Minutes
of the
103rd
Quarterly Meeting
of
the
The
meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by UMRBA Chair Mike Wells. The following were present:
|
Gary Clark |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
|
|
John Hey |
|
|
Tammy Nicholson |
|
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Charles Barton |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Ken Lubinski |
|
|
Rick Nelson |
|
|
Mike Sullivan |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
Others in attendance:
|
Colonel Robert Sinkler |
|
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Gary Loss |
|
|
Rich Astrack |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Scott Yess |
|
|
Karrie Jackelen |
Congressman Ron Kind |
|
Catherine McCalvin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Tom Boland |
|
|
Dan McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Joseph Britt |
Sand |
|
Mark Muller |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
Announcements
Martin
Konrad introduced Tammy Nicholson and announced that she will be replacing John
Hey as Iowa Department of Transportation’s representative to UMRBA. John Hey will be retiring.
Meeting Minutes
Gretchen Benjamin moved and Gary Clark seconded
a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2007 quarterly meeting as
drafted. The motion was approved unanimously.
Executive Director’s
Report
Holly
Stoerker distributed copies of a table prepared by UMRBA staff summarizing the
current status of FY 2008 appropriations for a variety of federal
agencies. She highlighted the following
points:
Corps of
Engineers —
The President and House have both recommended $23.46 million for the EMP. In contrast, the Senate has allocated only
$18 million. With regard to NESP, even
though the President requested no funding, the House has recommended $2.2
million and the Senate has included $12 million in its bill. This is the first time in recent years that
the House has included funding for NESP.
Fish and Wildlife
Service
— Both the House and Senate are recommending increases over the President’s
request for all the major budget accounts.
U.S. Geological Survey — Most USGS budget
accounts are holding steady, with only a few relatively small increases being
proposed by the House and Senate.
Environmental Protection
Agency —
The increases recommended by the House and Senate for the Clean Water Act SRF
are not as large as in the past. The
House has recommended $25 million for the Targeted Watershed program, although
the President and Senate have zeroed it out.
Department of
Agriculture — Both
the House and Senate are recommending increases for the watershed programs and
conservation operations.
Stoerker
reported that on July 10, the House passed the “Upper Mississippi River Basin
Protection Act” authorizing USGS sediment and nutrient monitoring and
modeling. Karrie Jackelen of Congressman
Ron Kind’s office reported that Mr. Kind has talked with Senator Harkin about
the possibility of sponsoring a Senate companion bill.
Stoerker
distributed copies of the Joint Governors’ statement regarding water quality,
which was executed on August 2. She
noted that the statement is an outgrowth of the work of the UMRBA Water Quality
Executive Committee. It expresses
support for the states’ coordinated activities through the UMRBA and urges EPA
to also support the effort.
ICWP
is working with a coalition of water resource, recreation, engineering, and
environmental groups to urge the Administration to increase its support for
USGS streamgaging in FY 09. Stoerker
asked if UMRBA would like to sign on to the coalition letter drafted by ICWP. Martin Konrad moved and Gary Clark seconded a
motion authorizing UMRBA’s name to be added to the August 15, 2007 draft letter
to the Secretary of the Interior and OMB Director. The motion passed unanimously.
Stoerker
concluded her report by noting that UMRBA closed FY 2007 with positive net
income, rather than the deficit that had been anticipated. This was largely the combined result of
income from the state assessments to support the water quality program and from
expense reductions in some areas.
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (NESP)
WRDA Update — Holly Stoerker
reported that the House had approved the WRDA conference report prior to
adjourning for its August recess. The
Senate leadership has indicated that it will take up the conference report
promptly upon return after Labor Day.
Stoerker also noted that all three of the amendments that UMRBA had been
advocating in the conference process were, in fact, incorporated into the final
agreement — namely, authorization of LTRMP monitoring, language related to
collaboration and funding agreements, and flexibility on mooring facility
locations.
Budget and Workplan
Update —
Chuck Spitzack reported that NESP is on target to fully execute on obligations
in FY 07. He presented draft FY 08
budgets for $10 million as well as $14 million levels. However, he noted that the $14 million
scenario is unlikely given the funding levels now being recommended by the
House and Senate.
Reevaluation Interim
Report —
Spitzack reviewed the schedule for the Interim Report, which includes September
30 as the deadline for partner comments.
The draft report is targeted for release by December 31, 2007. This will be followed by a two month public
comment period and release of the final report by March 31, 2008.
Spitzack
outlined the content of the Interim Report, including chapters describing a)
the national transportation system; b) the inland waterway system; c) the
traffic forecast and economic evaluation results using traditional national
economic development (NED) analysis and multimodal NED considerations; and d)
risks, conclusions and recommendations.
Spitzack also reviewed the draft conclusions and recommendations in the
Interim Report, including:
§
Endorse
dual-purpose recommended plan
§
Support
additional provisions
§
Support
efficient funding
§
Support
coordination & collaboration
§
Support
innovations
§
Support
development of multimodal tools
In
response to a question from Holly Stoerker, Spitzack explained that the results
of the traditional economic analysis are not in the draft report yet and will
not be released until they have been reviewed by the External Peer Review
Panel. However, he indicated that the
results support the conclusions.
Institutional
Arrangements —
Spitzack reported that the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service will be meeting
in October to renew their discussions regarding institutional arrangements,
including issues related to gaining chain-of-command support, managing programs
through adaptive management, and creating a collaborative environment.
Gretchen
Benjamin, Bill Franz, and Dru Buntin expressed concern that discussions related
to institutional arrangements appear to be confined to the Corps and Fish and
Wildlife Service, rather than including all agency partners. Spitzack explained
that when the institutional arrangements discussions were tabled last year,
they were at a point where the co-chairs (Corps and FWS) needed to have more
internal agency buy-in. He expressed a
commitment to reopen institutional arrangements deliberations to all parties
after the Corps and FWS have had an opportunity to coordinate further.
Mike
Wells asked how plans for a future River Council relate to the requirement in
WRDA for an Advisory Panel addressing NESP ecosystem restoration. Spitzack explained that the Advisory Panel
could be separate from the River Council or accommodated within the NESP
institutional arrangements that are now under development. The approach will depend on how the issue is
addressed in the WRDA guidance document following enactment. Mike Wells commented that the states would
like to be partners in shaping the approach to be used to satisfy the
requirement for an Advisory Panel.
In
response to a question on the status of the River Council, Spitzack indicated
that it is on hold until NESP is authorized.
However, he commented that there is still a need to figure out how to
move coordination and adaptive management forward at various levels using
existing bodies. The formal process of
creating a River Council is the only institutional topic that is currently “off
the table.”
Comments on Interim
Report from Nicollet Island Coalition — Brad Walker, substituting for Mark Beorkrem,
summarized the concerns that environmental groups have with the Interim
Report. In particular,
Chuck
Spitzack commented that the EPR Panel has purposefully been kept separate from
the study team so that their input is more meaningful. The workshops were opportunities for
stakeholders and the EPR Panel to interact.
UMRBA Comments on
Interim Report —
Mike Wells noted that the Economic Reevaluation was requested by the Administration
and not the states. Yet the states have
had opportunity for input, including the opportunity now to comment on the
draft report. Chuck Spitzack indicated
that the deadline for comments is September 30, 2007.
Gretchen
Benjamin moved to:
Direct UMRBA Staff to develop a draft letter of
comment on the August 14, 2007 draft Interim Report (i.e., Re-Evaluation of the
Recommended Plan: UMR-IWW System
Navigation Study). The draft, which will
emphasize the Governors’ previous statement concerning the recommended plan,
should be provided to the UMRBA Board for review by September 14, with a
conference call to follow, if necessary, to discuss and reconcile members’
comments.
Martin
Konrad seconded the motion, which then passed unanimously.
NESP and EMP Integration
Barb
Naramore provided an overview of the issue of NESP and EMP integration,
including UMRBA’s past conclusions and efforts to address the issue. In particular, she noted that there is
significant overlap between the ecosystem restoration components of EMP and
NESP and that the Administration and Congress are unlikely to support both
programs in the long term. Over a year
ago, UMRBA staff prepared a series of “issue papers” describing the major topics
and options associated with the question of how NESP and EMP might be
merged. Those papers served as the basis
for discussion among the partnership and resulted in UMRBA’s successful pursuit
of two amendments to the NESP authorization in WRDA.
Naramore
noted that WRDA 2007 is currently pending and the Administration has been
budgeting for EMP, but not for NESP.
While Congress typically has been funding both program, that will not
likely continue indefinitely, once WRDA passes.
In addition, implementation of the two programs has been largely
independent, although there are some efforts to coordinate and Secretary
Woodley has recently asked the Corps for information on the relationship
between the two programs.
Naramore
asked how UMRBA would like to address NESP-EMP integration issues moving
forward. She suggested that UMRBA may
want to address itself to questions of timing, coordination, priorities and
assumptions.
Chuck
Spitzack clarified that the Corps’ response to Secretary Woodley’s request will
not offer recommendations or an integration strategy, but rather will be
strictly informational regarding NESP and EMP.
Mike
Wells said that UMRBA has been very proactive in the past regarding the
relationship between the EMP and NESP.
He commented that UMRBA does not want to lose this momentum and wants to
ensure a smooth transition between the two programs.
Gary
Clark offered the following motion:
That the UMRBA staff be directed to consult with
state EMP-CC and NECC members and UMRBA Board in drafting a states’ vision for
the future of the EMP and the NESP ecosystem restoration authority, including a
strategy for transition and integration.
The UMRBA Board will take final action on the vision, with a target date
of September 28 for Board approval. The
vision will be transmitted to ASA Woodley, with copies to OMB, leadership of
key Congressional authorizing and appropriating committees, and the Governors’
Gretchen
Benjamin seconded the motion, which was then approved unanimously.
Ken
Lubinski commented that development of a transition report seems like a large
undertaking that would be difficult to accomplish by September 28. Gary Clark said that the timeline will
dictate the breadth and depth of the statement.
He also emphasized that it is intended to be a broad vision and not a
detailed plan.
Mike
Wells indicated that development of the UMRBA vision statement would be
consistent with the discussions and thinking UMRBA has had over the past two
years. Dru Buntin commented that it is
risky not to have a clearly articulated transition strategy.
Gretchen
Benjamin said the states would have liked to work with the Corps in developing
a response to Woodley’s request regarding the relationship between EMP and NESP,
but instead will need to move ahead.
Catherine
McCalvin acknowledged that the vision statement would be a UMRBA product and
action, but urged that the input of others also be considered.
State Financing of Cost
Shared Ecosystem Restoration Projects
Representatives
from each state provided a brief overview of how their state funds the
nonfederal share of cost-shared ecosystem restoration projects.
Dru
Buntin said that Missouri DNR receives part of the state sales tax to support
state parks. However, funding for
acquisition is very limited and generally limited to lands adjacent to existing
holdings. While there is a state parks
foundation, it would not be very helpful for funding projects on the UMR, given
that there are few state parks on the
Prospects for
Establishing State UMR Accounts — Dan McGuiness described Audubon’s interest in
partnering with others to protect UMR habitats.
In particular, Audubon has identified important bird areas (IBA) in all
10 states along the
McGuiness
noted that, after discussing state funding strategies with each state, he
realized that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to state cost
sharing. Thus he has ruled out from
further consideration his initial idea of establishing a UMR habitat cost-share
account in each state. However,
McGuiness offered a number of alternative approaches for further evaluation:
§
Work
with each state to identify where cost shared projects can help meet important
goals and then develop state-by-state strategies to develop EMP or NESP
projects to meet those needs
§
Work
at the project level to build support and find financial resources
§
Work
through the EMP and NESP project selection process to make sure cost shared
projects are given consideration and funding
In
response to a question, McGuiness indicated that Audubon does not necessarily
have a preference for whether it cost shares directly with the Corps or through
a state. However, there is more of a
history partnering through states.
Hank
DeHaan described the Rock Island District’s Basin Integration Initiative, which
is designed to coordinate Corps projects throughout individual basins within
MVR, as well as coordinate those projects with programs and projects by other
agencies. In contrast to current
systemwide efforts on the UMRS, this initiative seeks to develop better
linkages between floodplain needs and what the Corps and others are doing in
the basin.
DeHaan
explained that in the Rock Island District, there are five basins: Skunk/Des Moines Rivers, Iowa/Cedar Rivers,
Upper Mississippi River, Rock River, and
Colonel
Sinkler said the Corps is trying to take the lessons learned from the
In
response to a question from Tim Schlagenhaft, DeHaan said the initiative will
reach beyond the Corps, but will focus on how Corps authority can be used to
help the collective team in the basin.
UMR Comprehensive Plan
Rich
Astrack provided an overview of the completion tasks for the Comprehensive
Plan, including the recommendations that emerged related to levee
reconstruction and critical transportation infrastructure. He also explained that a risk informed
decision framework (RIDF) will be used to provide additional evaluation of the
plan alternatives. RIDF, which was
developed and applied by ERDC to Hurricane Katrina and Rita recovery, helps to
overcome science uncertainties and value differences among stakeholders. It reaches beyond the traditional national
economic development (NED) analysis.
Astrack explained, by use of a hypothetical example, how RIDF displays
tradeoffs among objectives and explicitly considers the risks and uncertainties
associated with each alternative.
Astrack
said that the Comprehensive Plan Collaboration Team will be meeting with ERDC
representatives in early September to apply RIDF. It will all be done at the meeting site with
computer terminals for each team member.
Tim Schlagenhaft said that MN DNR would not likely be able to attend the
Collaboration Team meeting, but asked if they could send input on the weighting
and metrics. Astrack said he would look
into it.
2007 Farm Bill:
Joe
Britt of the Sand County Foundation reported that the House version of the 2007
Farm Bill includes authorization of a Regional Water Enhancement Program
(RWEP), which gives special priority to the
Tim
Schlagenhaft asked why
Mike
Sullivan explained that the RWEP was originally proposed by the Bush
Administration. However, the
Administration’s proposal did not give priority to any specific basins, as the
House Farm Bill does. The USDA proposal
would fund the RWEP at $175 million from EQIP, allocated on a grant basis. Martin Konrad asked whether USDA envisions a
committee structure for allocating the funding.
Sullivan indicated that those decisions have not yet been made, but the
grants would likely be awarded competitively.
Catherine
McCalvin reported that the Nature Conservancy (TNC) is also promoting a new
national floodplain reserve program in the 2007 Farm Bill. She explained that 10 percent of the Wetland
Reserve Program (WRP) funding would be eligible for this new program, which
would target floodplains behind levees for reconnection, while allowing
compatible economic uses. It would be
based on 10-30 year or permanent easements.
McCalvin noted that it is designed as a national program, but that the
UMR would be a good candidate for a pilot.
McCalvin
said there is a version of TNC proposal in the House Farm Bill, but it is
limited to 10,000 acres. TNC is working
with Senators Harkin and Durbin to seek inclusion in the Senate version of the
Farm Bill.
Early Warning Monitoring
Network
Dave
Hokanson summarized the concept of the early warning monitoring network (EWMN),
the role that UMRBA has played in its development, and the challenges related
to its future. As discussed at the May 2007
UMRBA meeting, a lead entity is needed for the effort if it is to make
progress. However, EPA funding under the
Oil Pollution Act, which has been used to support UMRBA’s coordination role for
the EWMN, will likely be coming to an end after FY 07. Hokanson noted that UMRBA staff has outlined
four options for UMRBA’s future role regarding the EWMN, in response to the
Board’s request at its May 2007 meeting.
Hokanson
added that, since the May 2007 meeting, there have been two additional
developments: 1) OPA funding has
decreased overall and 2) the UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee has
indicated that the EWMN is not a priority for them, in so far as they are
focusing on interstate aspects of Clean Water Act implementation.
In
response to a question from Ken Lubinski, Hokanson explained that the focus of
the EWMN is on petroleum and related contaminants and on operational concerns
of water utilities. Lubinski commented
that a consortium of UMR universities is developing a proposal for a “hydrologic
observatory,” which, in combination with the proposal by Congressman Kind for
nutrient and sediment monitoring, may offer some possibilities in the future.
Martin
Konrad moved that UMRBA phase out its EWMN leadership efforts effective
September 30, 2007, but assist in the transition to another entity. Gretchen Benjamin seconded the motion, which
then passed unanimously.
UMRBA
Sponsored Meetings
Holly
Stoerker reported that the Clean Water Act-Ecosystem Restoration Workshops,
which had originally been scheduled for this fall, need to be postponed due to
delays in receiving the grant funding from U.S. EPA. The tentative rescheduled dates are April
16-17 and June 11-12, 2008. The
workshops, which will involve panel presentations, case studies, and small
group discussions, will be held in
Stoerker
also reported that UMRBA and the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) will
be co‑sponsoring a meeting for USGS water program cooperators in the
basin on November 1-2, 2007. This will
be the third in a series of regional roundtables across the country, the first
two being in
Miscellaneous
Announcements
§
Mike
Wells recognized John Hey’s contributions to UMRBA and the Navigation
Study. Martin Konrad said Hey will be
retiring next month and plans to golf, bike, and fish. He thanked Hey for his help when Konrad began
his assignment to UMRBA.
§
Ken
Lubinski announced that a proposal is under development for a UMR fish habitat
partnership as part of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service are
working on the proposal and would like other partners to participate. He said he would be sending UMRBA a draft
letter in support of the UMR candidacy and would invite UMRBA to sign on as a
collaborator.
§
Rich
Worthington highlighted two areas of change in the Corps of Engineers water
resources program — risk-based decision making and basin integration. He explained that the impetus for these new
approaches is the Corps’ experience with Hurricane Katrina.
UMRBA Budget Amendment
Holly
Stoerker distributed copies of a staff proposal for revisions to the UMRBA’s FY
2008 budget. She explained that the
amendment reflects anticipated changes in both revenue and expenses associated
with the Clean Water Act-Ecosystem Restoration workshops, the USGS Cooperators’
Roundtable, OPA equipment purchases,
Tim
Schlagenhaft moved approval of the FY 2007 budget revision proposed by
staff. Martin Konrad seconded the motion,
which then passed unanimously.
Future Quarterly
Meetings
Holly
Stoerker announced the November 2007 quarterly meetings in
November 13 — UMRBA Board planning meeting and meeting
with Water Quality Executive Committee in the morning, followed by the regular
UMRBA Quarterly Meeting in the afternoon.
November 14 — UMRBA Water Quality Executive
Committee and NECC/ECC meet concurrently
November 15 — EMP Coordinating Committee Meeting
The
dates and locations for other future meetings include:
§
February
19-22, 2008 in
§
May
20-22, 2008 in the Quad Cities with the following order: UMRBA, NECC-ECC, and EMP-CC.
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.