2011‐2012

Mississippi Valley Division

USACE

8/10/2012

Interagency	Recovery	Task	Force:	

Annual	Report

ES-I 

Interagency Recovery Task Force 

ANNUAL REPORT 

2011-2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In the midst of one of the most historic floods in the modern history of the Mississippi River, the Corps’ 

Mississippi Valley Division was charged to assemble key Federal and state agencies in the form of an 

Interagency Recovery Task Force (IRTF). The primary intent of this task force was to focus regional 

managers, leaders and decision maker’s attention, priorities and resources on the challenging flood 

recovery. This task force met regularly for more than a year to identify and successfully address 

numerous flood recovery challenges and issues. An Annual Report was developed to provide a synopsis 

of the IRTF’s activities, accomplishments and lessons learned. The Report reviews IRTF efforts in 

context of established purpose, mission, goals and objectives. Brief summations of the series of eight 

IRTF meetings convened provide understanding of the range of topics and issues embraced by this group. 

Products directly or indirectly influenced by the IRTF are detailed in this document as well. This Report 

concludes with sections on lessons learned and next steps that describe the value-added nature of 

interagency collaboration and its importance for continued improvement and implementation of a 

successful and shared responsibility for FRM. 

The IRTF was conducted under the direct leadership of MVD Commanders MG Michael Walsh from 

May to October 2011 and MG John Peabody from October 2011 to present. This forum was designed 

and implemented in an integrated, collaborative, and holistic fashion to facilitate the recovery and 

rehabilitation of flood risk management (FRM), navigation and floodplain management systems damaged 

by the historic Mississippi River Basin flooding of 2011. Members united in common purpose to 

leverage State/Federal resources and communication networks to ensure the continued safety and 

protection of lives and livelihoods of affected U.S. citizens, communities and industry. Charter members 

included regional and state-level representatives from Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, 

Mississippi and Louisiana. Coordinating agencies include the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA); National Weather Service (NWS); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); Maritime Administration (MARAD); and the US Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) Major Subordinate Commands. Those Corps commands are the Mississippi 

Valley Division (MVD); Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD); Northwestern Division; and 

support from the Southwest and South Atlantic Divisions. 

The efforts by the IRTF in 2011-2012 have served to improve working relationships, increase flood risk 

understanding and implement critical flood repairs and preparedness actions. Group discussion covered a 

broad and challenging array of tactical and strategic Flood Risk/Recovery responsibilities and challenges. 

Member agencies leveraged authorities, experience and resources to put the region on an aggressive and 

attainable path to recovery; increased flood risk awareness; and made recommendations for future flood 

preparedness. The regularity and focus of IRTF meetings and interactions were appropriately paced with 

the tempo and challenges of the recovery process. With the late December 2011 passage of and 

supplemental appropriations provided by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, the Corps is well 

positioned to repair and restore the majority of damaged levees, structures and navigation channels over 

next 2 years. With construction repairs in full swing and a below average 2012 spring flood season, the 

IRTF is downshifting to a long-term sustainment mode that will seek to maintain periodic interaction to 

ensure recovery is progressing smoothly and the working relationship among State/Federal agencies is 

maintained through the full life cycle of regional FRM. 

i 

Interagency Recovery Task Force 

ANNUAL REPORT 

2011-2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES-I 

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

 A. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 2 

 B. Mission Statement .......................................................................................................................... 2 

 C. Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2 

 D. Management Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3 

 E. Charter ............................................................................................................................................ 3 

II. MEETING SUMMARIES .................................................................................................................... 4 

 A. May 27, 2011 Webinar ................................................................................................................... 4 

 B. June 22, 2011, Memphis, TN ......................................................................................................... 6 

 C. August 23, 2011, Pearl, MS ........................................................................................................... 6 

 D. October 20, 2011, New Orleans, LA .............................................................................................. 7 

 E. December 14, 2011, St. Louis, MO ................................................................................................ 8 

 F. February 22-23, 2012, Memphis, TN ........................................................................................... 10 

 G. April 6, 2012 Webinar .................................................................................................................. 11 

 H. June 14, 2012 Webinar ................................................................................................................. 13 

III. PRODUCTS ....................................................................................................................................... 16 

 A. Newsletters ................................................................................................................................... 16 

 B. 2012 Flood Preparedness ............................................................................................................ 17 

 C. Videos .......................................................................................................................................... 19 

 D. Website ......................................................................................................................................... 19 

 E. CorpsMap ..................................................................................................................................... 20 

 F. Regional Communication Plan ..................................................................................................... 21 

 G. Post Flood Reports ....................................................................................................................... 21 

IV. LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................................................... 22 

V. NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................................................... 24 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Photograph 1 Epic Natural Disaster.................................................................................................... 1 

Photograph 2 Signing the IRTF Charter ............................................................................................. 3 

Photograph 3 Meeting in Session ....................................................................................................... 6 

Photograph 4 MR&T History Lesson ................................................................................................. 7 

Photograph 5 Listening to December 14, 2011 Presentations ............................................................ 9 

Photograph 6 Discussing Flood Risk Vulnerabilities. ...................................................................... 11 

Photograph 7 Repair Activity at Middle Crevasse of BPNM Floodway .......................................... 12 

Photograph 8 Buck Chute Mainline Levee Seepage Repair ............................................................ 14 

Photograph 9 Collage Depicting Unprecedented Rainfall ............................................................... 18
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

ii 

FIGURES AND TABLE 

Figure 1 Flood Risk Management Life Cycle ............................................................................................. 4 

Figure 2 Operation Watershed – Recovery .................................................................................................. 5 

Figure 3 Screen Shot of RFRM Website ................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 4 Screen Shot of CorpsMap ........................................................................................................... 20 

Table 1 CorpsMap Publically Accessible Products .................................................................................. 20 
1

Interagency Recovery Task Force 

ANNUAL REPORT 

2011-2012

I. INTRODUCTION 

Throughout the history of human civilization, numerous epic natural disasters have caused widespread 

destruction and loss of life. The Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) flood risk management 

(FRM) system was born from one of these disasters, the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927. In 1927, 

the Mississippi River broke out of its levee system in 145 places and flooded 26,000 square miles 

(photograph 1). The Flood affected parts of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. By May 1927, the Mississippi River below 

Memphis, TN reached a width of 80 miles. Many areas were inundated up to a depth of 30 feet. The 

flood caused over $1 billion in damages and killed some 500 people in seven states. The MR&T project 

was designed to function as a system of levees, floodwalls, floodways, and reservoirs that function as a 

comprehensive flood control system to prevent similar devastation and loss of life should such an epic 

event ever reoccur. Such a flood event occurred on the Mississippi River, the 3rd largest watershed in the 

world, from May through June 2011, setting new gage records at most locations from Cape Girardeau, 

MO to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Photograph 1. Epic Natural Disaster 

The Great Flood of 1927 flooded 26,000 sq. miles (72% of lower valley), 

600,000 homeless, over 500 people killed and economic damages ~$1B 

On May 1, 2011, while flood waters were rising, MG Michael Walsh directed the activation of Operation 

Watershed-Recovery (OW-R) which looked not only at current and near-future planning and execution 

during the flood event, but also made necessary preparations for expected repair and recovery throughout 

the watershed. MG Walsh sought authority from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Headquarters 

(HQ) to establish an Interagency Recovery Task Force (IRTF) similar to the one he created following the 

historic and damaging flooding in the Upper Mississippi River in 2008. An activation guidance 

memorandum was received on May 13, 2011, instructing MG Walsh to establish an IRTF to ensure 

common purpose and drive effective collaboration across agencies and organizations during recovery 

from the Mississippi River Basin flood event of 2011. The IRTF has remained engaged through all 

aspects of OW-R, including damage assessments, regional prioritizations, system performance evaluation, 

2012 regional flood preparedness, and initiation of interim and permanent repairs. All members of the 

IRTF were engaged in the timely repair of damaged infrastructure and the restoration of services essential 

for safety, protection, quality of life, and economic prosperity for those citizens affected by the Flood.
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

2

A. Purpose. By collaborating and combining solutions for short and long-term restoration efforts, the 

IRTF intended to create an integrated and holistic method of rehabilitating the Corps’ FRM systems 

damaged by recent flood events. The Task Force was established with lead Federal agencies and stateappointed members involved in the assessment, documentation, and repair of FRM, flood plain 

management and watershed management systems.

