- PLANNING MANUAL by Charles E. Yoe, Ph.D., Principal The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. and Kenneth D. Orth U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center.
- 1 Strategic Planning Manual Community Radio Bikram Subba Raghu Mainali Community Radio Support Centre (CRSC) Nepal Forum of Enviornmental Journalists (NEFEJ).
- PLANNING MANUAL by Charles E. Yoe, Ph.D., Principal The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. and. Kenneth D. Orth U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center.
- The purpose of this manual is to provide a guide for the municipal planning commission in fulfilling its role and responsibilities as set forth in 24 V.S.A. chapter.
Simplified Strategic Planning Manual and templates from the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning.
FAMILY PLANNING MANUAL. revention nd unity e th. DOH 930-122 September 2013. CVR Instruction Manual, Region X Family Planning Reporting System, revised.
P LANNING M ANUAL
PLANNING MANUAL by Charles E. Yoe, Ph.D., Principal The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. and Kenneth D. Orth U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center Institute for Water Resources November 1996 IWR Report 96-R-21 ii PREFACE What is planning? Who does planning? How do they do planning? Why do planning at all? When we looked at the guidance that has been prepared to help the Corps in its role as a steward of the Nation’s water resources we saw a gap. There was policy guidance for planners and numerous publications describing methods for accomplishing many important tasks. But, there was nowhere for new planners or nonplanners to turn to find out what planning is all about. This manual attempts to fill that gap. Will you get answers to the questions raised here from the pages that follow? We hope so. It may help to begin with two points about the manual’s contents. ! First, this manual was prepared for new Corps planners with five or fewer years of experience. While this is our target audience, we hope that other professionals, people outside the Corps, and even more experienced planners will find something of value here. Second, this manual describes what planning is and how it is best practiced by the Corps of Engineers. It is not a “how to” manual nor does it deal with policy questions of why things are done the way they are. ! It is our hope that this manual will help planners understand what planning is all about and that it will help them become better planners. The six-step planning process that forms the core of this manual’s content is a flexible, robust and effective model for systematic problem solving. Understanding it provides you with an invaluable method for approaching a wide variety of problems within and outside the Corps program. This manual was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Many people throughout the Corps, and some outside the Corps, provided invaluable assistance in a series of interviews and the review of early versions of this manual. As the result of the good advice of so many experienced and knowledgeable people we made many changes in the draft manual to produce this final. Even if you read the draft, you should read this manual for more good ideas from practicing planners. Reducing the Cost and Time of Doing Planning As you will see, planning is a dynamic process. It takes place in a dynamic environment that requires that the process continues to evolve to meet ever-changing social needs. We have attempted to remain faithful to the planning process and the public policies that guided it at the time this manual was prepared. iii Even as this manual was being completed changes in the policies that guide the planning process were under discussion. For example, beginning in Fiscal Year 1997, all new reconnaissance planning studies are targeted for completion in 6 to 12 months and are limited to $100,000 in study costs. Other changes to achieve “faster and cheaper” planning, in the overall interest of better government, can be expected. Good planning, working through a step-by-step process to reach a recommendation, can fit any schedule or budget. Good planning can be done in an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade. You can do it with any amount of time, effort and resources you care to dedicate to it. The one hour answer will rarely be as good as the one year answer, but the realities of time and money constraints need not preclude good planning. A Word About the Principles and Guidelines The Principles and Guidelines (usually referred to as the P&G) provide the fundamental operating guidance for planning studies of the Federal water resource development agencies, including the Corps Civil Works planning studies. The P&G are the most recent in a series of Federal planning requirements (see Chapter Three) that have evolved with changing national priorities. Sooner or later, we expect the P&G will also be changed to reflect our Nation’s needs into the twenty-first century. While change in the guidance is inevitable, fundamental planning principles will endure. A step-by-step process for problem solving is a timeless tool. Whether its in six steps, or five steps, or any number of steps, such a process is useful far beyond the planning of Federal water resource projects. The process is basic to human nature, and it is the heart of this manual. A Challenge Read, or browse through, this manual. Pick out one thing that you can use to do better planning. Use it, somewhere, somehow, to plan something in the next thirty days. Repeat, as desired. So... What is planning? Who does planning? How do they do planning? Why do planning at all? Read on, and we will tell you what we have found. Practice it, and you can enlighten us with what you have discovered. iv Acknowledgments This manual was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, under the Planning Methodologies Research Program. Ms. Jessica Fox, formerly of the Institute, was the Work Unit project manager and directed the development of this manual through February 1995; Mr. Kenneth Orth, of the Institute, was the project manager through its completion. Mr. Michael Krouse, Chief of the Technical Analysis and Research Division, Institute for Water Resources, was the Program Manager for this research. Mr. Kyle E. Schilling was the Director for the Institute for Water Resources. Mr. Robert Daniel of the Corps Headquarters, Civil Works Directorate, Planning Division, was the Program’s Technical Monitor; and Mr. Steven Cone, Ms. Cheryl Smith, and Ms. Lillian Almodovar, all of the Headquarters, Civil Works Directorate, Planning Division, oversaw this Work Unit. Dr. Charles Yoe, a principal of The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc., and Mr. Kenneth Orth, Institute for Water Resources, were the principal authors of this manual. Dr. Yoe started his professional career as an economist in the Baltimore District, and has worked with many Corps District planners and the Institute over the past several years. His work on this manual was for The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc., under contract to the Institute for Water Resources. Mr. Orth is a community planner with experience in the Buffalo, Los Angeles, and Jacksonville Districts and the Headquarters. An initial outline for this manual evolved from the results of over fifty interviews with practicing Corps planners in early 1995. The outline was presented to an advisory group at a May 1995 workshop, and a first draft manual was prepared as a result of the group’s suggestions and direction. The advisory group and others reviewed the first draft during the summer of 1995. The final form of the draft manual was crafted at a second advisory group workshop in August 1995. The advisory group included the following members: Mr. Stuart Appelbaum, Jacksonville District Ms. Sharon Bond, Louisville District Mr. David Brandon, Omaha District Mr. Edward Cohn, Southwestern Division Mr. Steven Cone, Headquarters Mr. Kenneth Cooper, Omaha District Mr. Robert Daniel, Headquarters Mr. George N. “Skip” Fach, Jr., Headquarters Mr. William Fickel, Fort Worth District Mr. Robert Gore, Baltimore District Mr. William Hansen, Institute for Water Resources Mr. James Karsten, Buffalo District Mr. Harry Kitch, Headquarters Mr. Michael Krouse, Institute for Water Resources Mr. Robin Mooney, South Pacific Division The draft manual was published in December 1995 as IWR Report 95-R-15 and was v widely-circulated for a six-month review. Copies were distributed throughout all levels and across the functional areas of the Corps. The draft was also provided to planning offices and other interests in selected local, State and Federal agencies, professional and special interest groups, planning businesses, and university planning programs. Eighteen letters of comment on the draft manual were received through June 1996. These included many thoughtful ideas from Planning, Engineering, Operations and Project Management offices across the Corps. We particularly appreciated the ideas provided by people outside the Corps, which included comments by representatives of: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior Civil Engineering Department, University of Kansas Planning Commission, The County of Chester (Pennsylvania) St. John’s River Water Management District (Florida) In May and June 1996, three two-day Planning Workshops were conducted in the Baltimore District. The workshops focused on basic principles and the planning process, and provided an opportunity to discuss material from the draft manual in an interactive format. Sixty-six planners, civil engineers, cost estimators, economists, biologists, archeologists and others attended one of these sessions. Their comments and questions were a real-time check on the manual and stirred some rethinking of topics. We appreciate the ideas from all those who attended, and the additional effort of Mr. Robert Gore and Ms. Vaso Karanikolis of the Baltimore District in arranging the sessions. A smaller advisory group was assembled to assist in preparing the final manual. This group met in July and October 1996, and included: Ms. Lillian Almodovar, Headquarters Mr. Steven Cone, Headquarters Mr. George N. “Skip” Fach, Jr., Headquarters Mr. Robert Gore, Baltimore District Mr. William Hansen, Institute for water Resources Mr. Michael Krouse, Institute for Water Resources Mr. Ridge Robinson, Institute for Water Resources Ms. Barbara Grider of the Baltimore District also provided a final editorial review. The authors acknowledge and thank, without implicating, all who thought, wrote, spoke, took action and otherwise contributed to this final manual. vi vii Planning Manual Contents in Brief CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHAPTER SIX: STEP ONE - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . 78 CHAPTER SEVEN: STEP TWO - INVENTORYING AND FORECASTING RESOURCES . . . 108 CHAPTER EIGHT: STEP THREE - FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . 130 CHAPTER NINE: STEP FOUR - EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 CHAPTER TEN: STEP FIVE - COMPARING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 CHAPTER ELEVEN: STEP SIX - SELECTING RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 CHAPTER TWELVE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TEAMWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TELLING YOUR STORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Acronyms Used in This Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE . . . . . . . ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL . . . . SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 5 CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 WHAT IS PLANNING? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PLANNING AS A BASIC HUMAN ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING AS RATIONAL CHOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING AS CONTROL OF FUTURE CONSEQUENCES PLANNING AS A SPECIAL KIND OF PROBLEM SOLVING PLANNING IS WHAT PLANNERS DO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT PLANNING IS NOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 10 HOW IS PLANNING DONE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A GENERIC PLANNING MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 THE CORPS’ PLANNING MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 EXAMPLES OF PLANNING IN THE CORPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TYPES OF PLANNING AND PLANNERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 GENERIC TYPES OF PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 PLANNERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 WHERE DO PLANS COME FROM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ix Table of Contents (Continued) Project Development Process Study Management . . . . . . . Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 27 27 28 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING . . . . . . 31 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A BRIEF HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE U.S. . . . . . . 32 THE BEGINNINGS OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 EARLY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA . . . . . . . . . 33 The Conservation Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 PLANNING PRINCIPLES THROUGH THE YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 The Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 First Half of the 20th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Planning Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47 The Green Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan Formulation in 1959 . . . . . . . Senate Document Number 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 41 42 “Principles and Standards” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 “Principles and Guidelines” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 WRDA 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 CONTINUING EVOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 x Table of Contents (Continued) CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 THE PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 NED Benefit Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 EQ Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ER 1105-2-100 PLANNING GUIDANCE . . . GUIDANCE LETTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POLICY DIGEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OTHER CORPS GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 59 59 59 60 60 CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 PLANNING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 What Is An Iterative Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Iterated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is The Planning Process Iterative? . . . . . . How Do Iterations Differ From One Another? How Many Iterations Are Required? . . . . . . . . When Do You Stop the Iterations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 63 63 63 64 64 THE ITERATIVE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 xi Table of Contents (Continued) SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 SCOPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 PLANNING SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 PARTNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERIOD OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM . . . . . . STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 73 73 75 75 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 CHAPTER SIX: STEP 1 - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ILLUSTRATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 FEDERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 PROFILE FOR AN OBJECTIVE OR CONSTRAINT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS . . 92 WHAT A GOOD OBJECTIVE IS NOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 WHERE DO OBJECTIVES COME FROM? . WHAT DO YOU DO WITH OBJECTIVES? SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 104 104 106 CHAPTER SEVEN: STEP TWO - INVENTORYING AND FORECASTING RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 xii Table of Contents (Continued) INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 PLANNING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION ARE NEEDED? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 FOUR PARAMETERS OF DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 PREPARING AN INFORMATION STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 What Types of Information Are Typically Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 FORECASTING FOR THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS . 119 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY IN WHAT YOU ARE DOING . . . . HOW TO FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 122 124 126 128 128 CHAPTER EIGHT: STEP THREE - FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FORMULATION DEFINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATION FORMULATION CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOLUTIONS ... ... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 130 131 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Management Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Alternative Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 SCALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 COMBINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 DEPENDENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 xiii Table of Contents (Continued) FORMULATION PHASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES . . . FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES REFORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEQUENCE OF PHASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 141 141 141 FORMULATION APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 HOW TO THINK FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Ask an Expert - The Heuristic Search Approach Creative Problem-Solving Techniques . . . . . . . Objectives-Measures Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consider Plans of Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consult a Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLUTIONS . . . . NAMING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 145 147 148 148 151 152 153 154 154 CHAPTER NINE: STEP FOUR - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT TO EVALUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOW TO EVALUATE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVALUATION TASKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPARE WITHOUT AND WITH CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBING DIFFERENCES . . . . MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPRAISING PLAN EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QUALIFYING PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QUALIFYING CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 158 159 160 160 161 162 163 164 164 165 xiv Table of Contents (Continued) PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS IN EVALUATION . . 166 FEDERAL OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OTHER IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P&G SCREENING CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Completeness Effectiveness . Efficiency . . . Acceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 166 167 167 167 168 169 170 ORGANIZING EVALUATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 National Economic Development Regional Economic Development Environmental Quality . . . . . . . . Other Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 176 177 177 DISPLAYING EVALUATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 CHAPTER TEN: STEP FIVE - COMPARING ALTERNATIVE PLANS . . . . 181 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . STEPS RUNNING TOGETHER COMPARISONS OF WHAT . . . COMPARING EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 182 182 183 COMMENSURABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 INCOMMENSURABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 METHODS OF COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 WHAT ARE COMPARISON RESULTS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 xv Table of Contents (Continued) COMMUNICATING RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 CHAPTER ELEVEN: STEP SIX - SELECTING RECOMMENDED PLAN . . 194 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO-ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE NED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFAULT ACTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN NED PLAN WHO SELECTS THE PLAN? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CHOICE SET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SELECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOCUMENTING THE SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHY PLANS FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 194 194 195 195 196 197 198 198 199 199 201 201 CHAPTER TWELVE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING CAN BE A MESSY PROCESS CHANGE IS THE ONLY CONSTANT . . . PLANNING BIASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 209 210 212 212 TWO-STAGE PLANNING PROCESS TIME CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . BUDGET CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . LIMITED AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . COST-SHARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIAS IN PLAN FORMULATION . . . NON-FEDERAL PARTNER . . . . . . . . AVOIDING BIAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 xvi Table of Contents (Continued) CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TEAMWORK . . . 215 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 GOALS OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 ATTITUDES TOWARD PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Program Design Shows Public’s Value . . . . . . Maintain Visible Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don’t Sell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognize Limits of Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expertise Should Create Not Close Options . . Speak the Public’s Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feelings Are a Source of Valuable Information Identify Limits of Your Authority . . . . . . . . . Be Creative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing a Public Involvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 218 218 218 218 219 219 219 219 220 SOME PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Non-Meeting Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 TEAMWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 WHY A TEAM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Two Heads Are Better than One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Today’s Complexities Require Team Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Team Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 HOW TO WORK LIKE A TEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Characteristics of a Good Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 xvii Table of Contents (Continued) Characteristics of a Poor Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 THE TEAM LEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 ARE YOU A TEAM PLAYER? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TELLING YOUR STORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHY IS DOCUMENTATION NEEDED? WHAT IS DOCUMENTATION? . . . . . . . WRITING THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 239 239 241 WHO IS THE READER? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 HOW TO MAKE YOUR REPORT EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 The Body of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Endings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 SOME HINTS FOR GOOD WRITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Gunning Fog Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 A Few More Writing Rules of Thumb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 SOME HINTS FOR PRESENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Headings and Subheadings Enumerate . . . . . . . . . . . . Visuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Chart Forms . . . Reader Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 248 248 249 251 SOME HINTS FOR REVISING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 IS SIZE IMPORTANT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 xviii Table of Contents (Continued) OTHER MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 VIDEO REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RADIO AND TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEWSPAPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND THE LIKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 254 254 254 255 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 APPENDIX I: PLANNER’S LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Organization of Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corps’ Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relational Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Goals & Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where Objectives and Constraints Come From Screening and Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . Screening Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monetary Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Team Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . 16 . 27 . 73 . 87 . 98 168 171 187 189 229 TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Planning Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Two Planning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Planning in the Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 xix Table of Contents (Continued) Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 31: Table 32: Table 33: Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Types of Project Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Other Planning Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Planning Specialties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planner’s Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of P&G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NED Benefit Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EQ Evaluation Process: Phases and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of ER 1105-2-100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corps Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Problems & Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities Among Problems & Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals & Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities Among Objectives & Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Objectives & Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective & Constraint Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Data for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information Gathering Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Macroenvironmental Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forecasting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of a Good Without Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Current Corps Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pairwise Compatible Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idea Generation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives & Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives-Measures Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compare Without and With Plan Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment of Plan Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Comparison of Detailed Plans for Duck Creek, Ohio Simple Ranking Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Publics & Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Planning Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . 19 . 23 . 25 . 55 . 55 . 56 . 57 . 57 . 59 . 80 . 81 . 86 . 90 . 91 . 92 110 115 117 118 120 123 126 136 140 146 149 150 161 162 173 186 229 238 xx xxi ACRONYMS USED IN THIS MANUAL ASA(CW) - Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works BCR - Benefit-cost ratio BOB - Bureau of the Budget CAP - Continuing authority programs CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality CW - Civil works EC - Engineering Circular EM - Engineering Pamphlet EO - Executive Order EPA - Environmental Protection Agency EQ - Environmental quality ER - Engineering Regulation ETL - Engineering Technical Letter FCSA - Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement FONSI - Finding of no significant impact GIS - Geographic Information System H&H - Hydraulics and hydrology HEP - Habitat Evaluation Procedures HSI - Habitat Suitability Index HTRW - Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste IWR - Institute for Water Resources MCEM - Multi-criteria evaluation methods NED - National economic development NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 No. - Number NTIS - National Technical Information Service O&M - Operations and maintenance OMB - Office of Management and Budget OSE - Other social effects P&G - Principles and Guidelines P&S - Principles and Standards PCA - Project cooperation agreement PED - Preconstruction engineering and design PGL - Planning Guidance Letter PGN - Planning Guidance Notebook P.L. - Public law SD - Senate Document SOW - Scope of work xxii SWB - Social well-being U.S.C. - United States Code WES - Waterways Experiment Station WRC - Water Resources Council WRDA - Water Resources Development Act xxiii xxiv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION “We must ask where we are and whither we are tending.” Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) Sixteenth President of the United States. INTRODUCTION Planningwith a little “p” is problem solving and it is done throughout the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers organization. Some of it is done by planners in Planning Divisions on planning studies. Some of it is done by engineers in Construction Divisions. Some of it is done by wildlife biologists in Regulatory Offices. Much of it is being done by people who do not think of themselves as planners. Planning is called for to one degree or another any time a decision is required. No matter who does it, planning is best when done well by people who understand and value it. This manual offers a rational and systematic approach to planning that is applicable to virtually any planning activities the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers needs to undertake. What is planning? How is it done? Where do plans come from? Water resources planning is the bread and butter of the Corps’ planning functions. As national values and priorities change, new planning functions are emerging outside the realm of water resources. Planning within the Corps of Engineers is far more pervasive than most people would imagine. There are the traditional reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the typical single purpose project that virtually everyone recognizes as planning. Then there are operations and maintenance budgeting problems, dredged material placement, major rehabilitation, environmental infrastructure, the regulatory program, military construction projects, project validation assessments, mobilization planning, master planning for military facilities, reservoir master planning, logistics planning, planning assistance to the States, formerly used defense sites, the installation restoration program, special projects, incidental hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW) issues, and strategic planning as examples of some of the other newly emerging Corps planning functions. Planners have a great deal to offer to these activities. It’s of little importance whether planners are concentrated in one place in the organization or spread throughout it. What is important is that the people who are planning know how to plan. Planners are solvers of wicked problems; complex intractable problems for which there is no one right answer. Planners are shapers of the future. They are generalists with a specialty. They are the kinds of people 21st century organizations are going to need. 1 Few people are trained as planners. Most learn on the job. To be a good planner, however, one needs to know how to go about planning. There has to be a way to approach planning. A planner needs a framework upon which plans can be built. Over the last two centuries, a remarkably simple and flexible planning process has emerged in the water resource development field. It is, in fact, one of the most logical and best described planning processes to be found anywhere. The six-step planning process currently used by the Corps and applicable to all the Corps’ water resources and other planning functions is described and elaborated upon in this manual. What is planning? How is it done? Where do plans come from? Elementary questions, yet experience shows the answers are not so easily derived. Answering them is the goal of this manual. PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE The primary purposes of this manual are twofold. First, it explains what planning is. Second, it explains how planning can be done by the Corps of Engineers. Its focus will be on water resources planning, though the principles, tools and methodologies discussed are equally applicable to other planning functions as well. This manual deals with planning. It is not about Planning Divisions, project management, budgetary processes, or types of reports. The target reader for this manual is the Corps planner with less than five years of experience. To the extent the manual succeeds in explaining the basic tenets of planning in general and the Corps’ planning process in particular it may also be of interest to anyone who has to find rational solutions to complex problems. Nonplanners within the Corps as well as non-Federal partners and members of the general public may find it helpful to understand the planning process and the reasons for it. Experienced Corps planners may also find the manual to be a useful refresher. This is not a comprehensive planning document. It does not repeat in detail the guidance or planning procedures that can be found in other documents. Nor does this manual provide a cookbook approach to planning. As the reader will learn, that would be antithetical to the planning process. The manual has been written so you can read from it selectively, though it is most congruent and complete if read in its entirety. Readers are encouraged to browse through the manual and read what interests you. A measure of redundancy has been added to ease the burden of those who do read this manual a piece at a time. 2 ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL The manual consists of 14 chapters and an appendix as shown in Figure 1. The first four chapters are introductory in nature and explain what planning is. Chapter Two defines planning generally, and the Corps’ six-step planning process specifically, as a rational problem solving process. The basic terminology and concepts needed to understand the greater content of the manual are presented here. Chapter Three provides a brief history of water resource planning by the Corps. This history is presented against the backdrop of the larger issues of water resources development in the United States. The final introductory chapter, Chapter Four, provides an overview of the key planning guidance that directs the plan formulation process. These are primarily the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies ( also known as Principles and Guidelines or P&G) and Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies. The next seven chapters address the questions of how planning is done and from where plans come. This is done in a detailed discussion of selected elements of the Corps’ six-step planning process. A separate chapter is devoted to each of the planning steps. Chapter Five, however, first discusses iterations, screening, and other essential concepts that run throughout the six planning steps. Chapter Six addresses the first step, identification of problems and opportunities. Substantial emphasis is given to the specification of planning objectives and constraints, critical steps in the formulation process. Chapter Seven covers the second step of the plan formulation process, the inventory and forecast of resources. Step three, the formulation of alternative plans, is covered in Chapter Eight. The next chapter addresses plan evaluation, the fourth major planning step. Chapter Ten discusses the comparison of plans and Chapter Eleven describes the sixth and final step in the planning process, plan selection. Though these steps are presented in separate and discrete chapters, the conduct of the steps in actual practice is anything but separate and discrete. In practice the planning steps entail a great deal of overlap, iteration, and even ambiguity. The last three chapters address topics of special interest to Corps planners. Chapter Twelve deals with some problems and constraints that planners frequently encounter in the planning process. Chapter Thirteen is devoted to a discussion of planning teams and public involvement. The final chapter describes the art of documenting the planning process by simply telling your story. Appendix I presents a list of planning publications that planners may want to include in their working library. 3 FIGURE 1: ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS DIRECTORY OF ACRONYMS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 : PLANNING DEFINED CHAPTER 3: HISTORY OF CORPS PLANNING PROCESSS CHAPTER 4: PLANNING GUIDANCE CHAPTER 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS CHAPTER 6: STEP ONE IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS CHAPTER 7: STEP TWO INVENTORYING AND FORECASTIONG RESOURCES CHAPTER 8: STEP - THREE FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS CHAPTER 9: STEP - FOUR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS CHAPTER 10: STEP FIVE COMPARING ALTERNATIVE PLANS CHAPTER 11: STEP SIX SELECTING RECOMMENDED PLAN CHAPTER 12: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER 13: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TEAMWORK CHAPTER 14: TELLING YOUR STORY REFERENCES APPENDIX I: PLANNERS LIBRARY INDEX 4 As noted above, the manual has been written so that it can be read selectively. The only loss of continuity is likely to be an occasionally unfamiliar term or phrase. To assist readers who find themselves in this situation an index is provided at the back of the report along with a list of references. Quotation boxes, in which ...the six-step planning parts of the text are excerpted, are used to process...offers a highlight some important ideas in the chapter rational, systematic, and to aid “skimmers”. In addition, liberal use and flexible approach to of italics is made to further direct the selective planning that can be reader’s attention to important ideas of the chapters. Sidebar boxes are used to introduce used for any planning details and explanations that supplement the activity in the Corps’ general flow of the material. organization. SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD This manual provides an introduction to planning in the Army Corps of Engineers. The following chapter defines planning in general terms and then introduces the six-step planning process the Corps uses, which is essential knowledge for all Corps planners. It offers a rational, systematic, and flexible approach to planning that can be used for any planning activity in the Corps’ organization. 5 6 CHAPTER TWO: PLANNING DEFINED “We should all be concerned about the future because we will have to spend the rest of our lives there.” Charles F. Kettering (1876-1958) American engineer and inventor. INTRODUCTION P&G and the Corps Over the Nation’s first two centuries U.S. water resource development policy has evolved to what it is now. Currently, and since 1983, the principles, standards, and procedures that guide water resource development at the national level are articulated in the Principles and Guidelines. The P&G were “...developed to guide the formulation and evaluation studies of the major water resource development agencies.” In prior years, each water resource development agency had developed its own formulation and evaluation procedures. The P&G is the most recent effort to standardize these practices. Consequently, to characterize the P&G’s six-step planning process as the Corps’ planning process could be misleading. It is indeed the Corps’ process in that it is the process the Corps follows. However, it was neither developed by the Corps nor restricted to the Corps’ use. Other agencies use the P&G’s planning process to varying extents. Planning is a creative process. Like many creative processes, it can tend to be unstructured and ad hoc, at times bordering on chaotic. It requires unequal measures of experience, analysis, intuition, and inspiration. There are many ways to add structure to this process. The one used by the Corps has been promulgated by the Federal government in the Principles and Guidelines. Inasmuch as this planning process has been adopted by the Corps, it is referred to simply as the Corps’ planning process throughout this manual. It provides a flexible, systematic, rational framework from which planners can work and to which they can return when chaos threatens. It provides general guidance on how to proceed and a logical means of describing the thought processes that might otherwise remain opaque to others. This chapter offers several definitions of planning, then introduces the Corps’ planning framework. That framework is described at length in subsequent chapters. Three questions are the focus of this chapter. The chapter begins by answering the question, “what is planning”? It then answers the “how is it done” question with an overview of the Corps’ planning process and a brief look at some types of planning and planners. It next turns to the question, “where do plans come from?” by introducing some basic notions of plan formulation, a significant step in the planning process. 7 WHAT IS PLANNING? What is planning? That seems a simple enough starting point for our discussion, but a review of the literature reveals a wide range of opinion and very little consensus on what planning is.1 The following paragraphs offer several definitions of planning. They are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Planning Defined C C C C C Basic human activity Rational choice Control of future action Special kind of problem solving What planners do Though we’ll offer a working definition, it is not important that you agree. Pick the definition that most appeals to you. It is far more important to have a sense of the big picture of what planning is about than that you agree with any one of the definitions offered here. PLANNING AS A BASIC HUMAN ACTIVITY Some see planning as a basic human activity that pervades our behavior at every level of society. In this view, planning is a process of human thought followed by action based upon that thought. This makes planning a very general human activity. You plan what to wear to work, the route to take to the office and what to have for lunch. This makes planning very ordinary. At the same time, it does not preclude the notion of expertise. Many people run. Few of them devote themselves to running to the point they become Olympic athletes. Likewise, though everyone plans, few do it as well as the professional planners. ...important to have a sense of the big picture of what planning is about... If planning pervades human activity then surely it pervades the development and use of water and related land resources and the performance of the Corps’ various missions. We, as a society, think about water resources, then take actions based on those thoughts. These activities are complex enough, however, to require the services of experts. The material in this section is adapted largely from Ernest R. Alexander’s article, “Planning Theory,” found in Introduction to Urban Planning edited by Anthony J. Catanese and James C. Snyder. 1 8 PLANNING AS RATIONAL CHOICE This view of planning is confined to matters of deliberate choice. It emphasizes the link between planning and rationality. Planning thus becomes a process for determining appropriate future actions through a sequence of choices. It is a structured rational approach to achieving desired ends. As subsequent chapters will reveal, water resources planning is nothing if it is not a rational decision-making process. The rationality of the six-step planning process used by Corps planners is undeniable. PLANNING AS CONTROL OF FUTURE CONSEQUENCES Planning may be seen as an attempt to control future consequences through present actions. This view fuses planning and action together, for if we do not implement a plan, there can be no control exerted over the future. Some would measure the success of planning by the future consequences we are able to control. The Corps’ planning framework relies extensively on the consideration of future consequences. The comparison of future scenarios without and with a project in place is central to the Corps’ planning process. PLANNING AS A SPECIAL KIND OF PROBLEM SOLVING Another line of thought is that planning is problem solving that is aimed at very particular kinds of problems. Planning theorists have defined the problems they deal with as “wicked” problems. A wicked problem is one with no clear answers; solutions are only better or worse. The data available to solve these problems are usually messy. There are no rules for approaching wicked problems and no clear tests to formulate or judge their solutions. Water resource problems are always wicked problems, as are most of the planning problems the Corps faces. PLANNING IS WHAT PLANNERS DO Planners help decision-makers identify their problems, conceive solutions to them, and compare the importance of the inevitable conflicting values inherent in any solution. This is a simple and intuitive definition with which many Corps planners can identify. The job is unique; and it differs so from day-to-day that it defies a more precise definition. 9 The definitions offered here are not mutually exclusive. They are overlapping and somewhat imprecise, but taken together they provide a fairly reasonable picture of what planning is. To further sharpen that picture, let’s consider what planning is not. WHAT PLANNING IS NOT Though brief, this review of what planning is makes several points clear. First, there is no consensus on what planning is. Second, it is easy to see the Plan “Plan” is both a noun and a verb: “. . . n. 1. Any detailed scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective . . .” “. . . v. 1. To formulate a scheme or program for the accomplishment or attainment of . . .” This manual focuses on the verb rather than the noun. elements of what the Corps planner does in each of the definitions. It may be helpful at this point to consider a few things that planning is not. The little “p” planning used in this manual is not the same as Planning Division. Planning Division does little “p” planning but it also does big “P” Planning. Big “P” Planning entails a great deal more than does little “p” planning. This manual is concerned with little “p” planning, no matter who does it or where it is done. The planning process is not the same as the report review process, the budget process, or any of the many regulatory review and consultation processes. These processes are important to successful planning; but they are not substitutes for it. Planning is not report writing or the technical work done by experts working on a planning study. Good story telling is essential - Chapter Fourteen is devoted to it - but it only describes how, what, and why you planned. Planning requires sound scientific and engineering input from many disciplines, but the science is only part of the story. Great hydrology, great economics, great biology, or great anything alone is not planning. Great planning weaves these inputs into a successful solution. 10 Planning is not a purely individual activity. It is done by individuals in a team environment intended to affect groups of people. While there may be personal planning, that is not the concern of this manual. Additionally, planning is not present oriented. Planning is primarily concerned with the future. Future actions and their consequences involve substantial uncertainty. Planning is...the deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy for solving problems and achieving a desired set of goals. Planning cannot be routinized. Problems that are unique can be approached with existing solutions or problem-solving algorithms, such as standard operating procedures, rules, or programs. These problems, however, are not the wicked problems that planners confront. Let this serve as fair warning to the reader; there will be no standard operating procedures for planning found in this manual! Planning is not a trial-and-error process. It is not experimental. It is a focused, thoughtful, and rational process. The plans themselves may involve feedback loops, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. Such adaptive management is a concept the Corps encourages for ecosystem restoration plans. The point is that while it may be reasonable for the plans themselves to be experimental, the planning process should never be. Neither is planning just the imagining of desirable futures. While specifying objectives and creating alternative plans to achieve them are extremely important parts of the planning process, they are not sufficient for planning. Planning is more than utopian thinking. The intention to implement plans and the power to do so are essential elements of planning. Planning is not done for planning’s sake. Do not confuse the planning process with the report writing or the review process. Planning goes well beyond completing a report. If planning is not an individual action, not routinized, not trial-anderror, not academic or utopian, then what is planning? Planning is societal, future-oriented, non-routinized, deliberate, and action oriented. Planning is here defined as the deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy for solving problems and achieving a desired set of objectives. 11 HOW IS PLANNING DONE? Planning is done by people. It’s done in a sequential, multi-staged process in which many of the stages are linked to their predecessors by feedback loops. It can be done in an hour, a day, a week, or a year. Conclusions reached at a later stage of the planning process may lead to revisions of an earlier stage or another iteration of the entire process. The specific sequence and stages of a planning process vary with the type of planning and the institutional setting in which the planning is done. Generalizations about how planning is done are reflected in the two planning models that follow. The first is a generic model of the planning process, the second introduces the planning model used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its Civil Works activities. A GENERIC PLANNING MODEL There is no such thing as “the” planning model. Planning models abound in the literature. Sometime in your education, way back in elementary school, you probably encountered the “scientific method.” It told you how to learn things. You observe a condition and form a hypothesis. You test your hypothesis in an experiment and compare the results to your hypothesis. You either confirm your hypothesis or repeat the process with a revised hypothesis. It was probably your first step-by-step, iterative, problem-solving process. Well, that same time-tested method has been dressed up, modified, and recycled as a planning process. The major components in Table 2 can be found in most of the planning models in general use. Table 2: Two Planning Models Generic Model 1. Problem diagnosis 2. Goal articulation 3. Prediction and projections 4. Alternative development 5. Feasibility analysis alternative plans 6. Evaluation 7. Implementation Corps Model 1. Identify problems & opportunities 2. Inventory & forecast resources 3. Formulate alternative plans 4. Evaluate plan effects 5. Compare effects of 6. Select best plan 12 Planning often begins with some notion that we are dissatisfied with the status quo. If there is no problem, there is no reason for plans or actions. Diagnosis of the problem requires an image of a desired state. Goals relate to problem definitions. Translating vague, incoherent or conflicting goals into operational objectives is one of the toughest jobs a planner faces. Solving problems and achieving goals always involves moving from where we are now to some different place in the future. Prediction is essential for evaluating and selecting alternatives and for moving to future places. We need to make some guesses about the future to formulate and evaluate plans. The development of alternative plans has a profound effect on the quality of the final decision. As Lichfield 2 has said: “The ability of an evaluation exercise to demonstrate the comparative merits of possible courses of action is limited, ultimately, by the quality of the plans put forward for assessment. A “good” plan cannot be chosen from a “poor” set of alternatives.” Where do alternatives come from? They must be generated by people from some mix of experience, analysis, inspiration, and creative invention. Feasibility analysis asks, can the alternatives be done given known constraints and available resources? Evaluation begins when planners have a number of alternatives they know can be implemented. Which alternative do you like most? What does it do for you? The answers to these questions depend on the evaluation criteria you use: benefit-cost analysis, costeffectiveness, environmental quality, other social effects, program output indices, and so on. Implementable plans seem to require a strong political commitment, though that is not a sufficient condition. Plans that can be implemented within existing organizational frameworks are more likely to succeed than complex plans that require new institutional structures and relationships. There are any number of ways to include these basic tasks in a planning process. The Corps of Engineers’ planning process ...alternatives...must be generated by people from some mix of experience, analysis, inspiration, and creative invention. Lichfield, Nathaniel, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitebread. Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon, 1973, p. 13. 2 13 is but one of many possible planning models. It is one of obvious interest here, however, for it is the focus of this manual. THE CORPS’ PLANNING MODEL The direct correspondence of the generic planning model with the Corps’ six-step planning process is also shown in Table 2. The language used in the generic model differs somewhat; however, the elements of the steps indicate a clear correspondence in concept and theory. The two models together show the Corps’ planning process is consistent with good planning theory. Though the Corps’ process is presented as if it is a simple sequence of six rational steps, it is not that easy. No clean lines can be drawn among the steps in the Corps’ planning process. Problem definition, goal setting, devising alternative solutions, etc. are more simultaneous activities that wax and wane throughout the process with the relative importance of each step varying from time-to-time, often in an unpredictable manner. The steps do, however, suggest that the emphasis in the planning process will occasionally change to one of these activities as shown in Figure 2. In the beginning, the emphasis will be on step one, identification of problems and opportunities, even though work may be proceeding on the other steps. There may even be several iterations or passes through the steps in which step one is emphasized. But, in time, the emphasis will shift to step two, as the second large rectangle indicates. At this stage in the planning study there may again be one or more iterations through the various steps but the emphasis is clearly focused on the second step. This process of iterating through the steps continues with a continually shifting emphasis on the next step. The steps are presented in a linear fashion in the P&G, but the planning process is anything but linear. At times it borders on chaotic. But always it comes back to the order imposed by the rational framework present in the steps. There is a chapter on each of these steps later in the manual. For now, we simply list the steps. ...the planning process is It is easy to see the relationship of the Corps’ specific model to the anything but linear. generic planning model. The generic steps have in essence been restated in a water resources context. The six-step planning process is described in the P&G as follows: 1) Specification of the water and related land resource problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning 14 setting) associated with the Federal objective and specific State and local concerns. 2) Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related land resource conditions within the planning area relevant to the identified problems and opportunities. Formulation of alternative plans. Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans. 3) 4) 5) Comparison of alternative plans. 6) Selection of a recommended plan based upon the comparison of alternative plans.3 This process makes use of several tools, including criteria, goals, objectives, constraints, solutions, and effects. The success of the process depends on the involvement of the right people at the right time; in other words, interdisciplinary planning and public involvement. These tools will be highlighted throughout the discussions of the planning process that follow. EXAMPLES OF PLANNING IN THE CORPS On the verge of the 21st century, in a world of changing missions and tight budgets, planning is needed more than ever. At the highest levels of the organization where the future of the agency and new missions are discussed there is a role for planning. The need for planning pervades the functional levels of the Corps as suggested in Table 3. Section III paragraph 1.3.2(a) of Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. 3 15 16 Table 3: Planning in the Corps Water resources development planning flood and storm damage reduction ecosystem restoration navigation Watershed planning Planning assistance to states Operations and maintenance planning major rehabilitation maintenance dredging master planning Regulatory permits planning special area management plans mitigation banking planning Environmental infrastructure planning Drought preparation planning Military planning master planning military construction planning logistics project validation assessment mobilization planning Restoration planning formerly used defense sites planning installation restoration program planning Support for others planning Strategic planning Operations and maintenance personnel are forced by tight budgets to plan their O&M work. Construction o p e r a t i o n s personnel must choose from among options to correct design deficiencies and compare them to continued maintenance, choosing the option that best meets public and agency needs. Military construction branches are formulating alternatives and recommending the best course of action. R e s o u r c e management personnel evaluate and compare options for getting the Corps’ essential support work done. Planning is problem solving and there is no shortage of problems. Planning offers a structured, rational approach to solving problems of all types. If planning can improve agency performance through problem solving and informed, rational decision-making, it is essential to accomplish the agency’s missions. The bread and butter of Corps planning has been the traditional civil works water resources development planning. Such Corps planning currently is: C Authority based, relying on various public laws and Congressional 17 Committee resolutions to provide the authority to study and implement projects. This includes the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program. C Phased, with an initial 100% Federally financed, 6-12 month reconnaissance study, followed by a feasibility study that is 50/50 cost shared with a nonFederal sponsor and targeted for completion in three years. Oriented toward the Federal objective of national economic development consistent with protecting the nation’s environment. Planning in other Corps programs may be directed at other national goals. Oriented toward specific types of water-related problems and opportunities. Today’s water resources program focuses on flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and ecosystem restoration as priority outputs. Table 4 lists historic project purposes. C C The Corps’ expanded environmental mission has brought about something of a revived interest in watershed planning. Watershed planning resembles the basin level planning studies of the past. Table 4: Types of Project Purposes C C C C C C C C Navigation Flood damage reduction Shore protection Hydroelectric power Recreation Water supply Fish & Wildlife enhancement Ecosystem restoration Section 22 of Public Law 93-251 authorized the Corps to cooperate with the states and Native American Tribes in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization and conservation of the water and related land resources of drainage basins located within 18 the boundaries of the state. This program is often called “Planning Assistance to States.” Several drought preparation study (DPS) prototypes were conducted as part of the recent National Drought Study. Such studies recommend actions to be taken by government and community in advance for the purpose of preparing for the occurrence of droughts, coordinating a proper response to drought, managing water supply and water use during drought, and otherwise mitigating the effects of the impacts associated with droughts. In 1982, the Operation and Maintenance, General, portion of the Corps’ budget exceeded $1 billion for the first time. By 1985, the O&M portion of the budget exceeded Construction, General, for the first time. Little “p” planning is becoming increasingly important as this function grows ever larger and more complex. Dredged material placement plans, beneficial uses of dredged material, project master planning, and major rehabilitations are some examples of O&M functions in which planning is already used. While water resources related planning remains the bread and butter of Table 5: Examples of Other Planning most Corps’ planning, other Corps Functions missions can and do benefit from good planning, as Table 5 indicates. The Corps C Master planning has a substantial military program. In the C Military construction 1980s, planners became actively involved C Mobilization planning in mobilization master planning. More C Logistics planning generic master planning is basically the C Disaster preparedness & emergency development of long-term plans for the response optimal usage of lands and facilities at C Operations & maintenance budgeting reservoirs and military installations. C Facilities management Military installation master planning C Formerly used defense sites might involve housing, office space, C Installation restoration program production and research facilities, health C Work for others care, signage, and infrastructure including C Strategic planning water, sewage, street lighting, roads, C Special studies energy, and the like. In other words, it includes anything and everything needed to make the installation effective and efficient in performing its missions. 19 What’s a Continuing Authority? Once all Corps projects required a specific act of Congress to authorize their construction. In other words, if Congress did not specifically mention its desire to construct a project in a piece of legislation the project would not be built. Typically, all projects were bundled together into an omnibus bill that included all water resource development projects. Initially, flood damage reduction projects were included in Flood Control Acts and navigation projects in Rivers and Harbors Acts. The current omnibus acts are called Water Resource Development Acts (also known as WRDA, pronounced “word-uh”). Congress has decided to give the Secretary of the Army the authority to approve and construct certain size and type projects. This can be done on a continuing basis. Thus, we have the so-called continuing authority programs (CAP). Congress establishes the type of projects that can be built without specific Congressional authorization in the language that creates the authority. These authorities are generally found in one of the omnibus acts. The Federal cost share of the projects is established by dollar limits periodically set by Congress. The programs include the following: Section 14: Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Erosion Section 103: Beach Erosion Control Section 107: Navigation Section 111: Mitigation of Shore Damage Section 204: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Section 205: Flood Damage Reduction Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Section 208: Snagging & Clearing (Flood) Section 1135: Environmental Improvement The number of projects constructed is established through the joint interaction of Congress and the Administration in the budget process. Each continuing authority program has a separate authorization, spending limit, and budget. See ER 1105-2-100, Chapter Three for more information. Planning has also been used to assist the military construction projects program. In these projects a few objectives are established, 20 an estimate of the cost of accomplishing these objectives under a status quo situation is prepared, then one or more alternative ways of accomplishing the objectives are formulated and costed out for the purpose of identifying the best option for attaining the objectives. This type of planning has been done for child care facilities, family housing, barracks, communications centers, wastewater treatment, training facilities, research facilities, parking garages, laundry facilities, and many other functions and facilities. A variation of this type of planning is the project validation assessment. This is a planning process used to obtain funding for projects that have not been appropriated funds. It usually entails a cashflow or pay-back analysis. Logistics planning is another area in which planning has made significant contributions. Moving materials and people in the most effective manner that meets the objectives of the move is a natural for planning. Planners have been involved with the military traffic management command to help plan movements of Army Reserve and National Guard units at a number of locations throughout the country. Corps offices are occasionally asked to become involved in planning efforts that do not fit neatly into any of the above categories. Special studies are authorized by Congress from time-to-time. Support for others planning involves work for other Federal agencies. This has included planning for embassies, wastewater treatment facilities, prisons, roads, and other infrastructure. In addition to these special studies, strategic planning has become more widely used by Corps offices. Strategic planning highlights the significance of devoting more attention to analyzing operating environments and formulating strategies that relate directly to environmental conditions. The ultimate purpose of strategic planning is to help the organization, be it the agency, a district, or an 21 Environmental Planning “Environmental planning,” though an expanding Corps mission, is nothing new. In fact, a case could be made that the Corps has always been involved in environmental planning, it’s just that the desired adjustments to the environment have evolved and changed over time. There are different types of planning activities Corps planners do that relate to the environment. First, there is the evaluation of environmental effects of alternative plans. This is sometimes referred to as environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact assessment became a formal necessity for the Corps with the promulgation of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations following the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Under NEPA, the environmental assessment (EA) may lead to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). This type of environmental planning has been done for over two decades and the methods are well defined and well executed. The Corps has also done extensive planning for environmental mitigation. Section 661 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 provided that fish and wildlife conservation receive equal consideration with other project purposes. Section 906(a) of WRDA 1986 authorized mitigation of unavoidable damages to fish and wildlife that result from construction of a project. Finally, ecosystem restoration is now a priority output for the Corps. Restoration of degraded ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes represents a new challenge for Corps planners. For example, Section 1135 of WRDA 1986 makes restoration of fish and wildlife habitat possible and it authorizes the Secretary of the Army to modify Corps projects for the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in the public interest. Although there are environmental planning objectives and new environmental programs and authorities, the simple truth is that planning for and about these values is exactly the same planning process described in this manual. The only difference is a focus on nonmonetary outputs rather than the traditional economic outputs. office, to increase performance through improved effectiveness, efficiency, and flexibility. The important point to make here is that no matter whether the planning responsibility is in water resources or other areas, whether it is formal or informal, the Corps’ six-step planning process is equally applicable. It is a robust, rational planning framework that is sufficiently flexible for any and all types of planning encountered by Corps personnel. That is not to suggest that it is or should be pursued with equal resources, detail, or rigor in every situation. As mentioned 22 earlier, the entire planning process can be completed in an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year or a decade. The level of ...the entire planning detail and quality of the results can be expected to vary with process can be completed the time and resources devoted to planning. But, no matter in an hour, a day, a what the time frame, it is inevitable that a planning decision week, a month, a year, made based on a planning process is going to be better than a or a decade. decision made without one. Budgets, schedules, the significance of the work, knowledge of the planning process and other factors will dictate the extent to which a structured planning process is pursued. The basic approach to problem solving embodied in these steps is, however, sound and proven and can be used in all planning situations. Planning can contribute to agency performance wherever problems are encountered. When those problems are wicked, planning is indispensable. TYPES OF PLANNING AND PLANNERS Planning is best done by planners. In this section, we consider some of the planning specialties and who planners are. GENERIC TYPES OF PLANNING The present-day planning profession has emerged in response to the growth, changing values and critical problems of 20th century urban Table 6: Selected Planning Specialities development. Though planning theory may have developed around the needs of C Land Use Planning cities, there are many different types of C Policy Planning & Management planning, water resources development C Transportation Planning planning and military master planning C Housing & Community Development being but two examples. Planning Based on the variety of definitions C Human Services Planning of planning offered above, we are able to C Historic Preservation Planning identify a rather lengthy list of different C Economic & Resource Development Planning planning specialties. Table 6 shows the C Environmental Policies Planning areas of specialty recognized by the C International Development Planning Association of Collegiate Schools of C Urban Design and Physical Planning Planning. Interestingly, the typical Corps C Computers in Planning planner may find herself involved in Source: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 23 A Planner’s Best Friends C C C The newspaper(s) and telephone book(s) that cover the area under study. The alphabet and chronology; two organizing tools that just about everyone understands and can agree to. Lists of everything and anything, such as telephone numbers, reasons why Plan 7 won’t work, what to talk about at the next team meeting, etc. Questions, particularly: “Why?”, “How do you know that?”, “Who cares?”, and “What will happen if we don’t?” The abilities to tell the story (spoken and written), and to listen. C C virtually all of these specialty areas at one time or another. PLANNERS Within the Corps, you will find planners and other people who plan. A planner is “a generalist with a specialty.” Planning requires men and women with knowledge, imagination, and skills, and a commitment to critically examine and act on objectives concerned with the improvement of the human condition. Planners must respond to complex and interrelated processes of social, economic, cultural, environmental and political change at every scale from the local to the global. Their specialized expertise derives from their ability to relate scientific and technical knowledge to action in the public domain. No one discipline prepares a person to be a planner. Planning is intrinsically an interdisciplinary process. The skills of a planner, which should be considered “in addition to” their specialty skill, are shown in Table 7. The skills, ranked in order based on a somewhat dated (1976) survey of Massachusetts Institute of Technology planning graduates might show a different order today (computer skills would surely rank higher and more communication skills would be prominently ranked), but the array of skills is still relevant. Planners come from many backgrounds, including urban studies, environmental studies, architecture, political science, engineering, economics, sociology, law, the natural sciences, management, geography, and public administration among others. The Corps’ study team would reflect this same mix of skills, adding some 24 particularly useful in water resources problems. Chapter Thirteen discusses the planning team in more detail. In addition to planners there are the other people who plan. These are the Table 7: Planner’s Skills C C C C C C C C C C Writing Synthesis Interaction Consulting Research Design Community Organizing Information Retrieval Environmental Analysis Data Analysis Teaching C C C C C C C C C Original Information Getting Management Economic Analysis Spatial Design Evaluation Site Planning Computer Skills Operations Research Recording specialists who may not recognize the work they do as planning. They may be found in operations and maintenance, engineering, or construction divisions, the front office or virtually anywhere else in the organization. Helping other people who plan to do their job better is one of the greatest values of the Corps’ planning process. WHERE DO PLANS COME FROM? Where do plans come from? They come from people. There comes a time in every planning model when alternatives are designed to address the problems that motivated the planning process in the first place. Alternatives are solutions to problems that contribute to stated planning objectives. In the Corps’ planning process the emphasis shifts to identifying and designing alternatives that solve a problem in step three, plan formulation. Thus, plans emerge from the plan formulation process, a subject addressed at length in Chapter Eight. For now, we content ourselves with the “big picture” and how this formulation activity fits into it. 25 Yes, There Really Are “Planners” Planners have been called generalists with a specialty. Planners are often civil engineers, architects, or from other professional disciplines. But some people are truly “planners” and their specialty is planning. C There are about 90 graduate and post-graduate university planning programs in the United States. C Most planners work in government agencies. Some are consultants, and some are academics. C Many planners work for local governments. Common products in local planning are comprehensive plans, zoning regulations, and subdivision regulations. C The Federal government’s personnel series GS-0020 Community Planner recognizes the unique specialty of planners. C The American Planning Association is the nation’s largest professional society for planners. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING It’s fair to say that not everything Corps planners do during the course of a day can be called plan formulation or even planning. Thus, we find it necessary to invent terminology that makes distinctions among the types of work Corps planners do. Their work can be considered one of four different types: project development, study management, planning, and plan formulation. The relationship of these tasks to one another is shown in Figure 3. The two larger tasks are part of what we call big “P” Planning, practiced more in Project Management and Planning offices. The last two tasks are little “p” planning that can be done anywhere in the organization. Project Development Process Planning and plan formulation can be separated from the milieu in which they take place. To facilitate that distinction, we define the most inclusive concept to be project development, i.e., all the activities from initiation of a study through construction. This is done to allow the separation of the planning process from implementation activities as well as from the institutional setting in which planning is done. 26 Figure 3: Relational Terminology Project Development Study Management Planning Plan Formulation The Corps’ way of doing business has evolved over time. This “way” includes the financial, administrative, organizational and management styles; the requirements of the agency; and the multitude of institutional relationships they have developed. Some of this culture is clearly related to the planning process. Other tasks may be necessary to the planning process, but they are not part of it. Study Management This subset of project development includes all the planning process tasks plus activities that include study management. Study management activities include the activities that support the planning process that may not be directly involved with the problem solving aspects of planning. These activities include: contracting; budget work; inter-agency transfers of funds and personnel; other personnel issues; report preparation, printing, and distribution; shepherding the report through the review process; and so on. Planning Planning, of course, comprises all the work associated with the six-step planning process. More details on this are provided in subsequent chapters. 27 Plan Formulation Study Levels Sometimes you need a lot of information to make a decision and other times you only need a little. There are different levels of detail required for different decisions. We gather less information when buying a candy bar than when we buy a car. The consequences of the decision are substantially different. Just as the Corps has different project purposes and different types of reports, there are different levels of studies. Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 there have been reconnaissance and feasibility studies. The feasibility study is the more detailed of the two. In reconnaissance efforts there may be less detail or emphasis at some points in the planning process than there would be in a feasibility study, but the differences are of degree, not in approach. The Corps’ six-step planning process can be used for all types of planning studies at all This is the point in the planning process “where plans come from.” How that bit of magic happens is considered at greater length in Chapter Eight. SUMMARY AND LOOK FORWARD Lesson One. Planning is what Corps planners do. There is a process, a set of steps, a way to do planning. Lesson Two. There is no single “right” process but some steps are universal among all processes. Lesson Three. The Corps uses a six-step planning process. Little “p” planning has been defined here as the deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy for solving problems and achieving a desired set of objectives. It will take the remainder of this manual to detail some of the nuances of this process. That detailing begins in the next chapter with brief histories of water resources development in the United States and the evaluation of water resources planning by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING For a nice introduction to planning theory we suggest Introduction to Urban Planning, Anthony J. Catanese and James C. Snyder, editors. It has a collection of informative articles that are easy to read. More recent books that provide some nice 28 overview concepts are Ernest R. Alexander’s Approaches to Planning, Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues; Jay M. Stein’s (editor) Classic Readings in Urban Planning; Edward J. Kaiser, et al in Urban Land Use Planning, and Planning in the Public domain: From Knowledge to Action, by John Friedman. A fair number of books have been written specifically about water resources planning. Some of the better ones were written during the 1970s and 1980s including the following: Alvin Goodman’s Principles of Water Resources Planning Otto Helweg’s Water Resources Planning and Management David Major’s Multi Objective Water Resources Planning Jim Mulder, et al’s Integrating Water Resources and Land Use Planning Margaret Petersen’s Water Resources Planning and Development. You can’t go wrong with these for starters. For something more recent we suggest Jim Heaney’s article, “New Directions in Water Resources Planning and Management,” which appeared in the Autumn 1993 edition of Water Resources. 29 30 CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING “The past is only the present become invisible and mute; and because it is invisible and mute, its memorized glances and its murmurs are infinitely precious. We are tomorrow’s past.” Mary Webb(1881-1927) English novelist. INTRODUCTION The Principles and Guidelines (P&G) is only the latest version of a planning process that has been evolving for 200 years. It is not likely to be the last version of a planning process to be used by the Corps of Engineers. The nation’s water resources planning framework has evolved gradually, reflecting the changing political and social values of the day. The current P&G have persisted for 13 years at this writing, a modern record for longevity among planning principles. Knowledge of the historical background of Federal policies for water and related land resource planning is indispensable to an understanding of the present-day situation and its future prospects. In this chapter, we provide a brief review of some events and circumstances of the past 200 years that are still shaping problems and issues in the controversial field of water resource development and, consequently, water resource planning. Examined without perspective, current policy may look contradictory, arbitrary, and confusing. In historical perspective it makes sense, embodying constitutional traditions, political convictions, institutional developments, and changing national values to be reckoned with now and into the future. The values of a society are reflected in its public policy goals. Different mixes of values will appear in different historical epochs. As a result, policy goals will shift and evolve over time. Corps personnel recognize the present as a time of significant changes. The advent of changes in the cost-sharing formulas and an expanded role for non-Federal partners befitting their expanded financial responsibilities marks a serious change in the Corps’ programs. When the history of the Federal government’s role in water resource development and planning is recounted, however, we see 31 wave after wave of significant change. Even in relatively stable periods during which “business as usual” had enough time to take on meaning, we see the seeds of change sown in the Nation’s political and public landscapes.
A guide to the preparation of local planning strategies and local planning schemes in Western Australia. The updated manual reflects the changes in legislative.
Planning Manual Punjab
Technical Planning Manuals Please first select a planning manual: Heat Pumps “Heat Pumps” project planning manual “Heat Pumps with simplified controller.