Minutes of the
96th Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
St.
Paul, Minnesota
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by UMRBA Vice-Chair Mark Holsten. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Rick
Mollahan |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Mike
McGhee |
Iowa
(DNR) |
|
Mark
Holsten |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Dick
Lambert |
Minnesota
(DOT) |
|
Dru
Buntin |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
Federal Liaisons:
|
Charles
Barton |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Bill
Franz |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
Don
Hultman |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Linda
Leake |
U.S.
Geological Survey |
|
Michael
Jawson |
U.S.
Geological Survey |
Others
in attendance:
|
Joe
Martin |
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Jim
Fischer |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
COL
Duane Gapinski |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (HQ) |
|
Susan
Smith |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Maryetta
Smith |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Rebecca
Soileau |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Kevin
Bluhm |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Don
Powell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Gary
Loss |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Marv
Hubbell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Ken
Barr |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Scott
Whitney |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Roger
Perk |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Brian
Johnson |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
Teri
Heyer |
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service |
|
Mike
Prouty |
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service |
|
Al
Fenedick |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
Larry
Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 7) |
|
David
Bolgrien |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (ORD) |
|
Tim
Yager |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Bob
Clevenstine |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Dan
McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Linda
Prail |
Consultant |
|
Stoney
Cox |
HNTB
Federal Services |
|
Gretchen
Bonfert |
The
McKnight Foundation |
|
Ron
Kruese |
The
McKnight Foundation |
|
Cynthia
Pansing |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Mark
Beorkrem |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Robin
Grawe |
Mississippi
River Citizen Commission |
|
Catherine
McCalvin |
The
Nature Conservancy |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Dave
Hokanson |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Margie
Daniels |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Gary Clark moved
and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16,
2005 meeting, as drafted. The motion
was approved unanimously.
Holly Stoerker
highlighted the following from the written report provided in the agenda
packet:
§
EPA and UMRBA
have signed a new cooperative agreement for FY 2007 to continue mapping and
planning work under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). The agreement provides $175,000 in federal funds, to be matched
with a 5 percent UMRBA cost share.
§
On October
31, Derek Martin joined the UMRBA OPA project staff as a GIS project
technician.
§
Planning
efforts for the 2007 Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise
continue. UMRBA staff made the
arrangements for the first major interagency planning meeting held on November
9 in St. Louis.
§
The UMRBA
Spills Group held its semi-annual meeting by conference call on October
19. Topics of continuing discussion
include implementing an early warning monitoring system, spill notification
drills, updates to the UMR Spills Plan, and development of a UMR Emergency
Action Field Guide.
§
The
Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) held its annual meeting in San
Antonio, Texas on October 18-19. Gary
Clark and Holly Stoerker were elected to the 12‑member Board of Directors
for 2006-2007.
§
ICWP will
be hosting its 2nd annual Stakeholder Roundtable for the USGS Cooperative Water
Program on January 30-February 1, 2006 in Austin, Texas. All 1400 USGS cooperators across the country
will be invited. There are 163
cooperators in the five UMRBA states.
§
John Olson
of Iowa DNR was invited to give a presentation at EPA’s National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish, describing UMRBA’s report and ongoing efforts related to
fish consumption advisories on the Upper Mississippi River. The Forum was held on September 18 in
Baltimore, Maryland.
§
Iowa will
be changing its approach to issuing fish consumption advisories from FDA action
levels to a risk-based approach. In
part, this change may be attributable to UMRBA’s ongoing efforts to coordinate
UMR fish consumption advisory protocols.
Navigation
and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
Holly Stoerker
reported that it is unlikely that WRDA will be passed before Congress adjourns
this year. The House passed its bill in
July. The Senate Committee approved its
version in April, but the full Senate has yet to act. Among the issues delaying Senate action are Corps Reform and
Coastal Louisiana restoration in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Concerned about the fate of WRDA, UMRBA joined
with MARC 2000 and Audubon in issuing a press release and joint letter to
Congress, urging passage of the Senate bill.
In addition, the UMRBA Executive Director was part of a delegation of
Upper River interests that visited Senate offices on September 27-28. Others in the delegation included Lee Nelson
(Upper River Services), Kent Pehler (Brennan Marine), Gretchen Benjamin
(Wisconsin DNR), and Dan McGuiness (Audubon).
The group visited the 10 Senate offices from the 5 basin states, Senate
Majority and Minority Leaders’ offices, and the Senate Committee staff. On September 28, 44 Senators released a
joint letter urging that WRDA be brought to the Senate floor for consideration. Eight of the ten Upper River Senators signed
the letter, the exceptions being Senators Feingold and Kohl.
Stoerker also
reported that the House passed the FY 06 Energy and Water Appropriations
conference report on November 9. The
conference report includes $10 million in PED funds for NESP. The House bill had included nothing for NESP
and the Senate had included $20 million.
Scott Whitney
explained that the NESP implementation strategy is based on balance,
collaborative teamwork, integrated management, and science-based adaptive
implementation. FY 05 accomplishments
included:
§
development
of a Program Management Plan (PgMP), which is an umbrella document to
complement the feasibility study,
§
progress on
32 individual projects,
§
formation
of the multidisciplinary Science Panel, and
§
Congressional
support for NESP, as witnessed by inclusion of NESP authorization in both House
and Senate WRDA bills.
Whitney reported
that FY 05 NESP funding included $10.4 million in PED funds and $837,000 to
close out the feasibility study. Program
Management accounted for 9.3 percent of the funding, while 39.4 percent was for
Ecosystem Restoration projects and 43.9 percent for Navigation Efficiency
projects. The Navigation Efficiency
funding included approximately $300,00-$400,000 for systemic mitigation.
Whitney reported
that the Science Panel has been working hard on developing a “report card”
framework and refining ecosystem goals and objectives. In the future, the Science Panel will also
be involved at the project level.
With regard to
FY 06 funding, Whitney explained that, in the absence of passage of a regular
appropriations bill, the Corps has been operating under a Continuing Resolution
since October 1. While it had initially
been anticipated that NESP may receive $12 million in FY 06, it now appears
that it will actually be $10 million.
According to Whitney, the preliminary budget estimates will thus need to
be reduced by approximately $500,000 for program management and $750,000 for
both ecosystem restoration and navigation.
There will be no “savings and slippage” applied to Corps projects in FY
06.
In response to a
question regarding the basis of the FY 06 NESP budget allocation, Whitney
explained that the FY 06 budget was guided by the fact that there are to be no
new starts, the need to carry FY 05 work forward, the desire to maintain
diversity, and consideration of the complexity and risk vs. consequences of
investments.
Whitney
explained that NESP funding can be transferred to other agencies for work
items, in accordance with “determinations and findings” based on the “Economy
Act.” Such a determination was
necessary in the absence of specific provisions in NESP authorizing
legislation. In response to a question
about limits on outside contracting, Whitney explained that approximately 30
percent of NESP funding will be targeted for private sector contracting.
In response to a
question from Gretchen Benjamin, regarding the process for review and approval
of the Science Panel report, Ken Barr said the report will be distributed at
the end of the year, followed be a few months allocated for review.
Rebecca Soileau
provided an overview of the draft River Council Operational Model, prepared
following the October 20-21 workshop in St. Louis. She also explained the evolution of the Institutional
Arrangements framework since July. In
particular, Soileau noted that in the revised institutional diagram:
§
the
Regional Federal Principals group has been dropped,
§
the
Navigation Science Panel has been dropped,
§
an
additional River Team for the Illinois River is shown,
§
the
Communications Panel has been changed to a Communications Network, and
§
explicit
recognition of role of PDTs has been added.
Soileau also
described the changes to the River Council Model, including:
§
increased
Council membership to 26, by including 2 USDA representatives (NRCS and Ag
economics) rather than one,
§
more detail
on the NGO selection process,
§
linking
River Council meetings to UMRBA meetings,
§
description
of River Council outputs,
§
sample
agendas, and
§
description
of Council’s role in adaptive management.
Soileau called
particular attention to the description in the Operational Model of the
relationship between UMRBA and the River Council. The role of UMRBA is described as:
§
including
regular agenda items at UMRBA meetings on Corps and FWS programs;
§
evaluating
implementation from an interstate perspective, particularly with regard to
goals and objectives and state statutory responsibilities; and
§
possible
administrative support for the River Council.
Soileau said
that comments on the draft Operational Model are due by the end of
January. Next steps will include
additional fine-tuning of the Operational Model and development of MOUs. In the meantime, ongoing communication will
occur through NECC-ECC.
With regard to
River Council membership, Dru Buntin said that Governors should appoint the
representatives from the state or, at a minimum, designate the agencies to be
represented on the Council.
In response to a
question from Mark Holsten about what level of representation the Corps expects
on the River Council, Soileau said they would like to have people who are
responsible for making decisions, such as allocating FTEs. Senior managers from the Corps and FWS will
chair the Council, so it is hoped that other agencies will also be represented
by senior managers.
Mark Holsten
inquired about the order of the meetings, inviting comment on whether UMRBA
meetings should precede or follow River Council meetings. He asked if the River Council would be
making final decisions or just starting the collaboration process and whether
its role is to coordinate or prioritize.
He also noted that the states, through UMRBA, need time to caucus. Soileau indicated that the Council’s
responsibilities would likely be a mixture of resolving issues and
coordinating. According to Soileau, the
vision is to integrate navigation and ecosystem management.
Janet Sternburg
suggested that the Governors be afforded flexibility in their
appointments. Rather than specifying
agencies or types of individuals to be appointed to the Council, the functions
of the Council and its members should be described.
Gretchen
Benjamin expressed concern about the undefined and potentially redundant roles
of the River Council and the Advisory Panel mandated in WRDA authorization of
NESP. She said that the River Council
should be considered to fulfill the requirement for an Advisory Panel.
Gretchen
Benjamin said the language describing UMRBA’s role as “administrative support”
is misleading. She explained that UMRBA
staff provides institutional knowledge and help in framing issues for
discussion, both of which are more than administrative functions.
Gary Clark
suggested that UMRBA submit comments on the draft Operational Model for the
River Council, focusing on the proposed role for UMRBA in particular. It was agreed that UMRBA state
representatives will forward their comments to Holly Stoerker by December 2. Stoerker will then develop draft UMRBA
comments, on behalf of all the states by December 16. A conference call will be scheduled for January 12 at 9:00 to
discuss and finalize the draft.
Kevin Bluhm
reported on the public outreach efforts for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
program (CERP), led by the Corps’ Jacksonville District. The CERP outreach program has been funded at
$3 million to $4 million annually, since the program was authorized 6 years
ago. The work includes:
§
Program
identification and branding, with the crane as a logo used by all program
partners. The program name (CERP) is
not the focus.
§
A website
devoted exclusively to CERP, with information for a variety of interest levels
§
Newsletters
and mailings that have evolved from simple straightforward publications during
the study phase to more sophisticated and creative publications to describe
implementation
§
Eye-catching
fliers and publications to simplify and easily communicate more technical
reports
§
Interactive
kiosks in non-traditional locations such as airports
§
Educational
materials for children
§
Promotional
items such as bookmarks, stickers, stress balls, etc.
§
Visually
graphic and creative 5-year Report to Congress
Bluhm explained
that the NESP budget for outreach and public involvement will likely be
approximately $300,000 in FY 06.
Specific tasks will include developing “branding” for the Upper
Mississippi River, including a slogan, logo, and image items. This will be done with help from a
contractor and/or the Communications Network.
In addition, a study will be initiated to revamp the website, which
currently has information that is outdated and not particularly helpful. There will also be one newsletter scheduled
for publication in FY 06.
Gretchen
Benjamin expressed support for the “branding” initiatives. Holly Stoerker emphasized the need to
improve the website. Linda Leake said
it’s important to have information provided in a variety of different forms to
appeal to a wide range of interests.
Mike Prouty
explained that the midwest State Foresters and USDA Forest Service’s
Northeastern Area have formed an Upper Mississippi River Watershed Forestry
Partnership to focus on the role forests and trees can play in solving
ecological problems in the basin. The
group has developed an Action Plan and hired a coordinator, Sam Osinde, in the
Wisconsin DNR La Crosse office.
Priority issues include water pollution, loss of migratory bird habitat,
and forest loss and fragmentation.
A Stakeholders
Meeting is scheduled for February 28 – March 1, 2006 in Dubuque, Iowa. Topics will include neotropical birds,
bottomland forests, riparian buffers, and sustainability.
In Teri
Goodman’s absence, Holly Stoerker briefly described the proposed legislation
(S. 1721) establishing a Mississippi River National Heritage Area,
including all counties along the river.
The National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque would be
designated as the management entity, charged with developing a management plan
for the area and establishing interpretive activities and heritage-based
recreational and educational opportunities.
The bill authorizes $20 million.
Stoerker
explained that the proposal for establishing a Heritage Area was an outgrowth
of the 1996 report of the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission. That Study Commission was established in
1990 by federal law and was required to consult with UMRBA. UMRBA provided comments to the Study
Commission on its draft report in 1994, but has not taken any action on the
proposal since that time.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) is in the final
stages of developing a report on the history and future role of interstate
water management organizations. ICWP
received funding for the project from EPA, USGS, and the Corps of
Engineers. Mike Donahue, former
Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission, is the primary author.
Stoerker
explained that the report outlines a variety of functions that interstate
organizations serve, including advocacy for collective interests, pooling of
expertise and resources, regional priority setting, monitoring, communication
and collaboration, and development of uniform and consistent regulations. The report also includes a history of U.S.
interstate water organizations over the past 230 years and an inventory of 15
different institutional forms, ranging from highly formalized compact commissions
to more informal councils and committees.
In addition, the report includes a series of case studies, lessons
learned from past experience, and factors that influence institutional design.
Stoerker
explained that ICWP’s Interstate Committee, of which she is a member, is in the
process of developing findings and recommendations to be included in the
report. Recommendations will likely
focus on opportunities for enhancing the role of interstate water organizations,
the role of the federal government in interstate waters, and preferred
operational characteristics of interstate water organizations. Stoerker noted that the ICWP report has
particular relevance to UMRBA’s study of organizational capacity for interstate
water quality management and to the Corps’ proposal for institutional
arrangements, including a River Council.
Stoerker invited
comments on ICWP’s draft report from UMRBA representatives by December 16. Gary Clark commented that interstate
organizations offer alternative mechanisms for delivery of federal programs,
particularly in times of tight budgets.
In response to a
question from Gretchen Benjamin, Stoerker explained that ICWP was created in
1958. Among other things, it is an
advocate for a national water policy and creation of better coordinating
mechanisms at the national level, such as the role that the Water Resources
Council used to play.
Holly Stoerker
provided an overview of the strategic planning efforts related to the potential
merger of EMP and NESP, an effort which UMRBA agreed to help lead in
August. The planning is based on the
assumption that maintaining two Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration
programs on the Upper Mississippi River will not be sustainable and will
ultimately result in inefficiency and competition for funding. The planning effort, being led by UMRBA,
does not address detailed implementation issues, but rather issues related to
the legislative authorities for the two programs. In particular, Stoerker explained that 10 issues will be
addressed, with an “issue paper” prepared for each. Those issues include:
§
Future of
LTRMP and its relationship to NESP adaptive management
§
Ecosystem
restoration program authority
§
Cost
sharing of ecosystem restoration, including O&M
§
Total price
tag for ecosystem restoration (EMP & NESP combined)
§
Annual
funding authority with no total cost ceiling (EMP) vs. total funding authority
with no time frame (NESP)
§
The role of
“advisors” (Independent Technical Review in EMP, Advisory Panel in NESP)
§
Reports to
Congress (timing, purpose, and scope)
§
Comparable
progress provisions in NESP
§
Goals and
performance measures in NESP
§
Cooperative
agreement language (UMRBA and Interior) in EMP
Gretchen
Benjamin noted that the EMP legislation has strong “partnership” language. In particular, the EMP authority says that
the Corps is to implement the program in consultation with the Department of
the Interior and the states. The NESP
authorizing language does not include similar language. Benjamin suggested that the issue of
“partnership” be included as one of the issues addressed in the merger
planning. Stoerker agreed and noted
that it may be possible to deal with the “partnership” and “cooperative
agreement” issues at the same time. It
was agreed that those issues would be among the ones discussed at the February
2006 meeting.
Stoerker then
provided an overview of Issue Paper #1 related to the future of the Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP).
She explained that the NESP legislation does not include explicit
authority for system wide monitoring, similar to the LTRMP authority in
EMP. Thus, in order to ensure that
systemwide monitoring continues in the future, three options have been
identified:
§
Revise NESP
legislation to incorporate LTRMP authority
§
Revise NESP
legislation by adding explicit adaptive management and monitoring authority
(not specific to LTRMP)
§
Transfer
LTRMP authority directly to USGS
Gretchen
Benjamin commented that the first option allows for the current LTRMP to continue
and would thus be the “cleanest” option.
In addition, funding LTRMP through the USGS may be problematic and would
thus make the third option unattractive.
Linda Leake agreed that transferring the LTRMP to USGS may be difficult
and that the partnership aspect of the program needs to be maintained. Mike Jawson said that budgeting within the
Corps is different that USGS.
Gary
Clark also expressed a preference for the first option, noting that it is the
easiest option to understand and explain to others. Robin Grawe agreed, noting that pursuing the second option may
introduce undesirable changes as well.
Jim
Fischer asked if incorporating the LTRMP into NESP meant that it would not be
around as long because NESP only has a 15-year life span. Stoerker explained that neither the NESP nor
EMP authorizing language constrain the programs to a particular time
frame. Whether or not either program
continues to exist is dependent on whether it receives appropriated funding in
any given year.
Don
Hultman suggested that there may be a fourth option that would simply involve
interpreting the existing NESP authorizing language to include a monitoring
authority to support continuation of LTRMP.
In particular, since the NESP authority is to be based on adaptive
management, one could argue that monitoring is included because it is an
essential part of adaptive management.
Stoerker noted that such an interpretation may technically be possible,
but could be a bit risky if that interpretation is not supported by the
Administration or recognized by Congressional appropriators. Gretchen Benjamin noted that even if
monitoring were to be interpreted to be in the NESP authority, funding was not
included in NESP for monitoring. Dan
McGuiness suggested that the NESP funding authority could be increased to cover
the costs of LTRMP. Ken Barr commented
that monitoring was not originally included in NESP because it was assumed that
EMP, and thus LTRMP, would continue.
Rich
Worthington noted that Hultman’s fourth option may be the easiest. However, it will still be important that the
NESP legislative language include authority for the Corps to transfer funds to
the Department of the Interior. Gary
Loss commented that metrics to measure the value of monitoring will be important,
given the increasing emphasis on performance-based budgeting.
Stoerker
also provided a brief overview of Issue Paper #2 related to the differences in
the language used to authorize ecosystem restoration activities in EMP and
NESP. In particular, the EMP
legislation authorizes a “program,” while the NESP legislation authorizes
“projects.” Rather than offering
alternative options for change, Issue Paper #2 simply provides the basis for
the conclusion that the NESP authorizing language is sufficiently broad to
cover all projects done under EMP.
However, the reverse may not be true.
The EMP language is not sufficient for some of the activities to be
pursued under NESP.
Stoerker
asked that those who have comments on either of the two first issue papers
forward those comments to her or to one of the UMRBA representatives. She also explained that the issue papers
would be presented for comment at both the NECC and EMP-CC meetings over the
next two days.
Colonel
Duane Gapinski provided a report, including many photos of the time he spent in
New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina, when he was in command of the Corps
of Engineers team responsible for unwatering and restoring the levees. The affected area included 284 miles of
levees and 48 pumps. Approximately 80
percent of downtown New Orleans was flooded.
Organizational
Capacity Study — Holly Stoerker reported that on August 31, UMRBA
submitted a grant request to the McKnight Foundation to help support a study
evaluating the feasibility of establishing an interstate structure on the UMR
with the capacity to coordinate and/or administer water quality programs under
the Clean Water Act. The project’s aim
is to help the states identify what type of functions they would like an
interstate water quality organization to serve and then to explore options for
achieving that goal. Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act will be evaluated in detail, but will not be the only
focus. A decision by McKnight is
expected in December.
National
Research Council Study — Dave Hokanson reported that the National
Research Council panel on the “Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act” had
its first meeting in Minneapolis on October 18. Hokanson said that several speakers who addressed the panel
mentioned the need for greater interstate coordination. In addition, sedimentation was frequently
cited as a prominent issue facing the river.
The panel has been given the UMRBA’s January 2004 report on Clean Water
Act assessments and listings on the Upper Mississippi River as “required
reading.” In addition, it is
anticipated that the panel’s work will dovetail with UMRBA’s proposed
evaluation of organizational capacity for interstate water quality management on
the UMR. The panel’s next meeting is
scheduled for January 30-31 in St. Louis.
Holly Stoerker has been invited to address the panel at that meeting.
Sediment-Related
Water Quality Criteria — Dave Hokanson reported that the UMRBA Water
Quality Task Force has been working on two issues: fish consumption advisories
and sediment-related impairment criteria.
The goal of the sediment criteria project is to identify approaches that
all five states can use to determine whether the river is “impaired,” by sediment,
under the Clean Water Act. The
contractor, FTN Associates, prepared a background report that was completed in
October. On November 2-3, the Water
Quality Task Force held a workshop, at which there were presentations related
to sediment rates and budgets, effects on biota, criteria based on protection
of submersed aquatic vegetation, and EPA’s draft strategy for suspended and
bedded sediments. These presentations
served as the basis to begin discussion among the states. Hokanson explained that it appears, with
regard to sediment, that there is certainly a water quality problem, but the
question is whether there’s a water quality standards issue.
The
next meeting of the Task Force has been scheduled for February 8-9, 2006.
Missouri — Dru
Buntin reported that the Missouri General Assembly will convene in January,
although it is not a budget session. In
addition, the DNR has been dealing with a variety of reorganization issues. Mike Wells is head of a newly created Water
Resources Center within DNR.
Wisconsin — Gretchen Benjamin reported that the
draft 303(d) list from the La Crosse DNR office was recently forwarded to DNR
headquarters in Madison. Wisconsin DNR
is hoping to be able to honor the work done by Minnesota PCA under the auspices
of the Lake Pepin TMDL, but Wisconsin may end up having different listings
for Pool 5-9. Wisconsin’s 303(d) list
is scheduled for completion by April 1, 2006.
Illinois — Gary Clark reported that Illinois has
a million dollar bonding issue for flood control in Chicago. In addition, low flows are still creating
significant water supply problems, particularly in the northeast portion of the
state. The water supply problems have
created increased interest in possibly revising state water laws.
Rick Mollahan
reported that 110,000 acres have been enrolled in the Conservation Reservation
Enhancement Program (CREP). The state
has issued $10 million in bonds to match the $40 million in federal funds.
Iowa — Mike McGhee reported that DNR is
dealing with endangered species on the Missouri River and is engaged in
discussions about the role and future of the Missouri River Basin Association
and the Missouri River Natural Resources Group.
The next
meetings of the UMRBA, EMP Coordinating Committee, and Navigation Environmental
Coordination Committee are scheduled for February 21-23 in St. Louis. The order of meetings over those three
days has not yet been determined.
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.