COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF COMPLETED RESTORATION

AND MITIGATION STUDIES IN DEVELOPING AN

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

VOLUME I

VIEWS, OPINIONS, AND/OR FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARE

THOSE OF THE AUTHOR(S) AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN

OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POSITION, POLICY, OR DECISION

UNLESS SO DESIGNATED BY OTHER OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION.

April 1995
COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF COMPLETED RESTORATION

AND MITIGATION STUDIES IN DEVELOPING AN

 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

VOLUME I

by

Timothy D. Feather

Donald T. Capan

of

Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd

6352 South US Highway 51

P.O. Box 1316

Carbondale, Illinois 62903

(618) 549-2832

for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Institute for Water Resources

Alexandria, VA 22135-3868

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Waterways Experiment Station

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Evaluation of Environmental IWR Report 95-R-4

Investments Research Program April 1995

Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

iii

PREFACE

This study was conducted as part of the Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research

Program (EEIRP). The EEIRP is sponsored by the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(HQUSACE). It is jointly assigned to the U.S. Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center

(WRSC), Institute for Water Resources (IWR) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station (WES), Environmental Laboratory (EL). Mr. William J. Hansen of IWR is the Program

Manager and Mr. H. Roger Hamilton is the WES Manager. Technical Monitors during this study

were Mr. John W. Bellinger and Mr. K. Brad Fowler, HQUSACE. The field review group members

that provide complete Program direction and their District or Division affiliations are: Mr. David

Carney, New Orleans; Mr. Larry M. Kilgo, Lower Mississippi Valley; Mr. Richard Gorton, Omaha;

Mr. Bruce D. Carlson, St. Paul; Mr. Glendon L. Coffee, Mobile; Ms. Susan E. Durden, Savannah;

Mr. Scott Miner, San Francisco; Mr. Robert F. Scott, Fort Worth; Mr. Clifford J. Kidd, Baltimore;

Mr. Edwin J. Woodruff, North Pacific; and Dr. Michael Passmore, Walla Walla. The work was

conducted under the Evaluation Framework Work Unit of the EEIRP. Ms. Joy Muncy of the

Technical Analysis and Research Division (TARD), IWR and Mr. Jim Henderson of the Natural

Resources Division (NRD), WES are the Principal Investigators.

The work was performed by Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL) under Task

Order 0060, Contract No. DACW72-89-D-0020. Dr. Timothy Feather was the principal investigator

in collaboration with Mr. Donald Capan. Dr. James Heaney of the University of Colorado and Dr.

John Langowski of PMCL provided technical guidance and support.

The report was prepared under the general supervision at IWR of Mr. Michael R. Krouse,

Chief, TARD; and Mr. Kyle E. Schilling, Director, IWR; and at EL of Dr. Robert M. Engler, Chief,

NRD and Dr. John W. Keeley, Director, EL.

This report is built upon the experience and perspectives of many people from the Corps State

and Federal resource agencies, and local interests. Their time and responsiveness to the research

activities involved in this study are respectfully acknowledged.
iv
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................... ix

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES ...................................... 1

UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES: FOCUS OF THE STUDY ........... 2

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ......................................... 4

II. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ................................................ 5

GENERAL APPROACH ............................................... 5

WORKSHOP WITH HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL ....................... 6

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT CASE STUDIES ........................... 7

III. RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .............................. 11

INTRODUCTION ................................................... 11

ANALYSIS BY EEIRP TOPIC ......................................... 12

Determining and Describing Environmental Significance ................. 12

Determination and Communication ........................... 12

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Justification ......... 13

Regional Significance ..................................... 13

Biologist Assessments ..................................... 14

Prior External Determination ................................ 14

Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs ....................... 15

Lack of Linkages ........................................ 15

Wetland Functions and Outputs ............................. 16

Shortfalls in Predicting Outputs .............................. 16

Value of Physical Measures ................................. 17

Evaluation Of Cultural Resources .................................. 17

Adequate Planning Guidance ................................ 17

Coordination with State Historic Preservation Offices ............. 18

Value of Prior Cultural Resources Studies ...................... 18

Mitigation and Associated Funding ........................... 18
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Engineering Environmental Investments ............................. 19

Need for Environmental Training ............................ 19

Flexible Efficient Design ................................... 20

Consultation with Experienced Agencies ....................... 20

Experiment with New Designs .............................. 21

Monetary And Other Valuation Techniques .......................... 21

Qualify Nonmonetary Benefits .............................. 22

Value of Habitat Units ..................................... 23

Local Education and Recreational Benefits ..................... 23

Associated Benefit Credits ................................. 24

"Washington-Driven" Benefits .............................. 24

Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis ............................. 25

One of Many Planning Tools ................................ 25

Selection of Variables for Incremental Analysis .................. 26

Communicating the Results ................................. 26

Determining Risk And Uncertainty ................................. 27

Informal Consideration .................................... 27

Lack of Historical Data .................................... 28

Limited Impacts on Human Life and Property ................... 28

Developing And Integrating Environmental Databases .................. 29

Common Data Types and Sources ............................ 29

Automated Data Clearinghouse .............................. 30

Long-Term Monitoring Programs ............................ 31

Engineering Design Databases ............................... 31

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ........................ 32

Evaluation Framework .......................................... 32

Streamline the Review Process .............................. 33

Informal Negotiations ..................................... 34

Flood Protection Maintenance ............................... 34

Cost-Sharing Limitations ................................... 35

Total System Analysis ..................................... 36

Multiagency Teams ....................................... 36

Positive Media Involvement ................................ 37

Value of Physical On-Site Progress ........................... 37
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PARTNERS PLANNING PERSPECTIVES ............................... 38

Corps Districts ................................................ 38

Corps Divisions ............................................... 40

Corps Headquarters ............................................ 40

Interaction Within The Corps Hierarchy ............................. 41

Local Sponsors ................................................ 43

Other Federal and State Agencies .................................. 44

Special Interest Groups ......................................... 44

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 46

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ......... 46

RECOMMENDATIONS BY EEIRP WORK UNIT ......................... 49

Determining and Describing Environmental Significance ................. 50

Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs ....................... 52

Objective Evaluation of Cultural Resources .......................... 53

Engineering Environmental Investments ............................. 54

Monetary and Other Valuation Techniques ........................... 55

Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis ............................. 56

Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Projects ............ 57

Procedures for Developing and Integrating Environmental Databases ....... 58
viii
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure II-1 Major Partners in the Plan Formulation Process ......................... 5

Figure II-2 Environmental Project Case Study Locations ........................... 8

Figure II-3 EEIRP Support for Environmental Plan Formulation and Evaluation ........ 10

Figure IV-1 Summary of EEIRP Based Recommendations .......................... 51

LIST OF TABLES

Table I-1 EEIRP Work Units ............................................... 3
x
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

1

I. INTRODUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is embarking on a heightened level of

environmental service. This additional focus accommodates the changing perspectives of the

American public toward environmental enhancement which has caused Congress to authorize funds

for construction of environmental projects through legislative actions. The Corps, as a manager of

major land and water resources throughout the U.S., has been a recipient of political urgings toward

environmental restoration and mitigation endeavors.

Many would argue that the Corps has been attentive to environmental concerns in its history,

for example through the environmental quality (EQ) account in Economic and Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (P&G, U.S.

Water Resources Council 1983). Additionally, many Corps reservoirs serve multiple purposes, such

as flood control and recreation. Because many recreationists using Corps reservoirs have enjoyed

their experiences, the Corps is perceived by a segment of the public as being responsible for

environmental promotion and pleasure. This new era is different though)it involves water resource

development for the sake of the environment, not as an auxiliary or secondary benefit category.

Policy guidance coming from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Corps

Headquarters (HQUSACE) direct environmental restoration to be a priority project output.

The related analytical challenge posed to the Corps planning community is how to evaluate

and design the optimal environmental project and how to select the optimal set of environmental

projects to build. This is not a subtle challenge. Leonard Shabman, who examined the policy and

procedural implications of the Corps' enhanced environmental role in Environmental Activities in the

Corps of Engineers Water Resources Program: Charting a New Direction (1993), suggests:

The Corps has a rich heritage of commitment to a systematic and uniform evaluation

as a way of considering the social merit of public actions.

Historically, this ideology has led the Corps to making project planning decisions based on economic

value. Justifying water resource projects on their contribution to National Economic Development

(NED) is fundamental to the P&G and is inherent to the project planning in the Corps. NED means

of justification have generally been politically acceptable. Technically, NED justification has resulted
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

2

in a variety of models, guides, and computer software. Benefit-cost analysis is considered a standard

technique and the Corps has published a series of NED guides designed for planners to evaluate the

benefits and costs of proposed water resource projects. The problem and related challenge is that

environmental projects provide features that cannot readily and/or consistently be described in

monetary terms. Thus, the decision-criteria and related techniques used by Corps planners are not

entirely suitable for environmental project plan formulation.

UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES: FOCUS OF THE STUDY

The chief motivation for the present study is the Corps need to develop planning tools to

accommodate the new environmental mission. The Corps, for many decades, has been a world leader

in water resource development, but generally with an industrial atmosphere. The movement toward

environmental-type projects raises the need for the Corps to better accommodate this enhanced

service.

Currently, there is a lack of methods and processes within the Corps planning community for

assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in environmental restoration, protection, and

mitigation. The Corps Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program (EEIRP) is

designed to develop analytical methods and models for such issues as determining environmental

objectives and measuring outputs and cost-effectiveness analysis. The specific research work units

of the EEIRP are shown in Table I-1. The broad goals of the EEIRP are to develop analytical tools

to assist planners, managers, and regulators in addressing the following two statements which are

referred to as the site and portfolio questions, respectively:

(1) How can the Corps determine whether the recommended action from a range of

alternatives is the most desirable in terms of the environmental objective being

addressed?

(2) How should the Corps allocate limited resources among many "most desirable"

environmental investment decisions? 

The new tools that are being developed under the EEIRP need to be housed in an overall

evaluation framework that effectively utilizes the data, model results, and other inputs in the plan
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

3

TABLE I-1

EEIRP WORK UNITS

! Determining and Describing Environmental Significance

! Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs

! Objective Evaluation of Cultural Resources

! Engineering Environmental Investments

! Cost Effectiveness Analysis Techniques

! Monetary and Other Valuation Techniques

! Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty into Environmental Evaluation

! Environmental Databases and Information Management

! Evaluation Framework

selection process. The P&G and evolving environmental guidance provide a conceptual and general

framework, but more operational guidance and processes are required. Therefore, one of the major

goals of the EEIRP is to develop an operational framework that will insure the products of this

program are incorporated into the site and portfolio questions.

The present study, which falls under the Evaluation Framework work unit in the EEIRP,

is an initial data gathering effort to identify the important planning issues presently being faced by

Corps planners. The ultimate intent of the Evaluation Framework work unit is to develop a

framework that allows for the appropriate combination of interagency input, analytical processes, and

technical data considered during the evaluation activities of a given project. The specific objectives

of this work unit are to:

(1) Provide a process to systematically identify national, regional, and local objectives and

priorities.

(2) Identify information needs of the public, sponsors and decision-makers, and study

participants and appropriate communication media.

(3) Develop and describe trade-off processes incorporating all benefits and costs

including opportunity costs.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

4

(4) Identify appropriate processes for facilitating public, organizational, and institutional

involvement.

Although the Corps planning situation for environmental projects is in a transient state,

Corps Districts are faced with servicing the present environmental needs of their constituencies. This

is being met with varying degrees of success from the perspectives of the Corps planner and local

interests. Monitoring the recent past and real time environmental endeavors of the Corps reveals that,

although there is cumbersomeness in the planning arena, some successful techniques are emerging.

Also, close evaluation of the plan formulation activities of these projects helps to identify the grass

roots planning issues that should be considered as the Corps develops standard planning tools and

an evaluation framework for environmental projects. 

Therefore, this research effort employed an extensive interview process of individuals and

organizations who have participated in Corps environmental projects during the formal planning

process. Ten project case studies and a workshop with HQUSACE personnel were used in this study

to identify specific planning challenges and means of handling the challenges. Furthermore, these

research activities were drawn upon to identify important attributes of an evaluation framework for

Corps environmental projects.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report describes the research activities conducted in this study, describes the results, and

makes concluding recommendations for future research. It is produced in two volumes to

accommodate the considerable amount of data and supplemental information acquired from the case

study process. Volume I contains Chapter I through IV. Chapter I provides an introduction to the

project, the EEIRP, and the goals of this study. Chapter II summarizes the approaches to gathering

the information from stakeholders critical to the evaluation process. Chapter III provides the

comparative analysis which identifies the important themes that emerged through the data collection

efforts. Themes are presented by EEIRP work unit and then according to the perspectives of the

stakeholders involved in the process. Chapter IV makes recommendations of attributes of an

evaluation framework for environmental projects and also outlines future research needs. Volume

II contains the supporting information for the analysis, including the case study write-ups, a workshop

letter report, resource listings, and other information collected during the case study process.
Local

Sponsor

Environmental

Project

Other

Federal

Agencies

Interest

Groups

Corps

HQ\WLRC

Division

District

Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

5

FIGURE II-1

MAJOR PARTNERS IN THE

PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS

II. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

GENERAL APPROACH

The intent and design of this project was to survey environmental practitioners to identify

issues that need attention in environmental project plan formulation and evaluation. Major partners

in the planning process are shown in Figure II-1. Each partner has specific needs, expectations, and

expertise that contribute to the planning process and the eventual development of the environmental

project. The Corps is typically expected to facilitate the process, communicate technical and policy

information to partners, and provide technical guidance on project design features. In many cases

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides some technical information for the project design or

baseline conditions. Interest groups and local
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

6

sponsors are typically the grass roots organizers or motivation behind the project. The major partners

are both givers and receivers of information and, in most cases, all need to communicate with one

another. This is illustrated by the dashed circle that encompasses all the partners. There is also a very

important element of consensus-building in the plan formulation process. Thus, the communication

aspects and information exchange are crucial in creating a project that meets the diverse needs of the

affected public. Given the participation of many parties in environmental planning, this research

involved the collection of insights from the perspectives of the major partners.

Information and data for this project were collected through two research activities. The first

was a facilitated workshop held with Corps Headquarters personnel involved in environmental project

selection and approval. The second research activity involved case study analysis of selected Corps

environmental projects, the main activity being interviews of study participants. The format and

research activities of the workshop and the case studies are provided in the next two sections. The

results of the activities are presented and analyzed in Chapter III.

WORKSHOP WITH HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL

The workshop was held with members of Headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on March

18, 1994. Personnel from the IWR and WES also attended the workshop. The objectives for the

facilitated workshop were to examine what is observed, explained, and desired in the review of

environmental restoration project documentation. Comparing documentation of the perspectives

from Headquarters with the needs, observations, and perspectives from the field provides a very

insightful angle on the evaluation framework. This process has tremendous implications on the

efficiency of the approval process for proposed environmental projects.

The workshop consisted of four sessions. The first three sessions were used to generate lists

of available and needed information pertaining to decision-making criteria with each session focusing

on one of these questions:

! What are the key criteria or issues you use to evaluate environmental studies?

! What information has been effective in the past in evaluating environmental studies?

! What new/additional information would be effective in evaluating environmental

studies?

The fourth session used information created in the first three sessions and directed the participants

to cross-reference existing or needed information with criteria that it supported in a matrix.
The results of the four workshop sessions were summarized in a separate document provided

in Appendix A of Volume II of this report. The basic themes and arguments made during the

workshop are discussed further in Chapter III.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT CASE STUDIES

The second data collection activity, the case study analysis, was the dominant research focus

of this effort. Since the ultimate intent of EEIRP is to provide tools for planners responsible for

environmental projects, a very suitable task is to understand the issues and challenges actually faced

by planners. Ten case studies of existing Corps environmental projects were conducted, with the goal

of understanding the planning issues of each case study. Common themes that link or discriminate

the challenges that planners face were identified, as were means of responding to the challenges.

Selection of the ten case study projects, which are identified in Figure II-2, involved the

consideration of several criteria. The aim was to get a reasonable sampling of the types of

environmental projects of which the Corps is involved. To limit any regional bias the ten projects

were geographically dispersed, as is illustrated in Figure II-2. This ensured that the perspective of

one Corps District did not dominate the response set. The types of environmental projects examined

also varies geographically. It was important to get a good cross-section of environmental

management challenges in terms of the physical setting.

Another major criterion in selecting the case study sites was to examine projects funded under

different authorities. Half of the projects (Fern Ridge Lake, Galilee Salt Marsh, Homme Lake,

McFaddin Ranch, Yolo Basin Wetland) are funded under Section 1135 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986. These are characterized as smaller projects that have an abbreviated

planning process. Two of the case study sites were authorized under regional, multiagency

environmental restoration and protection programs. The Pool 8 Restoration Project was authorized

under the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (UMRS-EMP) and

the La Branche Marsh Project was authorized under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and

Restoration Act (CWPPRA) which is aimed at restoring and protecting coastal Louisiana. Special

project-specific legislation was authorized for the reexamination of three projects (Jackson Hole,

Kissimmee River, Mayfield Creek).
Fern Ridge

Lake

Waterfowl

Impoundment

Yolo

Basin

Wetlands

Jackson

Hole

Habitat

Restoration

Homme

Lake

Habitat

Improvement

Pool 8

Island

Restoration

McFadden

Ranch

Wetland

La Branche

Marsh

Creation

Kissimmee

River

Restoration

Mayfield

Creek

Galilee

Salt Marsh

Restoration

Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

8

FIGURE II-2

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT CASE STUDY LOCATIONS
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

9

Most of the projects examined were in an advanced planning stage (feasibility) and some were

built or under construction. The Jackson Hole Project was in an early planning stage

(reconnaissance). This variability in the development stage was sought in case study selection to

address the varying levels of planning detail required at each stage.

Willingness of the planners to participate was also considered in the site selection. Sometimes

the situation was such that key personnel could not be scheduled for interviewing. There were also

other situations that made participation especially burdensome. Significant effort was put forth

toward accommodating the schedules and preferences of those participating in the interviews.

The interview instrument was designed based upon the EEIRP work units and how they

interact with the plan formulation process. The traditional plan formulation process is shown by the

rectangular elements in Figure II-3. This basic procedure is used by the Corps for planning any type

of water resource development. The EEIRP topics, shown as elliptical elements in Figure II-3, are

meant to create analytical procedures that will supplement the plan formulation process for

environmental projects. Accordingly, each EEIRP work unit topic received attention during the

interviews. The interview instrument underwent extensive review by personnel from the IWR and

WES, especially those involved with EEIRP. The final interview instrument used to guide the

interviews is provided in Appendix B of Volume II.

The first of the series of interviews was held in April and the final interview was completed

in early October. The Corps study manager at each site was designated as the point of contact for

identifying the participants that played a role in the development of the project. Those identified were

contacted by telephone and asked if they would grant an interview. Background material, including

feasibility reports, memorandums, and technical documentation, were reviewed by the interview team

to prepare for the interviews. A trip was made to each location to conduct the interviews and an

attempt was made to personally interview all participants. Telephonic interviews were conducted

with those who were unavailable during the site visits.

Following the interviews, the data were analyzed and arranged according to the EEIRP work

units. This information is presented in a narrative format which highlights the findings, discusses the

views of respondents, and lists the respondents' recommendations for research. The case study

reports are found in Appendix C of Volume II, and any additional information that was gathered

during the study process is located in Appendix D. Analysis of the case study results for recurring

themes and recommendations are covered in the remaining chapters of Volume I.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES

MEASURING EFFECTS

EVALUATING PLANS

PLAN SELECTION

Significance (1)

Environmental

Engineering (4)

Valuation (6)

Cost Effectiveness (5)

Risk (7)

Objectives and

Outputs (2)

Cultural

Resources (3)

Evaluation

Data (8) Framework (9)

FIGURE II-3

EEIRP SUPPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

11

III. RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The data collected from the case study interviews and the HQUSACE workshop provide a

considerable amount of valuable information. At the very least, the process commanded the attention

of professionals who have experience in environmental planning and who will likely be impacted by

the products developed under the EEIRP. This opportunity to retrospectively examine a project or

planning situation, with the focus on improving the environmental planning process as a whole, is an

event that cannot normally be afforded, given real-time commitments. The interview and workshop

activities formally allowed for information to be offered and recorded for further analysis. At the

completion of the research activities, approximately 100 people spent an average of one and a half

hours discussing the Corps plan formulation process for environmental projects. This survey of the

issues by those responsible for developing environmental projects provides a reasonable foundation

for developing "how to" planning guidance.

Along with the survey of issues, the case studies brought forth important lessons-learned,

some of which are readily transferable to other planning situations. The reader is encouraged to read

the case studies provided in Appendix C in Volume II. A list of references collected throughout the

interview process is found in Appendix D in Volume II, some of which were especially useful in the

planning process described in the case studies.

The focus of this chapter is to draw upon the case study and workshop results to identify

trends in responses and emerging themes. The first discussion focuses on the major issues that were

surfaced for each EEIRP work unit. This is followed by a presentation of the dominant issues

according to the perspectives of the major stakeholders, including HQUSACE, District, Division,

other Federal agencies, and local sponsors and interest groups.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

12

ANALYSIS BY EEIRP TOPIC

This section is arranged to address each of the nine technical work units for the EEIRP. Each

unit provides a brief description of the interview goals, a list of the themes for that topic from the case

studies, and a discussion of each theme.

Determining and Describing Environmental Significance

This topic is aimed at discovering how significant resources are identified, the reasons for

identification, and examining the processes chosen to describe the impacts that a proposed project

will have on existing resources. Many responses were generated for the questions in this unit. The

predominant themes from the interviews are:

! The determination of environmental significance is not viewed as a difficult task;

however, effectively communicating environmental significance can be a challenge.

! The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was used as

justification in most of the case studies as part of determining environmental

significance.

! Environmentalsignificance can take a region-specific face, which makes it challenging

to compare projects from different regions.

! There needs to be more reliance on the evaluation of a project area's environmental

significance by local biologists.

! Environmentalsignificance has often been documented by other resource agencies or

special interest groups prior to Corps involvement in a project.

Determination and Communication

Identifying the environmental significance of a project area generally did not require an

extensive examination or the development of new tools. Most often, the environmental problem

being addressed pointed to an issue responsible for degrading the historical environmental viability
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

13

of an area. For example, the Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project in Rhode Island identified dredge

material as degrading an area that historically was a salt water marsh. Additionally, salt water

marshes have been recognized as a resource in decline according to the Coastal America initiatives.

The greatest challenge faced by planners, with regard to environmental significance, was

successfully conveying it to project reviewers at higher levels. Although some projects have Federal

mandates and policies indicating the importance of a natural resource, selected respondents suggested

project reviewers at higher levels sought additional information related to the project area to

document environmental significance.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Justification

Almost every project attributed part of its environmental significance to the NAWMP, since

the project would benefit waterfowl, even if that was not its primary purpose. The NAWMP provides

justification for the projects in several ways. First, it is Federal legislation that can be recognized as

institutional significance under P&G. Second, it indicates areas that should be targeted for

restoration.

For example, the Yolo Basin Project in California found a strong basis in the NAWMP for

this project because the basin area is located in the Central Valley region of the Pacific Flyway. The

Central Valley of California was designated one of seven areas vital to restoration efforts under

NAWMP legislation. Ninety percent of the valley's historic wetlands were lost as a result of dam

construction in the late 1950s and subsequent agricultural development. The Central Valley Habitat

Joint Venture Implementation Plan calls for the restoration of 10,000 acres of wetland. The

implementation of the project will restore over 3,000 acres of wetland for this region.

Regional Significance

There are many dimensions that can be considered in describing the environmental significance

of a project. At times, existing conditions that cause declining habitat or water quality losses may

impact species that are not endangered, but are of significance to the residents of an area. All aspects

considered environmentally significant typically are documented.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

14

Respondents expressed concern that projects with only regional significance may not get as

much consideration for funding. For example, bluegill fisheries may be a significant resource to the

stakeholders on the Upper Mississippi River. However, bluegill are not recognized through Federal

legislation such as the Endangered Species Act. If a project designed to enhance bluegill fisheries was

evaluated against another project that improved habitat for bald eagles, the eagle project would

receive special attention because of the Endangered Species act alone.

Biologist Assessments

Field biologists are very aware of the conditions within a project area and their assessments

should be given more consideration when determining environmental significance. The respondents

from the Fern Ridge Lake Project in Oregon indicated that a local biologist should have the necessary

background information to determine the environmental significance of a project. Respondents for

the Homme Lake Project in North Dakota said that the determination of environmental significance

is a professional judgement that can be made by field biologists.

Prior External Determination

Many of the projects examined were originally proposed or are presently operated by a local

agency or interest group. The proposals were supported with information already gathered by the

organizations proffering them. These proposals indicated what was significant on a local and regional

level and could be used directly for statements of environmental significance in Corps proposals.

The McFaddin Ranch Project in Texas illustrates an interesting means of describing the

project's environmental significance. The Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife prepared a

videotape that incorporated historical data in the form of aerial photography which showed the

changing conditions of the area. It was perceived by the respondents as an appropriate illustrative

means of conveying environmental significance in a way all could understand.

The USFWS respondent for the Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin noted that there was a master

plan for the refuge in which the island restoration took place. The respondent said the master plan

could have been better utilized for defining environmental significance and that every USFWS refuge

has a master plan.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

15

Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs

The next topic focused on clearly linking environmental significance to objectives and

identifying measures for the defined objectives. The themes for this topic are:

! There is generally not a clear association among a project's environmental

significance, objectives, and measurable outputs.

! There is a need for closer examination of wetland functions and their output values.

! The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) is commonly used in environmental

projects. It can be used as an indicator, but not as a firm means of determining and

measuring a project's outputs.

! Physical measures should be used to determine outputs until better methods are

developed for assessing wildlife use of an area.

Lack of Linkages

Many respondents were unable to draw a clear connection between the environmental

significance of a project and what the objectives should be to restore the project area. Many of the

objectives did not have a direct correlation with what was identified as being environmentally

significant. Furthermore, few projects had measurable outputs that related to the significance of the

project. This lack of linkages causes confusion about what the project is attempting to accomplish.

The Fern Ridge Lake Project in Oregon was an example of the successful integration of these

aspects. Significance was defined by the Fern Ridge Lake Master Plan, the Strategic Plan for

Migratory Birds in the Columbia River Drainage, and the NAWMP regarding the improvement of

waterfowl habitat. The objectives for the project were to increase the quantity and quality of

wintering waterfowl habitat and waterfowl use days. The measurable outputs were based on

waterfowl use days. This clear association between the significance of waterfowl and how outputs

will be measured makes the project more understandable and illustrates how the project will address

the significance of the area through project outputs.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

16

Wetland Functions and Outputs

Many of the respondents indicated that the science of wetland management is very young and

that wetland functions have not been adequately studied. As these functions are identified, there will

be a need to determine appropriate quantifications for them. This was identified as an area of concern

that would have enhanced the planning process for the Mayfield Creek Project in Kentucky. Walla

Walla District personnel requested information pertaining to avulsion, erosion, land loss, and energy

transfers in ecosystems. This would provide them with a better understanding of the project area for

formulating objectives and outputs.

Shortfalls in Predicting Outputs

HEP or similar techniques were used in eight of the projects examined. Respondents said that

many of the existing biological models, such as HEP, require excessive subjectivity for making

decisions. These models were viewed as not providing an accurate representation of the ecosystem

and its functions. Some respondents said that the numbers generated are conservative so that it

reduces the chance of project failure occurring, based on output measurement goals.

Respondents involved with the Pool 8 Island Restoration Project in Wisconsin wanted a

model that would provide a system-wide view of the effects the project will have on the ecosystem.

They felt that it would be difficult to develop quantifiable goals for biological outputs. The

respondents said that single-species models such as HEP are too subjective for making accurate

determinations about project outputs.

Many of the respondents said existing biological models are too subjective to indicate valid

measurable outputs. Because environmental restoration is presently an inexact science, the models

do not have undisputed reliability of determining outputs. Based on what is known of changes in

physical conditions, these models can indicate the influence the project will have on an area, but not

necessarily generate exact numbers for output measurements.

Respondents from the McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Project in Texas said that using a Habitat

Suitability Index is a fair indicator of outputs, but cannot account for all aspects that affect an

ecosystem, such as a hurricane or a drought. According to one respondent, the best measure is based

on the biological opinion of field managers who have worked in the area. 
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

17

Value of Physical Measures

Respondents felt that physical measurements were the best means of assessing project outputs.

In general, respondents measured aspects such as stream velocity, acres of habitat, and water quality.

Respondents from the Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin strongly endorsed research for determining

acceptable physical measures. These included aquatic measures, exotic plant and animal species, and

other outputs that could be gauged physically or chemically.

Evaluation Of Cultural Resources

Examination of the steps (traditional or new) taken for the evaluation of a project area's

cultural resources is the topic of this section. Cultural resources did not appear to have a serious

effect on any of the project designs. Although some cultural resources were discovered within

project areas, they were either avoided or mitigated to the satisfaction of their respective State

Historical Preservation Officer. The themes of this section are:

! Present planning guidance for cultural resource evaluations appears to be adequate

for meeting the needs of project planners.

! Strong working relationships should be developed with State Historic Preservation

Offices (SHPO) because of the impacts they can have on a project.

! Many project areas have already been examined for cultural resources as a result of

previous water resource developments in the area.

! There is a need to determine appropriate mitigation for degraded or lost cultural

resources and the allocation of funding for it.

Adequate Planning Guidance

All of the respondents felt the guidance for conducting cultural resource examinations was

sufficient. Non-Corps respondents were satisfied with the way the Corps was addressing this issue,

and Corps planners felt the guidance provided was straightforward and easy to follow. However, it
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

18

should be noted that these projects were not significantly affected by the presence of cultural

resources. When a cultural resource was located, as in the Yolo Basin Project in California, the site

was avoided as part of the planning process for the project area.

Coordination with State Historic Preservation Offices

Many Corps respondents said the coordinators of the cultural investigations should maintain

an information flow with their SHPO from the beginning of a project to avoid any hindrances to the

completion of its study. A SHPO has a significant amount of legal authority and can cause

disruptions to the completion of a project. The experience at the McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Project

in Texas was that a favorable rapport with the SHPO can create significant time reductions for

receiving comments and for approving a project with reference to cultural resources.

Value of Prior Cultural Resources Studies

All but one of the case studies examined had been affected by a previous Corps project. The

nine other projects had completed at least one cultural resources analysis for another previously

constructed Corps project in the area. Quite often, researching archived data for locating potential

sites of significance provides the needed information. These sites are typically avoided during the

planning of the project design to prevent affecting any cultural resources.

Mitigation and Associated Funding

Difficulties can arise in completing some projects if cultural resource sites are discovered, as

identified by archeological personnel from the St. Paul District. The mitigation of a former fish

hatchery for a project at Bussey Lake, Minnesota, was met through the production of brochures

describing the history and purposes the hatchery served, as agreed upon with the State Historic

Preservation Office. Another project at the Trempeleau Refuge on the Upper Mississippi River

involved protecting an island burial ground because it was being eroded by the elevated Mississippi

River.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

19

One percent of the project budget is the standard allocation for meeting the needs of cultural

resource mitigation under the UMRS-EMP. In some cases this is not enough, and it was suggested

that when additional money is required, it is a very difficult process to endure.

Engineering Environmental Investments

This topic was aimed at examining procedures used for identifying and formulating

environmental projects. The resulting themes are:

! Engineering staff at the Corps should receive enhanced environmental training and

support for designing environmental projects.

! Projects should be designed to meet the original project objectives and provide

flexibility to achieve them.

! Other agencies should be consulted based on expertise in a certain area, such as the

Fish and Wildlife Service about projects found within their master plans or similar

planning documents.

! There needs to be room for experimentation with potential new designs and structures

when developing environmental projects.

Need for Environmental Training

Many engineers in the Corps have training and expertise for designing traditional Corps

projects such as locks and dams, but have little or no experience in designing environmental projects.

While there are many standard engineering designs for features of dam projects, very few standard

designs or "cookbook" solutions are available for referencing environmental projects. Many of the

design features of environmental projects are dictated by local conditions which, in some cases, limits

the transferability from one site to another. However, it was suggested repeatedly in the case study

interviews that a compilation of environmental project designs would provide an excellent reference

and a starting point for future endeavors.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

20

Improved dialogue between biologists and engineers would support more prudent

environmental designs. The Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife conducts week-long

environmental training courses, where participants spend much of their time in the field becoming

familiar with the local conditions and the functions that the ecosystem serves. The respondent from

Parks and Wildlife said that this training would provide much needed background knowledge for

engineers designing environmental projects in the area.

Flexible and Efficient Design

Building environmental projects to meet the originally intended objectives is a two-edged

sword. On one hand, it provides the advantage of binding the stakeholders involved (e.g., interest

groups, local sponsor, the Corps) to the project in a way all can understand to advance the planning

process. On the other hand, because environmental projects are characterized by a great deal of

discovery after the process is initiated, original objectives and project features must be flexible. The

challenge here could be as much an issue of objective formulation than of engineering design. Clearly,

though, if objectives must change for the overall betterment of the project, careful attention should

be given to identifying and managing the adverse effects.

Cost problems usually arise when the project is excessively designed or "overengineered."

The Corps traditional focus has been to ensure engineering success and withstand extreme events.

This can be counterproductive as well as costly for environmental projects. An example was at the

Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project in Rhode Island where the Corps recommendation for culvert

size was significantly larger than that identified at another nearby non-Corps project serving the same

purpose. The local sponsor's concern was that the total project cost and its cost-share were being

increased significantly. While the original objective of introducing saline water into the marsh was

being met, it was being overaccomodated, thus causing the perception of unnecessary cost increases.

Consultation with Experienced Agencies

Expertise on engineering design for environmental projects is available in Federal and state

agencies, as well as industry. These groups are willing to contribute expertise to the Corps in the

design process. In the case of state agencies, they have been mandated to manage environmental

areas and they have developed a thorough understanding of local environmental conditions.

Typically, they have successfully engineered projects in their own state. Federal agencies, such as
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

21

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have decades of expertise and trained professionals in the area of

environmental management.

Several agencies have provided design information that was useful in the completion of

project designs for Corps environmental projects. As the need for environmentally sensitive flood

control measures emerged in Mayfield Creek, Kentucky, the Corps was able to successfully draw

upon the American Fisheries Society's Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines. For the Homme

Lake Project, the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish provided unique information regarding

the use of culverts to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl. Corps engineers involved with the

McFaddin Ranch Wetland Project in Texas modified a water control structure design from the Soil

Conservation Service office in Louisiana.

Experiment with New Designs

Traditionally, the Corps designs projects that have a known certainty of success based on past

experience. As mentioned earlier, there are many unknown factors and approaches to meeting the

goals of environmental projects. Respondents in several case studies indicated a need for allowing

experimentation with alternatives during the feasibility study stage. Experimentation in the field was

said to be preferred over waiting for tested designs to be put in place. The testing process can

sometimes take years, and the concern was, in some cases, that environmental conditions would

significantly worsen while waiting for a design.

Part of the planning process for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project in Florida was the

construction of a test plug to see how it would perform in the existing conditions. Respondents from

the Jackson Hole project in Wyoming were anticipating approval for testing in-water structures to

determine their effects on the fast-moving Snake River.

Monetary And Other Valuation Techniques

This topic was directed at examining how value was assigned to environmental projects. In

addition to monetary valuation, techniques focusing on ecological outputs and nonmarket approaches

were examined. The responses to these questions were diversified and lengthy in some cases.

However, several similar themes appeared during the analysis of the data. These themes are:
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

22

! Emphasis should be shifted from monetary techniques toward nonmonetary values

and qualitative information when studies are evaluated.

! Most projects include increases in habitat units as part of the value of the project.

! Local respondents feel that recreational and educational values should be included as

part of project benefits.

! Many of the benefits have been determined prior to the feasibility study through a

previously developed plan, or as part of a national program.

! Project benefits are selected based on what planners perceive as required by the

reviewers in Washington.

Qualify Nonmonetary Benefits

Only two of the projects actively examined monetary benefits; the other eight did not conduct

an analysis because it was not required. Respondents for all ten case studies recognized the

importance of including monetary benefits. However, there was a general consensus that benefits

without defined economic values were either overlooked or viewed less favorably during the

evaluation of project proposals.

Many benefits of environmental projects do not have a monetary value acceptable to all

agencies. Qualitative remarks were seen as necessary to convey special benefits because each project

is unique in what is being constructed and in its location. For example, the project in Jackson Hole,

Wyoming, is to reduce stream velocity and restore riparian habitat, which provides benefits for

various freshwater species of plants and animals, as well as people. The Galilee Salt Marsh

Restoration Project in Rhode Island is to restore a saltwater marsh which will provide benefits for

saltwater species of plants and animals. Each project will provide considerably different types of

benefits based on habitat alone, and respondents felt these benefits should receive more qualitative

descriptions.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

23

Value of Habitat Units

Every project examined the change in habitat type, whether it was strictly on an acre-by-acre

conversion rate or with a habitat-based indicator model. Respondents' comments reflected that this

is an essential part of describing a project's benefits. Reservation was expressed toward using this

information as a means of comparison if projects are competing against each other for funding. If the

amount of acres restored is chosen as a category for selection criteria, it may overlook a smaller

project that would restore a habitat in severe decline. If selection criteria is based on a habitat

indicator model, the results could be skewed because of the subjectivity involved in its application.

The McFaddin Ranch Project in Texas applied a habitat suitability index (HSI) using a model

for the mottled duck. The existing HSI was determined to be 0.36 and the project would raise the

HSI to 0.79. This index shows the project should more than double the existing habitat quality for

the mottled duck. A dilemma arises if this project is compared with the one at Homme Lake in North

Dakota, where the HSI for the wood duck was 0.10 without the project and 0.60 after its completion.

The Homme Lake Project increase is five-fold, but it does not achieve the level of the McFaddin

Project. If comparisons are done, a further question to consider is whether or not a mottled duck HSI

should be compared to a wood duck HSI.

Local Education and Recreational Benefits

Local respondents from each case study, as well as some other participants, strongly

advocated the inclusion of education and recreation benefits in project formulation. The Yolo Basin

Project in California was incorporating an educational center as part of the project. The value

perceived by local residents helped to generate significant support for the project. Respondents said

these types of benefits do not have an economic value, but feel that a qualitative description of its

educational value was appropriate.

Nearly all respondents suggested that recreation benefits should be an immediate

consideration of all environmental projects. A link was perceived between restoration of the

environment and the recreation that can be derived from it. Among Corps respondents, it was unclear

whether recreation benefits should be emphasized given changing Corps mission emphasis and

authority. Some respondents suggested cautious promotion of recreation benefits, indicating that it

might hamper restoration efforts. Recreation features are not always aligned with environmental

restoration. For example, the Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin constructed islands to provide nesting and
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

24

rearing habitat for waterfowl. The USFWS felt that if recreation benefits were promoted for the

project, people would be boating to the islands and disrupting nesting periods, thereby reducing the

amount of waterfowl that would survive.

Associated Benefit Credits

All of the projects have been able to derive a significant line of benefits from broader plans

or programs they were supporting. The benefit categories often are expressed through legislation or

in the wording of goal statements. The NAWMP was referenced in almost all of the ten case studies.

Other such programs referenced included the Coastal America Project, the Coastal Wetland Planning,

Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), the UMRS-EMP, and the Fern Ridge Lake Master Plan.

The Fern Ridge Lake Project in Oregon was part of a long-range planning effort for an entire

region. The master plan indicated that this project should provide a 200,000-day increase per year

of waterfowl use days for the area. In conjunction with its master plan, additional benefits for

waterfowl were drawn from the NAWMP goals for that region. The existence of this information

made it easier for the Corps to develop the benefit parameters for this project.

"Washington-Driven" Benefits

One issue evident from the responses of the participants was that the selection of benefits was

based on what was perceived as soliciting the approval of the project from reviewers at the

Washington level. Although there were many benefits to select, all the respondents felt as if they

were required to focus on what the reviewers were seeking as opposed to what benefits the project

could provide. An example is the perception of the inclusion or exclusion of recreation benefits as

a means of justifying a project. Wetland acres was referenced as an appropriate choice for benefit

categories, which is in line with the Corps attention to wetland areas and mitigation.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

25

Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis

Responses to incremental analysis were varied and numerous. Respondents expressed strong

opinions about the role of cost effectiveness regarding environmental projects. The resulting themes

were:

! Incremental analysis is a useful tool for the planning process, but it should be

recognized as one of many elements in the final decision.

! There is significant difficulty in applying incremental analysis with regard to

determining appropriate components for conducting an analysis and the level of

analysis to be conducted for small-sized projects.

! Communicating the results of incremental analysis can be difficult, especially to

individuals representing local interests.

One of Many Planning Tools

Respondents saw incremental analysis as a useful tool for planning environmental projects,

but felt that reviewers at higher levels relied too heavily on the information generated by the analysis

as criteria for approving projects. Most groups that conducted an incremental analysis on alternatives

said examining the results requires the recognition that assumptions are made about some of the

outputs factored into the calculations. The results of the analysis could be altered significantly if the

assumptions made are incorrect. 

Some of the respondents from the Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin were concerned about placing

a heavy emphasis on cost effectiveness for project justification because some of the benefits of

environmental projects are not quantifiable. If the benefits can be quantified, they are not accepted

by all agencies throughout the United States. For example, depending on the type of model being

used for assessing habitat, fisheries could be rated as more valuable than wildlife habitat or vice versa.

This inconsistency does not provide an equitable base for selection among projects if they are in

competition for funding.

The analysis conducted for the Kissimmee River Project in Florida examined the cost

effectiveness of the project based on how many miles of dredged channel should be backfilled.

Consideration was given to the average annual habitat units that would be provided versus the cost
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

26

of the backfilling a certain amount of miles. This information provides a fair comparison because all

calculations are subject to similar assumptions regarding restoration of habitat units, and if those

assumptions are incorrect, all the results should be affected equally.

Selection of Variables for Incremental Analysis

The variables selected by respondents who conducted incremental analysis were based on an

educated guess of what would be accepted by reviewers. There was no set approach to follow, and

often some measurement of habitat was part of the analysis. As indicated earlier, there was some

trepidation toward the validity of the outputs incorporated into the analysis and their accuracy. This

apprehension was further amplified by biologists when biological outputs that relied on subjective

judgements were incorporated into an analysis. Respondents from the Fern Ridge Lake Project in

Oregon indicated there was difficulty in selecting appropriate increments for analysis. They selected

the option of waterfowl use days provided per constructed impoundment. The Portland District

biologist was recognized as playing a significant role in defining the biological outputs the project

would provide. It was noted that output results are based on a best estimate of project success in

providing waterfowl habitat.

Another concern was the amount of analysis to be conducted for mitigation projects or

projects that are small in size. Some respondents in restoration projects such as Galilee Salt Marsh

Restoration Project in Rhode Island saw incremental analysis as a means for reducing the amount of

restoration to be done based on cost effectiveness. For smaller projects, such as Homme Lake, North

Dakota, respondents indicated that the alternative is obvious and that expending resources to develop

others is imprudent.

The incremental analysis for the McFaddin Ranch Wetlands Project in Texas was based on

the habitat suitability index for the mottled duck regarding each alternative. Galveston District

respondents said incremental analysis assumes there is a wide array of options to examine, but for

mitigation projects, these options are limited.

Communicating the Results

Some respondents said that communicating the results of incremental analysis to local

representatives was not an easy task. There are some technical issues that sometimes are not
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

27

understood by the local sponsor or other local interest groups. Representatives of the Memphis

District and Lower Mississippi Valley Division determined cost effectiveness for the Mayfield Creek

project in Kentucky using NED accounting techniques to calculate a benefit/cost ratio. Using

incremental analysis was perceived as a cumbersome process, and results were difficult to explain to

locals. They also said that using the Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines is an all-or-nothing

alternative. Either all the obstructions are removed or the project will not achieve success.

The Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project in Rhode Island, provides another example of how

the results are interpreted by a local sponsor. The respondent from the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management said the results of the incremental analysis were impressive. However,

the results were very confusing when the respondent tried to interpret their meaning.

Determining Risk And Uncertainty

This section presents responses and issues raised to the topic of employing risk and

uncertainty analyses in the plan formulation process for environmental projects. Formal risk analysis

was not conducted for any of the case studies, though it was mentioned as a concept considered

informally. The themes were:

! Risk assessments are made informally when considering engineering options.

! Conducting formal risk analysis was not viewed as feasible because of the lack of data

regarding environmental projects, construction methods, and associated outputs.

! Environmental projects are not constructed to reduce a threat to human life and

property, therefore, the risk of failure is more tolerable if it reduces the overall cost

of the project.

Informal Consideration

In most cases, important elements of the project were examined and an informal risk

assessment of what it would take to make the elements functional was conducted. Where the analysis

stops is the examination of probability distributions that describe the engineering success at each

element, which would lead to stringing together the probability distribution of several elements,
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

28

thereby providing a more redundant analysis of risk. Most of the respondents were comfortable

making the needed engineering judgements without formal risk analysis. It should also be noted that

very few of the Corps respondents were apprehensive about employing risk concepts, which suggests

that they were generally familiar with the standard techniques.

An example of the informal consideration of risk is the La Branche Project in Louisiana and

other CWPPRA projects. Each project proposed is evaluated according to general parameters, one

of which is the feasibility of the project design and how it meets the set of environmental objectives.

Lack of Historical Data

Many of the respondents did not feel that risk analysis would provide viable results because

very few environmental projects have been completed. Conducting risk analysis without data from

other projects to compare against was perceived as inefficient. Respondents felt that doing so would

have created an unnecessary addition to the cost of the project.

Limited Impacts on Human Life and Property

The original impetus behind most of the environmental projects is the restoration of habitat.

The project in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, may present some risk to the public property if there is a

failure, but it is contingent on how water is placed behind the levees to restore riparian habitat. Most

of the restoration projects were located in extremely rural areas with low populations. Flooding has

the most potential for causing damage in these projects, and it has been examined for every project.

Island restoration for the Pool 8 Project on the Mississippi River was temporarily stopped until it

could be proved to the state of Wisconsin that the project would not affect the existing flood

protection. Respondents viewed this consideration as part of the normal process and not worthy of

additional risk analysis.

As mentioned previously, there is a great deal that is unknown in the development of

environmental projects. Planners are still trying to establish relationships between what is constructed

for environmental projects and what the outputs will be. Many respondents said there is a need for

engineers to accept a certain amount of failure in project designs because there is a high level of

uncertainty regarding project effects on ecosystems. This uncertainty was perceived as the reason

for not pursuing risk analysis, since it would inflate project costs and generate questionable data.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

29

The interview respondents, in all the case studies except for Jackson Hole, Wyoming, said

there is not a threat to the public if these projects fail. The greatest threat is to the resident wildlife

of the current habitat that is being restored to historical conditions. Until relationships are developed

showing project effects on the ecosystem, designs need to involve risk taking, not risk avoidance.

Developing And Integrating Environmental Databases

This section focused on the development of special databases, or the creation of database

linkages to support the analysis. All respondents placed a high value on having access to quality data

for project planning. The resulting themes were:

! Topography, land use, and water quality data are typically available for the study area,

as are environmental data from the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)/Environmental Assessment (EA).

! Needed data should be managed centrally and be made more accessible by computer

modem.

! There is a need for long-term monitoring of environmental projects to determine

success and to gather data that can be used by others for future environmental

projects.

! Databases should be compiled for environmental engineering designs and available

evaluation methods.

! The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) in the planning of environmental

projects brought mixed results, dependent on how extensively a GIS was used within

a District.

Common Data Types and Sources

In every case study, basic maps were available that described land use, topography, and water

boundaries in the study areas. If significant changes in recent times had occurred, updates to this
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

30

information were obtained typically through new surveys or other field techniques. USGS data on

water flows from gauging stations are readily available and utilized.

Detailed vegetation data are typically gathered for the development of HEP models or other

habitat analyses. These data are collected or updated mostly by the entity conducting the HEP, which

in many cases is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Significant amounts of environmental data are collected during the EIS or EA process. An

accounting of project impacts on existing environmental resources must be conducted, requiring

detailed inventories of plant and animal species in the study area.

Several projects examined during the case studies made use of local colleges and universities,

contracting with them to conduct monitoring or to develop models for using data that have been

gathered. The planning of the Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project in Rhode Island drew upon the

expertise of the University of Rhode Island to conduct monitoring of the project area and to develop

data incorporated into a GIS map. The La Branche Project in Louisiana incorporated numbers of

academic experts from the state as part of the study team. Modeling information for the Kissimmee

River was developed by the University of California at Davis.

Respondents that utilized local college and university resources indicated a careful

examination of the school should be done to make sure they have the expertise and resources to meet

study needs. In the case of the University of Rhode Island, its biology department had been

conducting a significant number of marsh studies in the area for several years. Because of their

familiarity with the project area, university personnel were perceived as an asset to the planning

process.

Automated Data Clearinghouse

Respondents wanted to have a means of accessing data for planning environmental projects

by computer modem. All types of information were requested, including engineering concepts and

designs, information from experts in the field, and ecosystem data. More than one respondent

suggested that the Corps would be an effective candidate as a clearinghouse for an environmental

database, some more specifically indicating the Waterways Experiment Station as a viable location.

This concept would not only require a sponsor, but would need careful design so that contributions
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

31

of data could be made efficiently. A process would have to be put in place to encourage the

participation of other agencies.

Long-Term Monitoring Programs

All respondents indicated the need to monitor the impacts of environmental projects to

compile data that would assist with future planning efforts. These data could be used to empirically

enhance models so a better understanding of environmental management actions will be realized.

Respondents said that it may take as long as ten years before the full benefits of environmental

projects are realized. In some cases, the alternatives used are new, and long- term monitoring should

be conducted to determine what effects the project has on the overall ecosystem.

Respondents from the Pool 8 Island Restoration Project in Wisconsin were extremely pleased

to have a long-term monitoring program in place as part of the UMRS-EMP. Respondents said that

the information gathered will be used for future projects constructed on the Upper Mississippi River

System.

Engineering Design Databases

Engineer respondents said that it would be helpful for them to have a means of accessing other

agencies and organizations to see what designs have been applied in past environmental projects.

Even if the designs did not meet the goals of the project, it would provide some new approaches

regarding environmental engineering concepts.

In several cases, the respondents attributed good fortune to the discovery of some of their

designs based on meeting the right people at the right time. The culvert nesting design for the

Homme Lake Project in North Dakota came from a member of the North Dakota Department of

Game and Fish who discovered this unique approach. If that person was not a part of the project,

the implemented design would never have been considered because such information is difficult to

access. Respondents felt that there are others throughout the United States who could provide

important information that would make a significant contribution to environmental project planning.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

32

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Six of the case studies had incorporated some form of GIS into the planning process;

however, there were mixed responses to its effects. Many found the maps created by the GIS

provided a format for presenting information in a manner all could understand. The difficulties that

arose were the result of the expenses of its use. In the case of the St. Paul District, its GIS is used

for a number of projects in the region, primarily for the Upper Mississippi River. Although the initial

start-up for a GIS is somewhat costly, its extensive use for numerous projects justifies its existence

in the St. Paul District.

The Jackson Hole Project in Wyoming first developed a GIS map through the University of

Idaho. The map was going to be color coded with the assistance of an artist. When it was taken over

for completion by the Walla Walla District, the actual cost of producing the map increased

significantly. Although an attractive map was produced, there was not enough data from the project

area to be entered into the GIS for further usage. Future GIS applications for the project were not

seen as likely because the cost of gathering data would put an undue burden on the cost-sharing local

sponsor.

Evaluation Framework

This topic was directed at describing how the final project design was determined and how

differing perspectives were managed. The resulting themes are:

! The Districts would like more autonomy for making field decisions that are based on

an area's environmental attributes.

! Most project alternatives selected for implementation are chosen based upon informal

negotiations directed at meeting environmental goals versus formal trade-off analysis.

! Many wetland enhancement project alternatives are tempered so they will not

compromise the flood protection of a study area.

! Financial constraints of local sponsors limit potential project alternatives, as well as

the sponsors' involvement, enthusiasm, and flexibility for the project.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

33

! Projects should be evaluated as part of a system instead of an isolated area.

! Multiagency teams need to be assembled at the beginning of the planning process, and

should continue to meet at important junctures throughout the project.

! Positive media coverage at the start of a study provides significant public support for

environmental projects.

! Demonstration projects and in-field experimentation with alternatives provides

significant public support for environmental projects.

Streamline the Review Process

District respondents were frustrated with the review process regarding field decisions.

Because environmental restoration is an inexact science, there are some parts of the planning process

that are determined by scientific conjecture. Districts are continually responding to decisions that fall

within this realm, such as project outputs. In the Fern Ridge Lake Case Study in Oregon, the District

biologist said there were numerous requests for additional output information from higher levels.

There were significant resource expenditures in trying to meet these requirements and it appeared to

only result in requests for more data. It was thought by District respondents that this only lengthened

the review process and caused anxiety by others wanting to see the project completed.

Another reason District respondents would like authorization for making field decisions is for

the satisfaction of local sponsors and residents. The longer it took to receive authorization for a

segment of the planning process, the more restless and frustrated locals became with the development

of the project. Two primary concerns of locals were the accelerated loss of habitat and the possibility

of increases in project costs. Local respondents in the Jackson Hole Case Study in Wyoming shared

these concerns, fearing lengthy delays in restoring the Snake River would prevent a proposed

alternative from being implemented and possibly prevent any restoration. One example is that some

parts of the Snake River have become "bulletproof," meaning the bottom has been stripped of all

vegetation and is extremely hard. There is currently no known way to restore a river bottom in this

condition.

Several Corps respondents said there is a need to have more informal review during the

development of feasibility reports. It was thought that more informal review of documentation

familiarizes reviewers with the project and circumvents the need to conduct additional analysis after
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

34

the report is written. Unofficial drafts should be exchanged and frequent telephone calls should be

made to limit surprises and expeditiously achieve completion of the feasibility study. Having Division

and Headquarters reviewers at the project site to see firsthand the physical constraints and features

of the study area would be very beneficial to the review process.

The Memphis District and the Lower Mississippi Valley Division worked jointly on the

Mayfield Creek project in Kentucky, and this was viewed as helpful in developing the planning of the

project because of the reduction of time related to review difficulties. The North Pacific Division

indicated it was working to promote more informal interaction with the Walla Walla District on the

Jackson Hole Project in Wyoming project to improve the review process. The North Central Division

echoed this sentiment saying that informal interaction should occur throughout the Corps.

Informal Negotiations

The chief decision criteria in the evaluation process was whether the partners involved

perceived the project as meeting the intended reason or purpose for environmental enhancement.

Trade-off analysis or arbitration to arrive at a consensus on the final project alternative were formally

employed in very few cases. This is not to say that there were not opposing views in the planning

process. Rather, consensus was arrived through informal negotiations and due process versus

utilizing formal dispute-resolution techniques.

Most of the case studies that were examined presented straightforward problems that required

the development of individualized designs. In the case of the Mayfield Creek Project in Kentucky,

the project design was to be environmentally-oriented, yet provide improved flood control and

drainage. The resultant design, which employed Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines, met the

goals of the project. Projects that were developed from a master plan had potential designs available,

reducing needs for evaluation. In the case of the Fern Ridge Lake Project in Oregon, the master plan

called for the creation of impoundments. Additional alternatives were developed from variations of

the design put forth in the master plan.

Flood Protection Maintenance

Many of the case studies examined were built in areas which originally implemented flood

control projects. Although the goal of many wetland restoration projects is the maintenance or
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

35

increase of wetland acres, many have to be concerned with not affecting original flood control goals.

Before the Pool 8 Island Restoration Project could proceed, special permits had to be secured from

the state of Wisconsin because of its flood control laws that prohibit the placement of any material

in the Mississippi River. If the permits were not approved, the project may not have been

constructed.

In addition to normal flood protection goals, some environmental projects must avoid flooding

because some habitat types cannot be underwater for extended durations. The Jackson Hole Project

in Wyoming is attempting to determine a way to return water to the riparian areas behind the levees

in a way that will not drown the flora, and also not negatively impact landowners' property. In the

case of the Yolo Basin Project in California, some of the ponded areas will be drained as a form of

mosquito abatement.

Cost-Sharing Limitations

Some elaborate or intensive designs are not able to be implemented based on the financial

constraints of the local sponsor. Often state agencies or local governments are the local sponsor for

cost sharing purposes. The sponsor's budgets are extremely limited, and cannot expand to

accommodate more costly methods. The North Dakota Department of Game and Fish contributed

$ 9,150 for the Homme Lake Project, which was the amount needed to meet the twenty-five percent

cost-sharing requirement. It was noted by all planning partners that this amount was a significant

percentage of the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish's operating budget. In the case of the

Jackson Hole Project in Wyoming, the County Commissioners have opposed some proposals to the

feasibility study because the additional costs would exceed their ability to meet the cost-sharing

requirements.

Local sponsors indicated that the money they budget for a project is usually the maximum

amount available for cost-sharing in a project. Additional costs that may be added during the study

process could cause the sponsor to fight the adjustments made to the project or become unable to

participate in the cost-sharing of the project. The only project where cost increases were prohibited

was the La Branche Project in Louisiana as directed by the CWPPRA. In that project, design

alternatives had a definitive budget that could not be exceeded.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

36

Total System Analysis

Several respondents suggested that projects should be examined as part of an overall system

within a region. Many referred to it as a watershed approach, which better characterizes the impacts

of management practices in the region. Examining a project in isolation often gives a short-sighted

view of the environmental impacts and can even lead to less than optimal decisions. Evaluation and

management of the entire watershed will aid in highlighting the critical environmental problems in the

area and will facilitate data exchange. The projects for the Kissimmee River in Florida and Pool 8

in Wisconsin have long-term monitoring in place, and that aspect was considered to be very important

in the planning of these projects.

Multiagency Teams

Projects characterized by actively engaged interagency groups or task forces were viewed as

very effective from the perspectives of those interviewed. Decisions made at important junctures of

the planning process were made cooperatively, keeping everyone informed. Negotiations of political

and technical subjects were communicated by the task force to their respective agencies. In several

cases, the Corps was seen as the leader of the interagency group and took the coordinating

responsibility.

Nearly everyone interviewed indicated that a strong interagency working group active from

the beginning and throughout the planning process is very much a part of its success. This was even

recognized by those who said their subject project did not have an active task force. Respondents

indicated that the initial exclusion of some agencies responsible for issuing permits could create delays

in completing the project approval process.

Recommendations were made indicating that groups should meet regularly, and that accurate

notes of the meetings should be kept to inform personnel who are replacing someone else from their

agency. In many instances, turnover of key personnel in these groups was noted as a significant

problem because bringing new group members up to speed consumed valuable time during the study

process. Accurate meeting notes and a robust system of checks and balances would limit the effects

of personnel turnover.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

37

Positive Media Involvement

Proper and strategic use of media coverage should not be underestimated. The Corps public

affairs office should be consulted to ensure that basic public relations protocol and opportunities are

used. Agencies and organizations constituting the planning committee for the proposed

environmental project are representing some facet of the public. Anything that can be done to

prevent the process from becoming confrontational will aid in smooth interagency progress toward

project completion.

Respondents from the Yolo Basin Wetlands Restoration Project in California and the La

Branche Project in Louisiana both indicated the significance of media coverage. In the case of Yolo

Basin, the respondent from the Yolo Basin Foundation said that better media coverage would have

helped to move the project along faster by generating more public support. For La Branche, the

project was used as a demonstration project for the CWPPRA legislation and it provided significant

public support to aid in its advancement.

Indirectly, the Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin illustrates why media coverage can be important

to the planning process. Respondents indicated that residents were not well informed about the

project prior to the public meetings, and because they were not well appraised of the situation and

what was to be done, it was difficult to keep them focused. Because the residents had no way of

learning what the meeting was discussing, it became difficult to convey the information to the public.

Respondents from the Jackson Hole Project in Wyoming said that local people were anxious

to see something done in the area. The Walla Walla District received positive media coverage when

it began the reconnaissance study. Some of the local respondents said they were pleased the Corps

was pursuing the project, but felt that some physical changes to the area should be taking place as

part of the study process.

Value of Physical On-Site Progress

Respondents indicated that local sponsors and residents of an area like to see evidence of

physical progress during the feasibility study. Respondents in all case studies said local support and

enthusiasm for a project is maintained as long as something is being done on site. If the planning

process lasts for an extended period of time, locals become restless and unhappy with the progress

of the project. The respondents for the La Branche Project in Louisiana said they gained significant
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

38

public support because they were able to move quickly, and, in a way, it served as a demonstration

project for the CWPPRA. It was thought that if the planning process took any longer than what

actually passed, the public would have responded negatively.

PARTNERS PLANNING PERSPECTIVES

Evolution of a project plan rests on the shoulders of the participating agencies and interest

groups. The previous section presented the perspectives of these participants in terms of the critical

elements of the environmental plan formulation process (which correspond with the EEIRP work

units). This next section provides an alternative but complementary facet, examining the major

planning issues from the perspective of each partner. Better understanding of the needs and

challenges faced by the individual partners will aid in the development and maintenance of a strong

interagency group)this group being responsible for the evaluation process.

The partner categories for this section are based on the groups encountered during the

interview. These categories are Corps Districts, Corps Divisions, Corps Headquarters, local

sponsors, other Federal agencies, state agencies, and special interest groups. The first paragraph of

each section describes the general role of the partner in the environmental planning process. The

subsequent discussion highlights the perspectives of the individual partners in terms of technical

challenges, environmental policy, and communication.

Corps Districts

The Districts in most cases provide the anchor around which the planning process takes place.

It must coordinate between all of the partners involved in the planning process and develop an

alternative that is acceptable to all. Because the case studies in this research were Corps-sponsored

projects, the District was the official project representative in the field. The District was faced with

meeting the needs of HQUSACE and Division, as well as addressing the issues that arose from the

local partners. The District acts as a clearinghouse for technical and political information. Some of

the partners were able to provide significant technical support to a project, which was a great asset

to District planners.

District respondents indicated that the greatest challenge they encountered is determining

appropriate measurements for environmental projects. The difficulty came in developing output
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

39

measures that would be acceptable to reviewers at higher levels as well as local partners involved in

the planning of the projects. Many District planners recognized that they were new to the field of

environmental planning and they were not aware of any globally-accepted models that measure and

forecast biological/environmental outputs. Although this view was shared with non-Corps partners,

District respondents suggested the technical short-comings caused inefficiencies and confusion in the

evaluation process.

Recognition was given to the value of utilizing biological personnel in the planning process.

The Portland District said involving a staff biologist at all levels of planning helped to provide a

project that was functional and designed with minimal difficulty. The biologist's expertise was seen

as a safeguard against any changes in the project that would reduce its environmental effectiveness.

Projects that used a biologist as study manager were perceived as mixed blessings. Difficulties arose

with respect to managing the study because the biologists' background did not prepare them for the

planning challenges they faced. The positive aspect was the attentiveness to the biological aspects

of the project and making certain those concerns were addressed.

District respondents were concerned that during the review process some types of information

were receiving either too much or too little consideration. One example was incremental analysis.

Incremental analysis provides utility to planners during feasibility studies, but respondents felt that

most reviewers at higher levels perceived analysis results as the most valuable information to evaluate

a project. District personnel were not confident that incremental analysis or the data used were

reliable because of the uncertainty of environmental responses to implemented alternatives. Most

indicated that the information generated by incremental analysis needs to be examined in the context

of the other data and assessments contained in the feasibility study.

Many District respondents requested more autonomy in the planning process. Most

encountered difficulty in receiving approval from higher levels in matters regarding the coordination

of an interagency committee or selecting an alternative habitat assessment method. Many of the

needed decisions were influenced by the region where the project was located. District personnel

often felt they were best equipped to address some of these issues because of their familiarity with

the region, and that receiving approval from higher levels was creating an unnecessary inefficiency

in the planning process. Many District respondents said that the local sponsor, as well as the other

partner agencies, maintained close coordination in making sure inefficient choices were not made.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

40

Corps Divisions

Divisions played a wide variety of roles in planning environmental projects. Some worked

concurrently with the District throughout the planning process. Others functioned as a point along

the review process. In any case, Division respondents perceived their communications with District

offices as adequate, but recognized improvements in the planning process could be created through

more informal interaction.

Division respondents felt the most important challenge they faced was obtaining the authority

to authorize environmental projects whose total costs were below $2 millon. The only region where

this power was granted was due to special legislation. Projects outside of this authority still require

approval from HQUSACE. Several of the Division respondents said they were drafting proposals

to HQUSACE requesting approval power based on the fact that some of the projects require

immediate attention to prevent extensive degradation of an area. Division respondents perceived

many of the delays being attributed to the reviewers' unfamiliarity with the region of the project being

examined.

Another concern of Division personnel was training environmental personnel to manage

environmental projects. Personnel with biological expertise were perceived as an asset to directing

environmental planning, but Division personnel recognized that they were often not adequately

prepared to effectively manage such projects. Efficiencies were realized in some aspects of projects

where biologists led the studies, but Division respondents felt with additional management training,

personnel with biological expertise would be better-suited to lead future environmental projects.

Corps Headquarters

Personnel at HQUSACE are responsible for developing policy as well as reviewing and

approving plans for environmental restoration efforts. HQUSACE is the most prominent rung of the

review ladder because, in most cases, it must distribute financial resources among a wide variety of

projects. The mode of distributing resources is very much tied to the political pressures from

Congress.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

41

There are many criteria considered by HQUSACE in the evaluation of proposed projects. The

most important criteria suggested by the HQUSACE workshop participants (see Appendix A in

Volume II for full explanation of workshop activities), were Corps linkage, biological feasibility of

the project, and thorough formulation of alternatives.

The first major issue of concern to HQUSACE is whether the project is in the Federal interest,

and whether there is linkage between the environmental challenge and the Corps mission. This

criteria is mainly supported by a clear statement of the problem. This may require a visit to the site

by HQUSACE.

Biological feasibility criteria lead to the more general question of: Is this project going to

work? This line of questioning is warranted for reviewers and the agency ultimately responsible for

the project's success. A wide range of information is sought to support the notion of biological

feasibility. A clear tie to measurable outputs was suggested as most important. Another very

important source for determining biological feasibility is through other resource agencies and interest

groups.

Creation of a set of project alternatives is a key indicator of a strong planning effort.

HQUSACE looks for a thorough evaluation of project alternatives followed by a clear justification

of the recommended plan relative to the other alternatives. Critical information in the development

of alternatives defines significant outputs and benefit categories (both monetary and nonmonetary).

The HQUSACE respondents noted that the important information needed to support the formulation

of alternatives criteria in the workshop is not readily available. Thus, it was clear to them that some

effort is needed in terms of research and guidance to meet the formulation of alternatives criteria.

It was recognized that different reviewers have different areas of expertise, thus affecting what

the review emphasis will be. The attention to biological aspects would receive greater emphasis by

a biologist as opposed to an economist or an engineer. If time and resources allow, review from all

relevant disciplines should be conducted.

Interaction Within The Corps Hierarchy

The relationships among District, Division, and HQUSACE in developing environmental

project plans can be described as functional, though sometimes strained. Several times during the

interview process it was suggested that Corps higher levels simply slowed the process down. The

HQUSACE perspective is that the Corps is only going to spend funds where needed. The best way
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

42

HQUSACE knows how to ensure good project selection is through rigorous planning involving the

creation of project alternatives and analysis.

A very real factor in the intra-Corps operation is the political differential. HQUSACE is

directly responsible for supporting Administration policy and strategies. The Corps also has to

support the political positions of different regions across the U.S., which are highly variable when it

comes to environmental issues. These regional perspectives are typically faced by the Districts.

In the midst of the twisted political situation surrounding environmental projects, there is

some common ground regarding the respective planning concerns of HQUSACE and the Districts.

There is documentation of linkage which HQUSACE considers to be important information in a

feasibility report. The Districts have suggested that documenting environmental significance, which

is tied directly to linkage, is a requirement that they feel equipped to accommodate. In turn,

HQUSACE feels that, for the most part, the approach taken by the District is adequate.

All the levels within the Corps agree that biological feasibility is a critical component of an

environmental plan. Until biological feasibility and the tie to project outputs is advanced technically,

this important component will remain clouded. Districts, Divisions, and HQUSACE all suggested

more research in the area of biological feasibility and measurement of outputs.

Development of project alternatives is considered critical by HQUSACE in putting together

and justifying an optimal environmental project. Most District planners would agree with the intent

of examining several alternatives. But the problem arises when more than one logical or realistic

alternative is simply not available. District planners sometimes develop alternatives solely for the

purpose of meeting HQUSACE requirement for multiple alternatives. This appears to miss the intent

of approaching good planning, as well as being a waste of planners' resources. The District has

suggested flexibility in the development of alternatives and associated analysis (e.g., incremental

analysis) if no other logical alternative exists.

There is one last note of comparison between Districts and HQUSACE. Several Districts

indicated the great efficiency gains when HQUSACE visited the site. It gave the District staff

opportunities to discuss the details of the proposed plan, using maps and visits to the actual site. An

additional secondary benefit was that HQUSACE had an opportunity to better understand some of

the local political issues. The merits of ground-truthing and site visits were also highly proclaimed

by the HQUSACE participants at the workshop.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

43

Local Sponsors

The local sponsors provide the needed resources for meeting the requirements of cost-sharing

agreements. In many cases, the local sponsor was the originator of the project. Local sponsors

included county governments, Federal and state conservation agencies, and water management

districts. Each sponsor brought varying amounts of expertise to their respective projects, and all were

committed to completing the project.

The most prominent comment from the local sponsors was the need to place a greater

emphasis on the qualitative information generated for feasibility studies. Respondents recognized that

reviewers may not be aware of an area's significance to the local population, in addition to benefits

that are not easily quantified. The qualitative information was perceived as a means to provide a story

that would supplement traditional numerical demographic data, and one that was easier to

comprehend.

Concern was expressed by several local sponsors regarding the potential of compromising

existing projects or overengineering alternatives. In the case of compromising existing projects,

several of the proposed projects were to be built in regions that implemented flood control measures.

Although local sponsors wanted the environmental projects constructed, they did not want to lose

the benefits of current flood protection.

The issue of overengineering was related primarily to local sponsor's fears of cost overruns

and inefficiencies. All local sponsors wanted the final cost of the project to match the projected costs

because of budgetary constraints. In some cases, sponsors were concerned that too much was being

done to solve the problem. For example, the local sponsor in the Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration

Project in Rhode Island raised concerns that the culverts being used may be excessively large and that

smaller, less expensive culverts could be installed instead.

One final predominant issue voiced by local sponsors was the need for engineers to receive

environmental training. Several of the case studies provide examples where the sponsor indicated the

needed biological features, but the engineers struggled with some of the concepts because they did

not have an understanding of biological functions. Sponsors felt that with better training, design

issues could be resolved sooner and with less difficulty.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

44

Other Federal and State Agencies

In most cases, Federal and state agencies not acting as local sponsors played supporting roles

in the planning process. Many provided data regarding habitat surveys and species counts. Some

were able to provide alternatives or helpful suggestions for the project design. In many instances, it

could be said that these agencies represented the interests of the animal species and habitats.

The most common suggestion made by Federal and state agencies was the need for the

formation of active interagency teams for the planning process. The stakeholders on the team should

be identified immediately and they should be involved with the project until construction is complete.

The team provides a forum for leading to efficiencies in the planning process. The team also acts to

ensure environmental features are not compromised during design and construction of the project.

A prominent suggestion by Federal and state agency respondents was the incorporation of

long-term monitoring for environmental projects. Very little data about the biological response of

implemented environmental projects exist, and its collection would advance the development of future

projects. In areas where long-term monitoring is being conducted, such as the Upper Mississippi

River, agency respondents were pleased and felt the monitoring provided better direction for new

projects being planned.

Respondents for Federal and state agencies indicated that their expertise is not utilized fully.

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other state environmental agencies have master

plans developed for refuge areas that indicate what changes should be implemented and how it can

be accomplished. Others, like the Soil Conservation Service, have some experience in the design and

implementation of environmental projects. Sometimes this information is utilized, but in many cases

it could provide efficiencies if used more extensively.

Special Interest Groups

Interest groups exert different effects on a project depending on their posture and attitude

toward what is being proposed. The groups interviewed included nature-oriented agencies, sporting

groups, landowners, farmers, and public awareness organizations. In many cases, the interest groups

interviewed were supportive of a project being implemented, some to the extent of providing their

expertise to the planning process. These groups were sometimes the impetus for a project, making
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

45

local sponsors aware of the problem. Almost all interest groups interviewed felt the Corps Districts

were attentive to their concerns.

The primary suggestion of interest group respondents was the need to incorporate recreational

and educational values into project benefits. Groups were quick to indicate that environmental

projects provide significant benefits to people as well as wildlife. Many of these project areas will

provide a variety of opportunities for sporting groups, nature enthusiasts, and school groups.

Elementary school groups will benefit from field trips in areas that accommodate them, and college

and university students could benefit from field training.

A concern of interest groups was the need to examine a project area as part of a larger system.

The groups noted that an implemented project affects more than the area for which it was designated;

it also affects the hydrological cycle and animals that are not permanent residents of an area. The

human population can also experience changes, such as socioeconomic or otherwise.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

46

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

The purpose of this research endeavor was to draw upon the perspectives of environmental

planning practitioners to better understand the technical, political, and communication challenges

faced in the Corps environmental plan formulation process. There are many challenges being

addressed in the field, but it is clear that the Corps projects are a sample of all environmental projects.

The environmental planning field maintains there is not a firm grasp on a methodology for

determining the optimal project design or set of projects that maximize benefits to society. While

there is not a dominant approach taking the process from beginning to end, there are some applicable

techniques being utilized at the field level. Many of these were portrayed during the case study

analysis, along with a full discussion of the challenges in environmental planning.

Environmental management is different than traditional Corps water resources management.

Environment is a generalized concept, having different definitions depending on one's perspective.

There is a very visible continuum of environmentalism across the country. In many parts of the

nation, sporting groups represent the local environmental interest, which disappoints some of the

"purer" environmental groups that suggest sporting groups are not environmentalists. Each project

site is characterized by unique environmental features, both political and physical. For example, the

environmental challenges being faced in Wyoming are clearly different than those in Kentucky. This

difference goes beyond regional habitat and animal species; it also includes how locals perceive

environmental improvement and how they want to pursue it.

This diversity of environmental settings across the U.S. makes "across-the-board"

comparisons of environmental project merits very difficult. This is by no means a submission to the

research question being addressed under EEIRP, the portfolio question, or an insinuation that it

cannot be answered, thereby terminating the program. Rather, bounds should be placed on what can

reasonably be accomplished analytically in the short term. The quest for a better understanding of

single-site outputs is strongly encouraged. As the response to management options in terms of

outputs, e.g., habitat units and wetland quality, is understood, it will logically feed the portfolio

question.

Based on research activities of this study, the most likely candidate indicator for across-theboard comparison is HEP. This is because HEP appears to be a familiar method to most agencies.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

47

However, nearly all those who commented on HEP during the case studies and workshop made

mention of its short-comings. Even if HEP is refined to better reflect the health of a particular

species, the question of comparing species is still upon us (what is more important, a blue-winged teal

or a canvasback?). The point here is that a better design for the site and a clearer empirical

understanding of the environmental response address both the site and portfolio issues. The

perspective based upon this research is that progress will most likely come first on the site challenge

versus the portfolio challenge.

In terms of Corps expertise for environmental projects, District personnel appear to be very

capable. Their ability to be responsive to issues at the site is, in many cases, hindered by the Corps

bureaucratic structure. Very little technical design guidance for environmental projects comes from

Division or Headquarters according to District personnel. The main avenue of support that comes

from Headquarters is environmental policy)and oftentimes this is clouded because of the evolving

Corps role in environmental projects. Given the unique and local nature (both technical and political)

of each environmental project, most argued during the case study interviews (both Corps and nonCorps participants) that more plan formulation autonomy should be given to District personnel. In

many of the case studies, decisions made above the District level were sometimes questioned by

partners and the District, and many times these decisions were slow in arriving. This can place a

tremendous strain on the working relationship with the partners in the planning process. 

Review of projects within the Corps typically supports the technical integrity of the project.

In the case of environmental projects, this system of technical checks and balances typically appears

to be provided by the partners who possess a considerable amount of environmental expertise. In

nearly all cases examined, the technical expertise required to design the proposed project and to

anticipate the project's benefits was available at the site.

This is not to suggest that review by higher levels should be bypassed or removed; rather, the

plan formulation process would benefit if more reliance was placed on the technical assessments of

the Districts and local partners. This appears to be especially prudent in the near-term in light of the

uncertainty associated with planning and designing environmental projects. Once standard

environmental planning and design techniques have been established, higher levels will be able to

more directly address the plan formulation challenges faced by field personnel as in other mission

areas, such as navigation and flood control.

The most promising evidence of a robust, clear evaluation framework for environmental

projects came from two case studies working under special environmental legislation directed at a

region. The Pool 8 Project in Wisconsin was built under the UMRS-EMP on the Upper Mississippi

River and the La Branche Wetlands Project in Louisiana was funded through CWPPRA.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

48

Each of these projects operated under special environmental, multiyear authorization from

Congress, and each of these programs had a regional focus. Therefore, the availability for funding

was assured (nearly) and geographically bounded. There was no analytical need, or pending threat,

to justify the merit of these projects relative to projects in other regions of the country. The regional

bounds helped to better focus on the environmental features. There was no potential for the real

regional issues to be diluted with considerations of special environmental issues that are

geographically remote. Each region has local diversity, but the limits in scope dictated by the funding

authority caused the evaluation process to be manageable.

There are clear mandates in the UMRS-EMP and CWPPRA legislation, leaving little room

for misinterpretation. In some of the other case studies, there was hesitancy on the Corps part to get

involved, or the Corps participation was questioned by others. This tentativeness in Corps

participation seemed to place the Corps in a less aggressive, sometimes reactionary role. This

tentativeness was very evident in the Mayfield Creek Project, where it took some time for the Corps

to take an environmental perspective, in turn causing some confusion among the project partners.

At the time of the plan formulation for Mayfield Creek, very little precedence or technical support

for accommodating flood control and environmental sensitivity was available, causing some

cumbersomeness in the process. The UMRS-EMP and CWPPRA legislation allows the Corps

Districts to march forthright into the project formulation procedure with very clear command support.

The UMRS-EMP and CWPPRA have active interagency groups that share in the evaluation

procedure. The CWPPRA has fewer members, mainly because it is directed at one state, Louisiana.

The Upper Mississippi projects consider not only Federal interests but state representatives from

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri. With the larger group comes a wider range of

issues and agendas, but they appear to be manageable. The interagency committees from each region

meet regularly and are able to determine project priorities in their respective regions. Reports are

published annually and are authored by the interagency group.

Efficiencies have been gained in every instance where interagency groups have been

assembled. An effective task force should meet regularly, and should diligently encourage members

to participate. Regulatory agencies that are critical to the approval of the project should be either a

task force member or a recipient of meeting minutes. During the planning process, more

communication should be promoted at critical junctures to reduce the chance of irritation related to

partners that are not informed. An active interagency task force would monitor project costs and

would keep tabs on design options that would severely impact the local sponsors' ability to financially

participate.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

49

Trade-offs and negotiations play an important part in the prioritization, though they, for the

most part, are informal. Because the interagency committees meet regularly, the roles of the members

have time to converge and achieve equilibrium, allowing the group to operate efficiently. Another

advantage is that the groups focus on their regions holistically. The technical merits of a project are

considered based on the benefits to the system. There are additional technical and technology transfer

advantages because the same group evaluates several environmental projects.

Media coverage has provided significant public support of projects where it has been used.

Resistance by the public most often occurs when the public is not familiar with what purpose a project

serves. The Jackson Hole and La Branche case studies both credit strong public backing to positive

media coverage. Environmental projects generally find favor with the media and the public. Utilizing

the media is a logical step to informing the public of project purposes and goals.

The evaluation framework adopted by the Corps should recognize the uniqueness of each

project site, and furthermore recognize that the site is part of a system. Regional authorities designed

with requirements for interagency involvement would best accommodate the real environmental needs

in the region. Placing the bulk of responsibility for project evaluation within interagency committees'

venue will limit bureaucratic bulk and assure responsiveness and technical accuracy. These features

of an evaluation framework should be considered as the Corps implements its environmental mission.

RECOMMENDATIONS BY EEIRP WORK UNIT

The commentary and recommendations provided above are directed at the evaluation

framework for the environmental project planning process. This next section focuses on

recommendations according to the remaining EEIRP work units which play important, but

segmented, roles in the project evaluation process. Many of the recommendations support ongoing

efforts under the EEIRP and should be viewed as further justification for particular research. Some

of the other recommendations may be used to redirect or change emphasis in an EEIRP work unit.

Some of the findings presented below are based on what is perceived to be continuing needs for

successful plan formulation activities.

 There were many suggestions provided during the interview and workshop activities for

improving the Corps environmental planning process. The final recommendations consider all of the

data collected during this research effort and represent the authors' perspective of what is critical to

enhancing the Corps environmental planning capabilities. Each recommendation is summarized in

Figure IV-I according to the EEIRP work unit and how it interacts with the Corps plan formulation
process. Provided below are each of the recommendations and associated discussion which are

presented for each EEIRP work unit.

Determining and Describing Environmental Significance

1. Consideration should be given to the development of a resource list for Corps planners that

indicates where information regarding environmental significance may be located.

A project area's environmental significance is often documented by another agency or group

before the Corps becomes involved, as illustrated by the McFaddin Ranch Wetland Project in Texas'

videotape and the availability of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge master plans. Research

attention should be directed toward the creation of a catalogued handbook of possible sources that

may have documentation, with examples. For instance,

State Resource Agencies (e.g., State Wildlife Conservation Agencies,

Water Resource Management Districts)

Other Federal Agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Bureau of Land Management,

Environmental Protection Agency)

Local Interest Groups (e.g., Trout Unlimited, Sporting Clubs,

Environmentalist Groups)

Computer-Based (e.g., College/University Archives,

Literature Searches Environmental Protection Agency Database)

Documented Legislation (e.g., North American Waterfowl Management Plan,

Coastal America)
Environmental Significance

! Develop resource handbook

! Improve link to objectives/outputs

Data

! Develop environmental network

! Plan for multiyear data collection

! Consider role of GIS

Objectives/Outputs

! Develop ecosystem

models

! Improve link to

environmental

significance

Cultural Resources

! Develop agreements

with SHPO

! Reexamine current

mitigation policy

PLAN

SELECTION

EVALUATING

PLANS

MEASURING

EFFECTS

FORMULATING

ALTERNATIVES

PLANNING

OBJECTIVES

PROBLEM

IDENTIFICATION

Evaluation Framework

! Consider regional approach

! Focus on interagency coordination

! Recognize uniqueness of each project

! Make effective use of media

Valuation

! Define applicable benefit categories

! Continue measuring appropriate

monetary values

Cost Efficiency

! Conduct interactive training on

incremental analysis

Risk and Uncertainty

! Collect data and develop basic risk

models

! Consider consequences of failed

projects when designing

Engineering Environmental Investments

! Train engineers in environmental

processes and design

! Utilize environmental design expertise

from other agencies

! Promote technology transfer of

environmental designs

Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

51

FIGURE IV-1

SUMMARY OF EEIRP-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

52

In addition to enhancing information regarding environmental significance, these sources

permit Corps planners to become more aware of potential stakeholders and resources that are

available to assist with other segments of the planning process.

Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs

2. Research efforts should be directed toward the location and/or development of an ecosystem

model that better represents the habitat being developed. This model would be incorporated into

guidance as a standard for the planning of Corps environmental projects.

Species-based models of environmental outputs, such as the USFWS HEP, are well

recognized throughout the environmental planning community. HEP has been applied many times

to describe the outputs of a wetland or environmental region, and the model has also been revised

quite often or adapted for a particular case. Despite the popularity of these models, there is general

agreement that they do not adequately represent the environmental system affected by the proposed

project. Furthermore, HEP-type models require a considerable amount of subjective input. Thus,

an investment in the development of ecosystem models based on physical measurement is

recommended.

The Wetlands Valuation Assessment that was used as the standard for evaluating habitat in

the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act projects in Louisiana was fairly wellreceived by the respondents from the New Orleans District and the Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources. This model does require subjective judgements, being a regional version of HEP. The

main difference, though, is that it is a community-based versus species-based model. This model may

be a point from which to start.

3. Research should be directed at developing guidance for creating a logical and explicit connection

among environmental significance, project objectives, and measurable outputs.

In the case of environmental projects, a clear link between the project's environmental

significance and the project's objectives and associated outputs is very important. This linkage/flow

is especially pertinent for environmental projects where clear and/or accepted means of quantification

are relatively weak at this point in time. The statement or description of environmental significance

and the justification of why the project is in the Federal interest may be the strongest segment of the
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

53

proposal. Thus, explicit interaction with the statement of significance when developing the objectives

and outputs will, in turn, strengthen the presentation of objectives and outputs.

In many instances, confusion among the planning partners has developed because the

foundations of the proposal are not well-developed. There may be a cursory understanding in the

beginning of the planning process of the project purpose and the intended products, but further in the

planning process where other details are the focus, it is very easy (and common) for partners to lose

sight of "what they are really doing." If there is a solid connection between environmental

significance and project objectives and outputs, this disorientation will be less likely.

Objective Evaluation of Cultural Resources

4. Formulate working agreements with State Historic Preservation Offices regarding appropriate

measures for the evaluation of cultural resources during the planning process.

Corps archeological personnel from several case studies emphasized the importance of

forming good relationships with their respective State Historic Preservation Offices. The formulation

of working agreements with the state agencies provides a clear understanding to both agencies

regarding what the examination requirements are for cultural resources in the planning and

construction of environmental projects. The document should contain provisions for areas that have

already been examined, and what steps are to be followed if a cultural resource is discovered.

5. The current mitigation policy for significant discovered cultural resources should be reexamined.

There are occasions when a cultural resource of significant importance is found as a project

is being developed, yet there is not a simple process to follow for mitigating it without going through

a difficult and extensive administrative process. It should be noted that respondents from most of the

case studies did not experience difficulty following the present guidance for cultural resources.

However, some waterways under Corps operation are characterized by significant range and quantity

of cultural resources. For example, the Upper Mississippi River Region poses a unique challenge to

the protection of cultural resources because it contains resources not normally found in a floodplain

region. The implementation of locks and dams raised the river height to improve navigation, and in

doing so brought water levels above previous historic conditions. This led to the degradation of

cultural resources through submersion or erosion.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

54

The current policy is that mitigation costs should not exceed one percent of the project

construction costs. Given the intense administration burden, coupled with the actual mitigation

activity, the one percent-policy is prohibitive in some cases. Re-examination of the policy should

include identification of opportunities for efficiency in the administrative process and consideration

of opportunities for obtaining mitigation funding above the one percent standard at projects that are

most deserving.

Engineering Environmental Investments

6. Corps engineering personnel should receive more environmental training.

The case studies illustrate difficulties experienced in the engineering of environmental projects

because of the engineers' lack of familiarity with ecological functions. This caused significant delays

because suggested designs did not meet the desired biological results. Related courses and

workshops are offered by the IWR and WES, and through the Corps PROSPECT course program

in Huntsville. If the Corps is to make a successful transition of their mission toward environmental

restoration, engineers need to be more familiar with ecosystem management techniques to design

appropriate alternatives. The Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife is one example of an agency

that offers week-long courses in ecological management, more specifically for marshes. A curriculum

of environmental training should be developed from courses taught at colleges, universities, technical

schools, Federal and state agencies, and commercially available seminars and workshops. Although

the Corps generally encourages continuing education and provides opportunities for Corps employees

in this regard, special focus is suggested for environmental design. Furthermore, it is recommended

that these courses be attended by personnel representing the many disciplines involved in planning

environmental projects including engineers, economists, biologists, and planners.

7. Attempts should be made to use the technological advances of other Federal agencies to develop

a handbook of resources regarding the design and development of engineering alternatives for

environmental projects.

Throughout the case study process, most Corps planners and engineers were unaware of

potential engineering designs for environmental projects. In the case of the McFaddin Ranch Wetland

Project in Texas, the implemented alternative was discovered through a chance meeting. Federal and

state conservation agencies have more experience in developing environmental projects because of
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

55

the nature of their missions. Guidance that is developed should provide a handbook of sources that

could contribute to the development of environmental projects.

8. The development and distribution of innovative environmental engineering designs should be

promoted.

Although there are some approaches to the engineering of environmental projects, the field

is still in the early stages of development. The Corps can gain credibility in the environmental

community through the research and development of new engineering approaches. Guidance for such

an effort should encourage careful field experimentation and documentation results. The results of

the innovations, as well as basic techniques, should be collected and reported so that Districts can use

them in future environmental planning and design activities. This dissemination of techniques could

be carried out through simplistic means such as newsletters or conferences, or could be developed

using computer technology, such as expert-systems.

Monetary and Other Valuation Techniques

9. Guidance should be developed that clearly defines benefit categories that are required/appropriate

for feasibility studies and reports.

Difficulties have been experienced at all levels of the Corps hierarchy regarding benefits that

are appropriate for presentation in feasibility study reports. First, there is not a working

understanding of what benefit categories are applicable for each type of Corps project (e.g., Section

1135 authorization). Present guidance often alludes to output categories as primary or secondary.

But clarity is needed to indicate which benefit categories are really applicable, versus categories

simply mentioned for the sake of completeness. In other words, if recreation benefits can be tabulated

as secondary outputs, is it worth the Districts' time to conduct the analysis of recreation benefit values

or environmental projects?

The other need for guidance and research is discriminating the type of benefit categories

according to project size or planning resources. Definition of benefit estimation techniques for a

small project versus a large project would create efficiency in the planning process because it would

provide clear direction and there would be less time wasted on speculation of which methodologies

are required.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

56

10. Research should be directed toward determining and developing monetary and other valuation

techniques.

Although there is consensus that environmental projects provide benefits to society that

cannot be measured in monetary terms, this does not mean that monetized benefits should be

disregarded. Recreation and flood control are obvious categories of benefits where the Corps has

utilized traditional economic-based techniques to create dollar-value benefits. The intent is not to

make the project approval or prioritization decision based upon dollar values; rather it would provide

support for the project justification analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis

11. Training and workshops should be conducted on the purpose, intent, and mechanics of

incremental analysis.

Incremental analysis is an appropriate means of identifying the best project alternative in terms

of dollars per unit of output. The technique has received considerable technical support from

HQUSACE and it has been successfully applied at selected Corps projects. Presently, though,

incremental analysis is reluctantly utilized by Corps Districts, and, in many cases, it is utilized mainly

to appease HQUSACE.

A great deal of this reluctance would be relieved through interactive training of incremental

analysis. The training should be attended by members of District, Division, and HQUSACE, and the

purpose and intent of incremental analysis should be examined in detail. Interaction among the

training participants would help alleviate the misunderstandings associated with incremental analysis

in the project approval process.

The training should be attended by economists, ecologists, engineers, and study/project

managers. Incremental analysis is often viewed as a technique for economists, but the critical inputs,

such as environmental outputs, come from the environmentalists in the Corps. The interaction among

the different disciplines will serve the process very well and will help define the technical limits of

incremental analysis.

Common technical challenges should be explicitly addressed in the training, such as how to

formulate alternatives and its application to small projects. Communication of results within and
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

57

outside the Corps should be addressed. Each of these issues should be approached using real

examples whenever possible.

Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Projects

12. Identify environmental models that can be characterized in a risk framework and concentrate

data collection efforts to support development of probability distribution.

The concepts of risk and uncertainty are utilized informally within the Corps environmental

planning community. The likelihood of a series of events leading to a result has uncertainty inherent

in the process. Risk and uncertainty could be formalized if more was known about the likelihood of

success (or failure) of each of the events in the series. Hence, probability distributions around

important segments/models in the environmental improvement or enhancement process should be

formed.

Development of understanding risk and uncertainty for environmental projects to the degree

the Corps analyzes flood control and hydropower outputs will require a great deal of data collection

and is probably years, even decades, in the making. The prerequisite is, of course, to get an

empirically sound understanding of environmental outputs. A concerted effort toward a selected

segment of a large scale environmental model will be an important step in the right direction.

A common environmental process that is most likely to be quantifiable should be identified.

Next, a formal data collection effort should be designed and executed to support the development of

probability distributions. The likelihood of success and related confidence bounds could be

established around the expected value. The planner will then be able to express with empirical

confidence the results of the intended design. This process should be carried out for the critical

segments of common environmental systems until a comprehensive model is complete.

13. Consider the consequences of a failed environmental project in the engineering design.

Many of the environmental projects are created by moving, holding, or draining water) the

same general engineering role of traditional projects (e.g., flood control) built by the Corps. The

structural integrity of the traditional projects is very sound, recognizing that human lives and property

are at stake. This approach is warranted when flood control projects are built to protect property.

Failure of environmental projects do not have such a disastrous human effect. Therefore, the Corps
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

58

should consider relaxing design standards for environmental projects which would enhance costeffectiveness. This tempering should be approached cautiously and should be considered only when

the possibility of significant damages is very remote. Less risk-averse levee designs have been

successfully created and built by some non-Corps agencies involved in the CWPPRA projects.

Procedures for Developing and Integrating Environmental Databases

14. Research should be conducted to determine the feasibility of developing an accessible computer

database for environmental project planners.

Because the environmental field is still in early developmental stages, approaches to planning

and designing environmental projects are not well known. Many planners expressed frustration

regarding where to access such information and felt there should be a computer database within the

Corps that could accommodate this need. The information in such a system should be comprised of

engineering approaches, environmental management approaches, and summaries of environmental

projects that document their results as well as traditional environmental and hydrologic data.

15. Multiyear monitoring should be conducted for projects after they are constructed to assist with

future environmental planning endeavors. Equipped and experienced colleges and universities should

be utilized when possible.

Limited data exist regarding the monitoring of environmental projects after they are

implemented. The ability to create accurate and dependable environmental models is dependent upon

collection and management of data that describe the environmental system processes, results, and

factors that influence results. Good models and databases lead to many other analytical opportunities

that support the planning process, such as measuring outputs, incremental analysis, and risk analysis.

Several case studies throughout the present report suggest the need for improved environmental data

and models.

The case studies also illustrate the effective use of college and university personnel and

students in the development of environmental projects. Some schools have well-developed biological

or ecological programs where significant field research has been conducted. Their familiarity with

the biological functions of the area can provide valuable contributions to the planning process. Care

should be taken to use professors and graduate students who have had time to develop their fieldmonitoring skills.
Compilation and Review of Completed

Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an

Evaluation Framework for Environmental Resources)Volume I

59

16. Research should be conducted to determine the role that Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

should play in the planning of environmental projects.

A GIS provides planners with a valuable tool for developing environmental projects. The St.

Paul District is an example of how successful implementation of a GIS can enhance the planning

process. There is a long-term data collection effort underway for the UMRS-EMP, and these data

have been used to design a number of projects. The start-up costs for a GIS are substantial,

especially for data collection, but because it is used for a number of projects within the St. Paul

District, the GIS has proven to be a cost-effective planning tool.

Other Districts recognize the value of this technology, but currently do not have enough

projects in their area for a GIS to be cost effective. The research for this recommendation needs to

address what services a GIS can provide to Districts and identify strategic locations for the placement

of a GIS that could be used by multiple Districts. Guidelines for identifying the threshold for

justification of a GIS should be developed.