Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
February 24, 2005
Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Hotel
La Crosse, Wisconsin
Charles Barton of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2005. Other EMP-CC representatives present were Charlie Wooley (USFWS), Rick Mollahan (IL DNR), Mike McGhee (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft/Scot Johnson (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Linda Leake (USGS), and Al Fenedick (USEPA). A complete list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes of the November Meeting
Gretchen
Benjamin moved and Charlie Wooley seconded a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 05
Roger Perk
reported that the FY 05 scope of work for the LTRMP has been completed and
covers both the minimum sustainable program and additional program elements
projects. Perk also reported that the
three Corps Districts are currently determining which HREP contracts will be
advertised over the next few months.
Starting with an
appropriation of $17.5 million, savings and slippage of $1.8 million, a
recission of $126,000, and program administrative costs of $503,000, results in
$4.7 million for LTRMP and $10.3 million for HREPs in FY 05. Don Powell reported that MVP’s FY 05 HREP
planning priorities include Harpers Slough (complete this year), Capoli Slough
and Conway Lake (continue), and Lake Winneshiek (initiate). Construction priorities include minor work
to complete Ambrough Slough and continued construction on Spring Lake
Islands. Powell said MVP would also
like to start construction on Pool Slough and Pool 8 Islands Phase III and
would like to award the construction contract for Long Meadow Lake. In addition, MVP’s plans call for completing
project evaluation reports on seven projects.
Perk reported
that MVR’s FY 05 planning priorities are Rice Lake, Fox Island, Pool 12
Overwintering, Lake Odessa, and Smith Creek.
Planning on the first four of these should be completed in this fiscal
year, with only Smith Creek continuing into FY 06. MVR will focus its HREP design efforts on the first phase of Lake
Odessa. The District’s construction
priorities are Pool 11 Islands Stage 2, which should be almost completed this
year, and Lake Odessa Stage 1, which MVR hopes to award this year. Construction on the Lake Odessa project will
take place largely in FY 06. MVR will
also be working on several HREP evaluation reports.
Mike Thompson
reported that MVS will allocate $667,000 in planning funds among nine
HREPs. Among the projects in planning,
Thompson said he anticipates forwarding the Schenimann Chute project to MVD shortly. The schedule for project design work
includes minor redesigns to address problem areas at Swan Lake and Stump
Lake. MVS’s FY 05 construction
priorities are Phases I and II of Calhoun Point. Thompson said the District will be looking for additional
construction funding this year.
Holly Stoerker
asked how decisions are being made about which HREPs to shift over to the
Navigation and Environmental Sustainability Program (NESP). Perk explained that the only EMP HREPs
transferred to NESP have been ones that were not likely to get done under the
EMP anytime soon. For example, he said
that the Pool 11 Islands element that is now under NESP had been shelved under
the EMP because of delays associated with Higgins Eye mussels. The Navigation Study’s systemic Section 7
consultation on Higgins Eyes resulted in a streamlined process for addressing
such issues. But, by the time that
process was established, this element of the Pool 11 Islands project would have
been very far down on MVR’s HREP list, so it was shifted to NESP. Thompson said the logic was similar in
moving the Stone Dike Alternations project from EMP to NESP. According to Thompson, the Stone Dike
project was quite a ways off on MVS’s HREP list, so it was a good candidate for
NESP. Thompson said MVS plans to submit
Schenimann Chute for approval under the EMP, but will pursue construction under
either EMP or NESP, depending on which program offers the earliest prospects
for funding.
In addition to
the prospects for expediting certain HREPs, Ken Barr said the Corps looked for
three characteristics in the projects it transferred to NESP:
1. a “winner” project that had been
thoroughly vetted,
2. a project from which the NESP partners
can learn, and
3. a project ready to go to construction in
FY 06 if funding is available.
Gretchen
Benjamin said she understands the Corps’ rationale, but voiced concern that
doing planning and design work under the EMP and then shifting projects to NESP
could diminish the EMP’s vitality.
While acknowledging the argument for transferring the Pool 11 Islands
element, Benjamin said she does not see the same justification for shifting
Schenimann Chute. Janet Sternburg said
Missouri DOC supports transferring Schenimann Chute if doing so will expedite
construction. But Sternburg also
acknowledged the validity of Benjamin’s concern and stressed the importance of
maintaining plenty of projects in the HREP pipeline.
Stoerker
cautioned that, in a performance-based budgeting environment, it is important
to ensure that any project transfers do not hurt the EMP’s budget
prospects. She also noted that one of
the arguments for NESP’s environmental projects authorization is that it will
allow the partners to pursue projects that cannot be done under the EMP. Focusing the first NESP efforts on projects
that have been transferred from the EMP would seem to undermine this argument.
FY 06
Roger Perk
reported that the President’s budget request, released February 8, includes
$33.5 million for the EMP. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also directed the Corps to rename the
EMP as “Upper Mississippi River Restoration” and to develop a 10-year aquatic
ecosystem restoration plan, using $3 million of the $33.5 million request. Greg Ruff explained that the precise purpose
and implications of the OMB directives are not yet clear, but he said it
appears OMB wants to focus more on restoration. Ruff said he does not know how the OMB-mandated plan would differ
from the 15-year ecosystem plan included in the recently completed Navigation Study. Janet Sternburg noted that the EMP’s project
purpose has also been changed in at least some budget documents to
navigation/mitigation. Ruff said
nothing in the EMP authorization refers to mitigation and said he does not see
the EMP’s project purpose changing.
Ruff said this shift in terminology may have simply been
inadvertent.
EMP-CC members
expressed a variety of concerns regarding the OMB directives and changes,
including the fact that they appear to reflect some confusion between EMP and
NESP. Ruff said Corps personnel are
consulting with OMB staff. He said his
interpretation of the planning directive, given that there’s no NESP funding in
the President’s budget, is that OMB is asking what the UMR’s 10-year plan for
ecosystem restoration would look like if there is no NESP. Ruff also noted that Congressional response
to these modifications is not yet known.
Dan McGuiness
stressed the need for any restoration plan to make the LTRMP’s importance
explicit. McGuiness also emphasized
that any strategy for transitioning from the EMP to NESP needs to ensure that
the LTRMP is preserved. Jon Duyvejonck
noted that it is time to update the Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA) and asked
how the HNA might relate to the 10‑year plan OMB has called for. Linda Leake expressed concern with the
fiscal implications if $3 million is set aside for planning and the overall
program receives an appropriation comparable to this year’s. Perk acknowledged that people are raising
valid questions, but said he and Ruff simply do not have all of the answers at
this time. For example, he said the
$3 million set aside for a 10-year plan assumes full funding. It is not clear what, if anything, the
Administration would want to spend on planning under a less than full funding
scenario. Perk said the Corps will be
coordinating further with OMB on this and other questions.
Perk briefly
summarized each District’s potential work plan for FY 06. He explained that the plans include a core
amount of planning, design, construction, and management activities that could
be done under a $20 million EMP appropriation.
Each District has also identified another increment of work that would
be done with additional funding up to the $33.5 million requested by the
President. Perk explained that, under
an increased funding scenario, the HREP program would increase its focus on
constructing projects that have been waiting for funding, while also
maintaining appropriate levels of planning and design. He emphasized that any funding increase will
not be used to increase planning to develop projects for construction under
NESP.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked about the Corps’ capacity to implement a $33.5 million EMP,
noting that Corps staff is already stretched at times. While acknowledging the importance NESP,
hurricane relief, and the Corps’ overseas missions, Benjamin stressed the need
for the EMP to remain a Corps priority.
Perk agreed that the Corps does indeed face staffing challenges and that
it has become especially difficult to respond to fluctuations in program
funding levels. However, he assured the
EMP partners that various strategies are in place to ensure adequate
personnel. This includes the use of
Corps staff from other MVD Districts and increased use of contractors for HREP
planning work, if necessary.
Status of EMP-CC Representatives
Roger Perk
reported that, since the committee’s November 2004 meeting, he has received
letters naming Rick Mollahan and Tim Schlagenhaft as the Illinois DNR and Minnesota
DNR EMP-CC representatives, respectively.
Mike McGhee reported that he inquired last week about securing a letter
confirming his status. McGhee said he
would follow-up with Perk shortly. Perk
said he would consult with Mike Sullivan regarding NRCS’s future participation
on the EMP-CC. Perk noted that, once
things are confirmed with Iowa DNR and NRCS, the status of all partner agencies
will be current.
Public Involvement and Program Advocacy
Gretchen
Benjamin reported that she and Don Hultman have discussed sending out an EMP
action alert via the Upper Mississippi Basin Stakeholder Network (UMBSN) before
the network dissolves. Barry Drazkowski
explained that the UMBSN is losing its funding at the end of February. He said St. Mary’s University will self-fund
the network for a few months to see if new sources of support can be
found. However, during this period, the
UMBSN will operate at a reduced level of effort. In answer to a question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Drazkowski said
the cost of the UMBSN would vary depending on the level of operation
desired. Over the past year, UMBSN
operations cost approximately $35,000.
Benjamin also
reported that Ron Kind’s River Advisory Council will be meeting on March
8. Tim Schlagenhaft noted that the Mississippi
River Citizen Commission is sponsoring a March 21 briefing for
Congressional staff concerning current river issues. Gary Loss observed that communication from states and
stakeholders to members of Congress can be quite effective. Linda Leake reported that USGS has been
talking with Representative Kind and Senator Kohl over the past few months
concerning UMESC’s capabilities relative to the EMP and NESP in the
future. UMESC will be briefing USGS’s
Headquarters on related issues at the end of March.
Janet Sternburg
said she has briefed Missouri DOC’s senior staff on the importance of, and
distinctions between, EMP and NESP prior to their spring Hill visits. She also reported that Missouri DOC
testified before the Mississippi River Commission concerning the EMP’s
importance. Loss said staff from the
three Corps Districts often meet with staff in Governors’ D.C. offices when
they are in Washington. He asked
Schlagenhaft and Benjamin to provide him with contact points in their
Governor’s D.C. offices.
Don Powell
reported that, when an HREP is under construction, MVP issues press releases to
increase public awareness in the area.
Powell said Wisconsin DNR also does this.
EMP-CC and A-Team Roles and
Responsibilities
Gretchen
Benjamin reported that the states discussed the respective roles and
responsibilities of the EMP-CC and the A-Team at yesterday’s pre-meeting. She explained that this initially came up in
seeking to clarify each group’s role relative to the Status and Trends Report,
but the conversation broadened to more general questions. She summarized the states’ general
perspective as being that the EMP-CC should rely on the A-Team to address
technical and science questions related to the LTRMP, but should retain its
policy and dispute resolution roles on LTRMP matters. Benjamin said the states would like the full EMP-CC to discuss
these questions at a future meeting, with the goal of clarifying the groups’
roles and interrelationship. Roger Perk
agreed that there has been some drift within the two groups and said he thinks
both would benefit from confirming what is expected from each.
Tim Schlagenhaft
explained that the states’ discussion yesterday was focused primarily on how to
keep each group as effective and efficient as possible. He said part of this is establishing
realistic timelines, communicating them, and then sticking to them on efforts
that require contributions and input from various partners. He said the FY 05 scope of work (SOW) for
LTRMP provides a good start in this direction by clearly identifying
deliverables and timelines. But he said
all partners need to contribute to this goal of increased efficiency by
respecting deadlines that are established.
Linda Leake
agreed that there are opportunities for increased streamlining and improved
communication. She described the FY 05
SOW as a comprehensive document with detailed milestones and clear lines of
responsibility. Leake said she would be
happy to work with Perk to identify ways of improving communication and coordination. Benjamin expressed her appreciation for
Leake’s offer, but also stressed that the states’ concerns are not restricted
to the LTRMP. She explained that the
states would like to look at these issues for the entire EMP. For example, she said the partners have had
difficulty making progress on the project cooperation agreement template, the
System Ecological Team, and other important HREP-related items. Benjamin said the states understand that
they, too, have important responsibilities for making all elements of the EMP
work efficiently and effectively. She
said the states are willing to do their part.
EMP-CC members
agreed to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the EMP-CC and A‑Team,
and related issues, at their May meeting.
PCA Template
Greg Ruff
reported that MVD submitted the project cooperation agreement (PCA) template to
Corps Headquarters some time ago.
Recently, headquarters has indicated that it will not be approving a
model PCA for the EMP. Ruff said the
basis for this decision is that the EMP typically only generates about two PCAs
per year. This is low compared with
several other programs that are also seeking to establish model PCAs. Given this, headquarters staff has concluded
that the potential benefits from an EMP PCA template are relatively low and do
not justify the investment of effort that would be required. Gretchen Benjamin said that, even at two
projects a year, a model PCA would eventually produce net time savings. Ruff agreed, but noted that part of the
problem is that model PCAs have a limited life span and eventually have to be
updated. Thus, if creating the template
requires considerable upfront work and it will receive relatively little use
over its projected life span, Headquarters staff cannot justify the time
investment.
Report to Congress
Roger Perk
reported that MVD and MVR staff have responded to questions from Corps
Headquarters counsel regarding the EMP Report to Congress (RTC). These questions primarily concerned the
definition of project lands and related cost sharing issues. Perk said he believes the questions have
been satisfactorily addressed. Regional
staff are preparing a wrap-up memo for the HQ counsel and anticipate that the
RTC will be finalized by the end of March.
Holly Stoerker
reported that UMRBA supports amending the EMP authorization to permit NGOs to
serve as nonfederal sponsors, but will not actively lobby for this change in
the 2005 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Stoerker explained that the states’ priority for WRDA 05 is
getting NESP authorized, and that the UMRBA does not want to risk confusing or
diluting its message by simultaneously pursuing changes to the EMP
authorization. However, the UMRBA will
make its support for the NGO change known more informally. Stoerker added that she believes the NGO
amendment may already have support within the Senate Committee.
Stoerker also
emphasized the states’ commitment to getting the Fish and Wildlife Service the
resources it needs to properly operate and maintain (O&M) the HREPs on its
refuges. She said the UMRBA will
emphasize the UMRS refuges’ need for increased HREP O&M funding in both the
testimony it offers on the FY 06 Interior budget and in a meeting it is seeking
with the Service Director. In response
to a question from Janet Sternburg, Charlie Wooley explained that the Service’s
HREP O&M costs have grown and become more problematic as the projects have
become larger in scale and longer in duration.
Bill Franz
reported that he is still working internally to determine EPA’s level of
interest in a jointly led science planning process for the UMR. Franz said some within EPA are confusing
this RTC-recommended effort with other data needs issues and efforts, including
those related to UMR water quality and Gulf hypoxia. He explained that there is still work to do helping people
understand the RTC recommendation and then determining whether EPA would be
willing to commit resources. Franz said
the resources would likely have to come from EPA Headquarters, rather than the
Regions. Linda Leake said USGS will not
be pursuing the RTC recommendation until EPA determines its position.
Stoerker urged
Franz and Leake to determine their agencies’ response to the RTC
recommendation. Stoerker observed that,
if EPA and USGS are not prepared to co-lead the science planning process, then
the EMP partners will need to decide whether they want to pursue other avenues,
such as a Congressional directive or linking to ongoing Gulf hypoxia work. She emphasized that all partners share
accountability for seeking to implement their joint RTC recommendations. She encouraged Franz and Leake to let the
partners know if they should be communicating directly with EPA and USGS
leadership on this matter. Franz said
he would report back to the EMP-CC members by the end of March on the status of
this RTC recommendation within EPA.
Navigation Study Institutional
Arrangements
Chuck Spitzack
reported that Corps staff have been working with an interagency volunteer team
to draft an institutional arrangements (IA) framework to support integrated,
adaptive management on the UMRS. He
explained that NESP, with its ambitious scope and emphasis on adaptive,
integrated management, offers a compelling reason to review our current
arrangements and future needs. Spitzack
briefly reviewed the concepts of adaptive and integrated management and said
the new IA framework is designed to focus on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
fisheries, ecological services, and refuges work and the Corps’ NESP, EMP,
9-foot channel, and Illinois Waterway programs.
Under the
proposed IA framework, the following groups would help support river
management:
· Federal Principals Group — consists of
senior, Washington-level federal agency leaders; aligns national priorities,
resolves policy and program issues, and discusses and collaborates on broad
river issues
· Regional Principals Group — consists of
regional directors of the same federal agencies represented on the Federal
Principals Group; works collaboratively with UMRBA, monitors effectiveness of
institutional arrangements, and resolves policy and program issues
· UMRBA — composition unchanged; is asked
to coordinate with the Regional Principals Group and perform many of the same
functions, but from the states’ perspective
· River Management Council (RMC) — consists
of 26 members representing 19 federal and state agencies and NGOs; focuses on
system-level needs related to implementing the above-referenced Corps and
Service programs; this includes establishing integrated vision and goals,
vetting system plans, adopting principles and practices for adaptive
management, facilitating system-wide communication, evaluating effectiveness of
river management, forming additional teams for specific purposes, and providing
its conclusions back to member agencies
· River Management Teams (RMTs) — consists
of the existing three District-based teams (RRF, RRCT, RRAT), with
modifications as needed; these teams focus on subsystems and specific projects;
this includes enhancing interagency coordination, fostering cooperative
partnerships, vetting subsystem plans and specific projects, coordinating with
the Science Panel on adaptive management, evaluating monitoring results,
communicating with stakeholders and the public, establishing and directing
technical groups, establishing integrated vision and goals, and providing their
conclusions back to member agencies
· Science Panel — consists of up to 10
members with agency and/or academic backgrounds; provides scientific guidance
and recommendations in support of adaptive management to the RMC and RMTs; this
includes developing a framework for creating models, providing scientific
guidance relevant to goals and objectives, developing protocols for quantifying
outputs, assisting RMTs with management information needs, assisting in
developing communication tools, and making recommendations regarding a data
clearinghouse.
Spitzack said
the draft framework envisions the EMP-CC transitioning to become the RMC. He noted that this would involve expanding
both the committee’s membership and its scope, while maintaining its ability to
serve the EMP’s needs.
According to
Spitzack, Corps staff are currently drafting a full description of the proposed
IA framework. Upon completion, he said
volunteer team members will have an opportunity to comment on this document,
which will then be revised and circulated more broadly to agencies and
stakeholder groups for formal comment.
Additional stakeholder meetings and agency review are currently
scheduled for the May/June timeframe, with implementation slated for the
beginning of FY 06. Spitzack
acknowledged that this is an aggressive timeline and said it would be adjusted
if needed. However, he also emphasized
that, if the NESP authorization is delayed, he would still recommend continuing
to implement the IA framework as expeditiously as possible. He explained that, even without NESP, there
are still significant integration needs on the UMRS that the new framework
would help address.
In response to a
question from Pam Thiel, Spitzack said the Corps is just starting its outreach
efforts concerning the proposed framework.
Those efforts will include coordinating directly with all organizations
and agencies identified as potential members of the RMC. Charlie Wooley questioned whether the RMC
would really be a management council, or more of a coordination
body. If the latter is intended, he
suggested changing the group’s name to better reflect its purpose.
Gretchen Benjamin
stressed the need to make certain that the EMP-CC’s current functions are not
lost under a new RMC. She cautioned
that the RMC’s broader membership may make it a challenge for the group to
perform all of the EMP-CC’s functions.
She added that this could also be the case for other aspects of the
RMC’s work that do not equally engage all of its members. Gary Loss said the Corps shares Benjamin’s
concerns and will strive to ensure that the EMP’s needs are fully met.
Janet Sternburg
observed that the 19 agencies and organizations envisioned for the RMC may be
too broad. Specifically, she noted that
some of the participants listed have only very limited interest in the majority
of the RMC’s proposed focus areas.
Spitzack agreed that some agencies and organizations will be more fully
engaged than others. However, he said
it makes sense to cast a fairly broad net and allow the agencies and
organizations to determine how active they will be. He suggested that some participants may ultimately function more
like POCs, providing links to their agencies when needed, rather than as active
RMC members.
Benjamin said
she is not yet convinced that the IA framework should be implemented regardless
of the outcome with NESP. While she
sees some value in standardizing and connecting the RMTs on a system scale,
Benjamin said she is not certain that these benefits would warrant, or even
require, changes on the scale envisioned in the framework. If there is no NESP, Benjamin said she
imagines that the desired IA framework would look different.
In response to a
question from Holly Stoerker, Spitzack said the Corps would like comments from
the EMP-CC on the draft framework.
Stoerker noted that the EMP-CC does not typically comment as a group,
and Spitzack said he would welcome joint comments or comments from individual
EMP-CC members. Benjamin asked whether
the EMP-CC should consider developing IA joint comments. Noting that the EMP is facing some big
changes, Sternburg said she would favor such an effort.
Barb Naramore
asked the federal agency members whether they would be interested in developing
joint EMP-CC comments with their state partners. Charlie Wooley said the Service would like to explore this
option. Charles Barton said the Corps
would also like to participate in joint comments. In response to a question from Stoerker, Barton said he does not
see a problem with the Corps participating in EMP-CC comments on a proposal
that was developed by Corps staff.
Benjamin said the EMP-CC comments would focus on points of commonality
among the partners, leaving each agency free to submit its own individual
comments as well. Sternburg said the
EMP-CC is clearly the group that should be speaking to the IA proposal’s impacts
on the EMP. Scot Johnson and Linda Leake
said their agencies would also be interested in exploring the potential for
joint EMP-CC comments on the IA framework.
Naramore said
she imagines any joint EMP-CC comments would likely differ from those submitted
by individual agencies. In particular,
she said the EMP-CC’s comments would be confined to issues related to the EMP,
while an individual agency’s comments would presumably be considerably
broader. Wooley agreed, noting that he
has issues as an EMP-CC member that he would like to see addressed, but that
the Fish and Wildlife Service as a whole has other issues that reach beyond the
EMP-related impacts. Bill Franz said he
views development of joint EMP-CC comments as an opportunity. Naramore and Stoerker agreed that UMRBA
staff would facilitate further discussion of possible joint comments after
release of the IA framework document.
If there appears to be sufficient commonality and interest among the
EMP-CC partners, UMRBA staff will help draft joint comments, which would be
limited to issues affecting the EMP.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
FY 05 Update
Linda Leake
reported that the LTRMP’s FY 05 scope of work (SOW) was completed on February
18, 2005. The SOW for the restructured
program identifies all specific products due under both the minimum sustainable
program (MSP) and additional program elements (APE). In addition, the SOW identifies the responsible individuals and
completion deadlines. Leake said she is
very pleased that the FY 05 SOW is complete and thanked all of the partners for
their contributions to the effort. She
also reported that USGS is developing a milestone spreadsheet to track progress
under the SOW. The spreadsheet will be
posted on UMESC’s web site, and Leake will update the status of all items due
in the previous quarter at each EMP-CC meeting.
Leake reported
that, for the first quarter of FY 05, all LTRMP products due were completed and
delivered on time to the Corps.
Moreover, all second quarter products are currently on schedule, and
USGS does not currently anticipate any delays.
Leake noted that UMESC submitted two proposals for the USGS’s state
partnership program, one for monitoring vegetation response to pool drawdowns
and another for web tool development.
Both of these had also been under consideration for APE funding. Leake said the vegetation monitoring project
was approved and will receive approximately $40,000 in funding. This will cover a portion of the work envisioned
under APE and is an important success in the partners’ efforts to bring outside
money into the program.
Leake briefly
summarized FY 05 program highlights.
She said the 10-year component reports for macroinvertebrates and
vegetation were completed in December and January, respectively. The water quality and fisheries reports
remain on schedule for completion in April and June, respectively. Leake noted that, in an effort to save
mailing costs, the component reports, and other program publications, are now
being distributed at EMP-CC meetings rather than being mailed to EMP
partners. Copies of the
macroinvertebrate and vegetation reports were made available to partners at
today’s meeting. Highlighting findings
from those two component reports, Jennie Sauer said a significant trend in
fingernail clam abundance was detected.
Vegetation monitoring near the Stoddard HREP project revealed a
three-fold increase in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the area. Leake also described several manuscripts and
internet products in process or completed so far in FY 05.
Leake reviewed
the FY 05 SOW, describing its MSP and APE components. She also noted that the FY 05 scope includes a glide path
designed to ease the transition to the new staffing patterns under the
restructured program. The MSP for FY 05
consists of:
· Monitoring — water quality for all
reaches, SRS and fixed site; fisheries for all reaches, SRS and fixed site,
with six gears for two periods; and aquatic vegetation for Pools 4, 8, and 13,
using SRS for 450 points
· Analysis and reporting — annual component
updates via the web, summary report, multi-year reports, and Status and Trends
Report
· Statistical evaluation — consultation,
review of statistical methods, and methods for evaluating power-to-detect
trends
· Data management
· Land cover/land use with GIS support — with
first priority going to consultation and any unused time going to the agreed
upon priority product
· Bathymetry support — consultation
Work funded with
glide path money will include SAV distribution and abundance work on the
Illinois River and UMESC support for the vegetation component, Status and
Trends Report, and statistical evaluation and modeling.
Leake described
the process used to develop the FY 05 APE list, noting that time constraints
required fast tracking the review and decision making. Thirty-one original proposals determined to
meet the Corps’ basic APE guidelines were reviewed by the USGS, Corps, and
A-Team. Ultimately, 15 projects were
selected to receive FY 05 APE funding.
She noted that there was approximately $200,000 more available for APE
projects than originally estimated, due to the lower savings and slippage rate
for FY 05. Leake said the field
stations’ and UMESC’s capacity for APE work is being fully utilized, noting
that one field station declined to undertake one of its approved APE proposals
due to lack of staff capacity. While a
final decision has not yet been made, this freed up money will likely be used
to fund water quality monitoring associated with pool drawdowns.
While the FY 05
APE process was a difficult one, Leake said she has already been talking with
Roger Perk and John Sullivan on possible improvements for FY 06. Together, they have developed a proposed
schedule that should allow more time for development and consideration of APE
proposals and should also benefit all involved by establishing clear
timeframes. That schedule includes rule
set development in February, a call for proposals in March, proposals due and
A-Team review/recommendations in April, USGS and Corps review in May,
announcement of selected projects in June, study plan reviews in July, final
study plans on September 1, and final project selection by USGS and the Corps
shortly thereafter. Janet Sternburg and
Gretchen Benjamin both expressed support for the FY 06 APE process as
outlined. Benjamin said it is exactly
the kind of approach the states were talking about earlier in terms of
providing adequate time and clear deadlines for interagency coordination
efforts under the EMP.
Sullivan said it
appears the A-Team would cease to exist under the proposed IA framework and
asked who would perform the A-Team’s functions on things like APE review. Perk said he does not believe the A-Team
will be eliminated. While some
adjustments in various EMP-related responsibilities may be necessary, Perk said
he sees no fundamental changes to the A-Team on the horizon. Leake said she values the A-Team, and
Sullivan’s leadership, very highly and would not want to lose the group.
Status and Trends Report
Bob Gaugush
reported that development of the Status and Trends Report is on schedule, with
both the report outline and a list of indicators having been circulated to
program partners for comment. Gaugush
urged that a scientific report like this limit itself to the consideration of
indicators, not both indicators and endpoints, because endpoints imply a
decision about where the system should be.
The selection of endpoints is a management and policy responsibility,
not a question of science, and is thus not within the sphere of USGS, according
to Gaugush.
Gaugush noted
that an early decision to confine the Status and Trends Report to LTRMP data
and Corps hydrology data limits the indicators that can be used. However, he emphasized that this decision
was made for important practical reasons and will still allow a broad range of
indicators to be considered. He
reviewed the preliminary list of indicators.
Regarding the report’s format, Gaugush said he favors an approach used
for a similar Great Lakes report. A
gage is used to present basic information and then standard text and graphic
formats are used to provide more detail.
Gaugush said a
meeting is scheduled for early March at which writing assignments, interim
milestones, and budget allocations will be set. He said these will be posted on the UMESC web site shortly
thereafter, with an announcement going to program partners. The draft Status and Trends Report is
scheduled for completion by September 30, 2005.
Gretchen
Benjamin expressed appreciation for Gaugush’s efforts, and the work of others
on the report. She said she does not
believe it is the role of the EMP-CC to endorse the proposed indicators list,
urging instead that the A-Team be the partners’ interface with the report team. In response to a question from Leake, the
state EMP-CC members also affirmed that Gaugush should work with the field
station team leaders directly on writing assignments for the report.
John Sullivan
asked whether the A-Team should endorse the proposed indicators list, if the
EMP-CC does not believe that it should be performing this function. In response to a question from Benjamin,
Gaugush said that most of the A-Team members’ individual comments on the list
had been adopted, but that some could not be accommodated. Janet Sternburg said she does not think that
the full A-Team needs to take action on the indicators list, given that
individual members have had an opportunity to comment. Sullivan concurred, saying that further
comment would be more productive after the authors have done some substantive
work with the indicators. Roger Perk
and Benjamin expressed their agreement with this approach. Benjamin stressed the importance of keeping
to the interim milestones that will be developed in March, in order to complete
the draft report by the end of the fiscal year. Gaugush said the report milestones, writing assignments, and
budget allocations will be posted on the A-Team web page by March 15.
A-Team Report
John Sullivan
thanked Linda Leake for all of the work she and her staff have done with the A‑Team
in recent months. He agreed with the
state EMP-CC members that it would be helpful to clarify roles and expectations
for both the EMP-CC and A-Team. He also
seconded the observation that all partners should strive to improve
communications and said this is not the responsibility of any one agency.
Sullivan said he
thinks the outline for the FY 06 APE selection process looks very good. He also stressed the importance of ensuring
that the A-Team has the opportunity to review all potential projects — i.e.,
new projects should not be added to the list after the A-Team review. Sullivan also praised the Status and Trends
Report outline and proposed indicators list.
While the A-Team as a group has not yet endorsed the indicators,
Sullivan expressed confidence that the list provides a good basis for moving
forward with the next steps in developing the report.
Gretchen
Benjamin reported that Sullivan will be stepping off of the A-Team due to other
job responsibilities. Benjamin said
there will be a six month transition period, but that the April A‑Team
meeting will be Sullivan’s last meeting as chair. Jeff Janvrin will serve as Wisconsin’s new A-Team representative,
and a new chair will be named at the group’s April meeting. Barb Naramore thanked Sullivan for his
leadership and extraordinary efforts on the A-Team. Roger Perk seconded this sentiment.
EMP Strategic Planning
Roger Perk
reported that he received a variety of comments on the five-year strategic plan
outline he presented at the November 2004 EMP-CC meeting. Several of these comments addressed big
picture questions, including why the Corps believes an EMP strategic plan is
needed at this time and the appropriate scope and timeframe for any such plan. Perk explained that, since 1997, Congress
has authorized 21 new watershed restoration programs for the Corps. These programs are all competing for
appropriations with established programs, including the EMP. While the Administration believes the EMP is
doing a good job, Perk cautioned that the program must not rest on its
laurels. He emphasized that OMB and the
Corps are increasingly looking for metrics that can help identify the most
effective, efficient programs. Perk
said the EMP needs to be able to demonstrate and document its success if it is to
continue competing successfully. He
also cited uncertainties surrounding the NESP authorization and its potential
impacts on the EMP as reasons for taking a proactive, strategic approach to
planning for the EMP’s future.
Perk noted that
an EMP strategic planning effort could take a variety of forms, including a
written plan as outlined in November or a series of targeted, issue-based
discussions and papers. Scot Johnson
identified potential focus areas, including what we have learned through the
Navigation Feasibility Study, tools the EMP has not used in the past, and
applying adaptive management to the program.
Holly Stoerker
noted that an EMP strategic plan could either focus on the management of the
EMP during a time of transition or on specific issues and needs more internal
to the EMP and not worry about potential impacts from a NESP
authorization. Charlie Wooley said the
Fish and Wildlife Service views EMP strategic planning as an important
opportunity to better link the HREP and LTRMP components and expressed the
Service’s strong support for such an effort.
He suggested that a series of issue-based discussions could be an
effective way of addressing this and other important questions facing the EMP.
Linda Leake
expressed general agreement with the preceding discussion. However, she said USGS would not favor a
broad strategic planning endeavor at this time. Instead, she recommended taking the issue-focused approach
described by Perk and Wooley. Janet
Sternburg suggested program metrics as an issue for consideration through this
process.
Sternburg and
Benjamin expressed reluctance to initiate the issue discussions immediately,
noting that agency staff involved in the EMP are currently overwhelmed with
demands on their time. Gary Loss acknowledged
the demands on staff in all agencies, but also stressed the increasingly
competitive budget process. He observed
that many other good projects and programs suffered in the Administration’s FY
06 budget request because of their inability to demonstrate compelling
results. Loss cautioned that the EMP
needs to be ready to address similar questions. To help the partners better understand the Administration’s
considerations in prioritizing Corps projects, Perk said he would distribute
the performance indicators and criteria that the Corps and OMB used in
developing the FY 06 budget request.
After brief
further discussion, it was agreed that, for the May meeting, each EMP-CC member
would identify the top issue(s) for their state or agency that might be addressed
through a strategic planning process.
This should be done with recognition that the process might consist of a
series of focused discussions or might involve development of a written plan. Further consideration of scope, timeframe,
format, etc. was deferred until after the partners discuss their priority
issues in May.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
Roger Perk
reported that the letters of invitation for the System Ecological Team (SET)
are at MVD awaiting General Crear’s signature.
Five of the six candidates previously discussed have indicated their
willingness and ability to serve on the SET.
John Sullivan, the sixth candidate, has regretfully declined due to
other job responsibilities. Perk said
that, for now, the Corps will keep the SET at five members. If, after the group is up and running, it is
determined the some additional expertise is required, the Corps will consult
with program partners about recruiting another member. The Corps anticipates that the SET will hold
its first organizing meeting in late March.
Perk also
reported that each District Ecological Team (DET) has been asked to prepare
fact sheets for its priority new HREPs.
The DETs will employ the new fact sheet format previously presented to
the EMP-CC. The SET will consider the
DETs’ fact sheets at its first working meeting, which is targeted for later
this spring.
After consulting
with EMP partners, the Corps has scheduled the 2005 HREP workshop for August
17-19 in the Quad Cities. The workshop
will follow the UMRBA and EMP-CC quarterly meetings in the same location, which
will hopefully provide efficiencies for some participants. Perk explained that the schedule is as
follows:
· August 16 — UMRBA meeting and EMP-CC
partner agency pre-meetings
· August 17 a.m. — EMP-CC meeting
· August 17 p.m. through August 19 a.m. —
HREP workshop
The workshop
will focus on technical and operational issues and on obtaining input to the
HREP design manual. Perk said the
target participants are the technical staff in all of the agencies who work on
HREPs. EMP-CC members and others will,
of course, be welcome to attend. In
response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Perk said Corps staff are
currently working to identify more specific topics and presenters.
Perk briefly
summarized the EMP-CC’s November 2004 discussion regarding the Corps’ proposal
for an HREP design manual. He noted
that several EMP-CC members recommended a problem/solution format and urged
consideration of restoration efforts in other regions. In response to these comments, Corps staff
developed a revised design manual outline, which was included in the agenda
packet for today’s meeting. Charlie
Wooley again urged that, as the manual is developed, the Corps draw lessons
from its work elsewhere in the country.
Wooley specifically cited the lower Missouri River, noting that there is
a lot of important work being done there.
It was agreed
that EMP-CC members would submit comments on the HREP design manual outline to
Perk by March 18. Perk said the Corps
will have a full draft of the manual available for discussion at the August
HREP workshop, with the goal of producing a final version three to six months
thereafter. EMP-CC members will receive
copies of the full draft.
Perk explained
that the HREP database under development builds on the old format developed
during the 1997 Report to Congress. But
the new database includes more detailed project information, is GIS-based,
includes project performance data and evaluations, and is designed to support a
range of user queries. Available query
criteria will include pool, watershed, Corps District, legislative district,
county, and state. All program partners
will be able to access the database.
Perk reported that the database is approximately 25 percent complete in
terms of data input. A beta test
version is scheduled for March 18.
Other Business
John Sullivan
expressed enthusiasm for the upcoming HREP workshop. He encouraged the partners to consider a similar workshop on how
to use LTRMP data for management decisions, including the data’s use in HREP
planning and design. Charlie Wooley
asked Roger Perk to consider Sullivan’s suggestion and report back to the
EMP-CC at its May meeting.
Barb Naramore
announced that the upcoming quarterly meeting schedule includes EMP-CC meetings
on May 26, 2005 in the Twin Cities; August 17, 2005 in the Quad Cities [note
change from previously announced date]; and November 17, 2005 in the Twin
Cities [note change from previously announced location].
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 1:22 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
February 24, 2005
|
Charles Barton |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Linda Leake |
U.S. Geological
Survey, UMESC |
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Mike McGhee |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri Department
of Conservation |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Al Fenedick |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Gregg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVS |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Ken Barr |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Roger Perk |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Matt Zager |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVP |
|
Tom Novak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Chuck Spitzack |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Jeff DeZellar |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Tim Yager |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Gary Wege |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Pam Thiel |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jennie Sauer |
U.S. Geological
Survey, UMESC |
|
Tom Kelly |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jeff Houser |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Carol
Lowenberg |
|
|
Bob Gaugush |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Mike Sullivan |
Natural Resources
Conservation Service |
|
John Pitlo |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Scot Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
John Sullivan |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Terry
Dukerschein |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Barry
Drazkowski |
St. Mary’s
University |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper Mississippi
River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |