Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
May 16, 2001
Spring Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Quad Cities Plaza
Hotel
Davenport, Iowa
Steve Cobb of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
on Wednesday, May 16, 2001. Other
EMP-CC members present were Charlie Wooley (USFWS), Scott Stuewe (IL DNR), Tom
Boland (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR), Gary Christoff (MO DOC), Terry
Moe (WI DNR), and Bob Goodwin (MARAD).
A complete list of attendees follows the minutes.
Teresa Kincaid
offered a correction to the draft minutes of the February 28, 2001 EMP-CC
meeting, noting that the first sentence of the fourth full paragraph on p. 2
refers to MVP when it should reference MVR.
Thus, the sentence should read that “…both MVR and MVS will be
able….” Steve Johnson moved and Terry
Moe seconded a motion to approve the minutes with Kincaid’s correction. The motion carried unanimously.
Steve Cobb said
MVD is quite proud of the EMP, which he described as a model environmental
program. He noted that all of the
program partners have contributed to success in both the HREP and LTRMP
components. However, Cobb observed that
the EMP does not do a particularly good job publicizing its successes. Cobb encouraged the program partners to make
efforts to get the word out and help build support for the program.
Cobb announced
several changes to the order of the agenda and introduced Roger Perk, the new
EMP Regional Project Manager.
Roger Perk
reported that, due to continued high water, the impacts of this spring’s
flooding on HREPs have not yet been fully assessed. According to Perk, projects known to have sustained at least some
damage include Long Lake, Finger Lakes, Pool 8 Islands Phase II, and
Trempealeau Refuge in MVP; Princeton Refuge, Spring Lake, and Lake Odessa in
MVR; and Swan Lake in MVS. Gordon
Farabee added that the Cottonwood Island HREP is covered with water and said he
anticipates significant mortality among the trees planted as part of the
project. Perk said all projects will be
surveyed for damages as the floodwaters recede. He noted that MVR anticipates construction delays this year for
the Gardner Division and Pleasant Creek projects due to high water.
Terry Moe
requested that the Corps’ post-flood assessment consider how HREPs with levees
faired relative to projects that employ other techniques. He also asked the Corps to make
recommendations, as appropriate, for modified operating practices that might
reduce future flood damages to HREPs with levees.
Greg Ruff
reviewed Section 509(a) of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act, which
directs the Corps to establish an Independent Technical Advisory Committee as
part of the EMP reauthorization.
Headquarters implementation guidance regarding the provision calls for
MVD, in consultation with the EMP partners, to develop a proposal to implement
the committee. The guidance also
directs MVD to obtain a counsel opinion regarding Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) issues and to submit the implementation proposal to HQ for
approval. Ruff presented a draft
proposal, which recommends that the Independent Technical Advisory Committee
serve the following purposes: identify
ways to enhance the LTRMP’s contributions to ecosystem understanding and HREP
design, review the process for selecting and formulating HREPs, recommend innovative
techniques for HREPs, recommend generic types of HREPs to address systemic and
reach-specific needs, and recommend post-construction monitoring procedures for
HREPs.
Ruff emphasized
that the Technical Committee will report to the MVD Commander and will serve in
an advisory, not a decision-making, capacity.
MVD would like to establish the committee in time for its perspectives
to be considered in the 2004 Report to Congress. Ruff said MVD envisions the committee being comprised of
individuals with no direct links to the EMP.
These members would include people with expertise in fluvial
geomorphology, hydraulic engineering, large river aquatic ecology, limnology,
and geospatial analysis. Ruff requested
EMP-CC members’ input regarding MVD’s draft proposal by June 6. MVD will then solicit input from other
parties and develop a final proposal for discussion at the August 8 EMP-CC
meeting. After making any additional
revisions, MVD will submit its proposal to Corps HQ in September, with the goal
of implementing the Technical Committee in the first quarter of FY 02.
In response to a
question from Gary Christoff, Ruff said the revised proposal, which will
reflect feedback from the program partners and others, will be somewhat more
detailed. Holly Stoerker expressed
concern that the Technical Committee’s proposed role in reviewing the HREP
selection process could further delay the program partners’ efforts to develop
and implement the new planning process.
Ruff explained that the Technical Committee will not be asked to review
the HREP planning process until the partners have implemented the new
process. Steve Cobb added that the
committee would be asked to look more at the scientific basis of project
selection than the mechanics of the project selection process.
Terry Moe agreed
that the Technical Committee should be asked to focus on science issues, not
process questions. However, Moe
questioned how much the committee could reasonably be expected to accomplish
before the 2004 Report to Congress. He
requested that EMP-CC members be permitted to observe the Technical Committee’s
meetings.
Gordon Farabee
acknowledged the value of outside perspectives, but recommended that the
Technical Committee include at least one scientist who knows the UMR and the
EMP. He said such a member would help keep
the committee grounded and on track.
Ruff explained that the Corps wants the committee members to contribute
fresh perspectives and experience with what has been done in other areas of the
country. He expressed concern that
members would lack the necessary independence if they have worked previously on
the EMP. Steve Johnson asked what other
measures the Corps anticipates taking to ensure the committee’s
independence. He emphasized that
independence is not simply a matter of selecting members from outside the
program partnership. As examples of
other key considerations, he cited the processes for selecting the committee’s
chair and setting meeting agendas.
Cobb said a
number of issues, including those raised by Johnson, remain to be
considered. Tom Boland said the
committee will not be able to provide meaningful input on project selection,
techniques, etc. unless one or more members know the UMR and the EMP. Cobb agreed that such knowledge would be
helpful, but said it would be inappropriate to include people who have been
directly involved in the EMP. John
Barko suggested that the Technical Committee would benefit from having a
facilitator.
Robin Grawe
expressed concern that MVD’s proposed composition for the Technical Committee
does not include any social scientists or river management experts. She cautioned that the committee may offer
recommendations that are not publicly acceptable if people with such skills are
not included on the committee. Dick
Steinbach noted that post-construction monitoring is something that the program
partnership needs to refine. He asked
whether the Technical Committee’s review would be delayed until after the
program partners make those changes.
Ruff said he did not see any reason to defer the Technical Committee’s
consideration of post-construction monitoring.
HREP Planning
Teresa Kincaid
reported that the Corps intended to have a revised version of the HREP planning
framework for discussion at today’s meeting; however, efforts to prepare that
document have been delayed. Kincaid
emphasized that the Corps concurs with the basic goals identified in the May
2000 planning framework previously endorsed by the EMP-CC. Those goals are to ensure that HREPs address
UMRS ecological needs, enhance public understanding and trust in the project
decision-making process, and retain flexibility to ensure efficient and
effective execution of the HREP program.
Kincaid said the Corps will be proposing a five-stage planning process,
starting at Stage 1 with ecological planning for pools and reaches and
development of a proposed ecological sequence for projects and concluding at
Stage 5 with project feasibility and preparation of a definite project
report (DPR). She briefly highlighted
the purpose of each stage. Kincaid said
the Corps’ proposal will provide for an Ecological Resource Team, an
interdisciplinary team of large river scientists from outside of the region
designed to supplement technical expertise from the UMRS.
Steve Johnson
noted that Kincaid had presented a great deal of new information and asked her
to provide copies of her PowerPoint slides.
Gordon Farabee said the proposed process is potentially cumbersome and
urged the Corps to attach timeframes to each stage to avoid delays. Scott Whitney said the Corps anticipates
that the planning process would take place on a two-year cycle.
Kincaid said MVR
will provide EMP-CC members with a revised draft describing the new HREP
planning process through Stage 4 at the end of May. EMP-CC members will be asked to comment on the revised draft in
June and the EMP-CC will discuss the planning process further at its August 8
meeting. Kincaid said the Corps expects
to prepare a final report in October and implement the new process beginning in
FY 02.
Robin Grawe
asked whether the district-level groups will consider budget issues in
developing their sequencing recommendations.
Kincaid replied that the district groups will be asked to develop
recommendations that include flexibility to adjust to different budget scenarios. Kincaid noted the importance of good program
execution in shaping future budgets and emphasized the need to have sufficient
capability and flexibility to take advantage of opportunities.
Dick Steinbach
observed that the 50-year design life requirement for HREPs has impeded
flexibility and innovation at times. He
asked whether the new planning process will include provisions for some smaller
projects that are more experimental in nature.
Steve Cobb said there is some opportunity, on a case-by-case basis, to
streamline the process and perhaps relax design standards. However, he emphasized that such
modifications would not be done programmatically.
Roger Perk
described the Corps’ near-term HREP planning strategy. Each interagency district team has been
asked to develop a short list of quality HREP proposals. The Corps will review
the district lists and recommend an ordered list of projects for planning
starts. The EMP-CC will have an
opportunity to review the ordered list and MVD will subsequently review and
approve the list. The districts will
then initiate feasibility planning on the approved projects in FY 02. Perk explained that this approach is
intended to ensure that program execution does not suffer during the transition
to the new planning process. He briefly
reviewed the current status of each district’s efforts to identify interim
projects.
Scott Whitney
briefly reviewed the LTRMP’s three FY 01 bathymetry work items. In answer to a question from Gordon Farabee,
Whitney said the bathymetric data collection efforts were targeted to areas
where there are data gaps or where the data are oldest. Whitney said the fisheries sampling analysis
is on-going. Preliminary analyses are
posted on-line and program partners have been asked to comment. The fisheries analysis work group will be
examining nine different options.
Whitney reported
that high water has been a problem for the main channel fisheries sampling
effort this year. Equipment problems
delayed the work last year. Whitney
said the effort should resume shortly.
The sampling will be done on the Illinois River’s Alton Pool.
The HNA Query
Tool is using different software to improve accessibility. Whitney reported that UMESC is responding to
many requests for the Query Tool. He
noted that copyright issues have delayed distribution via UMESC’s web site.
Gordon Farabee
asked whether any of the field stations are doing sampling in the floodplains
to assess potential fisheries benefits from this year’s flood. Whitney said the LTRMP is basing its
flood-related monitoring strategy on its experience from 1993. Currently, flood-related monitoring is
focused on water quality. Fish sampling
is following its regular schedule at present because there is a lag between the
occurrence of a flood and the time when the results of any increased floodplain
spawning can be monitored. Whitney said
the LTRMP will attempt to assess fisheries impacts later. He also reported that UMESC’s web site will
serve aerial photos of this spring’s flooding.
These photos cover the river from the Twin Cities to Muscatine,
Iowa. Currently, there is no funding
available to digitize the flood photos.
In response to a question from Dick Steinbach, Teresa Kincaid said she
did not expect funding for flood photos below Muscatine. Kincaid and Gary Loss explained that the
river below Muscatine was photographed in 1993. According to Kincaid and Loss, the flood elevations for the two
events on this stretch of the river are not sufficiently different to warrant
using P.L. 99 funds to obtain new photos.
Steve Cobb suggested geo-referenced satellite data as a possible
alternative.
Terry Moe noted
that the National Academy of Sciences’ report on the navigation study includes
a recommendation for the LTRMP to conduct increased navigation effects
research. He observed that the Master
Plan identified navigation effects as one of the reasons for establishing the
EMP. According to Moe, there is a
perception developing that the Corps and USGS are working closely together to
shape the LTRMP, potentially at the expense of partnership decision-making
through the A-Team. He expressed
concern with such an approach and urged that the LTRMP not be focused overly on
research at the expense of monitoring.
Cobb said the Corps is currently evaluating all recommendations in the
NAS report, including the recommendation regarding navigation effects research
by the LTRMP. Cobb said the Corps has
not yet made any decisions. As the
federal agencies work out options for responding to the NAS report, Cobb said
the Corps will seek input from the states and others. Cobb agreed with Moe that one of the LTRMP’s fundamental purposes
is monitoring.
Moe said the
LTRMP has been subject to a number of reviews and has developed a good system
over time for guiding its work, including the operating plan and annual work
plans. Moe urged that the existing
documents and process be used in considering any potential new priorities. Cobb agreed that the LTRMP documents and
process should be used. Moe expressed
concern that some within the Corps do not seem to have the same respect for the
partnership process and collaboratively developed guidance documents. Tom Boland observed that there have been
several key personnel changes affecting the LTRMP and that roles are still
being determined. Boland said Iowa
shares Moe’s concern that the partnership process be preserved. He also expressed Iowa’s position that
monitoring is the backbone of the LTRMP, but emphasized that research is an
important component as well.
Program Management
Teresa Kincaid reported that, as of March 31, 2001, $928,000
in savings and slippage had been restored to the EMP. MVR and MVS have additional capabilities this year and will be
seeking restoration of more savings and slippage. Terry Moe noted that FY 00 carry-in includes some program
coordination funding. He expressed
concern with the potential for funds to build up in this account and suggested
reprogramming unneeded administrative funds.
Kincaid replied that it is unusual for the EMP to carry forward
administrative funds. Gary Loss said
the Corps strives to expend fully in all EMP categories in order to put the
program in the best possible position for future appropriations. Kincaid also noted that the $456,000 in FY
01 Corps LTRMP technical support is not comprised entirely of administrative
and oversight costs. Approximately
$400,000 of this total is going to contracts.
Terry Moe
recalled that the EMP-CC members were originally told they would have an
opportunity to comment on the COE/FWS scope of work prior to it being
finalized. Moe expressed concern with
the actual process, whereby the other partners only saw the SOW after it was
finalized. Charlie Wooley emphasized
that the Service is fully committed to the program partnership. He expressed regret regarding the rushed
process to develop the scope and committed his agency to making future SOW
development more transparent to the other partners. Kincaid concurred with Wooley.
Wooley went on to assure Moe that the substance of the final FY 01 SOW
is consistent with what was discussed at previous EMP‑CC meetings.
Moe agreed that
the substance of the scope was consistent with what was previously discussed
and said he would appreciate a more transparent process for developing the
agreements in future years. Moe also
expressed Wisconsin’s fundamental opposition to the transfer of funds from the
Corps to the Service. Moe said
Wisconsin believes the Service should contribute its staff time to the HREP
program, as do the states. Gary
Christoff observed that the Corps transfers planning funds to the states for
their field work in support of the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Program. According to Christoff, the
Corps does not transfer funds for the states’ administrative costs. Greg Ruff postulated that this difference in
practice may have its basis in the fact that the Missouri River program is a
mitigation project. Gary Loss said MVR
would explore what is being done on the Missouri River and report back at the
August EMP-CC meeting. Terry Moe
emphasized that Wisconsin would oppose transfer of EMP funds to any partner
agency, be it federal or state, to support their HREP planning activities.
Tom Boland
observed that MVR’s HREP status sheet lists the Pool 12 overwintering project
as deferred. Boland asked for
clarification, noting that there has been activity on the project. Janet Hodges said the project is in design. Boland expressed surprise with the $14
million cost estimate. Roger Perk said
the $14 million estimate is for dredging all of the seven potential areas. Accoring to Perk, it is unlikely all seven
areas will ultimately be dredged.
Boland asked about the status of the Smith Lake project and Kara
Mitvalsky reported that the first draft of the feasibility report should be
complete this fall.
In response to a
question from Boland, Charlie Wooley clarified the Service’s recent letter
regarding disposal of dredged material from the proposed Pool 12 overwintering
project. According to Wooley, the
Service’s April letter simply asked the Corps to assess upland disposal
alternatives to sidecasting. He said
the letter does not insist upon upland disposal for this project, or for HREPs
more generally. Wooley said the Service
will continue to consider disposal of dredged material from HREPs on a
case-by-case basis.
Terry Moe asked
about the Activity Report’s reference to adaptive measures for the Bertom McCartney
project. Charlene Carmack explained
that erosion is widening an inlet to Bertom Lake, raising the potential that
excessive flow and sediment will reach the lake. This could reduce the life of the project and/or the value of the
habitat. Carmack explained that MVR is
currently assessing the extent of the problem and will then explore options for
addressing it. Mitvalsky noted that
monitoring suggests water quality may be improving in response to the increased
size of the inlet. Scott Whitney said a
scour hole may be developing and observed that this would be an unintended
benefit.
In response to a
question from Terry Moe, Mike Kruckeberg explained that a single DPR was
prepared for the Batchtown project.
Project construction is being done in three phases. Deb Foley suggested that it might be easier
to track the project if its spreadsheet entry was broken down to reflect the
three phases. Gordon Farabee requested
that the spreadsheets identify the state(s) for each HREP, noting that
currently the state is listed for some projects and not for others.
Boland asked
about the process for reopening projects that were not properly completed or
that are not functioning as designed.
He expressed disappointment that the capping and planting were never
completed at the Brown’s Lake project.
Kincaid said MVR will look into the matter and report back at the
EMP-CC’s August meeting on the process for reopening projects.
Kincaid reported
that President Bush has requested $21.0 million for the EMP in FY 02. The Corps’ expressed capability figure for
FY 02 is $33.0 million. Attached is a
sheet showing how funding at these two levels would likely be allocated within
the EMP. Loss reported on recent
Congressional visits, noting that members were pleased the Corps is ready to
execute a fully funded program. Farabee
asked about the proposed allocation of HREP funds among the three
districts. Kincaid said the Corps
anticipates using the river mile-based allocation formula for the last time in
FY 02. She said future allocations will
be based on the ecological sequencing identified through the HREP planning
process.
Kincaid reported
that MVS will develop a project cooperation agreement (PCA) template using the
Cuivre Island agreement as a model.
Foley said the template will reflect the WRDA 99 cost sharing formula
and other PCA provisions that have changed since execution of the Cuivre Island
agreement. Kincaid also reported that
MVR continues to work on the EMP Guidance Compendium as part of the EMP web
site. The program authorizing
legislation is currently posted on the site.
In response to a question from Christoff, Mitvalsky said the states and
others are welcome to link their sites to the EMP site. Mitvalsky said the Corps’ EMP site will
include links to the partner agencies’ sites.
Kincaid provided
a brief update on the pool/reach planning efforts in each of the three
districts. MVP has pool plans out for
review and will be conducting public meetings in the near future. MVR and MVS will be developing preliminary
products for all pools this summer.
Teresa Kincaid
briefly described the basis for current efforts to develop an EMP public
involvement plan. She noted that the
partnership Report to Congress called for enhanced public involvement in the
program and that Corps headquarters picked up on this in its EMP implementation
guidance. Initially, MVR consulted with
its in-house public involvement specialists regarding possible techniques and
approaches. At its November meeting,
the EMP-CC recommended that the Corps first focus on refining the purpose of
the public involvement effort before considering techniques. After consulting with an ad-hoc interagency
group, Kincaid prepared a draft goals and objectives document, which was
discussed at the February 28, 2001 EMP-CC meeting. Kincaid noted that the draft in the current agenda packet is not
substantially different from the one discussed in February, with the exception
of an additional section identifying potential public involvement tools. She briefly reviewed the draft and indicated
that she did not receive any comments from EMP‑CC members following the
February meeting.
Terry Moe
questioned the proposed use of video as a tool, noting that videos are
expensive to produce and become dated.
Robin Grawe suggested sponsoring awards at regional science fairs as a
means of outreach.
Kincaid
requested comments on the draft public involvement strategy by June 6. MVR will revise the draft plan in June and
July and coordinate further with the EMP-CC at its August meeting. MVR will then forward the plan to MVD in
September or October, and MVD will submit the plan to HQ in November 2001.
Holly Stoerker
announced the following dates and locations for future EMP-CC meetings: August 8, 2001 in La Crosse, Wisconsin;
November 15, 2001 in St. Louis, Missouri; and February 28, 2002 in
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. The
navigation study Governors Liaison Committee and the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association are scheduled to meet on the two days prior to each of these
dates.
EMP-CC members identified the following topics for the
August 8 agenda:
· reports on flood damage to HREPs,
including an assessment of how projects with levees faired relative to other
types of projects;
· options for addressing flood damaged
projects;
· process for reopening projects; and
· information regarding the transfer of
funds to the states under the Missouri River Mitigation Program.
It was agreed to
defer a presentation on the LTRMP’s flood monitoring findings until the
November meeting.
Tom Edwards said
he would like more information on project status at EMP-CC meetings. Edwards said he found the habitat project
showcase format particularly helpful.
In response to a question from Gary Loss, Barb Naramore noted that the
EMP-CC had made a deliberate decision to eliminate the project showcase and the
detailed district HREP updates. This
was done in an effort to focus the EMP-CC agendas on policy issues and shorten the
overall meeting length. Members had
agreed that questions regarding the status of specific projects were best dealt
with in other forums and through direct communication with agency staff. Scott Whitney noted that the EMP web site is
an excellent source of HREP information, including evaluation reports for
individual projects. After some
discussion, EMP-CC members agreed to include a brief habitat project showcase
on future agendas when feasible and appropriate. The showcase will focus on the unique features, special
challenges, and outcomes of an individual HREP.
Mike Kruckeberg
reported that the EMP workshop will be held in St. Louis on either October
17-18 or October 24-25. He distributed
a list of potential topics, noting that the workshop will focus on “lessons
learned,” with an emphasis on linking the HREP and LTRMP components. Kruckeberg said some, but not all, partner
agencies had identified a POC to assist in workshop planning. He indicated that planners have decided to
limit the target audience to those involved with the EMP.
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
EMP-CC Attendance
List
May 16, 2001
|
Steve Cobb |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Scott Stuewe |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tom Boland |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gary Christoff |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bob Goodwin |
Maritime
Administration |
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Teresa Kincaid |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Roger Perk |
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 |
|
Kara Mitvalsky |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Larry Barnett |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Charlene
Carmack |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Steve Johnson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Darron Niles |
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 |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
John Barko |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, ERDC |
|
Keith Beseke |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Dick Steinbach |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mark Twain NWR |
|
Mike Steuck |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Amy Denz |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gordon Farabee |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Ken Brummett |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Robin Grawe |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Tom Edwards |
River Rescue |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |