Minutes of the
93rd Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
La
Crosse, Wisconsin
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Gary Clark. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Rick
Mollahan |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Mike
McGhee |
Iowa
(DNR) |
|
Harold
Hommes |
Iowa
(Dept of Agriculture) |
|
Dick
Vegors |
Iowa
(Dept. of Economic Development) |
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Mike
Wells |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Dru
Buntin |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
Federal Liaisons:
|
Mike
Sullivan |
U.S.
Department of Agriculture (NRCS) |
|
Linda
Leake |
U.S.
Geological Survey (UMESC) |
|
Charles
Barton |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Bill
Franz |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
Charles
Wooley |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
Others
in attendance:
|
John
Pitlo |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry
Dukerschein |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Larry
Kieck |
Wisconsin
Department of Transportation |
|
Greg
Ruff |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Don
Powell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Tom
Novak |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Ken
Barr |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Gary
Loss |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Matt
Zager |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Tim
Yager |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Gary
Wege |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Doug
Aloisi |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Genoa NFH) |
|
Don
Hultman |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (UMR Refuge) |
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (UMR Refuge) |
|
Rick
Nelson |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Dan
McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Gretchen
Bonfert |
McKnight
Foundation |
|
Robin
Grawe |
Mississippi
River Citizen Commission |
|
Cal
Fremling |
Winona
State University emeritus |
|
Mark
J. Carr |
AEP
River Operations |
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Mike Wells moved
and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November
17, 2004 meeting, as drafted. The
motion was approved by consensus.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the Chief’s Report on the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Feasibility Study was issued December 15, 2004. She and Gary Clark thanked the Corps for making modifications to
the draft report based on discussions at the November 2004 UMRBA meeting.
Stoerker
reported that there has been a change in the consultant services for UMRBA’s
water quality coordination project.
UMRBA’s contract with Wenck Associates has been amended to reflect FTN
Associates’ staff as the lead for both the fish consumption advisory tasks and
the sedimentation criteria tasks.
Stoerker
distributed copies of a flyer announcing the UMR Fish Consumption Advisory
Workshop being sponsored by UMRBA on March 30-31 in Davenport, Iowa. The Workshop is designed to bring together natural
resource, health, and environmental quality agencies from each of the five UMR
States to discuss issues related to fish consumption advisories on the river,
including options for achieving greater compatibility and comparability among
State advisories and their use in listing impairments.
Rebecca Wooden
requested that Stoerker provide a list of workshop invitees.
Barb Naramore
reported that updates to the UMR Spill Plan are ongoing. As part of the update process, a new
interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be signed. The original MOA was signed in 1997 and none
of the officials who signed that document still hold the same position.
A Spill of
National Significance (SONS) exercise, focusing on the Upper Mississippi River,
will take place in Spring 2007. By
their very nature, SONS exercises are designed to exceed the region’s capacity
to respond. Barb Naramore has been
working with the Coast Guard and EPA on SONS planning. She will be working through the UMR Spills
Group to seek State input and involvement in the exercise. If there are others, in addition to
emergency response personnel, who should be involved, Naramore asked that she
be notified.
Holly Stoerker
explained that the Interbasin Diversion Charter, signed by the Governors in
1989, requires that, at the UMRBA Annual Meeting, each State report on
out-of-basin diversion requests that may have been made during the previous
year. All five UMRBA State representatives reported that no diversion requests,
exceeding the charter threshold of 5 million gallons per day average in
any 30-day period, had been made. UMRBA staff will transmit a letter to
each of the five Governors describing the results of the required consultation
on interbasin diversions.
Gary Clark noted
that the diversion issue has been revisited on the Great Lakes as part of Annex
2001, an amendment to the 1985 Great Lakes Charter. Constitutional issues regarding interstate consultations are being
raised.
Cal Fremling
provided an overview of his new book, Immortal River: The Upper Mississippi in Ancient and Modern
Times. The book, published by the
University of Wisconsin Press, took him 14 years to write and is targeted to
the “educated layman.” Topics include
geologic history, early exploration and exploitation, the steamboat era and
early improvements to the river, the post-impoundment years, modern tows and
barges, ecological relationships, flooding, pollution, and agency management
roles.
Gretchen
Benjamin noted that Fremling’s description of river management is rather
critical and asked for his suggestions about how it could be improved. Fremling indicated that he covers that topic
in the final chapter of his book.
Rebecca Wooden commented that river management is necessarily complex.
Mike Sullivan
explained that the NRCS reorganization is above the State office level and
should thus not affect program delivery at the local level. NRCS’ six regional offices have been closed
and replaced by three regional technical centers. Each of these three National Technology Support Centers has
specific focus areas and serves the entire country. The central office in Fort Worth, Texas focuses on grazing,
wetlands, and wildlife. In addition,
there is a national water management center in Little Rock, Arkansas. Sullivan explained that he is stationed in
Little Rock, but is filling an NRCS headquarters position.
Sullivan also
described four NRCS programs: the Conservation
Security Program, Conservation Innovation Grants, the Conservation Partnership
Initiative, and Drainage Water Management.
The Conservation
Security Program (CSP) is a three-tiered program that rewards farmers for
maintaining high levels of environmental stewardship. In FY 05, there will be at least one CSP watershed in each State.
Conservation
Innovation Grants (CIG) are designed to stimulate on-the-ground demonstrations
of innovative conservation technologies.
In FY 04, there were a number of CIG recipients in the Upper Mississippi
River Basin, including American Farmland Trust Agriculture Conservation
Innovation Center, The Nature Conservancy (Illinois), the Iowa Cattlemen’s
Association, the Iowa Soybean Association, the State of Minnesota, and the
Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources.
In FY 05, there is $15 million available in CIG funding. Proposals are due March 28, 2005.
The Conservation Partnership Initiative (CPI) is a voluntary
program aimed at fostering conservation partnerships in watersheds. In FY 04, the Missouri Department of
Conservation received CPI funding for Northwest Missouri Bobwhite Buffers
Enhancement. The FY 05 proposal period
ended February 17.
Drainage water management is one of NRCS’ top national
priorities. The goal is to limit water
release to only the amount necessary to insure fields are trafficable and the
crop root zone is aerated. Illinois and
Iowa are among the highest-ranking States in terms of drained farmland.
Holly Stoerker asked if Sullivan will be UMRBA’s primary
point-of-contact for NRCS and whether the NRCS/UMRBA partnering agreement
should be revisited. Sullivan noted
that he still needs to learn more about UMRBA and consult with the State
conservationists in the basin. He
suggested following up after this meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency — Bill Franz explained that
EPA’s budget is organized by goals, with approximately 37 percent devoted to
the clean water goal. National water
priorities include improving water monitoring, increasing wetland acres and
quality, restoring watersheds, and enhancing water infrastructure security.
The FY 06 proposed budget for Section 106 funding is $231 million,
to be allocated among the States using a formula based on six factors: surface
water area, groundwater use, point sources, impairments, nonpoint sources, and
population.
Approximately $209 million is proposed for Section 319 nonpoint
source grants in FY 06. Funds are
allocated among the States based on a 2003 formula. In 2005, the UMR States received the following percentages of the
total national 319 funds: Illinois (4), Iowa (2.2), Minnesota (3.5), Missouri
(2.3), Wisconsin (2.6).
The President is proposing significant cuts to the Clean Water
State Revolving funds in FY 06.
Proposed funding for the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving funds
remains flat. Allocation of funding to
the States for both accounts is based on a needs survey. Franz presented lists of the amounts allocated
to each of the five UMRB States in FY 04 and FY 05, as well as the amount
proposed for FY 06.
The President is proposing to eliminate NPDES Section 104 funding
in FY 06. These funds are typically
allocated to each EPA Region and considered discretionary. Franz explained that 104 funding has been
the source for EPA’s recent grants to support the work of the UMRBA Water
Quality Task Force. Holly Stoerker
noted that UMRBA’s current grant is for a 2‑year period, including FY 05
and FY 06. Franz commented that the
States could support the UMRBA water quality work through their Section 106
funds. Currently, only 6 interstate
agencies nationwide are eligible for direct funding from Section 106.
A significant increase is proposed for the Water Security Monitoring
program in FY 06. Last year, $10.6
million was allocated and the President is proposing $55 million in FY 06.
U.S. Geological Survey — Linda Leake identified a
series of USGS priorities for the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers:
addressing needs of DOI partners, analysis of distribution and abundance of
biota, invasive species (Asian carp), collaborative opportunities through
NASQAN, movement of nutrients, and the National Streamflow Information
Program. Leake explained that USGS’
large rivers science initiative spans several programs and departments and is
thus not specifically identified in the budget. USGS’ budget theme in FY 06 is “Hazards.”
In FY 06, the USGS budget is proposed to be cut by $1.9
million. However, there is a $750,000
add for “Science on the DOI Landscape.”
This is a national initiative that may or may not benefit the UMRB.
In response to a question from Gary Clark, Leake said the
streamgaging budget is slated for a 7 percent cut. Clark commented that States have an ongoing concern about the
viability of the stream gaging program.
States need the basic flow data from the gages for all aspects of water
management, including flooding, water allocation, and TMDLs.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Charlie Wooley said that
the Service’s budget has basically been holding steady since FY 04, except for
the Fisheries program, which has seen some cuts. Funding for construction has also been declining over the past
three years, reflecting its decreasing priority.
The Ecological Services base funding for the three UMR field
offices totals approximately $375,000.
Wooley noted, however, that there are a variety of additional funding
needs and opportunities. FY 05 funding
for the three refuge complexes along the river totals approximately $8.3
million. Wooley said that the
Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process for refuges has been a very
intensive effort with the States, stakeholders, and general public. The Upper Mississippi Refuge CCP is underway
and the Mark Twain and Illinois River Refuge CCPs are complete. The Mark Twain Refuge has land acquisition
needs and opportunities that exceed its resources.
The Fisheries Resource Offices nationwide have seen some cuts,
while hatcheries have seen some funding increases. The areas of emphasis for the fisheries program in this region
are large migratory species, aquatic nuisance species, and endangered mussels.
Gretchen Benjamin emphasized the importance of continued funding
for the UMRCC coordinator position.
Wooley said the Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to its role as
UMRCC coordinator. However, the
challenges include how to fund it in future years and how to avoid conflicts of
interest. Wooley expressed a preference
for separate line item funding, rather than supporting the coordinator position
out of base funding.
Homeland Security — In the absence of representatives
from the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Holly
Stoerker distributed excerpts from the FY 06 budget proposals for these
two agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. She voiced the assumption that UMRBA’s FY 06
testimony for these agencies will continue to focus on the programs and themes
from last year. Namely, for the Coast
Guard the testimony will stress the need to continue the non-security missions
and will specifically address operating expenses, research and development,
reserve training, and boating safety grants.
For the FEMA testimony, the emphasis will be on the pre-disaster mitigation
grant program and flood map modernization.
U.S. Department of Agriculture — Mike Sullivan explained
that USDA’s budget includes both discretionary and mandatory spending. Mandatory spending includes Farm Bill
programs, while discretionary spending includes such things as conservation
technical assistance and watershed programs.
In FY 06, USDA discretionary spending is proposed to be $814 million, a
decrease of $177 million from FY 05.
The FY 06 budget assumes a pay act increase of 1.5 percent and absorption
of inflation costs. In addition, it
does not include funds for FY 05 Congressional earmarks.
The FY 06 NRCS budget reflects a funding decrease for conservation
technical assistance and zeroes out funding for watershed and flood prevention
operations. Sullivan explained that the
issue of how technical assistance should be funded has been resolved. Technical assistance for each conservation
program is now being paid from that program account. EQIP is no longer paying for technical assistance for CRP, WRP,
and the Klamath Basin.
With regard to Farm Bill programs, in FY 06 there will be a slight
decrease for EQIP and a significant increase for WRP. The Grassland Reserve Program is zeroed out because it is
reaching the end of its authorization.
Corps of Engineers — Greg Ruff described the goals
upon which the Corps’ FY 06 budget is based: prioritize construction funding
for projects with the highest net economic and environmental returns; reduce
the construction backlog; improve recreation services through the Recreation
Modernization Initiative; restore aquatic ecosystems with an emphasis on the
Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, Upper Mississippi River, and Missouri and
Columbia Rivers endangered species recovery; and protect water and wetlands.
The Corps’ FY 06
budget is 7 percent lower than its FY 05 enacted budget. There are nine specific projects identified
as high priority in the FY 06 Corps budget, including “UMR Ecosystem
Restoration,” which is the new name OMB has given the EMP.
Ruff outlined
MVD’s FY 05 and FY 06 budgets, noting that there is a small increase proposed
for O&M in FY 06. With regard to
UMR projects, there is no funding proposed in FY 06 for NESP or the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the EMP is
recommended for full funding ($33.5 million) and three lock and dam major
rehabilitation projects are funded.
Ruff explained
that, since release of the budget, the Corps has continued to work on the
justification documents for the EMP. Of
note, OMB has directed that the EMP name be changed to UMR Ecosystem
Restoration and has identified the purpose as “commercial navigation and
mitigation.” In addition, OMB guidance
calls for optimizing funding for resource monitoring and project monitoring and
specifies that $3 million be used to develop a 10-year aquatic ecosystem
restoration plan. Ruff commented that
the purpose of these changes is not clear.
However, the Corps has sought to clarify the origins of the EMP as
restoration, rather than mitigation and has emphasized that a restoration plan
was just recently completed as part of the Navigation Study.
Ruff explained
that the Corps’ FY 06 budget proposal reflects performance-based
budgeting. In particular, navigation
and flood control projects with ratios of remaining benefits to remaining costs
(RB/RC) greater than 5 receive at least 80 percent of their capability
needs. Projects with an RB/RC less than
3 will be phased out. In response to
the question of how the UMR navigation improvements would fare under these
budgeting criteria, Ruff noted that the Navigation Study showed B/C ratios of
less than 2.
Gary Loss noted
that the Corps’ FY 06 budget includes $80 million to pay termination costs for
ongoing contracts. This is a new
approach, in contrast to the Corps’ typical reluctance to terminate ongoing
projects. None of the $80 million is,
however, for projects in MVD.
Linda Leake
noted that the FY 06 budget requests no funding for NESP, despite the fact that
Congress provided PED funding for NESP in FY 05. Ruff explained that this is the result of the emphasis in FY 06
on reducing the construction backlog and not including any “new phase”
starts. Ruff also explained that the FY
05 NESP work is structured to permit a logical closeout if there is no funding
in FY 06. He commented that there is,
of course, capability, if Congress chooses to provide funding for NESP in FY
06.
Gary Clark
thanked all the federal agency representatives for their presentations and background
information on the President’s FY 06 budget proposal.
Holly Stoerker
noted that the timeframe for developing and submitting testimony is
particularly tight this year.
Appropriations for EPA and Interior agencies (e.g., Fish and Wildlife
and USGS) have been combined under the jurisdiction of a single
subcommittee. That subcommittee and the
Energy and Water Subcommittee, with jurisdiction over the Corps budget, have
both set March 18 as the deadline for testimony from outside witnesses. Stoerker therefore suggested the following
schedule for development of UMRBA testimony on these four agencies:
March 9 — UMRBA staff will transmit draft testimony to UMRBA representatives and alternates for review
March 15 — Deadline for comments on draft testimony
March 16 — Revise testimony as necessary and
recirculate
March 17 — Final approval by UMRBA
March 18 — Submit testimony
Holly Stoerker
outlined the issues related to appropriations and authorization of the two UMR
ecosystem programs, EMP and NESP. In
particular, the two programs are viewed by some as duplicative. With regard to appropriations, the
Administration has proposed full funding for EMP in FY 06, but has not budgeted
for NESP, which is not yet authorized.
In addition, this year there will likely be a major effort to pass a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), including NESP authorization. WRDA would also be the vehicle for amending
the EMP to allow NGOs to be non-Federal sponsors, as recommended in the EMP
Report to Congress.
Stoerker
commented that UMRBA’s message regarding appropriations should be that both the
EMP and NESP are important and worthy of funding. She expressed concern that Congress not make the trade-off it did
in FY 05, by reducing EMP funding in order to fund NESP. Gretchen Benjamin said it’s important for
Congress to understand that EMP is up and running, with projects in
progress. It also funds long term
monitoring, which is not included in NESP.
Both programs are important and are not duplicative.
Mike Wells asked
if PED funding for NESP could be made available under General Investigations,
in the absence of a construction authorization. Greg Ruff explained that the Corps can move from the study phase
to the PED phase without authority, as long as appropriations are
provided. This is what happened in FY
05. Ruff also explained that when there
is a Congressional add, as in FY 05 when Congress added funding for NESP, the
Corps goes through a process with the Assistant Secretary’s office to ensure
that PED work is consistent with Administration policy. He also noted that the original Navigation
Study was not specifically authorized either.
Instead, it was undertaken under the authority of Section 216, allowing
for review of completed projects if conditions have changed significantly.
Holly Stoerker
summarized the discussion by saying that UMRBA’s appropriations testimony will
emphasize the need for both NESP and EMP, the lack of duplication, and the
unique role of LTRMP. In addition, she
indicated that UMRBA staff will work directly with the Corps to identify
specific NESP spending capabilities and needs, so that those figures can be
included in the testimony.
With regard to
WRDA, Stoerker said that Senator Bond is reportedly close to reintroducing last
year’s Senate Committee bill, which did not make it to the Senate floor prior
to close of the session. The Senate
bill did, however, include authorization of NESP. On the House side, the Water Resources Subcommittee has asked
members to submit their WRDA 05 project requests by March 2. Last year, the House passed its version of
WRDA, but it did not include NESP.
Stoerker
expressed some concern that promoting authorization of NESP in WRDA 05 and also
promoting an amendment to the EMP regarding NGOs as non-Federal sponsors may
contribute to the confusion about the relationship between the two
programs. She noted that The Nature
Conservancy has indicated it would like to pursue the EMP amendment in
WRDA. Dan McGuiness said Audubon also
supports the EMP amendment, but would not be inclined to press for it, if it
was clearly a “dangerous” course of action.
He also explained that NGOs can currently be EMP funding partners
if they work directly through a State as non-Federal sponsor.
Linda Leake
cautioned against opening up EMP to amendment if it’s not a high priority
issue. She suggested that the EMP
amendment not be raised by UMRBA, but left for others to advocate.
Gary Clark summarized
the discussion by saying that UMRBA supports the EMP amendment regarding NGOs,
but will not actively pursue the amendment in WRDA 05.
Chuck Spitzack
provided an overview of the institutional arrangements proposal developed by a
volunteer group that the Corps assembled to address integrated river
management. The initial focus of the
proposed partnership structure would be on Fish and Wildlife Service programs
(fisheries, ecological services, and refuges) and on Corps authorities (NESP,
EMP, 9-foot channel, and Illinois River ecosystem restoration).
Spitzack
described the roles, responsibilities, and proposed membership of the Federal
Principals Group, Regional Principals Group, River Management Council (RMC),
River Management Teams (RMT), and Science Panel. He explained that the proposal calls for the Regional Principals
Group to meet jointly with UMRBA and address policy issues. In contrast, the RMC would focus on system
wide program execution at the operational level.
Rebecca Wooden
asked how the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) would affect the proposed
institutional arrangements. Spitzack
said that FACA has been discussed with Corps counsel and it appears that these
arrangements would be outside of FACA.
At the RMT level, FACA would not apply because NGOs are not proposed to
be members of those teams. Although
NGOS will be members of the RMC, that would not trigger FACA because the RMC is
“sharing information” and not “giving advice.”
Wooden also
asked about lines of authority and reporting under the institutional
arrangements proposal. Spitzack
explained that the lines on the organizational chart are lines of communication
and not lines of authority. Formal
decisions are still made within agencies.
The RMC provides reports and its conclusions to the member
agencies. Its recommendations are not
binding.
Gretchen
Benjamin commented that UMRBA should have a strong presence in the RMC. Although UMRBA would not be a member of RMC,
it should help coordinate the States’ input and facilitate RMC activities,
similar to its current role with the EMP Coordinating Committee. Benjamin also noted that the RMC seems to
have a heavy federal focus and that UMRBA involvement would help insure that
the States’ voice is not lost.
Gary Clark asked
Spitzack about the schedule for review and consideration of the institutional
arrangements proposal and asked if UMRBA should submit comments. Spitzack explained that the current schedule
calls for a stakeholders meeting in May.
Between now and then, the proposal will be vetted with individual
groups. In June, the formal process of
asking for State and federal agency review and concurrence will begin. The target for beginning the implementation
process is September 2005.
Spitzack said a
comprehensive document describing the proposal is still being prepared and
should be ready for distribution soon.
It was agreed that once the proposal is available, UMRBA staff will
draft comments for review and consideration by UMRBA representatives at the May
2005 quarterly meeting. Spitzack said
the stakeholders meeting would then be convened after the UMRBA and EMP-CC May
quarterly meetings.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the UMRBA members discussed the institutional arrangements proposal
at yesterday’s UMRBA strategic planning meeting. Their preliminary comments and concerns include the following:
§
There
should be a way of coordinating State input to the RMC.
§
Consideration
should be given to having UMRBA provide staff support to the RMC, similar to
the role it plays for EMP-CC.
§
The
structure should be efficient, recognizing the limited capacity agencies may
have to participate. Redundancy should
be avoided.
Gary Clark
reiterated the importance of efficiency, noting that Todd Ambs has expressed
concerns about similar redundancy issues on the Great Lakes. Clark also suggested that the existing
quarterly meeting cycle could work well in the future, with the new RMC meeting
in conjunction with the UMRBA.
Rebecca Wooden expressed
concern with having flood control and recreation issues added to the
responsibilities of the RMC. Such a
broad array of issue areas will make it difficult for agencies to decide who
should participate. She also asked what
level of representation was envisioned for RMC members. Would it be policy or technical
representatives from agencies?
Holly Stoerker
noted that the focus of the institutional arrangements appears to be primarily
on ecosystem restoration, even though navigation capacity issues are also
clearly part of NESP. This is
particularly evident in the description of the Science Panel
responsibilities. Gretchen Benjamin
agreed, observing that it will be difficult to engage State transportation and
economic development agencies if the work of the RMC does not focus on
navigation, as well as ecosystem concerns.
She also noted that States will have no way to monitor the work of IWR
and NETS, if these activities are not covered by the RMC.
Holly Stoerker
summarized the issues discussed by UMRBA representatives and alternates at
their February 22 strategic planning session.
With regard to water quality, Stoerker reported that discussions are
still ongoing among the State water quality administrators regarding UMR
coordination needs and opportunities.
It was agreed that UMRBA staff would continue to work with that group to
help identify needs and ways in which UMRBA could be supportive.
Stoerker also
reported that UMRBA representatives agreed to devote staff effort to the
following short term issues: 1) State
input into the emergency action plans developed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan and 2) follow-up with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the EMP Report to
Congress recommendation regarding O&M of habitat projects on refuges. Stoerker noted that advocacy efforts with
the Fish and Wildlife Service may also be expanded to include a broader set of
issues.
Stoerker
explained that other issue areas for potential future UMRBA involvement include
State water planning, a national big rivers initiative, regional climate change
impacts, and science planning and priorities for the UMR. These issues will be discussed further at
UMRBA’s May 2005 strategic planning session.
Mike Wells moved and Mike McGhee seconded a motion to elect Todd Ambs Chair of the UMRBA. The motion carried unanimously.
Gretchen
Benjamin moved and Mike Wells seconded a motion to elect Mark Holsten UMRBA
Vice Chair. The motion carried unanimously.
Holly Stoerker
described the future meeting dates, which include the following:
May 2005
(Twin Cities)
May 24: No
GLC meeting
Possible
meeting of UMRBA Water Quality Task Force
UMRBA
Strategic Planning session
May 25: UMRBA
Quarterly meeting
May 26: EMP
Coordinating Committee
August 2005
(Davenport)
August 16: UMRBA Quarterly meeting
August 17: EMP Coordinating Committee
August 17-19: EMP Habitat Project Workshop
November 2005
(Twin Cities)
November 15-17: Meeting schedule to be determined
Holly Stoerker
thanked Gary Clark for his year of leadership as UMRBA Chair.
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.