Minutes of the
108th Quarterly Meeting
of the
The meeting was called to
order at
UMRBA Representatives,
Alternates, and Members of the Water Quality Executive Committee:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Rick
Mollahan |
|
|
Marcia
Willhite |
|
|
Martin
Konrad |
|
|
Chuck
Corell |
|
|
John
Fleig |
|
|
Dick
Vegors |
|
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
|
|
Dick
Lambert |
|
|
Mike
Wells |
|
|
Dru
Buntin |
|
|
Rob
Morrison |
|
|
Todd
Ambs |
|
Federal
UMRBA Liaisons and Members of the Water Quality Executive Committee:
|
Charles
Barton |
|
|
Tim
Henry |
|
|
Art
Spratlin |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Charlie
Wooley |
|
|
Mike
Jawson |
|
|
Mike
Sullivan |
USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service |
Others
in attendance:
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
|
|
Brian
Hopkins |
|
|
Janet
Sternburg |
|
|
Jim
Fischer |
|
|
Terry
Smith |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Roger
Perk |
|
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
|
|
Marvin
Hubbell |
|
|
Karen
Hagerty |
|
|
Hank
DeHaan |
|
|
Brian
Johnson |
|
|
Martin
Adkins |
USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service |
|
Pete
DeKock |
Office of Congressman Bruce
Braley (IA-01) |
|
Brad
Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Ron
Kroese |
McKnight Foundation |
|
Michael
Reuter |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Doug
Blodgett |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Diane
Rudin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Kim
Erndt |
Prairie Rivers Network |
|
Gary
Loss |
CDM |
|
Andy
Selle |
Inter-Fluve |
|
Tom
Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Tom
Saul |
Quad Cities Times |
|
Barb
Naramore |
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten
Mickelsen |
|
Meeting Minutes
Gary
Clark moved and Todd Ambs seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
Recognition of Gretchen Benjamin
Martin
Konrad announced that Gretchen Benjamin has left the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to take a job with The Nature Conservancy. On behalf of UMRBA, Konrad presented Benjamin
with a certificate of appreciation, recognizing her many contributions to the
UMR and its various interagency groups, including the River Resources Forum,
EMP-CC, and UMRBA. Konrad observed that
people have always listened to and valued Benjamin’s thoughtful perspectives
and insights regarding river issues.
Todd Ambs said that Benjamin’s departure is a significant loss for
Wisconsin DNR, but said he is pleased she will be continuing to work on river
issues through TNC’s Upper Mississippi River Team. Ambs also announced that Jim Fischer will be
leading Wisconsin DNR’s river team on an acting basis.
Executive Director’s Report
§
As of November
18, 2008, UMRBA has an approved staff services agreement with USACE for support
services in FY 10. The agreement covers
services for both the EMP-CC and NECC/ECC (or Advisory Panel).
§
UMRBA staff
continues working with USEPA to clarify the funds available under the FY 10 OPA
cooperative agreement. The FY 10
agreement includes an approved amount of $175,000, but only $100,000 of the
agreement has been confirmed as funded at this point. The question of whether to hire additional
project staff will be addressed when the level of available funding is
clarified.
§
ICWP is seeking
UMRBA’s participation on a joint letter supporting increased funding for USGS’s
Cooperative Water Program (CWP) and National Streamflow Information Program
(NSIP). A copy of the letter was
included in the read ahead packet.
Naramore explained that the letter is similar to one UMRBA signed in
February 2008. Rebecca Wooden moved and
Mike Wells seconded a motion approving UMRBA’s participation on the new letter. The motion carried unanimously.
§
Following the
August 2008 quarterly meeting, UMRBA updated its 1993 Flood Statement,
reaffirming its fundamental principles and offering additional lessons learned
during and following this summer’s regional flooding. Naramore briefed the Interagency Levee Task
Force on the statement at the Task Force’s October 23rd meeting.
§
UMRBA has been
asked to participate in a nationwide effort by the Corps of Engineers to
compile information about state and regional water planning efforts. This data gathering effort will be followed
by regional and national conferences to discuss the Corps’ findings and
opportunities to enhance water resource planning and management. Naramore said each state should have received
a similar invitation. She asked the
states to share any perspectives they want to convey through UMRBA.
§
UMRBA’s
independent audit firm recently completed its biennial review of the
Association’s financial accounts, covering the fiscal years ending June 30,
2007 and June 30, 2008. UMRBA Board
members discussed the findings with the auditors earlier this morning.
Report from the Water Quality
Executive Committee
Annual Update
Corell
reported that the Water Quality Task Force’s priorities include its ongoing
consultation and data sharing efforts, as well as a designated uses project and
exploring the potential for biological indicators. Corell described designated uses as the first
leg of a three-legged stool, with water quality criteria and anti-degradation
policies being the other two legs.
According
to Corell, UMRBA’s pending intergovernmental personnel agreement (IPA) with
USEPA should provide the staff capacity needed to advance the designated uses
project. He explained that the IPA was
EPA’s proposed alternative to providing UMRBA with direct funding to support
interstate water quality coordination work on the river. While all of the details have not yet been
finalized, Corell reported that the interview process is complete and a
candidate for the IPA has been selected.
This person will continue to work out of EPA Region 5, but will be under
the direction of UMRBA’s Water Quality Program Director. Corell expressed optimism that this approach
will further facilitate coordination with EPA as the project unfolds.
Corell reported that USEPA has
included the
EPA will increase its efforts in the
Corell
said the WQEC members are very encouraged by inclusion of the UMRB in the
draft, which had not been expected.
While this is an important step, however, Corell cautioned that there
are several steps remaining before EPA finalizes its Strategic Plan
revisions. Of particular note, according
to Corell, it remains to be seen how the new Administration will approach the
Strategic Plan. Dave Hokanson noted that
UMRBA staff will be working with the WQEC to develop comments on the draft UMRB
language for the Board’s consideration.
Corell
reported that the National Research Council currently has a panel examining
sediment- and nutrient-related water quality issues on the Mississippi River
and in the northern
Priorities and Strategies for the Future
Corell
explained that the WQEC’s near term strategies include:
§
Following up on
the March 2008 Congressional visits, in which the states made a general case
for increased federal resources to support UMR water quality efforts, with a
new message that identifies more concrete, compelling goals and specific work
items.
§
Commenting on
USEPA’s draft revisions to its Strategic Plan.
§
Commenting on the
NRC’s forthcoming panel report on sediment and nutrient issues on the
Mississippi River and in the northern
§
Maintaining
connection and communication with senior water quality officials at USEPA at
both the headquarters and regional level.
In this regard, Corell expressed the states’ appreciation to Tim Henry
and Art Spratlin for their continued involvement in and support of the WQEC’s
efforts.
§
Revisiting the
possibility of seeking a specific Clean Water Act authorization for a UMR water
quality program.
§
Exploring
relationships and common interests with potential partners and constituents.
Discussion
In
answer to a question from Rebecca Wooden, Corell explained that designated uses
are the purposes for which a state is trying to maintain or improve water
quality. In the area of aquatic life
uses, the goals can range quite a bit, depending on the type of waterbody, its
reasonably attainable condition, etc.
For example, on the
Jim
Fischer asked whether the five state water quality programs have an agreement
on how they want to use biological indicators.
Corell said that a common approach to indicators is a future goal. He explained that the states want to get away
from each managing their part of the river and get to the point where there is
a more collective approach to water quality protection on the UMR. Corell noted that the designated uses and
biological indicators initiatives mesh nicely, explaining that a measure of
biological integrity could function as a designated use.
Mike
Jawson asked about how efforts to develop biological indicators for water
quality purposes relate to interest in developing indicators for ecosystem
restoration-related purposes. Barb
Naramore said the biological indicators workshop planned for 2009 is designed, in
part, to explore and, to the extent practical, establish these
connections. She further explained that
one of the primary questions to be examined is what each program area (i.e.,
water quality and ecosystem restoration) needs from indicators and whether
there is sufficient commonality in those needs to proceed jointly in developing
indicators.
Martin
Konrad expressed the Board’s appreciation to the WQEC members for their efforts
and commended the progress made to-date.
Clean Water Act/Ecosystem Restoration —
Opportunities for Collaboration
Barb
Naramore briefly described two workshops UMRBA hosted earlier in the year, with
support from the Corps and USEPA. The
workshops were designed to explore the policy and practice interfaces between
ecosystem restoration and Clean Water Act (CWA) programs on the UMR, with the
goals of exchanging information, articulating key assumptions and
understandings, and identifying and recommending opportunities for enhanced
interaction and cooperation.
Participants were asked to focus on identifying specific, actionable
ideas, which Naramore said generally fell into the following five broad
categories:
Kirsten
Mickelsen explained that participants were also asked to identify the potential
actions within each category that they viewed as most promising. She then highlighted the specific actions
selected as having the most potential, referencing an excerpt from the project
report included in the read ahead packet.
She noted that, for each action, the report also identifies a potential
lead and other key participants, examines whether new structures or processes
would be required, and estimates whether the action could be initiated within
the next 18 months.
Naramore
emphasized that it clearly will not be possible to pursue all of the actionable
ideas identified as most promising in the immediate future. She also noted that some of the ideas are
more ripe for action than others, while some would require coalition-building
or other efforts on the front-end.
Naramore then posed the following questions for consideration by the
Board, federal liaison members, and others:
§
What are the
partners’ priorities and capacities?
§
Are any ideas off
the table?
§
What are the
preferred next steps?
Martin
Konrad said he sees work on biological indicators as a clear top priority for
many partners, noting that it would be a precursor to progress on several of
the other potential actions identified at the workshops. Jim Fischer said biological indicators are
certainly a priority for
Tim
Schlagenhaft noted that the Lake Pepin TMDL is progressing rapidly, with an implementation
plan under development. As part of these
efforts,
Bill
Franz reported that USEPA and its collaborators have established three water
quality and biological monitoring stations on the UMR for drinking water
protection purposes. Two more stations
are planned, and Franz said he is eager to find ways in which the data from
these stations can be used to support other water quality purposes.
Mike
Wells asked the UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee to review the actionable
ideas emerging from the workshops, identify priorities, and elaborate on the
next steps required to advance priority items.
Corell said the WQEC would discuss these issues at its meeting the
following day. Dave Hokanson noted that
some of the workshop recommendations have a natural home with the WQEC or WQTF,
but said others require integration across programs.
Wells
stressed the importance of water quality monitoring, noting that data can be
pivotal on controversial issues like Gulf hypoxia. Corell observed that all states and many
other entities are monitoring the UMR in some fashion, but not necessarily in a
coordinated manner. Corell said he would
recommend developing a joint strategy, assessing current monitoring relative to
that strategy, and then determining what changes need to be made. Fischer expressed confidence that LTRMP data
will prove effective in assessing both biological response to habitat
restoration projects and support of aquatic life designated uses.
Marv
Hubbell said he sees several ways in which water quality could be better
integrated into ecosystem restoration efforts, including using water quality
data to inform project sequencing, involving water quality staff on project
design teams, and doing the pre- and post-project monitoring necessary to
assess water quality-related project outcomes.
In response to a question from Marcia Willhite, Hubbell said that, in
the past, the Corps has not consistently informed water quality staff about project
planning efforts. He called for a more
formalized approach to communicating with the water quality programs about
project planning and other restoration-related work.
Todd
Ambs observed that the report from the two workshops reflects input from a
variety of participants. He said UMRBA
now needs to know whether the list of tasks and potential lead agencies is
right and how that list matches against available state, federal, and NGO
resources. Corell said that, on the
question of indicators, the WQEC members recognize that it will be incumbent
upon them to seek implementation of the indicators within their own states,
once a common set of indicators has been agreed upon. Ambs agreed that this is a key role for the
WQEC, noting that it was formed to ensure that there is management-level support
for implementing the WQTF’s interstate coordination and enhancement efforts.
Ambs
also recalled that UMRBA issued a 2006 organizational options report, examining
different institutional arrangements that could be used to support enhanced
water quality coordination on the UMR.
At that point, the states opted for an incremental approach, seeking to
build capacity through the existing UMRBA structure in the near term. However, they also acknowledged that the
possibility of an interstate compact should be reevaluated in the future, after
the states gained experience with enhanced interstate water quality
coordination through UMRBA. Ambs noted
that such compacts are common on rivers in the eastern
Biological
Indicators
Dave
Hokanson provided a general overview of biological indicators. He explained that direct measures of various
forms of aquatic life, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and vegetation, can
be used to indicate the condition of a waterbody or aquatic ecosystem. Hokanson cited several benefits to using
indicators, including that they integrate and reflect the impact of multiple
stressors over time, they can be more cost-effective than chemical monitoring,
and they facilitate communications with the public. He observed that biological indicators,
multi-indicator indices, and other related assessment approaches have been
applied widely on smaller streams. There
is also increasing use of indicators on larger rivers, including the
Hokanson
explained that increased interest in indicators has been expressed in several
UMR-related venues recently, including the LTRMP A-Team, NESP Science Panel,
UMRCC Fish Tech Section, UMRBA WQTF, and the recent CWA/ecosystem restoration
workshops. Following the workshops, an ad hoc interagency work group was formed
to consider how best to follow up on the biological indicators recommendation
stemming from the workshops. The work
group includes representatives of both water quality and restoration programs
at both the state and federal levels who have agreed to:
§
explore
system-wide and cross-program questions related to biological indicators;
§
assist in
designing a UMR biological indicators workshop; and
§
act as a venue
for information sharing among various indicators-related efforts on the UMR,
while not seeking to direct or supersede these efforts.
Hokanson
identified the following anticipated outcomes from the proposed biological
indicators workshop:
He
emphasized that it is not a foregone conclusion that program goals and needs
are sufficiently congruent to develop shared indicators for water quality and
ecosystem restoration.
According
to Hokanson, workshop invitees will include scientists, practitioners, and
managers from both CWA and restoration programs on the UMR. In addition, leading national and regional
researchers will be asked to present case studies. Both USACE and USEPA will be providing
financial support for the workshop, though the grant from EPA has not been
finalized. Dates for the workshop will
be determined after the grant is in place, with the location likely being in
the
Todd
Ambs encouraged examination of the potential for indicators development on the
UMR. He noted that one critical question
for any data collection effort relates to who should gather the data. Ambs said volunteer monitoring has been very
successful in other parts of the country, and urged that it be considered in
any effort to develop the data needed to support UMR indicators. With the current budget environment, Ambs
said increased resources for agency data collection are quite unlikely. Bill Franz agreed with the potential for
volunteer monitoring, and said LTRMP and EMAP will also likely be important
sources. Franz observed that monitoring
needs must first be defined, however, before judgments can be made about how
best to meet those needs. Ambs said
there is a tendency within agencies for staff to want to do all of their own
monitoring to ensure data integrity and compatibility. However, with severely constrained resources,
Ambs stressed the need to think about how we can all make use of other data
sources, including monitoring by citizens and other agencies.
Marv
Hubbell said USACE strongly supports looking at how the partnership can use
indicators to inform ecosystem restoration efforts. He said the Corps is pleased to be
collaborating with USEPA and UMRBA on the indicators workshop. Franz said he is trying to expedite
processing of UMRBA’s grant proposal for workshop funding.
Gary
Clark made the following motion:
Move to
authorize the UMRBA Executive Director to execute a grant agreement with USEPA
to support a biological indicators workshop and to make such adjustments as
necessary to UMRBA’s budget upon execution of such a grant agreement.
Dru
Buntin seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Flood Recovery and Floodplain Management
Issues
Report from October Forecasting
Kevin
Landwehr provided a brief report on the Rainfall-River Forecasting Summit held
According
to Landwehr, the summit’s convening agencies identified the following ways to
improve performance in future events:
Landwehr
said a “fusion cell,” comprised of representatives from USACE, USGS, and NWS,
will consider how forecast accuracy can be improved with current science,
staffing, and funding. The cell will
also develop a process for cross-training forecasters and other key personnel
across agencies. Within three months,
the agencies will supply the navigation industry with a report on capabilities
to improve forecast accuracy.
Landwehr
also noted a standing policy, under which the Corps explicitly recognizes that
the NWS is the nation’s official weather forecasting and flood warning
agency. As such, the Corps does not
release its own forecasts to the public.
Mike
Wells noted that this was a federal agency summit. While lauding the effort to improve
forecasts, Wells said the states are important players and need to be
engaged. Barb Naramore observed that the
states have long recognized the importance of a sound river gauging
network. She asked Landwehr whether the
summit participants had any recommendations regarding how to ensure an adequate
network. Landwehr acknowledged that
maintaining gauges has been a continuous challenge, and said the states and
other partners have been key in helping to make up for some of the federal
funding reductions. Landwehr described
the UMR mainstem gauge system as being in relatively good shape, but said there
are some critical gaps on tributaries.
For example, he said there is very little information between
Update on Flood Recovery and Interagency Levee Task
Force Activities
Bruce
Munholand explained that an Interagency Levee Task Force (ILTF) has been
established to address key regional flood risk management issues following this
summer’s flooding. He noted that the
authority for the ILTF comes from OMB and CEQ directives. The Task Force includes five of the eight
states affected by the June flooding (i.e., IA, IL, IN, MO, and WI), as well as
USACE, FEMA, USDA, SBA, FWS, EPA, and other federal agencies. Munholand conveyed General Walsh’s
appreciation to the states and other federal agencies for their participation,
and highlighted the following Task Force goals:
§
Acknowledge
shared responsibility for flood risk management in the watershed — reflected in
the ILTF’s diverse membership.
§
Bring consistency
to addressing short- and long-term flood protection, environmental quality,
ecosystem enhancement, and watershed management.
§
Promote a uniform
approach across regional and state boundaries.
§
Consider
non-structural alternatives and other agency initiatives.
Munholand
described various tools for flood risk management, including insurance,
building codes, zoning, levees, contingency and response plans, and
outreach. However, he emphasized that
there will always be residual risk for those living behind levees and in other
flood-prone areas. He noted that the
ILTF has already heard a series of briefings during its initial meetings,
including presentations on recovery efforts in
Munholand
explained that Interagency Levee Work Groups (ILWGs) have been established for
each of the state-level joint field offices (JFOs). The ILWGs are intended to augment existing
programs at all levels of government; identify new mitigation initiatives;
apply lessons learned and best practices; and identify potential changes in
policies, regulations, and funding mechanisms to enhance long-term flood risk
management. Munholand reported that
various ILWGs are currently developing several white papers detailing specific
nonstructural alternatives as well as longer term strategies. The Work Groups will report to the ILTF with
their recommendations for nonstructural alternatives, policy changes, etc.
Munholand
displayed a slide summarizing levee-related flood recovery projects in the five
ILTF-member states, ranging from 0 in
Marty
Adkins explained that NRCS has two primary programs that are often tapped
during flood recovery efforts — i.e., the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
program and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).
Under EWP, NRCS can fund both repair efforts, such as streambank
stabilization and levee repairs, as well as floodplain easements. According to Adkins, most EWP projects are
executed through agreements with local sponsors, rather than directly by
NRCS. There is no standing appropriation
for EWP. Instead, it is typically funded
through emergency supplemental appropriations, with eligibility limited to
federally declared disaster counties.
Following this summer’s flooding, Adkins said the EWP was activated in
Adkins
further explained that the WRP can provide important flood risk reduction
benefits by opening up sections of floodplains and letting them function more
naturally. He noted that WRP is an
ongoing program, though it may receive additional resources through emergency
supplemental bills.
Adkins
said NRCS welcomes the Corps’ efforts to widen the range of entities involved
in flood risk reduction and to ensure consideration of nonstructural
alternatives. He observed that there are
many different perspectives on the issue of how best to manage and reduce flood
risk, including those held by very diverse local stakeholders. He emphasized the need to engage these
differing perspectives, not just during the immediate aftermath of a flood, but
also between flood events. In addition
to agencies with more traditional flood-related missions, Adkins stressed the
importance of engaging economic development and transportation agencies.
Rebecca
Wooden said
Comprehensive Plan Update
Roger
Perk provided an update on the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan,
explaining that it was authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act
as a reconnaissance-level assessment of systemic flood damage reduction options
for the UMR. The Comp Plan built upon
other studies and existing data, including flood profiles from the post-1993
Flow Frequency Study, and used a collaboration team to work with other agencies
and stakeholders. The study area was
limited to the mainstems of the
Perk
explained that alternative plans were developed, then evaluated based on
National Economic Development (NED), Environmental Quality (EQ), Regional
Economic Development (RED), and Other Social Effects (OSE) criteria. The benefit cost ratios (BCRs) for all plans
evaluated were below 0.1, with first costs ranging from $3.7 to $5.4
billion.
The
Comp Plan report was completed in August 2008.
Perk explained that, in light of the low BCRs, the plan does not
recommend proceeding with feasibility-level analysis of any of the system flood
damage reduction alternatives evaluated.
However, the report does include the following recommendations:
§
Plan H is the
best performing systemic flood damage reduction option evaluated (though it is
not recommended for further evaluation based on its low BCR).
§
Reconstruction of
existing levee systems to their original design level of protection should be
evaluated through cost-shared feasibility studies.
§
Improvements to
protect critical transportation infrastructure should be evaluated through
feasibility studies (cost-share requirements TBD).
Perk
briefly summarized Plan H, explaining that it would provide 500-year level of
protection through either raising the level of protection or acquiring property
and/or flowage easements, depending on which was the most cost effective in a
particular area. He said Plan H was one
of the two highest scoring alternatives from the Risk Informed Decision
Framework process, with Plan H having less impact on downstream
Perk
reviewed recent activity following completion of the Comp Plan report,
including a hearing before the Mississippi River Commission (MRC) on August 14,
with transmittal from the MRC to Corps Headquarters and the Secretary of the
Army on that same date. The MRC endorsed
Plan H, with the additional caveat that there be no induced rises below
Perk
noted that there is no funding for further Comp Plan-related work under the
current Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA) funding, though the Senate
version of the FY 09 energy and water bill did include $220,000. In response to a question from Martin Konrad,
Perk said that, if Congress were to provide any further funding at this point,
it would be used to initiate feasibility studies related to the report’s
recommendations on reconstruction, tributaries, and or critical transportation
infrastructure.
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program
Economic Reevaluation Report
Chuck
Spitzack reviewed the framework used to reevaluate the Navigation Feasibility
Study’s economic analysis, explaining that benefit cost ratios were calculated
over a range of possible traffic scenarios.
The reevaluation confirmed the fundamental findings of the original
Feasibility Report, concluding that the risk of a sub-optimal economic outcome
is greater if the recommended navigation improvements are not implemented than
if they are. The District Commander’s
Reevaluation Report therefore includes the following four recommendations:
1.
Endorse the dual
purpose Recommended Plan from the Feasibility Report
2.
Support
coordination and collaboration
3.
Support innovations
4.
Support
development of multimodal tools
Spitzack
explained that the Corps’ reevaluation was subject to assessment by an External
Peer Review Panel, comprised of experts in various aspects of transportation
economics. While determining that the Corps
had made significant progress in improving its modeling and analysis, the Peer
Review Panel also concluded that the reevaluation is incomplete in several
respects and recommended the following:
§
Perform extensive
sensitivity analysis
§
Improve models for
future
§
Improve risk
assessment
As
reported previously, the Corps submitted the Reevaluation Report and the Peer
Review Panel’s recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works on April 11. According to
Spitzack, the ASA(CW) responded on July 24 that the report was not actionable
because the remaining uncertainty is too great.
On September 22, USACE replied that it could not reduce that uncertainty
with current models, but planned to use the Peer Review Panel’s comments in
defining future research. Spitzack said
the ASA(CW) reiterated his position that additional sensitivity analysis would
be helpful, particularly concerning critical factors such as ethanol, crop
area, grain prices, and fuel prices.
Spitzack reported that the Corps is now considering its further options.
Institutional Arrangements
Spitzack
reported that MVD has reviewed the Advisory Panel (AP) proposal, and the three
Districts have responded to the Division’s comments. As forwarded to MVD, Spitzack said the proposal
looked similar to the partnership’s plan, with revisions to describe
responsibilities more fully and repackage the document as a joint proposal from
the three Districts. MVD’s comments
focused on the interpretation of “independent guidance” and the appropriate
level of representation on the AP.
Specifically, Spitzack said MVD staff prefers a higher level of
representation on the AP, with a working group underneath it to address the
details of program implementation.
Spitzack said he is scheduled to brief General Walsh on the Districts’
proposal on December 1. Following that
briefing, Spitzack said endorsement at the Division and Headquarters levels and
the ASA(CW)’s issuance of invitations to the states and federal agencies could
come before the close of the calendar year.
Solicitation of NGOs would parallel this process, with selection of NGO
members by April, and the Advisory Panel’s first meeting in May 2009. However, Spitzack emphasized that the
remainder of the schedule is contingent upon when MVD forwards its proposal to
Spitzack
provided an update on
June 2009 Implementation Report
Spitzack
said the Corps has developed a draft project management plan (PMP) for the NESP
Report to Congress that is due in June 2009.
In addition, a basic outline and synopsis of the report have been
prepared. Spitzack said he anticipates
having draft products for partner review in December 2008. He noted that the reach planning notebook
will be a significant portion of the report, in response to the authorizing
legislation’s call for information about project baselines, goals, priorities,
and progress measures, as well as the related requirement for a project ranking
system. While funding constraints have
delayed progress on these items, the Report to Congress will use the reach
planning notebook to document how the Corps plans to address these requirements.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
Spitzack
reported that the Inland Waterways Users Board is meeting today, with the
challenges facing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund prominent on the agenda. Under federal law, 50 percent of inland
navigation projects (both improvements and major rehabilitation) are paid for
through the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund’s
revenue source is a tax on fuel used by the inland navigation industry. Spitzack showed historic and projected Trust
Fund balances, demonstrating that the Fund is essentially exhausted each
year. Annual revenues into the Fund are
projected to support only about $90 million in annual distributions, far below
what is needed to support a reasonably anticipated program of navigation
construction. As an example, Spitzack
observed that a NESP construction program funded at $150 million annually would
by itself draw $75 million from the Trust Fund.
Spitzack
summarized an Administration proposal to address the Trust Fund shortfalls by
shifting from the current fuel tax to a lockage fee. The Administration estimated that the new
lockage fees would generate approximately $250 million annually. However, this plan was widely resisted by
industry, and within Congress. As a
temporary fix, Congress granted a one-year cost sharing exemption for major
rehabilitation projects in FY 09. At
this point, Spitzack said the options would appear to be:
Spitzack
showed anticipated completion schedules for several
Dick
Lambert expressed concern that the lockage fee would disadvantage portions of
the inland system relative to others. He
asked why the Administration did not simply propose raising the fuel tax. Spitzack said this option was evaluated, but
said he was not familiar with the details of the analysis or the basis for the
Administration’s proposal.
State Reports: Post Election Perspectives
Barb
Naramore reported that UMRBA staff included its customary summary of even-year
election results in the meeting packet.
She offered a minor correction, noting that Peter Roskam (IL-06), Bill
Foster (IL-14), and Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) should have been designated as
incumbents in the results summary.
Todd
Ambs reported that
Martin
Konrad indicated that all incumbents were reelected in
Mike
Wells reported that Jay Nixon,
Rebecca
Wooden noted that
Administrative Issues
Credit Card Authorization
Martin
Konrad explained that UMRBA needs to replace its current credit card, which was
obtained by Holly Stoerker with her personal guarantee. He reported that Wells Fargo, with which
UMRBA has its banking relationship, will consider a credit application without
a personal guarantee, but requires a letter of authorization. Gary Clark offered the following motion:
Move to authorize the Executive Director
to apply for, establish, and maintain a credit card account with Wells
Marjorie Daniels — $500.00
Barbara Naramore — $9,500.00
Mike
Wells seconded the motion, which then carried unanimously.
403(b) Retirement Plan
Konrad
reported that, as an ERISA-exempt sponsor of a 403(b) retirement plan, UMRBA is
newly required to have a written plan document, effective January 1, 2009. Wells moved the following resolution adopting
the required written plan:
WHEREAS, the Association previously
adopted and maintains a Section 403(b) retirement plan, which plan has been
maintained in an unwritten format; and
WHEREAS, the Association desires to
amend and restate the 403(b) plan in order to comply with final regulations
issued under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
which require, among other things, that the Association’s plan be maintained
pursuant to a written plan document.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
by the Board of Directors of the Association, this 18th day of
November, 2008:
1. The Section
403(b) retirement plan previously adopted and maintained by the Association be
and herby is amended and restated as the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association 403(b) Savings Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached to
these resolutions.
2. The
delegation of all allocation of all discretionary administrative
responsibilities under the Plan to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, as
that person may change from time to time, is hereby ratified, adopted and
approved.
3. The
appropriate officers of the Association, or any one of them, be and hereby are,
authorized, on behalf of the Association, to take any actions and execute any
documents as may be necessary or desirable to carry into effect the foregoing
resolutions.
Wells
moved the following resolution establishing an approved vendors list for
UMRBA’s 403(b) plan:
WHEREAS, the Association adopted its
WHEREAS, the Association must maintain a
list of approved Vendors pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
by the Board of Directors of the Association, this 18th day of
November, 2008:
1. The list of
approved Vendors for the Association’s 403(b) retirement plan is as follows:
Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company
Todd
Ambs seconded the motion, which then carried unanimously.
UMRBA Personnel Manual
Konrad
explained that the Board wishes to amend UMRBA’s Personnel Manual relating to
employee use of sick leave when caring for immediate relatives. Rebecca Wooden offered the following motion:
Move to amend
Section VI.B. of the UMRBA Personnel Manual to eliminate the requirement that
immediate relatives reside in the employee’s household in order for the
employee to use sick leave when providing necessary personal care. Item 2 of the second paragraph in Section
VI.B. will now read “presence of sickness, including alcoholism, in an
employee’s immediate family (identified in “C.1. Bereavement Leave”) which
would require personal care and in the event no one else is available;”
Wells
seconded the motion, which then carried unanimously. Wooden indicated that, at some point in the
future, she would like the Board to revisit the provision related to
availability of other care options.
Future Meetings
Naramore
reported that the next two quarterly meeting series are scheduled for
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at