Minutes of the
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
May 18, 2011
Quarterly Meeting
Holiday Inn
Ken
Barr of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:05
a.m. on May 18, 2011. A complete
list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the February 17, 2011 Meeting
Janet
Sternburg moved and Jim Fischer seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
February 17, 2011 meeting as written.
The motion passed unanimously.
Program Management
Chuck Spitzack reported that
USACE has allocated $610,700 in FY 11 funding to NESP. This follows enactment of the FY 11 Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act on April 15, 2011. With approximately $641,000 in FY 10 carry-over,
NESP’s total funds available for FY 11 are about $1.25 million. NESP has already obligated more than this
amount while operating under the previous continuing resolution authorities and
thus is in the process of halting its preliminary engineering and design (PED)
work. Spitzack reported that NESP is not
included in the President’s FY 12 budget request and thus future funding is
thus once again dependent on a Congressional add.
Spitzack said Corps staff are
scheduled to brief the District Commanders in late May about NESP’s plans for
deferring projects. Corps staff also
hope to meet with USACE Headquarters (HQ) this summer to discuss a new
implementation strategy for NESP.
Spitzack
summarized NESP’s navigation work plan under its earlier planning assumption of
approximately $1.325 million in FY 11 for the navigation component. In response to a question from Bernie
Schonhoff, Ken Barr reported that the Cultural Resources Stewardship Teaching
Guide is complete and will be posted on NESP’s web page soon. Funding constraints preclude printing the
Guide at this time. In response to a
suggestion by Schonhoff, Barr said he will connect with Scott Yess regarding the
UMRCC Education Group’s potential role in distributing the Guide.
In response to a question
from Karen Hagerty, Nate Richards said the draft white paper on submerged
aquatic vegetation is currently under review by the paper’s contributors.
Chuck Spitzack mentioned that
District staff had anticipated monitoring USACE’s progress in developing the
Lock Operations Management Application (LOMA) for the UMR. In response to a question from Jim Fischer,
Spitzack said LOMA is not a NESP project.
Project Status
Chuck Spitzack said Corps
staff are in the process of bringing all NESP projects to a stopping point,
with the goal of minimizing inefficiencies and allowing prompt project restarts
should NESP receive new funding. Corps
staff overviewed the current status of NESP’s mitigation and ecosystem
restoration projects, including the next step for each project, with associated
time and cost estimates. This
information is included in the table below.
|
Project |
Next Step |
||
|
Activity |
Anticipated
Time |
Estimated
Cost |
|
|
|
DQC and ATR |
3 months |
$30,000 |
|
Reach Planning |
System Objectives Report |
N/A
(Completed) |
N/A |
|
System
Cultural Stewardship — Bank Stabilization in Pool 13 |
ATR |
9 months |
$30,000 |
|
|
Review
process of PIR |
4 months |
$30,000 |
|
Barge Fleeting Plan |
Finalize,
and make publically available, the barge fleeting website; develop barge
fleeting narrative report outline |
4 months |
$35,000 |
|
L&D 26 Fish Passage |
Alternative Plans |
1-5 months |
$75,000 |
|
L&D 22 Fish Passage |
a) AFB b)
Public review of draft PIR c) Public meeting d) Final PIR |
a) 2 months b) 4 months c) 5 months d) 7 months |
$80,000 |
|
L&Ds 22 & 26 Fish
Passage |
Monitoring
— telemetry, |
Continuous |
$275,000 |
|
|
2-dimensional
calibrated computer model for alternative evaluation and design |
8-12 months |
$50,000 |
|
|
None |
|
|
|
Pool
18 Water Level Management |
ATR |
3 months |
$45,000 |
|
|
ATR |
6 months |
$100,000 |
|
|
PMP |
3 months |
$15,000 |
|
Lead
Chute Backwater Restoration |
PMP |
3 months |
$15,000 |
|
|
Public review of draft PIR |
2 months |
$30,000 |
|
Scheniman Chute Side
Channel |
Report
reconciliation memo to MVD (re project review done prior to release of the
1/11 review guidance) |
3 months |
$25,000 |
|
|
PMP |
3 months |
$15,000 |
|
|
IEPR
exclusion waiver; MVD approval on project report |
4 months, pending IEPR
decision |
$25,000 |
|
|
Public review of draft PIR |
4 months |
$25,000 |
|
L&D 25 Dam Point
Control |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
|
L&D
8 Dam Embankment Lowering |
AFB |
N/A |
$75,000 |
|
|
PMP |
3 months |
$15,000 |
Acronyms used in the table above are as
follows: AFB (Alternative Formulation
Briefing), ATR (Agency Technical Review), DQC (District Quality Control/Quality
Assurance),
Bill
Franz asked about the potential to incorporate the Natural Resources Inventory
(NRI) developed under NESP into the Inland Sensitivity Atlases for the UMRS
that UMRBA and US EPA have developed. Jon
Duyvejonck said resource managers contributing to the NRI have expressed
reservations about any release of sensitive data, including use in the spill
contingency maps. He said state
approvals would be required.
Tom Crump asked about the
potential to advance some deferred projects under other authorities, including
planning assistance to the states and EMP.
Marv Hubbell explained that any new projects implemented under EMP,
including those transferred from NESP, would require an approved fact
sheet. In addition, EMP partners would
need to consider how to integrate any new projects into the project sequence. In response to a suggestion from Jeff
DeZellar, Hubbell said he would consider using EMP outreach funds to distribute
the Teaching Guide. In light of this
discussion, Hubbell said partners can discuss transferring some of NESP’s
projects to other UMRS authorities at a future meeting.
In response to a question
from Bernie Schonhoff, Barr said the biggest challenge in deferring projects
will be staff turnover and other restart issues. He said external factors, such as addressing the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) shortfalls, will be major determinants of NESP’s
future.
In response to a request by
Jim Fischer, Barr said Corps staff will prepare brief summaries for as many of
the NESP projects as possible, including the location of the project data and
other information. This effort is
already underway, but is contingent on sufficient funds to support a smooth
program shutdown.
Update on Model Certification
USACE model certification policy and procedures
Nate Richards overviewed the
following USACE policies related to model certification:
·
USACE formed the
Planning Models Improvement Program (PMIP) in 2003 to review, improve, and
validate USACE’s analytical tools and models.
·
USACE issued USACE
Engineering Circular (EC) 1105-2-407 in 2005 to identify requirements for certifying
and using planning models.
·
In 2007, the PMIP
developed the Protocols for Certification of Planning Models, which outlines the
model certification process and the criteria used to evaluate proposed
models.
·
USACE provided
additional policy guidance in 2008 that supplements EC 1105-2-407. The 2008 policy guidance includes
recommendations for the certification of several planning models.
·
In 2011, USACE updated
the 2005 EC (now EC 1105-2-412), in which USACE reiterated the importance of
doing quality assurance reviews of planning models.
Richards
said the USACE Ecosystem Center of Planning Expertise (ECOPCX) is responsible
for reviewing models used in the Corps’ planning activities, and making
recommendations to USACE Headquarters (HQ) regarding their certification. The ECOPCX examines planning models based on
their technical and system quality and usability. Richards explained that ECOPCX forms a review
team to provide it with input on a model’s potential technical flaws or
shortcomings, appropriate uses and limitations, and accuracy. The review team is also tasked with providing
the ECOPCX with recommendations on potential near- and long-term solutions to improve
the model’s reliability, usefulness, and range of application.
UMR model certifications
Richards reported that District
staff forwarded eight ecosystem models to ECOPCX for review. These models include the Aquatic Habitat
Appraisal Guide (AHAG), Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Guide (WHAG), Bluegill
Winter Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model, Smallmouth Bass HSI Spreadsheet,
Diving Duck Migration Model, Dabbling Duck Migration Model, Shorebird Migration
Model, and Mink HSI Modification Model.
District staff anticipate that ECOPCX will complete its review of these
eight models soon.
Richards said review teams
have submitted their comments to ECOPCX regarding AHAG and WHAG. The AHAG review team concluded that AHAG is
outdated and identified several areas needing improvement, such as the Users
Guide, species and guilds, and the variables used to predict ecosystem
responses to restoration efforts. The
review team recommended that a multi-agency team implements the AHAG and that
the Corps consider ways to use LTRMP data in the Guide. While the WHAG review team concluded that
WHAG is an appropriate ecological framework for conducting a habitat
assessment, it recommended some modifications for improvement. These include updating the Users Guide,
increasing documentation of the Guide’s use, and correcting spreadsheet
errors. In addition, the WHAG review
team suggested that the Guide be implemented by a multi-agency team and that
the Corps incorporate scientifically sound monitoring plans, better document
component species, include standard operating procedures for data collection,
and further refine and document the Guide’s ecological response variables,
species, guilds, and habitat type and use.
Richards said the next steps in the AHAG and WHAG certification process
are as follows:
·
District staff
and partners submit to ECOPCX their short- and long-term goals, improvements,
and other recommendations for the models.
·
ECOPCX considers forwarding
these recommendations to USACE HQ, along with the models for certification.
·
USACE HQ decides
whether to certify the AHAG and/or WHAG.
Ken Barr stressed the models’
importance in developing restoration projects, particularly as a communications
tool among managers. He said the Corps
can only use certified models, thus the need to invest in obtaining the
certifications. Marv Hubbell clarified
that the Corps is allowed to continue using the models in planning while making
progress on their certification. EMP and
NESP have co-funded the certification expenses, and District staff will have to
consider how to fund any additional work needed. Richards reiterated that District staff will
need to update some elements of both AHAG and WHAG before submitting them to
USACE HQ for certification.
In
response to a question from Barb Naramore, Barr said the AHAG and WHAG review
teams’ long-term conceptual comments focused on the lack of post-project
verification of the models. Bernie
Schonhoff noted that the AHAG and WHAG were developed for specific species and
locations, but are being used in a much broader geographic range. He said developing new models may be needed.
Jon Duyvejonck asked how much
flexibility will be allowed in applying these models (i.e., modifying models to
reflect specific project attributes) once they are certified. Richards said major changes that would
essentially produce a different model would not be allowed. However, minor changes in the input variables
would be allowed. In response to a
question from Barry Johnson, Richards explained that the model review process
is iterative. A model’s developers will
have opportunities to comment on any recommended changes to the model. However, USACE HQ will make any final
decisions regarding required modifications to a model.
Richards reported that USACE
HQ approved the Fish Passage Connectivity Index for one-time use in planning
the L&D 22 fish passage project. ECOPCX
is expected to recommend to USACE HQ soon that the Index be certified and made
available for other UMR fish passage projects.
Richards said external review of the Index took four years to complete
and cost at least $80,000.
In response to a request from
Janet Sternburg, Richards said he will distribute the AHAG and WHAG reviewers’
comments to the NECC and EMP-CC distribution lists. Duyvejonck observed that the use of models has
been inconsistent across projects on the UMRS.
He offered his opinion that the models are most useful when done by a
team of partners, rather than by an individual.
Barr concurred, and stressed the need to document the importance of a
team approach in the models’ users guides.
Partner Reports
Rick Nelson introduced Amber
Andress, who is now serving as the Rock Island Field Office’s USACE liaison.
Janet Sternburg said the
Corps has initiated watershed management planning as part of the Lower
Mississippi River Resource Assessment (LMRRA).
Bernie Schonhoff announced
that Iowa DNR’s newly appointed Director is Roger Lande.
Steve Sletten said PBSJ has
fully transitioned its name to Atkins.
He said the company has provided services to USACE and USFWS.
Brad Walker said the Nicollet
Island Coalition sent a letter to ASA(CW) Jo-Ellen Darcy on April 12, asking
for support in de-authorizing NESP.
Kevin Foerster announced that
Rick Frietsche will retire on June 3.
Olivia Dorothy said the
Illinois Lieutenant Governor’s Office is actively involved in
Karen Hagerty encouraged
partners to visit LTRMP’s updated web page on UMESC’s server: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp.html. Hagerty reported that the collection of
systemic bathymetric data is complete and can be accessed by contacting Jim
Rogala. LiDAR data collection for Pools
15 to 19 will begin once weather and water level conditions permit.
Jim Fischer said Wisconsin
DNR continues to be affected by retirements and efforts to restructure and
downsize the agency. Fischer reported
that Ken Johnson is now serving as Wisconsin DNR’s Water Division Administrator
and Russ Rasmussen is the new Water Division Deputy Administrator.
Bob Clevenstine said, over
the next few months, USFWS will be updating its cooperative agreements with
Kevin Bluhm, on behalf of the
Public Outreach Team (PORT), apologized to USFWS for inadvertently eliminating
a credit to the Service in the Spring 2011 Our
Mississippi article, “The Corps’ secret weapon: its army of volunteers.” The Corps has added another review step to
ensure that critical messages are not dropped from future articles.
Other Business
Ken Barr announced that the
August 2011 NECC meeting is canceled.
Future NECC and joint EMP-CC/ NECC meetings will be contingent on
funding. Barr said that, if NESP
receives FY 12 funding, NECC meetings will likely be held November 16, 2011 and
February 29, 2012. In the interim, USACE
staff will continue to communicate to partners about funding and other
programmatic announcements through the NECC distribution list.
In response to a suggestion
from Barb Naramore, meeting participants agreed to review today’s minutes this
summer via email.
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
NECC
Attendance List
May 18, 2011
NECC Members
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Schonhoff |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bill Franz |
|
Others in Attendance
|
Tom Crump |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Chuck Theiling |
|
|
Nate Richards |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Donovan Henry |
|
|
Kevin Foerster |
|
|
Amber Andress |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Bob Buchmiller |
|
|
Olivia Dorothy |
Illinois Lieutenant Governor’s Office |
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Shults |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Harold Hommes |
Iowa Department of Agriculture |
|
Pat Boddy |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Walt Popp |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Sletten |
Atkins |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Don Powell |
SEH Inc. |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|