Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
November 18, 2010
Quarterly Meeting
Holiday Inn
Kevin Foerster of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. on November
18, 2010. Other EMP-CC representatives
present were Mike Jawson (USGS), Rick Mollahan (IL DNR), Pat Boddy (IA DNR),
Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DoC), and Jim Fischer (WI
DNR). A complete list of attendees
follows these minutes.
Minutes of the August 4, 2010 Meeting
Tim Schlagenhaft moved and
Rick Mollahan seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the August 4,
2010 meeting as written. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 10 Year-End Report
Marv
Hubbell said EMP’s FY 10 total obligation authority was $31.613 million in
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and regular appropriations, which
included its regular appropriation of $16.47 million and FY 09 carry-over
of $15.143 million. EMP’s FY 10
appropriation of $16.47 million was allocated as follows:
·
Regional
Administration — $626,000*
·
LTRMP —
$4,983,180
·
HREPs —
$10,886,820
§
Program Model
Certification and Regional HREP Support — $250,000
§
MVP —
$2,691,046**
§
MVR — $5,254,728
§
MVS —
$2,691,046**
* Includes
$26,000 in carry-over funds.
** MVP and MVS
each received $500,000 less than they would have under the typical allocation
formula in order to “repay” MVR for inter-district transfers from FY 09.
Hubbell explained that the
Corps is requiring all projects without an approved DPR to undergo the Corps’
new project review process, per the requirements mandated in WRDA 07. Thus,
Karen
Hagerty reported that a small work group of the LTRMP Strategic Planning Team
recently conducted its annual performance evaluation of the LTRMP component and
set priorities for FY 11 based on the FY 10‑14 LTRMP Strategic
Plan. Hagerty said combined funding from
EMP’s FY 10 appropriation, FY 09 carry-over, and American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act gave EMP $8.389 million in FY 10 obligation authority for
LTRMP-related activities. This funding
was used to complete or advance progress on efforts related to baseline monitoring,
land cover/land use (LC/LU), landscape analysis, mussel planning, LiDAR,
bathymetry, and hydrodynamic modeling, as well as for equipment refreshment.
FY 11 Appropriations Status and Work Plan
Hubbell reported that EMP,
along with most of the federal government, is currently operating under a continuing
resolution authority (CRA) until December 1, 2010. The President’s FY 11 budget request and the
House Energy and Water Subcommittee’s FY 11 appropriations markup include
$21.15 million for EMP. The Senate
Appropriations Committee has included $19.0 million for EMP in its FY 11 energy
and water spending measure (S. 3635). It
is not yet known how Congress will handle FY 11 funding for the balance of the
fiscal year. Possibilities include an
additional CRA(s) or an omnibus measure.
Hubbell said, in the interim, the Corps is assuming FY 11 EMP funding of
$21.15 million for planning purposes.
Under this assumption, the funding allocation would be as follows:
·
Regional
Administration — $868,000
·
LTRMP —
$6,400,000
·
HREPs —
$13,882,000
§
Program Model
Certification and Regional HREP Support — $250,000
§
MVP — $4,100,000
§
MVR — $5,432,000
§
MVS — $4,100,000
If EMP receives $19 million,
the funding allocation would be as follows:
·
Regional
Administration — $650,000
·
LTRMP —
$5,762,000
·
HREPs —
$12,588,000
§
Program Model
Certification and Regional HREP Support — $250,000
§
MVP — $3,701,000
§
MVR — $4,936,000
§
MVS — $3,701,000
Hubbell said these
allocations will be adjusted as needed once EMP’s actual funding level is
known. [Note: On December 4 and December 22, Congress
enacted subsequent CRAs. The December 22
CRA runs through March 4, 2011.]
Hubbell said EMP’s top FY 11
priorities include a meeting for all LTRMP field staff and supporting
24 HREPs in various stages of planning and construction. He said USACE would fund state employees’
time and travel costs for the LTRMP field station meeting.
In response to a question
from Jim Fischer, Hubbell said allocations within the Program Management account
to regional project sequencing, HREP/LTRMP integration, and public outreach
would decrease by $100,000, $50,000, and $68,000, respectively, under the $19.0
million funding scenario relative to funding of $21.15 million. Hubbell said EMP staff are still exploring
sustainable options for enhancing integration of the HREP and LTRMP
components. In particular, he noted the
immediate need to incorporate LTRMP information into project planning. Barb Naramore suggested that EMP-CC consider
integration alternatives at its February 16, 2011 meeting. Karen Hagerty agreed and encouraged EMP-CC
members to consider how LTRMP data can be useful for all types of restoration
and for use in other programs.
Mike Jawson also expressed
support for discussing HREP-LTRMP integration at February’s meeting. He suggested that EMP-CC consider EMP’s
immediate and long-term goals for such integration. He explained that it will be a challenge for
USGS to identify a single staff person to serve as a point of contact for HREP-LTRMP
integration. USGS staff are mostly
specialists, however integration efforts will likely require a staff person
with broad knowledge of all LTRMP efforts.
Jawson suggested that the HREP Strategic Planning Team also address ways
to enhance HREP-LTRMP integration.
Schlagenhaft emphasized the need to involve HREP and LTRMP technical
staff in these discussions.
Hubbell overviewed EMP’s
anticipated FY 11 programmatic efforts, including EMP-NESP
Transition Plan, HREP Strategic Plan, Implementation Issues Assessment
(IIA), outreach related to EMP as a USACE Nationally Significant
Ecosystem, new planning starts, and the HREP Database. In response to
a question from Mike Jawson, Monique Savage explained that
UMESC will serve the HREP database as a layer of the UMRS
Decision Support System (DSS) (http://umesc-gisdb03.er.usgs.gov/umr/dss.aspx), along with all of EMP’s HREP and LTRMP data. Savage said the integration of HREP
information into the DSS should be completed shortly.
Naramore suggested that the
three UMR Districts include a direct link to the HREP Database on their
individual EMP web pages and consider other changes to provide more
comprehensive and consistent information about EMP. Jeff DeZellar agreed and said District staff
will explore ways to do so. Savage noted
that the Corps is redeveloping all of its web pages to provide consistency.
Hagerty said the estimated
cost of LTRMP’s base monitoring efforts, including the LC/LU photography
collection and accuracy assessment, is $4.955 million in FY 11. She noted that the LTRMP component would
receive $6.4 million or $5.76 million under a $21.15 million or $19 million FY
11 appropriation scenario. Hagerty said
any additional funding will be used toward the following five priorities, shown
in order:
1)
Bathymetry
processing and serving
2)
Tier 1 LiDAR
processing and serving
3)
Additional
ecological indicator analysis
4)
Equipment
refreshment
5)
Tier 2 LiDAR
processing and serving
Hagerty explained that Tier 1
LiDAR processing includes serving basic LiDAR products quickly and Tier 2 LiDAR
processing includes LiDAR products with enhanced quality, including extensive
error correction and contour smoothing.
EMP-NESP Transition Plan
Hubbell reported that COL
McGinley is expected to submit his EMP-NESP Transition Plan to MVD next
week. This revised plan, reflecting MVD
and Headquarters comments on the May 2010 version, will be made available to
EMP and NESP partners at the same time.
Hubbell emphasized that, while the issues and key messages described in
the May version remain largely unchanged, the revised draft describes EMP’s
historical successes and the importance of fully funding EMP until and unless
Congress directs an EMP-NESP transition.
Jawson
asked if the Transition Plan includes an option for co-implementing EMP and
NESP. Hubbell explained that the
Transition Plan recommends that EMP transition to NESP once 1) the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) situation is resolved, 2) stable construction
general funding is appropriated for NESP, and 3) a Chief’s Report for NESP is
submitted to OMB. In the interim, the
Plan recommends that EMP remain fully functional. Hubbell said the Transition Plan does not
include a scenario for simultaneously implementing both programs in the long
term. Hubbell noted that the Transition
Plan does not speak specifically about LTRMP implementation during or after the
possible transition.
Jeff DeZellar noted that none
of the three conditions needed for a transition to NESP have made any
significant progress in the recent years.
Hubbell explained that District staff hope this Transition Plan will
initiate a dialogue with the Administration regarding what information or
modifications to NESP’s implementation strategy are needed for the
Administration to submit a Chief’s Report for NESP to OMB.
Public Involvement and Outreach
Jeff
DeZellar said the Corps held a public meeting regarding Pool 8 construction
activities on August 4, 2010. While
most of the comments were generally positive regarding the Pool 8 HREP,
participants expressed concerns with other Corps activities and increased
vegetation on the river. DeZellar
reported that the third annual boat tour of the Pool 8 project, held on August
30, was quite successful. MVP has
uploaded a video of Pool 8 construction activities on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch.?v=RnJ2terM9tU).
DeZellar announced that MVP will
not be able to contract with Twin Cities Public Television for a feature on the
Pool 8 Islands because of restrictions on sole-source contracts. MVP will continue to film Pool 8 construction
activities and explore other contracting options for completing the film. Karen Hagerty suggested MVP consider
partnering with a university.
Kevin Foerster expressed his
appreciation for the multi-agency public relations response to questions about
this summer’s Pool 6 drawdown and increased aquatic vegetation. Partners formed a united voice, describing
the long term habitat value associated with these drawdowns.
Mike Jawson reported that Yao
Yin from UMESC will be serving on an interagency personnel agreement (IPA) with
The Nature Conservancy’s Great Rivers Partnership.
Don Powell recognized the
recently completed USFWS overlook at Brownsville. He said the overlook is well positioned to
view waterfowl using the Pool 8 Islands.
The overlook has an informative kiosk and USFWS staff are sometimes
present to help interpret the landscape.
The adjacent highway receives heavy vehicle traffic. Foerster noted that Minnesota Department of
Transportation was an integral partner in funding the overlook.
Regional Review Plan
Hubbell reported that
District staff will submit an EMP Regional Review Plan to MVD soon. DeZellar said the Review Plan establishes how
EMP as a program will comply with various elements of the Corps’ new project review
requirements in implementing its individual HREPs. The Plan will describe EMP’s specific
procedures for all stages of project planning, including district quality
control (DQC), agency technical review (ATR), and independent external peer
review (IEPR). Hubbell reiterated that
all projects without an approved DPR are required to undergo the Corps’ new
project review process, per the requirements mandated in WRDA 07. This has significantly delayed
Hubbell said MVR will request
a programmatic IEPR exemption for EMP projects.
He explained that this programmatic exemption would increase EMP’s
efficiency by eliminating the requirement for all HREPs to apply individually
for an IEPR exemption. Under a
programmatic exemption, an HREP that triggers one of the WRDA 07 criteria would
still be required to complete an IEPR.
DeZellar noted that HREPs are unlikely to require an IEPR, and without
the programmatic exemption each project will incur the costs associated with
the waiver process.
Report to Congress
2010 Report to Congress
Marv Hubbell reported that
the first and final drafts of the 2010 Report to Congress (RTC) were submitted
to partners for review and comment on September 15 and October 19,
respectively. A revised final report
will be submitted to MVD on December 1.
The Corps will distribute hardcopies and CDs of the report to the EMP-CC
distribution list shortly afterwards.
Implementation Issues Assessment
Hubbell briefly recounted
that, as a follow-on document to the 2010 RTC, the Corps, in collaboration with
partners, will develop an Implementation Issues Assessment (IIA) to address
issues related to EMP’s policies and program implementation. The IIA will address the following issue
topics, as agreed on by EMP-CC at its May 2010 quarterly meeting:
·
NGOs as cost
share sponsors
·
Cost sharing
(criteria for 100 percent federal funding)
·
HREP operation
and maintenance
·
Delegated
authority
·
Land acquisition
·
HREP planning and
prioritization
·
HREP evaluations
·
EMP’s habitat project
types
·
LTRMP
implementation
·
UMRS emerging
trends and issues
·
Maintaining state
participation with diminishing state resources
·
Coordination with
other UMRS restoration programs
[Subsequent to the meeting,
EMP-CC members also agreed to address the need for an explicit adaptive
management framework.
Hubbell observed that several
of the IIA issues overlap with issues that will be considered as part of the
HREP strategic planning process. While
the IIA will consider these issues at more of a policy- and programmatic-level,
the HREP Strategic Plan will address their implementation and technical
aspects.
In
response to a question from Kevin Foerster, Hubbell said the IIA will not be
formally submitted to Congress, allowing partners more flexibility and latitude
in addressing the issues. Partners may
be able to agree on ways to resolve some issues relatively quickly, while other
issues may take quite a bit more partner discussion and careful thought. He estimated that the IIA will require nine
months to a year to complete. This will
include development of issue papers, similar to the 2004 Issue Papers. Barb Naramore explained that the IIA and
issues papers can serve as concise and carefully articulated communications
tools about the partnership’s consensus on issues and how to address them. They can be used internally by EMP staff and
partners, as well as with the Administration, Corps, and other external agencies
and individuals. Naramore said staff
working on the IIA will use quarterly meetings to inform EMP-CC of their
progress and confirm that efforts reflect the partnership’s collective
thinking. Between meetings, the IIA team
will develop issue statements, explore options for resolving issues, and
consider any EMP-CC recommendations. Tim
Schlagenhaft added that the IIA development process represents a significant
opportunity to define ways to improve the program.
In response to a solicitation
by Hubbell for IIA Team volunteers, Naramore suggested that, rather than
forming a separate team, the EMP-CC serve as the consultative body for the
process. She noted that EMP-CC members’
commitment, beyond the quarterly meetings, would mostly include conference calls
and perhaps taking the lead on an issue paper.
Tim Schlagenhaft suggested that EMP-CC members convene a conference call
in December to outline next steps, and Jim Fischer requested that EMP-CC
members discuss the IIA’s relationship to the HREP Strategic Plan during that
call.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects
District Reports
Brian Markert reported that
MVS has finalized an agency technical review (ATR) for Ted Shanks (MO) and is
currently implementing an ATR for Rip Rap Landing (IL). Wilkinson Island (IL) is the District’s other
FY 11 planning priority. Depending on
the final FY 11 appropriation, MVS will advance planning on Clarence Cannon NWR
(MO) and Eagles Nest and Piasa Island (IL).
Market said MVS is finalizing design of Pools 25 and 26 Islands (MO) and
is developing an O&M manual for Swan Lake (IL). He explained that, due to high water
conditions this past summer, MVS was not able to advance construction
significantly on any of its projects.
The District is seeking to enhance its project evaluation process. Recently, MVS completed its evaluation of
Jeff DeZellar said Capoli
Slough (WI) and L&D 3 Fish Passage (MN) are MVP’s planning priorities for
FY 11. Capoli is currently undergoing an
ATR, and MVP anticipates finalizing the project’s Definite Project Report (DPR)
this spring. The District will likely
submit a draft DPR for L&D 3 Fish Passage to the project’s ATR Team, MVD,
and partners by the end of November for simultaneous review. DeZellar said MVP is hoping to complete
project design for L&D 3 fish passage in March 2011. A DPR for Harper’s Sough (IA/WI) is
about half complete. In FY 11, the
District also anticipates initiating some level of planning on all of its
projects with recently approved fact sheets, including Conway Lake (IA), Lake
Winneshiek (WI), and North and Sturgeon Lakes (MN). DeZellar said MVP will finalize construction
of Pool 8 Islands Phase III Stage 3A this spring and will continue to focus its
construction efforts on Stage 3B this year.
The District is increasing its staff resources to finalize completion
reports. A draft evaluation report of
Guttenberg Ponds (IA) will be distributed to partners for review soon.
Tim Schlagenhaft mentioned
that, since fish passage is a new tool for EMP, it may be valuable for the
L&D 3 project to undergo the IEPR process.
DeZellar noted that Wisconsin DNR’s water quality permitting for the
L&D 3 lower embankment project is linked to progress on the fish passage
design effort. For this reason, DeZellar
said he would be reluctant to introduce the time required for an IEPR. He said a decision on whether to apply for an
IEPR exemption will need to be made soon.
Jim Fischer confirmed that the L&D 3 lower embankment permit
requires that the DPR for L&D fish passage is completed. Therefore, partners would need to evaluate
the schedule implications associated with the additional review. Markert observed that the ATR, rather than
the IERP, tends to provide the most valuable input to project planners.
Marv Hubbell said MVR’s FY 11
planning efforts will include Pool 12 Overwintering (IL), Huron Island (IA),
Beaver Island (IA), Boston Bay (IL), and final work on Rice Lake (IL). This year, the District plans to initiate
design on Pool 12 Overwintering and construction on
HREP Selection and Sequencing
Hubbell noted that, at its
August 4, 2010 meeting, the EMP-CC discussed the need to update EMP’s HREP
Planning and Sequencing Framework to select projects that reflect system
needs. However, he proposed that EMP-CC delay
its efforts to refine the Framework.
This would allow USACE to further explore internally how reach planning
will link with project selection by various Corps programs and would also allow
partners to initiate the HREP strategic planning process. Hubbell said both of these efforts will
inform refinement of the Framework.
Janet Sternburg and
Schlagenhaft expressed their support for Hubbell’s suggested approach. Sternburg noted that HREP sequencing is not
an immediate need. In response to a
question from Kevin Foerster, Hubbell said he anticipates EMP-CC would initiate
efforts to revisit the Framework sometime in 2012. Pat Boddy called for keeping the Framework
simple, and suggested including external input into the project selection process. Rick Mollahan expressed his support for
delaying EMP-CC’s reconsideration of the Framework. Mike Jawson noted that the HREP Strategic
Plan will address issues related to project selection.
Don Powell suggested
reconvening the System Ecological Team (SET) to get its input on how to refine
the Framework and any suggestions for the HREP strategic planning process. Hubbell recalled the difficulty in
structuring the Framework so that projects are prioritized based on their
potential to meet the needs of the complex UMRS ecosystem, while employing
natural river processes. Some partners
questioned whether the Framework led the DETs and SET to overlook important
ecosystem and habitat needs. He said
advances in GIS technology should enhance project sequencing efforts overall.
Bob Clevenstine asked how the
district-based river teams will be involved in EMP’s sequencing process and the
HREP Strategic Plan. Hubbell said he
anticipates that each agency’s representative on the HREP Strategic Planning
Team will serve as a POC within their respective agency, communicating between
agency staff and the two efforts.
HREP Strategic Plan
Hubbell emphasized that the
IIA and HREP strategic planning efforts will not be duplicative. When necessary, the IIA will provide guidance
to the HREP Strategic Planning Team on what and how to address certain
issues. Hubbell said USACE and USFWS
have agreed to co-chair the HREP strategic planning effort.
In
response to a question from Schlagenhaft, Hubbell said the NESP Program
Management Plan (PMP) will not directly relate to the HREP strategic planning
effort. The PMP will articulate
management differences between NESP and EMP, and determine whether these
differences are real or perceived. This
effort is intended to facilitate NESP and EMP integration. In response to a question from Fischer,
Hubbell said the Corps will request partners’ input on the draft NESP PMP, but
its development will be largely internal.
Hubbell
said he will confirm the HREP Strategic Planning Team’s composition within the
next few weeks.
HREP Showcase:
Monique Savage, using Huron
Island HREP as an example, overviewed the Corps’ HREP development process from
planning to construction, including implementing the Corps’ new review
requirements. She said Pool 18’s
·
Increase
diversity, species, and structure of forest
·
Increase forest
stands with hard mast producing trees as a dominant or component species
·
Restore areas
suitable for supporting the regeneration of hard mast producing trees
·
Maintain and
increase depth diversity in backwaters
·
Create
off-channel deepwater areas to provide overwintering and year-round habitat for
fish
·
Decrease bank
erosion at Huron Chute
Savage
explained the project’s monitoring and adaptive management components. She said the Corps is currently
determining the variability of quantifying project objectives, including
related scientific findings, a cumulative effects study, the Habitat Needs
Assessment, and the Mark Twain Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Project partners will then try to link
monitoring efforts to the project’s objectives.
The project will incorporate adaptive management to determine whether
subsequent phases should be modified.
Savage
showed an excerpt of EMP’s typical network diagrams, which are used to document
and communicate project management details.
If Corps staff are seeking an IEPR exemption, they need to receive a
determination on that request before completing the project’s review plan. Savage said a project management plan (PMP)
is a living document that serves as a communication tool among partners. It includes the agreement on project goals
and objectives, an implementation plan that meets sponsors’ needs, an external
and internal communications strategy, the project scope, a list of any
resources needed, and several other project implementation details and
schedules.
Once
a project receives an approved project review plan, it undergoes a first round
of agency technical review (ATR) to address the technical validity of the
project objectives and description of existing conditions. The PDT, District Supervisors, and MVD then
hold a feasibility scoping meeting to ensure the project’s feasibility study is
correctly focused and that the essential project objectives are addressed. A second ATR is implemented that addresses
the technical validity of the project alternatives, as selected by the
PDT. The PDT then submits an alternative
formulation briefing (AFB) to MVD, which includes the ATR certification, the
ATR Team’s comments, and an Office of Counsel Certification, among other
things. Upon MVD’s approval of the
project’s AFB, the project undergoes an IEPR, unless it receives an exemption,
and concurrent public review. According
to Savage, the planning process seeks to create cohesiveness between the Corps
and project sponsors, buy-in from District supervisors and MVD early in the
planning process, and enhanced products with more accurate cost estimates.
Barb
Naramore asked what would happen in the event that a project IEPR exemption was
repealed later in the planning process.
Savage said the PDT would need to revise the project’s review plan to
incorporate the IEPR. She said that, as
USACE gains more experience with the WRDA 07 review requirements, it might
eliminate or modify its requirement to include IEPR plans in the initial review
plan.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
Product Highlights
Mike
Jawson reported that LTRMP has acquired aerial photographs for Pools 1-13 and
the
Jawson outlined LTRMP’s FY 11
scope of work (SOW), which includes baseline monitoring for the aquatic
vegetation, fish, and water quality components; LC/LU and bathymetric data
collection; data analysis; and data management.
Additional SOW priorities include focused and adaptive management
research related to ecological indicators, native mussels, and aquatic
vegetation; decision support tools; and HREP/LTRMP coordination and
integration.
Jawson noted that today’s
meeting does not include an LTRMP showcase.
He said LTRMP scientists have expressed reluctance to present at EMP-CC meetings,
given the limited presentation time and often significant time and travel costs
involved. Jawson asked for EMP-CC input
on whether these showcases are valuable, and suggested the possibility of LTRMP
scientists presenting via a web connection as an option to encourage their
participation. Janet Sternburg expressed
her disappointment that LTRMP scientists are hesitant to present, especially
since they often suggest that HREP staff are not using their information. But, Sternburg said she does understand the
travel constraints. Jon Duyvejonck
suggested having a future showcase on the recent backwater vegetation report
and its applicability to enhancing project design. Marv Hubbell said the science and restoration
components are both integral parts of EMP, and attending meetings facilitates
establishing better connections between the two components.
Monique Savage suggested
regular EMP-CC discussions on improving HREP/LTRMP integration. Tim Schlagenhaft emphasized the value of
the showcases. He suggested exploring
technology that would allow for off-site presentations, if needed. Jawson said USGS has technology available to
do off‑site presentations and will explore its use for future EMP-CC
meetings. Pat Boddy suggested changing
the term “showcase” to something more compelling. Barry Johnson welcomed suggestions for future
presentations.
Barry
Johnson said USGS’s Water Resources Division (WRD) completed its review of the
·
is one of the federal
government’s flagship programs relative to long term monitoring and research in
support of a large scale ecosystem restoration effort;
·
staff are very
conscientious and show a strong sense of ownership over the program and a
willingness to share their information, thoughts, and ideas with the review
team;
·
has excellent
project and laboratory documentation and many procedures in place to assure the
quality of the data and results generated by the project;
·
makes extensive
use of the internet to present data and information developed by the project
team and about the UMRS as a whole;
·
is doing
substantial cutting-edge work relative to ecological research and LU/LC
characteristics of a complex river ecosystem; and
·
has fixed sites
that meet a range of project objectives and suit state and local needs.
Johnson said the review team
made several minor recommendations for improvement, including:
·
Update the 2004
Procedures Manual to accommodate any changes since its publication.
·
Overhaul of web
pages to improve the look and operation, coding and depiction of censored data,
display of boxplots and percentiles of small datasets, and graphics to
facilitate visual patterns.
·
Add more
explanation of the procedures used to develop statistical summaries of data and
trends in future Status and Trends Reports.
·
Consider how
LTRMP data can provide added value to other federal programs through leveraging
existing data and sampling designs, modifications to existing design, or
expanded data collection using additional resources.
Johnson said he will provide
WRD’s written report and UMESC’s responses to the recommendations to the EMP-CC
within the next few weeks. Overall,
UMESC concurs with the recommendations.
Jim Fischer said he is very pleased with the review results, but expressed
concern that the value of fixed sites is not being adequately communicated,
especially for applications such as state water quality assessments and the
Lake Pepin TMDL analyses. Johnson noted
that the review was primarily focused from a federal, and in particular USGS,
perspective.
Draft LC/LU Accuracy Assessment Plan Update
Johnson reported that, in response to a request by
EMP-CC at its May quarterly meeting, UMESC developed a cost-effective approach
to determining the accuracy of the 2010-2011 LC/LU dataset using a combination
of field-based assessment and map validation methods. The assessment will examine the whether 1)
the polygons are accurately mapped and 2) the land cover classes are correctly
identified. According to Johnson,
advances in technology (e.g., digital camera will directly incorporate GPS data
into each photograph) have increased UMESC’s confidence that it will be able to
accurately delineate borders and identify the appropriate cover classes.
Johnson
outlined two possible approaches to assessing the 2010-2011 LC/LU’s thematic
accuracy, as follows:
|
Field-Based
Accuracy Assessment |
Map-Based
Validation |
|
·
Two-person team
compares map classes with vegetation in the field |
·
Two-person team
compares map classes with another interpretation of aerial photos |
|
·
Team generates
random sampling points |
·
Team generates
random sampling points |
|
·
Data is entered
into database and compared with map |
|
|
·
Team analyzes
associated error with any mismatches – i.e., field or mapping error |
·
Team analyzes
associated error with any mismatches and verifies in the field, if needed |
Johnson said that, based on
EMP-CC’s input, USGS will implement a hybrid approach. This will include a field assessment of Pool
13 and La Grange in FY 11-12 and map validation of Pool 13 in FY 12 and
either Pool 26 or a portion of the Open River in FY 13. The total estimated cost to complete the
accuracy assessment over the three years is $241,600. Johnson said this approach is comprehensive
and will adequately assess the accuracy the mapping effort.
In response to a question
from Tim Schlagenhaft, Johnson said reviewers would not correct any discovered
inaccuracies. Jawson said this is in
part because the accuracy assessors may be in error, rather than the original
interpreters. Also, the river’s
conditions may have changed since data collection. Marv Hubbell noted that LTRMP can learn from
any inaccuracies to improve future mapping efforts.
Monique
Savage asked if the polygons will be computer or manually generated. Johnson said interpreters will classify
computer-generate polygons. He said this
is the most accurate approach. In
response to a question from Schlagenhaft, Johnson explained that the assessment
can be adjusted based on initial results.
In response to a question
from Fischer, Johnson said UMESC will implement both field- and map-based
validation in Pool 13 since it is the most complex pool. Field assessments are scheduled first to
minimize any changes in the river system between the date of the original
imagery and the time of the held assessment.
The overall accuracy assessment is scheduled for three years to spread
out the costs and resources required.
Bathymetry and LiDAR Update
Karen Hagerty said
bathymetric data has been collected for the entire UMRS. Bathymetric data within MVS’s jurisdiction
will be available soon on LTRMP’s website.
MVR and MVP are finalizing QA/QC for the bathymetric data acquired within
their respective boundaries.
Hagerty said Corps staff
anticipate initiating LiDAR data acquisition for Pools 15 and below in early
December, when there is leaf-off and no snow.
Iowa DNR is currently doing additional processing and packaging on Tier 1
products for Pools 2-7.
A-Team Report
Janet Sternburg reported that
the A-Team met by conference call on August 5.
Discussion topics included updates on programmatic activities, 2010 RTC,
HREP Strategic Plan, and the A-Team’s ad
hoc Indicators Work Group. The
A-Team is compiling a list of the field stations’ 2009 products, which will be
posted on the A-Team Corner. The A-Team
plans to compile these lists annually.
The A-Team is scheduled to
meet in-person on December 1-2 at the new National Great Rivers Research and
Ad Hoc Indicators Group Update
Hagerty
reported that the A-Team’s Ad Hoc
Indicators Group is completing a draft assessment report on the indicators used
in the 2008 Status and Trends Report.
The assessment report attempts to answer 1) whether the 2008
indicators are useful, 2) if there is potential to make improvements to any of
the indicators, and 3) whether there are possible replacement indicators. On an October 6 conference call, the Indicators
Group reviewed recommendations from the fish and macroinvertebrate work
groups.
Hagerty
said the A-Team will review the draft report at its December 2010 meeting, with
the goal of having it to the EMP-CC for its February or May meeting. Following the report’s completion, Hagerty
said the Indicators Group plans to set targets and benchmarks for each
indicator and explore the potential use of additional indicators of ecosystem
health and management.
In
response to a question from Hubbell, Hagerty said good indicators are relevant,
sensitive, and measurable. Fischer
expressed appreciation to the A-Team for this effort. Pat Boddy said these indicators could be
applicable to regulatory efforts as well.
Johnson noted that any new indicators would require additional analyses,
beyond this first report. He said the
NESP Science Panel would like to meet with the A-Team this year, funding
permitting.
Other Business
The
upcoming quarterly meetings are as follows:
§
February 2011 —
o
UMRBA — February
15
o
EMP-CC — February 16
o
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of February 16
o
NECC — February
17
§
May 2011 —
o
UMRBA — May 17
o
NECC — May 18
o
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of May 18 (if needed)
o
EMP-CC — May 19
§
August 2011 — Quad Cities*
o
UMRBA — August
16
o
EMP-CC — August
17
o
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of August 17 (if needed)
o
NECC — August 18
* For
both the May and August quarterly series, the EMP-CC and NECC meetings may be
held on a single day — i.e., May 18 and August 17. This will depend on a number of variables
(e.g., potential virtual NECC meetings, need for a joint session, estimated
meeting time required, etc.).
Jim Fischer asked whether
EMP-CC, NECC, and UMRBA would consider hosting a future meeting in
Rick Mollahan moved and Tim
Schlagenhaft seconded a motion to adjourn.
The motion passed unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
November 18, 2010
EMP-CC Members
|
Kevin Foerster |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Mike Jawson |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Pat Boddy |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
Others In Attendance
|
Jeff DeZellar |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
David Potter |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Karen Hagerty |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Monique Savage |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Charlie Hanneken |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Donnovan Henry |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Kat McCain |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO |
|
Rick Frietsche |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Dave Hokanson |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |