Minutes of the
Coordinating Committee
November 16, 1999
Dusty Rhodes of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at
10:40 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 1999.
Other EMP-CC members present were Matt Kerschbaum (USFWS),
Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), Marvin Hubbell (IL DNR), Kevin Szcodronski
(IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR), Gordon Farabee (MO DOC), Terry Moe (WI DNR),
Dave Carvey (NRCS), and Bob Goodwin (MARAD).
A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the August Meeting
Referencing page
four of the August meeting minutes, Terry Moe asked if the Corps had determined
whether the HNA must be ready to submit to Congress by September 30, 2000. Leo Foley said this issue would be addressed
later in the meeting. Terry Moe moved
and Kevin Szcodronski seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August
19, 1999 EMP-CC meeting as written. The
motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 99 Fiscal Performance Wrap-Up
Leo Foley
distributed a program spreadsheet. He
apologized for not providing the spreadsheet in advance of the meeting. Foley explained that MVR had only recently
filled the vacant EMP budget analyst position and was thus unable to complete
the spreadsheet in time to include in the agenda packet.
Foley reported
that FY 99 EMP expenditures totaled $17.612 million, or 96 percent of the
$18.371 million FY 99 allocation. Foley
attributed the $759,000 in carry-over primarily to unfinished work under some
HREP contracts.
FY 00 Budget Allocation
Foley reported
that the EMP's FY 00 appropriation was $18.955 million. Prior to allocating funds between HREPs and
the LTRMP, the total was reduced by $2.699 million (14.2 percent) for savings
and slippage; $110,000 for program administration; and $500,000 for the habitat
needs assessment (HNA). Of the
remaining $15.646 million, $4.913 million (31.4 percent) was allocated to the
LTRMP and $10.733 million (68.6 percent) was allocated to HREPs. The $10.733 million HREP amount was
divided among the districts as follows:
MVP ‑ $3.757 million (35 percent), MVR ‑ $4.293 million (40
percent), and
MVS ‑ $2.683 million (25 percent).
(A summary of these FY 00 allocation figures is attached to these
minutes.)
Terry Moe said
he has seen several different figures for the FY 00 LTRMP allocation. Foley acknowledged that there have been some
slight adjustments due to differences in rounding and calculation of savings
and slippage. Jerry Skalak observed
that the $4.913 million figure is correct and is slightly higher than the
number in the Corps’ FY 00 letter of intent to USGS.
Dusty Rhodes
noted that the increased EMP authority will allow the EMP to compete for
overtarget funding in FY 00. Rhodes
said MVD will actively seek overtarget money for the EMP, but emphasized that
there are no guarantees of success. In
response to a question from Moe, Rhodes explained that the EMP is not limited
to recovering the FY 00 savings and slippage amount ($2.699 million), but is
restricted to a percentage of the Congressional appropriation unless the
Appropriations Committees approve a reprogramming request. Moe asked whether overtarget funding for the
EMP might come at the expense of other Corps projects and programs. Rhodes stressed that MVD would not
jeopardize another Corps project in seeking to recover money for the EMP. He explained that MVD will restrict its
search for overtarget funds to projects with a clear excess of money in FY
00. It is typically February or March
before such opportunities are identified.
Kevin Szcodronski asked whether the EMP would have to repay any FY 00
overtarget funds next fiscal year.
Rhodes said this would depend on the source of the funds. For example, money from a project that came
in under budget would not need to be repaid.
Conversely, money from a project that encounters a delay but needs the
money next year would likely need to be repaid. Rhodes said he is reluctant to essentially borrow money that will
have to be repaid. As a result, MVD
will focus on finding surplus project funds for EMP.
Leo Foley
reported that the Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA) has directed MVD to
propose implementation guidance for the reauthorized EMP. MVR is slated to submit recommendations
regarding this guidance to MVD by December 15, 1999. Foley said the recommendations to the ASA will likely include the
following:
Foley said the
proposal will also report progress on administrative change recommendations
from the Report to Congress including integrating the HREPs and LTRMP, pursuing
habitat projects that use innovative measures and natural processes, and
enhancing public involvement. Foley
reported that sponsors of the Dubuque Ice Harbor Museum are seeking EMP funding
for a 1.5 acre wetland demonstration area.
He said Colonel Mudd is enthused with the project’s potential to educate
the public and enhance the EMP’s visibility.
Project costs are estimated at $3.5 million.
In response to a
question from Gordon Farabee, Foley said he expects MVD will forward the
proposed guidance to the ASA shortly after receiving MVR’s
recommendations. He said the timeline
for action by the ASA is less certain.
Holly Stoerker
asked for clarification regarding the land acquisition recommendation. Foley explained that existing policy clearly
establishes land acquisition as an acceptable part of HREPs, with the
restriction that a project cannot consist solely of acquisition. The proposed guidance would achieve
consistency with other Corps programs by granting credit for lands acquired
prior to the PCA. Farabee said this
change would benefit Missouri, which wants to pursue an HREP on land it has
already acquired in the Columbia Bottoms area.
Terry Moe asked
whether there is a similar timing issue related to credit for in-kind
services. Rhodes said that credit is
only provided for work after execution of the PCA. This is true under both the EMP and CAP. Foley said that §1135 sponsors who want
credit for work in the plans and specifications stage must sign a PCA earlier
in the process. Rhodes explained that
the Corps must be careful when granting in-kind credit not to undermine the
authority of Congressional appropriators.
In addition, Rhodes stressed the Corps’ commitment to being a
construction, not a grant-making, agency.
In response to a
question from Jeff Stein, Rhodes said MVD has not decided whether it will seek
guidance on the independent technical advisory committee provision in the 1999
Water Resources Development Act. Rhodes
said he anticipates the program partners will support the recommendations being
developed by MVR and MVD. He said the
partners will have an opportunity to review the proposal before General
Anderson submits it to the ASA.
Steve Johnson
asked what the guidance proposal is likely to say regarding public
involvement. Foley said MVD will
probably simply report to the ASA on increased public involvement efforts, such
as the recent dedication ceremonies.
Johnson observed that there is a difference between public involvement
and public information, describing the dedication ceremonies and the proposed
demonstration project as public information, not involvement, efforts. Johnson cautioned that using EMP money for
the wetland demonstration area in Dubuque would open the door to similar proposals
from other museums and visitor centers.
He noted that Minnesota alone has at least four similar potential
projects.
Rhodes observed
that the dedication ceremonies have been very useful in publicizing projects
and demonstrating public interest in the program. Rhodes said MVD's implementation recommendations to the Assistant
Secretary would probably not address public involvement. Regarding the proposed Dubuque project,
Rhodes said the Corps initially thought that a modest investment could
result in a useful means of increasing the EMP's public profile. However, the large amount of money being
sought, combined with concerns about setting precedents for the EMP, have left
MVD less inclined to consider the proposal favorably.
Johnson
emphasized that his opposition to using EMP money to fund the Dubuque wetland
demonstration area should not be interpreted as opposition to the project
itself. Nor does he oppose using some
EMP money to build public awareness of the program, but he emphasized that this
must be done in a cost-effective manner that is consistent with the EMP's
fundamental purpose and process.
Johnson reiterated his concerns with the precedent that would be set by
using EMP money to fund a museum demonstration area with minimal habitat value. Terry Moe concurred with Johnson, noting
that supporters of a similar project proposed for La Crosse would also be
very interested in EMP funding. With
LTRMP budget constraints resulting in layoffs and other difficult decisions,
Moe said he does not see how the program could consider funding a project that
does not meet the basic criteria for an HREP.
In response to a question from Rhodes, Johnson and Moe said their
opposition to providing EMP funds to the Dubuque project would remain
regardless of the amount of money under consideration. Marvin Hubbell and Gordon Farabee agreed
with Moe and Johnson. Farabee said
advocates of similar projects under development in Missouri would also like to
obtain EMP funding.
Matt Kerschbaum questioned the value of interpreting the entire EMP at a single site. He said dedication ceremonies and modest efforts at individual HREP sites are likely to be far more effective. Holly Stoerker said providing HREP money for an outreach effort in Dubuque or elsewhere does not seem to be consistent with the partnership's stated commitment to a more systemic and scientific HREP selection process. Dan McGuiness suggested the six field stations as possible locations for public information and outreach efforts. However, he noted that the field stations would need additional resources before they could take on such a role. Moe emphasized the importance of involving the public in all phases of developing HREPs. He observed that the St. Paul District has a very effective public involvement process.
Ramp-Up
Strategies/Capabilities
Foley said the Corps is exploring several modifications
designed to enhance program efficiency and facilitate expansion of the program
under the increased authorized funding levels.
These changes include the following:
· HREP
- streamline the process from concept to
construction, using the continuing authorities program (§1135 and 206) process
for HREPs less than $2 million
- delegation of authority
- use job order contracts (i.e., standing
construction contracts for common project elements)
- use pool plan definite project reports
(DPRs) where appropriate for backwater dredging, island protection, bank
stabilization, etc.
· LTRMP
- develop scopes of work for additional
funding
- initiate information needs assessment
(INA) to detail future system needs and develop cost estimates for specific
products
Foley
emphasized that the higher authorized funding levels do not guarantee any
particular level of future appropriations.
He said the Corps remains committed to maintaining flexibility within
the program to respond to budget fluctuations.
Hubbell
asked why the streamlined CAP process would be used only for HREPs under
$2 million, noting that the ceiling for CAP projects is $5 million. Foley explained that CAP projects are
limited to $5 million, but that the streamlined process is only used for
projects costing less than $300,000.
Thus, the proposal to use the streamlined CAP process for HREPs up to $2
million would actually be a substantial expansion of the project size limit
used under the CAP itself. Rhodes
observed that MVD will seek delegated authority to approve HREPs up to $5
million. He said it would make sense to
use this same $5 million cap as the cut-off for the streamlined project
process.
Noting
that the Corps has a wide range of environmental restoration authorities,
Hubbell said Illinois appreciates the opportunities that these programs
afford. However, he emphasized that the
state has a limited ability to partner with the Corps in these programs and
observed that the districts also have a limited capacity to execute projects
under the different programs. As a
result, Hubbell said Illinois is struggling with how to integrate these
different programs and prioritize the projects it pursues. He suggested discussing these challenges at
the February EMP-CC meeting.
Rhodes
noted that the Corps executed over 90 percent of its budget last year and said
the districts' ability to execute is not a limiting factor. Rhodes said the biggest challenge with both
the CAP and the EMP is uncertainty regarding annual funding levels, explaining
that uncertainty over out-year funding makes it very difficult to allocate the
current year's funding between construction and future project planning. Rhodes said individual states need to assess
factors such as the likelihood of future funding, consistency with program
authority, and the project approval process in selecting among different
potential programs for a project. He
said this should be done in consultation with the individual district
involved. Rhodes said he did not see
any benefit to weighing these issues in a broader regional context and urged
the states to discuss their concerns directly with the appropriate districts.
Moe
said he sees potential to use pool plan DPRs for relatively simple projects,
such as placing riprap, but cautioned that bigger, more complex projects, such
as the Pool 8 Islands project, should be phased with separate DPRs. Foley assured Moe that the Corps only
anticipates employing the pool plan DPR for relatively small projects. He explained that with smaller projects like
MVP's bank stabilization project, the pool plan DPR approach is quite flexible,
enabling the district to fund individual components of the project as money
becomes available. Rhodes said the
Corps is committed to doing more building and less planning under the habitat
program, but emphasized that streamlining the planning process will require the
cooperation of all the program partners.
Dick
Steinbach expressed support for the Corps' efforts to streamline the HREP
process. Bob Clevenstine asked whether
the Corps is considering developing a programmatic document for National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.
Foley observed that there are many hurdles to a programmatic NEPA
document, but said the Corps would explore the possibility. Rhodes encouraged the Fish and Wildlife
Service to suggest an approach to MVR.
Tom Pullen said there is no reason to limit the streamlining effort to
NEPA and urged the states to identify ways of simplifying water quality
certification under §401 of the Clean Water Act. Moe said there are too many variables even among fundamentally
similar types of projects for Wisconsin to consider granting a generic §401
certification for common HREP components.
Kevin Szcodronski said he sees potential to develop generic
certifications for some types of work, such as placing rock, but not others,
such as backwater dredging.
EMP Meetings and Coordination
Foley
said the Corps wants to ensure that EMP-CC meetings are as efficient and
effective as possible. Toward that end,
Foley offered the following suggestions designed to keep EMP-CC meetings
focused at the policy level:
· Have presenters prepare a one-page
summary for each agenda topic. This
summary, which would be included in the agenda packet, would provide background
information on the issue and identify what is being asked or decided at the
meeting.
· Eliminate the HREP and LTRMP showcases
from EMP-CC agendas.
· Provide detailed status information
(e.g., HREP updates) in writing.
Entertain questions at the meeting when necessary, but encourage program
partners to pursue questions off-line where possible.
· Provide the EMP spreadsheet in the agenda
packet, but do not make it the topic of a presentation. Encourage program partners to pursue
questions regarding the spreadsheet off-line.
Szcodronski
said there is value in the showcase items, noting that they help document the
program's successes. He expressed
reluctance to drop the showcases entirely and suggested linking them to current
issues. Foley said he understands
Szcodronski's point, but noted that the showcases add to overall meeting
length. Szcodronski observed that the
showcases are typically only 30 minutes long and said they are valuable in
helping everyone understand the policy issues that the EMP-CC is designed to
address.
Stoerker
said that Foley's proposed background piece should further the Corps' goal of
sharpening the policy focus of EMP-CC meetings. She said the write-up should describe the background of the
issue, the presenter's perspectives or recommendations, and the specific
questions on which the presenter is seeking feedback. Stoerker emphasized that an important function of the EMP-CC
meetings is to help make the program transparent to the partners and the
public. Rhodes said the Corps wants to
ensure that EMP-CC meetings are productive and efficient, noting that the way
we execute the meetings sets the tone for the program as a whole. He said the Corps will continue to work on
ways to enhance the committee's meetings.
Moe endorsed efforts to sharpen EMP-CC meetings.
Ramp-Up Strategies/Capabilities (cont'd.)
Noting
that the earlier discussion under the ramp-up item focused on streamlining
proposals, Moe asked for information about the Corps' ramp-up strategies. Foley said increases in HREP and LTRMP
funding are tied to the habitat needs assessment (HNA) and overtarget scopes of
work, respectively. Foley emphasized
the importance of efficiency, explaining that the habitat program will not be
able to execute a $23 million program unless it streamlines.
Moe
asked about the EMP's current ability to execute at a higher level. Rhodes explained that the LTRMP has
overtarget capability at present, but said the HREP program's ability to
execute is currently limited because there are relatively few projects on the
shelf. He attributed the lack of
projects in the pipeline to the relative allocation of resources between
construction and planning in the years leading up to reauthorization. Even with reauthorization, Rhodes said
uncertainty regarding out-year appropriations will continue to make allocating
money between planning and construction a challenge. He noted that plans and specifications have a shelf life, so projected
future funding is important in determining how much money to put into current
planning efforts. Rhodes said the
habitat program needs flexibility to handle both peaks and valleys in annual
appropriations. In response to a
question from Moe, Rhodes said it is difficult to estimate precisely how long
it would take before the Corps could execute a fully funded EMP. On the HREP side of the program, Rhodes said
the time required is a function of how quickly projects can move through the
pipeline to construction. This in turn,
according to Rhodes, depends partially on what types of projects the program
partners pursue.
Szcodronski
acknowledged that there will be many ideas for future HREPs and emphasized the
importance of having a sound process of addressing project proposals. With respect to the LTRMP, Szcodronski said
ramping up should not consist solely of adding discrete, flexible
projects. He stressed the importance of
augmenting the LTRMP's baseline monitoring, while maintaining the flexibility
needed to address budget fluctuations.
Rhodes said the Corps could prepare a more precise timeline for ramp-up
if it knew what the out-year appropriations levels will be. In reality, however, there is substantial
uncertainty regarding future appropriations.
Rhodes explained that, as a result, the Corps must base its program
planning on its best assumptions about what will happen.
Foley
said the three districts need to refocus on project planning now that the
program is reauthorized. Foley
estimated that within three years, the districts would be able, or almost able,
to execute a fully funded HREP program.
