Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
August 4, 2010
Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Hotel
Charles
Barton of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:02
a.m. on August 4, 2010. Other
EMP-CC representatives present were Kevin Foerster (USFWS),
Barry Johnson (USGS), Pat Boddy (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR),
Janet Sternburg (MO DoC), Jim Fischer (WI DNR), and Bill Franz (US EPA). A complete list of attendees follows these
minutes.
Minutes of the May 20, 2010 Meeting
Janet Sternburg requested
that, on page A-7, the minutes be revised to reflect that Kat McCain and
Bob Hrabik are both participating on the A-Team’s ad hoc Indicators Group, on behalf of their respective agencies.
Sternburg moved and Jim
Fischer seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the May 20, 2010
meeting as drafted, with the clarification offered. The motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 10 Fiscal Update
Marv Hubbell said EMP’s FY 10
appropriation is $16.47 million.
However, he noted that EMP’s average annual funding level is around $20
million. EMP’s FY 10 funding allocations
within the program are as follows:
·
Regional
Administration — $626,000*
·
LTRMP —
$4,983,180
·
HREPs —
$10,886,820
§
Program Model
Certification and Regional HREP Support — $250,000
§
MVP —
$2,691,046**
§
MVR — $5,254,728
§
MVS —
$2,691,046**
* Includes $26,000 in carry-over funds.
** MVP and MVS
are each receiving $500,000 less than they would under the typical allocation
formula in order to “repay” MVR for inter-district transfers from FY 09.
Hubbell said the regional
administration account was reduced from FY 09, except for increased spending
related to the 2010 Report to Congress.
LTRMP’s FY 10 efforts include base monitoring and three research
projects. The Corps is currently
supporting 22 HREPs, including two new construction starts and three to four
new planning starts.
Hubbell explained that EMP’s
FY 10 obligation authority is $31.539 million.
In addition to the $16.47 million annual appropriation, EMP had
$6.952 million in FY 09 carry-over and received $8.117 million in stimulus
funding. Hubbell said EMP has been very
successful in executing these funds, but substantial carry-over into FY 11 is
likely. In response to a question from
Janet Sternburg, Hubbell said the majority of FY 09 carry-over was due to
delays in awarding a construction contract for
FY 11 Appropriations Status
Hubbell reported that the
Senate Appropriations Committee has included $19.0 million for EMP in its
FY 11 energy and water spending measure (S. 3635). The House Energy and Water Subcommittee’s
FY 11 appropriations markup includes $21.15 million for EMP, matching the
President’s budget request. Hubbell said
the final FY 11 appropriations number will almost certainly not be determined
until after the November elections. For
now, EMP’s FY 11 planning assumes funding at $21.15 million. Hubbell reported that, under this assumption,
the program allocations would include:
·
Regional
Administration — $868,000
·
LTRMP —
$6,400,000
·
HREPs —
$13,882,000
§
Program Model
Certification and Regional HREP Support — $250,000
§
MVP — $4,100,000
§
MVR — $5,432,000
§
MVS — $4,100,000
Hubbell
said the Corps will adjust these allocations when EMP’s final appropriation is
known. [Subsequent to the meeting, on
September 30, Congress passed a continuing resolution for all spending measures
that is in effect until December 3, 2010.]
In response to a question
from Tim Schlagenhaft, Hubbell said EMP’s FY 11 public outreach efforts will
include partnering on the Our Mississippi
outreach activities and MVP’s possible public television documentary on
Pool 8 Islands.
Briefing with ASA(CW)
Hubbell
announced that the Administration has selected the UMRS as one of its ten
ecosystems of national significance.
Colonel McGinley is scheduled to brief ASA(CW) Jo-Ellen Darcy regarding
the Corps UMRS ecosystem restoration programs (i.e., EMP, NESP, and 519) on
August 17, 2010. Darcy has requested
similar presentations regarding other Corps restoration programs involved in
improving the ten nationally significant ecosystems. In considering these areas as its national
priorities, the Administration has said it will focus on the ongoing and future
restoration efforts within these ecosystems and identify ways it can better
support them.
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Hubbell and Barb Naramore clarified that the
Administration also selects three to six priority projects or programs to
highlight in annual budget documents. In
recent years, this has also included EMP.
The list of ecosystems of national significance is a separate effort
that focuses at a larger scale and describes the Corps’ national goals.
USACE’s High Priority Performance Goals
Hubbell reported that USACE
has identified Pool 8 Islands,
Public Outreach
Jeff
DeZellar said MVP’s contracting staff are developing a bid for a public
television feature on the Pool 8 Islands.
Initially, a Twin Cities public television station proposed the
idea. But since the Corps would fund
some of the production costs, a bid needs to be solicited in order to avoid
sole sourcing. Recently, a
DeZellar
reported that MVP’s July 27 public meeting on L&D 3 fish passage was
well-attended. He said discussions
mostly focused on issues related to Asian carp and potential impacts to fishing
activities in upper Pool 4. DeZellar
said MVP will host an August 4 public meeting regarding Pool 8 construction
activities and an August 30 boat tour of the Pool 8 project.
Naramore
asked what the anticipated product(s) and costs are related to the public
television feature. DeZellar said the
Twin Cities public television station’s proposal includes a 45- to 50-minute
documentary on Pool 8 Islands. The
television station would broadcast the documentary. The Corps would retain rights to, and have
joint editorial control of, the documentary.
He said the television station estimated total production costs at about
$50,000, of which it would provide 50 percent through in-kind services. DeZellar said MVP would like to proceed with
a very similar arrangement.
Kevin
Bluhm said the Corps has distributed the Our
Mississippi 2010 summer newsletter, which is the newsletter’s third
edition. The Corps is currently
distributing 30,000 copies to the Corps partner and local visitor centers and
businesses. He said the Our Mississippi
Team hopes to expand the newsletter’s distribution, install informal kiosks
along the river, and develop an outreach website. In response to a question from Bernie
Schonhoff, Bluhm said the newsletter’s distribution includes about 14,000
individuals, agencies, or organizations.
About 1,000 of those have asked to be added to the distribution
list. Pat Boddy encouraged the Corps to
contact the UMR states’ tourist directors.
She also suggested exploring the possibility of co-mailing the
newsletters with the states’ conservation-related outreach materials.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked if
these newsletters are published on a web site.
Bluhm said the newsletters are available on NESP’s web page: http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/UMRS/NESP/Projects/NESPProjects/default.cfm?cat=np&sec=documents&tid=1. He also reported that the Corps is currently
creating an Our Mississippi web site.
Kevin Foerster asked how
article ideas are generated. Bluhm said
the Corps receives many suggestions for story ideas from readers. The Our Mississippi Team then finds the best
fitting articles related to each newsletter’s theme.
Roger Perk suggested that
Corps staff consult with partners regarding outreach strategies and
opportunities, such as exploring creative ways to expand the newsletters’
readership. Hubbell noted that the Our Mississippi newsletters are located
at the Corps UMRS distribution centers, which represent great opportunities to
connect with a wide-ranging audience.
2010 Report to Congress
Marv Hubbell outlined the
below major milestones for the 2010 Report to Congress (RTC) development and
review. He said Chapter 3 of the RTC
will focus solely on the EMP/NESP Transition Plan.
·
August 23 —
September 24: Partner review of draft
RTC
·
October 18 —
November 5: Partner review of revised
draft RTC
·
December 1: MVR submits final RTC to MVD
Charles Barton expressed
MVD’s commitment to submitting the 2010 RTC to Corps Headquarters in December,
but acknowledged that the report will not reach Congress by the end of this
year.
Hubbell
said the Implementation Issues Assessment (IIA) is scheduled for completion on
September 15, 2011. The IIA will address
various program- and policy-related issues.
Partners have identified these issues to include:
·
Nongovernmental
organizations as cost share partners
·
Cost sharing
·
HREP operation
and maintenance
·
Delegated
authority
·
Land acquisition
·
LTRMP program
implementation
·
HREP planning and
prioritization
·
HREP evaluations
·
UMRS
trends/emerging issues
·
EMP’s habitat
project types
·
Coordination with
other UMRS restoration programs
·
Increasing
demands on limited state resources
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects
Regional Review Plan
Marv Hubbell reported that
many new review requirements mandated in Sections 2034 and 2035 of WRDA 07 took
effect on January 1, 2010. All new
planning starts and projects currently in planning are subject to the new
requirements, which will add significant delays to projects with substantial
planning already completed. For example,
Hubbell explained that the
Corps anticipates finalizing a Regional Review Plan to standardize the three
UMR District’s project review protocols by December 2010. According to Hubbell, coordination among the
districts will lead to significant cost efficiencies. For example, EMP, NESP, and MVD are
collaborating to certify 8 new models to use in plan formulation. In response to a question from Janet
Sternburg, Hubbell clarified that Implementation Guidance regarding the WRDA 07
requirements pertain to District Quality Control/Quality Assurance (DQC),
Agency Technical Review (ATR), and Types I and II Independent External Peer
Review (IEPR). Charles Barton said the
Corps will present more detailed information on these new internal and external
review requirements and cost estimation procedures, including their
implications for study time and cost, at the November 17 EMP-CC/NECC meeting.
In response to a question
from Sternburg, Hubbell said he is not aware that any UMR Districts’ models
used in plan formulation have been identified to require significant
changes. However, he said the Corps is
now required to provide more detailed documentation on the models. Roger Perk said the certification contractor
will identify any issue areas related to the models, but the Corps is
responsible for correcting any models.
In response to a question
from Jim Fischer, Barton clarified that the new requirements apply to all Corps
construction projects, including all planning, engineering, and operation and
maintenance products. In response to a
question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Perk estimated that additional costs associated
with the new requirements could increase average project review costs around
ten percent.
Jeff DeZellar noted that many
HREPs will not be subject to an IEPR.
However, Gary Meden said projects still need a waiver to be exempt from
undergoing an IEPR.
Ongoing EMP Projects
In response to previous
requests, Hubbell said the Corps staff will distribute a complete inventory of
EMP HREPs within the next couple of weeks.
District Reports
Brian Markert reported that MVS
submitted Ted Shanks to ATR on August 2.
Rip Rap Landing and Wilkinson Island are MVS’s other planning
priorities. He said design work for
Pools 25 and 26 Islands is nearly complete and MVS anticipates awarding a
contract for Batchtown dredging this fall.
Calhoun Point is the District’s current construction priority. However, Markert explained that all MVS
construction projects have been delayed this summer due to high water
levels. The Swan Lake Performance
Evaluation Report should be ready for distribution shortly.
Jeff DeZellar said MVP’s
construction priority remains Pool 8 Islands Phase III. He anticipates the District will complete
construction on Stage 3A next year and on Stage 3B in 2012. MVP’s FY 11 planning priorities are L&D 3
fish passage and Capoli Slough. DeZellar
reported that MVP received MVD’s approval on fact sheets for Lake Winneshiek,
McGregor Lake, and L&D 3 fish passage, and minor comments on five more fact
sheets. The District will submit
revisions of those five fact sheets shortly.
DeZellar said a completion report for Guttenburg Ponds is undergoing
review. MVP is going to try contracting
out one or two of the seven pending completion reports. If this is successful, the remaining reports
will also likely be contracted.
Barb Naramore noted that the
L&D 3 fish passage planning cost estimate included in the Corps’ task order
is higher than the initial estimate. In
response to a question from Naramore, DeZellar said MVP has reserved additional
stimulus funds to cover the increase in the project’s planning costs.
Steve Rumple said MVR plans
to award a construction contract for Fox Island in FY 10. He reiterated that the new WRDA review
requirements have delayed progress on Rice Lake and are expected to impact Pool
12 Overwintering next year. Rumple said
he anticipates
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Hubbell explained that the Corps had previously requested
that EMP-CC cost-share partners provide evaluation reports and annual
information on O&M activities and costs.
This request was triggered after MVS lost many of its HREP-related files
in a fire. Currently, Corps staff are
compiling all O&M manuals and evaluation reports available for completed
projects and incorporating that information into the HREP database, which will
be available to the public.
Reach Planning
Chuck Spitzack reviewed the
UMRS reach planning process, which is intended to encompass both top-down and
bottom-up approaches:
·
NESP/EMP Regional
Support Team (RST) prepares a reach and system planning notebook, which guides
the reach planning process.
·
On an ongoing
basis, RST coordinates with NESP’s Science Panel and EMP’s Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program (LTRMP) scientists for input regarding habitat and
information needs and monitoring and adaptive management approaches.
·
The reach
planning teams (RPTs) draft floodplain reach objective reports and reach plans,
from which the RST develops a systemic objectives report and a plan for
ecosystem restoration for the UMRS.
·
Corps
district-based River Management Teams (RMTs) and the Illinois River Team review
the documents listed above that apply within their respective district
boundaries.
·
NECC and EMP-CC
consider endorsement of the system-level documents — i.e., the notebook, system
objectives report, and system plan.
Spitzack
noted that the RST also provides guidance to NESP’s system planning teams
(SPTs) in their development of specialty system plans (e.g., systemic forest
management plan), which are provided to the RPTs to inform reach planning. The RTPs then identify restoration needs and
recommend systemic adaptive management activities to the RST.
Spitzack
acknowledged that this first attempt at reach planning had complications. But, he said this effort has produced good
products and insights. Tim Schlagenhaft
expressed discontent with the reach planning structure, specifically the
seeming disconnect between system goals and project identification and
sequencing. He said MVP’s RPT did not
address system-scale objectives, such as water level management or floodplain
restoration. For example, while partners
identified restoring the river’s natural hydrograph as the highest system goal,
none of the RPTs’ priority new starts include water level management
techniques. Schlagenhaft encouraged the
Corps to simplify the overall process.
Pat Boddy said the reach
planning process diagram suggests there is not a clear, direct connection
between the system and reach plans at any point in the process. Spitzack said the RST serves as the
“connection point” between the two plans. The system plan summarizes and synthesizes the
four floodplain reach plans. Boddy also
recalled that system goals and objectives are supposed to drive the reach
plans. Spitzack said the reach planning
notebook, which outlines the system vision and goals, should serve as a guide
for the RPTs to prioritize projects that address floodplain and systemic
habitat and ecosystem needs. Spitzack
said the Corps will incorporate lessons learned from this first iteration into
the next round of reach planning.
In response to a question
from Hubbell, Schlagenhaft stressed his concern that the reach plans do not
address major systemic goals. He said
this process does not facilitate a systemic approach to selecting projects that
are best for the system. Bernie Schonhoff
expressed his mutual concern. Jim
Fischer asked if the floodplain reach projects are meant to reflect geomorphic
needs or systemic needs. Spitzack said
projects should address local habitat needs and also directly link to system
goals in some way.
Sternburg observed that each
RPT implemented reach planning very differently and focused only on their
respective geographic boundaries. She
asked how the system and floodplain reach plans will be linked, when there is
currently no defined mechanism for partners to consider projects
systemically. Sternburg also suggested
that the Corps address the issue areas from this first iteration prior to
implementing the next iteration. Spitzack
acknowledged partners’ concerns and said the Corps will reexamine the reach
planning process.
Schlagenhaft
noted that, if the system objectives report was available in this first
iteration, the RPT’s floodplain reach plans and prioritized projects might have
been substantially different. Spitzack
acknowledged that the first iteration of reach planning was not implemented as
intended — i.e., the system objectives report and special systemic plans were
not completed before initiating floodplain reach planning.
In response to a question
from Bill Franz, Spitzack said NECC, EMP-CC, RST, and the Science Panel are all
driving the reach planning process.
Hubbell said he agrees with Schlagenhaft’s concerns, and stressed the
need to select program-neutral projects that are the most beneficial for the
UMRS over the long term. Sternburg
observed that previous planning efforts selected projects that resulted in
important benefits to the river, even if sometimes only on a local scale. However, Sternburg emphasized that the
ultimate goal is to restore the river’s natural processes and functions, rather
than simply making improvements to localized areas. To do that, projects need to have clear links
to system goals and objectives.
Boddy suggested that the
Corps and partners employ the Kaizen process to explore potential improvements
prior to the next iteration of reach planning.
[Note: Kaizen is an analytical
approach focusing on continuous improvements to a process.] Fischer acknowledged that partners have been
frustrated with the overall process and communication, but expressed appreciation
to the RST and RPTs for their substantial efforts in developing the reports and
making the effort program-neutral.
HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework
Hubbell proposed using the
2003 HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework this fall to select FY 11 planning
new starts, in a program-neutral context.
He reviewed the Framework’s goals, which include:
·
Ensure that HREPs
address ecological needs at the pool, reach, and system scales
·
Enhance public
understanding and trust
·
Retain flexibility
for efficient and effective program execution and to apply adaptive management
principles
Hubbell outlined the
Framework’s four-stage process, as follows:
In response to a request by
Kevin Foerster, Hubbell said Corps staff will compile and distribute a
comprehensive membership list of the various UMRS technical and management
teams, product delivery teams, etc. In
response to a suggestion by Barry Johnson, Charles Barton said the Corps will
provide this contact list on its website.
Hubbell asked partners
whether EMP-CC should use the Framework to sequence the SET-endorsed
projects. He said this would likely
entail three meetings starting in February 2011. Schlagenhaft suggested that EMP simply select
a few projects to implement in the near term, in light of the program-neutral
reach planning effort. Hubbell agreed,
but said the Framework would allow partners to sequence project that would
reflect immediate and long-term UMRS ecological and programmatic needs. He said partners can explore various ways to
sequence these projects to show direct benefits to ecosystem needs. For example, EMP could prioritize geographic areas
with the greatest restoration needs.
Schlagenhaft and Franz
stressed the need to sequence projects based on ecological needs that are also
program-neutral, rather than focused on one program’s needs. Hubbell said the Corps views the HREP
strategic plan as a bridge between EMP and NESP. He clarified that, while Congress has
directed the Corps to prepare for a program transition, EMP and NESP still have
separate authorities and budgets, limiting the degree to which the two programs
can meld. Meden noted that this is a
time of considerable uncertainty for the two programs, and therefore the Corps
must remain flexible and prepared to transition. The Corps is not sure how Congress will
direct the two programs in the near future.
Franz articulated that partners are not as concerned with which program
implements the projects. He said
selecting the best projects to enhance the river system is more important to
the partners. Barb Naramore observed
that the Corps has provided partners with a unique opportunity to engage in
program implementation issues that sometimes also require partners to examine
very detailed considerations. She said
the challenge now for EMP and NESP is to determine how to implement projects in
this time of significant uncertainty.
Spitzack referred back to
Schlagenhaft’s earlier suggestion to select program-neutral projects that
fulfill immediate needs. Spitzack
suggested that partners consider a structured decision-making process for
determining the next couple of projects for planning based on overriding system
needs for each floodplain reach instead of a complete sequencing of all
potential projects. Boddy recognized
that experimenting with sequencing approaches in the short-term could inform
long-term sequencing processes.
In response to a question
from Hubbell, Johnson expressed interest in updating the EMP HREP Planning and
Sequencing Framework’s process. In
particular, he suggested that partners examine EMP’s project sequencing process
in the HREP Strategic Plan.
Schlagenhaft asked Spitzack
if NESP staff would be comfortable with implementing a program-neutral approach
to project sequencing. Spitzack
expressed his support for NESP and EMP partners to proceed in a program-neutral
fashion, and incorporating lessons learned from the first iteration of reach
planning.
HREP Strategic Plan
Hubbell reviewed that, at the
November 19, 2009 EMP-CC meeting, EMP-CC expressed interest in exploring the
possibility for an HREP strategic plan.
Following that meeting, a group of EMP-CC members and other program partners
developed a proposal for the plan, including the plan’s potential objectives,
end product, process, and timeframe. At
its February 24, 2010 meeting, EMP-CC endorsed the proposal and requested that
the Corps develop a detailed scope of work for consideration in August. However, given the proceeding discussion
about program neutrality, the Corps would like to reconsider the HREP strategic
planning process. Hubbell said the Corps
will distribute a revised HREP Strategic Planning Framework prior to the
November EMP-CC quarterly meeting.
Hubbell outlined the HREP
Strategic Plan’s purposes, which are to:
·
Identify
priorities and actions that will facilitate the HREP component’s
accomplishments of its goals and objectives;
·
Address systemic
and site-specific issues related to selection, design, management,
construction, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation of HREPs;
·
Develop systemic
approaches that enhance delivery of HREP program and project planning,
management, and evaluation; and
·
Identify and
recommend any necessary changes to the Corps’ policies or EMP’s authorization.
In response to a question
from Gretchen Benjamin, Hubbell said Corps staff still need to consider the
relationships among the HREP Strategic Plan, EMP/NESP Transition Plan,
Implementation Issues Assessment, HPEP Planning and Sequencing Framework, HREP
Design Manual, and a possible HREP workshop.
In response to a question
from Boddy, Hubbell said the HREP strategic plan’s first purpose refers to
EMP’s various programmatic implementation goals for the HREP component. For example, the HREP Strategic Plan might
explore how to determine the appropriate balance in project designs that
minimize O&M obligations and provide the highest level of performance
related to ecosystem objectives. In
response to a suggestion from Boddy for the Plan to also consider ecological
needs, Hubbell explained that partners agreed to address these needs in the
program-neutral reach planning process.
In response to a question
from Johnson, Hubbell said the Corps will also reconsider the Plan’s
development schedule when revising the HREP Strategic Planning Framework. Bernie Schonhoff mentioned that the HREP
Strategic Plan could also explore ways to enhance EMP’s use of adaptive
management to learn from completed HREPs.
Hubbell overviewed the major
assumptions for HREP strategic planning, as follows:
Hubbell recognized that the
Corps will also need to reconsider these assumptions when revising the HREP
Strategic Planning Framework. In
response to a question from Hubbell, EMP-CC members did not express objections
to, or offer any additional, issue topics that were proposed in the
Framework.
Hubbell welcomed the USFWS to
co-chair the strategic planning process. Kevin Foerster said USFWS is willing to do so,
but does not yet know who will serve as USFWS’s representative. Hubbell added that Minnesota DNR has offered
to provide facilitation. Brian
Stenquist, who provided very valuable contributions as a facilitator to the
LTRMP strategic planning effort, has agreed to facilitate the HREP strategic
planning effort. Hubbell said he is also
exploring options to reimburse the states for travel costs.
Sternburg requested that the
Corps convene a conference call to discuss the revised HREP Strategic Planning Framework
prior to the November quarterly meeting. Hubbell said the Corps will provide a revised
HREP Strategic Planning Framework, including a program-neutral exploration of
project identification and prioritization, to partners for review by September
30. The Corps will convene a conference
call in mid-October to discuss the revisions.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
Product Highlights
Barry Johnson reported that
USGS staff recently developed the 2010 land cover/land use data (LC/LU)
collection protocols (e.g., resolution, flight and shutter speeds, light
conditions, etc.), and have also increased their proficiency with operating the
new 3-D processing equipment. LC/LU
collection efforts began on August 4, starting in the
Karen Hagerty asked how USGS
will account for the current flood conditions.
Jennifer Dieck explained that LC/LU data sets are just a snap-shot in
time and USGS needs to work where there are areas of maximum vegetation. In response to a question from Jim Fischer,
Hubbell said the LC/LU accuracy assessment has not yet been included in USGS’s
FY 11 scope of work. Partners still need
to determine the appropriate approach and level of investment. Hubbell said the November 17, 2010 EMP-CC
meeting will include a discussion on options for completing an accuracy
assessment. These options will include a
combination of field- and map-based validations.
Kevin Stauffer asked if the
LC/LU data set will include Pool 4 and
Johnson reported that LTRMP’s
third quarter product highlights include the following:
·
Two
manuscripts: 1) Cumulative effects of
restoration efforts on ecological characteristics of an open water area within
the Upper Mississippi River; and 2) Longitudinal trends and discontinuities in
nutrients, chlorophyll, and suspended solids in the Upper Mississippi
River: implications for transport,
processing, and export by large rivers.
·
A completion
report: Evaluation of light penetration
on Navigation Pools 8 and 13 of the Upper Mississippi River.
Johnson noted that the
completion report showed a strong relationship between suspended solids and
light extinction. Tim Schlagenhaft
mentioned that this type of information is very valuable to river managers, including
efforts to minimize sedimentation in Lake Pepin.
Johnson reported that USGS’s
Water Resources Division (WRD) is conducting its periodic review of the
Wisconsin Water Science Center. On July
19-22, USGS WRD representatives met with UMESC and Corps staff to conduct a
technical review of LTRMP. Johnson said
UMESC anticipates receiving WRD’s written review report in about six
weeks. However, Johnson anticipates an
overall positive review. He said USGS
will share the WRD’s review findings when they are made available.
Bathymetric and LiDAR Update
Hagerty reported that
systemic bathymetry data collection is complete. She said data collection was funding entirely
through the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act stimulus funds. The data are currently undergoing QA/QC. In FY 11, UMESC staff will integrate the data
into GIS. Hagerty said Corps staff also
hope to complete data collection for systemic LiDAR this fall, contingent on
weather and water level conditions.
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Hagerty said the systemic bathymetry and LiDAR data sets
will be publicly available in GIS shape files.
Sternburg expressed appreciation to the Corps and UMESC in developing
the bathymetric and LiDAR data sets, noting the value of these data.
A-Team Report
Kevin
Stauffer said the next A-Team meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 5. He said the meeting will include the typical
program updates, a report from the ad hoc
Indicators Group, and a discussion of the new annual field station product
report.
Ad Hoc Indicators Group Update
Hagerty
said the A-Team’s ad hoc Indicators
Group anticipates convening a conference call shortly to review draft fish and
macroinvertebrates subgroup reports.
Hagerty is currently drafting the parent document.
LTRMP Showcase:
Using Squarified Treemaps to Summarize LTRMP Data
Ben Schlifer showcased the
use of squarified tree maps, which display complex data in a space-constrained
view. Schlifer explained that squarified
treemaps convert data into rectangles that are arranged by hierarchy in a
chart. This web-based tool provides an
overall analysis of a data set, including status and trends, in one view. Multiple dimensions of a data set can be
visually represented concurrently by the color and relative size of the
associated rectangles.
Schlifer said LTRMP staff
have created a squarified treemap that queries LTRMP fisheries data, which is
available at http://umesc.usgs.gov/data_library/fisheries/graphical/treemap/ltrmp_fish_treemap.html. He demonstrated how the tool can arrange the
fisheries data to display status and trend information about catch-per-unit in
each pool, and how to create tables and graphs of the queried information.
In response to a question
from Bernie Schonhoff, Schlifer said users are able to select portions of the
fisheries database as inputs to the squarified treemap. Brian Ickes explained that users can adjust the
squarified treemap query of LTRMP’s database to address a particular focused
research question. For example, users
may not want to include rare species that would create outliers, or invasive
species if the users want to focus on the native population. Ickes and Barry Johnson said USGS staff can
customize LTRMP’s squarified treemap of the fisheries database according to
partner-identified priority uses for this treemap. Karen Hagerty said the A-Team’s ad hoc Indicators Group could identify
and recommend those priority uses.
Johnson encouraged partners to test out the treemap tool and provide
feedback to USGS regarding its possible applications.
Other Business
Kevin Foerster said the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has designated the Upper Mississippi River
floodplain between Wabasha and the Quad Cities as a Wetland of International
Importance. He announced that, on
October 10, 2010, there will be public events at many sites along the river
designed to recognize the designation and encourage people to engage with the
river. On October 14, USFWS will also
host an invitation event with several dignitaries, including the current Ramsar
Secretary and the Interior Secretary Salazar.
Foerster also announced that
Bob Clevenstine will now serve as the UMR refuge liaison to MVR and MVS. He will be based in
Upcoming
quarterly meetings are as follows:
With no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
August 4, 2010
EMP-CC Members
|
Charles Barton |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Kevin Foerster |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Pat Boddy |
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 |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
Others In Attendance
|
Jeff DeZellar |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Kevin Bluhm |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
David Potter |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Chuck Spitzack |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Gary Meden |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Roger Perk |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Karen Hagerty |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Steve Rumple |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Chuck Theiling |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Charlie Hanneken |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Kat McCain |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO |
|
Jack Waide |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Nate De Jager |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jennifer Dieck |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jeff Houser |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Brian Ickes |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Becky Kreiling |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jennifer Sauer |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Ben Schlifer |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Yao Yin |
U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Bernie Schonhoff |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Kevin Stauffer |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jeff Lee |
Barr Engineering |
|
Greg Orum |
Inter-Fluve, Inc. |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Marc Schultz |
La Crosse County Conservation Alliance |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Laura Kammin |
Prairie Rivers Network |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Thomas Ball |
Sierra Club, Piasa Palisades |
|
John Wetzel |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Dave Hokanson |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |