Minutes of the
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
August 10, 2010
Quarterly Meeting
Web-based Teleconference
Chuck
Spitzack of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 9:00
a.m. on August 10, 2010. A
complete list of attendees follows these minutes.
Bernie Schonhoff introduced
Pat Boddy, Iowa DNR’s Deputy Director.
Boddy will serve as Iowa DNR’s UMRBA and EMP-CC representative, and
will likely attend some NECC meetings.
Minutes from the May 19, 2010 Meeting
Corrections to May 19, 2010 meeting minutes
Jim
Fischer clarified that Wisconsin DNR has approved a draft appraisal report for
L&D 3 fish passage, not a feasibility report, as was written on page A-9 of
the draft minutes. He requested that the
draft be amended accordingly. Brad
Walker requested that, in the second sentence of the third paragraph on
page A-1, the word shall be
substituted for should.
Janet
Sternburg moved and Bernie Schonhoff seconded a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the May 19, 2010 meeting with the amendments offered by Fischer
and Walker. The motion carried
unanimously.
Discussion of May 19, 2010 meeting
Schonhoff asked how fish
passage is prioritized relative to other ecosystem restoration projects in
NESP’s first increment. Scott Whitney
said fish passage is a top priority for NESP, but is not likely feasible with
the low funding anticipated in the near future.
He said fish passage projects require consistently high funding levels,
similar to new lock construction.
Schonhoff
reiterated his earlier request for the comments the Science Panel has received
on its draft Water Level Management report.
Barry Johnson said he had submitted them those comments to Ken Barr, with
the expectation that they would be forwarded to NECC. Johnson said he will follow up with Barr
regarding distribution of the comments.
(Subsequent to the meeting, Nate Richards distributed these comments to
NECC members. The Corps plans to make
these comments available to all partners at the same time the final report is
distributed.)
Chuck Spitzack recalled that, at the May 19 NECC meeting, Brad Walker
asked why the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Team used the high
traffic scenario in its Capital Investment Plan. Spitzack said he has not communicated
directly with the IMTS Team, but believes the high traffic scenario is
reasonable in that it is consistent with findings and recommendations in the 2004
feasibility report and the 2008 reevaluation report. According to Spitzack, the potential
implications of the high traffic scenario on the UMRS would require major lock
improvements, as recommended in NESP’s first increment. He said the high traffic scenario is very
reasonable and therefore its appropriate to use in estimating future costs and
benefits.
Spitzack said
Program Management
Inland Waterways Trust Fund Update
Chuck Spitzack said Corps
staff are currently reviewing the UMRS lock construction sequence proposed in
the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Team’s Capital Investment
Plan. Under the 20‑year plan
L&D 25, La Grange, L&D 22, and L&D 24 would be initiated, in that
order. Spitzack explained that the
remaining new locks authorized in NESP (i.e., L&D 20 and 21 and
In response to a question
from Rick Nelson, Spitzack said this proposed sequencing approach reflects a
shift in focus from best value implementation to single lock
implementation. In response to a
question from Gretchen Benjamin, Spitzack said Corps staff will also request
comments from industry partners on the revised lock sequencing approach.
Spitzack
reported that the President’s FY 11 budget request, matched by the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s FY 11 energy and water spending measure (S. 3635),
includes $350,000 for major rehabilitation of
FY 11 Appropriations Status
Scott Whitney said the
President did not include NESP in his FY 11 budget request. Whitney reported that the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s FY 11 energy and water spending measure and the
House Energy and Water Subcommittee’s FY 11 appropriations markup include $4.0
million and $1.0 million in general investigation (GI) funding for NESP,
respectively. Whitney said it is highly
probable that the Corps and other federal agencies will operate under a
continuing resolution authority (CRA) until after the November elections. However, the specific implications of a CRA
for NESP are not yet known.
Draft FY 11 Work Plan Scenarios
Whitney
explained that NESP staff had developed FY 11 work plans based on scenarios
ranging from $6 million to $10 million in GI funding and $15 million in
construction general (CG) funding.
However, with the recent House and Senate Committee actions, it is clear
these funding levels are no longer realistic.
On August 24, NESP managers and project team leads are scheduled to
discuss FY 11 planning priorities under $1 million and $4 million GI funding scenarios. Whitney said Corps staff will distribute
planning scenarios to NECC for review this fall. With such a dramatic decrease in funding, the
Corps estimates that it will have to halt work on at least half of the projects
currently in planning under NESP.
Reach Planning Status
Spitzack overviewed the UMRS
reach planning process. He explained
that, while program neutral, reach planning will occur on a four-year cycle
that coincides with NESP’s report to Congress schedule. Reach planning is also intended to serve as a
planning tool for NESP’s first increment implementation. Spitzack said the first iteration of reach
planning was previously scheduled for completion in early 2010, but will likely
be completed in FY 11. To coincide with
NESP’s 2013 report to Congress, the second iteration of reach planning will
commence in FY 12 with a target completion in early 2013.
Spitzack reviewed the reach
planning process, which is intended to encompass both a top-down and bottom-up
approach:
·
NESP/EMP Regional
Support Team (RST) prepares a reach and system planning notebook, which guides
the reach planning process.
·
On an ongoing
basis, RST coordinates with NESP’s Science Panel and EMP’s Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program (LTRMP) scientists for input regarding habitat and
information needs and monitoring and adaptive management approaches.
·
The reach
planning teams (RPTs) draft reach objective reports and reach plans, from which
the RST develops a systemic objectives report and a plan for ecosystem
restoration for the UMRS.
·
Corps
district-based River Management Teams (RMTs) and the Illinois River Team review
the documents listed above that apply within their respective district
boundaries.
·
NECC and EMP-CC
consider endorsement of the system-level documents — i.e., the notebook, system
objectives report, and system plan.
Spitzack
noted that the RST also provides guidance to NESP’s system planning teams
(SPTs) in their development of specialty system plans (e.g., systemic forest
management plan), which are then provided to the RPTs to inform reach
planning. The reach planning teams
identify restoration needs and recommend systemic adaptive management
activities to the RST. In response to a
question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Spitzack said the RMTs are currently reviewing
the February 5, 2010 draft UMRS Objectives Report. The RST will consult with the RPTs in
developing the UMRS System Plan.
In response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Spitzack listed the
NESP SPTs, including fish passage, water level management, forest management,
cultural resources, floodplain restoration, and barge fleeting.
Bernie Schonhoff asked
whether the RST, rather than the RPTs, should develop the systemic adaptive
management activities. Spitzack
explained that the RPTs will simply identify potential adaptive management
activities within their respective floodplains for the RST’s consideration in
developing a systemic adaptive management plan.
In response to a question from Barry Johnson, Spitzack said all of the
reach planning materials will function as living documents, and will undergo
major updates every four years.
Schlagenhaft asked if this process and current status is represented
visually in a table or chart. Spitzack
said the UMRS reach planning notebook will be revised to include a more
detailed description of the process.
Spitzack said the RMTs have
endorsed, or are currently reviewing, draft FY 09-12 Floodplain Reach
Plans. The Corps anticipates that the
RMTs will consider the draft UMRS Objectives Report by the end of calendar year
2010, with EMP-CC and NECC action following in February 2011. Spitzack said the RMTs, EMP-CC, and NECC will
also likely be asked to act on the UMR System Plan in early 2011.
Spitzack acknowledged that
this first attempt at reach planning had complications. He recalled that partners at the August 3
UMRBA and August 4 EMP-CC meetings stressed the need for the Corps to enhance
effectiveness, efficiency, and clarity of the reach planning process. Spitzack said the Corps will develop an
after-action report for this iteration and will incorporate lessons learned
from this round into future reach planning cycles. In response to a question from Sternburg,
Spitzack said NESP and EMP partners will have an opportunity to include their
perspectives on the reach planning process in the after-action report. He said the Corps has not yet established a
schedule for the after-action report. In
response to a question from John Barko, Chuck Theiling explained that the
February 5, 2010 UMRS Objectives Report is in its final draft stage, but will
incorporate the floodplain objective reports when they are finalized. Theiling said the System Plan describes a
systemic implementation strategy for the UMRS, based on the habitat and
ecological needs identified in the individual floodplain reach plans.
New Planning Starts
Todd Strole reported that the
River Resources Action Team (RRAT) Tech and Exec have endorsed Maple Island
Complex for the next NESP planning new start in the Unimpounded Reach.
Nate Richards said the Lower
Impounded RPT has selected Eagle Fill Backwater in Pool 17 and Lead Island
Chute in Pool 19 for the next NESP planning new starts. Schonhoff asked if the Lower Impounded RPT or
the River Resources Coordinating Team (RRCT) considered the time sensitivity
issue surrounding Lead Island Chute, since the current owner of some of the
land involved may auction the land shortly.
Theiling said the Corps is not in the position to move forward at this
time. Schonhoff said the owner may be
willing to hold some of the needed land if the Corps communicates its interest
in pursuing this project. He noted that
most of Pool 19 is privately owned, so this project represents a good
opportunity to restore some of its habitat.
Jon
Hendrickson explained that the Upper Impounded RPT has developed proposals for
most of the 35 projects it initially identified for planning in May and
June 2010. Hendrickson explained that
Upper Impounded RPT used conceptual models to define reference conditions to
select priority areas for restoration opportunities. The Fish and Wildlife Work Group (FWWG)
selected the Upper Iowa River Delta as the Upper Impounded Reach’s priority new
planning start and Lower Pool 2 as the second priority project. The Upper Iowa River Delta project would
restore flows into this backwater complex, with the goal of reducing sedimentation
and partially restoring the natural hydrology.
Hendrickson said the RPT has submitted a draft Upper Impounded Reach
Plan and the Upper Iowa River Delta project proposal to the River Resources
Forum (RRF) for consideration at its next meeting, which is scheduled for
August 26-27, 2010. Following RRF’s
endorsement, the draft Plan and project proposal will be submitted to NECC and
EMP-CC. Hendrickson clarified that the
Upper Impounded Reach Objectives Report is not yet out for review.
In response to a question
from Johnson, Hendrickson said the Upper Impounded RPT has selected targeted
areas for potential restoration opportunities and is now considering possible
management actions. Schlagenhaft
expressed concern that pool-scale water level management opportunities will be
overlooked if the RPT focuses exclusively on smaller scale project areas within
pools. Hendrickson said, while the
targeted project areas are all at a sub-pool scale, water level management will
be considered as a potential management action to achieve desired
objectives. Schlagenhaft said having
a System Plan in place to guide the RPTs would be more effective to
connect the system goals and objectives to the reach plans and identified
projects.
Marshall Plumley said the
Illinois RPT has identified nine potential new projects for initiation under
EMP or NESP. These will undergo
simultaneous review by the Illinois River Coordinating Council, RRCT, and RRAT
Exec shortly. The nine potential
projects include both pool scale and site specific floodplain restoration
opportunities.
Scott Whitney said NESP has
allocated $15,000 to develop project management plans for each new planning
start. Because of delays in project
identification and work loads, this work will begin in FY 11.
Pool 18 Water Level Management Plan
Chuck
Theiling said partner questions about the fish and wildlife impacts of the
proposed Pool 18 water level management project have expanded the scope of the
project monitoring plan. On August 26,
2010, the Pool 18 Water Level Management Project Delivery Team (PDT) and the
Science Panel will meet to discuss possible approaches to incorporating
biological response monitoring in the current monitoring plan for the Pool 18
drawdown. They will also examine ways
the Pool 18 drawdown might address some assumptions in the Science Panel’s
water level management conceptual models.
Theiling noted that the Science Panel has proposed using Pool 20 as a
reference, given that the two pools are in the same general area, are each influenced
by a major tributary, and are buffered by Pool 19.
Karen
Hagerty mentioned the possibility of collaborating with
Floodplain Restoration System Team
Todd Strole showcased a new
database of information about 314 potential floodplain restoration sites on the
UMRS. He once again emphasized that
these are simply potential restoration sites, based on input from members of
the Floodplain Restoration System Team (FRST) and RPTs. He stressed that they have not been ground
truthed and landowner interest has not been determined. Strole demonstrated how to filter the data
based on user-selected criteria (e.g., levee height, number of existing
building sites, floodplain and geomorphic reach, land use, etc.) and how to
display potential restoration projects graphically in ArcGIS, using internal
links. Strole said he is currently
verifying content and evaluating where to house the database. Scott Whitney encouraged Strole to review the
data on level of protection, observing that the database appears to include far
too many levees listed at a 500-year level.
Chuck Theiling suggested adding floodplain inundation data to Strole’s
database.
Strole reported that the
FRST’s next steps will include shifting from the Team’s top-down approach and
fostering more local level discussions regarding specific potential restoration
opportunities. This will necessitate
bringing in new participants knowledgeable about particular areas.
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Strole said planners can overlay side channel and
floodplain restoration opportunities using the database.
Science Panel
Nate
Richards described the Science Panel’s FY 11 work plan priorities, which are as
follows:
·
Leverage Adaptive
Hydraulics-Comprehensive Aquatic Systems (ADH/CASM) and other modeling capabilities
to aid selection and design of ecosystem restoration projects.
·
Evaluate fish
response to fish passage and secondary channel restoration projects.
·
Communicate with
the Illinois Science Advisory Council regarding ecosystem goals and objectives
and enhance collaboration on various
·
Develop
biological indicators for use in an ecosystem health report card for the
UMRS. This might include collaboration
with the EMP’s Analysis Team.
Scott Whitney noted that the
Science Panel’s FY 11 work plan assumes NESP is funded at approximately $10
million. Given the prospects for
significantly lower FY 11 funding, the Science Panel will likely need to
rescope its FY 11 work plan, according to Whitney.
Side Channel Restoration Workshop
Ken Cook said MVS currently
is planning three side channel restoration projects under NESP, including
·
Planning side
channel restoration projects is typically challenging because these projects
are often opportunistic, there is a lack of understanding about large river
processes, and there are substantial monitoring challenges related to side
channel restoration.
·
Understanding the
potential for side channels to contribute to the UMRS’s sustainability is
needed.
·
Conceptual models
to estimate the capacity for side channel restoration projects to restore
regional and systemic ecological functions and overall sustainability should be
developed.
Cook
reported that, as an outcome from the scoping session, Corps staff plan to host
a side channel restoration workshop, which is tentatively scheduled for January
2011. The workshop will focus on how
side channel restoration can support ecosystem goals and objectives across the
UMRS.
Partner Reports
Janet Sternburg reported that
the Missouri Department of Conservation’s six Division Chief positions are now
filled, which should facilitate decision making within the department. Sternburg said Governor Nixon is increasing restrictions
on out-of-state travel.
Bernie
Schonhoff expressed support for the proposed Lead Island Chute restoration
project. He also noted that
Butch
Atwood said
Bill Franz said US EPA and
USGS are working collaboratively to refine SPARROW modeling of phosphorus and
nitrogen loading within the
Jim Fischer said Dan Baumann
is serving as Wisconsin DNR’s interim Deputy Water Division Administrator. Wisconsin DNR hopes to fill 144 federally
funded positions by October.
Barry Johnson announced that
USGS initiated land cover/land use data collection in early August. USGS will also study mussel mortality during
the Pool 6 drawdown, which is currently underway.
Tim
Schlagenhaft reported that Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) recently
approved site-specific standards for total suspended solids and aquatic
vegetation immediately above
Other Business
The upcoming meetings are as
follows:
·
November 2010 — Quad Cities
§
UMRBA — November
16
§
NECC — November 17
§
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of November 17
§
EMP-CC — November
18
·
February 2011 —
§
UMRBA — February
15
§
EMP-CC — February
16
§
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of February 16 (if
needed)
§
NECC — February 17
·
May 2011 — Quad Cities
§
UMRBA — May 17
§
NECC — May 18*
§
Joint EMP-CC/NECC — afternoon of May 18 (if needed)
§
EMP-CC — May 19
*
NESP staff are considering holding the May 2011 NECC meeting via webinar.
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
NECC
Attendance List
August 10,
2010
NECC Members
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
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 |
|
Bill Franz |
|
Others in Attendance
|
Steve Ashby |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Jon Hendrickson |
|
|
Scott Whitney |
|
|
Mark Cornish |
|
|
Leo Keller |
|
|
Marshall Plumley |
|
|
Nate Richards |
|
|
Chuck Theiling |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Jeff Stamper |
|
|
Ken Cook |
|
|
Kat McCain |
|
|
Todd Strole |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Pat Boddy |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
John Barko |
Barko Environmental |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Laura Kammin |
Prairie Rivers
Network |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council,
Inc. |
|
Claude Strauser |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|