The Six-Step Planning Process
The USACE planning process is a structured approach to problem-solving. A six-step planning process is used iteratively, allowing steps to be repeated as needed for better problem understanding. Planning is performed by an interdisciplinary group of engineers, scientists, economists, and others. Stakeholder and public engagement play a major role, and public input in the decision-making process is valued.
Step 1: Identify Problems and Opportunities
The study team, in collaboration with local sponsor(s), tribal nations and the public, will verbalize and concur on the identified Problem(s) that need to be solved by the study and the recommended solutions. This seems simple, but different stakeholders sometimes have different opinions on what the specific water resources problems are in an area. This is a key first step in developing an effective array of alternatives or potential solutions, for managing flood risk in the region. Objectives are specific ‘goals’ of the project that will address the identified Problem(s). Opportunities are ‘improvements’ that could be made (beyond previous conditions), like habitat restoration, partnering opportunities or the addition of recreational features, while we are addressing the Problems.
Study's Draft Problems:
Problem 1: Repeated riverine flooding from the Tittabawassee River Watershed causes damage to critical public and private community infrastructure in the Midland region including health care, education, industry, commerce, agricultural, and essential services, resulting in personal and economic loss.
Problem 2: Frequent and recurring riverine flooding within the Tittabawassee River Watershed presents a danger to life safety, critical health care, and transportation routes, which are accessed in evacuations and by emergency services during the flood event.
Problem 3: Recurring riverine flood events mobilizes a significant amount of sediment that negatively impact the ecosystems within the Tittabawassee Watershed environment, water quality, wastewater treatment, and water supply for the City of Midland and surrounding county through erosion and increases fertilizer residue and other contaminates and pollution.
Study's Draft Objectives and Opportunities
Objectives
- Objective 1: Reduce the damages and impacts of riverine flooding on public and private property and infrastructure in Midland County over the 50-year period of analysis beginning in 2030
- Objective 2: Decrease the risk to life safety and public health from flooding in the Tittabawassee River basin over the 50-year period of analysis beginning in 2030.
Opportunities
- Maintain and enhance the native aquatic species within the basin, including potential improvements to existing fish passage projects.
- Provide additional recreational opportunities that connect the surrounding communities to the environment.
- Opportunity to improve water quality in the Tittabawassee River.
- Opportunity to collaborate with a variety of partners to promote growth and tourism in the community.
- Opportunity to promote recreational sites and greenspace along the river.
- Opportunity to unite the region on the importance of watershed protection.
- Opportunity to increase reliability of critical public infrastructure services that can be threatened during flooding events.
- Opportunity to reduce the mental stress on local communities caused by flooding risk and the fear of flooding.
- Opportunity to improve zoning in the area for sustainable growth.
Step 2: Inventorying and Forecasting Conditions
The study team completed a comprehensive inventory and forecast of the Tittabawassee River Basin, including key tributaries including the Chippewa, Pine, and Tobacco rivers, as well as Sturgeon and Snake creeks.
To model the "Future Without-Project" (FWOP) condition—which forecasts how flood risks will change over a 50-year period (2030–2079) if no Federal action is taken—we completed the following:
- Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling: Leveraged a one-dimensional (1-D) and developing a two-dimensional (2-D) HEC-RAS models to simulate water flows and backwater effects. These models are calibrated with observed river data from major flood events such as those in 1986, 2013, 2017, and 2020. This allows the team to then model anticipated changes in the future.
- Structure Inventory: Compiled and refined a geographic database of 4,400 structures within the floodplain using the National Structure Inventory (NSI) and local property records.
Our analysis shows that a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event (commonly referred to as a “100-year flood”) would inundate approximately 1,200 structures, with an estimated $20.1 million in "annual equivalent damages” from structural damage alone. Additionally, key public safety infrastructure, including emergency evacuation routes and access to the MyMichigan Medical Center, would remain severely threatened under the No (Federal) Action scenario.
Step 3: Formulating Alternative Plans
During this phase, USACE collaborated closely with our Non-Federal Sponsors (Midland County, the City of Midland, and the Midland Business Alliance), resource agencies, and the public to identify a wide range of potential flood management strategies.
- Brainstorming Solutions: Through a collaborative planning charrette, we identified 47 initial management measures, categorized into structural, nonstructural, and nature-based solutions.
- Developing Alternatives: Measures were screened for technical, environmental, and financial feasibility, resulting in the development of 43 preliminary alternative plans. These plans were consolidated into a focused array of 14, and ultimately narrowed down to a final array of 8 distinct alternatives (including “No Action”) for detailed evaluation.
The final array evaluated different combinations of levee systems, floodgates, upstream detention basins, real estate flowage easements, and nonstructural property modifications (such as home elevations and commercial floodproofing).
Step 4: Evaluating Alternative Plans
The study team quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the final array of alternative plans by comparing "with-project" conditions against our "without-project" baseline. Evaluation was guided by the four federal Comprehensive Benefits accounts:
- National Economic Development (NED): Evaluated structural and content damages avoided, vehicle damages prevented, and emergency management cost savings using USACE-certified HEC-FDA risk-modeling software (version 2.1).
- Regional Economic Development (RED): Assessed how construction spending and long-term flood resilience would support local jobs, wages, and regional economic output.
- Other Social Effects (OSE): Prioritized public safety, health, and community cohesion. We specifically evaluated how each alternative impacted the MyMichigan Medical Center, critical emergency services, and residential neighborhoods.
- Environmental Quality (EQ): Evaluated potential impacts on local natural and cultural resources, including wetlands, floodplain forests, state and federally protected species.
Step 5: Comparing Alternative Plans
Comparing alternative plans will reveal the plan expected to produce the greatest net benefits (benefits – costs) from among the alternatives considered.
Step 6: Selecting a Plan
A recommended plan will be identified based on the results of steps 4 and 5. That plan will be described in the draft feasibility report that goes out for public and agency review. Eventually, the study will result in a feasibility report signed by the Chief of Engineers and sent to congress for additional project authorization and appropriation to implement the recommended plan.