Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
Quarterly Meeting
Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel
Charlie Wooley of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. on November 16,
2006. Other EMP-CC representatives
present were Terry Smith (USACE), Mike Jawson (USGS), Rick Mollahan (IL
DNR), Martin Konrad (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg
(MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), and Al Fenedick (USEPA). A complete list of attendees follows these
minutes.
Minutes from the August 2006 Meeting
Gretchen Benjamin moved and
Martin Konrad seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the
Program Management
FY 06 Year End Update
Marv Hubbell noted that the
EMP completed FY 06 under a complex set of new rules and circumstances,
including the following:
·
No savings and
slippage assessment
·
Prohibition on
new project starts
·
Prohibition on
continuing contracts
·
Increased
flexibility to carry money forward into the next fiscal year
·
Increased
restrictions on reprogramming funds among Corps projects
Adjusting to this new environment
was challenging, according to Hubbell.
The flexibility to shift funds within the program, including the
$805,000 that was initially held back from the LTRMP, was critical to the EMP’s
overall fiscal performance in FY 06.
Hubbell expressed appreciation for all of the partners’ flexibility as
the EMP worked to adapt to the new rules.
He also reported that some of the LTRMP holdback was returned to the
monitoring program late in the fiscal year for equipment refreshment. For the year, budgeted and actual amounts
under the EMP’s three major accounts were as follows:
|
|
Budget |
Actual |
|
Administrative |
$0.525m |
$0.447m |
|
LTRMP |
$6.037m |
$5.239m |
|
HREP |
$13.238m |
$14.114m |
Other FY 06 highlights included
celebrating the EMP’s 20th anniversary; adopting the EMP Operating
Approach document; initiating an APE refinement process; completing five HREPs;
welcoming a new MVR District Commander; and naming new Corps managers for the
EMP and LTRMP, a new UMESC center director, a new MVD EMP liaison, and a new
Iowa EMP-CC representative.
FY 07 Status and Outlook
Hubbell reported that the FY
07 energy and water appropriations measure is still pending in Congress. The House-passed bill includes $20.0 million
for the EMP, while the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved $16.0
million. Assuming no savings and
slippage assessment and a one percent recission, program funding in this range
would result in between $4.825 and $6.041 million for the LTRMP and between
$10.540 and $13.199 million for HREPs.
The 2004 LTRMP restructuring plan assumes the LTRMP allocation will be
at least $4.363 million annually.
Administrative costs under the $16.0 to $20.0 million scenario would
range from $447,000 to $525,000.
LTRMP Budget Categories
Hubbell briefly summarized
the history of the 2004 LTRMP restructuring plan, explaining that the plan
established two categories of program activities — i.e., Minimal Sustainable
Program (MSP) and Additional Program Elements (APE). These two categories were observed in FY 05,
the first year of the plan. However, in
FY 06, an additional MSP+ category emerged, leading to questions about how this
new category was to be defined and its priority relative to APEs. Hubbell reported that, consistent with the
2004 restructuring plan, there will be only two LTRMP budget categories in FY
07 — i.e., MSP and APEs. Items funded
under MSP+ in FY 06 will be considered for funding as APEs in FY 07‑09,
according to Hubbell. This includes equipment
refreshment, data visualization tools, bathymetry, glide path, and Status and
Trends. However, he noted that these
last two items are not expected to be funded beyond FY 07.
Under this two category
approach, Hubbell said the A-Team will continue to rank those APE projects that
are technical in nature, while the EMP-CC will be asked to rank the
administrative items. The Corps and USGS will then develop a final plan for all
APEs. Hubbell stressed his intent to make
the process as open and transparent as possible. This extends to including the A-Team chair as
an observer when the Corps and USGS determine the final APE plan. He also acknowledged that it will not be
possible to implement the ranking approach for administrative APEs in FY 07,
but said it is his intended approach for FY 08 and beyond.
