Minutes
of the
70th Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
Bloomington, MN
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by
Chair Kevin Szcodronski. The following
State Representatives and Federal Liaison Representatives were present:
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois Alternate (IL DNR) |
|
Kevin Szcodronski |
Iowa Representative (IA DNR) |
|
Jim Hall |
Iowa Representative (IA DOT) |
|
Harold Hommes |
Iowa Representative (IA DALS) |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota Alternate (MN DNR) |
|
Jerry Vineyard |
Missouri Alternate (MO DNR) |
|
Terry Moe |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DNR) |
|
Michael Lester |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DATCP) |
|
Ellen Fisher |
Wisconsin Alternate (WI DOT) |
|
Dusty Rhodes |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
John Blankenship |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
5) |
|
Leslie Holland-Bartels |
U.S. Geological Survey (BRD) |
|
Dave Carvey |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS) |
Others in attendance:
|
Janelle Collier |
Minnesota DOT |
|
Steve Morse |
Minnesota DNR |
|
Tom Pullen |
Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Don Powell |
Corps of Engineers (St. Paul) |
|
Dudley Hanson |
Corps of Engineers (Rock Island) |
|
John Barko |
Corps of Engineers (WES) |
|
Aukje Massoldt |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
5) |
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/UMRCC |
|
Dan Larson |
River Resource Alliance |
|
Mike Harley |
Minnesota Environmental Initiative |
|
Chris Brescia |
MARC 2000 |
|
Richard Moore |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Tom Adams |
National Audubon Society |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National Audubon Society |
|
Jim Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission |
|
Barry Drazkowski |
Resource Studies Center |
|
Rory Vose |
Resource Studies Center |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association |
Meeting
Minutes
Jerry Vineyard noted that, on page 2 of the
February meeting minutes, the spelling of FEMA Director James Lee Witt’s name
should be corrected. Terry Moe moved
and Steve Johnson seconded approval of the minutes of the February 17, 1999
meeting as corrected. The motion
passed by consensus.
Terry Moe requested updates on a number of items
described in the February 1999 meeting minutes. With regard to Devil’s Lake, Dusty Rhodes explained that the St.
Paul District had submitted its report to the Mississippi Valley Division
(MVD), where it is now under review.
General Anderson plans to meet next week with the Governor of North
Dakota and members of the North Dakota Congressional delegation to discuss
their concerns regarding the report. In
addition, a team of Corps District and Division personnel is reviewing the
engineering concepts in the report.
According to Rhodes, MVD is expected to release its position on the
Devil’s Lake project by early June.
With regard to the issues of Section 106 funding
and UMRBA legal status, Holly Stoerker explained that both of those two lines
of inquiry have been put on hold as a result of her reduced work schedule.
Holly Stoerker reported that, following the
federal budget presentations at the February UMRBA meeting, UMRBA staff
prepared testimony for submittal to Congressional Appropriations
subcommittees. UMRBA testimony was
developed for six agencies including the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife
Service, US Geological Survey (both BRD and WRD), Maritime Administration,
Coast Guard, and NRCS. She noted that,
next year, testimony will also be prepared on the EPA budget. Terry Moe commended the staff efforts and
commented that the process of developing the UMRBA testimony was also helpful
to the individual states. John
Blankenship noted that the UMRBA testimony served to generate helpful
Congressional inquiries regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service’s capability.
Stoerker reported that
the NACEPT Reinvention Committee that she chairs met on March 15-16 to discuss
incentives that EPA uses with states. She noted that the role of interstate
agencies and organizations was also addressed.
The Committee’s final meeting is scheduled for June 28-29, at which time
the draft Committee’s final report will be developed. Stoerker will distribute copies to UMRBA representatives for
review.
Stoerker noted that a partnering agreement
between the UMRBA and NRCS is expected to be finalized soon.
With regard to administrative issues, Stoerker
reported that the UMRBA office will be temporarily relocated within the Hamm
Building beginning in mid-June. The
UMRBA’s permanent space is undergoing major renovation as part of the new
office lease. In addition, Stoerker
announced that she will be taking time off from work during the next few months
to provide care to her mother who was recently diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer. She noted that her absence
might require a few of the UMRBA’s new initiatives to be placed on hold. Stoerker praised the talents of the UMRBA
staff and thanked the UMRBA members for their support.
Terry Moe inquired about recent concerns that
have arisen regarding the use of heritage data in the OPA project. Barb Naramore expressed optimism that the
problems obtaining data from Wisconsin would be worked out, explaining that the
concerns were related to how the data will be represented. Moe offered to assist in resolving the issue
in Wisconsin, if necessary.
Moe also asked for an update on AEA
parameterization. Stoerker and Naramore
indicated they had no new information.
Judd Rietkerk of the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board described the UMR Master Plan being developed by his agency
for the Mississippi riverfront area north of Plymouth Avenue. The goals of the plan are to a) continue and
extend recreational parkways and trails, b) enhance public access, c) enhance
neighborhood’s access, d) establish river-enhancing businesses and uses, e)
restore river banks, and f) reduce sources of pollution. Funding for the plan is being provided by
the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR), the City of
Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency, and
the Minneapolis Park Board.
Rietkerk emphasized the extensive outreach
effort, noting that, in addition to utilizing a national advisory team, the
Park Board has sponsored 5 neighborhood open houses, 32 kitchen table meetings,
4 open houses with political leaders, and 4 specialized meetings with affected
parties. In addition there is a
newsletter, telephone comment line, and web site.
In describing the history of the riverfront
planning area, Rietkerk noted that, originally, the upper river reach served
the timber industry. As that declined,
the riverfront filled in with miscellaneous other industry. In 1937, Congress authorized extension of
the navigation channel and in 1963 the work was completed when the upper
terminal was opened. Originally 6
million tons of commodities were expected.
However, no new industry developed in the area and the river’s
navigation use has been largely confined to a city sand and gravel operation
and coal for Northern States Power Company (NSP).
The City of Minneapolis subsidizes approximately
$750,000 of the $1 million annual operating cost of the upper river harbor.
Maximum tonnage is 3 million tons, with a typical range of 1-1.8 million
tons. According to Rietkerk, the Corps
of Engineers has indicated it will require at least 1 million tons annually to
justify the $3 million annual lock operating costs.
Rietkerk said that three alternative plans were
considered, with one of the two “River Green” plans being the preferred
alternative. In part, the decision was
based on the expectation that the threshold of one million tons will not be met
in the future because the City will likely close its upper terminal within the
next ten years. Other considerations in
choosing the plan were the potential benefits of residential development and
the potential for light industry to create more jobs and tax revenue. The selected plan includes extending the
parkway and green space; building 2,400 housing units; and creating 1,000 new
light industrial jobs. The plan will
require $200-300 million in public investment and $500 million in private funding. Rietkerk closed his presentation by noting
that the plan will be implemented gradually over the next 30 years.
Dusty Rhodes asked if the City is planning to
maintain the pool or if it intends to revert to open flow or run of the
river. Rietkerk explained that Northern
States Power (NSP) maintains the dam and is expected to continue to do so. He clarified that the City is not promoting
closure of the Upper St. Anthony Lock, but rather is assuming that the Corps
may do so based on its economic analysis.
Steve Johnson explained that St. Anthony Falls
is the only natural falls on the river and will obviously remain. However, three locks would be potentially
affected by the redevelopment plan. If
no traffic moves above the Upper St. Anthony Lock, then there would be no need
for the Lower St. Anthony Lock or Lock and Dam 1 because the only commercial
traffic those two locks carry ultimately goes through the Upper St. Anthony
Lock. Johnson also noted that when the
Upper and Lower St. Anthony Locks were originally planned, the City of
Minneapolis believed that it would attract grain terminals that ultimately
located on the Minnesota River instead.
Chris Brescia asked what the city intends to do
with the existing river-dependent industries along its riverfront. Rietkerk noted that not all riverfront
industries are river-dependent, but those that are will need to be relocated as
part of the implementation plan. He
explained that the City is not trying to force industry out, but is also not
likely to continue to subsidize industry’s river use. Jim Harrison noted that the Sheily Company used to be located
downtown, but was moved to the Upper St. Anthony area by the Park Board as part
of a conscious effort to expand navigation.
Rietkerk confirmed that the City has tried in the past to enhance
commercial navigation, but said the City no longer believes that strategy will
work.
Dan Larson urged consideration of regional
transportation impacts, noting that the elimination of navigation will cause
increased truck and rail traffic, both of which will have negative impacts on
local neighborhoods. He also commented
that the City’s building moratorium on businesses in the Upper Harbor is not
consistent with the desire to attract business to the city.
Dan McGuiness reported that the National Audubon
Society had consulted with many of the interest groups involved in the
riverfront plan and believes that the three primary issues are: the economic
viability and environmental impacts associated with industrial relocations; the
importance of the recreational use of the locks; and the potential for
restoration of natural river processes in the event that commercial navigation
use is not going to be maintained.
Barb Naramore described the recent efforts to
restructure the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) in response to
projected budget shortfalls ranging from $1.05 million in FY 2000 to
$1.259 million in FY 2002. The
projections are based upon assumptions of full funding, 3 percent inflation,
and 15 percent savings and slippage.
Naramore indicated that the EMP partners are in the process of reviewing
alternatives and developing recommendations to the Corps regarding how the
LTRMP might be structured to address those shortfalls.
Naramore explained that the on-going Information
Needs Assessment (INA) and data analysis are expected to provide insight into
the relative tradeoffs among restructuring alternatives in the long run. However, those efforts will be of more
limited usefulness in evaluating changes that will be necessary in FY 2000.
Naramore then described the three principles
which General Anderson has indicated will guide the LTRMP restructuring
including:
·
increased emphasis on data analysis relative to
monitoring,
·
increased flexibility to deal with budget
variability, and
·
application of savings and slippage to the LTRMP
consistent with other Corps projects.
According to Naramore, the states have identified a variety of concerns related to LTRMP restructuring including:
·
the balance between decisions made to address
the immediate budget situation and those made based upon the review of the
program science. In this regard, the
concern is that there may not yet be sufficient information to do the latter.
·
how to reconcile flexibility with maintaining
the integrity of long term monitoring.
·
addressing General Anderson’s principles while
still preserving the LTRMP infrastructure in anticipation of reauthorization
and the potential for increased appropriations.
Naramore reported that, at tomorrow’s meeting,
the EMP Coordinating Committee (EMP-CC) will discuss restructuring
alternatives, including the A-Team’s proposed “share the pain” approach. This proposal would involve changes in the
monitoring structure and staff, with personnel cuts at both the Upper Midwest
Environmental Sciences Center and the field stations.
Terry Moe urged that UMRBA consider what
additional actions may be necessary following tomorrow’s EMP-CC meeting, if the
LTRMP restructuring issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
states. Jim Harrison said that the
Boundary Area Commission’s Mississippi River Regional Committee believes that
it may be possible and necessary to seek additional FY 2000 appropriations
if the 1999 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is passed, thus increasing
the EMP funding caps.
Dusty Rhodes indicated that the range of
alternatives for LTRMP restructuring will be reviewed at tomorrow’s EMP-CC
meeting, but that the Corps’ preferred plan will be offered as well. Soon after the EMP-CC meeting, the Rock
Island District will forward its recommendation to General Anderson. Rhodes thus urged the states to offer any
additional input they may have as soon as possible after the EMP-CC meeting so
that it can be considered prior to finalizing the District’s transmittal.
Holly Stoerker referred to three items in the
agenda package including the UMRBA comments on reconciling the House and Senate
versions of the EMP reauthorization language and annotated versions of the
original 1986 EMP authorization showing the amendments that would be made by
the current House and Senate bills. She
noted that, while both the House and Senate have passed their respective versions
of 1999 WRDA, conferees have not yet been appointed.
Stoerker explained that the UMRBA comments on
the EMP WRDA provisions express a preference for the House version. In particular, the comments address four
specific issues:
·
Program duration — The House bill’s continuing
authority is preferred over the Senate’s eleven year authorization.
·
Cost-sharing — Maintaining the nonfederal cost
share at 25 percent, as the House does, is preferable to the Senate’s increase
to 35 percent.
·
Technical Advisory Committee — Since both bills
include provisions for a Technical Advisory Committee and the UMRBA did not
originally support establishment of such a group, the UMRBA’s comments simply
clarify the States’ expectations regarding the role of the Committee if it is
created.
·
Project Requirements and Criteria — The House
bill, which does not set forth requirements, is preferred.
Stoerker also indicated that the UMR
Congressional Task Force is reportedly working to develop a joint letter to the
WRDA conferees that will express a preference for the House version. Dan McGuiness reported that the National
Audubon Society also supports the House version.
Barb Naramore described a variety of provisions
in the 1999 WRDA, other than EMP reauthorization, noting that UMRBA has not
offered comments on these provisions, with the exception of the Missouri and
Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project:
Navigation
Modernization — The Senate bill authorizes preconstruction
engineering and design of 5 locks on the UMR and 2 locks on the Illinois
River. No similar provision is in the
House bill. In response to a question
regarding how this provision differs from what is already being done in the
Navigation Study, Dusty Rhodes explained that the Corps typically completes the
feasibility study, which may include some engineering work, before initiating
plans and specifications. The Senate
provision would speed that process by putting both efforts on a parallel track,
thus allowing the engineering and design to proceed about one year earlier than
normal.
Comprehensive
Plan — Authority is included in both the House and
Senate bills for the Corps to prepare a comprehensive plan for the UMR. The plan is to address flood control,
floodplain management, navigation project maintenance, bank erosion, nutrients
and sediments, habitat, and recreation.
The House bill specifies that the plan be done at full federal
expense. Dusty Rhodes explained that,
in the absence of such a directive, it would be assumed that the reconnaissance
study would be 100 percent federally funded and the feasibility study would by
cost-shared 50-50. Gary Clark expressed
disappointment that the legislative language developed by a committee of
partner agencies and interest groups to describe the planning effort was not
ultimately incorporated into the bill.
Chris Brescia explained that flood control interests, who were the
original proponents of the plan, preferred their own language.
Missouri
and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project
— The Senate bill would authorize development of a plan to protect and enhance
habitat on the two rivers. Projects
identified in the plan would require 35 percent nonfederal cost share, with
operation and maintenance as a nonfederal responsibility. The House bill does
not contain a parallel provision, but does include a study of similar project
opportunities on the Missouri River only.
Implementation of those projects would then be considered for
implementation under the Corps’ Section 206 authority. Naramore explained that the UMRBA comments
on WRDA endorse the Senate provisions conceptually, but recommend that the plan
be completed at federal expense and that in-kind contributions be recognized in
satisfying the 35 percent nonfederal cost share for project construction.
Steve Johnson asked if the 180 days for
completion of the plan and 2 years for implementation would be adequate. Gary Clark commented that if the nonfederal
sponsors want the projects implemented they will need to get the program
reauthorized after its initial two years.
Dusty Rhodes said that the Corps has not been following this proposal
closely, but that two years would seem difficult from MVD’s perspective. He noted, however, that the Corps’ Northwest
Division may have potential projects already identified on the Missouri
River. Chris Brescia indicated that the
Kansas City and Omaha Districts do indeed have projects on the shelf. In addition, Brescia noted that the original
proposal for this program called for five years and $50 million. He expressed surprise that the Senate
reduced the scope.
Terry Moe expressed concern that the proposed
Missouri and Middle Mississippi River Enhancement Program overlaps, in part,
with the EMP and may therefore generate both confusion and competition for
funds. Moe also asked if there is a
habitat needs assessment (HNA) for the Missouri River similar to the one
underway for the Mississippi River as part of the EMP. Kevin Szcodronski replied that an HNA for
the Missouri River is being done as part of the Missouri River mitigation
work. He also commented that the states
will likely not find the new enhancement program as attractive as the Missouri
River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, which is already being undertaken at full
federal expense.
Challenge
21 — This provision would authorize a new Corps
program for projects that combine flood damage reduction and riverine ecosystem
restoration. While the House and Senate
versions are more modest than what the Administration had originally proposed,
both would emphasize nonstructural approaches.
The House bill would require a lower nonfederal cost share for
nonstructural projects. Naramore noted
that both the House and Senate bills identify specific priority projects for
implementation under the new program.
There is little overlap between the two project lists. Projects within the 5-state region include
Le May, Missouri (Senate version) and Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin (House
version). The House bill makes future
appropriations for the Challenge 21 program contingent on prior year
expenditures in the priority areas identified in the legislation.
Holly Stoerker asked what new authority is
provided by Challenge 21, given that the type of work involved in most of the
projects appears to be possible under other existing authorities. Dusty Rhodes explained that Challenge 21
would be a continuing program authority that would not require Congressional
authorization of individual projects.
He commented that it would be difficult to combine existing continuing
authorities to accomplish the same sort of projects as those envisioned in
Challenge 21. In addition, the project
cost limits under other continuing authorities can also be a barrier to
implementing these types of projects.
Dudley Hansen distributed copies of the
overheads he used in his presentation to describe the history, purpose, and
status of the Flow Frequency Study.
According to Hansen, following the Great Flood of 1993, the accuracy of
existing flood profiles was questioned and the Galloway Report recommended that
flow frequency analysis methods be reassessed. Flow frequencies on the UMR were
last updated in 1979. Since that time,
new scientific tools and an additional 20 years of data record have become available.
The Flow Frequency Study area includes the
Mississippi River between St. Paul and the Ohio River, the Illinois River, and
the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam.
The purpose of the study is to update discharge-frequency relationships
and update predicted flood profiles. To
help guide the study, the Corps established a Task Force that includes
representatives from 7 federal agencies and 7 states. The Corps has 2 Divisions, 5 Districts, and
2 Laboratories involved in the study.
In addition, a Technical Advisory Group comprised of national and
international hydrology experts will be recommending a methodology for
determining flow frequency on large rivers.
Hansen reviewed the study tasks and budgets for
FY 1998 through FY 2001, noting that the budget allocations identified in the
meeting background package are not entirely correct. In FY 1999, an additional $269,000 will be added, bringing
the funding for this year to $1.75 million. The budget request for FY 2000 is $2.1 million, leaving $480,000
as the balance to complete in FY 2001.
Hansen described the challenge of taking
individual watersheds and combining them into a larger hydrology model and then
modeling the system hydraulics, including the effects of human structures such
as levees, locks and dams, and reservoirs.
However, the UNET Unsteady Flow Model is superior to past models because
of its ability to model impacts of floodplain storage and timing of tributary
flows. In addition, the model is based
on improved topographic data and reflects current hydraulic conditions. The result will be updated profiles for 10-,
50-, 100-, and 500-year flood events and digitized aerial mapping of the
floodplains.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) may require
updating as a result of the new flood profiles. But Hansen emphasized that task would be the responsibility of
FEMA and the states. Toward that end, a
Sub-Task Force for FIRM Updates is being created and is scheduled to have its
first meeting on June 4.
Dave Carvey asked if the model could be used to
address sediment and nutrient transport in individual watersheds and the larger
basin. Gary Clark indicated that the
scale of the model is not small enough for that purpose. John Barko noted that the UNET model was
considered for use in evaluating sediment transport in the Navigation
Study. While it handles flood and water
flows well, it is not suited to sediment transport analysis.
Terry Moe noted that Wisconsin is quite
interested in getting updated FIRMs and asked if the proposed FIRM Sub-Task
Force will be a means of accomplishing that.
Barb Naramore clarified that, although the states did not reject the
idea of creating a FIRM Sub-Task Force, FEMA was the proponent of the approach,
which was first raised at the April 29 Task Force meeting. Naramore said she was unaware that a meeting
of the proposed Sub-Task Force had been scheduled for June 4.
Dusty Rhodes questioned how many FIRMS would
require updates, noting that significant long-term changes in flood profiles
would need to be verified before the maps are changed. Gary Clark commented that changing FIRMs
would be very difficult and expensive and could have significant implications
if areas behind existing levees change.
Barb Naramore reported that she had attended the
April 28-29 meeting of the Flow Frequency Task Force, at which time she had the
opportunity to discuss the need for enhanced interstate coordination with the
state representatives to that Task Force.
The states expressed interest in having the UMRBA facilitate interstate
coordination on issues related to the Flow Frequency Study including some, but
perhaps not all, of the following:
·
technical issues related to study methodology;
·
policy questions related to the application of
study results to levee certification, floodway delineation, etc;
·
public involvement; and
·
funding for development of new FIRMs based on
the study results.
Terry Moe indicated that Wisconsin is quite
interested in having the UMRBA assist in coordinating interstate and joint
state efforts related to the Flow Frequency Study. He suggested that the UMRBA may want to consider reactivating its
Floodplain Management Task Force.
Jerry Vineyard commented that funding the cost
of nationwide map modernization is a large challenge. Although FEMA has proposed fees on flood insurance policies to fund
such an effort, the agency does not yet have authority to redo the FIRMs. Naramore noted that another proposal for
raising the funds is to include a fee on mortgages. However, the banking community opposes such a plan if applied to
mortgages on properties that are not in floodplains. Hansen noted that FEMA has estimated the cost of nationwide
remapping to be $800 million.
Dusty Rhodes indicated that the Corps would not
likely be receptive to continuing or expanding the Flow Frequency study efforts
under the Corps’ GI budget to address FIRM update needs. He said that the Task Force will be
terminated at the conclusion of the Flow Frequency Study. Jerry Vineyard acknowledged that the FIRM
updates will be a separate issue and one which the UMRBA should monitor.
Barb Naramore suggested that UMRBA staff
schedule time for the state members of the FIRM Update Sub-Task Force to meet
informally in conjunction with the next meeting of that group. In addition, UMRBA representatives agreed to
contact their state’s representatives to the Task Force and Sub-Task Force to
discuss the UMRBA’s potential role in coordinating state input and activities.
Barb Naramore reported on the results of the
first meeting of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force. The meeting took place in Moline on April 8, 1999. The state representatives in attendance
identified the following three top priorities for the Task Force:
·
Nutrients/Gulf Hypoxia
— The Task Force is recommending that the states develop joint comments on the
six Gulf Hypoxia technical reports, with the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force
members and the state representatives to the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force working closely together.
·
303(d) Listings and TMDLs
— The Task Force would like to develop coordinated 5-state comments on EPA’s
guidance regarding TMDLs for interstate waters. The draft guidance is expected to be released for comment later
this summer. In addition, the states
will be using the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force to enhance interstate
coordination on 303(d) lists.
·
UMR Water Quality Assessment
— The Task Force has asked UMRBA staff to prepare comments to EPA regarding the
proposed UMR Water Quality Assessment.
In particular, the states believe that the assessment should not be a
305(b) report, should make use of existing data, and should be targeted to a
non-technical audience that includes the Governors and general public. In addition, the Task Force is urging that a
formal report outline be developed.
With regard to other issues on the agenda at the
April 8 meeting, Naramore reported that the Task Force members concluded:
·
State water quality staff should be involved in
the proposed biocriteria pilot being proposed by EPA.
·
UMRBA staff should provide state source water
protection program staff with data from the UMRBA spill database compiled under
the OPA cooperative agreement with EPA.
·
The concept of having Section 106 interstate
funding provided to the UMRBA should be explored further.
·
The recent Unified Watershed Assessment process
which EPA required was not particularly useful or productive.
Holly Stoerker invited UMRBA representatives to
provide guidance on how staff should proceed with regard to the recommendation
that the states prepare a joint letter of comment on the six Gulf Hypoxia
scientific assessments recently released for public review and comment. She noted that, in response to a UMRBA
request made in early March, the comment period for those assessments was
extended to approximately 90 days. The
Federal Register deadline for comments is August 2, 1999.
Kevin Szcodronski questioned whether even 90 days would provide adequate time for developing joint comments, given that individual state comments will not likely be completed much in advance of that deadline. Barb Naramore suggested that UMRBA staff could seek input from individual states as the states work to prepare their own comments. Staff would then develop the draft joint comments on a parallel track with the individual state efforts. Holly Stoerker proposed the following specific schedule for development of coordinated comments:
June 30 - July 1 — UMRBA staff consult
with state members of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force (Hypoxia TF) during their meeting in Memphis
July 7 — Conference call including state members of Hypoxia TF and UMRBA Water Quality TF
July 16 — UMRBA distributes draft joint
comments for review
July 23 — Deadline for States’ comments on
UMRBA staff draft
July 30 — Revise comments and submit for
August 2 deadline
Kevin Szcodronski expressed support for the
proposed process and schedule and recommended that UMRBA members also consult
with their state’s Hypoxia TF member to insure that they are willing and
prepared to participate in the coordinated effort.
UMRBA staff distributed copies of a draft letter
to the Administration which Ron Kucera had proposed UMRBA send. Jerry Vineyard explained that the letter requests
that the August 2 comment deadline be adjusted to reflect a true 90-day review
period given that some of the technical reports were not available when the
Federal Register notice was published.
Stoerker noted that the letter also expresses concern about the
remainder of the process, including development of the Congressionally-mandated
plan. She said that the process
concerns were probably the most important part of the letter.
Kevin Szcodronski suggested that each UMRBA
member consult with their state’s member of the Hypoxia TF and provide comments
on the draft letter to UMRBA staff by June 1.
Barb Naramore reported that Owen Dutt has been
named as River Navigator for the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River
designation. Although he had to cancel
his presentation at the UMRBA meeting, he had expressed an interest in
enhancing the states’ involvement in the American Heritage Rivers program,
particularly since many federal programs come through the states. Specifically, Naramore indicated that Dutt
had wanted to discuss the possibility of having a single point-of-contact (POC)
assigned by each state.
Steve Johnson indicated that he will likely be
the POC in Minnesota, given the fact that he has recently been assigned as the
Minnesota state agency contact for a committee composed of all Minnesota
communities involved in the American Heritage Rivers initiative.
Kevin Szcodronski said that there is no single
POC in Iowa, but that Michelle Wilson will be the Iowa DNR contact. In addition, Nancy Landis of the Iowa
Department of Trade and Economic Development may be involved.
Terry Moe suggested that Dutt write a letter to
Chris Spooner in the Wisconsin Governor’s Office and request appointment of a
state POC. He expressed disappointment
that the states had not previously been consulted on American Heritage Rivers
activities and suggested that individual local communities determine when and
who in the state needs to be involved in the future.
Gary Clark suggested that, in Illinois, Dutt
work through Don Vonnahme and Clark on American Heritage River issues until
further notice. He also suggested that
Dutt be invited to address the UMRBA at its next meeting in August.
Kevin Szcodronski explained that the proposed
bylaws amendment contained in the agenda packet provides that minutes be
prepared for UMRBA meetings that are held by conference call. Steve Johnson moved and Terry Moe seconded a
motion to adopt the bylaws amendment as drafted by UMRBA staff. With no objection, the motion passed
unanimously.
Holly Stoerker explained that the draft FY 2000
UMRBA budget developed by staff reflects a number of category changes to
accommodate the UMRBA’s new accounting software. She noted that the FY 2000 budgets for both Travel and
Legal/Financial have been reduced from FY 1999 levels and that the revenue
projections reflect assumptions regarding which states will be prepared to contribute
the increased dues assessment.
Kevin Szcodronski reported that Iowa is trying
to incorporate a $12,000 UMRBA dues line item in each of four state agency
budgets by FY 2001. Terry Moe reported
that the Joint Finance Committee of the Wisconsin state legislature recently
rejected the Governor’s request for a $13,000 increase for UMRBA dues. Both DNR and the Governor are attempting to
get the funds restored. Steve Johnson
indicated that Minnesota would not be requesting travel reimbursement in FY
2000 in light of the fact that the state will not be paying the dues
increase. He also noted that the
Governor’s budget is flat for the biennium and therefore, Minnesota will not be
paying the dues increase in FY 2001 either.
Jerry Vineyard moved and Terry Moe seconded a
motion to approve the FY 2000 budget as prepared by staff. With no objections, the motion passed
unanimously.
Holly Stoerker announced that the UMRBA summer
quarterly meeting will take place in Rock Island, Illinois on August 18, 1999,
preceded by a two-day GLC meeting and followed by an EMP-CC meeting. The fall meeting series will be held in St.
Louis on November 16-18. It was agreed
that the winter meetings would be tentatively scheduled for February 15-17,
2000.
With no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:40 p.m.