Minutes of the
95th Quarterly Meeting
of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
Davenport,
Iowa
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Todd Ambs. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
Illinois
(DNR) |
|
Mike
McGhee |
Iowa
(DNR) |
|
John
Hey |
Iowa
(DOT) |
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
Minnesota
(DNR) |
|
Dick
Lambert |
Minnesota
(DOT) |
|
Mike
Wells |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Dru
Buntin |
Missouri
(DNR) |
|
Todd
Ambs |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
(DNR) |
Federal Liaisons:
|
Charles
Barton |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Bill
Franz |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) |
|
Charles
Wooley |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3) |
Others
in attendance:
|
Scott
Stuewe |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John
Pitlo |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
COL
Duane Gapinski |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (HQ) |
|
Susan
Smith |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVD) |
|
Rebecca
Soileau |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Tom
Novak |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Don
Powell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVP) |
|
Mark
Cornish |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Marv
Hubbell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Denny
Lundberg |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Scott
Whitney |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Jack
Carr |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVR) |
|
Rich
Manguno |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (MVO) |
|
Rick
Nelson |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Don
Hultman |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (UMR Refuge) |
|
Jon
Duyvejonck |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (RIFO) |
|
Tom
Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
Holly Stoerker
announced that UMRBA has hired David Hokanson to fill the new position of UMRBA
Water Quality Program Director. David
has worked for six years for the Minnesota Department of Health in its Source
Water Protection and Water Supply Units.
He has Masters degrees in Environmental Science and Public Affairs and
past work experience at both EPA Region 5 and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.
Todd Ambs
thanked Gretchen Benjamin for helping with interviews of potential candidates
for the position of Water Quality Program Director.
Todd Ambs
thanked Gary Clark for chairing the last UMRBA in his absence.
Gary Clark moved
and Dru Buntin seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2005
meeting, as drafted. The motion was
approved unanimously.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force had a conference call on
August 11 to kick off its project on sediment-related water quality
criteria. The focus of the effort will
be on both turbidity and sedimentation.
Each state has
been asked to confirm its representation on the UMRBA Water Quality Task
Force. Thus far, confirmed appointments
have been received from Illinois and Iowa.
Stoerker noted
that the Executive Director’s report printed in the meeting packet has a
typographical error. The FY 06 proposal
to EPA Region 5, extending the OPA cooperative agreement, requested $175,000 in
federal funding (NOT $75,000). In
response to a question, Stoerker explained that UMRBA contributes 5 percent of
the cost of the OPA work effort. This
cost share is satisfied by a portion of the permanent staff time devoted to the
project and does not therefore require a cash contribution.
Navigation
and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
Holly Stoerker
provided an overview of the status of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) and FY 06 appropriations. The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved its 2005 WRDA in April,
but has yet to bring it to the floor for action. The House passed its version of WRDA on July 14, 2005, at which
time two floor amendments related to the NESP authorization were offered. The Flake-Blumenauer amendment would have
made construction of the locks contingent on traffic levels over the next 3
years. That amendment was defeated by a
vote of 105 to 315. The second
amendment, offered by Representative Ron Kind, made relatively minor changes to
the language regarding “comparable progress,” by increasing the role of
Congress in determining that comparability.
The Kind amendment was accepted by voice vote.
Stoerker also
summarized the differences between the House and Senate NESP provisions in
WRDA. She commented that the
differences are relatively minor and relate to four issues: the definition of
the Plan, the date and frequency of required reports to Congress, the Advisory
Panel Chair, and the comparable progress provision.
Stoerker also
reported that the “Statement of Administration Policy” on the House WRDA bill
(H.R. 2864) included a number of specific references to the NESP
authorization. Stoerker commented that
the Administration’s support for NESP seems somewhat qualified, noting that the
Administration says it would like to work with Congress to “appropriately
address the navigation and ecosystem needs of this part of the inland
waterway.” Also of concern is the
Administration’s statement that the bill does not require a sufficient
non-Federal cost share for the ecosystem restoration component of NESP.
Finally,
Stoerker noted that, although the Administration did not request FY 06 funding
for NESP, the Senate has included $20 million in its Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. The House bill
does not include funding for NESP.
Chuck Spitzack
provided an overview of the FY 05 and FY 06 NESP work plan, communications
efforts, Science Panel, and development of ecosystem goals and objectives.
Work plans
and funding: For FY 05, the initial NESP funding
allocation was approximately $11.2 million.
The range of expected execution is between $10.2 million and $12
million. For purposes of planning, it
is assumed that FY 06 funding will be $12 million.
Spitzack
provided information showing individual navigation and ecosystem project
allocations for both the initial FY 05 allocation, the adjustments that were
made in May 2005, and anticipated spending in FY 06. Gretchen Benjamin questioned why funding for mooring cells and
switchboats is being zeroed out in FY 06.
Spitzack explained that an adjustment will need to be made to change
those two items.
Spitzack
commented that the “no new starts” policy is constraining NESP planning and
budgeting. He also noted that
maintaining a balance in navigation and ecosystem funding will be challenging,
particularly over the 15-year program planning horizon, when navigation program
costs have specific peaks.
Communications:
Consideration is being given to establishing both a Communications Panel
and a Communications Network. The
Communications Panel would be a corollary to the Science Panel. The Communication Network would connect
public affairs staff in partner agencies, to facilitate development of more
consistent messages in public outreach.
Spitzack noted
that the States are involved in all levels of the collaborative process,
including UMRBA, NECC/ECC, River Teams and workgroups at the river reach level,
and project delivery teams (PDTs). As
an example, Spitzack explained the interdisciplinary and interagency PDT for
the Pool 5 drawdown project.
Spitzack also
provided an overview of the composition of the Science Panel and explained the
relationship of the Regional Support Team and the Science Panel. In particular, the Regional Support Team is
composed of Corps personnel who work well with state biologists and are good
communicators. The Science Panel is
charged with developing project evaluation and sequencing criteria, monitoring
protocols, a “report card” framework; evaluating and refining goals and
objectives; and defining projected ecological outcomes in terms of goods and
services. One of the challenges,
according to Spitzack, will be how we reach agreement and understanding
concerning initiatives that have systemic impact.
Todd Ambs asked
how the work of the Science Panel will fit with the PDTs. Spitzack explained that the Science Panel
gives technical advice, available to all the PDTs. However, the Science Panel also works on system-level issues and
science questions.
Ambs commented
that beginning all this new work on ecosystem restoration is exciting, but also
rather daunting for the states. He
asked about the states’ ability to be involved. Spitzack acknowledged that moving ahead with all 26 PDTs has been
challenging for the states. He
commented that, as the level of investment increases, the staffing and
involvement challenges will also increase.
He said it will be important to develop better communication tools.
Rich Manguno
explained the Navigation Economic Technologies (NETS) program, noting that NETS
is not the same as NESP, but is certainly related. NETS is a Corps research program led by a team composed of
university academics, as well as Corps, IWR, and TVA. The focus of NETS is on advancing state-of-the-art economic
modeling and analysis for both inland waterways and deep draft navigation. Manguno provided an overview of major NETS
modeling activities including forecasting of commodity movements, development
of a world grain model, and microscopic systems models, such as evaluation of
tradable permits, appointment systems, and congestion pricing.
Manguno also
described the “revealed choice and stated preference choice models,” which are
attempts to develop demand curves for several commodities on several
waterways. The Mid-America Grain Study
should be completed by the end of the year.
According to Manguno, this study demonstrates that it is possible,
although difficult, to collect the data necessary to estimate shipper response. The study also confirms the shortcomings of
traditional methods of analysis.
Manguno also emphasized that an independent peer review process has been
established for NETS research.
Finally, Manguno
presented a timeline showing the major milestones in the Navigation adaptive
implementation process. He noted that
the Evaluation report is scheduled for completion by March 09, although that
may be optimistic.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked if the NETS research would apply to NESP implementation, given
that the NESP authorizing legislation does not address anything other than new
locks. Manguno clarified that the
feasibility study did not really look at tradable permits, but there is, in
fact, a commitment to explore an appointment system in the authorization.
In response to a
question from Rebecca Wooden regarding past criticisms of the economic
analysis, Manguno explained the difficulty of estimating demand
elasticity. The Mid-America Grain study
shows that there is responsiveness to price shifts even before the price rises
to the next best option. However, some
traffic is very captive to the river even when barge rates exceed the next best
price.
Rebecca Soileau
provided an overview of the ongoing efforts to address institutional
arrangements. She noted that the Corps
intends to transition in late 2005 to new institutional arrangements, following
a stakeholder workshop in October. She
cautioned however that the schedule needs to remain flexible.
Soileau
described the Corps’ current thinking regarding assumptions and
constraints. In particular, she said
that, in response to comments suggesting the focus of the institutional
arrangements is too broad, the focus will be narrowed to the two primary
purposes of navigation efficiency and ecological health. Other key assumptions include: a) the
institutional arrangements will not have veto authority over individual agency
management responsibilities and b) NESP authorization is needed before
institutional arrangements will be modified.
However, interim measures may be taken.
In describing
the evolution of the various components of the proposed institutional
arrangements, Soileau made the following points about the current plan:
§
The term
“River Managers Council” has been changed to “River Council” to emphasize
collaboration
§
The diagram
includes a slot for an “LTRMP Workgroup” acknowledging concerns that have been
expressed about the future of the A-Team.
§
A
Communications Panel has been added.
§
A separate
River Team has been added for the Illinois River, in response to a suggestion
from the State of Illinois.
§
It is
possible that a Navigation Science Panel may be added as a companion to the
current Science Panel, which focuses exclusively on ecosystem science issues.
§
In response
to suggestions from the Midwest Natural Resources Group (MNRG), a Regional
Principals Group for States has been added.
Soileau
also reviewed the roles identified for the UMRBA in the new institutional
arrangements:
§
Include
Corps and Fish and Wildlife river management issues as agenda items at
quarterly UMRBA meetings
§
Serve the
roles UMRBA identified in its letter of comment including focus on interstate
issues, review of goals and objectives, address issues related to states’
sovereignty and statutory responsibilities.
§
Assist in
calling meetings of the States’ Regional Principals Group
Soileau said
that a Stakeholder Workshop is planned for October 19-21, 2005 in
St. Louis. The focus will be on
design of the River Council.
Invitations from the Rock Island District Commander will be sent to
agencies and organizations, asking that they select their representatives to
the workshop.
Rebecca Wooden
asked if the River Council is the same as NECC/ECC or different. Soileau explained that since NESP is not yet
authorized, a bridging strategy is necessary before establishing the River
Council. NECC/ECC is thus continuing to
function.
Wooden noted
that the comments UMRBA submitted last June urged that existing institutional
arrangements be used rather than forming new groups. However, the current plan proposes that a new States Regional
Principals Group be created. Wooden
asked if the Corps believes UMRBA cannot appropriately fill that role. Chuck Spitzack explained that the States
Regional Principals Group was added because a higher level of State
representation is needed. Todd Ambs
observed that the reality of the situation is that, if a letter is addressed to
the Governor of Wisconsin regarding Mississippi River institutional
arrangements, it would be passed down to the DNR Secretary and then to Ambs,
resulting in no different representation than is currently on UMRBA.
Holly Stoerker
provided background on a proposal for UMRBA to initiate a strategic planning
process for merging NESP and EMP. She
described both the similarities and differences between the two programs,
noting that the programs seem duplicative to many people. Stoerker expressed the opinion that two
programs are not sustainable, given that they compete against each other for
funding, as well as compete with other Corps ecosystem restoration programs
across the country.
Stoerker
explained that the strategic planning proposal outlined in the agenda packet
materials is based on a number of assumptions including:
§
Both
programs will continue to be implemented as long as Congress funds both and
until there is a merger.
§
Program
implementation issues will be addressed in existing interagency forums, and not
through this planning effort. This
effort will be focused instead on legislative authority and program frameworks.
§
Functions
of the long term resource monitoring program (LTRMP) should be preserved.
§
All
partners should be involved in this planning.
§
Institutional
arrangements will not be addressed in this planning effort.
§
This
planning effort will focus only on EMP and NESP, not on other related programs
such as Section 1135, Illinois River programs, navigation O&M, etc.
§
Recommendations
for merging NESP and EMP should be included in the first NESP Report to
Congress, if not sooner.
Stoerker
suggested that the issues to be addressed include the future of LTRMP, cost
sharing, and the comparable progress requirement in NESP. The approach to exploring these issues will
include preparation of a series of issue papers and options by UMRBA staff,
with the support and assistance of a Steering Committee.
Mike Wells asked
if the LTRMP could be implemented under NESP.
Stoerker explained that the assumption at this point is that NESP does
not include authority for LTRMP, because LTRMP was originally assumed to
continue under EMP. However,
interpretations of NESP legislative language may reopen that question. Gretchen Benjamin pointed out that the NESP
budget and funding recommendations did not include funding for LTRMP.
Gretchen
Benjamin questioned the assumption that having two programs is not
sustainable. Rich Worthington said that
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff has frequently
questioned why two programs are necessary and how they can both be justified. Dick Lambert asked what parts of EMP the
committees don’t like. Stoerker
explained that it is not a matter of not liking EMP, but rather a matter of
redundancy.
Tim Schlagenhaft
suggested that the planning endeavor look at the relationship between the LTRMP
and NESP’s adaptive management approach.
Gretchen Benjamin suggested that the strategic planning address EMP’s
continuing authority versus the way in which the NESP authority is structured.
Todd Ambs
commented that the time frame for developing a merger strategy seems rather
ambitious. Rebecca Wooden asked whether
the Corps would help with the planning, if UMRBA decides to take this project
on. Chuck Spitzack indicated that the
Corps is willing and able to assist.
Todd Ambs
commented that the “packaging” of the proposal will be important so that it does
not appear that the EMP is being abandoned.
He suggested that the success of the EMP be celebrated and that the
proposed merger be framed as building on the EMP and moving river restoration
to the next level.
Gary Clark moved
and Mike Wells seconded a motion approving the EMP/NESP strategic planning
concept outlined by UMRBA staff and authorizing the effort to move
forward. The motion passed unanimously.
Gary Clark and
Gretchen Benjamin volunteered to assist as members of the Steering Committee to
work with UMRBA staff on developing background materials and options. Mike McGhee also expressed interest in
participating.
FY 06 Federal Appropriations Update
Holly Stoerker
provided an overview of the status of FY 06 federal appropriations and distributed
a series of tables comparing the Administration’s request with the House and
Senate funding allocations in pending appropriations bills.
With regard to
the Corps of Engineers, Stoerker noted that the funding levels recommended by
the House tend to be quite similar to the Administration’s request. In contrast, the Senate added additional
funds for a number of programs, such as NESP, the Comprehensive Plan, the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi River Enhancement, Lock and Dam 3, and Lock and
Dam 27. In contrast, the Senate
provided less for EMP, funding it at $20 million, rather than $33.5 million as
requested by the Administration and included in the House bill.
The Interior and
EPA appropriations bill is the only appropriations bill that has yet been conferenced. Stoerker noted that, in the case of funding
for the Fish and Wildlife Services’ fisheries program, the conferees actually
provided more funding than recommended in either the House or Senate bills. Within EPA’s budget, the conferees agreed to
fund Section 106 grants at $219 million, which is lower than the
Administration’s request. However, the
conferees have agreed to $900 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF), which is higher than the Administration’s request.
Stoerker called
attention to the Committee reports accompanying FEMA’s appropriation bill. The Senate committee explained that it is
concerned about FEMA’s unobligated balances in the Pre-Disaster mitigation
grant program and is thus providing only $37 million of the $150 million
requested for FY 06. The House
Committee provided $200 million for flood map modernization, but expressed
concern that the 5-year $1 billion estimate originally given for the mapping
program will not be adequate.
Teresa Kincaid
provided an overview of the work to-date on development of the Comprehensive
Plan for flood damage reduction, authorized in the 1999 Water Resources
Development Act. The study was
initiated in December 2002 and is anticipated to be completed in FY 2006. The analysis is largely complete and the
Corps must now decide how to report out the results. The benefit-cost ratios of the flood damage reduction
alternatives that were evaluated are all less than one. Therefore, according to Kincaid, the “accomplishments”
of the planning effort include:
§
Hydraulic
modeling that the Corps can use on a daily basis
§
Increased
understanding of the system
§
Systemic
analysis
§
Analysis of
emergency action scenarios
§
Enhanced
collaboration
§
Analysis of
alternatives
The alternative
plans that were evaluated included different combinations of structural
measures (500-year protection for urban areas, varying levels of protection for
agricultural areas, and protection for critical infrastructure), nonstructural
measures, floodplain management, and ecosystem restoration. According to Kincaid, the alternative that
is strongly preferred by at least one stakeholder group is Plan G, which
includes 500-year protection for both urban and agricultural areas with no
hydraulic minimization of impacts out of the study area. Kincaid also observed that, although the
alternative involving systemwide protection of bridge approaches was not
economically justified, site-specific analysis of the Quincy Bridge indicates
that single project has a positive B/C ratio.
Kincaid said the
draft final report for the Comp Plan will be reviewed and discussed by the
Collaboration Team before it is distributed for public review. In general, the report will a) describe
management of the existing system, including the emergency action scenarios, b)
acknowledge the benefits of the existing system, but describe the lack of
economic justification for a systemic flood control project, and c) describe
potential follow-up federal actions such as buy outs when there are
opportunities, seeking updated economic data, and levee reconstruction where
appropriate.
In response to a
question from Charlie Wooley, Kincaid explained that analysis of nonstructural
alternatives is extremely difficult and thus was not pursued in-depth.
Gary Clark
emphasized the value of the study in terms of “lessons learned.” Kincaid concurred, noting that one of the
important general conclusions was that changes made to the flood control system
above Lock and Dam 13 will not have impacts on flood stages. However, between Keokuk and Thebes,
increasing the level of protection of non-urban areas will induce rises in
flood frequency stages.
Holly Stoerker
reported that the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force has finalized its report on
Fish Consumption Advisories on the Upper Mississippi River. She described the background for the
project, conclusions resulting from the study, and recommendations being made
by the Task Force.
The project
began with publication of a background report in February 2005 describing how
each of the five states issue fish consumption advisories on the Upper
Mississippi River and how those advisories affect whether the State lists the
river as impaired for mercury and PCBs.
The recommendations in the report are an outgrowth of a workshop held in
March 2005 and a consultation meeting held in May 2005.
Stoerker
described the states’ different approaches to sampling and analyzing fish
tissue, differences in the Great Lakes Protocol and FDA action levels as the
basis for advisories, and the different fish consumption advisories currently
in affect on the river. Stoerker also
reviewed the recommendations resulting from the project, including the
fundamental conclusion that there should be consistent fish consumption
advisories on the river and that a minimum set of contaminants, fish species,
size classes, sampling locations, sampling periods, sampling frequencies, and
sample preparation procedures be established on the river.
Stoerker noted
that the final report will be published and distributed shortly and that the
UMRBA Water Quality Task Force will meet in November to discuss the next steps
in implementing the recommendations.
She also noted that John Olson of Iowa DNR would be making a presentation
on the UMRBA fish consumption advisory project at EPA’s National Fish
Contaminant Forum on September 18-22 in Baltimore.
Todd Ambs
commented that it is always somewhat embarrassing when States do things
differently on the Mississippi River and that he hopes the recommendations for
enhanced consistency in fish consumption advisories will be implemented.
Organizational
Capacity Study (Section 106 Evaluation)
Holly Stoerker
reported that the State water quality administrators and UMRBA Water Quality Task
Force had a conference call on June 10 to discuss the possibility of applying
to the McKnight Foundation for a grant to help support an evaluation of the
feasibility of establishing an organizational structure to administer and/or
coordinate Clean Water Act programs on the Upper Mississippi River. One of the specific issues to be addressed
would be UMRBA’s eligibility for status as an interstate agency under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act. As a result
of discussion during the conference call, a letter of inquiry was submitted to
McKnight on July 12, 2005.
Dru Buntin
commented that one of the major questions that States need to address is
whether they are comfortable with giving some of their authority to the
UMRBA. Todd Ambs indicated that there
are a variety of questions about how States should coordinate water quality
management on the UMR, regardless of whether Section 106 status is
pursued. He emphasized the value of
using UMRBA, rather than a new interstate group, to explore these questions. He noted that by way of this study, UMRBA
will be consciously exploring whether it wants to expand beyond its existing
activities and scope.
Todd Ambs
explained that UMRBA is reinstituting the practice of having “Activity Reports”
from each of the member states at the quarterly meetings. These reports are intended to provide
information about new initiatives and emerging issues in each state that may be
of interest to others.
Missouri — Mike Wells reported that the drought
in Missouri is severely affecting agriculture and the Governor has requested
that USDA issue a natural disaster declaration for all but 5 counties. Emergency water conservation provisions are
in effect in 22 counties. In addition,
the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers are experiencing alarmingly low flows and
there have been some barge groundings near the confluence of the two
rivers. If the drought continues, the
navigation season will likely be shortened by 48 days to support upstream
uses. Flow reductions will start at
Gavins Point Dam on October 5 and the effects will be felt at St. Louis by
October 15 in the middle of the grain harvest.
Wells also
reported that Missouri DNR is in the process of reorganization, under the
leadership of the new Director Doyle Childers.
Minnesota — Tim Schlagenhaft reported that Minnesota
is ready to pursue one of the first NESP ecosystem projects and has signed a
letter of intent. The project involves
restoration of 4000 acres at the confluence of the Root River.
Rebecca Wooden
reported that industrial water pumping has been suspended as a result of low
flow conditions in the state. She
distributed copies of a map showing stream flow conditions as of 8/15/05 in
Minnesota’s 84 watersheds.
Governor
Pawlenty has joined with Louisiana Governor Blanco in support of the Emergency
Wetlands Loan Act. The legislation is
designed to advance funds from the future revenues received from the sale of
federal duck stamps.
A recent
decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals may force Minnesota PCA to revoke a
discharge permit for a new wastewater treatment facility in two North Metro
communities. The case was the result of
a suit brought by environmental groups, challenging PCA’s decision to allow
increased discharges of phosphorous based on the fact that the increase would
be more than offset by decreased discharges resulting from the closure of other
facilities in the watershed.
Iowa — Mike McGhee distributed information about
a workshop entitled “Gulf Hypoxia and Local Water Quality Concerns,” to be held
in Ames, Iowa on September 26-28, 2005.
A meeting was
recently held among state interests to discuss the upcoming Farm Bill. Secretary of Agriculture Johanns was at the
Iowa State Fair.
The far
southeast portion of Iowa has been hurt by the drought, but not to the extent
that Missouri has been affected.
Illinois — Gary Clark reported that the drought
has been severely affecting agriculture in Illinois, although the southern part
of the state is seeing some relief from rain.
However, there are Emergency Declarations in nearly every county and
there are have been record low flows in many parts of the state. No surface water restrictions have yet been
required, but hydropower is being affected on the Rock River.
Scott Stuewe
reported that the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies has petitioned
Illinois EPA to change the standard for dissolved oxygen, which is currently 5
mg/l. The proposal is that the standard
be a 3.5 mg/l minimum for June 30 to March 30 to protect larval fish and egg
stages. A hearing is scheduled for
August 25. Illinois DNR’s position is
that there is not currently enough information to justify the change.
Illinois DNR is
proposing a season and size limit for taking shovelnose sturgeon. Since a permit would be required, a change
in the state code is needed and therefore the issue must go to the state
legislature. Permits for roe takers are
also being considered. Since the
collapse of the Caspian Sea, 2100 pounds of caviar have been harvested from the
Mississippi River.
Wisconsin — Todd Ambs reported that Governor Doyle
has declared a statewide drought emergency, allowing temporary permits for
riparian landowners to divert water for irrigation for the next 30 days. DNR must respond to water diversion
proposals within 72 hours.
A small trout
stream has run dry, raising concerns about high capacity agricultural wells in
the area. However, Wisconsin has a
strong public trust doctrine and is thus not inclined to shut down wells.
Wisconsin’s shoreline
zoning rules are currently being updated, particularly with regard to
nonconforming structures. Wisconsin has
had stringent shoreline zoning rules, dating back to 1966. No permanent structures are permitted within
75 feet of a waterbody. Updating these
rules is proving very controversial and raises the issue of State protection of
public waters versus local land use decision-making.
A number of
problems have been associated with manure and fish kills. Wisconsin’s CAFO rules are being updated, with
a proposal to ban the spreading of liquid manure on frozen ground or in
February and March for any reason. In
addition, the state’s Manure Management Task Force will be recommending to DNR
that a mandatory buffer be required for all agricultural lands.
Wisconsin is
involved in the Lake Pepin TMDL that Minnesota is developing for phosphorous.
Wisconsin DNR’s
Water Division will be adding a number of new positions, including five to
implement groundwater programs and nine related to Stormwater Phase II.
Holly Stoerker
described the future meeting dates as follows:
November
2005 (Twin Cities)
November 15 NECC/ECC meeting
November
16 UMRBA Quarterly meeting
November
17 EMP-Coordinating Committee
February
21-23 Meeting schedule to be
determined
[NOTE: Subsequent to the August 16 meeting, the order of the November series was changed to reflect UMRBA on November 15, EMP-CC on November 16, and NECC on November 17.]
It was agreed
that the May 2006 meetings would be held in La Crosse, Wisconsin on
May 16-18. [NOTE: Subsequent to the August 16 meeting, the May
16-18, 2006 meetings were changed to the Quad Cities and the August 22-24, 2006
meetings were scheduled for La Crosse, Wisconsin.]
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.