Minutes of the
98th Quarterly Meeting
of the
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by UMRBA Vice Chair Dru Buntin. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Rick
Mollahan |
|
|
Martin
Konrad |
|
|
Dick
Vegors |
|
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
|
|
Mike
Wells |
|
|
Dru
Buntin |
|
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Susan
Smith |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Rick
Nelson |
|
|
David
Kennedy |
|
|
Mike
Sullivan |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service |
Others
in attendance:
|
John
Whitaker |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Rich
Worthington |
|
|
Col.
Duane Gapinski |
|
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
|
|
Marv
Hubbell |
|
|
Ken
Barr |
|
|
Gary
Loss |
|
|
Teresa
Kincaid |
|
|
Roger
Perk |
|
|
Scott
Whitney |
|
|
Heather
Anderson |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Dan
Wilcox |
|
|
Dave
Leake |
|
|
Dennis
Fenske |
|
|
Sheila
Calovich |
|
|
Bill
Gradle |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service ( |
|
Tom
Boland |
|
|
Paul
Rohde |
MARC
2000 |
|
Ron
Kroese |
The
McKnight Foundation |
|
Max
Starbuck |
National
Corn Growers Assoc. |
|
William
Doe |
|
|
Holly
Stoerker |
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Barb
Naramore |
|
|
Lisa
DeAlessio |
|
|
Derek
Martin |
|
Gary Clark moved
and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 23,
2006 meeting, as drafted. The motion was
approved unanimously.
Announcements
Holly Stoerker
thanked Gary Loss and Heather Anderson for organizing the preceding day’s tour
of Lock and Dam 15.
Executive Director’s Report
Holly Stoerker reported
that, in March, UMRBA submitted testimony to House and Senate appropriations
subcommittees on the FY 2007 proposed budgets for the Corps of Engineers, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Department of Agriculture. She
distributed a compilation of that testimony and thanked UMRBA’s federal liaison
members for their assistance in providing the necessary budget information and
background.
Stoerker
highlighted the following items from her written report provided in the agenda
packet:
Stoerker
requested that UMRBA consider designating someone to execute a new office
lease. Gretchen Benjamin moved and
Martin Konrad seconded a motion to delegate authority to negotiate and execute
a new lease to Executive Director Holly Stoerker. The motion passed unanimously.
Navigation Needs on the
Heather
Anderson, Acting Program Manager for Major Rehab and O&M in the Rock Island
District (MVR), described the problems associated with the navigation system’s
aging infrastructure. In particular, she
provided an overview of the status of MVR’s major rehabilitation projects,
including Locks and Dams 11, 19, 24 and
Dan Wilcox of
the St. Paul District gave a presentation on the navigation safety and
embankment problems at Lock and Dam 3.
He noted that Lock and Dam 3 is the navigation dam second most
vulnerable to failure in the country.
Wilcox explained that the lock is built at a bend in the river and an
outdraft above the dam makes downbound transit and approach very difficult. In addition, low embankments on the
Wilcox described
the multi-agency and stakeholder planning process underway to address the Lock
and Dam 3 problems. The group has
developed a recommended plan that includes a landward guide wall with channel
modifications and strengthened embankments.
The plan costs $63.8 million and has a B:C ratio of 2.10. Public review is scheduled for June 2006 and
construction could begin as early as FY 07.
Dennis Fenske of
the St. Louis District provided an overview of O&M activities on the Middle
Mississippi River, including dredging, dikes and revetments, avoid and minimize
work under the Biological Opinion, the effects of the
Fenske explained
that reductions in Missouri River flow have affected navigation on the
Mississippi River, below the
Gary Loss
explained that the President’s FY 07 budget proposal for the Corps includes two
changes to O&M. Major rehabilitation
projects, which were previously included in the construction account are now in
the O&M account. In addition,
O&M costs are aggregated by region and are not displayed by individual
project or by Corps district. Susan
Smith noted that work related to Threatened and Endangered Species (such as
Northwest salmon recovery and
Mike Wells asked
whether
Mike Wells asked
if the shift of Major Rehab to the O&M account is a backdoor effort to
begin using the Inland Waterway Trust Fund to pay for O&M. Gary Loss said
that was not OMB’s expressed intention.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked if the $443 million backlog is mostly O&M projects or Major
Rehab. Heather Anderson explained that
it consists primarily of O&M projects, which are federal costs rather than
user costs.
Dru Buntin asked
for information regarding each district’s “critical” needs. Gary Loss explained that the term “critical”
means that the work cannot be deferred and should be addressed within a
year. Loss commented that funding for
the
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program (NESP)
Reevaluation — Chuck Spitzack expressed hope that
UMRBA would serve the function of the former Governors’ Liaison Committee (GLC)
during the NESP reevaluation phase. In
particular, UMRBA could help facilitate the position of each State and
consensus building among the States. He
commented that the reevaluation phase will be “fast-paced” and will require
working with UMRBA staff to communicate information and distribute
materials.
Spitzack said
that the directive from the ASA(CW) stated that the economic analysis should be
updated by September 30, 2007 and that the reevaluation should be a #1
priority. In contrast to the original
feasibility study, the reevaluation will address only navigation, start with
reevaluation of the recommended plan, use updated models and data, and focus on
all four accounts rather than just National Economic Development (NED). Spitzack also explained that the
reevaluation will be subject to external peer review.
Budget and Work Plans — To accomplish the reevaluation, FY 06
funds will need to be reallocated.
Spitzack showed the adjustments to each of the components in FY 06, as
well as the proposed FY 07 expenditures, assuming an appropriation of $10
million. Holly Stoerker noted that the
Administration did not request any funding for NESP in FY 07, even though
Administration officials have directed that the reevaluation be undertaken,
presumably with PED funding provided by Congress.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked why FY 06 funds originally allocated for ecosystem restoration
planning are being reduced to help pay for the economic reevaluation. Spitzack acknowledged that as a concern, but
noted that the future of the ecosystem restoration work is dependent on the
reevaluation.
Spitzack
presented a list of early construction starts, which could begin as soon as FY
08, assuming an FY 07 PED budget of $10 million. He explained that some projects were dropped
from the list due to the complexity of the remaining planning that needs to be
done. Spitzack also showed a bar graph of
annual cost estimates for the first 15-year increment of NESP. Those costs peak in 2016 at over $300
million. Spitzack acknowledged that the
shape of the graph and the amount in each year will change if the funding in FY
07 is not $50 million, as assumed for this version of the bar graph.
Communication Update — Spitzack explained that there is a
temporary lull in public involvement and institutional arrangements work
efforts due to the high priority being placed on the reevaluation. However, those activities should increase in
FY 07. The newsletter and web site
development will continue under the reevaluation. Spitzack also noted that there was a very
successful public hearing held recently on the Lock and Dam 22 fish passage and
expansion plans.
Spitzack reported
that a “Commanders’ Agreement” is currently being developed to express the
three district commanders’ commitment to inter-district program development on
the
Dru Buntin
thanked Spitzack for acknowledging the role UMRBA can serve, similar to the
GLC. He noted, however, that the UMRBA
representatives may not be the most appropriate people to involve in the
technical aspects of the economic reevaluation.
Missouri DNR is working to facilitate the right connections in
Gretchen
Benjamin expressed concern that the reallocation of FY 06 funding was done
without consulting the State partners, who, among others, are working in
support of NESP appropriations. Benjamin
also commented that public involvement should be more than just public meetings
on specific projects. She stressed the
importance of increased public education to change the public image of the
program and help garner public support for authorization and appropriations.
EMP and NESP Strategic
Planning
Holly
Stoerker explained that, last November, UMRBA began to develop a series of
issues papers exploring the legislative options related to the potential merger
of EMP and NESP. The assumption was
that the process would culminate in August 2006, with a proposal to forward to
Congress. However, given recent
indications that the Senate will be moving forward with consideration of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) this spring, the process had to be
expedited. Therefore, UMRBA developed a
proposal to amend the existing NESP authorizing language in WRDA, based on what
appear to be the two highest priority issues that have emerged thus far from
discussion of the issue papers. In
particular, the proposal seeks to add monitoring authority to NESP by directly
linking to the 1986 EMP authorization.
In addition, the proposal seeks to add provisions to NESP requiring
consultation with Interior and the States and providing authority for funding
transfers. Stoerker reported that these
proposals have been shared with House and Senate Committee staff.
Barb Naramore
provided an overview of the final issue paper, which focuses on the related
issues of reporting to Congress and the role of advisors. Both the EMP and NESP legislation have
provisions requiring reports to Congress and establishing advisory committees
or panels. However, the provisions are
not the same. The timing and intent of
the Congressional reports for the two programs differ. In addition, the role and focus of the
advisory groups differ. Naramore
described a variety of options that could be pursued, some of which would
integrate or harmonize the disparate approaches and some of which would retain
the differences. Naramore also described
a number of considerations related to report scheduling, scope of reports, the
role of advisors, the composition of advisory groups, the need for advisors,
and program integration.
Naramore
summarized the conclusions that emerged from the discussion at the EMP-CC
meeting on the preceding day, regarding Congressional reporting and advisory
groups:
§
Integrating
EMP and NESP reports to Congress is preferable to separate reporting processes.
§
Longer
report intervals are preferable to short report intervals.
§
Advisory
groups related to the EMP and NESP should be coordinated.
§
The
spirit of what the legislation is seeking to accomplish by mandating the
establishment of advisory groups is already being met by a combination of
existing groups, such as the District Teams, EMP-CC, LTRMP audits, and SET.
§
Recognize
that there is a limit to what can be fixed now, in the abstract, without the
benefit of experience in implementing NESP.
§
Rather
than seeking legislative changes now, use the first report due to Congress
following authorization of NESP to make recommendations on the future of the
two programs and their integration.
§
In
the interim, more effectively communicate to Congress and other interested
parties what the partners are doing in the spirit of bringing independent
perspectives to NESP and the EMP.
UMRBA
representatives expressed general agreement with the conclusions of the EMP-CC
members.
Overview — Dave Hokanson provided an overview of
UMRBA’s program activities related to 1) hazardous spills coordination through
the efforts of the UMR Spills Group and 2) the planning and mapping work being
done under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) through an EPA cooperative
agreement. Hokanson noted that the two
efforts are integrated and represent another contact point between UMRBA and
State agencies. He also noted that these
activities constitute a significant portion of UMRBA’s staff effort and
funding.
The UMR Spills
Group, which was formed in 1989, at the request of Iowa DNR, facilitates
coordination of the region’s State and federal response agencies on the
river. In particular, the group has
developed a UMR Hazardous Spill Response Plan and Resource Manual, which
is currently in the process of being updated.
The group also has produced a UMR response resource DVD and emergency
action field guide, and supports training classes and exercises.
Hokanson also
described UMRBA’s OPA planning and mapping efforts, which started in 1992. Under a cooperative agreement with EPA, UMRBA
staff has created an Inland Sensitivity Atlas and is supporting a
variety of interagency planning efforts, including sub-area plans, Net
Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA) workshops, and the 2007 Spill of
National Significance (SONS) exercise.
In addition,
Hokanson described UMRBA’s work on the Early Warning Monitoring Pilot Project,
a cooperative venture with State and federal agencies, the Upper Mississippi
River Water Suppliers Coalition, and the American Water Company. The focus of the project is on detecting
sudden contamination events and providing timely alerts to intake
operators. A pilot monitoring
station is currently in place at Lock and Dam 15, with a multi-parameter sonde
and online data reporting at RiverGages.com.
Rebecca Wooden
asked whether the instrument detects products on the surface or in
solution. Hokanson and Sheila Calovich
from EPA explained that it varies depending on the product and where it is in
the water column. Although the sonde
does not currently detect crude oil, changes in the parameters currently
measured may be indicative of a petroleum spill, and its value is also in
helping to exercise the communication network.
States’
Perspective — John
Whitaker, current Chair of the UMR Spills Group and leader of Missouri DNR’s
Bureau of Emergency Response, gave a presentation offering the State
responders’ perspectives on hazardous spill coordination on the Upper
Mississippi River. He described the unique
characteristics and challenges associated with spill response on the river and
the need for interstate cooperation.
Whitaker also described the important role that the UMR Spills Group
plays in providing a forum for discussion and information sharing, meeting
colleagues in other States, and in maintaining and updating the UMR Spills
Plan. Of particular note is the Spill of
National Significance (SONS) exercise, scheduled for June 2007. The exercise
will be based on a New Madrid earthquake scenario, and will include massive
damage in a variety of sectors, including spills. The exercise will involve multiple agencies
in 13 States, including 4 of the 5 UMR States, in addition to the Coast Guard,
FEMA, EPA, and others. There are a
number of pre-meetings and exercises in advance of the June 2007 event,
including a mid-planning conference in
Mike Wells
presented Whitaker with a certificate of appreciation, thanking him for his
service as Chair of the UMR Spills Group.
Inland Sensitivity
Mapping — Lisa DeAlessio
and Derek Martin gave an overview of the Inland Sensitivity Atlas series, which
provides a set of databases, tables, and maps that display cultural, economic,
and natural resource information for spill responders and planners. The atlas can provide useful information for
spill response, writing facility plans, training exercises, or updating area
contingency plans. The atlases were
originally on paper, but are now available digitally and are currently in the
process of being updated. Among the
standard atlas contents are: environmentally sensitive areas, managed natural
areas, tribal lands, sensitive species,
surface water intakes, marinas, locks and dams, archeological sites,
aboveground storage facilities, and oil product pipelines.
Sheila Calovich
said that the Atlas is a huge project that has been 14 years in the
making. She commented that it could not
have been done without UMRBA’s work. It
is a very popular product. Over 5000
atlases have been distributed.
Barb Naramore
thanked Sheila Calovich and Ann Whelan of EPA Region 5 for their commitment to
the project.
Dru Buntin asked
whether the Atlas is used outside of the spill response community, noting that
it may be valuable for NEPA review.
Calovich commented that the Atlas is growing in popularity and that the
regulated community is currently the largest customer.
Dan Wilcox asked
if the Atlas contains all potential spill sources. Naramore clarified that there are size
cut-offs, which vary by product and source type. But large, concentrated sources are
included. Wilcox commented that it is
lucky there hasn’t been a large spill on the UMR like the ones on the
Holly Stoerker
provided an overview of the ongoing work and preliminary results of UMRBA’s
project related to organizational options for addressing water quality
coordination on the UMR. She explained
that one of the questions that is being investigated is whether UMRBA would
qualify under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act as an interstate agency and
thus be eligible for funding to support water pollution control programs. Stoerker explained that 2.6 percent of the Section
106 funding is reserved for interstate agencies and the remainder is allocated
among the States. There are currently
six interstate organizations nationwide that receive Section 106 funding. Stoerker said that the conclusion is that
UMRBA would not qualify under Section 106, largely due to a requirement that
interstate agencies must have filed with EPA within 120 days of enactment of
the Clean Water Act in 1972 to receive funding.
She also commented that changing that requirement would be difficult and
is not recommended.
Stoerker noted,
however, that through UMRBA’s Organizational Options project, the five State
water quality agencies have been learning about how other interstate
organizations address interstate water quality issues. Of the 6 agencies that receive Section 106
funding, all are interstate compact agencies, the federal government is a
member of all but 2 of them, all are in the eastern region of the
Stoerker
reported that, at their March meeting, the representatives from the five State
water quality agencies identified a preliminary list of functions they would
like an interstate agency to serve on the UMR.
Those functions relate to standards and criteria, monitoring,
assessments, impairments, TMDLs, and permitting. In some cases the interstate agency would
serve a coordinating role, and in other cases, the agency would actually
undertake specific responsibilities assigned to it by the States. But Stoerker emphasized that the interstate
agency would be a creation of the States, not independent of them. Stoerker noted that references to an “agency”
or “commission” do not suggest that the States are inclined to form a new
entity. Discussion is still focusing on
whether and how to modify UMRBA.
Stoerker
reported that the next meeting of the State water quality administrators is
scheduled for July 12-13, 2006. Remaining
topics for consideration include the authority, structure, and funding of a new
interstate agency; development of cost estimates; and development of a
strategic plan. A final report is
targeted for November 2006, at which time a meeting of UMRBA representatives
and State water quality administrators is planned.
Dru Buntin asked
whether EPA has an opinion about the organizational options under
consideration. Bill Franz indicated that
EPA is supportive of the effort to look at organizational options and the work
of the UMRBA Task Force in general.
However, EPA no longer has grant funding available to support the Task
Force’s work through Section 104 funds, which have been used in the past. Franz noted that it may be possible to use
targeted watershed funding.
Rick Mollahan
asked if States could designate UMRBA as a regulatory water quality planning
agency and then use State Section 106 funding to support it. Franz replied that EPA would probably not
object to that approach, as long as it did not impair the States’ ability to
meet their own water quality management obligations.
Holly Stoerker
commented that the Organizational Options project is looking for ways to add
resources and value, not simply divert a portion of current funding to
interstate work. She noted that this
will require building a vision for the future and political awareness of the
current geographic inequities. In
particular, some regions (i.e., the six 106 interstate agencies, the Chesapeake
Bay, the Great Lakes, etc.) receive additional funding for regional programs,
while the
Teresa Kincaid
distributed copies of the Corps’ draft public meeting notice for the Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (UMRCP) Study. She said there are four public meetings
planned for June 2006 to seek comment on the draft UMRCP report and
recommendations. She noted that
continued funding for the UMRCP in FY 07 is uncertain. Therefore, the report needs to be completed
and forwarded to Corps headquarters by the end of FY 06, with options for
additional analysis in FY 07, if funds are made available.
In describing
the study results, Kincaid noted that the constraining assumption employed for
the evaluation was that up to a one-foot rise would be allowed. She acknowledged that this was not
necessarily consistent with some State laws or regulations. Kincaid said that important hydraulic
insights were gained from this study.
For instance, above Keokuk, levees can be raised without causing more
than a one-foot increase in the 100-year flood profile.
Kincaid said
none of the plans evaluated have a positive B/C ratio, with the exception of
Plan L, which involves protecting the
Kincaid
explained that a number of events occurred during the UMRCP study that
influenced the way in which the Corps is considering approaching the final
report and recommendations. These events
included: a new engineering circular on
collaborative planning, which puts more emphasis on accounts other than
National Economic Development (NED); Hurricane Katrina, which raised questions
about whether selection of the NED plan always leads to the best decisions; and
meetings that Corps Headquarters had with UMIMRA representatives, which
generated interest in the possibility of identifying a “good plan,” even if
that plan is not the NED plan.
Kincaid briefly
reviewed the conclusions resulting from the study, including:
Kincaid said that
the Corps would consider presenting a “regionally preferred” plan in the final
report, if the States want to develop such a plan. According to Kincaid, a regionally preferred
plan could take into account where economic development is anticipated in the
future and the level of protection the States would like to have in place in
the future. The planning process could
begin in FY 06 and continue into FY07, if additional funding is made available.
Gary Clark
commented that developing a regionally-preferred plan represents a different
policy approach, where essentially the question is to identify what the States
would like, if money were no object.
This open-ended question, with no constraints, puts the States in a
difficult position.
Dru Buntin commented
that floodplain management involves more than one agency in
Martin Konrad
asked how the States have been involved in the study to this point. Kincaid said that State involvement has been
limited due to travel restrictions in some States.
Holly Stoerker
commented that it may be very difficult for the States to agree on a
“regionally-preferred” plan given their varying levels of interest and
involvement in this study. This may be
particularly true if it’s assumed to be a plan for which the States have no
financial obligation. However, thus far,
the States have identified a few consensus positions on the study, including
the value of the flood routing model and the need for reconstruction authority.
Bill Franz asked
how the UMRCP relates to floodplain restoration efforts under NESP. He also asked whether the Corps intends to
include preferred plans from other stakeholder groups, if it includes UMIMRA’s
preferred plan in the final report.
Dave Leake
explained that the idea of a “regionally-preferred” plan is unique to the
UMRCP, but derives from the concept of a “locally-preferred plan,” which is
used in other Corps planning reports.
Leake noted that, since there is no single local sponsor for the UMRCP,
there should be some other way of identifying a preferred plan from the
region’s stakeholders. The Corps assumed
this should be the States’ responsibility because they have the broadest
expression of regional perspective and interest.
Rebecca Wooden
expressed surprise that the Corps is searching for a “preferred plan” or is
contemplating further evaluations, given that there was no economically
justified plan identified. She
questioned why the Corps would support any additional funding for this effort,
in light of budgetary shortfalls in other areas. Wooden noted that identifying a
“regionally-preferred” plan may be misleading and inadvertently lead to future
funding for a plan that is not actually supported by all the States. For instance, Wooden suggested that
Dru Buntin said
that the States have some comments they will be presenting in a letter from
UMRBA. However, the States are not prepared
to respond to the Corps’ proposal for developing a regionally-preferred plan.
Gary Clark
expressed appreciation for the Corps’ efforts to coordinate and
communicate with the States on the UMRCP
Collaboration Team.
USDA Conservation Programs in the
Bill Gradle,
Illinois State Conservationist, explained that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) is both a planning and a program delivery
agency. Although NRCS has no direct
authority on the UMR, it does work throughout the basin that has a significant
impact on the river. NRCS has worked in
watersheds for decades, primarily with private landowners and local
communities.
Gradle explained
Resource Management System plans, which are long range plans that identify a
package of land treatment options that landowners can implement over time. Gradle also explained the role of State
Technical Committees. The Illinois
Committee is composed of over 60
members, including representatives of State and federal agencies, commodity
groups, and conservation organizations.
Their role is to advise the State Conservationists, voice client
concerns, and identify potential problems.
Gradle also
described the
Gradle
emphasized that NRCS depends on the voluntary cooperation of landowners and
does not mandate participation in its programs.
He noted that most landowners are very motivated and simply need
financial and technical assistance.
Gretchen Benjamin
asked if NRCS monitors the land treatment practices to measure their
effectiveness. Gradle explained that
NRCS is not funded to do monitoring. The
monitoring is typically done by USGS, EPA, or others.
Administrative Issues
FY 2007 Budget — Stoerker presented a draft FY 2007
UMRBA budget and said that UMRBA approval is needed prior to the beginning of
the new fiscal year on July 1, 2006.
Martin Konrad
said that
Gretchen
Benjamin moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the draft budget,
amended to reflect Konrad’s suggested change regarding
Future Meetings — The future meeting schedule for the
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC)/Environmental
Coordinating Committee (ECC), EMP Coordinating Committee (EMP-CC), and
UMRBA is as follows:
Holly Stoerker
said that beginning with the November 2006 meeting dates, the order of the
meetings will be changed. UMRBA will
meet on the second day, with the NECC/ECC meeting on the first day and EMP-CC
meeting on the last day.
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.