EMP Report to Congress Workshop
Summary of August 8, 2002 Workshop
Workshop
participants suggested no changes to the summary of the August 8, 2002 Report
to Congress workshop.
Issue Paper: Role of Applied Research
·
The RTC
should not make any specific recommendations regarding the role of applied
research in the LTRMP. Thus, none of
the specific options identified in the issue paper will be pursued as part of
the RTC.
·
However,
the RTC should address applied research as follows:
-
Acknowledge
the importance of all three major LTRMP components (i.e., applied research,
monitoring, and evaluation of management alternatives).
-
Emphasize the
LTRMP’s accomplishments and contributions to the Navigation Study and other
important river management activities.
-
Stress the
need for adequate LTRMP resources, and the importance of flexibility in
allocating those resources among the three components.
-
Describe
the partners’ commitment to reviewing the critical science questions that the
LTRMP is being asked to address, relating those questions to discrete tasks,
and prioritizing the questions and tasks (i.e., the science planning process).
Issue Paper: Coordination between LTRMP and Other Programs
·
Workshop
participants generally agreed that the LTRMP can and does make valuable
contributions to other programs.
However, given its original purpose and design, there are limits to its
applicability. The potential to
leverage additional resources through closer coordination with other programs
was acknowledged. However, several
partners cautioned that LTRMP may lose its primary focus and value if it is
asked to serve too many needs.
·
The
following options were eliminated from further consideration:
-
Option 3 —
expand and/or modify the LTRMP to meeting other information needs within
existing EMP authority and authorized funding levels.
-
Option 4 —
amend EMP legislation to specifically define the scientific and/or programmatic
scope of the LTRMP.
·
The
following options were retained for further consideration at the February 2003
RTC workshop:
-
Option 1 — status quo—continue to implement LTRMP as
provided in its guiding documents, taking advantage of opportunities to
coordinate with other science and management programs as they arise
-
Option 2 —
undertake an INA to identify the full range of river-related environmental data
and research needs; limitations of LTRMP as currently structured to meet those
needs; current and potential LTRMP partners or clients; and scientific,
budgetary, or policy issues associated with expanding /modifying the program.
·
Several questions
were raised regarding the scope and estimated cost of the Information Needs
Assessment (INA) that was proposed following the 1997 RTC, as well as the
science planning process currently being initiated by USGS.
·
Prior to
the February workshop, participants will be provided with background
information concerning the original INA proposal and USGS’s science planning
process.
Issue Paper: Funding Stability for the LTRMP
·
UMESC and
the state field stations are devoting a major portion of their FY 03 staff time
to reviewing existing data and assessing options for restructuring the LTRMP to
enhance its effectiveness and flexibility.
Given this on-going effort, further consideration of the funding
stability issue in the context of the RTC should be deferred. The issue will not be adddressed in the RTC
unless the LTRMP analysis effort suggests specific measures to enhance funding
stability that require administrative or Congressional action.
·
In the interim,
workshop participants offered several observations regarding the funding
stability issue:
-
Funding
instability has negative effects on the HREP program as well as the LTRMP.
-
Low funding
levels, and funding fluctuations, are interfering with the LTRMP’s ability to
meet its stated goals.
-
Funding
instability can be an issue not only when funding declines, but also when it
increases.
-
If funding
stability is ultimately addressed in the RTC, it should not be done simply as a
plea for increased funding. Rather, the
partnership would need to propose a way of dealing with the inevitable funding
fluctuations more effectively.
Issue Paper: Operation and Maintenance
·
The
Navigation Study will be addressing big picture O&M issues with
implications beyond just the EMP. These
include the Corps’ role in operating and maintaining the river ecosystem,
including specific projects designed to promote ecosystem sustainability. Another such issue is the potential
cumulative O&M burden on the states and other sponsors as they are asked to
participate in a wider range of projects.
The EMP RTC should not attempt to speak to these broader issues.
·
The RTC
should address the Fish and Wildlife Service’s need for increased resources to
O&M HREPs on its refuges — i.e., Option 3 in the issue paper. Specific considerations include the
following:
-
While the
Service has made some progress through its Refuge Operations Needs System
(RONS) process in recent years, existing projects and those in the pipeline
will place significant pressure on both the Service's operation and maintenance
budgets.
-
The RTC
needs to make the case persuasively that the Service is an essential player in
the EMP’s success and that the EMP is critical to the federal government’s
mission on the UMR. Otherwise, the
response could simply be that the program should stop building projects on
refuge lands if the Service can’t O&M them.
-
Consideration
of whether the RTC should recommend cross-cut budgeting as one means of
addressing the Service’s O&M needs was deferred. Issues include whether a report to Congress needs to go into
detail regarding how the Administration accomplishes its budget coordination
and the likelihood that bigger picture questions regarding cross-cut budgeting
will be addressed in the Navigation Study.
-
In order to
effectively make the case for the Service’s O&M needs, the data needs
identified in the issue paper must be answered. Workshop participants agreed that data should be gathered for
both refuge and non-refuge projects.
Data will be collected for both existing projects and those for which a
DPR has been developed. The Corps,
Service, and states will all need to contribute data. The Corps will take the lead for compiling the information.
Issue Paper: Cost-Sharing
·
The
environmental component of the Navigation Study will address cost-sharing for a
variety of UMR environmental activities under different Corps authorities,
including mitigation, as well as restoration and enhancement authorities such as
the EMP. Thus, there will need to be a
close connection between what is recommended in the EMP RTC and the Navigation
Study regarding cost-sharing.
·
Options 1-3
[maintain, reduce, or eliminate current cost-sharing] were not discussed and will
not be pursued in the EMP RTC.
·
Option 4
[use T&E benefits or “national benefits” under Section 906(e)(1) to justify
more projects as 100 percent federal] was eliminated from further
consideration. It was believed that
such an approach would necessitate elaborate new guidelines and additional
project review.
· The RTC should advance Option 5 [expand
definition of 100 percent federal projects to include those on all federally
managed and owned lands, not just national refuges]. Specific considerations and observations included:
-
The amount
of federal lands on the UMRS in each state should be identified to provide
context for the recommendation. It may
be possible to advance an equity rationale for the recommendation — i.e.,
expanding the definition of 100 percent federal projects would offset the
current geographic imbalance in the distribution of refuge lands.
-
The RTC
should explain the states’ willingness and ability to cost-share on lands that they
own, but their limitations regarding cost sharing on federal lands.
-
The Corps
may not ultimately be able to support Option 5. It will need to be discussed with Headquarters in the broader
context of the Navigation Study.
-
Missouri
may still want to independently pursue a recommendation that EMP projects on
all public lands be 100 percent federal.
·
None of the
specific options outlined in the Issue Paper was endorsed by workshop
participants as a recommendation to be included in the RTC. However, it was acknowledged that the
legislation requires that the RTC describe the HNA. Furthermore, the RTC should address concerns about the
prioritization and selection process that have been expressed by stakeholders
in the past. Therefore, it was agreed
that the RTC should report on the status and use of the HNA and describe the
HREP planning and prioritization process that was developed subsequent to the
last RTC.
·
Other
observations and comments regarding this issue included:
-
The EMP-CC
already approved a May 2000 framework describing the HREP prioritization
process. However, some of the details
regarding use of the HNA and other issues still need to be worked out, as
evidenced by MVR’s trial application of the process last year. Prior to the RTC, the Corps will complete
the HREP guidance document, based on the May 2000 framework.
-
Option 3
[accelerate pool planning] is already being done as part of the Navigation
Study.
-
Option 4 [request
that the Independent Technical Review Committee make recommendations regarding
the HREP planning and prioritization process] may be an option in the
future. However, the ITRC has not yet
been formed.
·
Workshop
participants endorsed the theme of the EMP as an “environmental success story,”
noting that this is a very important message for both OMB and Congress.
·
Because
“success” often has the connotation of final achievement or completion, the RTC
must also emphasize that the story is not yet ended; more remains to be done.
·
The Corps
is already pursuing the information needs identified in the theme paper. However, additional information will be
needed from the states and other EMP partners to document the program’s accomplishments
and successes.
·
Workshop
participants agreed that the RTC should carry forward the theme of the EMP as
part of an integrated approach to meeting the UMR’s ecosystem needs. Specific points included:
-
This theme
is related to the issue of coordination between LTRMP and other programs,
previously discussed at the workshop — i.e., there are many needs on the UMR
and the EMP cannot be expected to meet them all. But there are opportunities to enhance the linkages between EMP
and other programs.
-
This theme
is particularly relevant and important given the anticipated package of
integrated recommendations that will be coming out of the Navigation Study.
November 21, 2002
RTC Workshop Attendees
Corps of Engineers
Rich Worthington
(HQ)
Steve Cobb (MVD)
Greg Ruff (MVD)
Roger Perk (MVR)
Don Powell (MVP)
Mark Cornish
(MVR)
Mike Thompson
(MVS)
Brian Markert
(MVS)
Gary Lee (MVS)
Dawayne Sanders
(MVS)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Tim Yager
(Region 3)
Don Hultman (UMR
Refuge)
U.S. Geological Survey
Ken Lubinski
(UMESC)
States
Scott Stuewe (IL
DNR)
Kevin
Szcodronski (IA DNR)
Amy Denz (MN
DNR)
Gary Christoff
(MO DOC)
Mike Wells (MO
DNR)
Terry Moe (WI
DNR)
Jeff Janvrin (WI
DNR)
Others
Bill Franz (U.S.
EPA, Region 5)
Larry Shepard
(U.S. EPA, Region 7)
Bob Goodwin
(MARAD)
Holly Stoerker
(UMRBA)
Barb Naramore
(UMRBA)