Minutes
of the
101st
Quarterly Meeting
of
the
St.
Louis, Missouri
The
meeting was called to order at 10:35 a.m. by UMRBA Vice Chair Dru Buntin. The following were present:
|
Gary Clark |
|
|
Martin Konrad |
|
|
Laurie Martinson |
|
|
Rebecca Wooden |
|
|
Dick Lambert |
|
|
Mike Wells |
|
|
Dru Buntin |
|
|
Todd Ambs |
|
|
Gretchen Benjamin |
|
Federal Liaisons:
|
Terry Smith |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Mike Jawson |
|
|
Charles Wooley |
|
|
Mike Sullivan |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
Others in attendance:
|
Chuck Corell |
Iowa Department of Natural Resources |
|
Janet Sternburg |
Missouri Department of Conservation |
|
Rich Worthington |
|
|
Chuck Spitzack |
|
|
Marv Hubbell |
|
|
Ken Barr |
|
|
Hank DeHaan |
|
|
Kevin Bluhm |
|
|
Jeff DeZellar |
|
|
Deanne Strauser |
|
|
Dave Gates |
|
|
David Busse |
|
|
Brian Johnson |
|
|
Don Hultman |
|
|
Joyce Collins |
|
|
Mike Slifer |
|
|
Bob Goodwin |
|
|
Mark Carr |
AEP MEMCO LLC |
|
Brad Walker |
|
|
Tom Boland |
|
|
Dan McGuiness |
Audubon |
|
Holly Stoerker |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
|
|
Barb Naramore |
|
Dick
Lambert asked that his comment regarding MarAd on page 9 of the minutes be
corrected. In particular, he suggested
that the word “land” be inserted preceding “congestion” and the term
“Intermodal” be used to describe the MarAd partnership.
Martin
Konrad moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
November 15, 2006 meeting, as amended by Lambert. The motion was approved unanimously.
Executive Director’s
Report
Holly
Stoerker highlighted the following items from the written Executive Director’s
Report:
§
The
EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program will be embarking on a strategic
planning effort to plan for the next five years of the program. The EMP Coordinating Committee (EMP-CC) will begin
discussions of the process this week.
UMRBA staff has been assisting the state EMP-CC members in developing
their perspectives on the goals and assumptions related to the strategic
planning process.
§
UMRBA
staff are involved in developing hazardous spill response strategies for the
greater
§
Derek
Martin left the UMRBA staff in December to move back to
§
At
the November 2006 quarterly meeting, UMRBA approved the proposal for two
UMRBA-sponsored meetings addressing the relationship between the Clean Water
Act and ecosystem restoration. However
that approval was contingent upon securing funding for the project, which is
estimated to cost $25,000. Thus far, the
Corps has agreed to provide $4000 from its contract with UMRBA for EMP staff
services. In addition, EPA Region 5 has
identified approximately $15,000 for the project. Stoerker recommended that the project proceed
with the $19,000 that is available. In
response to a question about the implications of proceeding without full
funding, Stoerker explained that all direct costs would be covered with the
funds available. Staff costs are very
rough estimates and the project will need to fit within existing workload. Laurie Martinson moved and Todd Ambs seconded
a motion to proceed with the project with available funds from the Corps and
EPA.
Interbasin Diversion
Charter Annual Consultation
Dru
Buntin explained that the Interbasin Diversion Charter, signed by the Governors
in 1989, requires that, at UMRBA Annual Meetings, each State report on
out-of-basin diversion requests made during the previous year that exceeded an
average of 5 million gallons per day during any 30 day period. The
following reports were offered in accordance with the Charter:
Holly
Stoerker noted that UMRBA staff will send letters to the Governors reporting on
the results of the annual consultation required under the 1989 Charter.
Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program
Economic Reevaluation — Chuck Spitzack
provided an overview of the status of the Economic Reevaluation. In March 2006, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works directed that an updated economic analysis be completed by
September 2007. Drafts of the shipper
response surveys are under review, transportation rate data will be available
in March 2007, and traffic forecasts for non-agricultural commodities are due
in April 2007.
Spitzack
also described the work being done on grain forecasts, including a grain model
workshop held February 14-15 in
In
describing the economic reevaluation, Spitzack emphasized that it will only
address the navigation component and will start with reevaluation of the
recommended plan from the 2004 feasibility study. One of the challenges of the reevaluation
will be dealing with uncertainty. In
particular, the benefits of extra capacity won’t begin to be realized for many
years (2017-2026), yet long term trends do not exist for some of the key
considerations. Evaluation criteria will
include national economic development (including non-traditional considerations
such as intermodal impacts), international competitiveness, national security,
national transportation strategic goals, regional economic development, environmental
quality, other social effects, and whether the plan is adaptive and acceptable.
Spitzack
also explained the traffic scenarios that will be developed, including a base
case scenario, a high traffic scenario, low traffic scenario, and constrained
scenarios for both high and low traffic.
The scenarios should be available for review and comment by mid-March
2007. Gretchen Benjamin asked where the base case is within the scenario range
Spitzack described. Spitzack said it had
not yet been determined.
Spitzack
reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the reevaluation, noting that the
date for completion of the Interim Report has slipped to December 31,
2007. Holly Stoerker asked whether use
of the term “interim” suggests that there will be a “final” report. Spitzack explained that the Interim Report is
a decision document. If a decision is
made as a result of the interim report to proceed with a complete reevaluation,
then there would be additional study and a subsequent report.
FY 07 Work Plan — Spitzack explained
that the 2007 NESP work plan presented in November was based on an assumption
that NESP would be funded at $10 million in FY 07. However, a few weeks ago, as a result of
Congressional action on the 2007 Continuing Resolution, all Corps programs,
including NESP, went through “plus up” exercises to identify additional work
that could be accomplished if more funding were available. Additional funding must be able to be fully
obligated, with a high rate of expenditure.
As
a result of the plus-up exercise, an additional $8 million of capability was
identified for NESP. An additional $2
million was identified for both the EMP and the Illinois River Section 519
program. Spitzack explained that some of
the additional $8 million for NESP would be for programmatic work ($375,000)
and the economic reevaluation ($300,000).
However, most would be for additional work on navigation efficiency
measures ($5.575 million) and ecosystem restoration ($1.750 million). Spitzack commented that he had not anticipated
that the differential between ecosystem and navigation capability would be so
great. However, there were more
opportunities for additional expenditures and greater access to contractors for
navigation-related work items than for ecosystem work items. In addition, the differential was affected by
the fact that the exercise did not seek to identify any new starts. Furthermore, Spitzack noted that the
differential is not as large if the EMP and Section 519 plus-ups are considered
in combination with NESP. He explained
that the decision was made to submit maximum capability for NESP, despite the
differential. The projects that would
receive the greatest increases with an additional $8 million include:
§
Locks
22, 25, and LaGrange
§
Lock
and Dam 22 fish passage
§
Systemic
environmental mitigation
§
Economic
reevaluation
§
Pool
18
§
Corps
UMRS website
First Increment Plan — Spitzack concluded his
presentation by commenting on the challenges associated with the first
increment of the recommended plan. For
ecosystem restoration, Spitzack identified the major challenge as being
reaching a $100 million/year program by 2010 and then sustaining that level of
investment for many years. He said it would
require a new planning paradigm for ecosystem restoration. According to Spitzack, the primary challenge
in the first increment for navigation will be achieving optimum implementation,
meaning least cost with least impacts and maximum benefits. Spitzack said a draft first increment plan
would be available by August 2007.
UMRS Website — Spitzack reported that
the Corps is working to create an integrated UMRS website that presents all
Corps programs and projects on the river system in an integrated way.
Discussion — Gretchen Benjamin
expressed strong concerns about the imbalance in plus-up funds between
ecosystem restoration and navigation.
She commented that if the Corps had consulted with its partners, it
would have been possible to identify a significant number of unanswered
questions related to ecosystem restoration, for which additional funding could
be put to good use. Benjamin cited
mussel populations as an example of an area where additional information would
be helpful, given that the presence of mussels can impact the ability to
proceed with projects. She also observed that communications and public
outreach is an area that would benefit from additional funding.
Chuck
Spitzack explained that the NESP team leaders were asked to identify ongoing
projects that could use additional funding.
He expressed concern about expanding in new directions without funding
in place. Ken Barr noted that part of
the Pool 18 plus-up would be for mussel studies.
Benjamin
asked why plus-up requests for navigation and ecosystem restoration were not
even. Spitzack explained that it didn’t
seem wise to turn down funds, if there is more capability in one program area
than another. He also noted that the
ecosystem and navigation work are on different trajectories, i.e., the strategy
is to build the locks quickly to minimize disruption. In addition, Spitzack said there are more
planning challenges on the ecosystem side.
Ramping up to a $100 million annual ecosystem capacity takes more
in-house resources. Benjamin took strong
exception to Spitzack’s earlier comparison of the navigation plus-up with the
combined total of the NESP ecosystem, EMP, and Section 519 plus-ups.
Todd
Ambs asked if the imbalance in funding may change in the future in favor of
ecosystem restoration. Spitzack
commented that he had originally anticipated that ecosystem spending would be
higher than navigation spending in the first few years of NESP. However, this is not turning out to be the
case, in part because some of the ecosystem restoration projects that were
identified early in the process have been lost.
Holly
Stoerker commented that it will be important to define what “comparable
progress” means and how to measure it. The
phrase, which is used in the NESP legislation, is often interpreted to mean
equal level of annual funding, which may not be a very useful approach. Stoerker also observed that it may be
difficult to justify ramping up spending on navigation PED, while
simultaneously conducting an economic reevaluation of the navigation system
needs.
Martin
Konrad asked for clarification of the $2 million plus-up for the EMP. Marvin Hubbell explained that the $2 million
would be in addition to the $20 million, which is the assumed FY 07 EMP funding
level. Hubbell noted that most of the $2
million plus-up would be for HREP construction in the St. Paul District.
Announcements
Audubon — Dan McGuiness
explained that Audubon’s Mississippi River Program is 9 years old and involves
work in three areas: bird habitat conservation, education, and public
policy. To date, the focus has been
primarily on education, but Audubon will be returning to its core mission, by
enhancing its emphasis on birds.
Dan
McGuiness distributed copies of a flyer announcing Audubon’s 2007 Upper Midwest
Conference, a portion of which will focus on the
MARC 2000 — Mark Carr described
MARC 2000’s recent merger with Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI) as a continuation
of the trend toward consolidation of maritime groups. MARC 2000’s strengths, which include
coalition-building and education/outreach, will be combined with WCI’s emphasis
on federal budget and authorization issues.
WCI is based in
Election
of Officers
Laurie
Martinson moved to elect Mike Wells as UMRBA Chair and Martin Konrad as UMRBA
Vice Chair. Gretchen Benjamin seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously.
FY 2008 Federal Budget
Environmental Protection
Agency —
Bill Franz reported that meeting the goal of “Clean and Safe Water” will
comprise approximately 38 percent, or $2.7 billion, of EPA’s FY 08 proposed
budget. That is $15 million less than FY 07 and $417 million less than FY
06. Funding for Section 104(b)(3), which
was one of the few sources of discretionary funding, has again been zeroed out
in FY 08. Section 106 and Section 319
funding levels are relatively constant.
Franz showed tables illustrating how much funding the five UMR States
receive from these two EPA sources. He
noted that proposed funding for the Clean Water SRF is the same in FY 08 as it
was in FY 07, but down substantially from FY 05. In contrast, annual funding for the Safe
Drinking Water Act SRF ($842 million) and public water systems ($99 million)
has been fairly stable for the past few years.
Franz
said that funding for Homeland Security Infrastructure Protection is slated for
approximately $35 million in FY 08, down from FY 07. Holly Stoerker asked if those funds might be
a source of support for the Early Warning Monitoring Program being proposed for
the UMR. Franz explained that the grants
had already been chosen and funds allocated.
Franz
also pointed out that funding for the Targeted Watershed Grants program has
been zeroed out in FY 08.
U.S. Geological Survey — Mike Jawson presented
an overview comparison of the FY 07 and FY 08 budgets for USGS and pointed out
FY 08 highlights for biological research and water resources
investigations. The biological research
budget is proposed to increase by $5 million for the Healthy Lands Initiative,
but there will be cuts to funding for mammalian population ecology and
contaminants. On the water resources
side, the National Streamflow Information program is slated for a $1.65 million
increase and Hydrologic Networks & Analysis will be increased by $1.5
million. Jawson also described specific
new and continuing programs at the USGS Water Science Centers in
Jawson
explained that UMESC will be involved in two new endeavors in FY 08: the National Fish Health Initiative, which
will focus on trout in the driftless area, and pharmaceuticals work, which will
involve looking at the impact of endocrine disruptors on mussels in the
Corps of Engineers — Terry Smith reported
that the FY 08 proposed budget for the Corps is $4.871 billion, the
highest amount ever proposed for the Corps.
The budget emphasizes maintenance of critical infrastructure and high
return studies and construction projects. According to Smith, cost-effectiveness
was an important factor in determining what construction projects were
funded.
Smith
noted that the EMP is one of six national priority construction projects. In addition, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
dispersal barrier is one of three significant aquatic ecosystem restoration
projects. Holly Stoerker asked what
criteria have contributed to the EMP’s status as a national priority. Rich Worthington indicated that two of the
key factors in determining national significance are 1) the significance of the
resource and 2) whether the project is responding to degradation caused, at
least in part, by another Corps project.
Terry
Smith showed tables summarizing the Corps’ nationwide and MVD budgets for major
program areas over the past three years.
He noted that MVD’s GI budget is down 40 percent, largely as a result of
the fact that Coastal Louisiana planning is winding down. MVD’s construction budget is down 8 percent
and O&M funding is up. However,
Smith noted that the increase in O&M may be due to the fact that major
rehab projects are now included in the O&M budget, rather than the
construction budget.
Smith
also presented a summary of funding for a variety of specific programs and
projects on the UMR. He noted that the
EMP is slated for $23.5 million in FY 08, but NESP is not included in the
Administration’s proposed FY 08 budget.
The NESP workplan for FY 07 reflects both a $10 million and $18 million
funding scenario.
Holly
Stoerker asked if the funding identified for the major rehabs at L&D 11,
19, 24, and 27 was adequate. Rich
Worthington explained that the numbers presented do not reflect
capability. Barb Naramore asked what the
basis was for the proposed EMP funding level.
Terry Smith and Rich Worthington said they thought it was 80 percent of
capability, which was the general approach used in the past.
Dick
Lambert asked how Katrina and
Fish and Wildlife
Service —
Charlie Wooley said that the Fish and Wildlife Service budget was stable in
most areas, except the Partners Program, National Fish Passage program, and National
Fish Habitat program, which are all slated for increases. The construction program request is less than
last year, but Congress typically adds funding back into this account. The landowner incentive program is being
eliminated, but redirected into other similar programs.
With
regard to specific work on the UMR, Wooley said the Ecological Services program
is estimated at about $715,000, but there will likely be cutbacks in funding
for candidate conservation efforts and environmental contaminants. Wooley said that FY 07 funding for UMR
refuges is estimated at $ 8.03 million, which is approximately the same as last
year’s funding. The Region 3 Refuge
workforce will be declining by about 20 percent through 2012, if current trends
continue. There are currently 35 refuge
vacancies in Region 3 and four unfilled positions on UMR refuges. UMR refuges are targeted for 8 additional
vacancies over the next 3 years. The UMR
refuges also continue to need approximately $360,000 annually for maintenance
of EMP projects and acquisition funding falls short of meeting Comprehensive
Conservation Plan objectives.
Wooley
described the Fisheries program as having relatively stable funding over the
past 2 years. In total, UMR fisheries
resource offices are funded at about $1.23 million in FY 07. The UMR Fish Hatchery at
Wooley
also described the federal assistance grant programs to UMR states and the UMR
and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture, which supports wetlands for migratory
waterfowl and shorebirds.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture —
Mike Sullivan explained that the trend in the USDA budget is toward decreases
in discretionary spending and increases in mandatory programs. In FY 08, NRCS’ budget themes include
cooperative conservation, watershed approach, and market-based approach.
Sullivan
said the NRCS watershed surveys and planning are again slated for elimination
in FY 08. The watershed
rehabilitation program would be limited to technical assistance only for those
dams with the greatest potential for danger.
The RC&D program would be cut by $36 million and the number of
coordinators reduced.
According
to Sullivan, USDA’s FY 08 budget includes record levels of funding for
financial and technical assistance for Farm Bill programs. The Wetlands Reserve Program target has been
increased to 250,000 acres, after having been at 150,000 acres the past few years. There is a slight decrease proposed for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), but an increase proposed for
the Conservation Security Program (CSP).
However, the CSP increase would support work in existing watersheds
only, with no expansion of the program.
Similarly, the proposed funding of $58 million for the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) will support technical assistance only on existing CRP
contracts.
Sullivan
also presented graphs illustrating the NRCS staffing trend over the past 10
years, showing that Farm Bill programs are taking increasing time and
displacing the effort previously devoted to conservation operations and other
discretionary programs.
Todd
Ambs asked if the trend in CRP is related to the ethanol boom. Mike Sullivan said it is not yet clear what
affect ethanol is having on conservation programs.
Mike
Wells indicated he would like to have UMRBA’s testimony express concern about
zeroing out the watershed programs. Todd
Ambs suggested that UMRBA comment on the Administration’s changes to the
Wetlands Reserve Program. According to
Ambs, the changes, which are related to the valuation of wetlands, have limited
the appeal of the program. Mike Sullivan
commented that the lower basin states have the same concern because their
participation in WRP has also dropped.
Holly
Stoerker said that UMRBA staff will prepare drafts of the testimony for each of
the five agency budgets. She suggested
that the testimony on the EPA budget be given to the Water Quality Executive
Committee, as well as the UMRBA Board, for review. She cautioned that the review time may be
short, given the due dates that the Congressional appropriations subcommittees
have set for outside testimony.
Mike
Wells said that a new Master Operating Manual was approved for the
Dave
Busse of the St. Louis District Corps of Engineers gave an overview
presentation on Missouri River Operations and the impact on the Middle
Mississippi River in particular. He
noted that the Middle Mississippi is a critical area in the inland navigation
system, between the pooled upper reaches and the confluence with the
Historically,
the beginning and ending dates of navigation support at the mouth of the
Water
Quality Update
Organizational Options
Report and Outreach —
Holly Stoerker reported that following the discussion of the “Organizational
Options” report at the UMRBA’s November 2006 meeting, the report was revised
and approved for distribution. The
report, which recommends that UMRBA enhance its role in interstate water
quality activities, has been widely distributed, including to the National
Research Council panel that is evaluating many of the same organizational
issues. Stoerker thanked the McKnight
Foundation for its support for the project.
Chuck
Corell reported that the Water Quality Executive Committee (WQEC) has been
developing a work plan that focuses on a variety of issues, including
designated uses, fish consumption advisories, and sediment criteria. In addition, the WQEC is devoting effort to
outreach strategies and funding issues.
With regard to designated uses, Corell explained that water quality
standards are actually a combination of designated uses, water quality
criteria, and antidegradation policy.
The question that the WQEC and Water Quality Task Force (WQTF) are
addressing is whether there should be a unique set of designated uses for the
Corell
also explained that the WQEC has developed a one-page proposal outlining the
need for $200,000 annually from EPA to support UMRBA’s water quality work. Corell noted that the proposal is based on
the premise that funding for UMRBA should grow to be equivalent with the
federal investment in water quality programs for other interstate waterbodies.
Corell
also reviewed the elements of the strategy that accompanies the proposal. He said that short term goals include
securing funds from EPA and developing a ramp-up strategy for UMRBA. Outreach activities will include promoting
the proposal with EPA leadership, consulting with the States’
Dru
Buntin emphasized that funding to support UMRBA’s work should not come at the
expense of other funding streams. Corell
concurred, noting that the WQEC had specifically discussed the fact that funds
for UMRBA should not come from the States’ Section 106 grants. He also noted that the States currently spend
a total of approximately $700,000 on
Todd
Ambs said that the proposal should be discussed with the Governors’ offices
soon. He also noted that the UMRBA Board
needs to be comfortable with the fiduciary responsibilities implied by this
proposal.
Gary
Clark moved and Todd Ambs seconded a motion to approve the proposal developed
by the WQEC. The motion passed
unanimously.
Sediment-Related Water
Quality Criteria —
Dave Hokanson presented an overview of the WQTF’s final report on
sediment-related water quality criteria.
He said that sediment is viewed
by many as the key water quality problem on the UMR; yet that is not generally
reflected in the States’ impairment listings under the Clean Water Act. In addition, inconsistencies exist in those
reaches which are listed for sediment.
UMRBA’s sediment criteria project was designed to summarize the state of
the knowledge on sediment impacts and generate ideas about what might be done
to bring greater consistency in the approaches used under the Clean Water
Act. Hokanson described the consensus
statements that resulted from the project:
§
We need to protect the UMR and maintain designated
uses.
§
Despite reductions in loading, sediment remains an issue,
equilibrium has not been reached, and there is net deposition in some areas.
§
Significant longitudinal variations in sediment
characteristics and transport exist.
§
There are negative impacts on aquatic life in some
areas of the UMR and some impairment of the aquatic life designated use.
§
Protecting the aquatic life use can help protect
other uses.
Hokanson also outlined the conclusions and
recommendations from the report, including:
§ Develop a guidance document that focuses initially on criteria for suspended
sediment, numeric translators for
existing narrative criteria, incorporating SAV protection criteria proposed by
UMRCC for Pools 3 to Pool 13, and chronic conditions.
§ Investigate sedimentation (bedded sediments) further through the
development of a white paper, including discussion of the “pollution”
categorization.
§
Develop a research needs list to help guide further
investigations regarding sediment-related water quality problems on the UMR.
Todd Ambs encouraged broad distribution of the
report. Hokanson explained that the
report was designed to be a report from the WQTF to the WQEC and UMRBA
Board. Therefore, before it is more
broadly distributed, some expression of support is needed from those groups.
Administrative Matters—Holly Stoerker reported
that EPA Region 7 has appointed Art Spratlin, Director of the Water Division,
to the WQEC. Region 5 has appointed its
Deputy Water Division Director, Tim Henry.
Stoerker distributed copies of a draft Travel
Reimbursement Policy for the WQEC and WQTF.
She explained that it is modeled after the policy adopted in 2004 for
UMRBA generally. The policy allows for
reimbursement of travel costs associated with meetings of the WQEC and WQTF,
for members who have paid the $17,000 water quality assessment in the current
or preceding year.
Dru Buntin requested that UMRBA staff prepare
estimates of the cost of the policy.
Chuck Corell commented that WQEC members would likely not utilize the
reimbursement much, but it may be helpful to some states in securing approval
for out-of-state travel.
Martin Konrad moved and Todd Ambs seconded a motion
to approve the Water Quality Travel Reimbursement Policy. The motion passed unanimously.
Holly Stoerker informed the Board that the WQTF has
selected a new Chair. Jim Baumann of
Wisconsin DNR will be replacing Marvin Hora of Minnesota PCA, as Task Force
Chair. Stoerker suggested that Hora be
given a certificate of appreciation signed by the UMRBA Chair.
Conflict
of Interest Policy
Dru Buntin explained that the IRS is increasingly
interested in having nonprofit organizations establish policies regarding
conflict of interest. Therefore UMRBA
staff has drafted a policy that would require Board members to make disclosures
before proceeding with decisions and to sign disclosure statements annually.
Todd Ambs moved and Gary Clark seconded a motion to
approve the Conflict of Interest policy as drafted by UMRBA staff. The motion
passed unanimously.
Investment Policy
Holly Stoerker said that UMRBA’s independent auditors
had suggested that UMRBA’s investment policy from 1981 be updated. Therefore staff has drafted a new policy that
sets forth investment objectives, provides guidelines and limitations on the
types of investments UMRBA uses, and describes the responsibilities of the
Board and Executive Director. Stoerker
noted that, based on discussions at the Board’s breakfast meeting, the final
sentence of the draft policy dated 2/8/07 should be changed to read “Deviations
from the policy must be approved by the UMRBA Board.” Gary Clark moved and Martin Konrad seconded a
motion to approve the 2/8/07 draft Investment Policy with the amendment
described by Stoerker. The motion passed
unanimously.
Authorized
Signatures
Holly Stoerker said that the UMRBA Bylaws require
checks over $6000 to be signed by a Board member, in addition to the Executive
Director. Gary Clark moved and Todd Ambs
seconded a motion designating Laurie Martinson as the second signatory. The motion passed unanimously.
Future Meetings
Holly
Stoerker said the schedule for the May 2007 quarterly meetings in the Quad
Cities will involve the following sequence of meetings:
May 22 — UMRBA
May 23 — EMP-CC (a.m.) and Adaptive
Management Workshop (p.m.)
May 24 — Adaptive Management Workshop (a.m.)
and NECC/ECC (late a.m. and p.m.)
The
dates and locations for other future meetings include:
§
August
21-23, 2007 in
§
November
13-15, 2007 in
With
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 pm.