Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Coordinating Committee
August 19, 1999
Four Points Hotel Sheraton
Rock Island, Illinois
John Blankenship
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
on Thursday, August 19, 1999. Other
EMP-CC members present were Dusty Rhodes (USACE), Bob Delaney (USGS), Bill
Bertrand (IL DNR), Kevin Szcodronski (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR),
Gordon Farabee (MO DOC), Terry Moe (WI DNR), and Bob Goodwin (MARAD). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the May Meeting
The minutes of
the May 20, 1999 EMP-CC meeting were approved as written.
Program Management
Leo Foley
reported that EMP expenditures totaled $11.5 million, or 63 percent of the
$18.4 million FY 99 allocation, as of June 30. Foley said he expects the program to achieve an expenditure rate
of close to 100 percent for the fiscal year.
The St. Paul District estimates that it may have between $200,000 and
$300,000 in unexpended HREP funds available for reprogramming. Foley said he will ask USGS for one or more
scopes of work identifying specific tasks that could be accomplished in FY 99
or 00 with this funding.
Foley reported
that the House has approved the President's request for $18.955 million in
FY 00 EMP funding. The
Senate-passed amount is $16.055 million.
House and Senate conferees have not yet reconciled their energy and
water spending measures. As a result,
the Corps has prepared proposed allocations for both the House and Senate
figures (see attached). Those proposed
allocations assume 14.6 percent savings and slippage; administrative costs of
$110,000; habitat needs assessment costs of $500,000; and the traditional
one-third/two-thirds spilt between the LTRMP and HREPs. Within the habitat program, the traditional
allocation among the districts (i.e., MVP - 35%, MVR - 40%, and MVS - 25%) was
used. Gordon Farabee said he would like
to revisit the allocation of HREP funds among the districts under the
reauthorized EMP.
As reported at
the February EMP-CC meeting, projected EMP funding is $26.0 million in total
for FY 01 and 02. Foley explained that
this amount reflects the extremely tight budget ceilings for the Corps'
construction general account in FY 01 and beyond. These ceilings continue to be a very significant constraint on
the Corps' budget. However, Foley noted
that the EMP funding level will likely be reassessed as the President's FY 01
budget proposal is developed. The
higher EMP authorization enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1999 will be one factor considered in this reassessment.
Foley also
indicated that MVD and the districts are currently doing FY 01-04 budget drills
exploring alternatives for "ramping up" the EMP to its new authorized
funding level. Preliminary results from the drills indicate that it would take
three to four years to increase program capability to the new authorized amount
of $33.17 million. Foley said the
drills are being done in response to inquiries from the Assistant Secretary of
the Army’s (ASA’s) office following the HREP dedication ceremonies. In response to a question from Terry Moe,
Dusty Rhodes said reauthorization at higher funding levels would not
necessarily trigger a change in the Administration's budget priorities. Rather, Rhodes attributed the ASA's recent
inquiries regarding program capabilities to the Secretary’s satisfaction with
what he saw at the dedication ceremonies.
Rhodes credited the districts and field staff from the Fish and Wildlife
Service and states with the success of those ceremonies.
Reauthorization Update
Barb Naramore
reported that the House and Senate passed the 1999 WRDA on August 5 and the
President signed the bill into law on August 17. WRDA 99 establishes the EMP as a continuing authority, with
authorized annual funding levels of $22.75 million for HREPs and $10.42 million
for the LTRMP. Naramore noted that the
non-federal share for cost-shared projects has been increased from 25 to 35
percent. A separate provision in WRDA
99 allows up to 80 percent of the non-federal share to be provided in-kind.
According to
Naramore, the new authority requires an EMP report to Congress by
December 31, 2004 and every six years thereafter. Each report to Congress is to include
updated habitat needs information, with the first HNA to be completed by
September 30, 2000. The reauthorization
also directs the Corps to establish a technical advisory committee. However, Naramore observed that there appear
to be some ambiguities in the legislative language regarding the technical
advisory committee. Specifically, the
section establishing the committee refers to the portion of the legislation
that authorizes the HREPs, yet it also suggests that the committee's scope
includes monitoring and the HNA.
Moreover, the $350,000 that it appears was intended for the committee is
actually structured as an additional authorization for the habitat program. While they were not originally proponents of
the technical committee, Naramore noted that the states did suggest ways of
resolving these ambiguities in comments they offered to the conferees. These comments were not, however, reflected
in the final legislation. Naramore also
highlighted other provisions in WRDA 99 with a potential relationship to the
EMP, including the Missouri River/Middle Mississippi habitat enhancement
authority and the UMRS comprehensive plan authority. She noted that the UMRBA will be offering its perspectives
regarding these provisions and monitoring their implementation.
Jeff Stein
explained that American Rivers was an advocate for the technical advisory
committee and said they intended the committee to consider all aspects of the
EMP, not merely HREPs. Stein said
American Rivers offered language for inclusion in the conference report that
would have clarified the purpose of the committee. However, this language was not included in the conferees' report.
In response to a
question from Bob Delaney, Holly Stoerker explained that the 1986 WRDA
provision authorizing recreation projects was not deleted in the
reauthorization. However, the
recreation projects funding authority is only 15 years in duration and will
thus expire in FY 02. With respect
to funding the technical advisory committee, Delaney noted that members of the
LTRMP's International Science Review Committee are not compensated for their
time, though their travel costs are covered.
Terry Moe asked
whether the technical advisory committee will trigger the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA). Stein said the term
"advisory" was used in place of the original "review" to
clarify that the committee is not intended to have any approval authority. He said "advisory" was used
without consideration of any FACA implications.
Dusty Rhodes
explained that the Assistant Secretary will issue guidance governing
implementation of WRDA 99 and that this guidance will determine how the Corps
implements the various provisions of the EMP reauthorization. In response to a question from Gordon
Farabee, Rhodes said the schedule for development of this guidance is
uncertain, but said there will certainly be time for interested parties to
share their perspectives with the ASA before the guidance is issued.
Moe acknowledged
that Corps staff have been quite busy, but urged that they continue to pursue
the administrative changes recommended in the partnership Report to Congress
and discussed at the May 1999 EMP-CC meeting.
He asked for an update on the status of these recommendations at the
EMP-CC’s November meeting.
Habitat Needs Assessment
Mike Thompson
reported that the HNA project management plan (PMP) was updated in June to
reflect comments from the technical team and revisions to the estimated
budget. Thompson said he anticipates
future updates to the PMP in February and August 2000. Bob Clevenstine reviewed the status of
several PMP technical tasks, noting that the species-guild and habitat
classifications should be distributed for review soon. Clevenstine also reported that Gretchen
Bonfert of Green Strategies has been hired to synthesize the input received
from the UMRCC/Audubon Society public meetings. A replacement for Bruce Carlson as chair of the public
involvement team has not been named.
Thompson
reviewed the overall HNA budget, explaining that funding is currently allocated
among HNA participants as follows:
The
funding allocation among tasks, based on current cost estimates, is as follows:
Thompson
said he expects HNA expenditures to total between $420,000 and $430,000 in
FY 99.
Steve
Johnson expressed concern that only $12,000 has been reserved for Technical
Task 4, which involves identifying desired future conditions and habitat
needs. Thompson said this amount is
subject to change as the specifics of Task 4 are refined. Clevenstine noted that the technical team
views Task 4 as essentially an integration of the results of Tasks 1‑3. Thus, the team feels comfortable that Task 4
will not require significant resources.
Thompson said that a small group formed by the technical team will
be charged with doing the integration required for Task 4. Johnson said he is troubled by the prospect
of a small group doing this synthesis.
Thompson said the group may circulate its analysis for comment before
the draft HNA is released. Johnson
urged that this be done.
Thompson
estimated that the HNA is currently about six weeks behind schedule, but said
the partnership report should be completed by September 2000, the deadline
under the baseline project schedule.
Thompson said many of the technical tasks are scheduled for completion
in January, after which the focus will shift to writing and reviewing the
assessment. In response to a question
from Barb Naramore, Thompson explained that review of the various technical
task products will be accomplished through the established agency points of
contact (POCs). Naramore urged
that the review drafts and schedules also be posted on the Internet to
facilitate review and comment by people who may not be linked to an HNA POC.
Dusty
Rhodes noted that WRDA 99 directs completion of the HNA by September 30,
2000. While the legislation does not
explicitly require the assessment to be submitted to Congress, Rhodes said
there may be an expectation that the HNA will be ready to submit to Congress by
this date. If this is the case, the
partnership report will need to be complete well in advance to allow for Washington-level
review. Thompson said the current
schedule does not include time for Washington review before September 2000 and
said it would be a substantial challenge to revise the schedule to provide such
time. Rhodes said the Corps will
explore the question further and determine whether the PMP schedule needs to be
adjusted to allow time for higher level review prior to September 30, 2000.
Carl
Korschgen, Hank DeHann, and Tim Fox demonstrated the systemic GIS query tool
developed for the HNA. According to
Korschgen, the tool allows users to link 118 species of fish and 290 species of
birds to 18 classes of vegetation. For
each species, the various vegetation classes are given a habitat suitability
ranking of between zero and three. Korschgen
emphasized that the query tool will be a useful general planning tool, but is
not designed to identify and prioritize specific HREP locations. DeHann demonstrated how the tool can be used
to answer a variety of questions, such as habitat suitability for lake
sturgeon. Johnson expressed concern
that the rather generalized results from such queries could easily be
misinterpreted, noting for example that not all main channel habitat is equally
suitable for lake sturgeon.
Korschgen
and DeHann demonstrated how the HNA query tool can be supplemented with
additional information, such as data and decision rules from the USGS's
decision support system or the navigation study's cumulative effects
study. In response to a question from
John Blankenship, Korschgen said the HNA query tool can provide significant
insight into issues such as where habitat can be restored most
cost-effectively, but emphasized that resource managers' professional judgments
will still be critical. Gordon Farabee
complimented the efforts of all those involved in developing the query tool,
noting that it has a tremendous range of potential applications.
Farabee
asked whether a similar tool could be developed for the Mississippi below the
Ohio River. Steve Cobb said the
necessary habitat and land cover information is generally available, but noted
that the Lower Mississippi lacks biological data comparable to what has been
used to build the Upper Mississippi query tool. Jim Fisher asked about the potential to incorporate a seasonality
element into the habitat suitability rankings in the UMR tool. Korschgen said this could be done, but noted
that taking such a life cycle approach would require a far more complicated
habitat suitability matrix.
Terry
Moe noted that the amount and types of data available for use with the query
tool vary considerably across the UMRS.
Given this, Moe asked how the HNA will use the tool consistently across
the different pools and reaches.
Korschgen said this is an issue for the HNA technical team to resolve. Farabee and Bill Bertrand said the committee
has been discussing how to use the tool and report results. Farabee said both the query tool and the
written assessment will include caveats regarding limitations of the data. In answer to a question from Tom Edwards,
Korschgen said the query tool will not include actual sampling data, but
indicated that these data are available separately from USGS.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
Engineering, Design, and Construction
Workshop
Leo
Foley distributed a summary of the June 17, 1999 HREP engineering, design, and
construction workshop. Participants
included Corps personnel as well as representatives of partner agencies and
interested stakeholder groups. Foley
said the workshop provided an excellent opportunity for participants to
exchange ideas and perspectives.
According to Foley, major themes from the workshop included:
· the need for biologists to articulate
project goals and then work with engineers in determining the best way to achieve
those goals, and
· the importance of information exchange
early in the project design process.
Jerry
Skalak said participants suggested holding similar workshops approximately
every two years.
Reviewing
the workshop summary, Dusty Rhodes asked for clarification regarding the
suggestion that HREP designs should be kept simple due to personnel
changes. Chris Prinslow explained that
the recommendation was to keep project operation and maintenance (O&M)
simple because of turnover among the staff involved in operating the
projects. Foley said the remoteness of
many HREPs is another reason for keeping O&M requirements simple. Gordon Farabee offered a correction to the
summary, noting that this suggestion came from a Missouri Department of
Conservation participant and was incorrectly attributed to Missouri Department
of Natural Resources.
Rhodes
endorsed a workshop participant’s call for project design costs not to exceed
construction costs and asked whether there have been any such projects. Kevin Szcodronski said it is probably an
exaggeration to say that design costs have actually exceeded construction costs
on any HREPs, but said that design costs are certainly a relatively large part
of total costs on smaller projects.
Szcodronski said these high design costs are an impediment to pursuing
small projects in many instances. He
cited the bank stabilization project as an example, noting that it is a
relatively large project with several smaller components. Treating the individual components as
separate projects when it comes to design has increased costs
substantially. Foley said Colonel Mudd
has committed to exploring options to reduce small project costs, including
design-build, work order contracts, and revising the definite project
report (DPR) process. Rhodes said
MVD is committed to getting more money on the ground and said the Corps will
review the design costs of small projects.
Jon
Duyvejonck observed that the Corps' engineering standards for habitat projects
are different from the Fish and Wildlife Service's standards for similar
projects. He said the Corps' more
stringent standards contribute to high project costs. Rhodes said the Corps is willing to consider appropriate changes
to its standards for habitat projects where human health and safety are not
involved. However, Rhodes emphasized
that the Corps is a premier engineering agency and will not design sub-par
projects. Prinslow reminded Duyvejonck
that the partner agencies are also concerned with minimizing O&M
costs. He noted that this is not
necessarily consistent with relaxing engineering standards, explaining that
there is often a tradeoff between project first costs and O&M costs. Foley said the districts will be asking site
managers to decide what O&M burden they can assume as habitat projects are
designed.
Dedication Ceremonies
Reporting
on the recent HREP dedication ceremonies, Skalak said Corps and Fish and
Wildlife Service staff worked together closely to make the events
successful. Skalak said the ceremonies
were well attended by the partner agencies, elected officials and their staff,
and the general public. According to
Skalak, the events generated positive press coverage of the projects and the
program. The Rock Island District has
scheduled a dedication ceremony for the Princeton project for November 12. Rhodes emphasized the importance of these
types of events in demonstrating strong public interest and support for the
EMP. In answer to a question from Moe,
Foley said a dedication ceremony for Pool 8 Islands Phase II is scheduled for
September 17.
District Updates
Thompson
reported that the Item 2 (pump stations) contract for Swan Lake is moving
forward and should be completed in the second or third quarter of FY 00. Cuivre Island is scheduled for completion by
September 1999, and the St. Louis District is planning a dedication
ceremony. The Phase I contract for
Batchtown is a Section 8(a) set-aside and is currently in negotiations. An August 27 design criteria meeting is
scheduled to discuss Phases II and III of the Batchtown project. Headquarters has approved the final DPR for
Calhoun Point, and plans and specifications are underway. A value engineering study for Calhoun Point
will begin next week. The DPR has been
initiated for Pools 25 and 26, and DPR work will start soon on Schenimann
Chute. Thompson said MVS is also
looking at a potential project involving stone dike alterations.
Reporting
on behalf of the St. Paul District, Foley indicated that the contract for Stage
2 of Polander Lake was awarded on July 1.
The island construction work will be accomplished in conjunction with
the unloading of the Wilds Bend dredged material placement site. The EMP-funded cost of this work is $1.4
million. Construction on Stage 2 will
not commence until next spring because the contractor is fully committed until
then. According to Foley, this delay in
starting construction leaves the St. Paul District with about $300,000 in
potential unexpended funds in FY 99.
The Trempealeau Refuge project is completed, save for ice damage that
will be repaired next spring.
Construction on the final site of the bank stabilization project began
July 19 and is scheduled to be completed in September. Construction at this site was delayed so as
not to disturb bald eagles nesting in the area. Phase II of Pool 8 Islands is nearly complete, with only some
rock work remaining. The draft DPR for
Pool Slough is complete and will be released for public review in September. The contract for Long Lake was awarded in
May, and construction is scheduled to start in September. The DPR for Ambrough Slough is scheduled for
completion in calendar year 1999.
Project partners conducted a field visit to the Long Meadow Lake project
area on July 11
Foley
referenced the Rock Island District’s problems with construction delays on the
Spring Lake project. According to
Foley, most work was completed by the July dedication ceremony and the only
remaining work is the well contract.
The stoplog structures for the Princeton project are being redesigned
and will cost an estimated $15,000.
Foley said MVR will be taking staff from the Office of Management and
Budget to visit the Banner Marsh project.
He explained that Illinois has made in-kind contributions totaling an
estimated $1.3 million in Stage I work. This work was expected to meet most of the state’s cost-share for
the project; however, bids for the Stage II contract came in higher than
expected and the project was rescoped to reduce total costs. The district expects to award the Banner
Marsh Stage II contract in September.
Public review of the draft DPR for Pool 11 Islands is scheduled for
October 1999. Foley said MVR is working
with Iowa and Wisconsin DNRs to resolve issues with mussel beds near the
proposed island sites. The Rice Lake
project remains on hold due to a land acquisition issue. Rock Island will be seeking to modify the
draft DPRs for the Gardner Division and Pleasant Creek projects in an effort to
reduce the costs of these relatively small projects. In response to a question from Farabee, Foley noted that Missouri
DOC has asked MVR to raise the causeway at Cottonwood Island to reduce
sedimentation and to permit access during high water. Foley said this will likely be accomplished through a repair
contract. The district does not have
money scheduled for the Cottonwood repair in FY 99 but may be able to award the
contract and complete the repair in FY 00.
Tom
Edwards cited comments in the summary of the June HREP workshop, emphasizing
the importance of being open to new ideas and willing to take risks, while also
seeking to save money. Edwards said he
pursued several changes to the Banner Marsh project that saved considerable
money while also enhancing water quality in the project area. Edwards said he believes there are
opportunities to improve the project design further. Foley encouraged Edwards to consult with the site manager
regarding his additional ideas and said the Corps would be happy to participate
in such a meeting if desired. However,
Foley noted that the project is scheduled to be put out for bid soon and said
any such consultation needs to take place quickly.
In
addition to dedication ceremonies for new projects, Szcodronski suggested
holding anniversary celebrations to recognize successful projects completed in
the EMP's early years. Rhodes
encouraged this and also suggested the possibility of a reauthorization
celebration.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
A-Team Report
Ken
Brummett reported on the A-Team's August 16 meeting, at which the discussion
included restructuring impacts, revised scopes of work and sampling schedules,
the information needs assessment, and the LTRMP under the reauthorized
EMP. Brummett said the impacts of
restructuring on the field stations include:
· loss of temporary staff,
· unfilled permanent staff positions (2
field stations),
· layoff of staff (1 field station),
· impacts of the reduced sampling schedule
on data quality,
· equipment deterioration,
· reduced outreach activities, and
· quality and efficiency impacts associated
with retraining remaining staff to perform new functions.
Brummett
cautioned that, if the LTRMP receives less than full funding in FY 00, the
impacts will be even more severe. Jerry
Skalak noted that some A-Team members also expressed concern with potential
safety issues as the size of sampling teams is reduced.
Terry
Moe said Wisconsin is quite concerned that it will not be able to implement the
revised monitoring plan with the remaining staff at its field station. In addition to staff reductions, Brummett
said that equipment will also be a limiting factor in implementing the new
protocols. For example, he said the
field stations to not have enough hydro labs to support multi-purpose
sampling. Bob Delaney said all field
station team leaders were asked if they could implement the revised monitoring
plan with the staff they would have under restructuring. Delaney said that four of the team leaders
indicated they could implement the plan, while Wisconsin's leader expressed
some reservations.
Restructuring
Update
Leo Foley recounted General Anderson's
February 1999 directive to restructure the LTRMP in accordance with the
following three principles:
· increase emphasis on data analysis
relative to data collection,
· apply savings and slippage to the LTRMP
consistent with its application to other projects and programs in the Corps'
construction general account, and
· increase the LTRMP's flexibility and thus
its capacity to handle fluctuations in its annual budget.
He
noted that the current uncertainty regarding the EMP's FY 00 appropriation
underscores the need to enhance the LTRMP's budget flexibility. Colonel Mudd submitted his restructuring
proposal on June 9, 1999, and General Anderson approved that proposal on July
6, 1999. According to Foley, the
restructuring plan is consistent with MVR’s preliminary plan outlined at the
May EMP-CC meeting. In addition,
General Anderson approved Colonel Mudd’s recommendation to assign the lead for
the information needs assessment (INA) to Rock Island. Foley indicated that the next step in LTRMP
restructuring will be for MVR to issue an implementation guidance letter to
USGS.
Foley
said Rock Island has already informed USGS that the Corps will need to review
FY 00 scopes of work before September 30, 1999. Those SOWs are to include clearly identified products, delivery
dates, and costs. In addition, the
individual scopes are to be incorporated into an annual work plan by the end of
September. Foley emphasized there is no
guarantee the LTRMP will be able to recover savings and slippage in any
particular year, but said there is certainly potential to do so. In order to recover savings and slippage,
Foley said the LTRMP must present SOWs for discrete tasks that do not require
continued funding over multiple years.
Brummett
said the A-Team plans to discuss the LTRMP's future direction at its November
meeting. Bill Bertrand said he does not
believe issues surrounding LTRMP restructuring are entirely settled. In particular, he cautioned that it may not
be possible to implement the agreed upon revised monitoring plan with available
personnel. Bertrand suggested it may be
preferable to eliminate a component rather than risk compromising all of the
components. Foley expressed surprise,
emphasizing his understanding the all partners had previously endorsed the
revised monitoring plan as the best choice among a tough set of options. Moe explained that some of the partners are
having second thoughts as the implementation details of the revised monitoring
plan become clearer. Moe said he is concerned
that the revised plan may not be viable and urged the Corps, USGS, and the
states to come to an agreement regarding what should be part of the baseline
monitoring plan and what should be identified as additional over target
opportunities.
Delaney
identified the following impacts of the LTRMP restructuring in FY 00:
· Six full-time, part-time, or seasonal
state LTRMP field station employees will be terminated to save $300,000.
· Eighteen full-time, part-time, student,
or university LTRMP employees associated with UMESC will be terminated or
transferred to non-LTRMP duties.
· Operating funds for publications, the
water quality lab, cartography, and land cover/land use work will be reduced.
· Sediment and bathymetric surveys will be
eliminated from the baseline program.
· Administrative functions will be
consolidated.
According
to Delaney, UMESC's data analysis capabilities will actually decrease in FY
00. However, the combined savings
associated with the staff reductions and operating budget cuts identified above
are expected to free some additional funds in FY 01 to increase data
analysis. Delaney emphasized that this
restructuring plan alone will not permit the level of data analysis, synthesis,
and reporting needed. According to
Delaney, additional program consolidation and restructuring will be necessary
at UMESC, in part to prepare for an expanded LTRMP under the new program
authority. The FY 00 annual work plan
will include more details regarding program reductions and the products and
services that can be expected under the restructured LTRMP.
Foley
asked whether data analysis could be expanded if additional money were provided
early in FY 00. Delaney said this would
be possible if USGS used contract employees to do the analysis. Delaney also identified unmet equipment
needs as another candidate for over target funding. Moe urged that additional FY 00 money be used to preserve the
monitoring effort.
Delaney
reported that UMESC's monitoring program oversight and coordination, formerly
consolidated under Ken Lubinski, is being divided between a terrestrial group
and an aquatic group. Lubinski's
responsibilities will shift to using other funds to expand on the concept of
the six ecosystem health criteria introduced in the Status and Trends Report. In response to a question from Farabee,
Delaney said it has not yet been decided to whom the field station team leaders
will report under the new structure.
Delaney said team leaders should continue reporting under the current
structure until instructed to do otherwise.
Farabee
noted that this is a difficult time for the LTRMP and expressed hope that
things will improve in future years with expansion under the new program
authority. He urged program partners to
begin designing the second generation LTRMP.
Moe expressed concern regarding the Corps' vision for baseline
monitoring in FY 01 and beyond. Rhodes
said the Corps' vision rests on the principles articulated by General Anderson
in his restructuring directive. Citing
the House Appropriations Committee's report on the Corps' FY 00 appropriations,
Rhodes said Congress is emphasizing the Corps' traditional missions. According to Rhodes, appropriators are
concerned that funding for new missions, including environmental programs, is
coming at the expense of flood control, navigation, and other traditional
roles. Given this concern, Rhodes
emphasized the importance of structuring the EMP as a flexible, responsive
program. In answer to a question from
Skalak, Rhodes said the EMP should be structured as a flexible program with an
$18 million baseline until such time as there is evidence of increased
appropriations. Given the overall
fiscal climate, Rhodes said it will be a challenge to maintain current funding
and said program supporters will have to work very hard to achieve increased
appropriations.
Information
Needs Assessment
In response to a question from Delaney,
Foley said the cost, funding source, and schedule for the INA have yet to be
determined. Delaney said that the costs
of the INA should be allocated proportionately between HREPs and LTRMP, as is
being done with the HNA.
Skalak
presented an overhead showing the interrelationships and feedback among
different river management functions and information needs. He emphasized the need to integrate the INA
into other efforts, including the HNA.
Skalak also presented a potential INA organizational plan, under with
the USGS and St. Paul District would serve as co-leads of the INA technical
team(s). The co-leads would coordinate
with the UMRBA and MVD and would report to the Rock Island District.
Skalak
proposed the following basic steps for the INA:
· Establish a project framework using a
five to six member multi-agency team.
· Develop a comprehensive matrix of
existing data and information.
· Identify and verify the scales of data
and information needed for river management.
· Identify gaps between the identified
needs and existing data and information.
· Develop plans, including timeframes and
cost estimates, for filling the information gaps.
Rhodes
noted that the INA has been under discussion for some time and called on Skalak
to present basic INA alternatives, including descriptions and cost estimates,
at the November EMP-CC meeting. Kevin
Szcodronski questioned whether an INA is needed. Bill Bertrand said the HNA will help identify data gaps and
suggested waiting to initiate the INA until after the HNA is complete. Jon Duyvejonck noted that state managers and
others have been asked about their information needs several times as part of
the LTRMP. He said any INA should build
upon, rather than duplicate, these past efforts. Rhodes said that the INA alternatives presented to the EMP-CC in
November will include the option of not doing an INA.
Moe
and Szcodronski questioned the need for an INA unless there is a reasonable
expectation for an expanded baseline monitoring program in the future. Delaney concurred with Rhodes' earlier
observations regarding the challenge of increasing appropriations for the EMP. Delaney said program supporters will need to
offer compelling reasons for funding increases and suggested that the systemic
identification of habitat opportunities and information needs may help support
such funding requests. Szcodronski
asked whether the A-Team should be requested to identify LTRMP ramp-up
alternatives, including what the program could look like under various funding
levels. Rhodes said such an exercise
would be premature and suggested revisiting the question after the first of the
year. By that point, Rhodes said the FY
00 appropriations question will be resolved and the restructuring plan will
have been implemented.
LTRMP
Showcase
Bob Delaney explained that USGS asked the
field stations to inventory their non-LTRMP funded activities as a way of
demonstrating the ways in which LTRMP money leverages other funding sources to
support complementary work. Bob Hrabik
said the six field stations are all involved in many partnerships and engage in
a wide range of work in addition to their LTRMP monitoring. He noted that these management support
activities range from pure research efforts to assisting with field tasks such
as banding waterfowl. Hrabik explained
that the field stations took somewhat different approaches in responding to USGS's
inquiry. As a result, direct comparisons
among the field stations are somewhat difficult. Overall, the identified management support activities broke down
into the following categories:
Fisheries 24%
Invertebrates 16%
Vegetation 16%
Ecology 7%
Other 18%
Hrabik said the balance and diversity of these activities
clearly demonstrates that the field stations are not overly focused on any
single resource category. With respect
to spatial patterns, Hrabik said the southern field stations tend to do more
fisheries-related work while the northern stations have been more active with
water quality and vegetation projects.
Looking at the management support activities in terms of project design,
Hrabik said he found the following distribution:
Research 42%
Expanded
monitoring 55%
Other 3%
Hrabik said he suspects that most field stations
underreported activities in the "other" category. He also noted that the Illinois Natural
History Survey's two stations tended to do more research projects than the
other field stations. In terms of
project sponsor, the activities broke down as follows:
State 66%
Federal
or multi-agency 24%
UMESC 10%
Hrabik said the trend in recent years is for the field
stations to work more with federal agencies and multi-agency efforts. In response to a question from Dusty Rhodes,
Hrabik said he believes there is good potential for the field stations to work
more with universities and other agencies and said the stations are pursuing
such opportunities more actively. Mike
Steuck noted that Iowa's state system makes it difficult for the Bellevue
station to bring in outside money. In
response to a question from Jim Harrison, Hrabik said the field stations'
ability to increase their LTRMP data analysis efforts is limited in the short
term, particularly in light of staff reductions from restructuring. However, over the longer term, Hrabik said
he believes the field stations are quite interested in expanding their data
analysis role.
Hrabik then briefly highlighted three projects to provide a
sense of the field stations' management support activities. The Onalaska field station cooperated with
USGS to monitor vegetation response to the experimental drawdown of Lizzy
Paul's Pond in Pool 5. The monitoring
documented beneficial response, including an increase in vegetation diversity
and the growth of emergents. Hrabik
said these findings will help managers throughout the system who are looking at
the potential for pool-level drawdowns.
The Bellevue field station used LTRMP monitoring methods to identify key
sub-basin sources of sediment and nutrients to the Maquoketa River. The multi-agency partnership involved in the
Maquoketa River Alliance then sent fliers to landowners seeking participants in
cost-shared conservation measures. The
Cape Girardeau field station has conducted taxonomic research on a type of
minnow at several locations on the mainstem Mississippi and its
tributaries. This research has
clarified that some of the populations studied represent distinct species. Hrabik said he is conducting DNA analysis to
support differentiation among these species.
Acknowledging the difficult budget situation facing the
field stations, Jim Fisher said the Fish and Wildlife Service may be able to
assist by providing additional personnel and boats upon occasion to support
monitoring efforts. Hrabik welcomed
this possibility.
Other Business
Holly Stoerker announced that the autumn EMP-CC meeting will
be held November 18, 1999 in St. Louis.
[Note: That date was
subsequently changed to November 16.] The
winter meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2000 and the spring meeting for
May 18, 2000.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
August 19, 1999
|
Dusty Rhodes |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
John Blankenship |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Bob Delaney |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Bill Bertrand |
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 |
|
Bob Goodwin |
Maritime
Administration |
|
Steve Cobb |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Chris Prinslow |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Tom Pullen |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Leo Foley |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Jerry Skalak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Scott Whitney |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Doug Wood |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Kelly Wissehr |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Rick Nelson |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island |
|
Jim Fisher |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Karen
Westphall |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mark Twain Refuge |
|
Carl Korschgen |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Hank DeHaan |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Tim Fox |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Mike Steuck |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bob Hrabik |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Ken Brummett |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Paul Krone |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Illinois |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee |
|
Jeff Stein |
American
Rivers |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |