Minutes of the
Navigation Environmental Coordination
Committee —
Economics Coordinating Committee
Quarterly Meeting
Sheraton Westport Plaza Hotel
Ken Barr of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at
Announcements
Barr announced that UMRBA
will begin providing support services to NECC, under a contract with the Corps,
starting with this quarterly meeting series.
Barb Naramore encouraged members to contact
her or Kirsten Mickelsen with any questions or
suggestions for ways in which UMRBA can better serve partners’ needs.
Minutes from the November 19, 2008
Meeting
Gretchen Benjamin requested
that the following correction be made to the draft minutes of the
Janet Sternburg
requested that the third-to-last sentence in the first full paragraph on page
A-7 be modified to read, “Some of the group expressed concern….” Sternburg also
questioned the reference on p. A-6 to the presence of northern snakehead in the
UMRB.
Funding Status
Chuck Spitzack
reported that NESP is on track to spend two-thirds of the $3 million
appropriated under the FY 09 Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA), which
expires on March 6. Spitzack
said the impacts of the stimulus package and anticipated FY 09 omnibus bill on NESP’s budget for the balance of FY 09 are unclear. However, the stimulus measure’s prohibition
on new starts will preclude the use of stimulus funding to initiate
construction under NESP. [Note: The omnibus bill was subsequently enacted on
March 11 and contains $8.604 million for NESP.]
Spitzack said that the budget outlook for NESP
in FY 10 is also uncertain. He noted
that the President is expected to release a detailed budget request in
mid-April.
Visions, Goals, and Guiding Principles
Chuck Spitzack
reported that consideration of human uses is addressed as a guiding principle
in the final draft Visions, Goals, and Guiding Principles for Management of the
UMRS, rather than as a goal. Spitzack explained that the Corps has started to use the
vision, goals, and principles to focus its outreach efforts. While noting that they can be revisited in
the future, Spitzack said he would like to conclude
work on the statement for the time being.
Gretchen Benjamin expressed enthusiasm for the statement, saying that
the vision, goals, and principles hit the mark from her perspective. Benjamin moved and Janet Sternburg
seconded a motion to endorse the final draft as presented in the agenda
packet. The motion passed unanimously.
UMRS Outreach Team
Chuck Spitzack
said that the UMRS Outreach Team consists of representatives from the three UMR
districts and MVD, as well as the
Pat McGinnis reported that
the UMRS Outreach Team recommends a consistent message be developed that is
program neutral and gives local communities and visitors a sense of the
ecological, economic, and recreational value of the Mississippi River. McGinnis said that outreach can build from
current communications messages and programs, such as NESP, which can be used
to highlight the watershed’s commitment to enhancing the river’s health and
well-being of the local communities. He
stressed the importance of engaging the public in a conversation about water
and the entire system’s function and value, rather than simply reaching out
with project-specific messages and information.
McGinnis suggested that existing refuges, regional offices, and other
visitor and recreation centers be used to reach the public. As an example, he said facilities at the
confluence of the
McGinnis also noted the
various natural and cultural heritage events and programs taking place on the
UMRS that promote system comprehension and water awareness. He emphasized the importance of reaching out
to tourism-based organizations as an opportunity to raise awareness and
appreciation for the river’s scenic, recreational, cultural, and ecological
values in a very tangible way.
McGinnis said that the Team
and its partners will begin to develop a strategic plan to communicate with the
public about who we are, what we want to do, and where we want to be in the
future. He said that the pace of work on
outreach for the balance of FY 09 will be determined, in part, by the level of
NESP funding in the omnibus measure.
McGinnis encouraged NECC members to make public outreach a
priority. Spitzack
reported that the Corps’ internal sensing sessions are wrapping up, and said
the Corps is now seeking feedback on how best to reach out to the
partnership.
Martin Konrad
asked if now is the best time to discuss the potential name change for NESP
before communicating these broad messages to the public. McGinnis said programs and their fortunes are
subject to change, and thus recommended focusing messages on the river instead
of specific programs. Spitzack said that the question of NESP’s
name has not yet been resolved. For now,
the Corps is simply downplaying use of the name while the naming question is
considered. Bernie Hoyer referred to the
Mike Jawson
asked for clarification on whether the outreach would be centered at L&D 26
or would be equally spread out along the
McGinnis asked what locations
on the UMR would offer the best opportunities for outreach. Janet Sternburg
suggested coordinating outreach efforts on a Corps district level, noting that
this would reduce travel burdens and engage people at a geographic level that
is familiar to many of them.
Vince Shay suggested using the McKnight Foundation’s restoration
collaborative as a venue to engage multiple NGO partners. McGinnis agreed with Shay’s suggestion, and
said the UMRS Outreach Team can aid in finding synergies between NGOs and
agencies.
Paul Rhode said the key to NESP’s future is Congressional funding. As such, he stressed the need for consistent
branding and a solid program identity.
He noted that members of Congress and their staff people are already
familiar with the “NESP” name, and cautioned that name changes could detract
from efforts to build energy and support for the program.
Barb Naramore
said that if the outreach plan calls for a river-focused, multi-program effort,
then it should be implemented primarily at the district level in order to reach
the full spectrum of stakeholders and engage the relevant programs and
agencies. She observed that many key
participants, including local communities, simply are not represented on
system-level groups like NECC. McGinnis
said that outreach efforts are ongoing in the field, but the challenge lies in
making the various messages cohesive along the UMR.
Tim Schlagenhaft
asked what the Outreach Team’s next step will be. Spitzack said the
Team has distributed a draft conceptual plan to Corps managers. Once that review is completed, the conceptual
plan will be shared with partner agencies and stakeholders and, following their
review, the public.
Advisory Panel Status
Ivy reported that
General Walsh submitted his AP recommendations to the MVD Regional Integration
Team (RIT) at Corps Headquarters on February 11, 2009. After review by RIT MVD, Ivy said she
anticipates that the proposal will be submitted to ASA(CW)
in about one to two months. Highlights
of the General’s recommendations include the following:
·
The Secretary of
the Army retains the authority to appoint and convene the AP.
Ivy explained the
General’s intent behind elevating the level of representation on the AP
relative to the partners’ August 2008 proposal, citing the desire to have AP
members who can make decisions and commit resources during the panel’s
deliberations. Ivy also noted that
travel, staffing, and other costs of participation are expected to be absorbed
by each of the members’ respective offices.
She emphasized that the proposal is subject to change as it undergoes
higher level review. Upon approval by
the ASA(CW), the AP directive would be given to the
NESP Program Manager for implementation.
Janet Sternburg reiterated the concerns she has expressed
previously regarding seeking higher level participants for the AP. She explained that it will be difficult to
get state agency directors to such meetings, particularly if they are held as
frequently as four times per year, as one section of General Walsh’s proposal
suggests. Moreover, Sternburg
observed that agency directors and their federal equivalents would have to be
very heavily staffed in order to participate effectively at the panel’s
meetings, increasing the total burden of AP participation, relative to the
working level group recommended by the NESP partners. Sternburg stressed
the importance of notifying the states when the ASA(CW)
sends invitations to the Governors
Tim Schlagenhaft observed that the General’s revisions to the
partnership’s AP proposal could introduce significant delay in standing up the
panel. In the interim, Schlagenhaft said work is needed on important technical
issues, such as the project prioritization and ranking system.
Joyce
Collins asked if a process has been selected for identifying landowner
representatives, as well as their term limits.
She noted the inherent difficulty of identifying one landowner given the
large area and diverse interests among landowners within the UMRS. Barr said the Corps proposes the use of a
modified version of a process used on the
Jim
Fischer stressed that an elevated AP such as that recommended by General Walsh
would definitely need to be supported by a strong, interagency working group in
order to address NESP’s coordination and
implementation needs. Christine Favilla noted that the revised AP proposal does not include
several of the functions envisioned in the partnership’s proposal and asked who
would be responsible for performing these functions. Spitzack said such
functions would be most appropriately tasked to a working group. He noted that General Walsh rejected the idea
of establishing a working group prior to the AP’s first meeting, electing
instead to wait until the AP convenes and determines what, if any, working
groups it wishes to have.
