Minutes of the
Coordinating Committee
February 28, 2001
Winter Quarterly Meeting
Bloomington, Minnesota
Charlie
Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at
8:05 a.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Other EMP-CC members present were Gary Loss (USACE), Leslie
Holland-Bartels (USGS), Kevin Szcodronski (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN
DNR), Ken Brummett (MO DOC), and Terry Moe (WI DNR). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Ken Brummett
announced that Gordon Farabee retired from Missouri DOC effective February 1,
2001. Gary Christoff will be replacing
Farabee as Missouri’s EMP-CC member.
Gary Loss reported on efforts to fill the positions vacated by Dusty
Rhodes and Leo Foley. Kevin Szcodronski
announced that Jeff Vonk has been named as the new Iowa DNR Director. Terry Moe reported that Wisconsin’s new
Governor, Scott McCallum, has appointed Darrell Bazzell as Secretary of Wisconsin
DNR.
Kevin
Szcodronski moved and Steve Johnson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
the November 16, 2000 EMP-CC meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Teresa Kincaid
reported that, as of December 31, 2000, the EMP’s FY 01 allocation totaled
$17.940 million. This figure includes
the original allocation of $17.640 million plus $300,000 in restored savings
and slippage. Scheduled expenditures
for the year total $16.533 million.
However, this figure will increase once $1.6 million transferred out of
MVP’s HREP program is rescheduled.
Kincaid explained that the MVP money was transferred to MVS for HREPs
and to UMESC for the LTRMP. Don Powell said
MVP transferred the funds due to delays in its HREP construction schedule.
In response to a
question from Jeff Stein, Kincaid said the savings and slippage rate for the
construction general account is 16 percent this year, compared with 10 percent in
FY 00. She said the rate is set
nationally and attributed the increase to many factors. Jan Hodges reported that a nationwide
recission in the construction general account also resulted in a $41,000 cut to
the EMP. Kincaid said the Corps plans
to seek restoration of additional savings and slippage money in FY 01.
Kincaid
explained that MVR had made several changes to the spreadsheet format in an
effort to focus on information concerning the current fiscal year. A supplemental sheet providing historical
program information will be updated annually.
In addition, an effort was made to more clearly identify administrative
costs. Kincaid said she understands
people’s concerns with such costs and said the Corps is making every effort to
keep administrative costs to reasonable levels. However, she emphasized that implementing the program effectively
does entail a certain level of administrative spending.
Terry Moe
expressed appreciation for the new format and said he particularly likes the
ability to identify administrative costs.
However, he said the LTRMP funding transferred to USGS should not be
classified as a program coordination expense.
Barb Naramore suggested either modifying the title or content of the
program coordination expense page to avoid potential misunderstandings. Steve Johnson and Moe also expressed concern
with the difficulty in tracking some expenses from the individual district
pages to the cumulative program pages.
They requested modifications to clarify the connections between various
line items on the spreadsheets.
Kincaid said
completed projects have been taken off the individual district spreadsheets,
which now detail only active projects.
The habitat total line on the district sheets, however, includes the
costs of completed projects. The sheet
with historical information will include details regarding completed projects,
including amount spent and basic information such as acreage affected. In response to a question from Jim Harrison,
Don Powell reported that MVP anticipates letting the Ambrough Slough contract
this year and doing repair work at the Trempealeau Refuge project. Terry Moe expressed surprise regarding the
cost figures for the Pool 11 Island project.
Scott Whitney said the entire project is estimated to total $12-13
million.
Assuming
construction goes well, Kincaid projected that both MVR and MVS will be able to
demonstrate need for restored savings and slippage this year. While the EMP will clearly be able to show
overtarget capability, Kincaid said it is impossible to predict how
successfully the program will compete for additional funds. Gary Loss said FY 00 was atypical in that
there was little overtarget funding available in the construction general
account. Loss said this may continue to
be the case in FY 01. In response to a
question from Jeff Stein, Kincaid said restored savings and slippage is
generally directed to both HREPs and the LTRMP. However, she emphasized that such decisions are based on need and
ability to spend, not a set allocation formula.
Stein asked
about the Corps’ FY 02 capability.
Kincaid said the Corps has not released any capability figures yet. Loss said the Corps is still reviewing its
capabilities and reported that the President’s budget request is scheduled for
release on April 3. According to Loss,
the Corps may not release official capability numbers. Holly Stoerker and Stein emphasized that
understanding the Corps’ capability is important to other entities wishing to
offer budget testimony. Robin Grawe
asked whether the Corps has the authority to shift funding between the LTRMP
and HREP components if the LTRMP has capability in excess of its approximately
one-third share under the standard allocation formula. Kincaid said the EMP legislation permits the
Corps to transfer up to 20 percent of the funding appropriated for one
component to the other component.
Kincaid reported
that the scope of work for Service HREP planning activities is not yet
complete. The Corps and Service hope to
finalize the SOW soon and will distribute the final scope to the other EMP
partner agencies. In response to a
question from Terry Moe, Kincaid said the SOW will be specific to the EMP –
i.e., it will not cover non-EMP tasks for which the Corps also transfers money
to the Service. The scope will include
a single dollar amount, rather than detailing the costs of individual tasks.
Kincaid said MVS
will develop a template for EMP project cooperation agreements (PCAs) using the
PCA from its most recent cost-shared project.
HREP PCAs will continue to be approved at the Washington level, but the
template should streamline the process somewhat. Kincaid noted that divisions do currently have delegated
authority to approve PCAs for projects under the Corps’ continuing authorities
programs. While MVD could explore the
possibility of delegated authority for HREP PCAs, Greg Ruff cautioned that such
authority would only be granted for a “fill-in-the-blank” PCA form. Such a model PCA cannot be modified to fit the
circumstances of a particular project, obviously limiting flexibility. Ruff said he is not sure that such an
approach would be well suited to the EMP.
He suggested developing the template first and seeing how effective that
is in expediting HQ/ASA approval. Based
on that experience, the partners can then consider whether to pursue delegated
authority for a model PCA.
Kincaid reported
that Kara Mitvalsky has been working to upgrade the EMP web site. As part of this effort, MVR will develop an
on-line guidance compendium, which will include the EMP authorizing
legislation, policy memos, and other materials. Kincaid said UMRBA staff has offered to assist in this effort.
Leslie
Holland-Bartels announced that a revised version of the HNA Query Tool is
complete. The new version includes
expanded data sets and does not require users to have any particular software. The tool will be distributed to program
partners and will be available on UMESC’s web site.
Holland-Bartels
presented highlights from the continuing review of LTRMP monitoring data and
protocols. Brian Ickes and Barry
Johnson are now leading the fisheries gear assessment, which may result in
substantial changes to the monitoring protocol. Holland-Bartels emphasized that this assessment is being done in
close consultation with field station staff and other fisheries experts. The Open River Field Station is leading
analyses and a workshop regarding restructuring monitoring protocols and
objectives for the Open River. This
effort includes analyses of fisheries, invertebrate, and water quality
data. Holland-Bartels is leading an
assessment of general inventory and monitoring issues. She contracted with WEST, Inc. as part of
this general assessment. WEST’s
findings, which will be released soon in a report, include praise for the
program’s written protocols and high level of partner support. WEST’s report will also highlight a number
of issues for consideration. Jenny
Sauer is leading a systemic analysis of the invertebrate sampling protocol,
which currently yields many “zeros” on some parts of the system. Sauer is examining the potential
implications of a protocol that focuses more on presence/absence. The Alton field station has the lead on
out-pool fisheries analyses. Data for
this work were collected last year with overtarget funding.
Holland-Bartels
emphasized that the statistical analysis work is complex. It involves enormous amounts a data and thus
requires substantial computer processing time.
However, she expressed optimism that the analyses will allow the LTRMP
to minimize the collection of data that does not provide useful information,
thereby reducing collection, storage, and analysis costs.
Holland-Bartels
noted that Todd Kool initially recommended eliminating passive gears based on
his review of the fish monitoring data.
While she does not agree that such a dramatic change is appropriate,
Holland-Bartels briefly reviewed data from Pools 4 and 26 to illustrate the
fact that some gears clearly provide much more information than others. Before dropping any gear, Holland-Bartels
said it is important to ask what unique species information, habitat insight,
and/or statistical power would be lost.
Holland-Bartels
emphasized that the analyses so far have focused on the science of the
monitoring data and the value of the information that is being collected. Questions that have not yet been asked
include:
In answer to a
question from Terry Moe, Holland-Bartels said the analyses will be shared with
field station staff, A-Team members, and others as they become available. She emphasized that significant dialogue
still needs to take place and that no decisions regarding modifications to
monitoring protocols are imminent.
Charlie Wooley asked whether the LTRMP fisheries data provide useful
insights into questions surrounding fish passage on the UMR. Holland-Bartels said only cursory work had
been done with the data relative to fish passage but said LTRMP staff will be
considering the issue further as they do their analyses. Jim Harrison asked how the lack of deep
channel fish monitoring might be addressed.
Holland-Bartels said navigation study and LTRMP funds were combined last
year to restart the deep channel fish collection effort. This work should provide some useful
insights regarding how best to sample in the main channel.
Holland-Bartels
identified the following FY 01 overtarget work items:
Holland-Bartels described
progress on the 2000 LCU aquatic areas GIS and the FY 01 bathymetry
projects.
Moe asked
whether the FY 01 overtarget list includes provisions to address delays in
areas such as serving data and doing data analyses. Holland-Bartels said she has a long list of potential overtarget
items submitted by field staff and is working to refine and prioritize that
list. Moe asked whether staff levels
are limiting the ability to accomplish overtarget work. Holland-Bartels said agreements with various
universities provide a flexible way of increasing capacity. In addition, she noted that the Minnesota
and Missouri field stations are seeking to fill vacant positions with personnel
who would augment the LTRMP’s analytical capabilities. She expressed confidence that staffing will
not constrain UMESC’s ability to make effective use of overtarget funding.
Greg Ruff
explained that, due to various reform-related proposals last year, MVD deferred
implementation of the Independent Technical Advisory Committee called for in
WRDA 99. However, WRDA 00 did not
include any specific reform directives, other than a provision for a National
Academy of Sciences study of independent review. Ruff said the Corps is anxiously awaiting the results of that
study. Meanwhile, MVD will begin
considering how to implement the Independent Technical Advisory Committee. Ruff noted that HQ guidance directs MVD to
develop a proposal in cooperation with the EMP-CC and with input from other parties. In addition, the guidance calls for a
counsel opinion regarding whether the Technical Committee is subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and directs that the implementation
plan be submitted to HQ for approval.
Ruff outlined
the following schedule developing the implementation plan:
According to
Ruff, MVD views the $350,000 in authorized appropriations as an upper limit and
does not anticipate that the Technical Committee will require this level of
resources. He said MVD sees the
Technical Committee as a relatively small group of nationally recognized
experts that will focus on program-level issues. MVD does not anticipate that the group will become involved in
the HREP approval process. Input from
the Technical Committee will be reflected in the December 2004 Report to
Congress and in subsequent RTCs. In
response to a question from Terry Moe, Ruff said MVD will ask MVR to develop a
draft implementation plan in keeping with these considerations.
Moe stressed the
importance of clearly articulating what the Technical Committee is being asked
to do. Ruff invited input on this
question. In response to Moe’s
observation that the states did not advocate for the Technical Committee
provision, Ruff noted that there is a trend in Washington toward establishing
such groups at the program level to provide oversight and guidance from people with
national perspectives and reputations.
Holly Stoerker
suggested that the Corps’ Environmental Advisory Board might serve as something
of a model. According to Stoerker, the
Corps poses specific questions to the Board, rather than simply convening it
and asking members to provide input as they see fit. Stoerker said asking the Technical Committee for advice on major
EMP issues would likely be far more productive than having members review
specific projects or focus on program management details. Moe urged the Corps to consider previous
efforts, including the LTRMP Science Review Committee and EMP Program Review
Committee, in developing its implementation plan for the Technical
Committee. Kevin Szcodronski said he is
comfortable with the general approach outlined by Ruff. Szcodronski recommended that the Committee
include both people from outside the region and people with experience on the
UMRS. He observed that the Committee
could provide a valuable service by considering how various efforts and recommendations
fit together, including the HNA, HREP prioritization, interest in natural river
processes, and pool planning.
Jim Harrison
asked about the status of the LTRMP Science Review Committee. Leslie Holland-Bartels said the group is
still an existing body and will likely be reconvened when sufficient
information from the on-going data analyses is available. Moe suggested that the Independent Technical
Committee could be asked to do LTRMP science review, noting that this might
require fewer LTRMP resources.
In response to a
question from Jeff Stein, Ruff said he is the POC for the Technical Committee
proposal. Stein asked Ruff to elaborate
on his earlier comments concerning the Technical Committee’s lack of involvement
in the HREP process. Ruff said MVD does
not envision the Committee being involved in the HREP approval process or the
details of individual projects.
However, he does foresee the Committee providing valuable program-level
input regarding the HREP component.
Stein said he is not necessarily uncomfortable with such an approach,
but emphasized that the Technical Committee needs to have input into the
prioritization process. He cautioned
that, if the Committee operates entirely separately from the program
partnership’s prioritization efforts, two separate visions for the program will
emerge.
