Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
February 26, 2004
Winter Quarterly Meeting
Sheraton Westport Plaza
Tower
St. Louis, Missouri
Charlie Wooley
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at
8:05 a.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2004.
Other EMP-CC members present were Greg Ruff (USACE), Scott Stuewe
(IL DNR), Diane Ford-Shivvers (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet
Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Linda Leake (USGS), and Bob
Goodwin (MARAD). A complete list of
attendees is attached.
Minutes of the October Meeting
Diane
Ford-Shivvers moved and Scott Stuewe seconded a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the November 20, 2003 meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 04 Status
Roger Perk
reported that the FY 04 energy and water appropriations bill signed by the
President included $19.0 million for the EMP.
However, this appropriation was reduced by $4.204 million (22.13%) in
savings and slippage and by an additional $113,000 (0.59%) recission enacted as
part of the FY 04 omnibus appropriations bill.
This resulted in a FY 04 allocation for the EMP of $14.683 million. Combined with $61,000 in carry-in from FY
03, the EMP’s scheduled FY 04 expenditures total $14.744 million. This includes $9.826 million for HREPs;
$4.497 million for the LTRMP; $156,000 for the Report to Congress; $34,000 for
the Independent Technical Review Committee; and $30,000 for public involvement.
Through December
31, 2003, the EMP’s expenditures and obligations totaled $1.642 million
and $1.985 million, respectively. Perk
explained that, while first quarter expenditure and obligation rates are typically
rather low, operating under a continuing resolution for several weeks slowed
commitments more than usual during the first quarter of FY 04. Perk said that, within the next two months,
the Corps will be determining what HREP contracts will be advertised and
awarded in FY 04. He briefly reviewed
the anticipated HREP work plans for each of the three districts.
Perk offered
several corrections to the December 2003 spreadsheet included in the February
meeting packet. [Note: a revised version of the spreadsheet was
distributed with the Highlights and Action Items Summary from the February
meeting.]
Determining Savings and Slippage
Noting that he
had received several recent questions on the matter, Perk described how savings
and slippage (S&S) rates for Corps programs are calculated. He explained that the sum of the funding
amounts for individual projects (and programs) within a major account (e.g.,
Construction General, or CG) typically exceeds the amount Congress appropriates
for that account. As a result, the
projects within that account are reduced by a fixed percentage (i.e., the
savings and slippage rate) to bring their total into alignment with the amount
actually appropriated for that account.
However, projects that are specifically earmarked in the appropriations
bill are exempt from S&S reductions.
Therefore, the S&S rate applied to the non-earmarked projects is
actually higher than it would be if the rate were applied to all projects in
the account.
Janet Sternburg
asked when in the fiscal year the Corps starts trying to recover S&S for
projects. Perk said this process can
begin very early in the year, but observed that funding within CG has been
extraordinarily tight over the past two years.
As a result, the only opportunities to recover S&S recently have
occurred very late in the fiscal year.
Rich Worthington emphasized that the Corps does not receive a pot of
money from Congress labeled “savings and slippage.” Rather, Congress reduces the individual projects it is funding
within an account by a savings and slippage rate in order to have the total of
the projects equal the sum of money that it is actually appropriating for that
account—i.e., the S&S money does not exist as actual appropriated funds. Worthington further explained that the
opportunity for a project to later “recover” S&S exists only if some other
project within the Corps is unable to fully utilize its funding allocation for
that year. In such an instance, the
Corps has the authority to reprogram the unused funds to another priority
project. In response to a question from
Charlie Wooley, Worthington said he did not know if S&S was unique to the
Corps, but said the Corps is unusual among federal agencies in having such a
project-based budget. Because execution
rates within the Corps’ CG account are consistently high nationwide,
Worthington said the prospects for recovering savings and slippage to the EMP
are quite limited in FY 04.
Tim Schlagenhaft
asked whether the S&S rate is the same nationwide within the Corps. Perk explained that the same rate in a given
year is applied to all non-earmarked projects and programs within the same
major account, but that the rates are different for each major account—i.e.,
the rates for Construction General, Operation and Maintenance (O&M), and
General Investigations (GI) are not the same.
Schlagenhaft observed that the LTRMP does not resemble a construction
program. Perk replied that the EMP
would likely fair worse in the O&M account, where projects that fall below
a cut-off line are not funded at all.
Moreover, Greg Ruff noted that the FY 04 S&S rate for GI is 35
percent, compared with the 22 percent rate for CG.
Barb Naramore
asked whether the Administration also plays a role in establishing the final
S&S rates, noting that the rates are typically slightly higher than those
identified in the final conference report for the energy and water
appropriations bill. Perk said the
Administration does make some minor adjustments based on priority
projects.
FY 05 Outlook
Perk reported
that the President’s FY 05 budget request for the EMP is $28 million. However, for planning purposes, the Corps
will assume FY 05 appropriations of approximately $20 million and a 22 percent
savings and slippage rate. Perk said it
is quite possible that the S&S rate will actually be higher. In developing the districts’ FY 05 work
plans, the Corps will seek to identify HREP work that could be added if the FY
05 appropriation comes in above $20 million, or if the savings and slippage
rate is lower than 22 percent. Perk
said the district HREP managers will consult with the EMP partners regarding
sequencing and priorities as they develop these plans.
Perk said he
understands that March 19 is the deadline for Members of Congress to submit
their energy and water funding requests to the subcommittees. Holly Stoerker said she will want
information from Perk regarding the additional work that would be possible
under a $28 million EMP in FY 05. She
said that these details are important in preparing the UMRBA’s budget
testimony.
Public Involvement and Program Advocacy
Gretchen
Benjamin requested input on the draft EMP brochure included with the February
meeting packet. She explained that the
brochure is designed to apply to the entire system and noted that area-specific
inserts could be developed to provide more local details. Benjamin noted that two versions were
included in the agenda packet. Roger
Perk said the Corps objects to the Mark Twain quote used in one of the
versions.
Benjamin said
she is striving to create a concise brochure appropriate for a broad public
audience. She asked EMP partners to
provide input regarding the draft’s content, format, and points of contact by
March 12. Wisconsin DNR will then
prepare and distribute a revised version based on the comments received, with
the goal of completing the brochure in time for use at the Navigation Study
public meetings in June. In response to
a question from Benjamin, Perk said the Corps would use EMP public involvement
funds to print the brochure. He
estimated that there would be a 2-3 week turnaround time for printing, and said
he would consult further with Benjamin regarding the quantity to be printed.
Don Hultman
distributed an EMP outreach plan developed by the interagency work group formed
at the November 2003 EMP-CC meeting.
Hultman explained that the plan is designed to help EMP supporters act
proactively on behalf of the program by identifying key milestones that occur
at predictable times each year. Goals
include enabling program supporters to communicate more effectively with the
Administration and members of Congress.
Hultman said an e-mail alert system could be quite effective in
fostering this communication and asked EMP partners to identify entities that
might be willing and able to develop and operate such a system. Possibilities suggested included the
Mississippi River Citizen Commission and various state conservation
networks. Dan McGuiness offered to
provide e-mail addresses of interested Audubon members to whomever operates the
e-mail alert system.
Holly Stoerker
noted that, in the past, the partner agencies have deliberately chosen not to
highlight state and district project breakdowns. However, she said that more locally tailored messages from
stakeholders might well be more effective in making the case to individual
Members of Congress. Regarding the
proposed calendar’s reference to a joint Governors’ letter, Stoerker cautioned
that such letters require a long time to execute. She suggested that efforts to get separate letters from the
individual Governors might be more successful, though by no means easy.
HREP Planning and Sequencing
Roger Perk said
he has incorporated the final modification to the HREP Planning and Sequencing
Framework requested by the EMP-CC at its November 2003 meeting. Perk said he would distribute the final
framework, as endorsed by the EMP-CC.
[Note: the framework was
distributed with the Highlights and Action Items summary of the February EMP-CC
meeting.]
Perk reported
that he has drafted a list of potential candidates for the System Ecological
Team (SET) called for under the Planning and Sequencing Framework. The SET will have approximately 6 members,
who will need to cover a broad range of expertise. Perk said he has shared his draft list informally with EMP-CC
partners and requested any further input regarding SET candidates by March
19. In response to questions from
Charlie Wooley, Perk explained that the SET is charged with considering each of
the District Ecological Team’s prioritized project lists from a system
perspective and recommending an overall project sequence. He emphasized that there will continue to be
active HREP work in each of the districts.
Perk plans to consult further with the EMP-CC members in narrowing his
SET list to approximately 10 to 15 names and will then begin contacting
candidates. He said the Corps plans to
begin implementing the Planning and Sequencing Framework in FY 05. After initial start-up, Perk said he
anticipates the SET will meet approximately once per year. In response to a question from Barry
Johnson, Perk said any potential role for the SET in implementing ecosystem
measures recommended in the Navigation Study will be addressed only after
authorization and funding of such measures.
Scott Stuewe
asked about the status of the Independent Technical Review
Committee (ITRC), and in particular whether the nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) that had advocated for the ITRC’s formation have
identified candidates to serve on the group.
Greg Ruff said American Rivers submitted some potential names to him a
couple of years ago. Ruff and Perk
asked EMP partners to provide any further input regarding ITRC candidates to
Perk by March 19. The Corps will then
consult further with the EMP-CC as it narrows the list and begins to contact
candidates. The ITRC will consist of 5
to 6 members, with implementation slated for the beginning of FY 05. Ruff said he expects the ITRC will meet a
couple of times initially, then annually thereafter. Holly Stoerker asked about the linkage between the EMP-CC and
ITRC. Ruff confirmed that the EMP-CC
will have input regarding the questions the ITRC is asked to address.
Linda Leake
explained that OMB-mandated changes in USGS business practices have resulted in
separate line items for common services, facilities, and admin/info costs. These three categories were previously
combined in a single line item. The new
categories led some partners to conclude that there were new types of costs and
that total overhead-related costs were increasing. However, in reality, total costs for these elements actually
declined by 8 percent from FY 02 to FY 04, according to Leake. Common services and facilities costs represent
22 percent of LTRMP spending at UMESC.
These same categories average almost 26 percent of the field stations’
budgets, with the numbers at individual field stations ranging from 16 to 37
percent. Leake emphasized that UMESC
and the field stations continue to look for opportunities to reduce or avoid
increases in overhead costs. Gretchen
Benjamin thanked Leake for her explanation, saying that this information has
enhanced the partners’ understanding of the program’s cost structure.
Leake recounted
Leslie Holland-Bartels’ November 2003 statement regarding the LTRMP’s FY 04
scope of work (SOW) — i.e., assuming a proportional share of a $20 million EMP
appropriation and 16 percent savings and slippage, the LTRMP can just squeeze
by without a major program restructuring in FY 04. However, this stopgap approach would leave the question of the
program’s long term future unaddressed.
Leake noted that the EMP appropriation was lower and the S&S rate
was higher than the working assumptions reflected in Holland-Bartels’ November
statement, thereby exacerbating the situation.
The LTRMP’s $4.398 million allocation combines with $193,600 in
“overdistributed” funds to provide the LTRMP with $4.592 million in FY 04. This compares with $5.2 million in
FY 02 and $3.9 million in FY 03.
Leake said the overdistributed funds consist of money previously
transferred to Illinois and Missouri but not yet expended or obligated due to a
variety of factors, including early staff departures.
Leake explained
that, in developing the FY 04 SOW, USGS made the following assumptions:
At its February
2004 meeting, the A-Team recommended a SOW that maintains the standard
monitoring protocol, to the maximum extent possible, while acknowledging that
approach would require significant reductions in other areas. More specifically, the SOW favored by the
A-Team would implement the standard protocols for vegetation, fisheries, and
macroinvertebrate monitoring; and a modified water quality sampling
regime. Leake emphasized that this SOW
requires substantial reduction or curtailment of activity in all other program
areas, including land cover/land use, bathymetry, the Science Planning Process,
data management, equipment repair and replacement, and editorial
assistance. She noted that the Status
and Trends Report will not be completed in FY 04 under this SOW.
Leake said the
FY 04 SOW requires difficult choices on everyone’s part. She acknowledged that USGS had previously
said it would not again support a stopgap approach in place of addressing the
program’s fundamental structural problems.
However, she explained, USGS was reversing this position in the spirit
of partnership and is willing to support the A-Team’s preferred approach,
assuming a thorough program reassessment is conducted in FY 04. Leake said USGS is seeking two specific
actions from the EMP-CC at today’s meeting:
1) input on the LTRMP’s FY 04 SOW — i.e., does
the EMP-CC support the A-Team’s recommendation?
2) concurrence with USGS’s position that any
additional funds that become available in FY 04 should be directed to analysis
— e.g., EMAP work may free additional resources within the LTRMP that could
support analysis
Janet Sternburg
summarized the A-Team’s discussions concerning the LTRMP’s FY 04 SOW. At its February meeting, the A-Team
recommended using HREP funds to help address a $175,000 difference between available
funds and UMESC’s and the field stations’ proposed budgets. Sternburg explained that Corps staff
rejected this approach. As an
alternative, state A-Team members then suggested that UMESC and the field
stations all reduce their proposed budgets by 4 percent. Following the meeting, USGS and the states
reviewed their work programs and determined what adjustments would be required
under this approach. According to Sternburg,
the SOW outlined by Leake reflects these adjustments.
At the February
meeting, A-Team members were also asked to rank their monitoring
priorities. The majority of program
partners identified fisheries sampling as their top priority. Sternburg attributed this, in part, to the
fact that the fisheries protocol has been thoroughly analyzed and efficiencies
have been realized. Before making any
further modifications to fisheries monitoring, the other components should be
subject to similar reviews.
Regarding the
pending LTRM Program Assessment, Sternburg said A-Team members have emphasized
the importance of making science-based decisions and avoiding funding-driven
disruptions to data continuity. Noting
the LTRMP’s recurring budget difficulties, Sternburg offered her personal
perspective that the program must be restructured. In particular, she cited the LTRMP’s high level of fixed costs.
10-Year
Component Reports
Barry Johnson
reported that A-Team members have been asked to coordinate their agencies’
comments on the draft 10-year component reports. Comments on the draft fisheries, vegetation, and
macroinvertebrate reports are due March 12.
Final drafts of these 3 reports are scheduled for the end of April. The water quality component report has been
delayed due to staff changes, and the first draft is scheduled for March 15.
Tim Schlagenhaft
and Gretchen Benjamin stressed the importance of completing the 10-year reports
in a timely manner and expressed their hope that the reports will help inform
LTRMP restructuring decisions. Johnson said
the timeframe for completing the reports depends in large part on the extent of
the partners’ comments. He said the
reports should yield some valuable insights, but noted that they are designed
to summarize 10 years of monitoring, not specifically to answer restructuring
questions. According to Johnson, the
restructuring effort may require additional information. Pat Heglund concurred, explaining that the
reports will assess the efficiency and efficacy of protocols that have been
employed for the various components, but will not evaluate various potential
modifications. She noted that a
statistician could explore such questions, such as the implications of changing
spatial scope, but cautioned that such analyses are expensive and that there is
no single perfect approach for all purposes.
Heglund briefly
described the LTRMP’s evolution since its inception, stressing that it began as
a well-balanced program but has gradually degraded to the point where it is
essentially gathering and warehousing data.
As available funds declined in inflation-adjusted terms, focused studies
and efforts to characterize sedimentation patterns were among the first
activities curtailed. More recently,
data and analysis products, technical support, and bathymetry work have been
cut substantially. After years of
incremental reductions, Heglund emphasized that it is now time to step back and
consider the program’s future direction more comprehensively. She stressed USGS’s perspective that the
LTRMP needs to be a balanced program that combines data collection, data
serving, focused studies, analysis, products, technical support, systemic
platforms, and science leadership.
Heglund reported
that the USGS and the Corps have formed a LTRM Program Assessment Team
consisting of Heglund, Marvin Hubbell, and Rick Frietsche. The team is charged with gathering
information, documenting partner perspectives, and identifying a range of
options for implementing a funding-limited LTRMP. She emphasized that the team members will be neutral fact finders
and facilitators, not advocates for their programs or agencies. The team will rely on EMP-CC members as its
central points of contact, with the expectation that the EMP-CC members will
actively engage their A-Team members and others within their state/agency. After gathering input and information, the
Assessment Team will then identify a range of alternatives and prepare a report
for the USGS and Corps. These two
agencies will then consult further with the other program partners concerning options
and next steps.
Janet Sternburg
questioned the feasibility of the LTRM Program Assessment’s schedule, which
includes presentation of the Assessment Team’s findings at the May EMP-CC
meeting. Heglund acknowledged that the
schedule is ambitious, but stressed the need to address the program’s structure
and scope prior to the start of FY 05.
Sternburg asked about the scope and specificity of the assessment. Hubbell said the size of the program’s base
must be identified. Heglund said the
assessment will focus on the big picture questions of what the partner agencies
really value, not the technical aspects of sampling design and other more
detailed issues.
Tim Schlagenhaft
suggested adding a state agency representative to the Program Assessment Team,
observing that this could help the team in formulating questions and
communicating about the process.
Heglund stressed that the team members will not be acting as
representatives of their agencies, but rather will be serving as neutral
facilitators. According to Heglund, Tom
Boland offered to participate on the team, but was instead asked to provide the
Assessment Team with historical information from his many years on the A-Team.
Hubbell offered
EMP-CC members the Program Assessment Team’s assistance in coordinating with
others in their state/agency. For
example, Hubbell suggested, the Assessment Team is willing to facilitate
workshops for the partner agencies if that would be helpful. Gretchen Benjamin expressed interest in a
facilitated workshop. Heglund noted
that the EMP-CC members may want to take a variety of approaches and stressed
the Assessment Team’s willingness to assist in whatever way possible.
In response to a
question from Holly Stoerker, Heglund said the alternatives that the Assessment
Team presents may be state- or agency-specific. Stoerker urged the team to package the alternatives based on
cohesive ways of meeting different needs, rather than according to agency. Sternburg said she anticipates the partners’
priority needs will exceed available resources and asked how this situation
will be handled. Heglund said it is
important to document the partner agencies’ priorities, even if some of them
are prohibitively expensive. While
costly priorities may not fit into the alternatives for the baseline
restructured program, they should be identified as future opportunities,
according to Heglund.
Schlagenhaft and
Greg Ruff asked how the current LTRM Program Assessment compares with previous
efforts to determine the program’s scope and focus. Roger Perk said the Corps has reviewed those previous efforts and
found the partners have consistently expressed the same priorities over
time. Perk emphasized the need to restructure
the LTRMP so that the base program is executable at realistic funding
levels. He said it is not acceptable to
be several months into a fiscal year and still be discussing how to fit the
annual SOW within available funds. In
order to avoid this in the future, Perk said the partners must define a modest
program that can be maintained at the funding levels Congress is providing,
with additional work structured as add-ons.
EMP-CC members endorsed the FY 04 SOW as presented by Leake. They also endorsed USGS’s recommendation
that any additional FY 04 funds that come into the LTRMP be directed to
analysis. In response to a question
from Schlagenhaft, Leake and Heglund said priority will be given to analyses
that would help in examining future program options. Examples include assessment of water quality monitoring options
and modeling different spatial options for data collection. Benjamin asked whether the decision to
allocate overtarget funds to analysis would affect the schedule for completion
of the Status and Trends Report. Leake
said the report will be delayed from FY 04 to FY 05 due to the decision to
prioritize monitoring in FY 04. This
revised schedule will not be affected by any overtarget funding — i.e., the
Status and Trends report will remain deferred until next year and any current
year overtarget funds will be directed to analytical efforts that support
program restructuring. Bob Goodwin
suggested the possibility of coordinating with tow boat crews to collect water
samples and also recommended surveying crews concerning trends they are seeing.
Marvin Hubbell
reported that, because the cost-sharing issue was not fully resolved at the
November EMP-CC meeting, the Corps elected to delay release of the Report to
Congress (RTC) public review draft.
He explained that the Corps hopes to achieve partner consensus on
cost-sharing at today’s meeting and then initiate the public review period in
mid-March. Outstanding cost-sharing
questions include eligibility of General Plan (GP) lands for 100 percent
federal HREPs, the extent of floodplain landownership by federal agencies other
than the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service, and the potential eligibility of
these other federal lands for 100 percent federal HREPs.
Referencing the
summary included in the EMP-CC agenda packet, Hubbell said MVR’s counsel has
concluded that all Corps GP lands that are not specifically reserved by the
Corps for some other management use are considered to be managed as a national
wildlife refuge for the purpose of Section 906(e) of the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act. Thus, HREPs may be
constructed with 100 percent federal EMP funds on GP lands managed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service or by a state.
Responsibility for operation and maintenance of such HREPs rests
entirely with the agency managing the land.
Hubbell said the Corps’ review of past projects indicates that this
interpretation has been consistently applied from the EMP’s inception. Regarding the Bussey Lake HREP, which had
been cited as a possible exception, Hubbell explained that Iowa cost shared a
portion of this project because the state asserted ownership on part of the
project lands.
Noting that the
Forest Service owns 33,000 acres on the Open River, an area with very little
public land, Janet Sternburg said it would be helpful if Forest Service lands
could qualify for 100 percent federal HREPs.
Roger Perk said the Corps is willing to consider such projects on a
case-by-case basis, but would not support pursuing a modification to the EMP
authority. After some further
discussion, EMP-CC members reconfirmed their November 2003 agreement that
Forest Service and National Park Service holdings on the UMRS, which total less
than 34,000 acres, are not sufficiently large to warrant seeking a change to
the EMP authority. Instead, they agreed
that construction funding for any specific projects proposed on Forest Service
or Park Service lands should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. EMP-CC members further concurred that the
RTC should articulate the partners’ common understanding regarding cost-sharing
on GP lands and the potential for projects on Forest Service or Park Service
lands, but should not include any specific recommendations.
Hubbell
explained that the Corps still plans a 45-day public review period, commencing
in mid-March and concluding by the end of April. If any major issues are identified in the comments, these will be
considered at the May EMP-CC meeting.
The Corps will address more minor comments without further
consultation. Hubbell said the Rock
Island District’s goal is to complete the RTC as soon as possible after the May
meeting and forward it to the MVD Commander.
Hubbell also alerted EMP-CC members that each partner agency will be
asked to provide a letter of endorsement for inclusion in the RTC that is
submitted to MVD. He said MVR will need
these endorsement letters by the end of May, but recognized that the partners
will presumably want to wait to finalize their letters until after the May
meeting, when the public review comments will be discussed. This will leave partners with a fairly
narrow window in which to finalize their letters, and Hubbell urged EMP-CC
members to initiate the letter drafting process prior to the May meeting.
Sternburg urged
that the RTC clearly demonstrate the value of LTRMP information. Perk, Hubbell, and Linda Leake said they
would strive to ensure that the report makes a compelling case for the LTRMP.
Greg Ruff
reported that, as part of the Corps’ 2012 reorganization, Steve Cobb is now
leading MVD’s New Orleans District Support Team and thus will no longer
co-chair the EMP-CC. According to Ruff,
the as-yet-unnamed leader of MVD’s St. Paul and Rock Island District Support
Team will likely assume the EMP-CC co-chair role. Ruff also reported that Bill Dawson of Corps Headquarters will
lead the MVD Regional Integration Team.
Rich Worthington will be on this team and will continue to serve as the
Headquarters contact on many UMRS projects.
Holly Stoerker urged MVD to ensure that it maintains connections among
the three UMRS Districts, which are divided between two different Support Teams
under MVD’s reorganization. Ruff said
MVD is aware of this concern from the upper river and will strive to maintain
integration among the three Districts.
Barb Naramore
announced that the upcoming quarterly meeting schedule includes meetings on May
20, 2004 in St. Paul; August 12, 2004 in the Quad Cities; and November 18, 2004
in La Crosse. [Note: The November meeting location was
subsequently shifted to St. Louis.]
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
EMP-CC
Attendance List
February 26, 2004
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Linda Leake |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Scott Stuewe |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Diane
Ford-Shivvers |
Iowa Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Tim
Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bob Goodwin |
Maritime Administration |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Headquarters |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Tim George |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Dan Erickson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Roger Perk |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Tim Yager |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Don Hultman |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Dick Steinbach |
|
|
Karen
Westphall |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Pat Heglund |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
John Chick |
Illinois
Natural History Survey |
|
Mike McGhee |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Gary Wooten |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service |
|
Dan McGuiness |
National
Audubon Society |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |