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 8:03 a.m. on November 15,
2007. Other EMP-CC representative
present were
Minutes from the August 23, 2007 Meeting
Gretchen Benjamin moved and
Tim Schlagenhaft seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the August
23, 2007 EMP-CC meeting as written. The
motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 07 Year-End Report
Marv Hubbell reported that
the EMP completed a very successful fiscal year in September 2007. From an allocation of almost $22 million,
only $127,000 was not obligated. Hubbell
noted that the districts’ flexibility in transferring money within the program,
but between districts, was one key in achieving this high obligation rate.
Hubbell reviewed several FY
07 highlights, including the LTRMP’s receipt of an Interior Department Cooperative
Conservation Award and J.F. Brennen’s receipt of a Corps National Partnering
Award for its work on the Pool 11 Islands project. Major FY 07 initiatives for the EMP included
the LTRMP Strategic Planning effort, enhanced public outreach, and a pilot
effort to enhance the use of LTRMP data and information for habitat
projects. HREPs completed in FY 07 were
Long Meadow Slough, Pool Slough, and Pool 8 Islands Stage 1. Contract awards included Pool 8 Islands Phase
III, Batchtown, and Lake Odessa Stage 1 Options and Stage 2A.
FY 08 Appropriations Outlook
Hubbell noted that the Corps,
along with most of the federal government, is currently operating under a
continuing resolution authority. Thus,
the FY 08 appropriation for EMP is not yet known. Hubbell explained that the House-passed
energy and water appropriations measure includes $23.464 million for the
EMP. This is the same amount requested
by the Administration. While the full
Senate has not yet acted on its bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $18.0 million for the EMP. For
planning purposes, the Corps is assuming the EMP’s FY 08 appropriation will be
approximately $20.0 million, with no savings and slippage or recission. Under this planning assumption, the LTRMP
would receive $6.084 million and HREPs would receive $13.291 million. Approximately $625,000 would go to regional
administrative costs, including $100,000 for the System Ecological Team (SET);
$50,000 for public outreach; and $150,000 for various program initiatives, including
the effort to increase the HREP component’s use of LTRMP data. [NOTE:
Subsequent to this meeting, an FY 08 omnibus spending measure was
enacted, including $16.851 million for the EMP.]
MVP priorities will include awarding
the Pool 8 Islands Stage 3 Options in FY 08, according to Don Powell. He explained that MVP did not have sufficient
funding to award the options in FY 07.
Powell said MVP will also be trying to do more baseline and performance
monitoring this year to enhance its project evaluation capabilities. Brian Markert explained that MVS has
structured the Batchtown contracts for maximum flexibility to accommodate
different funding scenarios. Hubbell
reported that MVR has five projects in the planning stage, with three nearing
completion.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked
whether there is a standard process for monitoring HREPs. Hubbell explained that there are some
variations in approach across the three districts. Each district spends approximately $200,000
annually on performance evaluations. All
three districts do a post-construction survey to confirm that the project was
built according to plan. In addition,
the districts’ water quality monitoring efforts on the projects are fairly
similar. However, their practices when
it comes to bio-response monitoring are more variable. Of note, MVS spent approximately $300,000 on
bio-response monitoring for
Public Involvement and Outreach
Hubbell reported that Justine
Barati from MVR is taking the lead on several EMP outreach efforts. FY 08 priorities will include updating
the program web site and developing a mobile museum display. In response to a question from
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
Key Findings/Products from Q4 of FY 07
Mike Jawson reported that
fourth quarter highlights for the LTRMP include three project completion
reports and three manuscripts. These
reports and manuscripts address a range of topics, including floodplain forest
response to large-scale flood disturbance, aquatic macrophyte response to island
construction, aquatic vegetation abundance on the
In response to a question
from Gretchen Benjamin, Jawson explained that an LTRMP technical report is a
publication of the LTRM program, whereas an open-file report is a USGS
publication. Open-file reports are the
typical way within USGS of getting information out in a timely manner. They are used for projects still in progress,
information that is not ready for publication in a peer review journal, or in
instances where the delay associated with journal publication is not
acceptable. Jawson explained that all
USGS publications, including open-file reports, go through multiple layers of
review. This includes review by two
peers, the appropriate Center Director, and USGS Headquarters for any report on
which a USGS employee is an author. Tim
Schlagenhaft asked how much time this review process typically adds to the
publication process. Jawson replied that
the time required is variable, but is generally at least one month.
Janet Sternburg asked whether
contract completion reports might serve as a way of providing information to
key partners in a more timely manner.
Jawson said this is in active discussion. Under the current system, where distribution
of the completion reports is limited essentially to the Corps of Engineers, the
USGS review requirements do not apply.
If, however, the completion reports are going to be publicly available,
then the review process would have to be followed.
Marv Hubbell noted that the
completion report fulfills a contractual requirement. He said he recognizes that the authors often
have a need or desire to publish their work in peer reviewed journals. However, this can introduce a considerable
time lag in making their findings available.
Hubbell stressed the importance of finding a way to accommodate the
publication process while still making important information available to the
program partnership in a timely manner.
Jawson said the completion report could be expanded to essentially be a
draft of the journal manuscript, so long as distribution is restricted. However, if the draft is circulated publicly,
then the article would no longer be publishable. Jawson estimated that publication in a peer
reviewed journal adds 18-36 months to the timeline, after completion of the
USGS internal review process.
Benjamin asked whether a
project status sheet would interfere with journal publication. She emphasized the need to get information to
managers in a timely manner. Jawson
acknowledged the need for information access, while also meeting publication
needs. Hubbell said there appears to be
a fundamental tension between what serves the needs of managers and authors.
Martin Konrad asked whether
the intent is for all APE projects to be publishable. Jawson said this is not the goal and stressed
the need to identify the anticipated products for each APE project. If nothing beyond a contract completion
report is needed, then there is no reason not to release that report. Jawson suggested that some kind of status
report might indeed be a way of sharing important information about findings
that will ultimately be published.
Jawson said USGS would develop a series of potential options for
balancing the need for timely access to information with the need to publish in
journals. These options will be
presented to the EMP-CC for its consideration.
Benjamin observed that there
will be many retirements among LTRMP staff in the coming years. With this in mind, she stressed the need for
centralized documentation of the questions that have been asked under the LTRMP
and the resulting answers, before considerable institutional memory is
lost. Jawson observed that most of what
has been produced is in the UMESC library.
Barry Johnson acknowledged that there is not currently a comprehensive
collection of LTRMP findings in a single location. Moreover, there is no comprehensive list of
the questions and answers. Benjamin
advocated for creation of such a centralized list that would be updated
annually in the future. Without such a
record, Benjamin cautioned that the program risks re-asking questions
unnecessarily. Jawson observed that
creation of such a database, or enhanced bibliography, would not be a trivial
undertaking. Noting that it would take
considerable effort to capture the last 20 years of inquiries in this fashion,
Jawson suggested that this might be a candidate for an administrative APE
project. He said USGS would estimate the
resources required to develop a consolidated record of LTRMP research questions
and results over the program’s history and then present that estimate to the
LTRMP Strategic Planning Team and the EMP‑CC.
Marv Hubbell suggested that
it is important for the partners to understand how publication in peer reviewed
journals relates to professional development for USGS scientists. Without this insight, Hubbell said it will be
difficult for the partners to strike the right balance between timely access to
information and staff development needs.
Jawson explained that there are two classes of scientists within
USGS. For Factor 9 scientists, career
advancement is determined entirely by their local managers, though there are
still expectations that they will publish in peer reviewed journals. Advancement for Factor 4 scientists is
determined largely by an outside peer panel.
To advance, Factor 4 scientists must meet the standards of the
scientific community. Jawson noted that
the LTRMP component specialists are all Factor 4 scientists. Jeff Stoner explained that the emphasis on
journal publication stems from USGS’s fundamental mission to provide
independent science for the public.
FY 08 Scope of Work
Jawson reported that the
LTRMP’s FY 08 scope of work is under development and should be completed in
December. The Minimum Sustainable
Program (MSP) will consist of its standard components of monitoring, analysis
and reporting, statistical evaluation, data management, GIS support, and
bathymetry support. The MSP will cost
$4.3 million in FY 08.
According to Jawson, USGS,
the Corps, and the A-Team chair recently completed their final consolidated
ranking of technical Additional Program Element (APE) proposals. Noting the high level of concurrence
regarding the rankings, Jawson said the partners generally seem pleased with
the changes in the APE selection process this year. He said the development of focal questions
and the expectation for increased coordination among investigators combined to
produce the highest quality APE proposals thus far. The consolidated rankings resulted in five
projects ranked as high, 1 medium-high, 5 medium, 1 medium-low, and 3 low. Jawson noted that the projects ranked as low
were not of low quality and would quite possibly be viable projects under a
less constrained funding scenario.
However, they were of relatively low priority compared with the other
proposals. The five highly ranked
projects total approximately $500,000, while the 11 projects ranked medium or
above total slightly more than $1 million.
Jawson explained that actual funding decisions on the technical APEs
will not be made until the LTRMP’s FY 08 budget allocation is determined. The technical and administrative APEs will
share the difference between the LTRMP allocation and the $4.3 million required
for the MSP.
Jawson reported that the
Status and Trends Report has gone to USGS editorial staff, who are responsible
for layout and formatting, as well as a final editorial review. Johnson estimated that the editorial staff
will likely complete their work by January 2008.
Hubbell recounted that the
development and review process for administrative APEs differs from that used
for the technical APEs. Of particular
note, there is not a broad solicitation for administrative APE proposals. Moreover, the EMP-CC, rather than the A-Team,
is the forum for partner review and prioritization of the administrative
APEs. Potential administrative APEs and
their estimated costs for FY 08 include the following:
·
Status and Trends
Report — $20,000 — modest funding to complete report
·
Restoration of
monitoring — $62-65,000 — field work has been completed, assume will be funded
if required report is furnished on schedule in December
·
Data
visualization tools — $50-55,000 — to maintain the ability to serve data on the
web effectively
·
Equipment
refreshment — $60,000 — MSP does not include equipment refreshment; items
proposed for FY 08 are part of a five-year priority plan
·
LTRMP strategic
planning — no firm estimate, but likely less than $100,000 — USGS staff time to
support the strategic planning process
·
Bathymetry —
efforts to do off-channel bathymetry through USACE districts over the past
three years have not been successful
·
LiDAR —
approximately $700,000 required to complete the system consistent with the
pilot approach USACE and
Martin Konrad asked about the
value and application of LiDAR and bathymetry coverages. Hubbell explained that both can provide a
system look at landscape ecology, which is of great value in planning
HREPs. Jawson said it is important to
talk with managers and see what information they would value most.
Charlie Wooley asked Hubbell
how and when USACE wants EMP-CC input concerning the administrative APEs. Barb Naramore observed that there are many
variables and options in the administrative APE information just presented. She suggested that an overview, summarizing
options and estimated costs, would facilitate the EMP-CC members’ internal
coordination and response. Hubbell said
Corps and USGS staff would prepare a fact sheet detailing the estimated costs
of various administrative APE options, describing the scope and applicability
of the LiDAR and bathymetry options, and identifying which HREPs would likely
benefit from new LiDAR and/or bathymetry data and when those data would be most
useful in project planning. It was
agreed that each EMP-CC member would then coordinate internally, with a target
response back to the Corps by early January, contingent upon receipt of the
fact sheet.
Benjamin and Konrad expressed
their potential willingness to forego some technical APEs in favor of
completing the LiDAR coverage. Jawson
said he is not sure the tradeoff is an obvious one. Johnson stressed the need for both LiDAR and
bathymetry in order to have a seamless elevation database for the system.
A-Team Report
Sternburg distributed a
written A-Team report. She emphasized
that the A-Team is very pleased with the quality of the FY 08 technical APE
proposals, and with the collaborative process used in focusing, developing, and
prioritizing those proposals. Sternburg
said the A-Team received an excellent report on LiDAR that might help the
EMP-CC in its deliberations. She also
noted that the team had a very good discussion concerning options for outpool
sampling, with a focus on what information is most desired and what would be
done with that information. Sternburg
said A-Team members will be providing feedback concerning outpool sampling to
Barry Johnson for the LTRMP Strategic Planning Team’s consideration.
Strategic Planning
Hubbell provided a brief overview
of the LTRMP strategic planning process thus far, noting that the Planning Team
took a deliberately unconstrained approach at its first meeting, then sought
initial partner input on these broad ideas.
Subsequent meetings and work have involved a gradual process of
narrowing and refining. The Planning
Team held its third meeting on October 17-19, at which the team further
explored and elaborated on the six draft outcomes (i.e., goals) and their
associated outputs (i.e., specific products that support the goals). Hubbell reported that the team made good
progress in clarifying and focusing the outcomes, reducing them to five. He explained that the team anticipated
prioritizing those outcomes at its next meeting, scheduled for December
17-19. Between now and then, small
groups from within the Planning Team will be working further on each outcome,
including defining its associated outputs, optional scenarios for achieving the
outcomes and outputs, necessary inputs (e.g., personnel, equipment, etc.), and
cost estimates. The team anticipates
distributing the core of a draft strategic plan for initial partner and
stakeholder review in early 2008.
Hubbell expressed
satisfaction that the Planning Team’s deliberations thus far have been very
effective in opening lines of communication and exploring critical issues that
have not been meaningfully addressed previously, such as the relationship
between the LTRMP and HREP components or the right balance between journal
publication and timely access to information.
Hubbell voiced the team’s deep appreciation for the contributions of its
facilitators from Minnesota DNR, Brian Stenquist and
Tim Schlagenhaft noted that
the Planning Team appreciates the need to consider the LTRMP’s future in the
context of NESP as well as the EMP, including the potential for a larger
program in the future.
EMP/NESP Integration Issues
Marv Hubbell reported that
the House and Senate voted to override the President’s veto of the 2007 Water
Resources Development Act (H.R. 1495, P.L. 110-114). The measure includes authorization of the
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) for the UMRS. Hubbell explained that implementation
guidance for the various new authorities, including NESP, is under development
within the Corps.
Gretchen Benjamin said the
State of
In response to questions from
Tim Schlagenhaft expressed some
frustration with the Corps’ reluctance to discuss integration issues. He asked what the appropriate mechanism and
forum for this discussion would be.
Smith said the Corps will not be in a position to join its partners in
making recommendations regarding integration of the two programs. With two authorities, the Corps must simply
remain prepared to implement both until such time as it is directed by the
Administration and/or Congress to do something different. In response to a question from Konrad, Smith
clarified that the Corps is willing to discuss the issues raised in the states’
vision, but is constrained in terms of adopting a position or plan until the
Administration issues implementation guidance interpreting the new NESP
authority.
Konrad said he would like to
see the states’ vision statement discussed at the February NECC/ECC meeting,
with an effort to open lines of communication between NECC and the EMP-CC
concerning these issues. Ken Barr
expressed willingness to coordinate between the NECC and EMP-CC when there are
common issues to be addressed. However,
he stressed his need to focus on issues and questions directly before the
NECC/ECC. Barr said he would defer to
Smith on questions related to integration.
Konrad observed that the EMP-CC
has a structure to it that does not appear to exist within the NECC/ECC. He expressed a preference for the EMP-CC’s
more structured, transparent approach, and said he would like the partners to
begin discussions on how they will operate in the future. Barr said USACE could engage in some such
discussion, but said it would be limited until the implementation guidance is
issued.
Smith said he expects the
implementation guidance to be issued relatively soon, after which the Corps
will be prepared to discuss a range of issues with the partners. Charlie Wooley concurred, noting that the
Corps and other federal agencies need to await the implementation guidance
before addressing questions related to the future of the two programs.
Goals and Objectives for Ecosystem
Restoration on the UMRS
Marv
Hubbell reviewed the history of the System Ecological Team’s (SET’s) efforts
and recommendations concerning HREP planning and sequencing. In particular, he recalled the SET’s
difficulty in comparing fact sheets across districts when it attempted to
evaluate proposed projects early in 2007.
According to Hubbell, there was simply too much variation among the fact
sheets to compare and distinguish projects.
As previously reported at the EMP-CC’s May and August meetings, SET
members were very intrigued with the potential to apply a structured decision
making model to HREP planning and sequencing.
More specifically, the SET recommended using this decision model, in
combination with objectives set with reference to seven non-overlapping habitat
types, to evaluate HREP proposals.
Since the August EMP-CC meeting,
various Corps staff and the NESP Science Panel have been considering the SET’s
recommendations in the broader context of the need for system goals and
objectives for ecosystem restoration—i.e., goals and objectives that can guide
both NESP and EMP, as well as other related efforts on the system. Hubbell said the Science Panel’s focus has
been on function and process, while the SET has looked at habitat
structure. However, Hubbell stressed his
belief that these two approaches are fundamentally reconcilable.
Hubbell
announced that the Corps intends to hold a January 9-10 workshop that will look
at tools and approaches for establishing goals and objectives by geomorphic
reach. This workshop will not attempt to
determine what those goals and objectives should be, but rather will seek to
develop an approach that can then be implemented through a series of workshops
for each of the 12 geomorphic reaches.
Members of the EMP-CC, NECC, and Science Panel will be encouraged to
attend the January workshop. Hubbell
said the Corps hopes to hold the reach workshops in the spring through fall of
2008.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked for an
example of the kinds of tools and approaches that will be under consideration
at the January workshop. Ken Barr
explained that the Corps wants to look at the SET’s structured decision making
model and the Science Panel’s system-level, top-down approach to establishing
structure and function objectives for the system. The question being asked, according to Barr,
is whether these tools can help us arrive at quantified goals and objectives.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
Spring
Novak highlighted the
following lessons learned from the
Janet Sternburg asked what
particular factors led to the selection of
Follow-Up on HREP Policy Questions
Marv Hubbell announced that,
with enactment of the NESP authorization as part of WRDA 07, the Corps no
longer intends to explore policy questions related to water level management
and threatened and endangered (T&E) species projects under EMP. Instead, MVP has developed a water level
management proposal for Pool 3 that will be advanced under NESP. Similarly, the Schenimann Chute project,
which had raised questions about 100 percent federal funding under EMP based on
T&E species benefits, will instead be pursued as a NESP project.
Janet Sternburg asked about
the Corps’ increasing emphasis on aquatic
restoration work and asked whether this is likely to present impediments for
the floodplain restoration work authorized under NESP. Smith emphasized that the Corps’ ecosystem
restoration mission is indeed focused on aquatic systems, noting that there are
several other federal agencies charged with managing and restoring terrestrial
systems. That being said, incidental
benefits to terrestrial systems should not present a problem, according to
Smith.
Sternburg asked for
clarification regarding how the Corps defines an aquatic ecosystem. Hubbell said the working definition includes
all areas within a floodplain. Smith
acknowledged that the distinction between aquatic and terrestrial systems is a
gray area and is in a state of transition.
Schlagenhaft observed that some of the anticipated NESP projects will
definitely raise these kinds of boundary issues. If the implementation guidance does not
clearly address the distinction, then the partners will have to explore the
issues in the context of individual projects. As examples, Schlagenhaft cited questions
about 1) the boundary between the mainstem and a tributary and 2) benefits to
floodplain forests. Smith observed that
the Corps frequently finds itself in competition with other federal agencies as
it moves further up into the floodplain.
HREP Database
and NESP Decision Support System
Hubbell reported that Corps
staff have completed work to link the GIS and Access components of the HREP
database. Plans remain to make the
database available to partners and stakeholders via the web, but this will take
some additional time. In the interim,
Hubbell said the Corps remains willing to run custom queries to meet people’s
information needs. He also indicated
that the content of the HREP database will be made available to the Corps and
USGS staff working to develop the ecosystem restoration decision support system
(DSS) for NESP.
Section 8(a) Contracting
Marv Hubbell recalled that
Mike Griffin had raised questions concerning Section 8(a) contracting at the
August EMP-CC meeting. In particular,
Don Powell observed that all
federal agencies have Section 8(a) contracting requirements. He said EMP projects can be good candidates
for 8(a) contracts because HREPs are relatively small, compared with many Corps
projects. However, Powell emphasized
that all Corps projects are subject to consideration for Section 8(a)
contracting.
Brian Markert identified
increased flexibility and communication as one of the advantages of Section
8(a) contracting. Compared with the
standard request for proposals and low bid contracting process, there is a much
more direct negotiating process with prospective 8(a) contractors. Markert said this produces better
communication and enhances the contractor’s understanding of the project. Also of note, the 8(a) contractor can talk
with contractors who have done similar projects in the past, according to
Markert.
Hubbell said he appreciates
Other Business
·
February 2008 —
o
UMRBA—February 20
o
EMP-CC—February 21 (a joint EMP-CC/NECC session was subsequently added to the afternoon of
February 21)
o
NECC/ECC—February
22
·
May 2008 — Twin Cities (note change from previously announced location)
o
UMRBA—May 20
o
NECC/ECC—May 21
o
EMP-CC—May 22
·
August 2008 —
o
UMRBA—August 5
o
EMP-CC—August 6
o
NECC/ECC—August 7
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
November 15, 2007
EMP-CC Members
Terry
Smith
Charlie
Wooley U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3
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
Gretchen
Benjamin Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Others in Attendance
Terry
Birkenstock
Don
Powell
Tom
Novak
Jeff
DeZellar
Jon
Hendrickson
Marvin
Hubbell
Ken
Barr
Brian
Markert
David
Gordon
Jon
Duyvejonck
Don
Hultman
Sharonne
Baylor
Scott
Yess
Barry
Johnson
Jeff
Stoner
Brian
Stenquist Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Emmett
Mullin Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Dru
Buntin Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Dan
McGuiness Audubon
Roger
Pederson Ducks Unlimited
Tom
Boland MACTEC
Holly
Stoerker
Dave
Hokanson
Barb
Naramore