Minutes of the
Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program
Coordinating Committee
August 7, 2003
Summer Quarterly Meeting
Radisson Hotel South
Bloomington, Minnesota
Charlie Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, 2003. Other EMP-CC members present were Steve Cobb (USACE), Tom Boland (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DOC), Gretchen Benjamin (WI DNR), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), and Larry Shepard (USEPA). A complete list of attendees is attached.
Minutes of the May Meeting
Steve Johnson
moved and Tom Boland seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the May
15, 2003 meeting as written. The motion
carried unanimously.
Program Management
Marvin Hubbell
reported that, as of June 30, the EMP had expended $7.367 million since the
start of FY 03. This is 73 percent of
the program’s $10.15 million in scheduled expenditures for the year. Hubbell said the EMP is on pace to expend its
full allocation this year.
Hubbell also
reported that the House-passed FY 04 energy and water appropriations bill
includes $18.32 million for the EMP.
Action by the full Senate is pending, but the Senate Appropriations
Committee has approved $20.0 million for the EMP. The Corps’ preliminary allocation plan under these two funding
scenarios, assuming a savings and slippage rate of 16 percent, is as follows:
(in
millions of dollars)
HREP
Allocation $10.368 $11.336
While
the Corps has not yet evaluated the project implications of these two funding
scenarios extensively, each district has identified its top priority
project. Assuming a final appropriation
in the range of the current House and Senate bills, the Corps would prioritize
the following habitat projects in FY 04:
MVP—Ambrough Slough, MVR—Pool 11 Islands, and MVS—Calhoun Point. Hubbell emphasized that sufficient resources
would also be devoted to project planning to ensure a flow of projects for
construction in future years. With
regard to the LTRMP, Hubbell explained that an appropriation in this range
means that there would be little FY 04 funding available for the recently
submitted project pre-proposals.
Navigation Study
Denny
Lundberg reported that the Corps is currently considering a range of
cost-sharing options for implementing the ecosystem restoration measures that
will be part of the Navigation Feasibility Study’s recommended plan. The Corps’ alternatives reflect four ways of
defining ecosystem restoration measures to be 100 percent federally funded,
including those that:
-
are
directly attributable to addressing ongoing and cumulative effects of the
navigation project;
-
involve
modifications to structures and operations of the navigation project and
measures on project and refuge lands;
-
involve
modifications to structures and operations of the navigation project, measures
on project and refuge lands, and measures in backwater areas connected to the
main channel regardless of current ownership; or
-
produce
national benefits as defined in Section 906(e) of the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act.
In
response to a question from Charlie Wooley, Lundberg said the Corps would carefully
consider the relationship between any cost-sharing arrangements it might
recommend for ecosystem restoration measures under the Navigation Study and the
EMP’s existing cost-share requirements.
Lundberg also explained that the Corps does not anticipate recommending
any short-term changes to the EMP authority as part of its Navigation Study
recommendations. However, the
longer-term relationship between the Navigation Study ecosystem restoration
measures and the EMP will require consideration. Specific questions include whether two separate authorities
should be maintained over the long-term and whether the EMP’s existing
institutional arrangements could support implementation of the ecosystem
restoration measures. Lundberg invited
EMP-CC members’ perspectives on these and other questions.
Gretchen
Benjamin observed that the EMP was established not as mitigation, but was
authorized in conjunction with construction of the 2nd lock at
L&D 26. As a preliminary response,
Benjamin said she was inclined to think that the EMP should continue as a
separate authority since it came in response to a specific action. However, she acknowledged that there are
several factors that must be considered, including likely funding levels under
different approaches to authorization.
Lundberg
emphasized that the Corps does not want to undercut the EMP, but does need to
think about the future if Congress authorizes a package of navigation system
improvements and ecosystem restoration measures. He suggested that one option might be to build a decision process
into the authorization. Under this
approach, at a set number of years after enactment of the ecosystem restoration
authority, the Corps would be required to report back to Congress on how the
EMP and ecosystem restoration authorities are working. Holly Stoerker suggested that the RTC
process, which is already built into the EMP authority, could perhaps be used
for this purpose.
Tom
Boland said it is important politically to avoid having two programs that
compete with one another or overlap.
Thus, if the EMP and the ecosystem restoration authorities remain
separate, he emphasized that the two programs will need to be structured
carefully to avoid such problems.
Steve
Cobb acknowledged that, until more specifics are available regarding the
Navigation Study’s ecosystem recommendations, it is difficult to discuss how
the two programs might fit together. He
said the Corps is raising the issue now for the partners’ future consideration
and discussion. Cobb said the Corps
will not need to include specifics regarding the relationship between the EMP
and the ecosystem restoration authority in its Navigation Study
recommendations.
Wooley
asked whether there is any case history that we might be able to learn
from. Ken Barr noted the multiple
authorities focused on restoring coastal wetlands in Louisiana. Cobb said there are some parallels, but noted
that the Louisiana programs are still in transition themselves. In addition, they have separate funding
sources. Gary Loss noted that the Ohio
River has an authority similar to the EMP; but Congress has not funded it,
illustrating that much of a program’s success hinges on Congress.
Lundberg
reported that Corps staff is in the process of developing a memorandum for
record (MFR) on adaptive management.
Ken Barr said that, at present, the Corps anticipates a combination of
existing programs and laboratories, including the LTRMP, could provide the
information needed to support the adaptive management approach envisioned by
the Navigation Study.
HREP Planning and
Sequencing
Marvin
Hubbell reported that the Corps has prepared a revised version of the HREP
Planning and Sequencing Framework. He
explained that those revisions are based on discussions at the May 2003 EMP-CC
meeting and subsequent written comments received. Among the modifications is an effort to clarify that the
framework is in no way intended to alter the existing relationships between the
River Resources Forum, River Resources Coordinating Team, and River Resources
Action Team and their respective technical committees. Acknowledging the limited review time,
Hubbell said the Corps is not seeking final comments or endorsement at today’s
meeting. Instead, he asked EMP-CC
members to respond to Roger Perk by August 25 with any remaining comments
and/or an indication whether they are prepared to endorse the framework. Based on the responses received, Hubbell
said the Corps will determine a process for finalizing the framework in
consultation with the program partners.
Hubbell also asked partners to submit lists of System Ecological Team
candidates to Perk by August 25. Tim
Yager requested a digital version of the framework to facilitate review by
Service personnel.
In
response to a question from Tom Boland, Hubbell said the Corps has no precise
timeframe for implementing the framework.
Hubbell said the Corps is hopeful that the partners’ concurrence on the
framework can be obtained shortly after the August 25 comment deadline. This would permit implementation of the
framework shortly thereafter, as each interagency district group initiates its
next HREP planning cycle. Boland
cautioned against trying to perfect every detail of the framework in the
abstract. Instead, he encouraged the
partners to begin using the framework and modify it later, if needed, based on
real world experience. Hubbell said the
Corps will communicate with the partners regarding the framework’s status after
it has received the final round of comments.
Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program
Leslie
Holland-Bartels noted that several LTRMP discipline team leaders are at today’s
meeting with displays presenting some of the results from their recent analysis
efforts. She said that USGS will
prepare more extensive presentations for display at the November meeting in La
Crosse. Charlie Wooley expressed the
EMP-CC’s appreciation for the USGS staff’s efforts.
Holland-Bartels
explained that LTRMP monitoring was significantly reduced in FY 03, due to funding
constraints. She reviewed the limited
data collection that is being done for the fish, vegetation, water quality, and
macroinvertebrates components. Priority
has been given to monitoring that may help answer key questions, such as
continuing vegetation sampling in Pools 8 and 13, in an effort to understand
what appear to be very different trends in the two pools. Also of note, some states have provided
state funds to support additional fish and vegetation sampling in some
areas. More specifically, the states
are funding vegetation sampling in Pools 4 and 26 and the La Grange Pool. State funds are also permitting fish
sampling with all gears on Pool 26, the La Grange Pool, and the Open River.
Holland-Bartels
reported that the 10-year discipline reports and other FY 03 analysis efforts
are on schedule. As an example of this
work, Holland-Bartels described efforts to identify areas of rapid habitat
change and areas of relative stability by comparing land cover/land use (LC/LU)
data from 1989 and 2000. If these areas
can be reliably identified, this information can be used to increase the
efficiency of future efforts to update LC/LU data. Specifically, areas of rapid change could be updated more
frequently, allowing something closer to real time coverages. According to Holland-Bartels, this would be
an innovative approach to LC/LU mapping.
As another example, she cited a forthcoming report on what the LTRMP
data tell us about non-native fish in the UMRS.
Efforts
continue under the Science Planning Process to identify discrete, short-term
tasks that can contribute to answering the key, big picture questions about the
UMRS. The expectation is that these
discrete tasks will allow the LTRMP to adapt to funding variations, while
ensuring that its work remains focused on answering important questions.
Holland-Bartels
explained that the FY 04 appropriations outlook offers few prospects for
funding new LTRMP efforts. However, she
emphasized that the process of preparing and ranking project pre-proposals will
still be helpful in positioning the LTRMP to compete for overtarget funding,
leveraging external funding, and identifying ideas for student projects. Seventy-nine pre-proposals were submitted. The highest ranking pre-proposals from the
FY 04 ranking process include bathymetric mapping for the UMR, analysis
and modeling of native mussels, and use of bioacoustics to locate sturgeon
spawning sites.
Holland-Bartels
also stressed that the ranked pre-proposals will be maintained as a living
document. She encouraged program
partners to submit additional pre-proposals and problem statements as ideas
come to mind. These additional ideas
will be ranked as part of preparation of the FY 05 work plan. Holland-Bartels said her general expectation
is that pre‑proposals will be ranked once per year, unless a major new
idea is presented that partners agree needs to be brought into the ranking
sooner.
Tom
Boland reported that the A-Team met on July 23 in Moline. He noted that the project pre-proposals far
outstrip the resources anticipated to be available, but said the process was
still helpful. Boland did observe that
reviewing the 79 pre-proposals was a considerable undertaking. He said few agency personnel beyond the
A-Team members were willing to invest the time required to review the material
and provide input to the ranking process.
Boland
also said the A-Team plans to define what it views to be the minimum level of
effort needed to adequately monitor the UMRS under the LTRMP. He noted that the A-Team, as a group of
technical advisors, has not previously gone on record with such a
statement. Boland said the A-Team’s
minimum monitoring program is likely to resemble the FY 02 program. However, he emphasized that this baseline will
not, in the A-Team’s view, be a fully adequate monitoring program, nor will it
address analysis or research needs.
Boland
reported that the A-Team’s next meeting is scheduled for November 6 in
Dubuque. He noted that the new river
museum in Dubuque would make an excellent place to showcase the EMP. He announced that John Sullivan will become
the A-Team chair after the November meeting.
Colonel
Gapinski thanked Boland for his considerable service to the A-Team and
presented him with a Commander’s Coin as an expression of appreciation.
Report to Congress
Marvin
Hubbell distributed the Corps’ revised schedule for the Report to
Congress. Key dates include the
following:
-
8/15/03—partner
comments due to MVR on the draft Introduction and Chapters 1-2
-
Mid-October
2003—complete draft RTC out for partner review
-
11/20/03—seek
partner endorsement of draft report for public review; hold Issue Resolution
Conference, if necessary, in conjunction with EMP-CC meeting
-
January to
mid-February 2003—public review of draft RTC
-
2/26/04—discuss
public review comments and preliminary endorsement of final RTC at EMP-CC
meeting
-
6/1/04—submit
RTC to MVD for review
-
7/1/04—Division
Commander’s notice
-
8/30/04—Chief’s
Report released
Public Outreach and
Involvement
Hubbell
proposed two primary strategies for public outreach and involvement concerning
the RTC. First, he suggested having EMP
informational tables at the Navigation Study’s October 2003 public meetings. These tables would provide an opportunity to
distribute general information about the EMP and the RTC, as well as to solicit
suggestions from the public concerning the program and the report. Second, Hubbell suggested holding public
involvement sessions as part of the November 2003 and February 2004 EMP-CC
meetings. These sessions would provide
an opportunity for members of the public to address the EMP-CC directly.
In
response to a question from Steve Johnson, Hubbell said the Corps held a series
of seven public meetings along the river as part of the 1997 RTC process. Hubbell said these meetings met with mixed
success in terms of attendance. Holly
Stoerker observed that the EMP was addressing several fundamental issues as
part of the 1997 RTC, including whether and how to extend the program
authorization. In contrast, the issues
being addressed this time are considerably narrower, and presumably of less
general interest to much of the public.
With this in mind, she suggested that the public outreach and
involvement efforts for the current RTC probably do not need to be as extensive
as those employed for the 1997 report.
Tom Boland and Steve Johnson concurred with Stoerker’s suggestion. Johnson emphasized the importance of keeping
the NGOs closely involved, given that one of the report’s anticipated recommendations
concerns providing opportunities for them to sponsor HREPs. Gretchen Benjamin asked for an opportunity
to consult with others in Wisconsin DNR before responding to Hubbell’s proposed
approach. Hubbell asked EMP partners to
provide their input regarding the proposed public outreach and involvement
strategy by August 25.
Charlie
Wooley asked for clarification regarding who would be invited to participate in
the public involvement sessions proposed as part of the November and February EMP-CC
meetings. After some discussion, the
EMP-CC members’ consensus was that these sessions should be open to both
organized stakeholder groups as well as members of the general public. Benjamin cautioned that, by holding these
sessions during the day as part of regularly scheduled EMP-CC meetings, much of
the general public would be precluded from attending.
Comments on Draft RTC
Chapters
Acknowledging
that the draft RTC Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2 had only very recently
been distributed, Hubbell invited any general comments or questions. Several EMP-CC members and other agency
representatives offered initial impressions, including some expressions of
concern regarding length and the way specific aspects of the program were
characterized. However, all those who
spoke said they would be providing more detailed, written comments by the
August 15 deadline established in MVR’s transmittal memo.
In
response to a question from Wooley regarding coordination between the Corps and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Steve Cobb explained that the Chief
of Engineers will issue his Chief’s Report, currently scheduled for August 30,
2004. The Chief’s Report is then
forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who is
responsible for coordinating as necessary with OMB before submitting the
Secretary’s Report to Congress.
Cost-Sharing
Greg
Ruff noted that the current EMP authorizing language, in combination with
Administration policy, only permits 100 percent federal funding for HREPs on
lands that are managed as a national wildlife refuge. Ruff said MVD does not favor including a recommendation in the
RTC to expand 100 percent federal funding to HREPs on all federally owned land. Instead, MVD believes that expanded
opportunities for 100 percent federal funding for ecosystem restoration should
be pursued as part of the Navigation Study package. More specifically, Ruff noted that the EMP does not appear to be
constrained at present by the current cost-sharing policy—i.e., there are still
project opportunities on both refuge and state lands. He characterized the proposed recommendation to permit 100
percent federal funding for HREPs on all federal lands as a significant
expansion of the current EMP. As
expressed in its Navigation Study cost-sharing MFR, the Corps is not inclined
to either expand or contract the EMP.
Ruff
noted that the Navigation Study will be considering 100 percent federal funding
for measures on Corps project lands and connected backwaters as well as refuges. This alternative would not, however, extend
100 percent federal funding to lands owned by other federal agencies, such as
the National Park Service and Forest Service.
This extension to land owned by other federal agencies is part of the
EMP recommendation under consideration by program partners. Janet Sternburg noted that the Corps had
committed to providing data on the extent of various federal agencies’ land
holding on the UMRS. Sternburg said
Missouri would like to defer further consideration of the potential
cost-sharing recommendation until the Corps can provide the land ownership
analysis.
Steve
Johnson noted that Minnesota and the National Park Service are interested in
doing a habitat project on a Park Service island in Pool 2 that is part of the
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. However, he acknowledged that this is a relatively small area,
and said he, too, would need to see some system-level data on land ownership
patterns before being able to judge whether such an expansion of the EMP
authority should be pursued in the RTC.
Steve Cobb said that, if partners are concerned with just one or two
potential projects, such opportunities could be more effectively handled as
special exceptions rather than by seeking a program-level change in
Congressional authority.
Gretchen
Benjamin asked about the potential downside of pursuing a modification to the
EMP to permit 100 percent federal funding on all federal lands. Cobb said one obvious downside is that the
effort might not be successful.
Benjamin observed that there is no guarantee of success for
recommendations that are made as part of the Navigation Study ecosystem
restoration package either. Cobb also
said Corps Headquarters and the Assistant Secretary are likely to view habitat
work on Park Service and Forest Service lands as being the responsibility of
those agencies. Cobb said the Corps has
not yet coordinated with the Park Service or Forest Service concerning the
potential for HREPs on their lands.
It
was agreed that the states would convene by conference call after the Corps
provides the land ownership data. The
states will then respond back to the Corps regarding whether they wish to
pursue an RTC recommendation to expand 100 percent federal funding for HREPs to
all federal lands. The Fish and
Wildlife Service and other federal partners will also be asked to provide their
input after the data analysis is available.
Hubbell noted that, if some partners wish to pursue such a
recommendation in the RTC, an Issue Resolution Conference (IRC) will be
necessary. Under the current schedule,
the IRC would be held in conjunction with the November meeting. If the partners elect to defer this issue
for consideration as part of the Navigation Study package, then an IRC will not
likely be needed for the RTC.
Delegated Authority for
HREPs
Cobb
reported that MVD will recommend to Corps Headquarters that authority to
approve HREP planning and construction be delegated to the district level for
projects that cost less than $5 million and use relatively standard
practices. MVD will also recommend that
it be authorized to approve HREPs greater than $5 million or that incorporate
untested practices or policies. Cobb
said MVD will advance this recommendation in the near future, and said he
anticipates that Headquarters will respond before the RTC is finalized. In any event, the RTC will reflect the
status of this recommendation at the time the report is submitted. In response to a question from Wooley, Cobb
said he anticipates that Headquarters will respond favorably to the
recommendation, noting that it is consistent with a general trend within the
Corps to shift decision-making from Washington to districts and divisions.
Tom
Boland asked about the basis for the proposed $5 million cap on the districts’
approval authority, noting that the trend within the EMP is toward larger, more
expensive projects. Cobb said MVD had
to pick some cut-off, observing that Headquarters would not likely support district
approval without such a cap. Hubbell
noted that, of the 39 HREPs currently in the queue, seven of them have costs
above $5 million. Barb Naramore
observed that the major efficiency associated with delegated authority is
anticipated to be the elimination of Washington-level review and approval. This efficiency is realized regardless of
whether the project is approved at the district or division level.
Coordination between the
LTRMP and Other Programs
Naramore
reported that the LTRMP’s coordination with other programs remains an
outstanding issue from the February 2003 EMP-CC meeting. At that meeting, EMP-CC members concurred
that the RTC should not recommend a comprehensive Information Needs Assessment
(INA) for the river under the EMP.
However, they agreed to give further consideration to the possibility of
recommending an INA that is not done solely through the EMP. At the February meeting, members asked staff
from the U.S. EPA, USGS, Corps, and UMRBA to consult further on the idea of an
INA done under other auspices and report back to the EMP-CC. Naramore said this consultation has not yet
been accomplished.
Leslie
Holland-Bartels said the LTRMP Science Planning Process is a multi-agency
effort to identify information needs in the context of the issues and problems
about which people are most interested.
She offered the opinion that the Science Planning Process and the
LTRMP’s annual work planning efforts are the most valuable in helping to guide
the LTRMP. She expressed concern that a
broader INA would identify many disconnected needs that would be difficult to
prioritize.
Larry
Shepard acknowledged the value to the LTRMP’s Science Planning Process and the
resource and scoping challenges that would face a more comprehensive INA
effort. However, he said that EPA would
like to complete the agreed upon consultation process to examine possible
approaches to an INA for the UMRS that would not be done exclusively under the
EMP. Shepard said that, at minimum, the
RTC should describe the issue, the partners’ discussion, and its resolution,
even if that resolution is a decision not to recommend anything.
Boland
said he would like an opportunity to consult with others in Iowa DNR. However, he said he is inclined to agree
with Holland-Bartels and expressed concern that a broader INA would produce a
long list of disconnected priorities that would be of little value.
It
was agreed that staff from the U.S. EPA, USGS, Corps, and UMRBA would consult
prior to the November EMP-CC meeting regarding options for an INA under
auspices other than the EMP.
Potential Conclusions and
Recommendations
Naramore
explained that UMRBA and MVR staff revised the previous list of potential RTC
conclusions and recommendations based on the discussion at the May EMP-CC
meeting and subsequent written comments provided by some partners and
stakeholders. The revised version is
annotated to reflect those changes.
Naramore briefly described the most substantive of these changes. She also reminded EMP-CC members that the
intent at this point is not to perfect the language in the list, but to
identify the key concepts that will serve as the basis for drafting Chapter 4
of the RTC.
Hubbell
noted that the Corps would like to eliminate Conclusion # 11 and Recommendation
#23, consistent with its earlier recommendation to defer any extension of 100
percent federal funding for treatment under the Navigation Study
recommendations.
Hubbell
asked EMP partners to submit comments on the revised list to MVR staff by
August 25, with a particular emphasis on describing the nature of any concerns,
rather than offering specific wording changes.
Independent Technical
Review Committee
In
response to a question from Ken Lubinski, Greg Ruff said MVD intends to
establish the EMP Independent Technical Review Committee in FY 04, using the
approach previously coordinated with the EMP-CC. Ruff noted that implementation was deferred in FY 03 due to
funding constraints.
Other Business
Gretchen
Benjamin noted that the agencies involved in MVP’s water level management
efforts had developed a brochure that was quite helpful in communicating with
the public about the projects. She
suggested that an updated EMP brochure could prove similarly helpful. Benjamin said the current EMP brochure is
out-of-date, and also said she does not find the content and format to be
particularly effective. Marvin Hubbell
said he would work with Benjamin on updating the EMP brochure. Holly Stoerker suggested that they consider
how a revised brochure would relate to the overall Public Involvement Strategy
that the Corps devised following reauthorization of the EMP. Barb Naramore recommended that the Corps
update the EMP-CC at a future meeting concerning implementation of the public
involvement strategy in each of the three districts.
Gary
Loss cautioned that the House and Senate amounts for the EMP in FY 04 could
pose significant problems, coming on the heels of the extremely low FY 03
appropriation. He stressed the
importance of making sure that members of Congress understand these
implications.
Naramore
announced that the upcoming quarterly meeting schedule includes meetings on
November 18-20, 2003 in La Crosse; February 24-26, 2004 in St. Louis; and May 18-20,
2004 in the Twin Cities. EMP-CC
business meetings are scheduled for the third day of each meeting cycle.
With
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
EMP-CC
Attendance List
August 7, 2003
|
Steve Cobb |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVD |
|
Charlie Wooley |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Leslie
Holland-Bartels |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Tom Boland |
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Steve Johnson |
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet
Sternburg |
Missouri
Department of Conservation |
|
Gretchen
Benjamin |
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Greg Ruff |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Maryetta Smith |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVD |
|
Thomas Novak |
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MVP |
|
COL Duane
Gapinski |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Gary Loss |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Denny Lundberg |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Ken Barr |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Marvin Hubbell |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Chuck Theiling |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVR |
|
Mike Thompson |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Brian Markert |
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MVS |
|
Tim Yager |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3 |
|
Jon Kaufeld |
|
|
Sharonne
Baylor |
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Upper Mississippi Refuge |
|
Barry Johnson |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Yao Yin |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Jennie Sauer |
U.S. Geological
Survey, UMESC |
|
Brian Ickes |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Ken Lubinski |
U.S.
Geological Survey, UMESC |
|
Mike Wells |
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin
Dept. of Natural Resources, LTRMP Field Station |
|
Larry Shepard |
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 |
|
Angela
Anderson |
Mississippi
River Basin Alliance |
|
Holly Stoerker |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |
|
Barb Naramore |
Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association |