DRAFT
Summary of the
Environmental Management Program
Program Planning Team
May 23, 2007 Meeting
Holiday Inn
Marvin
Hubbell of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 7:30
a.m. on May 23, 2007. Other Program
Planning Team members present were Charlie Wooley (USFWS), Mike Jawson
(USGS), Martin Konrad (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO
DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Don Powell (USACE) and Brian Markert (USACE).
A complete list of attendees follows this
summary.
PPT Operations
·
The function and
composition of the EMP HREP Program Planning Team (PPT), as described in the
November 2003 HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework, was reviewed and agreed
to. The PPT’s role in the 3rd
stage of a 4-stage HREP planning and sequencing process was acknowledged — i.e.,
Stage I = District Ecological Evaluation, Stage II = System Ecological
Evaluation, Stage III = Program Planning, and Stage IV = COE Management.
·
Various questions
concerning the role of the PPT and its relationship to the SET and Science
Panel were raised, but no significant conclusions were drawn.
Report from the SET
·
Marv Hubbell
explained that the System Ecological Team (SET) has not yet completed its
report and recommendations to the PPT.
However, it is anticipated that the SET will make several
process-related, rather than project-specific, recommendations. Those will likely include the following:
o
Enhance the
consistency and content of project fact sheets from the DETs to facilitate the
SET’s systemic consideration of proposed projects.
o
Employ both
top-down and bottom-up approaches to objective setting.
o
Modify the SET’s
role to engage the SET more as a technical/scientific partner in the development
of habitat objectives and HREP planning documents.
o
Establish
restoration objectives by 12 geomorphic reaches on the UMRS, using 7 habitat
types as the basis for setting those objectives.
o
Do HREP program
planning by the 4 major floodplain reaches recognized on the UMRS.
o
In setting
habitat objectives for the 7 habitat types, identify biological and physical
indicators of habitat quality.
o
Monitoring,
adaptive management, and learning opportunities should be interactive.
o
The approach
outlined above has implications for land cover/land use data needs — i.e.,
there would need to be a commitment to providing the necessary level of detail
at routine intervals. This would not
require as many classifications as are currently employed by LTRMP, but would
presumably involve more frequent updating.
·
Chuck Theiling
summarized the SET’s efforts to-date, including the team’s attempt to employ a
complex series of matrices as well as its subsequent work with an advanced
modeling approach presented by the University of Minnesota’s Tony
Starfield. According to Theiling, the
SET concluded that the criteria matrix approach was overly complicated,
required information frequently not available in the fact sheets, and failed to
distinguish meaningfully among the proposed projects. He said the SET was very encouraged by the
capacity of Starfield’s modeling approach to focus thinking on a manageable
number of factors, allowing the group to make meaningful distinctions.
Review/Discuss SET Recommendations
·
Tim Schlagenhaft
expressed concern that some project types are not being considered in the
DET/SET efforts to-date. He cited the
·
Mike Griffin
noted that, under almost any process, multi-purposed projects will tend to
out-compete more narrowly focused HREPs.
He stressed the importance of preserving the partnership’s ability to
pursue smaller, more limited purpose projects when and where they are needed on
the river system.
·
Schlagenhaft
asked for more detail regarding the SET’s recommendation for a top-down
approach to objective setting. Theiling
clarified that the SET has not, as yet, actually tried to identify
objectives. Hank DeHaan said the SET has
discussed the basic framework under which this could be done.
·
Schlagenhaft
observed that setting ecological objectives continues to be a stumbling block
for much of the work being done on the UMRS, whether it is under the EMP or
NESP. He called on the Science Panel and
SET to do more than provide a framework for river objectives, stating that
these groups should identify the key river processes on which to focus river
protection and restoration efforts.
·
Janet Sternburg
emphasized that the SET’s role is to identify what is needed from an ecological
perspective. She said the DETs and SET should
not be screening out projects on policy grounds. According to Sternburg, if a project has
strong ecological merit, it should be forwarded to the PPT, regardless of
whether it presents policy challenges.
It is then the PPT’s role to evaluate those policy challenges and
determine whether they can be addressed.
Hubbell concurred, while reminding PPT members that the Corps may
ultimately need to reject a very meritorious project on policy grounds in Stage
IV of the process.
·
Gary Wege
stressed the need for a system diagnosis for the river and a disciplined
approach to addressing the systemic needs.
·
Barry Johnson
observed that he did not see a clear top-down element in what had been
presented concerning the SET’s deliberations and anticipated recommendations. Johnson agreed that a top-down component
would be very helpful.
·
John Barko
emphasized the need to be concerned with improvements in overall river health,
noting that people’s perspectives are very scale dependent. Barko expressed confidence that seeking
improvements in ecological functions and processes will result in projects that
will work systemically and function effectively over time.
PPT Conclusions and Recommendations
PPT members did not discuss
the individual projects forwarded by the DETs and evaluated by the SET, given
that the SET had not yet made any recommendations concerning specific
projects. Nor, in the absence of a
written report from the SET, did the PPT act upon the anticipated SET recommendations
regarding process-related considerations.
Instead, the PPT agreed it would reconvene at an appropriate time in the
future, after the EMP-CC has had an opportunity to consider and act upon the
SET’s recommendations concerning changes to the November 2003 HREP Planning and
Sequencing Framework. However,
individual PPT members did offer a variety of observations regarding the
anticipated SET recommendations. Those
observations are summarized below, with the names of PPT members who explicitly
expressed a particular idea indicated in parentheses:
·
The SET’s process
seems reasonable. (Benjamin, Konrad,
Wooley)
·
Structured
decision making is a great methodology and the Fish and Wildlife Service has
used it to very good effect in areas such as its Endangered Species Act work. (Wooley)
·
Generally support
the idea of working with geomorphic/floodplain reaches and setting objectives
by habitat classes. (Schlagenhaft,
Benjamin, Sternburg, Powell)
·
Like the top-down
approach to identifying reach needs, then setting objectives, then planning projects. (Powell)
·
Would important
distinctions be lost with only seven habitat classes? (Benjamin)
·
Need perspectives
from the Science Panel/SET on reach objectives, appropriate tools, and limiting
factors. (Schlagenhaft)
·
Need the SET to
take a system look at habitat needs.
This hasn’t happened via other means.
Implementation, however, should be by reach. (Sternburg)
·
Do not need
Science Panel, SET, or others directing us.
Field staff have important perspectives based in science and
experience. What we need is for field
staff and scientists to interact and communicate in setting objectives. (Benjamin)
·
Not confident
that what has been laid out so far will get us where we need to go.
(Schlagenhaft)
·
Need to continue
moving forward and adapting with this HREP planning and sequencing effort. (Benjamin, Markert)
·
MVS needs to
initiate planning on new HREPs. The
district will begin planning on Pool 24 Islands and Rip Rap Landing this year. The need to start planning new projects is
not as pressing in MVP and MVR. These
two districts each have 2-3 years of HREPs in the planning pipeline. Therefore, of the 18 HREPs forwarded by the
DETs and considered by the SET, only Pool 24 and Rip Rap will be advanced at
this time. (Markert and Hubbell)
·
The November 2003
HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework emphasizes the goal of
transparency. How is/will information
from this process be shared with NGOs?
(Sternburg)
·
There has been
attrition among the SET membership, and the SET’s anticipated recommendations
would actually increase the time commitment required of SET members. Therefore, there will likely be a need for
new members, as well as increased fiscal resources. USACE will report back to the PPT on these
matters. (Hubbell)
Program Planning Team Attendance List
May 23, 2007
PPT Members
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of
Conservation |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources |
Others in Attendance
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Tom Novak |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Chuck Theiling |
|
|
Sandra Brewer |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Gary Wege |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Sharonne Baylor |
|
|
Dick Steinbach |
|
|
Karen Westphall |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Ken Lubinski |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Mike Griffin |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
Dave Bierman |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
Mike Davis |
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources |
|
John Barko |
USACE, retired |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|