Minutes of
Environmental Management Program Coordinating Committee
and
Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee
Joint Session
May 20, 2009
Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel
Charlie
Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called
the meeting to order at 12:40 p.m. on May 20, 2009. Other EMP-CC and NECC representatives present
were Ken Barr (USACE), Mike Jawson (USGS), Butch
Atwood (IL DNR), Bernie Hoyer (IA DNR), Bernie Schonhoff
(IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DoC), Jim Fischer
(WI DNR), and Bill Franz (USEPA).
A complete list of attendees follows these minutes.
Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Meeting
Jim Fischer requested
clarification regarding the timeframe related to the LTRM Strategic Plan noted
on page A-4. Ken Barr said that the 1 ½
years was attributed to the development of the Plan, not the amount of time
that the Plan will be used to guide LTRM.
Bernie Schonhoff
moved and Jim Fischer seconded a motion to approve the minutes, with the
understanding that language on page A-4 regarding the LTRM Strategic Plan
timeframe would be clarified. The motion
carried unanimously.
Reach Objectives
Dan Wilcox reported that the
Notebook for System and Reach Planning through Adaptive Management was
completed and distributed on February 4, 2009.
However, he explained that it is a living document and will be subject
to modification over time. Wilcox said
that a subset of each of the four floodplain reach teams (FWIC, FWWG, RRAT, and
IRWG) identified ecosystem restoration objectives for its respective floodplain
reach, as well as unique characteristics and stressors for each of the
geomorphic reaches within the floodplain reach.
The objectives, characteristics, and stressors were reviewed by the reach
teams and the River Management Teams (RRF, RRCT, RRAT Exec, and IRT), and are
now under review by NECC and EMP-CC.
Wilcox said that the ecosystem objectives were classified in five
categories: geomorphology,
biogeochemistry, hydrology/hydraulics, landscape, and biota/biological
processes. As reach planning continues,
performance measures will be developed for each of the reach objectives.
Wilcox presented the proposed
objectives for the Upper Impounded Reach.
He also discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach
characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.
·
Biota — Diverse
and abundant aquatic vegetation communities, native fish community, native
mussel community, and native bird community.
·
Biogeochemistry/Water
Quality — Improved water clarity, reduced contaminants loading and
re-mobilization of in-place pollutants, reduced nutrient loading, nutrient
export, and reduced sediment loading from tributaries and sediment
re-suspension in backwaters.
·
Habitat —
Restored habitat connectivity for migratory fishes; more natural riparian
habitat along the rivers; diverse native floodplain forest and prairie areas;
restored isolated wetlands and floodplain lakes; and increased habitat
diversity in impounded, backwater, and channel areas.
·
Hydrology and
hydraulics — A more natural stage hydrograph and restored lateral hydraulic
connectivity.
·
Geomorphology —
Restored rapids in the gorge.
Marv Hubbell noted that some of the objectives lack
associated direction (i.e., increasing, decreasing, etc.), and thus may be
confusing. Wilcox said that while the
objectives are not descriptive, there will be follow-on performance criteria
and indicators that will offer more detail.
He said that the objectives were written for a wider audience, and thus
were articulated generally to minimize confusion, while providing sufficient
context. Barb Naramore
recognized the need for brevity, but said it is important to provide sufficient
information for that wider audience, in an effort to avoid having the objectives
misconstrued.
Bob Clevenstine
presented the proposed objectives for the Lower Impounded Reach. He also discussed examples of the proposed
geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.
·
Biota — Maintain
viable populations of native species throughout their range in the UMRS at
levels of abundance in keeping with their biotic potential, maintain the
diversity and extent of native communities throughout their range in the UMRS,
and reduce the adverse effects of invasive species on native biota.
·
Biogeochemistry/Water
Quality — Reduce sediment loadings to the rivers and
reduce nutrient loading from tributary rivers.
·
Habitat —
Increase vegetated riparian buffers along tributaries and ditches in the
floodplain; modify the extent, abundance, and diversity of submersed aquatic
plants; modify the extent, abundance, and diversity of emergent aquatic plants;
and provide pathways for animal movements.
·
Hydrology and
hydraulics — Restore a more natural hydrologic regime
in the navigation pools, increase storage and conveyance of flood water on the
floodplain, and naturalize the hydrologic regime of tributaries.
·
Geomorphology —
Modify contiguous backwater areas; modify the channels and floodplains of
tributary rivers; and restore hydro-geomorphic processes that create, maintain,
and improve bathymetric diversity, islands, sand bars, shoals, and mudflats.
In response to a question
from Janet Sternburg, Clevenstine
said that all identified reach characteristics and stressors will be included
in the UMR ecosystem objectives final report.
Brian Johnson presented the
proposed objectives for the Unimpounded Reach. He also discussed examples of the proposed
geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.
·
Biota — Maintain
viable populations of native species and communities throughout their range in
the unimpounded river reach in suitable geomorphic
areas of the landscapes; reduce the adverse effects of invasive species on
native biota; provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for migratory
birds; and provide habitat for all life stages of native fishes and other
aquatic biota.
·
Biogeochemistry/Water
Quality — Restore hydro-geomorphic processes that create, maintain, and improve
connectivity, bathymetric diversity and flow variability of channel borders,
side channels, islands, sand bars, shoals, and associated habitats.
·
Habitat —
Restore, expand, and maintain the amount of diversity of floodplain terrestrial
habitats, emphasizing contiguous patches of plant communities to provide a
corridor along the unimpounded river reach and
riparian buffers; restore habitat types most reduced from their pre-settlement
extent (e.g., bottomland and mesic prairies, savanna,
floodplain lake, floodplain forest, and bottomland hardwoods) and the
ecological processes and functions to support them; protect, restore, and
manage complex wetland areas (including within leveed
areas) to provide diverse habitat; and increase the extent and number of sand
bars, mud flats, gravel bars, islands, and side channels towards a more
historic abundance and distribution.
·
Hydrology and
hydraulics — Restore hydraulic connectivity (surface and groundwater) between
rivers and their floodplains, especially backwater flows into lakes, wetlands,
sloughs, swales, abandoned channels, and backswamp
depressions.
·
Geomorphology —
Enhance water quality parameters (e.g., nutrients, dissolved oxygen) sufficient
to support native aquatic biota and consideration of designated uses.
Marshall Plumley
discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach characteristics and
stressors for the
·
Biota — Restore
and maintain ecological integrity, including habitats, communities, and
populations of native species, and the processes that sustain them; and restore
and conserve natural habitat structure and function, including, but not limited
too:
o
Concentrations of
flora and fauna or areas that are high in
biodiversity, especially vulnerable to disturbance, and/or important in
fulfilling a life-history requirement of the species present.
o
Specific suitable
habitat for Federal and State endangered and threatened species, or other
species of concern that is capable of supporting long-term sustainable
populations at the site and protect additional acres of the identified suitable
habitat, as appropriate.
o
Representative
examples of all community types in the Illinois River Basin, best in kind or as
needed, to protect and restore habitat structure and function at the system
level.
·
Biogeochemistry/Water
Quality — Improve water and sediment quality in the
·
Habitat — Improve
floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats and functions.
o
Restore up to an
additional 150,000 acres of isolated and connected floodplains along the
o
Restore and/or
protect up to 1,000 additional stream miles of riparian habitats.
·
Habitat — Restore
aquatic connectivity (fish passage) on the
o
Restore main stem
to tributary connectivity, where appropriate, on major tributaries.
o
Restore passage
for large-river fish at Starved Rock,
o
Increased habitat
diversity in channel areas
·
Hydrology and
hydraulics — Naturalize Illinois River and tributary hydrologic regimes and
conditions to restore aquatic and riparian habitat.
·
Geomorphology —
Reduce sediment delivery to the
o
Eliminate
excessive sediment delivery to specific high-value habitat both along the main
stem and in tributary areas.
·
Geomorphology —
Restore aquatic habitat diversity of side channels and backwaters, including
o
Restore and
maintain side channel and island habitats.
o
Maintain all
existing connections between backwaters and the main channel (connections at
the 50 percent exceedance flow duration).
o
Compact sediments
to improve substrate conditions for aquatic plants, fish, and wildlife.
Reach Planning Discussion
Ken Barr outlined two topics
for this discussion, including 1) are we ready to complete this first phase of
the reach planning?, and 2) how should the identified objectives be discussed
in NESP’s Implementation Report to Congress
(IRTC)? In response to a question from
Janet Sternburg, Barr said he expects that an
individual report will be developed for each floodplain reach. A consolidated report for the four reaches
will not be compiled at this time. Sternburg said that it may be worthwhile to standardize
terminology, to facilitate comparison across the individual reaches. Barb Naramore said
it’s important that differences in terminology are meaningful — i.e., that they
reflect underlying differences across the four reaches. Where planners are talking about the same
thing, they should be using the same language to the extent possible. Dan Wilcox said the glossary in the Reach
Planning Notebook is designed to encourage such consistency, but said there are
important physical and cultural differences that will ultimately result in
various interpretations and meanings for each reach.
Marv Hubbell noted that presenters often referred to the
reach planning as a NESP effort, when in fact it is program neutral. He asked individuals who participated in the
reach planning whether they viewed this as a program neutral undertaking or a
NESP-specific effort. Jim Fischer said
that the Upper Impounded Reach objectives are program neutral, and recognized
the value in having a program neutral approach from the beginning. Brian Johnson said the Unimpounded
Reach objectives are program neutral with respect to Corps programs. However, they are not necessarily applicable
to all Upper Mississippi River-relevant programs of other agencies. Marshall Plumley
said that the effort on the Illinois River Reach was program neutral as all
relevant
Tim Schlagenhaft
asked if each reach had identified performance measures. Wilcox said the FWWG has developed conceptual
ecological models that will be used to define performance measures for the
Upper Impounded Reach. Clevenstine reported that the FWIC will begin very shortly
to develop performance measures for the Lower Impounded Reach. Johnson said the RRAT Tech is in the process
of developing performance measures for the Unimpounded
Reach. Plumley
said that indicators and performance criteria have been established for the
Illinois River Reach, but they will need to be refined for purposes of this
planning effort. In response to a
question from Schlagenhaft, Barr said that geomorphic
reach planning will commence after performance criteria have been defined, so
that the criteria can be used in developing geomorphic reach plans.
Jon Duyvejonck
asked whether the floodplain reach objectives will be, or have been,
prioritized. Wilcox said the Upper
Impounded Reach objectives are not prioritized, but that projects will likely
be prioritized and/or sequenced from an ecological perspective. Clevenstine,
Johnson, and Plumley said that objectives were not
prioritized in their respective reaches, though Plumley
noted that the Illinois River Basin Comprehensive Plan does articulate those
priorities.
In terms of what to include
in the NESP Implementation Report to Congress (IRTC), Dan McGuiness asked the POCs for each reach to submit updated versions of their
objectives, characteristics, and stressors information. Chuck Spitzack said
that the IRTC should include a status report on what has been accomplished in
the objective-setting effort to date. Duyvejonck suggested including a list of common stressors
and characteristics that apply systemically.
Schlagenhaft said that a mechanism should be
developed for prioritizing projects at a systemic level. Barr agreed with the importance of this step,
but said it is a task for the Advisory Panel, NECC, and River Management
Teams. Wilcox said that the IRTC should
emphasize the ability of reach planning to increase accountability and
scientific credibility of UMRS ecosystem restoration programs, with specific
attention to measureable outcomes, natural processes,
etc. Fischer said the multi-partner
buy-in should also be emphasized in the report.
Initiating Reach Planning
Ken Barr outlined the
following components of geomorphic reach planning, though he emphasized that
the process is not limited to these elements.
He noted that the planning will be done on a four-year cycle, to
correspond with the required IRTC.
·
NESP ecosystem
restoration planning by the twelve geomorphic reaches.
·
Identification of
NESP mitigation actions by reach.
·
Identification of
NESP cultural stewardship actions by reach.
·
Adaptive
management by geomorphic reach and project.
·
Collaboration
with other programs —e.g. EMP HREPs and Section 519
on the Illinois River Mainstem.
Dan Wilcox said that efforts
to identify environmental mitigation actions since the Feasibility Study have
included refining the scope of likely impacts, and identifying locations of
impacts and candidate sites for mitigation actions. Barr said the only pending report is the fleeting
impacts analysis. He also observed that
a synthesis report on mitigation needs would be helpful.
Barr said that NESP’s general restoration target for the first planning
cycle amounts to approximately $500 million, or one-fourth of the overall NESP
restoration authority. This will fund about
50 projects, or an average of four projects per geomorphic reach. In addition, special-authorized projects
totaling about $100 million are planned, including fish passage at two dams,
dam point control for Pool 25, and 3 floodplain restoration projects. Tim Schlagenhaft
said that objectives set for the Upper Impounded Reach above
Marv Hubbell said that EMP has approximately $155 million
of activity in the HREP and LTRM pipeline, including 18 HREPs
that will be ready for construction within the next five years. He asked how those projects/efforts could be
integrated should the EMP-NESP transition occur during this first four-year
cycle. Barr said that LTRM would be
funded at its authorized level of $10.42 million per year, assuming NESP
receives robust funding. Barr deferred
the incorporation of any habitat projects beyond what is currently in NESP’s design to the River Management Teams.
Barr reported that the NESP
authority includes $200 million for mitigation.
In the first four-year implementation cycle, $50 million worth of
mitigation projects has been identified, including bankline
stabilization, vegetation, backwater/sidechannel,
fish, and cultural projects. Duyvejonck asked whether mitigation actions could be
integrated into restoration projects, in an effort to make the projects more
effective. Barr said that this would be
possible, if the project elements are accounted for separately to ensure
appropriate cost-share compliance. He
noted that integrating fish mitigation activities with restoration projects
would be particularly difficult, since the mitigation to address larval fish
impacts will not be site-specific.
Barr said that NESP program
costs are relatively high, while NESP is receiving relatively low levels of PED
funding. As funding ramps up, program
expenditures will be a relatively small percentage of overall spending. Barr said specific projects should be
identified for which expanded monitoring could be utilized. He said that adaptive management questions
will be identified by geomorphic and floodplain reach, and also at the system
level. Barr emphasized the need for the
System Team and Science Panel’s activities to be very transparent. Mike Jawson asked
whether the proposed involvement of the Science Panel in the identification of
adaptive management projects has been vetted with the Panel. Barr said that Corps staff has worked with
the Science Panel, and that this function will be reflected in a draft Panel
charter that will be released soon for partner comment.
Barr reviewed the First
Increment Plan for ecosystem restoration, explaining that 227 projects totaling
$1.46 billion are included. He reviewed
the range of project types as well.
Janet Sternburg asked how EMP projects would
fit into the Plan should a quick EMP-NESP transition occur. Barr said that projects at the fact sheet
stage would be integrated into reach planning.
Projects that are further advanced would be completed in the same
fashion as NESP projects for which planning was advanced under PED. Sternburg expressed
concern with the potential for an overload of projects under limited funding
scenarios, such as $35 million. Barr
said that NESP would not be possible at that low level of funding.
In response to a question
from Gretchen Benjamin, Barr said that drawdowns for
Pools 5 and 9 are no longer likely to happen within the next four years. Thus, they will be considered in the next
reach planning cycle, as will fish passage at Lock and Dam 3.
Barr said that Corps staff
has estimated 20 percent attrition of projects that will not be implementable, but said the list of projects for this first
four-year cycle makes allowances for this.
Although there is a list of mature projects ready for construction, Barr
said he expects a new round of project planning will be needed as those
projects are completed. Hubbell
acknowledged the need for EMP to also identify new projects for planning.
Barr presented a proposed
timeline for the development of reach plans.
In an effort to balance the need to move forward with reach planning and
with workload considerations, the schedule was modified and is as follows:
·
August/September
2009 — Reach Planning Teams will complete draft Reach Plans for action by the
respective River Management Teams.
·
December 2009 —
Draft System Plans, developed by the Regional Support Team, will be distributed
to the NECC, EMP-CC, UMRBA, and stakeholders for review and comment.
·
February 2010 — A final System Plan will be presented to NECC and EMP-CC for
consideration at the February quarterly meetings.
Bob Clevenstine
expressed concern that the necessary resources may not be available to support
stakeholder engagement in the reach planning effort. He urged that financial and logistical needs
be addressed. Barr said that stakeholder
engagement would be the responsibility of the individual reach planning teams, but
that Corps staff will work with those teams to meet their needs. Hubbell requested an estimate of the
financial and logistical needs expected for effective stakeholder engagement.
Development of a Mussel Community Index
Jon Duyvejonck
described the need for a freshwater mussel community assessment tool to help
inform management efforts on the UMRS.
Currently, the Service is concerned that there is no consistent
methodology or uniform criteria for assessing mussel populations and
habitat. Duyvejonck
noted that obtaining mussel community information is identified as an additional
monitoring component in the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and Operational
Plan. The need for mussel indicators was
also recognized at the May 5-7, 2009 UMRBA Biological Indicators Workshop. Duyvejonck proposed
a reconnaissance study that would analyze both a multi-metric index and a
series of statistically-derived curves that plot the frequency distribution of
various mussel metrics. He estimated the
cost for Phase I of such a study at approximately $60,000.
Charlie Wooley
asked NECC and EMP-CC members to provide Duyvejonck
with feedback on the idea of a reconnaissance study. Duyvejonck said he
would like to have a refined proposal available for NECC and EMP-CC’s potential
endorsement in August. Barr asked
members to provide their input to Duyvejonck by July
6, 2009.
Karen Hagerty
asked how this effort might relate to the Mussel Coordination Team and its
database. Duyvejonck
said that data could be utilized, but that this research would more
specifically assess the health of mussel populations and habitat.
Dan Wilcox noted that the
need for more mussel data is a frequent issue in the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) context. Duyvejonck
said the minimum threshold of data required for ESA determinations has not
always been consistent. However, Barry
Johnson clarified that this effort would not be geared to the endangered
species context.
EMP-NESP Transition
Marv Hubbell reported that, in response to a directive
included in the FY 2008 and 2009 appropriations measures, the three UMR Corps
districts have drafted an EMP-NESP Transition Plan for submission to MVD. He noted that this Congressional directive is
somewhat at odds with the Administration, which has thus far declined to budget
for NESP and thus does not necessarily see the need for a transition plan. Hubbell said it remains to be seen how the
draft plan will be handled in the Corps Headquarters and the
Administration. Hubbell said the draft
plan highlights three key principles:
·
That no
reductions occur in restoration and monitoring capabilities as a result of
transition.
·
That all current
projects in planning, engineering, design, and construction under EMP
seamlessly transfer into the new Title VIII authority.
·
That scientific
and monitoring efforts currently carried out under EMP integrate into the Title
VIII authority. The mechanism to
facilitate this integration will be the recently completed and adopted FY 10-14
LTRMP Strategic Plan.
Hubbell summarized the
following key recommendations and assumptions for a successful transition:
·
Adequate and
stable funding for Title VIII will be sufficient to support transition.
·
Annual funding
for EMP will continue to be between its historical level of $20,000,000 and its
authorized limit of $33,170,000 until transition.
·
Transition at
funding levels lower than $100 million is possible in compliance with the “Key
Principles,” but would fall short of achieving full implementation under Title
VIII.
·
Prior to
transition and in consideration of actions taken to ensure smooth transition,
EMP should be returned to full functionality, allowing for selection of new
projects, planning of selected projects, and construction of approved projects.
Hubbell said that EMP has
begun seeing impacts in FY 09 from the prohibition on EMP new starts. The language will have a greater impact in FY
10 and will be very acute in FY 11, if the constraint is not lifted. Chuck Spitzack
described transition scenarios at $100 million, $50 million, and $35 million
funding levels, which are presented in the draft plan. He said a minimum of $100 million in annual
funding is required in order to move to lock construction.
Janet Sternburg
asked whether Corps staff is assuming that a transition would be abrupt or
would occur over multiple years. Spitzack and Hubbell said that it is uncertain how Congress
will direct a transition, especially since NESP has not yet been included in
the President’s budget. Spitzack said the transition plan is intended to provide
decision makers with sufficient information to understand the implications of
various choices they might make. Hubbell
said a multi-year transition would be preferable, but stressed the uncertainty
regarding what decisions will be made on this.
Bill Franz said that the draft plan does not reflect an
intent to transition over multiple years. He suggested that the plan describe what
events should occur over a proposed timeframe.
Bernie Schonoff
asked whether lock design would continue under the $50 million and $35 million
scenarios. Spitzack
said that design efforts would continue on two initial locks. He said the Corps would like to construct the
locks simultaneously to lessen navigation impacts over the long run.
Mike Jawson
asked what the likelihood is that the Administration will forward a transition
plan to Congress. Elizabeth Ivy said it
is not yet known whether the Administration is prepared to forward the
plan. She advised keeping the plan brief
and conceptual. Spitzack
said the process of developing the draft plan has been valuable, regardless of
whether the plan is ultimately submitted to Congress. In particular, he said it has prompted Corps
staff and program partners to address key issues surrounding transition.
Ivy questioned whether 50/50
splits between navigation and ecosystem restoration at the two lower scenarios
would be realistic at a $35 million or $50 million overall funding level. Spitzack explained that such an allocation represents a
reasonable approach to comparable progress and efficient implementation under a
very low funding scenario. Ken Barr said
that navigation improvements will need considerably more than 50 percent of the
annual NESP appropriation in some years.
Overall, Spitzack and Barr emphasized that the
goal is to maintain comparable progress.
Paul Rhode stressed the importance of communicating about the transition
plan with Congress. He said that,
currently, the perception is that EMP and NESP are competing for
resources. Rhode said a succinct, clear
transition plan will be very valuable in clarifying the relationship between
EMP and NESP. He said a list of EMP
projects in various phases would be helpful, but advised against including it
in the transition plan.
Jon Duyvejonck
expressed concern with using the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan to facilitate a
transition between the two programs. He suggested
developing a set of principles to guide the use of the Strategic Plan under
NESP. Charlie Wooley
reported that USFWS articulated these concerns in a letter sent to the NESP
Program Manager.
Hubbell asked partners to
submit any further comments on the draft transition plan as soon as
possible. The Corps staff anticipates
having a draft plan available prior to completion of the FY 10 appropriations
process.
Gretchen Benjamin urged the
Corps to eliminate the $35 million scenario from the draft plan, explaining
that a transition consistent with the identified principles is clearly not
feasible at this funding level. She
noted that the EMP alone would consume $20 million of that $35 million. Bernie Hoyer said that the intention for EMP
to continue to function fully until NESP is adequately funded should be
clarified in the draft plan. Spitzack said that $100 million is desired for a smooth
transition, but that Congress may well direct transition at a lower funding
level. With sufficient funding, Spitzack said he does not see the need for a multi-year
transition.
Schonoff moved and Sternburg
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:15 p.m. It was approved unanimously.
Joint
Session Attendance List
May 20, 2009
EMP-CC and NECC Members
|
Elizabeth Ivy |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Charlie Wooley |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Schonhoff |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Birkenstock |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Jon Hendrickson |
|
|
Don Powell |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Marshall Plumley |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Clevenstine |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Dan McGuiness and
Associates |
|
Heather Schoonover |
Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Mark Gorman |
Northeast-Midwest
Institute |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Todd Strole |
The Nature
Conservancy/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
|
Christine Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council,
Inc. |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Peg Donnelly |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|