Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
Quarterly Meeting
Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel
Minutes from the February 21, 2008 Meeting
Gretchen Benjamin moved and
Martin Konrad seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the February
21, 2008 meeting as written. The motion
was approved unanimously.
Program Management
FY 08 Fiscal Update
Marv Hubbell summarized the FY 08 EMP budget as of the
2nd quarter. Spreadsheets detailing the
expenditures and allocations are included in the packet materials. Hubbell said the requirement to fully fund
contracts upon award tends to increase carry-over from one year to the next
because the full amount of the contract is often not obligated and expended in
the year of the award. Through March 31,
2008, the EMP has obligated approximately 60 percent of its FY 08
allocation. HREP and LTRMP obligation
rates are at about 55 and 80 percent of their allocated funds, respectively.
FY 09 Update
Hubbell reported the EMP is included at $20 million in
the President’s FY 09 budget request.
This is down from last year’s request and continues a downward trend for
EMP funding in the President’s budgets over the last few years. However, the EMP remains a top ecosystem
restoration priority for the Administration, and is identified as one of three
national priorities for FY 09. The Corps
is working on its FY 10 budget and expects to submit its request to the Office
of Management and Budget within the next couple of weeks.
Holly Stoerker described recent congressional visits concerning
EMP and NESP funding. In March,
a group of NGO and UMRBA representatives met with energy and water
appropriations staff on both the House and Senate sides. Stoerker recognized The Nature
Conservancy’s efforts in arranging the
visits with appropriations staff. The
staff indicated that the appropriations committees might be open to funding the
EMP at about $20 million in FY 09.
But, as anticipated, they want to see a plan for phasing out the EMP
before they will contemplate substantial funding for NESP. In response to those meetings, UMRBA staff
worked with Corps personnel to refine the projects list contained in the
Association’s November 2007 vision statement concerning NESP-EMP integration.
Gretchen Benjamin asked Mike Jawson for his reaction
to the proposed phase out plan for LTRMP.
Jawson said that, although the LTRMP could maintain integrity of the
base program under this funding scenario, it would not be able to move forward
with additional items — e.g. LiDAR and bathymetry.
Hubbell explained that the refined phase out plan calls
for $20 million annually for the EMP over the next three to four years. It
identifies specific HREPs that would be completed under the EMP, as well as
funding for the LTRMP at $6.1 million annually.
Stoerker
added that the primary message to appropriations staff in response to their
questions about the exit strategy was that EMP cannot stop immediately, and
that there is a period of time during which projects should be completed under
EMP and an orderly transition effectuated.
Don Powell asked if there were any hints from the staff regarding NESP
appropriations, and Stoerker said that they indicated new construction starts
were unlikely in FY 09. She observed
that transitioning NESP from General Investigations to the Construction account
will probably be a bigger hurdle than increasing its appropriations amount.
Gabe Horner acknowledged Stoerker’s efforts
in creating a strong partnership for EMP and emphasized that the path to
success on appropriations is a member’s request. She said that TNC is on the Hill throughout
the process educating and advocating for EMP and NESP. TNC is also working with its NGO partners to
get members of Congress on the UMR to educate them about river resources and
issues.
Ken Barr presented several
budget scenarios for the LTRMP, to illustrate the likely funding challenges
that lie ahead. If
the LTRMP is funded exclusively through NESP, that NESP funding would have to
be substantial in order for the LTRMP to receive sufficient funding, assuming
the total NESP appropriation is allocated proportionately among the various
program elements. For example, if
allocations are proportionate to total authorization, then a total NESP
appropriation of $115
million would yield about $5 million to the LTRMP. Similarly, a
total NESP appropriation of $230 million would yield about $10 million to
the LTRMP.
Charlie Wooley asked if this
was an acceptable proposal for further discussion. Martin Konrad responded that this is a good
discussion topic. He observed that the
River Advisory Panel (RAP) would presumably also need to be engaged in these
discussions, assuming it is established as proposed. Hubbell agreed with Konrad and stressed that
both programs and the whole partnership will be needed to have an effective
discussion. He also reminded EMP-CC
members that shifting money from habitat projects to support the LTRMP would
threaten the HREP program with the same kinds of staff loss and loss of
institutional memory as Jawson indicated the LTRMP would experience.
Marv Hubbell recapped the
possible next steps:
-
Review and
completion of the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan, including the solicitation of
input from NESP staff (Aug. 08)
-
Preparation of an
Operational Plan that will bridge the Strategic Plan and the annual work plans
(March 09)
-
Preparation of
the NESP Report to Congress in June 09 and the supplemental report that will
follow that document.
Benjamin asked if the
timeline presented is fast enough.
Hubbell said he thinks it should be okay, but said the Corps would be
open to accelerating the discussion about LTRMP transition if needed. Jawson said it would be best to identify a
floor for LTRMP funding by May. Barr
agreed with the need to move forward with coordination regarding transition
issues, but noted that NESP cannot define a floor for the LTRMP until NESP’s
overall funding future is clarified.
Public Involvement and Outreach
Marv Hubbell reported that the Corps is currently briefing
BG Walsh, the new MVD commander, on UMR issues.
MVR also continues to work with the
Janet Sternburg said she has been asked to give a
presentation on the Middle Mississippi River Partnership to a
foundation-sponsored effort to link river communities from
Mike Jawson said that next year will be UMESC’s 50th
anniversary and there certainly be a possibility to design an activity that
highlights LTRMP.
Gretchen Benjamin and Don Powell highlighted the
recent Spring Lake HREP tree planting event as an excellent opportunity for
media coverage and volunteer involvement.
Benjamin suggested the upcoming retirement of the Dredge Thompson and
the MV Mississippi’s low water inspection trip as opportunities to make good
use of the traveling display that Corps is completing with the
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
FY 08 Work Plan Update
Marv Hubbell reported on the status of the
Don
Powell said that Pool 8 Phase III, Stages 2A and 2B are the MVP’s FY 08
construction priorities. Work is being
finished on Stage 2A, and the contractor is preparing for the hydraulic
dredging to construct islands as part of Stage 2B. MVP hopes to award another option on
Stage 2B, if funding is available.
Plans and specs for Pool 8 Phase III Stage 3 are being developed, with
construction likely next year.
HREP Showcase – Pool 8
Powell
showcased the Pool 8 Islands Phase III Stage 1 HREP, which involved the
construction of three breakwaters to protect the Coon Creek Delta from wave
damage. Since Phase III was much larger
than Phases I and II, it was divided into three stages to accommodate limited
annual budgets and the need to fully fund contracts upon award. Stage 1 was completed in September 2006 and
has been largely successful in achieving its objectives, including sediment
retention within the delta. In total,
Phase III will create 17 islands totaling 123 acres and will cost $15 million. An estimated 3,000 acres of habitat will be
benefited.
The
project is also being used to study fish habitat requirements and to assess
which materials are more effective to use for island construction. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
is monitoring Island E-1 to determine whether the cobble or coarse gravel used
for island formation is more conducive for fish spawning and waterfowl
habitat. Island E-2 tested the
effectiveness of using black locust timber held by geotextile fabric and rock. The technique was successful, with the timber
proving less expensive than using all rock.
It is holding up well a year later.
Island E-3 was constructed by moving dredged material from the front to
the back of the breakwater.
Mike
Jawson asked if the timbers are expected to rot and what the implications would
be for the project success. Powell said they
do not expect the timbers to decompose because black locust is very dense and
will be completely submerged under water and not exposed to air. Karen Hagerty asked why the Corps used three
different island designs. Powell
responded that the site conditions varied — e.g., areas with higher energy
needed more rock. In addition, MVP was
trying various approaches to contain costs and gain insight regarding different
techniques. Also, aesthetics weighed
more heavily for the island visible from Highway 35.
Martin
Konrad asked what partner monitoring will be done on the project. Powell explained that Pool 8 is a key LTRMP
trend pool. In addition, MVP will
conduct its customary physical and chemical monitoring. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
will monitor fish populations, and the states and U.S. FWS will do other
routine monitoring. Janet Sternburg
asked if any techniques used have since been determined to be unsuccessful. Powell said all of the approaches have been
fundamentally successful, but that the Corps and its partners have learned from
each phase, allowing them to improve techniques for subsequent phases. For example, the designs are more
cost-effective, erosion rates associated with island overtopping have been
reduced, and more mudflats are incorporated into the island design. He added that the success of the seed islands
is still being monitored. In response to
a question from
Barry
Johnson asked how many phases there will be in the Pool 8 Islands project. Powell responded that there will be five
phases in total, contingent upon EMP continuing, but said several other HREPs
are ranked ahead for Pool 8 Phases IV and V in terms of priority. Johnson emphasized the importance of having a
clear design endpoint and indicators for measuring project success. He observed that, if this cannot be done in
Pool 8, with its wealth of data, it will likely not be possible elsewhere on
the river. Schlagenhaft observed that
Pool 8 Island was designed in the absence of clearly articulated system and
reach goals and objectives. As such, the
design has focused on recovering from a known loss of physical structure, with
the goal of achieving beneficial biological response. Powell and Benjamin observed that the
fisheries and waterfowl response has been strong.
Long Term Resource Monitoring
Program
APE Project Showcase
Pat Heglund showcased an APE project that identified
neotropical migratory bird patterns along the
Transect
surveys, mist netting, NEXRAD and plasma sampling were all employed to compare
the abundance, diversity, condition, and temporal and spatial patterns of birds
in floodplain and bluffland habitats. Transects were placed in floodplains and uplands within
ten miles from the river along Pools 6-8 and 16-18.
Results have shown that
migratory birds depend on floodplains more than bluffs, but non-migratory birds
use the two habitats more equally; migratory populations increased from 2005 to
2007, most likely due to hurricanes in the
Hubbell asked what part of
the floodplain is important to migratory birds and what features are important
to preserve or restore. Heglund said the
upper pool areas and vegetated islands are important for their trees, but added
that key characteristics and structural components are not fully known. She said these are important questions for
future research. Charlie Wooly asked
what the primary food source is for migratory birds, and Heglund replied that
it is mostly invertebrate species.
In response to questions from
Janet Sternburg, Heglund said NEXRAD data extends twelve years and can be used
to determine fall migration patterns, which is another potential research
topic. Konrad asked if it is possible to
track migration into
FY 08 Update – Key findings
and products from 2nd Quarter
Mike
Jawson noted that Heidi Langrehr, on the staff of
Jawson
reported on key LTRMP findings and products for the 2nd quarter of FY 08. USGS completed inter-laboratory comparison
testing this spring that assessed over 100 of its labs. Results for the LTRMP water quality lab were
excellent.
Recent program highlights include:
Jawson gave an overview of the APE FY 09 timeline and
focus areas. The call for letters of
intent will be distributed on May 23, 2008, with a mid-July deadline for
submission. USGS, USACE, and the A-Team
will issue invitations to develop full proposals in late August, and full
proposals will be due in October. The focus
areas remain unchanged from FY 08—i.e., connectivity, landscape/habitat
patterns, aquatic vegetation, baseline goals for major resources monitored, and
native mussels.
Barb Naramore asked if there will still be a letter of
interest step in the APE process, similar to last year. Jennie Sauer and Jawson said that the letter
of interest step will not be employed this year, though collaboration among
investigators will still be strongly encouraged.
LTRMP
Information Delivery
Jawson reviewed the current LTRMP product types,
including presentations, completion reports, web updates, USGS fact sheets,
USGS open-file reports, LTRMP reports, and manuscripts. These are listed in order of increasing time
required to complete. Acknowledging
concerns related to timely access to LTRMP information and findings, Jawson
said ways to enhance access include distributing completion reports more widely
and developing an interim paper along the lines of an expanded abstract for
research awaiting journal publication.
Jawson explained that most documents are searchable on UMESC’s web by
title, text, abstract, and keywords.
There are over 300 LTRMP reports available online from 1995 to present,
50 project status reports, four fact sheets/open-file reports, and numerous
annual component updates and reports.
According to Jawson, problems to the current system
include 1) completion reports are not citable and not available on-line and 2)
LTRMP reports published prior to 1995 and all of the reprinted reports are not
available on-line and/or are not in PDF format.
The LTRMP reports could be made searchable by converting them into PDF
format, but the process is time consuming and costly, due in part to current
accessibility standards. Conversion
would require significant additional resources.
Completion reports could also be made more accessible by making them
searchable by title, intro/abstract, and keywords and providing contact
information to receive a hardcopy.
Jawson said the question is how much effort and funding is justified to
make completion and historical reports web-available.
Gretchen Benjamin asked if the Corps has all of the
pre-2006 completion/contract reports.
Marv Hubbell and Karen Hagerty said that they are all stored at
Benjamin suggested that a metadata record of questions
examined and the level of analysis done on these questions would be more
valuable than converting all old reports into PDF format. She added that there could be various ways to
identify questions asked, answered, and left unanswered due to lack of
resources, etc. Benjamin said that
information should be summarized and condensed into an inventory, so we are not
continuously regenerating the same list.
Hubbell and Jawson expressed concern that such an inventory could be
quite time consuming. Benjamin
emphasized that she is not suggesting an effort to review all old meeting
minutes, etc. in search of questions someone may have raised. Instead, she noted that there has been a
handful of instances in which the partners have formally sought to identify key
questions. It is these efforts Benjamin
is suggesting be inventoried in a centralized manner.
Hubbell summarized the discussion, identifying three
main issues to be addressed:
1) how best to provide access (including at least title
and keyword searchability) to historical documents that re not currently
available online,
2) the system for providing timely access to project
completion reports moving forward, and
3) options for inventorying the key questions and
research foci that have been formally identified at various points in the
LTRMP’s history.
USGS and USACE will staff will evaluate these issue
and then report back to the full partnership at the August meeting.
Naramore asked if the accessibility requirements for
the visually impaired will place an extra burden on posting new documents on
the web and, if so, whether this will affect the LTRMP Strategic Plan’s
recommendations regarding information accessibility. Leake and Jawson said there is a new software
tool that helps to meet these requirements by identifying areas that need
manual intervention or added description — e.g. charts, maps, and other visual
items. They said compliance is much less
burdensome with new documents than with historical publications.
Status and
Trends Report
Barry Johnson reported that the Status and Trends
Report is nearing completion, with some final editorial work and responses to
comments remaining. The published report should be available before the August
quarterly meeting. Hubbell explained
that USACE and USGS plan to reflect this summer about what has been learned
during the course of developing this Status and Trends Report. He noted that, in contrast to the previous
Status and Trends Report, the current report is limited to what we know about
status and trends using LTRMP data.
Partner input on the after action report is welcome. Hubbell said USACE and USGS will report back,
at either the August or November EMP-CC meeting, on lessons learned and how
these might inform development of the next Status and Trends Report.
Rick Mollahan asked if the accessibility requirements
will slow down the publication processes for the Status and Trends Report. Leake explained that the USGS publication
network should produce a compliant PDF.
A-Team Report
Janet Sternburg gave a brief overview of the A-Team’s
meeting in April 2008 and distributed a written report describing the team’s
discussions. She thanked Johnson and
others for their excellent presentations at the meeting, and conveyed the
A-Team’s appreciation for the retiring Tom Kelly’s long service to the
LTRMP. Sternburg said she will encourage
the A-Team to consider its future role as EMP transitions to NESP. Jennie Sauer noted that field station and
UMESC staff will hold a joint meeting in
LiDAR and
Bathymetry
Karen Hagerty gave an update on the status of LiDAR
and bathymetric data collection. Iowa
DNR staff is currently processing the LiDAR coverage for Pools 8-14 and
20-24. Pools 15-19 could not be flown
before spring leaf out due to high water levels. The contractor will fly these pools this fall
at no extra cost. Iowa DNR agreed to
process the systemic data in exchange for data access. UMESC is currently working with USACE to
examine options for serving the data.
Cost estimates for obtaining LiDAR for Pools 1-7 and Pool 25 to the
In response to a question from Martin Konrad, Hagerty
said UMESC has expressed interest in housing and serving the LiDAR data. Sauer added that serving the data is not in
UMESC’s FY 08 work plan. Instead,
UMESC is currently reviewing data quality and determining the best options for
serving the data. Sternburg asked if
there is a prioritization scheme that will be used to determine priorities for
additional data collection — e.g., are there reaches or pools where LiDAR could
best be used to inform HREPs. Hubbell
responded that the data collection needs to be done for large areas in order to
be cost efficient. The Corps plans to
collect the data for Pools 1-7 next, and then do the remaining areas in large
sections — i.e., the remaining UMR pools and the
Hagerty reported that USACE is currently inventorying
existing bathymetric coverages, identifying gaps, and determining how best to
complete the project under different funding scenarios. In 2001, it was estimated that $2 million
would be required to complete a systemic coverage, but that figure needs to be
updated to reflect inflation and changes in the existing coverage. Hubbell said that USACE has deferred any further
spending under the LTRMP on the systemic bathymetric coverage until the
evaluation is completed and a plan developed.
Schlagenhaft acknowledged the value of bathymetric
data, but observed that conditions on the river can change rapidly. As a result, the bathymetric data is often
updated for project-specific purposes.
He suggested establishing transects as a way of estimating changes over
time and then focusing bathymetric resources on specific project areas. Jon Hendrickson observed that large scale
bathymetry is irreplaceable for modeling purposes, though transects such as
those previously done under the LTRMP do offer more accurate data. Benjamin pointed out that systemic bathymetry
could be very useful in informing mussel data collection efforts. Without bathymetric data, mussel data is
collected using a randomized grid, which could easily leave key areas
unexamined. Sternburg agreed that
systemic bathymetry is not necessarily helpful for project planning in areas
with high levels of change, but said she can appreciate the utility of systemic
coverage for modeling and other purposes.
Hagerty added that USACE knows where the most dynamic areas are
located. In response to a question from
Schlagenhaft, Hendrickson said he needs systemic coverage for modeling about
every 10 years in most areas, but requires more frequent data in dynamic areas.
LTRMP
Strategic Plan
Marv Hubbell reported that the FY 10-14 Strategic Plan
is out for review. The draft reflects a simultaneous
effort to be forward-looking and to build off of what has been learned in the
program’s first 22 years. It envisions a
program funded at roughly the authorized level of $10.42 million, with
questions of relative priorities among the plan’s components deferred to a
follow-on Operational Plan. Hubbell gave
a brief overview of the Strategic Plan’s outcomes, outputs, and the strategies
for management of LTRMP organizational resources.
In response to a question from Doug Blodgett, Hubbell
said that while the potential additional monitoring areas are listed in terms
of priority, the order in which they are done depends on funding, logical
sequencing, and other considerations that will be dealt with more in the
Operational Plan.
Wooly asked if climate change has been incorporated
into the plan. Hubbell said climate
change considerations are embedded throughout the Strategic Plan, including
ways in which LTRMP data may be helpful and linkages to possible collaborative
opportunities.
Hubbell and Jawson requested that partners and
stakeholders review the draft strategic plan and submit their comments to the
appropriate point of contact by June 16, 2008.
The LTRMP Strategic Planning Team will hold its final meeting on July
14-16, with the goal of submitting a revised plan for the EMP-CC’s
consideration and possible action in August.
LTRMP
Operational Plan
Jawson explained that, upon completion of the FY 10-14
Strategic Plan, an Operational Plan will be created to bridge the gap between
the Strategic Plan and LTRMP’s annual work plans. The Operational Plan will sequence and
prioritize the outputs, including consideration of cost estimates and
scalability. Potential changes to
current nomenclature (e.g., MSP) and processes (e.g., the annual APE selection
process) will be evaluated as well. USGS
and USACE staff will discuss their thoughts regarding the Operational Plan
process in more detail with the LTRMP Strategic Planning Team at its July 2008
meeting. Jawson and Hubbell said their
working assumption is that the same agencies, and in many instances, the same
individuals will participate in the operation planning process. Jawson said he envisions the operational
planning effort will require approximately four meetings, with the goal of
completing the plan by this time next year.
He stressed the importance of retaining some flexible funds each year to
respond to emerging needs and opportunities.
Hubbell and Jawson offered to hold individual meetings
with staff from each LTRMP partner state and federal agency. Jawson explained that a state meeting would
presumably include field station staff, the state’s A-Team and EMP-CC members,
as well as other interested staff from that state. In response to a question from Martin Konrad,
Jawson said the purpose of these meetings would be to discuss the Strategic
Plan, with particular attention to understanding the state’s/ federal agency’s
priorities and data use. He added that
insight regarding priorities will be particularly important before the
operational planning process gets underway.
Hubbell observed that the strategic planning effort has enhanced communications
and mutual understanding among the partnership tremendously, and said he hoped
that the individual meetings would build on this progress. Jawson said that the meetings will also
provide an opportunity to understand how data is used by the field stations and
to evaluate the options for optimally using field station resources. Konrad, Sternburg, and Benjamin indicated
their states’ interest in participating in such meetings. USACE and USGS will contact the states and
federal agency partners regarding scheduling of these meetings, with the
objective of holding meetings with all interested partners by the end of
summer, if possible.
Other
Business
Barb Naramore announced that the upcoming quarterly
meetings are scheduled as follows:
·
August 2008 –
o
UMRBA – August 5
o
EMP-CC –
August 6
o
Joint EMP-CC
and NECC/ECC – afternoon of August 6
o
NECC/ECC – August 7
·
November 2008
Quad Cities
o
UMRBA – November 18
o
NECC/ECC – November 19
o
Joint EMP-CC
and NECC/ECC – afternoon of November 19 (if needed)
o
EMP-CC –
November 20
·
February 2009
o
UMRBA – February 17
o
EMP-CC –
February 18
o
Joint EMP-CC
and RAP – afternoon of August 6 (if needed)
o
RAP – February 19
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at
12:20 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
May 22, 2008
EMP-CC
Members
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
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
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Jon Hendrickson |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Bruce Munholand |
|
|
Pat Heglund |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Sharonne Baylor |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Linda Leake |
|
|
Jennie Sauer |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gabrielle Horner |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Doug Blodgett |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|