Pre-Analysis Communication Best Practices: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:10, 27 August 2024

Purpose

This page presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate plans for hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and stability models to both a dam owner and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort. Such pre-modeling communication may include a project scoping meeting, a scope of work, and/or a modeling work plan submittal or meeting with a regulator.

The need for clear communication is apparent in these unfortunate but common dam modeling scenarios:

A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, evaluates an existing structure for seepage and stability performance. The dam owner submits the findings of the modeling effort in a report to the regulator. The regulator reviews the modeling report and responds to the owner with many comments, some of which contest the initial assumptions made by the consultant. The owner, consultant, and regulator attempt to resolve the comments and revise the model and report several times at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule.
A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, develops a hydrologic model used to model a dam’s inflow design flood (IDF). The regulator recently published updated guidance documents for hydrologic modeling and IDF development. The consultant develops and submits the model based on the previous guidelines. The regulator reviews the modeling report and asks for a resubmittal using the new guidance documents before further comments are made. The consultant is then required to redevelop the model and resubmit, at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule, prior to the detailed regulatory review.
The modeling project and expected review timelines are not communicated to the regulator at the start of a modeling effort. Once the modeling report is submitted, the regulator, who is understaffed, is not able to review the report for over a year at the expense of the owner’s schedule and potentially public safety, should the model be used to inform future design efforts to address dam deficiencies.

The following sections outline best practices for pre-analysis communication and scope development to hopefully avoid situations such as these.

Levels of Pre-Analysis Communication

The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated above. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:

Hazard classification or potential downstream consequences of the dam to be modeled

Modeling purpose (i.e., screening level study, rehabilitation design, risk assessment, hazard reclassification, emergency planning)

Public interest or involvement in the project

Technical complexity of the analysis

Unknowns and data gaps in the analysis and potential for dam safety risks during data acquisition (e.g., bore holes through an embankment dam)

Level of previous experience with the dam, owner, and/or regulator

Regulator familiarity with the dam, behavior of the type of dam, geology of the region, and potential loading

Importance of model in directing critical design decisions

Level of experience / validation of the analysis method in standard practice

Availability of regulator guidelines and whether model will be able to follow guidelines

This spectrum should be considered when applying the following steps during the planning of future modeling efforts.

Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication

Resources for Developing a Model Work Plan

Whether it consists of an email or a comprehensive proposal, a model work plan should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach. Additional items that should be considered when developing this plan are summarized on this page: Developing a Model Work Plan. This includes considerations for specific model applications including seepage analysis, slope stability analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation.

Development of this page was sponsored by the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation with funding from the FEMA Assistance to States Grant Program.

Revision ID: 8029
Revision Date: 08/27/2024

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 [[Category:Modeling Communication]]
 ----
+<noautolinks>
+== Purpose ==
+This page presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate plans for hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and stability models to both a dam owner and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort. Such pre-modeling communication may include a project scoping meeting, a scope of work, and/or a modeling work plan submittal or meeting with a regulator.
-== Purpose ==
+The need for clear communication is apparent in these unfortunate but common dam modeling scenarios:
-This presents a framework for an engineer/modeler to communicate the process of hydrologic, hydraulic, seepage, and [[stability]] models to both a dam [[owner]] and regulatory agency. There are a variety of approaches and methodologies for these modeling efforts, and it is important to owners, consultants, and regulators that clear communication is integrated in the process. The purpose of this page is to guide communication among all interested parties prior to commencing a modeling effort.
+*A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, evaluates an existing structure for seepage and stability performance. The dam owner submits the findings of the modeling effort in a report to the regulator. The regulator reviews the modeling report and responds to the owner with many comments, some of which contest the initial assumptions made by the consultant. The owner, consultant, and regulator attempt to resolve the comments and revise the model and report several times at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule.
+*A consultant, working on behalf of the dam owner, develops a hydrologic model used to model a dam’s inflow design flood (IDF). The regulator recently published updated guidance documents for hydrologic modeling and IDF development. The consultant develops and submits the model based on the previous guidelines. The regulator reviews the modeling report and asks for a resubmittal using the new guidance documents before further comments are made. The consultant is then required to redevelop the model and resubmit, at the expense of the owner’s budget and schedule, prior to the detailed regulatory review.
+*The modeling project and expected review timelines are not communicated to the regulator at the start of a modeling effort. Once the modeling report is submitted, the regulator, who is understaffed, is not able to review the report for over a year at the expense of the owner’s schedule and potentially public safety, should the model be used to inform future design efforts to address dam deficiencies.
+The following sections outline best practices for pre-analysis communication and scope development to hopefully avoid situations such as these.
 == Levels of Pre-Analysis Communication ==
-The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated below. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:
-*	'''Hazard classification''' or potential downstream consequences of the dam to be modeled
-*	'''Modeling purpose''' (i.e., screening level study, [[rehabilitation]] design, [[Risk Assessment|risk assessment]], hazard reclassification, emergency planning)
+[[Image:FlowChart.jpg|none|800px|link=]]
+The complexity and degree of pre-analysis communication will vary from project to project and exists on a spectrum as illustrated above. For simple modeling efforts, email correspondence or a brief proposal may be an adequate level of pre-analysis communication. For more complex or impactful efforts, all of these methods of communication may be needed to adequately plan the modeling effort. The following factors may influence the level of pre analysis communication on the spectrum:
+*	'''Hazard classification''' or '''potential downstream consequences''' of the dam to be modeled
+*	'''Modeling purpose''' (i.e., screening level study, rehabilitation design, risk assessment, hazard reclassification, emergency planning)
 *	'''Public interest''' or involvement in the project
@@ Line 21: / Line 34: @@
 *	'''Unknowns and data gaps''' in the analysis and potential for dam safety risks during data acquisition (e.g., bore holes through an embankment dam)
-*	'''Level of previous experience''' with the dam, owner, and/or [[regulator]]
+*	'''Level of previous experience''' with the dam, owner, and/or regulator
+*	'''Regulator familiarity''' with the dam, behavior of the type of dam, geology of the region, and potential loading
 *	'''Importance of model''' in directing critical design decisions
-*	'''Level of experience''' / validation of the analysis method in standard practice
+*	'''Level of experience / validation of the analysis method''' in standard practice
+*	'''Availability of regulator guidelines''' and whether model will be able to follow guidelines
-[[Image:FlowChart.jpg|none|800px|link=]]
+This spectrum should be considered when applying the following steps during the planning of future modeling efforts.
 == Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication ==
@@ Line 37: / Line 52: @@
 # [[Step 4 of Pre-Analysis Communication: Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open | Proceed with Modeling and Keep Communication Channels Open]]
-== Developing a Pre-Analysis Submittal ==
-The pre-analysis submittal should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach should be developed. In order to develop this project understanding, the dam owner and engineer/modeler should meet to discuss the modeling approach, including items that can substantially impact cost and/or schedule. Commonly, the regulator is not involved in early scope of work discussions that have financial or contractual components.
-===General Considerations for All Models===
-*	'''Describe''' the model purpose and justification of need.
-*	'''Summarize''' the overall assumptions and modeling approach.
-*	'''Note the guidance documents''' used as basis for approach (e.g., State published guidance, USBR Design Standards, FERC [[Engineering]] Guidelines for Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, USACE Engineering Manuals, etc.)
-*	'''Summarize''' the possible outcomes and expected outcomes.
-*	'''Summarize''' the data that is available or will be collected as part of the process.
-*	'''Provide an assessment''' of which assumptions are foundational (i.e., modifying assumptions would require additional communication and concurrence) and which can be modified through the analysis process.
-*	If an Independent Review is planned, '''describe the relationships and responsibilities''' of the parties involved (third party, internal to modeling firm or expectations for regulatory agency review)
-*	'''Note factors''' that may increase the modeling level of effort. This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.
-*	'''Describe''' how interim and final modeling results will be presented (written report, presentation, discussion, etc.). This is also a discussion item with the dam owner during scope of work negotiations.
-*	'''Include a recommended schedule''' for submittals, review & regulatory feedback. Note critical deadlines to avoid project delays. Request regulatory agency concurrence with schedule as part of feedback on pre-analysis submittal.
+== Resources for Developing a Model Work Plan ==
+Whether it consists of an email or a comprehensive proposal, a model work plan should address an understanding of the model objectives, project constraints, and overall approach. Additional items that should be considered when developing this plan are summarized on this page: [[Developing a Model Work Plan]]. This includes considerations for specific model applications including seepage analysis, slope stability analysis, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and consequence estimation.
-===Application-Specific Considerations===
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Slope Stability Model Considerations | Slope Stability Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Seepage Model Considerations | Seepage Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Hydrologic Model Considerations | Hydrologic Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Hydraulic Model Considerations | Hydraulic Modeling]]
-* [[Pre-Modeling Communication: Consequence Estimation Considerations | Consequence Estimating]]
-<!-- Citations will automatically populate if instructions on the "[[Guidelines for Inserting a Citation]]" are followed. -->
+''Development of this page was sponsored by the [[Montana | Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation]] with funding from the FEMA Assistance to States Grant Program.''
-{{Citations}}
+</noautolinks>
 <!-- Revision history information -->
 {{revhistinf}}