Minutes of the
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
Quarterly Meeting
Sheraton Westport Plaza Hotel
Charles
Barton of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at
Minutes from the November 20, 2008
Meeting
Jim Fischer moved and Martin Konrad seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of
the
Program Management
FY 09 Fiscal Update
Marv
Hubbell reported that EMP is currently operating under a continuing resolution
(CR) authority, which will expire on
• Regional management — $712,000
• LTRMP — $5,428,432
• HREPs — $11,859,568
o
Program Model
Certification — $100,000
o
MVP — $3,527,870
o
MVR — $4,703,828
o
MVS — $3,527,870
Hubbell explained that staff reassignments to address flood recovery
and other pressing needs significantly reduced EMP’s
ability to obligate and expend funds in the first quarter of FY 09. However, Hubbell said these
staff are beginning to return to their customary work, which should
permit EMP to begin operating as normal by this spring. Hubbell expressed confidence that EMP will be
able to execute fully in FY 09.
Hubbell said that EMP continues to operate under a “no new starts”
provision that was first included in the FY 08 appropriations measure by the
House Appropriations Committee.
According to Hubbell, the ability to start new project design and move
projects from design to construction is vital to maintaining the Corps’ habitat
restoration capacity on the UMRS. He
estimated that the “no new starts” constraint may start to limit the EMP’s execution capability relative to historic funding
levels beginning in FY 10.
Stimulus and FY 10 Funding
Hubbell reported that President Obama signed
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka
stimulus package) into law on February 17, 2009. The stimulus measure allocates the Corps’
funding by major account, leaving the agency with significant discretion in
determining which specific projects and programs will receive stimulus
funds. Corps Headquarters (HQ) is
currently working to determine those allocations. Hubbell said that the total FY 09 funding to
the EMP, including any stimulus funds, will be subject to the program’s annual appropriations
cap of $33.17 million. Charles Barton
announced that HQ has sent a draft list of allocations to divisions and
districts, requesting that they confirm execution capabilities. Barton said HQ may release its stimulus
allocations as early as next week.
David Conrad noted that the stimulus package includes a specific
provision providing a one-time exemption from the annual authorization ceiling
for several programs, including Sections 206 and 1135. Barton cautioned it remains to be seen whether
the Administration will actually allocate funds in excess of the annual
authorization cap to any of the programs Conrad cited.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked if stimulus funds will
be allocated between HREPs and LTRMP according to the
standard 68.6/31.4% formula. Barton said
any stimulus funds allocated to the EMP will be directed to specific projects,
be they HREPs or LTRMP efforts, with no effort to
achieve a particular proportion between the two major program elements. Hubbell explained that LiDAR
and bathymetry data acquisition are the LTRMP’s two
leading candidates for stimulus funds, but emphasized that such funding is by
no means guaranteed.
Charlie Wooley asked whether stimulus funds
could be used to repair flood-related damages to HREPs. Barton said project repair funds are
typically allocated through the flood control and coastal erosion program, and
he did not know whether the program would receive any stimulus funding. Hubbell noted that funding for minor repair
work at Brown’s
In response to a question from Rick Mollahan,
Hubbell distinguished between the stimulus measure’s across-the-board
prohibition on new starts and the EMP-specific restriction put forth by the
House Appropriations Committee in FY 08 and 09.
The stimulus bill bars the allocation of funds to Corps projects and
programs that have not previously received construction general funding. However, this does not affect EMP, which has
received CG funding for more than 20 years.
Barton explained that the limiting language for the EMP is the House
committee provision, which is interpreted as barring planning and design unless
a fact sheet already was approved prior to FY 08 and restricting construction
to those HREPs for which construction was initiated
on some element prior to FY 08. Janet Sternburg asked if the provision in the FY 08 and 09
appropriations bills applies to stimulus funds.
Barton said that Corps staff are seeking an
interpretation on that. He noted that
the restriction was included at a time when the expectation was that the
transition from EMP to NESP would happen promptly following authorization. Given that transition does not appear likely
for at least the next couple of years, Barton said the impacts of the language
on the EMP project pipeline need to be considered. Upon request from Schlagenhaft,
Hubbell said he would distribute a list of projects with approved fact sheets
to the EMP-CC distribution list.
Conrad noted that the stimulus bill contains language that would allow
previously unfunded projects to receive stimulus money if they are funded in
the FY 10 appropriations bill. Barton
observed that there are many unanswered questions regarding implementation of
the stimulus measure and said he hoped there would be clarity on some of these
issues by the May quarterly meetings.
Bernie Hoyer asked for clarification regarding the relationship between
EMP and NESP. Hubbell explained that the
Navigation Feasibility Study was formulated with the assumption that the three
regional restoration programs (i.e., EMP, NESP, and Section 519) would operate
parallel with each other. However,
Congressional appropriators have made it clear that they do not intend to fund
more than one restoration program on the UMR, and have directed the Corps to
submit a transition plan for moving from EMP to NESP. So far, the Corps has declined to submit such
a plan, based largely on the fact that the Bush Administration consistently
included EMP in its annual budget, but did not view NESP as “budgetable”—i.e., was not prepared to request funding for
NESP. Hubbell noted that it remains to
be seen whether that position will change under President Obama. Barton said that, in order for an effective
transition to occur, there will need to be a period during which both programs
are funded. Barton said that, ideally, a
ramp-up for NESP would occur while EMP winds down, in order to create a smooth
transition.
Hubbell reported that the President is expected to release a detailed
FY 10 budget by mid-April. Barton
expressed hope that an FY 09 Omnibus Bill would be passed before the
President’s detailed budget is released.
Regional Management
According
to Hubbell, if Congress continues to maintain its stance on no new starts for
EMP, the program will be significantly limited in terms of available projects
by FY 10. Furthermore, any additional
funding through the stimulus measure would advance the project completion dates
and cause EMP to feel the impact earlier.
Hubbell said that, in order to get an adequate supply of additional
projects in the pipeline, the EMP would need to be permitted to initiate both
new planning and construction. On a
practical level, this would include reconvening the District and System
Ecological Teams. Hubbell presented the
following table, which shows the number of HREPs
currently in each phase and the number of projects expected to be completed by
the end of FY 10:
|
|
Current Projects |
Completion Expected by End of FY 10* |
|
Construction |
7 |
4-5 |
|
Design |
8 |
5-6 |
|
Planning |
8 |
3-5 |
*Assumes
EMP funding of approximately $18 million annually.
Hubbell
explained that, to maintain a robust program, it is important to have an
adequate number of projects in each phase.
He said the Corps will report back with an update and recommendations
the EMP-CC’s May quarterly meeting. Ken
Barr suggested a joint EMP-CC/NECC session in May to discuss the
program-neutral restoration objective-setting process, noting that this would
be particularly timely, given that NESP’s first full
four-year planning cycle will begin shortly thereafter.
2010 Report to Congress
Marv
Hubbell reported that the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the five
Hubbell
said he anticipates that the 2010 RTC will have a similar format as the 2004
RTC, but said he wants the 2010 RTC to focus more on accomplishments and
outcomes. Hubbell said the report will
also address issues related to a potential EMP/NESP transition. He proposed the following general timeline for
preparing the report:
|
Working group meets to
identify RTC issues and focus areas |
|
EMP-CC reviews the issues
and focus areas |
|
Working
group meets to develop an outline and identify key contributors and authors |
|
EMP-CC reviews outline |
|
EMP-CC reviews rough draft
RTC |
|
Seek EMP-CC endorsement of
final draft RTC |
|
Submit the final draft RTC
to MVD |
|
Submit the final draft RTC
to HQ |
|
Submit the RTC to Congress |
Hubbell
suggested that the Corps, FWS, USGS, states, UMRBA, NGOs, and USEPA all be
represented on the RTC working group.
Those who would like to volunteer were asked to contact Hubbell by March
4, 2008.
In
response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Hubbell
said it remains to be determined just how the HNA will be updated for the 2010
RTC. He said possibilities include
examining how the HNA was used in the system goals and objectives setting
process, how the HNA has been used to identify and develop objectives for
individual projects, and how new science and data might be incorporated into
future revisions of the HNA. Sternburg asked whether Hubbell anticipates the report will
include significant recommendations regarding either EMP authority or the
EMP/NESP transition. Hubbell observed
that there will likely be important changes and developments during the course
of drafting the RTC. As such, final
determinations about the report’s recommendations will probably best be made
later in the process, when there is more information available. Todd Strole
suggested that the RTC highlight the EMP’s
contributions to ecosystem services and climate change.
Climate Change Impacts and EMP
Tim
Schlagenhaft presented background information on
climate change and described potential opportunities to incorporate climate change
considerations into both the LTRMP and HREPs. He noted the global efforts to understand and
reverse climate change, and outlined the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s conclusions, as follows:
Schlagenhaft
reported that the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC) has
issued a position statement that includes recommendations for considering
climate change in management of the UMRS.
He highlighted the following UMRCC recommendations as particularly
applicable to EMP:
Schlagenhaft
noted that the
In
summary, Schlagenhaft noted that most scientists
agree climate change is occurring and will affect water resources. To-date, the EMP has not formally considered
the impacts of climate change, but there are clearly opportunities to incorporate
climate change issues into both the LTRMP and HREPs
in ways that might strengthen the EMP.
He asked EMP-CC members to consider these factors.
Bryan Hopkins asked if formal
carbon credit programs have been established, other than the Chicago Climate
Exchange pilot. Schlagenhaft
said he knows there is interest to set up similar exchanges, and there is
trading occurring, but there is no formalized national or international system
yet. David Conrad said that there is
currently considerable activity ongoing to establish markets, focusing on
issues such as standardizing values.
Schlagenhaft said that many state and federal agencies recognize
the need to find solutions, and are ahead of the UMR partnership in terms of
understanding the impacts and incorporating climate change into their programs
and policies. Marv
Hubbell suggested that an ad hoc group be formed to explore climate
change-related issues and opportunities for EMP, with the objective of
addressing these in the context of the 2010 EMP RTC. Schlagenhaft added
that HREP managers could consider ways to incorporate climate change
considerations into evaluations of potential projects, and that LTRMP could
provide monitoring suggestions to enhance project adaptability.
In response to a question
from Schlagenhaft, Mike Jawson
said UMESC’s climate-related research priorities
would include enhancing understanding of the carbon cycle on the UMRS and
understanding how the system functions relative to other key greenhouse gases
(e.g., denitrification in backwaters).
Hubbell said he anticipates
the Corps will soon issue guidance on how to account for climate change in
project planning. He said he would
present this guidance to EMP-CC at a future meeting. Joyce Collins advocated thinking more broadly
(i.e., beyond the bounds of just the EMP) about the potential effects of
climate change on the river. This might
include education and outreach efforts and program adjustments to adapt to
anticipated changes.
Jim Fischer expressed support
for Collins’ idea of education and outreach efforts. But he urged caution regarding the idea of
adding climate change as a criterion in project evaluation. Schlagenhaft
emphasized that there are many factors to consider in project evaluation and
selection, and that climate change considerations could simply offer another
factor that would help inform decisions.
He stressed that he is not suggesting that it be paramount.
Public Involvement and Outreach
Marv
Hubbell acknowledged the EMP partners’ past support for increasing the program’s
emphasis on public involvement and outreach, but observed that only modest
progress has been made due to competing priorities. He proposed the following potential
activities:
Hubbell
requested feedback from the partnership on the proposed ideas, as well as any
other suggestions, by
Christine
Favilla said that the Sierra Club participates in
many festivals, which are effective at reaching the general public. She suggested having established materials
that partners could use at such events.
Hubbell said that EMP does have these types of products, including
postcards, and these are available upon request. In response to a question from Vince Shay,
Hubbell explained that the traveling display the Corps was working on with the
Jeff
DeZellar announced that Jim Nissen
of the U.S. FWS is leading efforts to plan a public meeting on the Pool 8
Islands project. DeZellar
noted that a similar effort held last year was effective.
Referencing Hubbell’s list
of potential outreach activities,
Benjamin
highlighted an event last summer, when partner agencies worked together to take
more than 200 people on boat tours of HREPs in a
single day. Benjamin said the effort was
quite successful, and received very positive feedback from participants. Tom Boland suggested video taping such
efforts in order to expand their reach.
Hubbell suggested that the partners also consider refreshing the EMP 20th
Anniversary DVD. Hubbell said that the
Corps will develop a strategy based on today’s discussion and partnership
feedback, and will report back to the EMP-CC.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement
Projects
District HREP Reports
Jeff DeZellar
said he anticipates MVP will have a final DPR for Capoli
Slough and a preliminary draft DPR for Harpers Slough completed by the end of
FY 09. DeZellar
reported that Pool 8 Islands Phase III Stage 3B continues to be MVP’s design
priority, with the goal of being ready to award a construction contract in FY
10. Construction on Stage 2B is
substantially complete, and Stage 3A is MVP’s FY 09 construction priority, with
plans and specs having been approved on February 10. DeZellar said the
district would like to award Stage 3A in a single increment, but the
feasibility of this approach will depend on how the bids come in. DeZellar also
reported that construction of Finger/Clear Lakes is nearing completion. Vince Shay asked how Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) program was involved in the Finger/Clear Lakes project. DeZellar said that
50 percent of the berm construction costs were funded
by O&M. Jim Fischer explained that,
originally, the intention was for O&M to fund the berm
construction completely; however, because of the associated ecological benefits
to deep water habitats from dredging, the EMP and O&M programs were
integrated. DeZellar
acknowledged that MVP has several pending project completion reports. Of the outstanding reports, Dan Wilcox is
prioritizing four for completion based on partner-identified needs.
Marv Hubbell reported that MVR currently has four projects
in the planning phase:
Jim Fischer asked whether the
reduction in effort on performance evaluations will limit the partnership’s
ability to describe program accomplishments in the pending Report to
Congress. Hubbell said the underlying
information will be available, even if the project reports are not
written. He further explained that, with
staff detailed to flood recovery and other priorities, the HREP managers have
had to make choices between completing plans and specs and project evaluation
reports.
Brian Markert
said that MVS is continuing to develop a DPR for Ted Shanks Conservation Area,
and will be initiating a DPR for Rip Rap Landing next week. MVS is collecting data on
HREP Showcase
— Ted Shanks Conservation Area
Markert
described the HREP being planned for the southern portion of the Ted Shanks
Conservation Area. The project area is
approximately 2,900 acres of General Plan lands managed by the Missouri
Department of Conservation.
Historically, the area consisted primarily of mature bottomland hardwood
forest. As a result of the Lock and Dam
24 construction, the average water table level rose, but much of the forest
survived until the 1993 flood, when prolonged inundation resulted in
significant tree mortality. The death of
mature trees eliminated a major draw on ground water in the area, leaving it
too wet to successfully reforest.
Markert
outlined the following project goals and objectives (with related project
features shown parenthetically):
Markert
explained that planners are considering a wide range of project alternatives,
in order to allow them to select the most cost-effective methods of delivering
on project goals. He said he anticipates
a DPR will be ready for submission to MVD by the end of FY 09. This would permit Ted Shanks to move to
construction in FY 10, if the appropriations language constraining new starts
is lifted. Tim Schlagenhaft
asked whether pre-project monitoring was being conducted on waterfowl and fish
use of the area. Markert
said that since Ted Shanks Conservation Area is heavily managed, there is a
considerable amount of existing data. As
the DPR is developed, that data will be evaluated and any additional data
needed will be identified.
Schlagenhaft
suggested that, if there is not sufficient data to document project
accomplishments in the 2010 EMP RTC, the EMP-CC will need to develop a strategy
for addressing this problem. He stressed
that the partnership cannot put off the challenge of project evaluation.
Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program
Product Highlights
Mike Jawson
described the following LTRMP product highlights:
FY 09 Scope
of Work
Jawson reported that the LTRMP FY 09 Scope of Work includes:
Jawson described the efforts to prepare for the acquisition
of land use/land cover data in FY 10.
This will include several assessments and initial staff training in FY
09, with training continuing into FY 10.
Jawson explained that the new technologies
that will be employed (i.e., new digital camera, 3-d monitor, and Feature
Analyst) are combining to create significant training needs. He also stressed the importance of ensuring
compatibility with the 1989 and 2000 coverages.
In a follow-up to partners’
previous requests for brief summaries of project completion reports, Jawson distributed a sample research summary written by Tim
Donahue. Jawson
asked EMP-CC members to consider whether similar summaries should be produced
for LTRMP projects that result in either manuscripts or project completion
reports. In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Jawson
said it would take approximately four hours to develop such a research summary,
with a few additional hours for review.
Draft Bathymetric Plan
Karen Hagerty
reported that a draft bathymetry acquisition plan has been reviewed by an
internal technical review committee within USACE and USGS. A revised version will be sent to partner
agencies, including the A-Team, for technical review next week. Hagerty anticipates
that a final draft plan will be presented to the EMP-CC for consideration at
its May quarterly meeting.
Hagerty said her current estimate is that the systemic
bathymetric coverage will cost approximately $1 million. In response to a question from Bernie Hoyer, Hagerty said this would include data for the main channel
and backwaters between the
Draft LiDAR Plan
Hubbell reviewed a joint
statement that he and Jawson authored in order to
address LiDAR-related issues raised at the EMP-CC’s
November 2008 meeting. Hubbell noted
that a question raised in November included what method is most cost-effective
and accurate for collecting topographic information on the UMRS. The statement includes recommends that EMP
continue to use LiDAR to acquire floodplain
topographic data for medium- to large-scale spatial areas, and for smaller
areas as needed for specific projects.
Hubbell explained that this recommendation is based on the fact that LiDAR is far more cost-effective than digital photography
for large areas (roughly $250-500/square mile v. $10,000/square mile). The joint statement further
notes that digital photography is the most cost effective tool for the creation
of land use/cover data, and may be used in the collection of topographic data
for small scale applications.
Tim Schlagenhaft
asked whether the A-Team had provided input regarding the relative priority
between LiDAR and bathymetric coverages,
noting that the EMP-CC had requested the A-Team’s thinking on this
question. Hubbell noted that land
use/land cover was identified as a higher priority than LiDAR
and bathymetry in the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan. But all are identified as priorities, and the
draft Operational Plan provides flexibility for the program to be
opportunistic. Hubbell also said that
the LiDAR and bathymetry plans are being developed
simultaneously; but that because of inherent complexities associated with
developing the bathymetry plan, the LiDAR plan has
progressed at a faster pace.
Bernie Hoyer asked whether
the existing bathymetry data will be updated as data for new areas are
collected. Hagerty
said the Corps is focused on obtaining data for incomplete areas first, and
will then consider whether there are areas in need of updating.
Hagerty reported that the draft LiDAR
Acquisition Plan, as presented, reflects input received from technical experts
in the partner agencies. She outlined the draft plan, which splits the system
into four sections. Estimated costs, the
current status of data collection, and recommended relative priority for each
reach are as follows:
Hagerty noted that the estimated total cost for LiDAR acquisition for the system is $1,133,000, which does
not include any potential cost-sharing opportunities. The remaining cost to complete system-wide LiDAR is approximately $783,000. These estimates do not include additional
processing or serving costs. In response
to a question from Sternburg, Hagerty
explained that these costs would be borne entirely by the LTRMP under the
current plan. She noted that partnering
often leads to expanded coverage, rather than reduced costs.
Naramore asked if the Corps had estimated the additional
processing and serving costs associated with the LiDAR
data. Hagerty
said $50,000 is budgeted for processing data in Pools 8-24 in FY 08 and 09;
however, Hagerty said that may not be sufficient, and
that the full cost will depend on the types of products desired. She said these issues will be explored over
the next year.
Schlagenhaft asked if the A-Team had identified relative
priorities related to LiDAR data acquisition. Sternburg said that
the A-Team did not discuss LiDAR priorities because
the draft plan was not complete when the team last met. Sternburg observed
that LiDAR coverage should have a relatively long
shelf life and asked how frequently the Corps anticipates that the bathymetric
data would need to be refreshed. Hagerty said she does not have a firm sense of this, but
said some areas are certainly more subject to change than others. She also noted that this will be a relatively
coarse bathymetric coverage, not suitable for applications requiring a high
degree of precision, but also thus somewhat more durable.
Naramore emphasized the need to estimate the annual costs of
maintaining and serving the data, especially since these costs appear to have
the potential to be significant. Bernie
Hoyer said he could provide Corps staff with
Hubbell asked whether EMP-CC
members wanted to offer any modifications to the draft plan. Sternburg asked
what assumptions the plan makes about stimulus funding. Hubbell explained that the draft plan simply
establishes an approach and relative geographic priorities. As such, the potential for stimulus funding
is, in a sense, irrelevant—i.e., it would accelerate implementation, but would
not fundamentally alter the plan.
Charles Barton cautioned partners against assuming that stimulus funds
will be available for either LiDAR or bathymetry,
stressing that this is by no means assured.
Schlagenhaft made a motion to endorse the LiDAR Acquisition Plan, and to begin implementation with
available funding. Jim Fischer seconded
the motion, which was approved with all five states, USACE, USFWS, and USEPA
voting “yes” and USGS abstaining.
Status and
Trends Report
Barry Johnson reported that USGS has reviewed proof
copies of the 2008 Status and Trends Report, and expects to receive hardcopies
from the printer in two to three weeks.
Johnson said hardcopies will be distributed to the partners and a pdf of the report will be available on UMESC’s
website.
Hagerty reported that USGS and USACE staff met in October
2008 to review development of the 2008 report and identify ways to improve the
process for future status and trends reports.
This was an opportunity to explore cultural and institutional
differences between the two agencies that presented challenges when it came to
scoping and executing the report. Based
on this discussion, key recommendations for future reports include:
Hubbell distinguished between indicators of ecosystem
health and management goals and objectives.
He explained that the EMP/NESP efforts to establish restoration goals
and objectives will be helpful, but said ecosystem health indicators should
also be agreed upon before the next report is initiated.
A-Team Report
Sternburg
reported that the December 4, 2008 A-Team meeting was primarily focused on the
application of biological indicators on the UMRS with respect to ecosystem
health and the 2008 Status and Trends Report, and the potential role(s) of the
A-Team and LTRMP in addressing this topic.
Sternburg described the following four
presentations that were given on various evaluation frameworks and indicator
case studies:
Sternburg
said that Bill Franz and Hubbell also discussed an upcoming workshop that will
examine biological indicators for both Clean Water Act and ecosystem
restoration programs. Sternburg said the A-Team created an ad-hoc group that will evaluate and refine indicators using the
2008 Status and Report and other information to better reflect the UMRS goals
and objectives. The group will report back
to the A-Team, and will work with the 2008 Status and Trends Report authors on
proposed refinements to indicators.
On
FY 10-14
Operational Plan
Hubbell reported that the Operational Planning Team had its third
meeting on
Hubbell outlined key points/elements of the Operating Plan as follows:
Jim Fischer said the Strategic and Operational Plans should position
the LTRMP well for the future, regardless of what program it is operating
under. He also suggested that the
Strategic Planning Team would be the appropriate body to do an annual review of
the FY 10-14 Operational Plan and SOW. Roger
Perk emphasized the importance of prioritizing outcomes now, so that decisions
can be made in a timely way if resources are not available to support all
desired activities. He recalled that
making such prioritization decisions in the past following funding shortfalls
proved to be extremely difficult. John
Chick stressed the value of moving away from a minimal sustainable program
(MSP) and toward a full articulation of how the LTRMP can meet science and
information needs on the UMRS. Jawson noted that the Operational Team developed its budget
estimate after the desired program was identified, without consideration of the
LTRMP’s authorized funding level. It so happened that the estimate cam in at
about $9 million.
Project
Highlights from the Great River Field Station
John Chick highlighted the Great Rivers Field Station’s efforts to
evaluate the Swan Lake HREP. Because
Chick said that caged tubers proved effective at protecting planted
submerged aquatic vegetation that was otherwise consumed by carp and
turtles. Hagerty
asked if a difference in water quality existed inside and outside of the caged
tubers. Chick said that suspended
sediment was lower inside the caged tubers after the vegetation grew. Bryan Hopkins asked if there was anecdotal
evidence of increased waterfowl populations.
Chick said the waterfowl response has been quite good, particularly in
the middle unit that was subject to multiple drawdowns. Dick Steinbach noted that the area is an
important wildlife sanctuary and is not open to waterfowl hunting.
Chick also briefly highlighted other
Other
Business
John Chick announced that the National Great Rivers Research and
Education Center and The Nature Conservancy are co-sponsoring an August 10-13,
2009 conference entitled “Visions of a Sustainable Mississippi River: Merging Ecological, Economic, and Cultural
Values.” The conference will be held in
Marv
Hubbell noted that Karen Hagerty is the new LTRMP
Coordinator.
Barb Naramore outlined the upcoming quarterly
meeting schedule as follows:
·
May 2009 —
o
UMRBA — May 19
o
NECC — May 20
o
Joint EMP-CC
and NECC — afternoon of May 20
o
EMP-CC — May
21
·
August 2009 —
o
UMRBA — August 4
o
EMP-CC — August 5
o
Joint EMP-CC
and NECC — afternoon of August 5 (if needed)
o
NECC — August 6
·
November 2009
— Quad Cities
o
UMRBA — November 17
o
NECC — November 18
o
Joint EMP-CC
and NECC — afternoon of November 18 (if needed)
o
EMP-CC —
November 19
* A NESP Navigation Coordination Group
meeting will also be scheduled during the August quarterly meeting series.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at
EMP-CC Attendance List
EMP-CC
Members
|
Charles Barton |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department of Natural Resources |
|
Martin Konrad |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
|
Bill Franz |
|
Others in
Attendance
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Audrey Kravets |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Roger Perk |
|
|
Jack Carr |
|
|
Charlie Hanneken |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Ashby |
|
|
Art Spratlin |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Dick Steinbach |
|
|
Jon Duyvejonck |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Mark Fuchs |
|
|
Leon Carl |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Fleig |
Iowa Department of Transportation |
|
Dick Lambert |
Minnesota Department of Transportation |
|
Ross Dames |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Mike Flaspohler |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Gary Calvert |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Travis Moore |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Danny Brown |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Mark Boone |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Bryan Hopkins |
Missouri Department of Natural Resources |
|
Doug Schnoebeler |
|
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Garry Loss |
CDM |
|
Don Powell |
SEH Inc. |
|
David Conrad |
National Wildlife Federation |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak
Walton League |
|
Christina Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|