Don Powell
reported that the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers selected the
Trempealeau Refuge HREP as one of the Seven Wonders of Engineering in Minnesota
for 2001. Powell explained that, while
the project itself is located in Wisconsin, most of the design work was done in
Minnesota, thus qualifying the project for the competition. The award was given jointly to the Corps and
Service. Powell said a special display
concerning the project was developed for the awards ceremony and will be
displayed at the Refuge Visitors Center.
Keith Beseke said the Corps and its contractor did excellent work on the
Trempealeau project.
Deb Foley
reported that the HNA report is complete.
She thanked Steve Johnson, Terry Moe, and UMRBA staff for their efforts
to resolve the outstanding issues from the previous draft. Foley said an initial mailing of HNA reports
is complete and a second round distribution is scheduled for the week of March
5. The full report consists of the
following four documents: Summary
Report, Technical Report (includes CDs with the Technical Report and Appendices
and Public Information Report), Public Information Report, and Query Tool
User’s Manual (includes the tool on CD).
Each state will receive 10 copies of the Summary and Technical Reports
and the User’s Manual, and three copies of the Public Information Report. All participants in the public information
focus groups and the resource manager meetings will receive the Summary Report,
which includes information on how to access other HNA documents. Steve Johnson recommended that the Corps
distribute the HNA report to public libraries.
Mike Kruckeberg
reported that the Corps is planning a two-day EMP workshop for this fall, the
primary purpose of which will be to share “lessons learned” concerning both
HREPs and the LTRMP. Kruckeberg said he
anticipates between 80 and 100 participants representing the Corps, Service,
USGS, states, and NGOs. After some
discussion, October 15 to November 9 was identified as the target timeframe for
the workshop.
Kruckeberg asked
partner agencies to identify a point of contact to participate in workshop
planning. Holly Stoerker asked whether
the workshop is intended to reach beyond those already involved in the
EMP. She noted that there are many
other agency people who could benefit from learning about the EMP, including
water quality and wetlands staff. Scott
Whitney said that this is one of the issues that those involved in planning the
workshop will be asked to address.
Foley observed that the agenda could certainly be structured to
accommodate people with varying levels of involvement, perhaps by devoting one
day to more technical discussions and the other to issues of broader
interest. Jon Duyvejonck said that
interdisciplinary exchanges have been one of the key benefits of previous
workshops.
Teresa
Kincaid reported that the Corps has modified the HNA prioritization framework
endorsed by the EMP-CC at its August meeting.
The revised process, reflected in the flowchart provided in the agenda
packet, starts with consideration of ecological factors and needs, as
identified in the HNA, pool plans, etc.
By contrast, the previously endorsed process started with completed fact
sheets and did not address how these fact sheets were to be developed.
Kincaid
explained that the Corps wants the three district-level groups to employ
similar approaches in developing pool plan goals and objectives. She stressed that this does not mean the
groups need to employ precisely the same process or produce the same outcomes. She suggested piloting a proposed common
process in a test pool and refining it as necessary. Charlie Wooley said the Service wants to be closely involved in
pool planning. Several meeting
participants voiced concern that the desire for a common process might reverse
progress that has already been made in pool planning for some areas. Don Powell noted that there are draft plans
for every pool in MVP and that the agencies are ready to seek public comment on
those plans. Terry Moe cautioned against
trying to design the perfect process and urged that the draft plans be allowed
to move forward. He said they can be
refined as needed based on experience.
Kincaid emphasized that she wants to capture and build upon the good
work that has already been done. She
said the Corps is not asking the district-level groups to undo progress they
have already made.
Scott Whitney
expressed concern that there is a lack of quantitative information and a lack
of input from key disciplines in some of the initial pool planning
efforts. Dan McGuiness said the MVP
pool planning effort has used the UMRCC Report’s 9 ecological objectives. He urged MVR and MVS pool planners to use
this same framework. Jon Duyvejonck
noted that pool planning is further along in some areas than others. He cautioned that different rates of
progress must not result in some areas being left out of the systemic HREP
prioritization effort. Dick Steinbach
said the group working in MVS wants to consider the full range of needs and
authorities and will not develop EMP-specific plans. Duyvejonck noted that the pool planning teams would benefit from
technical assistance in mapping and data analysis. EMP-CC members recommended that the chairs of the FWWG, FWIC, and
RRAT meet to discuss approaches to pool planning and the resources that are
needed.
Jim Fisher
expressed concern with the new prioritization flowchart, observing that the
Service and the states appear to drop out after the initial stage of the
process. Keith Beseke said Service
involvement is key at the later stages to account for factors such as
distributing the HREP workload within the Service. Steve Johnson observed that the flowchart combines interagency
coordination and internal Corps coordination in a confusing way. Kincaid acknowledged the potential for
confusion and said MVR would attempt to clarify the flowchart, but noted that
there are certain internal coordination functions that the Corps must
accomplish at various stages of the process.
Regarding agency participation, Kincaid emphasized that the Service and
states are members of the district-level teams and the
EMP-CC and thus will be involved through those groups throughout the
process. Ken Barr stressed the need to
ensure that the agency representatives on those groups represent the full
ranges of their agencies’ interests.
Kincaid said the
Corps anticipates that the HREP prioritization process will be conducted every
other year and wants to initiate the new process in FY 02. In the interim, the Corps will also consult
with program partners to select a few projects for planning starts. Kincaid explained that this is intended to
ensure that the transition to the new prioritization process does not result in
a gap of projects available for construction.
These projects will be discussed by the RRF, RRCT, and RRAT. Kincaid requested comments on the proposed
flowchart by March 19. She said she
anticipates that MVR will distribute a text description of the proposed process
shortly thereafter.
Teresa Kincaid
reviewed the HQ implementation guidance concerning development of an EMP public
involvement strategy. She noted that
the guidance came in response to the partnership Report to Congress, which
called for enhanced public involvement.
Last fall, MVR staff developed a list of potential public involvement
tools. That list was presented at the
EMP-CC’s November meeting. EMP-CC
members recommended that the goals and objectives of the strategy be clarified
before specific tools were considered.
As a result, Kincaid conferred with an ad-hoc group of program partners
and developed the draft goals and objectives write-up included in the agenda
packet.
Kincaid reviewed
the draft goals and objectives and invited input. Steve Johnson said he would submit comments on the document. He observed that much of what the EMP needs
is not public involvement, but rather
public awareness and education.
Rick Frietsche
said the FWWG’s pool planning approach started as an effort among biologists to
identify what is needed for various portions of the river. He expressed doubt regarding how that effort
can be integrated with the Corps’ EMP-driven approach, the Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission’s public involvement needs, and other efforts. Kincaid agreed that this is an issue.
Terry Moe said
Kincaid’s write-up is a good reflection of the ad-hoc group’s conference call
regarding public involvement. He
suggested that “increase public awareness” be removed from the list of
potential tools on page 4, noting that this is an objective, not a tool. Moe said that the costs and the means of
implementation remain to be determined.
He suggested that various program partners can facilitate implementation
by integrating the EMP public involvement strategy into other work they are
already doing. Dan McGuiness said he
likes the matrix Kincaid developed and recommended adding a time dimension,
noting that not everything can be accomplished at once. In the short-term, McGuiness recommended
concentrating on the upper left portion of the matrix – i.e., program-level
awareness and education activities.
Robin Grawe
observed that the EMP already does some good public involvement work and that
those activities should not be dismissed but rather augmented and
improved. Charlie Wooley stressed the
importance of communicating the benefits of the EMP to the public. Barb Naramore emphasized the importance of
effective public involvement in the pool planning and HREP prioritization
processes. She characterized this as an
immediate need that should not await creation of a fully developed EMP public
involvement strategy. Kevin Szcodronski
recommended that Jim Harrison and Dan McGuiness both be consulted in
development of the EMP public involvement strategy. Kincaid requested comments on the draft goals and objectives by
March 19.
Terry Moe
thanked the Corps for modifying its activity reports to highlight changes and
new information.
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m.
[The EMP-CC’s
future schedule includes meetings on May 16 in Davenport, August 8 in
La Crosse, and November 15 in St. Louis.]
EMP-CC Attendance List
February 28, 2001
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Kevin
Szcodronski |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Ken Brummett |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Teresa Kincaid |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Ken Barr |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Scott Whitney |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Janet Hodges |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Dan Holmes |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Kara Mitvalsky |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Mark Cornish |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Deb Foley |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Mike
Kruckeberg |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Dan Stinnett |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Lynn Lewis |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service/UMRCC |
|
Pam Thiel |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, La Crosse Fisheries |
|
Jim Fisher |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Keith Beseke |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Rick Frietsche |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Dick Steinbach |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mark Twain NWR |
|
Karen
Westphall |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mark Twain NWR |
|
Jon Kauffeld |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Amy Denz |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Larry Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Robin Grawe |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Jeff Stein |
American
Rivers |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |