Minutes of the
97th Quarterly Meeting
of the
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Todd Ambs. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Rick
Mollahan |
|
|
Martin
Konrad |
|
|
John
Hey |
|
|
Mark
Holsten |
|
|
Dick
Lambert |
|
|
Dru
Buntin |
|
|
Todd
Ambs |
|
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
|
|
Larry
Kieck |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Charles
Barton |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Charlie
Wooley |
|
|
Michael
Jawson |
|
|
Mike
Sullivan |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service |
|
Bob
Goodwin |
Maritime
Administration |
Others
in attendance:
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Rich
Worthington |
|
|
Susan
Smith |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Don
Powell |
|
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
|
|
Marv
Hubbell |
|
|
Ken
Barr |
|
|
Jennie
Sauer |
|
|
Dave
Ellis |
|
|
Stoney
Cox |
Cox
& Associates |
|
Ron
Kroese |
The
McKnight Foundation |
|
Mark
Beorkrem |
|
|
Holly
Stoerker |
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Barb
Naramore |
|
Gary Clark moved
and Mark Holsten seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 15,
2005 meeting, as drafted. The motion was
approved unanimously.
Holly Stoerker
highlighted the following items from her written report provided in the agenda
packet:
§
On
December 30, UMRBA received notification that the McKnight Foundation approved
UMRBA’s grant proposal for “organizational options” related to interstate water
quality management. On January 12, the
UMRBA Water Quality Task Force and 5 State water quality administrators met by
conference call to launch the project.
§
The
National Research Council panel on the Mississippi River and the Clean Water
Act met on January 30-31 in
§
Ongoing
OPA and UMR Spills Group efforts include: mapping for the Inland Sensitivity
Atlas; Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA) workshop on March 8-9 in
Savannah, Illinois; support for the 2007 Spill of National Significance (SONS)
exercise; early warning monitoring pilot probe at Lock & Dam 15; and the
meeting of the UMR Spills group on February 28-March 1 in Moline,
Illinois. At UMRBA’s May quarterly
meeting, the Spills Group and OPA work will be showcased.
§
The
Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) recently released its final report on
interstate organizations. The report
will be featured at ICWP’s annual Washington Roundtable on February 28-March 1,
2006.
§
On February
16, Holly Stoerker (UMRBA), Barry Johnson (USGS), Dick Steinbach (USFWS), and
Dan McGuiness (Audubon) described the EMP to an assembly of government
agencies, NGOs, and Congressional offices in
§
A
number of appointment letters have recently been received, including:
- February 7, 2006 letter from Governor Vilsack
appointing Martin Konrad as
- December 29, 2005 memo appointing Mike
Sullivan as NRCS’s representative to UMRBA
- January 17, 2006 letter appointing Mike
Jawson as USGS’s representative to UMRBA.
§
UMRBA’s
FY 2006 financial situation is sound.
Thus, after consultation with UMRBA Chair Todd Ambs, a number of
unbudgeted, but needed, computer refreshment purchases will be made this year. In addition, a new office lease is being
negotiated.
§
UMRBA
celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2006. To acknowledge this landmark, each of the
quarterly meetings this year will showcase one of UMRBA’s major program
areas. In particular, the August 2006 quarterly
meeting will be held in
Interbasin Diversion Consultation
Todd Ambs
explained that the Interbasin Diversion Charter, signed by the Governors in
1989, requires that, at UMRBA Annual Meetings, each State report on
out-of-basin diversion requests that may have been made during the previous
year, and which would exceed an average of 5 million gallons per day during any
30 day period. The following reports were offered in accordance with the
Charter:
§
Martin
Konrad reported that there were no diversion requests in
§
Gary
Clark reported that there were no diversion requests in
§
Todd
Ambs reported that there were no diversion requests in
§
Mark
Holsten reported that there were no diversion requests in
§
Dru
Buntin reported that there were no diversion requests in
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program (NESP)
Rich Worthington
said that Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)), John P.
Woodley, forwarded the Chief’s Report to OMB on January 17, 2006, together with
draft letters to be used for subsequent transmittal to Congress. The Chief’s Report was originally transmitted
to the ASA (CW) in December 2004. Now
that the report has been forwarded to OMB, OMB has 60 days to transmit it to
Congress. According to
§
With
regard to authorization and construction of the 7 new locks, the Assistant
Secretary is proposing that preliminary engineering and design (PED) be initiated,
but that authorization be withheld until completion of new economic analysis.
§
The
Assistant Secretary is proposing that a global positioning system (GPS) be
evaluated for use in assisting lockages.
Holly Stoerker
asked if Assistant Secretary Woodley is inclined to change the cost-sharing
recommendation in the Chief’s Report.
She noted that the cost sharing description on page 4 of the letter does
not mention one of the four justifications for 100 percent federal funding,
i.e. projects that modify navigation system operations or structures.
Dru Buntin noted
that Woodley’s recommendations differ from the joint Governors’ position on
lock authorization. He asked if it would
be useful and appropriate to restate the Governors’ position. Gary Clark suggested that UMRBA restate the
Governors’ position, but that issuance of a second joint Governors’ position
not be sought. It was agreed that UMRBA
would send a letter to OMB Director Bolten, forwarding a copy of the Governors’
March 2005 joint statement and pointing out how Woodley’s recommendation for
“conditional” authorization differs from the Governors’ call for “immediate”
authorization.
Rich
Worthington also noted that there are reports that USDA Secretary Johanns
recently stated that he did not believe new locks are necessary on the
Holly Stoerker
reported that 80 Senators sent a letter to the Senate Majority and Minority
Leaders on January 25, 2006 requesting that the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) be brought to the Senate floor for consideration.
Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Chuck Spitzack
said that the May 2006 meeting of NECC/ECC will focus on economic issues and
emphasize navigation adaptive management.
In particular, additional work needs to be done on goals and objectives
for economic and human uses. Spitzack
explained that the effort through NESP to identify vision, goals, and
objectives is fundamental to adaptive management and the collaborative
process. The original list of 2000
ecosystem objectives was narrowed down to 81 and has been further refined by
the Science Panel to 46. However,
Spitzack explained that the 46 objectives do not include objectives for human
use.
Spitzack
indicated that the Corps will be looking to NECC/ECC for acceptance of the
ecosystem vision, goals, and objectives.
Acceptance is considered to be in a “working” sense, not a “permanent”
sense. Work will also begin on
developing navigation goals and objectives.
The Corps’ operations staff will begin this process, which will then be
further developed by a Navigation Adaptive Management Program Delivery Team
(PDT).
Spitzack
explained that a bottoms-up approach will be used to operationalize the
objectives, using the various PDTs. Hank
DeHaan is leading three pilot planning efforts at the pool/reach scale. This information will then be extrapolated
and aggregated to the system level.
In addition,
Spitzack said that “philosophies of implementation” also need to be
developed. These would be guiding
principles for adaptive management. The
Science Panel will begin this work, but Spitzack indicated that others,
including UMRBA, will be involved.
Spitzack
explained that the draft report from the NESP Environmental Science Panel
distributed in January 2006 is the panel’s annual report. Comments are due March 10. According to Spitzack, those comments may or
may not lead to changes in the report by the Panel. However, the comments could affect how the
institutions involved in NESP use the Science Panel report.
Martin Konrad
noted that the water quality goals in the Science Panel report reach beyond the
river itself and questioned the relationship of those broader goals to
NESP. Spitzack explained that the
objectives are for the ecosystem and are not intended to be specific to NESP or
any other program. Solutions may be beyond
the system.
Dru Buntin
commented that, although most of the objectives are directly related to Corps
or Fish and Wildlife Service authorities, the water quality objectives seem
more related to State and EPA authorities.
Ken Barr explained that the inclusion of water quality objectives was
not intended to suggest that NESP will be setting TMDLs or be involved in water
quality management. However, water
quality objectives affect the design of habitat restoration projects. Buntin questioned how the indicators
associated with NESP water quality objectives and their proposed quantification
relate to existing State water quality regulatory programs. Spitzack said he recognizes the need for
additional dialog on this relationship.
Todd Ambs asked what the appropriate vehicle might be for such
discussions and he commented that UMRBA should be engaged. Spitzack said that NECC/ECC will be asked to
endorse the Vision/Goals/Objectives pyramid at its May meeting.
Gretchen
Benjamin commented that the 46 ecosystem objectives appear to be good “working”
objectives, even though many of the implementation issues have not yet been
addressed. She indicated that
Mark Beorkrem
said that some EMP projects include work in upland areas. He suggested that UMRBA would be a good forum
for addressing similar connections in NESP, between river restoration and
watershed efforts.
Tim Schlagenhaft
expressed concern that the objectives are not prioritized. Spitzack said the PDTs will need to
prioritize them. He also expressed the
opinion that “guiding principles” from the Science Panel will help with regard
to priorities.
Spitzack noted
that one of UMRBA’s discussion questions about the goals and objectives regards
their application and the process for gaining acceptance or endorsement of
them. Spitzack explained that the goals
and objectives are for the river as a whole and that the River Council and
River Management Teams will be “caretakers” of the goals and objectives. He expressed hope that UMRBA would deem the
goals and objectives appropriate as a “beacon” for the River Council. Todd Ambs noted that the goals and objectives
are being developed in a transitional time.
There is no longer a Governors’ Liaison Committee for the Corps’
feasibility study and the proposed River Council has not yet been
established. Given this situation, Ambs
asked how UMRBA and the states will have input on the goals and objectives. He noted that UMRBA previously recommended
that state representation on the River Council be determined by UMRBA.
In response to
UMRBA’s question regarding the time and financial resources required to
operationalize the objectives, Spitzack said that there is no cost estimate, but
that it will be an iterative process.
Ken Barr said that approximately $250 million of NESP’s first increment
plan is to be devoted to the monitoring and modeling needed for adaptive
management. Stoerker commented that the
work associated with developing goals and objectives and ongoing adaptive
management is substantial. Therefore,
there needs to be an ongoing dialog about the relative priority of
science/data/modeling work and actual on-the-ground restoration projects. She noted that this was a major issue in the
initial years of EMP and will likely be an even more important issue for NESP,
given that there is no Congressional intent expressed in the NESP authorization
with regard to the relative allocation of funds.
First Increment Cash Flow
Spitzack showed
a graph depicting NESP cash flow needs over the first increment of the program
(i.e., approximately 15 years). He noted that the cash flow estimates are not
optimized and are not evenly distributed over time.
Institutional Arrangements
Spitzack said
the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service will be reviewing the comments received
on the draft operational model for the proposed River Council. The revised draft will then be distributed to
other partner agencies. However,
Spitzack noted that endorsement would not be sought until NESP is authorized.
Gretchen
Benjamin expressed concern that the process for review and approval seems to
include only the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service. Spitzack said the process is currently
internal to the two federal agencies, but will eventually include others. In response to a question from Dru Buntin,
Spitzack said the Corps does intend to respond to UMRBA’s comments on the
institutional arrangements. Charlie
Wooley stressed that the institutional arrangements need to reflect a true
partnership.
Holly Stoerker
distributed copies of the comments that UMRBA submitted to the Corps on the
draft operational model for the River Council.
EMP and NESP Strategic Planning
Holly Stoerker
summarized the process UMRBA is using to develop and review a series of issue
papers related to EMP and NESP strategic planning. She reviewed the status of the eleven issues,
noting that the final issue papers will be reviewed at UMRBA’s May quarterly
meeting, with the goal of developing a legislative proposal for consideration
at UMRBA’s August 2006 meeting.
Stoerker
summarized the feedback received to date as follows:
§
“partnership
language” should be added to the list of issues
§
With
regard to Issue Paper #1 (LTRMP):
- The list of options should be expanded to
include simply interpreting the NESP legislation to include the LTRMP.
- The preferred option appears to be
revising the NESP language to incorporate the LTRMP authority.
§
No
substantive comments have been received on Issue Paper #2 (Ecosystem
Restoration Authority)
Barb Naramore
provided an overview of Issue Paper #3 related to cost sharing for ecosystem
restoration. She described the
differences between the cost sharing provisions in NESP and EMP and the reasons
for the differences. Rather than
identifying a series of options, Naramore explained that the issue paper on
cost sharing simply offers the conclusion that the NESP cost sharing provisions
are preferred because they support a broader range of projects and should help
to address some of the limitations that have been encountered in EMP. Stoerker noted that a related issue is
O&M costs and responsibility.
Charlie Wooley indicated that the Fish and Wildlife Service spends
$500,000 annually on O&M of EMP projects on refuges. The refuge O&M budget has been funding
this work to date. But in the future
other funding sources may need to be found.
Naramore
provided an overview of Issue Paper #4 related to the funding framework and
total cost of EMP and NESP, respectively.
She explained the difference between the two programs, whereby EMP has
an annual funding authorization with no sunset and NESP has a total authorized
sum with no time limit. Naramore
outlined the options for addressing these differences, including:
§
Retain
the EMP’s annual authorization and NESP’s total cost authorization
§
Shift
the EMP to a total cost authorization
§
Modify
the NESP legislation to authorize annual funding for the first increment of
ecosystem restoration measures
§
Maintain
authorization for the combined cost of the current EMP and proposed NESP
§
Add
funding to NESP ecosystem restoration for costs related to long term monitoring
§
Do
not seek to retain any portion of EMP funding authority
Naramore also
described the considerations at play in evaluating these options, including
such factors as flexibility, predictability, inflation, identifying and
justifying total costs, and the realities of the appropriations process.
Todd Ambs
commented that the monitoring component is critical to quantifying the effect
of these ecosystem restoration programs. This fact should be the rationale for
advocating that the LTRMP be put in the NESP authorization.
Gretchen
Benjamin noted that the option of shifting the EMP to a total cost authorization
would make it more similar to the way in which the navigation improvements are
authorized. She also said she would not
support an option that does not seek to retain any portion of the EMP funding
in an integrated program.
Jennie Sauer
commented that, although funding flexibility is important, funding
predictability is also important for monitoring.
Naramore
provided an overview of Issue Paper #5 regarding partnership language and
authority for funding transfers. She
explained the differences in the approaches used in the EMP and NESP
authorizing language and outlined ways in which the EMP partnership language
has impacted implementation of that program.
Mike Jawson
noted that USGS would like to see USGS’s science role explicitly acknowledged
in NESP. Gretchen Benjamin expressed
support for strong partnership language, similar to the NESP amendment that
Congressman Ron Kind offered last year.
Todd Ambs agreed, noting that partnership language is essential, not
merely “helpful.” He commented that if
the Congressional authorizing committees continue to have reservations about
the impact of such language on the Corps’ authority, it might be possible to
allay such concerns by having the Assistant Secretary offer an opinion
regarding the provision’s affect on Corps authority.
Water Quality Update
Dave Hokanson
distributed a summary of the ongoing work of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force
regarding sediment-related water quality criteria. In particular, Hokanson described the outcome
of the Task Force’s February 2006 meeting at which general agreement was
reached on an approach for addressing both suspended and bedded sediment. In the short term that strategy includes
developing a guidance document for addressing suspended sediments, preparing a
“white paper” that would examine issues related to sedimentation and bedded
sediments, and developing a list of research needs. Hokanson explained that an interstate MOU
will be drafted to express the States’ commitment to working together on this
approach.
Todd Ambs noted
that the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force is tackling the kinds of issues that
are important. He also commented that
the number and variety of things UMRBA is able to accomplish with the Water
Quality Task Force is striking. However,
according to Ambs, one of the ongoing challenges is to more fully engage the
management level within each state water quality agency. Ambs said
Hokanson also
mentioned that the Task Force and state water quality administrators are
launching a project to evaluate organizational options that would more fully
address interstate water quality management under the Clean Water Act. The McKnight Foundation has provided grant
funds to UMRBA for this purpose. The
first meeting of the Task Force and state administrators is scheduled for March
23-24, 2006. UMRBA has retained
consultants for this project, to assist in conducting research and providing
background information on interstate water quality agencies in other parts of
the country, including the 6 interstate commissions that receive funding under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Holly
Stoerker said that the results of this institutional inquiry could potentially
affect the structure and functions of the UMRBA. She expressed hope that UMRBA representatives
and state water quality officials could work together closely on this project.
Todd Ambs said
it is important for the states to answer the question of how best to coordinate
their water quality efforts on the river.
He cautioned against an approach that would lead to a proliferation of
organizations and meetings, similar to the situation in the
Gretchen
Benjamin asked about the relationship between UMRBA’s organizational options
study and the National Research Council (NRC) panel that is looking at the
Clean Water Act and the
FY 2007 Federal Budget
Environmental Protection Agency —Bill Franz highlighted changes in the
President’s FY 07 budget for EPA. In particular,
funding is proposed to increase slightly for Section 106 and the Safe Drinking
Water SRF. Funding is proposed to be cut
$5 million for the Section 319 nonpoint program, $10 million for targeted
watershed grants, and $200 million for the Clean Water SRF. In addition, Section 104 funding is zeroed
out in FY 07, as it was in FY 06. Franz
noted that EPA has used Section 104 funds to support the UMRBA Water Quality
Task Force work in the past.
Franz also noted
that funding for the water security monitoring pilot program is proposed to
increase. This is a potential source of
support for the Lock and Dam 15 pilot early warning monitoring system. He also reported that the
In response to a
question from Dru Buntin regarding targeted watershed grants, Franz said that
in past years some of those grants have been for watersheds in the
U.S. Geological Survey — Mike Jawson reported that a 2 percent
cut in USGS budget is proposed for FY 07.
The Biological Research budget will see increases in the hazards
initiative and NatureServe, but decreases in the National Biological
Information Infrastructure. None of
these changes will likely directly impact work on the UMR. Within the USGS water resources program, cuts
are proposed for the Water Resources Research Act program, the Cooperative
Program, and NAWQA technical support.
However, the hazards initiative and streamgaging are slated for
increases.
Jawson also
described specific work efforts that are proposed to be new, continuing, or
reduced at the
Gary Clark
commented that the loss of stream gages is a particular problem. In FY 06, the State of
Corps of Engineers — Susan Smith provided an overview of
the Corps’ FY 07 proposed budget, noting that it emphasizes 1) projects with a
high return on investment, 2) increased funding for the regulatory program, and
3) emergency preparedness and response.
She explained how each of the Corps’ budget accounts is affected by the
budgetary principles, noting in particular that O&M costs are now organized
in the budget by basin and that major rehabilitation work is now in the O&M
account rather than the Construction account.
Smith also reported that the EMP is one of 6 construction projects that
are considered to be “national priority projects.” The EMP is proposed to be funded at $26.8
million in FY 07. There is no funding
proposed for NESP or the UMR Comprehensive Plan in the President’s budget.
For MVD’s
funding accounts more generally, Smith noted that MVD’s General Investigations
budget is proposed to be $27.9 million in FY 07. However, $25 million of that amount is for
Coastal Louisiana. MVD’s O&M funding
appears to be significantly higher in FY 07 than in FY 06. However, if the major rehabilitation work is
subtracted, the FY 07 O&M budget is actually $14 million less than in FY
06.
In response to a
question regarding NESP funding in FY 07, Chuck Spitzack explained that the
Corps is prepared to continue PED work if funding is provided. In addition, some projects could proceed to
construction in FY 07 if both authorization and funding were provided.
Fish and Wildlife Service — Charlie Wooley reported that funding
for Ecological Services and Refuges will remain essentially the same as last
year. However, Fisheries is slated for a
slight cut. According to Wooley, construction
is not an Administration priority. But
there is support for North American Wetlands Conservation and state and tribal
wildlife grants.
Wooley also
described the spending levels specifically anticipated for
Wooley also
described federal assistance to the Upper Mississippi River states through
various grant programs, including boating access grants ($10 million in FY 05)
and boating infrastructure grants ($2 million in FY 05). In addition, Wooley noted the support which
the
Natural Resources Conservation Service
— Mike Sullivan said the
overarching strategies in NRCS’s FY 07 budget include cooperative conservation,
a watershed approach, and a market-based approach. NRCS is slated for a decrease of $58 million
in FY 07. In general, discretionary
funding is decreasing, while funding for mandatory programs is increasing. Funding cuts are specifically proposed for
conservation technical assistance, watershed and flood prevention operations,
the watershed rehabilitation program, and the RC&D program. EQIP funding will also decrease slightly. However, the wetlands Reserve Program will
increase by 100,000 acres, to a total of 250,000 acres. The Conservation Security Program and
Conservation Reserve Program are also proposed for budget increases.
Sullivan closed
by noting that NRCS staffing levels have remained relatively stable since
2000. However, there is less support for
basic conservation technical assistance and more emphasis instead on mandatory
Farm Bill programs. In addition,
Congressional earmarks have increased significantly since 2000, further
reducing flexibility in an already tight technical assistance program.
UMRBA
Testimony on FY 07 Federal Budget
— Holly Stoerker thanked all the federal agency representatives for their
presentations and background information on the President’s FY 07 budget
proposal. She noted that the timeframe for
developing and submitting testimony is particularly tight this year.
Testimony from outside witnesses on appropriations for EPA, Interior agencies
(e.g., Fish and Wildlife and USGS), and the Corps of Engineers is due March 16. To meet that deadline, Stoerker noted that
UMRBA staff will send out draft testimony for review by March 8 and would ask
that UMRBA members provide their comments and suggested revisions by March 14.
UMRBA Personnel Manual
Holly Stoerker
explained that changes to UMRBA’s Manual of Personnel Practices are necessary
to accommodate the option of part time employment. She noted that an annotated version of the
Manual, showing recommended changes, was transmitted to all UMRBA
representatives and alternates in advance of the meeting.
Dru Buntin moved
and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the changes to the Manual
recommended by staff and reflected in the annotated version of the
document. The motion passed unanimously.
Election of Officers
Gary Clark
nominated Mark Holsten for the position of UMRBA Chair. Dru Buntin seconded the
nomination.
Martin Konrad
nominated Dru Buntin for the position of UMRBA Vice Chair. Gary Clark seconded the nomination.
After closing
the nominations and moving approval of the slate of officers, Mark Holsten and
Dru Buntin were unanimously elected as UMRBA Chair and Vice-Chair respectively.
Todd Ambs
thanked the members and staff for an especially productive year. He offered his assistance to the incoming new
Chair.
The next
meetings of the Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC), EMP
Coordinating Committee (EMP-CC), and UMRBA are scheduled for:
§
May
16-18, 2006 in
§
August
22-24, 2006 in
§
November
14-16, 2006 in the Twin Cities,
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 pm.