LAKE WORTH - HPC 2014... · LAKE WORTH Inlet project Pg.6 AWARDS Planning Achievement Awards...

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.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



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



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



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



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



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



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]

>

Date post:	27-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

LAKE WORTH - HPC 2014... · LAKE WORTH Inlet project Pg.6 AWARDS Planning Achievement Awards...

Documents