Foley suggested that the February meeting agenda include time for the
three districts to describe their HREP capabilities over the next two to three
years. Don Powell noted that the
districts would have to base their capability estimates on existing, pre-HNA
project priorities.
Habitat Needs Assessment
Mike
Thompson reported that representatives of the HNA Technical Team have almost
completed a series of meetings designed to get resource managers' input
regarding the existing conditions information.
In response to a question from Kevin Szcodronski, Thompson said the
meetings have generally gone well, with the resource managers providing data
and anecdotal information about existing conditions and asking many questions
about the HNA data. Bob Clevenstine
said participants have been impressed with the potential of the query tool, but
sobered by the lack of data. Noting
that relatively little data is available systemically, Terry Moe asked whether
non-systemic data will be added to the query tool as a supplement. Clevenstine said the Technical Team is
currently working through questions such as what data to add and how to refine
the query tool. He observed that it is
difficult to add some data, such as land use coverages that employ different
classification schemes.
Thompson
announced that Clevenstine will serve as interim chair of the Public
Involvement Team until a replacement is found for Bruce Carlson. Thompson said the Public Involvement Team
plans to use focus groups to obtain information about desired future
conditions. Thompson and Clevenstine
urged the states to become more engaged in shaping and implementing the HNA
public involvement tasks. Clevenstine
asked the state EMP-CC members to ensure their states' participation in
developing the focus groups. Holly
Stoerker encouraged Thompson and Clevenstine to prepare a draft proposal on the
focus groups before bringing the state public involvement specialists back
together.
Thompson
displayed an overhead showing remaining steps leading to review of the draft
HNA. He explained that the Technical
Team will develop an “ecological desired future condition” based on all the
information gathered, including input from the meetings with river
managers. The ecological desired future
condition will then be explained to participants in the Public Involvement
Team's focus groups. These focus group
members will be asked to respond to what they have heard. Their responses will be used to identify the
public's desired future conditions.
Thompson emphasized that process is designed to identify the public's
preferences with respect to future habitat conditions and will not seek to
address issues such as water quality, recreation, or water supply. In response to a question from Moe, Thompson
said the focus group participants have not been selected. The Public Involvement Team will be
responsible for this selection.
Thompson said the locations and schedule of the focus group meetings
also remain to be determined.
Thompson
identified several next steps for the HNA, including:
· complete the existing conditions
database,
· hold a Public Involvement Team meeting in
December,
· schedule the public involvement focus
group meetings,
· complete the forecast future conditions
database, and
· hold meetings with resource managers
regarding forecast and desired future conditions.
Gordon
Farabee observed that there are many people interested in the HNA and that
these people have a wide range of ideas for how the assessment should be
used. Farabee emphasized the need for
further discussion about what the HNA will look like and how it will be
used. Thompson said he envisions a 30
to 60 page main document that is scientifically sound but designed for lay
people. The main document will
necessarily be somewhat general, with more detailed data provided in technical
appendices. Clevenstine said some
people have voiced concern with potential misuse of the HNA. Clevenstine emphasized that it is up to
those involved in the assessment to make sure that the right data is considered
and that the resulting tool is appropriately characterized. Users of the query tool and other assessment
materials will need to understand what went into the HNA and what its
applications and limitations are. In
response to a question from Bob Goodwin, Clevenstine said the query tool will
be maintained over time and used in future refinements to the HNA. Szcodronski said he would like to hear how
resource managers, district HREP planners, and others anticipate using the HNA.
In
response to a question from Barb Naramore, Rhodes said the HNA must be complete
at the division level by September 30, 2000.
Moe suggested scheduling an HNA review session at which program partners
would address outstanding questions and controversies prior to finalizing the
partnership assessment.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
Future Project Planning
Leo
Foley reported that the Corps is committed to developing a new tool to guide
future HREP prioritization. Foley said
he envisions a matrix that accounts for factors such as habitat needs at the
system, reach, and pool scales, as identified through the HNA; endangered
species; cost share and the availability of funds; and integration with other
programs. He emphasized that this new
tool will build on the ranking systems currently used in MVR and MVP and will
use the HNA as a major factor in prioritizing projects. Foley said the Corps is eager to work with
the other program partners in developing the matrix and requested input
regarding the factors that should be considered in prioritizing projects.
Gordon
Farabee asked whether the Corps anticipates using the matrix at the district or
division level. Dusty Rhodes said the
matrix will be used at both levels, but said he is reluctant to commit to a
specific process until the matrix is developed. Rhodes said the Corps basically wants a scientifically defensible
HNA that identifies critical needs. The
Corps then wants to use the HNA and other factors in the prioritization matrix
to allocate EMP funding among the districts.
Rhodes said such an approach would be preferable to the current, river
mile-based allocation scheme. He
emphasized that the matrix will not generate rigid priorities, explaining that
MVD will still need to exercise judgment in consultation with the districts and
program partners. Tom Pullen noted that
MVD is considering an approach that would establish a baseline level of funding
for each district and then allocate any additional annual appropriations based
on need. Rhodes drew a parallel to the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project in MVD's three lower
districts. Under the MR&T, all of
the money in a given year does not go to a single district, even if all of the
highest priority work is in that district, because the Corps needs to maintain
capability and expertise in all three districts.
Steve
Johnson acknowledged that the river mile-based allocation of resources could
certainly be improved. He also observed
that MVP and MVR's existing prioritization processes are not as clear as they
might be. Johnson expressed
reservations regarding the use of a matrix, but endorsed the idea of developing
some sort of sequential process to prioritize among projects. He cautioned that the process should not be
solely HNA-driven and encouraged consideration of factors such as geographic
equity and innovation. Johnson said he
is pleased with the Corps' commitment to develop and implement the
prioritization process in consultation with the other program partners. Terry Moe stressed the importance of using
the HNA as a tool early in the project formulation process. Rhodes said it is too early to commit to
what the prioritization process will look like and how it will be used, but
said the Corps is committed to prioritizing projects and to involving its
partners in that process.
In
response to Foley's request for input, Gordon Farabee identified natural
processes as one factor that should be considered. Several committee members offered observations regarding how and
when to develop a draft matrix/prioritization process. At the conclusion of this discussion, Rhodes
directed Foley to initiate development of a new prioritization process and to
do so in consultation with the program partners. Rhodes estimated that the new process would not be implemented
until the fall of 2000 at the earliest, leaving ample time for discussion and
refinement.
HREP District Updates
In
response to an inquiry from Foley, EMP-CC members indicated that they did not
have any questions regarding the status of individual HREPs.
Long Term Resource Monitoring
A-Team Report
Ken
Brummett reported that the A-Team met on November 9-10, 1999. Brummett distributed an A-Team memo
supporting overtarget funds for the LTRMP in FY 00 and urging that the
monitoring program be ramped up as quickly as possible. The memo also expresses concern with the
LTRMP's significant equipment replacement needs and with the omission of the bathymetric
and sediment survey work from USGS's list of overtarget priorities. Brummett reported that some resource
managers are concerned with the potential for misuse of the HNA query tool. Other HNA concerns include the age of the
1989 land cover/land use data on which the query tool relies and lack of
important systemic data sets, including bathymetry. Dusty Rhodes inquired about the temporal considerations in
collecting bathymetric data, asking whether single year money would be wasted
if additional money is not provided in subsequent years. Brummett said systemic baseline data needs
to be collected over no more than three years.
Effective updates could then be done approximately once every 10 years
thereafter. He emphasized the
importance of having the same personnel involved in collecting a coverage.
Brummett
also reported that John Wetzel is working with the other A-Team members to
identify LTRMP ramp-up priorities and strategies. These will be refined and discussed further at the A-Team's February
meeting. Other items discussed at the
November A-Team meeting included the EPA as a potential source of funding for
river projects and USGS's provision of $150,000 for LTRMP equipment
refreshment.
FY 00 Program and Scopes of
Work
Leslie
Holland-Bartels reported that USGS is restructuring the LTRMP consistent with
MVR's August 23, 1999 guidance and the mid-line budget scenario. The restructured program will allow for
increased data analysis and potential ramp-up.
Holland-Bartels said USGS has already made a number of personnel
adjustments to accommodate the restructuring.
She emphasized that the FY 00 data analysis efforts are designed to help
set the stage for a logical ramp-up of the LTRMP. Data analysis efforts in the current year will focus on
vegetation monitoring methodology and land cover/land use data.
