Minutes
of the
100th
Quarterly Meeting
of
the
The
meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Mark Holsten. The following were present:
|
Gary Clark |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
|
|
Harold Hommes |
|
|
Mark Holsten |
|
|
Rebecca Wooden |
|
|
Dick Lambert |
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Todd Ambs |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Gary Loss |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Charles Wooley |
|
Others in attendance:
|
Chuck Corell |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gaylen Reetz |
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency |
|
Norm Senjem |
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Rob Morrison |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Gary Wege |
|
|
Sharonne Baylor |
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Bill Lorenzen |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
|
Al Fenedick |
|
|
Terry Prouty |
|
|
Tom Boland |
|
|
Dan McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Hilary Harp Falk |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
Max Starbuck |
National Corn Growers Association |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Derek Martin |
|
|
Lisa DeAlessio |
|
|
Margie Daniels |
|
Mike
Wells moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
August 24, 2006 meeting, as drafted.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Executive Director’s
Report
·
USGS
Cooperative Water Program Regional Meeting — Holly Stoerker provided a summary
of the number and type of USGS water program cooperators in the five States of
the
·
Stoerker
announced that Gary Clark, Don Vonnahme, and other members of the IDNR Water
Division staff were recently honored by USGS with the John Wesley Powell Award.
·
National
Water Policy Dialogue — UMRBA has been asked to co-sponsor the Third National Water
Policy Dialogue, to be held in
Mike Wells moved and
Todd Ambs seconded a motion approving UMRBA’s role as a co‑sponsor of the
Third National Water Policy Dialogue.
The motion carried unanimously.
·
Assessment
for Water Quality — In response to a question from Todd Ambs, Stoerker
explained that, to date, three States have paid the $17,000 assessment to
support UMRBA’s water quality activities in FY 07 — i.e., Illinois, Iowa, and
Minnesota. Ambs expressed the opinion
that EPA should also help to support UMRBA’s ongoing interstate water quality
work. He said he would contact EPA
Region 5 regarding the possibilities.
·
Acronym
List — Dick Lambert thanked UMRBA staff for preparing the list of UMR acronyms
and including it in each quarterly meeting packet.
Water Quality
Organizational Options
Chuck
Corell described the background and conclusions resulting from UMRBA’s
year-long project to evaluate organizational options for interstate water
quality management. He noted that
discussions surrounding the topic began in 2004, as a result of the expressed
interest of Governors Pawlenty, Doyle, and Blagojevich in addressing
Corell
also explained the nature of the problem facing the States on the UMR — i.e.,
the States’ designated uses, water quality criteria, monitoring, and impairment
listings on the UMR are inconsistent. As
an example, Corell showed charts illustrating the States’ most recent
impairment determinations on the river.
Corell
said, as a result of this project, the States have determined that they would
like an interstate organization on the UMR to coordinate the water quality
efforts of its
According
to Corell, as a result of this project, the States learned that:
·
UMRBA
is not eligible for Section 106 funding under the Clean Water Act.
·
Other
regions of the country have interstate compact organizations that they rely on
for doing work on shared waters.
·
Interstate
compacts have advantages, but are difficult to create, often taking nearly a
decade to establish.
·
Current
state expenditures on UMR water quality vary, but are not particularly high.
Corell
showed a matrix summarizing the characteristics of the Section 106 interstate
organizations in other basins and comparing them to UMRBA. The staff size and budgets of the six
interstate commissions vary, but are all significantly larger than that of
UMRBA. Of note, all the interstate
commissions that receive Section 106 funding were in existence prior to the
Clean Water Act.
Corell
summarized the recommendations resulting from this project, as follows:
·
Establish
an interstate water quality agency on the UMR, which will focus initially on
implementing water pollution control activities under the Clean Water Act.
·
EPA
and the States should share responsibility for funding the organization and its
work.
·
The
new organization should be established by building upon UMRBA.
Corell
emphasized that the state water quality administrators involved in this project
did not look at UMRBA as the exclusive solution. But once the needs were identified and
options evaluated, it became apparent that UMRBA would be the most appropriate
vehicle. Thus, the recommendations are
designed to build UMRBA’s capacity to serve the States’ water quality
coordination needs on the river. In
particular, a 3-step process is being recommended:
·
Establish
a UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee (2006-2008)
·
Restructure
UMRBA to more fully involve water quality agencies (2007-2015)
·
Reevaluate
the need for an interstate compact after fully exploring UMRBA’s capacity (2012
– 2013)
Corell
noted that the time frames are quite broad, because it is not yet clear how
long it will actually take to reach these goals.
Dru
Buntin commended the group of water quality administrators who spearheaded this
project for their excellent work in developing the final report on
“Organizational Options.” However, he
noted that yesterday’s joint meeting of the UMRBA Board and the Water Quality
Executive Committee resulted in some consensus revisions to be made to the
report, particularly with regard to the recommendation regarding restructuring
of UMRBA.
Gary
Clark expressed appreciation for the work of the Water Quality Executive
Committee. He observed that the
recommendations in the report represent a significant new body of work for
UMRBA and commented that it will be important to see what, if any, structural
changes may be needed over time, as a result.
He cautioned that the conclusions and recommendations in the report
should not assume what those changes might be.
Martin
Konrad commented that the recommendation regarding restructuring of the UMRBA
Board is not necessary. Dru Buntin
agreed, observing that UMRBA’s practice of having a single state representative
is important to preserve. He explained
that each UMRBA representative currently has the responsibility for
coordinating among the various agencies of the State, as a representative of
the Governor, and presenting a single state position. This function provides an important catalyst
for coordination within each individual State.
Todd
Ambs complimented UMRBA staff on the Organizational Options report. He also recognized Marcia Willhite’s
leadership in following through with the 2004 Governors’ statements of support
and interest in the
Holly
Stoerker explained that the draft report has not yet been widely distributed,
pending review and approval by the UMRBA Board.
However, UMRBA’s federal liaison members were provided with advance
copies and invited to offer their perspectives at this meeting.
Bill
Franz said U.S. EPA fully supports the effort to increase UMRBA’s water quality
coordination work. He noted, however, that
EPA does not have the power to change Section 106 funding eligibility.
Charlie
Wooley expressed the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
concept and the process outlined in the Organizational Options report. He noted the benefits of “one-stop-shopping”
for water quality issues on the UMR and pledged the help of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Gary
Loss commented that consistency in the area of water quality will be useful,
particularly as the Corps continues to seek better coordination of its own
river programs like Section 519 on the
Dru Buntin offered the following motion, which
was seconded by Gary Clark and unanimously approved:
1) UMRBA staff is directed
to revise the Organization Options report to reflect the following:
a. The changes identified
by the Water Quality Executive Committee in the memo distributing the draft
report, including those related to:
i.
preparation of an Executive Summary,
ii.
inclusion
of a summary of the desired functions of an interstate organization near the
beginning of the report,
iii.
elaboration
on the differences among state standards and listings in Chapter 2,
iv.
effects
on permits and regulatory actions, and
v.
potential
efficiencies of scale.
b. Revision of the second
step in Recommendation 4 to describe the need to enhance UMRBA’s capacity to
address interstate water quality issues by taking on a broader scope of
responsibilities, expanding staff, and seeking additional funding to support
these activities; but eliminating references to restructuring the UMRBA Board
and its governing documents.
2) The revised report will
be circulated to UMRBA representatives, alternates, and Water Quality Executive
Committee members for final review and action via conference call.
Holly
Stoerker distributed copies of a draft charter for the UMRBA Water Quality
Executive Committee (WQEC). She
explained that when UMRBA formed the WQEC at the August quarterly meeting, it
also requested that a Charter be developed for the new group. Stoerker noted that a few revisions had been
made to the draft Charter as a result of the discussions at yesterday’s joint
meeting of the UMRBA Board and WQEC.
However, the current draft is essentially similar to the one distributed
in advance of the meeting.
Martin
Konrad moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the Charter for the
Water Quality Executive Committee. The
motion passed unanimously.
Gaylen
Reetz described the history surrounding the importance of the Lake Pepin TMDL
in
Norm
Senjem gave a comprehensive presentation on the Lake Pepin TMDL, including
background on TMDLs in general, the collaborative process being employed for the
Lake Pepin TMDL, the water quality standards and impairments related to
Senjem
explained that sedimentation is also a concern, but the Lake Pepin TMDL is not
specifically designed to address that problem.
However, there are a variety of ways in which the Lake Pepin TMDL could
be related to other river management projects and initiatives, such as
environmental pool plans, NESP, water level management, and floodplain island
building. Senjem indicated that the most
difficult issues related to sediment have been differentiating sediment sources
and determining the effects of altered hydrology. With regard to nitrification, the most
difficult issues are estimating phosphorous re-entrainment from bed sediments
and linking to point and nonpoint sources.
Gaylen
Reetz said that
UMRBA
25th Anniversary Celebration
Mark
Holsten announced that this is UMRBA’s 100th quarterly meeting and
25th anniversary. He recognized
Gary Clark’s and Holly Stoerker’s many years of service to the
organization. Gary Clark thanked
everyone for attending this particular meeting and acknowledged the valuable
contributions that the federal partners and others in attendance make to
UMRBA. He also extended the members’
thanks and appreciation to all the UMRBA staff.
As
the anniversary cake was rolled into the room, Holly Stoerker read the
following note given to her by Margie Daniels:
“The cake is here and it
looks beautiful. However, it was
involved in a high speed chase this morning.
The delivery truck that the cake was on was stolen during an earlier
delivery. There is a video on KSTP
showing the truck crashing. The cake
managed to avoid the canine search team.
In fact, the cake was the only thing on the truck that was not damaged.”
While
those in attendance enjoyed the cake, a slide show of historical photos of
UMRBA meetings was presented.
Ecosystem Restoration
and the Clean Water Act
Barb
Naramore gave an overview of the proposal developed by UMRBA staff to sponsor
two meetings that would bring together natural resource managers and water
quality regulators to explore how Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration
programs can be better coordinated. She
noted a variety of recent examples of the interest in this issue, including
discussions of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force, a June 2006 letter from
U.S. EPA Region 5 to the Corps of Engineers, and the water quality elements in
the proposed NESP goals and objectives.
Naramore
emphasized that the proposal reflects a modest first step that would focus on
dialogue, information sharing, and generating ideas about next steps. Two meetings are proposed, both of which
would likely be held in the Quad Cities.
To maximize participation by both water quality and river restoration
program staff, one meeting would be held in conjunction with the May 2007 EMP
and NESP quarterly meetings and the other would be held later in the summer of
2007, in conjunction with the meeting of the UMRBA Water Quality Task
Force.
Naramore
explained that the project will require approximately $25,000, reflecting UMRBA
staff time and travel, as well as other incidental expenses, such as meeting
costs, printing, and mailings. Potential
sources of funding include EPA and the Corps of Engineers, which would most
likely provide funding through its existing contract with UMRBA for EMP-CC
staff services.
Bill
Franz voiced support for the proposal and a willingness to assist staff in
seeking funding. Gary Loss suggested
that the Illinois River Section 519 program may serve as an example of the way
in which water quality and ecosystem restoration programs can be
integrated. He also suggested expanding
the effort to involve NRCS. Janet
Sternberg suggested involving the Forest Service as well. Marvin Hubbell acknowledged the need to make
connections between ecosystem restoration and TMDLs, citing Norm Senjem’s
presentation as an example of the opportunities. Bob Clevenstine mentioned the need to bring
regulatory agencies into the adaptive management process and floodplain
restoration efforts early. Gary Wege
expressed the need for a watershed approach.
Barb
Naramore emphasized that the initial focus of this particular project will be
on the connections between the Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration on the
river itself, but acknowledged that the dialogue may evolve in the future to a
broader focus. Gretchen Benjamin
characterized the proposal as addressing the question of how existing river
ecosystem restoration efforts can be “plugged into” TMDLs. She also asked how this effort might relate
to the work of the NESP Science Panel.
Chuck Spitzack indicated he sees it as parallel planning and
understanding relationships.
Todd
Ambs voiced support for the proposal, but said UMRBA must have funding for the
project before proceeding. Gretchen
Benjamin expressed hope that U.S. EPA will fund the project, given the agency’s
recent letter sent to the Corps regarding the linkages between TMDLs and the
EMP. Barb Naramore clarified that
UMRBA’s proposed project is not intended to be a substitute for the discussions
that need to take place between the Corps and EPA, in response to EPA’s letter.
Mike
Wells moved and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion approving the staff
proposal, contingent upon funding from outside sources. The motion carried unanimously.
Implementing EMP in a
Time of Uncertainty
Marvin Hubbell reflected upon the contributions
that the UMRS Environmental Management Program (EMP) has made in the past 20
years, but noted that the future is uncertain.
The potential authorization of NESP has left EMP partners feeling like
the program is in a bit of a “holding pattern.”
However, according to Hubbell, this uncertainty has offered an
opportunity to consider how to make the EMP program the best that it can be,
adapt to new ideas and approaches, and prepare the way for whatever Congress
may choose to do in the future with EMP and NESP.
Hubbell
said the recent EMP 25th Anniversary celebration and the fact that
the EMP-CC endorsed the “EMP Operating Approach” at its August 2006 meeting,
demonstrate the interest and enthusiasm that still exist for the EMP. Looking to the future, Hubbell outlined the
following new initiatives and areas of changing emphasis for the EMP:
·
Increased
public education and outreach
·
Enhanced
connections between monitoring (the LTRMP) and restoration (HREPs)
·
Refinements
to the APE process
·
A
seamless HREP database, including GIS applications, across Corps districts
·
Publication
of the HREP Design Handbook
·
Enhanced
regional coordination and communication
·
Implementation
of the HREP Planning and Sequencing Framework
Holly
Stoerker thanked Hubbell for his leadership and forward-looking approach to the
EMP during this time of uncertainty.
Spill
Response Planning and Mapping
Dave
Hokanson provided an update on UMRBA’s spills-related work activities. In particular, he reported that the UMR Spill
Response Plan was updated and distributed in October 2006. In addition, the companion “UMR Emergency
Action Field Guide” has been distributed.
The next meeting of the UMR Spills Group is scheduled for March 2007 and
will be chaired by Rodney Tucker, the group’s newly-elected Chair from Iowa
DNR.
With
regard to UMRBA’s planning and mapping activities under the Oil Pollution Act,
Hokanson reported that the federal FY07 cooperative agreement with EPA was
recently signed. It provides $85,000 in
federal funds, with UMRBA providing an additional $5,000. In addition, approximately $65,000 will be
carried forward from FY 06 and a $4000 grant for GIS software has been provided
by ESRI. Current work activities include
production of the Minnesota Atlas, beginning mapping updates for
Hokanson
also reported that the Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise, taking
place June 19-21, 2007, will be based on a scenario involving a New Madrid
earthquake. There will also be a
component involving a
Hokanson
also reported on the pilot early warning monitoring station at Lock and Dam 15
and the associated pilot email notification system. An evaluation report is being prepared and
there is a proposal to expand the system.
The emerging consensus is that the system is useful, but funding is a
challenge. In particular, there is a
need for a lead agency, a role that some partners may be looking to UMRBA to
fill. Hokanson also mentioned that EPA
Region 5 is seeking $100,000 in funding from the Office of Research and
Development to conduct pilot biomonitoring on the UMR, using bi-valves and/or
blue gills.
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (NESP)
Holly
Stoerker reported that the outlook for WRDA passage remains unclear. The end of this session of Congress is
approaching without resolution of a number of outstanding issues. However, she noted that it appears that the
WRDA conferees intend to include the three NESP amendments UMRBA has been
promoting regarding monitoring, partnership, and mooring facilities. Stoerker thanked MARC 2000, Audubon, TNC, and
the Northeast-Midwest Institute for their efforts in support of UMRBA’s
proposal.
Rich
Worthington reported that the Continuing Resolution (CR) governing funding in
FY 07 will likely be extended through December 8, 2006. He commented that there are three likely
options for dealing with FY07 appropriations — pass individual appropriations
bills, combine all appropriations into an omnibus bill, or extend the CR into
January 2007, thereby deferring action to the next Congress.
Chuck
Spitzack distributed copies of the FY 06 year-end reports and FY 07 work plan
for NESP. He noted that the FY 07 budget
and work plan are based on the assumption of a $10 million funding level for
NESP.
Spitzack
explained that the first increment cost estimate is $1.7 billion for ecosystem
restoration. Approximately 9 percent of
that amount, or $150 million, will need to be provided by nonfederal
sponsors. In response to a question from
Stoerker regarding short-term cost share needs, Spitzack indicated that
floodplain restoration projects, such as the ones proposed for
Spitzack
also provided an overview of the NESP economic reevaluation undertaken as a
result of a directive from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works. He explained that the
reevaluation differs from the original feasibility study in so far as it only
addresses the navigation component, starts with the reevaluation of the
recommended plan, uses updated models and data, and allows for more
consideration of accounts other than NED.
According
to Spitzack, the challenges of the reevaluation include acceptance of the
approach, lack of data and models for nontraditional considerations, developing
a strategy for increasing utilization of waterways, and time and resources. In response to a question of what is meant by
“acceptance of the approach,” Spitzack cited the examples of a) dealing with
nontraditional modes of transportation and b) revisiting assumptions such as
the infinite ability of rail to absorb increasing traffic.
In
describing the timeline for the reevaluation, Spitzack said the grain model
workshop originally scheduled for October 2006 has been postponed until January
2007. The range of future scenarios will
need to be identified by February 2007, if the draft interim report is to be
ready by June 2007.
Spitzack
said the benefits of extra lock capacity and efficiency will not be realized
for many years. Thus, the reevaluation
will assess the downside risk and upside potential of the investment and
present that information to decision makers. Spitzack also reviewed a series of
questions related to uncertainty, including whether the Maritime
Administration’s strategy for multimodal transportation will result in greater
utilization of the UMRS. Dick Lambert
commented that MarAd’s Heartland Inter-Modal Partnership is being promoted as a
way of dealing with land congestion.
In
response to a question regarding the relationship between the economic
reevaluation and pending Congressional action on WRDA, Rich Worthington
explained that Congressional action is not necessarily dependent on the outcome
of the reevaluation, which was directed to be done by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works. However,
the Administration utilizes performance based budgeting and B/C criteria in
making its budgeting decisions. The UMRS
lock expansion recommended in the original feasibility study does not meet
those criteria and a less favorable economic reevaluation would make budgeting
by the Administration even more difficult.
Election
Results
Holly Stoerker distributed copies of the results
of the November 2006 Congressional and gubernatorial races in the five basin
States. She noted that there will be
five new House members from UMR districts:
·
o
Phil
Hare will fill the seat vacated by Lane Evans when he retired.
·
o
Jim
Leach lost to Dave Loebsack.
o
Bruce
Braley will fill the seat vacated by Jim Nussle, who lost his bid for Governor
to Chet Culver.
·
o
Gil
Gutknecht lost to Tim Walz.
o
Keith
Ellison won in the
In
the
Administrative
Issues
Holly
Stoerker said that, based on discussions at the breakfast meeting earlier in
the day, the States would like to set aside time at the February meeting to discuss
three items:
·
UMRBA
Investment Policy — UMRBA’s investment policy has not been revised since
1982. UMRBA representatives are asked to
send UMRBA staff any copies of policies or regulations in their State that may
be relevant to investment of public funds.
·
Conflict
of Interest Policy — The IRS now includes questions on its Form 990 regarding
nonprofit organizations’ conflict of interest policies. UMRBA representatives are asked to send staff
any policies from their agencies that may be helpful as staff develops a draft
policy for UMRBA.
·
Audit
Review — The firm that conducted UMRBA’s FY 05-06 biennial audit will be asked
to discuss their findings with the UMRBA Board.
Gary
Clark emphasized that there are no problems with UMRBA’s audit. However, the Board needs to do their due
diligence. Rather than forming an audit
committee, the Board determined that it would function as a
committee-of-the-whole to review the audit, since there are only five Board
members. Similarly,
Future Meetings
Holly
Stoerker said the schedule for the February 2007 quarterly meetings will
involve the following sequence of meetings:
February
20 UMRBA
February
21 NECC/ECC
February
22 EMP-CC
The
dates and locations for future meetings include:
·