Minutes of the
92nd Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
St.
Louis, Missouri
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Gary Clark. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Rick
Mollahan |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Mike
McGhee |
Iowa
(DNR) |
|
Harold
Hommes |
Iowa
(Dept of Agriculture) |
|
John
Hey |
Iowa
(DOT) |
|
Mark
Holsten |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Dick
Lambert |
Minnesota
(DOT) |
|
Mike
Wells |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Charles
Burney |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
Federal Liaisons:
|
Linda
Leake |
U.S.
Geological Survey |
|
Greg
Ruff |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Larry
Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 7) |
|
Charles
Wooley |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Bob
Goodwin |
Maritime
Administration |
Others
in attendance:
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (HQ) |
|
Rebecca
Soileau |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Mark
Cornish |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Hank
DeHaan |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Rick
Astrack |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
Dan
Erickson |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
John
Barko |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (R&D) |
|
Mike
Slifer |
U.S.
Geological Survey (Rolla, MO) |
|
Tim
Yager |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Al
Fenedick |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
John
DeLashmit |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 7) |
|
Angela
Anderson |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Dan
McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Roger
Still |
Audubon |
|
Ken
Buchholz |
Audubon |
|
Gretchen
Bonfert |
McKnight
Foundation |
|
Renay
Leone |
The
Conservation Fund |
|
Ted
Heisel |
Missouri
Coalition for the Environment |
|
Stephanie
Tinsley |
The
Nature Conservancy |
|
Beth
Martin |
Washington
University Environment Clinic |
|
Paul
Rohde |
MARC
2000 |
|
Mark
J. Carr |
AEP
River Operations |
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Chuck Burney moved and Mike Wells
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2004 meeting, as
drafted. The motion was approved by
consensus.
Holly Stoerker
reported that UMRBA prepared comments on the provisions of S. 2773 (Water
Resources Development Act of 2004) authorizing the navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration plan recommended in the Navigation Study. Those comments were transmitted to the five
State Congressional delegations on September 8, 2004. Stoerker explained that UMRBA’s comments were based on the July
2004 Joint Governors’ Statement. The
comments express support for Section 2124 of S. 2773 and describe how each of
the major themes in the Governors’ Statement is reflected in the legislative
provisions.
Stoerker also
reported that:
§
UMRBA staff
has been invited to serve on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Lake
Pepin TMDL being developed by Minnesota PCA.
This will be the first TMDL done for any portion of the Mississippi
River and is one of the few interstate TMDLs in the country. It is also a very important TMDL for the
State of Minnesota because over half of the State is in the Lake Pepin drainage
area.
§
Two new UMRBA
project staff have been hired for the spills planning and mapping work done
under cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA Region 5. They include Lisa Reisner and Bryan Lloyd.
§
With
completion of the Upper Mississippi River floodway computations, UMRBA staff
will no longer be convening the ad-hoc group of State floodplain managers,
FEMA, and Corps representatives, on a regular basis. However, the group will meet on an as-needed basis.
§
UMRBA’s
biennial audit was conducted in August by an independent accounting firm. Copies of the final report were distributed
to UMRBA representatives and alternates on September 24, 2004.
§
Mark
Holsten has agreed to serve as the second signatory for UMRBA bank
accounts. The necessary documentation
was provided to Wells Fargo Bank on September 9.
§
NRCS
involvement in Upper Mississippi River basin will likely be changing as a
result of reorganization of NRCS. Gary
Wooten is now in the Fort Worth, Texas NRCS office and on special detail to
Washington, D.C. Mike Sullivan, of the
North Little Rock, Arkansas office has been assigned as NRCS’ Mississippi River
Basin liaison and will be exploring how NRCS can best be involved in
river-related groups.
Stoerker
distributed copies of a summary that UMRBA staff prepared of the Congressional
election results in the five basin States.
She noted that Missouri was the only basin State in which there was a
gubernatorial race in 2004. Republican
Matt Blunt won that race. There were
U.S. Senate races in 4 of the 5 States.
Barack O’Bama (D-IL) is the only new basin Senator. The only change in U.S. House districts
along the river was in Missouri’s 3rd district, where Russ Carnahan (D-MO) was
elected to the seat previously held by Richard Gephardt (D-MO).
Dan McGuiness
explained that Audubon’s Mississippi River Campaign is based on the premise
that protecting birds requires protecting habitat. Initially, the campaign focused on public policy, but is now
putting increased emphasis on education.
Roger Still
provided an overview of plans for a nature center and passenger boat at the
confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Audubon is working on this project with Trail Net and a variety
of other public and private organizations.
The McKnight Foundation funded a study, evaluating the feasibility of
using a 75-80 passenger boat to access the confluence lands owned by Missouri
DNR and Missouri DOC. Currently, the
Jones Confluence Park and Columbia Bottoms area are difficult to get to by land. Total costs are estimated to be
approximately $6.5 million, of which $2.2 million has already been
pledged. The project would include a
small nature center, docking facilities, and a shallow draft educational
passenger boat. Operating costs for the
boat are anticipated to include a combination of earned revenue and funding
from the endowment.
Renay Leone
explained that the Conservation Fund’s mission is conserving land and water
resources by integrating economic and environmental goals. This is in contrast to the Trust for Public
Land, which focuses on urban areas and recreation, or the Nature Conservancy,
which focuses on protecting biodiversity and pristine places. The Conservation Fund will not buy land
unless it has a partner that will own and operate it.
Since being
founded in 1985, the Conservation Fund has protected 4.1 million acres
nationwide, valued at $2.5 billion, with a purchase price of $1.8 billion. Partners include public agencies,
foundations, corporations, nonprofits, and individuals.
In 1994, the Conservation Fund started a Mississippi River Revolving Fund, with a $350,000 grant from the McKnight Foundation. The fund now totals $2.1 million. In 2004, the Conservation Fund conducted a survey of potential land conservation partners in a 10‑State region to determine their priorities and challenges. Most priorities were related to the main stem and floodplain, tributaries, or regional projects. All those surveyed agreed that the major challenge is funding, including capital for acquisition, as well as funding for operations, staff, and management. Other challenges include public support, federal/political support, prioritization/stewardship, landowner attitudes, and timing for finding willing sellers. As a result of the survey, the Conservation Fund is recommending additional capital, additional partners, and a circuit rider approach to supporting the Fund’s partners.
Barb Naramore
provided an overview of the recent work of the UMRBA Task Force, including
proposed activities for the next two years, to be funded with grants from EPA
Regions 5 and 7.
The focus of the
Task Force, since its formation in 1999, has been ongoing coordination on water
quality issues related to the Mississippi River mainstem. Task Force members include representatives
from each of the five States’ environmental quality agencies, as well as
U.S. EPA Regions 5 and 7. Outcomes
thus far include a January 2004 report comparing the States’ monitoring and
data, 305 (b) assessments, and 303(d) impairments on the Upper Mississippi
River, under the Clean Water Act 2002 report cycle. In addition, the Task Force developed and secured endorsement of
an interstate agreement related to minimum reaches for river assessments and
listings.
EPA Regions 5
and 7 are providing $161,000 over the next two years for the ongoing work of
the Task Force. Activities will include
a comparison of the States’ 2004 assessments and listings for the river and updates
to the UMRBA water quality web pages.
Naramore showed an example of how the 2004 comparison of State listings
is being displayed.
Naramore also
described the two primary issue tracks that the Task Force will be pursuing
with EPA grant funds, including fish consumption advisories and
sedimentation-related impairment.
Workshops, background reports, and consultation meetings will be used
for both issue tracks. The fish consumption
advisory (FCA) track will explore how FCAs are developed, how they are used in
making impairment decisions, the basis for and implication of differences among
the States, and options for enhancing consistency. The sedimentation/turbidity issue track will explore current
standards and assessment methodologies, the basis and implication of
differences among the States, key scientific and policy issues, the UMRCC’s
proposed criteria for submersed aquatic vegetation, and options for enhancing
consistency.
In response to a
question from Mark Cornish regarding use of LTRMP data, Naramore explained that
the State water quality agencies use LTRMP data to varying degrees. For this project, LTRMP data will likely be
most relevant in the context of the sedimentation impairment discussions.
Also in response
to questions, Naramore confirmed that the States’ ability to travel to meetings
will be enhanced by the allocation of grant funds for that purpose. In addition, she explained that all Task
Force meetings are open to the public and posted on the UMRBA website.
Naramore
explained that UMRBA will be hiring a consultant to assist in developing the
background papers and other written materials for the two primary issue tracks,
as well as planning the workshops. A
Request for Proposals was distributed in early October to 14 firms. Three viable proposals were received and
reviewed. In consultation with the Task
Force Chairman from Minnesota PCA, UMRBA staff is recommending Wenck Associates
be retained.
