Minutes of the
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
November 17, 2010
Quarterly Meeting
Holiday Inn
Chuck Spitzack of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. on November
17, 2010. A complete list of
attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the August 10, 2010 Meeting
Jim
Fischer moved and Bernie Schonhoff seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
the August 10, 2010 meeting as drafted.
The motion passed unanimously.
Program Management
FY 10 Year-End Report
Scott
Whitney reviewed NESP’s major programmatic accomplishments to-date, including
the 2004 Feasibility Study, receiving authorization in WRDA 2007, the 2008
Economic Re-Evaluation Report, and the 2009 NESP Implementation Report to
Congress. Whitney noted that, since FY
05, Congress has appropriated $58.6 million in preconstruction engineering and
design (PED) funding for NESP. Of the $58.6
million, NESP has allocated $4.2 million (7.2 percent) to program management,
$4.28 million (7.3 percent) to economic re-evaluation, $25.175
million (43.0 percent) to navigation, and $24.895 million (42.5 percent) to
ecosystem restoration.
Whitney said NESP’s FY 10
milestones include completing:
·
a draft design
documentation report (DDR) for L&D 22;
·
project
implementation reports (PIRs) for three restoration projects — i.e., Pool 2 wing dam/dike alteration, L&D 22 fish passage, and
·
alternative
formulation briefings for Pool 2 wing dam/dike alteration and
·
designs for Pool
2 wing dam/dike alteration, mooring cells at L&D 14 and
In response to a question
from Tim Schlagenhaft, Whitney said program management includes activities that
cut across ecosystem restoration and navigation, such as economic
re-evaluation, and education and outreach efforts.
FY 11 Work Plan
Whitney
reported that the Senate Appropriations Committee’s FY 11 energy and water
spending measure (S. 3635) and the House Energy and Water
Subcommittee’s FY 11 appropriations markup include $4.0 million and $1.0
million in PED funding for NESP, respectively.
On September 30, Congress approved a continuing resolution authority
(CRA) for the entire federal government that will expire on December 1,
2010. Whitney said Congressional action
beyond the CRA is unknown. He said Corps
staff are assuming FY 11 NESP funding of $3 million for planning purposes. [Note: On December 4 and December 22, Congress
enacted subsequent CRAs. The December 22
CRA runs through March 4, 2011.]
Whitney explained that, under
the $3 million planning assumption, NESP would allocate $350,000 to program
management and $1.352 million each to navigation planning and ecosystem
restoration planning. He outlined the FY
11 allocations within NESP’s major components, as follows:
·
Program
Management — $350,000
§
Program
management — $275,000
§
Public
involvement — $75,000
·
Navigation
Efficiency — $1,325,000
§
Systemic studies
— $290,000
- Navigation adaptive management — $150,000
- Systemic environmental mitigation — $130,000
- Navigation traffic management — $10,000
§
Small and large
scale projects — $1,035,000
- Small scale navigation — $125,000
- Large scale navigation — $910,000
·
Ecosystem
Restoration — $1,325,000
§
Systemic projects
— $639,500
§
Navigation
structure projects — $406,000
§
Habitat
improvement projects — $279,500
Chuck
Spitzack said there are several ongoing efforts to enhance traffic management
throughout the nation’s inland navigation system. In particular, USACE’s Inland Marine
Transportation System (IMTS) is developing several improvements to the
Corps’ navigation operational processes and strategies. Jeff Stamper is participating on the IMTS’s
Working Group, which assists the IMTS Board of Directors. Spitzack and Stamper will continue to monitor
the Group’s efforts to determine how its work relates to NESP and to inform the
Group about NESP and the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterways System.
In response to a question
from Jim Fischer, Whitney said NESP’s FY 11 allocations are $150,000 for
navigation adaptive management and $407,000 ecosystem restoration adaptive
management. In response to a question
from Schlagenhaft, Whitney said NESP’s recent adaptive management efforts have
included a) program managers attending USACE’s national adaptive management
meetings to learn about various techniques and b) technical managers providing
insights to project delivery teams (PDTs) and river management teams.
Whitney said NESP’s FY 11
goals include:
1)
continuing
efforts to increase construction readiness on several small scale ecosystem and
navigation projects;
2)
finalizing
project implementation reports (PIRs) for Reno Bottoms, Pool 18 water level
management, Upper Peoria Pool, Buffalo Island, Schenimann Chute, and Twin
Islands;
3)
finalizing design
reports for several projects, including locks, mooring cells, and mitigation;
and
4)
preparing to
transfer from a multi-lock to a single-lock planning approach in FY 12.
Janet Sternburg asked about
the costs associated with the additional project review requirements mandated
in WRDA 07. Whitney said the additional
reviews are very significant in terms of staff and budget resources. He estimated that agency technical reviews
(ATRs) cost between $20,000 and $50,000 and independent external peer reviews
cost between $150,000 and $300,000.
However, NESP is exploring the potential for an IEPR exemption on most
of its ecosystem and small-scale navigation projects. According to Whitney, an overall increase in
Congressional scrutiny on USACE will likely make it very difficult to receive
such an exemption.
In response to a question
from Sternburg, Whitney said projects cannot be submitted together for simultaneous
review. However, he said insights gained
will be incorporated into similar subsequent projects, thus decreasing costs
over time. Brian Johnson added that NESP
has been able to submit similar projects to the same ATR Team, creating obvious
efficiencies. Whitney acknowledged that
as the ATR Teams gain more experience under the new review requirements, the
Teams will likely discover areas of project reports that do not require high
levels of scrutiny.
In
response to a question from Jon Duyvejonck, Whitney said the additional review
costs he cited earlier do not include model certification, which is required
for all USACE models, including those with an established history of use. Within the next few weeks, EMP and NESP staff
will submit eight models for certification, with estimated certification costs
totaling between $4 million-$5 million.
The timeline for the models’ certification process is unclear. Johnson added that, although NESP projects
currently undergoing ATR have used uncertified models, the ATR Teams will
evaluate whether the models were appropriately applied. Duyvejonck suggested that a future
EMP-CC/NECC joint session include a discussion on what models are certified. Johnson noted that the USFWS’s Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) Models are certified.
(The HSI Models are commonly referred to as the Blue Book and are
available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp3/list_of_habitat_suitability_index_hsi_models_pac.htm.) However, he
noted that any modifications to a model will require it to undergo
recertification.
Whitney outlined NESP’s
anticipated FY 11 ecosystem restoration activities, including planning starts
in each of the four floodplain reaches, continuing adaptive management efforts,
finalizing the Cultural Resources Stewardship Teaching Guide and the Fleeting
Plan, and advancing current navigation structure and habitat improvement projects. Whitney mentioned that NESP’s “Blueprint for
Action” has been very well received among the partnership. He said it serves as a communications tool to
inform Congress of NESP’s goals for addressing the UMRS’s navigation and
ecosystem restoration needs, the potential economic importance of the program
to the region and nation, and its construction readiness.
Schlagenhaft expressed
concern that support for NESP has been declining over the past few years, both
within Congress and the Administration and among state field staff. With NESP’s uncertain near- and long-term
future, he posed the question of whether partners should reconsider NESP’s
implementation strategy, or instead, focus on investing resources in other
regional restoration programs. Whitney
acknowledged that Corps staff share similar concerns about declining support
for NESP. He stressed the need for
partners to continually reevaluate NESP’s vision and communications strategy to
revive and expand support for the program, emphasizing the strong,
collaborative partnership. Whitney
advised restoration advocates against separating from navigation partners, and
emphasized the possible benefits associated with “comparable funding” for
ecosystem restoration when high-expense navigation improvements are
implemented.
In
response to a question from Bob Clevenstine, Whitney said NESP’s estimates for
job creation associated with its planning and construction activities are
derived from a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) calculation. Clevenstine offered the USFWS’s 5-year
reports on the economic impacts from wildlife-based recreation as a resource
for describing potential NESP-related economic benefits in outreach materials.
Schlagenhaft noted that there
are significant challenges to new lock construction starts nationally. He observed that NESP has allocated
significant money to planning projects that have very high construction costs,
and suggested that partners reconsider whether it would be more valuable in the
current fiscal and political climate to place more emphasis on completing plans
for smaller, lower cost projects.
Whitney said the Corps has had similar discussions internally. However, Congressional support for NESP is
unknown at this point, and having larger projects with substantial potential
benefits to the UMRS and nation might provide greater motivation for the
Administration and Congress to include NESP in the Corps’ CG account.
Chuck Spitzack said he
appreciates Schlagenhaft’s comments and suggested that NECC discuss NESP’s future
strategy at its February 17, 2011 meeting.
He emphasized the need for partners to consider how to communicate the
need for increased UMRS funding generally, especially since the ASA(CW) has
identified the UMRS as a nationally significant ecosystem.
Bernie Schonhoff asked if
partners can do anything to accelerate other interim program needs, such as
getting the Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Guide (WHAG) and the Aquatic Habitat
Appraisal Guide (AHAG) models certified.
Whitney said those models are currently under review by the
NESP Lock Sequencing
Chuck Spitzack briefly
reviewed the lock construction proposal put forth in the IMTS Team’s Capital
Investment Plan. Under the IMTS
approach, UMRS locks would be constructed individually, as follows: L&D 25 in FY 11, although the earliest feasible
start is likely FY 12;
In a September 16 email, MVR
requested partner input on NESP lock sequencing by October 30, with particular
attention to whether there’s any reason to deviate from the order proposed in
the Capital Plan. Spitzack said comments
from Iowa DNR, Missouri DNR, US EPA, UMRBA, AEP River Operators, American Waterways
Operators, and Waterways Council expressed support for NESP following the IMTS
Team’s recommended lock sequencing.
These positions were generally predicated on
Jim Fischer asked if the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) is required to cost-share major
rehabilitation of
UMR-IWW Navigation Study Mitigation Update
Nate
Richards overviewed NESP’s activities related to both site-specific and
systemic mitigation for impacts from lock construction and increased commercial
traffic. NESP’s authority includes $205
million for mitigation, which is about 10 percent of NESP’s total authorized
funding. Of that amount, roughly $149
million has been identified for systemic efforts and $56 million for
site-specific projects. Richards described
NESP’s five major themes for its systemic mitigation activities, including
fisheries, submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV), backwater and side channel
sedimentation, bank erosion, and cultural resources.
Richards said NESP has completed
17 studies on the possible impacts to fish from forecasted increases in
commercial traffic resulting from the navigation improvements authorized under
NESP. The fish mitigation strategy was
developed using a larval fish entrainment model, which was extrapolated to
determine potential adult fish mortality and foregone recruitment and
production. About $60 million in fish
mitigation projects are identified, including backwater dredging, large woody
debris anchors, gravel bars, side channel restoration, and pile dikes. He said NESP plans to develop a fish
mitigation team to review current research, develop mitigation measures,
identify potential project locations, and initiate projects. Corps staff also anticipate convening a NECC
webinar on future fish mitigation shortly.
Richards
said the goal of SAV mitigation is to reduce the wave effects on SAV
populations that are at risk from commercial navigation. NESP has developed SAV models to determine
what populations might be impacted by increased commercial navigation. The models and field surveys identified 33
potential SAV impact zones in Pools 5, 9, 11, 13, and 19. It was found that 25 out of the 33 potential
impact zones can support SAV. And out of
those 25 zones, field surveys in 2005-2006 and 2008 found that SAV occurred in
4 to 10 zones. Richards reported that
MVP has recently completed a white paper that summarizes the survey results and
guides NESP’s potential SAV mitigation efforts.
The NESP Systemic Mitigation Team will review the white paper, which
NESP anticipates finalizing in early 2011.
Richards said NESP’s
mitigation goal for backwater and side channel sedimentation is to stop or slow
sediment deposition in areas identified at risk from commercial
navigation. He explained that gauges
will be placed in backwaters and on tows to determine the current water flow
speed and direction, suspended sediment concentrations, and water level
fluctuations, and to identify locations that would most likely be affected by
increases in navigation. So far, NESP
has identified 30 potential mitigation locations. Projects would include dredging, diversion
and barrier structures, rock placement, and islands. Richards said pre-construction studies are
needed to determine the potential significance of sediment deposition. He explained how the Corps plans to use
bathymetry to understand potential changes in sediment deposition from NESP’s
navigation projects.
Richards explained that NESP
has assessed potential increases in bank erosion based on commercial navigation
traffic forecasts, using existing literature, GIS databases, field surveys,
numeric models, and resource manager input.
The potential affected areas were ranked high and medium based on the
level of impact and the significance of the resource. Resources affected include threatened and
endangered species, floodplain forest, islands, social resources, and historic
properties. Richard said options for
mitigating bank erosion include non-structural (e.g., vegetation planting) and
structural (e.g., offshore revetment) measures, as well as combinations of
both. Richards showcased
Richards said NESP, as part
of its cultural resources mitigation, has developed a Teacher’s Curriculum Guide
to serve as an educational tool for grades 5-8.
The Guide includes interesting and engaging text, interviews, histories,
images, diagrams, examples, experiments, and problem solving tasks. The Cultural Resources Stewardship Team,
Mitigation Team, and UMR States Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) are
currently reviewing the draft Guide.
NESP staff anticipate publishing the Teacher’s Guide in early 2011.
Barry Johnson asked if the
Fish Mitigation Team has used an adult fish entrainment model, in addition to
the larval entrainment model. Richards
said Killgore et al. recently
developed a towboat fish entrainment rate study for 13 UMRS pools that
considers fish species that are 12.5 centimeters and larger. The study is currently under review, but its
results can be used in further fish mitigation analyses. Mark Cornish said several studies are nearly
completed that examine systemic fish mitigation.
In response to a question
from Johnson, Richards said the Fish Mitigation Team has focused on waves
generated by commercial vessels, not recreational boats. Johnson asked for more details regarding
methods to select potential side channel restoration sites. Scott Whitney explained that NESP has
conducted extensive modeling of sediment transport, including possible impacts
from barges. Richards said the side
channel projects are generally dispersed throughout the UMRS. Johnson encouraged the Corps to carefully
consider modifications to
Janet Sternburg asked if
Corps staff plan to review the systemic mitigation plan and reach planning for
common projects. Richards said the Corps
has identified at least one or two common projects in each reach, and is
currently reviewing reach planning projects for site-specific fish mitigation. Brian Johnson also noted that reach planning
projects can be used to think more broadly about how mitigation efforts can
benefit multiple species.
In response to a question
from Tim Schlagenhaft, Whitney clarified that the
Schlagenhaft observed that
EMP implements many of these project types and suggested that Corps staff
consider ways to leverage funding between NESP’s mitigation efforts and
EMP. Whitney articulated that NESP and
EMP are different programs and are appropriated funds separately for their own
respective projects that cannot be combined.
Schlagenhaft noted that NESP and EMP are currently involved in a program-neutral
reach planning effort. He offered his
perspective that it would be in the UMRS’s best interest to combine resources
to advance the highest priority projects.
Chuck Spitzack recalled that Corps staff intended to link the reach
planning process with the identified mitigation projects. However, that comparison step was not
realized. He also mentioned that any
efforts to combine ecosystem restoration and mitigation projects will need to
include very careful allocation of costs between the two accounts. Whitney noted that all mitigation projects
will need to be directly tied to resources that will be impacted by increased
barge traffic, limiting the projects’ scope.
Schlagenhaft suggested that Corps staff consider priority projects
identified through reach planning for NESP’s systemic mitigation efforts. Whitney agreed, and said Corps staff will
need to consider which projects best address mitigation needs.
Schlagenhaft also mentioned
the potential for other UMR restoration programs to accelerate priority
projects. Whitney said mitigation
projects will receive cost share from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, allowing
NESP to implement more projects with its mitigation funding. Richards said that, since navigation
improvements are likely to occur in the southern portions of the UMR,
mitigation projects in those areas would also be implemented first. Schlagenhaft clarified that his comments were
to emphasize the need to select mitigation projects that address mitigation
needs and also reflect partner priorities.
Partner Reports
Jim Fischer announced that
Scott Walker is
Tim Schlagenhaft said
Mike Jawson reported that
USGS is currently undergoing a major reorganization. The five USGS branches (Geology, Geography,
Water, Biology, and Geospatial Information) will be replaced with
six thematic areas, which include Ecosystems; Climate and Land-Use Change;
Energy and Minerals, and Environmental Health; Natural Hazards; Water; and Core
Science Systems. USGS will also
eliminate its three geographic regions, but will maintain eight smaller
geographic areas. The UMRS states will
be divided among three areas. Jawson
said this reorganization is intended to facilitate interdisciplinary research
and information exchange, both internal and external to the agency.
Kevin Foerster introduced
Ryan Aylesworth, USFWS’s Intergovernmental External Affairs Liaison. Aylesworth said he is involved with USFWS’s
Congressional affairs efforts and Midwest Natural Resources Group (MNRG). He is also currently finalizing his doctoral
research on interagency collaboration in the
Bernie Schonhoff reported
that
Rick
Nelson announced that USFWS has proposed two freshwater mussels found in the
UMRS, the Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus)
and Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta),
for protection as endangered species.
Brad Walker mentioned that,
in its recently released “illustrative savings list” of options for
reducing the national deficit, Co-Chairs of the National Commission
on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended that fuel tax revenues
fully fund construction and maintenance of the inland navigation
system. The full list of recommendations
is available at http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf. [Subsequent to
the meeting, on December 1, the Commission released its final report, with an
accompanying list of savings options in discretionary spending that includes
the navigation fuel tax recommendation.
The Commissioner’s report, however, was not endorsed by the 14-member
minimum needed to trigger immediate Congressional consideration. The final vote was 11-7 in favor of the
report recommendations.]
Janet
Sternburg reported that Senator Kit Bond is retiring. Bond has always been a strong supporter of
NESP, EMP, and other UMRS programs.
Sternburg noted that the partnership needs to continue to demonstrate
its support for NESP.
Chuck Spitzack said NESP
staff are considering having a river conference in 2012 or 2013 to align with
the next NESP Implementation Report to Congress (IRTC). He said NESP will need to begin planning for
the IRTC soon.
Other Business
Mike Jawson observed that
The
upcoming quarterly meetings are as follows:
§
February 2011 —
o
UMRBA — February
15
o
EMP-CC —
February 16
o
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of February 16
o
NECC — February 17
§
May 2011 —
o
UMRBA — May 17
o
NECC — May 18
o
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of May 18 (if needed)
o
EMP-CC — May 19
§
August 2011 — Quad Cities*
o
UMRBA — August 16
o
EMP-CC — August
17
o
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of August 17 (if needed)
o
NECC — August 18
* For both the
May and August quarterly meetings, the EMP-CC and NECC meetings may be held on
a single day (i.e., May 18 and August 17).
This will depend on a number of variables (e.g., potential virtual NECC
meetings, need for a joint session, estimated meeting time required, etc.).
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
NECC
Attendance List
November 17,
2010
NECC Members
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Whitney |
|
|
Nate Richards |
|
|
Mark Cornish |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Hal Graef |
|
|
Donovan Henry |
|
|
Kat McCain |
|
|
Kevin Foerster |
|
|
Ryan Aylesworth |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Pat Boddy |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Robert Stout |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Nicole Staskowski |
JFNew |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Laura Kammin |
Prairie Rivers
Network |
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|