# Presentation: 090491

## Missouri River Structured Decision Making Project

- Emergent Sandbar Habitat Program, Missouri River Below Gavins Point Dam
- Kelly Crane, USACE Omaha

## Problem Statement

- How much, where and by which means to create Emergent Sandbar Habitat (ESH) in a focal year (e.g., FY 2010) for **tern** and **plover** nesting and brood rearing in Gavins’ Reach?

**Notes:**
Assume ~4648 ac is sufficient (80 ac/mi)...  Assume a certain fledgling ratio is necessary...  Assume mechanical creation is the means of action...

## Objectives

- Minimize cost/acre
- Meet fledge ratios
- Minimize construction-related disturbance
- Meet acreage target 2015
- Minimize socio-economic impacts

## Actions

- Build X acres in year *t*
- Deveg Y acres in year *t*
- Build X and deveg Y in year *t*
- Flow
- Island building
- Conditioning
- Low summer

## Slide 5

## System State Assumptions

- Cost Deveg $6000, Build $20000 per acre
- Tern Fledging Ratios
- Built 2.1
- Deveg 0.85
- Natural 0.83
- 500 Acres Vegetated
- 635 Acres “natural”

## Slide 7

| Actions | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Build (acres) | 200 | 100 | 50 | 0 |
| Deveg (acres) | 0 | 333 | 500 | 667 |
| Objectives |   |   |   |   |
| Cost | 4M | 4M | 4M | 4M |
| Incremental Area | 200 | 433 | 550 | 667 |
| Total Area | 835 | 1068 | 1185 | 1302 |
| Fledge Ratio | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Disturbance | H | M | M | L |

## Slide 8

| Actions | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Build (acres) | 200 | 100 | 50 | 0 |
| Deveg (acres) | 0 | 333 | 500 | 667 |
| Objectives |   |   |   |   |
| Cost | 4M | 4M | 4M | 4M |
| Incremental Area | 200 | 433 | 550 | 667 |
| Total Area | 835 | 1068 | 1185 | 1302 |
| Fledge Ratio | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Disturbance | H | M | M | L |

## Insights

- Using numbers helped provide clarity and comfort
- Estimating got easier as we went
- Visual aids helped a lot, matrix too
- Discussion helped us clarify assumptions
- Parking lot grows and grows
- Model to real world revelation!
- Keep it simple
- Diversity of participants improved robustness/perspective of product

## Consequences Table

|  |  |  |  |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vegetated Acres | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |
| Unvegetated Acres | 635 | 635 | 635 | 635 |
|  | Actions |  |  |   |
| Objectives | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 |
| Build | 200 | 100 | 50 | 0 |
| Deveg | 0 | 333 | 500 | 667 |
| FM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Objectives |  |  |  |   |
| Cost | 4000000 | 4000000 | 4000000 | 4000000 |
| Incremental Area | 200 | 433 | 550 | 667 |
| Total Area | 835 | 1068 | 1185 | 1302 |
| FR | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Disturbance | H | M | M | L |
|  |  |  |  |   |
|  |  |  |  |   |

## Project

- Rapid Prototype for Emergent Sandbar Habitat Creation activities below Gavins Point Dam.
- Corps activities (Dams & water management) caused loss of habitat – tern and piping plover federally listed
- Birds utilize exposed sandbars for nesting, brooding and rearing
- BO on river operations included emergent sandbar restoration goals (acreages)
- Corps proposes to mechanically create habitat 	   to avoid jeopardy to terns and plovers

## Slide 12

## Context for Project

- Consultation contentious, river operations subject of multiple litigation
- In year 7 of BO implementation without required Adaptive Management Program in place
- Long-term data sets for tern and plover numbers and productivity
- Ongoing Monitoring and Research Program without clear understanding of use of                                         		data/analyses

## Context for Project

- FWS/NPS supports flow management to address habitat needs
- NPS believes long-term legal conflicts are imminent
- Corps believes habitat can be mechanically created without flow (huge political issue)
- Downstream flood constraints
- Other authorized purposes
- Upcoming PEIS on ESH rather than current project by project approach
-    Change comes hard

**Notes:**
FWS proposed a long-term hydrology and flow management plan...

## Constraints

- Dollars
- Time
- Understanding of different values of unique habitats
- NPS Rec River
- Sediment budget
- Lack of analysis and Decision making process
- Lack of Adaptive strategy

## Just right sized prototype decision model 1.1

- No

- Yes

- Yes

- Just right sized prototype decision model 1.1

- # of Acres Clear
- # of Acres Veg

- create *a**c* acresclear  *a**v*  acres

- # of Pairs
- Fledge Ratio

- # of clear acres> Target?

- Acre / Fledge Ratio
- Targets sufficient
- for recovery?Consider new Alternatives?Change ConceptualModel?

- Set objectivesDefine alternatives& conceptual model

- No

- The “double loop”

- Start Here

- NB No spatial structure yet

- Reality Check

- Yes

- Fledgling Ratio> Target?

- No

## The Struggle

- Dissenting opinions, different interpretations of elements, actions and outputs
- Unclear understanding of the problem
- Unclear path forward

## To overcome the Struggle

- Prototype provides a starting place to identify dissenting opinions, different interpretations of elements, actions and outputs
- Prototype provides context for explicitly articulating problems and interpretations creating clear understanding of the problem
- Prototype is a tool that allows clear path forward

**Notes:**
AM can help us overcome these problems and help us in other areas also.
First, the value of the prototype has already been realized by identifying this point of uncertainty. In this alone the prototype will have great value as at each step of the way through the development of it we will identify things that we disagree on, don’t know, and don’t understand. So, the prototype is a tool that gives us a place to start understanding where we have dissenting opinions AND WRITING THOSE DOWN.  THEN WE CAN BEGIN IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THOSE DIFFERENCES.
The prototype also is a tool that will help us bring clarity to the decision points.  In the example we are using, the prototype provides a forum for laying out information and discussing understanding and perspectives that will continue to refine and rework our problems, goals, objectives, and metrics so that we all have a clear understanding of the problem and the path to resolution, WHICH WILL LEAD US TO CLEAR DECISION POINTS BY RESOLVING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AND FILLING IN CRUCIAL INFORMATION GAPS.
Last the Prototype gives us something to work with in developing our AM process.  If the prototype were described in relation to the AM strategy, the prototype might be the drop of water into a pond that starts the ripple effect.  The CORE Team is the pond and the ripples would then be the prototype with more information, constraints and reality overlaid upon it until it completely captures all aspects of the management actions and decisions within that RPA element and the pond/CORE team becomes resolved on that issue..  

## Prototype Objectives

- Meet Acreage goals on time
- Create the maximum amount of ESH for the least cost
- Ensure created habitat is meeting species’ needs

## Corps, FWS, & NPS Goals

- To develop a prototype that will lead to a solid process to collaboratively implement the ESH program and avoid jeopardy to the tern and plover.
- To develop a team of participants with commitment and expertise in collaborative problem solving

- Predictive Model- What features are necessary in a model that will predict the consequences of each action in terms that are relevant to the objectives?
- None exist overtly.
- What would it take to create them?