B. Mission Statement. Through an intergovernmental team of state and Federal agencies, a 

collaborative process will: 

 create a multi-agency forum to solve the many regional issues and challenges that will be 

presented in the recovery from this historic flood event; 

 provide safety and security for citizens lives and livelihoods; 

 create strong regional effort to inspect, review, reset and restore our FRMS; 

 pursue all potential funding methods from Federal and state sources; 

 give consideration to traditional and non-traditional alternatives in repair and restoration; 

 implement a collaborative and communicative approach across regional and state 

boundaries to prioritize our efforts and resources during the challenging recovery process; 

 facilitate strategic, integrated life-cycle mitigation actions to reduce the threat, 

vulnerability and consequences of flooding in the Mississippi River Valley; 

 create or supplement a mechanism to collaboratively solve issues and implement or 

recommend solutions; and 

 increase and improve flood risk communication and outreach. 

C. Goals and Objectives 

 Implement a consistent approach across region and state boundaries in order to prioritize 

agencies, authorities, and resources in the rehabilitation process 

 Create a strong team to inspect, review, repair and restore our FRMS and adjacent project. 

 Create an IRTF management plan 

 Share responsibility for all flood plain management restoration initiatives, programs, and 

projects in order to reduce flood risks long term 

 Supply an effective outreach program to communicate short and long term to the public, 

as well as, educate on the agencies’ responsibilities, programs and authorities 

 Pursue all potential funding methods from Federal and state resources 

 Ensure continuous pre- and post-disaster collaboration 

 Give consideration to all structural and non-structural alternatives in repair and restoration 

 Learn about programs, identifying limitations and opportunities, and combine programs to 

create integrated, comprehensive and sustainable solutions 

 Create a multi-agency technical resource for state and local agencies 

 Improve flood risk outreach by presenting a unified interagency message to better educate 

and advise mutual customers as a result of gaining familiarity with each agency’s 

missions, processes and programs 

 Improve internal and external risk communication, including increased awareness of 

residual risk 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

3

 Identify and facilitate improvements to existing programs, policies and processes 

 Identify other collaboration opportunities to combine resources and identify gaps; 

minimize duplication of effort and ensure consistency 

 Catalog and share information on past and future projects and initiatives 

 Prioritize current and future initiatives individually and collectively 

D. Management Plan. The IRTF Management Plan (IRTFMP) was developed to cover the scope of 

the short-term efforts required for recovery from the Mississippi River Basin Flood Event. The 

operational boundary and the duration of the IRTF were further defined by the Commander, 

Mississippi Valley Division (MVD) in his request to activate the IRTF. This IRTFMP will remain in 

effect for the duration of the Task Force, as agreed to by its member agencies. This plan was not 

intended to usurp any authorities and programs currently assigned to its member states and agencies, 

nor deny any applying party access to existing programs for repairs and associated restoration and/or 

other impediments. 

E. Charter. A Charter was also established and signed by participating agencies as solidarity and 

clarity of purpose (photograph 2). 

Photograph 2. Signing the IRTF Charter 

(from left ) Joseph Klinger, State of IL; Jerome Zeringue, State of LA; Bob Hainly, USGS; 

MG Mike Walsh, USACE; CDR;Tim Wendt, USCG; Mike Womack, State of MS; James Murphy, MARAD

The paragraph on the signatory page reads as follows: 

The Interagency Recovery Task Force was established to create a highly communicative 

and collaborative forum of state and Federal agencies with common interests and 

authorities to affect the repair, recovery and evaluation necessitated by the historic 2011 

Mississippi River flood event. The signatory state and Federal agencies will consider a 

wide range of traditional and innovative options to develop meaningful solutions for 

short and long-term restoration efforts. The following state and Federal representatives 

are committed to working together to effectively and efficiently serve the American public 

and private interests for the protection of human life/safety and economic prosperity: 

The team was purposefully assembled to be strictly intergovernmental and multiple state in nature. 

Participating agency representatives contributed a broad range of relevant and crucial experience and 

information to this team effort. The Corps maintained and distributed a contact database and was 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

4

responsible for organizing, coordinating and facilitating team meetings, as well as recording and 

maintaining final meeting minutes. 

II. MEETING SUMMARIES (Note: As these meetings occurred over very dynamic 1-yr time period, 

values expressed for # projects and $ cost estimates are as of the dates they were presented)

Eight IRTF meetings were convened at various locations throughout the Mississippi Valley between 

May 28, 2011 and June 30, 2012. The first and last two meetings in this time period were conducted 

as webinars while the other five were one-day face-to-face meetings. Meeting agendas, presentations 

and handouts are all available on the Corps Regional Flood Risk Management Website 

(http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/). The following provides a brief characterization of each of these 

meetings and their respective topics of discussion. 

A. May 27, 2011 Webinar. The first session of the IRTF was convened as a webinar and focused on 

the need and purpose of the IRTF, flood fight efforts, introduction to OW-R and Regional Flood Risk 

Management. Read-ahead materials were distributed in advance of this meeting that provided 

additional descriptions, diagrams and graphics intended to introduce IRTF members to these agenda 

items and stimulate discussion on the various topics and challenges the IRTF would face in coming 

months. 

Shared responsibility for Driving Down Flood Risk and the FRM Life-Cycle were central topics 

covered in the read-ahead material and IRTF discussion. Effective FRM requires the integration of 

mitigation planning, preparedness, response, and recovery programs and activities into a coordinated 

FRM “life-cycle” framework. The four general phases of the FRM cycle are mitigation planning, 

preparation, response, and recovery. The conceptual framework for implementing the FRM program 

is focused on ensuring our programs and authorities and those of our Federal, state, local, and tribal 

partners are coordinated and synchronized so that our combined actions achieve effective management 

of the flood risk. The FRM “Life Cycle” (figure 1) depicts the relationship between Corps program 

activities and partner agencies within the cycle. Interagency shared responsibility is at the core of the 

FRM Life Cycle. This approach recognizes the reality that, ultimately, Mother Nature will “grade” the 

success of the collaborative effort during future flood events. 

Figure 1. Flood Risk Management Life Cycle 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

5

The Corps is a key contributor in “driving down” the Nation’s flood risks through its programs to 

1. plan structural and nonstructural projects to manage flood risks; 

2. inspect the condition of existing FRM infrastructure; 

3. provide technical and planning support to states and communities; 

4. conduct emergency measures to alleviate flooding consequences; and 

5. rehabilitate levees and other FRM infrastructure damaged by flooding. 

It is important to bear in mind that responsibility for managing the Nation’s flood risks does not lie 

exclusively with the Corps or any other single Federal or non-Federal entity. Rather, responsibility is 

shared across multiple Federal, state, and local government agencies, with a complex set of programs 

and authorities, and private citizen choices/actions. 

Operation Watershed-Recovery was designed to deliver effective and efficient repair and restoration 

of the valuable FRM and navigation systems for the Mississippi River (figure 2). In the early morning 

hours of May 1, 2011, OW-R was activated per MG Walsh over concerns for the rapid escalation of 

the Mississippi River Basin Flood Event. Operation Watershed-Recovery was established with three 

active Operational Cells: Current Operations (0-24 hrs), Future Operations (24+ hrs), and Recovery 

Operations (Post Flood). 

Figure 2. Operation Watershed – Recovery 

The OW-R cell was initiated simultaneously with the flood fight effort given the expectation that 

damages from this systemic and historic event would require extensive repair/rehabilitation of Corps 

projects, facilities and structures in addition to PL84-99 levee repairs. While not yet fully realized at 

the time of the first meeting, the geographical extent and nature of flood-related damages were 

expected to be of such a magnitude as to surpass the Corps’ ability to fully repair/rehabilitate under 

normal funding mechanisms. MVD was preparing for the near-term assessment of damages, 

evaluation of system performance, repair alternatives designed to repair and restore this valuable FRM 

and navigation system. 

EVALUATE

Post-Flood System 

Performance

“Designs”

ASSESS

Post-Flood System 

Condition

“Damages” System 

Recovery

“Quality of Life”

REPAIR

Flood Damages to System

RESTORE

Full Level of System Integrity

“Safety & Security”

REPAIR

Initial Interim Measures

“Risk Reduction”

Interagency Recovery 

Task Force

“Collaboration”

2012 Flood 

Preparedness

“Risk Mgmt”
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

6

B. June 22, 2011, Memphis, TN. Representatives from four states (TN, MS, IL, MO) and eight 

agencies (NWS, FEMA, USDA, USEPA, USGS, USCG, MARAD, USACE) attended the first 

meeting (photograph 3). 

 Photograph 3. Meeting in Session 

Representatives from the Corps’ HQ, MVD, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD), Southwest 

Division, and the Memphis District were also in attendance. The collaborative task force aimed to set 

priorities and plan a comprehensive and holistic approach to restore the watershed. 

Communication and participation was crucial in making the best decisions for current impacts and 

future FRM in the valley. By pooling resources, talents, and expertise, to create short- and long-term 

restoration priorities, the task force focused on key elements that protect the lives and livelihoods of 

millions of Americans and ensured the system is prepared to prevent future catastrophic flooding. 

The meeting was very successful and dialogue toward recovery was very productive. 

Action Items were generated along with member feedback on how they thought their information and 

reconstruction needs could best be met in this collaborative effort. Several members requested the 

weblink or CD copies of the recently completed Corps’ OW-R video that had been shown at the 

beginning of the meeting. They felt this would better help their supervisors and coworkers better 

appreciate the flood recovery challenge and need for interagency collaboration. 

Topics identified for the next meeting included the development of a draft IRTF management plan and 

charter, regional recovery prioritization, critical recovery challenges and development of a repair plan 

for the coming year. 

C. August 23, 2011, Pearl, MS. The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) led by 

Director Mr. Mike Womack and staff, hosted the next meeting. In attendance were representatives 

from four states (MO, IL, MS, LA) and nine agencies (NWS, FEMA, USDA, USGS, USCG, 

MARAD, USFWS, USEPA, USACE) (photograph 4). 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

7

Topics discussed were critical to collaborative efforts and transparent communication. The meeting 

started off with a historical perspective, scope, and nature of the MR&T “system.” The key takeaway 

points designate that the MR&T: 

1) is one of the largest, most comprehensive and successful FRM Systems in the world; 

2) is comprised of levees, channel stabilization, tributary improvements, and floodways; and 

3) has $13.9 billion invested, $478.3 billion in flood damages prevented, and 4.5 million people 

protected. 

Next, updates were provided on the key elements of Operation Watershed Recovery: Damage 

Assessments and Prioritization, System Performance Evaluation. IRTF members received a 

spreadsheet and corresponding maps of critical interim repair priorities for three Districts. The process 

on how those items were ranked was also discussed. Dave Busse, Technical Lead for the System 

Performance Evaluation Team, gave an update with a draft schedule and deliverables. Also 

discussions were made on incorporating the IRTF with other significant groups, such as fusion teams, 

and state FRM teams (Silver Jackets). 

The afternoon’s presentation from Mike Womack gave the team insight into MEMA’s Catastrophic 

Levee reach Plan and scenarios used during flood events. He also briefed on the meeting he attended 

with the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium and how plans are being formulated should a historic 

flood event coincide with an earthquake. 

D. October 20, 2011, New Orleans, LA. This marked the fourth IRTF meeting, hosted by the State 

of Louisiana, Coastal Restoration, and led by Jerome Zeringue. In attendance were four states (MO, 

IL, MS, LA) and eight agencies (NWS, FEMA, USDA, USGS, USCG, MARAD, USFWS, USACE). 

Representatives from USEPA indicated they would no longer be able to participate in the IRTF. MG 

Walsh shared the message that the probability of a supplemental appropriation for this flood is very 

low. He further explained that the Corps’ self-financing would likely be able to fund only the top 10 

most critical projects; the rest of the repairs would be unfunded, leaving the system vulnerable and at 

risk for the 2012 spring floods and possibly through the next decade. Mr. Zeringue discussed the 

importance of protecting the Louisiana coastline. He explained losing the coastline is a significant 

loss to both the natural ecosystem and flood risk management. 

Photograph 4. MR&T History Lesson 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

8

At this meeting it was announced that the Corps’ Headquarters issued a new Operational Order 

requiring a National perspective on the System Performance Evaluation and recovery efforts. The 

geographical scale of 2011 natural disasters with flooding spread throughout the Mississippi Basin and 

tropical storms in the Northeast have required Corps’ HQ take a broader perspective of the aftermath 

spread across multiple Corps’ Divisions. To create a comprehensive performance assessment report, 

will require the research and support of the Northwest Division, the MVD and the LRD. Because the 

flood emergency situation ended ahead of others, MVD already has damage assessments completed 

and our list of regional priorities. HQ needs to review our list of priorities with the lists from the other 

Divisions in order to have a comprehensive list of repair items from which to establish a single listing 

of priorities for the watershed. 

Next was a review of OW-R components. Damage assessments were largely completed by September 

30, 2011. Phase I, critical interim repair prioritization has revealed 93 critical MR&T and O&M 

repair projects, plus five PL84-99 projects, which totaled $800M. The top 10 funded projects totaled 

$75M. As damage assessments continued, a Phase II list added an additional 44 items of concern, 

totaling $120M. The 142 items completes the damage assessment review process, reaching close to 

our initial estimate of $1B to repair the system before spring. The Corps has so far only been able to 

self financing the top 10 critical projects. The Secretary of the Army moved funds from fully funded 

projects on account of the life and safety issue with critical flood repair projects. Out year funds are 

being put toward this flood recovery. This is how the Corps is proposing to address imminent life and 

safety issues without a supplemental. 

Updated maps of the critical list items were shared along with an updated spreadsheet of items sorted 

by state. MG Walsh brought up the fact that in order to restore the MO levees, seepage issues on the 

IL side need to be taken care of at the same time to keep from adding pressure to one side or the other. 

Proactive efforts were underway to obtain real estate rights-of-way in IL, KY and MO to clear the way 

for eventual flood repair project design and construction. It was discussed that unrepaired levees 

would most likely get an unacceptable rating in annual inspections, which, from a USDA and FEMA 

perspective, is likely to drive up the cost of flood insurance for farmers, businesses and homeowners. 

At the meeting, the MVD System Performance Evaluation team update was given. MVD’s subject 

matter experts from a wide variety of disciplines are well engaged in this effort. Input and information 

from other Federal and state agencies, as well as stakeholders and NGOs are being assembled as well. 

The State perspective started with a need to focus on planning and communication. The activation of 

the Bird’s Point-New Madrid floodway was discussed with respect to the importance of 

planning/communication. It was recommended to take a harder look at future mitigation measures. 

Nationally, LIDAR is needed in order to make accurate flood and inundation maps. States need to 

know what stakeholders are being communicated with, in case there are others who should be getting 

the messages. It was mentioned that flood response points of contact may not be the same for 

recovery. Mississippi has two levee boards with different priorities; these boards need alignment and 

the support of a regional recovery plan. The State of Mississippi has had households with repetitive 

loss and no way to help low income households. FEMA responded that there are hazardous mitigation 

grants and FEMA grants but only one can be used. 

The Federal perspective started with an update that the NWS’ Service Assessment report scheduled to 

be completed in early 2012. It evaluates flood warning and forecast operations and interagency 

coordination/collaboration. Water resource managers, forecasters and researchers need to enhance 

communication and coordination to ensure accurate data. FEMA has the challenge of risk mapping 

for public assistance with no additional funding. The USGS asked, “What is the cost if we don’t make 

repairs?” Corps responded the in current event ~ $120 billion in damages avoided, over 600,000 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

9

people would have been evacuated from Baton Rouge and New Orleans. One must also bear in mind 

that while MR&T system suffered ~$800M in damages it prevented over $110B in damages. 

USDA/NRCS will work with requests for damages in floodplain easements. NRCS indicated drainage 

system cleanout of $25M was done in Bird’s Point-New Madrid floodway after 2008 interior flooding. 

Current estimates for same drainage system cleanout are in $70M range. USCG has a waterway plan 

that needs to compare trigger points in their plan with damage areas listed by the Corps. MARAD 

informed all that navigation continued to operate during the flood; 600M tons in commodities, most of 

which was moving in April and May. Commodities need to move by river to save air quality and 

protection from on road use. 

E. December 14, 2011, St. Louis, MO. Progress and preparedness led the discussion at the fifth 

IRTF meeting hosted by the State of Missouri at the St. Louis District headquarters (photograph 5). 

The region has documented cumulative damages to Federal levees, floodwalls, structures, floodways, 

ports and navigation channels with current repair estimates in the $2 billion range. 

Photograph 5. Listening to December 14, 2011 Presentations

(from left ) MG John W. Peabody; Mr. Al Lee (SES)-MVD; Mr. Dru Buntin,-MO Department of Natural 

Resources, and COL Christopher Hall., DE, MVS

 “We’ve made some significant progress in assessing damages up and down the river system,” MG 

John Peabody, the Corps’ MVD Commander said. “Our Nation cannot recover without all the 

relevant experience that is exhibited by all of our partners.” 

IRTF partners reviewed the status of the Corps’ damage assessments. The review allowed participants 

to fully appreciate the nature and extent of impaired flood risk management and navigation systems 

along the Mississippi River. 

MG Peabody and MVD Regional Flood Risk Manager Scott Whitney expressed the reality of 

rebuilding and recovering operations in a constrained economic environment. The Corps’ recovery 

operations consist of 142 critical repair projects with cost estimates totaling $1 billion dollars, along 

with another several hundred non-critical repair projects. The non-critical items are projected to 

require another $1 billion to bring systems back to pre-flood conditions and performance. Whitney 

explained to partners at the meeting the current funds have only allowed the Corps to begin 

construction and design work on approximately 22 of our 142 critical projects. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

10

Scott Whitney explained, “At this rate it will take nearly a decade to effect repairs on only our most 

critical repair sites. That is an unacceptably long period of time to leave our citizens and industry 

exposed to increased risk of severe or even catastrophic flood damage from future flood events.” 

“We’ve harvested $120 million from other projects across the Corps,” Peabody said expressing the 

Corps commitment to rebuilding critical flood risk management structures before the next flood 

season. “We are seeing a unique demand given unique fiscal circumstances.”

The Corps’ goal at this phase of OW-R is restoring the quality of life to the citizens and reliability of 

flood control and navigation structures affected by high water. MVD projects include repairing 

extensive areas of levees and floodwalls, water control structures, reservoirs, navigation channels and 

ports and harbors spread across the border states of IL, MO, MS, LA, TN, ND, IA, and WI. As they 

rebuild and look to the future, the Corps is also looking back at the operational decision process and 

communications relative to the management of the Mississippi River System last year. 

“Right now, we are asking three questions: How did the system perform; how would the system 

perform now and what does the system need to perform in the future?” asked Hank DeHaan, OW-R 

System Performance Evaluation Program Manager. Corps members from the six Districts in the 

MVD are working together to study lessons learned and are in the process of preparing a system 

performance evaluation report (aka Post-Flood Report) that will assist in recovery and improvement, 

overall system management and will serve as a reference and resource in future flood fights. The 

report was scheduled for final submittal in September 2012. Recent funding shortfalls have placed the 

effort on pause until additional funding transfers can be approved by Congress. The Corps team is 

also looking to improve communication with IRTF partners and the public with a new web based 

mapping product that allows individuals to locate the flood damaged sites in their area and access 

information papers and construction fact sheets. Given the limited repair funding the Corps has been 

able to secure, Whitney said, it is clear that many sites will still be in their current damaged condition 

through the next flood season. 

The current conditions and projected forecast brought the IRTF members to the challenges they all 

face as they prepare for the coming flood season. “It is more than possible that we will have some 

flooding to deal with going into the next flood season,” Peabody said. IRTF members concluded the 

meeting as representatives from the NWS, FEMA, the USDA, the USGS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and 

the Maritime Administration discussed the challenges they have overcome and still face as they 

recover not only from record floods, but tornadoes, natural disaster and other Federal emergencies 

over the last year. “Together, as a team, we’ll be able to overcome our challenges and deliver what 

the citizens expect from us,” Peabody said. 

F. February 22-23, 2012, Memphis, TN. MG John Peabody along with Col Vernie Reichling, 

MVM Commander, welcomed the IRTF team at the sixth meeting (photograph 6). This time, the key 

messages emphasized the vulnerable MR&T system and it was agreed that the upcoming 2012 spring 

season would require extra vigilance and advanced preparedness to ensure the safety and well-being of 

citizens, infrastructure, and industry. With the $1.724 billion Nationwide Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act funds, the Corps could begin to aggressively repair and restore hundreds of 

damaged flood control and navigation system components. By the time this meeting convened, each 

District had established its FY12 workplans, reflecting implementation and acquisition strategy for 

repair projects. The list of projects under construction in FY12 would be shared with the IRTF. All 

team members were interested in being a part and having input to the MR&T Post Flood Report. This 

collaborative effort from the partners proved to be the strength of this team. It was agreed that 

coordination efforts would be discussed at the April meeting of the IRTF. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

11

This time the meeting was held in conjunction with a Regional Flood Risk Management Workshop in 

order for team members to weigh in on the decision-making process prior to the spring floods. The 

regional flood preparedness team completed risk information templates for those sites with greater 

vulnerabilities. With the known risk at each site, appropriate management measures will be taken to 

address the weakness in the form of possible interim construction measures, flood fight efforts and 

monitoring. Trigger points will be determined for reservoirs and floodways in the event temporary 

changes in operation are required. Strategies are being developed that will maximize flood storage 

while effectively routing floodwaters. This information will help the Corps, partners, and the public 

better prepare for the upcoming flood season and beyond as construction begins. 

In addition to the risk information, select high-risk areas within the Mississippi River Valley were 

modeled with a hypothetical major flood using historical data and the NWS spring forecast and 

mapped to show potential inundation (e.g., inundation timing and depth). This regionally standardized 

inundation information is extremely helpful for interagency collaboration designed to enhance or 

improve preparation, mitigation and response to flooding emergencies. Preliminary risk assessment 

information papers and sub-system papers gave a true picture of the weakened areas, allowing for 

better planning decisions in order to buy down risk. 

Risk communication processes and tools have been improved to better inform and prepare the public. 

From recent events, websites have been created to share up-to-date information to include regional risk 

maps, press releases, and communication pamphlets. Connect to CorpsMap and the Regional Flood 

Risk Management web pages by using the MVD homepage at http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/. In 

the future, the Corps hopes to continue to update the public using the new map application, web sites, 

and social networking. There is even a possibility of an alert system to our emergency management 

partners. Transparent communication and public safety is our goal as together we make repairs to the 

3rd largest watershed in the world. 

G. April 6, 2012 Webinar. The task force continued to share expertise and to keep one another 

apprised so as not to duplicate efforts. The seventh meeting of the IRTF had a total of 28 participants 

with representatives from MVD, 3 Corps Districts (MVP, MVR and MVS); the States of Illinois and 

Missouri; and 7 agencies (NWS, FEMA, NRCS, USGS, USCG, MARAD, and USFWS). 

MG John Peabody welcomed the team and briefly discussed his three primary tenets for effecting 

flood repairs: 

Photograph 6. Discussing Flood Risk Vulnerabilities 

Pictured in front row from left MEMA Director Robert Latham, Jr.; 

FEMA Region 7 Director Beth Freeman; MVD USACE (SES) Al Lee
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

12

1) Maximize System Risk Reduction by Next Flood Season (photograph 7) 

2) Leverage Corps and Regional Resources to Optimize execution 

3) Substantially Complete all Remaining Items Prior to 2014 Flood Season 

MG Peabody also provided short overview of the High Water Inspection with MRC and associated 

public meetings. MG Peabody continued to encourage communication and vigilance in the shared 

responsibility for the safety and security from natural perils and reminded ITRF members that April is 

historically the highest flood risk month, followed immediately by Hurricane Season. 

2012 Flood Preparedness: The Corps provided a short presentation on the 2012 Flood Preparedness 

Reference Guide, highlighting the application and accessibility to final products for each of the three 

primary components of Risk Identification, Risk Management and Risk Communication. The 

products resulting from this effort are available through the MVD Flood Preparedness Website, 

CorpsMap, or the appropriate Corps District POC. A more expanded Summary Report detailing the 

2011 flood event and associated risk management and preparedness efforts was provided on March 29, 

2012 for IRTF member review and comment. Intent is to make this report available on the MVD 

RFRM website on April 9, 2012. 

Flood Recovery Plan: Key tenets to implementation strategy focused on near term risk reduction, 

leveraged resourcing, and substantially completed by 2014 Flood Season. Provided slides depict 

project completion pie charts by Calendar Year and Flood Season and bar charts of projects completed 

by FRAGO Class (Risk) and Calendar Year. 

Projects By Calendar Year: 

2012 127 

2013 85 

post 2013 45 

Projects by Flood Season 

2013 153 

2014 64 

post 2014 40 

Photograph 7. Repair Activity at Middle Crevasse of BPNM Floodway 

his is one of many locations with agressive repair construction activity 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

13

Post Flood Report: Final Draft Workplan under Review, MRC IPRs being scheduled, continued 

synchronization with HQ effort, IRTF Review Plan development and ensuring this effort is aligned 

with the MR&T Strategic Vision and Plan 

Regional Communication Plan: As activity is now rapidly moving to local project repair 

construction, it will remain important for continued regional communication, awareness and tracking 

of continued progress and challenges. Many of the relationships and tools developed during past 

several months will continue to serve as an effective network of interagency communication and 

collaboration that we need to see preserved and enhanced. The DRAFT Regional Communication 

Plan recounts some of the best practices and tools developed over recent months of Flood Recovery 

with strategy for their continued development and utilization within the ongoing OW-R Flood Repair 

Plan. IRTF members were encouraged to provide comment and review on this document. 

Member Perspectives 

 NWS forecasts continue to predict average to below average precipitation and low flood 

risk for most of the Mississippi Basin. The new 28-day contingency forecast product for 

select locations along the mainstem Mississippi and Missouri Rivers is nearly complete. 

The NWS River Forecast Centers will use 16 days of forecast rainfall to generate this 

product. 

 MARAD complimented the Corps on team’s professionalism and collaboration over 

recent months to allow timely and effective repair to our navigation system. 

 FEMA appreciates efforts to achieve common operating picture across the FRM lifecycle. 

 NRCS interested in the completion schedule for BP-NM Floodway levee repair as they 

continue to invest significant EWP funds to clean-out ditches. Corps Responded that 

current goal is for Dec 2012 completion to pre-flood height of 62.5’ however this is 

subject to careful review and progress on the confluence area projects. Memphis district 

will be providing regular status updates for on confluence area project construction status 

that will provide readily accessible information for stakeholders and public. 

 USFWS – appreciate invitation to be part of this Task Force and good exchange of 

information 

 USCG – expressed strong support for the work and discussion that the IRTF has had over 

past several months, it has been value added. 

 USGS – Very pleased with their involvement and information shared at these meetings, 

looking forward to review and input into Post Flood Recovery Report. 

H. June 14, 2012 Webinar. The focus of this webinar was on the status of flood recovery repairs 

and lessons learned from the 2011-12 IRTF experience (photograph 8). The April meeting marked the 

eighth Task Force meeting. This meeting had a total of 22 participants with representatives from 

MVD; 2 Corps Districts (MVR and MVS); IWR; the States of Missouri and Illinois; and 7 Federal 

agencies (NWS, FEMA, NRCS, USGS, USCG, MARAD, and USFWS). 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

14

MG John Peabody welcomed the team and briefly discussed the Corps commitment to drive down risk 

over coming months to ensure next flood season is one with better lines of protection and reduced 

system risk. He expressed sincere appreciation for member agency commitment and collaboration in 

this shared responsibility and the hard work that has gone into past year of post flood assessment and 

initiation of critical repairs. MG Peabody further stressed the importance of recording agencies 

perspectives and feedback on the value added nature of IRTF experience, lessons learned and possible 

areas of improvement. He introduced his recommendation for IRTF downshift to a “sustainment 

mode” that will ensure continued availability of flood repair progress information and meeting 

schedule that is less regular as we have for past year. He further stressed we need to collectively strive 

to maintain vigilance and communications while focusing energy on the challenging construction 

repair activity. The introductory comments concluded with a proposal for a January 2013 Regional 

Flood Risk Management Workshop to present and further engender interagency discussion with 

respect to the repair status and preparedness for the 2013 flood season. 

1. Operation Watershed Overview. During the session focused on status of Operation 

Watershed efforts, Scott Whitney provided a two part overview focused on OW-R Quick Review and 

Status tracking of OW-R construction effort. 

OW-R Quick Review: A three-slide retrospective covering: 

a. a 200 year vision for the Mississippi River Watershed. Provided a common bond for 

an intergenerational commitment to balancing the Nation’s needs for security and 

flood risk management; environmental sustainability and recreation; infrastructure and 

energy; water supply and water quality; movement of goods and agriculture and 

manufacturing.; 

b. 2011 Flood facts and figures of the record setting event that saw a fully integrated 

flood damage control system that provided “room for the river” perform as designed 

saving an estimated $110 billion in damages without a single life lost; and 

c. Interdependent structure and components of OW-R that established effective strategy 

to assess, evaluate, collaborate, mitigate and effect repairs following the 2011 Flood 

Photograph 8. Buck Chute Mainline Levee Seepage Repair 

located just north of Vicksburg, MS 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

15

event. Emphasized the IRTFs important role in each of these three retrospective 

topics. 

OW-R Status Tracking of Construction Effort: re-iterated the three main points for 

MVD’s Flood Repair Plan: 

a. Maximize System Risk Reduction by Next Flood Season; 

b. Substantially Complete all Remaining Items Prior to 2014 Flood Season; and 

c. MVD currently funded for roughly $1.2B in construction repairs. Emphasized that all 

MVD Districts are making good headway in their initiation and execution of 

construction activity to repair flood damages throughout the basin. 

A single slide was presented for each of the six MVD districts showing construction images 

and a table summarizing the latest status of construction projects. 

Mr. Whitney concluded the presentation/discussion on construction project status report with a live 

demo of CorpsMap highlighting a newly added feature for “Areas of Interest” represented by a Blue 

asterisk on the map. Currently, one area of interest has been created for the Miss/Ohio River 

Confluence area. This item provides access to a biweekly status report with photos and site status 

descriptions for the several key OW-R projects in this confluence area. All active OW-R construction 

projects have provided updated construction fact sheets every 30 days to provide interested public and 

stakeholders with relevant information concerning project status, cost, challenges and completion 

schedule. 

 2. Lessons Learned & Next Steps. The majority of the meeting was occupied by a robust 

discussion on the lessons learned and recommendations for future interagency collaborative efforts. 

A synopsis of the Lessons Learned and recommendations for Next Steps discussed are provided in 

subsequent sections IV and V, respectively. As a general synopsis, member agencies extolled the 

many positive and value-added aspects of the IRTF experience and supported recommendation to 

come together again in January 2013 to review recovery progress and preparation for 2013 flood 

season. 

 3. Member Perspectives 

State of MO. Very comfortable with the progress and success achieved by the IRTF. 

Impressed with the communication needs and tools this group has addressed. This has 

absolutely been a valuable experience. Also highlighted fact that Silver Jackets teams have 

broader focus beyond flooding and is great forum for continued development and maturation of 

the interagency collaboration at the local level. Believe IRTF should maintain higher level 

perspectives on key regional FRM issues and challenges 

State of IL. Very impressed with the IRTF and Corps leadership and efforts in driving the 

system repairs to near-term completion. Personal thank you to MG Walsh and MG Peabody 

for giving the states a voice in the flood recovery process. 

USGS. appreciative of the Corps investment of time and resources in making the IRTF so 

successful. This has been very educational in the various roles that state/federal agencies take 

both in fighting the flood and recovering from the aftermath. This has allowed USGS to see 

how and where we can assist in improving flood risk awareness and lending our services to 

other agencies. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

16

MARAD. this has been a very useful and highly informative forum for interagency discussion 

and collaboration. It has been especially useful to see and hear of the many different programs 

and perspectives from other member agency representatives. Would like to express a sincere 

Thank-You to the Corps for making this forum possible. 

NWS. expressed shared sentiments on the many positive aspects we have discussed with 

respect to the IRTF experience. Have definitely become more sensitized to the roles and 

responsibilities of other state/federal agencies. Has allowed NWS to customize some or our 

products and services to better serve the needs of other management agencies. The 28-d river 

stage forecasts based on 16-d rainfall forecasts were a direct result of the IRTF request. 

FEMA. Called the IRTF “a tremendous educational experience and definitely a model 

interagency forum we should seek to preserve and replicate in other regions of the US.” 

NRCS. very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this forum. Commended the 

Corps on the regional prioritization process, excellent communication and facilitating the IRTF 

in support of the flood recovery. 

USFWS. appreciate invitation to be part of this Task Force and good exchange of information 

USCG. this has been a worthwhile endeavor that has produced a number of useful products. 

Especially like the new 28-d river forecasts that would likely not have been developed without 

IRTF expressed desire for this new capability. 

4. Wrap-Up by MG Peabody. MG Peabody again expressed his appreciation for member 

agency collaboration and honest feedback throughout the IRTF experience. 

“We have heard a number of useful recommendations presented during this session 

and the Corps will carefully analyze and discuss for future implementation. The 

experience of the 2011 Flood and IRTF has really opened a number of eyes to the 

importance and value of an integrated systems approach and interagency 

collaboration to successful Flood Risk Management. From all the positive and 

reinforcing comments heard today it is clear that we hit a “sweet spot” with the 

creation and execution of the Task Force for the Flood Recovery. Several have 

mentioned the goodness of the Task Force concept that should be extended beyond 

just the recovery process. You mentioned we should similarly engage on Flood 

Preparedness and Flood Mitigation activities. I believe the recommendation for an 

annual Regional Flood Risk Management workshop is a sound one that will allow 

this expansion in focus to cover many interrelated Flood Risk Management 

challenges. We will continue to carefully track and report on construction repair 

progress with intent to drive down regional flood risk before coming flood season. 

Should any member require additional information or clarification in the coming 

months, please don’t hesitate to contact USACE staff. We will look forward to 

coming together again at a Regional Flood Risk Management Workshop for in 

January 2013, additional planning and details on this meeting will be forthcoming.” 

III. PRODUCTS

A. Newsletters. A series of six Interagency Recovery Task Force newsletters and three ‘Our 

Mississippi’ newsletters were produced over the course of the past year. These newsletters served as 

important rapid response communication tools which quickly and effectively informed State/Federal 

partners, stakeholders, members of Congress and the general public about the continued efforts and 

progress of 2011 flood recovery efforts. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

17

The IRTF newsletters provided the Corps and our partners a vehicle to communicate the flood 

recovery efforts through a series of pictures and articles which captured the focus of discussions, 

topics of concern; and status of ongoing recovery efforts during the first year of post flood recovery. 

The IRTF newsletters were distributed electronically to a large email distribution and posted to the 

RFRM website for direct public access. In the future, a sixth IRTF newsletter is planned for 

distribution June 2012 to provide synopsis of this IRTF Annual Report and the April and June 2012 

webinars. 

 

The three quarterly Our Mississippi newsletters were also produced with a number of Mississippi 

River Basin flood recovery and public interest stories. The Our Mississippi newsletter was originally 

designed as a Corps communication tool for the Upper Mississippi River with the intent that someday 

the publication could be expanded to a publication for the entire Mississippi River Basin. The 2011 

Flood Event was a watershed-focused response and recovery effort and offered opportunity to expand 

the focus and distribution of this regional newsletter. Starting with the fall 2011 edition, all 

subsequent quarterly publications will continue to provide a diverse range of Mississippi River stories 

of interest and will continue to serve as a communication tool for the 2011 flood recovery efforts. The 

Our Mississippi newsletter is distributed to 50,000+ subscribers throughout the Nation and reaches 

additional readership through electronic distributions and the Our Mississippi website. 

Together these two newsletters were effective communication and educational tools which provided 

the Corps and our key partners the ability to reach out to various target audiences simultaneously. 

There has been an overwhelming response of compliments and letters of appreciation from those 

receiving these newsletters, which speaks highly to the success of both. 

B. 2012 Flood Preparedness. A significant milestone for the IRTF and State/Federal Emergency 

Flood Responders was the Regional Flood Risk Management Workshop held in Memphis, TN on 

February 23, 2012 (photograph 9). This workshop, called “2012 Flood Preparedness, was the idea of 

the IRTF and brought together a group of over 80 State/Federal agency representatives for a day-long 

series of presentations and discussions. Taking into account the vulnerable condition of the MR&T 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

18

project and projected NWS spring forecast, the Corps mobilized a Regional 2012 Flood Preparedness 

Team in mid December, 2011 to develop plans to manage, mitigate and communicate flood risks 

throughout the MR&T system. This regional effort was focused on three primary endeavors: identify 

key risks within the MR&T, ways to minimize risk, and effectively communicate this information to 

partners, stakeholders and the public. 

Photograph 9. Collage from Regional Flood Risk Management Workshop 

Center map unprecedented rainfall in the range of 600-1000% above average in parts of this region. 

The region received 20” to 22” of rainfall in the 10 day period from April 22 through May 2, 2011. Rainfall 

estimates from April 22-24 indicated rainfall of up to 12” in those 3 days alone.

The February 23, 2012 interagency workshop served to carefully coordinate, refine and communicate 

this team’s findings, tools and recommendations across the broad array of those public officials with 

shared responsibility for the protection of the lives and livelihoods from flooding events. The majority 

of the presentations, tools, brochures and products produced during this four month effort are currently 

accessible on the RFRM website under “Flood Preparedness.” 

A 2012 Flood Preparedness Summary Report provided a comprehensive narrative of this collaborative 

effort. This document was developed to capture, in general terms, the efforts the MVD and partner 

agencies have undertaken to manage and mitigate risks associated with the great flood of 2011 and in 

preparation for the next flood event. It is intended to be used as a stand-alone document and in 

conjunction with other products developed under OW-R to communicate both internally and 

externally the risks which remain to the public in the wake of one on the largest flood on record. 

The Flood Preparedness Report includes many tables that summarize and index information that the 

reader can utilize in conjunction with other tools such as CorpsMap. Each damaged site included in 

this document has undergone extensive investigation and validation by experienced Corps personnel. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

19

The damages incurred during the Flood of 2011 includes nearly 2 billion dollars worth of damages to 

critical infrastructure necessary to flood risk management and navigation systems that benefit both the 

Nation's population and its economy. Further site specific detailed information is publicly available 

via the Regional Flood Risk Management and CorpsMap websites (http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/ ) 

and other products such as Information Papers, Risk Management Papers, and Construction Fact 

Sheets. 

C. Videos. Two OW-R educational videos were produced in 2011-2012. The first, “2011 Flood 

Fight” was premiered at the first IRTF face-to-face meeting in Memphis, TN in late June 2011. The 

second video, “Flood Preparedness and Recovery Efforts,” was released to IRTF members in April 

2012. Both of these videos were posted to YouTube and the Corps Facebook page for unlimited 

public access and distribution. These videos have been used in a number of National meetings and 

congressional briefings. 

D. Website. IRTF members also influenced the creation and refinement of a Regional Flood Risk 

Management website designed to improve communication, education and access to a diverse array of 

Flood Risk information/resources. The RFRM website has become a central repository and link to 

district, regional and National FRM related resources and documents (figure 3). The website was 

especially useful in making the many IRTF meeting presentations/minutes and products readily 

accessible to members and interested stakeholders. The use of social media as a RFRM 

communication tool has continued to grow and is directly linked through the website. The IRTF 

expects the MVD RFRM website will continue to evolve to better meet the informational needs of our 

partners, stakeholders and public.

Figure 3. Screen Shot of RFRMWebsite 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

20

E. CorpsMap. CorpsMap was originally developed as the single authoritative source for the Corps’ 

National geospatial data assets (figure 4). It is a geospatial web platform that is sponsored by HQ and 

denoted in the Engineer Regulations as the USACE Enterprise Web Geospatial Platform. Initially, 

CorpsMap was an exclusively internal Corps system. However, the MVD GIS cadre worked with 

both the regional OW-R management team and the National GIS team to establish one of the first 

External CorpsMap sites: http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/, with many capabilities specific to OW-R 

needs. A user’s manual was developed to assist public access and utilization of this site. 

Figure 4. Screen Shot of CorpsMap

Table 1 is a rough outline of some of the key products currently served via CorpsMap, along with a 

brief purpose and an envisioned update schedule. 

Table 1. CorpsMap Publically Accessible Products 

Product Purpose Updated

Project Information Paper

provide general background on flood 

damages, potential consequences, 

repair options, and tentative schedule 

Annually by District PM/PDT 

Project Risk Management Paper

describe how risks at damaged 

locations are being addressed through 

construction, interim measures, and 

flood fight preparation 

Biannually by District PM/PDT, 

Construction Rep and RCO 

Project Construction Fact Sheet

provide monthly status of ongoing 

construction activity, key milestones, 

% completion, and project challenges 

Monthly by PM/PDT and 

Construction Rep 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

21

F. Regional Communication Plan. IRTF member input was sought in the development of a 

Regional Communication Plan designed to provide structure and guidance regarding OW-R 

communications with partners, stakeholders, and the public. By carefully orchestrating notifications 

to the media and key interests regarding the status and outlook of flood damages, the Corps and our 

partners can facilitate public safety and raise awareness of ongoing flood recovery and flood 

preparedness.. Key messaging is focused on 

1) damages and vulnerabilities, 

2) reliability of MR&T, 

3) near-term reduction of risk 

4) shared responsibility of flood response, mitigation and risk reduction. 

Although the Corps has positive messages to share about the MR&T system’s accomplishments and 

joint preparedness, all involved in communication with our public must always convey compassion 

and sensitivity to those that suffered significant economic hardship and loss from this event. 

Effectively communicating the coordinated flood recovery efforts among the Federal, local and state 

governments will hopefully reduce public anxiety and promote confidence in the dedicated and 

purposeful approach government agencies are taking in collaboration with state and Federal partners to 

reestablish the full integrity of their flood control and navigation systems. There are three major parts 

to this Communication Plan: 

1) Introduction, which includes principles of open and transparent communication, goals 

and objectives, background, audience and timeline, 

2) Communication Strategy which identifies tools, methods, resources and protocols for 

communicating OW-R information methodology 

3) Key Messaging which includes important facts/figures, talking points and “bridging 

messages” 

The Regional Communication Strategy serves as a framework and guidance for both the internal and 

external transfer of OW-R information via CorpsMap, fact sheets, talking points, presentations, press 

releases, social media, and website. It will also highlight some of the key participants and groups with 

whom regular communication is required (e.g. stakeholders, levee districts, congressional, IRTF, 

State emergency managers, etc). It is important that this shared responsibility be well coordinated and 

controlled to ensure our communications are responsive, purposeful, and consistent. Research from 

past hurricane and flood disasters in 2008-2009 taught the Corps to better communicate safety 

information, flood risk management strategies, and recovery assistance to the public. Based on those 

lessons learned, the goal is to proactively connect stakeholders and the public with fact-based and 

timely information, and reaching a diverse target audience: partners, stakeholders, agencies, 

businesses, local communities. Natural disasters can’t be specifically planned for, however, 

communication tools can be put in place that will continue to be updated and serve the most recent 

information. 

G. Post-Flood Reports. Several of the member agencies have recently completed or are still engaged 

in the development of evaluative post-flood reports. While the IRTF meetings have had presentations 

on these evaluative reports, the reports themselves have largely remained internal to the respective 

state or Federal agency. Once their respective reviews and approvals are complete, these reports will 

be made available to fellow partners and public. The following provides a brief status or link to the 

various post-flood reports resulting from the 2011 Mississippi River Flood: 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

22

USACE-MVD is scheduled to complete the MR&T System Post Flood Report by October 

2012. The MR&T System Post-Flood Report effort is an internal evaluation being performed by 

the MVD as part of its response to the historic 2011 Mississippi River Basin Flood Event. The 

effort will assess and document the operation and performance of the MR&T System and its 

components during the 2011 Flood. Recommendations for MR&T improvements and future 

studies will be developed and captured in the report based on the assessment. The report will 

provide valuable information for current MR&T recovery and future system completion, 

operation and management. 

USCG – Report was completed in fall 2011, internal use and distribution 

USGS – Final report completed and approved June 2012, intended for internal use and 

distribution. Requests for assistance to implement interagency recommendations will be pursued 

by contacts with individual agencies or through discussions at regional interagency meetings.. 

