Minutes
of the
104th
Quarterly Meeting
of
the
The meeting
was called to order at 12:35 p.m. by UMRBA Chair Mike Wells. The following were present:
|
Gary Clark |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
|
|
Marcia Willhite |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
|
|
Tammy Nicholson |
|
|
Laurie Martinson |
|
|
Gaylen Reetz |
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Rob Morrison |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Tim Henry |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Sullivan |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
Others in attendance:
|
Rebecca Wooden |
|
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
|
|
Dick Lambert |
|
|
Norm Senjem |
|
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Scott Whitney |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Ken Lubinski |
|
|
Al Fenedick |
|
|
Jeff Jacobs |
National Research Council |
|
Ron Kroese |
McKnight Foundation |
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council, Inc. |
|
Catherine McCalvin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Gabe Horner |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Michael Reuter |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Doug Blodgett |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Dave DeGeus |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Peggy James |
The Nature Conservancy/NRCS |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Heather Schoonover |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Margie Daniels |
|
|
Mark Ellis |
|
Recognition of Mark
Beorkrem
A
moment of silence was observed in recognition of Mark Beorkrem’s recent death
and his lifelong commitment to and passion for the
Meeting Minutes
Gary
Clark moved and Martin Konrad seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
August 21, 2007 meeting as drafted. The
motion was approved unanimously.
Executive Director’s
Report
Holly
Stoerker highlighted the following items from her written report included in
the agenda packet:
§
On
November 8, a proposal for federal FY 08 EMP-CC staff services was transmitted
to the Corps of Engineers, effectively replacing the previous interim proposal. The proposal includes services for 4
quarterly meetings of the EMP-CC and up to 8 additional special meetings. In response to a question from Mike Wells,
Stoerker explained that, since the federal fiscal year and UMRBA’s fiscal year
are not aligned, the anticipated stream of revenue from the contract is divided
among two UMRBA fiscal years.
§
The
vacancy on the OPA project team has been filled by Nathan Moe, who will be
starting on November 15 as a GIS technician on UMRBA staff.
§
As
a result of action taken at the August 21 UMRBA meeting, UMRBA was added to a
list of 38 organizations that signed a letter of support for USGS streamgage
funding. In addition, ICWP spearheaded a
similar letter to Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne signed by 18 states,
including
§
UMRBA
and NRCS have executed a new partnering agreement, similar to the original 1999
document.
§
Gary Loss will be retiring from the Corps of
Engineers on January 4, 2008. Stoerker
will try to attend the recognition party in
UMRBA
Staff Recognitions
Executive
Director Holly Stoerker and Administrative Assistant Margie Daniels were
recognized for their 30 years of service to UMRBA and its predecessor
organization UMRBC.
Annual Report on Water
Quality Activities
Dave
Hokanson distributed copies of UMRBA’s 2007 Water Quality Program Report. He explained that the report serves multiple
functions, including reporting to the UMRBA Board, as well as both targeted and
general communication with others.
Hokanson commented that the timing for such a report seems appropriate,
given that UMRBA created the position of Water Quality Program Director two
years ago and formed the Water Quality Executive Committee one year ago at the
culmination of the Organizational Options project.
Hokanson
summarized the content of the annual report, including background,
accomplishments, preview of 2008 activities, and challenges ahead. He noted that the report has been posted on
UMRBA’s website at http://www.umrba.org/wq.htm.
NRC Report on
Ron
Kroese of the McKnight Foundation provided an overview of McKnight’s role on the
Mississippi River and its commission of the National Research Council’s recent
report on the
Since
1992, the McKnight Foundation has provided approximately $9 million/year in
grants to
§
What
are the river’s main water quality problems?
§
What
are the barriers to data collection and monitoring, and how can they be
overcome?
§
How
can the process for establishing standards and indicators be improved?
§
How
can collaboration between states and federal agencies be enhanced?
Jeff
Jacobs of the NRC staff provided an overview of the NRC panel’s report released
two weeks ago, including major topics and conclusions in each chapter:
§
Chapter
2: Characteristics of the Mississippi
River System, including water discharge, historic modifications, changes in
sediment transport, contaminant problems, nutrient inputs, and the Gulf hypoxic
zone
§
Chapter 3:
The Clean Water Act, including its regulatory tools, effectiveness in
addressing both point and nonpoint pollution, and requirements for TMDLs
§
Chapter
4: Implementing the CWA along the
§
Chapter
5: Evaluating Mississippi River Water
Quality, including lack of a centralized information system and EPA’s lack of
leadership.
§
Chapter
6: Agricultural Practices, including the
need for reductions in nutrient pollutant loadings, the role of USDA, and
prioritization of USDA conservation areas.
§
Chapter
7: Collaboration, including current
interstate coordination efforts, such as those led by UMRBA and the need for
greater coordination among EPA regions and the lower river states.
Jacobs also described the key recommendations of
the NRC panel:
§
Better
coordination among all 10 river states is necessary to realize improvements in
water quality and in monitoring activities.
§
Lower
river states should work toward a better cooperative mechanism, similar to
UMRBA.
§
EPA
should better coordinate efforts of the 10 river states in water quality
monitoring and planning.
§
EPA
should take the lead in coordinating data gathering and establishing a data
sharing system for the entire river.
§
USDA
should target land and water conservation programs (CRP, EQIP, CSP) at critical
areas.
§
EPA
and USDA should strengthen cooperative activities, e.g., EPA can help identify
land to receive priority attention.
Discussion
and questions about the report followed the presentations. In particular, Dru Buntin asked if the NRC
panel addressed the sediment issue.
Jacobs explained that addressing sediment through the Clean Water Act is
challenging and there are significant differences between the upper and lower
river with regard to sediment problems and needs.
Gaylen
Reetz noted that developing the Lake Pepin TMDL is challenging, thus raising
questions about whether development of a TMDL for the entire river and northern
Gulf would be feasible. Jacobs
acknowledged that such a TMDL would not be easy or inexpensive, but that the
NRC panel would like to see EPA and the states start the process by
establishing numeric targets. He also
noted that NRC is not necessarily recommending a formal TMDL process, but
perhaps its functional equivalent.
Holly
Stoerker asked Jacobs to address the relative balance between EPA and state
leadership and the panel’s apparent preference for EPA leadership. Jacobs said the panel considered the federal
nature of the
In
response to a question about EPA’s response to the report, Jacobs explained
that the NRC has made many strong and sometimes critical recommendations
regarding EPA. EPA’s staff has always
been respectful of the process and engaged the panel in discussions. Following release of the report, NRC panel
members and staff met with EPA officials, key Congressional committee staff,
and Hypoxia Task Force.
Ron
Kroese commented that groups involved in McKnight’s Water Quality Collaborative
intend to publish a “user’s guide” to the NRC report in an effort to keep its
recommendations in the public eye. In
addition, those groups are seeking Congressional support for a hearing on the
report.
Todd Ambs noted that the UMRBA Board and Water
Quality Executive Committee have been discussing the report and intend to write
a letter to EPA and members of Congress conveying the comments of the upper
river states on the NRC report. In
particular, the letter will highlight the NRC conclusions regarding the value
of UMRBA’s work and express the states’ desire to build on that momentum to
continue to move forward. Mike Wells
said the letter should also highlight the fact that the states are contributing
financially to UMRBA’s coordination work and that EPA should do likewise.
WRDA Update
Holly
Stoerker reported that Congress overrode the President’s veto of the 2007 Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA). WRDA
thus became law on November 8, 2007 as Public Law 110-114. WRDA includes nine titles, authorizing 751
projects, at a total cost of $23 billion.
Paul
Rohde commented that Congress was impressed by the fact that the navigation
industry, environmental groups, and UMRBA worked together on WRDA. Dan McGuiness said he hopes the collaboration
will continue as we move forward with appropriations. Rich Worthington thanked all the groups that
devoted their efforts to passage of WRDA.
NESP-EMP Integration
Vision
Mike
Wells said that UMRBA had made a commitment at its August 2007 meeting to
develop a statement expressing the States’ vision for the future relationship
of NESP and EMP. As a result the staff
was directed to prepare a first draft for the Board’s review. Wells indicated that EMP-CC and NECC state
members were also consulted in the process, as were some of the other key
partners in these programs. Wells
characterized the current version of the vision statement as the “final draft”
and indicated that UMRBA would like to take action on the document at today’s
meeting. It will then be transmitted to
ASA (CW) Woodley, Corps leaders, OMB, and members of Congress.
Wells
said the states’ goal is to transition from EMP to NESP without interruption
and without losing any of the progress that has been made under EMP. He asked UMRBA staff to describe the vision
statement in more detail.
Barb
Naramore outlined the major points in UMRBA’s vision statement. She noted that the states prefer NESP as the
single ecosystem restoration authority for the river in the future. However, there needs to be a transition
period during which funding for EMP is maintained, ongoing EMP projects are
completed and others are shifted to NESP, and the LTRMP is transitioned to
NESP. Naramore also explained that the
vision statement calls for the EMP-CC and NECC to be combined, using the EMP-CC
as the institutional model. She noted
that the states do not believe that this organizational change should be
dependent on resolving all the issues related to a future River Council, which
are currently on hold.
Laurie
Martinson moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the draft vision
statement on integration of NESP and EMP.
The motion passed unanimously.
NESP Update
Chuck
Spitzack said that Rich Worthington is working on draft WRDA Implementation Guidance
for NESP. He hopes to be able to share
that draft with partners before it goes for signature.
Spitzack
reported that the draft Economic Reevaluation report is scheduled for
completion by December 31, 2007. The
report will be open for public review in January and February, with completion
of the Interim Report scheduled for March 31, 2008.
Spitzack
reported that there are now benefit/cost figures available as a result of the
economic reevaluation. Under the low
traffic scenario, the B/C ratio is 0.4 and under the high traffic scenario, the
B/C ratio is 1.4. Recommendations in the
draft reevaluation report include:
§
Endorse
dual-purpose plan
§
Support
coordination and collaboration
§
Support
innovations
§
Support
development of multimodal tools
In
response to a question about the relevance of the reevaluation report given
enactment of WRDA, Spitzack explained that the audience for the reevaluation
report is the ASA (CW), rather than Congress.
He noted that the ASA has not approved nor released the 2004 Chief’s
Report on NESP.
In
response to a question about the relationship between the reevaluation report
and WRDA implementation guidance, Spitzack explained that release of the
implementation guidance does not depend on completion of the reevaluation
report. Guidance must be issued on all
new authorities in WRDA, even if the Administration does not budget for
them. Rich Worthington confirmed that
the Administration will not need to have the Reevaluation Report before it
issues WRDA guidance.
Spitzack
explained that the implementation guidance for NESP will likely address the
design and construction of the navigation features, the process and approval of
project implementation reports, feasibility cost sharing agreements, credit for
in-kind services, monitoring and adaptive management, reimbursement for lands,
consultation and funding agreements, reports to Congress, the advisory panel,
and comparable progress.
Mike
Wells asked what the implementation guidance would likely say regarding the
Advisory Panel.
Spitzack
provided an outline of the schedules associated with both the ecosystem and
navigation work anticipated for the balance of FY 08. He also noted milestones for the
communication and public involvement efforts.
In addition, Spitzack presented summary tables illustrating the impacts
of various annual funding levels on the timing of lock construction and
realization of systemic navigation benefits.
Martin
Konrad asked if changes to NECC/ECC were anticipated as the first step in the
institutional arrangements process.
Spitzack said that work on institutional arrangements needs to await
implementation guidance. Holly Stoerker
asked if it was anticipated that the implementation guidance would address the
relationship between EMP and NESP.
In
response to questions, Spitzack clarified that the public meetings planned for
February 2008 may not actually take place.
He also explained that the work items in all NESP areas of endeavor are
funding-dependent. At $14 million all
the activities he described could be carried out. However, at $10 million, it would be more
challenging. He emphasized that there is
currently only $2.2 million for NESP in the House version of the Energy and
Water appropriations bill.
Nature
Conservancy and Corps Interpersonnel Agreement
Ken
Barr explained that Todd Strole from the Nature Conservancy (TNC) will be
working out of the Corps’ St. Louis District on the Middle Mississippi River
Partnership and NESP projects. He will
remain a TNC employee. Vince Shay
explained that TNC’s Mississippi River Program, of which he is Director,
coordinates the river-related work of TNC’s individual state chapters.
UMRCC Climate Change
Statement
Tim
Schlagenhaft explained that the UMRCC’s July 12, 2007 draft position statement
on climate change was the outgrowth of a series of presentations and
discussions at UMRCC’s March 2007 annual meeting. The statement references the conclusions of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, describes potential changes to the
Fishers and Farmers
Partnership
Ken
Lubinski explained that the Fishers and Farmers Partnership is a fish habitat
partnership modeled after the North American Waterfowl plan. It is one of a number of projects being
proposed for funding under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. The partnership would be focused on the
Lubinski
explained that the steering committee for the proposed partnership should be
solidified by January 2008 and application will be made for full partnership
status by mid-2009. Thus far, key
partners include the Fish and Wildlife Service, TNC, Trout Unlimited, Iowa
Soybean Growers, and Iowa DNR.
Martin
Konrad commented that the effort has limited funding, but he expressed optimism
about its potential ability to bring farmers together with conservationists and
apply science to the issues. In response
to a question from Marcia Willhite, Konrad explained that the first step in the
process is to conduct a basin assessment and develop a strategic plan, before
any funding can be made available for fish habitat projects.
UMRBA-Sponsored
Workshops
Holly
Stoerker reported that UMRBA has secured a grant from EPA, which will be
combined with funding provided by the Corps of Engineers, to support two
workshops on the Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration. The tentative dates are April 16-17 and June
11-12, 2008. The meetings will be held
in
Stoerker
described the workshop approach, which will utilize panel presentations, case
studies, and small group discussions.
Approximately 60 people are anticipated to attend, including both water
quality and natural resource experts from state, federal, and nongovernmental
organizations.
Stoerker
also described the USGS Cooperators’ Roundtable that UMRBA recently cosponsored
with the Interstate Conference on Water Policy.
The meeting was held in
Stoerker
provided an overview of some of the information that was presented at the
Roundtable regarding the streamgaging network in the basin, water quality
monitoring, groundwater networks, and cooperative studies. In addition she summarized the suggestions coming
from the small group discussions regarding what USGS and cooperators could both
do to improve the cooperative water program.
Stoerker noted that a written summary of the Roundtable is being
prepared by ICWP and will be posted on UMRBA’s and ICWP’s website.
Mike
Wells commented that the Cooperators’ Roundtable was a very good meeting and
that UMRBA should consider sponsoring similar forums in the future.
Drug Free Workplace
Policy
Todd
Ambs moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the October 3, 2007
draft Drug-Free Workplace Policy developed by UMRBA staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Stoerker Retirement
Mike
Wells announced that Holly Stoerker will be retiring as UMRBA Executive
Director effective July 1, 2008. He explained
that Stoerker had informed the Board of her intentions many months ago and the
Board has been working on a transition strategy, which it hopes to announce at
UMRBA’s next quarterly meeting in February 2008.
Future Meetings
The
following dates and locations were identified for future meetings:
February 19-22, 2008
May 20-22, 2008
August 12-14, 2008
(August 5-7, 2008 were identified as alternative dates, if
suitable hotel accommodations cannot be secured for August 12-14.)
The
meeting was adjourned at 4:15 pm.