In response to a question
from Tim Schlagenhaft, Hubbell explained that administrative APEs would have to
submit upfront plans for partner review, just as is currently done with the
technical APEs. Schlagenhaft asked
whether the administrative APEs would automatically receive priority over
technical APEs. He also asked why
Hubbell was categorizing bathymetry as an administrative APE, noting that it
seems quite comparable to other technical APEs.
Hubbell emphasized his intent to make the process as transparent as
possible.
WRDA 06 Update
Hubbell reported that both
the House and Senate Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bills for 2006
include language that would allow nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to be
nonfederal sponsors for HREPs. In
addition, the Senate measure includes a provision that would expand the purpose
of the LTRMP to include research on elevated nutrient levels and development of
remediation plans. The prospects for
reconciliation of the House and Senate bills and action on a conference measure
yet this year are uncertain, according to Hubbell.
Public Outreach
Partner Reports
Mike Jawson reported that
UMESC held an open house highlighting its recent “Taking the Pulse” publication. Staff from the Corps and Wisconsin DNR also
participated. There were approximately
1,400 attendees.
Janet Sternburg said Missouri
DOC’s
Sharonne Baylor reported that
the Fish and Wildlife Service is continuing to place informational signs at
HREP construction sites to help the public understand what is underway. As projects are finished, the Service places
a “completed” banner across the sign.
Baylor also said that Service employees have been making extensive use
of both the postcards and pull-up displays developed for the EMP anniversary
celebration. She suggested developing
more generic (i.e., non-anniversary) versions of these materials. Charlie Wooley added that a single,
integrated web site for the EMP would be a valuable tool. He observed that the program’s current web
presence is spread across several different sites. Mike Jawson expressed UMESC’s willingness to
develop and host such a site, contingent upon the provision of the necessary
resources.
FY 07 Outreach Plan
Marv Hubbell briefly outlined
the Corps’ FY 07 public outreach plan, with an anticipated budget of
$25,000. Highlights include:
· Developing non-anniversary versions of some of the
outreach materials originally created for the EMP’s 20th anniversary
celebration — this includes the pull-up poster displays and the postcards.
· Creating a prototype museum display for the EMP that
could be modified as needed to customize it for different portions of the river
and different museum environments, with a goal of eventually locating displays
in, at minimum, museums in the
·
Raising the EMP’s
profile at the Corps’ own visitors’ centers, in part through staff education
Hubbell said the Corps would
also look at web site enhancements.
Gary Wege suggested forming
an outreach subgroup for the EMP.
Hubbell said he envisioned
the Corps would have primary responsibility for developing the outreach
materials described above, but would coordinate closely with the partner
agencies.
Enhancing HREP Utilization of Available
LTRMP Data
Marv Hubbell briefly
described the FY 06 pilot effort to enhance the HREP component’s use of LTRMP
and associated natural resource data.
The FY 06 effort used a UMESC staff member to provide and interpret
information to assist in planning the Huron and Beaver Islands HREPs. Hubbell stressed that past habitat projects
have made good use of various data sources, but said the overall program could
be improved by a more comprehensive approach to ensuring that the relevant data
are available and used. He observed that
very few programs have the opportunity to integrate monitoring and restoration
and urged the program partners to make the most of the EMP’s capacity in this
regard.
For FY 07, the Corps is
proposing a one-year expanded pilot, with an estimated cost between $50,000 and
$70,000. This would build on the FY 06
small-scale pilot, with the costs charged as a regional expense and thus borne
proportionately (i.e., 2/3 from HREP and 1/3 from LTRMP). The purpose would be to enhance, not replace,
the data and analysis contributions that HREP partner agencies have routinely
made to habitat projects. A single UMESC
staff person would support between 6 and 9 project delivery teams (PDTs). While this individual would respond directly
to most of the teams’ requests, other experts would be tapped as needed. Hubbell emphasized that the goal is to
support all habitat project phases, from initial planning to seeing how
completed projects are actually managed relative to original expectations.
In response to a question
from Charlie Wooley, Hubbell confirmed that the goal of this effort is to get
real time information to resource managers.
This information could then be used to inform the development of future
projects. Wooley stressed that access to
this kind of information is key to adaptive management.
Bob Clevenstine expressed
support for the pilot. He said better
integrating the HREP and LTRMP components will not happen on its own and needs
to be an explicit focus of the partnership.
Barry Johnson asked for confirmation that the Corps is not proposing to
modify LTRMP practices to evaluate HREPs.
Hubbell concurred that this was not the case. Clevenstine urged partners to remain open to
the possibility that the pilot will identify some needed changes in
monitoring. Johnson said this would need
to be considered carefully. According to
Johnson, if there is an efficient, cost-effective way for the field stations to
contribute to HREP monitoring, this would merit discussion. But he emphasized his hope that we are not
talking about a wholesale redesign of the monitoring program to support
HREPs.
Hubbell cited outpool
sampling as an information need that might be identified through the
pilot. In response to a question
from Jennie Sauer, Hubbell said he would not be looking for the dedicated UMESC
staff person to design such a sampling program.
However, Hubbell said he could anticipate wanting to access other
expertise at UMESC under the pilot to explore the possibility of developing outpool
sampling to support HREPs.
Schlagenhaft observed that
increased access to, and better utilization of, LTRMP and related data could be
very valuable to non-HREP management work as well. For example, he cited the information needs
of managers working on water level management.
Schlagenhaft said that, if the pilot is successful, he would recommend
broadening the data support to other management activities.
After some further
discussion, Hubbell indicated that the Corps plans to proceed with the FY 07 pilot
as outlined above, assuming the overall EMP allocation for the year is at least
$16.0 million. If total EMP funding for
the year falls below that amount, he said the Corps will consult further with
program partners before implementing the data utilization pilot. The EMP-CC members expressed support for this
approach, with Wooley emphasizing the goal of getting timely information to
resource managers. Sternburg requested interim
updates on the pilot at the February and May meetings, with an evaluation
available for partner review at the August 2007 meeting.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
USACE Response to EPA Letters re
TMDL/Habitat Project Links
Marv Hubbell reported that
the Corps is crafting its response to EPA’s June 2006 letters inquiring how
water quality impairments are considered in implementing ecosystem restoration
projects. Hubbell said the Corps’
response letter will likely request a meeting between EPA and Corps staff,
discuss linkages between the relevant authorities, support EPA’s participation
on PDTs, identify a recommended pilot area for enhanced coordination, support
the UMRBA’s draft proposal for a broader dialog, urge coordinated monitoring
efforts, and acknowledge the critical role of the state environmental agencies. He explained that the Corps’ view of the
issues and opportunities raised in EPA’s letters has broadened since its
initial receipt of the letters.
Hubbell also said the Corps
may consider tapping its support services contract with the UMRBA to support
UMRBA’s proposal for a broader dialog about the intersection of Clean Water Act
responsibilities and ecosystem restoration activities. He suggested the level of support might
amount to ¼ of the $12,000 set aside in the contract for additional meetings
(i.e., $3,000).
Charlie Wooley encouraged the
Corps and EPA to consider the roles of the Natural Resource Conservation
Service and the agricultural community more broadly, particularly with the
pending Farm Bill reauthorization.
HREP Database
Marv Hubbell said he hopes to
have the HREP database, with GIS capabilities, fully functional in the very
near future. He said it would likely be
available on the web for partner and public access by mid- to late January.
HREP Planning
Marv Hubbell noted that the
EMP-CC endorsed the HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework in November 2003,
following several years of development work.
Since then, the framework has not actually been implemented. Hubbell acknowledged that the substantial
delay has been frustrating and said he understands the partners’ desire to move
forward with the new planning framework.
Hubbell reported that there
are currently 17 HREP proposals pending in the three districts, including 6
from MVP, 6 from MVR, and 5 from MVS.
Developing the standard fact sheets to facilitate review by the System
Ecological Team (SET) has proven to be more challenging than anticipated. Among the problems are some issues with the
habitat classification system used in the Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA). Hubbell distributed a fact sheet for MVP’s
North and
Dan McGuiness noted that many
of the 17 proposed project areas are also on Audubon’s list of Important Bird
Areas (IBAs). He offered to share
Audubon bird data with project planners.
In addition, he said Audubon members might well want to advocate at the
state level for any necessary cost share funding.
Hubbell also announced that,
at Bob Clevenstine’s suggestion, the Corps will be encouraging SET members to
participate in a special training class in March or April. This “principles of modeling” course includes
a focus on how to evaluate potential restoration opportunities. Hubbell said he expects the training will
help SET members refine their approach to evaluating HREP proposals on a system
scale. Thus, while the SET is scheduled
to provide its project rankings to the EMP-CC by February, Hubbell said the
members may want to modify those recommendations slightly after the
training.
Hubbell noted that the HREP
Planning and Sequencing Framework calls for establishment of a PPT, consisting
of EMP-CC members representing the Corps, Service, USGS, and the five states,
as well as the District HREP managers and MVD’s EMP liaison. Hubbell asked the individuals who serve in
those capacities to contact him by December 7 to confirm their willingness to
participate on the PPT or, in the alternative, to identify who will be
participating on their behalf. The HREP
framework calls for Hubbell, as EMP Program Manager, to lead the PPT.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked for
clarification regarding the role of the PPT.
Janet Sternburg asked whether
the SET’s role could be described as optimizing the ecological benefits from
the projects. Hubbell said this is
substantially correct, but encouraged the program partners to keep their
expectations realistic. DET representatives
will be present at SET meetings to provide information as needed. Hubbell said implementing the HREP framework
for the first time will be a learning experience, and there may need to be
modifications. For example, he noted
that the framework anticipates that the SET will meet annually. Hubbell said this may be too often, but
stressed that waiting 3 to 5 years is clearly too long.
Naramore asked for
clarification regarding the Corps’ proposed schedule, questioning whether the
PPT should meet in March or April if the SET is going to revisit its
recommendations following completion of training in that same time period. She said it would seem to make more sense to
hold off on the PPT meeting until after the SET has finalized its
recommendations. Clevenstine said he
does not expect that the SET would make major changes to its recommendations
following the training. However, Hubbell
agreed that it would probably be preferable to defer the PPT meeting until the
SET has finalized its recommendations. In
response to a question from Naramore, Hubbell said the current SET members are
John Barko, Mike Griffin, Carl Korschgen, and Jim Garvey. Chuck Theiling is tasked with providing staff
support to the SET.
After some further
discussion, it was agreed that the first formal PPT meeting will take place in
conjunction with the May EMP-CC meeting.
It was further agreed that some preliminary work, such as determining
how the PPT wants to conduct its business, might be possible at the February
meeting.
District HREP Reports
Powell also described MVP’s
potential FY 07 work plan, which is based on a total EMP allocation for the
year of between $16 and $20 million.
Under that scenario, the district would increase its planning allocation
to allow completion of plans for Capoli Slough and Harpers Slough. There would also be funding to initiate
planning on one new project. This would
be one of the projects with fact sheets currently pending before the SET. Planning for the Clear Lake HREP project will
involve coordination with an operation and maintenance embankment project.
Marv Hubbell announced that
Mike Thompson has taken a new position within the St. Louis District.
Hubbell summarized MVR’s FY
07 work plan. The district has submitted
DPRs for Pool 12 Overwintering and
Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program
FY 06 Product Status Wrap-Up
Mike Jawson reported on the
LTRMP’s fourth quarter product highlights, including publication of two LTRMP
reports, release of the graphical web browser for stratified random sampling
water quality data, and two presentations at professional meetings and
conferences. Of the 15 APEs funded in FY
06, 11 were completed prior to the close of the fiscal year. Jawson explained that the remaining four were
delayed for various reasons, but should all be completed in the near
future. According to Jawson, USGS and
Corps staff are continuing their work on the Status and Trends Report. Work remains on the hydraulics analysis and
the lessons learned chapter. He
estimated that the release will now be delayed until early in calendar year
2007. Tim Schlagenhaft restated his
comments from earlier meetings, emphasizing the importance of completing the
Status and Trends Report as soon as possible.
Anticipated FY 07 Work Plan
Mike Jawson indicated that
the scope of the MSP in FY 07 is expected to be the same as for FY 05 and 06 —
i.e., monitoring the three components, analysis and reporting, statistical
evaluation, data management, GIS support, and bathymetry support. He also reported that the Corps and USGS
convened on September 18 to review the FY 07 APE proposals and the A-Team’s
recommendations regarding those proposals.
The energy and water appropriations measure has not yet been enacted,
and thus the level of funding available for APEs in FY 07 was not known at the
time of the meeting (and is still not known).
Therefore, the Corps and USGS elected to place the FY 07 APE proposals
in high, medium, and low priority categories.
As agreed among the partners, the A-Team Chair was permitted to observe
this prioritization process. Jawson
explained that the Corps and USGS will defer any further prioritization work
until the budget is known and it is clear within which category (i.e., high,
medium, or low) the proposals need to be rank ordered. Jawson briefly presented a slide listing the
eight APE proposals that were placed in the high priority group.
Jawson also reiterated Marv
Hubbell’s earlier statement concerning elimination of the MSP+ category in FY
07. Work funded under MSP+ in FY 06 will
be considered for funding as administrative APEs in FY 07. Each administrative APE will be required to
have a written scope, defined products, etc., just as is currently required of
all of the technical APEs.
Scoping Future Data and Statistics
Presentations
Mike Jawson noted that,
following Barry Johnson’s August overview of basic concepts related to
statistical analysis of LTRMP data, UMESC offered to follow up with a more
detailed series of presentations. Jawson
asked the EMP-CC members whether, in fact, they would like to have such a
series. Martin Konrad said he would like
to see a focus on the LTRMP’s monitoring accomplishments since publication of
the last Status and Trends Report. He
said he would also like presentations summarizing APE products. Konrad explained that he was not seeking the
kinds of technical details that might be of interest to the A-Team, but rather
a broader sense of the products that are emerging from the APE investments.
A-Team Report
Janet Sternburg distributed a
written A-Team report from the group’s chair, Rob Maher. She highlighted Maher’s satisfaction with the
APE prioritization process he observed between the Corps and USGS. According to Sternburg, Maher was pleased to
see that the Corps and USGS carefully considered the A-Team’s input regarding
APE priorities.
Sternburg observed that the
USGS’s hesitancy to share the Corps/USGS final APE priorities with the A‑Team
hampered that group’s October meeting.
She encouraged the partners to consider whether the results of the
Corps/USGS prioritization could be shared more promptly. Mike Jawson said he does not have any
concerns sharing those final priorities with the A-Team prior to the EMP-CC, if
that is what the partners want. He said
the USGS’s understanding had been that the EMP-CC wanted to see the rankings
first. Jennie Sauer said USGS would want
to ensure that all PIs are informed of the Corps and USGS decision at the same
time. She explained that it would have
been problematic to have released the rankings at the October 2007 A-Team
meeting because some PIs would have heard before others.
Sternburg also briefly
described the A-Team’s October discussions concerning the status of FY 06 APEs
and refinement of the future APE process.
According to Sternburg, this included considerable discussion of ways in
which the A-Team’s focus on science and technical questions could be increased,
while reducing the amount of time dedicated to administrative issues. However, she deferred further discussion
until the next agenda item.
APE Refinement Process and Broader Partner Dialog
Mike Jawson briefly
summarized discussions at the August EMP-CC meeting that led to the
October 17-18 LTRMP partnership unity meeting. The unity meeting addressed four major
topics:
· Health of the partnership
· Role of additional (i.e., restored) monitoring
· Future LTRMP goals and objectives
·
Refining the APE
process
Regarding the health of the
partnership, Jawson said meeting participants reaffirmed the partnership’s
fundamental soundness and made modest but important suggestions regarding various
roles and responsibilities. Of
particular note, there was strong interest in increasing the A-Team’s focus on
science and technical issues, enhancing interactions and communications between
the A-Team and EMP-CC, and ensuring that EMP-CC meetings are designed to foster
substantive dialog.
According to Jawson, the Fish
and Wildlife Service had an opportunity to voice its reservations regarding the
value of its participation on the A-Team.
These concerns were, in part, responsible for the recommendation to
increase the A-Team’s focus on science and technical issues and reduce the
amount of time the group devotes to administrative issues. It was acknowledged that this will require
UMESC and the field stations to develop other mechanisms to address some of
those administrative matters.
Janet Sternburg stressed the
state A-Team members’ strong desire to keep the Fish and Wildlife Service
actively engaged on the team. In
addition to making the kinds of changes described by Jawson, Sternburg said the
A-Team will be striving to ensure there is clarity when the A-Team members are
being asked to articulate their state or agency’s position. In the past, she acknowledged, it has not
always been clear who is speaking in an official capacity and who is voicing a
personal opinion. She said the A-Team
will also be asking component specialists and others to attend A-Team meetings
for substantive discussions and presentations.
Charlie Wooley expressed the Service’s appreciation for the states’
willingness to listen to its concerns and make some adjustments in the A-Team’s
operations.
Concerning the role of
monitoring, Jawson acknowledged the state A-Team members’ recent proposal was
not for additional monitoring, but
was rather to restore a portion of the
monitoring that was eliminated under the 2004 restructuring plan. Jawson said it is clear from the discussions
that this proposal is not simply for FY 07.
Rather, there is an expectation among its proponents that this increment
of monitoring would be restored for the remainder of the restructuring plan —
i.e., through FY 09. Jawson
expressed his personal perspective that the restored monitoring should be
treated as an administrative, rather than a technical, APE. He explained that the monitoring is unlikely
to fit particularly well with the focusing questions being developed to guide
the FY 08 and 09 technical APEs. As
such, it would presumably not compete well with APEs that are more responsive
to those questions.
EMP-CC members discussed the
issue of how to consider the monitoring restoration proposal. It was agreed that, funding permitting, the
restored monitoring would be a priority APE in FY 07. It was further agreed to consider the issue
of how to handle it for FY 08 and 09 at the February 2007 EMP-CC meeting.
Regarding future LTRMP goals
and objectives, Jawson reported that unity meeting participants concurred that
the four basic goals outlined in the 1992 Operating Plan are fundamentally
sound, but not sufficiently detailed to guide program implementation. Participants also concluded that it is
important to begin strategic planning for the LTRMP’s next five-year increment
(i.e., FY 10-14) in the near future. February
2007 was suggested as a starting date.
Marv Hubbell observed that the 2004 restructuring plan was developed and
implemented in a bit of a rush. He
expressed his hope that the partners could engage in a more deliberate process
this time.
Tim Schlagenhaft observed
that the LTRMP strategic planning process will be challenging. He said the partners will need a well-defined
process, timeline, and scope to guide them.
Schlagenhaft also recommended having a dedicated facilitator. Janet Sternburg also endorsed the idea of a
facilitator and said she has been very impressed in the past with professional
facilitators from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Charlie Wooley said he would talk with
Hubbell about the possibility of using a Service facilitator.
Following up on the state
EMP-CC members’ recommendation from the August EMP-CC meeting, the unity
meeting participants considered a variety of ways in which the APE development
and selection process for FY 08 and beyond might be refined. Among the participants’ leading
recommendations, according to Jawson, was to increase the APEs’ focus on
management needs. They saw development
of priority focusing questions as an important step in this effort. Toward that end, each EMP partner agency was
asked to submit, by November 9, its top three priority questions that could be
addressed through APE projects. Jawson
explained that USGS is now working with the partners to refine those questions,
as necessary. Next, the Corps, USGS, and
A-Team will each rank the questions separately, after which they will attempt
to develop a consensus ranking. The
results of that effort will be reported to the EMP-CC at its February 2007
meeting, with the objective of identifying the partnership’s collective
priority questions to guide development of FY 08 APE proposals.
Jawson further explained
that, depending on the specificity of those priority focusing questions, USGS
may proceed directly to requesting full proposals, eliminating the letter of
intent step. A decision on this
potential process refinement will be made after the priority questions are identified. At some point in the future, Jawson said, the
partners may even want to consider skipping the RFP altogether and simply
assigning work teams to specific tasks designed to answer the partnership’s
questions.
Other Business
Charlie Wooley announced that
the next EMP-CC meeting will be held on
Bob Clevenstine said his perception
is that the elapsed time from HREP identification to completion is getting
longer. He asked whether this was in
fact the case. Marv Hubbell said he did
not know, but that the Corps could examine the question. In addition, even if the time is not growing,
Hubbell emphasized that it is still possible to look for opportunities to
increase the efficiency of the process.
He noted that the time required for project planning is partly a matter
of staffing, and that staff within the Corps have been particularly strained in
recent years by the large number of Iraq- and Katrina-related personnel
details. Staff changes in other partner
agencies have also presented challenges.
However, Hubbell stressed that it remains important to keep the HREP
planning process efficient. He said one
key to keeping things moving as staff turns over is to record decisions as they
are made, to avoid revisiting issues unnecessarily as staff changes.
Janet Sternburg recalled
that, a few years ago, the partners agreed to examine the design process and
look for improvements. She urged that
this be done. Hubbell expressed his hope
that the recently completed HREP Design Manual could be a useful tool in this
regard. Sternburg also stressed the need
for the states and other partners to ensure that they engage the full range of
their relevant expertise early in the project planning process. Hubbell said the PDTs need to formally
acknowledge the full range of experts involved in planning a particular
project.
Tim Schlagenhaft agreed with
the importance of accelerating the planning process to the extent
possible. He said sometimes conditions
change or improve during the course of project planning, yet the project is
still executed as originally envisioned.
Reducing the project planning period would lower the chances of building
a sub-optimal or unnecessary project, according to Schlagenhaft.
Wooley praised Hubbell and
Jawson for their presentations and thanked Sternburg for her excellent A‑Team
report.
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at
EMP-CC
Attendance List
|
Terry
Smith |
|
|
Charlie
Wooley |
|
|
Mike
Jawson |
|
|
Al
Fenedick |
|
Rick Mollahan
|
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
Martin Konrad
|
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
Tim Schlagenhaft
|
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
Rich Worthington
|
|
Brian Markert
|
|
Ken Barr
|
|
Marvin Hubbell
|
|
|
Karen
Hagerty |
|
|
Hank
DeHaan |
|
|
Don
Powell |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Jon
Hendrickson |
|
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
|
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
|
|
Scott
Yess |
|
|
Bob
Clevenstine |
|
|
Gary
Wege |
|
|
Jennie
Sauer |
|
|
Barry
Johnson |
|
|
Walt
Popp |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Dru
Buntin |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bill
Lorenzen |
|
|
Tom
Boland |
MACTEC,
|
|
National
Audubon Society |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|