CEER Adaptive Management/NEPA Integration Panel … Presentations/July 29... · US Army Corps of...
Transcript of CEER Adaptive Management/NEPA Integration Panel … Presentations/July 29... · US Army Corps of...
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