Stockton Wednesday8am 102809


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • IPET findings are summarized here. Political and engineering communities are both not comfortable with change, be it climate dynamics or subsidence or demographics. It is hard to hit a moving target, especially when it is out of sync with a 2 to 6 year funding or election cycle. Equally big is shedding the short term investments we as a nation are too comfortable making. Katrina is a poster child for the wisdom of life cycle, resilience, redundancy and such. We must take a systems approach and we can only do that if we start from the beginning with a systems planning approach. Our infrastructure must not only be systems based but be agile enough to be adapted to new demands whether they come from the hazard, system or consequence part of the equation. Lastly we have to accelerate the change in our policies and practice, we can not continue the current pace of change in the face of an accelerating increase in knowledge and technology.
  • Actions for Change. LTG Van Antwerp is continuing effort here, and has grouped LTG Strock’s 12 actions into 4 overall themes, listed here. Incorporating lessons learned from IPET, HPDC, etc. Impetus came from Civil Works, but Actions are applicable to all aspects of USACE mission.
  • The Interagency Levee Task Force was started after the midwest flood event of 2008 as a way to help with the mitagation after the event. The group identified regional partners, facilitated cpmprehensive regional approach and created working relationships which furthered the goals fo the regions. The ILTF was chartered for one year. In August a new charter was initaited for a longer term Regional Flood Risk Management Team. There is a commitment to work for the long term solutions for flood risk management in the region.
  • Talking Points – The world has changed The Corps in the early years worked on “controlling” floods We moved to “reducing flood damages” Now taking a major step to “managing flood risk” with the understanding that flood damage reduction projects can not completely eliminate all flood risk. This is an illustrative Venn diagram of our Flood Risk Management Program A flood risk management program does not presently exist for the nation The Corps has stepped up to lead stakeholders and responsible parties in better managing flood risk for the nation Examples IFRMC – working hand-in-hand with FEMA and nonfederal stakeholders on policy issues Silver Jackets – State led, on issues selected by the state, we are there to help ILTF – local, State, federal collaborative for post flood will evolve to collaborative for life cycle of flood management system This will be a cultural change to Corps approach and thinking as we transition from flood damage reduction to flood risk management
  • SUPPORT TO OTHER (NON-DEFENSE) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: -- Number of Federal agencies supported: Over 70 -- Expenditures for FY06: $4.0 billion -- Biggest Customers: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-DHS), $3.2 billion; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $287 million Border & Transportation Security (BTS-DHS), $181 million Department of Energy, $46.6 million National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) $31.4 million
  • Issue—a growing disparity/gap between our budget and our appropriations It is not healthy to have such a difference: unpredictable for Districts hard to plan; especially with late appropriations note big disparity in GI—all studies coming from Appns [in FY08 GI, $267 approp vs $90 budgeted; almost entire difference was in study increases or adds.] Note gap is increasing as future budget ceilings (FY10-15) are being decreased.
  • CIVIL WORKS FIVE-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN MESSAGES – The FYDP is based on the President’s budget and Office of Management and Budget guidance for the Civil Works program. It is not reflective of congressional authorizations and appropriations. The FYDP reflects funding targets for the Civil Works program that are in accordance with the projections shown in the Historical Tables for the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget. The projections and assumptions are formula driven, do not represent budget decisions or budget policy beyond FY 2008, and are intended to be “policy neutral.” The purpose of the FYDP is to present informed discussion and decision making on program funding, especially in FY 2006, by providing a portrait of how the Civil Works program would be carried out and the results it would achieve under a particular set of assumptions. The five-year development plan is performance based. It discusses how funding over the five-year period will produce results that contribute to achievement of the strategic goals in the Civil Works Strategic Plan.
  • Stockton Wednesday8am 102809

    1. 1. Flood Risk Management: A View to the Future US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Presentation to Society of American Military Engineers, 2009 California Water Conference Steven L. Stockton, P.E. Director of Civil Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 28 October 2009
    2. 2. Katrina’s Lessons (Summary of Interagency Performance Review Team Report) <ul><li>Change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need methods to consider changes in hazards, the system and consequences. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project authorizations and resource streams must anticipate change . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Life Cycle </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan for life cycle performance of systems. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resilience and redundancy are critical, as are adaptive designs to accommodate change, expected and unexpected. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We need risk-based , system-wide planning and design methods. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foster collaboration among stakeholders at all levels. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Policy and Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolve guidance and methods to integrate rapidly emerging technologies and knowledge . </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. USACE’s Response: Actions for Change <ul><li>Comprehensive systems approach </li></ul><ul><li>Risk-informed decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Communication of risk to the public </li></ul><ul><li>Professional and technical expertise </li></ul>
    4. 4. Systems Approach <ul><li>Look at river basins, waterheds and coastal zones as a whole </li></ul><ul><li>Shift focus from individual projects to interdependent system </li></ul><ul><li>Shift from immediate to long-term solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize that any single action triggers one or more responses and reactions in other parts of the system </li></ul>
    5. 5. Risk-Informed Decision Making & Communication <ul><li>Consequence analysis, </li></ul><ul><li>especially risks to </li></ul><ul><li>populations </li></ul><ul><li>Forestall possible failure </li></ul><ul><li>mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Quantify & communicate </li></ul><ul><li>residual risk </li></ul><ul><li>Ask which projects will </li></ul><ul><li>fail to perform as </li></ul><ul><li>designed, the likelihood </li></ul><ul><li>of failure, and the consequences </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize limits in disaster prediction </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize limits in protection provided by </li></ul><ul><li>structural means </li></ul>
    6. 6. Shared Flood Risk Management: Buying Down Risk Residual Risk
    7. 7. Flood Risk Management Program Vision: To lead collaborative, comprehensive and sustainable national flood risk management to improve public safety and reduce flood damages to our country. Mission: To integrate and synchronize the ongoing, diverse flood risk management projects, programs and authorities of the US Army Corps of Engineers with counterpart projects, programs and authorities of FEMA, other Federal agencies, state organizations and regional and local agencies.
    8. 8. <ul><li>Core Members: USACE, FEMA, ASFPM, NAFSMA leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Meet quarterly to discuss integration of programs and policies </li></ul><ul><li>Current Focus Areas: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interagency Cooperation/Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk Communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Levee Inventory and Assessments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping, Certification, and Accreditation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legislative Impacts </li></ul></ul>Intergovernmental Flood Risk Management Committee
    9. 9. Interagency Levee Task Force: Regional Flood Risk Management <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Identification of regional partners </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitated comprehensive regional approach to flood risk management and recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Establishment of interagency partnerships (Federal / State) </li></ul><ul><li>Explore non-structural solutions and other flood risk management opportunities </li></ul>
    10. 10. National Committee on Levee Safety Milestones Nov 07 Nov 08 Nov 09 May 08 May 09 NCLS OMB Review WRDA Title IX Levee Safety Act Passed Title IX Technical Correction NLSP Rpt Completed NCLS OMB Review NLSP Hearing NCLS NCLS Reconvenes
    11. 11. Activities in Path Forward for National Committee on Levee Safety <ul><li>Awaiting Direction from Administration </li></ul><ul><li>Restarting Useful Tasks within Scope of WRDA 2007 Title IX Authorities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Better Define Costs and Benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further Examine Governance Models and Potential Early Implementation Examples </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve Stakeholder Feedback </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. * IFRMC, Silver Jackets, FPMS/PAS, ILTF, PL84-99, Dam & Levee Safety, R&D, Critical Infrastructure, CERB, IWR, Emergency Response, Coastal, CAP Roundtable Collaboration, PAO, International, Planning, FRM Business Line, FRM PCX, Regulatory, Environmental, Federal Task Force, E011988, Unified National Plan. National Flood Risk Management Locals USACE NFRMP * National Water Resources Management States Building codes, emergency services, contingency response, regulatory, general plans, WRM FEMA NFIP, Risk MAP, Mitigation, Disaster Response Federal OMB, DOI, EPA, NOAA, NRCS, USBR, HUD, USDS, DHS, NWS, USGS Land use planning, evacuations, flood fighting, O&M
    13. 13. USACE Levee Portfolio Risk Management Process <ul><li>Routine Processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In progress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decentrally Led and Executed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuing & Periodic </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Routine Processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Centrally Led </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jointly Executed </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Corps Programs for Technical Assistance <ul><li>PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance of Flood Control Works </li></ul><ul><li>Section 216 Flood Control Act of 1970 </li></ul><ul><li>- Review of completed projects </li></ul><ul><li>Section 22 WRDA 1974 </li></ul><ul><li>- Planning Assistance to States </li></ul><ul><li>Section 206 Flood Control Act of 1960 </li></ul><ul><li>- Flood Plain Management Services </li></ul>
    15. 15. Flood Plain Management Services <ul><li>For any project, Flood Plain Management Services (FPMS) </li></ul><ul><li>Can provide support for levee certification determinations for others to certify under program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot certify a levee under this program </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can include support activities– data collection, mapping, H&H analysis, geotechnical investigations, etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>100% Federally funded, if available </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can accept voluntary contributions from State or local government to expand scope </li></ul>
    16. 16. Civil Works Program Overview Non-Federal Cost Sharing Operation & Maintenance Construction Support for Others ( Reimbursable ) Expenses FUSRAP Flood Control Miss. R. & Tribs. Investigations Flood & Coastal Emergencies & Regulatory ARRA Funds
    17. 17. Budgets and Appropriations * FY08 FY09 FY10 FY10 FY10 FY10 Approp. Approp. Budget House Senate Conf. Investigations 167 168 100 142 170 160 O peration & Maint. 2,244 2,202 2,504 2,511 2,450 2,400 Construction 2,289 2,142 1,718 2,144 1,924 2,031 Mississippi River & Tribs. 387 384 248 251 352 340 Regulatory Program 180 183 190 192 190 190 Flood Cont. & Coastal Emerg. 0 0 41 0 0 0 F.U.S.R.A.P. 140 140 134 134 140 134 Expenses 177 179 184 152 186 185 ASA(CW) 5 4 6 6 6 5 Total Regular 5,597 5,361 5,125 5,532 5,405 5,445 Supplemental Appns 3,383 6,558 Stimulus Bill 4,600 Defense Supplemental 842 Total 8,980 17,362  
    18. 18. Major Construction Projects ( $20 M or More in FY09 Budget ) 24 36 New Orleans $ 5,761 M 77 45 185 23 22 33 20 90 41 26 42 57 21 24 Columbia River Channels Sacramento River Banks Upper Mississippi River Restoration Tuttle Creek Lake Canton Lake NY / NJ Harbor Emsworth Lock and Dam Monongahela River Locks 2,3,4 Lockport Lock 29 McCook and Thorton Reservior 34 Sims Bayou Houston-Galveston Channels Clearwater Lake Mississippi River Channel and Revetments Mississippi River Levees Herbert Hoover Dike Portugues and Bucana Rivers South Florida Everglades Wolf Creek Dam Center Hill Dam Chickamauga Lock Olmstead Lock and Dam 114 Emsworth Lock and Dam 42 22 25 20 Flood Risk Management Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Navigation
    19. 19. Major ARRA Construction ($20 Million or More in ARRA ) 30 91 44 36 58 45 Flood Risk Management Tuttle Creek Lake Monongahela R. Locks 2,3,4 Lockport Lock 89 Sims Bayou Houston-Galveston Channels Rio de la Plata Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Chickamauga Lock Mobile Harbor 25 26 Tres Rios Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restor. 99 Napa River 27 Santa Ana R. 40 Santa Maria Levees 25 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement 27 Lock & Dam 27 21 Miss. R. betw. Mo. & Ohio Rs. 29 Kentucky Lock 70 Lock & Dam 3 35 Clearwater Lake 21 Gulfport Harbor 29 Garrison Dam/ Lake Sakakawwea 33 Raritan River 28 Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites 84 31 87 Texas City Channel 21 Columbia River Fish Mitigation 36 Bluestone Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Navigation
    20. 20. Program Initiatives <ul><li>Place-based Initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Sustainability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Valuing of social and environmental benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Beneficial use of dredged material </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rebuilding our Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inland Waterways Trust Fund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct Funding of Hydropower </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Efficient Project Operations </li></ul>
    21. 21. 5-Year Development Plan <ul><li>Based on President’s budget & guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Presents 5-year plan for FY 2010-14 </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose - present informed discussion and decision making on program funding </li></ul><ul><li>Presents how watershed-integrated management will be pursued </li></ul><ul><li>Performance based - discusses how funding over 5-year period will achieve goals in Civil Works Strategic Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Provides strategic framework for future Program direction </li></ul>2010 2014
    22. 22. Potential Future Direction <ul><li>Integrated Water Resources Management </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Solutions to America’s Water Resource Needs </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Change </li></ul><ul><li>Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) </li></ul>
    23. 23. Summary <ul><li>We cannot completely eliminate risk. </li></ul><ul><li>Our intent is to educate the public as to the actual flood risk they face every day so they can take responsibility for their own safety. </li></ul><ul><li>We are working with local governments so risk can be included in urban planning decisions. </li></ul>
    24. 24. US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Questions ?