Minutes
of the
102nd
Quarterly Meeting
of
the
The
meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Mike Wells. The following were present:
|
Gary Clark |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
|
|
Dick Vegors |
|
|
Laurie Martinson |
|
|
Rebecca Wooden |
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Gary Loss |
|
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Charles Wooley |
|
|
Doris Washington |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
Others in attendance:
|
Roger Lauder |
|
|
Dan Injerd |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jay Rendall |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Scott Whitney |
|
|
Denny Lundberg |
|
|
Angie Freyermuth |
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Cynthia Drew |
|
|
Catherine McCalvin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Tom Boland |
|
|
Jon Stravers |
Audubon |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
Announcements
Holly
Stoerker noted that the meeting set up has been changed to better facilitate discussion
among the members of the UMRBA Board and to maximize sight lines to the AV
screen.
Mike
Wells expressed UMRBA’s sadness at the death of Teresa Kincaid, whom he
described as a close friend and associate of many at UMRBA. Gary Loss said Teresa had started at the
Corps of Engineers Rock Island District in 1981. In addition to working on a variety of
Meeting Minutes
Gretchen
Benjamin moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
February 20, 2007 quarterly meeting as drafted. The motion was approved unanimously.
Executive Director’s
Report
Holly
Stoerker highlighted the following items from her written report:
§
The
LTRMP strategic planning effort is underway.
The first meeting of the Planning Group was held on April 30-May 2. Barb Naramore is assisting with this process.
§
The
EMP staff services contract with the Corps of Engineers has been extended
through the end of federal fiscal year 2007, at a total cost of $47,000. In addition to support for the quarterly
meetings of the EMP Coordinating Committee, the contract covers four additional
special meetings.
§
As
part of its Oil Pollution Act (OPA) work, UMRBA staff are supporting
development of spill response strategies for the
§
It
appears that a funding source has been identified for a $15,000 grant from EPA
to support two workshops focusing on the relationship between the Clean Water
Act and river ecosystem restoration programs.
We hope to have funding in place by June or July. [In response to a question, Stoerker
clarified that the funds will be provided by EPA Region 5 and that additional
funds from Region 7 are not anticipated.]
§
It
appears that ICWP’s efforts to bring attention to the funding needs of the USGS
National Streamflow Information Program and Cooperative Water Program are
bearing fruit. A coalition of 10
Senators has proposed increasing federal support for streamgaging by $35
million in FY08.
§
Conflict
of Interest statements have been received from all UMRBA Board members,
alternates and staff.
Although not included in her written report,
Stoerker also reported that Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin has again
introduced his
In
addition Stoerker reported that Representative Kagen of
Navigation &
Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) — Rich Worthington reported that the House had approved its
version of WRDA on April 19 and the Senate passed its bill on May 16,
appointing conferees the following day.
House conferees have not yet been named.
A conference is expected to begin shortly after Memorial Day. According to
§
Water
Resources Planning Coordination Committee — The Corps has concerns that
creation of such a committee would turn responsibility for Corps policies and
planning guidance to an interagency committee, when such responsibility should
reside with the Corps and the Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
§
Principles
and Guidelines (P&G) — This provision would direct the Secretary to revise,
replace, and implement new P&G. The
House version also requires publication in the Federal Register. The Corps’ concerns involve the fact that
this House rulemaking provision may open up new avenues for legal challenges.
§
Independent
peer review — The Corps is more comfortable with the House version of the
independent peer review provision. The
Senate bill gives responsibility to the Secretary, rather than the Chief of
Engineers. It also gives peer reviewers
equal weight to the Corps, which is not a typical approach to peer review.
§
Cost
sharing for monitoring ecosystem projects — This provision, which is in the
Senate WRDA, but not the House version, would require nonfederal interests to
share in the cost of monitoring ecosystem restoration projects. It would also limit the amount of project
costs allocated to monitoring and the length of time monitoring is federally
funded. According to
Holly
Stoerker summarized how the House and Senate versions of WRDA differ with
regard to their NESP provisions. For
each difference, she also noted UMRBA’s preference between the two versions. In
particular, UMRBA prefers:
§
Senate
cost figures, which have been updated for inflation;
§
House
language regarding mooring facilities, which preserves flexibility in
determining the locations;
§
Senate
mitigation directive (not in House version);
§
House
authorization to pursue the LTRMP under NESP if EMP is not funded (not in
Senate version);
§
House
requirement for consultation and authority for funding agreements (not in
Senate version);
§
Senate’s
longer cycle for Reports to Congress;
§
A
date for the first report that is further in the future than June 30, 2008,
which is the date in both the House and Senate versions; and
§
House
“comparable progress” provision, which recognizes that Congress, in addition to
the Corps, may determine if comparable progress is being made.
Stoerker
also noted that WRDA includes amendments to the EMP as well. Both the House and Senate versions make NGOs
eligible as nonfederal sponsors of EMP projects. The House bill would also allow nonfederal contributions
to be in the form of in-kind services.
The Senate bill would authorize nutrient research and remediation as
part of the LTRMP.
Rich
Worthington explained that the Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on WRDA
makes specific reference to NESP in two regards. First, it indicates that NESP cost sharing
should be 50-50, like the
Gretchen
Benjamin asked why the comparable progress provision was not mentioned in the
SAP last year. She said it was curious
that the Administration chose to address this issue following the controversy
over the NESP “plus-up” exercise, when a number of UMR partners expressed
concern about the balance of funding. Benjamin
expressed her view that the comparable progress provision is important and
should be retained.
Laurie
Martinson moved and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion directing UMRBA staff
to send a letter to the WRDA conferees describing UMRBA’s position on the NESP
differences in WRDA. Holly Stoerker
stated her assumption that the letter would focus on UMRBA’s top 3 issues from
last year (mooring facilities, partnership, and monitoring) and that the other
issues could be covered in an attachment.
Gary Clark asked that UMRBA Board members be given an opportunity to
review the letter before it is sent.
With those clarifications the motion passed unanimously.
Gretchen
Benjamin said, that as authorization of NESP grows nearer, the question of how
EMP and NESP are to be integrated is becoming more important. She emphasized that EMP is a longstanding,
proven program that has major accomplishments and is moving forward confidently
and efficiently. She expressed concern
that the EMP not be “left behind” as NESP moves forward. Benjamin said that UMRBA is optimistic, but
concerned, and will be considering EMP-NESP integration strategies in the next
few months. Mike Wells noted that the
UMRBA Board has set time aside at its August meeting to discuss this topic. He invited other partners’ input.
Gary
Loss noted that the President’s FY 08 budget proposed $23.8 million for the
EMP. He commented that Congressional
appropriations for FY 08 and the Administration’s FY 09 budget proposal will
indicate what kind of support EMP has.
Benjamin agreed, noting that misunderstandings about the program need to
be addressed.
NESP Work Plan — Chuck Spitzack said
he appreciated the discussion at the February quarterly meetings regarding the
FY 07 NESP budget, including the follow-up letters received from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Wisconsin DNR, and Audubon.
He reported that the final FY 07 budget allocation is $14 million,
rather than $18 million, and showed the differences in each broad budget
category. The economic reevaluation is
the only item that will receive more funding under the $14 million budget
rather than the $18 million budget.
Spitzack presented the final FY 07 budget amounts for each NESP project. He noted that 66% of the NESP budget is
devoted to labor, 2% to travel, 13% to interagency efforts, and 19% to
contractors.
Spitzack
said NESP is not included in the President’s FY 08 budget, but there may be
carryover funds from FY07. In addition, the
status of WRDA may have implications for the FY08 budget.
Collaboration — Chuck Spitzack said
that collaboration forums are in place at the river system, reach, and project
levels, but may need some refinement.
Restoration plans are under development at the reach and system levels
and adaptive management is moving in a positive direction.
Spitzack
also showed a series of slides illustrating the first increment funding stream
annually and cumulatively. He commented
that the first increment timeframe would be defined by the pace of the
investment in navigation improvements.
Spitzack
reported that “Institutional Arrangements” will not be pursued until NESP is
authorized and funded in the Corps’ construction budget. The Corps will continue to work internally
and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to refine the proposal regarding
institutional arrangements.
Development
of the NESP website is divided into 4 phases.
The first phase has been completed, with the site now online. The next phases will include adding specific
NESP projects, building GIS/visual capability, and eventually integrating other
Corps programs and links to partners’ sites.
Martin
Konrad asked what improvements are being considered for NESP collaborative
efforts. Spitzack indicated he would like to build on EMP HREP planning to
broaden it to ecosystem planning and said that collaboration is evolving. Konrad expressed concern that the States and
other partners may not have enough staffing to meet the demands of a
collaborative effort on the scale of NESP.
He urged that the Corps be clear about what’s needed and not wait until
the last minute to seek other’s input.
Economic Reevaluation — Chuck Spitzack said
the draft interim report for the Economic Reevaluation will be sent to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (ASA) in September 2007.
The primary audience for the report is the ASA’s office, which has still
not acted on the Chief’s Report from 2004.
In response to a question about how the economic reevaluation may be
affected by the passage of WRDA, Spitzack said the reevaluation will be
important for the Administration in developing its position on the navigation
investment, including whether it will budget for the improvements.
Spitzack
reviewed the specifications for the grain model inputs, under high and low
traffic scenarios. He also said the
Interim Report will include a discussion of intermodal and multimodal issues
and will evaluate the recommended plan with regard to national and regional
economic development, environmental quality, and other social effects.
The
revised schedule for the reevaluation includes a second economics workshop on
June 18-19, conclusion of internal Corps review by September 7, submittal of
the draft interim report to ASA by September 13, public review in November, and
completion by December 31. The internal
review will include an opportunity for partners and stakeholders to comment.
Early Warning Monitoring
Network
Roger
Lauder, Illinois EPA, described the need for and benefits of an Early Warning
Monitoring System on the
Lauder
also described the Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise scheduled for
June 19-21, 2007. The scenario will
involve an earthquake on the New Madrid fault of 7.7 on the Richter Scale. It will cause a variety of impacts over a
large geographic scale, including ruptures of oil and natural gas pipelines and
changes in the course of the river, causing flooding and disruption of
navigation traffic and water supplies.
Federal and state agencies, local communities, and private industry will
all be involved in the exercise, which will test a variety of existing plans
and force people to work outside of their geographic and professional areas of
familiarity. According to Lauder, the
SONS exercise will illustrate the need for an early warning monitoring system
on the UMR. He noted that the
Dave
Hokanson noted that, in addition to the Ohio River, early warning systems also
exist on the Susquehanna River, St. Clair River, Washington, D.C., and San
Francisco. He also described the
Hokanson
then described the UMR efforts to-date in developing an early warning
monitoring system (EWMS). In 2002 a
scoping group was formed to evaluate the overall feasibility of an EWMS on the
Hokanson
outlined both the opportunities and obstacles and identified a variety of
considerations, including the following questions:
§
What
funding could be made available to support capital & operational expenses
in the long term
§
What
is the right “institutional home” for the system?
§
What
in-kind contributions are needed to operate/leverage funding?
§
Is
this a “core” UMRBA activity?
§
What
level of support from UMRBA and its staff is appropriate?
§
Is
UMRBA the institutional home for the effort?
If not, where should it reside?
Hokanson suggested that there are two basic
options for UMRBA. It can either end its
participation in this work or decide to maintain an ongoing role. If UMRBA chooses to be involved, it must
address how to continue to fund the effort and define its specific role. That role could include continuing to provide
coordination and facilitation support.
However, Hokanson cautioned that, to be productive, a commitment of more
than the current .05 FTE level is needed.
Alternatively, Hokanson said UMRBA could decide to expand its role and
serve as the organizational “home” for the project.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked whether the EWM effort would “die” if UMRBA walked away from
it. Roger Lauder said he thought it
would likely continue, given the high level of interest. However, no one is ready and willing to take
leadership at this point in time. He
encouraged UMRBA to keep its options open.
Dave Hokanson commented that UMRBA is not irreplaceable, but there may
be some downtime if UMRBA discontinues its support. He also noted that the utilities are very
supportive of UMRBA’s leadership role.
Bill Franz said EPA is seeking to establish 3 bio-monitoring sites on
the UMR and the
Mike
Wells said that more information is needed before UMRBA can make a decision
about its future role, including the costs.
Laurie Martinson commented that it will be important to better
understand the scope of the future needs, potential partners, and potential
alternative “leaders.” Gary Clark moved
and Martin Konrad seconded a motion directing staff to develop options, for
consideration at the August 2007 meeting, regarding how UMRBA could move
forward with regard to the EWMS project.
The motion passed unanimously.
Fish Movement: Passages
and Barriers
Overview — Scott Yess of the
Fish and Wildlife Service provided an overview of the topic of fish movement,
passages, and barriers. He explained
that fish move, in order to reproduce, find food, and survive. Movement is triggered by temperature and
flow. Yess also described the effect
that the lock and dam system has on fish migration, explaining that some
passage occurs, but it is restricted to times when the dams are operated at open
river conditions. Thus fish passages may
be appropriate at some locks. Yess
explained that fish barriers are primarily for controlling the movement of
exotic species, such as Asian carp.
Barriers can include electrical strobe lights, high pressure sodium,
bubble curtain, acoustic barrier, or physical barriers. Yess commented that, where Asian carp are
already abundant, fish passages may be reasonable. However, where the carp are not yet
established (as in the upper river), barriers may be more reasonable.
Chicago Sanitary &
Ship Canal
— Dan Injerd of Illinois DNR explained the history and current status of the
demonstration barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, linking Lake
Michigan and the
Injerd
said the demonstration barrier has generally been effective, but the end of its
design life is approaching. The original
cost estimate for a permanent barrier was $9.1 million. The Great Lakes states are all contributing
to the nonfederal share of the construction costs and the State of
Lock and Dam 11
Dispersal Barrier
— Jay Rendall of the Minnesota DNR described the threat posed by Asian carp and
Minnesota DNR’s efforts to promote a barrier on the Upper Mississippi River to
control their spread. A 2004 feasibility
study identified Lock and Dams 11, 14, 15, and 19 as potential sites for
barriers. However, some sites are no
longer desirable and the options have been narrowed to Lock and Dam 11. According to Rendall, this site would be a
good choice because it is upstream of known populations of bighead, black, and
silver carp; protects
Rendall
described the steps Minnesota DNR has taken to promote the barrier and the
letters of support from other parties, including Iowa DNR,
Lock and Dam 3 Fish
Passage—
Gretchen Benjamin of Wisconsin DNR explained that the inclusion of fish passage
at Lock and Dam 3 is an idea that has been around for 30 years. The Corps of Engineers and partner agencies
are currently working on a major rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 3 and are near
agreement on plans to correct embankment and navigation safety problems. However, Wisconsin DNR believes that fish
passage should also be part of the major rehab project. Although the Corps has said it does not have
authority to include the fish passage, Benjamin cited a 1932 letter from the
Secretary of War indicating that fishways would be installed if shown to be
necessary.
Benjamin
explained Wisconsin DNR’s position that the relative merits of fish passage
versus barriers for control of invasives need to be judged at each individual
structure. However, in general, stopping
invasive species entirely is not possible.
Therefore, creating the best possible habitat for native species is
likely the best approach for enhancing their competitiveness with exotics.
Fish Passage in NESP— Ken Barr of the Corps
of Engineers reviewed the recommendations in the 2004 navigation feasibility
study regarding fish passage. The
50-year plan recommends fish passage at 14 dam sites, including Lock and Dam 4,
8, 22, and 26 during the 15-year first increment.
Water Quality Update
Dave
Hokanson reviewed the purpose of designated uses in the context of the Clean
Water Act and how designated uses are currently determined for the UMR. He noted that the challenge on the UMR is not
only consistency among the states, but also the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the currently assigned uses.
Hokanson explained that the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force (WQTF) and
Water Quality Executive Committee (WQEC) have been discussing the question
“should there be a unique set of designated uses developed for the UMR?” Based on the results of their joint meeting
in early May, it appears that they are interested in pursuing development of
subcategories of aquatic life use, similar to the approach taken for the
Hokanson
also reported on the WQTF consultation regarding the states’ 2008 impaired
waters lists. Areas of increased
consistency include fish consumption advisories, bacterial indicators, and
possibly suspended solids. However,
Hokanson noted that there are also new challenges and divergent approaches
related to aluminum, nutrients, and PFCs.
Holly
Stoerker reported that a joint Governors’ statement was developed based on the
“Water Quality Proposal” approved by UMRBA at its February 2007 meeting. The joint statement has thus far been
approved by all Governors, except
Stoerker
also reported that outreach activities with EPA and Congress are continuing, in
an effort to secure funding support for UMRBA’s enhanced interstate water
quality activities. A number of
Congressional visits were made in late February. On March 13, the WQEC and UMRBA staff met
with EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Ben Grumbles.
Stoerker
presented a list of topics that will be addressed in UMRBA’s FY 08 water
quality program. She noted that UMRBA’s
draft FY 08 budget reflects approximately $90,000 in expenditures for water
quality coordination activities and assumes “assessments” of $17,000 per state
to support those efforts. Stoerker also
suggested that UMRBA consider adding an additional Water Quality Specialist to
staff.
Administrative Issues
Personnel Manual— Holly Stoerker
explained that, when UMRBA’s Manual of Personnel Practices and Procedures was
amended in February 2006, it was an oversight that the amendments regarding
holiday observance were not applied to project employees. To rectify that problem, Martin Konrad moved
and Gretchen Benjamin seconded the following motion, which was then unanimously
approved:
Amend the second sentence of Section VII of the
UMRBA Manual of Personnel Practices and Procedures to read as follows:
“Holiday observance and pay for permanent and project employees who normally work
less than full time shall be in accordance with the schedule governing
FY 2008
UMRBA Budget
— Laurie Martinson moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the
“Status Quo” budget prepared by staff and remain open to future proposed
amendments from the Water Quality Executive Committee for expanded water
quality activities.
Chair Mike Wells emphasized that the UMRBA Board
is supportive of expanding UMRBA’s water quality efforts, but would like
additional information regarding specific activities, costs, and revenue
sources. Dru Buntin added that prospects
for securing additional federal funding are not clear and the sustainability of
the $17,000/state assessment is unknown.
Therefore, expanding UMRBA’s water quality program at this point in time
would result in deficit spending without a clear understanding of the long term
financial implications.
Martinson’s motion was approved unanimously.
Future Meeting Schedule: Holly Stoerker announced the August 2007
quarterly meetings in
August 20 — UMRBA Board Planning Meeting
(afternoon)
August 21 — UMRBA Quarterly Meeting
August 22 — NECC/ECC Meeting
August 23 — EMP Coordinating Committee Meeting
The
dates and locations for other future meetings include:
§
November
13-15, 2007 in St. Paul, Minnesota, with the UMRBA meeting on the first day.
(A meeting of the UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee will also take
place during this time period.)
§
February
19-22, 2007 in
With
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.