Minutes of the
110th Quarterly Meeting
of the
May 19, 2009
The meeting was called to
order at 9:30 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Gary Clark.
The following were present:
UMRBA
Representatives and Alternates:
|
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois (DNR) |
|
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa (DNR) |
|
|
Laurie Martinson |
Minnesota (DNR) |
|
|
Rebecca Wooden |
|
|
|
Dick Lambert |
|
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
|
Todd Ambs |
|
|
|
Jim Fischer |
|
Federal UMRBA Liaisons:
|
|
Charles Barton |
|
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
Others in attendance:
|
|
Jay Rendall |
|
|
|
John Wells |
|
|
|
Gaylen Reetz |
|
|
|
Steve Johnson |
National Park Service |
|
|
Randy Thoreson |
National Park Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
|
Jon Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Rebecca Soileau |
|
|
|
Dan Wilcox |
|
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
|
Leo Keller |
|
|
|
Bruce Munholand |
|
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
|
Todd Strole |
|
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
|
Teri Heyer |
|
|
|
Jim Stark |
|
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League of |
|
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
|
Ron Kroese |
McKnight Foundation |
|
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
|
Mark Gorman |
Northeast-Midwest Institute |
|
|
Dan Larson |
River Resources |
|
|
Don Powell |
Short Elliott Hendrickson |
|
|
Christine Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council Inc. |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|
|
|
Mark Ellis |
|
|
|
Sanhita Chattopadhyay |
|
|
|
Courtney Larson |
|
|
|
Peg Donnelly |
|
Announcements
Gary Clark welcomed Colonel
Christensen, Commander of the St. Paul District. Colonel Christensen
expressed his appreciation for UMRBA’s work, and for
the spirit of collaboration among agencies and stakeholder groups on the
UMR. He noted that several UMR projects are receiving funding under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), including the Lock and Dam 3
embankment project, a top priority in the St. Paul District. Christensen
said the schedule for executing the ARRA‑funded projects is ambitious,
but stressed the Corps’ readiness to meet the challenge.
Meeting Minutes
Gary Clark noted that Olivia
Dorothy’s name was misspelled on the attendance list from the February 17,
2009 meeting. Bernie Hoyer moved and
Laurie Martinson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of UMRBA’s February meeting, with the correction identified by
Executive Director’s Report
Barb Naramore
highlighted the following items from her written report included in the agenda
packet:
·
USACE is working
with EMP partners to scope the Report to Congress due in December 2010. UMRBA staff is supporting the scoping effort
under its current EMP services agreement, and will likely be asked to assist in
writing and editing the report under next year’s contract. UMRBA played a similar role in connection
with EMP’s 1997 and 2004 Congressional reports.
·
Work is virtually
complete on an integrated FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and Operational Plan. The plan will be presented to the EMP-CC at
its May 21 meeting for potential endorsement.
·
Representatives
of the Water Quality Executive Committee and UMRBA staff met with the
McKnight-funded Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative on April 16. The WQEC and Collaborative agreed to seek
ongoing dialog and information exchange on issues of mutual interest.
·
MVR Commander
Robert Sinkler has responded to the WQEC’s January 2009 letter regarding how to engage water
quality program staff in ecosystem objective setting. Based on the Colonel’s response, it appears
there will be minimal opportunity to bring water quality program perspectives
to the current phase of floodplain reach objective setting, which is nearing
completion. UMRBA staff will continue to
follow up with USACE program staff to ensure that the water quality programs
are informed as the second phase gets underway. This second phase will focus on objective
setting for 12 geomorphic reaches of the UMRS.
In addition, Naramore distributed a summary of FY 09 appropriations and
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for projects and programs of
interest on the UMRS. She also
introduced Sanhita Chattopadhyay
and Courtney Larson, two relatively new UMRBA staff people working on spills
planning and mapping, and Peg Donnelly, the EPA Region 5 staff person working
under an intergovernmental personnel agreement on UMRBA’s
designated uses project.
John Wells, of
USACE is participating in the
study through its Section 22 Planning Assistance program, which requires a 50
percent non-federal cost share. The
total estimated cost of the study is $8.4 million. Wells said a large portion of the
non-federal match will be in-kind. For
example, he said
Wells cited a variety of
challenges in undertaking the study, including how to engage local people;
address urban and rural perceptions, contaminants for which there are not
standards, land use issues, and climate change; avoid reinventing the wheel;
understand what induces behavioral change; get the economics right; and ensure
the study results in better decision making.
Wells said USACE and
Minnesota EQB signed the study cost sharing agreement in September 2008. Since then, they have convened an Interagency
Study Team; and various non-federal partners have committed to a $4 million
match. Wells said the next key step is
obtaining the necessary Congressional appropriation for the USACE portion of the
study. Barb Naramore
noted that the President’s recently released budget request appears to include
$350,000 for the study.
Bernie Hoyer asked about the
study’s specific water quality goals.
Wells explained that the major goal is to obtain a better understanding
of the basin’s hydrology, which will in turn inform water quality
management. In response to a question
from Vince Shay, Dan Wilcox explained that sediment fingerprinting assesses the
mineralogy of sediments to identify the source(s) of the material. Using this technique, Wilcox said researchers
have clearly established the
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program
Spitzack reported that the Corps has been continuing to work
with
Spitzack
also described how the Corps plans to employ adaptive management in conducting
system and reach planning for the UMRS.
He explained that a Regional Support Team (RST) will
work directly with NECC and will develop a systemic approach for ecosystem
restoration, which will help guide reach planning efforts. The four Regional Planning Teams (RPTs) will use that guidance in developing draft geomorphic
reach plans. Those draft plans will be
reviewed by the RRT, RRCT, and/or RRAT, which will then provide final reach
plans back to the RST for coordination with NECC. For the Illinois River Reach, the RPT will
provide a draft reach plan to the IRWG, RRCT, and RRAT; and will work with the
three teams to make any necessary revisions.
According to Spitzack, the RST will
essentially operate as a hub for system and reach planning, a key component of NESP’s adaptive management approach. The schedule currently calls for NECC to act
on the draft reach plans at its November 2009 meeting. [Note:
At the May 20 joint session of the NECC and EMP-CC, that schedule was
adjusted, with system-level review of the plans deferred until February 2010.]
Spitzack
reported that Corps staff continue to work on the Implementation Report to
Congress (IRTC). The NESP authorization
requires such reports on a four-year cycle for the ecosystem restoration
portion of the program, with the first report due by June 30, 2009. The reports are to include baselines,
milestones, goals, and priorities for the restoration projects, and also
measure progress in meeting those goals.
The Corps circulated a draft IRTC for partner review in April, with
comments due by May 28. Spitzack said the comments received so far indicate general
satisfaction with the report; but he said concerns were expressed with the
length of the executive summary, the proposal to rename NESP as the
Environmental and Navigation Program (ENP), and the lack of detail regarding
the transition plan. The Corps plans to
issue a revised draft for final partner review on July 9. Spitzack explained
that this review period will be extremely brief, as MVR plans to submit the report
to Corps HQ on June 15.
Spitzack
also reported that the Corps’ Outreach Team is working to develop a broad,
umbrella identity for the agency’s work on the UMRS. Individual projects and programs would retain
their separate identities, with the umbrella identity intended to improve the
public’s overall connection with the river system. Under this approach, public outreach would
extend more from the partnership and system perspective, and less from
individual districts and programs. Spitzack said that the team is proposing The Upper Mississippi River Works — A
Partnership for Sustainability of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System, but remains open to alternatives.
Dru
Buntin expressed concern with the proposal to rename
NESP as the ENP, recalling that the purpose previously described for a name
change was to have a catchier name with a clear connection to the UMRS. Buntin noted that
ENP is not particularly catchy and does not draw a clear connection to the
UMRS. In addition, he said there is
obviously potential for significant confusion with the EMP.
Rebecca
Wooden said
Given the
lack of response to the states’ March 2 letter concerning the Advisory Panel,
and uncertainty whether the letter has been shared with
EMP and
NESP: Partner Report on Funding and
Transition Issues
Vince Shay
said TNC is very pleased to be part of the informal coalition of industry,
environmental, and state interests supporting NESP and EMP. According to Shay, having such diverse
interests working together is quite powerful and is well-received in
Paul Rohde
underscored Shay’s comments regarding the uniqueness and effectiveness of the
informal coalition. He also expressed
particular thanks to The Nature Conservancy for furnishing the group with the
services of Rich Innes, an excellent lobbyist. Rohde said the good news is that we have more
collaboration and coordination than ever before, which is tremendously
important in delivering a consistent message and sharing workload. However, he cautioned that there are some
very real funding challenges facing NESP.
Barb Naramore highlighted three major messages from the group’s
1. The
revenue shortfalls in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) present a major
hurdle to NESP receiving a construction new start, as do overall fiscal
constraints.
2. The
appropriating committees are quite adamant about the need for an EMP/NESP
transition plan.
3. NESP
proponents need to be working with the Assistant Secretary and OMB. Gaining Administration support for NESP is
critical, as Congress is unlikely to initiate and sustain NESP construction funding
entirely on its own.
Naramore
said the informal coalition also worked hard to educate the delegation and
committee staff on the importance of keeping the EMP fully functional until
such time as NESP is operating at a level that can support program
transition. In particular, the group
focused on the impediment presented by FY 08 and 09 House report
language. This language blocks EMP from
planning new projects or moving projects from planning to construction unless
there has been construction on a previous phase. This restriction will reduce the EMP’s execution capability if it is extended to FY 10. Naramore said she
believes the group made progress in addressing this issue, but said it remains
to be seen how the committee staff will address the issue in the context of the
FY 10 energy and water spending bill.
Marv
Hubbell asked for more detail regarding the group’s the IWTF-related
discussions. Naramore
said she was struck by the range of expectations expressed, with respect to
both timing and likely scenarios for resolution. She said she heard everything from “an
agreement is imminent” to “this is completely intractable and will be with us
for quite some time.” Rohde said
industry is working with USACE to develop a white paper plan for capital
investment in the navigation system. He
explained that identifying future navigation infrastructure needs through this
plan will inform consideration of options for addressing the IWTF issue. He also stressed that, from industry’s
perspective, it is critical to address inefficiencies in the project funding
and delivery system. Rohde also reported
that members in the Senate have formed an ad
hoc working group to consider legislative options for addressing the
IWTF. He said there appears to be interest
in forming a similar group in the House.
Rohde also expressed industry’s disappointment in the Obama Administration’s decision to make the same lockage
fee proposal that the Bush Administration offered last year. He observed that the lockage fee proposal was
soundly rejected last year, both by Congress and industry.
Gary Clark
expressed the states’ appreciation to all members of the coalition for their
efforts on behalf of NESP and EMP. He
said the diverse interests have been very effective and their work is highly
regarded.
Asian Carp
Control Research
National Carp Management Plan — Mike
Weimer provided an overview of the Management
and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in the
According
to Weimer, the plan recommends 16 specific research-related actions, accounting
for $18.6 million of the plan’s total estimated costs. Among the research priorities are:
· developing
effective sampling gears and monitoring methods;
· assembling
information about distribution, biology, life history, and population dynamics;
· developing
effective containment methods;
· developing
a strategy to extirpate or reduce abundances;
· determining
ecological and economical effects; and
· developing
viable alternatives to the uses of farm raised Asian Carp (identified as the
plan’s highest research priority).
Weimer
noted that the Service and its partners are in the initial stages of
implementing the carp management and control plan.
UMESC Research — Mike Jawson reported that there are some exciting potential carp
control options on the horizon. He
explained that the present-day UMESC, which was formed by combining the LTRMP
and
Jawson
explained that UMESC has extensive, and very sophisticated, facilities for
conducting aquatic invasive species (AIS) and drug registration research. The focus of UMESC’s
existing AIS research is identifying and exploiting specific life stage
vulnerabilities. He noted that the sea
lamprey’s Achilles’ heel proved to be in its larval stage.
Jawson
said researchers are very enthused with the potential to develop bioactive
agents for Asian carp control. He noted
that the Asian carp are very effective filter feeders, and thus research on the
control of zebra and quagga mussels may offer some
insights. He reported that Advanced Bionutrition, a private company, is interested in applying
its MicroMatrix technology to aquaculture. Jawson explained
that the MicroMatrix is a bioactive compound, with
the bioactive element triggered when it hits the target’s stomach. Barb Naramore
distributed copies of a proposal to provide UMESC with $3 million in FY 10
funding to support MicroMatrix research. She noted that advocates include a range of
interests, but it is not in the Administration’s FY 10 request.
In
response to a question from Bernie Hoyer, Jawson said
USGS currently has about $250,000 annually for AIS research, which is
sufficient to fund one scientist. Mike
Wells asked how the proposed research relates to carp control research being
done elsewhere, including USGS’s
Hoyer
asked how much of the $18.6 million in research identified in the national plan
has been funded. Weimer said only a
small fraction of the necessary funds has been secured. Weimer observed that funding needs far
outstrip available resources.
Charlie Wooley said the Service wants to engage the states on AIS
as a national issue. He observed that
one opportunity for the states to increase their involvement would be to devote
some of their federal aid funds to AIS research and management. Wooley said the
Service is also examining ways in which its own regions can pool resources and
fund needed research. Jay Rendall encouraged the agencies to use the established regional
AIS groups to enhance coordination. He
noted that there are groups for the Great Lakes and
Naramore
noted that the MicroMatrix proposal would involve
investing public money in a control method that requires a proprietary delivery
device. She asked how the proprietary
issues would be addressed. Jawson explained that there is existing legislation that
generally governs federal agencies in such circumstances. He noted that money would not be transferred
between USGS and Advanced BioNutrition in this
particular case, and said the company is willing to work collaboratively and
see where the research leads.
Flood Risk
Management
Comp Plan — Chuck Spitzack
explained that the Comp Plan authorization called for a plan that “addresses water resources and related land
resource problems and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and
The ASA(CW) submitted the Comp Plan to Congress in January 2009, with no
recommended plan for systemic flood damage reduction. The plan did, however, recommend the
following additional actions:
·
pursue
cost-shared feasibility studies for reconstruction of existing flood damage
reduction systems, where federal interest is determined;
· further study critical transportation
infrastructure; and
· expand the Comp Plan’s mainstem
analysis to tributaries of the UMR to fully address flood risk management and
present a true basin-wide analysis.
Subject to available funding, Spitzack said the
Corps’ next priorities are to:
·
develop a
management plan for a comprehensive watershed study of the Iowa-Cedar River
Basins in the interest of systemic flood damage reduction and other purposes,
·
develop a
management plan for a systemic analysis of critical transportation systems, and
·
conduct a survey
level review of existing flood damage reduction projects for the purpose of
identifying those that are likely to benefit from a cost-shared feasibility
study.
In response to a question from Bill Franz, Spitzack
explained that the critical infrastructure analysis would focus primarily on
river crossings, both highway and rail.
Mike Wells asked whether the President included the Comp Plan in his FY
10 budget request. Spitzack
said it is not in the Administration’s budget, but noted that the Corps has
received several Congressional inquiries.
He said the Comp Plan received approximately $200,000 in FY 09 funding.
Barb Naramore asked about the cost-sharing
requirements for the Corps’ recommended next steps. Spitzack said the
watershed studies could be done partly at 100 percent federal expense. The extent of required cost share would
depend on how the study for a particular tributary basin was scoped. Spitzack said the
systemic analysis of critical transportation could be done at 100 percent
federal expense, but site-specific feasibility work would need to be
cost-shared.
Interagency Levee Task Force — Bruce Munholand reported
that the Interagency Levee Task Force (ILTF) and the associated state-based
Interagency Levee Work Groups (ILWGs) are approaching
the end of their 12 month charters.
Among the accomplishments of the ILTF and the ILWGs
since their formation in August 2008, Munholand
highlighted the following:
·
developed
organizational framework for national flood risk management program execution,
·
recommended
revisions to federal agencies’ recovery policy and guidance,
·
developed
handbook for interagency flood risk management task forces,
·
developed generic
comprehensive communication and education plan,
·
reviewed over 130
project information reports,
·
explored five
potential nonstructural projects, and
·
conducted
community outreach.
Munholand said that participating agencies are now considering a potential
transition from the ILTF to a Regional Interagency Flood Risk Management Team
that would cover the five UMRS states.
Similarly, the ILWGs may transition to
permanent flood risk management groups based on the “Silver Jackets”
model. This would provide an ongoing
mechanism for interagency coordination on the full cycle of flood risk
management (FRM), from planning to mitigation to response and recovery, and
back to planning. Munholand
said the Corps would also like to establish a National Flood Risk Management
Steering Committee.
Munholand emphasized that the Corps understands the resource constraints faced by
all agencies, and thus is encouraging adapting existing groups to meet the
needs for state-level FRM coordination.
He stressed that the federal agencies want to assist, not lead, the
state groups. He said the state FRM
teams will need to establish their own goals, but suggested that these might
include reducing flood risk, implementing mitigation plans, facilitating
integrated post-disaster recovery and mitigation, and leveraging state and
federal technical resources. He briefly
reviewed the status of efforts in each of the UMR states, noting that at least
three of the five states are proposing to integrate the interagency FRM
functions into existing teams. Munholand said it is unlikely that teams will be stood up
in all five states by the end of July, but said some are quite close.
Munholand explained that the Regional Interagency Flood Risk Management Team would
foster a comprehensive regional approach to FRM planning and
implementation. Within that broad
mission, goals would include:
·
understanding the
regional dynamics of FRM;
·
coordinating
policies, programs, and actions;
·
encouraging
consistent application of federal policies;
·
seeking
improvements to national FRM policy and guidance; and
·
disseminating
national guidance.
Potential core members include the relevant regional offices of FEMA,
NRCS, USFWS, USGS, EPA, and USACE, as well as the five UMR states and
representatives of each state-based interagency FRM team. Munholand said a
wide range of other agencies, NGOs, and professional associations might
participate as support members. A
typical agenda might include information on state plans and initiatives,
reports from the state FRM teams, discussion of key regional issues and
projects, information on national developments and guidance, and updates from
various stakeholders.
Munholand said the Corps would like to circulate a final draft charter for the
regional team by mid-June, followed by review and possible signing at the ILTF’s final meeting, scheduled for July 14.
Bernie Hoyer asked why only five non-structural alternatives were
considered out of 130 projects. Munholand noted that the ILTF was not established until
August 2008, after considerable recovery work was already well underway. In many cases, levee repairs were initiated
quite quickly. Munholand
said establishing interagency collaboration more rapidly following future
floods might increase the use of non-structural approaches. He expressed optimism that having standing
FRM teams at the state and regional levels should expedite interagency
coordination on response and recovery.
Rebecca Wooden asked how the Corps’ emphasis on regional and state teams
relates to the work of the National Levee Safety Committee. Munholand said
national guidance is under review and expected to be released shortly.
Gary Clark suggested that UMRBA staff remain engaged in the formation and
implementation of any regional coordination group. The other Board members concurred.
Hydrokinetics
Janet Sternburg said there
is increased interest in developing hydropower on the
According to Sternburg,
Free Flow Power is the major player on the
Between
According to Sternburg, Free Flow Power has
expressed a desire to minimize impacts, including the use of fish-friendly
turbine designs. However, she emphasized
that there is little real world experience with the technology. She said it is quite simply unknown what the
impacts would be from placing several thousand turbines over 10 miles of river,
and then repeating this at multiple locations along the length of the
river. According the Sternburg,
Missouri Department of Conservation has several concerns that it will ask to
have studied.
Among the environmental issues for consideration, Sternburg
cited alteration and loss of aquatic habitats, mortality to fish and other
aquatic animals, impacts to threatened and endangered species populations and
important recreational/commercial fish populations, alterations to fish
pathways, suspension of sediment and contaminants, changes in water flows and
velocities, electromagnetic fields, noise, impacts to terrestrial habitat from
extending transmission lines, impacts to public lands, and cumulative
effects. In addition, Sternburg said economic and social impacts must also be
considered, including impacts on commercial navigation, restricted public
access to project areas, potentially reduced fishing and hunting success, and
limitations on sand and gravel dredging operations. She also noted that there are several
operational questions that remain to be resolved, including the turbines’
vulnerability to river debris and barge strikes, impacts of sediment movement,
and damage to underwater transmission lines.
Steve
Johnson reported on the National Park Service’s experience with a hydrokinetic
project at Lock and Dam 2 in
Johnson
introduced Randy Thoreson, who represents NPS on a
national hydrokinetics task force. Thoreson reviewed the major steps in FERC’s
integrated licensing process. In
granting a license, Thoreson noted that FERC has the
authority to require a wide range of protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures (PMEs).
He speculated that there will likely be many PMEs
on hydrokinetic licenses. Beyond FERC
and the applicant, players in the licensing process include USFWS, USACE, NPS,
USFS, state resource agencies, interest groups, and members of the public. Thoreson said NPS’s general concerns with hydrokinetics include impacts
to natural resources, recreation, aesthetic values, and cultural resources.
Bernie
Hoyer asked what is behind such extensive interest in an unproven
technology. Thoreson
agreed that it is unusual, and noted that it is relatively easy to submit a
preliminary license application, but much more difficult to make it through the
entire licensing process. Laurie
Martinson said it appears that many applicants are simply speculating on the
potential of the technology, acting early to ensure exclusive rights to develop
hydrokinetics in what are thought to be promising locations. Martinson observed that good fish population
information is critical to assessing impacts.
She noted that the state permit for the
Dru
Buntin asked whether each project area will be
handled separately, and required to obtain its own license and permits. Sternburg said this
is the expectation. She said FERC and
Free Flow Power have agreed to proceed first with seven lead projects, in hopes
that these proposals will help elucidate issues. One complication that will almost certainly
arise, according to Sternburg, is with projects that
cross state boundaries, as most of them will.
She said it remains to be seen whether the applicant will be required to
obtain permits from multiple states for a single project, or whether the
involved states will work together to issue joint permits. Thoreson observed
that the federal agencies face a similar challenge in coordinating across their
regions.
Biological Indicators Workshop
Kirsten Mickelsen reported that UMRBA held its biological
indicators workshop the first week in May.
She explained that the workshop came in response to increasing interest
in indicators across a range of UMR agencies and programs. Of particular note, developing biological
indicators was a strong recommendation coming out of UMRBA’s
2008 sessions aimed at enhancing coordination between water quality and
ecosystem restoration programs on the UMR.
Mickelsen
explained that the recent biological indicators workshop was designed to foster
dialog among river scientists and managers about the use of indicators to
support both water quality and ecosystem restoration work on the UMR. Specific workshop goals included framing the
issue; reviewing current research and development efforts; learning from experiences
in other large aquatic ecosystems; and identifying issues, opportunities, and
next steps. The agenda included an
opportunity to share perspectives between restoration and water quality
programs, define key concepts in developing and using indicators, explore
current research and applications, and discuss opportunities and obstacles.
Dave Hokanson said the workshop was quite successful in getting
a range of perspectives on the table for discussion. There were 71 attendees, divided roughly
equally between the two major program areas, with good representation from a
range of federal and state agencies as well as NGOs. Hokanson said that
the workshop participants identified a range of issues and obstacles, including
the need to articulate clear and shared goals, identify leaders for indicators
development, and standardize monitoring protocols; the lack of a dramatic
driver on the UMR; the degree of longitudinal and latitudinal variation on the
UMR; and the question of how best to include stakeholder input. At the same time, participants also
identified several opportunities and potential next steps, including the
relative wealth of UMR data and research, lead agencies’ willingness to discuss
cross-cutting goals, and the opportunity to use reach objective-setting and
other existing forums. While
participants acknowledged that there are many important issues to resolve, they
also emphasized the opportunity to take some initial steps and begin refining
tools while these larger issues are being addressed. According to Hokanson,
participants generally believed that fish, macroinvertebrates,
and vegetation offer the most immediate promise for indicators development on
the UMR. There was also considerable
discussion about the potential to leverage LTRMP infrastructure to expand
monitoring in support of indicators.
Hokanson
explained that immediate next steps for UMRBA include drafting the workshop
report, with the goal of having a final version of that report available for
discussion at UMRBA’s August quarterly meeting. Bill Franz said the workshop was quite well
done, with an excellent agenda and very good discussions. He urged the agencies to make continued
collaboration on indicators a priority.
Todd Ambs concurred that the workshop was very
well done, with excellent speakers and information. But he also observed that there are many big
challenges, such as the identification of reference conditions. He said it will take considerable work and
collaboration to determine what condition we are trying to achieve for the
UMR. He observed that, if establishing
indicators was easy, we would already have them. Marv Hubbell also
praised the workshop, describing it as an excellent opportunity for serious
thought and discussion. Hubbell said he
believes participants identified several discrete activities on which progress
can be made while some of the larger issues are being addressed.
604(b) Water Quality Proposal
Gaylen
Reetz noted that the states, through UMRBA’s Water Quality Executive Committee, have been
pursuing federal funds for some time to support their interstate water quality
efforts on the UMR. He reported
that stimulus funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
appears to offer an opportunity.
Specifically, a portion of CWSRF funding is set aside for 604(b)
planning grants. Of their 604(b) set
aside, states are required to pass through 40 percent in the form of planning
grants to regional and interstate organizations, unless they are granted a
waiver. Reetz
explained that, under typical annual CWSRF appropriations levels, the money
available for pass through is so small that
Reetz
said the ARRA 604(b) funds come with significant accounting and reporting
requirements, but appear to offer an excellent opportunity to make progress on
some of the states’ UMR water quality collaboration priorities. He noted that USEPA has encouraged the states
to use a portion of their funds in this way, and has confirmed UMRBA’s eligibility for 604(b) funds. Reetz said the
water directors in all five states are supporting the approach, and have
collectively identified approximately $200,000 they could make available to
UMRBA.
In scoping
the proposed UMR project, Reetz explained that UMRBA
staff and members of the WQEC and WQTF have focused on supporting the states’
identified common priorities, developing UMRBA’s
capacity to support the states’ water quality programs, creating products that
will make an ongoing contribution, meeting the 604(b) program’s planning focus,
and addressing nutrient issues from a regional perspective. The major focus areas will be improving water
quality standards and assessment approaches; evaluating UMR nutrient impacts,
data, and monitoring needs; and fostering inter-program collaboration.
Reetz
said the next steps include having UMRBA refine its preliminary scope into a
single, integrated work plan that it submits to each of the five states. That work plan will include detail on each of
the proposed focus areas, and will describe each state’s financial contribution
to the various project elements. He
explained that the intent is for UMRBA enter into separate funding agreements
with each state, per USEPA’s advice. Reetz said the
states are at different points in their overall 604(b) process, but will
require a final work plan from UMRBA fairly soon. After that, the states will work individually
with UMRBA on the specifics of their grant making processes.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked whether the 604(b) funds have the potential to extend beyond the
30 month time horizon of the ARRA. Dave Hokanson said the states are certainly seeking to identify
a long term source of federal support for interstate water quality efforts on
the UMR. Reetz
said the ARRA 604(b) funds represent an important opportunity to demonstrate
what can be done. Mark Gorman observed
that, with the potential for increased CWSRF funding in FY 10 and beyond,
604(b) could be an ongoing source of support for the states’ UMR efforts. Reetz said this
might be the case, but emphasized that there are many factors involved, and
said the states will also pursue other USEPA funding options. Todd Ambs concurred
that this is an important opportunity to make progress and establish a track
record.
Laurie
Martinson moved and Mike Wells seconded a motion directing UMRBA staff to
develop a single, integrated 604(b) grant proposal for review by the WQEC and
Board. The motion further authorized the
UMRBA Executive Director to enter into funding agreements with the individual
states, consistent with the approved proposal.
The motion carried unanimously.
Laurie
Martinson reported that, in November 2008,
·
33% — Outdoor Heritage Fund to restore,
protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game,
and wildlife
·
33% — Clean Water Fund to protect, enhance,
and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect ground
water (at least 5% of this is set aside for drinking water)
·
14.25% — Parks and Trails Fund to support
parks and trails of regional or statewide significance
·
19.75% — Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund to
support arts, arts education, and arts access, and to preserve
Martinson
noted that the amendment passed strongly, with 56 percent of voters voting
“yes.” She explained that voters who did
not vote on the ballot question were effectively voting “no,” thus making the
margin all the more impressive.
Martinson
then detailed some of the specifics on how annual allocations within each of
the major funds are being made. For
example, the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Council,
composed of four legislators and eight citizens, makes annual recommendations
to the legislature on how money in the Outdoor Heritage Fund should be
used. There are similar groups to make
recommendations regarding projects under the other funds. The Governor also makes recommendations
regarding allocations under all four of the major funds. In total, it is estimated that the sales tax
increase will generate an estimated $250 million annually over its 25 years.
Martinson
said Minnesota DNR views the dedicated funding as an opportunity to leave a
legacy for future generations. She said
the department will focus on restoring and maintaining a healthy natural
resource base and creating high quality recreational opportunities. She also emphasized that, under the terms of
the amendment, revenues from the dedicated sales tax cannot be used to supplant
traditional sources of funding.
Gaylen
Reetz explained that
Reetz
said the fundamental change
Dru
Buntin asked how the state will be approaching
protection and restoration efforts on private lands. Reetz said
Todd Ambs thanked Martinson and Reetz
for their presentations. He described
Administrative Issues
Bylaws and Administrative Policies —
Barb Naramore explained that she is proposing minor
adjustments to UMRBA’s bylaws, as well as several new
and revised administrative policies, most of which are in response to an
increased IRS emphasis on good governance procedures for nonprofits. She noted that she provided the package of
policy and bylaws proposals to Board members in an email dated April 23, 2009. She then handed out hardcopies of that
package to federal liaison members and other meeting participants. Naramore briefly
described the elements of the package:
·
Bylaws — modifications to more clearly
identify and reflect the function of the Board, establish the Executive
Director as an officer, modify provisions related to the execution of contracts
and related documents, reference existing and new administrative policies as
relevant, make other minor adjustments to reflect actual practice, and incorporate
gender neutral language.
·
Travel Policy — modifications to explicitly
permit representatives and alternates to claim reimbursement for travel
expenses in connection with related meetings held in conjunction with UMRBA
meetings.
·
Code of Ethics — new policy in connection
with revised IRS Form 990, based on review of several templates.
·
Whistleblower Protection Policy — new
policy in connection with revised IRS Form 990, based on review of several
templates.
·
Fundraising Policy — new policy in
connection with revised IRS Form 990; reflects fact that UMRBA does not engage
in charitable fundraising; describes UMRBA’s typical
revenue sources, and establishes general parameters in terms of consistency
with UMRBA’s mission and policies.
·
Gift Acceptance Policy — new policy in
connection with revised IRS Form 990; reflects fact that UMRBA does not solicit
gifts; establishes a process and standards for consideration and action on
unsolicited gifts.
·
Document Retention and Destruction Policy —
new policy in connection with revised IRS Form 990, based on review of several
templates.
Gary Clark
noted one additional grammatical change to the existing bylaws offered by
Bernie Hoyer. Specifically, the first
sentence of Section VI should be altered to read “The Association is empowered
to establish committees, the members of which need not be Association
members.” Todd Ambs
moved and Mike Wells seconded a motion to adopt the entire package of bylaws
amendments and new and revised administrative policies, with addition of the
grammatical change described by
FY 10 UMRBA Budget — Naramore presented a proposed FY 10 budget, which was
previously provided to the UMRBA Board via email on May 13, 2009. She explained that the draft budget reflects
revenues of $581,100 and expenses of $566,297, for a projected surplus of
$14,803. However, she emphasized that
there is more uncertainty than usual on both the revenue and expense side of
the budget. Key variables include the
states’ dues contributions, the size of the USEPA spills planning and USACE
support services agreements, and the possible 604(b) water quality grants. Naramore said it
may well be necessary to amend the budget once some of these factors are better
known. Wells moved and Laurie Martinson
seconded a motion to approve the draft FY 10 budget as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Hoyer
asked for clarification regarding the Single Audit Act issue that Naramore raised in her additional budget notes, dated May
12, 2009. Naramore
explained that she does not anticipate that UMRBA’s
federal fund expenditures will be sufficiently high in FY 10 to trigger Single
Audit Act compliance, but said this could become an issue in future years. The act’s requirements, which would
substantially increase UMRBA’s audit costs, apply to
organizations expending more than $500,000 in federal funds in any fiscal
year. Naramore
said she raised the issue in the budget notes simply for Board awareness, and
said staff will monitor its potential applicability to UMRBA as various funding
agreements are made.
Future Meeting Schedule — Naramore reported that the
next two quarterly meeting series are scheduled for August 4-6, 2009 in
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:27 p.m.