NWS – In March 2012, NOAA-NWS published a service assessment report entitled “Spring 

2011 Middle & Lower Mississippi River Valley Floods”. This report is publically accessible via 

the following website link 

https://verification.nws.noaa.gov/sats/sa/pdf/MississippiRiverFloodsSA_Final.pdf

State of Illinois – Draft Report for Flood Damage to Alexander County, IL received in February 

2012. 

While several of the member agencies have provided briefings of their ongoing flood recovery support 

efforts they did not produce post flood report documentation. 

IV. LESSONS LEARNED

The efforts by the IRTF in 2011-2012 have served to improve working relationships, increase flood 

risk understanding and implement critical flood preparedness actions. Group discussion covered a 

broad and challenging array of tactical and strategic Flood Risk/Recovery responsibilities and 

challenges. Member agencies leveraged authorities, experience and resources to put the region on an 

aggressive and attainable path to recovery, increased flood risk awareness and recommendations for 

future flood preparedness. The regularity and focus of IRTF meetings and interactions were 

appropriately paced with the tempo and challenges of the recovery process. 

A great deal has been learned from this flood season, particularly in the areas most damaged by the 

flood. That knowledge is being applied to both Federal, state and local recovery efforts to ensure 

timely restoration of FRM and navigation systems. Effective FRM requires the integration of 

mitigation planning, preparedness, response, and recovery programs and activities into a coordinated 

FRM “life-cycle” framework. The conceptual framework for implementing the FRM program is 

focused on ensuring programs and authorities of Federal, state, local, and tribal partners are coordinated 

and synchronized so that the combined actions achieve effective management of the flood risk. The 

Corps is a key contributor in “driving down” the Nation’s flood risks through its programs to 

1. plan structural and nonstructural projects to manage flood risks; 

2. inspect the condition of existing FRM infrastructure; 

3. provide technical and planning support to states and communities; 

4. conduct emergency measures to alleviate flooding consequences; and 

5. rehabilitate levees and other FRM infrastructure damaged by flooding. 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

23

In May 2012, IRTF members were presented with three “Lessons Learned” oriented questions as 

means to record their feedback on the May 2011 through May 2012 IRTF experience. Responses to 

these questions were submitted in writing and provided verbally during the July 14, 2012 

teleconference. For the purpose of this Annual Report, responses to the three questions have been 

summarized without attribution to individuals or agencies. The following views/quotes emphasize 

many of the key lessons learned as expressed by individual representatives. 

Did the IRTF experience provide added value to your State or Federal agency and our shared 

public/stakeholders? 

Overwhelming positive response from IRTF members indicating the experience was very 

beneficial and “value-added”. Many members provided specific examples of how they 

were able to beneficially use the information provided during the regular meetings. A 

brief listing of some of the examples provided by members included: synchronization of 

repairs; leveraging resources and expertise; identification of common risks/uncertainties; 

helped focus coordination/response; allowed direct linkage to other affiliations or 

endeavors; kept respective key leaders well informed; better understanding/appreciation 

for MR&T system; development of new communication and forecasting tools; 

understanding of complexities and challenges of repair effort; platform to discuss state 

perspectives and priorities; common vision and purpose; set an important precedent and 

model for interagency collaboration; learned a great deal about member agencies. 

What improvements or enhancements to the IRTF concept would you recommend? 

Recommendations included the following: conduct equitable balance of webinar and faceto-face meetings; need to have better state representation and participation; annual 

workshop excellent idea; incorporate more mitigation alternatives into discussions; 

working groups could help focus certain issues/challenges; would be good to expand 

topics of discussion and incorporate natural disaster simulation exercises; watershed 

planning efforts would benefit from an IRTF approach. 

What are the top flood risk management challenges facing our region/nation today? 

This question provided a number of insightful observations and responses from the 

members. Topping the list of most common responses were: Flood Risk 

awareness/education/ communication; Aging FRM infrastructure; Federal/State Funding 

levels. Also included in response were the following in no particular order: timely natural 

disaster recovery; standard protocols for flood inundation mapping and availability; 

routine FRM interagency workshops or exercises; relevant/understandable stream 

stage/streamflow data; unified approach to FRM preparation/mitigation; interagency 

collaboration; stalled out watershed planning efforts. 

In summary, the following selection of views/quotes expressed by IRTF members capture some of the 

individual or collective Lessons Learned on a variety of topics/issues brought into the IRTF forum: 

“The IRTF has provided tremendous education and serves as an excellent model for value-added 

interagency collaboration, it is one we should do all we can to emulate and keep going” Bruce 

Kinney, FEMA 

“It is unfortunate that it has taken a natural disaster to bring us all together in such a 

collaborative fashion, we should have been doing this years ago!” Harold Deckard, NRCS 
Interagency Recovery Task Force, 2011-12 Annual Report

24

“The effort and information exchange that has gone into these IRTF meetings have been very 

impressive and educational”, Joseph Klingner, State of Illinois 

“It has been particularly useful for me to hear the many state/federal perspectives on so many 

important interrelated issues.” Jim Murphy, MARAD 

“The experiences shared at the meetings helped me see how each agency was connected (and 

sometimes disconnected) to and from the flood response and recovery process.” Robert Hainly, 

USGS. 

“The IRTF process allowed the states to remain informed on the status of impacts and recovery 

efforts and provided a platform to discuss state perspectives and priorities.” Bryan Hopkins, State 

of Missouri 

“The CorpsMap and NWS extended 28-d forecasts are two products that would likely not have 

come about, or been shared as extensively, without the IRTF discussion and dialogue.” Timothy 

Wendt, USCG 

“The experience of the 2011 Flood and IRTF have really opened a number of eyes to the 

importance and value of an integrated systems approach and interagency collaboration to 

successful Flood Risk Management” MG John Peabody, USACE 

V. NEXT STEPS 

Given the very positive and reinforcing feedback from member agencies it was agreed that the IRTF 

should not immediately disband while the challenging recovery process continues. Many expressed 

strong support for the continued evolution of this model forum for interagency collaboration that can 

facilitate meeting our shared responsibility in all aspects of the flood risk management life cycle and 

possibly other regional issues as well. IRTF members recommended and endorsed MG Peabody’s 

recommendation we downshift to a “sustainment mode” that will ensure continued availability of 

flood repair progress information and a meeting schedule that is less regular than we have for past 

year. In this way we can maintain vigilance and communications while focusing our energy on the 

challenging construction repair activity. It was further recommended and endorsed that the Corps 

develop plans for a Regional Flood Risk Management Workshop to reconvene IRTF and the Regional 

Flood Risk Management Team (similar interagency task force resulting from 2008 UMR flood) to 

present and discuss the recovery process along with a variety of mutually beneficial FRM related 

topics. 

The workshop should be regionally located to allow interagency participation from throughout the 

Mississippi River Valley. The agenda for the workshop should be collaboratively developed and 

include a good mix of presenters from across the diverse range of federal/state partners. It is expected 

that in the period between this annual gathering representatives would maintain continued 

communication-collaboration via email/phone. Members also supported occasional webinar format 

meetings should events or conditions require. The primary intent of sustaining continued interagency 

collaboration is to facilitate strategic, integrated FRM life-cycle preparedness and mitigation actions to 

reduce the threat, vulnerability and consequences of flooding in the Mississippi River Valley. 

An important and recurring comment during the IRTF lessons learned discussion was that the IRTF 

concept should serve as a model for a number of other challenging regional issues that also have 

shared responsibility across multiple federal and state agencies. It is expected that the local, regional, 

state, and Federal members of the IRTF will continue to provide safety, security, and quality-of-life 

measures to American citizens and industry.