Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
May 20, 1999
Holiday Inn Select International Airport Hotel
Bloomington, Minnesota
Dusty Rhodes of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. on
Thursday, May 20, 1999. Other EMP-CC
members present were Matt Kerschbaum (USFWS), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS),
Marvin Hubbell (IL DNR), Kevin Szcodronski (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR),
Gordon Farabee (MO DOC), Terry Moe (WI DNR), and Dave Carvey (NRCS). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the February Meeting
Terry Moe moved and Steve Johnson seconded approval of the minutes of the February 18, 1999 meeting as written. The motion was adopted unanimously. Moe requested updates on two items discussed at the February meeting — i.e., the status of the joint A-Team/EMP-CC charter and the potential to award Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA) contracts to the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC). Barb Naramore said that both of these issues would be addressed under the existing meeting agenda.
Program Management
Leo Foley
reported that EMP expenditures through March 31, 1999 totaled $9.007 million,
or approximately 49 percent of the $18.371 million in total scheduled
expenditures for FY 99.
The $18.371 million in total scheduled expenditures is the sum of
the FY 99 appropriation of $18.955, less savings and slippage, and carry-in of
$796,000 from FY 98. Foley
characterized the expenditure rate as quite good, particularly since the summer
construction season remains ahead.
Foley urged USGS and the states to submit billings promptly. In response to a question from Terry Moe, Foley
explained that the HNA assessment is taken off the top of the EMP allocation,
before the money is allocated to HREPs and LTRMP. This results in a proportional assessment of HNA costs to the two
components, though the assessments are not reflected under the HREP and LTRMP
portions of the spreadsheet.
Foley noted that
the FY 00 appropriation amount and savings and slippage rate remain to be
determined. He explained that the
current spreadsheet reflects the president's FY 00 budget request of $18.955 million. Foley said the Administration is still in
the process of preparing its FY 01 budget request, but noted that funding is
looking quite tight for Corps construction projects.
Foley reported
that the three districts and MVD are in the process of exploring several of the
proposed administrative changes included in the partnership's Report to
Congress recommendations.
Responsibility for following up on these recommendations has been
divided as follows:
· Habitat Needs Assessment — MVS
· Delegate approval authority for HREPs
< $1 million to the District Commanders — MVS
· Delegate approval authority for HREPs
< $5 million to the Division Commander — MVD
· Real estate acquisition (credit for lands
purchased prior to execution of a project cooperation agreement (PCA)) — MVR
· Upland sediment control as part of HREPs
under appropriate conditions — MVS
· HREP/LTRMP integration — MVR/MVP
· Use of natural processes and innovative
measures in HREPs — MVP/MVS
· Address limitations imposed by current
policy and guidance — MVR
· Develop charters for the A-Team and
EMP-CC — MVD
· Enhance public involvement — MVP
Foley noted that
the HNA is well underway, while the other recommendations are at various stages
of consideration. He explained that the
districts are in the process of preparing issue papers on several of the
recommended changes to facilitate consideration by higher authority.
Holly Stoerker
observed that the land acquisition issue raised in the Report to Congress
involved more than the timing of the purchase relative to the PCA. She explained that the partners were anxious
to clarify that land acquisition is an acceptable part of HREPs. Marv Hubbell said the states are not
interested in pursuing acquisition-only projects under the EMP, but do want to
ensure that they receive credit for real estate costs incurred as part of
HREPs. Dusty Rhodes asked Foley to
ensure that the districts share draft copies of their issue papers with UMRBA
staff before submitting the papers to MVD.
Rhodes noted
that the issue of delegated authority to approve project decision documents and
cost share agreements is currently under discussion at Corps headquarters and
the Assistant Secretary's office. These
issues are being considered on a Corps-wide basis, but have potential
implications for the EMP. Moe thanked Rhodes and others in the Corps for
following up on the Report to Congress recommendations for administrative
changes.
In answer to a
question from Ken Lubinski, Foley said he does not expect the spring high water
at several HREP sites to impinge upon the habitat program's ability to fully
expend its FY 99 funds.
In response to a
request from the February meeting, Rhodes distributed a memo setting forth the
Corps' interpretation of the current EMP funding authorization. The memo provided the following explanation:
The authorized annual funding limit for
the UMRS-EMP is clearly established by the legislative wording that authorized
the program. Each portion of the
program was separately described in the legislation, and distinct authorized
annual funding levels were established for each. These are $13.0 million for HREP, $5.08 million for LTRM, and
$0.875 million for CIA, and $0.5 million for recreation projects, which adds up
to a total of $19.455 million. The
Corps' interpretation is that funds authorized to be appropriated for
recreation projects cannot be used for other program elements such as habitat
projects. This reduces the total available
funding per FY to $18.955 million.
Steve Johnson
observed that the Corps did not follow this interpretation in several prior
years. Rhodes acknowledged this, but
emphasized MVD's confidence in the above interpretation.
Barb Naramore
reported that UMRBA staff distributed a revised draft of the charter for the
A-Team and EMP-CC on February 19, 1999.
The revisions reflected changes discussed at the February 18 EMP-CC
meeting. The state EMP-CC members
proposed these changes in response to the A-Team's February 9 letter of
comment. In follow-up, the state
members of the EMP-CC and A-Team met on March 10 to discuss the revised
charter. The result of that meeting was
a recommendation from the states to table the charter for the time being. This recommendation, which was conveyed in a
March 16 letter to Dusty Rhodes, was based on the states' belief that the
partnership needed to concentrate its current efforts on LTRMP restructuring. Naramore noted that she had not received
comments from any of the other EMP partners on the February 19 revised
draft. She said that, barring some
expression to the contrary, she would assume that all the partner agencies
concur with the states' recommendation to delay development of the charter.
Rhodes said MVD
is prepared to sign the February 19 charter as drafted, but said he is also
willing to defer action. Kevin
Szcodronski said he envisions resuming work on the charter shortly after the
LTRMP restructuring issues are resolved.
Terry Moe said the Corps' status on the A-Team remains an outstanding
issue, noting that the other A-Team members have expressed a clear preference
for having the Corps function as a full member of the team. Rhodes said the Corps would be willing to serve
as a full member of the A-Team in deference to the other partners' wishes. He said someone from the Rock Island
District would likely be named to represent the Corps on the A-Team.
Rhodes reported
that MVD will be relying increasingly on MVR as EMP program manager. He explained that, with six districts
and a declining staff size, MVD is necessarily limited in the amount of time it
can devote to managing the program.
Rhodes emphasized that MVD will continue to exercise command and control
over the EMP and will continue to co-chair the
EMP-CC meetings. However, the Rock
Island District will be assuming more responsibility for day-to-day program
decisions.
Reauthorization Update
Dusty Rhodes
reported that the Assistant Secretary has forwarded his report to Congress on
the EMP. Rhodes said there were no
major changes from the Chief of Engineers' recommendations, though the
Assistant Secretary did modify the proposed two-tier HREP program somewhat. As proposed by the Assistant Secretary, 50
to 70 percent of HREP funds would be available for projects under the 1986
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) §906(e) cost sharing provisions (i.e.,
the current cost sharing arrangement).
The remaining 30 to 50 of HREP funding would go to projects with a 35 percent
non-federal cost-share. Rhodes noted
that the House and Senate have each passed an EMP reauthorization provision as
part of their WRDA 99 bill. Neither the
House nor the Senate measure would establish a two-tier HREP program. Rhodes said copies of the Assistant
Secretary's report were provided to the five Governors.
Holly Stoerker
noted that there are several differences between the House- and Senate-passed
EMP measures (H.R. 1480 and S. 507).
Committee staff have reportedly started working informally to reconcile
the House and Senate bills, but conferees have not yet been named. Stoerker reported that the UMRBA has
submitted comments regarding four points of difference between the House and
Senate EMP provisions:
· Program duration — S. 507 would
reauthorize the EMP for 10 years while H.R. 1480 would establish a continuing
authority for the EMP — the UMRBA's comments support a continuing authority
· HREP cost-share — S. 507 would increase
the non-federal share to 35 percent while H.R. 1480 would not make any changes
in the current formula — the states recommend retaining the current §906(e)
cost-sharing requirements
· Technical advisory committee — both H.R.
1480 and S. 507 would establish a technical advisory committee, with some
subtle differences between the two measures — while the states have not
promoted the idea of a technical advisory committee, the UMRBA's comments to
the conferees are confined to addressing how such a committee might best be
implemented, including recommendations that the committee should not have
approval authority, should be integrated with the existing program, and should
look at the entire EMP
· Project requirements and criteria — S.
507 includes language that would require each HREP to simulate natural river
processes to the maximum extent practicable and to include an outreach and
education component, while H.R. 1480 contains no such provisions — the states'
comments acknowledge the value of simulating natural processes and engaging in
public outreach, but suggest that the Senate bill's specific requirements are
neither prudent nor necessary.
In response to a
question from Marv Hubbell, Stoerker explained that the states concluded there
would be little value in advocating elimination of the technical advisory
committee language, given that both S. 507 and H.R. 1480 include such a
provision. Instead, the states confined
themselves to clarifying their understanding of how such a committee should
function and suggesting modifications to improve the legislative language. Rhodes said the Corps opposes the technical
advisory committee, noting that he is not aware of any precedent for taking
money from a Corps program and paying outside advisers. Hubbell expressed the opinion that $350,000
per year would be far too much for an EMP advisory committee.
HREP District Updates
Mike Thompson
reported that the Stump Lake project is virtually complete. The St. Louis District plans to hold a
dedication ceremony for Stump Lake in July.
Thompson said there have been some delays at Swan Lake due to high
water. The Cuivre Island project is
scheduled for completion once the high water recedes. MVS will be meeting with the Illinois DNR and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to resolve issues related to the Phase II and III scopes for
the Batchtown project. As reported
previously, the district resubmitted the fact sheet for Calhoun Point. The district recently received verbal
approval of the fact sheet and will be initiating plans and specifications for
Calhoun Point in FY 99. The fact sheet
for Pools 25 and 26 has been approved and the St. Louis District will start
work on the definite project report (DPR) during FY 99. Thompson also reported that the Missouri
Department of Conservation has identified a new project opportunity on the Open
River, Schenimann Chute. MVS has
forwarded a fact sheet to MVD for approval.
If the fact sheet is approved, the district plans to convene a meeting
to revisit the district’s HREP priority list.
Leo Foley
reported that the Rock Island District expects to award the well contract for
Spring Lake, Illinois within a couple of weeks. Other than the well construction and a few punch list items, the
Spring Lake project is complete. The
district is planning a dedication ceremony for Spring Lake in July. Dedication ceremonies are also planned for
the Princeton and Lake Chautauqua projects, with the Lake Chautauqua ceremony
already scheduled for July 7. Foley
said MVR expects to award the Stage II contract for Banner Marsh in July. The draft DPR for Pool 11 Islands is
currently under review by project sponsors, and public review of the DPR is
scheduled for August. Foley noted that
the Pool 11 Islands DPR calls for the project to be broken into three phases. Rock Island awarded the mast tree planting
contract for Cottonwood Island in April.
This is the final contract for Cottonwood.
Gordon Farabee
corrected MVR's activity report, which indicates that the district is working
with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to resolve issues regarding
operation of the Bay Island project.
Farabee noted that the Missouri Department of Conservation, not Natural
Resources, operates the project and is working with the district.
Marv Hubbell
reported that Illinois has been consulting with the Corps, including General
Anderson, regarding issues with several projects the state is cost sharing
under the EMP and other Corps programs.
Hubbell said Illinois is correcting some of its own procedures on
cost-shared projects as well as recommending some changes to the Corps. Illinois plans to hold a workshop in July or
August that will address the state's participation in such projects. The Rock Island and St. Louis Districts will
be invited to participate in the workshop.
Keith Beseke
said that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working with the Corps for
eight or nine months to resolve punch list items on the Spring Lake, Illinois
project. Beseke said the Rock Island
District and the Service have agreed upon a list of items that must be
addressed, but the district has not informed the Service how these problems
will be resolved. Beseke expressed
dissatisfaction with the contractor's repeated delays on the project, stating
that the contract should have been completed two and one-half years ago. Foley said MVR is working hard to resolve
problems with the contractor and will provide a formal response to the
Service. Foley acknowledged that the
contractor is definitely behind schedule under the terms of the contract, but
said the delay is not as great as Beseke indicated.
Don Powell
reported the St. Paul District plans to award the Polander Lake island
construction contract in late June.
Construction could start as early as July. Powell explained that the island construction is being done in
conjunction with the unloading of the Wilds Bend dredged material placement
site. The Trempealeau Refuge project is
substantially complete, with the pumps scheduled for start-up in June. Remaining work also includes repairing some
ice damage to rock groins. MVP is
planning a dedication ceremony for Trempealeau in conjunction with the M/V Mississippi's low water inspection
trip in August. The start of
construction for the final site of the Mississippi River Bank Stabilization
project has been delayed due to eagle nesting in the area. Construction will probably start in
July. In response to a question from
Terry Moe, Powell said there are additional opportunities for bank
stabilization work in the district as part of the EMP, but noted that these
additional sites are not part of the current HREP. The district expects Pool 8 Islands to be completed this summer
and hopes to hold a dedication ceremony in August or September. Powell reported that the St. Paul District
originally planned the Long Lake HREP as a §8(a) set aside project. The bid was significantly higher than the
district anticipated and the §8(a) solicitation was subsequently canceled. The district then opened the project to
competitive bidding. The low bid for
the project, which involves excavating a channel and installing a control
structure, came in at approximately $350,000, about half of the §8(a) bid. The district anticipates awarding the
contract and starting construction on Long Lake this summer. In response to a question from Moe, Powell
said the draft DPR for Ambrough Slough is likely to be completed in August or
September. As such, Powell said it is
quite possible that the PCA for Ambrough Slough will be completed under the
reauthorized EMP.
Powell also
reported that the St. Paul District will be hosting an HREP engineering,
design, and construction workshop on June 17 in La Crosse. The workshop will address a range of topics,
including design standards, construction techniques, and operation and
maintenance practices. The workshop
will be open to all interested participants and will include representatives of
the Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service, and states. In response to a question from Matt Kerschbaum, Powell said there
will be a record of the workshop. Holly
Stoerker asked whether issues addressed at the workshop will include the Report
to Congress’ recommended policy changes that Foley highlighted earlier. Powell said the purpose of the workshop is
for participants to share experiences and learn how things are being done
elsewhere. He said the workshop is not
designed to focus on the issue paper topics, but said some of these items may
come up during the course of the workshop.
Farabee encouraged MVP to invite staff from the Corps' Missouri River
districts to participate in the workshop.
Dusty Rhodes concurred with Farabee's recommendation and asked Powell to
ensure that such invitations are extended.
Habitat Needs Assessment
Mike Thompson
reported that the HNA scope of work is complete. He characterized as minor the revisions from the previous
draft. The HNA Technical Team is
scheduled to meet in mid-June to finalize work plans for several of the
technical tasks. The project management
plan (PMP) will be revised to reflect those work plans and will then be
distributed to the EMP partners by the end of June. As a dynamic document, the PMP will continue to change as the HNA
progresses. Thompson expressed
appreciation for USGS's willingness to initiate several of the technical tasks
while the cost estimates for those tasks are still being developed. He attributed the fact that the HNA is
currently on schedule, in part, to USGS's flexibility on this matter.
As part of its
HNA public involvement efforts, the Corps participated in a series of public
meetings this spring sponsored by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee and the National Audubon Society.
Thompson noted that Bruce Carlson is leaving the St. Paul District, but
said the lead for HNA public involvement will likely remain with St. Paul.
Thompson
reported that cost estimates have been developed for the various HNA tasks and
the Technical Team is currently in the process of negotiating those costs. The current task estimates total $935,000,
leaving only a modest contingency given the HNA's $1 million cap. Current plans call for allocating the funds
as follows:
USGS $285,000
MVS $230,000
MVP $200,000
MVR $160,000
FWS $60,000
Total $935,000
Marv Hubbell
noted that the states are contributing substantial staff time, travel expenses,
and other resources to the HNA effort and asked whether the federal agency
partners are making similar in-kind contributions. Gordon Farabee concurred with Hubbell, emphasizing that the
states are contributing significant amounts of staff time to the
assessment. Thompson said the money
allocated to each district includes funding to cover staff time and other HNA
expenses. Leslie Holland-Bartels
indicated that all money transferred to USGS will pay for the execution of
specific tasks. Thompson expressed a
willingness to document the states' in-kind contributions to the HNA if the
states provide him with the necessary information. Farabee said he was not seeking to create additional bookkeeping
demands and said he was simply asking to have the states' contributions
acknowledged.
Thompson said
the next steps for the HNA include:
· finalizing work plans for the technical
tasks and coordinating the public involvement work plans,
· updating the HNA web site and using it to
distribute information,
· completing the HNA working cost estimate,
· completing the GIS query tool in August
or September (a USGS task), and
· distributing the revised PMP by the end
of June.
Jeff Janvrin
expressed skepticism that the HNA schedule can be met. As the basis for his concern, Janvrin noted
that contracts have not been let for some of the key technical tasks and that
the HNA is heavily dependent on products from the Navigation Study that may not
fully meet the HNA’s needs. Thompson
said he would look into Janvrin's concerns.
Terry Moe asked
whether UMESC will get HNA contracts at least equal to the amount the LTRMP is
being assessed for the HNA. Thompson
said the LTRMP will be assessed a total of $310,000 (31 percent of $1 million)
for the HNA and UMESC is currently scheduled to received $285,000 to perform
various HNA tasks. Thompson noted that
UMESC will receive the preponderance of this money in FY 99. Leo Foley emphasized that the Corps never
said UMESC's contracts for HNA tasks would equal the LTRMP's HNA
assessment. Foley stressed that the
assessment was determined proportionately and that the project management team
is responsible for determining how best to accomplish the HNA tasks. Holland-Bartels noted that the project
management team rejected some USGS proposals for HNA work. Holland-Bartels said she understands the
unsuccessful proposals, including one to develop species-specific models, were
rejected based on cost considerations.
Thompson concurred with Holland-Bartels' description.
Moe said he
understands there are potential problems with using the Navigation Study's
without project predictions in the HNA.
He asked whether HNA funds have been budgeted to revise this study if
needed. Thompson said no HNA money will
be available to refine the Navigation Study's without project predictions. Thompson said the project management team
anticipates using this information as it comes out of the Navigation
Study. If there are questions about the
validity of the product, Thompson said those concerns will be noted and some
risk analyses will be done in applying the results to the HNA. Moe expressed concern that HNA funds will be
used to refine the information coming out of the Navigation Study. Farabee said he understands Moe's concern,
but assured Moe that HNA funds would not be expended in this manner. Rhodes said the Corps would review plans for
using information from the Navigation Study in the HNA.
Steve Johnson
asked whether recommendations to include pre-impoundment conditions in the
assessment had been adopted. Farabee
said this is not being done to the extent many partners would like, due to lack
of available information in useable formats.
However, he said the technical team is trying to use as much
pre-impoundment information as possible.
As an example, he noted that the assessment will use a study funded by
Missouri on the history of the lower river.
Hubbell asked
whether there would be a summary of the recent public meetings. Thompson said he would distribute an
overview of the meetings prepared by Bruce Carlson. Hubbell asked whether the meetings provided useable information
about the public's desired future conditions for the river system. Thompson said Carlson has indicated that the
meetings were successful in this regard.
Rhodes expressed
concern that delays in finalizing the budget estimates have delayed transfer of
funds to USGS for HNA tasks. Thompson
said he anticipates completing the paperwork necessary to transfer funds to
USGS by early June. Holland-Bartels
said this would be adequate.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
A-Team Report
John Wetzel said
the pending Information Needs Assessment (INA) will be key to restructuring the
LTRMP. He emphasized that the Analysis
Team is committed to a long term restructuring of the LTRMP based on sound science
and insight into the partners' information needs. He expressed confidence that the data analysis and INA, in
combination, will provide a sound basis for restructuring the LTRMP. Wetzel urged the program partners to
remember that there may be components that should be added to the reauthorized
monitoring program, noting that several components that were part of the
original program recommendation were eliminated due to cost constraints.
Data Analysis
Leslie
Holland-Bartels reported that USGS has completed a preliminary analysis of the
LTRMP data. This first-cut effort
reviewed the current data collection protocols, examining what changes the
current protocols can detect and then considering the impacts of doubling and
halving the current level of effort.
Holland-Bartels noted that, over time, monitoring costs have come to
dominate the LTRMP budget, leaving few resources for analysis and studies. She highlighted the following perspective
regarding monitoring:
· Biota lag and integrate physical-chemical
conditions — as a result, physical-chemical causes should be monitored more
continuously and at higher resolution than biological effects.
· Monitoring must be coupled with focused
studies to explore fine-scale issues and cause-effect relationships.
· Scale is critically important to
monitoring design and interpretation — i.e., a long period of record does not
compensate for low spatial resolution, nor vice
versa.
· Resource managers are interested in
multiple scales, both spatially and temporally.
Holland-Bartels
explained that the year-to-year data analyses are necessarily conservative at
this point. As we better understand the
underlying cycles and functions, the same data will provide an increased level
of confidence. She presented an
analysis of the fish monitoring component, concluding that the level of effort
under the current protocol could be reduced by half without significantly
undermining the data. Specifically, the
current level of effort permits detection of a 20 percent change in population
with 70 percent confidence for 41 species, including all 14 target species
of prime interest to river managers.
Halving the level of effort would allow detection of a 20 percent change
with 70 percent confidence for 25 species, including 13 of the 14 target
species. Such a reduction would not
significantly diminish the already low ability to detect trends in rare,
endangered, and exotic species. As an
alternative to simply reducing all gears by half, Holland-Bartels noted that specific
gears could be eliminated or the sampling periods could be cut. The specific impacts of such options would
be varied. Holland-Bartels said she
would be comfortable reducing the overall level of effort in the fish
monitoring component by half, but urged that the technical experts be allowed
to determine precisely how to implement such a reduction. In response to a question from Terry Moe,
Holland-Bartels explained that the 20 percent change and 70 percent confidence
level figures were selected in consultation with the A-Team. The A-Team was also consulted regarding the
change and confidence level figures used in analyzing the other components.
Holland-Bartels
said the current macroinvertebrate sampling design allows detection of a 30
percent change with 70 percent probability in Pools 4, 8 and 13. In contrast, the current protocol has less
than a 50 percent chance of detecting a 30 percent change in Pool 26, the Open
River, and the La Grange Pool. If the
current effort were reduced by one-half, the ability to detect a 20 to 30
percent change would drop below 50 percent for all of the monitoring
areas. Holland-Bartels advised against
eliminating annual macroinvertebrate sampling, at least until a longer baseline
data set is established. Instead, she
recommended eliminating or reducing the macroinvertebrate component on the
three lower reaches, where it is currently ineffective. In those study areas where monitoring
continues, Holland-Bartels suggested eliminating some sampling strata. She noted that some of the savings from
these changes could be applied to pilot projects designed to develop a more
appropriate sampling design to capture information about the important
macroinvertebrates in Pool 26, the Open River, and the La Grange Pool.
According to
Holland-Bartels, the current water quality sampling protocol is generally
adequate to detect a 20 percent change in annual or seasonal means. The confidence level varies with the
parameter, ranging from a low of 53 percent to a high of 97 percent. The stratified random sampling (SRS) protocol
is also generally able to detect changes in relatively common off-channel
conditions, but is considerably less effective in detecting rare events (i.e.,
those combinations that are < 10 percent in areal extent). The USGS analysis indicates that doubling
the level of effort in water quality monitoring would increase the probability
of detecting a 20 percent change in the various parameters by from 1 to 14
percent. By contrast, reducing the
level of effort by half would reduce the power to detect a 20 percent change in
seasonal or annual means by up to 15 percent; but the probability of detecting
such changes would remain above 50 percent for most parameters. Holland-Bartels said the greatest impact of
such a reduction would be on the ability to detect changes in relatively rare
habitat conditions. Changes in
conditions that represent < 30 percent areal extent would be
undetectable. She concluded that the
water quality monitoring effort could reasonably be reduced by half, but urged
that the technical experts be allowed to determine how to achieve such a
reduction. She specifically advised
against eliminating sampling parameters.
Observing that a 50 percent reduction would essentially eliminate the
ability to detect rare occurrences, Holland-Bartels said this loss could be
addressed in part through targeted studies.
Holland-Bartels
noted that the stratified random sampling has been employed in the vegetation
component only since 1998. The previous
transect protocol has also been continued to provide a transition period. Describing the two methodologies, she noted
that the transect approach provides specific information about the backwaters
selected for monitoring while SRS, which randomly samples in all shallow
aquatic areas of the study areas, significantly enhances the spatial coverage
of the monitoring. At the community
level, the SRS approach can detect a 50 percent change in the mean with greater
than 70 percent probability in all five study areas. It can also detect a 50 percent change in all species
monitored. If the SRS were reduced
by half, the ability to detect a 50 percent change in the mean with a
70 percent probability would be reduced from five to three pools and from
100 percent to 73 percent of the species.
Holland-Bartels recommended against any reductions in vegetation
monitoring at present. If the 1999 and
2000 sampling efforts show similar results with the stratified random sampling,
she said she would recommend eliminating the transect monitoring and
redirecting those resources toward an increased spatial scale and special
studies.
Moe expressed
concern that some of the rare events we would lose the ability to detect under
Holland-Bartels' recommendations could be quite significant. Holland-Bartels observed that we would not
need to change the protocols in precisely the same way in each study area, but
cautioned that we must be thoughtful about the changes that are made. In answer to a question from Dave Carvey,
Holland-Bartels said the monitoring changes she is recommending would not
provide significant money for special studies.
Instead, these savings would be used to address the budget shortfall and
do additional data analysis.
Moe asked
Holland-Bartels whether she concurs with the A-Team's May 12, 1999 letter
outlining its LTRMP restructuring recommendations. Holland-Bartels said she agrees with the need to make cuts, but
said she would be quite disappointed if the bathymetry and sediment survey
efforts were eliminated.
Kevin
Szcodronski observed that, given the small size of the field station teams,
cutting a monitoring component by half would not necessarily translate into a
50 percent reduction in the staff and equipment involved in that
component. Holland-Bartels agreed,
emphasizing that she was presenting recommendations based on the data analysis
only. She said the management question
of how to implement such reductions is a separate issue.
Szcodronski
observed that the USGS data analysis did not appear to identify any obvious
redundancy or wasteful effort. He said
cuts can be made if necessary, but observed that it will be a matter of trying
to find the least damaging cuts, given that there are no easy cuts to
make. Holland-Bartels said she
generally agrees with Szcodronski's observations, with the exception of
invertebrate sampling in the lower three study areas. Szcodronski cautioned against eliminating invertebrate monitoring
in these areas just because invertebrates are not currently present, noting
that HREPs and other efforts could improve conditions for invertebrates. Holland-Bartels said that special studies,
rather than routine trend monitoring, would be the best way of capturing any
such changes. Gordon Farabee said
invertebrates are not entirely lacking on the lower portions of the
system. Instead, they are relatively
rare and the current protocol cannot detect trends in their populations. Holland-Bartels concurred, noting that
numerically rare events are not effectively captured with this type of monitoring. She said such events must be studied in
another way if they are important.
Information Needs Assessment
Jerry Skalak
reported that the INA is on hold pending the LTRMP restructuring and a
determination on how to implement the INA.
He said the Corps envisions a process somewhat similar to that being
used for the HNA. Dusty Rhodes said one
of the implementation issues remaining to be resolved is determination of which
district will serve as lead for the INA.
Rhodes said he expects Colonel Mudd will recommend a lead district for
the INA in his response to General Anderson's LTRMP restructuring
directive. John Wetzel observed that
the INA will need to address important spatial scale questions.
Leo Foley
identified the following factors as reasons to restructure the LTRMP:
· Current funding projections will not
support the status quo.
· Greater emphasis on data analysis is
needed.
· Savings and slippage will be applied to
the LTRMP consistent with other Corps construction projects.
· The LTRMP needs flexibility to handle
budget deviations.
Foley then
presented three budget shortfall scenarios, each of which assumes three percent
inflation but which vary in their assumptions about the savings and slippage
rate and the annual appropriations level. Under the scenario that assumes three percent inflation, 15
percent savings and slippage, and annual appropriations of $18.955 million, the
projected shortfalls are as follows:
Year Projected Shortfall
FY 00 $1.0507 million
FY 01 $1.0744 million
FY 02 $1.2585 million
Foley described
this as the most likely of the three scenarios. He said eliminating the shortfalls projected under this set of
assumptions would provide the program with increased flexibility while not
requiring as much disruption as would the more pessimistic scenario, which
assumes both savings and slippage of 15 percent and EMP funding of only $13.0
million in FY 01 and 02. He said using
the scenario that assumes full funding and savings and slippage of only seven
percent would be unworkable because it would leave the program with no
flexibility. Foley said MVR consulted
with the USGS, Fish and Wildlife Service, A-Team, and Priority Team in
exploring alternative plans for addressing the projected shortfalls. In considering these options, Foley said MVR
assumed that the LTRMP will continue beyond FY 02 and that the program's
funding level will be higher in the future.
Given these assumptions, Foley said it was important to develop a
restructuring plan that leaves the LTRMP as well positioned as possible to grow
in the future.
Foley said the
magnitude of the projected shortfalls is such that all of the viable
restructuring alternatives involve layoffs.
He outlined the following basic restructuring alternatives:
·
reduce the
components monitored;
· reduce the amount of monitoring by
adjusting the spatial or temporal extent; or
· increase funding by, for example,
transferring money from the HREP program, restoring savings and slippage, or
using the direct Treasury transfer form.
Foley said the
Corps did not explore options to increase funding because they all involve
factors outside of the program managers' control. Among the specific options the Corps and others did evaluate were
completely eliminating one or more components, eliminating two or three field
stations, sampling components on a cyclical schedule, and doing selected
across-the-board cuts. While a final
recommendation has not been issued, Foley said MVR is likely to recommend the
following when Colonel Mudd responds to General Anderson's directive:
· reduce field station costs by $300,000
per year, which translates to approximately $50,000 per field station;
· achieve associated savings of $482,000 at
UMESC; and
· reduce overall LTRMP costs by an
additional $476,000, using information from the data analysis to help determine
how the make these additional cuts.
Foley said the
$300,000 in field station cuts would preserve the basic structure and core
personnel of the current field stations.
The $482,000 in UMESC cuts would be achieved through across-the-board
cuts affecting most of the Center's LTRMP operations. Candidates for the $476,000 in additional cuts include reducing
vegetation monitoring, reducing macroinvertebrate monitoring, eliminating the
bathymetric survey work, and eliminating the sediment survey effort. Foley noted that MVR staff have expressed
strong support for continuing the bathymetric work and have urged that cuts be
made elsewhere.
Foley said the
Rock Island District anticipates submitting its LTRMP restructuring
recommendations to MVD within a couple of weeks and will consult with USGS and
the states as appropriate in developing these recommendations. Specific measures for achieving the $476,000
in additional cuts will be included in the district's recommendations. Foley identified the following as key next
steps in the LTRMP restructuring:
· submit Colonel Mudd's restructuring
recommendations to General Anderson (within c. 2 weeks),
· develop a detailed plan for how the
restructuring changes will be implemented at each field station and UMESC
(within c. 2 weeks),
· draft scopes of work for all work items
under the restructured LTRMP (9/99), and
· optimize the monitoring efforts based on
the INA and data analysis.
Discussion of Restructuring Alternatives
Dusty Rhodes reported
that MVD has challenged all of its districts to reduce management costs as much
as possible. Toward this end, Rhodes
asked EMP-CC members to consider the frequency of various EMP coordination
meetings. He noted that the EMP
receives considerable management time and attention relative to many other
established Corps projects and programs and questioned whether this is
necessary. Rhodes said Buddy Arnold
will be pursuing options for reducing EMP management costs and increasing the
money available to construct HREPs and conduct LTRMP monitoring and
studies. Rhodes invited input from the
other EMP partners on these issues.
Rhodes expressed
appreciation for the A-Team's willingness to work with the Corps and USGS in
exploring how best to make difficult changes in the LTRMP. Gordon Farabee presented Rhodes with a
letter from the Missouri Department of Conservation endorsing the A-Team's May
12, 1999 LTRMP restructuring recommendations.
John Wetzel summarized the A-Team's recommendations as follows:
· The A-Team would obviously far prefer not
to have to make LTRMP cuts.
· If the program must be restructured to
address the projected shortfall, the savings should include a $300,000 annual
reduction from the field stations; $482,000 in annual savings at UMESC; and
cessation of the bathymetric and sediment work for $260,000 and $100,000 in
annual savings, respectively.
According to
Wetzel, the A-Team strongly supports the bathymetric and sediment work but
believes curtailing these two items is preferable to making additional
monitoring cuts. He noted that the
bathymetric and sediment work could be resumed in two or three years with less
disruption, emphasizing that dropping a monitoring component or eliminating a
field station would result in far more significant gaps. Wetzel also reiterated Kevin Szcodronski's
observation that reducing the effort for a given monitoring theme by half would
not result in a 50 percent reduction in costs for that component. He said the field stations will definitely
lose staff under a $300,000 annual reduction.
Such a cut would be implemented by combining and reducing water quality
and fish sampling, with the states examining the data analysis closely and
working with USGS to determine precisely how to absorb these cuts. Wetzel emphasized that any further
reductions in field station funding would require dropping a component
entirely. He acknowledged that the
A-Team's restructuring proposal does not fully meet the shortfall projected for
FY 02.
Tom Boland
thanked Leslie Holland-Bartels for her presentation of the data analysis and
urged that the A-Team hold a meeting to discuss the analysis and its
implications for LTRMP restructuring.
Holland-Bartels said the program partners need first to agree on the
target reductions and then determine how best to implement those cuts. She said that USGS will be able to describe
within approximately two weeks how it would absorb $482,000 in annual
reductions at UMESC. She said a
reduction of this magnitude would involve cuts in all areas of UMESC
activities.
Terry Moe asked
Foley to elaborate on Rock Island District staff's reluctance to suspend the
bathymetric and sediment work. Foley
said the data are quite important to the district and are being collected very
efficiently by the current team. Moe
said the same holds true for the field station monitoring work. Foley acknowledged this and said he was
simply informing the other program partners of MVR’s inclination on the
matter. Holland-Bartels concurred with
Moe that the bathymetric work can be deferred but said she would strongly
oppose eliminating the item indefinitely.
In response to a
question from Marv Hubbell, Rhodes explained that there is no strict formula
for determining which projects and programs are successful in recovering
savings and slippage money. Rhodes said
that any project or program that can demonstrate the ability to expend
additional funds can submit a request to recover savings and slippage. It is then a matter of management judgment
to determine how to allocate the available funds. He emphasized that it is essential for any program receiving
restored savings and slippage to ensure that it expends that money by the close
of the fiscal year.
Szcodronski
highlighted the following with regard to restructuring:
· In restructuring the LTRMP, we should
look at what can be deferred with the least long-term disruption to the
program.
· Personnel cuts will result in the loss of
significant river expertise that has considerable value.
· Personnel cuts may present potential
safety issues if the field sampling crews are too small or inexperienced.
· Field station managers need the
flexibility to determine how best to implement the target reductions while
maintaining the necessary consistency and quality standards.
Rhodes said he
understands the cost of losing personnel with expertise and experience, noting
that this has been a significant issue for the Corps as it has reduced its
staff size over the past several years.
In its
management role, Rhodes said the Rock Island District will be requiring clearly
defined scopes of work for the various LTRMP tasks. These scopes will specify deliverables and costs, but will leave
determination of the implementation details to USGS. Rhodes stressed that the Corps is not interested in
micro-managing the LTRMP.
Matt Kerschbaum
said the Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes the need to address the projected
budget shortfalls while maintaining the LTRMP's overall integrity as much as
possible. Kerschbaum agreed with
others' observation regarding the importance of flexibility in implementing the
restructuring.
Rhodes stressed
the importance of making the restructuring decisions soon, noting the partners'
previous requests for as much advance notice as possible regarding cuts. Rhodes said Colonel Mudd will forward his
recommendations to General Anderson within a couple of weeks and asked Foley to
ensure that the partners receive a copy of those recommendations. Rhodes estimated that General Anderson would
issue his response within approximately two weeks of receiving Colonel Mudd's
recommendations. Moe reiterated his
concern that the proposed cuts are unnecessary and urged consideration of
management alternatives that would alleviate the projected shortfall without
restructuring the LTRMP. Szcodronski
acknowledged the recurring LTRMP budget problems, but expressed frustration
that, just as the program is beginning to produce results, we are faced with
making cuts to address what is likely to be a temporary problem.
In response to
several questions regarding how MVR plans to consult with the program partners
in developing its recommendations to MVD, Rhodes said this would be for the
district to decide. Rhodes said a
fairly general restructuring plan from MVR could comply with General Anderson's
three principles, while leaving the district with the flexibility to work with
the program partners in developing the implementation details. Rhodes said program partners will have an
opportunity to offer comments to General Anderson regarding Colonel Mudd's
recommended restructuring plan.
Holland-Bartels said she does not expect to be directing the field
stations how to implement specific work items with the available funding and
does not anticipate that level of direction from MVR to USGS. She said it will be largely up to UMESC and
the field stations to determine the specifics of the FY 00 program given the
level of available funds.
Marv Hubbell
noted that the restructuring discussion so far has focused on what must be done
to address the near term projected shortfalls in accordance with General
Anderson's directive. Hubbell said the
partners have yet to address the longer term questions of how to modify the
program for its future under reauthorization.
Among the key questions for this long term restructuring, according to
Hubbell, is how to integrate special studies with the routine monitoring
efforts.
Szcodronski
asked how quickly the Corps might reflect increased authorization levels in its
budget requests, assuming the EMP is reauthorized in WRDA 99. Rhodes said the Corps has already submitted
its FY 01 request to the Office of Management and Budget, while Congress is
currently working on the FY 00 appropriations bills. He said the reaction to increased authorization levels would depend
on a variety of factors, noting that increased funding in FY 00 would be a
theoretical possibility but cautioning that there will be substantial
competition for any additional money available in FY 00.
Moe asked
whether there might be an opportunity for the Corps to contract with the USGS
bathymetric survey team to do other bathymetric work. This would permit USGS to retain the expert personnel in
anticipation that the LTRMP's bathymetric work will be resumed within a few
years. Jim Fisher suggested that the
crew might also be used to obtain bathymetric data for HREPs. Rhodes and Foley said they would explore
these ideas, but cautioned that funding for the Corps’ operation and
maintenance work is extremely tight in all three districts.
Steve Johnson
asked how the scopes of work referenced by Rhodes and Foley relate to the LTRMP
annual work plans and UMESC strategic plan.
Holland-Bartels said USGS has not prepared annual work plans in recent
years. She said UMESC will resume doing
the annual plans.
Other Business
Holly Stoerker
announced that the summer EMP-CC meeting will be held August 19 in Rock
Island. The fall meeting is scheduled
for November 18 in St. Louis. Meetings
of the Governors Liaison Committee and the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association will precede both EMP-CC meetings.
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
May 20, 1999
|
Dusty Rhodes |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Matt
Kerschbaum |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Kevin
Szcodronski |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gordon Farabee |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Dave Carvey |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Midwest Region |
|
Richard Stuart |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Tom Pullen |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Dudley Hanson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Leo Foley |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Jerry Skalak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Jackie Taylor |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
John Barko |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, WES |
|
Jim Fisher |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Keith Beseke |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service |
|
Ken Lubinski |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Yao Yin |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Randy
Burkhardt |
U.S. Geological
Survey, UMESC |
|
Dave Soballe |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Bill Bertrand |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Todd Koel |
Illinois
Natural History Survey |
|
Tom Boland |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Walt Popp |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Wetzel |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jeff Janvrin |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Tom Adams |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Jeff Stein |
American
Rivers |
|
Mark Beorkrem |
Sierra Club,
Midwest Region |
|
Dean Rebuffoni |
Sierra Club,
Midwest Region |
|
Ted Illston |
Northeast Midwest
Institute |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |