Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
Spring Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Riverfront Hotel
St. Paul, Minnesota
Don Hultman of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. on Thursday, May 20, 2004. Other EMP-CC members present were Charles Barton (USACE), Scott Stuewe (IL DNR), Diane Ford-Shivvers (IA DNR), Amy Denz (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), and Bill Franz (USEPA). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the February Meeting
Concerning the
draft February 26, 2004 meeting minutes, Diane Ford-Shivvers requested
a change to the third sentence of the first paragraph on p. 8. She said it would be more accurate for the
sentence to read “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.” Janet Sternburg moved and Gretchen Benjamin seconded a motion to
approve the draft minutes of the February meeting, with the modification
requested by Ford-Shivvers. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
FY 04 Status
Roger Perk
reported that, through March 31, 2004, the EMP’s expenditures and obligations
totaled $5.346 million and $9.645 million, respectively. Perk characterized the 36 percent
expenditure rate through the second quarter as typical for this point in the
fiscal year.
According to
Perk, four HREP construction contracts will likely be awarded before the end of
FY 04. These contracts are for
Spring Lake Islands and Pool Slough in MVP, Pool 11 Islands Stage 2 in MVR, and
Calhoun Point Stage 2 in MVS. The bulk
of construction on these projects would take place in FY 05. For FY 05 planning purposes, the Corps is
assuming EMP appropriations of approximately $19 million and a 22 percent
savings and slippage rate.
Referencing the
second quarter spreadsheets, Perk said the Report to Congress expenditure rate
will decrease for the remainder of FY 04.
Don Powell reported that Ambrough Slough is under construction. Plans and specs for Pool Slough should be
done next week, at which point Small Business Administration contractors will
be asked to bid the project. Plans and
specs for Spring Lake Islands should also be completed soon, according to
Powell. Perk reported that Pool 11
Islands, Stage 1 is nearing completion.
MVR has awarded two of the contract’s three additional dredging options,
which were contingent upon available funding and dredge disposal capacity. Final definite project reports are scheduled
to be completed in FY 04 for Rice Lake, Lake Odessa, Fox Island, and Pool 12
Over-wintering. The construction
schedule for these projects is contingent on funding availability. Perk also noted that the Mississippi River
Citizen Commission is holding a Congressional briefing and media day today and
tomorrow. This will include a visit to
the Pool 11 Islands project. Brian Markert
reported that Calhoun Point Phase 1 is under construction and should be
completed this year. MVS anticipates
awarding the contract for Calhoun Point Phase 2 this year, and proceeding to
construction in FY 05. Design work on
Schenimann Chute should be completed in FY 04, and the Batchtown design is
scheduled for completion next year.
In response to a
question from John Sullivan, Perk explained that a habitat project is shown as
“deferred” on the spreadsheets if a fact sheet was prepared but the project is
currently inactive. Perk elaborated
that, because money was expended on fact sheet development, these deferred
projects must be reflected on the program spreadsheets. Scott Stuewe asked about the ongoing and
completed totals reflected in the gray portion of the historical summary
spreadsheet. Perk explained that the
ongoing figure is an estimate of the total required to complete projects
currently in planning and construction.
The completed figure reflects the costs of all habitat projects completed
through FY 03.
Selection of SET and ITRC Members
Perk briefly
reviewed the roles and functions of the System Ecological Team (SET) and
Independent Technical Review Committee (ITRC).
The SET will function as part of the new HREP Planning and Sequencing
Framework endorsed by the EMP-CC in November 2003. More specifically, the SET will review the project
recommendations from each of the three District Ecological Teams and consider
how they might best be combined to meet system and reach goals. The SET will be comprised of habitat experts
from this region who are familiar with the EMP HREP program. Some of the SET members will be people who
serve on the DETs. In contrast, the
ITRC is mandated by the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 and will be
asked to look at broader questions concerning both the HREP and LTRMP
components. The EMP-CC will have input
regarding the questions that the ITRC is asked to address. The ITRC will be comprised of people with
expertise in a wider range of disciplines and will likely include some members
from outside of the region who have national reputations in their fields.
The Corps has
determined its preferred candidates for both the SET and ITRC, after
considering a range of partner input.
Perk said he has informally shared these two lists with EMP-CC members,
and asked that partners contact him if they have any substantial concerns. At Gretchen Benjamin’s request, Perk said he
would also inform EMP-CC members of the Corps’ alternate candidates should its
preferred individuals be unable or unwilling to serve. He asked program partners to get back with
him by June 10 [subsequently changed to June 17] if they have concerns. After that date, Perk will begin extending
invitations to the candidates. He
explained that the MVD Commander will formally appoint the individuals who
agree to serve on the SET and ITRC.
Terms on the two groups will be renewable at the Commander’s discretion.
Public Involvement/Program Advocacy
Gretchen
Benjamin noted that a revised version of the draft EMP brochure was included
with the agenda packet. Wisconsin DNR
based its revisions on partner input concerning the previous draft. Among the changes, individual names were
deleted from the contacts page to avoid unnecessarily dating the brochure. Benjamin said she would like to have the
completed brochure available in time for use at the Navigation Study public
meetings in June. With two to three
weeks required for printing, this means that the brochure needs to be finalized
quite soon. Benjamin asked EMP-CC
members to provide her with any final comments by May 21. She said Wisconsin DNR would coordinate with
the Corps regarding printing the brochure.
Don Hultman
reported that the Upper Mississippi Stakeholder Network, sponsored by
St. Mary’s University, has agreed to maintain a database of individuals
interested in the EMP and to issue e-mail action alerts at key points. Hultman emphasized that program outreach and
advocacy are ongoing needs, and stressed that Congress must hear directly from
members of the public who support the EMP.
He explained that the Stakeholder Network will not become an active
advocate itself, but will instead make sure that individuals interested in the
program are well-informed concerning opportunities to express their support.
Roger Perk
emphasized the importance of clearly distinguishing between program advocacy
activities, in which the Corps and other federal agencies may not engage, and public
information and education activities, in which they both can and should
engage. Hultman concurred, and said
that the EMP Outreach Plan will be modified to more clearly distinguish between
these two categories of activities.
After some further discussion, it was agreed that the EMP-CC need not
endorse the outreach plan and that doing so would, in fact, be inappropriate
for the federal agency members.
Diane
Ford-Shivvers asked that future EMP-CC agendas include time for various program
partners and supporters to report on their efforts related to public
involvement, education, and program advocacy.
She reported that Iowa DNR is organizing a tour for senior staff from
the Governor’s office and the agency to familiarize them with work being done
on the river. Benjamin reported that
Wisconsin Governor Doyle called for full funding of the EMP in his Earth Day
statement. Hultman said the UMR Refuge
is publishing a special edition newspaper celebrating the refuge’s 80th
anniversary and the Grand Excursion. The paper will include an article about
the EMP. Perk urged partners also to
highlight ways in which their river work is supported or made possible by LTRMP
data, noting that the public and members of Congress often do not understand
how the LTRMP contributes to river management.
Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program
10-Year Component Reports
Barry Johnson
reported that UMESC has received the program partners’ comments on three of the
four 10-year component reports—i.e., fisheries, invertebrates, and
vegetation. While late comments have
delayed these three reports slightly, they are essentially on schedule, with
completed reports expected by September 2004.
The water quality report, which was delayed more substantially due to
turnover in the principal investigator position, is currently out for
comment. Johnson also reported that
three additional fisheries reports are currently out for comment. He urged partners to submit their comments
by the requested deadlines in order to keep the various reports on schedule.
Program Assessment
Roger Perk
described the need to define a smaller, sustainable baseline LTRMP. He emphasized that the combined effects of
inflation and reduced or static funding mean that these fundamental
restructuring decisions can no longer be postponed. Perk said the past practice of making incremental modifications
to get by for another year is not in the program’s long range best interest,
particularly given the apparent likelihood of continued funding
constraints. However, he noted that
additional work above the baseline can certainly be pursued if the funding
situation improves. Perk said the Corps
is committed to defining this smaller, sustainable baseline program by August,
with input from the EMP partner agencies.
Leslie Holland-Bartels
briefly summarized the work of the LTRM Program Assessment Team, which was
comprised of Pat Heglund, Marvin Hubbell, and Rick Frietsche. According to Holland-Bartels, the program
partners’ responses to the Assessment Team’s survey were much as expected and
demonstrate the LTRMP’s value to its partners.
They also reflect a diversity of opinion among the partners regarding
what the LTRMP should be. Holland-Bartels
said the survey input should be a useful starting point for discussion.
Heglund thanked
the program partners for their contributions to the assessment and distributed
a summary of the partners’ survey input, along with the individual agency/state
survey responses. Heglund observed that
the partners expressed at least some level of support for each of the LTRMP’s
four fundamental goals. However, there
was a general consensus against increasing the focus on Goal 3 (i.e., develop
management alternatives), given the program’s overall fiscal constraints. Heglund said the LTRMP is currently weighted
heavily toward Goal 2 (i.e., monitor resource change). She showed possible alternative
distributions across the four goals, explaining that increased emphasis on
analysis and data management would require reductions at field stations, changes
in component sampling, and modifications in business practices.
Holland-Bartels
said the LTRMP partners have done a tremendous job achieving efficiencies for
the program. However, virtually all
such possible improvements have already been made, according to
Holland-Bartels. She said the annual
incremental changes being made in response to resource constraints are now
becoming less scientifically defensible.
Changes are being made in response to budget needs, rather than as an
integrated strategy for the program’s future.
Holland-Bartels said defining a five-year strategic plan for the
program, including a more modestly scaled baseline, will make the annual
decision-making easier and will help ensure the scientific validity of the work
that is done.
In an
environment of declining or static appropriations and increasing savings and
slippage, Holland-Bartels said the LTRMP is making a critical error by
representing that it can do monitoring for less than its real costs. For example, she said, the monitoring
program cannot operate without equipment refreshment, but that item has been
removed from the budget. She emphasized
that this is not a viable long-range strategy.
Perk concurred
with Holland-Bartels’ comments regarding the challenges facing the program and
the need for a five-year strategic plan that is implementable under
conservative funding assumptions.
Assuming $19 million in funding annually, a 22 percent savings and
slippage rate, and annual inflation of approximately four percent, this would
mean that the FY 05 baseline LTRMP should not exceed $3.6 million, in order to
be implementable through FY 09 with the LTRMP’s share of $19 million. Perk and Holland-Bartels expressed their
desire to maintain a field station presence in each state, but said changes in
monitoring protocols must be considered.
They also emphasized the need for all LTRMP cost centers to practice
full cost accounting and to align their staffing patterns with the revised work
plan that will emerge from the restructuring discussions. Holland-Bartels also renewed her previous
invitation to EMP partners to visit UMESC for an in-depth briefing on the
details of the LTRMP budget.
Holland-Bartels said some combination of business, infrastructure, and program changes will be needed to bring the baseline LTRMP into line with available funds. As examples of business changes, she cited changes in staffing approaches and implementation of full cost accounting. Potential infrastructure changes take the form of co-locations. Holland-Bartels noted that USGS’s decision to close its former east campus facility will save approximately $100,000 in FY 05 facility costs. Holland-Bartels also reviewed various potential program changes to give a sense of the potential savings associated with different options. Examples of potential annual savings include: 1) do land cover/land use on a 10-year cycle—$200,000; 2) eliminate invertebrate component—$200,000; 3) reduce vegetation sampling effort by 50 percent—$400,000; 4) eliminate fixed site water quality sampling—$400,000; and 5) reduce the number of study trend reaches from six to five—c. $375,000.
Diane
Ford-Shivvers said she anticipates that the Program Assessment Team’s
information will be quite helpful, but stressed the partners’ need for an
opportunity to review and consider that information before beginning program
restructuring discussions.
Ford-Shivvers recommended defining a clear process to meet the August
deadline for a new five-year plan.
Scott Stuewe agreed with Holland-Bartels that the LTRMP has suffered by
trying to maintain the full program in the face of declining budget
resources. He also expressed concern
that the reduction in LTRMP reports has diminished the program’s visibility,
and stressed the need to demonstrate the program’s importance to those beyond
the partner agencies.
In response to
Ford-Shivvers, Perk said the Corps wants the EMP-CC’s input on the difficult
policy decisions that will have to be made in order to restructure the
LTRMP. He also emphasized the
importance of technical input from the A-Team, and urged EMP-CC members to
coordinate closely with their A-Team people.
To illustrate the policy v. technical distinction, Holland-Bartels said
EMP-CC members should identify what they value most from vegetation sampling
(e.g., spatial coverage? statistical trends in 50 individual species? a few key
species and their areal extent?). After
the EMP-CC does this, then the A-Team can engage in the technical discussion concerning
how best to implement vegetation monitoring to meet those top priorities. Holland-Bartels acknowledged that the policy
v. technical distinction is not always a sharp one, and said that the process
of defining a five-year strategic plan will necessarily be iterative.
After further
discussion, it was agreed that the EMP-CC would hold an LTRMP strategic
planning meeting on June 24 in the Quad Cities [Note: the location and schedule were subsequently modified to June
24-25 in La Crosse]. All EMP-CC members
will be asked to participate in the strategy meeting and will have the
responsibility of speaking for their federal agency or state. EMP-CC members will also have the option of
bringing additional technical staff, but the need to keep the overall number of
participants manageable was recognized.
A question was raised regarding whether individuals with a direct
personal stake in the restructuring decisions should participate in the
meeting, but the value of the technical insights these people can provide was
also acknowledged. It was agreed that
determining which technical experts to bring to the June meeting should be left
to the individual EMP-CC members. Perk
urged all partners to coordinate actively with their A‑Team members,
field station staff, and others in advance of the meeting.
Janet Sternburg
expressed concern with attempting to define the five-year strategic plan by
August. In particular, she said more
time is required to complete the analyses needed to support sound restructuring
decisions. She cited the analyses that
went into the previous fish component restructuring as the type of work
needed. Holland-Bartels concurred that
such analyses are quite helpful, but said budget constraints dictate that
fundamental decisions regarding the LTRMP be made in August. According to Holland-Bartels, there simply
are no more interim solutions.
Therefore, she said, the partners must look at the available options,
strive to reach consensus regarding a restructuring plan, and then live with the
results.
Benjamin,
Sternburg, and Ford-Shivvers all urged the Corps and USGS to arrange for a
neutral party to facilitate the June strategic planning meeting. Perk concurred that this would be
helpful. Sternburg said she might be
able to supply one of Missouri DOC’s professional facilitators.
Don Hultman
stressed the importance of laying out restructuring options in advance of the
June meeting. Holland-Bartels said this
might be helpful, but only if all partners treat the options simply as a
starting point for the discussion. She
asked other EMP-CC members to let her know if they have specific ideas on what
is needed for the strategic planning meeting.
Holland-Bartels emphasized the need to finish the June meeting with
sufficient input and direction to the A-Team regarding how to focus its
technical discussions prior to the August EMP-CC meeting.
John Sullivan
expressed concern that, after investing approximately $40 million in the LTRMP,
the 10-year component reports do not include recommendations regarding future
monitoring needs and approaches.
Sullivan said there has not been a clear articulation of priorities for
the expenditure of limited LTRMP funds.
He said the A-Team needs this kind of policy guidance from the EMP-CC.
A-Team Report
Sullivan
reported that the A-Team met via conference call on April 19. The primary purpose of the call was to
discuss questions on the partnership survey developed by the LTRM Program
Assessment Team. Questions included how
A-Team members’ input would be considered; the involvement of others with an
interest in elements of the program, such as state water quality personnel; and
the role of the principal investigators at UMESC.
Sullivan
stressed the A-Team’s conviction that completing the Status and Trends Report
should be a priority. He said the team
understands that little progress will be made in FY 04, due to budget
constraints and the decision to prioritize monitoring. However, he said the A-Team members want an
opportunity to provide input to the report outline that is scheduled to be developed
this year. Sullivan also reported that
A-Team members commented individually on the first three 10-year component
reports (i.e., fisheries, vegetation, and macroinvertebrates). However, Sullivan said he believes he is the
only A‑Team member so far to comment on the water quality report. He urged the other partners to provide input
on this report.
Sullivan
reported that Holland-Bartels has asked him, in his role as A-Team Chair, to coordinate
an effort to document how the program partners are using LTRMP data. Sullivan said he has forwarded
Holland-Bartel’s request to the A-Team, asking them to provide examples of how
their agencies and others are using the data.
Sullivan said
the next A-Team meeting is scheduled for July 27, via conference call. However, he said this was subject to change
based on the outcome of the EMP-CC’s June 24 meeting. Holland-Bartels said she is confident that,
once the EMP-CC has bounded the discussion at the policy level, the A-Team will
need to meet in-person to explore the resulting technical questions.
Sternburg
reiterated her concern with the tight schedule for developing a strategic plan
by August. She emphasized that the
LTRMP partners will live with the consequences of these decisions for the next
five years, and cautioned against making rush decisions. Perk said he understands Sternburg’s
concerns, but said that delaying the restructuring decisions beyond the August
EMP-CC meeting will mean that the states and USGS have even less time to adapt
to the changes that will have to come starting in FY 05.
Other
Gary Loss noted
that Holland-Bartels will soon be leaving her position as UMESC Center Director
to become the Deputy Regional Director for the USGS’s Western Region. Loss presented Holland-Bartels with a
Commander’s Coin from Rock Island District Commander, Colonel Gapinski. He expressed the partnership’s appreciation
for Holland‑Bartel’s stable leadership of the program during difficult fiscal
times. Holland‑Bartels described
her time as Center Director as a great learning experience and a positive
challenge. She said the EMP partners
should be proud of what they have accomplished and should communicate those
successes to others.
Report to Congress
ITR and Public/Partner Comments
Marvin Hubbell
reported that the Corps completed an internal independent technical review
(ITR) of the draft Report to Congress (RTC) at the end of March. Hubbell explained that the public review
draft released in April reflected changes resulting from the ITR. The public comment period ended May 14. While the Corps is still waiting on comments
from a few program partners, it has already started to consider the comments
that it has received. Hubbell characterized
those comments as generally being quite helpful and constructive.
Hubbell said
there were three specific comments that he would like to discuss with the
EMP-CC members. First among those was a
recommendation from Fish and Wildlife Service that the draft RTC be modified to
more fully address the anticipated Navigation Study recommendations. In particular, the Service has urged that
the RTC clearly explain that the EMP cannot, by itself, answer the ecosystem
needs identified in the Navigation Study.
Tim Yager elaborated that some people appear to think that the EMP could
be ramped up to implement the Navigation Study’s anticipated ecosystem
recommendations. While the EMP could
certainly contribute, Yager said it is clear that the EMP cannot be the full
answer. In response to questions from
EMP-CC members, Yager said he did not have specific changes to offer to address
the Service’s general comment. Greg
Ruff said he believes the draft RTC has done a good job explaining the EMP’s
relationship to the ongoing Navigation Study, but said that the Corps would be
happy to review the draft to see if further clarification is in order. Roger Perk asked the Service to elaborate,
by the end of May, on the specific changes that it would like to see to address
the concern it has raised.
Hubbell said the
second comment for discussion also came from the Service, which recommended
discussing the current LTRMP restructuring process in the RTC. Yager said the Service believes it is
important to recognize the process that the partners are undertaking to develop
a five-year strategic plan. Leslie
Holland-Bartels suggested modifying the current text describing past efforts to
improve the LTRMP’s efficiency and effectiveness to indicate that this is a
continuing effort. She urged caution
not to inadvertently undermine the case for full funding in describing the
benefits of restructuring. Yager said
the Service would be comfortable with a revision that describes efforts to
enhance efficiency and effectiveness as an ongoing, adaptive learning
process.
Hubbell said the
third comment needing discussion came from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, which suggested adding a recommendation for the EMP to coordinate more
closely with other federal land acquisition and management programs. Perk suggested modifying the RTC text to
highlight the value of such coordination, but said he does not believe a
recommendation on the topic is warranted.
EMP-CC members concurred with Perk.
Process and Schedule for
Completion
Hubbell said the
Corps plans to revise the RTC in response to the comments received and post the
final version on its FTP server by June 23 [subsequently changed to July
8]. This will be the version that MVR
intends to submit to MVD. Hubbell said
the partners will then have a brief opportunity to review this final version
before submitting their letters of endorsement for inclusion in the RTC. He said the deadline for letters to be
included in the report would be June 30 [subsequently changed to July 16]. Perk said he understands that the five
states and UMRBA intend to submit endorsement letters, and asked about the
federal partners’ plans. Bill Franz,
Gary Wooten, and Don Hultman said their agencies (i.e., U.S. EPA, NRCS,
and USFWS, respectively) all intend to prepare letters.
Hultman asked
how the Corps intends to respond to the individual comments that it received on
the public review draft. Hubbell said,
for those who submitted their comments using the Corps’ comment form, MVR staff
will complete the “action” column of the form, describing what they did in
response to each comment.
Greg Ruff said
he anticipates MVD will forward the RTC to Corps headquarters fairly shortly
after receiving it from MVR. After that,
Corps headquarters is responsible for reviewing the report and forwarding it to
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who in turn must obtain
clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before forwarding the
RTC to Congress. Ruff noted that review
by these Washington-level entities can be rather time consuming. Rich Worthington concurred, noting that that
Navigation Study’s Interim Report is still at OMB. Holly Stoerker recalled that, at yesterday’s UMRBA meeting,
Charlie Wooley suggested using the RTC’s release as an opportunity to focus
more attention on the EMP. She asked
how that might best be done, given the potentially lengthy process Ruff and
Worthington described. Ruff said one
potential opportunity is a press release when the MVD Commander transmits the
report to headquarters. Stoerker
suggested that any such release be accompanied by a Q&A addressing likely
questions, such as the RTC’s relationship to the Navigation Study. Hultman said the Fish and Wildlife Service
has also begun discussing possible approaches to publicizing the RTC. He suggested that the August meeting include
an opportunity for the EMP-CC to discuss options for rolling out the RTC.
Other Business
Gary Wooten
announced that NRCS is reorganizing and will be eliminating its six regional
offices, replacing them with three technical service centers. Midwest states, including those of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin, will be supported out of a service center located in
Texas. The center will have 10 to 20
technical specialists and will support a total of 15 states. Some staff from the six current regional
offices will be reassigned to NRCS headquarters. Wooten said it is not yet known how NRCS will be represented on
regional groups such as the EMP-CC after the reorganization. However, he said he has recommended measures
to ensure that the agency maintains contact with such groups. The reorganization will also result in
elimination of the NRCS’s university-based institutes, and some changes at
headquarters, but will not change NRCS’s state office structure.
Barry Johnson
announced that Brian Ickes, LTRMP’s principal investigator for fisheries, will
be taking a three-year leave to pursue his Ph.D. Rather than fill the position from the outside, Johnson said USGS
would like to identify someone within the existing program partnership who
could serve in this capacity on an approximately half-time basis. USGS will be circulating a position
description and seeking expressions of interest in the very near future.
Barb Naramore
announced that the upcoming quarterly meeting schedule includes EMP-CC meetings
on August 12, 2004 in the Quad Cities; November 18, 2004 in St. Louis; and
February 24, 2005 in La Crosse.
With no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
EMP-CC
Attendance List
May 20, 2004
|
Charles Barton |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Don Hultman |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Scott Stuewe |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Diane
Ford-Shivvers |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Amy Denz |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Bill Franz |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 |
|
Rich
Worthington |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Headquarters |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVR |
|
Roger Perk |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Don Powell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Tom Novak |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVP |
|
Tim Yager |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 3 |
|
Jon Kauffeld |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Rick Nelson |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office |
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Linda Leake |
U.S. Geological
Survey, UMESC |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Pat Heglund |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Gary Clark |
Illinois
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Walt Popp |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
John Sullivan |
|
|
Gary Wooten |
Natural
Resources Conservation Service |
|
Catherine
McCalvin |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper Mississippi
River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |