Northwestern Division Water Management Reorganization ... Water...Transition Team members will...

Northwestern Division

Northwestern Division Water Management Reorganization

Phase II Transition Plan (Complete Report)

Prepared By: Technical Management Committee, Northwestern Division US Army Corps of Engineers 5 September 2008

Water Management Reorganization Phase-2 Transition Plan

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Section 1 Background and History Section 2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination Section 3 Documentation, Training, and Testing Section 4 Labor Resources Section 5 Communication Section 6 Schedule Section 7 Human Resources Section 8 Budget and Fiscal Management Section 9 Reservoir Regulation Team Transition Report Appendix A Modeling and Forecasting Team Transition Report Appendix B Environmental Compliance Team Transition Report Appendix C Water Quality Team Transition Report Appendix D WCDS End-State Recommendation Report with introduction by TMC & WCDS Human Resources Plan Appendix E Communication Team Report Appendix F Human Resources Team Report Appendix G Budget Team Report Appendix H Note – This Complete Report contains full team reports in its appendices. There is also an Abridged Report which contains executive summary information in its appendices. If future updates are necessary, the updates will be maintained in the Abridged Report.


1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Water Management Regionalization Steering Committee and the senior leadership of the Division chartered and authorized the Phase-I Implementation and the Phase-II Transition plans. The Phase-I Implementation Plan was approved in September 2007. The Phase-II Transition Plan was initiated in October 2007 and completed in March 2008. Each plan was prepared by the Transition Management Committee with oversight by the Steering Committee. The Transition Plan describes a three-stage process to complete the reorganization and achieve the end-state organization as described in the Phase-I report. The Transition Plan outlines the end-state objectives of increasing interdependence throughout the Columbia Basin Water Management organization and shifting technical work from the Columbia Basin Water Management Division organization to the Districts, while still retaining key capabilities to manage overall system operations and main-stem regulation.

2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Columbia Basin Water Management reorganization is a multi-phase program. The first phase is to implement the process of reorganization. The Phase-I Implementation Plan describes an end-state organization for five functional areas: Reservoir Regulation; Modeling and Forecasting; Environmental Compliance; Water Quality and the Water Control Data System (WCDS). Phase-I also addressed technical support and the Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC) role and responsibility. A copy of this plan is available upon request. The second phase transition is to achieve the end state described in the Phase-I Plan and will be completed in three stages. Stage-I is planning; stage-II is documentation, training, and testing; and stage-III is the final transition to the new end-state. Stage III is scheduled for completion by October 2008. There may also be longer term Phase-III actions that extend beyond the October 2008. A copy of this plan is available upon request. Unlike the other four functional areas, the Water Control Data System (WCDS) was not defined in the Phase-I Implementation Plan. Rather, the framework for the WCDS was outlined in the WCDS Needs Assessment Report, dated August 21, 2007. The WCDS Transition Team was tasked with continuing the work of the Needs Assessment Team; finalizing the WCDS end-state recommendations; and developing a transition plan used for reach their end-state. The Transition Management Committee’s WCDS End-State Recommendation Report is seen in Appendix E.

3. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND COORDINATION Roles and Responsibilities The reorganization includes water management activities at the Columbia Basin Water Management Division (CBWM), Portland District, Seattle District and Walla Walla District. The reorganization also includes some aspects of the Missouri River Basin within the Missouri River Basin Water Management Division, Omaha District, and Kansas City District.


2

The guiding principles for determining the roles and responsibilities of the various offices under this reorganization are summarized as: The CBWM Office will:

a) Retain executive direction and management responsibility for Water Management functions throughout the Columbia Basin Region including the coastal watersheds.

b) Retain the responsibility for regulating the main stem Columbia and Snake River projects.

c) Set Columbia Basin system flood control, power production, and other regional targets and objectives. Meeting these targets and objectives for tributary projects is the responsibility of the responsible Districts.

d) Maintain responsibility for the planning oversight and implementation of the current Columbia River Treaty and Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (PNCA).

e) Retain technical capability at the CBWM (on-call technical support from the Districts). f) Serve as the point of contact for system operations with regard to Canadian, Federal,

State, Tribal, non-government organizations and other stakeholders. Division maintains Technical Management Team responsibility including power coordination.

Columbia Basin District Offices will:

a) Portland District assumes responsibility for the regulation of the Willamette Basin projects.

b) Seattle District assumes responsibility for regulation of the Albeni Falls and Libby projects.

c) Walla Walla District assumes responsibility for regulation of Dworshak Project. d) The Districts will follow Water Control Manuals, Water Management Plans and other

applicable guidance to meet control point requirements provided by Division. e) The Districts serve as the point of contact for local stakeholders with regard to tributary

project operations. f) The Districts retain full technical capability and provide priority on-call technical support

to the CBWM. The Transition Management Committee (TMC) is responsible for overall project execution and is the lead for the transition teams. The TMC will receive direction from the Water Management Regionalization Steering Committee. The committee’s tasks include overseeing the timely completion of the reorganization and communicating with stakeholders about the reorganization. As the reorganization progresses into various stages, the TMC will continue to oversee the effort. The Water Management Board will also be responsible for approving the budgets and overall plan for the reorganization. The Transition Teams have developed plans for achieving the end-state for their specific functional area of responsibility. The teams are responsible for implementing the transition plans and will also continue to include stakeholders and ensure they are engaged in the process of planning and implementing the transition. A summary of the key roles and responsibilities by functional area is:


3

Reservoir Regulation: Final regulation decisions and teletype messages with instructions to the projects for tributary projects will be the responsibility of the District offices. The CBWM will be responsible for the regulation of main-stem projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, as well as overall system aspects such as for flood control, power generation, TMT management, and other areas. Regulation activities for the Columbia River Treaty and PNCA will also be a CBWM responsibility. Modeling and Forecasting: NWS and NWW will be responsible for computing volume forecasts for Libby and Dworshak, and for computing outflows and refill curves during the refill period to meet local flood control objectives. CBWM will perform quality control of this work and incorporate it into system flood control computations. CBWM will be responsible for system flood control for all projects in the evacuation and refill period with the exception of the Willamette projects. In the event that there is conflict between system and local flood control, CBWM and the affected districts will work together to balance flood control needs. NWP will regulate the Willamette projects according to existing flood control rule curves. The districts will provide support for flood control model development. The districts will maintain local tributary models, and CBWM will be responsible for maintaining the system models. The statistical hydrologist position is being restructured to be a Regional Technical Specialist and the position will be located in NWP. Environmental Compliance: No significant changes are envisioned in terms of environmental compliance roles and responsibilities. Water Quality: The primary change in roles and responsibilities for water quality will be a shift in some of the responsibility for main-stem Columbia River water quality from the CBWM to the Portland District. CBWM will still retain overall responsibility for the main-stem water quality activities, but the workload associated with approximately one FTE will be shifted to the Portland District. Water Control Data System: In general, the system architecture described in the WCDS end-state will consist of three nodes, one in Portland, one in Seattle, and one in Walla Walla. The WCDS staff residing at each node will be responsible for the WCDS system and data at that node. There will also be a Technical Team that will perform technical functions related to supporting the regional WCDS. The vision, scope, and priorities for this team will be set by a Data System Steering Committee. The CBWM Chief will oversee the Data System Steering Committee. Coordination Effective and efficient coordination is a key aspect of the reorganization in order to ensure the mission continues to be accomplished and stakeholders’ needs are met. Given the increased interdependence and distribution of workload between the various offices, new coordination mechanisms have been developed. These are summarized below. Reservoir Regulation: Since final regulation decisions and teletype messages with instructions to the projects for tributary projects will be the responsibility of the District offices, additional coordination will be required. Internal coordination will take place prior to the Technical Management Team (TMT) meeting with external stakeholders to ensure a single message is


4

heard. Formal coordination channels with key external stakeholders such as the Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Reclamation will be established to ensure that plans for reservoir regulation are well coordination among the various agencies. Modeling and Forecasting: Coordination meetings will be held to train the district personnel on how the current tools are used to provide the forecasts. Users will provide input and may improve the tools if needed. Discussions with the regulators on use of consistent set of stream-flow forecasts during refill will be required. Coordination with outside agencies during the transition to inform them of the communications plan and POCs, etc will be made. Corps management will lead in the communications plan between the teams and the stakeholders. Teams will provide communications SOPs for the stakeholders. The Districts and Division will work together to develop an SOP for Continuity of Operations (COOP). Environmental Compliance: No significant changes are envisioned in terms of environmental compliance coordination. Water Quality: The shift of responsibility for some of the main-stem Columbia water quality responsibilities from the CBWM to the Portland District will require increased coordination between the two offices. This is particularly true during the spill season when more extensive coordination is required for spill management, preparation of court-ordered spill reports, and other related activities. Water Control Data System: Coordination for the WCDS will be facilitated through the new management structure consisting of the Water Control Data System Steering Committee, Technical Team, and staff at local offices. The WCDS Steering Committee will manage the WCDS transition and provide long-term oversight and strategic direction. The Steering Committee will, with the support of the Chief-CBWM, develop their charter and select a Project Manager for management and maintenance of the regional WCDS implementation. The WCDS Transition Team members will develop a charter, norms, and process for dispute resolution with the assistance of the Steering Committee or facilitator. The lead of the Transition Team when selected will report to the Steering Committee and Technical Management Committee. After the transition, the Steering Committee will remain to provide general oversight and strategic direction to the Project Manager and WCDS Product Delivery Team.

4. DOCUMENTATION, TRAINING AND TESTING Documentation, training, and testing are key aspects to ensure that the mission can continue to be effectively accomplished and stakeholders’ needs met under the new organization and approach. The Transition Teams have developed specific plans for documentation, training, and testing in each of their areas: Reservoir Regulation: New Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be developed to address changes in tributary regulation. A combination of formal and informal training has been proposed or conducted including a HEC Advanced ResSim course which occurred in March 2008. A system-wide Power Emergency Test is proposed to be conducted.


5

Modeling and Forecasting: New SOPs are required on models, forecasts and communication. In terms of training, a combination of formal and informal training has been proposed. Specific training topics will include forecasting tools, system-wide flood control models and processes, and AutoReg/SSARR. Testing will also be required to ensure that the new processes and procedure are acceptable. An example of the testing is a system-wide flood emergency test that will be conducted. Environmental Compliance: Since no significant changes are envisioned in terms of environmental coordination, no major changes are expected in terms of documentation, training, and testing. Water Quality: Additional documentation, training, and testing will be developed to support the changes such as the transfer of some responsibility for main-stem water quality responsibilities from the CBWM to the Portland District. The staff performing the work will not change so extensive training is not anticipated. Testing will be done to ensure that the new processes and procedures for coordination between the CBWM and Portland District work well in all key situations. Water Control Data System: A Data System Master Plan will be prepared and updated each year to document the system requirements and plans. Training for staff involved in new processes and procedures will be done. Testing of Continuity of Operation (COOP) procedures, security requirements, and other related requirements will also be conducted as needed.

5. LABOR RESOURCES The reorganization will involve changes in labor, travel, training and other similar resources. A summary of the overall changes in resource requirements is provided below. Resource Type CBWM NWP NWS NWW ACE-IT Summary Labor (FTE) Reservoir Regulation -1.8 +1.0 +1.0 +0.5 0.0 +0.7 Modeling and Forecasting -2.4 +1.8 +0.4 +0.4 0.0 +0.2

Environmental Compliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water Quality -1.0 +1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WCDS* -4.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +0.7 -2.5

Specific details of the required changes in resources are described in the Appendices for each transition team, and budget-related information is in Appendix H. * Detailed WCDS staff numbers is available in Appendix E under the WCDS Human Resources sub-paragraph.


6

6. COMMUNICATION Detailed internal and external communication plans have been developed and are being executed to ensure that employees, stakeholders, and others are kept well informed about the reorganization. In general, the TMC, Steering Committee, and Transition Teams will continue to meet regularly to implement the reorganization and track progress. Various types of status updates and briefings will be provided to keep internal and external stakeholders informed about the reorganization. Additional information about the communications plans is described in Appendix F.

7. SCHEDULE The overall schedule for the reorganization is described below. Specific details are found in the individual appendices for each transition team. Briefing to Steering Committee on 90% draft transition plans – Week of 11 February 2008 Final (100%) draft transition plan from each team – Week of 18 February 2008 Review of final draft transition plans – Week of 03 March 2008 Finalize transition plan and brief it to the Steering Committee – Week of 17 March 2008 Approval of transition plan – Week of 24 March 2008 Transition undertaken including training and testing – April-July 2008 Final resource reallocation – August-September 2008 Transition substantially complete – 01 October 2008 Due to the nature of the WCDS reconfiguration, the schedule of specific deliverables for that team is somewhat different than for the other teams. A WCDS End-State Plan was finalized in August 2008 and the next step will be to develop a WCDS Transition and Implementation Plan. This will be completed early in the 2009 fiscal year and the WCDS transition is expected to be complete by the end of the 2009 fiscal year.

8. HUMAN RESOURCES A key objective in the reorganization is to ensure that we take care of employees throughout the transition process. Many changes involving human resources are included in this transition plan. In order to ensure that all human resources requirements are met and that we achieve the objective of taking care of employees, a Human Resources Plan has been prepared and is included in Appendix G. A summary of the changes in terms of human resources is provided above in Section 5 (Resources).

9. BUDGET AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT The reorganization will involve budgetary and financial implications thus a Budget Team Report has been developed to reflect adjustments for each office in fiscal years FY08-09. For the Budget Team Report see Appendix H.

Appendix A: Reservoir Regulation Team Transition Report

Draft 100% Report Water Management Phase II Transition System and Tributary Reservoir Regulation

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Reservoir Regulation Implementation Team (RRIT) followed the Transition Management Committee (TMC) recommended approach to map out the end state by 1) gaining an understanding of how tasks are completed under the current state 2) identifying problems and opportunities under the current state (Appendix B) 3) defining the roles and responsibilities of each office in the end state and 4) developing a transition plan to reach the end state. To the extent possible technical work will be done at the District office, which will include the following functions:

• making final tributary regulation decisions and issuing teletypes (which balance power, local/system flood control, biological needs and other multipurpose objectives) for Libby, Dworshak, Albeni Falls, and the Willamette System,

• coordinating and executing the National Weather Service models for the Willamette System

• tributary ResSim modeling using ESP data for planning, • coordinating with local stakeholders, • communicating operational plans to CBWM, • preparing Technical Management Team (TMT) analyses and support and • coordinating special operations.

To the extent possible CBWM will handle the regional coordination and system operations, which will include the following functions:

• making final system regulation decisions and issuing teletypes (which balance power, local/system flood control, biological needs and other multipurpose objectives) for lower Snake and mainstem Columbia projects,

• coordinating and executing the National Weather Service models (including 10-day and STP runs) for the Columbia Basin,

• system ResSim modeling using ESP data for planning, • Treaty coordination, • coordinating and making final regulation decisions (if needed) during power

emergencies, • chairing TMT, • communicating operational plans to Districts, • coordinating unit outages and • coordinating/issuing system guidance for flood control, power and other

requirements. The RRIT believes that impacts to stakeholders can be minimized by instituting a morning briefing conference call that includes CBWM, the Districts and other key agencies like the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the National Weather Service’s Northwest River Forecast Center (RFC) or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). These morning meetings will be essential to exchange information and keep

Appendix A: page 1 of 38


offices apprised of upcoming issues. The team recommends that CBWM should be included in the District’s coordination of tributary regulation to ensure local and system needs are met. The recommendation described in this report hinges on the idea that the Northwestern Division offices need to function as a collaborative team. The intent is that this cooperation will cultivate improved relationships and yield better project operations while minimizing impacts to Corps stakeholders. This document will focus on meeting the transfer of functions as stipulated above as opposed to the FTE transfers as outlined in the Phase I End State. The RRIT is recommending that the transition of the regulation responsibility for the Willamette projects be accelerated to begin in spring 2008. The early transition will allow for additional training and testing during the conservation season and will help alleviate some of the work load from the understaffed RCC and NWP Reservoir Regulation Section (EC-HR) offices. Final official transfer of Willamette regulation to NWP will be done when certain conditions are met, including having SOPs in place, having completed a pre-season flood exercise, and completing the documentation and regional coordination and notification. The details of the transition plan are outlined in Section 2.2.



TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Existing State ............................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Willamette Tributary Operation Transition Plan ...................................................... 5 2.3 Columbia Tributary Operation Transition Plan ........................................................ 9 3.0 DELIVERABLES......................................................................................................... 12 4.0 STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................................................... 16 5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................. 17 5.1 Willamette Tributary Operation.............................................................................. 17 5.2 Columbia Tributary Operations .............................................................................. 17 5.3 Overall Guidance for Columbia and Willamette Tributary Operations.................. 17 6.0 HUMAN RESOURCES................................................................................................. 18 7.0 COORDINATION........................................................................................................ 19 8.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS........................................................................... 20 9.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 22 10.1 Willamette Tributary Operation............................................................................ 23 10.2 Columbia Tributary Operation.............................................................................. 23 11.0 CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS (COOP)................................................................... 23 11.1 Short Term COOP................................................................................................. 24 11.2 Long Term COOP................................................................................................. 24 11.2 Other COOP Issues ............................................................................................... 24 12.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING PLAN ..................................................... 25 12.1 Training Plan......................................................................................................... 25 12.2 Testing Plan .......................................................................................................... 27 13.0 SCHEDULE.............................................................................................................. 30 14.0 INTERDEPENDENCIES.............................................................................................. 30 15.0 PHASE III ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 31

Sub-Appendix_A .............................................................................................................. 32 Sub-Appendix B................................................................................................................ 36

1.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................. 36 1.1 Communication....................................................................................................... 36 1.2 Automation ............................................................................................................. 37 1.3 Work Redundancy .................................................................................................. 37 1.4 Tools ....................................................................................................................... 38



2.0 BACKGROUND This section provides a short summary of the existing state and the Willamette and Columbia Basin transition plans.

2.1 Existing State The system and tributary reservoir regulation is primarily performed by the Reservoir Control Center (RCC), Northwestern Division. At full staffing levels, the team is composed of one chief and twelve staff members. In general this section is responsible for the short and long term planning for the main Corps projects in the Columbia Basin and its tributaries, including Libby, Albeni Falls, Dworshak, Chief Joseph, Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor, McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville Dams. This office is also responsible for the real-time regulation of the 13 Willamette Valley projects. Other non-Corps Columbia Basin projects are coordinated with and monitored for compliance with Corps issued flood control guidance. The basin dams are operated as a system to ensure compliance with the International Treaty and to maximize flood damage reduction, power generation and benefits for ESA listed species. The full list of responsibilities of this section is given in Appendix A. The Water Management Section in the Seattle District (CENWS-EC-TB-WM) is composed of a supervisory hydraulic engineer, senior water manager and currently four hydraulic engineers that perform flood control studies, hydrologic analyses, hydraulic engineering tasks for all projects in the district and the reservoir regulation (both day to day and flood events) for Western Washington projects. In addition, the section employs a system administrator (50%-time), database manager, field technician, meteorologist, water quality specialist and two hydrologic technicians (one vacant). The majority of work this section performs as it pertains to Columbia Basin Reservoir Regulation is to assist in ESA coordination and implementation activities and to perform Libby, Albeni Falls and Chief Joseph Dam Operation activities as it pertains to coordination with the local public (annual public meetings, coordination with PAO, addressing request for change in flood stage, etc.). Staff in this section participate on multiple Project Delivery Teams created to meet requirements of respective Biological Opinions and are also key contributors to the Upper Columbia EIS. The full list of responsibilities of this section is given in Appendix A. A description of the technical resources used to complete this work is provided in Section 9. The Hydrology Section in the Walla Walla District is composed of a supervisory hydraulic engineer, eight hydraulic engineers and two hydrologic technicians. The team performs flood control studies, hydrologic analyses, hydraulic engineering tasks for all projects in the district and the reservoir regulation (both day to day and flood events) for Corps projects within the Snake River basin and the Section 7 projects that reside within district boundaries. This section assists in ESA coordination and implementation activities and coordinates with the local public for Dworshak, Lower Snake projects, Boise system, Mill Creek and eight Section 7 projects (including for annual public



meetings, coordination with PAO, addressing request for change in flood stage, etc.). Team members participate on multiple Project Delivery Teams created to meet requirements of respective Biological Opinions and are also key contributors to water management and water temperature modeling. The full list of responsibilities of this section is given in Appendix A. The Portland District Reservoir Regulation and Water Quality Section (CENWP-EC-HR) is responsible for water management, water quality, sediment quality, and data management functions. The section is composed of a supervisory hydraulic engineer, three sediment quality staff, two water quality staff, and three hydraulic engineers that perform the water management functions. The water management team performs flood control studies, water supply functions, and conservation planning for projects in the district and the Section 7 projects that reside within district boundaries. In addition, the team assists with ESA coordination and implementation activities and coordination with the public in the form of annual public meetings, coordination with PAO, public inquiries, etc. Staff also participates on multiple Project Delivery Teams created to meet requirements of respective Biological Opinions and are also key contributors to water management and water temperature modeling. Although real-time regulation of the Willamette projects is performed at the Reservoir Control Center located at Division, NWP water management performs a number of Willamette related duties. Duties include providing day-to-day coordination, technical support, and operational review to RCC; forecast interpretation, evaluation, and application to develop a coordinated conservation operation plan for the system; coordination and preparation of the Willamette Conservation Operation Plan; routine updates to Water Control Manuals; preparation and/or review of actions, reports, and studies related to Water Management (e.g. deviations, special studies, and annual reports) throughout the year; briefings; and input to ESA evaluations. A detailed list of Willamette responsibilities is given in Appendix A.

2.2 Willamette Tributary Operation Transition Plan The transition plan for transferring Willamette regulation duties from CBWM to NWP will be broken into three phases. This three phase transition plan is underway to ensure proper training and tools are in place prior to the formal transfer. The three phases include a training phase (Nov 2007 – Feb 2008); a testing phase (Mar – Apr 2008) and a transition phase (May – Sep 2008) culminating in official transfer of the reservoir regulation duties on 01 October 2008. This transition schedule will allow for additional training and testing during the conservation season and will help alleviate some of the work load from the understaffed RCC and NWP Reservoir Regulation Section (EC-HR) offices. Final official transfer of Willamette regulation to NWP will be done when certain conditions are met, including having SOPs in place, having completed the flood exercise described below, and completing the documentation and regional coordination and notification. Table 1 outlines the timeline for transition and is shown at the end of this section. Transfer of real time regulation duties will be formalized with an interoffice memo. As part of Phase I, the training phase, EC-HR has already sent two staff to RCC as a refresher and for training. This allowed staff to become familiar with the most current



regulation products, gain experience with power scheduling, and to regulate during high water. In early February, NWP sent an EIT to train at RCC for approximately two weeks. With the EIT trained this person will be available for back-up regulation and to assist with conservation season planning this year. This assistance is considered important, since final staff transfers between offices will not occur until later leaving NWP understaffed initially. EC-HR will have to draw on other staffing resources during this initial part of the transition because they will be responsible for the real-time regulation along with their previous responsibility of developing the conservation plan. Once the training has been completed, Phase II will begin, the testing phase. In March and April NWP will assume regulation responsibilities under close coordination with RCC staff. Final decisions/responsibility will reside at RCC with modeling and scheduling performed by NWP. RCC will review and approve schedules prior to being sent to the projects. Goals and objectives will be established to gauge when level of RCC oversight can be cut back. Anticipate two to four weeks of close oversight, gradually decreasing as each office becomes more comfortable in capabilities and awareness. After the first month, the oversight will be reduced to bi-weekly or weekly check-in calls to discuss operations, lessons learned, and information for SOPs. More frequent coordination will take place in the event of high water or other special operations. The bi-weekly or weekly calls will continue for approximately three months. After this, RCC will be available as a technical resource for consultation and backup support. In addition to the bi-weekly or weekly check-in calls, both NWP and CBWM will continue with the regular briefing held on Thursdays among all three Districts, Division, and the RFC. Goals, format, and agenda for this existing meeting will be evaluated and modified if necessary. An additional morning coordination call is being added as part of the transition and is described in Section 14 - Interdependencies. This call will include all three Districts, Division, BPA, and possibly BOR. EC-HR and RCC will also continue with regular interagency meetings during conservation season and planned Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration (WATER) meetings. Prior to March 1, the TMC will send notification to key stakeholders at BPA and RFC informing them of the transition to Phase II and providing the new contacts information for regulation at NWP. An official letter will be sent by the TMC later in the summer to notify the internal and external stakeholders (BPA, RFC, Willamette Valley Project, etc.) that may be affected by the transition. A meeting was held in the Willamette Valley in February to explain the transition and to hand off regulation duties from RCC to NWP. This meeting should be attended by staff from NWP, CBWM, and the Willamette Project. EC-HR assumed responsibility for Willamette conservation modeling as of January. This modeling will be executed by the Hydrologic, Coastal, and River Engineering Section (EC-HY) and therefore will not be a direct workload item for EC-HR this year. Training is not necessary for the modeling transition as the model was developed by EC-HY staff and due to past experience running the Willamette ResSim model and reviewing model



input and output. EC-HR will continue to develop and write the Conservation Plan and will coordinate with CBWM as appropriate. An updated SOP will be written to capture these changes. During and after the transition, primary regulation will be performed in EC-HR with back-up regulation performed by other sections in the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Branch (EC-H) of NWP and CBWM. EC-HR currently has one staff available for real-time regulation and will have up to four staff available for back-up regulation. After use of NWP back-up regulators has been exhausted, RCC will have up to three staff available. At least 24 hours of notification is desired for RCC to provide backup, except in the case of an emergency. A training plan will be set up to ensure backup regulators from all offices are trained and ready to perform the regulation duties. Backup regulators should expect to spend two to four weeks on refresher training annually. During the transition EC-HR and RCC will share weekend on-call duty. During that time, half the time EC-HR will be on call and half the time RCC will be on call. After the final official transfer, EC-HR will assume all weekend on-call duty. EC-HR regulators have already established access to RCC and RFC modeling tools including the ResSim model for Conservation modeling, the RFS model, and excel spreadsheets for post-processing model runs. If additional problems with connectivity or basin familiarity and modeling issues arise they will be addressed during the early transition period. EC-HR is in the process of setting up a direct phone line with the RFC to simplify communication. Until that line has been established, EC-HR and RFC will communicate over the standard phone lines. The RFC is considered a key partner and all efforts, including meetings and informational visits to the RFC office will be considered in order to maintain a good working relationship with this Corps partner. Primary and back-up regulators will participate in hydropower training at BPA in April to learn about the Willamette power projects. BPA can provide information on the value of Willamette power, including load following and transmission stability. As with the RFC, BPA is another important partner for the Corps and EC-HR will interface with BPA personnel on a frequent basis including daily power schedules and biological opinion implementation. EC-HR will conduct a pre-season table-top flood exercise at the Willamette Valley Project office in early fall prior to the start of this next flood season. The flood exercise should be attended by staff from EC-HR, RCC, Willamette Valley Project operators, and other staff as appropriate. This meeting should also be an opportunity to discuss current fish issues and other items that will impact regulation. The flood exercise/refresher meeting should be held annually. One more staff member will be added to EC-HR to help perform all of the additional Willamette water control-related duties taken on by EC-HR. The EIT will no longer be



able to assist with conservation planning after this year, but should be able to assist with back-up regulation. This additional staff member should be added as soon after the Willamette regulation transfer to NWP EC-HR and definitely no later than prior to the beginning of the next flood season, which coincides with the new fiscal year. Currently, it is envisioned that real-time regulation of the Willamette by EC-HR will be the primary duty of one individual (75% of the time), with the second individual handling more of the longer time frame associated tasks, various coordination requirements, including the Biological Opinion implementation, and special projects. The second individual will have to be fully trained in real time regulation and modeling and would spend about 25% of their time on a routine basis involved with real time regulation, including short term modeling, coordination and flow and power generation schedule preparation. This conceptual arrangement would allow some situational flexibility as to proportion of time spent on real time regulation by the two individuals. It is also implied that the two individuals could trade roles, but the alternating of roles should not occur more frequently then on an annual basis. The Willamette regulation duties will be incorporated and integrated into the overall Reservoir Regulation Section. The team responsible for Willamette regulation should be located in close proximity to the Rogue regulator, who would serve as one of the key backup regulators for the Willamette. In turn, this larger regulation team will interface with other EC-HR staff and the Data Systems Integration Team (DSIT) on issues of water quality, data needs, special studies, and other related topics. In the longer term transition and beyond, coordination with RCC will continue on a weekly if not more frequent basis. It is expected that the Corps “virtual” regulation team (EC-HR, key persons in other NWP sections especially EC-HY, and key persons in RCC) will include cross-training, annual refresher training and other interchange to keep the greater Corps water management team vital and viable. The final Phase II NWP Reservoir Regulation functional staffing would consist of a supervisor, three full-responsibility regulators, three trained backup regulators (from various offices), and additional water quality staff as to be defined as part of the WQ Transition team work.. The responsibilities for regulating, modeling, and planning of the Willamette and the general responsibilities among offices and sections (EC-HR, EC-HY, and RCC) will be documented in an SOP. The interaction and communication plan with key partnering agencies (RFC, BPA) will also be documented there. Table 1. Willamette Transition Timeline Timeframe Action November 2007 thru January 2008

• Key EC-HR staff attend RCC for training

January 2008 • Install phone line in EC-HR for communication with the RFC.

• Conservation modeling transferred to EC-HR. February 2008 • NWP EIT attends RCC for training.



February/March 2008 • Regulation will transfer to NWP EC-HR with oversight by RCC.

• RCC will review and approve schedules prior to being sent to the Project.

• TMC sends official letters to internal and external stakeholders.

March 2008 • EC-HR and RCC staff meet with Willamette Valley Project.

March 2008 thru May 2008

• Bi-weekly (or less frequent) check-in calls between EC-HR and RCC.

• Write SOP for documenting new responsibilities. • Power overview training at BPA

June 2008 thru September 2008

• Continue writing SOP for documenting new responsibilities. • EC-HR will attend the BPA training • EC-HR will participate in the mock power emergency

operation in August • EC-HR will conduct a table-top flood exercise at the

Willamette Valley Project October 2008 • Transition Complete

2.3 Columbia Tributary Operation Transition Plan The transition plan for the Columbia tributaries needs to be phased in throughout the spring months to take advantage of the unique training opportunities that the spring freshet provides as well as the challenges faced in the regional forum, TMT. The intense training and additional duties will tax the Seattle and Walla Walla District staff as well as the existing RCC staff who will be conducting the training. District management should consider adding the end state FTE before the October 2008 transition date in order to successfully accomplish the WM mission throughout the Division in 2008 and take the most advantage of the spring 2008 training opportunity. Table 2 highlights the key dates of this transition plan. The Columbia tributary transition will begin in late February or early March as the Districts begin training to prepare long term operational strategies for Libby, Albeni Falls and Dworshak. The ResSim model will be used as the primary tool for this task. A team examined the mechanics of running the ResSim model in three different offices and has recommended an appropriate platform for this process. Also in March a four day ResSim workshop was completed. In the workshop, staff from HEC will conducted three days of training to cover basic refresher topics and more advanced scripting topics. One day was spent on the Columbia Basin ResSim model to familiarize the districts with the regional model. After this training, the Districts and NWD-RCC executed a test run of a full-system Res-Sim run. The model will continue to be used throughout refill when needed to develop the project operating strategies. Key spring operating strategies will include the Libby VARQ flood



control operations and implementation of the sturgeon pulse, the Dworshak flood control shift operation and the Albeni Falls spring refill. RCC will be working closely with the districts as they learn both the model mechanics and the operating criteria for the projects. RCC will likely be preparing some model runs in tandem. Internal conference calls will begin in April also as the Districts begin preparing longer term operational plans. It is expected that these calls will occur one or two days a week, or more often if needed. These calls will form the basis for the regional conference calls later in the season. The appropriate format and timing of the calls will be determined with input from some of the other participants from BPA, RFC and BOR. Seattle District will be sending Amy Reese and Lynne Melder to RCC for 1 week cross training assignments in April and May (one at a time). Walla Walla District has sent Stephen Hall to RCC for a 6 month developmental assignment from January – June 2008. These assignments will be opportunities for District staff to get familiar with tools and products. During these assignments each District will get to spend some time with Don Faulkner discussing the outage plans and how they are developed. Since outages are an integral part of project operations, this will be valuable information. In addition to the introduction to outage planning, staff will be trained on the existing TMT products. The Districts can begin preparing these products periodically in the spring with RCC oversight. Additionally some training on preparing, coordinating and sending teletypes should occur. In May or June the regional stakeholders should be wrapped into the Regional Operations Call. Local flood control and the final stages of refill will need to be closely coordinated with BOR, BPA and the interdependent WM team. Like Seattle, Walla Walla District will establish a single phone number that will ring on several key regulators phones. This will simplify communication with the District offices. In July and August project operations will be less complex than in the spring, so additional training and tasks can be added to the transition plan. As part of COOP planning, Seattle and Walla Walla will test their ability to run portions of the NWS-RFS model run (specifically the Kootenay, Pend Oreille and Lower Snake runs). At this time the BPA training session will be held which is described in section 12.1. In August teletypes will begin transitioning from RCC to the Districts. Districts will begin by taking the lead for operations coordination and preparing drafts of the teletypes. RCC will review and approve schedules prior to being sent to the projects. Anticipate four to six weeks of close oversight, gradually decreasing as each office becomes more comfortable in capabilities and awareness. Also in August a mock power emergency drill will be executed as well as a system table-top exercise (as described in section 12.2). In late September the level of oversight will be reduced to participation in the Regional Operations Call to discuss operations, lessons learned, and information for SOPs. More frequent coordination will take place in the event of high water or other special operations. RCC will continue to be available as a technical resource for consultation



and backup support in emergencies. Final official transfer of tributary regulation to the Districts will be done when certain conditions are met, including having SOPs in place and having completed the ResSim training and mock power emergency exercise. Throughout the transition period management staff will join technical staff in monthly check-in calls to discuss progress and lessons learned. As was documented in the interoffice memo between Portland District and RCC the level of oversight (and final transfer) will be adjusted based on meeting metrics on quality, timeliness, having sufficiently trained primary and backup staff, having adequate after hour coverage and having adequate emergency preparedness. By August, the TMC, with help from the communication team, will officially notify internal and external stakeholders of the transition, listed in Section 4.0. During the Libby and Dworshak annual meetings, TMT, RMPG and other regional forums the transition of tributary regulation from CBWM to the District offices will be discussed in detail, including providing new contact information and communication protocol. Eventually at least one additional staff member will be added to NWS-EC-TB-WM and one half-time staff member to NWW-EC-H to help perform the additional District water control-related duties. These additional staff members should be acquired as soon as possible to help with future workload and to take advantage of the many training opportunities that will begin as early as March 2008. For NWS, it is envisioned that there will be one main Libby/Albeni Falls regulator, with two additional regulators fully trained to provide backup when needed. These additional regulators will be PDT members for BiOp related activities so will be very familiar with project operations. For NWW, it is envisioned that there will be one main Dworshak regulator working 50% of the time, with two additional regulators fully trained to provide backup when needed. These additional regulators will be PDT members for other project activities so will be very familiar with project operations. Annual refresher courses will be required to ensure there is proper training and redundancy to cover 24 hours per day project operations for all offices, including CBWM. Please see Section 9 for further information on modeling tools; and Section 12 for further information on training and testing of the transition plan, including BPA training, mock power emergency exercise, etc. Table 2. Columbia Tributary Transition Timeline Timeframe Action January thru June 2008

• Stephen Hall from Walla Walla will work in RCC to cross-train



February 2008 • ResSim models transferred to Districts. • Project meeting with Libby, Albeni Falls, NWS and RCC to

discuss transfer of regulation responsibility March 2008 • Additional staffing as soon as possible at respective location

to assist in workload leveling and take the best advantage of the spring 2008 training opportunities.

March 2008 • ResSim workshop in Seattle. • Districts begin preparing long-term operational strategies

using ResSim models and relaying plans to RCC. • Begin twice weekly internal coordination calls

April 14- 18, 2008 • Amy Reese to RCC for 1 week cross-training April thru September 2008

• Monthly management check-in calls

April 28-May 02, 2008

• Lynne Melder to RCC for 1 week cross-training

March thru June 2008

• Begin preparing TMT products • Focus on VARQ operations and sturgeon pulse at Libby • Focus on Dworshak flood control shift and final refill • Focus on Albeni Falls refill

May 2008 • Establish Regional Operations Call with other key stakeholders

June 2008 • Install common phone line in Walla Walla for communication with the stakeholders.

July/August 2008 • Districts set up RFC connectivity and test RFS model runs.

August 2008 • BPA power training with Districts • Mock power emergency exercise • TMC sends official letters to internal and external

stakeholders. • System Flood Control Tabletop Exercise

August thru September 2008

• Transition teletypes to Districts with RCC oversight • Continue writing SOP for documenting new responsibilities.

October 2008 • Transition Complete

3.0 DELIVERABLES This section describes the products that CBWM and Districts will deliver in-house and to the region to achieve successful tributary regulation of Libby, Dworshak, Albeni Falls and the Willamette Valley projects. 3.1 Willamette Tributary Operations

a. Teletypes – A teletype is a set of official instructions that is prepared by the regulators and sent to the project control room operators via the CBT Web Messenger. Each teletype is coordinated with the appropriate stakeholders beforehand and typically lists pertinent operating information for the projects



to implement. The Willamette power schedule teletypes for Lookout Point/Dexter, Green Peter/Foster and Detroit/Big Cliff, the non-power teletypes for Fall Creek, Cottage Grove, Dorena, Blue River and Fern Ridge and the baseload teletypes for Hills Creek and Cougar will be coordinated and prepared by Portland District. The power schedule teletypes will require coordination with BPA for power generation scheduling. On occasion other stakeholders may be included in the coordination process including fishery agencies or other district or project staff.

b. Forecast Models – Various model runs are prepared for the Willamette Basin. Each run serves a different purpose and may be most useful during certain seasons.

1) RFS Model Runs – The RFS Model Runs, also called the short-term model runs, will be prepared by NWP. These model runs are prepared jointly with the RFC two to five times a week, year round.

2) ResSim Runs – NWP will be responsible for the execution and maintenance of the Willamette ResSim model. These runs will yield a forecast for the basin using NRCS or ESP water supply forecasts. Runs are mainly performed in the spring as part of refill and conservation season planning.

c. Regional Coordination Teams - there are several multi-agency teams that discuss operations.

1) Weekly Regional Operations Call (new) – Districts and CBWM will be responsible for participating in this multi-agency call to develop future operational strategies and relay those plans to the appropriate people.

2) Willamette Interagency Group – NWP will continue to be responsible for facilitating the interagency group meetings during conservation season.

3) Willamette Action Team for Environmental Restoration (WATER) – This group will be formed as part of the BiOp requirements. NWP will participate in WATER meetings and be responsible for preparing products.

3.2 Columbia Tributary Operations

a. Teletypes – A teletype is a set of official instructions that is prepared by the regulators and sent to the project control room operators via the CBT Web Messenger. Each teletype is coordinated with the appropriate stakeholders beforehand and typically lists pertinent operating information for the projects to implement. Libby, Albeni Falls and Dworshak teletypes will be coordinated and prepared by the respective District office. These projects will require coordination with BPA for power generation scheduling and RCC for informational purposes. On occasion other stakeholders may be included in the coordination process including fishery agencies, other district or division staff or Tribes.



b. Forecast Models – Various model runs are prepared for the Columbia Basin. Each run serves a different purpose and may be most useful during certain seasons.

1) RFS Model Runs – The RFS Model Runs, also called the short-term model runs, will continue to be prepared by RCC. These model runs are prepared jointly with the RFC. The frequency of these runs varies depending on season. Typically the runs are executed twice a week throughout the year; however during the spring freshet (or during local flood control events) the models are executed three to five times a week. Coordination for the project regulation at Libby, Dworshak and Albeni Falls will involve District staff.

2) Tributary ResSim Runs – The Districts will be responsible for the execution and maintenance of the Kootenay, Pend Oreille and Lower Snake ResSim models. These models will be executed as part of a larger Columbia Basin run that uses the ESP inflows prepared by the RFC. RCC will be responsible for the execution and maintenance of the Spokane model. The tributary runs may be executed more frequently as headwater operational plans are developed, perhaps twice a month from January through March, less frequently during the fall and winter, and as often as weekly during the spring freshet. These runs can be executed individually as needed, or as part of the system runs

3) Mainstem ResSim Runs – RCC will be responsible for the execution and maintenance of the Mainstem Columbia model. Outputs generated from the tributary models will become input to the Mainstem run to yield a forecast for the Basin using ESP inflows. These runs are mainly used in the spring to aid in refill planning for Grand Coulee and may be executed weekly from April through May. If Mainstem ResSim runs are done outside of the spring freshet, then an ESP HYSSR run must also be done as it provides inputs for the model.

4) ESP HYSSR – RCC will be responsible for the preparation of the ESP HYSSR model for use at TMT or as preparation for ResSim runs. Coordination for the project regulation at Libby, Dworshak and Albeni Falls will involve District staff. Historically the ESP HYSSR model was executed once a month from December through March and was used for TMT support. A TSR run (an ESP HYSSR run that uses Treaty logic) will be required for each Mainstem ResSim run to get the Canadian Treaty operation.

5) STP – The Single Trace Process, also called the long-term model run, will continue to be prepared by RCC. These model runs are prepared jointly with the RFC once a week, year round. Coordination for the project regulation at Libby, Dworshak and Albeni Falls will involve District staff.

c. Technical Management Team



1) TMT Chair - The TMT Chair will remain at CBWM and will coordinate Libby, Dworshak and Albeni Falls project operations with the regional forum. Pre-coordination with the Districts will take place in advance of the TMT meeting. If any TMT products are needed, the Chair will be responsible for coordinating this work with the appropriate District.

2) Products – The Districts will be responsible for the preparation of products in support of TMT for Libby, Dworshak and Albeni Falls and may need to present products to the TMT. Products include Libby and Dworshak ESP analyzes of sturgeon pulse and flow augmentation., ESP hydrographs, box whisker inflows. Also need comparison of Corps and RFC ESP volumes. STP graphs of operational options are also needed.

d. Regional Coordination Teams - there are several multi-agency teams that discuss operations.

