US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG®

CEER Adaptive Management/NEPA Integration Panel Session Missouri River F&W Recovery Program (MRRP)

April Fitzner, PMP

Senior Program Manager

Aaron Quinn – AM Project Manager

BUILDING STRONG®

Fort Peck

Oahe

Garrison

Big Bend

Fort Randall Gavins Point

Montana

Kansas

Iowa

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Dakota

Wyoming

Missouri

Colorado

Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project Sioux City, IA – St. Louis, MO

Congressionally Authorized Project Purposes

Flood Control Navigation

Hydropower Irrigation

Recreation Water Supply Water Quality

Fish and Wildlife (Including endangered species)

Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System

2

BUILDING STRONG®

Hydrograph at Sioux City 140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Natural

Regulated

Jan Mar Feb Apr May Jul Jun Aug Sep

Dis

char

ge (c

ubic

feet

per

sec

ond)

Mountain snow runoff

Plains snow runoff

3

BUILDING STRONG®

Biological Opinion • 1990/1993 – initiated / reinitiated consultation with FWS;

• Informal / formal Sec 7 consultation for next 11 yrs

• 2000 BiOp: • Operation of system jeopardized continued existence of pallid sturgeon,

least tern and piping plover; • RPA would preclude jeopardy

• Actions: spring flow rise, low summer flows (split navigation season), Ft Peck flow enhancement

• 2003 – Corps requests reconsultation • Agree to original RPA but propose replacing certain elements

• Modified drought conservation plan; • Gavins Point summer release schedule; • Construct 1200 acres of SWH; • Hatchery propagation improvements; • Adaptive management (research, monitoring, evaluation and flow tests)

• Implementation of these measures allow the Corps to continue to operate the system for the 8 Authorized Purposes

4

BUILDING STRONG®

Interior Least Tern

Piping Plover

Threatened and Endangered Species

Pallid Sturgeon (High Uncertainty age 0)

• Elements of the Biological Opinion

• Habitat Construction / Channel Modification

• Propagation / Hatchery Support • Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation • Adaptive Management • Flow Modifications

• Release adjustments for nesting birds from May through August

• Gavins Point spring pulse in March and May for pallid sturgeon

• Independent Science Advisory Panel determined existing pulse not meeting intended objectives

• Spring pulse temporarily suspended; will re-examine as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program Management Plan

5

BUILDING STRONG®

MRRP Authorities/Mandates

Least Tern Endangered 1985

Piping Plover Threatened 1986

Pallid Sturgeon Endangered 1990

BSNP Mitigation Expanded WRDA 1999 166,750 acres

BSNP Mitigation WRDA 1986 44,900 acres

MRRIC WRDA 2007

Endangered Species Act Water Resources Development Act

BUILDING STRONG®

CHALLENGE: Integrating Adaptive Management into NEPA Planning to Expedite Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration / Recovery Implementation MRRP Management Plan - . The 2003 Amended BiOp

issued by USFWS required an implementable comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan (AM). In order to do this it is necessary to complete a NEPA analysis to disclose impacts associated with potential AM actions.

Therefore, compliance with this BiOp element is occurring simultaneous to program NEPA assessment.

BUILDING STRONG®

• Goal of the Management Plan will provide NEPA compliance for current and future management actions and develop a focused and cost effective monitoring and AM process.

• The plan would also utilize information collected from Corps monitoring efforts to date (about 11 years) to evaluate the reasonableness, effectiveness, and the programmatic impacts of current actions and potential future actions to avoid jeopardy

• We are currently in the second year of a three year study

BUILDING STRONG®

Adaptive Management Concept

BUILDING STRONG®

Objectives

• Provide overview of AM Concept • Describe Effects Analysis, AM Strategy

development, and AM Implementation Phases

• Describe hypotheses evaluation and routing concept

BUILDING STRONG®

Basic AM Process

BUILDING STRONG®

Goals for applying AM • Involve MRRIC, stakeholders,Tribes and other federal and

state agencies in the MRRP process

• Integrate Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring & Investigations activities across the MRRP

• Ensure monitoring and investigations are directly tied to clear, measurable objectives

• Ensure data is collected, analyzed, and documented in a way that results in learning from the outcomes of management actions and influences decision-making regarding management actions

• Ensure that necessary adjustments are made to the MRRP to achieve success in meeting objectives

BUILDING STRONG®

AM Implementation

AM Strategy Components

-CEMs

-Hypotheses

-Objectives

-Quantitative Models

-Mgt. Actions

-Research

-Monitoring

Assess Monitoring and Research Results

Compare results to Decision

Criteria

Document in Draft AM Annual Strategic Review or Periodic Review

MRRIC/ISAP Recommendations

and Advice

USFWS/USACEPolicy and Mgt.

Decisions

Implement and

Monitor Mgt.

Actions

ConductFocused Research

ConductSystem-level Monitoring

Implement Mgt. Plan/AM Strategy Actions

Draft AM Annual Strategic Review or Periodic Review

Example Annual Decisions:

•Refine /adjust current mgt. actions?

•Refine monitoring techniques?

•Hypothesis trending positive or negative?

Example Periodic Decisions:

•Test different hypothesis?

•Adjust current mgt. actions?

•Implement new mgt. action?

•Change or refine research focus?

•Update AM Strategy Components?

BUILDING STRONG®

Annual and 3-5 Year AM Assessment Cycles

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Year 1 Year 6

Strategy Implementation (Periodic Cycle)

Strategy Development / Revision

Strategy Implementation (Annual Cycle)

Annual Strategic Review

Annual Strategic Review

Annual Strategic Review

Periodic Review

Revision of AM Strategy(if needed)

Determination of needs for Periodic

Review

Annual Strategic Review

Annual Strategic Review

Determination of needs for Periodic

Review

MRRIC Engagement Participation Following Strategy Development Engagement Process

MRRIC Engagement

MRRIC Engagement

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Development of Recommendations for

Periodic Review

Information Provided / Annual Forum

Development of Recommendations for

Periodic Review

BUILDING STRONG®

General Governance Structure

Policy and Guidance

USACE/USFWS Senior Staff

AM Process Management

USACE MRRP Program Manager, USFWS

Missouri River Basin Coordinator

AM Process Technical Teams

USACE and USFWS AM staff, Standing EA Team

MRRIC SAM WorkgroupSPA Taskgroup

ISAPINFORMATION BASE-Hypotheses-Objectives- Monitoring Data-Research Results-Models-Peer Reviewed Literature

Full MRRIC

BUILDING STRONG®

AM Strategy Components • Fundamental and Means Objectives • CEMs (Conceptual Ecological Models) • Hypotheses • Quantitative models • Mgt. actions and alternatives • Decision criteria • Monitoring and focused research • Assessment process • Data Management Plan and Information Base • Reporting • Governance and decision-making process

BUILDING STRONG®

EA, MP, and AM Phases

Phase 1: Effects Analysis

CEMs, concepts

Information Evaluation

Working Population Effects Model

Hypotheses Evaluation

Hypotheses Reserve

EA Phase I Report

Design Monitoring, Assessment, Research

AM Strategy Report

Implement

Monitor

Assess AM Reporting

Update Loop

Phase 2: Design AM Strategy

Phase 3: AM Implementation

Research

Learning

BUILDING STRONG®

Decision Triggers • the AM process must include clear criteria for adjustments

to project activities in response to information provided by new information from research, monitoring, and implementation of mgt. actions.

• Commitments need to be in place to ensure that

management will react and change appropriately during the AM process.

• The process must clearly identify the adjustments that will

be made when monitoring during project implementation indicates that the action is not achieving its intended result, is causing unintended and undesirable effects, or the scale/magnitude of the activity needs to be adjusted to better achieve objectives.

BUILDING STRONG®

NEPA Challenges

• Uncertainty of future actions due to AM • How to adequately assess to get NEPA

coverage? • Supplemental EAs? • Out year budgets

• Scrutiny of funding activities with high uncertainty

Good reference: DOI ESM-10-20 Adaptive Management and NEPA

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG®

Wrap Up and Questions?

http://moriverrecovery.usace.army.mil