ROOM:
Elizabethan D
TRACK: Planning Community of Practice
TOPIC: Evaluation across the Four Accounts
MODERATOR:
PRESENTATIONS:
Title: Regional
Economic Development (RED) Examined – the Importance to Alaskan Project Sponsors
Presenters: Lorraine
Cordova, Alaska District
Abstract: Corps projects are concerned with the
measurement of benefits to U.S. residents.
Benefits transferring from one region to another provide no net gain. However, leaders at the community, city,
county, borough, or state level are much concerned with the transfer of
benefits between regions. By recognizing
these transfers, the Corps assists communities in the decision-making process. Educating community leaders about program authorities,
project development alternatives, and sponsor contributions is not enough. Community leaders must also think about the
impacts to employment, public utilities, school enrollment, and tax base.
The
Regional Economic Development (RED) benefit analysis is important to the Corps
because it allows informed decisions about project sponsor’s cost-sharing
capability, and provides good will to and educates the sponsor on the real
risks and benefits associated with a project.
A recent
evaluation of Alaska projects found that more than 70 percent would not move
past the reconnaissance level analysis because the project sponsor was unable
to cost share. Information provided in
the RED analysis helps the sponsor apply for grants and loans, making a project
that might otherwise go unfinished viable.
RED analysis serves the dual purpose of encouraging sponsor support and
allowing the Corps to complete much-needed projects throughout the nation.
Title: The
Importance of the OSE Account in Rural Alaskan Projects
Presenters: Brian
Harper, IWR and Daniel Werkmeister, Alaska District
Abstract: The Other Social Effects (OSE) account as
described in ER 1105-2-100 has historically been a small piece of the COE’s economic analysis reports. NED benefits have generally guided the
development of our planning. Economists
have focused effort primarily on this account in order to obtain approval of
COE civil works water resource related projects. Alaska has been and always will be an
entirely different place than the lower 48.
Most Alaskan civil works projects are in locations that are rural. Barrow for example, the northern most
community in North America, lying north of 71 degrees north latitude, is
located on the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) about 750
miles north of Anchorage, Alaska.
Barrow, incorporated in 1958, has about 4,400 residents or a little less
than half the Borough’s population.
Barrow is the administrative, economic, educational and transportation
hub for the North Slope Borough. Barrow
also serves as the seat of the North Slope Borough government and the regional
center for health care and social services.
Projects such as Barrow and many others in
Alaska have become increasingly more scrutinized due to the difficulty of
realizing NED benefits. The subsistence way of life in rural Alaska is of
extreme significance to its people and must not be understated. The purpose of this presentation is to
highlight specific challenges with feasibility reports in rural projects and to
stress the OSE account’s importance in the approval of future Alaskan projects.
Title: Environmental
Performance Measures and Cultural Resources
Presenters: Karen
Krepps, Detroit District and Michele Hope, Buffalo
District
Abstract: The Detroit
District, in 2005 received Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (Tribal Partnership Program) funding to work with six tribes on a
number of issues relating to their reservations. While all of the
projects had cultural resource components, two of them were primarily cultural
in their scope. In an effort to provide a measure of performance for the
cultural resource, Dr. Krepps, with the assistance of
the Buffalo District, drafted a matrix for evaluating cultural
importance. As drafted, this matrix can be utilized to evaluate the
importance of any cultural resource and can aid in the evaluation of projects
and their prioritization by Divisions and Headquarters.
Title: Ethnobiology: A Pathway to Integration and Collaboration
Across Peoples,
Lands and Programs
Presenters: Tanis Toland, Sacramento District
Abstract: This presentation introduces the field of ethnobiology; describes examples of how the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service have incorporated ethnobiology
(particularly ethnobotany) into land use planning and
management; and suggests practical ways to apply the concepts and techniques
from this exciting interdisciplinary field to the Corps’ Civil Works program to
facilitate integration and collaboration across peoples, lands, and
programs. Ethnobiology
shows promise for both conceptual and practical use in Civil Works planning,
particularly for ecosystem restoration projects and for projects seeking to
include non-traditional partners and stakeholders. It is an invitation to build relationships,
bridge the ecological and cultural realms, and link the past with the present
to solve problems and ensure a sustainable –environmental and
cultural—future. Information is
primarily based on the work of Dr. Kat Anderson, author of Tending the Wild; Native American Knowledge and the Management of
California’s Natural Resources.
ROOM: Elizabethan D
TRACK: Planning Community of Practice
TOPIC: Planner Support in the Global War on Terror
MODERATOR:
PRESENTATIONS:
Title: Water
Management Plan for
Presenters:
Jason Needham, P.E., IWR-HEC
Abstract: The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) is
assisting the Afghanistan Engineering District (AED) with developing a water
management plan for the
An integral
part of project is the participation of Afghan engineers. This involvement will
begin with the training of Afghan Ministry staff in modern water management
practices. The end result of this work will be a HEC-ResSim
model of the
Title: Restoring
Presenters: Matthew M. McPherson, IWR-HEC
Abstract: The Iraq Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) manages the water control infrastructure of the
Tigris and
ROOM: Elizabethan D
TRACK: Planning Community of Practice
TOPIC: Practitioner Perspectives on Collaboration
MODERATOR:
PRESENTATIONS:
Title: An
Integrated Planning Model for Urban River Restoration Decision Making
Presenters: G.
Edward Dickey, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College in
Maryland and Leonard A. Shabman, Professor Emeritus,
VPI, et al
Abstract: In July of 2002, the USEPA and USACE entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the Urban River
Restoration Initiative (URRI). The MOU, which has since been extended, was a
first step in an interagency collaboration to develop plans for rejuvenating
the nation’s urban industrial rivers and helping revitalize surrounding
communities.
One key to
a successful collaborative planning process among agencies is the utilization
of a common planning model. Collaboration means involving all agencies and
stakeholders in every element of planning and decision making, including the
definition of problems, the development and evaluation of alternative solutions
and the identification of a preferred solution. For a successful planning
process in a setting where several agency authorities and requirements need to
be addressed, it is essential to first assure that the planning model is one
that would be acceptable to all participating Federal agencies, as well as
other agencies and stakeholders. Such a model must allow collaborators to
develop a shared understanding of the nature and scope of problems and the
merits of possible solutions.
The
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) planning model used by the Corps must be
joined to the planning processes of EPA and those of other agencies that deal
with multiple stressors on urban rivers, for example. This presentation proposes an Integrated
Planning Model that will meet the planning and decision making needs of URRI
studies and other Corps collaborative planning efforts. The presentation will focus specifically on
providing Corps planners with the insights and tools necessary to effectively
bring its incremental analysis tools to planning contexts where many of the
participants may view plan development as a standards-based decision process
and have little or no appreciation of the Corps approach to plan development.
Title: Implementation
Issues that arise from Collaborative Projects
Presenters: Rebecca S. Griffith, Ph.D., Fort Worth District
Abstract: Normally a planning process focuses on the
"what" questions --what is the problem, what should be done, what
project should be recommended. The
current interest in and emphasis on the Corps’ role in a collaborative planning
environment does not change that.
However, as we move into the implementation phase of projects that are
collaboratively planned, and are envisioned for collaborative implementation, a
special set of new issues arises. This
paper will suggest that, in collaborative implementation, the "how"
question requires extra thought and careful attention during the planning
phase. The Central City project in
Title: Is
Collaborative Planning Realistic with Multiple Jurisdictions –
Local Sponsor Experience
in
Presenters: Steve Fitzgerald, P.E., Harris County Flood
Control District
Abstract:
Integrating water resources management both geographically and
functionally is an excellent goal, but is it realistic considering the number
of potential jurisdictions that could be involved? Collaborative planning is
the means to accomplish true integration, but is it enough? Does the Corps
planning process need to be changed to accommodate integrated water resources
management? The Harris County Flood Control District, a local sponsor for flood
damage reduction projects in
Title: Assessments
of Collaborative Planning Approaches Across the Corps and other Federal
Agencies
Presenters: Darrell Nolton, IWR, Steven B. Pugh,
Baltimore District and
James L.
Creighton, Ph.D., Creighton & Creighton, Inc.
Abstract: Stakeholders (Federal and
Non-Federal) are increasingly involved in Corps Planning Studies. How can the Corps involve stakeholders and
other interest groups in a positive, collaborative manner? We need to promote methods of enhancing Corps
credibility and building mutual trust.
In an effort to address these issues, our R&D efforts attempt to
answer the following two questions. 1)
How has collaboration and participatory involvement evolved across the Federal
Sector? 2) How has the Corps of
Engineers incorporated this approach in planning studies?
Across the
Federal sector, we struggle with definitions and understanding what is meant by
Collaborative Planning. It appears to be
a continuum of participation ranging from: informing the public; listening to
the public; collaborative problem-solving; and developing agreements. It incorporates Public Participation and
Conflict Resolution. This contract
report covers Key Laws going back to1946, regulating or promoting public
participation and dispute resolution. It
provides a brief summary of selected agency policies regarding public
participation and collaboration. The report
is in draft form and is available from the Institute for Water Resources
(IWR).
In a
snap-shot look at Corps of Engineer practices in collaborative planning and
participatory programs, the IWR has been developing case studies of examples
where a collaborative planning approach has been utilized by Corps Districts to
address complex water resources problems and develop holistic solutions. The
purpose of these case studies is to develop lessons learned and to facilitate
information exchange throughout the organization. These case studies were purposely selected to
ensure coverage of a broad spectrum of mission areas and geographic
regions. Each MSC was represented in the
survey. Key questions asked were: 1) how
to establish a collaborative framework, 2) how to maintain a collaborative
atmosphere, and 3) how to achieve collaborative solutions to multi-faceted
problems.
ROOM: Elizabethan D
TRACK: Planning Community of Practice
TOPIC: Planning Community of Practice in Action
MODERATOR:
PRESENTATIONS:
Title: Economics Community of Practice –
How to Start a Good Program in Your
MSC Neighborhood
Presenters: Jon Brown, Buffalo District
Abstract: The USACE has embraced the Community of
Practice (CoP) concept as a tool to help enable regionalization. CoPs in the Corps
are expected to enhance professional and technical development and competence;
promote open communication among organizational elements, share lessons
learned, best practices, and bring knowledge back to project delivery teams for
more effective and efficient production.
The
Title: “Bridging the Gap” with a
Semi-Formal Mentoring Program: SPD
Experiences in setting
up a Regional Program
Presenters: Boni Bigornia, Les Tong, Miki Fujitsubo,
Abstract: Three years ago, the SPD Regional Planning
Board supported the development of a voluntary mentoring program for the
Community of Practice. The team was
comprised of one or two co-leads from each of the four district offices and the
MSC. For the most part, this sub-CoP
team has had meetings (virtually) each month, and in person at the annual SPD
Planning Workshop, where it developed teambuilding/mentoring exercises. Much of this program’s focus is on developing
cultural education or ‘street smarts’ to supplement the existing traditional
‘career’ or ‘technical’ mentoring. Mentoring ‘tools’ have been developed and made available to
mentoring pairs throughout the region.
Some program features include: a one-stop shopping mentoring website
with several tools for career development; a milestone checklist to provide
structure for monthly progression; incentive awards to mark completion of each
milestone; and a trophy presented to the SPD Mentoring Team of the Year. This presentation will share the mentoring
tools with the greater Planning CoP, discuss lessons learned over the past 3
years, present some yet-undeveloped ideas… and also provide some light
entertainment. This presentation will
help ignite increased mentoring opportunities, something that is much needed,
yet often-ignored.
Title: Approaches to Regionalization in
Planning – the SAD Model
Presenters: Wilbert V. Paynes,
Abstract: TBD
Title: Approaches to Regionalization in
Planning: The NAD Model
Presenters: Pete Blum, North Atlantic Division and
Robert Pace,
Abstract: The
North Atlantic Division (NAD) operates as a
Title: The
Planning and Project
Implementation on an International Scale in Support
of the Global War on Terrorism
Presenters: Michael K. Trimble, Ph.D., St Louis District and Paul D. Rubenstein, HQUSACE
Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis
District, is under contract to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Regime Crimes
Liaison Office, in the U.S. Mission (Embassy),
This
presentation will review the accomplishments to date of the Iraq Mass Graves
Product Delivery Team, including recipients of the Chief of Engineers 2005
Product Delivery Team Award of Excellence.
The authors will demonstrate the collaborative relationships developed
by the Team with diverse elements of Corps Commands, the current Iraqi
government, the Department of Justice, other Federal agencies and
non-governmental entities. We will also show how, with modest modifications of
team composition and innovative planning, a discrete and highly focused project
can be converted to a long-term resource in support of the Global War on
Terrorism.
Title: Planning in the Fast Lane: Iraqi Reconstruction and Development
Presenters: Kayla Eckert Uptmor,
Los Angeles District
Abstract: As the nation shifts its resources to the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and national natural disasters such as Katrina,
the call for support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will maintain pace.
Understanding that the USACE mission is primarily reconstruction, it may not
seem so obvious where a non-engineer planner may fit in to the effort(s). As a
planner, we are trained to juggle a multitude of projects and team members. I
found great opportunity in utilizing my planning skill set in coordinating
multiple interests and needs of the Iraqi Ministries (essentially the local
sponsor), the Maneuver Units (stakeholders) and the Construction Resident and
Area Offices (PDT). The magnitude of the work load and the turn around
time for execution in this high stress environment was enormous. The plan
formulation process was useful in prioritizing work and recommending plans of
action as I was responsible for developing, coordinating and managing seven
public buildings, 46 health clinics, six hospitals, and 110 schools valued in
excess of $470 million. In addition, new skill development was attained through
the experience in developing a multitude of scopes of work in conjunction with
the design engineers, developing contracting acquisition plans, coordinating
funding and personnel resources and maintaining the overall program for
reconstruction. All of which contributed to a better understanding of the
challenges faced by PDT’s after a study moves past Planning. The experience
emphasized that applying the flexibility we know well as planners, opens the
door to many opportunities for professional and personal growth. Lessons learned
also include the need to continue to cross train our personnel between
Planning, Engineering and Construction as feasible. Additionally, as a Civil
Works Planner, it helped me to understand the USACE military role within the
bigger Army picture and how vital our technical expertise is in supporting the
military.