Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
August 5, 2009
Quarterly Meeting
Hotel Père
Rick Frietsche of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. on August 5, 2009. Other EMP-CC representatives present were Elizabeth Ivy (USACE), Mike Jawson (USGS), Rick Mollahan (IL DNR), 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.
Minutes from the May 21, 2009 Meeting
Tim Schlagenhaft moved and Janet Sternburg seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the May 21, 2009 meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 09 Fiscal Update
Marv Hubbell noted that EMP operated under a continuing resolution authority (CRA) at $18 million prior to the enactment of the FY 09 omnibus measure on March 11, 2009. The omnibus lowered EMP’s final FY 09 appropriation to $17.713 million. Within the program, funding was allocated as follows:
· Regional management — $662,000
· LTRM — $5,428,432
· HREPs — $11,622,568
Hubbell said EMP received an additional $13.179 million in stimulus funding in February 2009, bringing EMP’s total FY 09 obligation authority to $30.889 million. EMP’s stimulus funding is allocated to specific activities and projects, as follows:
· MVP — $5,048,000
· MVR — $3,298,000
· MVS — $4,833,000
FY 10 Appropriations Status
Hubbell reported that the President’s FY 10 budget request for EMP is $20 million. The House has approved $20 million and the Senate has approved $18 million in FY 10 funding for EMP. Hubbell said that conference action is expected after the Congress’ August recess.
Hubbell reported that, in its FY 10 energy and water report, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Corps to develop an EMP-NESP transition plan. However, the Committee recognized that shortfalls in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) will likely delay NESP construction funding, precluding an immediate transition. To facilitate future transition while maintaining the EMP’s current functionality in the interim, the Senate report would allow EMP to start new projects that could be completed or transferred to NESP within two years of NESP receiving adequate funding to support transition. Hubbell said the House appropriators did not include language regarding new starts or an EMP-NESP transition plan in their FY 10 appropriations report. Hubbell said it appears the Senate language would provide significant relief for EMP regarding planning and constructing new starts. However, he observed that the Senate’s language is subject to change in the conference report and interpretation with the Administration.
In response to a question from Bernie Hoyer, Hubbell said, while the Senate language appears to permit the EMP to initiate planning on new projects, certain details would remain to be addressed. For example, staff would need to ensure work done in developing the EMP Definite Project Reports (DPRs) would meet NESP’s Project Implementation Report (PIR) requirements, should the project ultimately be transferred. In response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Hubbell said Corps staff is also interpreting the Senate’s language to allow projects in the planning phase to move to construction. Elizabeth Ivy said MVD will consult with HQ to confirm their interpretation of the Senate’s language. Doug Blodgett asked how NESP would prioritize projects transitioned from EMP. According to Hubbell, projects on which construction had been initiated would likely become a high priority under NESP to complete. This would not, however, necessarily be the case for EMP projects in the planning or design phase.
Vince Shay asked whether the Corps staff anticipate complications when transferring projects. Hubbell said he did not, given that no project permitted under the EMP authority would be precluded under NESP’s authorization. He noted that EMP DPRs will likely increase their focus on explicitly describing the projects contributions to natural river processes and adaptive management to facilitate incorporation into NESP’s project prioritization framework. Ken Barr offered the NESP project planning handbook as a reference for EMP PDTs. Hubbell suggested Corps staff also explore ways to enhance compatibility with the Section 519 program, noting the potential for projects to be transferred between all three of these restoration programs.
Barb Naramore observed that the conference committee could approach the issue of EMP new starts and transition plan in several ways. The conference report could include all or parts of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s language, provide an alternative directive, or not speak to these issues at all. In the latter case, she said the Senate’s language would be controlling because it was not modified in conference and there is no alternate House language. She noted that conferees often choose to remain silent when there is no need to resolve differences between House and Senate reports. Naramore said she was encouraged that the Senate Appropriations Committee’s report provision so closely tracks the language proposed by the states and NGOs. She said the group will work to ensure that HQ and ASA(CW) staff interpret the language as intended.
Hubbell said EMP currently has 20 active projects, with approximately one-third of the projects in each phase—i.e. planning, design, and construction. Hubbell stressed the importance of having new projects identified for planning and design this year, if the restriction on new starts is lifted. He observed that the limited number of projects in the pipeline has already reduced EMP’s execution capability. He said this constraint will escalate in FY 10, especially for MVR and MVS, and will affect all three districts by FY 11. According to Hubbell, the EMP-CC-endorsed System Ecological Team (SET) structured decision-making process and the UMR reach planning process are fundamentally compatible. He suggested a combined approach, applying structured decision making to the reach planning output, could serve as an excellent framework to identify and select projects.
Public Involvement and Outreach
Hubbell noted that the August 5 EMP-CC/NECC joint session
will include a discussion of the Corps’ program-neutral outreach effort on the
UMRS. Its ultimate purpose is to create
unified messages tailored to various stakeholders about the Corps’ regional
programs and accomplishments. Hubbell
reported that the National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration was held on July
20-24, 2009, and featured a session on the
Jim Fischer announced that WI DNR’s Secretary, Matt Frank,
has expressed interest in highlighting green infrastructure along the UMR in
2010 Report to
Congress
Marv Hubbell said the EMP authorization requires the Corps to submit a Report to Congress (RTC) to the House and Senate authorizing committees every six years, with the next report being due by December 31, 2010. He reported that a second scoping meeting for the report was held on June 15-16, 2009, at which participants developed a draft outline and identified authors. Hubbell outlined the following anticipated schedule for the report development:
· August 5, 2009 EMP-CC reviews draft outline
· February 24, 2010 EMP-CC reviews rough draft RTC
· May 20, 2010 Seek EMP-CC endorsement of revised RTC
· June 2010 Submit RTC to MVD
· July 2010 Submit RTC to HQ
· December 2010 Submit the RTC to Congress
Hubbell expressed appreciation to the scoping participants
for their contributions. The
participants included representatives from USACE, USFWS, USGS, US EPA, MO DoC,
Required components of the RTC are as follows:
Hubbell said that, while using a format similar to the 2004 report, the 2010 report will have a greater focus on accomplishments and outcomes. He reviewed the following insights gained from developing the 1997 and 2004 reports:
· 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. It is important to 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.
Hubbell said he anticipates that the Corps will contract for an overall report editor and writer. UMRBA provided similar services for the 1997 and 2004 reports. In addition, each section of the report will have a lead author. Hubbell described the following sections of the scoping group’s draft outline:
· Chapter 1 — history and background, with focus on highlights from the past six years and anticipated goals for the next six years
· Chapter 2 — highlights and accomplishments of the program, HREPs, and LTRMP
· Chapter 3 — implementation issues, including NGOs as cost-share partners, cost sharing, HREP operation and maintenance, delegated authority, LTRMP program implementation, HREP planning and prioritization, HREP evaluation, future trends/emerging issues, coordination with non-structural flood damage mitigation efforts, and EMP-NESP transition issues
· Chapter 4 — Conclusions and recommendations, which will be an outgrowth from Chapters 2 and 3
EMP-CC members generally agreed that the 2010 RTC should follow the scoping group’s draft outline. Jim Fischer suggested that the report emphasize EMP’s maturity, evidenced by its national and international recognition. Bernie Hoyer suggested that the report emphasize the strong scientific base that LTRMP provides, allowing for advanced analysis that supports a wide range of management activities. Tim Schlagenhaft said the value of LTRMP’s long term data sets should also be highlighted. Hoyer suggested that the 2010 report address the potential for integrating non-structural flood risk management (FRM) planning with EMP project planning. Depending on the status of NESP at the time the RTC is completed, Schlagenhaft suggested the partners may want to recommend modifying the EMP authority to permit water level management (WLM) projects, and possibly other restoration tools. Sternburg also suggested that the report explore 100 percent federal funding for projects benefiting threatened and endangered species and projects below the ordinary high water level (OHWL).
Hubbell said UMRBA will distribute the 2004 EMP RTC Issue Papers for people’s reference, noting that they should prove useful in considering several issues that may be addressed in the 2010 RTC. Hubbell requested that partners submit comments on the draft annotated outline to him by September 30, 2009. Kirsten Mickelsen also requested that partners provide information regarding HREP evaluation results and EMP accomplishments, awards and recognitions, and collaboration efforts to Marv Hubbell by September 30.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects
District Reports
Brian Markert reported that MVS continues planning on Ted
Shanks, Rip Rap Landing, and
Jeff DeZellar reported that estimated construction costs for
Capoli Slough have doubled in the past year.
This escalation was driven by efforts to protect mussel beds in the
project area by reconfiguring island size and placement to reduce boater access
to the mussel areas. District staff is
now seeking ways to reduce project costs.
DeZellar said the draft DPR for Capoli is scheduled for completion in
December, while staff shortages have delayed planning on Harper’s
Tim Schlagenhaft expressed frustration that the Corps does not expect to follow through with its previous commitment to furnish four completion reports by the end of this fiscal year. Dan Wilcox said Corps staff are currently working with partnering agencies and will try to produce the four draft project reports by the end of September.
Jim Fischer expressed concern that staff reallocations and additional workload demands have resulted in insufficient USACE staff assigned to EMP projects. He noted increasingly common delays with project design and evaluation. Hubbell acknowledged that all districts have tremendous workloads, and said staff shortages have forced the Corps to prioritize construction-critical work.
Hubbell said he anticipates
that
HREP Showcase:
Ron Fisher described the history and management of
Fisher said the HREP encompasses approximately 4,488 acres
on the
Fisher reported that the
Marv Hubbell said he would like to discuss some of the
construction issues Fisher described at a future EMP-CC meeting. Rick Mollahan noted that the original
Long Term Resource Monitoring
LTRMP Showcase: The LaGrange Filed Station—A Research Sampler of Fish, Vegetation, and Asian Carp
Greg Sass presented the LaGrange field station’s research on fish, invasive species, and aquatic vegetation. He said the station, with LTRMP Additional Program Element (APE) funding, is researching fish community structure and population dynamics and recruitment. Sass said factors that affect fish population sustainability include having an adequate number of spawners, consistent recruitment, and suitable habitat and resources to complete life cycles. He observed that losing one or more of those factors can cause a fish population to collapse. Goals for the fisheries research include:
Sass said the past 20 years of LTRMP catch per unit effort (CPUE) fish data in each of the six trend pools were used to determine the reference condition for each area and the UMRS. An index was developed by dividing the data into quartiles; with the lowest quartile representing a poor condition, second quartile a fair condition, third quartile a good condition, and fourth quartile an excellent condition. Sass explained how the results can be used as a tool to assess fish habitat and ecosystem health in each pool and the UMRS, and to compare between pools.
Sass reported that the index of overall fish CPEU rankings indicate that the six trend pools are all in fair condition. However, when assessed based on species diversity, the results indicate that Pool 8 is in excellent condition, Pool 13 is in good condition, Pool 26 and the Open River are in fair condition, and the La Grange Reach and Pool 4 are in poor condition. In response to a question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Sass said that presence and abundance were considered in calculating species diversity. Dan Wilcox observed that a score for a particular area is relative only to other areas in the system—i.e., a “good” relative score may still represent low quality conditions in more absolute terms. Sass asked what Wilcox is proposing as the reference stream for the UMRS. Wilcox suggested considering the biological potential of the system. Schlagenhaft noted that upper and lower Pool 4 are vastly different, and he suspects that lower Pool 4 is more similar to Pool 8.
Sass reported that the LaGrange field station is researching
Asian carp in the
In response to a question from Barry Johnson, Sass said
there has been very little research to estimate Asian carps total food consumption,
though some work has been done in the
Sass said the LaGrange station has also been researching
submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the
Product Highlights
Mike Jawson reported that third quarter project highlights include the following:
Bathymetric and LiDAR Update
Karen Hagerty said Corps staff is continuing to implement
the LiDAR and Bathymetry Data Acquisition Plans, both of which were
significantly accelerated with 2009 stimulus funds. She anticipates data acquisition under both
plans will be completed by the end of FY 10.
She reported that cooperative efforts with
FY 10-14 Strategic and Operational Plan
Marv Hubbell reported that the final FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and Operational Plan was distributed to the partnership on July 7, 2009. He explained that a subgroup of the Strategic and Operational Planning Teams will be formed this fall to review progress made towards implementing the Plan and review the FY 10 LTRMP SOW as it relates to the goals identified in the Plan. He noted that some goals have already been accelerated with stimulus funds. The subgroup will include Marv Hubbell, Karen Hagerty, Barry Johnson, Jennie Sauer, Rick Frietsche, Tim Schlagenhaft, Janet Sternburg, and Bill Franz.
A-Team Report
Janet Sternburg explained that the LTRMP Strategic and Operational Plan identifies various tasks for the A-Team that may require the Team to expand its scope and composition. She proposed that an ad hoc group of A-Team, EMP-CC, and LTRMP representatives consider the A-Team’s scope, and clarify issues regarding 1) how to bring in additional areas of expertise (e.g., floodplain forests and mussels), and 2) broadening the A-Team’s roles and responsibilities. Sternburg said she envisions this effort will consist of a few conference calls, with no face-to-face meetings. She requested that willing volunteers contact her by August 31, 2009.
In response to a question from Barry Johnson, Sternburg and Hubbell clarified that they are seeking EMP-CC’s support for convening a small group in an effort to respond to the provision in the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and Operational Plan that calls for the EMP-CC to consider the A-Team’s roles and responsibilities. Bernie Hoyer asked if the additional areas of expertise needed for the A-Team are known. Sternburg said this should be an initial task for the ad hoc group. In response to a question from Joyce Collins, Sternburg said it remains to be determined whether the A-Team would need to be expanded to accommodate additional areas of expertise.
EMP-CC members agreed to move forward with the approach as proposed by Sternburg.
Other Business
The upcoming quarterly meetings are as follows:
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
August 5, 2009
EMP-CC Members
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Perk |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Jim Homann |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Monique Savage |
|
|
Scott Whitney |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Ron Fisher |
|
|
Jason Wilson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
Eric Schenk |
Ducks Unlimited |
|
Scott Stuewe |
HDR Engineering |
|
Matt Cochran |
HDR Engineering |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Max Starbuck |
National Corn Growers Association |
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Doug Blodgett |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Kim Schneider |
Schneider Communications |
|
Bill Wittland |
VoxStrategic |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|