Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
May 21, 2009
Quarterly Meeting
Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel
Charlie
Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at
8:05 a.m. on May 21, 2009.
Other EMP-CC representatives present were Elizabeth Ivy (USACE),
Mike Jawson (USGS), Bernie Hoyer (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR),
Janet Sternburg (MO DoC),
Jim Fischer (WI DNR), and Bill Franz (USEPA). A complete list of attendees follows these
minutes.
Announcements
Charlie Wooley announced Don
Hultman’s upcoming retirement as the USFWS’ UMR FWR Refuge Manager.
Minutes from the February 18, 2009 Meeting
Janet Sternburg moved and Jim
Fischer seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the February 18,
2009 meeting as written. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 09 Fiscal Update and Stimulus Funding
Marv
Hubbell reported that EMP operated under the continuing resolution authority at
$18 million until the FY 09 omnibus measure was enacted on March 11, 2009. The omnibus lowered EMP’s FY 09 appropriation
to $17.713 million. Hubbell said that
allocations within the program have been modified as shown below. Hubbell explained that HREP funds are
generally allocated based on the number of river miles per district; however,
inter-district fund transfers are frequently made to adjust to shifting needs
and capabilities. In addition, the EMP
authority allows the Corps to shift funds between the HREP and LTRM components
on an annual basis, with reallocations capped at 20 percent. According to Hubbell, both inter-district
shifts and the freedom to deviate from the standard HREP/LTRM allocation are
important tools for enhancing EMP’s fiscal performance.
·
Regional
management — $662,000
·
LTRM — $5,428,432
·
HREPs —
$11,622,568
o
Program Model
Certification — $100,000
o
MVP — $3,483,770
o
MVR — $4,555,028
o
MVS — $3,483,770
Hubbell
noted that EMP is using $75,000 in FY 09 regional management funds to support
the Regional Support Team’s reach planning efforts. This is work NESP was unable to fund. In addition, NESP and EMP are also
coordinating their model certification work.
Each program will certify one model, with that certification then serving
the needs of both programs.
Hubbell
reported that EMP has received an additional $13.176 million in stimulus
funding. He said that the total
obligation authority available to EMP, including both omnibus and stimulus
funding, is $33.889 million. The combined
funding will be used for planning or design of 16 projects, construction of 7
projects, and data collection to support restoration and trend detection. He said that Corps HQ allocated the EMP’s
stimulus funding to specific activities and projects. Total allocations to each district, as well
as the specified activities and projects are as follows:
·
MVP — $5,048,000
o
Pool 8
o
Planning,
Engineering Design — $348,000
·
MVR — $3,298,000
o
GIS Landscape
Analysis — $300,000
o
o
LiDAR and
Bathymetry — $2,500,000
o
Planning,
Engineering Design — $348,000
·
MVS — $4,833,000
o
Rip Rap Landing —
$325,000
o
o
Batchtown —
$3,000,000
o
Planning,
Engineering Design — $348,000
Hubbell
said the opportunity to allocate $2.5 million to LiDAR and bathymetry
illustrates the value of advanced planning and readiness. Janet Sternburg asked if there is a required
timeframe for expending the stimulus funds.
Hubbell said that contracts for LiDAR and bathymetry are scheduled to be
awarded in August 2009, and all stimulus funds expended by September 30, 2010.
FY 10 Update
Hubbell reported that the
President’s FY 10 budget request for EMP is $20 million. However, the full execution at that funding
level would require that new planning and construction starts be allowed. If Congressional language restricting
new starts is extended, the EMP’s FY 10 capability number is estimated at $16
million or less.
2010 Report to Congress (RTC)
Hubbell explained that EMP’s
authorization requires reports back to the authorizing committees on a six-year
cycle, with the next report due in December 2010. The reports are to include evaluations of the
HREP and LTRM components, a description of their accomplishments, an update to
the systemic habitat needs assessment (HNA), and identification of any needed
changes in the authorization. The first
scoping meeting for the 2010 Report to Congress (RTC) was held on April 22,
2009. Participants included
representatives from USACE, USFWS, USGS, US EPA, MO DoC, TNC, and UMRBA. Hubbell reported that the scoping group
suggested using a similar format to the 2004 RTC, but with a greater focus on
accomplishments and outcomes.
Barb Naramore highlighted the
following insights gained from developing the 1997 and 2004 RTCs:
·
Going through the process of developing a RTC is
extraordinarily valuable for EMP and the partnership, as it reflects on
accomplishments, articulates issues, recommends solutions, and sets forth a
collaborative vision. It is not only
valuable in shaping the report, but also in improving subsequent program
implementation efforts.
·
It is important to have a schedule and process that
permit meaningful participation and review, especially in light of staffing and
resource constraints.
·
There are multiple audiences for the RTC. Although the authorizing committees are the
primary audiences, the appropriators, OMB, ASA(CW), USACE HQ, partner agencies
and stakeholders, and interested public are also important audiences. Recognize that there are different kinds of
issues, and be careful to articulate which recommendations are for Congress,
which are for the Administration, and which are for the partnership.
·
Be clear and concise in reporting accomplishments and
outputs.
·
Ultimately, the Corps is responsible for submitting
the RTC. Therefore, there are limits to
what will be included in the report, particularly when it comes to the
conclusions and recommendations.
·
Clearly identify
the report’s purposes, including providing a program update and summary of the
program’s history, addressing transition issues as needed.
Beyond meeting the
Congressional requirements, Hubbell reported that the Scoping Team agreed that
the RTC should include three main focus areas:
key issues and critical needs of both the program and ecosystem health
of the UMR; the program’s accomplishments since inception, emphasizing the
period since the 2004 RTC; and the partnership’s strength and commitment to
work collaboratively.
Hubbell report that a second
scoping meeting is scheduled for June 15-16, 2009, at which participants will
develop a draft outline and identify key contributors and authors. The draft outline will be presented to the
EMP-CC at its August quarterly meeting.
Hubbell reviewed the remaining proposed schedule as follows:
|
·
February 2010 |
EMP-CC reviews rough draft
RTC |
|
·
May 2010 |
Seek EMP-CC endorsement of
final draft RTC |
|
·
June 2010 |
Submit RTC to MVD |
|
·
July 2010 |
Submit RTC to HQ |
|
·
December 2010 |
Submit the RTC to Congress |
Regional Management
In response to a request at
the February quarterly meeting, Hubbell presented a list of HREPs that have
approved fact sheets, with their estimated federal funding requirement and
current project phase. EMP currently has
20 active projects, with approximately one-third in each phase (i.e. planning,
design, and construction). According to
Hubbell, the stimulus funds will accelerate these projects, increasing the need
to initiate planning on new projects and construction on projects with
completed plans and specifications, if the EMP is to remain fully
functional. To maintain an adequate
balance of projects, the Corps proposes using the reach planning and SET
processes to identify and sequence additional projects. However, Hubbell said this cannot happen
unless the Congressional language prohibiting new starts on planning and
construction is lifted.
In response to a question
from Mike Jawson, Naramore said she is cautiously optimistic that restrictive
EMP language will not be extended in FY 10.
She reported that the ad hoc
NESP/EMP coalition has been educating House and Senate appropriations staff
regarding the implications of the current language, but has not received any
specific indication of what the appropriations staff intends to do in FY 10. Tim Schlagenhaft asked whether the SET
process will be integrated into the reach planning process. Hubbell said he foresees a blended approach
since the SET process was endorsed by the EMP‑CC as the method for
project identification and selection.
Schlagenhaft asked whether there will be an opportunity to identify new
projects. Hubbell said he wants to
respect the previous investment of effort in the 15 pending HREP proposals, but
said there will also be an opportunity to examine new ideas.
Gretchen Benjamin asked how
long it might take to complete all of the 20 EMP projects currently in the
pipeline. Hubbell said he anticipates
the projects would be completed in about three to four years, assuming EMP
receives its typical levels of funding and that the prohibition on moving from
design to construction is lifted.
Sternburg asked why the new starts prohibition on planning does not
impact the reach planning effort.
Hubbell said that reach planning can be continued because it is a
program neutral effort.
Public Involvement and Outreach
Hubbell reported that USACE
and USGS are updating the HREP and LTRM websites, and exploring opportunities
for communicating the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan with various
stakeholders. He said that EMP managers
continue to engage with the Corps’ UMRS Outreach Team. Jeff DeZellar said USACE and USFWS will host
public boat tours of Pool 8 Islands in August.
He announced that the Corps has also been working with a Twin Cities’
public television station to create an hour long documentary on the Pool 8
Islands project. An April public meeting
on the project was well-attended and received good media coverage. DeZellar also reported that MVP held a public
open house featuring its dredge fleet last weekend, with information booths for
EMP, NESP, and water level management.
Hubbell said the National
Conference on Ecosystem Restoration will be held in
Sternburg reported that the
RRAT will hold its annual boat trip on June 9-11, 2009. Sternburg also encouraged partners with good
film footage to consider uploading clips to YouTube. DeZellar said that much of the Corps’ footage
captured on the
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Program
District Reports
Brian Johnson reported that
MVS received stimulus funding to complete planning on Rip Rap Landing, for
which alternative plans are currently being developed. Other planning efforts include developing a
model for
Marv Hubbell said that MVR’s
primary planning focus is currently on
Don Hultman asked whether the
Jeff DeZellar said that MVP
is continuing to develop DPRs and complete mussel surveys for Capoli and
Harpers Sloughs, though efforts have been slowed by staff reassignments to
flood recovery efforts and stimulus-funded projects. He said that money is available to accelerate
the contract award for Pool 8 Phase III Stage 3B to September. However, it is not yet known whether the
necessary staff capacity is available to execute this early contract
award. DeZellar reported that
construction is nearing completion on Pool 8 Phase III Stage 2B, and will begin
on Stage 3A this summer. MVP is dredging
Finger and
Tim Schlagenhaft asked when
MVP’s draft completion reports are expected to be available for partner
review. He expressed frustration that
the reports, which are important to the partners, have been delayed for some
time. DeZellar said he could not offer a
more specific timeline, beyond the goal of completing four reports by the end
of FY 09. Schlagenhaft urged Corps staff
to distribute the completion reports individually as they are ready for review.
HREP Showcase:
Pool 8
DeZellar showcased Phase III
of the Pool 8 Islands project, which includes construction of 17 islands,
7 seed islands, 4 mudflats, and 3 breakwaters. He explained that loss of islands in lower
Pool 8 led to an increase in wind fetch and associated wave action,
decline of bathymetric diversity, loss of habitat diversity, and a decline in
aquatic vegetation. DeZellar used a time
series of aerial photographs to show the loss of islands since 1929, prior to
construction of L&D 8 and the creation of Pool 8. He also showed post-island restoration images
from 2008.
Project design objectives
include reducing wind fetch; concentrating flows in channels; and providing
habitat diversity, visual isolation, and thermal protection. In total, Phase III restoration efforts are
expected to benefit 3,000 acres of habitat, which is approximately 13 percent
of lower Pool 8. Phase III costs are
estimated at $18 million. ARRA funding
of $4.7 million will accelerate the project schedule. The island construction work is making use of
dredged material from the
DeZellar said that the
project partners continue to be involved in several outreach activities,
including public boat tours of the area.
In 2008, 200 to 300 people attended the boat tours, and the Service
plans to hold a similar event this year.
As announced earlier, DeZellar said that a local public television
station is planning a documentary on the Pool 8 Islands project.
Bernie Hoyer asked for a
definition of a seed island. DeZellar
and Jon Hendrickson explained that small structures are place in the river,
with the goal of eventually collecting enough sediment to create an island, on
which vegetation will ultimately establish.
Hendrickson explained that this experimental approach grew from
observations of natural river processes.
Hendrickson said Pool 8 Phase III is taking the seed island concept a
bit farther than previous projects, and is examining a variety of approaches. In some instances, seeds will be placed on
the islands after they form, to accelerate vegetative growth. In response to a question from Butch Atwood,
Don Powell said that Phase III has placed approximately 50,000 cubic yards of
fine material.
In response to a question
from Barry Johnson, Hendrickson said that the Wind Fetch Model was not
available to assist in designing Phase III, but he acknowledged the tool’s
potential value in designing this type of project.
Schlagenhaft asked whether a
biological evaluation is planned for this project. DeZellar reported that the Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP) was used in the feasibility phase, and said a standard project
completion report will be developed.
Schlagenhaft expressed concern about the adequacy of pre- and
post-project monitoring to support biological evaluation, especially for
projects as resource-intensive as the Pool 8 Islands. Powell said that Wisconsin DNR has done
extensive pre- and post-project fisheries monitoring and USFWS does annual
waterfowl monitoring, both of which could be used to evaluate the project’s
success. Hendrickson said the 20-year
long data set on flow patterns can also be utilized in the project’s
evaluation. Fischer noted that Pool 8 is
a LTRM trend pool, and thus some changes should be captured through this
routine monitoring. Schlagenhaft urged
that project planning include thorough evaluation plans, which he said require
more than simply accumulating available data sets.
Hubbell outlined the five
major elements of the project development process as follows:
1. Development of the definite project report (DPR). This effort relies on the professional
judgment of a multi-disciplinary project delivery team (PDT).
2. Evaluate project alternatives. A variety of tools are used in this, and the
model certification process is designed to ensure the validity of these tools.
3. USACE assesses the as-built physical elements of the
project. Payments to contractors are
linked to these assessments.
4. Project outcomes are evaluated to determine success —
i.e., did the project accomplish its goals?
5.
Ensure that the
site can be managed by the project sponsor, and determine the level of
associated uncertainty and risk.
In addition, Hubbell said
partners sometimes conduct related research to evaluate project impacts. As an example, he cited Iowa DNR’s work to
determine how long it took fish to discover and exploit new habitat on Pool 11.
Bill Franz asked whether the
project evaluations to date have been compiled in a centralized location. Hubbell said that Charlene Carmack’s summary
previously provided to the EMP-CC probably comes the closest. According to Hubbell, of the 50 completed EMP
projects, 15 projects have had some level of evaluation. However, the level of monitoring effort and
sophistication vary with each project.
Powell said that monitoring has primarily focused on physical and
chemical aspects because biological monitoring requires substantial resources
and the results are often difficult to interpret. In particular, Powell said it is typically
difficult to establish what may have caused observed changes in biological
parameters.
Marv Hubbell asked USFWS and
the states to provide him with information about how they evaluate their own
resource management actions. Don Hultman
said that management objectives should guide project evaluations — i.e., the level of detail desired, what to monitor,
and frequency and duration of monitoring required. Charlie Wooley noted USFWS’ large waterfowl
dataset on Pool 8 that could be used to evaluate the Pool 8 Island’s waterfowl
objective.
Tim Schlagenhaft said his
concern is that the elements of response are not being monitored and that the
results are not being analyzed comprehensively.
A more rigorous and consistent approach to project evaluation would help
inform future project design and selection, as well as document program
results. Elizabeth Ivy said that
measuring and communicating project success is essential to maintaining
Congressional support. Janet Sternburg
observed that the cost of project evaluation will need to be weighed against
the desire to assess project impacts.
Long Term Resource Monitoring
Product Highlights
Mike Jawson announced that
the Status and Trends Report is now available in hard copy and on the USGS’s
website at http://pubs.usgs.gov/mis/LTRMP2008-T002/. He reported that LTRMP staff gave several
presentations at the recent Yangtze Forum; the UMRCC meeting on March 24-26,
2009; the Mississippi River Research Consortium on April 30-May 1, 2009; and
the UMRBA Biological Indicators Workshop on May 5-7, 2009. Jim Fischer expressed appreciation for the
high quality of LTRMP’s scientific products, which he attributed both to the
individuals involved and the program’s maturity. Dan McGuiness also recognized the assistance
from UMESC staff in providing information for a CD he is developing on river
restoration. This effort is being done
in partnership with
LiDAR Update
Karen Hagerty said systemic
LiDAR data acquisition is scheduled for completion by September 2010, noting
that stimulus funds helped to accelerate this effort. She also said she continues to work with
USGS’s spatial data liaisons in
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Larry Robinson said UMESC is currently doing QA/QC on the
LiDAR data for Pools 8-14 and 20-24, and he anticipates that these data will be
served by the end of FY 09. Hagerty
expressed appreciation to Iowa DNR for its initial LiDAR processing. In the interim, prior to UMESC posting the
data, Hagerty said the data provided by Iowa DNR can be made available upon
request. In response to a question from
Marv Hubbell, Robinson said that users will need ArcView, a fast processor, and
lots of harddrive space to use the LiDAR data.
Draft Bathymetric Plan
Hagerty referenced the draft
bathymetric data plan included in the agenda packet, explaining that it
reflects input received from internal and external technical reviews. She said that, although the plan provides
alternatives for implementation over three- and five-year timeframes, the
stimulus package will allow for data acquisition over approximately 12
months. A contract award will likely
take place in August 2009, with completion by September 2010. Hagerty estimated total costs at $1.2
million, including administrative costs and a 25 percent contingency. The district costs are approximately $211,600
for MVP, $855,000 for MVR, and $110,000 for MVS.
Jim Fischer asked how quickly
the data acquisition will commence after a contract is awarded. Hagerty said the acquisition should begin
immediately, contingent upon water levels.
Upon request from Sternburg, Hagerty will provide EMP-CC members with an
estimated timeframe for when the bathymetric data will be served. Sternburg recognized the importance of this
data for reach and project planning.
Hagerty noted that the data can be made available prior to being served.
Sternburg moved and Fischer
seconded a motion to approve the bathymetric plan as provided in the meeting
packet. The motion was approved
unanimously.
FY 10-14 Operational Plan
Hubbell reported that the
Strategic and Operational Planning Teams met jointly on March 23-24, 2009. Participants reviewed a draft FY 10-14 LTRMP
Strategic and Operational Plan to ensure that the goals and priorities of the
Strategic Plan were fully reflected in the draft plan. On April 20, a revised draft was then
distributed to EMP-CC members and stakeholders for review and feedback.
Hubbell highlighted the following key aspects of the plan:
·
Focuses on the
science, data, and information needed to understand and manage the UMRS.
·
Identified
funding needs will exceed the historical funding available from EMP.
·
Success will
require more EMP funding and/or leveraging funding from other sources.
·
Prioritized
outcomes and outputs will be used to guide the development of annual scopes of
work.
·
Annual reviews of
SOWs and implementation progress will be employed.
·
The integrated plan provides more specificity and
clarity of terms (e.g., data integrity and continuity) relative to the
Strategic Plan endorsed in August 2008.
Hubbell said that two
remaining issues have yet to be fully resolved:
1) incorporating minor partner comments into the plan and 2) linking the
plan to both EMP and NESP.
Barry Johnson characterized
partner comments on the April 20 draft.
Overall, partners said it: is a
good to excellent document, addresses the major issues, and has no critical deficiencies. Johnson highlighted the following specific
comments, with the Operational Planning Team’s responses to those comments
shown in parentheses:
·
Definitions and
names should be more clearly defined.
(The Operational Planning Team agrees, and will modify or include
additional, descriptive language.)
·
New strata, new
data collection, and reach-scale monitoring should be further characterized and
reprioritized. (No change is necessary
at this time since these components will be influenced by indicator
development, which is recommended in the draft plan.)
·
Workforce issues
and position descriptions, primarily the outreach coordinator and the HREP/LTRM
liaison, should be described in more detail.
(The Operational Planning Team intends to develop a workforce plan with
specific position descriptions.)
·
The plan should
include a summary of current, and future needs for, HREP monitoring. (No change will be made. The draft plan contains provisions to develop
plans for additional HREP monitoring.)
·
The role of LTRM in adaptive management should be more
specifically defined. (The Operational
Planning Team did not include specific details regarding adaptive management
because of the uncertainty related to a potential EMP-NESP transition, and also
because NESP has been taking the lead on adaptive management.)
Fischer and Sternburg said
Johnson’s characterization of the partner comments was very accurate. Tim Schlagenhaft asked whether there will be
separate decision support systems (DSSs) for EMP and NESP. Hubbell said that the Corps staff is working
to integrate DSS efforts, and emphasized that there will be only one DSS. He observed that the NESP DSS is largely
populated with EMP data. Johnson said
NESP’s DSS is a data and metadata management system, while the DSS proposed in
the Strategic and Operational Plan is targeted to meeting the needs of a
manager who has a specific question.
Charlie Wooley reported that
USFWS has expressed concerns with the plan’s application to NESP. Hubbell provided background and a historical
context for the partnership’s decision to use the plan as guidance for the LTRM
in the next five years regardless of the parent program. Hubbell summarized past EMP-CC meeting
records regarding this issue. Specific
excerpts include:
·
May 2007 — “…this LTRMP strategic planning effort will
be useful, regardless of what happens with the pending NESP authorization.”
·
November 2007 —
o
“…the Planning
Team appreciates the need to consider the LTRMP’s future in the context of NESP
as well as the EMP, including the potential for a larger program in the
future.”
o
“Barb Naramore
and Jon Duyvejonck observed that the strategic planning effort should prove
useful regardless of whether the LTRMP is being implemented under the EMP,
NESP, or a combination thereof during the FY 10-14 timeframe.”
·
August 2008 —
o
“Hubbell, Jawson,
and Naramore acknowledged the efforts of the EMP-CC and the Strategic Planning
Team and described process of developing the draft FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic
Plan as productive and inclusive. Hubbell emphasized that the Strategic
Plan presents an important opportunity to be forward-looking while building off
of the program’s history.”
o
“Jawson said much
of the operational planning process will revolve around determining relative
priorities under different funding scenarios. Possible differences in
these priorities depending on which program (i.e., NESP or EMP) the LTRMP is
operating under will also need to be considered, according to Jawson. He
emphasized the operational plan’s utility in guiding decisions about the allocation
of annual appropriations in FY 10-14.”
Wooley asked how the Corps
would envision applying and translating the plan if LTRM is being implemented
under NESP. Hubbell said this is a
dynamic plan that covers a five-year timeframe.
It will serve as a blueprint for developing annual scopes of work
(SOWs), which will be presented to the EMP-CC annually at November quarterly
meetings for approval. Hubbell said that
modifications to this process if the program is under NESP have yet to be
determined. Chuck Spitzack said that the
reach planning process will serve as an important connection point between NESP
and LTRM, as the planning effort reveals NESP’s information and adaptive
management needs. In response to a
question from Wooley, Spitzack said this connection will be formalized in
guidance to the Regional Support Team (RST) and the reach teams.
Jawson said that, in
hindsight, it might have been beneficial to have engaged NESP managers more in
the planning process. Rick Frietsche
said involvement of NESP staff may have led to a different prioritization among
outcomes and outputs, with adaptive management likely to have been ranked more
highly among the outputs. Hubbell said
that members of the Strategic and Operational Planning Teams, as well as EMP-CC
and NECC members and stakeholders, are often engaged in both EMP and NESP
activities, and therefore, can provide insights from both perspectives. He noted that reach planning is a joint
effort, and thus the reach objectives will be utilized by both programs.
Sternburg said that when this
process started, NESP had not yet received authorization. Though it was acknowledged that there would
be other needs and opportunities under NESP, LTRM planning could account for
these possibilities. She said it would
be reasonable to reevaluate the plan and the prioritization in the context of
the two programs, as part of the annual work planning effort. Bernie Hoyer emphasized the need for adaptive
management, project monitoring, and a long term data set on the UMR, and for a
permanent ecosystem restoration authority.
In response to a question
from Wooley, Sternburg, Fischer, and Schlagenhaft said they were ready to act
on the plan. Sternburg moved and
Schlagenhaft seconded a motion to endorse the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and
Operational Plan as presented in the meeting packet, with the understanding
that USACE and USGS will make minor revisions based on the written partner
comments discussed earlier, and recognizing that the plan is a dynamic document
that will need to be revisited, particularly if LTRM shifts to NESP. The motion carried unanimously.
A-Team
Sternburg reported that
discussion at the A-Team’s April 29 meeting focused on its role, current and
future, including assisting in implementing the FY 10-14 Strategic and
Operational Plan, better linking LTRM with other efforts, and providing desired
technical input from the partnership.
Sternburg said the A-Team’s role(s) may have implications for its
composition, noting for example, that new monitoring components or research
areas might require different types of expertise on the team. This also relates to the role(s) of field
station staff, principle investigators, and USACE’s LTRM Science Liaisons. She said that, as NESP ramps-up, there will
be more Corps staff involved with restoration projects. Since many of the staff will be new to
restoration projects, it will become more important to build a strong,
formalized link between those projects and LTRM. Sternburg said that she will work with EMP,
UMESC, and NESP managers to reevaluate the A-Team’s function and composition,
and to develop recommendations.
Sternburg reported that her
term of chairmanship ended at the April 29 meeting, and Kevin Stauffer of
Minnesota DNR is now serving as the new A-Team Chair.
In response to a question
from Schlagenhaft, Sternburg said it would be helpful for EMP-CC to provide
input regarding the scope and composition of the A-Team. She suggested holding a meeting between
EMP-CC members, A-Team members, and LTRM and HREP staff. Hubbell noted the involvement of the Corps’
technical staff on PDTs, and said this is a type of collaboration between the
two EMP components that is not always apparent.
Jon Hendrickson said previous efforts to encourage cross-component
collaboration, such as the large river fish meeting, have been very
helpful. Jawson said that the Science
Liaison position was identified to encourage this type of communication, and to
serve as a point of contact between HREPs and various scientific experts. He suggested that the A-Team explore
potential opportunities for enhancing those efforts.
APE Project Showcase:
The 2010
Because the meeting was
running behind schedule, Mike Jawson proposed postponing Larry Robinson’s
presentation on the 2010 UMRS Land Cover/Land Use Project until the August 2009
EMP-CC meeting. Hubbell asked if
Robinson needed partner input on any LC/LU issues prior to August. Robinson said he did not. He noted that a digital mapping camera will
be used, with resolution of 8 inches per pixel for the upper pools and 15
inches per pixel for the remainder. Both
of these resolutions are superior to the 2000 coverage. The minimum mapping unit will be 1 acre on
the upper pools and 1 hectare for the remainder. This compares with a minimum unit of 1
hectare for the 2000 coverage. He said
the 2000 and 2010 data sets will be readily comparable. The images will be taken in late August/early
September, during peak vegetation. The
question of whether and how to assess the data accuracy is yet to be
resolved. Robinson explained that only
QA/QC was conducted for past LC/LU data sets.
The dynamic nature of the system makes ground truthing for data accuracy
quite difficult, unless it is done in real time as the imagery is
captured. Hubbell said LC/LU will be a
very important tool, providing a base for setting ecosystem objectives and a
means of monitoring progress in meeting those objectives. As such, Hubbell said it will be very
important to understand the issue of data accuracy.
Jim Fischer asked what kind
of point density would be needed for the LC/LU, and whether additional
vegetation monitoring would be useful.
Robinson said having LTRM’s vegetation experts involved in the QC might
be helpful, though he said the UMESC photointerpreters doing the
classifications are very experienced.
Hubbell said UMESC is
proposing to use the 31 category classification system for the 2010 LC/LU. He said it is important for the partners to
understand and support whatever system is ultimately selected.
Other Business
Mike Jawson asked whether
separate EMP-CC and NECC meetings are necessary. Schlagenhaft and Naramore said they did not
think that time was ripe for combining the groups. Hubbell said the joint sessions provide an
opportunity to address issues of mutual interest. He noted that EMP is a fully operational
program, while NESP has thus far received only preconstruction engineering and
design funds. As such, the two programs
are at very different stages and have different needs and issues.
The upcoming quarterly
meetings are as follows:
·
August 2009 —
§
UMRBA — August 4
§
NICC — August 4
§
EMP-CC — August 5
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of August 5
§
NECC — August 6
·
November 2009 — Quad Cities
§
UMRBA — November
17
§
NECC — November
18
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of November 18 (if needed)
§
EMP-CC — November 19
·
February 2010 —
§
UMRBA — February
23
§
EMP-CC — February 24
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of February 24 (if needed)
§
NECC — February
25
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
May
21, 2009
EMP-CC
Members
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bill Franz |
|
Others in
Attendance
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Jon Hendrickson |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Tim Patronski |
|
|
Mike Weimer |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Larry Robinson |
|
|
Walt Popp |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Dan McGuiness and Associates |
|
Mark Gorman |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature Conservancy/U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers |
|
Christina Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|