condition.

If two plans result in exactly the same future

condition scenario, they would have to be

identical in their impacts, and that implies they

may be one and the same plan.

How long is the forecast period? That

depends on the nature of the project.

Generally, forecasts are expected to coincide

with the project life. However, there are often

circumstances in which it may be appropriate

to forecast future conditions over a period of

time less than the project life. For example, it

is common practice in navigation studies to

forecast commodity movements over 10 or 20

years, assuming no changes after that. This is

done in simple recognition of the fact that

these forecasts are so uncertain that they have

little credibility when extended beyond 20

years.

Forecast values may be expressed in

average annual equivalent units, as project

benefits and costs are; or they may be

expressed at select points in time, usually at

fixed intervals after the base year. For

example, the preceding sidebar presents

impacts at project year 10 (2010), 10 years

after the base year.

WHAT KINDS OF

INFORMATION ARE NEEDED?

What kinds of information do

planners need to develop these scenarios?

Specific types of information required will

vary with the type of study and the resources

available. The information has to describe the

existing, without-project, and with-project

conditions adequately enough for decisionmaking. Three important generic types of
113

The Value of Information

Which is the more horrible fate:

paralysis by analysis or extinction by

instinct? These choices reflect one of the

more difficult decisions a planner faces in

this step of the planning process. How

much information is enough? 

Having more information may

reduce your anxiety. Unless it changes

your decision, it is not worth the cost of

obtaining it. An important question to

ask when considering what information

to gather or how much more of it to get

is, “Could this information affect your

decision?” If the answer is no, do not get

it. If the answer is yes, it’s necessary to

ask how likely it is to change your

decision. If the possibility is remote, do

not get the information unless the

potential change is significant.

information can be identified for any planning effort.

First, information is needed to identify and adequately describe the

problems and opportunities of the study area. For example, a flood damage reduction

study will require hydrologic and hydraulic data, as well as stage-damage relationships

for each reach. Navigation studies will need to know channel depths and channel

usage. These data will be required for the existing and without-project conditions just

to quantify the nature and extent of the problem. They are also the evidence that

supports your planning objectives and constraints.

An ecosystem restoration study might require information about the historic

condition to establish the extent of degradation and the level of restoration possible.

It would also require information needed to describe existing and future without project

conditions.

Second, information

is needed to estimate life

cycle project costs. These

include firsts costs of

construction as well as all

operation, maintenance,

major rehabilitation, and

other relevant costs.

Third, information is

needed to describe important

project effects. Some of the

impacts are related to the

planning objectives and

constraints of the study.

Certain kinds of information

will be needed to measure

objective attainment and

constraint avoidance for the

alternative considered. The

planning objectives and

constraints should guide

much of the information

collection. Identification of

some impacts is required by

law. For example, Federal

laws require effects on

significant cultural resources, endangered species and other impacts be considered. A

third category of impacts comprises other things of specific interest to the planning

partners, i.e., Federal and non-Federal interests.

Information for these purposes must be of sufficient quantity and quality to

convincingly, not necessarily perfectly, answer the questions: What are the
114

If you cannot tell a

complete, logical and easyto-follow story about what

you did...then you cannot

plan.

problems/opportunities? What are the costs of the alternatives? What are the impacts

of a plan we’re legally required to address? How do the plans contribute to the

planning objectives and constraints? How do the plans affect the significant interests

of the partners?

“Planner as storyteller” is an appropriate role to assume when thinking about

the information you will need. The planning process is a simple adaptation of the

scientific process. It is a rational approach to problem solving and decision-making.

It’s done all the time. What kind of information will you

need to tell a convincing story about why you made the

decisions you made? If you cannot tell a complete, logical,

and easy-to-follow story about what you did, bolstered and

supported with the information necessary to do so, then

you cannot plan.

As the planning process develops, a story does

unfold. That is the story you are going to have to be able

to tell convincingly, if stakeholders are to be convinced of

the soundness of your decision and the rationality of the

process by which you arrived at it. Because you need to guess at the information you’ll

need at the end from the very beginning, it is inevitable that you’ll gather some

information that is ultimately not useful (then don’t use it!). Likewise, you’ll find

yourself needing information you don’t have (then go get it or work around it the best

you can). Revising information needs as your understanding of the problems and

opportunities evolves and as planning objectives are refined and the story develops is

a constant in every planning study. The following section suggests four parameters of

data collection worth considering in this information gathering and management step

of the planning process.

FOUR PARAMETERS OF DATA COLLECTION

The four parameters of data collection are quantity, quality, timing and

location. How much information is enough? How accurate and how representative

must the data be? At what point does the collection process start, how long do you

have to collect information, and for what period of time are data required? What

geographic area is to be covered? As the study begins, you’ll have a preliminary

response to these questions. The definitive answer to these questions won’t be known

until the end of the study. Like virtually everything else in the study process, data

collection is an iterative process.

Quantity. Table 21 lists some generic types of data that might be useful for

planning. The data types are divided into two broad categories. The first includes

physical data. These are the data that depend only on the existing physical

environment. The second type, socioeconomic data, includes those data that depend

on the human element in the environment. You need enough data of sufficient quality

to be reasonably certain you have the information you need to move forward in the

decision process.
115

Table 21: Selected Data for Planning

I. Physical II. Socioeconomic

 A. Geology A. Institutions

1. Formations 1. Water-related

2. Foundation characteristics 2. Political

3. Minerals 3. Regulatory

 B. Land Resources B. Demographic

1. Soil survey (land classification) 1. Population (existing & future)

2. Development 2. Population characteristics

3. Drainage 3. Location of population

 C. Hydrogeology (Groundwater) C. Geographical, Social

1. Aquifer characteristics 1. Land use (existing & future)

2. Yields 2. Values and elevations

3. GW elevations (records) 3. Zoning

 D. Physical Geography D. Economic

1. Maps 1. Markets

2. Aerial photographs 2. Income Distribution/ Employment

3. Infrastructure (cities, roads, etc.) 3. Benefits and cost estimates

 E. Meteorology E. Financial

1. Rain gages 1. Sources of funds

2. Precipitation records 2. Types of repayment

3. Evaporation and evapotranspiration 3. Cost-sharing and allocation

 F. Hydrology F. Legal

1. Gaging stations, location 1. Water law

2. Stream flow records 2. Environmental laws

3. Watershed characteristics 3. Agreements, treaties, constraints

 G. Water Quality G. Social Publics

1. Groundwater and surface water quality 1. Stakeholders

2. Sensitive areas 2. Silent majority

3. Sediment loads 3. Information to be diseminated

 H. Environment (Ecology) H. Other Sectors/Functions

1. Flora and fauna 1. Agencies for coordination

2. Sensitive areas and significant resources 2. Plans (cooperation)

3. Air, land, water pollution I. Recreational Needs

Source: Adapted from Helweg, Otto J., Water Resources Planning and Management

Could the expected annual damage estimates be better? The answer is almost

always going to be yes. If you broke the study area into more reaches; had more stream

record; used a larger sample of structures; developed site-specific stage-damage curves;

and so on, the examples would probably be better. But, have youu used reasonable

data collection and analytical methods to obtain the informationyou need to feel
116

Every question has the one

hour answer, the one day

answer, the one week answer,

etc.

reasonably comfortable that you now understand the magnitude of the flood problem

as described by expected annual damages? 

If you do, you have enough information and it is time to move on. If team members

have serious doubts about the quality of the information you’re working with, these

information gaps need to be further addressed. 

Quality. The quality of data depends primarily on the stage and type of the

study. For a “continuing authority” project, a visual inspection of a stream may be

adequate. For a feasibility study, the stream may need to be gaged. Data should be

homogeneous, i.e., they must measure one thing consistently. They should also be

representative. If you’re using sample data, it should be an unbiased sample from

the population of interest. For example, a short stream record taken during unusually

wet years would not be representative of the long-term stream flows. Accuracy is a

fundamental aspect of data quality. The accuracy of your data must be known and

communicated in the report.

Timing. There are two

dimensions to the timing characteristic

of data collection. First, is time as it

relates to the planner. When can data

collection begin and how long do you

have to complete the study? These

dates and periods vary with the type

and stage of study. Every question has

the one hour answer, the one day answer, the one week answer, etc. The length of time

allowed to gather information depends on the importance of the information. 

The second dimension is time as it relates to the data themselves. The dates on

which data were collected may be important. Streamflow or water quality data

collected during a drought may differ substantially from normal data. Economic

surveys conducted during recessions will differ from those collected during economic

booms. Another aspect of data timing is the length of the data record. This is

especially important for hydrology and monitoring the health of ecosystems. The

timing of monetary values is important in terms of the time value of money and the

price level used to measure monetary values.

Location. The geographic area for which data are collected will usually

conform to the planning area. Normally data will not be collected for areas outside the

affected area unless the outside data affect the study or are needed to provide

perspective and context for the study area data. 

The section that follows presents some ideas to consider for developing an

information-gathering strategy. When planning to collect data to provide the

information necessary for good decision-making, planners must be cognizant of the

quantity, quality, timing, and spatial dimensions of their data collection efforts. 
117

Table 22: Information-Gathering Strategy

Problem 1: Flood damages from Minion Creek

Information Needs:

1. Definition/extent of flood plain

a. Topographic maps: obtain existing aerials

b. Hydrology - existing & future: USGS gage data

c. Hydraulics - existing & future: field surveys

2. Property at risk of flooding

a. Property survey - existing & future: field surveys

b. Appraise value of property: Marshall-Swift

c. Depth-damage curves: site-specific curves

3. Expected annual damage estimates - existing & future

a. Frequency curve: H&H section

b: Rating curve: H&H section

c. Damage curve: Economics Branch

d. Estimating algorithm or computer program: risk-based EAD

 calculations

4. Likelihood of restoration of natural flood plain values

a. Residents views on evacuation: public involvement

b. Environmental resources restored: expert opinion

c. Political support: study coordination

PREPARING AN INFORMATION STRATEGY

If you have prepared a problem statement and a list of planning objectives,

then you have an invaluable input for determining your information needs. Beneath

each statement of a problem, list the types of information you’ll need to describe the

problem. Beneath each objective list, the information you’ll need to see if you are

contributing to that objective. Then, you can list the types of data you are going to need

to provide the information you require.

Table 22 provides an example of how this information strategy might be

arranged. The numbered items indicate the basic information sought. The lettered

items identify data that will help provide that information. Obviously, the analysts can

provide as much detail as is required or desired in describing the information needed

and the data that will provide that information. An information gathering strategy

like this can be prepared for each problem, opportunity, planning objective, and

constraint. In subsequent steps, as alternative plans are identified, additional

information may be required for evaluating, appraising and comparing plan impacts.

However, if you do a good job in this step, most of those data will already be available.
118

Let the Planner Beware

The without-project condition makes it possible to describe

what society is going to have to give up in order to gain the outputs of

an alternative plan. In order to properly describe what is going to be

lost, it is important that the existing condition and forecasts include all

resources of significance. If problems, opportunities, planning

objectives and constraints are properly identified and scoping is

completed, this should ensure that all resources of importance are

included. However, planners should review the planning area to

ensure this has been done.

For example, suppose a study area has some bottom land

hardwoods and wetlands. Inexperienced planners might fail to realize

the plan has an opportunity to preserve these valuable resources, in

which case they could be overlooked in the information-gathering

steps. Thus, we offer as a caveat the admonishment that if you have

significant resources in a planning area that do not show up in a

problem or opportunity statement, or that are not mentioned in a

planning objective or constraint, you need to reconsider your step one

activities; you may have missed an opportunity.

Table 23: General Sources of

Data

Internal secondary sources

External secondary sources

Internal primary sources

External primary sources

In many cases, planners begin by collecting the same data that was collected

for another district study. Planners who collect information in this fashion run the risk

of wasting scarce study resources collecting data that are not going to provide useful

or necessary information in their own study. More importantly, they may

overlooknecessary data and information unique to their own situation. The amount and

types of information that can be gathered are virtually limitless, but not all of that

information is going to be of equal value in decision-making. The cardinal rule for

information-gathering is to get what you need to make good decisions, not what is

available or traditionally gathered.

Once the data needs for each problem, opportunity,

planning objective and constraint have been tentatively

identified as described above, the planner needs a strategy

for obtaining the data and information. This activity begins

by identifying general sources of information as shown in

Table 23.

Internal data are, or have been, produced by study

participants. What data do the Corps and its non-Federal

partner(s) have? External data are data produced by

institutions, agencies, individuals, and organizations that

are not study participants. What data have already been

collected by other agencies, academic institutions, researchers, consultants, and so on?
119

Future External Environment

What is going to happen to that

tidal wetland if we do not implement a

plan? Will it be developed for

condominiums and a shopping center or

will it be protected from such uses? That

depends on many things. If we can show

these wetlands were going to disappear

anyway, then there is not a significant

impact if one of our alternatives would

cause their loss, is there?

If there are no legislative

restrictions, the future of the wetlands may

depend on the state of the economy in this

area and on population growth, which may

in turn depend on the quality of life in the

area. Perhaps if the education system is

not improved in this county, people will

continue to try to escape the poverty that

results, and the land will never develop

anyway. 

Suppose there is national legislation

that prohibits the development of tidal

wetlands. Suppose even in the absence of

national legislation, we see this state

moving toward a more environmentally

friendly stance. There could be many

factors well beyond the partnership’s

control that would affect our forecasts of

future conditions without a plan. It is the

planner’s job to consider them adequately

and as objectively as possible.

Primary data are obtained from original research. An example of external

primary data would be stream gage data collected by the U.S. Geologic Survey. Internal

primary data would include things like original surveys of foundation conditions,

channel depths, damage potential, and the like. Secondary data have already been

gathered for some other purpose. External secondary data would include the data

compiled in reports like the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Internal

secondary data would include information from previous studies. 

The information-gathering strategy can be

expanded as shown in Table 22 to indicate the general

source of the data. In a feasibility study, this entire step is

nothing more than an update and more specific iteration of

the work that was done in the preparation of the Project

Study Plan. 

What Types of Information Are Typically Needed?

There are many lists of specific data types or

sources that might contain the information needed to

conduct a successful study. They can generally be found in

guidance and the professional literature. The NED benefit

procedures manuals produced by the Institute for Water

Resources, and the Corps’ ECs and ERs are excellent

sources of such lists. Those interested in lists of

representative or essential information types are advised to

review the more detailed guidance. We avoid the lists here

because there is no such thing as a typical study and no set

of lists would be complete. Each planning effort involves

unique circumstances and wicked problems. Hence, a

unique information gathering strategy is needed for each

study.

FORECASTING FOR THE EXTERNAL

AND INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS

Many factors that affect a plan are external to

the planning process. These are the things that cannot be

controlled or influenced by the planning process. They

include economic, governmental, political, social, natural

and technological factors or trends that are beyond the

influence of the planning process, but that might influence

the planning area directly or indirectly, now or in the future.
120

Table 24: Examples of Macroenvironmental Factors

C Economic C Societal

- Business cycle - Quality of life attitudes

- Money supply - Lifestyles

- GNP trends - Career expectations

- Inflation - Population growth

- Interest rates - Crime

- Exchange rates - Education trends

- Unemployment C Natural

- Balance of trade - Pollution

C Government & Politics - Climate change

- Environmental laws - Resource reserves

- Attitudes toward govt. C Technological

- Tax laws - R&D spending

- Stability - New products

- Trade policies - Technology transfer

- Alliances - Automation & Robotics

- Wars & conflicts - Patent laws

- Election results - Spread of technology

There are also internal factors, elements, and systems that exist within the

sphere of influence of the partnership. These would include all the institutional

elements and systems of the partners themselves, plus those factors of the planning area

that can be affected and influenced by alternative plans. 

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

The external environment is sometimes called the macroenvironment by

private sector firms engaged in strategic planning. It is important to think about

macroenvironmental factors when determining what information is going to be needed

to inventory and forecast resources for your study. Table 24 provides some examples

of these factors. 

The fall of communism provides a dramatic example of an external event that

has had enormous implications for the world. During step two, planners should be

scanning the horizons of the future looking for the dramatic changes that could affect

their plans. They need not be “fall of communism” magnitude, but no reasonably

foreseeable significant change should be overlooked.

In order to define a good without-project condition, planners must develop

some facility in looking into the future. Deep draft navigation has to be concerned

about future trade patterns, trends in energy prices, and the like. These are factors
121

clearly beyond the control of planners, but they are factors of importance to planners.

The fall of communism will open markets formerly closed to U.S. commerce. What

will this mean for commodity forecasts and future tonnage? If relations between the

U.S. and Cuba are normalized, what will this mean for ports in south Florida?

These are the types of questions with important implications for projects of

which planners have to be aware. A major purpose for considering these external or

macroenvironmental factors is to try to identify trends, factors, and events that could

affect plan outcomes in a significant fashion. In many cases, this kind of information

will be incomplete and speculative. In such cases, it may be prudent to define more

than one without-project condition. For example, a south Florida port project may be

well advised to have a without-project condition that includes a “closed Cuba” scenario

and another with an “open Cuba” scenario because project benefits may vary greatly

between the two scenarios. The choice of the most likely scenario will depend greatly

on information gathered during this step of the planning process. 

A common error in forecasting future scenarios is failure to consider

foreseeable changes and trends in the macroenvironment. It’s the planner’s job to

identify any future events that could significantly alter the outcomes of a plan, to the

extent possible, and to give them appropriate and explicit consideration. A

common characteristic of particularly good plans is that ability to consider important

things that are not so easy to foresee.

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

The internal environment is what is commonly considered within the domain

of a Corps study. Here, we use the term internal to mean internal to the study process.

This information includes the hydrologic, hydraulic, environmental, economic,

engineering, and other data and information that are the bread and butter of a Corps

study. These are the kinds of data primarily referred to in the information strategy

example above. These data will always be critical to Corps studies. Enough has been

said about them in other Corps guidance, however, and they are not addressed further

here.

RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY IN

WHAT YOU ARE DOING

A little humility will go a long way in this step of the planning process.

Describing existing conditions is a daunting task. There is so much information that

could be gathered and there are so many stakeholders with their own interests and

agendas, that it is virtually assured that you will not have all the information necessary

to satisfy all these people. Limitations on the quantity and quality of information will

result in uncertainty. Admit that from the outset. Explain what you collected and why

you collected it, tell your story. If important dimensions of the planning effort are

subject to serious uncertainty, be open and above board about it.
122

Uncertainty is a

fact of life.

Describing future conditions is even more uncertain. In this step, you

are asked to forecast conditions for the variables, elements, and systems

identified in your information-gathering strategy. No one expects you to

foresee the future with perfect clarity, but everyone will expect you to see

what, after the fact, everyone claims was obvious. Partners must be honest

with one another and with the stakeholders. Uncertainty is a fact of life and

both Corps customers and partners can handle that as long as the uncertainty is

described honestly, openly, and in a straightforward manner.

HOW TO FORECAST

Suppose you have done an extraordinary job in identifying and gathering the

information you need to describe the existing conditions in the study area. Further

suppose you have identified the variables, conditions, elements, and systems that need

to be forecast in order to describe alternative future conditions. There is still the

considerable task of making those forecasts. How do you do that?

To develop plans for a community or region, we need to predict the type of

environment they’ll be facing in the short- and long-term future. The purpose of

forecasting is to identify patterns in natural systems and human behavior and to

discover relationships among variables and systems so we can estimate the timing,

nature, and magnitude of changes in future conditions.

Though many taxonomies of forecasting methods could be used, we’ll rely on

three major categories as shown in Table 25, taken from Wheelwright’s book

Forecasting Methods for Management. Judgmental methods are the most common

forecasting technique used in planning. These forecasts include individual judgments,

committee or team decisions, and other forms of professional opinion. Professional

judgment is often relied upon to forecast the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

alternatives, project performance, and many other important aspects of both without

and with conditions.

Quantitative methods are the subject of most of the forecasting literature;

three subcategories are identified. Time series methods forecast future events based

on trends in historical data. Explanatory methods attempt to identify cause and effect

relationships among variables in the past. These relationships are then used to forecast

future outcomes. These two sets of methods are frequently used by economists.

Monitoring methods are relatively new. They seek to identify changes in patterns and

relationships to make forecasts when extrapolation of past patterns or relationships is

not appropriate. Such methods may be particularly useful in environmental planning,

where systems are poorly understood because of their complexity or lack of data.
123

Table 25: Forecasting Methods

Approaches to Selected Groups of Major Forecasting

Forecasting Forecasting Methods Methods

Judgmental Individual Judgment Intuitive

Ad hoc

Multiple attribute decision-making

Group Committees

Sales force estimates

Juries of expert opinion

Aggregates Anticipatory surveys

Market research

Quantitative Time Series Naive

Decomposition

Simple time series

Advanced time series

Explanatory Simple regression

Multiple regression

Econometric methods

Multivariate methods

Monitoring Tracking signals

Technological Extrapolation Delphi

Trend extrapolations

Morphological research

Systems dynamics

Normative Cross impact

PATTERN

La Prospective

The third forecasting category includes technological methods. These

methods address long term issues of a technological, societal, economic, or political

nature. There are two subcategories. Extrapolation methods use historical patterns

and relationships as a basis for forecasts. Normative methods rely on objectives,

goals, and desired outcomes as a basis for forecasting. 

Details of these and other forecasting methods can be found in the considerable

forecasting literature. Texts and articles are available on each of the major forecasting

methods shown in Table 25. There are considerably more techniques in use, however.

A 1975 IWR report, Handbook of Forecasting Techniques, and its appendix, Part II

Description of 31 Techniques, remain good source documents.
124

...we look into our crystal

ball and try to describe the

most important aspects of

life...

When data exist, time series and explanatory methods will generally be the

most useful techniques. These are covered best in the literature. Courses in these

techniques are available at many universities. When faced with unique situations or

situations in which data are unavailable, judgment and technological methods will

dominate. Opinion analysis will be another valuable tool for planners. There are any

number of specific techniques that comprise the major forecasting methods shown in

the table. For example, subjective probability elicitations and nominal group methods

are two examples of juries of expert opinion. Consult the literature, like the IWR

Handbook, for details on specific forecasting methods.

THE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITION

The “without-project condition” is universally regarded as vitally important

to the evaluation, and comparison of alternative plans. No single element of the

planning process is more critical to those steps of the planning process than this

forecast of the most likely future conditions that will exist in the study area if no action

is taken as a result of your study. The inventory and forecast of conditions in the study

area are the step two tasks necessary to develop the without-project condition. 

In forecasting, we look into our

crystal ball and try to describe the most

important aspects of life in the study area

over the next several decades. This

forecast is based on our existing condition,

in which we adequately describe the most

important current aspects of life related to

our planning effort. Our forecasting efforts

build upon that base condition. Using a

variety of forecasting techniques, we paint one or more pictures of what the future

might look like. From the alternative future conditions, we select one as the most likely

future condition.

This most likely future condition is not necessarily the only possible future

condition but it does become our baseline picture of the future. When we consider how

our alternative plans will alter the future, we are always comparing alternate future

conditions, with different plans in place, to our without project condition.

The other possible futures without a plan in place may be considered again in

a sensitivity analysis. If we have selected a plan that looks “best” under all forecasted

futures, then we can be confident we have the best plan. If the “best” plan varies with

the forecasted future without a plan in place, then decision-makers must be apprised

of the differences and their implications.
125

Every plan is

compared to the same

without- project

condition.

The No Action Alternative

The without-project condition

describes the future that society will have

to forego if action is taken. Conversely,

that means the without project condition is

what will result if no action is taken. 

When formulating plans, NEPA regulations

require that the no action alternative

always be considered. In essence, this

requires any action that is taken to be more

in the public interest than doing nothing. 

The without-project condition is, then, the

default recommendation. It is the noaction alternative. 

Planners identify and quantify the explicit differences

among plans (to anticipate a future chapter, this is called

evaluation) and make some judgments about their relative

merits (comparison) before a decision is made (selection).

Every plan is compared to the same without-project

condition.

Think of the future in the study area without any

plans as consisting of a mix of good and bad outcomes. We

have a pile of good things that will happen (dogwoods in spring, jobs, fishing, and so

on) and a pile of bad things (pollution, flood damages, recessions, and the like).

Conceptually, we estimate the most important of these things related to our study over

the planning horizon and pile them up.

We do the same for each of the plans we formulate. The piles without a plan

and with a plan can differ in many ways. The size of the piles may be different. There

may be more or fewer good things with the plan. There may be more or fewer bad

things. In addition to different sizes, the piles are likely to have different compositions.

The beautiful dogwoods in spring may be gone now; they may have been sacrificed to

levees that reduce flood damages. Thus, the future good pile has fewer dogwoods, but

the future bad pile has less flood damage.

The image of the piles helps us understand

the basic trade-offs society faces. If a plan

diminishes or changes the pile of good things the

without condition produces, then these are things that

society loses as a result of the plan. They are costs to

society. If the without condition pile of bad things

gets smaller, that’s a benefit to society. The with

condition will, of course, add good things (additional

benefits to society) at the cost of some bad things

(additional costs to society). Thus, beneficial plan

impacts come from the elimination of “bad” things in

the without condition scenario or the addition of

“good” things in the with-project condition. Negative

plan impacts come from the elimination of good

things under the without condition scenario and the

increase in bad things from the with-plan condition.

The decision-makers’ difficult task is to

decide which set of piles are better to have, the

without condition or the with condition piles. That decision can’t be made based solely

on size, because we have not addressed the all important question of the value that

society places on the things in each pile. The important point to understand at step two

in the planning process is that all plans are compared to the same piles of good and bad

things without a plan implemented. The decision cannot be a good one unless the

without condition description is fair and accurate. The piles have to include all the

important things, and those must be measured reasonably. 
126

Table 26: Characteristics of a

Good Without Condition

Comprehensive

Rational

Alternative Future Oriented

Honest

Inclusive

It has been suggested by experienced planners and plan reviewers alike that

one of the most common problems with Corps planning efforts is that the without

condition description is not adequate. In the worst instances, the description of the

most likely future condition can be slanted to favor a specific alternative plan. It would

not take much to manipulate the descriptions of the things that go into our good and

bad piles in a manner that could distort results. Sometimes the descriptions are naive

or incomplete. A good without condition description is essential to a good decision.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION

Table 26 summarizes some

characteristics of a good withoutproject condition. First, it is

comprehensive. The without

condition must adequately describe the

future. Significant variables, elements,

trends, systems, and processes must be

sufficiently described to support good

decision-making. If it’s important to

the decision process, it has to be

addressed in the without-project

condition description. Planners cannot

overlook important information.

Next, the without condition must be rational. Forecasts must be based on

appropriate methods, and professional standards must be applied to the use of those

methods. Accuracy is an important element of a rational scenario.

Good without conditions are not irrational. All future scenarios should be

based on the assumption of rational behavior by future decision-makers. Future

scenarios must make sense. Scenarios that rely on an unlikely series of events or

irrational behavior make no sense. If a problem can be solved by a $500,000

expenditure each year or a one-time $1,000,000 expenditure, it would be irrational to

assume an indefinite expenditure of $500,000 under most circumstances. A good

scenario must pass the test of making common sense.

Without project conditions are not before and after comparisons. Before

and after comparisons can miss the causality that is important to effective plan

evaluation. Suppose a county has 2,000 jobs. Part of the without-project condition

includes legalization of gambling and construction of a casino that will increase county
127

Policy May Affect Without Condition

Without-project conditions should be

rational. Rationality can come from different

directions, however. Section 4-11 of ER 1105-

2-100 provides a list of eight constraints to,

and clarifications of, the without-project

condition.

Suppose for example, Congress has

established a clear Federal interest in

undertaking certain activities through

legislation, as it has done with flood control. 

Further suppose that if the partnership does

not build a project, the non-Federal partner

will. What is the without-project condition? 

The truth is the without project condition

includes the project! In this case, however,

paragraph 4-11.a.(8) says:

If local interest (sic) are willing

to build a given flood control

project, but only if the Corps

doesn’t do it, assume no project

as without-project condition.

jobs to 11,000, a net increase of 9,000 jobs.

Suppose a wetlands restoration project

limits the development potential of some

land such that the county, with its new

casino, will have only 10,000 jobs.

A before and after plan analysis

shows jobs rising from 2,000 to 10,000, a

net increase of 8,000 jobs. Such a

comparison gives the impression of

causality when none exists. The appropriate

comparison is a without and with project

comparison in which we see a net decrease

of 1,000 jobs. The implementation of the

wetlands restoration plan actually costs the

county 1,000 jobs. 

Without-project conditions have to

be future oriented. Conditions that

concentrate on causality of existing

conditions and focus too narrowly on how

existing conditions might change fail to be

future oriented. Without-project conditions

are not mere extensions of existing

conditions. They need to be oriented toward

comparing alternative future scenarios.

The fourth characteristic of a good

without condition is honesty. This

obviously means there should never be

deliberately misleading information in a scenario, nor should any important

information ever be deliberately withheld. This quality goes beyond basic honesty,

however, to include the forthrightness about the strengths and weaknesses of the

analysis that is needed to enable an interested stakeholder or a decision-maker to make

their own qualitative assessment of the work you have done.

An honest scenario would point out weaknesses and soft spots in the analysis,

taking care to try to identify the implications of these “faults.” Honesty also implies

a sincere effort to convey the full implications of the scenario. Honesty requires that

if significant differences in the future scenario exist, they are also honestly and

completely described as alternate without-project conditions.

A good without-project condition is also inclusive in the sense that it is

subjected to rigorous review and comment as part of the public participation process

and throughout the coordination and review process. Because the without- project

condition occupies such a critical role in the planning process, it is essential that it

be developed in the open and subjected to the scrutiny of all project stakeholders

before the project proceeds too far. In some cases, this will simply mean that
128

technical data and information receive an unbiased thorough technical review. In other

cases, where judgmental or technological changes are being considered, the review and

coordination may have a structured part in the public participation process.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Planning studies are iterative processes. The problems and

opportunities of the planning area cannot be understood until we have information

about existing and future conditions. The distinctions between the first and second

steps are not as clear as we would like them to seem.

Lesson Two. Planners need information not data; but data contain the

necessary information. In a world of limited budgets, the key is to collect the data

needed, not the data available. An information-gathering strategy can help you identify

what is needed and where to get it.

Lesson Three. Acknowledge the uncertainty you face. No one expects you to

have all the information or to forecast perfectly. Let stakeholders and decision-makers

know the limits of your knowledge and certainty.

Lesson Four. The future is usually different from the present.

Lesson Five. With-and-without planning is not the same as before-and-after

planning. Describe the without-project condition as comprehensively, rationally,

honestly, future-oriented and inclusively as you can. Use more than one scenario if

necessary.

Now that we know the problems and opportunities and have described future

conditions without a plan, we need some plans that can alter that future in a favorable

way. Formulating alternative plans is the subject of the next chapter.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

The NED Benefit and Cost Manuals and ER 1105-2-100 provide additional

details on the without-project condition. Many of the items listed at Appendix I

provide detailed suggestions of useful data for various types of planning studies. The

Handbook of Forecasting Techniques IWR Contract Report 75-7 and its supplement,

Handbook of Forecasting Techniques Part II Description of 31 Techniques, though

somewhat dated, still provide a good basic introduction to many of the forecasting

techniques mentioned in this chapter.
129
130

CHAPTER EIGHT: STEP THREE - FORMULATING

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh,

the thinks you can think up if only you try." From Dr. Seuss

in Oh the Thinks You Can Think.

Step Three: "Formulation of alternative plans." Principles and

Guidelines, Standards, Section III, paragraph 1.3.2(a)(3).

INTRODUCTION

Put on your thinking caps - this is the step where you're going to need

them. Your training might get you this far, but nothing quite prepares you

for plan formulation. The basic question here is where do plans come from?

The answer is they come from people. People devise solutions to problems.

They do it individually and in teams, inside and outside the Corps, using an

uneven mix of experience, analysis, inspiration, intuition, and inventiveness.

The challenge of plan formulation is to guide these diverse inputs in

developing an array of good plans. 

This chapter describes where plans come from. It begins by defining

formulation and its policy framework. The befuddling concepts of

formulation and three phases through which formulated plans often pass are

then discussed. Some different approaches to formulation are described at

some length. The chapter concludes with some practical suggestions for

describing and naming a plan.

FORMULATION DEFINED

Plan formulation is the process of building plans that meet planning

objectives and avoid planning constraints. It requires the knowledge, experience,

and judgments of many professional disciplines. Planners define the

combination of management measures that comprise a plan in sufficient

detail that realistic evaluation and comparison of the plan's contributions to

the planning objectives and other effects can be identified, measured, and

considered. Plan formulation requires the views of stakeholders and others

in agencies and groups outside the Corps to temper the process with different

perspectives. Plan formulation capitalizes on imagination and creativity

wherever it is found, across technical backgrounds and group affiliations.
131

What? Who? How? When?

What do you formulate...plans devised to satisfy

planning objectives and constraints.

Who formulates these plans...planners, with input

from stakeholders and the public.

How are plans formulated...in teams and by

individuals, using experience, inspiration, and

anything else that’s handy.

When are plans formulated...iteratively,

throughout the planning process.

Plans are formulated to address

the planning objectives. Formal

formulation of alternative plans, as

described in this chapter, cannot

begin until the planning objectives

have been at least preliminarily

identified. Formulation of plans

implies purpose and that purpose

only finds definition in the planning

objectives. Generally, a reasonable

amount of information (i.e., step two

activity) must be available before

alternative plans can be formulated.

In most cases, there will be

more than one alternative that will

meet the planning objectives,

although they meet them to varying

extents. Good planning will eliminate the least suitable alternatives while

refining the remaining alternatives fairly and comprehensively.

Sometimes, the formulation process emphasizes structural details,

costs, project outputs, safety, reliability, and other technical matters. That’s

understandable because many of us are more comfortable with our familiar

technical approaches and products. Nonetheless, formulation must be

balanced with environmental, social, institutional, and other information that

is often less quantified and otherwise less comfortable to consider in building

plans. To ignore such information in formulation runs the risk of developing

plans that cannot be implemented.

POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATION 

Plans are composed of measures. They can be structural or

nonstructural measures. Alternative plans should be significantly

differentiated from one another. This is the basis for the distinction we make

between alternative plans and refinements of plans. Different levee heights

for a given alignment are not different plans, they are refinements of the same

plan. 

Plans don’t have to be restricted to things the Corps has the authority to do.

Planners are empowered by the P&G to develop plans that can be

implemented by other Federal agencies, State and local government, or other

organizations. Despite this leeway, there are limits to what the Corps can do.

The priorities of any given Administration define these limits. The P&G do
132

Policy Constraints

Policy can sometimes place limits on the plan formulation process and the

identification of the NED plan. These constraints can affect cost-sharing and the

support a plan might receive from the Administration. For these reasons alone, the

study team and the non-Federal partner need to be aware of any and all such relevant

constraints.

For example, recreation cannot be included as a feature of a flood damage

reduction plan until after it has been established that flood damage reduction benefits

exceed the cost of the protection. Even then, recreational features can only be added

if they are incrementally justified and they increase project costs by no more than 10

percent. However, nonstructural flood damage reduction projects need not have

flood damage reduction benefits in excess of costs in order to add recreation features

to the plan. Nor is there a limit to the amount of recreation allowed.

Got that? Then you’re ready to consider how recreation can enter into

commercial navigation or hurricane and storm damage reduction projects. These

projects do not have to be justified on the basis of their primary purpose benefits, but

those benefits must cover at least 50 percent of the costs of the project. Once that

threshold is met, recreation features may be added in any amount as long as the

entire project has a benefit-cost ratio of one or more. The catch here is that the

benefits must be incidental. That is, they can be obtained without significant

increases to the project costs.

Recreation policy is just one example of a policy constraint. Another is the

requirement that structural flood damage reduction studies be formulated to address

existing development flood problems. Benefits that may accrue to future

development in the flood plain may be counted but only when they are incidental to

plans formulated to reduce damages to existing development.

Thus, policy constraints can lead to situations in which you “formulate plans

for

 ” where the blank might be filled in with flood damage reductions, commercial

navigation, or some other high priority output. In these cases, planners identify the

most cost-effective plan for that purpose and then other purposes are added as policy

permits. As this sidebar indicates, these can be confusing situations. Therefore, it is

all the more important that the study team and the non-Federal sponsor understand

the policies that constrain plan formulation.

not make existing authority to implement a plan a requirement for

formulating plans that solve problems and capitalize on opportunities. The

opportunity to innovate is there. 
133

Some districts do plan beyond what they have existing authority to

implement. Under the proper circumstances, they are sometimes permitted

to venture into a new area. The Corps' activities are not expanded by great

leaps forward as much as by marginal extensions of existing and new

authorities. 

Plan formulation should pay attention to the mitigation of adverse

plan effects. In water resources planning applications, the more common

effects mitigated include adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat; adverse

effects on cultural resources; relocation of residential and commercial

activities; and induced flood damages. Mitigation is explicitly required for

many types of adverse effects; and is otherwise just good planning.

The P&G require the formulation of an NED Plan for the Corps’ Civil

Works water resource studies. This does not mean planners “formulate” an

NED plan per se. They formulate an array of plans that meet the planning

objectives and constraints. From these plans they are required to “identify” the

NED plan. Thus, the NED plan is a plan that meets planning objectives and

constraints and coincidentally maximizes net NED benefits. Only if planners

investigate enough plans that meet the planning objectives and constraints

can we be assured that the plan that maximizes net NED benefits has been

identified.

Identifying an NED plan requires formulating other plans. The

number of alternative plans depends on the complexities and extent of

problems and opportunities in the study area, study resources, the

availability of different appropriate measures, and the preferences of the

stakeholders. The decision-maker will then judge whether alternative plans’

contributions to planning objectives are sufficient to justify deviating from the

NED plan. The locally preferred plan is the name frequently given to a plan

that is preferred by the non-Federal sponsor over the NED plan. It is

sometimes recommended instead of the NED plan.

FORMULATION CONCEPTS

Plan formulation has spawned a jargon capable of crippling

communication. This section defines and describes some of the more

important formulation concepts.
134

Example Management Measures

Features:

breakwaters water pumps

jetties water control structures

groins fences

channel modifications food plots

dams brush piles

detention basins nest boxes and baskets

levees roosting platforms

floodwalls relocations

Activities:

actions:

modifying water releases

seeding, cutting, & burning vegetation

applying pesticides

policies that affect actions at a site:

vessel transit restrictions

zoning restrictions

grazing agreements

SOLUTIONS 

A solution is a way to achieve all or part of one or more planning objectives.

Solutions can be management measures, alternative plans, or programs. 

Management Measures

A measure is defined as a means to an end; an act, step, or proceeding

designed for the accomplishment of an objective. The definition of a

management measure (or “measure”) is a feature or activity, that can be

implemented at a specific geographic site to address one or more planning objectives.

Measures are the building blocks of which alternative plans are made.

Measures become more specific and better defined as planning progresses.

A feature is a “structural” element that requires construction or assembly

on-site. An activity is defined as a “nonstructural” action. An activity can be a

one-time occurrence, or it can be a continuing or periodic occurrence.

Examples of commonly used management measures are provided in the

sidebar.
135

Planner-Speak

The Principles and Guidelines tell us “An alternative plan

consists of a system of structural and/or nonstructural measures,

strategies, or programs formulated to alleviate specific problems or

take advantage of specific opportunities associated with water and

related land resources in the planning area.” Other terms commonly

used interchangeably with alternative plan include:

action increment program

activity input action project

alternate management action proposal

alternative management measure scenario

approach management practice scheme

component measure solution

concept option strategy

feature plan system

improvement practice technology

Features and activities happen somewhere. The physical location or

site at which they occur is an important characteristic that distinguishes one

measure from another. 

Alternative Plans

A plan, according to Webster, is a “scheme for making or doing

something.” Our working definition of an alternative plan (also known as, “plan”

or “alternative”) is that it is a set of one or more management measures functioning

together to address one or more planning objectives. Many alternative plans have

more than one measure. Different plans have different measures or they

combine the same measures in significantly different ways. For example,

suppose we have a town with two creeks. Plan A channelizes one creek and

builds a levee along the other. Plan B builds the levee along the first creek

and channelizes the second. Both plans consist of the same measures. The

specific sites of these measures are sufficiently different to constitute two

different plans.

If measures can be actions instead of features, then alternative plans

need not involve construction. Changes in the management of resources,

institutions, and human behavior can sometimes be more effective than

structural projects. 
136

Table 27: Examples of Current Corps Programs

National Programs

C Section 107 Navigation Projects

C Section 205 Flood Control Projects

C Section 1135 Program - Project Modifications for Improvement of the

 Environment

C Coastal America Program

C North American Waterfowl Management Plan

Regional Programs

C Section 201 Program

C Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Plan

C Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program

 (“Breaux Bill”; currently implemented in coastal Louisiana)

Source: EC 1105-2-210, Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program (June

1995) 

Programs

Just as management measures can be combined to form plans, so, too,

can plans be combined to form programs. In a planning context, program

means a set of one or more plans, usually located over a large geographic

area. For example, there are several continuing authority programs.

Examples of other Corps programs or programs in which the Corps is

participating are listed in Table 27. Most Corps programs are nationwide in

scope, but some are limited by law or policy to certain geographic areas.

SCALES

Sometimes people think of different scales of the same measure as

different plans. For example, consider a plan with a concrete channel as its

single measure. Different channel capacities don't constitute different plans.

These are three differently scaled versions of a single plan. Plan scales are

mutually exclusive; if you pick one scale you preclude all others.

Scales are most typically thought of as different “sizes” of a plan, but

they also apply to other plan dimensions. Several different properties of a

management

measure may be scaled. These include its physical properties, its composition, its

location, and its timing and duration.
137

Physical properties of plans include sizes, amounts, counts, and the like.

For example, the size of a site (30 acres, 40 acres, 50 acres), the number of

plantings per acre, the percent canopy cover of vegetation, water depth, and

discharge capacity of a pump are examples of physical properties of a plan

or measure that can have different scales.

Composition includes different materials and methods that would

accomplish the same purpose. For example, a fence may be constructed as a

chain-link fence, or a barbed-wire fence, or a wooden slat fence. The different

materials may be thought of as different scales of a fence. In some cases, a

levee and a floodwall could be different compositions of the same plan.

Locations include different sites for the same solution. Duck boxes at

these sites or those sites are different scales of the same plan.

Timing and duration include different start and stop times or durations

for the same solution. For example, low flow releases could be scheduled to last

6, 8, or 12 hours. The construction of a navigation channel could be phased

over 5, 10, or 20 years.

If you scale the measures of a plan differently you end up with refinements

of a single plan, not multiple plans. If you scale the plans of a program, you end

up with refinements of the program. 

Let’s look at different alternative plans versus different scales of a

plan. Suppose we have identified a range of plans to address a flood damage

problem. For simplicity, assume each plan consists of a single measure. Plan

A is a floodwall, B is a levee, C is a channel, D is a reservoir, and E is flood

plain evacuation. 

Suppose the evaluation and comparison steps of planning eliminate

all but the floodwall choice, Plan A. The next iteration of plan formulation

might scale the floodwall. That is, the optimal siting, dimensions,

composition, and staging of the same plan can yield different refinements. 

A concrete or steel sheetpile wall would not constitute two different

plans. They are simply two different compositions of the wall. Likewise, the

10-foot and 5-foot walls are not separate plans but different physical

dimensions of the same plan. A wall in front of or behind the railroad is

another example of a distinction based on a single plan's siting rather than an

example of alternative plans. Questions about whether to build the wall all

at once or to construct it in sections over time are also issues of scale.

The final array of plans presented in many studies is not really an

array of alternative plans at all. It is often a set of different scales, i.e.,

refinements, of a single plan. There is nothing wrong with making a final
138

selection from among a set of refinements of a single plan. Don’t get bogged

down in terminology. If the final array resulted from a more comprehensive

planning process and decision-makers had the opportunity to consider a wide

array of truly different plans, then it was a good planning process.

COMBINABILITY

In a planning study, management measures may or may not be

mutually exclusive. Measures that are not mutually exclusive are combinable.

Combinability allows us to mix and match measures into different plans.

Conversely, some measures may preclude others. When building plans,

consider whether two measures may be mutually exclusive because of

location, function, or overlapping.

Location limits combinability when two different measures can't occupy

the same physical space at the same time. For example, at a particular stream site

you could create a calm slackwater area by either excavating the channel or

by constructing a dam across the channel. You can only do one or the other

at the same site.

Functionlimits combinability when two different measures may work

against one another. For example, it probably wouldn't make sense to both

build a retaining dike to hold water at a site and install drains to speed the

removal of water from the site.

Overlappinglimits combinability if one measure is actually a smaller

scale, a subset, or an intersection of another measure. For example, you could

not combine a 4-acre wetland with a 5-acre wetland to produce a 9-acre

wetland if the two wetlands overlap each other. 

One way to describe the combinability of measures is to display them

in a matrix as illustrated in Table 28. In this example matrix, measures are

arrayed against one another and their ability to be combined is indicated by

a simple “Yes” or “No.” In the example matrix, levees in the protected area

are considered potentially compatible with measures 3, 7, 9, and 12 through

22. It has also been determined that levees aren't compatible with measures

2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, or 11. Note that the matrix reflects only pair-wise comparisons

and does not indicate what measures might be incompatible in combinations

of more than two measures. 

DEPENDENCY

Some measures may be dependent on other measures in order to be

implemented. The dependency of two measures can exist for several reasons.
139

First, one measure may be necessary to the function of another measure. For

example, the survival of willow tree plantings may be dependent upon an

irrigation system. Without irrigation, the plants will die. In this case,

irrigation is necessary for the willows to function.

Dependencies may serve to reduce risk or uncertainty in project

performance. For example, a flood forecast and warning system may function

perfectly well without an automated telephone notification system for flood

plain properties at risk. Combining the telephone notification with the

warning system does, however, reduce the risk that a property owner will not

hear a flood warning. The success of the forecast and warning system is to

an extent dependent on the automated telephone notification system and vice

versa.

Dependency can improve project performance. For example, we may elect

to improve the growth rate of willow plantings by fertilizing them. The

fertilizer is not necessary for the plants to function, nor will it reduce any risks

or uncertainties of survival. However, it will improve the willows'

performance by producing more mature trees faster. Recognizing

dependency relationships among management measures can assist in

screening out plans that are not feasible because they fail to meet dependency

requirements. 

FORMULATION PHASES

The process of building alternative plans from management measures is

called plan formulation. There are many different approaches you can use to

formulate plans. Before reviewing some of them in the next section, consider

how the formulation process evolves through three very general phases.

First, you identify management measures. Second, you formulate alternatives.

Third, you reformulate plans. In every study, these phases overlap and are

repeated again and again. 

IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES

One phase of formulation requires you to identify the individual

pieces, the building blocks, that can be put together to form alternative plans.

Plans are most often built-up from measures. Sometimes, you might identify

measures by breaking an alternative plan down into its component parts.
Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1: Levees NA NO YES NO NO NO YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

2: Floodwalls NA YES NO NO NO YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

3: Bridge modifications NA NO NO YES YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

4: Reservoirs NA NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES NO

5: River diversion NA NO NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES NO

6: River dredging NA YES NO YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES

7: Island removal NA YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES NO

8: Channel modification NA YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES

9: Flood forecast anf warning NA NO YES YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

10: Evacuation protected are NA NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

11: Flood proofing & nonstructural protected area NA YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

12: Flood insurance NA NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

13: Levees induced area NA NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

14: Floodwalls induced area NA NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

15: Evacuation induced area NA NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

16: Flood proofing & nonstructural induced area NA YES YES YES YES YES YES

17: Bird islands NA YES YES YES YES NO

18: Acid mine drainage migration NA YES YES YES YES

19: Fish channels on tributaries NA YES YES YES

20: Duck boxes NA YES YES

21: Watering holes NA YES

22: Wetlands restoration NA

140

Table 28: Pairwise Compatible Measures
141

Plan formulation begins

where you are.

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Another formulation phase involves matching and mixing

management measures into different alternative plans. This process is best

served by observing the realities of combinability and dependency.

Otherwise this phase is unconstrained and open to all ideas for problem

solving.

REFORMULATION

Chapter Five described the iterative nature of planning.

Reformulation is a special type of iteration during which alternative plans

previously formulated are changed for one or more reasons. It may be helpful to

think of the basic plans that come out of the previous formulation phase as

parent plans, and the reformulated plans as their offspring. Reasons for

changing plans vary from study to study, as well as over time within a study.

Typically, the reasons for reformulation are related to the four evaluation

criteria listed in the Principles and Guidelines and are discussed in the next

chapter. 

Measures may be added, dropped, rescaled, or otherwise modified

such that the reformulated plan will better achieve a planning objective or

stay within the limits of a constraint. Measures can be modified to develop

a reformulated plan that is less costly, i.e., more cost effective, than its parent

plan. We may need to add or otherwise modify measures to make sure that

a parent plan includes everything that it needs to work successfully. For

example, local interests may need to provide navigation berthing areas, or

flowage easements, or restoration of adjacent upland habitats, to ensure that

a basic Corps plan will indeed work and provide the expected benefits.

Stakeholders may request plan modifications that will address concerns or

desires beyond those included in the planning objectives and constraints.

“Mitigation” is always a reformulation reason because it is

undertaken as a response to the adverse effect(s) of a parent plan. In most

studies, mitigation is either a constraint or a necessity for a complete and

acceptable plan. 

SEQUENCE OF PHASES

Plan formulation begins where you

are. Sometimes you will find yourself at

ground zero with no prior information.

Other times you may have an earlier Corps

study that has already done a significant
142

amount of formulation. Some studies begin with a plan from another agency

or a plan preferred by the local sponsor that needs some reformulation. Plan

formulation is not a monolithic process that always begins at the same place

using the same processes. Wherever it begins, there is always a process and

the next section describes some approaches to formulation.

FORMULATION APPROACHES

Returning to the central theme of this chapter we again ask, “Where do plans

come from?” They come from people. Specifically, they are born of ideas driven

by planning objectives and constraints. In a series of workshops and training

courses held around the country in 1995, over 130 Corps professionals were

asked where plans come from. Three recurring and overlapping themes

emerged from the great variety of their answers. Plans come from (1) sources

outside the Corps, particularly the local sponsor; (2) the study team and their

bosses; and (3) other sources such as technical expertise, experience, creative

thinking, analysis and politics. The single common thread to these responses

is people. People generate solutions. The people who can formulate plans

are not limited by technical background or group affiliation.

People's ideas for plans should be driven by the planning objectives and

constraints. The objectives define what the planning process is trying to do.

The plans define how the objectives will be obtained. Plans emerge over time

from a well developed set of objectives and constraints as the study team and

public complete the iterative planning process.

This section addresses the “how” of plan formulation rather than the

“who” of plan formulation. It begins with the one truth about the how of

formulation: there is no one way to do it. The corollary to this truth is that

there is no sure way to do it either. The most effective ways, however, begin

with and use the planning objectives throughout the process.

The professional literature and experienced planners alike

acknowledge two factors in plan formulation, experience and creativity. This

section briefly explores ways to exploit both of these factors. Let’s begin by

considering how we think about plan formulation.

HOW TO THINK FORMULATION

Creativity requires planners to break out of old, self-perpetuating

patterns of thinking and generate new ways of looking at things. Vertical

thinking (experience) needs to be supplemented by lateral thinking (creativity).

Both are needed to succeed in formulation.
143

General Approaches to Plan Formulation

There are some tried and true ways to generate plans. They

include...

C Ask an expert -- Use informed judgment and informed personal

intuition.

C Consider plans of others -- Other people may provide you with

ideas about solutions.

C Checklists -- Lists capture past experiences in problem solving.

C Formal Problem-Solving Methods -- Some methods provide clues

to what measures may work, others help you develop

combinations. 

Vertical thinking follows the most obvious and probable line of

reasoning. It's based on mechanistic information processing principles such

as are used in mathematics and logic. Like climbing a stair, it proceeds one

step at a time in a predictable direction. It’s a more structured and

experiential process.

Lateral thinking, on the other hand, tries to get away from patterns

that lead in one definite direction. Lateral thinking seeks to break out of one's

habitual domain of thought. It is based on biologically-based information

processing. It’s a more creative process.

Typically, all thoughts, all information gathering and interpretation,

and all search at some point in the planning process begin to pull in one

direction. The problem solving gets “locked in” through a process that builds

logically on all the prior steps taken. This is not undesirable. A logical

process that zeros in on a solution is clearly valuable, if the solution is a good

one.

Sometimes, however, solutions require a sideways move in another

direction. Does flood damage reduction need more or higher levees? That's

vertical thinking. Or do evacuation and flowage easements make more

sense? That's lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is not necessarily better

thinking, but it is necessary to ensure that we make informed decisions. A

good plan, the “best plan,” can only be selected if the array of alternatives provides

a good set of feasible solutions. There is no way to get a good plan from a weak
144

...go down the hall

and ask Pat...

set of alternatives. Great plans come only through purposely challenging and

extending one's habitual ways of thinking.

There are many tried and true management measures that are good

ideas. The value of levees and floodwalls has been proven time and again.

Experience and analysis will frequently be enough to identify these kinds of

good ideas. But where do new good ideas come from? That is a far more

vexing problem.

There are no fail-safe methods that guarantee good new ideas in every

case. However, new ideas might be generated in a number of ways:

C By inventing or introducing new measures to address

planning objectives.

C By creating new combinations of old measures.

C By modifying existing measures to meet new objectives.

While these suggestions lend some structure to the attempt to exploit people's

inventiveness and creativity, by themselves they are of limited value. These

are ways to help us think about new solutions. What we need are some

approaches for generating new ideas, for doing plan formulation. We’ll start

with one of the most familiar approaches, asking an expert.

Ask an Expert - The Heuristic Search Approach

The heuristic search, or “ask an expert” approach, may be the

most common aid in use today for designing solutions to problems.

Heuristic search relies on the use of simple rules of thumb such as:

Call up your old professor and ask her for some thoughts; go down

the hall and ask Pat, he knows more about this than anyone; find a

bulletin board or news group on the Internet and see what you can

find out; read the previous report. While it is usually the easiest and most

readily available approach, a systematic and deliberate heuristic search is still

relatively neglected as a plan formulation tool. When planners seek to exploit

the experience of others, how often do they call another district? experts in

academia? retired personnel? other outside experts?
145

The information

superhighway is a

promising new

avenue.

Your most immediate and perhaps best place to start a search for alternatives

is right in the district. In-house personnel are frequently overlooked, but they

can offer years of experience and familiarity with problems and what may or

may not work to fix them. Talk with knowledgeable individuals. Hold a onehour brown bag brainstorming session for everyone in your office to

contribute ideas. Conduct a district-wide survey for solutions. When you do,

don’t forget to include the people in the Regulatory Office who handle

permits for your study area; the people in the Real Estate Office who deal

with many different local land issues; and the people in the Operations Office,

including people at project sites who inspect, repair, and maintain projects

and perhaps who even live in your study area. Extend your search to the rest

of the “Corps family.” Call the hydraulic engineer who retired last year.

Now could be the time to call that planner from another district whom you

met at a training class.

Professionals outside the agency are also valuable formulation resources.

Other public agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels are charged with

similar problem-solving missions and can often provide formulation ideas.

The academic community, consultants, and professional associations should

also be considered, especially those located in the study area.

What types of solutions do homeowners, boaters, owners of

businesses, and others with day-to-day familiarity and experience with the

problems think will work? What alternatives would they like to see? Which

ones do they oppose?

A broader and more innovative array

of alternatives can also be obtained by using

published materials like professional journals,

textbooks, earlier Corps reports, and related

reports. The information superhighway is a

promising new avenue. Literature research, in

all of its manifestations, should continue to

play an important role in formulation. 

If people come up with plans, then a systematic effort to involve as

many people as possible can only help. Making the heuristic search more

systematic will immediately improve the plan formulation process. It may be the

cheapest, quickest, and best way to improve your array of solutions.

Creative Problem-Solving Techniques

Another way to generate ideas for plans is to use some structured approaches

to creative thinking. Such approaches, collectively called creative problem
146

Table 29: Idea Generation Techniques

C Individual Techniques C Group Techniques (Continued)

- Analogies - Collective Notebook

- Progressive Abstractions - Crawford Slip Writing

- Metaphors - Force-Fit Game

- Hypothetical Situations - Gallery Method

- Reversals - Gordon/Little

- Wishful Thinking - Method 6-3-5

- Attribute Listing - Phillips 66

- Catalog - Pin-Cards

- Checklists - Semantic Intuition

- Focused-Object - Successive Integration of Problems

- Free Association Elements Method

- Fresh Eye - Stimulus Analysis

- Listing - Synectics

- Nonlogical Stimuli - Systematized Directed Induction

- Relational Algorithms - Trigger Method

- Circumrelation - Visual Synectics

- Lateral Thinking - Wildest Idea

- Morphological Analysis - Bobele-Buchanan

- Idea Tracking - Coca-Cola

- Packays Scientific Approach - Creative Problem Solving

C Group Techniques - Delphi

- Battelle-Bildmappen-Brainwriting - Nominal Group Technique

- Brain writing Pool - Phase of Integrated Problem

Solving

- Classical Brainstorming - Problem-Centered Leadership

Source: Van Gundy’s Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, p. 29.

solving techniques, are essentially systematic ways to generate ideas that can

be used to formulate solutions to problems. Table 29 lists 46 such techniques.

Some techniques are designed for use by individuals, others for use

by groups like an interdisciplinary team. The techniques vary in complexity.

Some can be used immediately, others require training. Although it is not

practical to review all of these techniques in this manual, interested planners

can find a discussion of each, as well as additional references, in Arthur B.

Van Gundy's Techniques of Structured Problem Solving (1981).
147

Objectives-Measures Matrix

Another formulation technique is to develop an objectives-measures

matrix. This technique recognizes that alternative plans are made up of one

or more compatible and feasible management measures that contribute

significantly to a set of planning objectives. Thus, a reasonable starting point

for plan formulation is an examination of the relationship between objectives

and measures. A simple preliminary formulation exercise would be to ask

your experts to identify and list as many measures as possible, but at least

one, for each planning objective. This will give substantial emphasis to each

objective. If there was diversity in specifying the planning objectives and

there is creativity and diligence in the identification of measures, this

approach should ultimately produce a truly differentiated array of alternative

plans.

For example, let's suppose for the moment that three planning

objectives were identified in the first planning step of your study. The first

step in building an objectives-measures matrix is to ask your experts to identify

management measures that address each planning objective, either directly or

indirectly. A composite list that could result from this type of questioning is

shown in Table 30. Identification of measures is the most critical phase in the

entire plan formulation process. It is the “A number 1” activity in the third

step of the six-step planning process. As many measures as possible should

be identified. This is the time to “think the thinks you can think.” More

creativity is required in identifying measures than in assembling them into

plans.

We cannot be sure we have the best plan unless we have the best set of

alternatives from which to choose. Our alternative plans will only be as rich and

as good as the measures that are combined to create them. Choice requires

more than one option. Though multiple measures will not always be possible for

each objective, it remains a modest goal. Under no circumstances should there

ever be an objective that is not addressed by at least one management

measure. An objective that is not paired with a measure cannot be attained.

Consequently, it is either not an objective or the formulation process has been

inadequate.

The second step in building an objectives-measures matrix is to array

the planning objectives against the full set of identified measures in the

matrix format. Then indicate which measures are expected to contribute to

which objectives. Table 31, a 3 by 22 matrix, is an example. The columns

show the objectives to which a particular measure contributes. In this

example, reservoirs and floodplain evacuation contribute to each of the three

objectives. The rows of the matrix show the various measures that will

contribute to a specific objective.
148

As planning progresses, an objectives-measures matrix can be

prepared for each formulation iteration. Then, cognizant of the combinability

and dependability of measures, plans can be constructed to meet the

objectives. This technique is just one example of how planners might

approach the assembly of alternative plans.

Consider Plans of Others

Anyone, at any time, may offer you a plan. To them, it may be “the”

plan. It may come from the local homeowners' association, from the port

authority or from a coalition of environmental groups. They may hand it to

you before you even have a study authority. You might get it the day before

the final report goes to print. It may be detailed or general. It might be

nonsense or right on target. Regardless of from whom, when, and in what form

they're offered, the plans of others are legitimate pieces of the plan formulation

process.

What do you do with a plan developed by someone else? The first

and most important thing to do is to take the presenter of the plan seriously.

No plan should be dismissed out of hand. Each idea, regardless of its source,

should receive appropriate consideration. Too often, ideas that do not arise

from the study team or non-Federal sponsor, are regarded as lacking in

credibility. They may not receive appropriate consideration. On the other

hand, not every idea floated by a member of the public is worthy of serious

consideration. The important point is to be willing to consider feasible

suggestions and good ideas, no matter where they come from.

If the plan cannot be used as is, does it have components that might

be useful in other plans? Does a plan that does not contribute to your

planning objectives suggest an objective that you may have missed? Even

when another’s plan is not directly useful, it may contain information useful

to your planning process.

Consult a Checklist

Management measure checklists are simply that, lists of different

measures. Management measure checklists capture past experience in

problem solving. They are convenient ways to keep track of what has

worked in the past. A checklist can be a ready source of potential solutions

that can provide you with a place to start your formulation.

Some checklists are simple lists of measures. Other useful lists were

not designed as lists. For example, you might thumb through the manual

“Flood Proofing Techniques, Programs, and References” prepared by the U.S.
149

Table 30: Objectives and Measures

Objective 1: Reduce flood damages in riverside communities

Measure 1: Levees

Measure 2: Floodwalls

Measure 3: Bridge modifications

Measure 4: Reservoirs

Measure 5: River diversion

Measure 6: River Dredging

Measure 7: Island removal

Measure 8: Channel modifications

Measure 9: Flood warning and preparedness

Measure 10: Evacuation of floodplain

Measure 11: Flood-proofing

Measure 12: Flood insurance

Objective 2: Minimize induced flood damages and flooding in

communities upstream and downstream of the study

area

Measure 4: Reservoirs

Measure 5: River diversion

Measure 6: Dredge river

Measure 7: Island removal

Measure 8: Channel modifications

Measure 9: Flood warning and preparedness

Measure 12: Flood insurance

Measure 13: Levees in induced flooding area

Measure 14: Floodwalls in induced flooding area.

Measure 15 Evacuation of floodplain in induced flooding area

Measure 16: Flood-proofing in induced flooding area

Objective 3: Maintain or increase the quantity and/or quality of fish

and wildlife habitat in protected area

Measure 4: Build Reservoirs

Measure 10: Evacuate floodplain

Measure 17: Create bird islands

Measure 18: Mitigate acid mine drainage into Big River

Measure 19: Construct fish channels on Big River tributaries

Measure 20: Construct duck boxes

Measure 21: Construct watering holes

Measure 22: Restore Wetlands
150

Table 31: Objectives-Measures Matrix

Measure Objective 1 Objective 2

Objective 3

1. Levees X

2. Floodwalls X

3. Bridge modifications X

X

4. Reservoirs X X

X

5. River diversion X X

6. River dredging X X

7. Island removal X X

8. Channel modification X X

9. Flood warning and preparedness X X

10. Evacuation X

X X

11. Flood-proofing X X

12. Flood insurance X X

13. Levees induced area

X

14. Floodwalls induced area X

15. Evacuation induced area X

X

16. Flood-proofing induced area

X

17. Bird islands

X

18. Mitigate acid mine drainage

X

19. Fish channels on tributaries

X

20. Duck boxes

X

21. Watering holes

X

22. Wetlands restoration

X
151

What might you do with a plan

offered by someone else?

C Take it seriously and give it

appropriate consideration.

C Use its component measures in

other plans.

C Verify the objective or

constraint it's intended to

address.

Army Corps of Engineers

National Flood Proofing

Committee to compile a list of

flood proofing measures. Topical

reports, their tables of contents

and indices can sometimes serve

as sources of lists, although that

was never their intention.

Formal Methods

Another formulation

approach is to use a formal

methodology. These are different

from the idea-generating

approaches mentioned earlier in that they comprise formal methodologies

that encompass the entire problem-solving process. These methods are more

than simple tools to aid the thought process. They go well beyond the

heuristic search methods and checklists that are most commonly used. The

methods involve the design, what we call “formulation,” of alternative means

of problem solving. They help develop decision options of one type or

another. In instances where a structured and systematic approach for

formulating plans is desired, one or more methods may be worth

investigating. These techniques include the analysis of interrelated decision

areas (AIDA, Luckman 1967, and Morgan 1971), the morphological box

(Zwicky 1969), the IDEALS concept (Nadler 1967), idealized design (Ackoff

1978), issue-based information systems (IBIS, Dehlinger and Protzen 1972),

the strategic choice approach (Friend and Jessop 1977), and strategic options

development and analysis (SODA, Eden 1989). The interested planner is

directed to the referenced material for additional details.

Habitat suitability index (HSI) models are often used to estimate

environmental outputs of ecosystem restoration projects. A thoughtful

examination of HSI models can provide valuable clues for finding successful

management measures. Sometimes the analytical models used in planning can

provide focus and clues to potentially successful management measures.

Examining HSI models may suggest that management measures that

alter habitat variables farthest from their optimal conditions may be more

fruitful. The mathematical structure of the models often identifies a limiting

variable that suggests that plans that affect limiting variables may be more

effective than plans affecting non-limiting variables. Other insights are also

available from these models. The important point is to look for ideas and insights

in the generation of plans wherever they may be found. Sometimes this includes
152

Is “No Action” An Alternative Plan?

Yes and no.

Yes, “no action” is an alternative

future condition that you could elect to

choose. As we’ll discuss in Chapter Eleven,

it’s the first default recommendation. “No

action” is an alternative just like the future

conditions that would result from any

alternative plan.

On the other hand, the “no action”

alternative does not require the Corps to do

anything. Just like its name says, it

represents the future that will occur if we

take no action. Alternative plans require

that we take some action to meet the

planning objectives. Therefore, while “no

action” is an alternative future, it is not

strictly speaking an alternative plan.

the analytical models.

The “al l

possible combinations”

method is the ultimate

tool for mechanistic

formulation. As its

name conveys, for a

given list of

management measures,

it will provide you with

the set of every

conceivabl e

combination of those

measures. In principle,

this method is very

simple. It must be used

judiciously, however,

or it can easily get out

of hand.

The all possible

combinations technique

is a tool, not a

requirement. It can be used in any situation in which planners find it helpful.

Step-by-step instructions for the all combinations method are presented in

Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual Interim: Cost

Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses, IWR Report #95-R-1, May 1995.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLUTIONS

How do you know when you've done a good job identifying

solutions? How much do you need to know about a solution before it's really

a solution? Experience shows that the answers to these questions are very

situational. At a minimum, however, every solution be it a measure, a plan,

or a program , should have the following describable characteristics:

Subject - What is it, a feature or activity?

Verb - How would it come about, through excavation, enforcement, etc.?

Site - Where would it be located?

Purpose - What planning objective(s) is it intended to address?

Cost friendly - Can you estimate its dollar costs?

Output friendly - Can you estimate what, and how much, you expect

to get from it in the later planning steps?
153

Good solutions emerge from a rational, iterative planning process that has

considered a comprehensive set of alternatives. At some point in the process,

good solutions are sufficiently differentiated from one another so as to offer

a full range of truly different ways to achieve the planning objectives. Good

solutions are more complete, more effective, more efficient and more

acceptable than bad solutions. Good solutions are not constrained for lack of

authority. Good solutions make significant contributions to the overall set of

planning objectives and do not violate planning constraints. Good solutions

are hard to formulate.

NAMING ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Talking about solutions means we have to name them. So, how do

you know what to call different measures or plans? There is no universal

convention for naming alternatives, and the short answer is you can call them

whatever you want. However, it is most helpful if the names have some

easily communicated meaning. Some commonly used naming conventions

are described below.

Geographic sites. Name alternatives after neighborhoods, towns,

villages, land forms, or other geographic sites. For example: “Downtown

Plan,” “Lake Sullivan Plan,” “Ravenswood Plan,” and the like. These are

often the most descriptive, hence the best names.

Management measures. Name alternatives after their dominant

management measures. For example: “Channel Plan,” “Levee Plan,”

“Relocation Plan,” and the like; combine measures and sites, e.g., Downtown

Channel Plan. When dealing with plan refinements like a levee raising

perhaps simple descriptions like “One-foot raising” or “Agnes level” will

serve the purpose of effective communication. These names are also

descriptive.

Numbers. Simply number alternatives: “Plan 1,” “Plan 2,” etc. This

is very logical, but not very descriptive. It often requires the reader or listener

to continuously refer back to a description.

Letters of the alphabet. Like the numbering scheme the alphabet can

be used: “Plan A,” “Plan B,” etc.

It is likely that people outside the study team will be discussing your

plans at some point. Short descriptive names can be an effective way of

communicating a great deal of information in a shorthand fashion. Try to avoid

complex and opaque naming schemes like 290BC2 that contain elements or

symbols that stand for design flows (290,000 cfs), geographic regions (Bitter
154

Creek) and versions (second) of the plan. Although logical to anyone with a

history of the project and a table that describes the plan elements, it remains

cold and opaque to the public. 

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Planning objectives drive plan formulation.

Lesson Two. A plan is one or more compatible measures that make

significant feasible contributions to the set of planning objectives. People

identify measures and plans.

Lesson Three. In water resource planning under the Corps’ Civil

Works Program, the P&G require the identification of an NED plan from

among the alternatives considered. Ecosystem restoration planning, for

example, does not require an NED plan.

Lesson Four. A good plan can only emerge from a good set of truly

differentiated plans and optimized versions of these plans.

Lesson Five. The are many different approaches and methods

available to assist the formulation process.

The most rational way to move from an array of many solutions toward

identification of one best solution is by evaluating their effects. Evaluation is

the fourth step in the planning process and it is the subject of the next chapter.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

If you’d like to read about the heuristic search approach to

formulating alternative solutions, you might consider one of the following:

Marquis, D.G. 1969. “The Anatomy of Successful Innovations.” Innovation,

1 (1969): 28-37.

Pounds, W.F. 1969. “The Process of Problem Finding.” Industrial 

Management Review, 11 (1969): 1-19.

Simon, H.A. 1977. Models of Discovery. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

A particularly good book to investigate if you want some ideas about

techniques for generating ideas is Van Gundy’s: Techniques of Structured

Problem Solving. It includes a discussion of 46 creative solving techniques.
155

You can find out more about the other techniques by consulting the

sources cited in the chapter’s text.
156
157

CHAPTER NINE: STEP FOUR - EVALUATION OF

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

“We cannot discuss the evaluation of things without knowing

what it is that is being evaluated.” Frank H. Knight (1885-

1972), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, 1926, p. 125.

Step Four: Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans.

(P&G Section III.1.3.2(a)(4))

INTRODUCTION

In the evaluation step, the significant contributions or effects of an

individual plan are quantified and judged. That’s done for two reasons. First,

the evaluation allows planners to determine whether or not the plan qualifies to

advance and be compared against other plans that have independently qualified.

Second, evaluation surfaces the specific criteria that will be used to compare those

plans that do qualify and advance to the comparison step.

The purpose of evaluation is to find the value or worth of something.

Only the best of the alternatives formulated need to be evaluated in more

than a preliminary fashion, but all measures and plans require some

evaluation. Evaluation is a two-part process: assessment (quantification) and

appraisal (judgment). Evaluation, like all other planning steps, is also an

iterative process. It begins with the first screening of measures and plans and

its detail and rigor increases as planning moves closer to a final decision. 

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of how to evaluate, that

introduces five simple evaluation tasks. After considering what to evaluate,

each of these tasks is considered in turn. Qualifying plans requires some

criteria or minimum standards that a plan must meet. Candidate criteria

comprise the next part of the chapter, which is followed by a discussion of

some sample measurement techniques.

The chapter concludes with the consideration of how the evaluation

results are to be displayed.
 In order to avoid burdensome repetition, “plan effects” will be used to encompass resources and plan 10

outputs as well.

158

Examples of Things to Evaluate

C NED “benefits”

C Cost estimates (MCACES)

C Real estate appraisals

C Fish and wildlife (HEP, etc.)

C Cultural resources (National Register)

C Water quality (Section 404)

C Regional Economic Development (RED)

C Other Social Effects (OSE)

C Contributions to planning objectives

and constraints

C Other

WHAT TO EVALUATE

First, you need things to measure. These

are resources, plan outputs, and plan effects.10

Second, you have to know what is important. It is

the important things that are evaluated in this

step. There are so many potential effects of a

plan that it would be impossible to evaluate

them all. The process of determining what is

and isn’t important begins in the scoping

process described in Chapter Five. Significant

resources, outputs and plan effects should be

evaluated. Effects that tell you whether and

how much you are contributing to the planning

objectives will be among them.

Other significant effects include changes in NED benefits and costs,

measured in dollars. Significant effects can also include many non-monetary

effects like many environmental impacts and local concerns that predictably

accompany any study (see sidebar).

The criteria for determining significance are institutional, technical

and public recognition of importance. There are laws, policies, and other

institutional realities that define some resources, project outputs or project

effects as important. Other things are clearly important for technical reasons.

 The ability to move commerce among cities, states and nations is important

to economies. Flood problems are important to communities. These things

are important for technical reasons. Some study issues are significant because

they are important to the public. People care about historical buildings and

safety.

The criteria by which we judge a resource (wetlands), an output

(navigation), or an effect (community cohesion) significant can be

overlapping. Wetlands are important because the public cares about them,

because they perform an important function in our ecosystems, and because

they are protected by law. Thus, all the criteria point to wetlands as

important. It’s less important to worry about what makes something

important than it is to recognize it as important.
159

Five Evaluation Tasks

1. Forecast a with-project condition for

each plan.

2. Compare with- and without-project

conditions.

3. Assess, i.e., describe, important

differences between the two conditions.

4. Appraise the plan’s effects.

5. Qualify the plan for further

consideration or drop it.

...qualify plans for

further consideration or

to drop 

them.

HOW TO EVALUATE?

Evaluation in the six-step planning process requires the planner to perform

five tasks. First, forecast a most likely with-project condition for each plan. That

means with-project condition scenarios must be developed to describe all important

project resources, outputs, and effects. For example, we might need to know what will

happen to the habitat of the mottled duck if a plan is implemented. 

The second task is to compare the without- and with-project conditions in order

to identify any important differences. It may be clear that a plan will increase mottled

duck habitat. The third task is to assess, i.e. describe, all important differences that

result from the plan. For example, the 400 habitat units expected without a project

would be compared to the 500 habitat units with a project to yield an increase of 100

habitat units as a plan effect. 

The fourth task is

to appraise the differences.

In this case, the increase in

habitat units may be judged

as a significant positive

environmental output. The

fifth and final step is to

qualify plans for further

consideration or to drop

them. Based on the

significant contribution of

the plan to mottled duck

habitat we decide to

consider it further. 

The main tasks that

have to be completed to evaluate plan impacts are shown in the sidebar. The primary

reason for evaluating plan impacts is to qualify plans for further consideration in

the comparison step of the planning process.

The result of the evaluation process is that a plan’s effects are

identified, measured, and weighed. This can be an informal and

subjective process, or it may be a very formal evaluation process. The

evaluation step as defined by the P&G (Section III of the Standards

paragraph 1.3.6) consists of assessment and appraisal. The first step,

assessment, is an objective analysis to identify and measure economic,

environmental, social, and other effects expected to result from

implementation of the plan. The second step, appraisal, is a more subjective analysis

that attempts to classify the importance and desirability of plan effects to plan

stakeholders. 
160

Significance

Significance is a confusing term

because it has a dual nature. First, we

identify resources, conditions and other

variables that are significant based on

institutional, technical and public criteria. 

Then we need to determine whether the

effects of a specific plan on these variables

are significant. 

Institutional recognition of an

effect means its importance is recognized

and acknowledged in the laws, plans, and

policies of government, public agencies and

private groups. Effects on endangered

species and NED impacts are examples. 

Technical recognition of an effect is based

upon scientific or other technical criteria

that establish the significance of an effect. 

For example, maintaining salinity levels

may be scientifically established as

important to the biodiversity of a

freshwater marsh. Public recognition

means some segment of the general public

considers the effect important. Public

recognition may be manifest in

controversy, support, or opposition

expressed in any number of formal or

informal ways.

Planning objectives and constraints

should reflect the views of these

institutional, technical, and public

interests. But just because a resource has

been identified as significant, this does not

mean any one plan will have a significant

impact on it. Furthermore, some resources

may become significant simply because

they will be affected. Sound confusing? 

Consider this. Suppose a wetland is

identified as a significant resources. Now

suppose Plan A has no impact on that

It is important that all significant plan

effects be evaluated fully. Qualification requires it.

Plan comparison and selection will be based upon it.

Comparison requires a common set of significant

impacts across which to make trade-offs. Plan

selection will be judicious only if all the significant

effects of a plan are known. A thorough evaluation

will diminish the possibility of a “surprise” after

implementation that could be disturbing to the public

or stakeholders. Finally, the reputation of the

partners rests on their ability to adequately forecast

the effects of projects. This latter point can make an

assessment of “no change” as important as a

measured assessment of change for certain plan

effects.

Therefore, the significance of resources,

plan outputs, and plan effects is the common thread

that runs through all the evaluation tasks. We

forecast, compare, and assess only what we believe to

be significant. The appraisal task is a formal

judgment of a plan’s significant effects.

Qualification is the evaluation decision to accept a

plan for further consideration, i.e., comparison with

other qualifying plans, or to drop it from further

consideration. The next section discusses each

evaluation task in more detail.

EVALUATION TASKS

The evaluation process can be broken down

into five tasks, introduced above. Each of these tasks

is discussed in turn in the following subsections.

WITH-PROJECT CONDITION

In the second planning step, the most likely

future condition without a project is forecast. It

provides a benchmark against which an individual

plan’s effects can be measured. In step four, the

planner must forecast future conditions with the

alternative plans in place. A most likely future

condition is separately forecast for each

alternative. The important variables measured in

step two under the without project condition are
161

Table 32: Compare Without and With Plan Conditions

Effect Without Conditions Plan A Condition

Population 147,000 147,000

Expected Annual Damages $2.1 million $0.7 million

Wetland Acres 412 acres 258 acres

measured again in step four under the with project condition. The resource conditions,

project outputs, and plan effects forecast under both the without- and with-project

conditions are those that are believed to be significant based on the institutional

considerations, technical analyses, and public opinion.

The qualities of a good with condition are similar to those of a good without

condition described in Chapter Seven. There may be more than one potential withproject condition. When that is possible, a most likely condition should be identified.

The other conditions should be considered in a sensitivity analysis of the plan’s effects.

COMPARE WITHOUT AND WITH CONDITIONS

Table 32 provides a simple comparison of a without- and with-project

condition comparison. It essentially means forecasting values for a common set of

resources, outputs, or effects. In the table we have used population, expected annual

flood damages and acres of wetlands as examples of important variables to forecast and

compare. 

This evaluation task involves only Plan A. Note that the differences have not

yet been assessed. Plans B, C, and others will also be separately evaluated. Only

important effects should be compared. 

How do you know what an important effect looks like? Once again, we fall

back on the criteria of institutional, technical, or public recognition of importance.

Planning objectives are by definition important effects. These define the reasons for

your study and were specified because they were recognized as important. Each plan

should be evaluated against the planning objectives. As for other effects, does anyone

say an effect is important? Do either of the partners or a significant stakeholder

consider an effect important? Is there legislation that defines an effect as important?

Do your technical experts say it’s important? These are the ways we recognize

important effects. More is said about importance in the assessment section that

follows.
162

Table 33: Assessment of Plan Effects

Effect Without Condition Plan A Condition Differences

Population 147,000 147,000 No difference

Expected Annual Damages $2.1 million $0.7 million $1.4 million reduction

downtown

Wetland Acres 412 acres 258 acres 154-acre decrease along

the river

ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBING DIFFERENCES

Once you have identified an effect as important you need a way to measure

it. Describing differences between without- and with-project conditions is the primary

means of measuring plan effects. Measurement means describing the duration, location

and magnitude of a plan effect as precisely as possible. Measurement should be

quantitative whenever possible. If an impact can be measured in dollars, habitat units,

acres or any other common metric, it should be. 

Quantitative measurement is not the only kind of measurement. Effects can

be assessed in a subjective manner. Subjective rankings of effects may be possible

when quantitative measurements are not. We may not have any metric that quantifies

scenic beauty, but it may be entirely possible to say that Plan A contributes to scenic

beauty or that it does not. Without some means of measurement, assessment cannot

proceed. The general framework for assessing plan effects is the without- and withproject conditions comparison. 

Table 33 presents the comparison of without- and with-project conditions for

Plan A, with the differences in the two conditions assessed. If it is not obvious from

the context, the location and duration of differences should be identified. For example,

there is a $1.4 million reduction in expected annual damages downtown over the

economic life of the project. Downtown was specified, the economic life of the project

is implicit.

With less data or earlier in the planning process, we might have had to rely on

a subjective assessment of the differences due to plan A. For example, the magnitude

of effects might have been no change in population, a decrease in flood damages, and

a decrease in wetland acreage. The description of differences should be as quantitative

as possible.
163

“Is there any possible

way this could work?”

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

A great deal of guidance already exists for the evaluation of plan effects. The

P&G contain specific evaluation procedures for estimating NED benefits and costs as

well as a set of procedures for evaluating environmental quality effects of a plan. Many

of these evaluation procedures have been supplemented by additional guidance. Most

notable among this guidance is the series of National Economic Development

Procedures Manuals and the Evaluation of Environmental Investment Research

Project reports prepared by the Institute for Water Resources. These manuals and

reports provide additional guidance and examples detailing evaluation procedures.

These manuals are listed in Appendix I.

There are some rather handy subjective

evaluation techniques that are quite appropriate for

early iterations of the planning process. “Is there

any possible way this could work?” might be a

question to ask of a plan early in the planning

process. If the answer is yes, it qualifies for

further consideration.

As the evaluation process matures, the evaluation techniques evolve from

totally subjective measures like the above question to very objective measures, such as

those found in the NED manuals. In between are several other simple techniques and

metrics. Before data are available or for impacts that are fundamentally subjective

judgments, e.g., contributions to community cohesion, there are any number of ways

to evaluate.

The idea is to provide an evaluation of each screening criterion on a plan-byplan basis. It is perfectly acceptable to use a different evaluation technique for each

criterion. We would expect NED costs and habitat units lost to be measured in

different ways. It is also expected that any given criterion will be evaluated the same

way for all plans that are at comparable stages in the planning process.

Scales are a common means of making subjective judgements. This simply

ranks a plan on a scale of 1 to 5, or any other convenient scale, where 1 might be “very

negative impact” and 5 a “very positive impact” with 3 “no impact.”

Using ratings of +/0/-/? is another common means of evaluating plans. If

it makes a positive contribution it gets a plus sign, no contribution is a zero, a negative

contribution is a minus sign. The question mark is for when we don’t know the impact.

Index numbers can be used for some impacts. An index of 100 is arbitrarily

affixed to some ideal level of attainment of an objective. Plans can then be evaluated

with numbers greater or less than 100 that show the plans achievement relative to that

ideal level.
164

You can usually

categorize an effect

as good or bad.

Appraisals are by

nature subjective

judgments.

APPRAISING PLAN EFFECTS

The appraisal task in the evaluation step requires the planner to determine

the value and significance of the differences they have described.. This is the last

step before determining whether a plan qualifies for the next round of consideration or

not. It is a values-based evaluation step in contrast to the more objective measurement

of the assessment step. Judge the impact. Is it good or bad? Is it important or not?

Every impact that was assessed should be appraised. It is during this task that

the determination of an effect’s significance comes to the fore. There is a difference

between making a value judgment about an effect and determining if it is significant,

as was pointed out in the earlier sidebar. Determining an effect’s magnitude, duration

and location is part of the assessment. You only assess those effects you believe to be

significant. In the appraisal you determine whether the assessed difference is

beneficial or adverse, and significant or not. This means considering each plan’s

contributions to the planning objectives and constraints, its NED benefits and costs, its

environmental impacts and whatever other effects have been deemed significant in

your study. 

The first step in the appraisal is to determine if the

assessed effect is adverse, beneficial, or neutral. Fewer flood

damages is good, fewer wetland acres is bad. You can usually

categorize an effect as good or bad. It may be more difficult to

say how good or how bad it is, the second step in the appraisal

task. The loss of wetlands will, for example, always be bad and it

will always be important. Noise during construction will always

be bad, but is it significant?

The answers to such questions will have to be

given on a case-by-case basis. Appraisals are by

nature subjective judgments. 

QUALIFYING PLANS

Hundreds of plans can be conceived of during the plan formulation process.

Not all of them deserve to be considered for long. Certainly, relatively few of them will

ultimately be compared against others to determine the best of all possible plans.

Perhaps the most important purpose of the evaluation step is to qualify plans for

further consideration.

Formal evaluation of alternative plans raises the screening process to new

levels of sophistication. Early in the formulation process a plan can be eliminated

because “it’s a goofy idea,” “it’ll never work,” and similar subjective evaluation

criteria. As the planning process matures, so must the evaluation techniques. At some

point, evaluation must come back to the planning objectives and constraints. 
165

The purpose of the evaluation step is to carefully examine each alternative and

determine if it is worthy of additional consideration. This is accomplished by holding

each plan to a frequently subjective and always study-specific set of minimum

standards. A potential plan has to meet some minimum standards in order to merit

further consideration. Criteria are needed to determine those minimum standards.

Each plan, taken individually and without comparison to any other plan, can be

evaluated against the qualifying criteria to determine whether or not it qualifies for

additional consideration. That is, is the plan good enough? This is the culmination of

the evaluation process.

Subjective judgments of a single plan tend to be pass/fail, go/no go,

enough/too much types of statements. These are as opposed to the types of subjective

judgments made in the comparison step when you can use more than/better than/less

than types of statements. The standards for determining enough, too little, go, and

so on are related to the significance of the plan’s effects on significant factors. At

the completion of the appraisal task, we’d like to have sufficient information to

determine whether a plan is good enough to qualify for the next round of analysis,

comparison of plans.

If a plan’s qualifications are not readily apparent based on any single screening

criterion we need to consider it’s overall qualifications. Once each effect has been

appraised, the next task in the evaluation process is to judge the plan in light of its

overall contributions to our evaluation criteria. The focal point for doing this should

be appraising the specific plan’s contributions to the planning objectives. We are

seeking some degree of “objective fulfillment.” Are the plan’s effects on planning

objectives good or bad? Does it qualify?

If the plan is good enough it will eventually be compared to other plans at a

comparable level of development in the planning process. If a plan does not qualify,

it is dropped from further consideration. What criteria do you evaluate a plan against

to determine if it qualifies for further consideration? They include all significant

resources, outputs and plan effects. Significant plan effects must include contributions

to planning objectives and constraints. They also include the Federal objective,

environmental compliance requirements, what is important to stakeholders, and the

P&G’s four evaluation criteria.

QUALIFYING CRITERIA

To determine whether a plan qualifies for further consideration, planners need

some criteria. Some of the things we know are going to be recognized as significant by

institutions, technical analysis or the public are predictable and are discussed in the

following subsections.
166

...establish some

minimum standards for

qualifying...

PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS IN EVALUATION

The tasks described above make frequent reference to qualifying criteria,

minimum standards each plan must separately meet, in order to be considered further.

These minimum standards may represent the required degree of objective fulfillment.

The degree of objective fulfillment may be empirical (e.g., reduce flood damages by at

least 25 percent or increase habitat by 50 habitat units) or it might be subjective

(enough/not enough). In either case, the culmination of the evaluation step is a decision

whether to continue to consider the plan just evaluated. 

The planning team will have to establish some minimum standards of objective

fulfillment for qualifying a plan for further consideration. These standards can be

based on contributions to the most important objectives contributed to, the number of

objectives, the size of the contribution, or any other standards that make sense at a

particular point in the study. It is, however, important to bear in mind that this is not

a comparison of plans. It is a simple qualifying round. It is akin to determining

whether your tomato is good enough to enter in the county fair. You can worry about

whether it’s the best tomato if and when you get it into the fair. 

FEDERAL OBJECTIVE

For most water resource planning,

estimates of NED costs and benefits are going to

be needed. A plan that does not have benefits in

excess of costs would normally not qualify for

further consideration. Although ecosystem

restoration projects are not justified based on an

NED benefit-cost analysis, it is still necessary to

identify their costs and, in the interest of full

disclosure, the economic benefits they would produce. NED benefits and costs are

clearly criteria that can result in a pass/fail evaluation of a plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Environmental compliance requires that each plan meet minimum standards

with respect to significant resources like endangered species, cultural resources, and so

on. IWR Report 96-PS-3, “Civil Works Environmental Desk Reference,” summarizes

the potentially applicable Federal requirements. These will be important qualifying

criteria once identified. A plan that does not meet these minimum standards will not

qualify for further consideration.
167

A complete alternative

is...well thought out.

OTHER IMPACTS

There may be other impacts not covered among the above criteria that are

important to people. If so, they should be included among the qualifying criteria.

These will typically be effects important to key stakeholders.

P&G SCREENING CRITERIA

The P&G (Paragraph 1.6.2(c)) suggest the use of four evaluation criteria --

completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability -- in the screening of

alternative plans. Plans that require substantial activity by others, that is not likely to

be forthcoming, in order to reach a “go” appraisal for critical objectives are not

complete. Plans that are not appraised as a “go” for planning objectives are not

effective. Plans that achieve contributions to objectives at higher costs, whether

objectively or subjectively measured, are not efficient. Plans with effects that result in

infeasibility are not acceptable. Minimum standards for these four criteria must be

established in order to determine whether a plan is worthy of additional consideration.

These standards will generally be subjective, where each plan is measured on

a continuum. Figure 7 illustrates the point conceptually. The thin line represents a

subjective minimum standard for each of these criteria. The hypothetical plan has

exceeded the standard for completeness and acceptability but it has failed to measure

up under the effectiveness and efficiency criteria. As long as a plan exceeds the

minimum standard for each criterion it qualifies for further consideration and

comparison with other plans. This plan would have to be modified to be more effective

and efficient or it will be dropped from further consideration. Each criterion is

discussed in turn below.

Completeness

“Completeness is the extent to which a given alternative plan

provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions

to ensure the realization of the planned effects. This may require

relating the plan to other types of public or private plans if the other

plans are crucial to realization of the contributions to the objective.”

(P&G Section VI.1.6.2(c)(1))

A complete alternative is one that is well thought out.

All the necessary implementation actions have been accounted

for in the planning process. During the planning
Figure 7: Screening and Evaluation Criteria

Least Most

Complete Complete

Least Most

Effective Effective

Least Most

Efficient Efficient

Least Most

Acceptable Acceptable

Plan A Minimum Standard

168

process, before plans are likely to be complete, this criterion will be of limited use for

screening.

Once plan effects have been identified, it is important to scrutinize the plan to

ensure that it includes all that is necessary to realize the plan effects. This means

considering those things beyond the planners’ control as well as those things beyond

the scope of the Corps’ program and the local partner’s commitment. For example, a

plan that relies on a strong economy or world petroleum markets to produce all of the

navigation benefits forecast is not as complete as a plan whose benefits do not depend

on factors beyond the control of the planners.

To establish the completeness of the plan, it is helpful to list those factors

beyond the control of the planners that are required to make the plan effects a reality.

If a plan’s effects, like project benefits, will not be realized unless there is a strong

international economy, dredging of private berths, and relatively peaceful conditions

in the oil-producing nations, these factors must be identified. The plan is not complete

unless these conditions are met.

Effectiveness

“Effectiveness is the extent to which an alternative plan alleviates the

specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities.” (P&G

Section VI.1.6.2(c)(2))
169

An effective plan is responsive to the wants and needs of people. An effective

plan makes a significant contribution to the solution of some problems and achieves

some opportunities. In other words, it contributes to the attainment of the planning

objectives.

The most effective alternatives make significant contributions to all the

planning objectives. “Effectiveness,” then, becomes an imprecise matter of degree.

How much does an alternative contribute to how many planning objectives? The

answer determines how effective an alternative it is.

In the screening process, it is often possible to identify alternatives that make

little or no contribution to the planning objectives. When this is the case, these

alternatives can be rejected because they are relatively ineffective. When the formal

evaluation process has been completed, the extent of a plan’s effectiveness may well

be quantified, facilitating a more objective application of this criterion.

Efficiency

“Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan is the most costeffective means of alleviating the specified problems and realizing the

specified opportunities, consistent with protecting the Nation’s

environment.” (P&G Section VI.1.6.2(c)(3))

When you think about cost-effectiveness, don’t think only about dollar costs.

Costs refer not just to the number of dollars that will have to be paid to implement a

plan, but to opportunities that will be sacrificed if the plan is implemented.

Efficiency refers to the allocation of resources. Are resources used

efficiently in the construction of a project or the implementation of a plan? Are the

outputs produced by the plan produced in an efficient manner? Are the resources that

are going to be significantly affected by the plan still going to be available for efficient

use by society?

The more familiar articulation of the criterion of efficiency is costeffectiveness. Of all the ways of developing and implementing a plan, have we

identified the lowest cost means of implementation? An obvious question is, is there

a cheaper way to accomplish the same planning objectives? If there is, we do not have

a cost-effective plan. 

The efficiency criterion transcends the NED criterion. When all

tangible/monetary and intangible/non-monetary costs are considered, do we have the

plan that meets objectives in the least costly fashion? If a plan costs society the loss

of some wetlands and there is another way to achieve the same objectives with no or

less wetland loss, the plan is not efficient.

Efficiency must be considered in light of all opportunity costs, not just

monetary costs. This makes the efficiency criterion considerably more difficult for
170

If a plan has

opposition...that

doesn’t make it

unacceptable.

planning for the Corps’ environmental mission, because planners may have to trade-off

increased implementation costs against less environmental losses.

Acceptability

“Acceptability is the workability and viability of the alternative plan

with respect to acceptance by State and local entities and the public

and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public

policies.” (P&G Section VI.1.6.2(c)(4)

There are two primary dimensions to acceptability. One we

call implementability, meaning is it feasible in the technical,

environmental, economic, social, and similar senses? The other is the

satisfaction it brings. A common error that must be avoided with this

criterion is the tendency to equate acceptability with the non-Federal

partner’s willingness to sign a Project Cooperation Agreement for the

plan. It’s often thought if they would sign, the plan is acceptable; if they

wouldn’t, it is not. This is not what acceptability means. If it were,

there would be no need for a partnership or a planning process at all. The local partner

would need only say, “this is what we want,” and it would become the only acceptable

plan.

To be acceptable to state and local entities as well as the public, a plan has to

be doable. There are many factors that can render a plan infeasible. These factors can

generally be categorized as technical (engineering or natural world limitations),

economic, financial, environmental, social, political, legal, and institutional. Figure 8

illustrates this notion of feasibility. 

If a plan cannot be done for legitimate reasons, it is not feasible. If a plan has

opposition or is not the favored plan of the non-Federal partner that does not make it

infeasible or unacceptable. That simply makes it unpopular. If a plan requires changes

in laws or authorities, that alone doesn’t make it unacceptable. That only makes it

difficult.

Acceptability can also be defined as the extent to which a plan is welcome or

satisfactory. These are qualitative dimensions, not absolutes. If a plan is feasible in

a pragmatic sense, in that it could be done, there is no objective way to determine what

is welcome or unwelcome, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. This is not a pass/fail

criterion.

Acceptability may be the most useful criterion for eliminating potential

alternatives. In the formal evaluation stage there will be more fully developed and

documented rationales for the elimination of alternatives based on feasibility. Though

the satisfaction of a plan will remain subjective, sufficient measurement,
Figure 8: Screening Plans

Institutionally Feasible Plans

Politically Feasible Plans

Socially Feasible Plans

The Set of Feasible Alternatives

Technically Feasible Plans

Legally Feasible Plans

Financially Feasible Plans

Economically Feasible Plans

Environmentally Feasible Plans

171

Evaluation can

result in a great

deal of information.

appraisal, and comparison will have been completed to support judgments about which

plans and versions of plans are acceptable enough to carry forward for further

consideration.

Not coincidentally, when the team carefully evaluates a plan, they are

providing a firm basis for the comparison step. The resulting information about

effects will form the basis for the comparison step.

ORGANIZING EVALUATION RESULTS

Evaluation can result in a great deal of information.

That information is useless unless it improves decisionmaking. To be most useful to decision-makers, it must be

effectively organized for consideration by team members,

stakeholders, the public and partnership decision-makers for

use in the comparison step. 

The P&G established four accounts to facilitate evaluation and the display

of the effects of alternative plans. These accounts have been devised to encompass all

significant effects of a plan as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Section 122 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (PL

91-611, 84 Stat. 1823).
172

THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS

The system of accounts is one way to organize and keep track of the effects

of alternative plans. Think of it as a set (system) of effect categories (accounts). It’s

simply one way of dividing the universe of potential plan impacts into four fairly robust

categories. The accounts established by the P&G include national economic

development (NED), regional economic development (RED), environmental

quality (EQ), and other social effects (OSE). All of the evaluated plan effects are

assigned to and displayed in one of these four categories. Strictly speaking, only the

NED account is required, though it is common practice to use the four-account system.

A sample is shown in Table 34. Note the table title indicates a summary comparison.

The comparison is to be based upon the results of plan-by-plan evaluation.

Why bother with a display like this system of accounts? Establishing the

system of accounts is a bookkeeping exercise with several important aspects. First, all

effects important to decision-making can be shown somewhere in the accounts.

Second, NED effects must be explicitly shown because they are the basis for

establishing the economic feasibility of the plan. Third, it is a rational, organized

framework for presenting the results of your analysis. It also provides a handy means

for readers to compare plan effects.

You are not restricted to these four accounts. If it is convenient to present a

wetlands account or subaccount for a restoration study, or a water use account for a

drought study, or town impacts account for a Section 14 streambank erosion study, then

by all means do so. Though the four-account system is robust enough to accommodate

virtually any plan effect, the P&G permit the use of any system of accounts or

alternative display of plan effects as long as NED effects are displayed. 

Some planning efforts such as those for military installations, for regulatory

actions, and for O&M dredging, are not subject to the P&G. Nonetheless, the generic

idea of organizing plan impacts and displaying them in a set of categories in which the

categories are based on the specific needs of the study is not a bad idea.

National Economic Development

“Contributions to national economic development (NED) are

increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services,

expressed in monetary units. Contributions to NED are the direct

benefits that accrue in the planning area and the rest of the nation.

Contributions to NED include increases in the net value of those

goods and services that are marketed, and also of those that may not

be marketed.” (P&G Section II(b))

The NED account is the account that includes the estimates of project

benefits and costs used to calculate net economic benefits, upon which the economic

feasibility of traditional plans rests. The NED account is the successor to the

historical objective of economic development that has run throughout the history of 
Table 34: Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio 11

No Action NED Plan Locally Preferred Plan

1. PLAN DESCRIPTION No Action/Without Project Condition Reach DC-A 25-year protection; Sections DC-A, DC-B, DC-C Uniform 100-year level

Reach DC-B 600-year protection; & of protection

Reach DC-C 100-year protection

2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A. National Economic Development (NED)

(1) Project Cost $0 $13,895,000 $14,817,000

(2) Annual Cost $0 $ 1,357,000 $ 1,445,000

(3) Total Annual Benefits $0 $ 1,721,000 $ 1,783,000

(4) Annual Net Benefits $0 $ 364,000 $ 338,000

(5) Benefit to Cost Ratio N/A 1.27 1.20

Ranks 3rd Ranks 1st Ranks 2nd

B. Environmental Quality (EQ)

(1) Air/Noise Normal noise levels created by traffic, business, Temporary increased noise levels during 4-year Temporary increased noise levels during 4-year

and industrial activities. Ranks 1st. construction period. Ranks 2nd. construction period. Ranks 3rd.

(2) Water Quality Existing water quality is poor due to discharges Temporary increased turbidity levels during 4-year Temporary increased turbidity levels during 4-year

into the stream from combined sewer system construction period. Contamination from flood runoff construction period. Contamination from flood runoff

outfalls and flood runoff from industrial areas from adjacent industrial areas partially eliminated in from adjacent industrial areas eliminated for all

adjacent to the stream. Ranks 3rd. DC-A, and fully eliminated in DC-B and DC-C. Ranks reaches. Ranks 1st.

2nd.

(3) Vegetation Existing vegetation typical for streams in Permanent loss of 12 acres to project features; Permanent loss of 13 acres to project features;

Southwest Ohio. Excellent habitat for woodland temporary loss of 8 acres during 4-year construction temporary loss of 8 acres during 4-year construction

songbirds and urban wildlife. Ranks 1st. period. Ranks 2nd. period. Ranks 3rd.

(4) Threatened & Endangered No endangered species in work area. No impact. No impact

 Species

(5) Aquatic Birds Existing biological community sparse due to Temporary decreased biota populations during 4-year Temporary decreased biota populations during 4-year

pollutant discharges from combined sewer construction period. Possible increase in biota construction period. Possible increase in biota

systems outfalls. Ranks 3rd population with decrease in contaminant runoff from population with decrease in contaminant runoff from

protected industrial areas. Ranks 1st (Tie). protected industrial areas. Ranks 1st (Tie).

(6) Cultural Resources & No cultural resources or historic properties in No impact. No impact.

 Historic Properties work area.

C. Regional Economic

 Development (RED)

Same as National Economic Development Same as National Economic Development (NED) Same as National Economic Development (NED)

(NED) impacts. Ranks 3rd. impacts. Ranks 1st impacts. Ranks 2nd.

D. Other Social Effects (OSE)
Table 34: Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio 11

(1) Life, Health and Safety Little or no residential threat. Commercial and Provides only 25-year level of protection to area DC-A, Provides 100-year level of protection to all damage

industrial property with over 1,000 employees 500-year to DC-B, and 100-year to DC-C. Red Bank areas along Duck Creek. Red Bank Road flooding

during normal shifts have continued exposure to Road flooded by events greater than 25-year. Madison eliminated. Madison Road will require installation of

threat of loss of life, and disruption of health & Road will require installation of closures for 10-year closures for 10-year floods and higher. Other false

safety services. Red Bank and Madison Roads floods and higher, with 3 to 4 possible false alarm alarm closures may occur 3 to 4 times a year. Ranks

flood beginning at 25-year event. Ranks 3rd. closures each year. Ranks 2nd. 1st.

(2) Community Cohesion Future flooding and in particular, occurrence of Some displacement of businesses is possible in low- 100-year level of protection to all homes and

 (displacement of people & large flooding events, could displace selected level protection area DC-A. Displacement of portion of businesses in the study area. Displacement of portion

 businesses) businesses over time. Ranks 3rd. one small business by plan. Ranks 2nd. of one small business by plan. Ranks 1st.

(3) Recreation No existing recreation facilities in the study area Existing low intensity use recreation facility Existing low intensity use recreation facility

floodplain. Ranks 3rd. downstream of study area to be used for environmental downstream of study area to be used for environmental

mitigation site. Compatible with facility master plan. mitigation site. Compatible with facility master plan. 

No opportunity or interest by local partners to add other No opportunity or interest by local partners to add

recreation features to proposed plan. Ranks 1st (Tie). other recreation features to proposed plan. Ranks 1st

(Tie).

3. PLAN EVALUATION

A. Contribution to Planning Objectives

(1) Efficiently reduces flood Average Annual Flood Damages (AAD) are Residual AAD = $174,000 for a 91% reduction in Residual AAD = $113,000 for a 94% reduction in

 damages to maximum $1,844,000. No effective reduction from limited AAD. Meets objective. Ranks 2nd. AAD. Meets objective. Ranks 1st.

 practical extent private non-structural measures. Does not meet

objective. Ranks 3rd.

(2) Provide optimum level of Damage outputs starting at the 2-year flood level. Provides 25-year DC-A, 500-year DC-B, & 100-year Provides uniform 100-year flood protection for all

 flood protection Does not meet objective. Ranks 3rd. DC-C, NED plan. Meets objectives. Ranks 1st. reaches. Meets objectives. Ranks 2nd.

(3) Minimize environmental Existing vegetation typical for streams in Permanent loss of 12 acres to project features; Permanent loss of 13 acres to project features;

 impacts southwest Ohio. Excellent habitat for woodland temporary loss of 8 acres during 2-year construction temporary loss of 8 acres during 4-year construction

birds and urban wildlife. Meets objective. period. Temporary disturbed areas to be restored. period. Temporary disturbed areas to be restored. 

Ranks 1st Enhancement of offsite wildlife areas for mitigation. Enhancement of offsite wildlife areas for mitigation. 

Contamination from flood runoff from adjacent Contamination from flood runoff from adjacent

industrial areas partially eliminated in DC-A, fully industrial areas eliminated for all reaches. Meets

eliminated in DC-B and DC-C. Meets objective. objective.

Ranks 2nd. Ranks 3rd.
Table 34: Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio 11

B. Response to Planning Constraints

(1) Financial capability of local N/A Local cost share of $3,474,000 is within local Local cost share of $3,704,000 is within local

 partners to cost-share project capabilities. Meets constraint. capabilities. Meets constraint.

 construction

(2) Institutional acceptability Red Banks and Madison Roads flood beginning Red Bank Road flooded by events greater than 25-year. Red Bank Road flooding eliminated. Madison Road

at 25-year event flood waters. Ongoing high Madison Road will require installation of closures for will require installation of closures for 10-year floods

level of flood damages not acceptable to local 10-year floods and higher, with 3 to 4 possible false and higher. Other false alarm closures may occur 3 to

partners. Does not meet constraint. alarm closures each year. Non-uniform level of 4 times a year. Uniform 100-year level of protection

protection not acceptable to local partners, but acceptable to local partners and meets Federal criteria. 

acceptable under Federal criteria. Partially meets Meets constraint.

constraint.

(3) Public acceptability Not acceptable. Does not meet constraint. Not fully acceptable. Partially meets constraint. Fully acceptable. Meets constraint.

C. Response to Evaluation Criteria

(1) Completeness Does not meet objective. Partially meets objective. Meets objective.

(2) Effectiveness Does not meet objective. Meets objective. Meets objective.

(3) Efficiency Does not meet objective. Meets objective. Meets objective.

The table is a system of accounts display taken from a Corps report. It was prepared prior to the requirements for a risk-based analysis of flood protection levels. Hence, references to 25-year 11

protection and so on would no longer be used in such a display.
176

NED Decision Criteria

Once all benefits and costs have been expressed at comparable

price levels and at comparable points in time, usually average annual

equivalent dollars, it’s possible to calculate two different comparisons

of benefits and costs.

Net benefits is defined as average annual equivalent benefits

minus average annual equivalent costs. Economic feasibility requires

that net NED benefits be non-negative. The NED plan is the plan that

maximizes net benefits.

The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is defined as average annual

equivalent benefits divided by average annual equivalent costs. 

Economic feasibility requires that the BCR be equal to or greater than

one. The BCR is not used to identify the NED plan.

In some cases where benefit estimates are unavailable, cost

effectiveness and incremental cost analyses may be used. Cost

effectiveness means choosing the least costly means of producing like

amounts of output.

water resource development in the U.S. The NED account has been described at great

length in a series of IWR procedures manuals. Two of these deal with the NED

objective in an overview fashion and should be of particular interest to planners. One,

the “National Economic Development Procedures Manual - Overview Manual for

Conducting National Economic Development Analysis” deals with NED benefits. The

other, “National Economic Development Procedures Manual - National Economic

Development Costs”, deals with the adverse effects of plans on the NED account.

Regional Economic Development

“The RED account registers changes in the distribution of regional

economic activity that result from each alternative plan. Two

measures of the effects of the plan on regional economies are used in

the account: regional income and regional employment.” (P&G

Section VII.1.7.4(a)(1)).

This account is mentioned second simply because of its close relationship to

the NED account. Not all economic effects, beneficial or adverse, have national

implications. For example, a plan may prevent a manufacturer from leaving one area

to locate in another. From a national perspective, there is no difference. The

manufacturer would still be producing his wares in the U.S. From the regional
177

This regional

perspective...has become

increasingly important to

non-Federal partners...

perspective the manufacturer’s location will be of great importance because of the jobs,

income, and tax revenues he produces.

This regional perspective, particularly as it

relates to the effects of plans on jobs, income, and tax

bases, has become increasingly important to nonFederal partners as they have been required to help

finance studies and projects. Regional interests want

to know more precisely what they are getting for their

money. If an NED perspective is intended to protect

the national interest in projects, it only stands to reason

that as the non-Federal financial stake increases, an

RED perspective is required to address the regional and local interests in a project.

There is less Corps’ guidance on regional economic analysis but it is the

primary type of analysis addressed in the economic literature. There are no shortages

of methods, tools, or techniques for conducting RED analysis.

Environmental Quality

“Beneficial effects in the EQ account are favorable changes in the

ecological, aesthetic, and cultural attributes of natural and cultural

resources. Adverse effects in the EQ account are unfavorable changes

in the ecological, aesthetic, and cultural attributes of natural and

cultural resources.” (P&G Section VII.1.7.3(a)(2&3)

Environmental quality is the successor to the preservationist thrust that began

earlier in the history of water resource development in the U.S. Consideration of EQ

effects, as well as all effects on the quality of human environment, is required by NEPA

1969. Chapter III of the Guidelines is devoted exclusively to procedures for conducting

an EQ evaluation. This remains the best source of a detailed description of the EQ

assessment and appraisal processes for all planners. ER 1105-2-100, beginning in

Section V of Chapter 7, offers additional procedures for environmental evaluation.

Sections VI through IX describe ecological resources, historical preservation, aesthetic

resources, and water quality and related requirements.

Other Social Effects

“The OSE account is a means of displaying and integrating into water

resource planning information on alternative plan effects from

perspectives that are not reflected in the other three accounts. The

categories of effects in the OSE account include the following: Urban

and community impacts; life, health, and safety factors; displacement;

long-term productivity; and energy requirements and energy

conservation.” (P&G Section VII.1.7.5(a)(1))
178

Conciseness and clarity

are prized most of all.

The OSE account lends the system of four accounts the flexibility to address

any effects that are judged significant by any stakeholder, if the planning team so

desires. This is the account that reflects anything that affects the well being of people.

All the difficult issues of equity, income distribution, fairness, and the like are included

here.

Less has been written about OSE evaluation procedures than any other

account. Most of what has been written on this topic with regard to water resource

projects dates back to the late sixties and early seventies when inclusion of well-being

as a national objective was being debated. One of the best sources for Corps planners

is the “Proceedings of the Social Scientists Conference, Memphis 20-24 September

1976” produced by IWR in two volumes dated December 1977.

DISPLAYING EVALUATION RESULTS

The P&G, in Section VIII, provide some general guidance on the nature of

graphs, tables, drawings, photographs, summary statements, and other graphics used

to analyze and compare plans. Conciseness and

clarity are prized most of all. Displays of

evaluation results should make the plans’

contributions to solving problems and seizing

opportunities clear. The plans’ effects

presented in the system of accounts should

ideally relate to the plans’ contributions to

planning objectives. The effects of the plans should be so arranged that the differences

among the plans will be evident for the comparison of plans that is to follow the

evaluation step.

The P&G empower the agency to define report content and format. However,

they require (1) a clear description of existing and forecast conditions without the plan

in place; (2) alternative plans fully described in terms of their component measures,

NED effects and other significant effects; (3) the effects of the recommended plan on

natural and cultural resources displayed in detail; (4) a matrix showing other projects

or actions related to the recommended plan; and, (5) a description of the formulation

process. How to tell your story is discussed at length in the last chapter of this manual.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Evaluation comprises an objective assessment of plan effects and

a subjective appraisal of the assessed effects. 

Lesson Two. The first goal of evaluation is to qualify plans for further

consideration. The second goal is to facilitate the eventual comparison of plans. Plan

evaluation provides the basis for reducing the set of potential alternative plans to a set

of finalists.
179

Lesson Three. A most likely with-project condition is described for each

alternative plan. Effects are evaluated on the basis of a without- and with-project

condition comparison.

Lesson Four. Detailed evaluation procedures have been developed for many

NED, EQ, and physical effects of plans.

Lesson Five. The four accounts provide a detailed and flexible framework for

identifying and summarizing plan effects. 

Once plan effects have been evaluated and displayed effectively, they must be

compared so planners can identify and describe significant trade-offs to decisionmakers who will select the best plan.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

The various disciplines used in planning provide guidance on how to evaluate

specific types of plan impacts. For example, there are countless books and articles

discussing the estimation of regional economic development impacts. As it turns out,

the discipline based literature is often the best place to look for more help on evaluation

of impacts.

The water resources planning literature cited at the end of Chapter Two

provides some discussion of these concepts in a water resources context. There is

relatively little substantive content found there, however. Don’t overlook the

possibility of finding something good in a Corps report. If you get a chance to thumb

through some reports, look and see how they handled the evaluation of plans. Good

ideas are worth repeating.
180
181

CHAPTER TEN: STEP FIVE - COMPARING

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

“Nothing is good or bad but by comparison.” Thomas Fuller

(1608-1661), English cleric.

“Step Five: Comparison of alternative plans.” (P&G Section

III.1.3.2(a)(5))

INTRODUCTION

The best plan can not be selected from among a set of good plans unless we

have some way to compare them. It is only by comparison that a plan is no longer

good enough, or that a good plan becomes the best plan. The purpose of the

comparison step is to identify the most important criteria plans were evaluated against

and compare the various plans across those criteria. Ideally, the comparison of plans

concludes with a ranking of plans or some identification of the best course of action for

the decision-makers. The comparison method must be transparent. That is, it must be

easy to explain and easy for the public to follow and understand.

When all the important plan effects are measured in the same units, like

dollars, the comparison can be simple. Financial decisions are often based on choosing

the alternative with the largest net benefits or smallest total cost. More realistically,

plan effects will be measured in a combination of dollars, habitat units, housing

relocations, water quality changes, noise levels, navigation safety, changed erosion

rates, or a host of other units, tangible and intangible. When that happens, planners

have to advise decision-makers about trade-offs, i.e., value judgments. That’s the

hard part of comparing alternative plans.

Value judgments are made throughout the planning process. They are made

throughout all screening activities. But, they take on special significance in the last

three steps of the planning process as the study team, decision-makers, and other

stakeholders move toward selecting the best most likely alternative future for a society.

These value judgments are first made about the individual plan in evaluation. Is it good

enough to warrant further consideration? The next step is to make a value judgments

across all the plans. This is the comparison of alternative plans, the subject of this

chapter.
182

STEPS RUNNING TOGETHER

As a practical matter, it is very difficult to neatly separate evaluation from

comparison from selection, as the discrete chapters on each might imply. These three

steps overlap, run together, and are in practice, most often indistinguishable from one

another. They are discussed separately so the tasks can be clearly understood. The

execution of these steps is much messier. So, if you find it difficult to separate these

three steps in practice, relax; that’s a good sign.

When more than one plan is being evaluated, it’s impossible, in fact it’s

undesirable, to evaluate without comparing. Deciding whether a plan is good enough

to qualify is a lot easier when we have some basis for comparison. As plans are being

compared, some of them are being dropped from further consideration even though they

may have been judged good enough to make it this far. That is selection. The planning

team is selecting sets of plans to advance to the final rounds. 

At this point in a planning study the steps seem to be all running together, and

it is difficult to distinguish one activity from another. That’s okay. What is important

is that plans are evaluated, compared, and selected. What it looks like when you’re

doing it is unimportant. If the steps of the planning process seem to all be bleeding

together at this point, let it bleed.

COMPARISONS OF WHAT?

Evaluation identifies the most important effects of your plans. These effects

now need to be compared among plans. Comparison at any stage in the planning

process should be based on the evaluation criteria at that same stage of the planning

process. In other words, when you are looking for ways to compare plans, the place

to look is at the plan impacts that were identified in the evaluation step. Comparison

is based on the different contributions of the alternative plans to planning objectives

and constraints, NED benefits and costs, environmental compliance requirements

impacts, other plan impacts that are important to stakeholders, and the P&G screening

criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. These are the

things being compared. Water resources studies will involve different combinations

of these impacts from those that the Corps’ non-water resources studies will.

In an ordinary planning study it would not be unusual to have evaluated

dozens of different impacts. Not all of them are equally important. For example, the

Endangered Species Act requires the Corps to consider impacts on threatened and

endangered species. Therefore, this should be an evaluation impact. If there are no

threatened and endangered species impacts, then this is not important to the decisionmaking process, but it is important to say so.
183

“What should

be compared?”

Primary Methods of Comparison

Economic factors are a primary

means of comparison. Any traditional

water resources plan will require some sort

of NED analysis. In most studies, that will

mean a benefit-cost analysis in which net

benefits, not benefit-cost ratios, are

compared. For environmental and other

projects where NED benefits are not

estimated, the incremental cost of plans will

be compared. Financial costs of plans will

also be a component for virtually any

planning effort, including military and other

non-civil works planning.

The answer to the question, “What should be

compared?” is, compare the project impacts that will affect

decision-making. These are the important impacts. Not all

impacts evaluated will be equally important. It is the

planning team’s job to determine what subset of the evaluated

plan impacts are important to compare. Importance depends

on policy, partners, and the public.

Law and policy determine importance. For example, a civil works plan

comparison should certainly include net NED benefits or incremental NED costs. That

is a requirement. The Federal and non-Federal partners also get to say what

they think is important. 

The values and issues important to stakeholders and the public will also

determine which impacts are important to plan comparison. If the planning team

thinks the effects of ship wakes on erosion rates is a negligible factor, but it has been

the number one topic of concern at public meetings, then ship wake erosion rates are

important.

Comparisons are easier to make and easier to explain when fewer things are

being compared. The trick and the challenge is to identify and compare all the

important plan impacts, but only the important impacts. One starting point for

determining importance would be to include those impacts that everyone on the study

team agrees are important. Another could be to pretend you are the District Engineer

or the non-Federal partner; what do you want to know before you sign the report?

What is the public going to want to know about the plan before they support it? All

other plan effects should be debated heartily and included only when persuasive, though

not necessarily unanimous, arguments can be advanced.

COMPARING EFFECTS

Not to overlook the obvious, comparing

plans means looking at them and identifying

differences among plans. Plan A has lower net

benefits than B. Plan B creates more wetlands than A

or C. Of the five plans, Plan D has the highest costs.

These are the types of comparisons that should be

evident if the evaluation step of the planning process

has been successfully completed. 

When plans have different impacts, selecting

Plan A rather than Plan B means foregoing the future

Plan B would have offered. In other words, selecting

Plan A means a future with fewer wetlands. Thus,

pointing out the important differences among plans is

not a trivial step.
184

The NED Plan

Good planners do not formulate an NED plan. Good planners

formulate plans that meet objectives and pass the screening criteria. 

Then an NED plan is identified from this set of objective achieving,

complete, effective, efficient, and acceptable plans.

The NED plan is the NED plan only by comparison. A good

planning process assures the NED plan is derived from a set of plans

that make significant contributions to other planning objectives and

screening criteria. Designation of the NED plan is one of the more

significant outcomes of the comparison step for civil works projects.

It really is not so difficult to identify differences among plans once the

planner has identified the important impacts to consider. The difficult part comes in

weighing those differences, as when one plan contributes more to one objective and

less to another. Suppose, for example, two plans have identical NED contributions

and one creates more wetlands while the other protects bottomland hardwoods. Which

is better? How do you compare things that are not comparable?

COMMENSURABILITY

Ideally, we’d like an evaluation process that quantifies all plan impacts. When

all impacts are quantified in the same units, they are said to be commensurable.

Dollars, used to quantify benefits and costs, are the most widely used commensurable

units of measure.

If all the important impacts of a plan to be compared are commensurable,

the comparison of plans is simple and very transparent. You simply add or subtract

all the impacts and identify the maximum or minimum value, depending on the

situation, as the best of the plans. Such comparisons are easy to explain to the public

and they have no trouble understanding the identification of the largest or smallest

number.

For example, many private business decisions are based on profitability. It is

a rather simple matter to add all the revenues and subtract all the costs to arrive at a

most profitable option. The outcomes of some Corps studies may be determined purely

on a financial basis. Others may be determined on environmental or other bases.

These will be relatively rare instances.
185

...incommensurability...mak

es comparison difficult.

INCOMMENSURABILITY

The more frequent situation will involve plans whose important impacts reflect

a wide variety of concerns. There may be NED net benefits, construction noise

disruption of migratory waterfowl, potential future oil spills, ship wake impacts on

shoreline erosion rates, and so on. Although all the impacts can be quantified, there is

no one unit of measure that can be used to quantify all of these impacts. Hence, there

is no practical and transparent way to add or subtract these impacts and declare one

plan better than another.

Incommensurable plan impacts are more the

rule than the exception. It is incommensurability that

makes comparison difficult. Pointing out the

differences is easy. Weighing and trading-off those

differences is the hard part.

METHODS OF COMPARISON

Comparison, like all the planning steps, is an iterative process.

Comparison of plans during early iterations can be quite abbreviated. Plans are

often compared without a formal analysis. Ranking plans as better or worse,

identifying plans that result in more or less effects of interest can be sufficient in early

iterations. As the planning process moves toward a final array of plans, the comparison

must be more formal and analytical to ensure that plans are responsive to the needs of

the public.

There are many comparison methods that can be used early in the planning

process. Simple description is perhaps the place to begin. Identifying differences that

are important and pointing them out is the simplest form of comparison. For example,

the NED section of Table 35 compares net benefits by a simple ranking from first to

second.

Early in the planning process when the varying plan impacts are being

explicitly compared, it can be convenient to rank impacts. The rankings can be from

1 to n, where n is the number of alternatives being compared. This is simple

description and it can be used no matter what the unit of measure is for the impact

being compared. Once the various differences have been described it may be possible

to identify the plans from best to worst. For example, if one plan dominates all others

by being first in every important impact category, it’s the best plan. A plan that is last

in all categories is the worst plan. If a simple comparison clarifies the choices, don’t

use anything more complex. This is another transparent comparison process.
186

Table 35: Simple Ranking Index

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plan Cost Cost Cost Wetland Wetland Wetland Ranking

Rank Points Weight Rank Points Weight Index

A 1 2 75 2 1 25 175

B 2 1 75 1 2 25 125

Simple weighting is a more sophisticated approach to the comparison of

plans. It’s used when there are no dominant plans, and it’s the simplest way to make

trade-offs. Trade-offs are necessary when, once the important impacts of a plan are

identified for comparison, one plan scores well on some impacts and not so well on

others. For example, Plan 1 may be less costly but it destroys more wetlands, while

Plan 2 is more costly and actually creates some wetlands. If costs and wetlands are

both important, how can you compare plans like this?

One way to make trade-offs is to create a commensurable metric, we’ll call a

ranking index. First you describe the differences in plans and rank each plans’

contribution to that impact. For example, if there are five (n) plans, the highest ranking

plan on any impact gets 5 (n) points, the second best gets 4 (n-1) points, and so on

through the last plan which gets 1 point. If all criteria are equally important, it’s

sufficient to sum the points to rank the plans.

In order to make the trade-offs someone must say what the relative importance

of the impacts is. This can be done in a variety of ways. The easiest is to allocate 100

points (i.e., 100 percent) to the array of plan impacts being compared. Thus if we have

only cost and wetlands we might say that cost gets a subjective weighting of 75 points

and wetlands gets 25 points.

The simple weighting for this plan is shown in Table 35.

The ranking index is given by:

Ranking Index = EiEjpijwi

where p is the number of points awarded plan i for impact j and w is the weight for

impact j. In other words multiply the points by the weight for each impact and add

them up for a plan. In the example, the index is columns 3 x 4 plus columns 6 x 7.

This is a simple process and it is transparent insofar as it’s easy to show how

the index was derived. It is fundamentally a subjective process, however. It would be

misleading and a mistake to lead anyone to believe there was any science behind the

ranking index. It is, however, a simple way to reflect value judgments. 
Figure 9: Effects Matrix

Objective/Effect

Reduce Flood Damages

Reduce Potential Loss of Life

Maintain Fish & Wildlife Habitat

Enhance Open Space Land Use Opportunities

Minimize Relocation of Homes & Businesses

Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4

+ 7

8

+ 2

10

-3

7

-1

2

0

5

+ 7

8 8 8

10 10 10

7 7 7

2 2 2

5 5 3

+ 6 + 8

+ 2 0 + 3

0

-4 0 -6

+ 1 + 3 -2

+ 1 + 2

187

Different interests may

have differing

opinions...

This simple weighting may be well suited to military studies and other efforts

with a relatively circumscribed number of “publics” to satisfy and little controversy.

The method can work in civil works studies, but its subjectivity can become an issue.

For example, if we flip-flop the relative importance of wetlands and cost in the example

above, the ranking indices flip-flop as well. When results are very sensitive to the

weights assigned, this method might be less than transparent.

Figure 9 shows an effects matrix, an adaptation of the simple weighting

method. The columns of the matrix are alternative plans. The rows show important

impacts to be compared, i.e, planning objectives and the like. Each cell is divided by

a diagonal line. Above the line is the measure of the impacts. A 1-to-10 scale has been

used in the example to indicate the relative magnitude of the effect (or attainment of

the objective). The 1 to 10 scale is an alternative to ranking projects as was done

above. It allows finer degrees of differences in plan contributions. Plans 1 and 2 are

equal in terms of their first two impacts, so questions of how to handle ties are easily

resolved. 

In addition, the range of differences is more flexible. Under a ranking rule, the

range in points awarded would be from 1 to 4. With a scale like this, the difference can

be less as for the reduction of flood damages (3 points) or more as for relocations (6

points). The numbers may be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the

impact. 

Below the line another number from +1

to +10 is entered to indicate the relative

importance, or weighting, of the plan effect to

be compared. In both cases, 10 indicates the

extreme value. Different interests may
 See Edmunds, E. and J. Letey, Environmental Administration, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973 for a 12

discussion.

188

have differing opinions about the relative importance of plan effects. This matrix may

be used as a summary or it can be used to calculate ranking indices as was done above.

In that case, the ranking indices for Plans 1 through 4 would be 53, 58, 61, and 86

points, respectively. It is important at this point to bear in mind that these numbers are

just information. They are not decisions. They reflect the judgments of the planners,

who must deal with the potentially disparate points of view on plan effects, and they

reflect what looks best based on that set of judgments.

There is nothing magical or scientific about these comparison methods. Other

qualitative values may be used. High, medium, and low judgments could appear above

the line. Very important, moderately important, and unimportant are examples of

value judgments that could appear below the line. It becomes more difficult to tradeoff such values, but the option does exist. If it works and it is transparent, use it.

There are more formal comparison methods. One commensurable set of

methods includes monetary evaluation methods. These methods have focused on

refinements of benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness and make comparison a

simple and straightforward matter. The range of methods is presented as a continuum

in Figure 10. To be useful in multi-impact plan comparisons, it must be possible to

reduce important plan impacts to monetary terms. This is clearly not possible at the

present time, and many would argue it is not even desirable. Nonetheless, monetary

evaluation methods, such as traditional NED benefit-cost and net benefit analyses,

incremental cost analysis, life-cycle costing, and payback period analyses still play a

critical role in the comparison of alternative plans.

Multi-criteria evaluation methods (MCEM) comprise another class of

methods that can be used when it is either not possible or not desirable to express all

plan effects in a single metric, such as dollars. Thus, more than one evaluation metric

can be considered with these methods. The strength of these methods is that they

enable planners to take into account a whole gamut of differing but relevant criteria

when comparing plans. On the basis of this idea of multi-dimensional compromise, a

series of MCEMs have been developed in recent years. Many of them are quite

complex and we can do little more here than provide the briefest of overviews and a

reference for further details. Their major difficulty is that they are not all transparent

methods. Some are neither easy to explain nor easy to understand.

Trade-off analysis is an MCEM method commonly used by the Corps. It 12

can be as simple as the methods described above or as complex as you want to make

it. In the least structured applications, this method frequently relies on professional

judgment. Planners trade-off plans’ various contributions to
Figure 10: Monetary Evaluation Methods

Increasing Analytical Requirements

Maintain or

Repair at

Any Cost

Tracking

Cost Info.

Minimize

Total Costs

Consider

Average

Costs

Marginal

Cost Analysis

Quantify

Project

Outputs

Contingent

Valuation

Average

Benefits

Unit

Values

B/C Analysis

Costs Only Costs Plus Benefits

Increasing

Effectiveness

of Methods

 See Hill, M. and Y. Tzamir, “Multi-dimensional Evaluation of Regional Plans Serving Multiple 13

Objectives,” Papers of the Regional Science Association, vol. 29, pp. 139-165, 1972.

 See Hill, M. “A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans,” Journal of the American 14

Institute of Planners, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 19-29, 1968. Also see the Regional Science Institute’s Planning for Multiple

Objectives.

 See Spliid, I. “Use of Correspondence Analysis in a Planning Procedure for Local Governments,” Paper 15

Third Advanced Karlsruhe Summer Institute in Regional Science, Karlsruhe, 1974.

 In such a matrix, the plans form the columns (or rows) and the measured impacts form the rows (or 16

columns). Each cell is a specific measured impact for a plan. Qualitative variables must be converted to nominal

numerical values.

189

objectives based on their accumulated technical expertise, general experience, and

specific knowledge of the study area, including stakeholder views and values. In

essence, planners sit down and decide a plan with “a little more of this” is better than

a plan “with a little more of that.” The trade-offs tend to be subjective.

There are a great many other trade-off methods. Multi-dimensional

scalogram analysis is a generalization and extension of the ranking index, also

13

known as the goals-achievement method, presented above. Correspondence

14

analysis is a method of pattern recognition between alternatives with different

15

characteristics. Using a principle component analysis of the row and column values

in a plan-effect matrix, similar to that above, the relationships between certain

16
 Nijkamp, P. “Stochastic Quantitative and Qualitative Multi-Criteria Analysis for Environmental Design,” 17

Papers of the Regional Science Association, 1977.

 See Saaty, Thomas L., Luis G. Vargas, and Kevin P. Kearns, The Analytical Hierarchy Process 4 Volume 18

Set.

190

decision criteria and alternative plans can be examined on the basis of clustering

procedures. Conclusions can then be inferred about the desirability of plans.

A discrepancy analysis sheds some light on the relative merits of a certain

alternative, like the NED plan. This approach measures the difference between the

NED plan and every other plan. Ranking the discrepancies among the other plans, a

Spearman rank correlation coefficient can be used to establish an ordering of plans.17

Concordance analysis consists of pairwise comparison of alternatives. In

the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) the objectives are assigned subjective

18

weights and the extent to which plans contribute to these objectives is resolved on the

basis of a pairwise comparison of all plans. Indices reflecting these weights are

generated and can form the basis for ranking alternatives. 

These concordance analysis processes have become very accessible in recent

years with the development of user friendly software like Expert Choice and Logical

Decisions. They are recommended as reasonable methods for dealing with multiobjective decision-making. They offer tremendous advantages for sensitivity analysis

and are powerful tools. However, they are not going to be transparent methods of

comparison as far as the public is concerned. 

Additional methods include the dominance criterion, maximin criterion,

maximax criterion, conjunctive method, disjunctive method, lexicographic

method, elimination by aspect, simple additive weighting, weighted product,

TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and the median ranking method. A description of these

methods and a good list of references can be found in Yoon and Hwang’s 1995

monograph Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, An Introduction.

Despite the abundance of multi-criteria evaluation methods, trade-off

analysis based on professional judgment remains the most common method. If

comparisons based on seat-of-the-pants methods like this yield the best plan, there

is no need for anything more complex.

WHAT ARE COMPARISON RESULTS?

First, when dealing with NED-oriented planning efforts, a true NED plan

must be identified. Second, the comparisons should be made explicit. Simple

comparisons can be straightforward statements like “Plan A is best because it

maximizes net NED benefits.” Simple comparisons will be more appropriate for early
191

...tell people

which plans are

best and why.

planning phases and more abbreviated planning processes. More complex

comparisons will offer either objective or subjective rankings of the final array of

alternatives. These comparisons, whether simple statements or complete rankings,

effectively represent the study team’s advice to decision-makers based on stakeholders’

views and the team’s experience throughout the planning process.

Third, the comparisons must be objective. Despite our attempts to present

the planning process as a scientific journey of discovery, the reality of the situation is

that some studies begin with a favored alternative. In others, a favored alternative

can emerge at any point in the study. There is nothing inherently wrong with the

appearance of a favored alternative on the planning scene. 

A problem arises if the planning process is manipulated to justify the selection

of a favored plan. If the planning process is conducted in a professional, conscientious,

and thorough manner, and the favored plan prevails, then it was clearly favored for

good reason. However, the planning process must be objective. Favored plans can

persist only when they are the best alternative from among a strong set of alternatives.

To assure the integrity of the planning process, a rigorous comparison of plans is

essential.

COMMUNICATING RESULTS

If the comparison involves professional judgment and trade-offs

among values they won’t necessarily be obvious to everyone. The planning

report must be able to tell people which plans are best and why. The

comparison should be transparent. The planner is once again a story teller.

How did you compare the plans to one another? What things did you look at?

Which were most important? Why? How did you rank the plans? What were

your criteria? What trade-offs are worth making? Why do you feel that way?

Rather than rely on stiff report-style writing, try to tell a story with a

beginning, a middle, and an end. Tell the reader how it happened. Write so readers can

understand. Save the details for appendices. See Chapter Fourteen for a discussion of

how to tell your story.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Plan evaluation determines whether a plan is good enough to

consider for implementation. Plan comparison rates all the plans considered for

implementation against one another based on the most important impacts identified in

the evaluation process. 
192

Lesson Two. Comparisons can be qualitative or quantitative, simple or

complex. There are many ranking techniques available. A trade-off analysis based on

professional judgment is most often used. Use a transparent method. 

Lesson Three. The NED plan arises from the comparison of plans. 

Lesson Four. Finally, the comparison results should rate or rank the plans,

identifying the best plan and the reason(s) it is best. 

Though planners may do an exemplary job throughout the planning process,

up to and including ranking the plans, decision-makers still select the plan for

implementation. Selection of the recommended plan is the subject of the next chapter.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

As is so often the case, relatively little has been written explicitly about this

step of the planning process. There is some material found in the water resources

planning references following Chapter Two. A great deal more has been written about

the so-called multi-criteria evaluation/decision models. Suggestions for further reading

about these models have been included at appropriate points in the footnotes of this

chapter. Although these articles are good, many are dated and some are quite difficult

to read if you are not familiar with the literature. Perhaps a better place to start is with

Yoon and Hwang’s monograph. It is informative and has a wealth of further

references.
193
194

If something is

going...we assume

it will be the

NED plan.

CHAPTER ELEVEN: STEP SIX - SELECTING

RECOMMENDED PLAN

“Given a set of viable action alternatives,” the analyst assures

us, “I’ll assist you in selecting the best choice or I’ll

recommend the best solution.” From Milan Zeleny’s Multiple

Criteria Decision- Making, p. 100.

Step 6: Selection of a recommended plan based upon the

comparison of alternative plans. (P&G Section III.1.3.2(a)(6))

INTRODUCTION

Planners do the analyses and may make a recommendation, but the

decision is not theirs to make. The selection process begins with the assumption

that doing nothing is best. The no-action alternative is the default decision for

every planning effort. The only reason to do anything is if it is better for society

than doing nothing. If something is going to be done for water resource plans

governed by the P&G, we assume it will be the NED plan. If anything but the

NED is recommended or selected, there have to be good reasons for doing so.

Planning that does not require NED analysis will default to other actions. That is

the selection process. Some details follow.

THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION

Selecting a recommended plan is the decision-making stage of the planning

process. The planners are not necessarily the decision-makers, and their

recommendations may or may not be followed.

The purpose of the selection step is to try to purposefully choose the best

alternative future path for society. In practical terms, the P&G have established a

rather straightforward method for doing that. The first choice is do nothing. The

second choice is to implement the NED plan. The third choice is to do something

else. There must be good reasons for the final selection. 

NO-ACTION

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) require that no action always be

considered a viable alternative in any final array of plans. The no-action plan is the

default choice. The planning process is, in a sense, built on the default assumption that

the Federal agency should do nothing. The Federal agency should become involved in
195

The NED plan...must

be presented.

There is More than NED

With the current emphasis on the

NED plan some planners think their only

goal is to find the plan that maximizes net

NED benefits. Nothing could be further

from the truth.

It bears repeating that plans are not

formulated to maximize NED benefits. 

Plans are formulated to meet planning

objectives. An array of plans is developed

and the one of these that maximizes NED

benefits is designated the NED plan. Corps

planning is objective oriented, not NED

oriented.

a project of some type only if doing something is better for society than doing nothing.

Hence, the planning process must convincingly establish that Federal involvement in

some project is preferred over no action. Do not overlook the importance of the first

decision to be made at this step, should something be done?

THE NED PLAN

After the “no-action” alternative is rejected, the selection

criteria are policy matters that vary by program and that change over

time. For water resource planning, the P&G provide that the NED

plan is the default “action” plan.

One of the plans formulated must be designated the NED

plan. An NED plan is not formulated. Instead, plans that meet the planning objectives

are formulated. From among these, one is designated the NED plan based on the

comparison of the plans. The NED plan is the plan that maximizes the excess of NED

benefits over NED costs, i.e., it maximizes net NED benefits. From a Federal

perspective, the NED plan is the preferred plan because it makes the greatest

contribution to the one Federal objective. This means that if you decide to do

something, it’s assumed you will implement the NED plan.

The NED plan is the only plan that must be presented in detail. Although

only one plan must be described, that does not mean only one plan is considered. It

would never be appropriate to consider only one plan.

THE LOCALLY PREFERRED

PLAN

Frequently, the non-Federal partner will find

it in their interest to pursue a plan that sacrifices some

NED net benefits for additional contributions to other

planning objectives. Clearly, if a plan is complete,

effective, efficient, acceptable, and it meets local needs

better than the NED plan, it deserves serious

consideration for selection and implementation. An

NED plan may contribute less to or to fewer planning

objectives than another plan. The non-Federal partner

may have a strong preference for another plan or may

weigh the trade-offs among plans differently. When the

non-Federal partner prefers a plan that is not the NED

plan, that plan is designated the locally preferred plan.
196

“Buydowns”...are...normally

granted deviations.

Current Corps Civil Works policy allows deviation

from the NED plan when there are overriding and compelling

reasons for doing so. The locally preferred plan may be more or

less costly than the NED plan. “Buy-downs,” i.e., the preference

for a plan less costly than the NED plan, are, according to Corps

guidance, normally granted deviations. “Buy-ups” or larger,

more costly plans are exempted from the NED preference if the

non-Federal partner bears all the costs in excess of the NED plan costs. A larger, more

costly plan must have outputs similar in kind and equal to or greater in magnitude than

the NED plan to be selected. In such a case, the NED plan is important because it

determines the basis for plan cost-sharing.

DEFAULT ACTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN NED PLAN 

Not every kind of planning the Corps does results in an NED plan.

Ecosystem restoration does not result in an NED plan. The selection criteria favor a

plan that is cost effective and that subjectively maximizes net benefits through an

incremental cost analysis. Such a plan is essentially NED in spirit, but it is not a

traditional NED plan.

Military planning is not NED-oriented. Corps planners are not always

involved in the military planning process from the beginning. In these cases, the

default action plan is usually the plan of action preferred by the installation commander

requesting the study. This may be a plan initially conceived in a master plan, or a plan

that has evolved from a planning process by installation personnel or their contractor.

Frequently, planners get involved primarily to assist this default plan through the

NEPA evaluation process. This default plan may be preferred to any other action plan

until the superiority of an alternative can be established.

In many other types of planning the default action plan, absent some form

of benefit-cost analysis, is the most cost-effective plan that reasonably meets the

planning objectives and constraints. This is not the same as saying the cheapest plan

is the default action. All viable plans must obtain a minimum level of achievement

when measured against the planning objectives and constraints. Of those plans that

warrant consideration for selection, the least costly is the default choice. Again, this

does not mean it is chosen. It simply means that it sets the standard for choice. If a

more costly plan is chosen, incurring the extra cost will presumably be justified on the

basis of other value trade-offs.
197

...decision-makers may or

may not agree with the

study team’s findings.

WHO SELECTS THE PLAN? 

The principles of the partnership are the decision-makers who will make the

selection of a recommended plan. Their actual identity will vary from study to study.

The Corps’ decision-making process is hierarchical, as one would expect in a military

organization. The decision process can, however, be bottom up or top down. 

In a bottom up process, the study team makes the first judgment about which

plan is best in consideration of all the analytical results and with substantial support of

the stakeholders. The team then embarks on a journey of presentation and persuasion

in which they advise their supervisors, the non-Federal partner, and the District and

Division Engineers of the study findings and recommendations. The process proceeds

through Corps Headquarters to the Secretary of the Army and the Office of

Management and Budget where formal, final approval is provided or denied by the

Federal partner. Alternatively, the decision may be top down, made by the senior

managers of the Federal and non-Federal partnership agencies. The locally preferred

plan, for example, may be selected by the non-Federal sponsor over the team’s

recommendation of the NED plan.

The decision-makers who select a plan from among the final set of

alternatives are not the planning team. The planning team does the planning, makes

its recommendation and sets its results before the decision-makers. The comparison

of plans in step five represents the team’s de facto recommendation. The decisionmakers review the team’s work and make a selection from among the final set of plans,

either confirming the team’s judgment or providing their own, which may lead to a

different recommendation.

If the planning team has had access to the key

decision-makers and has communicated with them

throughout the planning process, the evaluation and

comparison of plans will reflect the decision-makers’

views. In other cases, the decision-makers priorities

may not be explicitly known. Their positions tend to be

much more susceptible to political winds that can

change serendipitously. When this is the case, decisionmakers may or may not agree with the study team’s findings. The decision-makers may

select any plan from among the final array for implementation or they may offer their

own alternative.

If decision-makers concur with the judgments of the study team’s evaluation

and comparison, the reasons for the selection will be evident. If they disagree and

recommend another plan, they should provide their rationale for doing so. A rational

planning process should lead to rational results. From the vantage point of the

decision-makers, the study team may have been unaware of
198

...don’t take it personally if

your favorite plan is not

selected.

certain external considerations, for example, changing political climates and changing

priorities. Decision-makers may differ in the significance they attach to the various

planning objectives. These rational reasons for deviating from the study team’s

findings should be documented in the description of the plan selection.

Planners, don’t take it

personally if your favorite plan is not

selected. Your job is to give good

advice. Decision-makers select the

plans.

THE CHOICE SET

In the final iteration of the planning process, decision-makers are presented

with a final array of plans that have been compared. These are the plans that have

survived all previous iterations of the planning process. They have all been assessed

and appraised and found to be complete, effective, efficient, and acceptable. Any of

them is a viable candidate for implementation. 

The final array may consist of different alternatives or it may now be down to

several versions of a single alternative. There is nothing wrong with a final array that

consists of more or less of a single alternative as long as this array emerged from

thorough and rigorous formulation, evaluation, and comparison processes that weeded

through a wide range of alternative measures.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The P&G’s selection criteria is very clear. If you’re going to do something,

choose the NED plan unless you’ve got a really good reason not to! To choose a plan

other than the NED plan, the decision-makers must offer a convincing rationale that the

NED gains sacrificed or the additional NED costs incurred by deviating from the NED

plan are more than offset by the other plan’s contributions to other planning objectives.

It is widely recognized that not all important project outputs are

commensurable in dollar terms. Beneficial effects of ecosystem restoration projects

need not, in fact cannot in most cases, be expressed as NED benefits. In the absence

of NED benefit estimates, cost-effectiveness, i.e., attaining the given outputs at the

lowest possible cost, remains an important NED-related criterion. In the case of some

environmental projects, cost-effectiveness extends all the way to an incremental cost

analysis. Although an analysis of NED costs and any important NED benefits is still

required, the NED plan is not identified in an
199

ecosystem restoration study. The selection criteria for these planning activities are

based on contributions to planning objectives other than NED.

There is no way to escape the reality of the central importance of the NED

objective. It is mandated for the Corps’ water resources program. However, NED

effects are not the only effects and planners and decision-makers both must bear in

mind the leeway they do have to deviate from selecting the NED plan.

In other studies NED is not often a relevant concern. Absent an NED-driven

planning study, the changes in the selection process are minor. Presumably, it will

always make sense to maintain a no-action alternative, regardless of the planning effort.

Likewise, if action is to be taken, then cost effectiveness will always be an important

criterion. Ultimately, however, the selection criteria will be determined on a case-bycase basis.

DOCUMENTING THE SELECTION

A repeating theme in the last few chapters is the importance of documenting

the decision process. Problems, opportunities, existing conditions and forecasts can

be described with facts and data. They are easier to document than a rather circuitous

decision process. Nonetheless, it is absolutely essential that the decision process be

carefully and adequately described. Explain what was done and why. Tell your story

as simply as possible and no more simply than that.

WHY PLANS FAIL

Many plans have been produced and never implemented. Plans sometimes fail

simply because the obstacles to implementation could not be overcome. There are four

main reasons why plans fail. These reasons generally are associated with poor

planning.

The first reason is not complicated: the plan is flawed and should not be

implemented. Not all plans are good plans. The planning objectives may have been

incorrect. Planners may have misunderstood the problems or needs of the community.

The plan may have been incomplete, not having anticipated that some things necessary

for implementation were not possible. It may have overlooked laws and be illegal to

implement.

There could be errors in the cost or benefit estimation. The plan could just be

a bad idea. Flawed plans emerge from a flawed planning process. This is an avoidable

error. The Corps’ six-step planning process provides a formal framework that, if

followed carefully, should avoid flawed plans. 
200

Public

attitudes can

change.

The second reason plans fail is that during the time between plan selection

and implementation, circumstances change. Financial and economic circumstances

may be different. National priorities change, as can be seen in the history of water

resource development. Problems and opportunities change and so might the objectives

of locals. 

Key supporters leave. Stakeholders change position, or special interests gain

power. Public attitudes can change. Events like a dam failure may give opponents a

rallying point. Alternative uses for resources may arise. Any of these

can be enough to turn support into opposition. The Corps’ iterative

process can be very responsive to changing circumstances and its

reevaluation reports are specifically to consider such changes in

conditions.

A third reason plans fail is that they are never funded. We

live in a world of increasingly scarce resources of all types and at all

levels of government. A perfectly good plan with strong support may not be

implemented because one of the partners is unable to provide their share of the

financing. This may be due not so much to changed priorities as to higher priorities.

There may be better plans to be funded, though this one is good. There may be other

human wants and needs that require attention and funding first. There is rarely enough

money to do everything. The project cost-sharing agreement and accompanying

financial analysis limit the potential of this kind of failure. 

The fourth reason plans can fail is that the implementation is blocked. If

implementation requires the approval of the partners and that approval is not

forthcoming, the plan will fail. Plans that do not receive the support of the Secretary

of the Army or the Office of Management and Budget will not be implemented. Plans

that do not receive approval by local authorities will not be implemented. 

A plan may be incompatible with the other commitments of one of the

partners. Water supply contracts may render plans infeasible. There may be a good

acid mine drainage plan that emerged from a study but the local district may fail to find

support for such an initiative within the agency or the Administration. There may be

lack of support due to other commitments. A change in the Corps’ priority outputs

may render a good plan dormant. 

There may be a lack of support due to lack of interest. A local government

may have no interest in supporting a nonstructural flood damage reduction plan. There

may be disagreements among institutions as to their proper roles, i.e., who runs what.

There could be agreement but it might lack the power needed to mobilize the resources

needed for implementation. These approval points can be foreseen but they cannot be

controlled. They remain unavoidable risks. An open and informed planning process

can go further to avoid this kind of failure than any other step.
201

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Planners and decision-makers are not the same people.

They may agree or disagree on which plan is best. Planners are advisors and

not necessarily decision-makers.

Lesson Two. Any plan in the final array of plans should be good

enough to implement. If it’s not, it should have been eliminated by the

screening process.

Lesson Three. Taking no action is the first default decision. If action

is desirable, then decision-makers are to select the NED plan unless they have

a good reason for doing otherwise. Local preferences may be a good reason

for doing otherwise.

Lesson Four. Different selection criteria will lead to different

decisions.

Now that we’ve reviewed the theory, history, and current status of the

planning process, we need a little reality check. The next chapter considers

some of the practical considerations that can arise and keep planners from

realizing the idealized planning process described so far.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

There is a dearth of material on this step of the planning process. The

best references include those writings that deal with water resource planning.

These were cited at the end of Chapter Two. Don’t get your hopes up,

however; there is not much there.

An alternative to the water resource planning literature is the decision

literature. There is an abundance of literature on the subject of decisions, but

little of it is likely to be applicable to water resources planning in a practical

sense. That is, if you want to understand how and why decision-makers do

what they do, go to the management and decision theory literature. If you

really want to know how decisions are made, keep your eyes and ears open.
202
203

...planning...can

be...a formless

process.

CHAPTER TWELVE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

“Some horribly inconceivable thing happens!” Adaptation of

a popular bumper sticker.

INTRODUCTION

The planning process described in this manual may be

quite foreign to experienced planners. “It doesn’t happen like

that,” they might say. And they would be right. This chapter

looks at some of the practical considerations that can cause real

planning to deviate from the ideals of this manual.

PLANNING CAN BE A MESSY PROCESS

The planning process described herein has been an ideal, an

intellectual presentation of a goal for planners to try to achieve, a model to

follow. What happens in practice is quite different because planning is

complex. It can be, despite the structure offered in this manual, a formless

process. Planning has been described as a series of iterations of the six-step

planning process. It’s not that simple.

Planning begins where it begins. Planners may start at ground zero with

little more than the name of a community with a problem. In other cases,

they may begin with the benefit of a previously completed reconnaissance or

a feasibility report. Still other studies begin when a non-Federal partner

presents a plan they would like help implementing, or when a military

installation requests help with the NEPA process.

The work proceeds quite a bit more randomly than this manual might

suggest. Problems described by people lacking knowledge of natural systems

may take quite awhile to understand. Just when you’re finishing up your

hydrology and hydraulics work, along comes another flood to change your

rating and frequency curves. Military installation commanders may know

what they want, but they’ve not gone through a planning process. 

Plans can be changed by unexpected incidents. The most promising and

popular alternatives formulated may have to be dropped late in the study

because foundation surveys found unconsolidated fill at the project site. An

analyst may have mistakenly used the frequency curve from one reach with

the rating curve from another, making a plan that actually did nothing to

reduce flood damages look very good. Everyone has stories about “busts” in
204

Problems with the Problems

Some years ago a Corps study had

advanced substantially along in the planning

process. Plans had been formulated to develop

flood damage reduction alternatives from a

main stream and one of its tributaries in an

urban area. The main stream had a long, welldocumented history of flooding. The tributary

was a small stream. The county engineer

reported a coincident flood of surprising

magnitude on this stream during the main

stream’s flood of record. As the study team

believed it was nearing the end of plan

formulation they learned that the tributary

flooding was actually backwater from the main

stream. Formulation would have to start all

over to do the job right.

Sometimes the problems are hard to

understand.

the cost estimate. Horror stories about how crass political considerations

aborted some really creative planning abound. Countless plans have been

hindered because she thought he knew what she meant when she asked for

the work she needed him to do. 

These little slices of reality are not unique to planning. These are the

messy facts of life for anyone dealing regularly with wicked problems. You

just have to deal with them the best you can. It is the most messy processes

that need structure. It is precisely because planning is so messy that the

iterative six-step planning process is so valuable. 

CHANGE IS THE ONLY

CONSTANT

Fifteen years or so ago, recreation

specialists were at the top of the Corps’

most wanted employees list. Today,

recreation is not a priority output. One

day you’re making progress on a study

and the next day national debate seems to

suggest changes that will substantially

change the mission. What is a planner to

do?

Planners deal with the wants and

needs of people. Corps planners are public

servants who are vulnerable to changing

priorities and politics, both national and

local, like many other professional

planners. Recognizing these simple facts,

a good planner learns to expect change. It

comes with the job. As a matter of fact,

expecting change in the working

environment is good practical experience

for planners who are asked to anticipate

and forecast changes in their planning

areas. Chapter Three provided general details on some of the changes that

have occurred in our Nation’s two centuries of involvement with water

resources development. Missions come and go, but the need for planning

remains. 

Anticipate changes by staying current in your field, as a planner, and as a

Corps employee. Learn as much about changes that affect you and their

implications as quickly as possible. Adapt to change when it comes. Look on
205

Experience is a

cruel master.

It’s Hard to do a SOW

A point that doesn’t really fit neatly

anywhere in this chapter but that was too

important to ignore is that it is hard to

prepare a scope of work (SOW). The

purpose of a scope of work is to identify the

work that will and will not be done during

the course of a planning study.

It requires the planning team to not

only decide what will be done, but how

much and in what manner. For example,

will a study require new stage-damage data

or will existing data be updated? If new

data are to be collected what area will be

covered? Will there be a census or a

sample? How will the data be collected

and at what cost?

These decisions are a bit like

educated, if not scientific, fortune telling. 

Mistakes will be made. Unexpected

problems will arise. The SOW gives

structure to the beginning of the study. 

Inasmuch as it is part of the scoping 

process it, like everything else in a planning

study, is subject to revision throughout the

iterations of the planning process.

it as an opportunity to do new things or to do things differently. Follow these

simple suggestions and change becomes an opportunity rather than a threat.

PLANNING BIASES

We are all the result of our own experiences. Each of us is biased to

some extent by our culture, how we grew, where we worked, and what’s

happened to

us. Experience is a cruel master. Inevitably, we

find some things we always do and others we

never do. We all have our biases, i.e., mental

leanings or inclinations that leave us with definite

ideas about a

matter that is

no longer open for consideration. Planners

are no different. If they’ve had a bad

experience with something in the past,

they’re inclined to avoid it in the future.

They, like others, tend to repeat things

that have succeeded in the past. 

The Corps itself has a unique

institutional culture. As a military

organization there is great value placed

upon tradition, honor, control and

predictability. There is also a tendency for

certain biases to arise. Biases are not

necessarily a bad thing. We all become

biased against danger as we grow up, its

an effective way to survive. We’re not

concerned here with the biases that help

planning succeed. Rather, we’re

interested in considering some of the

biases that may limit the extent of our

planning.

During a series of interviews

conducted as part of the preparation of

this manual, Corps planners identified a

number of biases that can limit the success

of a planning study. These biases toward

doing some things and avoiding others

tend to arise as a direct result of the

Corps’ culture, i.e., its way of doing
206

things. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, two-stage planning,

the P&G’s emphasis on NED, and priority outputs designated by the budget

have contributed to the development of some biases that have shaped the

current state of planning within the Corps. This culture needs to be

understood if there is any hope of introducing good planning practices into

the pragmatic world in which planners must work. The paragraphs that

follow address the two-stage planning process, time and money constraints,

limits on authority, cost sharing, biases in plan formulation, and the nonFederal partner as ever-present elements in the Corps’ institutional culture.

TWO-STAGE PLANNING PROCESS

The Corps’ planning process has evolved over time. For the last

several decades it has been characterized by a multi-stage planning process.

At the time of this writing, a two-stage planning process is in use. The first

stage is the reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance study is used to make a

preliminary determination if there is likely to be a plan the Corps of

Engineers can eventually implement. If the reconnaissance stage ends with one

or more promising plans for implementation as well as strong non-Federal support

for that plan, planning proceeds to the feasibility stage. The objective of the

feasibility study is to investigate and recommend solutions to water resources

problems. 

Some planners believe the two-stage process presents several

significant constraints to the six-step planning process. First, there is the

Corps’ insatiable appetite for details. Requirements for Corps studies, as

expressed in the various sources of official guidance and in the traditions of

the agency, are extremely detailed and technical. Planners sometimes feel

reviewers are the source of this insatiable appetite. Reviewers sometimes feel

plans are lacking in details that are essential for the support of study

recommendations.

The dynamic tension between the planners and the reviewers can

actually be a positive force. As long as the two groups share a common

interest in the ultimate success of the partnership and the planning process,

and as long as they communicate regularly and effectively, there is a better

chance that a proper balance in information gathering will be struck.

Some feel a second and more important constraint arises from the

very nature of the two-stage planning process. Some planners have

suggested the reconnaissance stage may not provide enough time for a

thorough and sufficiently detailed application of the six-step planning

process. This is undeniably a legitimate concern. However, the six-step

planning process can be completed in a day, a month, a year, or a decade. It is
207

...the back-ofthe-envelope may

be appropriate.

perfectly adaptable to any time frame. The primary differences are the amount

of detail devoted to the steps and the number of iterations. 

The current two-stage planning process has served the Corps well in

the past and has been adapted to the new planning partnership. The number

of stages used to develop a plan is a matter of convenience to the parties

doing the planning. The Corps’ non-water resources planning is already

done outside the two-stage planning process. The number of stages need not

have any impact on the quality of the planning done. Whether the six-step

planning process is completed in eight months as the first-stage of a multistage process, or in a single eight-month stage makes no difference. It should

yield the best possible eight-month plan. As we have often repeated, the

planning process can be completed in a day, a week, etc. But, if it is

completed in a day, it is the one-day answer, and that is not likely to be as

good as an answer that is developed with more time and resources.

TIME CONSTRAINTS

Time is a universal constraint. Planning is not exempt from it. A

universal truth is, time is money. The more time something takes, the more

it costs. Thus, we have a dichotomous role for time in the planning process.

On the one hand there is not enough of it, thus constraining our ability to plan

well. On the other hand, we don’t want it to take any longer than it must

because it increases costs. The partnership needs more of it while they want

to use as little of it as possible. 

Not having enough time limits the things we can do. With limited time,

there could be a bias toward smaller, more easily solved problems. Complex

problems take time to understand and more time to solve. Watershed and

non-structural approaches to problems take time. Lack of time can cramp

creativity. Traditional solutions to problems save time. When time is short,

a structured approach is more valuable. 

Talking to people takes time. Planners are unable to confer with other

professionals about problems when they are pressed for time. Public

involvement takes time. Planning takes time. There is no getting around it.

With a sound understanding of the purpose of and a systematic

approach to planning, we can make the best use of the time available to us for

problem solving. The planning process can be

intensified for shorter time frames and expanded

for longer ones. Fewer iterations may be possible

during short studies. Once again, professional

judgment and the back-of-the-envelope may be

appropriate. We may have to work with less
208

Rarely is there

enough money...

information than we would like to have when we are short on time. It bears

repeating that the six-step process can be applied in an hour, a day, a month,

or a year.

In such an imperfect world, it is to your advantage to have an

organized approach to problem solving. You will never be free of time

constraints. If someone didn’t say “time is up,” planning would never end.

The future never arrives and planning is never finished. The six-step planning

process can help minimize the strictures imposed by time.

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

Knowledge and understanding in planning costs

money. Rarely is there enough money to do everything the

planning team would like to do to arrive at a decision. When

you can’t do everything, you have to make choices.

Frequently there can be biases in the funding decisions made

by the study team. Previous studies and organizational power

structures are two of the most common determinants of study

budget allocations. Once study funds have been allocated and the work

accomplished, the results of a planning study can be biased by the data that

are available as well as the data that are not available.

Inadequate funding may bias planning studies toward narrow visions and

small problems that can be solved with traditional solutions. Creativity may be

endangered by budget constraints. It is precisely in settings like these that a

systematic approach to problem solving can foster some creativity. The

simple structure of the six steps suggests that creativity is not needed in data

collection, evaluation, comparison, or selection as much as it is in establishing

objectives and formulating plans. When budgets are tight, these are not the

places to cut corners. Do a thorough job on objectives and formulation and

compensate with more screening and professional judgment in the other

steps.

There may be occasions when the feasibility cost-sharing arrangement

will present a substantial burden to the non-Federal partner. In such cases,

the pressure to hold down costs could result in some of the same kinds of

biases. Once again, however, the orderly and predictable nature of the planning

process allows the team to anticipate potential problems in the process and to think

ahead to avoid or overcome them.
209

Pushing the Envelope

There are some recent examples of

planning studies that were not restricted by

a lack of authority. One district was able to

find support for an investigation of acid mine

drainage problems identified in a general

investigations study. A second incorporated

overland transportation needs into its study

by drawing the appropriate transportation

agency into the planning process. Both these

activities were beyond the Corps’ authority.

The acid mine drainage was a severe problem

in the one community and the transportation

improvements were a unique opportunity in

the other. These are two good examples of

comprehensive water resources planning.

Sometimes you can leverage the authority

you have to get new authorities through

specific authorization.

LIMITED AUTHORITY

The P&G provides wide latitude in the types of plans that can be

developed, but good plans may be overlooked because the Corps lacks

authority to implement them. There is indeed a discrepancy between what

Congress and the P&G tell Corps planners they should do and what the

agency and Administration tell them they can do. Comprehensive plans

addressing community needs may be overlooked in favor of a smaller, more

traditional solution because it’s often easier to do what you can than it is to

do what you should. Nonetheless, good planning remains the best approach

to this dilemma.

Plans should be comprehensive and thorough, regardless of current

authorities. Perhaps another agency can implement what the Corps can’t. If

the problems and opportunities are sufficiently compelling, it is more likely

that a way will be found to implement the plan.

Existing authorities can bias plans

toward what can be easily done rather than

what needs to be done. The authorities

may become the planner’s hammer and

the planner goes looking for the

proverbial nail to hit. What is required

are planners who can determine what is

needed rather than what is possible and

who can then find ways to get the job

done. By following the six steps,

proceeding carefully and with full

communication among all stakeholders,

it is sometimes possible to find support

among stakeholders or at higher levels

in the Corps for innovative plans.

Although authority appropriately

biases plans, the planner needs to be

willing to fight those biases when the

need is great. When the need is great and

support is built carefully, there is almost

always a way to get things done. On the

other hand, existing authorities are an

important criterion for screening plans.

COST-SHARING

Cost-sharing is frequently cited as a source of bias in the planning

process. Finding factual examples of this bias is harder to pin down. The

presumed bias is that local sponsors prefer plans that minimize their own costs over
210

better plans with higher non-Federal shares of costs. For example, open ocean

disposal of dredged material may be preferred to upland disposal because the

former is less costly to the local sponsor. Some have suggested that buydowns from the NED plan are motivated more by cost-sharing concerns than

contributions to other planning objectives. Others fear that if the non-Federal

partner caps project costs, it might prevent identification of the true NED

plan. 

If this bias arises after a comprehensive set of alternative plans have been

formulated, evaluated, and compared, it presents no real problem for the planner.

Costs are a consideration of any plan. Lower costs might reflect the sponsor’s

top priority, and biases are not always bad. If a bias toward lower costs means

the formulation process is constrained and all potential solutions are not considered,

there could be a problem. Hence, a bias based on cost-sharing becomes a

problem only if it restricts the formulation process. The solution would seem

rather obvious: formulate plans without regard to costs and use cost

appropriately as a selection criterion in the screening process.

BIAS IN PLAN FORMULATION

The planning process may also be limited by biases planners interject

into the planning process. They may have a bias toward past plans; a bias

against non-structural plans; a bias against innovation, especially when clear

authority to implement is lacking; a bias toward a preselected solution; a bias

toward large rather than small projects; or, a bias toward NED-oriented

solutions. Any of these, or other biases, can adversely influence the planning

process.

There are other, more subtle biases. Now that the non-Federal partner

is helping to finance the study, he may have some working assumptions or

data he wants used in the study. This presents a problem only when the data

or assumptions would not otherwise be used. The most common and

significant biases are found in the identification of a most likely withoutproject condition. Objectivity and integrity are virtues to be prized above all

others by planners. Protecting them may require additional coordination,

sensitivity analysis or other professional accommodation, but there is no

room for bias toward inaccuracy in the planning process no matter what its

source. 
211

Price Makes a Difference

Before the cost-sharing changes of

WRDA’86, the local sponsors of a deep draft

navigation study made it clear that there was

no point in even considering a channel less

than 1,000 feet in width. Anything less than

this was unsafe and unacceptable to the

pilots, the Coast Guard and the port

authority.

Following WRDA’86, when the nonFederal share of costs rose substantially, the

non-Federal partner did some soul-searching

and with artful coordination among the

various interests it was determined that a

narrower channel would do very well. In

fact, there would be a negligible difference in

navigation safety between the 1,000-foot and

the 800-foot wide channels according to the

pilots, the Coast Guard and the port

authority. Surprisingly, cheaper actually

turned out to be better.

Some planners perceive a bias

toward environmental measures. They

sense a notion among some stakeholders

that anything environmental is good and

worthwhile. If environmental measures

are not subjected to the same analysis,

these measures could run up project costs

and lessen the overall attractiveness of the

plan. This is of particular concern in

instances where resource agencies or other

environmental interests hold an effective

veto power over the planning process.

The flipside of this coin is, of

course, the enduring bias against

incorporating environmental measures in

a plan. All too often, plan formulation is

completed before environmental

mitigation is even considered. It becomes

an “add-on” to the plan. Environmental

mitigation measures should be part and

parcel of the planning process just like

relocations of affected homes and

businesses. The cure for both these ills is

simple: interdisciplinary teams. If all

disciplines are included on a study team

from the beginning and they function in a

truly interdisciplinary fashion, bias toward or against aspects of a plan, or any

other aspect of a plan, can be avoided.

There may be more subtle biases as well. During preparation of this

manual, several experienced Corps planners said the Corps is not listening to

its partners or its customers. It still wants to approach problems as technical

problems rather than as social problems. The full range of plans is never

investigated because technical concerns predominate the thought process.

Problems are treated as strictly technical issues rather than as the complex

technical and social issues they are. Some planners perceive a general bias

against planning because many people do not understand or value planning.

Some, in and out of the Corps, consider planning a money-consuming waste

of time, especially those who believe they already know the problem and the

solution as well. 

Taking the time to educate people about the planning process and its

benefits may not make these problems go away, but it surely won’t hurt.
212

...planners need to

sell...the value of

planning.

NON-FEDERAL PARTNER

In the Corps’ Civil Works water resource planning, there is no

partnership and no planning without the non-Federal partner. This makes

the significance of the non-Federal partner’s potential veto of any planning

activity very clear. Some of the feasibility study money is the partner’s, too.

If they have no interest in a potential solution, there is a strong temptation to

give it no consideration. This may or may not present a problem. The

screening process is supposed to eliminate plans that are not good enough to

implement. Thus, the simple act of eliminating a plan is not necessarily a

problem. The problem arises when potential solutions are rejected out of

hand. If a plan has not been developed to the point that it can be rationally

eliminated, this could be a problem. 

Too often, the planning process begins with a misunderstanding of

what an acceptable plan is. To many planners, a plan that the non-Federal

partner does not like is an unacceptable plan. That is not the case. The

“likability” of a plan is a far more subjective characteristic than one might suspect,

as the last sidebar indicated. Partners tend to like reasonable plans more or less

rather than yes or no. As circumstances change, the desirability of plans can

change and planners must guard against eliminating plans from

consideration without good cause. 

To avoid this problem, planners need to sell the nonFederal partner on the value of planning. It is one thing to

convey the necessity of planning, “We’re required to do this.”

It is quite another thing to convince someone that what the

planning process does for them is to protect their investment

and assure them that, from all the possible solutions to their

problems, the very best one is selected. It is especially

difficult when this planning is going to cost them more. But if you do that,

good planning will come a lot more easily.

AVOIDING BIAS

Biases in the planning process are inevitable. Some are more serious

than others. The choices for dealing with biases are living with them or

eliminating them. Some of the above biases are simpler to eliminate than others.

The starting point in each case, however, is for planners to understand the planning

process. 

Planners need to see the “big picture;” to know what planning is, how

it is done by the Corps, and what its advantages are. If planners don’t know

how to plan, other biases aren’t going to matter a great deal. Knowing how to
213

...information is the

best way of dispelling

the biases...

plan is the most straightforward way to deal with the biases mentioned in this

chapter.

To assure elimination of biases, the big picture

of planning then has to be sold to the non-Federal

partner and key stakeholders as well. Planners need

to do a better job of informing those for whom they

are planning, of the value of planning. As always,

information is the best way of dispelling the biases

that are so often at the root of many of the more

common planning constraints.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Planning is a messy process beset with numerous biases.

Lesson Two. Good planning minimizes the mess and eliminates the

biases.

There is a real need for people doing planning work to take their role

as planners seriously. This means they have to know and use the planning

process. The next chapter turns to some of the important people issues in the

planning process: public involvement and teamwork.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

This chapter deals with some of the unique and practical concerns of

doing planning. They are not found in the literature. Practical experience is

the sole source of wisdom on these topics. To find out more about these and

other practical issues, talk to other planners. Networking with other planners

both in and out of your district can be an invaluable source of the kinds of

useful information you’ll never find in the literature.
214
215

Who Is the Public?

The public includes any individual

interested in your study. In the broadest

sense, the public is anyone not on your

study team. There are special types of

publics like partners, stakeholders, and costsharing partners. In this broadest sense,

there are Corps publics such as the rest of

the district, field offices, division, and

headquarters. 

Interested individuals often band

together in groups of like-minded people. 

Hence, groups can often be significant

portions of your public. Some potential

groups and individuals that can be part of

the public include Audubon Society,

Chamber of Commerce, County

Commissioners, Environmental Interest

Groups, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Flood Control District, Governor,

Homeowners’ Association, Mayor, Pilots

Association, Port Authority, School District,

Sierra Club, State Fish & Game Department,

State Transportation Department, U.S. Coast

Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and

so on.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND

TEAMWORK 

“Perhaps if there has been one failing within our organization

over the years, it is that we haven’t tried to dispel the notion

that our success comes out of a computer. It doesn’t. It

comes out of the sweat glands of our coaches and players.”

Tom Landry, former Head Coach, Dallas Cowboys.

INTRODUCTION

The P&G (Section IV) requires public

involvement. As a result, the Corps is required

to coordinate with State agencies and the

Governor or his designated agency, interested

and affected agencies, groups, and individuals.

Plans that affect the land or resources of another

country must be coordinated with the affected

country. In addition, the review of any plans

must be consistent with all applicable Federal

statutes, such as the CEQ NEPA regulations. For

purposes of this manual. the public is any person,

group or agency that is not the Corps of Engineers.

Even if such extensive coordination with the

public were not required, it makes sense.

In addition to public involvement, the

same section of the P&G recommends the use of

an interdisciplinary approach to planning. The

agency is encouraged to have all appropriate

disciplines present and to supplement their

expertise as necessary with outside sources.

These, public involvement and teamwork, are

the primary people issues of the planning

process. For that reason, they are both

addressed in this chapter.
 The bulk of the material in this section has been adapted from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 19

Public Involvement Manual, January 1980.

216

Public Involvement and the Local Sponsor

Why do we need a public involvement program when we have a local sponsor

who knows what he wants? The answer is simple, good planning requires it. 

Identifying problems, specifying objectives and constraints, gathering information,

formulating plans, evaluating, comparing, and selecting plans -- all require the

involvement of the public to be done well. If the local sponsor’s desires meet the

needs of the public this will become evident. If they do not, it’s best to find that out as

soon as possible.

What role should the local sponsor assume in the public involvement

program? Each planning partnership is different. The local partner’s desire to be

involved in the process will largely determine the role they are given. Each

partnership will bring different strengths to the planning process. If you are fortunate

enough to have a partner with the capability and willingness to develop and execute

a good public involvement program, it would be foolish not to use them.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT19

Public involvement is a process by which interested and affected

individuals, organizations, agencies, and government entities are consulted

and included in the decision-making process of a planning effort. Public

information is not public involvement. Public information is intended to inform

the public. Public involvement is intended to both inform the public and to

be informed by them by actively soliciting public response regarding their

problems, needs, values, ideas about solutions, and reactions to proposed

solutions to problems. Public involvement is a two-way communication

process.

A public involvement program has to provide people from diverse

backgrounds and interests multiple opportunities to ask questions and offer

suggestions. The public involvement program has to be responsive to public

concerns, though this need not mean acting favorably on everything the

public says. 

GOALS OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

There are three primary goals of public involvement:
217

Closing the Loop with the Public

Public involvement is a

two-way communication process. 

One of the most important

aspects of such a process is

closing the loop. It is important

to tell the public how the

information they provided was

considered and used. Be sure to

do a lot of “Here’s what you told

us...and here’s how we used it,”

communicating at meetings, in

press releases, reports and at

every opportunity.

Credibility. An open and visible decision-making process accessible

to all on an equal basis makes the planning process credible to groups with

diverging points of view.

Identifying Public Concerns and Values. Because various groups have

different points of view and values, they will evaluate any proposed action

from different perspectives. Public involvement allows the planning team to

understand the problems, issues, and possible solutions from the perspectives

of the various interests.

Developing a Consensus. An implication of the many divergent

points of view is that there is no one philosophy that can guide the planning

team’s decisions. Consensus must be formed on an issue by issue basis.

Public involvement provides a process for evolving such consensus.

Consensus, then, allows the team to move forward and solve the problem.

ATTITUDES TOWARD PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Why do public involvement? It meets planning requirements and

builds consensus. It’s needed to make a plan happen. A philosophical

commitment to the role of public involvement coupled with practical

experience suggest some general observations about how public involvement

should be approached.

Program Design Shows Public’s Value

No amount of rhetoric or

backpedaling will cover up a poorly

designed public involvement

program. Actions speaks louder than

words when it comes to public

involvement. If the public is not

involved from early in the planning

process, if participation never

results in any tangible change, if the

alternatives considered are only the

ones the partners want, the public

will get the message “we’re going

through the motions of public

involvement; don’t expect anything

to come of it.” Good public

involvement is much more than

“letter-of-the-law” involvement.
218

...inform and be

informed.

Maintain Visible Program

A process that can’t be seen can lead to suspicion. Seeing is believing.

The best way to establish the credibility of your study is to create complete

visibility of everything you do. If you know there will be six months of data

collection and analysis before the next meeting, set up a home page on the

World Wide Web. Let people visit your site and get weekly updates. Send

out a newsletter. Send progress reports to the local media. Form an observer

committee and have them represented at meetings. Stay visible to the public.

Don’t Sell

Planners often find they feel defensive when dealing with the public.

They are defending the agency, defending a decision, defending an

alternative, and so on. Defensiveness is a major barrier to good

communication.

The defensiveness problem often arises

when the agency is in a selling posture, i.e., they

have a proposed course of action they are trying to

get people to accept. When public involvement is

used to push a point of view, it cannot succeed. Use

your public involvement to inform and be informed.

Recognize Limits of Expertise

Professional expertise may qualify the study team to estimate plan

impacts or to design project features. However, decision-making comes

down to values and what people believe is good and bad for them. When it

comes to values, experts are just like everybody else. The planning team is not

more expert than anyone else when it comes to value judgments. When experts

push their value judgments too hard, they can expect the public to challenge

them vigorously and frequently.

Expertise Should Create Not Close Options

Professional expertise is best used to help the public figure out what

they can do to help themselves; not to tell the public what they cannot do.

Because the Corps’ planning process is often technical and complex it is not

difficult for the planning team to slip into a mode in which they are

constantly telling the public what they cannot do. The result is too often

frustration and resentment on the part of the public.
219

...language can make

the study team seem

like a cult...

Be creative.

Speak the Public’s Language

All professionals have their own language, which

is well understood by members of the same group. It is

efficient to talk about BCRs, NEPA, and FONSI’s because

the terms are understood and make for a very convenient

short-hand from of communication. The problem is such

language can make the study team seem like a cult

practicing arcane rituals in a strange language. Try to

remember your first week on the job. The responsibility of communication

is clearly the agency’s. It is the team’s job to translate their jargon and acronyms

into plain language so the public can understand. It is not the public’s obligation

to learn your language. Do not use the jargon when talking to the public.

Feelings Are a Source of Valuable Information

Sometimes public involvement is biased toward solicitation of factual,

rational, logical information. Although this information can be very valuable,

it is not wise to set up conditions under which the public can begin

communications. When people are telling you their feelings, biases, and concerns

without factual support, they are doing what they can. They are telling you how

things ought to be. From this information, the team can glean insights into

the values and philosophies that should guide agency decisions.

Identify Limits of Your Authority

The public may have unrealistic expectations of what you are able to

do in any given situation. They may be unaware of the agency’s authorities.

They may also be unaware of the fact that the study team is not usually the

decision-maker. Your process is not going to be well understood by the

public. You can’t eliminate the problems of unrealistic expectations but you

can limit them by making your authority as clear as possible as often as

possible from the very beginning.

Be Creative

Public involvement is still a new and exciting

field. Be creative. Experiment. Don’t be afraid to

break away from the traditional public meeting format.

Use the Internet. Use radio, television, newspapers.

Get a booth at the local fair. Set up a display in the

mall. Use flip charts and 3 x 5 index cards to collect information at meetings

with the public. Run focus groups. Interview key individuals. Roam the
220

Stakeholders

Stakeholders is a word used in water resources planning that has come to

mean a person or group of persons who can stop you or whose support is necessary

for success. A stakeholder is someone with something to lose or gain from a

recommended course of action. The stakeholders are crucial to the specification of

problems and opportunities. Identifying the stakeholders is the first important step in

involving them in this process.

The Federal and non-Federal partners are two obvious stakeholders in a

study. Government agencies at all levels of government are frequent stakeholders. 

Organizations and individuals that have an interest in the project should be included

as should public interest groups with a particular point of view that bears on the

project. These groups might include civic, social, environmental, economic,

recreational, public health, political, educational and other interests. All other

individuals and organizations who have an apparent interest in the project should

also be invited to participate.

Stakeholders are identified in a number of ways. They may identify

themselves by coming forward to express their interest or concerns. Third-parties can

identify groups or individuals who may be stakeholders. A review of District mailing

lists, associations in the area, user groups, newspaper articles, and so on may suggest

individuals or groups the planning team should consult with throughout the planning

process.

neighborhood and do a little door-to-door. Sponsor an outing for the public.

Set up a hotline. Meet, talk, and listen anyway you can.

Designing a Public Involvement Program

We offer four general observations about public involvement

programs. First, different publics will be involved at different stages of the

decision-making process. The definition of your publics will grow and contract

throughout the study’s progress. During technical stages of the study, you

can expect more professional groups and agencies. When problems are

identified or potential solutions reviewed, there will be a much broader

public.

Second, there are appropriate levels of involvement at each step in the

decision-making process. It is possible to do too much too soon. Don’t burn out
221

public interest by stirring up a level of interest that cannot be sustained. Save

the more intense public involvement for the appropriate spot.

Third, the participation of the public will usually increase as the decisionmaking process progresses. Although participation waxes and wanes

throughout the study, the overall pattern is that more people get involved as

the study approaches a decision. The closer you are to a decision, the more

information there is for people to react to. This inevitably means you are

going to have to spend a lot of time explaining what has already happened.

It is great practice for telling your story, part of which is the public

involvement program. (See the next chapter.)

Fourth, public involvement programs must be integrated with the decisionmaking process. Each component of a public involvement program should be

designed with an eye to what information exchange is needed at each

decision-making stage in the study. Public involvement activities should not

be a series of ad hoc events. They should serve a purpose that fits the

decision-making process. That is what the public involvement program is all

about, involving the public in the decision-making process.

SOME PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES

There is no one right way to involve the public in decision making

that will work in all cases. However, there are three points when public input

can be especially helpful. Early in the study, ask the public what they think the

problems and opportunities are. Do they agree with those in your study

authorization? Are there others? Ask people how they would recognize a

successful resolution of the problem? Responses to such early public

involvement provide the bases for planning objectives and constraints.

Later, you can ask the public to help you identify alternative measures and

plans based on the study’s planning objectives and constraints. What solutions do

they think will work? What solutions would they not like to see

implemented? This information will provide ideas for your formulation

activities.

Nearthe study’s conclusion, ask the public to help you evaluate and compare

alternative plans. What do they think will happen if different plans are

implemented? What do they like and dislike about the plans’ effects you’ve

identified? Public views can aid in the evaluation and comparison of plans.

Following are brief descriptions of techniques that can be used to

gather these and other kinds of information from the public. 
222

Advisory Committees

The Federal Advisory

Committee Act, or FACA, puts

many limitations on any advisory

committee that may be formed to

assist you in planning. Advisory

committees have special approval,

membership, notification and

reporting requirements that must

be met. If you are considering

using an advisory committee,

consult with your local Office of

Counsel for more information and

guidance.

Questionnaires

Any set of questions that the

Corps of Engineers asks of ten or more

respondents outside the Federal

government must originate from

questionnaires approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

OMB has already approved a large

number of questionnaires for use in

planning studies, and the approved

questions are periodically distributed

throughout the Corps. The latest

distribution was “Questionnaires for

U.S. Army Engineer Planning Studies”

(October 1995). For more information

about approved questionnaires, contact

the Corps Headquarters Civil Works

Meetings

There are all kinds of

meetings you can use for public

involvement. A mix of these or

other techniques would probably

be best. Meetings can be very

formal public hearings or large

group meetings that could include

briefings, question and answer

sessions, town meetings, or panel

formats. Small group meetings,

discussion groups, or focus

groups may provide viable

alternatives in some cases.

Workshops are for small

groups and they have a specific task or goal to accomplish. For example, a

plan formulation workshop could involve the public in brainstorming ideas

for potential solutions. Charrettes are intensive workshops usually geared

to resolving differences among interest groups.

Coffee klatches or kitchen meetings can be held in private homes.

These are very small (up to 20 people) and quite informal. This is more a

person-to-person discussion than an official function.

Walk-in information sessions are a kind of open house.

These rely on the use of exhibits, displays, models, and

personnel to provide and take information.

Meetings should have a specific purpose: information

giving, information receiving, interaction, consensus forming

or negotiation, or summarizing. Know your audience. That

means anticipating the size, intensity of feeling about an

issue and the credibility of the agency. Seating

arrangements and the time and place of the meeting can

be strategic considerations. Pre-meeting publicity is also

an important consideration.

Non-Meeting Techniques

There are any number of other techniques that

can be used to provide opportunities for the public to

become involved in your study. Interviewing key

people is an effective way to gather information quickly.
223

Opening a field office can overcome the barriers set up by operating a study

from a district office hundreds of miles away. Establishing a study hotline

can help people get the information they need as efficiently as possible. Toll

free numbers and e-mail addresses can give people a way to get their

questions answered or their information submitted when the need or desire

arises.

Displays and exhibits at malls, state fairs, or anywhere a large group

is likely to gather can be an effective way to reach many people. They can

also be used over and over. Newspaper inserts with response forms can be

used to solicit opinions at a modest cost.

Reports, brochures, newsletters, and information bulletins can be

prepared and distributed at appropriate points through the study process.

For example, it might be advantageous to distribute such a report after

problems have been defined, when preliminary alternatives have been

identified, or when the effects of alternatives have been identified.

Participatory television or radio programs can reach a large number

of people. Booths at fairs or other large public gatherings can be used to

reach people who may not show up at public meetings. Conducting a contest

or event to stimulate public interest in an issue or study area can be very

effective. Fishing contests, canoe trips, photo contests, and so on may

stimulate public interest in a study. Mediation, Delphi techniques,

simulations, and games are other ways to involve different publics. In some

cases, it may be beneficial to form an observer or advisory group.

The computer offers a tool that has hardly been tapped to involve the

public. Establishing a home page on the World Wide Web provides the

public with an instant source of information around the clock. People can

vote on issues via the web site, they can register for electronic mailing lists,

they can download data or the text of reports and newsletters. Mailing list

entries can then be listed so that a news group could selectively read the

discussions that have involved study issues.

One of the greatest advantages of the computer’s Internet capabilities

is that it allows people to participate at their convenience. It may also be

possible to broadcast public meetings via the Internet if radio or television

stations with this capability cover the event. Thus, long-distance

participation is possible.

In short, there is no limit to the opportunities that can be afforded to

the public to become involved in your study. Although time and money must

be allocated up front for the public involvement program, it need not be an

expensive burden. It can be an exciting opportunity to do good planning and

make a difference.
224

...two heads are

better than one.

TEAMWORK

WHY A TEAM?

There are two primary reasons planning should be done by a team.

The first and simplest reason is that two heads are better than one. The

second and more enduring reason is that late twentieth century America is

extremely complex and only a team structure can

respond to the needs of customers and

organizations in this complex environment.

Two Heads Are Better than One

No one person, no one discipline, no one group has all the answers.

No one person, discipline, or group must be involved in every aspect of the

planning effort all the time. Roles change and evolve with the ebb and flow

of planning. Sometimes the questions require scientific inquiry and

professional judgments. How many core borings should be made? What is

a reasonable number for a roughness coefficient? Is the site likely to yield

new information about previous cultures? Other times, questions will

address matters of public value judgments. What level of residual flood

damage is acceptable? How much mitigation is desirable? Who should

review the report?

As a result of the proliferation of goals and objectives that must be

addressed by water resources planning studies, it is impossible for any single

discipline to adequately address the more complex issues that arise in a world

that is multiobjective in its outlook. Many disciplines are needed for planning.

No one has the background, experience, and knowledge necessary to plan

alone.

From the largest river basin studies to the smallest planning activities,

a multiplicity of people and expertise is needed. A large planning effort may

consist of one or more disciplines. A military planning effort may consist of

a contractor, a military installation point-of-contact, and a Corps planner.

Large or small, they are teams and no one plans alone. 

In addition to a diversity of disciplines the planning team should include a

diversity of interests. Some districts feel it is their job to do all of the planning.

That is what the non-Federal partner is paying for, they contend. Other

districts insist that the non-Federal partner actively participate in the process;

it’s their community, and their money too. Clearly, there can be no best

balance of partner roles that works for all studies in all districts. However, it
225

Teams Take Time

Teams need to learn how to run meetings effectively.

Teams need to learn to function as a team.

These things take time. Once these skills are mastered, teams can

respond very quickly.

is essential that the non-Federal partner be afforded as much a role on the

planning team as it is willing to assume.

An often overlooked point is that the team should be interdisciplinary, not

just multidisciplinary. The disciplines are to be integrated. It is not sufficient

to assemble a group of diverse experts. They must communicate their various

viewpoints and work together to fashion plans that truly reflect a diversity

of viewpoints on the problems and opportunities that confront the planning

area. 

We are all trained in our specific disciplines. These disciplines have,

over time, developed their own specific and occasionally peculiar way of

looking at the world. At times we have been trained to screen out those

aspects of the world that conflict with our disciplines’ way of looking at

things. If we are to have an effective plan formulation process, we must have an

interdisciplinary team involved in the planning process from the very beginning of

step one.

Some major characteristics of interdisciplinary planning include:

C Group meetings with all disciplines and interests represented.

C Participation by environmental specialists in development of

alternatives.

C High degree of communication and informal coordination

among all team members, especially engineers, economists, and

environmental specialists.

If two heads are going to be better than one, both must speak and both must

listen. Answers to questions need to be forged from the best that each has to

offer. Teams do a better job than individuals. That alone is sufficient reason

for using planning teams.
226

Three Key Team Characteristics

An effective team must utilize

three key characteristics.

Effort. A team must work long

enough, hard enough, effectively and

efficiently.

Talent. A good team needs the

skills, knowledge and experience

necessary to get the job done.

Task performance strategies.

A team needs specific strategies for

accomplishing study tasks.

...an

organization

must be able to

deliver quality,

speed, and price.

Today’s Complexities Require Team Solutions

Individuals do not know enough to develop good solutions to wicked

problems on their own. Teams are needed. Large bureaucratic organizations

are too rigid, too slow, and too costly to respond effectively in today’s

environment. Teams are needed. Teams are a sensible and efficient compromise

between the limitations of individuals and the inefficiency of large organizations.

They make sense.

In a world of increasing demands and

complexity and shrinking resources, where better,

faster, cheaper is the challenge and the credo; teams

are essential. The modern organization no longer

builds on individual competencies and roles; it builds

on teams. Teams are central to meeting the unique

needs of organizations. 

The structures and assumptions of traditional

workplace management are being challenged.

Stovepipe functions, rigid bureaucracies, chain-ofcommand reporting relationships, and encumbering

policies and regulations are becoming obsolete in the

private sector. This kind of workplace once resulted

in remarkable organization, control, and efficiency.

As the workplace and the world change, however,

many of these structures have proven too slow, too

expensive, and too unresponsive to be either

competitive or effective. The private sector is moving

toward less hierarchy, flatter structures, and a more

empowered workforce. There is going to be more reliance on teams, not less.

As the Corps gets in step with these business trends, the reliance on teams

will transcend the planning team we’re discussing here.

Today, any organization that can’t produce high-quality work quickly and

economically is at serious risk of extinction. An organization might get away

with being good, fast, and expensive for awhile.

Or maybe even good, economical, and slow to the

market for awhile. But to survive and prosper in

the modern business environment, an organization

must be able to deliver quality, speed, and price.

Countless business are using teams as the means

to become better, faster, cheaper.

In this respect, teams are going to be an

essential component of the Corps’ continued

success. As planning activities become more customer oriented, the Corps
227

becomes more and more like any other large, modern organization. Effective

teams are essential to the survival of any modern organization. For more

background information on the role of teams in modern organizational

management, see any of the books cited at the end of this chapter.

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM?

The composition of a study team is a critical step in determining the

planning effort’s ultimate effectiveness. As a planning effort is identified, the

study manager should be able to determine the kind of personnel required to

do the work. A military installation’s plan to collect and store all pesticides

on the base in a central location may not require a hydrologist or a

geographer. A coastal project is going to need knowledge of coastal

processes a fluvial flooding study won’t require. A wildlife biologist may be

needed for ecosystem restoration work while one may not be needed for

mobilization planning.

The composition of the team depends on the nature of the planning

effort. While the mix of disciplines required for a team varies from study to

study, there are some generic characteristics of good team members. Good

team members should:

C Possess the skills necessary to perform the required work at the

speed needed to meet deadlines;

C Have their needs met through participating in the planning

effort;

C Have the temperament to fit in with other team members, the

study manager, and the public;

C Work with funding limits, tight timetables, or other project

work requirements.

Team members must possess the necessary disciplinary background and

knowledge of planning required to be a contributing member of the planning team.

New planners will need time and support to grow into the job. It is generally

preferable that there be some experienced members on the planning team.

In order to have committed team members, the work has to be

rewarding, both personally and professionally. This can mean allowing some

team members to stay within their comfort zones while allowing others to

expand theirs. Sharing the responsibility and the glory is important.
228

Goals, Roles, Procedures, and

Relationships

Do team members agree to and

understand their goals? Do they

articulate them in the same words? Do

they all own the planning objectives?

Do team members understand

their role and what’s expected of them? 

Do they accept and value that role? 

Does the role fulfill them?

Has the team developed

effective operations and procedures

that enable them to move along toward

their objectives? Do they use a set of

ground rules and structured procedures?

What is the quality of

relationships among team members? 

Interpersonal skills

are a critical intangible for

the most successful

planning teams. Working

well with people you

respect and like is a luxury

few teams enjoy. Liking

other members of the study

team is not absolutely

essential, but when it can be

achieved, the team’s

potential will be greatly

enhanced.

Team Structure

There is no such

thing as a typical planning

team. But there are some

elements common to so

many study teams that we

have presented a very

generalized generic

structure for a study team

in Figure 11. The figure

depicts three levels of commitment to the study team. There are core members

of the team. There is an extended study team and there are occasional members of the

study team. 

Every team has a core. This comprises the people assigned to the

study. These are the people who, all other things equal, will be involved with

the study on a day-to-day basis until it is completed. They are the ones who

will be doing the bulk of the planning work. This may or may not include

non-Corps members, such as representatives of the non-Federal sponsor, a

contractor’s representative, or a military installation point-of-contact.

The extended team consists of those people with a regular and ongoing involvement with the study that might not be on a day-to-day basis.

For example, technical reviewers from the district or elsewhere in the Corps’

organization or representatives of natural resource agencies.

The occasional members of the study can change throughout the

course of a study. This might include the Corps’ field survey team when it

gets involved in survey work for a few weeks during the study or, it might 
229

Table 36: Selected Publics and Team Members

“Publics” “Experts”

Audubon Society archeologists

Chamber of Commerce attorneys

County Commissioners biologists

Jane and John Doe chemists

Flood Control District civil engineers

Governor ecologists

Homeowner’s Association economists

Mayor geographers

Port Authority geologists

School District hydraulic engineers

Sierra Club hydrologists

State Fish & Game Department landscape 

architects

State Transportation Department planners

U.S. EPA psychologists

U.S. FWS sociologists

etc. etc.

involve a community association that gets involved long enough to assure

that its concerns are being addressed. Occasional members may be involved

in the study once for a varying length of time, or they may drift into and out

of the sphere of the study team as the situation warrants. Some members of

the public will serve as occasional team members.

The distinction we

draw between occasional

team members and the

general public is the level of

commitment. Hundreds or

thousands of people may be

involved in the planning effort

at one point or another.

Simple involvement does not

constitute team membership.

A continuing commitment to

the planning effort in a

significant way does however

confer some level of team

membership on a group or

individual. Table 36 presents

some examples of the types of

people or groups that might

occupy one or more of these

levels of membership. 
230

Are You on a Team?

Ask yourself the following questions:

C Do the members of your group have common goals or tasks that require

working together?

C Do the actions of any one member of the group impact upon the work of

other members?

C Is your work most effectively accomplished by members of the group

working together?

C Must activities be coordinated on a daily/weekly/monthly basis?

If you answer yes to these questions, you are a member of a highly

interdependent team.

Avoid Bandwagons

A bandwagon develops when an

idea is put forward and is bolstered by a

series of positive comments. Pretty

soon the idea gains momentum that

may not be commensurate with its

value. Always make sure you step back

and consider the downside of any idea

before a bandwagon effect takes over. 

Bandwagons should never replace

critical assessment of ideas.

HOW TO WORK LIKE A TEAM

If you had bacon and eggs for breakfast, the chicken was involved in

your breakfast, the pig was committed. Planning teams need people to be

committed not simply involved. This can be a problem in an organization like

the Corps in which team members are actually members of functional groups

who have their own bosses but also have a study manager to whom they

report.

Where does one’s

loyalty lie? With engineering

division, planning division,

real estate division, or with

the study team? Often it’s to

the functional group. That’s

where the boss who may have

hired the team member is and

that is where their paycheck

is sent. This reality requires

study managers to work extra

hard to win the loyalty of

such team members. A team

consists of two or more

people who must coordinate

their activities to accomplish a
 Mark Plovnick, Ronald Fry, and Irwin Rubin. “New Development in O.D. Technology: Programmed 20

Team Development,” Training and Development Journal, April 4, 1975.

 Shank’s book is a useful resource for anyone seeking to improve team performance. It has chapters 21

devoted to team development, analyzing team performance and other practical subjects.

231

common task. Teams just don’t happen; they’re built. Team building is the 20

deliberate process of creating a successful team from among a group of

people. Ultimately, people willingly and enthusiastically engage in an

activity only if it is personally rewarding in some way. But when the activity

is rewarding of itself, the individual engages in it without expecting

additional rewards.

James H. Shank in his 1982 book Working in Teams, a Practical Manual

for Improving Work Groups presents a list of characteristics of good and poor 21

teams. Compare your team’s performance to these two slightly adapted lists

and see how your team is doing.

Characteristics of a Good Team

1. Team members are in close physical proximity and able to meet

regularly.

2. The appropriate skills are represented on the team.

3. The appropriate levels of organizational authority are present

within the team.

4. Team members are involved in the setting of objectives.

5. Objectives are understood by all members.

6. All individuals support the objectives.

7. Objectives are set and met within realistic time frames.

8. Roles are clearly defined and do not overlap.

9. Team members and their leaders know their assignments.

10. Roles are understood by all and are supported.

11. There is a strong, effective leadership with clearly defined

responsibilities.

12. Members and leaders are accessible to each other.

13. Decisions are made by consensus.

14. Meetings are efficient and task-improvement oriented.

15. Emphasis is on problem solving, versus blaming the individual

responsible for the problem.

16. All members participate in discussions and meetings.

17. Minutes of meetings are promptly distributed.

18. Members listen well.

19. There is frequent feedback to individuals regarding performance.

20. All members are kept informed.
232

21. Deadlines and milestones are clearly established and agreed to by

the team.

22. There is team identity or esprit de corps and pride.

23. There is tolerance for conflict with an emphasis upon resolution.

24. Conflict is openly discussed, often resulting in growth or learning.

25. Members enjoy each other.

26. Team members support each other.

If there are good teams there are, of course, poor teams. Some of the

characteristics of a poor team follow. 

Characteristics of a Poor Team

1. Physical separation prevents members from meeting frequently.

2. Team is not given adequate resources to do the job.

3. There is no recognition of team effort.

4. There is a lack of recognition by the organization or its leaders that

a team exists.

5. Members do not participate in setting goals.

6. Goals are unclear.

7. Goals are not communicated.

8. Everyone is doing his own thing without attention to team goals.

9. Responsibilities are poorly defined.

10. No clear leader is identified.

11. There is buck-passing of responsibility.

12. Members engage in power plays for authority and control.

13. Members refuse to recognize their interdependence and act as if

they were independent.

14. Decisions are always a crisis situation.

15. Decision making is dominated by one person.

16. Communications are one way--from top down--and channeled

through the leader.

17. Minor points are debated endlessly.

18. Meetings are unproductive with the issues unresolved.

19. Meetings cover trivia, versus significant issues.

20. Actions are taken without planning.

21. Members work individually and ignore each other.

22. Members are late for meetings or do not attend.

23. Members are unwilling to be identified with the team.
 Kimball Fisher. Leading Self-Directed Work Teams, a Guide to Developing New Team Leadership Skills,

22

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1993. The discussion that follows is taken from his work.

233

Every team

has a

leader.

24. There is covert conflict between members.

25. There are severe personality conflicts.

26. Relationships are competitive.

27. Members are defensive.

Teams that do more of the things found on the former list and fewer

of the things on the latter list are more effective. 

THE TEAM LEADER

Every team has a leader. Is the study manager

the planning team leader? He need not be. A team

leader can emerge from virtually anywhere in the

team. Normally, the study manager, by virtue of his

experience, demonstrated ability, and responsibilities,

will be the most logical candidate to be the team leader.

The best team leaders have what Fisher calls behavior 22

competencies. These behavior competencies are leader, living example,

coach, business analyzer, barrier buster, facilitator, and customer advocate.

These competencies or roles describe behaviors that would be valuable

characteristics of any Corps study manager.

The leader unleashes energy and enthusiasm by creating a vision that

others find inspiring and motivating.

The living example serves as a role model for others by “walking the

talk” and demonstrating the desired behaviors of team members and leaders.

The coach teaches others and helps them develop to their potential,

maintains an appropriate authority balance, and ensures accountability in

others.

The business analyzer understands the big picture and is able to

translate changes in the business environment to opportunities for the

organization.

The barrier buster opens doors and runs interference for the team,

challenges the status quo, and breaks down artificial barriers to the team’s

performance.
 Adapted from Andrew J. DuBrin’s The Breakthrough Team Player, Becoming the M.V.P. on Your Workplace 23

Team, AMACOM, New York, 1995.

234

The facilitator brings together the necessary tools, information, and

resources for the team to get the job done, and facilitates group efforts.

The customer advocate develops and maintains close customer ties,

articulates customer needs, and keeps priorities in focus with the desires and

expectations of the customers.

The leader on a study team may change from time to time. As the

study begins, the person most familiar with the people and places of the

study area may be the team leader. At certain points during the study, team

leadership may migrate to other shoulders based on the technical expertise

of the team member. As schedules tighten, money runs short, and the

frequency and import of contact with the public increases, the study manager

is more likely to resume the role of team leader.

It is less important who leads the team than it is that it be lead.

ARE YOU A TEAM PLAYER?

Successful teams need team players. Following is a ladder of team

player skills, knowledge, and attitudes. The ladder begins with basic skills 23

and proceeds through the skills outstanding team members possess. See how

many of these skills you already possess and which you might want to

improve.

1. Attends team meetings regularly.

2. Participates in team brainstorming.

3. Works effectively as a team member by:

C Sharing communication

C Negotiating

C Facilitating

C Participating

C Cooperating

C Trusting

C Working toward and accepting consensus

C Functioning as a teacher and learner

C Valuing and using leadership skills

C Using conflict resolution skills
235

4. Makes original contributions to team issues; builds upon others’

contributions.

5. Volunteers to handle action items or to participate in new teams.

6. Actively participates in establishing team’s purpose, direction,

strategy, or goals.

7. Positively questions and challenges others; utilizes conflicting views

in a constructive manner.

8. Acts to create and promote team cohesiveness.

9. Offers to relieve a team member’s heavy workload.

10. Considers impact on external relationships when influencing team

outcomes.

The lists presented in the preceding paragraphs can serve the very

practical purpose of guiding a team in its functioning. Nonetheless, they

remain lists. For additional details on the subject matter, see some of the

books referenced at the end of the chapter or others of your own choosing.

SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD

Lesson One. Public involvement and teamwork are the two most

important people issues in the planning process.

Lesson Two. Public involvement is required; there are many publics

and many ways to involve them. There is no one best way to do public

involvement.

Lesson Three. Teams are needed because today’s problems are far too

complex for any individual to handle, and because two heads are better than

one.

Lesson Four. Good teams don’t just happen; they take a lot of work.

When the planning is finished there is one more very important thing

to do; tell your story. If you can’t explain what you have done and how you

arrived at your conclusions in a concise and transparent fashion, then the

entire planning process may have been for nought. The next chapter tells a

little story about how to tell your story.

SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING

There is no definitive book on teams, teamwork, or leading a team.

However, there are any number of very good books available, they are
236

usually found in the organizational management section of an academic

library. Some suggestions for getting started in this field follow.

DuBrin, Andrew J. The Breakthrough Team Player Becoming the M.V.P. on Your

Workplace Team. New York: American Management Association,

1995.

Fisher, Kimball. Leading Self-Directed Work Teams. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Inc., 1993.

Hartzler, Meg and Jane E. Henry. Team Fitness a How-to Manual for Building

a Winning Work Team. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1994.

Lewis, James P. How to Build and Manage a Winning Project Team. New York:

American Management Association, 1993.

Shonk, James H. Working in Teams a Practical Manual for Improving Work

Groups. New York: American Management Association, 1982. 

Tjosvold, Dean. Working Together to Get Things Done. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books, 1986.

Zenger, John, Ed Musselwhite, Kathleen, and Craig Perrin. Leading Teams

Mastering the New Role. New York: Irwin Professional Publishing,

1994.

IWR has produced a number of publications that will be particularly

useful in the area of public involvement:

Environmental Manager’s Handbook on Public Involvement. Spring 1995.

(Report available through the Institute for Water Resources).

Partnering. IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4, December 1991.

Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute

for Water Resources. IWR Report 82-R1, May 1983.

Tri-Service Committee: Air Force, Army Navy. Partnering Guide for

Environmental Missions of the Air Force, Army and Navy. July 1996.

(Report available through the Institute for Water Resources).
237
238

Table 37: Types of Planning

Reports

C Reconnaissance

C Feasibility

C General Reevaluation

C Limited Reevaluation

C General Design Memorandum

C Environmental Impact Statement

C Special Studies

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TELLING YOUR STORY

“The difference between the right word and the almost right

word is the difference between lightning and the lightning

bug.” Mark Twain, American Author.

INTRODUCTION

When the planning is done, you’ve got to tell someone. That means

a report. Too often a report becomes a massive compilation of every bit of

data and correspondence generated by the study. The report outline

frequently mimics the six steps of the planning process and that rarely tells

the story of a planning effort to best advantage. 

A common criticism of government reports is that they are

unreadable. To have value, your report must be read and understood. It doesn’t

matter if it is a letter report, a reconnaissance report, a feasibility report, an

environmental assessment or impact statement, or any other kind of report

(see Table 37). If it is not read, it’s a waste of time. 

Identify the primary

reader for your report. Are

you writing for the general

public? The non-Federal

partner? Corps reviewers?

The Office of Management and

Budget? Yourself? Future

planners? Decide who you are

writing for, then keep that reader

in mind at all times. Then tell

your story. Tell the reader

what happened. Tell the story

in simple language and in a

time-ordered process. Organize the report carefully. Use visuals. Enumerate

ideas and points. Make effective use of headings and subheadings. Try to

keep the main report short -- can you do it in 50 pages? Put only the essential

details in the appendix. Keep the rest of them in carefully organized files.

Make maximum use of other communication venues, like Issue Resolution

Conferences, review meetings, public meetings, and the like to convey

additional detail and complex issues.

Tell your story. Make it a story you wouldn’t mind hearing if you

were the reader.
239

This chapter is about documenting the decision-making process by

telling your story. It begins with a discussion of documentation and the need

for it. It then addresses the writing of the report with an emphasis on simple

points like always keeping the reader in mind and making sure your report

has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hints are offered for good writing,

effective presentation, and for revising your story. The chapter ends with a

few thoughts about the length of a report and other ways to get your story

across.

WHY IS DOCUMENTATION NEEDED?

Let’s begin with the obvious. A planning effort is initiated at the

request of someone else. It is likely that substantial resources have been

dedicated to the purpose of finding solutions to problems and answers to

questions. Decisions have to be made based on the results of the planning

effort. The planners have an obligation to report their findings so decisions

can be made. Generally, these findings will be reported in writing.

This need to document creates an interesting role for the planning

report. In its earlier versions it serves as an analytical report. It identifies a

problem; analyzes, synthesizes, and interprets pertinent information; and

presents conclusions and recommendations for appropriate action. As

decision-makers concur or dissent with the recommendations, the report

becomes a decision document. At this point, its intention is no longer to

convince the reader but to inform her of a decision that has been made.

During the course of a study, the role of the study documentation will evolve.

WHAT IS DOCUMENTATION?

To document means to provide factual or substantial support for

statements made or a hypothesis proposed. Documentation simply means

communicating the results of the planning effort. Most often this is done

through a study report. Typically, depending on the type of planning effort

undertaken, there will be some document that contains a summary of the

entire planning process. This may be a letter report of a few pages or a main

report that can run hundreds of pages. For Civil Works planning studies, the

main report is often accompanied by an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement and one or more technical appendices.

Among the Corps reports used in the preparation of this manual is a

reconnaissance report with appendices that is 4.75 inches thick and a

feasibility report with appendices that is 6.0 inches thick. With maps,

graphics, editing, writing, printing, distribution and related costs,
240

...ask who the

reader is.

...documentation

need not mean

put it in the

report.

documentation can be an extremely expensive part of the planning effort. If

it is true that few if any people are reading these voluminous documents,

maybe it is time to rethink what documentation is.

In the introduction to this chapter we ask who the

reader is. The likely answer is that there are many

different readers. If so, doesn’t it make sense that there

might be many different kinds of documentation? Does

John Q. Public need the same kind of documentation that

a technical reviewer is going to need? Certainly not.

Thus, we propose that you think of documentation as a set of different

documents that authenticate and support the findings of the planning effort. The

composition depends on the intended audience. For example, technical reviewers

are likely to want to have the most detailed documentation. In a flood

damage reduction study, this might mean stream flow data, backwater

profiles, rating curves, damage functions for each reach by type of damage,

detailed calculations of expected annual damages, and interest during

construction calculations and so on. 

These details of the planning effort can be documented in a variety of

ways including the current method of including them in a technical appendix.

If better, faster, and cheaper products are one of the goals of Corps planning

efforts, then it might be advisable to think of new ways of documenting these

efforts. One alternative could be to include a sample calculation in the

printed technical appendix. That could mean, for example, one expected

annual damage calculation for one type of damages for one reach, rather than

dozens of sets of such calculations. Additional details can be provided to

technical reviewers or other interested parties directly from project files.

Devoting more effort to carefully documented project files might

prove to be a viable alternative to devoting extensive resources to the

preparation of voluminous technical appendices at the cost of better

documented project files. It is not uncommon for report preparation to

absorb so much time and energy that little energy is left to carefully organize

and document the raw data in project files. This is precisely the

documentation that can be so essential to the replication and authentication

of study results that is repeatedly required prior to implementation.

In other words, documentation need not

mean put it in the report. Documentation could

as easily mean keep it in your files. Results may

often be better communicated to special interest

audiences, like technical reviewers, in meetings,

workshops and issue resolution conferences. There is
241

“Planography”

If we could invent a

word for this chapter it

would be planography, the

biography of a plan. That is

the essence of a good

report. It’s a diary. Start

writing it from day one,

don’t wait until the end of

the study.

Who is

the

intended

audience?

more than one way to communicate the results of a study to special interest

groups.

WRITING THE REPORT

Because planning teams usually do the work, reports are often written

by the various team members. Many of the reports they produce read like it

too. Not all writers are equally gifted. Not all use the same writing style.

Nothing can be more annoying to a reader trying to understand a complex

issue than to try to wade through a poorly organized report written by a

dozen people who apparently never spoke to one another or bothered to read

what the others had written.

The part of the report that really

should be read by everyone interested in

understanding the planning process and the

decision that resulted from it should be easy

to read and understand. That does not

mean it must be written by one person,

but it probably should be. The report is a

diary. It’s the story of the plan. It should

not be held until all the work is done.

In this section of the chapter, we

offer some suggestions for report writing

that have been culled from experience

and a number of authors of books on

report writing. For more detailed information and some excellent how-to

books, see the suggestions for further reading at the end of the chapter.

WHO IS THE READER?

The first and most important question the planning team

must ask itself is who is the primary reader of this report. Who is

the intended audience? If the answer is the technical

reviewer, the content of the report will be quite different from

what it would have been in a report written for John Q.

Public.

If the reader is an installation commander with

intimate knowledge of the problem you have been asked to address, it may

be quite possible to document your findings in a few pages. If the reader is
 The questions were adapted from Phillip V. Lewis and William H. Baker. Business Report Writing, Grid, 24

Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1978.

242

A chronological

story is best.

a vast and varied public it is going to take more effort and pages to tell your

story.

The purpose of a report is to communicate ideas to another person. Once

you have identified the reader, empathize with her throughout the writing

process. Put yourself in the reader’s position. Don’t write for the study team

or for your own personal glory. Write for that person who is going to be

reading. Tell her your story in a way that she can understand it.

To help you empathize with the reader, here are some questions you

might ask of the study team before you begin to write. Who will read this

report? Who will be affected by the report? What will the reader look for in

the report? How will the report be used? Why do the readers need the

report? When will the report be used? Where will the report be used and

where will it be stored? How can the report be made most useful for all

readers?

Ask and answer these questions and you’ll be well on your way to 24

writing a report that people will read.

HOW TO MAKE YOUR REPORT EFFECTIVE

To make your report effective, keep the reader in mind at all times.

Don’t try to say it all at once. Choose a logical method of presentation and

stick to it. Don’t make conclusions in the introduction or introduce new

material in the conclusions. Explain each point you make. Tell why you did

the things you did, explain the procedures you used. Use specifics. Give the

reader the facts. Don’t say you did a survey of

selected flood plain properties, say you

interviewed owners of 57 commercial properties

and surveyed 200 residences. Providing specifics

does not mean providing all the specifics. Avoid

burdensome detail. A report should have a

beginning or introduction followed by the body of

the report. It should end with conclusions. A chronological story is best.

Beginnings

Most readers focus their attention on the beginning of a report. If they

don’t find what they need there they look at the end of the report. Pay special
243

... “this is what

we did, this is

why we did it,

and this is how

it turned out.”

attention to beginnings and endings. They are crucially important, given the

way people really read.

In the beginning, tell the reader where you are going. The more the

reader understands where you are going, the more likely he is to understand

your message. Take care to let the reader know how the report is organized.

Let him know where he will find what.

A good beginning should accomplish at least three things. First, it

should compel the reader to read on. Second, it should provide enough

information for the reader to understand your basic findings or

recommendation. Finally, it should establish the writer’s rapport with the

reader.

Because communication of your ideas to another is the major function

of the report, compelling the reader to read on may be the most important

function of the beginning. To compel the reader to read on, every beginning

should include what the document is about, explain how you will develop

your argument, and tell him why the document is important. This latter

point is not accomplished by saying, “This is an

important report.” It is accomplished by striking

a chord in the reader; by revealing to him

something that he recognizes as important and in

his interest to be informed about. It is not likely

that beginning with a study authority and a long

dry list of previous studies and reports is going

to want to make anyone read on. Consider

putting such technical material in an appendix.

Tell your story from the beginning. Don’t clutter

it up with “requirements” that add nothing to your main point, which should

be some variation of “this is what we did, this is why we did it, and this is

how it turned out.”

The Body of the Report

Organize the body of your report in a way that best tells your story.

Keep in mind you do have a story. First, this happened. Then, that

happened, and so on. Most planning stories are best told as a narrative of

events. When a story is a narrative of events, use time order to organize it.

Chronology is your friend.

Forget the outline that begins with problem identification, followed

by inventory and forecast. Report organizations that follow the six steps of

the planning process impose a narrative order that is artificial and likely to

be confusing to the reader. If the study began when the non-Federal sponsor
244

presented a plan and said, “This is what we’d like you to build,” then begin

your story there. Tell the reader how the study unfolded. Tell the story of

how you went from that first day to the recommendation in your study.

Don’t worry if you did not execute each planning step in proper sequence.

Planning is a messy, chaotic process. The six step process is a framework for

doing planning studies; it is not a report outline.

Endings

Endings need to provide a sense of closure. There should be nothing

important left unsaid. All loose threads in the report must be tied up by now.

Clear, unambiguous endings are best. Planning studies have a natural

ending: the recommendations and steps necessary for implementation.

SOME HINTS FOR GOOD WRITING

Write so your reader can understand you. The Gunning Fog Index

is a handy tool to gage how appropriate your reports are for your readers.

Gunning Fog Index

The following description has been taken verbatim from Raymond V.

Lesikar’s book How to Write a Report Your Boss will Read and Remember, p. 48.

The ease with which the Gunning Fog Index can be used is

obvious from a review of the simple steps listed below. Its

ease of interpretation is also obvious in that the index

computed from these simple steps is in grade level of

education. For example, an index of seven means that the

material tested is easy reading for one at the seventh-grade

level. An index of 12 indicates high school graduate level of

readability. And an index of 16 indicates the level of the

college graduate.

The simple steps for computing the index are as follows.

Select a sample. For long pieces of writing, use at least 100 words. As

in all sampling procedures, the larger the sample, the more reliable the results

can be. So, in measuring readability for a long manuscript, one would be

wise to select a number of samples at random throughout the work.
245

Determine the average number of words per sentence. That is, first

count words and sentences in a sample selected. The divide the total number

of words by the total of sentences.

Determine the percentage of hard words in the sample. Words of

three syllables or longer are considered to be hard words. But do not count

as hard words (1) words that are capitalized, (2) combinations of short easy

words (grasshopper, businessman, bookkeeper), or (3) verb forms made into

three-syllable words by adding ed or es (repeated, caresses).

Add the two factors computed above and multiply by 0.4. The

product is the minimum grade level at which the writing is easily read.

Let’s apply this index to the first two paragraphs of this chapter.

There are 102 words in 8 sentences, an average of 13 words per sentence.

There are 11 words with three or more syllables for 11 percent of the total

words. The sum of these two factors is 13 + 11 = 24; and 0.4 x 24 = 9.6. Thus,

the introduction to this chapter should be easily read by a high school

sophomore.
246

Ten Commandments for Effective Written Communication

Following are ten commandments for good writing, taken from

the Lewis and Baker book. Commandments eight and nine have been

adapted to make them more relevant. The original book is chock full

of practical suggestions for how to obey the commandments and is

well worth a look.

1. Keep average sentence length within 18 words and use no more

than 10 long words in each 100 words.

2. Don’t waste words; make each pay its own way.

3. Write so your reader will believe you and can’t misunderstand

you.

4. Write in a friendly informal style whenever possible.

5. Use words of action when you want action and when you want

your reader to know you are taking the action he desires.

6. Write so that your words and sentences will stick together.

7. Use a variety of expressions to avoid monotony and to increase

reader interest.

8. Acquire proficiency as a typist. Learn a word processing package.

9. Make sure the physical appearance of your report impresses your

reader favorably.

10. Continue to improve the thought content of your writing.

A Few More Writing Rules of Thumb

First, and foremost, avoid acronyms and jargon. You may find NEPA,

NED, CERCLA, HTRW, ASA and other acronyms second nature. No one

outside the Corps has a prayer of understanding that last sentence, however.

Likewise, mitigation measures, expected annual damages, and so on make

your message unclear. Avoid words you wouldn’t use in everyday speech.

Fight ambiguity and abstractness. Words mean different things to

different people. If you describe the design level for a wetlands restoration
247

...make common

sense.

project as -1 foot we don’t know if that is mean sea level, national geodetic

vertical datum, mean low water or mean high water. Be clear.

Don’t hide behind foot and a half long words. Obfuscation does not imply

profundity.

Kill those euphemisms. A flood is not a wet water event. A gas station

attendant is not a petroleum transfer engineer and a school bus is not a

motorized attendance module.

Check the logic of your sentences. Inane

combinations of words often result when we

write in haste, are distracted or careless.

Make sure all your sentences make common

sense.

Avoid cop-out phrases. If an alternative is unacceptable to local

interests say so. Don’t say an alternative was sub-optimal.

Don’t mummify your thoughts. A common mistake in reports and other

kinds of writing that are intended to inform and enlighten the reader, is to

take a good basic idea and then wrap so many meaningless, empty,

extraneous words around it that the meaning of your thought gets lost.

Don’t attempt humor in a report. Humor is a very personal thing and

you are not likely to hit the target with every reader. See the last paragraph

for an example. Did you find it funny? (We enjoyed it.)

Avoid sexist language. Whether you agree or disagree, it attracts

attention these days. On the other hand, avoid nonsensical solutions to this

modern sensitivity like (s)he, S/he, or she/he. If it is natural to use gender

neutral words, do so. Alternate male and female pronouns now and then if

gender neutrality becomes clumsy.

Keep explanatory material on target. If you are telling your story, make

sure what you are writing contributes to the tale you are telling. Concentrate

more on telling your story and less on reporting requirements. Get to the

point. Eliminate excess words; avoid redundancies.

Don’t let the subject and verb get too far apart. This is a simple problem

that plagues writers dealing with technical subject matter.

As the Gunning Fog Index suggests, write short sentences.
248

Always use spell check. Then, proofread your work. Never send

anything out for editing or review until you have re-read what you’ve

written. Ask someone else to read it. Does it make sense to them?

SOME HINTS FOR PRESENTATION

Headings and Subheadings

Use headings and subheadings to organize your report. The reader

should be able to look at the headings and subheadings in your report and get

a basic feel for your story. If it is chronologically developed and has

descriptive titles, the essence of the story should come through. 

The headings give order to your story. Subheadings tell the reader

which ideas are subordinate to others. The format you use does not really

matter as long as it is consistent throughout the report. If you’ve seen

something you like, use it.

Enumerate

Enumerate facts, ideas, instructions, questions and the like. Lists of

things have more visibility than text. Lists are a good way to conserve space and

they can be powerful ways to convey ideas.

Visuals

Anyone can dress up a report by adding maps, charts, graphs,

figures, and tables. They can be used effectively, but they should never be

used gratuitously. Each visual should serve a clear and distinct purpose. In

a main report there should never be a visual of any kind that is not both introduced

and concluded. Introducing a visual means tell the reader it is coming. Make

reference to every visual you use. For example, “Containerized cargo

forecasts are shown in Figure A.” Concluding a visual means pointing out its

significance. For example, “Containerized tonnage is expected to peak at 100

million tons in 2010.”

Visuals are easy to produce with today’s software but very few people

have ever received formal training in their usage. There are many good

books that deal with business communications or making presentations.

Detailed discussions on the use of visuals can be found in these and in some

of the books referenced at the end of the chapter.
249

Following are basic rules of thumb to follow in the use of visuals of

any kind:

1. Always include a map that shows the locations of the places and

things you discuss in your report.

2. Use tables and charts that make a single point in the text. Insert the

visual next to the text that introduces it. Avoid placing all visuals

together at the end of a report.

3. Keep tables and charts as brief as possible.

4. Signal the reader when a table or chart is coming up. Introduce it in

the text.

5. Don’t interrupt the text with a chart. Lead the reader into it and out

of it.

6. Conclude the chart. Point out the significance of the chart to the

reader. Steer the reader to the significance of the chart by

summarizing the most important point it is making.

7. Label charts clearly and specifically. Number them consecutively,

but number charts and tables separately.

8. Use a chart or table only if it helps the reader understand your

point.

9. Keep the chart or table as simple as possible.

10. Use white space and labeling to make the visual attractive--make

the reader want to look at it.

11. Consider using tables and charts in the appendix as a way of

summarizing your significant data in a convenient form.

12. Use a consistent method in titling, captioning, and sourcing visuals.

Common Chart Forms

Charts are visual graphics. The line graph may be the most

frequently used of all charts. It shows movements or changes of a continuous

series of data, often over time. Time is conventionally plotted on the

horizontal axis. When comparing two or more series on the same chart, take

care to distinguish the lines by color or form (dots, dashes, and so on). If the
250

different series have different scales, be sure to show both on the vertical axis.

Tick marks on the axes should be fairly proportionate. Make sure the values

on the vertical axis make sense, e.g, use 25, 50, 75, rather than 21, 48, 72.

Alternatively, a line graph may be used to display the relationship

between any two variables. For example, relationships between container

cargo in tons and the number of container vessels calling at a port can be

shown with a line chart. Care must be taken in using a line graph in this

fashion. If there is no relationship between the variables, the graphs can look

like an incomprehensible mess.

A scatter diagram is a useful device for showing the relationship or

lack of a relationship between two variables. It is a simple plot of points in

space; one point is plotted for each pair of variable measurements. This is

most appropriate when one or both of the variables are not time series

variables. 

Bar charts run a close second to the line graph in popularity. They

compare simple magnitudes by the lengths of equal-width bars. They are

used to show quantity changes over time, quantity changes over geographic

distance, or quantitative distances. The principal parts of the chart are the

bars and the grid. The bars can run vertically or horizontally. They can be

individual bars, they can be grouped (or compounded) or they can be stacked

(or subdivided). The grid should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate easy

comparisons. Bar charts are better suited for simple comparisons than for

analytical purposes like lines. 

A histogram is a bar graph used to depict data in a frequency

distribution. Usually the bars are vertical. By convention, the bars are

usually adjacent and touching. 

A pictogram is a bar chart that uses pertinent pictures rather than bars

to display the information. For example, the number of ships calling at a port

could be shown in a bar chart or a line of ships where each picture of a ship

stands for 1,000 vessels, could be used to display the same information.

Generally, the same rules applied to bar charts are applied to pictograms.

There are two special rules to note. First, each picture must be the same size;

comparisons are based on the number of pictures. Second, the pictures

should appropriately depict the quantity to be illustrated. For example,

vessel calls should not be represented by a line of cattle.

Pie charts (or circle graphs) are area charts used to show the

percentage composition of variables. The magnitude being displayed is

shown as a pie and its component parts are shown as slices of the pie. The

slices may be individually labeled, cross-hatched, or colored. An explanatory

legend should be used. You can’t show more than a whole thing or indicate
251

An index...really

helps the reader.

changes over time with a pie chart. Its use should be limited to situations in

which the subdivisions of a single thing is called for.

Statistical maps can be used to show the spatial distribution of

information. Weather maps are a common example. The information is

overlain on a clearly outlined map in a variety of ways. Different colors or

cross-hatching; placing quantities in numerical form within a geographic

area; dots of varying size representing different quantities; and some form of

chart, like a bar chart arising from a geographic region, are among the most

common forms. With the advent and spread of geographic information

systems (GIS), the ability to create statistical maps is markedly easier.

Flow charts are a favorite tool for displaying sequences in natural

processes, organizational operations, lines of command in organizations, time

stages in development, the structure of programs and other systems, and the

like. Band or strata graphs are used to show time sequences. Study schedules

are most often displayed in this fashion.

The high-low-close (or high-low) chart is a good way to display the

variations in a variable within a designated time period. For example, these

charts are often used to show the daily performance of a stock price. A

boxplot (or box-and-whiskers plot) displays summary information for a

distribution. It displays median, 25th and 75th percentiles values as well as

minimum and maximum values of non-outliers. Outliers are also presented

in the graphic.

There is virtually no limit to the ways that information can be

effectively displayed. Pictures, diagrams, cross sections, design drawings,

maps, photographs, and drawings are but some of the more obvious ways

you can help tell your story with visuals. Make judicious and effective use of

as many of these techniques as is appropriate.

Reader Guides

Makesure you have a good table of contents. If you use a lot of headings

and subheadings consider including a “Contents in Brief” that include only

chapter titles and main headings. Include a list of tables, a list of charts, a list

of maps, and a list of every kind of visual you use. These lists should include

titles, numbers, and page location.

An index is a pain to create, but it really helps

the reader. Include all the words, phrases, and topics

that you suspect will be of interest to the reader in an

index. This will help people find the things they are

most interested in and it will help them locate things
252

they found while reading your report. Many word processing programs can

help you build an index. 

If you are going to use acronyms of any kind, make sure you include

a list of all acronyms used at the beginning of the report. If jargon is

unavoidable, include a glossary. Maybe writers will find plain speaking

preferable to the effort required to construct a list of acronyms or a glossary.

Not a bad trade-off.

A list of references should be included at the end of the text and

before any appendices. Footnotes are easier on the reader than end notes.

SOME HINTS FOR REVISING

Editing or revising a report is quality control. Never write a report that

you or someone else does not edit and revise at least once. Want to know

how your report will sound to the reader? Try reading it out loud. Does it

hold your interest? If it doesn’t, it won’t hold the reader’s interest either.

Begin revising by looking at the organization and structure of the

report. This is your story outline. Does the structure jump out at you? Is the

structure of your story clear? Can you instantly tell the main point of your

story from the structure? Can you find things easily? This is where the

organization, headings, lists, table of contents, and index are most useful.

Is the purpose of your report clear? Is the beginning effective? Is the

organization logical? Do you include all important points? Are key

paragraphs well organized? Do you answer the what, why important and

how questions? Does your structure keep the reader moving forward or do

you keep backtracking?

When you have examined the overall organization of your report and

addressed questions like these, then it’s time to begin revising and editing

words. You know what you want to say, you need to find the best words to

say it. Go through the draft literally word by word and ask yourself whether

each word is necessary. Then work on each sentence, applying the same

tests. Do the same for each paragraph. Be merciless. Throw out the words,

sentences, and paragraphs that do not contribute to the telling of your story.

IS SIZE IMPORTANT?

Think about how USA Today presents its information. Color graphics,

maps, charts, drawings, and so on. These are the standards that have been set
253

...be clear,

concise,

and

compact.

Experimenting with other story

telling media is encouraged...

for communicating information effectively today. Do not underestimate the

importance of appearance, if you want your report to be read. If communicating

your ideas to the reader is important to you, if you want your story to be

heard, then the size of your report is also important.

Few if any people are going to tackle a report that

is four to five inches thick, even if it is written well. No one

is going to read and absorb a 200-plus-page report, the

present manual excepted if you’ve made it this far. Your

story needs to be clear, concise, and compact. There are

also cost advantages to shorter reports. But it still must be

complete.

How long should the report be? Unlike term paper requirements,

there are no minimum or maximum page requirements. The report must be

long enough to tell the whole story, but not so long that no one will read or

understand it. Nonetheless, we are going to throw out a 50 page challenge for

a reconnaissance report and under 100 pages for a feasibility report. These

are not suggestions and they are certainly not guidance. They are challenges.

Try to tell your story in 50 pages. With visuals, headings and subheadings,

and a well-written story, it is not unreasonable to expect an interested party

to read 50 pages. On the other hand, you can get a great deal of information

into a well thought-out 50-page report.

OTHER MEDIA

Are there other ways to tell your story besides a printed report? Indeed

there are. At the present time, these alternatives must be considered

complementary ways to tell your story. In time,

they may become substitutes. Experimenting with

other story telling media is encouraged, however,

because communication is the end goal and

multiple media should be used whenever feasible.

VIDEO REPORTS

High schools have been using video yearbooks as a substitute for

printed books for over a decade. Video reports could well be an effective

means of telling your story. A carefully scripted 20 or 30 minute video could

convey a great deal of information effectively. It can be conveyed to a lot of

people in a short amount of time. The video offers the options of going on

site and illustrating problems explicitly. A wide variety of points of view can

be displayed as well.
254

Producing effective video reports can be expensive. They can be

broadcast quality, corporate quality or more amateur attempts. If you think

writing a report is difficult, try scripting an effective video. This is a job that

requires expertise. That expertise can be purchased or acquired through the

school of hard knocks.

RADIO AND TV

Local radio and television are effective ways of reaching interested

audiences. Appearances on radio talk show programs can be an effective

way to initiate two-way communication with the interested public. Public

service programming on radio and television shows can provide another

opportunity to present information to the public. Press conferences can also

attract media coverage. Appearances on local television news programs in

brief interview segments can be effective. If you cultivate a relationship with

local media, it may be possible to generate occasional reports as your story

unfolds.

The more people know about your story from other sources, the more

interested they will be in how it ends.

NEWSPAPERS

Press conferences, press releases, and regular contact with reporters

can be effective ways of getting coverage of your story. Anyone who is going

to try to involve the local media in telling their story would be well advised

to coordinate with their public affairs officers well in advance to initiating

such contact. There is an art and science to how this is best done, and doing

it poorly can be a disaster.

INTERNET

How about a website or homepage for your study? If you set up a site

early in the study and keep it updated, it can become an effective

supplementary means of communication with a growing segment of the

public. Websites can be used for two-way communication. Including an email address for the study manager can encourage immediate feedback on

the information you put out to the public. Reports can be published and

made available over the Internet. This could be a great place to make

databases or technical appendix-type material available without going to the

trouble and expense of preparing a five-inch-thick report.
255

...a mailing list...can be

an effective forum for free

and open discussion...

If you have a study that has

generated a great deal of interest, it

may be advisable to establish a mailing

list. Using a list server, a mailing list

ensures that everyone who subscribes

to the mailing list gets copies of all email that is sent by anyone on the list.

This can be an effective forum for free and open discussion of study issues.

It also provides the study team with a cheap and efficient alternative to mass

mailings.

An alternative to the mailing list is a newsgroup. It is the electronic

equivalent of posting every e-mail message sent over a mailing list to a

message board. The reader can enter the newsgroup area whenever she

wants and read only those things of interest to her. The newsgroup

subscriber does not get inundated with e-mailings on a daily basis.

MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND THE LIKE

If you want to get your story out to people, tell it as often as you can.

Meetings with other Corps interests can facilitate the technical review of your

report. Meetings with stakeholders and the public allow you to hone and

perfect your story. As people learn what is going on and you learn what

people are interested in hearing, you get better at telling your story. If people

are familiar with some of the details, it makes it easier to understand your

story.

Special meetings and workshops also allow you to deal directly with

those issues that may not be of general interest to the reader. Meetings and

workshops could be a viable alternative to including voluminous detail of

interest to very few people in a report.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Lesson 1. Planners must report their findings so decisions can be

made.

Lesson 2. Always write with your reader clearly in mind.

Lesson 3. Chronology is your friend. Tell your story.

Lesson 4. Write a report that people will read.
256

Lesson 5. Experiment with other story-telling media.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

Bookstores are full of books that purport to teach good writing. Find

one you like and use it. If you’re interested in report writing, your best bet

would be to look in the writing for business section of an academic or wellstocked public library. These books provide a wealth of hints, to-do lists, and

a variety of helpful, easy-to-absorb suggestions for writing effective reports.

A few books you might find useful include these:

Ewing, David. Writing for Results in Business, Government, the Sciences, the

Professions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979.

Holcombe, Marya W. and Judith K. Stein. Writing for Decision Makers:

Memos and Reports with a Competitive Edge. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold Co., 1987.

Lesikar, Raymond V. How to Write a Report Your Boss Will Read and Remember.

Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1974.

Lewis, Phillip V. and William H. Baker. Business Report Writing. Columbus,

OH: Grid, Inc., 1978.

Weaver, Patricia C. and Robert G. Weaver. Persuasive Writing: A Manager’s

Guide to Effective Letters and Reports. New York: The Free Press, 1977.
257
258
259

REFERENCES
260
261

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R.L. The Art of Problem Solving. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1978.

Alexander, Ernest R. Approaches to Planning, Introducing Current Planning

Theories, Concepts and Issues. 2nd Ed. Philadelphia: Gordon and

Breach Science Publishers, 1992.

Alexander, Ernest R. “Planning Theory” in Introduction to Urban Planning.

Ed. Anthony Catanese and James C. Snyder, 106-119. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.

Arnold, Joseph L. The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act. Alexandria,

VA: Office of History, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988.

Baumann, Duane D. and Yacov Y. Haimes. The Role of Social and Behavioral

Sciences in Water Resources Planning and Management. New York:

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987. 

Burchell, Robert W. and George Sternlieb. Planning Theory in the 1980's, A

Search for Future Directions. Rutgers University: Center for Urban

Policy Research, 1978.

Burke, Roy and James P. Henry. Collective Decision Making in Water

Resource Planning. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1975. 

Catanese, Anthony J. and James C. Snyder, eds. Introduction to Urban

Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “History of U.S. Water Policy.” Colorado State

University: Colorado Agribusiness Roundup. Fall/Winter, 1980-1981.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Let’s Dismantle (largely but not Fully) the Federal

Water Resource Development Establishment, or the Apostasy of a

Longstanding Water Resource Development Federalist.” Denver:

Denver Journal of International Law in Policy. Volume 6. Special

Issue, 1976.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “The Living Past in Federal Power Policy.” 

Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Annual Report, 1959.

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Perspectives on Instream Flow Needs.” Boise, ID:

Paper delivered at Instream Flow Needs Conference, 4 May 1976.
262

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr. “Planning Programs and Water Problems: Do They

Match?” St. Louis, MO: Paper delivered at National Conference on

Water, 24 May 1977.

Chadwick, G. A Systems View of Planning. Oxford: Pergamon, 1975.

Charbeneau, Randall J. and Barney P. Popkin, eds. Regional and State Water

Resources Planning and Management: Proceedings of a Symposium

Held in San Antonio, Texas. Bethesda: American Water Resources

Association, 1984.

Claire, William H. ed. Urban Planning Guide. Urban Planning and 

Development Division Committee on Review of Urban Planning

Guide. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1969. 

Committee on the Social and Environmental Objectives of the Water

Resources Planning and Management Division. Social and 

Environmental Objectives in Water Resources Planning and

Management. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1984.

Dehlinger, H. and Protzen, J.P., “Some Considerations for the Design of Issue

Based Information Systems (IBIS).” DMG-DRS Journal: Design

Research and Methods. 6(2)(April-June 1972): 38-45.

Delft, Ad van and Peter Nijkamp. Multi-Criteria Analysis and Regional

Decision-Making. Studies in Applied Regional Science Vol. 8. Leiden:

Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, 1977.

DuBrin, Andrew J. The Breakthrough Team Player Becoming the M.V.P. on

Your Workplace Team. New York: American Management

Association, 1995.

Easter, K. William, John A. Dixon, and Maynard M. Hufschmidt, eds. 

Watershed Resources Management, An Integrated Framework with

Studies from Asia and the Pacific. Studies in Water Policy and

Management, No. 10. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.

Eden, Colin. “Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options development

and Analysis (SODA).” in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World:

Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and

Conflict. Jonathan Rosehead, Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

1989.

Edmunds, E. and J. Letey. Environmental Administration. New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1973.
263

Ewing, David. Writing for Results in Business, Government, the Sciences, the

Professions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979.

Faludi, Andreas. Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973.

Fisher, Kimball. Leading Self-Directed Work Teams. New York: McGrawHill, Inc., 1993.

Fontane, Darrell G. and Harry N. Tuvel, eds. Water Policy and Management:

Solving the Problems: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference.

New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1994.

Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to

Action. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. 501 pages.

Friedmann, John and William Alonso, eds. Regional Development and

Planning, A Reader. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1967. 

Friend, John and Allen Hickling. Planning Under Pressure, The Strategic

Choice Approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1987.

Friend, J.K. and W.N. Jessop. Local Government and Strategic Choice: An

Operational Research Approach to the Processes of Public Planning

(Second Edition). Oxford: Pergamon, 1977. [First Edition (1969)-

London:Tavistock Publications]

Gaynor, Alan Kibbe and Jane L. Evanson. Project Planning, A Guide for

Practitioners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992.

Goodman, Alvin S. Principles of Water Resources Planning. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1984.

Goodwin, Paul and George Wright. Decision Analysis for Management

Judgment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.

Hall, Peter. Urban and Regional Planning. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1992.

Hartzler, Meg and Henry, Jane E. Team Fitness: A How-to Manual for

Building a Winning Work Team. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality

Press, 1994.

Healey, Patsy, Glen McDougall and Michael J. Thomas, eds. Planning

Theory, Prospects for the 1980s. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.

Heaney, James P. “New Directions in Water Resources Planning and

Management.” Water Resources. No. 93, Autumn 1993: 3-8.
264

Helweg, Otto J. Water Resources Planning and Management. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

Hill, M. “A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans.”

Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 34, No. 1, 19-19,

1968.

Hill M. and Y. Tzamir, “Multi-dimensional Evaluation of Regional Plans

Serving Multiple Objectives.” Papers of the Regional Science

Association. Vol. 29, 139-164, 1972.

Hill, Morris. Planning for Multiple Objectives, An Approach to the

Evaluation of Transportation Plans. Monograph Series Number Five.

Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute, 1973.

Holcombe, Marya W. and Judith K. Stein. Writing for Decision Makers

Memos and Reports with a Competitive Edge. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1987.

Holmes, Beatrice Hart. A History of Federal Water Resource Programs, 1800-

1960. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Holmes, Beatrice Hart. History of Federal Water Resource Programs and 

Policies, 1961-1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1979.

Hon, Katherine, ed. Water Management in the 90's, A Time for Innovation:

Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference. New York:

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993.

Imhoff, Edgar, ed. Proceedings and Analysis Workshop on the PlanningResearch Interface. Conference Report. Bangor: Water Resources

Center, University of Maine, 1970.

Kaiser, Edward J. Godschalk, David R., and Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. 1995. Urban

Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition. Urbana Illinois: University of

Illinois Press. 493 pages.

Kindsvater, C.E., ed. Organization and Methodology for River Basin

Planning: Proceedings of a Seminar. Atlanta: Water Resources Center,

Georgia Institute of Technology, 1964.

Kozlowski, J. and G. Hill, eds. Toward Planning for Sustainable Development,

A Guide for the Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) Method. 

Aldershot: Avebury, 1993.
265

Laconte, P. and Y.Y. Haimes, eds. Water Resources and Land-Use Planning:

A Systems Approach: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study

Institute. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 1982.

Lesikar, Raymond V. How to Write a Report Your Boss Will Read and

Remember. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1974.

Lewis, James P. How to Build and Manage a Winning Project Team. New

York: American Management Association, 1993.

Lewis, Phillip V. and William H. Baker. Business Report Writing. Columbus,

OH: Grid, Inc., 1978.

Lichfield, Nathaniel, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitbread. Evaluation in the

Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1975.

Luckman, J. “An Approach to the Management of Design.” Operational

Research Quarterly. 18:345-58, 1967.

Maass, Arthur. Muddy Waters. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.

Major, David C. Multi Objective Water Resource Planning. Water Resources

Monograph Series. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union,

1977.

Marquis, D. G. “The Anatomy of Successful Innovations.” Innovation. 1

(1969):28-37. 

Moore, Jamie W. and Dorothy P. Moore. The Army Corps of Engineers and

the Evolution of Federal Flood Plain Management Policy. University

of Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, 1989.

Morgan, J.R. AIDA-A Technique for the Management of Design. IOR

Monograph, No. 2. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations,

1971.

Morgan, M. Granger and Max Henrion. Uncertainty, A Guide to Dealing

With Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Mulder, Jim, et al. Integrating Water Resources and Land Use Planning.

Water Resources Planning Series. Logan: Utah Water Research

Laboratory, 1979. 

Nadler, G. Work Systems Design: The IDEALS Concept. Homewood, IL: R.D.

Irwin, 1967.
266

National Academy of Sciences. “Alternatives in Water Management.”

Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1966.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. The “Green Book” of 1958. Order # PB-209 180.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Senate Document Number 97. Order # PB-209 171.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special

Task Force, Procedures for Evaluation of Water and Related Land

Resource Projects, June 1969 (“Blue Book”). Order # PB-209 171.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Summary: Federal Agency Technical Comments on the

Special Task Force Report Entitled “Projects for Evaluation of Water

and Related Land Resource Projects,” July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol.

I). Order # PB-209 172.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Summary and Index: Public Response to the Special Task

Force Report entitled “Projects for Evaluation of Water and Related

Land Resource Projects,” July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. II). Order #

PB-209 173.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special

Task Force: Findings and Recommendations, July 1970. (“T.F. Report”

- Vol. III). Order # PB-209 174.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special

Task Force: Principles for Planning Water and Land Resources, July

1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. IV). Order # PB-209 175.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special

Task Force: Standards for Planning Water and Land Resources, July

1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. V). Order # PB-209 176.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special

Task Force: A Summary Analysis of Nineteen Tests of Proposed

Evaluation Procedures on Selected Water and Land Resource Projects,

July 1970. (“T.F. Report” - Vol. VI). Order # PB-209 177.
267

Newkirk, Ross T. Environmental Planning for Utility Corridors. Ann Arbor:

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1979.

Nijkamp, P. “Stochastic Quantitative and Qualitative Multi-Criteria Analysis

for Environmental Design.” Papers of the Regional Science

Association. 1977.

Nijkamp, P., P. Rietveld, and H. Voogd. Multi-criteria Evaluation in Physical

Planning. Contributions to Economic Analysis 185. Amsterdam:

North Holland, 1990.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Management of

Water Projects, Decision-Making and Investment Appraisal. Paris: 

OECD, 1985.

Oxenfeldt, Alfred R., David W. Miller, and Roger A. Dickinson. A Basic

Approach to Executive Decision-Making. New York: American

Management Association, 1964.

Paris, Chris, ed. Critical Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon

Press, 1982. 

Petersen, Margaret S. Water Resources Planning and Development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.

Pounds, W.F. “The Process of Problem Finding.” Industrial Management

Review. 11 (1969): 1-19.

Reuss, Martin. Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. IWR Policy

Study 91-PS-1. October 1991.

Rosen, Howard and Martin Reuss, eds. The Flood Control Challenge: Past,

Present, and Future. New Orleans, LA: Proceedings of a National

Symposium, 26 September 1986.

Rosenhead, Jonathan, ed. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World,

Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and

Conflict. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 

Saaty, Thomas L., Luis G. Vargas, and Kevin P. Kearns. The Analytical

Hierarchy Process. 4 volumes.
268

Sargent, Frederic O., Paul Lusk, José A. Rivera, and María Varela. Rural

Environmental Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington,

D.C.: Island Press, 1991.

Scodari, Paul F. Wetlands Protection: The Role of Economics. Environmental

Law Institute Monograph. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law

Institute, 1990.

Shonk, James H. Working in Teams a Practical Manual for Improving Work

Groups. New York: American Management Association, 1982. 

Simon, H.A. Models of Discovery. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel, 1977.

Smith, Garry D., Danny R. Arnold, and Bobby G. Bizzell. Business Strategy

and Policy. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1988.

Spliid, I. “Use of Correspondence Analysis in a Planning Procedure for Local

Governments.” Paper Third Advanced Karlsruhe Summer Institute

in Regional Science, Karlsruhe, 1974.

Stein, Jay M. (Ed.). 1995. Classic Readings in Urban Planning: An

Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 592 pages.

Task Committee on Federal Policies in Water Resources Planning. Federal

Policies in Water Resources Planning. New York: American Society

of Civil Engineers, 1985.

Tjosvold, Dean. Working Together to Get Things Done. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books, 1986.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. An

Overview Manual for Conducting National Economic Development

Analysis. IWR Report 91-R-11. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1995.

Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual,

Interim: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses. IWR

Report 95-R-1. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1993. National

Economic Development Cost Manual. IWR Report 93-R-12.

Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1987. National

Economic Development Manual - Agricultural Flood Damage. IWR

Report 87-R-10. Alexandria, VA.
269

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. National

Economic Development Manual - Coastal Storm Damage and Erosion.

IWR Report 91-R-6. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. National

Economic Development Manual - Deep Draft Navigation. IWR

Report 91-R-13. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. National

Economic Development Manual - Overview Manual for Conducting

National Economic Development Analysis. IWR Report 91-R-11. 

Prepared by The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. for the Institute for

Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1993. Survey

Questionnaire Items for the Collection of Planning Data. IWR Report

93--2. Alexandria, Va.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1988. Urban

Flood Damage. IWR Report 88-R-2. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. Volume

II: Primer for Surveying Flood Damage for Residential Structures and

Contents. IWR Report 91-R-10. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1986. Volume

I: Recreation Use and Benefit Estimation Techniques. IWR Report 86-

R-4. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1986. Volume

II: A Guide for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in

Recreation Studies. IWR Report 86-R-5. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1990. Volume

III: A Case Study Application of Contingent Value Method for

Estimating Urban Recreation Use Benefits. IWR Report 90-R-11.

Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991. Volume

IV: Evaluating Changes in the Quality of the Recreation Experience.

IWR Report 91-R-7. Alexandria, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. Report on the Federal Civil Works

Program as Administered by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army:

Appendix D: Policies and Procedures of Investigating and Planning

Civil Works. 
270

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “The History of the US Army Corps of

Engineers.” EP 360-1-21. Washington, D.C., January 1986.

U.S. Water Resources Council. “Economic and Environmental Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation

Studies,” 1983.

VanGundy, Arthur. Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1981.

Viessman, Warren and Kyle E. Schilling, eds. Social and Environmental

Objectives in Water Resources Planning and Management: 

Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. New York:

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1986.

Wayland III, Robert H. “Comprehensive Watershed Management: A View

from EPA.” Water Resources. No. 93, Autumn, 1993: 23-26.

Weaver, Patricia C. and Robert G. Weaver. Persuasive Writing a Manager’s

Guide to Effective Letters and Reports. New York: The Free Press,

1977.

Wheelwright, Steven C., Spyros Makridakis. Forecasting Methods for

Management. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

Yoe, Charles. The Declining Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the

Development of the Nation’s Water Resources. Fort Collins, CO:

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, 1981.

Yoon, K. Paul, Ching-Lai Hwang. Multiple Attribute Decision Making, An

Introduction. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series.

University of Iowa: Sage Publications, Inc., 1995. 

Zeleny, Milan. Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. New York: McGraw-Hill

Co., 1982.

Zenger, John, Ed. Musselwhite, Kathleen, and Perrin, Craig. Leading Teams

Mastering the New Role. New York: Irwin Professional Publishing,

1994.

Zwicky, F. Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological

Approach. New York: MacMillan, 1969.
271

APPENDIX I:

PLANNER’S LIBRARY
272
273

APPENDIX I: PLANNER’S LIBRARY

This is a selected list of planning-related publications. Updates may be

available on Headquarters’ websites:

Planning:

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp/guidance.htm

Policy:

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwa/guidance.htm

INDEX OF PUBLICATIONS

EP 25-1-1, Index of Publications, Forms and Reports. CEIM-IV, 30 June 1995.

This pamphlet list: Corps’ supplements to Army Regulations (AR),

Engineer Circulars (EC), Engineer Manuals (EM), Engineer

Pamphlets (EP), Engineer Regulations (ER), Office Memoranda

(OM), Technical Letters (TL), and miscellaneous publications and

forms. 

REGULATIONS AND PAMPHLETS

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (March 10, 1983).

The Principles and Guidelines guide the formulation and evaluation

studies of the major Federal water resource development agencies,

including the Corps’ Civil Works studies. The full text of the P&G

are included in ER 1105-2-100 (see Chapter Four of this manual). 

ER 1105-2-100, Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies. CECW-P,

28 December 1990 (under revision at this writing).

This regulation provides guidance for the conduct of Civil Works

planning studies and related programs by the Corps.

ER 1105-2-101, Risk-Based Analysis for Evaluation of Hydrology/Hydraulics,

Geotechnical Stability, and Economics in Flood Damage Reduction Studies. CECWP and CECW-E, 1 March 1996.

This regulation provides guidance on the evaluation framework to be

used in Corps flood control and flood damage reduction studies.
274

EP 1165-2-1, Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities. CECW-A, 15

February 1996.

The “Policy Digest” provides a brief summary of the administrative

and legislative water resources policies and authorities that apply to

the Corps’ Civil Works activities.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR Parts

1500-1508. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (November 29, 1978).

These regulations tell Federal agencies what they must do to comply

with the procedures and achieve the goals of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

ER 200-2-2, Environmental Quality, Procedures for Implementing NEPA. CECWRE (now CECW-A), 4 March 1988.

This regulation provides guidance for implementation of the

procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act for

the Corps’ Civil Works Program. It supplements the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations in 40 CFR 1500-1508 (see

above).

GUIDANCE LETTERS

Guidance letters are informal and early statements of new and evolving

policies, procedures or other guidance. They are issued by several functional offices

in the Corps’ Civil Works Headquarters.

Planning Guidance Letters (PGL) were first issued by the Headquarters

Planning Division (CECW-P) in Fiscal Year 1995. Applicable guidance from these

letters will be included in subsequent revisions to ER 1105-2-100. Planning Guidance

Letters to date are:

Planning Guidance Letter 95-1, Expediting Reconnaissance Certification (7 October

1994).

Planning Guidance Letter 95-2, Alternative Review Process (25 July 1995).

Planning Guidance Letter 95-3, Processing Reconnaissance and Feasibility Reports

Recommending No Further Federal Action (11 August 1995).

Planning Guidance Letter 96-1, Reducing the Cost and Duration of Feasibility Studies

(12 October 1995).

Planning Guidance Letter 96-2, Section 933 Study Requirements (29 April 1996).
275

Planning Guidance Letter 96-3, Expedited Reconnaissance Study Phase (16 August

1996).

Policy Guidance Letters are issued by the Headquarters Office of Policy

(CECW-AR). The latest release was “Policy Guidance Letter Number 45,

Responsibility for Alterations of Railroad Bridges - Flood Control” (27 April 1995).

Applicable guidance from Letters Number 1 through Number 45 was included in the

latest edition of EP 1165-2-1 (see above).

RESEARCH REPORTS

The following reports provide additional information on a wide variety of

planning topics. Most of these publications were prepared by the Institute for Water

Resources (IWR) and can be ordered by contacting:

Publications Manager

Institute for Water Resources

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

7701 Telegraph Road

Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868 

[Fax orders to 703/428-8171]

General Planning

Project Partnership Kit. IWR Report 96-R-10, March 1996.

This report presents “Corps 101" for State, county and local

governments and agencies interested in sponsoring a civil works study

or project. It covers partners’ rights and responsibilities; Corps

missions and programs; who’s who in the Corps; phases of project

development; funding and financing; negotiable items; and project

documents.

Handbook of Forecasting Techniques. IWR Report 75-7, December 1975.

This report is designed to help planners improve their expertise in

long-range forecasting. It presents twelve basic methods for

forecasting that are described and illustrated with examples.

Handbook of Forecasting Techniques, Part II, Description of 31 Techniques.

Supplement to IWR Report 75-7. August 1977.

This report describes thirty-one of the most popular techniques used

by forecasters in the early 1970s. 
276

Public Involvement and Related

Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute

for Water Resources. IWR Report 82-R1, May 1983.

This is a collection of articles on public involvement programs,

defining the public, public meetings, techniques and methods, and

other public involvement related topics. A second Reader covering

recent experience is in preparation.

Environmental Manager’s Handbook on Public Involvement. Spring 1995. (Report

available through the Institute for Water Resources).

This report provides practical information on public involvement

activities at Army installations, and much of it is applicable to Civil

Works and other planning. Topics covered include public

involvement requirements, designing public involvement programs,

designing and conducting workshops, and working with advisory

groups. 

Partnering. IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4, December 1991.

This pamphlet describes concepts and the implementation of

partnering, an approach designed to create a positive, disputesprevention atmosphere during contract negotiation. Partnering uses

team-building activities to help define common goals, improve

communication, and foster a problem-solving attitude among

individuals who must work together.

Tri-Service Committee: Air Force, Army Navy. Partnering Guide for Environmental

Missions of the Air Force, Army and Navy. July 1996. (Report available through the

Institute for Water Resources).

This report addresses partnering in the Department of Defense

environmental mission, who are partners, a “how to” guide to

partnering, frequently asked questions, and case studies.

National Economic Development Analyses

An Overview Manual for Conducting National Economic Development Analysis.

IWR Report 91-R-11, October 1991.

This manual provides an overview of the National Economic

Development principle that is essential in determining whether the

Federal government will construct any water resource development

project. Analysts working within this framework and decision makers

who must understand it are the manual’s intended audience.
277

National Economic Development Cost Manual. IWR Report 93-R-12, June 1993.

This manual provides a framework for thinking about National

Economic Development (NED) costs and their various uses by the

Corps. The intent is to furnish the reader with the tools necessary to

understand what NED costs are, how they are used, and how they

differ from other definitions of costs. To understand NED costs, it is

essential that the nature of these other costs be considered as well.

Deep Draft Navigation. IWR Report 91-R-13, November 1991.

The two purposes of this manual are: to explain the concept and

application of National Economic Development evaluation to harbor

project sponsors, and to assist the individuals who perform evaluation

studies to expeditiously comply with Principles and Guidelines’

requirements. The procedures are designated “Deep Draft

Navigation” in the Principles and Guidelines, but apply to all

commercial navigation projects not a part of the “Inland Waterways

System”. The manual covers theoretical and practical aspects of

benefit evaluation, provides sources of information to identify and

estimate future project use, and contains examples of benefit

calculations.

Urban Flood Damage. IWR Report 88-R-2, March 1988.

The primary purpose of this manual is to provide an expanded

description of the benefit procedures described for urban flood

damages in the Principles and Guidelines. It provides specific

procedures for the entire process of estimating National Economic

Development urban flood damage reduction benefits and is intended

for use in project feasibility planning and evaluation. It is intended to

be a reference guide to questions an analyst might have in conducting

an urban flood damage evaluation.

Urban Flood Damage - Volume II: Primer for Surveying Flood Damage for

Residential Structures and Contents. IWR Report 91-R-10, October 1991.

This manual is a primer for conducting comprehensive flood damage

and related surveys. It explains how basic principles of survey

research can be applied to data collection for flood damage studies.

Two prototype questionnaires (one face-to-face and one mail with a

preliminary telephone supplement) for collecting residential flood

damage and related information are presented. Examples from

previous applications of these questionnaires provide insight as to

how they may be adapted and implemented for future flood damage

studies.
278

Coastal Storm Damage and Erosion. IWR Report 91-R-6, August 1991.

This manual provides a description of benefit evaluation procedures

for the prevention of coastal storm damage and erosion, based on

principles included in the Principles and Guidelines. It presents

selected, specific procedures for the entire process of benefit

estimation and is intended for use in project feasibility planning and

evaluation. It is intended to serve as a reference guide to questions

posed by an economic analyst in conducting a coastal storm damage

and erosion prevention evaluation.

Agricultural Flood Damage. IWR Report 87-R-10, October 1987.

This manual provides an expanded description of the agricultural

benefit evaluation procedures recommended in the Principles and

Guidelines. It presents specific procedures for the entire process of

agricultural benefit estimation and is intended for use in project

feasibility planning and evaluation. It is intended to be a reference

guide to questions an analyst might have in conducting an agricultural

benefit evaluation.

Recreation - Volume I: Recreation Use and Benefit Estimation Techniques. IWR

Report 86-R-4, March 1986.

The primary purpose of this manual is to provide an expanded

description of the recreation evaluation procedures recommended in

the Principles and Guidelines. It summarizes the conceptual basis

of procedures for recreation valuation associated with water and

related land resources planning, describes the mechanics of acceptable

recreation valuation methods, and offers criteria for determining the

applicability of various methods to particular planning situations.

Recreation - Volume II: A Guide for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in

Recreation Studies. IWR Report 86-R-5, March 1986.

This manual is designed to assist Corps planners in using the

contingent value method (CVM) for the evaluation of National

Economic Development recreation benefits. Along with the travel

cost method, the CVM is recommended in the Principles and

Guidelines for evaluating the recreation benefits of water resources

development projects. In addition to presenting the concepts and

background required for using the CVM, several examples are

provided to further describe the basic process required in its

application.
279

Recreation - Volume III: A Case Study Application of Contingent Value Method for

Estimating Urban Recreation Use Benefits. IWR Report 90-R-11, November 1990.

This manuals documents, through a case study demonstration, the

practical application of the contingent value method (CVM) in an

actual recreation planning study. The case study description serves

as a practical guide and, therefore, emphasizes what was done more

than the concepts behind the techniques used. Specific objectives

include: illustration of the CVM in the estimation of recreation use

and benefits in an urban application; illustration of the development

of regional valuation models; and discussion of the potential

transferability of the process and findings to other planning

applications.

Recreation - Volume VI: Evaluating Changes in the Quality of the Recreation

Experience. IWR Report 91-R-7, July 1991.

This manual emphasizes the evaluation of changes in quality of the

recreation experience (shifts in the demand schedule). The primary

purpose of this manual is to describe procedures and methodologies

for valuating changes in recreation use and value resulting from

management decisions impacting on recreation facilities and services

and on the related natural resource base.

Public Surveys - Volume I: Use and Adaptation of Office of Management and Budget

Approved Survey Questionnaire Items for the Collection of Planning Data. IWR

Report 93-R-2, January 1993.

This manual provides guidance for the use of the Office of

Management and Budget approved survey questionnaire items. It

provides specific guidance on cross referencing the compendium of

approved survey questionnaires by: topic of study, methods of data

collection, and types of survey questions. It also provides general

survey implementation and analysis guidance, supplementing

coverage of the survey process contained in earlier National Economic

Development Manuals.

Environmental Analyses

Compilation and Review of Completed Restoration and Mitigation Studies in

Developing an Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources, Volumes I and

II. IWR Reports 95-R-4 and 95-R-5, April 1995. 

This two-volume set describes important environmental restoration

and mitigation planning issues currently facing Corps planners.

Findings are based on ten field case studies, including interviews of

both Corps and non-Corps study team members, and a focus session
280

conducted with Washington level reviewers. Volume I includes a

description of the research approach, and findings and

recommendations for future research. Detailed summaries of the

focus session and the individual case study interviews are in Volume

II.

Environmental Valuation: The Role of Stakeholder Communication and

Collaborative Planning. IWR Report 96-R-14.

This report describes how understanding the perspectives of

stakeholders in Corps environmental projects might improve the

identification and communication of project benefits. This report is

based, in part, on three case studies of current Corps environmental

projects as well as interviews with Headquarters personnel involved

in policy making for or review of environmental projects.

An Introduction to Risk and Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Environmental

Investments. IWR Report 96-R-8, March 1996.

This report introduced Corps personnel involved in the planning of

environmental restoration projects to the basics of risk and

uncertainty analysis. The taxonomy of terms described in this report

provides the new risk analyst with a way to think about the

knowledge, model, and quantity uncertainty that is present in

environmental planning. Selected tools and broad concepts are

introduced as a means of addressing these uncertainties. An example

introducing risk-based analysis to the estimation of habitat unit

changes is offered to demonstrate the feasibility of some of the

methods presented in this report.

Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty into Environmental Evaluation: An Annotated

Bibliography. IWR Draft Report 96-R-9.

This report summarizes the applicability of existing Corps of

Engineers guidance (on risk-based analysis of flood damage reduction

projects and major rehabilitations of hydropower and navigation

projects) to environmental projects. In brief, while the sources of

uncertainty in the evaluations of these kinds of projects obviously

differ from environmental projects, addressing such topics as the

decomposition of risk among constituent parts and analytical

techniques for dealing with uncertainty do provide valuable insight

into how risk analysis might be applied to environmental investment

planning. The report also reviews literature dealing with general risk

and uncertainty assessment and management techniques and specific

examples of risk analysis applications with an environmental

emphasis. 
281

Resource Significance: A New Perspective for Environmental Project Planning.

IWR Report 95-R-10, June 1995. 

Resource significance is one metric that can be used in the selection

and prioritization of environmental projects for implementation. This

report provides a brief discussion of the concept of resource

significance in terms of scientific or technical, institutional, and

public criteria. It provides a summary of a review of 95 existing

programs that have been developed for purposes of ranking projects,

with more detailed summaries of selected programs that assist in

determining environmental significance. Included in the review are

examples of Federal, regional, state, and nonprofit programs and

programs for historical properties.

Prototype Information Tree for Environmental Restoration Plan Formulation and

Cost Estimation. IWR Report 95-R-3, March 1995. 

This report focuses on three specific objectives: 1) developing a

prototype information tree to provide and organize information useful

for formulating and estimating the costs of environmental restoration

and mitigation plans; 2) describing the contents and linkages within

the tree; and 3) beginning the process of building the tree database

and identifying data deficiencies and data sources. Preliminary

implementation of the tree is provided with illustrative linkages of

broad problem area/management approaches to management

measures to management techniques to major environmental

engineering features for lakes and ponds, rivers and streams, non-tidal

wetlands, and tidal wetlands.

National Review of Non-Corps Environmental Restoration Projects. IWR Report 95-

R-12, December 1995.

This report has compiled and compared management measures,

engineering features, monitoring techniques, and detailed costs for a

representative sample of non-Corps environmental projects or

engineering projects (39) with environmental features. This report is

part of the series of reports that will help build into the Prototype

Information Tree for Environmental Restoration Plan Formulation

and Cost Estimation report. The projects are categorized into sixteen

types, based on the project’s primary features.

Review of Monetary and Nonmonetary Valuation of Environmental Investments.

IWR Report 95-R-2, February 1995.

Placing value on the environment, whether through monetary-based

methods or through other evaluation techniques, has been and will

continue to be a widely debated topic. The conceptual foundation and

institutional setting for pursuing further study are developed in this
282

report. Specific objectives are to: 1) describe services provided by

environmental resources and systems and methods for their

measurement or valuation; 2) review existing research programs and

products; and 3) evaluate the resource constraints on potential Corps’

field applications. Independent expert views from an economist,

engineer, ecologist, and psychologist as to environmental outputs and

valuation techniques are included as appendices.

Linkages Between Environmental Outputs and Human Services. IWR Report 96-R-4,

February 1996.

This report identifies relevant socioeconomic use and nonuse values

associated with environmental projects and also improves the linkages

between environmental output measures and necessary inputs for

socioeconomic evaluation. It answers the question: What are the

possible changes in the ecosystem that may result from Corps

environmental mitigation and restoration projects, and what outputs

and services do these changes provide society? The report includes

a suite of tables which link management options, to ecological inputs,

to ecological outputs, and then finally to human services. Also,

indirect effects of management options are identified.

Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective

and Annotated Bibliography. IWR Report 96-EL-1, January 1996.

This report offers a broad, analytical review of the literature

concerned with the challenging subject of evaluating cultural resource

significance. The review of significance includes an annotated

bibliography and an analysis section. The literature summarized is

extensive and is not accessible widely to the archeological and

cultural resource management communities. Twenty-one major

themes or concepts were established to characterize the breadth of

archaeological views and ideas about significance. A review of each

theme was undertaken, including both a discussion and a graphical

presentation of trends through time.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY Steps. IWR

Report 94-PS-2, October 1994.

The report presents step-by-step instructions about how to conduct

cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses for environmental

restoration and mitigation, using an example to illustrate their

application to a planning problem.
283

Bussey Lake: Demonstration Study of Incremental Analysis in Environmental 

Planning. IWR Report 93-R-16, December 1993.

The report presents the results of a demonstration study that tested

the procedure for cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses

using data from the Bussey Lake habitat restoration study.

Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual Interim: Cost

Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses. IWR Report 95-R-1, May 1995.

This manual is a guide for conducting cost effectiveness and

incremental cost analyses for the evaluation of alternative

environmental restoration or mitigation plans. It presents a

procedural framework for conducting the cost analyses and discusses

how they fit into, and contribute to the water resources planning

process. Discussed are the conceptual underpinnings, practical stepby-step procedures, and implications for decision making.

ECO-EASY, Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses, Beta Version 2.6.

May 1995.

This software automates the step-by-step procedures for cost

effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, as described in IWR

Report 95-R-1.

Trade-off Analysis for Environmental Projects: An Annotated Bibliography. IWR

Research Report 95-R-8, August 1995. 

This study explores the literature for analytical techniques that can

support the complex decision-making process associated with Corps

environmental projects. The literature review focuses on

opportunities for using trade-off methodologies and group processes

in environmental plan formulation and evaluation. An annotated

bibliography is included.

Development of an Integrated Bio-Economic Planning System for Corps of

Engineers Planning Projects: Conceptual Design. IWR Report 96-EL-2, February

1996.

This report describes the conceptual design of an Environmental

Decision Support System (EDSS) that would give planners the ability

to design multiple management scenarios and assess the biological

outputs associated with each scenario in a “user-friendly”

environment. The EDSS would allow comparisons of multiple

scenarios and combinations of scenarios using a cost effectiveness

and incremental cost strategy. Four major components would be

combined to produce the EDSS: 1) spatial information and analysis;

2) environmental benefit and cost evaluations; 3) cost effectiveness
284

and incremental cost analyses; and 4) multiple management design

analyses.

Civil Works Environmental Desk Reference. IWR Report 96-PS-3, July 1996.

This contains summary profiles of 62 Federal environmental laws

applicable to the Civil Works Program. Each profile includes: legal

citations, common names, statute summaries, references to related

Corps guidance, general compliance requirements, and suggestions

for restoration-related management opportunities. Full text copies of

22 Executive Orders related to the environment are also included.
285

INDEX
286
287

INDEX

1928 Flood Control Act, 31

308 Reports, 33

acceptability, 40, 60, 77, 81, 85, 154, 158, 163, 170

accuracy, 100, 107, 117

acid mine drainage, 93, 138, 139, 187, 195

activities, 1, 8, 11, 13, 20, 24, 25, 33, 48-50, 52, 53, 62, 66, 87, 93, 94, 103, 109, 118, 123-125, 161, 169, 185,

195, 204, 205, 208, 210, 213, 214, 254, 256

advisory committee, 205

advisory groups, 256

affected area, 65, 107

alternative(s), 3, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 35, 36, 39, 40, 48, 49, 59, 61, 62, 65, 67, 79, 80, 82, 84-86, 95,

97,101-104, 108-110, 113, 115-119, 121, 122, 124-126, 128, 129, 131, 134-137, 140-143, 145, 149,

151,

152, 154-157, 159, 160, 165-167, 169, 170, 173, 175-179, 181-190, 195, 201, 202, 205, 206, 208, 223,

229, 235-237, 244, 254, 263

alternative means, 35, 140

alternative plan(s), 3, 11, 12, 15, 20, 35, 39, 40, 48, 49, 61, 62, 65, 67, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 95, 97, 102, 103,

108-

10, 115, 117, 119, 121, 122, 124-126, 128, 129, 131, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145, 149, 151, 154-157, 159,

160, 165-167, 169, 170, 175-177, 181, 195, 205, 244

analysis of interrelated decision areas, 140

analysis of needs, 35

analytical hierarchical process, 178

appraisal, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 158, 165, 167, 247

array of alternative plans, 128, 137

assessment, 13, 16, 19, 20, 49, 51, 58, 61, 118, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 161, 165, 167, 214, 221, 222, 261

available resources, 13, 35

bar charts, 232

barrier buster, 216

base condition, 100, 101, 115

base year, 99, 101-103

benefit-cost analysis, 13, 34, 35, 153, 171, 176, 183

benefit-cost ratio, 123, 164

biodiversity, 148

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 33

booths, 206

boxplot, 233

briefings, 205

brochures, 206

Bureau of Reclamation, 34

Bureau of the Budget, 34, 36

business analyzer, 216

charrettes, 206
288

chart, 231-233

Circular A-47, 34-37

Circular Letters, 33

circumstances change, 187, 197

coach, 199, 216

coffee klatches, 206

combinability, 128, 129, 131, 137, 141

commensurable, 172, 174, 176, 185

comparing plans, 171, 176

comparison, 3, 9, 15, 34, 40, 58-61, 75, 86, 97, 100, 102, 115, 116, 118, 121, 128, 145, 147-150, 152-154,

158-161, 166, 167, 169-174, 176, 178-182, 184, 185, 194, 205

comparison of plans, 3, 152, 153, 166, 167, 169, 172-174, 179, 180, 184, 205

completeness, 40, 60, 154, 155, 163, 170

complex comparisons, 178

composition, 127, 128, 210, 223, 232

comprehensive, 2, 17, 23, 31, 33, 35, 42, 43, 52, 59, 89, 94, 96, 117, 128, 142, 194, 195, 258

comprehensive study of the watershed, 33

concordance analysis, 178

conjunctive method, 178

consensus, 9, 77, 81, 97, 201, 206, 214, 217

conservation movement, 30, 32

constraints, 3, 13, 15, 60, 63, 70, 75, 79-82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 93-97, 104, 106, 109, 118, 121-124, 131, 132, 142,

146, 148, 151-153, 163, 170, 183, 191-194, 198, 200, 205, 262

construction materials, 66

contest, 206

continuing authority, 18, 31, 42, 51, 126

continuing authority programs, 18, 51, 126

Corps of Engineers, 1, 2, 5, 11, 26, 27, 31, 34, 45, 49, 52, 53, 59, 64, 80, 140, 192, 199, 206, 241, 245,

247-250, 255, 261, 264

correspondence analysis, 177, 248

cost allocation, 35, 48

cost-effectiveness, 13, 157, 176, 185

creative problem solving techniques, 135

credibility, 61, 85, 89, 103, 139, 200, 201, 206

cross sections, 233

current conditions, 70

customer advocate, 216

data collection, 99, 105-107, 194, 201, 258, 259

decision-maker(s), 9, 38, 84, 89, 101, 115, 117-119, 128, 159, 167, 169, 179-181, 184-186, 188, 222

Delphi techniques, 207

dependency, 129, 131, 141

design drawings, 233

development, 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 16-18, 21, 24-32, 34-39, 41-43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 59, 65, 69, 73, 78, 79, 86, 87, 94,

95, 101, 103, 106, 110, 118, 123, 140, 146, 152, 158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 178, 187, 190, 191,

208,

214, 233, 241-244, 247-250, 253, 255, 257, 259, 260, 264
289

diagrams, 233

dimensions, 58, 71, 73-75, 100, 107, 112, 126, 128, 157

discount rate, 38, 67

discrepancy analysis, 178

discussion groups, 205

disjunctive method, 178

displays, 48, 90, 166, 206, 233

doing nothing, 71, 116, 181, 182

dominance, 178

Dominance criterion, 178

drawings, 90, 166, 233, 234

drought preparation study, 17

duration, 56, 66, 77, 81-84, 127, 150, 151, 254

ecosystem function, 20

ecosystem restoration, 11, 16, 17, 20, 42, 87, 90, 104, 113, 127, 141, 143, 153, 183, 185, 210

effect, 12, 40, 55, 63, 82, 83, 100, 102, 113, 132, 146-152, 160, 175, 177, 214

effectiveness, 13, 20, 40, 60, 96, 113, 141, 154-156, 163, 164, 170, 176, 185, 186, 210, 248, 263, 264

effects matrix, 175

efficiency, 20, 35, 36, 38, 40, 60, 154, 156, 157, 163, 170, 209

ELECTRE, 178

elimination by aspect, 178

e-mail addresses, 206

Endangered Species Act, 170

Engineer Bulletins, 33

Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, 3

environmental impact assessment, 20, 49, 51

environmental movement, 32, 37

environmental planning, 20, 37, 40, 50, 113, 246, 247, 260, 263

environmental quality, 13, 20, 32, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 87, 92, 158, 160, 161, 165, 254

EQ, 38-41, 48-50, 87, 160, 161, 165, 167

EQ plan, 39, 40

ER 1105-2-100, 18, 47, 50, 51, 68, 119, 166, 253, 254

evaluation, 3, 7, 11-13, 15, 20, 22, 26, 34-36, 39-41, 44, 48-51, 53, 58-61, 86, 97, 102, 115-117, 121, 128,

131,

141, 143, 145, 147-149, 151-154, 156-160, 162, 163, 165-172, 176-180, 183-185, 194, 205, 244-248,

253, 257-264

evaluation of environmental effects, 20

event, 111, 162, 163, 206, 207, 229

explanatory methods, 113, 115

external data, 109

external environment, 89, 110, 111

extrapolation methods, 114

facilitator, 216

favored alternative, 179

feasibility, 1, 12, 13, 17, 25, 42, 64, 87, 107, 110, 157, 160, 164, 189, 192, 194, 197, 221, 222, 235, 254, 257,

258, 260
290

Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement, 64

feature(s), 68, 123-126, 126, 142, 161, 162, 202, 261, 262

Federal/non-Federal partnership, 64, 69, 82

Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee, 35

field office, 206

figures, 99, 230

fish and wildlife conservation, 20

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, 20

flood control, 18, 29-34, 38, 45, 66, 86, 87, 90, 118, 159, 199, 213, 241, 247, 253

Flood Control Act of 1917, 31

Flood Control Act of 1936, 31, 33

Flood Control Act of 1944, 31

Flood Control Act of 1970, 38, 159

flood control acts, 18, 32

flood insurance, 138, 139

flow charts, 233

focus groups, 203, 205

forecast, 3, 12, 15, 40, 48, 50, 59, 61, 99, 101, 103, 111, 113, 115, 119, 129, 147-149, 155, 167, 190, 226

forecasts, 56, 60, 61, 90, 99, 101, 103, 109-111, 113, 114, 117, 186, 230

formal methodology, 140

formulate, 9, 10, 12, 39, 41, 48, 80, 84, 86, 116, 122, 124, 129, 131, 132, 135, 142, 172, 195

formulation of alternative plans, 3, 15, 40, 121, 122

four accounts, 38, 40, 48, 159, 160, 166, 167

function, 17, 20, 29, 47, 128, 129, 146, 196, 206, 208, 209, 226

future oriented, 100, 117, 118

Gallatin report, 29

games, 207

Geologic Survey, 109

Gibbons vs. Ogden, 29

goals, 10, 12, 15, 17, 27, 63, 67, 69, 70, 75-79, 86, 87, 114, 177, 200, 208, 211, 213, 215, 217, 223, 244, 254,

256

goals-achievement method, 177

graphs, 166, 230, 232, 233

Green Book, 35, 37

Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies, 3, 47, 50, 253

Gunning Fog Index, 227, 229

headings, 221, 230, 233-235

high-low-close, 233

historic condition(s), 74, 99, 100, 101, 104

home page, 201, 207

homogeneous, 107

honesty, 118

House Document No. 308, 31

human satisfactions, 35

idealized design, 140

IDEALS concept, 140, 245
291

identification of problems and opportunities, 3, 15, 58, 69, 89

identify, 9, 12, 21, 49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 70, 73-75, 83, 84, 87, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 101-103, 108, 112,

113, 116, 118, 119, 123, 131, 134, 137, 143, 147, 148, 153, 156, 164, 167, 169, 171-173, 191,

203-205, 221, 257

implementability, 158

implementation is blocked, 187

implementation studies, 3, 15, 41, 47, 48, 65, 250, 253

inclusive, 24, 117, 118

incremental cost analyses, 141, 164, 176, 183, 185, 248, 263, 264

information bulletins, 206

information gathering, 99, 100, 105, 108, 110, 133, 192

information gathering and management, 105

information gathering strategy, 107, 108, 110, 113, 119

inland navigation, 29, 49

inland waterways, 29, 42, 257

inserts, 206

interdisciplinary team, 67, 136, 196, 208

internal data, 109

internal environment, 112

interviewing key people, 206

inventory, 3, 12, 15, 40, 48, 50, 58, 90, 97, 99, 111, 115, 226

inventory and forecast of resources, 3

irrigation, 28, 30, 31, 129

issue-based information systems, 140

iterative planning, 55, 57, 132, 142

judgmental methods, 113

kitchen meetings, 206

lateral thinking, 133, 134, 136

leader, 215-217

lexicographic method, 178

likely future, 59, 99, 101, 103, 115, 117, 148, 149

line graph, 231, 232

living example, 216

local benefit, 33

local cooperation, 33

locally preferred plan, 124, 161, 182-184

location(s), 19, 65, 71, 73, 74, 77, 81-84, 105-107, 125, 127, 128, 150, 151, 165, 210, 231, 233

logistics planning, 1, 19

macroenvironment, 111, 112

macroenvironmental, 111, 112

major rehabilitation, 1, 16, 18, 104, 261

management measures, 86, 95, 121, 124-126, 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 262

maps, 90, 106, 108, 222, 230, 232-234

master planning, 1, 16, 18, 19, 21

maximax criterion, 178

maximin criterion, 178
292

maximizing net benefits, 35

measures, 7, 36, 42, 58-61, 66, 84, 86, 95, 100, 121, 122, 124-129, 131, 133, 134, 136-143, 145, 159, 162,

165, 167, 178, 185, 196, 205, 229, 262

median ranking method, 178

mediation, 207

military construction projects, 1, 19

military traffic management command, 19

Mississippi River Commission, 30

mitigation, 16, 18, 20, 96, 123, 124, 132, 162, 196, 208, 229, 260-263

mobilization master planning, 18

models, 11-13, 90, 141, 144, 180, 206, 248, 259

monetary evaluation methods, 176

monitoring methods, 113

morphological box, 140

most likely future conditions with a project, 99

most likely future conditions without a project, 99

most probable future, 101

multi-criteria evaluation methods, 176, 178

multi-dimensional scalogram analysis, 177

multi-objective planning, 41, 48, 95

multi-purpose, 30-32, 37, 96

multi-purpose planning, 31, 37, 96

multi-purpose projects, 30, 96

national benefits, 33

national defense, 35

national economic development (NED), 17, 37-42, 48, 49, 53, 76, 78, 79, 82, 86, 87, 92, 94, 95, 101, 110,

119, 123, 124, 143, 146, 148, 151, 153, 156, 158-162, 165, 167, 170-173, 176, 178, 180-186, 188,

191, 195, 196, 228, 248, 249, 257, 259, 260, 273

National Economic Development Procedures Manual(s), 49, 101, 151

national economic efficiency, 35, 38

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 20, 37, 41, 61-63, 92, 116, 146, 148, 159, 165, 181, 183, 189,

199, 202, 228, 254

navigation, 16-18, 28-31, 33, 49, 80, 87, 90, 96, 103, 104, 111, 123, 127, 131, 146, 155, 169, 196, 249,

257, 261

NED plan, 40, 41, 123, 124, 143, 161, 162, 164, 172, 178, 180-186, 188, 195

need a way to measure it, 150

net benefit analyses, 176

never funded, 187

news group, 134, 207

newsletters, 206, 207

nominal group methods, 115

nonstructural measures, 122, 126

normative methods, 114

no-action, 101, 116, 181, 186

no-action alternative, 101, 116, 181, 186

objective(s), 3, 10-12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 37-39, 41, 45, 48, 49, 58-60, 67, 69-71, 75-87,
293

89, 91-97, 103-105, 107-109, 114, 121, 122, 124, 125, 131, 132, 134, 136-143, 146-149, 151-154,

156, 157, 159, 162-164, 166, 167, 170, 172, 175, 177-179, 182, 183, 185-187, 192, 194, 195, 200,

205, 208, 211, 214, 242, 244, 245, 250, 259, 261, 262

objectives-measures matrix, 136, 137, 139

observer, 202, 207

Office of Management and Budget, 64, 184, 187, 206, 221, 259

Omnibus bill, 18

opportunity, 60, 70, 71, 73-75, 82-84, 87, 91-94, 108, 109, 122, 128, 157, 162, 190, 195, 201, 207, 236

other planning functions, 2

other social effects, 13, 40, 87, 146, 160, 162, 166

overlapping, 9, 128, 129, 132, 146

P&G, 3, 7, 15, 27, 32, 33, 41, 42, 44, 47-51, 60-62, 64, 65, 67-69, 79, 86, 94, 99, 122, 124, 143, 145, 147,

154-160, 164-167, 169, 170, 181, 182, 194, 199, 253

P&S, 38-40, 44

pairwise comparison, 178

panel formats, 205

period of analysis, 65-67, 94

period of economic analysis, 65, 67

photographs, 106, 166, 233

physical data, 105

physical location, 125

physical properties, 127

pictogram, 232

pictures, 58, 115, 232, 233

pie charts, 232

plan(s), 1, 3, 7-13, 15-25, 30, 31, 34-42, 48-51, 56-62, 64-68, 70, 73-75, 79, 80, 82-86, 94-97, 99, 100-106,

108-113, 115-119, 121-129, 131-137, 139-143, 145-162, 164-190, 192-202, 205, 208, 210, 224, 226,

244, 261-264

plan evaluation, 3, 117, 160, 162, 167, 179

plan formulation, 3, 7, 23-25, 36-38, 58, 80, 84, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 132-135, 137, 139, 143, 151, 190,

192, 196, 205, 208, 261, 262, 264

plan is flawed, 186

plan selection, 3, 48, 60, 86, 99, 101, 148, 185, 187

planner, 2, 10, 12, 21-23, 47, 50, 60, 64, 71, 73, 84, 104, 105, 107, 109, 126, 135, 140, 147, 149, 151, 172,

179, 190, 195, 208, 274

planning, 1-3, 5, 7-42, 44-53, 55-71, 73-76, 78-80, 82-91, 93-97, 99-113, 115-119, 121-128, 131-134, 136,

137, 139-143, 145-154, 156-160, 162-164, 166, 167, 169-173, 175, 177-202, 204-213, 215, 216, 218,

221-224, 226, 227, 241-250, 253-261, 263, 264, 270-275, 277, 278

planning area, 15, 37, 40, 62, 65, 66, 82, 84, 99, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110, 119, 126, 164, 208

planning assistance to the states, 1

planning constraints, 80, 87, 121, 142, 163, 198

planning horizon, 65, 66, 116

planning model, 11-13, 15, 23

planning objectives, 3, 20, 23, 37, 49, 58-60, 70, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 104, 105,

107, 109, 121, 122, 124, 125, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141-143, 146, 148, 149, 151-154, 156,

162, 166, 170, 172, 175, 182, 183, 185, 186, 195, 205, 211
294

planning setting, 15, 39, 41, 63, 68, 69

political unity, 29

preliminary examination, 34

preservation, 21, 32, 37, 38, 65, 166

primarily non-structural plan, 40

primary data, 109

principle component analysis, 177

principles, 2, 3, 7, 15, 26, 27, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44-48, 50, 95-97, 121, 126, 131, 133, 184, 243, 246, 250,

253, 257-259

Principles and Guidelines (P&G), 3, 7, 15, 27, 32, 33, 41, 42, 44, 46-51, 60-62, 64, 65, 67-69, 79, 86, 94-96,

99, 121, 122, 124, 126, 131, 143, 145, 154-160, 164-167, 169, 170, 181, 182, 194, 199, 253, 257-259

principles of the partnership, 184

problem(s), 1, 3, 9-13, 15-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39-41, 43, 56, 58-60, 62, 64, 69-75, 77, 81-85,

87-97, 102-110, 117, 119, 121-124, 126, 128, 131, 133-136, 140, 144, 146, 155, 166, 179, 186, 187,

189-197, 200-206, 208, 209, 213, 215, 218, 222, 224, 226, 229, 235, 241-243, 247, 250, 256, 261, 263

problem and opportunity statements, 75

problem definition, 13, 71, 73, 90, 92

problem statement, 71-73, 107

procedures, 2, 7, 11, 33-37, 39-41, 44, 48-51, 92, 101, 110, 141, 158, 164-167, 177, 211, 225, 227, 246, 248,

249, 254, 257-259, 263, 264

program(s), 1, 10, 11, 13, 16-20, 23, 27, 28, 31, 34-36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 53, 63, 78, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96,

108, 124, 126, 127, 140, 1422, 143, 155, 182, 186, 200, 201, 203-207, 233, 235, 236, 242, 244 249,

253-256, 261, 262, 264

project area, 65

project cooperation agreement, xxi, 64, 157

project development, 24, 25, 32, 59, 255

project validation assessment, 16, 19

public concerns, 74, 90, 200, 201

public hearings, 205

public involvement, 3, 15, 88, 108, 193, 198-205, 207, 218, 219, 256

public recognition, 146, 148, 149

public works project, 28

quality, 12, 13, 20, 21, 32, 37-42, 48, 49, 58, 64, 73, 74, 87, 92, 93, 96, 99, 103-107, 110-112, 118,

138, 146, 158, 160, 161, 165, 166, 169, 192, 210, 211, 218, 234, 235, 243, 249, 254, 259

quality of the environment, 20, 37, 38

quantitative methods, 113

quantity, 104, 105, 107, 112, 138, 232, 260

question and answer sessions, 205

questionnaires, 206, 207, 258, 259

radio, 203, 206, 207, 235, 236

ranking index, 174, 177

rankings, 150, 173, 178, 179

rational, 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 42, 57, 105, 117, 118, 142, 143, 160, 184, 185, 203, 242, 247

RD, 38

reclamation act, 30

reconnaissance, 1, 17, 25, 34, 87, 189, 192, 221, 222, 235, 254, 255
295

recreation, 17, 31, 49, 66, 96, 123, 162, 190, 249, 258, 259

refinements, 95, 122, 127, 128, 142, 176

reformulate, 131

reformulation, 131, 132

regional development, 37-39, 243

regional economic development, 35, 38, 87, 146, 160, 165, 167

relationships, 13, 24, 89, 104, 113, 114, 129, 177, 209, 211, 216, 218, 232

representative, 105, 107, 110, 212, 262

resource constraints, 80, 87, 89, 262

restoration, 1, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 38, 42, 87, 90, 104, 108, 113, 118, 127, 131, 139, 141, 143, 153, 160,

183, 185, 210, 229, 260-264

River and Harbor Act, 31, 33

River and Harbor Act of 1875, 31

River and Harbor Act of 1925, 31

River and Harbor Act of June 5, 1920, 33

River and Harbor Acts, 31

River and Harbor and Flood Control Acts, 32

river basins, 31, 37

role, 16, 27, 35, 42, 45, 105, 118, 135, 176, 193, 198, 200, 201, 208, 210, 211, 216, 217, 219, 222, 241,

248, 250, 260

sample data, 107

satisfaction, 158

scales, 35, 126-128, 159, 231

scatter diagram, 232

scoping, 55, 60-63, 68, 109, 146, 191

screening, 3, 32, 55, 58-62, 68, 129, 145, 151, 152, 154-156, 159, 169, 170, 172, 188, 194, 195, 197

secondary data, 109, 110

Section 107 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, 31

Section 14 of Flood Control Act of 1946, 31

Section 205 of Flood Control Act of 1948, 31

Section 22, 17

Section 3 of River and Harbor Act of 1945, 31

Senate Document Number 97 (SD 97), 36-38, 44, 246

set of refinements, 128

Sierra club, 199, 213

significance, 19, 21, 28, 66, 80, 109, 146, 148, 151, 152, 169, 185, 197, 230, 231, 261, 263

significantly differentiated, 122

simple additive weighting, 178

simple comparisons, 178, 232

simple description, 173

simple weighting, 174, 175

simulations, 207

single-purpose, 96

siting, 128

six-step planning process, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 39, 42, 48, 49, 55, 61, 62, 137, 147, 186, 189, 190,

192, 193
296

size, 18, 86, 102, 116, 127, 153, 206, 232, 234

social well-being, 37-40

Soil Conservation Service, 34

solution, 9, 10, 36, 70, 73, 77, 81, 83, 84, 86, 91, 124, 126, 127, 133, 142, 143, 156, 181, 194-197

special studies, 19, 221

stakeholder, 67, 79, 118, 149, 166, 177, 204, 260

standards, 7, 34-41, 44, 48, 51, 69, 74, 93, 97, 99, 100, 117, 121, 145, 147, 152-154, 234, 246

statistical maps, 232, 233

story telling, 10, 235

strategic choice approach, 140

strategic options development and analysis, 140

strategic planning, 1, 16, 19, 111

strategy, 10, 11, 26, 107-110, 112, 113, 119, 126, 217, 248, 264

structural, 40, 66, 122, 123, 126, 162, 193, 196

study area, 64, 65, 87, 91, 95, 100, 103, 105, 107, 109, 113, 115, 116, 124, 135, 138, 162, 177, 206, 217

study hotline, 206

study management, 24, 25

study-specific constraints, 80

subcommittee on benefits and costs, 35

subheadings, 221, 230, 233, 235

subject, 23, 28, 47, 52, 60, 74, 77, 81-83, 95, 97, 112, 113, 119, 142, 143, 160, 169, 180, 183, 188, 191,

218, 229, 263

subjective probability elicitations, 115

support for others, 16, 19

survey report, 34

sustainable development, 244

Swamp Acts of 1849 and 1850, 29

SWB, 38

tables, 80, 140, 166, 230, 231, 233, 262

technical recognition, 148

technological methods, 114, 115

television, 203, 206, 207, 235, 236

things to measure, 146

time series methods, 113

timing, 63, 82, 83, 105, 107, 113, 127

toll free numbers, 206

TOPSIS, 178

town meetings, 205

trade-off analysis, 176, 178, 180, 264

trade-offs, 39, 116, 167, 169, 174, 177, 179, 182, 183

unbiased sample, 107

universal constraints, 80

value judgments, 169, 174, 176, 202, 207

versions, 36, 126, 143, 158, 185, 222

vertical thinking, 133, 134

water conservation, 40
297

water power, 30, 33

Water Resource Development Acts, 18, 42

water resource planning, 3, 27, 28, 33, 38, 49, 62, 69, 97, 143, 153, 166, 182, 188, 197, 245

Water Resources Council, 7, 37, 38, 44, 246, 250, 253

water resources development planning, 16, 21, 38

water resources planning, 1, 2, 9, 26-28, 32, 37, 39, 40, 48, 63, 64, 67, 68, 106, 123, 167, 180, 188, 192,

195, 204, 208, 241-243, 247, 248, 250, 263

Water Resources Planning Act, 37

watershed planning, 16, 17, 93, 96

Waterways Experiment Station, 53

weighted product, 178

well-being of people, 37

what is important, 1, 60, 68, 82, 146, 152, 170

wicked problems, 1, 9, 11, 110, 190, 209

with condition, 101, 102, 116, 149

without condition, 101, 116-118, 149, 150

without-project condition, 34, 50, 58, 80, 97, 100-104, 109, 111, 112, 115-119, 147, 149, 150, 167, 196

with-project, 34, 50, 80, 100-103, 116, 119, 147-150, 167

with-project condition, 100-102, 116, 147-149, 167

workshops, 132, 205, 206, 223, 237, 256