Specifications

Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans
EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
5-66
5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE NATIONAL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
(NER) PLAN
In identification of the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan, USACE
Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100, Appendix E, Section V requires that
decision-makers take into account achievement of planning objectives, the
results of CE/ICA, the significance of project outputs, the four Principles and
Guidelines criteria of acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency,
and risk and uncertainty considerations. Based on the results of CE/ICA alone,
and observing the breakpoint between the first and second Best Buy plans, a
recommendation might be made to select the 10-foot earthen embankment
because it has the lowest incremental costs per unit of output of any of the
alternatives at $565 per average annual habitat unit. However, Alternative 4 is
cost-effective in that it delivers the same or more output than Alternative 2 and
Alternative 6 at lower cost. It is also a Best Buy plan, delivering more output
(4,430 habitat units) than Alternative 3, albeit at a higher incremental cost per
unit of output. Alternative 4 meets the strict CE/ICA criteria set by ER 1105-2-
100.
In interpreting the results of the incremental cost analysis, it should also be
noted that Alternative 4’s total investment cost is $53 million greater than
Alternative 3 ($1,006.3 million versus $953.3 million), a 5.6% increase. At the
same time, outputs on an average annual basis increase by nearly 5% between
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, from 95,362 AAHU’s to 99,776 AAHU’s. The
requirement to use average annual costs in CE/ICA unfavorably reflects the
incremental cost per unit of output of the Alternative 4. Average annual cost
calculations penalize the Alternative 4 due to present worth calculations.
Alternative 4 is more acceptable to stakeholders within the EAA, the local
sponsor, and potentially to federal policy-makers, primarily because the
reservoir footprint can be accommodated completely within lands already
acquired by the Federal government and the local sponsor. There are several
advantages of not having to acquire additional lands. First, local stakeholders
within the EAA have voiced opposition to having additional lands taken out of
agricultural production. Detrimental impacts to the local farming economy and
to the viability of such EAA business concerns as sugar mills have been raised in
objection to utilizing an additional approximately 6,500 acres required for
Alternative 3. The local sponsor, state, and federal interests mounted a very
significant land acquisition effort for this facility beginning in the mid 1990s
culminating in the purchase of the Talisman Sugar Corporation land holdings.
Subsequently, a number of land exchanges with other land owners in the vicinity
were executed to consolidate the Talisman land into a contiguous, usable
footprint. All the partners invested substantial time and effort in this successful
undertaking. At this time, the local sponsor believes that the acquisition of