1) Weekly Regional Operations Call (new) – Districts and CBWM will be responsible for participating in this multi-agency call to develop future operational strategies and relay those plans to the appropriate people. Starting in May.

2) Nez Perce Operations Board – Walla Walla District will be responsible for participation in determining the 200 kaf September water release plan. Board meets in July/August.

3) Albeni Falls Annual Drawdown Meeting – NWS will participate in this meeting to formulate the SOR for the winter operation. Occurs in September.

4) Annual Public Meetings at Libby and Dworshak – Districts will be responsible for the preparation and presentation of project operations. Hasn’t been a Dworshak meeting in recent years due to lack of public interest. Libby meeting in May.

5) Kootenay Valley River Initiative (KVRI) – Districts will be responsible for periodical participation in meetings.

6) Flathead Lake Monthly Operations Calls – NWS and CBWM will participate on these monthly calls and also in discussion on the Flathead Lake Drought Management Plan (DMP). CBWM will continue to review, if necessary, the potential effects of the DMP on system operations.

7) River Management Policy Group meeting bi-monthly e. Treaty Products and Support

1) CBWM will continue to participate as members of the Columbia River Treaty providing input to new agreements and tracking treaty operations real time.

2) CBWM will continue to participate in the weekly Treaty Coordination Calls with BPA, BC Hydro and Fortis relaying operational plans for Libby and Albeni Falls to the other agencies.



4.0 STAKEHOLDERS The team developed a list of key stakeholders that will need to be informed of the end state changes. Some stakeholders will require more coordination and involvement early on due to their close working relationship to the Corps including BPA, RFC and BOR. The affected projects (Willamette Valley, Libby, Albeni Falls and Dworshak) will also need to be folded into the process early on. Since the end state roles and responsibilities have been decided, a meeting in early January was held with BPA, RFC and BOR to outline the plan and address questions and concerns. Meetings with the projects occurred in February and March. Key stakeholders that will undergo the greatest impact due to the reorganization – these stakeholders will be coordinated first and the most thoroughly:

• National Weather Service – River Forecast Center (RFC) – RFC will be provided updates monthly on the latest drafts and decisions made by the transition teams.

• Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) – BPA will be hosting an in-house power training program, as well as helping the Corps to developing a mock power emergency exercise. Representatives will also be kept informed monthly on the latest drafts and decisions made by the transition teams.

• US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) • Affected Corps projects (Willamette Valley, Libby, Albeni Falls and

Dworshak) – Transition team members met with Libby and Albeni Falls project staff February 20th to discuss the reorganization and the transition plan. A meeting was held March 19th with Dworshak staff. CBWM and NWP met with the Willamette Valley staff February 27th.

• NWD Offices of Counsel

Stakeholders that will need to be notified of the reorganization: • Crown Corporations, BC Hydro, Fortis B.C., Columbia Power Corporation • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • NOAA-Fisheries • Columbia River Basin Tribes • State Fishery Agencies: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)

• United States Geological Survey (USGS) • Middle Columbia P.U.Ds • Environment Canada • Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Washington

Department of Ecology (WDOE) (maybe?) • Columbia River Towboat Association • NWD Fish Office



• All cities and towns that have flood control protection as provided by these projects

The communication plan will include how and when each of these stakeholders will be notified of the reorganization.

5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES This section describes roles and responsibilities when the end state is achieved.

5.1 Willamette Tributary Operation Portland District Reservoir Regulation section (CENWP-EC-HR) will assume real-time regulation responsibilities for the Willamette Valley projects including short and long term modeling, preparing schedules, coordination with BPA (and other stakeholders) and the projects, developing flood damage reduction operations, and interfacing with the public. Conservation modeling will be the responsibility of the Portland District. CBWM will assume a secondary role which will include reviewing and approving Water Control Manuals and keeping apprised of operations through weekly briefings and WATER meetings. Power emergencies will be handled through CBWM and coordinated with NWP to minimize impacts to BPA.

5.2 Columbia Tributary Operations Seattle District will assume responsibilities for regulating Libby and Albeni Falls dams. Walla Walla will assume responsibility for regulating Dworshak Dam. The Districts will coordinate and issue teletypes and will provide regulation guidance for the project operations to RCC. RCC will input the operational plans into the National Weather Service models (RFS and STP). RCC will continue to handle Treaty coordination and will relay operational plans for Libby and Albeni Falls to Canada. The Districts will provide TMT support to the TMT Chair (in RCC) by preparing analyses, products and presentations as requested. RCC will coordinate with the districts before all TMT meetings and continue to act as the single point of contact within the Regional Forum. The districts will coordinate on a technical level with other agencies as appropriate. All offices will participate in regular Regional Operations conference calls to ensure a cohesive operation of the projects. During unplanned emergencies (assuming it is not a system power emergency) BPA would coordinate directly with the appropriate District office, and the District would then notify/coordinate with CBWM. It is expected that this would be the exception, not the rule as most of the coordination will be handled through the Regional Operations Call.

5.3 Overall Guidance for Columbia and Willamette Tributary Operations As outlined in the Phase I Fact Sheet, the Districts will “follow Water Control Manuals, Water Management Plans and other applicable guidance to meet control point requirements provided by Division”. The original concept of the control point involved flow targets set by CBWM and implemented by the Districts. The RRIT re-defined this approach so that the Districts determined the flows needed to meet the different guidance provided by CBWM:



• Seasonal system flood control guidance for the Columbia River Basin (the Willamette Basin has fixed operating curves and so will not receive periodic guidance from CBWM).

• System flood control requirements during system flood events. • Coordinated operations for power emergencies.

The districts will determine the project operations to meet this CBWM guidance, as well as meet requirements from Biological Opinions, Water Control Plans and any Technical Management Team System Operation Requests (TMT SORs). Any deviations to either the Water Control Plans or the System Flood Control Guidance will need to be submitted as a formal deviation request to CBWM.

6.0 HUMAN RESOURCES A preliminary evaluation of man-hours was conducted as a comparison between the current conditions and the proposed end state. The details of this analysis are included in Appendix A. In summary with the transfer of duties described in Section 5.0 (Roles and Responsibilities) the staff in RCC will be reduced 0.8 FTE for Columbia and 1 FTE for Willamette operations, for an overall reduction of 1.8 FTE. Walla Walla District will assume an additional 0.5 FTE worth of work, Seattle and Portland Districts will assume 1 FTE each; not including additional work to be transferred from other transition teams. This is a net increase of 0.7 FTE across the 4 offices and is mainly attributed to the increased coordination that will be necessary to sustain an interdependent team. A reduction in RCC staff from 5 to 3.2 regulators will need to be carefully considered. Since people do not evenly divide into portions of an FTE, it may be assumed that 3 people work full time in RCC and a fourth person transfer in for 3 months (April thru June) when workload is heaviest. In addition it is expected that RCC will supply back-up regulators for all 3 District offices during emergencies. When the final CBWM reorganization is developed in Phase III additional staffing resources should be built in to the plan. That may involve merging staff from other CBWM offices so more than 3 people are trained in regulation and work is shared across offices. Back-up regulators may also come from District offices which will require a large initial investment in training and long term on-going training (yearly) to keep people up to speed. Although the FTE will remain the same, additional people can be brought in to help with critical situations. Since WY 2009 will be the first year that the Districts are running solo with tributary regulation additional support may be required from RCC. The RRIT recommends that RCC reduce 1 FTE now, which already occurred through attrition in September 2007, and delays the final staff reduction 0.8 FTE until late summer 2009. The RRIT recommends that the Human Resources Team become involved in helping management move forward to start acquiring the needed resources at NWP, NWS and NWW. Please see the Human Resources Team Transition report for more details on this task.



7.0 COORDINATION In order to successfully reach the end state, coordination must take place between the reorganization teams, internal and external stakeholders, and the Transition Management Committee (TMC). Coordination between the Division, districts, and stakeholders will continue after the transition is completed. Post-transition coordination is discussed in greater detail in Section 14. Internally, the RRIT has met regularly in person or via conference call to develop the transition plan. The team has met in both Portland and Seattle and plans to meet in Walla Walla at a later date. Additional coordination will continue to take place via conference calls and e-mail. The RRIT has been closely coordinating tasks with the Modeling and Forecasting Team since the two missions are intertwined. The team leads from each of these groups have attended the other’s meetings, as appropriate, to ensure full coordination. The RRIT team lead is also meeting semi-regularly with the other team leads to discuss issues as they arise. In addition, meetings between the team leads and the TMC have taken place and will continue throughout the early stages of the transition. As the transition plans are developed, they will be reviewed and commented on by the other transition teams and the TMC. A meeting was held in January to discuss the transition with the external stakeholders. Both BPA and RFC have expressed a desire to be included in key discussions and be updated on team progress. Currently the RRIT team lead has coordinated with these stakeholders and agreed to send email updates to Robin Mackay and Steve Kerns at BPA and Harold Opitz at RFC monthly outlining the progress to date. These updates will discuss upcoming topics to allow these stakeholders the opportunity to engage in the process. The RRIT plans to work with the stakeholders to address their concerns and incorporate their input where possible, while continuing to meet the objectives outlined in the charter. In addition, BPA will be actively involved in developing power training and a mock power emergency exercise. A “wiki” is software that allows registered users to collaboratively create, edit, link, and organize the content of a website. A CBWM Reorganization wiki (herein referred to as “the wiki”) has been established on the Corps NWD intranet to allow for up-to-date coordination and tracking of training, documentation and testing of the transition plan. Each transition group has their own page and can view the latest status of the other teams, as well. The RRIT has been actively using the wiki to track their tasks and also coordinate with each other and other teams. While this transition plan lists tasks, milestones, etc, the latest most up to date reorganization information will be contained on the wiki. The link to the wiki is: https://137.161.202.8/wiki/doku.php?id=transition A communication plan will be developed to assist stakeholders and other teams in knowing who the new points of contact are and the general procedure for coordinating reservoir regulation activities. For this activity we will need the support of the Communication Team.


https://137.161.202.8/wiki/doku.php?id=transition


8.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS The Team has discussed and identified some of the required documentation necessary for training, defining roles and responsibilities and clarifying operating protocols. Some of the products already exist and will just need to be updated, some will need major revisions and others have not been developed yet. The documentation requirements along with estimated completion dates and resources required are outlined for the Willamette tributary operations in Table 3 and the Columbia tributary operations in Table 4 and will be continually updated on the wiki (as described in Section 7.0). Table 3. Willamette Tributary Operation Documentation Requirements Due Date Task Assigned Man-

Days

30 April

Willamette SOP – documents many of the tools, notes and operating criteria that has been used by CBWM to operate the Willamette Valley projects

NWP (Mary Karen Scullion)

1 week

31 May

Update and ResSim SOP – documents the steps to input the NRCS forecast or ESP inflows for use in the ResSim model as well as how to execute a ResSim model run

CBWM 1 day

31 May

Update Notification Lists Template, then establish for each project - documents key personnel for various Columbia issues

All Unknown

31 May

Update and Post Regional Power Emergency Protocol - documents the regional criteria for declaring a power emergency

CBWM Unknown

31 May

New SOP outlining roles and responsibilities – Replaces Willamette Basin SOP between CBWM Portland and CENWP dated January 2005

NWP and CBWM 1 week

31 May


CBWM Unknown

30 Jun

Write and Review Corps Power Emergency Response - documents the internal process for the Corps to respond to a power emergency using the regional criteria

CBWM (Don Faulkner) and All

1 week

31 Jul

Write and Review System Flood Emergency Protocol (joint effort between Modeling and Forecasting Implementation Team and RRIT) – documents internal process for response to simultaneous Willamette and Columbia flooding.

CBWM (HEB) and All

1 week

31 Jul

Write Communication Plan (front end of notification list - how to contact folks for different projects/disciplines, etc.) All 1 week

Sep 08

Update relevant sections and Post Project Emergency Action Plans NWP 1 week

Sep Update relevant sections and Post Project Water Control NWP 1 week



08 Manuals Oct 08

Willamette Basin Standard Operating Procedure Between CENWD Portland and CENWP dated January 2005

NWP and CBWM 1 week

Oct 08

Support Staff Training Plan – documents the process to develop and maintain back-up regulators for emergencies. Each office’s plans should be coordinated regionally within the Water Management community to ensure that there is sufficient coverage during a major event that affects both tributary and mainstem projects.

TMC – Reviewed by all

4 weeks

Oct 08 Update ER 1165-2-2 All 4 weeks

Table 4. Columbia Tributary Operation Documentation Requirements Due Date Task Assigned Man-

Days

31 May

Update and Post RFS SOP – documents the steps to execute a short-term RFS model run on the NWRFC computer

CBWM 1 day

31 May

Update and Post STP SOP - documents the steps to execute a long-term model run on the NWRFC computer, coordinate input with other parties and post-process the model run

CBWM 1 day

31 May

Update and Post ResSim SOP – documents the pre- and post-processing necessary for the Columbia ResSim model runs

CBWM 1 day

31 May

Update Notification Lists Template, then establish for each project - documents key personnel for various Columbia issues

All Unknown

31 May


CBWM Unknown

30 Jun

Write and Review Corps Power Emergency Response (subset of ex. Power Emergency Protocol) - documents the internal process for the Corps to respond to a power emergency using the regional criteria

CBWM (Don Faulkner) and All

1 week

31 Jul

Write and Review System Flood Emergency Protocol (joint effort between Modeling and Forecasting Implementation Team and RRIT) – documents internal process for response to simultaneous Willamette and Columbia flooding.

CBWM (HEB) and All

2 weeks

31 Jul

Write Communication Plan (front end of notification list - how to contact folks for different projects/disciplines, etc.) All 1 week



Oct 08

Support Staff Training Plan – documents the process to develop and maintain back-up regulators for emergencies. Each office’s plans should be coordinated regionally within the Water Management community to ensure that there is sufficient coverage during a major event that affects both tributary and mainstem projects.

All 4 weeks

Oct 08

Update relevant sections and Post Project Emergency Action Plans All 1 week

Oct 08

Update relevant sections and Post Project Water Control Manuals All 1 week

Oct 08 Update ER 1165-2-2

TMC, reviewed by all

4 weeks

9.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS This section describes all models, spreadsheets, tools, connectivity and data management in the existing state and that required to reach the end-state. 9.1 Required Models and Tools The following models and tools will be required for operations, including their respective SOPs:

• Columbia Basin ResSim (including all tributaries) • RFS – all basins • STP • HYSSR • VARQ Spreadsheet

9.2 Connectivity Each respective district will need to establish connectivity with the RFC to be able to run the RFS and STP runs for back-up purposes (UNIX, Telnet, Exceed, nedit, RFS shortcut cheat sheet, post-processing products from RFC, example profile files needed). Technical knowledge of how to input regulations will be needed, as well (SOPs). Each district will need connectivity to the CBT web messenger to be able to originate, send and store project teletypes. Offices have set up office mailboxes to receive and store teletypes. Regulators and other staff have access to the mailboxes to view past schedules and up to date distribution lists. This eliminated the earlier posting problem encountered when someone was out of the office. Knowledge transfer on the ResSim model and supporting Excel files will also be required. Currently the pre-modeled data is stored on the npr-71 server at NWD and the post-modeled data is posted on the water-man server (SAMBA) at NWD. The RRIT will continue to coordinate with the WCDS group to determine the best way to share data.



9.3 Data Management The RRIT will work with the WCDS workgroup to investigate intelligent ways to manage the following data: RFS, STP, HYSSR, and ResSim model output from each office, RFC streamflow forecasts, the latest version of ResSim models, All up-to-date SOP, communication plans, teletypes, etc. 10.0 PEAK STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

10.1 Willamette Tributary Operation The end state is sufficient for normal day-to-day staffing requirements. However, in order to meet peak staffing needs during Willamette flood events, which could occur simultaneously with Rogue flooding events, it was estimated that three fully trained regulators with three support staff would be required for 24 hr operations. Some of the support staff could come from within CENWP-EC-HR but back-up staff could also be available within NWP and RCC. Currently several RCC employees are fully trained on Willamette operations but if staff is lost to attrition, so will this expertise. A Support Staff Training Plan should be developed that allows staff from other offices to rotate into NWP for two to four weeks (longer depending on the depth of experience desired) throughout the year to ensure back-up staff is trained on the models and tools. This would require a commitment from the NWP H&H and CBWM chiefs but would broaden employees experience and foster an interdependent team.

10.2 Columbia Tributary Operation Ensuring back-up staff is available within RCC and at the Districts is crucial to WM success. As outlined for the Willamette Basin it is estimated that each office would need three fully trained regulators with three support staff to sustain 24 hr operations. NWS currently has several trained back-up regulators for Western Washington reservoirs, as does NWW for their Snake River Basin projects. Developing primary and back-up regulators for Libby, Albeni Falls and Dworshak operations will require time and training. Until this occurs, RCC will have three staff members available and trained for this role once the new FTE is hired. As for the Willamette, a Support Staff Training Plan should be established for the Columbia Basin and should include tributary and mainstem operations. As described in section 6.0 careful consideration of CBWM final end state will need to occur to ensure coverage across the basin during a major flood event. Back-up staff for RCC may be available in other offices within CBWM or from NWP to take advantage of the close proximity.

11.0 CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS (COOP) A full CBWM Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan will need to be developed. Outside of the scope of the RRIT, a PDT will need to be established to complete this task. Continuity of Operations (COOP) for regulation of tributary projects is a multilevel task. Each District and Division Office must have internal COOP procedures in place as well as having interdependent systems in place for long and short term regulation of tributary projects. Provided herein are recommendations to this future PDT specific to reservoir regulation for short and long term situations.



11.1 Short Term COOP Short term COOP is defined as several days to a week in length. Suggested requirements for such an operation are listed below.

• Primary responsibility for operations would shift to project staff, assuming the normal regulators were not available via a remote site.

• WCMs, EAPs, and SOPs currently in use at each project will be used to conduct all operations in the absence of division or district water management instructions.

• Volume forecasting and data QA/QC of water management data will not occur during this time and will be accomplished later.

• In the event of an extreme high water event and power outage for short term COOP regulators can communicate with projects via satellite telephones or CB Radios

• All WCMs, EAPs, and SOPs should be duplicated and updated at designated COOP sites.

Training and testing of project staffs for such events could occur now as no additional training is required.

11.2 Long Term COOP Long term COOP is defined as an indefinite period greater than one week in duration and would be the result of a catastrophic event that rendered the usual regulation staff unavailable. Suggested requirements for such an operation are listed below.

• Responsibility for operations is water management staff from offices not affected by the circumstances necessitating COOP.

• All procedures, WCMs, EAPs and SOPs for the affected projects must be maintained at each respective trained backup office.

• An emergency SOP that addressed project operations affecting human health and safety would be prepared and included in each project’s WCM or EAP.

• Assume that data will be available at the designated COOP site to the water management staff that will temporarily regulate the affected projects.

• The long-term COOP plan will need to be coordinated with BPA and their COOP plan.

• Calling trees should be developed and exercised annually; calling trees will be those in use for the existing WCMs.

11.2 Other COOP Issues Suggested requirements for the general COOP operation are listed below.

• Training should accomplished under the direction of experienced regulators for each system and be required on a periodic basis for those offices that will assume temporary regulation duties in a COOP.

• Inspections of WCMs, EAPS and SOPs should occur annually for back-up water management offices.

• SOPs for Long-Term COOP should be added as an annex to each Water Control Manual.

• Testing of such plans should occur on an annual basis during non-critical times.



• Annual communications drills and tabletop exercises will be conducted to test COOP procedures.

• Assume that only critical activities will be accomplished, during a short or long term COOP, to insure public safety and mitigate potential property damage.

12.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING PLAN

12.1 Training Plan Several training sessions will be required to pass operational, modeling and tool knowledge from CBWM to the district offices. Scheduled training along with estimated completion dates and status of training are outlined for the Willamette tributary operations in Table 5 and the Columbia tributary operations in Table 6 and will be continually updated on the wiki. NWS is planning on sending staff (Lynne Melder and Amy Reese) to RCC each for 1 week developmental assignments in Spring 2008. In addition, NWS staff will continue to produce TMT products for review through the Spring Runoff as a training exercise. NWW is sending Steve Hall on a developmental assignment from January through June. NWP has sent Mary Karen Scullion and Laurie Rice to RCC for training on the Willamette tributary operations (October and December through January). These assignments will provide hands-on training and will foster team building between the offices. The RRIT coordinated a four day Columbia Basin ResSim training workshop. The intent was to train staff at the districts on the current set-up of the model and to learn the pre- and post-processing tools that exist. Staff from HEC (Joan Klipsch) attended to help identify areas for streamlining. The workshop occurred in March 2008. A BPA training session with Districts and CBWM is essential for understanding how hydropower is scheduled and marketed in the region. This training will improve understanding and help build new relationships with one of our key stakeholders. The training should be completed before October 2008. In the January stakeholder meeting BPA also expressed an interest in visiting Seattle and Walla Walla Districts to meet staff and learn about each office. These visits should occur prior to October 2008 also. Table 5. Willamette Tributary Operations Training Schedule

Due Date Task Assigned Man-

Days* Status

Feb 08 Transfer Res-Sim models to Districts NWP and CBWM

Done

Jan/Feb 08

Conduct cross-training for Laurie Rice & refresher for Mary Karen Scullion

NWP and CBWM

6 weeks Done

22 Feb Conduct cross-training Matt Fraver in RCC

NWP and CBWM

3 weeks Done

14 Mar Conduct Regional Res-Sim Training Class All 5 days Done



11 Apr Attend power overview training at BPA NWP and CBWM

1.5 days Scheduled

30 Apr Deliver a power briefing for NWP CBWM (Greg Bowers)

1/2 day

31 Aug Conduct BPA training with Districts All 1 day * Due to the significant number of people (on average two from each office) that need to be trained, these elements are resource intensive. Table 5 will be continually updated on the wiki. Table 6. Columbia Tributary Operations Training Schedule


Days* Status

Mar 08 Steve Hall to RCC for training NWW (Steve Hall) and CBWM

4 months Ongoing

14 Mar Conduct Regional Res-Sim Training Class

CBWM (Julie Ammann)

35 Days Done

25 Mar

Test ESP model runs: * with NWW running Lower Snake * and NWS running Kootenay and Pend Oreille

All

12 Days

Done

25 Mar Transfer Res-Sim models to Districts All NWS - Done,

31 Mar Begin working with Walla Walla on DWR shift operations for 2008 CBWM and NWW Ongoing

14-18 Apr

Amy Reese to RCC for 1 week rotation NWS 5 Days Scheduled

14-18 Apr Amy Reese meet with Don Faulkner

NWS (Amy Reese) and CBWM (Don Faulkner)

Scheduled

30 Apr Meeting with NWS-RFC to talk about connectivity, technical talk on RFC models, etc.

NWS and CBWM (Cathy Hlebechuk)

3 Days

30 Apr NWS establish connectivity with RFC for running RFS models NWS ½ day

28 Apr – 02 May

Lynne Melder to RCC for 1 week rotation NWS

5 Days Scheduled

28 Apr – 02 May

Lynne Melder to meet with Don Faulkner

NWS (Lynne Melder) and CBWM (Don Faulkner)

Scheduled

30 Apr Begin working with Seattle on VARQ operations for 2008 (include NWS CBWM and NWS 10 Days Ongoing



staff in calls between RCC and project)

30 Apr

Begin working with Seattle on Albeni Falls Refill operations (include NWS staff in calls between RCC and project)

CBWM and NWS

10 Days

Ongoing

30 Apr Train NWS and NWW staff on preparation of TMT products All 4 Days

30 Jun NWS and NWW prepare TMT products with supervision from RCC All 20 Days

31 Aug Conduct BPA training with Districts All 12 Days * Due to the significant number of people (on average two from each office, many involving travel) that need to be trained, these elements are resource intensive. Table 6 will be continually updated on the wiki.

12.2 Testing Plan The Testing Period for the transition will occur mainly after the training period through October 2008. The testing period, or trial period, will occur more quickly in the Willamette Basin than the Columbia River basin. Scheduled tasks related to the testing phase along with estimated completion dates and task status are outlined for the Willamette tributary operations in Table 7 and the Columbia tributary operations in Table 8.

a. Willamette Tributary Operation. NWP began regulating the Willamette Valley projects in Spring 2008 as part of the training phase. NWP staff had the opportunity to regulate the Willamette from RCC during high flows, yielding some flood control experience and experience with the regulation products. The early transition of regulation duties allows for testing during the refill and conservation seasons, ensuring that NWP has the capabilities to take on the responsibilities of Willamette regulation. Problems including connectivity problems, modeling issues and basin familiarity issues can be identified before the full transition in October 2008. A table-top flood exercise will be conducted at the Willamette Valley Project office in late summer prior to the start of winter flood season. The flood exercise should be attended by staff from NWP, RCC and Willamette Valley Project staff as well as by any additional staff that is appropriate (like back-up regulators). This exercise will serve as a refresher for experienced regulators and also as an important training session for less experienced staff. The flood exercise/refresher meeting should be held annually. NWP will participate in the mock power emergency exercise and system operations test described below in Section 12.2b. Long-term modeling for conservation planning, short-term model runs, operational decisions, and scheduling will be performed at NWP with oversight provided by CBWM.



CBWM will remain a technical resource for NWP during subsequent years as long as regulation expertise remains. Table 7. Willamette Tributary Operations Testing Plan


Days* Status

22 Feb Test Coordination and Communication Lines All Ongoing

01 Mar Test Mechanics (connectivity, running models) CBWM Done

01 Mar Run RFS models from district office and send Teletypes NWP Ongoing

01 Mar Run Regional Res-Sim Model from district office NWP 1 Day Ongoing

31 Mar Establish monthly managers call to discuss issues and monitor progress NWP and CBWM

31 Mar Conduct weekly (or twice weekly) check-in calls to discuss issues through the month of March

NWP and CBWM Ongoing

30 Apr Restructure the Thursday Briefings CBWM (Cathy Hlebechuk)

15 Jul Feedback from BPA, NWS on communication and coordination All 1/2 Day

30 Jul Test the System Flood Control Protocol

NWP and CBWM (Laurie Rice & Julie Ammann)

31 Aug Conduct mock power emergency exercise All and BPA 10 Days

31 Aug Tabletop system flood control exercise

CBWM (HEB) and All 40 Days

30 Sep Conduct table-top flood exercise in Willamette Valley NWP and CBWM 20 Days

* Due to the significant number of people (on average two from each office) that need to be trained, these elements are resource intensive. Table 7 will be continually updated on the wiki.

b. Columbia Tributary Operation. After the training has taken place for NWS and NWW staff on the Columbia River tributaries, the respective districts will begin a testing period (or trial period) during refill 2008. Specific tasks that will be tested are:

• Run the ResSim models for planning and for CBWM support. • Coordinate with Stakeholders including BPA, TMT members, local and regional

entities on operational decisions.



• Begin the weekly coordination calls with CBWM, BPA, NWS, NWW • Provide Operational Plan to CBWM for them to incorporate into RFS and STP

model runs, weekly Treaty conference calls, etc. • Provide technical information to TMT when needed. • Make Operational Decisions that follow CBWM flood control guidance, power

emergency requirements, TMT System Operation Requests (SORs), respective BiOps and Water Control Plans.

Table 8. Columbia Tributary Operations Testing Plan


Days* Status

30 Jun Test Coordination and Communication Lines All Ongoing

31 May

Test Mechanics (connectivity, running models) All 3 Days

31 May Run RFS models from district offices All 5 Days

31 May

Run Regional Res-Sim Model from district offices All 12 Days Ongoing

15 Jul Feedback from BPA, NWS on communication and coordination All 1/2 Day

31 Jul Send teletypes from all offices All 2 Days

31 Aug Conduct mock power emergency exercise All and BPA 24 Days

31 Aug Tabletop system flood control exercise CBWM (HEB) and All 60 Days

* Due to the significant number of people (on average two from each office, many involving travel) that need to be trained, these elements are resource intensive. Table 8 will be continually updated on the wiki. In addition to these routine tasks, the Corps will coordinate with BPA to run a mock power emergency sometime before full transition in October 2008. During the mock event, CBWM and the District offices will practice responding to BPA emergency requests, including performing the analysis, coordination, notification and implementation of power emergency response. During this time CBWM will be able to oversee and assist if needed. This will allow some regulation and decision making during this refill season before the full transition begins in October 2008. It will also be a time to identify any connectivity problems, modeling issues, and basin familiarity issues before full implementation. CBWM will remain as a technical resource and can provide backup regulators in subsequent years that may present different challenges than WY 2008.



A larger, coordinated System Flood Control tabletop exercise should also occur in July or August and be a coordinated effort of the five Implementation Teams: RRIT, Models and Forecasting, Water Quality and Environmental Compliance Teams. A tabletop exercise of this size will require significant planning and coordination to be successful and a PDT should be developed to complete this task. Once the tabletop exercise has been executed follow-up discussions to capture lessons learned will need to occur. The final step would be to address any weaknesses that were identified including fulfilling any additional training needs or modifying the end state prior to full implementation. In order to thoroughly test the end state for tributary and system regulation outlined in this document, the following considerations should be included in the tabletop exercise design:

• A high water event that requires both system and local flood control requirements (perhaps a spring 1997 event). The magnitude of the event would need to trigger the use of the System Flood Control Protocol (identified in Section 8.1.c) with CBWM and all three Districts.

• An event that affected ESA listed fish (extreme high water would meet this need) to test stakeholder coordination.

• An event that affected power production (extreme high water would meet this need) to test BPA coordination.

It is important to note that this testing plan/trial period is dependent on appropriate staffing. This additional training and testing would best be done by the staff member who will be taking on these new responsibilities. Current staffing at District Offices would necessitate additional human resources to cover this intensive training, testing and implementation effort, so being able to fill that need early is very important to Districts and Division offices.

13.0 SCHEDULE The major milestones outlined for Phase II of the reorganization are listed below:

70% draft transition plan – Week of 10 December 2007 90% draft transition plan from each team – Week of 28 January 2008 Final (100%) draft transition plan from each team – Week of 11 April 2008

14.0 INTERDEPENDENCIES Describe key interdependencies with other technical functional areas as appropriate. One major goal of the reorganization is for the Division and Districts to become more interdependent and to work together to achieve the water management mission. Interdependency will be achieved through increased coordination, support and training. A new coordination process in the form of daily (or as needed) morning conference call is proposed to increase the interaction between Division and the Districts, while also minimizing impacts to stakeholders. The conference call will be between Districts, RCC and BPA (and BOR if interested). This call will allow offices to discuss upcoming operational strategies/issues and for BPA to coordinate upcoming power operations. Real time project changes that are not discussed on the regional call will be coordinated




directly by the District offices. Due to the nature of the basin, communication between offices is essential to successfully regulate the system. The Division and District staff will also support each other in product development and perform back-up regulation when needed. Each office will develop and coordinate a Support Staff Training Plan (described in Section 8.1c) to ensure Division and District personnel are trained up on other projects in the Division in order to provide the additional support when needed. Regular coordination calls and training rotations will help establish good communication and working relationships between the Division and Districts. Interdependencies also exist within each District. Water management offices will continue to work closely with other Corps’ offices and external stakeholders on product development and operational decisions.

15.0 PHASE III ACTIONS There are long-term tasks beyond the RRIT scope of work that will need to be completed. Suggested phase III Actions include developing and implementing:

• A Res-Reg Community of Practice, • A CBWM COOP PDT • A CBWM Re-organization End State Assessment Team.

A Reservoir Regulation Community of Practice (Res Reg CoP) should be created consisting of regulators and their chiefs from across the four offices. At a minimum, an annual meeting should be conducted to discuss the previous year’s operations, improvements to communication, updates to roles and responsibilities and suggestions for improvements to tools. In addition to sharing new methodologies or experiences, this meeting should perhaps be loosely modeled after a After Action Review (AAR) with the following topics of discussion:

• What went well? • What didn’t go well? • What could be improved? • Recommendations for next year.

The Res Reg CoP should discuss conducting an annual tabletop exercise to test the System Flood Control Protocol and Power Emergency Protocol as described in Sections 8.1c and 8.2c. The District Support Training Plans should be addressed annually and might be a relevant topic of discussion at the yearly Res Reg CoP meeting. The End State Assessment Team will review the budgets, workloads and efficiencies of each office and a general review of the CBWM organization. Suggestions for revisions to budgets, staffing and workload should be completed.


Sub-Appendix A NWP-EC-HR Tributary Regulation Activities Current End State

Season Duration Frequency Category Basin Reoccurring? Man-Hours Man-Hours

WM Briefings All 1 week Corps Support Willamette Yes 52 52Other Briefings (EM, CMT, etc) Nov-Mar 1-2 hours As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 20 20QA/QC and Operation Review of Division products All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 20 20Deviations Any 2 days Annual Special Ops Willamette Yes 24 40BiOp Coordination All Varies week ESA Willamette Yes 156 364Interagency Coordination (not just conservation season) All Varies As Needed Stakeholder Support Willamette Yes 100 100Dam Safety Coordination All Varies week Corps Support Willamette Yes 10 23WATER Coordination (N/A at this time) Dec-Jun N/A at this time week WATER Willamette Yes 104 208Cougar Temp Control Sched Mar-Oct 0.5 5/week Scheduling Willamette Yes 120 120District PoC for Status and Reporting All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 40 40Willamette Master Manual All Varies week Manual/Report Willamette No 208 208Sediment Surveys* (not including DMMP or C&LW) Any Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 5 5Answer Public Inquiries All 1-2 hours As Needed Stakeholder Support Willamette Yes 10 10Public Meetings Mar-Jun 3 days As Needed Stakeholder Support Willamette Yes 20 20Technical Support to RCC Any All Year As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 208 208Forecast Interpretation, Evaluation, and Application Jan-Jun 4 hours 2/month Long-Term Planning Willamette Yes 96 96Technical Support for LT Planning (see NWD sheet) Jan-Jun Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 208 208Conservation Plan Jan-Jun 3 days Annual Long-Term Planning Willamette Yes 20 20Conservation Plan Coordination Jan-Jun Varies Annual Long-Term Planning Willamette Yes 140 140Annual AAR Oct 2 days Annual Long-Term Planning Willamette Yes 40 40Water Control Manual Updates Any Varies As Needed Manual/Report Willamette Yes 208 208WM Studies Any Varies As Needed Manual/Report Willamette Yes 208 208Technical Support to Other Corps' Offices All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 104 104Documentation for Construction All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 10 10Documentation for Special Operations All Varies As Needed Special Ops Willamette Yes 40 40Evaluate Proposed Reservoir Operations/WM Guidance All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 208 208Coordinate Special Ops (see NWD sheet) All Varies As Needed Corps Support Willamette Yes 100 354Provide Input on ESA Consultations All Varies As Needed ESA Willamette Yes 104 104Implement BiOp and RPA Requirements All Varies All Year ESA Willamette Yes 156 156



NWP-EC-HR Tributary Regulation Activities Continued Current End StateSeason Duration Frequency Category Basin Reoccurring? Man-Hours Man-Hours

Implement TMDL Requirements* All All Year All Year TMDL Willamette Yes 3848 3848TMDL Coordination* All Varies All Year TMDL Willamette Yes 80 80Support Emergency Operations* All 1-2 hours As Needed Emergency Willamette Yes 20 20Hydromet System* All All Year As Needed Data Collection Willamette Yes 960 960Water Quality Studies* All Varies As Needed Water Quality Willamette Yes 728 728Water Quality Data Collection* All Varies As Needed Water Quality Willamette Yes 440 440FC Training Oct-Nov 1 12/month Corps Support Willamette Basin Yes 16LT Planning - Conservation Modeling Jan-May 1 day weekly Long-Term Planning Willamette Basin Yes 176LT Planning - Interim Draft Limits May-Oct 4 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Willamette Basin Yes 104LT Planning - Summerblk-short all 1 hr 5x/week Long-Term Planning Willamette Basin Yes 260AER all 1.5 bi weekly Long-Term Planning Willamette Basin Yes 36Coordinate schedules with BPA: Oct - Mar 15 min 5 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 33Coordinate schedules with BPA: Apr-Jul 15 min 5 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 16Coordinate schedules with BPA: Aug-Sep 15 min 2 days/week Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 10Coord. schedules with Operators, et.al.: Oct - Mar 15 min 5 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 33Coord. schedules with Operators, et.al.: Apr-Jul 15 min 5 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 16Coord. schedules with Operators, et.al.: Aug-Sep 15 min 3 days/week Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 10Prepare and send schedules: Oct - Mar 2 hrs 3 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 156Prepare and send schedules: Apr-Jul 1 hr 5 days/wk Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 65Prepare and send schedules: Aug-Sep 1 hr 3 days/week Scheduling Willamette Basin Yes 39NWS-RFS Model Run (Will) Oct - Mar 2 hrs 5 days/wk short-term model Willamette Basin Yes 260NWS-RFS Model Run (Will) Apr-Jul 1.5 hrs 5 days/wk short-term model Willamette Basin Yes 130NWS-RFS Model Run (Will) Aug-Sep 1 hr 2 days/week short-term model Willamette Basin Yes 18

Total Man-Hours 2734 4706Total FTE (100%) 1.3 2.3

Total FTE with Vacations 1.6 2.7

Total Man-Hours w/SQ and WQ work 8815 10787Total FTE (100%) 4.2 5.2

Total FTE with Vacations 5.0 6.2

*Work performed by Sediment Quality, Water Quality, and Data Management groups in EC-HR. These numbers were not included in original the Man-Hour estimate.



NWD-PDW-R CBWM Tributary Regulation Activities Current Season Duration Frequency Category Basin Reoccurring? Man-Hours NWD NWW NWS

Albeni Falls Special Op - Project Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 8 16Albeni Falls Special Op - Power Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 16 16Albeni Falls Special Op - Local Flood All varies 2x/yr Emergency Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 8 16Albeni Falls Special Op - transmission All varies 5x/yr Outage Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 8 16Albeni Falls Special Op - Outage All varies 1x/mo Outage Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 8 16Issue Teletype (Spring Refill) Apr-Jun 1 hr 5 days/wk Scheduling Albeni Falls Ops Yes 60 15 60Issue Teletype (Fall Drawdown) Sep-Nov 2 hrs weekly Scheduling Albeni Falls Ops Yes 24 6 24Albeni Falls Special Op - public All varies 2x/yr Scheduling Albeni Falls Ops Yes 16 4 16Albeni Falls Special Op - fishery All varies 5x/yr Scheduling Albeni Falls Ops Yes 27 6.75 27Review Documents All varies varies Corps Support Columbia Basin Yes 80 80TMT Support Mar-Aug 4 hrs 2x/mo ESA Columbia Basin Yes 48 48LT Planning - HYSSR Nov - Jun 2 days 2x/mo Long-Term Planning Columbia Basin Yes 288 288 8 18LT Planning - STP All 1 day weekly Long-Term Planning Columbia Basin Yes 416 416 16 26AER All 1 hr 2x/mo Long-Term Planning Columbia Basin Yes 26 26 6.5LT Planning Res-Sim - Mainstem Nov - Aug 8 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Columbia Basin Yes 352 352Dworshak Special Op - Flood Control Shift Feb-Apr 6 hrs weekly Scheduling Columbia Basin Yes 72 40 80Track snowpack, ws forecasts, etc. Jan-Jun 1hr 5 days/wk short-term model Columbia Basin Yes 120 120 120 120RMPG Call All 2 hrs 2x/mo Stakeholder Support Columbia Basin Yes 48 48 48 48Ops Call All 1 hr weekly Stakeholder Support Columbia Basin Yes 52 52Answer Inquiries (public, project, Corps, agen All 1hr 5 days/wk Stakeholder Support Columbia Basin Yes 260 260Treaty Coodination All 2 hrs weekly Treaty Columbia Basin Yes 104 104Treaty Call All 1 hr weekly Treaty Columbia Basin Yes 52 52BiOp Coordination Varies Varies Varies ESA Dworshak ESA Yes 80 60 60Dworshak Special Op - Project Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Dworshak Ops Yes 16 8 16Dworshak Special Op - Power Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Dworshak Ops Yes 24 24 24Dworshak Special Op - Local Flood Winter-Spring varies 2x/yr Emergency Dworshak Ops Yes 32 16 32TMT Coordination Nov-Aug 2 hrs weekly ESA Dworshak Ops Yes 88 22 88

End State




NWD-PDW-R CBWM Tributary Regulation Activities Continued Current Season Duration Frequency Category Basin Reoccurring? Man-Hours NWD

Dworshak Special Op - transmission All varies 5x/yr Outage Dworshak Ops Yes 16 8Dworshak Special Op - Outage All varies 2x/mo Outage Dworshak Ops Yes 24 12Issue Teletype All 30 min 2 days/wk Scheduling Dworshak Ops Yes 52 13Dworshak Special Op - public All varies 10x/yr Scheduling Dworshak Ops Yes 40 10Dworshak Special Op - fishery All varies 20x/yr Scheduling Dworshak Ops Yes 80 20Dworshak Special Op - Temperature Control Summer 4 hrs weekly Scheduling Dworshak Ops Yes 64 16BFEI Flood Stage to 1762' A varies Varies Corps Support Kootenay Basin No 80 20LT Planning - ResSim (Koot) Nov - Aug 2hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Kootenay Basin Yes 88 22NWS-RFS Model Run (Koot) Mar-Jun 30 min 5 days/wk short-term model Kootenay Basin Yes 40 40NWS-RFS Model Run (Koot) Jul-Feb 30 min 2 days/wk short-term model Kootenay Basin Yes 36 36Sturgeon Recovery Team Prep Feb-Jun 2 hrs weekly Stakeholder Support Kootenay Basin Yes 40Sturgeon Recovery Team Feb-Jun 1 hr weekly Stakeholder Support Kootenay Basin Yes 20BiOp Coordination Varies Varies Varies ESA Libby ESA Yes 80 20Libby PDT All varies Varies Corps Support Libby Ops No 80 20Libby Special Op - Project Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Libby Ops Yes 16 8Libby Special Op - Power Emergency All varies 2x/yr Emergency Libby Ops Yes 24 12Libby Special Op - Local Flood Winter-Spring varies 2x/yr Emergency Libby Ops Yes 80 40TMT Coordination Nov-Aug 2 hrs weekly ESA Libby Ops Yes 88 22TMT Prep Sturgeon Flows Apr-May 4 hrs weekly ESA Libby Ops Yes 40 10LT Planning - VARQ ESP Spreadsheet Nov - Aug 4 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Libby Ops Yes 176Libby Special Op - Outage All varies 2x/mo Outage Libby Ops Yes 24 12Libby Special Op - transmission All varies 5x/yr Outage Libby Ops Yes 24 12Issue Teletype All 30 min 2 days/wk Scheduling Libby Ops Yes 60 15Libby Special Op - public All varies 10x/yr Scheduling Libby Ops Yes 40 10Libby Special Op - fishery All varies 10x/yr Scheduling Libby Ops Yes 80 20LT Planning - ResSim (Lsnake) Nov - Aug 2 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Lsnake Basin Yes 88NWS-RFS Model Run (Lsnake) Mar-Jun 30 min 5 days/wk short-term model Lsnake Basin Yes 45 45NWS-RFS Model Run (Lsnake) Jul-Feb 30 min 2 days/wk short-term model Lsnake Basin Yes 34 34Run RFS Model - midcol Mar-Jun 15 min 5 days/wk short-term model Mid Col Basin Yes 22.5 22.5Run RFS Model - midcol Jul-Feb 15 min 2 days/wk short-term model Mid Col Basin Yes 17 17LT Planning Res-Sim - Pend Oreille Nov - Aug 2 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Pend Oreille Basin Yes 88Run RFS Model - Pend Oreille Mar-Jun 30 min 5 days/wk short-term model Pend Oreille Basin Yes 45 45Run RFS Model - Pend Oreille Jul-Feb 30 min 2 days/wk short-term model Pend Oreille Basin Yes 34 34LT Planning Res-Sim - Spokane Nov - Aug 2 hrs weekly Long-Term Planning Spokane Basin Yes 88 88Run RFS Model - Spokane Mar-Jun 30 min 5 days/wk short-term model Spokane Basin Yes 45 45Run RFS Model - Spokane Jul-Feb 30 min 2 days/wk short-term model Spokane Basin Yes 34 34Run RFS Model - Ucol Mar-Jun 30 min 5 days/wk short-term model Upper Col Basin Yes 45 45Run RFS Model - Ucol Jul-Feb 30 min 2 days/wk short-term model Upper Col Basin Yes 34 34

Total Total Man-Hours 4377 2937Total FTE (100%) 2.1 1.4

FTE with Vacation 2.5 1.7


Sub-Appendix B 1.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES In November the RRIT met to discuss current problems in the current water management organization so that we could identify opportunities for improvement to the way we do business. In general, the group identified Communication, Work Redundancy, Automation and Tools as the main areas in which there are opportunities to improve the way we do business. These issues and opportunities were considered when the end state was defined, and will be coordinated with the other transition teams as necessary. The list of problems and opportunities developed at that meeting is provided below.

1.1 Communication Problem Opportunity Hydropower Unit Outage Schedule Policy Update this and other policies. High number of protocols Work with WCDS group to provide a central location

for protocols (i.e.SuperPage: define a flood, specify non-real-time communication, navigation, flood protocol, characterize controlling factors through year, stakeholders)

Relationship between NWD EM briefings and District EM briefings

Work with EM to develop a protocol for relationship between two EM offices and (hopefully) standardizing of flood briefings to make briefing workload realistic.

Increasing awareness of BPA power needs BPA training, possibly weekly BPA briefing calls TMT coordination CEQUAL W2 Standardizing process with NOAA and other

members It is difficult to make sure ALL the interests are dialed in when doing real-time multi-purpose coordination

Potential opportunities are daily coordination briefings, having a designated clearinghouse person for all special ops, or automated project log with an email notification…

Awareness by construction projects and research groups on the coordination and notification that is required to give to RCC

Build awareness (through section and branch chiefs), districts more aware of needs/acts as clearinghouse.

Level of awareness to the work the districts do and districts more aware of what other districts are doing

This will hopefully be addressed through Re-Org process and maybe a Community of Practice or detail assignments…

Information on navigation incidents not disseminated thoroughly

Navigation incident communication protocol for each district can be developed (including phone and email distribution list)

Folks who do regulation and folks who do long term studies aren’t familiar with the other’s work

Re-org should bring these two groups much closer together… Also the SUB-community of Practice.

Weekly briefings are not that effective, project data is available on the web, real issues are not discussed

Re-structure briefings to include 2-3 week outlooks, standard form/graphics already filled out through the database to discuss highlights, upcoming special operations. Keep the weather and hydro updates from RFC.



RMPG - who are members, what is discussed

Reporting information, minutes distributed

Provide a forum for relaying lessons learned (joint AAR once per year or part of the CoP)

Provide a way for ineffective processes to be voiced, addressed or overcome (CoP).

Communication face to face is always more productive.

A lot of communication relies on emails and email distribution lists (i.e. STP)

Posting runs to servers for full-time access?

1.2 Automation Problem Opportunity Posting of Teletypes relies on MS Outlook and sometimes are not routed if regulators not in office (or could post duplicates)

SuperPage can automatically post (will no longer rely on MS Outlook). Offices have also set up office mailboxes to receive and store teletypes. Regulators and other staff have access to the mailboxes to view past schedules and up to date distribution lists. This eliminated the earlier posting problem encountered when someone was out of the office.

Models are cumbersome and complicated, with different models for specific tasks (mainly HYSSR and ResSim)

Possible opportunity to improve on modeling/programming

A lot of modeling data must be pre-processed (flood control rule curves, BiOp targets, Treaty operations, IJC and VARQ)

Work with Joan (HEC) to put seasonal rule curves into the ResSim model to remove one of the pre-processing steps, etc. (Also, VARQ rules, if possible)

Knowledge gap on Columbia Basin models Work with HEC to have a special Columbia River ResSim workshop in NWD to help train new folks and also look for ways to improve model and possible ways to help automate model.

Willamette RFS runs: pulling into local DB to run iterations in excel is slow, cumbersome, all paths don’t load at once and this can be confusing

Possibly look at somehow bypassing the Database Load (like loading off of the text file and also look for possible ways to not rely on the spreadsheet).

Possible opportunity for improvement on teletypes- will keep on radar and possibly update down the road…

Lot of spreadsheets Possible room for automation/streamlining Need a SuperPage Get SuperPage Team together again to continue

working

1.3 Work Redundancy Problem Opportunity Some redundancy is important and should continue. How do we identify it as we go through transition?

Have Implementation Teams try to identify unnecessary redundancies to gain efficiencies, make notes as they are identified




Lots of time reviewing water quality data Improved when responsibility moves to district this will remove redundancy. WQIT is addressing this.

NWW plans to continue running two forecasts at Dworshak. Will examine confidence limits to determine which is performing better.

The Modeling and Forecasting Team is examining this issue.

Groups performing work to support ResReg that is not being used

Create list of products (reports, post STP data, post RFS runs).

Need consolidated list of WCDS needs Did WCDS Needs Assessment address customer needs? Find list and include as appendix in report.

Line between HEB work and RCC work, is there redundancy in their respective products/support, could joint RCC/HEB flood control guidance be issued

Opportunity to look into roles/responsibility of each group and refine…

1.4 Tools Problem Opportunity Regional resources (meteorologist during events,

etc.). Develop scope of work. Opportunity for training on tools and cross-

training/developmental assignments. Plans to update AUTOREG/SSARR (no one working at HEB on this right now)

District offices can help support this transition (learning opportunity and they are good modelers, too).

SuperPage

Appendix B: Modeling and Forecasting Team Transition Report Modeling and Forecasting Transition Plan_Final 4-11-2008

Executive Summary

The Modeling and Forecasting transition team prepared a transition plan to meet the roles and responsibilities as described in the Water Management FACT SHEET, by following the Proposed Transition Team Process Guidance paper. In the existing state, the Columbia Basin Water Management (CBWM), is responsible for computing volume forecasts for Libby and Dworshak, computing system flood control in the evacuation and refill periods. CBWM is responsible for developing and maintaining computer models to perform the work. A statistical hydrologist position currently performs work to support the Reservoir Control Center, preparing volume forecast procedures, and other technical work related to statistical hydrology. In the end state, NWS and NWW will be responsible for computing volume forecasts for Libby and Dworshak, and for computing outflows and refill curves during the refill period to meet local flood control objectives. CBWM will perform quality control of this work and incorporate it into system flood control computations. CBWM will be responsible for system flood control for all projects in the evacuation and refill period with the exception of the Willamette projects. In the event that there is conflict between system and local flood control, CBWM and the affected districts will work together to balance flood control needs. NWP will regulate the Willamette projects according to existing flood control requirements and guidelines. The districts will provide support for flood control model development. The districts will maintain local tributary models, and CBWM will be responsible for maintaining the system models. The statistical hydrologist position is being transferred to NWP. The transition will begin in April 2008 and end in October 2008. About 716 man-hours of tasks will be transferred to each NWS and NWW to prepare the volume forecasts and computations during refill, and to develop and maintain forecasting and local routing tools. An additional 2680 man-hours of tasks characterized as “District Floating Work”, consisting of model development, special studies and Statistical Hydrologic tasks will be transferred to the districts. The allocation of the District Floating Work to individual districts has not been determined because it is dependent on district availability and to allow concentration of resources for individual projects on a case by case basis. For the Statistical Hydrologist’s workload, tasks related to water supply forecasting procedures are transferred to each NWW and NWS, while the remainder is under the District Floating Work. The Statistical Hydrologist position currently at CBWM will be located at NWP. CBWM will provide training to district personnel for volume forecasting, and procedures used for the refill period. Training on system flood control will be provided to aid in a better understanding of the impact of headwater projects on system flood control and for using flood control models. Test Exercises will be made to test and develop internal processes. The districts and CBWM will work together to develop or modify existing SOPs for forecasting tools, model development, internal processes and communications, external communications, flood emergency protocol, and COOP.

Appendix B:

Page i


Water Management Phase II Transition Plan Outline

Modeling and Forecasting 1. Background: The following is a short summary of the existing state, transition plan and end-state of the modeling and forecasting functional area Team 5 is responsible for.

a. Existing State: Under the existing state, flood control modeling for Columbia River Basin projects (with the exception of the Willamette River projects) and seasonal volume forecasts for Libby and Dworshak are prepared by the Columbia Basin Water Management (CBWM). Flood control modeling prepared by CBWM is used for real time operational decisions and for long term planning operations. CBWM has one statistical hydrologist who prepares and provides review of seasonal forecasts and other hydrologic specialized tasks. Seattle District (NWS) performs flood control studies for western Washington projects (non-Columbia River Basin) and local flood control studies for Libby and Albeni Falls (Columbia River Basin). Walla Walla District (NWW) prepares seasonal volume forecasts for Dworshak using equations of the current water control manual (different equations than used by CBWM), inflow forecasts for Lower Granite Reservoir, and various hydrologic and hydraulic studies for Columbia River Basin projects on the Snake River and its tributaries. NWW also maintains a water quality model for temperatures in Lower Granite Reservoir. NWW provides temperature model results and scenarios to CBWM Reservoir Control Center and the Technical Management Team (TMT) meetings during the spring and summer. NWW determines timing, temperature, volume and flow rate of Dworshak releases to support court directed water temperature targets at Lower Granite Dam and balance needs of fish hatchery operations. Portland District (NWP) performs flood control studies and conservation modeling on the Willamette Basin. All districts have hydrologic and hydraulic modeling capabilities. Additional details of existing states are provided in Appendix A.

b. End State. The end state was determined by attempting to meet the end state goals as outlined in the Proposed Transition Team Process Guidance. The end state consists of transferring the seasonal volume forecast computation task to NWS for Libby and to NWW for Dworshak, while the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) of those tasks to be performed in the CBWM. During refill (1 April – 31 July), NWS will compute the VarQ outflows for Libby and NWW will determine Flood Control Refill Curves for Dworshak. CBWM will incorporate district input during refill to ensure system flood control objectives are met. The districts will provide technical support for model development for system flood control models used by CBWM. NWP will take over real-time flood control regulation and conservation modeling of the Willamette Basin. If the Willamette and Lower Columbia flood simultaneously CBWM will coordinate operations with NWP, NWS, and NWW. The CBWM will maintain personnel to coordinate technical work at the Columbia River Basin system level, to perform Columbia River Treaty study related work, and to support routine work. The districts will provide modeling support for special system flood control and non-routine studies. About 716 man-hours of tasks will be transferred to each NWS and NWW to prepare the volume forecasts and computations during refill, and to develop and maintain forecasting and local routing tools. An additional 2680 man-hours of tasks characterized

Appendix B:

Page 1


as “District Floating Work”, consisting of model development, special studies and Statistical Hydrologic tasks will be transferred to the districts. The allocation of the District Floating Work to individual districts has not been determined because it is dependent on district availability and to allow concentration of resources. A portion of the Statistical Hydrologist’s current workload is transferred to each NWW and NWS, while the remainder is under the District Floating Work. The existing statistical hydrologist position currently located in CBWM-HEB will be transferred to NWP and will provide technical analyses.

c. Transition. The transition will begin April 2008 and will be complete by October 2008. CBWM will provide training sessions on forecasting procedures. CBWM will provide training sessions on the system flood control models which is the tool used for Columbia River Treaty and Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (PNCA) studies. 2. Deliverables: The key end-state deliverables and the process to achieve the

deliverable are as follows.

a. Libby Volume Forecast and Web Page. NWS will compute the volume forecast and VarQ outflows during refill, and CBWM will QC the product. If discrepancy arises CBWM will coordinate with the respective district office. When complete CBWM will post it on the web page. .

b. Dworshak Volume Forecast and Web Page. NWW will compute the volume forecast and flood control refill curves, and CBWM will QC the product. If discrepancy arises CBWM will coordinate with the respective district office. When complete CBWM will post it on the web page.

c. System Flood Control Webpage. After the forecast volumes for Libby and Dworshak are finalized, CBWM will prepare the system flood control curves, CBWM will post them on the web page.

d. Flood Control Guidance to Regulators. CBWM will prepare flood control guidance. Guidance will be coordinated and provided to CBWM, Reservoir Control Center (RCC) and regulators at NWS and NWW.

3. Stakeholders: List key stakeholders and their role when the end-state is achieved. The stakeholders and their roles are the same before and after the end state is achieved. Stakeholders who would have interest in the forecasts and flood control for Libby and Dworshak are: Bonneville Power Administration, Technical Management Team (ODFW, WDFL/ , USFW, NOAA Fisheries, CRITFC, USBR, IDFG, Montana FWP), public and private utilities, power marketers, BC Hydro, Fortis B.C., Environment Canada, PNCA parties, Lower Snake River navigation interests, and any town or city that is afforded flood damage reduction by these projects. The TMT base sturgeon operations on Libby’s water supply forecasts. Reclamation would be interested in Dworshak’s volume forecast since a shift of flood control will have an impact on Grand Coulee’s flood control curves. Fisheries agencies have an interest in water supply forecasts because they determine flood control curve requirements, and thus water availability in

Appendix B:

Page 2


the spring for ESA listed fish. Public and private utilities use flood control information and resulting regulated flows to plan power operations. Power marketers use information to plan selling and buying of power generation. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) document will be prepared to establish the Corps points of contact (POCs) for these stakeholders. 4. Roles and Responsibilities: The roles and responsibilities of CBWM and the districts when the end-state is achieved are as follows.

a. CBWM continues with the lead role and responsibility for:

(Items 1-15 apply to all projects in the Columbia Basin except the Willamette projects)

1. Preparing system flood control for real operations with input from districts for Libby and Dworshak

2. Preparing system storage reservation diagrams for all projects 3. Maintaining system flood control tools. 4. Determining real time system flood control requirements for all projects

while coordinating local flood control requirements for Libby and Dworshak with the districts

5. Determining the potential shift of flood control from Dworshak to Grand Coulee

6. Direction and oversight of system flood control model development performed by the districts.

7. Direction and oversight of system flood control modeling for special studies with coordination with respective districts.

8. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) of the Libby and Dworshak volume forecasts and refill.

9. Posting the Libby and Dworshak volume forecast webpages and all other flood control information web pages currently being posted.

10. Coordinating updated volume forecast procedures with the CRTOC. 11. Preparing system flood control guidance (monthly during January through

March, and weekly or as needed during April through June), with input from the Districts for Libby and Dworshak, and providing guidance to regulators at CBWM and the districts

12. During refill, ensure system flood control objectives are met given Libby and Dworshak flood control operations.

13. Review and approve Water Control Manuals 14. Deviation Approvals 15. Annual Flood Damage Reduction Report (AFDRR)- determine

unregulated flows and prepare report to HQ, Co-Op Gage report, Spring flood Assessment, FERC relicensing report reviews, Annual Treaty report, POC for TMT,

(Items 16-19 apply to all projects, including Willamette projects 16. Coordination of winter flood control protection with Canada

Appendix B:

Page 3


17. Coordination of flood control for Treaty (TSR) and PNCA (AER)

18. If system and local flood control conflict, NWD and the districts will work together to share and balance the benefits.

19. System-wide Dam Break modeling, CBWM to manage and coordinate any remaining components of this effort not completed by October 1, 2008. (districts to perform the remaining modeling).

b. New district responsibilities include (apply to all districts):

1. Developing and maintaining computer models for hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality purposes which are in support of CBWM flood control computations. Each district is responsible for technical work performed within their district boundaries. However each district may perform work outside of their district boundaries.

2. Provide support for local and system flood control model development, 3. Provide support for non-routine special system flood control modeling

studies 4. System wide dam break modeling not completed by October 1, 2008.

The regional statistical hydrologist will act as a regional resource to CBWM and the districts, performing tasks directly related to statistical hydrology. The statistical hydrologist will actively engage in regional discussions both at the district and at the division level to support Water Management, Operations and Maintenance, and Planning Studies. The existing statistical hydrologist position currently located in CBWM will be transferred to NWP and will provide technical analyses. In the event the position is vacated, the position could be located in any district office and the position should be further evaluated. Types of duties for this position are provided in Appendix B.

c. NWS is responsible for:

1. Preparing the Libby volume forecast and notifying the CBWM when complete.

2. Developing local flood control rule curves for Libby 3. Updating the volume forecast procedures when needed and may present

the recommendation for new procedures to the CRTOC. 4. Computing Libby VarQ outflows during refill, determining needs for local

flood control and providing to CBWM for incorporation into system flood control computations

d. NWW is responsible for:

1. Preparing the Dworshak volume forecast and notifying the CBWM when complete.

2. Developing local flood control rule curves for Dworshak

Appendix B:

Page 4


3. Updating the volume forecast procedures when needed and may present

the recommendation for new procedures to the CRTOC 4. Determining outflows or elevations for Dworshak for local flood control

purposes during refill and providing to CBWM for incorporation into system flood control computations

e. NWP is responsible for:

. 1. Working with CBWM during spring or winter flood events. 2. Developing updated flood control rule curves for Willamette projects 3. Willamette Conservation Season Modeling

5. Resources: This section addresses the man-hours associated with tasks to be transferred from CBWM to the districts and where work redundancy exists.

a. Man-hour Transfers. The following tables show the total estimated man-hours needed to accomplish the tasks to be transferred, and the net change to each organization at the end state for 1) Flood Control Related Functions and 2), Statistical Hydrologist related functions. Also addressed are CBWM needs to support work toward the future of the Columbia River Treaty, and work to support regulators during emergencies. Two tables are presented to account for the transitioning process of the statistical hydrologist. Note that the values in both tables are relative to the existing state. For example, the FY09 table shows 716 hours transferred each to NWW and NWS relative to the existing state. Showing these same number of hours transferred to NWW and NWS in FY10 and beyond relative to the existing state indicates that this transfer of hours for budgeting purposes will continue in FY 10 and beyond.

Total Man-Hour Transfers for FY09 (Relative to the Existing State)

Organization Man-hour transfer

FY09 Man-hours

CBWM - 4112 4199 NWS + 716 716 NWW + 716 716 NWP +850 850 District Floating,

+1830 1830

Appendix B:

Page 5


Total Man-Hour Transfers FY10 and Beyond (Relative to the Existing State)

Organization Man-hour transfer

End State Man-hours

CBWM - 4112 4199 NWS + 716 716 NWW + 716 716 NWP 0 0 District Floating +2680 2680

1) Flood Control Related Functions. A portion of the existing CBWM Flood

Control Related Functions has been identified as technical work that can be transferred to the districts. These tasks were divided between NWW, NWS and District Floating Work. There are 556 hours of flood control tasks that were transferred to each NWS and NWW related to operations of Libby and Dworshak. These 556 hours are included in the 716 hours to be transferred to the respective districts. The remaining balance of 160 hours are tasks related to the statistical hydrologist tasks, to be transferred (see section 5. a. 2).

Two areas of the existing CBWM workload have been identified as system technical work that can be transferred to the districts, with the work being managed by CBWM. The first is system model development, and the second is major special studies. The total man-hours to be transferred of this work have been estimated to be 1240.

For the District Floating system model development and special studies workload, the CBWM manager will be responsible for identifying projects to be completed and the responsible district for local aspects (see section 4.b.1). The manager will contact the responsible district water management office and coordinate if the district has available resources to perform the work within a desired timeline or if the work could be performed by a different district. If the manager identifies that resources are available at CBWM to perform the technical work and the responsible district is in agreement, then the technical work may be performed at CBWM.

2) Statistical Hydrologist Related Functions. The existing CBWM hydrologic

workload has been identified as technical work that can be transferred to the districts. These tasks were divided between NWW, NWS and District Floating Work. There are 160 hours of hydrologic tasks that were transferred to each NWS and NWW to coordinate and support improvements to water supply forecast procedures which in the past have been performed by the Statistical Hydrologist. These 160 hours are included in the 716 hours to be transferred to the respective districts. The man-hours associated with the remaining CBWM hydrologic workload are included in the District Floating Work. A portion of this work is non-recurring (does not occur every year). Based on past experience, non-recurring work is regularly needed. A large portion of the work is in support of system operations and special studies. The total man-

Appendix B:

Page 6


hours to be transferred for this work have been estimated to be 1440. This work will be managed by CBWM. To transition the statistical hydrologist position in FY09, it is assumed that approximately 850 hours of tasks for projects currently being performed for CBWM will be carried over to the NWP. It is assumed that the remaining 590 hours (1440 hrs – 850 hrs = 590 hrs) of statistical hydrologist tasks will be floating district work and is included in the 1830 hours of total District Floating Work. For FY10 and beyond, it is assumed that the full 1440 hours will be District Floating Work managed by CBWM. The 1440 statistical hydrologist tasks and 1240 flood control related tasks combine as the 2680 total District Floating Work.

For the District Floating hydrologic technical workload the CBWM manager will be responsible for identifying projects to be completed and the responsible district for local aspects (see section 4.b.1). The manager will contact the responsible district water management office and coordinate if the district has available resources to perform the work within a desired timeline or if the work could be performed by a different district. If the manager identifies that resources are available at CBWM to perform the technical work and the responsible district is in agreement, then the technical work may be performed at CBWM.

While the workload could be performed in any district, locating the position in NWP would satisfy the idea of “taking care of people”. No specific man hours were identified to transfer with the statistical hydrologist from CBWM to NWP. In the end state the position will be a regional resource capable of being funded by both CBWM and the districts. During the transition period (FY09) 850 hours of District Floating funding will be directed to NWP for the support of the Statistical Hydrologist to finish projects in progress and to aid in the transition of this position. The position will be relocated by October 1, 2008. Appendix B shows the type of tasks the Statistical Hydrologist may perform in the future.

3) Columbia River Treaty. It should be noted that there is a significant effort

needed toward the future of the Columbia River Treaty. At this time, it has been estimated that 2.2 FTE will be needed at CBWM to work on the efforts pertaining to flood control and statistical hydrology. Funding is not expected to come from routine water management O&M funding.

4) Staffing for Emergencies. Additional effort may be needed to support the

Reservoir Control Center and/or regulators in the districts during a flood event. Each office may need to staff 24/7 under extreme situations, resulting in additional overtime pay.

b. Work Redundancy. The following list is areas where the transition team identified that redundancy exists in Columbia Basin Water Management. The comment indicates where redundancy is beneficial or what might be done to increase efficiency. Area Comment

Dworshak volume forecasts. – NWW In the end state NWW will be the sole responsible office

Appendix B:

Page 7


developed the bi-monthly Dworshak volume forecast equations in the current water control manual. CBWM developed monthly volume forecast equations which were approved for use in determining flood control requirements by the Columbia River Treaty Operating Committee and developed following methodologies that are different than those in the water control manual. No deviation requests or requests to update the Water Control manual have been made. NWW continues to make bi-monthly forecasts per the Water Control Manual.

for developing the Dworshak runoff volume forecast equations and making the routine runoff volume forecasts, eliminating multi-office work redundancy in the future. NWW will compute the forecast based on the CBWM forecast equations for use in operations while monitoring results against NWW’s forecast equations. If NWW sees a need to use a different procedure for making runoff volume forecasts than the CBWM procedure then they will present recommendations regionally to the Columbia River Water Management Group Forecast and Data Committee for acceptance.

Model developments throughout the Columbia River Basin - The district offices and the division office develop models for different purposes in the same regions. Much of the development of these models is redundant. The respective offices, generally, do not have a knowledge of the others model development, particularly the districts historic non-water management studies, which have existing computer models that can be leveraged to more efficiently create new water management models.

In the end state model development will become a district responsibility resolving this redundancy and improving efficiency. Also, with the communications required for real time operations between the division and the district offices, division office will have regular opportunity to keep abreast of opportunities for requesting the districts to develop new models leveraging existing models.

Regional Climate Change Studies NWW, NWP, NWS and CBWM have staff staying abreast of Regional Climate Change and the possibility of incorporating that into hydrologic studies. Since the impacts of climate change are diverse, even within individual districts, it is reasonable for multiple offices to be studying regional climate change. The regional statistical hydrologist could be used to bring together the districts where overlapping of information exists.

Appendix D provides a list of models used by CBWM and the districts and what they are used for. 6. Coordination: To reach the end state, an overview of the current coordination process for the tasks to be transferred to the districts will be explained to the district personnel who will be preparing the work. Several meetings will be held to train the district personnel on how the current tools are used to provide the forecasts. Users will provide input and may improve the tools if needed.

Appendix B:

Page 8


Discussions with the regulators on use of consistent set of streamflow forecasts during refill will be required. Coordination with outside agencies during the transition to inform them of the communications plan and POCs, etc will be made. Corps management will lead in the communications plan between the teams and the stakeholders. Teams will provide communications SOPs for the stakeholders. The Districts and Division will work together to develop an SOP for Continuity of Operations (COOP). 7. Documentation Requirements: The required documentation such as new SOPs, MOAs and manuals when the end-state is achieved is as described below. All SOPs will be prepared, and District and Division personnel will all take part in providing input.

a. Forecasting Tools/Internal Process and Communications -SOPs for seasonal volume forecasting tools for Libby and Dworshak have been developed. After review by the districts, clarifications and modifications will be made as needed. District personnel will be responsible for updating the SOPs. The SOP will include how forecast and flood control information will be transferred between the districts and division. This SOP will cover the timing on when forecasts are to be provided, email lists to who they are to be provided, file locations, POCs, etc.

b. Forecast and Model Maintenance/Development- SOPs for process by which models are maintained and developed. Division will be responsible for coordination of efforts system wide model development. Districts will be responsible for development/maintenance of respective components.

c. Stakeholder Communications. An SOP will be prepared for the stakeholders so they know who to call for questions. The SOP should include a general description of each organizations roles and responsibilities. The SOP will be provided to the stakeholders.

d. System Flood Emergency Protocol. An SOP will be prepared to describe communications and the process that should occur during a flood emergency. CBWM will lead the preparation of the document while NWS, NWW, and NWP provide input.

8. Technical Requirements: Describe models, tools and data management required to reach the end-state. Current models used during flood control evacuation are in the form of spreadsheets. Snow and precipitation data are collected from various sources and entered into the spreadsheet. Detailed procedures are in the SOPs. Districts will be responsible for maintenance of the spreadsheets for Libby (NWS) and Dworshak (NWW). Districts will coordinate changes with CBWM of any updates.

Appendix B:

Page 9


For Libby, during refill, a spreadsheet to determine VarQ outflows is used. FCRCs may be used but probably will not dominate when using VarQ procedures. NWS will be responsible for any changes to the spreadsheet, and will coordinate changes with CBWM. For Dworshak, a spreadsheet to determine Flood Control Refill Curves (FCRCs) is used during early stages of refill. Daily streamflows are required to compute the FCRC. Currently use Single Trace Process flows to compute the FCRC. Districts and division to discuss use of streamflows, goal is to have a coordinated, consistent, compatible set of streamflows carried through the system to The Dalles. Streamflows should be coordinated with the regulators. Access to the volume forecasting spreadsheets for Libby and Dworshak will be available to their respective districts and CBWM via a single server. Only the appropriate District and Division will have access to these spreadsheets which will be password protected. One person from each district will be designated as the manager of their spreadsheet and any changes to formulas or fixed information in cells (which will be write protected) will be coordinated with that person. The manager will keep another district person trained on the spreadsheet who will serve as a backup for the manager. The manager of the spreadsheet will inform others of spreadsheet changes (how, will be stated in an SOP). Quality Control (QC) of data. CBWM will be responsible for Quality Control of the district’s volume forecast computations. Quality Control is needed to ensure that forecasts provided on the web page and used by the public is correct and accurate. Currently, QC is an existing practice at CBWM for volume forecast computations. AutoReg/SSARR model will be the responsibility of CBWM. Slight model changes are needed and have not been made due to resource limitations. A ResSim model for flood control computational purposes is planned to replace the AutoReg/SSARR model in the future as management of workload allows. Overall management of the ResSim model for flood control computational purposes will be the responsibility of CBWM. CBWM will direct and manage continued development of the ResSim Model and any needed model enhancements. The model development will be performed by the Districts. Dam Break Modeling is currently being performed by the statistical hydrologist. It is expected that at the end state, depending on the scope of additional work to be performed, the statistical hydrologist may continue with the work, or it will be transferred to another hydraulic engineer in one of the districts. The statistical hydrologist would be responsible for transferring the knowledge of the model development and operation if it is transferred to another hydraulic engineer. 9. Training Requirements and Testing Plan: Provide a schedule plan to detail training and testing required to ensure the end-state is achievable. The following training items are needed prior to implementation:

a. Forecast Tools Training. Training will be provided for NWS for training on the Libby forecasting spreadsheet tool and to NWW for training on the

Appendix B:

Page 10


Dworshak forecasting spreadsheet tool. Training will also be provided for outflow and refill curve computations.

b. System Flood Control and Treaty Training overview. Training for district personnel on system flood control will be provided to aid in a better understanding of the impact of the headwater projects on system flood control and to aid in understanding how the system models work for the purpose of being prepared for on-Call work and model development. Training on Treaty flood control and what the Flood Control Operating Plan means will be provided by CBWM.

c. Auto/Reg Training. Training on AutoReg/SSARR will take place to introduce district personnel to the program, and how it models the FCOP. Depending on when ResSim can be developed and projected modeling needs, refresher training may occur once a year.

d. Test Exercises. Develop and test internal processes. 1) Includes testing of connectivity of forecasting tools and flood

control computational tools to ensure the process runs smoothly, and to test the SOPs to ensure they are clear and complete.

2) Other testing to include system flood emergencies which will be coordinated with the regulation team and management. Tests will involve flooding contributed from both the lower Columbia and the Willamette River.

e. The estimated effort in man-days to accomplish the training, testing, and preparation of the SOPs are as follows:

Man-days

NWW NWS NWP CBWM Labor Travel Labor Travel Labor Travel Labor Travel Training of Forecast tools and System FC

4 6 2 2 1 0 4 0

Training on use of AutoReg

4 6 2 2 2 0 2

Test Exercises Tools/connectivity

2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0

Test Exercises System Flood Control

4 0 4 0 4 0 10 0

Develop SOPs 4 0 4 0 2 0 15 0 Learn and populate WIKI tool

4 0 4 0 3 0 8 0

Totals 34 22 12 34

Appendix B:

Page 11


10. Schedule: Provide a schedule of key Phase II deliverable milestones. Tasks to be

completed by the day shown. a. April 11- Modeling and Forecasting Team Finalize Transition Plan b. Develop SOPs.

Forecasting Tools/Internal Process and Communications Forecast Model Maintenance/Development (2 SOPs, both on the same schedule):

1 May- CBWM prepare 75% draft (Low), in progress 16 June- Districts review & provide input (Brettmann, Schwarz,

Dickerson) 30 June - CBWM prepare 90% draft by 30 June (Low) 31 Aug - Districts backcheck & revise after testing by 31Aug 15 Sep - CBWM finalize by 15 Sep (Low)

Stakeholder Communications (not initiated yet) 1 June - CBWM prepare draft by 1 June (Low) 16 June - Districts review & provide input (Brettmann, Schwarz, Dickerson) 30 June - CBWM complete and provide to management to include in

Corps Communications document to outside (Low) System Flood Emergency Protocol (not initiated yet) 15 June - CBWM prepare 50% draft (Low) 30 June - RRIT review and meet to discuss (Reese, Brettmann, Askelson, Heitstuman)

31 July - CBWM prepare 90% draft (Low) 15 Sep - RRIT backcheck and revise after testing

c. Training Forecasting tools, system flood control, and refill

20 May - NWW training - May 20 (Low, Soderlind, Hall, Schwarz, Kim, Schneidmiller) 28 May - NWS training May 28, (Low, Soderlind, Brettmann, Melder)

Training for AutoReg (not yet scheduled) 30 June (Low, McCoskery, NWW, NWS)

d. Test Exercises- Forecasting tools/connectivity

31 Jul – Set up directory accessible by districts (Low/Liu, NWS, NWW) 31 Aug – Perform testing, make adjustments as needed (Low, NWS, NWW)

System Flood Emergency 31 Jul – Design Test Exercise (Low, Brooks)

31 Aug - RRIT perform test (Hlebechuk, NWS – person TBD, Heitstuman, NWP - TBD)

15 Sep – Prepare Lessons learned, for incorporation into System Flood Emergency Protocol (RRIT)

Appendix B:

Page 12


Appendix B:

Page 13

e. Implement Transition by 1 Oct 2008

11. Interdependencies: The main interdependence with other technical areas is with the

Tributary and System Reservoir Regulation Team, the Water Control Data System Team and water quality teams. Flood control guidance will be coordinated with the regulators at the districts and division. Districts and division need to ensure that local and system flood control needs are met to the best extent possible. Communications with the regulators will be made each time a new forecast volume is developed and flood control curves are developed. Communications will be by phone and by sending the flood control guidance prepared by CBWM through email.

12. Phase III Actions: Describe long-term plans and suggestions for improvements of

the end-state.

• Long Term Plans—update WCMs for POCs • ResSim Discussions. Discussions on transitioning from AutoReg/SSARR to

ResSim will take place, and what is needed to incorporate flood control algorithms into ResSim. A plan to convert AutoReg to ResSim should be developed. Effort is accounted for in District Floating Work.

• Continued development of local ResSim models leading to a Regional ResSim Model.

• Discuss and determine the need for incorporation of Dynamic Reservoir Modeling on the Lower Snake River into routine routing models.

• Incorporation of the Columbia Basin Modeling efforts into CWMS • Participate in Regional Forecasting Team • Coordinate and communicate participation in climate change issue between

districts • Establish Modeling team to discuss possibility of standardizing models

internal to the agency and with external agencies, and to eliminate duplication of efforts.

• Assess how the end-state is performing and make adjustments as needed.


Appendix A

Existing State

1) CBWM. The flood control requirements for real time and for use in planning studies pertaining to the Columbia River Treaty and the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (PNCA) are prepared by the Columbia Basin, Northwestern Division. The team is composed of a unit lead and 3 technical experts. The role of the unit lead is to ensure Columbia River Treaty and PNCA requirements are met, to serve as a regional interface for stakeholders regarding flood control products, to assure that products are technically correct and produced in a timely manner to satisfy needs during actual operations. The role of the 3 technical experts is to 1) compute forecasts for Libby and Dworshak 2) prepare and quality control the flood control curves during real time and 3) prepare and quality control the detailed flood control studies for input to PNCA and Treaty studies. In addition the team works in close coordination with the CBWM Reservoir Control Center (RCC) to integrate theoretical flood control into actual operations.

2) NWS. The Water Management Section in the Seattle District is composed of a supervisory hydraulic engineer, senior water manager and currently four hydraulic engineers that perform flood control studies, hydrologic analyses, hydraulic engineering tasks for all projects in the district and the reservoir regulation (both day to day and flood events) for Western Washington projects. In addition, the Section employs a system administrator (50% time), database manager, field technician, meteorologist, water quality specialist and two hydrologic technicians (one vacant). The majority of work this section performs as it pertains to Columbia basin flood control and forecasting is to conduct local flood control studies (modeling, analysis, documentation, review and coordination). In addition, this section maintains and updates the water control manuals, organizes annual public meetings, and reviews water supply forecast procedures, project flood control guidance, and any report or analysis as it might pertain to water supply and flood control for district projects (Biological Opinions, Biological Assessments, Annual ESA Submittals, etc.). Staff in this section participate on multiple Project Delivery Teams created to meet requirements of respective Biological Opinions and are also key contributors to the Upper Columbia EIS.

3) NWW. Water Management in Walla Walla District is supported by Hydrology Section staff consisting of 8 hydraulic engineers, 2 engineering technicians and a Section Chief. These engineers perform the full range of Water Management tasks while supporting all other district Hydrologic and Open Channel Hydraulic needs. Tasks and modeling efforts directly related to Columbia basin Modeling and Forecasting are as follows: Dworshak forecasting procedures and computer models are developed and maintained by Walla Walla District. Walla Walla District (NWW) collects snow water equivalent data via the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and monthly

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix A


precipitation data via the National Weather Service to make runoff volume forecasts for Dworshak. NWW produces the first and mid-month volume forecast for Dworshak, January through June following the current Water Control Manual. NWW checks their number against RCC’s volume forecast as well as RFC’s. If the NWW number is much different then RCC’s we will contact RCC to discuss and document the differences. If NWW and RCC are not in agreement NWW investigates the situation further which has included snow flights and or “ground truthing” important SNOTEL stations, to visually verify snow covered area. NWW acknowledges that there is no single forecast equation that best correlates with all specific years, particularly the extreme years. NWW also performs a sometimes critical mid-month forecast that is not made available by other sources to RCC. NWW has developed and maintains a two dimensional CEQUAL W2 model for hydraulic routing and temperature modeling from Dworshak Dam thru the Lower Granite Dam Tailwater. NWW provides model results and scenarios to RCC and Technical Management Team (TMT) meetings. NWW determines timing, temperature, volume and flow rate of Dworshak releases to support court directed water temperature targets at Lower Granite Dam and balance needs of fish hatchery operations. Development to extend this model through all the Lower Snake River Projects is nearly complete. NWW has developed and supports an unsteady HEC-RAS model for the four Lower Snake Projects to help with modeling special operations for hydraulic studies relating to fish passage and navigation. Along with modeling special operations NWW coordinates and relays information to Division. Development is under way to make this a real time model. Short term forecasted inflows to Lower Granite Reservoir are computed real time using a FLD-WAV model developed and maintained by NWW. The model uses Spalding and Anatone flows as input. NWW maintains the Water Control Manuals for Dworshak, Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor, and McNary. NWW provides technical assistance to the RCC during flood control operations at Lower Granite for Lewiston and Clarkston Levees. The Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for Dworshak and the Lower Snake Projects are periodically updated by NWW. NWW participates in public information meetings as related to project operation, Project Development Teams related to ESA, including development of BA and EIS. NWW provides water control management support to all organizations within the District (i.e. Engineering and Construction Division, and Operations Division for special operation (i.e. Ice Harbor spill tests as related fingerling survival and spill operation). In addition, provide water management data for litigation support to District Office of Counsel. NWW updates the Water Control Manuals of projects within their district boundary. 4) NWP. All Portland District employees affected by the Water Management reorganization are in the Engineering and Construction Division, Hydraulics and Hydrology Branch. There are two relevant sections within the branch; the Reservoir Regulation and Water Quality Section and the Hydrologic, Coastal and River Engineering Section. NWP currently has a complete CWMS suite of models setup for

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix A


Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix A

the Rogue Basin. NWP has also conducted water quality modeling on Applegate and Lost Creek reservoirs in the Rogue Basin.

Under General Investigation authorities NWP has performed extensive Willamette Basin hydrologic, hydraulic and reservoir routing modeling. The district developed and performed the conservation season modeling for Willamette conservation planning. NWP has also performed extensive coordination and scoped extensive studies the address the recent Willamette Basin TMDL announcement. NWP has technical expertise in all of the Columbia mainstem and tributary systems within the district boundaries including the Portland/Vancouver area, one of the largest damage centers in the basin. Portland District also has also performed a feasibility study analyzing the effects of operating John Day Reservoir at Minimum Operating Pool. NWP updates the Water Control Manuals of projects within their district boundary.

Appendix B: Modeling and Forecasting Team Transition Report Modeling and Forecasting

Appendix B Statistical Hydrologist Potential Tasks

Types of duties that may be performed by this position are non-recurring in nature. The following list is work tasks currently being performed that could be done in the future, and future potential work. Duties performed by the statistical hydrologist may include: 1. Development of risk and uncertainty assessment analysis tools for real time and planning. Support for CBWM and districts on risk and uncertainty assessment analyses for, but not limited to, system and local flood control, deviation requests, and operational decision making. Serving as liaison between NWD (Districts and Division) and the NWRFC to develop strategies for utilizing near-term, deterministic ESP forecasts. 2. Support for Ad-hoc Studies. Prepare statistical hydrologic analyses in support of flood control studies, forecast volume updates, planning studies, water control manual updates, and drought management plans, and for internal and external agencies. 3. Serving as technical advisor within NWD regarding the hydrologic impacts of climate change. Advisor for 2014/2024 Treaty studies in incorporating climate change into studies, and other Treaty flood control and operational studies. 4. Participate in regional forums, such as, Columbia River Water Management Group Forecast and Data Committee, Columbia River Treaty HydroMet Committtee, and Technical Management Team meetings in support of the Reservoir Control Center. 5. Review of technical documents with respect to hydrological aspects of drought management plans, FERC license renewal reports, and planning studies. 6. Determine, develop, and support optimization tools for reservoir systems operations. Coordinate activities with HEC. 7. Support H&H Community of Practice leader for risk and uncertainty, climate change, preparation of policies, and technology transfer. Develop NWD policy in implementing climate change into studies. 8. Hydrologic Product Delivery Team (PDT) Member on the full range of District planning studies to include but not limited to GI, CAP, and O&M.

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix B


Appendix C District Floating

NWP NWW NWS Treaty System T reaty 2014/2024

No. Tasks and Functions

1 Libby Water Supply Forecast (Nov - Jun) and local refill1. Data Collec tion - est. 1.0 day s per month X 8 months 642. Computation of WSF, preparation of report(s ) - est. 4hrs per month X 8 months 323. Quality Control of WFS - est . 4hrs per month X 8 months 324. Coordinat ion of WSF with stakeholders/agencies - est. 4hrs per month X 8months 325. Preparat ion of 'Early Bird' forecasts upon request - est. 4 hrs per month X 8 months 326. Provide customer support - est. 0.5 days per month X 8 months 327. Maintenance of Forecasting and local flood control Tools - est 40 hours per year annualized 408. Compute VarQ outflows during refill and ensure local flood control needs are met 209. Improve/Review W SF Procedures - es t.80 hours per y ear if needed, est. annualized 8010. Coordination of W SF Procedures with Stakeholders - est. 80 hours per year annualized 80 20

2 Dworshak Water Supply Forecast (Oct - Jun) and local refill1. Data Collec tion - est. 1.0 day s per month X 8 months 642. Computation of WSF, preparation of report(s ) - est. 4hrs per month X 8 months 323. Quality Control of WFS - est . 4hrs per month X 8 months 324. Coordinat ion of WSF with stakeholders/agencies - est. 4hrs per month X 8months 325. Preparat ion of 'Early Bird' forecasts upon request - est. 4 hrs per month X 8 months 326. Provide customer support - est. 0.5 days per month X 8 months 327. Maintenance of Forecasting and local flood control Tools - est 40 hours per year annualized 408. Compute Flood Control Refill Curves during refill and ensure local f lood control needs are met 209. Improve/Review W SF Procedures - es t.80 hours per y ear if needed, est. annualized 8010. Coordination of W SF Procedures with Stakeholders - est. 80 hours per year annualized 80 20

3 QA/QC of Libby and Dworshak WSF, Libby VarQ and Dworshak FCRC 1224 Develop System Flood Control for Evacuation Per iod

1. Collect/Coordinate Canadian Forecast Data - est. 1.0 days er month X 8 months 642. Collect/Cpprdinate Hungry Horse Forecast Data - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 643. Compute System Flood Control for AER - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 644. Compute system flood control for TSR - es t. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 645. Compute system flood control for BPA-PFF - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 646. Compute DWR toGCL s hift - est. 0.5 days per month X 4 months 166. Compute BRN toGCL shif t - est. 0.5 days per month X 4 months 167. Prepare reports for post ing to WM website - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 648. QA/QC system flood control for AER, TSR, BPA-PFF - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 649. Coordinate s ys tem flood control with stakeholders/agencies - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 6410. Prov ide cus tomer support; answer quest ions - est. 1.0 days per month X 8 months 64

5 Maintenance of system flood control tools (pre &post processing) - est. 30 days per year 240

6 Prepare AER/TSR data submittals - est. 2.0 days per month X 12 months 1927 Prepare/update Standard Operating Procedures; AER/TSR - est. 160 hours per year 1608 Develop System Flood Control - Refi ll Period

1. Compute Daily FCRC's using observed/forecasted streamflow - est . 3.0 days per month X 4 months 962. Compute GCL/ARDB refill requirements per FCOP - est. 1.5 days per month X 4 months 48

3. Modeling sys tem refill for flood cont rol using ESP/ST P forecasts - est. 8.0 days per month X 4 months 256

4. Preparat ion of system flood control ref ill guidance - est. 2.0 days per month X 4 months 645. Coordinat ion of system refill object iv es with stakeholders/agencies - 1.0 days per month X 4 months 326. Provide customer support - est 1.0 days per month X 4 months 32

Units in Man-hoursDistr ict HEB

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix C


Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix C

Appendix C (cont.)

District Floating

No. Tasks and Functions NWP NWW NWS Treaty System T reaty 2014/2024

9 Model Development and Maintenance (ResSim for flood control and AutoReg/SSARR) (Assume 1,600 hours total for this effor t - Annualized)

1. Local model Development related to Libby and Dworshak operations 240 240

2. System Model Development 920 200

10 Technical Review1. Water Control Manual Review; est 3 per year - est. 60

e 16hou

48

. 48 , 32 , 32

w

hours each 1802. Deviation Review and Coordination; est . 5 per year - st. hours each 803. Review of technical documents; est. 2 per year - est. 80 rs each 1604. Review of FERC license renewal; est. 2 per yaer - est . 80 hours each 160

11 Participation in Columbia River Management Group Meetings - est. hours per year 4812 Cooperative Stream Gaging Program - est. 80 hours per year 8013 Annual Flood Damages Reduction Report to Congress - est. 80 hours per year 8014 PNCA 71-year data submittal - est. 40 hours per year 40

15Particpate in Technical Management Team Meetings when requested - annual est hours HEBhours NWW hours NWS 32 32 48

16 Participate in eekly RCC Briefings - est. 4.0 hours per week X 12 months 48

17 Stakeholder coordination on flood control policy, QC, unit workload coord (20% of unit lead) 417

18 Assumed major special study per year (annualized) 320 80

19 Preparation of Annual Treaty Report - est. 40 hours per year 40

20 Ad-hoc system flood control studies; ICF analysis, GCL Winter Flood Control, Mica in TSR/AER, etc. - est. 600 hours per year

600

21 Participation in Columbia River Treaty Operating Committee Meetings - est. hours per year 48

22 Non-Recurring Hydrologic tasks related to system and special studies 1440

23 Estimated effort toward future Treaty work (2014/2024) (2 for flood control, .2 for Stat Hyd) 2.2 FTE

Total Man-hours 716 716 2680 1376 2823 2.2 FTE

4199

Units in Man-hoursHEBDistr ict

48

Note: Additional effort may be needed to support the Reservoir Control Center and/or regulators in the districts during a flood event. Each office may need to staff 24/7 under extreme situations, resulting in additional overtime pay.


Appendix D Existing and Planned Models

The following is a list of the existing district and division computer models developed for water management of the reaches covered by this transition document. All offices are interested in updating existing legacy models into the Hydrologic Engineering Centers (HEC) newest software. At this time, CBWM’s Reservoir Control Center (RCC) works with the RFC to prepare a joint forecast, inputting project regulations into RFC’s forecasting model to make downstream projections. The following table may be used for informational purposes and as a basis for discussions of the future of models in Phase III.

Application Model Reach Used By Purpose or proposed use Comments

ResSim Reg By individual sub-basins, then Columbia Basin to Bonneville

RCC Real time regulations

ResSim Willamette NWP Conservation modeling, long term planning

RCC has just returned modeling of the Willamette to NWP

ResSim Willamette NWP Flood operations short-term and strategic planning

Underway

HEC-RAS Clearwater Spalding gage downstream to mouth of Snake River

NWW Navigation, special operations related to fish passage

Unsteady model with gated structures. Future plans to make real time

FLDWAV Clearwater Spalding gage to Lower Granite Reservoir and Snake River Anatone gage to Lower Granite Reservoir

NWW Real Time Short Term forecasted inflows to Lower Granite Reservoir

Future plans to convert to a HEC-RAS unsteady model.

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix D


CEQualW2 Clearwater River (Dworshak to mouth) Lower Snake River (Anatone to mouth)

NWW Support RCC (and TMT) for real time regulation to meet temperature targets in Lower Granite Reservoir

Model determines timing, temperature, and flow rate for Dworshak releases. (reach downstream of Lower Granite tailwater still under development)

CEQualW2 Numerous locations NWP Support TMDL and water quality short-term operations and strategic planning

NWS RFS modeling system

Columbia River System and coastal systems

NOAA/RFC RCC

Short Term and Long Term Forecasts RCC provides project operations data to RFC who runs this system model.

AutoReg/SSARR

HEB, NWS System Flood Control and local flood control studies (i.e., Libby, EIS, Bonners Ferry flood level study)

ResSim Flood Control

HEB System Flood Control Not developed

SSARR Unreg

CBWM AFDRR In Use

ResSim Unreg

Not in use yet

AFDRR X % ready?

HYSSR Columbia basin without Willamette

CBWM Power Branch

PNCA., Treaty, ESA support In use, modernization is under consideration

HYSSR Willamette basin only CBWM Power Branch

PNCA., Treaty, ESA support In use

Appendix B:

Sub-Appendix D

Appendix C: Environmental Compliance Team Transition Report

6 May 2008

FINAL REPORT

Water Management Phase II Transition Plan

Technical Functional Area: Environmental Compliance for System Regulation

1. Background: Provide a short summary of the existing state, transition plan and end-state of the technical functional area for which your team is responsible. The Columbia Basin Water Management Division (CBWM), Reservoir Control Center (RCC) has staffed a fish operations coordination function since the 1970s. Jim Cayanus, a meteorologist, was hired from Walla Walla District in 1977 to develop spill operations for fish passage during low flow conditions and other fish coordination duties. He worked with fisheries agencies through the interagency Committee on Fishery Operations (COFO) in formulating fish operations. The Northwest Power Planning Act was passed in 1980, calling for a Fish and Wildlife Program. That Program, first adopted in 1982, included provisions for a Fish Passage Center to work with the operating agencies on hydrosystem actions to benefit migrating fish, and the establishment of a water budget for flow augmentation to improve migration conditions for juvenile fish. For Corps projects, the water budget was a volume of water in Dworshak released each spring, when requested by the Fish Passage Center, to aid juvenile fish outmigrations. Research and monitoring efforts funded by the Corps and BPA also increased. As fish operations and studies grew through the 1980s, Rudd Turner, a fishery biologist, worked in RCC during 1989 - 1992 to provide fishery coordination including implementation of the Spill Agreement, research coordination, and preparation of the annual Fish Passage Plan. Bruce Glabau (hydraulic engineer) performed these duties during 1992 – 1996. This was the time period when Snake River sockeye and Chinook salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act. Jim Athearn (fishery biologist) worked in RCC during 1996 - 1999, and then Turner returned to that position during 1999 – 2005. Also in 1996 Scott Boyd (hydraulic engineer) was assigned to assist the biologist in fishery coordination, reporting, and issuing teletype regulations to projects. Since 2005 the fish biologist position has remained in RCC and been held by Larry Beck and Bern Klatte. Both positions are shown in the CBWM end state described in the Commander’s Decision and Phase I fact sheet dated 15 November 2007. Corps environmental compliance functions, especially those activities related to ESA and salmon recovery, have grown tremendously since the 1970s. These considerations now form one of the dominant factors in decision making on project and system operations in the Columbia River Basin. However, distinct from CBWM’s reservoir regulation, modeling,

Appendix C: Page 1


Appendix C: Page 2

forecasting, and data management functions in CBWM, there has not been a centralized staffing up to meet the demand. Under the current state, CBWM does not have a large biological team; instead, the fish biologist and assistant rely on District and project resources to provide technical analysis, evaluation, operations recommendations, and regional technical fish passage coordination. Key deliverables and dates are shown in Figure 1. The Fish Passage Plan depends heavily on District and project biologists to develop and update fish facility operating criteria which are part of the FPP. The District biologists are located in both Operations and Planning offices. Project operations and maintenance issues are handled in Operations, while fish passage studies and strategic issues are handled in Planning. Specific project operations for fish passage studies and BiOp implementation are coordinated primarily through the Districts, and requests for operations often originate from the Districts. In addition, a fish policy office was established in NPD (now NWD) in 1995 to accomplish regional interface, strategy formulation, and program management for the salmon recovery program. That function has continued and now resides in the NWD Planning, Environmental Resources, and Fish Policy & Support Division (PDD). CBWM relies on this group for much of the regional discussion and negotiations on project and system operations to recover fish populations. In addition, cultural resources compliance issues arise from project operations. These are typically handled by District archaeologists with some support from the NWD Native American Coordinator and a PDD cultural resource specialist. The current relationships with the Districts, projects, and NWD Fish Policy & Support office will continue as the end state is implemented, at current resource levels. The Fact Sheet does not propose any changes to CBWM staffing levels, or shifting of any positions to the Districts, to accomplish environmental compliance tasks related to system regulation. 2. Deliverables: Describe key end-state deliverables and the process to achieve those deliverables. This section describes the products that CBWM and Districts will deliver in-house and to the region to describe environmental compliance for system regulation and how the Corps will operate facilities and the system to meet BiOp measures and/or court orders. Key deliverables and dates are shown in Figure 1. FCRPS:

• Annual Fish Passage Plan – RCC Fishery Biologist will be in charge of and coordinate the final FPP with the region each year. District Operation Biologists will coordinate with the projects and researchers for all special operations and changes to the FPP and provide to RCC for finalization. The RCC and District biologists will coordinate FPP review and amendments through FPOM each fall and winter, and during the fish passage season as needed.


Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Wat

er M

gmt.

Plan

AFE

P R

evie

w

Rep

orts

FFD

RW

G

Figure 1. COE Work Products for FCRPS and Agency Requests

Fish

Pas

sage

Pl

an

Age

ncie

s SO

R

TMT (Division) / FPOM (Districts) / BiOp (Division & Districts) / SOR Negotiations

Fish Passage Reports (Districts)

Spill (Division Coordinates, Districts Implement)

Minimum Operating Pool (lower Snake River)

JDA Irrigation

SRWG Reports (BiOp measures) Proposals

Appendix C: Page 3


• Annual Water Management Plan (including Fall/Winter and Spring/Summer updates) – This Plan is called for in the FCRPS BiOp to describe reservoir operations and water control actions to protect ESA-listed fish species. It includes reservoir operations for spring and summer flow augmentation and temperature management, MOP, sturgeon flows, bull trout ramp rates and minimum flows, chum spawning and incubation, VARQ implementation, and water supply/flow forecasting methods. The WMP includes a more general annual Plan plus fall/winter and spring/summer updates which describe more detailed operations for specific water supply conditions. The RCC Fishery Biologist will be in charge of and coordinate the drafts and final WMP with region and through TMT each year.

• Annual Spill/Transportation Plans (FPIP, FOP if they are done in the future) NWD –

PDD will be the lead in preparing spill/transport plans with the RCC Fishery Biologist assisting and finalizing as an appendix in the annual fish passage plan.

• Annual Special Operations for studies, unit outages, unit testing, etc. (FPP Appendix

A) – District Operations and Planning Fisheries Biologists will be in charge of acquiring and providing special operations to the RCC Fisheries Biologist. This information will be included in the annual Fish Passage Plan.

• Annual plan for Willamette projects – Portland District Operations and Planning

Fisheries Biologists will be the lead in acquiring and providing special operations to the RCC Fisheries Biologist. This information will be coordinated with the District Reservoir Regulation unit.

• FCRPS BiOp Implementation reports for NOAA Fisheries (Water Management

components) – The RCC Fisheries Biologist and assistant will prepare and coordinate CBWM input to BiOp implementation reports. District Planning and Operations biologists will prepare input to implementation reports for tributary projects, in coordination with the RCC biologist.

• Kootenai River BiOp (USFWS) – The Division PDD office will coordinate with RCC,

Seattle, Libby project, and the other Action Agencies (BPA and Reclamation), on this BiOp.

• FCRPS BiOp implementation reports for USFWS (Water Management components) –

The RCC biologist will support PDD and District elements in preparing this annual update concerning bull trout and Kootenai River white sturgeon. The NWS ESA Coordinator is the lead for this document, with support from the Libby project biologist.

• FCRPS annual implementation plans for USFWS (WM components) – The RCC

biologist will support PDD and District elements in preparing this annual planning update concerning bull trout and Kootenai River white sturgeon.

Appendix C: Page 4


• Flow Plan Implementation Protocol (FPIP) for Libby (sturgeon flows) – An interagency technical working group will include the Libby project fish biologist to provide Corps input to this protocol. The Libby project fish biologist will coordinate with Seattle fish biologists and WM, as well as RCC, in formulating operations and for annual updates.

• Cultural Resources Management Plans – District biologists will provide water

management environmental compliance guidance on the development and implementation of CR management plans for FCRPS projects.

Willamette River Basin Regarding Willamette River BiOp Implementation for NOAA Fisheries, technical management committees will be established as determined in the charter to be known as the Willamette Action Team for ESA Recovery (WATER). These committees will provide review and recommendations of the AA products required in the BiOp. The committees will consist of: a Flow Management Committee, a Fish Passage and Hatchery Management Committee, a Water Quality Committee, a Habitat Committee and a RM&E committee. Representation on these committees with be the responsibility of the Portland District Operations and Planning Fisheries Biologists, who will prepare and coordinate BiOp implementation reports. District Planning and Operations biologists will prepare input to implementation reports for tributary projects, in coordination with the RCC biologist. Several plans are being considered as part of BiOp implementation for Willamette Valley projects. These include Construction and Operations Plans for each project, a Fish Passage Plan, Water Quality Management Plans for water bodies where projects are located and for which TMDL allocations have been received, and Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMP) for each facility. 3. Stakeholders: List key stakeholders and their role when the end-state is achieved. While not an inclusive list, the key groups and roles are:

• NOAA Fisheries – Salmon/steelhead BiOps: ESA management and regulatory role with representation on regional coordination groups (TMT, FPOM, FFDRWG, SRWG); chairs or co-chairs most Regional Forum teams (IT, SCT, WQT); Regional Forum TMT member; member of the Federal Caucus.

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Sturgeon/bull trout BiOp: ESA management and

regulatory role; Recovery Team manager, partner with Action Agencies on operations to benefit fish; representation on regional coordination groups (TMT, IT, SCT, WQT, Federal Caucus, FPOM, FFDRWG, SRWG).

Appendix C: Page 5


• State fish & wildlife agencies (OR, WA, ID, MT) – fisheries management role with representation on regional forums (TMT, IT, WQT, FPOM, FFDRWG, SRWG). These include the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP).

• State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) – Coordination points for historic sites

& structures.

• Tribal fish and cultural resources offices, CRITFC, and UCUT – Sovereign Indian nations and treaty rights holders; fisheries and cultural resources managers; customers for tribal trust responsibilities; tribes, CRITFC, and UCUT participate in regional coordination groups (TMT, FPOM, FFDRWG); conduct fish & wildlife and cultural resources projects (usually BPA-funded).

• BPA – partner Action Agency; power transmission and marketing of energy generated

at FCRPS projects; Corps direct funding source; regional fish and wildlife funding source under NPCC program; managing power system operations.

• Bureau of Reclamation – partner Action Agency; project operator for Grand Coulee,

Hungry Horse, and irrigation projects in the upper Snake River basin, Banks Lake, and Yakima River basin; managing the hydropower system.

• BC Hydro – Canadian entity for implementation of the Columbia River Treaty.

• Columbia Basin Trust – Canadian organization responsible for allocation of Treaty-

related power revenue funds to Canadian portion of the Columbia River basin for the ongoing economic, environmental and social benefit of the region.

• Fish Passage Center – CBFWA data management and analysis group; represented on

FPOM and SRWG.

• Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) – represented on FPOM.

• NPCC – Northwest Power and Conservation Council – Manager of conservation programs for power, fish & wildlife; reviews fish & wildlife project proposals for BPA funding; co-chair of the Regional Forum Implementation Team (IT).

• River Partners – Represent river user groups; occasional coordination with PDD and

RCC; participate in FPOM, TMT, water quality groups.

• Utilities groups – Represent northwest and other regional utilities.

• FCRPS projects – Implement water management actions as request by RCC or District WM. Dworshak, Libby, Albeni Falls, and Willamette projects will interact more

Appendix C: Page 6


directly with their respective District WM offices. Projects directly communicate with District Fishery Biologists.

• Waterways & towboater associations – direct communication with RCC reservoir

regulation unit.

• EPA – Clean Water Act management and regulatory roles; approve state water quality standards and TMDLs; coordinate with PDD and RCC water quality specialists; may communicate tribal views on water quality issues.

• State environmental quality agencies (OR, WA, ID, MT) – direct communication with

Regional Forum Water Quality Team and RCC Water Quality POC.

• Researchers – direct communication and coordination with District Operation and Planning Biologists

• Corps water quality staff (spill for fish passage) – direct communication and

coordination with RCC and District biologists

• District & Project Biologists – Make requests for special operations for studies, unit outages, facility maintenance, and fish emergencies.

• Project control room operators – Have current information on operating conditions at

the project, and the feasibility of implementing operations specified in teletypes.

• NGOs, litigants – Stakeholders who have interest in hydrosystem operations, and may be impacted by operations decisions by the Corps.

• NWD fish (PDD) and legal (CECC-NWD) policy offices – Make requests for

technical analyses and coordination records on water control decisions made by CBWM.

In many cases, the interface with stakeholders on environmental compliance for system regulation will not change in the end state. However, District coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, project biologists, EPA, and state environmental quality agencies may increase as a consequence of tributary project water management operations shifting to the Districts. RCC often receives System Operational Requests (SORs) for both mainstem and tributary projects from fisheries agencies, tribes, and user groups. The RCC biologist will promptly provide SORs to the designated District biologists when they are submitted to the Corps or other Action Agencies (BPA & Reclamation). The District biologists will in turn coordinate SORs among appropriate District and project staff for action and response. RCC will respond to SORs for mainstem projects while the Districts will respond to SORs for tributary projects.

Appendix C: Page 7


4. Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of team members when the end-state is achieved. Northwestern Division: The RCC biologist and support staff will coordinate and issue teletypes for all fish operations related to the mainstem Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers. This includes coordination with BPA, NOAA Fisheries, District and project staffs, and other entities as appropriate. The RCC biologist coordinates with PDD and the NWD Office of Counsel for policy and legal input. Court Reports: In the current state, the RCC Water Quality Team prepares monthly reports during April – August to the Federal District Court which describe in detail the implementation of spill, transportation, and other fish operations, and report on the extent and cause of any deviations from operations specified in the Fish Operations Plan. The court report evaluates water quality and flow data in relation to fish passage, project operations, turbine unit operation, navigation, power system emergencies, and other activities which can impact fish operations. For 2008 the RCC Water Quality Team will continue to prepare the court reports. In the RCC end state, the fish biologist, fish support team member, and remaining water quality staff will merge into a Fish and Water Quality Team. This Team will be responsible for the court reports beginning in 2009. The Team may utilize other CBWM staff and/or District staff as needed to gather information and perform technical analysis for the reports. The structure and layout of these reports will be evaluated prior to the 2009 spill season to determine whether the necessary information can be gathered and prepared more efficiently. Walla Walla District: The District Operations Biologist and Project Operations Managers will be the point of contact for all NWW operations which require regional environmental coordination resulting in teletypes for a tributary project issued from NWW District. Project Operations Managers or their designated representative will implement any operational changes at the project. Research activities managed by Planning Division at both mainstem and tributary projects which require teletypes shall be submitted through District Operations Biologists and coordinated with project managers and RCC. All fish passage coordination will occur with the NWW POC and the RCC Biologist. The NWW District Operations Biologist will be responsible for coordination with the RCC Biologist, the Technical Management Team and BPA schedulers. The District Biologists will be in charge of all coordination with BPA and regional technical forums such as FPOM, SRWG, and FFDRWG. Environmental coordination may consist of communication from RCC to the District of current conditions as triggers or constraints on operational plans. During the fish passage season, control point (flow or elevation) levels for environmental compliance will be determined by RCC and coordinated with regional managers and TMT. District biologists will coordinate in season Dworshak operational requests from the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), IDFG Clearwater Hatchery, and USFWS Dworshak National Fish

Appendix C: Page 8


Hatchery through TMT and the RCC Biologist. Special operations requests outside of the fish passage season will be coordinated directly with the Dworshak Operations Manager who will in coordinate changes in operations with RCC and District Operations points of contact. Seattle District: The Seattle District Environmental Resources Section (PM-PL-ER) will be the primary point of contact for NWS project operations which require local or regional environmental coordination (i.e. environmental compliance necessary for system operation requests or outage periods). As the lead, Seattle staff will closely coordinate with the RCC and project fish biologists to determine the allocation of responsibility for coordination on specific issues (i.e. coordination through the Technical Management Team). For Libby, PM-PL-ER will work with the project biologist to assure environmental compliance for project operations. Coordination on sturgeon flows will begin in early spring to assure effective communication between stakeholders and water manager during the latter stages of reservoir draft and the early part of the runoff period. Burbot operations will be similarly coordinated in fall and winter. PM-PL-ER will take the lead for environmental compliance for Albeni Falls operations (i.e. minimum winter lake elevation for kokanee spawning). For Libby and Albeni Falls, control point elevations will continue to be Bonners Ferry for Libby and Hope for Albeni Falls, to meet fisheries needs for those projects. Teletypes for the tributary projects Libby and Albeni Falls will be issued by a Seattle District regulator. Seattle biologists will coordinate with the issuing District office and RCC on environmental compliance requirements relative to each operation. Specific procedures for issuing teletypes for tributary projects will be determined during Phase 2 of the Water Management transition. Environmental compliance for Chief Joseph operations will be addressed as necessary by NWS-PM-PL-ER in coordination with RCC and NWS WM. This will occur for spillway flow deflector construction in 2008 and 2009, but also as called for with respect to tribal concerns, (involuntary) spill, and other occasions as needed. As Chief Joseph is a mainstem project, RCC will continue to issue teletypes for Chief Joseph. Portland District: The District Operations and/or Planning Fisheries Biologists will be the POC for all NWP operations which require regional environmental coordination resulting in fish related teletypes. All coordination will occur with the NWP POC and the RCC Biologist as needed. The RCC Biologist will be responsible for most of the coordination with the Technical Management Team. The District Biologists will be in charge of all coordination with BPA and regional forums such as FPOM and FFDRWG and similar forums once they are established in the Willamette River Basin. This will include the Willamette Action Team for

Appendix C: Page 9


ESA Recovery (WATER), including all subcommittees formed under its charter. All NWP special operations requests within the Willamette River Basin that require regional environmental coordination will be performed by NWP with the resulting teletypes issued by the NWP Reservoir Regulation Section. The RCC Biologist will be responsible for all Columbia River and Snake River mainstem teletypes. For local operations which do not effect system operations for system flood control or other system operations, then District biologists would coordinate w/ District WM staff. There is a potential for USFWS or other entity providing SORs to the District for strictly local operations, and to RCC for system-related operations. System flood control operations will be coordinated by RCC, and the District informed of the resulting constraints. 5. Resources: Describe all required human resources and their geographical location to reach the end-state. No new resources are expected to be required for environmental compliance tasks in support of Water Management functions in NWD, NWW, NWP, or NWS. Environmental coordination and technical support in the end state will be accomplished with existing resources. Points of contact in the Northwestern Division office in Portland will include the following: RCC biologist (0.8 FTE), RCC support staff (0.5 FTE), PDD fish biologist (0.3 FTE), PDD senior fish program manager (0.1 FTE), and PDD fish program planner (0.2 FTE). Also the RCC biologist performs policy tasks for PDD (0.2 FTE). Total NWD = 2.1 FTE. These are all existing resources. PDD staff (0.6 FTE total) are funded through GE appropriations and BPA funds. Water Management O&M accounts are not charged for PDD services. RCC resources (1.5 FTE) are charged to Water Management O&M. In the end state, the RCC biologist and support staff will combine with remaining water quality staff to form a Fish and Water Quality Team in RCC. Resources in Portland District will include: Operation and Planning Biologists (0.5 FTE existing) will coordinate their special operational requests with the projects, researchers, and then report to the RCC for direction. This includes all mainstem and tributary coordination. The RCC Fisheries Biologist, located in NWD, will perform all final coordination needed prior to issuing any teletypes for the FCRPS mainstem rivers and the District Biologists will perform all final coordination needed prior to issuing any teletype for the Willamette Valley. Resources in Seattle District will include the following: 1.0 FTE (existing) at Libby for local coordination, field effort, and BiOp coordination (including sturgeon recovery team participation) plus about 0.2 FTE (existing) at the District office for environmental compliance, BiOp coordination (including sturgeon recovery team participation), and operational coordination. Other BiOp projects may require more effort but are separately funded and resourced for each specific project outside WM (e.g. VARQ documentation).

Appendix C: Page 10


Resources in Walla Walla District will include the following: Operation and Planning biologists will coordinate their special operational requests with the projects, researchers, and then report to the RCC through the Operations Biologists. The RCC Fisheries Biologist will be located in NWD and perform all final coordination needed prior to issuing any teletypes. The NWW Hydrology Section will be responsible for the regulation and control of Dworshak Dam. District Environment Compliance activity for both tributary and mainstem projects will be handled with existing staffing levels. 6. Coordination: Describe the internal and external coordination and communication required to reach the end-state. Responsibility for water control actions at Corps mainstem and tributary projects in the Columbia River basin will be shared among Division and District offices in the Water Management end state. Given the complexity and interdependence of the hydrosystem, it will be necessary to engage in regular coordination on project and system operational requirements and conditions related to flood control, power generation, navigation, fish passage and survival, water quality, irrigation, project maintenance, and other uses for the Corps’ multipurpose projects. Regular briefings will be required to maintain this tight coordination and enable the Corps to operate projects successfully, both in routine operating periods and at times of emergencies. The RCC Fish Biologist, along with District Biologists, will participate in RCC briefings with Districts (for example, the Regional Operations Call) and stay well informed on project and system water management operations in the FCRPS and Willamette River Basin. The RCC and District biologists will present fish migration and passage updates to the briefings, so that all water management offices are informed on operations for fish passage and special operations for studies or other reasons. Often these will be daily tasks for biologists, especially during the spring and summer fish passage seasons. The RCC Biologist will report on conditions at mainstem dams while District biologists will report on conditions at tributary projects. The RCC Fish Biologist and assistant will be the leads for coordination of environmental compliance issues with the Regional Forum Technical Management Team (TMT). The RCC biologist will coordinate fully with District points of contact for tributary projects, and utilize District technical support services as needed to evaluate and support Corps decision making on project operations. Environmental compliance correspondence for mainstem operations, including Chief Joseph Dam, will be handled as it is in the current state. ESA consultation letters often come from an agency’s Regional Director to the NWD Commander. Responses to those letters will be prepared by RCC or PDD depending on the nature of the letter and as assigned by the Executive Office. Where NWD has the lead on correspondence, the RCC or PDD biologist will coordinate fully with the appropriate District. Some letters relating to tributary projects, especially those that involve local issues, are sent to a District Commander. In those cases, the District lead office will coordinate the response with both RCC and PDD biologists.

Appendix C: Page 11


For NWS tributary operations that are essentially local in scope, the district will assume the lead on coordination. In the case of Libby, the Libby project biologist coordinates with fisheries agencies and tribes locally for most operations. An example of this is management of temperature releases from Libby to benefit sturgeon in spring, as well as burbot in winter if possible. In contrast, flows for sturgeon and burbot will be managed by Seattle water managers and biologists in coordination with NWD counterparts in order to address both local and regional needs. The Sturgeon Recovery Team involves both Seattle and Libby project biologists. Libby and/or Seattle biologists may listen to and participate in TMT meetings when relevant topics are on the agenda. The Seattle office has general responsibility for local Albeni Falls operational coordination. The Seattle office, again, has overall responsibility for environmental compliance at operating projects, including documentation under ESA, NEPA, CWA, NHPA, etc. ESA correspondence for Libby and Albeni Falls operations will be coordinated by the PM-PL-ER section in Seattle District with the NWD ESA coordinator. If the operation in question is strictly local, then correspondence will go to or through District commander rather than the Division Commander. The Reservoir Regulation Team has recommended the establishment of a Regional Operations Call in May 2008 to familiarize stakeholders with their new counterparts in the Districts and use the spring freshet as a training opportunity. District and RCC biologists will participate in these calls and provide updates on fish and other environmental issues at the projects for which their organization is responsible. The calls should occur weekly at a minimum and daily during critical flow periods. Internal calls will be held starting March 2008. 7. Documentation Requirements: Describe the required documentation such as new SOPs, MOAs, and manuals when the end-state is achieved. Environmental Compliance Communication Plan: RCC and District biologists will update the FPP Overview Chapter, section 1.10, “Implementation and Coordination of the Fish Passage Plan”. Portland District biologists will develop a Willamette Valley Fish Operations Plan, Hatchery Genetic Management Plan and Communication Plan for the Willamette River Basin which include WM environmental compliance support. These plans will be developed between NWD and the Districts teams and coordinated with the regional forums. End state roles and responsibilities will be defined in these documents for WM environmental compliance functions. The Plans will be coordinated with the RCC biologist and NWD-PDD for regional policy review. Water Management Plan: RCC will revise the annual WMP and its updates as needed to reflect end state WM environmental coordination and review. Generating Unit Outage Protocol: The existing protocol is unclear and outdated, and needs to be reviewed and revised to ensure that district environmental compliance responsibilities are properly coordinated. Although this has been an issue for some time, it has had a

Appendix C: Page 12


relatively low priority. Achievement of the end-state for water management reorganization elevates the need to address the protocol. Water Control Manuals: As a high priority, Districts should update Water Control Manuals (WCMs) that are out of date and schedule regular evaluation of manuals to assure that they remain current. Having current WCMs, and updating them on a regular basis, will be a key to success in the new end state which will be substantially more interdependent than the current state. Environmental compliance requirements will be added to WCMs where they are not current. Water Management Division and environmental specialists in Districts must all be current on project requirements, capacities, and constraints, working from a consistent set of guidelines in operating projects. This will require 1 – 2 staff months for environmental compliance input for each WCM. NWDR 1165-2-2 Water Resource Policies and Authorities, Water Management Responsibilities. The Transition Management Plan dated 17 March 2008 states that the current NWD Regulation will be revised to include Missouri River and Willamette WM procedures, end state WM functions in the northwest, and current environmental compliance procedures. The RCC and District biologists will provide input to the revision of this ER. Environmental compliance revisions will be coordinated with the RCC biologist and NWD-PDD for regional policy review. 8. Technical Requirements: Describe models, tools, and data management required to reach the end-state. The RCC Fisheries Biologist and assistant, along with District Operations and Planning Biologists, are needed to accomplish the WM mission once the end state is achieved. Models – coordinate w/ reservoir regulation and water quality at NWD and Districts. District environmental personnel will evaluate results of forecasting and other models in timely fashion for real-time operational decisions. Seasonal planning tools, such as the Lake Pend Oreille kokanee operations decision tree, will remain integral, and will be used by district biologists and district WM personnel as needed, with appropriate coordination with RCC and other NWD counterparts. Tools – utilize regional forums (FPOM, FFDRWG, SRWG, and WATER); perform necessary modeling analysis to update Water Control Manuals that are out of date, as soon as possible; test analysis procedures using the most current forecasting methods and update operational protocols as appropriate. Data Management – web based-post all data and minutes to TMT site and WM will be clearing house for all teletypes issued.

Appendix C: Page 13


9. Training Requirements and Testing Plan: Provide a schedule plan to detail training and testing required to ensure the end-state is achievable. Training: RCC and other Division staff will conduct briefings and visits during spring and summer 2008, when requested by the Districts, to transfer knowledge of tributary projects and coordination procedures related to environmental compliance. Testing: A scenario will be developed outside WM which will require all districts to participate and provide input to accomplish mission, e.g. emergency (drought/blackout) in the Pacific Northwest. Biologists will support the execution of the exercise using realistic foresight. Biological staff in the Districts and RCC will participate in Water Management emergency drills to assure environmental compliance requirements are met while implementing the test scenarios. The Environmental Compliance Transition Team does not plan to conduct stand-alone drills as part of the transition process. Instead, Biologists will participate in larger exercises that involve multiple projects and affected uses. The focus will be on emergency scenarios that involve reducing or suspending fish protection actions at projects. The Reservoir Regulation Transition Team has proposed a mock power system emergency drill in August 2008. The Environmental Compliance Transition Team supports this approach and will participate in planning and conducting the drill. 10. Schedule and Resources: Provide a schedule of key Phase II deliverable milestones and resources required. Environmental Compliance offices will follow the Phase II schedule presented by the Transition Management Committee and prepare deliverables as needed. Communication Plan: EC communications will be part of the Plan developed by the Communications Team. The EC Team will adhere to those deadlines in preparing its portions of the Plan. As per the overall schedule for Phase II of the WM reorganization:

25% of environmental compliance training, testing and documentation will be completed by 31 May 2008,

50% will be completed by 30 June 2008, and 100% will be completed by 31 July 2008.

District Operations and Planning Fishery Biologists will support RCC and District Reservoir Regulation Sections as needed to test and implement Phase II of the WM reorganization. This will include providing input to operational and planning documents and coordination of all operations necessary to implement Phase II. The level of effort by office will vary with each operation but should not require additional resources to execute. Activities, dates, and offices involved are identified in Table 1.

Appendix C: Page 14


Table 1. Schedule and tasks for transition of WM environmental compliance functions.

Date Task Assigned To Status May ‘08 Establish EC POCs for

tributary projects NWW, NWP, NWS

Summer ‘08 Revise NWD Water Management Regulation

RCC, NWP, NWW, NWS

Summer ‘08 Participate in power system emergency test

RCC, NWP, NWW, NWS

May – Aug ‘08 Participate in TMT RCC for mainstem projects; NWW, NWS for tributary projects

Ongoing

Start May ‘08 Participate in WM regional hydro briefs

RCC, NWP, NWW, NWS

Spring ‘08 Participate in RCC training on DWR

NWW

Prior to Oct ‘08 Participate in BPA training session on power scheduling & marketing

RCC, NWP, NWW, NWS

Prior to Oct ‘08 Participate in BPA visits to Districts

NWS, NWW

Nov ‘08 Update FPP for coordination & communication

RCC, NWP, NWW Will include FPOM regional coordination & follow FPP amendment process

11. Interdependencies: Describe key interdependencies with other technical functional areas as appropriate. The RCC Fishery Biologist, Districts, and NWD staff (biologists, water quality staff, unit outage coordinators, and reservoir regulation staff) will work closely together to coordinate and communicate on WM operations and planning for the FCRPS and Willamette River Basin. 12. Phase III Actions: Describe long-term plans and suggestions for improvements of the end-state. Develop a communications plan for RCC fish biologist and Districts/Division biologists. Determine whether the EC Transition Team should keep going beyond Phase II.

Appendix C: Page 15


Appendix C: Page 16

Evaluations of successes and issues for Environmental Compliance activities will be part of After Action Reviews for Water Management functions. The Team suggests a review in October 2009, after one year of operation under the new end state. This review would specify what worked, what did not work, and what should change in the future to improve efficiency and effectiveness of carrying out the critical water management functions. 13. Recommendations: 1. Staffing – hire new people on as soon as possible to replace those who plan to leave, to learn the trade. This is to provide overlap, training, and transitioning, especially with people who will retire or transfer soon. Alternately, utilize re-hired annuitants to provide this overlap. 2. NWD and Districts should jointly develop a list of circumstances and thresholds requiring communication between them. NWD and districts each develop internal communication protocols, with lists of POCs for NWD–District interface. 3. NWD and Districts jointly develop any needed requests for agency communication changes (e.g. where to submit SORs under what circumstances, who to submit them to, etc.). 4. Districts continue to prepare and coordinate environmental compliance documentation for new local operations, with direct participation and support from district WM. 5. District environmental personnel continue to provide support for operational decision making as needed, with more input going directly to district regulators in new end-state. 6. To the extent possible, delegate environmental compliance program responsibilities to Districts for tributary operations. This would include developing documentation and coordinating with external stakeholders. Report prepared by: Environmental Compliance for System Regulation Transition Team

Rudd Turner (lead) CENWD-PDD Bernard Klatte CENWP-OD Evan Lewis CENWS-PM-PL-ER Jeff Laufle CENWS-PM-PL-ER John Bailey CENWW-OD-T

Appendix D: Water Quality Team Transition Report

WATER MANAGEMENT PHASE II TRANSITION PLAN 100 PERCENT WATER QUALITY TEAM REPORT

14 APRIL 2008* *Note: Portions of this report are outdated because of more recent analysis of workload by the Water Quality Transition Team. This analysis was completed on 18 August 2008 and is shown on pages 15-20 of Appendix D. Based on this analysis, the Water Quality Transition Team recommended that instead of transferring two water quality positions from the Division office to the Portland District, only one position should be transferred. The Transition Management Committee concurred in this recommendation and this Water Quality Team Transition Report will be updated at a later date based on this change. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Existing State 1.1.1 Division The Reservoir Control Center (RCC) water quality staff (RCC-WQ) assist RCC Regulators in making decisions concerning operating Columbia Basin Corps of Engineer (USACE) projects to meet their authorized purposes and their Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Treaty requirements. Much of the work involves advising regulators and fish biologists on operations for meeting total dissolved gas (TDG) standards/waivers and Fish Passage flows – spill caps. Specific tasks include:

Preparing the Annual TDG Monitoring Plan and the Spill Change Guidance Document prior to the start of the fish spill season that begins 1 April. This document accounts for impacts of ESA required spill changes, fish studies, project design changes and outages on project spill and TDG production. The staff reviews operations teletypes and actual project operations for excursions that might affect ESA spill and CWA TDG requirements on a daily basis.. If problems are noted, they interact with RCC regulators and fish biologists to suggest alternative project operations. The staff also participates in discussions with RCC regulators, fish biologists, the power coordinator, the RCC Branch Chief, District project personnel, and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) staff to assist in setting daily spill caps during the spill season. Recommended daily spill caps are also coordinated with regional stakeholders through interaction with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries staff.

SYSTDG, a system TDG model, is run daily to project in-river gas saturation at forebay and tailwater sites based on actual or proposed operations. The model is also used to examine “what if”scenarios, predict impacts of alternative operations on project TDG levels and support litigation activities.

Evaluation of FMS station data for completeness and QA/QC.

Preparation of a monthly Spill Implementation Report (a.k.a., court report) from April through August. This report is currently provided to the Federal Court, but it is anticipated that it will be provided to NOAA Fisheries in the future. The report describes flow variances from the operational activities required by the Biological Opinion (BiOp) that are discussed on a weekly basis with the BPA and documents instances when deviations from BiOp spill requirements occur. The report also

Appendix D: Page 1


includes other non-water quality BiOp required operational requirements such as forebay minimum operating pool restrictions.

Participating in or conducting regional and interagency meetings that provide feedback in the form of comments or advice to the Corps about project operations. Examples are the Water Quality Team (WQT), the Technical Management Team (TMT), the Transboundary Gas Group (TGG), and the Corps-wide Water Quality CoP. The RCC-WQ team also participates in the Corps Committee on Water Quality, a national water quality policy group.

Acting as the lead POC for BiOp related litigation.

Working cooperatively with NWW to obtain temperature modeling output for varying Dworshak Project operations. This information is provided to the TMT and the Nez Perce Tribe for making Dworshak operational recommendations.

Preparing an Annual Report after the fish spill season that describes the impact of mainstem project operations on TDG and temperature. The report details TDG production in the forebay and tailwater, excursions from the State TDG standards, the reasons for any variations, data completeness, data gaps, and data quality. The report also describes Dworshak Project operations intended to reduce Lower Snake River water temperatures during July, August, and September.

1.1.2 Districts There are differences among the three District water quality programs that are influenced by current staffing, funding, as well as number and types of projects. However, common features they share are:

Installation and maintenance of real-time fixed-monitoring system (FMS) stations at the Projects to monitor river TDG and temperature conditions. Real-time forebay temperature strings are also maintained at some projects.

Evaluation of FMS station data for completeness and QA/QC.

Preparation of TDG Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) documents that are incorporated as appendices to the annual TDG report. These documents provide details regarding the performance of each fixed monitoring station as well as individual instruments.

Temperature modeling and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. This information becomes technical input to the Water Quality Vertical Team, and is used during discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) as well as State and Tribal stakeholders.

Presentation of technical data, analyses, and insights regarding Project operations to stakeholders, Regional Forum groups, the TGG, the TMT, the Fish Passage Operations and Maintenance (FPOM) Coordination Team, and other venues when agenda topics are germane to their District.

Participation in the Transboundary Gas Group (Seattle District).

Participation of the water quality leads with the Corps national Committee on Water Quality.

Appendix D: Page 2


Provides technical support to Division when requested, respond to memos from Division and other agencies, and reviews regional water quality related documents.

Responsibility for monitoring water quality at its projects. This facet includes study design, data collection, analyses, and reporting for all water quality parameters, in addition to TDG and temperature.

1.2 Alternative End States The Water Quality Transition Team examined multiple alternative plans for reorganization of water quality functions. These plans included:

1) Retaining the status quo. This is the current condition presented in Section 1.1 – Existing State.

2) Transferring all technical duties to the Districts while retaining management and policy aspects at Division.

The primary technical tasks that are currently completed at Division rather than at the Districts are related to the TDG program. Subtasks include data evaluation, setting the spill caps for meeting State water quality standards and BiOp requirements, and completing associated reports and documentation.

This alternative would transfer data verification, completion of database corrections, computation of spill caps, and completion of the technical aspects (e.g., graphs, data tables, and data analysis) of annual TDG reports to the Districts.

Management, policy decisions, litigation support, and communication with outside agencies, such as BPA, would remain at Division.

The TMT leadership role would remain at Division, with District participation as needed. Involvement with the TGG, the WQ CoP, FPOM, and other water quality committees would be joint responsibilities of the three Districts and Division.

Two technical positions would be transferred from Division to Portland District where they would complete technical duties for NWP.

3) Keep technical duties related to the spill program at the Division office, while transferring water quality database management to the District offices.

One technical position would remain at Division to complete the analyses related to setting spill caps and completing the annual TDG report plus monthly court reports for flow variances.

A second technical position would be transferred to Portland District to support NWP projects and serve as a back-up for the Division counterpart.

The three Districts would be responsible for verifying the accuracy of their own real-time temperature and TDG data, as well as making corrections in the CROHMS and CWMS databases in concert with the database managers at Division.

All management, policy decisions, litigation support, communication with outside agencies and completion of the monthly court reports, would remain at Division.

Appendix D: Page 3



4) Moving the technical duties related to setting the spill caps for the lower Columbia and Snake River Corps Projects to Portland District.

Spill cap decision would be made at Division as in Alternative 3. Technical analyses needed to make spill cap decisions would be performed at the District.

Verification and correction of the real-time temperature and TDG data in the CROHMS and CWMS databases would be completed at the District level as in Alternative 3.

The Districts would be responsible for providing technical components (e.g., graphs, data tables, and data analysis) needed for the annual TDG reports to Portland District and NWD. Division would be responsible for report compilation, legal review, and distribution.

Two technical positions would be transferred from Division to Portland District where they will be stationed and would support the District water-quality program.

Division would retain responsibility for basin-wide policy/management decisions, litigation support, communication with outside agencies and completion of monthly court reports related to flow variances,


1.2.1 Proposed End State Alternative 4 is the selected end state of the transition. Details include:

Project spill caps will be computed during the fish spill season (1 April – 31 August). Portland District will provide technical support to Division for both the Lower Snake River and Lower Columbia River projects, while Seattle District will be responsible for all spill decisions at Chief Joseph Dam. Improved lines of communication will be established between the Districts and Division to facilitate necessary information exchange for meeting State water quality standards and court ordered spill quantities.

The technical aspects (e.g., graphs, data tables, and data analysis) of the required annual TDG report for mainstem Snake and Columbia River projects will be the responsibilities of the three Districts. The final report will be compiled at Division, who will also be responsible for legal review and forwarding to regulatory agencies. • The format of this report will be reviewed during the transition period by the

water quality team to determine whether organizational changes will benefit the final product. Possible focus areas include eliminating redundancy and reconfiguration of the text such that each District will have the opportunity to

Appendix D: Page 4


contribute towards completion of the main body of the report rather than simply provide appendix material.

Since regulation of the Dworshak Project, Willamette Basin Projects, and Albeni/Libby Project are shifting to NWW, NWP, and NWS, respectively, the Districts will provide the TDG support for applicable portions of the annual report if provided for in the O&M budget..

Districts will be responsible for verifying the accuracy of real-time temperature and total dissolved gas data that is currently transmitted to the CROHMS and CWMS databases from the FMS stations that each District manages. Any corrections or back-filling of data that arise will be completed at the District level in conjunction with the WCDS database managers at Division. The details of this process will depend on the end state to be determined by the WCDS team, and will be developed during the transition period.

The court reports that are currently completed by RCC at NWD are for flow variances and not directly related to TDG production. The responsibility for completing these reports will be transferred to the Fish/Water Quality Team that will be established at Division as part of the reorganization effort. However, this group may choose to use the technical water quality resources that will be transferred to Portland District, as well as NWS and NWS technical expertise, to complete this task. • The structure/layout of these reports will be reviewed during the transition period

by the team to determine whether the necessary information can be presented more efficiently.

1.2.1.1 Co-Location Option The possibility of co-locating the daily TDG decision-making process at Division during the fish spill season will be examined during the transition period to determine if this option is needed to ensure optimum coordination. If it is a viable alternative, then other tasks, such as completion of the court reports, could also be completed by the same co-located individual at the Division office.

1.3 Transition Plan Transition plan development will be initiated in April 2008. Affected NWD staff will physically move to the Portland District Office during the last month of this fiscal year or during the first quarter of FY2009. 2.0 DELIVERABLES The key end-state deliverables and the process to achieve those end-states are:

The Final Transition Plan will be completed 11 April 2008

The approach will be reviewed periodically and modified as appropriate through September 2008.

3.0 STAKEHOLDERS Affected stakeholders in the region include:

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries

Appendix D: Page 5


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) State of Washington State of Oregon State of Idaho State of Montana Regional Forum Groups Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), as well as individual Tribes

that include: • Nez Perce Tribe • Spokane Tribe • Colville Confederated Tribes • Umatilla Tribe • Warm Springs Tribe

Fish Passage Center (FPC) Public

4.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES District and Division roles and responsibilities at the end state include:

Setting the appropriate spill caps necessary to meet state water quality standards and BiOp spill requirements at the Lower Columbia River and Snake River projects during the fish spill season will remain the responsibility of the Division office. Technical staff at NWP will be used to support the decision-making process. Seattle District will continue to be responsible for all technical support to RCC for Chief Joseph Dam. Close coordination will occur between Division and the District offices to provide situational awareness for all participants.

The Districts will use SYSTDG, and other applicable TDG models, for project specific research (e.g., RSWs, TSWs, fish guidance structures, flow deflectors, etc.).

Maintenance and development of the SYSTDG model is dependent on available funding. Each District water quality group, with support from Division office, will make reasonable efforts to obtain this funding through their TDG programs since SYSTDG is a BiOp requirement. Additionally, when physical modifications or operational changes occur at a Project, it may be possible to fund the cost of updating SYSTDG vis-a-vis an Operations cost if the spill pattern is affected.

In addition to their sustained involvement with TDG data analysis, the Districts will be responsible for the analysis, data interpretation, and modeling of all other water quality parameters they are involved with. Results will be provided to NWD for regional coordination and policy needs, Regional Forum groups, and other stakeholders that request the information for management purposes.

Water quality data collection and analyses will continue to be conducted at the District offices.

Appendix D: Page 6


Districts will take the lead technical role for TMDL development and provide information to Division as requested.

Portland District will assist Division Office who has the responsibility and the lead for completing the annual TDG reports. The process will consist of greater District involvement (e.g., tables, graphs, data analyses) with preparation of the main body of the report than has been the case in the past. Division will be responsible for compiling the report, legal review, and forwarding to stakeholders.

The Spill Implementation Reports for BiOp flow variances (i.e., the monthly court reports) will be completed by the Environmental Compliance/Water Quality Unit at NWD.

Real-time temperature and total dissolved gas database management and corrections for the Columbia River and Snake River projects will be completed by the District Offices. This process will to be refined in cooperation with the WCDS reorganization group to ensure compatibility with their new end state.

Division will retain responsibility for basin-wide policy/management decisions, litigation support, and final completion/distribution of court reports related to flow variances. As such, Division will remain the point of contact for agencies and other stakeholders.


5.0 RESOURCES The total number of water quality related FTEs at Division and the Districts at the proposed end state will not differ from current conditions, however, the distribution of effort will change. Table 1 summarizes the estimated weeks of effort for seven tasks that are currently completed in the existing state at the three Districts and the Division office, and shows how the level of effort could change as a result of shifting to the proposed end state (details for each task are presented in Appendix 1). The actual level of effort attributed to each task/organization will likely be adjusted as the transition period progresses.

One leadership position will remain at Division to provide oversight and direction to Water Management and the region.

Two technical individuals from Division will be transferred to Portland District. • These two FTEs will assist the three Districts during the transition phase by

preparing SOPs and training District technicians in matters related to (a) setting Project operations necessary to meet total dissolved gas criteria, (b) standardizing reporting formats, and (c) completing database corrections.

• One individual will assist Division with the spill cap decisions and completion of annual reports as needed. The second technician will serve as a back-up. When either of these individuals is not engaged with direct Division support, they will be involved with District tasks as directed by their supervisor.

The number of FTEs at NWS and NWW will not change as a result of this reorganization.

Appendix D: Page 7


Division involvement with respect to TMT leadership, litigation support, and participation in regional forum and state resource agency meetings are included in the task identified as “Technical Support to RCC” (see Appendix 1 for details regarding subtasks this and other Tasks).

Table 1. Estimated weeks of effort required to complete tasks in the base case and the

new end state.

Existing State Proposed New End State

Task NWD NWP NWS NWW NWD NWP NWS NWW

Spill Review and Spill Cap Decisions

28 0 2 0 8 17 2 1

Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

21 0 0 0 2 12 0 0

Annual TDG Report 16 1 2 2 2 9 4 5

Technical Support to RCC 39 2 4 3 30 5 4 4

Database/ Website Involvement

20 2 3 2 1 4 4 5

Water Temperature Modeling 6 2 3 4 1 2 3 7

Fixed Monitoring Station Program

2 19 15 12 1 19 16 13

TOTAL 132 26 29 23 46 68 33 35

6.0 COORDINATION Coordination efforts during the transition phase will include:

NWD and the Districts will work collaboratively with respect to responsibilities and tasks associated with spill management, temperature management, and database management. • Daily communication will occur between NWP and NWD during the fish spill

season regarding project spill caps. • Bi-weekly, or more frequent, phone/email exchanges occur during critical

temperature management periods (e.g., Dworshak cold-water releases for lower Snake River temperature management).

• Communication regarding database management will occur with the WCDS as needed.

District and Division personnel will review the current structure of the annual TDG report to determine if the document can be streamlined to reduce redundancy. Additionally, the team will investigate whether it is advantageous to set-up an electronic file on a common drive, or use software such as Groove, to facilitate cooperative report writing.

NWD will, with support from the Districts, be responsible for communication with external agencies and stakeholders.

Appendix D: Page 8


RCC-water quality will represent the Corps at the Regional forum meetings, as well as other agencies and stakeholders with basin-wide or regional mandates as required for setting and communicating USACE policy.

7.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Documentation necessary to reach and function in the end state includes:

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) used to set the spill caps. Revised annual TDG report template and outline. Possible revised court report (a.k.a., spill implementation report) template. Updated SYSTDG user manual. SOP for completing data corrections in the CROHMS and CWMS environments.

8.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS Required computer models and databases include:

Districts that do not currently have SYSTDG will need to install the program locally and set-up the required scheduled tasks.

CE-QUAL-W2, or other water quality model, for water temperature simulations. Water Quality database management using tools such as WCDS, DASLER, DSS,

WQRX (STORET), and Microsoft ACCESS will be completed at the Districts. Real time FMS temperature and TDG data will continue to be propagated from the

Districts to the Division CWMS/CROHMS databases. 9.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING PLAN District staff will need to be trained on the operation and management of the SYSTDG and CE-QUAL-W2 models if they plan to use it and are not familiar with it.

The SYSTDG manual that is posted on NWD’s website (http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/tmt/wq/systdg/SYSTDG_Primer_20040811.pdf) provides useful information regarding model principles, background, and use.

The SOP that will be written by NWD RCC staff will provide details regarding the use of SYSTDG, existing tables, and institutional knowledge that are used jointly to determine appropriate spill caps.

The individuals that currently complete the technical aspects of setting spill caps will continue in that role. It is not imperative that staff at NWS and NWW mirror that function, but it is prudent to have familiarity and some redundancy at these Districts. As such, training will consist of District personnel going through the process of determining selected spill caps for their projects and comparing their values to the “official” ones developed in Portland. Differences or inconsistencies will be used as a learning tool.

The most up-to-date CE-QUAL-W2 model and manual are posted on Portland State University’s website (http://www.cee.pdx.edu/w2/). Portland State University currently offers training opportunities for CE-QUAL-W2 model use.

Appendix D: Page 9

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/tmt/wq/systdg/SYSTDG_Primer_20040811.pdf

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/tmt/wq/systdg/SYSTDG_Primer_20040811.pdf

http://www.cee.pdx.edu/w2/


The testing phase of the reorganization will be an assessment of the communication structure between the Districts, primarily NWP, and Division. Since NWW and NWP project spill caps will be calculated at the Portland District office and transmitted to Division for approval and forwarding to the projects a smooth transfer of information is critical. New servers will be installed at each District as part of the WCDS reorganization. Once authorized individuals have access, designated District personnel will receive training from WCDS regarding protocols for data entry and correction. Division and District representatives will travel to the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The primary purpose of this trip is to get an update on the use of modeling tools in the decision making for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program and in particular as it relates to spill and TDG. 10.0 SCHEDULE Follow-up work to better define the roles and responsibilities of each District and Division office, standard operating procedures, and other critical aspects of this change will continue for the duration of the transition period.

Task

50%

Completion Date

75% Completion

Date

100% Completion

Date

Responsibility/ Participation

SOP for setting spill caps

31 May 2008 30 June 2008 31 July 2008 NWD RCC

SOP for entering and editing data in CWMS/CROHMS

31 July 2008 31 August 2008 1 October 2008 WQ Team in coordination with WCDS

Review format of annual TDG report

30 June 2008 31 July 2008 31 August 2008 WQ Team

Review format of court reports

30 June 2008 31 July 2008 31 August 2008 WQ Team

Training 31 May 2008 30 June 2008 TBD WQ Team

Update of ERDC modeling capabilities

NA NA 30 May 2008

Testing Plan 31 May 2008 30 June 2008 31 July 2008 WQ Team

Appendix D: Page 10


Appendix D: Page 11

11.0 POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Potential Problem Opportunity

NWP will provide technical staff to help NWD set spill caps for the Lower Columbia and Snake River Projects

A SOP for operating SYSTDG and setting spill caps for Lower Columbia/Snake projects can be developed. Greater communication between Districts and Division regarding regulating Lower Columbia/Snake projects

Annual TDG report will be completed at office away from RCC and regulators

The annual TDG report has gotten extremely large and cumbersome to read and can be redesigned and streamlined to provide a better product to our stakeholders.

NWP will provide the technical staff, and providing that information to NWD for setting spill caps at NWW projects.

Districts and Division will communicate more with each other in a more regional manner and will ultimately be less fractured and provide better data and protect water quality of Lower Columbia/Snake.

Technician will perform work for Division during part of the year, but supervised from NWP.

Better communication and data sharing can be achieved via greater utilization of existing computer networks.

Some individuals are reluctant to work outside their comfort zone.

New tasks will encourage learning and provide increased benefits to the Corps and the individual development.


APPENDIX 1. Estimated weeks of efffort required for the water quality existing state and proposed new end state.

NWD NWP NWS NWW NWD NWP NWS NWW

Subtasks1 1.00 1.002 3.00 0.50 0.503 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.504 2.25 0.40 2.00 0.40 0.505 3.00 3.006 1.50 0.70 1.50 0.707 6.75 6.758 0.75 0.759 0.00 0.1010 0.40 0.3011 0.50 0.5012 7.50 7.5013 Daily notification of District Res. Reg. offices of spill caps 0.30 0.50

28.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 8.0 16.9 2.0 1.0


Subtasks1 0.60 0.602 0.40 0.403 4.00 2.004 3.20 1.505 4.80 2.506 2.50 2.507 2.00 1.008 1.00 1.009 0.50 0.5010 2.00 2.00

21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 11.5 0.0 0.0Provide Oversight of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

TOTALS:

Coordinate Variance Explanations with BPADraft Report NarrativeCoordinate Draft Report with RCC, BPA, Corps District Support Team, and Corps OfficeFinalize Report and Submit to Department of Justice

Perform Data Validation for Operational GraphicsCreate and Maintain Project PlotsReview Project Data to Identify BiOp Operations VariancesEstablish Explanations for Variances


DescriptionPre-Season Coordination in Preparation for Completion of Court Reports

Conduct Spill Cap Program Oversight

TOTALS:

Task 2 Preparation of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

Draft Proposed Nightly Spill CapsCoordinate Draft Proposed Nightly Spill Caps with Division Office and NOAA FisheriesSend Out Final Spill Priority List via TeletypeEnter Spill Cap Information into CROHMS/CWMS

Review Project Data for Operational AwarenessCoordinate with RCC (Regulators, WQU Team Lead, Division Biologist, Power CoordinCoordinate Current Project Operations with Project Operators and District OfficesRun SYSTDG for Setting Spill Caps

DescriptionPrepare and Distribute Annual Spill Change Guidance DocumentParticipate in TMT for Operational AwarenessReview Teletypes for Operational Awareness

Task 1 Spill Review and Spill Cap decisionsExisting State Proposed New End State

Appendix D: Page 12


Appendix D: Page 12

APPENDIX 1. Estimated weeks of efffort required for the water quality existing state and proposed new end state.


Subtasks1 1.00 1.002 3.00 0.50 0.503 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.504 2.25 0.40 2.00 0.40 0.505 3.00 3.006 1.50 0.70 1.50 0.707 6.75 6.758 0.75 0.759 0.00 0.1010 0.40 0.3011 0.50 0.5012 7.50 7.5013 Daily notification of District Res. Reg. offices of spill caps 0.30 0.50

28.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 8.0 16.9 2.0 1.0


Subtasks1 0.60 0.602 0.40 0.403 4.00 2.004 3.20 1.505 4.80 2.506 2.50 2.507 2.00 1.008 1.00 1.009 0.50 0.5010 2.00 2.00

21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 11.5 0.0 0.0Provide Oversight of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

TOTALS:

Coordinate Variance Explanations with BPADraft Report NarrativeCoordinate Draft Report with RCC, BPA, Corps District Support Team, and Corps OfficeFinalize Report and Submit to Department of Justice

Perform Data Validation for Operational GraphicsCreate and Maintain Project PlotsReview Project Data to Identify BiOp Operations VariancesEstablish Explanations for Variances



Conduct Spill Cap Program Oversight

TOTALS:

Task 2 Preparation of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

Draft Proposed Nightly Spill CapsCoordinate Draft Proposed Nightly Spill Caps with Division Office and NOAA FisheriesSend Out Final Spill Priority List via TeletypeEnter Spill Cap Information into CROHMS/CWMS

Review Project Data for Operational AwarenessCoordinate with RCC (Regulators, WQU Team Lead, Division Biologist, Power CoordinCoordinate Current Project Operations with Project Operators and District OfficesRun SYSTDG for Setting Spill Caps


Task 1 Spill Review and Spill Cap decisionsExisting State Proposed New End State


Appendix D: Page 13

APPENDIX 1. Estimated weeks of efffort required for the water quality existing state and proposed new end state (continued).


Subtasks1 0.70 0.702 0.30 0.303 TDG data analysis other than TDG exceedance analysis 1.004 5.50 2.00 2.00 2.0056789

1011121314151617181920

Subtasks1 0.50 0.502 6.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.003 27.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 27.50 1.30 2.00 1.004 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.505 1.50 0.50 1.006 1.00

39.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 30.0 4.8 4.5 4.5

Task 3 Preparation of Annual Reports

Oversight

Existing State

Complete Annual Report NarrativeCCoCCoC

Proposed New End State

DescriptionTrack Specific Events that are to be Included in the Annual Report and Draft NarrativeTrack TDG Exceedance Types, Post on Website

CCoCCC

Task 4 Provide Te

CCCC

Description

COv

Preparation of Water Management PlanPreparation of Fish Passage Plan

TOTALS:

Develop the PNCA Submittal for Water QualityGeneral Technical Support for RCC and the District Support TeamParticipation at Regional Forum/State Resource Agency Meetings

0.10 0.200.50 0.500.10 0.101.00 1.000.10 0.101.50 1.600.401.10 0.50 0.50 0.502.10 1.000.00 1.50 1.500.00 0.70 0.300.00 2.00 1.500.10 0.10

0.100.50 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.502.00 2.0016.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 9.0 4.0 5.0


omplete Appendix A: Monitor Systemmplete Appendix B: Monitoring Plan of Action

omplete Appendix C: Fish Operations Planmplete Appendix D: BiOp Spill Analysis

omplete Appendix E: Spill Implementation Reports (Done as Task 2)omplete Appendix F: TDG Exceedance Tracking

mplete Appendix G: SYSTDG Reportomplete Appendix H: Water Temperature Dataomplete Appendix I: Dworshak Operationsomplete Appendix J: Walla Walla District Report

chnical Support and Products to RCC and District Support Team

omplete Appendix K: Portland District Reportomplete Appendix L: Seattle District Reportomplete Appendix M: Gas Bubble Trauma Monitoring Report (FPC)omplete Appendix N: TDG TMDL Report


oordination of Review of the Annual Reportersight of Completion of Annual Report

TOTALS:


Appendix D: Page 14

APPENDIX 1. Estimated weeks of efffort required for the water quality existing state and proposed new end state (continued).


Subtasks1 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.502 Coordination with USGS with USGS on data corrections 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 1.003 7.30 1.00 0.20 2.00 2.00 2.004 8.00 -- 1.00 5

Subtasks1234

Subtasks123 Interag4 Prepare T5 Negoti6 Design special TDG data collection studies related to BiOP & TMDL 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.207 Coordinate special studies reports 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.508 Coordinate BiOP RPA studies 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.209 Coordinate TMDL studies 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.20 1.00

10 Prepare special studies reports 1.00 1.0011 QA special studies reporst 0.20 0.20

2.1 19.0 15.2 12.2 1.1 19.0 15.7 12.7

Annual Totals: 132.0 26.1 29.2 23.0 46.3 67.5 33.2 35.7


Description

Task 5 Database/Web Site Involvement

Task 6

Water Quality Data Validation

General Coordination with WCDS ManagersCoordination/Oversight of Web ReportsInpu

Task 7

Descr

PerfoDw

CoorCoor

AdmGene

TOTALS:

2.00 19.6 2.1 3.0 1.8 1.2 4.3 4.0 5.5


4.3 3.003.00 3.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.001.006.3 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0


0.40 4.00 4.00 4.0 0.30 4.00 4.00 4.000.80 10.00 9.00 6.0 0.30 10.00 9.00 6.00

ency BiOP & TMDL coordination 0.50 1.80 1.00 0.30 1.80 1.00DG monitoring contracts 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

ate TDG data collection contracts 0.20 0.20

TOTALS:

Water Temperature Modeling

t of WQ Research Data into CWMS

Fixed Monitoring Station Program


iption

rm CEQUAL W2 Water Temperature Modelingorshak Data Management


dinate Water Temperature Modelingdinate Water Temperature Operations with Dworshak Project

TOTALS:

iinistrative Duties Related to Operation of Fixed Monitoring Systemral Oversight of Fixed Monitoring System Operations


Water Quality Team Assumptions for

2009 Workload Allocation for the Reorganization August 18, 2008

General Assumptions under the new end state:

• The majority of technical duties will be performed by the District offices. • Communication between Division and District offices will be enhanced. • Data collection and validation is moving exclusively to the Districts.

Assumption by specific task under the new end state: Task 1 Spill Review and Spill Cap Decisions:

• Spill Management Decisions, coordination, and communication will remain a Division responsibility. • Running SYSTDG model to support spill management decision will remain a Division responsibility.

Task 2 Provide Technical Support and Products to RCC and District Support Team: • Districts will be involved in the review of the water quality portions of the Water Management Plan.

Task 3 Preparation of Annual Reports:

• Preparation of annual reports will remain with Division with additional coordination and cooperation with the Districts. Walla Walla District will take the lead for the completion of the Dworshak Operations appendix.

• Enhanced coordination between the Districts and Division RCC will occur in the preparation of the annual report. Task 4 Database/Web Site Involvement:

• (subtask 2) Division will not be coordinating with contractors on data corrections; the Districts will be completing this task. • (subtask 5) This subtask will be contracted out (not performed by WQ FTE).

Task 5 Water Quality Modeling:

• This task has been broadened to include all water quality modeling.

Appendix D: Page 15


• All tasks associated with SYSTDG model management and technical support will be a Portland District responsibility. Division will continue to complete model runs in support of the Spill Cap program, PNCA development, and long range planning.

• All CEQUAL modeling for Snake River temperature management will be performed by Walla Walla District. Walla Walla District will work closely with Division RCC in completing these model runs.

• All water quality modeling tasks are technical work and shall be performed at the Districts. Task 6 Fixed Monitoring Station Program:

• No changes

Task 7 and 8 Preparation of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports and Regional Forum TMT Chair: • These have been identified as non-water quality tasks. These two tasks will remain the responsibility of the Division RCC. The

strategy for the completion of these tasks will need to be accomplished through coordination with the other Water Management Reorganization Committees.

• The WQ Team assumes that the TMT chair is not a permanent position and as such it will need to be determined how to account for the 22 weeks that are currently not available to perform water quality work but will become available if the TMT chair moves on to another person/section.

Appendix D: Page 16


APPENDIX 1. Estimated weeks of effort required for the water quality existing state and proposed new end state.

WATER QUALITY WORKLOAD


Subtasks1 1.00 1.002 3.00 0.50 3.00 0.503 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.50 0.40 0.504 2.25 0.40 2.00 0.405 3.00 3.006 1.50 0.70 1.50 0.707 0.75 0.758 1.00 1.009 0.40 0.4010 0.50 0.5011 7.50 7.5012 Daily notification of District Res. Reg. offices of spill caps 0.30 0.30

22.20 0.00 2.00 0.00 21.95 0.50 2.00 0.50TASK TOTALS:


Subtasks

1 0.50 0.50

2 6.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.50 3.00 2.00 3.00

3 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

4 2.00 1.50 0.25 0.25 0.25

5 1.50 1.50

14.50 2.00 4.00 3.00 12.00 4.25 4.25 4.25TASK TOTALS:

24.20 24.95

23.50 24.75


Task 1 Spill Review and Spill Cap DecisionsExisting State Proposed New End State

Review Project Data for Operational AwarenessCoordinate with RCC (Regulators, WQU Team Lead, Division Biologist, Power Coordinator), and B

(Current as of 18 Aug 2008)

PCoordinate Current Project Operations with Project Operators and District Offices


Task 2

Draft Proposed Nightly Spill CapsCoordinate Draft Proposed Nightly Spill Caps with Division Office and NOAA FisheriesSend Out Final Spill Priority List via TeletypeEnter Spill Cap Information into CROHMS/CWMSConduct Spill Cap Program Oversight

TOTALS:

Preparation of Water Management PlanPreparation of Fish Passage Plan

General Technical Support for RCC and the District Support Team

TOTALS:

Description

Develop the PNCA Submittal for Water Quality

Provide Technical Support and Products to RCC and District Support Team

Participation at Regional Forum/State Resource Agency Meetings

Appendix D: Page 17



Subtasks1 0.70 0.702 5.50 5.003 0.10 0.104 0.50 0.505 0.10 0.106 1.00 1.007 0.10 0.108 1.50 1.509 0.40 0.4010 1.10 1.1011 2.10 1.0012 0.00 1.50 1.5013 0.00 0.70 0.7014 0.00 2.00 2.0015 0.10 0.1016 0.10 0.1017 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.318 2.00 1.50

15.8 1.0 2.0 2.0 12.3 1.4 2.0 2.8TASK TOTALS:


Subtasks

1 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.50

2 Coordination with Contractors on data corrections 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30

3 7.30 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

4 4.00 -- 4.00 5 2.00

15.6 2.1 3.0 1.8 5.0 4.3 3.0 4.8TASK TOTALS: 17.10

Complete Appendix F: TDG Exceedance Tracking

Complete Annual Report NarrativeComplete Appendix A: Monitor SystemComplete Appendix B: Monitoring Plan of Action

Task 3 Preparation of Annual Reports

Complete Appendix G: SYSTDG ReportComplete Appendix H: Water Temperature DataComplete Appendix I: Dworshak Operations


Complete Appendix C: Fish Operations PlanComplete Appendix D: BiOp Spill Analysis

DescriptionTrack Specific Events that are to be Included in the Annual Report and Draft Narrative

Task 4 Database/Web Site Involvement

Coordination of Review of the Annual ReportOversight of Completion of Annual Report

TOTALS:

Complete Appendix M: Gas Bubble Trauma Monitoring Report (FPC)Complete Appendix N: TDG TMDL Report

Complete Appendix E: Spill Implementation Reports (Done as Task 2)

Complete Appendix K: Portland District ReportComplete Appendix L: Seattle District Report

Complete Appendix J: Walla Walla District Report


Description

Water Quality Data Validation

Input of WQ Research Data into databaseTOTALS:

22.50

18.5020.80

General Coordination with WCDS ManagersCoordination/Oversight of Web Reports

Appendix D: Page 18



Subtasks

1 4.3 3.00

2 3.00 2.00 3.00

3 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00

4 SYSTDG Model Management 1.00 1.00

5 Run SYSTDG for setting spill caps in support of RCC 6.75 6.75

6 SYSTDG Technical support for planning purposes 3.50 3.50

7 SYSTDG Coordination for planning purposes 2.00 2.00

18.6 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 15.3 4.0 7.0TASK TOTALS:


Subtasks1 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.0 0.30 4.00 4.00 4.002 0.80 10.00 8.00 6.0 0.30 10.00 8.00 6.003 Interagency BiOP & TMDL coordination 0.50 1.80 1.00 0.30 1.80 1.004 Prepare TDG monitoring contracts 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.005 Negotiate TDG data collection contracts 0.20 0.206 Design special TDG data collection studies related to BiOP & TMDL 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.207 Coordinate special studies reports 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.508 Coordinate BiOP RPA studies 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.209 Coordinate TMDL studies 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.20 1.0010 Prepare special studies reports 1.00 1.0011 QA special studies reporst 0.20 0.20

2.1 19.3 14.7 12.7 1.1 19.3 14.7 12.7TASK TOTALS:

WATER QUALITY RELATED WORKLOAD ANNUAL TOTALS WATER QUALITY WORK 88.75 26.40 29.70 23.50 55.35 45.00 29.95 32.05OVERALL TOTALS WATER QUALITY WORK 168.35 162.35

28.55 29.25

48.80 47.80

Task 5 Water Quality ModelingExisting State Proposed New End State

Task 6 Fixed Monitoring Station Program

Description

Dworshak Data ManagementPerform CEQUAL W2 Water Temperature ModelingCoordinate Water Temperature Modeling


General Oversight of Fixed Monitoring System Operations

TOTALS:

TOTALS:

Admiinistrative Duties Related to Operation of Fixed Monitoring System

Appendix D: Page 19


Appendix D: Page 20

NON - WATER QUALITY RELATED WORKLOAD


Subtasks1 0.60 0.602 0.40 0.403 4.00 4.004 3.20 3.205 4.80 4.806 2.50 2.507 2.00 2.008 1.00 1.009 0.50 0.5010 2.00 2.00

21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ANNUAL TOTALS ALL WORK EXCEPT TMT CHAIR 109.75 26.40 29.70 23.50 76.35 45.00 29.95 32.05OVERALL TOTALS ALL WORK EXCEPT TMT CHAIR 189.35 183.35

Task 8 1 22.00 22.00

ANNUAL TOTALS ALL WORK: 131.8 26.4 29.7 23.5 98.4 45.0 30.0 32.1OVERALL TOTALS ALL WORK: 211.35 205.35


Finalize Report and Submit to Department of Justice

Perform Data Validation for Operational GraphicsCreate and Maintain Project Plots

Preparation of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

Coordinate Variance Explanations with BPADraft Report Narrative

Task 7


Regional Forum TMT chair

Provide Oversight of Monthly Spill Implementation Reports

Establish Explanations for VariancesReview Project Data to Identify BiOp Operations Variances

TOTALS:

Coordinate Draft Report with RCC, BPA, Corps District Support Team, and Corps Office of Counsel

Appendix E: WCDS End-State Recommendation Report with introduction by TMC & WCDS Human Resource Plan

Water Management Reorganization Transition Management Committee

WCDS End-State Plan Water Control Data System

July 5, 2008 Preface As part of the Northwestern Division Water Management reorganization effort initiated in 2007, a WCDS Team was established to investigate and recommend an end-state condition for the WCDS for Northwestern Division. The primary purpose of the WCDS is to provide data and information used on a real-time basis to regulate water projects for which the Corps of Engineers is responsible including flood control, power, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, and environmental concerns. The WCDS also shares data with partner agencies and provides water management data to project operators and to the user community including; internal users in emergency management, dam safety, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering; external users such as other federal, state, and local agencies and the general public. The WCDS Team was instructed to focus on the WCDS, specifically acting on the recommendations from the WCDS Needs Assessment Gap Analysis and re-organization recommendations dated 21 August 2007. The WCDS Team was asked to describe several aspects of the end-state including; system architecture, data processing, quality control/quality assurance, data dissemination, and documentation. The Team completed and submitted a final report in May 2008. That report, in its entirety, is contained herein. The Technical Management Committee [TMC], which was responsible for coordination and direction of the effort and approving a final end-state for WCDS has reviewed the report and the recommendations provided. Based on the information provided by the WCDS Team, the TMC has developed the end state as described in this TMC End State Plan section immediately following. The TMC end-state plan does NOT match the WCDS Team report in all aspects. The TMC end-state plan supersedes that provided by the WCDS Team. Any contradictions between the two will be resolved by the TMC.

Appendix E: Page i <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc


TMC End State Plan for WCDS As part of the Northwestern Division Water Management re-organization initiated in 2007, a Water Control Data System [WCDS] Team was tasked with developing an end state description for the WCDS that would serve the needs of the region. The report and appendices following describe the end-state recommendation for the system as provided by the WCDS Team. The Technical Management Committee has provided the final WCDS end-state plan in this Executive Summary. This TMC Plan includes some limited but important changes to the WCDS Team End-State Recommendation Report findings. The following conclusions were developed by the Transition Management Committee based on input from the WCDS Team. Further discussions for these recommendations are contained below.

1. The 3-node bi-directional streaming architecture as described in Alternative 4 should be implemented based on a Transition Plan which will be developed in the next phase. The recommended architecture would fulfill the needs of the Columbia Basin region reservoir regulation offices and auxiliary users such as the dam operators and partnering agencies (BPA, RFC, and others). The recommended architecture;

a. minimizes failure points for key processes, b. has an integrated active COOP, c. aligns pertinent data with the appropriate reservoir regulation office, and d. aligns tasks such as QA/QC with the most knowledgeable office.

2. The overall Management of the WCDS would generally follow the Corps Project Management Business Plan.

a. A WCDS Steering Committee shall be established to set the vision, scope, and priority of work for the Columbia Basin Regional WCDS. Permanent committee members shall consist of the Chiefs of Reservoir Regulation function at each of the four NWD offices, a rotating representative of the broader H&H community, and the WCDS Project Manager (non-voting member). The Steering Committee may include representatives from other offices for technical support and recommendations as appropriate. [WCDS Team Terminology – Steering Committee]

b. A WCDS Product Development Team [PDT] shall be identified. The PDT would consist of all staff, contractors, other Federal and State organizations that provide technical and planning products for WCDS. The PDT activities will be led by a Project Manager through Technical Leads. In order to allow for flexibility in management within each office, it is not necessary that the team involved in and supporting the WCDS be located within and supervised by the Reservoir Regulation Chief in each office. [WCDS Team Terminology – WCDS Working Group]

c. A WCDS Project Manager [PM] shall be selected to lead the WCDS PDT, coordinate and lead the WCDS Technical Leads, coordinate and implement the Steering Committee vision, and coordinate development of the budget and annual work plans for WCDS. [WCDS Team Terminology – Technical Coordination Team Lead].

Appendix E: Page ii <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc


d. Technical Leads [TL] shall be selected to work with the WCDS Project Manager. The TLs will lead individual projects, coordinate WCDS functional areas throughout the region, provide technical recommendations to the PM, and provide product scopes and schedules as necessary. [WCDS Team – Technical Coordination Team]

e. The Steering Committee will report to the Chief of Columbia Basin Water Management. Chief of CBWM will act as an advocate for WCDS in the greater Corps Community and report to the Water Management Board on issues of direction, funding, or concern.

3. A Master Plan shall be prepared to document the system including annual or bi-annual reviews and updates of this Master Plan. The Master Plan will be coordinated with the Missouri Basin to assure that systems are being migrated toward a convergent path. There will also be periodic In Progress Review (IPR) meetings to review the status of the implementation of the current Master Plan. The Master Plan will be used as a basis for system documentation and programmatic budget development and coordination of the needs across the region. The Master Plan will include system performance metrics to clearly describe the key performance characteristics of the system and allowing tracking of performance and customer satisfaction in meeting those goals. Examples of metrics include things like data reliability, data accuracy, response time on data corrections, speed in posting data to the system, etc.

The proposed end-state System Architecture consists of three nodes; one each in Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla. The three nodes will be configured similarly; each having the ability to collect, process, store, and disseminate data, as well as support modeling and all other necessary functions. All nodes will use the same version of the CWMS database. All data, processes, applications, and files will be synchronized in real-time across all three nodes. Since the database and file systems are replicated at each node, the four offices will have an active COOP with each of the three nodes able to act as a backup for one or both of the other two nodes. Each node will have the ability to operate independently in a network communication failure. The proposed architecture has similarities with the Missouri Basin WCDS and provides the potential for future collaboration on system and tool development. Each regulating office is responsible for the data collection for projects they regulate. The actual execution of the data collection function can be delegated to another office or a District in the case of RCC as agreed to by the Steering Committee and documented in the WCDS Master Plan. Assignment of responsibilities for QA/QC shall be documented in the Master Plan with the overlying concept being the regulating or end user office has final responsibility for QA/QC of the projects it is responsible for regulating. This could be reservoir regulation, water quality, fisheries biology, etc. The QA/QC changes made at one location will be automatically streamed to the other locations. Data exchange with partner agencies will occur via a file transfer protocol [ftp] server with one point of access. Changes to the existing data exchange process will be transparent to our partner agencies. Data dissemination internally and to the general public will continue to be provided via web reports, queries, and by specific request. Where appropriate, existing locally and regionally developed applications will be migrated to work with the CWMS. Future application development will be coordinated throughout the region to facilitate standardization and to make use of the CWMS Application Programming Interface (API) as appropriate. HEC will be informed about regional development efforts and provided any products of interest for inclusion

Appendix E: Page iii <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc


in the CWMS. The WCDS system architecture and development will also be coordinated with ACE-IT to ensure it fits within the ACE-IT guidelines for Corps Water Management agreement and the overall Corps IT system since ACE-IT will be supporting major aspects of the WCDS. An important aspect of the reorganization of WCDS is the development of a new management structure. A WCDS Steering Committee will be established to manage all aspects of the Water Control Data System. The Committee will be the representative of all users of the WCDS including partnering agencies and will be responsible for setting the vision, scope, and priorities of WCDS and balancing the data needs of all the regulating offices and incorporating Corps partnering agencies needs as appropriate. The Committee will consist of five voting members; the chief of the reservoir regulation function at each of the four offices, and a rotating representative of the broader H&H community [Branch Chief or other functional area chief].The Project Manager (PM) will be a non-voting member of the WCDS Steering Committee. The Committee will report to the Chief, Columbia Basin Water Management. The Committee may also select ad hoc members at its discretion. These members might be necessary to meet short-term or long-term planning or technical needs and will typically be non-voting members. The Committee may also establish sub-Committees if special projects or major investigations are deemed to be to the advantage of the WCDS community and additional specialized members are appropriate. To implement the Steering Committee directives, a Product Development Team (PDT) will be established consisting of all staff, contractors, other Federal and State organizations that provide technical and planning products for WCDS. Of course, PDT membership is flexible depending on current work activities. Due to the range of technical specialties needed to manage and maintain the WCDS, active PDT members will be dependent upon current work requirements. The PDT will be comprised of all Division and District staff that perform work on the WCDS with regard to development, maintenance, support, and management of the system. Members of the WCDS PDT include staff that work on the WCDS both full and part time. There is no requirement that PDT members necessarily be staffed in Reservoir Regulation Offices. Overall coordination of PDT activities will be handled by a Project Manager. The primary interface to the regional WCDS for stakeholders and ACE-IT will be through the Project Manager. The PM may also be responsible for technical development depending on the individual qualifications. This PM, through a number of Technical Leads, will implement Steering Committee directives, develop and coordinate scopes and schedules, manage products, develop annual budgets, develop five-year plans, and handle other actions as required. The PM will be responsible to coordinate staffing needs through resource providers. Technical Leads will be selected for ongoing or product specific activities. The TL’s will be chosen by the PM with concurrence from the Steering Committee. TL’s will typically be functional area experts or provide significant technical input to product development. The WCDS Transition Team expects there will be a reduction in the end-state WCDS level of effort. The average estimated reduction is 4,500 man-hours (2.5 FTE) without including work that could be shifted to ACE-IT. The WCDS Team identified 13 functional areas and provided a range of estimated labor resources required for each functional area (minimum, average, and

Appendix E: Page iv <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc


maximum – see table 6.2 of this report). In addition to the resources, the team further categorized what portion of each function’s resources had to be in each office/node or could be in any of the offices (floating work). The level of effort estimate is dependent on ACE-IT involvement and assumes the proposed WCDS standardization would allow for more system efficiencies and would provide an increased level of service to all users. The process the TMC used to determine the end state resource requirements is as follows: The average resources estimate from Table 6.2 was used, which resulted in about 9.3 FTE’s of work. Three of the functional areas were identified that could be accomplished by ACE-IT - System administration, hardware support and Security (Information Assurance). To estimate the ACE-IT contribution, the minimum resource estimate was assumed for those functions rather than the average resource. This resulted in an additional shift of 0.7 FTE of work that is now being performed by Corps WCDS staff to ACE-IT staff. [A Final Draft Issue Resolution Report has been completed and is awaiting official approval from Corps and ACE-IT upper management. The document does not however, provide significant details on cost and staffing. Some uncertainty remains as to level of effort that might be required by Corps water management staff as opposed to ACE-IT staff.] The recommended TMC WCDS end-state plan envisions a “final” requirement of approximately 9.3 FTE [15,136 annual hours] which includes 0.7 FTE of work that is assumed shifted to ACE-IT as compared to the existing level of 11.8 FTE’s [20,803 annual hours]. The end state is assumed to be effective on 01 October 2009 [FY2010] with FY2009 as a transition year. The end-state plan distributes current and future work functions among the four district/division offices. Level of effort for work that should be done at the local water management offices is estimated and distributed as: NWP – 1.5 FTE, NWS-1.7, NWW-1.0, and NWD-2.0. Work that could be distributed among staff at these four offices totals 2.4, for a total WCDS staff at all Corps offices of 8.6 FTE. Initially, the 2.4 FTE’s of work that could be distributed to various offices will remain at the NWD office, resulting in a total of 4.4 FTE’s at NWD. The District FTE’s will increase from current levels by 0.5 per office to reflect shifting of QA/QC functions and back-up duties for system and database administration. Since the NWD office currently has 9.1 FTE involved in the WCDS, transitioning to a future WCDS staff of 4.4 FTE represents a reduction of 4.7 FTE from the current staffing. In the long-term, this reduction will be addressed through attrition. In the short-term, it will be addressed by re-assigning staff currently working on WCDS work to other duties or to new WCDS duties in other offices. The WCDS work should be aligned with staff members having the appropriate skill sets regardless of office affiliation. As the skill set for a particular function migrates from one office to another the work should migrate in concert. (e.g. If the primary staff member leaves the backup member, regardless of their location, takes over as primary and a new backup is designated.) A smooth transition plan from existing skill sets, work load, and staff distribution to the end-state is essential and will be considered in the Transition Plan which will follow after approval of this end-state.

Appendix E: Page v <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc


Appendix E: Page vi <AppE_WCDS EndState070508_w_subappendicies.doc

Respectfully Submitted: Technical Management Team [Barton, Buchholz, Brettmann, Duffe, Lindgren, Mahar]


WCDS Team End-State Recommendation Report Water Control Data Collection and Management System

Executive Summary As part of the Northwestern Division Water Management re-organization initiated in 2007, the WCDS Transition Team was tasked with developing and finalizing an end-state description for the WCDS that would serve the needs of the region. The team was then further tasked with developing a transition plan to achieve the system end-state as approved by management. This report defines the end-state for the system. Once the Transition Management Committee (TMC) determines the WCDS end-state, the transition plan would then be developed as the next phase of this effort. The Needs Assessment Report from Phase-I provided a conceptual framework for the data system. The primary purpose of the WCDS is to provide data and information used on a real-time basis to regulate water projects for which the Corps of Engineers is responsible including flood control, power, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, and environmental concerns. The WCDS also shares data with partner agencies and provides water management data to project operators and to the user community including; internal users in emergency management, dam safety, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering; external users such as other federal, state, and local agencies and the general public. Currently, the four regulating offices use various and, in some cases, different methods for data processing, storage and dissemination. The proposed end-state System Architecture consists of three nodes located one each in Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla. The three nodes would be configured similarly, with each having the ability to collect, process, store and disseminate data, as well as support modeling and all other necessary functions. All nodes would use the same version of the CWMS database. All data, processes, applications, and files would be synchronized in real-time across all three nodes. Since the database and file systems are replicated at each node, the four offices would have an active COOP with any node able to act as a backup for any or all of the other nodes. Each node would have the ability to operate independently in a network communication failure. The proposed architecture has similarities with the Missouri Basin WCDS and provides the potential for future collaboration on system and tool development. The office responsible for data collection would perform QA/QC on that data. The QA/QC changes made at one location would be automatically streamed to the other locations. Data exchange with partner agencies would occur via a COOPed ftp server with one point of access. Changes to the data exchange process would be transparent to our partner agencies. Data dissemination internally and to the general public would continue to be provided via web reports, queries and by specific request. Where possible, all locally and regionally developed applications would be migrated to work with CWMS. Future application development would be coordinated throughout the region to facilitate standardization and would make use of the CWMS Application Programming Interface (API) where appropriate. HEC would be informed about regional

Appendix E: Page i


Appendix E: Page ii

development efforts and would be provided with any products of interest for inclusion in CWMS. Management of the WCDS would be performed by a Steering Committee and Technical Coordination Team. The WCDS Steering Committee would be responsible for balancing the data needs of all the regulating offices and Corps partnering agencies and would report to the Division Water Management Chief. The Steering Committee would set the vision, scope and priorities for the WCDS including the Technical Coordination Team. A Technical Coordination Team Lead would be assigned the duties of a Project Manager for the WCDS and would report to the WCDS Steering Committee. The Technical Coordination Team would manage and coordinate the development and maintenance of all aspects of the WCDS. The WCDS Transition Team expects there would be a reduction in the end-state WCDS level of effort. The average estimated reduction is 4,500 man-hours (2.5 FTE). The level of effort estimate is dependent on ACE-IT involvement and assumes the proposed WCDS standardization would allow for more system efficiencies and would provide an increased level of service to all users. WCDS documentation, planning, and development would occur in conjunction with the annually updated Columbia Basin WCDS Master Plan. Increased coordination and discussion between the Columbia Basin WCDS staff and the Missouri Basin WCDS staff would occur to leverage knowledge, lessons learned, and resources. The next step after the TMC determines an appropriate WCDS End-State, would be the development of a transition plan to provide direction and schedule for implementing the reorganization to the end-state.


WCDS End-State Recommendation Report Water Control Data Collection and Management System

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... I 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2. PURPOSE OF A WATER CONTROL DATA SYSTEM (WCDS) ............................................... 1

2.1. REAL-TIME REGULATION .......................................................................................................... 1 2.2. PROJECT OPERATORS ................................................................................................................ 2 2.3. HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY USER COMMUNITY...................................................................... 2

3. EXISTING WATER CONTROL DATA SYSTEMS ...................................................................... 2 4. PURPOSE FOR THE WCDS TRANSITION TEAM EFFORT.................................................... 3

4.1. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 3 4.2. TRANSITION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTIVE ............................................................. 3 4.3. WCDS NEEDS ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................... 3

5. APPROACH TO DEVELOPING WCDS END STATE ................................................................. 3 6. WCDS END STATE........................................................................................................................... 4

6.1. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 4 6.2. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS................................................... 5

6.2.1. Overview................................................................................................................................. 5 6.2.2. General Configuration of WCDS .......................................................................................... 5 6.2.3. WCDS Node Configuration...............................................................................................- 8 - 6.2.4. WCDS Continuity of Operations (COOP).........................................................................- 8 -

6.3. DATA PROCESSING ............................................................................................................... - 10 - 6.3.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................- 10 - 6.3.2. Data Collection ................................................................................................................- 13 - 6.3.3. Data Acquisition ..............................................................................................................- 13 - 6.3.4. Data Posting to Database ................................................................................................- 14 -

6.4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)................................................. - 14 - 6.4.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................- 14 - 6.4.2. Automated QA/QC After Data is Posted to Database .....................................................- 15 - 6.4.3. Manual QA/QC ................................................................................................................- 15 - 6.4.4. QA/QC Other Agencies Data...........................................................................................- 16 -

6.5. APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................... - 16 - 6.5.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................- 16 - 6.5.2. System Monitoring and Maintenance Applications........................................................- 17 - 6.5.3. File Management and Sharing Applications ..................................................................- 17 - 6.5.4. User Applications.............................................................................................................- 17 -

6.6. DATA DISSEMINATION.......................................................................................................... - 17 - 6.6.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................- 17 -

6.7. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................ - 19 - 6.7.1. Overview...........................................................................................................................- 19 - 6.7.2. The Role of the Division Water Management Chief in WCDS ......................................- 20 - 6.7.3. WCDS Steering Committee .............................................................................................- 20 - 6.7.4. WCDS Technical Coordination Team ............................................................................- 21 - 6.7.5. WCDS End-State Level of Effort ....................................................................................- 22 -

6.8. DOCUMENTATION, PLANNING, AND COORDINATION .......................................................... - 24 - 6.9. PERTINENT ENGINEERING REGULATIONS........................................................................... - 25 -

7. CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................- 26 -

Appendix E: Page iii


8. DEFINITIONS ..............................................................................................................................- 27 - SUB-APPENDIX A: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER CONTROL DATA SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................................................................- 29 -

A.1 DIVISION-COLUMBIA BASIN................................................................................................. - 29 - A.2 PORTLAND DISTRICT............................................................................................................ - 29 - A.3 SEATTLE DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... - 31 - A.4 WALLA WALLA DISTRICT........................................................................................................ 34 A.5 DIVISION-MISSOURI BASIN ...................................................................................................... 35 A.6 CURRENT APPLICABLE MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT ..................................................... 36

SUB-APPENDIX B: DATA DISSEMINATION - EXTENT AND TYPES .......................................... 39 B.1 EXTENT OF DATA DISSEMINATION .................................................................................................. 39 B.2 DATA DISSEMINATION VENUES ....................................................................................................... 39

B.2.1 Models....................................................................................................................................... 39 B.2.2 Internal Web ............................................................................................................................. 40 B.2.3 Public Web ................................................................................................................................ 41 B.2.4 CIAS.......................................................................................................................................... 42 B.2.5 Extranet .................................................................................................................................... 42 B.2.6 Tools.......................................................................................................................................... 42 B.2.7 eGIS .......................................................................................................................................... 43

SUB-APPENDIX C: ACE-IT QUESTIONS AND INTERACTIONS................................................... 44 SUB-APPENDIX D: CATEGORIZED FUNCTION SPREADSHEET EXERCISE........................... 45 SUB-APPENDIX E: WCDS STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 47

E.1 WCDS STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ..................................................................................... 47 E.2 WCDS STEERING COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................ 47 E.3 COMMITTEE NORMS ........................................................................................................................ 48

SUB-APPENDIX F: TECHNICAL COORDINATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS................. 49 F.1 TECHNICAL COORDINATION TEAM STRUCTURE ............................................................................ 49 F.2 TECHNICAL COORDINATION TEAM ACCOUNTABILITY .................................................................. 49 F.3 COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................................................. 49 F.4 SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS ................................................................................................................ 49

SUB-APPENDIX G: COMPARISON of PROPOSED WCDS END-STATE with ER 1110-2-249 .... 51 G.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 51 G.2 CURRENT ER CONSIDERS A WCDS AT EACH LOCAL OFFICE ...................................................... 51 G.3 ER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR – WCDS STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON.......................... 51

G.3.1 Description of the System Administrator in the ER ................................................................ 51 G.3.2 Responsibilities of the System Administrator in the ER.......................................................... 51

G.4 ER SYSTEM MANAGER – WCDS TECHNICAL COORDINATION TEAM LEAD ................................ 52 G.4.1 Selection of the System Manager in the ER ............................................................................ 52 G.4.2 Responsibilities of the System Manager in the ER ................................................................. 52

G.5 ER SITE MANAGER AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS MANAGER – MEMBERS OF TCT............ 53 G.6 ROLE OF THE DIVISION WATER MANAGEMENT CHIEF ................................................................. 53

SUB-APPENDIX H: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE CONSIDERATIONS and ALTERNATIVES ... 54 1. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 54 2. ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED........................................................................................................... 54

2.1 Alternative 1: Post all data to a central node, Stream to the remote nodes................................ 55 2.2 Alternative 2: Post all data locally, Stream through a central node........................................... 55 2.3 Alternative 3: Local Posting, Circular Streaming....................................................................... 56 2.4 Alternative 4: Local Posting, Fully Connected ........................................................................... 56 2.5 Alternative 5: Local and Remote Posting, No Streams............................................................... 56

Appendix E: Page iv


Appendix E: Page v

2.6 Alternative 6: Central Data Acquisition, Stream Metadata ........................................................ 56 2.7 Alternative 7: Local Posting, Stream to a Central Node............................................................. 57

3. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 57 SUB-APPENDIX I: NOTES ON ORACLE STREAMS ........................................................................ 58

H.1 ORACLE STREAMS OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 58 H.2 MISSOURI RIVER REGION’S ORACLE STREAMS EXPERIENCE....................................................... 58 H.3 EXAMPLE FROM ORACLE OF A 3-NODE ORACLE STREAMS CONFIGURATION.............................. 59


WCDS End-State Recommendation Report Water Control Data Collection and Management System

1. Introduction As part of the on-going NWD Water Management re-organization, several teams were formed and tasked with providing transition plans for achieving the end-state defined in the Phase-I Implementation Plan. In the case of the Water Control Data System (WCDS), the end-state was not defined in the Implementation Plan, but a conceptual framework for the data system was outlined in the WCDS Needs Assessment Report, dated August 21, 2007. The WCDS transition team was tasked with continuing the work of the Needs Assessment team, finalizing the end-state plan, and then developing a transition plan which would detail how to migrate from the current WCDS to the recommended solution. This report details the data system end-state recommendation as defined by the WCDS transition team. More information and background on the reorganization can be found in the Water Management Reorganization Phase II Transition Plan Project Management Plan (PMP). The WCDS transition team responsible for developing the end-state report Team Lead:

Michael Swenson (NWD-MR) Team Members:

Arthur Armour (NWP) Dave Gustafson (NWS) Dave Portin (NWD-P) Mike Bainer (NWD-P) Ruth Abney (NWP) Stephen Hall (NWW)

2. Purpose of a Water Control Data System (WCDS)

2.1. Real-Time Regulation The primary purpose of the WCDS is to provide data and information to real-time regulators for the purpose of water management. Water Management includes flood control, power, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, and environmental concerns including endangered species and fish and wildlife issues. In order to provide the project regulators with all information necessary for regulation decision making, a large component of the WCDS is sharing data (providing and receiving data) with partner agencies. Depending on the hydrologic nature of the basin involved, an adequate monitoring of the basin may require more or less data reporting with varying degrees of timeliness. Snowmelt driven systems in Walla Walla District and Seattle District require hydrologically accurate historic data plus updated hourly values. Rain driven systems like those found in Seattle District require updated and transformed hourly data available for use within 15 minutes from the top of each hour. Data updated every

Appendix E: Page 1


hour is hydrologically adequate for the river systems managed by Portland District and the Columbia Reservoir Control Center. 2.2. Project Operators A secondary purpose of either the data collection efforts of the district or of the WCDS is to provide water management data to project operators in a timely manner. Operators have expressed a desire to have the data either instantaneous or within five minutes of field measurement. This desire usually arises since all the other data that the operators work with in the project control room is instantaneous. It is not because monitoring of the hydrologic environment requires such a quick response from the operators. The viability of providing the project operators with hydro-meteorological data instantaneously or every five minutes would be evaluated on an individual case-by-case basis. 2.3. Hydraulic & Hydrology User Community A third purpose of a WCDS is providing data to the user community, beyond project regulators. The data is currently provided in the form of static reports and limited ad-hoc query capability. The user community includes internal users such as emergency management personnel, dam safety personnel, hydrologic engineers, and hydraulic engineers as well as external users such as Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), National Weather Service River Forecast Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Reclamation, other federal, state, and local agencies and the general public. WCDS data provided to the user community takes the form of public and internal web pages, raw data feeds, model outputs, as well as static and ad-hoc reports/graphs.

3. Existing Water Control Data Systems Currently, the Columbia Basin Water Management offices (Columbia Basin Reservoir Control Center, Portland District, Seattle District, and Walla Walla District) make use of Corps and other agency resources to accomplish the Columbia River Basin Water Management function. The Columbia Basin district offices manage all data collection activities including maintenance of field equipment and agreements with partner agencies, with the exception of data collected via the Columbia Basin Teletype (CBT) system which is managed by the Columbia Basin WCDS. The district offices collect all data and provide it to the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS via various processes with the exception of satellite and CBT, which the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS acquires directly. Districts also collect satellite data via LRGS directly for local gaging stations. Due to regional and inter-agency interaction and dependencies there are a number of Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) that exist. For a list of key memorandums refer to Appendix A, Section A.6. The four regulating offices each have various independent systems for data processing, storage, and dissemination. In the three district offices the data functions are co-located with the reservoir regulation staff. In the Division-Columbia Basin office, the regulation

Appendix E: Page 2


function (Columbia Basin Reservoir Control Center) resides in a separate office from the data management functions (Columbia Basin WCDS). A detailed technical description of each of the current data systems can be found in Appendix A. 4. Purpose for the WCDS Transition Team Effort

4.1. Overview The WCDS Transition Team (The Team) was established as part of the Northwestern Division Water Management Reorganization. The Team was tasked with continuing the work of the WCDS Needs Assessment team as documented in their report dated August 21, 2007. The WCDS Needs Assessment team developed a conceptual framework for what the regulating offices wanted in the future WCDS. The Team is working from the defined conceptual framework to develop an end-state definition of the system. The next phase would continue the development of a transition plan to migrate from the current system to the new end-state. 4.2. Transition Management Committee Directive Overall purposes of the WCDS Transition Team effort as defined by the Transition Management Committee include:

• Improved communication and cooperation between all offices. High level of respect and trust between offices.

• Develop interdependent relationships among all offices. Technical support is shared between all offices including division support to districts where appropriate.

• Project authorized purposes would be met and organizational or process changes would not compromise Life, Safety, Health, Property, or legal and ethical standards.

• Ensure Water Management employees are taken care of.

4.3. WCDS Needs Assessment Purposes specific to the WCDS Transition Team as defined in the WCDS Needs Assessment report.

• Integration of WCDS management and development into the regulating offices.

• Standardization of WCDS database and software across the region. • Improved Continuity of Operations (COOP). • Improved capabilities with Corps Water Management System (CWMS)

software. • Standardization of new application development.

5. Approach to Developing WCDS End State The WCDS Transition Team began by clarifying any questions new members had regarding the concepts laid out in the WCDS Needs Assessment effort. The team then

Appendix E: Page 3


proceeded to address the data system architecture in more detail since it set the framework and context in which other WCDS components would be discussed. Following agreement on system architecture, other key elements of the system were evaluated and an end state was developed. The key elements were categorized and addressed as follows:

• COOP • Data Processing including data collection, acquisition, and posting into the

database • Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) • Applications • Data Dissemination including interaction with models, internal and external web

pages, tools, file sharing, and corporate eGIS integration • Management and technical team configuration and responsibilities, including

functions and staffing 6. WCDS End State

6.1. Overview The System Architecture consists of three nodes, one in Portland, one in Seattle, and one in Walla Walla. The three nodes would be configured similarly, with each having the ability to collect, process, and store data. All nodes would use the same version of the CWMS database. All data, processes, applications, and files would be synchronized among the nodes. All of these considerations reduce the maintenance workload and provides an active COOP. Since all three nodes are nearly identical, any node could act as a backup to any of the other nodes. The standard configuration at each node also lends itself to standardization in development of tools and other applications which would create efficiencies throughout the region. This architecture is very similar to the current Missouri Basin WCDS. The system architecture provides for key functions at all of the nodes so that each node could function independently in the event of a wide area network (WAN) failure. This assumes the locally collected data (data transmitted via satellite and/or line of sight (LOS) radios) continues to come into the node since they are independent of the WAN as well. Using this architecture, each regulating office, associated with a specific node, would be responsible for the QA/QC processes on the data that regulating office is responsible for. Further discussion of what capabilities and functions exist at each of the nodes follows in a subsequent section of this document. There would also be two regional ftp servers, one located in Portland and a backup server located in Walla Walla. This would provide partnering agencies one location (with a backup) where they can exchange data with the Corps.

Appendix E: Page 4


A WCDS Steering Committee would be established which sets the vision, scope, and priorities of the WCDS. A Technical Coordination Team would be formed by the WCDS Steering Committee that would coordinate and carry out all technical aspects of the WCDS. WCDS documentation, planning, and development would occur in conjunction with the annually updated Columbia Basin WCDS Master Plan. Increased coordination and discussion between the Columbia Basin WCDS staff and the Missouri Basin WCDS staff would occur to leverage knowledge, lessons learned, and resources. More detailed discussion on the network configuration, node configuration, and Continuity of Operations (COOP) follows in the subsequent sections. 6.2. System Architecture and Continuity of Operations

6.2.1. Overview The WCDS Transition Team considered seven different system architectures. The benefits and drawbacks of each alternative were discussed using the following primary criteria for evaluation:

• Standard configurations at each node for ease of maintenance, ease of keeping each node in sync with the other nodes, and providing a environment for joint application development

• Replicating and standardizing technology to enhance reservoir regulation staff efficiencies within and between offices.

• Improved COOP, including integration of COOP (active), ease of recovering from COOP, limiting the points of failures between processes, and allowing for stand-alone operation at each node during crisis situations to accomplish the mission

• QA/QC performed by staff from each office on data collection stations primary to that office

• All data available at each node (Portland, Seattle, Walla Walla) • Simplicity, ease, and thoroughness of populating the databases and

handling metadata • Network reliability and performance

Refer to Appendix H for further information concerning the seven alternatives considered. In the following sections, the general system architecture and integrated COOP configuration will be described, and then the configuration at a node will be described in more detail. The third discussion addresses COOP in more detail. 6.2.2. General Configuration of WCDS The system architecture consists of three nodes, one in Portland, one in Seattle, and one in Walla Walla. At each of these nodes reside all applicable files, applications, and models for each of the four regulating offices in the region as well as a database with all of the data for the region. The team agreed that the

Appendix E: Page 5


Appendix E: Page 6

Columbia River basin should standardize on the CWMS database (Version 2.0 or later current HEC release), and that the transition plan and efforts would be shared with the Missouri River basin. The data system would include a complete CWMS installation at each office, but would not limit end-users to CWMS applications (see Application section). The system architecture concept diagram is shown in Figure 6-1 WCDS Architecture Overview. The fundamental design concepts captured in this schematic are:

• Each node is responsible for data collection • Each node would acquire all data or would have all acquisition

configuration information necessary to acquire all data • Each node would only post data to the database that it is responsible for

unless it is a COOP situation • In general, each regulating office (4 offices) would perform QA/QC on

stations for which it is responsible as determined by the WCDS Steering Committee

• The responsibility for data collection and data QA/QC can be performed by different offices as determined by the WCDS Steering Committee

• Data posted at each node would be streamed to the other two nodes using Oracle Streams

• Due to the use of Oracle Streams, the idea of separate databases is no longer applicable. In effect, there is only one database since any changes made at one location are automatically streamed to the other locations.

• Sharing of all water management information that is not stored in the database, that is needed for COOP, would be addressed in a file sharing process since the information would not be in the database to be streamed

• Any node can serve as the COOP site for any other node • COOP is integrated into the system design


Figure 6.1 WCDS Architecture Overview

Appendix E: Page - 7 -


The proposed system architecture would provide scalability for future data system needs. Within the system architecture, any of the three nodes would have the ability to provide data to a national COOP site and a regional and/or national public dissemination site. Only one node would routinely run processes for these additional sites. Further discussion of the standardized node configuration and integration of COOP follow in the next two sections. 6.2.3. WCDS Node Configuration Each of the three nodes (Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla) would be very similar, with the main differences being in the local data collection methods, equipment, and servers. Each node would contain the following functionality:

• Data Collection • Data Acquisition • Posting of Data to the Database • CWMS Database • QA/QC Responsibilities and Applications • Data Monitoring and other Applications, Models, and File Sharing • Data Dissemination

The only functions that would not be at each node are the regional ftp server and public Internet pages. Figure 6-2 WCDS Data Processing displays the configuration of processes at each of the three nodes in the Columbia Basin WCDS architecture. Each of these functions is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections. 6.2.4. WCDS Continuity of Operations (COOP) COOP is the ability to continue to perform any key Water Control Data System function or set of functions such as data collection, acquisition, posting, QA/QC, execution of key applications, or dissemination of data when the regular mode of operation fails in whole or in part due to planned or unplanned events. Water management is an essential mission of the Corps and is supported by the WCDS. Loss of a critical system like WCDS could lead to loss of life and property. Therefore COOP of the WCDS is central to the responsibility the Corps has for operating water control projects. The system architecture, defined in the previous section, incorporates the idea of an “active COOP” in the system design. The goal of the WCDS Needs Assessment and Transition Teams was to move away from a COOP that was offline and needed to be supported separately and tested to be current, and move to an active COOP an integral part of the system architecture. The proposed system architecture includes active functioning redundancies which provide real-time performance benefits while satisfying COOP requirements. Including this active COOP concept in the system design process allows for seamless operations



in crisis situations. With the three-node architecture there does not have to be a primary COOP site since each node in the system architecture can serve as a COOP for any other node. With this three node architecture, the Columbia Basin WCDS would have equipment and capability located in three cities; Portland, Seattle and Walla Walla. Each node, acting as a COOP site, would have the ability to collect, acquire, and post all data to the WCDS database. During normal operation, each node can collect and acquire all data for the region but would only post the data that node is responsible for as determined by the WCDS Steering Committee. During an event when COOP is required, the designated COOP site would collect, acquire and post the data for the node that is down in addition to the standard data processing occurring at that node. The activation of COOP and the process for restoring normal system operations would be designed with safeguards in place so that only one node can post data from a given data collection station. This would avoid unintentional data conflicts, such as when the same piece of data from the same transmission source is posted multiple times. The data in the database at all three nodes would be synced via bi-directional streaming supported by Oracle Streams. As additional data streams or data collection stations are added to the system, their configurations and QA/QC specifications would be added by the appropriate office to the local node and synced with the other nodes via bi-directional streams and file transfer processes. Another aspect of the system architecture and COOP is file sharing between nodes. Each regulation office would have their files, procedures, tools, applications, models, and other necessary information stored on a local server as well as copied to each of the other nodes. These files, procedures, tools, applications, models, and other information would be regularly synced between nodes using an automated process. The team noted that there needs to be an uninterrupted power source for all key elements of the WCDS. This includes both automatic temporary battery supplies as well as having generator power immediately available upon a power failure for all key equipment. CWMS is an Automated Information System (AIS) supported by headquarters as part of the water management WCDS. CWMS development is the responsibility of the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), and it is their responsibility to define a national CWMS COOP as part of the AIS. The national CWMS COOP is beyond the scope of this document other than to note that a connection to the national COOP would be accommodated from the Columbia Basin WCDS. The details of a national COOP are not available from HEC at this time.



The Columbia Basin Teletype (CBT) system, used by project operators, regulators, and partnering agencies for entering and transferring water management data, along with the data from GDACS and SCADA, needs to be evaluated for COOP so there is not a signal point of failure for retrieving data from these systems.

6.3. Data Processing

6.3.1. Overview The data processing aspects of the WCDS consist of three major phases: Data Collection, Data Acquisition and Posting to the database. A more detailed description of what is involved in these three phases is presented later in this section. All three phases would occur or be able to occur at each node. Figure 6.2 “WCDS Data Processing for One Node” depicts the three phases of Data Processing as they would occur at one of the three nodes. All nodes would have an identical structure. The three boxes inside the Data Acquisition (DA) box depict the processes running for data coming from each of the three nodes. The local DA is fed by the local data collection processes. The other two DA processes are fed by the Regional FTP Server which contains most data from the other two nodes’ local data collection processes. One exception is the LRGS (GOES) data which is not sent to the Regional FTP Server for processing at the other two nodes because each node as the capability of collecting all LRGS (GOES) data for the region. The two arrows leaving the Local Data Collection box show the data going to the local DA process as well as sending the data to the Regional FTP Server up above. The three parallel DA processes feed the posting processes on the local posting computer. The three posting streams (representing data received by the local node and two other nodes) are kept separate so that the streams from either of the other two nodes can be turned on or off, depending on COOP requirements for another node. The streams from the other two nodes would normally be turned off and only the local stream would post to the database, as depicted in the diagram. Figure 6.3 “WCDS Local and Regional Collection” shows how the above local node fits in with the overall architecture and flow of data. Each of the three nodes’ Local Data Collection processes feed the Regional FTP Server as well as the local Data Acquisition process. The Regional FTP Server then supplies each node with the local data sent to the Regional FTP Server by the other nodes. The dashed lines on the bottom of the diagram, between the “Oracle” cylinders, represent Oracle Streams which would be used to transfer data between the databases to keep them all in sync. The light gray large dashed line that cuts the figure in two horizontally shows that the Regional FTP Server is on the Controlled Internet Accessible Segment (CIAS) and the computers and servers below the line are on the Secure Production Network in the Corps.




Figure 6.2 WCDS Data Processing for One Node


Figure 6.3 WCDS Local and Regional Collection



6.3.2. Data Collection Data collection is the measurement of a value in the field, logging the value with equipment such as a Data Collection Platform (DCP), and all transmission or manipulation of the data prior to receipt by the data acquisition process. Each node would perform the data collection they determine to be valuable with coordination through the WCDS Steering Committee. Local data collection is sent directly to the local Data Acquisition Server and, at the discretion of the local regulating office, can also be sent to the regional ftp server. The local office needs to be aware that if they choose not send data to the regional ftp server it would not be available in a COOP situation. The regional ftp server, which would be located in Portland, would reside on the Controlled Internet Accessible Segment (CIAS) since it would be used to share data with stakeholders. A backup regional ftp server would exist at the Walla Walla node and the domain name would be managed in such a way that failover is transparent to the users. Local data collection servers at each node may be located on the CIAS, Extranet, or Production Network. Each regulating office is responsible for COOP of their data collection servers and processes. Discussion of data collection COOP should be addressed in the regulating office Data Collection Work Plan and is beyond the scope of this document. Transmission methods used during data collection include phone, radio, microwave, satellite, ftp and web-based transmissions. Examples of data collection servers include the LRGS server and the Sutron XConnect server. 6.3.3. Data Acquisition Data acquisition is the processes used to gather, reformat into SHEF, and move data from receipt via satellite (LRGS), regional ftp server, other ftp processes, Columbia Basin Teletype (CBT), or by some other means into the “incoming” directories where posting to the database begins. Each node would have the capability to acquire all data for the region. A separate data acquisition process would run for each datafeed instead of one process which cycles through the various datafeeds. The acquisition configuration at each node would be copied to the other nodes automatically on a regular basis. Each node would have the ability to send the reformatted data out to the regional ftp server for dissemination to partnering agencies. However, there would be some mechanism in the database to assure specific types of data, such as power production and forecasts, are not released to inappropriate agencies. Data acquisition would occur on the Production Network and the processes would reside on the same server where the posting processes and database reside. The acquisition process would store the raw data for a specified number of days. There should continue to be a way to display and retrieve this raw data. The program FileHunter would continue to be used for cleaning up and deleting files based on a designated look-back window until a better tool is found.



6.3.4. Data Posting to Database Posting is the process of moving the data from the acquisition process into the database. This process begins by pulling data out of the “incoming” directories. During routine operations, the local data is only posted at the local node and subsequently transferred to the other two nodes using Oracle Streams. The posting process would need to be turned on or off for specific datafeeds depending on what datafeeds and data collection stations are to be posted at that local node. When a posting process is updated at any of the nodes the changes would need to be copied to the other nodes. The posting processes and database would reside on the Production Network and would be on the same server where data acquisition resides. The posting process consists of the following processes:

• Posting is initiated by a process called DataCapture which routinely browses the incoming directories of the various data feeds for new files.

• When a new file is found DataCapture moves the file over to a daily file. • DataReader monitors the daily file for new messages and when a new

message is detected it sends it to the SHEFIT program for processing. • The SHEFIT program decodes the SHEF formatted records from the

incoming file. • The output from the SHEFIT program is sent to an application called

ProcessShefit which performs various processes on the data. • The application ProcessShefit then posts the data into the Oracle database. • It is not until the data is posted into the database that any automated

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) processes are performed and any transformations, such as the rating table process for producing flows, are initiated.

• Data dissemination to partnering agencies of the QA/QC data as well as any transformations and calculations, such as project inflows, would occur after the data is posted in the database.

Each node would use the CWMS V2 or later schema with the Oracle database. The database at each node would contain all the data for the region. Each node would have the ability to ftp processed data to the regional ftp server for dissemination to partnering agencies. However, there would be a mechanism set up to make sure proprietary or sensitive data, such as power production and forecasts, are not released to inappropriate agencies.

6.4. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

6.4.1. Overview QA/QC is the automated or manual process by which data is reviewed, modified, or corrected. This data may be time-series data, metadata, or other information in the database such as pathnames.



Generally the office that performs data collection would have primary responsibility for monitoring the automatic processes and performing the manual processes associated with that data. The QA/QC criteria would be defined, maintained and managed by the office that is responsible for the specific location/data with regional coordination and data sharing. The QA/QC criteria would be regularly synced between nodes using Oracle Streams. In some cases the responsibility for certain data may not be clear. These situations would be resolved by the WCDS Steering Committee. Generally, if QA/QC is required for data received from sources other than the Corps it would be performed by the posting office unless otherwise determined by the WCDS Steering Committee. There should be cross-training between offices and sufficient information should exist in the QA/QC procedure manual so that alternative staff would be able to provide a basic level of QA/QC during a COOP event. To make sure the QA/QC methods and processes across the region are standard, a PDT with representative from each office should be established with a designated technical lead. The technical lead could represent the regional QA/QC issues on the Technical Coordination Team, which is discussed in a later section. This PDT would be responsible for sharing knowledge through out the region, developing the QA/QC SOP, and guiding the development of procedures and applications in support of the QA/QC process. The SOP would also include the roles and responsibilities of the various members and offices with regard to the QA/QC process. The SOP would be included as part of the Master Plan. There are two different processes involved in QA/QC including automated procedures as data is posted to the database and a manual process. The two procedures are described in further detail below.

6.4.2. Automated QA/QC After Data is Posted to Database Automated QA/QC processes which are performed as the data is posted to the database should assign quality flags to particular data so that questioned and rejected values, high, low and rate-of-change variances are tagged appropriately. An automated QA/QC process is built into CWMS and would likely be used. The local office would be responsible for maintaining all automated screening criteria for the locations they are responsible for as determined by the WCDS Steering Committee. 6.4.3. Manual QA/QC The manual QA/QC process occurs once the data is in the database. A knowledgeable user evaluates the data and determines if changes need to be made so the data is representative of what actually occurred. Since local knowledge of specific data locations adds significant benefit to the manual QA/QC process, the manual process would occur at the local office responsible for the specific data.



Applications to help the user perform manual QA/QC still need to be looked at by the team during transition planning. This may include off-the-shelf products, in-house development or HEC products. It would be highly desirable if the QA/QC tools are web based and have the ability to configure the time window displayed as well as what data is displayed. Standardization of a manual QA/QC application would be a high priority. A SOP addressing manual QA/QC procedures should include timeliness of corrections, criteria, approach, methods, and how data might be finalized. The SOP should allow for specific rules for different data and gaging locations. 6.4.4. QA/QC Other Agencies Data Data from other agencies should be corrected at the source or as close to the source as possible. Corrected and published data from other agencies can be included in the database. How that data is labeled would be decided in the implementation phase. An SOP needs to be written which spells out the policies of correcting other agencies data. The SOP also needs to include who would contact partnering agencies with regard to missing or incorrect data and how this would be done.

6.5. Applications

6.5.1. Overview As discussed in system architecture, each office would have a full CWMS installation. However, end-users would not be limited to CWMS tools and/or applications. In cases where it is reasonable, current applications would initially be migrated to work with the CWMS database. Any application development should be coordinated throughout the region and, to the extent possible, make use of the standard CWMS application programming interface (API). Using the CWMS API for development of applications that augment or replace CWMS functionality would help insulate the applications from CWMS database upgrades. A long-term effort to standardize applications, coordinate development and supplement individual office applications would occur. This effort would be coordinated with the Missouri River basin and with HEC. Coordination between the Columbia and Missouri offices would be advantageous when considering funding betterments, and/or encouraging HEC to incorporate any locally developed applications into the CWMS application software. Local application development, within a standardized framework, would leverage local knowledge and regional application sharing. HEC and ACE-IT roles in local development are still to be determined.



There are three general categories of applications that are needed 1) system monitoring and maintenance applications, 2) file management and sharing applications, and 3) user applications. Each category of application serves a vital role within the system. Below is a further discussion of these categories of applications. 6.5.2. System Monitoring and Maintenance Applications Applications that monitor and automatically maintain the system save many hours in manual labor, resulting in lower system maintenance. Some examples of work performed by automated applications are deletion of old files and data for disk space management, monitoring of automated processes to make sure specific data is coming into the system, generation of static user reports, and initiation of annual or seasonal data management. Monitoring and maintenance applications also provide a proactive approach to troubleshooting problems. It is important that these applications are developed and used. Big Sister is one such software package already in use that monitors the systems and sends out alerts when issues arise. A standard software package that performs such a function would reside at each node on the same server where the internal web resides. 6.5.3. File Management and Sharing Applications Models, files and tools, along with other key information would be regularly synced between nodes. Applications would be developed that keep track of which files are managed and shared as well as those applications that perform the sharing and automatic transferring of files. Processes and procedures would also be put in place to control the sharing of sequentially generated model data throughout the region. 6.5.4. User Applications Applications that allow the users to access and manage data within the system would be central to assuring quality data. Users would need applications to manage meta-data about projects, data collected, and alert thresholds, as well as tools for checking and reviewing automated and manual QA/QC designations (discussed in QA/QC). User applications would utilize the CWMS API to insulate the tools from changes to the underlying CWMS database. The CWMS CAVI and the Paging System are two examples of User Applications that are currently in use.

6.6. Data Dissemination

6.6.1. Overview Data dissemination is the retrieval and distribution of data during data processing as well as after the data is posted to the database. Data is distributed internally, to



trusted partners with some system access and to the general public. Data to be disseminated includes data to populate internal and public web pages; other files, tools, and applications; model results; as well as products produced by CWMS applications including the CAVI. With the exception of the regional ftp server and the public web server, all data dissemination capabilities would reside at each node on the Production Network. The regional ftp server, which would reside on the Controlled Internet Accessible Segment (CIAS), would provide a central distribution point for making data available to trusted partners. Files generated during data acquisition or from database processes would be pushed out to the regional ftp server for partner agencies. Modeling and sharing of modeling inputs, outputs, and configurations would need to be skillfully managed through documented procedures and automated processes since some models and their associated files would be used regionally. Many of these models run on a UNIX platform but reservoir regulators work in a Microsoft Windows environment. Therefore these UNIX model files would need to be accessible through the Corps Windows network. With regard to web applications such as report generation, graph generation, and internal web content, all capabilities to generate these products would exist at all locations but only local products of interest would be generated on a routine basis at each node. A web-based data dissemination management tool for identifying which products belong with which node would be developed with the capability of easily turning on or off specific products and groups of products. All content would be accessible to all nodes but may not reside locally. In a COOP situation where one node cannot generate their products, one of the other nodes would turn on the generation of those products. The public web server would likely be managed by ACE-IT and it would be the responsibility of ACE-IT to provide COOP for the public web server. The use of a public website like Rivergages.com may also prove to be advantageous since it is already a functioning Water Management web dissemination product with some capabilities to perform ad hoc data queries. However, before fully making use of a public website, the effort required to support the connection, transfer of information, maintenance, and development aspects need to be thoroughly evaluated. Each node would have the ability to ftp information out to the public web server. The data dissemination functionality that resides on the Production Network would exist on the same server as the models, other applications, the internal web pages, and the file sharing capabilities. Automated processes would be put in place to make sure that all the models, files, tools, and other applications at one node are replicated at the other two nodes.



Any development in the area of data dissemination needs to be maintainable, standardized, flexible, configurable, and if possible lend itself to be being incorporated into HEC development process or national water management efforts (example: Rivergages.com) either voluntarily or through organization momentum. Development would be coordinated with the Missouri Basin so that standardization between regions can progress. Refer to Appendix B for a listing of the extent and types of data dissemination discussed by the team.

6.7. System Management

6.7.1. Overview A Steering Committee and Technical Coordination Team would be established to manage all aspects of the WCDS. The WCDS Steering Committee is a managerial group responsible for balancing the data needs of all the regulating offices in each region as well as Corps partnering agencies. The WCDS Steering Committee reports to the Division Water Management Chief and sets the vision, scope and priorities of the Technical Coordination Team and WCDS working group. The Technical Coordination Team would have a technical lead assigned by the WCDS Steering Committee with the responsible of coordinating WCDS progress with the committee. The Technical Coordination Team Lead would be responsible for performing technical work in one or more functional areas of the WCDS and would also be assigned the duties of a Project Manager for the WCDS. The WCDS Technical Coordination Team is a regionally integrated team consisting of functional area leads that promotes regional solutions and equally serves the data needs of the staff in the four Columbia Basin Water Management offices; Division, Portland District, Seattle District, and Walla Walla District. The team coordinates efforts within the greater WCDS working group. The Technical Coordination Team reports to the WCDS Steering Committee. The WCDS working group would be comprised of all Division and District staff that performs work on the WCDS with regard to development, maintenance, support and management of the system. Members of the WCDS working group would include staff that work on the WCDS both full and part time.



Figure 6.4 WCDS End-State Organization Structure

Note: There is disagreement within the Team concerning the division representative on the steering committee. Some members of the team recommend that the offices have the latitude to select their representative from within Water Management. 6.7.2. The Role of the Division Water Management Chief in WCDS

• Advocate for WCDS • Resolves issues elevated by the WCDS Steering Committee • Impartial arbitrator with regard to WCDS related issues therefore does not

participate as a standing or rotating member of the WCDS Steering Committee

• Informs H&H Chiefs about WCDS activities, relaying information passed up from the WCDS Steering Committee Chair

• Relays pertinent Water Management information to the WCDS Steering Committee Chair

6.7.3. WCDS Steering Committee The WCDS Steering Committee would be responsible for defining the vision and scope for the WCDS and setting system priorities on an ongoing basis. With these



responsibilities, the committee participants would be a team that represents the user needs of the region. The committee would be considered one team, working together to build and manage a regional water management data system. The committee would also serve as a forum for accountability of the Technical Coordination Team. The WCDS Steering Committee would have a rotating Chair selected from the standing members of the committee but the Chair would not have authority over the other committee members. Committee members must have equal weight and participation regardless of status or grade. The additional responsibilities of the Chair include facilitating and fostering communication between the members of the committee, leading discussions and meetings, acting as the spokesperson for the committee where appropriate, and providing reports and updates to the Division Water Management Chief. The WCDS Steering Committee would have liaison responsibility including interaction with HQ, Northwestern Division Office, Missouri Basin Region, HEC, ACE-IT, and partner agencies on WCDS issues. Committee liaison functions would focus on system vision, scope and priorities. The liaison responsibilities may be assigned to committee members on a rotating basis. Refer to Appendix E for recommendations specific to the WCDS Steering Committee.

6.7.4. WCDS Technical Coordination Team Throughout the region there would be a greater WCDS working group that encompasses all people that perform some WCDS functions. The WCDS Steering Committee would select individuals from the WCDS working group to be leads for specific WCDS functional areas. The group of technical leads is called the WCDS Technical Coordination Team and is responsible for promoting, maintaining, managing, and developing the regional aspects of the WCDS. Members of the Technical Coordination Team must have demonstrated leadership, good communication and coordination skills, and have a good technical knowledge of the functional areas they would be responsible for coordinating. The leads would coordinate the regional and local activities associated with their functional area in addition to performing their normal WCDS functions on a day to day basis. The selection of leads is not limited to staff that spends 100% of their time in support of WCDS, however, is is expected that they would spend a significant part of their time performing WCDS functions. The technical leads, through their collective responsibilities, would oversee and coordinate all functional areas of WCDS on a day to day, and month to month basis. The WCDS Steering Committee sets the direction and priorities of the Technical Coordination Team and the team implements the plan.



A Technical Coordination Team lead would be selected by the WCDS Steering Committee, and would serve in that position at the discretion of the committee. The Technical Lead is responsible for the overall coordination and management of the activities and priorities identified by the WCDS Steering Committee, leadership of the Technical Coordination Team, monitoring schedule, budget and ensuring requirements are met. The lead would also be responsible for proposing updates to the WCDS PMP including budget, schedules, and annual work plans for review and acceptance by the WCDS Steering Committee. Additional responsibilities of the Technical Coordination Team lead include facilitating and fostering communication between the members of the Technical Coordination Team, leading discussions and meetings, acting as the spokesperson for the team where appropriate, and providing reports and updates to the WCDS Steering Committee. The Technical Coordination Team lead would also be a member of the WCDS Steering Committee. Team members are responsible for their contributions, and are responsible for evaluating activities and schedules against priorities and budget as established by the WCDS Steering Committee. Each team member is responsible for working with the Team Lead to ensure that their product supports the overall performance objectives of the project. Refer to Appendix F for recommendations specific to the Technical Coordination Team. 6.7.5. WCDS End-State Level of Effort

6.7.5.1.Current WCDS Estimated Level of Effort The WCDS Transition Team compiled a summary of the current level of effort for the WCDS to include all division and district staff. The Transition Teams definition of WDCS level of effort includes WCDS tasks performed at the district offices including items such as data collection. The following table shows the current level of effort as identified by each office. Some WCDS related tasks performed at the district offices are difficult to separate from other water management activities, especially when the tasks constitute a small percentage of an individual’s duties. The information below is the best available estimate of the level of effort; however it is only an estimate. Another caveat for these numbers is that they reflect the current effort committed to WCDS. They do not reflect items that have been identified as needed that are not currently being performed, such as data QA/QC.

Table 6.1 Current WCDS Estimated Level of Effort Office Level of effort (FTE) Level of effort (man-hours) * CENWD-HEB 8.6 15136CENWD-RCC 0.47 827CENWS 1.21 2130



CENWW 0.54 950CENWP 1.0 1760Total 11.82 20803 *1 FTE = 1760 man hours

6.7.5.2. End-State WCDS Level of Effort The WCDS Transition Team performed a detailed analysis of the current functions being performed within each office to develop, maintain and support the current WCDS. From this list of functions the team developed a comprehensive list of functions and duties required in the proposed end-state. The list of functions was grouped into thirteen categories of similar efforts. Based on personal experience, each member of the Transition Team estimated the required effort to perform the tasks in each category under the proposed end-state. The estimates in Table 6.2 give a reasonable range of effort required in the end-state. It should be noted there are many things that affect the required level of effort that are outside the control and influence of the WCDS Transition Team and could have a significant impact on the actual level of effort. One of the most significant and currently difficult to predict is the ACE-IT transition and its impact on WCDS. (Refer to Appendix C for a partial list of outstanding questions to address as ACE-IT is integrated into the Water Management organization). Also note that all the categories which are not affected by ACE-IT show a very tight range of level of effort required while the categories that are affected by ACE-IT have a much larger range in the estimate of level of effort based on differing opinions on the impact of working with ACE-IT and which elements would become the responsibility of ACE-IT. The following table shows the categories and the levels of effort compiled by the Transition Team. The total regional effort for the proposed end-state is between 13640 man-hours or 7 FTE and 22700 hours man-hours or 13 FTE with an average estimate of 16290 man-hours or just over 9 FTE.

Table 6.2 WCDS End-State Estimated Level of Effort

CBWM Regional End-State Level of Effort Estimate Category Min Max Ave Hours Hours Hours Data Collection 1760 4400 3230Data Acquisition 350 1410 880Posting 180 880 430DBA 1580 2290 2040Data Dissemination 350 1760 1100Application and Process Support 790 3520 2410On-going Technological Improvements 880 1760 1260QA/QC 1760 2640 1980



Documentation 180 880 380Coordination 350 1320 850System Admin (ACE-IT Role undefined) 350 3170 970Hardware Support/Maintenance (ACE-IT Role undefined) 180 880 480Security (ACE-IT Role undefined) 0 880 290 Total 13640 22700 16290

Looking at the functions that need to be performed, the conclusions of the WCDS Transition Team are that some functions performed in support of the WCDS could be centralized but that some should be performed in the 4 regulating offices or at the 3 computer nodes differing from the idea of a centralized team. See Appendix D for further information about where functions should be located throughout the region.

6.8. Documentation, Planning, and Coordination The system would be documented in the WCDS Master Plan as specified in ER1110-2-240. This master plan would be updated annually in coordination with the Missouri River Basin. From ER1110-2-240, Master Plans will

a) Outline the system performance requirements, including those resulting from any expected expansions of Corps missions,

b) Describe the extent to which existing facilities fulfill performance requirements, c) Describe alternative approaches which will upgrade the system to meet the

requirements not fulfilled by existing facilities, or are more cost effective then the existing system,

d) Justify and recommend a system considering timeliness, reliability, economics and other factors deemed important,

e) Delineate system scope, implementation schedules, proposed annual capital expenditures by district, total costs, and source of funding.

ER1110-2-240 was published in 1982 and is currently planned for revision. Aspects of the system that potentially should be addressed in the ER and are proposed here for the inclusion in the WCDS Master Plan are as follows:

• Regulations and Authorities • Management Structure including Technical Coordination Team configuration • Hardware and Software • Network Configuration • System Components • System Objectives • Processes and Procedures • SOPs • MOAs (See Appendix A.6) • System direction



• Short and long term plans (annual work plans and 5 year PMP) including appropriate schedules for improvements, changes, upgrades, and funding for the system

• Data Collection Work Plans • Operational Maintenance procedures

Master Plan development, planning and implementation efforts would be coordinated within the water management community throughout the entire division (Columbia and Missouri basins). On a more frequent basis, a forum needs to be established which facilitates coordination between the Columbia and Missouri basins technical and management staff to address current development efforts and future planning as well as relaying implementation schedules. An annual review and update of the WCDS Master Plan would be the responsibility of the WCDS Steering Committee. 6.9. Pertinent Engineering Regulations The most pertinent Engineering Regulation with regard to the reorganization of the WCDS is ER 1110-2-249 which pertains to management of Water Control Data Systems. The team noted that language in this ER is outdated and can be confusing due to changes in technology and terminology in recent years. The ER emphasizes the location of management personnel and hardware but could add more emphasis on key processes and systematic approaches. The data collection and quality checks as well as the maintenance of hardware were covered well but data dissemination was not emphasized as a function of WCDS. Therefore, it would be beneficial to update and add emphasis for other key functions of the WCDS. Comparing the currently proposed WCDS end-state with ER 1110-2-249 it is clear that the proposed management of the WCDS end-state is in agreement with ER 1110-2-249 in regard to aligning the management of WCDS with the reservoir regulation offices. Specific positions listed in the ER can be matched up with the Lead of the WCDS Steering Committee, the Lead of the Technical Coordination Team, and technical leads for various aspects of the WCDS. The functions described in the ER are also addressed in the proposed WCDS end-state. Further discussion regarding the similarities and differences between the proposed WCDS end-state and ER 1110-2-249 are presented in Appendix G. The list of Engineering Regulations below contains the main regulations that describe the purposes, processes, procedures, and equipment used in data management. These regulations identify the pertinent laws and other regulations which authorize the data management function and therefore the pertinent laws and other regulations are not listed specifically in this text. ER 1110-2-240. Water Control Management (8 Oct 82). This regulation prescribes the policies and procedures to be followed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in carrying out water control management activities, including establishment of water control plans for Corps and non-Corps projects, as required by Federal laws and directives.



ER 1110-2-248. Requirements for Water Data Transmission Using GOES/DCS (13 Mar 81). This Engineer Regulation establishes the requirements for data transmission and retrieval via the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (~ES) Data Collection System (DCS) operated by the National Earth Satellite Service (NESS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ER 1110-2-249. Management of Water Control Data Systems (31Aug 94). This engineer regulation provides guidance for the management of water control data systems including the equipment and software used for acquisition, transmission, and processing of real-time data used to regulate water projects for which the Corps of Engineers is responsible. ER 1110-2-1455. Cooperative Stream Gaging Program (29 Jan 84). This regulation establishes policy, provides background, and discusses management of the Cooperative Stream Gaging Program between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It also presents the program requirements for Field Operating Activities (FOA). ER 1110-2-8155. Hydrometeorological Data Management and Archiving (31 Jul 96). This regulation establishes policy and provides guidance and procedures applicable to the management and archiving of hydrometeorological data used for planning/project studies and project operations. It provides a recommended format for archiving data. Other related ERs include: ER 1110-2-1400 Reservoir/Water Control Centers (30 Sep 93) ER 1110-2-1460 Hydrologic Engineering Management (07 Jul 89) ER 1110-2-1463 Hydrologic Engineering for Hydropower (30 May 92) ER 1110-2-1464 Hydrologic Analysis of Watershed Runoff (30 Jun 94) ER 1110-2-3600 Management of Water Control System (30 Nov 87) ER 1110-2-8156 Preparation of Water Control Manuals (31 Aug 95) 7. Conclusions The WCDS Transition Team recommends:

4. The establishment of the recommended WCDS Steering Committee to set the vision, scope, and priority of work for the Columbia Basin Regional WCDS. This committee should be rooted in the Reservoir Regulation offices as described in ER 1110-249.

5. The establishment of the recommended WCDS Technical Coordination Team lead that would function as the WCDS PM.

6. The establishment of the Technical Coordination Team which should function as a PDT under the WCDS PM with the responsibility of coordinating the functional areas of WCDS throughout the region.

7. The implementation of the recommended 3-node architecture, beginning with the development of a Transition Plan. The recommended architecture would fulfill the needs of the Columbia Basin region’s reservoir regulation offices and



a. Minimizes failure points for key processes, b. Has an integrated active COOP, c. Aligns pertinent data with the appropriate reservoir regulation office, d. Aligns tasks such as QA/QC with the most knowledgeable office.

8. The documentation of the system by a Master Plan with a routine schedule for review and updates. Coordinate Master Plan with the Missouri Basin to assure that systems are being migrated toward a convergent path. Some key items to include in the Master Plan are:

a. Management Structure b. System Objectives c. SOPs d. MOAs e. Short and long-term plans f. WCDS PMP with 5 year outlook g. Programmatic Budget with schedules and work plans h. Data Collection Work Plans i. Operational Maintenance Procedures

8. Definitions CAVI (CWMS Control and Visualization Interface) - The CAVI component enables the user to perform CWMS command and control functions, visualize system status, and review output products. CEEIS – Corps of Engineers Enterprise Infrastructure Services is the internal Corps network (Intranet Segment) that can only be accessed by a Corps of Engineers computer. CIAS – Controlled Internet Accessible Segment with access granted to only specific IP addresses. Continuity of Operations (COOP) - The ability to continue to perform any key Water Control Data System function or set of functions such as data collection, acquisition, posting, QA/QC, execution of key applications, or dissemination of data when the regular mode of operation fails in whole or in part due to planned or unplanned events. CWMS (Corps Water Management System) - provides tools and information management for accomplishing the water management mission, including reservoir and river system status monitoring, flow regulation, and decision support. CWMS facilitates access to and sharing of water management-related information among district, division, HQUSACE staff, and staff of cooperating Federal, state, and local agencies. Data Acquisition – Data acquisition is the processes used to move data from receipt via satellite, ftp, etc… to the format needed to write it to the “incoming” directory (any data manipulation prior to Data Capture – need definition)



Data Collection – Data collection is the measurement of a value in the field, logging the value in the Data Collection Platform (DCP), and all transmission or manipulation of the data prior to receipt by the data acquisition process. Extranet – Access controlled via username and password on public internet website. LRGS – Local Readout Ground Station provides a means to receive hydro-meteorological data transmitted via GOES satellites. Posting – Moving the data from the acquisition process into the database. Obtaining data from an “incoming” directory is the beginning of the posting process. Production Network – Is any network or segment that is nested under the control and security of the CEEIS network. SHEF – Standard Hydrologic Exchange Format is used to exchange hydrologic data between agencies using a standard format.




Sub-Appendix A: Detailed Description of Existing Water Control Data Systems A.1 Division-Columbia Basin The Columbia Basin Reservoir Control Center (RCC) relies on the central database and the products generated by the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. The Division-Columbia Basin WCDS office acquires a host of data from around the region, some of which is provided by the district offices. Upon acquiring the data, the division office makes the data available to a number of stakeholders as well as posting it to the central database. The Division-Columbia Basin WCDS also exchanges data with the River Forecast Center, BPA, and other partners. Reports and web pages are generated from the central database for the user community. See Diagram A-1 for a description of the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. A.2 Portland District The Portland District office relies on the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS since it has no data management system of its own. To accomplish their water management mission, the Portland District relies heavily on the River Forecast Center and USGS website due to the usability of their products. Data display applications, reports, and web pages managed by the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS are also used to accomplish the district water management mission. There are several Excel spreadsheet tools that connect to the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS database and are used by the Portland District water management team as well. Data collected via line-of-sight radio at the Portland District is transferred to the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS database. Refer to Diagram A-1 “Portland District” to review Portland District data collection machines within the current WCDS framework. The Portland District data collected via radio can also be viewed during and after the collection process using the Sutron XConnect software installed on individual PCs accessing a central data collection database. The Portland District project operators and regulators have access to the hydro-meteorological radio data via the XConnect software and rely heavily on this data for real-time operation and regulation of the projects.


Diagram A-1: Division-Columbia Basin WCDS



A.3 Seattle District The Seattle District office has a WCDS which is independent of the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. The Seattle District office acquires most of the data needed by the district, either through direct collection or agency data sharing, and posts the data to the local database as well as sending most of the data to the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. The Seattle District does not provide all data to the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS due to data sharing agreements with some partners. The Seattle District office exchanges data directly with the River Forecast Center and other partners. The Seattle District office relies on the division office for CBT data and for maintaining web pages and reports. The Seattle District also maintains independent web pages to support district project regulators. See Diagram A-2 for a description of the Seattle District WCDS data collection and Diagram A-3 for a description of the Seattle District WCDS server configuration.




Diagram A-2: Seattle District WCDS – Data Collection

Diagram A-3: Seattle District WCDS – Server Configuration

Appendix E: Page 33

A.4 Walla Walla District The Walla Walla District office has a WCDS which is independent of the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. The Walla Walla District office acquires most of the data needed by the district either through direct collection or agency data sharing and posts the data to a local database as well as sending most of the data to the central database. The Walla Walla office has direct access to all data of interest with the exception of CBT data which is managed by the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. The Walla Walla District office coordinates directly with partner agencies to share data. The Walla Walla District maintains independent web pages along with making use partner agency web pages and web pages and reports supported by the Division-Columbia Basin WCDS. Diagram A-4: Walla Walla District WCDS

Appendix E: Page 34

A.5 Division-Missouri Basin Diagram A-5: Division-Missouri Basin WCDS

Appendix E: Page 35

A.6 Current Applicable Memorandums of Agreement There are a number of Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) currently in place. The key agreements include:

1. The CROHMS Design Memorandum No. 1, April 1974 2. Columbia Basin Water Control Data System Master Plan, 1990 3. CBT Manual 4. Portland District TMDLs (Applegate Temperature; Willamette River

Temperature, Mercury, Bacteria, and Turbidity; Willow Creek Temperature anpH; Lower Columbia River Projects Total Dissolved Gas and Temperature)

5. Seattle MFR (see below) The Seattle MFR is as follows: MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Agreements to Provide or Receive Water Management Data Seattle District Water Management Section is required to provide accurate and responsive hourly data in support of the Districts’ Flood Control mission. Several organizations make available the data necessary by automated methods to support this requirement. In addition, Seattle District also provides data to cooperating agencies and our partners in support of their water management, meteorological, data collection, and modeling efforts. The following list provides a brief summary of cooperating agency agreements and data sharing arrangements 1. National Weather Service, River Forecast Center (RFC)

• Seattle District provides real-time hourly data for approximately 30 stations located throughout Seattle District including parameters from Libby Dam, Howard Hanson Dam, Mud Mountain Dam, and Wynoochee Dam to the River Forecast Center.

• eattle District provides Seattle City Light real-time data for stations in the pper Skagit basin including parameters at Ross Dam, Gorge Dam, and Diablo am to the River Forecast Center.

• eattle District receives real-time hourly meteorological and hydrological recasts for all Seattle District basins and projects including Chehalis River,

kagit Rive, Olympic Peninsula rivers, Puget Sound and all of Western ashington basins alerts from the River Forecast Center.

eattle District receives real-time hourly-automated weather warnings and alerts om the River Forecast Center. eological Survey (USGS) eattle District provides real-time hourly data for stations associated with oward Hanson Dam and Mud Mountain Dam to the USGS. eattle District receives real-time hourly data for all stations (approximately 130) ithin Seattle District boundaries from the USGS. a Public Utilities (TPU)

d

SUD

SfoSW

Sfr

S G S

H S

wacom

•

2. U•

•

3. T

Appendix E: Page 36


• Seattle District receives real-time hourly data for stations in the Chehalis River

rs, Division Water Management (NWD) r all locally collected

ision CWMS and ses to Division Water Management.

n local flow

ated n office.

real-time hourly data for stations along the Green River

aker Lake basin reservoir from

ta for stations in the Cedar River basin from

Washington Ship Canal fish passage reports

t meteorological and inflow .

basin including parameters at Wynoochee Dam from Tacoma Public Utilities. 4. Corps of Enginee

• Seattle District provides real-time hourly data fohydrological and meteorological stations to be used in the DivWCDS databa

• Seattle District receives periodic USGS rating table updates for use icalculations and studies from Division Water Management.

• Seattle District receives Chief Joe Power Loss program updates via automsystem located at Divisio

5. King County • Seattle District provides

basin used in real-time modeling to King County. 6. Puget Sound Energy

• Seattle District receives real-time hourly data for stations in the Binclude parameters for Upper Baker Dam and Lake ShannonPuget Sound Energy.

• Seattle District receives real-time hourly data for stations in the Skagit River basin from Puget Sound Energy.

7. Seattle City Light • Seattle District receives real-time hourly data for stations in the Upper Skagit

basin including parameters at Ross Dam, Gorge Dam and Diablo Dam from Seattle City Light.

• Seattle District receives hourly daSeattle City Light.

8. S ohn omish County • Seattle District receives real-time hourly data for stations in the Snohomish and

Stillaguamish basins. 9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Seattle District provides hourly data for stations monitoring meteorological information for the Bunkerhill Superfund site.

10. US Forest Service • Seattle District provides real-time monitoring of the Bear Paw site including

periodic reports. 11. Howard Hanson Additional Water Storage, Shannon and Wilson

• Seattle District provides real-time hourly data for stations at Howard Hanson Dam to the contractor Shannon and Wilson.

12. Various local, state, federal and tribal agencies and organizations ake• Seattle District provides L

including water quality and fish count data to various local agencies and organizations.

13. 3Tier Environmental Forecast Group • Seattle District provides real-time hourly data for stations along the Green River

producing independenbasin for the purpose offorecasts to the 3Tier group

Appendix E: Page 37


• Seattle District receives real-time hourly meteorological and inflow forecasts as input into local CWMS for modeling and display purposes from the 3Tier group.

ment Section

David A. Gustafson Water ManageSeattle District

Appendix E: Page 38


Sub-Appendix B: Data Dissemination - Extent and Types B.1 Extent of Data Dissemination

ata Dissemination is very broad in its reach and can therefore can be initiated by various processes and applications. Data Dis ake on many forms and therefore produce a variety of products. Belo ide the breadth and scope of Data Dissemination.

Data dissemination occurs during the following processes: • data acquisition • data corrections • QA/QC • applications • web processes • LRGS decoding • modeling

Data dissemination products include:

• text files • static reports • static graphs • ad-hoc query tools that include tabular or graphic data • model input (files) • teacups • web reports • web graphs • web ad-hoc query tools that include tabular or graphic data • PDF files • web superpage and widgets

B.2 Data Dissemination Venues

B.2.1 Models Models are an important and necessary aspect of the Water Management System and create their own unique data management issues. Before models can be used the input data must be produced, retrieved, and formatted correctly. Preprocessing scripts and procedures are needed for this task. Automating these tasks as much as possible can save a substantial amount of time for those running the models. Interim model results may also need to be managed if those results are used as input to a sequential model run. Models related to the Columbia Basin as well as other models may need to be used by multiple offices in the region as well as the results from those models. Version control of models and model results would need to be managed as well as

Dsemination can also tw are some lists to help prov

Appendix E: Page 39


the ability to lock model configurations when in use so one office does not step on another office for cases where models are used regionally. Procedures and

nely, accurately, and consistently sharing model ented.

The regulators throughout the region also rely heavily on the RFC models and C models from any

Presently a dedicated line between the Corps and RFC is being and Portland District reservoir regulators. It is highly desirable

her two regulating office would be able to use that dedicated line as nning the RFC model.

cument the processes and procedures for processing the data and handle the file sharing correctly a SOP would need to

ed which describes these elements for running models, especially those offices.

e of the models that need to be considered when addressing put, output, and configuration files.

EC-RAS

ies • Legacy models

L-W2

ave the ability to switch to either of

automated processes for routiconfigurations and model results across the region would need to be implemThe system architecture supports sharing of model results that are posted to the database.

therefore require the ability to access and run the RFregulating office.used by the RCCthat the otwell when ru To capture and do

model necessary be developmodels that are shared between Below are somhandling of in Regulation models:

• RES-SIM • H• HMS• NWS-RFS • Long Range Forecasts • Snowmelt • Flood Insurance Stud

Water Quality models:

• CE-QUA• SYSTDG

B.2.2 Internal Web To remain consistent with the overall agreed upon system architecture and provide COOP for data dissemination there would be an internal web server at each node (Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla). Each internal web server would be kept in sync with the others through an automated process. Each node would se the local internal web server but would hu

the other internal web server at the other nodes if the local server is down. Theinternal web function would reside on the same server as the applications and file sharing functions.

Appendix E: Page 40


A Superpage or Dashboard concept would be implemented which allows internal users to configure what they see on their internal web pages. A generic Superpage would be developed for each regulating office and users would be ato access the generic regulating office page or define a user configurable page. The Superpage implementation would transition the current content on the regulating

ble

offices pages, same look and feel, to the Superpage architecture. ventually the regulating offices would be able to take advantage of the flexibility

static reports that can be run on the fly, “update now”

tion schedules, Excel files, and planning

ality would reside on the same local server as the internal The files would be synced between nodes for webpage support

mporary file locks are possible for such activities as then some of the file sharing issues may be solved. However,

cases where the shared files would need to be organized in e following permissions:

are read-only for all

ad-write for a group • shares that are read-write for an individual

lity would manage transfer of files between nodes. These les, models, and other applications. The syncing utility would

ave the ability to compare and manage content between multiple nodes without le Streams database functionality.

Eand configurability of the new Superpage architecture in coordination with the other regulating offices. Examples of general content types and functionality on the internal web server:

• Static reports • On-demand reports similar to

• Ad-hoc data queries • Superpage configuration • Superpage widgets • Sharing documents such as regula

documents • Make use of WIKI • Teacup diagrams

File ha on s ring functiweb functionality. and other purposes. If teediting of filesthere would still besuch a way as to account for th

• shares that • shares that are read-write• shares that are re

A robust file syncing utifiles may be text fihgetting confused, similar to the Orac B.2.3 Public Web External, static web pages (public dissemination) would occur through the use of a Water Management enterprise web server. The Columbia Basin region plans to continue to provide an ad-hoc query tool to the public. It is assumed that ACE-ITis responsible for the public web server and they would provide a COOP for the server.

Appendix E: Page 41


A method for selecting what data can be distributed to the public needs to be established so that data such as forecasts and generation are not released public. Examples of general content types and functionality on the public web serve

• Static reports • Ad-hoc • FTP - Distribution to the public from the database • Teacups

to the

r:

ontrolled by IP address. This is not as secure as the Internal hat

release on a regular basis.

cesses available on the CIAS:

ibution to partner agencies after posting

ccess controlled via username and password on public website. This type of site an

n

ntent:

from the database (Seattle)

xamples of general types of tools include: ool

Paging system

B.2.4 CIAS Access to computers cWeb but is used to allow partnering agencies access to pertinent information tis not appropriate for public Examples of applications and pro

• CBT • FTP - Distribution to partner agencies during data acquisition • FTP - Distr

B.2.5 Extranet Aallows information to be stored on an internet site but limits the access to who cview that data by requiring a username and password to access the site. This type of site is not as secure as an internal site but provides greater flexibility for accessing information since a government computer is not required to access aExtranet site. Examples of possible extranet site co

• Superpage • FTP - Distribution to partner agencies• Teacups

B.2.6 Tools Tools are used to gather information from the database and format that information to provide users with pertinent and useful data. E

• Reporting t• Graphing tool • Superpage widgets • Superpage configuration interface • QA/QC review and corrections tools •

Appendix E: Page 42


B.2.7 eGIS WCDS would look to conform to eGIS standards as much as possible and shareinformat

ion with eGIS efforts so that Water Management can gain the greatest

dvantage possible of eGIS products. a

Appendix E: Page 43


Sub-Appendix C: ACE-IT Questions and Interactions

1.

2. ill ACE-IT manage the public web server? 3. Will ACE-IT allow an ad-hoc tool on the public web server that can access the

CWMS database on the Production Network? 4. How will ACE-IT impact the ftp/acquisition server (and server coop) and data

sharing with partner agencies? 5. Will storage be local or not? 6. DIACAP (security process and acronym that replaced DITSCAP): How will this

be handled under ACE-IT? Will there be a national one for all the Corps or for all of Water Management or will DIACAP be handled as separate local ones for Water Management? Is HEC looking into this?

7. Network stack: currently the Division WCDS has a Water Management network stack. Do we need/want to maintain this under ACE-IT? If so, do we want a separate network stack at each node? How does ACE-IT want to handle Water Management server connections to the Corps network?

Is a UNC share (Samba mount) of a UNIX directory on a Windows PC acceptable? W

Appendix E: Page 44


Appendix E: Page 45

xercise uring team discussion a list of WCDS functions was generated and categorized. The

art of the

During work on the spreadsheet there were a number of key assumptions made. These included:

1. This effort did not reflect COOP resources to perform the functions. 2. This effort does not quantify the level of effort to perform each task. 3. Specifying “any one location” does not indicate any function or task is limited

to a particular location. 4. Any task that is identified to be performed at any one location requires some

level of backup at a secondary location. The WCDS Transition Team worked through all the functions and identified

• whether the function needed a formal Point-of-Contact (POC) in the Columbia Basin

• whether ACE-IT would be involved • whether the function needed to be performed at each regulating office • whether the function needed to be performed at each computer system node • whether the function could/should be performed at a single location anywhere

in the region Recommendations on where functions should be performed are presented in the following table. Function Category Comments

Sub-Appendix D: Categorized Function Spreadsheet EDcategories the team agreed on for the discussion of the functions performed as pWCDS were:

1. Data Collection 2. Data Acquisition 3. Posting 4. Database Administration 5. System Administration 6. Data Dissemination 7. Application and Process support 8. QA/QC 9. Hardware support and maintenance 10. Security (Information Assurance) 11. On-going technical improvements 12. Documentation and 13. Coordination

Application and Process Support

Regionally standardized applications and process support will be at any one location with locally specific elements performed at each office.

Coordination Generally, needs to be performed at each local office. This category reflects internal coordination tasks. ACE-IT coordination is captured under each specific category as necessary.

Security (Information Primarily performed by ACE-IT with coordination at each node and


Assurance) a primary lead. System Administration Performed at any one location with a lot of ACE-IT involvem

high level of regional coordination will occur between all staff assigned SA responsibilities.

ent. A

QA/QC Primarily performed at each local office with regional coordination and no ACE-IT involvement.

Posting Posting configuration and monitoring performed at any one location. Monitoring and control of posting processes would reside

h node and would require extensive coordination. at eacOn-going Technological On-going technological improvements will be highly coordinated

throughout the region at the Technical Coordination Team level DS Steering Committee level. CWMS related

d at any one location. Other rts could occur at all four offices with regional

Improvements and at the WCdevelopment will be focusedevelopment effocoordination.

Hardware Primarily perforSupport/Maintenance a primary lead.

med by ACE-IT with coordination at each node and

Documentation All offices will contribute to the development of the documentation products with the primary writing efforts occurring at any one location. The products address and represent the entire WCDS.

Database Administration (DBA) Primary responsibility will be assigned to one location with cucapabilities at all nodes. A high level of regional coordination

rsory will

. occur between all staff assigned DBA responsibilitiesData Dissemination In order to promote standardization, system related d

and information sharing can occur at any one office wevelopment

nal

es. All efforts will include regional coordination and some level

ith additiodata dissemination product development occurring in the local officof ACE-IT involvement.

Data Collection Data collection responsibility is located at each office or node regional coordination.

with Regional aspects of data collection, such as

nated from any NESDIS and the regional ftp server, can be coordione location.

Data Acquisition Regionally standardized processes will be developed at any one location with locally specific elements performed at each office.

During the Transition Planning process it would be advantageous to determine any function that should be co-located with another function.

Appendix E: Page 46

Sub-Appendix E: WCDS Steering Committee Recommendations E.1 WCDS Steering Committee M

• bers, one from each oalla). T

uthority to direct and c office. Each member shouldManagement office.

m did nteering committ

have the latitude to s t. • In compliance with the PMBP

resource providers for the WCDtee membership is inte

iorities. • Technical Coord

Committee • 1 member from the H&H Co

This member could help exp position wou

ber would bwith the responsibility to supsuggestion and then the com

• The committee may request erts to attend meetings and provide ective, and sug

• Possibly one Missouri Basin• Potentially one representativ tions may also be considered after the system is

r Management• In the future the WCDS Stee

representation from offices beyond water management at the discretion of the WCDS Steering Committee.

E.2

• Set vision, scope and priorities for the WCDS • Coordinate responsibilities between offices for data activities including which office does

QA/QC for which data collection stations. • Provides priorities for the system (reservoir regulation, water quality, treaty obligations,

dam safety, hydrology, hydraulic design, emergency management) • WCDS Steering Committee reports to Division Water Management Chief • Identifies necessary Standard Operating Procedures for the region • Updates and coordination WCDS Master Plan

embers 4 mem

Seattle, and Walla Wf the four regulating offices (Division RCC, Portland, hese members would be the Reservoir Regulation Chiefs

with a ommit resources and make decisions in their respective be able to adequately convey the needs of their Water

Note: The teathe s

ot reach consensus regarding the division representative on ee. Some members of the team recommend that the offices elect their representative from within Water Managemenprocess, the Steering Committee is not intended to reflect all

S Technical Coordination Team or WCDS staff. The Steering Commitvision, scope and pr

nded to reflect the primary users of the system, setting system

The WCDS ination Team Lead who is selected by the WCDS Steering

rps community to provide a broader water resources perspective. This member may include but is not limited to an H&H Chief or equivalent.

and the usability of WCDS beyond real-time reservoir regulation. This teamyear a new mem

ld rotate between district and division offices. Each e chosen by the committee. The district or division office ply an H&H representative for that year would make a mittee would vote to accept or reject the representative. ad-hoc knowledge exp

insight, persp gestions on various topics. WCDS Technical Coordination Team representative. e from Opera

meeting Wate needs. ring Committee could be expanded to include ad-hoc

WCDS Steering Committee Responsibilities

Appendix E: Page 47


E.3 Committee Norms • The committee would determine their decision making process.

ittee chairperson, initially choosing one of the

-

ded. dividual member to call for additional teleconference or face to

face meare notfederal

nt

• The committee would select the commReservoir Regulation Chiefs.

• The committee would determine frequency of meetings during transition to WCDS endstate.

• Routine quarterly face to face meetings after transition phase or as frequently as nee• Ability for group or in

etings as needed. Examples why additional meetings may be needed include, but limited to, shifting WCDS priorities, another Libby type situation, or additional litigation requirements.

• The committee would be comprised of staff from different organizations with differeorganization structures and grade levels. Every effort must be made to assure that all members are equal participants.

Appendix E: Page 48


Sub-Appendix F: Technical Coordination Team Recommendations

e WCDS Steering Committee and continues to serve as

Team lead serves as a member on the WCDS Steering Committee.

es.

F.2 Technical Coordination Team Accountability • The team is a PDT with the PM being the WCDS Steering Committee. • The team lead submits routine reports to the WCDS Steering Committee. • Strongly recommend team members have a direct supervisor on the WCDS

Steering Committee. • If a team member does not have a direct supervisor on the WCDS Steering

Committee then the Committee Chair would interact with the team members direct supervisor, conveying job performance standards, goals, objectives, and work activities.

F.3 Communication

• Team lead communicates with the WCDS Steering Committee and represents the team on the committee.

• Team lead fosters and facilitates communication between team members. • Team members develop PDTs in their functional areas, incorporating persons

from the greater WCDS working group. • Team members interact with the user community.

F.4 Summary of Functions Depending on the nature of the function, some functions could be performed from one location while others were more closely tied to local offices and/or the user community and therefore it would be advantageous to perform those functions in closer proximity to their user base. The functions that could be performed at any one location include:

• Posting • Database Administration • System Administration • Hardware support and maintenance • Security • Documentation

F.1 Technical Coordination Team Structure

• Team lead chosen by thlead at the discretion of the committee.

• • Team members are all chosen by the WCDS Steering Committee. • Team consists of between 3 and 7 technical leads that have leadership abilities

along with proven communication and coordination skills. • It is advisable but not necessary that team members be within one of the four

reservoir regulation offic• The collective technical oversight of the team members encompasses all

functional areas of WCDS.

Appendix E: Page 49


The functions that are more closely tied to local offices and/or the user community

er to their user base include:

rt role

ter Management hardware, software, and security. herefore not all the functions that Corps employees would be performing can be

, to the best of their knowledge, nsible for

and, therefore, advantageous to perform clos• Data Collection • Data Acquisition • Data Dissemination • Application and Process support • QA/QC • On-going technical improvements • Coordination

There are still many unknowns regarding the role of ACE-IT and what suppothey would have in regard to WaTcompletely defined. The WCDS Transition Teamdeveloped a spreadsheet with the WCDS functions and who might be respoexecuting those functions in the WCDS end-state.

Appendix E: Page 50


Sub-Appendix G: Comparison of Proposed WCDS End-State with ER 1110-2-249

G.1ses the management of Water Control Data Systems is ER

erspective that this ER, which was published in August dated.

this report complies with elow. Though the discussion is not ed WCDS end-state is in agreement with

anagement of WCDS with the reservoir reg G.2The sysinco(ex ed in the following discussion.

G.3 ER System Administrator – WCDS Steering Committee Chairperson The WCDS Steering Committee Chairperson in cooperation and consent of the rest of the WCDS Steering Committee would satisfy the roles and responsibilities of the position identified in the ER as the System Administrator. Below are excerpts from ER 1110-2-249 with comments in italics parenthesis that describe the similarity to the proposed WCDS.

G.3.1 Description of the System Administrator in the ER The WCDS System Administrator shall be a member of the water control management chain of command. (The WCDS Steering Committee Chairperson would be one of the Reservoir Regulation chiefs.) The System Administrator shall be either the person directly responsible for water control activities or that person’s immediate supervisor. Typical positions would be the Chief of Reservoir Regulation or the Chief of H&H. (The WCDS Steering Committee would consist of these persons within the region.)

G.3.2 Responsibilities of the System Administrator in the ER

1. Interpreting and administering this regulation. (The WCDS Steering Committee would do this while setting the vision and scope of WCDS.)

2. Appointing the System Manager. (The WCDS Steering Committee would choose the Technical Coordination Team and their lead.)

3. Ensuring that the WCDS is dedicated to the support of the water control activities. (Reservoir Regulation chiefs have this as their mission.)

4. Supervising the activities of the System Manager. (The WCDS Steering Committee would oversee the work of the Technical Coordination Team and lead. Since each member of the Technical Coordination Team would

Introduction The regulation which addres1110-2-249. It is the team’s p1994, needs to be revised and up

nA general descriptio of how the WCDS end-state defined inand differs from ER 1110-2-249 is presented b

trate that the proposexhaustive it does demonsER 1110-2-249 in regard to aligning the m

ulation offices.

Current ER Considers a WCDS at Each Local Office current ER considers a WCDS at each local office and does not address a regional

tem and its management. Therefore there has to be some acknowledgement and rporation of the regional aspects of this proposed WCDS structure. Highlights

cerpts) of the similarities and differences are captur

Appendix E: Page 51


have their direct supervisor on the WCDS Steering Committee the issue of supervision is represented well.)

rseeing the management of the WCDS, including planning and

operating and maintaining the WCDS. (The WCDS Transition Team agreed that the WCDS Steering Committee would

loped

nager – WCDS Technical Coordination Team Lead

he Technical Coordination Team Lead in cooperation and consent of the rest of the onsibilities of the position

S.

The WCDS System Manager (Technical Coordination Team and Lead) shall be person

n s.)

ordination

electing and implementing WCDS applications software. When acquisition of software is necessary – to include the specifications

he development of

s DS.

y

5. Ovebudgeting, upgrading the WCDS, providing security and physical access to the WCDS computer system, determining the physical location of WCDS components, and

set the vision, scope, and direction of the Technical Coordination Team.) 6. Ensuring that a WCDS continuity of operations plan (COOP) is deve

and tested. (The proposed architecture has an integrated active COOP.)

G.4 ER System MaTTechnical Coordination Team would satisfy the roles and respidentified in the ER as the System Manager. Below are excerpts from ER 1110-2-249 with comments in italics parenthesis that describe the similarity to the proposed WCD

G.4.1 Selection of the System Manager in the ER

appointed by the System Administrator (WCDS Steering Committee). This shall be assigned within the chain of command of the System Administrator (WCDS Steering Committee. Again the Technical Coordination Team members would have their supervisors on the WCDS Steering Committee because each member of the Technical Coordination Team would reside in one of the four Reservoir Regulatiooffice

G.4.2 Responsibilities of the System Manager in the ER 1. Maintaining routine operation of the WCDS. (The Technical Co

Team would oversee the routine operation of the WCDS.) 2. Serving as the initial point of contact for access, problems, and issues

related to the WCDS. (Either the Technical Coordination Team Lead or the team member that was the specific lead for the functional area of interest would be the initial point of contact.)

3. S

development and selection of COTS products, and/or tCorps-unique software, and/or selection and implementation of appropriate WCDS applications software – it must be acquired and implemented in accordance with all regulations. (The Technical Coordination Team would perform this function.)

4. Authorizing the establishment of USERIDs, passwords, and user numberin accordance with Corps-wide standards to permit access to the WC(A member of the Technical Coordination Team would do this most likelin coordination with ACE-IT.)

Appendix E: Page 52


5. Preparing an operation procedures manual for the WCDS computer system. (The Technical Coordination Team would produce this manual

he

recommendations would be reviewed by the WCDS Steering Committee.)

identified for the Technical Coordination Team would help clarify and complete the ER. G.6The the ChiChi 49 it stresponsible division water control element. This could be the Division Water Management Chief. Therefore, reserving the Division Water Management Chief for use as a rce would better server the W

and the WCDS Steering Committee would approve it.) 6. In coordination with the WCDS Site Manager and the WCDS Data

Acquisition Systems Manager (these two persons would be leads on tTechnical Coordination Team), preparing, validating, and testing the COOP.

7. Identifying and recommending, in consultation with leads necessary upgrades or expansions to the system. (The Technical Coordination Team would identify necessary upgrades and expansions and the Team’s

G.5 ER Site Manager and Data Acquisition Systems Manager – Members of TCTThe WCDS Site Manager and the WCDS Data Acquisition Systems Manager are just twoof the proposed leads on the Technical Coordination Team. The ER does not fully address all aspects of the WCDS in the roles specified and adding the additional leads

Role of the Division Water Management Chief WCDS Transition Team did not include the Division Water Management Chief onWCDS Steering Committee because it was felt that the Division Water Management ef would better serve conflicts arising within the WCDS Steering Committee if the ef was an outside observer rather than a committee member. Also in ER 1110-2-2ates that there should be an annual review and inspection of the WCDS by the

n impartial inspector, reviewer, and conflict resolution resouCDS overall.

Appendix E: Page 53


Sub-A

1. OverviewIn determrepresenta d come up wvarying criteria associated with the differing needs for judging if the architecture was adequabelow.

The team

e in real time

Moelem

ed at each office with ability to perform QA/QC on local computer

In the end the architecture chosen met the needs of all offices. The alternative chosen was Alternative 4 which is described in the following section. The chosen architecture may not have been the best solution for any given office but since all the offices in the region agreed on this architecture it should serve the region well. All key elements from the two lists above can be handled well in the alternative chosen. The main point of concern was using the Oracle Bi-Directional Streams with three nodes. After much discussion, some research, and consulting with the Missouri Basin Region, which is using bi-directional Oracle Streams with two nodes, all members on the team were comfortable with the use of bi-directional streams and therefore Alternative 4 was the alternative all members could agree on. For further information on Oracle Streams refer to Appendix H. For additional information about the alternatives brainstorming effort refer to the whiteboard illustrations document in the notes associated with the End-State. 2. Alternatives Discussed

ppendix H: System Architecture Considerations and Alternatives

ining a system architecture that would satisfy the needs of the region, tives from the three district offices along with the division office brainstormed anith seven alternatives. The offices had different requirements and therefore

te. Most of the key elements used to develop the proposed architecture are listed

agreed that the system architecture should accommodate these key elements:

• a WCDS node at each of the three sites (Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla) • the complete suite of WCDS hardware and software at each node • an LRGS at each node for receipt of GOES data • the capability at each node to acquire most of the regions data • a CWMS v2 Oracle database and related software at each node • use Oracle Streams to synchronize the databases at each nod• replicate and synchronize system and user files across each node • have the ability for any node to operate stand-alone in a contingency situation

st of the team also agreed the system architecture should accommodate these key ents:

• an active COOP • when operating in a contingency mode full, normal, production capabilities

should be maintained • QA/QC perform

Appendix E: Page 54


The team brainstormed and come up with seven possible system architectures. Each alternative was considered and the benefits and drawbacks of each were discussed. Since

differing criteria to meet their specific needs and since there were a number hat satisfied

lternative 1: Post all data to a central node, Stream to the remote nodes The Alternative 1 architecture was proposed by the Division Columbia Basin Water

CWMS v2 database. This alternative builds on the concepts of the current regional of

GOES) data as and streamed out to Seattle and

rst be sent via FTP to Seattle and

and Walla

the e for

te COOP. For normal operations except for QA/QC, users in Seattle and Walla r the resources on their local server or at the server in Portland.

alla covery

how data posted in Seattle and Walla Walla

ortland. Meta-

d would post all data for the failed node as long as

any locally collected data from that node was sent to Portland. If Portland went down

each office hadof reasons that were not easily quantifiable the team looked for the architecture tthe needs of all offices. The alternatives considered follow.

2.1 A

Management in 2006 for the migration of the regional WCDS to one based on the

WCDS, having a central database in Portland, and adding one-directional streaming data in real-time to remote nodes at Seattle and Walla Walla. All LRGS (well as other agency data would be collected at Portland Walla Walla. Local data collected at Seattle and Walla Walla would fito Portland where it would be posted to the database and then sent back Walla Walla via one-directional Streams. QA/QC of data would occur in the Portl

attle anddatabase by each office and the updated data would be streamed out to SeWalla. Meta-data would also be maintained in the central database and streamed to thelocal nodes. Therefore, a complete database would reside at each of the three nodes. However the three nodes are not identical because the Portland database would beonly one that controls data flow and would likely have to be backed up somewhercompleWalla could access eitheThe QA/QC process would have to access the Portland node since data only flows fromthe Portland node to the other nodes. In the event of a significant loss of network

ctivity or processing capconne abilities in Portland, the nodes in Seattle and Walla Wwould activate posting of data to the local database and operate locally. During refrom a Portland node failure it was not clear would get back to the Portland database. Also, during the time the Portland node was inoperable the local data normally collected in Portland would have to be sent to either Seattle or Walla Walla and Portland staff would work remotely until the Portland server was repaired.

2.2 Alternative 2: Post all data locally, Stream through a central node In Alternative 2 each node would collect the data it was responsible for and would post that data to the local database. QA/QC of data and posting of any corrected data would also occur at the responsible node. Data posted in the databases would be sent via bi-directional Streams between Seattle and Portland and Walla Walla and Pdata would be maintained locally and sent out via Streams. Therefore, a complete database would reside at each of the three nodes. However the only way that Seattle or Walla Walla would get all the data for the region is through Portland. If either Seattle orWalla Walla went down then Portlan

Appendix E: Page 55


then both Seattle and Walla would have to post all data collected locally at the othnodes because without Portland the databases are not connected via Streams.

2.3 Alternative 3: Local Posting, Circular Streaming In Alternative 3 each

er

node would collect the data it was responsible for and would post that data to the local database. QA/QC of data and posting of any corrected data would

e. Data posted in the databases would be sent via one-directional Streams. Seattle would send data to the Portland database which in turn

a to

h

then

-

ow which Oracle Streams would have done. If one of the nodes went down then either of the remaining nodes would post the lost nodes data.

for

own

However, if the Wide-Area-Network went down then no acquisition or posting would

also occur at the responsible nod

would send it on to Walla Walla. Portland data would be sent to the Walla Walla database which in turn would send it on to Seattle. Walla Walla would send their datthe Seattle database which in turn would be sent to Portland. Meta-data would be maintained locally and sent out via Streams. Therefore, a complete database would reside at each of the three nodes. However if one of the nodes went down then the chainwould be broken. Data for the lost node would have to be posted by the next node in the ring. 2.4 Alternative 4: Local Posting, Fully Connected In Alternative 4 each node would collect the data it was responsible for and would postthat data to the local database. QA/QC of data and posting of any corrected data would also occur at the responsible node. Data posted in the databases would be sent via bi-directional Streams to the other two nodes. Meta-data would be maintained locally andsent out via bi-directional Streams. Therefore, a complete database would reside at eacof the three nodes. If one of the nodes went down then either of the remaining nodes would post the lost nodes data. 2.5 Alternative 5: Local and Remote Posting, No Streams In Alternative 5 each node would collect the data it was responsible for and wouldpost that data to the local database as well as the databases at the other two nodes. QA/QC of data would also occur locally and posting of any corrected data would occur at all three nodes. Therefore Oracle Streams would not be used at all. Meta-data would have to be handled by some means to make sure all three databases have the same metadata. Therefore, a complete database would reside at each of the three nodes without using Oracle Streams however in-house applications would have to be developed to manage data fl

2.6 Alternative 6: Central Data Acquisition, Stream Metadata In Alternative 6 each node would collect the data it was responsible for and would send the data to a remote Data Acquisition and Posting Server which would format the dataposting to the database. The remote Server would then post all data to all three nodes. The remote Data Acquisition and Posting Server would have to have a backup as shin the diagram. QA/QC of data would occur locally but posting of any corrected data would occur through the Data Acquisition and Posting Server. Bi-directional Oracle Streams would be used to handle the transfer of updated meta-data between the three nodes. Therefore, a complete database would reside at each of the three nodes.

Appendix E: Page 56


occur. If one of the nodes went down the remaining nodes would have the lost nodesdata if the local data collection at the failed node was still operational. If the D

ata

Acquisition and Posting Server went down the backup server would take over.

ta ted

e

e sent ode

e or Walla Walla went down then the Portland node would have to post the lost ode’s data if available and the down node would work remotely through Portland. If the

h over to the backup servers in

3. Allnee acknowledged and also incorporated the additional key elements most of the team sought. Therefore Alternative 4 was selected as the recommended architecture.

2.7 Alternative 7: Local Posting, Stream to a Central Node In Alternative 7 Seattle and Walla Walla would collect and post all data each office needed and send that data to Portland via one-directional Oracle Streams. QA/QC of dawould occur locally and Seattle and Walla Walla would send corrected data and updameta-data to Portland via one-directional Oracle Streams. Any data collected at thPortland node that needed to be sent to one of the other nodes (Seattle or Walla Walla) including data that was changed during the QA/QC process and meta-data would bvia an in-house application. A complete database would only reside at the Portland nand therefore Portland would use a program like Oracle DataGuard to keep an offline backup system synchronized. This backup would likely reside in Walla Walla. If either SeattlnPortland node went down then the system would switcWalla Walla.

Conclusion offices could agree that the architecture described in Alternative 4 would satisfy the ds their office had. Alternative 4 incorporated the key elements that all team members

Appendix E: Page 57


Sub

racle Streams enables the propagation and management of data, transactions and events o another. The stream

ied

l

Note that the use of Oracle Streams would produce a “replicated” database architecture as

distributed database architecture. In such architectures all data exists at e

s

H.2 Missouri River Region’s Oracle Streams Experience In the summer of 2007 the Missouri Region Water Management put a two-node CWMS v1.5 system architecture into production which made use of bi-directional Oracle Streams for database synchronization. Prior to that time the Missouri River Region worked through problems due to bugs in the immature CWMS software as well as issues implementing Streams with the CWMS schema. In the Missouri River Region network traffic is carried by two T1 lines. With only qualitative measurements, the Missouri Region reported that this configuration works very well, with streamed data appearing at the remote database within seconds after it is posted to the local database.

-Appendix I: Notes on Oracle Streams

H.1 Oracle Streams Overview Oin a data stream either within a database, or from one database troutes published information to subscribed destinations. This feature of the Oracle database provides greater functionality and flexibility than traditional solutions for capturing and managing events (such as an ingested piece of data), and sharing the eventswith other databases and applications. As users' needs change, they can simply implement a new capability of Oracle Streams, without sacrificing existing capabilities. Streams can be implemented in a one-directional or bi-directional mode. In a one-directional implementation, changes made to a primary database are streamed and applto a secondary database. Changes made to the secondary database are not streamed back to the primary. In a bi-directional implementation, changes made to either database arestreamed and applied to the other database. There is no primary or secondary distinction. Oracle provides mechanisms to prevent recursive streaming of data in the bi-directionacase.

opposed to a every node; in a distributed database architecture a single copy of the data exists in thcollection of nodes, with each datum typically located at the node closest to where it wacollected or is used.

Appendix E: Page 58


Appendix E: Page 59

racle Streams Configuration

Administrator's Guide

H.3 Example from Oracle of a 3-Node O

Oracle® 11g Streams ReplicationChapter 21 N-Way Replication Example

Appendix E: WCDS End-State Recommendation Report with introduction by TMC & WCDS Human Resources Plan

NWD Columbia Basin Water Management Division WCDS Human Resources Plan: August 12, 2008 This paper details the changes in the NWD Columbia Basin Water Management Division Water Control Data System staffing as a result of the WCDS reorganization. The paper is organized into two primary sections. It is understood the end state will be effective on 01 October 2009, therefore FY2009 will be a transition year to go from the existing WCDS system to the end state. The WCDS Reorganization Team developed a range of resources needed for 13 functional areas (minimum, maximum, and average). The future state WCDS staffing levels shown below were developed by the Water Management Reorganization Transition Management Committee (TMC) based on the average staffing level determined by the WCDS Reorganization Team. During the next phase of the WCDS reorganization, a detailed transition and implementation plan will be developed. Based on that detailed analysis, the final FTE numbers could be different than what is presented here. One big area of uncertainty is the level of ACE-IT support that will be provided. ACE-IT will be involved in the development of the detailed WCDS transition and implementation plans to help validate assumptions about ACE-IT support and staffing requirements. WCDS Staff Changes: As shown in the table below, the current total staffing for the WCDS is 11.8 FTE and the end state staffing is 9.3 FTE. Under the reorganization plan, the staff at Division will be reduced by about 4.7 FTE and the Districts will be increased by about 0.5 FTE for each of the three districts for a total of 1.5. The increase in district staff reflects shared system and database administrator duty at each district office. In addition, 0.7 FTE of similar administrator work including network security that was formerly performed by Corps WCDS staff was assumed to be transferred to ACE-IT. Approximately 2.4 FTE of work was identified that did not need to be performed at a particular office and could therefore be distributed to any location. It was assumed that this work would be performed by staff located in the CBWM office and therefore is part of the total of 4.4 FTE allocated to that office. The total FTE count for WCDS after the reorganization is a reduction of 2.5 FTE. Office Current WCDS FTE Future WCDS FTE Difference CBWM 9.1 (8.6 in HEB, 0.5 in RCC) 4.4 (2.0 NWD, 2.4 “floating”) -4.7 NWP 1.0 1.5 +0.5 NWS 1.2 1.7 +0.5 NWW 0.5 1.0 +0.5 ACE-IT 0.0 0.7 +0.7 Total 11.8 9.3 -2.5 Transition Plan: A detailed transition and implementation plan for reaching the new end-state will be developed to achieve the transition to the new WCDS end-state by October 2009. As stated above, depending on the conclusions of the team that prepares the transition and implementation plan the FTE information for the end-state could change slightly. However, the following describes the general transition plans in terms of staffing changes and work responsibilities. The NWD WCDS office currently has 9.1 FTE and will transition to a staff of 4.4 FTE, for a reduction of 4.7. For the short-term, the displaced 4.7 FTE of staff currently engaged in WCDS work will be assigned other duties within the other offices involved with the

Appendix E: Page 60


WCDS or assigned work outside of the WCDS. In the long-term, the permanent reduction will be accomplished through attrition, reassignments and other actions. The 4.7 FTE reduction is accounted for in: (1) transferring QA/QC functions for tributary projects to Districts; (2) terminating the existing CROHMS Database (CDB), which is the current WCDS DSS database and using only the CWMS application (and Oracle database); (3) increased sharing of resources between District and Division offices; (4) transfer of some system administration, network support and security functions to ACE-IT; and (5) overall downsizing of the CBWM WCDS staff will reduce the management workload for managing the WCDS team, contracts, maintenance, and other areas. Specific duty reductions are:

a. Hydrologic Technicians: there will be a reduction of approximately 1.5 FTE. b. GS-12 IT Specialists: there will be a reduction of approximately 2.0 FTE. c. GS-13 IT Specialists: there will be a reduction of approximately 0.7 FTE. d. GS-12/13 RCC staff: there will be a reduction of approximately 0.5 FTE.

The following table provides further details on how all changes will be accomplished in terms of specific positions. Office/Position Current (future)

WCDS Responsibilities Short-term WCDS Transition Plan

Long-term WCDS Transition Plan

CBWM GS-10 Hydrologic Tech.

Currently performs data QA/QC, CWMS support, and related duties.

Continue to perform CWMS support, data QA/QC, and other duties, but QA/QC work on tributary projects will be performed virtually for Districts.

Total staffing for CBWM data QA/QC and related areas will be reduced down to ~0.5 FTE to do QA/QC for mainstem projects only.

GS-11 Hydrologic Tech.

Currently performs data QA/QC, CWMS support, and related duties on a part-time basis equivalent to about 0.6 FTE.

Continue to perform CWMS support, data QA/QC, and other duties, but QA/QC work on tributary projects will be performed virtually for Districts.


GS-11 Hydrologic Tech.

Currently performs data QA/QC, CWMS support, management of CBWM LRGS

Continue to manage LRGS, data QA/QC, and related duties, but QA/QC work on tributary projects will be performed virtually for Districts.


GS-12 IT Specialist

Currently performs system administration and related activities.

Continue to perform regional system administration and related

System administration, network support, and related activities

Appendix E: Page 61


activities for new WCDS end-state.

transitioned to ACE-IT and/or Districts.

GS-12 IT Specialist

Currently performs web support-development and related activities.

Continue to perform web support and development for new WCDS end-state.

Continue to perform web support and development for new WCDS end-state.

GS-12 IT Specialist

Currently performs network management and support, plus database support

Continue to perform network management, Oracle database support, and support for new WCDS end-state.

Continue to perform network management, Oracle database support, and support for new WCDS end-state.

GS-12 IT Specialist

Currently performs system administration and related activities

Position has been eliminated through attrition

GS-13 IT Specialist

Currently performs database administration, development, maintenance, and other related activities.

Continue to perform Oracle database administration and development for new WCDS end-state.

Some Oracle database administration, management, and development and related activities transitioned to ACE-IT and/or Districts.

GS-13 IT Specialist

Currently serves as WCDS team leader and does WCDS administration, security management, etc.

Continue to perform WCDS administration and serve as team leader.

Some system administration, management, and development and related activities transitioned to ACE-IT and/or Districts.

GS-12/13 staff in RCC

Currently performs final QA/QC of data, also does model and tool development.

Continue to perform model development and reduce QA/QC to mainstem projects only.

Shift more of model development to Districts and perform QA/QC for mainstem projects only.

NWP Hydrologic Technicians and Engineers

Will need to perform QA/QC for tributaries, backup database and system administration.

Work will be performed by existing CBWM staff.

Work will be transitioned to new and/or existing NWP staff.

NWS Hydrologic Technicians and Engineers

Will need to perform QA/QC for tributaries, backup database and system administration.


Work will be transitioned to new and/or existing NWS staff.

NWW Hydrologic Will need to perform Work will be performed by Work will be

Appendix E: Page 62


Appendix E: Page 63

Technicians and Engineers

QA/QC for tributaries, backup database and system administration.

existing CBWM staff. transitioned to new and/or existing NWW staff.

ACE-IT System and database administration, network security mgmt.

Will need to perform system and database administration, network security mgmt.


Work will be transitioned to new ACE-IT staff.

Appendix F: Communication Team Report

Communications Team Report In order to increase efficiency and reduce costs, the Northwest Division is reorganizing its Columbia Basin Water Management Division. The end state and target implementation date for this reorganization have been approved by the division commander. A one-year process for implementing the conversion to end state is underway. Scope The immediate task is to ensure division employees, especially those directly or indirectly affected by this project, are fully informed about the purpose, end state, transition processes and projected impacts of the reorganization. The goal is to have all communications with stakeholders and employees completed by October 2008. Project Communication Team Division Commander Transition Management Committee members CBWMD Division and Branch Chiefs Division Public Affairs Officer District Commanders District Public Affairs Officers and Specialists Talking Points What is happening: The Northwestern Division of the Army Corps of Engineers will continue to provide exactly the same water management functions as it has in the past. How the function is conducted will be reorganized and some tasks done by the district offices. The change in organization should not be visible to Corps partners and the public. Why it is happening: The Corps of Engineers as a whole is evaluating how it performs its mission, looking specifically at which functions should be done at the district, division and national level. The water management reorganization ensures that the Northwestern Division office in Portland and the District offices in Portland, Walla Walla and Seattle are performing appropriate kinds of work. How will it work: Division work -- managing the main stem of the Columbia River -- will be done at the division level. District work -- managing the tributaries -- will be done by the districts. Division also maintains responsibility for planning oversight and implementation of the current Columbia River Treaty and Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement. What Division will do: The Division will set the Columbia Basin system flood control, power production and other regional targets and objectives. The Division office will serve as the point

Appendix F: Page 1


of contact for system operation with regard to Canadian, federal, state, tribal, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. What the Districts will do: Walla Walla District will assume responsibility for the regulation of the Dworshak Dam, Seattle District for regulation of Libby and Albeni Falls dams, and Portland District for the regulation of the Willamette Basin. Local municipalities, communities and interested parties should contact the districts for issues regarding operation of these tributary projects. The process: Groups of technical experts with the Corps are determining how best to make the transition. Teams are looking at how best to manage: tributary and system reservoir regulation, water quality, environmental compliance, modeling and forecasting, the water control data system, and administration issues. The intent is to involve other parties in discussions about the functions over which the Corps and the parties routinely interact. The outcome of the reorganization: The transition should take about one year to complete. The resulting organization and water management tools are expected to be more efficient, effective and provide better service to the public. Contacts Interested Party Specific Members Method to Notify Who Will Notify

State of Washington Gov. Gregoire

Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Dept. of Ecology

Dept. Emergency Management

Letter

Signed by NWD CG

State of Oregon Gov. Kulongoski

Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Dept. of Natural Resources

Letter Signed by NWD CG

State of Idaho Gov. Butch Otter

Bill Booth/Jim Kempton (NWPCC) Lakes Commission

Emergency Management


State of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

Bruce Measure (NWPCC)

Rhonda Whiting (NWPCC)

Brian Marotz (MFWP)

Richard Opper (MDEQ)

Emergency Management


Canada - British BC Hydro Letter Signed by NWD CG

Appendix F: Page 2


Columbia

US Congressionalist

ID Senators Mike Crapo & Larry Craig, ID Dist.

1 Rep. Bill Sali;

2 Rep. Simpson

MT Senators Brian Tester and Max Baucus,

MT Rep. Dennis Rehberg,

WA – Rep. McMorris,

WA – Senators Murray and Cantwell


Federal Agencies Bonneville Power Administration

US Fish & Wildlife Service

NOAA Fisheries

National Weather Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

US Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Geological Survey

FEMA

State Dept. (treaty issues)

Forest Service (operates Libby recreation).


POC Witt Anderson Executive level; Jim Barton RMJOC (also Witt Anderson for Resource agencies; Peter Brooks for USGS)

IJC Commissioners At meeting COE representative

Tribes Chair people: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Colville Confederated Tribes,

Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, Yakama

Letter or at meeting

Signed by NWD CG

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC)

At meeting COE Reps

Media Local media lists plus FCRPS media lists

News releases PAO in Districts managing each tributary

Local municipalities [need each district to add theirs] Libby, MT.

Bonners Ferry, ID

Sandpoint, ID

Cusick & Usk, WA

Via phone, e-mail or letter (depending on relationship)

Commander or OM

Appendix F: Page 3


Appendix F: Page 4

Cranbrook & other B.C. media

Project Owners private utilities, public utility districts -- Pend Oreille PUD (Box Canyon Dam) (litigants), Seattle City Light (Boundary Dam)

Letter Chief of Water Management (approved by Counsel)

Flood Control Interests Diking Districts

Levee Owners/Sponsors County/City emergency managers

Only if contact person changes

District EM

Non-Governmental Organizations

Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club (litigants)

Idaho Conservation League

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative

Center for Biological Diversity (litigants)

Letter Chief of Water Management (approved by Counsel)

Recreation interests Marinas, guides and outfitters Depending on existing relationship – phone call, e-mail or letter, or via local leaders

OM

Agricultural Interests Anheuser-Busch Letter or phone call

NWS-DE

Local citizens District specific local lists including chambers of commerce and others

Via local leaders and media

OM, or DE

TMT Members All members At meeting NWD

Appendix G: Human Resources Team Report

Human Resources Team Report 1.0 Background The staffing for all four Columbia Basin Water Management offices will be adjusted based on the changes described in this Phase-II Transition Report. In general, the staffing in the CBWM will be reduced and the staffing in the districts will be increased as work is shifted from the CBWM to the districts. Since the plan calls for transitioning to the end-state by October 2008, many of the shifts in staffing will not take effect until FY09. This schedule will also coincide with the end of the FY08 performance rating period and fiscal year, and start of the FY09 performance rating period and fiscal year. Using this approach will ease some of the challenges with the transition. Since the WCDS is on a different reorganization schedule from the rest of the organization, the staffing changes for the WCDS will not take effect until October 2009. Throughout the overall reorganization process, a key objective will be taking care of employees. 2.0 Deliverables The key deliverable is a description and schedule of the expected staffing changes to ensure that employees are informed about the expected changes. This description and schedule is provided below. Functional Area Position/Office Action Schedule/Status Notes Reservoir Regulation – Willamette Regulator

GS-12 Hydraulic Engineer

Transfer 1.0 FTE from CBWM to Portland District

Spring 2008 – completed

FTE already reduced at CBWM by attrition, Portland District is hiring new regulator

Reservoir Regulation – Libby and Albeni Falls Regulator


New position (1.0 FTE) at Seattle District

Spring 2008 - completed

Seattle District has hired new regulator

Reservoir Regulation – Dworshak Regulator


New position (0.5 FTE) at Walla Walla District


Will be combined with 0.5 FTE required at NWW for Modeling and Forecasting to total 1.0 FTE. Walla Walla District has hired new person.

Modeling and Forecasting –


New position (0.5 FTE) at Walla Walla District


Will be combined with 0.5 FTE required at NWW for Dworshak regulation to total 1.0 FTE.

Appendix G: Page 1


Walla Walla District has hired new person.

Modeling and Forecasting – Statistical Hydrologist


Transfer from CBWM to Portland District

October 2008 Will be regional technical expert working for all offices.

Water Quality GS-12 Environmental Engineer


October 2008

Water Quality GS-12 Environmental Engineer


October 2008

Water Control Data System - See Pages 60-63 of Appendix E for WCDS Human Resources Plan

3.0 Stakeholders Key stakeholders related to the development of the Human Resources include the affected staff, management, and employees involved in the of the various Water Management offices. In addition the IFPTE Local 97 Union is a key stakeholder for the CBWM office. Once the Human Resources Plan is completed it will be coordinated with the affected employees, the IFPTE Union, and others. 4.0 Roles and Responsibilities The Human Resources Team and TMC developed the Human Resources Plan and will be responsible for implementing it. This team is comprised of the following individuals: a. Northwestern Division Office: Diane Lau, Jim Barton (TMC), Bob Buchholz (TMC) b. Portland District: Eric Dehnert, Bruce Duffe (TMC) f. Seattle District: Susan Smith-Anderson, Carolyn Fitzgerald (TMC) g. Walla Wall District: Debra Mallard, Mark Lindgren (TMC) 5.0 Resources The resources required to prepare the Human Resources Plan and conduct related activities are considered to be a part of the recurring human resources workload for all offices involved in this effort. No additional funding or resources were provided for this effort. 6.0 Coordination Coordination on this effort was done through several meetings and calls to prepare the draft and final Human Resources Plans. In addition, coordination was done with technical teams preparing transition plans for particular functions that involved changes in human resources. 7.0 Documentation Requirements

Appendix G: Page 2


Appendix G: Page 3

The Human Resources Plan documents the staffing changes needed for the reorganization and how and when they will be accomplished. 8.0 Technical Requirements None 9.0 Training and Testing Training will be required in the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) for those employees who are transferring from CBWM to Portland District since these employees are not currently in NSPS but will be going into NSPS. This training will consist of reviewing the “NSPS 101” on-line training session, followed by additional training by their supervisors as needed. 10.0 Schedule The schedule for accomplishing the staffing changes is shown in Section 2.0 (Deliverables). Most of the changes will be accomplished by October 2008. Where reasonable, other changes will occur before then. 11.0 Interdependencies This Human Resources Plan is highly interdependent with the plans and actions of many other technical teams that involve staffing changes. As such, this plan was coordinated with these other technical teams. 12.0 Phase III Actions With the exception of WCDS, the major changes in human resources associated with the reorganization will be accomplished by October 2008. The WCDS changes will be accomplished by October 2009.

Appendix H: Budget Team Report

Budget Team Report

Executive Summary The Budget transition team prepared a transition plan to meet the need for a programmatic budget for all NWD Water Management Offices to support the changed roles and responsibilities as described in the Water Management FACT SHEET, by following the Proposed Transition Team Process Guidance paper. In the existing state, Columbia Basin Water Management (CBWM) is responsible for providing resources for regulating, modeling and forecasting, a centralized Water Control Data System, and specifically performing volume forecasting and performing all regulation activities for Libby and Dworshak. CBWM is also responsible for providing resources to develop and maintain computer models to perform the work. A statistical hydrologist position funded at CBWM currently performs work to support the Reservoir Control Center, preparing volume forecast procedures, and other technical work related to statistical hydrology. Some Water Quality technical work was also resourced and performed at CBWM. All offices had various budget formats, in the existing state, which made clear communication of those budgets difficult. In the end state, much of the regulation modeling and forecasting performed at CBWM will be performed at districts. The Water Control Data System will be decentralized and each District as well as CBWM will share a networked system with equal storage and computing capability at each site. All regulation activities for Dworshak and Libby will be performed at Walla Walla and Seattle District’s respectively. These changes in organization and operation required the development of programmatic budgets to resource each office appropriately to accommodate the changes and provide for a more clear understanding of the overall NWD Water Management Budget. FY 2010 budgets will need some minor adjustments as the end state for the WCDS is not final; nor is Water Quality. The end state budget for CBWM in FY 2009 and FY 2010 show an increase of approximately 0.6% collectively. This is due to some uncertainties regarding the transition to the end state as well as the Human Resources transition to the end state. Efficiencies realized over the next several years will undoubtedly show a reduction in overall level of effort. Detailed information on each offices programmatic budget and the summaries of these budgets are available in the full report. The transition to the new budget process has begun for FY 2009 based on each offices programmatic budget being incorporated into P2. The FY 2010 budget has been submitted by each office to reflect the end state; minor revisions to offices’ budgets may be required to adjust for minor changes in the WCDS and Water Quality end states. The districts and CBWM will work together to modify and improve existing programmatic budget formats and make agreed upon necessary adjustments to budgets. Programmatic budgets will be maintained and updated in each office at least annually or as required by budget constraints.

Appendix H: Page 1


1.0 Background The budgets for all four Columbia Basin Water Management offices must be adjusted based on the changes described in this Phase-II Transition Report. Since some of the changes will take effect in FY08 and others will take effect in FY09, the budgets for both years were adjusted. Beginning with preparation of the FY09 budget, the budgets were prepared using a new Programmatic Budget approach that was based on major categories of products produced by each office. Adjustments to the FY08 and FY09 budgets are based on the FY09 Programmatic Budget and changes identified in this report. Missouri River Basin was not affected by this reorganization, therefore NWK and NWO budget info is not included. 2.0 Deliverables The key deliverables for the Budget Team are the adjusted FY08 and FY09 budgets, as well as a budget for FY10. The overall FY09 budgets for all four Columbia Basin Water Management offices before and after the budget adjustments for the reorganization are provided below. FY09 Budget (in 1,000’s)

CBWM Portland District

Seattle District

Walla Walla District

Sum

Pre-reorganization $ 5,138.0 $ 2,897.0 $ 2,437.0 $ 2,022.3 $ 12,494.3 Post-reorganization $ 4,559.9 $ 3,088.2 $ 2,706.0 $ 2,206.1 $ 12,560.2 Delta $ (578.1) $ 191.2 $ 269.0 $ 183.8 $ 65.9 FY 10 Budget (in 1,000’s)

CBWM Portland District

Seattle District

Walla Walla District

Sum

Pre-reorganization $ 5,307.3 $ 4246.3 $ 2,754.0 $ 2,083.0 $ 14,366.6 Post-reorganization $ 4,711.9 $ 4456.4* $ 3,031.0 $ 2,272.3 $ 14,447.2 Delta $ (595.4) $ 210.1 $ 277.0 $ 189.3 $ 80.6 *Excludes $275.0k funding managed by CBWM for District support. 3.0 Stakeholders In addition to the key stakeholders throughout the region who depend upon the effective execution of the Water Management mission, key stakeholders related to the budget development include the staff of the various Water Management offices, the Budget/Programs staff, and the Water Management Board. The revised FY08 and FY09 budgets have been prepared and they have been presented to the Water Management Board for approval. 4.0 Roles and Responsibilities The Budget Team that formed to develop the Programmatic Budget process and prepared the initial FY09 Programmatic Budget will also prepare the adjusted FY08, FY09 and FY10 budgets. This team is comprised of the following individuals:

a) Columbia Basin Water Management Division: Jim Barton, Peter Brooks, Bob Buchholz, Shery Bainer, Joe Johnson, Rick Eskridge

Appendix H: Page 2


b) Missouri River Basin Water Management Division: Jody Farhat, Larry Cieslik c) Kansas City District: Edward Parker d) Omaha District: Tim Temeyer e) Portland District: Bruce Duffe, Karl Kanbergs, Jackie Schmunk f) Seattle District: Ed Zapel g) Walla Wall District: Helene Chong, John Heitstuman, Mark Lindgren

Also, the Water Management Board will review and approve the final FY08, FY09 and FY10 budgets. 5.0 Resources The resources required to prepare the budgets are considered to be a part of the recurring budgetary workload for all offices involved in this effort. No additional funding or resources were provided for this effort. The resources included in the budgets themselves were based on the resource estimates identified by each Transition Team in their reports. 6.0 Coordination Coordination on this effort was done through several meetings and calls to prepare the initial and adjusted budgets for each office. These budgets were then combined into an overall spreadsheet for all seven offices and the information was integrated into the overall budget development process within each district office. These budgets were then eventually merged into an overall budget for NWD. 7.0 Documentation Requirements The budgets will be documented in Excel spreadsheets prepared for each office and then integrated into an overall Water Management Budget spreadsheet. Once approved by the Water Management Board, the final approved budgets will be documented in an Activity Letter. Budget Processes for individual offices are described briefly below: CBWM The Columbia Basin Water Management Budget is prepared by the budget analyst in conjunction with the Branch Chiefs and reviewed by the Chief of Columbia Basin Water Management and the Branch Chiefs. Budgets are prepared two years in advance of the current year and estimated projections are made for the additional three years that so that we can submit a five year budget. The Division tries to get budget in line before the end of February so that District has to time to review and incorporate into the District budgets for submission to headquarters. The Division budget differs from the District budgets in the fact that we do not have a labor multiplier so we must create an operating budget based on the products we need to produce and estimate the cost in many areas to then prepare a Water Management Program based budget. Guidance is obtained through the Business Resources Division and any budget circulars that are available. After creation, the budget is vetted by the Columbia Basin Water Management Chief, Branch Chiefs, and the Water Management Board, over the past several years it’s even reviewed and approved by the Resource Management Board (RMB). The budget

Appendix H: Page 3


is then passed onto the Districts in the form of an Activity Letter with a copy of the Program Budget attached. The Activity Letter should contain both Columbia and Missouri River budgets. The total budget amount is distributed between the District Offices based on installed Hydropower Generation. It is the Columbia Basin Water Management Division’s best guess that approximately 90% of the work performed in the Division office is related to the BPA and the funding coming from the Districts offices should reflect a 90/10 split, 90% BPA funds and 10% appropriated funds. Portland District The Portland District Water Management Budget is generally prepared by the chief of the Reservoir Regulation and Water Quality Section, with input from the Chief of the Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch and assistance from analysts within the Engineering and Construction Budget Branch. Budgets are prepared two years in advance of the current year and the first draft is usually prepared in April, or earlier if possible. Throughout May and June the budgets are reviewed, refined, and coordinated with the Flood Damage Reduction, Hydropower and Water Supply Business Line managers, these being the three business lines under which projects are funded at NWP. Budgets are then entered into P2 for future execution while current and next year’s budget are executed and planned. Note that because the budget submission is executed two years in advance, the 2010 numbers shown for NWP in this report are subject to uncertainty and potential significant revision. The values shown for NWP in the table, Section 2.0, show only increment 1 funding. The delta between pre and post reorganization reflects one full time regulator FTE. Additionally, as footnoted in the table, $275,000 are funds managed by CBWM to cover NWP’s portion of FTE for two water quality staff and one statistical hydrologist to be physically located at NWP. Thus the “effective” delta of the pre and post reorganization for 2010 for NWP is $485,000. In 2009 NWP Reservoir Regulation section initiated use of a programmatic budget with specific needs along functional lines identified. This budget is useful for a snapshot of section water management needs and for preparation and updates of the program management plan, but requires further work to be synchronized and fully functional as an assist tool during the annual O&M budget process. The programmatic budget, assuming if done per similar rules by all districts is likely the best tool to determine regional water management needs. As such, the existing O&M water management budget process should be examined for modification to fit into a more programmatic style. Perhaps the water management portion of the current Corps O&M budget (Columbia and possibly including the Missouri Basin) could be detached from the rest of the O&M budget, recognizing the unique regional functions of water management. Currently at NWP the yearly budget cycle officially begins with a Budget Request from the O&M Appropriations Manager. For both 2009 and 2010, a master template was provided in a format different from the existing programmatic budget. Additional challenges for NWP are requirements to break out 21 separate projects, whereas in the programmatic budget the thirteen Willamette projects were grouped together. An additional facet of the NWP budget is joint funding, namely appropriated funds plus BPA funding. BPA funding is based on megawatts generated within a district, and strictly applies to power generating projects only, all under the Hydro Business Line. There are complex rules for the joint funding with little flexibility to easily change cost allocations. Since the time the rules were set up, the Bonneville second powerhouse was built but is not apparently part of the funding formula. Using 2009 as an example, at NWP about 56% of the budget dollars for the

Appendix H: Page 4


hydro projects are BPA funded. Basically appropriated funds are matched by BPA. Overall funding is about 40% BPA funded. However, funding set aside for the Division, within NWP’s budget is 67% BPA funded. This higher percentage probably reflects the MW generated on the mainstem dams, with heavy NWD involvement. Seattle District The first draft of the Seattle District Water Management Budget is prepared by the Chief of the Water Management Section. The budget preparation process generally starts around February, two years prior to the applicable fiscal year. Draft Engineering Circulars relevant to the budget process are reviewed, and the proposed budget is discussed with the Operating Project Managers to ensure that it reflects appropriate future needs at the projects. Similar coordination continues with the Business Line Managers in the April–June time frame. In April, proposed budget packages are submitted by the Chief of the Water Management Section to the Operations Division. During late April and May these packages are put into a P2 budget project, reviewed for consistency with the guidance in the appropriate Engineering Circulars, and put into the appropriate business line. Each Business Line Manager ranks the projects within their specific business line. Once the projects and the corresponding budget line items have been ranked, the Chief of Operations reviews all budget packages to ensure that the overall package is suitable to execute the District’s mission. This same process is done with the Deputy District Engineer, all Program Managers, Business Line Managers, and applicable Project Managers. The overall budget package is then reviewed for final adjustments and corrections and provided to the District Engineer for approval and submittal to NWD. Walla Walla District The NWW WM budget is produced by Hydrology Section Chief in coordination with the O&M (BPA Joint funding) and the Flood Damage Reduction (Flood) Business Line Managers. Overall the program activities are considered critical routine and regular recurring/cyclical routine, including manual and sedimentation work rotated by project. As such, OD enters this budget nearly wholly within the Increment 1 element (Increments 1, 2 & 2.5 are limited to 75% of MSC O&M total budget), offset by other WM and O&M activities listed as Increments 3, 4 and 5 (the remaining 25%) per EC 11-2-193 guidance. Of WM activities, only non-critical, irregular studies are listed as Increment 3. Budgets continue to be coordinated with the Chief of Operations with some minor adjustments being made during the execution year based on operating project needs or excesses. Activities within the programmatic budget are timed to take maximum advantage of ongoing Planning or Operations studies. Examples are: 1) Planning to revise a Water Control Plan for Lucky Peak and the Boise System at the same time a General Investigation Study for the Boise River will necessitate a review of system rule curves; 2) Developing Reservoir Simulation models for the Jackson-Palisades system to develop an updated regulated frequency discharge curve that is necessary for Levee Certification studies being conducted for the Federal Levees on the Upper Snake River vicinity of Jackson, Wyoming; 3) In FY08 sediment range surveys are timed to coincide with ongoing real-time sediment sampling on the Snake and Clearwater rivers to correlate suspended sediment sample results with the measured accumulation of sediment in the reservoir. (Suspended sediment sampling is funded separately as part of the ongoing Programmatic Sediment Management Plan (PSMP)). 8.0 Technical Requirements None

Appendix H: Page 5


Appendix H: Page 6

9.0 Training and Testing None 10.0 Schedule The adjusted FY08 and FY09 budgets reflecting changes from the reorganization were completed in spring 2008 and approved by the Water Management Board. The adjusted FY10 budget was also completed in spring 2008. 11.0 Interdependencies None 12.0 Phase III Actions The Budget Team will continue to meet to adjust the Programmatic Budget process as needed as well as to update and prepare new budgets in future years.

Northwestern Division Water Management Reorganization ... Water...Transition Team members will...

Documents

Transcript of Northwestern Division Water Management Reorganization ... Water...Transition Team members will...