lake worth - hpc 2014... · lake worth inlet project pg.6 awards planning achievement awards...
TRANSCRIPT
LAKEWORTH
Inlet project Pg.6
AWARDS Planning Achievement
Awards Announced Pg.5
WEBINARS An opportunity to share
information and learn more about trending topics Pg.4
SUTTER BASIN STUDY
Examines lessons learned with incorporating technical memos,
dedicated sharepoint, and formulation strategies Pg.2
*-----------CALL FORPROPOSALS Interagency Nonstructural and Flood Risk Management ProjectsPg.9
SPRING 2014 - Issue 01
SUTTER BASIN STUDY The Sutter Basin feasibility pilot examines lessons learned with incorporating technical memos, dedicated SharePoint, and formulation strategies.
Historically, the Feather and
Sacramento Rivers in California
frequently overflowed their channel
banks and flooded Sutter Basin and most
of the communities. Early attempts by land
owners to reduce flood risks in and around
Yuba City through levee construction
were adversely impacted by gold rush
hydraulic mining debris that raised the bed
of the Feather River channel, resulting in
local land owners further increasing
the height of existing levees. The
high cost of private construction of
levees resulted in the formation of
reclamation districts and eventual
federal involvement through the
1917-authorized Sacramento River
Flood Control Project (SRFCP).
The Sutter Basin Feasibility Study
began in 2000 to formulate a flood
risk management plan for the Basin,
including the communities of Yuba
City, Live Oak, Gridley and Biggs.
The 300-square-mile study area is
influenced by the Sacramento, Feather
and Bear Rivers, as well as the Sutter
and Tisdale Bypasses. The Sutter Basin
is bounded by approximately 100 miles
of federally-constructed and legacy (non-
engineered) levees of the SRFCP.
Flood risk and historic flooding and resulting
loss of life in this area are associated with
geotechnical levee failure of levees (as
opposed to overtopping). Regular flood
fighting continues within the study area and
THE SUTTER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY
BEGAN IN 2000 TO FORMULATE A PLAN FOR FLOOD
RISK MANAGEMENT, ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, AND RECREATION THE
STUDY DETAILS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN THE PROJECT,
WHICH WILL IMPROVE MORE THAN 40 MILES
OF LEVEE ALONG THE FEATHER RIVER.
SLURRY WALL CONSTRUCTION
CONTINUES AUG. 21, 2013 AT
SHANGHAI BEND IN YUBA CITY, CALIF.,
COURTESY OF SUTTER BUTTES
FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.(ABOVE PHOTO)
2
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014>
levee safety evaluation studies indicate on-
going seepage and levee structural problems.
The recommended plan is to improve more
than 41 miles of Feather River levees along
the eastern boundary of the Sutter Basin
at an estimated construction cost of $689
million, including a federal investment of
$255 million, with estimated $54 million in
annual net benefits.
Prior to its 2011 selection in the USACE
National Pilot Program, the study’s
partnership changed to include the
California’s Central Valley Flood Protection
Board and the Sutter-Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA). The addition of SBFCA
provided the Basin with one voice and one
direction in flood risk management concerns
along with taxing authority. Although the
District was challenged in meeting the
pilot program’s timeframe, the Sutter Basin
Chief’s Report was signed in March 2014,
three years after the transition to a pilot
study.
Strong sponsor support throughout the
pilot program, development of effective
communication tools, revised methods of
documenting decisions and managing study
documentation, and focus on managing the
level of detail needed for study decisions
were key to maintaining the expeditious
pace set for study completion. Some lessons
learned include:
•Use of technical memos to document the
decisions of technical and policy issues,
such as economic optimization and climate
change, were a fast and effective way for
the team to capture decisions without
delaying the study schedule. The memos
also provided documentation for reviewers,
decision makers, and new team members as
they came onboard. Managing study
documentation is a critical component
of every study. Standard Operating
Procedures on documentation, quality
control, and storage procedures were
created to ensure report consistency
for draft and final products.
• Agreeing on appropriate level
of detail of study for the decision
to be made was not always easy
for the district team or vertical
team. Developing plan formulation
strategies and procedures that initially
focused on a qualitative analysis with
increasing levels of detail at each decision
point and vertical team
in-progress review allowed
for identification of the
significant design and cost
risk factors, and decisions
with the greatest remaining
uncertainties. This approach
took the team some time to
develop, and it also required
reviewers and the vertical
team time to understand and
accept.
•The District was grateful
to have this project selected
as a national pilot study. All
WORKING TOGETHERThe Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was signed in March 2000. The non-Federal sponsors are State of California, Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the Sutter-Butte Flood Control Agency.
SHANGHAI BEND WAS THE SITE OF A CATASTROPHIC
LEVEE BREAK IN 1955 WHEN YUBA
CITY FLOODED AND 38 RESIDENTS
DIED.
COL. LEADY AND LOCAL
REPRESENTATIVES TOURED THE SITE
OF THE PROPOSED FEATHER RIVER
WEST LEVEE(LEFT PHOTO)
levels of USACE as well
as the sponsors learned
and shared process
improvements that can
benefit other studies
implementing SMART
planning approaches. It was
a tremendous challenge to
set and maintain a pace to
meet the requirements, but
achievable.
To learn more about the
Sutter Basin Pilot Feasibility
Study, visit http://www.spk.
usace.army.mil/Missions/
CivilWorks/Sutter.aspx.
3
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014 >
Feature News Items
PILOT SNAPSHOTSLAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE
SMART PLANNING PROCESS
In 2011, five studies were
selected as a pilot to
test principles outlined
in Recommendations for
Transforming the Current
Pre-Authorization Study
Process (January 2011).
The five pilot studies laid
the groundwork for the
SMART planning process. In
addition to the Sutter Basin
and Lake Worth Inlet pilot
studies featured in this issue
of Planning Ahead, the other
three pilot studies are:
Jordan Creek, MO: The first pilot to complete
a Chief’s Report in August
2013. The flood risk
management study led by
the Little Rock District
recommends a $22M project
that includes five regional
detention basins, one railroad
bridge replacement, one
flood barrier, and 2,100
feet of channel modification.
The project will provide an
estimated $3.1M in annual
damages prevented and a
35% reduction in residual
damages. The Jordan Creek
Chief’s Report was signed
on 26 August 2013 and is
currently under review by
OMB.
Westside Creeks, TX: A pilot study for an ecosystem
restoration project in an
urban area led by Fort
Worth District, the study
recommends a $45.3M multi-
objective project consisting
of ecosystem restoration
features and recreation
features. The project includes
The Planning Community of Practice webinar
series offers Planners and their colleagues an opportunity to share information and learn more about trending topics. Webinars are scheduled for the first and third Thursday of each month from 2-3 pm Eastern. Webinars are archived on the Planning Community Toolbox.
Upcoming webinar topics will include watershed budgeting, planner training, and an overview of process and policy updates. Webinar topics and dates will be posted on the Toolbox as they are scheduled.
17 APRIL 2014— Starting a SMART Reconnaissance Study
1 MAY 2014— Lessons Learned: Review of draft Section 7 Biological Opinions
>
Upcoming Planning Community Webinars
FIND MORE WEBINARS AT: http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/resources.
4
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014>
restoration of 222 acres and
11 stream miles of aquatic
habitat and the addition of
about 8.4 miles of recreation
trails and features.
The Central Everglades Planning Project: An ongoing study, the
Draft Integrated Project
Implementation Report
and Environmental Impact
Statement of this large
and complex project were
completed in August 2013.
The final report is scheduled
to be completed in March
2014. The tentative
recommendation is for
a $1.8B project that will
decrease the number and
severity of high volume
regulatory flood control
releases sent from Lake
Okeechobee by redirecting
approximately 210,000 acre-
feet per year of additional
water to the historical
southerly flow path south,
through flow equalization
basins and existing
stormwater treatment
areas to the Everglades
National Park. The project
will beneficially affect more
than 1.5 million acres.The
Civil Works Review Board is
scheduled for April 22, 2014.
PLANNING ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS ANNOUNCED
Congratulations
Dr. Angela
Sowers,
recipient of the
Planning Excellence award.
Her efforts on the Native
Oyster Restoration Master
Plan for the Chesapeake Bay
represents the culmination
of an intensive challenge to
unite state-of-the-art science,
on-the-ground experience
and collaborative planning.
The master plan, developed in
partnership with the State of
Maryland and Commonwealth
of Virginia, outlines the
Corps’ strategy for large-
scale oyster restoration
throughout the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries. Dr.
Sowers analyzed critical and
controversial topics and led
the efforts in various reviews
including a series of public
meetings, addressed all the
comments and maintained
schedules. The final Master
Plan, which reflects Dr.
Sowers’ innovative thinking
and problem solving, resulted
in the first comprehensive
bay-wide strategy for large-
scale oyster restoration.
The 2012 Planning Team of
the Year Award recipients
are Trish Anslow, Stephanie
Groleau, Yvonne Haberer,
Brian Harper, Jim Hutchison,
Jeremy LaDart, Liz
Rettenmaier, and
Maria Wegner-
Johnson, for
their role on the
SMART Planning
Implementation
Team. The team was selected
for their role in leading the
transformation of the Civil
Works planning practice. The
team worked extensively to
engage the entire Community
of Practice as well as other
Civil Works functional elements
in this transformational
effort progressing from initial
awareness and recognition, to
broad based acceptance and
practice. The coalition exhibited
extraordinary ability
to motivate and
organize others while
maintaining their
own excellence at
production. Their
efforts in the development
of the online SMART Guide and
SMART Planning tools brought
the theory and intent.
Applying SMART Planning Principles at the District
As part of the Planning Associates program, each PA is tasked to write a short essay on how they will apply the lessons
they learned each session to their work at the District.” Planning Associate Cindy Upah writes about how she will apply what she is learning in the PA Program when she returns to the Omaha District.
“Three areas where I can apply tools learned from the Team Building, Team Leadership, and Effective Communication course are 1) addressing concerns about timelines and budgets, 2) working with the right and appropriate amount of information, and 3) making risk-informed decisions.
In the Districts, concerns or skepticism regarding the three-year or $3M completion of a feasibility study could be expressions of a resistance to change. Being aware of where I am in my own process of change, and asking questions of people to help identify where they are can ease the transition. Local accomplishments such as
particular charettes or documents and tools available through the planner’s toolbox can point to the possibilities that change brings.
Getting a team comfortable with “enough” information, rather than “all” the information can be challenging. I can help teams recognize that decisions can be made with the right information, and not all of it has to be Corps-generated.
Walking the team through a decision log and vertical team buy-in will aid in making decisions regarding what data is needed, and will also help alleviate the fears of the repercussions of not having every single detail.
Making risk-informed decisions is another adjustment teams are making. Defining acceptable risk, and potentially basing decisions on less information, can understandably cause fear and conflict. Team members can establish trust, encourage constructive confrontation or build buy-in whether their role is a team member, a leader, or a facilitator. As the factors of appropriate size, cost, and scale coalesce into well-documented, risk-informed decisions, our
sponsors, Districts, Divisions, and the nation can only benefit.”
>
5
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014 >
We sat
down
with
Stacey
Roth,
lead planner on the Lake
Worth Inlet project,
Jacksonville District, to
learn a little more about
how they achieved success
at the study’s Civil Works
Review Board in January 2014.
Stacey attributes the success
of the Lake Worth Inlet team
to their collaboration with
others in their division to
develop a streamlined report
outline with graphics to help
tell the story. Reviewers
and the public noticed the
difference and appreciated it.
“The Lake Worth Inlet
project had an absolutely
amazing team, where
everyone pulled their
weight and knew their
area of focus. What made
them an exceptional team
was they were not afraid
to go outside their area
of focus to help with team
problems, they were great
communicators, and they
always handled situations as
a team.
“I have learned through this
project to:
•Make a realistic schedule from
the beginning;
•Remind the team early of
upcoming deadlines to give them
enough time to adjust their
workload and priorities;
•Talk with the vertical team
regularly;
•Communicate with each PCX
and ATR team members early and
often to allow sufficient time to
complete reviews;
•Use the risk register to truly
identify problem areas early and
then communicate those to the
team as well as supervisors;
•Listen to every member on the
team and communicate their
concerns;
•Know when to be a leader and
make decisions, know when to let
others lead, and know when to
ask for help.
“Getting through the Civil
Works Review Board
(CWRB) was a major
effort. It took 3 months of
intense preparation up to
the meeting itself, and two
weeks after on follow-up
actions. My advice is to start
early on your presentation
and meet often with your
PDT, chain of command, and
the vertical team at your
MSC and HQ about the
presentation, the report,
and supplemental items.
“My advice to all planners
is: never forget the human
element of your team.
The relationships I have
had with my team have
probably been the biggest
help over the past 3 years,
especially while working
on the Lake Worth Inlet
Lake WorthLake Worth Inletwith Stacy Roth, lead planner
My advice to all planners is: never forget the human element of your team. The relationships I have had with my team have probably been the biggest help over the past 3 years, especially while working on the Lake Worth Inlet Pilot Project
6
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014>
Pilot Project - helping us
get through the ups and
downs of difficult problem
solving and intense schedule
deadlines. The Jacksonville
District Planning Division is
an amazing place to work,
with a wealth of knowledge
among my peers who share
their expertise openly and
with a smile.”
If you are interested in
reading more about the
Lake Worth Inlet project
visit: http://www.saj.
usace.army.mil/Missions/
CivilWorks/Navigation/
NavigationProjects/
Use the risk register to truly identify problem areas early and then communicate those to the team as well as supervisors
tion text goes here
KNOW WHEN TO BE A LEADER AND MAKE DECISIONS, KNOW WHEN TO LET OTHERS LEAD, AND KNOW WHEN TO ASK FOR HELP
7
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014 >
COASTAL EXPERTISE IN PRACTICE
The National Planning Centers of
Expertise aren’t just resources for
good ideas – they take those ideas and
apply them to on-the-ground studies. The
National Planning Center of Expertise for
Coastal Storm Risk Management provides
services including technical review, training,
modeling and research and development
support to the nation with analysis and
plan formulation related to such conditions
as future storm risk, sea level change, and
shoreline changes.
The Coastal PCX is based in the North
Atlantic Division in New York City, and is led
by Joe Vietri. Roselle Henn, Deputy Director
of the PCX has been leading the Hurricane
Sandy North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive
Study since January 2013. Covering the
coastline between Maine and Virginia, the
study is a coastal storm risk management
framework that will identify risk areas; a
diverse set of structural, non-structural and
programmatic risk reduction and coastal
resiliency measures, benefits, parametric
costs, institutional barriers, and areas and
activities warranting further analysis.
The framework and the information in
the study can be used to determine the
vulnerabilities in the region and what
measures could be used to address those
vulnerabilities.
Upon completion of the North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study, Ms. Henn will resume
her role as the Environmental Team Leader
for the USACE North Atlantic Division
with primary responsibility for ecosystem
restoration throughout the region.
If you have a question about on
environmental policy and compliance, she is
the Senior Subject Matter Expert you want
to call. Ms. Henn leads environmental teams
located in the Division’s five Districts (New
England, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
and Norfolk) working on watershed planning
and estuarine restoration. She is the regional
environmental interface with other Federal
Agencies including EPA, NOAA, and DOI,
Regional Partners, and NGOs. And, she
represents the Division in collaborative
efforts which transcend District/political
boundaries.
ASIDE FROM PROTECTING
INFRASTRUCTURE, COASTAL
PROJECTS HAVE NUMEROUS
ENVIRONMENTALBENEFI TS, LIKE
PROTECTING THE HABITAT OF PELICANS,
SEA TURTLES AND SNOW OWLS LIKE THE
ONES SEEN IN THE PICTURES BELOW
8
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014>
FACES OFHEADQUARTERS
Highlighting the people and teams that
support planners in the field. Today,
we meet Joe Redican, Mississippi
Valley Division Regional Integration Team.
Joe Redican has worked for the Corps for
19 years. He started his career with twelve
years in the Districts: New York District and
Jacksonville. Joe moved to
DC to work in the MVD-RIT
as a RIT Planner and now is
Deputy Chief. Joe sat down
with us to tell us more about
the MVD-RIT.
The Mississippi Valley
Division Regional Integration
Team (MVD-RIT) supports
the Mississippi Valley
Division and the districts within the Valley.
The RIT serves as the civil works program
advocate with responsibility for leadership,
program execution, and oversight for all
Civil Works activities managed under
MVD. Civil Works activities include
planning, programming, design, acquisition,
construction, operations and maintenance
assigned to MVD, as well as other national
initiatives. The Chief of the MVD-RIT is Tab
Brown.
“As a planner and project manager who
worked in 2 Districts for over 12 years, I
know that it does not always appear that
Headquarters is a proponent for projects.
What I can tell you is there are a lot of folks
at Headquarters that understand how much
pressure you work under in the field and
what it takes to work with our partners to get
a study completed. This process seemed to
get more difficult every year. Until SMART
Planning, it appeared we were moving
further from getting anything completed.
“This is where I see the strength of the RIT:
to help get things done. What is needed to
make the Corps, ourselves in the MVD-RIT,
and ultimately you successful is continued
positive communication. We all get caught
up in our own world and forget the bigger
picture. Most people who work for the Corps
believe in what we are doing. But, when we
are challenged, we scramble to find our way
and can minimize communication. I have had
that problem, but when I work with folks in
the field, I remember how important it is to
have a good proponent and communicator at
Headquarters.
“I challenge each of you
to strive to be better
communicators and remember
that we are all in this together.
I have seen some very smart
people fail because of a lack
of communication, or recede
based on perceived negative
comments on their products.
On the flip side, I have seen
success in those who listen to others, had a
positive outlook to comments, and produced
stronger products that are used as models.
Planning Ahead is a quarterly
publication of the Army Corps of
Engineers Planning Community
of Practice. Views and opinions
expressed herein are not necessarily
those of the Army Corps of Engineers
or the Department of Defense.
Planning Ahead is a
quarterly publication
of the Army Corps of
Engineers Planning
Community of Practice.
Views and opinions
expressed herein are not
necessarily those of the
Army Corps of Engineers
or the Department of
Defense.
9
PLANNING AHEAD: PLANNING COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER
PLANNING.USACE.ARMY.MIL ISSUE 01 - SPRING 2014 >
As part of the FY14 Flood Plain
Management Services (FPMS) program funding, proposals are currently being accepted for:
1)Activities that support States and communities in the consideration and/or implementation of nonstructural activities, and
2)Activities that support States and communities in their ability to effectively manage and reduce flood risks.
Funding criteria are based on USACE Flood
Risk Management Program goals and objectives: encouraging collaboration, interagency efforts, implementation of state mitigation plans, and facilitating integrated flood risk management solutions. To leverage the efficacy of an interagency approach, proposal submissions developed with State Silver Jackets teams are encouraged.
Contact the USACE Nonstructural Flood Proofing Committee for a copy of the full Call for Proposals. Districts may submit more than one proposal. Proposals developed with State Silver
Jacket teams should be included in the District submissions. All proposals submitted by 25 April 2014 will be considered for FY14 funding. Unfunded proposals and proposals submitted after 25 April will be considered and funded on an ongoing basis, if funds become available.
If you would like to discuss submitting a proposal, please contact Jennifer Dunn (IWR), Lisa Bourget (IWR), Heather Morgan (NAN/PCoP), or Maria Wegner-Johnson (HQUSACE/PCoP).
>
CALL FOR PROPOSALS
PCoP
Q+A
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
Questions, Comments, Concerns, Anxieties — If your question can help fellow planners, submit it online and maybe you'll see it here.
In a cost-constrained environment ($3 million total feasibility study), the cost of a traditional Value Engineering study seems incompatible with SMART Planning. How can we do SMART Value Engineering?
Just as we are looking at ways to scale
our planning activities to the right level
of detail at the right time, the Value
Engineering community is also evolving their
business practices. When the local Value
Engineering Officer and PDT use the VE
Screening process to put the required Value
Management Plans (PMBP 8023G) in place
at project initiation, the Value Engineering
efforts will be “right sized” for each study.
When the Value Management Plan is in place
early, and revisited on occasion, you will be
able to look for the opportunities to engage/
integrate VE where it is most effective, at
the appropriate level of effort, potentially
integrating with an existing effort rather
than as a stand-alone effort. For example,
maybe you can add VE when you are already
bringing the PDT together for alternative
screening, or integrate VE activities with a
cost & schedule risk analysis workshop.
Engaging the VEO early will help enable
integrating VE in a cost effective manner,
rather than tacking it on as a potentially
costly afterthought.
For more information, visit the Value
Engineering website <hotlink to http://
www.usace.army.mil/ValueEngineering.
aspx> – or even better, visit your local Value
Engineering Officer.
10
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NEWSLETTER
What’s New on the Planning Community Toolbox
Three new Planning Bulletins have recently
been posted to the Planning Community Toolbox:
•PB 2012-02, Planning SMART Guide, was reissued to update the milestone meetings to include the Civil Works Review Board milestone.
•PB 2013-03, SMART Planning Milestones, is being reissued to reflect lessons learned and updates to the milestone meetings, including information for the mandatory Civil Works Review Board milestone meeting and additional specificity
regarding read-ahead requirements for milestones, draft report submittals and final report submittals.
•PB 2014-01, Application and compliance of SMART Planning and the 3x3x3 Rule, is a new Planning Bulletin clarifying the current study categories in the active Planning Portfolio. All studies that are not specifically listed in this Planning Bulletin as a Legacy Study are SMART studies. This bulletin applies to all planning studies - not just feasibility studies.
In addition, we are rescinding PB 2012-03, Procedures for
Rescoping Ongoing Feasibility Studies, as all studies should already be 3x3 compliant or requesting an exemption per PB 2012-04: 3x3x3 Rule Exemption Process.
The PCoP is developing and updating Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) milestone, Agency Decision Milestone (ADM), and Civil Works Review Board (CWRB), so that District, Division, and HQ have a common set of expectations and these important decision meetings can run smoothly. SOPs for the Agency Decision Milestone are posted on
the Toolbox and Tentatively Selected Plan milestone meeting SOPs will be coming soon.
Finally, we expect to be issuing a new Planning Bulletin on reconnaissance studies very soon, and are excited about the new starts that will be starting under - rather than transitioning to - the SMART planning framework and approach. Visit the Toolbox online at www.corpsplanning.us
If you have questions or suggestions for the Toolbox, please email us at [email protected]
>