Minutes of
Environmental Management Program Coordinating Committee
and
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
Joint Session
November 17, 2010
Holiday Inn
Kevin
Foerster of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at
1:04 p.m. on
November 17, 2010. Other EMP-CC and NECC
representatives present were Marv Hubbell and Chuck Spitzack (USACE), Mike
Jawson (USGS), Butch Atwood (IL DNR), Rick Mollahan (IL DNR), Pat Boddy
(IA DNR), Bernie Schonhoff (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg
(MO DoC), and Jim Fischer (WI DNR).
A complete list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the May 19, 2010 Joint Session
Bernie Schonhoff moved and
Janet Sternburg seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the May 19,
2010 joint session as written. The
motion carried unanimously.
UMRS as a Nationally Significant Ecosystem
Marv
Hubbell reported that, on August 17, General Walsh and Colonel McGinley briefed
ASA(CW) Jo‑Ellen Darcy on the
Hubbell said MG Walsh
presented on the importance of the Mississippi River and its watershed to the region,
nation, and world. He discussed the
Corps’ activities to enhance the
·
The
·
There is a
significant need for a comprehensive, sustainable vision for the future of the
Mississippi watershed, or “America’s Great River.” The vision should 1) address the watershed’s
economic, cultural, ecological, and sociological needs in the context of a
single interdependent system and 2) serve to connect all
·
USACE’s mission
on the Mississippi River is wide ranging, encompassing 1) reduce flood damage
potential; 2) maintain and enhance navigation; 3) protect, restore, and enhance
ecosystems; and 4) respond to regional and national emergencies.
MG Walsh also briefly noted
that NESP could greatly improve the reliability and efficiency of the UMRS
navigation system, while also greatly enhancing the environment.
Hubbell said COL McGinley
focused on the Corps’ ecosystem restoration and navigation programs on the UMRS
(i.e., EMP, NESP, and Illinois 519). COL
McGinley highlighted Congress’ designation of the UMRS, “as a nationally
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation
system.” Brian Johnson noted that the
UMRS’s elevated stature in the Corps’ budget will likely have very positive
implications for the region’s restoration programs. Johnson said he does not anticipate any
significant changes to UMRS appropriations for a few years, but said future
USACE budgets will likely give greater weight to programs within these priority
ecosystems. He reported that OMB has
asked the Corps to submit briefings about the ten ecosystems of national
significance.
Partners
noted a few minor inaccuracies in the August 17 briefing slide related to the
UMRS’s ecological significance. Hubbell
said the Corps would like to work with partners to refine the briefing,
particularly in terms of facts included and key messages. In response to a
question from Chuck Theiling, Hubbell explained that the Corps would also like
to coordinate budgeting efforts with other federal agencies working on the
UMRS.
Hubbell said COL McGinley
emphasized the ecological and economic importance of the UMRS, both regionally
and nationally. COL McGinley provided
information on how ecosystem restoration programs address the ecological
problems that have resulted from the 9-foot navigation project. These problems include island loss and bank
erosion. COL McGinley overviewed the
EMP, NESP, and Illinois 519 authorities, current efforts, and challenges;
NESP’s “budgetability;” and collaboration with other federal authorities. He also recognized the successful Our Mississippi outreach efforts.
Johnson
invited EMP-CC and NECC members to provide him with any feedback on how best to
articulate the programs’ key messages and how to describe the region’s
multiple-agency efforts. Fischer
suggested highlighting UMRBA’s Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration collaboration
efforts. Hubbell suggested that District
staff provide draft key messages for the FY 12 budget to EMP-CC and NECC for
feedback. He also suggested that
partners discuss possible ways for other federal agencies to coordinate their
budgets and common restoration objectives at the February 16, 2011 EMP-CC/NECC
joint session. Sternburg noted that
increased attention on EMP’s budget will likely create more demand for the
program to explain its successes.
Hubbell explained that Corps staff are moving away from anecdotal
stories of success and are focusing on pre- and post-HREP monitoring results,
economics, and recreation, among other things.
Reach Planning
Final draft UMRS Ecosystem Objectives Report
Chuck Theiling noted that, in
June 2010, EMP-CC and NECC partners submitted comments on the February 24, 2010
draft UMRS Ecosystem Objectives Report.
In January, Corps staff will distribute the final Ecosystem Objectives
Report, which will reflect partner comments.
The final report will include the four Floodplain Reach Plans as
appendices and an adaptive management chapter, which was not included in the
February 24 draft.
FY 11 EMP and NESP Planning Starts
Marv Hubbell reported that
EMP will initiate planning on 24 projects in FY 11. He noted that Congressional restrictions on
EMP planning and construction new starts in FY 08 and FY 09 significantly
constrained the program’s execution capabilities. With those restrictions lifted in FY 10, EMP
submitted 22 project fact sheets to MVD to replenish the supply of projects in
the planning pipeline. EMP plans to
submit two additional Illinois River projects to MVD this year. Hubbell reviewed the list of recently
approved fact sheets in each District, as follows:
·
MVP: L&D 3 Fish Passage, Lake Winneshiek,
McGregor Lake, Bass Ponds, North and Sturgeon Lakes, Clear Lake, Weaver
Bottoms, and Lower Pool 10 Islands and Backwater Complex
·
MVR: Turkey River Bottoms Delta and Backwater
Complex, Snyder Slough Backwater Complex, Steamboat Island, Boston Bay, Keithsburg
Division, and Delair Division.
·
MVS: Pool 24 Islands, Harlow Island, Clarence
Cannon National Wildlife Refuge, West Alton-Missouri Islands, Piasa/Eagles Nest
Islands, and Reds Landing on the UMR; and Godar Refuge and Glades Refuge on the
Illinois River.
Chuck Spitzack said NESP’s FY
11 new starts include Maple Island Complex in the Unimpounded Reach, Lead
Island Chute in the Lower Impounded Reach, and Upper Iowa River Delta in the
Upper Impounded Reach. Spitzack said the
Illinois River Work Group has yet to recommend a new planning start for
NESP.
In response to a question
from Sternburg, Spitzack explained that Corps staff plan to initiate the next
cycle of reach planning relatively soon to align with NESP’s 4-year
Implementation Report to Congress schedule.
However, the next iteration of reach planning will likely be much less
intensive than the recently completed first cycle.
Integrated Program Management
Marv Hubbell explained that
Corps staff have been discussing ways to integrate EMP and NESP in the long
term to increase efficiency by making the two programs more parallel and
compatible. This includes increasing
cross-program involvement and communication.
For example, NESP staff will participate on EMP’s HREP Strategic Planning
Team. Hubbell said this will help
facilitate EMP’s and NESP’s coordinated implementation.
Chuck Spitzack said District
staff are also considering ways to align EMP’s and NESP’s management and
implementation to the degree possible.
Corps staff will revisit NESP’s Program Management Plan (PMP) in an
effort to enhance NESP’s management structure as it prepares to move from PED
to construction. This will include
comparison of management differences between EMP and NESP, potentially
resulting in PMP modifications.
In response to a question
from Schlagenhaft, Spitzack said the NESP PMP will not directly relate to the
HREP strategic planning effort. However,
NESP staff will participate on the HREP Strategic Planning Team in an effort to
enhance consistency between the two programs going forward. In response to a suggestion by Janet
Sternburg, Spitzack confirmed that Corps staff will address NESP’s plans
related to LTRMP implementation. In
response to a question from Pat Boddy, Spitzack said NESP’s PMP will be
developed internally, but will be shared with partners for input. Spitzack said the Corps anticipates
completing the PMP in about one year.
Reach Planning After Action Report
Chuck Spitzack explained that
Corps staff, in collaboration with EMP and NESP partners, will develop an After
Action Report (AAR) for the first cycle of reach planning. The report will address four questions:
1)
What was supposed
to happen in the first cycle?
2)
What actually
happened?
3)
Why did the
process occur as it actually did?
4)
What should
happen differently in future reach planning iterations?
Spitzack
said Corps staff will ask the Regional Support Team (RST) and partners to
provide input on these questions and will prepare a draft AAR based on those
responses. At the February 16, 2011
EMP-CC/NECC joint session, partners will discuss how to enhance the
effectiveness, efficiency, and clarity of the reach planning process, using the
comments received on the four questions.
EMP-NESP Transition Plan Update
Marv Hubbell said COL
McGinley is expected to submit his EMP-NESP Transition Plan to MVD soon. This revised plan, reflecting MVD and
Headquarters comments on the May 2010 version, will be made available to EMP
and NESP partners at the same time it is transmitted to MVD. Hubbell explained that, while the issues and
key messages described in the May version remain largely unchanged, the revised
draft will describe EMP’s historical successes and the importance of
maintaining a fully functional EMP unless and until Congress directs an
EMP-NESP transition. In response to a
question from Kevin Foerster, Hubbell said he does not have a timeline for
Division and HQ action, but believes the higher levels within USACE want to
advance the draft Transition Plan to ASA(CW) as soon as possible.
WRDA 2007 Project Review Requirements
Marshall Plumley discussed
the new Corps-wide project review guidance (EC 1165-2-209), which in part
implements new review requirements mandated in WRDA 07. The comprehensive guidance applies to all
stages of project planning and includes review plans, district quality control
(DQC), agency technical review (ATR), Independent External Peer Review (IEPR),
planning model quality assurance, and legal and policy compliance review.
Plumley explained that review
plans are prepared at the District-level and approved by MVD. Review plans are required for all civil works
projects and products, but programmatic plans may be developed that
comprehensively address individual projects and products. Review plans describe the scope and execution
of anticipated review, including DQC, ATR, IEPR, etc., and are be updated as
needed.
Plumley said DQCs are also
required for all civil works products and are an internal review of basic
science and engineering products. These
are implemented at the home District by staff who are not associated with the
project’s development. Documentation of
DQC activities is required and reviewed by the project’s ATR Team.
Plumley said the ATR is an
in-depth review of a project’s analyses and results; consistency with USACE
criteria, guidance, procedures, and policy; and clarity of its
documentation. An ATR is mandatory for
all decision documents. Plumley said ATR
Teams consist of Corps staff from external Districts and program areas, and the
ATR Team Lead must be located outside of the project’s home Division. All ATR events must be documented in the
project’s review plan. Plumley said
that, for all decision documents, the ATR Team must coordinate with the Corps
Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX).
Plumley
said the ATR process is continuous throughout a project’s planning stage, but
specific ATRs are completed for the project’s feasibility scoping meeting,
alternative formulation briefing, and draft and final reports. ATRs are scheduled for a minimum of six to
eight weeks. However, less time is
typically needed to review the draft and final reports, if no significant
changes are made to the project’s design.
Total ATR costs typically range from $20,000 to $50,000.
Brian Johnson noted that the
new project review requirements are applicable to all projects without an
approved DPR, regardless of how far advanced they are in planning. Plumley said projects further along in their
planning development will obviously be more affected in terms of schedule
impact from the new review requirements.
Plumley described the IEPR
process, which is a review of the technical adequacy of environmental,
engineering, and economic evaluations and assumptions by reviewers from outside
of USACE. There are two types of
IEPRs:
·
Type I is
required for projects that are associated with public safety concerns;
significant controversy; a high level of complexity; or significant economic,
environmental, and social effects to the nation.
·
Type II requires
an external safety assurance review (SAR) for hurricane, storm, and flood
damage reduction projects.
Plumley said IEPR panel
members are selected by an identified Outside Eligible Organization using
established procedures. Plumley said
USACE is requiring IEPRs for all decision documents, unless the Chief of
Engineers grants an exemption. No
exemptions are available for SARs.
According to Plumley, IEPR exemptions will be rare, and only granted if
a project shows that it 1) does not trip any of the seven mandatory IEPR
triggers, 2) meets all of the exclusion criteria, and 3) will not significantly
benefit from undergoing an IEPR. Plumley
said IEPRs are typically completed within about 75 days after a Notice to
Proceed is issued. However, the time to
develop responses to review comments varies among projects. Type I IEPR costs have ranged from about
$150,000 to $300,000 thus far, and are shared with the project sponsor.
Tim Schlagenhaft noted that review
costs will be proportionately quite significant for small projects. Plumley recognized Schlagenhaft’s concern,
and said review plans for small projects can scaled down to reflect project
complexity. In response to a question
from Barb Naramore, Plumley said the IEPR is initiated once the AFB is
finalized. He explained that the IEPR
and public review can occur simultaneously, but the IEPR will still need to
consider public comments.
Janet Sternburg asked what
happens if the IEPR panel and USACE cannot resolve an issue. Plumley explained that the IEPR panel’s
comments are not binding, but the Corps must respond to each comment and give
its rationale for not acting upon any panel recommendations it rejects. An IEPR panel’s written review and USACE’s
responses are made available to the public.
Plumley said, so far, issues raised in IEPRs have been relatively easy
to resolve. Sternburg asked how IEPR
panel members become knowledgeable with the project’s ecological issues since
they are external to the region. Plumley
explained that IEPR panel members frequently communicate with USACE and USFWS
staff within the project’s District to understand the region’s ecological,
economic, social, and other issues.
Plumley said about 15 to 20 restoration projects have undergone an IEPR
thus far, nationally. According to
Plumley, IEPRs will have positive effects on major ecosystem restoration
projects. He said he anticipates that most
EMP and smaller NESP ecosystem restoration projects will not likely require an
IEPR.
Public Outreach
Kevin Bluhm highlighted the
Public Outreach Team’s (PORT’s) successful first year in publishing Our Mississippi outreach materials,
including four editions of its newsletter.
Bluhm said the Corps is distributing 30,000 copies of its newsletter and
anticipates increasing in distribution over time. The newsletters are shared with a broad range
of
Bluhm said the PORT is
scheduled to meet in November to discuss its future strategies, including
expanding its outreach efforts to new audiences, funding challenges, and
employing electronic media. Bluhm also
reported that the Corps is seeking to form a UMRS communications network that
will include federal, state, and non-governmental partners, with the goal of
coordinating and enhancing the Corps’ public outreach efforts on the UMRS. The communications network will include individuals
familiar with their respective agency’s or organization’s public outreach
efforts. Initially, the PORT intends for
this network to focus on the newsletter and developing an Our Mississippi website.
Eventually, the network could also be used as a forum to maintain a
master calendar of all UMRS conferences, educational events, and other regional
meetings, and to develop key messages to help promote UMR programs and
projects.
Jim Fischer expressed support
for the network, especially if the network primarily communicates via
email. Bluhm said he will send an
invitation to EMP-CC and NECC members and non-governmental stakeholders to
identify a representative(s) from their agency or organization to participate
in the network.
Janet Sternburg asked if the
Corps would establish an email listserv for all partners to share information
about outreach efforts. Bluhm said the
network will initially focus on the newsletter, but said network members may
expand their focus. Kim Schneider
reiterated that the communications network will be asked to share story ideas
for future newsletters.
Rick Mollahan moved and Tim
Schlagenhaft seconded a motion to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
Joint Session Attendance List
November 17, 2010
EMP-CC and NECC
Members
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Kevin Foerster |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Pat Boddy |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Schonhoff |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Others
in Attendance |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
David Potter |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Heather Anderson |
|
|
Nate Richards |
|
|
Chuck Theiling |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Brian Markert |
|
|
Hal Graef |
|
|
Charlie Hanneken |
|
|
Donovan Henry |
|
|
Kat McCain |
|
|
Ryan Aylesworth |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Robert Stout |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Nicole Staskowski |
JFNew |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Kim Schneider |
Schneider
Communications |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Nat Kale |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|
|
Peg Donnelly |
|