Pre-Analysis Communication Best Practices: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:54, 21 June 2024

This is a dam.

Purpose

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.

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, 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

Importance of model in directing critical design decisions

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

Steps of Pre-Analysis Communication

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.

Application-Specific Considerations

Examples

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Best Practices Resources

Title, Author

Other Resources

Title, Author

Trainings

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Internal Link Text

[ExternalURL Displayed Text]

Citations:

Revision ID: 7919
Revision Date: 06/21/2024

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 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
+*	'''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)
+*	'''Modeling purpose''' (i.e., screening level study, [[rehabilitation]] design, [[Risk Assessment|risk assessment]], hazard reclassification, emergency planning)
-•	'''Public interest''' or involvement in the project
+*	'''Public interest''' or involvement in the project
-•	'''Technical complexity''' of the analysis
+*	'''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)
+*	'''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]]
-•	'''Importance of model''' in directing critical design decisions
+*	'''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
 <!-- Insert image using {{Picture}} template -->
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ===General Considerations for All Models===
-•	'''Describe''' the model purpose and justification of need.
+*	'''Describe''' the model purpose and justification of need.
-•	'''Summarize''' the overall assumptions and modeling approach.
+*	'''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.)
+*	'''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 possible outcomes and expected outcomes.
-•	'''Summarize''' the data that is available or will be collected as part of the process.
+*	'''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.
+*	'''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)
+*	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.
+*	'''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.
+*	'''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.
+*	'''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.
 ===Application-Specific Considerations===