Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
February 22, 2007
Quarterly Meeting
Sheraton
Terry Smith of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. on February 22,
2007. Other EMP-CC representatives
present were Don Hultman (USFWS), Mike Jawson (USGS), Rick Mollahan (IL DNR),
Martin Konrad (IA DNR), Rebecca Wooden (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DOC),
Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), and Al Fenedick (USEPA). A list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the November 16, 2006
Meeting
Martin Konrad moved and Janet
Sternburg seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the November 16,
2006 meeting as written. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 07 Update
Marv Hubbell reported that
both houses of Congress recently passed a joint resolution funding the Corps of
Engineers and most other domestic agencies through the end of FY 07. The measure lacks the usual specificity of
the annual appropriations bills.
According to Hubbell, the resolution identified the amounts for the
Corps’ major accounts (i.e., construction, O&M, etc.), leaving it to the
Administration to allocate within the major accounts to individual projects and
programs, such as the EMP. Those
allocations have not yet been determined, but are expected shortly. The joint resolution does not include any
savings and slippage reduction, nor does it prohibit new starts, as the FY 06
appropriations measure did. Hubbell said
the Corps will continue to award only fully funded contracts and allow funds to
be carried forward into the next year.
Adherence to a project or program’s obligation and expenditure plan will
again be a major factor in measuring fiscal performance.
Assuming there is no FY 07
recission, Hubbell said the EMP is expected to receive funding of
$21.911 million. [Note: the actual allocation was subsequently set at
$21.894 million after this meeting.]
This would be an increase of $2.111 million in funds available to the
program relative to FY 06. Hubbell
explained that, of this $2.111 million, $1.911 million is the amount identified
by MVR and MVD in a recent “plus-up” exercise.
This plus-up amount would be directed entirely to the HREP
component. However, Hubbell went on to
explain that the LTRMP would still receive approximately $900,000 more than in
FY 06 because 1) last year’s transfer of funds from LTRMP to HREPs will not be
repeated and 2) the absence of an FY 07 recission.
Assuming a $21.911 million
allocation, no recission, and administrative costs of $560,000, Hubbell said
the base amount to be allocated between HREP and LTRMP would be $19.44
million. In summary,
under this scenario, the
planned allocation within the EMP would be as follows:
|
|
TOTAL FY 06 Program |
$21,911 |
|
|
S&S
Amount |
0% |
|
|
Recision |
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS |
560 |
|
|
Regional
Management (includes LTRMP Admin) |
325 |
|
|
Independent
Technical Review Comm./SET |
75 |
|
|
Public
Involvement |
35 |
|
|
Program
Initiatives (i.e. HREP/LTRMP, Database) |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUB (TOT – ADMIN) |
21,351 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTRMP 31.4%
(of $19,440) |
6,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HREP 68.6%
(of $19,440 & $1,911) |
15,247 |
|
|
St.
Paul District |
6,000 |
|
|
Rock
Island District |
5,336 |
|
|
St.
Louis District |
3,911 |
|
|
(amounts
in thousands of dollars) |
|
According to Hubbell, the majority
of the plus-up amount would go to MVP, though all three districts would have at
least one project going to construction in FY 07.
President’s FY 08 Budget Request
Hubbell reported that the EMP
is once again identified as a national priority construction project in the
President’s FY 08 budget request. He
explained that the Office of Management and Budget determines the
Administration’s national priority projects and does not release the criteria
whereby those priorities are determined.
However, the Corps’ own criteria for identifying projects of national
significance include:
The President’s FY 08 budget
proposal includes $23.46 million for the EMP.
The EMP’s expressed capability for FY 08 is $33.52 million, which is the
program’s full authorized funding level.
Hubbell observed that the President’s request is down from last year’s
request of $26.8 million, but still well above the $20 million appropriation
level that has been typical in recent years.
Potential Management Changes under P-2
Hubbell explained that recent
Corps-wide changes in accounting and project management systems may have
unintended consequences for the EMP.
Specifically, under the new system, MVR would no longer receive outside
contracting credits for the money it passes through USGS to the field
stations. These contracting credits are
important for MVR, which must meet district-wide contracting goals as part of
Congressionally imposed requirements on the Corps. Hubbell said MVR granted the EMP
an exemption in FY 07, which will permit the field station funds to be
transferred in the typical manner.
However, it remains to be determined whether an alternative to the USGS
pass-thru will be needed in FY 08 and beyond.
The alternatives could include having MVR contract directly with the
states. This would raise a host of new
issues, including whether the work would have to be put out for competitive
bidding or could be justified as sole source contracts. Hubbell said the disruptions associated with
a shift to direct contracting could range from moderate to extreme. He said the Corps expects to make a decision
on this matter within a couple of months, in an effort to provide as much
transition time as possible, should a change be required in FY 08.
Janet Sternburg asked whether
the new system gives the Corps outside contracting credit for money transferred
to universities. Hubbell said it depends
on the transfer mechanism used. In response
to a further question from Sternburg, Hubbell said the issue of the field station
transfers is related to NESP’s increased emphasis on using outside contractors
only to the extent that both come in response to a general Corps effort to
increase contracting.
Public Outreach
FY 07 Priorities
Marv Hubbell noted that the
FY 07 budget for public involvement is $35,000, under the tentative allocation
plan presented earlier. The Corps has
identified the following three priority areas of work:
Regarding the museum display,
Hubbell explained that he had initially envisioned a small EMP kiosk that could
be readily replicated and deployed in various museums and visitor centers. However, in discussions with the
Gretchen Benjamin expressed
strong support for developing an EMP display at the
Martin Konrad asked about the
time required to develop a display at the
Hubbell reported that Teri
Goodman of the
Partner Reports
Benjamin reported that the
Wisconsin Wetlands Association held a conference in
Powell said the dedication
for the Spring Lake HREP is upcoming.
Representative Ron Kind has expressed his interest in participating in
the ceremony. In response to a question
from Terry Smith, Powell said the
Sternburg reported that the
Middle Mississippi Partnership will hold its annual meeting July 11-12. She said she plans to have some of the EMP
anniversary displays at the event.
Holly Stoerker reported that
she will be visiting several Congressional offices next week, including many of
the new members with river districts.
Noting that two of the four co-chairs of the Upper Mississippi River
Congressional Task Force are no longer serving in Congress, Stoerker said she
hopes to talk with Representative Kind about how to reinvigorate the group.
Benjamin thanked Freyermuth
for her excellent work developing the various products for the EMP anniversary
celebration.
Habitat Rehabilitation and
Enhancement Projects
HREP Database
Marv Hubbell reported that
Corps staff are currently reviewing data in preparation for merging the HREP
database with GIS. As a result,
launching the database on the web has been further delayed. In the interim, Hubbell said he would be
happy to provide partners and stakeholders with custom reports to meet their
specific needs.
Update on Data Utilization Pilot
Hubbell indicated that the
Corps intends to allocate $50,000 in FY 07 funds to the pilot effort to enhance
HREP utilization of existing LTRMP data.
He reported that Jason Rohweder, the lead UMESC staff person for the
pilot, has started sitting in on some HREP-related meetings and has already
brought valuable information to the table.
Hubbell said Rohweder will participate on between three and six PDTs for
the balance of FY 07. Given the
constraints imposed by the delayed appropriations process, Hubbell acknowledged
that this number would most likely be closer to three than six. The districts’ priorities for assistance
during the pilot are
As discussed previously with
the EMP-CC, the $50,000 cost of the FY 07 pilot will be charged as a regional
expense and thus allocated 2/3 to HREPs and 1/3 to the LTRMP. Martin Konrad asked whether a project
proposal for the pilot would be developed.
Hubbell said he will update his August 2006 proposal to reflect the
final implementation strategy for the pilot.
Janet Sternburg requested an interim progress report at the EMP-CC’s May
meeting, and a final report in August.
Hubbell agreed to provide these reports.
Terry Smith said he looks
forward to seeing how the EMP’s two major components can better support each
other.
CWA/Ecosystem Restoration Update
Hubbell reported that a
planned February meeting of Corps and USEPA staff to discuss linkages between
the Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration on the river was postponed due to
weather. The meeting has been
rescheduled for March 7. Tentative
topics include the linkages among authorities, opportunities to use habitat
project objectives to help identify impaired waters, HREP identification and
selection process, how EPA can help address water quality issues related to
projects, the intent and purpose of the TMDL program, EPA’s potential
participation on PDTs, identification of a pilot area, support for the UMRBA’s
proposed broader dialog concerning connections between the CWA and restoration
efforts, coordination of monitoring efforts, and the role of state pollution
control agencies.
