Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-, <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Water quality is an important component of ecosystem Structure and water quality <br />improvement can be considered as an output of an ecosystem restoration project. <br />However, projects or features that would result in tteating or otherwise abating pollution <br />problems caused by other parties where those parti~s have, or are likely to have a legal <br />responsibility for remediation or other compliance fesponsibility shall not be <br />recommended for implementation. It appears that t~ere will be water quality <br />improvement output for this project, but it will be more of a secondary output, secondary <br />to stream flow and stream habitat restoration. : <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />Appropriate engineering investigations shall be conc:iucted for each alternative measure <br /> <br />and plan to ensure the hydrologic realization of their objective is attainable. <br />I <br /> <br />An initial cost estimate for each measure and plan s~all also be developed. <br /> <br />The Study Team will accomplish this step by following the guidance in Chapter Eight of <br />the Corps 1996 Planning Manual (IWR Report 96-R-21), and Page 152 of Appendix E in <br />ER 1105-2-100. The end product of this step shall be a draft written, report quality, <br />description of alternatives for review and comment by the stakeholders. This planning <br />step would be accomplished in a 6-month time period. Stakeholder comments will be <br />addressed as the alternative descriptions are converted into the Draft Feasibility <br />Report/Environmental Impact Statement. <br /> <br />Step 4 - Evaluation of Alternative Plans <br /> <br />For this step, the Corps/Sponsor Study Team will conduct an evaluation of the alternative <br />plans. The evaluation will consist of four general tasks: (1) forecast the most likely with- <br />project conditions expected under each alternative; (2) compare each with-project <br />conditions to the without-project conditions and document differences between the two; <br />(3) characterize the beneficial and adverse effects by magnitude, location, timing, and <br />duration; and (4) qualify plans for further considerati9n. <br /> <br />At a minimum, two categories of effects are to be eV3;luated: costs and outputs. <br />Environmental outputs are the desired or anticipated measurable products or results of <br />restoration measures and plans. The term "outputs" is. often used interchangeably with <br />"benefits." Ecosystem restoration proposals may poss'ess multiple output categories, as <br />well as other effects that may need to be considered, but the evaluation must at least <br />address cost and an output category that has been determined to reasonably represent <br />ecosystem restoration benefits. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses (CEIICA) are two distinct analyses that <br />will be conducted to evaluate the effects of alternative plans. First, it must be shown <br />through cost effectiveness analysis that an alternative restoration plan's output cannot be <br />produced more cost effectively by another alternative. "Cost effective" means that, for a <br />