Minutes of the
99th Quarterly Meeting
of the
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Mark Holsten. The following were present:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Martin
Konrad |
|
|
Mark
Holsten |
|
|
Dick
Lambert |
|
|
Mike
Wells |
|
|
Dru
Buntin |
|
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Charles
Barton |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Mike
Jawson |
|
|
Mike
Sullivan |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service |
|
Doris
Bautch |
Maritime
Administration ( |
Others
in attendance:
|
Jim
Fischer |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Larry
Kieck |
Wisconsin
Department of Transportation |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (HQ) (via phone) |
|
Col.
Robert Sinkler |
|
|
Chuck
Spitzack |
|
|
Marv
Hubbell |
|
|
Ken
Barr |
|
|
Gary
Loss |
|
|
Roger
Perk |
|
|
Scott
Whitney |
|
|
Karen
Hagerty |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
Gary
Wege |
|
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
|
|
Scott
Yess |
|
|
Brad
Walker |
|
|
Heather
Schwar |
HNTB
Corporation |
|
Lynn
Muench |
American
Waterways Operators |
|
Mark
Carr |
AEP-Memco
Barge Line |
|
Tom
Boland |
|
|
Paul
Rohde |
MARC
2000 |
|
Ron
Kroese |
The
McKnight Foundation |
|
Robin
Grawe |
|
|
Holly
Stoerker |
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Barb
Naramore |
|
Dru Buntin moved
and Martin Konrad seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the May 18,
2006 meeting, as drafted. The motion was
approved unanimously.
Greetings and Announcements
UMRBA Chair Mark
Holsten said that yesterday’s EMP 20th Anniversary celebration was a
great event and thanked the Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin DNR, and all
involved. He also thanked the Corps for
the award that was given to UMRBA.
Colonel Robert
Sinkler introduced himself as the new Commander of the Corps of Engineers Rock
Island District. He commented that the
partnership on the
Executive Director’s Report
Holly Stoerker
reported the following:
The packet of
meeting materials includes a list of acronyms frequently used on the
The written
Executive Director’s Report includes a summary of the status of appropriations
for a number of federal programs of longstanding interest to UMRBA. The House has recommended $20 million for the
EMP, while the Senate has included only $16 million. In contrast, the House has not included any funds
for NESP, while the Senate is recommending $20 million. Stoerker noted that in recent years there
appears to be a relationship between the funding decisions made by Congress for
these two programs. In particular, as
NESP funding is increased, EMP funding is typically decreased.
There is an
error on the summary appropriations table.
The Section 319 nonpoint source grants should be listed under the
Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the Department of Agriculture.
In July, UMRBA
sent a letter of comment to the Corps of Engineers on the public review draft
of the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan. The letter addressed emergency action
scenarios, hydrologic data and modeling, reconstruction authority, and
follow-on studies. However, UMRBA did
not choose to comment on the flood damage reduction alternative plans presented
in the draft report.
Last month UMRBA
submitted its FY 07 cooperative agreement proposal to EPA for ongoing
OPA-related planning and mapping activities.
The proposal requests $75,000, which is based on what EPA has indicated
is available. This level of funding, if
approved, will be lower than what has been provided in recent years.
The
Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) will be hosting a series of regional
roundtables on the USGS Cooperative Water Program. The purpose of the meetings is to bring
together nonfederal cooperators with USGS management to discuss how the program
could be improved. One of the
roundtables may be in the
In contrast to
what was reported at the May quarterly meeting, it will not be necessary to
execute a new office lease. Rather,
UMRBA only needs to exercise its “renewal option” via a letter to the landlord.
The independent
accounting firm of Mahoney, Ulrich, Christiansen and Russ will be conducting
UMRBA’s biennial audit during the week of August 14, 2006.
FY 2006 ended with
a net gain $77,845. This figure differs
from what is shown on the FY 2006 budget report included in the packet of
meeting materials. In particular, the year-end
adjustments related to depreciation and partial payroll periods are not
reflected on the budget report in the packet.
Water Quality Task Force Activities
Dave Hokanson
briefly reviewed the history of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force. He explained that the group has prepared a
work plan that will not only assist staff and Task Force members in
prioritizing work efforts and tracking progress, but will also support
individual States’ efforts to secure funding to support Task Force
activities. Hokanson highlighted the
following project areas of the work plan:
§
Sediment-related water quality criteria
§
Fish consumption advisories
§
Assessment and listing consultation
§
UMR water quality organizational options
§
UMRBA water quality web page
§
General consultation
§
UMR monitoring strategy
§
Nutrients and hypoxia
Hokanson also
provided an update on the Task Force’s ongoing work on sediment-related water
quality criteria. An MOU has been
prepared describing the need for UMR sediment-related water quality criteria
and identifying the near-term activities to address that need. The MOU should be signed soon.
The sediment
issue paper will be finalized within the next few weeks and the Task Force will
then begin developing a sediment criteria guidance document, a “white paper” on
issues related to sedimentation, and a list of research needs. The next meeting of the Task Force is
scheduled for September 19-20 in
Water Quality Organizational Options
Project
Holly Stoerker
reviewed the progress to date on the “Organizational Options” project,
including a) the conclusion that UMRBA does not qualify as an interstate
organization under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, b) identification of the
desired functions for a future UMR interstate water quality organization, and c)
review of interstate organizations in other river basins. She also described the range of options that
the State water quality administrators have reviewed and considered regarding the
authority, structure, and funding of a new interstate water quality
organization on the UMR.
Stoerker
presented the preliminary findings and recommendations resulting from the
Organizational Options project over the past eight months. She emphasized that these are preliminary
recommendations and that the State water Quality administrators are currently
reviewing the draft write-up and will discuss it further at their meeting in
September. The recommendations include:
Stoerker noted that interstate compacts have many advantages, but are
quite difficult to establish. That is
why the recommendation is being made to pursue changes to UMRBA first and then
revisit the need for an interstate compact if structural changes to UMRBA are
not sufficient to achieve the water quality management objectives. Stoerker explained that, as part of the
November 14-15 UMRBA quarterly meeting, a special joint meeting of the UMRBA
Board and the water quality administrators will be held to discuss the
recommendations and next steps.
Stoerker explained that the first step in the recommended strategy is to
establish a UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee composed of the water
quality administrators from each of the five basin states. That process has already been initiated. UMRBA has received letters from the directors
of each of the States’ environmental protection agencies making such a
request. She distributed copies of the
letters.
In response to a question about the recommendation concerning
restructuring UMRBA, Stoerker explained that the intent is to better align the
States’ representation on UMRBA with the full range of UMRBA’s programmatic
work. Although details of how this might
be accomplished have not yet been determined, it could include expanding each States’
representation to include appointees from environmental protection agencies, as
well as natural resource management agencies.
Mark Holsten asked if the recommended strategy implies that UMRBA would
be phasing out its navigation and ecosystem restoration activities. Stoerker explained that the recommendation to
expand water quality efforts does not necessarily imply a reduction of effort
in other issue areas.
Gary Clark commented that it is better for UMRBA to expand to meet
growing water quality coordination needs than to have the States create a
separate organization to deal with those issues.
Doris Bautch said it was important that UMRBA not neglect navigation
issues. She suggested that UMRBA look at
the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) as a model.
Dick Lambert commented that GLC is very successful in securing federal
funding. Stoerker explained that GLC is
not responsible for interstate water quality functions, similar to those being
contemplated for UMRBA. Rather, EPA has
a Great Lakes National Program office that addresses water quality issues on
the
In response to a question about whether a new interstate organization
would “take over” the TMDL process, Stoerker explained that States are
responsible for developing TMDLs for impaired waters. However, they could choose to contract with
an interstate agency like UMRBA in the future.
The recommendation for increasing UMRBA’s water quality responsibilities
and capacity would not have any effect on the underlying Clean Water Act
authority.
Gretchen Benjamin offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution of the
Creating the Water Quality
Executive Committee
of the
WHEREAS,
the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force, created in 1998, has been instrumental in
advancing interstate water quality discussions and agreements on the Upper
Mississippi River, particularly with regard to the responsibilities the States
share under the federal Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have requested that
UMRBA establish a Water Quality Executive Committee to support and empower the
Water Quality Task Force;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that UMRBA
hereby establishes a Water Quality Executive Committee, to be composed of each
member State’s water quality administrator, or equivalent, as determined and
appointed by the director of the State agency with responsibility for water
pollution control activities under the federal Clean Water Act; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that UMRBA staff, in consultation with the five State
water quality administrators, develop a charter for the Water Quality Executive
Committee, describing the Committee’s purpose, operation, and relationship to
the UMRBA Board and the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force.
Mike Wells
seconded the motion, which then passed unanimously.
Mark Holsten
noted that the UMRBA has a deficit budget in FY 07 and that the cost to UMRBA
of supporting the work of the Water Quality Task Force is estimated to be
$85,000 annually. Mike Wells offered a
motion authorizing UMRBA staff to invoice the environmental protection agencies
in each of UMRBA’s five member States for $17,000 to help support the work of
the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force and Executive Committee in FY 07. The motion passed unanimously.
Ecosystem Restoration and the Clean Water
Act
Dave Hokanson
and Barb Naramore made a joint presentation describing the relationship between
mandates of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and river restoration efforts, such as
those being undertaken via the EMP and NESP.
Under Section
303(d) of the CWA waterbodies are listed as “impaired” if they do not meet
water quality standards. This triggers
development of a TMDL. The
Naramore summarized a proposal from UMRBA staff that UMRBA facilitate a
series of discussions on the relationships between ecosystem restoration
projects and Clean Water Act programs.
She identified the following questions for discussion and further
consideration:
Gary Wege noted that the EMP and water level management are being
considered as part of the Lake Pepin TMDL.
Robin Grawe commented that the public is very focused on sediment. Mark Carr said sediment is a big issue for
the navigation industry as well.
Martin Konrad questioned whether UMRBA has the resources and staff time
to take on this project. Holly Stoerker
explained that it would depend on the scope of the effort. If there is positive feedback to the idea, as
generally described today, staff will prepare a more specific proposal for
consideration at the November meeting.
Stoerker also noted that EPA Region 5 had recently written a letter to
the Corps of Engineers, raising questions similar to the ones this project is
designed to address. Bill Franz affirmed
that EPA has an interest in the relationship between CWA programs and river
restoration programs. He commented that
EPA would likely support the type of project being proposed by UMRBA. Karen Hagerty said the Corps and EPA have
encountered these issues in working together on the Illinois River Section 519
plan.
Dru Buntin and Gretchen Benjamin expressed general support for having
UMRBA sponsor meetings to address the connections between ecosystem restoration
and the CWA. Holly Stoerker said that
UMRBA staff will develop a specific proposal for consideration at the November
2006 quarterly meeting.
Water
Resources Development Act
Gary Loss and Rich Worthington (by phone) provided an overview of some of
the general provisions of the Water Resources Development Act. In particular, Loss described the features of
the House and Senate versions of the bill that are generally known as the
“Corps Reform” provisions, including those related to project streamlining,
mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, independent peer review, and establishment
of a Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee. Although the House and Senate bills differ on
many of these provisions, there seems to be general agreement on the need for
the following:
In response to a question from Holly Stoerker, Ken Barr said that the
mitigation features of NESP are consistent with the proposed WRDA provisions
related to concurrent mitigation. In
particular, Barr noted that the NESP plan contemplates having mitigation for
traffic impacts in place by the time traffic increases are realized.
Loss also described Section 2001 of the Senate WRDA, which addresses
credit for in-kind contributions from nonfederal sponsors, and Section 2015,
which requires cost sharing for monitoring.
He noted that Section 2015 could present problems for NESP, depending on
how it is interpreted and implemented.
Loss also explained that, on July 18, the White House released a
Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the Senate version of WRDA. Among other things, the SAP supports the
intent of the Senate with regard to aquatic ecosystem restoration opportunities
along the
Paul Rohde asked if provisions in the Senate bill related to Corps
oversight or independent peer review would apply to NESP.
Lynn Muench said the Corps announced at the ECC meeting that it was
planning to change the location of the mooring cells recommended in the
navigation feasibility study and specifically authorized in WRDA. She asked if this is a problem. Chuck Spitzack explained that some of the
mooring sites may be changed as a result of industry input. However it is premature to identify new
sites. Scott Whitney and Rich
Worthington said it would be better for the WRDA language to be general, if the
analysis is still in flux and sites may change. Holly Stoerker noted that the appropriations
authorized by WRDA for mooring facilities would probably need to remain the
same, even if specific authorized locations changed.
Stoerker suggested that UMRBA consider asking Congress to amend the
mooring cell language in WRDA. In
particular, the mooring cell issue could be added to the two NESP changes UMRBA
is already promoting related to the LTRMP and partnership language. Stoerker suggested that a small group meet
over lunch to develop specific draft language to amend the NESP authorization
mooring cells.
Following lunch, Stoerker offered the following language for
consideration:
Problem: The NESP language in WRDA authorizes
construction of mooring facilities at seven specific lock locations, as
identified in the original feasibility study.
While further economic and environmental evaluation may confirm those
seven sites, it may also reveal a different optimal suite of mooring
facilities. In either case, the
authorization should provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate changes
in the location of mooring facilities, while not changing the authorized
funding level.
Proposed
Solution: Revise the authorization for mooring facilities by adding the
following italicized phrase: “construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18,
22, 24, and La Grange Lock, or other
alternative locations that are economically and environmentally feasible” to
Section 1002 (b)(1)(A)(i) of the Senate bill.
Mike
Wells moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to add the language offered by Stoerker
to the list of WRDA amendments UMRBA is pursuing during the WRDA conference
process. The motion passed
unanimously.
With regard to
the other NESP amendments UMRBA is seeking, Stoerker reported that
communication with committee staff and Congressional members from the region is
continuing. In general, there appears to
be little appetite for making changes during conference. However, there seems to be at least some
acknowledgment that the lack of a monitoring authorization in NESP could be a
problem. In contrast, there is less
interest in addressing the issue of partnership consultation and funding
transfers. Stoerker also noted that the
Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task Force may send a letter to conferees
supporting the amendments proposed by UMRBA.
Conferees have not yet been appointed.
Barb Naramore
described the provisions in WRDA affecting the Environmental Management Program
(EMP). The Senate version of the bill
includes language that would allow NGOs to be nonfederal sponsors of
EMP habitat projects and an amendment expanding the purposes of the Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) to include research on elevated nutrient
levels and development of remediation plans.
There are no parallel provisions in the House version.
Naramore reported that these proposed amendments to the EMP
authorization were discussed at yesterday’s EMP Coordinating Committee
meeting. At that meeting, concerns were
voiced about expanding LTRMP responsibilities without also increasing the
funding for LTRMP. It was noted,
however, that it is not yet clear that the proposed amendment will survive
conference, nor how it will be implemented if enacted. Naramore pointed out that there is no
committee report language related to the amendment, so it is difficult to
determine Congressional intent.
Mike Jawson commented that USGS already does some research
regarding nutrients, but not necessarily under the authority of the LTRMP. However, he noted that development of a
remediation plan would be a different sort of responsibility for USGS and
potentially very difficult. He observed
that approximately 20 percent of denitrification could be accomplished through
backwater lakes, but that the remainder would involve uplands.
Gretchen
Benjamin stressed how difficult it will be for the chronically underfunded EMP
program to accommodate an additional research and planning mission of this
magnitude. She noted, however, that it
is probably most appropriate to simply let the process play out in conference.
Navigation &
Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
Chuck Spitzack
presented the following summary of the NESP budget for FY 06 and FY 07
(in thousands of dollars):
|
|
February 2006 |
August 2006 |
FY 2007 |
|
Programmatic |
1,050 |
645 |
600 |
|
Econ Re-Evaluation |
300 |
807 |
2,000 |
|
Ecosystem Restoration |
4,425 |
4,147 |
3,700 |
|
Navigation Efficiency |
4,125 |
4,300 |
3,700 |
|
TOTALS |
9,900 |
9,900 |
10,000 |
Spitzack
explained that funds were shifted between February and August 2006 to support
the economic reevaluation. Other funding
shifts were the result of changing capabilities. In FY 07, funding for the economic
reevaluation will increase substantially to meet the September 30, 2007
deadline for the results of that reevaluation.
Spitzack noted that the FY 07 allocation assumes an appropriation of $10
million, even though the Corps’ capability is quite a bit higher.
Spitzack said
the Federal Principals Group met in July.
Topics discussed included the status of the NESP authorization, how NESP
may contribute to nutrient reduction, and consideration of multimodal
congestion in the economic reevaluation.
The next meeting of the Federal Principals Group will take place after
WRDA is enacted or in June 2007.
Spitzack
reported that Commanders of the Corps’ three
Spitzack
reported that the NESP Science Panel met with the Illinois Science Panel and is
developing relationships with the project delivery teams (PDTs). The Regional Support Team’s role is changing
to provide more support to PDTs and to serve as a liaison between the Science
Panel and PDTs. The 42 goals and
objectives, which were developed by the Science Panel by consolidating longer
lists of objectives identified by resource managers, are now being used by
PDTs. The next task for the Science
Panel will be identifying system level objectives and indicators.
Spitzack
explained that the economic reevaluation report scheduled for completion by
September 30, 2007 will satisfy the recommendation in the original feasibility
study that a “notification” report be prepared after three years. Spitzack commented that the reevaluation
report is the number one priority for the Administration for determining their
support for the navigation improvements.
He said that it will be impossible to eliminate all uncertainty related
to the economic analysis, but the reevaluation should increase confidence in
the projections.
In describing the differences between the original
feasibility study, completed in 2004 and the reevaluation to be completed by
September 2007, Spitzack noted that the revaluation:
Spitzack
explained that an External Peer Review Panel is being established to review the
economic models, model inputs, underlying assumptions, economic analysis, and
process of evaluating alternatives.
Federal and State partners were asked to recommend candidates for the
panel and the Corps has now narrowed the list and is in the process of
contacting candidates to determine their interest. The final list will be sent to the Corps’
Navigation Center of Expertise, which will establish the panel. Spitzack said that when the list is
finalized, it will also be forwarded to the ECC and UMRBA.
Doris Bautch
noted that most of the potential panelists appear to be academics. She suggested that representatives from other
sectors and organizations be invited to participate. Spitzack explained that experts from outside
of academia were not necessarily excluded as Science Panel members. However, NECC and ECC were designed to be the
vehicles for input from industry and agricultural groups.
Holly Stoerker
asked if the External Peer Review Panel being formed for the economic
reevaluation would satisfy the requirements for peer review being considered
for inclusion in WRDA. Spitzack said the
NESP panel does not conform entirely to the WRDA provisions, but the intent is
to achieve genuine external peer review early in the process, rather than at
the end.
Spitzack
concluded by describing NESP communication activities, including website
planning, development of a monthly newsletter, and development of a “fast
start” communication plan to be activated as soon as WRDA is enacted. He commented that there was a high level of
communication over the summer, including a meeting with an OMB examiner, the
June Rivers Conference, and the EMP anniversary celebration.
Gary Clark
reported that
The Council will
consist of 13 members appointed by the Governor, including representatives of
Illinois state agencies, soil and water conservation districts, local communities,
nonprofit organizations, businesses, agriculture, and recreation. The Council will be grass roots and
citizen-focused. It will primarily
address connections between upland and river activities and gaps in existing
programs.
In response to questions,
State Dues Assessments
Mark Holsten
noted that the agenda packet includes summary tables of the history of UMRBA
state dues and revenue. He expressed
support for maintaining state dues at their current level of $48,000. Martin Konrad moved and Gary Clark seconded a
motion to establish annual dues for FY 2008 and FY 2009 at $48,000
per State. The motion passed unanimously.
Future Meetings
Holly Stoerker
said the schedule for the November 14-16, 2006 quarterly meetings will involve
the following sequence of meetings:
|
November 14 |
NECC/ECC Joint
Meeting |
|
|
UMRBA and
Water Quality Committee Joint Meeting |
|
|
|
|
November 15 |
UMRBA
Quarterly Meeting |
|
|
EMP-CC Partner
Pre-meetings |
|
|
|
|
November 16 |
EMP-CC Meeting |
Stoerker
suggested that the order of meetings be changed in the future so that the UMRBA
meeting takes place first, followed by the NECC/ECC and EMP-CC on the following
two days. Gretchen Benjamin, Gary Clark,
and Doris Bautch expressed support for that approach. There were no objections and Stoerker said
the new order would be tried at the winter meetings in February 2007.
The dates and
locations for future meetings include:
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 pm.