recipe for a gsu balanced scorecard for gsustorage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-18559965/do… ·...

Office of Geology Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Analysis Process Document for 2010-2012

Prepared by: Berkeley, Chatsworth, Cypress and Sacramento Geological Services Units under the direction of

Karen Baker, Office of Geology Performance Manager

Led by and Complied by Scott Warren12/15/2010

GSB SWOT AnalysisScott Warren12/15/2010

Executive Summary

Preparation of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis for the Office of Geology has been an iterative process. The process began with facilitated staff meetings in each Region in July 2010 and culminated in December with staff and supervisors refining the observations and developing Action Items, assignments, tracking and a schedule. The total time investment for this effort was around 480 person hours.

The work group identified a number of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that could be expected to influence the Office of Geology’s future and proposed actions to: leverage the Strengths; bolster the Weaknesses; seize the Opportunities; or neutralize the Threats. The supervisors and approximately 10 percent of the staff invested themselves into the process. Budget constraints, the PE/PG memorandum, the anticipated focal shift from investigation to remediation, the expanded use of GIS and modeling tools, and development of integrated multi-discipline guidance and training are perceived as the primary Opportunities ahead. Anticipated Threats include continuing budget constraints, hiring limitations and huge operation and maintenance costs as Superfund projects transfer to the State. As in previous years, our Strengths reside primarily in our technical capabilities and broad experience, but we feel we can leverage our strengths by strengthening our relationships with the Programs and helping them incorporate the Triad approach, green technologies and Performance Based management. Finally, we must bolster our Weaknesses including raising awareness of our capabilities and better understanding our clients’ needs so we respond appropriately. Costs will take center stage.

Along with implementing the actions outlined in the text of this document, the Office of Geology proposes a new Strategic Plan initiative geared towards Office of Geology, Engineering and Special Projects Office and Superfund Team collaboration to look for new, innovative, green ways to optimize and improve remedial system operation and maintenance activities to reduce the looming costs where possible.

/tt/file_convert/5f25f8b646703132db230c6d/document.docx


ContentsExecutive Summary.............................................................................................................................2

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................5

Office of Geology 2010 SWOT Results...........................................................................................6

(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).............................................................6

Office of Geology Mission...............................................................................................................6

Office of Geology Vision..................................................................................................................6

Office of Geology Values................................................................................................................6

Office of Geology SWOT 2010..........................................................................................................7

Summary of Anticipated External Expansion Areas - Opportunities...............................7

Opportunity 1 Short Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development..............7

Opportunity 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Financial (from the BSC) Development..................................................................................................................................9

Opportunity 3 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development...........................................................................................................................................................10

Opportunity 4 Intermediate to Long Term Scientific Leadership..............................11

Opportunity 5 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Employee (from the BSC) Development................................................................................................................................12

Summary of Anticipated External Contraction Areas - Threats......................................13

Threat 1 Short Term Internal Process & Employee (from the BSC) Development...........................................................................................................................................................13

Threat 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Financial (from the BSC) Development................................................................................................................................15

Threat 3 Short Term Internal Process and Employee (from the BSC) Development................................................................................................................................16

Summary of Internal Strengths to Leverage.........................................................................17

Strength 1 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development.....17



Strength 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development. . .18

Strength 3 Intermediate to Long Term Scientific Leadership (from the BSC) Development................................................................................................................................20

Summary of Internal Weaknesses to Bolster........................................................................21

Weakness 1 Short Term Customer Service (from the BSC) Improvement............21

Weakness 2 Short Term Customer Service (from the BSC) Improvement............22

Weakness 3 Intermediate and Long Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Improvement................................................................................................................................23

Recommended Strategic Plan Initiatives for 2010-2012......................................................23

Office of Geology Initiative 1......................................................................................................23

Appendices............................................................................................................................................25

Appendix A GSUs Role in the Cleanup Process GSU’s Role in the Cleanup Process...............................................................................................................................................................26

GSU’s Role in the Cleanup Process...........................................................................................27

Process Continuum.....................................................................................................................27

Appendix B SWOT Process.........................................................................................................29

SWOT Analysis.............................................................................................................................30

External Evaluation....................................................................................................................30

Internal Evaluation.....................................................................................................................31

Appendix C 2008 SWOT Summary..........................................................................................32

Appendix D R2 (Berkeley) 2010 SWOT..................................................................................35

Appendix E R3/4 (Chatsworth/Cypress) 2010 SWOT 7/19/2010...................................40

Appendix F R1 (Sacramento) 2010 SWOT 7/29/2010.......................................................45

Appendix G Unit SWOT Comparisons.......................................................................................50

Appendix H Consolidated Office of Geology SWOT.............................................................55

Appendix I Abbreviated SWOT and Suggested Strategies.............................................58



Appendix J 2010 SWOT Agenda and Schedule....................................................................61



IntroductionThis outline was prepared to facilitate the Office of Geology staff evaluation of the environment within which we operate. The outline provided the context within which GSB operates and guided staff through an assessment of strengths and weaknesses relative to the external environment (environmental market place) which has matured over the years as well as the laws, regulations, DTSC structure and processes that constrain our daily activities.

While the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis focused primarily on Office of Geology, it also considered our role within the DTSC Cleanup program. The evaluation highlighted conditions outside of Office of Geology that can positively or negatively affect GSB and identify perceived Office of Geology strengths and weaknesses that will help us succeed, and/or must be bolstered.

The approach consisted of performing Regional (Unit) SWOTs that were then refined and the top five perceived issues for each Region were then ranked according to expect importance. Office of Geology Supervisors and staff representatives then consolidated the Regional SWOTs and developed an aggregate Office of Geology SWOT which is presented on the following pages. This aggregate SWOT along with the narrative discussing anticipated Opportunities, potential Threats, and perceived Strengths and Weaknesses has been prepared to use as a strategic planning tool for Office of Geology and Executive Staff.

The process for performing this SWOT analysis was generally as follows:

Prepare SWOT Description, outlining the general continuum in which Office of Geology operates and describing the purpose and elements of a SWOT analysis.

Have Unit Supervisors meet with staff up to two weeks before the actual Unit SWOT to explain the process and discuss Regional influences

Conduct individual/combined Unit SWOT meetings to discuss perceived conditions for each Unit.

Have the individual Units finalize and rank the top five issues in each category (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat) for their Unit.



Assemble the Performance Manager, Supervisors and one staff member from each Unit to consolidate the Unit SWOTs and develop a consolidated Branch SWOT, and to devise a plan to leverage Strengths and bolster Weaknesses identified in the SWOT analysis.

Develop strategies to implement the plan developed above, including projected resource estimates and constraints.

Share the plan with Executive staff.



Office of Geology 2010 SWOT Results(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)

The following narrative present the results of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis (SWOT) prepared by the Office of Geology, fall 2010. The results of the SWOT and proposed actions are aligned with the Balanced Score Card (BSC) and/or a specific Strategic Plan goal/objective in the DTSC Strategic Plan and the Office of Geology Mission, Vision and Values. Where possible, the proposed actions are listed as short term, intermediate term or long term wins. The Office of Geology Mission, Vision and Values is provided below and the results of the SWOT follow.

Office of Geology MissionTo provide DTSC project teams with geologic expertise that enable sound decisions using the best technologies and approaches to protect public

health and the environment.

Office of Geology VisionAn integral part of the DTSC team and a global leader in applying geologic

science and engineering for environmental solutions.

Office of Geology ValuesTechnical decisions based on sound, appropriate science.



Office of Geology SWOT 2010Summary of Anticipated External Expansion Areas - OpportunitiesLooking at large opportunities ahead, several topics rose to the surface as strategically important. The key strategic Opportunities identified below are listed in their order of significance, beginning with the most significant:

Opportunity 1 Short Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development

1. Budget constraints may result in an increased (or possibly a decreased) use of Office of Geology services in programs. We anticipate that programs that previously used their own resources to complete geologic work may call on Office of Geology for support. Additionally, the release of the Professional Engineer/Professional Geologist (PE/PG) legal opinion and reductions in Program staffing through attrition and minimal rehiring may result in more work for Office of Geology.

a. The Office of Geology Management Group (Management Group) will develop a strategy to evaluate and track any changes in the need for technical services by:

i. The Office of Geology Supervisors will compare/contrast the Program list of projects vs. the Office of Geology list of projects in EnviroStor (for their region) to identify projects that do not currently use GSU support,

ii. Having the Supervisors ensure all work requests for GSU staff are initiated on EnviroStor so we can use it to track workload and to show our real workload.

b. The Management group will raise our profile by:i. Scheduling quarterly meetings with the Regional Office of

Geology Supervisors and the Regional Program Performance Managers to advocate for the Office of Geology and forecast upcoming workload,

ii. Placing announcements in the DTSC news highlighting;1. New staff and their capabilities,2. Staff capabilities and specialties,3. New capabilities obtained through training,4. Innovative projects.

c. The Management Group will build relationships, capabilities and synergies by:



i. Scheduling periodic meetings with Engineering & Special Projects Office (ESPO) and inviting ESPO staff to participate in the Office of Geology meetings.

ii. Developing a White Paper in conjunction with ESPO on soil gas parameters protective of groundwater,

iii. Developing a groundwater remediation optimization guidance in conjunction with ESPO,

iv. Hosting an Engineering, Geology, Toxicology and GIS summit every two years,

d. The Management Group will compile a list of “backlog” tasks and projects in case our workload allows us to tackle backlogged tasks including O&M and CME Inspections;

i. Office of Geology will work proactively to develop and prioritize (based on threat) a list of sites for CME’s and/or Operation and Maintenance Inspections (Strategic Plan 10-1.6 By Nov. 2012, the Enforcement and Emergency Response Program will increase compliance rates for specific sectors of hazardous waste treatment/storage/disposal facilities and transporters)

e. The Management Group will track progress by evaluating progress quarterly via the Supervisors meetings.



Opportunity 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Financial (from the BSC) Development

2. As projects move away from an emphasis on site characterization towards remediation, Office of Geology should affirm our role in subsurface remediation and clarify that geologists have a major role in site remediation. Additionally, we should strengthen our relationship/partnership with ESPO.

a. The Management Group will: i. Build relationships with Regional Performance Managers

and Supervisors through quarterly meetings,ii. Regional staff will build relationships with the Project

Managers by aligning Office of Geology outputs with project needs and conditions.

1. Incorporate Triad approach including understanding project timeframes, performance goals, financial considerations, proposed use and exit strategy,

2. Staff will coordinate with the DTSC Project Manager and other stakeholders to ensure environmental protection is maintained but simultaneously ensuring that the Site Investigation/Remediation process and schedule are adhered to, with minimum disruption.

iii. Highlight staff and project achievements and showcase remediation talents by presenting accomplishments in at least two Regional Staff meetings (per Region, per year),

iv. Publishing at least two relevant Office of Geology articles per year in the DTSC News (2 total for entire Office of Geology),

b. The Management Group will track progress quarterly by reporting back in the monthly Supervisors meeting.

i. The Management Group will track projects moving to remediation to help forecast future needs.

c. The reporting will be used to compose the annual strategic plan updates.



Opportunity 3 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development

3. Office of Geology must integrate geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects into the GIS system. The GIS Team provides several good opportunities to do this; the Interstate 710 Project, the San Gabriel Groundwater Team and the Modesto project.

a. The Management Group will select two Office of Geology staff to advocate for Geological interests in the GIS Team

i. John Naginis and John Karachewski will represent the Office of Geology on the GIS Team to implant Geology and Modeling requirements into the DTSC GIS process and thereby into the State Information technology grand plan.

ii. Dot Lofstrom and Scott Warren will contact Gabrielle Windgasse and the GIS Team regarding the Modesto project and how we can assist.

b. The Management Group will track progress through monthly updates at the Supervisors meetings.



Opportunity 4 Intermediate to Long Term Scientific Leadership

[from the Strategic Plan Goal 10-2 (DTSC Demonstrates Leadership in Developing and Utilizing the Scientific, Technical and Engineering Knowledge that Protects Public Health and the Environment), Objective 10-2.1 (By Dec. 2014, facilitate external knowledge transfer by expanding public-private partnerships, enhancing communication with external counterparts including business, community, academia, scientific associations, environmental groups, and state and federal and local governments) and 10-2.2 (By Nov. 20102 develop new scientific and technical knowledge that will enhance DTSCs capacity for sound policy and decision-making processes and promote new environmental technologies and alternatives)]

4. Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training and involvement in the development and use of DTSC Guidance and where appropriate American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) standards.

a. The Management Group will: i. Develop a training program to forecast needs and

capabilities for providing internal and external training,ii. Develop a series of specialized in-depth technical

seminars/workshops for Toxicologists/Geologists and Engineers,

1. Topics may include: a. Groundwater Sampling Guidance (Theo

Johnson),b. Vapor Intrusion Guidance (Dan Gallagher),c. Soil Gas Advisory (Craig Christmann),

i. Note: training on the SGA will include training to the Water Board

iii. Instruct staff to send notices to Brian Lewis of upcoming training as early as possible for evaluation and Office of Geology distribution,

iv. Work with the Training Office to evaluate outside training that can be brought in for internal training,

b. Continue hosting GeoSym (interagency trainings),c. Update the 1995 Hydrogeologic Guidance Documents,d. Work with the Central Valley Water Board to develop

integrated groundwater protection workplans (leadership and resource leveraging),

e. Work with the Environmental Indicators Office to develop guidance for interpreting Environmental Indicators for soil,



groundwater and land restored to use (new; Scott Warren and Mike Sorenson will clarify).

f. The Management Group will track progress by monitoring the number of trainings provided, symposia hosted, personnel trained, documents completed.



Opportunity 5 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Employee (from the BSC) Development

5. Establish liaison workgroup Between the Office of Geology and the Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO), to facilitate communication between the two “Offices”, since work completed by the Office of Geology is directly impacted by HERO decisions and strategies. One of the primary goals will be to establish a venue to provide joint training by Office of Geology and HERO staff, in such fields as: soil gas collection, vapor intrusion, statistical sampling and lead cleanup goals.

a. The Management Group will build relationships, capabilities and synergies by:

i. Scheduling periodic meetings with Engineering & Special Projects Office (ESPO) and inviting ESPO staff to participate in the Office of Geology meetings.

ii. Developing a White Paper in conjunction with ESPO on soil gas parameters protective of groundwater,

iii. Developing a Groundwater remediation optimization guidance, in conjunction with ESPO,

iv. Hosting an Engineering, Geology, Toxicology and GIS summit every two years,

b. The Management Group will track and report progress in the monthly Supervisors meetings.

6. (Gray items indicates the item was determined by Office of Geology Supervisors to be lower priority) The Pollution Prevention drinking water Team (P2dw) provides a model that the Office of Geology should evaluate for relevance and potential applicability in developing relationships with Water Districts and Water Boards.



Summary of Anticipated External Contraction Areas - ThreatsOffice of Geology is facing numerous threats in 2010 and beyond. Some are the direct result of intense budgetary pressure being felt throughout California government and some are the result of a general contraction of a mature environmental market where the primary financial driver will shift from government paid assessment to redevelopment driven. As a result, a general decrease in site cleanup work should be expected.

The key strategic Threats identified below are listed in their order of significance, beginning with the most significant:

Threat 1 Short Term Internal Process & Employee (from the BSC) Development

1. California State budget woes have resulted in furloughs, hiring difficulties, travel restrictions and other constraints which may result in difficulties backfilling positions, especially Supervisors. The restrictions outlined above could impact our ability to maintain a technical leadership position.

a. The Office of Geology Management Group will:i. Develop a training program to forecast needs and

capabilities for providing internal and external training,ii. Develop a series of specialized in-depth technical

seminars/workshops for Geologist/Toxicologists and Engineers,



iii. Instruct staff to send notices to Brian Lewis of upcoming training as early as possible for evaluation and Office of Geology distribution,

iv. Work with the Training Office to evaluate outside training that can be brought in for internal training,

v. Establish an internal training program designed to increase Office of geology expertise in emerging technical issues and/or in areas where we have a limited number of staff



with the right expertise (based on Office of geology expertise tables and IDPs).

vi. Evaluate the effectiveness of web-based trainings and track available web-based training for wider use,

vii. Participate in the development of cutting edge guidance documents such as the following:

1. Groundwater remediation optimization (with ESPO), 2. Developing a White Paper on soil gas parameters

protective of groundwater (with ESPO)viii. Collaborate with others to develop and provide training on

the new guidance,ix. Work with the clients to understand their needs and raise

their awareness of the service we can provide and the value we add. We will do this by building relationships with Regional Performance Managers and Supervisors through quarterly meetings to reinforce the service and value we provide and understanding the Program’s needs,

x. Regional staff will also build relationships with the Project Managers by aligning Office of Geology outputs with project needs and conditions.



xi. Highlight staff and project achievements and showcase remediation talents by presenting accomplishments in at least two Regional Staff meetings (per Region, per year),

xii. Publishing at least two relevant Office of Geology articles per year in the DTSC News (2 total for entire Office of Geology),

b. The Management Group will track and report progress in the monthly Supervisors meetings.



Threat 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process & Financial (from the BSC) Development

2. Office of Geology may not be included in some remediation, State-lead, National Priorities List, and permit-maintenance projects. Additionally, many large Superfund lead sites may come to DTSC soon and bring huge Operation and Maintenance price tags that divert money from other important tasks.

a. Since the looming Superfund costs can hurt the Department and since we want to increase our involvement in the remediation side of cleanups, the Management Group will:

i. Develop a series of specialized in-depth technical seminars/workshops for Geologist/Toxicologists and Engineers,



2. The State is facing large costs from assuming Operation and Maintenance of Superfund sites. Cost savings may be realized by project optimization.

a. Office of Geology staff will collaborate with ESPO to develop optimization guidance and training.

3. Developing a White Paper on soil gas parameters protective of groundwater (with ESPO)

4. Explore the P2dw Impact area and Necessary and Sufficient criteria.

5. Become involved in the development of guidance for interpreting Environmental Indicators for soil, groundwater and land restored to use (new; Scott Warren and Mike Sorenson will clarify).

b. The Management Group will track progress by evaluating the number or percentage of sites Office of Geology staff are involved in compared to the number or percentage of sites the Office of Geology was working on at the beginning of the fiscal year.



Threat 3 Short Term Internal Process and Employee (from the BSC) Development

3. Increasing tight budgets are resulting in the increased use of performance-based (or fixed-price) contracts by Responsible Parties, which may result in decreased or limited use of Office of Geology by Project Managers. (could also result in increased oversight costs).

a. For performance-based contract sites, the Office of Geology Management Group will look for ways to change our work products to match changes in the outside marketplace, perhaps by focusing on results rather than process as we move towards one cleanup goal. The Office of Geology Management Group will:

i. Incorporate the Triad approach into our training, tracking and general project approach, specifically focusing on measurement, flexibility and starting with an exit strategy in mind.

ii. Discuss project needs and tailor Office of Geology outputs to the needs of the project including critical flaw reviews to meet budgets or timelines, electronic outputs and verbal consultation.

iii. The modified approach may result in an increased need for field oversight which could drive up oversight costs. Office of Geology management and staff will ensure clear communications between the Office of Geology staff and Program staff and work to meet the needs of the project and to be sure both parties are aware of changes as they occur.

iv. Evaluate the applicability of the P2dw guidance for establishing Performance Measures and the Orange County Groundwater Team proposed Consent Decree outline.

v. Evaluate if emails need Geologist signatures.b. The Management Group will discuss strategy/conditions

in site Supervisory meetings and track progress by informally tracking progress through Supervisory checks and quarterly reports to Karen Baker.

4. Teams divert time and resources from Office of Geology and have the potential to fragment our structure. But participation in teams provides an opportunity to participate in a new way and at a new level.

5. DTSC seems to be reluctant to issue orders, especially in cases that have not been resolved.



6. The Water Board’s approach is perceived as being faster and cheaper by some parties.



Summary of Internal Strengths to LeverageCertainly our strengths remain rooted in our educational background, training and professional experience as geologists in industry, and consulting. This breadth of experience and training gives us a unique perspective. The key strategic Strengths identified below are listed in their order of significance, beginning with the most significant:

Strength 1 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development

[from the Strategic Plan Goal 10-1.2 (By July2011, complete integration of One Cleanup Program to the extent allowed by law)]

1. Geologists play a critical role as a part of the cross-program; interdisciplinary team and we are an important link with other disciplines. We have skills and experience, and provide unifying services the Project Managers and Performance Managers want and need. Our broad geotechnical experience and cross program experience and specialized knowledge of regulatory and program issues make us a critical link in the development of the One Cleanup Program.

a. The Office of Geology Management Group will leverage this strength where possible by helping to integrate Performance Management strategies into our outputs.

i. Encouraging and training staff to incorporate the Triad approach into our training, tracking and general project approach; specifically focusing on measurement, flexibility and starting with an Exit Strategy in mind.

ii. Encouraging staff to discuss project needs and tailor Office of Geology outputs to the needs of the project including critical flaw reviews to meet budgets or timelines, electronic outputs and verbal consultation.

i. Encourage staff to help Project Managers incorporate Performance Measures where appropriate.

b. The Office of Geology Management Group will track progress by:

i. Tracking staff workload and overtime,ii. Tracking the type of outputs requested by the Project

Managers,



iii. Surveying Project Managers and Program Supervisors regarding their perception of our work and the value they feel they received,

iv. Encouraging staff to use the Office of Geology Guide to Consultation (to be developed),

1. The Office of Geology Management Group will track progress by checking with staff monthly and reporting to Karen at least quarterly.



Strength 2 Intermediate Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Development

[from the Strategic Plan Goal 10-2 (DTSC Demonstrates Leadership in Developing and Utilizing the Scientific, Technical and Engineering Knowledge that Protects Public Health and the Environment), Objective 10-2.1 (By Dec. 2014, facilitate external knowledge transfer by expanding public-private partnerships, enhancing communication with external counterparts including business, community, academia, scientific associations, environmental groups, and state and federal and local governments) and 10-2.2 (By Nov. 20102 develop new scientific and technical knowledge that will enhance DTSCs capacity for sound policy and decision-making processes and promote new environmental technologies and alternatives)]

2. We are licensed Professional Geologists that provide timely, responsive, innovative new approaches to help solve problems. The Office of Geology uses modeling expertise to change the way money and time is spent in addressing site issues. Our expertise allows us to ensure that investigations conducted and money spent results in the highest quality environmental data used as the basis for decision making. Our services can be scaled such that our experience and knowledge can be focused on particular technical issues to conserve costs. Historical workload and the use of geographic specialization areas (geologists assigned to geographic areas) have allowed Office of Geology staff to develop specialized lithologic knowledge. Additionally, staff that are assigned to projects for extended periods of time maintain institutional knowledge of projects and continuity, with reduced learning curves. We bring professional expertise in diverse disciplines such as:

- Site Characterization and Remediation (In-situ and Ex-situ) - Multi-media site investigations (soil, groundwater, and soil

gas) - Hydrogeology and Modeling - Geochemistry - Geophysics - Vapor intrusion

a. The Office of Geology Management Group will leverage these strengths by building relationships with Regional Performance Managers and Supervisors through quarterly meetings,

i. Regional staff will also build relationships with the Project Managers by aligning Office of Geology outputs with project needs and conditions.





ii. Highlight staff and project achievements and showcase remediation talents by presenting accomplishments in at least two Regional Staff meetings (per Region, per year),

iii. Publishing at least two relevant Office of Geology articles per year in the DTSC News (2 total for entire Office of Geology),

b. The Management Group will track progress by reporting back in the monthly Supervisors meeting.

iv. The Management Group will track projects moving to remediation to help forecast future needs.



Strength 3 Intermediate to Long Term Scientific Leadership (from the BSC) Development

c. We are licensed Professional Geologists with a broad range of experience and we are capable of developing new guidance and updating existing guidance. We are co-located with the Regional staff and able to provide technical consultation and training to the staff.

a. The Office of Geology Management Group will: i. Develop a training program to forecast needs and

capabilities for providing internal and external training,ii. Develop a series of specialized technical

seminars/workshops for Program staff and outside groups such as RWQCB as appropriate to introduce new guidance and re-acquaint staff with existing guidance



i. Will include training for the Water Boardiii. Work with the Training Office to evaluate outside training

that can be brought in for internal training,iv. Update the 1995 Hydrogeologic Guidance Documents, v. The Management Group will track progress by monitoring

the number of trainings provided, personnel trained, documents completed.



Summary of Internal Weaknesses to BolsterStrengths can be assets but they can also be deficits when we focus too much on our strengths and do not apply the appropriate level of attention to our weaknesses. As with any excursion into the future, there is confusion about who we may be. A clear Mission and Vision provides the guidance to help us understand when something is within our range or beyond our range. Weaknesses can be expected to abound in this unclear area.

A number of our perceived weaknesses in 2008 centered around our understanding of how our clients perceived us. While we are unable to take those off the list this year, they seem to hold less significance. The key strategic Weaknesses identified below are listed in their order of significance, beginning with the most significant:

Weakness 1 Short Term Customer Service (from the BSC) Improvement

1. The role of the Office of Geology may be unclear to the Program and we may be too narrowly focused on technical issues, thereby losing sight of the big-picture project perspective.

a. The Management Group will work with clients to understand their needs and raise their awareness of the service we can provide and the value we add.

i. The Management Group will also discuss the need to develop and revise Project Exit Strategies with Program Supervisors and Managers to facilitate project plans in alignment with the Triad training Alfredo Zanoria and his team just completed.

ii. Staff will also meet with the clients at the beginning of the project to work on an Exit Strategy and gain a better understanding of the project and the project needs, key factors and level of effort required.

b. The Management Group will track our progress by preparing annual surveys or evaluations to gain better insight into the perceptions of our contribution to the project success.



Weakness 2 Short Term Customer Service (from the BSC) Improvement

2. We have a tendency to focus on technical work versus providing external outreach and training to our clients. As a result we may be losing touch with our client’s perspective and needs.

a. Supervisors must work with our clients to understand their needs and raise their awareness of the service we can provide and the value we add.

i. The Supervisors will develop a one page check list (Office of Geology Guide to Consultation) for Office of Geology staff to follow when meeting to discuss projects. The check list will include:

1. Scope of project,2. Project history and former geological input (this is

especially important for sites that come in as the result of the PE/PG memo that have not had a geologist assigned. We do not want to go back to square one, rather we need to pick-up from where we are),

3. Performance Measures,4. Timeline and important deadlines,5. Projects needs, output form and requirements 6. Exit Strategy.

b. The Office of Geology Management Group will track our progress by holding quarterly Supervisor meetings and tracking the perceptions and needs of our clients.



Weakness 3 Intermediate and Long Term Internal Process (from the BSC) Improvement

3. We do not have a well-organized statewide database for groundwater, chemical constituents, lithology, geology memorandums and tools. Additionally, the State is moving towards a centralized information management structure and a uniform data format approach is needed to prevent having data stored in a multitude of different formats, programs and locations (especially personal computer hard drives).

a. The Office of Geology will designate staff to work with the GIS Team and EnviroStor to establish/develop the standards and databases we need.

i. John Naginis and John Karachewski will represent the Office of Geology on the GIS Team to implant Geology and Modeling requirements into the DTSC GIS process and thereby into the State Information technology grand plan.

ii. John Naginis and John Karachewski will work with Craig Christmann and Alice Campbell to test the usability of the current GeoTracker format with the intent of optimizing the format for the future.

1. Problems already encountered include multiple contaminants names, elevation/datum variations etc.

iii. John Naginis, John Karachewski and Craig Christmann will track and report progress quarterly to the Office of Geology Management Group.

b. The Office of Geology Management Group will track progress via informal feedback at monthly or quarterly Supervisors meetings.

4. The budget woes have compelled political interests to scrutinize all forms of travel and training threatening our ability to continue as scientific leaders.

5. We maintain a heavy workload and in some cases we have backlogged projects.

Recommended Strategic Plan Initiatives for 2010-2012



Office of Geology Initiative 1

The Office of Geology will collaborate with the Engineering and Special Projects Office and the Superfund Team to develop an Optimization Guide for use in evaluating existing project Operation and Maintenance activities to see if costs savings may be obtained through remediation system optimization.



Appendices



Appendix A GSUs Role in the Cleanup Process



GSU’s Role in the Cleanup Process

We are a provider of high quality technical consultative service to our clients. Our staff is in direct contact with the internal clients we serve and external stakeholder that are affected by our products. Client and stakeholder satisfaction is rooted in our ability to provide the right product, at the right time and it must help our clients solve their problems. Their satisfaction is rooted in the following five questions:

1. The accuracy of the work product (output) we provide (i.e., is it the product they want, and does it help them solve their problem).

2. Is the precision appropriate for the task (i.e. did we provide a finely tuned Ferrari when an out-of-tune pick-up truck would do)?

3. Did we bring the important issues to their attention? 4. Did we get them the product they needed when they needed it?5. Did our work product help them identify and resolve the problem (i.e.

did it add value)? If not; then we missed an opportunity.

Process Continuum

Our Internal Process depends on the activities performed by others before our involvement (upstream activities) that can affect our product. Our internal processes primarily affect downstream (subsequent) users and cross stream stakeholders (people in similar roles in another program, another office or another agency) so we must be cognizant of these outside influences and the impact they may have.

Figure 1 Example of GSU Role within the Cleanup Process



As you can imagine, we could fine tune our process so it runs perfectly (for us), but an action by another program or office (especially upstream) can greatly impact our process and our product, and we cannot rely on others to consider the impact their processes have on us. Figure 1 graphically shows how our process fits within the overall Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program process. As you can see, upstream activities or tasks (Contract Requirements, Scoping Meeting, Budget, and Schedule) impact our performance, and our process impacts downstream users (our clients and stakeholders).

Responsible Parties (RPs) and property owners, or facility workers and neighbors may be indirectly affected by the outcome of our process so we need to keep them in mind when we prepare our outputs (work products). Finally, other stakeholders that must be considered include the supervisors, performance managers, executive staff and politically motivated entities. Figure 2 highlights stakeholders that are or may be affected by our process.

Figure 2 Stakeholders, Donors and Customers



Appendix B SWOT Process



SWOT Analysis

One of the first steps in the change process is the diagnosis of the current situation by performing a Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat evaluation, commonly referred to as a SWOT. SWOTs allow organizations to identify pertinent; opportunities (new and emerging conditions in the market), anticipated threats (closing markets and substantial outside influences), strengths (what the organization does well) and weaknesses (areas where improvement is needed) so the organization can determine how to best apply its resources.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and ThreatsSWOTs typically focus on internal Strengths and abilities which in our case often focus on our technical strengths and professional registrations. But a SWOT must look at larger issues including the processes we use and the perceptions our clients have of us and our work products. We may have great professional registrations and breadth of professional experience, and we may produce impeccable, grammatically precise memorandums, that miss target entirely. We simply must remember that the whole reason we exist is to hit the target, with both precision and accuracy.

Managing perceptions is tricky and varies by stakeholder, but we must manage the perceptions of our clients and stakeholders if we want to succeed. Therefore we need to incorporate the management and staff concerns and perceptions into our evaluation.

A SWOT Analysis is: a critical set of internal assessments (including an analysis of our performance against our previous plan) and external assessments [including an analysis of the operating environment (refer to Figures 1 and 2)] that result in an honest assessment of our strengths, weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats confronting us. A SWOT is a complex analysis that requires matching external possibilities with internal capabilities. We can begin by asking ourselves the questions outlined below.

External Evaluation

The External Evaluation focuses on identifying things we believe we should be involved in, things we want to be involved in and things we need to be involved in. This is the step where we try and identify opportunities with the potential to help us rise to a higher level and threats and obstacles that can /tt/file_convert/5f25f8b646703132db230c6d/document.docx


detrimentally affect our future. We need to consider the “cost” and the “missed opportunity cost” associated with each.

Opportunities:What opportunities lay ahead of us??Are there trends that we can take advantage of?What technology-related opportunities have arisen?

Threats:What obstacles do we anticipate?What trends in the environmental market are looming that could impact DTSC?What technology-related threats are there currently?What sort of resource problems do we anticipate (State budget issues for example) and what impact do we expect?

Internal Evaluation

The Internal Evaluation focuses on what do we do that is good now (our strengths), how can we maintain it, build on it and leverage it? The flip side of the internal evaluation is what do we do poorly, what should we fix or stop doing? Will we miss an opportunity by not doing something? What investment of time and resources is necessary to take advantage of the opportunity? A few questions to begin each discussion are provided below:

Strengths: In general, where do we have an advantage over others? What specific strengths give us that advantage?Specifically which strengths position us to take advantage of opportunities we’ve identified? What do we do well?

Weaknesses: What do we do poorly?Can we improve it and will the benefit outweigh the cost? What is the cost to us if we can’t or don’t do these things?

In Summary; Strengths need to be maintained, built upon or leveraged. Weaknesses need to be strengthened or avoided. Opportunities need to be prioritized and optimized. Threats need to be minimized, countered or avoided.



Appendix C 2008 SWOT Summary



The following table provides our SWOT from 2008. I suggest we build on this one by removing items that bear less significance and adding significant and emerging items. The major categories provided below are ranked by importance from 1-5 (one being most important) with the remainder un-rated. Again, our goal is to identify potential impacts that could directly or indirectly affect GSU. 2008 External Evaluation Opportunities for EGSB -or- Industry wide, Prioritized best-2-least

Trends/ Technology related

2) Provide Modeling Internal DTSC and External to CalEPA.- Do test case in R3- Full involvement will req. resources.- Evaluate possibilities of providing

Geo/Eng support to WB & CUPAs.

1) Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training.- Host symposiums etc.- Develop and distribute statewide

guidance and- Host intra & interagency training.

5) Establish Centralized, Cross Regulation, Multi-Media Tech Services.- Develop GIS & Become a Resource

to DTSC and WB.

3) Lead Field use of Nanotechnologies, Analytical Testing, Modeling & Guidance- Expand EGSB Involvement in ITRC and

ASTM.- Use ASTM as Core Guidance/Methods.

Increase Use of e-Deliverables & Use Mtgs. or Direct Comments in Docs. To speed-up the Process.

4) Work on integration of Geotracker/Envirostore Team.

Establish Engineering/Geology Team to Evaluate Landfill Redevelopment.

DTSC Management paradigm shift to cradle to cradle. Develop Green Remedial Technologies

2008 External Evaluation Threats or Obstacles, Competition, Resource issues etc., Prioritized by severity and nearness

CPR/Reorg -or- Technology

1) Program perceives lack of control, poor response, divergent mission and ability to expose Program weaknesses.

2) Internal merge with Corrective Action will result in a Culture Clash.

Water Board Geo.s perceived as being faster and cheaper.

3) DTSC reorganization may change or eliminate separate support groups.

CUPA’s overseeing projects without DTSC oversight. May decrease our work load and poor consistency/ quality.

4) Numerous “teams” divert time and resources but participation offers opportunity to impact ultimate geometry of EGSB.

Reclassification of positions & diversion of work.

Matrix/Team structure being considered for project teams. A new team structure may dilute EGSB cohesion.



CPR may occur and will greatly impact our design and function.



2008 Internal EvaluationStrengths: what we do well/Advantages. Linked-2 Opportunities & Prioritized Best-2-worst2) We have diverse expertise, and we are co-located with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff. Can shift resources to meet needs.

1) We provide Licensed professional staff that provide assurances and protection for managers.

3) We see a wide range of projects and have extensive well rounded project experience

4) EGSB Culture is based on customer service and Professional Integrity.

5) We are a neutral 3rd party, able to be objective, check and balance w/o AWP requirements.

We have seen a lot and can easily see many issues and we can help.

2008 Internal EvaluationWeaknesses, what we don’t do well/ Disadvantages, Linked-2 Threats & Prioritized by danger.1) We are seen as aloof, not part of team, and having different goal than Program.

- Separate tech services viewed as detached, aloof and lack of control.

3) Programs can go-it alone, cheaper, faster, avoids exposure of program shortcomings.

2) We are perceived as gold platers, that over-study issues but we are more trusted than consultants

4) We perceive Licensing threats by inadequate work that the Program may not recognize.

We must follow outdated laws 5) VCA’s are written by staff that do not have to implement them and do not include an enforceable schedule or Program to weak to enforce orders.

The current bureaucracy limits speed of response, which increases cost.

Consultants have better presentation tools and make more appealing presentations.

Cycle time for Resp. 2 Comments slow and may require time to get reacquainted with the project after long delays by RP.

Staff avg. age closer to retirement



Appendix D R2 (Berkeley) 2010 SWOT



R2 GSU 2010 SWOT NotesThe following table provides my notes from the R2 GSU SWOT analysis conducted 7/6/2010. The notes are provided as a starting point for you to use as a tool to finalize your R2 GSU SWOT assessment. You will undoubtedly modify the issues listed herein. I suggest you focus on the main points that are most important and avoid spending a lot of time debating specific language and grammar. It is far more important to identify the key points than it is to have perfect grammar. Any ranking remaining below is a remnant of the 2008 SWOT. Change them in accordance with your new evaluation. Again, our goal is to identify potential impacts that could directly or indirectly affect GSU. External Evaluation Opportunities for EGSB -or- Industry wide, Prioritized best-2-least







to DTSC and WB.

3) Implement use of Nanotechnologies, Modeling & Guidance

Increase Use of e-Deliverables & use mtgs. or direct comments in docs. to speed-up the process in select situations. May have lower transparency.


Establish Engineering/Geology Team to Evaluate Landfill Redevelopment.

Support Green Remediation and sustainable technologies

Support mitigation and adaptation to climate change (pumping water uses energy which may contribute to climate change)

Expand EGSB Involvement in ITRC and ASTM and communicate ASTM standards internally and externally.

Support innovative real time field methods for Triad

Evaluate use of ITRC, USEPA, ASTM and others as Core Guidance

Develop Groundwater and drinking water capabilities

TDS issues for storing drinking water

Support the use of mass flux approach to cleanups

PE/PG Memorandum expected in 2010

O&M 5 year review evaluation and optimization

Work with ESPO

Abandoned Mines sites and tailing Raise awareness of Emerging



areas may present ecco risk Contaminants in all mediaGSU can help re-evaluate and re-optimize Superfund sites

Reach out to Water Board for collaboration and be aware of WB issues

Former bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/6/2010 mtg. in italics



External Evaluation Threats or Obstacles, Competition, Resource issues etc., Prioritized by severity and nearness

CPR/Reorg -or- Tecnology


4) Numerous “teams” divert time and resources but participation offers opportunity to impact ultimate geometry of EGSB

Water Board approach perceived as being faster and cheaper.

Politics, Governor changing


Economy is poor, Layoffs possible, $$??, possibility of losing positions (no backfilling)

Travel restrictions and hoops we must jump through to travel

No money for training

Pay differential for Sups and Seniors (hard to get Sups)

We are a window services, we wait for work to come our way

Water Board low-threat closure approach - perception by industry it is cheaper and faster

Failed graves?




Internal EvaluationStrengths: what we do well/Advantages. Linked-2 Opportunities & Prioritized Best-2-worst2) We have diverse expertise, and we strive to be co-located with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff. Can shift resources to meet needs.






Hydrogeology Experience




Internal EvaluationWeaknesses, what we don’t do well/ Disadvantages, Linked-2 Threats & Prioritized by danger.1) We are seen as aloof, not part of team, and having different goal than Program.


3) Programs perceive they can go faster alone, cheaper



We must follow outdated lawsThe current bureaucracy limits speed of response, which increases cost.




Inconsistencies across DTSC in memos. Lack of internal searchable GSU memo database

GSU (sometimes) not brought in early enough

R2 may need more geo’s because work going to R1, some work not getting done, PG/PE memo. May not have enough geo’s to meet Strategic Plan commitments

Difficult to get training during economic downturn, making it difficult to be world leaders without training and travel

Training restrictions make it difficult to see emerging Env. issues technologies making it difficult to provide internal training to staff on emerging trends




Appendix E R3/4 (Chatsworth/Cypress) 2010 SWOT 7/19/2010



R3/4 GSU 2010 SWOT NotesThe following table provides my notes from the R3/4 GSU SWOT analysis conducted 7/19/2010. The notes are provided as a starting point for you to use as a tool to finalize your R3/4 GSU SWOT assessment. You will undoubtedly modify the issues listed herein. I suggest you focus on the main points that are most important and avoid spending a lot of time debating specific language and grammar. It is far more important to identify the key points than it is to have perfect grammar. Any ranking remaining below is a remnant of the 2008 SWOT. Change them in accordance with your new evaluation. Again, our goal is to identify potential impacts that could directly or indirectly affect GSU. External Evaluation Opportunities for EGSB -or- Industry wide, Prioritized best-2-least






5) Establish Centralized, Cross Regulation, Multi-Media Tech Services.-

3) Do studies and lead field use of Nanotechnologies in GH2O Modeling & Guidance

Increase Use of e-Deliverables & use mtgs. or direct comments in docs. to speed-up the process in select situations. May have.

4) Continue integration of Geotracker/EnviroStor Team.

Increase participation in Engineering /Geology TRIAD Redevelopment Brownfield process.

Expand GSU involvement and participation in and use of ASTM and ITRC methods as core guidance and get Exec. Staff support for our involvement.

Develop GIS & Become a Resource to DTSC and WB. Obtain access to air photos, infrastructure (bldgs.) etc.

Form a GSU group to represent GSU and help select, integrate and use lithologic software compatible with the GIS Team and infrastructure.

Strengthen relationship with ESOP Include Regional Conceptual Model into arsenal for GH2O and DH2O

Follow p2dw lead and work with Water Districts and water Board

Work with USEPA to change process of “Contaminant RODs” to include/focus on mass removal

There is a general reluctance to issues orders in cases that have not been resolved

San Fernando, Tujunga 50% of LAWDP DH2Owells shut down.



Use John N. and John K. to integrate our efforts with the GIS Team approach so they are interoperable and formatted the same.

Establish and develop a GSU/Toxicologist Vapor Intrusion link/workgroup

Establish access database (compatible with GIS Team process) for new data submittals.

Get searchable edata form RPs or get “OCR” Optical Characteristics Recognition software.

Expand GSU role working with water Districts

Hire students to input data

Former bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/19/2010 mtg. shaded & in italics





Matrix/Team structure being considered for project teams. A new team structure may dilute GSU cohesion.

DTSC is losing $$ to O&M at large superfund projects and it is expected to increase.


Hiring freeze, loss of benefits may make it hard to recruit and hire. Also possibility of layoffs. Budget problems may lead to early retirement and loss of institutional knowledge.

VCA writers sometimes under-budget VCAs to get project

Budget issues and travel restrictions may cost us our technical leadership position (may need to focus on internal training)

Elimination of the Board of Geology (perceived as a loss of power)

PE/PG memorandum may impact our workload [good (more work) and bad (same or fewer staff to do work)]

Pay disparity between Sr. geo and Sup geos make it hard to hire Sups.

Sometimes PMs do not use our comments

Some redevelopment agencies may want to take shortcuts that short circuit the system.

Staff geos working in a vacuum without our influence, may result in inconsistencies.

Superfund lead sites may come to DTSC soon and bring huge O&M price tags that divert money from other important tasks.Former bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/19/2010 mtg. shaded & in italics



Internal EvaluationStrengths: what we do well/Advantages. Linked-2 Opportunities & Prioritized Best-2-worst2) The unified GSU has diverse expertise, and strives to be co-located with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff. Can shift resources to meet needs.





Our group consulting background and experience contributes to our strengths

We are sought out to develop specialized guidance

We can and should use the P2dw model to diversify and grow in the groundwater and drinking water arena.

In many cases the Geos hold the institutional knowledge for sites where PM and consultants have changed multiple times. If Geos retire early due to the budget issues or layoffs, we may lose this institutional knowledge. Estimate ~ 5 yrs out but should plan for it.Our unification and guidance documents help promote consistency across the Dept.Former bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/19/2010 mtg. shaded & in italics



Internal EvaluationWeaknesses, what we don’t do well/ Disadvantages, Linked-2 Threats & Prioritized by danger.1) We are seen as aloof, not part of team, and having different goal than Program.








Lack of large project database for management/Geo use

Workload is heavy, some units have backlog. This may get worse with the PE/PG memo.

Need additional training for hydrogeologists in groundwater and drinking water, but training and travel dollars are limited, need to consider alternative, internal training, GeoSym etc.

Unsure of outside impression of GSU The timing appears good to consider agency coordination opportunities

Conflicting opinions and processes exist

USEPA Containment RODs can be very expensive and do little to remove mass, need to change USEPA Process.

Former bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/19/2010 mtg. shaded & in italics



Appendix F R1 (Sacramento) 2010 SWOT 7/29/2010



R1 GSU 2010 SWOT Notes

The following table provides my notes from the R2 GSU SWOT analysis conducted 7/28/2010. The notes are provided as a starting point for you to use as a tool to finalize your R1 GSU SWOT assessment. You will undoubtedly modify the issues listed herein. I suggest you focus on the main points that are most important and avoid spending a lot of time debating specific language and grammar. It is far more important to identify the key points than it is to have perfect grammar. Any ranking remaining below is a remnant of the 2008 SWOT. Change them in accordance with your new evaluation. You should complete your Unit SWOT and ranking by August 11, 2010. Again, our goal is to identify potential impacts that could directly or indirectly affect GSU. External Evaluation Opportunities for EGSB -or- Industry wide, Prioritized best-2-least


2) Provide Geological services including Modeling Internal to DTSC and External to CalEPA.- Do test case in R3- Full involvement will req. resources.- Evaluate possibilities of providing





to DTSC and WB.

3) Implement use of Nanotechnologies, Modeling & Guidance

Increase Use of e-Deliverables & use mtgs. or direct comments in docs. to speed-up the process.


Providing continued support to Proj. Mgrs.

Focus on strategic approach to projects through early involvement and mentoring. Establish and build relationships with Proj. Mgrs.

Advocate geology role in remediation, and possibly in the green remediation team.

Collaborate with ESOP, get on same page

Budget concerns – programs unable to hire so now using GSU more (Stringfellow as an example). Are there other opportunities in other programs?

We can give technical presentations as a way of marketing our services. We should also look into marketing our geo capabilities to others.

Kern Valley water shortage may be PE/PG memo may be an opportunity for



able to help the Central valley Water Board consider infiltrations areas.

more work, could also be a threat.

Advocate Triad approach to Proj. Mgrs. Market services to Abandoned Mines Team

PMs converting Geos Market services to Dept of pesticide Regulation

Dedicated geos bring professional credibility to projects internally and externallyFormer bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/28/2010 mtg. in italics





Water Board approach perceived as being faster and cheaper.

Geos not viewed as important part of the remediation team


Budget issues, losing positions and unable to backfill can create internal completion for our services.

Performance Based contracts being used on military projects ignore GSU memos. Could be a threat because Proj. Mgrs may stop using us.

PE/PG memo may overwhelm GSUs capabilities. Programs may backfill vacancies with Geos (if they can) which would dilute GSU consistency.

Travel restrictions limit GSUs ability to assemble which reduces personal interaction, morale and may impact consistency.

Retirement benefits are dwindling, which may make it difficult to hire experienced Geos.




Internal EvaluationStrengths: what we do well/Advantages. Linked-2 Opportunities & Prioritized Best-2-worst2) We have diverse expertise, and we strive to be co-located with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff. Can shift resources to meet needs.






We hold institutional knowledge, (if we leave much of that knowledge leaves with us a threat).

There is prestige being in GSU because we lend credibility to Proj. Mgrs and Programs as support.

Staff do not want to leave GSU, our morale is relatively good and we have a low turn-over.

We bring a relatively consistent, holistic perspective to projects.

Vapor Intrusion expertise/experience Hydrogeo expertise/experienceGeophysics expertise/experienceFormer bullets in regular type, new bullets from 7/28/2010 mtg. in italics



Internal EvaluationWeaknesses, what we don’t do well/ Disadvantages, Linked-2 Threats & Prioritized by danger.1) We could be seen as aloof, not part of team, and having different goal than Program.





We must follow outdated laws and guidance.





Have to work on guidance documents which may divert us from our core responsibility of supporting Program project work. The PE/PG memo may exacerbate this concern.

We are viewed as a drain on project $ Inability or restricted ability to rehireTrack our work in 6 different ways HQ does not understand the Programs

core work




Appendix G Unit SWOT Comparisons

[Developed during our meeting with Sups and one staff representative per region. We began by consolidating comments from the Unit for Opportunities and Threats and then worked into consolidating the Strengths and weaknesses. The colors were used during the meeting to group similar thoughts from different Regions (Sims and Diffs)]


Opportunities (External)1. Budget constraints may result in an increased use of GSU services in programs and departments who have previously used their own resources to complete geologic work:

Stringfellow Project Modeling (internal and external to

DTSC) Ground water storage and

conjunctive use projects—DWR and MWD storage in San Joaquin Basin or Los Angeles Basin

Abandoned Mines Team Dept of Pesticides Registration Other BDOs

1. There may be an increase in GSU role on Orphan sites. For example, we could write and implement workplans currently prepared by outside contractors, in addition to providing reviews. 1b. Expand GSU role working with water Districts- Follow P2dw lead and work with Water

Districts and water Board,- Include Regional Conceptual Model into

arsenal for GH2O (groundwater) and DH2O (drinking water),

San Fernando, Tujunga 50% of LAWDP DH2Owells shut down.

1. Provide Modeling Internal DTSC and External to CalEPA.- Do test case in R3- Full involvement will req. resources.- Evaluate possibilities of providing

Geo/Eng support to WB & CUPAs.- 1b. Using the p2dw model, undertake greater

coordination with the Water Board and affected water purveyors in select areas

where the nature of groundwater contamination and risk to the public merit high level inter-agency coordinated action.

2. Establish Centralized, Cross Regulation, Multi-Media Tech Services.

- Develop GIS & Become a Resource to DTSC and WB.

2. Establish Centralized, Cross Regulation, Multi-Media Tech Services. - Develop GIS & Become a Resource to

DTSC and WB. Obtain access to air photos, infrastructure (bldgs.) etc.

- Use John N. and John K. to integrate our efforts with the GIS Team approach so they are interoperable and formatted the same.

- Establish access database (compatible with GIS Team process) for new data submittals.

- Continue integration of Geotracker/EnviroStor Team.

- Get searchable edata form RPs or get “OCR” Optical Characteristics Recognition software.

- Hire students to input data.

2. Expand GSU awareness and involvement in current efforts to expand and integrate GIS technology into DTSC work; coordinate with JNaginis and JKarachewski to integrate our efforts with GIS Team; develop plans for in-house GSU GIS training.

3. Support Green Remediation and sustainable technologies

3. As projects move away from an emphasis in site characterization towards remediation, there is an increase role for GSU support, particularly with in-situ remediation design and implementation (such as

soil vapor extraction, in-situ chemical injection, bioremediation).3. Strengthen relationship with ESOP

4. Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training. - Host symposiums etc. - Develop and distribute statewide

guidance and - Host intra & interagency training.

4. Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training. - Host symposiums etc. - Develop and distribute statewide

guidance and - Host intra & interagency training,- Expand GSU involvement and

participation in and use of ASTM and ITRC methods as core guidance and get Exec. Staff support for our involvement,

- Form a GSU group to represent GSU and help select, integrate and use lithologic software compatible with the GIS Team and infrastructure,

- Establish and develop a GSU/Toxicologist Vapor Intrusion link/workgroup.

4. Expand GSU involvement in development of use of ASTM and ITRC standards and methods; expand GSU utilization of these guidance materials; get Exec Staff support in this effort.

5. An opportunity exists to provide support to Project Managers who have not used GSU in the past and focus on a strategic approach to projects through early involvement and mentoring. We can build relationships with PMs and work with PMs outside of the document review forum by serving as a holistic resources for the project.

5. The anticipated release of the PE/PG memo could result in an opportunity for more work for GSU.

5. Support innovative real time field methods for Triad

0. Work on integration of Geotracker/Envirostore Team.


Strengths (Internal)INTRODUCTION We are passionate about our work, taking pride in doing excellent work. As a result, we have low turnover; those who come to GSU tend to stay in GSU.

INTRODUCTION We work as a team rather than in isolated units. We regularly collaborate with other GSU colleagues, sharing experience and technical strengths, thereby assuring our ability to stay current.

1. We provide professional [licensed (2)] expertise in diverse disciplines such as:

Remediation (In-situ and Ex-situ) Multi-media site investigations

(soil, groundwater, and soil gas) Hydrogeology Modeling Geochemistry Geophysics Vapor intrusion

1. We have diverse expertise, and we strive to be co-located with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff. Can shift resources to meet needs.

1. We see a wide range of projects and have extensive well rounded project experience.

1. The unified GSU has diverse expertise, and strives to be co-located

with projects and have knowledge of local conditions and staff.

- Can shift resources to meet needs,

- We see a wide range of projects and have extensive well rounded project experience.

- 1. GSU staff have high rate of prior private consulting experience, including project management roles, making them valuable DTSC assets in dealing with regulated community and private consultants.

2. We provide Licensed professional staff that provide assurances and protection for managers.

2. We provide Licensed professional staff that provide assurances and protection for managers,

- Our group consulting background and experience contributes to our strengths.

2. Very high rate of licensure among GSU staff provide assurance and protection to managers; makes the GSU a highly valued resource in DTSC.

3. EGSB Culture is based on customer service and Professional Integrity.

3. We’re an objective, impartial resource, available for consultation and advice and/or general guidance related to geotechnical matters

3. We are service oriented with an ability to scale the scope of our services to meet the needs of the Project Manager.

3. We’re an objective, impartial resource, available for consultation and

advice and/or general guidance related to geotechnical matters.

3. GSU staff cater to projects from all programs, resulting in well-rounded perspective on DTSC corrective action, broad-based technical expertise, and versatility in responding to fast-changing needs and conditions.

3. GSU institutional culture is steeped in customer service and professional integrity, which enhances GSU reputation and sets standard for others.

4. In many cases the Geos hold the institutional knowledge for sites where PM and consultants have changed multiple times.

- If Geos retire early due to the budget issues or layoffs, we may lose this institutional knowledge. Estimate ~ 5 yrs out but should plan for it.

4. Geos are typically most familiar with the technical details about a site, for which reason, it is GSU policy to avoid changing assignments unless really necessary. This often results in the geo holding the institutional knowledge for sites where PMs and consultants have changed multiple times.

5. We remain current in a continually changing field, and are scientific leaders in the geologic/environmental arena.

0. We can and should use the P2dw model to diversify and grow in the groundwater and drinking water arena. (TACTIC)



Threats (External)1. Travel restrictions limits or eliminates the GSU oversight role

Inability to travel to site-related meetings impacts our ability to have a strong role in determining the outcome of projects

Inability to travel to site during field work results in work completed without regulatory oversight.

1. Travel restrictions with respect to conference and training attendance may result in out-dated, out-of-touch staff. GSU may not be able to maintain our current high level of expertise if we can’t attend technical conferences and training.

1 Hiring freeze, loss of benefits may make it hard to recruit and hire. Also possibility of layoffs. Budget problems may lead to early retirement and loss of institutional knowledge,

- Pay disparity between Sr. geo and Sup Geos make it hard to hire Sups.

1 Budget issues and travel restrictions may cost us our technical leadership position (may need to focus on internal training).

1 Current budget situation has resulted in furloughs, hiring freezes, travel restrictions and other constraints that diminish the ability of the GSU to get its work done on time, backfill positions with qualified personnel, undertake training, and perform other

essential actions for maintaining the quality of its performance.

1. Pay disparity between Senior Tech and Supervising undermines GSU morale.

2. GSU is currently excluded from many remediation, State-lead, NPL, and permit-maintenance projects.

2. DTSC Headquarters seems disconnected with the Program’s core work, and uninformed as to what we do.

2. Program perceives lack of control, poor response, divergent mission and ability to expose Program weaknesses.

2 Program perceives lack of control, poor response, divergent mission and ability to expose program weaknesses.

6 Staff Geos working in a vacuum without our influence, may result in inconsistencies.

- Sometimes PMs do not use our comments.

3 Superfund lead sites may come to DTSC soon and bring huge O&M price tags that divert money from other important tasks,

3 DTSC is losing $$ to O&M at large superfund projects and it is expected to increase.

3. DTSC’s taking over of Supefund-lead sites will put additional demands on GSU personnel &resources; O&M price tags may divert resources away from GSU’s vital needs.

4. Numerous “teams” divert time and resources but participation offers

opportunity to impact ultimate geometry of EGSB.

4. GSU has been given little role or input in decisions regarding the formation of teams; this result in purely reactive mode in dealing with new requests for personnel and resources.

5. The increased use of performance-based (or fixed-price) contracts by Responsible Parties may result in GSU comments being ignored, which could lead to decreased or limited use of GSU by Project Managers.

6. Limited interface between GSU and non-GSU geos promote inconsistencies in DTSC’s application of technical standards; lack of peer review process for memos by non-GSU geos potentially undermines standards that GSU has worked to establish.

7 There is a general reluctance to issue orders in cases that have not been resolved.



Weaknesses (Internal)1. The role of the GSU may be unclear to the Program. There may be a misperception that GSU is a hindrance to completing work faster & cheaper.

1 Programs perceive they can go faster alone, cheaper.

1 We are perceived as gold platers, that over-study issues but we are more trusted than consultants.

1. We are seen as aloof, not part of team, and having different goal than Program.

- Separate tech services viewed as detached, aloof and lack of control,

- We are perceived as gold platers, that over-study issues but we are more trusted than consultants,

- Conflicting opinions and processes exist,

- Programs perceive they can go faster alone, cheaper.

1 Potential for overly narrow focus on technical issues, thereby losing sight of big-picture project perspective. This creates conflict with PMs and other team members, and outside perception of being aloof.

2. The budget woes have compelled political interests to scrutinize all forms of travel and training. The apparent restrictions discourage and/or restrict participation in external training, and conference. The travel restrictions will impinge on GSBs ability to remain current on new trends and research and could

threaten our ability to continue as scientific leaders and experts.

We have strong but limited staff with a high-level of expertise in certain areas, specifically; groundwater and vadose zone modeling, geophysics, and geostatistics. The restrictions come at a time when there is a renewed interest from outside and political pressure. The restriction can hamper our ability to respond to the outside interests appropriately .

3. We have a tendency to focus on technical work versus providing external outreach/training to our clients. But this focus on technical work means we may have neglected listening to and performing outreach to our clients. As a result we may begun losing touch with our clients perspective and needs.

4. We do not have a well-organized statewide database for groundwater, chemical constituents, lithology, geology memorandums, tools (such such as software, graphic design, specialized training) and other relevant information and reference materials. The establishment and development of a database or data libraries would allow GSB staff to more quickly respond to inquiries and to improve consistency by rapidly checking relevant sources.

5. We maintain a heavy workload and in some cases we have backlogged projects. Additional staffing could relieve some of the backlog and workload issues but budget restrictions, possible inability to hire and anticipated travel and training limitations could restrict our ability to respond to program needs.

0 Cycle time for Resp. 2 Comments slow and may require time to get reacquainted with the project after long delays by RP.

0GSU (sometimes) not brought in early enough.

0 We believe we may still be seen as having different goals than Program.


Appendix H Consolidated Office of Geology SWOT

[Once the like ideas were identified, I consolidated the ideas and wrote a brief narrative trying to capture the idea and remove redundancies etc. The intent of the consolidated Office of Geology (OG) SWOT is to provide a platform to use in Strategic Planning and a business plan for 2010-2012.]

INTRODUCTION

We who comprise the Office of Geology are passionate about the work we do and take pride in the work products we provide our clients. Excellence is not a cliché with us, but rather a simple statement of who we are. As a result, those who come to Office of Geology tend to stay in Office of Geology and we have a low turnover rate. We work as a team rather than in isolated units and we regularly collaborate with our colleagues, sharing experience and technical strengths, thereby assuring our ability to stay current in our ever-changing field.

Opportunities (External)1. Budget constraints may result in an increased use of Office of Geology services in programs. Departments that previously used their own resources to complete geologic work may call on Office of Geology for support. The following areas may represent growth/expansion opportunities: - Stringfellow Project,- Orphan sites,- Modeling (internal and external to

DTSC),- Ground water storage and

conjunctive use projects—DWR and MWD storage in San Joaquin Basin or Los Angeles Basin,

- Drinking water,- Abandoned Mines Team,- Dept. of Pesticides Registration,

- Other Boards, Departments and Offices.

2. The Pollution Prevention drinking water Team (P2dw) provides a model Office of Geology can use to expand our role working with Water Districts. Office of Geology can:- Follow P2dw lead and work with

Water Districts and Water Board,- Include Regional Conceptual Model

into arsenal for GH2O (groundwater) and DH2O (drinking water),

- Work with P2dw to protect California’s drinking water.

3. Office of Geology is uniquely positioned and skilled to integrate geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects into the GIS system. Office of Geology is already integrated into the GIS Team and is prepositioned to work with the GIS Team to establish a centralized, interagency, multi-media data library/warehouse and user platform. We can provide the technical services to:- Develop GIS & become a resource to

DTSC, Water Board, USEPA, United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Water Managers.

- Use Office of Geology representatives to integrate Office of geology efforts with the GIS Team approach so they are interoperable and formatted the same.

- Continue supporting integration of Geotracker/EnviroStor Team and the move towards electronic (e)data submittals.

- Get searchable edata from Responsible Parties (RPs) or get Optical Characteristics Recognition (OCR) software.

- Hire students to input data.

4. As projects move away from an emphasis on site characterization towards remediation, Office of Geology can play a role in support of in-situ and green remediation design and implementation (soil vapor extraction, in-situ chemical injection, bioremediation). We must sell our services to the program and strengthen our relationship with Engineering Special Projects Office (ESPO).

5. Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training. A portion of the scientific leadership should include expanding Office of Geology involvement in the development and use of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) standards and methods. We need to lead the integration of these standards and guidance into DTSC, in part to reduce our time writing guidance. To do so, we must gain Program and Executive staff support. In addition Office of Geology should:- Host symposiums (GeoSym) etc. - Participate in the development,

integration and distribution of guidance,

- Host intra & interagency training,- Establish and develop Office of

Geology /Toxicologist Vapor Intrusion link/workgroup.

6. The anticipated release of the Professional Engineer/Professional Geologist (PE/PG) memo and reductions in Program staffing through attrition and minimal rehiring may result in more work for Office of Geology.

Therefore an opportunity exists to provide support to Project Managers who have not used Office of Geology in the past.

This may provide us an opportunity to become involved early and build relationships with Project Managers and to expand our role beyond document review. We may be able to advise Project Managers on new innovative real time field methods.

Strengths (Internal)1. We have well rounded project experience. Many staff bring outside industry and consulting experience. The experience helps us understand underlying concerns/motivations of the Responsible Parties and their consultants.

When possible, we focus on geographic areas, so we develop in depth knowledge of local conditions. If we need to respond to specific demands, we are able to shift resources to meet Program and project needs.

We bring professional expertise in diverse disciplines such as: - Site Characterization and

Remediation (In-situ and Ex-situ)

- Multi-media site investigations (soil, groundwater, and soil gas)

- Hydrogeology and Modeling- Geochemistry- Geophysics- Vapor intrusion


2. We are licensed Professional Geologists that provide assurances and protection for managers, and credibility with outside stakeholders.

3. We are service oriented with an ability to scale the scope of our services to meet the needs of the Project Manager. Our Culture is based on service and Professional Integrity which enhances Office of Geology reputation and sets standards for others.

We believe we are objective and impartial, and we are very open to providing consultation and advice and/or general guidance related to geological matters

We provide professional geological service to Project Managers in all programs which gives us insight into the various aspects of DTSC corrective action and remediation. Our broad-based technical expertise allows us to be versatile so we may respond quickly and appropriately to fast-changing needs and conditions.

4. Geologists are typically most familiar with the technical details about a site and we try to avoid changing assignments. As a result, Geologists often times hold institutional knowledge for sites where Project Managers and consultants have changed. Holding this institutional knowledge is strength, but many of our staff are nearing retirement eligibility. The potential retirements, limited re-hiring capabilities (due to budget woes) and loss of institutional knowledge may

impact the remaining Geologists that have to pick-up projects and learn about new sites with limited staff. This strength may become a looming threat.

5. We remain current in a continually changing field, and are Departmental-scientific leaders in the geologic/environmental arena.

Threats (External)1 California State budget woes have resulted in furloughs, hiring difficulties, travel restrictions and other constraints. Decreased benefits and anticipated hiring restrictions may result in difficulties backfilling positions with qualified personnel, and may impact training necessary to maintain high quality outputs. Additionally, the budget problems could lead to early retirement of Office of Geology staff which will result in a loss of institutional knowledge at a time when back filling positions may be difficult.

Finally, the pay disparity between Senior Tech and Supervising Engineering Geologist has made it difficult to hire Supervisors. The restrictions outlined above could impact our ability to maintain a technical leadership position.

2. Office of Geology is generally not included in some remediation, State-lead, National Priorities List, and permit-maintenance projects. This may in part be due to a perception that our mission is different from the Program’s Mission. Since Office of Geology is a cohesive

Departmental resource that brings a level of consistency to projects, the lack of Office of Geology involvement may result in inconsistencies.

(The following comment was No. 6 but could combine with No. 2) Beyond these potential inconsistencies, there is limited interface between Office of Geology and non-Office of Geology Geos, which again can result in inconsistencies in DTSC’s application of technical standards. The lack of peer review for memorandums prepared by non- Office of Geology Geologists may undermine standards that Office of Geology has worked to establish and may result in inconsistencies.

3 Many large Superfund lead sites may come to DTSC soon and bring huge operation and Maintenance price tags that divert money from other important tasks. These projects may be labor intensive and once transferred, may place additional demands on Office of Geology personnel and resources. The drain on our DTSC staff time and resources may impact our ability to perform core Program Support tasks and may detrimentally impact sites dependant on General Fund dollars.

4. Numerous “teams” may divert time and resources from Office of Geology and have the potential to fragment Office of Geology s structure. The Office of Geology has typically had little input into decisions regarding the formation of the teams. But participation in teams provides an

opportunity to participate in a new way and at a new level.

5. The increased use of performance-based (or fixed-price) contracts by Responsible Parties may result in Office of Geology comments being ignored, which could lead to decreased or limited use of Office of Geology by Project Managers.

6. DTSC seems to be reluctant to issue orders, especially in cases that have not been resolved. Issues may remain open for long periods of time, allowing conditions to worsen and depressing morale.

7. The Water Board’s approach is perceived as being faster and cheaper by some parties, specifically: - Water Board low-threat closure

approach - Perception by industry as being

cheaper and faster.

Weaknesses (Internal)1. The role of the Office of Geology may be unclear to the Program and we may be too narrowly focused on technical issues, thereby losing sight of the big-picture project perspective. This narrow focus creates conflict with Project Managers and other team members, and may make us appear as a not sharing the same goals as the project team and thereby hindering progress.



Programs may perceive they can go faster and cheaper without Office of Geology involvement. Additionally, Office of Geology is sometimes perceived as over-studying issues which may result in conflicting opinions and place pressure on the Project Manager.

2. The budget woes have compelled political interests to scrutinize all forms of travel and training. The travel restrictions discourage and/or restrict participation in external training, and conferences, and will impinge on our ability to remain current on new trends and research, which threatens our ability to continue as scientific leaders.

We have strong but a limited number of staff with a high-level of expertise in certain areas, specifically; groundwater and vadose zone modeling, geophysics, and geostatistics. The travel/training restrictions may hamper our ability to respond to increased need.

3. We have a tendency to focus on technical work versus providing external outreach/training to our clients. As a result we may be losing touch with our client’s perspective and needs. We need to be more client focused in our outputs and outreach.

4. We do not have a well-organized statewide database for groundwater, chemical constituents, lithology, geology memorandums, tools (such such as software, graphic design, special training) and other relevant

information and reference materials. The establishment and development of a database or data libraries would allow Office of Geology staff to more quickly respond to inquiries and to improve consistency by rapidly checking relevant sources.

5. We maintain a heavy workload and in some cases we have backlogged projects. Additional staffing could relieve some of the backlog and workload issues but budget restrictions, possible inability to hire, and anticipated travel and training limitations could restrict our ability to respond to program needs.


Appendix I Abbreviated SWOT and Suggested Strategies

Summary

We work as a team rather than in isolated units and we regularly collaborate with our colleagues, sharing experience and technical strengths, thereby assuring our ability to stay current in our ever-changing field.

Threats (External)1 California State budget woes have resulted in furloughs, hiring difficulties, travel restrictions and other constraints which may result in difficulties backfilling positions, especially Supervisors. The restrictions outlined above could impact our ability to maintain a technical leadership position.

2. Office of Geology is generally not included in some remediation, State-lead, National Priorities List, and permit-maintenance projects.

3 Many large Superfund lead sites may come to DTSC soon and bring huge operation and Maintenance price tags that divert money from other important tasks.

4. Teams divert time and resources from Office of Geology and have the potential to fragment our structure. But participation in teams provides an opportunity to participate in a new way and at a new level.

5. The increased use of performance-based (or fixed-price) contracts by Responsible Parties may result in Office of Geology decreased or limited use of Office of Geology by Project Managers.

6. DTSC seems to be reluctant to issue orders, especially in cases that have not been resolved.

7. The Water Board’s approach is perceived as being faster and cheaper by some parties,

Weaknesses (Internal)1. The role of the Office of Geology may be unclear to the Program and we may be too narrowly focused on technical issues, thereby losing sight of the big-picture project perspective.

2. The budget woes have compelled political interests to scrutinize all forms of travel and training threatening our ability to continue as scientific leaders.

3. We have a tendency to focus on technical work versus providing external outreach/training to our clients. As a result we may be losing touch with our client’s perspective and needs.

4. We do not have a well-organized statewide database for groundwater, chemical constituents, lithology, geology memorandums and tools.

5. We maintain a heavy workload and in some cases we have backlogged projects.

Opportunities (External)1. Budget constraints may result in an increased use of Office of Geology services in programs. Departments that previously used their own resources to complete geologic work may call on Office of Geology for support.

2. The Pollution Prevention drinking water Team (P2dw) provides a model Office of Geology can Follow P2dw lead and work with Water Districts and Water Board,

3. Office of Geology must integrate geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects into the GIS system.

4. As projects move away from an emphasis on site characterization towards remediation, Office of Geology must sell our services to the program and strengthen our relationship with

Engineering Special Projects Office (ESPO).

5. Provide Scientific Leadership and CalEPA wide training and involvement in the development and use of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) standards.

6. Establish and develop an Office of Geology/Toxicology Vapor Intrusion Workgroup.

7. The anticipated release of the Professional Engineer/Professional Geologist (PE/PG) memo and reductions in Program staffing through attrition and minimal rehiring may result in more work for Office of Geology.

Strengths (Internal)1& 2. We are licensed Professional Geologists and we bring professional expertise in diverse disciplines such as: - Site Characterization and

Remediation (In-situ and Ex-situ)

- Multi-media site investigations (soil, groundwater, and soil gas)

- Hydrogeology and Modeling- Geochemistry- Geophysics- Vapor intrusion

Office of Geology 2010 SWOT Consolidation

3. We can scale the scope of our services to meet the needs of the Project Manager.

4. We often times hold institutional knowledge for sites where Project Managers and consultants have changed.


Appendix J 2010 SWOT Agenda and Schedule


GSU 2010 SWOT Agenda7/19/10 1000-1530

Introduction 1000-

Process Continuum

SWOT

Internal Evaluation

StrengthsWeaknesses

External Evaluation

Opportunities Threats

2008 GSU SWOT Review & Update1030-1200

2010 External Evaluation

Anticipated Opportunities and Threats2010 Internal Evaluation

1300-1520

Strengths and Weaknesses relative to the Opportunities and Threats identified above



Wrap-up 1520-1530

Schedule

Date

SWOT Office Time Room Reserv. Time

Conf. Room

Conf. Room

7/7 R2 – Berkeley(5 staff)

1000-1330

1000-1500 R4 Room 2

R2 Permitting

7/19 R3/R4(15 staff)

1000-1330

1000-1300 R4 Room 2

R3 Room 1-136

7/28 R1 Sacto(5 staff)

1000-1330

1000-1500 R4 Room 2

Cal Centr. B-2-50

Proposed Sequence and Timing:

1000-1030 min.: discuss the GSU Process with each unit to get us all thinking about the context for the service we provide.

1030-1100 min.: discuss the 2008 SWOT, what materialized and what did not.

1100-1200; 1300-1330 min.: discuss anticipated opportunities and threats

1330-1520 min.: discuss our strengths and weaknesses in relation to the opportunities and threats we identified.

1520-1530 min.: Close/Next Steps

7/18/2010-8/11/2010 GSUs finalize notes for unit and rank top 5 priorities8/12/17/2010 Sups + staff reps consolidate GSU SWOTs into a GSB SWOT

Date


Conf. Room

Conf. Room

8/12 R1-R4 Sups + 1 staff (8 staff)

1000-1330

1000-1500 R4 Room 2

R2 Permitting

8/14/2010 produce & distribute GSB SWOT9/7/2010 Summarize and propose strategies10/12/2010 Meet with Sups to develop Strategy, Action Plan & Tracking



11/29/2010 Meet with Sups to discuss Strategy, Action Plan & Tracking12/3/2010 Meet with Sups to develop revise Strategy, Action Plan &

Tracking12/13/2010 Provide 98% draft to Office of Geology Management Group

Date


Conf. Room

Conf. Room

8/22 R1-R4 Sups 1000-1330

1000-1500 R4 Room 2

R2 Permitting



Time Investment:Facilitator ~ 100 hours, Karen Baker ~ 50 hours (with travel), Sups ~ 20 Hrs each (x4), Staff representative ~ 20 hrs each (x4) staff ~ 5 Hrs each (x30). Approx. time investment ~ 480 hrs.
