Minutes of the
111th Quarterly Meeting
of the
August 4, 2009
UMRBA Chair Gary Clark called
the meeting to order at
UMRBA Representatives and
Alternates:
|
Gary
Clark |
|
|
Rick
Mollahan |
|
|
Bernie
Hoyer |
|
|
Laurie
Martinson |
|
|
Rebecca
Wooden |
|
|
Dick
Lambert |
|
|
Mike
Wells |
|
|
Todd
Ambs |
|
|
Jim
Fischer |
|
Federal
UMRBA Liaisons:
|
Mike
Sullivan |
Natural Resources
Conservation Service |
|
Elizabeth
Ivy |
|
|
Bill
Franz |
|
|
Rich
Frietsche |
|
|
Mike
Jawson |
|
Others
in attendance:
|
Steve
Jones |
|
|
Jeff
DeZellar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
Whitney |
|
|
|
|
|
Roger
Less |
|
|
Bill
Gretten |
|
|
Amy
Moore |
|
|
Jim
Homann |
|
|
T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian
Johnson |
|
|
Andy
Schimpf |
|
|
Jason
Wilson |
|
|
Joyce
Collins |
|
|
|
|
|
Billy
Ousley |
National Weather Service ( |
|
Gary
Loss |
CDM |
|
Eric
Schenck |
Ducks Unlimited |
|
Jerry
Knapper |
Ingram Barge Company |
|
Brad
Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Tom
Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Nathan
German |
Mid-Central |
|
Roger
West |
Mid-Central |
|
Vince
Shay |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
|
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Doug
Blodgett |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Kim
Erndt |
Prairie Rivers Network |
|
|
|
|
Dave
Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten
Mickelsen |
|
Meeting
Minutes
Mike
Wells observed that p. A-15 of the
Executive
Director’s Report
§
There has been
progress in addressing the restrictive EMP/NESP transition language from the
FY 08 and 09 appropriations measures.
House report language in those years blocked EMP from initiating new
planning and moving projects from planning to construction. The Senate Appropriations Committee included
language in its FY 10 energy and water report (S.Rpt. 111-45) that reiterates
the directive to the Corps to prepare a transition plan, but would allow the
EMP to initiate planning and construction on projects that can be readily
transferred or completed within two years of NESP receiving sufficient funding
to support transition. The provision
also affirms the Committee’s support for NESP, while recognizing the challenges
posed by shortfalls in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
§
EMP and NESP
program managers have both expressed a desire to contract with UMRBA for staff
services in federal FY 10. It is likely
there will be separate contracts for each program this year, rather than the
combined contract approach employed in FY 09.
§
UMRBA has
submitted a proposal to USEPA to continue its Oil Pollution Act (OPA)-related
cooperative agreement for federal FY 10.
The actual amount of federal funding to be available under the new
agreement has yet to be determined, but is expected to be in the range of
$90,000 to $190,000. The range of tasks
and general scope will be in keeping with previous years.
§
UMRBA Board
members Gary Clark, Bernie Hoyer, and Mike Wells, along with Naramore,
participated in the Corps’ Central Region Planning Conference on June 23-25,
2009. UMRBA will again be participating
as a partner organization for a follow-on national conference, scheduled for
August 25-27, 2009 in
Todd Ambs moved and Mike
Wells seconded a motion authorizing Naramore to execute contracts with USACE
for the provision of NESP and EMP staff services and a cooperative agreement
with USEPA to continue OPA-related planning and mapping work. The motion carried unanimously.
Biological Indicators
Hokanson
emphasized that some of these themes encompass big picture, foundational
issues, while others involve incremental opportunities for progress through
more discrete actions. He also stressed
that cross-programmatic efforts on indicators need not preclude action within
individual programs. In considering the themes
and specific ideas expressed at the workshop, Hokanson explained that UMRBA
staff identified nine potential next steps, several of which are already
underway. They are as follows:
In response to a question from
Laurie Martinson, Hokanson indicated that he did not have recommendations
regarding next steps from UMRBA’s Water Quality Executive Committee
(WQEC). Todd Ambs said he would like to
have WQEC input before proceeding with Board deliberations on next steps. Ambs also observed that the lack of a
reference stream will be a challenge in developing indicators for the UMR.
Gary Clark said three areas of
current and potential activity seem to offer significant promise:
1)
work underway to
develop the Lake Pepin TMDL for nutrients and turbidity,
2)
the potential to
leverage LTRMP capabilities, and
3)
current efforts
to establish ecosystem restoration objectives at the reach scale.
In response to a question from
Barb Naramore, Martinson and the other Board members confirmed that they would
like input regarding indicators next steps from state ecosystem restoration and
water quality program perspectives.
Naramore said UMRBA staff will seek and summarize input from the WQEC,
WQTF, and state members of EMP-CC and NECC prior to the Board’s November meeting.
Martinson said that
biological indicators for the UMR are past due, and praised the efforts of
workshop participants. She emphasized
that holding off on Board action until November does not reflect lack of UMRBA
interest, but rather a desire to ensure the Board is informed by the
perspectives of the state staff who work most directly in these program
areas. Martinson asked whether UMRBA
staff need any Board action prior to November.
Naramore said having a go-ahead on the ad hoc committee idea would be helpful.
Rick Mollahan stressed the
need to engage subject matter experts who are not limited by bureaucratic
perspectives, in order to avoid having program goals driving the science. He noted that there are many prominent
scientists publishing important work on indicators. Jim Fischer suggested that the UMRCC’s Water
Quality Technical Section has much of the expertise needed for the ad hoc committee. Bernie Hoyer observed that, 10 years ago,
1)
Pursue
establishing the ad hoc committee,
with consideration of the UMRCC Water Quality Technical Section as a possible
starting point.
2)
Consult with
state members of the WQEC, WQTF, EMP-CC, and NECC regarding the potential next
steps outlined in the workshop report, and summarize this input for the Board’s
consideration at its November meeting.
EMP Report to Congress
Marv Hubbell explained that
the EMP’s authorization requires reports to Congress on a six year cycle, with
the next report due in December 2010.
Previous EMP Reports to Congress (RTCs) were completed in 1987 and
2004. Hubbell noted that the EMP
reporting requirements are distinct from those of NESP, and are on a different
cycle.
Hubbell observed that the EMP
RTCs provide an important opportunity for the partnership to make program
recommendations to Congress and the Administration. The EMP authority calls for the reports to:
1)
evaluate the HREP
and LTRMP components,
2)
review program
accomplishments,
3)
update the
systemic habitat needs assessment (HNA), and
4)
identify any
needed adjustments in the program authority.
Hubbell reported that the
Corps has formed a scoping team to assist in developing the report. The team includes representatives of USACE,
USGS, USFWS, USEPA, Missouri DOC, Wisconsin DNR, TNC, and UMRBA. The group is proposing a similar format to
the 2004 RTC, with a greater focus on accomplishments and outcomes. The report will also address the relationship
between EMP and NESP, though this element will be written as late as possible
in the process to ensure its currency.
Hubbell explained that, at
the outset of the scoping effort, he asked Barb Naramore to identify several
key insights from the previous two RTC processes. Hubbell said these met with concurrence from
the other Scoping Team members and included the following:
1)
The RTC process
is a valuable exercise for the partnership that prompts important
deliberations.
2)
The schedule and
process are important for ensuring meaningful partner participation.
3)
There are
multiple audiences for the RTC, including Congress, ASA(CW), OMB, the Corps
hierarchy, the partnership, stakeholders, and the general public. It is important to distinguish carefully among
these audiences and craft messages accordingly.
4)
The report must
be clear and concise in reporting the EMP’s outputs and accomplishments.
5)
Ultimately, the
RTC is a USACE document, and this may affect how the perspectives and
priorities of other partners are conveyed in the report.
6)
It is important
to focus the RTC on clearly identified purposes. For the 2010 report, these purposes include
providing a program update, summary, and history; recommending any needed
program adjustments, whether related to authorization, policy, or management;
and possibly serving as a transition document.
Hubbell provided the
following milestones for developing the 2010 RTC:
§
April 2009 –
Scoping Team identifies key issues and focus areas
§
June 2009 –
Scoping Team develops annotated draft report outline (provided in agenda
packet)
§
August 2009 –
EMP-CC input on draft RTC outline
§
February 2010 –
EMP-CC input on RTC rough draft
§
May 2010 – EMP-CC
considers/endorses revised RTC draft
§
June 2010 – RTC
submitted to MVD
Hubbell said USACE will
likely contract for a central writer/editor, similar to the type of support
UMRBA provided to the 1997 and 2004 RTCs.
Several of the individual sections, however, will have other lead
authors, with the writer/editor synthesizing these contributions and writing
additional sections.
Hubbell reviewed the draft
annotated outline, and requested partner input by September 30, 2009 regarding
the outline and specific implementation issues they want addressed in the
RTC. He noted that the Scoping Team has
already identified the following as potential issues for the report:
1)
NGOs as cost
share partners
2)
Cost sharing
3)
HREP O&M
4)
Delegated
authority
5)
LTRMP
implementation
6)
HREP planning and
prioritization
7)
HREP evaluation
8)
Further
trends/emerging issues
9)
EMP-NESP transition
plan
He explained that items 1-6
are issues from the 2004 RTC that may warrant revisiting, while 7-9 are new
issues.
Bernie Hoyer urged that the
RTC also examine the relationship between flood damage reduction efforts and
ecosystem restoration work. In response
to a request from Joyce Collins, Naramore said UMRBA staff would redistribute
the issue papers developed as part of the 2004 RTC process. In response to a question from Hoyer, Hubbell
recalled that the cost share issues explored when drafting the 2004 report
included the basic formula; credits for lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations of utilities or other existing structures, and disposal areas
(LERRDs); and the possibility of 100 percent federal funding for additional
types of projects (i.e., threatened and endangered species, treaty species, and
lands owned or managed by other federal agencies). He said that, ultimately, the partners
decided not to pursue any of these issues in 2004. Naramore observed that the issue of most relevance
in 2010 may well be the question of state credits for project expenditures
beyond the required 35 percent non-federal cost share.
Mike Wells asked about the
issue of NGOs as non-federal sponsors.
Hubbell explained that the EMP lacks language specifically authorizing
NGOs to serve as cost share sponsors.
Several other Corps restoration authorities, including NESP and the
continuing authorities program (CAPs) include such a provision. Roger Perk noted that language allowing NGOs
to sponsor EMP projects was included in WRDA bills from 2005 and 2006, but was
dropped from the final enacted bill in 2007.
MNRG’s Call to Action for the
Max Ethridge explained that
the Midwest Natural Resources Group (MNRG) is composed of the regional
directors of the federal agencies with major natural resource missions in the
region, including USACE, USGS, USFWS, NPS, USGS, USFS, USEPA, and NRCS. MNRG addresses issues in 12 states and 13
major watersheds. Ethridge reported
that, under General Walsh’s leadership, MNRG issued a Call to Action for the
Ethridge also reviewed
related efforts at the federal level, including the new National Research
Council panel examining nutrient reduction options in the
In response to a question
from Barb Naramore, Ethridge said follow-up to MNRG’s Call to Action remains to
be determined. He explained that MNRG
members are currently circulating the document up their respective chains of
command. He said one option may be to
seek an Executive Order (EO) directing the agencies’ further efforts. This might be similar to the EO governing
federal agencies’ Great Lakes-related work.
Ethridge observed that this top-level Administration focus has produced
substantial progress on the
UMRBA Water Quality Update
Dave Hokanson reported that,
in keeping with the Board’s May 2009 directive, UMRBA staff has completed a
$252,000 proposal to support interstate water quality efforts on the UMR. Funding would come through each of the five
states, using stimulus money provided under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water
Act, which includes a set aside for regional and interstate water quality
planning grants. The proposal is
designed to further priorities established by the Water Quality Executive
Committee, focusing on discrete products that can be completed within
approximately two years while also building UMRBA’s capacity to support related
follow-on efforts.
Hokanson explained that the
proposal includes three work areas:
1)
Improving water quality
standards and assessment approaches through development of a biological
assessment guidance document for the UMR
2)
Evaluating
nutrient impacts and monitoring through a synthesis report on UMR nutrient
data, local impacts, and monitoring needs
3)
Fostering
inter-program collaboration through two cross-programmatic workshops focusing
on key common issues.
Under the proposal, all work
would be completed by December 31, 2011, with interim milestone dates dependent
on when the agreements are in place and UMRBA is able to initiate work. Hokanson briefly reviewed progress in
establishing agreements with each of the states:
§
§
§
§
§
Jim Fischer asked whether the
nutrients report will be a review of existing work or will focus on providing
new analyses. Hokanson replied that this
element of the project will be more of a compilation and synthesis of existing
work. Fischer observed that there is
considerable potential to build off of previous work, including that of John
Sullivan and the LTRMP. Hokanson agreed
with the importance of capturing insights from this work and said he envisions
a product similar in approach to UMRBA’s 2007 sediment-related water quality
criteria report.
Todd Ambs said he is
encouraged by the prospect of using 604(b) funds to advance the states’
regional priorities on the UMR. However,
he also noted that the level of funding is quite modest compared with the water
quality funds provided annually to the interstate organizations recognized
under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act.
Hokanson also provided brief
updates on several other water quality related activities:
Regional Coordination Updates
Efforts to Coordinate among the
The teams discussed a range
of issues related to their future coordination, including policy v. technical
coordination needs, the roles of co-chairs v. team members, and synchronizing
the individual teams’ meetings with joint meetings. According to Perk, specific outcomes and next
steps include:
§
developing a web
site where each team’s meeting information, documents, and action items are
available, along with information on joint sessions and efforts;
§
agreement to
schedule meetings for the policy-level groups as needed, perhaps every two to
four years;
§
agreement that
more frequent meetings are likely needed at the technical level, with the first
such session tentatively scheduled for January 2010, to permit regional
discussion of the reach plans at the technical level before the plans are
presented to NECC and EMP-CC; and
§
agreement that
future meetings of the technical level groups will be timed to ensure
opportunity to provide input to the EMP and NESP Congressional reporting cycles
Regional
Flood Risk Management Team
Munholand also briefly
reviewed the status of efforts to establish permanent flood risk management
groups in each of the five UMR states, based on the “Silver Jackets” model:
§
§
§
§
According to Munholand, the
Regional Flood Risk Management Team (RFRMT) is intended to serve as a conduit
between the state groups and the national steering committee. In response to the states’ preferences, the
RFRMT is being formed for the 5 state area, rather than along Corps district
lines. Munholand stressed that the group
will not have any authority to direct or regulate activities, and its
deliberations will not be binding on its members. Instead, he explained it is designed to
strengthen the state-centric FRM model, with the goal of responding first and
foremost to state needs for regional coordination and assistance.
Munholand said he expects the
RFRMT will address itself to a range of issues, including:
§
Coordinated
watershed pre-flood planning and post flood recovery
§
Development of
common watershed flood risk management objectives
§
Coordination of
flood risk and flood hazard reduction programs
§
Sharing flood
risk and floodplain information
He emphasized that successful
flood risk management is a continuing cycle that requires a comprehensive
approach across multiple programs.
Under the RFRMT’s draft
charter, the core members will be USACE (MVD, NWD, and their relevant
districts), FEMA (Regions 5 and 7), USEPA, USFWS, USGS, NOAA/NWS, NRCS, the
five states’ designated FRM leads, and tribal representatives. These will be the voting members of the team,
though the RFRMT will strive to operate by consensus. Advisory members may include additional
federal and state agencies, USACE HQ, representatives of levee and
drainage/watershed districts as needed, and representatives of the state FRM
groups. Munholand explained that the
draft charter does not include a formal role for NGOs, professional
organizations, and similar groups in order to avoid triggering the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. However, he
stressed that the RFRMT will welcome briefings and perspectives from these
types of groups. Munholand reported that
the draft charter is currently out for review, with the core members asked to
identify any desired modifications by September 1, 2009.
Todd Ambs noted that the
states are under severe budget constraints, necessitating difficult decisions in
allocating limited staff time. As a
result, new initiatives like this are facing close scrutiny. Ambs asked what real changes or useable
products are expected from the RFRMT and state groups. Munholand said the Corps certainly
understands the states’ difficult circumstances and observed that
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program
Advisory Panel
Chuck Spitzack reported that
there has been no new action on MVD’s Advisory Panel (AP) proposal, which
General Walsh submitted to Corps HQ on
EMP/NESP Transition Plan
Spitzack advised that MVD
submitted its draft EMP/NESP transition plan to Corps HQ on June 18. He noted that UMRBA’s November 2007 statement
regarding program integration provided a very useful foundation in drafting the
transition plan. Spitzack said the
process for developing the plan was open and collaborative, and he expressed
appreciation to all program partners for their contributions to the
effort. He explained that the draft plan
identifies three critical transition principles:
In
addition, the draft plan outlines several funding-related conditions that the
Corps believes are necessary to allow for a successful transition.
Implementation
Report
Spitzack
explained that, under NESP’s authorization, periodic Implementation Reports to
Congress must address baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities for
ecosystem restoration projects and measure progress in meeting those
goals. The reports go to the two
authorizing committees (i.e., the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure), with the first
report having been due June 30, 2009.
Future reports are due every four years.
Given that NESP has not yet received any construction funding, Spitzack
explained that the first report, completed on July 30, 2009, focused on NESP’s
readiness to implement, including progress on the system and reach objective
setting and planning effort. The report
also specifically addresses partnership and collaboration, institutional
arrangements, and EMP/NESP transition issues.
Looking ahead to the next reporting cycle, the first report anticipates
that NESP efforts between 2009 and 2012 will include:
§
Completing the
next phase of system and reach planning within the context of a fully-developed
reach planning and goal setting process.
§
Striving to
restore or mimic natural river processes by initiating restoration projects.
§
Employing an
adaptive management approach that leads to more efficient and effective
ecosystem restoration.
§
Implementing the
LTRMP consistent with its strategic plan.
§
Reporting
progress in the 2013 Implementation Report.
By
February 2010, Spitzack said he anticipates that the program will be focused on
identifying individual projects for implementation.
System and
Reach Planning Process
Spitzack provided an update
on the Corps’ system and reach planning process, explaining that this program-neutral
effort is designed to meet the needs of multiple programs, including NESP, EMP,
and Section 519. In addition to
restoration, the reach plans will address mitigation, cultural stewardship, and
adaptive management. Spitzack displayed
a diagram illustrating the process at the system and reach scales. He explained that a Regional Support Team
(RST), consisting of seven Corps staff members, is charged with facilitating
the process, ensuring reasonable comparability among the reaches, and drafting
the system level plan. The RST is
coordinating closely with the NESP Science Panel, which is composed of outside
experts. Spitzack reviewed the process
through February 2010, highlighting the following:
§
June - July 09 RST prepares guidance for
reach planning
§
July - October 09 Reach Planning Teams prepare
draft reach plans
§
October -
December 09 Action by River Teams
(i.e., RRF, RRCT, RRAT, IRT)
§
December 09 -
January 10 RST prepares system plan
§
January 10 Distribution of draft
system plan to NECC, EMPCC, UMRBA
§
February 10 Action on draft system
plan by NECC and EMPCC
FY 10 Work Plan
Spitzack reported that there
is still considerable uncertainty regarding NESP’s FY 10 funding level. Corps staff have developed work plans for
funding levels ranging from $9 to $13 million.
Within this range, funding would be allocated as follows:
|
|
(millions of dollars) |
||
|
NESP
Total |
9.0 |
11.0 |
13.0 |
|
Program
Mgmt. |
0.4 |
0.525 |
0.7 |
|
Navigation |
4.3 |
5.238 |
6.15 |
|
Ecosystem |
4.3 |
5.238 |
6.15 |
UMRS Outreach
Spitzack
reported that the Corps has hired a contractor to help develop a
program-neutral outreach approach. He
explained that the outreach will focus on the Corps’ full range of UMRS
partnership activities, rather than on a particular program or district. Spitzack said the effort is designed to
facilitate communication with the public, partners, and within USACE.
According
to Spitzack, one tagline under consideration is The
Program
Readiness
Spitzack
said FY 09 has been a very challenging year for NESP, including the lack of
construction funding and the reassignment of program staff to other pressing
Corps priorities. Despite these
challenges, Spitzack observed that NESP achieved several major milestones this
year, including:
§
Partner
endorsement of a vision, goals, and guiding principles
§
Completion of a
First Increment Plan
§
Submittal of an
Advisory Panel proposal to Corps HQ
§
Formation of the
Navigation Interests Coordinating Committee (NICC)
§
Establishment of
the
§
Submittal of a
draft EMP/NESP Transition Plan to Corps HQ
§
Identification of
partner-endorsed reach objectives
§
Completion of
NESP’s first Implementation Report to Congress
§
Partner agreement
on a reach planning process
§
Completion of
NESP’s first Project Implementation Report (PIR)
§
Initiation of a
Public Outreach Team
He
described FY 09 as having been a pivotal year for establishing NESP’s program
readiness, organizational structure and processes, overall program direction,
collaborative environment, and mechanisms for communication. In FY 10, NESP will focus on project
readiness, including identifying additional projects and adaptive management
initiatives, completing PIRs, advancing projects through design to construction
readiness, and furthering work on the decision support system (DSS). Public outreach in FY 10 will focus on
furthering the integrated, program-neutral approach, according to Spitzack.
Financing Inland Navigation Infrastructure
Steve
Jones provided a brief history of the inland waterways fuel tax. He explained that the Inland Waterways
Revenue Act of 1978 established a $0.04/gallon fuel tax and applied it to 26
specifically identified shallow draft waterways. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) then established the cost-sharing formula for inland navigation
projects, requiring the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) to fund 50 percent of
the costs of new navigation infrastructure.
WRDA 86 also added one additional waterway segment to the taxed system,
and authorized eight lock and dam projects as the first projects subject to the
new formula. These authorizations
included the second lock at Mel Price (i.e., L&D 26).
Jones
explained that WRDA 86 also established the 11-member Inland Waterways Users
Board. Consisting of shippers and
operators representing all regions of the inland system, the Users Board is
charged with advising the Administration and Congress on use of the IWTF. Jones noted that the fuel tax rate increased
per a statutory schedule, reaching $0.20/gallon in 1995, where it has
remained. In addition, the 1992 WRDA
extended the 50/50 cost-share requirement beyond new construction to include
major rehabilitation of inland navigation infrastructure.
Jones
briefly reviewed the projects completed with IWTF funding between 1986 and
2008. This includes nine new projects
and 10 major rehabilitations, with combined federal and IWTF funding totaling
more than $2 billion. An additional $6.7
billion in combined federal and IWTF investment was also underway as of
2008. This includes eight new or
replacement locks and seven major rehabilitations.
Jones
then presented a history of IWTF revenues, expenditures, and balances. By law, the Trust Fund balance cannot fall
below zero. With a reserve balance
approaching zero, that means that the IWTF’s annual expenditure (i.e., its
“work allowance”) is now essentially limited to the current year’s projected
revenue. Combined with a growing backlog
of projects, increasing downtime at locks, aging infrastructure, and cost
overruns, this is creating a significant constraint on the system.
Jones
explained that an Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Investment
Strategy Team has been formed to address this problem. Consisting of Corps experts and members of
the Users Board, the Strategy Team is seeking to craft a long term capital plan
for the inland navigation system and then develop a revenue plan tailored to
that capital plan. According to Jones,
the Strategy Team is employing a life cycle approach to identifying needs.
Jones
noted that there are many projects authorized but not yet under
construction. These include NESP’s small
scale measures and seven new locks, as well as seven other lock replacements
and six major rehabilitations (including LaGrange and O’Brien on the
Jones
noted that most, but not all, of these factors can be monetized. As part of its efforts, the Strategy Team is
also completing an asset assessment. The
initial inventory is complete and a conditions assessment is ongoing. Jones stressed the importance of this
assessment, noting that it is not valid to assume that the oldest structures
are necessarily in the greatest need of attention. He also observed that the single locks common
on the UMRS may well increase these structures’ ranking on the risk and
reliability scale.
In
addition to developing its capital and revenue plans, Jones said the Strategy
Team will also make recommendations for improving the process whereby inland
navigation projects are planned, authorized, funded, and implemented. Finally, Jones presented a schedule that assumes
current cost sharing and no increased IWTF revenue — i.e., the combined federal
and Trust Fund expenditures on new construction and major rehabilitation are
limited to approximately $170 million annually.
Under this scenario, there is no NESP lock construction through at least
2038.
Paul
Rhode offered the Waterways Council Inc.’s (WCI’s) perspectives, stressing that
the inland waterways system is unprepared to meet 21st century
transportation demands. According to
Rhode, failure to adequately fund operation and maintenance (O&M) has
forced the Corps into a “fix-as-fail” approach, increasing total costs,
reducing reliability, and shifting things that should have been addressed under
O&M to the major rehabilitation category, which requires industry cost
sharing.
Rhode
reported that Acting ASA(CW) Salt formally presented the Administration’s lock
usage fee proposal in a July 22, 2009 letter to House Speaker Pelosi. Emphasizing that industry did not have an
opportunity for input on the proposal, Rhode observed that it closely resembles
a Bush Administration plan that was widely rejected by industry and members of
Congress. He estimated that the lock
fees would double or triple the taxes on many shipments, likely shifting some
cargo from water to rail and truck.
Having failed to consider this modal shift, Rhode said the
Administration is overestimating the net revenue gain associated with its
proposal.
Under
the Administration’s plan, operators would pay a fee for each barge they put
through a lock, with the amount dependent on lock size. Compared to the existing fuel tax, which is
levied on the entire inland system, Rhode observed that the proposed fees would
significantly disadvantage the locked portions of the system. He also stressed that the tax increase would
serve as a disincentive to the most environmentally-friendly mode of
transportation, with lowest carbon footprint.
Rhode said he is confident that Congress will again reject lock usage
fees, and reported that there are already almost 100 signatories to a House
letter opposing the proposal. With broad
bipartisan support, Rhode said participation on the letter among the UMRS
delegation has been strong.
Rhode
emphasized the need to:
He said project delivery has become extremely
inefficient, attributing this to a combination of inefficient funding streams,
construction delays, and cost overruns.
According to Rhode, project delivery has declined significantly, with
only two navigation projects authorized after WRDA 86 having been
completed. In the case of one of those
projects, McAlpine, construction of a second 1,200 foot lock required 10
years, compared with three years to construct the first lock at this facility
in the 1950s. He cited Olmsted Locks and
Dam as the most egregious example, noting that the project is at least 9 years
behind schedule and 271 percent over budget.
Overall, the seven lock projects authorized in WRDA 86 required 6.3
years to complete and cost 32.4 percent more than originally authorized. In comparison, Rhode estimated that five lock
projects authorized after WRDA 86 will require an average of 17 years to
complete, with actual costs projected to increase 110 percent over the project
authorizations.
Rhode said WCI supports the current effort underway
through the IMTS Investment Strategy Team to develop a long term capital plan
and then match a revenue plan to those funding needs. He stressed the importance of engaging
industry in finding a solution, given its cost sharing responsibilities. He observed that there are many potential
options for increasing revenue to the IWTF, including approaches that would
capture some revenue from other beneficiaries of the locks and dams (e.g.,
water suppliers, wastewater operators, power generators and other large water
uses, and recreationists). Rhode
emphasized that any tax increase, whatever its form, must be accompanied by
improvements in the project delivery system.
Dick Lambert observed that the single locks that
predominate on the UMRS present challenging reliability issues, and said this
should be a factor in project prioritization.
In response to a question from Lambert, Rhode said industry is awaiting
the results of the capital needs assessment before offering an alternative to
the Administration’s lock usage fee proposal.
Rhode said that, personally, he would like to see a
full upfront funding model considered.
However, he stressed that this is not a WCI position, and acknowledged
that transitioning to this approach would be enormously difficult. He also suggested an approach where cost
overruns above a certain percentage (e.g., 15 percent) would not be subject to
cost sharing.
Naramore
asked about the timeframe for completion of the IMTS Team’s work. Rhode stressed the importance of being timely
for a potential WRDA 2010. Jones said he
expects the capital plan to be largely complete this fall, or early next
year. However, he said the revenue plan might
lag that somewhat.
Jeff Stamper asked whether
the IMTS Team is factoring the potential of small scale and nonstructural
measures into its work. He observed that
the UMRS Navigation Study evaluated these types of measures carefully and found
they could be very beneficial, particularly during construction. However, Stamper said other portions of the
inland system have not examined small scale and nonstructural measures as
thoroughly. Jones concurred, saying that
the potential contributions of small scale and nonstructural measures should be
examined consistently throughout the system.
Gary Clark thanked Jones and
Rhode for their presentations. He
observed that the IWTF’s capacity to fund new locks and major rehabilitations
on the UMRS is a critical issue for UMRBA and its member states. Mike Wells moved and Laurie Martinson
seconded a motion directing staff to draft a letter on the issue for the
Board’s consideration. Naramore stated
her understanding that this letter would be directed to both Congress and the
Administration and would express the states’ concerns with the lock usage fee
proposal, while stressing the need for a solution to the IWTF shortfalls. Bernie Hoyer said the letter should emphasize
needs on the UMRS, and Wells said it should convey a sense of urgency to decide
on a solution and move forward. Todd
Ambs observed that the effectiveness of the states’ letter will be limited if
it does not offer an alternative to lock usage fees. The motion to direct staff to draft a letter
for the Board’s consideration carried unanimously.
Administrative Issues
Mike Wells asked that the
November 2009 meeting agenda include a presentation from the Corps’
Northwestern Division about the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study. He noted that this study is just getting
underway and had important implications for the UMRS.
Chuck Spitzack thanked the
NESP partners for their excellent input on the program’s first Implementation
Report to Congress. He said the report’s
structure itself, which begins with a letter from the three District Commanders
and ends with UMRBA’s letter, is emblematic of the partnership effort in
developing the report.
With no further business, the
meeting adjourned at