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 [email protected].
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