Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
May 23, 2007
Quarterly Meeting
Holiday Inn
Charlie Wooley of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m. on May 23, 2007. Other
EMP-CC representatives present were Terry Smith (USACE), Mike
Jawson (USGS), Martin Konrad (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet
Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), and Bill Franz (USEPA). A list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the February 22, 2007 Meeting
Martin Konrad moved and Janet
Sternburg seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the February 22,
2007 meeting as written. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
Update on P-2 Accounting/Project Management Changes
Marv Hubbell briefly
summarized recent Corps-wide changes in accounting and project management
systems. These changes will have the
unintended consequence of eliminating MVR’s outside contracting credit for
LTRMP funds it passes through USGS to the field stations. Gary Loss explained that these contracting
credits are important for MVR, which must meet a district-wide goal of
contracting out 30 percent of all engineering and professional services. Moreover, only certain projects and programs
have any capacity to contract out, thus reducing the potential pool of
contributors to meeting the goal. The
EMP currently contracts out very little of its engineering and professional
services work.
After considerable
deliberation within MVR, it is virtually certain that there will be no changes
in FY 08 to the established practice for funding the state field stations
— i.e., MVR will continue to pass this funding to the states thru USGS. This means that MVR will be forgoing
contracting credit for these funds, and Loss explained that there is a slight
chance this decision for FY 08 will need to be revisited if MVR has an
unexpectedly difficult time meeting its district-wide 30 percent goal. Hubbell noted that the challenge of meeting
this district goal is expected to abate somewhat after FY 08, as MVR adapts to
Corps-wide changes in the accounting and program management systems.
Janet Sternburg expressed
concern with the potential impacts of modifying the funding transfer practices
for the LTRMP, noting that it could be quite disruptive to the
partnership. She expressed her
appreciation for MVR’s considerable efforts to maintain the transfer of field
station funds through USGS.
Other Key Updates/Questions
Angie Freyermuth reported
that work is underway with the
Justine Barati announced that
she is available to assist in supporting individual Congressional visits and
group events at HREPs this summer. She
expressed the opinion that individual visits, tailored to the needs and
interests of a particular Member of Congress, are generally more effective than
larger, group events. Barati reminded
EMP-CC members that the Corps must be careful not to engage in lobbying efforts. Martin Konrad said he likes the idea of
reaching out to individual members, as well as Governors. Mike Jawson said USGS will also be hosting
Congressional visits at UMESC in the coming months. Hubbell said USACE will coordinate with USGS
and others to ensure consistent messages across the partners’ various outreach
efforts.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects
Update on Data Utilization Pilot
Marv Hubbell reported that
Jason Rohweder and Barry Johnson from UMESC have visited all three districts to
discuss ways of enhancing the habitat program’s use of existing LTRMP
data. Rohweder, with support as
necessary from other UMESC staff, is now working on one project in each
district. Progress will be somewhat
limited this year, due to delays associated with the continuing resolution
funding, but Hubbell said he is quite pleased with the effort so far.
USACE/USEPA Meeting
Hubbell reported that EPA and
Corps staff held a meeting to discuss linkages between the Clean Water Act and
ecosystem restoration on the
EMP’s Ability to Address Ecosystem Restoration Needs
Tim Schlagenhaft presented
his perspectives on the EMP’s current ability to address ecosystem restoration
needs on the river, highlighting two areas where he views the current program
as deficient — i.e., limitations on pool scale water level management and land
acquisition for floodplain restoration. Noting that he had expressed concern with
these limitations previously, Schlagenhaft explained that he has held off on
the matter because the NESP authority was pending and potentially offered
another avenue to pursue such projects.
However, with the ongoing NESP delays and the clear need for water level
management and floodplain restoration projects, Schlagenhaft said he is no
longer content to await the outcome of the NESP authorization process.
Schlagenhaft briefly
described the potential benefits from both floodplain restoration and water
level management, and highlighted the partners’ previously expressed
willingness to review and address EMP needs and limitations. In particular, he noted the 1997 Report to Congress
recommendation calling for the partners to “identify factors that may be
limiting program innovation and review and revise any potentially constraining
policies and guidance.” Schlagenhaft
emphasized that he would envision water level management and floodplain
restoration projects going through the same prioritization process as other
HREPs, and suggested that acquisition funding could be capped at perhaps 20
percent of total HREP funds annually. He
then posed the following two questions to the Corps of Engineers:
Anticipating that neither of
these questions would be answered with an unqualified “yes,” Schlagenhaft then
asked the Corps to elaborate on the following:
He said he was not seeking an
immediate answer from the Corps at today’s meeting, and instead asked the Corp
to provide a written explanation of legislative and policy constraints in these
areas for discussion at the August EMP-CC meeting.
Terry Smith said large, pool
scale drawdown projects are probably best pursued under the pending NESP
authority, emphasizing that they would take considerably longer under the
EMP. Regarding land acquisition for
floodplain restoration, Smith said the Corps looks holistically at ecosystem
needs in a given area, but does not attempt to address all problems alone. Instead, it relies on other partners to work
cooperatively toward common goals. Smith
said part of the problem with purchasing land in advance of an identified project
is that you don’t know if it is the optimal project.
Hubbell noted that the 1999
Water Resources Development Act authorized credit for lands and eligible
expenses incurred prior to execution of the project cooperation agreement
(PCA). However, the nexus between the
lands acquired and a construction element has not been fully explored in the
context of a particular HREP proposal.
Janet Sternburg noted that
the Schenimann Chute project has been in limbo for several years, shifting
alternately between NESP and the EMP.
She expressed appreciation to Schlagenhaft for his effort in bringing
these issues to the table, emphasizing that sound projects should not be placed
on hold indefinitely pending NESP authorization. Sternburg also said these are exactly the
kinds of issues the EMP-CC should be addressing in its meetings. She suggested shifting the format of meetings
to place less emphasis on updates and devote more time to substantive
discussions. Marv Hubbell and Barb
Naramore said they would be happy to work with partners on such changes.
Holly Stoerker suggested that
the Corps’ written response to Schlagenhaft’s questions include a summary of
past policy statements concerning land acquisition, with an indication of how
these policies are interpreted currently by the Corps. Stoerker also cautioned that it is hard to
know how the NESP land acquisition authority would be implemented until the
post-authorization implementation guidance is issued. She said it is quite possible NESP will
include land acquisition restrictions and requirements similar to those under
the EMP.
HREP Planning and Sequencing
Hubbell reported that the EMP
Program Planning Team (PPT) held its first meeting earlier this morning. The PPT discussed the original charges to the
various groups [i.e., District Ecological Teams (DETs), System Ecological Team
(SET), PPT, and USACE], as well as the SET’s anticipated recommendations. Those recommendations are process-related,
rather than project-specific, and include things such as establishing habitat-based
restoration objectives by geomorphic reach, modifying the SET’s role to engage
more as a technical/scientific partner in developing objectives and planning
HREPs, and enhancing the consistency and content of HREP fact sheets from the
three DETs. Hubbell reported that PPT
members expressed initial support for many of the anticipated SET
recommendations. The SET’s written
report will be available for the EMP-CC’s consideration at its August
meeting. This report will include
specific recommended changes to the HREP Planning and Sequencing document that
the EMP-CC endorsed in November 2003.
Hubbell also explained that
MVS needs to initiate planning on new HREPs.
As a result, planning will commence on two of the 18 projects
considered, but not acted upon, by the SET.
These are Pool 24 Islands and Rip Rap Landing. The PPT did not voice any objections to this
approach.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
LTRMP Updates
Mike Jawson briefly
summarized the LTRMP’s FY 07 second quarter highlights, including numerous
presentations at the Mississippi River Research Consortium meeting, a
completion report on longitudinal patterns of aquatic vegetation in the three
upper trend pools, various types of GIS and bathymetry support to partners, and
posting of vegetation and water quality data on the internet. Jawson also reviewed the list of delayed
products as of the second quarter.
FY 08 APE Process
Jawson reported that the FY
08 Additional Program Element (APE) process is underway, using the five focus
areas endorsed in February 2007:
In a slight process
modification from last year, researchers have been asked as a first step to
submit letters of interest, which USGS is using to identify common threads and
foster collaboration among researchers.
According to Jawson, the call for letters of intent is scheduled for
late May, with those letters due in mid-July.
USGS, USACE, and the A-Team will then invite full proposals from among
those letters in late July. Jawson
explained that, with the additional letter of interest step, final selection of
FY 08 APEs will not be made until FY 08 is underway. However, give the pattern of delayed
appropriations that has been typical in recent years, he said this in not
expected to introduce any additional delay in actually implementing projects.
Status and Trends Report
The final draft of the Status
and Trends Report is scheduled to be submitted for editorial review on
June 15, with printed copies anticipated to be distributed by September
25. According to Jawson, Chapter 1 is
being extensively rewritten in response to review comments. Other changes in the report are more minor.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked that
the August EMP-CC agenda include time for more detailed discussion about the
Status and Trends Report. Specifically,
he said he wants to understand what comments UMESC received and how those were
addressed. In addition, Schlagenhaft
said he would like to discuss partner expectations and objectives for the next
Status and Trends Report while this report is still fresh in everyone’s
minds. As an example, he said
Other
In response to a question
from Jim Fischer, Barry Johnson and Jeff DeZellar said they would be happy to
discuss the design of the upcoming Pool 6 mussel survey. But the work will be getting underway
shortly, so there is limited opportunity to alter the planned approach. Fischer said there is concern within
Wisconsin DNR that the study, as currently designed, will not answer some of
the DNR staff’s specific management questions.
Hubbell reported that USACE
is proposing to treat the restored increment of water quality and fish
monitoring as an administrative APE in FY 08 and 09. A written description of this proposed
approach was circulated on May 18. Under
this approach, the EMP-CC, rather than the A-Team, would be the review and
concurrence body, as it will be with all administrative APEs. The restored monitoring increment will be
subject to the standard requirement for both technical and administrative APEs
— i.e., one-year products, acceptable progress with any previous related work,
feasibility without adding permanent staff, etc. However, as an administrative APE, it will
not be guided by the focusing questions used to frame the technical APEs, nor
will it need to respond to a broad solicitation process, as do the technical
APEs. In response to a question from
Martin Konrad, Hubbell said his plan would be for the EMP-CC to consider the
proposed administrative APEs at its November meeting. EMP-CC members expressed their satisfaction
with this proposed approach.
A-Team Report
Janet Sternburg distributed a
written A-Team report. She said she is
pleased with the A-Team’s efforts to shift its focus toward more scientific and
technical discussions, with less emphasis on administrative matters, noting
that the team’s April meeting included several excellent presentations and
discussions. The A-Team is also
satisfied that all high- and medium-ranked FY 07 APEs have been selected for
funding.
Sternburg assumed a two-year
term as A-Team chair at the April meeting.
She encouraged EMP-CC members and others to contact her with any
questions or issues they want to bring to the A-Team’s attention.
LTRMP Strategic Planning
Marv Hubbell reported that
the LTRMP Strategic Planning Team held its first meeting April 30 to
May 2. He noted that the 2004
restructuring process was rushed and constrained, leaving many program partners
unsatisfied. In contrast, Hubbell
stressed the partner agencies’ commitment to following a sound process that
permits broad and complete consideration of the LTRMP’s future in crafting a
strategic plan for FY 10-14. He
expressed special appreciation to Minnesota DNR for committing the skills of
two excellent facilitators to the approximately 18-month process. Hubbell said his appreciation also extends to
all of the partner agencies and individual Planning Team members for making
strong commitments to the process.
Hubbell said that the
Planning Team has agreed to use a Program Logic Model in its efforts. This will allow the group to consider
outcomes (roughly equivalent to goals), outputs (products needed to achieve
those outcomes), and inputs (staff and other resources needed to produce the outputs)
for the LTRMP in FY 10-14. As is
described in its meeting summary, the Planning Team spent time at its first
meeting doing unconstrained brainstorming about outcomes, outputs, and
inputs. These are just preliminary
ideas, and undoubtedly include both omissions as well as many things it is not
feasible to accomplish under the LTRMP.
Hubbell explained that the
Planning Team members have agreed to function as a unit for the duration of the
process. There will not be substitutes
for particular meetings, and members are responsible for communicating back to
their state or federal agency throughout the planning effort. Barb Naramore will serve as the point of
contact (POC) for federal agencies not participating on the Planning Team, as
well as for nongovernmental stakeholder groups.
As the first manifestation of this approach, the Planning Team POCs will
solicit partner and stakeholder perspectives on LTRMP outcomes, outputs, and
inputs prior to the team’s second meeting, which is scheduled for July 16-18.
Hubbell noted that the
Planning Team explicitly considered the challenge of developing the LTRMP
strategic plan in the absence of clearly articulated goals and objectives for
the EMP as a whole and the HREP component.
While a framework of EMP and HREP goals would clearly be helpful, the
team concluded that it could and would proceed without them. Hubbell said he would like to explore the
question of a broader EMP goal-setting exercise with the EMP-CC at its August
meeting. The Planning Team will also
report back on its progress at the EMP-CC’s August meeting.
Other members of the LTRMP
Strategic Planning Team offered a variety of perspectives, including the
following major points:
·
The process is
off to a good start, and participants are generally pleased with the
transparent approach and progress so far.
Planning Team members are coming to the process with open minds and a
commitment to collegiality.
·
It is important
to look broadly first at desired outcomes and outputs, without assuming
continuation of the status quo or anything in particular about available
resources. The reality of various
constraints will come into play soon enough.
·
This LTRMP
strategic planning effort will be useful, regardless of what happens with the
pending NESP authorization.
·
The services of
the Minnesota DNR facilitator were a tremendous help at the first meeting.
·
The Fish and
Wildlife Service was pleased to be invited to provide Planning Team members
from both Ecological Services and Refuges.
However, Jon Duyvejonck from the Rock Island Field Office will be the
Service’s sole representative on the team.
Other Business
Mike Jawson asked to vary the
order of the NECC/ECC and EMP-CC meetings occasionally in the quarterly
sequence, in recognition of the fact that there are some participants in each
group who would prefer to meet on the day following the UMRBA.
Barb Naramore outlined the
following schedule for upcoming quarterly meetings:
·
August 2007—
§
UMRBA—August 21
§
NECC/ECC—August
22
§
EMP-CC—August
23
·
November 2007—
§
UMRBA—November 13
§
NECC/ECC—November
14
§
UMRBA Water
Quality Executive Committee—November 14 (concurrent with NECC/ECC)
§
EMP-CC—November
15
·
February 2008—
§
UMRBA—February 20
§
EMP-CC—February
21
§
NECC/ECC—February
22
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
May 23, 2007
EMP-CC Members
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of
Conservation |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources |
Others in Attendance
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Tom Novak |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Gary Loss |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Angie Freyermuth |
|
|
Chuck Theiling |
|
|
Sandra Brewer |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Sharonne Baylor |
|
|
Gary Wege |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Dick Steinbach |
|
|
Karen Westphall |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Linda Leake |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Jennie Sauer |
|
|
Ken Lubinski |
|
|
Matt O’Hara |
|
|
Mike Griffin |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
Dave Bierman |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, LTRMP Field Station |
|
Dru Buntin |
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Catherine McCalvin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Brad Walker |
Prairie Rivers Network (IL) |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC, |
|
Cynthia Drew |
|
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|