Minutes of the
Upper
Mississippi River System
Environmental
Management Program
Coordinating
Committee
February 17,
2000
Winter
Quarterly Meeting
DoubleTree
Hotel
Bloomington,
Minnesota
John Blankenship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2000. Other EMP-CC members present were Dusty Rhodes (USACE), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), Marvin Hubbell (IL DNR), Tom Boland (IA DNR), Walt Popp (MN DNR), Gordon Farabee (MO DOC), Terry Moe (WI DNR), and Pete Redmon (USEPA). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the November
Meeting
Terry
Moe moved and Marvin Hubbell seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
November 16, 1999 EMP-CC meeting as written.
The motion carried unanimously.
LTRMP Ramp-Up Strategy
Tom
Boland distributed a draft LTRMP ramp-up strategy developed by A-Team
members. Boland explained that the
strategy identifies current LTRMP capabilities and articulates a vision for
expanding the program. According to
Boland, the strategy is designed to maintain the core monitoring program while
adding, continuing, or expanding in the following areas:
·
additional
monitoring components,
·
monitoring
in new pools to allow extrapolation beyond the trend pools,
·
bathymetric
data collection,
·
expanded
land cover/land use data,
·
sediment
transport and deposition data and modeling,
·
fish
passage research and recommendations,
·
enhanced
linkages among components
·
initial
information needs assessment (INA),
·
refine
habitat needs assessment (HNA),
·
support
for habitat management at pool and reach scales,
·
decision
support tool development and access, and
·
data
clearinghouse functions.
Boland explained that the A-Team plans to revise,
and perhaps condense, the draft ramp-up strategy. He said the A-Team is not currently seeking any formal response
to the draft, but would like to discuss its ramp-up strategy at the EMP-CC's
May meeting.
In response to a question from Dusty Rhodes, Jerry
Skalak said the Corps was aware that the A-Team was developing the ramp-up
strategy but did not participate actively in its development. Boland noted that, notwithstanding the draft
document's cover, the strategy represents the A-Team's collective thinking and
is not exclusively a USGS product.
Holly Stoerker observed that the UMRBA needs at least conceptual
information about the LTRMP’s ramp-up potential for its FY 01 budget
testimony. She said UMRBA staff may
develop a simplified concept paper for consideration at the EMP-CC's May
meeting. The purpose of such a concept
paper would be to articulate a common partner vision for an expanded
LTRMP. Terry Moe said he would like to
see an LTRMP ramp-up strategy used in developing the Administration's FY 02
budget proposal for the EMP. Moe noted
that FY 02 will be a key year for the LTRMP.
According to Moe, the restructured LTRMP cannot be implemented with the
baseline FY 02 funding.
Program Management
FY 00 Fiscal Performance and
Overtarget Request
Mike
Thompson offered the following corrected numbers for the FY 00 scheduled
expenditures column in the EMP spreadsheet:
LTRM--$4.913 million, Total by Program Element--$15.739 million,
LTRM/UMRBA--$4.784 million, and Total by Organization--$16.279 million. In response to a question from Marvin
Hubbell, Thompson said the current allocation formula directs 31.4 percent, not
31.0 percent, of funding to the LTRMP.
Thompson said this allocation formula will be reflected on future
spreadsheets.
Thompson
reported that the EMP's FY 00 expenditures totaled $2.432 million through
December 31, 1999. This represents
approximately 15 percent of the $16.279 million in total expenditures scheduled
for the year. He noted that
construction expenditures are typically a bit slow in the first quarter and
expressed confidence in the prospects for full expenditure over the fiscal
year.
Thompson
also reported that overtarget funding of $1.826 million for the LTRMP has been
approved. This includes $65,000 that
will go to WES and MVP. The St. Louis
District may have some overtarget capability associated with construction of
the Batchtown and Calhoun Point projects, but Thompson said it is relatively
unlikely that the HREP program will receive overtarget funding this fiscal
year. Terry Moe commended the Corps on
its efforts to obtain overtarget funding for the LTRMP. Moe said it appears funding was provided for
all tasks on the LTRMP's overtarget capabilities list. Dusty Rhodes asked whether the Corps can
transfer any more overtarget money to the LTRMP this fiscal year without Congressional
approval. Janet Hodges said that all of
the LTRMP's savings and slippage reduction has been restored. Leo Foley noted that the Corps could
transfer additional funding to the LTRMP equivalent to the HREP savings and
slippage amount without Congressional approval.
FY 01 Administration Budget
Request
Thompson
reported that the President has requested $18.0 million for the EMP in FY
01. Thompson distributed a handout
showing tentative plans to allocate an $18.0 million appropriation as follows:
Rhodes
said MVD would have preferred a higher number, but fully supports the
President's EMP request. He said the
$18.0 million EMP request should serve as a "wake-up call,"
demonstrating that the program faces significant challenges in maintaining,
much less increasing, its funding.
EMP Implementation Guidance
Thompson
reported that Colonel Mudd forwarded his EMP implementation guidance
recommendations to General Anderson on December 28, 1999. General Anderson in turn submitted his
recommendations to Corps headquarters on January 18, 2000. According to Thompson, the guidance is
pending at headquarters. Greg Ruff said
headquarters is scheduled to discuss the EMP guidance with staff from the
Assistant Secretary's (ASA’s) office on February 22. Ruff said preliminary indications regarding the substance of the
guidance are generally positive. Holly
Stoerker thanked MVD staff for their efforts to clarify the land acquisition
language before General Anderson submitted recommendations to headquarters.
Other
Moe
noted that the categories in the Corps' LTRMP overtarget list are different
from the categories used in the ramp-up strategy and annual plan. He said such differences make it hard for
program partners to review documents and track developments. Leslie Holland-Bartels said USGS would
review and address the problem.
In
response to a question from Rhodes, Deb Foley said the Corps will not release
approved capability figures until March.
However, she said Corps personnel are free to discuss what can be done
under the HREP and LTRMP components as long as they do not release the
capability number. Rhodes estimated
that EMP could execute an approximately $25 million program in FY 01. In response to a question from Moe,
Holland-Bartels said the LTRMP could execute an $8.3 million program in FY 01,
as outlined in the A-Team's draft ramp-up strategy.
Stoerker
noted that the state partners now face a decision that they have not
encountered since the EMP's early years — i.e., they want to support increased
appropriations, but do not want appropriations to exceed the program's
execution capability. Moe cautioned
that, if the HREP/LTRMP allocation formula is retained, the habitat projects
could slow expansion of the LTRMP if the HREP component cannot ramp up as
quickly. Stoerker asked whether the
existing allocation formula would be used if the EMP receives increased, but
less than full authorized, appropriations.
Foley said the Corps has not insisted on maintaining the standard
allocation when there is a good reason to deviate. He noted that FY 00 overtarget money is going exclusively to the
LTRMP because the HREP component does not have significant additional
capabilities.
Rhodes
asked whether program partners were advocating increasing the LTRMP's
allocation above 31.4 percent even if the FY 01 allocation is $18.0
million. Hubbell said he was not making
such a request. Moe said Wisconsin's
position would depend on each component's capabilities. Rhodes said there is nothing wrong with
having a ramp-up plan for both components of the program, but emphasized that
the Corps' planning for FY 01 is currently limited to the Administration's
$18.0 million request. Moe said he is
seeking to increase Administration support for the program in the future.
Outyear HREP Capabilities
Mike
Thompson said the districts have the capability to increase the number of
habitat projects, but stressed that any HREP ramp-up will also depend on
contractor availability and commitments from partners, including cost share and
operation and maintenance (O&M).
Dusty Rhodes said ramping up the HREP program is likely to be more
difficult than expanding the LTRMP. In
particular, he noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service's recent letter cast
doubt on the Service's ability to participate in project planning and operate
and maintain projects on refuge lands.
In addition, Rhodes noted that the states' participation in cost shared
projects has been limited in the past and does not show signs of increasing. Rhodes said the Corps has not yet responded
to the Service's January 27 letter, but said he could not imagine that the
Corps would transfer scarce O&M money to the Service for HREPs. Rhodes noted that, even if the Corps were
inclined to do so, Congress would likely object strongly to such a transfer.
Pete
Redmon observed that the HNA is designed to provide guidance on what habitat
projects the EMP should pursue. As
such, Redmon advocated completing the assessment before attempting to develop a
long-term vision for the future HREP component.
In
response to a question from Marvin Hubbell, John Blankenship said the Service's
letter applies to all of the refuges on the UMRS. Blankenship said the maintenance backlog on the UMR refuges
totals $14 million. He said he cannot
see making additional O&M commitments under these conditions. Blankenship estimated the Service's annual
O&M commitment for HREPs at approximately $330,000. Blankenship expressed frustration with the
situation, emphasizing that Region 3 has worked hard within the Administration
and with Congress to address the UMR refuges' needs. However, these efforts have not met with success and Blankenship
said the region cannot make additional commitments until something changes.
Hubbell
asked whether the Service would accept a state offer to assume management
responsibility for an HREP on refuge land.
Blankenship said the Service would have to consider such offers on a
case-by-case basis. Hubbell reported
that Illinois is increasing state funding for environmental restoration and
said there is interest in using some of this money to partner on EMP projects.
Rhodes
said the Service's letter puts the Corps in a difficult position. He emphasized that the Corps will not seek
HREP funding that it is not confident it can spend. Leo Foley said the Service's inability to fund HREP O&M could
skew project selection to HREPs requiring little or no O&M.
In
response to a question from Hubbell, Blankenship said the Service's letter does
not preclude the states from proposing new refuge projects. However, Blankenship emphasized that the
states and others should be aware that the Service is operating under
significant constraints. He urged the
program partners to continue to work with refuge managers on individual
projects.
Terry
Moe stressed the public’s strong support for the EMP. He said there will be a vigorous public reaction if any public
agency is seen as reducing its commitment to the EMP. Blankenship said the public has many expectations of the
Service. Given resource constraints,
Blankenship said the Service must make difficult choices. He noted that many other parts of the
country have a higher public profile, and more available resources, than does
the UMR.
Moe
said Wisconsin has worked hard to develop its cost share capability. He asked the other state EMP-CC members
about their ability to cost share projects.
Tom Boland said the Mississippi River in Iowa is dominated by refuges
and thus presents relatively few opportunities for cost sharing. Boland also noted that state funds for cost
sharing are also rather limited, but emphasized Iowa's willingness to do what
it can to participate in cost shared projects.
In addition, Boland said he understands the Service's resource
constraints and said Iowa is anxious to help the Service get the resources it
needs to participate fully in the EMP.
Walt Popp said Minnesota is quite interested in pool-scale HREPs, which
should require less O&M. Popp
observed that any such pool projects would involve at least some refuge
lands. He reported that Minnesota has
not previously participated in cost shared projects, but said the state is
looking for opportunities. Gordon
Farabee said Missouri strongly supports the Service's involvement in the EMP. He noted that Missouri has 200 miles of
river with no refuge lands. Missouri is
pursuing opportunities for cost shared projects on the Open River, including
projects that will involve land acquisition.
Farabee reported that Colonel Morrow of the St. Louis District recently
met with the Director and Deputy Director of Missouri Department of
Conservation to discuss cost share opportunities. Hubbell said General Anderson's recommended implementation
guidance would facilitate state cost sharing.
He said providing credit for acquisition costs incurred prior to
execution of the project cooperation agreement (PCA) would be particularly
helpful.
Rhodes
observed that the EMP is at a crossroads.
There is an opportunity for the program to grow, but Rhodes
characterized the increased cost share requirement as a clear call from the
Administration and Congress to increase state financial participation. In addition, according to Rhodes, the
technical advisory committee and habitat needs assessment provisions in the
reauthorization and the Administration's flat-lined budget request reflect
decision-makers' concerns that the EMP may not be building the right
projects. Farabee said the states are
working with members of Congress to build support for the program.
Jim
Fisher noted that the Service's letter identifies a need for HREP planning
money as well as O&M funding.
Fisher said the $300,000 requested would not cover all of the Service's
planning expenses, but would help considerably. He noted that the refuge budgets are comprised of approximately
95 percent fixed costs, leaving the Service with very little flexibility.
Dan
McGuiness urged the states to lead by example in advocating EMP ramp-up. He said Minnesota's pool-scale project
proposal is a positive example of state leadership. McGuiness recommended that the states document their current and
anticipated contributions to the program.
Bob
Clevenstine noted that crosswalk budgeting among the federal agencies has been
quite effective in some areas, including south Florida. Rhodes attributed the success of such
initiatives more to the high profile of the initiatives than to the power of
crosswalk budgeting. He said a proposal
for coordinated federal action would be more effective coming from the private
sector than from the federal agencies themselves. Boland stressed the importance of getting increased money to the
Service if the EMP is to succeed in the future.
In
response to a question from Blankenship, Thompson confirmed that MVS could
implement the HREP program at its current level through FY 04 with projects
already in the pipeline. Leo Foley
and Don Powell said MVR and MVP have enough projects in the pipeline to
continue implementing at the current level through FY 03. Jerry Skalak said there is approximately $32
million worth of projects on the books in MVR.
According to Skalak, this represents three to four years worth of work
even if the HREP program is expanded to $22 million annually. Rhodes said there are clearly enough
projects in the pipeline to execute a ramped up program, but stressed that
this would also require commitment from the partner agencies. Blankenship said the Service remains
committed to projects already under development. However, as articulated in Region 3's January letter to General
Anderson, the Service faces significant constraints to its ability to plan and
implement future projects.
Hubbell
and Moe stressed the importance of working jointly to address constraints and
pursue a ramp-up strategy. Rhodes said
the federal agencies can furnish information but cannot develop and advocate a
joint ramp-up strategy with the states.
Rhodes reiterated his previous observation that many in Washington are
skeptical regarding expansion of the EMP.
Blankenship reported that the UMR Congressional Task Force sent a letter
several months ago urging the Service to increase its allocation of money to
the UMR. Blankenship said the Service
has yet to respond to the Task Force's letter, despite the fact that Region 3
drafted a response some time ago.
According to Blankenship, this lack of response indicates the relatively
low priority that the Department of the Interior places on the UMR. George Dusenbury said he will inquire as to
the status of the Service’s response.
Holly
Stoerker said UMRBA staff will work with the states over the next few weeks to
coordinate strategies for addressing the Service's concerns and ramping up the
EMP. This will include a focus on the
states' future cost sharing capabilities.
Blankenship said the Service will provide any information that the
states need. Hubbell requested
clarification from the Service regarding how they should work with refuge
managers on new projects.
Habitat Needs Assessment
Final Product
Mike
Thompson highlighted the status of the following HNA tasks:
·
Technical
Team's forecast of future conditions — essentially complete
·
Public
involvement institutional review — essentially complete
·
Public
involvement focus group meetings — PI Team will meet in early March to plan
·
Meetings
with resource managers — will be held in April
Thompson
said he will consult with the Technical Team, Public Involvement Team, and EMP‑CC
in developing the final format for HNA products. Preliminary plans call for an executive summary as well as a
lengthier, more technical document.
Data appendices will likely be distributed digitally. Thompson estimated that actual writing of
the assessment will begin in early May.
Terry
Moe noted that Wisconsin does not support the Technical Team's plan to identify
habitat needs as the difference between forecast future conditions and desired
future conditions. Wisconsin has concerns with the HNA's reliance on future
conditions information from the navigation study. Moe said Wisconsin believes this information is flawed. If an inaccurate forecast of future
conditions is used to identify habitat needs, then those needs will also be
inaccurate. Moe said Wisconsin favors
comparing current conditions with desired future conditions in determining
habitat needs. Bob Clevenstine
indicated that Jeff Janvrin has raised Wisconsin's concerns with the HNA
Technical Team. While the team is aware
that the future conditions forecast has its limitations, the majority of the
team endorsed the approach of comparing the forecast future with the desired
future to identify needs. Clevenstine
said the HNA will use the best information available and will acknowledge its
potential limitations. Gordon Farabee
said the Technical Team's meetings with resource managers will be very helpful
in refining the future conditions information from the navigation study.
Applications and Limitations
Clevenstine
said the HNA is intended to help guide the HREP design and prioritization
process. He said the query tool should
be an efficient way of mining the existing data for relevant information. The first iteration of the HNA will identify
habitat classes that are either absent or sparse on the river and will also
articulate a consensus-based desired future condition for the system. In addition, the HNA will identify data gaps
and help focus future data collection.
Among the limitations of this first HNA will be its reliance on
relatively old spatial data.
Clevenstine said the species/habitat relationships used in the
assessment will also need to be refined over time.
Clevenstine
noted that each state and federal agency has its own authorities, mandates, and
existing plans. He emphasized that the
HNA will not supplant or override these other missions and mandates.
Tom
Boland expressed optimism regarding the potential of the query tool. He cautioned that the tool should not merely
be updated every six years when preparing the required report to Congress. Instead, he advocated updating the tool
continually, as new data become available.
Leslie Holland-Bartels said only 1989 land cover/land use (LC/LU) data
were available for the first iteration of the query tool. According to Holland-Bartels, it will be
relatively easy to integrate new LC/LU coverages into the query tool as they
become available. She also emphasized
the need for other types of data, including bathymetric data, which she
described as key to establishing better species/habitat relationships.
Moe
said Wisconsin is prepared to provide any new data as it becomes
available. He asked whether UMESC needs
to establish a budget line item for maintaining the query tool and
incorporating new data. Thompson said
the Technical Team has clearly identified on-going maintenance of the query
tool as essential to the HNA. Thompson and
Holland-Bartels said they would explore the question of what resources will be
required to maintain the tool.
Dusty
Rhodes said the HNA report should include a section on the assessment's
strengths and what could be done in the future to improve it. Jerry Skalak said the HNA will identify a
variety of data needs. The information
needs assessment will provide a means for considering these data needs along
with additional needs identified by river managers and others. Skalak noted that many of the same people
who are working on the HNA will be involved in the INA. He expressed optimism that the HNA query
tool will help link the LTRMP and HREP components.
Keith
Beseke asked whether ranking additional HREPs should be deferred until the HNA
is completed. Clevenstine said there is
no urgent need to rank additional projects and advocated waiting until a
process for using the HNA can be developed.
Clevenstine noted that the Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee is
meeting soon and will be considering how the HNA can be used to help rank projects. He cautioned that the HNA will identify
pool-level goals and provide general estimates of habitat types but will not
include site-specific data and goals.
Thus, one of the challenges for people involved in identifying,
designing, and prioritizing HREPs will be to determine how best to use the
somewhat general HNA information along with more site-specific data.
Thompson
highlighted the following next steps for the HNA:
·
Determine
format for the final HNA product
·
Hold
focus group meetings in March and April
·
Hold
meetings with resource managers in April
·
Write
report in June and July
·
Submit
HNA to MVD by September 30, 2000
HREP Prioritization Process
Mike
Thompson reported that he and Leo Foley have been working with a small, ad-hoc
group to draft an HREP prioritization framework. He emphasized that the group's draft is very general and is
designed to elicit comment from the EMP-CC.
Marvin Hubbell explained that the draft framework is a multi-stage
process that permits evaluation of proposed projects at various points. Hubbell described Stage 1 as a
district-level process of identifying ecologically sound projects. Stage 2 is a systemic look at the ecological
merits of proposed projects. Not until
Stage 3 are administrative considerations evaluated. Hubbell said the ad-hoc committee envisions a partnership
approach during all three stages. Holly
Stoerker noted that the draft framework does include a basic check for major
administrative issues during Stage 1.
Barb Naramore stressed that the ad-hoc committee deliberately kept the
draft framework as a conceptual document.
She explained that the committee wanted feedback from the EMP-CC on the
basic concepts before addressing more detailed issues.
Dusty
Rhodes said MVD has not reviewed the draft framework and therefore is not
prepared to comment. However, he noted
that initiating work on an HREP prioritization framework is generally
consistent with the EMP-CC's previous discussions concerning how to incorporate
the HNA into the project selection process.
Rhodes noted the EMP-CC's previous consensus that the HNA should
function as a tool in the toolbox when it comes to designing and prioritizing
HREPs.
Gordon
Farabee asked whether the three districts would work independently to develop
ecological evaluation matrices.
Thompson explained that the District Ecological Teams’ matrices would
need to be sufficiently similar to permit system-level consideration of
projects, but emphasized that the three matrices need not be identical. Thompson explained that the ad-hoc group
anticipates the district teams will use refined versions of the existing MVP
and MVR matrices. Among the refinements
would be incorporation of the HNA as an element in ecological evaluation.
Rick
Frietsche said the district teams’ decisions should be ecologically based and
expressed concern with the prospect of the district groups eliminating any
project based on administrative criteria.
Stoerker described the Stage 1 consideration of administrative factors
as a basic check designed to avoid spending significant money planning a
project that has no chance of being construction. Bob Clevenstine agreed that such a check should be made early in
the process, but recommended this be done by someone other than the
district-level groups. Leo Foley
emphasized that this basic check is designed only to identify projects with
clear and significant problems. He said
such projects are relatively rare in his experience. Naramore clarified that the district groups would retain
discretion regarding what to do with such projects and would not be precluded
from forwarding a project that has administrative impediments.
Terry
Moe expressed concern with the idea of a system-level ecological team comprised
of outside scientists. Moe said such a
group might be acceptable if it was composed of people from the three district
teams. However, he said this approach
would be unnecessary if each district teams simply evaluated its projects at
the pool, reach, and system scales. Moe
also recommended adding O&M costs as an administrative factor to be
considered during Stage 3.
Thompson
said he is not sure there would be much purpose to a System Ecological Team
comprised exclusively of district team members. He suggested that the system ecological evaluation would benefit
from having a broader range of perspectives and experience on the team. Walt Popp said he favors having a mix of
district team members and outside scientists on the system team.
Moe
emphasized the difference between the prioritization process outlined in the
framework and the generation of project ideas.
Moe said project ideas can come from anywhere.
Rhodes asked whether it would be feasible to present General Anderson with a fully coordinated HREP prioritization process along with the HNA in September. Foley said this could probably be accomplished, but cautioned against linking the process rigidly to project funding. Rhodes said he anticipates that the Corps would simply work as far down the list of project priorities as the funding permits each year. Thompson and Foley said the prioritization process will yield a group of high priority projects, not a strict listing of projects in priority order. Hubbell said this approach is preferable to a strict ranking because it preserves flexibility on important issues like maintaining capabilities in all three districts.
Jim
Fisher asked whether the System Ecological Team is equivalent to the technical
advisory committee called for in WRDA 99.
Hubbell said the system team is designed to fulfill the need to think
systemically about HREPs. He cautioned
that truly systemic thinking is unlikely to take place at the district
level. Rhodes noted that the ASA has
not yet issued WRDA 99 implementation guidance. Thus, no decision has been made as yet regarding the technical
advisory committee.
Farabee
asked about the timeframe for implementing the prioritization process. Rhodes said the Corps will initiate a new
HREP selection process in FY 01 that is consistent with WRDA 99 and the ASA's
implementation guidance. According to
Rhodes, the new process will be implemented gradually and will have little
effect on projects that are already well advanced. He said he wants to apply the new process to planning starts
beginning in FY 01. Farabee stressed
the importance of developing a process that is consistent across the three
districts.
Thompson
suggested that the ad-hoc group refine the draft framework between now and the
EMP-CC's May meeting. Toward this end,
he requested comments on the current draft by March 3. Rhodes encouraged the ad-hoc group to
continue working on the framework, but cautioned that the EMP-CC should not be
asked to endorse a final proposal until they have reviewed the draft HNA.
Other Business
Dusty
Rhodes described the Administration's current budget projections for the
EMP. Relative to the FY 01 request,
those projections include reduced funding in FY 02 and 03, essentially flat
funding in FY 04 and 05, and somewhat increased levels beyond FY 05. Rhodes noted that these projections are not
reflected in the "balance to complete" figure in the current EMP
spreadsheet. He said the number on the
spreadsheet is not meaningful and will be removed from future spreadsheets.
Tom
Boland said the cover of the A-Team's draft LTRMP ramp-up strategy suggests
that the strategy is a USGS document.
Boland clarified that this is not the case and said USGS's logo should
not have appeared on the cover.
Holly
Stoerker announced that future EMP-CC meetings will be held on May 18 in
Madison, Wisconsin; August 10 in the Quad Cities; and November 16 in St. Louis,
Missouri.
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
EMP-CC Attendance List
February 17, 2000
|
Dusty
Rhodes |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
John
Blankenship |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Marvin
Hubbell |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tom
Boland |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Walt
Popp |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gordon
Farabee |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Terry
Moe |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Pete
Redmon |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Greg
Ruff |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Tom
Pullen |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Leo
Foley |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Jerry
Skalak |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Janet
Hodges |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Deb
Foley |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Don
Powell |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Mike
Thompson |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Brian
Markert |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Mike
Rector |
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Dan
Stinnett |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Bob
Clevenstine |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island |
|
Jim
Fisher |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Rick
Frietsche |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Keith
Beseke |
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jerry
Vineyard |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Ellen
Fisher |
Wisconsin
Department of Transportation |
|
Jim
Harrison |
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission |
|
George
Dusenbury |
Northeast-Midwest
Institute |
|
Dan
McGuiness |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Catherine
Freeman |
University
of Minnesota |
|
Holly
Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb
Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |