Minutes of the
94th Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
St.
Paul, Minnesota
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by UMRBA Past-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) |
|
Dru
Buntin |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
|
Chuck
Burney |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
Federal Liaisons:
|
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) |
|
Larry
Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 7) |
|
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 |
|
Stacia
Bax |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve
Johnson |
National
Park Service |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (HQ) |
|
Greg
Ruff |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Rebecca
Soileau |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
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) |
|
Hank
DeHaan |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Roger
Perk |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Mike
Thompson |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVS) |
|
Tim
Yager |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Gary
Wege |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (UMR Refuge) |
|
Mike
Oetker |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Jan
Korte |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
Dan
McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Gretchen
Bonfert |
McKnight
Foundation |
|
Robin
Grawe |
Mississippi
River Citizen Commission |
|
Gabe
Horner |
The
Nature Conservancy (Minnesota) |
|
Mark
Beorkrem |
Illinois
Stewardship Alliance |
|
Dan
Larson |
River
Resource Alliance |
|
Angela
Anderson |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Margie
Daniels |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Chuck Burney
moved and Mike McGhee seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February
23, 2005 meeting, as drafted. The
motion was approved by consensus.
Holly Stoerker reported
that, in March, she met with a number of House staff in Washington to discuss
FY 06 appropriations for EMP and authorization of NESP in the 2005 Water
Resources Development Act. During that
trip, she also met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Director Matt
Hogan and Chief of Refuges Bill Hartwig to discuss the Service’s responsibility
for O&M of EMP habitat projects on refuges. Stoerker explained that one of the recommendations in the recent
EMP Report to Congress was that funding should be coordinated in annual federal
budgets to enable the Service to meet its O&M responsibilities. At the last UMRBA meeting, it was agreed
that UMRBA would take the lead in promoting this recommendation. Stoerker commented that this issue will
require an ongoing commitment to educating the Service’s leadership and working
to secure the necessary funding.
Stoerker also
reported that UMRBA coordinated the signing and release of a joint Governors’
letter urging Congress to authorize NESP.
The language of the letter was very similar to the joint Governors’
statement from last summer supporting the Corps’ recommended plan. Stoerker thanked Governor Blagojevich’s
Washington office for their assistance in getting the letter signed by all the
Governors. Gary Clark thanked UMRBA
staff for their efforts as well and commented that such a joint expression of
support from all five Governors is significant.
Stoerker
distributed a compilation of the testimony that UMRBA submitted earlier this
spring on FY 06 appropriations for seven federal agencies, including the Corps
of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, USGS, FEMA, Department of
Agriculture, and Coast Guard. She noted
that Congress is just beginning to develop its appropriations bills. Last week the House Energy and Water
Development subcommittee approved a bill that includes full funding for the
EMP, and $200,000 for the Upper Mississippi Comprehensive Plan, but no funding
for NESP.
Barb Naramore
reported that, as part of the process of updating the UMR Hazardous Spill Plan,
a new interagency MOA will be signed.
Each agency’s UMR Spills Group representative is taking the lead for
securing the signature of their agency’s official. That process should be completed by late summer or early fall.
Naramore also
reported that the Spills Group had decided to proceed with publication and
distribution of an emergency action field guide, containing basic information
on spills awareness and reporting. EPA
and the Coast Guard have said they may be able to provide support for printing
the guide.
Naramore
reported that there have been a variety of staff changes related to the OPA
planning and mapping effort. Zac
Stanley has left the UMRBA staff to return to California. His responsibilities as project coordinator are
being split between Lisa Reisner and Bryan Lloyd. In addition, Greg Lundin has returned to the staff on a temporary
basis until September.
Finally,
Naramore said the planning efforts for the 2007 Spill of National Significance
(SONS) exercise are continuing. That
exercise will take place in the spring or summer of 2007 and will likely
include an earthquake on the New Madrid fault as an important event
driver. Impacts on the UMR will include
pipeline and tank failures and damage to bridges, locks and dams, and other
infrastructure. Response personnel in
Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri have expressed an interest in participating in the
SONS planning and the exercise.
Tim Yager
distributed copies of the executive summary of the draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge. He explained that the 1997
Refuge Improvement Act requires all refuges to develop a CCP by 2012, but that
it was time to update the Upper Mississippi plan anyway.
The plan
includes four alternatives: a “no
action” plan, one plan with a wildlife focus, one plan with a public use focus,
and an integrated wildlife and public use plan. The integrated plan is currently the preferred alternative,
according to Yager.
Yager explained
that the draft CCP was released in late April, with the 120-day public comment
period beginning May 1. He noted that,
although 120 days is four times longer than the typical 30-day comment period,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has already received requests to extend the
time. Yager also said there are eleven
public meetings scheduled, six of which have already taken place. There will also be at least 6
workshops. The public meetings have
been well attended, with 120 people at the Prairie du Chien meeting and 250
people at the Lansing meeting. Gretchen
Benjamin said that 500 people are expected to attend the meeting in La Crosse.
Yager said there
has been tremendous interest in the plan, although most of the comments to-date
have been critical. In particular, the
public is concerned about the proposed closure of a number of waterfowl hunting
areas. Other issues of public concern
include a proposed limit of 25 shot shells per day, removal of some permanent
blinds in the Savanna District, potential closure of some recreational beaches
if additional study shows they are used by wildlife, potential designation of
some non-motorized areas, and establishment of a .08 intoxication limit. Yager said that Don Hultman has indicated
there will undoubtedly be changes in the preferred alternative.
Yager said the
goal for completion of the planning process includes completing the public involvement
in August, revising the plan by late 2005, and publishing a final plan by early
2006. Gretchen Benjamin expressed hope
that the Fish and Wildlife would be flexible with regard to the schedule. She noted that after the initial feedback
and comments, the plan will need to be revised and a second round of public
meetings will then be needed.
Benjamin also
commented that the economic impact values used in the CCP, including job
numbers and recreational visits, are significantly lower than the estimates in
the 1990 Economics of Recreation Study.
Gary Wege noted that recreational use will grow as a result of
population growth in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Navigation
and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
Washington
Update — Holly Stoerker reported that the House
held a hearing on March 16, in preparation for a Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA). No members from the UMR
requested authorization of NESP.
However, it is still anticipated that the House will include NESP in its
WRDA bill. The House Water Resources
subcommittee is expected to markup WRDA in late June.
Stoerker also
reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had approved
its WRDA bill on April 26. The Senate’s
NESP authorization language is quite similar to that in the Senate bill from
last year. Stoerker described the
differences as being:
§
costs are
updated
§
new
provision requiring concurrent mitigation is included
§
new
provision limiting the cost of individual ecosystem restoration projects is included
§
timing of
implementation reports is extended from 4 to 5 years
§
the
advisory panel is exempted from FACA
§
an
ecosystem restoration project ranking system is required to be developed in
consultation with the advisory panel, rather than the National Academy of
Sciences.
Rich Worthington
reported that Congress is still debating the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill. He commented that
one of the Corps’ concerns is language that would limit reprogramming and
restrict continuing contracts, both of which would be major impediments to the
Corps’ programming flexibility.
Worthington also reported that, on May 12, the Senate confirmed John
Paul Woodley as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Upper Mississippi Navigation Study Feasibility
Report remains under review in the Assistant Secretary’s office.
Implementation
Update — Chuck Spitzack recapped the
recommendations in the September 2004 feasibility study. He noted that the costs were updated in the
December 2004 Chief’s Report, using October 2004 price levels. The updated costs for the first 15-year
increment are $1.58 billion for ecosystem restoration and $2.03 billion for
navigation improvements.
Spitzack
reported that the FY 05 budget for preconstruction engineering and design (PED)
is $11.3 million, which includes funding for 32 projects. Of those 32 projects, 5 are programmatic, 8
are related to navigation efficiency, and 19 are ecosystem restoration
projects. Spitzack briefly outlined the
projects in each category.
Spitzack also
described the implementation timeline and noted that approximately 13 years are
required to design and construct a new lock.
Consequently, the navigation improvement costs will peak in 2015. The challenge will be to maintain an
appropriate funding stream over time.
In addition,
Spitzack briefly described plans for new mooring approaches and double
lockages. He also said public meetings
were recently held at Saverton to discuss the new lock at Lock and Dam 22 and the
plans for fish passage at that lock. He
also noted that the report on appointment scheduling is due June 30.
According to
Spitzack, the Corps is currently on target to successfully execute the FY 05
program. The Science Panel is up and
running and each NESP project has a team leader and a project delivery team
composed of stakeholders and partners.
The River Management Teams (i.e., the RRF, RRCT, and RRAT) are the forum
for planning local projects and NECC/ECC is the forum for planning systemic projects. The next NECC/ECC meeting will be in
August. In addition, there will be an
interagency meeting to discuss communications in July.
Navigation
Adaptive Management
— Spitzack described
navigation adaptive management, which is the process to be used for dealing
with the complexities and uncertainties of the economic evaluation of
navigation improvements. The navigation
adaptive management process includes a notification report to Congress in 3
years, an evaluation report in 5 years based on new models, and an updated
feasibility study in 15 years. Spitzack
explained that Navigation Economic Technologies (NETS) is an important part of
this process. NETS is a research program
devoted to developing state-of-the-art tools and techniques for economic modeling
and analysis. Models are being
developed for forecasting commodity movements; routing regional traffic; and
evaluating micro-systems, such as tradable lock permits, congestion pricing,
and appointment systems. Spitzack
presented a 4-year timeline for the navigation adaptive management work, with
March 2009 as the earliest possible date for a Chief’s Report on the
Reevaluation Study.
Science
Panel---Ken Barr described the membership and
function of the Science Panel, which is being co-chaired by the Corps (John
Barko) and the USGS (Barry Johnson).
Other members include Ken Lubinski, Bob Clevenstine, Larry Weber, Steve
Bartell, John Nestler, Mike Davis, Charlie Berger, and David Galat. The Science Panel will be assisted in its
work by a Regional Support Team, composed of senior ecologists and hydrologists
from each Corps district. Barr
described the Science Panel’s primary areas of responsibility as being project
evaluation and sequencing criteria, monitoring protocols, a report card
framework for tracking progress, refining goals and objectives, numerical
models for forecasting, and definition of ecological outcomes. Barr noted that they hope to be able to
monetize many of the outcomes. By the
end of FY 05, the Science Panel is expected to have an initial draft adaptive
management plan for ecosystem restoration.
Floodplain
Restoration Projects
— Ken Barr said that, although significant progress has been made with The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the Emiquon project, a few hurdles will preclude that
project from being implemented this fiscal year. In particular, until NESP is authorized, there is no authority
for NGOs to serve as cost share partners.
In addition, there are some outstanding real estate issues associated
with Emiquon. Therefore, floodplain
restoration work is currently focusing on the continuing development of a
functional analysis tool for evaluating nutrient processing, sediment
transport, aquifer recharge, and connectivity.
In addition, effort is being devoted to real estate crediting issues,
such as the residual value of NRCS property.
The hope, however, is that States will propose floodplain restoration
projects that can be initiated with FY 05 funds. Barr presented a sample “letter of intent” that States could use
for this purpose.
Discussion
and Questions —
Holly Stoerker asked how the absence of WRDA language related to adaptive
management of the navigation efficiency measures would affect the
implementation process described by Spitzack.
Rich Worthington explained that the legislation requires that the
improvements be implemented in conformance with the plan. Since the adaptive management approach is
part of the plan, the understanding is that the improvements would, in fact, be
implemented in that way.
Mike McGhee observed
that navigation funding needs are relatively easy to estimate and project. He asked how the ecosystem funding needs
will be identified over time. Spitzack
noted that the pending legislative language calls for balanced implementation
and comparable progress. Ken Barr noted
that the Corps is consciously focusing on ramp-up opportunities for ecosystem
restoration projects.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked if the Corps will be able to quickly expand NESP staffing, if
and when the new program is authorized. Chuck Spitzack acknowledged it will likely be difficult. Gary Loss noted that funding, as well as
authorization, will also be needed.
Holly Stoerker
commented that the agency partners and stakeholders should be more involved and
knowledgeable about NETS. Greg Ruff
explained that NETS is not being directed by the Study Team. Rather, NETS is an independent peer-reviewed
effort by the Institute for Water Resources.
The Corps districts then apply the tools that NETS develops. Chuck Spitzack agreed that involvement in
the economic analysis should be broadened, noting that the Corps is currently
looking at ways to achieve meaningful stakeholder involvement and engage
expertise outside of the NETS group.
Greg Ruff said that the Corps would like to re-engage and energize the
ECC. Stoerker noted that the State DOTs
have not been involved in the NECC/ECC meetings for some time.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked if the Science Panel would remain focused only on the ecosystem
restoration functions of NESP. Chuck
Spitzack said that the current panel would, in fact, focus only on ecosystem
restoration. However, a separate
navigation science panel could be formed.
Tim Schlagenhaft
said that Minnesota has a number of areas where it would like to do floodplain
restoration, including the Root and Zumbro Rivers. He indicated, however, that Minnesota has a variety of questions
about the sample letter of intent and has forwarded those questions to the
Corps. Chuck Spitzack summarized the
questions and responses as follows:
1) Is the non-federal sponsor required to
provide 25% cost share
up-front for Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) work, or
would this be included in the total project cost after construction? (Answer: Once the design agreement is
signed, the nonfederal share should be paid up-front on a fiscal year basis.)
2) What is meant by “in general” in the 3rd
paragraph sentence "We are
capable of fulfilling our financial obligation; in general, providing a
minimum ....." (Answer: This
refers to the elements of the PCA and is not a detailed contractual agreement.)
3) Are the non-federal sponsors
responsibilities for O&M post
construction described in the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA)? (Answer: Yes.)
4) Can the non-federal sponsor choose not to
sign the PCA even if PED
studies are favorable and Congress provides construction funds? (Answer: Yes.)
5)
The letter
states work in-kind by non-federal sponsors will not be
considered as cost share until the PCA is executed. Are Corps planning
costs added to the total PED and PCA development costs prior to executing the
PCA? (Answer: The non-Federal sponsor’s pre-PCA design efforts can be
counted as in-kind services, but construction work cannot. The cost share during PED is
25 percent. If the project moves
to construction the 10 percent shortfall will be captured to bring the total to
35 percent.)
According to
Greg Ruff, the cost share percentage during PED is lower than during
construction so that cash flow can be evened out, recognizing that land acquisition
costs are often part of construction.
Rich Worthington noted that it is unlikely that the non-Federal sponsor
will need to come up with an additional 10 percent cash because of land
credits.
Bill Franz urged
that State water quality agencies be consulted on floodplain restoration
opportunities because many of these projects may have TMDL benefits.
Tim Schlagenhaft
asked how far up tributaries the NESP floodplain restoration authority can be
applied. Ken Barr said it would likely
depend on how far up the tributary the river’s hydraulic influence (i.e.,
backwater effects) can be documented.
Ken Barr said he
anticipates spending $35 million over the next 15 years on floodplain
restoration projects. NECC will jury
the fact sheets, with an eye toward achieving a mix of measures and project
purposes over the next 2-5 years.
§
Assume EMP
continues as a viable program
§
Call for
integrated management of UMRS programs
§
Long Term
Resource Monitoring (LTRM) assumed to continue under EMP, with or without NESP
§
Assumptions
will be re-examined in 3 years
§
Interpretation
of authorization will be required to verify that LTRM could continue under NESP
§
Funding for
LTRM is not included in NESP recommendation
Holly Stoerker
commented that, although it was necessary during the NESP planning process to
make assumptions about the future of the EMP, it is now necessary to think more
strategically about how the EMP and NESP should interrelate. She expressed concern that, if the partners
don’t decide what is needed and then pursue that approach, we risk losing part
or all of one program or the other.
Gary Clark agreed, saying that a transition strategy is needed so as not
to lose the LTRMP, in particular.
Linda Leake
expressed USGS’ frustration and concern about the future of the LTRMP. She said the Corps has indicated that LTRMP
is important to NESP, and yet there is no funding for LTRMP in NESP. Chuck Spitzack said that, although there is
no LTRMP funding in NESP, there may be authority to undertake the LTRMP under
NESP.
Greg Ruff
explained the importance of timing when considering the relationship between
EMP and NESP. He emphasized that a year
ago, during NESP plan formulation, it was agreed that existing river management
tools were inadequate. However, for the
purposes of developing NESP recommendations, it was assumed that all existing
tools (including EMP) would remain available in the future. Ruff advised that we let that planning
assumption stand. He said, after NESP
is authorized and the partners have a few years of implementation experience,
then recommendations for changing or blending NESP and EMP can be made in the
first Report to Congress.
Holly Stoerker
commented that, although the approach recommended by Ruff has merit, strategic
planning should not wait for 3 years.
While clarifications regarding the relationship between EMP and NESP should
not necessarily be addressed in 2005 WRDA, the planning should begin soon.
Ken Barr said
NESP’s adaptive management approach was designed to complement LTRMP and the
Corps has no intention of eliminating LTRMP.
The monitoring to be accomplished under NESP will be scoped out by the
Science Panel and will have a different focus than LTRMP. In particular, NESP monitoring is intended
to be more targeted.
Rich Worthington
said he assumes that, over the long term, having two separate UMR programs with
similar objectives is not sustainable.
Stoerker agreed, but noted that there may not be consensus on that
point. She proposed that a planning
process be initiated later this year to begin exploring issues associated with
the relationship between EMP and NESP and their future. Gretchen Benjamin suggested that UMRBA help
lead that planning process and identify the relevant transition issues for
review and discussion at the August UMRBA meeting. Benjamin also commented that, if two programs are not sustainable,
she hopes they are additive.
Gary Clark
agreed that UMRBA should take the lead on scoping out the planning process for
EMP and NESP’s future. Holly Stoerker
said that UMRBA would consult with others to put together a draft overview for
consideration at the next meeting.
Robin Grawe said
there is value to EMP’s permanent authority and to having LTRMP field stations
operated by the States with USGS oversight.
Gary Loss
indicated that the Corps new performance-based budgeting is increasing the complexity
of budget development. It will
significantly complicate the EMP FY 07 budget request.
Institutional
Arrangements
§
Impact on
EMP
§
Role of
NGOs
§
Breadth of
responsibility
§
Change with
and without NESP
§
Level of
participants
§
Resource
demands
§
What does
it mean internally for Corps and FWS
§
Science
Panel only addresses ecosystem
§
Impact on
management of the UMRS
Rick Mollahan said Illinois will be submitting a formal letter of
comment. Illinois DNR will be
requesting that there be a River Managers’ Team (RMT) for the Illinois
River. It will also suggest that the
River Managers’ Council (RMC) and Science Panel be expanded to include
representation from the Illinois River Management Council.
Holly Stoerker distributed an outline of UMRBA’s draft comments on the
proposal for modified institutional arrangements. The comments include 3 general points. The first relates to the need for change and reminds readers that
UMRBA has had reservations about the need for broad changes since development
of Navigation Feasibility Study. The
second point relates to the scope and purpose of the institutional
arrangements, noting inconsistencies in how the proposal is described and
questioning whether the Fish and Wildlife intends to use the RMC as described
in the proposal. Finally, concern is
expressed about efficiency and the need to build upon the existing quarterly
meeting format.
Stoerker noted that the balance of the draft comments relate specifically
to UMRBA’s role in the proposed new institutional arrangements, including its
co-leadership position with the Regional Federal Principals Group, UMRBA’s
relationship to the RMC, and the specific NESP issues of interest to
UMRBA. In addition, Stoerker noted that
the description of UMRBA contained in the draft IA proposal is inaccurate and
needs to be updated.
Stoerker also
reported that EPA Region 7’s involvement in UMRBA, and UMR activities more
broadly, seems to be eroding. She recommended
that a letter be written to the Region 7 Administrator seeking a renewed
commitment. UMRCC is considering a
similar letter.
Larry Shepard
commented that Region 7 is, in fact, committed to the UMRBA Water Quality Task
Force. However, the Region’s
participation in UMRBA per se is in question.
Because State water quality management agencies are not typically
represented at UMRBA, the relevance to EPA is not as clear. Shepard suggested that, if a letter is
written, it be as explicit as possible in terms of the desired commitment
(i.e., frequency of meetings), desired level of representation, and purpose of
involvement.
Dru Buntin
suggested that UMRBA write a letter to Region 7 and that individual state water
directors follow-up as well. A copy of
the letter should be sent to Region 5.
Holly Stoerker
distributed copies of draft UMRBA comments to the Corps of Engineers on the
emergency action plan evaluation in the UMR Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the comments were an
outgrowth of the discussion at the February quarterly meeting and had been
reviewed by the UMRBA State floodplain managers group. The comments address the emergency action
plan in particular, because UMRBA had made a special point of requesting that
the Comprehensive Plan evaluate such an option.
Gary Clark
commented that the emergency action plan analysis provides good information for
the States to use in responding to floodfighting in the future. While the States can learn from the
analysis, it would require further efforts and resources to take the evaluation
any further. It was agreed that the
draft UMRBA comments should be put in letter form and submitted to the Rock
Island District Commander.
Barb Naramore
provided an overview of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force’s work on fish
consumption advisories, including the recommendations resulting from the
group’s meeting earlier in the week.
Naramore explained that UMRBA currently has two EPA grants to support
the work of the Task Force. A Region 5
grant supports the general coordination work, including consultations on the
States’ 2006 impaired waters listings.
A Region 7 grant supports the work on two issue tracks: fish
consumption advisories and sedimentation impairment criteria. Both of these issue tracks are using the
same planning process, which includes preparation of a background paper, a focused
workshop, and follow-up consultations.
The fish consumption advisories (FCA) project is looking at how the
States develop FCAs, how they are used in making impairment decisions, the
implications of differing approaches among the States, and options for
enhancing consistency among the States.
Naramore explained that the Task Force discussed the options
over the past two days and developed the following recommendations:
§
There
should be consistent FCAs for the UMR.
§
A minimum
monitoring baseline should be established for all States to use, related to
fish species, contaminants, sampling locations, and fish tissue preparation.
§
All basin
States should participate in the national EPA Fish Contaminants Forum in
September 2005.
§
If needed,
a meeting should be convened after the national forum to discuss establishment
of a common protocol for issuing FCAs on the UMR.
§
The issue
of consistency in how States use FCAs for assessments and listings should be
revisited after progress has been made in harmonizing FCA guidance and
issuance.
Holly Stoerker
thanked Pat McCann of the Minnesota Department of Health for her efforts in
developing “what if” scenarios by applying the Minnesota FCA protocols and the
FDA action levels to the entire river.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked what the next steps are and how the recommendations will be
implemented. Holly Stoerker said she
assumes that UMRBA will continue to push the recommendations forward. However, it is not clear how much time or effort
will be required. Bill Franz commented
that the grant program that is funding the FCA project is not included in the
President’s FY 06 budget request.
Mike McGhee
reported that 3 of the 5 States have thus far endorsed the UMR Governors’ Farm
Bill initiative, spearheaded by Governor Vilsack. The goal of the project is to seek a specific funding set-aside
for the UMRB, in the conservation provisions of the next Farm Bill. Currently, staff from all the five States
are working to identify both the commonalities and the differences among the
States’ nonpoint pollution efforts.
In response to a
question about whether similar approaches are being taken in other parts of the
country, McGhee said the Klamath and Chesapeake Bay watersheds are pursuing
smaller, but similar proposals. He
noted that 23 percent of U.S. cropland is within the five UMR States.
Gretchen Bonfert
of the McKnight Foundation said the foundation has recently provided a grant to
the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Water Science and Technology Board to
undertake a study of the Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act. The study will address many of the
scientific as well as institutional challenges related to water quality
management on the river. A panel of
12-15 members will be convened by NAS.
The panel will likely hold 5 meetings over a 2-year period. Required reading for the panel includes
UMRBA’s 2004 water quality report, the Sierra Club Mississippi River standards
petition and EPA’s response, EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), McKnight’s report on States’ implementation of the Clean Water
Act, and various GAO reports.
Bonfert
distributed a fact sheet describing the project and encouraged UMRBA to
circulate the information to its members and Water Quality Task Force. Bonfert also encouraged nominations for
panel members to be sent to NAS.
In response to a
question, Bonfert said that McKnight has not discussed this project with U.S.
EPA and does not know what role that agency may have in the study.
Gary Clark
suggested that UMRBA staff circulate the fact sheet to the Water Quality Task
Force and seek their input on potential qualified candidates who would be
willing and able to serve on the panel.
State
Travel Reimbursement
— Gary Clark noted that the current per State travel reimbursement cap is
$3000. Chuck Burney moved and Dru
Buntin seconded a motion to increase the per State travel reimbursement cap to
$4000 in FY 2006. The motion passed
unanimously.
Permanent
Staff Positions —
Gary Clark announced that Barb Naramore will be leaving the UMRBA staff in the
near future. Three options for her
replacement were considered: hiring another Associate Director; hiring a Water
Quality Program Director; or creating two new positions, including both a Water
Quality Program Director and an Ecosystem/Navigation Program Director. Clark announced that the UMRBA
representatives have decided to pursue the third option, after having reviewed an
options paper prepared by UMRBA staff and considering the advantages of all
approaches.
To effectuate
the decision, Mike McGhee offered the following motion, which was seconded by
Rebecca Wooden:
|
|
Amend
Section II.A. of UMRBA’s Manual of Personnel Practices to reflect four permanent
staff positions by: |
|
|
1)
Eliminating the position of Associate Director, and 2)
Establishing two positions as follows: |
|
|
§
Water
Quality Program Director, with an annual salary range of $45,000 - $60,000,
and § Ecosystem & Navigation Program
Director, with an annual salary range of $45,000 - $60,000 |
|
|
With regard to Associate Director Barb Naramore’s pending
separation from UMRBA, waive the provision in Section V.A.1 of UMRBA’s Manual
of Personnel Practices that limits the lump sum cash payment for earned but
unused annual leave to pay for 30 days, thereby permitting Naramore to be
compensated for all earned but unused annual leave up to 390 hours. |
The motion
passed unanimously.
Rebecca Wooden
offered the following motion, which was seconded by Dru Buntin:
|
|
Approve the
draft FY 2006 UMRBA budget, as presented by staff, with the following change: |
|
|
§ Increase the State travel
reimbursements to reflect a $4000 per State cap, applying the previous year’s
dues payment allocation formula. That
change would result in a total of $16,584 for travel reimbursement allocated
as follows: |
|
|
Illinois |
4000 |
|
|
|
|
Iowa
|
1667 |
|
|
|
|
Minnesota |
4000 |
|
|
|
|
Missouri |
4000 |
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin
|
2917 |
|
|
|
|
In addition,
direct staff to prepare an amended FY 2006 budget for consideration at the
November 2005 quarterly meeting, to reflect changes in payroll and other
costs associated with staffing changes. |
The motion was
approved unanimously.
Holly Stoerker
described the future meeting dates as follows:
|
|
August 2005
(Davenport, Iowa) |
||
|
|
August 16
|
UMRBA
Quarterly meeting |
|
|
|
August 17
|
EMP
Coordinating Committee |
|
|
|
August
17-19
|
EMP Habitat
Project Workshop |
|
|
|
November
2005 (Twin Cities) |
||
|
|
November 15
|
NECC/ECC
meeting | |