David
Conrad said he sees something of a mis-match between
the jobs high-level agency leaders perform and the functions detailed in
General Walsh’s AP proposal. He said it
will be important for the AP to delegate authority if NESP is to function
effectively. Bill Franz acknowledged the
difficultly associated with getting higher-level directors at the meetings, and
said that representation will likely be delegated. He said it is unlikely an EPA Regional
Administrator would participate in even one AP meeting per year. He also questioned the relevance of the ILTF
as a model, noting that most agencies have delegated their participation down
and the group does not seem to be making decisions.
Ivy
clarified that the reference to AP meetings more than once per year was an
unintended holdover from the partnership’s proposal. She said MVD does not anticipate that the AP
would meet more than once annually. She
stressed that the higher level representation would help get recognition and
funding for NESP. Franz observed that
the Midwest Natural Resources Group (MNRG) is comprised of federal agency
regional directors, but that it does not accomplish much in terms of bringing
resources or attention to the region.
Brad
Walker said that NGOs were looking forward to participating in the AP, as it
was outlined in the partnership’s proposal.
However, he said the prospect of meeting annually, or less often,
significantly limits the opportunity for involvement. Barr said that NGO involvement would also be
anticipated in any technical working groups.
Spitzack added that a high level of
representation has always been sought in some fashion, but that this is just a
more formalized approach than previously envisioned.
Tim Schlagenhaft asked if there could be an opportunity to meet
with General Walsh to discuss the need for including a technical working group
element in his recommendation. Spitzack said that Corps staff will relay the partners’
feedback to General Walsh.
Jon Duyvejonck said that it might cause confusion if the AP met
as a part of the quarterly meeting series since the same topics would be
discussed at the other meetings. Conrad
recognized the value that higher level decision makers could provide on the AP,
but suggested thinking carefully about what specific roles they could
effectively play.
Implementation
Report to Congress
Chuck Spitzack reported that the Corps has contracted with Dan
McGuiness and Associates and URS to develop the Implementation Report to
Congress (IRTC) that is due in June 2009 from NESP’s
ecosystem restoration component. Dan
McGuiness said he hopes the IRTC will portray the UMR as a nationally
significant resource, both economically and environmentally; demonstrate the
need for and value of investing resources in the UMR; and highlight the
on-the-ground work to restore natural features and functions of a large
floodplain ecosystem. He also expressed
hope that the process of developing the report would help build NESP’s constituencies.
McGuiness said he envisions the report will be similar in style to the
2004 EMP RTC, with full color, graphics, charts, and tables. Multiple distribution media and formats are
possible.
To the
extent possible, McGuiness said the report will be program neutral and focus on
the overall need for appropriations to support programs on the UMR. McGuiness suggested that the report may be an
opportune place to introduce a new name for NESP. He also encouraged NECC partners and
stakeholders to contact him with input regarding the report.
McGuiness presented
a draft outline for the report, as follows:
McGuiness asked NECC
members and others to provide him with any information for potential use in the
report by February 27, 2009. He outlined
the following schedule for the remainder of the report process:
Due to the
difficulty of emailing large files, Gretchen Benjamin suggested using a
knowledge tree or other online way of providing NECC members and stakeholders
with access to review drafts. Ken Barr
said Corps staff would look into options for providing access, and suggested
that the Corps’ existing FTP site might be the most expedient alternative. David Conrad requested that a site be
developed as soon as possible for easy access to the draft report and other
relevant documents. [Subsequent to the
meeting, the Corps posted the review draft on MVR’s
FTP site, at ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/mvr/.]
Benjamin
asked how gaps, such as the lack of fully developed restoration objectives for
some reaches, will be addressed in the report.
McGuiness acknowledged that there will be some information gaps, which
will present a challenge in developing the report. In such instances, McGuiness said it may
simply not be possible to present information at a comparable level of detail,
and this will be explained in the report.
Jon Duyvejonck said he hopes the report will
serve as a blueprint for implementation.
He acknowledged that it will be difficult to maintain a positive
tone while explaining the need to move forward and prepare for EMP/NESP integration. McGuiness said that the report can describe
the UMRS’s restoration needs relatively readily, and
agreed that the bigger challenge will come in talking about what this means in
terms of programs and appropriations.
Barr added that an EMP/NESP transition plan will not be available by the
time the IRTC is submitted, so the report will identify some of the transition
issues and questions without making a definitive recommendation. In response to a question from Brad Walker, Barr
said the ITRC will focus exclusively on ecosystem restoration, per the NESP
authorizing language.
Bernie Schonhoff asked if insights from recent studies and
reports, including research done by Jack Killgore,
will be included in the report. Barr
said research and other insights gained will be important to incorporate into
the adaptive management discussion within the report.
Report Out
on the Navigation Coordination Group
Chuck Spitzack reported that an initial Navigation Coordination
Group meeting was held on February 17, 2009. He summarized the meeting topics, which
included the status of NESP navigation projects; implementation funding
scenarios; 1,200-foot lock design and construction methods, quality management,
and impacts during construction; future communication with the navigation
industry; and potential Navigation Coordination Team charter, structure, and
operation.
Spitzack
announced that the draft First Increment Plan will be released soon, and
reviewed highlights from the navigation improvements portion of the draft. He said that the Plan’s purpose is to
identify an efficient capital investment strategy, as well as the implications
of alternative funding scenarios. Spitzack compared four funding scenarios, with their
different timing implications for work on the new locks, switch boats, and
mitigation efforts. Spitzack
highlighted the following as critical elements for NESP’s
future success:
Spitzack explained that the navigation and ecosystem
components have different needs when it comes to efficient and effective
funding streams. Specifically, each lock
project will require large, comprehensive design and construction contracts
over a relatively short period of time, to minimize duration of the project,
thus maximizing contractor efficiency and reducing disruption to the navigation
system. Conversely, the ecosystem
projects will be more effective and efficient under a relatively steady level
of restoration funding, permitting individual projects to proceed while
balancing this with effective feedback loops through the adaptive management
process. He stressed that these
different needs are not inconsistent with the “comparable progress” language in
the NESP authorization, which he said should not be interpreted as requiring
equal annual funding for the two components.
Spitzack
said the Navigation Coordination Group will meet next in conjunction with the
August quarterly meetings. A conference
call will be held in the interim, if needed.
Likely topics for the August meeting include engagement with the
navigation community, strategic planning for NESP, and
coordination of design and construction efforts.
Refining
NECC for Near Term Implementation
Ken Barr
said that until the Advisory Panel is established, NECC will continue to serve
as a forum for coordination within the partnership on matters related to NESP’s restoration component. Barr reviewed NECC’s
history since its first meeting in 1992.
NECC’s original focus was evaluating
navigation effects and supporting consultation under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. In 2000, with the
refocusing of the Navigation Feasibility Study on the development of a dual
purpose plan, the scope of NECC was expanded to include development a 50-year
restoration plan for the ecosystem.
Since 2004, Barr said NECC has been focused on cleaning up loose ends
from the feasibility study and beginning implementation and design for the
ecosystem restoration component within the adaptive management framework. He noted that the fleeting plan is the only
outstanding item from the feasibility phase.
During the post-feasibility phase, NESP has remained funded under the
Corps’ General Investigations account to conduct preconstruction engineering
and design (PED) work. During this PED
phase, NECC has focused on refining goals, objectives, and institutional
arrangements, as well as providing input as the Corps has initiated planning on
a limited number of restoration projects.
Barr highlighted the following near term
areas of focus for NESP:
Mike Jawson said he would
also like the NECC to focus on developing possible transition scenarios for EMP
and NESP, given the uncertainty associated with both funding and the potential
integration of the two programs.
Barr
suggested that, for the time being, NECC continue to hold quarterly meetings,
with its current membership, but also with active participation of NGOs that
are not formal NECC members and with support services from UMRBA, similar to
what the Association has provided for EMP-CC in the past. NECC members and other stakeholders expressed
general agreement with this interim approach, pending resolution of the AP
matter.
Jeff
Stamper asked whether eco-tourism perspectives should be represented at NECC
meetings. Janet Sternburg
agreed and said that, while it may be difficult for recreation-oriented groups
to participate directly on NECC, it would be beneficial to build strong
communications with those groups. Barr
emphasized that, as the Economics Coordinating Group is dissolved and a new
Navigation Coordination Group is formed that will generally be meeting
separately, it will be important for NECC to maintain a close relationship with
industry, agriculture, and landowner groups.
Tim Schlagenhaft recognized the importance of
having agricultural interests represented at NECC meetings, especially in
discussions regarding floodplain restoration and water quality issues, and
suggested these topics be consistently included in the meeting agendas. Barr noted that system-level working groups,
such as the one proposed to focus on floodplain restoration, will likely be key
opportunities to connect directly with agriculture interests.
Barr also
suggested having the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service co-chair the NECC meetings,
saying that this would facilitate Coordination Act work and resolution of land
management issues. He asked NECC members
to consider the question of having a Service co-chair.
Sternburg
said the NECC’s pre-meeting conference calls have
been helpful in formulating agendas and facilitating discussions between
meetings. She encouraged the Corps to
continue having those calls.
Under a
contract with the Corps, UMRBA has started providing support services to NECC,
beginning with this meeting. Barb Naramore encouraged NECC partners and stakeholders to
contact her or Kirsten Mickelsen with any questions
or suggestions for ways in which UMRBA can better meet their needs.
Science
Panel’s Natural Hydrograph Working Meeting
Barry
Johnson explained that the Science Panel is charged with providing scientific
guidance for ecosystem management and restoration work on the UMRS, within an
adaptive management framework. Johnson
noted that one of the five UMRS ecosystem goals is to develop a more natural
hydrograph. The Panel has been examining
an adaptive management approach to water level management, as a means of
restoring natural hydrological processes.
In part, of course, the Panel is interested developing some of the
specifics regarding how water level management might be pursued to restore the
hydrograph. But, according to Johnson,
the Panel also views this as an opportunity to explore issues more generally
related to the application of adaptive management principles to restoration
work on the UMRS.
Johnson
said Science Panel’s effort will build on other work, including the Water Level
Management Task Force‘s draft adaptive management plan, requests to operationalize summer drawdowns,
plans for drawdowns at Pools 6 and 18, and
evaluations of previous summer drawdowns. The Panel will document what is known,
develop a conceptual model, identify important questions and uncertainties,
consider experimental designs, and address monitoring needs. Johnson said that the conceptual model will
include hydrology/water quality, vegetation, fish, invertebrate, and bird
components, and will explore the relationship among various components and
processes. The model will facilitate the
exploration of hypotheses and development of predictions over various temporal
scales. Various indicators will be
identified to measure the effects of interventions. Johnson noted that different desired responses
may well require a different frequency of intervention. Similarly, different indicators and
monitoring approaches will be needed to capture different elements of the
response to the management intervention.
Johnson
briefly reviewed the ecological effects of maintaining high water levels to
support navigation and known impacts of lowering levels during the growing
season. He explained that the Panel’s
report will propose an experimental approach to exploring important remaining
questions, including the potential effects of drawdowns
on a variety of ecological components, issues related to the frequency and
timing of drawdowns, and differing effects along the
UMR from north to south. The
experimental design will likely include intervention in 2-4 pools, with other
pools selected as controls, and with pools selected to include both northern
and southern ends of the system.
Monitoring questions will include which indicators to monitor, how
often, and when. Johnson said that the
Panel’s report will not be a scope of work and is not a reason to halt other
water level management activities. He
emphasized that there may well be very sound reasons for also pursuing
management interventions that are not part of the adaptive learning
opportunity. He also stressed the
Panel’s intent that this effort will serve as an example of an approach that
can be applied to other questions and issues.
In
response to a question from
Fischer
asked whether the Science Panel intends to develop recommendations for applying
adaptive management to each of the UMRS ecosystem goals. Johnson said that the Science Panel is not
that far yet in its thinking. The water
level management report is the Panel’s attempt to look at one ecosystem goal
and a technique that might support that goal.
Johnson acknowledged that there are many techniques where additional
knowledge would be helpful.
Reach
Planning Notebook
Barr
noted that reach planning needs to be accomplished in the context of the First
Increment Plan investment strategy for ecosystem restoration. In NESP’s first
four years of construction general funding, Barr said the draft First Increment
Plan calls for $450 million in restoration spending on approximately 60
management actions.
Barr
presented the Science Panel’s comments on the Notebook as follows:
David Conrad noted that
Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 established a new national water development policy,
and includes the protection and restoration of natural systems as part of that
policy. He suggested that the Notebook
emphasize projects’ contributions to the restoration of natural river processes
on the UMRS.
Project Highlights
Side Channel
Restoration
Brian
Johnson reported that MVS has three NESP sidechannel
restoration projects in the planning phase:
Herculaneum Wing Dike Alteration, Buffalo Chute Sidechannel
Restoration, and Schenimann Chute Sidechannel
Restoration. Johnson said that all three
projects have at least three years of pre-project monitoring, and are currently
completing project implementation reports (PIRs). All three PIRs have
undergone some level of internal review, but have not yet been released. According to Johnson, each of the projects
will be ready for construction in FY 10, though the actual ability to proceed
to construction will, of course, be contingent upon NESP receiving sufficient
appropriations through the Corps’ construction general account.
Johnson
described the Herculaneum Wing Dike Alteration construction, which would
include creating a series of new dikes, notching existing dikes, and creating
side channels within the existing channel.
All work would be below the ordinary high water mark, and project
objectives include enhancing channel geomorphic diversity, modifying channels
to provide enhance fish habitat, and maintaining the diversity and extent of
native communities.
Goals for
the Buffalo Chute Sidechannel Restoration include
improving fish over-wintering and rearing habitat, sidechannel
connectivity to the river, and water quality within the sidechannel,
as well as increasing habitat diversity within the sidechannel.
Johnson
showed a time series of aerial photographs illustrating the impacts of channel
training structures on Schenimann Chute over
time. Project goals include maintaining
a river connection during low flows, reestablishing flow from the channel’s
entrance to its mouth during average seasonal flows, improving access to the sidechannel habitat during critical times of the year,
increasing habitat diversity through development of scour and meandering
patterns, and improving water quality.
Johnson
noted that none of these projects was originally conceived under NESP. Instead, each was initially proposed under
the EMP and transferred over to NESP in hopes of accelerating
construction. In response to a question
from
Gretchen Benjamin
asked if the Science Panel has been involved in pre-project monitoring for
purposes of adaptive management. Johnson
said pre-project monitoring at the three sites has not been designed to address
adaptive management questions, but sufficient pre-project work has been completed
to support basic performance evaluation.
Johnson said he anticipates that, as the program evolves, a standardized
monitoring protocol will be developed.
Barr said that Ken Cook proposed that the Science Panel make
recommendations for a project monitoring scheme, similar to the Panel’s efforts
related to water level management. Joyce
Collins mentioned that post-project monitoring design has been structured to
try to identify reach effects, and that project monitoring will consider reach
and system effects more in the future.
Pool 2 Wing
Dams
On behalf
of Elliot Stefanik, Jeff DeZellar
presented on the Pool 2 Main Channel Border and Sidechannel
Habitat Enhancement project. DeZellar said that the project originated from the Lower
Pool 2 Channel Management Study. The
study’s recommendations included notching wingdams
and sidechannel restoration. Due to competing demands for limited funds, DeZellar said the recommendations were not immediately
pursued under MVP’s operation and maintenance (O&M) program. Instead, the project was moved to NESP, with
the hope of earlier construction.
DeZellar
showed photographs and schematics illustrating sand accretion behind the wing
dams, most of which were inundated with the 9-foot channel project. Historically, the sidechannel
was about 1,200 feet long and about 55 feet wide. Over time, sand has been accreting in the sidechannel,
to the point that it is estimated the sidechannel
will fill completely within 5 to 10 years if there is no management
intervention.
DeZellar
described the NESP recommended plan, which includes notching 30 wingdams and excavating a small channel. Total construction costs are estimated at
about $200,000. DeZellar
said that project plans call for using several different approaches to modify
the wing dams in order to evaluate their relative effectiveness. The sidechannel
will not be restored to its historic dimensions due to cost considerations as
well as concerns with the impacts from sidecasting
the dredged material. DeZellar anticipates MVD’s
approval for the project within the next two weeks, and that the public review
process should be initiated shortly thereafter.
DeZellar
said Stefanik had offered the following lessons
learned from his experience developing this project:
DeZellar took some issue with the final lesson, saying he sees
promise in tailoring the project planning and approval process appropriately
for different size projects. Barr agreed
with Stefanik that NESP project reviews need to
become more efficient, noting that the district O&M programs are quite
efficient in processing small projects like this.
Partner
Reports
Bill
Franz said that UMRBA, with support from USEPA and USGS, will be holding a
biological indicators workshop on
Bernie Schonhoff mentioned
there are issues with the numerical model for fish passages.
Jim
Fischer said
Christine
Favilla said the Sierra Club hopes to hire an
education outreach coordinator, though funding is somewhat uncertain.
David
Conrad said the National Wildlife Federation is working with a number of
partners throughout the country in an effort to enhance communication among
various restoration efforts and share information. Conrad welcomed any suggestions or input.
Mike Jawson noted that a group of supporters is lobbying for
Congressional funding of invasive species control research at UMESC
Paul
Rhode said Cornel Martin is the new CEO for the Waterways Council. The Waterways Council has a number of
outreach activities scheduled for next week, including a press conference with
Senator Durbin in
Jon Duyvejonck said that climate change is a priority for the
Service. He also reported the upcoming
retirements of Don Hultman and Dick Steinbach.
Rebecca Soileau mentioned that Denver Tolliver is planning a late
summer conference on how waterway transportation integrates with other
modes. Soileau
will send out information regarding the conference in the coming weeks.
Administrative
Items
Tim Schlagenhaft expressed appreciation for Martin Konrad’s efforts as a member of the EMP-CC and frequent
participant in NECC. Bernie Hoyer will
replace Konrad as
A NECC conference call was scheduled for
The upcoming
quarterly meetings are as follows:
* A NESP Navigation Coordination Group meeting
will also be scheduled during the August quarterly meeting series.
NECC-ECC Attendance List
|
Elizabeth
Ivy |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Rebecca Soileau |
|
|
Andrey Kravets |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Karen Hagerty |
|
|
Marvin Hubbell |
|
|
Jack Carr |
|
|
T. Leo Keller |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Pat McGinnis |
|
|
Jeff Stamper |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
|
|
|
Rick Frietsche |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Barry Johnson |
|
|
Butch Atwood |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Rick Mollahan |
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Bernard Schonhoff |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Bernie Hoyer |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
Martin Konrad |
Iowa Department of
Natural Resources |
|
John Fleig |
Iowa Department of
Transportation |
|
Tim Schlagenhaft |
Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department
of Conservation |
|
Bryan Hopkins |
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Sherrie Turley |
Missouri Department
of Transportation |
|
Jim Fischer |
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources |
|
Christine Favilla |
Sierra Club |
|
Brad Walker |
Izaak Walton League |
|
David Conrad |
National Wildlife
Federation |
|
Vince Shay |
The Nature
Conservancy |
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
The Nature Conservancy
|
|
Paul Rohde |
Waterways Council,
Inc. |
|
Dan McGuiness |
Dan McGuiness and Associates |
|
Jennifer Schwent |
URS Corporation |
|
Tom Boland |
MACTEC |
|
Barb Naramore |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Kirsten Mickelsen |
|