Minutes of the
76th Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
St. Louis, Missouri
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by
Chair Don Vonnahme. The following State
Representatives and Federal Liaison Representatives were present:
|
Don Vonnahme |
Illinois Representative (IL DNR) |
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois Alternate (IL DNR) |
|
Kevin Szcodronski |
Iowa Representative (IA DNR) |
|
Tom Jackson |
Iowa Representative (IA DOT) |
|
Steve Morse |
Minnesota Alternate (MN DNR) |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota Alternate (MN DNR) |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri Alternate (MO DNR) |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DNR) |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Dave Carvey |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS, Midwest
Office) |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
5) |
|
Bob Goodwin |
U.S. Maritime Administration |
|
Leslie Holland-Bartels |
U.S. Geological Survey (UMESC) |
Others in attendance:
|
Dave Galat |
U.S. Geological Survey (BRD) |
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Steve Cobb |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
William Bayles |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Denny Lundberg |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Dave Tipple |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Teresa Kincaid |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Ken Barr |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Jack Carr |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Jim Blanchar |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Richard Astrack |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
David Grier |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (IWR) |
|
David Dornbusch |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS, IL) |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Rick Nelson |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
(Continued)
Attendance (continued):
|
Dan Stinnett |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Larry Shepard |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
7) |
|
Albert Schulz |
Federal Emergency Management Agency |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission |
|
Rick Moore |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Allen Hance |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
Mark Boerkrem |
Mississippi River Basin Alliance/Sierra Club |
|
Barry Drazkowski |
St. Mary’s University |
|
Lynn Muench |
MARC 2000 |
|
Chris Holleyman |
Jack Faucett Associates |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National Audubon Society |
|
Jeff Stein |
American Rivers |
|
David Haudrich |
Private Citizen |
|
Paul Werner |
American Waterways Operators |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
Meeting Minutes
Kevin Szcodronski requested that page 2 of the
August 9, 2000 meeting minutes be changed to reflect that he announced Jim
Hall’s retirement rather than Jim Harrison’s retirement.
Referring to the page 6 summary of the
discussion of dam modifications to address invasive species, Terry Moe asked if
there was any further information about the prospects of such modifications on
the Illinois River. Gary Loss indicated
that Colonel Bayles would provide an update later in the meeting.
Moe also inquired about the status of the
funding proposal for water quality coordination, described on page 8 of the
August minutes. Holly Stoerker
indicated that she would address that issue as part of the Executive Director’s
report.
Kevin Szcodronski moved and Terry Moe seconded a
motion to approve the minutes of the August 9, 2000 meeting as revised. The motion was approved unanimously.
Holly Stoerker reported that the UMRBA Water
Quality Task Force met on September 12 to discuss the draft Water Quality
Coordination Framework. Based on that
discussion, UMRBA revised the draft and included an outline of the first year’s
work effort. The Year 1 work plan
includes three items: a) identification and evaluation of differences in state
assessments, standards, and listings; b) development of an interstate
memorandum of agreement; and c) development of a future work plan. The revised draft Framework is currently
being reviewed by the Water Quality Task Force, which will meet via conference
call on December 7 to discuss it. In
response to Moe’s previous question Stoerker indicated that a grant proposal
had not yet been developed, but that the revised Framework would serve as a
basis for such a proposal.
Terry Moe asked if both EPA Regions 5 and 7 had
been involved in development of the Coordination Framework. Bill Franz explained that he and Larry
Shepard had been involved in development of the first draft and that joint
comments on the second draft would be forwarded to UMRBA staff shortly. In response to a question from Don Vonnahme,
Franz explained that it was unlikely that uniform standards for the Mississippi
River would result from the increased coordination efforts.
With regard to the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Conservation Act (H.R. 4013), Stoerker reported that UMRBA staff had been
invited to testify at a September 13 hearing of the House Agriculture
subcommittee. Congressmen Kind and
Gutknecht and representatives of USGS and NRCS also testified. It is unlikely that the legislation will advance
this session, but the sponsors have indicated their intent to reintroduce it
next year.
Stoerker also reported on provisions in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA) authorizing a sediment and
nutrient study in the basin. The
language in the House version reflected some of the comments offered by the
UMRBA in its August 24 letter. In
particular, the House deleted the cost-sharing provision. However, the final conference version more
closely resembles the Senate language.
Specifically, a 50 percent nonfederal cost-share is required; the study
is authorized for 5 years rather than 3 years; and the authorized funding is
$20 million, rather than $10 million as provided by the House or $25 million as
provided by the Senate. Noting that the
likelihood of securing federal funding for the study will depend on whether the
nonfederal share is provided, Stoerker asked if the states had considered
funding the effort.
Terry Moe suggested that the UMRBA Water Quality
Task Force discuss the cost-share issue during its December conference
call. Don Vonnahme noted that there is
no funding for the study in the current Illinois budget. Steve Morse suggested that the states might
want to consider pursuing a change to the WRDA authorization, making the study
100 percent federally funded. Stoerker
noted that such a change would not likely be considered until 2002 when the
next WRDA is formulated.
Stoerker then distributed materials describing
the National Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP). She reported that Owen Dutt, the Navigator
for the Upper Mississippi River American Heritage River designation, had
organized an informal meeting in late August to discuss the potential
applicability of the CWRP to this region.
CWRP is the mechanism by which corporations invest in trust funds
established by a nonprofit foundation or a state for use in matching federal
funds for wetlands projects. The
program currently operates in some coastal areas and is linked directly to the
Coastal America Program, whose government agencies approve the CWRP
projects. The question now under
consideration is whether there is a way that the CWRP and the parallel Coastal
America process could be replicated in this region. Stoerker noted that she has
been involved in some of these discussions and that there may be two potential
roles for the UMRBA, i.e., helping bring states into the discussion of these
questions or potentially serving, at some future point in time, as the
structure that parallels the Coastal America function. Stoerker also noted that the Midwest Natural
Resources Group (MNRG), which is a coordinating body of senior federal
officials, will be meeting in February to discuss the CWRP. Coastal America staff and a representative
from the national CWRP will be attending to provide background
information. Stoerker suggested that the
UMRBA and MNRG might want to consider coordinating their February meetings so
that both organizations could benefit from these presentations.
Kevin Szcodronski noted that states are heavily
involved in wetlands restoration and regulation and have their own
decision-making structure for wetlands investments. He urged the involvement of state wetlands staff in future CWRP
discussions. In particular he cited the
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture and the Mississippi Flyway Council as examples of
existing groups that should be consulted.
Jerry Vineyard questioned why the program focuses only on wetlands
restoration, citing blufflands and floodplain habitat as other areas of need on
the UMR. Terry Moe expressed support
for using the February meetings to learn more about the CWRP and to discuss the
program’s potential application to this region with federal
representatives. He offered to involve
Wisconsin wetland staff. Dave Carvey said
that he and Owen Dutt had agreed to explore what would be required to bring the
CWRP to the Midwest. He urged other
federal agencies to participate. Bill
Franz said that EPA supports the effort and sees it as related to the Clean
Water Action Plan. Charlie Wooley said
that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in many Coastal America
projects including wetlands restoration, dam removal, and fish passage projects
and that corporate involvement in these projects has been very positive.
In response to a question about funding levels,
Stoerker indicated that, as an example, in Massachusetts, 17 corporations have
invested roughly $1 million. Bill Franz
indicated that a reasonable goal for this region would be $1 million in the
first year.
Stoerker said that she would follow up with
UMRBA representatives after the meeting to identify who in their state would be
the most appropriate contact for further discussion on the CWRP. It was suggested that the involvement of
private organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy, also
be sought.
Denny Lundberg introduced himself as the new
project manager for the Navigation Study and provided an update on what has
happened during the last year. He noted
that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel/Department of the Army Inspector
General’s investigation and the House Appropriations Committee investigation
have been completed, but not yet released.
The interim report from the National Academy of Sciences review is
expected to be released before the end of the year. The Corps Headquarters’ policy review is complete and has
concluded that the study has been conducted in accordance with the Principles
and Guidelines. Given the sensitivity
of the study to certain parameters and assumptions, Headquarters requested
additional information on the optimal timing of measures for the National
Economic Development (NED) plan, industry self help assumptions, independent
technical review, system mitigation justification, additional sensitivity
analysis, and traffic projections.
The traffic forecasts were the most significant item, according to
Lundberg. He explained that the Corps
requested that Jack Faucett Associates, the contractor which provided the
original forecasts, evaluate those forecasts and revise them, as appropriate.
Chris Holleyman of Jack Faucett Associates
explained the methodology used to review and revise the grain forecasts. He said that the rationale for revisiting
the grain forecasts was that exports of corn, which accounts for the largest volume
of freight on the river system, were nearly 27 percent lower, between 1995 and
1999, than predicted in the original forecasts and that forecasts out to 2050
had predicted corn freight growth of 161 percent on the UMR. Holleyman explained that the sources of
error in grain export forecasts relate to estimates of future acreages, yield,
domestic consumption, and changes in stock, with the acreage overestimates
accounting for most of the error.
Reasons cited for the overestimation of corn acreage included higher
than expected international competition, dampening of world demand, concerns
over genetically modified grain, and changes in the U.S. crop mix as a result
of the 1996 FAIR Act. Holleyman
described the way in which each of these factors was evaluated for its
long-term or short-term impact and the methodology used for the revised
forecasts of waterborne grain movements.
He emphasized that Faucett relied upon export forecasts provided by
USDA, adjusted for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which is
assumed to take place before any new locks would be built. As a result of the revised assumptions and
methodology, the revised corn export forecasts are lower. The revised soybean export forecasts are
higher, through 2035, after which they are lower than the original forecasts. Holleyman also explained the methodology
used to allocate corn and soybean exports to U.S. ports and to construct
waterway traffic forecasts by assigning export volumes to inland origins.
Mark Beorkrem challenged Holleyman’s assumptions
about the U.S. ability to respond to increased demand for non-genetically
modified products and the production costs of genetically modified corn. Beorkrem also questioned the use of USDA
projections, noting that USDA cautioned that its projections should not be used
as forecasts. Holleyman said that USDA
had addressed this issue in its review of Faucett’s work and he concluded it
was largely a matter of terminology. In
response to Steve Morse’s questions about what assumptions were used regarding
ethanol production and permanent land set-asides, Holleyman said he would need
to check directly with USDA.
Ken Barr provided a status report on the
environmental studies, explaining that the revised traffic forecasts required a
reexamination of the environmental impacts.
The decision was made to rerun the ecological models, given the
decreased numbers of tows-per-day resulting from the revised traffic
forecasts. Barr said that it appears
that as a result of lower projected traffic levels, backwater and side channel
loadings will be reduced, but the number of affected backwaters and side
channels will not likely change. With
regard to fish entrainment, Barr said he expects a 5-14 percent reduction in
equivalent adult entrainment losses as a result of the lower traffic projections. Terry Moe questioned why the decision was
made not to conduct more larval fish sampling, given the additional available
study time resulting from the need to review and revise the traffic
projections. Barr explained that, given
the high natural variability in larval fish densities, risk assessment is
preferable to additional sampling to address uncertainties.
Barr described the preliminary recommendations
in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report submitted to the Corps by the
Fish and Wildlife Service in late August.
He also characterized the Corps’ general response to those
recommendations:
· The Service called for the collection of
systemic bathymetric data. The Corps
will do some site-specific work under the authority of the navigation study,
but system-wide bathymetric surveys will be done by others.
·
The Service recommended more plant verification
work. The Corps intends to include that
in the adaptive mitigation proposal.
·
The Service’s concerns about the effect of
increased traffic on zebra mussel distribution will be addressed in the
EIS. In general the Corps’ position is
that additional traffic will not have a significant affect, given the
pre-existence of zebra mussels.
·
With regard to the Service’s concern that the
impacts of increased fleeting and terminals have not been quantified, the Corps
does not believe that navigation improvements will increase fleeting needs.
Rather, demand for fleeting will decrease as a result of decreased delays.
However, there will be a relatively small increased need for terminals.
·
Concerns expressed by the Service about
identifying impacts to refuges can be addressed by using the site-specific GIS
data.
·
The Service called for quantification of traffic
impacts associated with the baseline (“no action”) condition, as well as
impacts of incremental traffic. The
Corps considers the baseline condition to be traffic levels without
improvements. The impacts of that
alternative will be presented. However,
the study will not address environmental impacts of a “no traffic” scenario.
·
The Service called for an assessment of the
cumulative effects of system-wide O&M.
Although the O&M impacts on the entire system will not be addressed,
there will be information on the areas most at jeopardy. In addition, the cumulative effects of all
navigation-related impacts will be addressed.
·
The Service recommended that the impacts
associated with incremental traffic at Lock and Dam 26 (2nd Lock) be
quantified. Now that the environmental
models and traffic forecasts have been revised, the St. Louis District will
conduct this analysis. However, it will
not be part of the navigation study.
·
With regard to mitigation, the study will
address mitigation for the effects of any improvements recommended. However, mitigation for the second lock,
baseline traffic, and O&M will not be included, although recommended by the
Service. A workshop to consider issues
related to using an adaptive mitigation approach is scheduled for November
28-29.
Terry Moe asked if a decision had yet been made
about whether to recommend an adaptive mitigation approach. Barr explained that the Service, states, and
environmental groups have all expressed support for the approach. In accordance with Corps policy, the costs
of avoid and minimize measures at all potentially affected sites must be
included in the first cost of the project.
Yet there is a desire for flexibility in determining how, when, and
where funds can be most effectively spent.
Jon Duyvejonk noted that the Service is concerned that, with an adaptive
mitigation approach, there is no guarantee that funding will be made available
in the future. Therefore, the Service
is recommending that a mitigation trust fund be established. Gary Loss explained that mitigation is
usually done during construction or completed before construction starts. Duyvejonk commented that many of the impacts
are not expected until after completion of construction. Barr noted that the
environmental funding stream continues beyond the construction funding in the
cost estimates.
In response to a question about what
organizational structure would be used to make decisions about adaptive
mitigation, Barr said that there are a number of alternatives under
consideration, including continuing NECC or rechartering the districts’ channel
maintenance groups such as RRCT. Dan
McGuiness and Rick Nelson cautioned that there was not yet agreement on the
objectives or cost of mitigation, even though there appeared to be general
support for the adaptive mitigation approach.
Denny Lundberg presented the revised study
schedule, which calls for Corps review of the draft report during March-August
2001 and public release in September 2001, with submittal of the Chief’s Report
in July 2002. Gary Clark urged the
Corps to make the draft report available to GLC members as soon as possible,
given that the states are frequently asked to comment as soon as such reports
are made public. Jeff Stein noted that
the last round of public meetings was held when the study results were
incomplete. He urged the Corps to
schedule the next public meetings at a more appropriate point in the process.
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force
Holly Stoerker reported that the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force met in Baton Rouge on
October 11 to review its draft hypoxia Action Plan. On November 11, EPA circulated a final draft to the Task Force,
seeking the members’ concurrence on the changes that were discussed at the Baton
Rouge meeting. The target for submitting
the Task Force’s report to the President and Governors is November 17.
Stoerker described the changes to the Plan that
the Task Force discussed at its Baton Rouge meeting. Most notably, the Task Force chose a numeric goal reducing the
size of the Gulf hypoxic zone, rather than a numeric goal for nutrient
reduction. The nitrogen loading goal
had been of concern because of its scientific uncertainty, misunderstandings
about how to apply the goal basin-wide, and the potential to misinterpret the
reduction goal as applying to nitrogen applications. The Task Force also
decided to include a recommendation calling for development of a budget request
to implement the Plan. The magnitude of
the effort is estimated to be $5 billion over 5 years.
Stoerker noted that EPA has expressed interest
in using existing groups, such as the UMRBA, to implement the sub-basin
planning recommendations contained in the Action Plan.
Allen Hance of the Northeast Midwest Institute
explained that Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind had requested that the Water
Science and Technology Board (WSTB) conduct a study of nonpoint source
pollution and water quality management in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. The WSTB is part of the National
Research Council, associated with the National Academies of Science. Kind’s interest in having such a study done
is related to his legislative efforts, including H.R. 4013, the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act.
Hance explained that the study proposal has been approved by the WSTB,
but the effort still requires scoping.
A planning session is being scheduled for January, at which time
federal and state representatives will be asked to provide input on the scope. It is currently estimated to be a two-year
study with a cost range of $500,000-$700,000.
Hance explained that WSTB studies are typically conducted by a panel of
experts who analyze data and make recommendations.
In response to a question about how the WSTB
study may relate to the reintroduction of H.R. 4013, Hance speculated that
Congressman Kind will not necessarily delay reintroduction until the study is
complete.
Holly Stoerker reported that, following the
August UMRBA meeting, a letter was transmitted to General Robert Griffin,
urging prompt completion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier. In his response, General
Griffin explained that the project should be complete by the end of the second
quarter of FY 01. Subsequent
discussions with staff suggest that the completion date is March 2001.
Stoerker noted that, at the August UMRBA
meeting, there was interest in possibly lending UMRBA’s support to efforts
already underway in the Great Lakes to address ballast water management. She described a number of such efforts,
including a Great Lakes Commission resolution, a policy statement under
development by the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, a binational
research strategy developed by that same panel, and a Great Lakes Governors’
resolution that is currently being circulated for signature.
Don Vonnahme suggested that UMRBA take a
supportive position. In particular he
noted that “no ballast on board” is a big issue and that the cost of some
ballast management strategies may impact the competitiveness of Great Lakes
ports. Vonnahme suggested that the
UMRBA address this issue again at its February meeting, at which time the Great
Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species may have further developed its policy
statement. Steve Morse cautioned
against UMRBA becoming too heavily involved in ballast water issues, thus
duplicating efforts already underway.
Stoerker suggested that the most appropriate role for UMRBA would be to
voice the general concerns and perspectives of an adjoining watershed, but not
to address technical issues in depth.
Colonel Bayles reported that he had looked into
the potential use of dams on the Illinois Waterway to address the spread of
invasive species. According to Bayles,
there do not appear to be any obvious viable solutions, such as dewatering
locks or lock shocks. He also noted
that the Corps’ Chicago District will be constructing the dispersal barrier
this spring.
Jon Duyvejonk
explained that the UMRCC report “A River that Works and a Working River”
includes three objectives that are related to the natural hydrograph. Therefore, Dr. David Galat of USGS was
invited to provide general background information on the theory and concepts
related to the natural hydrograph.
Galat described the components of the flow
regime that regulate ecological processes, including magnitude, frequency,
duration, timing, and rate of change of hydrologic conditions. He emphasized that each river has its own
natural hydrograph and that both extreme high flows and low flows are
important. He also described the
importance of connectivity between the channel and floodplain of a river
system, noting that both latitudinal and longitudinal connectivity is
important. Galat described examples of
the ways in which the natural hydrograph affects aquatic life. In particular, he explained the dependence
of fish life cycles on the coupling of river stage and temperature, the
relationship between vegetation production and water level fluctuations, and
the effects of high flow timing on least tern nesting habitat.
Galat also reviewed the National Research
Council’s recommended series of steps to restore river systems, including
restoration of sediment and hydrologic patterns, channel geometry, riparian
plant communities, and native aquatic plants and animals. However, Galat emphasized that all are
needed and he cautioned against focusing on the order, rather than the
necessity of including them all.
In response to a question from Tom Jackson about
whether management actions should seek to ensure average flows, Galat stressed
that the management goal should be variability within the normal range for the
system. He recommended that extreme
events, such as droughts and floods, be allowed to occur and that, in “average”
years, management for other river uses be pursued. Jackson noted that some river users, for whom reliability and
consistency is important, may disagree.
In response to a question about what species
benefit from the variability of the natural hydrograph, Galat explained that
most all native species are dependent on the natural hydrograph. It is largely exotic species, which are
habitat generalists, that do best under unnatural, less variable hydrologic
conditions.
Kevin Szcodronski commented that hydrologic
needs and issues vary over the length of the Mississippi. For instance, on the river above the Quad
Cities, floodplain connectivity is high, but low summer flows, which are
beneficial for vegetation, are typically missing. He also noted that management options are best focused on average
years, because extreme events usually cannot be controlled anyway.
Szcodronski noted that Galat’s presentation
provided general background on the natural hydrograph. However, at future meetings, the UMRBA
should focus on specific related objectives of a) levee setbacks for
floodplain connectivity, b) using dams to create seasonal pulse, and c) side
channel openings and closings to create connectivity. Don Vonnahme suggested that the February UMRBA meeting include discussion
of the UMRCC objective #9 related to fish passage at dams. He noted that fish passage is related to
invasive species concerns previously discussed. He also commented that Illinois has a number of fish passage
proposals on its interior streams and the issue is thus of interest beyond the
Mississippi main stem. Steve Morse
suggested that, if the February meeting is devoted to fish passage, that the
issue of using dams to create flood pulse be addressed at the May meeting.
Kevin Szcodronski noted that the UMRCC annual
meeting in March 2001 will be devoted to presentations and discussions of each
of the objectives in the UMRCC report.
Terry Moe commented that the ecological objectives laid out in the UMRCC
report are based on scientific concepts and that the management issues become
controversial when other river uses are affected by applying the ecological
objectives. Moe also suggested, rather
than focusing on what specific actions can be taken to advance individual
objectives, that the discussion focus more on how natural resources objectives
can be integrated with human use objectives.
Barry Drazkowski distributed copies of a
brochure and background paper describing the Upper Mississippi Basin Stakeholder
Network (UMBSN), which is the public education and involvement component of the
UMB Stewardship Initiative. The effort
is being led by St. Mary’s University, with funding support from the McKnight
Foundation and NRCS. It is a
nonpolitical and non-advocacy communication network, which seeks to link
stakeholder groups throughout the basin, provide information on sediment and
nutrient issues, and communicate stakeholders’ concerns to state and federal
agencies.
Drazkowski said that his data base currently
includes 750 individual organizations, with 250 discrete organizations. The web site, scheduled to be up by the end
of November, will include basin news and legislative updates, an events and
meeting calendar, meeting minutes and summaries, informational topics, featured
projects, links to science and government organizations in the basin, and
point-counterpoint discussions.
Spill Detection Network
Barb Naramore reported
that the UMR Spills Group is continuing its discussions of the potential for
establishing an early warning monitoring network and spill notification network
for intake operators. The American
Water Works Company has formed an Upper Mississippi River Water Users
Coalition, which includes 22 water supply utilities. This coalition has expressed interest in a notification network
and Rich Gullick of American Water Works Company attended the last Spills Group
meeting to discuss the idea. According
to Naramore, the Spills Group is interested in exploring the concept further,
but is sensitive to a number of issues including, a) the need to better
understand the intakes’ existing operations and needs, b) the challenges
associated with the on-going maintenance of a network, and c) the need to
tailor the system to the UMR, rather than simply importing a system from
another part of the country. In that
regard, Naramore noted that the contaminants of interest on the UMR are
different than those on the Ohio River.
Naramore said it will be important to coordinate this effort with the
source water protection programs in the states. Don Vonnahme and Steve Morse expressed support for the UMRBA’s
continued involvement in moving this project forward.
Barb Naramore reported that staff is in the
process of developing a web site for UMRBA.
The purpose of the web site is to provide information about the
organization and provide access to UMRBA documents. It is not intended to serve as a source of information about the
Basin. Naramore described the design as
basic, with an eye toward easy maintenance.
In response to a question from Naramore, all UMRBA representatives
expressed support for having links to the UMRBA members’ agency home pages and
contact information for all UMRBA representatives.
Holly Stoerker announced that the next two UMRBA
and EMP-CC combination meeting dates will be February 27-28, 2001 in the Twin
Cities and May 15-16, 2001 in the Quad Cities.
It was agreed that the summer meetings would be
scheduled for August 7-8 in La Crosse, Wisconsin. If that location does not work out, alternatives include
Springfield or Peoria, Illinois.
With no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:15 p.m.