Gary Clark
explained that the UMRBA bylaws require UMRBA representatives to approve any
contracts over $5000. Mark Holsten
moved and Chuck Burney seconded a motion authorizing staff to execute a
contract with Wenck Associates for an amount not-to-exceed $48,000. The motion carried by consensus.
Holly Stoerker
distributed copies of draft comments that UMRBA staff had prepared on the final
feasibility study report for the Navigation Study (dated September 24, 2004)
and the draft Chief’s Report, which was distributed in conjunction with the
final report. She explained that the
comments address several points of confusion and omission related to cost
sharing, as well as cost sharing specifications that the States had not seen
prior to distribution of the draft Chief’s Report. Stoerker explained that UMRBA staff comments were provided, in
advance of this meeting, to the Corps to facilitate discussion.
Stoerker
described four apparent areas of inconsistency regarding cost sharing:
§
Characterization
of the cost sharing recommendations in the recommended plan versus the draft
Chief’s Report
§
Application
of the cost sharing criteria by specific projects versus generalized project
types
§
Total cost
estimates for the 15-year plan
§
Other cost sharing
provisions that are not included in the draft Chief’s Report, including:
- NGOs as non-Federal sponsors
- Reimbursement of non-Federal sponsor for
land acquisition costs in excess of the non-Federal sponsor’s 35 percent share
- Timing of land acquisition
Gary Clark
commented that the Chief’s Report is a very important document, in so far as it
typically becomes the “controlling document,” by virtue of the fact that it is
referenced in the authorizing legislation.
The States are thus concerned that the Chief’s Report be unambiguous and
consistent with the feasibility study.
Rich Worthington
explained that the ecosystem restoration program recommended in the Navigation
Study feasibility report includes 3 categories of projects: individually authorized projects, a
programmatic authority, and land acquisition floodplain restoration
projects. According to Worthington, the
Corps would prefer to continue this categorization into the authorization
language and specify that 2 of the 3 categories (individually authorized
projects and programmatic authority) be 100 percent federally funded.
Worthington
explained that the individual project authorizations would include projects
exceeding $25 million and involving modification of navigation structures or
operations. In the 15-year initial
authorization, such projects include:
§
construction
of fish passage at L&D 4, 8, 22, 26, and engineering and design of fish
passage at L&D 29
§
dam point
control at L&D 25 and 16
Worthington
explained that the programmatic authority would include a range of projects
less than $25 million, plus adaptive management. The total cost would be $935 million over 15 years, at primarily
100 percent federal cost. The
non-Federal sponsor would be responsible for OMRR&R for all programmatic authority
projects. Worthington distributed a
table summarizing the estimated costs of a variety of types of projects in the
15-year implementation plan. The table
shows 6 components of the plan that will be either fully or partially cost
shared, including floodplain restoration, topographic diversity, backwater
water level management, island protection, shoreline protection, and adaptive
management. Worthington noted that
these are estimates, because the suite of specific projects has not yet been
determined.
Mark Holsten
provided a list of examples for which he would like clarification regarding
whether they would be cost shared. In
particular, he asked if restoration of a backwater that is connected to Pool 3;
is below the ordinary high water mark; and involves State, federal, and tribal
lands would be cost shared. Worthington
said it would be 100 percent federally funded, based on the assumption that
projects within the navigational servitude will be 100 percent federal. Worthington explained that navigational
servitude is the overarching right of the federal government to develop
navigable waters of the U.S. It trumps
all other ownership rights.
With regard to
the third category of land acquisition and restoration, Worthington explained that
these projects would be cost shared 65 percent federal, 35 percent
non-Federal. Non‑Federal sponsors
will be credited for in-kind services up to their 35 percent share. However, they will not be reimbursed for
in-kind services that exceed the 35 percent share.
Holly Stoerker
asked if States could use funds from other federal programs, such as USDA
conservation programs, to acquire the land needed for an ecosystem restoration
project. Worthington said it would
depend on the requirements and limitations of the other federal program with
regard to using its funds to match other federal funding. He indicated that it has been his experience
that these requirements are typically not set in general policy, but applied on
a project-specific basis.
Worthington also
briefly explained each of the cost sharing requirements specified in the draft
Chief’s Report, many of which were not identified in the feasibility study
report:
§
Non-Federal
sponsor must provide dredged material disposal areas — This will not likely be needed or
applicable to floodplain restoration projects.
§
Right to
enter — This is a
routine requirement.
§
PCA
required prior to construction
— This is routine.
§
Hold and
save clause — Although
sometimes controversial, this provision is a matter of law.
§
Maintain
records — This is a very
important and basic provision.
§
CERCLA
investigation and clean-up are a non-Federal responsibility — This will not likely be an issue for
ecosystem restoration projects.
§
Relocation
assistance — This will
not likely be applicable. However, the
Corps requires non‑Federal sponsors to provide the same assistance that
the Corps would be required to provide in the event of a relocation.
§
Comply
with all applicable federal and State laws — This is primarily a labor rate issue.
§
Cost
share archeological data recovery over 1 percent — Costs will be 100 percent federal, if
less that 1 percent.
Finally,
Worthington summarized his response to the cost sharing questions and issues
posed in UMRBA’s draft comments:
§
NGOs as
non-Federal sponsors —
This will be added back into the Chief’s Report. It was inadvertently omitted.
§
Land
acquisition costs in excess of 35 percent — Reimbursing the non-Federal sponsor for land acquisition
costs in excess of the sponsor’s 35 percent share is, in fact, Corps
policy. However, in some areas of the
country where land costs are extremely high, non-Federal sponsors are
voluntarily limiting their reimbursement to 35 percent, in order to keep the
total project cost down. There is some
concern within the Corps that specific language regarding reimbursement may
preclude such voluntary exceptions.
However, Worthington offered to advocate adding the language regarding
reimbursement for acquisition costs greater than 35 percent into the Chief’s
Report on the Navigation Study.
§
Timing
of land acquisition —
The Chief’s Report will not include language, similar to the feasibility
study report, indicating that the value of the lands “regardless of the date of
acquisition” shall be credited to the non-Federal sponsor. Such an approach would be inconsistent with
existing Corps policy. In particular,
there are two relevant policies:
- If lands were acquired more than 5 years
before the PCA, no credit is given for incidental costs associated with the
acquisition. However, if lands were
acquired within 5 years of the PCA, those incidental costs can be reimbursed.
- The value of lands acquired after a PCA
is signed is defined as the value as of the date of acquisition. However, if lands are acquired before the
PCA is signed, their value is defined to be the value as of the date the Corps
was granted entry.
Mark Holsten
asked about the plans for fish passage at L&D 8, noting that the States
have also proposed a fish barrier for that location. Rich Worthington noted that fish barriers were not part of the
Navigation Study. Fish passage projects
would be 100 percent federally funded.
However, fish barriers would require cost sharing. Mark Cornish added that the timing of these
features is important. The fish passage
proposal for L&D 8 is approximately 10 years in the future, while the
barrier is proposed for FY 06. If the
science of adaptive management shows that fish passage at L&D 8 would not
be prudent, it will not be pursued.
Gary Clark asked
if the UMRBA representatives were satisfied with the answers to their draft
comments and whether the comments should be finalized and officially
transmitted. It was agreed that the
comments would not be transmitted at this time. However, UMRBA staff should follow-up with Rich Worthington to
see if submitting the comments to Corps Headquarters would be helpful as the
process evolves.
Comprehensive
Plan for Flood Damage Reduction
Rich Astrack
presented an overview of the status of the Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan (UMRCP), authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development
Act. The FY 05 budget request for UMRCP
was $944,000. Completion is expected in
FY 06, depending on funding.
Astrack
explained that a variety of alternative plans are being developed and
considered, including structural, nonstructural, floodplain management, and
ecosystem restoration opportunity plans.
The structural plans include different combinations of protection levels
for urban and agricultural areas, as well as critical infrastructure. The ecosystem restoration opportunities will
likely be applied to all plans, rather than embodied in a separate plan.
Astrack
presented a series of maps illustrating the systemic plan for 500-year
protection, including those levees that are already at the 500-year level, as
well as those that would be raised under that plan, and those that could not be
raised, given their impact on water levels.
Astrack also
explained the development and evaluation of the Emergency Action Plans. These plans address floodfighting and
emergency operations, but are not permanent flood damage reduction plans. Hydraulic and economic analysis is being
conducted on five Emergency Action options, reflecting different combinations
of levee raises in urban and agricultural areas, as well as those that protect
critical infrastructure. Astrack
provided an example of the preliminary evaluation, which shows, for example,
that raising the Bois Brule levee by 2 feet in a 500-year flood event would
raise water levels by 1.8 feet.
Astrack said the
UMRCP covers the same geographic area as the Navigation Study and is using the
ecosystem restoration opportunities from that study as input. He also commented that it appears unlikely
that the UMRCP will yield a feasible NED project. However, he observed that the planning effort still produced
useful results. The models and analyses
will be available, even if the study ends without an economically justified
plan to recommend for authorization.
Gretchen Bonfert
asked if data showing the induced rise impacts of the Emergency Action Plan is
also available for the structural alternatives. Astrack said that similar data is available for the structural
plans, but explained that the structural plans were actually formulated to
limit rises to 1 foot.
Rich Worthington
described the Corps of Engineer’s planning and policy issues that are the focus
of recent “Corps Reform” efforts. Much
of the reform impetus comes from the environmental community, which has been
dissatisfied with how the Corps has handled major new project studies (such as
the UMR Navigation Study and Delaware River Deepening), as well as
implementation of some older projects (such as Yazoo Pumps). Issues include independent review by experts
outside of the Corps, new evaluation criteria regarding environmental
restoration and multi-objective planning, the openness of the planning process,
the adequacy of mitigation, how public versus private benefits are weighed, and
the reformulation of projects to meet contemporary needs.
Other Corps
constituencies, such as local communities and navigation interests, have
expressed concerns about these proposed reforms. These concerns include the effect that the reforms would have on
the timeliness and cost of projects, the Corps’ diminished ability to control
its own planning process, moving too aggressively to new missions in a time of
budget constraints, and “mission creep” into areas such as wastewater and water
supply.
Worthington
noted that how these issues are resolved will have a profound impact on the
timing and content of a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). There has not been a WRDA since 2000,
largely due to controversy over Corps Reform.
Holly Stoerker
summarized the differences among three versions of WRDA 2004, including S. 2773
as reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, an amendment
to S. 2773 offered by Senator Cochran, and H.R. 2557 passed by the House in
September 2003. In particular, Stoerker
described differences among the bills’ provisions related to creation of a
River Stewardship Commission, Corps planning reform, establishment of a Water
Resources Planning Council, independent peer review, fish and wildlife mitigation
requirements, and articulation of federal water resource management policy.
Presentations
were given on each of the three Corps district-level interagency teams. Holly Stoerker introduced the presentations
by saying that much of the problem solving and coordination among agencies is
actually accomplished at the district level.
Thus, as we begin discussions of new institutional arrangements for
river management, it would be useful to better understand the work of these
existing groups.
River
Resources Forum (RRF)
— Gretchen Benjamin described the history, purpose, and goals of the St. Paul
District River Resources Forum. This State
and Federal interagency advisory group includes representatives of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Iowa DNRs and DOTs; the Corps; Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
National Park Service (NPS); and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its origins are in the 1974 GREAT I team and
the 1981 Channel Maintenance Forum. In
1991, the Forum’s scope was broadened to include navigation, environment, and
recreation issues, as well as channel maintenance. At that point, its name changed to the River Resources Forum (RRF)
and a partnering agreement was signed by the participating agencies. The RRF has a variety of sub-groups,
including the On-Site Inspection Team; technical workgroups for navigation,
fish and wildlife, and recreation; and special task forces, such as the
Hydraulic Evaluation Team and the Water Level Management Team.
Benjamin said
the RRF tries to work toward consensus and is a highly productive and effective
team. She noted that development of
dredged material placement plans has streamlined work tremendously. Now these decisions are relatively routine,
freeing staff to address broader issues.
RRF tasks and accomplishments include prioritizing EMP habitat projects,
siting mooring cells, conducting recreational surveys, developing beach plans,
conducting small and large scale draw downs, notching wing dams, and pool
planning.
River
Resources Coordinating Team (RRCT)
— Jon Duyvejonck described the history and purpose of the Rock Island District
River Resources Coordinating Team (RRCT).
Similar to the RRF, the RRCT was an outgrowth of GREAT. However, methods for disposing of dredged
material were different in the Rock Island District, resulting in a very active
On-Site Inspection Team. The team is
only now coming to a point where they are developing and relying more on site
plans.
In contrast to
the RRF, there is no partnering agreement in effect for the RRCT. The Rock Island District Chief of Operations
and a rotating State representative
(currently Wisconsin DNR’s Gretchen Benjamin) co-chair the RRCT. The Fish and Wildlife Service chairs the
Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee (FWIC). Although FWIC advises the RRCT, it does not necessarily operate
at its direction.
River
Resources Action Team (RRAT)
— Dan Erickson described the formation and activities of the St. Louis District
River Resources Action Team (RRAT). The
St. Louis District, FWS, Missouri DOC, and Illinois DNR had worked together
informally for many years, but the RRAT was officially chartered through an MOU
in 2002. The RRAT operates on three
levels: RRAT Exec, RRAT Tech, and RRAT Tech Expanded. Examples of RRAT work efforts include environmental pool
management in Pools 24, 25, and 26; stone dike alteration plan; habitat map for
the Middle Mississippi River; and side channel vision. In addition, the group is working on a
pallid sturgeon conference to be held in January 2005.
Gary Clark
thanked all the groups for their presentations and excellent work. He commented that there is tremendous
institutional history, knowledge, and experience associated with these groups.
UMRBA Chair,
Gary Clark, reported that UMRBA representatives and alternates met yesterday
for a strategic planning meeting. They
reflected on what they had heard at the August 2004 Institutional Arrangements
Discussion Forum. In particular, at
that forum, people commented that the existing institutional arrangements on
the river are generally good for cultivating communication and interagency
relationships. However, there is no
integrated planning; leadership is lacking; there is no way to integrate
program objectives and missions; and meetings are too focused on information
exchange, with little resulting action.
With regard to UMRBA in particular, people commented that UMRBA is a
good voice for the States, but it has too much emphasis on the river main stem
and Corps of Engineers programs, there is little connection between UMRBA
governor-appointees and the State members of UMRBA sub-groups, State
representation is not at a high enough level, and Federal agencies are not
voting members.
Clark indicated
that UMRBA’s strategic planning discussions will be continued in February. However, some of the preliminary conclusions
include:
§ UMRBA is fundamentally a strong, relevant,
and credible organization for the States.
§ The basin States value UMRBA as an
“alliance of the sovereigns,” meaning States have a distinct voice and role as
stewards of the region’s water resources.
§ UMRBA has staffing and funding
limitations.
§
UMRBA will
continue to support the ongoing work of its Water Quality Task Force. That Task Force has made important
contributions to interstate coordination.
However, we recognize that there are other river-related water quality
activities and groups (e.g., Hypoxia Task Force and Governors’ Initiative).
UMRBA’s role in those efforts will need to be explored and better defined.
§
As the
Navigation Study transitions into implementation, the GLC and UMRBA meetings
should be used more effectively and efficiently. In particular, if there are a substantial number of critical
issues to be discussed, then it would be appropriate to convene a meeting of
the GLC, separate from the UMRBA. If
not, issues related to the Navigation Study, should be discussed as part of the
UMRBA meeting.
§
In the
longer term, there will be a need for a policy-level multi-party forum, as well
as a high-level multi-party implementation group for implementation of the
Navigation Study plan. The EMP
institutional arrangements should serve as a model. Having UMRBA provide staff support seems to work well. WRDA language authorizing the navigation and
ecosystem plan may have an impact on how these institutional arrangements are
structured.
§
The current
quarterly 3-day meeting strategy seems to work well for networking and
coordination. UMRBA will try to
schedule some its subgroups’ meetings in conjunction with the quarterly UMRBA
meeting to enhance coordination.
Jon Duyvejonck
asked if UMRBA plans to summarize and publish the results of its strategic
planning discussions. Gary Clark
explained that the intent is not to publish a strategic plan document, but to
keep the discussions ongoing and relevant.
Holly Stoerker
thanked UMRBA’s federal advisory members for their candid and thoughtful
comments at the Institutional Arrangements Forum held in conjunction with the
quarterly meeting in August. Those
comments were very helpful in shaping the UMRBA State members’ strategic
planning discussions.
Future
Meeting Dates
The future
quarterly meeting schedule for the combined GLC, UMRBA, and EMP-CC meetings
includes February 22-24, 2005 in La Crosse and May 24-26, 2005 in the
Twin Cities. It was agreed
that the summer meetings will be held August 16-18, 2005 in the Quad Cities.
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.