Minutes of the

Upper Mississippi River System

Environmental Management Program

Coordinating Committee

 

November 16, 2000

Fall Quarterly Meeting

 

Holiday Inn St. Louis Westport

St. Louis, Missouri

 

 

 

Charlie Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. on Thursday, November 16, 2000.  Other EMP-CC members present were Steve Cobb (USACE), Leslie Holland-Bartels (USGS), Scott Stuewe (IL DNR), Kevin Szcodronski (IA DNR), Steve Johnson (MN DNR), Gordon Farabee (MO DOC), Terry Moe (WI DNR), and Bob Goodwin (MarAd).  A complete list of attendees is attached.

 

Minutes of the August Meeting

 

Gordon Farabee moved and Kevin Szcodronski seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2000 EMP-CC meeting as written.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Program Management

 

FY 00 Fiscal Performance Year-End Report

 

Teresa Kincaid announced that Leo Foley has left the Army Corps of Engineers for a job in the private sector.  A nationwide search is underway for his replacement and the posting is open through December 13.  Until a candidate is selected, Kincaid will serve as the EMP's acting regional program manager.

 

Kincaid distributed a revised spreadsheet.  According to Kincaid, the EMP's FY 00 allocation was $17.7 million.  Expenditure rates for the LTRMP and HREP components were approximately 100 percent and 98 percent, respectively.  She expressed satisfaction with these rates and noted that there were 17 habitat projects in design and another 17 in construction during FY 00.  Terry Moe requested an overview of HREP evaluation and monitoring activities at a future meeting.  Moe noted that the spreadsheet combines the Fish and Wildlife Service's program management costs and the UMRBA's EMP-CC coordination costs as a single line item labeled "other" under the program management category.  He requested that these costs be separated in future spreadsheets.

 

FY 01 Appropriations and Allocation

 

Kincaid reported that Congress appropriated $21.0 million in FY 01 funding for the EMP.  The FY 01 savings and slippage rate for the Corps' construction general account is 16 percent.  This translates to a $3.36 million savings and slippage reduction for the EMP.  Administrative costs will also be taken off the top, leaving $17.53 million to allocate between the HREP and LTRMP components.  Using the 31.4/68.6 percent formula, this means $5.504 million for the LTRMP and $12.026 million for HREPs.  Kincaid said the districts received their allocations recently and MVR will transfer LTRMP funding to USGS in the near future.

 

In response to questions from Terry Moe, Kincaid said she would make inquiries regarding the status of the Pool 11 Islands and Bertom McCartney projects.  Gordon Farabee asked about the increase in the savings and slippage rate from the previously estimated 10 percent.  Kincaid explained that the 10 percent figure was identified for planning purposes.  According to Kincaid and Steve Cobb, the actual rate is set annually by the administration and reflects a variety of factors, including the level of Congressional appropriations and the prior year's fiscal performance.  Rates are set independently for each of the Corps' major accounts (i.e., general investigations, construction general, etc.), but apply to all projects and programs within each account.  Greg Ruff commended the EMP team on the program's excellent FY 00 fiscal performance.  He noted that fiscal performance is a key factor determining a program's success in competing for funds.

 

Partnership Issues

 

Scope of Work for Service Tasks

 

Steve Cobb recounted the exchange of letters between the Service and the Corps regarding funding transfers to the Service.  In keeping with General Anderson's June letter, the Corps will transfer approximately $300,000 in FY 01 to support the Service's HREP planning activities.  Cobb reported that Corps and Service staff are developing a scope of work and negotiating the specific activities that will be funded under the SOW.  Cobb said the Corps will share the SOW with the full EMP-CC when it is completed.  Terry Moe expressed concern with the process, noting that Leo Foley had previously indicated the program partners would have an opportunity to comment on the scope while it was still in draft form.  Cobb and Charlie Wooley emphasized the Corps and Service frequently transfer money between the two agencies and that they are following standard procedures in this instance.  Moe requested an opportunity to review the SOW prior to its finalization in future years.

 

Corps and Service Responses to States' Joint Letters

 

Holly Stoerker asked Wooley to elaborate on the Service's O&M capability for future HREPs and his recommendations for addressing the issue.  Wooley said a collective effort is needed to increase annual appropriations for refuge O&M.  He indicated that the Service will continue to consider new HREPs on refuge lands for the next few years.  At the same time, however, Region 3 will be pursuing a comprehensive solution to its refuge O&M needs.  According to Wooley, if there is not an increase in O&M funds, the Service will have to stop accepting new HREPs at some point.  Noting the lack of refuge land below St. Louis, Gordon Farabee encouraged the Service to try to acquire refuge land on the Middle Mississippi.

 

Stoerker recalled that the states' letter to Director Clark specifically raised the possibility of a state assuming O&M responsibility for an HREP built on refuge lands if the Service is unable to make this commitment.  Wooley said the Service would not enter into such an agreement with a state.  He emphasized the Service's responsibility for ensuring that it can maintain projects built on its refuges.  He also stressed the Service's desire for a comprehensive solution to its O&M funding shortfall.

 

Habitat Needs Assessment

 

Overview of HNA Report

 

Scott Whitney described the HNA products, explaining that the detailed information is in the 250-page technical report and its accompanying appendices.  These materials will not be broadly distributed in hardcopy, but will be available digitally.  Approximately 2,000 copies of the summary report will be printed for broader dissemination.  Whitney emphasized the potential to enhance the GIS query tool as more data become available.  He also reported that efforts are underway to make the query tool accessible to non-ArcView users. 

 

Whitney acknowledged that there was some criticism of the HNA's public involvement process, but emphasized that there was also valuable input.  He stressed the importance of informing the public before asking for their feedback and recommendations.  Public input to the HNA primarily focused on the following priorities:  1) increased fish and wildlife, 2) clean and abundant water, 3) reduced sediment and siltation, 4) balance among competing uses and users, and 5) enhanced opportunities for communication and involvement.  Whitney explained that, because the HNA is not a decision document, the Corps does not have a standard procedure for soliciting public comment on it.  He said that the summary report will identify a source for additional copies and a place to submit comments. 

 

Partner and Stakeholder Feedback

 

Charlie Wooley asked what action, if any, the Corps is seeking from the EMP-CC prior to finalizing the HNA report.  Whitney noted that the partner agencies have already had two opportunities to comment on versions of the draft summary report.  Steve Cobb clarified that the Corps is not seeking EMP-CC approval of the report but would be interested in any final comments.  Cobb indicated that the Corps is prepared to finalize the summary report in its current form.

 

Steve Johnson expressed concern that the summary report as currently drafted does not refer specifically to the HNA’s use in planning EMP HREPs.  Whitney said specific reference to HREPs was avoided in recognition of the HNA's multiple applications.  Johnson and Terry Moe expressed opposition to this approach, emphasizing that the HNA was conducted for the EMP and that this connection should be explicit in the summary report. 

 

Johnson said the draft summary report does not adequately explain the limitations of the HNA.  Specifically, he said the constraints imposed by time, money, and reliance on the navigation study's cumulative effects document should be discussed explicitly.  Johnson also expressed concern that the draft report does not clearly identify its authors and contributors.  Whitney said the Corps would like to use the partner agencies' logos on the rear cover of the report as a reflection of its authorship.  Moe and Johnson voiced opposition to this approach, noting that the report as drafted is not a consensus document.  In particular, Moe noted that several of Wisconsin's previous recommendations have not been incorporated.  Johnson also asked for clarification of the desired future habitat data presented on p. 51 of the draft summary.  Specifically, Johnson questioned the target of restoring or creating 3,500 additional acres of main channel habitat in Pools 1-13.  Chuck Theiling said he would need to review the data before being able to explain the origin of that figure.

 

Scott Stuewe said that, to the best of his knowledge, Illinois has no major problems with the summary report as drafted.  Stuewe said he would confirm this with Bill Bertrand, who participated actively in development of the HNA.  Gordon Farabee emphasized that the HNA is a tool for assessing and prioritizing HREPs.  Farabee said he views use of the partners' logos as a symbol of their support for, and involvement in, the HNA process.  He expressed hope that all five states would agree to have their agency logos on the report, but said no partner logos should be used if all are not used.  Kevin Szcodronski concurred with Farabee and urged the program partners to resolve the outstanding concerns regarding the draft report. 

 

Next Steps

 

Cobb said the Corps will consider and accommodate Minnesota and Wisconsin's concerns to the extent possible.  In particular, he said the summary report would be modified to: 

·       explicitly link the HNA to the HREP program,

·       add an acknowledgements page and introductory text clearly identifying the report's authorship, and

·       add text to the concluding portion of the report clearly acknowledging the assessment's limitations.

 

Cobb emphasized that he is trying to address concerns already raised but does not want to initiate another full-scale document review.  Bob Clevenstine cautioned that modifications designed to acknowledge data and time limitations should not undermine the analyses that were done.  Moe questioned whether a satisfactory compromise will be reached, noting that the issues being raised are not new.  Moe and Johnson said they are not willing to have their agency logos appear on the report unless their concerns are addressed satisfactorily.  Whitney and Mike Thompson also expressed skepticism regarding resolution of some of the outstanding issues, agreeing with Moe that the HNA Technical Committee has previously considered them.  Wooley emphasized that the issues have now been elevated to the EMP-CC level and said every effort should be made to resolve them.

 

In response to a question regarding the process for finalizing the HNA, Greg Ruff explained that the Corps would like, but does not require, EMP-CC endorsement of the HNA report.  Ruff said MVD views the HNA as having been essentially completed by the September 30, 2000 deadline.  MVD will submit the report to Corps headquarters for information purposes and for forwarding to the Assistant Secretary's office.  The HNA is not subject to headquarters or ASA approval.

 

After some further discussion, it was agreed that revised language would be circulated to the EMP-CC members, with the objective of achieving a report that all member agencies can endorse.  Members will make decisions regarding inclusion of their agency logos on the document after reviewing the report changes.  December 15 was selected as the target date for completing work on the summary report.  In addition to working on the revisions, Deb Foley said the St. Louis District will prepare written responses to comments it has received on the report. 

 

HREP Prioritization Process

 

Scott Whitney summarized the Corps' approach to restoration planning for the UMRS, based on the goal of preserving, enhancing, and restoring essential ecosystem structures and functions that have been altered or eliminated by disturbance.  He noted that resources must be directed throughout the system, and said the HNA will be used for projects under a range of Corps authorities, including Sections 204, 206, and 1135 and avoid and minimize, as well as the EMP.  Terry Moe expressed concern that the EMP is providing all the resources for the HNA while other programs will benefit from it.  Whitney observed that there are many factors contributing to habitat degradation and that there are technical, economic, and social limits on the restoration that can be achieved.

 

Whitney outlined the following six-stage prioritization process:

·       Stage I:      Identification of project need

·       Stage II:     Development of project fact sheet

·       Stage III:    District ecological evaluation

·       Stage IV:   Administrative evaluation

·       Stage V:     Approval

·       Stage VI:   Execution

 

Steve Cobb reported that the Corps is also developing a plan to implement WRDA 99's provision for an EMP Independent Technical Advisory Committee.  MVD anticipates sharing this plan with the EMP-CC in February, submitting it for HQ approval later in FY 01, and implementing the team in FY 02.  Cobb said the advisory committee likely will have some involvement in the HREP prioritization process but will not serve the function of the System Ecological Team identified in the May 1, 2000 draft prioritization framework.  Cobb said it is unlikely that the Advisory Committee would rank individual projects, but will instead provide more general guidance.  Several EMP-CC members expressed confusion regarding how the prioritization process outlined by Whitney and the Advisory Committee described by Cobb relate to the May 1 prioritization framework endorsed by the EMP-CC at its August meeting.

 

Bob Clevenstine described the Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee's (FWIC's) pool planning efforts.  This approach will replace the weighted matrix previously used to prioritize HREPs.  The FWIC will first establish pool and reach needs/goals and then identify a logical sequence of steps to meet those goals.  These will be reflected in an updated FWIC document and forwarded to the River Resources Coordinating Team (RRCT) for packaging into projects under appropriate authorities and capabilities (e.g., Sections 204, 206, and 1135; EMP; and avoid and minimize).  In response to a question from Terry Moe, Clevenstine said he understands that MVP's Fish and Wildlife Work Group (FWWG) will also drop its weighted matrix as part of its pool planning approach. 

 

Clevenstine explained that pool and reach needs will be identified using the HNA, pool plans, and other available information and will be based on ecological factors, not administrative boundaries or program limitations.  The FWIC plans to hold open house public workshops concerning its draft pool plans in mid-winter.  The plans will be revised after the workshops and packaged as FWIC Goals and Objectives for Management of Pools 11-22, Version II.  The sequenced objectives will constitute the FWIC's priority list, which the RRCT will then review for administrative considerations, such as suitability for various program authorities, cost share issues, and O&M issues. 

 

Whitney presented a flowchart outlining a proposed HREP prioritization process.  The flowchart engendered numerous questions regarding its relationship to the May 1 framework previously endorsed by the EMP-CC and concerning the roles of various existing and proposed groups.  Several EMP-CC members indicated that they could not comment on the new flowchart because this was their first exposure to it.  Kevin Szcodronski observed that the flowchart is confusing in part because it includes both the Corps' internal process and the interagency coordination effort.  It was agreed that MVR would continue working on the prioritization process and distribute revised materials no later than January 29 for consideration at the EMP-CC's February 28 meeting.  Teresa Kincaid said the revised materials would explain any modifications to the EMP-CC-endorsed May 1 draft.  EMP-CC members urged MVR to consult with the ad-hoc committee responsible for the May 1 draft when developing the new materials. 

 

In response to a question from Moe, Kincaid said MVR will consult with the Corps, Service, and state HREP staff in revising the project fact sheet format.  Szcodronski noted that state resource managers are generating new HREP ideas and asked when and how new projects will be considered.  Whitney stressed the need to keep project development underway.  He said the districts will continue to consider new HREP proposals under the old prioritization system until the new process is in place.  Tom Quigley said MVS has already received project recommendations from Missouri DOC and Illinois DNR and is awaiting a similar list from the Service.  MVS will convene the program partners after receiving the Service's recommendations.

 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

 

FY 00 Accomplishments

 

Leslie Holland-Bartels expressed satisfaction with the process that has been established for following through on LTRMP SOWs, including tracking milestones and meeting quarterly to review progress.  USGS will post SOWs and progress documents on-line quarterly during FY 01.  Holland-Bartels encouraged program partners to contact her with any questions.

 

Holland-Bartels described several of the major changes made to the LTRMP in FY 00 as part of the restructuring to accommodate a $4.8 million base funding level:

·       Bathymetric work was eliminated from the base program, but other funds were used to retain key staff.

·       Sediment work in the base program was reduced to analysis only.  Many pending documents were completed.

·       The publication process was restructured, with staff reduced by 50 percent.  The annual report is posted on the web and will be updated each year.  This will reduce expenses and improve timeliness.

·       Based on funding constraints, A-Team guidance, and statistical analyses, monitoring data collection and processing were reduced.

 

LTRMP's FY 00 accomplishments include significant report progress, successful field data collection, completion of 1989 systemic land cover/land use data, serving bathymetric data on UMESC's web site, completion of systemic 2000 air photos, and planning for future work. 

 

FY 01 Work Plan

 

Holland-Bartels said goals for FY 01 and beyond include increasing the field stations' science role, pursuing question-driven work, increasing integration and multi-component analyses, increasing the emphasis on system processes, using an array of scientific approaches, and increasing linkages with other funded partner studies.

 

Gordon Farabee noted that he often gets questions about what LTRMP products benefit state management efforts.  Farabee recommended that USGS and the A-Team collaborate on a publication describing the benefits of LTRMP data and products to managers in state and federal agencies.  Holland-Bartels concurred that such a report would be quite useful.  Terry Moe said Wisconsin is trying to enhance its internal coordination regarding the LTRMP.  Moe anticipates that this will sharpen the state's contributions to A-Team deliberations. 

 

Holland-Bartels reported that the Corps will transfer approximately $5.3 million to USGS for the LTRMP in FY 01.  Of this amount, approximately $4.94 million will be allocated to the base program.  This represents the agreed-upon 3 percent increase to the FY 00 base level of $4.8 million.  She noted that many base program costs have increased by more than 3 percent.  The balance of the $5.3 million FY 01 allocation will be used to fund priorities established last year.  Overtarget proposals will also be developed using the August 2000 outyear plan.  With monitoring and analysis consuming approximately 90 percent of the budget, Holland-Bartels noted that she is left with very little flexibility in managing the program.  Several priorities will be funded at low levels and others will remain unfunded.  In response to a question from Steve Johnson, Holland-Bartels said virtually all of the LTRMP base funding goes to collecting, storing, and serving data.  Money for analysis in FY 00 came from overtarget funding, and she expects this will be the case in FY 01 as well.

 

Moe expressed support for the science-driven approach Holland-Bartels is employing in determining program direction and priorities.  Moe also described Wisconsin's cooperation with a USGS effort to identify the time and expertise required for field stations to implement the base monitoring program.  According to Holland-Bartels, the objective is to clearly identify the costs associated with the base program and determine whether expectations for what can be accomplished with available resources must be adjusted. 

 

Fisheries Component Restructuring

 

Holland-Bartels reported that USGS has conducted analyses over the past year to assess possible ways of refining the fisheries monitoring protocol.  She noted that these analyses have sparked considerable discussion, including at the most recent A-Team meeting.  Based on this initial feedback, USGS will develop a revised proposal to modify the protocol and will seek further input from program partners, including fisheries technical staff, the A-Team, and the EMP-CC.  Holland-Bartels emphasized that developing a modified protocol will be an iterative process and assured EMP-CC members that changes will not be implemented until there is an agreed upon protocol.  USGS plans to employ a similar process of data analyses and consultation in evaluating potential changes to other monitoring components.  In response to Moe, Holland-Bartels confirmed that analyses of past data will be available in a timely manner to inform discussions regarding possible protocol changes. 

 

Other

 

In response to a question from Jim Harrison, Holland-Bartels reported that Bob Delaney will be working with USGS on the Lower Mississippi River.  She also indicated that integration of the UMESC's east and west campus facilities in La Crosse is complete and they are now operating under a single administrative structure.  Harrison asked how the monitoring efforts proposed in Representative Kind's Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act (H.R. 4013) would affect the LTRMP.  Holland-Bartels said the specific goals of H.R. 4013's monitoring have not yet been set and thus it is difficult to answer Harrison's question.  She said the proposed monitoring does not appear to overlap significantly with the LTRMP work, though there may be some synergies.

 

Role and Expectations of the A-Team

 

Scott Whitney noted that there have been questions both within and beyond the A-Team regarding the team's role and functions.  These questions were discussed at the A-Team's recent meeting.  Whitney said he feels strongly that the A-Team's input is essential to the success of the LTRMP, but emphasized that team members must convey agency, rather than individual, perspectives and positions.  According to Whitney, the A-Team also discussed the possibility of holding a periodic two-day workshop, with one day devoted to the LTRMP and the other to HREPs.  The workshop would include broad participation and would be geared to obtaining feedback.  Whitney emphasized that such workshops would not substitute for A-Team meetings.

 

Holland-Bartels said UMESC has not always done a good job providing the technical information and analyses needed to support and inform the A-Team's discussions.  She said the center has been trying to remedy this over the past year, and she committed to providing the A‑Team with the information it needs for its deliberations. 

 

Ken Brummett said the A-Team wants to refocus its attention on technical and scientific issues, noting that the team has been distracted by fiscal issues in recent years.  Brummett said discussions at the most recent A-Team meeting indicate that the team is getting back on track.  Charlie Wooley thanked Brummett for his leadership efforts on the A-Team.

 

EMP Public Involvement Strategy

 

Scott Whitney reported that MVR has established an internal team to develop an EMP public involvement strategy.  Goals include bringing increased consistency and focus to the EMP's public involvement efforts.  He stressed the importance of effectively engaging the public in all facets of the EMP, including future revisions to the HNA, HREP identification and design, access to information and data, and articulation of a program vision.  Whitney said he is not ready to circulate a proposed strategy, but encouraged EMP-CC members to provide him with their ideas.  He outlined a proposed series of steps for developing the strategy and identified a variety of potential techniques, including public meetings, open houses, workshops, meetings with nongovernmental organizations, newsletters, a web site, a toll-free number, and educational videos and displays.  Whitney stressed the need to consider the costs and effectiveness of these different approaches in determining how much to invest in EMP public involvement.  He noted that MVR's internal team made a preliminary proposal for a three-year effort costing between $600,000 and $1 million. 

 

Steve Johnson recommended adding focus groups to the mix of potential techniques.  Holly Stoerker said consideration of specific approaches is premature.  She urged the EMP partners to first determine the goals of the public involvement effort.  For example, she said, identifying how we are going to use public input will help determine how best to obtain that input.  Teresa Kincaid concurred with the importance of first establishing the strategy's goals.

 

Gordon Farabee expressed disappointment with public input to the HNA from the southern portions of the UMR.  According to Farabee, attendance at the St. Louis and Cape Girardeau meetings was low and input was focused primarily on property rights concerns.  Farabee attributed this to the lack of HREPs on the Open River.  Whitney agreed and also emphasized the importance of increasing the visibility of existing habitat projects.

 

Jim Harrison said the public in Minnesota and Wisconsin has a strong tradition of being engaged in river issues and is accustomed to having that involvement make a difference.  Harrison cautioned, however, that it is easy to overload the public with meetings if there is not coordination among programs.  He stressed that the public views the river holistically, not as a series of separate program issues.  Harrison said public forums that address a range of issues can be useful, though they afford less attention to any one issue.  He suggested going to other groups' meetings as another alternative approach.  Johnson agreed with Harrison and warned against developing an "EMP-only" public involvement strategy.

 

In response to a question from Terry Moe, Whitney said public input from the HNA, including observations not strictly related to the HNA, will be summarized and used in developing the EMP public involvement strategy.  Moe said he does not want the public involvement strategy to create a fiscal drain on the EMP and urged that less costly delivery systems be sought.  Jeff Stein noted that many NGOs are available to help disseminate information about the EMP.  Bob Clevenstine said the primary goals for the public involvement strategy should be to build support for the EMP and to obtain public input to help guide the program.  Barb Naramore urged the Corps to considering using an ad-hoc, interagency team to develop a proposed public involvement strategy.  Kincaid indicated that MVR would focus on identifying the fundamental goals of the strategy, rather than specific techniques, in advance of the February EMP-CC meeting.

 

 

Other Business

 

Scott Whitney distributed a description of the Lake Chautauqua pump station project and a sample pump station inspection report.  Whitney said the Corps is conducting a performance evaluation that should address the questions Terry Moe raised regarding pump station projects at the August EMP-CC meeting.  In response to a question from Whitney, Moe said he is particularly interested in design and construction issues, O&M costs, and the pump stations' effectiveness in achieving project objectives.

 

In response to Teresa Kincaid's request for input, EMP-CC members said they find the Corps' activity report to be quite helpful.  Suggestions for potential improvements included highlighting changes from the previous report and shortening the overall length of the document.  However, other members remarked that the report's comprehensiveness is one of its primary values.

 

Holly Stoerker announced that future EMP-CC meetings will be held on February 28 in the Twin Cities, May 16 in the Quad Cities, and August 8 in La Crosse.  She noted that the August location may need to be changed if accommodations cannot be secured in La Crosse.  [Subsequently it was confirmed that the August meeting will be held in La Crosse.]

 

With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:21 p.m.

 


EMP-CC Attendance List

November 16, 2000

 

 

Steve Cobb

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD

Charlie Wooley

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3

Leslie Holland-Bartels

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

Scott Stuewe

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Kevin Szcodronski

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Steve Johnson

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Gordon Farabee

Missouri Department of Conservation

Terry Moe

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Greg Ruff

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD

Don Powell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Teresa Kincaid

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Ken Barr

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Scott Whitney

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Janet Hodges

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Deb Foley

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Mike Thompson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Tom Quigley

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

John Barko

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES

Dan Stinnett

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3

Rick Nelson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Bob Clevenstine

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Dick Steinbach

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mark Twain NWR

Chuck Theiling

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

John Chick

Illinois Natural History Survey

Mark Pegg

Illinois Natural History Survey

Ken Brummett

Missouri Department of Conservation

Jerry Vineyard

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

David Dornbusch

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS

Dave Beck

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS

Bob Goodwin

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration

Larry Shepard

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7

Jim Harrison

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

Allen Hance

Northeast Midwest Institute

Jeff Stein

American Rivers

Barry Drazkowski

St. Mary’s University

Holly Stoerker

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

Barb Naramore

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association