District HREP Reports
Powell reported that MVP’s FY
07 work plan calls for approximately $6 million in HREP activity, an increase
of about $2 million over FY 06. This includes
some level of planning on six projects.
The draft DPR for Capoli Slough is expected in August, with the DPR for
Harpers Slough following in September.
The district will be restarting
In FY 07, MVP will focus its
design work on developing plans and specs for Pool 8 Islands Phase III Stages
2A and 2B. There will also be some minor
work on
Powell reported that MVP will
again transfer funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist in project
evaluation. MVP expects to produce seven
completion reports in FY 07. MVP will be
getting a new District Engineer in June.
Powell said he would be asking for partner assistance in getting the new
Commander out on the river to see some habitat projects. Terry Smith applauded MVP’s efforts to
coordinate EMP and O&M activities.
In response to a question from Martin Konrad, Powell estimated that the
Pool Slough dedication might be held in September or October. Powell said he would like to have the project
fully operational for the ceremony and committed to working with Mike Griffin
on the arrangements.
Brian Markert reported that
MVS expects to submit the planning report for the Pools 25/26 project to MVD
this spring. He described the project as
using a simple, low tech design. DPRs
are underway for both
Marv Hubbell reported that MVR
currently has five projects in planning.
Work is wrapping up on the draft DPR for
Implementing the Planning and Sequencing
Framework
Hubbell reported that the
System Ecological Team (SET) convened via conference call on February 6 to
discuss 18 proposed HREPs, six from each of the three districts. That call included consideration of the SET’s
evaluation criteria and the spreadsheet format that will be used to manage the
information. The SET is scheduled to
meet March 15-16 in the Quad Cities to continue its consideration of the 18
project proposals. Each District
Ecological Team (DET) is being encouraged to have a representative present at
that meeting to answer questions, provide additional information and context,
etc. The three district HREP managers
are also expected to attend. Hubbell
explained that SET members will also be encouraged to participate in a training
session later in March. This session,
led by Tony Starfield from the
Martin Konrad asked when the
PPT will meet. Hubbell observed that the
May quarterly meeting schedule will be very tight, with only four hours set
aside for the EMP-CC. Any time for a PPT
meeting would presumably have to come out of these four hours. Hubbell suggested that it may be necessary
for the PPT to meet via conference call.
However, he said it is difficult to judge how long the PPT will need and
how best to structure its first meeting until he sees the SET recommendations.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
FY 07 Update
Mike Jawson reported that
completion of the LTRMP’s FY 07 scope of work has been delayed due to the
uncertainty caused by short term continuing resolution funding. Now that funding for the Corps through the
end of the year has been passed, Jawson said the scope should be completed
shortly. Remaining work includes adjustments
to reflect Corps comments and incorporate the final funding numbers, once they
are determined.
Jawson reported that, despite
the funding delays, the LTRMP’s FY 07 products are largely on track at this
point. First quarter highlights include
completion of a report on land cover changes, submission of a manuscript
comparing flood stages on the Mississippi and Rhine Rivers, provision of
various GIS and bathymetry support to the partnership, development of a
manuscript that uses turtle data collected during LTRMP fisheries sampling, and
the use of LTRMP fisheries data to help support Fish and Wildlife Service
management of the American eel.
As a result of the APE
refinement process, the A-Team, Corps, and USGS have identified the following
focus areas for FY 08:
Jawson briefly reviewed the
process and timeline used to develop the FY 07 APE proposals. This culminated in the Corps and USGS placing
the project proposals in high, medium, and low priority categories. As agreed among the partners, the A-Team
Chair was permitted to observe this prioritization process, which took place in
September 2006. Contingent on an actual
FY 07 LTRMP allocation close to the anticipated level of $6.104 million, Jawson
said the Corps and USGS will fund all high- and medium-ranked APE
proposals. He further explained that
receipt of FY 07 APE funding for a particular project will also be contingent
upon completion, or demonstrable near completion, of any previous APE products
by that author. Martin Konrad expressed
support for this emphasis on timely completion of previously funded work.
A-Team Report
Rob Maher emphasized that the
modifications in the APE selection process have been very beneficial. He expressed optimism that additional
refinements for FY 08, including the focusing questions, will improve the
process still further. Maher said he is
pleased to hear that all high- and medium-ranked APEs, including the increment
of restored monitoring, will be funded in FY 07.
Consistent with discussions
at the October LTRMP partnership unity meeting, Maher said the A-Team is
attempting to increase its focus on science and technical matters. The A-Team’s April 2007 meeting will be held
in conjunction with the annual Mississippi River Research Consortium meeting
and will feature a series of technical presentations, including results from
multi-gear fisheries analysis.
USACE/USGS Coordination Meeting
Marv Hubbell reported that
Corps and USGS staff met in early December 2006 to coordinate on a variety of
operational issues. The topics for
discussion included: relationships and
roles, USGS policy standards and LTRMP workforce, program transparency,
LTRMP/HREP linkages, annual scope of work and performance, and Status and
Trends Report. Hubbell characterized the
meeting as very productive and said several modifications and enhancements
should improve program performance. For
example, the FY 07 scope of work will include more information and detail,
which should be helpful.
Hubbell said the reporting
and publication process is being streamlined in a variety of ways, including a
shift from the current 12 product types to 3.
There will also be a strong effort to release initial products more
rapidly without undermining efforts to publish in peer reviewed journals. Hubbell said approximately $74,000 is being
added to the MSP to reduce publication bottlenecks. Jawson further explained that certain
editorial-related functions will now be contracted out, though the people doing
the work will still be housed at UMESC.
While this is a more costly approach, Jawson said it was unavoidable. Jawson also explained that OMB-imposed review
requirements for USGS authors include a mandatory Bureau-level review that
takes at least 3-4 weeks. Martin Konrad
said he anticipates that the LTRMP strategic planning process will need to
consider some of these issues.
Benjamin asked where HREP
data is housed. Hubbell said the Corps
maintains HREP data, though a relatively small amount is also housed at
UMESC. To access most the Corps’ HREP
data, people must contact the appropriate district office. Benjamin suggested that the partners consider
whether HREP data should be housed at UMESC.
Hubbell said he would like to make this an agenda topic at a future
EMP-CC meeting. Jawson said UMESC is
interested in serving as a one-stop portal to river-related information. He noted that USGS is currently exploring a
request from Southern Illinois University for UMESC to house historical river
information. Benjamin said she
understands that such centralization requires resources, but emphasized that it
is quite helpful for data users.
Status and Trends Report
Barry Johnson said that the
final draft of the Status and Trends Report was distributed to the LTRMP
partners on February 14 for comment. An
executive summary for the report remains under development. Johnson encouraged reviewers to be as
specific as possible and to focus their comments on substantive matters, noting
that publications staff will be doing a final editorial review. UMESC is seeking one set of consolidated
comments from each partner agency.
Comments are due to Jennie Sauer by March 30, 2007, and the final report
is scheduled to go to the printer by July 16, 2007.
Johnson
then briefly highlighted several findings from the draft report, including the
following:
·
Nutrients are
high
·
Total suspended
solids (TSS) are higher in the southern reaches
·
Depth diversity
is poor
·
·
Macrophytes and
invertebrates are low in the southern reaches
·
Fish species
richness is good
·
Non-native fish
populations are high
·
Population levels
for other fish species are variable
·
Substantially lower
health in southern reaches
Overall, Johnson said the
Status and Trends Report reveals a system that is not in immediate danger of
collapse, but that does have problem areas.
Generally, problems are more prevalent on the southern reaches.
Looking further at the TSS
data, Johnson noted that there is a decreasing trend in Pools 4 and 8, but said
sedimentation is still a problem in off-channel areas. He explained that sedimentation is very
episodic, with long time lags.
Determining trends is quite difficult, according to Johnson.
Examining data on winter
habitat suitability and fish abundance leads to some interesting observations,
according to Johnson. While there is
substantial variability north to south in terms of suitability metrics such as
dissolved oxygen, temperature, and depth, suitable overwintering habitat is
generally more plentiful in the southern reaches. But the best populations of backwater fish
are on the northern reaches, suggesting that winter habitat may not limit
abundance. Johnson emphasized the need
for more research and directed study of HREPs, rather than more monitoring, to
help explain the relationship between abundance and overwintering habitat.
Johnson stressed the need for
indicators related directly to management objectives and desired
endpoints. Monitoring efforts can then
be focused on collecting the data needed for those indicators. Johnson highlighted a range of possible
indicators associated with water quality, vegetation, fish abundance,
invertebrates, and habitat diversity.
While the indicators used in this draft Status and Trends Report are
set, Johnson encouraged the partners to engage in a dialog concerning the
selection of appropriate indicators for the future.
In response to a question
from
Estimating Status and Trends Using LTRMP
Data
Brian Gray stressed that
estimating status and trends depends on defining program objectives, explaining
that data by themselves have no meaning.
Without first establishing objectives, Gray cautioned that analyses lose
their meaning. And, as the number of
analyses increases, the probability of finding spurious effects or trends
increases. He demonstrated how examining
data in the absence of defined objectives can result in the failure to detect
trends as well as the erroneous identification of trends.
Gray said it is common to ask
what the data are telling us. He said it
is better to ask what questions we want to answer and then prioritize those
objectives/questions. Gray discussed the
difference between taking an annual and a long-term focus, noting the
background annual variation complicates trend detection. He also explained the trade-off between
reducing false positive and false negative error rates. Gray emphasized that the importance of trends
and status changes should be determined by the defined objectives and the
ecological significance of those changes, rather than by statistical significance. He said increasing sample size risks
identifying statistically significant, but ecologically insignificant,
effects. Conversely, decreasing sample
size will eventually yield neither ecologically nor statistically significant
effects.
Gray reviewed the LTRMP
sampling design as it relates to status and trends detection, describing the
implications of the LTRMP’s stratified random sampling, nonproportional
sampling across strata, and annual sampling events. Acknowledging this design produces defensible
estimates of means and standard errors, according to Gray. He explained that, in the absence of a trend,
the status is the mean over the entire sampling period. If there is a trend, then the status is the
mean from the most recent year. Variation
in status helps define the background variation of the mean, highlights unusual
means, yields long-term patterns, and is useful for researchers.
Gray reiterated that
ecologists and managers, not statisticians, should determine the importance of
trends. Trends are long-term changes in
the mean, with long term typically being 10 to 20 years. The continuous increases or decreases that
define trends may be linear (water quality data), exponential (fish or
invertebrate data) or logistic (vegetation data). Under the LTRMP design, temporal trends are
estimated across annual sampling events, and status is embedded in trend
estimates. Sample size is the number of
sampling events. Gray explained it is
the sampling period and the number of sampling events, rather than the sample
size per event, that primarily determine the precision of the trend estimates
and the power to detect trends.
Rebecca Wooden asked if a
flat curve ( i.e., neither increasing nor decreasing) represents a trend of no
change. Gray replied that statisticians
would indeed view this as a stable trend.
He noted that there is always a trend, but that trend is not always
ecologically important. Jawson added that
the absence of change does not necessarily mean that the status is acceptable. He sited the status of smallmouth buffalo in
Pool 13 as an example of a stable situation in which management intervention
might well be appropriate.
In response to a question
from Hubbell, Gray explained that a different statistical approach is required
to use data from our trend pools to draw conclusions about the broader
river. Specifically, a modeling approach
is needed, in which trend pools are said to be representative of larger
reaches. This assumption cannot be
justified based on design. Instead, the
defense is based on outside science experts who concur with the assumptions
about the trend pools being representative of larger reaches. Jawson noted that outpool data would help
justify the application of trend pool data to reaches. Gray agreed, but said the non-random
selection of previous outpool sampling sites limits the data’s utility to
simply strengthening the opinion of the science experts. Conversely, if outpool sites were selected
randomly in the future, after some period of time, it would be possible to make
design-based conclusions about trends in the outpools.
Jawson emphasized that
monitoring cannot replace research. Gray
explained that monitoring is best suited to identifying status and trends, but
is a poor source of data for scientific inquiry. He said one will almost certainly never
obtain cause and effect insights from monitoring data, or any other
observational data.
Hubbell asked about the value
of cross component analysis of monitoring data.
Gray said this must be addressed carefully. He said there is typically a problem with
differing spatial scales across the components.
This requires either very expensive modeling, or aggregation to the
smallest common scale, which is typically the strata level. He cautioned that there are very serious ways
in which cross component analysis can go astray.
FY 08 APE Process
Hank DeHann said he is very
pleased with the partners’ efforts to develop focusing questions to guide the
FY 08 APE selection process. He briefly
reviewed the process that was employed, starting with each partner agency being
asked to identify its top three management-related questions. UMESC staff then consolidated and organized
those questions, asking for clarification where necessary. USGS, USACE, and the A-Team then ranked the
partners’ questions independently. Last
week, those three rankings were compared and integrated. DeHaan said there was substantial commonality
across the three lists and it was not difficult to reach consensus on the five
focusing questions Jawson highlighted early.
He described three of the questions as addressing broad areas, with the
other two being more component-focused.
In answer to a question from
Benjamin, DeHaan said the vegetation question need not be restricted to
submersed aquatic vegetation. He noted
that all five questions are still rather broad.
USACE would like to work with USGS and the A-Team to develop more
specific questions and guidelines to use with these five focusing questions. Maher said this process would need to be quite
streamlined in order to keep the FY 08 APE process on schedule. DeHaan agreed, and said it should be possible
to develop the more detailed questions in two to three weeks, with the goal of
reaching consensus among the A-Team, USACE, and USGS by the end of March. This would permit the request for APE
proposals to be issued in early April.
Martin Konrad asked how the
increment of restored monitoring will be handled in FY 08. Hubbell said he sees it fitting in well as an
APE.
FY 10-14 Strategic Planning Process
Jawson thanked the states for
their perspectives paper concerning LTRMP strategic planning [dated 1/25/07 and
included in the EMP-CC agenda packet].
He noted that the states’ thinking is quite close to the USGS and Corps’
initial ideas and expressed his preference for using the states’ paper as a
starting point for discussion. Jawson
said he would like to have additional discussion and clarification concerning
some of the assumptions highlighted in the states’ paper. In addition, he expressed the opinion that
the states’ timeline seems overly aggressive.
While he shares the desire to get started and keep the process moving,
Jawson said he doubts the planning effort could be successfully completed by
March 2008. Jawson said the Corps and
USGS concur with the states’ recommendation to use a facilitator. However, he said the two federal agencies
would like to start the planning process with a more comprehensive look at
LTRMP goals and objectives than is reflected in the states’ perspectives
paper. He also said he would like the
plan to address both strategic and tactical issues.
Jawson suggested forming an ad-hoc scoping group to modifying the
states’ paper, creating a joint state-federal scoping document. He suggested that such a scoping group could complete
its work by the end of March, permitting the first planning meeting to be held
in April. Jawson also raised the
question of whether the partners should ask an outside group to look at the
LTRMP and provide input.
Hubbell expressed support for
the ideas Jawson outlined and said the February 7, 2007 response piece included
in the agenda packet reflects their joint thinking. Hubbell stressed his desire to begin by
identifying the program’s vision and then determining how best to pursue and
support that vision.
Konrad asked for
clarification regarding Hubbell and Jawson’s recommendation for a scoping
group. Jawson said the group would
ensure that we establish common assumptions about the strategic planning
process before the process is initiated.
The states’ perspectives document would be the basis for the scoping
group’s discussion. In answer to a
question from Benjamin, Jawson said the Corps and USGS would share their
alternative timeline recommendation, as well as identify areas of the states’
paper for which they would like elaboration or clarification. Benjamin cautioned that the planning process
must not extend to the point where it is not feasible to implement the new plan
in FY 10. She emphasized the need for
adequate transition time to adjust to whatever changes may be required. Hubbell said the Corps share’s the states’
desire for adequate transition time.
Jawson said he also understands the need for transition time, but
suggested that October 2008 is a more reasonable target for completing the
strategic plan. He said that adequate
planning time is also important, particularly if the partners do want an
outside LTRMP review.
Konrad stressed the states’
desire for an outside facilitator and for UMRBA staff to serve in a “co-taskmaster”
role for the process. Jawson and Hubbell
said they have no problems with this approach.
Sternburg observed that the Fish and Wildlife Service has some excellent
facilitators. After some additional
discussion, the EMP-CC charged a small scoping group with assessing and
refining the state perspectives document.
The scoping group consists of Marv Hubbell,
In response to a question
from Jawson, Naramore said the states were not ready to identify their members
of the actual strategic planning group.
She explained that, while the states discussed this question at their
pre-meeting, not all of the potential candidates were present. After everyone’s willingness to serve has
been confirmed, Naramore said she would identify the full slate of state
members. Todd Strole offered The Nature
Conservancy’s expertise if outside perspectives are desired during the
strategic planning process.
FY 07 Priorities
Hubbell explained that
tentative FY 07 priorities include $4.0 million for the MSP and $1.2 million
for APEs, as well as funding for equipment refreshment, wrapping up the Status
and Trends Report, LTRMP strategic planning, a reduced level of bathymetry, GIS
tools, cross component analysis, and LIDAR.
In response to a question from Benjamin, Hubbell indicated that the
standard three percent annual inflation adjustment for the MSP, which the field
stations had previously been asked to forego in FY 07, would be restored under
the anticipated funding levels. In
response to a question from Jon Duyvejonck, Hubbell said all of these
priorities, with the exception of the LIDAR, have been discussed with the
partners, though not necessarily with the specific dollar allocations that are
now planned. He noted that the LIDAR
would receive $250,000 to $350,000.
In response to a question
from Maher, Hubbell explained that items such as bathymetry and GIS tools would
not be funded as MSP+ items in FY 07.
Hubbell went on to note that, consistent with discussion at the EMP-CC’s
November meeting, the MSP+ category has been eliminated this year. Instead, equipment refreshment, Status and
Trends, strategic planning, bathymetry, GIS tools, cross component analysis,
and LIDAR will all be treated as administrative APEs in FY 07. There is no special priority being assigned
to bathymetry or anything else that is not part of the established MSP,
according to Hubbell.
Sternburg asked how far into
the next fiscal year a project funded with FY 07 money could go. Hubbell explained that there’s no absolute
timeframe, but said any project would need a sound spend out schedule to extend
into FY 08.
Hubbell encouraged partners
to inform him ASAP if they intend to submit any alternate proposals.
Other Business
May 2007—
·
UMRBA—May 22
·
EMP-CC—morning
of May 23
·
Adaptive
management workshop—afternoon of May 23 and early morning
of May 24
·
NECC/ECC—balance
of May 24
August 2007—
·
UMRBA—August 21
·
NECC/ECC—August
22
·
EMP-CC—August
23
November 2007—
·
UMRBA—November 13
·
NECC/ECC—November
14
·
EMP-CC—morning
of November 15
·
Water
quality/ecosystem restoration workshop—afternoon of November 15
and morning of November 16
Mike Jawson expressed concern
with the reduced time for the May EMP-CC meeting, noting that there will be
several very important agenda items. Bob
Clevenstine emphasized that the Corps and Service are planning the adaptive
management workshop to begin on the afternoon of May 23. Ken Barr said the workshop was placed between
the EMP-CC and NECC/ECC meetings with the goal of accommodating many people’s
interest and reducing travel demands. He
said that, if the EMP-CC does not want the workshop held in conjunction with
its meeting, the Corps would consider rescheduling the workshop. Jawson said he simply wants to make sure that
options for accommodating the workshop without unduly constraining the EMP-CC
meeting have been fully explored.
Terry Smith thanked all of
the partners for their excellent work and expressed his satisfaction with the
EMP’s progress. With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
February 22, 2007
EMP-CC Members
Terry
Smith
Don
Hultman
Mike
Jawson
Al
Fenedick
Rick
Mollahan Illinois
Department of Natural Resources
Martin
Konrad Iowa Department of
Natural Resources
Rebecca
Wooden Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources
Janet
Sternburg Missouri
Department of Conservation
Gretchen
Benjamin Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Others in
Attendance
Kevin
Bluhm
Jeff
DeZellar
Chuck
Spitzack
Ken
Barr
Marvin
Hubbell
Hank DeHaan