POC Jack Killgore, Engineer Research

and Development Center

The Endangered Species Act

(ESA) requires that consultations

be based upon the best available

scientific and commercial

information. Investment in high-

quality science and scientists can

facilitate dialogue and

collaborative problem-solving.

The Lower Mississippi River

Endangered Species

POC Hal Cardwell, Institute for

Water Resources

Each year, USACE collects

information related to our use of

third-party assisted environmental

collaboration and conflict

resolution (ECCR) for the

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

The intent is to capture progress

made in implementing the CEQ/

OMB ECCR policy direction of

2005 (revised in 2012), which

requires the federal government

to increase the effective use and

institutional capacity for ECCR.

Multi-issue, multi-party

environmental disputes or

controversies often take place in

high-conflict and low-trust

settings, where the assistance of

impartial facilitators or mediators

can be instrumental to reaching

agreement and resolution. The

CEQ/OMB policy direction

included Basic Principles for

Agency Engagement in

Environmental Conflict

Resolution and Collaborative

Problem Solving. The Basic

Principles provide guidance that

applies to both

POC Maria Placht, Institute for

Water Resources; POC Mary Roth,

Omaha District

The USACE Civil Works

Transformation includes the

implementation of “SMART

planning”, a business process that

includes opportunities for earlier

collaboration with partners and

the public for feasibility studies.

This process is being

implemented using both in-house

and contracted facilitators to lead

planning charrettes to rescope or

kick-off new projects. A

charrette is an intense three-to-

five day workshop designed to

address and document decisions

made by the Project Delivery

Team (PDT), the Vertical Team,

the Sponsor(s), and other

stakeholders as appropriate to

the project stage.

In reconnaissance or feasibility

studies, a planning charette very

early in the process brings

together the team to work

collaboratively through at least

one iteration of the six-step

planning process. For feasibility

studies already underway, a

planning charrette can help lay

out a path to complete the study.

Approximately 40 SMART

planning charrettes were held last

year. Some examples reported by

major commands include:

POC Sandra Arnold, Public Affairs

Chief, Galveston District

The USACE Galveston District

commander tasked the public

affairs office (PAO) with

developing a community relations

campaign to educate those in the

public who would be affected by

proposed reductions in the level

of services at two facilities:

Colorado River Locks and the

Brazos River Floodgates.

The initiative started with a series

of in-house meetings with

senior leadership

USACE Reports on its Use of Environmental

Collaboration and Conflict Resolution

SMART Planning Charrettes Utilize Third-Party

Facilitators

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 4 V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 1

This edition of

Collaboration Corner

highlights the results of

the 8th Annual USACE

Report on the Use of

Environmental

Collaboration and

Conflict Resolution, an

annual report required

by the 2005 OMB and

CEQ memo on

Environmental Conflict

Resolution. The report

includes notable case

studies and examples of

collaborative efforts,

which can be accessed

on the CPCX

References page.

I N S I D E T H I S

I S S U E :

USACE Reports on

Environmental

Collaboration and

Conflict Resolution

2

Building a

Foundation for

Success through

Science

3

SMART Planning

Charrettes Utilize

Facilitators

4

Public

Involvement:

Breaking the News

5

Announcements 6

Building a Foundation

for Success through

Science—The Lower

Mississippi River

Endangered Species

Conservation Plan

Public Involvement:

Breaking the News

Regarding Reducing

Levels of Service at

Locks and Floodgates

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O L L A B O R A T I O N

A N D C O N F L I C T

R E S O L U T I O N

This newsletter is produced by the USACE Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center (CPCX), located at the Institute for Water Resources. For questions,

comments, or to submit articles, contact Maria Placht at maria.t.placht@usace.army.mil.

2 3

4

5

Collaboration Corner

Collaboration and Public Participation CoP News

P A G E 2

USACE Reports on its Use of Environmental

Collaboration and Conflict Resolution

environmental collaboration

and conflict resolution. Each

year the Conflict Resolution

and Public Participation Center

of Expertise (CPCX)

documents USACE progress in

applying this guidance.

This year USACE reports 15

uses of third-party ECCR (8

sponsored by the Corps), a

25% increase from last year.

The volume of non-third-party

collaborative efforts in FY13

was also significant, as it has

been historically. The report

includes six notable advances in

the use of ECCR: SMART

Planning Charettes, The

Missouri River Recovery

Management Plan, Tulsa

District and the Oklahoma

Water Resources Board

Planning Assistance to States

study, Tennessee

Environmental Streamlining

Agreement, North Atlantic

Coast Comprehensive Study,

and the Missouri River Basin

Interagency Roundtable. The

report includes an in-depth

case study review of a third-

party ECCR example for the

Lower Mississippi River

Endangered Species

Conservation Plan, which is

highlighted in the next article of

this newsletter.

Most notably, rather than rely

on third-party ECCR, USACE

major commands and districts

report a preference for a

proactive engagement approach

with sponsors, partners and the

public. They develop local,

state, regional and national

teams promoting collaboration

to anticipate problems and

identify alternative solutions

early so as to reduce the risk

and magnitude of future

environmental conflicts.

Because of the breadth of our

responsibilities—from

regulatory to planning to

construction to operations and

maintenance of water

resources infrastructure across

the country—USACE districts

across the country expend a

significant amount of time and

resources to build collaborative

relationships to prevent, avoid

or resolve environmental issues

and conflicts. This effort

includes public outreach and

education regarding USACE

missions, programs, projects

and studies through public

workshops, scoping meetings,

working groups, individual

meetings and teleconferences.

Various programmatic or

regional agreements are also

used to streamline processes

and to foster positive

relationships with other

agencies. We are also involved

in many formal coordination

processes and utilize a host of

communication tools and

scientific/technical consensus

building tools. National

collaboration-oriented

initiatives were also mentioned

in the report, such as Civil

Works Transformation, the

Silver Jackets Program, and the

Civil Works Building Strong

Collaborative Relationships for

a Sustainable Water Future

initiative.

Improving our environmental

collaboration and conflict

resolution capacity requires

tapping into USACE public

involvement programs,

trainings, and specialists across

the country. In their responses,

districts and divisions indicated

an interest in onsite training in

public involvement and team

building in planning, shared

vision planning, collaborative

leadership, facilitation, and risk

communication. As part of the

reporting process, major

commands and districts

nominated staff to participate in

the Environmental Conflict

Resolution Certification

Program with USIECR,

suggested additions to the

USACE database of internal

facilitators, and suggested

topics for Collaboration and

Public Participation CoP

webinars. By sharing lessons

learned and best practices via

the Collaboration and Public

Participation CoP webinars and

newsletter, we enable local

successes to have a national

impact.

Finally, the report cites six

priority or emerging areas of

conflict, collaboration and cross

-cutting challenges in USACE:

Aging Infrastructure, Climate

Change, Endangered Species

Act and NEPA, Clean Water

Act 404 Permitting, Watershed

Approach and Regional

Sediment Management. It is

interesting to look across

USACE and identify where

collaboration plays a critical

role in addressing these

common challenge areas. As

we move through FY14 and

strive to make additional

progress in environmental

collaboration and conflict

resolution, major commands

believe it will more frequently

occur within these challenge

areas.

C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N C O P N E W S

...continued from page 1

“Most notably,

rather than rely on

third-party ECCR,

USACE major

commands and

districts report a

preference for a

proactive

engagement

approach with

sponsors, partners

and the public.”

Building a Foundation for Success through Science—The Lower

Mississippi River Endangered Species Conservation Plan

P A G E 3 V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 1

Conservation Plan provides an

example of the important role that

science and third-party scientists

can play in resolving endangered

species issues.

In the early 2000’s, Mississippi

Valley Division (MVD) began

funding USACE’s Engineer Research

and Development Center (ERDC)

to evaluate status and trends of

three federally endangered species

(pallid sturgeon, fat pocketbook

mussel, and least tern) in the Lower

Mississippi River (LMR). Work

included development of a database

on listed species. This science

investment was prompted, in part,

by the fact that three jeopardy

biological opinions had been issued

by USFWS on pallid sturgeon and

least tern in the Middle Mississippi

and Missouri Rivers and there were

concerns that a similar scenario

would occur in the LMR.

As part of Section 7 consultation on

the Mississippi River and Tributaries

Project (MR&T), ERDC and USFWS

prepared a Conservation Plan (ESA,

Section 7 (a)(1)) in 2013 for the

three listed species. The Plan

specifically addressed potential

impacts of the MR&T’s Channel

Improvement Program (e.g., dikes,

revetments, dredging) on the listed

species and included conservation

measures to avoid and minimize

adverse impacts. Science played an

important part in the Section 7

consultation and in development of

the Conservation Plan.

ERDC, sponsored by MVD,

collaborated with USFWS on data

acquisition, which ensured

transparency and mutual confidence

in the data. During interagency

discussions, ERDC provided the

science and served as the third

party to help both agencies fully

understand the status of the listed

species in the LMR. Through this

process, USFWS and USACE

concluded that the three listed

species were much more abundant

than previously thought. The

Conservation Plan was developed

collaboratively by ERDC and

USFWS and served as USACE’s

Biological Assessment. A non-

jeopardy Biological Opinion was

issued by USFWS in December

2013.

Sound science can build a

foundation for successful

collaborative problem-solving.

ERDC’s science and technology

role in the LMR fostered

collaboration between USACE and

USFWS during the Section 7

consultation on the MR&T. Prior

to ERDC’s involvement in the

science and technology, USFWS

and other agencies assumed that

the listed species were rare in the

LMR. MVD’s decision to invest in

science improved the “best

available science” for the ESA

consultation and transformed

interagency understanding of the

status of federally listed species in

the LMR. The Conservation Plan

established a long-term

commitment by USACE to

conserve the species using existing

authorities to diversify habitat

without compromising the

navigation and flood risk

management missions.

Signing Ceremony for the

Conservation Plan,

Provided by Jack Kilgore, ERDC

“Sound science can

build a foundation

for successful

collaborative

problem-solving.

ERDC’s science and

technology role in

the LMR fostered

collaboration

between USACE

and USFWS during

the Section 7

consultation on the

MR&T.”

...continued from page 1

P A G E 4

SMART Planning Charettes Utilize 3rd Party Facilitators

Northwestern Division’s

charrettes for the Missouri

River Recovery Management

Plan, Missouri River Municipal

& Industrial Water Supply (2

Charrettes), Adams & Denver

Counties (Colorado), and the

James River. Pacific Ocean

Division also held charrettes

for the Point MacKenzie Shoal

project, Ala Wai Canal, Hilo

Harbor, Waiakea-Palai Flood

Risk Management, and Wailupe

Stream flood control. In this

article we review the example

of The Missouri River

Recovery Management

charrette.

The is a large comprehensive

study that will provide a

management plan to coordinate

Biological Opinion

requirements for the Missouri

River mainstem reservoirs and

mitigation objectives for the

navigation project under one

decision document. The study

is a collaborative effort

between two USACE district

offices and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, each with its

own views on how the study

should be accomplished. The

study was originally scoped

with a five year schedule, but it

is being reduced to three years

due to leadership direction.

The study partners conducted

a planning charrette with third-

party neutral facilitation in

order to reach vertical team

consensus on study

assumptions, goals and

objectives and overall scope

and schedule.

To reach consensus with the

group, the charrette facilitation

team utilized focused exercises,

such as “brainwriting” and

structured brainstorming, large

group discussions and small

group breakouts. Based on the

concept of Brainstorming, the

aim of 6-3-5 Brainwriting is to

generate 108 new ideas in half

an hour. The groups also

developed a risk register and

decision management plan that

will help inform the execution

of the study and communicate

the trade-offs between an

expedited schedule and

potential risks of scaling back

the analyses to decision-

makers. The group developed a

risk-based three-year

implementation schedule that

provides decision makers a

basis for understanding the

trade-offs that will need to be

made in order to meet the

timelines.

Facilitated discussions were

utilized to assist the group in

reaching consensus on critical

steps and remaining on

schedule for each stage of

implementation. Participants

agreed on several basic

concepts for the study that had

been discussed extensively

many times before but without

resolution. By utilizing a

decision log—and having

everyone agree to what went

into the decisions—the project

managers can hold the different

groups accountable for the

decisions that were made at

the charrette, rather than

continue to revisit the same

issues.

In summary, charrettes are an

alternative to a traditional

scoping meeting or In Progress

Review, designed to move the

team through key decisions –

and to document the path

forward. Although time-

consuming and costly due to

the number of participants,

they can allow a PDT to work

more effectively and save

money in the long-term.

Charrettes are most effective

when key decision makers are

present and engaged in the

facilitated discussions and next

steps. Their presence means

participants know that any

decisions made will not need to

be revisited and encourages the

group to agree on the way

forward. Third-party facilitation

is crucial to keep charrette

attendees focused and on track

while enabling them to be as

productive as possible.

“Charettes are most

effective when key

decision makers are

present and engaged in

the facilitated

discussions and next

steps.”

C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N C O P N E W S

...continued from page 1

Public Involvement: Breaking the News Regarding Reducing Levels

of Service at Locks and Floodgates

P A G E 5 V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 1

discussing the public’s reaction so

that leadership could assist the PAO

team with employing communication

methods that promoted open

dialogue and encouraged feedback.

The PAO then initiated a series of

planning meetings to establish goals

and objectives necessary to develop

a successful communication plan.

Data obtained from informal and

formal meetings, correspondence,

and primary and secondary research

provided the PAO team with an

accurate depiction of the strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and

threats and helped guide the team in

developing key talking points,

strategies, and effective messages

and prioritizing vulnerabilities early

in the planning and decision-making

processes.

The PAO’s public relations campaign

included the following public

engagement efforts: published and

produced news releases and feature

stories highlighting the Colorado

River Locks and Brazos River

Floodgates lockmasters; developed

key talking points for leaders

regarding how to respond to

questions about the proposed

reduction; created an online survey

where recreational boaters could

anonymously ask questions and

provide feedback to senior

leadership about the proposal;

conducted media interviews with

local papers and a radio station to

provide target audiences with

information and to invite

recreational boaters/residents to

attend the public meeting;

coordinated with local politicians

prior to the public meeting and

requested their presence and

support; and created signage and a

flyer for posting at the locks and

floodgates as well as for distribution

in local water utility bills. Additional

coverage was garnered by bloggers,

local papers and several websites

that reposted upcoming public

meetings and the link to the online

public survey to help get the word

out.

The campaign achieved and/or

exceeded all campaign goals and

objectives. More than 600,000

residents along the Texas coast

were informed not only about the

district’s proposed changes at

Brazos River Floodgates and the

Colorado River Locks, but also

about the district’s navigation

mission and economic contributions

to the nation.

Two survey results, one before and

one after the campaign efforts, were

compared. The initial survey results

showed that most respondents were

neither happy nor

understood the

need for the

proposed changes.

The second survey

results showed that

while most

respondents were

still not happy with

the proposed

changes, they

understood the

need for the

changes. The

district commander

viewed this public

information

campaign as a

success and has incorporated key

elements of this plan into future

public engagement efforts.

“The second survey

results showed that

while most

respondents were still

not happy with the

proposed changes,

they understood the

need for the

changes.”

...continued from page 1

The Galveston District

Commander addresses the

audience during a public

meeting in Bay City regarding

proposed adjustments to the

operations at the Brazos River

Floodgates and the Colorado

River Locks. Photo by Sandra

Arnold

Newspaper Excerpt

and Notice. Provided

by Sandra Arnold

P A G E 6

GAO Report 14-35

Released Dec 20, 2013:

Cost Increases in Flood

Control Projects and

Improving Communication

with Nonfederal Sponsors

GAO surveyed USACE officials

on all 87 flood control projects

identified by USACE as

budgeted for construction in

any fiscal year from 2004 to

2012, selected 8 for further

review covering each USACE

division, reviewed project

documents and USACE

communication guidance, and

interviewed USACE officials

and nonfederal sponsors. The

GAO found that a majority of

the USACE flood control

projects budgeted for

construction from fiscal years

2004 to 2012 experienced cost

increases. GAO also found

communications problems

between USACE and local

sponsors and recommended

that USACE take steps to

ensure compliance with its

2009 guidance requiring

communications plans for flood

control projects. The

Department of Defense

concurred with the

recommendation.

Resource—Guided Insights:

Taking the Pain Out of

Consensus-Building

Even with visual cues it is hard

to know people’s intentions,

but in a virtual setting it is close

to impossible and silence is

often taken as consensus. This

article explores some of the

most common mistakes virtual

team leaders make when it

comes to reaching real

consensus along with helpful

tips for effective virtual

meetings.

The 2013 Plain Writing

Report Card is in! Did

DoD make the grade?

Did you know we are now

being graded on how well we

have complied with the Plain

Writing Act and how well we

adhere to plain language

principles? Have you made the

grade? How long are your

sentences? Do you write in

the passive voice, like to use

jargon, and legal words?

What’s your percent of filler/

glue words?

Plain writing in government:

Agencies, plainly speaking,

aren’t there yet.

Full report card.

The U.S. Institute of

Environmental Conflict

Resolution (USIECR), part

of the Udall Foundation,

provides training opportunities

in the field of Environmental

Conflict Resolution which

could go toward earning a

Udall Certification. This

certification program is

intended for individuals in both

the government and private

sector aspiring to collaborate

more effectively on resource

management issues. Check out

USIECR’s 2014 training

schedule and sign up for one

today.

C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N C O P N E W S

Announcements