Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
November 20, 2003
Fall Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Hotel
La Crosse, Wisconsin
Greg Ruff of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. on Thursday, November 20, 2003. Other EMP-CC members present were Don Hultman (USFWS), Scott Stuewe (IL DNR), Kevin Szcodronski (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), and Larry Shepard (USEPA). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the August Meeting
Kevin
Szcodronski moved and Janet Sternburg seconded a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the August 7, 2003 meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
Roger Perk
reported that, at the close of federal FY 03, the EMP had expended $10.403
million. This is 99.4 percent of the
program’s $10.471 million in scheduled expenditures for the year. According to Perk, these figures include
$319,400 in funds reprogrammed into the EMP immediately prior to the close of
FY 03. This additional funding was
directed to the Calhoun Point and Pool 11 Islands HREPs. Perk characterized the EMP’s FY 03
expenditure rate as quite good.
Regarding FY 04
appropriations, Perk reported that the House and Senate both approved a
compromise energy and water appropriations conference report on November
18. That measure, which would fund the
EMP at $19.0 million, is now awaiting the President’s signature. Perk estimated that the Corps would be
operating under a continuing resolution at least through the end of November.
Perk presented a
preliminary FY 04 EMP allocation plan, explaining that the plan assumes an EMP
appropriation of $19.0 million and a savings and slippage (S&S) rate of 16
percent, which was the rate in FY 03.
Based on these assumptions and a proportional allocation approach, the
HREPs and LTRMP would receive $10.702 million and $4.898 million,
respectively. Perk noted that both the
Independent Technical Review Committee and EMP public involvement efforts will
receive more attention and resources in FY 04.
HREP managers briefly reviewed the specific projects slated for
planning, design, construction, and evaluation under this preliminary
allocation plan. [However, subsequent
to the November 20 meeting, the FY 04 S&S rate applicable to the EMP and
other projects in the Corps’ construction account was determined to be 22
percent, thus reducing the allocation to each of the EMP’s major
components. Project-specific
information presented by the Corps at this meeting is therefore subject to
further modification as adjustments are made to accommodate the increased
S&S.]
In response to a
question from Holly Stoerker, Perk explained that delays due to funding
constraints reduce the efficiency of the HREP process. Delays during the planning and design phase
introduce some inefficiencies. In
addition, the longer a project waits between planning and construction, the
more likely that some of its features will need to be reworked. Factors include changes in partner
priorities and Corps construction techniques.
Perk said the Corps requires an additional review if a project sits on
the shelf for more than nine months before construction.
Perk estimated
that Corps personnel in each of the districts spend 2-3 days completing the
quarterly Activity Reports that summarize the Corps’ UMRS-related work. He asked EMP-CC members for their input
regarding how extensively they use the reports and whether the reports’ value
justifies the resources invested in producing them. While EMP-CC members agreed that the reports are helpful, they
also recognized that producing the reports is resource-intensive. After some discussion, it was agreed that the
Corps will publish an annual, rather than quarterly, report and will limit its
focus to documenting progress within the EMP, rather than seeking to capture
all of the Corps’ UMRS-related work.
Proposed New EMP Brochure
Marvin Hubbell briefly
summarized a discussion from the EMP-CC’s August meeting, at which members
supported Gretchen Benjamin’s recommendation for a new EMP brochure. In particular, the objective is to develop a
more succinct, user friendly summary of the program. Hubbell said the Corps is allocating $40,000 to public
involvement in FY 04, a portion of which could be used to print a new brochure.
Benjamin
reported that Wisconsin DNR is donating some of Ruth Nissen’s time to write the
new brochure. She explained that Nissen
is quite experienced in communicating with the public concerning resource
issues. Benjamin said she envisions a
simple, 4-panel brochure geared to conveying basic information about the
program. While acknowledging that this
approach is somewhat constraining in terms of what can be conveyed, Benjamin
emphasized that keeping the message brief is a key part of communicating
effectively with the public.
Leslie
Holland-Bartels urged that the LTRMP portion of the brochure emphasize the
program’s contributions to scientific understanding, rather than its execution
of specific monitoring tasks.
Holland-Bartels said she would be happy to consult with the brochure’s
authors regarding suitable examples.
Hubbell said he
would work with Benjamin and others at Wisconsin DNR to prepare a draft EMP
brochure for the partners’ review and comment.
Leslie
Holland-Bartels reported that changes in federal business practices mean USGS
can no longer advance bill the Corps for LTRMP work based on obligations
incurred. Instead, USGS may now bill
only after expenses are incurred. As a
result, states must bill USGS before USGS can then bill the Corps for field
station-related expenses.
Holland-Bartels emphasized the importance of states submitting their
LTRMP billings promptly in order to maintain the program’s fiscal
performance. She said UMESC has
contacted each state, requesting billings monthly, if possible, and on a
quarterly basis at minimum.
Holland-Bartels
briefly reviewed operation of the LTRMP in FY 03. While the LTRMP was allocated only $3.0 million from the FY 03
EMP appropriation, various additional measures allowed the LTRMP to operate as
a $3.9 million program for the year.
These measures included a further reduction in the USGS overhead rate
from 11 to 7 percent, which saved approximately $156,000. In essence, these measures reduced what would
have been a 40 percent cut to a 22 percent reduction. Holland-Bartels noted that fixed costs represented approximately
97 percent of the LTRMP’s budget in FY 03.
In keeping with the EMP-CC’s recommendation to minimize impact to the
program’s data collection capabilities in FY 03, field station funding was
reduced by 16 percent, while LTRMP funds to USGS were cut by 25 percent.
The LTRMP’s FY
03 scope of work (SOW) necessarily reflected these funding constraints. Component monitoring was significantly
reduced as a cost-saving measure. With
the time that otherwise would have been spent monitoring, field station staff
collaborated with UMESC personnel to enter existing data and conduct focused
data analyses. In addition, UMESC and
field station staff initiated a science planning process. In consultation with the A-Team and other
program partners, 79 project pre-proposals were identified in anticipation of
increased FY 04 funding. While actual
FY 04 funding will not be sufficient to fund new initiatives, the pre-proposals
will be retained for potential future use.
The science planning process also focused on identifying fundamental
questions of importance that can then be broken down into discrete tasks, thus
allowing the program to operate more effectively in a fluctuating funding
environment. Holland-Bartels described
several examples of FY 03 accomplishments, including development of an online
browser for fish data and insights such as an association between fingernail
clam density and inorganic suspended solids, chlorophyll a, and spring maximum discharge.
Holland-Bartels
explained that the FY 02 LTRMP SOW, which some partners view as the baseline
program, was implemented with a budget of $4.981 million. Adjusting for inflation, this would be
equivalent to $5.161 million in FY 04.
Referencing the Corps’ proposed FY 04 allocation discussed earlier in
the meeting, Holland-Bartels said USGS could balance the program’s budget in FY
04 assuming funding of $4.898 million.
However, she cautioned that this would require some reductions in effort
relative to FY 02. [Note: This allocation was calculated based on a
savings and slippage rate of 16 percent.
Subsequent to the EMP-CC meeting, the actual FY 04 S&S rate was
determined to be 22 percent.]
Holland-Bartels
emphasized her concern that the LTRMP is moving toward becoming a program
consumed entirely by fixed monitoring costs.
She stressed that, after FY 04, there will simply be no more flexibility
to buffer the field stations’ data collection activities from the impacts of
shrinking budgets. According to Holland-Bartels,
both UMESC and the field stations have done an excellent job reducing
discretionary and indirect costs in the LTRMP’s previous rounds of
belt-tightening. Looking forward, any
further reductions will simply have to come from the program’s direct
costs. She noted that the water quality
and fisheries components currently comprise 54 percent of total program costs
and thus potentially offer some opportunities to reduce efforts without
eliminating the component entirely. In
contrast, invertebrate monitoring is the smallest component and is accomplished
entirely with permanent staff, thereby offering few opportunities for cost
savings short of complete elimination.
Holland-Bartels expressed
her firm conviction that the LTRMP must serve and analyze, not merely collect,
data in order to be a sound program.
She reminded EMP-CC members that, in May 1996, then-A-Team Chair John
Wetzel warned that funding below $5.5 million would require “’reengineering’ of
LTRMP,” potentially including the elimination of monitoring components, closure
of field stations, reduction in research, and/or reduction in data and support
activities. Holland-Bartels said the
program has now clearly reached the point where “science-based efficiencies
within the context of the presently designed data collection program … cannot
compensate for inflationary impacts.
Nor can such a strategy allow critical analysis, platforms, strategic
leadership, and knowledge transfer to the resource decision makers.” She said the LTRMP was once a robust program
with many elements. Drawing an analogy
to shelter, she explained that we have gradually moved from a large home with
many features to a smaller, simpler home.
However, she cautioned that we are now at the point where we are no
longer even maintaining that smaller home.
Greg Ruff noted
that last year, at the request of the program partners, the Corps made a
decision to allocate a disproportionate share of the EMP appropriation to the
LTRMP. This was done in an effort to
insulate the LTRMP somewhat from the impacts of the substantial reduction in
appropriations, with the hope that the funding situation would improve
substantially in FY 04. While the FY 04
appropriation is up from the FY 03 level, it is significantly below the
President’s full funding request and is below even the program’s previous
high. Ruff said the Corps shares
Holland-Bartels’ perspective that it is clearly time to look at restructuring
the LTRMP. Roger Perk said the LTRMP is
producing compelling information, such as patterns associated with sediment
delivery from tributaries. Perk said
such insights offer promise in helping to inform HREP selection. However, he emphasized that analysis and
focused research, not merely raw data, are needed to gain such insights.
John Sullivan
expressed concern that the A-Team has not had sufficient opportunity to review
the LTRMP’s FY 04 SOW and advise the EMP-CC.
Holland-Bartels clarified that she was not seeking any immediate action
by the EMP-CC. Rather, she said she was
raising the issues concerning the program’s future for consideration at the
policy level by the EMP-CC, but would also be consulting with the field stations,
UMESC staff, and A-Team members for technical input. Holland-Bartels urged that the coming months be used to carefully
consider a redesigned, balanced LTRMP that can operate successfully even if
resources into the program do not increase.
Ruff stressed
the importance of continuing efforts to increase program funding, but said the
partnership must also recognize the very real impacts of current appropriations
levels. Gretchen Benjamin called for
efforts to build public support for the program. She said the public needs to understand the impacts of the budget
on the program if they are to communicate their concerns effectively with
Congress. Gary Wege concurred with
Benjamin that the program needs more public support, but also urged the program
partners to seriously address the restructuring issues raised by
Holland-Bartels. Wege said he values
the analysis that was accomplished in FY 03.
Holland-Bartels
said that, in her view, the worst approach would be to drop and then bring back
elements, subjecting the program to continued instability associated with
funding fluctuations. She said the
restructuring decisions need to be made and then the program needs to move on
with implementation.
Jeff Janvrin
suggested that the pending Report to Congress (RTC) address the impacts of
inadequate LTRMP funding more directly.
Perk said the partners had already discussed the RTC’s treatment of the
LTRMP funding issue extensively at previous meetings. He said the partners recognized that the report must walk a fine
line in treating the issue, noting that Congress could very well decide not to
fund the LTRMP at all if the RTC’s message is perceived to be that the program
is not viable at current funding levels.
Rich Worthington stressed that, as an executive branch agency, the Corps
of Engineers cannot and will not lobby for program funding. However, he said the RTC can present factual
information about program capabilities.
Holland-Bartels
said Benjamin’s point about helping people understand the differences between a
fully functional LTRMP and the program as currently funded is critical. She expressed confidence that the analyses
completed in FY 03 will allow the program partners to speak compellingly about
the program’s contributions to understanding and about the data needed to
support those insights. However, in
addition to helping people understand the program’s contributions, she said it
is essential in FY 04 to design a restructured LTRMP for implementation in FY
05 and 06. Kevin Szcodronski and Steve
Johnson concurred with Holland-Bartels, emphasizing that inadequate funding is
a longstanding and ongoing problem.
Given that reality, they agreed that it is no longer acceptable to
address the LTRMP’s budget situation on an annual basis with piecemeal
solutions and expressed support for a restructuring effort in FY 04. Ruff expressed the Corps’ appreciation for
the partners’ contributions to a difficult discussion. He urged Holland-Bartels to keep the EMP-CC
members informed as she proceeds with the technical-level restructuring
discussions.
John Sullivan
distributed a written report on behalf of A-Team Chair Tom Boland. Sullivan described the A-Team’s continued
participation in the LTRMP science planning process and acknowledged the
program’s significant progress in making data available to managers and the
public. He also expressed the A-Team’s
gratitude to Tom Boland for his excellent leadership during his two-year term
as chair.
Sullivan
reported that the A-Team recommends allocating a minimum of $4.99 million to
the LTRMP in FY 04 to accomplish core sampling at FY 02 levels. He said the A-Team is very concerned with
the erosion of the LTRMP over time and recommended that the pending 10‑year
component reports be revised to provide insight regarding what monitoring produces
the most valuable information. Without
such insights, Sullivan said the A-Team is reduced to making recommendations
regarding cuts based on how much various efforts cost. Holland-Bartels said the component reports
are not currently geared to making such recommendations, but she said the
A-Team will be an important part of the LTRMP review structure.
Kevin
Szcodronski said he was tempted to recommend providing the LTRMP with
$4.99 million in FY 04 while also initiating the restructuring
effort. He noted that the new long-term
approach may result in some data discontinuity. Holland-Bartels said she believes there are opportunities to
retain continuity even while restructuring the program. Scott Stuewe said it is probably unrealistic
to expect full program funding in the foreseeable future. Given this, he stressed the importance of
addressing program restructuring. Janet
Sternburg observed that the LTRMP’s fixed costs continue to escalate. If the funding situation does not change
dramatically, she said program restructuring will be unavoidable. Steve Johnson expressed satisfaction with
the competence and professionalism of LTRMP staff during what will be a
difficult decision making process.
Benjamin stressed the importance of a dual track approach, focusing on
increasing program funding while also identifying restructuring options. The EMP-CC members did not endorse the
A-Team’s recommendation regarding FY 04 funding for the LTRMP.
Navigation Study
Greg Ruff
briefly described the Corps’ recent Navigation Study public meeting
series. Attendance at the seven
meetings totaled 1,262, with the largest number of comment forms submitted by
attendees who said their primary interest was agriculture. Those submitting comments generally
indicated that they understood the study process, agreed that the alternatives
presented were consistent with the study’s dual purpose, and found that the
meeting enhanced their understanding of the study. Ruff said the Corps is accepting post-meeting comments and statements
through November 30 and will then prepare its analysis and record of the
meetings. Major next steps in the study
process include identification of the tentative selected plan, individual state
briefings, and an Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) in early
February. The draft feasibility report
is scheduled for release in April, with public hearings slated to follow in
May.
HREP Planning and Sequencing
Roger Perk
reported that he had revised the HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework based
on discussion at the August EMP-CC meeting and subsequent written
comments. Perk said he believes the
revised version is now ready for the EMP-CC members’ endorsement. Perk advised against further efforts to
perfect the framework in the abstract, noting that it can be revised in the
future, if need be, based on actual implementation experience. In response to a request from Janet
Sternburg, Perk said he would modify the District Ecological Team (DET) section
so that it includes language clarifying that project evaluations will be done
annually, but may be skipped if sufficient projects are in the pipeline. This would be parallel to language contained
in the System Ecological Team (SET) description.
Jeff Janvrin
expressed concern with the framework’s references to the Query Tool, noting
that technical limitations related to the Query Tool’s use of aquatic area
types have recently come to light.
Janvrin stressed that the tool’s aquatic area types are not equivalent
to habitat types. Perk said the DETs
should evaluate the various tools at their disposal and make any
recommendations for needed improvements.
Perk said he would not eliminate the framework’s reference to the Query
Tool based on possible limitations that the DETs have not had an opportunity to
evaluate. Leslie Holland-Bartels
offered to facilitate a discussion regarding the limitations and appropriate
application of the Query Tool. She
stressed that the Habitat Needs Assessment and the Query Tool are sound, but
need to be properly understood. Perk
thanked Holland-Bartels for her offer to lead such a discussion. Janvrin urged that the discussion take place
on a system level, not within a single DET.
Scott Stuewe
moved and Janet Sternburg seconded a motion to endorse the revised HREP
Planning and Sequencing Framework dated 10/03/03, with the modification
described above regarding the DETs’ flexibility to forego annual project
evaluations if there are sufficient HREPs in the pipeline. The motion carried unanimously.
Perk reported
that he has received very few suggestions in response to his previous requests
for the names of potential SET members.
He asked EMP-CC members to submit the names of any additional candidates
to him by January 15. Prior to the
February EMP-CC meeting, Perk said he will review all names submitted and
consult with EMP-CC members concerning the Corps’ recommended list of team
members. After consulting EMP-CC
members individually, Perk said he will begin querying preferred candidates
regarding their availability to serve. Perk said implementation of the HREP Planning and Sequencing
Framework will begin in FY 05.
Independent Technical Review Committee
Greg Ruff
briefly reviewed language from the 1999 Water Resources Development Act
directing the Corps to establish an independent technical advisory committee
for the EMP and authorizing appropriation of up to $350,000 annually for the
committee. He noted that the Corps does
not anticipate needing to fund the committee at the full authorized level. Having consulted with the EMP-CC, Ruff said
the Corps has defined the purpose of the Independent Technical Review Committee
(ITRC) as follows:
· Review the application of information
from the LTRMP and make recommendations for information needed to better
understand the system and inform HREP development.
· Evaluate methods for HREP selection and
design and recommend improvements based on sound-science.
· Make recommendations regarding
environmental restoration techniques.
· Recommend generic types of HREPs that
could meet system- and reach-scale ecosystem needs.
· Review and recommend post-construction
HREP monitoring procedures.
Ruff emphasized
that the ITRC will focus on the program level and will not be involved in the
HREP approval process. The group will
report to the MVD Commander. While the
Corps wants the ITRC to be a small group, the membership will include a fluvial
geomorphologist, hydraulic engineer, large river aquatic ecologist,
limnologist, geospatial analyst, and terrestrial ecologist.
Ruff said he has
received some suggestions regarding candidates for the ITRC. However, he said he would welcome more
names, and asked EMP-CC members to provide him with any additional candidates
by December 18. Ruff said the Corps
will then develop its recommended list of ITRC members and consult with the
EMP-CC via conference call in January 2004.
After this consultation, the Corps will recruit members for the ITRC in
the January to March timeframe and will brief members in April. The first ITRC meeting is slated for May
2004, at which time the committee will select its initial topics. In response to a question from Janet
Sternburg, Ruff said ITRC members may be compensated for their time and travel
expenses.
Report to Congress
Information Needs Assessment
(Coordination between the LTRMP and Other Programs)
Marvin Hubbell
briefly summarized the EMP-CC’s previous discussions regarding the issue of
coordination between the LTRMP and other programs. More specifically, Hubbell described members’ general consensus
that coordination between the LTRMP and other programs is important, but
extends beyond the scope of the EMP.
For this reason, EMP-CC partners concluded that the RTC should not
recommend a comprehensive Information Needs Assessment (INA) for the river
under the EMP. However, they agreed to
give further consideration to the possibility of recommending an INA that is
not done solely through the EMP. At
their February 2003 meeting, EMP-CC members asked staff from the U.S. EPA,
USGS, Corps, and UMRBA to consult further on the idea of an INA done under
other auspices. Hubbell reported that
staff from these agencies held a conference call at the end of October and are
recommending that USGS and EPA jointly convene an interagency science planning
process to identify the full range of data and information that are needed to
support environmental management decisions for the Upper Mississippi River and
its watershed. The November 2003 draft
Report to Congress includes a recommendation to this effect.
Bill Franz said the
draft RTC’s treatment of the coordination issue on p. 65 of the conclusions and
recommendations chapter is adequate, but said EPA has some reservations
regarding the p. 59 write-up in the issues chapter. Franz said he and Larry Shepard will be offering a rewrite to
this portion of the report. Shepard
urged that the RTC clearly explain the impacts of limited funding on what the
LTRMP can accomplish. He also suggested
that an INA would be a good way of exploring issues related to restructuring
the LTRMP, but acknowledged that this was beyond the scope of the
recommendation stemming from the October conference call. Holland-Bartels said the recommendation from
the October call is clearly consistent with the interests of USGS. She said Shepard’s additional suggestion
regarding using an interagency INA to guide restructuring of the LTRMP should
be considered separately. After brief
additional discussion, EMP-CC members endorsed the recommendation to have USGS
and EPA jointly convene an interagency science planning process as proposed on
p. 65 of the November draft RTC.
HREPs on Non-Refuge Lands (Cost-Sharing)
Marvin Hubbell
recalled that, at the EMP-CC’s previous meeting, the Corps agreed to provide
data on the extent of various federal agencies’ land holdings on the UMR. Partners requested this information before
proceeding further with discussion regarding what, if any, recommendation
should be included in the RTC concerning extending 100 percent federal funding
for HREPs to non-refuge federal lands. Hubbell reported that data on federal agency land ownership in the
UMR floodplain is presented on p. 54 of the November 2003 RTC draft.
Perk said it
appears that HREPs are eligible for 100 percent federal funding on most of the
Corps’ General Plan (GP) lands, with the exception of lands specifically
reserved for Corps management, including lock and dam sites, recreation areas,
and the St. Louis District’s Riverlands Project. The basis for this interpretation is a cooperative agreement
between the Corps and the Service under which GP lands, other than those
managed by the Corps, are to be managed as a national wildlife refuge. This would appear to make the lands eligible
for 100 percent federal funding under the terms of Section 906(e) of the 1986
Water Resources Development Act, regardless of whether they are under state or
Service management. However, Perk
emphasized that Corps counsel has yet to confirm this interpretation. If this interpretation holds, then the only
remaining question from the partners’ previous discussion of this issue would
be whether to recommend using EMP funds to construct HREPs on lands owned and
managed by other federal agencies, such as the National Park Service or the
Forest Service. Perk said the Park
Service and Forest Service holdings that might be candidate sites for projects
appear to be quite limited, raising the question of whether it would be worth
pursuing such a change to the EMP authority, given its limited
applicability. He suggested that an
alternative might be to handle such projects on a case-by-case basis.
Kevin
Szcodronski questioned the preliminary interpretation described by Perk, noting
that Iowa was required to cost-share a portion of the Bussey Lake project on GP
lands managed by the state. Szcodronski
said he understands that the timing of the RTC and Navigation Study complicates
any recommendation the RTC might make regarding cost-sharing. However, he said the EMP’s project
opportunities are limited by the current cost-share requirements and should be
expanded. Greg Ruff said recommending
changes to EMP cost-sharing as part of the RTC would complicate the broader
ecosystem restoration recommendations anticipated as part of the Navigation
Study recommended plan. Ruff questioned
whether the EMP is significantly constrained by the current cost-share
requirements. Steve Johnson said that
the degree of constraint hinges on the question of whether projects on
state-managed GP lands can be constructed at 100 percent federal expense. Johnson said he sees relatively few project
opportunities on land owned by other federal agencies in the upper part of the
UMR.
Gretchen
Benjamin said she has not heard a compelling reason to avoid addressing the
cost-sharing issue in the RTC. Saying
she sees no conflict with potential Navigation Study recommendations, Benjamin
urged that the RTC address needed changes in EMP cost-sharing. Scott Stuewe said he shares Benjamin’s
judgment. Rich Worthington said it is
highly unlikely that Corps Headquarters would support a recommendation to
construct HREPs on Park Service or Forest Service lands with EMP funds. Worthington explained that these agencies
have their own management priorities and resources for such work. He further explained that the Corps does not
have the same difficulty using its funds to construct HREPs on Fish and
Wildlife Service lands because of the historic links between the navigation
project and the UMRS refuges.
In response to a
question from Janet Sternburg, Perk said he did not have exact figures on the
GP acreage over which the Corps retains management and which would thus not
appear to be eligible for 100 percent federal funding under the EMP. Szcodronski asked whether the Corps would
ever sponsor an EMP project on lands that it owns and manages. Worthington said he did not think there was
a framework in authority and policy that would allow the Corps to be a project
sponsor. Ruff concurred, saying that GP
lands appear eligible for HREPs only if they are managed as a national refuge,
with the Service or a state as the managing agency.
After some
further discussion, EMP-CC members agreed that the Park Service and Forest
Service holdings in the UMR floodplain, estimated at 301 and 33,438 acres,
respectively, are not sufficiently large to warrant seeking a change to EMP
authority. However, partners deferred
further consideration of the cost-sharing issue until the Corps can provide a
more definitive answer to the broader question involving its General Plan lands
— i.e., whether the Corps’ GP lands that are not specifically reserved for the
Corps’ own management are considered to be managed as a national wildlife
refuge for the purpose of Section 906(e) and are therefore eligible for 100
percent federal funding for HREP construction, regardless of whether they are
managed by the Service or a state.
Corps staff will seek an opinion from legal counsel and examine
experiences with past projects.
Questions associated with operation and maintenance responsibilities for
HREPs on GP lands will also be evaluated.
Delegated Authority
Hubbell
reported that MVD has recommended to Corps Headquarters that it expand the
authority to approve HREPs at the District and Division levels. Under this recommendation, the District
Commanders would be authorized to approve planning and construction for HREPs
costing less than $5 million and using relatively standard practices. The MVD Commander would be authorized to
approve HREPs greater than $5 million or that incorporate untested
practices. Hubbell said MVD has not yet
received a response to its recommendation.
EMP-CC members concurred with Hubbell’s suggestion that the RTC reflect
the status of MVD’s recommendation at the time the report is submitted — i.e.,
if the recommendation has been approved, then the change would be described in
the issue and conclusion sections of the RTC; if Headquarters has not yet acted
upon the recommendation, then it would be retained in the RTC as a
recommendation for action by the Administration.
Rehabilitation of HREPs
Hubbell said the
Corps has determined that guidance regarding HREP rehabilitation is
unnecessary. Thus, contrary to the
partners’ previous discussion, MVD will not issue guidance formally
establishing the rehabilitation policies that the EMP-CC endorsed at its November
20, 2002 meeting. Instead, Hubbell said
the Corps believes the RTC should simply document the partners’ understanding
and assumptions concerning rehabilitation.
The EMP-CC members expressed their satisfaction with this approach.
Public Input
Marian Havlick
said she has always been concerned regarding the adequacy of EMP funding. She said Congress has failed to deliver on
the commitment it made in authorizing the second lock at Melvin Price and the
EMP. Given this history, Havlick said
she has no reason to expect better follow through on any future ecosystem
restoration commitments made as part of Congressional action on the Navigation
Study.
Ruff emphasized
that the EMP is not a mitigation program.
He noted that Congress makes annual funding decisions regarding
implementation of all projects it authorizes.
Things will be no different with the Navigation Study—i.e., Congress
will decide on an authorization, but then that authority will be implemented through
a series of annual funding decisions.
However, Ruff said the Corps intends to recommend a dual purpose
authority for both navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration. If Congress approves a dual purpose
authority, then it would be funded as such.
Ruff said the Corps study team is currently looking at ways in which the
authorization language could ensure appropriate linkage between the two
elements. Havlick said this approach is
not being made clear to the public.
Ruff said the Corps will definitely address the issue in its May 2004
public meetings.
Benjamin said it
is critical for the public to strongly support the dual purpose authority,
stressing that the ultimate success of this approach is by no means
assured. She explained that Congress
will almost certainly authorize mitigation measures, but will not automatically
include an ecosystem restoration package.
Speaking on
behalf of the Mississippi River Citizen Commission, Mark Schulz said the RTC
needs to recognize the vital link between the river system’s resource base and
the socio-economic health of the communities that line its banks. Robin Grawe noted that there are studies
documenting the value of recreation on the UMRS.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Hubbell
requested written comments on the November 2003 RTC draft by December 15. Acknowledging the partners’ limited
opportunity to review the draft prior to today’s meeting, Hubbell invited
comments on the RTC’s conclusions and recommendations chapter (i.e.,
Chapter 4).
Jeff Janvrin
noted that Chapter 4 references 85,000 acres of direct impact from habitat
projects. He urged that the report also
describe the far larger area of indirect impact. Holly Stoerker suggested using the Navigation Study’s formulas
for areas of influence.
Several people
suggested modifications to the p. 62 conclusion regarding the EMP’s effective
and efficient use of federal appropriations in order to more clearly convey the
impacts of funding constraints.
Specific suggestions included referencing the HREP backlog and the LTRMP
priorities that have not been addressed.
Ken Lubinski also recommended modifying the phrase “meet program
objectives” to avoid any mistaken inference that the EMP has achieved all of
its goals.
Janvrin
expressed concern with the habitat needs assessment (HNA) conclusion on p.
62. He acknowledged the need to address
the HNA in the conclusions section, but took issue with describing it as “a
useful tool in helping to identify and shape potential HREPs.” Janvrin said partners agreed throughout the
HNA process that the assessment was not intended to “shape habitat projects.”
Grawe asked why
land acquisition has not been used more extensively in the EMP. Stuewe cited limited state cost-sharing
resources and the fleeting nature of some acquisition opportunities as two
impediments. Janvrin added that
developing an EMP HREP is a lengthy process, limiting some landowners’ interest
in working with the program.
Janvrin
suggested additional conclusions focusing on habitat results, new techniques
and approaches under development, and the regional and national significance of
the HREPs and LTRMP.
Grawe suggested
a conclusion describing the public’s frustration with the HREP backlog. Several people noted the difficulty in
documenting claims regarding public sentiment.
Szcodronski suggested that an agency report to Congress is not an
effective vehicle for conveying such concern.
Instead, he said, members of Congress and the Administration need to
hear directly from individual citizens if they are frustrated.
Another member
of the public said misinformation about habitat projects and their impacts is a
problem. For example, rumors often
circulate that hunting and fishing will be restricted on HREPs, or that
projects will interfere with navigation.
He stressed that the EMP partners need to communicate more effectively
with the public. Gary Wege said this is
precisely the type of problem that the EMP should be addressing through its
public involvement plan.
Regarding Fish
and Wildlife Service operation and maintenance (O&M) of HREPs, Don Hultman
said the Service is gathering more comprehensive information on its O&M
requirements. He said the Service will
offer revised wording for the RTC recommendation on this topic. Stoerker also observed that the Chapter 3
discussion of this issue is inappropriately placed in the category of issues on
which a Corps policy change will be sought.
She stressed that the partnership’s recommendation on this issue was not
for a Corps policy change, but rather for efforts to ensure that the Service
has adequate resources within its own budget to O&M HREPs on refuge
lands. Hultman said the Service will
also proivde a rewrite to the relevant portion of Chapter 3. In response to a question from Sternburg,
Ruff said the Corps would oppose a recommendation to transfer EMP funds to the
Service for HREP O&M.
Ruff thanked
members of the public and the EMP-CC for their valuable input. He explained that the writing team will
consider today’s discussion and any written comments received in revising the
November 2003 draft RTC.
Other Business
Gretchen
Benjamin said the EMP-CC needs to work as a group to advocate for the EMP and
build public support for the program.
Greg Ruff said such efforts may be appropriate for other members of the EMP-CC,
but stressed that the Corps cannot lobby Congress or the Administration for its
own program. However, he also noted
that the Corps can and will do more to increase public involvement (PI) in the
program, consistent with the program’s PI strategy. Holly Stoerker observed that the draft RTC currently addresses
public involvement in Chapter 2, discussing the issue as it relates to
recommendations in the 1997 RTC. She
suggested recasting this discussion to focus on the PI plan that has been
developed and now needs to be implemented.
Janet Sternburg
agreed with Benjamin that the EMP’s profile with Congressional staffers needs
to be raised. Jeff Janvrin suggested
the 2004 Grand Excursion as an excellent opportunity to increase public
awareness of the EMP. Benjamin,
Sternburg, and Hultman agreed to serve on a small group to focus on building
public awareness of, and support for, the EMP.
Roger Perk said MVR staff would provide the group with information that
it may need, including the current public involvement strategy. Hultman noted that the districts have
compiled information on public contacts that they make in the course of HREP
planning and design. That information is
not currently reflected in the draft RTC.
Holly Stoerker
announced that the upcoming quarterly meeting schedule includes meetings on
February 26, 2004 in St. Louis; May 20, 2004 in St. Paul; and August 12, 2004
in the Quad Cities.
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
EMP-CC
Attendance List
November 20, 2003
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Don Hultman |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Upper Mississippi Refuge |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Scott Stuewe |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Kevin
Szcodronski |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Headquarters |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Thomas Novak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Roger Perk |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Dennis Fenske |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Dan Stinnett |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office |
|
Gary Wege |
|
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Upper Mississippi Refuge |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Yao Yin |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Carol
Lowenberg |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jennie Sauer |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Pat Heglund |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Tom Kelly |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Ken Lubinski |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC/The Nature Conservancy |
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Diane
Ford-Shivvers |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Sullivan |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jeff Janvrin |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Larry Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
Robin Grawe |
Mississippi
River Citizen Commission |
|
Mark Schulz |
Mississippi
River Citizen Commission |
|
Karrie
Jackelen |
Congressman Ron
Kind |
|
Marian Havlick |
Malocological
Consultants |
|
John Wetzel |
|
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |