Minutes of the
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
May 20, 2009
Quarterly Meeting
Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel
Ken
Barr of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:03
a.m. on May 20, 2009. A complete list of
attendees follows these minutes.
Announcements
Barb Naramore announced that
Jo-Ellen Darcy has been nominated to become the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works. Two hearings have been
held, both of which went well. A
confirmation vote is possible as early as this week. Paul Rhode said that Darcy is well-respected
and he anticipates her confirmation without difficulty.
Minutes from the February 19, 2009 Meeting
The draft minutes of the February
19, 2009 meeting were approved as written.
Funding Status
FY 09 Update
Chuck Spitzack reported that,
in FY 09, the total obligation authority available to NESP is $9,049,999, which
includes $445,999 carry-over from FY 08.
Spitzack explained that the allocation within the program is as follows:
|
·
Programmatic
component |
— |
$850,000 |
(i.e., program management and
outreach/communication)
|
·
Navigation
efficiency component |
— |
$4,100,000 |
|
·
Ecosystem
restoration component |
— |
$4,099,999 |
Spitzack said that while
staff assignments to
FY 10 Appropriations Status
Spitzack reported that NESP
was not included in the President’s FY 10 budget request. Therefore, funding in FY 10 is contingent on
NESP receiving a Congressional add.
Vince Shay explained that
environmental and industry representatives and UMRBA continue to work through
their informal coalition in support of NESP and EMP. Shay reported that, through February and
April, the coalition visited extensively with UMRS Congressional delegation
offices and key committee staff. The
coalition stressed the importance of keeping EMP strong until NESP is
adequately funded. The group initially
recommended $50 million in construction general funding for NESP in
FY 10. However, based on feedback
from committee staff, Shay reported that the coalition lowered its NESP request
to $35 million. The group is also
seeking $20 million in FY 10 funding for EMP.
Barb Naramore summarized the
following three take home messages from the Congressional visits, all of which
represent challenges to NESP receiving construction funding: the Inland Waterway Trust Fund revenue
shortfall must be addressed, a concise EMP-NESP transition plan needs to be developed
and submitted to Congress, and NESP needs to be included in the President’s
budget to ensure long-term success.
Paul Rohde added that with
the 2008 elections, there has been considerable turnover in key staff,
requiring a significant re-education effort.
He added that, either collectively or individually, coalition
representatives were able to connect with the entire UMR delegation. Rhode announced that an OMB examiner will be
visiting the UMR on June 9. The staffer’s
visit will be an important opportunity to familiarize the examiner with the
challenges and needs on the UMRS.
Advisory Panel Update
Chuck Spitzack reported that,
on March 2, 2009, UMRBA sent a letter to Brigadier General Michael Walsh
regarding the Advisory Panel (AP) proposal that he submitted to USACE HQ in
February 2009. Barb Naramore said
UMRBA’s letter addressed two major issues:
1.
A system-level working group at the policy/technical
nexus is essential for successful implementation of the NESP ecosystem
restoration authority.
2.
The tasks and overall demands on a director-level
advisory panel must be carefully focused on those things for which they are
uniquely suited—e.g., raising the River’s profile and ensuring top-level
support.
Spitzack said that the
timeframe for Washington-level action on the AP proposal is uncertain. He explained that USACE staff cannot solicit
NGOs for membership, or begin with other efforts to implement the AP, until the
ASA(CW) takes action. In the interim, Spitzack said that NECC will continue to
serve as a working group to address implementation issues, and will also serve
AP functions related to the WRDA-required Report to Congress and project
ranking system.
Spitzack reported that the
Corps staff is continuing to work with the State of
Spitzack reported that a
Regional Support Team (RST) will work directly with NECC and will develop a
systemic approach for ecosystem restoration to help guide planning
efforts. The Reach Planning Teams (RPTs)
will use that approach to develop draft geomorphic reach plans. Spitzack said that the draft plans will be
reviewed by the RRT, RRCT, and/or RRAT, respectively, which will then provide
final reach plans back to the RST for coordination with NECC. For the Illinois River Reach, the RPT will
provide a draft reach plan to the IRWG, RRCT, and RRAT; and will work with the
three teams to make any necessary revisions.
Spitzack explained that the RST will essentially operate as a hub for
system and reach planning, as a component of adaptive management.
Implementation Report to Congress
Dan McGuiness reviewed the
purpose, proposed outline, and content of the NESP Implementation Report to
Congress (IRTC), as well as general partner comments received on the April 16
draft report. In response to comments
regarding length of the Executive Summary, McGuiness proposed developing a
shorter fact sheet that can be used in communicating the main messages of the
IRTC. According to McGuiness, the two
biggest areas of partner concern with the report relate to the EMP-NESP
transition and the conclusion (i.e., how to summarize the issues regarding
transition, readiness to implement, urgency of receiving adequate
appropriations, and outlining an optimum scale and schedule for moving
forward). Although the draft transition
plan will not be ready for inclusion, key messages about the transition can be
articulated in the report, he explained.
McGuiness reported that
overall feedback was positive regarding the report’s tone, format, and
approach. Other comments included: the general description of the resource’s
ecological significance should be expanded; a more detailed framework on
adaptive management should be included; and the report is heavy on
administrative and planning, and short on explicit project descriptions and
accomplishments. McGuiness observed that
the ability to talk about NESP’s accomplishments is limited by the lack of
construction funding to date.
McGuiness asked for any
additional comments by May 28. A revised
final draft will then be shared with the partnership for review on June 8, with
a goal of submitting a draft to MVD by June 15 and to Congress by June 30. [Subsequent to the meeting, the revised draft
report was distributed on June 11, with comments due by July 3.]
Jeff DeZellar read a
statement prepared by Don Hultman on behalf of the RRF:
By consensus, the Forum supports the direction of the
working draft NESP Implementation Report to Congress, including writing style
and tone, layout, and framework, with the understanding that approval or
endorsement will be through normal agency, NGO, and other river organization
protocols.
In
response to a question from Bernie Schonhoff, McGuiness said ten pages is a
reasonable target for the Executive Summary, with the expectation that a
condensed fact sheet will also be developed that can be used as a communication
piece. Bill Franz noted the importance
of getting the Administration’s support for NESP, so that it will be included
in future budget requests. He asked how
the report addresses this need.
Marv Hubbell said that, if
EMP accomplishments will be discussed in the report as McGuiness has proposed,
then he recommends that the report highlight EMP’s ability to provide a
foundation for NESP and demonstrate capability of science and restoration
programs on the UMRS. He urged caution
to ensure that the report does not inadvertently attribute EMP accomplishments
to NESP. Hubbell also noted that EMP is
currently developing a RTC that is due in December 2010, and that LTRM recently
completed an FY 10-14 Strategic and Operational Plan. McGuiness requested feedback on particular
aspects of EMP that should be highlighted in the IRTC, noting that EMP’s
successful track record of collaboration, project execution, and insights
gained from monitoring offer a clear indication of the region’s readiness to
move forward with NESP. Ken Barr
proposed describing EMP’s background in a historical context that will set up a
discussion and/or recommendation regarding an EMP-NESP transition. Chuck Spitzack suggested that the IRTC refer
to the key messages in the current draft EMP-NESP Transition Plan and identify
projects in the planning and design phases, including EMP projects as a part of
the program neutral reach planning effort.
Elizabeth Ivy urged caution in drawing from the draft Transition Plan
for the IRTC, since the plan has not yet been reviewed by MVD, Headquarters
(HQ), ASA, or OMB.
Regarding the proposed IRTC
timeframe, Elizabeth Ivy said two weeks to move from MVD to Congress is
inadequate, noting that reports can easily take six months or more to move from
division to Congressional submittal.
Brian Johnson expressed concern with the concurrent partner and USACE
district-level reviews, cautioning that the schedule is too aggressive. In response, Barr noted the program’s history
of being transparent and accountable, with strong partnership and vertical
integration. He said the proposed
timeline is designed to meet the Congressional deadline. Colonel Robert Sinkler said that MVR can
complete its review within the seven-day timeframe, and asked other district
representatives what their capabilities are for a review turnaround. Sinkler said that, if made a priority, he
expects that a seven-day review period would be sufficient. Johnson said he would prefer a schedule that
allowed for partner review before the Corps’ district-level review.
In response to a question
from Ivy regarding the mechanics for requesting an extension, Spitzack
expressed reluctance to seek an extension.
Gretchen Benjamin noted the potential value of submitting the report on
time while the FY 10 appropriations process is still underway. Paul Rhode concurred. Barb Naramore said that, without seeing the
full report until June 8, UMRBA will not be able to submit comments that
represent the five states’ collective views by the June 15 deadline, although
the states may provide individual comments.
She asked if there would be an alternative option, such as providing
Congress with a preview of the full report by June 30, thereby giving everyone
a bit more time to comment on the full report.
Spitzack expressed doubt that a preview could be finalized any more
quickly than the full report. He said a
brief extension on the comment deadline may be possible. Ivy said she expects MVD can forward the
draft IRTC to HQ fairly quickly, but anticipates a slower response from the
Administration. Spitzack agreed that is
likely, but said staff in the region need to concentrate on what is within
their control.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked
whether and how the IRTC will provide more detail on the project ranking
system, and the mechanism to give greater weight to projects that restore
natural river processes, as directed in NESP’s authorization. He emphasized that projects will need to be
prioritized both at the reach and system scales, and asked who will be charged
with doing the system-level ranking. In
particular, Schlagenhaft noted that all projects can be said to affect natural
river processes to some extent, so the ranking system will need to be able to
assess the degree to which proposed projects support natural processes. Barr said that the IRTC will provide an
update on the reach planning process, and that project priorities at the reach
and system scales will be defined on an annual basis.
Jon Duyvejonck asked how the
next round of projects will be formulated.
He urged the partners to outline a team-based, science-informed project
selection process.
Janet Sternburg asked how
detailed the 2004 EMP RTC was regarding individual projects. Naramore said that the 1997 EMP RTC included
extensive descriptions of each project as part of an appendix. Hubbell noted that the 2004 report focused
less on individual projects and more on overall outcomes and benefits. Barr said that the 2013 NESP IRTC will be at
that level, and that the current report will set the stage for that type of
discussion.
Benjamin asked why the report
refers to a 15-year authorization, when if fact the program is authorized at a
dollar amount. Barr and Spitzack
acknowledged Benjamin’s point and said that the language should be clarified. But they explained that the 15-year timeframe
was referenced to illustrate the investment anticipated over a specific
timeline. The First Increment Plan is
estimated in the Navigation Feasibility Study at 15 years, though the WRDA 07
authorizes a specific scope of work and dollar amount, without reference to a
timeframe.
Jim Fischer noted that the
geomorphic reaches do not line up with the UMRBA water quality assessment
reaches, and suggested working with Clean Water Act staff to unify these
boundaries in an effort to enhance coordination and minimize confusion. Barr said that this classification, developed
by James Knox, was adopted by the NECC/ECC in 2002. He also noted UMRBA developed a crosswalk
table as a tool for communication and understanding between ecosystem
restoration and CWA programs.
Vince Shay said that the
suggested name change of ENP is confusing, since it is so close to EMP. Spitzack said that the program will continue
to be referred to as NESP for the time being.
Floodplain Restoration System Team
Todd Strole provided
background information on NESP’s floodplain restoration authority, referencing
the Feasibility Study, WRDA 07, and NESP Implementation Guidance. Stole reported that a Floodplain Restoration
System Team is being established, with the goal of advancing the systemic
restoration and management of floodplains for natural resources, flood damage
reduction, and economic benefits. Strole
said that potential team members include representatives from USACE
(environmental, realty, and legal staff), USFWS, NRCS, state resource agencies,
NGOs (environmental and agricultural), academia, and landowners. Strole said he anticipates that the Team will
have its first meeting this summer or fall.
Strole explained that the
Team will coordinate with the Corps Districts and river resource teams, the
NESP Science Panel, the NESP Regional Support Team, as well as agricultural and
landowner interest groups. Additionally,
Strole listed the following additional opportunities for collaboration: Interagency Levee Task Force (and state-level
Silver Jackets Groups), Midwest Natural Resources Group, USFS UMR Forest
Partnership, Middle Mississippi River Partnership, Mississippi/Missouri River
Confluence Conservation Partnership, and the Association of State Floodplain
Managers.
The Team’s initial tasks will
include identifying issues and developing common goals. Likely issues include hydrological changes
over time; recent hydrologic events, current conditions, and future trends;
flood damages; historical and current land cover/land use; climate change;
economic opportunities; floodplain restoration options; recreational
opportunities; and impediments to floodplain restoration. Other tasks will include developing a range
of opportunities and alternative actions; implementing project(s) with a
monitoring component to document economic, natural resource, and alternative
energy impacts; and developing a long-term adaptive management approach.
Strole said he will develop a
concept paper on the Team and its approach, and present it to the partnership
for review at NECC’s August 6, 2009 meeting.
Strole requested feedback regarding the Team’s composition and focus.
Christine Favilla asked if
the Team’s responsibilities would include legislative monitoring. Strole said current and proposed policies,
but the Team as a whole will not engage in advocacy. Jon Duyvejonck said that, as NESP begins to
expand efforts into the floodplain, the program will need to successfully engage
with additional relevant agencies and organizations, including NRCS, Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, and landowners, to identify objectives and
prioritize projects. He added that NGOs
experienced in engaging with these groups could serve as a valuable connection.
Jim Fischer expressed support
for the development of a Floodplain Restoration System Team and for the
proposed scope. He stressed the
importance of coordinating with the Interagency Levee Task Force. Dru Buntin suggested the Team work with the
State Emergency Management Agencies. Tim
Schlagenhaft said that the two ongoing NESP floodplain restoration pilot
projects could be used as a model. Ken
Barr said that the Team should be strongly linked with the river teams and the
UMR Forest Team.
Outreach Team Update
Chuck Spitzack reported that
the Corps’ UMRS Outreach Team is still working within the agency, but will be
seeking to link with partners in the near future. Among other things, the Team is currently
developing a broad identity for UMR projects and programs, under which the
individual projects/programs would maintain their identities. One idea under consideration is “Upper
Mississippi River Works — A Partnership for Sustainability of the
Christine Favilla emphasized
the importance of incorporating the
Spitzack said that the UMR
Outreach Team will engage with the partnership and MVD, to ensure that the UMR
outreach programs are consistent with partner efforts, the Division’s
Mississippi-wide efforts, and national policy.
He explained that the Corps decision support system will be an important
tool in providing public information.
Don Hultman said the proposed
name, Upper Mississippi River Works, may be associated with industrial
facilities. Instead, he proposed ‘Upper
Mississippi River Project—A River That Works for Fish, Wildlife, and
People.’ Tim Schlagenhaft suggested
holding a public naming contest, which would engage the public and give them a
sense of ownership.
Partner Reports
Jon Duyvejonck reported that
USFWS is experiencing high workloads as a result of the stimulus funds. He requested a list of all anticipated
NECC-related meetings and any products that may require USFWS input in the coming
months so that the USFWS can be responsive to NESP’s needs.
Bernie Schonhoff suggested
reducing NECC meetings from four to three times per year to reduce travel
costs.
Vince Shay reported that the
Monsanto Collaborative’s Mississippi River Basin Agriculture Working Group has
held two meetings to identify its goals and focus.
Gretchen Benjamin asked when
the UMRS Outreach Team will start to work with partners. Chuck Spitzack said that the Outreach Team
plans to meet in June, and would like to engage the partners soon thereafter as
it prepares for external sensing with the public.
Jim
Fischer said that
Janet
Sternburg reported that the Missouri Department of Conservation is reducing its
workforce through voluntary retirements.
Although this does not directly affect staff working on UMR-related
programs and projects, overall workloads will increase. She also noted that the review process for
hydrokinetics will increase demands on staff.
Sternburg asked to review the PDT contact lists for possible staff
changes.
Mark
Gorman introduced himself as the new Policy Analyst for
Bernie
Hoyer said that Iowa DNR is facing a 15 percent cut in state general fund
appropriations next year. He observed
that federal stimulus funding is cushioning the impacts of state budget cuts
somewhat in FY 10 and said FY 11 is likely to be worse financially for state
agencies.
Christine
Favilla announced two outreach opportunities:
1) the “Visions of a Sustainable Mississippi River” conference in
Don
Hultman announced that portions of the
Barry
Johnson said that the 2008 LTRMP Status and Trends Report is available in hard
copy and on the UMESC website. He
anticipates that the Science Panel will complete its Water Level Management
report this summer. The Science Panel is
scheduled to meet during the RRAT boat trip on June 9-11, and plans to meet
with the Illinois River Team in late summer.
Barb
Naramore expressed appreciation to those who participated in UMRBA’s May 5-7,
2009 workshop on biological indicators for the UMR.
Colonel
Sinkler reported that Waubonsie Creek received $2.098 million in stimulus
funding to construct a fish passage.
This will be the first large scale ecosystem restoration project under
the
Paul
Rhode announced that an OMB budget examiner will be visiting the UMR in
June. Rhode said that a local
Administrative Items
A NECC conference call was
scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
The upcoming quarterly
meetings are as follows:
·
August 2009 —
§
UMRBA — August 4
§
NICC — August 4
§
EMP-CC — August 5
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of August 5
§
NECC — August 6
·
November 2009 — Quad Cities
§
UMRBA — November
17
§
NECC — November 18
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of November 18 (if needed)
§
EMP-CC — November
19
·
February 2010 —
§
UMRBA — February
23
§
EMP-CC — February
24
§
Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of February 24 (if needed)
§
NECC — February 25
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 11:38 a.m.
NECC Attendance List
May 20, 2009
NECC Members
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
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 |
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
|
|
|
Others
in Attendance |
|
|
Charles Barton |
|
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Rebecca Soileau |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Dru Buntin |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Mark Muller |
|
|
Doug Albin |
|
|
Christine Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature
Conservancy/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council,
Inc. |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Dan McGuiness and Associates |
|
Mark Gorman |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Peg Donnelly |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|