Holland-Bartels
said the USGS's list of FY 00 overtarget priorities was developed in
consultation with the A-Team, Corps, and UMESC staff. She invited additional comment on the list. Addressing the potential to use overtarget
funds to support bathymetric and sediment monitoring, Holland-Bartels explained
that she is not willing to reprogram permanent, professional staff people based
on one-year funding received mid-year.
She noted that the staff who worked on the LTRMP bathymetric work have
been reassigned to other tasks. She
observed that much of the sediment monitoring work was previously done under
contract and said overtarget money could potentially be used to accomplish both
bathymetric and sediment monitoring through contracts. Holland-Bartels said another possibility
might be to obtain overtarget money this year and use it the following
year. She explained that this would
avoid the disruption of mid-year staff reprogramming.
Dusty
Rhodes said MVD needs an EMP reprogramming request from MVR as soon as
possible. Rhodes reiterated MVD's
commitment to seeking overtarget money and his optimism that there will be
money available in the Corps' construction general account at some point this
year, but emphasized that there are no guarantees. He also stressed that any overtarget money the EMP receives in FY
00 must be expended in FY 00.
Holland-Bartels said this requirement makes it unlikely that bathymetric
work would be done using UMESC staff.
She said USGS will explore other ways of doing bathymetric work with
mid-year money. In response to a
question from Leo Foley, Holland-Bartels said she did not know how soon USGS
would need to receive overtarget money in order to pursue the contracting
option for bathymetric monitoring in FY 00.
Rhodes suggested that USGS consider establishing a multi-year contract
with annual options.
Terry
Moe said he supports USGS's FY 00 LTRMP strategy, but observed that Titles
21-23 appear to be missing from the study plan proposals. Holland-Bartels explained that these titles
were incorporated into other work items.
Moe called for making previously collected data available more
quickly. He said this should be done
before overtarget work is pursued. Moe
also stressed the importance of completing the Title 6 report summarizing the
FY 99 analyses evaluating LTRMP data adequacy and design. Holland-Bartels agreed that this report
should be completed quickly.
Moe
urged that, in future years, the work plan be developed and discussed prior to
the start of the fiscal year. Moe also
advocated giving Title 4 (i.e., field data collection equipment refreshment) a
high priority on the overtarget list.
He noted that significant needs have been deferred and estimated
equipment needs at $400,000. Moe
cautioned that equipment failures could significantly impair a field station's
ability to execute the monitoring plan.
Holland-Bartels said Title 4 is among USGS's overtarget priorities. Jerry Skalak noted that overtarget money is
not typically provided directly for equipment purchases but can be used to buy
equipment that is integral to the completion of a specific overtarget work
product. Rhodes deferred to the EMP
programmers, observing that these are the people with the expertise needed to
determine what can be done with overtarget funds.
Kevin
Szcodronski emphasized the importance of getting bathymetric monitoring back in
the baseline program and encouraged efforts to build the justification for
increasing the LTRMP's baseline budget.
Skalak said the INA will scope a bathymetric component. He said the LTRMP needs scientifically sound
projects on the shelf, similar to the HREP program's need for habitat projects
that are ready to go. Holland-Bartels
said UMESC could estimate the staff cost required for a three to five year
bathymetric effort.
Rhodes
emphasized that there is no guarantee the EMP baseline will ever go up, or even
remain stable. He said the Corps would
need several years of experience with increased appropriations before it would
be willing to raise the program's baseline.
Szcodronski acknowledged the challenges of the budgeting process, but
said Congress' decision to increase the EMP's authorized funding level suggests
at least some willingness to entertain increased appropriations. He observed that it was difficult for the
partners to remove bathymetric and sediment monitoring from the base LTRMP and
said restoring them to the base program should be a priority. Rhodes said the $4.8 million LTRMP base will
not increase until there is a multi-year pattern of increased
appropriations. In the interim, Rhodes
said the Corps would entertain changes to the mix of work in the $4.8 million
base if that is the program partners' desire.
Szcodronski
asked about the optimal timing for program partners to communicate with the
Administration and Congress concerning EMP funding. Rhodes explained that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issues a budget target to the Corps and identifies a few project-specific
amounts. The Assistant Secretary and
headquarters then allocate the OMB-issued target among the major accounts and
give each division a target amount.
Rhodes observed that MVD never has enough money to fund all of its
authorized projects and programs. As a
result, the division must make difficult choices. The division’s proposed allocations are then forwarded back to
Washington, where headquarters, the ASA, and OMB may all make changes. Once the President submits his budget to
Congress, the action shifts to the Congressional appropriations process. Rhodes said it is important for program
advocates to interact with the Administration as well as Congress on the
budget.
Holly
Stoerker observed that the EMP partnership does not currently have a common
vision of what a fully funded LTRMP should look like. She stressed the importance of developing such a vision rather
than simply pursuing incremental, potentially unrelated, steps. Rhodes agreed that the EMP partners can and
should develop a plan for what fully funded LTRMP would include. Holland-Bartels said the data analysis
slated for FY 00 is designed to facilitate development of just such a
plan. She emphasized the importance of
a comprehensive plan that is scientifically defensible and is not merely an
amalgamation of parts. Holland-Bartels
said the partners need to consider a wide range of issues related to
development of this plan, including funding pilot efforts to help determine the
LTRMP's future direction. Rhodes
concurred with Holland-Bartels' observations.
Szcodronski
asked who would reply to the A-Team's memo advocating ramp-up of the LTRMP in
the Corps' next budget cycle. Rhodes
said the A-Team's memo reflects some unrealistic expectations and said the
Corps is not prepared to consider increasing the LTRMP's baseline until it sees
increased appropriations. Moe said that
John Wetzel's efforts with the A-Team to develop an LTRMP ramp-up strategy are
consistent with what Holland-Bartels advocated. According to Moe, Wisconsin firmly believes the current
monitoring program is too small and wants the LTRMP's future focus to be on
long term trend monitoring. Rhodes said
substantial work remains before the Corps, USGS, and others should begin designing
a $10 million LTRMP. Rhodes expressed
optimism that the data analysis effort Holland-Bartels described will shed
valuable light on questions such as the relative emphasis that should be placed
on trend monitoring. In the interim,
Rhodes said the Corps remains committed to doing what it can to ease the
current budget constraints with overtarget funding. Moe expressed concern that the funding currently allocated to
planning the program's future is insufficient.
Holland-Bartels
asked the states to let her know whether their field stations can do interim
hiring. She noted that such flexibility
will be important in determining the field stations' ability to make use of
overtarget funding. Brummett said he
would like to see some overtarget money go to temporary labor to support field
station monitoring. Holland-Bartels
noted that overtarget funds must result in specific additional products. Within this framework, however,
Holland-Bartels said she would look for opportunities to include the field
stations in overtarget work.
Information Needs
Assessment
Jerry
Skalak referred EMP-CC members to their agenda packets, which include a draft
white paper outlining INA alternatives.
Skalak said the Corps recommends tabling the INA until at least October
2000. While the INA will be important
in justifying an expanded LTRMP, Skalak said several factors suggest it is
premature to initiate a comprehensive INA now.
Among these factors, according to Skalak, are the on-going HNA and
navigation study and several pending LTRMP work plan items. Completion of this work will provide an
important foundation for the INA. Moe
concurred with the Corps' recommendation to delay the INA. In response to a question from Moe, Skalak
said the white paper's fourth alternative (i.e., UMRS-EMP INA) most
closely parallels what John Wetzel is doing with the A-Team.
Other Business
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
November 16, 1999
|
Dusty Rhodes |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Matt
Kerschbaum |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Kevin
Szcodronski |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gordon Farabee |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Dave
Carvey |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Midwest Regional Office |
|
Bob Goodwin |
Maritime
Administration |
|
Buddy Arnold |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Tom Pullen |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Leo Foley |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Jerry Skalak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVS |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Bob
Clevenstine |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island |
|
Dick Steinbach |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mark Twain Refuge |
|
Ken Brummett |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Michael
Andreas |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Illinois |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Jeff Stein |
American
Rivers |
|
Eric Schenck |
Ducks
Unlimited |
|
Tim Sullivan |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |