Minutes of the
112th Quarterly Meeting
of the
November 17, 2009
UMRBA Chair Gary Clark called
the meeting to order at 12:35 p.m.
Participants were as follows:
UMRBA Representatives,
Alternates, and State Members of the Water Quality Executive Committee:
|
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Marcia Willhite |
|
|
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources |
|
|
Dick Vegors |
Iowa Department of Economic
Development |
|
|
Laurie Martinson |
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Rebecca Wooden |
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Todd Ambs |
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources |
Federal UMRBA Liaisons and Federal Members of the Water Quality
Executive Committee:
|
|
Mike Sullivan |
Natural Resources
Conservation Service |
|
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
|
Tim Henry |
|
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
|
Kevin Foerster |
|
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
Others in attendance:
|
|
Robert Stout |
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Perk |
|
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
|
Deanne Strauser |
|
|
|
Charlie Hanneken |
|
|
|
Kayla Eckert Uptmor |
|
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
|
Jack Waide |
|
|
|
John Curry |
Audubon Society, |
|
|
Gary Loss |
HNTB |
|
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League of |
|
|
Angie Richter |
JFNew |
|
|
Mark Gorman |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature Conservancy/U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
|
Christine Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|
|
|
Peg Donnelly |
|
Announcements
Gary Clark announced that Dick Vegors will soon be retiring from the
Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED).
Clark thanked Vegors for his 13 years of service as a UMRBA
Representative from
Minutes
Todd Ambs moved and Mike Wells seconded a motion to approve the minutes
of the August 4, 2009 meeting as drafted.
The motion carried unanimously.
Executive
Director’s Report
·
President Obama
has signed the FY 10 appropriations bills funding the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Geological Survey, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. A summary of major UMRS-related funding
provisions for these agencies was included on pp. B-6 to B-8 of the agenda
packet. Some other federal agencies,
including Transportation and Commerce, are still operating under a continuing
resolution.
·
Naramore expects
to execute a contract for the provision of support services to the Environmental
Management Program (EMP) this week. The
contract will cover federal FY 10. A
separate agreement is anticipated for services related to the Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP).
In addition, the EMP Program Manager has also expressed interest in
having UMRBA staff assist in writing, editing, coordinating review, publishing,
and distributing the 2010 EMP Report to Congress (RTC). Any such RTC-related services would be
addressed under a separate contract.
·
As directed by the
UMRBA Board at its August meeting, UMRBA staff has drafted a letter outlining
the states’ concerns regarding the Inland Waterway Trust Fund situation. Naramore has recently completed revisions in
response to Board comments, and the letter will be formally transmitted to
members of the Administration and Congress within the next week.
Water
Quality Executive Committee Report
Marcia Willhite, Chair of UMRBA’s Water Quality Executive Committee
(WQEC), provided the Committee’s annual update to the Board. She reported that the Water Quality Task
Force (WQTF) continues to serve as a forum for information sharing and
consultation on matters such as assessment procedures and impairment listings
for the UMR. The WQTF addresses program
issues and developments of common interest to the five states, including
emerging contaminants. The WQTF also
continues its efforts to explore shared and innovative approaches to water
quality standards. Efforts underway in
this area include the Task Force’s designated uses project, made possible
through an intergovernmental personnel agreement with US EPA, and the upcoming
biological assessment project that the states are funding through UMRBA with
their 604(b) stimulus grants. Willhite
emphasized that the state WQEC members view water quality standards as the
fundamental building block of their clean water programs and thus as the key to
the states’ collaborative efforts on the UMR.
She also noted that the WQTF continues its work supporting cross-program
collaboration, most particularly through joint workshops with ecosystem
restoration staff and participation in the Corps-led reach planning effort.
Willhite elaborated on the 604(b) project, which the states are funding
using a portion of their state revolving fund (SRF) money that is set aside for
water quality management planning grants.
Funding for this set aside has historically been quite modest, but
received a boost with the large amount of stimulus money directed to SRF. Willhite explained that UMRBA’s 604(b)
project will include three major components:
1)
a biological
assessment guidance document that will recommend UMR-specific approaches for
the states’ consideration;
2)
a nutrient report
summarizing what is known about nutrient patterns and impacts on the UMR; and
3)
cross-programmatic
workshops to continue collaboration with other key programs, including
ecosystem restoration and agricultural conservation efforts.
She reported that UMRBA has executed funding agreements with two of the
five states thus far, with the remaining agreements expected to be in place
shortly. Total project funding will be
approximately $322,000. UMRBA has issued
a request for proposals, seeking a qualified consultant to develop the
biological assessment guidance document.
Willhite reported that the WQEC and WQTF also continue their outreach
and communication efforts. Over the last
year, this included a March meeting in
Reflecting on opportunities and challenges for the coming year,
Willhite observed that nutrients and other nonpoint source issues are
increasingly high profile. While each
state clearly has individual responsibilities in this area, Willhite said the
five states will be jointly examining what their collective role might be and
how that relates to their focus through UMRBA on the mainstem of the UMR. She said the WQEC will also explore whether
604(b) might present an ongoing source of funding to support the states’
cooperative efforts on the UMR. Willhite
also acknowledged that constraints of available staff and travel represent very
real challenges to the states’ collaborative water quality efforts, but
emphasized the need for the states to remain engaged in these efforts.
Gary Clark noted that the UMRBA Board met with the WQEC members this
morning and is very appreciative of their efforts. In response to a question from
Mike Sullivan reported that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a new Mississippi
River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) at the Gulf Hypoxia Task
Force’s September meeting. Using at
least $80 million in conservation funding over the next four years, USDA’s MRBI
will fund voluntary conservation practices in selected watersheds. These practices will be designed to avoid,
control, and trap nutrients; restore/enhance wildlife habitat; and maintain
agricultural productivity. The focus
watersheds will be selected within the 10 Mississippi River corridor states, as
well as
Sullivan explained that the state conservationists in each eligible
state will lead the process of identifying the MRBI watersheds. Each state will identify 1-3 focus areas at
the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) level.
Within these relatively large watersheds, smaller (c. 12-digit HUC)
watersheds will be selected on a competitive basis. Leveraging partner contributions and the potential
to achieve and document nutrient load reductions will be key criteria in
selecting the smaller watersheds.
Sullivan noted that 12-digit HUCs typically range from 10,000-40,000
acres.
MRBI will fund both core and supporting practices to control nitrogen
and phosphorus. Sullivan explained that
core practices are those thought to produce the greatest and most efficient
nutrient management benefits, while the supporting practices compliment core
practices and will be implemented in conjunction with them. According to Sullivan, MRBI will employ a
three-pronged approach of avoiding, controlling, and trapping (ACT). Results will be monitored and evaluated at
the field, small watershed (i.e., 12-digit HUC), and basin scales.
NRCS will coordinate with the Farm Service Agency, EPA’s Section 319
program, state conservation programs, and other partners in implementing the
MRBI. Sullivan emphasized the range of
critical roles for partners, including encouraging producer participation,
leveraging non-federal funds, educating the public, supplementing NRCS’s
technical assistance, and assisting with monitoring and evaluation. He noted that the states will be encouraged
to consider interstate watersheds, and said NRCS will support information
exchange, monitoring, and program integration across state boundaries.
In terms of timeline, Sullivan said the state conservationists will
announce the 8-digit HUC focus areas in the near future. This will be followed shortly by requests for
project proposals under the three program areas. Sullivan said he anticipates that the
12-digit project areas will be selected by late February 2010, with a target of
obligating project funds and beginning to implement conservation practices by
the end of federal FY 10. In response to
a question from Mike Wells, Sullivan said that any non-federal entity working
in the focus area will be eligible to submit a project proposal.
Mark Gorman asked about accountability for monitoring and
evaluation. Sullivan explained that
project proposals that include good monitoring plans will be ranked more
highly. Brian Johnson asked whether it
will be possible to add additional focus areas in future years. Sullivan said that remains to be determined,
but said focus areas selected this year will likely have priority for project
funding in future years. In response to
a question from Wells, Sullivan said that the CIG grants are designed to
promote innovation, not support new research.
Priority will go to CIG proposals that are tied to CCPI projects.
Biological
Indicators
1. Ad hoc ecosystem restoration/CWA interagency committee — ask
2. Ecosystem objective-setting — encourage and facilitate
state water quality staff’s involvement in reach planning in the near term and
explore how to best involve them over the longer term in restoration objective
setting and project development.
3. Biological condition gradient (BCG) workshop — no
immediate action recommended, but consider the value of defining a BCG as
related efforts evolve.
4. LTRMP A-Team refinement of indicators — UMRBA staff
should monitor the A-Team’s indicator discussions and facilitate coordination
with water quality staff if/when appropriate.
5. Development of biological assessment guidance — pursue
as outlined in UMRBA’s 604(b) project proposal, with explicit consideration of
existing UMR tools, appropriate involvement of restoration staff, and
clarification that this effort need not forestall other ongoing assessment
work.
6. Inventory and compare sampling methods and data sets —
no immediate action recommended, but reconsider once further progress has been
made in defining ecosystem goals and objectives via other next steps.
7. Potential use of LTRMP infrastructure to support
enhanced monitoring — no immediate action recommended, but revisit the question
after monitoring needs are more clearly defined.
8. Learn from the Lake Pepin TMDL and Mississippi
Makeover — UMRBA should continue to encourage information sharing regarding
both efforts.
9. Outreach and communication — no immediate action recommended,
beyond the efforts UMRBA already has underway.
Marv
Hubbell observed that two or three of the next steps relate to questions about
goals and objectives. With the Corps and
its partners currently engaged in ecosystem restoration objective setting,
Hubbell asked about parallel efforts to establish ecosystem health
objectives. Hokanson said that engaging
water quality staff in the restoration objective setting effort is an important
first step in determining whether fundamental goals and objectives between the
two program areas align. Hokanson said
it is too early to draw any conclusions regarding that question.
Laurie
Martinson said she is pleased the staff recommendations focus on relatively
modest, doable actions for the priority next steps, with action on other steps
being deferred. She observed that making
meaningful progress across all nine of the potential next steps areas would
simply not be possible. Martinson moved
and Mike Wells seconded a motion to approve implementing the actions
recommended by UMRBA staff in their report to the Board. Jim Fischer expressed particular support for
the recommendations to let work in some areas evolve a bit before attempting to
coordinate across program areas. Ken
Barr said state water quality staff have provided very valuable perspectives in
the reach planning discussions and said he appreciates their
participation. With no further
discussion, Martinson’s motion carried unanimously.
Kayla
Eckert Uptmor briefly reviewed the history of the
Eckert Uptmor explained that the original 1944 project
authorization, as amended, recognizes the following eight project purposes:
flood control, navigation, fish and wildlife, irrigation, power, recreation,
water supply, and water quality. The
Corps initiated work on MRAPS in October, following receipt of the study
implementation guidance, with outreach to basin stakeholders about their
interests and concerns relative to the study.
Eckert Uptmor said that, for any management alternative addressed in the
study, the Corps will evaluate all relevant impacts, including impacts on the
Eckert Uptmor said the Corps will develop its project
management plan (PMP) for the study over the next six to nine months. This will establish the project delivery team
(PDT) and study scope, as well as the communications and public involvement
plan. During this same period of PMP
development, the Corps has also hired the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution to develop a situation report. As a neutral convener, the Institute is
charged with conducting individual interviews and nine focus groups to explore
the range of stakeholder perspectives and develop recommendations for ensuring
these perspectives are engaged in the study process.
Upon completion of the PMP, Eckert Uptmor said the
Corps will hold a series of seven to ten scoping meetings, most likely during
the summer of 2010. These scoping
meetings will provide input to the formal study scope and external organization
involvement plan, which is scheduled for completion by September 2010. Eckert Uptmor stressed the Corps’ commitment
to coordination with stakeholders throughout the study, and said a study web
site has already been established at www.mraps.org.
Mike Wells encouraged evaluating Mississippi River
navigation as a potential additional authorized purpose of the Missouri River
project, including the possibility of a 12-foot channel below
Marcia Willhite asked how the Corps will account for
climate change in MRAPS. Eckert Uptmor
said the pending Principles and Guidelines revisions are likely to provide
specific direction on how to address climate change in Corps studies. In the interim, the Corps is considering the
issue as it develops its study approach.
She said she anticipates that climate change will be an important
consideration for several of the PDTs working on individual authorized purposes. Willhite said it would be helpful for the
Corps and other federal agencies to consider the issue of climate change across
systems and projects to provide some consistency in approach. Karen Hagerty asked how MRAPS will consider
the impacts of the project’s profound alteration of
Laurie Martinson emphasized that UMRBA and its member
states are important stakeholders for the MRAPS. She cited flow support and invasive species
as two key issues for the UMR states, and said it will be important for the
Corps to hold at least one of its scoping meetings in the UMRB. Eckert Uptmor said the St. Louis District has
offered similar observations and said the study staff are open to the idea of
holding a scoping meeting in the UMRB.
Wells asked how invitees to the focus groups are being
determined. He stressed that
representatives of UMRBA and the UMR states should be invited to participate in
the focus groups. Eckert Uptmor said she
would share this recommendation with the Corps’ contractor, but said the
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (IECR) is operating
independently in convening the focus groups and authoring the situation report
for the Corps. Wells expressed concern
that the Corps is not communicating government-to-government with the effected
states, and stressed that this needs to be done early in the process. Eckert Uptmor said the Corps has not yet
initiated formal scoping, but will definitely reach out to all of the states at
that point. At this juncture, she
explained, the Corps is seeking an independent situation report from IECR and
does not want to provide guidance or direction that would undermine that independence. She expressed appreciation for the UMR
states’ perspectives.
Ecosystem
and Navigation Updates
EMP FY 10
Work Plan
Marv Hubbell reported that EMP’s FY 10 appropriation
is $16.47 million. While this is a below
the President’s request and the House- and Senate-passed amounts, he said it is
in keeping with the final FY 10 funding levels for other restoration
programs and projects nationally.
Hubbell said the FY 10 Senate report language, which reiterates the call
for an EMP/NESP transition plan but also recognizes the need to keep EMP fully
functional until such time as NESP is adequately funded, will be tremendously
helpful. Assuming the program receives
implementation guidance consistent with the report language, EMP will once
again be able to initiate planning on new habitat projects and move projects
from planning to construction, so long as the projects can be completed or
readily transferred within two years of NESP receiving sufficient funding to
support transition.
Hubbell reviewed EMP’s FY 10 work plan. He explained that, at $600,000, overall
funding for regional administration is being reduced relative to FY 09; but
funding for the 2010 EMP Report to Congress is being increased. Ninety-three percent of the LTRMP’s $4.983
million FY 10 allocation is going to the base monitoring program — i.e.,
Outputs 1.1 and 2.1 under the FY 2010-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan. Of the remaining seven percent,
approximately 2/3 will go to research and 1/3 to administration. Funding for the HREP component is $10.887
million, which will support 22 existing habitat projects, 10 of which are
in construction, with the remaining 12 in various stages of planning and
design. The Corps also plans to initiate
planning on three or four new projects and move two projects from design to
construction during FY 10. Hubbell said
the Corps will also be conducting model certification and developing an HREP
component review plan in FY 10.
EMP/NESP
Transition Plan
Hubbell reported that General Walsh’s EMP/NESP
transition plan, dated June 18, 2009, remains at Corps Headquarters. Corps HQ staff met with regional program
staff on October 6 to discuss a range of EMP and NESP issues, including the
transition plan. At that meeting, staff
agreed to revise and resubmit the transition plan. Hubbell said the revised plan will more
explicitly address two major obstacles to program transition — i.e., the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund situation and obtaining construction general funding for
NESP. In addition, the plan will address
the Senate’s FY 10 report language and elaborate on the measures the Corps is
taking to ensure project transferability.
Jim Fischer asked whether EMP’s reduction in funding
to $16.47 million in FY 10 is a sign of things to come. Hubbell said the Administration has indicated
that overall domestic spending will decline in FY 11, but said he could
not speak to the specifics of the EMP budget.
He did observe that any funding declines would significantly affect both
the LTRMP, which is already devoting 93 percent of its budget to base monitoring,
and the HREP component’s planning and construction capability.
NESP FY 10
Work Plan
Chuck Spitzack reported that NESP received $6.2
million in FY 10 preconstruction engineering and design (PED) funding for FY
10. He observed that this is a significant
decline from FY 05-09 funding, which ranged from a high of $14.0 million in FY
07 to a low of $8.6 million in FY 09.
The overall trend in recent years has been toward declining PED funding
for NESP. Spitzack said the FY 10 work
plan is still under development. NESP
has $500,000 in carry-over funding, and the $6.7 million total available for FY
10 will be allocated as follows:
$470,000 to program administration and $3.15 million each to the
navigation and restoration components.
Major focus areas for the navigation component this year will include
completion of initial design reports for the new locks at L&D 22 and 25,
readying additional small scale measures for implementation, development of
implementation strategies, and consideration of whether to undertake additional
economic reevaluation. Spitzack said
ecosystem component efforts will focus on completion of additional project
planning, processing of project approvals, and reach planning.
Other NESP
Updates
Spitzack said the October 6 meeting with HQ staff was
very helpful. He said HQ plans to
forward the NESP Implementation Report to the ASA(CW). Corps HQ continues to support the NESP
Chief’s Report and will be working with the ASA(CW) and program staff to
explore the utility of additional economic reevaluation in the areas of
sensitivity analysis, system reliability, and multimodal considerations. Spitzack also reported that HQ will be
holding General Walsh’s Advisory Panel recommendations in abeyance until NESP
has a clear funding stream for project design and/or construction.
Spitzack said NESP staff have provided the Inland
Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Investment Strategy Team with information
to assist the Team in developing its 20-year capital investment strategy for
the inland navigation system. He
explained that NESP staff will review their implementation strategies in light
of the IMTS Team’s forthcoming recommendations.
On the reach planning front, Spitzack reported that the four Reach
Planning Teams (RPTs) are continuing their efforts and expect to present a
final plan to the NECC and EMP-CC at their May meetings.
In response to a question from Naramore, Spitzack said
any additional sensitivity analyses for NESP would likely focus on key
parameters, holding some constant while manipulating others. Spitzack said questions remain about whether
the existing models will support meaningful further analyses. He said the multi-modal focus would examine
how the authorized navigation improvements relate to the U.S. DOT’s integrated,
multi-modal vision for the nation’s transportation future.
Public
Outreach
Spitzack reported that, in September, MVD and the
three UMR districts agreed to jointly support an integrated approach to public outreach
and communication for the Corps’ UMR projects and programs. The brand identity for this approach will
likely be “Our Mississippi,” with additional details and graphics remaining to
be developed. Spitzack said two members
from each district are serving on a Public Outreach Team (PORT). The first newsletter reflecting this
integrated communications approach is currently out for partner review and will
be distributed soon. Spitzack also noted
that Jerry Enzler from the
Bernie Hoyer asked about the differences between the
Our Mississippi and One Mississippi campaigns, noting that they could easily be
confused. Spitzack said this will be a
focus in tomorrow’s conversation. But he
stressed that the concept behind Our Mississippi is to have an umbrella that
serves all UMR districts and programs for the Corps. He said the name may be adjusted, but
indicated that the idea is firm. Kevin
Bluhm said that the McKnight-funded One Mississippi campaign has a very
different vision and focus from the Corps’ effort. But Bluhm emphasized that there are important
areas for potential collaboration.
Comprehensive
Plan
Chuck Spitzack briefly recapped the status of the
Corps’ recommendations coming out of the Comp Plan study. In a January 2009 letter to the House and
Senate authorizing committees, then-ASA(CW) Woodley concurred with the Comp
Plan recommendations, including cost-shared feasibility studies on
reconstruction of aging levees, analysis of the federal interest in protecting
critical infrastructure, and extension of the Comp Plan’s mainstem analysis to
major tributaries.
Congress appropriated $269,000 for the Comp Plan in FY
10. Spitzack said this year’s efforts
will focus on identifying specific candidates for reconstruction studies,
scoping a regional critical infrastructure study, and developing an approach to
tributary analysis using the
In response to a question from Gary Clark, Spitzack
said the Corps does not yet have a short list of key critical infrastructure
sites.
Administrative
Issues
Investment
and Banking Resolutions
Mike Wells moved adoption of the investment resolution
as stated on p. H-1 and the investment policy revision as stated on p. H-2,
with the change of “deposit” to “depositor” as described by Naramore. Todd Ambs seconded Wells’ motion, which
carried unanimously.
Future
Meeting Schedule
Naramore reported that the next two quarterly meetings
are scheduled for February 23-25, 2010 in
Wells asked the Corps of Engineers to provide routine
quarterly updates regarding the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study at
future UMRBA meetings, at least through the scoping phase of the study.
Ambs moved and Wells seconded a motion to
adjourn. The motion carried
unanimously. With no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.