Minutes of the
77th Quarterly Meeting
20th Annual Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
Bloomington, Minnesota
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by
Chair Don Vonnahme. The following State
Representatives and Federal Liaison Representatives were present:
|
Don Vonnahme |
Illinois Representative (IL DNR) |
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois Alternate (IL DNR) |
|
Kevin Szcodronski |
Iowa Representative (IA DNR) |
|
Tom Jackson |
Iowa Representative (IA DOT) |
|
Steve Morse |
Minnesota Alternate (MN DNR) |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota Alternate (MN DNR) |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri Alternate (MO DNR) |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DNR) |
|
Stan Shaw |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DATCP) |
|
Ellen Fisher |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DOT) |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Dave Carvey |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS, Midwest
Office) |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
5) |
|
Larry Shepard |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
7) |
|
Leslie Holland-Bartels |
U.S. Geological Survey (UMESC) |
|
Jason Neubauer |
U.S. Coast Guard |
|
Todd Dudley |
U.S. Coast Guard |
Others in attendance:
|
Amy Denz |
Minnesota DNR |
|
Wayne Anderson |
Minnesota PCA |
|
Ken Brummett |
Missouri DOC |
|
James Fallon |
U.S. Geological Survey (WRD Minnesota) |
|
Alex Haro |
U.S. Geological Survey (BRD Conte Lab) |
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Mark Cornish |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Scott Whitney |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
(Continued)
Attendance (continued):
|
Ken Barr |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Owen Dutt |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
Fred Kollmann |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS) |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/UMRCC |
|
Keith Beseke |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Dan Stinnett |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Albert Schulz |
Federal Emergency Management Agency |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission |
|
Robin Grawe |
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission |
|
Mark Boerkrem |
Mississippi River Basin Alliance/Sierra Club |
|
Barry Drazkowski |
St. Mary’s University |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National Audubon Society |
|
Jeff Stein |
American Rivers |
|
Garry Hollands |
ENSR International |
|
George Olson |
The Gillette Company |
|
Patmarie Nedelka |
Coastal America |
|
Sil Pembleton |
Consultant – Audubon |
|
Renay Leone |
The Conservation Fund |
|
Gretchen Bonfert |
The McKnight Foundation |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
UMRBA Chair Don Vonnahme presented a Certificate
of Appreciation to Jim Harrison, in recognition of his 32 years of service to
the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. Harrison is retiring February 28, 2001. In accepting the award, Harrison noted the many changes he has
seen in river management and distributed copies of a 1969 letter from Wisconsin
Governor Warren Knowles, requesting establishment of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Commission. He also
distributed copies of newspaper articles from 1973 and 1974, describing the
controversy between the State of Wisconsin and the Corps of Engineers over
disposal of dredged material.
Terry Moe moved and Steve Morse seconded a
motion to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2000 meeting as drafted. The motion was approved by consensus.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force reviewed the Water Quality
Coordination Framework during a conference call in early December. Most of the suggested changes were editorial
in nature. However, the Task Force did
recommend that, when a grant proposal is submitted to EPA, funding for two years be requested. Stoerker noted that EPA’s request for
proposals related to Section 104 funding is expected to be out in March, at
which time UMRBA staff will develop a grant proposal based on the Framework
document. The proposal will be
circulated to both the Water Quality Task Force and UMRBA representatives prior
to submitting it to EPA. Stoerker commented
that funding from sources other than Section 104 funds will be needed after the
initial two years, if the states and EPA agree that the effort is worth
continuing.
Stoerker referred
UMRBA members to her written report, noting that it includes a summary of the
discussions at the January 23 meeting of the Water Science and Technology Board
regarding its proposed UMR water quality management study and a copy of the
results of a recent survey of public water suppliers with UMR intakes. She also invited comments on the UMRBA
Update, which is prepared by UMRBA staff and has been distributed every two
or three weeks for the past year.
Stoerker reported that
the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) are co-sponsoring a series of regional workshops to discuss the National
Streamflow Information Program. The
first workshop was held in Washington, D.C. on February 15. Another will be scheduled for St.
Louis. Stoerker urged UMRBA members to
attend, noting that the workshops offer an opportunity for nonfederal interests
to provide USGS with feedback on its plans to shift funding for a baseline
streamgaging network entirely to USGS.
Stoerker distributed copies of two USGS publications describing the
National Streamflow Information Program.
She noted that five goals for such a federally funded network have been
identified. The workshops are designed to gather feedback on those goals and
questions associated with restructuring the existing cooperatively funded
network.
Jeff Stein asked if
the results of the intake operators survey that Stoerker referenced can be
publicly distributed. Barb Naramore
said that the survey was still preliminary and requested that Stein and others
who wish to cite it wait until the results are finalized.
With regard to the
financial report included in the written Executive Director’s report, Don
Vonnahme requested clarification of the status of Illinois’ dues payment. Stoerker explained that Illinois typically
pays its dues in advance, near the end of the previous fiscal year. Therefore, Illinois’ FY 2001 dues were paid
last year and do not appear on the 2001 financial statement. If Illinois pays FY 2002 dues in advance,
they will appear on the FY 2001 financial statement.
Owen Dutt described
the Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP) as a public/private
partnership operating under the auspices of Coastal America. However, the National CWRP has expressed a
desire to expand the program beyond coastal areas, making it available to all
50 states. Dutt indicated that the
presentations about the program at today’s meeting are a way of bringing the
CWRP to the attention of agencies in the Upper Mississippi River basin and
asking if there is state interest in continuing to explore CWRP possibilities
in cooperation with the federal Midwest Natural Resources Group (MNRG).
Patmarie Nedelka
provided an overview of Coastal America, describing it as a partnership of 12
federal agencies formed in 1991 during the Bush Administration to protect and
preserve coastal ecosystems. She
described the organizational structure of Coastal America, which includes a
National Principles Group and a National Implementation Team. The Principles Group consists of the
Assistant Secretaries of 12 federal agencies and deals primarily with policy
issues. The Implementation Team
consists of senior policy staff from the federal agencies and deals primarily
with the planning process. In addition,
there are Principles Groups and Implementation Teams in each of the coastal
regions. Local Project Teams develop project working lists and address project
implementation issues. Nedelka also described specific projects that each of
the organizational levels have addressed, including the Sonoma Baylands,
California project for beneficial use of dredged material; the Galilee, Rhode
Island project involving wetlands restoration as part of transportation
development; and the Quaker Neck Dam project that removed obstruction to fish migration
in North Carolina. Nedelka also
described a variety of Coastal America initiatives, including Coastal Ecosystem
Learning Centers and Educational Student Ocean Conferences.
With regard to CWRP in
particular, Nedelka explained that corporations contribute funding or in-kind
services to match federal funds being used for restoration projects. The corporate funds are typically given to a
state trust fund or 501(c)(3) organization.
In Massachusetts, in the first six months, 23 companies contributed $1
million.
Nedelka described the
CWRP structure as being parallel to that of Coastal America. There are National, Regional, and State
Advisory Boards that consist of corporations, private foundations, and NGOs. There are currently 28 corporations participating
under the leadership of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Garry Hollands of
ENSR, an environmental consulting firm, described the benefits that
corporations derive from their involvement in the CWRP, including the
opportunity to develop trust and positive working relationships with government
agencies. He contrasted this experience
with the adversarial relationship often associated with the permit
process. He also noted that
corporations benefit from the positive public relations and visibility they
receive.
Kevin Szcodronski
asked how the cost-sharing arrangement works, noting that with regard to Corps
projects, the nonfederal sponsor provides the funds to the Corps and the Corps
typically builds the project. Nedelka explained
that the 501(c)(3) organization usually holds the corporate funds and then pays
the contractor directly. No funds are provided directly to the federal
agency. In some cases the corporate
funds are used to implement a separate part of the project, such as an
informational kiosk. Easements can also
be purchased, although this has not yet been done on a Coastal America
project.
Owen Dutt explained
that a list of eligible projects is developed by the participating agencies and
then the CWRP Advisory Boards decide how the available corporate funds will be
used. Garry Hollands explained that
funds cannot be used for mitigation projects associated with the permit
process.
Jerry Vineyard said
that he thought bluffland projects, as well as wetland projects, should be
eligible for the CWRP. He cited the
importance of blufflands along the UMR and the fact that they are being lost to
development. Garry Hollands explained
that CWRP projects are currently limited to the Clean Water Act definition of
“waters of the U.S.”
In response to a
question about what would be required to set up a CWRP in the UMRB, Nedelka
explained that, since Coastal America is not based in legislation, there is no
need to pursue any legislation for the UMRB.
Rather, the Joint Call for Action between UMRBA and MNRG should serve to
initiate the process.
In response to a
question from Steve Morse about how NGOs are involved, Nedelka and Hollands
explained that groups such as Ducks Unlimited are involved in project
identification. They also offer technical design expertise and often volunteer
labor. Nonprofit groups also have a
more formal role as advisors on the state level advisory committees.
Holly Stoerker
described the Call for Joint Action, which was included in the agenda packet,
as an outgrowth of a meeting she attended to discuss the CWRP with federal
agency representatives. The Call for
Joint Action affirms the interest that UMRBA and MNRG have in the CWRP and
lists a number of specific steps that staff from these two organizations will
take to define how the UMRBA and MNRG might organize themselves to fulfill the
functions that Coastal America currently serves with regard to CWRP in other
areas of the country. Owen Dutt
commented that the best way to approach CWRP in this region may be to start
with individual states, rather than a top-down regional approach.
Kevin Szcodronski
asked which corporation would take the lead in this region. George Olson of the Gillette Company
indicated that his company would likely recruit corporate leaders for each
state, after consulting with agencies in this region about potential interested
companies. He described the approach
used in Alaska, where BP was asked to take the lead and they then brought in
other companies by asking for the Governor and Alaska Congressional delegation
to speak at a CWRP kick-off event.
Terry Moe questioned
how the MNRG, which covers 12 states, would fit with the UMRBA’s jurisdiction
of 5 states. Owen Dutt clarified that
the intent is to focus initially only on the 5 UMRB states or some subset
of this basin. Leslie Holland Bartels
said that the MNRG has a specific UMRB team and that the fit between the
organizations is thus better than it may appear.
Terry Moe moved and
Kevin Szcodronski seconded a motion to authorize the UMRBA Chair to sign the
Call for Joint Action. Holly Stoerker
described two wording changes recommended to her by EPA staff. In the first dot point, the word “approved”
would be changed to “recognized” and in the fifth dot point, the word “
investors” would be changed to “partners.”
Moe and Szcodronski accepted the changes as a friendly amendment and the
motion passed unanimously.
Terry Moe requested
that, if the Call for Joint Action is approved later in the day by MNRG,
a copy of the final document be distributed to UMRBA representatives.
Holly Stoerker said that President Bush plans to
release the general outlines of his FY 2002 budget on February 28. However, details will not be available until
April. Although the federal agencies do
not therefore have specific FY 2002 budget information, Stoerker explained that
she had invited each agency to describe what features of the budget will most
likely be of interest to the UMR states.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
— Bill Franz distributed copies of charts comparing FY 00 and FY 01 funding for
the five UMR states’ water quality programs.
Allocations for Section 106 water quality planning and administration
funds and Section 319 nonpoint pollution funds both increased in FY 01. FY 01 funding for Section 604(b) has not yet
been allocated among Region 5 states.
In Region 7, Section 604(b) funding allocations are the same in FY 01 as
they were in FY 00. Bill Franz and
Larry Shepard also described the way in which Section 104(b) funds are
allocated. In FY 01, Region 5 Section
104(b) funds have not yet been allocated for TMDLs and wetlands and have been
reduced for NPDES permitting work. In
Region 7, a competitive process is used to allocate Section 104(b) funds. Allocations have not yet been made in FY 01.
With regard to State Revolving Funds (SRFs),
Region 5 states saw a decrease in their Clean Water SRF funding in FY 01, but
an increase in their Drinking Water SRF funding. FY 00 data for Region 7 was not available to provide a
comparison. In response to a question
from Terry Moe about recent proposals to increase funding for water
infrastructure, Bill Franz said that most of the funding would be for new
construction rather than maintenance needs.
Barb Naramore pointed out that there are differences of opinion about
whether to use grants or loans as the funding mechanism. Larry Shepard commented that Congressional
committees frequently earmark SRF funds for special needs. As an example, in FY 01, Missouri received
an additional $10 million. EPA has
opposed such earmarks because they limit flexibility.
In response to a question about how the states
will spend additional Section 106 and 319 funds by the end of the fiscal year,
Larry Shepard explained that Iowa typically carries over funds because
personnel ceilings hinder the state’s ability to fully utilize Section 106
funding in a single year.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
— Dave Carvey presented a table summarizing FY 00 and FY 01 NRCS spending in
the five UMR states. Programs and
Operations funding totaled $104 million in FY 00 and $107 million in FY
01. This category includes NRCS staff,
watershed planning, RC&D, and Forestry Incentives programs. Funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation
programs, including CRP, EQIP, and WRP, increased from $35 million in FY 00 to
$37 million in FY 01. Carvey commented that CRP work had to stop last year as a
result of funding caps. In FY 00,
funding for easements was entirely for technical assistance. In FY 01, the easements funding shifted to
financial assistance. In response to a
question from Barb Naramore, Fred Kollmann explained that the technical assistance
funding in the Commodity Credit Corporation and Easements categories is the
amount the FSA reimburses for NRCS staff technical assistance efforts.
Corps of Engineers
— Gary Loss said that the Corps budget is expected to be released April 3. The Rock Island District will be scheduling
its annual coordination meetings with the states in early May. Meetings with the UMR Congressional
delegation are scheduled for the third week of April. Loss indicated that the primary budget categories of interest on the
UMR will likely be O&M, major rehabilitation, EMP, and the Comprehensive
Plan. In response to a question about
whether the budget will likely include funding for the Comprehensive Plan and
the sediment/nutrient study, Loss said that the final decisions had not yet
been made. However, there are
indications that there will be no new starts in the FY 02 budget. Holly Stoerker asked about the Corps’
capability to spend the fully authorized EMP funding level, noting that the UMR
Congressional Task Force has requested full funding and described it at as
being within the Corps’ capability.
Loss said that EMP capability has not yet been determined. In response to a question from Terry Moe,
Loss said that the EMP capability determinations will include USGS’ capability
with regard to the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program.
Loss also reported that the National Academy of
Sciences report on the navigation study is scheduled for release on February
28, although no one in the Corps has yet seen the report. The Corps’ response to the findings of the
Inspector General was due February 6, but according to Loss, will be deferred
until a new Assistant Secretary is named.
Proposed changes to the management structure of the study will be
included in that report. A meeting of
the Governors Liaison Committee (GLC) will be scheduled when appropriate. Terry Moe suggested that the Corps refresh
the membership of the GLC, noting that Wisconsin’s GLC representative was no
longer with the Governor’s office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
— Charlie Wooley described the FWS’ budget structure, which includes a Resource
Management Account consisting of the Ecological Services Program, Refuges and
Wildlife Program, and Fisheries Program.
Other accounts include Construction, Land Acquisition, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, and Natural Resource Damage Assessment. The UMR Ecological Services program includes
the field offices in Rock Island and the Twin Cities. In FY 01, the UMR work of these two offices is estimated at
$375,000. Wooley outlined the out-year
funding and staffing needs for the Ecological Services Program, including Corps
technical assistance, threatened and endangered species, habitat needs
assessment, watershed restoration, water quality assistance, UMRCC support, and
aquatic nuisance species. FY 01 work on
the three UMR refuges (Upper
Mississippi River, Mark Twain, and Illinois River refuges) is estimated to be
$5.517 million. Wooley indicated that
future staff, maintenance, and facility needs will hopefully be covered by new legislation
related to the Centennial Legacy Plan.
However, he noted $7 million in land acquisition needs. With regard to fisheries, Wooley estimated
that $600,000 would be spent in FY 01 on the combined work at UMR Fisheries
Offices and the National Fish Hatchery.
While Fisheries funding has been level for the past 10 years, 35
projects totaling $3.1 million have been identified as unfunded needs. These projects are primarily related to
large migratory species, aquatic nuisance species, and endangered native
mussels. In response to a question
about funding for O&M of EMP projects on refuges, Wooley explained that
those projects are covered by the FWS refuge O&M budget.
[Federal budget
presentations continue after the presentation about the McKnight Foundation’s
Mississippi River program.]
Gretchen Bonfert
provided an overview of the McKnight Foundation’s Mississippi River Program and
distributed a list of active grants that the foundation has made under the
program. McKnight’s environmental grant making, which includes both the
Mississippi River program and energy-related grants, accounts for 8 percent of
its $100 million in annual grants. The purposes of the Mississippi River
Program are to strengthen protection of river corridors and watersheds in the
Midwest; to ensure full consideration of the environment in federal agency
decisions about the Mississippi River; and to build a potent constituency for
river protection, led by vibrant and effective river conservation groups.
Bonfert described the
types of projects that McKnight does not fund, as well as the organizations
that currently receive foundation funding.
She described, in particular, the Headwaters to Backwaters project that
includes $2 million per year for a total of 17 grantees. The project is being coordinated by the
Conservation Fund, which has identified a total of $100 million in projects,
for which one third of the funds have been raised to date. Approximately 50-60 percent of the funds
support urban revitalization, 30-40 percent support rural land protection
efforts, and 10 percent support constituency-building.
Bonfert also described
the Blufflands Alliance, which covers 24 counties in 4 states and leverages $5
for every $1 McKnight invests. She also highlighted the Audubon Ark as a
particularly effective constituency-building project, attracting 7000 people
during its trip last year between Cairo and the Quad Cities. Dan McGuiness said that the Audubon Ark and
canoe flotilla will travel between Lake Itasca and Fort Snelling from May 18 to
June 22 of 2001. That trip will be the
last leg of Audubon’s three-year effort to cover the entire UMR. The ultimate
goal is to maintain a permanent floating environmental center.
Following Bonfert’s
presentation, Gary Clark noted that Bonfert had worked on river issues for many
years, most notably as part of the Illinois Lieutenant Governor’s efforts to
develop an integrated management plan for the Illinois River.
FY
2002 Federal Budget (continued)
U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) — Leslie Holland
Bartels characterized the FY 01 budget
for USGS as “good,” noting that, although the allocations have not yet
been received, UMESC will see a $400,000 (13 percent) increase. Those increased funds will focus on
geospatial risk assessment for endangered mussels and a decision support system
for pallid sturgeon and least tern on the Middle Mississippi. With regard to FY 02, Bartels indicated that
no final decisions have yet been made, but the media have reported USGS budget
cuts may be as high as 22 percent. She
noted that a 22 percent cut at UMESC would mean a loss of $1 million, or 30
percent of the Center’s total research budget.
In contrast to the reported cuts, Bartels noted that Interior Secretary
Babbitt had allowed USGS to put forward a request for a $400 million
increase.
In response to a
question from Steve Morse about the status of the Hypoxia Action Plan, Bill
Franz said that the federal agencies have estimated the need to be $10 billion
over 10 years. Barb Naramore noted that
she and Wayne Anderson of Minnesota PCA have discussed the possibility of
starting some discussions between the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force and the
Hypoxia Working Group on whether there is a potential role for the UMRBA in
coordinating some of the watershed planning activities identified in the
Plan. Related to that issue is the
outstanding question of whether additional funding will in fact be made
available.
In response to a
question from Terry Moe regarding UMESC’s capability to utilize full funding
for the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, Bartels indicated that the
Center is fully capable of using the entire authorized funding amount and more,
if it is available. In particular, she
referenced the outstanding bathymetric work and the increasing costs of the
baseline monitoring program.
Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) — Al Schulz
described FEMA’s funding sources, which are primarily National Flood Insurance
Policy fees, but are sometimes augmented by disaster relief funding. In FY 01, Region V received $1,494,752 and
Region VII received $960,853 for studies related to floodplain mapping. The estimated cost of updating the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) nationwide is $850 million. The FIRM updates for the UMRS are estimated
to cost $35 million. Neither FEMA nor
the Corps have yet agreed to request funding within their budgets for those
maps.
Schulz also presented
figures showing the average annual flood damages over the past 10 years in each
of the UMRB states. The averages
reflect payments made by FEMA for individual and public assistance, but do not
include agricultural damages. Iowa
ranks 4th nationwide, with average annual damages of $313
million. The other states’ averages are
$272 million in Missouri, $219 million in Illinois, $145 million in Minnesota,
and $61 million in Wisconsin. Kevin
Szcodronski commented that the damage figures appear high and speculated that
the 1993 flood may be contributing to those high damages. He also questioned what the damage figures may
imply about land use policy. Schulz
noted that the five UMR states are national leaders in land use policies to
prevent flood damages.
Coast Guard — Jason Neubauer distributed copies of excerpts
from the Coast Guard’s FY 01 budget and a recent Public Affairs memo describing
funding status and operational reductions.
Neubauer explained that in FY 01, the Coast Guard has had to cut back
operations by 10 percent to meet a $91 million shortfall resulting from high fuel
prices. Given that search and rescue
operations are top priority, other items such as maintenance of flood control
equipment, buoy tending, and travel for meetings may be cut. In response to a question from Terry Moe
about the status of state boating safety funds, Neubauer described such grants
as a secondary mission that may be cut to offset shortfalls in primary
operations.
Holly Stoerker stated
that the process used to develop UMRBA testimony on FY 02 federal agency
budgets will be similar to that used last year. However, she cautioned that the process may need to be expedited
because the President’s budget is being released later than is typical.
Fish Passage
Dr. Alex Haro of USGS’ S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center
provided an overview of anadromous fish restoration efforts in New England,
noting that there are hundreds of small dams in New England, many of which are
now being targeted for removal. The
1965 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act mandates fish passage at FERC-licensed
dams that obstruct migration of anadromous species. This requirement caused a flurry of construction activity in the
1960s-1980s, including fish lifts or elevators and technical fishways. The target was originally upstream migrants,
but more recent MOAs with dam owners mandate downstream passage as well. Haro also described the changes in fish
populations resulting from fish passage devices, noting that the effectiveness
of the measures varies by species.
Haro also provided
background on the Conte Lab facility, which is a $17 million lab in Turner
Falls, Massachusetts that conducts basic and applied research addressing
management concerns for anadromous and other migratory fish. Areas of research include hydraulic
engineering, fish passage biology, ecology, fish physiology, and fish
behavior. Haro described the issues
surrounding design of a fishway at Little Falls dam on the Potomac River as an
example of the planning and design considerations involved in such
projects. Issues included which species
to target, options for notching the dam, how to minimize O&M costs, how to
provide adequate attraction flow, the need to maintain the reservoir for water
supply, and fish responses to velocity and turbulence.
Haro offered a variety
of questions for consideration in addressing fish passage on the Upper
Mississippi River:
·
Which fish species are
to be passed or excluded?
·
What is the timeframe
for passage (only spring, or summer as well)?
·
Is there a need for
both upstream and downstream passage?
·
Is there a commitment
to evaluation and continuing research?
·
What are the
ecological context and consequences, including the effect on exotic species?
Jon Duyvejonck said
that fish passage at UMR dams is being considered as part of the mitigation for
navigation capacity expansion. For
example, there is a proposal for fish passage at Lock and Dam 19 that is
estimated to cost $47 million.
Duyvejonck indicated that some biologists don’t believe fish passage
should be considered mitigation, but rather should be done as part of operation
and maintenance. Outstanding questions
include what is the effect of fish passage on exotics, how much of a priority
should fish passage be in the LTRM program, what is the commitment to operation
and monitoring, and should nonfederal interests cost-share?
Terry Moe said that
Wisconsin has had a long-standing interest in fish passage between UMR pools to
avoid pockets of fish population. He
criticized the Corps of Engineers for moving too slowly on this issue, citing
the on-going major rehabilitation program for the locks and dams as a missed
opportunity to incorporate fish passage.
Moe described a 1931 letter from the Secretary of War indicating that
fish passages at UMR locks and dams would be installed as necessary. He expressed frustration that there has been
no action despite this historical commitment and indicated that Wisconsin
believes there may be legal recourse.
He also stated that Wisconsin will not cost-share fish passage projects.
Jon Duyvejonck
commented that, although there is great interest in moving forward with fish
passage projects, there is no consensus among biologists on how to
proceed. He cautioned against focusing
on a single approach. Leslie Holland
Bartels explained that there are, in fact, varying degrees of fish passage on
the UMR now. However, the degree of
passage, where fish pass, the differences between dams, and the differences
between species are not fully understood.
She said that existing data needs to be evaluated and that modeling
needs to be done.
Don Vonnahme said that
a number of low head dams in Illinois are coming under state ownership. Thus, Illinois DNR is exploring dam removal,
as well as fish passage, on many of its smaller streams. Issues include migration of exotic species,
sediment contamination, and the desire of small communities to preserve the
impounded ponds as part of local parks.
To conclude the
discussion, Vonnahme noted that it was not UMRBA’s intention to take any action
on fish passage at this meeting.
Rather, he encouraged UMRCC to bring issues or specific project
proposals to UMRBA’s attention, as appropriate, in the future.
It was agreed that, at
the May meeting, the UMRBA would devote its attention to objective #4 of the
UMRCC report: using dams to mimic natural flood pulses and low flows.
Don Vonnahme explained
that the UMRBA annual meeting is the time at which, under the terms of the 1989
Charter, each state reports on any out-of-basin diversion requests that may
have been made during the previous year.
In response to Vonnahme’s query, each state reported that no such
diversion requests had been made. UMRBA
staff will transmit a letter to each of the five Governors describing the
results of the required consultation.
Jerry Vineyard
reported that, although there had been no diversion requests in Missouri, the
state is concerned about potential diversions out of the upper Missouri River
as a result of the recent passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act. According to Vineyard, the Act could lead to
linkage of parts of the Garrison Diversion project, diverting water from the
Missouri River to the Hudson Bay watershed.
In response, the State of Missouri and the Province of Manitoba have
executed a Memorandum of Understanding expressing their joint concerns about
such a potential diversion and pledging their mutual support for efforts
opposing water transfers between major watersheds.
Don Vonnahme said that the UMRBA state members wish to extend Federal
Liaison Membership to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He asked that staff transmit letters of
invitation to both FEMA Regions V and VII.
In response to a
question from Terry Moe, Holly Stoerker said that such an action would not
require any changes to the UMRBA By-Laws
Don Vonnahme noted
that UMRBA staff has requested that the UMRBA’s FY 2001 budget be increased by
$1500 in the category of “UMRBA Time Wages” to secure web site development
assistance. He noted that the only
affect on the budget would be to reduce net income. With no objections the budget amendment was agreed to by
consensus.
Holly Stoerker
announced that the next two UMRBA/EMP-CC meetings have been scheduled for May
15-16 in Davenport, Iowa and August 7-8 in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
It was agreed that the
fall 2001 meetings would be held November 14-15 in St. Louis. If a Governors Liaison Committee meeting for
the navigation study is needed, it will be held on November 13.
Don Vonnahme noted that
there is currently a vacancy in Wisconsin’s UMRBA representation. In addition, Missouri’s UMRBA representation
may be in flux.
Kevin Szcodronski
nominated Steve Morse of Minnesota to be UMRBA Chair and Don Vonnahme of
Illinois to be Vice-Chair. Terry Moe
seconded the motion. The motion passed
with no objection.
Don Vonnahme announced
the 20th anniversary of the UMRBA and invited all in attendance to share in
celebrating the occasion.
The meeting was
adjourned at 3:20 p.m. for the cake cutting.